Open to EVERYONE: What do you want in Adoption Reform?

LaurieDB

The question was actually list of 5 questions. Here are my responses.

1) All adoptions should be open (if i'm correct, to what degree of openness?)
On a legal level, if an adoption is an open adoption, the open adoption agreement needs to be legally enforceable. On a more personal level, I do believe open adoption is preferable.

2) If I'm incorrect about #1, is it that you want guardianships instead of adoption?
I feel that in a number of cases that guardianship is preferable to adoption. This is particularly true in the case of family members who are taking over the care of a child.

3) All OBC are made available at any time (prior to 18).
I am for all OBC's being made available to adult adopted citizens, just as they are available to all adult non-adopted citizens. Equal treatment under the law.

4) for profit agencies and private adoptions should be abolished.
For profit agencies are money-driven. Something as important as the issue of having a child leave his/her family to become a part of another family should not be facilitated by organizations who may be skewed in the direction that will make them the highest profit. Private adoptions cause a number of problems, are they are normally pre-birth matches. I have previously discussed the problems I see in pre-birth matching for all parties involved, including the PAP's.

5) The baby should stay with the mother for an extended period of time prior to relinquishment;
I do believe it is best that a mother and child spend some amount of time together prior to relinquishment. Giving up one's own flesh and blood is a decision of great gravity. It should not be taken lightly. It is one thing to make such a decision when the child is yet unborn and not a full reality in the mother's life, so to speak. It is another for that mother to make that decision after the child has become a more complete reality in her life. This practice is utilized in Australia and works well to keep families together who don't necessarily need to be apart.

ETA:
With regard to Shelly's response which states:
"Now as for sealed vs open records.. this DOES get a little trickier.. say what you will, adoptees have rights, but SO DOES the birth mom.. I MAY hesitate to PROHIBIT her from remaining anonymous to her child, IF THAT'S what she wants!!.. Again, extensive medical records should always be provided.. the adoptee NEEDS to know what problems, diseases, etc.. are in his/her genetics.. but as far as being able to be tracked down.. if a bmom really doesn't want to be "found" I don't know that it would be a good idea to FORCE her to give contact info, etc.. when you put one person's right up against another's.. it's always tricky.."

I realize you are stating support for equal access, but I just want to point out a few items regarding birth records and "rights."

Under the law, original birth certificates do NOT seal when parents relinquish their children. They remain unsealed and, in fact, remain the relinquished children's only legal birth certificates. Therefore, there is no guarantee or "right" of anonymity under the law. In fact, there is no anonymity at all. Birth certificates only seal if and when an adoption finalizes by the court. In Ohio and California, the adoptive parents and the adoptee can decide whether or not the original birth certicate seals. The first parents have no say in that.

There is also no Constitutional right to anonymity. First parents already have the very same privacy rights as all other citizens. Adult adoptees do not.

So, it's not an issue of one person's RIGHTS against another person's RIGHTS. Anonymity may be a desire in some cases, but it's not a right in any state. Unconditional access to one's birth record, however, is a right in every state -- unless a person happened to be adopted (in which case the record seals) -- as adopted persons do not have that right in 44 states. Two of those states never sealed records from adoptees, and the hard work of reformers got records reopened in the other four.

Getting one's OBC is not about finding someone. It's about equal rights. People are going to find each other all the time, closed records or not. It already happens all of the time. In 4 of the 6 states with open records, the first parents can state whether or not they want contact. With closed records, there is no way for first parents to communicate that preference.

ETA:
Shelly: Yes, I know you hold a stance of support of OBC access for adoptees. That is why I started off my reply following the quote of your paragraph with the sentence:

"I realize you are stating support for equal access, but I just want to point out a few items regarding birth records and 'rights.'"

I wanted you to know I understood your stance before adding the additional comments.

Thanks,
Laurie

Lori A

Equal rights. That includes original birth certificates, medical information, ancestry access, safe homes, legitimate adoptions, and GERSHOM. Say what you will the woman has gotten the attention of many people including me. If I were to read some passive words on paper I don't think I would have paid half as much attention as what she ALONE has made me pay. If I ever go on a crusade I'm calling Gershom.

â™¥ PepsiGirl â™¥

As an adoptee, I think it would be great to have my original birth certificate. I was adopted at the age of 11 months by wonderful parents.

I have always had questions though. My questions are purely from a medical standpoint. I now have three children of my own and have had some health issues over my 38 years and wonder about my biological family members.

If I were to ever find them, and we would connect on an emotional level and could have a relationship...that would be AWESOME! But what I really want to know is my medical history. My son is physically disabled and even though all of his doctors know that my history is non-existant - I know most of them would LOVE to be able to dig further so that they maybe could come up with some answers...

Sarah

I would like to see more rights for birthmothers/parents, whether it be contact preference forms being mandatory, or just a change in laws overall.

I would like open adoptions to be enforceable (unless perhaps the birth parents change their contact preference forms? I just want birth parents to have the same situation they agreed to at relinquishment be enforceable, by law, period).

I would like for adoptees to have the same rights in any way that other citizens do concerning OBC's or anything else.

I would like it to be available for parents to relinquish before birth- for some, this would be right (I do realize not for all).

Well, now that I saw Laurie's answer and realize that there were specific questions, here are my answers to those:

1) All adoptions should be open (if i'm correct, to what degree of openness?)

No, I disagree. It is most often in the best interest of all involved if adoptions are open, but not always.

The birthparents deserve the right to decline this option. There are also cases where the adoptee just does not need to know what their birthparents are like until they are old enough to know, (such as drug abusers or otherwise irresponsible). Perhaps there could be guildelines a birthparent must reach before being allowed contact.

2) If I'm incorrect about #1, is it that you want guardianships instead of adoption?

No- once a child is placed with another family, I feel that they are with their new family and that they should not be bounced back and forth- that would not be right whatsoever for anyone involved- the child, the adoptive parents, or the birthparents.

3) All OBC are made available at any time (prior to 18).

No, I think that 18 is young enough for them to be available, just as for others.

4) for profit agencies and private adoptions should be abolished.

No- I think there should definitely be a code of conduct and protective laws in place, but I don't think that for-profit agencies shouldn't exist. It's a business, just like any other- people can choose to use them or not.

5) The baby should stay with the mother for an extended period of time prior to relinquishment;

Absolutely not!! Talk about coercion to parent!! I did not want to raise my child, and in no way should I be forced to. If a mother is sure in her decision, then why make her be with a baby she does not want to parent, or is honestly uncapable of? This could be outright dangerous. Ridiculus suggestion. If there were a prospective birthmom interested in this, she can simply keep the child for a time, then relinquish if she decides to at another time. But to force someone is unfair.

Crucio

1) All adoptions should be open (if i'm correct, to what degree of openness?)
2) If I'm incorrect about #1, is it that you want guardianships instead of adoption?
3) All OBC are made available at any time (prior to 18).
4) for profit agencies and private adoptions should be abolished.
5) The baby should stay with the mother for an extended period of time prior to relinquishment;
------
1. No because not everyone wants an open adoption, not all birthparents want it, not all adopting parents want it and not all people adopted want it. Iâ€™m glad I was not involved in an open adoption. Not to mentioned an open adoption is not appropriate for some situations.

That said for people who do an open adoptions, both parties need to do what they agree too. The open adoption can only be closed or changed (i.e. more contact or less contact) through a court hearing. Also once the adoptee is old enough (say 12 or 13 and up) if they want to close it or have more contact they can, again youâ€™d have to go through the courts.

2. No I donâ€™t agree with that, perhaps an option given to older kids adopted. I know there are people who would rather be adopted then be basically a ward of the home.

3. Yes I see no problem with that, in fact I see no reason a copy of OBC should not be given to the adoptive parents.

4. No, but they should have standards and should only be able to go above a certain amount $$. People should not have to pay top dollar for a baby or child. It should not cost more or less to adopt a specific race child, it should be the same.

5. If the mother is unsure then I think she should be given from 3 to 5 weeks. In this time she can either have the baby or the baby can be placed in temporary foster care. If the mother is sure of her decision then no it should not be prolonged. Also I think genetic parents should be given 7 days before they sign their rights away again in that time the baby can reside with her or him, them or Foster family

I also think that adoptive parents should be picked after the birth and not before. This will take away any guilt if the mother changes her mind. It will keep their PAP hearts from be broken planning for a baby that does not become theirs. Not to mention they wouldnâ€™t be throwing away any money if the adoption did not go through.

Adoption Certificate, this would be the exact same as a birth certificate. It could be used in the same way to obtain Driver License, passport etc. It would have their day of birth and other things that BC has on it. Adoptive parents names would be on it along with the official date the person was adopted.

Birthparents would be required to provide at least medical information , any illness that may run in the genetic family. Heritage would also be nice but medical is far more important.

Shelly P. Tofu, E.M.T.

well, I'll admit I haven't done alot of research into it, but I would absolutely agree with equal treatment (shouldn't every human being have equal rights?) I think original birth certificates is a reasonable request, medical records should be extensive.. Any woman wanting to put her child up for adoption should be required to submit extensive medical history of her family and the fathers (if she knows who the father is)..

I absolutely agree that no woman should be pressured to give up her baby.. To an extent.. it may be impossible to assure this will never happen (just like with abortion, no matter how ethical the clinic workers are, they may not always be able to tell (if the girl says nothing) that she is being "forced" by intimidation, to go through with the procedure.) BUT, while it may be impossible to guarantee.. I'm sure there's lots of things that can be done to monitor/hold accountable agencies, crisis pregnancy clinics, etc.. for NOT pressuring and overly biasing women on their options.. I would be fully in favor of any such measures..

Now as for sealed vs open records.. this DOES get a little trickier.. say what you will, adoptees have rights, but SO DOES the birth mom.. I MAY hesitate to PROHIBIT her from remaining anonymous to her child, IF THAT'S what she wants!!.. Again, extensive medical records should always be provided.. the adoptee NEEDS to know what problems, diseases, etc.. are in his/her genetics.. but as far as being able to be tracked down.. if a bmom really doesn't want to be "found" I don't know that it would be a good idea to FORCE her to give contact info, etc.. when you put one person's right up against another's.. it's always tricky..

but for the most part, I agree with open records and most of the other reforms you all are pushing..

I mean.. You can always count me in for giving people equal rights..

but, as we discussed on the other question.. I'll work for a cause, but not along side those who "turn me off" with their attitude and/or tactics or extremism.. I'll still work for the same cause.. just not WITH them... or any association with them..

ETA
LAURIE DB.. I said earlier, before the paragraph you quoted, that I was fine with OBC.. I guess that does kind of "conflict" with a bmoms desire to anonymity.. but in that case.. i think the Adoptees right to have OBC outweighs that.. but other than that, a certain degree of "anonymity "could be respected, if the bmom made it clear that's what she wanted..

again..I agree that adoptees should have the same rights as anyone else..

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: