Have the rights of natural parents been compromised for the sake of adoption permanency?

Question

It seems to me that legislators in an effort to protect adoption permanency have forgotten about natural parents. Some states have no waiting period to sign consents, no revocation period, and consents do not need to be signed in front of a judge. Furthermore, impossibly high standards have been set for revocation due to fraud, duress, coercion, mistake,etc Do you think this was the intent of legislators or did they just not take into consideration that this lack of recourse for natural parents opens the field for unethical adoption?

I read in one case that the judge said if they gave natural parents too many rights, not as many people would be willing to adopt. Why is that a bad thing? Does anyone else think that's a strange comment. I would think it would weed out the people who are unconcerned with anything other than their own desires.

BTW, I was pleased at least to see the court form I filled out have a section labeled "adoptive parents" and a section labeled "natural parents."

Answer 1

Depending on the adoption agency a family works with can influence how  the view of the laws are seen.  Our 2 year old is adopted (as a baby) and the agency we worked with explained how the waiting period would work (hard because you fall in love with the beautiful little baby the minute she's placed in your arms, but knowing that birth parents can change there mind within 30 days), the open adoption agreement (this is discussed between birth parents and adoptive parents and together they find a happy medium that the agency feels is appropriate for the situation - anything from co-parenting (have birthmom babysit, hang out with family on outings, etc.)  to a few visits/letters each year, etc.   Once adoption is finalized, both sides can continue to work with agency until child is 19 as to changes in the openess agreement is it is not working for one side or the other.  It's really all about communicating with each other and what is best for the child.  

I think legislators are just trying to prevent children being taken away from their family when birthparents find themselves in a better situation so they think that they should be able to reverse the adoption -- who are also unconcerned about anything but their own desires.   Maybe legislators  need to come up with a fostercare type program for birthparents who hope to be able to raise a child at a different point in their life so that they can be a parent to the child in the future.

Answer 2

When we switched from working with foster care to trying to adopt older children internationally, we interviewed many agencies.  All of them started out with an overview of their programs and most of them boasted about what a great state we live in for infant adoption.  There’s a very short revocation period.  Fathers have only a few weeks to see an ad in a paper and then their rights are terminated without recourse. They acted like this was a good thing. I didn’t want to have someone else’s child on a technicality, I wanted a child that truly needed a home. This is why infant adoption scared me and I adopted older kids.

Definitely the laws in my state seem to be driven by adoption agencies & adoptive parents who are concerned about having to give their baby back.  

I think we need to have more uniform rules & better communication from state to state.  There should be a fair amount of time for a woman to change her mind after signing papers, but she shouldn’t be allowed to sign papers at all immediately after giving birth.  She should have independent legal counsel. It’s heart breaking to have an adoption fall through, but who wants to tell their child later “I have you because your first mom waited two weeks too late to change her mind. And we closed the adoption because she just couldn’t accept that.” It sounds like finders keepers.

Answer 3

Why on earth would an adoptive parent providing a secure, loving environment want meddling from the natural parent who could not handle the responsibility?  If a natural parent wants involvement, they should commit to parenting and all the unglamourous things that go with it.

For the sake of the child, sometimes it is better the natural parent is not involved in their life.  The child does not need to feel abandoned, forsaken and other negative emotions when they have parents who are willing to care for them and provide for them, and sacrifice for them.

Answer 4

I don't think our legislators have any idea of the ramifications of adoption on people after 5, 10, 20 or 30 years has passed. They are just ignorant of the whole process and could care less about it. Like one poster said "follow the money"

Answer 5

A quick comment for your first answerer.- are you implying that adoptive parents have a lot of money- therefore more influence- if you saw my bank account you would laugh it is so empty- and I have 2 adopted children- so please don't rationalize and generalize like that.    I do agree that birth parents should have a right to change their mind up to a certain time- there should be a short waiting period, and yes, there should go before a judge- we did 16 and 19  years ago for our 2 children.  And you say that if there will less people to adopt that it would not be a bad thing?  I am not understanding you completely - do you mean that adoptive parents should stop trying to adopt?  Why punish a couple that cannot have their own children.  It almost sounds like you are saying that it is better to parent a child even if you knew for sure that would not be the best choice?  Adopting by the way, is a desire to parent- you cannot say that it is not.  biological parents want to have children for selfish reasons at times, should we stop them from getting pregnant?

Answer 6

Once again someone completely missed the point. Too busy protecting their status. It is an odd statement. It is wierd that first parents have so little rights when they are tricked and coerced. It is amazing how blind people can be to what is going on. Its money. Plain and simple. If they give too many rights to natural parents then most people WON'T want to adopt. they can't pretend that the child is theirs. Is there anything wrong with that? YES it's wrong to confuse a child like that. Just ignore it and it will go away doesn't work with children of adoption. You would think they would have figured that out by now. Actually they have figured it out, that's why the laws are the way they are.

Good question. Thanks for asking.

Answer 7

How do people manage to misread the questions like this? I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but the question is asking if the natural parents have lost protection for the sake of making adoption more "permanent". To answer the question, Yes, I think they have. I think laws should be made to make sure that BOTH parents are doing the adoption completely voluntarily and with all the facts. I think laws like this would protect adoptive parents to because it would make all this expensive and drawn out court fighting less likely, I think. Most of all, it would protect the child because he wouldn't be going back and forth for two years until the Supreme Court finally settles whatever problem there is.

I've been fighting for my son and he is almost four mos now and I've never seen nothing more than a few pictures. I didn't sign away my rights. How is that fair?

Answer 8

Three words: Follow the Money.

Who has the wealth, and therefor the influence with the legislators?

ETA:

No.. I'm implying that adoption AGENCIES have deep pockets, and good lobbyists.