"...every piece of data we have says that single parenting increases the risk to children."

I am terribly wary of any "data" that categorizes issues by the areas you present, as opposed to the actual issues that factor in --that is, data that looks at "why" rather than "who".

"The government say that single parents are more likely to do a bad job."

Again, before relying on such a statement, I would ask which government, based on what information or cultural bias, and to what end? Sometimes even the government errs ::feigning shock::

"The odds of making a mistake are simply too high with only one parent."

In my (social) work, I just saw too many "mistakes" made by dual parents, such that the slow shift to strong single parent families, with the very positive results, was deeply refreshing. The "mistakes" made there had less impact than the mistakes made in the duo-parent families we were seeing.

What we witnessed as best to worst was as follows (same number indicates tie).

1. Two or more parental figures (any orientation and relationship) for a child, whether live in or live out, where there was no major conflict between those figures
1. Strong solitary parenting with support network
2. Average duo family
3. Single parent with no support network whatsoever
4. Poorly-skilled duo family (this one often had the extra, and deeply impacting, stress of inter-parental conflict)

"Even adding supports will not fix the situation."

??

How do you know this? We haven't tried it (on a societal level) yet. Where this has been implemented in individual cases, it has made all the difference.

"What we need to do is increase the percentage of two parent families, get children into the hands of non-abusive fathers, educate all parents on known risks to children and work at increasing the parenting ability of all people."

Agreed re: increasing the parenting ability of all people.

Other ideas: require fathers to support a mother from conception on; require fathers to provide financial support to the mother and child so she has options for reduced stress; more flexible employment; and/or staying home while a mother is specifically necessary. (I realize there are "laws" in place for this, but too many men simply opt for school or welfare to avoid paying support, or just don't bother making payments. In BC, there is no consequence for this except to the child and mother, the latter of whom is often required to take on the 24/7 care, stress, fatique, AND be able to financially provide, lest others write single mothers off as incompetent and dangerous.)

I am all for a dad's involvement --but where two parents are unable to live together, I think we need to look at a more co-operative approach than you suggest. eg. Mother is supported to stay home and eat well while pregnant and breastfeeding; one parent financially supports the other to be able to stay home as the child needs, and/or parents take on complementary work schedules so that the child is with one or the other instead of in daycare; etc.

Removing children from their mothers is not a solution. It's called "involuntary surrogacy". Many women would be unwilling to bear children under an arrangement by which they are either forced to stay with an abusive or otherwise inappropriate partner, or to relinquish care of her child.

I don't have a problem with it. As a single person who is a father-figure to the 3 children of a friend who's a single Mom, I would think that if anything were to happen to her, God forbid, I would want to adopt them.

Not a problem for me at all.

As long as the parent had a support network behind them, then I'd be with them all the way!

I think that if that person feels ready and is able to provide a good loving home then why not?! Lot's of people haven't found the right partner yet but why should they wait for children? If they are ready they are ready.

We don't prevent single people from having babies. I can think of at least 50 things I'm more concerned about than single people adopting, and that's without even trying.

Generally speaking I have no trouble with single people adopting. Lone fathers are quite well known for adopting disabled kids. Lone mothers are quite well known for adopting the children of the very poor.

From a large systems, societal, point of view, one MUST work to lower the number of single parents: Single parents make too many uncorrected mistakes which is part of the reason for single parents having such a bad child abuse rate, accident rate and other trouble rates, when compared to two parent families. Statistically, single parents do not do as well as two parent families, but --BUT-- compared to foster home raised kids! Compared to them single parents do quite well.

It's all really quite easy to understand once you understand a bit of basic statistics!

Well, I don't know that I am too familiar with the stats, but I have lately been thinking about adoption. I am 25 years old, and not quite ready to have children. But when I am, and if there is a child in need I think I may adopt. I wouldn't want to begin a family any later than my mid-thirties, so if I am still single and childless at that point I think I will go for it!

not a problem for me at all.
i know quite a few single parents who have adopted, and they are excellent parents.

My basic preference is for two parents (don't care about the gender make up), but I don't really have a problem with single people adopting. I think Blah said it best for me:

"I can think of at least 50 things I'm more concerned about than single people adopting, and that's without even trying."

I believe any child would feel blessedd if they had one parent who would love, support and respect them. There are many dysfunctional two parent homes. I had the opportunity to be the soul caretaker for a younger sibling and just found out that she will be graduating next year from university and has already been recruited by a top firm in the U.S.. She is well rounded, and I am quite sure she will make a great contribution to society. She already has.
Much love to those of us who try to help those who are without. That's how we make our society better.

You are of course assuming that the single person will never actually find a mate?

Atheisto - men with babies = in like flynn. women with babies = scary! ;)

I jest, and of course most single people with children do eventually find a partner of some description. But that assumes they want one in the first place.

"From a large systems, societal, point of view, one MUST work to lower the number of single parents: Single parents make too many uncorrected mistakes..."

JW, we must not work to lower the numbers of single parents, but rather work to increase the supports to single parents. Single parents with good friends, respite care, flexible employment options, etc, do very well.

Single parents as a group do not "make to many uncorrected mistakes..." Besides being an extremely broad generalization, it applies exactly equally to two-parent families (that is, all families make "too many uncorrected mistakes").

It is not the single parents making too many uncorrected mistakes --it is the other parent --and our society-- who leaves all responsibility, fatigue, financial hardship on the single parent who does so.

"It is not the single parents making too many uncorrected mistakes --it is the other parent --and our society-- who leaves all responsibility, fatigue, financial hardship on the single parent who does so."

I couldn't agree more. Parents of all kinds make mistakes but I believe that the more support parents have, the less the impact of those mistakes. Partners, others parents, friends, other family members -- all provide a web of support, ideally.

I have no problem with single people being parents -- I have a major problem with adoption as it's practiced in our culture, as some of you already know. Where are these babies and children coming from to satisfy the consumer demand for them? Are those who bear these children and lose them to adoptive families invisible?

As a mother who lost a child to adoption 31+ years ago, this kind of casual reference to adoption (as if the mother is disposable) hurts. I'm not alone in feeling this way either. Please take some time to review the website of the Canadian Council of Natural Mothers in order to gain some awareness of many mothers' experience of the adoption story.

http://nebula.on.ca/canbmothers/

"...I have a major problem with adoption as it's practiced in our culture, as some of you already know. Where are these babies and children coming from to satisfy the consumer demand for them? Are those who bear these children and lose them to adoptive families invisible?"

I am excited to see this! For years I have felt very alone in speaking against international adoption. My points are these...

1. Preferably, and for a variety of reasons, a child stays with its family of origin.

2. If we all committed to fair trade, lobbying for the cost of medicine to go down, etc, most of these kids would not need to be adopted out, as their families would have the means to sustain them.

3. The money spent on international adoption (including plane trips, etc) could support the child's home village for a very long time, and certainly implement options for the community's sustainability.

4. There are over 600 kids in BC waiting for permanent homes. They cannot stay with their original families --regional adoption would allow children to stay somewhat connected with their roots, and allow the biological family to stay connected.

Hi, an understandable question but I would give the advice I usually give, "trust yourself". If I were thinking of adopting or having a child, I would ask myself, why do I want a child? Do I have the patience? Do I have the ability to guide and not control?

I and my three siblings were raised by my mother, after my father died. Yikes, a single mother with four little kids. Was she the perfect parent? No. But neither were the father and mother next door. She modelled for us the behaviour she wanted us to follow, got us involved in the community and let love do the rest. My brother and sisters (and I hope myself) have grown into responsible, caring adults, active in their communities and are generally good people.

So adopt away, and trust yourself along the way!

"3. The money spent on international adoption (including plane trips, etc) could support the child's home village for a very long time, and certainly implement options for the community's sustainability.

-This was a new way of looking at the subject for me. Thank you.

Hmm... I had three parents. Now I am grown up and I'd give anything for the love or support of one.

Simply sayin' we shouldn't judge a person's parenting quality by their quantity of one.

I think it's overly simplistic to assume that if a child is up for adoption in another country, it was entirely due to financial reasons and thus solved by economics (ie. the village would have supported the child with money from airfares) . There are many personal, social and psychological reasons mothers give up their child for adoption- this is as true here in our own country as elsewhere- and sadly not something that simple money resolves.

Not everyone wants to be a parent nor is capable of being a parent at the time of pregnancy. Moreover, not every family or village is necessarily best for a given child. Most- if not all- are already in orphanages at the time of adoption. As far as I know, there is not a 'market' for children that is pushed by demand. In the ideal world, only those wanting to and able to rear children will get pregant. Until that ideal world arrives, adoption is one of the best possible solutions for children (and the focus should remain on the best interests of the children).

"I think it's overly simplistic to assume that if a child is up for adoption in another country, it was entirely due to financial reasons and thus solved by economics (ie. the village would have supported the child with money from airfares) . There are many personal, social and psychological reasons mothers give up their child for adoption- this is as true here in our own country as elsewhere- and sadly not something that simple money resolves."

It's also oversimplistic to assume that the post implied that. (Please also note that the money involved would go much further than supporting one child, but rather allow a community to rebuild; achieve self-sustainability; etc; so that all mothers there had true options.)

You are right, of course, that there are many reasons for a parent to place a child for adoption.

The international orphanage I lived and worked in, however, saw the following.

1. Out of 150 children, only two had no parent willing to care for them.

2. Out of the 148 children with one or two parents willing to care for them, most had indeed been placed there, because the parent(s) did not have the means to support them. (Donors will give to orphanages more often than to families.)

3. Most families did not have the means to support the children because of longterm issues such as damns (providing electricity to wealthy homes by flooding the most fertile farmland and forcing farming families into less fertile hills and into poverty and/or debt and/or various types of slavery).

4. Most children without parents have aunts or uncles that would care for them if they were financially able.

5. Most children have siblings they would like to remain intimately connected with, especially after the loss of a parent.

6. Language, culture, food are part of a person's human rights. A person losing parents should not also be forced to lose all extended family, culture, first language, etc. There are families in every region that would make suitable parents, allowing the child to retain some consistency in his life.

Indeed, the child's best interests must be paramount.

And yes, money can actually solve a lot of problems. The question is: are we willing to recognize our wealth and power and take the time to analyze and do what's most right?

I think it's a great idea. There are so many children out there who need love and guidance and support. If you have the means financially, emotionally, and spiritually and want to adopt, then I think you should, wether you are single or not.

slapdash; Sorry, but every piece of data we have says that single parenting increases the risk to children.

A was a lone father and spoke in Canada for that demographic. Knew a LOT of single mothers too. Yet, I am aware enough of the dataset to see that single parents are a problem, not all of them, by any means.

The government say that single parents are more likely to do a bad job. Mind you, a part of that is our problem with single mothers. The group (population), single mothers, include a many many times larger sub-population of women who should not have care & control of a fish, never mind a child, than the group lone fathers or the group gay parents do. Thus, we get the dataset giving theoretical risk in cases per 1,000 at: 6 for two parent families, 12 for lone father & gay parents and 39 for single mothers. This says NOTHING, absolutely nothing, about the many fine single mothers out there! It merely points out that we have a problem of allowing known to be abusive mothers to have custody of children when there is a known to be non-abusive father available. Which is something we already know.

Sadly, even fixing our single-mother problem will not bring the problem load down to anywhere near the two-parent family level. The odds of making a mistake are simply too high with only one parent. Plus, males parent in one way and females in another (by the odds, this is not always true!). The complimentary parenting styles also play their part in increasing the odds of healthy children. This is why when you measure child-rearing outcomes you find more psycho-pathologies in mother raised kids and more accidental injuries in father raised kids. Putting two parents into the mix means lowering BOTH psycho-pathologies and accidental injuries.

Even adding supports will not fix the situation. What we need to do is increase the percentage of two parent families, get children into the hands of non-abusive fathers, educate all parents on known risks to children and work at increasing the parenting ability of all people.

"I have no problem with single people being parents -- I have a major problem with adoption as it's practiced in our culture, as some of you already know. Where are these babies and children coming from to satisfy the consumer demand for them? Are those who bear these children and lose them to adoptive families invisible?" "

I am sorry you had such a difficult experience with adoption. Even in the best cases adoption begins with loss.
When you speak of the hurt you feel about adoption and speak of a "˜consumer demand' for babies you cut deep. As a potential adoptive parent who has long been part of support networks for couples dealing with infertility it is incredibly insensitive to call the deep desire, longing, pain and sorrow of those who experience infertility and seek to build a family through adoption a matter of consumerism. Wanting a child is not the same as wanting a PS3. People who choose adoption don't do so on a whim.
Is every family seeking to adopt a child overseas just buying into a product? .
Are there abuses, horrible offenses perpetrated in the name of adoption? Yep. But there are also many, many families built and lives enriched through adoption and your statement quoted above smacks of saying that really, only fertile people should get to be parents and I am sure that is not what you meant!

"I think it's overly simplistic to assume that if a child is up for adoption in another country, it was entirely due to financial reasons and thus solved by economics (ie. the village would have supported the child with money from airfares) . There are many personal, social and psychological reasons mothers give up their child for adoption- this is as true here in our own country as elsewhere- and sadly not something that simple money resolves. "

I agree with this "“except for the "˜giving up for adoption' part. A mother doesn't give up her child, she chooses adoption for her child. Language is powerful.

In the case of adoption in China or even in Korea the social/ cultural pressures and expectations are far more pressing than financial ones in deciding not to parent. We are adopting from the USA, there is no idyllic little village full of poor people, there is no extended family willing to parent, or they would have arranged to do so. Did you know one of the most common profiles for a North American mother who chooses adoption for her child is a college student? That the less education and the younger the mom, the more likely she is to parent?
Adoption is SO much more complex than is being offered here.

Slapdash speaks of an unjust, a wrong scenario, but that is not the case with every international adoption.

So.. Should single people adopt, yes. And most home studies and agencies will make sure they are prepared for the additional tasks and special needs associated with parenting an adopted child. More power to them if they can do it on their own. I guess one thing to consider is a future partner and helping them understand the unique experience of adoption in the family.

Low, your post was very enlightening for me.

You are correct that I was looking at a very limited scenario of adoption, assuming this to be the most common one, and allowing it to colour my opinion on international adoption in general.

Thank you very much for the additional information and other scenarios.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that placing a child for adoption needs to be a true choice for the mother, and not a result of coercion based on

-our having first destroyed that mother's society
-insistence to young people that a college education or a great deal of money is so necessary that a child arriving in the interim "should" be placed out
-etc

and that I'd rather we expend our resources on resolving such scenarios, and preventing more of them, than on relocating the children.

Slapdash ~

There are definitely abuses and coercion and we are in complete agreement about the need to make changes. The Hague Convention is not perfect by any means but it is an international attempt at addressing some of these injustices and abuses. And like anything, the adoptive family needs be sure they are acting with integrity in a system that is transparent and just. This is one of the reasons we chose to deal with the USA over other countries.

L

Hi Low:

As a first mother, I know that I'm not alone in having had a "bad experience with adoption". Many of us who share this experience would say that losing our child to adoption was much, much more than that. Many of us continue to grieve many years later, worry about our child, suffer from PTSD, and otherwise struggle to overcome our unresolved loss. Most people, though, wouldn't know that because shame was used to keep us silent and many of us remain anonymous, getting on in our lives, keeping our secret and not speaking up. I'm sure that you and many others reading this know many women who have lost children to adoption, yet this is a part of their story that you've never heard and may never hear. Please google the "Canadian Council of Natural Mothers" for more information on the experience of many women -- hundreds of thousands of Canadian women have lost their children to adoption.

Imagine this: you give birth to a child and three days later, someone gets the court to agree that you are not a fit mother because you are poor, aren't established yet (financially, educationally, socially) and you are young. Away your child goes. You lack the resources to hire a lawyer to fight the decision and you lose your child permanently. Everyone around you agrees with the court's decision. Would you not mourn that child's loss, wonder about him/her for the rest of your life, be traumatized by the lack of support, by the severing of the bonding that began in--utero? It's more than a bad experience, believe me.

"I agree with this "“except for the "˜giving up for adoption' part. A mother doesn't give up her child, she chooses adoption for her child. Language is powerful."

Language is indeed powerful and I can't tell you how difficult it is to hear someone else choose their words to describe my/our experience. Many of us reject the phrasing that we chose adoption for our child because it was not a true choice. We do use the term "surrender" because that was exactly what we did. Losing our child/ren is our experience and it's respectful to allow us to choose our own language for describing it.

I would say that for most women who "choose" adoption, it's not a true choice. That so-called choice was, for many of us, about coercion, lies, social pressure, economic pressure...everything but choice, frankly. Today, very few mothers who are considering adoption are given enough information to be able to give informed consent, very few receive legal advice of any kind, let alone independent legal counsel, none in Canada are able to have open adoption agreements enforced, few receive adequate financial assistance to raise their own child, educational opportunities are desperately hard to come by and many experience a void of supportive people around them..this is stacking the deck and it's an injustice. And while it may be true that pregnant young women who "choose" adoption are educated, perhaps weighing the options of establishing themselves in employment that supports their family is still a major barrier. What's the choice -- the images are framed in such a way as to create a sense of not being good enough or able to provide enough or even able to survive when daycare is hard to come by, is not very affordable and employment is so competitive...especially when weighed against such established, financially secure, potentially adoptive parents?

Supported women of means are not losing their children to adoption, it's the children of the poor and unsupported for whom adoption is framed as a solution. Do not the poor deserve to have the joy and love of children in their lives? Do not children of the poor deserve to be raised with their family, and within their culture? Does it not behoove us, the wealthy (relatively speaking to many in the world) to help to address all of the underlying conditions which lead to mothers, fathers, siblings, communities and countries from losing their children and their future?

Motheroffive: In no way am I suggesting your pain is not real or lasting, or that coercion and other means of shaming women into surrendering their child doesn't happen. Not at all.
I am pointing out that it is possible for their to be more than one pain in this story of adoption. That is what makes it so complicated. Natural mothers hurt. Children hurt. Adoptive parents hurt for themselves and for the pain of their children and their first mothers. Playing whose pain is worse, or suggesting that because one party in this scenario has pain that it is caused by the other party is just not real to the situation.
It doesn't have to be us/them, good guy/ bad guys. And it certainly stands that it is not about consumerism (which was my objection to your post). There is plenty of room for growth, change and justice in adoption matters. You name many of the areas and I think that more adoptive families need to hear stories like yours and get active in the justice issues surrounding it.
But to say that adoption is always a negative/bad/abuse does not acknowledge the good things that can happen and do happen. It is to set up barricades and create battles (ie if the poor can't take careof their kids, why get pregnant? is an ugly taunt that gets thrown about when people try to make it a battleground, or rich people are shopping for babies, or whatever grenades get lobbed).
It is simply not black and white. We should all be in this together.
Again, I am sorry for your pain. And my heart hurts to think that our child's mother will go through it and I cry to think that my child will always miss his or her mother and I pray that we will have the opportunity for an open adoption to try and find a way forward together.
I am a mother now. I can't imagine anyone having tried to part me from my child. But I also, as a mother, can't imagine one more child sliding into foster care oblivion and instability when there are people able and willing to parent.
Shalom.

Hi Low:

I want to comment on a few things that you said.

"Playing whose pain is worse, or suggesting that because one party in this scenario has pain that it is caused by the other party is just not real to the situation."

Actually, first, I never said my pain was worse, what I said was that I am opposed to how adoption is practiced in our society. I am not referring to adoption of children whose families are abusive or incapable of dealing with a major disability -- I am referring to the practice of suggesting to pregnant women that they are incapable of being a good parent to their child, I am referring to society's lack of support (educationally, financially and emotionally) which leads to a young mother thinking that she would not be able to love and raise her own child, I am referring to international adoptions whereby adoption of children into another country and culture may solve that one child's physical needs but doesn't address the political and corporate culture that creates poverty.

The other point that I am raising is that many people seem to have the impression that women who lose a child to adoption get on with their lives, as if the whole thing is a blip from which one just moves on. Unless young pregnant women who are considering adoption are made aware that many may never recover from their loss, they are not fully informed and thus, their decision is not made with their eyes wide open. Yet, that is seldom, if ever, part of what they are told by adoption agencies.

I am not addressing adoptive parents in my story because that's not my experience. What I know is that (maybe I mentioned this above) in 2004 in the US, the financial worth of adoption industry (including agencies, lawyers, social workers who work in that environment) was $4 Billion dollars. This indicates to me that those who are involved in this business have a stake in the outcomes and helping young women find other solutions that may be in their children's best interests isn't in theirs.

It's my belief that, unless and until women considering adoption are fully informed about the consequences, whatever else she is told is at least coercion and could be absolute lies. For a link to the ethical and legal protection that a young mother needs in order to be fully informed, go to: http://nebula.on.ca/canbmothers/English/Position/Protection.htm. Without those in place, virtually all adoptions (by strangers, not adoptions among family members) are suspect.

That's why I'm opposed to (stranger) adoption as it's practiced in our culture. It is not about us all being in it together -- the adoption triad (or circle) is not made up of those with equal voice and power.

Well said, Motheroffive!