-
Open Adoptions - When They Close
- Aug 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM
- By
- Comments (12) Total Views (489) Everyone can see this journal post.
In many birth/natural mom groups lately, there seem to be far too many painful posts from moms whose open adoptions have closed, and most are given no explanations. And yet, when the question is posed as to why they close, not too many responses are forthcoming from aparents who close adoptions in which the natural/birth mother relinquished at birth.
Aparents who adopted children after their birth parents rights were terminated due to abuse or neglect often share their reasons for closing an adoption. However, there is no mystery involved when aparents close an adoption because feel that a child's safety is in jeopardy. I think we can all understand that a child's safety and well-being is the utmost priority.
The adoptions that close and leave us wondering the most are those in which the natural/birth mother relinquished at birth because she was young, struggling and/or poor, not drug addicted or bound for jail. Many of the adoptions that we hear about closing now, the birth/natural mother has other children that she is capably parenting. What causes aparents to close an adoption when there is seemingly nothing "wrong" with the natural/birth mom? Why do adoptions close when the natural/birth mom appears to be a sane and stable person like most of the moms here on Cafemom are?
The most significant question in my mind is how do aparents justify closing an adoption, and not even offer a reason? I know, they are in control, and have every legal right to cease all contact, but what about moral obligations? Are they unaware of how this affects not only a mother, but her other children as well? Do they care? Is an open adoption too much work for many aparents? Do they commit to an open adoption knowing that they can quickly close it or do they intend to keep their promises, but later decide it is too much work/trouble?
Once at an adoption conference that I attended, I met an adoptive dad who shared his story with me about the children that he and his wife adopted. His wife was an adoptee, and understood how important the contact with birth family can be for children. All four of the children that he and his wife adopted had parents whose rights were terminated, mostly due to abuse or neglect. And yet, this couple understood the ties their children had to their birth families and went to extraordinary lengths to protect their children, yet allow as much contact as possible.
In fact, this family had one cell phone that was exclusively for the children to be in touch with their birth families, but, not reveal the location of their home. And yet, there seem to be adoptive parents whose childrens' birth families pose no threat whatsoever who decide to cease all contact, and rarely even offer a reason. What separates afamilies who honor the connections between children and their birth families and those who abruptly, and sometimes cruelly, end all contact? Many of the open adoptions that close originally had both oral and written agreements, and still, the adoptions close.
I really want to understand why so many aparents close adoptions when the natural/birth mother did not have her rights relinquished and poses no threat to her child. Some amoms seem to be able to manage open adoptions, but why do so many seem unable or unwilling to maintain contact?
Comments:
This question was recently asked at Cafemom, but most of the responses came from amoms who had adopted children from foster care and parental rights were terminated....different situation.
http://www.cafemom.com/answers/archive.php?type=category&cat_id=25
I'm guessing you are right, any responses will probably include vague terms with no concrete reasons that would justify closing an adoption by most reasonable people.
I would love to at least have someone be honest enough to explain why they closed an adoption and didn't have the decency to even say why.
Quoting Southernroots...."I would love to at least have someone be honest enough to explain why they closed an adoption and didn't have the decency to even say why."
I think there is problem with what you're asking for ...
If they were "honest" and/or "decent" people to start with,
there would not be this epidemic problem of adoptions closing...
That could account for the lack of aparents willing to share their reasons! Honestly, what does it show to your children when you do something that cruel and/or dishonest? Do adoptive parents think it is okay to go back on promises? Aren't they fearful of how their child will feel when they find out what they have done? I certainly would worry about that.
I still see no answers here. I'm not surprised. I guess whatever reasons aparents tell themselves for closing an open adoption, they are not strong enough to convince them to share those reasons with others.
And I would worry too about what their child will feel when they learn of what happened. I know from my own son the anger that comes when a child learns their aparents did not allow the contact that was promised.
Let's see - here are a few excuses I have heard from aparents to close adoptions:
1) it is too confusing for children; 2) the birth mother has become unstable; 3) we don't feel comfortable with the idea; 4) we are too selfish and insecure, it's a bother and we don't care if open adoptions are better for children....Oops, did I really say that out loud?
No, adoptive parents generally do not acknowledge that they are selfish and insecure. I understand how they might be insecure in the beginning, but that should be something that one deals with instead of using it as an excuse. They instead talk about their duty to protect their children, as though all natural/birth moms are not trustworthy and would harm their children. How many domestic newborn adoptions do you know of in which the birth mom was really any threat?
"Don't feel comfortable with the idea?" Is adoption supposed to be about the comfort of the adoptive parents or is the child more important? How interesting is it that some apaps are comfortable with suddenly ceasing all contact? How can they be comfortable with that? I couldn't sleep nights if I did not allow a mother to see her child and/or stopped all contact. What kind of a person can feel comfortable doing that to another human being? Do you think there are any clues in a pap's profile that will indicate they are that heartless?
In some rare and unusual circumstances, a natural/birth mom might be a threat to her child. However, that is extremely unusual in domestic newborn adoptions. When parental rights are terminated, the likelihood is far greater.
As for the "unstable" excuse, try taking a child away from any mother and see if she's rock solid stable five minutes later. What exactly does "unstable" mean?
Well I was just checking back to see if you'd had any hits from a-parents on this - would love to hear some explanations - if they would be honest - but as Joesgirl said, if they were honest and decent, most likely they wouldn't be arbitrarily closing the adoptions to begin with.
As you know, we've had some ups and downs, but all Elaina asks for is a couple of hours every few weeks, usually at a McDonald's or something. We've done other things together, but that's the normal visitation scenario. Even with some of her stunts, I cannot say that lunch at McDonald's is "harmful or confusing" for our son, so we continue on.
And you'll notice in the latest journal that I wrote when I was upset with her, I said her actions have made her feel like an "in-law" to me instead of just plain old family....BUT I still classify her as family - do you see? I mean in-law's are family and she will ALWAYS be family and nothing will ever change that. We share a child together...And one day I hope we can attain that feeling of "plain old family".
Well I'm rambling, maybe the point I was going for was that I view her as part of the family - albeit one in her own special category - and I would never, EVER shut the door forever on one of my family members. They would have to be a mortal threat before I would do that.
So if a-parents would realize and embrace that they have another family member besides the new baby and THEN apply the same rules (for lack of a better word) to her that they do to the rest of their family, maybe then there wouldn't be so many women being treated so cruelly. Like they don't exist.
Unless of course this is how those same a-parents treat the rest of their family - in which case my wishful thinking is blown, isn't it?
Hard to believe that some adoptive parents would treat other family members as cruelly as they do their child's natural/birth mom, but that is a point to consider. And, it does follow along with your theory that if the aparents are decent and good people to begin with that they WOULD honor their commitments. It is a reasonable explanation.
And yes, unless a child's original mother is a mortal threat to the child, can it possibly be right to cut off all ties with her? What does it say about aparents when she is NO threat at all to them, but they are merely uncomfortable with the idea of sharing? How do they explain THAT to their child when the child finds out what they did? Make no mistake, children nearly always do find out.
Quoting Southernroots... with [joesgirl comments intermingled]
""Don't feel comfortable with the idea?" Is adoption supposed to be about the comfort of the adoptive parents [ Yes! Many AParents adopt children because of THEIR NEED, or the THEIR LONGING, or THEIR DESIRE]
...or is the child more important? [No. When the child's need conflicts with their own need, their own need is bigger and clouds their vision. Their own need overshadows the need of the child.]
...How interesting is it that some apaps are comfortable with suddenly ceasing all contact? How can they be comfortable with that? I couldn't sleep nights if I did not allow a mother to see her child and/or stopped all contact. What kind of a person can feel comfortable doing that to another human being? [After the child is 'theirs' they no longer consider her the 'mother' of the child. That's the justification they use as their pillow and earplugs at night. Apparently it works pretty well to drown out the conscience, and eventually suffocate the conscience alltogether.]
Do you think there are any clues in a pap's profile that will indicate they are that heartless? [No. Two reasons - 1.) If there were 'clues' the agency would have picked up on it and 'suggested' different wording. After all, the agency wants for their clients to get a baby, so they can continue being profitable. -2.) Just as agencies are darn good at knowing what to say to steal a baby, the same thing applies to paps. They know there are right and wrong answers - and they're gonna play the game, till they get the ball.]
Just a reminder that this thread is about aparents who cut off contact - w/out reason. My response is in that context, I am not lumping 'all aparents' together in the above statements. But unfortunately the boot must fit for a whole bucketload of paps & aparents; otherwise, we would not be having this discussion.
Having my open adoption close has been heartbreaking... just devastating... I just don't know why... I want some answers!
Already a member? Click here to log in
I hope you get some answers but I have a feeling that those people who really had no reason at all except selfishness will not be brave enough to "out" themselves by giving you their reasons. Or they will fabricate a flimsy excuse.
Wonder if they fast forward five, ten or fifteen years to when their child is of legal age and searches for his bio-family and they tell him they were shut out. The adoptive family better hope he believes whatever flimsy excuse they tell him or they might lose the child they were so selfish with.
- blessed3times
Message Friend Invite