Could adopting "damaged" children ruin your life? One family has a heartbreaking story of what could happen when you adopt kids who have been abused, traumatized or generally displaying other markers of behavioral discontent. While some may disagree with this story, or even feel offended, it's true in this case that the "damaged" kids were beyond repair.
Cherry Willoughby and her husband adopted two little girls after several years of trying to conceive through IVF and other means. She was barren, and they desperately wanted offspring to love in their home. Who wouldn't? Cherry and her husband decided to do something that many people only wish they could do; they adopted.
The two girls, Maryann and Nicola, were "angelic" as the adoptive mother recollects. However, these kids were damaged and had come from a rough background. She was certain that they would recover as that is what the agent told them when they adopted the girls. Cherry recalls Maryann clawing the face of her foster mother, but being told that they just needed an adjusted home to come out of their trauma. Cherry believed them.
Before Maryann became a teen she was displaying terrible behavioral problems. She would lash out when she didn't get her way, violently, and would run away. She would set fires as well. When she was only 14 she asked a neighbor if he wanted to have sex with her. Cherry couldn't figure out what to do as they had given these girls a stable and loving home.
'It seems naive now but we did think time and lots of love would be enough,' she said.
Within a few years, Maryann would torture and burn another young woman, and was sentenced to 15-years in prison. Nicola also turned to crime and had even stolen from her own adoptive mother. The results of these crimes and the behavior of these "damaged" children has taken a toll on Cherry to the point that she and her husband split and she even suffered a stroke at one point.
Nature or nurture?
That's what this all boils down to, essentially. Cherry found out that the mother of these two girls was recently sentenced to prison for a horrendous crime of a similar nature, but the details of this are sealed. Some people believe that a child is the product of his or her environment and others believe that their traits are hardwired in their genes. It truly seems apparent that this Maryann child certainly inherited some concrete traits which even a loving home and stable environment (allegedly) didn't help her.
The mother in this story wants parents to take this story as a warning when it comes to adopting what she calls "damaged" kids. It certainly does seem like one hell of a warning story, but do you buy it? Do you think that maybe something else was going on in her marriage or home that affected the growth and rehabilitation of these "damaged" girls? What's more: She refers to them as "damaged" kids, so could that be an indicator of how she looked to them and treated them in the home? There are a lot of variables to consider, so it seems that maybe adoption and motherhood wasn't the best option for this woman, but on the other hand it also seems like these children would have gone on to commit crimes regardless of who adopted them.
Crime analyst and profiler Chelsea Hoffman can be found on The Huffington Post, Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case and many other outlets. Follow @TheRealChelseaH on Twitter or click here to contact Chelsea directly.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 16
I know there are cases where it seems that there is no hope and everything that a parent can do has been done. But there are the same stories with bio children too.
Also, I think you've come to the conclusion that I'm the woman in the article. I am simply sharing her story. It's important to comprehend who is saying what, so you don't end up looking ridiculous scolding someone who isn't involved in the story, but only sharing it. It's called displacement and it's unacceptable of adults who know how to read IMHO.
Problem #2 (in my opinion) was with the adoptive parents' parenting skills. *No* child, "damaged" or not, will turn out well-adjusted unless they're given boundaries beyond which they can't pass. It doesn't sound to me like the children ever got those. The hippie "all you need is love" thing doesn't work when you're raising children.
I suspect what happened is that the adoptive parents (understandably) felt sorry for the children, and thus let them get away with things that they wouldn't normally get away with.
The interviewer was on the phone to me for over four hours while she collected the information. Unfortunately she couldn't possibly include all of what was said as she was limited to a certain amount of words. The word 'damaged' was not in fact used by me, but by the interviewer who asked me if I had any advice to give prospective adopters when adopting damaged children. There is far more to the children's life with us that could never have fitted in the article so sadly it does read on a very basic level. My husband and I fought desperately for help for Maryann from when she was a small child as soon as we realised her problems were far deeper than what we were lead to believe. We faced many obstacles when trying to gain help for her, and it was usually down to cost cutting. I have written a book about Maryann's life which I hope soon to be published and will offer far more information than in a single article. Maryann was and still is very much loved by us her family and we will all continue to do what we can for her. Our love for her has not diminished despite what she has done. I agree that to an outsider, one can easily think that the parents are to blame, but one would have had to have known us to know the facts and that we were a solid loving family. I believe that every child has a right to a loving home and family, no matter what their start in life was, they are also entitled to help if they need it, and sadly in my daughter's case not enough was offered by the professionals apart from parenting techniques, which, for Maryann was not enough due to her deep problems that parenting and love alone could not provide.
I understand that there is so much involved in this story and my sympathy certainly goes out to your family.
Thanks for clarifying that it was the journalist's use of "damaged" and not yours.
I got a lot of negativity for that one, apparently people thought I WAS THE ONE saying it!
Biologically/psychologically, yes they are referred to as "damaged" -- and they are. It's just offensive to some people and they tend to overreact. I truly didn't take offense to the term, to be very honest.
Feel free to contact me anytime if you want to let more of the story out.