The sight is not unusual in India. You see a modest-sized motorcycle – not one of your Hogs – weaving in and out of city traffic, passing a bicycle rickshaw here, getting out of the way of a bus there, then squeezing between two cars, swerving around a cow or an inattentive pedestrian. All the while the driver is honking his horn. Perched behind him is his wife, riding side saddle, her sari fluttering in the breeze. In her arms she holds a baby. An older child is perched in front of the driver and a third clings to her mother’s back. If anyone is wearing a helmet, it is the father. 

Then I think of North America’s seat-belt laws and child safety seats within the protective shell of an automobile. I think of children wearing bicycle helmets. India seems such a different world, so careless of its women. Especially careless of the young. Yet you see parents cuddling a baby and playing with a toddler. And you know that they love and value their children.

Do you remember playing sexual exploration games when you were a child? I do. Many were of the type “if you show me yours, I’ll show you mine.” At what point does normal curiosity become abuse? For many years, as the awareness of father-daughter incest grew, sexual abuse by siblings was under the radar. Even now, it still does not raise the same concern as the former, though it is in fact probably more common.

Most research and discussion on sibling abuse has used a deficit model focused on problems within families rather than on their strengths. Professionals discuss sibling incest as part of a family pattern of abuse and neglect. Often there is a sexualized atmosphere in the family. Perhaps parents engage in sexual activity in front of their children or perhaps they have extramarital affairs. Children are more likely to witness such acts or to have access to pornography if living quarters are cramped. Some parents give older children too much responsibility for the care of younger siblings. Often such a child assumes authority over younger siblings and even cares for parents, but has undeveloped social skills and may exercise power through violence and intimidation. Sexual abuse of younger siblings can be one expression of this power. Abuse occurs more often if children are neglected or have insufficient supervision. Neglect, in turn, may bring inadequate upbringing, including a lack of or inappropriate sex education. Most of these factors are made worse if parents feel overwhelmed.

Marsha L. Heiman’s 1988 paper in Bank and Lewis’ book Siblings in Therapy sets out four preconditions for sibling incest. First, the brother or sister must want to be abusive. This factor includes sexual arousal, poor social skills in filling the desire in appropriate ways, and poor understanding of sexuality. Second, the abuser must overcome inhibitions, which include social taboos against sexual relations with close family members. In adoption, foster care and stepfamilies, children without a biological relationship or common history are thrust together. Thus the taboo might not operate in respect to the new sibling. Third, the child must overcome outside barriers such as close supervision. If parents are unsuspecting or do not care, they may not be watchful. Finally, the abuser needs to overcome the victim’s resistance through bribes, threats, or other forms of force.

Most interventions and therapies rely on the deficit view of the family. However, such an approach is not appropriate for many families that are otherwise pretty healthy. This includes adoptive or foster ones. Many families have weak points in recognizing sibling sexual abuse. Some have an “it can’t happen in our family” belief. They may not be aware of the physical and behavioral signs that abuse might be occurring. Or they may be unsure of the border between normal exploration and play and sexual abuse. Adoptive parents I interviewed were told only after their new son had molested two cousins that he had been sexually abused by his father. His foster mother said he hadn’t shown inappropriate sexual behavior in her home, though she had needed to stop him from aggressively tickling another child. His adoptive mother was certain in hindsight that the tickling had been sexually motivated. Third, parents are worried about the repercussions of reporting suspected sibling abuse. They fear, often realistically, that their family may be broken up by the authorities. A therapy model that looks at family weaknesses rather than family strengths is further inhibiting because parents believe they are blamed for their children’s actions.

What then can be done to prevent sibling sexual abuse and to help families when such abuse occurs?

Knowledge is the first line of defense. Parents need education in the signs that abuse may be occurring. It may be difficult to distinguish emotional reactions to abuse from changes in behavior that result from the family upheaval following the adoptive or foster placement of an older child or following the formation of a stepfamily. Parents also need to know how to prevent sexual abuse from occurring. A pamphlet on parenting the sexually abused child, published a number of years ago by the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse provides guidelines. Some precautions are common sense. Privacy in bedrooms and bathrooms should be enforced. If children share rooms, then boys and girls should not be in each others’. Public nakedness or near-nakedness should be discouraged for both parents and children. Suggestive or obscene language needs to be vetoed. Aggressive wrestling or tickling may have sexual overtones. Children should receive appropriate sex education. They also need to learn to differentiate between feelings and behavior.

If sibling sexual abuse occurs in spite of education and parents’ preventive efforts, interventions should draw on the strengths of the family, rather than looking for weaknesses. All family members need support, parents and children, victims and offenders alike. Blame should be kept to the minimum, with a focus on what actions need to take place. First, it is important to ensure the safety of all the children in the family, including the one who has offended. Reporting to authorities must occur as legally mandated. If feasible, the family should be preserved. A conference of the family and support individuals, including agency personnel, relatives, and friends, may come up with creative solutions. For example, the offending child may be placed with a relative or in a care facility without severing ties with his or her family. Such an arrangement does not preclude reintegration into the family, if circumstances change. Whatever the solution, the family needs to be vitally involved. There are, of course, no easy answers.

Sources:

Caffaro, J. (2011). Sibling violence and systems-oriented therapy. In J. Caspi (Ed.), Sibling development: Implications for mental health practitioners (pp. 245-272). New York: Springer.

Heiman, M. L. (1998). Untangling incestuous bonds: The treatment of sibling incest. In M. D. Kahn & K. G. Lewis (Eds.). Siblings in therapy: Life span and clinical issues (pp. 135-166). New York: W. W. Norton.

Narimanian, R., & Rosenzweig, J. (n.d.). Parenting the sexually abused child. Washington, DC: National Adoption Information Clearinghouse.

National Clearinghouse on Family Violence. (n.d.). Sibling sexual abuse: A guide for parents. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada.

Wiehe, V. R. (2002). What parents need to know about sibling abuse: Breaking the cycle of violence. Springville, UT: Bonneville Books.

There is a knock on the door. The stranger standing there asks, “Louisa Miller?” When you say, “Yes,” she slaps a paper in your hand and leaves. You stare at the notice telling you that your child is suing you.

The first reaction is dismay, followed by anger. How could this be happening to you? What kind of child takes a parent to court to get damages for a wrong she believes you have done her? You may call a relative or close friend. Then you find a lawyer.

This situation probably occurs more often than you imagine. In the past, children were considered the property of their parents. Parents had almost absolute power over them. What happened inside the house was nobody else’s business. Children have, over time, gained rights that limit parents’ authority to exploit them financially or to abuse them. These rights have eventually included the right to sue their parents.

There are several types of lawsuits. These include disputes over property and disagreements about inheritance. A child may feel entitled to financial support from the parent. For example, a mother may be receiving child support from an ex-husband even though her daughter has moved out. The daughter may sue to have the support paid directly to her. Some cases involve damages for being a child-abuse or incest victim. Parents have also been sued for failure to protect their child from abuse by a family member. In the past, some young people have sued parents who kidnapped them from a cult they had joined and deprogrammed them. Others have sued because they were required to do so in order to get a settlement from an insurance company after an accident.

Children may sue parents when they reach the legal age for adulthood. If the child is not yet an adult, a guardian can sue on his or her behalf. In most jurisdictions, an individual has a limited period of time after reaching adulthood during which a lawsuit may be started. In some areas, sexual abuse receives special consideration. The time clock may start to run when the victim retrieves suppressed memories of the abuse. In some places, there is no stature of limitations on bringing a suit for sexual abuse.

Lawsuits are expensive. Parents may choose to settle out of court, sometimes through the services of a mediator. They see this as cheaper in the long run because it limits the fees they pay to their lawyer. It also cuts short the length of time the whole matter lasts. Besides, the outcome of a trial is uncertain.

A lawsuit damages, even destroys, family relationships. Usually there is a serious rift between parent and child before the suit. After it, there is scant possibility of reconciliation. The division affects other family members, too, because they take sides in the dispute. It is no wonder that one writer refers to such lawsuits as a form of family homicide.

After the lawsuit is over, you are left with lasting pain and anger toward at least one child. Part of your family is probably cut off. You may lose contact with grandchildren. Your family may be in tatters. But you have survived.

It’s what I always wanted to be–a mother. And I knew I was going to be a good one. Through some kind of osmosis, I had absorbed the image of what she was like. Without even thinking about it, I knew she fostered the best in her children. She protected them from harm and kept them safe. She was patient, nurturing, warm, and gentle. She guided rather than punished, so that her children might in their turn make their valuable contribution to society. Oh yes, she also “did for” her children, cooking, cleaning, sewing. She, and all the world, would know what a good mother she was because her children would be a credit to her. Although the details of the picture were hazy, I saw her with an aura around her as she gathered her loving and beloved children into her nurturing arms.

I tried to be a good mother, I really tried. I think I even succeeded to some degree following the birth of three children in close succession and then the adoption of a baby. But then my fairy tale was shattered. We adopted a sibling group of five boys aged five to thirteen and, two years later, eight- and twelve-year-old sisters.

I wasn’t able to protect my children. One of our new sons was incensed at the whole world and verbally and physically attacked other children in the family. He gave one brother a concussion; there were numerous other incidents. I couldn’t even protect him. Someone, never found by the police, beat him up so badly we didn’t recognize him in hospital emergency. Another of my boys, thanks to an ill-advised experiment, had his shotgun explode in his hands. He still carries the physical scars. Some of my children carry invisible scars to this day from the verbal abuse and various cruelties that others heaped on them behind my back.

My children gave signs they weren’t going to be the paragons I planned to raise. Two never completed high school. Another two seemed determined never to find gainful work and to live on the generosity of society and the welfare system. We survived other episodes when the children were younger. The two youngest, for example, sneaked out of the house one night and were caught trying to set fire to the gas tank of our neighbor’s car. I spent many days in court with one of my sons as he faced charges of theft and vandalism. No, my children were not much of a credit to my parenting.

I tried to do everything for them–cook, mend, wash clothes, supervise homework, chauffeur to activities, go to parents’ night at the school–everything. I nearly burned out. I couldn’t even “do for” my children. I was too exhausted to be patient, kind, and warmly nurturing. In fact, I had to devise an on-going schedule of chores for all of them in order to get even the minimum housework done. So I fell short on the caregiving too.

There was a final failure that it took a long time to admit. I couldn’t say for sure I loved all my children; I certainly didn’t like some of them very well.

Out of the crucible of failure, however, I eventually distilled a new image of the good mother.

A mother who is worth her salt, I believe, is committed to each of her children. She doesn’t have to like them or even love them, though that helps, but she must be steadfast in her devotion to their welfare. When their various needs conflict, she tries to balance her commitment to each of them, difficult though that is, as she attempts to work out the greatest equity possible. If it means sitting in hospital emergency with an injured child or going to court with a delinquent, then she is there, but only after she is assured the others will be cared for. Yet there must be a limit to this commitment: it mustn’t be so single-minded that the family, or she herself, is destroyed.

She provides her children with opportunities for growth. It means allowing them to take increasingly greater responsibility for themselves and others, and the chance to mess up. It involves exposing them to options they never before considered and opening the world to them. It also includes therapeutic nurturing for those who have had traumatic experiences. Adopted children have been wounded to their vitals through separation from those who would, in the normal way, have nurtured them. They need healing. In our family, so did our initial four. By adopting acting-out children whom we expected them to regard as brothers and sisters, we had laid on them a burden of pain. It also means that a mother remembers that her children may choose not to profit from the opportunities afforded them.

A good mother recognizes her own limitations. She doesn’t expect herself to do the impossible, but does what she can with her physical, emotional, and intellectual resources. She understands that, in spite of her most diligent efforts, she cannot always keep them from harm. She allows others–spouse, friends, relatives, therapists–to help her care for her children. She also sets limits on her children’s behavior. For example, she may choose not to talk with them when they are drunk, saving discussion for sober times. She tries not to feel guilty for failing to live up to the romantic mother image.

She fosters the sense of herself as an individual and looks for opportunities for her personal growth and enrichment. She nurtures her own relationships and allows herself to be cared for when she needs it. That is, she is both a needy child and her own good parent. For how can her children learn about self-esteem and healthy relationships if she doesn’t show the way?

Finally, a good mother lets her children go. She does not claim their accomplishments for her own credit. Rather, she rejoices in even small steps they make. It is a milestone when one of them graduates from college. It may be as great an achievement for another to be alive, if most of her biological brothers and sisters are dead. It is cause for celebration when a man of thirty finally, after years of drifting from one nothing job to another punctuated with spells on welfare, phones to say he has just got his mechanic’s papers. Or when a daughter, in her turn, cradles a baby. A good mother enjoys without recrimination the adults her children have become, wonderful and flawed as they are. As she herself is.

(Revised 2006, 2011)

Many of us would like our grandchildren to know our family history. It might be easy enough to tell them stories when they live nearby. But if they all live far away, how can we pass on our family stories to them? Family history and family stories are important. They help us all, but especially young people, build a sense of who we are. They can also draw generations closer together. Unfortunately, family stories can get lost when we live far apart.

Of course, family get-togethers can be a time for sharing past events and learning tales we never heard before. What happens sometimes, however, is that an older member takes over the stage and others roll their eyes and think, “There goes Grandma (or Aunt Nettie, or Uncle Joe) again.” Others don’t get a chance to speak. Other times, things get so busy, there is no time for quiet storytelling. Stories can get lost as people die or forget.

It is possible to tell stories in small doses when you are far apart rather than in big chunks during the rare times you’re together. Letters or e-mails are probably better than telephone for two reasons. The first is obvious–the cost of long conversations. Writing things down also means that what you say can be saved. If you’re writing to clear-the-house-out addicts, you can keep a copy yourself. In time the letters or e-mails will become a written family history that can be passed down. Older children can also be recruited to help you set up a family-history blog or website.

According to family life educator, Mark Elliott, family stories come in three varieties: everyday, landmark, and life-changing. For young children, sticking to stories of everyday life is probably best, because they do not have the experience to understand other types. Older children and adults are more likely to value more detail and learning about the significant events from yours and your ancestors’ lives. For anyone, it is important to avoid long and preachy lectures or comments like, “Back then, it was better.”

While it is possible to write story letters for any family members, it’s particular fun to send them to children. As soon as youngsters have a reasonable grasp of language, at about three years, they will enjoy getting mail. For very young children, letters should be brief and, if possible, tied to what they can see or hear. You can also link your own experiences to events taking place in the child’s life. For example, Selma Wasserman, author of the Long Distance Grandmother, suggests that starting school is an event that you can compare with your own first day of school. For older children, beginning a new grade level or starting high school can be the opportunity to tell of your experiences, or your grandparents’. A small gift may also be a springboard. Here, for instance, is a letter written to a six-year-old by his grandmother. Events in her present and past are linked to a new object he can see and touch.

“I’m sending a little bit of cotton I picked up off the ground. There are cotton fields growing near my friend’s house in Arizona. They are in the desert. A desert does not get very much rain. Cotton needs lots of water to grow. Water comes from the Colorado River in a big canal and then goes in little canals to the fields. Then the cotton can grow. When it is ready, a big machine pulls the cotton fluff off the plants. Some falls to the ground. Then the cotton is taken to a factory called a cotton gin that takes out the seeds and the dirt. Afterwards it goes to factories that make thread and weave cloth. Do you think that some of the cotton from the fields I saw helped make your clothes? When I was a girl, I lived in a country called India. They had cotton fields there too. But they didn’t have big machines to pick it. People walked along the rows and pulled the cotton off and put it in baskets or bags. It was hard work.”

Reference:

Wasserman, S. (1988). The long distance grandmother: How to stay close to distant grandchildren. Point Roberts, WA: Hartley & Marks.

There are many excuses for separating siblings. Some argue that one child (or more) in the group has too many problems to be placed with siblings. Or that the younger children aren’t bonded with the older ones. Or that the older ones might sabotage the placement. Or that foster parents want to adopt one of the children. Or that you might continue unhealthy relationships among the children. Or that they require too much attention for any one family to meet their needs. Another argument … is that these adoptions require a lot of time and effort. If sibling adoptions make so many problems, why bother keeping children together? After all, placing the children one at a time will avoid all kinds of difficulties, won’t it?

First, separating brothers and sisters is actually a form of emotional abuse. Sibling relationships are extremely important to children who have been separated from their parents. Brothers and sisters are attachment figures too. By keeping them together, we can reduce some of the distress of separation. Often two, or if they are lucky three or four, do move from place to place together. The brother or sister can become the only thing in their lives that stays the same–an emotional shield in a world of uncertainty. These children don’t need any unnecessary losses. Sibling ties are strong–many adult adoptees spend more time searching for brothers and sisters than for birth parents.

From an adult perspective, most of us look back on our childhood remembering our sibling relationships with varying degrees of fondness. Some of us feel that if someone had offered to separate our siblings from us at certain stressful times of our lives, we may have opted for that solution! However, as adults, many of us have realized the importance of our shared history ad experience and have drawn closer to our siblings. It is hard to imagine how different our lives might have been if we had been separated. From this adult perspective, we need to preserve the rights of children to grow up with their siblings whenever and wherever this is possible.

Siblings come as a set. As prospective adoptive parents we don’t have the right to take some and not others. We already have to live with the pain of the children whose parents or foster parents kept some and not others without us being the ones who are inflicting further pain…. Adoption workers who encourage separation…are helping to set families up for unnecessary trouble and to set children up for intense loss/separation problems which may never be fully resolved…. Workers should even explore the willingness of the adoptive family to take yet another sibling if he or she comes into care later. Some agencies have already begun to do this.

Sometimes children are separated because it is reported that one or more of the children has “not bonded” with somebody and is therefore not ready for placement. No one is bonded when the children come into your home! If you get a family interested in taking the five siblings, place them…, get a therapist in place, and then work on bonding. We can’t doom a child to a lack of opportunity for permanence because he didn’t bond to someone we wanted him to bond to. If a family takes a sibling group of five and three bond to them in the next twenty years, they should consider themselves lucky! To the others they have given the stability of growing up in a permanent home with their siblings. That stability is the greatest gift from adoptive parents!

Although placing siblings together is definitely placement of choice, there are some exceptions, for example, siblings who are extremely destructive to each other. Perhaps they have been separated for too long or were abusive to each other in their original home. One group of five children placed together was eventually separated when the oldest siblings tried to kill the two youngest and subjected the other children in the family to sever physical abuse. It soon became obvious that they would before long have destroyed each other and the adoptive family. Unfortunately, this was not predictable before placement as the children had never actually been together before…. The question remains, “Why were they separated for so long and then suddenly placed together with an unsuspecting family, with no preplacement work done? Why wasn’t accurate information shared? Why did the adoption worker set them up for disruption in this way?”

Such horror stories can be prevented from happening in the future. We can, through adequate education, preparation, and support, place most sibling groups together and keep them in those placements. We can help them to grow up in a stable adoptive environment which preserves their history and identity as siblings while enabling them to share in the history and identity of their adopting family.

An excerpt from M. Ward & B. Tremitiere, Kids in Batches: Placing Sibling Groups for Adoption. York, PA: Tremitiere, Ward & Associates, 1990.

However we define families, they are the keystone for any society. They provide love and care for members, raise children, and provide a focus for a person’s life. Around the world, official days recognize their importance for individuals and for the community.

In Canada, three provinces have declared that the third Monday in February is Family Day. Alberta led the way in 1990. Following a drug scandal involving his son, the premier of that province promoted Family Day. He admitted that he himself had neglected his family and that it was important for all Albertans to pay more attention to theirs. Saskatchewan and Ontario followed Alberta’s lead in 2007 and 2008. Regular public holidays are believed to make it easier for families to achieve a better balance between family and work responsibilities. The February holiday breaks up the long stretch between New Years and Easter. Families are encouraged to spend time together–get together with relatives, play winter sports, or just enjoy each other’s company.

The Canadian provinces aren’t the only ones to celebrate families. The Australian Capital Territory declared an annual Family and Community Day in 2007. It is tied to the September-October school holidays. In South Africa, Easter Monday was renamed Family Day. Arizona designated the first Sunday in August as American Family Day. Other states have followed its lead.

Since 1994, the United Nations has recognized May 15 as the International Day of Families. This is an occasion to celebrate the importance of families to people, societies and cultures around the world. Each year, a theme is selected that focuses attention on a particular area of concern. The one for 2011 is “Confronting Family Poverty.” Locally, there may be workshops, policy meetings for public officials, and the start of campaigns to strengthen families.

Even if our own area has no official day to celebrate family life, there are many things we can do as families. We can ski, skate, play pickup basketball, phone a distant relative, hike, play indoor games, picnic, make meals together. By using our imaginations, we can come up with many more ways to enjoy and celebrate family life.

Is it better or not for stepchildren to be adopted by their stepparents? Researchers recently compared adopted and non-adopted stepchildren with children growing up in other family types. They conducted a large survey of children up to the age of seventeen who lived in married-couple households which included two biological parents, two adoptive parents, and one biological and one stepparent. They compared adopted and non-adopted children with each other and with those in other married-family types.

The most important finding was that there was quite little difference among the children. All were similar as to school achievement. Children who did not live with two biological parents did have more emotional and behavior problems. None, however, scored in the clinical range. The authors of the study believe that this shows the basic ability of children to adapt to the families they are in.

A more detailed comparison shows that young adopted stepchildren’s families are most similar to biological two-parent families. Older adopted step-children are most like non-adopted stepchildren. The authors speculate that these resemblances may be the result of the age of the child at adoption and/or the length of time between formation of the stepfamily and the adoption. They also caution against lumping together all adopted children because there are differences between those adopted by unrelated parents and by a stepparent.

School performance and emotional and behavioral problems aren’t the only aspects of family life. A whole view would consider relationships between parents and children, between siblings, and with community members. The security provided by adoption may, in the long term, also affect the well-being of children. All families have their strengths and weaknesses. Rather than looking at which families do better, it is more useful to look at the strengths of the various family forms and their challenges. That way, each family can be encouraged to build on its strengths.

Source:Stewart, S. D. (2010). The characteristics and well-being of adopted stepchildren. Family Relations, 59, 558-571.

Many Canadian Aboriginal children adopted by American parents in Pennsylvania, as we have seen in Parts 1 and 2, fared poorly in their adoptive homes. Costs were heavy for both the adoptees and their adoptive parents. Interpersonal difficulties were accompanied by school dropout, substance abuse, running away, and criminal activity, if not premature death. A number lived in unstable or abusive relationships. More were unemployed or earning wages that kept them in poverty. Criminal records reduced life prospects for some. Costs for the adoptive parents are exemplified in a letter one father wrote in 1984: “I won’t say that adopting two special-needs Indian kids was the worst mistake of my life, but there are times when I think it ranks close….I have succeeded in removing a great deal of joy from my life.” In a number of cases, families faced the continuing dependency of adult children. Some were helping parent grandchildren; others were looking for suitable treatment settings, for example for children with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Why did this group experience so many difficulties? We can’t explain the results with any certainty, but can only suggest possible causes. First, was the group of Aboriginal children placed in Pennsylvania a high-risk group? The fact no homes were found in Canada may indicated that these children were especially troubled or came from backgrounds with many problems. Unfortunately pre-adoption records from Canada were incomplete and did not consistently report on the child’s living situation, history or levels of the mother’s nutrition before the birth or her substance abuse. We do not know how many had been abused or experienced multiple moves among homes. Both of these can increase children’s problems in fitting into a new family. Some adoptees appeared to have fetal alcohol syndrome because a number of case records indicate parents’ alcohol abuse.

Second, in their adoptive families, children had little contact with other Aboriginal individuals. The families, who lived mainly in rural and small-town settings, were relatively isolated from each other. Thus attending a centralized support group required some effort and commitment. The incentive to go to meetings may have been low because parents tended to downplay the importance of racial identity. In addition, there were few Aboriginal adults in the area who might provide healthy role models. Problems within families may have increased because of children’s copycat behavior. But that scenario does not account for the similarity in problems experienced by widely separated families.

Third, adoptees were at first received well in their schools until behavior problems led to disciplinary clashes. Academic difficulties led to loss of academic eligibility–a number were fine athletes–and further reduced good feelings about school. Many dropped out. The most disaffected became involved with substance abuse and criminal activities. Problems of this sort are also common among non-adopted Aboriginal American and Canadian children and adolescents. Both poverty and colonialism have been blamed for contributing to these difficulties. While poverty was not a factor in the adoptive families, children were subject to stereotypes prevalent in society including the nature lover or noble red man; the dirty, sneaky, savage redskin; and the militant who wields a tomahawk against hated whites. These stereotypes were present in the American school system (and presumably in wider society) throughout the adoptees’ childhood. It appears that many of the adolescent problems reported by the parents were an attempt to act out the stereotypes–returning to the Northern wilderness, engaging in promiscuous or criminal behavior, and striking out violently against family members or themselves. Yet these behaviors failed to provide the adoptees with entry into their culture of origin. Many who returned to Canada were unable to fit easily into Aboriginal communities because they had lost their language and traditions.

These adoptions are a sad page in child welfare history. There are things we can learn. Why did some children have relatively few problems in their new homes? How many of the troubled adoptees did find a measure of success in their adult lives? How can we improve adoption practices to avoid any such difficulties in the future?

Sources:

Ward, M. (1995). Native children in non-Native homes: An analysis of adoption outcomes. Paper written to demonstrate proficiency, PhD Program, Te Union Institute, Cincinnati, OH.

Tremitiere, B. T., Ward, M., & Polesky, G. G. (1996, October 28). Native Canadian children in American homes: Parents’ perceptions of outcomes. (Unpublished paper)

Several provinces placed Aboriginal children for adoption in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. Manitoba, the last to stop this practice, declared a moratorium in 1982 out of concern over the problems experienced by these children. Since then, there have been continuing reports of difficulties. The official inquiry into placement practices of Manitoba agencies found that a number of children whose adoptions had broken down were coming before the courts on criminal matters. Later accounts have suggested that adoptees were subject to physical and sexual abuse, committed serious crimes, and/or suffered severe psychological damage. However, there had been little follow-up of these young people.

One agency that placed many Aboriginal children from Canada in the United States was Tressler Lutheran Services in Pennsylvania, finding homes for 206 such children between 1974 and 1986. Of these, 14 came from Saskatchewan in the early 1970s, the remaining 192 from Manitoba from 1974 until 1982. Following the 1982 moratorium, adoptions of Aboriginal children involved only re-placements following disruptions. All children were adopted by Caucasian families.

The agency provided on-going support services following adoption finalization, including groups for both adoptees and parents. Thus staff had contact with many families and/or heard how they were faring. Agency personnel came to believe that families with Aboriginal adoptees were reporting an unusual number of problems. Calls came from widely scattered families who did not know each other, telling of similar difficulties with their children: severe acting out, seemingly complete unconcern about their adoptive families, and leaving their homes, often heading north. In view of continuing reports of difficulty in these adoptions, families were contacted in 1994 to learn both problem levels during the children’s development and level of adaptation in early adulthood. This followed a similar follow-up that occurred in 1984 when the children were younger.

Information for the 1994 study came from two sources–agency records and interviews with the adoptive parents. With the assistance of a student on summer placement, Dr. Barbara Tremitiere of Tressler Lutheran Services located parents who had adopted a total of 100 Aboriginal children (53 families with 52 males and 48 females). About one-fourth of children had been adopted before age six; half between six and ten years; and one-quarter between 11 and 15. This group contained many of the families interviewed in 1984. Dr. Tremitiere conducted telephone interviews with parents using a guide with both closed and open-ended items. The interviews covered the history of the placement, the types of problems encountered during the developmental years, the ages at which these occurred, and the adoptee’s present adaptation. The severity of problems was based on parents’ reports and may therefore have shown some bias.

In 1994, most of the adoptees had reached adulthood. There were five deaths: one boy had died of natural causes; another was killed accidentally after his return to Canada; two boys, who did not know each other and whose parents had believed they were doing well, committed suicide; and a young woman was the victim of a serial killer. Most of the survivors were in their twenties. Most grew up in two-parent families. Over three-fourths of the children lived in homes with other Aboriginal children. About one-third of the families had four or more children.

Most of the 95 surviving adoptees were in touch with their adoptive parents. This included some who had returned to Canada. A number had resumed contact after an extended period. For about half the contact was frequent. Most parents knew where their children lived. Children who lived at home, more females than males, were less likely to have serious difficulties than those living out of the home. The majority of those at home were either in school or had graduated from high school. They were not necessarily free from problems; one family, for example, had just made arrangements for their pregnant daughter and her boyfriend to move in with them. Parents had no information about the living situations of 30 of their children. The others were evenly divided between stable and problem environments (e.g., involving substance abuse, criminality, or violence).

Nearly half the adoptees had experienced some difficulties involving identity issues. There was a significant jump in such issues in adolescence. Problems also tended to be more severe during these years. Perhaps as a result of problems in school, educational levels were low. Only a third had graduated from high school, with 8 percent having some college. For one-fourth there was no information, largely because they were no longer in contact with their parents. Although problem levels declined in late adolescence and early adulthood, a high proportion of the adoptees continued to experience difficulties. Indeed, parents rated the general adjustment of fewer half their children as satisfactory. Surprisingly, there was no correlation between age at adoption and the presence or degree of problems. This finding may reflect the fact that problems were so pervasive that any advantage coming from early placement eventually disappeared. The 17 adoptees who experienced no major problems were mainly female. Ten were in families with other Aboriginal children who did have problems.

Staff at Tressler undertook a follow-up study of other adoptees placed transracially during the same period as the Aboriginal children. All parents had a similar background. Analyses showed that Aboriginal adoptees fared much worse in all areas than African-American, Vietnamese, and Korean children placed in Caucasian homes.

Why have Aboriginal children had more problems in their adoptive families than others placed transracially and internationally? While there are no clear answers, possible explanations are explored in “Canadian Aboriginal Children Adopted by American Parents. Part 3: Why the Problems?”

Sources:

Holtan, B., & Tremitiere, B. (1966), August). Looking back: An outcome study of Canadian Indian, Vietnamese, and Korean adoptees. Paper presented at the annual conference of the North American Council on Adoptable Children, Dallas, TX.

Kimelman, E. C. (1985). No quiet place (Final report of the Review Committee on Indian and Metis adoptions). Winnipeg: Manitoba Community Services.

Tremitiere, B. T., Ward, M., & Polesky, G. G. (1996, October 28). Native Canadian children in American homes: Parents’ perceptions of outcomes. (Unpublished paper)