It's becoming more and more common for single men to adopt children. But yeah, expect some scrutiny. Otherwise we failed as a society.
To your point though, "we" already failed as a society by not sufficienty scrutinising the bulk of adoptions to ostensibly stable 'ideal' families in decades past.
A number of these adoptions turned out fine, many did not.
That is correct, and what is trying to be corrected for now.
The social history I'm most familiar with had a wide systemic issue with wealthy elite pillar of the community power couples adopting in "unwanted children" trained for menial servant roles as nannies and living breathing sex dolls .. not that you can accuse chief justices and their scaly mates down the yacht club of that kind of thing, of course.
screening is really a challenge. i mean the only thing you can really do is to analyze the motivation of why someone wants to adopt. but most people that you would not want to allow to adopt can go and have their own children anyways. when does preventing adoption turn into preventing to have children? or why should anyone who could have their own children be prevented from adopting?
short of a clear misaligned motivation or mental (and other serious) health issues anyone should be able to adopt.
https://psychology.org.au/inpsych/2014/august/dudgeon
Reported abuse levels by relatively small numbers of witnesses are here:
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/projects/bringing-them-h...
with typical stories and it'd take a few years to convey why those fall well short of reality and to go through stories of many who never made it to witness stands.
Yeah, there's been a movie or two made about parts of the stories: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbnk8wSVMaM
I don't understand this at all. People with a history of abuse or neglect can have their own children—and often they do—but why on earth would you use that as an excuse to give them more children to abuse? Like, what is your thinking here?
what i did mean was: if whatever failures these parents have is mild enough that they are allowed to keep their children, because noone is perfect and the children are never in any danger then why should they not be allowed to adopt as well?
in short, why should adoptive parents have to submit to higher standards?
but, as someone else stated, there are not enough children up for adoption in the US anyways, so that argument becomes moot, because obviously you'll pick the most suitable parents first.
and you do have a point. after rereading what i said: "most people that you would not want to allow to adopt can go and have their own children anyways", this is really a claim that needs further scrutiny. it was supposed to imply that the tests are to harsh, but that is based only on anecdotal evidence so i am not really prepared to defend it. in hindsight, your reading of it makes sense too, so you are right to question it. thank you.
I agree completely.