Are Adoptive Parents Better Than Biological Parents?

Posted on 02 14, 2007 under Current Events by Noodad |

Are adoptive parents better parents than biological ones? According to a new study published in the American Sociological Review, when it comes to time and money investment, the answer is yes.

Examining data from over 13,000 households, researchers found that the 161 families whom were headed by 2 adoptive parents, rated higher than the biological parents amongst a whole slew of criteria: "including helping with homework, parental involvement in school, exposure to cultural activities and family attendance at religious services."


According to this article on MSNBC, "The researchers noted that adoptive couples, in general, were older and wealthier than biological parents, but said the adoptive parents still had an advantage — albeit smaller — when the data was reanalyzed to account for income inequality."

The article seems to suggest that adoptive parents performed better because they really wanted children more and they went through extraordinary means to get them. So what do you think? Do you believe this study? Do you think the researchers might have just found a whole segment of crappy biological parents?

 

Related Posts

Viewing 4 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    As much as I would hate to admit it, I think that they might have a point, albiet a small one. As quoted in the article:

    “Adoptive parents face a culture where, to many other people, adoption is not real parenthood,” Powell said. “What they’re trying to do is compensate. ... They recognize the barriers they face, and it sets the stage for them to be better parents.”

    I dont blame them, how terrible would it be to feel like you have to compensate with your parenting, becuase so many people dont see you as \"real\" parents.

    BUT...

    also fron the article:

    “One of the reasons adoptive parents invest more is that they really want children, and they go to extraordinary means to have them.”

    Although that may be the case adoptive parents are not the only parents that really want children and have gone through extraordinary means to get them. I myself went through years of invasive and painful procedures before I got pregnant.

    My son is my biological son, it took me years to get him, and I dont think that I am any less invested than an adoptive parent. But by reading so many stories in the news about horrible parents, biological or adoptive, I cant say that I totally agree with this study.
    • ^
    • v
    The answer is that in order to be truly superior, one must have both adoptive and bioligical children. :zzz



    As a member of both communities, I see great and crappy parents in both. The one thing that is interesting is that adoptive parents are all evaluated prior to being allowed to adopt. You sort of have to have a license to parent before you\'re allowed to do so.
    • ^
    • v
    In my opinion, everyone should have to take a test and be evaluated like adoptive parents do before having children.
    Sure, it\'s an extreme thing, but I think we\'ll be a lot better off...
    Of course I am kidding (sort of), but of course adoptive parents would be considered \"better\"-they have to go through rigorous evaluations by state officials and/or adoption agencies.
    BUT! How does one consider a parent a \'better\' parent.
    Sure, my boyfriend and I may not be married and be financially well off, but we are very hands on and involved in the growth and development of our child.
    The couple down the road has more money and are married-but they emotionally neglect and abuse their child.
    Does that make them better parents?
    • ^
    • v
    the real issue is about money, inheritance, the war between the biological parents and adoptive parents, and the mis use of artificial insemination

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus