Single black women choosing to adopt

[ChristianTrader]

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"
# Pressure to be mother takes emotional toll on black women, some say

I think this article is just loaded with things to discuss but one key thing that I have a question concerning is Single person adoption. Should it be discouraged? Should it be encouraged (with the number of children in foster care)? Should we be neutral towards it.

Under an ideal situation, one wishes to have a married couple adopt and bring up the child, but when one does not have such a situation, should one allow the child to stay in foster care?

 

[Pergamum]

I know single people who run or work in orphanages among the poor. Even better than taking care of orphans would be to erase the status of orphan by adopting a child or two or 13, even if done by one of these single people operating the orphanages.

But that might not be the situation we are talking about here.

 

[BobVigneault]

I'm ok with it and here is my thinking:

Being single is not a sin.

A single parent household is not the best model for raising children but it certainly does not overturn God's precepts for child rearing.

Godly male roll models should be sought out regardless.

Adoption is a fundamental doctrine of scripture and and is used in illustrating salvation just as significantly as marriage is used.

Adoption encourages a culture of life and the sanctity there of.

This should not be compared to same sex couples adopting. Same sex couples are bringing children into a home that is already based in rebellion against God and His values.

A single mom of any skin shade can uphold the principles of scripture in parenting.

 

[Montanablue]

I agree with Bob (as usual )

If there are a limited number of children available for adoption, I think married couples should get a higher priority. However, being raised by a godly single woman is surely better than living in an foreign orphanage or a foster home situation. (I know some foster homes are good, but my experience has been that those are sadly few and far between). And of course good male role models should be sought out - uncles, grandfathers, perhaps men in the church.

On a personal note, I have a friend who was raised by a single mother. (Her father died a few months before her birth). She had two uncles that were like surrogate fathers to her and her mother did a spectacular job of raising her. Honestly, I'd say she's better off than many of my friends who were raised in "conventional" two parent homes that were full of strife.

 

[kvanlaan]

Adopt, yes, adopt. Spot on, Bob.

 

[Zenas]

Adopt as many as you can provide for.

 

[Knoxienne]

No, being single is not a sin, but children need both parents. Families involve a father, a mother and their children. It's one thing if a spouse dies or is lawfully divorced and the spouse is alone for a time until they can marry again, but to purposefully set out as a single to adopt a child who needs both a mother and a father in the home? No way. I'm surprised there's any controversy about it here.

And no, it's not the same as sodomites adopting, but I think singles adopting can (and do) fuel this and other "alternative family styles". We should be actively encouraging one man/one woman families, not merely discouraging and being against sodomite adoption. Otherwise we're in another losing battle. My

 

[Montanablue]

No, being single is not a sin, but children need both parents. Families involve a father, a mother and their children. It's one thing if a spouse dies or is lawfully divorced and the spouse is alone for a time until they can marry again, but to purposefully set out as a single to adopt a child who needs both a mother and a father in the home? No way. I'm surprised there's any controversy about it.

And no, it's not the same as sodomites adopting, but I think singles adopting can (and do) fuel this and other "alternative family styles". We should be actively encouraging one man/one woman families, not just discouraging sodomite adoption. My

Do you think its better for a child to be in a group home than with a single parent then?

I do agree that the ideal situation is for children to have both parents - like I said, married couples should DEFINITELY get priority over single parents in adopting. But with such a huge number of homeless children, I have a hard time saying that we should let them stay in group homes or in foreign orphanages (where they are often living in squalor and are malnourished) rather then let them have a home with a godly (but single) parent.

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 12:32:03 EST-----

Also, can I just say that I was reading this article a little closer and this bit really made me sad:

She broke off relationships with men who didn't want to settle down. She refused to get pregnant out of wedlock. She prayed for a child.

Duren's yearning for motherhood was so palpable that her former fiancé once offered to father a child with her. But he warned her that he wasn't ready for marriage.

"I get bored in relationships after a couple of years," he told her, she recalls.

 

[Knoxienne]

No, being single is not a sin, but children need both parents. Families involve a father, a mother and their children. It's one thing if a spouse dies or is lawfully divorced and the spouse is alone for a time until they can marry again, but to purposefully set out as a single to adopt a child who needs both a mother and a father in the home? No way. I'm surprised there's any controversy about it.

And no, it's not the same as sodomites adopting, but I think singles adopting can (and do) fuel this and other "alternative family styles". We should be actively encouraging one man/one woman families, not just discouraging sodomite adoption. My

Do you think its better for a child to be in a group home than with a single parent then?

I do agree that the ideal situation is for children to have both parents - like I said, married couples should DEFINITELY get priority over single parents in adopting. But with such a huge number of homeless children, I have a hard time saying that we should let them stay in group homes or in foreign orphanages (where they are often living in squalor and are malnourished) rather then let them have a home with a godly (but single) parent.

Why does a group home situation necessarily have to be a bad place? Lester Roloff had group homes and those children were very well cared for. They were a huge success for the gospel as well.

 

[Montanablue]

No, being single is not a sin, but children need both parents. Families involve a father, a mother and their children. It's one thing if a spouse dies or is lawfully divorced and the spouse is alone for a time until they can marry again, but to purposefully set out as a single to adopt a child who needs both a mother and a father in the home? No way. I'm surprised there's any controversy about it.

And no, it's not the same as sodomites adopting, but I think singles adopting can (and do) fuel this and other "alternative family styles". We should be actively encouraging one man/one woman families, not just discouraging sodomite adoption. My

Do you think its better for a child to be in a group home than with a single parent then?

I do agree that the ideal situation is for children to have both parents - like I said, married couples should DEFINITELY get priority over single parents in adopting. But with such a huge number of homeless children, I have a hard time saying that we should let them stay in group homes or in foreign orphanages (where they are often living in squalor and are malnourished) rather then let them have a home with a godly (but single) parent.

Why does a group home situation necessarily have to be a bad place? Lester Roloff had group homes and those children were very well cared for. They were a huge success for the gospel as well.

That's a really good point. You're right - some group homes (especially those run by Christian couples) are good places. I'm still not sure they can ever take the place of a parent's love, but they don't have to be bad. Unfortunately, I've seen some pretty horrible group home situations - bordering on seriously abusive.

I would say that most children in foreign orphanages though are most definitely better off in a single parent home than in the orphanage. My younger brother came from Bulgaria -he had no vaccinations, was seriously ill, malnourished, and couldn't speak because of the lack of human interaction (he was 3.5 years old). In that case, I'm absolutely in favor of a single parent home.

-----Added 7/6/2009 at 12:47:51 EST-----

Also, I'm (once again) out of thanks. Which is why your post about group homes is devoid of thanks.

 

[Knoxienne]

Do you think its better for a child to be in a group home than with a single parent then?

I do agree that the ideal situation is for children to have both parents - like I said, married couples should DEFINITELY get priority over single parents in adopting. But with such a huge number of homeless children, I have a hard time saying that we should let them stay in group homes or in foreign orphanages (where they are often living in squalor and are malnourished) rather then let them have a home with a godly (but single) parent.

Why does a group home situation necessarily have to be a bad place? Lester Roloff had group homes and those children were very well cared for. They were a huge success for the gospel as well.

That's a really good point. You're right - some group homes (especially those run by Christian couples) are good places. I'm still not sure they can ever take the place of a parent's love, but they don't have to be bad. Unfortunately, I've seen some pretty horrible group home situations - bordering on seriously abusive.

I would say that most children in foreign orphanages though are most definitely better off in a single parent home than in the orphanage. My younger brother came from Bulgaria -he had no vaccinations, was seriously ill, malnourished, and couldn't speak because of the lack of human interaction (he was 3.5 years old). In that case, I'm absolutely in favor of a single parent home.

Wow, that's sad. What you said about foreign orphanages really drives home that as Christians we need to be creating, investing in and promoting godly orphanages where children are cared for, are schooled and learn to work a trade. Historically, the Church has been at the forefront of orphanages since it is the bible which speaks to caring for orphans.

I think if there were more godly Church orphanages, couples would have an easier time adopting unlike now where they have to jump through so many hoops because of State regulations. When Churches work hard caring for widows and orphans, the State will again play its God-given role as a justice and peace-keeping system.

Don't worry about the thanks, Kathleen. I know you thanked me in your heart. You have such a sweet spirit. I hope we meet in person someday.

 

[BobVigneault]

Before we adopted, my foster daughter was proving to be too much of a burden on us and was putting her siblings at risk. The final threat was when we told her she was going to have to go to the group home. The case worker assured us that one weekend in the group home and she would see life very differently.

She literally cried a pool of tears on the floor and begged for forgiveness and another chance. There may be good group homes out there and Adam L. would know more about that than I but the ones I've been told about are supposed to be temporary warehouses for kids and used as negative reinforcement.

I would much rather see a single mom raise a child than a group home. And I would rather answer abortion with adoption by a couple first and single mom second than any other solutions.

If there are single moms who will step up to adopt when there aren't enough couples to do it, then it's not to the single mom's shame but to our society that will not honor the image of God in children.

Eunice and Lois found a roll model in Paul for Timothy. It's a beautiful story, not optimum but very effective.

 

[SemperEruditio]

No, being single is not a sin, but children need both parents. Families involve a father, a mother and their children. It's one thing if a spouse dies or is lawfully divorced and the spouse is alone for a time until they can marry again, but to purposefully set out as a single to adopt a child who needs both a mother and a father in the home? No way. I'm surprised there's any controversy about it.

And no, it's not the same as sodomites adopting, but I think singles adopting can (and do) fuel this and other "alternative family styles". We should be actively encouraging one man/one woman families, not just discouraging sodomite adoption. My

Do you think its better for a child to be in a group home than with a single parent then?

I do agree that the ideal situation is for children to have both parents - like I said, married couples should DEFINITELY get priority over single parents in adopting. But with such a huge number of homeless children, I have a hard time saying that we should let them stay in group homes or in foreign orphanages (where they are often living in squalor and are malnourished) rather then let them have a home with a godly (but single) parent.

Why does a group home situation necessarily have to be a bad place? Lester Roloff had group homes and those children were very well cared for. They were a huge success for the gospel as well.

Exceptions do not disprove the rule. Better a single woman who is God-fearing than a couple who is not. Not sure how "ideal" and "adoption" go hand in hand. The ideal situation is for the biological mother to keep the child but life is what it is and we have to deal with the reality versus the ideal; there are not enough couples adopting.

I guess I'm curious now...if a man/woman couple are the ideal how many standard deviations from that are group homes? So what is the order?

man/wife couple ---> man/wife group home ---> man/wife foster care --->????

 

[KMK]

Before we adopted, my foster daughter was proving to be too much of a burden on us and was putting her siblings at risk. The final threat was when we told her she was going to have to go to the group home. The case worker assured us that one weekend in the group home and she would see life very differently.

She literally cried a pool of tears on the floor and begged for forgiveness and another chance. There may be good group homes out there and Adam L. would know more about that than I but the ones I've been told about are supposed to be temporary warehouses for kids and used as negative reinforcement.

I would much rather see a single mom raise a child than a group home. And I would rather answer abortion with adoption by a couple first and single mom second than any other solutions.

If there are single moms who will step up to adopt when there aren't enough couples to do it, then it's not to the single mom's shame but to our society that will not honor the image of God in children.

Eunice and Lois found a roll model in Paul for Timothy. It's a beautiful story, not optimum but very effective.

I agree.

I would like to add, contra to popular opinion I'm sure, that in most cases a committed 'same sex' couple would be better for a child than being bounced around from one short term foster situation to another.

Let us also beware of condemning that which we are not willing to solve ourselves.

 

[kvanlaan]

Do you think its better for a child to be in a group home than with a single parent then?

No, but I would say that we should be praying for godly couples to be raised up to erase this second-best necessity.

 

[Knoxienne]

Let us also beware of condemning that which we are not willing to solve ourselves.

I completely agree. Churches need to be providing for the orphans and widows as they have throughout history. It is the essence of our faith and it's a shame that the Church and her people have neglected this important duty.

 

[jogri17]

It should normally be discouraged, however there are extreme cases (death of a loved one, ect...) where I do believe it is acceptable. If my sister is single and I ever have kids I would much much rather have them live with her for a short amount of time till a Christian family then having them go through foster care.

 

[Knoxienne]

It should normally be discouraged, however there are extreme cases (death of a loved one, ect...) where I do believe it is acceptable. If my sister is single and I ever have kids I would much much rather have them live with her for a short amount of time till a Christian family then having them go through foster care.

True, I can absolutely see your example being an exception, since it's within the family and every effort should be made for the children to stay with their relatives rather than foster care as you mentioned. Makes things a lot easier for the child.

 

[matt01]

Let us also beware of condemning that which we are not willing to solve ourselves.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Another Question: why are there not more married folks that are adopting?

A related question: Is in-vitro fertilization a good option when there are a multitude of children in the foster care system?

 

[BobVigneault]

In Vitro is a very bad idea. It creates embryos destined for destruction and even now there are lots of frozen embryos that need adopting. There is work going on to match up parents with adopted frozen embryos but the numbers of embryos keep growing.

Every person who is related to Christ by adoption and not by DNA should be encouraging or considering adoption. The church MUST cultivate a culture of adoption.

It is cool that when one or two couples begin adopting in a church, it begins to catch on.

 

[KMK]

Another Question: why are there not more married folks that are adopting?

From the top of my head I would say that one reason is there are less 'married' folks, even in the church.

 

[Caroline]

Another Question: why are there not more married folks that are adopting?

My experience with this is that the system is faulty. It is enormously expensive to adopt unless one adopts from foster care (which my oldest daughter is). If one wants to adopt even one child without going through foster care, they are probably looking at a bill running at least $25,000 and possibly as much as $40,000 for an international adoption. Most couples simply do not have that kind of cash on hand. You can do it cheaper by adopting domestically (usually around $15,000 to $20,000), but then you have to wait for a birth mother to choose you ... which may take years, if it happens at all, and even then you run the risk of the birth mother changing her mind at the last minute. And birth mothers tend to choose people with nice houses, upscale jobs, and no other children, so if you work in construction or have a disabled child, you are probably out of luck.

On the other hand, adopting through foster care has its own challenges. There is fierce competition for young, healthy, and white children, while the older, disabled, and black children usually end up bounced around in foster care or group homes until they age out of the system. It is sad ... but then, people don't often go into adoption just thinking, "I want to help kids". They start off because they want to build a family, and they have a mental image of taking home a baby or toddler that looks kind of like them--the sort they would get if they could have children.

Also, there is basically a choice. You can (1) take a child that has only recently been removed from the birth parents, in which case, you may care for the child for as much as several years only to have the child removed from you and returned to the birth parents or you can (2) take a child who has already had parental rights terminated, but these are nearly always children who have been moved from foster home to foster home and there are reasons that people haven't adopted them yet (they are severely disabled or have severe behavior problems).

So there aren't a lot of ideal options for a young couple just trying to start a family. Adopting from foster care sounds easy (and it is free), but you probably will end up caring for a lot of children and only adopting a few of them. I think this makes IVF and other options more appealing. IVF is expensive (around $15,000, I think) and rarely covered by insurance, but still cheaper and less complicated than adoption. It is a shame, I think, but I'm not really sure what suggestion I would give to remedy the situation.

 

[SemperEruditio]

Another Question: why are there not more married folks that are adopting?

My experience with this is that the system is faulty. It is enormously expensive to adopt unless one adopts from foster care (which my oldest daughter is). If one wants to adopt even one child without going through foster care, they are probably looking at a bill running at least $25,000 and possibly as much as $40,000 for an international adoption. Most couples simply do not have that kind of cash on hand. You can do it cheaper by adopting domestically (usually around $15,000 to $20,000), but then you have to wait for a birth mother to choose you ... which may take years, if it happens at all, and even then you run the risk of the birth mother changing her mind at the last minute. And birth mothers tend to choose people with nice houses, upscale jobs, and no other children, so if you work in construction or have a disabled child, you are probably out of luck.

Please provide statistics which prove this tendency.

I agree the system is faulty but you have provided nothing new except your impressions on the system. I know adoptive parents who do not have nice homes, nor upscale jobs, and have other children with disabilities.

There is the other side of the coin of adoptive parents who all but show up with swatches of how dark they are willing to accept a child. If a single Christian woman has it in her heart to adopt then we should gather around her and support her....scratch that. If any woman or couple has it in their heart to adopt then we as the Church should gather around them.

Unless I'm mistaken we are talking about Single Black women who are adopting Black children who are the least adopted. I would think this would be applauded but then again this is the PB.

 

[charliejunfan]

 

[Caroline]

Another Question: why are there not more married folks that are adopting?

My experience with this is that the system is faulty. It is enormously expensive to adopt unless one adopts from foster care (which my oldest daughter is). If one wants to adopt even one child without going through foster care, they are probably looking at a bill running at least $25,000 and possibly as much as $40,000 for an international adoption. Most couples simply do not have that kind of cash on hand. You can do it cheaper by adopting domestically (usually around $15,000 to $20,000), but then you have to wait for a birth mother to choose you ... which may take years, if it happens at all, and even then you run the risk of the birth mother changing her mind at the last minute. And birth mothers tend to choose people with nice houses, upscale jobs, and no other children, so if you work in construction or have a disabled child, you are probably out of luck.

Please provide statistics which prove this tendency.

I agree the system is faulty but you have provided nothing new except your impressions on the system. I know adoptive parents who do not have nice homes, nor upscale jobs, and have other children with disabilities.

There is the other side of the coin of adoptive parents who all but show up with swatches of how dark they are willing to accept a child. If a single Christian woman has it in her heart to adopt then we should gather around her and support her....scratch that. If any woman or couple has it in their heart to adopt then we as the Church should gather around them.

Unless I'm mistaken we are talking about Single Black women who are adopting Black children who are the least adopted. I would think this would be applauded but then again this is the PB.

Hmmm ... ok ... well, I was actually responding to the slightly tangential question of why couples don't adopt more, although the question of adoptive parents being too picky about skin color and such applies in far too many situations (even the article linked in the first post discussed how some black adoptive mothers want lighter-skinned children vs ones that are very dark).

I don't have statistics for you ... I'm just someone who has been through the process, had my brother go through the process (I adopted through foster care and my brother had a domestic adoption fall through and ended up adopting internationally), and I been involved in foster care and international adoption off and on for a number of years both directly and indirectly (although not recently, since my health has declined). But it's anyone choice on internet forums whether to take someone seriously, and it's ok if you don't.

I think whether I'd support anyone--black or white, single or married--would largely depend on whether or not I believed they understood what they were getting into. I've known beautiful adoption situations that worked out wonderfully. I've also seen Americans adopting cute Korean kids as though they were kittens and then dumping them back off at the orphanage when they got on their nerves (some of the saddest and most tragic situations I have ever witnessed in my life, including one little girl who lived with her adoptive family for over a year before she got 'voted out of the family' at a family meeting. In fact, my parents cared for one such child for a few years--his adoptive mother adopted six Korean kids, then changed her mind some years later and kicked out three of them. I've known people who have lost thousands of dollars to dishonest adoption agencies who promised them babies that they never delivered. And just about every other possible situation you can imagine.

Things are complicated ... that's all I'm saying. Media presents things over-simplified. Anyone who is considering it should be prepared, because it's a good thing, but it's not easy. What IS easy is for people to get starry-eyed about it and take on more than they can ultimately handle (financially or practically). So some caution is advised.