autz here are a few stats for you.
o 98-99% of mothers wanted to be found (AmFOR, national search/support groups & Winona Durbin, Riverside County/CA Dept. of Social Services–who reported only one mother refused contact in 18 years & thousands of contacts);
o 100% of adult adoptees wanted to be found (AmFOR & national search groups);
o 93% of adoptees were pleased with the outcome of their reunions with parents (Paul Sachdev, Professor, Memorial University; also AmFOR & national searchers)
I submit that it is better for a child not to be adopted at all than to be adopted and then returned like so much defective merchandise. I can’t even imagine the psychological toll that would take on a child. If making adoptions permanent dissuades some people from adopting, that strikes me as a good thing; such a decision shouldn’t be taken lightly.
As for the OP, If the birth mother does not want to be contacted, I think that should be respected. Why on Earth would you want to talk to someone who doesn’t want to talk to you? If the adoptive parents are making the decision, that’s another story - don’t know how I feel about that. It seems wrong on its face.
(On preview I see your statistics, so maybe my first point isn’t relevant, although I can’t imagine the situation never arises that a birth mother might not want to be contacted.)
It takes a special kind of person to adopt another persons child and raise them as their own. I could not do that personally.
However speaking from a birthmothers point of view… I expected that if the adoptive parents truly expected to love my son and honor his existence as a full member of thier family, they had to accept the fact that there IS “no difference” in him and any other children that they may have. They had to accept him “as is” To do any less would truly be like “purchasing a commodity”
I think it would be cruel to keep a child for a year and then decide you don’t want him. There is such a thing as an “open adoption”
Open adoption is allowing birthmothers to be a presence in the adopted child’s life at a negotiated pace.
Open adoption is a contradiction because records are still sealed and withheld, even from the parties named them and whom they most concern
Possible Adoptee Fears from the book “BIRTHRIGHT,” by Jean AS Strauss
If the number is so overwhelming (which I actually doubt, but don’t have any stats for) that they both want to be reunited, then it should definitely be an option.
But it shouldn’t be mandatory.
There are state organizations in charge of adoption. It wouldn’t be that onerous to add a subdepartment to their work. Any adoptee over the age of 18 can write in and say if they want to be reunited with their birth parent. If a similar letter exists on file from the birth parent, phone numbers are exchanged, let the celebration begin! But if both don’t request it, personal information isn’t given out and privacy is maintained.
Why not?
Re: not knowing medical history–too bad, if you ask me.
I was not adopted, but I STILL don’t know enough about the medical history of my ancestors, frankly.
There’s a possibility that my paternal grandfather and all of his siblings had Parkinson’s, which would be a fascinating piece of data to add to the fact that my father and his brother both have the disease, and one of their sisters may, as well. But I don’t have good info. on the grandfather’s generation. He died before I was born.
My mother’s father died while she was still in the womb … so we have NO idea what kind of medical history he has/would have had. And it’s unfortunate that better data wasn’t collected at the time of his death, because he appeared to suffer some sort of aneurysm that could well be genetically predisposed.
But what can I do about it … sue God for letting them die before adequate medical testing/recordkeeping was available?
It’s tough that adopted kids don’t know their parents’ medical histories. But frankly, they were dealt a tough hand in life, and that’s part of it–just like my mother, whose father died so young, and was not around as a medical data source for her to mine. She’s had to stab in the dark, and unfortunately, so will those adopted kids have to.
Isabelle, I am glad that your post of 10-30-2003 12:50 PM backed away from some of the more inflammatory rhetoric of your OP. Casting the discussion in terms of conspiracies (artificially) creates “good guys” and “bad guys” and makes a rational discussion more difficult.
As you noted, the original reasons for the sealing of original birth documents and adoption documents was to remove the stigma of “illegitimate” from the child. It has only been in the last few years that the new argument to “protect” the identity of the birth mother has been retroactively applied as rationales for the laws.
I absolutely oppose those laws that mandated the sealing of adoption records (even when both the birth parent(s) and adoptive parent(s) are willing that they be open. I am not yet persuaded that the answer to that is to throw open the records the moment the child turns 18. (In my adoption paerenting class, we were advised to encourage the child to postpone searching until he or she reached the age of 24, due to the emotional turbulence that can still be an issue at earlier ages.)
There are also other considerations. Look at a sibling group where four kids are each a year apart: when the oldest child reaches 18, still a high school senior, and goes out and opens the records, what prevents that person from going back and informing the child who is caught up in the maelstrom of puberty, with both hormone issues and attachment issues who is already at risk in the adoptive home.
I favor a mutual registry, where the birth parent and child can each sign up, giving the birth date, and perhaps, location, along with the sex of the child, in which a match between two signatories allowed them to be put in contact. I also favor collecting family medical histories, although that would tend to need to be a voluntary effort.
Such registries have been established and are not yet very successful. However, the success and failure is determined by multiple factors: most lists are manually maintained rather than com,puterized, most are limited to a single state (with incompatible methods of exchanging information between the states–and with some states refusing to participate), and they have not yet been publicized enough for many people to sign up. (I would register all adoptions, but leave them closed until each party signed up. Currently, (in Ohio) a birth parent has to wander around multiple county offices looking for the registry–an effort that dissuades some people from trying–and most birth parents do not even know that the registry exists.
Let’s try to make a non-adoptee see through an adoptee’s eyes…
Pretend you were in an accident and suffered an incurable brain trauma that gave you Amnesia, and there were people all around you who could tell you your name, but didn’t. There were also identifying documents that belonged to you but no one would give them to you, because you didn’t know your name. Instead they give you a new name and tell you to go in peace. Would it be legal to deprive you of your true identity and force a new one onto you?
Nearly every adoption is like an entry into an involuntary witness protection program, except the ones being protected are those that profit from closed adoption.
Adoptees did NOT agree to any contract.
Oh in a perfect world this would work.
What state organizations are you speaking of? Many of us go through private adoptions and the state is not involved.
Your idea of having a letter waiting for the adoptee is currently happening in some agencies.
You are forgetting that some adoptive familes do NOT want their adoptive children looking for their birthparents. (some) will go to extremes to be sure they don’t meet. (There are many reasons for adoptive parents to feel this way) Then what?
My son’s friend is 18. She is adopted & is an only child. Her adopted parents are now divorced. She wants to find her birthmother despertly. Her adoptive mother refuses to offer her information to help in her search. Refuses to give her basic information like: what state she was born in…was in private adoption or agency funded…what her actual birthdate was. She has turned to me to help her. Should I turn her a way? Is she not deserving to know who gave life to her? To possibly find siblings… She has some medical probelms. Is she not entitled to know what is hereditary?
Did you know that a lot of birth certificates are altered? The birthdates are changed at the time of adoption. Making it even more difficult for adoptees to register on sites and make “a match” with their possible birthparent.
quote from blowero
This all sounds well and good. However, give it some more thought. I thought that way to but have since changed my mind.
My wife cannot have children. We have considered adopting. However, we have met 5 couples that have adopted. 1 is fine. THe other 4 have had huge problems ranging from mentally disturbed/psycho children to one that was terribly sick/drained them emotionally and financially then died leaving them horribly in debt. This couple probably wouldn’t have adopted the child but the problem wasn’t immediately obvious and they were not informed.
It is all well and good to preach that adoption is a serious thing and, when done, should be irreversible. However, how many couples out there WOULD adopt but do not want the risk? Just because the think instead of react with heart on their sleeve doesn’t mean that they would be bad parents.
I have a feeling that if a ‘one year return, no questions asked’ type policy was implemented, adoptions would rise considerably especially among harder to adopt children (like the non infant 4+years old). Call it something more palatable like a trial period or something.
I also have the feeling that very few actually would be returned.
Though it might not sound like the right thing at first, do you not think there is a large possibility that much more good would come from such a policy than bad?
My wife and I would like to adopt but, frankly, we are too afraid. People saying “adoption is serious and should be irreverible” only makes us think “Gosh, you’re right. Maybe we shouldn’t adopt.” End result–there is a child/children out there that would have a good home…doesnt.
Same goes for the OP.
It sounds all right and good that an adult child can look up their sealed records…however, would a couple adopt children if this were the case?
I don’t know. I think there is a possibility adoptions would decline. Couples adopting want to raise the children as their own. If they have to contend with birth parents while raising or being heavily involved with their adult children then maybe they won’t. For whatever reason, it may lower the already low adoption rate. Personally, I don’t think it would bother me if my adult children met their birth parents (but it would bother me if the parents tried to get involved when the child is under 18).
However, it might be an issue with some people. If it is, you have children that would have had a good home—do not.
I’m not trying to nix the OP. I just want to bring up that there are implications here besides the ‘rights’ of the adopted child.
I have a friend who is adopted and she didn’t look for her birthmother until she was in her 30’s. By then her adopted mother died of cancer and her adopted father was ill (he later died) So not everyone will look for their birthparent as soon as they turn “legal age”
Mary found her mother with a private investigator. She paid mega bucks for the information she was looking for because registries wern’t working for her. She met her mom and they hit it off right away.
I have another friend Denise who is a birthmother. She signed up at all the regestries available as soon as her only son turned 18. She coulnd’t find him. She finally hired an agency KINSOLVING.
She gave them all the info and then waited. 48 hours later they sent her an email that said “We have found your son!!!” (with those exclamation points after it. They directed her to send the money ($3K) Fed ex and they would reveal their findings the next day. She did this. She then found out that her child was dead.
he would have been 33 years old but died at the age of 17 in a freak accident at school.
She was able to hook up with the adoptive parents and they told her they had been waiting for her. They knew one day she would come looking.
I think records should be open.
Isabelle:
I believe that your hypothetical example of the amnesiac is not analogous to this issue. FWIW, my father was adopted and I once asked him if he considered looking for his “real parents.” His response: “The people who raised me are my real parents.” Dad’s identity was formed when he grew up with the people who raised him; nobody denied him his identity.
I may not be reading this correctly at all so please clarify if I’m totally off base–but these are stats put out by search groups, yes? Thus the numbers they would have are based on the people who have reason to be associated with a search for birth parents/adopted children? Isn’t that like saying “99% of people who went into a McDonalds like fast food”?
~mixie
While that is indeed sad I don’t see how that entitles any individual to the medical records of another. I can’t view my mother’s records without her permission so why are adoptive kids so special?
Marc
What about the ‘reunions’ that don’t go well?
The birth mother who went on with her life, eventually got married and had other kids and then one day this stranger shows up at the door and drops a bombshell and it wreaks a lot of havoc?
Or the adopted kid who’s quite happy with the parents who raised them and then a birth mother shows up and things get strained and awkward?
What about the women who’d choose abortion instead if they knew that at some point in the future the records would definitely be unsealed and they could be found?
You know this really made me think. You see, I’m adopted and I had no idea my life was like that! If it wasn’t for your generalizations on how a group of people that, from what I understand, you don’t belong to feel, I might have continued being happy with my PARENTS, not adopted parents, Parents.
And of course there shouldn’t be a 1 year give back. Adopting is not different from having a child. andymurph64 I hate to be rude but guess what, If you could have a child there would still be a risk it could die and leave you emotionally and financially drained. Your own flesh and blood might become a career criminal or a drug addict. Its nothing special with adoption. Adoption is not taking care of someone elses kid, its becoming a parent.
I don’t think this is completely true, at least not in all places. An adoptive parent may not be able to simply give the child back to the agency and walk away, but there is no reason why the adoptive parents wouldn’t be able to surrender the child by going through the same process the birth parents did. I absolutely know it can be done in my state, because I saw it happen, not one but four years after the adoption.
There are plenty of places in which adopted children and birth parents can register and find each other. I don’t see the need to drag Uncle Sam into this and start forcing men and women to make themselves available for a major life upheaval when the child turns 18.
And I’m with Mixie on the statistics posted above. Of COURSE 100% of adoptees in an adoption registry want to be found! That’s why they’re in it to begin with! To use that statistic to prove that 100% of all adoptees want to meet their birth parents is totally dishonest. Any one of us probably personally knows someone who was adopted that has no interest whatsoever in ever meeting their bio parents.
That doesn’t make it any more palatable, in my opinion.
Let me be frank as well. If you are too afraid, then it’s better that you not adopt a child. Natural parents take a risk that something might be wrong with their child and they don’t get a “do over”; why should adoptive parents? Your argument that “eliminating the risk would increase adoptions” falls flat with me. If the alternatives for a child are living in an orphanage, or having the possibility of living the rest of their lives knowing that they were rejected by their new parents, the orphanage is still the lesser of 2 evils. Getting more kids adopted certainly seems like a laudable goal, but I think the potential for bad outweighs the potential for good.
“The rights of every person are diminished when the rights of one are threatened”. …John F. Kennedy
“The dead don’t register and neither do the illiterate.”
Nor do the birthmothers who were told never to look back. Nor is such a system ever publicized. This system called “Mutual Consent Registries” exists in many states, but with relatively few reunions. Adoptee Rights is about the fundemental “right” to know ones origins. Natural born and raised citizens (non-adoptees/foster children) do not need to ask permission to know their genesis. Infact many children who grow through and age out of foster care never have their birth certificates sealed or amended, they retain their original “born” identity. This proves to me that sealed records and amended birth certificates exist to serve the adoptive parent not he birthmother or adoptee. There is no guarantee of privacy or secrecy since a relinquishing birthmother doesn’t know whether her child will ever be adopted. It isn’t until adoption that a record is sealed.
Mutual consent is a bureacratic answer to nothing. Adoptees deserve their rights to know their past despite the preferences of any other citizen - it is their individual and most personal right which they should have the power to choose to forfeit or seize. That choice is stolen from many.
REGARDING THE STATS I OFFERED: I warned you that I was not comfortable giving them because everyone has their own agenda and the numbers vary. But it seemed liked people wanted to see them anyways.