That was the title of a "forum" in the March 13, 1979 Family Circle magazine. Not much controversy about that today--the so-called "open adoption" trend has settled that for many people. Single mothers either abort or keep, depending on personal choice. So what were the points made in the bad old days of the so-called "closed" adoptions (and that's relatively new since many of these laws were put in place in the 1960s, replacing less formal agreements).
Ralph Maxfield, adult adoptee and adoptive parent: "I say absolutely not. Not all reunions follow the scripts for audience-pleasing TV specials. Many end in real-life pain and agony, as I well know. (Favored a medical and genetic information data bank to assist adoptees).
Betty Jean Lifton, journalist, authored "Twice Born; memoirs of an adopted daughter.": "We have the right to know who our birth parents are. To know your origins is a basic human need. Those who belittle this need usually know who their mothers and fathers are. They lack the empathy to understand what it's like to grow up surrounded by secrets, in ignorance of the genetic and social forces that brought you into existence."
Richard Zelinger, Children's Bureau of New Orleans: "An adoptee shouldn't know the identity of the birth parents unless there's a compelling necessity such as a serious medical problem. . . . it could destroy the adoption system. Adoptive parents would become mere custodians or at best foster parents."
Dr. Thomas Harris, author "I'm OK, you're OK.": I lean towards not telling adoptees. . . the seeking discourages them from dealing with their real problems. Many adoptees feel that knowing . . . will solve problems of personal identity and self-esteem."
Dr. William F. Reynolds, professor of psychology, author "The American Father.": "Adopted children have as much interest in their roots as other children. The inability to get accurate answers about his or her origins adds to a dangerous and unhealthy mystery that increases the child's rage and anxiety about having been given up in the first place. It's easier and healthier to deal with the truth than with phantoms. He's not seeking another mother, but his own identify."
My own view is closest to Dr. Reynolds. Except, why call people over 18 "children?" These are adults! Who cares what the reason is--medical or curiosity or genealogical hobby? No one asks me when I write for my birth certificate. Why is there one tiny subset of Americans who are denied the right to have their real birth certificate? Why should the state legislators and social workers of the early 60s still be allowed to control the lives of people 35-50 years old based on whatever pressure groups or academic theories were popular then? I think the Ohio law was passed in 1963 or 1964.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The happy reunions seem to all be on TV. Some are so-so. A lot just awful.
It is not about reunion. It is about treating the adoptee as an equal. It is about ending the discrimination that everyone in adoption faces. It is not the birth parents of this country that keep these records closed. It is the states at the adoption industry's urging. Many of the mothers of the past were coerced into relinquishing their children. They did not have a say in whether or not they wanted anonymity. There is not a relinquishment form in the United States that can prove this promise of confidentiality. This was proven in Oregon and Tennessee in their court decisions. Keep in mind that those same birth parents are also denied access to those documents. If the adoption industry is so intent on protecting these birth parents, why are they not enforcing open adoption arrangements with adoptive parents? If they are so intent on protecting protecting birth parents, why do they allow this to continue?
We have to understand that there is no right to confidentiality and anonymity. It does not exist in this country for anyone. Right to privacy does exist but it means the right to be alone. Legally according to the Supreme Court decisions of the past, it is the right to be free from governmental interference. With the right to privacy, it also involves the right to free association. To basically say yea or nay on contact. Both adoptees and birth parents are denied this right. We are not allowed the right to decide what is best for us. The adoption industry tells us what we should accept and be "grateful" for.
What happens when the child is never adopted? He/she still has access to those documents. The adoption records are sealed at finalization. Usually the relinquishment is not part of those adoption records.
Also, adopted native Americans cannot be denied access to their heritage, but adopted anglos can.
Until about 15 years ago, I might have agreed with the "adoption industry" idea, but it's pretty well dead. The huge staffs and agencies are a thing of the past--those that still exist have evolved into quasi-foster care and older placement. There are open records for younger adoptees. My theory is follow the money. Someone, somewhere, doesn't want to be found.
Good points, Tex; thanks for responding.
Many adoptee rights organizations are also strong pro-choice. Odd but it happens. Retroactive death wish?
Post a Comment