
I found a website that dares to link the adopted child to alcohol/drug addiction, and I found it very interesting how most blame gets placed on the biologic parents. [As if only alcoholics or drug addicts relinquish their children to the foster care/adoption system!]
Dr. Stephen V. Faraone, author of Straight Talk about Your Child's Mental Health, says that a complex combination of genes and environment (i.e. chaotic parenting, stress, social adversity) impact whether a person will develop a psychological disorder/substance abuse problem. Adopted children may bear genetic influences, as well as early environmental stresses. The foundation for potential drug abuse, then, can begin to accumulate early in an adopted child's life, even before adoption.
A study conducted in 1995 by the University of Iowa points to factors that form genetic pathways that lead to drug abuse and dependency. The study suggests that one pathway goes directly from the biological parent's alcoholism to drug abuse. The other pathway, as the study describes it, is less direct, yet still significant. It begins with an antisocial personality in the biological parent, passes through an adoptee's issues of aggression, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and ends in drug abuse or addiction.
The issues underpinning the reasons for adoption are the same as those that contribute to possible drug addiction, according to the study, "Childhood Abuse, Neglect, and Household Dysfunction and the Risk of Illicit Drug Use: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study." Published in the Journal of American Academy of Pediatrics in March 2003, the study says that children who were maltreated in childhood were more likely to experiment with drugs earlier and to become a substance abuser. http://www.byparents-forparents.com/adoption_and_addiction.html
I was told by my adoptive mother my natural mother was an alcoholic whore who had no control over her actions. It turned out, according to my non-id info, my natural mother was a scientist who did a lot of world traveling, and was in fact, very well educated, worldly, and UNMARRIED.
It was my adoptive mother who came from an alcoholic family, and it was my a.mother who popped more pills than I care to re-count. Later-on, during my teen years, it was my adoptive mother's brother who was convicted for illegal drug use, and it was my adoptive mother's inability to cope with any form of stress that made ME turn to drugs and alcohol in college.
SO.... where are the studies on the stress that adoptive-family influence brings an otherwise healthy happy child, and where is the discussion about parental behaviors that cause a person to turn to sex, pills, drugs and alcohol for "comfort"? Is it too risky to suggest adoptive parents are not without blame when it comes to faulty parenting? And is it fair to always blame the First Parents for all the ills and emotional issues an adoptee develops?

Comments
get real
Isn't it striking, at the same time the blaming of natural parents was starting to get addressed in favour of more respect towards natural parents, the nature vs. nurture debate swung firmly in the direction of nature. With that overemphasis on biology it is far too easy to blame the natural family for the "deficits" in children. The reality of biological ties still receives far too little attention in child-placement practice, while the unreality of what is a predisposition is bombarded as a cause.
The math behind "the two sides"
Isn't it sheer brilliance that the adoption industry was able to coin themselves "the adoption triad" scheme for their own use? At first glance, it would seem the independent agencies are acting as peace-making liasons between the haves and the have-nots... when in fact, the best way to make money is to keep picking reasons for a person to choose sides.
If you ask me, when you try to divide a child into sum-parts, the result will be what you find in drug rehab programs all over our pyramid-minded country.
That being said, what good is an empire if the people touched by it are torn and broken inside?
Odds against
When a baby is not given time to bond to someone before being ripped away for adoption, IMO, leaves the odds for that child very low for being able to cope with life itself.
The odds of ANY adopted child 'making it' unscathed in this world are against him/her from the very beginning.
Add the trauma of a different culture: smell, food, clothes, language, touch, etc. and you have a
totally traumatized child.
Is this the fault of the biological family who is not informed of what their child is facing by being adopted out? I don't
think so. What that child is born into is a normal thing for him/her. Who are we to say that the bio family is to blame
for anything, except if they abuse that child from the beginning and then give the child for adoption. THEN you have
BOTH families to blame as I've seen and known the futility of trying to raise a formerly abused, adopted child.
WHY is there even a debate of who is to blame when the fault lies in the ADOPTION itself?
The Empire, as you call it, of the adoption industry, is made up of people whose agenda is self serving. Even when they have added the religious angle, the end is always torn and broken human beings. The end DOES fit because the beginning
is NOT understood by those who seek to buy/sell/giveup a child .
If prospective adoptive parents were told the total truth behind each adoption; and if the pap told their total truth about themselves, there would be NO adoptions. It's an illegal racket with money as the prime motivator while the child is
not even a consideration. My opinions only.
IN A WORLD OF WHY,
Teddy