[loveajax]

What do you think? I have only skimmed it, but I agree with most of the recommendations (legally enforceable OA agreeements, more and independent counseling, more focus/adherence on birth father rights). They do recommend changing the period in which a birth parent can revoke the TPRs for up to 30 days....I am really not in favor of that one for a number of reasons (mostly, I don't think that kind of uncertainty promotes bonding and I know once I had DD home, I would have been "paranoid" if I thought it was more like a "fostering" situation....I mean she was my daughter, kwim?)......But maybe there should be a longer period, like 7-10 days or something, before which a birth parent can't sign a TPR (???). Though I will confess, if I adopt again, I would not choose to adopt in states that created this kind of risk.

Talk amongst yourselves (I am dating myself here...Coffee Talk from SNL!!).

ETA: I forgot this was the quote picked up by the media from the report....I was telling my DH (who is adopted) about this quote and he blew a gasket (I know what the "point" was but it just sounds so bad):
“In many states, you can change your mind about buying a vacuum cleaner or taking out a mortgage within a prescribed time period, but most states do not have a revocation period during which a mother can change her mind about relinquishing her child,” the report said.

[SchmennaLeigh]

I'm working my way through the full study and it's recommendations on the birthparent blog. (That's the first installment. More coming.)

The full report is available here: http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/pub..._Study_All.pdf

Some more info is available on the webpage that links to the study:
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute

IMO, longer periods for revocation only further confirm that the birth parent does, in fact, want to place instead of the three day period that many are given which involves hospital stay, birthing and often times pain medication which can impair decision making. I haven't gotten to write about that just yet. I understand that adoptive parents may be opposed to such a thing but, in the long run, a more certain birth parent makes for a better adoption.

However, this study is what sparked the article featuring our family: More rights urged for birth mothers - Women's Health - MSNBC.com

[loveajax]

Yes, Jenna, I was so happy to see that you are our international celebrity!! I think the study is really great and well done (with my angst about the one recommendation listed above!)

I think maybe a longer period in which a birth parent could NOT legally sign a surrender may address your concern though, wouldn't it? I guess 3 days seems too short and 30 days seems to long to me...

PS: I did read your blog entry on OA enforceability and totally agree with you. I'll keep reading your talk on the rest of the recommendations as they come!

[SchmennaLeigh]

From the study:

At least 28 states specify a waiting period after the birth of a child before legal relinquishments can
be signed; only six states mandate a waiting period longer than three days. Ideally, state laws would
require a minimum of four to seven days after childbirth before allowing a woman (or man) to sign a
relinquishment. In most instances, that would allow time for the mother to leave the hospital and for
her to make a reasoned judgment after the immediate physical impact of delivery has abated.

And:

At least 17 states and the District of Columbia have adoption laws providing a specified number of
days after the signing of a relinquishment (ranging from three to 30 days) during which parents can
revoke their decisions without having to prove fraud or best interests of the child. A few additional
states allow revocation before court action terminating parental rights. In many other countries,
including the majority in Europe, consents for adoption do not become final for about six weeks; in
approximately half of U.S. states, irrevocable consent can be established four days after birth or less.
In reality, lengthening waiting and revocation periods requires other considerations – most notably
the care of newborns during this period and the timing of placement with adoptive parents – be
addressed. Policy-makers need to weigh the interests of all parties in deciding how long these
periods should be.

Two topics are being confused here.

The study is calling for four to seven days before the TPR can even be signed. I would sign on with this idea in a heartbeat. Even my vicodin from my recent wisdom tooth extraction says not to make any decisions while taking it yet we allow women to sign TPR in the fallout of pain medication following labor. Interesting.

The study itself did not actually call for a 30 day waiting period AFTER TPR is signed. They stated that some states already have waiting periods from 3-30 days. They then said that the best interest of all involved needs to be considered as law makers weigh in on this topic.

Part of me wants to say 30 days would be beneficial to all involved. I understand the paranoia and bonding issues with adoptive parents. Yet, at the same time, I also know the regret that can hit in that first month for doing something that absolutely, 100% cannot be taken back.

I don't know the answer to this particular topic.

[SchmennaLeigh]

Originally Posted by loveajax

ETA: I forgot this was the quote picked up by the media from the report....I was telling my DH (who is adopted) about this quote and he blew a gasket (I know what the "point" was but it just sounds so bad):
“In many states, you can change your mind about buying a vacuum cleaner or taking out a mortgage within a prescribed time period, but most states do not have a revocation period during which a mother can change her mind about relinquishing her child,” the report said.

Good. I hope more people blow gaskets as they realize that birth parents are treated with less respect than inanimate objects.

[loveajax]

Jenna, as an adoptee, I think he was upset about being compared to a vacuum cleaner (that's how I read that quote).

[SchmennaLeigh]

Even reading it that way, adoptees are given less respect than inanimate objects when it comes to this issue. I think the quote is a HUGE eye-opener.

[thornbird]

We saw an article about this in the paper on the weekend - my husband actually said, "Hey, did you see the adoption article?" which was a big deal because he doesn't notice things like that, heh.

I'm glad to see the links to more in-depth information - what I saw of the report in the article all seemed very positive to me - moving toward making certain the decision to place is made deliberately & carefully & that women don't feel pressured by time constraints, etc. - and protecting the rights of birthparents after placement. Now I've got to read the links so I understand the recommendations more fully.

[crick]

Haven't read everything...

but I do think it hits a lot of key points that sorely need to be addressed in the current process.

I agree that a woman should not re-make her decision for an adoption plan while on drugs or recovering from the emotional/physical stress of giving birth. I think 24 hours is insane and should be illegal. 72 hours is pushing it and can see a 5 day minimum.

I'm not sure how I feel about the OA enforcements. I fully believe that a promise made should be upheld. However, the wording of any laws regarding this need to be worded very carefully. As a parent, you need to be able to make decisions for your children as you see fit. I don't think you should have to go to court to make these decisions. So it's a fine line and balancing act between the rights of all parties...and not an easy one to do.

[sadiegirl]

While I understand the need for longer waiting periods, what happens to the baby while mom thinks about it? I know there's fostering, but Jenna, correct me if I'm wrong, I may be confusing you with someone else, but didn't you say you did NOT want your baby in foster care? And I think I've read on here that quite a few bmoms don't want foster care either.

I know, another option would be for the baby to go home with bmom, but I know that would make a lot of ap's nervous. (I know it would me, just human nature, I guess).

I guess I'm just wondering aloud...if there are longer waiting times, what happens to the baby?

[loveajax]

Sadie, that is a big problem with longer periods (including periods to revoke), I think. Presumably the "intended" a parents could be with the baby or he or she could be with the birth parents or I suppose some kind of temporary foster care situation. One of the problems is when a child is adopted out of state...it is really tough (I have heard) for the a parents to wait for the interstate compact stuff...I can't imagine living in a hotel room for 30 days, etc.

I think one of the reasons I support longer periods for the TPR but not "revocation" periods is that I really think for the child's sake (and of course the a parents sake) there should be as much certainty as possible (but still allowing birth parents some time after birth).

Jenna, I think it is sad if birth parents or adoptees feel that they get less respect than a vacuum cleaner. I know personally I have great respect for my DD's birth parents and my DH and DD as adoptees. I would be interested to know how adoptees feel about this issue...I know for my DH, he feels very strongly that decisions (as tough as they are) should be made as quickly after birth as possible for the child's sake. (He was in foster care for some months after he was born, and I think he wishes that he had spent that time with his a parents). Of course, I'm sure as in all situations there would be a variety of opinions.

[browneyes0707]

Here's what happened to me when I gave birth 14 years ago:

I went into labor at 11:30 PM. Up all night in labor with my DD's a-mom right next to me the whole time. Was high on Demerol. DD was born around 10:30 AM. I remember only a few things about that day. I remember going into a real room about 12:30. Sometime after I was sleeping, and people came into my room. I remember a-mom sitting in a chair next to me, and being asked to sign papers. I did as I was told an rolled over and went back to sleep. I was d/c'ed the next morning.

You try making a decision after not sleeping for 24 hours. Any decision. Much less on Demerol after giving birth. For all I remember, I could have signed away rights to my next three children.

Scary.

But those who know my story know that I was VERY lucky. There were so many ways being 18 that I could have been taken advantage of by opportunistic people. When I think back on it now, it terrifies me. I don't see for this reason why AT LEAST an extra week would hurt anyone.

[sadiegirl]

Originally Posted by loveajax

I know for my DH, he feels very strongly that decisions (as tough as they are) should be made as quickly after birth as possible for the child's sake. (He was in foster care for some months after he was born, and I think he wishes that he had spent that time with his a parents). Of course, I'm sure as in all situations there would be a variety of opinions.

ajax,

My DH is also adopted and feels the same way; he was in foster care for 4 mos before he was adopted in Dec of that year. He always talks about being "alone" for his 1st T-giving and how he wishes he knew/could meet his foster family. (This was 40 yrs ago!).

He also didn't like the article much but I think many things come into play for him--his adoption and the fact that we just went through a lengthy and costly contested adoption. He also got mad at me for sending DS' bmom a drawing he had made. He said I was getting too personal and how is she supposed to heal if she keeps getting all these reminders.

Sigh.

[Leigh131313]

I'll have to read the article...i've only read the little story which included our Jenna!!


Personally, I would never agree to a legally enforcable open adoption...

The 30 day thing I also disagree with...however I have no issue with making a pbirthmom wait longer before being allowed to sign...3 days sounds better to me. However this is not something I feel passionately about...I'm also fine with the way it stands right now - mind you I'm in Canada, things are a tad different up here.

Personally, I'm just happy people are talking about adoption...and not just which famous person adopted from which country.