Thursday, January 6, 2011


I just read this article that someone posted on Facebook. This is an adoptive father talking about the injustices in the adoption world. First of all, he refers to women like me as "the birthmother". I just can't help the way it gets under my skin. He might as well say - "the walking uterus" or "the womb". It's like we aren't even people to him.

His first complaint: the long wait for an infant. He's in Canada and according to him there's a minimum wait of 10 years when doing a public adoption. The wait is shorter when it's a private adoption but "the birthmother" still has the right to change her mind up until 30 days after the baby is placed in the home. *gasp* The baby's mother has an entire month (insert sarcastic tone here) to change her mind. I do have to say though, at least she has 30 days. Here in my state of Florida there is NO time to change her mind. Once the paper is signed - that's it. It's done.

His second complaint: foster homes are overflowing with children. "In Canada, our system still weighs heavily the rights of the biological parent over those of the child." The writer is speaking of the child being in foster care for a period of time while the parent has a chance to remedy whatever the situation is. Isn't it in the best interest of the child for the parent to get their act together so they can raise their child? If they're not able to do that, shouldn't a family member be found first before giving the child to a stranger? And, when it comes to giving the natural parent a chance, how long is too long? I certainly don't have the answers and of course it should be considered on a case by case basis but it sounds like if it were up to this guy, the child would be taken and adopted out right away.

His next complaint: "I wish that it were different, that families would adopt these children." In other words - someone else's family should adopt them - not him and his family. He's still going for the newborn. "Our motivation is not charity. We want infants," Aha! There it is. He's complaining about the wait time for infants and the number of children in foster care but he doesn't want to be the one to take one of the children overflowing the system.

So.... to sum up, this is what his article sounds like to me. He doesn't want to have to wait for a baby. He doesn't want to adopt the children from foster care. He doesn't want mothers to have the opportunity to change their minds about such a huge life altering decision (life altering for her AND the baby). He doesn't want parents to have the chance to get their life together so they can raise their own children. What does he want? He says he's concerned for the children's well being but it seems to me what he really wants is someone else's newborn baby and he wants him or her now.


  1. What nauseates me - he is straight up about how he feels without an ounce of thought for not only the mother, but the child he thinks he is entitled to! What is refreshing is that it isn't an American that says it....but a Canadienne. Not trying to be mean to Canadienne's, but this is something that I rarely see, someone besides Americans being called or openly being "self-entitled" by anyone, especially themselves.

    What I don't get is why mothers and children don't get it - don't see it.....

  2. I don't get that either Lori. This entitlement attitude needs to be spotlighted as much as possible so maybe people will begin to see it for what it is. Unfortunately the industry spends it time not only coercing pregnant women but nurturing this entitlement attitude in the PAP's.