I admit I am bossy. I like to get things done and in the way I want to get them done. If you frame it in a nice and friendly context, I am a bit of a leader.

When it comes to the relationships in open adoption there are definitely those who lead their situation by making the arrangements and seeing everyone stays involved. I admit that this has often been my self appointed role in our three open adoptions. I pick dates, make phone calls, send letters and pull people together for functions, often when they seem uninterested. Are they uninterested or simply just the set “followers” in our relationship?

There are also those in open relationships who are more content to follow the set direction and go with the flow. Some of the people in our children’s birthfamilies fit this description. They seldom write, unless requested, they call less often than we do, and most of our get togethers take place at our request. There are a few in one birthfamily however who are very much the leader types. They arrange their own events and extend invites to our family quite a bit. What about your situation? Are you a leader or a follower yourself?

The belief out there is that adoptive parents are most often the “leaders” in the roll of ongoing contact being carried out. The thought is that they hold all the cards and can decide whether or not contact even takes place, so that makes pretty much sets them up to be leading the arrangement. If this were so, by definition of their legally defined roles, then adoptive parents would always be the “leaders” in every open adoption relationship. This would then also imply that birthparents are always the “followers” when it comes to contact. Because of unenforceable contact agreements in most situations that is the legal assumption anyway, but is it always true?

I have to believe that our assumed roles do not always fit us in every open adoption. I have experienced it as well. Some of my children’s birthfamily very much prefer to control the visits and level of contact we have, others prefer to wait and see what we are interested in doing. This often puts us at odds with each other. Still other members of some of my children’s birthfamilies are way into the following. They almost always need to be pushed, pulled and shoved along concerning contact. I am thinking that most people however clearly fall somewhere in the middle ground. They do not want to run everything, yet they do not wish to just sit back and have limited input either.

What does an adoptive family do if they are not firm or authoritative types of people? How do they bear the responsibility of keeping an open adoption running and open if they are not leaders at heart? An open adoption, legally, clearly expects them to take the leadership role for contact. If the birthfamily are not assertive people themselves, a third party might be needed to set the tone and help to arrange visit and set expectations.

What if adoptive parents desire too much control, to the point of opting to discontinue visitation because it does not meet all their requirements? As parents is that their decision, or in adoption is more to be asked of us? Sometimes, there is a harmful imbalance and someone is left feeling as though they have had not had a choice about leadership in the outcome. They have been made to feel following is their only choice. One of the most difficult things in open adoptions is the imbalance of power, but with more than one set of parents what is right? Adoption is not co-parenting, but it is *cooperative parenting.

What if the birthfamily are more of the leading type personality? Is it acceptable for birthfamily members to be the deciding force in contact and visit decisions after an adoption is final? How much of what happens after the adoption applies to what was decided before, and is also subject to change as the relationship changes and grows? When an initial agreement for contact is made it needs to be kept in mind that lives change, situations arise and changes in the original agreement should be flexible toward that end. Adoptive and birth family need to assess if the contact is what is needed for the child and not solely about what they need for themselves.

Ideally in open adoption all parties involved would have the ability to share leadership and follower roles as the situation required. *Equilibrium in open contact does not mean that one side may dominate another, it simply means balance. When it comes to leadership roles in open adoptions it is great if they can gravitate back and forth depending on the situation. Some days adoptive parents might find it nice to take a following role about the details of a visit, other times they may prefer to be the leading influence. For birthfamily having the ability to occasionally assume a leader role concerning a visit might be helpful in their own process as well as show their birthchild that they too are respected members of the family formed by adoption.

*cooperative (also co-operative) >adjective 1: involving cooperation. 2: willing to be of assistance.

*equilibrium >noun (pl. equilibria) 1: a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.

Child-Rearing Disagreements