[sonata]

I was just reading another thread that prompted this reply, but my post is general enough to start a new thread on this topic.

I expect that many people are not going to like what I have to say, but as an adoptee who has been involved in many discussions on this forum I feel like I have to speak out because this weighs so heavily on my mind.

The subject I'm referring to is prospective adoptive parents who are upset because the birthmother "changed her mind". Everytime I see a post like that I get MAD!!!

Listen, the "birthmother" does not OWE you a child. She is under NO OBLIGATION to give her baby to you. Maybe when she "promised", she thought that was the best/only thing she could do. But then maybe her instinct to keep her baby drove her to find a way to do it. If so, then GOOD FOR HER!

What makes you think YOUR DESIRE to have a child is MORE IMPORTANT than a mother and child staying together? That is so selfish. Such possessiveness has no place in parenthood or ANY healthy relationship. It is attitudes like that that make us as adoptees feel like wishbones being pulled apart.

ADOPTION IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD - AND THE CHILD ALONE! If you can't accept that, then you need to carefully examine your motives for adopting. WE ARE NOT COMMODITIES to be exchanged, bought or sold. WE ARE NOT POSSESSIONS!

************************************************
Remember the fairy tale Rapunzel:

A sick pregnant woman so craved the greens in the neighboring witches yard that she thought she would die if she did not get some. In desparation she promised to give the baby to the witch in exchange for some of the greens. Once she ate them she felt much better and when the child was born she pleaded with the witch to release her from her promise. The witch would not relent, however, and snatched the baby from the pleading mother's arms.
************************************************

Is that how you want to become a parent?

Whenever I hear sob stories about "birthmothers" changing their mind I get angry. Anyone who sincerely cares about a child will be happy and supportive that the mother and child will stay together. If you want a child so badly, there are untold numbers of older children right here in this country who desparately NEED parents and are languishing in foster care. If your motive is truly to parent a child who needs a parent, then why don't you take one of those children?

I didn't write this to hurt anyone, but I simply had to get it off my chest. Sonata

[lucyjoy]

While I understand your anger, and agree that every birthmom has a right to decide to parent her child, a potential adoptive couple also has the right to grieve the loss of a child they expected to parent. They've waited for this child and planned and dreamed for it's future. They have to grieve the fact that they will not be part of that future. Anger is a natural part of the grief process. While it is being expressed on this forum, I'm hoping that's keeping it from being expressed at the birthmothers who decided to parent as they should not be made to feel guity for that as they've done nothing wrong.

But, I do agree that healthy babies in the US are not waiting children in need of homes. There are far more parents hoping for newborns then new borns available. If you're adopting to "help" a waiting child, maybe you shouldn't adopt. If you're wanting to parent a waiting child, the US foster care system has plenty.

[stacyone]

Lucyjoy is absolutely right. This is a matter of perspective. Legally, the prospective adoptive parents are owed nothing, but emotionally it's very traumatic to have a placement fall through. This should always be a safe place for people to come to express their grief. And believe me, I know, after rounds of infertility treatments, a failed placement would feel like a kick in the stomach.

I hope that we can continue to be lovingingly supportive of grieving prospective adoptive parents while acknowledging the inherent legal risks of adoption. That's why we're here, right? To support and understand one another?

Peace to everyone!!!

[spaypets]

But there are those of us who strongly believe (and studies that prove) that children are emotionally healthiest when raised in a two-parent loving home.

While a pregnant woman has a right to change her mind and parent her child, there are those of us who believe that her decision is not in the best interest of the child, rather it is due to societial pressure to keep her baby. It is a decision based on emotion rather than reason in many cases.

There are people who think that's the best way to make a decision -- how the decision will make you feel, rather than what makes sense. I'm not necessarily one of them.


Ok, fire away.

[lucyjoy]

Wow, I can see why birthmothers get so angry. (Single adoptive parents also).

You might want to check the divorce statistics, especially hose of parents who have adopted children. I'm not really into numbers, but I sure see a lot of it.

A single birthmother who feels(and is) emotionally and physically capable and able to raise her child is always the childs best choice
to raise her own child.

[sonata]

You have the right to make the decision about what is best for the child YOU bear. Someone else has the right to make the decision about what is best for the child SHE bears.

Unless and until a mother relinquishes her parental rights it is HER decision to make. End of story.

Emotion? I'd rather my child have the "emotion" of maternal love over your judgemental "reasoning" any day!

[cathy102]

Well, I just had a post and lost it!!! The bottom line here is that the birthmom is the one that gives birth to HER child and she has every right to change her mind..There are so many married couples that shouldn't even be together!!! And that is supposed to be the best for the kids?????? I don't think so!! Who are you to judge what is right for a birthmom??? She is the one that gave birth to her child, not you!!!

Cathy

[ladybuglady]

I agree that it is all just perspectives. I think it is only normal for a prospective aparent to feel sad and depressed that they did not have the opportunity to parent the child. They are dealing with a loss, both emotional and sometimes financial. I think it is only natural for p-aparents to get excited and hopeful about adding to their family, and many are excited about adding the child AND bmother, they are still dealing with a loss if the bparent decided to parent. It does not mean that the bparents are wrong or otherwise, the p-aparents are just trying to deal with their loss and are reaching out for help. We should support them and encourage them as they deal with their loss.

I think that you are assuming that they are mad at the bparents or angry, I don't think we can assume that, they are just expressing their disappointment that they are not able to parent this child.

As to the child having a mother and father, I think that it would be great if all children were able to grow up in a loving home with a mother and a father where they feel safe and loved. Unfortunately, it just isn't that way, but I don't think we need to blast people for thinking that way because it is just their opinion. I think most people would agree that a loving and safe home where the child feels safe and loved is the best for the child.


Quote:
"What makes you think YOUR DESIRE to have a child is MORE IMPORTANT than a mother and child staying together? That is so selfish. Such possessiveness has no place in parenthood or ANY healthy relationship. It is attitudes like that that make us as adoptees feel like wishbones being pulled apart."

I don't think anyone is saying that their desire is more important than a mother and a child staying together. I think they are saying that they want what is best for the child and if that is with the bmother, than that is fine, however, they will still mourn their loss. I think we are talking apples and oranges here, just because we grieve doesn't mean we are angry or think the bmother is bad, it just means that we are dealing with our feelings of loss and need support. I would hope that whether you are a p-aparent or bparent that you could feel that you could reach out to help on this forum and receive it from those who have walked in similar shoes.

Just my opinion! I hope that you can understand what I am saying. I really don't think there is all the anger behind it as you might think.

Have a great day!
LBL

[Skye Hardwick]

Opinions?

I was once the person who believed strongly that a potential birthmother (and/or father) should have the opportunity to build a relationship before the birth of the child with the hopeful aparents.

Now, I am not too sure.

Wouldn't that put too much pressure on the potential bparents? Wouldn't remembering all the phone calls and shed tears and bonding with the hopeful acouple come to mind? Would that weigh on her choice?

Wouldn't that put too much emotional risk for the hopeful acouple? Would they begin to claim this child as their own even before it is born?

Again ...if there is no relationship before birth -- with a new baby, how can a relationship be made after the birth and adoption? Doesn't the pre-birth relationship give the hopeful aparents the chance to get to know the potential bparents as "real people" ..people not to fear?

Ahhh! lol - I just don't which is best. I suppose there should be no hard and fast rules -- what works for one may not work for another.

Just throwing ideas at you.

Skye

[sonata]

Perhaps I feel that the "grief" comes about because the a-parents are approaching the whole issue of adoption from the wrong perspective.

Here is what adoption SHOULD be...there is a "need" for an abandoned, orphaned or relinquished child to have parents. There are people who love children and desire to share that love. So they adopt a child and the need is met. The child gets something she would not otherwise have - parents. The whole thing is done for the CHILD'S benefit. (Along the way the a-parents also benefit from the joy of raising the child!)

But when I log onto adoption sites now, what I see are "advertisements" for babies. "Dear Birthmother, Please choose us." (And how dare you change your mind after you promised us that baby!)

The whole concept is turned on its ear. Couples who want a "commodity" - a healthy newborn baby - are angling to fulfill their desires. Never mind that there IS a need for parents and a loving home for 1000's of "unwanted" children. It is the motivation behind the whole thing that sets me on edge. Understand where I'm coming from - I WAS one of those commodities. When I hear a-parents "grieving" over their "loss" I bristle. Because it's NOT a loss! The need has been fulfilled! The child HAS a parent!

There are children out there who still DO need parents, so don't grieve. Go parent them!

[Rainbow mom]

Lucyjoy, I could not agree more! We do love the thought of parenting and it is heartbreaking to adoptive parents when a parent decides to keep their child and we have to fall out of love.
Which if the parent has had fertility issues they may have lost more than one child already. So you see that we are greiving the love we had already stored up for that particular baby.

Sonata, You are also right. I wish agencies would not dangle children in the faces of adoptive parents (that may be longing for a child) until the child is legally free so that if the child's Mother decided to continue to parent, no harm no foul. Unfortunatley if that came to be the children would be in fostercare for months (maybe being neglected or abused which two of my son's where) before going to their adoptive homes. That may lead to the child not bonding properly and having attachment issues (which I have witnessed first hand).

In my humble opinion the system is not set up for the best interest of the child. If it where once the parent signed over gaurdianship (After a month) a child could be placed with an adoptive family to begin bonding.

Within that first month the Mother should be allowed to take the baby home and see if she can raise the child if she wishes. She should also get support from the county to help her hook up with WIC, Medicaid, Doctors, jobs, housing, daycare, foodstamps and the things the child would need. If at the end of that month or sooner if she still cannot (determined by the county) parent or chooses not to parent rights should be permanetly severed so that the child has a chance for health wealth and happiness with a permanent family.

There is no perfect anwser to this problem if there where we would not see statistics like this:

"Millions of children around the world are waiting, hoping desperately for loving families to come and rescue them from orphanages and abandonment. The numbers are staggering. According to the United Nations, there are more than

5.5 million orphans in Africa
3.5 million orphans in Asia
1.5 million orphans in Eastern Europe
Nearly 400,000 orphans in Latin America
Over 135,000 children in the US foster care system!"

From Family Life.com

[DianeS]

I would agree that if the potential adoptive parents were actually "blaming" the parents who chose to parent their child for the grief, then that is a problem. It's also a problem if the potential adoptive parents say the parents had "no right" to keep the child. Its also a problem if the potential adoptive parents go on and on about the "better life" they could have offered and how staying with the birth family is worse for the child.

All those examples are BIG problems.

But that's not what most of the posts I read are saying. They're mourning the loss of a wonderful person who they expected to join their families. They're mouring the change in relationships they had anticipated and in some cases even begun.

Yes, it was their choice to enter into a relationship before the baby was legally theirs. It was their choice and they made it and they're living with the consequences.

But how callous would we think those potential adoptive parents if they said "The parents decided not to place their child with us after all. Several months lost, the relationship we developed is gone, but I don't feel anything. Oh well, lets get back on the waiting list for the next child."

Personally, I think an attitude lacking grief would be HORRIBLE!

I don't think it's possible for potential adoptive parents to stay impartial. "OK, the potential birthparents picked us and I'll spend the next 6 months getting to know them and helping them understand the life their child would live with us, but I won't actually develop any bond with them. I won't love them, I won't love the child. I'll stay impartial. So, it's nice to meet you but don't expect me to developa REAL relationship with you, because you might change your mind and I don't want to feel grief if you do."

I really don't see any alternative!
If you're invested in the match, if the relationship with the potential birthfamily is real, if the love for the child is genuine, then grief will be felt if the placement does not happen.
If the relationship is fake, if there is no love for the unborn child, then grief wouldn't be felt if the placement didn't happen - but would any birthfamily really want to place their child in a family who could stay that impartial?

[spaypets]

I absolutely agree that divorce is destructive to children. And with divorce statistics being what they are, it's a sad fact that adoptive families sometimes break apart. It's a tragedy for the children and another example of adults acting based on their wants and feelings instead of based their children's needs.

Pregnant women who are considering a couple to adopt their child should ask questions about the state of their marriage and their feelings about divorce. Questions about the marital status of the potential grandparents can often be illuminating.

As for singlehood being a temporary condition, I wonder how a single mother who is presumably working to support her child has time to meet and marry a worthy man without sacrificing time with her child. I know it's possible, but the sad fact is that one of the most common perpetrators of child abuse is the mother's boyfriend when he isn't the father of the child.

Once again, let me reiterate that I am not saying that a woman doesn't have a right to change her mind about making an adoption plan. I am saying that among the reasons potential parents are upset, in addition to their disappointment and loss, is the sincere belief that the child would be better off with two parents rather than one.

I feel so badly for fathers, since society seems to think they are expendable and optional. No wonder so many don't live up to their obligations.

[stacyone]

I see all sides of that particular dilemma. I'd hate to see a world where emothers (expectant mothers) and p-aparents are not ALLOWED to form a relationship, but I also know it's not fair to pressure the emothers. I guess it comes back to raising awareness and responsibly educating all parties to the risks -- the risks of getting too attached with each other AND the child. Allowing each party, independent of each other, to decide what's right for them.

What if... and I'm just rambling here... what if in the initial meeting with the agency (attorney) each party had to determine what kind of contact they wanted before and after? Knowing that the "after" part might be flexible to allow for more contact after the baby's born? Sample question:

How much contact do you want with the other party before birth?

a) Best friends
b) Short & intense (week prior to birth)
c) Quick meeting
d) No contact

This would give emothers a chance to be educated about her possible guilt if she decides to parent after forming a bond with the p-aparents. Now let's say that people are only matched with people that answered the same way? I know it would reduce the number of emothers that would see a p-aparents file, but wouldn't that be good in the long run? You know going in that you want the same things... less of a chance for p-aparents to have the baby dangled in front of them and agree to something they're not going to maintain later.

Again, I'm just rambling. I hate to over-legislate things, but it's interesting to think about. I also have this ongoing theory about a nationalized psychology test that determines when each individual is allowed to drive, vote, drink, etc.... but that's a debate for another forum!

[browntap]

If we were matched and the bmom changed her mind last minute (this just happened to my friend last month) I would be crushed. It would be just like a miscarriage for us. BUT we have also prayed for bmoms and their decisions and for God's will. So if she did change her mind, I would be crushed but I would realize this is not the child God had intended for us. And I would be thankful that God laid it on the child's mother's heart to parent her child. It's a matter of faith for us, not what we deserve or what's owed to us. But I completely understand how p-aparents would feel upset, I just don't understand how they do not see some things as divine intervention.

My 2 cents,
Tammi