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.