Positive adoption language - why not "reunion"?

Question

I'm know a lot of the reasons why agencies push positive adoption language, some I don't have a problem - some of it I definitely have a problem with, and some I don't use because it's hurtful to some people.

But, in looking at a list today, why would "Reunion" be on the negative side of a list of adoption terms? Instead they used "Made contact with"

This one just bothers me - not using the word reunion, using made contact with instead of reunion - it just takes all of the emotional connotation out of the word, and denies that original connection.

Anyone have a "good" reason why reunion would be on the "negative" side of the positive adoption language list?

Answer 1

You're absolutely right.

It takes the emotion out - and hinders reform.

Adoption agencies want adoptive parents to pretend that once children are relinquished and adopted - that the link between bio family and adoptee are completely severed - that the adoptee will never feel the need to want to know about that former connection.

It's all in the cause of making more money - and making adoption into something it isn't.

Adoption is NOT about getting a child to pretend it's a bio child.

Adoption is about taking a child (either by choice or via coercive measures) from one family and then placing it in a family of (usually) complete strangers.

That's what it is - but the 'positive adoption language' that comes from the adoption machine wants to make-believe that children will never want to know where they came from etc.

It perpetuates the lies and untruths in adoption.

Thank you for pointing this out - yet another way in which the adoption machine want people to believe that adoption is something that it is NOT.

(adoption machine = NCFA & most adoption agencies - that want newborn infants to make money from)

Answer 2

Maybe because "reunion" is a term that could signify a positive or happy event, however, when meeting after an adoption it could go either way.

Answer 3

Yah, I agree.  It's just the adoption industry trying to dehumanize our mothers and extended families.   They can't succeed in that though.

It's yet another example of the adoption agencies trying to tell people how to think and feel - kind of insulting in itself

Answer 4

I "made contact" via telephone with my first mom and a week later, we were REUNITED...in person...face to face for the first time in 20 years!  Our 'first contact' was joyous!  And to this day, I can get teary eyed when re-telling the story of that first phone call!

We were SEPARATED for 20 years by a system that decided a child was better of with a married couple (i.e., an alcoholic & abusive couple) than with a single, working poor mother.  Court records show no allegations of abuse or neglect by my first mom.  So at the age of 3, I got "new parents".   And THAT'S how she 'LOST ME'  to adoption...and I lost her... Pfft...it's not always the mother's "choice".

In my first mom's eyes, we were REUNITED on that day we were first face to face again.  In her family's eyes - all of whom knew about me and were waiting for me to find them - we were REUNITED when I first saw them - after 'making contact' by phone.  

Like you said, "So many of the terms "they" tell us to use are meant to de-personalize the first mother and the bond between mother and child."  Moreover, the terms are meant to minimize the bond between a first mother & child,

And someone else said, "adoption language is aimed at making adoption sound better, i.e. so it doesn't sound like the adoptee's losing all their biological family."

It's MARKETING to the PAP's/AP's.  Consider the source!  LOL

And while I get jm1970's point about getting all hung up in adoption language (rather than needed reform), creating words that minimize or trivialize the emotional impact of adoption is annoying.

Answer 5

hmm I don't know it seems like reunion would be a far friendlier term then "made contact with".  I guess maybe reunion is too emotionally based.  I can't say I agree with that one but I am not an expert either.

Answer 6

I don't really remember which terms my agency used.

When I speak of my older son's family, I say "made contact with" because he's adopted internationally, and that's all we have right now - contact.  When I get the airfare saved up (danged fuel prices)  and I bring him home to see his family, then it will seem like reunion.  My son's not ten years old yet, he doesn't have much interest either way, but when he does, I'll definitely follow his lead in terminology. I guess I think of 'contact' as a lesser connection than reunion. Reunion is something we kind of aspire to, contact is what we're settling for in the meantime.

Answer 7

Oh dear lord, positive adoption language makes me want to yark. Reunion is what we have when our lost children are found or find. In my opinion the "list" of positive words is for adoptive parents, not for the rest of us! Certainly words have power, well you know what? I refuse to give some words power, I use the term that fits. I do  not use relenquish, I use surrender (because that is what I did in the face of what I was told would happen if I changed my mind, so I gave in to the agency) I use reunion because I was reunited with my daughter, made contact how ridiculous is that phrase? Seriously folks look at the list on Origins-USA.org and tell me which list better describes what happens or happened to first parents..

Answer 8

I think the word reunion implies reuniting with people who were once united...so it doesn't surprise me at all that an adoption agency would try to gloss over that word and call it negative.

Answer 9

Because it reflects that for a re-union to take place, a "union" would have been there together in the first place. That type of language is usually pushed by groups who don't like to honor that "Union" or even acknowledge that unity exists between mother and child.

Answer 10

Oh goodie!  Another term to fight about...everybody take sides!

Ok, I'm not being mean to you, it is just so darn silly all the time...birth mom..first mom..sub mom...  A. Mom..B. Mom now this....

Use reunion, don't use reunion......that is silly.  

I guess you can make contact with someone, but not have a reunion with them.  I guess people with a bad experience may say I am not in any way united with this person...how can you reunite with someone you've never met.  I guess that could be it...I don't know, I don't see a problem.

How can you deny an existing union and thus deny reunion with someone who gave birth to someone?

The point is...there will always be people fighting about the stupiest things and taking attention away from reform and children who really need help!

ETA: I don't think using the term getting in contact with rather then reunion is going to "harm" anyone....I can see how birth mom might hurt someone (but I still think it is better than first mom or natural mom), but getting terms like reunion/getting in contact with is getting silly and not focusing on real problems.

On one level, the only positive I can see in using "made contact with" is like you said to take all emotional connotation out...now hopefully, that contact will result in a reunion, but it MAY not....it could wind up being just another rejection, another disappointment...or it could be a happy reunion

Maybe calling it "making contact" will make it less threatening for all parties involved in the beginning...not just the terrible baby-stealing-kidnapping-selfish adoptive parents (I'm being totally sarcastic here), but also the adoptees and the birth parents who may be scared as well.

I have no doubt that the intention is to soothe adoptive parents, but it may have positive consequences for everyone.  I know it is not widely accepted on this board, but not all adoption agencies are evil, baby snatching places......

I would imagine facing the child you gave up for whatever reason may be VERY scary for a birth parent, even if it is what they want to do...."What if they hate me?"  What if they don't understand why I did it? What if they don't believe I felt I had no choice?

There are people who are going to take issue with EVERYTHING regarding adoption...there is a woman on this board who said she would rather have an abortion that give a child up for adoption....her words were "it would be kinder kill" a child than put it up for adoption.

We have people that feel ALL adoption is abandoned and being abandoned sucks!  Because that is her reality and it is valid for her.

We have yet another who met her birth mother and said it was horrible and she never wants to see her again.

We have birth mothers who were hurt by their children and don't want to see them.

We have birth mothers who like the term birth mothers and first mothers who find it horribly offensive......

You can't please everyone and all this talk about lables and words can hinder real progress, is all I'm saying.

Of course, I do foster care adoptions...my some of my birth parents REALLY were crack heads, abusers and the sterotypes a lot of people have had to fight against.  My kids would view a "reunion" a heck of a lot different than a voluntary adoption from infancy.

My point is there is ALWAYS going to be something that "bothers" someone else...I think we need to focus on bigger issues.

Answer 11

I don't mind "reunion" . . i don't like the "lost" statement (i.e. lost my child to adoption" . . no, you didn't lose them -- you lose keys or socks or something liek that but adoption is a choice . . .you don't just lose a kid

Answer 12

If you say "made contact with", it sounds like the adoptee has no previous connections to the bio family.

As an adoptee, I'd prefer "reunion" since it was a reunion. I may not remember them from last time (since I was only a few months old) but I definitely knew them before.

Some "positive" adoption language is aimed at making adoption sound better, i.e. so it doesn't sound like the adoptee's losing all their biological family.

Answer 13

If you want to use the word "reunion" you should use it and be fine with it.   Adoption language is all about political correctness.   The fact is that sometimes the so-called "correct" words are hurtful to certain members of the adoption triad.    Each family, and each adoptee, should use the terms they feel comfortable with.

Answer 14

The agencies that promote this are probably the same agencies that use shady and coercive practices to obtain their merchandise.  These are the agencies that are in it for the AP's and their money, and are NOT in it for the children and what's best for ALL parties involved.

Anyone who is considering adoption should steer clear of any adoption agency that does not promote language that is positive for the adoptee and "birth" family as well as for the paying customers.  (That is, that likes to pretend that once adopted, the biological ties magically disappear...)

Answer 15

I like reunion and reunited, but I hate the word relinquishment. It's a personal thing for me, because that is the word the agency threw around, oh your not giving your baby away, you are relinquishing her, like that made it better or easier.

Answer 16

Oh Possum, you are so incorrect! NOT ALL adoption agencies want to sever the ties of the adoptee and the bio parents, that is plain rediculous and just not true (very one sided).

Whatever "language" you choose to use is up to YOU.  We all want the best for our children. We all will make mistakes along the way.........This politcal correctness is driving me batty, I swear, however, I do see your point in "reunion" vs. "made contact with". I guess it is up to each person to make his/her own decision on what term they feel is appropriate to them.