So many laws and best practices have evolved through the years but we never did closed adoptions.
Early on in the mid to late 1990s it was best practice to halt communication and visitation between adoptive and biological families. But they always were aware of where the children were placed unless there were some aggravating circumstances because the child was initially placed in foster care or sometimes a group home.
We have always been required to have communication with the biological parents throughout the court process that eventually ended up in a Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) hearing and eventual adoption.
In very rare cases that impacted the safety some information was kept private but that was not common.
After the adoption it was up to the adoptive family to share additional information with the child.
The laws were gradually revised to encourage long term communication/visitation between the adoptive family and the biological family. Laws requiring our agency to place children with family members has had a huge impact on some adoption continuity for individuals.
Laws regarding access to information were also changed.
Now we have adoption agreements, a PA Adoption Information Registry and many other avenues to explore older adoptions that may have occurred before the laws were changed.
IIRC the 90’s was when people started agitating for the adoption records to be available to the child (and parents?). Typically before that, things were private and not disclosed. then there was a time where agencies would forward mail so the birth parents could respond or no, as they choose. Now I believe it is not secret if the child at age 18 chooses to ask.
I presume the privacy rule was based on the fact that a child out of wedlock was considered shameful by many, particularly for young teens. I recall a few stories about this issue where the child as an adult tried to contact the mother (via the agency) and she declined contact - in one, apparently she had never told her current husband and family about her earlier pregnancy.
I forget where I read about the early days of airline travel, where apparently stewardesses were told to “suck it up” over sexual harrassment, and apparently bruised buttocks from being frequently pinched by male passengers was a common complaint. (In those days when a lot of the travellers who could afford flying were businessmen in various stages of intoxication)
Would anyone mind extending the discussion to sperm donors? I wonder how many people are told that that’s how they were conceived. Given how it’s done, it’s trivial to keep as a secret versus adoption.
This is near and dear to my heart since I was a sperm donor in 1983 when I was 18. The particular clinic has been gone for decades and I can’t imagine that the records exist anymore. I was guaranteed anonymity for life.
Things change though. We now know that genetic testing and knowing your genetic history can be very important for healthcare. Does their right to a medical history override mine for privacy? My mom did 23andMe and has found a few cousins. What if my offspring finds their bio grandma?
" What if my offspring finds their bio grandma?"
If they decide to make contact, either the bio family will say, “Welcome to the family!” or they will let them know they have no interest in a relationship. I’ve seen it both ways with the adoptees I know who have identified bio families thru DNA (including my wife).
I think the factual question was answered as early as post 4 for adoption agencies, and there’s been a lot of good discussion of private adoptions. Open adoption (a separate topic) has also come up, so maybe we’re in the post-answer phase and it’s fine? It certainly doesn’t feel like a hijack to me.
It’s just a guess, but I’m guessing that fewer people are told about donor sperm than adoption because I think there likely to be fewer questions. You won’t have issues like why aren’t there any photos of pregnant mom , it’s unlikely anyone will accidentally see paperwork years later * , the parents probably didn’t tell anyone who could accidentally spill the beans
Maybe - in some states, adoptees who have reached the age of 18 have a right to obtain pre-adoption birth certificates. It’s not only about medical history BTW - some people believe that the adoptive parents don’t have a right to agree to keep information about the child secret from the child. It’s not impossible that a state could someday order sperm bank donations to be opened up - but before that matters, a person would have to know sperm donation was involved.
* Adoptions involve court orders, which I think most people hang on to. I’m not sure that being the recipient of anonymous donor sperm involves paperwork that would be kept for years - any paperwork wouldn’t be needed for the birth certificate. A known donor is a different story
In SC (and probably a lot of other states), if you’re 18, you can get your complete adoption file, but with redacted names and places. My wife got a copy, although they did miss one spot where it mentioned her mother’s name. Not that that mattered, as we had already determined that thru DNA.
I was under the impression (from news stories) that sperm donor records and many adoption records were pretty much open to the child now. With DNA services now, it’s rather difficult to keep some secrets secret.
Ha. Years ago, when I sometimes worked with children, I was doing a camp for kids going into 3rd-4th grade. One night we were getting ready for campfire and I told the boys to hose themselves down with bug spray, and if they didn’t have any, to find a friend and use his. So this kid Matthew – adopted from Korea by a white family – pulls out this industrial-sized bottle of bug spray and has a line form. I jokingly told him, “Wow, Matthew, I’ll bet you’re going to be an exterminator when you grow up!” He sighed and said, “No, I’ll probably just open up a laundry.”
Open adoptions were already becoming common even 30 years ago (as we had an open adoption 31 years ago and had attended classes about it). But my mother, who started having children in 1951, remembered that it was not unusual to keep a child’s adoption a secret back then.
Sadly, she also remembered a time when it was considered prudent to not adopt out a baby until it was 5 or 6 months old or older so the people at the orphanage have some idea of its temperament in order to better match it with a family. Makes very little sense.
I would say that someone’s medical history should override anyone’s right to privacy. It’s awful that you were promised anonymity and now that isn’t necessarily the case anymore. If you were ever contacted and didn’t want to become involved, you could offer to provide only your medical history.
Isn’t it that, for a long time, it wasn’t the adoption, per se, but the infertility of the parents (or the mother, specifically), that was “shameful”? and the secret that was really being protected when an adoption was kept secret?
To a smaller extent, the fact that the adopted child was born “illegitimate” was also kept secret by keeping the adoption secret. There was terrible prejudice against this until about the 1960s, to the extent that a few parents wouldn’t let their children play with an adopted child under the assumption that the child was born illegitimate?
There was even a time when it was almost impossible to find adoptive families for children born “illegitimate,” albeit, if people were able to adopt a newborn, and keep the adoption a secret, then there was less insistence on legitimacy.
Child welfare has evolved extensively during my tenure. It’s so crazy to look back and see the practices that were considered normal years ago.
I have not heard the one about waiting 5 or 6 months to adopt out an infant.
We try to insure that infants are placed with a long term caretaker as bonding occurs very early.
And orphanages in the US are thankfully no longer a thing.
I guess that kind of depends on what you mean by “orphanage”. What no longer exists in the US are the large institutions called “orphanages” or “foundling homes”. Group homes still exist, but they are much more like foster homes than old-style orphanages. They have fewer residents ( usually 5-10) , are in ordinary houses or apartments , and have houseparents (sometimes married couples) . They aren’t really any more stable than foster homes though - just as foster parents can decide to stop fostering and children have to be moved, houseparents can resign or retire and the children don’t physically move but do have new caretakers (which also happens in large institutions) . Children still might be moved due to conflicts or special needs etc.
There has been a huge swing away from any kind of “congregate care” for any children. We are required to locate kinship foster care first and then move to traditional foster care if no family are available. Group homes are few and far between.
Congregate care living situations for children create significant harm including lack of individual attention, lack of bonding and life long connections with caretakers, increased concerns for abuse and neglect, inconsistent care, and numerous additional concerns.
The current practice is to place children in families. Here they can learn to live and navigate the world in the traditional unit of society. It’s a far better environment for them than an overcrowded building full of underpaid staff with no hope of living with a family.
There are no good options for children who experience placement. All we can do is try to reduce the potential harm.
Thanks: I appreciate the information. I have no experience with foster care or orphanages other than reading fiction.
I just looked up the child adopted out from my cousin (open adoption). He has a distinctive name and appears to be making a small name for himself in the music world, which is awesome. I’ve never been in touch, though I met the parents, but I know his biograndmother sent him cards and gifts when she was alive (the parents cut off contact with the biomom along the way, for very good reason). He’d be welcome if he ever wanted to get in touch with us, but I think most of us are just pleased that he found a better life than he’d have had with his bioparents.
