[Continued from HERE.]

As I mentioned in the blog with various facts and tidbits, many studies pointed to parenting styles, family communication levels and atmosphere in families as the major determining factors for both adoptees’ and non-adoptees’ mental health and adjustment. In some of the studies that focused on families with both biological and adopted children, the adoptees were mentioned as those siblings that were the best adjusted, most social and most independent. Some adoptees were reported to ‘find’ their identity quicker than their biologically linked siblings. Even though the siblings were nurtured in the same families and the adoption factor was present, it wasn’t necessarily the determining factor for behavior/adjustment.

Could this indicate something else as well? Since the whole ‘nature/nurture’ thing is an impossible conundrum to truly ‘solve’ without huge puddles of conjecture, is it possible that some individuals may be more susceptible to the kinds of problems on our list in general? Is it possible that some people are just more sensitive than others and would have had any, maybe even many, of the problems on our list even if they weren’t adopted, had instead stayed with their birth parents? I’m pretty sure it’s possible. I’m nearly sure it is probable.

I’m also sure it is useless to engage in these kinds of guessing games. The whole ‘wishful thinking’ thing can be a great motivator for looking ahead … and utter quicksand when used as a platform from which to view the past.

So far in this rather drawn-out consideration of ‘Issues/Problems" plaguing, or potentially plaguing, adoptees, I think the most important points that have become clear are:

1. Anyone can have the problems in the list and many others, whether or not adopted.

2. If someone that has the problems in our list was adopted, they may feel that adoption is a big part of their problems/issues (as can be seen with the results of the various pieces of clinical research) but in fact the root of the issues may be somewhere else.

[Continued… Next blog: Turn for the ‘topics.’]