Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Blaming the Enabling of Coercion

It is said here quite often that PAParents who go through a private agency are enabling coercion to happen. I don't agree with the way it's such a huge blanket statement, but I will say that it has its bases.

Yet...if you are going to go that far, then you must also say that PBParents who go through a private agency are enabling coercion to happen just as much as the PAParents...whether they, themselves, are coerced or not.

How can I, as a AMom, be told how wrong it was for me to go through an adoption agency when my daughter's BMom won't be told the same thing by those same people?

Yes, the AParnets are spending the money which could be financing these coercions, but the AParents wouldn't be spending this money if the BParents didn't start their ball rolling first.........right?


Asked by AllAboutKeeley at 5:50 PM on Aug. 29, 2009 in Adoption

Level 33 (59,731 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (33)
  • "How can I, as a AMom, be told how wrong it was for me to go through an adoption agency when my daughter's BMom won't be told the same thing by those same people?"

    Correct!! It is wrong to fault PAPs for working with private adoption agencies, especially when most often neither the PAP/AP or Expectant Woman Considering Adoption are aware of the general history of agencies. We also don't know the specific agency that PAP/AP or EWCA may be using - while there are some unethical ones out there, there are also those that represent very ethical practices.

    Personally, if an EWCA has made a decision to not parent, then I'd much rather have her work with an agency than do a private adoption as there seems to be less post-adoption services offered to Birth moms.

    There have been APs and PAPs who have shared quite recently that they are fully aware of the importance of choosing ethical agencies to work with.

    Answer by PortAngeles1969 at 6:07 PM on Aug. 29, 2009

  • Allaboutkeeley, I am not quite sure I can agree on this line of thinking. I think it is just as blanketed as the former. However 'COERCION', IS indeed a very sensitive issue'factual", with my journey, so I will kindly 'digress", from answering, for the ONLY reason I am not Blessed to have seen my twin sons, since 3 days old....IS because of coercion. When a young person is litterally lied to, and then threatened beyond belief, one tends to 'do as told". Do I feel my twins parents were aware of this????? I cannot know for sure, regardless, 'coercion' was not placed into my mind, from their parents...only from the agency, seymour kurtz, and their SW's. Sorry I cannot be of some miracle answer. I still, at times cry, when thinking of those words, I was told....:( Blessings, C.J.

    Answer by ceejay1 at 6:00 PM on Aug. 29, 2009

  • This is more an important issue of education for ALL triad members to be aware of instead of one that should be used to beat one another up.

    Just as there are unethical practices in other areas of our lives that we need to avoid - this is one that we should be able to come together on instead of be divided about.

    Historically coercion has been initiated more by agencies, family members of birth moms, and society as a whole (sad but true). My adoptive parents were horrified to learn of what was common place in the 1960's when I was adopted. Did they unknowingly contribute to it with the fees they paid the agency? Perhaps. Should they be beat up for something they had no knowledge of? No.

    So what's the answer? If we all just want to be treated fairly and to be able to trust the intentions of each other and the agencies in adoption - we need to educate ourselves and others in these areas.

    Good post AAK

    Answer by PortAngeles1969 at 6:13 PM on Aug. 29, 2009

  • I don't know much about this but I'm going to ask my aunt since she takes care of adoption babies before they go to their new parents. I'm wondering if the child is going to be raised by loving and nurturing parents whether it comes from a private agency or not. My only concern is the child's welfare, not how they we're adopted.

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:26 PM on Aug. 29, 2009

  • yes ,that is why an agency such as frawqdawq has described would be best.No profit ,no gain for either decision.A place to receive support and information on both sides of the adoption coin:pros and cons of both actions.Then when a woman makes her decision it will be with knowledge,,not coercion from either point of view.The only part I disagree with is for some birthmoms they may not have been aware of what an agency would do,their parents yes absolutely.It served some bmoms parents purpose for their daughter.


    Answer by drfink at 10:57 PM on Aug. 29, 2009

  • Adding this article by Ken Watson (a social worker) to the thread here about adoption being a commodity

    Love to hear what you all think about the $$$ involved and the 'exploitation'

    Answer by adopteeme at 5:46 AM on Aug. 30, 2009

  • "...adoptive parents are not deceived. They know they are paying for a child."

    That statement is so incorrect and downright INSULTING that if I could have jumped through the screen and slapped this guy upside the head, I would have. Needless to say, I stopped reading at this poinit (which is more than 3/4 the way through).

    Adopteeme, I don't understand what this article really has to do with the question at hand.  Maybe that part was in the finals of the article.  If you could please help me understand, I'd appreciate it.


    Answer by AllAboutKeeley at 7:50 AM on Aug. 30, 2009

  • Adopteeme, I thought this was an enlightening article, and must agree with its entirety! AAK, with all due respect, I must say that maybe the wording is not quite as "kosher' as it should be, it truly is the REALITY of adoption. Even though I have every belief you are an excellent, loving cannot say you were 'unaware", or not a 'participant' in the purchase of a child. I am sorry this has hurt you, but the sad truth is un deniable. EACH adoption is so so different. but if ANY amount of money was involved, in handing a child over to another whom did not birth that child, then indeed it is nothing less than 'selling a child', and purchasing a child. Somewhere, somehow, something has to change. Each side of the parties envolved, knew only what the AGENCY/FACILITATOR, allowed you to be told. This cannot be allowed any longer...JMHO. This article is very relevent to your post...please try to calm down..cont

    Answer by ceejay1 at 10:27 AM on Aug. 30, 2009

  • go back to this article, and read its entirety. I cannot know what my twin sons parents were being told....and most likely they did not know what I was being told. As a young expectant Mother, "WE" are not thinking in our fullest 'normal' capacity, and it is very very easy to 'SWAY" a person whom cannot possibly be in the correct frame of mind...when everything is haywire...JMHO, Blessings, C.J. BTW, Adopteeme...this was a very good article...eye-opening, and causes thought. Coercion, is rampant, and still exist daily. I do believe things a changing...just not quickly enough.

    Answer by ceejay1 at 10:31 AM on Aug. 30, 2009

  • Ceejay1, I do not in any capacity believe that I purchased my daughter and I pray to God that she never feels that way either. I paid for services not goods, very expensive services mind you, but services nonetheless. I know this is seen differently by some and I accept that as everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but to say that I know or was aware of this or that is not at all right to say. I did not purchase my daughter anymore than her BMom may have sold her for free utilities or housing or medical bills or counseling during those final weeks and after.

    The point of my question seems to be getting lost here. I was asking this question to get opinions on the involvement of BParents in enabling coercion as people say AParents are doing just that...not the actual coercion or coercion tactics itself.

    Answer by AllAboutKeeley at 10:59 AM on Aug. 30, 2009