|
For Bromanchik and Kune, re coersion and living with potential adoptive parents and knowing where the relinquished child is all along.
Kune stated that a friend who relinquished in the 60's knew where her child was and Kune thought it would be far better than not knowing. I would have agreed at one point, however, I was relinquished in 1946 by my first mother to people she knew, people she had lived with as a foster child several years before I was born. My mother had been a pallbearer at the funeral of the couple's daughter who died at age 2. My first mother specifically refused to give me up anonymously into a closed adoption because she 'couldn't bear the thought of never seeing me again'. My first mother was around in my life and I knew her well, just thought she was a distant relative, had no idea she was my mother. In the last 20 years or so when I have had discussions with my first mother about some of the adoption issues, she said, for her, it would have been better had she never known where I was all those years because it was just too difficult, painful to watch me being brought up in ways she did not like and she could do nothing about it. She seems to believe that closed adoption would have been easier for her.
As far as signing the papers after the birth of a baby in 1963 (my son who was relinquished for adoption), the Home had a specific policy. The papers could not be signed until a girl was released from the hospital section of the home (generally 5 days) and a girl could hold and feed her baby only after the papers were signed. I think they were quite cagey and thought they had the perfect solution to changed minds or girls who would refuse to sign.
It was a power issue with the home definitely keeping the power while trying to appease a girl who wanted to see and hold her baby.
|