Is it wrong that whoever gave birth to an adopted child isn't allowed to know what happened to that child

Question

How has the human race allowed its women to find themselves in the position where they have to give up the child they have made, and then know nothing, not one bit of detail, of what became of that child?

I'm talking pre so-called 'open' adoption here.

I ask this because one participant keeps yelling online about adult adoptees being 'stuck in the past' and that the 'BSE' is over. It's not. The people affected then continue to be affected by what happened, even today.

Answer 1

I think it's over too.  People know they don't have to give away their children.  They choose to.  Birthmothers are not dumb.  I think it is not wrong for birthmothers to not know, but if I put my kid up for adoption, I'd wonder everyday about him or her...  probably.

Answer 2

I think it is rather better that everyone moves on with their lives.  

Answer 3

The effects of the BSE will not be over until the last child of that era has passed away.

This person is obviously not from the BSE and can not relate to the people who still live it every day.

We BSE era parents are still here and our children still roam the earth with many miles left on them.

My obsolete daughter is only 36 and she is the very tale end of the BSE.

It will be a while yet before it is truely over.

Answer 4

Many women don't really want to know.

If she wants to know what is going on with her child, and she makes that known as part of the adoption process, then she should be kept informed.  

There is very little that can be done about the past, so maybe that is why people keep saying those things.  

Answer 5

An "Open-Adoption" is a legal binding contract which was supposed to be the solution to the entire ordeal. However, it is individuals who choose not to follow the guidelines set before them by the agencies, birth parents, or adoptive parents that cause disruptions.  

Answer 6

Hi Heather,

I can't imagine anything worse than not knowing if your child is alive or not.  Then you break it down to the little things, is he healthy, is he doing well in school, what sports does he like, and will he ever forgive me?  I can not even begin to imagine...How can anyone NOT have compassion and empathy for relinquishing mothers?

Time and time again i hear about "open" adoptions promised to mothers then after obtaining their child, adoptive parents close the door on their promises of "open" adoptions.  The mother is left out in the cold to deal with her loss and grief, forever wondering about her child.  To me, this is nothing short of cruelty.  

"BSE" is not over.  The echoes of the past remain.  Even today i hear people telling First Moms to "get over it" and to "move on" when they search for their relinquished child.  The shame is still trying to be pushed on First Mothers.  How come the voices of First Mothers are NOT heard, even today.  This is so important i have to restate it, HOW COME VOICES OF FIRST MOTHERS  ARE NOT HEARD, EVEN TODAY?

Is "slavery" or the "haulocaust" really over?  or are we still dealing with the fall out from the affects of these tragedies yet today?  We have to remember the past so it doesn't repeat itself.  I know you may say "slavery" and the "haulocaust" are way bigger tradegies than mothers of "BSE".  I'm not here to argue that just that tragedies need to be remembered and the ramifications of these tragedies extends further than the affected generation.

Someone recently said, that BSE mothers didn't really apply to adoption today but i respectfully disagree.  I hear slight echoes of the past in the way current First Mothers are treated.  BSE mothers need to be heard and treated with respect, only then will today's First moms have a fighting chance.

Saying BSE moms don't apply to modern times is to me, a gentle way to being condescending and dismissive of a relinquishing mother's pain.  What a load of c**p!

*stepping off soapbox*  

Answer 7

Back in the olden days, before anyone did any kind of psychological research on adoption, it was out of sight out of mind. What you don't know can't hurt you. The less you know, the better off you will be. You will get over it. Just live your life and forget. Well..... we certainly know now that, that was a load of bull.

Oh ya, that is so wrong.

Just my opinion.

Answer 8

I find this question confusing, Heather.

If a birth mother isn't allowed to know what happens to the child, then it's not an open adoption.

I'm unimpressed that some YA participant yells his/her opinions on adult adoptees.  That's only one person and it doesn't affect my life or my situation or me.  If that person is in error; I don't care.  I don't think that person is worth your valuable time, Heather!

cw

Answer 9

Absolutely! Especially when there is no "real" reason for many infant adoptions in the first place!! To separate human beings who love and care for one another is simply INHUMANE!

I am always amazed at people who feel that it is "necessary" to prohibit a relationship (excepting abuse or other health/safety concerns) between two people - especially when they are biologically related. To me, depriving people of free association with those they care for and/or their personal information is akin to reading only part of a book, giving a fraction of a dose of medicine, half a bath, etc.

It is NEGLECTFUL to the child and is like pre-meditated emotional torture for many who suffer this indignity and second class treatment.

EVERYONE deserves the right to free association, personal information and full and honest answers to questions about their families.

Answer 10

I have different opinions on this.  I can understand why they don't want that mother to know where that child is. I think they do it because they know the new parents are going to take this child and love this child like their own. They don't want the real mom to come in later and want to rip that child away from it parents. I would say that maybe the mom should not be allowed to see that child until the child reaches a certain age and can decide for them-self if they would like to see the birth mom. I think they just do it for the child'ssafety.  

Answer 11

in 1980 there was more openness with state adoptions, that if the child wanted to find out about the parents then there was a possability, but if you were born in 79 then you are SOL.  I think its BS.

BUT  I also think that if a child is given up, then they are given up and under NO circumstances should they be ripped from the adoptive parents and given back to the biological ones.  there was a reason you couldn't care for them, these people took your child and loved it as thier own (probably can't have thier own) and often times the bio parent cleans up thier life and then decides "i want my kid".

now i mean NO offense to ANY mother who has given up her child.  I could NOT imagine that!  I have not done it.  I do know what it is like to have a child you have adopted ripped from your arms. (it wasn't a bio mom so im not on a mission)  it isn't fair to the child.  the child is happy and healthy let them be.  I think as the bio parent there should be a way to find out these things, without disrupting the childs life.  maybe more adopted children wouldn't feel abandoned.  I know so many who want to know why, but aren't able to find out who.  if bio parents were able to send thru maybe an agency a birthday card or something a few times a year and get a note or picture back i think it would make the world a better place.  maybe I will open an agency that does just that when i am done having my babies :-) (thx for the idea)

Answer 12

It is wrong. That is why it needs to be easier to find family member, open adoption records for both parties when the child turns 18.

Answer 13

because you give those rights up once you give up your baby unless you stipulate that you want an open adoption but even that is a sticky situation because the people adopting arent really obligated to follow though on keeping in contact with the bio mother :)

Answer 14

It is completely sick and heartless. Any society that allows this behavior is participating in a human rights violation.  All mothers have the right to raise and know their children.

But adoption agencies and adoptive parents want to get the mother out of the picture, quickly and permanently.  That is why they change the baby's name, so the mother is cut out of the baby's life forever (or so they hope).

And yes, this still goes on today, this problem is not limited to BSE era adoptions.

Answer 15

Yes, I think it's very wrong. It would be horrible to go through life never knowing if the child you gave birth to is safe and happy... or even knowing if the child is alive or dead. I don't think a woman (or man) should have to experience that.

The only exception I see is in cases where the parents knowing identifying information about the child could put the child in danger of harm or abuse. But those cases are not the norm. Most parents could safely be told at least the basic details.

For those who have not abused the child and are not a danger, not knowing whether the child is alive and alright is sad and inexcusable.

Answer 16

Let me be very very clear when I type this.

RECORDS WERE NOT SEALED TO KEEP THE MOTHERS AND CHILDREN FROM KNOWING EACHOTHER.

There is no reason for privacy and secrecy. Mothers were NEVER promised it. Mothers and fathers who've surrendered their rights are NOT entitled to it.

Open Adoptions are NOT legally enforceable in any court of law.

Closed adoptions STILL happen today.

Records seal in all of them.

The BSE isn't the ONLY era where closed adoptions HAPPENED. THEY STILL HAPPEN. And EVERY adoption seals the records today.  Not only are adoptees and natural families affected by sealed records, but MY descendants are effected. My children could have lost part of their ancestry thanks to sealed records, luckily i found my first family, but lots has still be lost.

I'd like to see any facts LC has to PROVE most don't want to know. LMAO. Thats such a lie.  

Answer 17

It's pretty heartless for people who cannot at the very least extend a sympathetic word to first parents who came from a time when there was little option outside of the absolute expectation that one's first born (usually) would be removed from the family.  Some of these women were drugged, blind-folded, never allowed to even see their own flesh and blood child.  The further expectation that it would never be discussed again and that these first parents should just "forget about it" only rubbed salt into the wound.  Have a heart and imagine being in that position and still living with the effects of it.  Some folks are just plain mean.

ETA:

Open adoption agreements are not generally legally binding.  They are simply agreements, not legal contracts.