I have never felt 100% comfortable with the idea of an open adoption. Even though I have a few very speicalMy own adoption was semi-closed.. in that my natural parents received yearly photos of me up until my 5th birthday, when my parents simply forgot and stopped sending them. A few years later, my natural father called them- politely requesting that my parents recommence sending the photos that were promised to him. Of course, my parents did so- up until my reunion when I was 12 years old.
My parents will tell you that my adoption was open. Born during world war II- both of them have a very traditional idea of adoption and what it should entail. The fact that they sent photos of me, even though they “didn’t have to” constitutes, for them, an open adoption.
But this is not the concept of open adoption that I would like to explore. I’m more focused on the modern concept of “openness”- where natural and adoptive parents have a communicative relationship for the sake of the child. Said child, in theory, will grow up with less confusion, a lessoned or eliminated sense of abandonment, and valuable information about their biological relatives and genetic history.
It sounds great, doesn’t it? But I’m not so sure. From what I have read (and I’ve read a lot)- open adoption was originally proposed as a more palatable alternative to traditional adoption practices. The theory was that if they were promised ongoing contact, photos, and a relationship with their child- mothers would be more willing to relinquish. It sounds like offering a dog a tasty treat before tossing them off the bridge, rather than pushing them outright. It sounds to me like a ploy. And I don’t like it.
I am of the idea that adoptions should be rare. Super rare. So rare that is absolutely a last resort for all involved. Convincing capable, healthy, modern women to give up their children with the promise that they can see them is, in my opinion, very, very sad. I don’t think that open adoption will harm a child. I don’t think that extra love can ever be a bad thing. I do think that it is more than likely that the child will have to face different difficulties than those of us from the more closed eras have had to face. All in all, it sounds like it could be a GOOD thing for the child. But its a good thing that is attempting to bandage a bad thing.
I am against open adoption for one reason and one reason only: it was designed to encourage more women to relinquish. And its worked, hasn’t it? The vast majority of women who are placing nowadays are insisting upon open adoptions. And that is what irritates me. These children, these children who became adoptees, were conceived, born, relinquished and adopted just like the rest of us. The general public is FINALLY accepting the fact that much of adoptee pain is caused by secrecy and lies and shame. But these adoptees in open adoptions? They, in theory, don’t have that secrecy. They were openly relinquished... made to consistently see, every time their natural parents visit, what they are missing out on. They will see their siblings be born and kept. If the siblings are happy, they will say: wouldn’t I have been happy too?” When they see the joy that the new baby brings their natural family, they will say “why weren’t they happy like that for me?”
And when these adoptees feel these griefs...who will listen to them? Maybe the adoptive parents, even though it will hurt them to hear it. Maybe the natural parents, if they are capable of seeing that their supposedly “fool proof” relinquishment plan wasn’t all that perfect. But in the world outside of adoption- who will care about these kids? They will say “You’ve got a good family, you got every advantage. You even get to know and have a relationship with your biological family. You’ve got everything..what do you want???”
The world of open adoption is an enticing one. But I see it is a bandaid- a flimsy adhesive made to fix that which has been broken beyond repair. The gooey icing you smear on the cake to hide its bitter taste. These children, the ones being born and placed right now, are adoptees like the rest of us. They have been exiled, like the rest of us. The cast away children- they will be given a rare opportunity to see first hand what all adoptees can imagine- exactly how their natural family has gone on without them.
9 commenti:
Excellent post, Amanda. I feel the same. Although I have tried to put myself in that scenario and have tried to "guess" how I would have felt, it is just a guess. But adoptees, for the most part, are used to guessing games and creating scenarios.
For me, seeing my n family, having them be real and interacting with them only to return to my a family would have been brutal.
I read accounts of adoptees involved in open adoptions, who are heartbroken every time their f Moms/family leaves. Its like ripping a bandage off a festering wound, over and over again.
I believe these open adoptions are nothing more than a glorified play-date with the f parents. Yes, there is less "genetic bewilderment", because they can see themselves in their f family, but at the end of the day, they still have to go home with the a family. Add natural siblings into the mix, and it's even worse. "THEY were good enough to keep....."
Open adoption is nothing more than a ploy to get women to relinquish. "You get the best of both worlds!!" they say to the pregnant women. They neglect to tell them that the adoptions can be closed for any reason, and that the child will STILL feel the loss.
Is it better than a closed adoption? I don't know....it's like saying one form of cancer is less brutal than another. It's still cancer.
And don't even get me started on how some ap's think they are in an open adoption if they send a picture once a year. How is that open? It's not.
It's all so complicated.
You are absolutely right, open adoption was created to convince more women to relinquish their children. Twenty three years ago, I was part of that first wave of pregnant moms who didn't like the idea of a closed adoption and so were slowly being introduced to a "whole new and better adoption." It sucked me in, I'm ashamed now to admit.
For my son, it made no difference since his adoption was closed by the time he was five and visits were cut off when he was only two. So his only memory is of a closed adoption. But I wonder too, though, of the pain it would have caused him to see, over and over again his siblings being raised by his first parents. He has already shared that he was angry after reunion to know we had and kept our three younger children. I don't know what it would have done to him to see that throughout his childhood years.
Great post Amanda.
I am drafting a post on this subject myself in response to a comment I got yesterday on an old post.
If you don't mind, I would like to link to this.
Open adoption is about enticing mothers into adoption and saying that it's "better" for the kids. Better than what? Better than closed adoption? Better than the dumpster? I would say, like you and Linda have, that it merely trades one kind of pain for another. Yes, you know who you might have been and who you look like, but it is underscored, with every visit, that you do NOT belong in the family that placed you. Not like your kept siblings or cousins. Maybe they tell people about you, maybe they don't. I would think it would be like a thousand tiny cuts as opposed to the knife of closed adoption. They both suck.
no problem susie- link away! :)
Thanks guys....I'm glad to see that some people agree with me! I wasn't really expecting it..! :)
Great post Amanda. Had too much to say so wrote a post and linked.
Thanks for this.
I've never thought about it this way. Thanks for sharing.
I totally agree with this post. Well written.
I totally agree with this post. Well written.
Posta un commento