Adoption Changes: Where would YOU start?

There is always much debate regarding adoption, especially when you move into the various adoption camps- those who believe adoption is a miracle, and those who believe that adoption should be banned. When I began writing, I truly struggled on a daily basis to figure out where I fit on the spectrum. I went back and forth, trying to reflect if one belief could coexist internally with another belief. Did I have to pick a specific side, or could I possibly find some happy medium, a spot in the middle of this adoption continuum? What would I change, if I could begin to change the adoption world as it currently stands? Or did I even see any issues with it?

Obviously, my adoption experience has been jaded. As I’ve come out of this adoption fog, I’ve learned that there are more ragged edges in this world then I was first led to believe. It’s not as easy as “sign here and be happy that you gave a gift”. It’s not as simple as saying no adoptions should ever take place. My own adoption experiences, and the many that I read on other blogs throughout the internet, tell me that it’s really not black and white.

I think adoption could work, though I think it doesn’t really work right now, and has been exceptionally dysfunctional in the past. I think that when we shift the focus to take in the entire family that adoption encompasses- mother, adopting families, and most importantly, adoptee, we may actually see a shift to the proper place.

However, I do see the inherent flaws in the current system. I see the privilege that adopting parents get. I see the manipulation and myths that we relinquishing mothers deal with. I see the way this system breaks adoptees in ways that we don’t talk about, and how this thing we call a miracle ends up causing a virtual rift between biological connections, and internal, proverbial wounds for those who relinquish their rights, willingly or not.

If I was given the right to change the adoption world, here’s where I would begin (meaning, there would be likely more that I would change as the situations arose, or as perceptions changed):

If a woman found herself in an unexpected pregnancy situation, she would be able to find ethical information that neither encouraged or deterred her from one choice or another. She would be allowed to educate herself on abortion, parenting, and adoption. She would not be condemned for taking her time, nor would she be pushed to make a choice, unless medically necessary. She would be empowered to make the decision that was best for her life.

No adoption agencies would exist, and if they did, they would be regulated heavily by policies, and guidelines. They would be there to connect and match, but without the use of coercive tactics, or false myths on either sides. There would be a cap on adoption fees, and no discrimination in fees would exist. Couples entering into the adoption world would be screened, not necessarily for financial stability, but for their own ability to be open in an adoption.

Open adoption, full, true open adoption would be mandatory. Unless there were circumstances, that could be proven and documented, the adoption would remain open, always.

A woman would never be called a birthmother. She would always have the title of mother, parenting, or relinquishing. She would never doubt the importance of her role, because no one would ever tell her she was a birthmother who should disappear into the corners, silently. She would be a mother, because, she is always a mother, even in adoption.

She would not be allowed to sign her rights away until she had attempted parenting for at least 6 weeks. During this time, she would have support, if it was necessary, through programs that would help her with post-partum issues, breastfeeding, general health issues, and even financial information. During this time she would be allowed to file a birth certificate, that would remain, always, un-amended, and unlocked, even in the event of an adoption. No one would be pressuring her with the word adoption, or relinquishing during this time.

Infant adoptions would only be considered in worst case scenarios, and again, with well documented evidence as to why this is in the best interest of the baby, and mother, after 6 weeks.

If at 6 weeks, she decided that she wanted to relinquish, she would THEN begin the process that is often begun in pregnancy. She would look at profiles, and meet couples. After she signed her rights over, she would be given close therapeutic care for at least a year.

Open Adoption would be legally enforceable. Or at the very least, no one could close the adoption without extensive mediation, or just cause.

Birth Certificates would show original parent’s names. The adopting family would be issued the original, as well as an adoption decree.
Adoptions would only occur in situations where it was necessary, where both the mother and father had ethically declared that they relinquished their rights to their child.

Reality shows would be banned from catering programming that focuses on coercive tactics, beyond the unethical use of cameras and agencies sponsoring.

Most importantly, all persons involved in an open adoption would have a voice. No amount of money would make one side more important than the other, and the utmost respect would be expected between all parties, with the best interest always being focused on the adoptee.

If you could change current adoption practices, where would you begin?

6 Responses to "Adoption Changes: Where would YOU start?"

Monika says:

July 16, 2012 at 11:48 pm

Phew. That’s a lot of changes. Though I get the sentiments behind the 6-week parenting attempt, I’m not sure it should be FORCED on a mother considering relinquishment. It should be encouraged and resources should be provided, but I think that forcing a mother to parent can be just as bad as forcing a mother to relinquish. However, I agree with everything else on that list absolutely. I love Australia’s adoption practices. There adoption is RARE, not coerced, and a parent going into it knows exactly what she’s going to go through.

You might just have inspired a blog post for me too.

Reply
1. Danielle says:
  
  July 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm
  
  Adoption should be rare, and obviously, there are flaws in some of my ideas, but I think it starts an interesting discussion about adoption, and the practices as they stand.
  
  Reply
Teresa says:

July 17, 2012 at 9:16 am

I have been a foster parent for 3 years through the county and just this year adopted a newborn through a private agency. My daughter has very complicated medical needs and her family had a set of serious and unusual circumstances happening at the time of her Mother’s pregnancy and her birth.

I understand the premise of having a Mother parent before making a decision, but I can see several cases where that would be dangerous to both Mother and child- situations like a child with medical complications or parents/partners who are unsupportive or abusive towards the Mother. My daughter’s Mother couldn’t have kept her baby alive for 6 weeks. I think making Mothers aware that this is an acceptable option to parent before making a choice without any negative feedback or judgement is perfect, but it should still be in the hands of the Mother. Same with infant adoption only being considered for worst case scenarios. Who is to judge worst case and what documentation would prove that? If a Mother wants to relinquish, she should be able to relinquish. I don’t like agencies telling a woman she has to parent any more than I like them telling a woman she can (or should) not parent.

Adopting through a “Non-profit” agency made me firmly against private adoptions. If I could start anywhere with adoption reform, it would be to make all adoptions go through public agencies that do not get paid per adoption. Just like foster care, a public agency would have to show a court they have made reasonable efforts to keep the family together- including providing housing, therapy, parenting classes, food stamps, transportation, educational and job opportunities, and county funded child care. If a Mother chose to relinquish after those things had been offered then the adoption and post adoption contact agreements would be handled and supervised by the public agency.

I would do away with pre-birth matching. This hurts families. My daughter’s Mother pre-birth matched with a family that she loved. they had a great relationship throughout the pregnancy- were present at the birth- and then walked away after she was diagnosed with a life threatening condition. By the time we were matched with her- the family didn’t want to meet us or have any type of contact at all. The flip side is the same- how many adoptive families get excited by a pre-birth match just for it to fall through? None of it helps the child, so there’s no point

I agree with the rest of your statements- especially about the OBC and adoption degree. There is no need for amended birth certificates or sealed records. I adopted my daughter. I did not give brith to her and legal recognition of the truth honors her actual story.

I love your blog. Thank you for sharing so much of your soul. It has made me question my own motives and I think has made me better for my daughter.

Reply
1. Danielle says:
  
  July 17, 2012 at 12:39 pm
  
  Oh obviously, I think there would need to be some huge government restructuring in order to accommodate a 6 week waiting period. But, I do think if the situations were set up accordingly so Mom, Dad and baby could co-exist in the world outside the hospital, we might find that decisions are being made in a better state of mind versus a coerced, you have to do this sort of scenario. The first 6 weeks post-partum are the roughest, after a baby, but I also think that making a mother sign a form immediately after birth is inherently wrong.
  
  Maybe something like this would be better for fostering children, versus the business of getting brand new, awesome, white babies for a lot of money.
  
  Reply
luna says:

July 17, 2012 at 11:11 am

that is quite a list! my favorite and perhaps the most all encompassing is this: “She would be empowered to make the decision that was best for her life.” that says so much, doesn’t it?

that said, I think it’s inconsistent with requiring a mother to parent for 6 weeks before deciding to relinquish. I strongly agree that expectant mothers should be given every opportunity, encouragement and necessary resources to do parent for as long as they want. but I don’t think requiring a women who is determined to place to instead parent for 6 weeks would necessarily be a positive thing.

Reply
1. Danielle says:
  
  July 17, 2012 at 12:36 pm
  
  See, and this is where the 6 week thing would come into play: if the mother is not being coerced into adoption before she has the baby, then she wouldn’t know if she would want to place. It would give her the time and ability to figure out what she wants, while dealing with the insane hormonal comedown that happens post-baby. It also gives her time to try on the adoption role without pressure, while she has baby.
  
  I don’t know, from a birthmother perspective, I think if I hadn’t heard of adoption until the very end, that it wouldn’t have been a decision I made, while still in the hospital. Signing those forms and relinquishing parental rights 2-3 days, or earlier, post partum is not a good thing for anyone.
  
  I could be wrong, but in the UK, they require a 6 week wait. It means that adoptions have gone down, especially in infancy, but it means a lot less heartache for everyone.
  
  Reply

Share this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply