Why I said fringe
Brave said, “open adoption is not considered fringe — it’s the very much the mainstream of adoption. - both domestic and internation, frankly. I am hard pressed to think of an expert who doesn’t validate open adoption (and the varieties of)”
I’d say that semi-open is mainstream and that fully open adoptions aren’t truly embraced — they get a lot of talk but most adoption professionals still get little to no training about full openness. True, full openness gets lip service but it’s been my experience (and observation) that the pre-adoption services and post-adoption services do not actually do much to facilitate true openness so mostly what’s happening is talk but no action.
For example, at most adoption agencies prospective birth parents aren’t informed about the reasons behind openness. They are told, “It will be easier for you. You will get to have pictures and letters. You will have peace of mind.” They are not told that openness is to address the very real consequences of adoption for their child. They are not told how adopted children continue to need them whether or not they are present. For example:
Open adoption is about giving choices at this agency but at another agency, open adoption is rightfully considered part of a child-centered philosophy. (Please note this second agency also includes adoption services for adoptees, which is a tad uncommon at most agencies.) From talking to other domestically adopting folks, this former is more the norm than the latter.
The most passionate advocates for fully open adoptions acknowledge that adoption — even at it’s best — is a fundamental loss for children, which is not something that most prospective adoptive parents want to hear. People giving lip service to the idea of openness (or whose understanding of it is fairly shallow) believe that openness makes up for a lot of those losses. It’s an essential difference and one I didn’t recognize really until this week. (Hey, I’m a little slow.)
See, at our agency we were given one session about how open adoption is good for adoptive kids but Jessica wasn’t told anything about why openness was good. It was played as a plus for her. She would get to pick the parents. She would get pictures and (if she were lucky) visits. But no one said to her, “Madison will have certain loss if you place and only you can know if this loss is greater than the challenges the two of you may have if you parent.” We had a four hour training about dealing with adoption issues; the prospective birth parents, on the other hand, were given no information about adoption issues.
Sure the books, the web sites, the research — we hear about openness a lot. It gets normalized on 20/20 and in women’s magazines (”The greatest gift: How one woman’s unselfishness made me a mother”) but the number of professionals actually pushing this elemental understanding of openness (that it starts with ethical counseling of pregnant women who contact an adoption professional) seems to be pretty small. When I’m doing my research to find information and experts, it’s the same names coming up over and over again. Did I mention this before? Sharon Kaplan said that they put on trainings all the time. They have conferences all the time but very few agencies come to them and even fewer implement the recommendations the open adoption advocates share. And she said they have never had a facilitator or lawyer show up. I asked Brenda Romanchik about this and she said she’s had the same uphill struggle.
It’s interesting to me to hear that our public perception is that it’s more about openness and I think it’s true that it’s trending this way but it’s still very surface. That’s why I’m saying that as actual policy, it’s still pretty fringe.
As I am actively researching agencies, I will say that my searching has lead me to many agencies that as you say “give lip service.” An absolutely eye opening experience is to click on the “looking to place? or “pregnant?” “considering adoption” sections for birth mothers–I have been horrified by some of these. I think it is important to understand an agency’s philosphy no matter what section of the agency you ultimately use–domestic infant adoption is not at the top of our list right now, but I want a clear view as to how an agency views adoption. Some agencies which rave about “openness” in birth mother sections and turn around and list the closed nature of most IA adoptions as a “benefit” are sending the message that closed really is preferrable and openess is a price to pay for newborn adoption. Agencies which perpetuate this perception are more common than you might think. True child centered agencies are few and far between.
from my very limited perception, it is still fringe
I looked through some family profiles on the two sites you linked to, and *what a difference*! I’d naively assumed that the “and Mary can’t wait to be a mom and loves baking cookies” thing was a stereotype but she exists! Whereas the couples/families on the second website sound like such fun and genuinely lovely people
Wow, I’ve learnt something new.
I think you made an excellent point about semi-open becoming mainstream while fully open remains on the edge. I’d even suggest that most people consider semi-open to be open which is where much of the confusion lies. I know the difference between the two is something Brenda is continuously trying to get across.
You are so right Dawn. What I was told about open adoption seems to have nothing at all to do with reality.
I really hate the term “semi-open” because I can never remember what it means. Vague, slippery, some contact but not really…
Turns out that is just about where we are living…. grey area, nothing for sure, messages sent but never confirmed. Who is this serving?
adoption in popular magazines? I consider the article progressive if the writer/editors don’t use “real mother” for bio or first mother. i was thinking more in adoption circles…
Semi-open is where we live. I didn’t know any better at the time. Basically, all correspondence between us and J goes through the agency. They block out any “identifying information” that we accidentally slip in. I would very much like to share my heart with J, and encourage her to share with us as she feels comfortable. But then I wonder how much would be blocked out by the agency if I get too real about adoption and what I’ve learned recently. It sort of feels like living with the Gestapo (sp?) Well, that sounds a little harsh. Overall, we’ve been happy with our agency - just wish we had more openess and don’t know how to move that way at this stage in the game.
Well, I guess I’m blabbering now, so will stop.
Melissa