[M.I.Ur.Birthsister]

Implications for Practice and Research
These findings point to needs and directions for both future research and clinical practice. Clearly, there is a need to work with reunion participants, both prior to and during the course of reunions. As well as attention to some of the specific issues, explicit exploration of possible relationship models and of conceptualizations of the reunion process may prove particularly beneficial to participants. It would also be useful for clinicians to promote awareness that, for adoptees, the two components defining “mother” (physically giving birth and doing the mothering) have each been performed by a different person; these should be seen as complementary roles, neither having primacy. It may be appropriate and useful to elaborate a distinction between the right to make oneself known and offer contact, and a right to an ongoing relationship. The importance of empathy toward the other parties throughout the process needs to be emphasized.

The reported benefits derived from support group attendance highlight the need to provide forums where vicarious learning and information-sharing can take place. Although this has been recognized as helpful to birthparents and adoptees, the present findings suggest that adoptive parents can also gain from such forums. In the authors' experience, the meeting of all members of the adoption circle together is less than satisfactory, but it is clear that adoptive parents need support; the establishment of separate groups to address their issues is recommended. In addition to support groups, there is a need for education for all members of the circle with regard both to the preparatory stages and the period after the reunion, when expectations are being modified and mutually satisfactory relationships are negotiated.

The body of literature relating to ongoing adoption reunions is extremely small. While further research is warranted in a number of pertinent domains, knowledge of the internal psychological processes occurring in satisfactory reunions would be particularly useful. Qualitative research would be appropriate for gaining insight into the individual meanings ascribed, and to the complexity of, these difficult relationships. To date, it seems to have been a combination of serendipity in regard to the matching of expectations; the sheer tenacity of participants; and, sometimes, support from adoption organizations that has enabled reunion relationships to be forged and maintained. To enhance the probability that future reunions between dislocated parties are successful, ongoing research and practical support are of utmost importance.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption reunion relationships are fraught with difficulties because: a) they are associated with a unique set of beliefs and experiences relating to the adoption, to which each participant brings her own set of expectations; b) there is little societal support for the existence of the relationship; c) the relationship is rooted in a situation may have been tainted with a sense of stigma or shame; d) some level of anxiety is likely to be experienced by extended family members, especially the adoptive family, creating additional pressure on participants; and e) there is no ideal model of relationship for the participants to emulate. Ongoing adoption reunions are almost uncharted territory; in many respects, it is amazing that any are maintained.

Despite these difficulties, the findings of this study, consistent with those of previous research, indicate that the desire for connection and relationship between biological parents and children is so great that many ongoing reunion relationships are being forged out of the maze of their interactions and experiences. As practitioners, our task is to provide greater understanding of the processes involved and support for all parties.

Footnotes
* This paper uses the term adoptee to refer to an adopted person of any age; birthparent to refer to a biological parent, either mother or father; and adoptive parents for those who adopted a child. To reduce clumsiness of language, the feminine pronoun (rather than he/she, him/her) is used for adoptees; reference to all adoptees as feminine also protects confidentiality, so that, where appropriate, even direct quotes have been altered to the feminine form to prevent identification of participants.

References
Andersen, R.S. (1989). The nature of adoptee search: Adventure, cure, or growth?Child Welfare, 68, 623–632.

Campbell, L.H., Silverman, P.R., & Patti, P.B. (1991). Reunions between adoptees and birth parents: The adoptees' experience. Social Work, 36, 329–335.

Kirk, H.D. (1964). Shared fate. New York: Free Press.

Kowal, K.A., & Schilling, K.M. (1985). Adoption through the eyes of adult adoptees. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 354–362.

March, K. (1995). Perception of adoption as social stigma: Motivation for search and reunion. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 653–660.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publications.

Modell, J. (1997). “Where do we go next?” Long-term reunion relationships between adoptees and birth parents. Marriage & Family Review, 25, 43–66.

Pacheco, F., & Eme, R. (1993). An outcome study of the reunion between adoptees and biological parents. Child Welfare, 72, 53–64.

Sachdev, P. (1992). Adoption reunion and after: A study of the search process and experience of adoptees. Child Welfare, 71, 53–67.

Sants, H.J. (1964). Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 37, 133–141.

Schechter, D.M., & Bertocci, D. (1990). The meaning of the search. In D.M.Brodzinsky, & M.D.Schechter (Eds.), The psychology of adoption (pp. 62–90). New York: Oxford University Press.

Silverman, P.R., Campbell, L., Patti, P., & Style, C.B. (1988). Reunions between adoptees and birth parents: The birth parents' experience. Social Work, 33, 523–528.

Smith, J.A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J.A.Smith, R.Harre, & L.van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). London: Sage Publications.

Sorosky, A., Baran, S., & Pannor, R. (1975). Identity conflicts in adoptees. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 18–27.

Triseliotis, J. (1973). In search of origins. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Triseliotis, J., Shireman, J., & Hundleby, M. (1997). Adoption: Theory, policy and practice. London: Cassell.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2001 American Orthopsychiatric Association, Inc.
This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied without the copyright holders express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user.

Source: American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol.71 (1) pp. 38-48.
Accession Number: ort-71-1-38 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1037/0002-9432.71.1.38