Yesterday I listened to a podcast I typically enjoy. It’s about the Enneagram and the host (who is adopted) was interviewing a woman who aged out of foster care and is now a foster parent. I am not putting her name here intentionally because I think she’s doing amazing work and so much of what she said was good and important. I have been in situations where I’ve been interviewed and later had some regrets about how I phrased things. I think I understand her intent, but I really love words and I think they matter. I want to offer a counterpoint to the views she expressed, even if I think we’re mostly on the same page. The whole interaction was roughly four minutes, so I do not want to judge her on the basis of four minutes, even if I vehemently disagree about what was said in those four minutes.
The foster mom was asked a question about what to do if a foster or adoptive child is “not good for the rest of our family” and the family is struggling with a lack of resources (to the host’s credit, she described this as a question maybe the guest should decline to answer if she didn’t think she could). I think this is a very valid question, especially when it comes to the church’s role in offering support, which they eventually got into discussing. But before arriving there, there was a four minute conversation about the responsibility of parents to “put your biological child first.”
No. Nope. No thank you.
I think I know what she intended to express and I want to say that she and I are on the same page, as heartbreaking as it may be. I have seen good families who do not have the skills to meet the needs of the child they brought into their home. In foster care, that often means a child needs to transition into a new home that is more equipped. In adoption, this is much more complicated, but it does happen. Adoption disruption is when kids end up in foster care or in the more underground “rehoming” process. I hate that this even exists, but I have known families that were not able to keep all of the kids in their home safe. I have also known families that were able to take a child from a disrupted adoption and successfully provide them with a safe and nurturing home where they have been able to thrive. I don’t disagree with her that there may be times when for the safety of everyone involved a child needs a greater level of care than they can receive in their home.
But that should have ZERO to do with how that child came to you.
If ANY of my children (biological or adopted) need care beyond what I can give them, I will help them get what they need. Maybe that’s counseling multiple times a week. Maybe that’s an in-patient or out-patient therapy program. Maybe that’s more longterm residential care. I will get them what they need to be safe and to ensure the safety of all of the kids in our family. Whether they came from my womb or a courthouse has absolutely nothing to do with my decision making. It’s so foreign to me to even think of dividing them up into categories that way. That is not how I see my kids.
The woman in this interview said that parents have an obligation to prioritize the needs of their biological children. I disagree. Strongly. And I’m pretty capable of listening to things I disagree with and letting them roll off my back (in spite of what my parents, or husband, or close friends might tell you. . . ), but my older adopted kids were in and out of the room while I listened to this interview. They heard this: “If a biological child was abusing the adoptive child, you would of course keep your biological child. Um, but I think there’s something in the, God has given us, we can naturally, biologically birth- this is very controversial- birth children, um, those children are undoubtedly ours. We are responsible for them. That’s just- if we want to preserve family, we have to say that.”
For the sake of my beloved adoptees, I cannot let that statement go unchallenged. All of my children are undoubtedly mine. I am responsible for them. I will do everything I can every hour of every day to preserve this family. If my adopted kids aren’t mine, whose are they? Who is responsible for them? Who will prioritize them and protect them? That’s my job because I’m their mom. Legally, morally, before God and in the eyes of these kids I love so dearly, I am their mom.
You put the safety of all your children first. If there’s abuse happening between children, you especially put the victim first. I don’t care if it’s your adopted child or your biological child. You don’t play favorites based on DNA. If my biological child is abusing my adopted child, there is not some kind of different standard than if my adopted child is abusing my biological child. If I’m capable of figuring out a solution for my biological child to stay in the home, but not my adopted child, what does that say about me as the parent?
If you cannot keep your biological chid safe in your home, you might have to do what people in this country have to do every day– you place your child in state custody so they can get access to the services they need. This is a horrifying reality, but it does happen. It is not some kind of logical impossibility based on the fact that this child is “naturally” yours. In my state (and I’m guessing most states) we call this a “no fault” removal. The parents are doing their best, but they can’t meet the needs of their kids, so the kids come into state care for no fault of the parents. This is a reality I hope I never have to face, but it is the reality for many grieving parents.
My kids are equally my kids. That’s the end of the story. It’s my job to do what’s best for them and get them the help and support they need. For the sake of other adoptees who may have heard that podcast, I hope there’s an attempt to clarify that “controversial” statement. I think I know what she meant, but it’s not what she said. And our words matter.