Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
If you adopt a child and don't bond with him/her, should you try to give the child back?
Should parents of adopted children be able to give them back to the adoption agency?
Interesting Question?
Yes (2)
No (0)
- In Belief and Thought |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
October 18, 2009 10:48 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Hmm... actually, yeah... if you really can't bond, and if both feel the same way, then you're lucky that you can pass the child back for different adoption if it's allowed in your jurisdiction.
What if it was a natural-born child of your own flesh and blood, and neither of you could bond? What would you do then?
In many jurisdictions, one option is to put the child up for adoption, even if it's old enough to remember you, which isn't such a terrible thing, because if you really don't get along, then the child will turn into an unmanageable hellion, and the state will come and take it away anyway.
I kinda like an old tradition among Australian aborigines. They believe that there are thirteen basic personality types, and they name each of those after an animal, like, someone is a dingo, or someone is a wallaby, or someone is a kangaroo...
They sorted themselves out into tribes of each type, and they would have yearly gatherings where they would get together, and swap their three year old's according to personality type. If you were a kangaroo parent and you could see you had a dingo child, then you could swap that to some dingo parents who had a kangaroo child.
The age of three makes sense, because from studies in neurophysiology, we know that that's when the mesocortical limbic-system part of the human brain stops imprinting, and that's the part of the brain where personality is stored. Until the imprinting has stopped, the toddler doesn't really have a basic personality.
People of European origin will tend to say that's harsh, but that's because they've forgotten their own history, where in the middle ages, if someone had a kid who was way out of line for anything they knew how to control, it was okay to swap guardianship with other parents having trouble with a child that you would know how to deal with, up to the age of 12. After the age of 12, if you still couldn't control them, you'd send them away to become the apprentice of someone having mastered a trade suiting the kid's nature, and the kid would become his student helper. Only in the case of nobility did that not happen, because ownership of lands was tied to heredity, but those were the days when people married each other for the political reason of land control while maintaining affairs on the side, and those were the days when they would send their royal brats away to be cared for by nannies.
So... if you've adopted a child, and the two of you just cannot bond, and if annulling the adoption is an option in your jurisdiction, then don't fret about it. The kid is just as likely to be wishing for things to be different as you are, and some parents and children living in jurisdictions where that's not an option will feel jealous.
What if it was a natural-born child of your own flesh and blood, and neither of you could bond? What would you do then?
In many jurisdictions, one option is to put the child up for adoption, even if it's old enough to remember you, which isn't such a terrible thing, because if you really don't get along, then the child will turn into an unmanageable hellion, and the state will come and take it away anyway.
I kinda like an old tradition among Australian aborigines. They believe that there are thirteen basic personality types, and they name each of those after an animal, like, someone is a dingo, or someone is a wallaby, or someone is a kangaroo...
They sorted themselves out into tribes of each type, and they would have yearly gatherings where they would get together, and swap their three year old's according to personality type. If you were a kangaroo parent and you could see you had a dingo child, then you could swap that to some dingo parents who had a kangaroo child.
The age of three makes sense, because from studies in neurophysiology, we know that that's when the mesocortical limbic-system part of the human brain stops imprinting, and that's the part of the brain where personality is stored. Until the imprinting has stopped, the toddler doesn't really have a basic personality.
People of European origin will tend to say that's harsh, but that's because they've forgotten their own history, where in the middle ages, if someone had a kid who was way out of line for anything they knew how to control, it was okay to swap guardianship with other parents having trouble with a child that you would know how to deal with, up to the age of 12. After the age of 12, if you still couldn't control them, you'd send them away to become the apprentice of someone having mastered a trade suiting the kid's nature, and the kid would become his student helper. Only in the case of nobility did that not happen, because ownership of lands was tied to heredity, but those were the days when people married each other for the political reason of land control while maintaining affairs on the side, and those were the days when they would send their royal brats away to be cared for by nannies.
So... if you've adopted a child, and the two of you just cannot bond, and if annulling the adoption is an option in your jurisdiction, then don't fret about it. The kid is just as likely to be wishing for things to be different as you are, and some parents and children living in jurisdictions where that's not an option will feel jealous.
| Asker's Rating: |
• Very interesting history. I originally and still feel a little like you should have to keep a child once you've adopted it and agree with the other answers in that respect.
I appreciate your answer though, gives people a different way to look at it in a logical manner.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (9)
October 18, 2009 10:38 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Not exactly a Wal-Mart purchase, really.
Adoption is not just about the level of bonding you think you will have. It is about taking a child as your own, regardless of the outcome. To take a child into your life, to raise them, and give them the best that you can. In most ways, this is the same as raising a child you conceived yourself. If you do not bond with your biological children, you do not have the choice to send them back.
And how do you know if you have really bonded or not? Some parents never really bond with their children until the children have grown, and had kids of their own. It could simply be that it has not happened yet, not that it never will.
In my opinion, no. When you adopt a child, you should treat him or her as if they were your own blood.
Helpful Answer?
Adoption is not just about the level of bonding you think you will have. It is about taking a child as your own, regardless of the outcome. To take a child into your life, to raise them, and give them the best that you can. In most ways, this is the same as raising a child you conceived yourself. If you do not bond with your biological children, you do not have the choice to send them back.
And how do you know if you have really bonded or not? Some parents never really bond with their children until the children have grown, and had kids of their own. It could simply be that it has not happened yet, not that it never will.
In my opinion, no. When you adopt a child, you should treat him or her as if they were your own blood.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 18, 2009 10:42 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
No. Threre is not a guarantee that you would bond with a natural child either. Parenthood is hard, it is not to be tossed aside whether adopted or not.
If someone wants to throw in the towel that easily, how will they handle real hard experiences in life.
Helpful Answer?
If someone wants to throw in the towel that easily, how will they handle real hard experiences in life.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 18, 2009 10:58 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I don't think so. That would be very traumatic for the child, but I think it would also compromise the ethical nature of the system in general. If the parents are having trouble bonding, the best thing they can do is go and get counseling. In fact, it might have nothing to do with the child at all, especially if it's found that the parents have psychological issues.
My understanding is that adoption agencies also create bonding opportunities before the child permanently goes home with the parents, so the parents should be confident in their decision before the child moves in with them.
Helpful Answer?
My understanding is that adoption agencies also create bonding opportunities before the child permanently goes home with the parents, so the parents should be confident in their decision before the child moves in with them.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 18, 2009 11:58 PM
I agree.. very traumatic for the child. THis will result in the child having very low self esteem blaming himself, even if I reckon he is not at fault? Because first, his real parents may have died or abandoned him, then he gets adopted. He gets happy, but then he gets dumped back.. poor child. But that is just my opinion..
Report
October 19, 2009 12:33 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
isnt that the whole point of adopting someone or if you aint bounding with the child what was the point of adopting it in the first place. Giving the child back would probably be an alright idea but try put yourself in there position if you give the child back maybe they will feel unloved. all i am saying is ask what the child wants if its old enough to talk!!!!
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 19, 2009 01:25 AM
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Yes,! Give it back. If you are even asking this question you should not be a parent! give the child back and let a real parent who is more interested in giving a child a good family rather than finding some life-form to fill some bonding void they have. The person who does this is adopting a child for their own ego, there is no altruism in this situation. Does anyone really bond with their children....it is the exception to the rule...usually you are just trying to get them to clean their room... not have some deep heart to heart bonding session. Please get a Golden Retriever if it is companionship you seek! The miracle of life is too precious to be wasted on people who want to exchange humans because they don't quite match the throw pillow.
Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 19, 2009 12:27 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I don't think they should be able to unless the child has unforseen problems with behavior. I mean serious stuff, not just not getting along there. The parents should not be able to bring the kid back just because they didn't bond. It is not a pet.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 19, 2009 12:40 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
NO. NO. NO. Any child who is available for adoption probably already has bonding issues. I wouldn't expect to bond with them instantly, or even in a few months. It can take years. Children aren't puppy dogs you can just send off to a new home when they're too much bother. These type of children need lots of loving care and patience, and the adoptive parents made an obligation to take care of this child. Was this child adopted for selfish reasons, because the parents want a child to love THEM, or because they wanted to provide a good home and some direction in life to a child who truly needs it? How can they possibly be helping this child by "giving the child back" when the result is that the child is going to feel even more unloved?
Speaking as a step-parent, which isn't exactly adoption, but similar in my case since their own mother had little to do with them, it can take a long time to build a relationship from scratch. To be honest, there were times I wished that their own mother weren't such a wastrel so she could care for her own kids. But I took on an obligation to care for these children, and although I made a lot of mistakes (that 20-20 hindsight, ya know) I have good relationships with them as adults. I consider them among my best friends and they have blessed us with many wonderful (but ornery) grandchildren.
Our obligation to children isn't to make them love us or to be their friends, but to give them some purpose in life and to set limits for them so they learn how to be responsible members of society. If they do indeed love us, that's a bonus! Unless the child is truly mentally ill and this fact is hidden from the parents before the adoption takes place, I feel it would be wrong to just "give up" on them.
Helpful Answer?
Speaking as a step-parent, which isn't exactly adoption, but similar in my case since their own mother had little to do with them, it can take a long time to build a relationship from scratch. To be honest, there were times I wished that their own mother weren't such a wastrel so she could care for her own kids. But I took on an obligation to care for these children, and although I made a lot of mistakes (that 20-20 hindsight, ya know) I have good relationships with them as adults. I consider them among my best friends and they have blessed us with many wonderful (but ornery) grandchildren.
Our obligation to children isn't to make them love us or to be their friends, but to give them some purpose in life and to set limits for them so they learn how to be responsible members of society. If they do indeed love us, that's a bonus! Unless the child is truly mentally ill and this fact is hidden from the parents before the adoption takes place, I feel it would be wrong to just "give up" on them.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 19, 2009 09:35 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
No.....
Adopting a child isn't an easy process. It can take an unbelievable amount of time (unless you are Madonna or Angelina) and part of the process is confirming that you are prepared to take the commitment of being responsible for the child. If you're not sure that is the time to pull out, hit the cancel button or otherwise run to the hills.
Once you have adopted the child, then you've made that commitment. Walking out on him or her is exactly the same as walking out on your own flesh and blood, except that the child knows exactly what you're doing.
Trying to rationalise it as 'not bonding' or the 'chemistry not being right' doesn't really make any difference at all
Helpful Answer?
Adopting a child isn't an easy process. It can take an unbelievable amount of time (unless you are Madonna or Angelina) and part of the process is confirming that you are prepared to take the commitment of being responsible for the child. If you're not sure that is the time to pull out, hit the cancel button or otherwise run to the hills.
Once you have adopted the child, then you've made that commitment. Walking out on him or her is exactly the same as walking out on your own flesh and blood, except that the child knows exactly what you're doing.
Trying to rationalise it as 'not bonding' or the 'chemistry not being right' doesn't really make any difference at all
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Answer this Question
View All Belief and Thought QuestionsAsk a Conundrum
Please visit these retailers to purchase Conundrum or find the wine at these fine restaurants:
- ST HELENA WINES
- SUNSHINE MARKET
- WINE CENTER
- COST PLUS #240