About Adoptee Rage

Statistics Identify large populations of Adoptees in prisons, mental hospitals and committed suicide.
Fifty years of scientific studies on child adoption resulting in psychological harm to the child and
poor outcomes for a child's future.
Medical and psychological attempts to heal the broken bonds of adoption, promote reunions of biological parents and adult children. The other half of attempting to repair a severed Identity is counselling therapy to rebuild the self.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Adopting to Replace a Dead Child is Damaging to the Adoptive Child

ADOPTEE RAGE!
The Damage to the Adoptive Child Adoption to Replace a Dead Child Is Not Recommended
__________________________________________________

Link:

Viola W. Bernard, Can an Adopted Child Replace a Dead Child? 1961


Thank you for sending me the write-up of the conference of January 11, 1961 with Dr. Heiman and the others with respect to policy for requests from families seeking an adoptive child after the loss of their own child. . . .
I agree most heartily with the continued policy of prompt appointments for such couples. I also agree with continuing our policy of postponing any decision to place a child with such a couple until after they have had a period for mourning. However, I do want to add a comment to the reasoning underlying these procedures and policies. In addition to the reasons outlined in the minutes of the conference with Dr. Heiman, with which of course I am in agreement, 
I do want to emphasize that in my experience there is an even more frequent and “normal” psychological contraindication to placement prior to the mourning process. 
This reason has to do with the fact that the urge to adopt immediately after the loss of one’s own child is of necessity a restitutive effort in which the adoptive child is inevitably experienced emotionally as a replacement of the lost child. 
In fact, this mechanism provides the intensity of the wish to adopt at such a time. 
From adoptive experience we know that this replacement effort of one child for another leads to inevitable unhappiness for both the adopted child and the adoptive parents and is therefore contraindicated. 
If the specific child who has been lost to these parents can be mourned and finally through the process of mourning relinquished, or to put it another way, 
if and when the parents through the mourning process can accept the fact of the reality of the loss of their child, then the restitutive nature of the adoption can work out psychologically constructively because what is being restituted then can be the experience of being parents and this can be a healthy restitution rather than having the specific child that is adopted perceived and experienced as if it were the dead child. . . .