Adopters who back out of adoption; selfish or justified?
Unfortunately I was surprised by the additional information and will quote the parts that got my hackles up.
"We met the BM (Paige) though our minister, she's only 17 and seemed excited about us adopting the baby."
I hate the term birth mother with a vengeance and it's a term that I first heard of in 2004 after I found my son. To shorten it to BM is simply insulting as I immediately think of bowel movement. From a personal point of view I wanted to raise my son so abortion wasn't an option and adoption never crossed my mind. Regardless of my choice I chose to go through pregnancy because I loved my unborn child. Birth mother is a cold term to use. Mothers don't become pregnant just to provide adopters with a child.
Anyway the mother claimed to have been assaulted by her step father but the baby is obviously biracial. The step father can't be the father of the baby as he is Scandinavian.
"But while we feel sympathy we are at an impasse. We aren't prejudice at all, in fact some of our friends are black but my DH, DS and I all have blonde hair, fair skin and blue eyes. We were expecting this child to be the same, just like her parents. If we were to adopt this child everyone would know she was adopted or else think I cheated on my husband! Also the child would one day realize she didn't look like the rest of the family and may come to the conclusion they were adopted"
In this day and age it disgusts me that adopters want to pass an adopted child as their own purely for selfish reasons. Had they adopted this child then people who know them would know the child was adopted. It would only be complete strangers who would assume that the child was adopted or that the couple had got together after the baby had been conceived or born although that would be less likely to be the thought.
From what I learned from adoptees is that most of them felt different from their adoptive families. It is wrong morally to deny a child the knowledge that they are adopted and I don't care what other people believe it is living a lie as the child doesn't know the truth. Any adopter who doesn't want to tell their child that they are adopted shouldn't be adopting at all in my humble opinion.
"This dear child just doesn't fit in with our plans or our family. DH and I decided it's best not to continue with the adoption, but feel like we're letting Paige down."
So all because the child isn't the right colour she is tossed aside for them to concentrate on finding a blonde haired, blue eyed child that will fit their plans like an accessory.. It used to be a family joke that I was the milkman's daughter as I was the odd one out. I had white blonde hair, have blue and am fair skinned but that's all it was - a joke - as my mum and her twin brother had white blond hair when they were young and my mum had blue eyes. One of my cousins has auburn hair so he stood out but we knew he had inherited his hair colour from our great grandmother. Children should always be accepted for who they are and not for the colour of the skin or anything else.
"Should we offer to help her find another adoptive family for the baby?"
My humble opinion to that question is that they should be encouraging the mother to parent and giving support.
The question is a classic example to what is so wrong with adoption today. Adopters come across as expecting a certain type of baby as he or she is a piece of merchandise. There is no thought for the child's needs and certainly no empathy for the mother who is no more than a piece of meat supplying the adopters with what they they want. So the mother was wrong to say certain things but how can anybody assume she was lying about being abused just because the baby is biracial. It has also been known for a baby of white parents to be black as there has been at least one black ancestor. There have been couples where one parent is white and the other black to have twins where one is white and the other black. The child should always come first.