Should extended families have more rights in the adoption process?

jessica300

"Should agencies be required to offer assistance with kinship placement before other placements?"

"Should first mother be required to provide a statement about why kinship placement was not an option?"

I think both of these questions should be very much a part of a woman's thought process when considering parenting or adoption. Basically, what they do is open the door to communications between the expecting mother and her family - and all too often this is a stumbling block, a lack of communication that results in the woman losing her child before examining all of her options.

For many women, myself included, an unplanned pregnancy is thought to be so horrendous a crime that you wouldn't possibly tell your folks unless you had to. I let my parents know and they did nothing for me anyway. However, had I been encouraged to talk to them about the pregnancy, the crisis, my baby, kinship care, perhaps things would have had a different outcome. That is why I think that requiring a basic look into kinship care could potentially open up dialogue between family members that might not otherwise happen.

To give you an example of how the agency/facilitator discourages communication, I was given a sheet of questions about medical information to fill out and send back upon surrendering my son. I could not even think of my baby as an adult that would need this information! I still thought it was all about me and my loss. I never filled out the information, and what makes me angry is that they didn't pursue me and the information that could have meant life or death to my child. They (the agency) let it drop. My feeling about this NOW is that if they had actually engaged me in any conversation about how this information would effect my child I may have gained a bit of insight into my child as a real being. I might have begun to understand what my son needed. And I feel that their lack of communication with me was intentional - they didn't want me to feel the connection. (They also told me not to hold my son and put me in a private room away from other mothers who would be holding, nursing, bonding with their babies.)

So, if agencies hold the mothers feet to the fire so to speak they may be awakening some of the truths in what it means to be a mother, and I don't believe that they want that to happen.

Women need to have conversations that help them realize their unborn children as real people. And if women are making their decision to relinquish before the child is born they are missing out on a very important - life changing - part of pregnancy and birth. They need to go through this BEFORE making a decision to surrender.

As much communication as is possible between the expectant mother and her family is a good thing - it might be the first time that it has happened. It might keep a child with his/her natural family. Is that such a bad thing?

red&sassy

Unfortunately, in every case I am aware of, the first mothers' parents and "biodad" abandoned the mother. Left her out to dry. I know there are a few exceptions, but not many. I think that adoption reform is going to have to happen before we get it right. People are going to have to realize it's more important to keep families together than to tear them apart.

Until then, if there's going to be adoptions, then it should be done to benefit the child. In almost all cases, that would mean OPEN. That means the child has the option of talking to ALL and ANY family members whenever they desire. Why would a first family be any different than the aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, grandparents and step families? Why is this such a secret? Why has this been made so taboo? Who is benefiting from this?

All children from the 90's on (at least) know that open adoption is how most adoptions are presented. When they grow up, they are going to wonder why they didn't have that opportunity. Then they'll go on the internet and quickly discover that they have been lied to or misinformed. They'll be able to find their first families alot easier than before. It's getting easier every year. Can you imagine the possibilities in 5 years? They won't even have to wait until they are "legal." They'll be on the internet searching by the time they are 12. Some probably are already, I've seen them ask on this sight.

Secrets and lies are bad, very bad.

cakitcat2

This is a very good question that can be looked at from many different angles. I am looking at it from the angle of a grandparent. I think that extended families should have more rights. My son has a 2 yr old son who was given up without his knowledge. If my son would have known about his child before he was relinquished and he wanted me to raise him I would have. I have at least 3 other family members that would have wanted to raise him if I couldn't have. Unfortunately none of us even had an opportunity, not even my son.

I think that adoption is a great thing for children that really need a family. I think that it is very problematic for children who have biological families that want them and can't have them. It causes problems for everyone.

The poor adoptive parents of my grandson are probably scared to loose him because they know that the adoption was not done on the up and up. The birth mother ID'ed who she thought was the bfather. DNA proved that it wasn't. She told the agency that she wanted my son tested and they said that they had already done one test and that they weren't gonna do any more. They made her sign a "declaration of mother" stating that she didn't know who the father was. She didn't know any better and signed it.

Now our lawyer says that it will cost us thousands of dollars to upset the adoption. It is really crappy that you have no rights to your own flesh and blood if you don't have thousands of dollars laying around. If you spend thousands of dollars there is no guarantee that you will get anything more than some pictures and 1 or 2 yearly visits.

We are upstanding, law abiding, people in the community. My husband is a high school teacher and I am a stay at home mom. My son is a responsible, law abiding person also. He would love to have his child but he knows that it could be detrimental to his son to pull him from the only parents he has ever known. We have extended family who are also very upset with the situation. They all love my son and want to know his child and be part of his life. My mother is elderly and would really like the chance to know her great-grandson.

So when the aparents agreed to an open adoption was all of this part of their plan? I don't think so. They went into it hoping for a child of their own, not a whole other family.

Who is right here? Who has the right to be a part of this child's life. I think it best if we all were. How do you do that without stepping on toes? I don't know.

I think that my grandson is fortunate to have so many people that care for him. I hope that we will ALL get the opportunity to show him.

Independ"ant"

I think a child should never be deprived of having a relationship with a bio-family member.
A good step in the right direction would be to close the loopholes many AP's are using in "open adoptions" to keep bio-family members away from the child.

ilenerm

As a Reunited Late Discovery Adoptee, I am all for open adoptions (and that includes extended family), if possible. But I am also for birth parent rights. I feel they should be given as much information about all the choices, and given as much emotional support as possible, and then it should be her - or her and his decision - no one else's.

In my birth mother's case, she actually tried to have one of her older cousins adopt me, but she was turned down. In retrospect, even my birthmother said that - in her case - it probably was for the best. Sometimes in-family adoption is just too close and can cause more pain for the birth parent(s). Of course, she would have loved my adoption to have been open, but she was not given that option by her own parents.

Adoption is complicated enough as it is. If you add grandparent rights or other extended family rights, the adoption process would probably become so burdensome that it might become both technically and emotionally prohibitive! And it may make it even harder for the birthmother. Can you imagine being bombarded by many different family members and being told that you should do this or that about something that is extremely emotional to start with? Something that may be breaking your heart already? It is very hard for a birthmother to give up her baby, and she really doesn't need even more pressure, especially if she may have different ideas than the people "advising" her.

TotalRecipeHound

The Supreme Court already ruled on this. If the parents choose to place their child for adoption, grandparents (or any other relative) does not have the right to interfere in that placement. Imagine if you were raised by a really terrible, controlling mother, who outwardly to the public was a hard working citizen? How horrifying would it be for your child to be forced to live in that environment. This is actually what was happening in the case that the Supreme Court ruled on. The parents had a Downs syndrome child and they wanted to place the child with a couple who had successfully raised other DS children to be self sufficient.

The parents of the child have a choice to offer anyone else in the family the chance to adopt the child (well, that assumes that the father has been notified and is involved in the situation). Some actually do that.

Heather B

They should at least be made aware of the fact that their family member is being given away to genetic strangers.

Common decency should play a large part but is sadly lacking these days where everyone is out for themselves :(

Jennifer L

If that happened, I don't think that it could just be restricted to adoption situations. If grandparents have legal rights in some situations concerning their grandchildren, why not others?

Should grandparents legally be able to restrict grandchildren from moving away? Should grandparents have a legal say in how their grandchild is raised? What church they attend, where they go to school, whether they eat meat in the family or not?

I just see it potientially becoming a sticky situation. Adoption needs to be the decision of the parents. I think that kinship care or relative adoption should be considered and ruled out as a possibility before doing an agency adoption. But it should be up to the parents to make that decision.

That said, I'm all for including extended family in open adoption agreements, if all parties are willing.

ETA: No I don't think the parents should be required to prove that kinship care is not a viable option. Again, that's for the parents to decide. How much secondguessing of the parents' decisions by outside parties do you think needs to happen?

jm1970

No. The father should have the right and the mother. The parents should have the right to place the child with whomever they see fit, and if it is not with family, the parents have that right to make that decision.

Kinship and relatives should not have the right to interfere with a parents' decision to place a child for adoption.

"No one is entitled to other people's children." We hear that over and over and over........

I do feel very sorry for grandparents and family members who lose children to adoption, but maybe they should step up and offer support so the parents don't choose it in the first place.

Or maybe the parents have a good reason for not wanting the child with them.

Crucio

No I dont think so a childs parents are the ones who should decided whether they are placed for adoption or not. Not grandma, grandpa , Uncle Bobby, or any other relative. There are some open adoptions where some do have relationships with extended family and if everyone agrees to it good.

LaraSue

I don't think so. I don't think extended families should have the right to force someone to keep the child, or get an abortion, or force an adoption. They can offer advice, opinions, etc, but the ultimate decision should be the parents.

Skadoctor1

As an adopted child, no, I think that the courts have enough going on and enough to keep track of to worry with what extended family thinks of the parents right to relinguish their child. If the parent doesnt want the grandparent to adopt their child, there must be a reason, and regardless a child doesnt need to be subjected to all those emotions.

sizesmith

I don't think anyone except the parents have the right for their children. Grandparent rights have been declared unconstitutional in our state, because they were being abused. I do believe that all adoptions should be open to family members who'd like to visit the child. My son's adoption is closed on paper, but the family knows where I live, and the grandmother comes to see him (thank God, she's wonderful, and has been a resource of great information, from flat feet, and allergies to penicillian!). I believe that if the birth parents choose to place their child with a stranger, or someone other than family if they can't take care of it, is a personal choice that only they can make. I do wish that families would work better together, and I think that in the event a child is taken away from it's parents because of abuse, etc, that the family have rights.

I also don't believe that adoption should be a private industry for profit. I think that a branch of government should be issued for it, and that it should be non-profit, however, things like home studies, attorney fees, etc, be paid by the adopting parents, but the advertising to lure pregnant women to place, and the billboards, etc, should not be allowed. I also believe that adoption workers should have a cap on salaries, similiar to government employees. When they charge agency fees of $20,000 plus, and our private adoption was done for less than $1000.00????? What do they do with all that money? I did buy maternity clothes, keep a prepaid cell phone for my son's first mom, put gas in my car for her to occasionally use, and kept her fed and vitamins, but it wasn't over another $1000.00 (I never gave her cash-that's illegal-but I did pay those bills for her, and went shopping with her for needed, not wanted items). If there weren't so much profit involved, there might be some better placements, and less illegal markets for babies.

Randy B

While we are at it, lets just have the milk man sign away his rights to lost wages as well as the diaper service for the same thing.

As troubling as it may be for some people involved in the process the simple fact of the matter is that the courts have already ruled that it is only immediate family, in the form of birth mother and father, who have rights in these cases. We have enough trouble with fathers who feel their rights are not respected and we don't need to add in siblings and/or grandparents. If we did that the child would be 18 by the time they were adopted.

There are also enough adopting parents and potential adopting parents out there who are turned off of the process as it is now. As far as I'm concerned, the courts say I'm the parent then I'm the parent. Not the leader of a "parenting by committee" group.

Renee King

If extended family is given more rights regrading adoption, then the same should go for abortion. It is the woman's choice and the more people involved the messier it gets. I believe the only one's who have a choice to make is the Birth Parents, as many people say on this site, it is "their" child so they are the only ones who should get a say. Her body, her baby.

itchianna

This seems more like a thesis than a question. But as an adoptive parent my views contradict. If extended family wanted to be part of the child's life, they should have stepped in before the adoption. When a child is placed up for adoption the mother has to sign her rights away. In the state I reside, no action can be taken for 48 hours. The mother has this time to legally change her mind. A diligent search of any possible fathers is also required. That is why no adoption is completed until six months after birth. If extended family members want the child they have at least four months during the pregnancy and six months after birth to intervene. Ten months seems to be more than enough to make the decision and act on their desire. I have no sympathy for anyone who looses a family member to adoption.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: