[SchmennaLeigh]

Originally Posted by bromanchik

Oh if only this were true. Increasingly there are fewer supports for young mothers. Welfare reform has put restricyions on how long welfare can be received and as a result we are seeing more and more women relinquishing second and third babies, Cuts in section 8 housing grants made last year put an estimated 250,000 families on the street, so there is no help there for the young mom who has no support from family or friends.

I think "force" is a subjective term. Are there really options for the mom who is homeless? Without support from family and friends? For the mom whose family will disown them? (and, yes, this still happens today) Further, how free of a decision can it be when papers are pushed under the nose of a new mother only hours after birth? Quite possibly still on pain medication, obviously with hormones completely out of whack. How much of an informed decision is it for the new parents who have received "adoption" counseling instead of true options counseling. How many of these parents are getting any real counseling at all?

Unfortunately force is alive and well in American adoptions.

I love, love, love Brenda's statement on "force is subjective." So very true. Nope. No gun was to my head. I take full responsibility that I picked up the pen and signed the paper. But what other option was I left with? I had been on bed rest and therefore kicked off welfare/medicaid due to the fact that I couldn't make it to the appointment about why I couldn't work. (Hi, morons, bed rest means bed rest. If you've ever taken terbutaline, you know that driving isn't an option. Morons.) So, that system? Failed me. And it fails many others. While tough restrictions are good for those who want to abuse the system (and they, sadly, do exist), it can make it tough for a Mother who just wants to raise her child. I was looking for our local resources for a friend of mine who had an unplanned pregnancy last year. It took me almost a full MONTH to find her all the resources she needed to raise her child. Why? It's difficult as heck.

Beyond that, the pre-birth "match" period is force enough for an expectant Mother. A sense of obligation has been stated by many a firstparent when they talk about how they felt re: the waiting family. Even ask those who were able to choose to parent who had been matched with a family. They will state that while they are immensely happy... a sense of guilt remains.

Brenda is right; "force" is still alive. It's just taken on a different mask in 2006 than in 1966.

[kune]

Brenda
I agree with you in part. Force is subjective. I don't live in the States. In New Zealand single-parenthood is supported by the State and the resources are there for those who need it. Limited resources, but enough to raise a child with free medical care and accommodation supplements. Does that make it easier to parent? I guess it solves the immediate problem of how can we survive out there on our own. But if a woman has decided to relinquish, all her energy is then put in to the quality of life offered by prospective adoptive parents. In my original post I believe that living with a prospective family would give a mother security in the long term. She is able to make a real connection with the family and after placement would continue to foster that connection with child and family. Perhaps I should moderate my reply to the poll and say those that are committed to placement could find it beneficial. I made my decision to place independently and assume others did or do too. (Of course I know that is not always the case). In my day open adoption was not an option, but today it is commonplace and the closer the connection between the parties, surely the easier it must be for them both to feel comfortable with their dual roles??? Like I said, the one women I know who did "board" with her childs aparents has had access to, and knowledge of her child from birth to adulthood. Oh...how I wished I had that too. It would have made the intervening years so much easier for all concerned.

Ann

[SchmennaLeigh]

Ann,

"Committed to placing?"

Many believe that the decision to place needs to be remade after a child is born as a Mother can't truly understand the depth of her bond until the child is born.

Until signing the TPR, considering placement is not a committment.

[kune]

Jenna
The only experience I can draw on is my own. Once decided after much soul-searching, I made a personal commitment to place. I believe that the majority have a plan. That in no way pre-empts them from deciding to parent (as per my previous post) ....

the child you carry is yours until such time as you agree to relinquish your parental rights. If in doubt........don't sign.

Ann

[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by kune

Brenda
But if a woman has decided to relinquish, all her energy is then put in to the quality of life offered by prospective adoptive parents. In my original post I believe that living with a prospective family would give a mother security in the long term. She is able to make a real connection with the family and after placement would continue to foster that connection with child and family. Perhaps I should moderate my reply to the poll and say those that are committed to placement could find it beneficial.

I am one of those professionals that do not believe the decision to place can be made until after a parent has seen and held their baby. Until then the baby is not a reality. Real informed choice means that they have this information.

I believe living with the prospective adoptive parents muddles the view. There is too much comparing that goes on ("look at how much they have verses what I have to give") and too many feelings of obligation ("I can't break their hearts after all that they've done for me.") And in the end the birthmother moves out and is right back where she started from. Helping her develop the resources to be independant will help her make an independant decision. It just does not make sense to do anything else.

[andromeda]

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.

[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by andromeda

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.

That was actually illegal. No one has a legal right to keep a mother from her baby. Talk about coercion!!

[bromanchik]

Originally Posted by andromeda

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.

Here's the crux of it. This was not an open adoption. Certainly birthparents in open adoption do not parent, but they are known for who they really are, not just some "distant relative". Having a known and special relationship with your child is a lot different than just dropping in every once and awhile. Open adoption is supposed to be about leaving behind the secrecy in adoption for all parties involved, most especially the adoptee.

[andromeda]

I definitely agree that my adoption was not open in today's sense. However, it was open for both sets of parents, just not for me. I believe this is the basis for much of the anger I experienced when I found out that they had known all along. I don't think there was any ever plan to tell me which made me even more angry.

I do believe from the adoption paperwork I've seen from 1960's adoptions that adoptive parents often had the names of the mothers of their adopted children. My own sons's adoption papers - which he had never seen, of course - had my name there, not whited out. Another adoption paperwork also had the first mother's name clearly left in place, no attempt to hide it. This was from a Missouri Crittenton home which handled adoptions as well as serving as a maternity home and foster care agency.

I had never seen my own adoption papers until getting a copy some 40 years later. I'm guessing that mother's names were routinely left on adoption papers, all the talk about 'confidentiality' being a cover. It is not surprising that so few adopted children had ever seen their own paperwork.

[LegalEagleMom]

I have to agree with eveyone here. That is a big no no.

[andromeda]

A natural mother friend of mine did exactly this 30 some years ago, stayed with a woman (stranger)who was not going to adopt any baby. However, the woman had lots of friends and contacts within the adoption industry. It was still coersion because the woman who provided room and board as well as friendship to my friend had an agenda solely toward adoption. It took my friend 20+ years to realize that this woman was not her friend, but was interested in her baby.