Adopt-A-Life

["Keith Howe" <kkhowe@moscow.com>]

I can't help but think of the poor princess who can't get a good night's
sleep because she has led such a sheltered and sensitive life that an
uncooked pea under twelve thick mattresses is enough to upset her delicate
constitution. I think the issue of whether or not a few select kids have a
minor misconception about their adoptive status in relation to streets and
giraffes is really wholly irrelevant. My wife is an adopted child and
assures me that she faced all of the same questions and issues: "how much
did I cost? who does/doesn't want me? am I somehow inferior?", as well as
teasing and taunting, in situations completely unrelated to Adopt-A
programs. Eliminating the use of the words in other contexts isn't going to
safeguard a child from ultimately facing these issues. Similarly,
eliminating word usage does nothing to eliminate attitude. We have a notion
of late in this country that if we can find a nice enough way of saying
something that the fundamental issue will be pacified -- well, it won't be.
If there is not a "dignified" attitude towards adoption already, then
eliminating Adopt-A programs isn't going to do one iota of good to change
that attitude. Maybe you'll get lucky and enlighten a few minds in the
process, but for the most part you're only taking advantage of a simple and
unenlightened stratagem: public thinks Adopt-A is bad word, public pays my
paycheck, will change name of program. Anyone related in any way to the
program who had a bad attitude about adoption isn't going to change their
mind just because the library stopped using Adopt-A in an arguably
undignified sense. And the way a child perceives the program is pretty
irrelevant too. An interesting thing about child development is that, though
complex, it is pretty failsafe (witness the billions of more or less normal
humans on the planet for statistical confirmation) -- for the majority of
the time of a child's life that they cannot logically reason out confusion
over the word, they are also extremely emotionally responsive. If you can't
logically explain why that giraffe isn't like that adopted child, try this:
"Whether or not you're adopted, I'm your mom/dad and you're my son/daughter
and I love you more than anyone". I suspect these words (accompanied by that
kind of persistent attitude) will more than make up for any "distress" a
child might feel. Children who are not yet old enough to logically
understand a situation also only generally care about one thing: do my
parents love me? Confusion over adoption isn't going to change how your
child perceives your love if you are consistent and dependable with that
particular emotion. The article posted and most comments so far seem to be
fairly one-sided: it's some of the adoptive PARENTS, not the children, who
seem to see this as an issue. Perhaps the situation of their adopted child
questioning their adoptive past is too stressful for the parents; but I'm
sure that for the children it ranks no higher than a few isolated moments of
insecurity, and nothing to warrant national policy changes. Which brings us
around to the original point: how much "distress" are you trying to isolate
your child from? Is it really such a bad thing when your child gets upset
about an issue? Children grow up with insecurities and problems; adopted or
otherwise. Face it, the world probably isn't going to change (and what right
do you have to ask it to?); maybe you should try to change the way your
child sees the world.

 - Keith Howe