this woman’s work

When people bash my adoption philosophies one of the ways they do it is by saying, “Yeah, but you have a good adoption! You just got lucky!” And yes, we have a good adoption in that we matched with a woman whose values are similar to our own (or at least similar enough that there aren’t huge cultural battles) and yes, we are fortunate that we all live near enough to each other that visits are fairly easy. This is true but that doesn’t negate the philosophies that underpin our family choices.

Ann was unconvinced that her disability made her ill-fitted for motherhood.  The desperate pleas of her grandmother and mother to surrender her child in an open adoption with us, a couple she knew and trusted, fell on deaf ears.  She ran away again.  On New Year’s Eve, 1999, 12 hours after she delivered, she called her mother to say she’d had a baby girl.  I didn’t meet that baby, now my oldest daughter Jessica, until 10 months later when Ann was expecting a second child.  By then, the state had stepped in to take custody of Jessica who had been abused, neglected and deprived.  Her back against a wall, Ann surrendered Jessica to us to protect her from foster care and then as an afterthought, asked us if we’d like her unborn son too.

from When first families aren’t safe

I have a deep admiration for the adoptive parents I know who manage to embrace open philosophy without being able to have a stereotypical open adoption. Their experiences are extremely important in our dialog and too often their stories are missing. This is partly because the common view of open adoption is that it makes things hunky-dory, when we all know that nothing in adoption is that easy. And it’s also partly because the open adoption advocates sometimes want to play down the stereotypes about first parents that sometimes prevent people from even considering openness in adoption.

But the thing is, if you look at the history of openness in adoption you’ll see that fostercare has had a big impact on the movement. If you dig around in the research you’ll see that the earliest openness studies were done around families that were separated when the children were older. Naturally older kids would need to have their histories addressed and as family reunification became a priority, first families were often part of the foster plan even when it became an adoption plan.

I’ve always believed that it’s possible to have an open adoption even when open adoption is not possible. What I mean is that it’s possible to live with an openness attitude for our kids even if visits, phone calls or even letters aren’t part of the picture. Micky Duxbury calls this attitude “child-centered adoption” and it certainly is a more inclusive term.

By definition, I still consider this an open adoption.  The children know where they came from; they know they can talk to me about any and everything regarding their first mother and her family.  They know whose nose they have or whose dimples.  They have pictures of their births and answers to questions like, “how long did it take for Ann to deliver me?”  or “did I have hair when I was born?”  Indeed, their extended family portraits adorn the walls and fill our photo albums.

from When first families aren’t safe

I’ve been reading jehknees3kids for a long time over at LJ and when she posted a terrific, insightful comment over at Open Adoption Support I asked her to post a longer entry. It’s terrific, too.

See, open adoption doesn’t mean putting your children in emotionally unsafe situations. It doesn’t mean letting people push your boundaries so far that you’re flat on your back gasping for air. It means finding ways to give our children connection. Jehknees3kids does this under circumstances that are unbelievably daunting.

First parents aren’t saints by virtue of being first parents; neither are they demons. They are people. Sometimes — but certainly not always — the situation that led them to adoption make them difficult to have relationships with. (And hey, sometimes adoptive parents are no picnic in the park either. I’m just sayin’.) These situations don’t negate the philosophies of openness but they certainly should have an impact on the practice within those families.

None of us — first parent or adoptive parent — is living a life like anyone else. Those of us who consider ourselves part of the open adoption movement are just trying to do the best that we can for the kids that we share. It looks like different things for different families. That’s why the back of the Open Adoption Support cards that I give out say:

• Open adoption is about honoring the connection adoptees have to both of their families.
• Open adoption recognizes the losses and grief of adoption.
• Open adoption does not diminish one family in favor of another.
• Open adoption is flexible, understanding that needs and circumstances change.
• Open adoption sets boundaries on the basis of what is best for the child in question.
• Open adoption looks like different things for different families.
• Open adoption is about commitment and sharing and love.

It’s not about having just the right number of visits and 2.3 letters each year and hand-holding entitlement ceremonies where everyone skips around the lilac tree and sings the praises of each other. Open adoption, like any relationship, is hard and sometimes messy and absolutely unique for every family. But at the heart of it is that belief that connection — in whatever form works — matters to our kids.

Thanks Jehknees3kids for sharing your experience and your wisdom.

Possibly related posts

• New tough question over at Open Adoption Support (0)
• A great question over at OAS (0)
• There’s some wrong info here (6)
• New question at Open Adoption Support (5)
• My antiracist parent post this month (11)