Explain to me the why you feel respecting birth order is important?

[Ldavis24]

Hello,
I lurk on the adoption forums generally because I know we are a few years away from really beginning the process in earnest, I am starting to research and just learn as much as I can. It is something I have long been interested in but the more I read here the more complex/challenging etc...I see that it truly is. Not the silly stereotype, la la la we got our child everything is perfect there are no problems life is grand isn't it type deal...

I am very curious about the concept of respecting birth order in regard to adopting and already having one or more children. What is your perspective on it's importance? The pros and cons? I honestly had never heard of such a thing before reading it on here in another thread and was curious why some mamas are so so adamant about it.
Educate me so I can educate DH as we continue our early inquiries into adoption!

My goal here is not to offend anyone at all. I know that adoption in it's many forms and the surrounding issues that go a long with it is a very sensitive subject to many. I am sorry if I do somehow offend someone I am just trying to learn all I can!

[SundayCrepes]

From the perspective of the children already in your house it can be challenging going from having been the oldest with all its perks (and problems) to being a middle child.

Children who are adopted that are not infants will have issues. They have to. Even if they don't have RAD or other problem behaviors, they are being ripped from whatever stability and life they may have known. They are going to need a lot of time and energy. Having existing children younger than them who have their own needs and now having kids older than them who have even more needs can get complicated. I think it's harder for the younger kids to understand why the older kids need more attention.

However, what happens if the kids you adopt have problems you weren't informed of, especially what if they were sexually abused and no one knew it (or the social workers withheld that info to make it easier to adopt them. I've heard of that happening.) These older children are on the lookout for victims and your younger children are easy targets. Even if they don't have a history of sexual abuse, they could have been hurt in other ways and now they can repeat that behavior on your younger kids.

And even if that doesn't happen, younger children always look to older children as role models. The kids that come in will not be the best role models for the younger kids (again, even if they haven't had terrible abuse) simply because they are going to be so traumatized by what they are going through. It is better to let your children who have been raised in a stable environment be the role models to younger children coming into your family.

So, your existing kids are less likely to be victimized by younger kids and the younger kids will benefit from the role modeling of stable older kids if you maintain birth order.

[Smithie]

Children who are adopted beyond infancy MAY have "issues" with behavior or attachment that MAY be different and/or more serious what an infant removed from its mother and placed in the arms of a stranger may grow up to struggle with. They MAY have a history of sexual abuse, which MAY or MAY NOT result in some form of sexual reactivity, which MAY or MAY NOT involve other people. (In either case, "looking for victims" is not an appropriate phrasing or mindset.)

The MAY be rough with younger siblings. They MAY be gentle with younger siblings. They MAY set a bad behavioral example. They MAY come into your life with a set of very positive behaviors in certain areas learned from foster parents or even (gasp!) their birth family which are very pleased to see incorporated into your own family dynamic.

I think it's fine to insist on birth order adoptions, but I'm very happy that we're not the only family in the world who believes that a sucessful placement with an older child is the ieal scenario for us. If you have similar inclinations, OP, don't try to squash them just because. Keep looking into it.

[EFmom]

I honestly used to think it was just one more instance of social workers throwing their weight around and making blanket decisions.

A very good friend of mine adopted out of birth order--the most recently adopted child had older and younger sibs. It was by far the most difficult adoption situation I've ever seen.

The most recent addition did have attachment problems, which her parents expected. She was sort of predatory, yet at the same time was emotionally immature. What they didn't expect was the profound difficulty all the children in the family would face. It was almost a slap in the face for the younger children to have a new older sibling out of nowhere. They resented her much more than they would a younger sibling. Even the oldest in the family had problems with the birth order disruption.

[Polliwog]

Originally Posted by SundayCrepes

Children who are adopted that are not infants will have issues. They have to. Even if they don't have RAD or other problem behaviors, they are being ripped from whatever stability and life they may have known. They are going to need a lot of time and energy. Having existing children younger than them who have their own needs and now having kids older than them who have even more needs can get complicated. I think it's harder for the younger kids to understand why the older kids need more attention.

My son didn't. He was a typical 27-month-old when he came to me. He would have been fine if I had other children my home and was fine when he was in his first foster home with three other children.

[Sierra]

But the thing about it, Smithie and Polliwog, is there is no way to know which way it will go pre-placement.

I never used to bat an eye at the idea of disrupted birth order. It was only my experiences as a therapeutic foster parent, and the stories of the kids who came into my home, that made me more cautious.

And yes, I think getting a new sibling is a stressor (even if overall a very positive stressor) for kids, and having that sibling be older can be very complicated and unnerving. It can work, but again, I am extremely cautious.

[pumpkingirl71]

I disrupted birth order and I don't regret because we had no choice. It was a kinship adoption. But if you have a choice, I think it should be avoided at all costs. My daughter is only four months older than my son. She tortured him. It was terrible for the entire family. If she had been the youngest in the family, it would have been better for her and all of us.

[Polliwog]

Originally Posted by Sierra

But the thing about it, Smithie and Polliwog, is there is no way to know which way it will go pre-placement.

I never said otherwise. I was just countering SundayCrepes's statement that all children will have issues. I agree that you never know, though.

[bluebunny]

I haven't adopted so my insight comes from my biological children. They are very aware of their birth order (the oldest two, not the baby). They talk about who was born first, who is older, who was on earth before whom, etc. This is not a passing convo for the two of them. I have thought about adoption and I cannot imagine how disruptive it would be to my current children to have an adopted child older than them or in the middle of them. It would really rock their world.

The other reasons that I can think of have already been discussed. Every situation is unique, though, but I think birth order is worth thinking about.

[Smithie]

"But the thing about it, Smithie and Polliwog, is there is no way to know which way it will go pre-placement."

Would you say, Sierra, there there is a "way to know which way it will go" six months post-placement? We have to have our potential adoptive placement in our home, as a foster placement, for at least six months before adoption proceedings can even be initiated. I was thinking that this was the system's way of avoiding later adoption disruptions by giving serious issues (such a RAD or a manifestation of displaced aggression or sexual reactivity that the family can't cope with) a chance to surface before we all hop into the adoption boat. Based on your experience, do you think this is an effective safeguard or too short a fostering window to be of much use? I was thinking that while not a 100% thing, it would be very useful and that I'd be likely to know at the end of six months if my kids (foster and bio) had the potential to thrive together as a sibling group or not.

[pumpkingirl71]

Originally Posted by Smithie

Would you say, Sierra, there there is a "way to know which way it will go" six months post-placement? We have to have our potential adoptive placement in our home, as a foster placement, for at least six months before adoption proceedings can even be initiated. I was thinking that this was the system's way of avoiding later adoption disruptions by giving serious issues (such a RAD or a manifestation of displaced aggression or sexual reactivity that the family can't cope with) a chance to surface before we all hop into the adoption boat. Based on your experience, do you think this is an effective safeguard or too short a fostering window to be of much use? I was thinking that while not a 100% thing, it would be very useful and that I'd be likely to know at the end of six months if my kids (foster and bio) had the potential to thrive together as a sibling group or not.

I know you were asking Seirra this, but I will jump in. As I said earlier, I don't regret my decision. BUT I would never suggest anyone do it unless they have to. At the end of six months, you and your other children will be bonded to this child, even if this bond is shakey and unhealthy. In my situation, the one thing that kept us from disrupting on some days was that it would have destroyed our son, the same child who was being tortured, loved his sister.

Plus, I have to ask, is this really the best way to look at adoption? Sure you get six months to decide if adoption is the right thing for your family, but what about the child? The last thing a child who has attachment problems needs is a family that is taking them for a test drive. On top of that, six months is relatively short and may not even be enough time.

So I guess this is my official opinion, if you are disrupting birth order, you need to accept that it can be horrible. Four years in and we are still struggling. And this is key, we didn't realize this, you have to accept you are also making that decision for your other children. I was not ready for that and I still have lots of resentment to deal with.

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by pumpkingirl71

On top of that, six months is relatively short and may not even be enough time.

Pumpkingirl71 answered the question well. The one thing I would add is that I just chatted with a foster mom in my church who has been researching foster placement and adoption disruptions. I don't know her source, but her research indicated that the most common time to disrupt is at eight months. That stuck with me partly because that is not far from the time that my own "permanent placement foster son" disrupted (in his case it was basically running away; it definitely was not my choice). Her own foster-and-hopeful-adoptive placement (9 year old) disrupted at a year-and-a-half, though she said only in retrospect she can see that the problems started to erupt around eight months. In that case, the disruption was necessary in order to keep her safe. Fortunately, there were no other children in the home to worry about. The child is now in a residential school and she does maintain a relationship with him and commitment to him, including attending family counseling with him and additionally visiting him at least once a week. So the short answer is, no, I don't necessarily think six months is enough time.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by SundayCrepes

Children who are adopted that are not infants will have issues. They have to. Even if they don't have RAD or other problem behaviors, they are being ripped from whatever stability and life they may have known.

As with Polliwog, i wanted to point out this is not true of ALL kids...my son was placed at nearly 17 months old, is now almost 2.5 and is a totally typical toddler with no issues. In fact, he is MORE "typical" than my other son placed at three weeks old. There are so many factors that can come into play...a child whose needs were consistently met during the first 2-3 years of life,who then goes on to end up in foster care and adopted at an older age probably has a much better chance of healthy adjustment and less severe issues than a baby placed at six months old who was neglected the first six months of life. People have this tendancy to think "oh its a baby, we got him early enough to avoid the impact early neglect/abuse" but its not always true.

I think, though, its better to go in expecting some issues (and then hopefully being pleasantly surprised) than to expect little or no issues and then be blindsided.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by Smithie

"But the thing about it, Smithie and Polliwog, is there is no way to know which way it will go pre-placement."

Would you say, Sierra, there there is a "way to know which way it will go" six months post-placement? We have to have our potential adoptive placement in our home, as a foster placement, for at least six months before adoption proceedings can even be initiated. I was thinking that this was the system's way of avoiding later adoption disruptions by giving serious issues (such a RAD or a manifestation of displaced aggression or sexual reactivity that the family can't cope with) a chance to surface before we all hop into the adoption boat. Based on your experience, do you think this is an effective safeguard or too short a fostering window to be of much use? I was thinking that while not a 100% thing, it would be very useful and that I'd be likely to know at the end of six months if my kids (foster and bio) had the potential to thrive together as a sibling group or not.

At least where i live, the six month prefinalization period is NOT looked at as a try out time to decide if it will all work out. Certainly, if issues arise that would cause a parent to absolutely refuse to proceed with placement, its an easier legal "out" than disrupting a finalized adoption placement. But how awful for everyone involved! I was posting to some adoption friends about the latest with my new daughter, and one poster responded that she would not judge me if i chose to not continue with the placement. It did not even occur to me to not keep her! I have friends doing preplacement visits with their new kids...and thats what they consider them, THEIR kids. I see toooo many profiles on our state photolisting that say "Johnny is hesitant to consider adoption after the disappointment of several preadopt placements that did not work out...."

I think what people are saying is to maximize the possibility for success by avoiding if possible the various issues shown to make adoption harder or more complicated.

[annethcz]

We adopted out of birth order. If I had it to do over again, I might do something different. I definitely wouldn't adopt out of birth order NOW. That said, it has worked out fairly well for us.

We're going on 5 years post-placement, so I feel like I have a fair amount of experience to base my conclusions on. I think one of the biggest reasons that adopting out of birth order worked well is because our kids were so young when we did it. We also didn't take the 'oldest child' designation away from anyone. DS1 stayed the oldest child, DD1 stayed a middle child, DD2 stayed the youngest child. When DS2 joined our family he was a few weeks from his 5th birthday, and our bio kids were 5, 3, and almost 2. It's hard for ALL of us to remember a time before DS2 joined our family. It seems like our family has always been like it is.

That said, we had significan issues when DS2 joined our family. There were attachment issues, and there are still artificial twinning issues that pop up (surprisingly, not between DS1 and DS2 who are 7 months apart, but between DS2 and DD1 who are 14 months apart). It was a HARD transition for all of us. The relationship between my bio kids changed when DS2 joined our family. It was a time in my life that I would not want to live through again.

Sierra- I find it's interesting you say that 8 months post-placement is a time when disruptions happen. We had lots of issues post-placement; for many months I thought I had completely screwed up my family. But somewhere around 8 months post-placement, I began to feel like we had turned a corner. Life wasn't magically better, but I began to feel like perhaps we were going to make it

[Sierra]

Originally Posted by annethcz

Sierra- I find it's interesting you say that 8 months post-placement is a time when disruptions happen. We had lots of issues post-placement; for many months I thought I had completely screwed up my family. But somewhere around 8 months post-placement, I began to feel like we had turned a corner. Life wasn't magically better, but I began to feel like perhaps we were going to make it

Oh I believe it. I think it is just statistically more common to disrupt around the eight month mark than at other times, but I am sure there are plenty of families that have great experiences at the same mark.

[Smithie]

"At least where i live, the six month prefinalization period is NOT looked at as a try out time to decide if it will all work out. Certainly, if issues arise that would cause a parent to absolutely refuse to proceed with placement, its an easier legal "out" than disrupting a finalized adoption placement. But how awful for everyone involved! I was posting to some adoption friends about the latest with my new daughter, and one poster responded that she would not judge me if i chose to not continue with the placement. It did not even occur to me to not keep her! I have friends doing preplacement visits with their new kids...and thats what they consider them, THEIR kids. I see toooo many profiles on our state photolisting that say "Johnny is hesitant to consider adoption after the disappointment of several preadopt placements that did not work out....""

It's not six months prefinalization. It's six months pre APPLICATION. There will be another period, likely six months or longer, while we wait for our case to go through the family court system.

It's awful, for sure, to contemplate not adopting a child who you had taken in with the hope of adopting. But on the the Grand Scal Of Awful, it seems like a much better choice for all involved not to proceed with the adoption of a child that the adults in the family to not feel able to sucessfully parent.

People talk about THEIR kids pre-adoption, just like they talk about THEIR kids pre-birth. In both cases, the sentiment is nice but the reality is that they are projecting their hopes onto a potential future that may not turn out the way they hoped and dreamed it would.

And if the archetypal "Johnny" has had several preadoptive placements that did not work out, then I suspect the problem is more with Johnny's social worker repeatedly attempting to place him in a permanent home when he's not yet ready for that (and maybe never will be), rather than all of Johnny's PAPs being selfish evil jerks. Just a thought. Judging people who won't sign up for a lifetime of care they aren't fit to provide seems pretty useless to me - and I feel the exact same way when the kid a person/couple can't successfully parent is one they made the old-fashioned way.

[annethcz]

Originally Posted by Sierra

Oh I believe it. I think it is just statistically more common to disrupt around the eight month mark than at other times, but I am sure there are plenty of families that have great experiences at the same mark.

Makes me wonder what's so special about the 8 month mark- that's all I meant. I suppose by that point in time, things are really starting to feel more permanent and patterns have been established- either for good or ill.

[marsupial-mom]

Just want to chime in to say that even infants can have "issues" and also that many/most adopted children adjust and do fine.

but regarding infants: newborn babies know their birth mother's smell, her taste preferences, schedule, etc. Getting used to a new parent's smells, routines, etc requires an adjustment that deserves respect. ALL adopted children - regardless of age - have suffered a great loss. We need to remembr that.

[pumpkingirl71]

Originally Posted by Smithie

"It's awful, for sure, to contemplate not adopting a child who you had taken in with the hope of adopting. But on the the Grand Scal Of Awful, it seems like a much better choice for all involved not to proceed with the adoption of a child that the adults in the family to not feel able to sucessfully parent.

I guess what we are saying is that this discussion is about adopting out of birth order. It is about going against conventional wisdom. Lots of BTDT moms are listing reasons why it is problematic. To say but there is a six month time period to see if this is working is kind of like saying "I am going to experiment and see if it could work." I think you either need to be sure you are ready or not. Obviously, there are reasons to disrupt. But thinking of the six month period as insurance just seems wrong.