"Safeguarding the Rights and Well-Being of *****parents"

TERMINOLOGY WARNING

AdoptapPundit salutes the Evan B. Donaldson Institute for their courage in publicly stating what has been privately known for decades.


The Evan B. Donaldson Institute has released a study in time for National Adoption BewareNess Month that brought tears to AdoptaPundit's eyes.

"SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS AND WELL-BEING OF *****PARENTS IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS" makes a great number of points. Those of us who have worked for a decade or longer to draw attention to our issues will be most interested, perhaps, in these:

Principally because adoption is not well understood by the public generally, most women struggling to make decisions about unplanned pregnancies do not have accurate information with which to make an informed choice about whether this is a reasonable option for them.


....
Research findings consistently show that women who feel pressured into placing their children suffer from poorer grief resolution and greater negative feelings. Most states do not have laws that maximize sound decision-making, however, such as required counseling, waiting periods of at least several days after childbirth before signing relinquishments, and adequate revocation periods during which birthparents can change their minds.


Research on birthparents in the era of confidential (closed) adoptions suggests a significant proportion struggled - and sometimes continue to struggle - with chronic, unresolved grief. The primary factor bringing peace of mind is knowledge about their children's well-being.
...

Women who have the highest grief levels are those who placed their children with the understanding that they would have ongoing information, but the arrangement was cut off. Such contact/information is the most important factor in facilitating birthparents' adjustment, but only 13 states have laws to enforce post-adoption contact agreements in infant adoptions.

Salient points:

1) The public does not have accurate information about adoption and therefore women contemplating adoption can not make an informed choice..

2)Women need their own attorney to represent their interest independent of the agency or adoptors.

3) Coercion leads to emotional problems later on; laws need to be put into place that encourage sound decision making. These laws would include proper counseling and adequate revocation periods.

4) We whose children were taken in the BSE still struggle with the emotional aftermath.

5) Women who surrender into open adotions that close suffer the most.


They recommend a great many things, among them:

A parent should have the right:

To make the placement decision in a fully informed manner, devoid of pressure or coercion.

To reconsider an adoption plan at any point prior to the legal finalizing of the relinquishment.

To be informed from the start of any monetary expectations - such as repayment of financial assistance -- if she changes her mind about placement.

To exercise all parental rights she/he wishes prior to placing a child for adoption.

To be treated with dignity, respect, and honesty.

To have independent legal counsel to protect her/his best interests in the process.

To receive nondirective counseling to help her/him understand all of the options and resources available and the implications of the decision.

To be legally assured that promises and agreements made as a part of the process will be adhered to.

Finally, the Evan B.Donaldson Institute recognizes what we have been saying for three decades now:

The Institute also concludes that total secrecy has become rare in current infant adoption practice, and it is considered poor practice for everyone concerned by a growing majority of professionals. So-called closed (or confidential) adoption, in which there is little or no contact or exchange of information, is actually a relatively recent phenomenon that became prevalent in the U.S. by the 1950s. The body of research on birthmothers who relinquished children for adoption in the era of total secrecy chronicles a negative, long-term impact of this experience on many areas of their lives, including triggering chronic, severe grief reactions and contributing to ongoing complications in future parenting and marriage relationships.

What this report lacks is specificity regarding its recommendations. While it quite correctly observes that the public's perceptions about adoption are inaccurate and therefore women can not make an informed choice, it does not address the content of the counseling needed to fully inform a woman about the aftermaths of adoption to both mother and child. It specifies at least two sessions of non directive counseling but does not specify who should do it or what it should contain. This non directive counseling can arguably become an agency tool used to further their economic agenda of obtaining chidren for adoption if misused.

AdoptPundit proposes a third pary counselor situated off site and paid for by the pregnant woman. Each side of this debate -- family preservation vs adoption -- should produce a thirty minute tape advancing their very best arguments. Both tapes should be shown to the woman in question.

Fully informed consent also would include adequate private bonding time for mom and child, so she can expereince first hand what it is she will be surrendering. Informed consent means experiencing motherhood and bonding with the baby without the presence of an adoption nanny, ie, an agency person or adoptor present. Giving birth is a one or two times in a lifetime event whose boundaries should be more than respected. There should never be an agency person or adoptor in the delivery room. The mere presence of an anxious adoptor hovering at the hospital is coercive, and an agency person doubly so. AdoptaPundit recommends banning adoptors and agency persons from the hospital completely, and recommends at least a week of privacy in their own home for mom and baby, before any papers can be signed.