|
Open Adoption: They knew it would
work
by Cedar
Open adoption is the norm these days, contrasting with the closed
adoptions of the Baby Scoop Era, which may have ended in the mid-1970s
in the United States but continued far longer in Canada. I knew
single moms in the mid-1980s whose babies were still being taken
at birth with the mother not being allowed to see or touch her baby.
It was done to me in fact in 1980.
So, why did open adoption begin? Frankly, it began because mothers
had begun keeping their babies, finding parental support and access
to financial assistance that did not exist in the Baby Scoop Era
when shamed parents shipped their daughters off to maternity facilities
and “wage home” to return as “born again virgins.”
Agencies faced the prospect of going out of business unless they
found a new way to persuade moms to surrender their newborns. Research
was done, and open adoption was found to be the key.
Examples are below, but the data is far more extensive and other
articles examine the exact statistical affect of various open adoption
practices such as meeting prospective adopters before the birth
vs. after the birth, the baby going home with them from the hospital,
pre-birth consents signed, etc.
This raises a huge ethical issue that is not being discussed in
adoption literature. If a mother’s decision about surrendering
her baby is being influenced by practices carefully researched and
applied to increase the odds she will surrender increase, is it
really a freely-made decision at all? Especially if she is kept
unaware of this manipulation? In effect, is any open adoption truly
ethical as this practice was designed to obtain babies for the market,
to keep agencies in business, and to exploit the vulnerability of
poor, single, or young mothers?
1976 — The Research Begins …
“Recently one of the authors met with a [focus group] of
young unwed mothers … the women talked about their struggles,
frustration and feelings of bitterness and anger. They regretted
their inability to offer their children the kinds of loving care
they had expected to give them. Regarding adoption, the women
felt that although they were failing to provide adequately, they
could not face the possibility of a final and total separation
from their infants .. When they were asked about how they would
feel about open adoption, thier attititudes were totally different:
They thought they could face and even welcome adoption for their
children if they could meet the adoptive parents, help in the
separation and move ot a new home, and the maintain some contact
with the child.” (pp. 98-99)
Note: This was the study that started it all: the first research
deliberately done to find out how to separate more mothers from
their children.” Yngvasson (1997) says about this article:
“[Open adoption] was proposed by Baran and her colleagues
as a way of encouraging unmarried women (and specifically unmarried
white women) to relinquish their babies for adoption at a time
when they were increasingly choosing to raise them alone”
1987 — Studies continue …
“Adoption practices are changing partly in response to the
falling relinquishment rate” (Barth, 1987, p. 323). [Note:
open adoption being offered to counter-act mothers keeping their
babies]
“Taken together, these studies suggest that more vigorous
and frequent presentations of adoption options and the possible
benefits of relinquishment outweight the possible risks to the
practitioner-client relationship.” (Barth, 1987, p. 331)
1990 … a study of 105 white and African-American “keepers”
and “releasers” and their mothers, their attitudes toward
adoption practices.
“A review of the responses … indicated that the major
issue for the adolescent keeper and her mother was the extent
to which the birth mother would have information about the baby
as it grows up. Thus, there was clear rejection of the idea of
not knowing how the baby was doing as it grew up. There was clear
support for choosing the actual famiy who gest the baby, for finding
out how the baby is doing now and then, for meeting three families
and knowng for sure that one of them will get the baby, and for
seeing the baby as it grows up …. Movement to a more open
procedure, which provides the birth mothers more choice and more
information about the fate of her baby might, indeed, increase
the consideration of adoption by pregnancy adolescents.”
(Kallen et al., 1990, p. 315).
“Of course, the mere availability of open procedures will
not be sufficient. Family professionals must take advantage of
the opportunity to provide information, guidance, and counselling
in support of open adoption.” (Kallen et al., 1990, p. 316).
1991 — Promote it as a way to get more babies to market…
“In a very general way, openness benefits prospective parents
because it may increase the pool of adoptable infants. For biological
parents to have some continuing knowledge about their relinquished
child may help them to choose adoption as an option (Barth, 1987),
thus increasing the number of children available and decreasing
the wait for an adoptable child.” (Berry, 1991, p. 638)
“Cocozzelli (1989) warns that the potential benefits of
open adoption may persuade some adolescent mothers to relinquish
a child who would not otherwise have done so. Those mothers who
relinquish in the expectation of continued contact may risk prolonged
uncertainty and grief.” (Berry, 1991, p. 641)
1999 …
“A ‘confidential’ adoption … may be a factor
in the number of young women who choose to keep their babies.
… Rather, we must be concerned to the extent that the cost
of losing contact with the infant effects a rejection of adoption
as a pregnancy outcome.” (Caragata, 1999, p. 116)
“As many young women who choose to place thier baby change
their minds following the birth, factors such as having met with
the adoptive parents could affect these decisions.” (Caragata,
1999, p. 117)
Below are the references cited, plus related studies. In purple
are the actual research studies conducted on whether open adoption
would work to get more babies surrendered:
1. Baran, A., Pannor, R., & Sorosky,
A. (1976). Open adoption. Social Work, 21, 97-100
2. Barth, R. (1987). Adolescent Mothers Beliefs about Open Adoption.
Social Casework, 68, 323-331
3. Berry, M. (1991) “The Effects of Open Adoption on biological
and Adoptive Parents and the Children: The Arguments and the Evidence”.
Child Welfare, 70, 637-51.
4. Berry, M. (1993). Risks and benefits of open adoption. Adoption,
3(1), 125-138.
5. 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.
6. Cocozelli, C. (1989). Predicting the decision of biological mothers
to retain or relinquish their babies for adoption: Implications
for open placement. Child Welfare, 68, 33-44.
7. Daly, K. (1994). Adolescent perceptions of adoption: Implications
for resolving an unplanned pregnancy. Youth and Society, 25(3),
330-350.
8. Kallen, D. J., Griffore, R. J., Popovich, S. & Powell, V.
(1990). Adolescent mothers and their mothers view adoption. Family
Relations, 30, 313-316.
9. Sobol, M. & Daly, K. (1992). The adoption alternative for
pregnant adolescents: Decision making, consequences, and policy
implications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(3), 143-161.
10. Yngvesson, B. (1997). “Negotiating motherhood: Identity
and difference in “open” adoptions.” Law and Society
Review, 31(1), 31-80.
Copyright 2008
by Cedar Bradley.
(reprinted
from http://cedartrees.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/open-adoption-they-knew-it-would-work/)
|
Considering
adoption? Don't feel you have any other options? We're here to help!
