Enforcing open adoption?

sizesmith

Open or closed was a subject brought up by our son's first parents and us. We are totally for open adoption, although in our state, we were not allowed to put it into our adoption decree, because the decrees are considered a closed case, and the paperwork isn't available to check later to enforce open adoption.

I try to educate women that if they do decide to place a child, they have every right to interview, and even to go to the home where their child will be raised. They have a moral right to obtain things like a social security number, and written permission to obtain credit reports on the adoptive parents, so that way, the AP's records, which would include future addresses, would be shown. Any woman that goes to an agency, and are told that they "normally don't introduce" AP's to the first families should RUN away from the agency. Although it's not easy to obtain, they even have a right to have AP's take a lie detector test and have the questions asked, such as, "Do you intend to allow me continued contact with my child?".

I also encourage any mother who wishes to for sure have an open adoption to place with someone in a situation similar to ours, where open adoption is already honored, and respected. This way, there's a lot bigger chance of having an open adoption rather than running AP's. I also believe that one of the biggest problems in private adoption today is the fact that open adoption is not legally enforceable. I've also never seen anyone address the fact of visitation rights in an adoption decree. No open adoption could ever be enforceable until the decree actually addresses visitation rights, such as a week during the summer vacation time, and once a month on Saturdays. Until someone actually puts it into writing before a child is adopted, and the AP's and the adoptive parents agree upon a schedule, no one will ever enforce open adoption.

Paragraph 3 of the consent to adopt forms of ours state, "I hereby consent that the child may, without further notice of any kind to me or to any other person, be adopted by XYZ Name" Later in the consnet, "I consent that hearings therein may be held and orders and decrees entered without notice to me".

I don't think it's right to take first parents out of the life of the child. Although they chose to place the child before we were ever introduced, and I'm thankful they did, I don't like the way the laws actually favored us as AP's.

cantstopLinnyG

There is no point, except that some Pap's and agencies/brokers will use open adoption as a way to "entice" the first Mom.

http://www.exiledmothers.com/open_adoption/index.html

There are some great ap's here who can give you more information about open adoption. They know how important it is to keep the lines of communication open.

Sadly, there are some first mothers who do not stay in contact when they are in open adoption. Its usually because it's too painful for them to see their relinquished child, but it does happen.

Cam

From some stories I've heard here the open adoption theme is used as the "dangling carrot". As an adoptive mom in a very open adoption I find that concept appalling and cannot image anything more cruel to do to a natural mother who is considering placing her child for adoption. That IS coersion and it is a lie. APs do need to somehow be held accountable if making that kind of a promise.

DevonChaos

Enforcing an open adoption would be akin to a reverse restraining order. I'm sure people would want all kinds of clauses; they can't move more than x amt of miles from us... they can't interfere with this and that but THIS is okay... It would be absolute chaos to legally uphold either end.
Its just an honor system. Kind of like taking candy from someones bowl on their porch on Halloween. You are only supposed to take one... ON YOUR HONOR.
I do agree that it is a tactic used for coercion. I fear that many scared mothers will see this as the saving grace, or possibly the weight to tip the scales in favor of adoption. They need to be informed of the fact that the aparents can just take off with no word and never uphold their part of the "promise". Thats all it is, really.

SarahM

I don't know about the papers, I don't know much about adoption. But I do agree that there should be some sort of enforcement to keep the adoption open. Just because a birth mother chose adoption, doesn't mean she wants absolutely nothing to do with her child.

IDK!!

When we had our "adoption classes" we were shown a form that was an open adoption agreement. We were also told that it's more of an "honor" thing, "just symbolic", I doubt relinquishing mother are told the same thing.

If it's not enforceable, a form shouldn't even exist. The "Classes" need to educate more about how open adoption is for THE CHILD more then anything. PERIOD!!! Honestly, I like my sons parents, they're fun, beautiful, loving, exciting people, we've done thing with them WITHOUT the kids. WOW, I do feel so blessed.

Luv my kids 4evr

As a mother of 2 adopted children, I can say that I would NEVER close the adoption. If you care about your child, then you should care about the things that are now, or will be important to them. And, self-identity is crucial. Individuals have an inborn need to belong and have a sense of self. It's important to try to preserve some of their culture. If my children ever choose to look for their birth families or contact them, they will do so with me at their side because I will support them 110%. If you aren't willing to support your child through this, then you aren't ready to adopt.

Serenity71

Maybe there should be more follow up by a government run post adoption dept... this way they can see if there are any issues that need to be addressed early on rather than a misunderstanding turning into a 'closed' adoption or an adoptive parent that is having emotional conflicts regarding the contact, panicks and closes it out of fears that could have been resolved. If the agencies have no follow up for at least 2 - 3 years after the adoption then something needs to be done by outside sources.

There needs to be flexibility in the adoption plans. Remember these are made while a child is still too young to have input. And they are made of a period of at least 18 years, that's a long time.

almost human

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me the problem is in the termination of parental rights through relinquishing. A proviso should be added, that the biological parents agree to terminate legal parenting rights PROVIDED a visitation plan be agreed upon.

Adoptive parents who re neg on the visitation plan would then render the adoption null and void. Open adoption shouldn't be a separate document.

kateiskate

Almost Human's answer was great....I agree and think there should be a clause attached to adoption documents like that.

tish_part deux

"When we had our "adoption classes" we were shown a form that was an open adoption agreement. We were also told that it's more of an "honor" thing, "just symbolic", I doubt relinquishing mother are told the same thing."

wow lou, are you serious :)...my mouth dropped!~

that's really, really stank.

monkeykitty83

I go back and forth about this issue.

On the one hand, I think it's really wretched for adoptive parents to back out on open adoption agreements. I do think adoptive parents who keep their children's natural parents away from them (aside from legitimate reasons affecting the children's well-being) should be able to be sued and/or legally made to comply with the agreement.

My hesitation is actually a concern for the natural parents. It's not really possible to make a contract like this that is legally binding to one party, and optional to the other. Legal documents just don't work that way. The point of a contract is to cement terms that both parties have AGREED to be subject to.

Enforcement of open adoption has to be all or nothing, because it either happens or it doesn't. Adoptive parents can't do open adoption while natural parents do closed adoption. Adoptive parents can't have an open adoption without natural parent compliance, and so can't have a contractual obligation that states they will do the physically impossible. An open adoptive relationship takes TWO parties to make happen, and so the legal burden can't fall on ONLY one of them.

So what about the mom who is badly depressed and can't take a phone call right now? Who is suicidal after every visit? If these agreements were legally binding, she would also be compelled to honour the agreement, which could be very damaging to her emotional health, or even a risk to her life.

So while I HATE the idea of adoptive parents closing an adoption they promised would be open, I'm still concerned about making it a legal contract, because contracts are equally binding to all parties-- that's the point of having a contract. It wouldn't be legally possible to have enforceable open adoption agreements that bound ONLY the adoptive parents, or the contract would be meaningless... because the point of the contract is to legally establish the terms of an agreement, meaning it affects both parties.

So yeah, making open adoption agreements legally enforceable isn't a simple yes or no, unless you're prepared to bind ALL signatories. And I'm not totally sure that's a good idea.

ETA: While I know contracts don't have to have specific terms, contracts without specific terms can't really be enforced, and enforcing open adoption was the goal. If they DON'T have specific terms, what would be the point? How do you enforce "convenient"? How do you enforce "open to"? How do you enforce "when possible"? You can have a contract that says anything, but if there are actually no specific provisions for what either party must do, how exactly is enforcement going to happen?

If all the contract says is that either party has to do their best, how would it be proven that they are making less than their best effort if the other party challenges it? At that point I don't see any practical difference between a contract and the honour system.

(I like the idea of available mediation, for the record. I just think the other terms of the contract can't be totally loose, or any enforcement ability is out the window because basically anything technically meets the agreement.)

39 Weeks Pregnant!

In most states open open adoption is not enforceable. As birth parents, choosing open adoption we just have to put full trust into the AP's. We know the risk we are facing, but also know that giving our child to these people is the best thing for the child, and that makes the risk worth taking.
Adoption laws vary from state to state, In Colorado, the relinquishment papers, are soley for relinquishment, nothing else.

ladybmw1218

To me, when I signed those papers I made a commitment, but it is personal only. The law doesn't recognize it. It's disgusting.

I wish that it was treated as any other contract.

ETA: Contracts can be renegotiated, and doesn't need to state specifics like "Available for phone calls every Tuesday". It could be nothing more than both parties agree to have updated, valid, contact information available at all times, and communicate as convenient, and have some kind of non court remedy available for disputes, like mediation or a go between.

Randy B

You mention that "families aren't being kept apart by APs" but I suspect the courts don't view it that way since, legally, the family IS together. Once the adoption is completed the adoptive parents ARE the legal parents and as such I would suspect the court affords them all the rights normally given to biological parents including the right to determine who "their child" can and cannot associate with. Essentially, yes, the adoption papers are documents solely for relinquishment only...until the courts take a different view of that but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Now, people can thumbs down me all they want, I never said this is MY way of looking at it. I'm only trying to surmise how the Courts view the subject.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: