From movies and books to pop psychology, it’s often implied that children who enter a family through adoption are fated to bad outcomes.
Genetic variations, early trauma, loss of biological connections, and other factors are perceived to inevitably lead to a range of significant problems in adulthood.
But recent research tracking adoptee outcomes suggests otherwise.
Some of the findings in The Adopted Child
A webinar hosted by the National Center on Adoption and Permanency (NCAP) on April 26 discussed the research findings in the publication, The Adopted Child.
Two experts in the field of adoption and child welfare – Dr. David Brodzinsky and Dr. Jesus Palacios – shared key findings on the longitudinal outcomes of foster and adoptive children and their families.
While affirming that adoption often carries special challenges for both children and parents, the research revealed that adoptees do remarkably well in the long run. Overall, most adoptees adjust to the initial difficulties their adoption carries and, over time, substantially recover from adversity to lead positive, productive lives.
As Brodzinsky and Palacios conclude:
““Not pathologizing adopted people is as important as not minimizing their problems.”
Dr. David Brodzinsky and Dr. Jesus Palacios
Highlights from the research show adoptees do remarkably well over time.
The two researchers summarized evidence showing how children typically adjust to adoption and recover from adversity. Here are a few highlights:
Most adopted children are within a normal developmental range. In other words, the large majority of youth showed measurable health in various domains of development. Measures of attachment show a positive trajectory, and cognitive growth is consistent.
Longitudinal studies (studies that observe change across time) document a high level of malleability after adoption for the individual, enabling a healthful developmental pathway. For many, this reveals a remarkable level of healing over time from prior adverse experiences. Additionally, the authors communicated that these outcomes tend to be stable.
Adopted children generally continue to do well as they progress into late childhood and enter adulthood.
Two primary pathways reveal adoptees’ capacity to recover and grow.
As Brodzinsky and Palacios report, scientists recognize two primary avenues for this capacity to recover and achieve surprisingly healthy growth.
One is through the mechanism of epigenetics, which involves the expression of genes.
A person’s genes predispose them toward particular outcomes, but whether and how those things actually come to pass tends to be malleable and influenced by their environment.
When a child is welcomed into a loving home environment after experiencing neglect or abuse, the new experience of kind and consistent authority plays a powerfully restorative role. Epigenetics helps explain how relational wrongdoing and a lack of loving care can powerfully impact a life. It also illuminates the marvelously hopeful reality of healthy growth that comes through a devoted family.
The other key biological avenue of positive growth is neuroplasticity.
The brain develops in response to both genetic and environmental factors. Neuroplasticity describes the ability of the brain to change and grow in response to what is encountered, both within oneself and in the world around them.
Early adversity may set limits to brain recovery when the adversity is severe. Still, the brain’s plasticity allows for an impressive amount of normalized maturation and mental health, even in very difficult cases.
For example, the researchers mentioned that there is some risk of schizophrenia through genes, but the risk is greatly reduced by a stable and nurturing home. This is also true for addiction and other mental health problems.
No label or therapy can capture the complexity of each child.
It must be emphasized that many factors contribute to the degree of recovery a child experiences over time, including the timing, severity, and duration of adversity; the quality and duration of stability and nurture after adversity; and genetic differences.
No label or therapy can capture the complexity of the individual. As is the case for all humans, vital factors coalesce and impact each person’s current and future development.
This reality is critical for foster and adoptive families – and those serving them – to keep in mind.
No single experience, series of experiences, measure, or diagnosis can adequately capture the essence of a child who is made in the image of God nor can they sufficiently predict outcomes.
A healthy Christian home is a marvelous place for recovery.
It is worth noting that the researchers’ perspective aligns fully with the nature of a healthy Christian home – in both its realism and its hopefulness.
A Christian home is a place for people to develop and grow, beginning at their current state of development, whatever it may be. With such a mindset, there isn’t a need to be shocked by existing behavior.
At the same time, the Christian home is also a place where positive growth and Christward formation are earnestly sought. Though incremental, slow, and often difficult, the experience of being fully received just as we are – combined with the expectation that we won’t remain as we are – can catalyze powerful growth.
The authors note that, at times, a child and their adoptive family walk a uniquely difficult path with seasons of complex mental health struggles. Robust support is needed to enable a family facing such a journey to succeed. We would add that having a healthy local church committed to walking alongside the adoptive family is a vital contribution to this support.
Childhood adversity doesn’t have the final word.
Overall, Brodzinsky and Palacios communicate a message of hope: a background of adversity will not automatically result in worse outcomes.
These researchers noted that unfortunately, an inaccurate message often gets out to families and their children. This message suggests that problematic outcomes are to be expected when there has been early adversity since researchers tend to focus on problems.
This focus on the problems – while helpful for understanding critical factors in human development – fails to capture the fullest, most accurate picture of typical outcomes for adopted children.
Brodzinsky and Palacios concluded that, despite what is communicated in certain public narratives, researchers consider “adoption loss” (i.e. the experience of losing ties to biological parents) to be a normative loss. In other words – it is indeed a deep loss, but still a loss within the normal range of human experiences.
Researchers communicate that adoption loss is one kind of painful human loss. Other examples of experiences of deep loss include the traumatic or sudden loss of a loved one, divorce, and terminal or lifelong illness. The findings communicate that adoption consistently brings stability following such loss.
As we care for children who have experienced early adversity, it’s well worth remembering this statement from Brodzinsky and Palacios: “Not pathologizing adopted people is as important as not minimizing their problems.”
-Rachel Medefind is the Director of the Institute for Family-Centered Healing and Health. Learn more at cafo.org/family-institute.
