Adoption Reform Ideas

Adoption Reform - Why Adoption Reform is Needed

Why do we need adoption reform? To protect prospective adopters and also to protect natural families.

Many prospective adopters are quite vulnerable emotionally. They have been through all kinds of fertility treatments and still cannot have a child. So they look to adoption. But adoption agencies and adoption attorneys get pregnant women to select prospective adopters prior to birth. So these emotionally vulnerable people must pin their hopes on a gamble that a mother won't want to raise her own son or daughter.

When she first considers adoption, a pregnant woman has no idea what it might be like to hold her baby in her arms and look into his beautiful eyes. But with prospective adoptive "parents" hoping and praying, the mother is horribly pressured to surrender, once her son or daughter is born.

Fathers rights to custody or shared custody are usually circumvented completely, except when the mother looks out for the fathers rights and refuses to sign a relinquishment.

Then there are the "down-payments" being made on babies. A down-payment on a human being? It's disgusting.

Adoption Reform Ideas - To Protect Both Prospective Adopters and Natural Family

1) Outlaw all solicitation for babies. (We don't solicit living people for their kidneys and we shouldn't solicit living people for their sons and daughters, either.)

2) Give families time after a child is born to discuss things. (In S. Australia I think no relinquishment is valid prior to two weeks following birth.)

(Both this initial two weeks and the additional 25 days below would give fathers time to establish paternity. - But see "revocation period" below - maybe this initial two weeks should be LONGER).

3) Provide mother, father and other family members information regarding the risks of pshychological and other effects of separation/adoption. Include the risks in Open Adoption.

4) Both mother and father (if one is recognized by the court) must sign.

5) Have an unpressured revocation period with no prospective adopter selected until AFTER the revocation period is over for both parents. (In S. Australia I think this is 25 days.)

6) Do not change information on the birth certificate or seal it. Every human being has a right to know who they really are.

(Pregnant and new Moms should already be covered by the state for any absolutely necessary expenses, so there is no need for "down-payments" on babies.)

This would help protect prospective adopters, natural family members and it would protect the child's right to her natural family.

Adoption Reform and Revocation Period - What is a Revocation Period?

It's important to understand what a revocation period might mean. In United States, a revocation period means the parent has a period of time to file a motion to revoke their "consent" to the adoption. This only means that the parent can go to court and try to fight to get their son or daughter back. It does not mean the parent will succeed.

In United States, a mother who is revoking a consent - or a father trying to gain custody after a mother has relinquished her parental rights - will likely have to prove themselves a fit parent . They will have to prove themselves a fit parent while delays are enacted by the "other side". (The "other side" refers to those entities which profit in some way from the transfer of children from their own family to unrelated persons.)

The agency would most likely file a motion to have mother or father declared "unfit" on the basis of her "abandonment of the child to foster care" her "lack of support" or her' unwillingness to parent." The foster care will be used as "proof".

Some states hve a 'best interest of the child'standard which means the mother would have to prove that it was in the child's best interest to be returned to her. After all the delays and a period of time as little as 12 months, it may be put forth that it would be traumatic for a child to return to parents - that is in the child's best interests to be provided a "stable" adoptive situation.

So the mother may be led to believe she can revoke her consent - and she can revoke her consent. But she can revoke her consent and never get her child back.

A reader comment:

In some states, revocation periods are real, and a real right to revoke at will. But
many others are not. It just depends on how the judges in the state have
interpreted the law into case law. Once they say in one case that it is
NOT an automatic right to get your child back, then that is how it is from
then on. The same with waiting periods. For example Kansas has a 12 hour
waiting period after birth, and NO revocation period. But case law says
they don't really have to wait 12 hours because one mother who signed at 8
hours contested and lost, so now the 12 rule is no longer required.

My comment: Consult a lawyer. This is nothing on this website that is- or is intended as - legal advice.

Adoptive Parents - Why Prospective Adopters are not "Adoptive Parents"

Adoption reform and respect for family means the use of honest language. In the recent case (early 2005) where 3-year-old Evan had the opportunity to return to his family, many newspapers erroneously reported Evan's last name as "Scott" and they referred to the Scotts as "parents" or "adoptive parents". But there was no legal adoption, so legally the Scotts were not Evan's parents. The judge called them "custodial non-parents". A prospective adopter is a "non-parent" does not have any right to keep a child from returning to his family.

The media also erroneously reported that Evan did not even know his parents. But Dateline finally provided a less biased report and told of the extensive visitation Evan had with his Dad. Dateline showed footage of Evan trying to wriggle away from the adoptress. Dateline also showed video of Evan and his Dad at McDonald's later - with Evan leaning in towards his Dad.

Adoption Reform "Birth Parents" - Why Parents are not "Birth" Parents

A mother or father is not a "birth thing" to be used as the source of a baby for adoption. This dehumanizing language "birth mother" (or "birthmother") , "birth father", "birth relatives", "birth siblings" hides the fact that these are family members. The general public may easily be swayed to believe that a child is better off raised by unrelated persons than with her own family when the family is referred to as "birth things" and the prospective adopters are called "real parents".

Adoption Reform - What's wrong with the argument for tightening the adoption laws (in favor of adopters) or providing pre-birth relinquishment?

Some people have a completely different view of adoption reform. They put forth the argument that it is not family, but the man-made institution of adoption that needs to be protected. They claim "Unwed" mothers children are "'unwanted" so they "need " to be adopted. Then they say the laws need to be "tightened" up because these same moms who "don't want their children" keep trying to keep them.

The best way to protect babies' security is to prevent them from being separated from their natural families in the first place. Bonding begins in the womb, before birth. Newborns already know their natural mothers.

Newborn children are rarely "unwanted" by their mothers. And fathers, when given respect, can be the providers and protectors that nature intended them to be. In fact, many moms and dads who were forceably separated from their children decades ago, through coercive adoption programs, are seeking to be reunited with them.

Heritage is non-replaceable. If adopters are concerned with how a child will "fit into their family" they may begin by trying to understand that adopting a child is not the same as giving birth to one.

Racing to sever a child's connections, legally, will not create feelings of security in adoptive families. Rather, the opposite is often true. People who seek to adopt other parents' children, as quickly as possible, know in their hearts' that they may have violated the right of the biological family to remain together. This can, in the long run, lead to feelings of incompetence and fear in the adoptive family.

The biological family is the cornerstone of society and it should be maintained and valued, not destroyed.

Many people claim adoption is not a man-made institution. They claim adoption is from God - they say we are all adopted children of God. But did God take us away from our mother and tell her to just forget about us?

Jesus' mother Mary agreed to pregnancy when she was young, single and poor. But we don't derisively refer to Mary as "unwed" or as a "birth thing". We don't say she "made poor choices". No one shakes their head in disgust saying "babies having babies" where Mary is concerned. Mary is honored as the mother of Jesus. Every mother is the mother of her own child and should be honored as such.

God chooses parents for a child and blesses them with a child. A gift from God is not meant to be "re-gifted".

Many people claim Joseph "adopted" Jesus. But Jesus claimed God as his true Father and there is nothing in the Bible that says Joseph got upset about it. Joseph never said "I am the 'real father' of Jesus." Joseph did not call God a "birth father" or "sperm donor". Joseph was a step-father, not an adopter. Joseph did not pretend to be Jesus father, as if Jesus was born to him.

Adoption tears family apart and creates conflict. Adoption provides a divorce-like situation for a child, who will be torn between the people who adopted and raised them and their natural family. A step-parent or guardian may feel secure in their role. But adopters are often insecure in the role of raising children, because they want to be known as "real parents".

Next: Domestic Adoption "Baby Boom" - Exploiting Women and Families in America