To Heather H & Adoptionissadnsick & others like her what reforms would you like to see to adoption?

a healing adoptee

Okay, from your question and mr. LC this goes for you too, i take that you take great delight in making sure adoptees do not have a chance to see their adoption records.

These adoptions records hold valuable information for the adoptee. Meaning that there is medical information that can help the adoptee prevent certain diseases or be more pro-active in their health. Some adoptees like to know their hertiage,and these records will provide such. Other adoptees would like to seek out their birth parents, to settle the "I wonder if" Scenrio.

The fact that you can have access to your medical information and know about your hertiage, does not give you the right to say to adoptees that they have no right to their information. Other countries around the world have open records, why shouldn't the untited states?

Also the needed reforms in better counseling for the birth mother so she understands the emotions she may feel upon relinquishing her child. That adoption agencies not take advantage of the adoptive parents. These needs to be measures in place to make sure the child is placed in a safe and loving home.

Just because we want these reforms in no way makes us anti-adoption.

This is my definition of anti-adoption: People like you who delight in making sure that adoptees feel bad on wanting reforms so that there are open records, adoption agencies can't take advantage of the birth mother or adotpive parents.

So, maybe you should ask yourself why you don't want adoptees voices to be heard that want reforms that will benefit all that are involved in adoption. Reforms that would make the adoption process better.

I'm so sick of these types of questions,-- so i will repeat again.
JUST BECAUSE ADOPTEES WANT REFORMS IN ADOPTION DOES NOT MAKE THEM HATE OR ADOPTION OR MAKES THEM ANTI-ADOPTION.

PEOPLE WHO ARE ANTI-ADOPTION ARE PEOPLE WHO SEE NO NEED FOR ADOPTION OR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT REFORMS.

Gershom

R,
are you telling me that you don't see any REFORMS necessary with the Adoption industry?

hmmm....

I would like to see alot

-unconditional access to records for adoptees
-no private agencies
-no-prebirth arrangments or relationships with paps
-informed consents to surrender
-no fee's for adoptees searching
-no name changes to adoptees unless they are old enough to -initiate it and its done for their will!
-childs rights above and beyond all other rights in adoption
-no profitting off of children
-universal investment into orphanages and foster care
-assistance to parent
-real amended birth certificates where adoptive parents names are added, and nobodies name is removed, or replaced
-equal access to hospital records of birth I would like mine
-all parties informed on damage of separation and loss of mother to infant

i'm sure there is more, just can think of them now...

Tobit

Overall, I believe that we, as a society, should not rely on adoptive parents alone to solve the burden of unwanted children. Therefore, I suggest supplementing the reformed system HeatherH described above with three ideas:

1) We, as a nation, should actively encourage and help all parents to care for their children

2) The state should establish or help support large group homes along the lines of the Hershey School and described by Professor Richard B. McKenzie; these will help children who cannot be adopted or who for whatever reason chose not to be adopted.

3) Finally, to ensure all parties are active participants, adoption should be entered into with a child's consent; this would entail delaying formal adoption procedures until the child is of age to decide, say 8-12. This would not preclude guardian arrangements prior to that time.

N.B. I am speaking of unwanted children not those removed from their homes. That is a much more complicated issue and deserves separate attention even if the solutions overlap.

LaurieDB

Firstly, there is a big difference between "hating" adoption in and of itself and wanting to see reform. The two are not the same. I love the country in which I live, but that does not mean the I wouldn't like to see some changes.

That said, the reform I would most like to see centers around the sealed records laws that exist in 44 states. 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 "birthparent 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 adoptee, 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, adoptees 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 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. It 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.

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. 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.

EDIT:
Heather H has outlined a terrific narrative. The only thing I see differently in terms of sealed records law is the number of states that are considered "open records" states. Because denying anyone access to his or her birth record is discriminatory, I do not consider the two states that allow only conditional access to adopted citizens access. Our non-adopted counterparts are not subject to conditions. 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.

eta:

LC,
You mentioned posters under Heather being against adoption. I will only speak regarding my own entry. Do you see anything in my post that leads you to believe that I disapprove of adoption in and of itself? My issue is with sealed records laws. My post deals entirely with adoption law and unequal treatment under the law. Not the most exciting reading, I'm sure, but the access to which I refer is strictly access to the original, sealed, factual record of our births, which all other citizens may access without jumping through hoops. Unequal treatment under the law is discriminatory. Please take a closer look at my post and you will see what I mean.

Thanks for listening,
Laurie

Adoptionissadnsick

May I just say, "what Heather H said?" great reply, hope you actually read it, R

To understand what is awry, I believe looking at adoption in a historical context is important. We once had a very similiar system as Austraila. However they woke up and rectified the human rights violations, I would like to see the USA basically copy the reforms made in Austrailia.

pansyblue

I did get the non identifying info from my adoptive state. It didn't help much.

Since I can't find my birth parents, it would help me to have a little more information.

They could include some medical info, serious diseases that are genetic.
They could also include interests. I would give a lot to know if I inherited my talent for music, my love for animals, ect from someone.
I think they could also include the heritage/culture of the grandparents.

All of that would give me some background, so that I'm not left feeling alone, and yet it wouldn't invade any ones privacy, or let them be identified.

sunny

I can't add much to Heather's fabulous answer!

Here are 2 articles that summarize my views as someone who was adopted 43 years ago, and has been acquainted with hundreds of adoptees over the years.

http://www.angelfire.com/or/originsnsw/wendys_pres.html
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41918.html

I'm of the 'same mind' as UNICEF, adoption should only happen as a last resort.

I believe parents should be helped and encouraged to raise their own children except in cases of abuse, profound neglect, or addiction.

Families were not meant to be separated. There is something VERY wrong when as a nation, we condone people spending 10-50K to take a child from the family nature intended him to have. Often, with a little help these families could stay together. Children were not meant to be a salve for infertility, or to 'complete' a family.

Possum

WOW - what Heather said.
(Possum is standing & clapping!!)

Also - I would add - that 'Open' adoption be more than 1 letter per year with some photos.
'Open' adoption should be about the adoptee having contact - personal contact - with their first family.
They need to talk and see them in real life - to get a feel for them - to know what traits they have in their genes.
Letters and photos are just teasers - and - I think - cruel to both the child and the child's mother.
Adoptees have TWO families. That is their reality. Not allowing them to know both is NOT in the best interests of the child.

I would also add - check out adoption in Australia. It's done ethically - and completely child centric.

sparkles

No one hates adoption except you how do I know that because you just told me

No I'II tell you why I don't hate it

Because I, myself, me was fostered

when I was in my own childhood

By two kind and loving people that showed me life doesn't have to be filled with fear and feelings of been unstable that I was good enough to be loved and loved in return.x

So stop putting your words in my mouth and put then in your own then perhaps YOU will beable to offer the same to a innocent child that I recieved and then R you WILL make a hugh difference. Just incase it wasn't clear before.x

AdoreHim

I tend to agree with LC-
1- our children's birth mom chose not to have counseling- we should not force her too, if she does not feel she needs it.
2- our son's birth mom demanded that we be in the hosp. room. It was a wonderful experience for her and us. Our daughter's birth mom wanted us there too, however she had her baby before we arrived at the hosp.
3- it looks like to me, the adoptive parents should have no say in the adoption process at all.
4- maybe we were very fortunate and had a great experience- and our birth mom's did too.

My perception of Heather's answer is that she has had a bad experience with adoption. I don't know her history, and I don't presume to understand where she is coming from. I wonâ€™t generalize. I understand that the system isnâ€™t perfect. I also understand that it isnâ€™t evil either.

However, several posters below seems to generalize all adoption as this evil which is prevalent in our society. They indicate that social workers present adoption as all â€œrainbows and unicornsâ€. In fact, the social workers first priority is to establish that adoption is what the birthmother really wants to do. The social workers explain that there will be some strong emotional pain involved, and that there is an option to place the child into foster care if she doesnâ€™t feel that she is ready to make the decision.

They have equated adoption with kidnapping by saying that the birthmothers are somehow forced to give up their children. They also assume that the birthmother isnâ€™t already raising other children of her own, and that her family and friends are pressuring her to give her child up. Tragically, this is sometimes the case, but the current laws are established to prevent that. The fact is that a birthmother CANNOT give up her child in any state in the US without making a sworn statement that they are not being coerced or forced in any way. They are frequently offered assistance in raising the child if that is what they want to do.

They are offered counseling by a neutral party counselor. It is ironic that Heather says that they should be forced to submit to counseling. OK, letâ€™s make them feel like they have absolutely no power or authority during this process? Mandatory counseling is just as likely to make them feel like what they are doing is wrong or that they are mentally unstable as it is to help them make a decision. Birthmothers should be able to decide for themselves what they want or donâ€™t want to do. We have no right to tell them that we know better than they do.

Then, Heather goes on to criticize the nurses that try to talk the birthmom into keeping her baby. Isnâ€™t that what she wants the counselors to do?

Heather makes several decisions for the birthmother:
Mandatory counseling â€“ birthmom must submit to counseling, whether she wants to or not.
No adoptive parents in the delivery room - (she makes a bold statement at the beginning, and then a small blurb at the end saying that they can come if the birthmom asks for it.) Are you aware of a single case where the birthmom was forced to allow anyone into the room? The answer is no, because the hospital would be subject to so many lawsuits that they would probably go bankrupt.
Make her wait three months before she can make a decision â€“ she must dwell on this decision (and where is the child during this time? Bonding to foster parents?) for three months.
Make her advertise for adoptive parents â€“ â€œThere are plenty of non-coercive, dignified ways for prospective adopters to get the word out that they hope to adoptâ€. This implies that she must â€œmarketâ€ her baby to these people, because they canâ€™t go looking for her according to the statements Heather makes.
Make her submit to an open adoption â€“ whether she wants it or not

I have never understood what is meant by â€œhis/her original identityâ€. If you had been dropped onto a deserted island at birth and nurtured by some invisible force that had no influence other than to feed you and keep you healthy, would you have grown up to be the same person that you are? Absolutely not. Your identity is formed, not inborn. I agree with heritage, but then you get into the argument that parents should accept any baby rather than one of their own race or religion. What property rights are being violated by adoption?

Those that claim that the child is being denied pertinent medical information by the courts or the agencies are wrong. The child may be denied pertinent information, but it is denied by the birth parents. The adoptive parents are provided any medical information that is made available by the birth parents. The tragedy is that the birth parents don't want to provide it. Are these people fighting for the same information from the birth fathers that got a woman pregnant as part of a one night stand? Are those children any better informed?

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: