Adoption

[Gillianren]

So on VH1 last night, on a series tediously titled "RockDocs," they had a one-hour documentary about Darryl McDaniels ("DMC") searching for his birth mother.

Didn't know he was adopted? Neither did he, until he was thirty-five.

I'm thinking stories like this may be why people demand to know how I could give my daughter up for adoption. I mean, the only reason the man found out was that he was writing his autobiography and asked his parents for information about his birth. That's just not right.

It wasn't an easy decision, but I'm still convinced it's the right decision. (In no small part because the wretched child is in the Bahamas again as we speak, on her mom and dad's boat. Spoiled thing!) I gave my daughter to bright, warm, loving people who let me see her as schedules permit. I may joke about how spoiled she is--I do joke about how spoiled she is--but she really isn't, not in the sense people mean. After all, she was saying "thank you" before she was two. She, too, is bright, warm, and loving. She's always happy to hear from me, and what's more, she's safe, fed, and happy.

I just think it's wrong to keep such important information about a kid secret. She knows exactly who I am and always has, and she's better off that way. She's never going to be sitting in a private investigator's office trying to find my name. It doesn't matter that certain of her records have been sealed since a few days after she was born; the people who know the information on them are all still part of her life.

And that's the thing--those records, including the birth certificate with my name on it, are still sealed. The only birth certificate she can get is the new one, with her mom and dad's information. I can't have 'em unsealed. She can't. Her mom and dad can't. Despite the fact that we're in frequent contact, the state still considers us one another's ugly, shameful secret. That'll scar you, huh?

[JohnW]

Nothing muc of substance to add, Gillian, except "I hear you". I'm on another leg of the triangle: adoptive father (of a boy born in, coincidentally, Olympia). Our son knows his birthmother and we stay in touch. I know she has to deal with the same questions that you're getting, and she also finds them upsetting.

A lot of people are very surprised to hear we have an ongoing relationship with our son's birthmother, and don't understand why we don't feel threatened by this. I think much of the same "dirty secret" attitude persists regarding adoption - we've finally moved away from "don't tell them they're adopted" for the most part, but many people are still very uncomfortable with the idea of birthparents as people with stories of their own, and an ongoing relationship with the adoptive family.

I can see how proud you are of your daughter. She's going to be very proud of you too.

[zebo-the-fat]

Nice, it sounds like you made a good (if not easy) decision

[Gillianren]

Actually, my decision was relatively easy. At the time my daughter was born (in Port Angeles, actually; her mom and dad are in Port Townsend), I hadn't finished my BA yet. This was before my physical health got too bad, and my mental health was better, but it still wasn't good. I didn't have a lot of money. Her father . . . well, the less said about him, the better! And Pat and Geo (her mom and dad) are great people. Pat's a massage therapist with an office (at the time) two blocks from where I was living. I'd go in and have a weekly appointment (ah, the luxury!) and fill her in on all sorts of obscure family history.

[Swift]

Gillian,
I know the question of how much to tell the child is a big issue among those directly involved. Your personal involvement with this makes your opinions many times more important than mine - I have no personal involvement in this issue from any side. I can understand that there can be circumstances where either the birth parent wants their relationship to be kept secret or where it might be better for the child. I can also understand that adoptive parents might feel hurt by a child's search for their "real" parents. Personally, I think love and relationships are more important to parenting than genetics.

I certainly would never question why you gave your daughter up for adoption (the old expression about walking a mile in my shoes comes to mind). From what little I know about you (through this forum), I suspect it was a very well thoughtout decision. I think it is great that you have such a good working relationship with your daughter and her adopted parents. It sounds like the best possible situation.

[SeanF]

Many of you know that my wife and I adopted a little girl not too long ago.

She will probably never be able to find her birth parents, even if she wants to. Her birth mother could probably locate her at this point - with nothing more than an internet connection and some judicious googling, at that - but locating her birth mother would not be easy.

I agree with Swift - I can understand why a birth mother might want to keep it secret. I can also understand why the last thing a birth mother might want is for someone to show up on her doorstep 35 years later saying, "Hey, remember me?" I'm of the mind that whoever's in charge of those records could facilitate a meeting if both the birth mother and the child indicate a desire to. If either wants to remain unknown, though, the other is out of luck.

I certainly feel that an adopted child deserves to know about their birth parents, but I don't think they have a right to, absent the birth parents' consent.

And I guess I don't understand the adoptive parents not telling the child they were adopted (not that that would even be a possibility for us ). I assume Mr. McDaniels' parents had what they felt were valid reasons to not tell him, but I don't understand it.

[Donnie B.]

Okay, let me demonstrate my ignorance here. Who, exactly, are the rules that seal records and prevent knowledge of genetic parentage designed to protect? Is it the birth mother, the genetic father, the adoptive parents, or the child? Or, perhaps, the adoption agency itself?

Or is it some combination of these, or does it vary from case to case?

Are the rules fixed in a given state, or do they vary depending on the wishes of the parties, or the agency, or some other factor?

[Vaelroth]

Adopted Kid Entering Thread, right about here:

Yea, thats me. The adopted kid. This is kind of a crazy subject to read about with all you old guys and gals (relatively speaking) sharing your experiences. I wish I was able to see my genetic parents, or at least my genetic mother, but I've never met them. I don't know if it is because they don't want to be contacted or what. I'd just like to meet them, even if it was only once. The only things I really know about why I'm here are that my genetic mother was in college and she was on the field hockey team for the school she attended. Other than that, I know nothing. She did make the right choice in putting me up for adoption, and I'm happy about that.

At any rate, I'm in the same boat as Donnie is as far as ignorance of adoption laws goes.

[Gillianren]

It is my understanding (bear in mind I did all my research nearly nine years ago, so I may not remember correctly) that the sealing of records is designed to protect the adoptive parents. They weren't legally sealed until the 1920s--those of you who've read the Anne of Green Gables books may remember that Anne knows all about her parents, though of course they were dead and hadn't chosen to give her up.

However, in the '20s, the trend started shifting away from in-family adoptions of illegitimate children (and, of course, orphanages) and to something resembling the system we now have. Birth parents were generally young, generally unwed--in-family arrangements were now more frequently made for orphans instead. It was considered that the birth mother could be a disruption to the happy home provided by the adoptive parents. While I'm sure this could be true, I doubt it would have been all that often. Even I, with the luxury of frequent contact, am content to let Pat and Geo raise my kid without my interference. (Though if she ever pulls the "real mother" line on Pat, Pat is under firm instructions to send her to me!)

The state of Oregon recently unsealed all its adoption records, so those given up for adoption--or who gave children up for adoption!--in the state of Oregon can search for their biological families. And it is, often, the parents seeking the children just as much as it is the other way around.

Besides, I think getting as much family medical history is important enough to justify the search, leaving aside the enormous psychological benefits for all concerned--and, yes, that's adoptive parents as well. After all, once the biological parents are found, the adoptive parents are no longer competing with idealized "perfect parents." The kid discovers that the biological parents couldn't make everything better, and it often improves the relationship with the adoptive parents to have found the biological ones.

[Vaelroth]

Thanks Gillian. I'm off to go research the Maryland history of such stuff.

[Vaelroth]

All adoption files after May 31, 1947 are sealed and can be opened only with a court order or by a State authorized intermediary specifically empowered to examine such records. The Department of Human Resources appoints and co-ordinates these intermediaries (please call 1-800-39-ADOPT) for more information.

Thats what my state says about closed records, but I have to be 18 before I can get them to look for me. Not too far off from now, but waiting is still harsh.

[Gillianren]

Do they say what it would take to get a court order?

[Melusine]

Hmm, being adopted (my sister too), I seem to have divergent opinions about contact with the birth mother when a child is very young. Times have changed in this respect, but I'm afraid of saying what I think lest I hurt anyone's feelings.

I knew I was adopted by 3 years old. I believe a child should know as soon as possible, certainly not any later than 5 years old. Kids are very cognizant of the fact that their friends look like their siblings and parents, and my sister and I were like night and day. Our friends found it all intriguing and imagined stories of our origins...sort of like the story of Oliver Twist, lol.

I was lucky that I was adopted by my parents--I could have done much worse. Actually, I was even luckier than my sister, because my parents intended to adopt a boy, but the agency did a sort of sneaky thing. I had that problem with my hips when born, thus turning in my legs and had braces on them until I was one years old. I needed parents with money who would take proper care of me, so my legs would be corrected (my legs are just fine). So they called my parents and said, "We have a child for you," and wouldn't tell them if it was a boy or girl. They wanted them to see me and get suckered into taking me home. My father says that I was all big, blue eyes, and it worked. My mother kept detailed records and diaries for us, and she shlepped me down to Yale New Haven Hospital to a very good doctor. At one point they had to put 12 diapers on me--I was high-maintenance. By 3 years old x-rays showed everything was perfect, and that was the end of that.

The short of it is, with the exception of divorce, I had a very good upbringing. If I was to have a child tomorrow, I couldn't even come close to giving the child the same upbringing, so it worked out well. It was only when I was a rebellious teenager that I was interested in finding out about my bio-parents, read many books about it, but came to some conclusions and dropped the idea . My father had no problem with my interest at the time, but I could see it bothered him a little, only because I was rejecting so many other things. My sister absolutely never pursued the idea of searching. I would like to know heritage only--Spanish, Italian, English or whatever. I don't care about knowing medical histories as I prefer doctors to take me as I am and not infer things based on family members' medical history. So far, not knowing medical info hasn't mattered much at all.

[SeanF]

It is my understanding (bear in mind I did all my research nearly nine years ago, so I may not remember correctly) that the sealing of records is designed to protect the adoptive parents.

I think it goes both ways. Often, the birth mother is giving the child up because the pregnancy was in someway traumatic - rape, or even simply out-of-wedlock back when that was still something to be ashamed of - and she wanted to just go on with her life and pretend it never happened.

Whether that would actually be better for her or not is another discussion, but that was/is often what the birth mother wanted, and sealing the records would be necessary to allow her to do that. (It would probably be more accurate to say that that was often wanted for her moreso than by her )

There's been a recent increase in "Baby Moses" laws around the country - they allow women to turn their children over to the authorities for adoption without even needing to identify themselves. Many adopted children aren't even going to have records to try to get unsealed!

[Swift]

<snip>
There's been a recent increase in "Baby Moses" laws around the country - they allow women to turn their children over to the authorities for adoption without even needing to identify themselves. Many adopted children aren't even going to have records to try to get unsealed!

Ohio passed such a law within the last year. It was because of too many cases where new-born children were simply abandoned, sometimes literally left on doorsteps or worse. While the child will thus be deprived of records about their birth parents, it is better than death.

[JohnW]

I think it's important for birth parents to have the option of arranging an adoption in which they still have some contact with their child. I certainly don't think it should be compulsory, or that it's the best approach in all circumstances. In our case, we worked with an agency which specialises in open adoptions, and despite a couple of bumpy patches it's working out fine. Our son knows his birthmother, and when he's old enough to ask questions, he should be able to get some answers.

We have a court order mandating a certain frequency of contact, but in practice we (and most other open-adoption families I know) are communicating more often than this. I gather from talking to parents and birthparents of older kids that the level of contact often decreases as time passes.

[Gillianren]

That's funny; we're trying to increase the level of contact. It's not easy, simply because they all three have very busy schedules.

Hey, Melusine, your feelings are your feelings. I'm not going to call them wrong, and I'm not going to assume that they'll in any way apply to my relationship with my daughter. I will probably have a great deal of empathy for your birth mother, but I should think that's obvious. I have a few questions, but they're all personal, so I shall forbear.

We don't have a court order. Pat and Geo could pack up tomorrow, move onto their boat, and go on a trip around the world, and they don't actually have to tell me anything. I have no legal rights, just my reliance on the fact that they're good people. At that, I take more advantage of their goodwill than her father, who's met her all of once. (They didn't get along.)

And, yes, I understand that a lot of birth mothers gave up their children in traumatic circumstances. However, I do also believe (and this is just me) that if they haven't dealt with that trauma by the time the child is old enough to initiate a search, they should've been in therapy long since. I think that by that point, it'll be bleeding into the rest of their life as well.