If open adoption agreements were legally binding?

Question

And the aparents breached the contract and the bmom continues to want only limited contact but not to parent the child. Then what happens to the child?

While I'm all for honoring the birth family, I can't help wonder that situations like this could be very complicated and disruptive to the child.

Wht do you think? How do we handle a situation like this?

Answer 1

When a couple gets divorced, custody is enforced.  Often a couple is required to live within a certain radius of one another, say 30 miles.

Why can't open adoptions be enforced?

Since natural parents have relinquished custody, the adopters ARE the legal parents, and make all the rules.

These 'contracts' aren't really contracts at all.  Unless the natural parents share custody, the adoptive parents can call all the shots.

It seems more like an honorary agreement that benefits only the agency and the APs.  They use this seemingly legal document/arrangement to snare mothers into relinquishing their children KNOWING that the 'contracts' can't be enforced.

If they were enforced, potential adoptive parents would drop off, hurting the adoption business.

Same winners, different era.

APs + agencies= win

Natural parents + adopters =lose

Answer 2

Open agreements are moral and ethical agreements.  The adoptive parents; however, have the ultimate rights, and if the birth parents are causing disruption then they do have that right not to honour them.

IF there is no disruption (such as birth parent interference, alcoholism etc. and i am NOT saying all birth parents do this but it may occur) then open agreements should be kept to.

Adoption is not a shared parent model, one set has relinquished there rights, one has gained rights.  I think adoptive parents have to do what is the best interest of the child, and each situation is unique.  To legally bind open adoption agreements would be inviting some bad possible situations.  Again though I believe unless there will be serious disruption or harm to the child that open agreements should be followed.

Answer 3

I think the door should always be left open for the mother and the adoptee.   I have no respect for adoptive parents who close the door permanently.

The situation should be similar to what happens in divorce cases

Answer 4

Heartache happens to the child.  I had an "open" adoption but it wasn't a family member.

Answer 5

normally open adotions end up that way, where a family adopts the child, and the birth parent is known as a close family friend, or sometimes even an aunt, uncle, or cousin... it's a way that the birth parent can continue to see the child and how they are doing but not be the childs parent... i think a lot of open adoptions are done because the birth parents can't afford the child, but still want to be a part of the childs life, and see the child grow so they do an open adoption that way the baby can have a good life, but the birth parent still has some contact with the child

Answer 6

I adopted my children from foster care, so I can only share my opinion from my own experience.

My kid's first family were dogs, basically.  

Yes, it IS disruptive to my children that they had to move to a new family and start a new life...however, it would have been SO MUCH worse to have kept any first family in the picture...they were so mean and careless with them.

All of that aside...I ask that first mothers consider that if they had another child in the future, and were able to parent that child...would they want someone dictating when to send a card or a picture, especially if they didn't really have a bond with that person?

It's bad enough that the adoptive mother has no "biological" bond with her child...and that many times the adoptive mother has to come to terms with her inferility or other issues leading her to adoption, and then have to add people to her life that she may not want in her life.

Of course, I am one, however, had I went the route of adopting to where there would be an open adoption agreement, I would stick to it and then some...because I keep promises I make.

The ONLY way I would break it is if the first family was doing something devastating to my child...and the first family would receive plenty of notice and time to correct whatever it was before I would consult an attorney or the agency to amend the agreement.

That's just me, though.

Answer 7

Regardless of which party breaches the contract, ultimately it is the child who suffers!

It goes far beyond complications and disruptions.  Try absolute devastation!

We are still dealing with the aftermath.