[manni28]

This is a very interesting article on legally enforced OA's. All I can say is... wow! For me, this is why semi-open is good for me and my family. Tell me what you think?

http://www.citypages.com/2008-06-25/news/the-twins-meet-baby-doe

[mg1970]

Yes, I agree. Maybe this article is one sided -- hard to say, but from what I read I think any family would close that adoption down. I think the adoptive parents will win, but it sucks they had to spend so much in legal fees.

It will be interesting to see what the judges rule.

M

[elledarcy]

A situation like this is probably one-in-a-billion which is a shame because it casts a negative light on OA in general. The general public already thinks bparents are crazy people waiting in the shadows preparing to kidnap back their biological children, so this doesn't help much.

I don't know if I'd ever sign a legally enforceable OA agreement. I also don't support "grandparents' rights" because, in the end, I think parents should always have the right to decide who their children do and do not have involvement with. I would guess most legally enforceable OA’s don’t even go to this point because who has the time and money to sue over it?

[BrandyHagz]

I wonder how well a comment like "I would never place my baby for adoption, because adoptive parents murder their children" would go every time one of those murder cases break the news.

It's the same.

You can not measure all experiences by one. You don't want an OA, great, own it and move on...

Every side of adoption has an ugly side - if we all made our decisions based on these fantastic news stories, adoption would cease to exist...

*Sigh*

[BethanyB]

I think the article is totally one sided. They agreed to let him visit every third weekend and they agreed to let him take the baby on a TRIP! It sounds like they became uncomfortable with all of the contact they agreed with and tried to back out. If I were a bio parent and I placed my child for adoption and they broke the OA agreement, I would be mad too and probably say things I didnt mean.

It sounds like both parties play a role in the negative outcome of the situation.

Without enforceable OA agreements, APs can close an adoption whenever they please for whatever reason they please. If I were a birthparent, I would never place a child without an enforceable agreement.

[loveajax]

I'm sort of confused....Did the OA agreement say they would have visits at "reasonable" times or specify every three weeks? I think (as a lawyer) in these kinds of things the word "reasonable" always invites litigation.

I saw two sides to the story? They are both "badmouthing" each other, no?

I know in my state contact in an OA can never be ordered to be "increased" but can be ordered to be decreased if it is in the "best interest of the child."

[court5505]

I don't think I'd ever sign an OA agreement either. To me, it seems like part of a divorce agreement. I would hope that the relationship with the birthparents would be strong enough that we both trusted the other enough to do what was best for the child. I understand that this is not always the case though and that aparents could close the adoption for no apparent reason, which isn't fair.

[finallyamom0310]

This is a tough one for me. I can't say I would actually sign an OA agreement because until there is a bond built between Bparents and Aparents, it is hard to say what you feel comfortable living with for 18 years. In our case, the state DD was born in doesn't allow OA's that are documented so we made arrangements beyond that (with our agency knowing fully well) that we entended more communications with the BMom as the bond has grown.

[loveajax]

I do believe in legally enforceable OAs. I know cases like this are going to scare PAPs, but I just think if you are going to make an agreeement, it's only "fair" that it should be enforced. The thing that stinks though is as someone said, you are making these really "important" agreements without really "knowing" each other (there's just not usually enough time) and in cases like this, obviously the kid is going to suffer when a dispute like this happens. Sad. The reality is is that no matter what the court decides here, there is likely never going to be a "healthy" OA in light of what has gone on so far.

[thanksgivingmom]

Headlines you won't read anytime soon:

"Firstmom and Adoptive Mom have great time with daughter at Merry Go Round!"

"Visit is a Blast - Son has Great Time Feeling Loved and Supported by Both Families"

"One Big Party - Adoptive and Birth Families Come Together at Bounce House Birthday Party!"

Why?

Because these things don't happen? No, they happen. They happen in legally enforceable OA's and otherwise. They just aren't sensationalized stories that the news wants to pick up and exploit. Fingerpointing and badmouthing?? Now THAT'S going to make an interesting read.

Maybe the lesson to be learned in something like this is to not bite off more than you can chew. Don't promise something you don't think you can uphold. Agreements perhaps should be more about minimums than grand promises of dozens of visits a year and unrealistic ideals.

In my opinion, this in no way supports the idea that OA's are bad or that it's not possible to have a successful OA.

[lovemy2boys]

Nope...this article doesn't change my mind about OA at all...

It DOES make me think about how important it is to be very clear about what your expectations are, how important it is to be honest with the other family (regardless of if you are birth or adoptive) and how important it is to make sure each side is committed to working towards a healthy relationship for the sake of the child and each other...

[BethanyB]

Thanksgiving mom, I totally agree. It is only the bad stories I hear on the news about OA.

I can't say I would actually sign an OA agreement because until there is a bond built between Bparents and Aparents, it is hard to say what you feel comfortable living with for 18 years.

Would it be okay if your childs birthmom kept the child with her until you guys could build that bond and then keep the baby if she didnt become confortable with you? I am not trying to be a brat here but I feel like there are way too many people willing to get into an OA and be so open before the baby is born and then after, when they baby is free and clear, change their minds because they dont really have a bond with the bio mom or things are more uncomfortable now that they are actually doing it.

But if you think about it, woman who choose a couple who want an OA do so because they want to stay in their childs life. Whether that is through letters and pics or phone calls and visits. That mom went through the trouble looking at couples who felt would do what they wanted in terms of openness. That bio mom only knows what she sees on paper and what that couple says. They cant take the baby back if the couple does not meet their expectations. I mean its hard to say how the bio mom will feel about the aparents for 18 years. I just dont think its fair.

I think people should start out small and work in more if they feel good about it. But to be able to cut off the woman who gave birth to your child when you promised she would have a part of your childs life is one of the worst things I can imagine for a person. I am not a birthmother but I can imagine it.

I think that if a bio parent becomes a threat or a problem that it should be taken before a judge (a third party) to be looked it. So in that way if there is truly a threat of any kind it can be done in a legalized way. Because otherwise it becomes WAY to easy to just say its not working for you anymore, or we changed our minds AFTER we got the baby.

[blessedbybug]

Originally Posted by thanksgivingmom

Headlines you won't read anytime soon:

"Firstmom and Adoptive Mom have great time with daughter at Merry Go Round!"

"Visit is a Blast - Son has Great Time Feeling Loved and Supported by Both Families"

"One Big Party - Adoptive and Birth Families Come Together at Bounce House Birthday Party!"

Why?

Because these things don't happen? No, they happen. They happen in legally enforceable OA's and otherwise. They just aren't sensationalized stories that the news wants to pick up and exploit. Fingerpointing and badmouthing?? Now THAT'S going to make an interesting read.

Maybe the lesson to be learned in something like this is to not bite off more than you can chew. Don't promise something you don't think you can uphold. Agreements perhaps should be more about minimums than grand promises of dozens of visits a year and unrealistic ideals.

In my opinion, this in no way supports the idea that OA's are bad or that it's not possible to have a successful OA.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[court5505]

I guess I would never sign an agreement for someone to see my child, whether it be birthparents, friends or other relatives. It seems too much like a custody case in the event of a divorce and that is certainly not the case here. I don't want the law to tell me who and when my child visits with.

I know that I'm an honest person and I will keep my word. I hope DD's birthparents do the same. I want them to trust me in that sense and I have to trust them. It's a leap of faith on both parts. If one of us doesn't trust the other from the beginning, then maybe it's not a good match.

[thanksgivingmom]

Oh Bethany, after your posts on this thread I think I love you! haha

And thanks Tammy

The more I think about it, I think it's just way to easy to point out these isolated incidents we read about. I mean, if we lived our WHOLE lives based on headlines none of us would drive ("Accident on the 405 - Cars Totalled"), ride the subway ("Subway Rapist Strikes Again"), send our kids to school ("School Terrorized by Student Shooting"), fly in planes (Do I need a healine?), you get the picture.

Yet in this case it's "Hey, look at this headline! Let's base all decision making process of this one story!" I don't know, it just seems to convenient to me....