Rant. Re: Adoption

OK, so, there's a big trial going on in my city now. A boy was murdered by his mother and his father helped cover up the killing. They hid the body in the woods for months while god knows how many local people formed search teams to look for the boy. The parents even had the gall to join in the search. Now, the father makes a plea deal and implicates his wife, who hit the boy in the head with a tack hammer..

Yeah, OK, so that really is the worst of it. It's ghoulish.

But what has me upset?

My paper insists on referring to the boy as the "adopted" son of, every time. Never "their son." Always "their adopted son."

What the fuck for?

It's such a slap in the face to all the families by adoption out there, the great overwhelming majority of which never have anything remotely close to this happen in them. It screams, to me, that adopted families aren't really families like the rest of ours. Ugh.

I know that thinking like this can be extremely hurtful to people who grew up with parents who went to great lengths to adopt them. It just pisses me off to no end.

Anyway. Do I have a point here?

Heh. And while you're at it, someone kick this to "off topic" if anyone still cares. Should be more observant as I rant.

Look it what they said when Angelina and Brad bred.

"First child!"

What are the other two, then?

Something like this just happened in NYC this week.

A disabled kid was taken from his parents because they were unfit. He was given to foster parents, who then went out of town for a family reunion and instead of, perhaps, taking care of the child, decided to wrap him up in packaging material and put him in the closet for three days.

When the news papers were all reporting about how the kid died they kept referring to him as in foster care.

Like WTF, the lack of common sense that you can't treat a child like a piece of dry cleaning is too stupid for me to understand.

But no, protect the kids from the gays, cos certainly being exposed to homosexuality is much, much worse than being treated like a garment.

I don't know about yall, but when the child has your last name and refers to you as mom/dad its yours. end of discussion. its no longer an adoption case.

Yes you have a point, and they are stressing the 'adoption' status because of the circumstances.

As if a person would read it and say....hmmmm well the kids was adopted, so I guess they didn't care as much.

Given the bad rap that many biological parents have gotten due to Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, etc... the media is forced to make that distinction..

OK, maybe not. I agree, there's no real sense in stating "adopted." It's all very sad any way you look at it.

I understand you entirely, Lorelei, and often feel the same way myself. We have two adopted children, 16 and 19. (And yeah, what about Tom Cruise's two others? I've noticed they get kind of forgotten, myself).

There is definitely a whole world out there that really doesn't think of adoptive families as quite real. The good part about it is their opinion is actually irrelevant, because we are real enough to ourselves. We don't know anything else! We actually think of ourselves as a real family!

It's easier, these days, though, because with all the divorce and step-families, the adoptive family starts to look at least as "real" (and certainly as stable) as the others.

However, I don't think it is wrong to state the adoptive status in a news article. Not to state it would be to purposely hide a fact, however relevant that fact might or might not be.

I know exactly what you mean. I'm just saying that in news articles like these, I think they need to put in everything they know.

coco

Actually, I know of the story you're talking about, since I work in the media. While I understand your point.. there's also a reason for IDing him as adopted.

Part of the story, investigation and trial is how the state failed this boy and how he was placed with this family. How there were signs all along that this child was in danger and family services never followed up. How this family was allowed to have an innocent life given to them and they ended that life.

That is why they ID him as the adopted son, because it is relavent to the investigation, trial and story.

You got a point there, but it's in the very first paragraph :

I work in the media, too. That's why it's so upsetting to me. And I don't see the need to do it in the first paragraph. What you refer to could come later.

Hey, are we in the same building? Wanna do lunch?

I don't think people view adopted families as less than natural families as someone stated above...certainly not! Unless you introduce your children by saying....'This is my adopted son Joe and my biological daughter Kathy.'

I just see this being a tidbit of info that will be added in when a tragedy such as this occurs.

And as Carly stated it IS somewhat relevant because some agency, at some point, decided that these folks were warm, loving and capable parents who could be trusted w/ a child.

Not that I'm even blaming the agency who placed the child.....hell, the most insane and disturbed minds can seem pretty damn normal, at least for a brief time.

OK, let me try this, then. When a fact is generally assumed, it isn't necessary to state it. When a fact is counter to what is generally assumed, then it becomes a relevant fact (not necessarily to put in the first sentence, I'm not saying it should go there).

Thus, no one goes around saying, "killed their biological child," because that fact is widely assumed. But they will report, say, "killed their step-child," or "killed their adopted child."

What Carly says is true, too.

Nyx, that was me who said that. And yes, people do view adopted families as not quite as real as biological families. It varies from person to person, of course, and many people have no such view at all. For the most part, it isn't a big problem or anything. But you do get a fair dose of not being the same as a "real" family, especially as a young family.

coco

I dunno, I rather tend to put it in the same category as referring to someone's race in the first reference, unless for some reason it's important to the story. It's just something that's better not done.

Speaking of lunch... See ya's 'round in an hour.

Yes, I was toying with that myself. But I think that consideration yields to what Carly said.

I tend to object more to mentions of adoptive status when it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the story at all. I've seen that a lot, but I can't remember a specific one to tell you. (Biographies and chatty human interest stories are exempt from this.)

coco

Absolutely.

As an adopted child myself, I actually do feel a bit insulted when the distinction is made, unless the issue is being directly addressed (which I'm perfectly ok with discussing).

Moving to Sandbox a.k.a Off Topic.

good to see yer on the job Zap because making sure things in general and the sandbox matters even more now!

To be fair, I asked it to be moved because I knew I made a mistake.

thats the worst thing I ever read.. this happened???

My sister and I are adopted. Our family historian published the family tree with ADOPTED stamped in red over our names. I suppose that is better than the old days when she left us off the tree.




Rox

I hate that.

I'm fortunate that my mother-in-law, who had ten kids, had no trouble accepting the adopted grandkids (ours and others) with zero distinction between them and the rest of the grandkids. I swear, over the whole long time I've known her, she never saw them any differently, AND never even had any obvious favorites among the grandkids!

Or among the ten kids, for that matter. Kind of amazing.

coco