This post answers a lot of the questions I put in the comments about your analogy.

However, I don't appreciate being called unintelligent at the beginning of a post. I assume you meant me (and John, who must have a history with you?) because I don't love the marriage analogy.

My marriage and my relationship with my children is above any other human relationship I will have. I don't believe I will have a relationship like that with anyone else: not my parents, not my inlaws, not birthparents. That's not to say I won't be very close and committed throughout my life to any family I covenant with to have an open adoption. It's just not compatible with my idea of marriage.

Just because I am new to the idea of open adoption and am honest about my reservations does not mean I am challenging your beliefs. And no analogy is perfect; pointing out where they fail can be enlightening as well.

Thanks.

Jenna,

A problem that I have with this marriage analogy is when it's applied retroactively to adoptions of the last 20 or so years. When that happens, adoptive parents, and sometimes birth parents, are usually found to be at great fault, and laden with a heavy guilt burden, for not having a fully open adoption, something they may have had no clue about when they adopted.

Times change, and if a first family and an adoptive family want to change their original ideas of open adoption, then that is up to them. But to label an adoptive parent as 'bad' because they want contact to be only between adults, or only through mail and email, or only on the phone, is wrong.

When an adoption was entered into with good faith, with no hint that it was marriage-like, it is unfair to expect the people involved in that to embrace radical change. Back in the late 20th century, the adoption commitment was made to the child during the finalization in court. THAT is the lifelong commitment--parent to child.

I have yet to read any formal research studies that state unequivocally that direct contact between first parent and adopted child is in the child's best interest. Based on my experience, the experience of friends, and the experience of therapists and psychologists who work with children adopted at birth, direct contact is not in the best interest of most of the children.

It may not be obvious in toddlers and pre-schoolers, adults may think the children can understand two mommies or two daddies, but it is faulty thinking. "...a young child is not equipped to deal with the differing value systems of two sets of parents and may reject both value systems, increasing the risk of psychopathology." (Byrd) "Thus, instead of helping to resolve identity conflicts in adolescence, contact with birthparents may increase an adoptee's confusion." (Blotcky, Looney & Grace)

"Research to date provides some information about how birth and adoptive parents experience openness, but LITTLE IS KNOWN about the ACTUAL impact of openness on family relationships, children's behavior, or psychological adjutment." (Berry)

"True understanding of adoption and its legal ramifications is not attained until adolescence. These findings [by Brodzinsky] suggest that openness and contact before adolescence should be handled with great care and with the assurance to the children about the permanency of their place within the adoptive family." (Berry)

"McRoy and Grotevant's qualitative findings show varied interpretations among adopted children; some embrace contact and some are frightened by it. These researchers do not identify an age appropriate time for contact or other correlates of adoption." (Berry)

"...much more rigorous research is needed to understand the effects of openness on children and families. The child's interpretation of any contact or relationship is at the center of the debate over the benefits of continued access, and it is precisely this interpretation that is yet to be illuminated by research." (Berry)

Codifying what open adoption IS doesn't seem to be a good idea when there are still varied opinions on the definition of open adoption, and uncertainty about the effects of various levels of open adoption on the children.

To me, a lifetime connection doesn't necessarily equal lifetime direct contact with the child. However, if that is what both families agree to, and the terms are clearly defined (such as: what does 'visit' mean? what does 'I need space' mean? what does 'fully open adoption' mean?) then that is their business. I'm not convinced that it should be built into adoption law.

And that doesn't make me a bad person. And it doesn't make me a person who thinks closed adoptions, concealed information, altered birth certificates, etc., are okay. It makes me a person with a different opinion.

Well.... I was going to say something, but miriam & mariah pretty much covered it.

mariah,

Go to openadoptionsupport.com

There is a ton of research linked on that site that addresses how much better open adoption is than closed.

Thanks, Erin. That's actually where I got the information. Most of the studies are only abstracts, or I don't know how to access the full article. I have some more research somewhere, but I can't remember where it is. I DO believe that fully open adoption has worked well for some families. There's just not enough longitudinal studies that have been done. I enjoy reading how adoptions with direct contact are progressing for the people who write about them. I just don't happen to think that first parents and adoptive parents HAVE to make a marriage-like commitment at placement.

I haven't seen you do it, but other bloggers have described anything less than a fully open adoption as inadequate, even ones that were never intended to be that way. They imply, or state outright, that people (usually the adoptive parents) who think otherwise are uninformed at best, or mean and unfair at worst. I think there's room for a middle ground.

Oh, one more thing about the studies. Near as I can tell, they aren't using a common definition of open adoption. So if one study says it works well, it could be referring to exchange of information and pictures. Another study could be referring to on-going phone or in-person contact between birth and adoptive families. Yet another could be referring to on-going direct contact between first families and adoptive families. There really isn't enough consistency of terms to really say just what studies, in general, prove. :-)

Miriam and Mariah, outstanding, thank you for presenting a different opinion. Covenant certainly seems to be intense and without limit, way beyond buddy for life. Certainly feels like adopting the birthmother as well as the child. John

I can't wait to see Jenna's responses when she returns to Mariah's long-winded essays.

"I have yet to read any formal research studies that state unequivocally that direct contact between first parent and adopted child is in the child's best interest....Based on my experience, the experience of friends...and the experience of therapists and psychologists...direct contact is not in the best interest of most of the children."

There is very little in adoption that is unequivcal for starters. I do not know what therapists, etc. that Mariah relies on, but they are not the ones that I do. This is not a cut and dried issue and probably never will be.

However, many adoption "experts" now recommend the possible benefits of open adoption. Many triad members are convinced that open adoptions generally benefit children. Plenty of adoptees in closed adoptions that I know as well are thoroughly convinced about open adoptions.

As for not enough longitudinal studies having been done? Only abstracts? Codifying? - I think Mariah knows lots of intellectual buzz words, but....

As for the Brodzinsky quote, I have read a few of his books and he readily acknowledges the harm that many closed adoptions cause. His book, Being Adopted: the Lifelong Search for Self describes the harmful affects of closed adoptions. He is very supportive of adoptees knowing their roots. They are only privy to that information in open adoptions.

"To me, a lifetime connection doesn't necessarily equal lifetime direct contact with the child."

I believe that for most people it does.

Well, Jan, you could have commented without being insulting, don't you think? Or is this not supposed to be a dialogue? Jenna asked for research, definitions, etc. I gave mine. I don't call citing research being 'long-winded.' Your post is nothing but opinion. If I had posted only opinion, mine would be no longer than yours. However, I KNOW that a post with only my opinions would be treated with even less respect.

What is YOUR definition of a CLOSED adoption? an OPEN adoption? There is currently no commonly accepted definition of open adoption that I am aware of.

Is there a problem in wanting to see longitudinal research? The information I posted is from the website Erin recommended to me. On something she posted elsewhere, Dawn mentioned the Texas and some other state long-term study. That is the kind of work that will let us know what effect fully open adoption has, hopefully in an unbiased way.

"There is very little in adoption that is unequivcal[sic] for starters." That is SO TRUE! However, the people advocating fully open adoptions appear to be saying that it is the ONLY 'good' kind of adoption; the ONLY kind of adoption that is beneficial for the child. That's a pretty unequivocal belief.

"I do not know what therapists, etc. that Mariah relies on, but they are not the ones that I do." And that makes mine wrong? I was citing MY experience, you were citing yours. They are different, not right or wrong.

"This is not a cut and dried issue and probably never will be." So, if it will never be a 'cut and dried issue' why are you and others so intent on making it the only way to live with adoption? You're contradicting yourself, and making my case for me.

On the website that Erin suggested, and that Dawn started, YES, abstracts are indeed what is mostly posted. To get the full article requires a purchase. An abstract only tells a few highlights. It's a research term. And that's what I was referring to--research, as Jenna requested.

Codifying refers to making something part of a legal code. As in, making fully open adoption agreements legally binding. As in, making them part of the Adoption Code.

You also said:
"However, many adoption "experts" now recommend the POSSIBLE benefits of open adoption. MANY triad members are convinced that open adoptions GENERALLY benefit children. PLENTY of adoptees in closed adoptions that I know as well are thoroughly CONVINCED about open adoptions." [emphasis mine]. Words such as 'possible' and 'many' and 'generally' and 'convinced' are words of opinion, not words of unbiased fact. And who are the 'experts' you refer to? The usual way to get an accurate understanding of a theory is to test it through controlled studies.

Next, you said:
"As for the Brodzinsky quote, I have read a few of his books and he readily acknowledges the harm that many closed adoptions cause. His book, Being Adopted: the Lifelong Search for Self describes the harmful affects of closed adoptions. He is very supportive of adoptees knowing their roots. They are only privy to that information in open adoptions."

And I don't disagree with that. I read Brodzinsky's book many, many years ago. He has a lot more to say than what you suggest.

If you had read my comments carefully, you would know that I agree that closed adoptions are not beneficial. Being able to know your roots doesn't necessarily mean having direct contact for children in adoption today, however. And I haven't seen Brodzinsky say that fully open adoptions are the ONLY way to get to know your roots. Did you miss where he said things had to "be handled with great care?"

Jan, I'm not being confrontational. I don't see why a different opinion has to be treated with such scorn. I don't know why you have to make fun of my vocabulary. You seem to be a well-educated woman. If you had read my comment carefully, you would see that I don't advocate closed adoptions. I don't advocate fully open adoptions. I advocate taking a middle ground, with a gradual opening of the adoption if it is in the best interest of the child.

You seem very willing to ignore the fact that each child is different, each first mother is different, and each adoptive family is different. Therefore, each adoption is different. No one can dictate what is best for all adoptions.

You closed your comment by saying that a lifetime commitment equals lifetime direct contact with the child for most people. What is your basis for saying that?

At the risk of being chastised for long-windedness again, this is what my personal experience has yielded as my basis for saying that there is no one best way to live adoption:

My son-in-law is adopted. At 28, he has said he is not interested in searching, but that he may some day.

A very good friend is adopted. She reunited with her birth family when she was in her 30's, after they sought her out. She was content before the contact, she was happy to have the contact, and she is content with occasional contact since then.

Another friend is a first mother I met when our children were in kindergarten together. In our discussions of adoption, she expressed the feeling that for her, getting pictures and updates was enough for her, at that time.

My best friend and her husband adopted their great-nephew through foster care. They first tried to help his mother and her mother to keep him by providing groceries, baby supplies, etc, as well as taking care of him when asked. When he was four, his mother terminated her parental rights.

A colleague in her 50's was adopted at birth. When I asked her how she felt about reuniting, she said that she didn't have a desire to do that. But if she was contacted, she would respond.

I have other friends who have been foster parents to several children. They adopted three of them. The first died the same day they adopted him, from complications of an organ transplant, when he was two. They spent time getting to know his birthmother while he was in the hospital. SHE asked THEM to adopt him. The judge held the finalization at the hospital. Another had visitation until her parental rights were terminated. The third didn't have visitation because he was brain-damaged from a stroke he had after being thrown against the wall by his father.

A family in my church adopted a 3 year-old from Korea. Another adopted a four month old. They had contact with the mother and father, who were in college. After they graduated, they left the area.

My child's godparents adopted in a private adoption. As far as I know, they did not meet the mother and father. They have a lot of information about them, and shared their information as well.

My college classmate and her husband adopted two children. They are in their late 20's and early 30's now. Their adoptions were closed. They have talked about searching, but haven't done so yet. Nor have they been contacted.

Every one of these adoptions was different. They've had varying degrees of openness. To my knowledge, they are content with how their situations are at this time.

If there isn't room for differing opinions on how adoptions should proceed, why ask?

PS One psychologist I went to when I was struggling with some issues about adoption, surprised me when she said that she was adopted. And quite content with her life. But I guess she doesn't know anything, professionally or personally, about being adopted.

I see a lot of people who don't want to acknowledge the current research on open adoption. It bothers me frankly. I see so much research both on a professional and personal level that shows the benefits of open adoption, in terms of ongoing contact with birthparents, and often I see people dismissing these studies. I also see a LOT of evidence that closed adoption with no knowledge of biological family as being harmful to the psychological welfare of children, that is ignored by the same camp of people.

I like all of us know adoptees who are in closed adoptions who are "fine" or "content" with their lives. However if there are many adoptees who are really struggling, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and health even if we have children who would be fine with their closed adoption. We can't predict how our children will react, so we have to err on the side of caution.

Erin wrote:
"We can't predict how our children will react, so we have to err on the side of caution."

Exactly. I'm not sure who is promoting closed adoptions. I'm not. I am proposing a middle ground of open disclosure with varying levels of contact based on each adopted child's needs. I'm against mandating any particular kind of openness. I'm also against closed records.

Mariah,

There are MANY groups and people out there who are pushing closed adoption. The NCFA for one. There are also large adoption agencies that give lip service only to open adoptions, but prefer a very closed relationship. I know of a very large agency that likes to have ALL contact go through the agency.

Personally I do believe that closed adoption has no merits for adopted children unless there is abuse by the biological parents. I don't like semi-open, but if all parties agree to it, and the adoptee can find birth parents when they reach 18, I guess it can work.

I know that every situation is different, and that sometimes semi-open is better for children. I think my biggest worry is when aparents chose a semi-open option for the sake of the aparents, not the sake of their children. That is honestly where I start to get angry, when aparents put their own needs above the well being of their children. And I see it happen an awful lot :(

Wow. Lots of comments :0)

What I hear Mariah saying is that, although she is not in favor of closed adoption, she is in favor of a more semi-open agreement, with the freedom to grow into whatever level of openess both sets of parents agree is in the best interest of the child. She is not attacking open adoption as wrong or as invalid. She simply feels, and has found research that supports those feelings, that fully open adoption can have pitfalls she is wary of.

I hear Jenna, Jan and Erin saying that, while they know that fully open adoption does not work in some select cases, they feel that fully open adoptions are prefereable adn they have found research to support those feelings.

Does it have to be a war? Do Jenna, Jan and Erin "win"? Do Miriam, Mariah and I, with the "bad" view lose?

How does a different opinion, Jenna, make your marriage analogy less valid? If someone doesn't agree with your analogy, it doesn't invalidate it. FWIW, I think your ananlogy describes well how some open adoptions work. I also think Mariah's points about semi-open agreements changing and growing over time are great ones.

Is it okay to respect both of you and your opinions or do I have to choose?

"I think my biggest worry is when aparents chose a semi-open option for the sake of the aparents, not the sake of their children. That is honestly where I start to get angry, when aparents put their own needs above the well being of their children. And I see it happen an awful lot :( "

Erin, I see your point. And it makes me angry when I see parents acting in a way that is, to me, selfish. But whose definition of selfish are we using? It gets tricky, because what you see as selfish, I may see differently and vice versa......

soblessed--so even-handed! You've cut to the heart of what I was trying to say.

"But whose definition of selfish are we using? It gets tricky, because what you see as selfish, I may see differently and vice versa......"

I think it is selfish to only consider a closed or semi-open relationship because it would be to "hard" to see your child's other parents. To want to be most important in their lives, to deny them a relationship with their biological family because it is difficult for you to see. That is in my opinion selfish and wrong. If there is valid reasons for choosing a closed relationship, i.e. abuse, so be it. But I honestly don't see how semi-open is any different than closed, it still denies access of children to their biological parents.

Erin, your daughter is still so young, that you haven't yet had to figure out whether or not direct contact will have a positive or negative impact overall on her emotional development.

I felt like you did when our children were young, too. I failed to recognize the emotional problems that were created as a result of contact (in OUR particular situation--I'm not saying it's necessarily common).

There are reasons other than abuse that require a reduced level of contact. These are particular to each family. That is why I don't advocate mandating any specific level of openness through legal codes. Nor do I support closed adoptions or closed records.

In my experience, adoptive parents seldom consider closed or semi-open relationships because it would be hard for them, or because they would feel less important in their child's eyes.

I think every family needs to choose for themselves what degree of openness is appropriate, without being judged as selfish or inadequate somehow.

Semi-open adoptions are different from closed because the child knows about their adoption, that they have first parents, etc. It's different from closed because the child will be able to contact birth relatives when they are emotionally ready. The information is there.

Not everyone fits in the same size box.

"In my experience, adoptive parents seldom consider closed or semi-open relationships because it would be hard for them, or because they would feel less important in their child's eyes."

In my experience this is the number one reasons that adoptive parents consider this. They often try to disguise it at something else, but the veil is usually pretty thin.

Perhaps it is our different experiences that have led us to different conclusions on this issue. I for one think that open adoption agreements need to be legally binding because very often I hear of those agreements being used as means to an end, and the end is parenting someone's child and then shutting them as soon as they get the chance.

Thank you Erin! I popped away for a time and then....came back to this. Were Mariah's comments longer than the original post? It would take me days to respond to all her comments.

"I failed to recognize the emotional problems that were created as a result of contact (in OUR particular situation--I'm not saying it's necessarily common)."
That statement tells me alot about where Mariah is coming from.

"Is it okay to respect both of you and your opinions or do I have to choose?"
Okay with me, I don't see a need for you to choose!

Erin, I agree. We have different experiences, and that's shaped our viewpoints.

As our adoptions were a long time ago, I guess I haven't run into the people who use open adoption agreements as a means to an end. We more than fulfilled what was a considered a pioneering open adoption agreement at the time.

I appreciate the non-judgmental way you have responded to me.

Jan, since you can't seem to respond to my comments without making a cutting remark, don't even bother. You seem to be trying to create a huge controversy, whereas I'm describing my point-of-view and having civil conversations with other posters. Your attitude does nothing to promote understanding or change, and frankly, I'm shocked by it. It doesn't jibe with what I've seen of you on other threads here. What gives?

"I think it is selfish to only consider a closed or semi-open relationship because it would be to "hard" to see your child's other parents. To want to be most important in their lives, to deny them a relationship with their biological family because it is difficult for you to see. That is in my opinion selfish and wrong. If there is valid reasons for choosing a closed relationship, i.e. abuse, so be it."

I would have to say I pretty much agree with what your saying here, Erin. And you're absoloutely right about experiences and different conclusions. I'm glad that I got involved with forums and blogs where I can see the different experiences others have had.

Hey, I have another question, maybe for another post but I'll keep it short.

When it's argued that open adoptions should be legally binding, what are the proposed punishments should either party be seen as delinquent?

Good question, Miriam, that is a tough one!

Miriam that is a good question and a very hard one because I believe it is much easier to punish adoptive parents that walk away than birth parents that walk away.

Punish isn't the right word, but I can't think of a better one at two thirty in the morning :)

I think mom should be able to take adoptive family to court to determine why they cut off contact. If they can make a case for abuse, fine, counseling should be ordered, and perhaps supervised visitation when mom has gotten better. If they cannot make a case for abuse then court ordered visitation with mom must be set up and mediated.

It is much less common for a birth parent to walk away, but I know it does happen. I think court ordered visitation could be ordered here too, but could it be enforced? If it were enforced how would that emotionally affect a child, to know that the courts had to force his biological mother to visit him?

There IS a double standard here for what is expected of birthparents and what is expected of adoptive parents, and given the unique role of both parties, I'm not sure a double standard could be avoided.

Mariah,
You said:

The usual way to get an accurate understanding of a theory is to test it through controlled studies.

My understanding of a controlled study is one that has withstood tests for internal and external validity and that includes a comparison of a (preferably large) number of (preferably random) samples from a treatment group and from a control group. Postmodernist scholars consider bias of the researcher as a threat to the internal validity of the study. Let me ask you this... What are the credentials, backgrounds and experiences of the researchers whose work you cited and what are their affiliations? What groups sponsored the studies? NCFA??? ROAP? Small samples, lack of control group vs. treatment group comparison, too many variables (dissimilarities) in subjects' situations could be considered threats to external validity. What were the populations studied? Were there control groups? Were the studies limited to infant adoptions between relatively uncomplicated (if there is such a thing) parties or did they mix in cases where drugs/alcohol/mental illness/abuse were involved? Were the children of different ages when adopted? Were the studies published in a peer-reviewed journal???? Without knowing an assurance of the validity of the studies you cited, I am forced to view them as potentially flawed, which renders tham no more valuable than opinion. So, until you convince me otherwise, I think you have supported your opinion with opinion. Also, I am troubled by the development of an argument against codification of open adoption, or open adoption in general that is built on quotes from single studies in multiple areas of that practice (infancy, adolescence, permanancy/security/abandonment issues, openness in general). It is common practice in literature reviews to focus on one facet at a time and to quote a string of research to support statements you make about that issue, e.g. the effects of openness on preschool children's feelings of permancy; the effects of openness on adolescents and rebellion, whatever...) Then you can use all of your narrowed-down research to support the umbrella argument. Without the support of multiple valid studies to support your assumptions and opinions in specific areas of open adoption, your arguments are weak (not meant to be a flame, just an objective statement). The danger is, however, that by inserting quotations from articles (scholarly or not), you lend an appearance of credibility to your statements that may mislead those who are unfamiliar with the way in which assumptions are really tested and argued through scholarly research. I have no problem with you sharing opinions you've formed based on your experiences; I have no problem that someone who has written an article or a book agrees with you. I think the purpose of a blog like this to foster the kind of open communication and sharing of experiences and ideas that can lead to the development of community, understanding and learning among triad members. I have a problem with a potentially misleading use of quotations.

Next, you said:

If you had read my comment carefully, you would see that I don't advocate closed adoptions. I don't advocate fully open adoptions. I advocate taking a middle ground, with a gradual opening of the adoption if it is in the best interest of the child.

...and you continue...

I felt like you did (Response to Erin) when our children were young, too. I failed to recognize the emotional problems that were created as a result of contact (in OUR particular situation--I'm not saying it's necessarily common).

There are reasons other than abuse that require a reduced level of contact. These are particular to each family. That is why I don't advocate mandating any specific level of openness through legal codes. Nor do I support closed adoptions or closed records.

Here you reveal that you have had a bad experience with open adoption that has affected your beliefs on the issue. I think we could all have learned more discussing the problems in your (and other) open adoptions and brainstorming possible solutions rather than from being presented with a condemnation of openness supported by questionable research. Research to date on adoption is inadequate and in conclusive. Until this situation changes, we only have each other to rely upon to inform situation that ensure that our children are well served and the rest of us are able to hold onto our sanity/emotional wellbeing (and that's MY opinion).

Read on...
You said:

In my experience, adoptive parents seldom consider closed or semi-open relationships because it would be hard for them, or because they would feel less important in their child's eyes.

I know many, many adoptees and adoptive parents. EVERY one of the adoptees who has decided not to search has made that choice based on perceived knowledge that it would hurt their adoptive parents too much (usually the ap has told their child that directly). Every adoptive parent I know has told me that they hope their child will not search because they are afraid the child will love the birthfamily more. My point in saying this is that I want you to know that I can easily counter the list of case studies with one of my own. Jan is correct in saying that nothing in adoption is unequivocal. That is why, IMHO, we cannot afford to close any doors. There is too much at stake.

Finally, you asked why people were insulting. This is a highly charged, emotional topic. While I can see where some of the comments were unnecessarily insulting and not conducive to a productive discussion, you did inflame by marching out some questionable research to support an argument against a cause people who have been marginalized, vilified, maligned, depreciated (birthparents) have fought for and, based on their own experiences, believe is best for their children (and them). After being told for decades that we were selfish, insignificant, useless baby machines who gave away our children, we are now seeing emerging experiential evidence of our importance in their lives. That is an anodyne that I, for one, would be loathe to give up on until I see some of those longitudinal studies you referred to. Until then, can we just fill our coffee cups and talk to each other?

Mariah,
I believe that only a court of law should be able to break an openness contract and it should be for cause. The penalty for aps breaking the openness covenant/contract on their own should be a very steep financial one. I would not even begin to consider the option of forcing aps who break the covenant/contract to return the child to the bps, the State or an agency as a penalty. I would guess (but don't know for sure) that valid longitudinal studies from divorce literature that look at the effects of putting children in the middle of a tug of war type situation indicate that it damages them.

Thomasina, are you arguing for "steep financial" damages because you are assuming that afamilies have more financial means than birthfamilies? To my knowledge that is not necessarily the case, and in fact is not generally true. It would seem to follow that financial strain would be further damaging to a child in any family.

As far as the studies people have been quoting, as they said they are from a site recommended from people on several sides of the argument and the specifics can be found there. What WOULD you quote, specifically? I am asking because I would love to read more and am hungry for resources, not because I am arguing with anyone.

ps. I love long comments. Why not? Folks who don't agree can scrolllllll down. ;-)
Thanks!

"I can't wait to see Jenna's responses when she returns to Mariah's long-winded essays."

Jan,

I wasn't going to say anything at all in the name of peace, but this quote really jumped out at me and I can't stop thinking about it. (I know, I know obsessive-compulsive :O)

I first want to say that I can totally understand if you meant this in a gently teasing, lets-diffuse-the-tension kind of way. Equally, I can understand being frustrated enough to say "you just wait til my friend comes back, she's really going to cut you down to size". Those would both be totally normal human reactions.

However, I feel inclined to understand Mariah's point about feeling attacked when Thomasina posted an equally long comment, which includes some challenges for Mariah, and the "long-windedness" of her response is not commented on. Not that her response isn't well-thought out and contains valid points, just that is is well... long also.


Thomasina,

"Without knowing an assurance of the validity of the studies you cited, I am forced to view them as potentially flawed, which renders tham no more valuable than opinion."

Why? Why wouldn't you assume that Mariah has either done that research or is quoting material that is "valid"? Also, while I recognize their importance at times, studies are relative. One "side" of the debate may be able to point to a study that meets your criteria and say "see? we're right" while another study, with different information, is present or is in the process of being compiled. Also, studies concerning such personal and individual experiences as adoption just don't take every situation into account....they can't. It's like having a study done on what type of college major is "right". Or what type of parenting is "right". Or what kind of car to drive is "right". They are useful as part of what you use to research an issue or to form/modify an opinion, but I don't think they "prove" that one stance is right and one is wrong.

(note: Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I think that Mariah isn't saying that open adoption is wrong at all....just not the choice of every parent at every time an adoption plan is made. She really does just seem to be presenting a different view. One that she obviously has put a lot of thought into.)

Erin,

"There IS a double standard here for what is expected of birthparents and what is expected of adoptive parents, and given the unique role of both parties, I'm not sure a double standard could be avoided."

Very interesting adn quite possibly true. Good food for thought.....

"Thomasina, are you arguing for "steep financial" damages because you are assuming that afamilies have more financial means than birthfamilies? To my knowledge that is not necessarily the case, and in fact is not generally true. It would seem to follow that financial strain would be further damaging to a child in any family."

Afamilies almost always have more money than birth families. Poverty is one of the leading reasons that women place their children. Afamilies have to prove they are able to live comfortably. So generally afamilies DO have more money, and much more in many cases. We may not be living high on the hog, but we aren't even allowed to adopt if we are living below a certain level. Why do you think that birth families have a lot of money?

Hi Erin- I didn't say anyone had "a lot of money", in fact I don't assume the average adoptive OR birth family is anything more than that- about average, financially.

While it's logical that living in poverty might contribute to a birthmom being unwilling or unable to parent, especially in developing countries (see the Ethiopia blog on the difference between domestic and international definitions of poverty), my impression from the blogs here honestly was that in the States the statistically average birthmom is above the poverty level. The stereotype of the rich family swooping down on the poverty-stricken birthmom is as offensive as the one about the unstable, unsavory birthmom who pesters the family for inappropriate contact after signing her rights away. I'm not saying you meant that, because I know you're level-headed and I respect your opinion, but for the sake of the discussion I do believe that's where that line of thinking is headed.

Basically, I am uncomfortable with the idea of economic damages because the assumption that adoptive families have extra money is offensive to me and because I see the potential for direct damages to the child's life as well.

Plus, I think many of us would agree that the government has a hard time legislating and prosecuting well about adoption. Our definitions of: open, contact, coersion, safety and good-for-kids would have to be set in stone. Who would you be willing to hand the chisel on that one? Should the money go to the system? I suppose they would need it to cover the costs of lawyers, hearings, serving subpoenas, yadda yadda.

Before the money stage, how about mandatory counseling? Social worker visits in which pictures and descriptions might be compiled? (I know, they have so much spare time...) Disapproval of future domestic home studies?

As far as birthmom "punishment" I am at a loss. In custody hearings you can't force a parent to take advantage of their right to see a child, either.

Long comment: achieved.

Miriam: 333
Soblessed: 442
Thomasina: 1,034
Mariah: 1,334 and 626
Jenna: 1,562

Shoot, I AM the most long-winded one!! But I didn't overtake the original essay, at least!

This is a joke, just in case anyone thinks I lack a sense of humor!

From the website recommended to me: www.openadoptionsupport.com

Since I read this study, more have been posted. But, not all give access to the full article. This one was funded with money from the US Department of Health and Human Services. I have no idea what Mariann Berry's connection to adoption is, or if she has any other than her research.

I agree with Thomasina that there are a great many variables that influence studies. This particular study has plenty of statements that can support just about anyone's perspective. There's a wide variation in conclusions that can be drawn from research.

I selected the quotes that I did because I think they still apply to situations today. I indicated that my reactions were my opinions.

Pretty much everything else you said, Thomasina, expands on my own statements that independent, longitudinal research is needed. No quarrel there at all.

Mariah, I'm sorry but I had to remove the piece that you reprinted from another site. You are always welcome to link to studies and information but we can't reprint here without permission. -Lisa (AB Editor)

Now for the personal response to Thomasina. Miriam and soblessed did a pretty good job of putting my thoughts into words.

Regarding feeling insulted:
Thomasina, as I indicated, it was Jan's comments that bothered me. They were out of character with what I've read here on these blogs, and really caught me by surprise. I don't recall saying "people" were insulting. The comments contributed nothing to the discussion, except to make me feel attacked. Something that is quite ironic considering a later essay on just that subject by Jan.

Your description of your experiences with adoptive and birth families is just as you said about mine--your experience. Everyone here could make a list of who they know, how adoption has affected them, etc. I provided my examples only to show that I wasn't relying solely on my personal situation to reach the conclusions I have formed.

Speaking of which, yes, we've had one difficult adoption. The events that happened are private. Our family has been extremely hurt by them, particularly because we did, in fact, broaden the openness and direct contact. On the other hand, we've also had a very good experience in a different adoption, in which we also pursued more openness and contact. We also have experience with a failed placement, the blame for which we've laid squarely at the feet of the adoption agency, for what we think were coercive tactics toward the mother, including using our family to force her to make a choice.

As for finances--our family certainly is no better off than any of the ones we have been involved with, and actually less well off than at least two of them.

It really is hard to draw conclusions about someone based on the little bit that they post.

I don't like being told that my post was inflammatory, solely because it presented a different point of view. I thought that was what Jenna asked for. I guess I was supposed to stick to an analogy like the marriage one. Instead, I quoted a research study. Oops.

I also agreed with Jan that nothing is unequivocal. Which is why I don't think anything can be set in legal stone regarding individual adoption situations. As I said before, "I am proposing a middle ground of open disclosure with varying levels of contact based on each adopted child's needs. I'm against mandating any particular kind of openness. I'm also against closed records."

Aside: Regarding David Brodzinsky, whose statements from Berry's report are some I cited, Jan agreed that he is very well-known and respected in adoption. He is the Research and Project Director at the Evan B. Donaldson Institute, which I have seen described very favorably on many blogs.

If you don't mind if I drink tea, I'd love to sit down with you and talk.

Miriam asks:

Thomasina, are you arguing for "steep financial" damages because you are assuming that afamilies have more financial means than birthfamilies? To my knowledge that is not necessarily the case, and in fact is not generally true. It would seem to follow that financial strain would be further damaging to a child in any family.

I am arguing for large fines because I believe they are a deterrent. Who has more money makes no difference to me in this case.

As far as the studies people have been quoting, as they said they are from a site recommended from people on several sides of the argument and the specifics can be found there. What WOULD you quote, specifically? I am asking because I would love to read more and am hungry for resources, not because I am arguing with anyone.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not they are from a site that represents both sides. It matters to me that they are are scholarly and that the research is valid. As Mariah and I have both said, there aren't many valid, longitudinal studies. It is important that solid research be done. In the meantime, we have to read what is available with a critical eye and have productive discussions with each other on blogs like this.

I just went looking in the University of Michigan Library databases (PSYCH-INFO is a good one for this type of search) and found a few updated Berry and Brodzinsky studies. Forgive longwinded quotes (she says smiling evilly ;-) as I provide two modest examples here. As I said before, I don't know whether or not these studies are valid or not.

ity of Texas at Arlington, USA

Available online 3 July 2002. (Mariah's study was from 1991)

Abstract

Adoption agencies, centers and attorneys are arranging and creating open adoptions in increasing numbers across the United States, but little is known about how widespread this practice is, or how adoptive families manage the day to day practice of openness. New evidence from a survey of 1,396 newly adoptive families in California sheds light on the practice of open adoption and shows that the majority of these adoptions are open in some form, and that many adoptive families are cautiously comfortable with post-placement contact. Open practices across transracial and relative adoptions are also explored.

Adoption Quarterly
Volume 9, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1-18

Family structural openness and communication openness as predictors in the adjustment of adopted children

Brodzinsky, D.

Department fo Psychology, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, United States

Abstract

The current study examined the relative contribution of family structural openness versus communication openness in the adjustment of adopted children. Seventy-three adopted children, placed predominately in inracial families within 18 months of their birth, were the focus of the study. Parental ratings of family structural openness and children's ratings of communication openness served as the primary predictor variables and children's ratings of their self-esteem and parental ratings of children's behavior problems were the outcome measures. Although family structural openness and communication openness were positively correlated, only communication openness independently predicted children's adjustment. The findings are consistent with research suggesting that family process variables generally are more predictive of children's psychological adjustment than family structural variables. Implications for social casework and clinical practice in adoption are discussed.

Mariah,
You said:

I don't like being told that my post was inflammatory, solely because it presented a different point of view. I thought that was what Jenna asked for. I guess I was supposed to stick to an analogy like the marriage one. Instead, I quoted a research study. Oops.

I apologize, Mariah. I should have phrased it better. I was worried you might take it the wrong way. I was not offended by your difference of opinion, I was uncomfortable with the use of research that I wasn't sure was valid or current to get buy in. I was trying to explain why that might upset a group of people. I think we all have a great deal to share with each other and I would like to get past this argument.
Yes, I'd love to have tea with you, Mariah.
To all,
As for the marriage analogy, I can certainly understand why Jenna used it. In the absence of enforceable contracts, the idea of a sacred covenant, like marriage, between birth and adoptive families has its appeal. The strength in the analogy lies in the propositions that in both scenarios families enlarge and in both scenarios the bond should be for life. Both require work. However, having recently gone through the "marriage law" debates in Michigan, I know there are very, very strong and differing opinions about what constitutes a marriage particularly around the uniqueness of the particular institution. So, I am not surprised by the controversy. Maybe we could move the discussion forward by brainstorming other ways in which adoptive families and birthfamilies in open adoption could negotiate covenants/contracts whatever to secure the relationship.

I appreciate your forthrightness, Thomasina. I think I'll just read here for awhile...my words are all typed out, lol.