| ||||
|
Arts & Entertainment Books Comics Health & Body Media  Mothers Who ThinkNews People Politics2000 Technology - Free Software Project Travel & Food  Columnists
Current Click here to read the latest stories from the wires. - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - Also Today For a full list of today's Salon Mothers Who Think stories, go to the
Mothers Who Think home page. - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon - - - - - - - - - - - - Recently in Salon Mothers Who Think Complete archives for Mothers Who Think - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Damaged goods | page 1, 2
As coldly selective as it sounds, a policy that
allows adoptive families to say what they can and
cannot handle is a good idea. It helps to prevent
adoption disruption (when the adoptive family sends
the kid back). To the extent that an adoption
agency knows about a particular health issue, it
makes sense to have it on the table. In abuse and
neglect cases, for example, the family can be sure
that the child receives needed therapy for
attachment and bonding issues, anger management and
developmental delays caused by the abuse. But in the Strohmeyer case, that's water under the
bridge. Even as adoptive parents, these people are
in the same situation as the other parents of
murderers. They have a kid with problems. To me,
this is more about the extraordinary task of
parenting, and the surprises -- some terrible, some
wonderful -- that come with it than it is about
adoption or what the Strohmeyers should have been
told. We'd all like a heads up about what might be coming
our way. Will your husband leave you when you're
old? Will your child outlive you? Will you get
cancer? Will you win the lottery? Even if we have
some early indicators -- he seems like a faithful
guy; you're an overprotective mom; people in your
family have cancer; you never buy lottery tickets
-- they don't really tell us the truth about what
will happen to us or to anyone else. The Strohmeyers could have safely assumed that
Jeremy was probably not born into ideal
circumstances. There probably aren't many perfectly
healthy, sane, well-adjusted, non-drug-addicted,
loved and supported, emotionally stable,
well-educated, well-funded, gainfully employed,
unabused mothers over 18 who decide to give up
their children for adoption. An adoptive family should, at a bare minimum,
assume that the mere fact that the mother carried a
baby for nine months, while facing the decision
about whether or not to relinquish the baby for
adoption, would cause a little stress in the
pregnancy. And who knows what sort of effect the
stress of making such a monumental decision will
have on the developing baby? Besides, this assumption of risk really isn't any
different from what biological parents face. When
you get pregnant, you don't know if your child will
arrive healthy and happy or will only appear
healthy and happy until a genetic inclination to
violence or psychosis kicks in and your bundle of
joy is suddenly a burden of worry and fear. The only difference for the Strohmeyers is that
they believe they have someone to blame. They
should have known -- someone should have
told them. Yet I can't imagine that if they win
their lawsuit and the adoption agency acknowledges
the screw up, it will bring the closure that the
Strohmeyers are probably seeking. Likewise, I can't imagine that they would have been
happier if they had never had Jeremy as a son. I
have to believe that they have joyful memories and
photo albums filled with proof of happier days. I'm
sure nobody promised them that, either.
- - - - - - - - - - - - Sound off Related Salon stories
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon | |||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
