Adoption by single people

[Gwallard]

See prior discussions on this topic:

Adoption for Singles?

Brothers and sisters, Suppose a single man or woman desired to be married and have children but never ended up marrying. Even if they had the ability to work at home and provide for two, would it be unadvisable to adopt? I'm not thinking of anyone in particular as I ask this question. I'm just...

www.puritanboard.com

Single black women choosing to adopt

Single black women choosing to adopt - CNN.com # Story Highlights # More single black women are adopting, adoption official says # Single black woman says inability of black men to commit led to adoption decision # Single black mother: "It's the best decision I could have made in my life"...

www.puritanboard.com

Some very good points in these two posts above on whether or not a single person ought to adopt a child. To summarize what I heard, there were two sides: one (Side only Mothers and Fathers) that spoke of children being in the context of a mother and a father, and would say it is wrong to adopt children as a single person except in very specific circumstances; mother-father relationships are the normative and ideal place for children, adopted or not. The other side (Side Anyone) would say that adoption is preferable to foster care or orphanages, and so single people can adopt; mother-father relationships are the ideal place for children, adopted or not, but by no means the normative place for children to be adopted.
*one such circumstance brought up would be if the mother and father died, but the child went to the father's sisters house and was adopted, this would be preferable to foster care.

Neither side seemed to bring Scripture much into the mix. A friend and I brought up this topic recently, and I would like to bring some exegesis to bear on this topic.

In apparent support of Side "Only Mothers and Fathers"
Ephesians 6:1, Colossians 3:20, "Children, obey your parents..." (τοῖς γονεῦσιν in both cases)
Exodus 20:12 "“Honor your father and your mother,"

In apparent support of Side, "Anyone"
Acts 16:15 "And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us."
Genesis 48-49 The adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by Jacob (Gen 48:5-7) was when both Rachel (Gen 35:16-21) and Leah (Genesis 49:31) were dead.

If Jacob adopted Ephraim and Manasseh while he had no wife, then I think the situation is sealed in favor of the "anyone" case. However, I'm not quite sure that Jacob was not yet still married to Bilhah or Zilpah, (Gen 30, 35) if that could be called marriage. The example of Lydia does not seem very forceful, as a household included servants, and not necessarily sons and daughters. However, Scripture does seem to always speak of children with mother and father in mind. I am on the side of "Only Mothers and Fathers" at the current moment.

 

[Edward]

and would say it is wrong to adopt children as a single person except in very specific circumstances;

The logical extension of that would be, then, if one parent died, the children should be taken from the surviving parent and given to another couple to raise. That would be normative, wouldn't it?

 

[Jack K]

If we limit acts of compassion, only allowing them from people who are best positioned to extend compassion easily and in the fullest way, there will be a lot less compassion in the world and a lot more people who never get help.

 

[Gwallard]

The logical extension of that would be, then, if one parent died, the children should be taken from the surviving parent and given to another couple to raise. That would be normative, wouldn't it?

That's true, but the "Only Mothers and Fathers" position already allows for exceptions: widows retained their children without qualms from God (the widow of Zarephath, Mary with Jesus, allegedly). Although normative, the presence of evil and death means that some women or men will die. In the OT this meant remarriage (Abigail, the widow of Nabal married David) or levirate marriage (Gen 38:6ff., Deut 25:5ff.). Although I don't think levirate marriage applies with widows with children, as Deut 25 only says, "[if] one of them dies and has no son."
But I can't escape that fatherlessness is to be avoided at all times, and is a curse in Scripture: Exodus 22:22-24 uses it as a curse for those who oppress the widow and th fatherless. Orphans are described as "the fatherless" (Lam 5:3 identifies the term "orphan" with "there is no father"). Perhaps, then, a single man with sufficient ability could adopt? I don't think mother's are considered optional, however (Eph 6:1), so I can't seem to accept that, but it's a possible interpretation, not a necessary one.

In fact, in studying this in the OT, I'm pretty amazed to find almost no references I can find to adoption save with Ephraim and Mannaseh. Even in Gen 38, there is no word for adoption. For such a huge concept in the NT, that is shocking to me: the widow and the fatherless, along with the alien, were protected by law and provided for, but it seems adoption wasn't thought of as much of an option. That may be completely wrong, but I'm struggling to find much about it at all.

To be consistent, however, the exception of having your children go to your single sister or brother after the death of both parents would have to be done away with by the "only mothers and fathers" position (except if an exception could be found in Scripture).

If we limit acts of compassion, only allowing them from people who are best positioned to extend compassion easily and in the fullest way, there will be a lot less compassion in the world and a lot more people who never get help.

That is true, and that is the "ideal" aspect of the "Anyone" position. I'm not only willing, but almost desire that side to be true, but I don't have sufficient Scriptural evidence. The weight of Scripture points to "Only mothers and fathers" for me; though there is no command, nor an easy scripture I can find that has good AND necessary consequences in that area.

 

[Gwallard]

One area that I do think would argue for the "Anyone" position would be the Trinity: the Father has a Son and there is no mother. The Father is no widower, so single fathership may be permissible? Perhaps this does not argue for single parent adoption, however. This argument makes me very uncomfortable.

Some would say that Jesus Christ was adopted by the Father after his work on earth, which I think Garner argues in "Sons of the Son." That would argue for adoption by a "single parent." I am very very uncomfortable, but there they are on the table for you guys.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

One area that I do think would argue for the "Anyone" position would be the Trinity: the Father has a Son and there is no mother. The Father is no widower, so single fathership may be permissible? Perhaps this does not argue for single parent adoption, however. This argument makes me very uncomfortable.

Some would say that Jesus Christ was adopted by the Father after his work on earth, which I think Garner argues in "Sons of the Son." That would argue for adoption by a "single parent." I am very very uncomfortable, but there they are on the table for you guys.

I'm with you being uncomfortable with this line of argument. I'm not sure the Trinity can safely be used as a template for every family relationship.

There are obvious exceptions to the general rule that children should be brought up by both a mother and a father (e.g. one parent dies as mentioned above). That there are exceptions does not negate the value of the general rule. While perhaps not a hard and fast never, I can't envision many circumstances where a child is better off being adopted by a single person than by a stable married couple.

I don't think the argument that we should not limit acts of compassion really obtains either. If that were so it cuts the feet from objections to adoption by those living in open breach of the 7th commandment such as cohabiting unmarried couples (and worse in our day and age). Besides, adopting a child is quite a lot more than an act of compassion, as it encompasses becoming the parent of that child with all that entails. It involves compassion no doubt, but that is not the whole size of it.

 

[Edward]

but the "Only Mothers and Fathers" position already allows for exceptions:

Which just shows that its proponents know that it isn't workable in practice.

There are either objective standards, or a slippery slope. Proponets of that position aren't at the top of the hill, they are half way down and sliding, but feeling good about themselves for being further up the hill than their opponents.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Which just shows that its proponents know that it isn't workable in practice.

There are either objective standards, or a slippery slope. Proponets of that position aren't at the top of the hill, they are half way down and sliding, but feeling good about themselves for being further up the hill than their opponents.

I'm not sure I follow your line of argument. Are proponents of singles adoption just a little further down the slope, but feeling smug about themselves because, you know, at least they're still against sodomites adopting?

 

[Gwallard]

Which just shows that its proponents know that it isn't workable in practice.

There are either objective standards, or a slippery slope. Proponets of that position aren't at the top of the hill, they are half way down and sliding, but feeling good about themselves for being further up the hill than their opponents.

Now we're getting into interesting logical territory! I am not saying that "to every rule, there is an exception" (because that rule would have to have an exception), but I don't think saying "this general rule has an exception" means the rule is illegitimate. Correct me if I'm wrong here, I dislike generalities overall, but even God uses rules that have exceptions. What does the Westminster Larger Catechism 117 say about the Sabbath? "The... Lord's Day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day... and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy)..."

A slippery slope, as far as I know it, is an inexorable conclusion based on a certain premise. There are legitimate slippery slopes, when the premise in question assumes a whole host of other premises that negate what the person says, inexorably leading to a completely different conclusion. The slippery slope fallacy is not saying that cases of this happening don't exist, but that "if A, then necessarily Z" is not legitimate in itself, but only in specific cases. What those specific cases are? I don't know

However, what I am hearing you do is what is called "the fallacy of sweeping generalization," which "unsoundly presumes that there are no exceptional cases." (Poythress's Logic pg. 125) Mostly, sweeping generalizations are true, and there are cases of generalizations that have no exceptions, but just because a generalization has exceptions does not make it false. The biblical example (expanding Poythress) is Hebrews 9:27 with Genesis 5:24 and 2 Kings 2:11. Does "It is appointed for man to die once, and then comes judgment" jive with Enoch and Elijah being caught up into heaven without dying? The problem is not the generalization - people do die and then comes judgment - but thinking our understanding of that our generalized truth is comprehensive and God cannot work within that generalization.

I don't have a direct command from God which says, "there cannot be adoption of a child unless they that adopt be a married man and woman." (which is the positive statement of the OP "it is wrong to adopt children as a single person except in very specific circumstances") The generalization that the "Only Mothers and Fathers" side is working from, however, does state that, attempting to come from Scripture. The generalization that you seem to think that side of the argument is making is "unless there be a mother and a father together, with neither dead, children - let alone children able to be adopted - cannot be retained or adopted."

My OP was summarizing what I heard from the two other discussions of this topic on here. The exception was from
"Single Black Woman Choosing..."


Is the exception that the "Only Mothers and Fathers" side taking destroying the positive premise of the argument (like someone saying, "I do love you, except when you're breathing")? Perhaps! But I'm not sure I really hear you dialoguing with that.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't take that exception at all, nor do I find any exceptions for the "Only Mothers and Fathers" side. Before, I think I may have misunderstood what you were objecting to, so I spoke about widows. But I'm now merely defending that there could be exceptions that I've not seen in Scripture that might exist, and that exceptions do not destroy generalizations merely by existing.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

One area that I do think would argue for the "Anyone" position would be the Trinity: the Father has a Son and there is no mother. The Father is no widower, so single fathership may be permissible? Perhaps this does not argue for single parent adoption, however. This argument makes me very uncomfortable.

Some would say that Jesus Christ was adopted by the Father after his work on earth, which I think Garner argues in "Sons of the Son." That would argue for adoption by a "single parent." I am very very uncomfortable, but there they are on the table for you guys.

I'm with you being uncomfortable with this line of argument. I'm not sure the Trinity can safely be used as a template for every family relationship.

There are obvious exceptions to the general rule that children should be brought up by both a mother and a father (e.g. one parent dies as mentioned above). That there are exceptions does not negate the value of the general rule. While perhaps not a hard and fast never, I can't envision many circumstances where a child is better off being adopted by a single person than by a stable married couple.

I don't think the argument that we should not limit acts of compassion really obtains either. If that were so it cuts the feet from objections to adoption by those living in open breach of the 7th commandment such as cohabiting unmarried couples (and worse in our day and age). Besides, adopting a child is quite a lot more than an act of compassion, as it encompasses becoming the parent of that child with all that entails. It involves compassion no doubt, but that is not the whole size of it.

Let us leave the Persons of the Godhead out of this discussion.

 

[RamistThomist]

Let us leave the Persons of the Godhead out of this discussion.

Amen. That will only end in disaster and heresy.

 

[jwithnell]

See prior discussions on this topic:

Adoption for Singles?

Brothers and sisters, Suppose a single man or woman desired to be married and have children but never ended up marrying. Even if they had the ability to work at home and provide for two, would it be unadvisable to adopt? I'm not thinking of anyone in particular as I ask this question. I'm just...

www.puritanboard.com

Single black women choosing to adopt

Single black women choosing to adopt - CNN.com # Story Highlights # More single black women are adopting, adoption official says # Single black woman says inability of black men to commit led to adoption decision # Single black mother: "It's the best decision I could have made in my life"...

www.puritanboard.com

Some very good points in these two posts above on whether or not a single person ought to adopt a child. To summarize what I heard, there were two sides: one (Side only Mothers and Fathers) that spoke of children being in the context of a mother and a father, and would say it is wrong to adopt children as a single person except in very specific circumstances; mother-father relationships are the normative and ideal place for children, adopted or not. The other side (Side Anyone) would say that adoption is preferable to foster care or orphanages, and so single people can adopt; mother-father relationships are the ideal place for children, adopted or not, but by no means the normative place for children to be adopted.
*one such circumstance brought up would be if the mother and father died, but the child went to the father's sisters house and was adopted, this would be preferable to foster care.

Neither side seemed to bring Scripture much into the mix. A friend and I brought up this topic recently, and I would like to bring some exegesis to bear on this topic.

In apparent support of Side "Only Mothers and Fathers"
Ephesians 6:1, Colossians 3:20, "Children, obey your parents..." (τοῖς γονεῦσιν in both cases)
Exodus 20:12 "“Honor your father and your mother,"

In apparent support of Side, "Anyone"
Acts 16:15 "And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us."
Genesis 48-49 The adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by Jacob (Gen 48:5-7) was when both Rachel (Gen 35:16-21) and Leah (Genesis 49:31) were dead.

If Jacob adopted Ephraim and Manasseh while he had no wife, then I think the situation is sealed in favor of the "anyone" case. However, I'm not quite sure that Jacob was not yet still married to Bilhah or Zilpah, (Gen 30, 35) if that could be called marriage. The example of Lydia does not seem very forceful, as a household included servants, and not necessarily sons and daughters. However, Scripture does seem to always speak of children with mother and father in mind. I am on the side of "Only Mothers and Fathers" at the current moment.

Here's a primary question regarding your texts: what topics were the divinely-inspired authors addressing? None appear to be about family structure. That would be like drawing lessons about viticulture from John 15:5 or seamanship from Matt 8:26. The fifth commandment might be the most relevant, but even that might limit its historic application to authorities outside the family where you have all male church leaders or perhaps you have a single female government official. Your question is excellent (it is one I considered myself before marrying my Brian) but scriptures regarding selflessness, mercy, compassion, or even justice might be more fruitful when contemplating the subject.

 

[Gwallard]

Here's a primary question regarding your texts: what topics were the divinely-inspired authors addressing? None appear to be about family structure. That would be like drawing lessons about viticulture from John 15:5 or seamanship from Matt 8:26. The fifth commandment might be the most relevant, but even that might limit its historic application to authorities outside the family where you have all male church leaders or perhaps you have a single female government official. Your question is excellent (it is one I considered myself before marrying my Brian) but scriptures regarding selflessness, mercy, compassion, or even justice might be more fruitful when contemplating the subject.

That is a problem with the question that I'm running into: adoption is a topic that the New Testament dives into with gusto, but never in a legal manner. Background work on what adoption was during the time of the New Testament is interesting, but their culture's mores wouldn't be binding for us, only Scripture can do that. This is why I have looked for Old Testament references, or some kind of family context. My hope is to gain some kind of good and necessary consequence from any of these texts, as Jesus did (Mark 12:18-27) with texts that did not directly call God the God of the living rather than the dead, but was a good and necessary consequence of Exodus 3:6, where God was revealing his divine, covenant name. But so far, I've had trouble. The closest I could come to was Jacob adopting Manasseh and Ephraim, but that is no open and shut case for the reasons above, unless Bilhah and Zilpah were not wives of Jacob. I'm not sure if that's an shut case either.

But on the note of Roman adoption (according to Unger's Bible Dictionary)
"there were two kinds of adoption, both requiring the adopter to be a male and childless: arrogatio and adoption proper. The former could only take place where the person to be adopted was independent (sui juris) and his adopter had no prospect of male offspring. The adopted one became, in the eyes of the law, a new creature. He was born again into a new family. This custom doubtless referred to by Paul (Romans 8:14-16)"

I don't really know if this matters much. Paul uses adoption in a much more theological way in Rom 8:15-17, Gal 4:4-6, Eph 1:5 and 1 Cor 6:18 and etc. Unger says Paul uses it as 1) shorthand for the act of God where one is (though already a child John 1:12-13) placed in the position of an adult son, 2) shorthand for our final state of salvation (Rom 8:19, 23), and 3) as a special status given to Israel (Rom 9:4).

Those Scriptures on selfishness, mercy, compassion, justice, and others like them would be helpful, and perhaps I am missing this in my exposition for the "anyone" side of the argument. What was your conclusion before your marriage? (congratulations, by the way!)

 

[Jack K]

Grant, you ask a good question, but I wonder if you are trying to force your way into finding a biblical rule where Scripture does not provide one. Surely, the Bible does give us much helpful wisdom—about family structures (both household and extended), compassion, justice, proper care for those dependent on us, and more. But the sheer number of considerations, combined with the way each adoptive parent and each situation is different, makes it hazardous to insist on a normative rule either for or against single-parent adoption. Perhaps God simply has not regulated adoption that way. Most likely, we should neither rule out single-parent adoption nor imagine that being single is no obstacle (since in many cases it probably should prevent adopting).

 

[Gwallard]

Grant, you ask a good question, but I wonder if you are trying to force your way into finding a biblical rule where Scripture does not provide one. Surely, the Bible does give us much helpful wisdom—about family structures (both household and extended), compassion, justice, proper care for those dependent on us, and more. But the sheer number of considerations, combined with the way each adoptive parent and each situation is different, makes it hazardous to insist on a normative rule either for or against single-parent adoption. Perhaps God simply has not regulated adoption that way. Most likely, we should neither rule out single-parent adoption nor imagine that being single is no obstacle (since in many cases it probably should prevent adopting).

That is a difficulty of mine, I must admit. I do legitimately hope to get to the depths of a certain topic and submit to Scripture on it. But if there isn't a specific answer from God aside from "wait," or "you wont know this side of eternity," or especially, " you will never know," my mind continues on the same subject. Where to stop is not a very easy question for me, and one of the reasons I appreciate the church - they can reign me in. It has led to sin in the past.

 

[Edward]

Are proponents of singles adoption just a little further down the slope, but feeling smug about themselves because, you know, at least they're still against sodomites adopting?

Back before homosexual 'marriage' was allowed, that was one of the subtexts for disallowing singles to adopt.

I can't envision many circumstances where a child is better off being adopted by a single person than by a stable married couple.

I don't think you'll get much argument on that, but that isn't the issue at hand. The question should be "Is a child better off being adopted by a single person, or not being adopted at all."

 

[gjensen]

There are countless unwanted children permanently placed in foster homes that would be better off being adopted by a single Christian parent than remaining in the custody of Rome.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Back before homosexual 'marriage' was allowed, that was one of the subtexts for disallowing singles to adopt.


I don't think you'll get much argument on that, but that isn't the issue at hand. The question should be "Is a child better off being adopted by a single person, or not being adopted at all."

Ok maybe I misunderstood the OP - I didn't think he was arguing that it is never acceptable for single people to adopt, I read it as, married couple adoption is normative and single adoption should only happen in exceptional circumstances. That's roughly where I'd be at too, though it's not an issue I'd ever really given much thought to before this thread opened.

I do think there is a danger in trying g to proof-text one's position either way, and that danger is of twisting a particular scripture to mean something it really is not intended to mean. I can't think of any scripture that speaks directly to this question, and would be very hesitant to quote a chapter and verse for anything I said above. That doesn't mean though that we can't apply scriptural principles to work out an answer. As with more or less anything, I think we can.

 

[dhh712]

There are countless unwanted children permanently placed in foster homes that would be better off being adopted by a single Christian parent than remaining in the custody of Rome.

Exactly. I would consider this to be an act of compassion in a fallen world. Of course the ideal would be a two-parent home. However, some godly men and women for whatever reason are not given a godly spouse by his providence. If the Lord moves their hearts to adopt and provides them with such means, I see full Biblical support for such an act of selflessness and charity.

 

[RamistThomist]

Beware of the biblicist hermeneutic where you have to have a proof text for everything.

 

[gjensen]

Exactly. I would consider this to be an act of compassion in a fallen world. Of course the ideal would be a two-parent home. However, some godly men and women for whatever reason are not given a godly spouse by his providence. If the Lord moves their hearts to adopt and provides them with such means, I see full Biblical support for such an act of selflessness and charity.

The ideal is a married couple, and there may be more risk involved when the one adopting is single. Especially if the candidate is a man. I am not sure how to wade through all of that, but I know there is great need and enormous potential.

I have known several single foster parents. Each of them was a tremendous blessing to the children they worked with. They were able to devote more attention to the children they cared for than others would have been. One adopted a few very young children that were permanently placed in foster care.

Again, I agree that there are risks and concerns here. I also do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all to point to.

 

[Gwallard]

Ok maybe I misunderstood the OP - I didn't think he was arguing that it is never acceptable for single people to adopt, I read it as, married couple adoption is normative and single adoption should only happen in exceptional circumstances. That's roughly where I'd be at too, though it's not an issue I'd ever really given much thought to before this thread opened.

My OP was trying to summarize the two positions that I saw on PB, and although I would like to find exceptions, I can't find those exceptions in Scripture. The thread was open for either side to give a biblical argument, but I found myself on the "Only Mothers and Fathers" with what little I could see in Scripture.

Beware of the biblicist hermeneutic where you have to have a proof text for everything.

I do think there is a danger in trying g to proof-text one's position either way, and that danger is of twisting a particular scripture to mean something it really is not intended to mean. I can't think of any scripture that speaks directly to this question, and would be very hesitant to quote a chapter and verse for anything I said above. That doesn't mean though that we can't apply scriptural principles to work out an answer. As with more or less anything, I think we can.

I hope I am not proof-texting in these matters. But I am having difficulty finding examples of what I thought would be more easily found, given the NT. But I also am trying to avoid the other extreme, which finds a problem in the world and merely assumes the Bible's answer for pragmatic purposes. I hate that untold nations worth of children need to be adopted, but that is not the swaying factor in what I believe must be done for adoption, and how it ought to be done.

 

[RamistThomist]

My OP was trying to summarize the two positions that I saw on PB, and although I would like to find exceptions, I can't find those exceptions in Scripture. The thread was open for either side to give a biblical argument, but I found myself on the "Only Mothers and Fathers" with what little I could see in Scripture.



I hope I am not proof-texting in these matters. But I am having difficulty finding examples of what I thought would be more easily found, given the NT. But I also am trying to avoid the other extreme, which finds a problem in the world and merely assumes the Bible's answer for pragmatic purposes. I hate that untold nations worth of children need to be adopted, but that is not the swaying factor in what I believe must be done for adoption, and how it ought to be done.

The simple answer is that the Bible isn't a database with ready-made answers to every single problem. God did give us reason (which, among other things we use to interpret the text). If the Bible is silent on an issue, use wisdom.

 

[KMK]

We are all adopted by a single parent: God the Father.

 

[Gwallard]

After talking about this issue with a friend, I think I may be swaying toward another direction. My method was at one time to go to any places that speak on adoption, whether case law or examples, and by good and necessary consequence deduce from those to an answer. As some of you have told me, this was not an adequate method, as it discounted the rest of Scripture's witness, particularly about justice, mercy, etc. I should have also been deducing from the general principles of the Word - however daunting that may be.

However, that vague notions of justice and mercy hung over such a question did not change the fact that when Scripture spoke about children, it was in the context of "parents," and although I really did desire for the position that children can be adopted by single parents, I could not find more-than-vague (or perhaps even pragmatic) answers. I think that has changed.

1) The Kinsman Redeemer/Levirate marriage: Build up, do not blot out, your house.
In the event that a husband should die without a child, Israelite law dictated that the next of kin would produce an heir with her, "that his [the husband's] name may not be blotted out of Israel" (Deut 25:6). This was a sacred duty, so sacred that the one who refused it was cursed by the community, renamed, and spat in the face (Deut 25:9-10). This all because he did not "build up his brother's house." (Deut 25:9), which is the principle.

Although levirate marriage was a principle for the widow who was without child, the principle behind the practice was to build up the house of God, and not to let it die. In this practice, extreme measures were taken to keep the family name alive within the family ("she shall not be married outside the family to a stranger" Deut 25:5) by a son (v6).

The principle may be extended to a son in general. If the family was to provide for the family name through the provision of levirate marriage and a kinsman redeemer to gain a POTENTIAL son, how much more so would they provide for an ACTUAL son in dire need. That is, if a son or daughter was left after the death of the parents, the family had an obligation to build up that house. The kinsman redeemer - whether he be single or married - has the obligation to provide for his family, even his extended family.

Conclusion: the orphan ought to be adopted by one side of the family of the dead parents.
Possible complication: I don't know if this really would have been considered "adoption," or if the label of "adoption" need to applied to it, but I think practically it is the same thing that we are arguing for. Care of the child as if it were your own, even if he/she may not have your name.