![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceSo, we're finally ready to start the adoption process, and were all set to fill out paperwork. And then we found out that the coordinator we wanted to work with isn't taking new clients.
Fuck.
That means our options are now really, really limited. Problem is, there are only two agencies in the region that affirmatively support queer families. One primarily works with state adoptions, the other only does open. All the rest are international, religious, etc.
The problem with state, of course, is that virtually all of the kids are special-needs, which we're not equipped to handle.
And the problem with the open agency is that they heavily promote ongoing visitation with the birthmother (and even her family, in some cases!) Not just contact and communication, which we're OK with, but actual, in-person visits several times a year. Ack.
I'm up for adopting a kid. I'm not up for adopting her entire birthfamily, too. If I wanted an extended family to come along with the baby, I'd ask one of my fertile friends to have one for us. At least then I'd already know and like the people who'd want to still be a part of her life.
I think the thing that really makes me uncomfortable about this is that it doesn't seem like the birthmothers really want to give up their kids. It seems like adoption in these situations is more like extended foster care. And I just don't want to do that. I don't want to be made to feel like I'm stealing her baby; that she's only giving it up because she's too young or poor or whatever to raise it herself.
And I really dislike the impression that we poor, barren people are subordinate to the queen of fertility who's deigning to give us a gift, for which we owe her hosannas. Not that I'd want the opposite, of course. I don't like the idea of agencies that make birthmoms feel like dirty Jezebels who should be grateful that someone else wants to clean up after their mistake. I don't think either party has moral high ground, here. Hell, I don't think there's a moral ground in the first place.
Ideally, I just want this to be sort of a business transaction. She has something she doesn't want, we want something she has, the agency does the paperwork, and then we all move on with our lives. We'd stay in contact, of course, especially in case the kid gets curious and wants to meet her someday. But we wouldn't be trying to make the birthmom part of the family--because she's not.
All I want is what fertile people get solely by virtue of their functional reproductive systems: A child of our own, to whom no-one else will lay claim except the kid herself.
Is that too much to ask?
Fuck.
That means our options are now really, really limited. Problem is, there are only two agencies in the region that affirmatively support queer families. One primarily works with state adoptions, the other only does open. All the rest are international, religious, etc.
The problem with state, of course, is that virtually all of the kids are special-needs, which we're not equipped to handle.
And the problem with the open agency is that they heavily promote ongoing visitation with the birthmother (and even her family, in some cases!) Not just contact and communication, which we're OK with, but actual, in-person visits several times a year. Ack.
I'm up for adopting a kid. I'm not up for adopting her entire birthfamily, too. If I wanted an extended family to come along with the baby, I'd ask one of my fertile friends to have one for us. At least then I'd already know and like the people who'd want to still be a part of her life.
I think the thing that really makes me uncomfortable about this is that it doesn't seem like the birthmothers really want to give up their kids. It seems like adoption in these situations is more like extended foster care. And I just don't want to do that. I don't want to be made to feel like I'm stealing her baby; that she's only giving it up because she's too young or poor or whatever to raise it herself.
And I really dislike the impression that we poor, barren people are subordinate to the queen of fertility who's deigning to give us a gift, for which we owe her hosannas. Not that I'd want the opposite, of course. I don't like the idea of agencies that make birthmoms feel like dirty Jezebels who should be grateful that someone else wants to clean up after their mistake. I don't think either party has moral high ground, here. Hell, I don't think there's a moral ground in the first place.
Ideally, I just want this to be sort of a business transaction. She has something she doesn't want, we want something she has, the agency does the paperwork, and then we all move on with our lives. We'd stay in contact, of course, especially in case the kid gets curious and wants to meet her someday. But we wouldn't be trying to make the birthmom part of the family--because she's not.
All I want is what fertile people get solely by virtue of their functional reproductive systems: A child of our own, to whom no-one else will lay claim except the kid herself.
Is that too much to ask?
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Also, while I understand where you're coming from, I think it's a lot more unfair to leave her in the state adoption center because no one thought they could "handle" a non-white kid. Just food for thought.
no subject
Babies and toddlers of any race without special needs are snapped up pretty quickly. It's only the ones with big problems who get stuck. And, really, the only kids who are in the system to begin with are special needs. They're there because their bio parents were strung out or beat the crap out of them or something.
DSHS actually goes to incredible lengths to keep bio families together--even to the detriment of the kid--so by the time a kid is actually up for adoption, they've usually been through half a dozen foster homes and a few years of nasty court cases.