Do you agree or disagree with open adoptions?

Question

I disagree that mother is willing to give that baby up for whatever reason, she gives up all rights to see it.

Answer 1

I think it's none of my business. Just because a mother has to give up her child for a better life doesn't mean she stops loving that child. It's the ultimate act of selflessness to bear a child and give it to someone else. I don't think it's too much to ask for her to be allowed to see how that child she gave life to turned out....to give her peace of mind to know that child IS in a better life and loved and taken care of.

Answer 2

ummm i am adopted & i agree with it because my birth mom was only 16 and couldnt afford to take care of me.

Answer 3

I think open adoptions are kind of like "leasing" a kid, its hurtful in the end.

Answer 4

yes it allows the children to know where they come from and may save alot of grief for when they get older and want to know about things plus it makes the birth mother know her child went to good home

Answer 5

I agree with them, though in most cases an open adoption should be more like a guardianship rather then an adoption.   There is a legalish term for it, but I cannot for the life of me remember it.

It would probably not be your choice to place your child for adoption, however, you cannot force your choices on others.  You do not know what it is like to be in their shoes, so you cannot point fingers at them.

Also, it is very important, in cases where children are not legal orphans (abandoned by their bio parents or both bio parents have died) for the children to have some connection to their "roots".  Even in cases of abandoment and death, the child, later in life, wants to know where he or she came from.  It is only natural.  Not saying ALL adopted children feel this way, but some do.  An open adoption makes this easier...in a TRUE open adoption, it makes it almost second nature, because the child knows all along his first family so there is never any question of where he/she came from.

Answer 6

If only things were so black and white.  However, each situation is different.  Just because a mother is incapable of being financially stable for her child and chooses to do what is best and make the ultimate sacrifice of giving up her child does not necessarily mean that she must be shut out of the child's life all together.  This is coming from a sister of a child who was adopted out by my mother.  It was very difficult for my mother to allow my brother to be adopted by another family, but it was what was best for him at that time.  (It was also very difficult for me.)  The family who adopted him kept in contact with us and sent us pictures.  We could have kept him and he could have lived with us, but we were going through an extremely hard time in all of our lives and he is lucky enough to not have had to endure it.  But it does in no way mean that we have lost love for him or forgotten him.    Our lives are different now then they were then, I am grown and have a daughter of my own.  I know from this experience that if I found myself in the situation my mother was in - I would only consider an open adoption as it is important to know that your child is being properly cared for.

Think about what if a person found themselves incapacitated due to a tragic accident while pregnant - and this person comes to the conclusion that she will be unable to properly care for her child and decides to place the child in adoption -- do you really think that this person suddenly does not care for their child?  that they do not have the right to make sure that their child is safe and secure like they thought?

For some I think it is easier to not know and not share.  An open adoption may leave the new parents feeling insecure.  But caring and loving a child can be done by many.  Like I said each situation is different and you must be open minded when debating such an issue because no one answer is right for everyone.

Answer 7

So, do you think that when we place a child, we no longer care about that child?  Have you ever even HAD a child?  Unless you are involved with a situation such as this, keep your narrow-minded opinions to yourself.  Open adoption is a very good thing.  We do not intrude on the family, we do not ever interfere with how the child is raised....we only want to ensure the child is recieving what we had hoped: LOVE.  I was given the option of open adoption when I placed my daughter.  I agreed to semi-open (occasional photos and letters telling me how she is doing) because I wanted to make sure that her and her new family could bond.  Just as one of the above posters said....I did not want to interfere.  But there are some that work out well with completely open adoption.  Think of all the love the child gets.  (but that grandma was out of line to offer the child to come live with their "real" family, very out of line).  As long as the birthfamily does not interfere with how the child is raised and does not try to convince them to leave their adoptive parents, open adoption can be a blessing to the child.

And the reason SOME adoptive parents close the adoptions is because they are insecure of birthmama being in the picture (or they just wanted her as an incubator)....while it is their right to close it, they should not sign papers or verbally agree and just go back on their word.  It is not fair to the child or the birthfamily.  And they should appreciate what the birthmother did, because if it weren't for us, the childless ones would still be childless.  Be thankful for your blessing and be thankful to whom it comes from!

Answer 8

Open adoption is supposed to be for the child's benefit, in the child's best interest. That you seem concerned with "punishing" the mother leads me to believe you haven't researched the issue at all.

You should understand something thoroughly before you decide if you agree or disagree with it.

Answer 9

It depends on the relationship. When we adopted our daughter we had a open adoption. We were in control of whatever. Now our adoption is closed because of reasons to long to explain.

Answer 10

I think it depends on the what both parties agree on.  I am adopted and so is my sister, but both of the adoptions were closed.  

I don't think the birth parent should have the right to tell the adoptive parents how to raise the child or what they can and can't do, but I think open adoption is ok.

Answer 11

This may be the case with private adoptions, however, most agencies are encouraging "open" adoptions now. The word Open, means many things. It can be a simple as letters and pictures twice a year, to physical visits. This of course is an agreement between the birth mother and the adoptive parents, and usually, facilitated by the agency.  In any case, I think closed adoptions are unfortunate. A child deserves to know his/her history, genetic links, "their story" in this life.  To hide this information from any person is a detriment to their identity and individuality.

Answer 12

Well I agree with open adoptions. Its not that the birth mother gets to visit with the child its just that maybe once a year whom ever adopts and agrees to an open adoption will send a letter and/or picture. This lets the birth mother know that her decision was a good one.

Answer 13

Well from some one who was adopted, I am soooo glad they didn't have open adoptions back then!!!! I disagree with open adoptions fully!!!! Once the birth mom gives up her rights, that child should belong fully and completely to the adopted parents! It would have been too weird having my birth mom in my life. Now the only thing I would be willing to bend on, is maybe it could be o.k. to send pics every year just so that the birth mom could see how their child was turning out. That is a curiosity that I know i would have if i were to give a child up for adoption. Open adoptions these days are stupid to me.

Answer 14

I can understand your point but you also have to take into account the childs rights to know the mother who gave birth to him or her, and to be able to find out important medical information. I think it is more important that the adoptive parents don't try and stop the child from making the contact if they decide the time is right.

Answer 15

I believe that completely open adoptions are not healthy for the child if less then 3 years old at time of placement.  That child will adjust to their new home better if birthmother isn't visiting.  If the child is 4 or older, I do believe that the birthmother should be involved somewhat.  In both cases I do not believe in the child calling both adoptive and birth mothers "mom".  Adoptive parents should be the mom and dad, and should be the decision makers in the childs life.  However, I plan on only adopting young children, and I would not do more than send pictures and letters to our adoption agency for the birthmother to get through the agency.

This doesn't work for everyone though, and some people really want to have the birthmom around.  It think is is one of those things that there isn't a right or wrong across the board.

Answer 16

i agree with it, because it help other people who can't have kids and help the kids too because kids need to be surrounded by a family and need intention.

Answer 17

So, when it comes to open adoption, your opinion is that a birth mom should give up all rights to see her baby? I'm confused. That is why there is an option of 'open adoption'-so there can be contact.

In an open adoption, both birth mom and adoptive family agree to what is 'right', and must live by those rules.

There really are no other rules other than one ones that have been implemented and agreed upon by all parties in each individual adoption. What is wrong for one adoption, might be perfectly 'legal' in another.

I am a birth mother who contracted with an adoptive family upon signing. It was agreed that I could contact the mother at any time (via telephone) as long as I did not identify myself as 'birth mom'. (I know her family, and know where she lives, and how to reach her.) I promised to chat only with Adoptive Mom and/or Dad. I also promised that I would not be the one to make initial contact to meet.

That was in the summer of 1986. There has been no contact since the baby turned 13. I had felt that I was imposing, and given that teenage years are quite a confusing time, I decided that I should not continue contact, because of added pressure I may have been giving with  my contacts.

I have kept my promises, and I am sure that this daughter has been better off for it. Yes, I am hoping that she sees my keeping a distance as a loving gesture to both her and her family. Time will tell, I guess.

My sister is an adoptive mother of six children. She has agreed to send pictures to only 2 out of the six birth mothers, because of issues that the other birth mothers had/have. There is no other contact whatsoever.

Each adoption is different. Giving a child up is the most difficult decision a birth mother will ever have to make. Typically, she gives up a child so that her baby will have a shot at a better life.

It is unfair for others who have not been in this situation to make assumptions about what is right and what is not. Also, it is not fair for a woman to be critical of another woman's decisions, even if they have been in the same situation, and the outcomes were different.

Thanks for the oppertunity to vent on this subject.

Calista

Answer 18

I like semi-open adoptions.  The mother can still send letters through an intermediary.  For example, she could send the child a birthday card through the social worker who would pass it on the child.  A lot of adopted children wonder about their birth parents, this way they could have contact.  Also the child could send a return card though the social worker as well.  

In a semi-open adoption the birth mother feels more control and less guilt.  But unlike in an open adoption clear boundaries are drawn for all parties involved.

Answer 19

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article...

I wrote the above article that discusses all the issues involved in open adoption.

I have one adopted son and two biological children, and my bond with all three has been equal.  I don't think, though, if there had been a biological mother in the picture I could have built the same quality of a bond with my oldest son.  I'm not against allowing adopted people to meet biological family once they've grown up and are ready, but adoption cannot be "unpaid foster care" if the quality of the bond is to be built between the adoptive mother and child.

The cold, hard, truth/fact about adoption is that is isn't unpaid foster care.  It does mean signing away all rights so that the baby can be raised as someone else's child.  Biological mothers can't have it both ways (have someone care for their child but keep their hand in as well, even if that's just visiting).

If a mother wants to stay in the picture she should never put her child out for adoption.

The way I see it is this:  People should be responsible and be good and sure they don't allow an unwanted pregnancy to occur when they can't or don't want to take care of the baby.  If they can't do that and they have a baby they ought to figure out what it takes to be a good mother a be one to their baby.  If they can't do that and decide to place the baby for adoption then - for once in their life - they should do what's right for the baby and let it be raised without the complication of having two mothers in the picture and causing possible fractures in the bond between the baby and the mother who did want to raise him.

I know it must be a horrible thing to decide to give up one's child (or, as in the case of my son, have a child taken because you allowed him have his skull fractured).  Even in the best of adoption circumstances adoptive mothers must find ways to present the picture to the child in a way that won't be disturbing.  Adoptive mothers often have to pick up the pieces after biological mothers made a big mess.

I know its horrible for people to give up their babies, but there's a point where they just have to be the grown up and do what's best for the child.

Unless parents specify an open arrangement, the law generally makes adoptions closed and says that giving up the baby means giving up all rights to see it, have your name on the birth certificate, or have the child have your name.

Answer 20

I don’t agree or disagree. Open adoption works for some people. One isn’t going to go into an open adoption if they don’t feel comfortable with it. So its not as if birthparents and adoptive parents who are in one are forced.  For me I don’t think I’d ever do an open adoption if I ever adopted.

Answer 21

I agree with open adoptions but only because in the long run, the child has the right to accept or refuse the parent that gave them up for adoption. Not all people give up their babies willingly...an open adoption is a link to let that child know the reasons. I believe with open adoptions, there should be strict guidelines to protect the children.

Answer 22

I disagree with open adoptions.  3J&2A was right.  I was adopted and I too am very glad open adoptions didn't exist.  I think a closed adoption allows the child to bond into their family and create their own identity.  The biological mother terminates her obligations and therefore all rights to the child when she volunteers for an adoption.  And I think adoptive parents sometimes feel an obligation to the woman who has blessed them with this child that they think it will be ok and that everyone will get what they want.  And maybe it will.  But if it's not, the CHILD has just paid the price.  I know one family in which the biological grandmother came to see the child and told the child that when she turned 18 she could go live with her "real" family.  This is a disastrous situation and although the grandmother was spoken to about it, the damage was done.  This teenager has a lot of anger towards both families and is struggling even more than average teenagers as to where she fits in.  If the biological mother wants to be a part of the child's life she can keep her information updated with the adoption agency and the child can find her if that is what they choose.

Answer 23

It is not about the "rights" of the birthmother, or the "rights" of the adoptive family!  This is not about them!  Adoption is about the child!  Why do some people always try to see birth and adoptive parents as polarizedr?

Statistics have shown that children benefit greatly if they are able to have contact with their birthmother!  That doesn't mean she is always there, comes to the adoptive parent's home every holiday, or calls them weekly, or visits the child monthly.  (Unless everyone wants that!)

I have worked in adoptions for over 20 years, and most  birthparents do not choose open adoption because they do not want to "interfere" with the child's life!  I wish I had a nickel for everytime I have heard that from a birthmother!  That is real generosity.  

And despite the myth, it is usually the birthmother who does not keep up with contact in semi-open and open adoption, not the adoptive parents.  Birthmothers are characteristically not these needy, intrusive, pushy parents who needle their way into their child's life!  (That's a LIfetime movie!)

Most are loving and caring mothers who truly want the best for their child, and believe that the best thing is for them to feel secure with their adoptive parents.  They are so protective of them, that they often choose to live in pain rather than "interfere", and by mostly choosing closed or semi-open adoption.

Another myth is that the birthmother may try to "reclaim" her child if there is open adoption.  Just the opposite is true.  Open domestic adoptions have a much higher success rate than closed ones.  Why?  Everyone, especially the birthmother, feels secure.

Another myth is that children are confused about who is "really" mother in open adoption.  Not true at all.  Children know who their mother is, but can also have a loving realtionship with their birthmother, if she chooses that.  It should always be her decision.

Answer 24

i think that if the mom wants to see the child, and the adoptive parents allow it, then yes its okay. Its okay in my eyes, i dont know tho when the situation would hit me!

Answer 25

I think it depends on the people involved and the situation. There have been successful open adoptions. Just a few months ago American Baby had a wonderful article about a very successful open adoption.

Answer 26

It should be up to the child, not the parent. As an adoptee I would not have wanted my natural parents to have had any part in my upbringing. I needed consistency and direction as all children do. From my perspective it would have been only detrimental if someone else had been confusing me with a different set of values from the ones my parents had been giving me.

I am sorry, but once you give a child up for adoption you also give up the right to have any say in how that child is raised.

Once the child has reached adulthood, then he/she can make an informed, adult decision about whether or not they wish to meet their birth parents