[Fran27]

Ok, first, I want to say that I'm totally aware that it's not the adoptive parents' fault that so many agencies work that way. And that I'm really sorry for whoever had to turn down a match. I can't imagine having to make such a decision.

But I really wonder what everyone, deeps down, thinks about this practice. Why in the world will an agency let an expecting mom pick a family that might not be comfortable with the situation in the first place?

The agency I went with, you say beforehand what you are comfortable with. They urge you to REALLY think about it. It covers every health issue, to race, to prematurity, to expenses... if something is unusual, or close to your criteria, they call you to ask if you're ok with it. Then only, depending on the criteria you've picked, will they show your profile. Then when you're matched, unless something shows up that isn't in your profile key, you can't refuse a match. Some people don't like it, but it's one of the main reasons I chose them... They don't want to have to tell a birthmom 'sorry, they don't want your baby'.

Obviously sometimes there is no info... and you have to go with the flow... but WHY do agencies put paps and pbirthmoms through such a headache on such a regular basis when it could so easily be avoided?

I would really love to hear the other side to this... because right now it really just confuses me.

[ContactChar]

I think it depends on what you think of as a "match." Because I desired an open adoption, I wanted a situation where I "gelled" with the birthmom and felt comfortable that this was someone I could welcome into my family. That went far beyond the medical background, drug use, race, etc. criteria that would be picked up on a form. I viewed those items as baseline criteria, but the real "matching" couldn't occur until we met and were both comfortable with each other.

As it happened, I ended up with a closed adoption, and my son's birthmom let the agency select me, so we were about as far from a match on either side as you can get. Just my 2 cents on why it might make sense to have "matching" on both sides, though.

[inhiswill]

Fran- Our agency is the same way. I liked that as well about them. It was not complicated at all, you say what you would be willing to accept, and then if your info matches e-parents then you are shown. Pretty simple.

[Fran27]

Great point about open adoptions. I never thought about it this way.

[Beth.]

If I were making an adoption plan, I can't imagine being told that the adoptive family I picked is turning down my baby. Talk about rejection.

I was just thinking about our match. After the match meeting, the agency said "you're it." They never asked if we accepted or not. It never occurred to me that we had an option -- A's circumstances fit what we would accept on our profile.

[michellef1]

When we adopted DS, we were working with an agency and an attny. Both the agency and the attny did not tell us when they showed our profile, not wanting us to get our hopes up each time. We ended up with situations from both of them at the same time. I know that sounds like the problem to have, but it was actually such a terrible decision to have to make. It felt like such a gamble. How could we know which situation was the right one for us? We prayed about it and in the end we went with our gut. DS was, of course, the perfect choice, I know he was meant to be with our family. The sad part was the other PBM had already had another family back out on her, then we went with the other situation. We had never matched with her, but I still felt terrible about it. I would love to know what happened to that baby girl, but I know she ended up with the family she was meant to have.
I have to believe that just like none of us want PBMs to place because of feelings of guilt or obligation, we as adoptive parents should never accept a placement for those reasons.

[Wisdom]

Wow, I had no idea there were agencies out there who would not allow you to refuse a match. I would not go with an agency like that. I understand what you're saying about the birthmother possibly feeling bad, but adoption is about the birthparents and adoptive parents (and even more about the child, of course). As a birthmother may feel "they don't want my baby," an adoptive parent may feel "they don't want us as parents" when they aren't chosen when shown their profile. What if a family filled out their forms, initially thought they could handle a certain situation, then were matched and soon realized they'd not be able to handle the situation? I think it would be best for the child if that family could change their minds so that the child would be matched with the best possible family. I think it would be terrible for a family not to be able to change their minds knowing they were not the best ones for the situation.

Adoption is an emotional process for all involved, and if a family refused the match, I think an agency should be able to explain and help a birthmother understand that it is not a negative thing that the match didn't work out, explaining that the best is wanted for the baby. I don't believe families refuse a match that often but I believe they should have the option.
(I'm wondering, with your agency, is the birthmother able to change her mind about a match once she chooses the parents?)

[binkybear]

Reading this I'm on board with Wisdom and ContactChar. It's just one of the factors that made hub and I not go with a key centric agency. I felt like we were cogs in the machine and not human beings on a very human journey (for all of us in the triad). I'm all for organization, attention to detail and keeping a workflow, but this kind of business policy felt way too over the top for something so personal.
If circumstance lead to a failed match I can't imagine an emom would feel rejected, just like we as PAPs shouldn't feel rejected if not chosen. The right placement is most important for all, not standing by policy for the sake of policy.

[sbaglio]

I agree with ContactChar - a match is more than simply a birthmother choosing one's profile. It is both parties feeling that this is something they want to go through with after meeting/speaking. One has to be comfortable with the people involved, as (in OA, at least) you will have a relationship for the rest of the child's life.

Pulling out of a match seems fine to me once one meets with the birthmother and one feels that the fit is just not right. Getting to know each other in person rather than on paper is the key. If one does not feel right with that person, either initially or over a period of time before the delivery, I think that it is best for all involved that the match not go forward. Similarly, a birthmother can say no after she meets the adoptive parents if she feels that what she saw on paper does not translate in person. It's a two-way street.

We put down that we were open to discussing drug exposure and family history of mental illness, and this meant just that. It was not an automatic 'yes'. If we felt that the extent was too great, we would not have gone through with a match. Luckily, none of this was pertinent in our adoption situation, but we were prepared for the possibility.

[akcskye]

This isn't just an "agency" issue, too.

My husband and I found out we were first choice in April of 2006 to 2 young children through our State Foster to Adopt program.

They were full AA (our first "no", because we were hoping for NA, being NA is so hard to place with the Indian Act).

Well, then, as I read the disclosure, the youngest child, 6 years old, had been in residential treatment centers up to a month before we had been matched for behavioral issues, and his sister had a history of serious sexual abuse.

Okay...we were INEXPERIENCED parents...no biological kids in the home, all my nieces were my age (meaning I didn't have experience with young children other than years ago as a babysitter)...and you want to put THAT situation in our lap for the first go?

We said "no" before we even got the rest of the disclosure.

I hated it, looking at that sweet picture of those beautiful kids...but you have to learn to look beyond the picture, and do what is best for them.

Originally Posted by Fran27

Ok, first, I want to say that I'm totally aware that it's not the adoptive parents' fault that so many agencies work that way. And that I'm really sorry for whoever had to turn down a match. I can't imagine having to make such a decision.

But I really wonder what everyone, deeps down, thinks about this practice. Why in the world will an agency let an expecting mom pick a family that might not be comfortable with the situation in the first place?

The agency I went with, you say beforehand what you are comfortable with. They urge you to REALLY think about it. It covers every health issue, to race, to prematurity, to expenses... if something is unusual, or close to your criteria, they call you to ask if you're ok with it. Then only, depending on the criteria you've picked, will they show your profile. Then when you're matched, unless something shows up that isn't in your profile key, you can't refuse a match. Some people don't like it, but it's one of the main reasons I chose them... They don't want to have to tell a birthmom 'sorry, they don't want your baby'.

Obviously sometimes there is no info... and you have to go with the flow... but WHY do agencies put paps and pbirthmoms through such a headache on such a regular basis when it could so easily be avoided?

I would really love to hear the other side to this... because right now it really just confuses me.

[Celesyee]

Well, we turned down a match. We were working with an agency when we came across a situation through a facilitator who provided inaccurate information about the emom. The facilitator told us emom was a healthy 30y/o repeat client who had no substance use. We agreed to be presented and after being matched, the emom's atty told us emom was 43y/o and had an extensive criminal history including prostitution and she had alcohol and drug issues. On top of that, they had no medical reports to confirm her pg, her health, or the babies.

Yes, we felt bad backing out of the situation...but if the facilitator was upfront and honest about the situation in the first place we would never have had pursued it.

[Fran27]

Ok, I agree with everyone's point about needing things to feel right with an open adoption.

I still haven't found a good reason for my main point though - why do they show profiles of people who will turn down a match for sure? Why won't they make sure that a family is ready for a child with drug/alcohol exposure (for example) before showing their profile to a woman who used drugs/drank during pregnancy?

[Stormster]

I don't know but I think as in any "industry" people want to service their clients and may not always put feelings before business.

When we first met our consultant, (before we paid her of course) she was like of course no drugs no drugs no drugs...then slowly (after we paid her and started the waiting) she def. encouraged (pushed) us to relax our standards regarding drug use.

So maybe some of the agencies do that. Which really bothers me because here is the EM being honest and putting it on the line and then getting "judged" and rejected by people who never should have seen her profile.

(Not that independent matching can't be emotionally brutal, I"m not Agency bashing -- I'm sure it's more the exception )

[Amber76]

Originally Posted by michellef1

When we adopted DS, we were working with an agency and an attny. Both the agency and the attny did not tell us when they showed our profile, not wanting us to get our hopes up each time. We ended up with situations from both of them at the same time. I know that sounds like the problem to have, but it was actually such a terrible decision to have to make. It felt like such a gamble. How could we know which situation was the right one for us? We prayed about it and in the end we went with our gut. DS was, of course, the perfect choice, I know he was meant to be with our family. The sad part was the other PBM had already had another family back out on her, then we went with the other situation. We had never matched with her, but I still felt terrible about it. I would love to know what happened to that baby girl, but I know she ended up with the family she was meant to have.
I have to believe that just like none of us want PBMs to place because of feelings of guilt or obligation, we as adoptive parents should never accept a placement for those reasons.

We had this happen too-one agency asked if they could show our profile to a certain emom, we said yes, but then heard nothing for almost three weeks. So, we matched with another baby (our DS) and then the same day we said yes to him, the first agency called and said the emom had chosen us. We were so torn about what to do because both situations were so great and had advantages. In the end, we are happy with the choice we made, but I still feel bad for the emom who chose us that we had to say no. I hope and pray that another family is now very happy with that baby girl (who was due last week).

[Cjmeck]

The agency we worked with did the matching exactly how the OP described. It was so much less stressful in a way. I see too many people having to make MAJOR decisions without giving it a TON of time and consideration (such as whether or not to pursue a transracial adoption). While its hard to cover everything a PAP would be open to/or not; it should at least be thought out wayyyyy before a emom is able to view a profile. And not to mention how horrible it would be to tell an emom "sorry, you're baby is not good enough for them". Yikes, that sounded bad, but I imagine that's how an emom could take that.