Open Adoption question?
As a foster kid who was removed from an abusive b-family, I wanted (and still do not want) anything to do with my b-parents. However, if my b-mom would have left my b-dad, he would have been held accountable for child support & had to pay money to insure that I received the help that I needed along with the other things in life (i.e. college). B-parents are expected to provide for bio children regardless of whether or not they retain custody. Right?
So my question is this. Is it fair that b-parents "expect" adoptive parents to assume all responsibility for a child but then still "demand" to have an open agreement - just so they can see the child? Shouldn't a b-parent who wants an open agreement have to contribute "something"? I understand if you have willingly made an adoption plan that you are choosing to place your child with someone else. Why then are adoptive parents who do not want an open adoption, frowned upon?
(I've asked this because a co-worker has considered adopting a child but does not wish to have an open adoption. People are telling her that she is selfish, etc. One agency will not even consider her because she refuses open adoption. I cannot fault her for her choices based on my own situation and this was the best analogy that I could come up with so I wondered what others might think also).
- BPD WifeLv 61 decade agoBest Answer
It is certainly a different *spin* on things, I'll say that. I think that some people are missing the fact that you are a former foster child and thinking that you are questioning open adoption from an AP's standpoint rather than as a former foster kid who has questions and is trying to make some sense of adoption as you know it.
I can tell you our situation. Our son's bio grandparents actually offered to help us with the legal expenses when adopting our son because they "wanted" us to be his parents and knew that it was an expensive process. We knew that it would create the appearance of an illegal adoption and told them "NO" if they wanted to do something, they could start a trust fund for him.
Once our adoption was finalized, our son's bio grandparents have remained in close contact with us. Our son's bio parents have chosen to walk away from the open agreement that they signed (but I assume that in this case it was the best because my son was neglected). I would hate to see them being held financially responsible for a decision they made to benefit the child by making an adoption plan for him. That being said, our son's bio grandparents have set up a college savings fund for him - at their choice - because they want to do something for HIM. I respect that. But I certainly wouldn't "expect" it.
However, you raise some interesting points in your question. I think that some people reading this may be missing the idea that the money would be for the child - just as child support is - not for the adoptive parents. Interesting spin. I'm not sure that I agree with the thought process, but I can see the point you are trying to make.
As for your friend, she needs to do what she feels comfortable doing. Just as with bio parents, she shouldn't let anyone push her into something that she isn't comfortable with. Good luck to her.Source(s): Blessed to be a Mother thanks to what we consider to be our miracle of adoption.
- huxLv 43 years ago
there is open adoption and semi open adoption. maximum adoptive families are soft with semi-open. Semi-open is once you receive photos of your infant as quickly as a year or so. they're despatched to the enterprise and forwarded to you. each and every so often families deliver letters to boot. you could deliver gives you and letters. you do no longer comprehend any figuring out coaching relating to the kinfolk and that they do no longer comprehend yours. Open is diverse in which you all comprehend each and every thing approximately one yet another. you have head to head visits as quickly as a year (or extra). completely open adoptions are no longer as consumer-friendly as semi-open because of the fact it makes some adoptive families uncomfortable. In some states, there is no thank you to enforce any openness settlement the adoptive kinfolk signed. they'd say they'd have an open adoption after which you by no ability hear from them returned. In different states, the settlement is enforceable. you may envision with an adoption enterprise authorized on your state to be sure. I purely comprehend that's enforceable in manhattan and not in New Jersey. An open adoption would be marvelous and there are various adoptive families which will save it open or maybe like it. regrettably, the conventional public of adoptive families do no longer like it and a few will lie if it ability being located with a infant. until there's a legally binding settlement, there quite isn't something you're able to do.
- Lori ALv 51 decade ago
Wow Good Question. You have a point. if a bio family wants an opened agreement then I can see where they should want to contribute to the childs well being and education. However, if they get a newborn most times that child comes from a young mother who has no means of support. Closed adoptions are hard for everyone. AP's need updates for medical purposes. Adoptee's need that bond with their bio families. They need to know where they come from, who they look like, who's hands or nose they have. Natural families need reassurance their decisioin was a good one. Please do not assume that just because a child is relinquished it is not cared about. I understand your question but it seems that closed adoptions are a lose lose lose situation and maybe this is what your co-workers are trying to tell the PAP, that their desire for a closed adoption is not going to benefit anyone, especially the child. Your situation was under different circumstances. Does your co-worker intend to give a home to an abused child? There are different guidelines for abuse. Keeping in contact with the bio family truely is what is best for the child. There are many stories about medical nightmares and adopted children. Consider how you would feel every time you took the child to the doctor and could not fill out the forms, or if the child got very ill and the doctors had no family history to go by because the AP refused contact with the Bfamily. All issues to take into consideration.
- wholelottacatsLv 41 decade ago
I can only answer based on my thoughts, the experiences of those close to me, and my evolving view of open adoption as we've gone through the adoption process.
(ETA: Long answer from me, again - but I am pretty passionate about this topic.)
When we first started to look into adoption - I was honestly more than a little freaked out by the thought of an open adoption, on any level. I think most of that came from a lack of real understanding of adoption, the issues involved, and too many Lifetime movies. Just like most people, my thoughts were based on misinformation, the media bias and some really great advertising campaigns.
I am, by nature, a researcher. So I approached our adoption with the same fervor I approach everything else - I researched and read, found people to discuss things with, asked a lot of questions. And my view of open adoption has completely changed because of it.
First of all, I don't think "openness" has anything to do with financial responsibility. As an AP, I am fully aware that my child will be my responsibility - financially, emotionally, academically - all of the ways a parent is a responsible for their child. Few birthparents "demand" an open relationship. Because these agreements aren't legally binding, it's more of an "asking." As we hear about all too often, the openness is agreed upon, and then the AP shuts it down - for whatever reason - IMHO most often it is because of insecurity. In some cases, it is because of a fear for the safety of the child, but I think that is less common (though I admittedly have no statistics on this. I think the idea that if you have the open relationship that the birthparents are going to "come take the child back" is based upon that lingering stereotype of the poor, uneducated, uncaring, unstable, morally ambiguous birthparent.
But an open relationship shouldn't be about the APs. I want an open adoption because I want what will be best for my child, and I believe with my whole heart that knowing their birthparents and whatever family they have is what is best for them. How can it be wrong for my child to have a whole bunch of people in their lives that love them? Why would I deny them that? Why would I want them to go through what so many adult adoptees have lived through - the pain, uncertainty and muddy waters of reunion? It doesn't matter if I'm uncomfortable having to "share" - I wouldn't be a parent if someone hadn't chosen me to share this with them. I may be in the minority, but I think of this as more of a partnership between myself and the birthmom (and my husband, and birthfather) that we're all making the decisions and charting our course to do what is best for our child.
I do know people who have completely open relationships. There is no clear, marked path. There are hurdles, and like every serious relationship, there are occassionally hurt feelings and stepped-on toes. But you work through those things, for your child.
The answer is obviously quite different when you are talking about a situation where there has been abuse, or their is legitimate fears for the safety and well-being of the child to have continued contact. In the end, it is always always about what is best for the child.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Freckle FaceLv 51 decade ago
I guess in an open adoption i feel the first parents are contributing something just by having a relationship with the child.
As i watch my daughters face light up when she emails her first family and as we make plans for visits, it just has to be the right thing for adopted children to remain in contact with first families in most cases.(drugs, abuse etc. excluded)
Truthfully, it feels like the least we can do as aparents is to keep the first mother informed that her child is loved and safe. As a mother i think i would go clinically insane if i didn't know where my baby was and if my baby was happy.
No offense to your friend, I question people who don't want open adoptions. What is the motivation behind it? Why wouldn't you want what is healthiest for your child? I'm trying hard to see the disadvantage of having a open adoption, but i think someone is going to have to explain it to me cause i don't see any.
Best wishesSource(s): ap
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think that, for me and my family anyway, what is most important is the child's needs. We're adopting through foster care, so I do hear what you're saying. The biological family of our kids most likely will not have a lot of contact due to safety reasons. But if it's in the child's best interest to have contact with his/her biological family, then that's what will happen. And if it were somehow beneficial to the child for our family to be receiving money from the biological family, I imagine the courts would find a way to do that, although I can't imagine a situation where it would benefit the child.
- mommy2squeeLv 51 decade ago
Open adoption is NOT about what is best for the parents. It is about what is best for the child.
Open adoption cushions the loss that adoptees experience, kids are able to have a relationship with both families,and get their questions answered.
Open adoption is not the easy road. It takes as much work as a marriage. Maintaining open communication is extremely important.
Your friend needs to do more research into what open adoption actually involves before she dismisses it.Source(s): Life: Stranger than fiction. (AP in pen adoption for almost 10 years)
- 1 decade ago
Your friend can specify closed adoption but that limits the children coming her way. Open adoptions are pretty much the norm. We have openish adoption coming, where we send annual letters and pic (non identifying), we think its important, but visits are out because bio parents had rights taken away due to neglect and it is not in best interest of child to see their b parents. Thus the point, what is best is whatever is best for the child.
- 1 decade ago
Well, I'm against all forms of adoption, but I'll save that rant for another day and answer your question.
Given that open adoption exists, and I can't do anything to eliminate it entirely, yes I DO think the real parents should be contributing something, depending, of course, upon their income.
For instance, if the real parent(s) have the internet, a cell phone, and ipod, etc etc then they can mostly certainly afford to buy a box of diapers or some formula now and then.
More over, I think that abandoned out children/adults should be entitled to inheritances from their abandoners, with the same rights and privileges as any raised children.
If abandoned out children/adults thusly receive two inheritances from their real and paper families, so much the better as we have suffered enough.Source(s): Being abandoned sucked
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You need to wrap your head around what open adoption really is. The vast majority of natural parents in open adoptions are given letters and pictures, nothing more. Some open adoptions allow contact, usually very infrequently. A few open adoptions actually are open, meaning the natural family is present in the child's life and the child has access to them.
The amount of contact is determined by the adoptive parents NOT the natural parents. Open adoptions agreements are not legally binding and can be closed by the APs at any time, unlike a parenting order between separated parents. So what you want is for nparents to be financially accountable for a child they have no legal right to see... Wow what a backwards step for family unity and adoptee rights.
Open adoptions are positive for the CHILD, who cares what the parents feel. It isn't about them, it is about the CHILD knowing their family history, having genetic mirroring, having open and honest answers to their questions and a host of other things.Source(s): Sick of everything adoption being about the APs needs, what about the needs of the child?