Another adoption article in the news has made me feel disheartened, discouraged and generally displeased. The article, out of the Detroit Metro, gives an update to a story that they had previously printed. In the first article, they talked about an adoptive family who was using MySpace to try and locate a birth mother/child. I was bothered but didn't write about it on this site. However, the update needs mentioning for all of the wrong included within its page.

First and foremost, the expectant mother that has made contact with the adoptive family is from Detroit. She has not yet given birth to the child nor signed any form of a Termination of Parental Rights. And yet, in an article that this mother has ease of access to read, they are referring to her as a birth mother. The title of the article calls her a birth mother. The journalist even refers to the expectant mother as "their birthmother," which is yet another misuse of words because I'm pretty sure that the woman in question did not give birth the the couple in question and then relinquish her rights. She is, only, an expectant mother matched with a family because she is considering adoption.

The couple does go on to say that they believe in open adoption. However, the article neglects to state that open adoptions are not legally binding in the state of Michigan, thus allowing the adoptive family to disappear without reason or warning. I'm wondering, as they admit to not yet being affiliated with an attorney or agency, if the expectant mother has been informed of this HUGE POINT. Many a birth mother who has been blatantly lied to or mislead by an agency, attorney or adoptive couple with regard to this point has stated that had she known the adoptive family was not legally enforced to continue contact, they wouldn't have placed their child. Neglecting to share this information is coercion in its most disgusting form in today's open adoptions.

Beyond the wording problem I have at the beginning of the article where we are told that the "birthmother" has "promised" the family the child, the end of the article gets incredibly more disturbing for all sides of the triad.

"People think today's technology and MySpace.com guarantees a reasonable transaction and that's not so," said Michael Bernacchi, a marketing professor at University of Detroit Mercy.

Really? Did we just call the process of adopting a living human being a "transaction?" I'm not surprised that the journalist, so uneducated with any adoption language thus far in the article, missed how absolutely offensive that is to anyone involved in the adoption world... or, you know, to human beings in general. To be fair, the man quoted was a marketing professor and I'm sure his mind works in different ways than someone teaching or involved with social work. Yet the wording puts a negative spin on an already negative article about something that the rest of us would like to at least see portrayed with some iota of respect.

The article ends with the basic underlying idea that it's not technology's fault but the fault of those evil "birthmothers" that change their mind when they've "promised" their child to someone else by stating:

"It's not a technology problem, it's a human problem," he said.

I say, it's not a human problem, it's a problem of journalists and others pretending they have an ounce of understanding about something as complex as adoption and then reporting on it. This article is a subtle form of coercion to the woman who is considering placing her child with the adoptive family. Not only has she been referred to as a birth mother, thus continuing to remove her as the child's only mother in her mind and heart, but she has been told that if she doesn't place with this family, there is something inherently wrong with her and that she is to be despised. She has read that this is nothing more than a transaction, not a child to be loved and cared for; removing that human interaction and replacing it with something that should hold no emotion. She hasn't been told that the open adoption isn't legally binding. She hasn't been told any of the life-long core issues that can and very may well haunt her for a lifetime.

If anything, this article should have been saved for after the child has been born and the Termination of Parental Rights has been signed. However, that doesn't sell papers or bring on the internet traffic, does it? Much like other aspects of adoption that we're working so hard to reform, this journalist doesn't seem to care about getting it right. Just making the bucks.

//
For more articles on adoption that miss the mark and really drop the ball, read:

1. Another Adoption Article Misses the Mark.

2. More Negative Adoption Speak in the Media.

3. Another Diss of Open Adoption in the News.

//
Article reference. Original Article about the Myspace Profile. Photo Credit.