Comments again
Jan 6, 2004 Adoption
Jen said:
While I appreciate how you address the birth parent’s position here, at the same time, the baby is the one with the most at stake. Sure, we can be romantic and say having no money doesn’t mean the child will suffer. Just having a parent who loves him/her is all that’s needed. Yeah, right. If we’re realistic about it, the mother having no money puts the child at an instant disadvantage. If the mother can’t afford to pay the doctor/hospital bills, and if she already has two at home that she is caring for, who need food, clothes, housing, child care, etc., how is she going to be able to pull all of that off? She won’t. Who suffers? The kids.
I say kudos to the lawyer who played hardball when it was needed. We can reduce the issue to a matter of power all we want, but in the end, the child is the one with the least amount of power and the one who needs someone with some power to step up to bat. The lawyer did just that.
First of all, poverty does not necessarily predict a horrible life just as having money doesn’t guarantee a good one.
Secondly, when women are forced to place babies they want to parent, something is deeply wrong with our system. If we all agree that children deserve to have their basic needs meet — food, loving care, and shelter — then we should all focus on how we can do that without forcing their parents to place them for adoption. The adoptive couple in that scenario is not more deserving just because they have more money. That’s not a romantic notion, that’s quite simply true. Being poor is not a death sentence although it would be nice if our country would do the goddamn right thing and make sure that every child had access to safe housing, nutritious food, and adequate healthcare.
Finally, if the woman with the three children hadn’t agreed to an adoption plan, would you still think someone should be able to enter her hospital room and bully her into placing? By responsibly exploring her options — because an adoption plan is just that, a woman’s right to consider an option, not a contract to give her child to other people — this woman’s baby was taken from her. In a legitimate adoption scenario with an ethical agency or lawyer, the woman would not have been coerced into having a c-section and she would also have been given information about programs that would have supported her in her parenting decision.
I just don’t believe that anyone reading this blog, including Jen the author of the above comments, would argue that a policy forcing parents living below a certain income level to give up their children is a good idea. The presence of an adoption plan shouldn’t force any woman’s decision.
Possibly related posts
Tags: Shelter
Pulled from the comments
Jan 1, 2004 Adoption
Shamhat wrote:
A woman who adopted told this story at a table in the library, to another woman who wanted to adopt, in the context of recommending her attorney:
The birth mother was in Miami, had 2 school age children already, and the father went back to Columbia, thus she wasn’t going to get any child support. She had no health insurance and she could not afford infant day care. The adopting couple was in New Jersey. They agreed to pay all of the medical expenses.
The birth mother agreed to have a scheduled cesarean despite having given birth twice, for the comfort of the adoptive parents–both so that they could schedule their flight, and apparently because after infertility they don’t trust the natural process. They were in the operating room, and held the baby, who was then taken to the NICU due to slight breathing trouble (not uncommon for an early c/sec).
The next day they went to see the baby and were told by the nurses that the mother had initiated breastfeeding and they expected her to decide to parent.
They called the fabulous lawyer, who called the hospital to inform them that the woman in room XXX’s expenses were no longer going to be paid by his client. Apparently they got someone from the billing department into that room while the baby was still on her breast to ask her for financial information. Her bills were higher than they would have been for a vaginal birth, and there were also those NICU charges for complications that were caused by the slight prematurity inherent in scheduled cesareans.
The adoptive mother says this “brought her back to the reality that she really couldn’t afford this baby,” and she signed the papers immediately. What a terrific lawyer!
It scares me to think of someone finding out that his mother did that to his mother. It also scares me that we have women relinquishing their children because they can’t afford health insurance and child care.
Reading this literally made me sick. Unfortunately is not the only ugly horror story I’ve heard.
I think that it’s vital that those of us who are adopting or considering it think hard about the issues that are inherent in any adoption, be it domestic or international. Issues of coercion, classism, sexism, racism and all of the other ugly -isms. Those of us who adopt are the “have’s” just by virtue of being able to adopt. Most of us wouldn’t use an abusive lawyer to force a woman to give us her child but differences in power is always an issue in any adoption.
At the beginning of our adoption discussions, Brett said that when he thought of adoption he always thought about a baby left in a basket on church steps with a little note pleading for the convenient little orphan.
I get this want for a disappearing birth parent, I do. One of my favorite movies used to be Grand Canyon because a character finds a baby hidden under a bush while she’s jogging. What a great way to get a baby, eh? But that was before I started reading about adoption realities.
Even when the birth parents are not present physically, they are present and they need to be honored. Children are not generally given up voluntarily even when their placement seems voluntary. Children are given up when their birth parents’ hands are forced by poverty, illness, government policy, cultural expectations, family demands, etc.
In a best case scenario, a birth parent is made aware of her options and is free to choose adoption. However, it’s impossible not to wonder if her circumstances were different — if quality, affordable childcare was available or if she had a loving family to help her parent — whether or not adoption would still be of her choosing.
I don’t mean to paint a pitiful picture of birth parents, rather I mean that those of us who are blessed enough in our circumstances to adopt need to always honor the birth histories of our children. Like white privilege or straight privilege or rich privilege, we need to recognize that we have a responsibility to those whose losses lead to our gain.
To tell you the truth, I’m not sure what to do about the obligation that I feel I have by participating in the adoption triad. As a waiting adoptive parent, I know what my obligations are to my child and I trust the parent who places with us to let me know what expectations she has of me, however I’m not sure what to do about the broader societal issues.
Possibly related posts
Tags: breastfeeding, Brett, Infertility, racism
Happy new year!
Jan 1, 2004 Adoption
I’m not much for New Year’s celebrations. I only stayed up to watch the ball drop because Brett has this weird affinity for the whole spectacle. I always think of New Year’s Eve as a time when I used to make a lot of money babysitting.
I’m also not into resolutions being more of a one-day-at-a-time kinda person.
My birthday is this month and so is Noah’s and those are both much bigger commemorative events in my life. It’s nice knowing that 2004 will be the year we gain another family member though. It’s so definitive, whereas 2003 always had a question mark behind it.
Yes, 2004, year of our baby.
Anyway, happy new year to those who celebrate or take notice!