Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / December 2006

I've always agreed with the basic premise of this column, which was
printed this week. What's fascinating about this, I think, is the last
three paragraphs.

Lenona.

Hoopla shouldn't surround adoption

Long-standing readers of this column know that I believe no hoopla
should or needs to be made concerning adoption. I am convinced that
many of the standard recommendations dispensed by so-called "adoption
experts" are silly, pointless, and even counterproductive. These
include repeatedly telling the child in question, before he's even able
to talk, that he is adopted, referring to the adoption at every
possible opportunity, singing "you're adopted" songs to the child when
he's a baby, and the like. My recommendation is to treat adoption as a
small deal, which all but ensures that it will never become a big one.

According to one adoption professional who was once infuriated at my
heresy, I am recommending an approach that could result in "trauma" to
a child who discovers, on his own, that he was adopted. This is not
just far-fetched, but also an example of the general tendency among
mental health professionals to dumb-down the definition of trauma to
include any and all disruption of some baseline emotional state. Trauma
is not mere upset; it is prolonged suffering. I propose that a child
who becomes truly traumatized at the discovery that he was adopted was
already emotionally fragile for other reasons.

I am not, by the way, advocating that adopted children not be informed.
I simply believe they should not be told until it is either necessary
or they are old enough to truly comprehend the implications, ask
intelligent questions, and participate in a rational discussion of what
it means.

Once upon a time, people did not think that adoption was a big deal.
There were children who, for sundry reasons, had been or had to be
separated from their parents, and there were parents willing to take
them in and raise them as their own.

No one thought that this increased a child's risk of later problems,
and there is no evidence that it did. Today, however, adoption-babble
includes words and phrases like "attachment disorder," "bonding
issues," and, of course, "trauma" - all of which greatly increase the
likelihood that adoptive parents will tread on eggshells. It is almost
always the case that these eggshells eventually crack and beasts
emerge.

One such beast is the adopted teenager who suddenly decides, in the
throes of the "Poor, poor pitiful adopted me" soap-opera, that all of
her problems would be solved if she could find and go live with her
"real" parents. Every single time adoptive parents have asked my advice
concerning this adolescent drama, they have affirmed that they followed
the standard advice and made the adoption a Big Deal from day one.

Some parents recognize the babble for what it is. One such adoptive mom
recently told me, in an email, that she and her husband have never sat
down with their daughter to have the "Big Talk." The child knows she is
adopted. No effort has been made to hide it from her, but the subject
is not brought up unless "it is relevant to what is going on or being
discussed." That's eminently sensible. The adoption is not taboo, but
neither is it The Sole Source of Meaning in the Child's Life.

I have a friend who did not discover that he was adopted until he was
19 years old, and even then quite by serendipity. When he asked his
parents why they never told him, they answered that it made no
difference to them. And that was that.

The explanation was satisfactory, and my friend went on to become a
highly successful professional, but more important, a truly decent
human being.

Again, never telling the child is not my recommendation, but I offer
the story as evidence that when molehills are treated as molehills,
they are likely to remain molehills.

JOHN ROSEMOND