Blog Post #5: Option A

The best arguments I’ve heard in favor of open adoptions come from Adam Pertman’s book. One of the things he discusses is that the birth mothers want the chance to know that the child they gave up to give them a better life actually does have a better life and is happy. From this argument I can understand how some people may view this as only benefiting the birthparent(s) and not having a benefit on the child at all but I don’t believe that is true. The majority of the speakers in class expressed at least some interest in their biological family history and genetics and this curiosity is something that Pertman brings up as well. He states that, “Nearly all adults who grew up knowing they were adopted will now tell you that they were curious about their backgrounds, a little or a lot, occasionally or constantly” (59). The unknowns and curiosity can be dealt with more easily if there is an ongoing relationship between the child, the adoptive parents and the biological parents. Having at least some sort of relationship can help those involve deal with the unanswered questions and curiosities that children from closed adoptions do not have the opportunity to experience.

Other evidence in favor of open adoptions that I found very interesting is from Pertman’s book as well. He discusses how adolescents who have contact or a relationship with their biological parent are more satisfied than those who know nothing about where they came from. He also discusses how in many cases, the adoptive parents find themselves reaching out to the biological parents more than they had expected. It makes sense that they would form a pretty unique bond over their child (p. 62).

I believe that all persons should have the right to find out about their history and where they came from. There are some people, like Mary, who may have no interest in finding out but there are many people like Linda who want to know but do not have that right. And as much as I believe that everyone should be able to find out about their family or know that the child they gave up for adoption is happy, there should be some limitations on the extent that the adoption is open. Because each adoption and situation is different, how open the adoption is and what the relationship is like between those involved should be decided and agreed upon by all parties. They should all have the right to limit the relationship. It was interesting to hear Mary’s story because it was different than anything I had heard. She had no interest in meeting her birthmother and after meeting her and forming a relationship, it is one that frustrates her because of the large amount of emotional work she must do in the relationship. She should have the right to limit the relationship without having to worry about hurting her biological mother’s feelings. I can understand that but at the same time it would be very difficult to allow someone into her life and now her children’s lives who appears to just complicate things. But I guess that is what happens in most families, nothing is perfect and it’s not always easy.

Lindsey

Blog Post 5

Linda and Mary brought up perspectives regarding the openness of adoption that I had not considered prior to their speaking in class.  They both had strong opinions regarding the rights of adoptee to have information regarding their birthparents. They both had circumstances in which they thought that openness in adoption would be beneficial. Linda explained how the lack of openness in the state in which she was adopted from is very frustrating and limiting in her quest for information. The bureaucracy that would be involved in getting her adoption records was so off putting it stopped her from pursuing them. She also brought up the point that openness would allow for adoptees to have access to pertinent family medical history. This could be extremely important if there was a genetic disease that could be passed on or heat disease, the list could go on.  Mary had the same feeling about the importance of access to medical records for adoptees. In the reading from Anita Allen she mentions briefly how openness in adoption has limited the shame the had previously been associated with adoption, (47,  Open Adoption is not for Everyone).

Being a biology major, and knowing how greatly genetics can affect one’s health, I feel that openness with regard to medical records is the most convincing argument that a person could make in advocating for openness in adoption. 

While both did favor openness in some situations, they both did not see it as something that they feel should be a necessary part of adoption, especially Mary. After inadvertently connecting with her birth-mother, which was something she actually was not that interested in, a lot of issues have come up between them. She feels that openness allows for the adults involved to feel better about the situation. She brought up the point that an open adoption has very few consequences for the adults involved, but many for the child. Mary spoke of the emotional burden having a relationship with her somewhat unstable birth-mother has caused, and how she didn’t get to decide that that relationship was something she wanted. I think that this speaks to the importance of autonomy we have discussed in class. Mary did not have the opportunity to speak for herself in the situation, and because her right to autonomy was violated she has had to suffer. I found this to be the most convincing argument for closed adoptions.

While both sides of the argument have valid points, I feel that whether or not an adoption is open or closed should depend entirely on the situation. I think that if a child was older when they were adopted and had a relationship with their birthparents prior to their adoption, it could be beneficial to the child to maintain that relationship. I also feel that adoptions should remain closed for children adopted at birth, with no previous relationship with their birthparents, should be able to make decisions about a relationship with their birthparents if or when they feel ready or want the relationship.

--Mary

Blog Post #5

Before this course, I hadn’t really considered open vs. closed adoptions as an issue. I guess I assumed that adoptees would want to find their parents at some point in their lives, and whether they succeed or not depends on the circumstances of their birthparents lives. I never once considered that adoptees in some cases actually don’t have the right to search for their birthparents. As our course has progressed, the complexity of this issue becomes clear.

The best argument I have heard for open adoptions comes from a combination of points made by Linda as well as Pertman. Pertman correctly points out that a mother’s right to anonymity means that an adoptee has no right to their legal birth certificate or blood relatives “even though everyone else in America can freely do so,” (104). Linda added valuable weight to that claim when she told the story of getting her license at 16, when the DMV staff assumed her birth certificate was a fake and would not accept it. Having an original birth certificate that can be used in legally binding capacities is a right of birth, and nobody should be able to take that away, especially for a reason that is totally out of the control of the adoptee. While it is obviously important to know your family and roots, if only out of “curiosity,” I feel that the more important aspect of this is that a fundamental right is being infringed.

The best argument I have heard for closed adoptions come from Allen and Mary’s points. Mary said very passionately that open adoptions “are not in the best interest of the child. They make the adults feel better, but it’s the kids who will have to negotiate those relationships for the rest of their lives.” As Mary has had a difficult relationship with her birthmother, she sometimes wishes that she were not forced to deal with the difficult dynamics that these relationships present. Allen reiterates the point, when she says, “while birth parent involvement may be a blessing in some instances…it may also be a stressor and curse,” (63). I imagine it is extremely difficult to have such a complex family relationship; maybe it is just more simple to leave the nuclear family alone.

My opinion lies somewhere in the middle of these opposing viewpoints. My approach would be to give adoptees their basic rights, but also give them the option of keeping relationships closed if they desire. That means 100% valid birth certificates and adequate (anonymous, if need be) medical history from day one. Records should also be opened when the birthmother dies, rather than closed forever. These are basic rights and should not be compromised. When it comes to the open or closed nature of adoptions, Linda put it best: it should be easier for the adoptees. Certainly birthparents should be protected if that is their utmost wish, but a birthparent should not be able to drop in on an adoptees life. I approve of the current third party approval system for birthparents finding adoptees, but I believe that adoptees should be able to contact their birthparents directly without approval. If their birthparents wish to maintain secrecy, they can deny contact personally, rather than having to go through an intermediary. This approach puts the child first, which should have been the policy to begin with.

Adam K.  

Blog Post #4: Open Adoption

In the past, when thinking about adoption, I was always somewhat confused and unsure about open adoptions. I thought that it would be slightly awkward for all involved and would make the situation more difficult for the biological parent(s) and more confusing for the child. Since taking this class, doing the readings and listening to speakers though, I am starting to understand that the majority of that is untrue.

Pertman discusses in his book how biological mothers struggle with giving their child up, even those most confident and assured of their decision. They all usually experience some guilt and second guess their decision as well as their self-worth. This decision is not an easy one to make and “the insecurities of biological parents, particularly mothers, often run deepest of all – especially when their sense of loss isn't alleviated by contact with, or even information about, the children they carried” (144). Having an open adoption allows the biological parent(s) to maintain confidence that they made the right decision and often allows them to have a relationship with their child. It may seem confusing to someone outside the situation but for those involved it becomes their normal.

Mishon talked as well about the wellbeing of the biological mother. A question that came up was about who the client was at Catholic Charities. For them, the biological mother is the primary client and what she wants is priority. It is true that the adoptive couples are also their clients but they are more secondary. And overall the child’s best interests are taken into account. I really liked how she explained it. It gives the biological mother the control in the situation which helps her make the best decision for her and for her child.  After listening to Mishon talk about what all Catholic Charities does and I was surprised initially by the low number of closed adoptions they do and that the vast majority of them were open or semi-open adoptions. The range of open adoptions was also something I had not known about previously; I had always believed that if it was open then it was completely open.

I had always thought that closed adoptions were the norm but after listening to her explain how open adoptions work it definitely made more sense to me why they are becoming more and more common. Like Pertman discussed, the insecurity of biological parents is something that would be incredibly difficult to deal with and having some kind of connection with your child can make a huge difference in a biological parent’s confidence in their decision to allow their child to be adopted. The extent to which the adoption is open is up to the biological parent but the adoptive parents agree to a completely open adoption before the process even begins, allowing for flexibility in the relationship between the child and biological parents. There are boundaries of course and although I had previously thought that having the biological parent in the child’s life would complicate things (they may want to have a say in how the child is raised for example) I now see that those boundaries are pretty clear from the start. The biological parent is able to see that their child is getting the best life possible and they are provided with the opportunity for a relationship when they are ready. It does not force a relationship and at the same time it doesn’t prevent a relationship.

Lindsey E.

Blog Post #4, Topic 1

Blog Post #4  -Topic 1

One of the most fundamental and commonly reiterated themes in this course is the fact that all adoption decisions should revolve around “the best interests of the child,” (Pertman, 32). This seems like common sense, and yet, in today’s adoption environment, with children unable to advocate for themselves, the standard for what’s best for the child seems to be routinely blurred. This is a topic that came up during Mishon’s discussion of Catholic Charities’ adoption practices. She routinely used the phrase “the mother is our first client” as an explanation for the reasons why they may snub adoptive parents or birth fathers or any other parties involved. It is an unfortunate reality that we must think in terms of “clients” and “non-clients” when dealing with something so precious as a child’s fate. During class, I asked whether this client-business relationship was putting the best interests of the mother before all else. The answer was that the mother’s best interests are assumed to be the best interests of the child. This doesn’t sit well with me. Its one thing to give the birthmothers the rights they deserve, but it is another thing entirely to blindly follow their will and assume it’s the best possible decision. I know I may sound like the horrible “baby scoop” parents who forced their daughters to give up their children because what’s “best” was decided for them, but I believe it is certainly possible for the best interests of the child to deviate from the wishes of the birthmother. We have learned that birthfathers have some rights, and when a birthmother is giving up her right to parent, the birthfather has a right to parent that he may exercise as well. However, even Mishon herself said that they strongly advocate for mothers to put off signing the adoption papers for as long as possible, given the fact that once they do they relinquish all rights and the fathers can do as they please. The idea of mothers “relinquishing rights” and fathers “doing what they please” sounds downright terrifying, but thinking with a rational mind, is delaying the adoption process for this reason really in the best interest of the birthfathers, adoptive parents, or even the children themselves? It just sounds to me like the adoption agency is making sure the birthmother is aware of a loophole that could be exercised on her, at the potential expense of the other parties involved. I agree that the vast majority of the time, the birthmother will have the best interests of the child in mind, but I also believe that giving nearly all of the rights to birthmothers on a “client-first” basis seems to put the process on ethically shaky ground.

Adam K. 

Blog Post 4 (option 1)

For the past few weeks we have been learning so much about adoptions that took place before the 1980s that were very closed off, and the impact that those situations had on the people involved in those adoptions. Because of this it was interesting to her Mishon talk about the history of adoptions that Catholic Charities has done in Minnesota since the earlier 1900s. She mentioned how essentially all the adoptions done before the later part of the 1900s were very closed off and left many people on both sides wondering about their biological relatives. For this reason it was nice to hear how in recent years this has not been the case, and that most of the adoptions she handles are at least semi-open, if not completely open. This is something that we have been talking about in class as something that many of us feel is a good direction for adoption to be moving in.

Mishon also discussed the process that individuals go through and the counseling that they receive prior to deciding to place their child up for adoption. She explained how the counselors at Catholic Charities never push adoption on a person, and that they want to make sure that adoption is a choice that they themselves are making, and not something they are deciding because someone else is telling them to do so. I feel like this approach to the adoption process is nearly opposite to the process that the birthmothers from the 60s and 70s, from the class readings, went through. From those readings it always seemed as though those women had no other choice, and were sometimes sent away to give their children up with no information about their child, where it was, or who its adoptive parents were. The author of one of our class reading outright says that women who gave up their babies during this time had not say in what happened, “Here I argue that adoption is rarely about a mother’s choice; it is instead about the abject choicelessness of some resourceless women,” (67, Claiming Rights in the Era of Choice). These women had nothing that people in their same situation today would have. Organizations like Catholic Charities are giving these women both choices and resources. It is reassuring that times have changed in that respect.

-- Mary