Today’s guest blogger is Zoua Xiong.
Adoption and Mental Illness is written by Arline Kaplan and published on the Psychiatric Times website in January 26, 2009. The article addresses the controversial issue as to whether there is psychological risk to adoption. The study was completed by researchers at the University of Minnesota with a sample size of 540 randomized Minnesota born adolescents who were not adopted compared with as sample total of 692 international and domestic adoptees. The age of all the sample range from 11 to 21 years (Kaplan, 2009, p. 1).
The findings were said to make major contribution to the medical literature, improved on prior studies and one of the first of its kind investigation on prevalence of childhood disorders in a sample of adopted adolescents. Children adopted when infants are said to be well adjusted and psychologically health. However, based on the study’s findings, DSM-IV childhood disorders are more prevalent in adopted children than non-adoptees. As mentioned by Kaplan (2009) the odds are twice as high for all adopted adolescents to have ADD and ADHD (p. 1).
A strength about the article is the comparison of prevalence in mental illness among domestic and international adoptees. International adoptees were predicted to be at a higher risk of having mental illness due to adoption placements at an older age, placement adversity and post-placement discrimination. The study found that there is more significance of major depression and separation anxiety disorders with international adoptee, according their parents (Kaplan, 2009, p. 2). Nonetheless, the overall comparison puts into general perspective the magnitude of struggle for mental health stability in children, although they are in permanency when compared to non-adoptees.
Another strength that appears in this article is acknowledging over representation of mental illness in adoptees and the parents play an intricate role in this aspect. Kaplan (2009) asserts that because while in the adoption process, parents of adoptees have a gain in experience and exposure to working with social service. Moreover, these parents are more likely refer adoptees to service and treatment of mental illness (p. 2).
On another note, the article presents limitations such as not addressing the inclusion criteria for non-adoptees. The question is whether the non-adoptees were children who are still in foster care or children who still with birth parents. Knowing
In considering the high prevalence of mental illness in adoptees versus non-adoptees, this article does promote myths about permanency and adoption. Children who go in and out of placements, are truly at the mercy of institutionalized labeling and especially inheriting some kind of mental illness. The task of children in permanency is priority, however, they end up with the expense of their mental health well being going unattended. As such, behaviors of opposition defiance, hyperactivity, conduct disorder, major depressive disorder and separation anxiety become disorders of the adoptees (Kaplan, 2009, p. 1). By that time, children are yet again at risk of going back to the foster care system and efforts toward permanency becomes a revolving door.