[M.I.Ur.Birthsister]

Hi all,
Since my mom told me I have a sister, relinquished ten years before my birth, I've been rather obsessed and drifting in my coursework. So I decided to choose an adoption-related topic for my term paper, to help me concentrate on it. I found this great qualitative study on reunion experiences and expectations. I think anyone looking to reunite should read this first.

Quick summary: Incongruent expectations (b.fam and adoptee want different levels of intimacy) create problems such as withdrawal -- unless parties are able to adjust to each others' feelings. Researchers suggest empathy is a key to harmonious reunion. If any individual in the triad insists on his/her personal "rights" as a focus of the relationship, then the other person is likely to feel overwhelmed and withdraw.

This sounds like common sense. But difficult in practice. Reunions are so emotionally powerful, it is difficult to separate fantasy and reality, until the latter hits--hard.

I'll try to post the whole article if I can.

[L@@king2]

or if you have a link to the article??!!

[cksmom]

I would be very interested in reading the article. The quote is very true in my reuion.

[M.I.Ur.Birthsister]

Hi guys,
I tried to post the article text, but received an automated message that I was not approved for this action. ? . I guess it was too long?

I have the article in Pdf...can I attach that somehow?

I'll try that, using the paperclip symbol.

[L@@king2]

Originally Posted by M.I.Ur.Birthsister

Hi guys,
I tried to post the article text, but received an automated message that I was not approved for this action. ? . I guess it was too long?

I have the article in Pdf...can I attach that somehow?

I'll try that, using the paperclip symbol.

so, I take it you couldn't attach the pdf file??? Maybe you can copy paste it more than one post, if it's too big??

[fractalgirl]

I'd be interested in this too, since I'm in the first stage of reunion and have questions on what kind of relationship I may want with bfamily.

[M.I.Ur.Birthsister]

So I'm going to try posting it in pieces. This is the citation and abstract.

Title:Expectations and experiences of participants in ongoing adoption reunion relationships: A qualitative study.

Authors:Affleck, Marian K., Curtin U of Technology, School of Technology, Perth, Australia
Steed, Lyndall G.

Source:American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol 71(1), Jan 2001. pp. 38-48

Publisher:US: American Orthopsychiatric Association, Inc.
Other Publishers:US: Educational Publishing Foundation

ISSN:0002-9432 (Print)
1939-0025 (Electronic)

Digital Object Identifier:10.1037/0002-9432.71.1.38

Language:English

Abstract:Expectations of the adoption reunion process, responses to disappointments, and factors that influence reunion outcomes were investigated in a qualitative study of adoptees and birthmothers. 10 adult adoptees (21-41 yrs old) and 10 birthmothers (42-55 yrs old) that had been involved in a reunion relationship that lasted beyond the initial face-to-face meeting participated in the study. Interviews were given that involved the participants telling their reunion stories and events that were particularly meaningful for the participants were explored. The findings of this study indicate that the desire for connection and relationship between biological parents and children is so great that many ongoing reunion relationships are being forged out of the maze of their interactions and experiences. Implications for clinical practice and research are presented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)

[M.I.Ur.Birthsister]

Although adoption of children has existed in some form for thousands of years, it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that concern was expressed about its long-term consequences. While secrecy was considered to be of utmost importance in earlier adoption arrangements, it was later recognized that lack of information for adoptees about their original parents prevents satisfactory identity formation and contributes to the well-documented problems of adoptees *(Kirk, 1964;Sorosky, Baran, & Pannor, 1975) . After lobbying by professionals and those involved in adoption, there were changes in the law that made it legally possible for adult adoptees and birthparents to obtain both general and identifying information about the other, and to make contact. These changes have had huge ramifications, probably the greatest of which is the possibility of reunion. Such a reunion, while offering the freedom for birthparents and adoptees to find their “lost” family, also carries potential threat whereby “secrets” may be disclosed. Consequently, the thought of reunion evokes a myriad of mixed emotions, and is driven by a wide diversity of motives.

Adoptees' Motives for Searching
Dissatisfaction with the adoptive parents was originally thought to be a motivating factor related to adoptees' searching (Sorosky et al., 1975;Triseliotis, 1973) . However, more recent research has found that the vast majority of adoptees who search have positive relationships with the adoptive parents (Pacheco & Eme, 1993) or that the quality of adoptive relationships (either positive or negative) is not associated with a decision to search (Sachdev, 1992) .

In fact, the most common reasons for searching given by adoptees are related to four themes: “genealogical bewilderment” (adoptees' need for historical connection to resolve identity issues) (Sants, 1964) ; a need for information (Schechter & Bertocci, 1990) ; a need to reduce stigma (March, 1995) ; and a desire to assure the birthparents of the adoptees' well-being (Sachdev, 1992) .

Reflecting on his experience as an adoptee, Andersen (1989) suggested that adoptees' reasons for searching fall into three broad categories, of which searchers are not usually consciously aware. In the first category—the search as adventure—the adoptee wants to share future experiences and has a naïve view that it will be easy to continue the severed relationship. The other two categories—the medical model and the psychological trauma models—are both forms of search as therapy, in that they have the underlying intent of achieving personal change. Andersen outlined the components of the medical (deficiency) model that are implicit in this understanding of the search:

Adoptees: (1) need to take something into themselves; (2) this something is external; (3) the process is relatively passive and (4) resolution is complete (i.e. cure). (p. 626)
In the psychological model, the adoptee is considered to have suffered a traumatic experience related to separation from the biological family and “transplantation” to the adoptive family:
The salient characteristics of this model are (1) the adoptee suffers from a psychological trauma; (2) the problem is internal; (3) treatment is an active process; and (4) resolution is incomplete. (p. 630)
Implicit in the psychological model is that all searches are therapeutic. The three models of search are not mutually exclusive, but usually one is dominant.

Catalysts for actually initiating the search are commonly related to one of two significant changes in the adoptee's life: life-cycle transition, particularly pregnancy or birth (Campbell, Silverman, & Patti, 1991) , or a disruptive change in the relationship with the adoptive parents, such as the adoptive parents' death or divorce, or their estrangement from the adoptee (Kowal & Schilling, 1985) .

Birthmothers' Motives for Searching
There is far less information in the literature about birthparents' motives for searching than about the motives of adoptees. In a large-scale study, Silverman, Campbell, Patti, and Style (1988) found that mothers' searches were motivated by a desire to: a) establish a relationship with the child, b) gain information about the child's well-being, c) find inner peace or healing, d) tell the child of their love, and e) explain the circumstances of the surrender. While some first considered searching after a life transition, such as a divorce, most decided to search when they realized that finding the child was a real possibility.

Modell (1997) contended that there are few definitive findings in regard to reasons for the search. What has been conclusive is that more birthmothers than birthfathers undertake the search; those who do search are aware of the cultural prohibitions on searching; and, consequently, most birthmothers who search seek social support for their quest, often from self-help search groups. Modell found that birthmothers were looking for a more permanent attachment than were the adoptees. She asserted that the traditional model of “true” kinship, involving blood ties, provides some legitimacy to birthmothers for their search.

Although, in their reasons for searching, adoptees and birthmothers each have their particular emphases, there seems to be a common motivating factor, namely an underlying desire to reconnect with the person who is, in fact, part of their reality—a part that has hitherto been largely denied, in regard to both its degree of importance and its very existence.

Adoption Reunions
Although healing and gains in self-esteem are widely reported in both adoptees and birthmothers (Campbell et al., 1991;Silverman et al., 1988) , there is no consistent pattern to positive adoption reunion relationships (Sachdev, 1992) . While some have a difficult start but grow positively, others begin with euphoria and then deteriorate. In addition, reunion participants may bring differing expectations regarding the nature of their future relationship.

Modell (1997) suggested that, since the usual elements of a parental relationship are missing, reunion participants must borrow from other relationship models with which they are familiar. For example, she found that adoptees are more likely to use a friendship model than are birthparents, the latter being more likely to adopt a romantic intimacy model. Modell also found that participants in most ongoing relationships had tested the parent-child model. Although it met the needs for acceptance, love, and responsibility, the parent-child model did not fit in regard to differences in “parent” and “child” stages, age difference, or lack of a shared history. A model that was more acceptable to Modell's participants was described as an aunt-like model, in which the birthmother is conceptualized as a “relative in general rather than a parent in particular” (p. 58) .

The Present Study
Research suggests that the majority of reunion participants consider the event to be a worthwhile experience, regardless of the outcome. This evidence has been accrued largely from studies with a quantitative focus concerned mainly with reasons for the search, ratings of the degree of satisfaction with the reunion, and identification of effects of the reunion. In addition, the vast majority of adoption research has focused on the perspective of adoptees, almost to the exclusion of the other parties. The notable exception is Modell's (1997) qualitative research, which used openended interviews with adoptees and birthmothers. This work has brought reunion literature to a new stage, in that it acknowledged and began to explore the depth and complexity of ongoing adoption reunions. It is the only study that specifically required that the reunions studied had endured beyond the initial encounter.

Similar to Modell's (1997) work, the present study was designed to further explore the processes involved in adoption reunions and the meanings attached to the reunion relationship. In particular, this investigation sought to elaborate on Sachdev's (1992) work, in which two crucial factors in ongoing reunions were identified: participants' unrealistic expectations (including the nature of the relationship) and participants' ability to modify those expectations. A phenomenological and interactionist approach, following that described by Smith (1995), was chosen, since it provides considerable opportunity to develop an understanding of aspects that are significant to the individual participants. That is, the data obtained from such a study are likely to reflect fully the complexity and richness of adoption reunion experiences.

While it is recognized that a small proportion of birthfathers participate in adoption reunions, the present work sought to build on the existing literature related to reunions involving birthmothers. Consequently, the specific aims of the current study were to explore: a) the expectations of adoptees and birthmothers in ongoing adoption reunions; b) adoptees' and birthmothers' responses to unmet expectations; and (c) factors that influence the reunion outcome.

[M.I.Ur.Birthsister]

Participants
Participants were persons of at least 18 years of age who had experienced an adoption reunion that continued beyond the initial face-to-face meeting. Theoretical sampling, as described by Mason (1996), was used to select 20 participants: ten adoptees and ten birthmothers, of whom only two were mother-child dyads. Seventeen females and three males were involved. Age range was 21–41 years for the adoptees and 42–55 for the birthmothers. Sixteen participants were involved in active reunion relationships at the time of the interview; two had had the other party cease contact, but were hoping to resume; one was about to resume a relationship after a ten-year period of no contact; and one had ceased contact for the present time. The duration of reunion relationships experienced ranged from nine months to ten years.

Participants were sought through an adoption support agency based in Perth, Western Australia, via both its discussion groups and its newsletter. However, participants were not limited to members of that organization.

Materials and Procedure
A semistructured interview schedule was used as a guide in an interview of approximately one hour's duration. The schedule included a demographic section, a lead question requesting an overview of the reunion relationship, and three other questions relating to expectations. The interview schedule also provided questions that had been specifically formulated to prompt discussion of the original four questions, should that be required.

After participants had been provided with written information about the study and signed a consent form, interviews were conducted at mutually convenient venues, usually the interviewee's home. The interview involved the participants telling their reunion stories, with the schedule available to the interviewer for prompting, if necessary. Events that were particularly meaningful for the participants were explored. Interviews were recorded on audiotape and transcribed verbatim. To control for interviewer effects, all interviews were conducted and transcribed by the first author (MKA; although all care was taken to remain unbiased, it is acknowledged that she is an adoptive mother who fully supports reunions).

Data Analysis
Theme analysis was undertaken using the method described by Smith (1995) . The first transcript was studied in detail, many times. Two sets of annotations were developed, each documented in the margins of the transcript, beside the associated text, paragraph by paragraph. The first set of annotations noted anything particularly interesting or significant that was disclosed: summaries, possible associations or connections, or initial interpretations. The second set identified themes emerging from the first set.

From these two sets of information, the emerging themes were clustered and linked, and major themes identified. A cyclical process was used, with themes altered and refined as analysis proceeded. This process was repeated with the next four transcripts. All the lists of themes were compared to produce a single master list, consolidated and refined from the five interviews. The subsequent transcripts were then analyzed, coding the master themes beside the text. Previously unidentified exemplars were also noted. The data for each theme were gathered together, and each theme was explored and examined to obtain a coherent, consistent concept.

[M.I.Ur.Birthsister]

Expectations and Related Themes
The degree to which adoptees and birthparents were aware of their expectations was variable. While some reported that they had explored their expectations prior to reunion, others were not aware of their existence until they were obliged to confront them and make them explicit. Expectations unique to birthmothers are best conceptualized in terms of “reclaiming the child” and “rights,” while those pertaining exclusively to adoptees can be described in terms of “wanting a fairy godmother” and “acquiring a missing element.” Issues affecting both parties related to “models of relationship” and “definition of mother.”

Reclaiming the Child

The theme amongst birthmothers of reclaiming the child is exemplified by one assertion: “There was no way I was going to let him get away again.”

Several women commented that, however illogical, they actually expected that the reunion would be with a baby. Others had assumed that their children would automatically want to be involved in their lives. They had given little thought to the possibility that the adoptees might not share this desire, or that the introduction of a second mother might present some complications for the young adoptee. For example, the possibility that the adoptee might have difficulty explaining this new relationship to a stranger was one that some birthmothers found shocking and confusing. As one of them put it:

I was a mess, definitely. Because I never for a minute expected her to have that reaction. Because I had this fantasy, not that I thought it was a fantasy at the time. If she was my child, she would want to have me in her life. And I never entertained for a minute that that wouldn't be the case.

In several cases, adoptees showed considerably less interest in the relationship, and their birthmothers often gave greatly and received little during this period. Thus, some birthmothers experienced great personal pain and demonstrated extreme patience, apparently driven by a strong determination not to be separated again from their children. As one birthmother said:

I wouldn't have spent five years tip-toeing around anyone else. So it has been quite difficult. I have worked at not frightening her off, and not offending her. I just hover around on the edge—better this than nothing.

Rights

While several adoptees spoke of their right as adults to make choices without pressure from their birthmother, the issue of rights was far more significant for birthmothers.

Many of the birthmothers had received counseling or had undertaken personal development courses during which they had addressed issues concerning the relinquishment of their child. As a result, they had resolved most of the issues of grief and guilt, and often perceived themselves (probably correctly) as having been victimized by the societal standards of the time and by the bureaucratic system. With this change came a strong sense of their rights having been violated, and a determination to reclaim the right of reunion with their child. This strength and determination probably underpins the persistence of the birthmothers in reunion relationships in which the adoptee is showing less enthusiasm and interest. These women made emphatic statements such as, “I am the mother,” which seemed to imply the real or rightful mother. One birthmother's comments illustrate this notion:

I now feel that it is my right. You see I never thought that it was my right. When she was taken I had no say. I was treated totally as not a person. But I do now. And that is so empowering, to think I do have that right, she is my daughter. Once she was back, she was back and that was it, she would never go again. She wouldn't have got away, because I would have tracked her down. And I think she has always known that as well.

It seems likely that reunion relationships would be fraught with difficulties when expectations and desires are expressed in terms of rights. When rights such as these are being claimed, it is easy for the right of one to be experienced as a demand by the other, and for the situation to be perceived as one in which there is little room for negotiation.

In contrast, other birthmothers maintained a strong belief that, in relinquishing the child, they had given up any right to a relationship with the adoptee. A major component of the belief was appreciation and loyalty to the adoptive parents; it would be unfair to rescind the agreement that had been made at the time of the relinquishment. It is notable that these birthmothers actively participated in very satisfactory ongoing reunion relationships and generally enjoyed good relations with the adoptive parents.

The birthmothers who considered that they had a right to a relationship with the adoptee seemed to regard this right as primary, and as taking precedence over the rights of others. Those who considered that they had forgone any right to a relationship with the child seemed to accord priority to the adoptive parents, and to regard their own relationship with the adoptee as secondary. Neither group of birthmothers conceptualized their role as equal and complementary to that of the adoptive parents. In addition, neither group appeared to distinguish between a right to make themselves known and offer contact and a right to an ongoing relationship. In both cases, the (adult) adoptees' right to make their own choices about these relationships seems to have been overlooked, or at least, minimized.

Fairy Godmother

Rather naïve expectations were held by some of the adoptees who had wanted a literal “fairy godmother” and had envisaged being “happy ever after” subsequent to the reunion meeting. One adoptee reported that, at the initial meeting with her birthmother, she had thought, “I'm found; I'm saved; I'm rescued,” and her feeling of euphoria had been such that she perceived the reunion as a “cure-all” for her life's problems—which she later found was not, in fact, the case. Similarly, another adoptee, reporting that her initial expectations had been quite unrealistic, commented: “I was looking for this kind of fairy godmother who was going to fix everything and she was going to be perfect. But she wasn't there.” Both of these examples fit Andersen's (1989) medical model of the search, in that the searchers sought something external to themselves, to be applied as a cure, in a relatively passive process.

Acquiring a Missing Element

The notion of feeling incomplete in their adoptive situations was frequently expressed by adoptees. Missing elements included affection and nurturing, siblings or perhaps extended family (aunts, uncles, grandparents), and especially someone who had physical similarities to the adoptee. In this sense, regardless of the success of the adoption itself, there were adoptees who actively sought to “fill a gap”:

My [adoptive] mother was very nice. We had a great childhood, like going on holidays. We did all the groovy things. But she couldn't show emotion, but I was a child who really needed that. Whereas my birthmother is a person who shows that, she is always giving you a kiss and cuddle….I got the bit I was looking for, that was missing. I am the lucky one compared with my brothers [biological children of the adoptive parents].

Model of Relationship

Contrary to the findings of Sachdev (1992) and Modell (1997), the majority of participants in this study (nine of the ten birthmothers and five of the ten adoptees) were actively seeking a mother-child relationship at the time of the interview. However, consistent with Modell's results was the finding that more birthmothers than adoptees sought a mother-child relationship (Sachdev surveyed adoptees only). Some participants reported that, although they had not explicitly considered the issue, they had originally expected a reunion relationship that had the nature of a friendship, but that the relationship had developed a more intimate mother-child style.

The importance of both participants seeking a similar model of relationship became increasingly apparent throughout the study. However, the issue usually had not been considered prior to the research interview. Although some adoptees were aware that they wanted or did not want a mother, they had not considered how that would manifest in a relationship. Similarly, although birthmothers made emphatic statements such as, “She is my daughter and she belongs in my life, every bit as much as my other children” or “I am the birthmother, and no one can take that from me; but I am not her mum,” no conceptualization of the model of relationship that would encompass those respective beliefs had been considered.

Definition of Mother

Connected to the model of relationship is the definition of mother. Some participants used a strictly biological interpretation (“I am the mother”); others regarded a mother as the person who had performed the ongoing role, who had “done the mothering.” While, more generally, these two functions of mother are carried out by the same person, for adoptees, each has been performed by a different person.

Problems arose when individuals considered only one of the two components to be fully defining, and did not take cognizance of the other. A common method of acknowledging the difference between the two was the use of the terms “mother” and “mum,” respectively, to delineate the biological parent and the one who had done the child rearing. However, this was not acceptable to everyone.

Amongst adoptees who wanted a mother, there were those who wished to be held, nurtured, loved, and adored, whereas others clearly wanted to be treated and respected as adults. One adoptee expressed with considerable energy her opinion that birthmothers need to know how mothers of adult children act, and that the birthmothers ought to act accordingly.

Range of Experience

Of interest is the way in which similar experiences could be perceived very differently. For example, one adoptee disclosed that, once she met her birthfamily, she wanted “to be sucked in to the family by them”; fortunately, the family obliged. She was the center of attention and a lot of affection was displayed by the birthfamily. Another adoptee used the same terminology to describe the feeling, but in this case the experience caused resentment:

On the weekend that I met them I met all the aunties and uncles, and they said it was so good to meet me and so good to have me back, sort of thing. It was sort of a bit presumptuous, moving a bit quick, trying to suck me into the family….And we were walking along and my birthmother wanted to hold my hand. I said: I don't want to hold your hand, go away!… It is confusing as hell. Mum, mother, who is that?

Differences of the same sort were observed with regard to nomenclature of extended birthfamily members. Some adoptees considered the use of terms such as “your brother” (or aunt, grandfather, cousin, etc.) to be inappropriate and presumptuous, whereas others welcomed those terms as an indication of their acceptance into the family.

Responses to Unmet Expectations
In relationships in which the participants' original expectations were somewhat unrealistic, the individuals usually modified them when the actualities of the situation became apparent. Few had actually verbalized their expectations to the other party. This is probably not surprising, given the intensity and difficulties of a reunion relationship. Various responses to unmet expectations emerged. These can be conceptualized in terms of reducing expectations, withdrawing, and pathologizing the other's behavior.

One Party Reduces Expectations

When the two parties had expectations that differed in degree (e.g., frequency of phone calls or meeting, intimacy in the relationship, involvement with extended family), it was common for the person who wanted “more” to manage with “less.” This is in keeping with the findings of Modell (1997) in that it was the birthmothers more frequently than the adoptees who decided to constrain themselves in order to enable the relationship to continue.

One Party Withdraws

If the individual who desired more either did not notice the disparity or was determined to convince the other to meet her needs, and therefore did not reduce the expectations, a theme of withdrawal by the other party emerged. Although the person who withdrew was more often the adoptee, it was sometimes the birthmother. In both cases, demands were not appreciated and tended to work against the person making them.

Pathologize the Other's Behavior

This response to unmet expectations was evident on the part of some birthmothers who wanted more from the relationship than did the adoptee. The ascribed pathology often involved the belief that the adoptee did actually want the same degree of involvement, but was somehow unable to acknowledge her desire. This was expressed in statements such as, “She wanted me there, but she wasn't ready to be honest and face it.” When one adoptee had less time available for her than the birthmother had planned, the latter commented, “There was a huge desire to commit but she would pull back, with the fear of it. So she would restrict the time we had together.” Another birthmother attributed the adoptee's reticence in the relationship to her having experienced an early childhood that was rather socially isolated. The birthmother speculated that the adoptee would treat all people in a distant manner. When pathologizing was used in response to unmet expectations, the notion that the adoptee may simply not want a deep, intimate relationship with her birthmother was simply not entertained.

As a result of their framework of understanding, these birthmothers tended to respond in a more positive manner to the adoptees' rather discouraging behavior, believing it to be part of an archetypal pattern, rather than rejecting of the birthmothers personally. This framework also allowed the birthmothers some hope that the level of contact and intimacy would increase once the adoptees overcame their denial and acknowledged issues related to their adoption.

Factors Influencing Reunion Outcomes
When participants were asked to comment on factors that influence the reunion outcome, several themes emerged. The preparatory role played by support groups, the pace of the initial phase of the reunion, geographical distance, the role of the adoptive family, the importance of empathy, and nature of the adoptee's process all were cited as being important.

Role of Support Groups

Sixteen of the 20 participants were associated with an adoption support organization. In addition to assisting with the search process, the organization provides counseling, pertinent literature, and professionally facilitated support groups that allow contact among all parties involved in adoption. Many participants mentioned the benefit of the information that they obtained either from literature or group meetings, and the value of the vicarious learning that had occurred. Hearing about the experiences of the other party at the open groups was identified as extremely beneficial, as it engendered understanding and empathy. Individuals who had experienced major difficulties in the reunion relationship found the support and information provided by the counseling and group meetings to be particularly helpful.

While some had attended group sessions prior to the reunion, the majority had joined the support group after the initial meeting or even after cessation of the reunion relationship. There were also several instances cited by people in very satisfactory reunions in which a particular situation was eased by knowledge of the issue. For example, a young adoptee who had attended the support group for several years used what she had learned about birthmothers to buffer her hurt and disappointment when her birthmother could not supply her with details of the adoptee's birth. The adoptee acknowledged her disappointment, but said that she was able to perceive the situation as less of a personal affront (e.g., “My birth wasn't a very important event to her”) because she knew several other birthmothers who were unable to remember the period around the birth and relinquishment, a situation that troubled them greatly.

For most participants, any intentional or self-educative preparation for the reunion was minimal. Of the 14 respondents who described their reunion relationships in an extremely positive manner, nine had almost no preparation. Furthermore, all four participants who had never had any contact with a support group, nor any counseling in regard to reunion or adoption issues, reported exceptionally successful reunions. These individuals (two adoptees and two birthmothers) had had expectations similar to those of the other party and had encountered only a few minor problems. It would seem that preparation is not essential for a reunion relationship to be maintained and that, when expectations are similar, the reunion can progress satisfactorily with little outside influence. However, when there were difficulties, the advice and knowledge gained from the support organization proved invaluable to those involved. Even in satisfactory reunions, the knowledge gained was beneficial, assisting individuals in coping with disappointments.

Pace of Initial Reunion Phase

The time period between initial contact and an actual face-to-face meeting was identified as having an impact on the reunion outcome. Several satisfying relationships had evolved from reunions that had occurred with only a day or two between the initial contact and the meeting. Nevertheless, all those who had had a longer period, involving phone calls or letters, prior to a face-to-face meeting, commented on the value of that preparation. Letters in particular were valued as a medium whereby both the “hard questions” could be asked and deep emotions expressed. Participants thought that they would have had greater difficulty in addressing these issues in a face-to-face situation and that, having dealt with them prior to meeting, they had cleared the way for the reunion to develop to the next stage. For many, the letters enabled them to establish trust, honesty, and intimacy in the relationship prior to actually meeting.

Interestingly, in all four cases in which the reunion relationship had ceased for a period or was currently not in operation, the participants had had no preparation and a face-to-face meeting had occurred almost immediately after initial contact was made.

Geographical Distance

Some geographical distance between the place of residence of the adoptee and that of the birthmother was frequently regarded, in retrospect, as a positive factor, because the relationship was forced to develop slowly. Therefore, these participants reported the same benefits (trust, honesty, intimacy) as did those who deliberately chose a slower rate of development.

Even after the initial meeting, the geographical distance prevented “living in each other's pockets” and perhaps one person feeling overwhelmed. As the relationship developed, however, those who wanted to integrate the other into their everyday lives often found the distance to be increasingly frustrating. That distance was not always regarded as a positive factor was expressed graphically in one's adoptee's depiction of her experience:

I passed out with pain. And I used to get these big knots in my stomach, on parting particularly. My whole body would just scream out for her, very painful. I would try any devious means I could to come to Perth or have her come to me. Yes, physical closeness was vital and it was depriving to not have it. And it physically hurt.
After two years of reunion, this particular adoptee had decided to move and live closer to her birthmother, in order to relieve the pain. Those whose birthmother or relinquished child was in another state or overseas also viewed the distance as a disadvantage and a restriction on the relationship.

Role of Adoptive Family

The degree of support for the reunion from the adoptive parents was often cited as a factor that influenced the reunion outcome. The families of birthmothers were usually less threatened by the reunion, and had less direct impact on the ongoing relationship.

Adoptees who perceived that they had full support from their adoptive parents were appreciative of that, and reported that their relationship with the adoptive parents was strengthened as a result of the reunion process. For example, one adoptee and her adoptive mother provided mutual support for each other during the search, and especially during the initial phase of the reunion. The adoptee considered her adoptive mother to be a part of the reunion and it was of paramount importance to her that her birthmother show interest in, and want to meet, her adoptive mother. Fortunately, the birthmother was interested and the reunion relationship proceeded satisfactorily.

In situations where the adoptive family was not supportive of the reunion, the adoptee felt forced into a range of dissatisfying situations: a) being dishonest with the adoptive parents so as to avoid conflict and upset, b) ignoring the adoptive parents' objections and risking estrangement or strain in relationships, or c) abandoning or severely restricting the degree of involvement in the reunion in order to protect the adoptive parents and maintain harmonious relationships with them. The effect on the adoptees' relations with their adoptive parents tended to be negative in all of these situations.

Some adoptees expressed a strong need for their adoptive parents' support of the reunion, especially in its early stages. Reassurance from the adoptee sometimes, but not always, enabled the adoptive parents to manage their anxiety for the sake of the adoptee. As stated by one adoptee: “My [adoptive] mother wanted me to be happy. If I wanted to be in a reunion, she would support me.”

Role of Empathy

Integral to all of these themes and patterns of interaction is the presence or absence of empathy. When one party is determined to achieve what is perceived as an absolute need and right, empathy is unlikely to be present. This applies whether the need is to have the relationship continue, to have it operate in the desired style, or to be acknowledged as the mother or child of the other.

In reunion relationships that involved the birthmother and adoptive mother having contact, it was necessary for each to have some understanding of the other's situation. One birthmother, who was endeavoring to create a friendship with and to reassure the anxious adoptive mother, was asked by the adoptive mother how she could possibly have given up a child. This adoptive mother demonstrated no empathy with the birthmother about her torment and grief over the relinquishment. The birthmother felt judged and hurt, but continued to maintain a relationship.

[M.I.Ur.Birthsister]

Reunion as External or Internal Process

As the data were analyzed, several themes became evident that seemed to relate to Andersen's (1989) two models of therapeutic search. Understanding of the reunion as an event that was either a fairly passive acquisition of an external component or as an active, internal process of personal growth emerged as relevant factors.

An excellent example of an internal process was provided by an adoptee who, although her birthmother had died, proceeded with a reunion with her aunts, uncles, and cousins. The adoptee had gained as much information and material evidence (jewelry, photographs, any memorabilia) as possible about the birthmother, from which she had formed a very definite conceptualization of her birthmother. She then “reached inside herself” and made a strong connection: “They have given me enough of my mother to allow me to connect with her.” The adoptee “changed forever,” gaining a strong sense of self and the ability to regard herself as a worthwhile person.

An external process is exemplified by another adoptee whose birthmother had also died. In spite of a very rewarding relationship with her birthsister, she was unable to find solace because she had been searching for a mother who would provide the nurturing, affection, and acceptance that she had not experienced from her adoptive mother. Consequently, she still “feels like an orphan.”

Several of the birthmothers had progressed in their conceptualization of the reunion, from understanding it as a purely external process to seeing it as also involving internal aspects. The mothers had achieved a state of “having been made whole again” that they would maintain regardless of whether the reunion relationship continued. For one birthmother in particular, who was estranged from her child for a period of time, this shift in her understanding of her situation enabled her to cease feeling desperate for the adoptee's physical presence. She no longer had a need to demand the adoptee's attention, nor try to manipulate proceedings. “I have her in my heart,” she said, “and nothing can take that away.” While she continued to desire an ongoing reunion relationship, she knew she could survive without it, and survive as a well-adjusted, well-functioning person.

DISCUSSION

Before summarizing the findings, it should be noted that participants in this study were selected by theoretical sampling and that they are not necessarily representative of the wider population of individuals who have been involved in adoption reunion relationships. It seems probable that people who are experiencing satisfying reunions or who are hopeful of a relationship being resumed, rather than those whose relationships have ceased, are more likely to offer to participate. This same group is also more likely to be accessible through adoption support groups. Nevertheless, the qualitative research design and methodology of Smith (1995) has been applied rigorously, and the results of the present study have implications for both practice and research.

Although presented in discreet sections, the themes outlined above interact with each other. Thus, it is difficult to make definitive statements about which are primary and which are secondary. As expected, it was found that where there is a good match of expectations between birthmothers and adoptees, the relationship is likely to be maintained and to be highly satisfactory to both parties. Adoptees seem to have a wider range of expectations than do birthmothers in regard to the degree of intensity and intimacy in the relationship, the degree of integration into each other's everyday lives, and the model of relationship sought. Adoptees who have unrealistic expectations, such as obtaining a fairy godmother or acquiring a particular missing component, are more vulnerable to disappointment and more likely to have difficult reunion relationships. Similarly, birthmothers who expect to reclaim their child and who consider it their right to have an ongoing relationship with the adoptee, are likely to experience difficulties.

Expectations relating to the style of relationship sought are complicated by the lack of an ideal model of relationship and differing definitions of mother. Overall, those who have expectations that are general rather than specific, and who are willing to modify their expectations, tend to have more satisfactory reunion relationships. When participants' expectations are incongruent, the difference is often a matter of degree. In these situations, it is usually the person with greater expectations (more frequently the birthmother) who accommodates by accepting less. If this modification does not occur, the participant who wants less often feels overwhelmed and withdraws to some extent. It seems that the overall pace of the relationship needs to be set by the person who wants the least.

Several factors were identified as having a positive influence on reunion relationships: a) information and vicarious learning gained from a support organization and its group meetings; b) a slower development of the relationship, using letters and phone calls, prior to the initial face-to-face meeting; c) support for the reunion relationship from the adoptive family; d) demonstration of empathy toward the other parties; and e) the participants' conceptualization of the reunion as involving an internal process of personal growth in addition to the acquisition of an external element.

[M.I.Ur.Birthsister]

Implications for Practice and Research
These findings point to needs and directions for both future research and clinical practice. Clearly, there is a need to work with reunion participants, both prior to and during the course of reunions. As well as attention to some of the specific issues, explicit exploration of possible relationship models and of conceptualizations of the reunion process may prove particularly beneficial to participants. It would also be useful for clinicians to promote awareness that, for adoptees, the two components defining “mother” (physically giving birth and doing the mothering) have each been performed by a different person; these should be seen as complementary roles, neither having primacy. It may be appropriate and useful to elaborate a distinction between the right to make oneself known and offer contact, and a right to an ongoing relationship. The importance of empathy toward the other parties throughout the process needs to be emphasized.

The reported benefits derived from support group attendance highlight the need to provide forums where vicarious learning and information-sharing can take place. Although this has been recognized as helpful to birthparents and adoptees, the present findings suggest that adoptive parents can also gain from such forums. In the authors' experience, the meeting of all members of the adoption circle together is less than satisfactory, but it is clear that adoptive parents need support; the establishment of separate groups to address their issues is recommended. In addition to support groups, there is a need for education for all members of the circle with regard both to the preparatory stages and the period after the reunion, when expectations are being modified and mutually satisfactory relationships are negotiated.

The body of literature relating to ongoing adoption reunions is extremely small. While further research is warranted in a number of pertinent domains, knowledge of the internal psychological processes occurring in satisfactory reunions would be particularly useful. Qualitative research would be appropriate for gaining insight into the individual meanings ascribed, and to the complexity of, these difficult relationships. To date, it seems to have been a combination of serendipity in regard to the matching of expectations; the sheer tenacity of participants; and, sometimes, support from adoption organizations that has enabled reunion relationships to be forged and maintained. To enhance the probability that future reunions between dislocated parties are successful, ongoing research and practical support are of utmost importance.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption reunion relationships are fraught with difficulties because: a) they are associated with a unique set of beliefs and experiences relating to the adoption, to which each participant brings her own set of expectations; b) there is little societal support for the existence of the relationship; c) the relationship is rooted in a situation may have been tainted with a sense of stigma or shame; d) some level of anxiety is likely to be experienced by extended family members, especially the adoptive family, creating additional pressure on participants; and e) there is no ideal model of relationship for the participants to emulate. Ongoing adoption reunions are almost uncharted territory; in many respects, it is amazing that any are maintained.

Despite these difficulties, the findings of this study, consistent with those of previous research, indicate that the desire for connection and relationship between biological parents and children is so great that many ongoing reunion relationships are being forged out of the maze of their interactions and experiences. As practitioners, our task is to provide greater understanding of the processes involved and support for all parties.

Footnotes
* This paper uses the term adoptee to refer to an adopted person of any age; birthparent to refer to a biological parent, either mother or father; and adoptive parents for those who adopted a child. To reduce clumsiness of language, the feminine pronoun (rather than he/she, him/her) is used for adoptees; reference to all adoptees as feminine also protects confidentiality, so that, where appropriate, even direct quotes have been altered to the feminine form to prevent identification of participants.

References
Andersen, R.S. (1989). The nature of adoptee search: Adventure, cure, or growth?Child Welfare, 68, 623–632.

Campbell, L.H., Silverman, P.R., & Patti, P.B. (1991). Reunions between adoptees and birth parents: The adoptees' experience. Social Work, 36, 329–335.

Kirk, H.D. (1964). Shared fate. New York: Free Press.

Kowal, K.A., & Schilling, K.M. (1985). Adoption through the eyes of adult adoptees. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 354–362.

March, K. (1995). Perception of adoption as social stigma: Motivation for search and reunion. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 653–660.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publications.

Modell, J. (1997). “Where do we go next?” Long-term reunion relationships between adoptees and birth parents. Marriage & Family Review, 25, 43–66.

Pacheco, F., & Eme, R. (1993). An outcome study of the reunion between adoptees and biological parents. Child Welfare, 72, 53–64.

Sachdev, P. (1992). Adoption reunion and after: A study of the search process and experience of adoptees. Child Welfare, 71, 53–67.

Sants, H.J. (1964). Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 37, 133–141.

Schechter, D.M., & Bertocci, D. (1990). The meaning of the search. In D.M.Brodzinsky, & M.D.Schechter (Eds.), The psychology of adoption (pp. 62–90). New York: Oxford University Press.

Silverman, P.R., Campbell, L., Patti, P., & Style, C.B. (1988). Reunions between adoptees and birth parents: The birth parents' experience. Social Work, 33, 523–528.

Smith, J.A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J.A.Smith, R.Harre, & L.van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). London: Sage Publications.

Sorosky, A., Baran, S., & Pannor, R. (1975). Identity conflicts in adoptees. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 18–27.

Triseliotis, J. (1973). In search of origins. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Triseliotis, J., Shireman, J., & Hundleby, M. (1997). Adoption: Theory, policy and practice. London: Cassell.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2001 American Orthopsychiatric Association, Inc.
This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied without the copyright holders express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user.

Source: American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Vol.71 (1) pp. 38-48.
Accession Number: ort-71-1-38 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1037/0002-9432.71.1.38

[wishfulthinker]

Thanks for sharing the article. It was very insightful. Obviously there are going to be many other studies on adoption reunions as the states and counties within them are slowing beginning to realize the importance of reunion and starting to open records.

Kudos to this forum and all of the people who come here to share. As the article states, it is important for all members of the triad to have access to and be a part of a support group. Interesting that the article recommends a separate support group for adoptive parents. I can understand that.

Thanks again.

[L@@king2]

I'm just bumping up this great article!!

Thanks for posting that M.I.Ur.Birthsister!!

unfortunately, my own reunion has hit a wall... but I shall wait patiently for her next communication... this is definitely a journey... and I'm willing to take the trip!!

This forum has really helped me - and I hope for all you others reading here! Good Luck in your journey!