I couldn’t sleep last night
I don’t know why really but I was getting myself all worked up about a blog post that isn’t mine, that has nothing to do with me or anyone I know. So I was awake and agitated by the substance of the post and then couldn’t sleep because I couldn’t figure out why I care so much.
Then I decided that it’s because it’s an issue of justice first and foremost for adoptees. And the reason it was upsetting me so much is that it’s injustice masked with love and that’s why it’s got me feeling so hopeless. It’s the “for your own good” type of adoption injustice that is most difficult to undo because it’s awfully hard to argue with people who are trying to protect their children.
So then I thought, I shouldn’t argue. I should stop arguing. Instead I’ll dig out some research and educated opinions from the professionals within the adoption community who have been specially focused on openness in the past twenty-odd years that it has become a central issue in adoption discussion. Because I have a hard time with preemptive protection (choosing little or no contact or very controlled contact with a first family based on what may seem to be valid but thus far unsubstantiated concerns). Of course, there are good reasons to limit or cut-off first family contact:
–Child’s history with that person, especially in cases where child is removed because of abuse or neglect;
–Being under the influence of drug/alcohol while with the child;
–Untreated mental health issues that make first family a danger to anyone else in the triad (including themselves);
–Violence toward child or other members of adoptive family;
–Inability to accept family boundaries (although I’d argue for mediation before the adoptive family just clamps down and cuts things off).
Those are pretty extreme situations. What I see sometimes is adoptive parents projecting behavior that is done away from the child and assuming a safety threat for their child and it made me wonder when preemptive protection makes sense and when it masks our culture’s general fear of birth parents. (It seems like we have really high standards for first parents; sometimes higher than we have for ourselves.)
There’s this idea that by not having their children even the first parents are admitting they are incapable and unsafe and so we’re justified by “holding them responsible” for their behavior by limiting their contact to their children. (And, of course, limiting our children’s contact to them.) By limiting contact for reason XYZ, we are justifying the adoption. “Look, even she knew she was unsafe,” we say. “That’s why she placed her baby with us. I’m really only honoring her decision.”
I’m not sure when preemptive protection makes sense and when it doesn’t. I’m not sure if there’s been enough research that some openness is better or worse than more openness. Since I’m researching this open adoption article anyway, (which is about challenges that threaten openness to adoption) I thought I’d share some of the things I’m learning and try to grapple with them a bit. And I’ll also try to find out what people in the know have to say about preemptive protection. Ok. I’ll start with the next entry.
I think the projection and judgment to birthparents’ lives is where my thoughts are now. I’d totally write an entry on my own blog today about it, but it’s my birthday and that’s a dreadful topic for my birthday. Did I mention my birthday? =oP
So… I’ll just grace your comments instead.
Are adoptive parents still buying into the “place your child for adoption and your life will be renewed and potentially wonderful…” bs?
Aw, horse poopie. There is no way I can word this without slamming birthfamilies. And I *AM* someone’s birthfamily! =oP
Should I take this to email instead?
This is why we need legally binding pre-adoption contracts about openness. I don’t trust adoptive parents to always know what is truly best for the child when their own feelings get in the way. Better a mediator whois trained in this stuff should help sort it out.
Even in cases where there’s been abuse, the child (depending on age of course) may well need some kind of (safe) contact in order to do her own working throughof the abuse.
Just as one example.
My daughter’s parents told me they weren’t going to send me ONE letter ONCE a year with a LITTLE BIT OF NEWS because they felt it was in her best interest…..
Ha ha of course I have NO RESENTMENTS about that 22 years later……
Define dangerous really, I mean you did but what I meant is, what on earth do people mean by “dangerous”?
We are allowed to go and visit criminals in prison, it’s all done safely, there are ways to have contact in a “safe” way. Why make a child deal with all that reunion insanity at 18? And why make a mother wait all that time to see her child, to hear his or her voice? To personally give him or her a birthday gift?
I think being denied contact is dangerous.
I do think there are times that it is emotionally or physically dangerous for a family to have contact with a birth family. BUT I think those same kinds of things would prohibit contact with a grandparent or aunt or uncle or anything else, not just first families. I am close to a case first hand. The child’s first mother says things that are damaging to the child and in front of the child.
I think many adoptive parents use “instability” as an excuse. To me every first mom is unstable at her time of placement- in some manner (financial, emotional, relationship) - but that may not be the story of her life. Yet some adoptive families take this intial instability and use it against a first mom. It seems ironic to me.
I would have to disagree respectfully kim.kim with one point of your post. That there are ways to have contact in a “safe” way.
I have attempted to explore safe ways to initiate contact with Bug’s mom. However, because she has hired a private investigator, because she has called DFS over and over saying that she is going to get Bug from where ever she is and keep her and threatening them etc. She has made threatening comments “towards me” except she doesn’t know who I am, so they were more just in general to whomever has kept Bug.
If she were in prison (I’m not sure if she still is) I think I would be more likely to allow face to face contact. I would feel much more safe in that scenario.
But, let’s review what Dawn said:
–Child’s history with that person, especially in cases where child is removed because of abuse or neglect;
Yes.
–Being under the influence of drug/alcohol while with the child;
Yes.
–Untreated mental health issues that make first family a danger to anyone else in the triad (including themselves);
Yes.
–Violence toward child or other members of adoptive family
Yes.
Now, maybe her mother is completely rehabilitated now, but all the “experts” involved feel that is very far from the case. I would say that we have to walk a fine line between the definite advantage of an open adoption with Bug’s mom, and the very real risk of continued emotional damage to Bug based on that relationship.
You said, “Why make a mother wait all that time to see her child” and I say that in cases where parental rights have been terminated due to abuse and neglect, and the person has continued to engage in the same behaviors in which caused the termination to occur, then that mother has demonstrated that she is not capable of carrying on an emotionally positive relationship with the child.
I know you were offended by the comparison of my grandfather to Bug’s mom but the comparison is very accurate. They are both abusers and they both engaged in emotional mindfuckery with their victims. Now, you could have argued that I should have carried on a relationship with him after his incarceration because he was my blood relative. And why should I deny a grandparent the right to see their grandchild, or give them a birthday gift? Because he abused me for 13 years. Why deny Bug’s mom the same thing? Because she abused her for basically 8 years. But you also need to understand that the comparison stops there..most first moms are in no way abusive towards their children.
I definitely agree with Shannon, who said that adoptive parents might let their feelings get in the way over what is in the best interest of the child, and so I have spoken multiple people both inside and outside the DFS system. Not one of them believed that it was ok for Bug to have contact with her mom.
That ALL being said, you are in no way like my daughter’s mom. You were not an abuser. You did not deserve the treatment you got.
And that I wish every single day that we could have a relationship like Dawn and Madison have with Jessica. Because I strongly believe that would be best for Bug.
Whoa, sorry for the comment hijack Dawn.
i think like people, every case could be different. hard to legislate one method, way for everyone. Probably legislation could provide frameworks but no more. frameworks for relationships to blossom, grow, change, constrict, restrict, open…etc. More support and education all around too, not just pregnant women and their families. Prospective adoptive parents too need education. Just like bio parents. They too are in a vulnerable position, no less, no more than the first parents. Let’s acknowledge loss, sadness, joy, fear all aroiund.
One of the ways I would like to see adoption reform happen is by having a way to mediate these disputes–I think post-adoption support needs to do a lot more in this arena, and there needs to be a wide spread embrace of the fact that you can’t always trust people to honor their agreements and to act in the way that is in the child’s best interests. 3rd party mediation could be used a lot more–yearly or every six month sessions with a counselor or neutral for the adoptive parents and birth parents to discuss issues. The same reasons that support using an agency to help mediate agreements in the begining also support ongoing involvement from a third party. I think that the lack of enforceablity of open adoption agreements is a big failing of the U.S. domestic adoption arena. That said, there are also plenty of times where contact is not in the best interests or bad/hurtful behavior needs to be addressed and using mediation could potentially help to sort these issues out. There will always be situations like Baggage’s where no amount of mediation in the world can make contact okay, but there are also a lot of situations where increased communicatin and third-party help could make a huge difference.
I think it’s really important to always qualify whether we are talking about older children, removed from bio-families due to abuse (orfor similarly obvious bad reasons) or first mothers, placing children at or near birth.
There are often HUGE differences.
Absolutely. That has been my point through all of these talks, that there is more than one type of first mother and so generalizations don’t work.
FYI- the first mom I mentioned previously was part of an open domestic infant adoption.
Here’s a concept that doesn’t get touched on: When there is an open adoption, and the birthmom discovers her child is being (or has been) abused in the adoptive home … or that one of the adoptive parents is severely and harmfully mentally ill.
I know, personally, of three instances (including personal experience) where this was the case.
In each instance, the birthmother was shut out and the adoption, closed. The children, of course, were left to think their birthparents skipped merrily away of their own accord while they were in harm’s way.
What do we do about this?
On second thought, let’s keep that question rhetorical rather than going off subject. Perhaps I’ll put my own front porch back up to talk about it.