[hope44]

I felt it treated the matter in a sensitive way. Barbara even shared that her daughter was adopted which helped the viewer understand her perspective on all this. I thought it gave a more accurate picture of the emotional battle for all parties involved than I expected. I know several of my friends were going to watch it so that they might better understand what we face. While each adoption situation is different, I felt this story contributed to the public's awareness in a positive way. I didn't see any of the promo's, but I felt the actual show was done in a tasteful manner.

[dl]

Well, many of us complained about the promotional spots that aired about this show. As an adoptee, I was personally very put off by the promotional spots that aired. Now, as an adoptee that watched tonight's 20/20 show, I thought adoptive parents and potential adoptive parents might be interested in an adoptees reaction to the 20/20 show.

The actual program was very well done, IMO. However, as an adoptee, it reinforced my level of comfort that I was raised in a closed adoption. I found it very uncomfortable to have the child referred to as a "shared child" . I personally am grateful that I grew up as a child that felt completely part of my family ~ that I belonged ~ no different than my friends, vs. feeling half & half or as a child that was shared and actually belonged completely in neither family.

I also, personally found it offensive that a 16 year old, who is/was clearly not in a position to parent a child herself, was interviewing and judging people on their ability to parent. I am very glad that my parents did not have to go through this degrading process. I had wonderful parents but I doubt that they would have participated in this type of situation.

I understand more than ever why some couples choose International Adoption.

[mj77]

My heart ached for that birthmom handing her baby over to his new mom and dad. It was very emotional having that glimps into a birthmom's pain. As an adoptive mother though, I know the unspeakable joy of having a child placed in your arms too.

[Missy M]

I also, personally found it offensive that a 16 year old, who is/was clearly not in a position to parent a child herself, was interviewing and judging people on their ability to parent. I am very glad that my parents did not have to go through this degrading process. I had wonderful parents but I doubt that they would have participated in this type of situation.


dl....I can understand why that thought would might occur to you if she were indeed "judging and interveiwing people on their ability to parent" but IMO thats not was the process was designed to do. Thats the job of the Social Services dept of the agency; pb-moms are presented with profiles of couples who have met the requirements and completed the home study necessary to adopt; she was interveiwing couples in an attempt to find a "perfect fit" for her and her son and IMO she is the only person who can...One couple decided to withdraw based on the amount of openess and visitation she desired after being interveiwed by her, had she not been involved in this process at that point the results could have been disasterous. The very thing I loved about the show is that the involved parties talked...really talked and layed their cards on the table and left nothing to chance. I didn't get the "lets just wait and see how it turns out" feeling that IMO is so easily misinterpeted.
I will say that the show was tasteful but at times misleading. The couple who adopted Matthew, the 2 year old, didn't just walk in to talk to a Social Worker and leave as parents. If Matthews Mom was able to walk in an agency and drop of her 2 year old, look at their profile, select them as they sat inside and have him adopted that day, something is terribly wrong but thats the impression the show left us with. It mentioned no counciling, no options, no legal preceedings for them, nothing except "She's living in a womans shelter and she can't parent him...." The Social Worker says "Well this mom didn't select you BUT we happen to have another mother who has....do ya' want him he's here now," and BAM! they are parents. I didn't think this scene was accurate, but thats just IMO....MissyM

[AMom2Two]

I was happy to see that the show was not as I expected, HOWEVER, I did walk away from the show feeling as if they portrayed the image of sharing a child. This bothered me greatly and leaves me feeling ill at ease. Did anyone else get that feeling?

AS an amom in a fully open adoption, I do not believe in sharing a child. I believe that when one family releases a child, then the child comes into the new family, fully and completely. I do not consider myself sharing my child. I do feel that allowing the child to have a relationship with the bfamily is the healthiest for my children. I view the relationship w/ the bfamilies the same as my family or inlaws. I do not view them the same as my husband's and mine relationship with the children. We are the parents. We all have a relationship, each one different with the same child but we are not sharing a child. I think that notion has to be stopped. I see it popping up more and more.

I am encouraging a relationship with the b/families that created the children but NOT at the expense of making the child feel they don't belong completely into our family.

Labeling open adoption as "sharing a child" is wrong and very misleading. IMHO, it tries to diminish the pain a bmother might feel, making her think it's not about loss, it's about sharing, when in fact it is, about loss for her. It is about the first mother's loss of mothering her child, she does lose that role. The child does go into another family, the child is planted (if I may use that term w/o offending anyone) into the new family and now grows with two roots. That's the way I personally view it.

What better way to grow and flourish in this world then with the full knowledge of who you are, where you came from, and knowing that you are loved by all and everyone cares about you. I think that sends such a positive image to the child. JMHO

ps...by the way I wanted to make a last comment about what the amom said that I didn't like either. When Barbara Walters asked her "who the mother is", she said she is. I feel that is wrong also. If I were asked that question, I would reply we both are! You cannot take away what God has created. When she bore our child, she became their mother by God's hand IMHO. She is not their Mom, Mommy or parent but she is and always will be their mother. God has made it so, and I honor his decision. JMHO.

[3girls1boy]

The show was more positive than I thought it would be. The fact the huge story of all these people was limited to 46 minutes though I think led to some false impressions. All five couples had open adoptions, with varying degrees of openess- I read this in Newsday, I think, on the web. I wish someone would have explained that open means different things to different families. I think we have a really open adoption and my daughter's birthmom has never visited us once or twice a month consistently. There have been times we may have seen her four times in a month because of specific events but there are also times when we haven't seen them for 4 to 6 months.
I have used the word "share" but I agree last night it had a negative connotation- it seemed more like co-parenting in meaning. I continually have to tell people open adoption does not mean co-parenting.
I would have answered the whose the mom question- I am the mother, she is the birthmother. They are different roles.
I felt awful for the bmom of the two year old, and the two year old. Sent off with people he has never met. I am glad that it appears he adjusted well.
Potential adoptive parents have always had invasive interviews- it just used to be by social workers rather than birthparents. I think its not out of line to want to get to know something about who is going to be your baby's mom and dad.
I wish the show had been two hours long and they had gone deeper into the process- maybe have talked to some older adoptees who have been part of an open adoption, to see the difference its made in their lives (positive or negative).
Lisa

[goin'batty]

I tried to use the agency that was in the show, won't go into details since it's forbidden, but I am now on their mailing list. For at least the past six months they have been sending out fliers that they will be flooded with potential birthmothers from across the nation after the show airs and they are getting ready for it. I bring this up because I think this was just a giant marketing strategy, free ad for the agency. I thought it was very ironic that ALL of the couples had a placement before the show aired. That doesn't seem realistic to me, but sure makes the agency look good to hopeful adoptive parents. I wish that if their intention had been to truely expose and discuss the open adoption process that they would have left out the agency's information so I wouldn't have this feeling of watching an hour long infomercial.

[riley6]

I liked the show. I think it showed OA in a positive light. I didn't get the impression that any of our concerns came to fruition. BW didn't ask anything that I hadn't been asked a million times by friends and family members wondering about OA. I think the show may help others, outside the adoption community to see that we're not the only family that OA works for.

My heart broke for the two yr old's bmom that left him at the agency. For Jessica too, but she seemed to have her parent's support and will have an OA. The 2 yr old's mom probably doesn't. The baby must be totally confused!

When BW asked who is the mother, I took it to mean who is in the role of mother. The person who is there day to day IS the mother, imo. My kids have biological mothers, but they aren't there on a day to day role. If you ask my kids who there mother is, they will tell you that I am.

[dl]

dl....I can understand why that thought would might occur to you if she were indeed "judging and interveiwing people on their ability to parent" but IMO thats not was the process was designed to do. Thats the job of the Social Services dept of the agency; she was interveiwing couples in an attempt to find a "perfect fit" for her and her son

I agree ~ Jessica was not considering the couples based on their ability to parent. On another thread discussing this show it was pointed out that Jessica reviewed files/profiles of couples that the agency had already deemed qualified to be parents. The only thing Jessica seemed to focus on was really trying to find the family who would agree to "share" the child with her the most. . . the aparents that best fulfilled her needs for a high level of involvement and sharing of the child ~ or as you put it, was a "perfect fit" for her.

It was also mentioned on the other thread that this is a benefit of open adoption that is not often honestly spoken about. Being best for the child is the only benefit that is continuously brought up. 20/20 clearly showed that open adoption is of benefit and about the wants and needs of the bmother.