Adoption principles drawn from the Anita Tedaldi case

I mentioned in a previous post that I didn’t think Motherlode editor Lisa Belkin’s statement about Anita Tedaldi’s column—

The point was not to say, ‘Look, this happens all the time,’ and to frighten people away. The point was to say, ‘This happens sometimes and knowing about that going in — more information — is better.’

—was especially on-target. That’s because the public confessional moment of Tedaldi’s adoption disruption has overshadowed the information part. I honestly think a lot of people are OK with what Tedaldi did because she tried. Do they really care what the implications are for adoption practice?

Here are some principles I’ve been mulling over:

1. It’s not OK simply to try. Adoption is not a try-on. It’s not OK to go into it with good intentions but thinking that if the “match” doesn’t work, we can jettison a child like bad spouse or crappy girlfriend and that the implications of so doing are exactly the same. They aren’t.

2. Just because we passed the homestudy is not necessarily an indication of our true readiness. Has the social worker painted the worst-case scenario with a special-needs child—having the child push us away for months and possibly years? Acting out behaviour including violence towards us or our other kids? Self-destructive behaviour that may be agonizing to watch? It may be important to consider those things but also our own reactions to them. What would we do? How would we feel? Can we do it? Have we played those scenes back while we watch ourselves cope?

3. It’s OK to say we are not up to something.

Before we adopt.

I know some people feel that infant adoption should never occur and that all PAPS should just pony up to the local Children’s Aid Society and take the children that are offered to them. After all, those are the kids in need. And if we were really unselfish (it is implied), that’s what we’d do.

In an ideal world, it would be wonderful if more PAPS were ready for that journey. But what’s the point of fobbing kids off on parents who can’t meet their needs? Better for the system to gently waft people toward fostering and foster-to-adopt (because that is where the need is) while investing a lot more time in education and support. Eventually, there may be a turning away from private infant and international adoption but it won’t be an overnight thing.

4. Public confessions don’t necessarily educate. They garner sympathy for the confessor, unless she is truly delusional and weird like Octomom. Beware of any useful information actually coming from a public confession.

5. Adoption disruption should not be normalized; it should be prevented as much as possible through more thorough screening and education and the understanding that there is no parachute. That should be mandatory social worker talk, the first thing of their mouth when they meet the PAPS, not “Hi Mr. And Mrs. Smith, we’re here to get you a baby.” That won’t prevent 100% of disruptions but it will kill the tone of today’s “I disrupted” conversation, which is entirely too sappy and self-congratulatory.

6. There is a difference between placing a child in an residential setting for a period of time and abandoning a child. (This has been pointed out already by another blogger and it’s an excellent point.) As the sister of someone with autism, I follow several autism blogs and get that children with serious issues can overwhelm parents’ capabilities. Parents deserve help. But it’s all about the kind of society we want. (Universal health care, anyone?)

My principles are obviously stated from the viewpoint of the a-parent. I wonder what others think?

Filed under: adoption, autism, critical thinking, kids, life , adoption, Anita Tedaldi, children's aid society, disruption, ethical principles, homestudy, international adoption, PAPA, self-desctructive behaviour, social worker, violence

Autism fact or fallacy: Do 86% of parents really get divorced?

This extraordinary statistic has been bumping around for ages, but nobody seems to be able to produce a study to back it up. The statistic is that 86 percent of marriages that produce a child with autism end in divorce.

86 percent. Sheesh.

Filed under: autism

Ladies first? How it sounds to someone with autism

My brother tells me that a Toronto bus driver belted out “ladies first” recently as he was boarding the Eglinton West bus. Gerard felt the remark was definitely directed at him, which could be true.

You have to see my brother getting around Toronto public transit to see how utterly focused someone with autism can be on navigating systems.

Entering, paying, riding, and exiting are all occasions for admiring the beauty of the system and not giving a crap about other people using it. This is not a moral stance that can be corrected; it’s just the way things look to him.

So my brother writes to me:

Jessica, a TTC driver made the following comment when I got on the Eglinton West-Trethewey bus this morning: “Ladies first.” I felt that he was talking to me. Do you feel and does society still feel that “ladies first” is relevant to today’s society, or is it too out of date by today’s standards? I have gotten on the TTC first, perhaps ahead of women, because of the equality of men and women in the Charter of Rights, but I have seen men allow women to board the TTC first, ahead of men. . .Is it a personal choice whether to let women on the TTC [first] or not. What do you think of all this about ”ladies first” on the TTC?

Oy vey.

At first I thought: this is going to be hard. It’s tough for my brother to judge what to do in a social situations–no wonder he gives a nod to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He can’t read cues and improvise and usually needs rules to get him through. But when I sat down to think about some guidelines, it got a little easier. I actually found some good principles to work with. And I started thinking about my own reaction to “ladies first” too.

So this is what I came up with:

1. Make way for women who are carrying a cane or other device; women with strollers; and women with kids in tow.

2. If you’re standing in a group of people, hang back a bit when the bus doors open unless you’re plopped dead-centre and it’s obvious you go first. See who jumps first and then follow that person. If you’re in a queue, follow the order.  (Toronto’s weird; we queue for some buses and not others.)

3. Under no circumstances, barge the doors. Take a few seconds to look around (point 1).

4. Age trumps beauty. I told my brother who is 62 that he does not have to make way for women under the age of 35. Screw the bus driver.

So that’s it. Of course, we should all make way for men too in situation 1. In fact, come to think of it, “ladies first” isn’t carte blanche the bus driver implied. Like it or not, buddy, the world has changed. Gee, my brother got that.

Filed under: autism, life , autism, brother, bus, kids, ladies first, strollers, Toronto Transit, women

Heart of the matter: My brother’s angioplasty

I recently posted about my brother’s angioplasty on singlemindedwomen.com blog. The pictures included are the actual pictures of my brother’s heart. Bottom is before; top is after.

Still can’t get over these snaps. Later I’ll be posting more about this incredible procedure that lets you avoid bypass surgery, sometimes indefinitely.

Filed under: autism, life , angiogram, angioplasty, bypass surgery, heart, Singlemindedwomen