Advertisements
Advertisements
We are in the process of adopting family from the Philippines (they are orphans). My question is there are 6 children (ages 12-3) but we cannot take them all in. We are adopting the 2 youngest. Will we have difficulty with this?
Nowadays, adoption and child welfare professionals believe that siblings should be kept together if at all possible.
Sometimes, it may not be possible -- for example, if one child has a serious physical, mental, or emotional problem that requires an unusually high level of care, and the exceptional couple that can meet that child's needs cannot take on several siblings of that child -- but every effort really should be made to find the situation that is most likely to keep the children together, or at least in close contact.
Are there really no family or community members who can take all six of the children? And if the children cannot be placed together, is there some way that they can be placed near each other -- perhaps with two or three sets of relatives living in the Philippines? It would be so good if they could see each other frequently.
Both the Philippines and the U.S. have ratified the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption. In addition to satisfying Philippine adoption laws and U.S. immigration laws, you will have to satisfy Hague requirements.
The Hague Convention was designed to protect children, as well as their birthparents and adoptive families. And one of its premises is that international adoption is appropriate ONLY if a child cannot find a permanent, loving family in his/her own country.
There could well be issues because some Philippine courts may not want to see the siblings split up, with some staying in the country and some going overseas, especially if they are strongly committed to the principles of the Hague Convention.
But even if you do not run in to problems, do consider whether what you propose is in the best interest of all of the children. Is it really fair to adopt the youngest -- and most readily adoptable -- of the children, while possibly leaving the others to live in an orphanage or foster care setting, because they are "older"?
I know that your motives are good, trying to help the orphaned children of a relative. But you really have to consider the needs of all the children, and their long term best interests. The older ones, as well as the younger ones, deserve permanent, loving families. And all of the children deserve a chance to grow up, if at all possible, in the sibling relationship with which they are familiar. Their biological parents are gone, so that sibling relationship may be especially precious to them.
Sharon
Advertisements
I totally agree with this poster. It breaks my heart that these 6 sibling will be apart. :-( Possibly forever. To each their own, but there is absolutely no way I could split them up. I would either take all 6, or none of them.
Original poster...please make sure that adopting only 2 is in the best interest of the all of them. If you choose to break up the only thing these children know as far as family, please make sure they are able to all stay in touch forever and meet someday.
I'm sorry, but this thread truely breaks my heart.
This has been a very difficult decision for us because of this fact. We agree with you both that if we could we would take them all. Unfortunately this is not a possiblity for us. We have considered other possibilities such as finding relatives nearby to take them in but to no avail and they may eventually have to be split up. If we are able to assist by our adoption of 2 children we might be able to keep the others together. This is not a decision we are taking lightly and our concern is for the welfare of all the children.
I cannot tell you how many sleepless nights I've had worrying about these children - where they are and where they might end-up.
I understand the concerns but you also have to consider that 6 kids is just too many for most people adopting. If they stay in an orphanage system it is possible they will grow up not knowing each other as well. Adopting two, may give the others an ability to be adopted as well, since four is easier than 6. I met a family of 6 kids in Ukraine that the officials refused to split up. An acquaintance of ours had "befriended" the family and would go and visit, take toys, clothes, fix things at the orphanage, etc, but they just couldn't take the kids. The kids were growing up in the orphanage and many of them weren't even together. It broke this older couples hearts but they couldn't convince anyone to let them be broken up and adopted - even by someone other than them. They felt like the youngest ones really needed parents to hold and cuddle them all the time - and they just were never going to get it. So yes, ideally you want all together in the same country, but sometimes it just isn't realistic. Having a mom and dad to love and nuture you is sometimes more important than an older sister that you see once a week for an hour.
I agree with MenloAve. I am not adopting internationally, but I am a foster parent here in the states, and have seen several large families go through both the trauma of being split up AND the trauma of being a "permanent" foster child. Trust me - the trauma of never feeling like you belong to a "forever family" is more detrimental. With that said - I think that sibling relationships should always be supported and encouraged. And, having a sibling in another home is ok - it really is - in the big picture, it is much, much better than continuing to be a foster child (or orphan) for most or all of your childhood.
Advertisements