[SchmennaLeigh]

Good job, Brandy.

I actually find the agencies/attorneys who aren't explaining that the TPR time "limit" is a MINIMUM requirement. For example, just because the law states that a woman has 72 hours to sign in PA DOES NOT MEAN that she HAS to sign at the 72 hour mark. It means she can't sign BEFORE the 72 hour mark and can take as long as she needs to sign. I wasn't told that; just told to sign on the line at 72. The laws can be "good" but the agencies can still be unethical. And that's what sucks.

That said, states that don't even have minimums (or twelve hour minimums) for TPR, I agree, are barbaric.

[ajjhmf]

Jenna,

That is barbaric. 72 hours after M's birth, I could barely get through breakfast, much less make a decision of that magnitude.

Much they way children in the court system have GALs, parents making this decision should have the counsel of a neutral party. I don't know if any states do that, but they should.

[lonni]

Originally Posted by BrandyHagz

I see PAP's talk about 'Adoption Friendly States' often - but what I'm noticing is that it really isn't 'adoption friendly' it's adoptive parent friendly...in fact, I often see states with the most unfriendly birthparent laws referred to as "adoption friendly" - which I find kind of odd.

I often see states with no revocation period referred to as 'adoption friendly' - and honestly, I don't see them as friendly at all - I see them as barbaric!

I'm not looking to debate or anything - just wondering how you view adoption friendly.

Wouldn't an "Adoption Friendly State" be a state that has laws that make sure EVERYONE is treated right/fairly? That's the kind of 'adoption friendly' I could get behind!

I don't use the term. I do see it used and it seems to mean that the choo choo train of adoption is rolling and can NOT be derailed or stopped,whether a necessary adoption or NOT Necessary adoption. So in that manner,it would mean adoption friendly,because the goal is adoption,no matter what.

[Lovebug]

Honestly, this is why I think there should be national adoption laws, to avoid the "adoption (parent) friendly" situations. If each state had the same laws and requirements, it would eliminate the "what state is better to adopt from" scenario.

--Renee

[ermiller]

I agree on the national laws and I too feel that adoption friendly is really referring to being friendly to adoptive parents in terms of having shorter periods where the bmom can change her mind or the bfather has very minimal rights.

I too have some strong feelings about TPR and revocation times as in the total time given should be about 6-8 weeks. Yes, we as adoptive parents can survive those situations- I know because I waited through 12 weeks

[Kimmisue]

ermiller,

Did you wait through those 12 weeks and then have the bmom revoke and reclaim her baby? I can't imagine how that would feel!

As an amom, it isn't the wait that would scare me, it would be the possibility that I could lose the child that I've grown to love.

Kim

[ermiller]

No, she did not revoke. But we were at legal risk for that time because here in MI, TPR has to occur in front of a judge, particularly if the bdad is not known or has not signed prior or is not around to sign. If they both are present and planning to sign, it can happen in front of an appointee of the judge and sometimes as soon as 10 days, with a 21 day appeal period for fraud or duress. We know who our daughter's bdad is but he did not want to be found to be notified of the hearing, so 12 weeks went by while we made sure he was properly notified. There was then a 21 day appeal period because his rights were terminated involuntarily, in case he could prove why he did not show up to the hearing. So really, it was 15 weeks.

What I was trying to say is we spent 12 weeks with this baby knowing that at any moment a phone call could come asking us to "return" her and we would have had no rights. It was hard to know we were in legal risk but I also knew that it gave her bmom the time to recover from giving birth. We also saw her bmom 3 times prior to the hearing for visits- one at about 10 days old, one at 1 month and one at 2 months. We followed up with a visit the week after TPR and we still have visits about 3-4 times a year.

I'm sure I would have been very devastated should her bmom have revoked because I couldn't help but bond with her during that time. And maybe I would have a different opinion if that had happened but as it stands now, I really do believe that it is a survivable period of time.

[Kimmisue]

We had a 30 day legal risk because of an unnamed bfather. On day 28, my lawyer called to tell us it was being contested..... long story..... anyway... I lived in fear for several weeks not knowing what would happen. (Case was thrown out and we finalized) Our 2nd adoption was another 30 day legal risk. We weren't worried with this one as the bfather was not known and an illegal immigrant. So, that 30 days was not much of an issue. But for most adoptions, I would think that would be a very hard wait for alot of people. I would think the longer the wait, the worse it would be if consent was revoked. I guess it depends on the situation and relationship you have with the bparents. But, I will say we had a close relationship with our sons bmom and never dreamed anything would happen, but a man came forward anyway.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread.....

I was told that my state (Indiana) is an adoption friendly state because a bmom's consent is irrevocable unless she was under duress. It is also considered to be adoption friendly because of our putative father registry/law. I'm wondering if it is called adoption friendly because it is in favor of completing adoptions. I will say that when I talk to people who are considering adoption, I do tell them that it is an adoption friendly state, at least it is for the adoptive parents.

[sadiegirl]

I do think the term "adoption friendly" state DOES mean friendly to the AP's.

And frankly, I'm not gonna sugar coat this, I am OK with that. I feel for any bmom's pain, I really do. DH is adopted and he talks to his bmom and I know she probably is in pain. We do letters/pix/emails with DS' bmom and I know she's in pain.

But I am not gonna be dishonest here...after 10 years of infertility and countless m/c's, I am not sad that we adopted from a very adoption friendly state! I could NOT survive a 30 day revo period.

As it is, we had a contested adoption that lasted 18+ months, so you could say that we went thru an "18 mos revo period". IT SUCKED.

IF we ever adopt again, we will probably either opt for an infant whose already been TPR'd or for a state that is "adoption friendly".

Now, does this mean that I am anti bmom? NO. Does this mean I don't believe in counseling? NO. We hope the next time around to find a very ethical agy (NOT the one we used in the past).

Just my .02

[2manyks]

Our bmom loved our state for it's "adoption friendly" laws. i agree, they are adoptive parent friendly laws. this was her 2nd placement. for her 1st placement she was in a state that allowed tprs to be signed after 72 hours. she hated the wait. she had made her decision because of her circumstances and even though the baby was born and she loved him she still lived in the same circumstances and couldn't parent. she felt it was unfair for her to have to spend 3 days bonding with her baby and then sign. she wished she could have signed sooner. she moved when she became pregnant again because she wanted to be in a more "adoption friendly state". i think this is an interesting take on the whole question.

[akcskye]

You've gotta consider too, that not every birth mother feels like the some of the birth mothers that are posting to this thread.

As we've discussed, some birth mothers have planned the adoption path almost since hearing they've conceived...to them, 72 hours to make a decision may be barbaric to THEM because *SOME* birth mothers just want a little hospital time with their baby, and then hand them to the adoptive family and start the grieving/healing process right away rather than have this huge cloud looming over their head.

There is no right answer that will suffice in every situation.

But, coming from the miscarriage/no live birth path I've walked...all I hear is the rights of others...with no regards to my rights.

Not to be argumentative or side-tracking...but birth mothers have rights...but what rights do the adoptive parents REALLY have?

We have the right to help pay the costs, pay the attorneys, etc etc etc...but when it comes down to it...the only true right we have as adoptive parents is to put our money and our hearts into something that...in many instances...turns out to be the equivalent of taking your whole life savings into a casino and having the worst poker hand on the table, and be told "better luck next time".

People get upset for the ugly, stereotypical pictures painted of birth mothers...well, what about us? We're portrayed as "baby snatchers" willing to do whatever it takes to make sure someone goes through with a placement...whether she wants it or not.

It's just a very stinky situation for all the tangents...and when I hear adoption friendly...it gives me a glimmer of hope that maybe someone is HOPEFULLY doing right on ALL parts of the triad, but helping give a little bit more thought to the adoptive parents...who have almost equal share of the emotional stake.

Just my VERY LONG .02 haha

[BrandyHagz]

Wow, I'm really sad that the thread has been so sidetracked...*sigh* so much for trying to make a thread wih respectful discussion on the topic - it makes me sad that when the talk of laws comes up - its always 'us vs. them' - its no wonder laws never get better - we're to busy fighting each other to fight with those who write our laws!

We don't need another debate about who's rights are more important or who has been through more pain with infertility vs. placement. There are tons of threads on that topic already!

[ajjhmf]

Closed at the OPs request.