Should Adoptive Parents be Chosen before the Birth?

Question

Is there pressure put on mothers considering adoption to choose prospective adopters before their child is even born?

Does this makes it very hard for them to disappoint them later?

Should pre-birth agreements be considered Coercive?

Answer 1

- yes... well, as in my case, the parents were already chosen. they were simply waiting in the wings, crossing off the "unsuitable candidates" until their prize cow came prancing in...

-absolutely... especially if she's ambivalent about the placement, received money or gifts or allowed them to attend OB appts/childbirth classes/ delivery, et. al.

-it *can* be.  although there are some young women who seem solid on their decision, others (the majority, i'll posit) are quite unsure. hence all the "i didn't know how badly it would hurt", "they closed the adoption because the baby cried for me after i left" that happens to b/f/n parents after placement.

personally--and i was thinking about this as i was driving in to work this morning--why can't we "adopt" the aussie's system, like possum points out often??  i like the idea that babies are not available until after birth, there are no pre-birth anything going on, the potential b/f/n-mom's expenses are paid by the government and there isn't the degree of corruption as in the US/candian systems...

ETA: allowing the baby to stay with the f-mom after birth is coercive because  all the logical decisions made before birth are now clouded do to the "chemicals" and making google eyes???  i'd posit that someone who believes that mumble-jumble is on some "chemicals" which would be illegal in most jurisdictions...

wow...isn't that special.

Answer 2

It makes no real sense to me at all to have pre-birth matches.  Deciding whether or not to relinquish is so absolutely huge.  I don't think people realize to what extent.  Having a pre-birth match, especially one where the PAP's are paying for medical care and so forth, can easily make the mother feel that she "owes" the child to the PAP's.  No one owes their own flesh and blood to anyone else.  Look at the problems that can arise if a mother changes her mind after the birth when a pre-birth match has been made.  It doesn't take much to see how that can go awry.

A mother needs to make this decision without PAP's as part of it.  This is a decision that she needs to make on her own or with a counselors, pastors, friends and family members of her choosing.  Choosing to parent when it seems scary is brave and commendable.  Married women with planned pregnancies do it all the time.  Many are scared, but they don't relinquish their children because of it.

As for potential adoptive homes being "better" than staying with one's own mother, that's just a stereotype.  Being involved in the adoption world as long as I have been, it's very clear that adoptive families come in all the same varieties as natural families, because both are made up of mortal human beings.   Adoptive parents don't suddenly become endowed with super parenting skills that natural parents don't have.  They are human.  Just like natural parents, they fight, some divorce, some have alcohol problems, some abuse, some have  actually killed their adopted children.  

In natural and adoptive families alike, there are the good, the not so good and the downright horrible.

Answer 3

It is my belief that everything should be signed and sealed before the baby is born.  The baby should be handed over to  the adoptive parents ASAP.  Why?  because I believe bonding with the baby does chemical thing to the mother and makes her loose her perspective.  All the really important and logical decisions she made before the birth suddenly don't seem so logical if you are making goggle eyes at the baby!

Move the baby out to his or her new and better (for both of you) home NOW.  Get it done.  The mother can move on with her life and , hopefully, not make the same mistake again. Having the baby is "coercive".

Answer 4

It seems there is all kinds of pressure on pregnant women to "make an adoption plan" before anything exists to be adopted.  I can see the advantages in this--it's pitched as "choosing your baby's parents" after all--but it is inherently coercive.  A pregnant woman who's considering adoption is vulnerable, and a healthy infant is such a "hot commodity" nowadays that I don't think she'd have to say she's considering adoption more than once for her to find herself surrounded by people telling her constantly that the best thing for her child is to give it away.      

Note that if a woman branded with "birth mother" before she has a child falls in love with her own offspring, it's "making goggle eyes" and a tragic development.  Yet society thinks it's sweet when PAPs claim to do bizarre thing like "fall in love with a sonogram."

Adoption is strange.

Answer 5

I am adopted and my adoptive parents were not told about me until after I was born- that was almost 50 years ago-

however we have 2 adopted children, whose birth moms selected us as parents before they were born.  No one came to them and forced them to place for adoption- they went directly to an adoption lawyer- and were given a choice. It was their choice. Sometimes I think that people think they have no choice- if our 2 birth moms were not sure, they would have waited until after the births. And by the way, both of our kid's birth moms were told that they could change their mind if they decided too.

Answer 6

I have only our experience to draw on, but I'll share.

Our son's mom decided very early in her pregnancy that she was going to place.  It was that, or an abortion, she was absolutely not going to parent this particular child, and had never planned on having any children.  She contacted an agency, and was handed between fifty and a hundred profiles, about five of which she interviewed.  She chose none of them.  The adoption agency was livid.

We met her by a fluke, over the internet.  We belong to an international club, and she happened to be a member as well.  She had posted a note about her circumstances to their newsgroup, and was receiving some very nasty mail from some members about her adoption plan.  A friend of ours, who happens to be a birthmother herself, had intended to post a private note , and sent it to the list instead.  This is where we got involved, because my hubby saw "friend's name" and "pregnant" and opened the letter.  He and I are both adult adoptees, and we wrote to our son's mom, letting her know that she was making a good choice.  We joked about "where should we go to apply" not thinking for a minute that she would take us seriously.  We were in the gathering documents stages of adopting from China.

To make a long story short, we ended up being offered the chance to adopt her child, and did.  She very graciously allowed me to be in the delivery room.  We were very clear with her that this child was hers, and that she had every right to change her mind.  In the hospital, we used the name she had chosen

I think the months  long relationship we had with her did make it harder for  her to change her mind, and that the agency would have been VERY coercive, if she had chosen one of their couples to parent.

We adopted out of state.

On the other hand, in our state, the child goes into foster care for thirty days after birth, and is often moved several times in that time to prevent them from bonding with any one caregiver.  Mom has thirty days in which to change her mind, and has visitation with baby for that time.  Adoptive parents, if they have been chosen, are also allowed to visit with baby.

IMO, this situation is less than good, all the way around.  AP's bond with a child who might or might not come into their home, children are bounced from one site to another, and don't get to make strong early bonds.  This sometimes affects them for life.  Mothers are separated from children, and some foster parents and agencies make visitation as difficult as possible.  TPR doesn't occur for thirty to ninety days after birth.

I think it is better for baby to go straight from one mother to the next, but that Mom #1 should have several days (as many as she needs) with her child to make that final decision. There should be a setting where she can take her child with her, post hospital, if she cannot take her child home (our son's mother's parents refused to see the baby, or to allow her to bring him into their home), and that those living arrangements should be free of charge to her, until she has made her final decision.

Answer 7

Yes

Answer 8

In some cases, yes and in some cases, no.  I wish it was just a simple cut & dry answer.  But the reality is that every situation is different.

I do feel that pre-birth matching does open up a whole set of issues for coercion and disrupted placements, etc., for all sides of the triad.  Whether it is a pregnant woman who is being coerced into making an adoption plan, or an adoptive parent being told incorrect medical info about the pregnancy, anytime that you have this type of situation, coercion and immoral practices will exist in some agencies.

However, I do believe that every situation is different.  If a pregnant woman is doing something to harm her child thru the pregnancy (i.e. drugs, choice to ignore prenatal care) or has found to be abusive to other children in the past and the new child is considered to be in danger, I do feel that a pre-birth match is most beneficial to the child so that they do not need to become a product of the foster care system (which I believe contains it's own coercion tactics).  

Our child was 3 months old when we met him.  By the time we brought him home, we were his third set of parents.  In that case, I do believe that a pre-birth match would have been best for the child so that he did not have to experience the loss or sense of abandonment so many times.  

So I guess to answer the question, I just believe that every situation is different and judgment should be made on each individual case - not as a "overall" generality on adoption.  Does that make sense?

Answer 9

Once again, we automatically have people assuming that the adoptive home is always the better home.

WHY IS THAT???

I JUST do not get it.

Just because a woman is unsure of herself, unsure of her situation now, unsure of the million and four reasons that she could be considering placing her child, does ANY of it mean that the baby is automatically better off with adopters?

NO.

To answer your question, Yes, Yes, and YES.

How can you know if you can successfully parent your child if you don't even give yourself a chance to try?

Answer 10

It depends on the situation, how its being handled and by who.  If adoptive parents are chosen they should know that the birth parents can change thier mind/s.

Answer 11

I don't really agree with pre-birth matching under certain circumstances.  If the woman in question is DEAD CERTAIN about placing her baby, then if she chooses to set up pre-birth contracts and matching, that is her thing.  But women like that are so far and few between, agencies wouldn't make their money.

But more often than not, the women who consider adoption are not sure of their decision.  And that is when pre-birth agreements or matching is considered coersive.  The woman goes through the motions only to decide at some point that she cannot possibly relinquish but feels obligated to do so for whatever the reason (pressured into allowing the PAP's for doctor appts, being present for the labor and delivery, etc).  Personally, I do agree with a lot of people:  if the woman is unsure, give her a few weeks to attempt to parent the child.

Answer 12

As adoption stands in Australia - NO pre-birth matches are made.

A women gives birth - she is then supported both emotionally and financially to parent the child.

If AFTER all this - the mother decides to give the child up for adoption - then adoptive parents are chosen.

Adoption is also government run in every state (NO private adoptions) - and adoptive parents are chosen by the government - not the mother. (I believe the mother may have some say - but I'm not sure)

It is the reason why we have under 500 adoptions per year - compared to over 130,000 per year in the US.

Pre-birth matching can be very coercive on expecting mothers - in so many many ways - and on so many levels.

I'm proud of Australia - and their pro-family preservation stance.

Answer 13

Most birthmothers tell me that they want to choose the adoptive parents ahead of delivery in order to feel reassured that their child will be bonding with the parents from the get go, so they will not need to take the baby home, and so that the child will not get lost in foster care.  Birthmothers are offered foster care as a routine, to allow her time to consider her decision after delivery, but few opt for it. Some do.  I do not believe that adoptive parents should be selected until later in the pregnancy however, and personally do not suggest selecting adoptive parents until around the ninth month of pregnancy.  I explain that choosing before can put subtle pressure on a birthmother, even if she doesn't realize it.  Agencies should never allow selecting adoptive parents early in the pregnancy, and should always offer foster care.

Answer 14

I feel that if throughout th epregnancy you know that you ar eputting your child up for adoption then you owe it to that child to find the proper parents well before he or she is born, there is a long process that needs to be taken before you just hand your baby over to anyone, and I dont think this decisions is made as rationally when the baby is there is you arms, doing it before gives you ample opportunty to think it over and make your decision

Answer 15

I do think prebirth  agreements are coercive.  I believe that a mother who is considering relinquishing should be given full disclosure on what are the possible outcomes for her and her child with adoption.  I think a mother should have adequate time to make up her mind.  She also needs to be free from coercion and pressure.  This includes financial, mental and emotional pressures.