Talk:Adoption

Funding Adoption Agencies

Quick question: who funds the agencies? After a quick Google search, I see that some agencies do fund some adoption for willing parents. KyuuA4 16:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption numbers

The stats in this section of the article seem fairly pointless at the moment. They might have more value if there was some indication of what proportion of the population/child population the figures represented. JPD (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus the list is completely butchered. It looks as if someone tried to add a list of of countries to the list but didn't bother alphabetizing them or giving a source. I'm cutting the changes that were made on 20:40, 7 March 2006 by 152.157.207.184. -- MrHen 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For immigration reasons?

Is it possible that a citizen of a rich country adopt a citizen of a poor country in order to enable the latter to move to or stay in the rich country? Is that possible even if the adoptee is an adult? If yes, do the parents of the adoptee have to agree? AxelBoldt 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

.. Is it possible that a citizen of a rich country adopt a citizen of a poor country in order to enable the latter to move to or stay in the rich country? Well, by it's nature, international adoption involves the movement of minors from 'poor' to 'rich' countries. Staying in the rich country is a byproduct of, rather than the purpose of, the adoption.

.. Is that possible even if the adoptee is an adult? Generally no, as an adoption terminates the parental rights of one set of parents and replaces them with another. Such rights normally terminate with the age of majority.

.. If yes, do the parents of the adoptee have to agree? In most jurisdictions, parental consent to adoption is required except in cases of abandonment, or where neglect has been proven and parental rights have been terminated. In general, therefore, in most jurisdictions, it is not possible to adopt an adult. Bastun 12:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears to be possible to adopt adults in California: [1]. While it's true that most parental rights terminate with majority, many of the benefits of children do not, so adult adoption might make sense.

Here's more on adult adoption: [2]; immigration is not mentioned though. AxelBoldt 16:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And although it isn't possible yet, there's a forthcoming Bill in Ireland (not yet published, so no reference), one part of which will allow those who've been in long-term fostercare to be adopted by their fosterparents (assuming mutual consent), once the person in fostercare reaches 18. Again, this obviously excludes immigration. Bastun 00:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

'Adoption reform' section

This section still seems a little empty to me. It mentions that there is movement for reform, but doesn't explain what reforms are being introduced or sought. Will work on expanding this over the next while. It probably needs to cover open adoption; freeing up of children for adoption currently in the state care system; child protection; extended guardianship. Anything else? Bastun 00:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the first paragraph of this section. It is unsourced and does not provide context for further research. --Allen 00:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In removing the first paragraph, there's nothing there now to actually explain what 'adoption reform' is. If anything, it's the third paragraph (prior to the removal) which needs to be removed or transferred to it's own section, as it doesn't relate to adoption reform. I agree with you on the sourcing, though. I'll hunt some up over the weekend before restoring. Bastun 09:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Adoption by same-sex couples

I couldn't find any laws or litigation against bisexuals (which was cite taged) so I removed it for now. If anyone has any verifyable info on laws against adoption by bisexuals please restore and cite it. AMProSoft 03:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

more on "Honest Adoption Language"

I have just come across this page for the first time, and I find the section on "Honest Adoption Language" interesting and informative. However, the "Reasons for Preference" column is not NPOV as it stands now. The text in this column states as fact opinions that are clearly controversial. These opinions should all be attributed to the specific people and groups who hold them, or they should be deleted.

I will eventually remove the POV myself, but I wanted to post this message first, because someone familiar with the issue will probably be better able than me to NPOV the text while retaining useful information.

--Allen 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As you'll see from previous discussions on this talk page, the language surrounding adoption is something of a controversial issue. I'm responsible for the current 'Language of adoption' section as it stands now, after acting as something of an arbiter between various views. The idea here was, in accordance with Wiki policy, to present both sides of the argument as regards HAL and PAL (which itself is not NPOV) and let people make up their own minds. Bastun 09:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the PAL section is also POV. I'm glad that you've worked to present both sides on this. While I still feel that the opinions eventually need to be attributed explicitly to specific groups, I can see that the current situation is better than just presenting one side of the debate. --Allen 13:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How about changing "reasons for preference" to "reasons stated for preference". Would that make it more clear that the reasons given are not necessarily factual, but are the claims made by the adherents of PAL and HAL?--RLent 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds sensible - I'll make the change. Bastun 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okies, I'll look for some attributions when I'm working on the Adoption Reform section (though it's looking unlikely now that I'll get to it this week), rather than just the links to Google-searches for the terms. This section of the page does tend to attract POV edits and vandalism, so it probably needs to be spelt out more clearly that both "sides" are POV and that it's left for the reader to decide on the merits of each view. Bastun 21:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just dropped in here and found the HAL table of terms to be thought provoking and helpful. I wish there was a row to describe the label 'adoptive parent', you might guess that I am one and would appreciate the insight you might share about this. BruceHallman 00:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Portal needed

This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Adoptionnews.com

The external link Adoptionnews.com appears to be new and poorly constructed (many pages are still blank). It seems to be part of the adoption.com/adoption.org/&c. commercial group. Can we delete that external link? I think that linking to adoption.com is sufficient. (The information at adoption.com is itself fragmented, difficult to navigate, and advertiser driven, though there seems to be little indication to casual users that "recommended" links are actually recommended on the basis of advertising fees).

Agreed, and done. Bastun 00:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Ok, I may be totally wrong, but I dont see why all the links are needed for the "Adoption" article. There are, in my opinion, far too many. Wouldnt it be better to make a seperate article for international adoption or adoption in Canada or adoption in Asia, etc.....i dont know...it just seems too much. Not to mention that many of the links are biased....so we get into the idea of "pro-adoption" vs "anti-adoption" and I just think that deserves a seperate article.--Ownlyanangel 00:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put them in a separate article, but you're right that there's a problem with spam and bias. Hmm. Not 100% sure there's much that can be done about it though, maybe just trust people to follow multiple links to get the big picture. --Andrew Delong 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There are separate article for Adoption in the United States and International adoption. The former is perhaps a good example of what happens when something gets split off into a separate article without too much thought or preparation. I'd support the addition of other country-specific articles (and am working (slowly!) on one). As regards the external links here; they represent a good mixture of government/state agencies, general adoption information sites (probably more useful for people wanting to find out how to go about adopting), post-adoption sites (probably more useful for those interested in tracing, search and reunion), and sites dealing with particular aspects of adoption (e.g., coping with placement, ethical issues, research, societal changes). The sites currently linked to therefore present a good overview of many aspects of adoption from different perspectives. The one absence is links to adoption agencies - there are literally thousands of them so including one over another would be dubious. Best to stick with Wiki policy on advertising and exclude them all. I also support country-specific links. As mentioned several times in the article, laws vary from state to state, country to country. Bastun 09:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

issues surrounding adoption

I am removing a lot of the text in the "Issues surrounding adoption" section for various reasons:

• Some of it is unsourced, and is non-obvious enough that it needs a source.
• Some of it is sourced to non-reliable sources, such as self-published websites and web forums.
• Some of it is irrelevant to an article on adoption, such as results from a study on all children living with biologically unrelated adults.

If you want to add this information again, please change it to address these concerns, or explain here why you think these concerns do not apply. --Allen 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am adding sources as I find them. I've already added a comparatively long list of sources. I don't know what you mean by "forum" and "self-published websites". I referenced at least one professional journal, and I am adding more printed literature references. Each reference I included contained professional research, and some of them included further references. At the rate we're going, the references are going it be bigger than the article section. Most of the information I found through adoption organizations. The study you deleted encompasses adopted children as well, and so it's relevant. Yo may not be aware fo it, but abuse is a known ("obvious") problem in adoption circles, so I must insist that the topic be treated, especially considering the mountains of evidence, both anecdotal and scientific. If you'll stop deleting the changes, I'll be able to keep filling in references from my list. Qwasty

Please see WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources for an explanation of why web forums and self-published websites are not normally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. As for the the Pediatrics study, the fact that the study group encompasses adopted children doesn't tell us anything. The trend in abuse could actually be the exact opposite among adopted children, but this could be overwhelmed by trends among the far greater number of non-adopted children living with unrelated adults. Also, the "obviousness" of a problem isn't much of an argument if you can't find reliable sources. --Allen 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There's more than one study cited, with both of them encompassing adopted children, and I've even excerpted a quote from one of them that specifically addresses adopted children. Once again, I'm not sure what reference you're talking about that's a self published website or a forum. In that article section, reference 10 is a forum link, but that was in the text before I started modifying it. I haven't read it yet, so I don't know anything about it.

All studies I have found show between 800% and 6500% increase in risk of death for adopted children. As far as obviousness goes, I'm an adopted person who's frequently feared for his life, and since I have found limitless anecdotal evidence, and plenty of scientific evidence that shows that my experience is not uncommon, I consider abuse and neglect of adopted children an "obvious" problem above and beyond what normal children experience (was adopted-out partly due to abuse, and I was abused FAR worse by my adoptive parents than my natural parents). But, you don't have to take my word for it, just call any organization that deals with adoption and ask them if this issue is a significant concern for them. In short, the idea that adopted children have it as good as normal children is completely wrong, no matter how you look at it - Subjectively, or qualitatively, adopted children are put at vastly higher risk for abuse and death simply by being adopted.

I don't mind continually adding references, and I think it's important that I keep doing it since the facts are so shocking and outrageous, especially in the tender context of adoption, which is supposed to be a pure and noble thing. I have seen parents adopting both animals and children, and I have noticed very little difference between the way they are both handled. If potential adoptive parents who read this article become aware of the facts I've added, they'll hopefully avoid adding to the statistics.

I'm currently away from my computer, but I have a stack of excellent articles, research, interviews, and other material that will greatly improve the "issues" section of this articles. I'm planning on doing some cleanup, and organizing into subsections to enhance readability.

67.166.121.148 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC) qwasty

Qwasty, while new contributors are of course welcome, I'd recommend that you read up on some Wiki policies before continuing with your edits, especially WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Anecdotal evidence and even personal experience is not enough, and, to be honest, some of your recent edits I'd agree with (and would love if we could add citations for them), some others jump right across the NPOV boundary.

By way of example: "Some adoptees report that that they were made to feel - consciously or not - as if they should forever 'be grateful' to have been 'chosen'." No problem with this - pretty much any of the current literature goes into it. But then "Even the best adoptive parents sometimes act as if their adopted children should be like loyal and grateful pets, rather than ordinary unruly children." and "Punishments given to misbehaving adopted children can be notoriously harsh, and while natural parents may hate the thought of giving out punishments, adopted parents may punish solely on the perceived ingratitude of their adopted children." are wild assertions. "Natural" parents abuse children too! And some edits, e.g., the part about parents protecting children unto death, apart from being a wild assertion, just aren't legible.

In essence, what I'm saying is please do feel welcome to contribute, but please keep it neutral, encyclopedic, and sourced. Just for reference, I'm also adopted and have been working with adopted adults for 16 years - some of whom have been abused by their adoptive families, but it's a small minority. Bastun 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm adopted myself and working in the area for sixteen years.

Much of what you've quoted is not what I've written. It was there before I began editing, and I cleaned it up and added references. I don't think they're wild assertions though, which is why I've taken the time to cleanup and add references. Everyone is freaking out over these facts, particularly the increased death rates for adopted children. Yes, it's appalling, but it's true. What those figures state is that risk for premature death in adopted people is greatly increased overall, not just from abuse, though abuse is the largest cause of death studied.

I agree with your NPOV complaints directed towards some of the phrases I've written, and I've made some wording changes to make them more neutral.

Qwasty 22:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of your recent edits are still very PoV, in my opinion. I've made some changes. Note also that adoptive parents don't tell their children "You have a disability" ('special needs'); some may tell them that they're "special." Bastun 07:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you've made. At the time I wiki'd special needs it had several paragraphs about sensitivity towards adopted children in classrooms, such as finding alternatives to tracing family trees and associating a child's eye color with their parent's eye color as part of education on heredity. There was a bunch of other related topics covered as well, but I don't know what happened to it since then. Qwasty 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

challenges for adoptive parents

I would like to see more information on the challenges adoptive parents face. Quotes like this, addressing post adoption depression in parents, highlights the need for a bit more coverage:

"For a multitude of reasons, they don't feel the joy they expected" [3]

Qwasty 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Honesty issues"

Qwasty, thank you for providing the citations that you found for the abuse info. I'm still concerned about the subsection above the abuse subsection, though ("Honesty issues"). It is completely unsourced and seems like a combination of original research and POV, and I suggest we delete it. What are your (or anyone else's) thoughts on this subsection? Thanks. --Allen 03:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of it was there already. While currently unsourced, I think it should stay, especially if we find sources and it can be edited to be more NPOV. Bastun 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this most or all of this section should be removed as it is unsourced. It has been a month since Bastun has commented and still no sources and it still is not written in a NPOV. I suggest it's removal. Perhaps others could comment and then another make the recommended edit? RalphLender^talk 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman_talk 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

External links revisited

User:MatthewFenton, please see the External Links section above before removing the links again as to why they are included. You've twice removed links to many sites belonging to State- and State-funded and other major organisations that deal with adoption and post-adoption issues. They are both useful, informative and directly relevant to the article. And adoption laws and practices vary greatly from country to country. I'm actually the editor who added the 'cleanup spam' tag originally - it was needed because links to individual for- and non-profit adoption agencies were being added - there are literally thousands of these. Why would you exclude major organisations working in the field of adoption, such as Origins or Bastard Nation (who've succeeded in having laws changed in six US states!)? Bastun 00:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dont add the tag if you dont want them cleaned up. ELs should only be used if they have significant use to the article, IE: They've been sources, offer information on a section covered etc (PS: I'm not from the US of A). thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nor am I :-) Do you know is there an alternative tag that would serve better than the 'cleanup spam' tag? Basically what I'm trying to avoid is having hundreds of 'Acme Adoptions Inc. - {insert state} agency doing adoptions from {list of source countries}'. Wikipedia isn't the place for that and there are better alternatives, including sites like adoption.com (which is listed). But at the same time still maintaining links to organisations working with the issue of adoption, whether that be research, advocacy, search and reunion, provision of information, etc. Cheers. Bastun 09:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Use an invisible message that is'nt rendered by browsers eg: < !-- message here -- > without the spaces. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll place on on the page. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. I've checked the links there now and all current ones seem legit: Providers of informtion and various POV, but not commercial sites for adoption agencies. thanks. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Adoption and Abuse

The article cited from Pediatrics does not have the quote, so I have removed that citation and added other material that may be more germaine.

RalphLender^talk 16:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The new material is good; well sourced. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman_talk 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some material...hope it is ok. Dr. Becker-Weidman_talk 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree - both sets of additions look good to me. Bastun 00:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the Red Queen is a hypothesis and not a proven fact. Can any one find any facts regarding the abuse? Also, this (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=234997) is not authenticated by its references. Can anyone find other references? --Elizabeth Brey 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No...good catch and I support your deletion of that. RalphLender^talk 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth, yes, the Red Queen is a hypothesis, but in the scientific meaning of the word, not as its usually understood by lay people. I.e., supporters of Intelligent design claim that the Theory of evolution is "only a theory" and therefore not necessarily valid. The book in question cites the facts necessary for that paragraphs inclusion - though I agree the googleanswers ref is a bit more dodgy. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

BaStun Regarding Chapter 7 from the Red Queen book: the chapter talks about polygamy verses monogamy. It is entitled, "Monogamy and the Nature of Women." There is nothing in the chapter about adopted children dying prematurely. There is no mention of foster care or any studies, nor is there any mention of death of children. Hence, I deleted the citation and the paragraph, as it appears to my best knowledge to be a false citation.--Elizabeth Brey 01:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought the lack of reference was just in relation to the Googleanswers citation, and you were challenging the Red Queen on the basis of being a hypothesis - not that both were improper citations. My bad, and apologies. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of relevance to the topic at hand would make this an inappropriate reference. RalphLender^talk 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that these paragraphs apply to any child... adopted or not. It is not specific to adoption. Anyone more knowledgeable than me in the area of child abuse may want to consider to add this information there. I moved the paragraphs here for now: --Elizabeth Brey 01:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Children with histories of maltreatment, such as physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, are at risk of developing severe psychiatric problems. These children are likely to develop Reactive attachment disorder (RAD). These children may be described as experiencing trauma-attachment problems. The trauma experienced is the result of abuse or neglect, inflicted by a primary caregiver, which disrupts the normal development of secure attachment. Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment. Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms, as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out symptoms.

Effective treatment for children who have experienced early chronic maltreatment generally must be multi-modal and family-based. See main articles at Complex post-traumatic stress disorder, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, and Theraplay.

I think the section is quite necessary and directly relevant since most adoptions, at least in the US, UK, and Camada, are of children from the Child Welfare system, who have histories of chronic maltreatment (abuse or neglect, etc). I have added back the material for this reason. JonesRD_talk 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

According to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services between 15 and 24 U.S. states had a 99.68% or better absences of maltreatment in foster care in 2005. Even though many of the children who had been foster care had an abusive history, the abuse does not continue in their adopted homes. The question becomes where's the best place to put this information. Since there are many abused children who are not in foster care and are not adopted, it may be a detrimental to put the information in the adoption page. Why would information on child abuse be better on the adoption page instead of the child abuse page? For example, children who live with parents who are alcoholic and substance abusers are at a very high risk of abuse and neglect (Rein (2003). Child Abuse: Betraying a trust. ISBN 1534-1607. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help), page 49). --Elizabeth Brey 19:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Jones that the material is very relevant. Since the majority of children in foster care have histories of abuse and neglect and since most adoptions are via Child Welfare, it is relevant that these children have a background of abuse or neglect and how this may affect them. SamDavidson 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the majority of children in foster care are more likely to have an abusive history behind them. The abuse was in the past, and part of what the child will need to deal with in their future. The adoptive parents need to know how to deal and help such children. But, I don't think this page is the most appropriate place to put a large amount of info about dealing with abuse, because dealing with abuse transcends whether there was an adoption or not. I do agree that some info about the abuse statistics is needed with regards to the children in the foster care, but that it would be better to link to another page if people want to find out more about the abuse and the effects it has on children, specifically. None-the-less, I left the information, but I moved it under a new subheading under domestic adoption, called, "Foster care adoption". --Elizabeth Brey 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Families or Parent(s)

The Wikipedia article about family seems to suggest that a parent and child are a family, so, perhaps, the use of the term family instead of parent/parents would be ok? What do others think? RalphLender^talk 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Adoption is the legal act of permanently placing a child with a parent or parents other than the birth parents..." makes sense to me. A single person is not a family. After s/he has adopted, then s/he and her child can be described as a family, but not before. So it wouldn't be correct use it in that case, in my opinion. The case could be made for using 'family' where two people are adopting a child. Bastun 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, very good point...I now suggest leaving the wording as it is. DPeterson^talk 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

External links December 2006

The external links section has over 30 sites listed. Clearly some of them do not belong. For the moment, I'm hiding the whole section while I peck away at the list to see who fits the criteria:

"Links normally to be avoided Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources. Links mainly intended to promote a website. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. Links to sites that require payment to view the relevant content. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. Links to search engine results pages. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy (see WP:V) Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked to from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site." Wikipedia's external links policy Mdbrownmsw 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

good job well done, the links were ridiculous

--Giddylake 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the entire, unweildy, growing list with one Open Directory.

Mdbrownmsw 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the one Open Directory listing is that it does not have the international listings that the current listing does. I'd suggest keeping this list and editing out adoption agency listings, if any, and keeping all the informational listings...or, create a subpage with lots of listing. RalphLender^talk 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeping the external links listed is better than the one link to Open Directory. We do need more internat. material in articles. DPeterson^talk 01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are creating external links for the international adoption section by country, one of the key countries to be listed should be Russia, which is the second-largest destination for international adoption. Among the resources that could then be listed is the Russian Adoption blog on Adoption Media, http://russia.adoptionblogs.com .

In general on Wikipedia, links to blogs and personal sites are discouraged - see above, and WP:EL. Bastun 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed links that were already incorporated elsewhere on the page. --Elizabeth Brey 12:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes navigation harder, e.g., for someone reading the article for an overview and then wanting to read related articles. WP isn't paper, so space isn't an issue in this case. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

citizenship

if someone is born in mexico and adopted into an american family, would the person have mexican citizenship or no?

It depends on Mexico's citizenship laws and you would really need to consult a lawyer, but my understanding is that many (not all) countries will grant citizenship to people born in that country. The adopted person would probably need to have a copy of their pre-adoption birth certificate. Bastun 13:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

However, once adopted, the child becomes a citizen of the american family...´If you try to reclaim Mexican citizenship, you may have to renounce American citizenship...many countries do allow dual citizenship...but many others do not DPeterson^talk 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States apparently does [4]. But really, this is something that needs proper legal advice. Bastun 22:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Special Needs

I removed the link to the special needs page because that redirects to a very brief article about special education. In this context (adoption) special needs is a much broader concept that includes children with chronic medical issues, mental health problems, behavioral problems, and, in some jurisdictions, it can also include older children and other children that are "difficult" to place. RalphLender^talk 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That reads fine. I'd reverted the previous removal of the link to Special needs (by an anon IP) because it left a sentence hanging with no conclusion. Bastun 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle E=mc@}

Citations and references needed

There are a number of unreferenced statements in this article that do require citations for support. Some requests for support are quite old now. If no support for such statements can be provided, then the lines should be deleted. DPeterson^talk 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally, some of the unreferenced material is not very relevant to its context in the article, making it a good candidate for deletion sooner rather than later. Here are paragraphs that are good candidate for removal: --Ed Brey 02:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"A minority of adopted children were orphans."

"In some countries, where single motherhood is considered scandalous or unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants, whereas others may come under financial, societal or family pressure to choose adoption. In some cases, they abandon their children at or near an orphanage, so that they can be adopted. In some some cultures, a parent or parents prefer one gender over another and place any baby who is not the preferred gender for adoption."

"Adoption may be problematic for some birthparents. When a parent chooses to place the child, the separation can be difficult."

"Adoption may also pose questions for adoptive parents. There are various schools of thought about openness, maintaining connections to the child's birth family, answering a child's questions and helping a child deal with birthparents who may not maintain regular contact."

Along the lines of questionable relevency, several of the "see also" links are tangental, which dilute the most relevant ones. The more obscure ones would be better served as links directly in line with this article or subarticles. Does anyone have a defense for any of these?: --Ed Brey 02:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • Adopted child syndrome
    • Adoption in Islam
    • Affiliation
    • Attachment disorder
    • Attachment theory
    • Child welfare
    • Complex post-traumatic stress disorder
    • Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy
    • Foster care
    • Illegitimacy
    • Parental leave
    • Reactive attachment disorder
    • Theraplay

Response

"A minority of adopted children were orphans."

Well, this is fact. Despite the name 'orphanage', most adopted people do have one or two living parents, one of who will have signed adoption papers.

Agreed. Would you say that this point is already covered in the sentence, "In some cases, they abandon their children at or near an orphanage, so that they can be adopted"? --Ed Brey 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"In some countries, where single motherhood is considered scandalous or unacceptable, some women in this situation make an adoption plan for their infants, whereas others may come under financial, societal or family pressure to choose adoption. In some cases, they abandon their children at or near an orphanage, so that they can be adopted. In some some cultures, a parent or parents prefer one gender over another and place any baby who is not the preferred gender for adoption."

First and third sentences, also true. WRT the 3rd sentence, look at the gender imbalance in children adopted from China.

Agreed. Reintroduced with edits for conciseness. --Ed Brey 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Adoption may be problematic for some birthparents. When a parent chooses to place the child, the separation can be difficult."

You honestly want a source or citation for this? Try any Origins or birthparents website!

The previous sentence's citation suffices: "For all adopted people in adoptions where information about the family of origin is withheld, secrecy may disrupt the process of forming an identity. Family concerns regarding genealogy can be a source of confusion [11]. Another common concern is the lack of a medical history, which can affect the adopted person and also his/her subsequent children." However, as you point out regarding the obviousness of this sentence, it doesn't seem to add anything. --Ed Brey 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Adoption may also pose questions for adoptive parents. There are various schools of thought about openness, maintaining connections to the child's birth family, answering a child's questions and helping a child deal with birthparents who may not maintain regular contact."

Again I fail to see why this needs a source or citation - it's self evident.

Along the lines of questionable relevency, several of the "see also" links are tangental, which dilute the most relevant ones. The more obscure ones would be better served as links directly in line with this article or subarticles. Does anyone have a defense for any of these?:

Agree to a large extent. The following links are the most relevant and should be maintained. No problem with the others being linked with inline text.

• • • Adopted child syndrome
    • Adoption in Islam
    • Affiliation
    • Foster care
    • Illegitimacy

Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've restored to the most recent version by User:DPeterson. Please discuss any major changes to the article first on the talk page. Note there is already an article for Adoption in the United States. The main article on adoption, therefore, should not be country specific as this is an international encyclopedia, and should not overfocus on how adoptions are done in one country.

Some of the recent changes were materially incorrect, or are already better covered under their own sub-articles, e.g., Open adoption, Closed adoption. Yes, closed adoption may be a choice made by birth parents - it may also be a choice made by prospective adoptive parents.

I agree that sub-articles for open, semi-open, and closed are appropriate. Still, those three concepts are at the core of almost every domestic adoption decision, and seem worthy of their own sections even on the main adoption page. I think your comments about who closed adoption is suitable for would be a worthy addition. --Ed Brey 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for some deletions are... well, odd. What is "controversial" about Adoption in Islam? Who says so? Even if it were, Wikipedia is not censored. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the criteria that we should go by to determine whether Adoption in Islam should have the prominence of a "See Also" link or should just be an embedded link in the "National variations in adoption" section? --Ed Brey 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors, when deleting text, please put it on the talk page to allow for discussion and easy reintroduction (and like Bastun stated, discuss first here if unsure). Likewise, when reintroducing deleted text, please be careful not to lose other changes (i.e., don't just revert the whole page). --Ed Brey 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good advice with a topic this controversial DPeterson^talk 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth, I've reverted back to the earlier version on Open and Closed adoptions. Some useful information was lost with the changes you introduced. Please realise that one adoption agency's definitions, operating in one US State, are far from universal. Generally within adoption, things are far from certain and can differ widely from case to case within the one agency, never mind between different states and countries. Better to use 'might', 'may', 'could' rather than 'will'. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bastun The statement, "in closed adoptions no information is shared between the parties involved" is not accurate in all closed adoptions. Thus, I changed it to reflect that it is possible to share some information in a closed adoption in some countries or situations.

Yep, good catch, my bad. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See also section

I added back items deleted. All the items seem related to this article or are mentioned. It is more convenient for readers to find links in one section than to have to hunt through the article. DPeterson^talk 12:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Adoption Page

The adoption wiki page has information about foster care and the struggles of the children in foster care and the effects that the foster care system had on them after they are adopted. Should this be made into part of the Foster Care page instead? There are also some facts of adoption pre1980s, such as lack of medical records. The Bastards link is specifically about adoptions that occurred then, and not about adoptions today. How that could be made more clear that is pre-1980s and the balance be made? Plus, more recent aspects of adoption are lacking, such as embryo adoption, that would be nice to add.--Elizabeth Brey 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a page about adoption, Elizabeth, not a how to guide, or an advertisement for adoption (nor, of course, a page to warn people off!). Adopted people born in the 80s and earlier grow up, go on the internet and look at pages like this. For us, the information on, well, lack of information (medical or otherwise) is entirely relevant and will continue to be so - we're still living with the consequences (as are our children, in many cases). In addition, although things such as medical records have improved greatly in most of the developed world, those currently adopting internationally are still pointing out the lack of relevant and accurate medical information they receive on their children, in some cases, in present-day adoptions. The foster care information as it relates to adoption is also entirely relevant as many of us are adopted through the fostercare system and foster/adopt programs, rather than through private agencies or adverts on websites.

There is an article on embryo adoption - add it to 'See also' and maybe to a disambiguation link at the top of the page? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ageed. What I am suggesting are either detailed, new wikipedia pages, such as the how the international adoptions is done. Or, creating another paragraph or subtopic called "Adopting from foster care". A section such as that would fit best under domestic adoptions. Or, perhaps domestic adoption should also have it's own page, just as international adoption does. I'm trying to think of ways to make the adoption wiki page in a more systematic order.--Elizabeth Brey 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Common reason..."

User:DPeterson, I've reverted "The most common reason for adoptive placement in the US, Canada, and other developed nations is that the child has been removed from the home because the family has been abusive or neglectful." - this simply isn't true for at least Ireland or the UK, and I'd really like to see a reference for the US and Canada. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I will put the material back with the following citation to support it:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2206.2000.00172.x Children fall into three groups according to the reason for their adoption: relinquished infants (14%), those whose parents had requested adoption in complex circumstances (24%), and those children required to be adopted by social services and the courts (62%). DPeterson^talk

Aren't you drawing an inference from the last category? We don't know why social services/the courts required the children to be placed. (Note: I haven't read the full document and I'm pressed for time right now - will see if I can access it later). Could it not be that the 14% are where a pregnant woman decides on adoption, whereas a proportion of the 62% will be where parent(s) decide on adoption some time after birth (and a smaller proportion may be orphans)? There was a very recent court case in Ireland between natural and adoptive parents (the former trying to overturn an adoption) where a central argument of the adoptive parents' case was that the fact that the natural parents had placed their child in temporary foster care meant that they were unfit parents and therefore their child required to be adopted for its own protection. (Luckily the courts dismissed that argument as ludicrous!) Cheers, Bastun

BaStun not BaTsun 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no inference. Social services and the courts only Terminate Parental Rights in the event of chronic unremitted maltreatment (in the US and Canada and UK, at least). When social services is involved, it is a TPR proceeding, not voluntary. DPeterson^talk 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Plurals in definition

There may be one or two adoptive parents and one or two birth parents. In the vast majority of cases, there are two on each side. Therefore, I set the definition sentence to use the plural for both accounts. Even though this isn't all inclusive, trying to make it all-inclusive for the rare cases becomes too unwieldy for the definition sentence. Instead, I'm leaving the single adoption/birth parent case to be addressed in the remainder of the article. --Ed Brey 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption-related crime

What I'm missing in this article is adoption-related crime: illegal adoption networks, child abduction and trafficking of children. Are there any figures on how many children are abducted yearly for adoption, what countries are involved, etcetera? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting/good question. But, this material may be better placed in those other articles you cite with a link in the See also section to those article. What do you think? DPeterson^talk 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I have previously seen figures for some of the more well-know "problem" countries... I'll try to dig out the sources. www.ethicanet.org may be a good starting point. Obviously, because of the nature of the problem, both past and present, definite figures and sources can be hard to come by. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mother-heavy

As an adoptee, I find this article mother-heavy--that is the idea that only mothers are the people that adoptees should/will find or look for. This is part of American culture, but not necessarily part of reality. For many international adoptees, you find that your parents have sisters, cousins, and extended families. A lot of child rearing in other countries from which adoption takes place is an affair of the family, not of just the mother. Even in domestic adoption this is the case. I'm not asking for too much PC, I'm just asking that the emphasis be a bit closer to "family" and maybe a little less on "mother". I did set out to find both parents, but this society pressures you to find your mother because she's the one you're supposed to bond with (in child socialization). However that wasn't true of my Korean culture. Instead it's my mother, my aunts, (any older siblings I may have), my father, and grandparents. I think it often comes as a shock for adoptees when they realize there are other members of their family, but that's society and media pressure... so I'm asking for a bit closer to NPOV on this issue. --Hitsuji Kinno 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're correct to a large extent, Hitsuji Kinno. From my knowledge of the article over two years, its been mostly written by western adoptive parents/adopted people, with some input from natural parents - although one of the early authors with a lot of involvement was an international adoptive parent. From a western adopted person's point of view, we generally pretty much have to find our natural mother first before we can find any other natural family. I appreciate this isn't neccessarily the case for other cultures and in international adoptions. I'd suggest be bold and get started :-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Foster care adoption

I removed "These adoptions can be open or closed (see above sections)" for these reasons:

• Redundant: Openness is discussed in detail above; if there is any types of adoptions for which a different kind of openness does not apply, it should be covered in the openness section.
• Incomplete: Semi-open is also an option, but wasn't listed. To list it would further exacerbate the redundant problem.
• Incorrect grammar.
• Caused the "fact" block to be misplaced; the fact specifically begging for a citation is the one that says that most adoptions occur through the foster care system. --Ed Brey 11:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. DPeterson^talk 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoptees

I was reading the article through again and noticed that though adoptee links back here there's only one or two sections on what it's like to be an adoptee--in fact it's geared mostly towards adoptive parents and maybe a little towards natural parents.

Issues that can be added for the adoptee, are such things like adoption and suicide, what a search for an adoptee is like, international attitudes towards adoption such that a child that is adopted is somehow less than a child that is genetic, and also how much parents adjust their children to the surroundings. I'd like to focus a bit more on the day to day issues surrounding the adoptees life and less on the search (though there should be reasons why adoptees search for their birth/natural parents as well because it seems to many who aren't that it's apparent--you need to fill that primal wound, but often there are other aspects to it and it's not the "primal wound" model.). While there are sections, I feel that this part could be expanded. I'm not sure if this warrants another article though.

For Natural/Birth parents dealing with the loss and separation from their child, the reunion and day-to-day life of remembering and the shock and obligation might be a good place to start. (I don't mean a biography, but something along the lines of what it's like and what to expect.) I don't know personally being an adoptee, so someone will have to fill me in.

I realize that adoptive parents are more vocal than adoptees or natural parents. Perhaps it's because adoptees and natural parents often deal with more of the emotional burden. To date on adoption, I've seen only a handful of memoirs from adoptees, but many more from adoptive parents--even articles from adoptive parents trying to tell what the adoptee feels (which often make me feel sick because it usually runs into denial [no racism doesn't happen with my child. He doesn't feel bad because he *smiles* and think they are ignorant *I gag*], but I won't get too heavily into that.)

Also something on the relationship of the three major groups interacting too... because there is such a divide between the three groups and communication there is often a division on what adoption is really like...

So I'd like this article to get more towards raw honesty and stay away from the idealism it also states is bad, but supported by facts and not original research. (properly cited, BTW) Is that too much, or will there be strong objections to re-pitching this article into a more expansive and honest direction? --Hitsuji Kinno 22:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All of what you've mentioned should be addressed in the article, I think. If it starts to get too long, we can always fork it off to a separate article, but some of those topics definitely need to be covered. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea...if it gets too long we can split the article into two or more logical smaller ones and link them. DPeterson^talk 00:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Adoption and Suicide is a good place to start.... because it's well-cited, and unlike many other issues adoptees have actually spoken on it (even though the academic community continues to ignore it and say that the adoptee hasn't gotten enough "love" basically blaming the adoptive parents for the suicide...) --> source: http://www.adoptioncrossroads.org/Suicide.htm and http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/108/2/e30 (Note that both blame adoption as the cause... I have several angry things to say about that...). However, I have a strong, strong bias that needs to be written and trimmed out... so I need someone with a neutral POV to edit me... is that alright? It's also a good pitch towards the day-to-day life, and can be wiki-linked to causes of depression (socially) and causes of suicide.

My own thought is that suicide among adoptees is so high because of identity issues caused not by the parents of the adoptees, but prejudice by society in believing that one person can only be one personality for all life... this include telling the adoptee who they are and are not, who they can love and can't love in a destructive way. Also the isolation of not being able to relate to other adoptees and media pressures in portraying the adoptee in a way they never can relate to. (Think like the black face painting of the African Americans before African Americans.) Being an adoptee means taking on two identities. The one that is expected by adoptive parents, and the one expected by whatever other culture/background that you had. This is probably not as much an issue for those who were adopted in-family. (But thin studies never were done on this because the majority of the studies I've read thusfar haven't actually asked a suicidal adoptee what triggered the depression to make them want to kill themselves.) The constant telling by other people that you aren't who you identify yourself to be also causes issues.

I'll give a concrete example, and then I'll see if I can find academic backing... In one of my classes a person who said that a male child was picking on a newly adopted female child (he was also adopted) was doing so because she wasn't his "real" sister. If she actually said this to the child, it's telling him who not to love , i.e. your sister doesn't really exist, and they aren't part of your family because you aren't genetically related to them. I've run into this personally as well, where people tell me I should love a set of parents *more* than the other parents for the simple justifications they found on TV. The parents who raise you love you more. Genetics is everything. If one takes on one of those roles, then when someone says the opposite they will constantly not know what to do, especially if they are young. The child me got abused this way more than the adult me. I was told as a child personally many times that I should love one set of parents over the other. This often caused me to withdraw (though the teasing also didn't help since all of my classmates seemed to like to pick on adoptee... the other kid in my class was also adopted and picked on for being in an interracial family.). I believe this is one of the first stages that triggers depression--I experienced depression in College because I was disconnected from both of my cultures, and that was the only thing that held me together at that time. Anyway, rejection from both cultures or identities is high for adoptees and I think if I can find an appropriate article on this that actually looks at adoptees as human being rather than dysfunctional members of society that didn't get to be brought up by their mothers, it would probably be a good jump start.

I've seen other accounts of the same thing. Language of Blood (Korean adoptee's memoir) was a good example. However I'd like to also find another experiences and cite domestic adoption... Anyone know anything that supports this view and is written by an adoptee (not adoptive parent)?

Also is there a way to deal with the interpersonal issues between the three groups by getting people from each group to speak for this page? ^^;; I ran into one with my mom through e-mail... --Hitsuji Kinno 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hitsuji_Kinno/Adoption_and_Suicide Could someone do cleanup for me? I tried to include international and domestic in the references.... The references need some technical clean up too to conform with the wikipedia format... I also am not sure where to put this in the article. I'm tempted to put it after identity issues, but that might not be NPOV enough... --Hitsuji Kinno 23:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly take a look at that over the weekend. There are also studies showing higher rates of mental illness and criminal activity in adoptees as opposed to the general population. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To provide balance, it would be useful to research the benefits afforded to adopted children by virtue of their parents making extraordinary effort to bring them into the family. The school of thought it that adopted children receive better parenting on average than the general population. Perhaps it would be best to lead in with that and follow up with the minority(?) opinion of the suicide reports and the criticism of those reports. --Ed Brey 00:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR applies. If there are reputable scientific studies showing that adopted children receive better parenting, by all means introduce them into the article, though. Note that the suicide studies aren't opinion, though, minority or otherwise - they're statistical fact. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it would be useful to research the benefits specifically because of WP:NOR. I haven't researched studies of this myself, but am aware of the benefits from general comments of those in the field. My intent is to encourage Hitsuji or anyone else writing about how parent-child relationships to incorporate the benefits into their research. Just like the news media tends to focus on the negative because it is more interesting, it is easy to fall into same trap when researching. Regarding the suicide studies, it is fact that the studies took place, and the studies' raw data is factual, but the studies' conclusions may have underlying assumptions that would make the conclusions opinions, not facts. Determining the extent of the assumptions is part of the research process. --Ed Brey 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I face problems with NOR and NPOV because all of the articles I pull up have some kind of political agenda to their conclusions. (To me this is another reason it's really hard for an adoptee to adjust.)

For example:

"There is not a shred of evidence that indicates any of the previously reported negative characteristics of dependency, fearfulness, tenseness, hostility, loneliness, insecurity, abnormality, inferiority, poor self-image, or lack of confidence." If different, the adopted are more positive and better adjusted. Marquis & Detweiler, J. Personality and Social Psychology, abstract in Nat’l Adoption Report, May 1985 from http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_34.asp

is an anti-abortion page supporting adoption to an extreme.

This was the best I could find on the issue brought up that adoptive children do not have issues, but the political agenda (blatent at that, even with the citations) makes me not want to link it. This was the only link I found. I think that the real reason people think adoptees are better off is because they are often placed into Middle Middle Class or Upper Middle class (White) families, making them better than the "average" kid. But if you compare the same social and economic bracket the kids will most likely average the same. (Unfortunately no primary research was done in this direction.)

In contention also is the fact that these studies continue to have secondary agendas to them that aren't supported by suicide support websites as well. Such as if you don't have a loving enough family you will commit suicide. That genetics is the sole factor for suicide (there was a Sociological study by, I believe Duranti which proved this wrong... though they did try and spin his study around to prove their point.) So many of these studies are shipping ideas that were already disagreed with by using adoiption as a tool to do so. For me, this makes it extremely difficult because the conclusios are not NPOV, but are always biased towards trying to prove a issue outside of the realm of adoption (not to mention their por methodology such as asking adoptive parents about adoptees and how the adoptees feel rather than the adoptee themselves.) So what to do? I know it IS an issue, I just can't find someone who has done a study fairly with a good thesis that isn't politically motivated. --Hitsuji Kinno 01:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I reset the indent. If no one is going to edit the preliminary article section, I'll just include it, slap on NPOV and writing clean up tags and put it out there for someone to edit by the end of this week. (I.e. you have until Friday) is th--Hitsuji Kinno 23:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)at too bad?

user box

is there any userbox for people who been adopted in rl? ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 15:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not that I'm aware of. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks very much ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

can some one make one? (im useless at making userboxes} ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, not me - I've never made one and wouldn't know where to start :-) Maybe ask on the User:UBX talk page? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks :P I done it does it look good? ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 08:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

File:Baby sleeping2.JPGThis user has been Adopted in real life

It does. Nice wording :-) Not one I'd use personally, though, because of the pic. (I'm an adult - some of us adopted babies have a tendency to grow up and get annoyed when forced to deal with "Childrens Services" when trying to trace, for example).

Um, the code looks different to the userbox code on the ones I have on my own page... dunno if that'll be an issue. I'd also recommend finding a "host" for it (heh, someone who'll adopt it :P) such as User:UBX or it could end up getting deleted by the anti-userboxes-in-mainspace people. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC}

I agree about the picture its the only one I could find that looked appropriate :P and i have no idea how to get it hosted ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 10:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Monkeyblue made these user boxes for adoption ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has been adopted in the real world.

This user has been adopted in the real world.

There has to be a way to word it better... "real world" bothers me, but maybe because I'm touchy on "real" parents too. I also like the one without the picture because not everyone that's adopted is white *cough* and was adopted as a baby *cough*. Perhaps a more symbolic picture could be made? One that doesn't make the child look like a commodity, doesn't insult the adoptive or b-family, but tells about adoption? Someone brilliant out there can do it. I did a representation of adoption for a school project where the line was adoption and to either side of the picture of myself was either culture ('cause even if you are adopted within family you get the same from what I understand.)... something more simplified of that might work?--Hitsuji Kinno 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

family

can a family member adopt a kid if there like his adult brother or uncle or somthing like that? Dark spikey 18:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course! As long as the adopter meets the proper criterion. --Mschel 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

yer my adult sister and her husband at the time adopted me when after I was born ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 20:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Starting massive clean up

I'm moving some of the information under "Domestic Adoption" to "Types of adoption." Because Open Adoptions are also international, etc.

Then I'm moving domestic adoption and international adoption together. This should make for better readability. >.<;; And I can't even cover inner family adoption either. ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥, do you have some resources for this? Like what it takes, the issues of self-image in it, etc. I can't find references, and by far this type of adoption is the worst to find sources for... ^^;; A guy who was inner family adopted didn't even realize it... --;; which shows you how bad it is. (Also find the official term).

I'm adding proper referencing tags... <ref name="">{{cite web | last = | first = | title = | work = | publisher = | url = | format = | accessdate = }}</ref> If I don't finish, use this format to get through it. It's actually not that hard, it's just time consuming.

I'm also adding the suicide with some revised references, however I feel very, very, very bad that I'm having to rely on Korean adoptee stuff for references. Reorganization in general is in order 'cause I want to add stuff for adoptees, b-parents (Biological parents since there are issues with natural and birth... correct me if I'm wrong...) and adoptive parents.

Check on terminology: The person who surrendered the child will be biological parent, this will not change for either HAL or PAL sections, however, it's both PC and HAL. This doesn't make the parent feel like a factory and I think it would show an on-going relationship, which is what adoptees hope for. I'm making all "birth parent" references into "biological parents". Adoptive parents are going to be referred to. I need someone to do a sweep after me since I'm notorious for not being able to cut words properly (i.e. edit my own wording.)....

If anyone objects, please state your piece here instead of doing a revert war...--Hitsuji Kinno 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I havnt got any soures and I was only a baby wen I was adopted so I am not sure of any of the issues my sister went thourg or if it was straight forword ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 16:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

^^;; Could you ask? She might have some information, I know my parents did. I noticed that one issue of inner family adoption is that many don't call the adoptive parties "parents" but by their previous title... like for you, sister, for my friend, aunt, etc. Perhaps that's a good jump start place.--Hitsuji Kinno 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add something on the History of adoption as well, for example, how long has it been going on, what are the practices over time and how they've changed, policies, etc. Even if this article is meant for only b-parents, adoptive parents, and adoptees having some history would be nice. I'd like to aim this article outside of those three groups too, so having history of adoption wouldn't be too bad. Anyone have references would be nice. --Hitsuji Kinno 16:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

HAL & PAL - these sections are (somewhat) referenced. We can't put in what we'd *like* the language to be, rather we have to put in what proponents of both forms of language say. Some birth/biological/natural parents do object to being called biological parents. Otherwise - nice work. I'll go over it tomorrow for copyediting. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh - 'History of adoption' would definitely be good. In general, we should bear in mind we're writing for the general public, who may not necessarily have any connection with adoption. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My eperience is that birth-parent is the preferred term to biological parent. I'd prefer a change back to that from the biological-parent. DPeterson^talk 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)