What year are you folks referring to in your sources?

Question

Many of you are citing issues with "the adoption system" and "the adoption machine". However, you are using your own adoption 20 and 30 years ago as a source.

Our adoption was in the past two years. A lot has changed between the time that you were adopted and the current way things are done. Even an adoption conducted five or ten years ago had far fewer rules than there are today.

Answer 1

You  know LC, I really appreciate your will to understand what others are saying. Thats HUGE. thats an effort. Thank you.

I will try to site the years, i'm referencing when I post.

Answer 2

Google Alison Quets and Stephanie Bennett, two current cases out there in the media right now.

There are many, many more out there this very minute.

The adoption industry has not changed very much at all in thirty years.

Do some research.

Please.

Answer 3

My issues with the system are present day. Coercing young women into giving their children up, adoption being a billion dollar industry, records being sealed, adoptees being told we should be grateful and not grieve, our truths being hidden from us, the loss and pain that comes from losing your mother, being treated like perpetual children, lack of education and information on adoption for adoptive parents, so many foster children being failed daily by our system, people still believing that newborn healthy infants are going to be tossed in a dumpster or abused if they arent' adopted as if our mothers keeping us wasn't an option, being treated as a commodity, that all still happens today.

*ETA* You wrote "I am confused by Marsha's answer. She states that the system is corrupt and evil, but she adopted a child. Why did you buy into this corrupt system? Is it fair that you have "doomed" a child to endure what you have apparently had to endure?"

I adopted older special needs children internationally. I feel that the adoption of orphans and foster children is not the same as domestic newborn adoption. Am I saying that international adoption is without flaws? No. I try to educate others about these issues with my website. I am an adoptee rights advocate. I do my best to allow my children to express themselves about their adoptions, I did not change their names (other than the last name which I only did because it was necessary, however my son still identifies himself as his old last name and thats fine).

Do I think I am the best choice for my children? Absolutely not. They should've been raised by their parents. They should've been raised by relatives. They should've been raised by other guardians in their country. They should've been raised by guardians of their ethnicity here. Unfortunately they were not and I do believe adoption is better than an orphanage. I'm not completely anti adoption even though people keep labeling me as such.

Answer 4

They still seal the records, don't they?  That's what really gets up my nose.  Laws from the 1930s designed to stop prying eyes from revealing that we were, gasp, 'b******s', oh, the shame!  It is not relevant today

Now it's been turned around in the name of birthmother privacy - this was NEVER the reason records were sealed in the first place

Answer 5

True, a lot has changed in the last twenty and thirty years, but some things still remain the same.  

More and more states and agencies conduct thorough background checks of adoptive parents.  Home studies are being completed.  States and agencies are supporting open adoption which allows for some contact by exchanging pictures or letters and even providing for visitation.  Thirty years ago this did not happen.

I also think that many women are not being pushed into adoption.  There is not the same stigma today compared to thrity years ago associated with having a child "out of wedlock."  However, some young girls are still being forced by their parents to place their child for adoption.

Also, laws have changed.  Now, parents cannot consent to an adoption until after the child is born and that consent can be withdrawn.  However, the time given to the parents to withdraw their consent vary from state to state, with some states allowing for 24 hours and others up to 30 days.

I think the main issue, though, is that original birth certificates and court records still remain sealed even if there is an open adoption.  Unless ordered by the court, those records will continue to remain sealed even if a reunion takes place.  

Many adoptive parents ask what is so important about the original birth certificate?  Well, I can see where it is important.   For some, adoption is still a closed process.  The person who was adopted does not know the names of their parents, where they were born, what time they were born, etc.  Many have to rely on information provided by their adoptive parents - information that can be faulty or skewed because it is based on hearsay, speculation, bad memory, etc.  Not only would the original birth certificate provide the adoptee with the name(s) of your biological parent(s), it will also provide the person who was adopted with some sense of identity & maybe reassurance.  The original birth certificate can provide you with a sense of where and whom you came from.  It can also show that your biological parent(s) cared enough about you and loved you enough to give you a name.

In addition, allowing the adoptee to access court records pertaining to aodption and termination of parental rights would shed some light on the adoptee's first few months and in some cases years of their lives.  Allowing the adoptee access to their full record would give the adoptee their full history which I think all people are entitled to.  Would you want to start a book at the thrid or fourth chapter?  Sure you would probably get the gist of the story.  But, still there would be speculation about what happened in the first two or three chapters of the book.  How did the characters end up in the situation they are in in the thrid or fourth chapter?  The story would be incomplete.  Now compare that to the life of many adoptees.  There story is incomplete.  The beginning of their lives are left to speculation or based on hearsay, or other information.  Just like a reader of a book should be given the entire book and adoptee should be given their entire life story.  No matter how hard the adoptive parent tries, that parent does not have the entire story.

For me, there are issues with the adoption system.  There is secrecy.  If adoption is not a shameful thing, then why the secrecy?

I think adoption can be a wonderful and benefical thing.  It was for me and my husband.  We were blessed to be adopted by wonderful families and we know that was the right decision in our cases.  And, I hope that our child feels that adoption was best.  Adoption, in some cases, is necessary.  My main problem with it is the secrecy.  If I want to know my roots, my beginnings, I should not have to jump through so many hoops to discover them.

Answer 6

Okay. Here is the thing. Let's not go into the realm of ILLEGAL. Let's go ETHICAL.

Is it ethical for an agency that claims to be offering AID to expecting mothers to be offering an option that is going to cause severe sorrow, anguish, trauma, PTSD, increased risk of suicide etc etc? Is it ethical to call adoption, THE "most loving option"? Meaning that keeping your child is not loving?

They ARE trying to sell their agenda to women. I don't think the motivation is always even money driven. I think many people have a vested interest in believing that adoption is worth the pain of women who place their children (even if they know how much it destroys most women to lose their children).

Often these are adoptive parents, women who have relinquished who want to believe there was NOW WAY they could have kept and and dealing with their loss by encouraging it to happen to other women (instead of helping put together resources to help women prevent the loss), or occasionally adopted people who also want to believe that adoption was the ONLY way they could have had a good life.

(Who wants to believe their mom went through eternal h**l on their behalf without a necessary reason?)

LC, look at posts coming from women who placed just months ago and the pain they are going through, wondering if they can get their children back. We see them nearly every week, if not occasionally more often. Sometimes we can try to help these women get their children back if they are lucky enough to fall within the revocation period.

Otherwise, all we can do is offer support to a new member of the broken hearted biomom club that no one wants to be a part of. These women are not being counselled about the consequences of adoption LC.

That is not ethical. There are many government funded programs, and such like the National council for Adoption etc, that are literally working to counsel women toward adoption at any opportunity. The goal of convining women to place their children for adoption is still very alive and well.

If a women is unfortunate enough to research adoption through nearly any agency, she will be bombarded with statements like, "women who place their children are more educated and more intelligent"

They do NOT mention that women who are more educated are more likely to read the adoption propaganda that leads them toward adoption, not to mention being persuaded by rich, middle to upper class family members that using financial aid, or going through a rough first few years is the end of the world.

These same women are also the same women who IF THEY KEEP are more likely to finish school ANYWAY, and not be caught in the cycle of poverty that single mothers are always proposed to be in.

Agencies/websites etc that are promoting adoption to expectant mothers provide "counselling" that involves things like writing a list of what the adoptive parents have to offer vs what the expectant mother has to offer.

Um, okay, duh, the adoptive parents are rich. How is that not a coersive tactic to convince women to "see the light" of how much their child needs adoption?

Ethical counseling would instead begin with "what do you want to provide for your child" and then move into ideas for how that women could ACCOMPLISH those goals. Providing positive reinforcement, new idea that may not have been considered and links to resources the client may not be aware of.

Real counseling would involve working on the clients fears about parenting in a way that is focused on success (you can do this, let's find a way) vs based on encouraging a sense of defeat and failure, and encouraging a client to feed into their own fears (you aren't good enough, so you should just give up now and let us place your child).

Also, allowing adoptive parents to buy the expectant mother ANYTHING should be illegal. The hormones that are going on in pregnancy, particularly oxytocin are the human bonding hormones. These women are vulnerable to trusting and bonding with anyone who comes near them. They are afraid and if the person who provides the most comfort and support for them also has a desire to take their child it is a conflict of interest.

It sets up a situation where the adoptive parents are saying "we'll make everything ok. We'll be there. We'll help you. So long as you give us your child"

It creates a sense of responsability for the expectant mom to fulfill the aparents wishes. It promotes the feeling that the only real support she has is from people who will take her child.

Of course the adoptive parents do not continue the support once they get the baby. I have watched within the past few months women who go from being star struck over the adoptive parents being the most wonderful people in the world, to realizing that honeymoon period fades as the adoptive parents feel secure they have gotten full rights to the child and have no legal obligation to the biomom.

Suddenly she is no longer being praised for her "wonderful gift". Suddenly she is not recieving pictures and letters so often. She finds out the adoptive parents changed the childs name when they promised they wouldn't. Visits become less and less frequent.

These women start to realize they were used to get a child during the time they were the most vulnerable. Suddenly, she starts to realize that now all she has left is her own tears. She starts to realize what has happened as the shock and horror starts to settle. Her child is gone. What just happened?

How much would it have hurt for the people around her to have supported her in SUCCEEDING AT PARENTING instead of taking her child from her under the guise of "supporting" her? If you don't want to support expectant parents, that is fine, but don't pretending that paying for housing, medical bills, etc in order to procure a baby from a women is anything other than cruel bribery.

It doesn't matter if this is being done LEGALLY. Is it being done ETHICALLY?

The things that are being done now still result in women falling on the floor in tears of pain, for years and years. Children having to deal with knowing their mothers went through that kind of pain, dealing with abandonment issues.

What's being done still leaves a lot of people in pain. And to me, that means there is room for improvement. Adoption may be an ok last resort option when ALL OTHER MEANS of helping a women provide adequately for her child have been exhausted.

But it is truly the most horrific solution to a lack of resources that I can imagine.

It should IDEALLY be used to help children who are abandoned, abused, unwanted etc find loving homes.

And at times IT IS.

The way it is being practiced right now however.....

is NOT what you are imagining LC.

I think you are very intelligent and have the capacity to understand what is being said here AND I understand why it sounds very foriegn to you. I hope you'll keep listening.

All of my experiences with adoption agency propaganda come from what I read PRESENT DAY on agency websites, the women I talk to that have placed recently, as well as my own experiences with agencies in the last 6 years.

All very recent. The tears are too many. The sad stories are too many. Too many of these women were just scared and didn't really want to lose their children, and should have been guided to resources to help them parent, instead of encouraged to believe they weren't as good as adoptive parents.

If you are ok with those situations happening as long as they're "legal", then I think that is really sad. To me it's not about cleaning the coersion up so that it's nice and legal, it's about making sure that women get sincerely non-biased counselling about the BENEFITS of parenting, and not only the benefits of adoption.

That is not a legal requirement right now AT ALL.

In fact even the kind of lawyer situation that you have described in the past is coersive. I understand why it doesn't sound like it to you, but trust me, it is very persuasive in making a biomom feel dependant on the adoptive parents (for medical bills, for lawyers, for housing etc etc) when she should be encouraged to find those resources herself or from people who are not trying to take her baby away. It also makes her feel more like the well being of her child is dependant on the adoptive parents as well, while her feeling of independance drops lower and lower.

I just watched this happen to a dear friend, and was unable to stop it. As she wakes up slowly it's very painful to watch her yearn for death and go through h**l on earth over this loss and know that I couldn't stop it from happening. : (

Answer 7

Rox rocks.

She gave you THE answer.

Answer 8

Me folks be quotin frum 2005 or thar bouts.  Mite be rong tho' bein prego n awl we aint two smart.

Answer 9

I've nothing to add.

Evidence is all around from TODAY - but you have to want to see it. Not be happy to have it hidden.

Standing, clapping and cheering for the most amazing, informative and truthful account of what adoption really is TODAY - from Rox.

Even I learned new things today.

I do not want to see more mothers and children have to feel the pain that we feel.

I'm giving you 10 thumbs up on I.O.U !!!

Answer 10

There are still problems with the system as they really haven't changed from the BSE.  I placed not even 4 years ago and was not informed of nearly half the things that I have had to find out on my own.

So really, no not much has changed.

And since she cannot get a hold of her OBC or any of that information, how has anything changed?

Answer 11

When you say "a lot has changed...", I'm guessing you're referring to better background checks on APs and stiffer requirements or something.  But I'm not sure what you mean.

Adult adoptees are the only adoptees that have the perspective and maturity to participate in YA.  Their losses in the adoption process are similar to losses of any adoptee regardless of the ethical standards followed.

BTW read Marsha's answer again.  More carefully.

Answer 12

I just put my baby up for adoption 2 months ago and I agree with you. I went through a Christian agency and I found a wonderful family. I have an open adoption and it has been a true blessing. I think adoption has come a long way and some don't really realize it. I think if done right, adoption is a wonderful thing. Not every situation works out, but nobody and nothing is perfect. It's unfortunate and it's sad that it happens, but not every situation is bad.

Answer 13

Anytime money is involved there is going to be scandalous people out there. I'm sure there are scandalous agencies out there. Money brings out the worst in people.

That being said, I'm in the process of adopting my son and my agency is wonderful. They provide counseling to the birth mother before and after the adoption. They provide a place for her to live before and after the adoption. They don't discount babies based on race. My son is biracial and he should not be "discounted" because of that. They believe it is degrading to the child. Also, my adoption agency requires me to be a stay at home mom for the first 5 years. They are very strict.



I think my adoption agency is wonderful and people looking to adopt or birth mothers looking to place should look for agencies like mine.

Answer 14

I relinquished my daughter in 2001.

The pressure and the slanted advertising, the incompetent "counseling," and the bias were incredible... even in 2001.