[NancyAshe]

On Jan. 23, USA Today ran an editorial suggesting - among other things - that a provision of the Uniform Adoption Act (proposed in 1994) regarding the length of time placing parents have to revoke their consent, eight days, is enough.

USA Today gave space for an opposing view - written by Carol Schaefer (author of 'The Other Mother') who supports the position that what is in a child's best interest can't be measured in days.

USA Today Editorial
Carol Schaefer's Opposing View

Currently, state laws vary on whether or not there is time for a placing parent to reconsider the decision, and revoke it, and what that time period might be.

Your thoughts?

Research materials:

Uniform Adoption Act (full text)
State Laws on Relinquishment, Time to Revoke

[MajaHedman]

The state I relinquenshed in doesn't have a revocation period. You better be positive of what you are doing when you sign away your rights.

I would like all of these lawmakers that think that this stuff can be measured in a few days to have to sign off their rights. It might give them some perspective on what a heartwrenching choice it actually is.

[edenstore]

For decades pro-adoption lobbyists have tried to make the standard for terminating parental rights in contested adoptions solely the child's best interest. So secure have they been that this standard will work in adoptive parents' favor that they have argued it even where adoptions were improperly obtained (e.g. Baby Jessica, Baby Richard). "Child's best interest" has been the mantra of those wanting stability in adoptions.

Not any more! Suddenly, adoptive parents cannot trust the "child's best interest" standard for the first three to six months that the child is in their home. Apparently, they cannot risk being questioned about the very parenting suitability they claimed justified the adoption in the first place. Pray tell new evidence should emerge two months later forcing adoptive parents actually to back up their claims!

A federal putative father registry, isn't that a great idea! Actually it is--if the registry is used as it should be. But the same hypocrisy seen in state putative father registry laws will exist in the federal law. A registrant will need to file a paternity statement to effectuate the registration even where he is ignorant of the pregnancy--meaning he must know about the child before his registration means anything. The registry will be searched only in adoptions--meaning the father can be terminated without notice in a neglect or dependency proceeding, after which the child is adopted. The registry will not be searched where the child was born in wedlock, even though the putative father must still register to have any rights--if the law even gives him rights. The registry will not be searched in anonymous "safe haven" surrenders because no names exist--meaning the parent who has not admitted to unsuitability receives less due process than the parent who abandons the child.

And make no mistake, when a father does register and contest the adoption, the very people supporting this law will reverse field again, spewing their mantra that only the "child's best interest" should matter.

Erik L. Smith

[michellemartin]

I think that to revoke consent it should definitely be more than 8 days. I think the bare minimum should be at least two weeks from signing consent to terminate (totally different from signing guardianship). Unfortunately birthparents are often not made aware that they do not have to sign consent until they are ready, instead the issue is made to seem as if it needs to take place ASAP. It sickens me that some states allow TPR to happen in the hospital. Definitely following those links!

[MajaHedman]

Yeah... I don't think after having a 13.5 lb baby via c section I was anywhere close to signing anything. We waited 5 months before we signed our rights off.

[FauxClaud]

The ideal concept in infant adoption is that the natural parents are comfortable and willing to relinquish their rights..that they trully feel that it is the best thing and necessary for the baby and themselves. On the flip side, in a perfect world, adoptive parents would only want a baby that falls into that criteria. And therefore, any adoption would be the best thing for all parties involved. Win win happy happy.

Eight days, huh? While it's clearly better than 0 days, I find it very plain to see that after 8 days a new mother still has no real idea of what the reality of life without her child really entails. Eight days is still recovering from the birth...a simple comparison: A newly birthed mother has 6 weeks according to dissability insurance before she is considered "recovered" and able to return to work. The OB/GYN sees post partum patients 6 weeks after birth in order to decide if she is recovered. But 8 days is OK to make a life long decision when, according to other government terms and Doctors, she is not recovered.

Giving birth under the regular circumstances is surreal. Months of worrying, hormones, being uncomfortable, the last month of just needing it to be over, fear of the birth process, culminating with the pain and emotional high of birth, a continuation of hormones, not to mention any drugs and reactions, the plain shock and wonder that it is over, getting readjusted....yes, in 6 weeks time...you're not as shocked that this actually happened and you are a mom. Life has found it's rythem again and you just exsisit, even without sleep, with baby.

An adoption plan adds so much more into this delicate balance. Life issues that exisited prior and seemed to make the adoption a necessity, add the influence of the agency and potential parents who, no matter how good the intentions, do lobby the positive aspects of the adoption.

The act of becoming a birthmother is usually months of processing all the information, mentally debating the pros and cons, deciding to focus on the pros and pushing doubt away, emotional steeling oneself for the ability to sign off, getting excited about potental parents, making those all important choices...so at birth, she is ready to do what she thinks she must...give birth and walk away. We dissassociate, we act strong, we don't feel more than we have to, we do the right thing, we try to put others, the baby, the parents needs above our own. And we get it done.

It's after the shock wears off, after all the right "reasons" for placement don't compare to the amount of sorrow that begins to pour from our souls, after we begin to see that what we felt in the 8 days after signing was just the tip of the iceburg and that it often feels like more than we can physically bear, then the reality of what life is without that baby becomes more and more apparent. Life has no rythem, sometimes no reason, and we exist.

But it's too late..what is done is done and all parties, adoptive parents and mothers are left trying to fiqure out how to live on with these feelings that no one expected. It's not win win anymore..someone is not happy.

I know there are situations where the mother is able to move on quickly and not look back. What gets me is that one does not know, really, how it will feel to be a birthmother until one has had the baby, made it reality, felt the emotions, recovered and decided if they have the ability to continue to live without their child. What about the ones where it really is more than they can bear? Do we fault them for not knowing before hand how they can emotional deal? After 8 days, do we just say tough cookies, go get theraphy?

I'm curious, as to at what point my fellow natural moms realized what it really all ment? At what point did you go "Oh, this is much worse than I had expected" and if you could do it again....same circumstances, some deal..would you? I don't think it is posible to get to that place in 8 days.

How to put a govenrment cap on emotions???

Claud

[michellemartin]

I dont think a woman should be allowed to sign tpr until AT LEAST 6 weeks. Preferably more than that, but then be able to revoke that consent for two weeks. Course they rarely tell a considering woman that she doesnt ever have to sign... Make it seem like it needs to get done... Just tell her the minimum...

As for me, I didnt realize what adoption all entailed until the third week after birth. Having to do it all over again, I would. It would either have been adoption or abortion, and I couldnt consiously have dealt with having an abortion at this time in my life. If I were to get pregnant again right this second, I would either place with the same couple or parent. I'm really not sure which I'd do, or what my bf would want either.

[alwaysus]

In NC the revocation period is 7 days.
I don't know what it is like to be a birthmother, God Bless all of you.I have no idea what the revocation period should be,having never been in that position. I DO however know what it is like to face losing a baby that has been in my home for 8 months and it is scary. Seems like 0 days is a bit harsh and 6 months is a bit extreme. Either way, I can imagine it is one of the hardest things to do, and I do admire birth parents who do it.

[PetersMom]

I think it's discussions like this that cause potential adoptive parents to look overseas. We tried for 4 years to adopt a sibling for my son adopted at birth. After 4 years, 6 leads, 2 held babies, and then being lied to TWICE by another woman, we're done. Seeing discussions like this just help me know that we have made the right decision to adopt a child with no parents and needs us and much as we need them. Wish we had made this discovery sooner.

[princessannie]

<<<"I think <<<"It's discussions like this that cause potential adoptive parents to look overseas.">>>


I certainly agree with Petersmon, hearing you guys talk like this makes me realise that my decision to adopt overseas is a right one. A mother should not be able to change her mind a month, or even 5 months like one of you stated. Children need a sense of security, a stable home & the adopted parents need that as well. Can you imagine having a child for a month or even longer & than having it torn from your home. That is tramatic to both the child and the adoptive parents & selfish of the birth mother.

[edenstore]

"A mother should not be able to change her mind a month, or even 5 months like one of you stated...."

The issue is not whether natural parents can "change their minds," but whether there should be a longer deadline for "revoking consent." The grounds for setting the adoption aside would be the child's best interests or that the natural parent did not consent voluntarily.

As I stated earlier, it makes no sense to say that the adoption was in the child's best interest at the outset, but that new evidence a few months later, showing the opposite, should be disregarded.

Your going overseas to adopt really just shows a desire to deny a real problem in this country.