adoption

Anti-Adoption Movement Can Actually Be Anti-Child

To help launch National Adoption Month at the beginning of November, our friends at the Institute for Family Studies have provided a helpful analysis of the anti-adoption movement – and yes, there is such sentiment bubbling about out there.

According to those who oppose it, adoption is exploitive, coercive and downright harmful to children.

If such claims leave you scratching your head, you wouldn’t be alone – especially if you’re a social scientist who studies the data and works to separate the fact from the fiction. As it is, study after study has confirmed adoption’s collective good both corporately and individually.

At the outset, it might be helpful to level set and acknowledge that adoption has existed in some fashion since the beginning of human history. Whether motivated or necessitated by death, desire (altruistic or financial), desertion or the incapacitation of one or more birth parents, or out-of-wedlock births, the transfer of children (or adults) between individuals and families has been an acceptable, albeit exceptional, means of family formation.

Over the years, references to adoption have been recorded in the Bible, numerous historic texts, Greek and Roman mythologies, movies, music, television, and even popular children’s literature.

In the Old Testament book of Exodus, we read about the adoption of Moses and Esther. In ancient Rome, Augustus, the first emperor of the Roman Empire, was adopted – as was Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, and Marcus Aurelius.

Today, adoption is culturally ubiquitous. Everyone knows someone who was adopted or someone who has adopted. Whether from somewhere overseas or here in the United States, upwards of 120,000 children are adopted every year. That translates to over 5 million individuals here in America who grew up in an adoptive family.

At the heart of the anti-adoption movement is an overwhelming, and some might argue, unrealistic level of support for reunification between the child and their biological parent(s). They hold that resources and efforts should be poured into serving and helping the mothers and fathers who either voluntarily or involuntarily relinquish their children. Those who champion such a position claim adoption is so traumatic that a child is better off in an uneven and dysfunctional biological family than they are in a stable adoptive one.

But as the authors writing for the Institute for Family Studies note, such a position is not supported by social science.

Adoptees’ well-being is generally comparable to that of the general population, with some elevated needs that are offset by greater support. 

While children who are adopted have statistically higher needs, adoptees enjoy greater access to assistance.

National surveys consistently report broadly positive outcomes and family functioning among adoptive families. 

Surveys of adoptive families reveal a high level of warmth and compatibility.

Where gaps persist, pre-adoption experiences explain a great deal.

Studies show adoption doesn’t cause behavioral challenges but they are instead caused by the trauma that led to the adoption itself.

Focus on the Family has long supported pursuit of reunification wherever possible and whenever it’s deemed to be in the best interest of both the child and the biological parent. Yet, in a fallen world, it’s also not always able to happen and many times not even safe. Many of the children adopted or currently in foster care come from drug addicted parents or abusive family situations. While rehabilitation of the parent is a worthy goal, it often proves unattainable.

It’s possible to make reunification such an idol, of sorts, that doing so puts vulnerable children at risk.

To be sure, every adoption isn’t always straight from the script of a family movie with a happy ending. Various difficulties arise. However beautiful it is to welcome a child into a loving new home, the loss suffered by that child is very real and not always without complications or consequences. They deserve our love, prayers and unwavering commitment.

Yet we can confidently and unapologetically still celebrate adoption. That’s because it puts every child on the verge of everything because, in the words of Henry David Thoreau, “Every child begins the world again.”

Image from Shutterstock.

Male ‘Throuple’ Buys Toddler from Quebec Government

Three men in a polyamorous relationship purchased a three-year-old girl from the Quebec government last month — a frightening arrangement that prioritizes the men’s desire to legitimize their relationship over the young girl’s rights and safety.

The Quebec Youth Protection Service awarded Eric LeBlanc, Jonathan Bedard and Justin Maheu custody of the young girl when she was just one. These men legally became her “parents” on September 11.

At least one prospective adoption agency refused the “throuple” because Quebec does not award parental authority to more than two adults, LeBlanc told CTV News. The Youth Protection Service was reportedly “more open.”

“Through that process, they learned that we are a little different because we’re three, but we’re not different from any other family,” LeBlanc explained.

Of course they are. In fact, there are few places more dangerous for that young girl than with three unrelated, adult males.

Children statistically do best in the shared home of their married, biological mother and father. This is, in part, because the biological tie between parent and child guarantees better parental buy-in.

“Children reliably move their [biological] mothers and fathers to invest, secure, protect and nurture them,” child advocate Josh Wood writes for Them Before Us. “And they do so at a level no substitute arrangement consistently matches.”

Numerous studies show stepparents, in contrast, do not invest as much time and energy into biologically unrelated children in their care. Evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson coined this phenomenon the “Cinderella Effect.”

This little girl will always feel the loss of her biological parents. She, like all orphaned children, deserves to be adopted by a married, male/female couple who can best mimic the stability and safety of the parents she lost. Instead, the Quebec Youth Protection Service placed her in the care of three biologically unrelated men in celebration of a radical, untested family form.

There is no greater statistical threat to a child than an unmarried male living in the home.

Cross-analyses of several countries performed by Daly and Wilson found stepparents beat their children to death at a 100 times higher rate per capita than children living with their biological parents.

A more recent U.S. dataset of people sentenced for producing child pornography showed, when controlling for the population, children living with an unrelated male adult were over 900% more likely to be sexually abused than those living with biological fathers.

This toddler is at grave risk of abuse. If, God forbid, she is harmed, Quebec authorities may not find out for years. She’s far too young to know what abuse is, let alone ask for help.

Right now, only two of the three men have parental custody over the child — but that could soon change.

In April, Quebec Superior Court Judge Marc-Andre Landry gave the province one year to change its civil code limiting parental custody to only two adults. Quebec has appealed the decision.

“It’s not about stepparents or other potential realities. It’s really about three people sitting together and saying, ‘We should have a child together,’” Landry wrote.

The harm of this ruling, if it stands, cannot be overstated. At best, it prioritizes the sexual predilections and desires of adults over the rights of children to maternal and paternal love and care. At worst, it could allow child predators to share custody of an abuse victim under the guise of an “alternative family.”

CTV News captioned their interview with the “throuple”: “Three men and their daughter want their family recognized by the Quebec government.”

That is a lie. That child is not “their daughter,” because no child can have more than one father. She doesn’t care about family recognition; she wants her biological mother and father back, or the closest approximation to them.

Instead, the Quebec government sold her to three men who wanted a child to complete their parody of domestic bliss.

She did not consent — but it did not matter.

Please join the Daily Citizen in standing against such reckless family redefinition and in praying for the safety and salvation of this little girl.

Additional Articles and Resources

Florida to Regulate Surrogacy After Pennsylvania Sex Offender Purchases Baby

Baby Should Be Immediately Removed from Convicted Child Predator

Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children and Society

Chip and Joanna Gaines Platform Couple to ‘Normalize Same-Sex Families’

California Legislature Passes ‘License to Kidnap’ Act, Other Horrible Legislation

“Equality Act” Discriminates Against Faith-based Adoption Agencies

Before the November 2018 elections, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was then the House Minority Leader, announced that she would make passage of the “Equality Act” a top priority if Democrats took back control of the House. After the Democrats did just that and she was re-elected as House Speaker, Pelosi reiterated her promise, “We will make America fairer by passing the Equality Act to end discrimination against the LGBTQ community,”

Pelosi made good on her promise in March 2019, when she introduced the act in the House. The House version of the Equality Act, H.R. 5, has 240 co-sponsors, while the Senate version, S.788, has 46 co-sponsors. The legislation would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to redefine “sex” and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). The bill similarly amends a number of other federal laws, including the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991.

While touting the idea of making America fairer, Pelosi consistently fails to explain the discriminatory consequences of this legislation for a variety of different groups. In a previous article, we looked at some of the negative effects on religious freedom – as the legislation labels truths about marriage, family, and men and women to be “discrimination.” And we saw the effects on privacy and safety – especially for women and children – as it opens restrooms, locker rooms and dressing rooms to those who believe they are the opposite sex.

But there are other harmful consequences from this legislation. In addition to the concerns we’ve already written about, H.R. 5 creates problems for faith-based adoption agencies.

The Equality Act Redefines “Sex”

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination on the basis of “sex,” it was clear what “sex” meant: being male or female. But the Equality Act redefines “sex” to include:

(A) a sex stereotype;

(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;

(C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and

(D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.

For modern gender ideologues and their allies, it’s a “stereotype” to believe that there are just two sexes – male and female. It’s a “stereotype” to believe that marriage is the union of a husband and wife. And it’s a “stereotype” to believe that children deserve a mother and a father. Those who act on these truths are, according to the Equality Act, discriminatory.

The Equality Act labels basic truths discriminatory “stereotypes” and elevates sexual confusion to the same status as basic Constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, speech and association.

Faith-based Foster Care and Adoption Agencies

From its very beginning, the church worked to save human lives and to stop the atrocities of abortion, infanticide and infant abandonment. An early Bishop of Rome, Callistus, set up “Life Watches” where abandoned infants were rescued and placed in Christian homes.

The Christian practice of caring for orphans continues today, with Christian organizations helping place children in homes with a mother and father. Oftentimes such groups work with federal, state and local government agencies, helping parents navigate the adoption and foster care systems.

But in states that have passed SOGI non-discrimination laws, numerous faith-based foster care and adoption agencies have been forced to stop their work – because they will only place children in homes with a mother and father. Catholic Charities of Boston refused to comply with a Massachusetts law protecting sexual orientation. The organization asked for a religious exemption, but was denied. It closed its doors in 2006.

That same year, San Francisco Catholic Charities announced that it would end adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples. The organization was following 2003 guidelines from the Vatican that noted that same-sex unions lack “sexual complementarity” and children placed in such homes “would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.” Catholic Charities in Illinois, Washington, D.C, and Buffalo, New York have followed suit, ending their involvement in adoption.

Other Christian adoption agencies are fighting to continue their work and follow their beliefs in Pennsylvania and New York. Michigan recently announced a settlement with the ACLU where the state would no longer provide funding to adoption agencies that only place children in families with a mother and father.

The Equality Act has no religious exemptions. In fact, it specifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was designed to preserve religious protections, may not be used as a defense for violating the Equality Act. As a federal law, the Equality Act will cause more Christian adoption and foster care agencies to close – or else violate their religious beliefs.