[terri34608]

Does anyone know of any States in the US that "somewhat" enforce open adoptions?

I recently read that there was some states that do enforce it.

If so, which states are they?

[Sharon]

I've heard there are five; I know Washington and Oregon are two of them, I don't know the other three. "Somewhat" is about right... as far as I can tell no birthmother has ever won such a case in court or regained contact rights... in my research I have yet to come across that. If anyone has a "success" story, please post and let us know all about it; I need some cheering up right now. Sincerely, ~Sharon

[terri34608]

Are you aware of any such statue in Florida? We are trying to see if open Adoption can be enforced. (somewhat)

[Sharon]

>8R5794 KLA-D
>By: Phillips
>H.B. No. 1689
>
>A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
>AN ACT
>
>relating to certain agreements in connection with an adoption
>order.
>BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
>SECTION 1. Section 162.016, Family Code, is amended by
>adding Subsections (d) and (e) to read as follows:
>(d) The parties to an adoption may enter into a written
>agreement specifying the terms of the adoption, including terms:
>(1) allowing a person whose parent-child relationship
>with respect to the adopted child is terminated to have possession
>of or access to the child at specified times; and
>(2) providing for other contact between that person
>and the adopted child.
>(e) If the parties to an adoption enter into an agreement
>authorized by Subsection (d), the court shall render an adoption
>order in accordance with the agreement. The terms of the agreement
>contained in the adoption order or incorporated by reference may be
>enforced by all remedies available for enforcement of a judgment,
>including contempt, but are not enforceable as a contract.
>SECTION 2. Section 162.016, Family Code, as amended by this
>Act, applies to a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in
>which an adoption is sought that is pending in a trial court on or
>that is filed on or after the effective date of this Act.
>SECTION 3. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
>a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
>provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
>Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
>Act takes effect September 1, 2003.

Here is something I cut and pasted, a new bill that will go into effect in Texas on Sept. 1, 2003. My interpretation of this is that open-adoptions will now be "somewhat" legally enforcable in Texas... although this bill is not very specific and not entirely clear on a lot of things. How I wish the laws surrounding open adoptions could be as clear-cut as other laws. It seems to me that legislators are deliberately leaving loopholes, so that these cases can never actually be brought to court and won. Still, the fact that they are passing legislation at all must be good news; a step in the right direction. ~Sharon

[wanttobeparents]

From NATIONAL ADOPTION INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE
http://www.calib.com/naic

The portion pertaining to enforceable adoption contracts follows:
from http://www.calib.com/naic/laws/coopadopt/index.cfm

Statutes Permitting Enforceable Contracts

Approximately 18 States (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia) currently have legislation allowing written and enforceable adoption with contact agreements. In many of these States, the statutes incorporate the substance of the language recommended by the Guidelines, while in other States (notably New York and South Dakota), provisions pertaining to the contents and enforcement of the agreements are not specified.

In most of these States, an agreement for adoption with contact can potentially be permitted for any adoptive child as long as the type and frequency of contact is deemed to be in the child's best interest. Some States, such as Connecticut, Nebraska, and New York, limit the application of agreements to children in foster care. Indiana limits enforceable contact agreements to children age two and older. For children under age two, non-enforceable agreements are permitted as long as the type of contact does not include visitation.

This information was current as of May 2002. Hopefully, many more states have added legislation that will enforce open adoption contracts. The site lists the statutes by state, so you could look up the information on Florida. Keep in mind that it's over a year old, but it may give you enough information to find any updates on Florida's own legislature site.

[jp33]

What do you mean open adoptions enforced?
Are yall meaning the agreements made to be enforced? or that all adoptions should be open?

Just wondering. If its the latter, I disagree. All adoptions should nt be made to be open. I prefer closed or semi open, pics only some letter contact from the adults but not with the child...and not all the time....

If its the first, I agree that the agreements made between people in open adoption should be followed.

[Sharon]

The first is what we are referring to; that open adoption contact agreements should be legally binding. In most states, as of right now, they are not. They are "good faith agreements" or "suggested guidelines" which can be broken by either party at any time.
I respect the fact that you prefer closed adoption to open adoption, and I would never suggest that all adoptions should be open. However, many birthmothers and adoptive parents prefer open adoptions, I don't think there is one solution that is right for everybody. Each situation is different. However, once a decision is made to enter into an open or semi-open adoption agreement, that agreement should be followed. If either party changes their mind later and backs out of the agreement, there should be legal repercussions. ~ Sharon

[Bonnie S.]

First of all, I respect everyone's opinion here, but I have to disagree with enforceable contracts. What if you enter into an open adoption agreement and the bmom decides to become intrusive. What if you are in a semi-open adoption and the letters being exchanged become nasty. What if you are in a closed adoption and either party wants or needs to have some contact. There are always circumstances that can arise that may make you want to change things. If the order or agreement is enforceable, it leaves no room for adjustments as time goes on.

Personally, we are in a semi-open adoption, which works for us. However, when our son was between 6 and 14 months, we were in court with his bmom and her family. During this time, we suspended all contact. We resumed updates after things were resolved.

[Sharon]

I see your point. I agree that in some instances, the original contact agreement must be altered due to a change in circumstances and/ or relations between the two parties.
But it is not acceptable to leave this to the adoptive parents' discretion. They are one of the two parties involved in the contract, for heaven's sake. It is unrealistic to expect them to be able to make a fair and unbiased judgement on this issue in many cases.
In legally-binding contact agreements (in the states which enforce them) the adoptive parents must petition the court in order to break the agreement. If it's truly in the child's best interest to void or alter the contact agreement, a judge will make that determination.
I realize that in many cases, birthmothers behave inappropriately and the contact has to end as a result of this behavior. But there are other cases in which the adoptive parents behave innapropriately, or become so insecure that they no longer feel able to uphold their end of the agreement. We are all human, and subject to human emotions. That's why the court must set and regulate these guidelines, not either set of parents, not the adoptive nor the birth parents. A judge is actually better suited to decide whether continued contact is in the best interest of the child. The adoptive parents often are not able to fairly make such a determination, nor should they have to, being too close to the situation, being too emotionally invested in the situation. That is why more and more states are now making open-adoption contact agreements legally enforcable. ~ Sharon

[ISW]

On the flip side, I think what will happen if you see the courts get involved is that the degree of openness one would be willing to commit to would be drastically reduced if a person knew that it was legally binding. I certainly wouldn't agree to anything outside what I was absolutely sure I could positively handle and to me, that would mean significantly less contact than what I've committed to now without a legal document. While I understand what everyone is trying to do, I don't believe this can be resolved this way and in fact could be a step back for all of us in the adoption triad.

Just curous-- what sort of consequences are the advocates for legalizing agreements envisioning if an adoptive couple or birthparent breaks the agreement?

Just an opinion...

[Sharon]

ISW,
First of all, you should NEVER have committed to anything you weren't "absolutely, positively sure" you could handle. Why would you do such a thing... with or without a legally-binding contract?
Second, those of us who advocate legally-binding open adoption contracts DON'T WANT people committing to more than they can handle. I'm still so bewildered as to why anybody WOULD commit to more than they're sure they can handle. Do you not realize the seriousness of the commitment you've made? People like you are the reason why more and more states are having to institute legally-binding open adoption policies.
A prospective birthmother has literally hundreds of couples to choose from when she is considering placing her baby. I don't think that whether or not adoptive parents will be willing to "commit to as much contact" were the agreement made legally binding is a valid concern. There are adoptive parents willing to commit to anything. There are all sorts of people in the world who are open to all different kinds of situations. The ones who are willing to commit to "more", as long as they can't be held legally accountable, but who would not be willing to commit to as much if the situation were legally binding... those are the kind of people that birthmothers are trying to weed out. Those are the kind of people who don't need to be adopting at all. JMHO, ~Sharon

[Dianna]

Enforcable open adoption agreements sound a lot like post divorce custody agreements. They are usually second best and substitute for compassionate, caring human relationships. Also they dilute the authority of the parent or parents who ever it is agreed that they may be. It is parenting by committee and I question if it is really in the child's best interests or made simply to satisfy the adults involved.

I would never agree to take away the decision making ability in parenting. I firmly believe in openess in adoption and have seen how things change over the years. It is kind of like trying to legislate morality. Courts and laws do not raise children, people do. Just my opinion.

[Sharon]

Dianna, I agree 100%. Legal contracts ARE second-best to caring, compassionate human relationships.
However, relationships aren't possible between people who have never met, or who have only met once or twice, briefly, to discuss the business at hand (in this case, adoption). You have to know someone in order to trust them, and getting to know people takes time, and in the case of a prospective birthmother interviewing hopeful adoptive parents, there isn't time... there are only a few months at most in which to make this crucial, life-altering decision. Trust cannot develop instantly, it develops over time, and "time" is what birthmothers don't have. Thus, the need for the security (insurance, if you will) of a legally-binding agreement.
Open and semi-open adoptions have become the norm over the past two decades. Initially, birthmothers DID trust the people who adopted their children to honor the agreements they made pre-placement. But too many birthmothers have now been burned, and blind faith is no longer possible.
Birthmothers are less and less willing these days to enter "good faith" agreements with total strangers, especially when the best interest of their children is at stake. They are requiring the security of legal protection, which is everyone's right. I for one am thrilled to see more states passing legislation to protect the interests of birthmothers. I only wish it had happened sooner.
Look at it this way... what if the adoptive parents' rights were the ones unprotected, rather than the birthmothers'? What if the adoption itself wasn't "legally binding" and the birthmother could, if she chose, walk into the adoptive family's home and reclaim her child at any time, as long as she considered it to be "in the child's best interest"? If it's all about trust and compassion and caring, then why do lawyers need to be involved at all? Why not just enter a verbal, "good faith" agreement with a birthmother to adopt her child? After all, don't you TRUST her?
Birthmothers simply need and deserve the same legal protection as everyone else, and thankfully legislation is now changing to reflect society's growing awareness of this.
~Sharon

[Shoshana]

I agree that birthmother rights should be protected & am glad there is movement in this direction on the part of the courts.

Your 'other-side-of-the-coin' analogy was outstanding - I'd never thought of it that way before.

[Dianna]

I can understand and agree with you also Sharon. All of my adoptions have been from the foster care system and I have set limits, boundaries and take the responsibility for my kids' welfare as primary. I have long admired women who love their children above themselves. I agree that in a situation where a woman states up front her needs and expectations for contact, and a couple agrees to this, then it is a binding agreement.