Adopted vs birth kids - What's the difference??

[Harry Bosch]

I woke up this morning to the following offensive CNN headline:

"The Deliberate Deaths of 6 adopted kids"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/06/us/hart-family-crash-inquest-searches/index.html

What the hell? That's a very offensive headline. I have three "adopted kids". But they are my kids. Other than biology, there is no difference between my adopted kids and biological kids. Ask any normal adopted family - they'll agree. The headline is sensational. I think that it is trying to paint the picture that violence against "adopted kids" is more likely than against biological kids. And actually, this is false. The rate of violence in "birth families" is far greater than in families with adopted kids. The amount of failures in birth families is far higher. Birth families abandon their kids are far far greater rate than in adopted families. The fact is that bad things happening in adopted families is very rare. There was a woman years ago who got tired of her adopted son from Russia. That was huge news. How awful. But this type of thing happens every single day to birth families. Why the double standard. For example: I just did a quick google search and found the following story:

https://www.wsls.com/news/national/texas-mom-accused-of-abandoning-kids-for-beach-vacation

The headline for the above story is "Texas mom accused of abandoning kids for beach vacation".

Here's the issue that bothers me: if a "birth" mom or dad commits a crime against their children, their kids are described as their kids. But if a mom or dad commits a crime against an adopted kid, the kid is described as "adopted kid". Why the double standard. It hints that crimes against adopted kids is a greater problem than against "birth kids". It's extremely offensive.









https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/06/us/hart-family-crash-inquest-searches/index.html

 

[fast]

I think that it is trying to paint the picture that violence against "adopted kids" is more likely than against biological kids.

Hmmm, I read it bassackwards.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I woke up this morning to the following offensive CNN headline:

"The Deliberate Deaths of 6 adopted kids"

but they do keep referring to the whole unit as 'family.'
I thought they were just saying none of the kids were "theirs" from a previous marriage, or a more traditional (messy) method of producing them.

 

[rousseau]

It just seems to be one of those things that has entered our lingo. Genetic vs non-genetic is considered a significant detail so it's used as an adjective. Saying 'kids' would imply they're related genetically, which is not true so the title of the article would be read incorrectly by the readership.

I don't know if I'd read much further into it than that.

 

[Rhea]

The tone I read that in is the extra betrayal if a kid left something bad, expecting safety and got this.
May not be appropriate or relevant to this story, but that was the feeling the headline gave me.

 

[Toni]

The tone I read that in is the extra betrayal if a kid left something bad, expecting safety and got this.
May not be appropriate or relevant to this story, but that was the feeling the headline gave me.

That and that perhaps someone along the way should have seen warning signs before allowing this couple to adopt 6 kids. The articles that I read back when this first happened sounded as though the parents simply booked when inquiries got to be too....inquisitive. And as though they kept any troubles to themselves to the point of hiding them rather than reaching out for help.

6 kids is a lot of kids, especially when they don't arrive one at a time. It sounds as though these kids all had a rough start at life anyway, so this is especially tragic. Note: It is hard to even write this. It would be just as tragic if these kids all arrived one at a time, were conceived by a solidly middle class middle america family/apple pie and all of that. It just seems extra cruel that what looked to be a good thing for kids with a rough start ended up being far from the ideal the family tried to present and what was surely envisioned and hoped for them by all. The kids obviously deserved much better prior to this terrible murder/suicide, not to mention their tragic deaths. It is equal parts heart breaking and infuriating that this family was allowed to avoid scrutiny that could have helped the kids.

Your point that there should be no distinction between biological and adopted kids is exactly right.

 

[Tigers!]

Here's the issue that bothers me: if a "birth" mom or dad commits a crime against their children, their kids are described as their kids. But if a mom or dad commits a crime against an adopted kid, the kid is described as "adopted kid". Why the double standard. It hints that crimes against adopted kids is a greater problem than against "birth kids". It's extremely offensive.

My brother is adopted. He is treated no different from any of us in the family - parents or siblings.

You are correct to point out that curious double standard. It occasionally surfaces in Australia too. There should be no distinction between adopted or non-adopted children.

 

[repoman]

These women were psychos even if they did not start that way, from what I remember reading about them. NOT AT ALL because they were gay.

But whatever issues they had own their own also combined as a couple be even worse in a vicious cycle. Add in some weird politics and possibly using the kids as props, not taking care of the kids well and the gulf between their ideals and reality and this was a dangerous situation.

There was some grumbling for the black twitterverse about these white women treating these black kids as virtue signaling props at the very least. At any rate, they were way over their heads in the last stretch that was at least a year.

What is to be done at that point to intervene for psychology "under water" parents that won't be used as bad precedent in other cases?

Why were they allowed to adopt six kids? Would a limit of two or three have been better? Again this is not about sexual orientation from my viewpoint. Plenty of men have been family annihilators.


On the note of headlining that they were adopted, in addition to being an attention grabber it is like "They really wanted to be parents and did the paperwork and then killed them?!?"

That is tragically senseless.

This lesbian and also an infertile, straight adopting couple is different from a breeder couple with six kids because neither the guy or gal won't snip after three+ kids. You would almost feel like the former might be better parents because of the motivation.


But there may have been particular psychological issues that this couple had that should have been screened for. Hopefully, this case has been documented thoroughly.

 

[crazyfingers]

It would not surprise me at all though if there is more violence in adoptive homes. Having adopted 3 kids we know that they came to us having been subject to abuse and neglect. This has a huge impact on the kids as they grow. Our daughter came to us at 3 and a half years old and was violent. While a 3 and half year old kid can't be too dangerous, by the time she was 5 years old she was beating up her younger brothers and so we had to watch her always. She would hit and kick them and us.

By the time she was 8 she was kicking and throwing stuff at us and threatening to kill us and her brothers. She has tried to shove me down the stairs. She has about a dozen holes she has kicked into the drywall of her bedroom. She destroyed the doors to her closet and destroyed the built in shelves. She has thrown dresser drawers, chairs, her desk down the stairs from the bedroom floor to the main floor. She destroyed her bed frame. She kicked in her brothers bedroom door. The list goes on.



She had full fledged Reactive Attachment Disorder when she first walked in our door.

She has been sent to the mental hospital 19 times for violence toward other family members or towards herself. Being unsafe.

This was all because of the trauma she experience prior to moving in with us.

It was not her fault but the violence was intense. Even at 18 years old now she still has violent tendencies but at least is finally able to control the violent feelings.

It's not hard to believe that parents could respond violently in return.

Adopted kids frequently come severely damaged emotionally and I can imagine it can be too much for some parents.

While I hear that things are finally changing but when we got her we were left to fend for ourselves. DCF had gotten the kids adopted away and there were no post adoption mental health services for any of the three kids. Any services we had to find for ourselves and pay for ourselves or through insurance. I hear that after 200 years DCF has finally figured out that kids who have been traumatized very young don't miraculously recover once adopted. But it was too late for us.


By the way, the kids our daughter met while in her many hospital, I'd bet half were adopted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The tone I read that in is the extra betrayal if a kid left something bad, expecting safety and got this.
May not be appropriate or relevant to this story, but that was the feeling the headline gave me.

Agreed. It adds a level of drama to it, not trying to say there is a danger to being adopted. Granted, based on what happened, it wouldn't have mattered if adopted or not, it is an outrageous act. Hopefully the kids were asleep when it happened. Raising kids isn't easy. I can't imagine piling it on if you can't handle it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It would not surprise me at all though if there is more violence in adoptive homes. Having adopted 3 kids we know that they came to us having been subject to abuse and neglect. This has a huge impact on the kids as they grow. Our daughter came to us at 3 and a half years old and was violent. While a 3 and half year old kid can't be too dangerous, by the time she was 5 years old she was beating up her younger brothers and so we had to watch her always. She would hit and kick them and us.

Jebus man, you should be awarded a "Don't pay (any) taxes anymore gift". Where I grew up, there was a couple that did likewise, though I think they were more long-term to permanent foster care for children that were not easy to raise, either medically or behavior wise. It takes a special type of person to manage that.

 

[ideologyhunter]

OP question: Outside of Aileen Wournos and Charlie Manson, nothing.

 

[TSwizzle]

I woke up this morning to the following offensive CNN headline:

"The Deliberate Deaths of 6 adopted kids"

What the hell? That's a very offensive headline.

Here's the issue that bothers me: if a "birth" mom or dad commits a crime against their children, their kids are described as their kids. But if a mom or dad commits a crime against an adopted kid, the kid is described as "adopted kid". Why the double standard. It hints that crimes against adopted kids is a greater problem than against "birth kids". It's extremely offensive.

Offensive ? It's information, do with it what you want, taking offense is your prerogative I suppose. But the fact the kids were adopted may be of interest or significance to some or have a bearing on the investigation.

 

[fast]

“The Deliberate Deaths of 6 adopted kids”

Offensive ? It's information, do with it what you want, taking offense is your prerogative I suppose. But the fact the kids were adopted may be of interest or significance to some or have a bearing on the investigation.

I didn’t realize it, but a woman had been wearing a wig. One day she came in with an entirely different wig. I noticed the change but still didn’t realize it was a wig. Upon suspecting it might be a wig, I asked her if it was her real hair. Apparently the wig was made out of real hair, and the wig, well, it was a real wig. After understanding that it was a wig (a real wig with real hair), I said, “but it’s not your hair!” She said, “oh yes it is, I bought it!”

Another woman spoke of her momma that recently passed. I didn’t think too much of it until about six months later when (once again) she spoke of her momma just dying. Come to find out, the first death was her step-momma, and the second death wasn’t even her biological momma but rather “the only momma she ever really knew.” Whether her “real” momma (or much more pleasantly put) her biological mother was still alive could not be accurately gleaned from either instance of declaring her momma recently deceased.

My very own (biological) granddad (from dads side) died before I was born, and there was animosity (not from me) that I as a child could grasp—regrettably, I had often referred to my dad’s step-dad as my step grand-father. Oh, that “step” part, accurate and true as the stars brought in light from the cosmos, but he didn’t go around referring to me as a step anything.

Could you imagine having 3 biological kids and 1 adopted child, always introducing the three biologics as your kids and the one that deviates from the norm as your adopted one? They’re all your kids!

Awe, but is that true? The bloodline is incredibly important to some. If my mom or dad has a sister, I have an aunt, and if my mom or dad has a brother, I have an uncle, but unless you’re from the real backwoods, their spouses are only aunts and uncles by marriage—not blood.

See, this issue is deeper than biological kids versus adopted kids, and truth is hardly relevant. For instance, yes, she killed her adopted kids, but had the kids not been adopted, they would not have been referred to as biological. There’s definitely a difference, but it’s been asked, “what does that matter?”

I don’t think the OP has it right when it comes to thinking it was somehow intentionally suggested that crimes against adopted kids is a greater problem, but I do see the double standard. Even without a double standard, it would still be devisive. Like I originally said, I read it bassackwards. I wouldn’t (at least off the cuff) think like that; if anything, going through the added steps of adoption, I would have thought maybe it hinted the other way. But either way, I think it may boil down to a numbers issue. I mean, most parents grew up during an era where their children were their very own. It would be silly to go around introducing their children as their biological children. As opposed to what, I can hear the jokes now.

So, what darned truth exists so bad and needing of being announced that we choose to divide kids up as to either being adopted or not? As has been asked, what does it matter? Something matters, and what does it say about who it matters to? People have an uncanny ability sometimes to inject truths that are hurtful.

Do I think the title wreaks of intentional insinuation? No, but how do I address what you said? See, I too, like to hear the information—the information that no one thinks matters ... not about whether kids are adopted or not but other things. I mean, how else can I tell if a crime was awful or by a perpetrator deserving of leniency if not knowing certain pertinent information, like skin color, just kidding. Point is, I like to know the truths too, be they linked to something meaningful or not.

Where I disagree with you is in the notion that he is making it offensive. Yes, some people will take something and twist it in a way to satisfy their urge to be ticked about something, but then there are offensive things being projected that ought to be viewed as such. In this case, I can see the double standard, so even if he misinterpreted the heading or has it spot on, it’s there and at least worthy of closer examination.

For now, I’m just gonna end with saying official news outlets could do better by refraining from spouting unnecessary truths in title headlines designed to grab attention, especially when the differences oughtn’t matter.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think that it is trying to paint the picture that violence against "adopted kids" is more likely than against biological kids.

Hmmm, I read it bassackwards.

That's fair. Maybe I misinterpreted or was being too sensitive about it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

These women were psychos even if they did not start that way, from what I remember reading about them. NOT AT ALL because they were gay.

But whatever issues they had own their own also combined as a couple be even worse in a vicious cycle. Add in some weird politics and possibly using the kids as props, not taking care of the kids well and the gulf between their ideals and reality and this was a dangerous situation.

There was some grumbling for the black twitterverse about these white women treating these black kids as virtue signaling props at the very least. At any rate, they were way over their heads in the last stretch that was at least a year.

What is to be done at that point to intervene for psychology "under water" parents that won't be used as bad precedent in other cases?

Why were they allowed to adopt six kids? Would a limit of two or three have been better? Again this is not about sexual orientation from my viewpoint. Plenty of men have been family annihilators.


On the note of headlining that they were adopted, in addition to being an attention grabber it is like "They really wanted to be parents and did the paperwork and then killed them?!?"

That is tragically senseless.

This lesbian and also an infertile, straight adopting couple is different from a breeder couple with six kids because neither the guy or gal won't snip after three+ kids. You would almost feel like the former might be better parents because of the motivation.


But there may have been particular psychological issues that this couple had that should have been screened for. Hopefully, this case has been documented thoroughly.

It's possible that being allowed to adopt that many kids may have been a contributing factor. I know that adoptive prospective parents are greatly screened and studied. The process is extensive. And mostly successful. But obviously, some slip through the cracks, like this couple.

 

[crazyfingers]

These women were psychos even if they did not start that way, from what I remember reading about them. NOT AT ALL because they were gay.

But whatever issues they had own their own also combined as a couple be even worse in a vicious cycle. Add in some weird politics and possibly using the kids as props, not taking care of the kids well and the gulf between their ideals and reality and this was a dangerous situation.

There was some grumbling for the black twitterverse about these white women treating these black kids as virtue signaling props at the very least. At any rate, they were way over their heads in the last stretch that was at least a year.

What is to be done at that point to intervene for psychology "under water" parents that won't be used as bad precedent in other cases?

Why were they allowed to adopt six kids? Would a limit of two or three have been better? Again this is not about sexual orientation from my viewpoint. Plenty of men have been family annihilators.


On the note of headlining that they were adopted, in addition to being an attention grabber it is like "They really wanted to be parents and did the paperwork and then killed them?!?"

That is tragically senseless.

This lesbian and also an infertile, straight adopting couple is different from a breeder couple with six kids because neither the guy or gal won't snip after three+ kids. You would almost feel like the former might be better parents because of the motivation.


But there may have been particular psychological issues that this couple had that should have been screened for. Hopefully, this case has been documented thoroughly.

It's possible that being allowed to adopt that many kids may have been a contributing factor. I know that adoptive prospective parents are greatly screened and studied. The process is extensive. And mostly successful. But obviously, some slip through the cracks, like this couple.

There is. Lots of training and screening. What they don't do is inform about what post-adoption supports there are or where to find them.

Attachment treatment should automatically be provided for kids adopted out of state custody as those kids are most damaged emotionally.

 

[TSwizzle]

Where I disagree with you is in the notion that he is making it offensive.

Perhaps offensive is the wrong word, maybe he means "objects" to.