[NancyAshe]

In Nevada, a proposal to clarify birth mothers' rights in an open adoption will formalize the process for entering into a post-adoption contract with a birth mother. However, adoptive parents believe this bill will make them 'second-class' parents.

Read the article:
Nevada Bill Sparks Debate

Should birth parents be given the option to enter into a legal contract?
Or, should they simply be told that contracts made with adoptive parents outside of court are not legally binding?

Your thoughts?

[BrandyHagz]

It should be a law in all fifty states that mothers be advised that all “agreements” made during the adoption process are not legally binding…if that aren’t legally binding.

I totally advocate for openness in cases where both parties agree…I don't think openness should be something that is forced on anyone…forced openness only makes for a visibly strained and unhealthy relationship between the parties.

I have to wonder though, what would be the legal ramifications of a broken openness contract?

I doubt very seriously that legally binding contracts would make much difference in the way adoptions are handled domestically…in all honesty, what we need is better openness education…demystify the practice…offer lifetime services for those in open situations…provide more resources for dealing with conflicts and differences in openness…

Rather than trying to make a strained and unhealthy relationship legally required…we should focus on fixing those strained and unhealthy relationships…be proactive rather than reactive…

[Volfe]

Here are my thoughts:

When it is legal, the foster care system can consider if the best interest of the children is to stay in contact (in some way) with the birth family if they face adoption. It can be mandated.

When it is legal, the agencies can legally advertise open adoptions. If they advertise legal and then the door closes... they can be sued for false advertisement.

When it is legal, often a complaint must be valid (a history of lack of willingness to abide by its terms). Often a fine or a simple reprimand by a judge is the punishment handed out. I think having to explain to a judge helps...

I lean towards them being legal so that aparents who aren't as committed to openness do not agree to an open adoption. If it's legal, it's a serious issue, and not to be entered into lightly (that is an argument I've read and tend to agree with).

Also, if they are legal the courts - at least in Louisiana - have set up more requirements in adoption to ensure a good situation: More counseling being the main one I can think of (you can Google Louisiana Children's Code for more info).

Those are my thoughts

Maia

[HappyMomAnna]

Maia--

When it is legal, the foster care system can consider if the best interest of the children is to stay in contact (in some way) with the birth family if they face adoption. It can be mandated.

Ok the part about what you said--"When it is legal" I suppose is/would be true....in regard to the adoptions from foster care--But I am not aware that it has been made a legal requirement for any adoption from Foster Care--I don't think the state--caseworkers--or judges will ever make it a legal requirement because then they are really at risk for any possible liability that might result from making it a requirement....

What I understand that can happen in adoption from the foster care system is that during the pre finalizing period while a family is still being overseen by the state there are times where a binding mediation agreement is written and the a-family agrees to continue contact within the agreement--BUT that ALL DEALs are off after the adoption is final.....

.....it is then left up to the Adoptive family to 'decide' on their own without the risk of any other authority to assume the risk for anything that might happen as a result of forced contact. I guess I could be wrong but that is the understanding I had when we were asked to consider a mediated agreement for contact--it never became an issue because our children's mother did not appear to write the agreement.......

[Volfe]

Anna - I was curious about the particulars but my info is from Louisiana and the Way They Do Things
I have a friend who is a Child Protection Atty and when we discussed the value of Open Adoptions being legal... at least one of her cases (where the parent lost rights I think involuntarily) had an Open Adoption agreement... so I took it to mean that instead of Having to Be Closed after Adoption, the Court allowed OR mandated the Open Agreement. However, that is how I remember it.
It is also from her that I gleaned my opinions on the other points. Reality being what it is though... I do not have much more input. It just seems it CAN be included, rather than NOT being allowed.

??
Maia

[HappyMomAnna]

....ACTUALLY, Maia--I can't say I have much right to talk too much on the subject---Other then wishing that we had some way of some kind of safe--contact....

Personally, as for the other issues with adoptions where a birthmother has made a choice--I think that IF everyone has agreed to an open adoption or to some specific level of contact---THAT should have as much weight as any other Legally Binding Agreement does....

And Brandy makes a good point to: forced bad relationships would not be the goal--but in MANY other areas of the legal system there are arbitration and mediation methods that could very well be established and used to help conflicts be resolved.....

I just feel that there should be a way to cut down on desperate promise making and people being left HURT for agreements that are not kept.

[Mom_of_3kinds]

I think openness agreements should be legally binding and enforceable unless there is physical danger to the child. With that being said maybe I've missed a part of it, but I don't see how making the agreements binding would make adoptive parents second class parents. A bit confused on that part of it.

[Volfe]

If I can find the entire Children's Code online again, I'll try to support my hypotheses with excerpts.

Maia

[LeslieP9]

Agreements ARE legally binding in some states. There are about ten states that have various restrictions on it, but essentially make future contact agreements legally binding. The birth parents can take the adoptive parents to court if they are not abiding by the agreement.

As a parent who is party to one such legally binding agreement, I am all for them. I wish this were the case in all states. The parents (either set, birth or adoptive) do not have to enter such agreements if they don't want to. But if they do, then the adoptive parents must be serious about holding up their commitment to continue whatever level of contact they agree to. I like that. I cannot imagine being a birth parent who agrees to place my child with a family with the understanding that I would get regular contact (letters/visits whatever we agreed to) only to find out after the adoption is final that the adoptive parents changed their mind for whatever reason and I get no contact and that I have no recourse whatsoever to enforce the promise. It sucks.

Of course, there should be the option (and that is the case in our state) for the adoptive parents to modify the agreement through the court system if there is a real risk of danger to the child. I have rarely heard of adoptions being closed for these reasons though. Most often it seems they are closed because people are simply uncomfortable, or it's hard for a period, or they feel threatened (in their role as a parent--not because of some danger). Most of these issues, in my mind, can be worked out if everyone really wants to work them out. I think having a legally binding agreement just encourages everyone to work it out.

[belkins]

Hello Nancy-
As a natural mother who had her daughter's adoptive parents close an open adoption even before the first pictures were to arrive, I believe that natural parents deserve some legal recourse under the law that makes an open adoption enforcable as many many adoptive parents just quit sending pictures for no reason with out warning and it kills each of us who have had this happen every day every hour. We are just human beings who bleed and cry too.

[NancyAshe]

Hi Leslie,
Thanks for posting. I think it's so important to understand the difference between what might be a danger to a child and what might be uncomfortable for the adults, and I think you pointed that out very well. And it isn't always the discomfort of adoptive parents that results in a breakdown of what started with openness.

All best
Nancy

[NancyAshe]

Hi Brandy,

Thanks for posting. I'm sorry to hear about the adoption being closed down. Even where there is no legal recourse, I strongly believe that entering into an adoption where openness is agreed, it is a moral and ethical imperative to keep it that way unless there is a danger to the child.

It brings to mind that open adoption tv special (Barbara Walters) where one of the couples decided not to pursue this particular adoption opportunity because they were uncomfortable with the degree of openness. Although I personally would have liked it if they were more accepting of openness, I was delighted that they didn't try to pretend that it was fine when it wasn't.

All best
Nancy

[DavidKed]

Of course they should be legally enforcable.

Before the adoption it is the birthparents sole right to determine what is in the best interest for their child and they have determined an open adoption is best. The aparents have ZERO say in this, other than to refuse to enter into such an agreement. It is quite repugnant when adoptive parents close open adoptions because is a gross violation of the trust placed in them, it is a gross violation of one of the few parenting decisions that belong to the birthparents, and it is terribly cruel and disrespectful to the birthparents .

I think the penalty for closing an open adoption (other than extreme circumstances) is that the adoptive parents should immediately lose thier parenting rights.

[BarbaraB]

I think that if adoptees could all get their original birth records when they turned 18, there would be less incentive to make false promises to birth parents, and agencies would have to do a better job of counseling both adoptive and birth parents about the consequences of agreeing to an open adoption. Right now I am afraid that some placing agencies and attorneys encourage people to agree to openness because it will enhance their chances of being "chosen" by a birth parent, without really exploring what that means...and continuing to seal records gives people a false assurance that they really can "close the door" and act as though the birth parents do not exist. I'm sure even with an enforceable agreement some people would still promise openness without really meaning it, or would close down an adoption at the first sign of trouble, but at least they would know that one day their son or daughter is going to able to call the birth parents without the adoptive parents' permission.
Barbara (adoptee, adoptive parent)

[SchmennaLeigh]

Not offering birthparents the option for a contract then makes them second class human being in general. There has to be a common ground on which we can stand so that birthparents can be treated with honesty, dignity and respect (and legal protection from falsification and lies) while still maintaining the fact that adoptive parents are REAL parents.

I believe that common ground is out there.

Where it is or how to find it seems to be stumping the universe.