Adopted kids and Religion

interesting question! Last week when our foster adoption workers came over to start our paperwork (we are getting re-licensed to foster/adopt) she asked how we would feel about a child with a different religious background. (we are evangelical Christians) My husband replied "well we are interested in kids under the age of 4, so we'd just take them to church with us". I don't think he gave the "politically correct" answer... oh well. Our worker did agree, that it would be highly unlikely a young child would have a religious preference. I hope they don't hold it against us!

I agree. Young children typically do as their (adoptive) parents do and that is just fine. Older children may have a preference in which case you'd need to decide whether you could accept that; but little kids just do what mom and dad do.When we get kiddos, we just go with the flow a bit. Little kids go with us to the Kingdom Hall. We focus on similarities of beliefs rather than differences with foster children. With our stbac, we have slowly corrected some of what they've heard; but we don't feel any need to force it. We have said things like, "we don't do that in our home" as we're not going to watch tv we find inappropriate, for example. And we do include them in the things we do such as family days, reading Bible stories, etc. Older foster children are given a choice whether to join us at the Kingdom Hall. They have always chosen to come. I think the reason has been because of how we describe it so it relieves them of some of the concerns of attending a new "church." We also answer questions that may come up just as we would to anyone who asked (generally, giving only a brief pat answer at first and slowly working into more if they are more interested). Our older children have all been short term so I don't know what would happen long term.

I can't imagine that if your husband truly believe his faith that he would be okay with essentially letting his adopted children believe anything or nothing and not trying strongly to convince them of what he believes to be the truth. So, my guess is that your husband either, A) isn't really a believer, just a follower of the basic traditions or B) isn't thinking of his future children as "his", but more like "someone else's kids", in which case he wouldn't feel right trying to convince another person's child to follow his beliefs. Definitely a discussion you need to have. I always wonder about this sort of thing when two people of different religious beliefs decide to get married. Do they not consider what they're going to teach their kids? Do they not really believe what they claim to believe, so it's not truly important to them whether or not their kids believe it? As a Christian, I believe 100% that if my children do not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior they will go to hell for eternity when they die and that I will have failed in my God-given responsibility if I haven't done everything in my power to lead them to the truth. We were clear with the licensing worker about this subject as well. Our FKs have never had the option of not going to church. We tell them that if the child or their family doesn't want them to be raised as Christians while they're here, don't place them with us.

My DH and I do not share the same religion - he's baptist, and I'm not anything. Maybe someday I'll claim a religion, but I don't feel comfortable doing so until I've done my research. Sure we have our disagreements because we believe (or don't believe) the same things - it's caused the most friction with my MIL who has accused me in the past of being a bad influence on DH's attendance at church. As far as our children go (adopted or biological), they will have the option to choose for themselves, because I feel religion is a very personal decision, and not something I feel I should be deciding for my children. This is the way my parents raised me and my siblings. My mother is Catholic, although she no longer attends services, etc. My father is athiest. I've told DH that if he wants our children to attend his church, he is more than welcome to take them and expose them to his beliefs. And as they get older and can question the beliefs of his church, then I am completely open to taking them to other places of worship.

As a very conservative Christian from the charismatic tradition it makes sense to me. As Christians, we can only tell people what we believe--even our children. They have to decide if the believe the same or not. Even Jesus' family didn't believe him and at one point sort of called Him crazy--yet He still had a relationship with them and eventually Mary, at least one sister and at least James came to believe. I didn't notice anywhere in Scripture that He "strongly" tried to convince them--only that He said and lived what He believed. To add in the Charismatic element which I'm guessing doesn't apply in the Lutheran context :), its the Holy Spirit that ultimately works on the heart of the person. So, I'd agree with the OP's husband. If the child was old enough to have a preference I'd honor it.

We were told by a CW that if our younger (under 5 yrs old) foster children's birth parents really did not want their child to attend church we may have to make some alternative plan for them during that time. Basically, we would have to find a baby sitter while we went to church with the rest of our family. I told the CW that this would be a hardship on us and just might not work out. Thankfully, it did not become an issue. I am not sure what we would have done.

I've been thinking about this thread for the last day. I strongly agree with Lady Jubilee. We are very strong Christians. We take our FC to church with us. That being said- I think our better witness is through our lifestyle. I would never refuse a placement b/c they had a different religious preference unless it was the kind of thing we just couldn't make work logistically.

I think people mix up Godparents and guardians. A Godparent's job is to help you foster your child's growing faith. Support your child by attending important functions (like first communion or confirmation)..etc Guardians are people who are designated to take care of your kids if you die. They are not "godparents" (although you can name the godparents as guardians) In this case, the caseworker is asking about potential guardianship should something happen to you-not about godparents (which the caseworker will probably never ask you about). If you choose your in-laws as godparents, it won't make them guardians after you die. And in court, the title "godparent" wouldn't give them preference over other family members. You have to name actual guardians for the kids. You can name your in-laws as guardians and have them as godparents-and in this case they will be playing two roles in your family. *edited to add, you might want to name only your brother-in-law as potential guardian and then look for a separate trusted adult as a back up in case your brother in law can't do it. If you name the couple as guardians and they later divorce, your brother-in-law's wife keeps her right as guardian. This can cause problems if she leaves and takes the kids. If you only name him as guardian, and they divorce, the kids will remain with your husband's brother.

Thank you Kat-L. I think that a lot of people mis-use those terms. I have seen people name completely ridiculous people as "Godparents" to their children, when they children would never go live with those people if the parents died. A godparent would hold nothing in the court system. A guardian is someone that you've legally appointed through a will or other document that will raise your children in event of your passing. If there is no legally appointed person or persons it would most likely be a grandparent or aunt/uncle of the child. It could be a mess of fighting over children if there is not a legally appointed guardian upon the death of both parents. It is easy and very inexpensive to do and file with your local county clerk. As far as religion - a small child is very unlikely to come with a religious preference, and as your child, through adoption, its your child to raise as you would your biological child. If you would take your biological child to church with you, then why wouldn't you take your adopted children? Their biological parents may have been of a different religion, but as a devout Christian that is kind of like saying that you will just leave it to the world to decide for your child, and that is off. Even if a child was of a different ethnicity, there are Christians of every ethnicity, and being from the Middle East wouldn't mean your child would have to be Muslim, etc.

I suspose it comes down to which branch of the Christian faith you're on. As I mentioned earlier, from my branch a parent can never choose for a child to be Christian--we all have to decide individually. Actually, that's pretty much Christian doctrine for quite a few branches of the faith. Several protestant groups believe, as a matter of core doctrine, that each individual must actively accept Jesus Christ in order to be saved. The result of that belief is that yes, beloved children, parents, friends, may not be amoung the elect. BTW true Calvinism goes even further. While most folks think that Calvinism and Armianism different in whether there is predestination of the elect, its rather that Calvinism, unlike Arminius' view, believe in double predestination--that some are predestined to be elect and some are predestined to be ****ed and nothing in life changes it. Let's be honest, most Calvinist today aren't really Calvinist. But the point remains. George Whitfield wrote that he didn't even know if he'd be among the elect. Sooo, while I can see that it might seem "off" from some of the branches that kind of teach "hereditary" or group Christianity, its not really off for group that focus on individual faith. True, and from some branches point of view, being raised in a Christian family, even going to church every time the doors open, doesn't make you a Christian...just like going to basketball games doesn't may you a player.

Interesting thread. In our case, it is almost certain that the kids will be (at least in a cultural sense) from a different religion - we're Jews, and all of the children in our care so far have been Christian or Moslem. There are occasionally Jewish children in foster care, but it is uncommon. If we adopt, our children will become Jewish - it really isn't possible to be fully part of our family and of another faith, but in the meantime, we are legally obligated to support the children's religion. In fact, our Moslem placement was placed with us because the Jewish and Moslem dietary laws are quite similar and we could feed them appropriate food, and were willing to support other aspects of their faith. Different families have had different relationships to this - most are fairly secular and Chistianity means "Christmas" to them, but some have been religious. Our longest placement was JW, and his family was actually very pleased (not quite sure why) that he'd be taken to synagogue with us. Jews don't proselytize, and the religious differences simply aren't evident when you are very young other than the holidays - most young kids don't know the difference between dressing up on Saturday and on Sunday, etc..., but it is a much bigger deal for older kids and a process of adaptation for everyone. It is something we have to think about a lot, because we're a minority faith, and it means really fundamental changes in a lot of things to become Jewish.