[M.I.Ur.Birthsister]

Expectations and Related Themes
The degree to which adoptees and birthparents were aware of their expectations was variable. While some reported that they had explored their expectations prior to reunion, others were not aware of their existence until they were obliged to confront them and make them explicit. Expectations unique to birthmothers are best conceptualized in terms of “reclaiming the child” and “rights,” while those pertaining exclusively to adoptees can be described in terms of “wanting a fairy godmother” and “acquiring a missing element.” Issues affecting both parties related to “models of relationship” and “definition of mother.”

Reclaiming the Child

The theme amongst birthmothers of reclaiming the child is exemplified by one assertion: “There was no way I was going to let him get away again.”

Several women commented that, however illogical, they actually expected that the reunion would be with a baby. Others had assumed that their children would automatically want to be involved in their lives. They had given little thought to the possibility that the adoptees might not share this desire, or that the introduction of a second mother might present some complications for the young adoptee. For example, the possibility that the adoptee might have difficulty explaining this new relationship to a stranger was one that some birthmothers found shocking and confusing. As one of them put it:

I was a mess, definitely. Because I never for a minute expected her to have that reaction. Because I had this fantasy, not that I thought it was a fantasy at the time. If she was my child, she would want to have me in her life. And I never entertained for a minute that that wouldn't be the case.

In several cases, adoptees showed considerably less interest in the relationship, and their birthmothers often gave greatly and received little during this period. Thus, some birthmothers experienced great personal pain and demonstrated extreme patience, apparently driven by a strong determination not to be separated again from their children. As one birthmother said:

I wouldn't have spent five years tip-toeing around anyone else. So it has been quite difficult. I have worked at not frightening her off, and not offending her. I just hover around on the edge—better this than nothing.

Rights

While several adoptees spoke of their right as adults to make choices without pressure from their birthmother, the issue of rights was far more significant for birthmothers.

Many of the birthmothers had received counseling or had undertaken personal development courses during which they had addressed issues concerning the relinquishment of their child. As a result, they had resolved most of the issues of grief and guilt, and often perceived themselves (probably correctly) as having been victimized by the societal standards of the time and by the bureaucratic system. With this change came a strong sense of their rights having been violated, and a determination to reclaim the right of reunion with their child. This strength and determination probably underpins the persistence of the birthmothers in reunion relationships in which the adoptee is showing less enthusiasm and interest. These women made emphatic statements such as, “I am the mother,” which seemed to imply the real or rightful mother. One birthmother's comments illustrate this notion:

I now feel that it is my right. You see I never thought that it was my right. When she was taken I had no say. I was treated totally as not a person. But I do now. And that is so empowering, to think I do have that right, she is my daughter. Once she was back, she was back and that was it, she would never go again. She wouldn't have got away, because I would have tracked her down. And I think she has always known that as well.

It seems likely that reunion relationships would be fraught with difficulties when expectations and desires are expressed in terms of rights. When rights such as these are being claimed, it is easy for the right of one to be experienced as a demand by the other, and for the situation to be perceived as one in which there is little room for negotiation.

In contrast, other birthmothers maintained a strong belief that, in relinquishing the child, they had given up any right to a relationship with the adoptee. A major component of the belief was appreciation and loyalty to the adoptive parents; it would be unfair to rescind the agreement that had been made at the time of the relinquishment. It is notable that these birthmothers actively participated in very satisfactory ongoing reunion relationships and generally enjoyed good relations with the adoptive parents.

The birthmothers who considered that they had a right to a relationship with the adoptee seemed to regard this right as primary, and as taking precedence over the rights of others. Those who considered that they had forgone any right to a relationship with the child seemed to accord priority to the adoptive parents, and to regard their own relationship with the adoptee as secondary. Neither group of birthmothers conceptualized their role as equal and complementary to that of the adoptive parents. In addition, neither group appeared to distinguish between a right to make themselves known and offer contact and a right to an ongoing relationship. In both cases, the (adult) adoptees' right to make their own choices about these relationships seems to have been overlooked, or at least, minimized.

Fairy Godmother

Rather naïve expectations were held by some of the adoptees who had wanted a literal “fairy godmother” and had envisaged being “happy ever after” subsequent to the reunion meeting. One adoptee reported that, at the initial meeting with her birthmother, she had thought, “I'm found; I'm saved; I'm rescued,” and her feeling of euphoria had been such that she perceived the reunion as a “cure-all” for her life's problems—which she later found was not, in fact, the case. Similarly, another adoptee, reporting that her initial expectations had been quite unrealistic, commented: “I was looking for this kind of fairy godmother who was going to fix everything and she was going to be perfect. But she wasn't there.” Both of these examples fit Andersen's (1989) medical model of the search, in that the searchers sought something external to themselves, to be applied as a cure, in a relatively passive process.

Acquiring a Missing Element

The notion of feeling incomplete in their adoptive situations was frequently expressed by adoptees. Missing elements included affection and nurturing, siblings or perhaps extended family (aunts, uncles, grandparents), and especially someone who had physical similarities to the adoptee. In this sense, regardless of the success of the adoption itself, there were adoptees who actively sought to “fill a gap”:

My [adoptive] mother was very nice. We had a great childhood, like going on holidays. We did all the groovy things. But she couldn't show emotion, but I was a child who really needed that. Whereas my birthmother is a person who shows that, she is always giving you a kiss and cuddle….I got the bit I was looking for, that was missing. I am the lucky one compared with my brothers [biological children of the adoptive parents].

Model of Relationship

Contrary to the findings of Sachdev (1992) and Modell (1997), the majority of participants in this study (nine of the ten birthmothers and five of the ten adoptees) were actively seeking a mother-child relationship at the time of the interview. However, consistent with Modell's results was the finding that more birthmothers than adoptees sought a mother-child relationship (Sachdev surveyed adoptees only). Some participants reported that, although they had not explicitly considered the issue, they had originally expected a reunion relationship that had the nature of a friendship, but that the relationship had developed a more intimate mother-child style.

The importance of both participants seeking a similar model of relationship became increasingly apparent throughout the study. However, the issue usually had not been considered prior to the research interview. Although some adoptees were aware that they wanted or did not want a mother, they had not considered how that would manifest in a relationship. Similarly, although birthmothers made emphatic statements such as, “She is my daughter and she belongs in my life, every bit as much as my other children” or “I am the birthmother, and no one can take that from me; but I am not her mum,” no conceptualization of the model of relationship that would encompass those respective beliefs had been considered.

Definition of Mother

Connected to the model of relationship is the definition of mother. Some participants used a strictly biological interpretation (“I am the mother”); others regarded a mother as the person who had performed the ongoing role, who had “done the mothering.” While, more generally, these two functions of mother are carried out by the same person, for adoptees, each has been performed by a different person.

Problems arose when individuals considered only one of the two components to be fully defining, and did not take cognizance of the other. A common method of acknowledging the difference between the two was the use of the terms “mother” and “mum,” respectively, to delineate the biological parent and the one who had done the child rearing. However, this was not acceptable to everyone.

Amongst adoptees who wanted a mother, there were those who wished to be held, nurtured, loved, and adored, whereas others clearly wanted to be treated and respected as adults. One adoptee expressed with considerable energy her opinion that birthmothers need to know how mothers of adult children act, and that the birthmothers ought to act accordingly.

Range of Experience

Of interest is the way in which similar experiences could be perceived very differently. For example, one adoptee disclosed that, once she met her birthfamily, she wanted “to be sucked in to the family by them”; fortunately, the family obliged. She was the center of attention and a lot of affection was displayed by the birthfamily. Another adoptee used the same terminology to describe the feeling, but in this case the experience caused resentment:

On the weekend that I met them I met all the aunties and uncles, and they said it was so good to meet me and so good to have me back, sort of thing. It was sort of a bit presumptuous, moving a bit quick, trying to suck me into the family….And we were walking along and my birthmother wanted to hold my hand. I said: I don't want to hold your hand, go away!… It is confusing as hell. Mum, mother, who is that?

Differences of the same sort were observed with regard to nomenclature of extended birthfamily members. Some adoptees considered the use of terms such as “your brother” (or aunt, grandfather, cousin, etc.) to be inappropriate and presumptuous, whereas others welcomed those terms as an indication of their acceptance into the family.

Responses to Unmet Expectations
In relationships in which the participants' original expectations were somewhat unrealistic, the individuals usually modified them when the actualities of the situation became apparent. Few had actually verbalized their expectations to the other party. This is probably not surprising, given the intensity and difficulties of a reunion relationship. Various responses to unmet expectations emerged. These can be conceptualized in terms of reducing expectations, withdrawing, and pathologizing the other's behavior.

One Party Reduces Expectations

When the two parties had expectations that differed in degree (e.g., frequency of phone calls or meeting, intimacy in the relationship, involvement with extended family), it was common for the person who wanted “more” to manage with “less.” This is in keeping with the findings of Modell (1997) in that it was the birthmothers more frequently than the adoptees who decided to constrain themselves in order to enable the relationship to continue.

One Party Withdraws

If the individual who desired more either did not notice the disparity or was determined to convince the other to meet her needs, and therefore did not reduce the expectations, a theme of withdrawal by the other party emerged. Although the person who withdrew was more often the adoptee, it was sometimes the birthmother. In both cases, demands were not appreciated and tended to work against the person making them.

Pathologize the Other's Behavior

This response to unmet expectations was evident on the part of some birthmothers who wanted more from the relationship than did the adoptee. The ascribed pathology often involved the belief that the adoptee did actually want the same degree of involvement, but was somehow unable to acknowledge her desire. This was expressed in statements such as, “She wanted me there, but she wasn't ready to be honest and face it.” When one adoptee had less time available for her than the birthmother had planned, the latter commented, “There was a huge desire to commit but she would pull back, with the fear of it. So she would restrict the time we had together.” Another birthmother attributed the adoptee's reticence in the relationship to her having experienced an early childhood that was rather socially isolated. The birthmother speculated that the adoptee would treat all people in a distant manner. When pathologizing was used in response to unmet expectations, the notion that the adoptee may simply not want a deep, intimate relationship with her birthmother was simply not entertained.

As a result of their framework of understanding, these birthmothers tended to respond in a more positive manner to the adoptees' rather discouraging behavior, believing it to be part of an archetypal pattern, rather than rejecting of the birthmothers personally. This framework also allowed the birthmothers some hope that the level of contact and intimacy would increase once the adoptees overcame their denial and acknowledged issues related to their adoption.

Factors Influencing Reunion Outcomes
When participants were asked to comment on factors that influence the reunion outcome, several themes emerged. The preparatory role played by support groups, the pace of the initial phase of the reunion, geographical distance, the role of the adoptive family, the importance of empathy, and nature of the adoptee's process all were cited as being important.

Role of Support Groups

Sixteen of the 20 participants were associated with an adoption support organization. In addition to assisting with the search process, the organization provides counseling, pertinent literature, and professionally facilitated support groups that allow contact among all parties involved in adoption. Many participants mentioned the benefit of the information that they obtained either from literature or group meetings, and the value of the vicarious learning that had occurred. Hearing about the experiences of the other party at the open groups was identified as extremely beneficial, as it engendered understanding and empathy. Individuals who had experienced major difficulties in the reunion relationship found the support and information provided by the counseling and group meetings to be particularly helpful.

While some had attended group sessions prior to the reunion, the majority had joined the support group after the initial meeting or even after cessation of the reunion relationship. There were also several instances cited by people in very satisfactory reunions in which a particular situation was eased by knowledge of the issue. For example, a young adoptee who had attended the support group for several years used what she had learned about birthmothers to buffer her hurt and disappointment when her birthmother could not supply her with details of the adoptee's birth. The adoptee acknowledged her disappointment, but said that she was able to perceive the situation as less of a personal affront (e.g., “My birth wasn't a very important event to her”) because she knew several other birthmothers who were unable to remember the period around the birth and relinquishment, a situation that troubled them greatly.

For most participants, any intentional or self-educative preparation for the reunion was minimal. Of the 14 respondents who described their reunion relationships in an extremely positive manner, nine had almost no preparation. Furthermore, all four participants who had never had any contact with a support group, nor any counseling in regard to reunion or adoption issues, reported exceptionally successful reunions. These individuals (two adoptees and two birthmothers) had had expectations similar to those of the other party and had encountered only a few minor problems. It would seem that preparation is not essential for a reunion relationship to be maintained and that, when expectations are similar, the reunion can progress satisfactorily with little outside influence. However, when there were difficulties, the advice and knowledge gained from the support organization proved invaluable to those involved. Even in satisfactory reunions, the knowledge gained was beneficial, assisting individuals in coping with disappointments.

Pace of Initial Reunion Phase

The time period between initial contact and an actual face-to-face meeting was identified as having an impact on the reunion outcome. Several satisfying relationships had evolved from reunions that had occurred with only a day or two between the initial contact and the meeting. Nevertheless, all those who had had a longer period, involving phone calls or letters, prior to a face-to-face meeting, commented on the value of that preparation. Letters in particular were valued as a medium whereby both the “hard questions” could be asked and deep emotions expressed. Participants thought that they would have had greater difficulty in addressing these issues in a face-to-face situation and that, having dealt with them prior to meeting, they had cleared the way for the reunion to develop to the next stage. For many, the letters enabled them to establish trust, honesty, and intimacy in the relationship prior to actually meeting.

Interestingly, in all four cases in which the reunion relationship had ceased for a period or was currently not in operation, the participants had had no preparation and a face-to-face meeting had occurred almost immediately after initial contact was made.

Geographical Distance

Some geographical distance between the place of residence of the adoptee and that of the birthmother was frequently regarded, in retrospect, as a positive factor, because the relationship was forced to develop slowly. Therefore, these participants reported the same benefits (trust, honesty, intimacy) as did those who deliberately chose a slower rate of development.

Even after the initial meeting, the geographical distance prevented “living in each other's pockets” and perhaps one person feeling overwhelmed. As the relationship developed, however, those who wanted to integrate the other into their everyday lives often found the distance to be increasingly frustrating. That distance was not always regarded as a positive factor was expressed graphically in one's adoptee's depiction of her experience:

I passed out with pain. And I used to get these big knots in my stomach, on parting particularly. My whole body would just scream out for her, very painful. I would try any devious means I could to come to Perth or have her come to me. Yes, physical closeness was vital and it was depriving to not have it. And it physically hurt.
After two years of reunion, this particular adoptee had decided to move and live closer to her birthmother, in order to relieve the pain. Those whose birthmother or relinquished child was in another state or overseas also viewed the distance as a disadvantage and a restriction on the relationship.

Role of Adoptive Family

The degree of support for the reunion from the adoptive parents was often cited as a factor that influenced the reunion outcome. The families of birthmothers were usually less threatened by the reunion, and had less direct impact on the ongoing relationship.

Adoptees who perceived that they had full support from their adoptive parents were appreciative of that, and reported that their relationship with the adoptive parents was strengthened as a result of the reunion process. For example, one adoptee and her adoptive mother provided mutual support for each other during the search, and especially during the initial phase of the reunion. The adoptee considered her adoptive mother to be a part of the reunion and it was of paramount importance to her that her birthmother show interest in, and want to meet, her adoptive mother. Fortunately, the birthmother was interested and the reunion relationship proceeded satisfactorily.

In situations where the adoptive family was not supportive of the reunion, the adoptee felt forced into a range of dissatisfying situations: a) being dishonest with the adoptive parents so as to avoid conflict and upset, b) ignoring the adoptive parents' objections and risking estrangement or strain in relationships, or c) abandoning or severely restricting the degree of involvement in the reunion in order to protect the adoptive parents and maintain harmonious relationships with them. The effect on the adoptees' relations with their adoptive parents tended to be negative in all of these situations.

Some adoptees expressed a strong need for their adoptive parents' support of the reunion, especially in its early stages. Reassurance from the adoptee sometimes, but not always, enabled the adoptive parents to manage their anxiety for the sake of the adoptee. As stated by one adoptee: “My [adoptive] mother wanted me to be happy. If I wanted to be in a reunion, she would support me.”

Role of Empathy

Integral to all of these themes and patterns of interaction is the presence or absence of empathy. When one party is determined to achieve what is perceived as an absolute need and right, empathy is unlikely to be present. This applies whether the need is to have the relationship continue, to have it operate in the desired style, or to be acknowledged as the mother or child of the other.

In reunion relationships that involved the birthmother and adoptive mother having contact, it was necessary for each to have some understanding of the other's situation. One birthmother, who was endeavoring to create a friendship with and to reassure the anxious adoptive mother, was asked by the adoptive mother how she could possibly have given up a child. This adoptive mother demonstrated no empathy with the birthmother about her torment and grief over the relinquishment. The birthmother felt judged and hurt, but continued to maintain a relationship.