I'm amazed at how common it is that Amoms are so often dysfunctional and abusive. And the time frame where it seems to be so prevalent was post WWII in the baby boomer years. As an adoptee of older parents who had to have felt the peer pressure of the boomers around them, I'm sure this has a part to play. Did they simply adopt just to keep up with the Jones's? Little did anyone realize that adoption programs were not about the kids, but about the parents. Kids are an afterthought, parents are the ones with the money.
The history of one's Amom usually tells quite a story. My Amom's life went like this:
Youngest of 14 children born, 12 of whom lived to be at least 45 years of age.
Raised by older siblings most of her life on the farm.
Father was frugal and made his fortune by purchasing land of those ruined by the depression.
Father died very young - 60 - and willed all of his land and holdings to the first born son. The land and property was valued and close to 100 million dollars in the 1970s.
Her mother (birthed 14) lived to be 96 years old - 36 years past the death of her husband.
My Amother was the spoiled one and manipulated her mother into willing everything to her in her old age. She did this by inviting her mother to live with her during he later years. (She was resented by all of her brothers and sisters with the exception of a couple who were closest in age to her.)
She and her family put my grandmother in a nursing home right down the road from the multi-million dollar farms they owned and operated. She wasted away from 90 - 96 not knowing anyone once she was put "out to pasture". Yes I have a lot of resentment for putting people in nursing homes because it's yet again another form of fiscal convenience that equates to rejection.
My Amother was always self-righteous and spent enormous amounts of time justifying her position and proving that others were at fault. She claimed she was very well liked, but because all of her friends were politicians, you do the math.
My Amother was a perfectionist and took pride in tearing things down no matter the intent, the effort or the thought. Her greatest strength was in tearing down.
Though my Amother never ever told me, her marriage with my Afather was her 3rd. This was revealed to me at my father's military burial by one of my first cousins who was in her younger years when all this took place. Yes, she had been married early, only to end in divorce. Her second marriage was to a drug dealer in Kansas City, Mo in the 1940s and her family had to rescue her from this second husband when word got out that he was going to be arrested. A whole posse of family members went in and took her home. My Afather was a Marine and she and he married after only two weeks acquaintance for her third marriage. I cannot express how many times my Amom condemned divorce whenever it happened, especially in the famly. Talk about hypocracy! She was married 3 times by the time she was 24! Tell me there aren't issues with this woman!
My Amom had cancer in the 1950s which included a complete hystorectomy. For obvious reasons, they could not have kids. But get this, they didn't even have sex as the consequences of the major operation prevented this! They slept in twin beds and never had an intimate moment again! Now what social worker in their right mind would approve adoption for a couple that didn't have relations, were in their third marriage and were in the military being transferred every 3 or 4 years from military base to military base and then off to war (my afather was in three wars)! And they had been married for 19 years at the time of the adoption. No kids for 19 years. The good life for 19 years at the ripe age of 43, how are they going to settle down and have kids? A 4 year old and an infant? The "chosen" family only lasted about 5 years (including a stint in Nam by my Afather) and it blew apart. My amother was too much for my afather to handle and he found someone who he could love and spend time with that didn't bitch and nag and find fault with him at every juncture.
When an older child (older than one year) suffers loss via rejection or abandonment, they need time and attention. They carry the weight of the world on their shoulders because they don't have the vocabulary to articulate what's going on inside them. It's like being an animal that is sick and cannot talk. All they can do is lay their head on your lap and hope you'll spend time with them until they get better. My Aparents didn't even come within a foot of each other. There was no affection, no love, not sentiment, no nothing. Their idea of love was putting food on the table and a roof over your head and clothes on your back. Any responsible agency or social worker will use this very fact to separate the "wannabes" from the serious prospective adoptive parent(s).
So in summary, adoption is all about the influence of money and has very little to do with the children. It's a fault of our entire system. The agencies are out to make money, the parents are out to keep up with the Jones' and the state wants to get more kids placed so it can brag about the success of the "chosen" adoption programs. When it's about these types of motives, it's no mystery why the adoptees are the losers and take the abuse. This isn't true with all states. In the state of Massachusetts, they use the foster system to build budgets. Budgets are allocated by the services needed for the children. The administrators figured out a long time ago that the more needs a kid has, the more budget they can get to play with. This is why nearly 90% of all foster kids in the American system are classified with some form of ADD or ADHD! The therapist gets more counseling time, the directors get bigger budgets and the pensions and salaries grow and grow and grow. The kids are put on drugs and it's so much easier to run the group homes and the foster homes when the kids are drugged. Once again, we're back to money being the motive and not the kids.