Talk:Adopted child syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Priority 8  

    Contents

    [edit] Adoptee murderers

    I removed following from the article. Quite a many people are adoptees, so of course you're going to find them among murderes as well. As such, this remark proves nothing and only accounts to sensationalism: — Timo Honkasalo 13:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    A few famous adoptee murderers are:

    1. Ted Bundy, the Co-Ed Murderer
    2. David Berkowitz, Son of Sam
    3. Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker
    4. Bianchi-Bono, the Hill Side Stranglers
    5. Gaetan Dugas, the AIDS Patient Zero
    6. Joel Rifkin, the Dark Son

    [edit] POV Check

    I've come in response to the POV check request. The removal of the "adoptee murderers" was definately a good thing. However, I'm not quite willing to give the article a "pass" stamp yet, given that while the article does into great length discussing the point of view of the advocates of ACS, there is nary a mention of the opposing viewpoint. My recommendation is to devote a little space in the article to discuss why some people think ACS is not a valid syndrome. Good luck! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

    If you can find any such verifiable sources/references written inside the last two decades, feel free... :-) Bastun 01:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Kirschner D. Nagel?

    No such person. Whoever wrote it likely saw a citation for a paper written by David Kirschner and Linda S. Nagel reading "Kirschner, D. & Nagel, L." and screwed it up - I'd fix it, but really it should have a specific citation, and the article needs a lot of work even apart from that - it's not a well-regarded theory AFAIK. Schizombie

    I took this out until someone can get the proper reference:

    Kirshner D. Nagel noted that adoptees tend to exhibit more anti-social behaviour than non-adoptees. It was also found that adopted children showed a greater occurrence of overt destructive acts and sexual acting-out. Some adoptees set fires or behave promiscuously. Truancy and academic underachievement are common amongst these children.

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schizombie (talk • contribs).

    Yes, that was my post underneath my post, and after I'd announced I was removing it to here on the Article page. Anyway, I do have a few of Kirschner's articles somewhere, so I may be able to verify, cite and add something along the lines of the above back in when I find them if someone doesn't beat me to it. Schizombie 22:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Not a formal diagnosis

    This is not a formal diagnosis and should be clearly stated so. I added a sentence to the first paragraph. The construct validity here is poorly esablished, and it is likely a symptom of/comorbid with any number of other disorders. --DanielCD 14:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    This page: Adoption History: Psychopatholgy Studies lists over 30 studies and books on the subject or relating to it, going back to 1937 - so surely it has some validity? Bastun 13:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'm uncertain. We should have at least one Journal study that uses it as a variable and giving a clear operational definition in that regard. It's alright as a subject, we just need to make sure the reader gets a clear idea of what the state of it is. I'll see if I can find something. --DanielCD 14:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    I believe ACS is specifically Schechter's (or Kirschner's - I forget) baby, figuratively. He may have been drawing on other studies as Bastun indicates, but the name and set of symptoms were ones he invented. Esquizombi 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] References

    The references need to be listed in a reference section, per the MoS. --DanielCD 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Luke Helder

    I think its because of folks like Luke Helder that give Adopted Child Syndrome a chance at becoming a reality.

    I am adopted. I have not witnessed anything particular about being adopted that makes me more or less susceptible to a culture of violence or theft- many anarchists who are not adopted are also theives, not to mention there should also be "Son of Cop Syndrome" with similar connotation.

    [edit] Robin Hood Complex

    Likewise, it seems this syndrome is similar to Robin Hood complex which is practically the same thing by its symptoms.

    Putting this in the article seems like original research to me. Is there a source saying that the two are similar? --Allen 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

    Well, if you read the article it pretty much describes the symptoms as violent behavior and theft. If you use set theory to compare the two, the equation best describing the sets of the symptoms is an identity or equality. There is a significant set of symptoms that are found in the intersection of the sets of the symptoms of both syndromes. Thus, you'll note that the symptoms are almost identical. Doctor Octagon 12:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


    It has something to do with the Government/society playing God, and thus the individual adoptee acts in the same manner, by playing God with society. Doctor Octagon 12:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    That's all well and good, but we need a source for the comparison, other than you. Otherwise, it is original research. Until such time as there is a source, I'm yanking the Robin Hood Complex.

    [edit] Not a Diagnosis/not caused by adoption

    This is not a recognized "diagnosis" (per DSM IV). However, I suppose it is a "theory" of sorts developed to explain some observed behavior. I have a few comments, some of which I may add the the article.

    1. Children adopted before the age of six-months fare no differently than children raised from birth or raised by birth-parents (Brodzinsky & Brodzinsky, On Adoption).
    2. The generally accepted cause for the higher rates of mental illness and anti-social behavior among adoptees is that they have experieced Complex post-traumatic stress disorder and have significant disorder of attachment (see Attachment Theory). The significant majority of children who are adopted in the U.K., Canada, and the U.S. come through the child welfare system and foster care.
    3. Over 80% of maltreated infants have symptoms of attachment disorder.

    Comments on the above will be appreciated. RalphLendertalk 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

    "The significant majority of children who are adopted in the U.K., Canada, and the U.S. come through the child welfare system and foster care." Do you have a source for that - and if so, how recent? While it may have been true in the past, I believe that the increasing prevalence of international adoption may well have made them a minority at this stage. Bastun 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, if you check the website for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services you will see that, despite the substantial rise in the number of international adotions, the majority of adoptions are through the Child Welfare system. RalphLendertalk 20:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, will do. Bastun 21:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    Additional stats:

    In 1992, there were 127,441 children adopted in the United States. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

    In the 1990s, there are approximately 120,000 adoptions of children each year. This number has remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

     New York  104,000 children were adopted in 1986, 53,000 of whom were related adoptions and 51,000 of whom were unrelated. In addition, approximately 10,000 children were adopted from abroad, bringing the total number of unrelated adoptions to 61,000. (Bachrach, London, Maza, 1991)

    The estimated total number of adoptions has ranged from a low of 50,000 in 1944 to a high of 175,000 in 1970. (Maza, 1994) The number of adoptions by unrelated petitioners declined from a high of 89,200 in 1970 to 47,700 in 1975, while the number of adoptions by related petitioners remained constant between 81,000 and 89,000 during this period. (Maza, 1984)

    The National Center for State Courts, Court Statistics Project, has released detailed adoption statistics for the decade 1985 to 1995, and the years 1988 to 1997. The statistics are available for 29 states only and only include data collected from State courts, and are presented in these areas:

    Public: Children in the public child welfare system are placed in permanent homes by public, government-operated agencies, or by private agencies contracted by a public agency to place waiting children. In 1992, 15.5% of adoptions (19,753) were public agency adoptions. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

    Between 1951 and 1975 the percentage of adoptive placements by public agencies more than doubled from 18% in 1951 to 38% in 1975 (Maza, 1984), and has since fallen to approximately 15% to 20% of all adoptions. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

    Private: In a private agency adoption, children are placed in non-relative homes through the services of a non-profit or for-profit agency which may be licensed by the State in which it operates. In an independent or non-agency adoption, children are placed in non-relative homes directly by the birthparents or through the services of one of the following: a licensed or unlicensed facilitator, certified medical doctor, member of the clergy, or attorney. There were 47,627 adoptions (37.5%) of this type in 1992. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

    The highest percentage of adoptions completed by private agencies was 45% in 1970. Between 1951 and 1975, the percentage of adoptive placements not made under agency auspices declined substantially from 53% of all adoptions in 1951 to 23% of all adoptions in 1975. The lowest percentage was in 1971 and 1972 when independent adoptions constituted only 21% of all reported adoptions. (Maza, 1984)

    Kinship: Children are placed in relatives' homes, with or without the services of a public agency.

    Stepparent: Children are adopted by the spouse of one birth parent.

    Of adoptions in 1992, the plurality (53,525, or 42%) were either kinship or stepparent adoptions. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

    The proportion of adoptions by related individuals steadily increased from 1944 to 1975 until they constituted over 60% of all adoptions. Since almost all adoptions by related petitioners are handled independently, it is likely that by the 1970's a substantial proportion of independent adoptions were by related petitioners. (Maza, 1984) The late 1980s and 1990s showed dramatic increases in kinship placements in public agency adoptions as children entering foster care were placed in the homes of relatives, and these placements were finalized as kinship adoptions.

    Transracial: Children are placed with an adoptive family of another race. While these placements may be made by either a public or private agency, or may be independent, the term usually refers to the adoption of a child through the public child welfare system. The most recent estimates, which include intercountry adoptions, found that 8% of adoptions were transracial. (Stolley, 1993)

    Intercountry/International: Children who are citizens of a foreign nation are adopted by U.S. families and brought to the United States. This area of adoption has been practiced since the 1950's, but has shown a dramatic increased in the past decade. In 1992, there were 6,536(5%)international adoptees brought to the United States; in 1997, that number increased to 13,620. (United States Department of State)

    States with the highest number of adoptions are states with greater populations. In 1992, California lead with 14,722 adoptions. New York was second with 9,570, Texas third with 8,235, Florida fourth with 6,839, and Illinois fifth with 6,599 adoptions. (Flango and Flango, 1994)

    It is estimated that about 1 million children in the United States live with adoptive parents, and that between 2% to 4% of American families include an adopted child. (Stolley, 1993)

    The majority of Americans are personally affected by adoption. In 1997, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute conducted a benchmark survey of 1,554 adults to examine public attitudes toward the institution of adoption and members of the adoption triad. The survey found that 6 in 10 Americans have had personal experience with adoption, meaning that they themselves, a family member, or a close friend was adopted, had adopted a child, or had placed a child for adoption. (Evan B. Donaldson Institute, 1997)

    Bibliography Bachrach, C.A., London, K.A. and Maza, P. (1991). On the path to adoption: adoption seeking in the U.S., 1998. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(3), 705-718.

    Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. (1997). Benchmark adoption survey: report on the findings. New York: Evan B. Donaldson Institute.

    Flango, V. and Flango, C. (1994). The flow of adoption information from the from the states. Williamsburg,VA: National Center for State Courts.

    Maza, P.L. (1984). Adoption trends: 1944-1975. Child Welfare Research Notes #9.

    Stolley, K.S. (1993). Statistics on adoption in the United States. The Future of Children: Adoption, 3(1),26-42.

    Also check out: http://www.childwelfare.gov/

    DPetersontalk 00:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] POV Re-check?

    Well, the article is now as much about what adopted child syndrome is not as what it is; and there are now plenty of sources and citations. How does one go about requesting a re-check for removal of the 'PoV' tag? Bastun 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    That is reasonable. DPetersontalk 13:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] Original research

    I have returned the POV tag because it seems to fit and the recent removal was not discussed/explained on this page.

    Also, I have removed several sections:

    "Michael Humphrey found the adopted children he studied suffered from varying degrees of parental deprivation, neglect, parental rejection, or, at the opposite extreme, over-indulgence, mental or physical illness sufficient to impair the quality of parental love, and jealousy of a sibling born before or too soon after adoption."

    No indication of source or that Humphrey related this to the purported Adopted child syndrome.

    "Abandoned child syndrome is a very closely related phenomenon that applies to children who were not adopted in the strict sense of the word, but felt abandoned."

    No source given to relate this to Adopted child syndrom, most likely Original Research.

    "The National Adoption Center found that 52% of adoptable children (meaning those children in U.S. foster care freed for adoption) had symptoms of attachment disorder. A study by Dante Cicchetti found that 80% of abused and maltread infants exhibited attachment disorder symtoms (disorganized subtype).[1][2]
    Children with histories of maltreatment, such as physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, are at risk of developing severe psychiatric problems.[3][4] These children are likely to develop Reactive attachment disorder (RAD).[5][6] These children may be described as experiencing trauma-attachment problems. The trauma experienced is the result of abuse or neglect, inflicted by a primary caregiver, which disrupts the normal development of secure attachment. Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment.[5][7][8] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms,[9] as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out symptoms.[10][11] Children and youth with Reactive attachment disorder require specialized treatment, such as Theraplay or Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, among other evidence-based treatment methods."

    None of the sources listed mention the purported Adopted child syndrome. Mdbrownmsw 03:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    It was discussed - or at least an opinion on it was expressed, several weeks ago, and noone else commented till yesterday. See the section directly above this one? Restoring most of the above but including 'cite' tags, the proper procedure, rather than just blanking something you happen to disagree with. Bastun 09:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    I agree with your return of the material and the addition of the "fact" tags requesting citations. DPetersontalk 12:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    I have removed the Nancy Verrier section as she does NOT use the term "Adopted child syndrome". Additionally, I am removing the sources cited in the above sections that do not discuss "Adopted child syndrom" per WP:OR: "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Essentially, prior to my edits, the article said: "Jones says the Sears Tower is too tall. Smith says that buildings that are too tall run the risk of..." In an article about the Sears Tower, the first sentence is OK (if sourced), the second is not. Prior to my edits, the article talked about several problems adopted children supposedly face, but did not directly relate them to "Adopted child syndrome". Mdbrownmsw 18:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Lifton

    Lifton's listed books use the term "Adopted child syndrome" 6 times, as a small piece of her larger discussion and ALWAYS in relationship to David Kirschner. While her views on open adoption and a possible reason for her negative views of adoption are interesting, they are not directly related to Adoped child syndrome in a reliable source that I can find. As a result, per WP:OR, the text removed does not apply to this article. Mdbrownmsw 18:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Hate Group?

    This "article" was written by a hate group for the sole purpose of harrassing an internet group who supports children at risk. They have posted it here: http://pub46.bravenet.com/forum/3873316436/show/1065163

    There is a group of trolls who have been attacking this group from another forum for several years. It would probably be best if this fake term was removed from Wiki all together. Either that or it should be modified to be correct, that is as presenting it as a theory in someone's head. Editted 2.1.07

    Um, no. The article was started on 28 August 2004, as can be seen on the article's history page. Bastun 13:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    So you believe this is ACTUAL INFORMATION? It was written by the group that has been attacking all over the internet for the last 5 years and longer. It can sit here I guess, but it's one reason people question the credibility of Wiki. I'm sorry you hate adopted people so much, it's just a bunch of made up insults. Takes on fool to know another I guess....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adoptee (talk • contribs).

    First, pls remember to sign your posts. Second, pls refrain from personal attacks; it isn't helpful to building consensus. I am a staunch supporter of adoption, children, and adopted people...I don't like the article, per se, but it is a concept and is a valid subject for an encyclopedia article in the same way an article about racism, nazisim, Jim Crowe laws, etc are things I find abhorant, but are subjects for study. I'd suggest that what you do is find verifiable sources to support an opposing point of view and then write material for the article. DPetersontalk 19:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry you hate adopted people so much Hardly, Adoptee - I am adopted. Bastun 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


    This article is about a theory, not a proven syndrome. Why are these templates on the talk page? --Mothperson 8 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

    Oh. I get it. The templates here are totally screwed up. Well, this has been hanging around here too long. I'm going to put the POV check on the article page, screwy or not. Can't hurt the article, for sure. --Mothperson 8 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)