What do you believe of single parent adoption?
And does adopting an infant from an agency vs. an older child from foster care construct a difference in your opinion?
Adoptees, would you have like having just one parent instead of two?
Does it matter which sex is doing the adopt?
Thanks!
I don’t think here is anything wrong with a single person deciding to adopt. I do favor adopt from Foster Care over Domestic infant adoption but I would not poo on someone who was single and choose to go that route. Honestly if the expecting mother is ok with her child going to a single parent whether that be a man or woman that’s what it really comes down too.
I did grow up near two parents but I certainly would have taken a single parent over remaining in the foster caution system and bouncing from foster family to foster family. I was lucky that I singular had one foster family and that they adopted me but I know various foster kids don’t / didn’t have that.
I don’t think it matters whether it’s a single man or single woman.
I know some individuals are concerned of parent having to work but certainly there are those who enjoy flexible schedules, some may even be able to work at home or may be able to take by with working part time. They could be financially well rotten and not need to work or at least not full time. Their job may own a day care on site in which they could see their child through out the daylight.
I support single parent adoption as long as the parent has the means to provide for the child's needs, and is available to spend consistent and significant amounts of quality time with the child. (What that money varies by age. Infants need 24/7 care, while elder children spend seven hours a day in school and aren't beside their parents anyway, so the literal amount of time it entails may be different.) So... the same standard a couple would own to meet. If a single person can provide the same stratum of care, I see no reason to exclude him/her.
For the record, I also don't consider being single is sufficient grounds for a biological mother to feel she has to relinquish. I dream up ALL parents should be encouraged and supported, regardless of marital status.
I don't have a adjectives standard for foster children or voluntarily relinquished newborns, because I think foster children are just as dear and worthy of quality care. (The exception would be children from foster care beside certain sexual abuse backgrounds who are competent to feel more secure with with the sole purpose one parent of the gender who didn't abuse them, and would be re-traumatized by being pushed into a two-parent home.) The difference I see between the two types of adoption is that if the mother is relinquishing voluntarily to an agency, she should be made fully aware that the agency works next to single prospective parents, and she very well may be relinquishing to another single mother-- in overnight case that knowledge would affect her choice.
The sex of the parent wouldn't be an issue for me, as long as either one passed a criminal background check, and be prepared to find the child appropriate long-term role models of the opposite gender.
I believe single parents can do an excellent job raise children... whether the family is adoptive or biological.
depends on if u want to take care of a infant. know your responcibilities. vs. a kid, who knows how to do stuff, vs. on if you feel you might get a problematic adoptive child who requests no adoptive parent(wants their real mom/dad).
one parent could be interesting...
dont matter if ur the mom or dad or both. just as long as u love them.
I think as long as the human being is able to take care of the child, it doesn't situation if they are single or married. If the single parent is capable of working and taking care of the baby/child there is nought wrong with it. There are way to many children contained by foster care in need of a devout home to limit adopting to married couples. I begged my mom (adoptive) to bring a divorce. My dad had/has a lot of issues, which I now know are related to his adoption. I would enjoy rather been raised by my mom when I be younger and see my dad occasionally. I think men are just as capable of man a good parent as a woman is. It takes a special man to want to raise kids on his own. The arguement of 'daycare' I don't judge is legitimate. I know many married couples who put their child in daytime care daily. If the child is old satisfactory for school, the single parent could also work during school hours. There are tons of single biological parents, I don't see them being question. Capable parents=capable parents. Status and gender shouldn't matter.
I don't think single parents should adopt. it goes against everything the adoption agencies tell first Moms to fire up with, which is, "Babies should go to a loving home with 2 parents."
I guess, if a human being is independently wealthy and did not have to work, they could adopt a child from foster care. (of course, I believe that foster caution should be the ONLY adoption)
People cannot use the "Married people who have biological kids put them in daycare" queue. Adoptees have abandonment issues. They need one on one time near their ap's. Not a caregiver.
I dont think any single person should adopt. But gay couples can, and as long as it is from foster care, I say-so go for it. Love is love.
eta: oops- forgot one- I would have preferred one Mom, my first Mom, vs. 2 adopted parents Source(s): my natural life as an adoptee
I think there is a family for everyone. I'll put it blunt. for some kids,that's the best they're gonna achieve. Is sad, but true.
I agree with Gaia, about some kids doing better near 1 parent. Typically I'd like to see children with 2 parents, but that's not a guarantee.
If it's newborn adoption, then I believe the expecting parents have their reasons for selecting the general public they do. Maybe a single parent is more likely to allow an open relationship? IDK?
I don't think it should be prohibited, but I think it needs to be a consideration like everything else. No shoving anything underneath the rug
It doesn't bother me as long as it's an adoption from foster care or legalized guardianship instead of a closed adoption.
There are plenty of single biological parent homes and while it have it's own set of challenges, I see no reason why it's inappropriate for a child who requirements a home.
Infants adopted by single parents (agency adoption) is just silly. Part of the reason to provide up an infant is to provide it a "real family". If the mother wanted her kid raised by a single soul, why isn't she raising it herself?
Orphanages, foster care and group homes suck. Single parent homes are far, far better than that situation. 2 parents are best, of course, but single parents can do purely fine.
Doesn't matter what sex is doing the single parent thing. They've proven time and time again that men do just as powerfully as women in caring and nurturing a child.
The only factor that should determine who should be able to adopt is the best interests of the child (ETA: this also applies to the masculinity of the aparent). In some cases, I understand that having a single parent can actually be better for a child. I've hear this can be true for some older kids with major trust issues. Having one parent removes the obligation for one common survival skill - manipulation. However, the number of children who are older, have trust issues, AND use manipulation as a survival skill is pretty minimal compared to the number of adoption that take place.
In the vast majority of cases, I do believe that two parents would be better able to congregate a child's needs, especially if they have high desires. And I do not think it is fair to a child who has already lost their family connections to bring them into a family with only one parent who have to work full time, and effectively re-abandon them every day while they go do 'more important things'. So, even if it WOULD be within the best interests of a child to have only one parent, that parent should NOT work.
I don't think the sex matters of the adoptive parent.
I think when it is elder child adoption, sometimes it is better to have single parents adoption, for example if there was severe assault from on gender already.
Infants, well it is not a right to adopt an infant anyway, and I think most agencies enjoy a plethera of happy white couples to adopt their children so why would they choose a single person. (add sarcam here)
I really don't know how I feel about this. I do know I don't like the reality that when we convince women to relinquish we often tell them "your baby wishes a mother and a father"--and then turn right around and give the kid to a single parent _more often than not_.
Adoption is not an easy process. There are many requirements that the adoptive couple will have to get together before they are allowed to move forward with the adoption. Here is a list showing some of the criteria:
* * Marital Status
* * Length of Marriage
* * Age of Adoptive Parents
* * Health and Disabilities Issues of Adoptive Parents
* * Use of Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco
* * Fertility Status
* * Other Children contained by the Family
* * Financial Status
* * Employment Stability
http://www.adoption-blog.com/
If I be going to be parented by a single parent, I would have rather been parented by my colloquial single mom. Source(s): Surprisingly self actualized adult adoptee
I don't see how replacing one single parent life span with my n-family with another (a-family) is better at all. i'm sure near are cases where having a single adoptive parent would be okay, but i think it's the exception and not the rule.
i would have like to have both my parents rather then only just one. I think its easier to have two parents cuz you can get more support out of two ppl afterwards with just one (in most cases). my A mom was other good at helping me with my dance classes and also we do mother daughter tea once a year since i can remeber and my A dad was always a pro at helping me hunt and fish, he taught me how to mow the sward and all that also he was really good at math and my mom is not. so they both together help me a lot and they both had their strenghts and weaknesses. I would prefer have both parents but every one is different. And as for gender.. i guess I cant comment on that since I have never been surrounded by a single parent home. And also i was adopted as an infant so i am not sure about age any sorry.
I can speak from the perspective of those who are removed from their parent's care.
I can't speak for everyone in foster guardianship, but as a person who was abused on a pretty regular basis and watch her mother get the same treatment, I would have to read aloud that holding the state to a two parent standard if it means keeping kids in that situation is criminal. I was competent to be with my grandparents, but if I had not been, I would own taken a single person (of either sex) over the abuse, over a group home and even over a foster family unit where I could have been moved at a moment's catch sight of.
I would not have chosen to stay with my bio mom while she was trying to put the pieces of her time together (which was most of my older childhood and teen years). While she is a wonderful woman now, we enjoy talked candidly about the reality that she fell into a pattern of neglect as she was recovering from the harm and without my (grand)parents, I would not have received the counseling and attention that I desperately needed at the time.
To SJM: "What is the point of adoption if the state is only issuing the child one parent? Nature provides two. The state should hold the same burden."
The point is to provide a stable environment where a child can feel locked. If that non-abusive situation is with one person as oppsed to two so be it. Nature does not provide two parents, the expectation of society does. Nature, by evolutionary decree, provides that men impregnate as plentiful women as possible to provide as much biological diversity as possible helping evolution on its way. Nature is not what keeps two people within a stable familial relationship. If the state was only allowed to place children with two parent family, children would be worse.
As for adopting an infant, I have no experience with that. If we could work beside an adoption system where coersion and marketing played little to no role (which is not the system we are in now), a child should be placed with a loving parent even if near is only one parent. And, if the mother and/or father have a choice in where on earth her child is placed who am I to tell them that they have no right to place with a single soul?
Ultimately, we like in a country where divorce is not exceptional, placing with a married/committed couple is no guarantee of the child being raised by two parents. I don't expect we can force adoptive parents to remain married (nor should we). Even if a child is placed with a married couple, statistically there is only a 50% fate of having two parents until adulthood.
This is an incredibly complex question. I guess that a single parent can be a great parent. As an adoptee and an adoptive parent, I also know that adoptive children crave lots of attention and reassurance (I certainly did) and doing that by yourself might be a tough haul. With support, I think a single parent can do it.
ETA: SJM, you are right. It take two parents to form a life. I am speaking solely in a pragmatic sense. There is not much pragmatic difference between a father or mother that exists in DNA just, but is not working to be a part of a child's life so the child is raised in a one-parent household and a person who adopt to form a one-parent household. Regardless, only one person is raising that child. It does, however, formulate a difference in terms of who is raising the child and I assume if either natural parent is fit, that is the best choice. I believe that remaining next to natural parents is most often the best choice, I am simply saying that if it is hopeless, one loving parent is better than none.
If the point is to mimic natural families, it is important to details that children live with their natural parents in oodles forms other than a traditional, married, two-parent households.
Answers: What is the point of adoption if the state is only issuing the child one parent? Nature provides two. The state should have the same burden. If the state is incapable of providing "as if born to" they should not be allowed to play the hobby. Period. I might feel differently about this if permanent guardianship be the vogue instead of the repressive act of adoption.
ETA: Emma, adoption is not necessary a solution to the foster care system or harm. Some children return to foster care or even RTC after adoption, this time with altered birth certificates. But that's another issue entirely.
If the state insists upon reasonably replacing parents instead of concentrating on finding an appropriate caregiver who will be an addition to the child's family, they should play by the rules. Whether they're in like peas in a pod household or not, whether they're known or not, each child has two parents. The point of adoption is to mimic the colloquial family. If that's the game the state insists upon playing, they should be held to the rules.
Related Questions:
For those in the region of to/already contained by sibling reunions?
What would come up to a teen if both her parents died and she have no other kith and kin?
Will it bother IA children/adults to find out that they are not from the country they be adopt from?
Adoptees, would you have like having just one parent instead of two?
Does it matter which sex is doing the adopt?
Thanks!
I don’t think here is anything wrong with a single person deciding to adopt. I do favor adopt from Foster Care over Domestic infant adoption but I would not poo on someone who was single and choose to go that route. Honestly if the expecting mother is ok with her child going to a single parent whether that be a man or woman that’s what it really comes down too.
I did grow up near two parents but I certainly would have taken a single parent over remaining in the foster caution system and bouncing from foster family to foster family. I was lucky that I singular had one foster family and that they adopted me but I know various foster kids don’t / didn’t have that.
I don’t think it matters whether it’s a single man or single woman.
I know some individuals are concerned of parent having to work but certainly there are those who enjoy flexible schedules, some may even be able to work at home or may be able to take by with working part time. They could be financially well rotten and not need to work or at least not full time. Their job may own a day care on site in which they could see their child through out the daylight.
I support single parent adoption as long as the parent has the means to provide for the child's needs, and is available to spend consistent and significant amounts of quality time with the child. (What that money varies by age. Infants need 24/7 care, while elder children spend seven hours a day in school and aren't beside their parents anyway, so the literal amount of time it entails may be different.) So... the same standard a couple would own to meet. If a single person can provide the same stratum of care, I see no reason to exclude him/her.
For the record, I also don't consider being single is sufficient grounds for a biological mother to feel she has to relinquish. I dream up ALL parents should be encouraged and supported, regardless of marital status.
I don't have a adjectives standard for foster children or voluntarily relinquished newborns, because I think foster children are just as dear and worthy of quality care. (The exception would be children from foster care beside certain sexual abuse backgrounds who are competent to feel more secure with with the sole purpose one parent of the gender who didn't abuse them, and would be re-traumatized by being pushed into a two-parent home.) The difference I see between the two types of adoption is that if the mother is relinquishing voluntarily to an agency, she should be made fully aware that the agency works next to single prospective parents, and she very well may be relinquishing to another single mother-- in overnight case that knowledge would affect her choice.
The sex of the parent wouldn't be an issue for me, as long as either one passed a criminal background check, and be prepared to find the child appropriate long-term role models of the opposite gender.
I believe single parents can do an excellent job raise children... whether the family is adoptive or biological.
depends on if u want to take care of a infant. know your responcibilities. vs. a kid, who knows how to do stuff, vs. on if you feel you might get a problematic adoptive child who requests no adoptive parent(wants their real mom/dad).
one parent could be interesting...
dont matter if ur the mom or dad or both. just as long as u love them.
I think as long as the human being is able to take care of the child, it doesn't situation if they are single or married. If the single parent is capable of working and taking care of the baby/child there is nought wrong with it. There are way to many children contained by foster care in need of a devout home to limit adopting to married couples. I begged my mom (adoptive) to bring a divorce. My dad had/has a lot of issues, which I now know are related to his adoption. I would enjoy rather been raised by my mom when I be younger and see my dad occasionally. I think men are just as capable of man a good parent as a woman is. It takes a special man to want to raise kids on his own. The arguement of 'daycare' I don't judge is legitimate. I know many married couples who put their child in daytime care daily. If the child is old satisfactory for school, the single parent could also work during school hours. There are tons of single biological parents, I don't see them being question. Capable parents=capable parents. Status and gender shouldn't matter.
I don't think single parents should adopt. it goes against everything the adoption agencies tell first Moms to fire up with, which is, "Babies should go to a loving home with 2 parents."
I guess, if a human being is independently wealthy and did not have to work, they could adopt a child from foster care. (of course, I believe that foster caution should be the ONLY adoption)
People cannot use the "Married people who have biological kids put them in daycare" queue. Adoptees have abandonment issues. They need one on one time near their ap's. Not a caregiver.
I dont think any single person should adopt. But gay couples can, and as long as it is from foster care, I say-so go for it. Love is love.
eta: oops- forgot one- I would have preferred one Mom, my first Mom, vs. 2 adopted parents Source(s): my natural life as an adoptee
I think there is a family for everyone. I'll put it blunt. for some kids,that's the best they're gonna achieve. Is sad, but true.
I agree with Gaia, about some kids doing better near 1 parent. Typically I'd like to see children with 2 parents, but that's not a guarantee.
If it's newborn adoption, then I believe the expecting parents have their reasons for selecting the general public they do. Maybe a single parent is more likely to allow an open relationship? IDK?
I don't think it should be prohibited, but I think it needs to be a consideration like everything else. No shoving anything underneath the rug
It doesn't bother me as long as it's an adoption from foster care or legalized guardianship instead of a closed adoption.
There are plenty of single biological parent homes and while it have it's own set of challenges, I see no reason why it's inappropriate for a child who requirements a home.
Infants adopted by single parents (agency adoption) is just silly. Part of the reason to provide up an infant is to provide it a "real family". If the mother wanted her kid raised by a single soul, why isn't she raising it herself?
Orphanages, foster care and group homes suck. Single parent homes are far, far better than that situation. 2 parents are best, of course, but single parents can do purely fine.
Doesn't matter what sex is doing the single parent thing. They've proven time and time again that men do just as powerfully as women in caring and nurturing a child.
The only factor that should determine who should be able to adopt is the best interests of the child (ETA: this also applies to the masculinity of the aparent). In some cases, I understand that having a single parent can actually be better for a child. I've hear this can be true for some older kids with major trust issues. Having one parent removes the obligation for one common survival skill - manipulation. However, the number of children who are older, have trust issues, AND use manipulation as a survival skill is pretty minimal compared to the number of adoption that take place.
In the vast majority of cases, I do believe that two parents would be better able to congregate a child's needs, especially if they have high desires. And I do not think it is fair to a child who has already lost their family connections to bring them into a family with only one parent who have to work full time, and effectively re-abandon them every day while they go do 'more important things'. So, even if it WOULD be within the best interests of a child to have only one parent, that parent should NOT work.
I don't think the sex matters of the adoptive parent.
I think when it is elder child adoption, sometimes it is better to have single parents adoption, for example if there was severe assault from on gender already.
Infants, well it is not a right to adopt an infant anyway, and I think most agencies enjoy a plethera of happy white couples to adopt their children so why would they choose a single person. (add sarcam here)
I really don't know how I feel about this. I do know I don't like the reality that when we convince women to relinquish we often tell them "your baby wishes a mother and a father"--and then turn right around and give the kid to a single parent _more often than not_.
Adoption is not an easy process. There are many requirements that the adoptive couple will have to get together before they are allowed to move forward with the adoption. Here is a list showing some of the criteria:
* * Marital Status
* * Length of Marriage
* * Age of Adoptive Parents
* * Health and Disabilities Issues of Adoptive Parents
* * Use of Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco
* * Fertility Status
* * Other Children contained by the Family
* * Financial Status
* * Employment Stability
http://www.adoption-blog.com/
If I be going to be parented by a single parent, I would have rather been parented by my colloquial single mom. Source(s): Surprisingly self actualized adult adoptee
I don't see how replacing one single parent life span with my n-family with another (a-family) is better at all. i'm sure near are cases where having a single adoptive parent would be okay, but i think it's the exception and not the rule.
i would have like to have both my parents rather then only just one. I think its easier to have two parents cuz you can get more support out of two ppl afterwards with just one (in most cases). my A mom was other good at helping me with my dance classes and also we do mother daughter tea once a year since i can remeber and my A dad was always a pro at helping me hunt and fish, he taught me how to mow the sward and all that also he was really good at math and my mom is not. so they both together help me a lot and they both had their strenghts and weaknesses. I would prefer have both parents but every one is different. And as for gender.. i guess I cant comment on that since I have never been surrounded by a single parent home. And also i was adopted as an infant so i am not sure about age any sorry.
I can speak from the perspective of those who are removed from their parent's care.
I can't speak for everyone in foster guardianship, but as a person who was abused on a pretty regular basis and watch her mother get the same treatment, I would have to read aloud that holding the state to a two parent standard if it means keeping kids in that situation is criminal. I was competent to be with my grandparents, but if I had not been, I would own taken a single person (of either sex) over the abuse, over a group home and even over a foster family unit where I could have been moved at a moment's catch sight of.
I would not have chosen to stay with my bio mom while she was trying to put the pieces of her time together (which was most of my older childhood and teen years). While she is a wonderful woman now, we enjoy talked candidly about the reality that she fell into a pattern of neglect as she was recovering from the harm and without my (grand)parents, I would not have received the counseling and attention that I desperately needed at the time.
To SJM: "What is the point of adoption if the state is only issuing the child one parent? Nature provides two. The state should hold the same burden."
The point is to provide a stable environment where a child can feel locked. If that non-abusive situation is with one person as oppsed to two so be it. Nature does not provide two parents, the expectation of society does. Nature, by evolutionary decree, provides that men impregnate as plentiful women as possible to provide as much biological diversity as possible helping evolution on its way. Nature is not what keeps two people within a stable familial relationship. If the state was only allowed to place children with two parent family, children would be worse.
As for adopting an infant, I have no experience with that. If we could work beside an adoption system where coersion and marketing played little to no role (which is not the system we are in now), a child should be placed with a loving parent even if near is only one parent. And, if the mother and/or father have a choice in where on earth her child is placed who am I to tell them that they have no right to place with a single soul?
Ultimately, we like in a country where divorce is not exceptional, placing with a married/committed couple is no guarantee of the child being raised by two parents. I don't expect we can force adoptive parents to remain married (nor should we). Even if a child is placed with a married couple, statistically there is only a 50% fate of having two parents until adulthood.
This is an incredibly complex question. I guess that a single parent can be a great parent. As an adoptee and an adoptive parent, I also know that adoptive children crave lots of attention and reassurance (I certainly did) and doing that by yourself might be a tough haul. With support, I think a single parent can do it.
ETA: SJM, you are right. It take two parents to form a life. I am speaking solely in a pragmatic sense. There is not much pragmatic difference between a father or mother that exists in DNA just, but is not working to be a part of a child's life so the child is raised in a one-parent household and a person who adopt to form a one-parent household. Regardless, only one person is raising that child. It does, however, formulate a difference in terms of who is raising the child and I assume if either natural parent is fit, that is the best choice. I believe that remaining next to natural parents is most often the best choice, I am simply saying that if it is hopeless, one loving parent is better than none.
If the point is to mimic natural families, it is important to details that children live with their natural parents in oodles forms other than a traditional, married, two-parent households.
Answers: What is the point of adoption if the state is only issuing the child one parent? Nature provides two. The state should have the same burden. If the state is incapable of providing "as if born to" they should not be allowed to play the hobby. Period. I might feel differently about this if permanent guardianship be the vogue instead of the repressive act of adoption.
ETA: Emma, adoption is not necessary a solution to the foster care system or harm. Some children return to foster care or even RTC after adoption, this time with altered birth certificates. But that's another issue entirely.
If the state insists upon reasonably replacing parents instead of concentrating on finding an appropriate caregiver who will be an addition to the child's family, they should play by the rules. Whether they're in like peas in a pod household or not, whether they're known or not, each child has two parents. The point of adoption is to mimic the colloquial family. If that's the game the state insists upon playing, they should be held to the rules.
Related Questions: