e-mail
After reading this article in the Times Online from the UK,”A system guaranteed to damage babies; If you want to adopt, you’re better off in America”, I’m trying to figure if the author indicates a good example of the grass always being greener, is comparing apples to oranges, or makes valid points about the American system of infant adoption that puts it far and away above that in Britain.
With the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, missing out on all the hoopla during the State visit of the Saudi King and that country’s version of Foreign Secretary … much of it very important hoopla for someone in his position … because of the early birth in the US of a child his family had been matched with for adoption, the topic of US versus UK infant adoption is in the news.
(The writer does rightfully point out that there would be little, if any, criticism if it had been his wife giving birth, indicating that, in the minds of the media at least, a child by adoption is somehow less important.)
Apparently, the wife has dual nationality, and it is only through this that she is allowed under British law to conduct a private US infant adoption. According to the article, many Brits would “jump at the chance of adopting there if they were only entitled to.”
The question that follows is: Why?
The British adoption system, despite repeated promises from politicians to improve it, gets it all wrong. Far from ensuring that babies are handed as quickly as possible to a family that wants and can look after them, the State contrives to lock newborns into the care system. In the US, where private and voluntary agencies match parents with children, a mother may choose the couple who will adopt her child before the birth. She can get to know them, they can attend the birth and form the earliest possible bond with the baby.
Although there are many in the US who hope and pray for more government regulation in the adoption process, the British system would indicate that more does not equal better. Contrary to recent media accounts of babies being snatched from loving mothers by child welfare workers within minutes of birth, this feature points to a 12% drop in adoptions since last year, including those under the age of one-year and claims that: “In Britain, where the system is run by local councils, the presumption is that a baby should stay with its mother wherever possible, or be removed short term and returned to her. This is arguably more in the interests of the mother than the child.”
Citing a report on the poor record of children in care in Britain, the article states that three-quarters of teens leaving care had no educational qualifications, half would be unemployed within two years, and more than one-sixth would be homeless.
With 2,900 babies under the age of one-year in the care of local authorities at one point last year and only 190 children of that age adopted during that same year, and many of the children being moved three or more times in a year, there can be no doubt that RAD will be a serious issue for a lot of these kids.
So, is the grass greener? It would seem to be for families that can afford private US infant adoptions, but many would argue that these are far from perfect and can carry their own set of problems.
Are we talking apples and oranges? Yes, I think we are. The system of care in the US, foster care, has serious issues and about the same outcome with teens as that stated for British kids. US jails also have a high percentage of inmates who grew up in State care and universities have a low percentage.
One commenter on the Times story suggests that differing attitudes toward abortion are what create the gap between countries, stating that in the UK they, “have fewer hang-ups regarding abortion,” and therefore, “hardly any mothers are in a position to meet and choose a family and have them attend the birth”.
Are there valid points that indicate the US system is better? Possibly, but since there is no “US” system, rather 50 different systems each with their own rules and regulations, a closer look at each would have to be made before any could be compared to the nationwide system in Britain.
As interesting as it may be to read a comparison made from someone outside looking in, it’s safe to say that both countries fail in many ways to protect their most vulnerable citizens, and both have a long way to go before either can point to itself and say, “We’ve got it right.”
there are more than 50 systems, Sandra. It goes county by county. argh!