[kburch]

I was reading one of the recent 'hot threads' about reforming domestic adoption, and this question/issue is just nagging at me, so I thought I'd see what other people have to say...

First of all, I will not pretend that I know the pain that goes along with choosing to have someone else parent my child. And as someone who is not yet a parent, I'm not even sure I can truly empathize. But when someone mentioned today the mothers in Russia (and all over the world) who make the heartbreaking choice to place their children in orphanages because they can't afford to feed them, something in me just broke. I mean, how much does it have to hurt to place a child, not into the arms of a loving family, but into an institution, with a vague hope that they'll be adopted by someone? Is this what adoption was like in the U.S. in the past? If so, it's no wonder that so many birthmothers are hurt and angry!

In that same thread, someone said that expectant mothers should not be given the option to choose who will parent their children - that it should be up to 'qualified' individuals... My question is, for those of you who placed your children with families you chose, do you think you would have still made an adoption plan for your child if it meant placing them into an orphanage? Or do you think you would have decided to parent them, without the reassurance that the people who would be adopting your child at least seem like the kind of people you would want as their parents? (Obviously there are no guarantees...)

I hope this isn't a very insensitive question. I just can't understand how people would want domestic adoption to become more like a system that seems even more painful (if that is possible) for birthmoms.

[Sarah0518]

Ok, I'm an amom not a bmom. We just adopted a newborn domestically 4 months ago. But, I know from my own standpoint the whole reason we chose domestic adoption vs another program was because of the change toward more openness. Adoption needs reform, not a return to the dark ages.

Totally closed adoption makes me feel uncomfortable. I'd feel like I was doing a large disservice to my child(ren). Maybe they'd be one of the lucky adoptees that are well adjusted and not feel the pain or rejection of a closed adoption, but what if they weren't? If I can avoid, or at least lessen this for him with an open adoption, then that is what he deserves.

[aj2002]

I placed my son about a year and a half ago in an open adoption because I still had three months of school (amoung other reasons). For awhile, I had considered putting him in foster care for those three months and just visiting CONSTANTLY but that (obiously) didn't happen. However, the only reason I even considered that option is because I knew it would only have been temporary and that he would have had a "real" family waiting for him. (B-dad and I). Had someone asked me if I wanted to give him up in hopes that someday someone would take him home I would have turned around and RAN (or at least waddled really fast). As for the other questin/comment about professionals chosing a-families... At first I really didn't like the idea of having to pick which couple would get our child (I'm such a soft heart- we looked at four portfolios and wanted to find them EACH a baby), so we looked at them WITH our adoption conselor. Well, of course she had one family that she really liked, we had one we really liked. We went with our gut and chose the second family and have never regreted it. In fact, I think that if we had went with her couple, there would have been a lot of disappointment and heartache. Only the b-mom or b-parents know in their heart what they are looking for so, if they feel up to it, I believe they should be a llowed to choose.

[Volfe]

These are good questions...

Let me say that, in my recent relinquishment, if I had only had the choice of closed adoption versus raising my child I would have raised her... I didn't even want her to go in foster care for the few days after the hospital.

I also promised her sisters this open adoption versus anything less. There are many complex issues about why I chose to not raise her. Not wanting to be a parent forever... not wanting to parent with her father... Money was perhaps, the least of it.
However, the bond of siblings is one I didn't want to sever. It's a long story why the family friends I chose originally could not continue the adoption plans and instead I chose strangers who agreed with my well-laid adoption plans. They offered strong family values, security and most important to me, supported my wishes for a fully open adoption...

...until the papers were signed.

I think parents should choose who will parent their children. I think professionals should only pick out families for puppies.

Maia

[spaypets]

I think professionals should only pick out families for puppies.

Actually, speaking as someone who ran an animal shelter, I NEVER would have presumed to pick out a family for a dog or a dog for a family. I made suggestions, but I learned early on, that it was best to let dogs and families choose each other. My preferences and requirements were vastly different from my clients.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

I actually refused to leave her in foster care. We went to bring her and there was no way I was leaving her with that lady!!! I brought her to her parents instead.

I would NEVER have put her into an orphanage or even just given her to the agency to place. No way.

[Kindreds]

Interesting article comparing North American adoption practices to Australia who went through a massive adoption reform several years ago.

Current Adoption Policy and Practice -
a Comparison between North America and Australia
by Evelyn Robinson, MA, Dip Ed, BSW

Introduction

I am often asked about current adoption policy and practice in Australia and how this differs from policy and practice in North America. Although I have never worked in a situation where adoptions were actually taking place, I have had considerable experience in post-adoption services for the last fifteen years and, in that time, I have counselled many whose lives have been affected by adoption. I have also been able to acquire some understanding of current adoption policy and practice from colleagues in the field. During my visits to North America and through my contacts with colleagues there, I have also gained some background information on current adoption practices in North America. It seems to me that there are fundamental differences between what I perceive to be happening with domestic adoptions in Australia and what I perceive to be happening with domestic adoptions in North America.

I recognise that adoption policy is, in both places, subject to state rather than federal legislation and so there are variations in policy and practice from state to state (in this article, for simplicity, I have referred to 'state' legislation, although I am aware that in both North America and Australia there exist states, territories and provinces). My comments are, therefore, of a general nature only, as I appreciate that there are many local variations. I am most familiar, of course, with policy and practice in my home state of South Australia, but I am aware that most other states in Australia operate in similar ways.

Adoption policy and practice in South Australia are based on the South Australian Adoption Act (1988) and have been in effect since that act was passed in 1989. Since 1989, it has been possible to appraise and monitor the outcomes of this legislation and the act was officially reviewed in 1994. At that time, submissions were invited from members of the public, as well as groups with an interest in adoption. Some minor alterations to the act were made on the basis of this review and there have been no official moves to make any alterations to the legislation since that time.

South Australia was the first state in Australia to put in place adoption legislation which seeks to protect and support the relationship between a newborn child and his or her families of origin, as well as allowing equal access to adoption information when the adopted child becomes an adult. Other states have followed with similar adoption acts.

Adoption agencies

Private adoptions are illegal in all states in Australia. All domestic adoptions are enacted by State Government departments. There are no commercially-based adoption agencies which are licensed to manage these adoptions, which means that there are no payments of any kind connected to the adoptions of these children.

In contrast, in North America, private adoption agencies are licensed to arrange domestic adoptions. Because adoption has been allowed to acquire a commercial status in North America, there are financial advantages for agencies in arranging as many adoptions as possible. Agencies in North America, therefore, have an incentive to attract customers, just as any other business does.

Many people have expressed to me that they find the fact that money and children change hands in the same transactions to be at the very least distasteful, if not, in fact, immoral.

Expectant mothers

Expectant mothers in Australia, regardless of their circumstances, are generally encouraged and supported to prepare for raising their children. After the birth, a Parenting Payment is available from the Federal Government to anyone, regardless of their gender or marital status, who is a permanent resident of Australia and who has custody of a child. This payment, which is means-tested, is a recognition by the Australian government that children are the basis of a country's future. The government, therefore, makes financial support available to parents to assist them to provide for their children. As far as I am aware, there is no corresponding payment available at a Federal Government level in North America, although I have been advised that there may be tax benefits for parents who are in paid employment.

While there is still a degree of disapproval in some quarters towards single parenthood, there is a much greater level of acceptance in Australia than there was in the past. This has resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of adoptions in Australia over the last thirty years. Last year in the state of South Australia (which has a population of more than two million people), for example, only one Australian-born child was adopted.

The term 'birthmother' (or 'birth mother') is currently out of favour with many of the support groups in Australia and certainly would never be used, as I have heard it used in North America, to describe an expectant mother. I have even heard the term 'birthmother-to-be' used to describe a pregnant woman. This sinister use of the term 'birthmother', before the birth has even taken place, implies that the separation of mother and child is a foregone conclusion. Expectant mothers in Australia, on the other hand, are generally encouraged to concentrate on their approaching motherhood throughout their pregnancies and no decisions regarding their child's future are expected to be made until after the birth has occurred. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that it is not possible for a mother to know how she will feel about her child until after the child has been born.

Expectant fathers

I know that, in North America, fathers who are not married to the mothers of their children have a difficult time being heard. In South Australia, an unmarried mother who is considering adoption will always be asked to name the child's father and attempts will be made to include him in the decision-making process. If the father is named on the birth certificate or if a man is recognised by the court as being the father of a child, then his consent is necessary before that child can be adopted. The father will be allowed time to establish paternity. If the father wishes to raise the child, he has the right to do so. If the mother and father do not agree with regard to the child's future, the matter may be decided by the family Court. This would happen before any consent to adoption had been completed.

Consent to adoption

Under the South Australian Adoption Act (1988), consent to adoption cannot be given until the child is at least fourteen days old. Counselling after the birth is compulsory and must be completed at least three days prior to consent being given. The mother of the child must also be given information in writing regarding the consequences of the adoption, prior to any taking of consent. After the consent has been signed there is a period of twenty-five days during which the consent may be revoked. This period can be extended by up to fourteen days, but it cannot be shortened.

In practice, the consent to adoption is sometimes not finalised until several months after the birth. While this may not be an ideal situation, it is felt to be of prime importance that children have every opportunity to be raised within their families of origin. This will prevent the long term complexities in the lives of those children and their parents, which would occur if an adoption took place. During this period the child may remain with the mother and/or father.

I have heard of cases in North America, tragically, in which adoption consents have been signed even before the birth, or very soon after the birth. I have also heard of cases where attempts to revoke the consent the day after it had been signed have failed.

Meetings with prospective adopters

In Australia there is never any contact of any kind between expectant mothers and
prospective adopters. I know that there are many who agree with me that such contacts are intrusive, disempowering to the expectant mother and potentially exploitative. They may even serve to encourage an inappropriate sense of 'ownership' in the prospective adopters, which, I believe, shows a lack of respect for and understanding of the sanctity of the mother/child bond. I am aware that this shocking practice is considered by many to be unethical.

In South Australia, only after the consent to adoption has been signed and after the twenty-five day revocation period has expired will the government department involved select adopters for the child. After this decision has been made, a meeting may take place between the prospective adopters who have been selected and the mother, if the mother requests such a meeting. Prospective adopters will not have any contact at all with the child until after the revocation period has expired and they have been notified that they have been selected to adopt.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can support the practice of having prospective
adopters meet with expectant mothers and try to induce them to consent to the adoption of the child they are carrying. I believe that prospective adopters are sometimes even allowed to be present at the hospital while the birth is taking place. I was appalled to hear that this happens in North America. I find such behaviour totally inappropriate and unethical. It concerns me greatly that prospective adopters who behave in this way are not thereby considered as unsuitable to adopt.

Birth certificates

In South Australia, if the adopters are willing, they can have their names added to the child's original birth certificate instead of having a new one issued. This means that, after the adoption, the names of both the parents and the adopters appear on the same document, which is the child's legal birth certificate. The mother of the child has access to the original birth certificate from the time that the adoption takes place. The father also has access if his name appears on the birth certificate.

Regardless of the type of birth certificate issued, adopted adults in South Australia have access to their original birth certificates and other documentation pertaining to their adoption, when they are eighteen years old. The original birth certificate has details of their parents, including their names and addresses at the time of the adoption. They may have access prior to the age of eighteen with the consent of their adopters. The mother of the adopted child also has access to the replacement birth certificate when the adopted child becomes an adult, at the age of eighteen years. This document has details of the child's adopted name and the names of the adopters and their address at the time of the adoption.

These documents are also available to the children of the mothers, either if the mother gives permission or after her death and to the children of an adopted adult, if the adopted adult gives permission or after their death. Similar access to adoption information is available in all states, although in some cases, the release of information can be prevented by a person involved in the adoption. Fathers also have the right to access information about their children under certain circumstances. The legislation which allows this access has been in effect in South Australia since 1989.

I know that there are some states in North America where adopted adults are allowed to access their original birth certificates but there are no states, as far as I am aware, in which parents are allowed to access the replacement birth certificates once their children are adults. I look forward to the time when equal access to adoption information, such as exists in South Australia, will be accepted as a basic human right everywhere in North America. This is an on-going issue of social justice.

The right to raise a child

There seems to be an unhealthy attitude in North America that there are some people who are 'entitled' to raise children (whether their own or someone else's) and that there are others who are not. The result of this seems to be that, rather than adoption existing to serve needy children, adoption seems to exist to a large extent to serve needy adults. In some sectors of the media in North America, the idea that certain people have a right to acquire a child, by any means at their disposal, seems to go unchallenged. Although this misguided notion does, no doubt, also have some support in areas of the Australian media, I find this attitude to be much less prevalent in Australia than it is in North America.

Removing children from families

I was very shocked to learn that, in North America, parents who are married and already have children are being persuaded to relinquish newly-born infants. The subsequent separation of such a child from a previously intact family is causing enormous losses, for the child, for the parents, for the other children in the family, for the grandparents as well as many other members of the extended family. This does not, to my knowledge, happen anywhere in Australia.

Apparently, having children while on a low income is now perceived as such a crime in some parts of North America, that this dreadful punishment has been devised. If poverty is considered to be a disadvantage to such children, then government initiatives which address the issue of poverty would be more useful to them than replacing the complications created in their lives by poverty with the complications created by adoption.

In my professional opinion as a social worker, any prospective adopters who would be willing to acquire a child in this way, from an established family, would be considered to be unsuitable candidates to be entrusted with child-rearing responsibilities. It seems that a 'supply' of such children, who already have an entire family of relatives, is being engineered to meet the 'demand' created by affluent strangers, who wish to attempt to manufacture a family through adoption. I cannot comprehend how anyone could consider such a transaction to be anything other than exploitative and socially unjust.

Adoptions of older children

While there are many in North America who are working in family preservation programmes to prevent separations of mothers and babies, I am saddened by the fact that there are still those who believe that adoption is an appropriate outcome for older children who are unable to return to live with their families. Adoption is rarely considered to be an appropriate outcome for such children in Australia.

I have heard it said in North America that adoption can provide such children with a sense of security. In fact, in my opinion, the opposite is the case. Children such as these know who they are and to whom they are related. These realities do not change, no matter where the child is living. To deny that identity and those connections by issuing the child with a false birth certificate has, in fact, the potential to create an enormous sense of insecurity. If their identity and their family connections are so dispensable, then how can a child in this situation develop any sense of reality and permanence? We all know that being part of an adoptive family does not provide protection against abuse, death or divorce. Adoption, in fact, does not guarantee permanence of any kind and is actually an attempt to create relationships where none existed previously, rather than honouring those relationships which already exist.

In Australia, children who are unable to live with their families can be provided with a safe home environment, based on an arrangement which accepts and honours the reality of their identity and their existing relationships. This, I believe, can allow them to heal and recover without involving them in the deceit and denial associated with adoption. Some of these children have already been traumatised by the abuse or neglect which they have suffered. In my opinion, it is unnecessarily cruel to add to their trauma by subjecting them to an adoption.

Conclusion

I am not, of course, suggesting that every child in Australia lives in an ideal family
environment. However, it is not considered to be appropriate in Australia to try to solve the problems of poverty and abuse in families, by removing children and arranging for them to be adopted.

Adoption is not a commercial transaction in Australia and it is gradually being replaced by other, more effective means of providing homes for children in need. This suggests to me that Australians respect the advantages in life which cannot be bought, including a sense of knowing who we are and where we fit, a sense of heritage and ancestry and a respect for the intrinsic value of family membership.

I look forward to the day when children all over the world will no longer be removed
from what are perceived to be dysfunctional poor families and placed in what too often
turn out to be dysfunctional affluent families.

[coco46]

As far as the opinion of the author of that article is concerned, then, everything is hunky-dory as long as the child remains with birth relatives? The mothers/fathers are given a payment for PARENTING their child? Extra financial assistance is given to PARENT a child and that makes it all OK? The STATE decides if and when and by whom a child will be adopted, if at all? Am I understanding this correctly? It sounds like the old "closed adoption era", except you're pushed to PARENT, even if you don't feel ready (they can MAKE you ready, though--how amazing!), or alternatively, stigmatized for choosing adoption.

Yeesh. If these alternatives had been given to me as a bmom, I would have run for the nearest passport office. I'm not disputing the fact that there are unscrupulous people, agencies, and attorneys out there who try to push adoption on expectant families. More reform is undoubtedly needed, but we're making great strides, IMHO. Let's not take a huge step backward by saying it's BAD for afamily and bfamily to meet, have ongoing contact, and develop a healthy relationship as friends, and even grow to love one another as extended family. I notice this particular "expert" hasn't interviewed (or at least hasn't offered to share any dialogue they had with) any of the adoptees, bfamilies, or afamilies affected by this "wonderful" system. Nor has any compelling evidence been presented that their "Parenting Payments" or other state assistance does anything to create a better family environment than adoption would have. It just furthers the misconception, if you ask me, that blood is better than anything. Incidentally, I've lived in Australia, & I have family there still, so I can say first hand that their system of government has its fair share of social problems, including child welfare, that go woefully unaddressed, just like we do here in the US. So it seems a little hypocritical to me for them to be patting themselves on the back this early in the game about their "perfected" adoption system.

To answer the question posed on the thread originally, I would never have allowed my child to be placed in a state run institution (I know some countries don't offer anything but a state run institution, and I totally empathize with the bmoms who had no choice but to take their children there in the hope that they would be adopted). I would also never have wanted the state to select my child's family. If those were my only options, I would possibly be a very bad "mother" with a very unhappy child today. I fail to see how that would have been to her benefit or mine. As it stands, we have an open adoption and this child is by no means confused, nor am I, nor are her PARENTS. I never felt pressured to make an adoption plan. It was my choice from the get-go.

As you can see, this topic is a sore point with me. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but it really frustrates me to see adoption put down and stigmatized YET AGAIN by so-called experts. It can and does work a good deal of the time, especially with open adoption. As a bmom, I find it incredibly insulting to have it insinuated that I didn't know what I was doing when I made this important choice, and that I somehow needed the intervention of a benevolent govenment official or two to show me the "right" way to do things.

[Kindreds]

As I understand it, the Australian reforms in the mid 80's came about after lengthy testimony regarding their unfair adoption practices. Even now, there are still ongoing court cases coming out of what happened in the 50's and 60's. There is much variability in the US. Several states make private adoptions illegal and Massa chusetts is one of them. Adoption agencies must be licensed and approved by the state and follow prescribed regulations. The state also limits the number of adoption agencies. You will very rarely see any scandal in Mass regarding adoption, whereas, in state after state elsewhere in the US you hear about scams and unfair practices etc. There definitely needs to be some type of national reform. After all, in the past year, there was federal legislation mandating medical privacy regulations and access to your medical records that must be followed in each and every state to prohibit a state by state determination as to how much privacy you should have when it comes to your medical records. Why not have consisten policy in the US with respect to adoption procedures. Right now to me it seems a free for all with extreme variability based upon where you live when it comes to domestic adoption. Why should an adopted person in NH have access to their records and a person adopted in Florida not have access. Why should a mother in one state have a 30 day period change her mind about adoptionand in another state 48 hours? We need a national inquiry, a national debate and then national regualtions for all to follow.

[michellemartin]

If I was unable to choose her parents, I probably would have spent tons of time considering abortion. There would be no way I would drop her off at an institution! I probably wouldnt have done an abortion. I am morally opposed to doing that myself, but the thought of leaving her... I think the pain of that would be worse than to just termintate a pregnancy. I hope they never take the option of choosing a family away from bmoms. That just makes it soooo much more cruel.

To pick her family, but after birth? Um I'd be taking her home until her aparents could come get her. Still no way she's going to an institution!

Spaypets- I love that anology! Yeah, I wouldnt pick a family for a pet either. And children are a gazillion times more important, so why not leave it up to the people who's lives its going to affect forever.

[SchmennaLeigh]

If I wasn't able to choose a family, I would currently be raising my child in poverty.

Gee, that sounds like a good way to reform adoption: make it nonexistant.

[michellemartin]

I think there is a big difference between Russia adoption and here for one BIG reason.

Most moms who put their kids in an orphanage there have NO OTHER CHOICE!!! They are 100% unable to raise thier child. Adoption there is all about the child then.

Here it isnt about being 100% unable to provide for our bchild. It is about the bmoms needs as much if not more than the childs needs. I placed Kara for my own selfish reasons. I was definitely able to parent. I would never ever have left her in a home to hopefully be raised by someone someday...

If my choices were what they are in Russia, I too would be raising a child in poverty.

Your right, good way to reform adoption...

[BrandyHagz]

If adoption had been radically reformed to reflect the views that were expressed on that thread, I too would have been forced parent…and both of my children would have suffered immensely because of it.

My son, who is special needs, would have gone without vital services and support that he needed because I wouldn’t have been able to afford it. In fact, its likely that, if I had been forced to parent M, that Jerrett would have died due to complications with his heart defect…even at the time, the amount of money I made drastically reduced the number of free services or lower cost services that were available to us. I cant imagine how much we would have struggled and ultimately lost if I hadn’t been able to make the choice to place M with her parents.

Institutionalized kids suffer a great deal…I have first hand knowledge of that suffering…I couldn’t imagine making a choice that would put my child thru the same kinds of things I was forced to go thru as a child…it so sad that anyone would think that institutionalization is better for kids, than having someone place an infant in a loving home…simply because it gives a MOTHER the option if choosing.

[michellemartin]

Brandy, you said it better than I could have. My thoughts exactly.

[RiverGal]

First of all, I have to say that article posted BITES. I DETEST the word adopter. I think it is demeaning and disgusting. Now that I have that behind me...

kburch ~ Thank you for being interested in the feelings of us birthmoms. It is through the open mindedness that we can heal the riff and come together in the best interest of the children.

No...if I had to place my child in an orphanage, I would not have done it. Like some the other birthmoms have stated, we would have continued to take our chances on the street.

When my daughter was placed, it was from my arms into her mother's arms. The adoption was private, I chose them, and there was no agency involvement.

I still say that they were the best family I could have dreamed of for my daughter, but sadly, they were not so good for me. The pictures and updates never happened.

Above everything else, don't commit to any arrangement that you don't feel in your heart you are able to keep.

Best of luck for a successful match.

~D