Biological before Adoption?

[krisnic]

I am a true overthinker, and for years I have intended to adopt before I have biological children because I don't want adopted children to feel "second best". I don't want them to think that we HAD to have biological children first, and then we decided we could adopt after that. That and I know my MIL, and that she will tell everyone that we wanted "our own" first and then we adopted. I guess I have felt that they (the child) would feel of more importance to us if we adopted first?

Anyway, DH and I have been talking about this lately. We really want to start a family in about a year, but adoption (international adoption is what our heart is set on) is not in the cards at that point. So we are thinking biological first. I was talking about my concerns re: not adopting first, and he said he thinks it would be the other way around. He thinks that if we adopt and then have a bio child, the adopted child would feel that they weren't good enough for us, that we had to go and have a biological child because they weren't good enough. That's a really good point. I hadn't thought of it that way.

I don't know how many adoptees we have on the board, but I would love to get some insight on this. Did the order in which you came into the family impact how you felt? We do plan on adopting twice, because I do feel it's important that they aren't the only member of their race in our family. I just don't want to make a bad decision that could so easily impact a child's development.

[justKate]

Well I'm probably not the audience you're looking for, but I saw this on the new threads and wanted to respond b/c I have a bio child and will consider adopting in the future. I think as long as the child knows that you wanted that child to be a part of your family, that's what matters. If you have bio children first, the child(ren) by adoption will still know that you chose to bring them into your family (presumably, you didn't have to--could have settled with/been happy with bio kids alone).

[SundayCrepes]

When adopting in a non-newborn situation you must always assume the child has lived through some serious trauma. Because of this it is usually felt that any non-newborn children you adopt should be younger than the children in your home. This way, if the child acts out on their issues, your younger children would be less at risk to be victims.

My concern is, if you have an older child that has had significant trauma, you may not see all its consequences until time has passed. If you then have a newborn, would that older child act out on the new baby?

Personally, I would only adopt "older" children (and even a 2 year old falls into that category) after I was done with babies--no matter how that baby came into my life. Any child I adopted internationally or through foster-adopt would always be the youngest in my house.

There will always be children who need good homes. Although the systems to get them good homes may change and/or get more complicated, the kids will always be there. If you wait, there will still be needy kids.

[marsupial-mom]

I think the only good reason to plan which kids come first is fertility. You're more fertile when you're younger so if you want bio kids try that first.

Kids are not destined to feel any particular way about whether they were adoption before or after bio kids; it's all about making sure you give each child individual attention and love suitable for their individual needs.

Lots of People adopt before or after bio kids... Either way doesn't seem to make much difference.

[Smithie]

"...it is usually felt that any non-newborn children you adopt should be younger than the children in your home."

Some people feel that way. Some people do not. The thousands of older children waiting in foster care certainly don't feel that they are all inherently unfit to join families with younger siblings.

OP, if what you are set on is infant adoption, I don't think that the order you do it in matters one bit. But if your heart is set on international adoption, then what you are most likely to get is a toddler. So a biokid first, then two international adoptions four and six years hence, would be one way to preserve "birth order" and give you some time to save up the $$.

[Whistler]

I have two bio and soon to be two adopted. The bios came first, but because we did not feel that we "had to have our own first" I don'tthink our kids will feel that way. They are all "our own" no matter how they joined us!

I don't think there is any "right" way to do it. Do what works best and love each one like the wonderful person they are!

[krisnic]

Thanks everyone! That makes me feel better. I think a big part will be correcting the language of certain family members, like my MIL. Because obviously DH and I don't feel that we NEED "our own" first, so I am hopeful that adopted children will see that.

You are all very helpful. I appreciate your advice.

[AllyRae]

We have a biological 6 1/2 year old, an internationally adopted 3 1/2 year old, and a biological 20 month old...we hope in another 3-6 years or so to adopt another one as well. To us, it didn't matter what order we adopted and had bio kids in...we did want to preserve birth order though. Our adopted daughter has RAD, and we still don't worry about her with her younger sister. In fact, that baby sister is the first person she got really really attached to--now she calls her baby sister her best friend.

[pumpkingirl71]

Originally Posted by Smithie

"...it is usually felt that any non-newborn children you adopt should be younger than the children in your home."

Some people feel that way. Some people do not. The thousands of older children waiting in foster care certainly don't feel that they are all inherently unfit to join families with younger siblings.

But most adoption professionals do agree that the adopted child should be the youngest, at least for a time.

[WifeMomChiro]

I think others probably said it better, but you can't predict how children will feel about any certain order. The best thing you do is have open communication and a community of love in your home.

We have a bio-child and we plan to adopt. Our decision to adopt is not based on fertility, but if we don't adopt for some reason we probably would not have another child.

[Smithie]

"...most adoption professionals do agree that the adopted child should be the youngest, at least for a time."

... and thus, of course, they are forgoing babymaking during their prime fertile years and absolutely lined up around the block to adopt America's waiting population of older-than-toddler foster kids.

I don't think that the idea of preserving birth order is worthless - but I do think that in a situation with as many complicated variables as an adoption, age is given a truly ridiculous amount of weight. People will apply to adopt 2 y.o.s out of orphanages in Russia rather than 4 y.o.s who are living in a foster placement in Detroit, under the crazed impression that parenting the 2 y.o. will be easier, that the 2 y.o. is less likely to pose a safety issue with their biokids, etc. etc. It gets to be a bit frustrating.

[queenjane]

I know that the standard professional advice is dont adopt out of birth order, but the interesting thing to me is that through two homestudies, two agencies and now working on my 2nd and 3rd adoptions, not one worker has actually said this to me! They all seemed quite willing to place with me (at least hypothetically) any age child i wanted. My friend was adopting a sib group of three, disrupting the birth order of her second child, a 5 yr old boy (by adding a 6 yo old boy), and it was never brought up as a concern at all. (The horrible agency, just weeks before final move-in and after six months of visitation toward the end of which the children were living with my friends for ten days at a time, decided they couldnt adopt the kids because they reported what the children said about being hit in their foster home. Lovely huh?! ) I am adopting my foster son, thereby creating "artificial twins" which is ALSO considered a huge concern in the professional adoption literature, and again, no one has said anything.

That being said, i think in the "maintaining birth order" discussions the focus is too much on protecting the safety of younger children. That the main reason you wouldnt adoption out of order is because an older or bigger child could hurt the little ones in your home. While that is of course something to at least consider, i think the major issues involved are less black and white. My soon to be adopted 8 yr old daughter is NOT at ALL violent, doesnt sexually act out against little kids, isnt a dangerous child. HOWEVER, suddenly adding a big 8 yr old to a home with an already established sibling bond of two 2 yr olds was very difficult, way more than i expected. She fought with him over little toddler toys. HE started hitting and biting because he doesnt have the verbal skills to say "get out of my space you are annoying the heck out of me!" I wasnt prepared for how jealous she'd be of the 'babying" the actual babies get, or how annoyed i'd be that she would try to monopolize my attention.

But i do agree that some people think that if they adopt a young toddler from overseas they are going to avoid these issues but i think that sometimes its better to adopt an older child who has been in the system awhile and who may have a paper trail describing his actual issues. He may have already established how well he has done with younger children in other homes, etc.

[HeatherAtHome]

DH and I recently went through this ourselves. We decided to have a bio kid first. The reasons?

• I'm almost 30 and we don't want to wait too long fertility wise in case we have problems.
• We're leaning towards adopting through fostercare later on and decided that I would feel much better already having a child in our home instead of feeling like we'll never have a family if/when someone changes their mind somewhere and adoption doesn't happen/is put off for a while. I feel like I've been waiting forever as it is!
• I really want a baby and we can't guarantee we'd get a baby through fostercare (which I'm ok with, but I'd like to have a newborn at least once, you know?)
• We're still in the middle of renovations and know that we wouldn't pass a homestudy at this point!

There are other reasons too, but those are the major ones that come to mind right now. I know that all my reasons sound selfish, that they're all about me and not the future adopted kid... but that's just the way it is. Like, I feel "healthier" mentally doing it this way. I want to be a good, strong, confident, capable mother.... and going through the ups and downs of first time adoption I know I would put too much pressure on the kid, too much of my heart in the process and feeling sad over the bumpy road. I've watched everyone here talk about how slow things are and roadblocks they come up against... I tend to be the type of person who always takes the harder/longer road to things. Sometimes I just want things to be easy! (assuming TTC is a walk in the park )

[krisnic]

I know that all my reasons sound selfish, that they're all about me and not the future adopted kid... but that's just the way it is.

That's how I am kind of feeling. That I'm being selfish right now because I just want a family, that I need to truly think through how this could affect an adopted child.

I do think you all have excellent points though, and feel much more at peace about trying for a biological child next year.

[heatherdeg]

OP: We had bio before adopting. Honestly, no matter which way you go--there will be pros and cons. Do what feels right.

Originally Posted by Smithie

"...it is usually felt that any non-newborn children you adopt should be younger than the children in your home."

Some people feel that way. Some people do not. The thousands of older children waiting in foster care certainly don't feel that they are all inherently unfit to join families with younger siblings.

You know, with all due respect, I get what you're saying. But the reality is: you have absolutely no idea which kids will present with a problem until it's too late. It's really just not a chance worth taking. You're essentially saying that the waiting children's right to a home is a higher priority than the safety of the younger children already in a home.

Originally Posted by queenjane

I know that the standard professional advice is dont adopt out of birth order, but the interesting thing to me is that through two homestudies, two agencies and now working on my 2nd and 3rd adoptions, not one worker has actually said this to me! They all seemed quite willing to place with me (at least hypothetically) any age child i wanted.

We had the same experience. They're SO willing to roll the dice and as with every other aspect of the cases, they think they can predict the outcome (and we have watched them proven wrong OVER and OVER and OVER again ).

Originally Posted by queenjane

My soon to be adopted 8 yr old daughter is NOT at ALL violent, doesnt sexually act out against little kids, isnt a dangerous child.

Which is great, but you didn't know that until you lived with her. What would've happened if living with her had turned up different information?

Originally Posted by queenjane

But i do agree that some people think that if they adopt a young toddler from overseas they are going to avoid these issues but i think that sometimes its better to adopt an older child who has been in the system awhile and who may have a paper trail describing his actual issues. He may have already established how well he has done with younger children in other homes, etc.

TOTALLY agree with this. I had a VERY HARD TIME with the idea of adopting my ad as a newborn (a SafeHaven baby) for exactly this reason: you have NOTHING to go on. Not even their own personal health history. You have no idea what you're dealing with.

Originally Posted by Smithie

I don't think that the idea of preserving birth order is worthless - but I do think that in a situation with as many complicated variables as an adoption, age is given a truly ridiculous amount of weight. People will apply to adopt 2 y.o.s out of orphanages in Russia rather than 4 y.o.s who are living in a foster placement in Detroit, under the crazed impression that parenting the 2 y.o. will be easier, that the 2 y.o. is less likely to pose a safety issue with their biokids, etc. etc. It gets to be a bit frustrating.

It definitely ticks me off that people will adopt from Africa and other countries where they're getting children of the same races as those that are ready and waiting here in the U.S. (often the same age as waiting children in the US) and assume that because they're not from foster care in the U.S., they will have fewer issues, be less dangerous and somehow an "easier" child overall. I don't believe in maintaing birth order for anything other than safety issues. And that's not just maintaining age, it's considering size and strength. There are plenty of 4yos out there who could out-power a 6yo.

Of course, consider the source: I had two foster placements hurt my smaller, younger bio. One did it twice WHILE I WAS WATCHING. Because I was watching, he wasn't hurt badly. But watching them every single second of every day is a bit much to ensure a younger child's safety. The other child that hurt my son came as a complete and total shock to everyone--me included. But she left bruises on him and to this day I have no idea exactly what she did. She was a great kid.

So my issue is that would-be adoptive and foster parents are constantly told "older kids get a bad rap" or given all the stories where it worked out great. And I'm glad for those situations. *I* trusted those stories. But given what I've experienced and seeing families who have suffered WAY worse than my son--I just think that to blow off the risk factor simply because it HAS worked and equating it to it WILL work is irresponsible. Yes, I wish all of the waiting children had homes. I personally would've been way more comfortable adopting a teen vs. a baby. I just consider myself very grateful that my son escaped more damaging, lasting consequences than he did.

JMO

[Smithie]

I do get what you are saying, Heather, and I don't take offense. But I weigh that against all the stories of adorable preverbal cherubs who turned out to have RAD from 18 months of institutional hell before they were placed, and I'm still very happy with my decision to accept placement of a child in between the ages of the kids already in my home.

So complicated. So many factors. I feel that for us, attempting to integrate a child that I can communicate with verbally and who can immediately start talk therapy is a sound plan, even though I have a bio toddler. No matter what their size and age, if we fail to identify an irresolvable problem during our mandatory six-month trial placement and end up adopting a child who cannot be healed enough to have a peaceful life with us long-term, we are all in for a boatload of suffering. Just like we would be if something were to go drastically wrong with a pregnancy and we wound up with a family life that revolved around an extreme disability. There are simply no guarantees when you choose to have kids.

[Polliwog]

Originally Posted by Smithie

I do get what you are saying, Heather, and I don't take offense. But I weigh that against all the stories of adorable preverbal cherubs who turned out to have RAD from 18 months of institutional hell before they were placed, and I'm still very happy with my decision to accept placement of a child in between the ages of the kids already in my home.

So complicated. So many factors. I feel that for us, attempting to integrate a child that I can communicate with verbally and who can immediately start talk therapy is a sound plan, even though I have a bio toddler. No matter what their size and age, if we fail to identify an irresolvable problem during our mandatory six-month trial placement and end up adopting a child who cannot be healed enough to have a peaceful life with us long-term, we are all in for a boatload of suffering. Just like we would be if something were to go drastically wrong with a pregnancy and we wound up with a family life that revolved around an extreme disability. There are simply no guarantees when you choose to have kids.

I'd strongly recommend joining the message board at fosterparents.com or a similar website if you can find one that's big enough to have a diversity of experiences. There are many people there who've had really horrible things happen to younger children in their home. Of course, it doesn't always happen but often enough that people really should read the stories of those it has happened to. The honeymoon period can last a really long time and often doesn't end until after an adoption finalizes.

I'm not against the adoption of "older" kids. My son's big sister was adopted at age six after having been in two difficult foster placements. But there's so much you don't know when accepting a placement of an older child.

[Smithie]

I've almost joined fosterparents.com a few times, but I always scan the forums and then don't. Not bc I'm trying to avoid negative stories about difficult placements, but bc it seems like such a bioparent hatefest, and I struggle with enough anger towards bioparents without hanging out with a bunch of folks who will validate me. But maybe I should push past that in order to get a broader range of F2A contacts beyond MDC and people I meet IRL.

[Polliwog]

I pick and choose what threads I read. And it's a place to vent. Some people have had really bad experiences with birth parents and dealing with the effects of abuse and neglect on the children. What I would probably do is start a thread about the things we've discussed here (such as adopting older children when you already have children in your home.) You'd get a much bigger sampling of experiences than you would here or talking with people IRL. And if you do a search, you'd find relatively recent threads that have dealt with the subject.

[heatherdeg]

Originally Posted by Polliwog

I pick and choose what threads I read. And it's a place to vent. Some people have had really bad experiences with birth parents and dealing with the effects of abuse and neglect on the children. What I would probably do is start a thread about the things we've discussed here (such as adopting older children when you already have children in your home.) You'd get a much bigger sampling of experiences than you would here or talking with people IRL. And if you do a search, you'd find relatively recent threads that have dealt with the subject.

ITA. And having been on that board for a few years, it's like any other board: it goes in waves. It also, like any other board, has a handful of "those people". And those people come and go as the community tolerates them or not.

And I agree with you that adopting younger children that wind up to be RADishes is equally difficult. That being said, if you do your research, you have a better chance of identifying a potential RAD situation than many other issues.

The kids have potential to have issues. It doesn't matter what country they come from or what age they are: you have the potential to have some serious issues.

That being said, my own bio son is living proof that you run similar risks giving birth. He is the reason we felt comfortable fostering kids with serious problems--we had BTDT with him (and to this day, he's been our most serious "case" )

It's about managing that risk in the best interest of everyone involved with the information you have available to you.