e-mail
Well the June/July issue of Adoptive Families Magazine arrived yesterday in my mail box and after combing through it I unexpectedly find that I have some mixed reactions regarding the content.
I was excited because I was anxiously waiting to read the information and quotes supplied by my friend and co-blogger Coley for the magazine’s piece on celebrating rituals and traditions in adoption by writer Carrie Howard. The story was an informative jaunt through how birth and adoptive families are creating, sharing, and passing on new style rituals that celebrate our families and honor our connection to each other, a good read.
Another article however had me wondering why we are still getting such a mix of information about the desires of those who place and receive children through adoption. The story, Perception & Reality: The Untold Story Of Domestic Adoption by Eliza Newlin Carney certainly had me wondering where exactly they are gathering the information that they use and from whom
Most of this story seemed to be based on what adoptive parents and adoption agencies are reporting to the powers that be (like the National Council For Adoption, as cited by the article) and not information based on the desires of birthparents who have actually placed children in domestic, open adoptions. One quote I found particularly disturbing was from Mark McDermott, an adoption attorney in the Washington D.C. area. After describing how the fear of a birthparent coming back to disrupt an adoption is often unfounded (true) he goes on to say, “Almost as far off the mark is the common belief that most domestic adoptions are so open as to constitute virtual ‘co-parenting.’ In fact, contact between the birthfamily and the adoptive family typically involves periodic updates to the birthfamily, often via an intermediary, an experience that adopting and biological parents generally support.”
I found myself wondering in whose estimation would periodic information received filtered through a third party be what most biological parents supported? Could it be the agency, attorney or adopting parents? While I have no doubt that adopting parents are perfectly comfortable calling this passing of limited information through the agency “openness” in adoption, I have a feeling that birthparents feel quite differently.
From the conversations I have had with most of the birthparents I know, and not just those of my own three children, I would have to say the consensus might in fact be that this limited contact is not something they would support. Most of those I know are seeking more contact, be it more frequent updates or more availability of in person contact and visits. Although there may be the individual situations where a birthparent wants limited or no contact (as with my oldest daughter and her birthmother who have no visits per birthmom’s request), those are few and far between.
My thought is that perhaps the real reason that birthparents are reported as “satisfied” with the status quo is that those who are reporting (adoption agencies) have not really educated them enough so they understand more contact and communication is possible. I did however agree with the article’s position that most birthparents are not desiring a “co-parenting” type situation. I believe most birthparents do not wish to impose any parenting opinions on the adoptive parents in their own quest to be respected and honored in the adoption relationship. Once you have gone through all the trouble to put together an adoptive placement for your child, you want to know they are thriving and happy, you want to see them and grow your own relationship with them, but that does not equate to co-parenting.
Two of our adoptions were not through an adoption agency. I know when we suggested very open situations to their birthfamilies, they were shocked to say the least. They had no idea that it was even a possibility, which shows how very far we have yet to go to educate placing parents. With our son’s adoption his birthparents had been working with a counselor through the maternity home where the birthmother had been living. Again, no one had even suggested to them that they could ask for more than occasional letters and pictures. They were very surprised when we informed them they could.
While the article was mostly factual in nature it was heavily skewed toward the interests of adopting parents. I understand that is the readership of the magazine (I have been a reader myself for over a dozen years) but the truth is that they need to be more factual and honest about how adoption contact and decisions are truthfully viewed by birthparents. It might be scary at first to adopting parents but that is part of the evolution of truth and openness in adoption and adopting parents must be willing and able to accept the challenges for their future children. I will keep reading, and hoping too that things will eventually get there.
I agree with you, Deb. In my wildest imagination, I cannot imagine many birth parents being satisfied with contact through an intermediary as opposed to actual face-to-face contact. All the indications that I see too point to birth parents wanting actual visits.
Articles often love to suggest what birth parents are satisfied with or like – but no one asks birth parents much of the time.
As for co-parenting, I think suggesting that open adoption is co-parenting is a scare tactic used by some to avoid open adoptions. No one I know has any illusions that open adoptions are co-parenting.
I haven’t read this article yet! But there was another article that caught my eye that might makes it way to the blogs if I ever get to breathe!
Deb, I was so excited to see such a big section on domestic adoption, but was similarly disappointed with how it addressed openness in adoption. Having so many professionals relying on sharing information and pictures as the sum of open adoption, really does a disservice to everyone involved. It also is very annoying to have to battle that stereo-type everywhere you turn when you (first and adoptive families) are trying to build your family relationship and a fully open adoption. I do love Adoptive Families and it does have some very good articles on open adoption from time to time, but this one obviously had a different focus.