Mothering Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Found this on another board and thought it might be interesting to discuss in light of recent discussion regarding phasing out/stopping international adoptions in Korea and Guatamala <a href="http://relativechoices.blogs.nytimes.com/" target="_blank">South Korea and Its Children</a><br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">of the 9,420 children available for adoption in 2005, only 1,461 were adopted domestically while 2,101 children were allowed to be adopted overseas. So what happened to the nearly 6,000 children who did not get adopted domestically or abroad?<br>
According to statistics of the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare the number of children entering orphanages has risen from 17,675 in 2004 to 19,000 in 2007 with about 800 to 900 18-year-olds every year aging out</td>
</tr></table></div>
Despite efforts to increase its domestic program, huge numbers of kids are entering orphanages. That is why the plan to decrease it's intl program scares me so much--will the numbers work on paper, only to be shuffling these babies off to orphanages instead? <b>6000</b> children placed in orphanages--my heart is breaking! I think a better plan would be to<br>
put the same programs in place to increase domestic, while continuing to allow intl until the numbers are better. Ideally, they would be able to stay with their birth families, but it is just not socially acceptable yet.<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Today, birth mothers in Korea do not have a level playing field because the choice for a single, unwed mother to parent simply does not exist — not only because the government provides only nominal financial support to single mothers, but because the entire society rejects them.<br>
Not so long ago in America we treated our single, unwed mothers in quite the same way. It took Americans 20 years and a women’s movement before we transformed old attitudes and beliefs;</td>
</tr></table></div>
Disclaimer, it is from the NYTimes series that has caused such controvery; however, it is written by an adult adoptee from Korea and she offers some interesting insights and comparisons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,794 Posts
<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad"> Oh my. I had no idea the numbers of children left in orphanages was that high. How can that be, if so many couples are waiting so long for referrals? Are there thousands of children who just aren't considered for adoption for some reason?<br><br>
You would think, given the way Korean adoption works, that if there were so many children each year that were able to be adopted, that couples would never have to wait for a referral (simply because, <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad">, the "pool" of babies was so large). Many of the people from my agency have been waiting for a year. Granted, six months of that were because of the new 5-month law, but even now... the accepted thought/line is "there aren't any children available for aodption right now at KSS."<br><br>
How is this happening, do you think? Is it possible the figures are wrong? Or is there a whole alternate orphanage system in Korea from which adoptions don't take place?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,794 Posts
It doesn't sound as if she'd get the figures wrong, given her background. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad"><br><br>
One thing I didn't understand was this:<br>
According to statistics of the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare the number of children entering orphanages has risen from 17,675 in 2004 to 19,000 in 2007 with about 800 to 900 18-year-olds every year aging out of the system with little housing, educational, or vocational support. As in the U.S. foster care system, these children get to remain in their country of origin but with little opportunity to reach their full potential.<br><br>
----<br><br>
If 9,000+ kids are available for adoption each year, then what does the 19,000 figure mean? The numbers don't seem to add up. Is it phrased incorrectly? She says that's the number of children "entering" orphanages annually, but then says 800 to 900 18-year olds exit the system annually. So then, I'd guess, that really it's not 19,000 "entering" the orphanages, but perhaps 19,000 IN orphanages? Total?<br><br>
And if that's the case, then how could it be that nearly 6,000 children each year are left to live in orphanages? ("Despite these efforts, of the 9,420 children available for adoption in 2005, only 1,461 were adopted domestically while 2,101 children were allowed to be adopted overseas. So what happened to the nearly 6,000 children who did not get adopted domestically or abroad?")<br><br>
If 6,000 children are not adopted annually, then how is it that only 800 to 900 18 year olds a year are moving out of the system?<br><br>
Somewhere there's a missing link here.<br><br>
(Oh, and I went looking on other discussion boards to see what people were saying about this article. One woman, and I'm not sure about her knowledge base, said that many children aren't allowed to be adopted because their parents placed them in an orphanage at birth but didn't sign away their parental rights. Does that seem likely?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Unfortunately, these are in line with numbers I've heard elsewhere. Children are not available for adoption internationally for a variety of reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that once a child is entered into a family registry, they are no longer available for adoption, I think domestic or international. So if a child is from within a marriage, and the family regstry is done. Also, a parent can place a child in "temporary custody", and choose not to reclaim them, thus the "not sign away their rights" scenario that your friend mentioned. Another reason is that they are trying to decrease the number of foreign adoptions, courtesy of Brian Gumbel's gaffe. So as they have done so, the numbers going in orphanages have gone up. Finally, as I understand it, birthmothers are given the option of not allowing their child to be adopted internationally. I am not sure that all agencies have this policy, but I think that at least some do offer this.<br><br>
I think the 19000 figure is adoptable and nonadoptable children combined entering orphanage care. So 6000 adoptable but not adopted kids plus 13000 children not available for adoption. I really think a lot has to do with saving face. If you look at the numbers from before and after the Gumbel comment, that is when you see such a big change in the number of children, at least coming to the US (I have only seen the US numbers, and am extrapolating backwards, if that makes sense).<br><br>
This is why I have been so skeptical of the the policy to decrease intl adoption while promoting domestic. Even if the numbers are somewhat off, and like I said, they seem in line with what I have heard elsewhere, they have thousands more babies than they have homes for already, and to decrease that number of potential homes seems wrong to me. I know that the ideal scenario is keeping babies with their Moms most of the time, but that just is not practical in Korea yet. 20-50 years from now, maybe. But there is a lot of history to overcome, and at a time when the gov't is trying to hold to its cultural roots amidst the influences of outsiders, doesn't seem likely to happen. I wish they would open all of the babies to intl adoption that are not adopted domestically until the numbers even out. Continue the domestic push, but give these babies a chance at a home. There are apparenty revisions to the family registry policy set to take place, but I'm not sure the exact timing. But I am honestly not sure how much it will help, if they are not released internationally. In a country where adoptive Moms still wear false bellies, go away and "have" a baby, bringing home older children seems unlikely. I'll step off of my soapbox now, but it just makes me ache for all of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,329 Posts
I thought the article was very interesting too, especially because it was written by an adult Korean adoptee. How Guatemala, a country with VASTLY fewer resources, is going to manage after January 1st, I have no idea.<br><br>
And just to give you an idea of the situation for domestic adoption in Guatemala, the former President's adult daughter adopted a child...from the Ukraine.<br><br>
Finally, I think the average person just is not informed about the detrimental effects of being raised in institutional settings. They think that a well-run orphanage is ok for kids, not ideal, but not so bad either. The research shows absolutely the opposite of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Diane, The reason's you mentioned are what makes me so worried about Guatamala, too. That a counry with vast resources and incentives is having to use orphanages to make it all work questionably well makes me wonder what hope is there for a country like Guatamala to handle this hopefully temporary stop. From what I have heard through the grapevine, isn't the US supposed to be Hague "approved" or whatever it's called, by midyear 08? So maybe it will just be a long hiccup?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,329 Posts
More than a hiccup, I'm afraid. My limited understanding is that omplying with the Hague treaty requires Guatemala to significantly change it's adoption system - not that it couldn't use some reform - but some of the requirements will simply be beyond their infrastructure to implement, such as the centralized authority. Throw in some anti-adoption sentiment within Guatemala and some US Latin American politics and you've got quite a situation. No one really knows exactly how it will shake out.<br><br>
The best source for in-depth information on this, more than you probably would want to know, is <a href="http://www.guatadopt.com" target="_blank">www.guatadopt.com</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Oooh. Somehow I had in my head that the main problem was the US side, that Guatamala had somehow managed to be compliant, but that US lack of compliance was what was holding things up, and that since most baby's internationally adopted from Guatamala came to the US, that was the problem <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/blush.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="blush">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,737 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>RedOakMomma</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/9856799"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">If 9,000+ kids are available for adoption each year, then what does the 19,000 figure mean? The numbers don't seem to add up. Is it phrased incorrectly? She says that's the number of children "entering" orphanages annually, but then says 800 to 900 18-year olds exit the system annually. So then, I'd guess, that really it's not 19,000 "entering" the orphanages, but perhaps 19,000 IN orphanages? Total?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I think it could be all intake total. Not kids in care total. Not all children entering orphanages are available for adoption, it can take awhile. Certainly some are immediately available, others filter in after a length of time or circumstances permit.<br><br>
I also think that what the government terms "orphanages" are not what WE tend to think of as orphanages. It's probably more useful to view it kind of like our foster care system here. Most children who enter the system will not be available for adoption. I don't think that 19k is the total of kids in care, that doesn't seem right given the population. And to have nearly half of all kids in care immediately available for adoption at any given time sounds way off to me as well. The fact that she seems to be using "orphanage" and the system interchangably leads me to believe when she's talking about the whole umbrella of the system.<br><br>
Economically, things have sucked for South Korea for awhile. It wouldn't surprise me that there was a bump in kids that were either abandoned or taken. Though I didn't see if she specifically named a year that she's taking the 19k snapshot from or if that's her own average.<br><br>
The numbers don't seem out of line for me given the population, economy, industrial pollution contributing to congenital disabilities (not talking about things like cleft palate--those kids have a shot at being adopted and are put up...but severe, pervasive disorders and disfiguring conditions that probably get the kid classified as "unadoptable", or can mean the child will enter the system later than newborn, in the case of severe developmental disabilities that aren't as apparent right away), and social stigma.<br><br>
Is there an email contact at the end of the article? Most online (or even paper or blog) news outlets have those these days. We could spin theories forever, but you might as well take a stab at asking the author.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,794 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Tigerchild</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/9864565"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I also think that what the government terms "orphanages" are not what WE tend to think of as orphanages. It's probably more useful to view it kind of like our foster care system here. Most children who enter the system will not be available for adoption.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Yeah, dh and I were talking numbers last night, and the 19K did seem like it was a yearly number. We're still a little confused about how so few can age out of the system at 18 each year, but I'm sure there's an explanation...many thousands are probably adopted, many thousands are probably not able to care for themselves and so never "age out."...it's just sad.<br><br>
It breaks my heart to think that there are so many more, thousands more, of kids who would be eligible for adoption but aren't allowed to be adopted because of issues of national pride. I have so much respect for South Korea, I always want to assume the best...but in this case the numbers and societal attitudes toward international/domestic adoption are just awful.<br><br>
I've talked with someone who visited a home (orphanage) for children who aged out of their adoption window. It didn't sound hopeful at all. The system there seems to be entirely about institutionalization and orphanage care--not like the sytem here where at least attempts are made for children to be raised with a family. I know our foster care system is far from perfect (!), but at least it's out there in the public eye....the children aren't all taken and raised in orphanages and institutions.<br><br>
And when I was looking back last night on all the Bryant Gumbel stuff [<a href="http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2000/firstpersonplural/historical/skadoptions2.html" target="_blank">see lowest paragraph</a>], I found a couple of the (U.S.) <a href="http://www.transracialabductees.org/politics/progressive.html" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DA1631F932A15757C0A96E948260" target="_blank">articles</a> [and a <a href="http://www.modelminority.com/article478.html" target="_blank">second</a>] that were written around that time that also contributed to Korea closing their doors to international adoption. Some of the articles were written in a very offensive tone, so I can understand the embarrassment and the desire for change. What I can't understand is the need to hide thousands of children away and pretend they don't exist--that just because the quota for international adoptions is now around 2,000, then the problem is "fixed," end of story. I know they're also working on domestic change, and that's wonderful, but what about the tens of thousands of kids that are growing up in orphanages because of wounded national pride? How does it serve those kids to go their lives without a family, without support?<br><br>
Before the Bryant Gumbel and U.S. articles saying S. Korea "sold" their babies to the US, almost 6,000 children a year were being adopted by parents in the U.S. From the numbers in this most recent NYT article, it seems the demand for adoptive families is the same or greater, but now S. Korea will only allow 2,000 of their children to have families each year.<br><br>
I don't understand that choice. Knowing what I know about the route unadopted Korean children take (a lifetime of institutional care), I can't see how that could ever be better than being adopted, loved, and cared for. Adoption isn't perfect, and adoptive families sometimes fall far short, but I believe that the majority of adoptive families love their children and do a good or even great job at parenting. Surely that's better than growing up in an institution, forever labeled, forever separate from Korean society. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,737 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>RedOakMomma</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/9865976"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I don't understand that choice. Knowing what I know about the route unadopted Korean children take (a lifetime of institutional care), I can't see how that could ever be better than being adopted, loved, and cared for. Adoption isn't perfect, and adoptive families sometimes fall far short, but I believe that the majority of adoptive families love their children and do a good or even great job at parenting. Surely that's better than growing up in an institution, forever labeled, forever separate from Korean society. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad"></div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I can understand the sentiment.<br><br>
Though, to be honest, it was not so very long ago that Americans routinely institutionalized virtually all retarded people and non "neurotypical" children. That was standard practice, even in the 80s in some areas--and even in areas where it wasn't a given people certainly weren't looked down upon for it, like one could argue that people would do today. And even today, I would say that people with disabilities to a large extent even in this country are forever labeled and forever separate from our society.<br><br>
And this happens in our relatively non-homogenous society culture. I would think it would be even more pressure in Korea, which is one of the more homogeneous societies out there.<br><br>
And while there are a some families that will take on severely disabled children, they are few and far between. It does require a certain amount of expenditure to prep a kid for adoption. Perhaps they have minimal budgets (we certainly can't lecture them for minimal human services budgets, as Americans), so they prioritize/triage.<br><br>
I very firmly agree with the idea that as the Korean feminist movement (there is one) grows stronger, things will begin to shift. And considering the extreme gender imbalance of children being raised in Korean families right now, I think it's very likely that we may even see a significant shift within our lifetime (unless the Koreas unite, for a time they can import North Korean women who will be happy to be so--not that I blame them in the slightest, having lived under that regime--that might hold it off for a bit.)<br><br>
I don't think if Korea were to throw open the doors to adopt every kid in their system (I don't even know if I agree that they should) that most of those extra kids would be adopted. I think that people who consider international adoption *are* in general more willing to consider disabilities, cosmetic and otherwise, but the number of severely disabled children who get adopted from anywhere is relatively small. Even mild disability can really axe a kid's chances of being accepted into a permanent family. And then these families run into the problem that "home grown" disabled people face--our society, while being much more superficially welcoming to people who are "different", is pretty hostile and unaccomodating towards people with special needs. *especially* as they move into teendom and adulthood. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad"> I cannot tell you how many times I was shocked, as a habilitation counselor, by people's attitudes and commentary towards me as I took my guys (4 adult developmentally disabled men, in their 40s to 70s) out and about. I mean, you are no stranger to special needs kids. I do think we have made strides in this area. But people in this country bitch about having to measure doorways to accomodate wheelchairs and provide parking, and about possibly having to make the workplace accessible. They don't like weird looking or acting people helping them in the store (which tells me most people haven't gotten the exposure to different folks to not being weirded out by them--because we do not do a good job of integrating past elementary ages).<br><br>
I think one of the ways to support the well being of children, adopted, adoptable, or not, is to really try to support the women's movement in any given country. There's only so much that outside saving can do. But attitudes towards what constitutes an "acceptable" child can and does often change when women are given the leeway to love the kids they give birth to, the $$ and government support to back it up, and are considered valued members of society whose voices are just as important.<br><br>
When over half of your population is treated and considered second class just because of their gender, I don't think we can expect people to then even be able to fathom accepting disability or "defect". It didn't really happen in this country until the advent of a very strong women's social movement. It probably won't happen in Korea until then, either.<br><br>
It is hard to watch. However, sometimes it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves where we were a generation ago, in regards to who was considered "fit" for societal recognition. A lot can happen in 30 years. Not that it helps the people who want to get ahold of the current kids now, but there certainly are things that can be done to help support Korean women being able to make different choices and having more power to do so in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Tigerchild, I have nothing substantial to add to what you said, I just wanted to express how elegantly you expressed your views. I think you hit several points exceptionally well. I don't think I am sharing too much of Connor's personal info to say that his mother is around my age--I am 33. I can't imagine experiencing enough societal pressure to feel that the best option for my child is to place him for adoption, to feel that insecure and hopeless at this point in my adult life. It makes me physically ache. I just want to hold her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
ROM, I forgot to say, my understanding of the large numbers in, but only 800-900 aging out per year is that the number of children entering care has increased in recent years (after the number went from 6000 to 2000 adopted internationally, maybe?). So in a few more years, that number will start going up dramatically <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,794 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Tigerchild</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/9866639"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">It is hard to watch. However, sometimes it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves where we were a generation ago, in regards to who was considered "fit" for societal recognition. A lot can happen in 30 years. Not that it helps the people who want to get ahold of the current kids now, but there certainly are things that can be done to help support Korean women being able to make different choices and having more power to do so in the future.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Yes. !<br><br>
I think so many of these attitudes swing back and forth, too. A little OT: I think the attitude toward raising SN kids with their families is a good change, but I actually think the attitude has swung too far in the opposite direction from what it was 30 years ago. <i>Now</i> families are villified for even considering "institutions" or group homes for their children, and mothers feel like failures when they can't hold their family together because of a child's SN. Our society, it seems, would rather see a family split in divorce ("trying" to raise their SN child the socially accepted way) than to see a SN child live the majority of their childhood in a group home. Even if the child is happier in a group home. Even if the family could never support the child's needs like a group home could.<br><br>
I think a lot of it, too, has to do with the American "can do" attitude and the "you made your bed now lie in it/pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense. In the US, you're supposed to be able to handle whatever life throws at you with a minimum of help from society and the government. Support for SN parents is out there, but difficult to access, shamefully minimal at times, and often closed off to the people who need it most.<br><br>
We've brought our SN kids and adults out of institutions, but sometimes I wonder if (often), we've just told the parents they need to be hidden away, too...not in a classic institution, but in their own home. No support. Isolation. A whole family that's somewhat rejected by society instead of one SN child/adult that's somewhat rejected from society.<br><br>
We've got a long way to go when it comes to actual societal acceptance, and in the meantime our attitudes about "what's right" [raising your SN kids at home] is driving a lot of parents to the brink. We can't expect so much from people with so little support. The attitude that every SN child should automatically be institutionalized was barbaric, and I'm glad it's shifted....I just think there needs to be a little correction to the current attitude, too. The societal attitude of what's right for raising SN kids strikes me as guilt-ridden and reactionary (to the attitudes of a generation ago)...it's not true acceptance at all.<br><br>
And back on topic:<br><br>
I'm not surprised that many of the children left to grow up in orphanages are SN kids. Though from what I've seen, Korea offers many of their SN children (in orphanages) phenomenal care, and the numbers of SN kids adopted internationally from Korea are very large. I would have a hard time believing, however, that Korea is just locking away the adoptable children that have serious SN. The numbers of the quota (2,000 roughly) are just too artificial, and I've talked with people who have seen perfectly healthy children, or children with minor correctable issues, sent to the older children orphanages once their infancy/toddlerhood was passed. There are children, SN and NT, who are being kept from adoption because of a quota. That's very sad.<br><br>
And yes, the key to societal change always seems to be in empowering women. Whether it's population control, or economic growth, or stopping the spread of disease,....it always seems like the most effective means of true change is in the empowerment and education of women. I have great hope for change in Korea because of Korean women, and I have great hope for change in the US because of American women. In the meantime, though, I just want kids to have the best chance possible...wherever they were born, and whatever their challenges.<br><br>
ETA: the opinions above (about attitudes toward SN families and group homes) are based on our experience as a family and what I've seen on several boards for SN parents. We haven't considered putting ds1 in a group home as a child [though it's an option for when he's an adult], but we have immense sympathy for the people who are considering that for their children. I know their isolation and desperation, and I read it every day. They're struggling with almost no societal support, and yet society makes them feel like the only right thing to do is to struggle on miserably. Divorce, substance abuse, depression, serious disease brought on by stress...it all happens regularly. Then, when a family chooses a group home (or an "institution"...which really aren't what people think they are), they feel the need to keep it quiet for fear of a public stoning. It just depresses the hell out of me.<br><br>
Okay. Rant over. I know <i>you</i> didn't suggest, Tigerchild, that we've figured it all out when it comes to how we treat SN kids <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/hug.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="hug">, but it's a touchy issue for me. I hear a lot of people talk about how great it is that SN kids aren't institutionalized any more, and people DO talk as if we've figured it all out. Most of the time these are people who aren't raising SN kids. I get the feeling people have no real idea of how the burden of guilt and shame has shifted....where once it was on all of society (and rightly so), now that feeling of "we fixed it" self-righteousness means that the burden of shame and guilt rests on the parents who don't feel they can make it with their SN kids. True change in our society would have meant giving families and parents the support they need to make it work, and acceptance for making it work in more than one ("Raise Them At Home") way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,794 Posts
<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/blush.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="blush"> Thanks everyone, for tolerating me on my stack of soapboxes last night. I went to bed and thought "Wow, that was a tangent."<br><br>
I think I just needed to get it off my chest, and it came out here. It had very little to do with the former posts, but when I hear people (IRL and in the former anti-adoption discussion) talking so black and white about adoption, it always reminds me of the "institutionalization" issue, and how so many people IRL think that the old way was Captial-B Bad and the new way is Good. It reminds me powerfully that the life cycle to any social change-- whether it's with adoption, institutionalization, feminism....it always swings wildly in the opposite direction of convention, then gradually settles back a little as people realize importance of choice and acceptance.<br><br>
So, as usual, this was a long-winded way to say "oops! went off the deep end there!"<br><br>
Back to regularly scheduled programming......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,261 Posts
<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/mecry.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="crying">
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top