Forced Adoptions Come To Light - Sad

[Mountain Girl]

This article discusses single women who were forced to give babies up for adoption. Many were coerced by "people that were associated with Catholic institutions". I am absolutely pro adoption. If a woman wants to carry a baby to term (or has to because it's too late for an abortion) and elects not to raise it herself, adoption is a wonderful, selfless choice. What pisses me off is anti-choicers who want to illegalize abortion, but don't want single mothers raising children. They want a woman to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, and when she holds her newborn and falls in love with it (I know that doesn't happen to everyone) take it away and sever her parental rights. What the flying hell do these people want? Do they want women to bring a life into the world and be responsible for it or not?!?

:angry-screaming:

http://news.yahoo.com/forced-adoptions- ... globe.html

[shesinsane]

This article discusses single women who were forced to give babies up for adoption. Many were coerced by "people that were associated with Catholic institutions". I am absolutely pro adoption. If a woman wants to carry a baby to term (or has to because it's too late for an abortion) and elects not to raise it herself, adoption is a wonderful, selfless choice. What pisses me off is anti-choicers who want to illegalize abortion, but don't want single mothers raising children. They want a woman to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, and when she holds her newborn and falls in love with it (I know that doesn't happen to everyone) take it away and sever her parental rights. What the flying hell do these people want? Do they want women to bring a life into the world and be responsible for it or not?!?

:angry-screaming:

http://news.yahoo.com/forced-adoptions- ... globe.html

Healthy white babies with no strings attached, to be raised as Catholic (thus ensuring church attendance for the next generation).

I'm sure the attitude was very much "I know what's best for these babies, if their mothers were smart/responsible/Godly, they wouldn't have ended up unmarried and pregnant," and the feelings of the mother and child weren't considered at all.

There's still a very strong feeling that children are better off with 2 parents than a poor single mother (see Razing Ruth's Sister is Pregnant thread), and while today it's just one of many theories/beliefs, back in the 50s and 60s it was policy*.

*I wasn't alive back then but read "The Girls Who Went Away" and have watched several documentaries about the subject, and this is what I've gleened from it all.

[Hane]

I know someone to whom this happened in the late '60s. Her boyfriend abandoned her and she was placed in a Catholic home for unwed mothers. Some bitch of a nun lied and told her that she'd be excommunicated from the Catholic Church if she didn't relinquish her baby for adoption. Years later, she sought out the son who had been taken from her--the only child she'd ever had--only to find a letter stating he wanted nothing to do with her.

She divorced her husband (who happens to have been my first ex) and reunited with the father of her baby. These events have had a horrible effect on her: colleagues at work have said she's very intelligent, but emotionally unstable and manipulative--most likely, I believe, a defense mechanism borne of the trauma she endured.

[Lianachu]

Reminds me of the movie The Magdalene sisters, this happens to at least one of the girls in it. Horrible.

[margiebargie]

I know someone to whom this happened in the late '60s. Her boyfriend abandoned her and she was placed in a Catholic home for unwed mothers. Some bitch of a nun lied and told her that she'd be excommunicated from the Catholic Church if she didn't relinquish her baby for adoption. Years later, she sought out the son who had been taken from her--the only child she'd ever had--only to find a letter stating he wanted nothing to do with her.

She divorced her husband (who happens to have been my first ex) and reunited with the father of her baby. These events have had a horrible effect on her: colleagues at work have said she's very intelligent, but emotionally unstable and manipulative--most likely, I believe, a defense mechanism borne of the trauma she endured.

Interesting you say that. When I meet people like this I always wonder how they got that way. Just one more reason to sweep all this abusive crap out of our society.

[Minerva]

I think I just found the answer to "if you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

[Terrie]

I have a relative who chose to place her oldest child in adoption back in the late 60s/early 70s. She will honestly say it was the right choice, but she was disgusted by the way the Catholic organization manipulated her and lied to make sure she didn't do anything to upset the apple cart. A week before finalization, she asked the agency to see her child. I think she mainly wanted assurance that she'd make the right choice and that the family was caring for the baby as well as she could ever ask. The agency told her it was too late for her to see the baby, and that she'd better not say anything at the finalization hearing except what they told her to say, because that would make things harder for the baby. Since she had no plans to change her mind, I'd hate to think how they'd respond to a bio-parent who was questioning the process. :(

[LadyBlue]

The adoption industry needs a serious overhaul. They may not outright lie and steal babies these days, but they still use a lot of coercion and manipulation, especially the religious crisis pregnancy centres.

I heard an expression awhile ago and I agree completely: "Adoption is a long term solution to a short term problem." Obviously abuse situations are different, but in general, babies belong with their mothers.

My own birth mother apparently gave me up voluntarily and she still has issues from it. She left a letter with the government for me and when I didn't come looking for her, hired a search agency to find me when I was 23. As for me, I always felt that someone was missing from my life, despite not knowing I was adopted (yep, my parents never told me, I found out from the search agency).

Adoption, even the very best ones in the best situations, involves loss and grief for everyone in the triad, a fact that too often gets swept under the rug. Adoptive parents and birth mothers are finally starting to have their loss acknowledged, hopefully one day the baby's loss will be too.

[27randomscribbles]

"The Girls Who Went Away" is an amazing book. When I read it I cried through most of the stories. Reading the book was part of what led me to look for my bmom. I'd always assumed she was probably fine, everything was non-coerced, and she got over it. The book made me wonder if that was really true.

[valsa]

I heard an expression awhile ago and I agree completely: "Adoption is a long term solution to a short term problem." Obviously abuse situations are different, but in general, babies belong with their mothers.

I hate to get into yet another "is adoption good or bad?" discussion, but I feel the "adoption is a long term solution to a short term problem" cliché is a gross oversimplification. While some women do make adoption plans because of something that is a short-term issue, most don't. Being poverty stricken your entire life isn't a short term problem (it's also one not likely to improve, and in fact more likely to get worse, with the addition of a child) Mental illness or inability to care for yourself/a child independently or addiction or any number of similar issues aren't short term problems. Not wanting to, or feeling capable of, raising a child at that time the child is born isn't a short term problem.

[Miss M]

The adoption industry needs a serious overhaul. They may not outright lie and steal babies these days, but they still use a lot of coercion and manipulation, especially the religious crisis pregnancy centres.

I heard an expression awhile ago and I agree completely: "Adoption is a long term solution to a short term problem." Obviously abuse situations are different, but in general, babies belong with their mothers.

My own birth mother apparently gave me up voluntarily and she still has issues from it. She left a letter with the government for me and when I didn't come looking for her, hired a search agency to find me when I was 23. As for me, I always felt that someone was missing from my life, despite not knowing I was adopted (yep, my parents never told me, I found out from the search agency).

Adoption, even the very best ones in the best situations, involves loss and grief for everyone in the triad, a fact that too often gets swept under the rug. Adoptive parents and birth mothers are finally starting to have their loss acknowledged, hopefully one day the baby's loss will be too.

Having a personal stake in two adoptions, my brothers, please don't paint all "mothers" and loss with such a broad brush. Would it have been better for my youngest brother to stay with his birth mother, a young woman who in the six months she had him never picked him up unless she had to, fed him his bottle while standing next to his crib so she didn't have to hold a baby she didn't want, had her own Mother bathe him so she again didn't have to hold or touch him...yep so many babies are SO much better off with their birth mothers...whatever!!!

Miss M.

[27randomscribbles]

Having a personal stake in two adoptions, my brothers, please don't paint all "mothers" and loss with such a broad brush. Would it have been better for my youngest brother to stay with his birth mother, a young woman who in the six months she had him never picked him up unless she had to, fed him his bottle while standing next to his crib so she didn't have to hold a baby she didn't want, had her own Mother bathe him so she again didn't have to hold or touch him...yep so many babies are SO much better off with their birth mothers...whatever!!!

Miss M.

Nobody thinks children are better off with abusive parents or a parent who truly doesn't want/love their child. But the article this thread is about concerns women who had their babies taken from them or who were coerced into adoption. And my sister is kind of like the mother you describe...she didn't want the baby but is "pro-life". She now is very much a lazy parent, doesn't really give a shit, and my parents do most of the work. But I'm still glad my niece is in my family...her grandparents (my parents) love her and so do I.

Yes, many parents are abusive and don't deserve their children. Those children are better off with an adoptive family (a good one) who loves them. But those are typically not the infant adoptions that were coercive (and can still be). Infant adoption and adoption that results from a parent being deemed unfit, foster adoption, etc. is very different.

But again, none of us are talking about abusive parents or situations where there is no love/care at all. Let's not make the thread about something else.

[YPestis]

Adoption is a wonderful thing but people make it sound like if they can convince or enforce policies which forces a woman to carry the baby to term, the women will turn around and become either a loving mother or will selflessly put the child up for adoption.

Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen. At the county hospital, I see plenty of single mothers who choose to keep their child but have few means of support. Many continue to lead chaotic lives which makes raising children difficult. The ones who put their child up for adoption aren't always----surprise----white and healthy. Plenty of unwanted children are born to women of color, are themselves addicted to drugs, or have some other health issues. In other words, not babies that most people want to adopt. I wish those that keep insisting that women should just put up their children for adoption should try to work in these places and see how difficult the decision can be, and how many of these babies are not happy, gerber babies.

[27randomscribbles]

At the county hospital, I see plenty of single mothers who choose to keep their child but have few means of support.

This is why I support universal healthcare, subsidized and available daycare, mandatory paid maternity leave, etc. I don't want someone to "choose" adoption or abortion over parenting because they can't afford healthcare or daycare.

I want choice to be choice. If I get pregnant now, I want an abortion. Despite the fact that I don't really have any major reasons not to (money, husband, etc), I just don't want a child yet. And that's a choice.

[Dinaberries]

This is absolutely heartbreaking. I was holding my baby while reading the article and I couldn't help but cry for those women. I think that the woman who called it "soul rape" was spot on. I can't imagine anything worse than losing my child.

[LadyBlue]

Having a personal stake in two adoptions, my brothers, please don't paint all "mothers" and loss with such a broad brush. Would it have been better for my youngest brother to stay with his birth mother, a young woman who in the six months she had him never picked him up unless she had to, fed him his bottle while standing next to his crib so she didn't have to hold a baby she didn't want, had her own Mother bathe him so she again didn't have to hold or touch him...yep so many babies are SO much better off with their birth mothers...whatever!!!

Miss M.

I did specifically make an exception for abuse, although even those babies and children grieve the loss of their parents. Given the studies showing over representation in mental health disorders of adoptees and the recent study showing the detrimental effects of foster care, it's not as cut and dried as it seems at first.

And, as others have pointed out, this thread and discussion aren't about abuse/neglect cases anyway, but about women who effectively had their babies stolen from them by those working in the adoption industry. While some of them may have ultimately chosen adoption without the lies and coercion, I'm sure some wouldn't have. As a mother, I can't even imagine the pain of giving up a child. To have your child stolen from you, especially by people who were supposed to care for you, must be infinitely worse.

[ukjingernut]

This has happened a lot in the UK, where very very few women choose to relinquish their children for adoption :(

[breadprincess]

Ugh. My mom got pregnant as an unmarried teenager in 1969 and gave birth to my oldest sister in 1970. She had my sister at a Catholic hospital in Niagara Falls, NY and said that she spent the whole labor with nuns screaming at her, trying to coerce her to give up her child. They even went so far as to give her a drug that dried up her breastmilk in an attempt to force her to "choose" adoption. Thankfully my mom is tough as nails and kept my sister, who my father adopted three years later when my parents married (she is legally my full sister, but biologically my half sister). When my mom finally told me all the details of what happened and they lengths they went to in an attempt to force adoption I was horrified.

[Palimpsest]

I did specifically make an exception for abuse, although even those babies and children grieve the loss of their parents. Given the studies showing over representation in mental health disorders of adoptees and the recent study showing the detrimental effects of foster care, it's not as cut and dried as it seems at first.

And, as others have pointed out, this thread and discussion aren't about abuse/neglect cases anyway, but about women who effectively had their babies stolen from them by those working in the adoption industry. While some of them may have ultimately chosen adoption without the lies and coercion, I'm sure some wouldn't have. As a mother, I can't even imagine the pain of giving up a child. To have your child stolen from you, especially by people who were supposed to care for you, must be infinitely worse.

Yes, absolutely, to the bolded. Delurking for this. :)

Discussions of the negative side of adoption, always hurts today's adoptive parents -- who have such a hard and expensive road to adoption. It tends to make people defensive and brings out all the negative stories about "bad" birth mothers. Yes, they exist and, yes, there are many children who are in care and hoping for adoption after their birth parent's rights have been terminated for cause.

This discussion is about the "Baby Scoop" era, late 1940s - 1970s. It is difficult today to conceive of a time when a middle class couple could pretty much put in an order for a white blue-eyed infant and just pick it up at an agency a few weeks later.

That is what my adoptive parents did back in 1954. Good church going people who provided a couple of excellent references, had a single interview with a social worker, one home check after they took me home at 6 weeks, and a finalized the adoption before a judge when I was 4 months old. They were good parents.

That doesn't lessen the impulse for me and many other adopted children to search for the mother who gave me up for adoption. They are not technically "allowed" to search for us. All I want is let her know that I'm alright, I understand the pressures she was probably under, and I hope that she was able to "put it all behind her and forget" as they were told to do back then. Some background health information would be nice, but I'd rather not know anything if I am the result of rape or incest. Yes, that is a possibility.

As to the long-term effects and how unwed mothers were treated during those years? There is a some research cited at Birthmothers.info which is a US oriented site, and this is from http://www.uktrackers.co.uk. and is one of the few studies that exist.

Survey 1000 is the most comprehensive research project on U.K. unmarried mothers 1950 - 1975 ever conducted.

1000 former unmarried mothers from a wide variety of backgrounds were interviewed and the results are extremely disturbing. The treatment of unmarried mothers in this 25 year period has been clearly established for the first time.

A summary of the survey shows that:

» Of 1000 former unmarried mothers interviewed, 981 staying in a Church run Unmarried Mothers Home.

» Only 0.3% of unmarried mothers informed of their rights, entitlements and the alternative to adoption

» 98.9% of unmarried mothers were forced or pressured to surrender their babies for adoption.

» 96.4% of unmarried mothers were not given a post-natal examination.

» 35.3% of unmarried mothers suffered secondary infertility .

The full survey can be downloaded at the site and is well worth reading.

Young women like RazingRuth's sister who are thoughtfully and willingly putting their child up for adoption, have the benefit of making informed decisions. She will also I hope have the benefit of good counselling before and after the adoption. I wish her well.

[27randomscribbles]

This discussion is about the "Baby Scoop" era, late 1940s - 1970s. It is difficult today to conceive of a time when a middle class couple could pretty much put in an order for a white blue-eyed infant and just pick it up at an agency a few weeks later.

That is what my adoptive parents did back in 1954. Good church going people who provided a couple of excellent references, had a single interview with a social worker, one home check after they took me home at 6 weeks, and a finalized the adoption before a judge when I was 4 months old. They were good parents.

That doesn't lessen the impulse for me and many other adopted children to search for the mother who gave me up for adoption. They are not technically "allowed" to search for us. All I want is let her know that I'm alright, I understand the pressures she was probably under, and I hope that she was able to "put it all behind her and forget" as they were told to do back then. Some background health information would be nice, but I'd rather not know anything if I am the result of rape or incest. Yes, that is a possibility.

I very very much identify with what you've written here. My parents are "good" parents, Christian, church-going, good jobs and fairly wealthy...the "ideal" adoptive family. Yes, there was abuse (I call it abuse, they call it "spanking") but I blame the church not my parents--I know they love me and were just doing what they thought was right. But overall they gave me a good life, and if it weren't for the religion I'd probably have turned out mentally "ok". Like you, however, I still wanted to find my mom. I never wanted to until I was in my twenties and had started to leave my religion and I wondered if all the stories I'd been told about my adoption (that were picture-book perfect) were true, since I was finding all the religious stuff I'd been taught was not as clear cut as I'd thought. I also wanted to let her know I was alright. I read that book and imagined her as one of those women, desperate to know if her child was ok. So I found her and called. And although it's complicated as hell and I don't know how to have a relationship...I'm still working on that...I'm glad I did. Now she knows her daughter is ok.

But, I also want to point out that I was born in the late 80's. My mom did not truly want to give me up, she simply had no support system (parents were against her keeping me) and was struggling with mental illness (which I have, and I want kids someday so if anyone feels that was a good "reason" then I guess I shouldn't have kids either). If it were me I'd want someone to give me good advice, help me out, get me on my feet, and help me keep my kid. I'd have an abortion so I don't have to make the hard decisions she did (family would not have accepted abortion, religious reasons).

That was the late 80's. Recently, my sister had a baby. She was unmarried, in a religious, small community, and anti-choice. So she of course had to have the baby. Unlike with my mother, my parents eventually got over their disappointment (and of course, tons of slut shaming as happens with some religious people) and decided to support her and the baby...they also had the money to do so. Even then, the ladies at the crisis pregnancy center tried so hard to get her to choose adoption. They used every cliche method in the book. They shamed her for being unmarried, using the "you wouldn't want your child to have to look up to someone like you" and made sure to remind her of how horrible her prospects were as a single mother (even though they knew she was upper-middle class and had financial support of her parents).

I guess my point there was that, even though it was much, much more rampant in the "baby scoop era"...it does still happen. The advent of "open" adoptions doesn't do much either. For one mom's view of her open adoption read this. And yes, obviously this is an opinion piece and not all women feel like this, but it's still an interesting (sad) read. http://www.cafemom.com/group/4974/forum ... T_Enbourge

ETA: I did discover I was the product of rape. It wasn't easy to find out, but eventually I just decided I wasn't going to give the rapist the time of day--it's my mom who is the important one to me.

[BelieveinScience]

Adoption is a wonderful thing but people make it sound like if they can convince or enforce policies which forces a woman to carry the baby to term, the women will turn around and become either a loving mother or will selflessly put the child up for adoption.

Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen. At the county hospital, I see plenty of single mothers who choose to keep their child but have few means of support. Many continue to lead chaotic lives which makes raising children difficult. The ones who put their child up for adoption aren't always----surprise----white and healthy. Plenty of unwanted children are born to women of color, are themselves addicted to drugs, or have some other health issues. In other words, not babies that most people want to adopt. I wish those that keep insisting that women should just put up their children for adoption should try to work in these places and see how difficult the decision can be, and how many of these babies are not happy, gerber babies.

This. The main reason my friend didn't give up her daughter as a teenage was because she was a white but the father was not white and had psychological issues. She was told by an adoption agency not very many people would be interested in her baby because of this and might end up in foster care. People can talk about all the time about how there are all these people who want to adopt the babies and abortion should stop but a fair amount of these people only want a "perfect" baby not just an old baby.

Just curious do a lot of the single mothers you see start out wanting to put their baby up fora doption then changing their mind?

[Palimpsest]

[quote="27randomscribbles

I very very much identify with what you've written here. My parents are "good" parents, Christian, church-going, good jobs and fairly wealthy...the "ideal" adoptive family. Yes, there was abuse (I call it abuse, they call it "spanking") but I blame the church not my parents--I know they love me and were just doing what they thought was right. But overall they gave me a good life, and if it weren't for the religion I'd probably have turned out mentally "ok". Like you, however, I still wanted to find my mom. I never wanted to until I was in my twenties and had started to leave my religion and I wondered if all the stories I'd been told about my adoption (that were picture-book perfect) were true, since I was finding all the religious stuff I'd been taught was not as clear cut as I'd thought. I also wanted to let her know I was alright. I read that book and imagined her as one of those women, desperate to know if her child was ok. So I found her and called. And although it's complicated as hell and I don't know how to have a relationship...I'm still working on that...I'm glad I did. Now she knows her daughter is ok.

But, I also want to point out that I was born in the late 80's. My mom did not truly want to give me up, she simply had no support system (parents were against her keeping me) and was struggling with mental illness (which I have, and I want kids someday so if anyone feels that was a good "reason" then I guess I shouldn't have kids either). If it were me I'd want someone to give me good advice, help me out, get me on my feet, and help me keep my kid. I'd have an abortion so I don't have to make the hard decisions she did (family would not have accepted abortion, religious reasons).

That was the late 80's. Recently, my sister had a baby. She was unmarried, in a religious, small community, and anti-choice. So she of course had to have the baby. Unlike with my mother, my parents eventually got over their disappointment (and of course, tons of slut shaming as happens with some religious people) and decided to support her and the baby...they also had the money to do so. Even then, the ladies at the crisis pregnancy center tried so hard to get her to choose adoption. They used every cliche method in the book. They shamed her for being unmarried, using the "you wouldn't want your child to have to look up to someone like you" and made sure to remind her of how horrible her prospects were as a single mother (even though they knew she was upper-middle class and had financial support of her parents).

I guess my point there was that, even though it was much, much more rampant in the "baby scoop era"...it does still happen. The advent of "open" adoptions doesn't do much either. For one mom's view of her open adoption read this. And yes, obviously this is an opinion piece and not all women feel like this, but it's still an interesting (sad) read. http://www.cafemom.com/group/4974/forum ... T_Enbourge

ETA]

I'm glad you found your mom. From everything I've read, reunion is not always easy but it sounds as though you are coping with it very well. Good luck on working out the complications. Also, I totally agree on not giving the rapist the time of day. I'm sorry you had to discover that.

I also agree that coercion does still exist today and did in the 1980s when you were born. I like to hope that it is much less common than in the Baby Scoop era, and is limited to small religious extremist groups. What concerns me is that those groups are growing and becoming more vocal and the attitudes of shaming and coercing unmarried mothers seems to be returning in the US. It feels like a return to the 1950s!

I found FJ after reading about Michael Pearl and the deaths of Lydia, Sean and Hana Grace Rose. While this may be the worst end of the spectrum, I'm also deeply concerned about the increasing surge in evangelical adoptions both domestic and overseas in the US. Think Russell Moore's movement. As an adopted person, it deeply angers me that these people are jumping into adoption to "save souls" with, at best, no respect for the heritage, rights or needs of the children. (Please know, I am not talking about any of the FJ adoptive parents here -- you all sound like exceptional people. :D)

I should have pointed out in my last post that I was adopted in the UK. As UKjinger points out above mothers putting children up for adoption is rare in the UK these days, and adoption reform in 1975 did improve the system giving adopted children more rights than previously.

Thanks for the link on open adoption. I've seen it before and it is heartbreaking. When you read adoption sites the pain felt by mothers who have unwillingly given up their children for adoption is astounding. There is also a lot of anger from adopted children who feel they have been forcibly cut off from their original families, especially if their adoptions were less than successful. I think that most happy "adoptees" don't need to talk much about it. But, even though my adoptive parents were good to me, I've had to deal with anger from various lies I was told by them over the years.

I have much more anger at the system that finally released my adoption "file." It is a couple of scraps of paper! Adoption agencies in those days not only kept very meagre records, they also deliberately destroyed evidence of malfeasance, and there was no accountability in those church run homes. Pretty much all I have is my mother's name, her age (15), and my original birth certificate. It is like searching for a needle in a haystack. I was 30 when I first found out the name she gave me. I remember feeling absolute rage at my adoptive parents for changing my name -- that was the only thing she was able to give me! Apparently that is not an uncommon feeling and I got over being angry quite fast.

I think if I have a point to make, it is that adoption is incredibly complicated from all perspectives. It can be a very good thing indeed, but a lot of the arguments and debates engaged in by the general public forgets the rights of the person at the center. The child. It all seems to be about the agonies of the parents -- biological or adoptive.

Some adopted children claim to have no issues at all about being adopted. I personally doubt that because I always had a sense of loss and a search for identity even with a good adopted family. I'll be OK if I never find my mother, and she may have died years ago and have had a wonderful life. I hope so. However, the "system" quite possibly bullied her into giving me up and denied me the right to know where I came from. It set me up for a lifetime of looking at doctors and saying "I don't know, I'm adopted." For some reason that pisses doctors off. They say patronisingly, "Well, aren't you curious?"

Why, yes. Yes, I am! But it isn't that easy.

[Rosa]

I don't think coercion is limited to small religious groups - I've heard and read too many birthmom stories that included being bullied and lied to by agencies. I think the problem is the amount of money involved, and the lack of oversight - though the religious nature of lots of agencies doesn't help.

[Palimpsest]

This. The main reason my friend didn't give up her daughter as a teenage was because she was a white but the father was not white and had psychological issues. She was told by an adoption agency not very many people would be interested in her baby because of this and might end up in foster care. People can talk about all the time about how there are all these people who want to adopt the babies and abortion should stop but a fair amount of these people only want a "perfect" baby not just an old baby.

Just curious do a lot of the single mothers you see start out wanting to put their baby up fora doption then changing their mind?

I'm curious too about mothers changing their minds. Either immediately after birth or even months/years later. There is a lot of sadness and anger from adoptive parents when a mother refuses to sign off on adoption after they have cared for a child for ages and bonded with him/her. Whose rights should prevail?

At least, Believeinscience,your friend got a straightforward answer from her adoption agency about the risks of foster care for her baby. Those not *perfect* babies have always had a hard time getting adopted. Sad.

[Palimpsest]

I don't think coercion is limited to small religious groups - I've heard and read too many birthmom stories that included being bullied and lied to by agencies. I think the problem is the amount of money involved, and the lack of oversight - though the religious nature of lots of agencies doesn't help.

Rosa, I'm trying to research this more so I hope you don't mind my asking -- could you be more specific about where you are hearing and reading these stories? Are they recent? People you know? Are they domestic (US) or international adoptions? Are any adoption agencies named? Were they private adoptions, as I expect Lyndsie's (other thread) are?

There's a growing amount out there regarding international adoptions being coerced or misrepresented to the mothers, but I have not come accross much in the US in recent years. Generally, the US negative stories concern adoptive parents reneging on open adoption agreements. In those cases the mother technically willingly gave up the child.

I've only come across a few news accounts when the mother claims to have been really coerced by established agencies in the last 20 years or so.

Thanks.