Is all adoption bad?

BPD Wife

Is all adoption bad? No, I do not believe so, but I think that I am in the minority here. I noticed that not many people answered the original question but focused on the OBC issue, not the question.

In our situation, our son was neglected during pregnancy and after he was born. He was placed in kinship care with his bio grandparents and the bio family created an adoption plan for him. Was this a bad adoption? Absolutely not, in my opinion or the opinion of the bio family. I guess time will tell once my son is old enough to make that decision for himself.

snowwillow20

People are opinionated on this site and that is OK, it's actually good, then everyone from this triangle can be heard. As a birth mother, I did provide medical information for my daughter as I knew it then. Of course as I got older I learned more about the health in our family. The first thing I did when I found my daughter was to have both her grandmothers write up a new medical history. I have to confess through the years that it never ocurred to me to send this new info to the adoption agency in hopes that she would get it. Until I found this website, my eyes were closed to the problems that adoptees go through. It is wrong that adoptees do not have the same basic rights as everyone else.

oKtober

To the question "is all adoption bad"? - no, mine was not. I was adopted as a baby, brought up knowing I was adopted and wanted very much by my adopted family. Yes, I'd have to say my adoption was good. I don't want it to sound like a fairy tale (far from it) but then again who's life is?

I see where you get the sense that adoption can be viewed as "bad" because there are a lot of negative paths out there. Adoption is treated as a nasty secret in most cases. To those who give up their children people will judge "how could she/he do that?" To an adoptee they lavish misguided sympathy or look at you like an alien. If for whatever reason a birthparent wants a closed adoption, I guess it's their business. But I firmly beleive it's every adoptee's right to his/her biological history by the time they reach adulthood. Adoptees should have access to their OBC's and all records should be open.

Gershom

LC, you just aren't getting it.

BIRTH CERTIFICATES in 44 states of the UNITED STATES are sealed to the adoptee. SEALED RECORDS are a violation of the adoptees HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL RIGHTS and they violated the UNITED NATIONS CHILD RIGHTS TREATY.

We are not supposed to be discriminated against due to our ancestry, we're all supposed to be treated equally, we have a right to our records, not a right to reunion and that right is violated every day in America! We should not need any parents permission to access our records...do you need mommys signature to get your birth certificate? i'm 27 years old, a mother to two, and a functioning, working citizen of this country, I don't need mommies signature either! But the law says I do, infact, in my state ,even with my first mother PRESENT, consenting to my access to my records, they wouldn't give them to me.

this is nothing short of discrimination!!

I'm not even going to address the rest, somebody else can. I'm sick of yahoo.

ELLE T

The more I read on this site about adoptions in the USA, the more it becomes apparent that despite its problems the UK has more or less got it right.

There are no profit making adoption agencies resulting in birth mothers not being co-erced into giving up babies. The vast majority of babies and children are removed due to abuse or neglect, very very few mothers voluntarily give up their babies, infact the mothers are offered every kind of help available to enable them to keep their babies.

Birth records in the UK have been open since the late 70's I believe and children adopted now have life books given to them with info about their birth families and why they were taken into care.

Adoption in the UK is GOOD. Children available for adoption have all come from the care system run by local governement agencies and the whole process is free to adoptive parents.

Perhaps the USA need to start to look at the successes in other countries and follow suit, although I doubt it will happen as people are getting rich from the American system.

LaurieDB

I have posted this previously, but similar questions keep arising, so the answer remains appropriate.

My main issue is with the sealed records laws that exist in 44 states. It is not a "double-edged sword" if the law is understood and if equal treatment under the law for all citizens is valued.

There are six states that treat all adopted persons as equal to their non-adopted persons under the law. These are Alabama, Oregon, New Hampshire, Maine, Kansas and Alaska. Kansas and Alaska have never had sealed records. The other 44 states have conditional access laws. For adopted citizens to be denied unfettered access to the factual documents of their own births, while non-adopted citizens are not denied this right, is discrimination based solely on the adoptive status of the person.

For those who are under the impression that this has anything to do with reunion and/or so-called "birth parent privacy," let me share some adoption law with you that shows this to be not the case at all:

1. Children who are simply given up by their natural parents retain their original birth certificates with the name(s) of the natural parent(s) on them.

2. In the states that seal records, the original birth record only seals if and when an adoption finalizes. The natural parents, since they relinquished, are not required to be notified if an adoption does not finalize.

3. If a finalized adoption fails (the adoptive parents "return" the child) then the original is unsealed and is once again the child's legal birth certificate. The natural parents are not notified.

4. In many states, the adoptive parents or adopted person, if old enough to specify, may choose whether or not the original birth certificate will remain unsealed or not. The natural parents have no say in this.

5. In states where records are sealed, adopted citizens can still access the original birth certificate with a court order. The natural parents are not notified.

The above is adoption law. If you doubt that, then check it out for yourself. I cannot find anywhere in this law to support the idea that the natural parents' identities are going to be "protected."

Further, no one has ever been able to bring forth a relinquishment document that promises anonymity. Even the greatest opponents of open records, such as the National Council For Adoption, have ever been unable to produce such a document.

The sealing adoption records began in the 1930's to hide the shame of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and to keep birth parents from interfering with the adoptive family. Prior to this time, records were not sealed, and were available to adopted persons. Some states did not close records until much later, while two states, Alaska and Kansas, never closed records.

Adult adopted citizens' access to their own birth records isnâ€™t an issue of reunion, contact or medical information. These other issues may or may not be affected by sealed records, depending on the particular adoption situation of each adopted citizen. Nor is it about the adopted person's relationship status with his or her adoptive family. At its core, however, this is an issue of an entire group of citizens, adult adopted persons, being barred from a right that non-adopted citizens have. Unequal treatment under the law is discrimination by the state holding the records. This discrimination turns access to one's own birth record from a right to a privilege, based solely on the adoptive status of a person, a condition over which the adopted person had no say or control. Returning to the practice of keeping records open ensures equal treatment under the law, ending discrimination.

Despite what those who oppose open records say, there is no special privilege guaranteeing anonymity or confidentiality to birth parents. They already have the same privacy rights as all other citizens.

Regarding this whole issue of reunions, since it always becomes a big part of these debates, is that they happen all the time under closed records laws. Birth parents find adopted persons and adopted persons find birth parents.

As a side note, most birth parents are in favor of open records. A simple Google search will reveal numerous birth parent organizations working to restore birth record access for adopted adult citizens.

Like other citizens, adopted citizens and birth parents are capable of handling their own relationships, without state interference. They do not need others speaking for them or deciding what is best for them as though they were children incapable of doing so themselves. This is an infringement of the free association enjoyed by other citizens in our society.

Give us back our rights and our dignity as equal citizens.

Crucio

Is all adoption bad? No of course not one would be ignorant to say so. Life is not prefect nothing is completely all good or all bad. Things are not just black and white.

Adoptionissadnsick

Is Adoption bad?

I believe an institution should be judged by how well it treats the "least" of it's members.

If even one mother is coerced or tricked into losing her baby.....
If even one adoptive parent uses less than ethical means to obtain a child....
If only one adopted baby dies of abuse because the strangers couldn't handle the child's grief.....

However the reality is it is far more than one unfortunate one who experiences adoption related tragedy each year...

Yes, as a whole adoption is bad because many want to ignore, and discount the "few" imperfect features. When you are the one who is affected, suddenly it no longer feels too good.

Cat B

no adoption is not bad it saves kids from spending their whole life goin from foster home to foster home

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: