Seewalds 31: Jessa’s Maybe-Baby

[Meggo]

8 minutes ago, Ivycoveredtower said:

birth fathers I am a really strong believer in Birth father rights and well I realize it's a gray area and the story told up thread is horrible I think women shouldn't just be allowed to say i don't know when it comes to the BF. there are just too many stories of men finding out months and years later that they have this child and fighting in court. 

This is one of my fears/disappointments. BirthMom isn't entirely sure who the Birthdad is - and my son will never have that connection. I don't for a second believe she was trying to pull one over on someone and just not tell him or us - I think she just doesn't know.
I wish I had that info for him. I know babies look SO like their dads that I always wonder. Of course it helps that my son is the SPITTING image of his adoptive dad. It's kind of freaky. (He says "Well - she said that I reminded her of an uncle she has...")

Had she known - we would have paid an additional fee to find him, counsel him and give him the option of deciding what he wanted to do. (that's what the requirement is)

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, Bad Wolf said:

If the mother doesn't say or know who the father is, then it must be announced in the newspapers. Of course, not that many people read newspapers any more. It's important to get a general description, so the adoptive parents know what to look for. Was dad 6' 6" or 5 ' 5" ? Then when the child is growing, they can  have an idea of what might be normal.

I have issues with service by publication in general though, I think we can find a better solution.

I also will say that women can go to a different state, and then the publication is even less useful.  (Some states actually seem to encourage this behavior).  I don't know that I have much of a solution except punishment if the courts find that a mother lied about it.  Like many problems there isn't a perfect answer. 

[singsingsing]

What if the birth mother actually doesn't know who the child's father is? Or what if she was raped, or otherwise abused? How do you police something like that? 

I'm very much in favour of adoptees being allowed to know their origins. This is an issue very near and dear to my heart, and I personally devoted countless hours of detective work to discovering the origins of a family member who was adopted. But it's complicated, messy, and often heartbreaking, and there are really no easy answers.

[Ivycoveredtower]

Just now, singsingsing said:

What if the birth mother actually doesn't know who the child's father is? Or what if she was raped, or otherwise abused? How do you police something like that? 

I'm very much in favour of adoptees being allowed to know their origins. This is an issue very near and dear to my heart, and I personally devoted countless hours of detective work to discovering the origins of a family member who was adopted. But it's complicated, messy, and often heartbreaking, and there are really no easy answers.

okay rape or abuse that's one thing which is why I said it's a gray area if she just slept around so she doesn't know I think she should have to DNA test all the possibility's before the adoption can go through. 

[singsingsing]

Just now, Ivycoveredtower said:

okay rape or abuse that's one thing which is why I said it's a gray area if she just slept around so she doesn't know I think she should have to DNA test all the possibility's before the adoption can go through. 

But how do you prove that it was or wasn't rape or abuse? Do you take her at her word, or do you launch in investigation? 

I've been involved with adoptee communities, especially those searching via DNA testing, for a while now, and I've honestly never encountered something with more ethical quandaries and grey areas. It's tough.

[Georgiana]

Birth fathers have rights, should they choose to exercise them.  They are by NO means unprotected.  A man who has had unprotected sex or sex he believes could result in a child can put himself on a putative father registry.  Most states require publication to go to this registry before an adoption can proceed if no father is named.  If he can confirm he is the biological father and was never served, he can overturn the adoption...especially if he can show mom did not make good faith efforts to find him.  HE COULD EVEN REACH OUT TO PAST PARAMOURS TO ASK IF A CHILD COULD HAVE RESULTED FROM THEIR UNION.

But a man who is running around, dipping his wick wherever he can and then leaves with NO effort to discover whether or not he may be expecting a child gets NO sympathy from me.  ESPECIALLY if he leaves the woman without any way of contacting him (in today's world with out increased connectivity, this is NOTHING short of an intentional move).  In doing so, he has, in my opinion, already abandoned any child or potential child.  

I refuse to cry tears over irresponsible men being hurt by their own irresponsibility.  

[justoneoftwo]

5 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

Birth fathers have rights, should they choose to exercise them.  They are by NO means unprotected.  A man who has had unprotected sex or sex he believes could result in a child can put himself on a putative father registry.  Most states require publication to go to this registry before an adoption can proceed and no father is named.  If he can confirm he is the biological father and was never served, he can overturn the adoption...especially if he can show mom did not make good faith efforts to find him.  HE COULD EVEN REACH OUT TO PAST PARAMOURS TO ASK IF A CHILD COULD HAVE RESULTED FROM THEIR UNION.

 

Not all states have a punitive father registry.  Not all mothers give birth anywhere near where they conceived.  If a mother wants to give ups the baby and is lying to the adoptive parents she wouldn't be telling him anyway.  I think our point is that they are not as protected as people may think (and there are places that intentionally protect them less, because they want those babies). I don't think the punitive father registry is enough, and I don't think overturning adoptions is a solution (it harms the kid too much).  I honestly don't have the answer, but saying they are protected enough just doesn't sit right with me.

[Four is Enough]

First of all, birth families who choose adoption SIGN OFF on their parental rights. They are then terminated.

Parents who LOSE their parental rights have them terminated BY THE COURT.

We had a private adoption in Maryland; the birth parents had six months to change their mind. Right after that, (over 25 years ago) the time was changed to one month because in the history of Maryland adoptions, no birth parent had changed their minds past about 21 days.

We had a private adoption in Pennsylvania. Birth parents had six months to change their mind. 

Both birth parents of both children had to sign off on their parental rights pre-delivery, in the hospital, and finally, in their attorney's offices six months later. After this happened, we had a day in court where the judge signed the final adoption papers.

We had a "foster to adopt" adoption through Maryland CPS. The children were placed with us as foster children. The social workers moved to make the case for the neglect, and successfully had the parental rights terminated through the court. The birth family had members who wanted to adopt our children themselves, but the birth parents would not relinquish their "rights" (Think as NicNog would say her rights) to the children, even though they themselves would not take care of them. so the family members gave up their dream of keeping the kids within the family so that they could have a stable life with us.

These two scenarios are quite different. 

On the whole, I've met birth families who just want the best for the child. I've met a few who've flat out asked for money. I've met some whose parental rights should have been terminated years agone. I've met grandparents who want to assert "their rights" to a child.PS. They don't have any.

[Georgiana]

2 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Not all states have a punitive father registry.  Not all mothers give birth anywhere near where they conceived.  If a mother wants to give ups the baby and is lying to the adoptive parents she wouldn't be telling him anyway.  I think our point is that they are not as protected as people may think (and there are places that intentionally protect them less, because they want those babies). I don't think the punitive father registry is enough, and I don't think overturning adoptions is a solution (it harms the kid too much).  I honestly don't have the answer, but saying they are protected enough just doesn't sit right with me.

It's REALLY HARD to get a child away from a father if he is aware the child was conceived and takes steps to claim the child as his own. EVEN if the mother goes out of state.  

If he fails to confirm whether a child resulted from a union OR takes no steps to claim the child, I maintain that it is an unfair and undue burden to force the mother to jump thru hoops to try and contact him again.  She has to do SOMETHING, yes, and she does have to.  But it's also fair to force the father to have some agency as well.  If he has left the picture, she doesn't have to do his legwork for him.

We've created a culture where men are babied and taught that they don't have to be proactive about paternity.  That IF they fathered a child, they don't have to inquire...that the woman will do the leg work and follow up with them.  That they can walk away and assume everything is great until they are contacted.  Sorry, but that's bullshit.  IF you care about whether you fathered a child, YOU need to confirm.  YOU need to follow up.  YOU need to take steps to responsibly discharge that duty.  It's not a WOMAN'S responsibility to track you down.  She ought to make some effort (and again, the law says she does), but she doesn't have to do 100% of what should be a 50/50 burden.  

Is publication a 100% way to notify potential fathers?  Nope.  Is it a reasonable 50% try?  Yep.  

There is a well established concept in law that "fortune favors the vigilant".  If you allow rights to lapse due to your own negligence, on some sense you are seen to having willfully forfeited them via your negligent behavior.  I think that applies here.   

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, Georgiana said:

It's REALLY HARD to get a child away from a father if he is aware the child was conceived and takes steps to claim the child as his own. EVEN if the mother goes out of state.  

If he fails to confirm whether a child resulted from a union OR takes no steps to claim the child, I maintain that it is an unfair and undue burden to force the mother to jump thru hoops to try and contact him again.  She has to do SOMETHING, yes, and she does have to.  But it's also fair to force the father to have some agency as well.  If he has left the picture, she doesn't have to do his legwork for him.

We've created a culture where men are babied and taught that they don't have to be proactive about paternity.  That IF they fathered a child, they don't have to inquire...that the woman will do the leg work and follow up with them.  That they can walk away and assume everything is great until they are contacted.  Sorry, but that's bullshit.  IF you care about whether you fathered a child, YOU need to confirm.  YOU need to follow up.  YOU need to take steps to responsibly discharge that duty.  It's not a WOMAN'S responsibility to track you down.  She ought to make some effort (and again, the law says she does), but she doesn't have to do 100% of what should be a 50/50 burden.  

Is publication a 100% way to notify potential fathers?  Nope.  Is it a reasonable 50% try?  Yep.  

There is a well established concept in law that "fortune favors the vigilant".  If you allow rights to lapse due to your own negligence, on some sense you are seen to having willfully forfeited them via your negligent behavior.  I think that applies here.   

Perhaps it is because I live in Utah, but I'm not talking about cases where men weren't active or didn't have agency.  I'm talking about cases where men are lied to, where they are required to prove they could be parents when women are assumed to be, where adoption agencies take the kid out of the hospital, to another state, while the dad is standing in the waiting room trying to find out whats happening.  

Again, maybe this is a Utah thing.  I also don't know if its normal for an application for a birth certificate to ask the parents if they ware willing to give up the kid, but in Utah thats on the form. . . 

 

[feministxtian]

26 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

I've met grandparents who want to assert "their rights" to a child.PS. They don't have any.

I wish we did...long story, short version, we'd love to be able to get custody of our grandson...however, since we're grandparents, and although we have notified CPS about the issues, they won't do anything since what's going on doesn't fit their criteria for neglect. Forget the child is being babysat by known felons (including one with a murder conviction), forget the child's mother is a stripper and has a different man every week and father is on the other side of the country.  As long as he is dressed appropriately, isn't left to fend for himself and is in school, they don't care. It's killing me slowly. 

[Georgiana]

7 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Perhaps it is because I live in Utah, but I'm not talking about cases where men weren't active or didn't have agency.  I'm talking about cases where men are lied to, where they are required to prove they could be parents when women are assumed to be, where adoption agencies take the kid out of the hospital, to another state, while the dad is standing in the waiting room trying to find out whats happening.  

Again, maybe this is a Utah thing.  I also don't know if its normal for an application for a birth certificate to ask the parents if they ware willing to give up the kid, but in Utah thats on the form. . . 

 

I can't speak to Utah, but in my state, if you have a man who is claiming to be the father of a child, no adoption proceeding can progress until the paternity is sorted.  Most hospitals have workers on staff who can help men in the waiting room fill out the correct paper work to begin their petition.  

And of course we assume the mother is the biological mother of the child.  We just watched her deliver the child!  Except in very rare cases (surrogacy), we can assume that she is the mother of the child.  The father cannot be so easily assumed, especially if the mother says there are other candidates.  That's just the inequality of the biological process of reproduction, and one of the few ways that it provides a benefit to women as opposed to men.  

As to moving the child to another state, that state would not have jurisdiction over the child for a decent amount of time. I am skeptical that this REGULARLY happens, because the court should decline and force it back to the correct jurisdiction, where presumably the (potential) father's petition for paternity is waiting.  

And if the adoption DID somehow go through, the father should be able to overturn it in quick order before the child is even cognizant, especially if there was fraud.  

There's just a lot of things in here that don't add up.  I would be interested to see actual cases where this happened. Because the men should have had very swift and somewhat easy recourse. 

But something ELSE that is very common is deadbeat dads who find out that their child was adopted LONG after the adoption has been processed, and then make up a story to save face about how the mother lied to them and absconded with the baby, etc.  You'd be surprised at how frequently bad dads SUDDENLY become victims of evil women as soon as there is a new woman in the picture they need to impress.  No one wants to admit they fathered a child and then refused to take responsibility.  

I'm not saying this doesn't happen.  I AM skeptical that this happens so regularly as to justify an additional burden placed on an already vulnerable woman, and I DO question whether the issue is the mother or unscrupulous adoption agencies (who absolutely should be subject to stricter laws/oversight and face prosecution for trafficking).  

[justoneoftwo]

2 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

I'm not saying this doesn't happen.  I AM skeptical that this happens so regularly as to justify an additional burden placed on an already vulnerable woman, and I DO question whether the issue is the mother or unscrupulous adoption agencies (who absolutely should be subject to stricter laws/oversight and face prosecution for trafficking).  

I agree its mostly a problem with the agencies, and possibly states.  I'm linking an article about Utah laws and cases.

https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/some-call-it-kidnapping/Content?oid=2147433&showFullText=true

I don't think its anywhere near the majority, but I do think this is a problem and one worth addressing. 

I'm also super pissed about the requirement of men to show a plan for their kids.  The general rule is that biological parents have a right to their kids until it is shown they can't care for them, and reversing that burden is wrong.  

I'll stop by annoyed ranting now, this does look to be a mostly Utah problem.  

[Georgiana]

4 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

I agree its mostly a problem with the agencies, and possibly states.  I'm linking an article about Utah laws and cases.

https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/some-call-it-kidnapping/Content?oid=2147433&showFullText=true

I don't think its anywhere near the majority, but I do think this is a problem and one worth addressing. 

I'm also super pissed about the requirement of men to show a plan for their kids.  The general rule is that biological parents have a right to their kids until it is shown they can't care for them, and reversing that burden is wrong.  

I'll stop by annoyed ranting now, this does look to be a mostly Utah problem.  

You're absolutely correct though, those UT laws are TERRIBLE.  Jesus.  

But I think we're actually on the same page: the change should be to give fathers MORE rights and easier access to block an adoption, such as the ability to file without an attorney and lower barriers to block the adoption.  THAT's what's really needed here.  And I agree, it's absolute bullshit that they have to show a plan when no mother has that burden.  

But when the mother is already acting in bad faith, she's going to continue to do so, which is why I think placing additional burdens on her actually hurts the father if, like in this case, she TECHNICALLY discharges them but does so in a way that screws the dad over or makes it nearly impossible for him to act.  By placing more burdens on the mother, we hurt vulnerable women AND do not resolve the problem of the barriers to fathers because a woman who wants to deceive can work around them.  

But those UT laws are completely out of line. I can't imagine why no one has challenged them yet.  

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, Georgiana said:

You're absolutely correct though, those UT laws are TERRIBLE.  Jesus.  

But I think we're actually on the same page: the change should be to give fathers MORE rights and easier access to block an adoption, such as the ability to file without an attorney and lower barriers to block the adoption.  THAT's what's really needed here.  And I agree, it's absolute bullshit that they have to show a plan when no mother has that burden.  

But when the mother is already acting in bad faith, she's going to continue to do so, which is why I think placing additional burdens on her actually hurts the father if, like in this case, she TECHNICALLY discharges them but does so in a way that screws the dad over or makes it nearly impossible for him to act.  By placing more burdens on the mother, we hurt vulnerable women AND do not resolve the problem of the barriers to fathers because a woman who wants to deceive can work around them.  

But those UT laws are completely out of line. I can't imagine why no one has challenged them yet.  

They are being challenged, but getting it up to the federal courts is hard.  Also, to a large extent it seems people don't really care.  

I don't know if more burdens would be exactly what I mean, so much as when we have cases where she is acting in bad faith there is no punishment or reaction that impacts the mother really.  Usually the worst that happens is she has to testify in the cases, or often she gets to keep the baby (which is all kinds of messed up, as she didn't want the kid to begin with). 

I tend to think there should be consequences for bad actors, and there aren't many here.  There should also be consequences for the agencies.  

All in all though, yes we are on the same page.  

[Escadora]

I had a much longer post written out, and it was more gentle and willing to approach it from all angles, but I think I can sum up my feelings more succinctly, if perhaps more harshly, so I do apologise in advance, because though I try not to ruffle feathers, I do have some strong beliefs when it comes to this subject.

The fact of the matter is that people don’t have an inherent right to become parents just because they’d like to have/raise a child. It is undeniably true that people able to have children biologically have a much easier access to having children than people who can’t, but that doesn’t mean that every infertile couple in the world, everybody who pursues adoption for whatever reason, or every biologically paternal parent has a right to raise a human life (just the same as people who can have/do have their own biological children don’t have that right). The exception to that rule, I would argue, would be a pregnant person who is cognisant enough to make informed decisions about their life, and the life of the foetus/child they’re carrying. I would even go a little further and say that a pregnant person who is able to clearly and effectively communicate their desires, even if they’re not in an ideal position to make decisions, should be listened to and considered.

I believe that that person should have more a right than anyone else to the responsibility of that child, because they are the ones potentially sacrificing their body, their emotional and mental stability, and their lives to bring it into the world.

Pregnancy and the time surrounding birth are difficult, and full of emotional ups and downs and though I’ve never been pregnant, I do know pregnant people who admit that they’ve a tendency to make decisions they otherwise wouldn’t when they’re pregnant as opposed to when they’re not (though, of course, this probably is not a universal behaviour), and I believe that adoption agencies can prey upon that inclination in order to convince someone to give up a baby that they otherwise would not want to. I believe this is especially true in areas where young people are taught nothing about sex, contraception, or parenthood, and then put in unimaginable scenarios where they feel coerced or forced to go through with an adoption that they don’t want. It’s difficult, here to make allowances for this hormonal change whilst still granting that agency to mothers, who may well know what they’re doing, and probably do.

Of course, consensual adoptions happen all the time. Informed parties on all side making an arrangement that suits everybody that last for the length of an adopted person’s life, I would argue, are rarer. I can’t imagine the hardships one must go through in the quest to adopt. I’ve heard a lot about the process, but it can hardly at all compare to living it. It must be one of the worst feelings to have finally have been entrusted with a child and then to have that child taken back away from you because the birth parents changed their mind. I don’t want to diminish that struggle at all, and this post may come off as me hating on adoptive families when this isn’t the case at all, my own extended family has experienced adoption and has had mostly good experiences.

But pregnant people don’t just exist to incubate children, as we’ve argued and asserted in threads about abortion and reproduction, and even someone 100% sure that they want their child to be adopted should have a reasonable amount of time to change their mind after that child is born, even if we can be sure that coercion and force haven’t happened.

I don’t have solutions. It’s too difficult, probably, to have a third - neutral - party to take care of a baby for a period in between the birth parents and the adoptive parents, but if there were that buffer for a person’s hormones and feelings to settle after giving birth then that might help in some scenarios where a biological mother may not necessarily want their child back really, but she feels that she should because of that rush of hormones and love. I apologise, I don’t know all right words, and it muddles what I try to say.

I feel like it’s also important to make a distinction between adoptions where there was some element of choice from the birth parent(s), and those in which the state have intervened and removed parental responsibility/rights from those birth parent(s). I don’t believe that those birth parents(s) should be allowed to regain access to those children, because they have proven to be unsuited to the task of raising children.

@Georgiana, I really agree with what you said there, and I was going to mention that too, but felt like this was long enough already. I did laugh at the term ‘dipping his dick’, though, because - man - that imagery. But yes, the amount of oppression people like to claim men face, and the amount they actually do are very different. Custody hearings, adoption overturning, and rights to property, money, and acclaim are all things men have advantages over women in when it comes to the way the laws are practices in many countries, and all they have to do is ask. 

And to think, I considered this the ‘more succinct’ version of my post.

[Kittikatz]

I don't have any solutions either, except I'm starting to think that maybe adoption needs to become more of an extended family or village situation, where it's less focused on the rights of the adults and more about the rights of the child, and that adults who want to be present, and who are positive influences on a child should be allowed to have some sort of access or role in that child's life. No idea what that would look like.

Russia has been developing an interesting approach to domestic adoption. It's kind of interesting. http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-37135622/orphan-village-helps-russia-rethink-fostering

In Canada, some First Nations Social Services have begun removing abusive/neglectful adults from the family home and leaving the children in place with foster parents. The adults then receive education on life skills and how to parent effectively (something I think all parents should have) and are, if necessary, offered drug/alcohol rehab and additional counselling. It's early days yet, but apparently this approach is helping keep children safe and out of the foster system. 

Adoption is complicated and evolving, and unfortunately, the legal models we have in place to address it are lagging behind.

As an aside, I can completely understand how a woman may have no idea who the father of her child is. I've been in consensual situations where no names were exchanged, I've also had multiple hook-up partners who I may have known first name and maybe phone number of, but precious little past that. I probably couldn't have tracked any of many of those people down in the event that our precautions failed and I became pregnant. Throw in the babies conceived as a result of rape (at least 90% are which would not even be reported to police)  and there are probably quite a few women who have legitimately no idea who the father of their child is. Forcing them to put a name on the birth certificate or produce a 'father' to sign away his rights isn't going to help anyone. 

[Rachel333]

3 hours ago, Meggo said:

Yep - there are no perfect answers. Adoption is a loss all the way around. Some kids who are adopted don't feel that as a loss - and that's their right. Some feel it keenly.

Ontario gives a birth mom 28 days to make her decision. She cannot sign over her baby to anyone until the 28 days has passed. Our birth mom had an adoption counselor who worked specifically with her - just counseling her on the decision. Would have done the same for the dad too if he'd been known. We didn't know that counselor, she had no relation whatsoever with us - (except we paid the bill) and had no coercion. We could provide NO gifts to birthmom at all - no flowers in the hospital etc. 

After the 28 day period - if birth mom changes her mind - she has to go to court to prove she was coerced and I've heard it's really hard to prove. 

That sounds like a good system, and it must give you peace of mind to know that she wasn't coerced into her decision.

This is something that I've noticed good adoptive parents do care about because of course they want what is actually best for their child. I just wish everyone felt that way.

[justoneoftwo]

14 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

That sounds like a good system, and it must give you peace of mind to know that she wasn't coerced into her decision.

This is something that I've noticed good adoptive parents do care about because of course they want what is actually best for their child. I just wish everyone felt that way.

I think most people want whats best for the child, its just hard to know what that is sometimes.  

[scribble]

On 3/11/2018 at 3:25 PM, Jkaeekjj said:

. I also can’t imagine the challenges an adoptive parent faces in an open adoption situation. Like Four Is Enough mentioned above, how much do you share? Is it too little? Too much? How will the birth parents react? Will they want more? Will my child be hurt by any of our actions?

I adopted three sibilngs from foster care... parents have an open adoption agreement with us for one of the children, (they voluntarily gave up their rights to their youngest and signed an open adoption agreement after losing rights to the other two) but we follow it for all three children. It can be tough because the kids have some tough behavior after seeing their parents (even though the were all removed at birth.) The important thing is to set boundaries and stick to them. Their parents would really like to just pop in and out of their lives at their whim, but we have been strict about sticking to the schedule outlined in our agreement. They actually missed enough visits that the agreement is technically null and void now, but we continue to follow it and schedule a visit for the next time called for in the agreement when they get in touch. In the end, I think it's better for kids to know their birth parents in general (provided it is safe to do so.)

I was lucky that early in our adoption journey I found an online support group (that was sadly bought out by a horrid company and destroyed) that included people from all aspects of the adoption triad - adoptive parents, birth parents and adoptees. I wish more adoptive parents had that kind of access to adoptees and birth parents -- it was really eye opening to hear their stories and see the common threads (in both people with positive and negative experiences.) I think a lot of adoptive parents are closed off to hearing negative stories from adoptees, which is unfortunate, because there is a lot you can learn from them.

[justoneoftwo]

2 minutes ago, scribble said:

I adopted three sibilngs from foster care... parents have an open adoption agreement with us for one of the children, (they voluntarily gave up their rights to their youngest and signed an open adoption agreement after losing rights to the other two) but we follow it for all three children. It can be tough because the kids have some tough behavior after seeing their parents (even though the were all removed at birth.) The important thing is to set boundaries and stick to them. Their parents would really like to just pop in and out of their lives at their whim, but we have been strict about sticking to the schedule outlined in our agreement. They actually missed enough visits that the agreement is technically null and void now, but we continue to follow it and schedule a visit for the next time called for in the agreement when they get in touch. In the end, I think it's better for kids to know their birth parents in general (provided it is safe to do so.)

I was lucky that early in our adoption journey I found an online support group (that was sadly bought out by a horrid company and destroyed) that included people from all aspects of the adoption triad - adoptive parents, birth parents and adoptees. I wish more adoptive parents had that kind of access to adoptees and birth parents -- it was really eye opening to hear their stories and see the common threads (in both people with positive and negative experiences.) I think a lot of adoptive parents are closed off to hearing negative stories from adoptees, which is unfortunate, because there is a lot you can learn from them.

I just have to ask, what were the common threads?  H is adopted, and has some really different (to me) thoughts on it, I wonder if they are common.

[Rachel333]

1 minute ago, justoneoftwo said:

I think most people want whats best for the child, its just hard to know what that is sometimes.  

True, but human selfishness can get in the way. I'm thinking of an article I read about adoption from China where one mother was trying to find out more about her daughter's birth parents. She managed to uncover that the situation wasn't at all as she had been told and that her daughter was likely kidnapped, and was probably not alone in that. She was horrified and shared that information with her online China adoption group and it ended up tearing the group in two because about half of the parents wanted to know if their children were adopted under suspicious circumstances, while the other half wanted to ignore it and even said that even if their children were kidnapped, they were better off living with relatively wealthy, Christian parents than they would have been with their parents in China.

Or there was this story from CNN last year about parents who adopted a little girl from Uganda and found out once the girl started being able to express herself in English that what they had been told about the girl's family was a lie and that she had a mother who still wanted her. They decided to return the child to her family in Uganda, as did another family who had found out the same thing about their newly adopted daughter, but other families chose to keep the children even knowing that they had families in Uganda who wanted them. And these were older children too, so it wasn't like they had been adopted from birth and only knew their adoptive family and culture; they had clear memories of their families in Uganda.

[justoneoftwo]

4 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

True, but human selfishness can get in the way. I'm thinking of an article I read about adoption from China where one mother was trying to find out more about her daughter's birth parents. She managed to uncover that the situation wasn't at all as she had been told and that her daughter was likely kidnapped, and was probably not alone in that. She was horrified and shared that information with her online China adoption group and it ended up tearing the group in two because about half of the parents wanted to know if their children were adopted under suspicious circumstances, while the other half wanted to ignore it and even said that even if their children were kidnapped, they were better off living with relatively wealthy, Christian parents than they would have been with their parents in China.

Or there was this story from CNN last year about parents who adopted a little girl from Uganda and found out once the girl started being able to express herself in English that what they had been told about the girl's family was a lie and that she had a mother who still wanted her. They decided to return the child to her family in Uganda, as did another family who had found out the same thing about their newly adopted daughter, but other families chose to keep the children even knowing that they had families in Uganda who wanted them. And these were older children too, so it wasn't like they had been adopted from birth and only knew their adoptive family and culture; they had clear memories of their families in Uganda.

I suppose that its weird but I can see both sides of the China one.  Once the kid has been adopted is it best to undo it?  In the situations in Utah often the dad's don't get the kid back, because even if it was wrong, the kid now only knew the adopted parents.  Its horrible but its hard to know what is best for someone else, particularly when that person is pre verbal.

[Rachel333]

Just now, justoneoftwo said:

I suppose that its weird but I can see both sides of the China one.  Once the kid has been adopted is it best to undo it?  In the situations in Utah often the dad's don't get the kid back, because even if it was wrong, the kid now only knew the adopted parents.  Its horrible but its hard to know what is best for someone else, particularly when that person is pre verbal.

I don't think undoing the adoptions was really in question since these cases were of children who had been adopted very young. It was more about whether to find out the truth or not and whether the information mattered. There is, unfortunately, a trend within the Christian adoption movement to believe that those children are better off in a Christian home no matter what.

[Jkaeekjj]

On 3/11/2018 at 5:33 PM, Rachel333 said:

It's a completely understandable fear and I know it's an incredibly painful event for someone to have to go through, but it makes me sad that people have done so much legally to prevent birth mothers from being able to change their minds. I don't think that should be an option indefinitely, but I do think it should be possible very early on. Some of the stories I've read about women who chose to parent after planning for an adoption--even if they changed their minds before the baby was born--are horrific. At that point a lot of adoption agencies will make it as difficult as possible for a mother to keep her child.

“The Girls Who Went Away” by Ann Fessler explains the coercion that was rampant in the adoption industry pre-Roe v. Wade.