Wow! How much more do the 'anti-adoptionists' want from people?

Question

I just read a question about fostering a relationship between an adopted child and the birth mother if the parents who adopted him had to move interstate.

I'm frankly appalled at some of the responses! Among much questioning and commenting on this families financial circumstances there were suggestions such as "move the birth mother over with you", and "get her a job so she can move too", along with the obligatory "you're terrible human beings for adopting a child and then having your own life", of course.

Seriously people, how much more do you expect? So your adoptive experiences went a certain way, you don't speak for everyone, not even every adoptee! How about being reasonable and recognising that once people have adopted a child, they are then that child's parents? And exactly how much help do birth mothers continue to need?

Answer 1

I have been on this site reading posts and replies for awhile now.  I have to sayif there is anyone here that I agree with most it is you!  I understand your frsutration and anger towards some of the people here.  I don't ever think that you will win though.  They delete the q&a that they dont like and they thumbs up those that they agree with.  It is a little posse going on here.  There are other sites that cater more towards DIVERSITY and accept anyone without degrading, bulltying, insulting them.  If you would like to know, just email me privately.  DOnt need them to follow, if you know what I mean.

Answer 2

I wondered the same thing, but you and I both know you can't win this argument here. We both know this issue is not really about what is best for the child. Every family with adopted children or not sometimes have to make a move to either further a career or keep a job..life is not always fair to everyone but at least this woman was trying. People tend to forget agreement or not this child no longer belongs to the birth mother but to the adopted family and they know what is best for him or her and from her post it appears that they have her best interest at heart. Shame on people for posting mean things to her and suggesting she support the birth mother. In my opinion if the birth mother really wants what is best for her child she would find herself a job there and make the move herself, it is not the A.parents responsibility to support her. If people here feel so sorry for her why don't they take up an offering for the Bmom and pay for her move themselves. Isn't that what I have heard preached here hundreds of times. Sponsoring a family to keep them together... I have reached a point that I no longer take most of the people seriously, their anger and bitterness has effected their judgment and common sense.

Answer 3

Not sure who the "anti-adoptionists" are...  But since I have a problem with moving out of state when you have an agreement with the first mother for an open adoption, I'll answer your question...

Without getting into specifics, I'd like a person who makes an agreement to live up to that agreement.  When you have a child, by birth or adoption, you lose some of your freedom.  It's called BEING RESPONSIBLE for the child.  What's in the best interest of the child is not taking him away from the mother after agreeing to a relationship with that mother.  

BEING A PARENT means putting the child's NEEDS ahead of your WANTS.  I would expect a parent to understand that.

Answer 4

They not only want it all, they expect it all: the children they birthed, to be on welfare, food stamps, housing, cars. I'm starting to worry that the 'anti-adoptionists' (all those who rave that they aren't but one can read in pasts posts that they are) are actually the "baby snatchers/brokers" they've been accusing the rest of us of being. No wonder people would rather adopt internationally and have closed adoptions. That was sickening what they said to that questioner and I hope all of those who had the most thumbs down reported them.

Freedom has the best idea for these nincompoops who claim they want to keep families together (and never mention the child and her/his best interests, only their own): to pay for the birth mothers' move, housing, car, give her a job and support her financially out of their own pockets. Then they can practice what they preach.

Answer 5

Way too long to read over.  General Answer ? .. People want as much as they can get. People by nature always want more.   Good Luck !  :)

Answer 6

I kinda liked that question. It told me exactly what I need to do to facilitate a move.

I have sole custody and guardianship of my daughter. I am not "allowed" to move closer to my family (natural) because this will take her away from her father. So all I have to do is have her adopted by someone and presto chango... I can move.

Something stinks, and it ain't me.

You once again failed to actually READ the question and the additions to it. This particular child has a relationship with his natural mom. Like he sees her! Like once a week! So since I am pretty sure you just got your panties in a bunch over the first part of my response I think you need to take a second look at the question in err... question.

Answer 7

i agree.  if i adopted a child, there is no way i would be moving the birth mother.  she would get the obligatory pics of the kid, and couple of visits if it were an open adoption, but nothing more.  she gave the child up, knows what type of family is raising the child, and thats the end of it.  the kid can do what he or she wants with her when the kid is older, but not a young child.  I WONT ADOPT THE BIRTH MOTHER with the kid.

Answer 8

Well I think its quite obvious.  An "anti-adoptionist" would want you to not adopt at all.  I mean isn't that what "anti" means?  But I'm not quite sure why someone who finds it important to keep contact with the birth mother is considered to be an anti-adoptionist.   Is that just the word to toss around in this forum for people who disagree with you?  

Very narrow minded.

Answer 9

I've come to the conclusion that most of them really are people who just want to blame their own shortcommings on other people or things...  and have settled on adoption as the most convenient.  I'm sure that'll bring out a whole bunch of "I'm a very succesfull person" replies, but...  honestly...  if you have to justify how successful you are, then you're not.  

Of course, some adoption reform needs to take place.  However, I read the question you were talking about and I too was apalled.  I hope the mother has sense enough to just ignore the meaner entries.  Here were some of my thoughts...

A)  Who said the "agreement" they entered into was for once weekly visits.  I think that would be a very odd "agreement" indeed (since most divorce decrees have less frequent visitation).  Just because the adoptive parents were doing it that way right now does not mean they are obligated to keep doing it.  

B) "Move the natural mother with you" or "Find her a job".  I actually think helping her find a job in the new location woudl be great - provided that the biological mother WANTED to move.  What if she didn't?  Besides, if the biological mother really was this "saint" they try to paint her to be, wouldn't she care enough about the kid to work on getting a job there herself?  Why should the adoptive parents be rooted in one spot just because the biological parent doesn't want to move?  I am all for open adoptions, but it needs to be rememberd that biological parents GAVE UP the child, and their rights to the child, and are not victims.  (Again, I'll hear about how the system is all corrupt and stuff, but seriously, if you don't have the brains or the guts to read your paperwork and go out of your way to find all your options, you're NOT a victim, just dumb).  

C) The mother never said the child didn't want to move.  It's true that in general, kids aren't thrilled about moves, but sometimes they are.  They're moving from the city to a less populated area.  Maybe the kid is excited about things.  Maybe he'll have a bigger backyard, or be able to ride his bike around the neighborhood, or walk to school.  Things like that matter to a 10 year old.  

D)  They were moving close to other family.  The biological mother is no longer his REAL mother.  She's no more important than any other member of the extended family.  Part of the reason this move was so nice is that they were going to be able to move nearer a larger part of his adoptive family (though they were leaving some behind).  Maybe that part of the adoptive family includes other children his age who will be ood for him.  Why do people thing that the biological mother is more important than the rest of his loving family?

E)  These parents obviously did think the relationship with the biological mother was important for their son.  If they didn't, they wouldn't have worked so hard for so long to keep it up.  The mother wouldn't have been on here looking for ways for her son to keep in touch.  Since she's worried he about the fact that he doesn't like to write letters much, it leads me to believe she may be more worried about the biological mother feeling seperated from him than she is about her son missing the biological mother.  After all, a kid can feel special reading letters even if he writes none back.  Making her feel like an awful person for taking an opportunity is really awful!

Answer 10

I guess my question would be: what is the agreement? How often was there to be face-to-face visits? Are they able to continue to have the amount agree to? Rarely is the agreement daily or even weekly. Usually it is a couple of times a year.  It sounded to me like this AP was very committed to keeping the relationship between the BP and the child very alive.

Answer 11

Why is it such a burden to honor an agreement that was supposed to have been made in good faith?

Or was the agreement made solely to procure a child and nothing more?

I wonder.

Answer 12

Hi Weeme,

Although I consider myself to be in favor of adoption reform, as do the majority of the respondents on this section, I will try to explain this to you, assuming you want a serious answer.

Some adoptive parents value monetary things over natural family bonds.  Unless they have adopted that child from the foster care system, they probably adopted him as an infant from a woman who loved her child but did not have as many material things to give him.

Using that logic, it follows that the adoptive parents again have an opportunity to either choose monetary gain over natural family bonds.  It appears that monetary gain is the choice that will be made, despite what effects that may have for the child.

What you seem to be missing is that this was not a closed adoption case where the adoptive parents can justify taking the baby and doing whatever they want with him.  This was an established open relationship over 10 years between a natural mother & a child.  Although it may not be what YOU would have chosen, this was an agreement they made to raise that child with both families in the best interest of that child.  To suddenly change that arrangement was clearly causing that adoptive mother to reflect on what is right & wrong enough for her to pose the question in the first place.  Even though she admitted in so many words it would not be the ethically moral thing to do, she seemed resigned to following through with those plans.

You ask what should be expected?  I do not feel it is asking too much to honor agreements that were made in the best interests of the child, particularly promises that were made that allowed that child to originally be placed with them.

In the larger scheme of things, I'm sure the child would be happier with fewer toys and more love.

julie j

reunited adoptee

Answer 13

They have an ongoing open adoption agreement and the child is currently seeing his mother once a week and it sounds like he has been for some time.

Most women in an open adoption agreement would not have placed had they not been allowed this option.

To move your child away from his firstmom is breaking the agreement in my book.

Unfortunately, in most states open adoption is not enforceable.  Obviously, the adoptive parents in this case are aware of this.  I just wonder if this child's mother was aware that they could move out of state and take away promised visits at any time.

A deal is a deal and it sounds like in this particular case, the adoptive parents are breaking the deal.  And that's not fair to this child who has an obvious relationship or his mother.  It sucks.

You can paint this as an anti adoption thing all you want but this kid is ten and his open adoption is being closed and there is absolutely nothing he or his firstmom can do about it.

Best interest of the child?

I don't think so.

Answer 14

Good point, a lot of the parents who give their kids up for adoption or abandon them don't or didn't want them in the first place. And if they now say they do want them, then they are just saying that because it makes them look bad that they gave them up in the first place.

Answer 15

Here's my feeling.

The APs agreed to this open adoption so that they could 'get' this kid.  

Now this child is too attached to his mother, and amother wants to regain some control in kid's life and is using afather's super important career move (I'm SURE it's the only job available in the whole world) as an excuse to flee the area.

People talk about 'birth mother scams'?  Here's an example of an adoptive parent scam.

Answer 16

I agree, once the child is adopted, the birth mother has no say whatsoever.  The people adopting should be able to live their lives as if this is their own child.  Of course there are issues at some point where the actual child needs to understand, but other than that they should just be a normal family.

Answer 17

What's with the name calling "anti-adoptionists" just because they express a different opinions than you?

To answer how much should be expected of open adoptions the idealistic answer is probably that the adopters should honor the terms they agreed to. The realistic answer - adopters can do whatever they dam well please once the transaction is finalized.

Answer 18

I agree with you.  While I do understand the importance of a relationship with a birth parent, I will say this....having contact with a birth parent still honors the agreement.  There is nothing to say that a child needs to live within a certain distance of a birth family.  Allow letters, allow phone calls, allow visits if possible, but the family needs to do what is best for them as a family.  

What people tend to forget here is that when the adoption paperwork is signed, an adoptive parent becomes a PARENT, regardless of adoptive or bio.  They become responsible for that child in all ways.  They have the rights to make the decisions they feel are best for their family and their child.  Will they make mistakes?  Absolutely.  We all make mistakes as parents.  But that doesn't make us bad people.

Answer 19

I am not sure who the "anti-adoptionists" are.  I have never heard this term before.

With respect to your question about how much more people would want in this situation, one word comes to mind -

INTEGRITY

Oh wait, this is the adoption category - never mind - that word is irrelevant.