"Birth" Mothers Given Too Much Control?

Heather Leigh

Maybe these PAP's need to realize without these pesky *Birth* mothers, they may never be parents. Their sense of entitlement is disgusting!

kateiskate

Obviously first moms should have control in the situation...the baby is HER baby. It isn't able to "belong" to anyone else unless she has already surrendered it.

Heather B

How utterly appalling. The sense of entitlement to another's offspring just boggles my mind!

They should be on their knees with gratitude that a MOTHER would even consider them as parents for HER child.

I find this attitude to disgusting for words and I'm so sorry you were exposed to such tripe. These people want to return to the dark ages, luckily it ain't going to happen

ETA: No Duckie, it's not the same thing at all. Not by a long way. Adoptive parents shouldn't even be in the picture until WAY after the birth and then the mother of the child should still be in complete control of what happens to HER child.

kitta

Seriously, one of the reasons why I am a natural family preservationist is because adoption cannot replace the natural family.

Mothers who surrender their children may ask adoptive parents for pictures, letters and visits. They may request many things for their children in the home environment. But the parental rights are transferred to the adoptive parents in adoption. the natural parents cannot control the adoptive home.

Regarding the hospital experience: the natural mother is the mother. She owns that experience.
ETA:She is under NO obligation to give up her child to anyone. There is no legal status that is defined as "being given up for adoption".

Some children are surrendered. Until they actually are surrendered, they are the legal children of their natural parents'.

Felicita1

"(one anonymous poster in this forum suggested actually having hospitals bar the mother and baby from seeing one another to avoid "hormones" interfering with her decision to place)."

And people say that coercion doesn't exist and that of course no-one would want to coerce a mother to surrender her baby. Right. This is a prime example of a procedure that was implemented in the 1950s to increase surrenders. It is hugely coercive. Then again, so is pre-birth contact with adoptive parents such that it affects a mom's ability to make a choice. Which one is worse? She is doomed either way.

" Meding said. Birth mothers come to his office and look over the books and papers in order to find possible matches. Eventually, Meding will arrange a meeting with prospective parents and the birth mother. For Meding, this process has been successful. â€œIn my opinion, when the birth mother has more input and can see first hand how important the adoption is to the family, it is more difficult for her to back out and disappoint them.â€ -- http://www.thecolumbiastar.com/news/2005/0429/Front_Page/001.html

"As many young women who choose to place their baby change their minds following the birth, factors such as having met with the adoptive parents could affect these decisions." - (Caragata, L. (1999). "The construction of teen parenting and decline of adoption.? in James Wong and David Checkland (eds) Teen Pregnancy and Parenting: Social and Ethical Issues, University of Toronto Press, Ontario: Toronto.)

ETA -- i wasn't allowed to see my son at birth. It was done in order to force me to surrender. Being 17, i didn't know it was illegal or that i had rights. No mother should have to go thru this.

myst1998

Oh gawd... yes because mothers (for crying out loud these women haven't even parted with their children yet and they are alreay calling them birthmothers, makes me sick) have no right in wanting to do anything right for their children. It is that same self serving sense of entitlement by some PAPs and those completely tarnished by the pro adoption view of society that has been around forever... and people wonder why there are those trying to reform and abolish this sort of thing. It isn't rocket science!

OF COURSE mothers have a right to choose what they want for their baby and up until the adoption plan/order is finalised they have every right to what they like as under the law the child is still HERS. I actually think its the other way around... PAP's make fake promises intending to break them as soon as they get what they want as evidenced in the US by the number of 'open' adoptions that are broken every year.

What a joke... they want to disempower women today BEFORE she even has a baby by telling her pretty much if she keeps her child she is selfish, if she aborts she is a murderess so the only option left to her is to separate herself from her baby and they have the nerve to say she is asking too much?? Pass the bucket!

ETA: And with the whole 'anti-adoptionists' thing please give it a break! PAP's and adopters who have unethcially gotten children and/or illegally acquired them, dodgy agencies and lawyers willing to do the wrong thing are responsible for why there are many wanting to reform or eradicate adoption altogether. May also point out that I know many adoptive parents who feel the same way I and many others do because they have a heart and a conscience and they are sickened by the devious side of adoption so if you wanna preach that crap about the anti-adoptionists, start with those who caused the issue in the first place.

Romany

Unfortunately, it's all about supply and demand. Since the supply of desirable infants is low and the demand high - it's a seller's market. First parents have a lot more rights because of it.

On another note - why do opponents of open records still insist it's the first parents who want records to remain sealed? It's obvious that many APs would have sealed adoptions if they were still commonly available.

Cam

I think a natural mother who is committed to an adoption plan has every right to choose whoever she wants to raise her baby.

As far as open adoption though I hardly see the control in that since they are not legally enforceable. Sadly. Too bad APs are not held accountable for that .

Flying Monkey #073177

Well since all we are is breeding vessels for the masses I guess this logic must make sense to some. Women are not "birthmothers" until they sign the forms and have EVERY right to enter into adoption ONLY when the stipulations and conditions meet her expectations. This is just another point that shows the entitled views of many PAPs and APs.

BOTZ

OMG! I'm moving to Australia!

Not really (hubby would oppose it) but this is the very 'meat' of what is wrong with adoption in America.

I'm so sad right now I just can't stand it. People are so sick and selfish.

I just read 'Serenity's' answer to another question and thought, "That's what we should be doing. It should be ENTIRELY up to the natural parents -- period!"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjKzxopYHVhLVgka4uQqArJq.Bd.;_ylv=3?qid=20090115092832AA9KZDf

Then I read this question and I just want to hit something. AAARGH!

School Nurse

No, I think the birthmother SHOULD be able to get pictures, visits, and ask that the child be raised by parents who are the same religion as she. She should be able to see and hold the baby after birth if she wants AND change her mind if she wants. Hospitals should have NO say in how an adoption is handled. I think any promises within reason should be upheld. I know that many of you think that adoptive parents are "the bad guys" but most adoptive parents want an ethical adoption.

MamaKate

*puke*

Sometimes I can't help but be reminded of the people in "The Handmaid's Tale" when I see crap like that! Classist, selfish, entitled, rude, careless, heartless, neglectful towards children, compassionless, evilness is what that garbage is.

If all expectant mothers were able to see comments like that while considering adoption, I bet there would be very few placements indeed! It certainly makes me wonder how people like that could ever make good parents - obviously they are incapable of thinking about anyone but themselves and parenting requires that the PARENT think of the CHILD at least on occasion! How does a parent teach a child compassion, honesty, the ability to share, humility, etc. when he or she haven't any themselves?!

tish_part deux

now, come on...

most of these "birthmothers" are just little trashy wh@res to begin with." so why should they be given any respect. after all, the aparents on that board are much better people, more educated, married, own two escalades; and many are

INFERTILE.
----------------------

you do realize that the sick undercurrent of a lot of "birthmother hate" is jealousy, right? after all, many of these people have education, status; and can manipulate most of their life situations. yet they can't seem to do what these worthless tramps do so easily. get pregnant.

i posit that these chicks are also the same ones who go for open adoption, and slam the door shut!

it's women like this who give a bad name to the many amoms who at least try to respect their children's fparents.

please post the link to the next woman who comes here looking for adoption...

ETA: jackie i resent that you lack the ability to read. i never wrote ALL aparents are infertile; nor did i write that all infertile women feel this way. however, i find it amazing that the most vile and outrageous things written about fmothers are on infertility boards. so, instead of "resenting" me; why not suggest that some of your cohort (who are quick to write things like, "i hate pregnant women"; juxtaposed with "i'm looking for a birthmother") chill out a bit; and show a bit more respect for the women for whom without, they would NOT be a parent.

SJM

Who wants to live in a nation where women are not allowed to see their own children at birth? What a horrible vision for society. People who wish things like this are not fit to be parents.

Lori A

I wonder what they would think if we sealed everyones records, no one saw their children at birth, and babies were assigned. That would eliminate control and those pesky searches, and destroy any ancestry what so ever. No one would know if they were sleeping with their brother or sister, aunt or uncle, (grand parent for those who like them a little older)

Then when their assigned children grow up and have offspring the proccess can repeat itself. Take the grandchildren of their assigned children away before being seen and assign them to someone else.

Hmmmm, I can see where this could have potential.

Laurel J

I hope that's not typical, but it does go to show how much work there still is to be done in adoption reform. I think most people's thoughts about adoption are that it should still meet the BSE standard.

Back then, women who managed to "get themselves pregnant" either got married or had the "decency" to go far away, have the baby in secret, and then "come home and forget all about it." That was very convenient for APs. Adoption is not this way anymore, and it's not going to be this way anymore.

What really infuriates me are the APs who say they adopted internationally so they "wouldn't have to deal with all that birth mama drama."

39 Weeks Pregnant!

I'm a birth mom and I say Absolutely not.
I chose adoption for my child, and I chose a semi open adoption.
I built a relationship with my child's AP beforehand and have continued to do so. I have no control. If I would like a visits, or would like pictures I call the adoption agency and they ask if the AP's are okay with it. The ball is completely in their court, and they have all the power to say yes or no.
We all respect each other though, and they know I never try to cross boundaries, or come around too often. We are all happy with the situations we are in.

Opedial

It is there child, and if they arrange to have someone adopt, then they can set the peramaters everyone should agree to, or better yet, be counselled into how to keep their child.

Dreamweaver ILF posse 2009

as an adoptee and a bmom I feel like the biological mother should have TOTAL control - if thats what she wants.
I wanted a closed adoption, wanted the parents to be catholic, and wanted him to be an only child (thank goodness that didn't happen.)
Luckily he has a little sister - which I think is wonderful. I was able to spend as long as I wanted with him before signing the paperwork and went and signed in open court 10 days after he was born.

I got some information about him a few years ago but didn't want anything else at that time.

kzdre

"Birthmothers" have NO control ... Even if you think you met the right pap's and they promise you everything you could want out of the adoption, after the papers are signed, you have NO say. The only "control" you get is choosing which strangers will take your baby away forever, and from my experience, they all seem to be the same "perfect" family with different names.

Indian-vision

I second what School Nurse said.

'Insert name here'

This is a difficult subject as the adopter and adoptee are not always going to agree. If i were adopting a child i would always be honest with the child but dont think its fair on the child to have the upset of being let down by an unreliable birth parent. Of course not all would be but some would ie drug users etc.

Jackie B

Tish -- I am infertile and I resent your comments about infertile women when it is really some infertile women and some women who are NOT infertile who don't want birthmothers involved.

I believe open adoption is best and the parents should have some say in how the child is raised if both parties have agreed to an open adoption. If someone has chosen me to take care of her baby and love her baby as if he/she came from my womb, then the least I can do is respect her wishes as long as the child's best interests are kept in mind.

I would want to meet this mother and tell her thank you for doing something that has got to be so hard to do. And barring the mother and baby from seeing each other to avoid hormones affecting her decision to place is ridiculous. She has felt that bond with her child without even having to lay eyes on him/her. And if she does decide to change her mind if she does see her baby? Well, as much as that would hurt, it's her decision to make, not mine or anyone else's.

As time progresses and conflicts arise over how the child is raised then compromises will have to be made, again with the child's best interests in mind. Legally, the APs will be the ones actually making decisions, but hopefully all the parents can get past their own issues, insecurities, whatever to do what needs to be done to keep the child safe, healthy and happy.

I will say that I can see how maybe an AP would be worried about too much contact and wonder if the birthmother would take the child away if she is so involved in the care of the child, but really, does that happen? Maybe so, but none that I can think of.

An open adoption would lessen a lot of the unknowns that adoptees experience. He/she will know both a and b families. He/she can ask the mother all the questions that the amom can't answer, He/she will know where they came from. If a child is brought up that way from the get go, that will just be how their life is, not some huge disruptive thing that will happen later in life that will cause a lot of hurt.

ETA: I love you guys. I agree with open adoption as it's so PC here and loads of thumbs down. Go figure. Lori A, you were so right!

mom to be

I believe the best thing for a child is for an open adoption, only if the birth parents and family can add good things to the child's life. If they can love and interact appropriately with the child and not cause problems in the home then I say of course you do visits. What is wrong with any child having more people in their life that loves them? I would want the birth mom to have a close aunt like relationship. I also feel the parent has every right to pick the adoptive family, but the decision needs to be final. The adoptive family should not be changed, unless real problems arise.

LaraSue

Well, isn't that what anti-adoptionists are proposing when they want to do away with pre-birth matching? Some want to leave it in the hands of the state, and let then state decide what family a baby goes to. Isn't that the same thing?

dlmrgnk

My answer is given as a suggestion after dealing with the effects on children of dysfunctional families. There is an overwhelming need (more of a deep, deep compulsion) on the part of children to be connected with their parents. There are dire behavior, emotional, and intellectual consequences if that need is frustrated or unfulfilled. If their natural parents are unable to properly care for the children, which includes providing that connection, the next best thing is an adoptive family where the child is loved unconditionally, nurtured, supported, and educated. In my view, no one has a right to do anything not in the best interests of the child. Any "promise", contract, or any other arrangements that interfere with the connection between the child and the parents raising the child ought not be allowed.

Jett

I think that yes, "birth" mothers are given and have themselves too much control. If they are giving their own babies up, it is basically shouting to everybody that cannot, or will not take care of their baby anymore and must hand it over to the care of someone else, the adoptive parents. The adoptive parents is then now, the legal guardians of the child. It is the rudest and most ignorant thing to start demanding control over the baby that you gave up.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: