Is "adoption triad" really accurate terminology?

Question

Aren't there more parties involved in an adoption than three? Why are the others not mentioned, especially in light of the fact of the additional powerful roles they play in the process? (agencies/ lawmakers/ judges/ social workers, etc.) Is there anything that would be more accurate?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this.

Answer 1

since "co-opting" is so common around these parts' i'll do a bit of my own...

-"a triad implies connection."--i emphatically agree.  when i was placing my son, the ONLY connection i felt was towards my son, and i was condemned for doing that.  

-"a better term is 'adoption labyrinth."--eloquent, yet simple.

there's nothing more i can add...

Answer 2

Some good answers already...  The lack of equality among the three corners of the traditional "triad"...  The addition of the agency and the state...

The only thing I can think to add is that for awhile, I've been struck by how small the number three is.  My three adoptive siblings have been affected by adoption (mine).  My four half-brothers have been affected by adoption (mine).  My nine adoptive aunts and uncles (plus their spouses).  My six first aunts and uncles (plus spouses).  Innumerable (by me, anyway) cousins.  And I have yet to find my first father, so those numbers will climb.  They don't each react the same way to my adoption, so representing each of those individuals  with a single corner of a triangle seems to minimize their feelings.

It may be true that adoption wouldn't happen without the traditional triad.  (I will say, though, that given the adoptee has no say in what happens, and given how the adoptee is ignored when he or she grows up, I sometimes think that adoption can and does happen without the adoptee in a very important sense.)  But a single adoption can (as in my case) impact hundreds of people in a very real way.  "Triad" thus strikes me as an over-simplification.  It may be helpful, at times, but like most helpful terminology, we must remember it is, strictly speaking, false.

Answer 3

The most important parties are three... Adoptee, Birthparent(s), Adoptive Parents.

Without any one of these three parties, the whole process stops.

Answer 4

I always thought of the players as the legs of a chair, but adoptees being that short little cross-bar where everyone puts their feet.

Because we definitely don't hold an equal position, and we definitely get stepped on if we "get out of line".

Hope I have a right to answer and not be "disregarded" simply because the Board Royalty has issued a command...

Answer 5

For me, it is definitely not a triangle, something much closer to the pentagon or labyrinth.  

And where does the state fit into this shape analogy?  It is a big part of my adoption:  chose my aparents and holds my secret documents.

Answer 6

I think people have nailed it.  There are so  many players in adoption and the importance placed on the various roles is not equal. If the AP's and first parents (therefore potential adoptees)  were the only members of adoption, it could have slowed greatly and kept adoption from gaining momentum in our society. I'm looking historically back to the period of the orphan trains.  Because there were so many more agricultural families at that time, people were quite willing to take in these orphans because they really needed as many hands in the family as they could get.  As we became more agricultural, it became more difficult to get people to take in children without parents.  People had doubts about these children who they felt could have come from "bad stock."  This concern was weighted against the need for more hands by the agricultural homes, so these people were willing to overlook that to the extent that they would take in these orphans.  However, these children weren't needed for the increasing number of industrial families.  So, the "tabla rasa" theory arose by those working in social services and adoption began to be discussed by them in philanthropic and emotional terms.

So, the social service workers were needed in order to "create" more PAP's.  One of the other players outside of the tradition triad was actually necessary and capable of putting that leg back.

Answer 7

Perhaps a better term would be the "Adoption Labyrinth".

Answer 8

A triad implies connection, yet connections between the adoptee and birthparents are severed.  Therefore, a triad or other such shape is not accurate.

Answer 9

No the 'triad' does not exist.  The Adoptee, the Adopters, the First Parents, the State and the adoption 'professionals' - now, my math is not the greatest by my own admission but, that makes FIVE, right?

In addition, the word triad/triangle implies that all the sides are equal (cough cough)   This is wildly innacurate in relation to adoption.  The ADOPTEE is the only member of the 'triad' whose civil rights are abrogated

Answer 10

Sounds like it was invented by agency 'professionals'.  It makes adoption sound organized and fair, when really it's a big mess.

I've always thought it should be turned upside down, with the point facing downward.

Then the APs, agencies, attorneys, and social workers could be in the top (largest portion) echelon.

The natural parents in the middle, who had their own lives before the adoption, and didn't lose ALL their family,  in the middle, less powerful position.

And finally, the bottom, and the 'tip', where ALL the pressure mounts, and houses none of the control.

Yup, that's my idea of an accurate triad.

Answer 11

No, it is not.

Answer 12

No it isn't.  It doesn't reflect the state governments and the agencies/attorneys role in our lives.  Another friend of mine described it as a plane with both sides of the adoptee pulling.  I think that is more accurate.  Triad also suggest equal power.  There is no equal power.  When the agencies and states have absolute power over all of us, the remaining power is delegated to the adoptive parents.  That leaves the remaining members with nothing.

Answer 13

I'm with Heather--it's a pentad.  (Pentagon?)

Since we assigned a "corner" of the "adoption triangle" to the first parents back when they were considered the invisible parties to an adoption, we can certainly assign corners to the agency and the state to call attention to their roles in the matter.