Jan, I doubt that adoptive parents question there are ethical problems in the world of adoption, there definitely are.
I think however when we say that children might be placed for adoption only after they have suffered enough to go through possible neglect, abuse, and then foster care, it is hard to swallow. Newborn placements can many times be what is best for the child, but we do need to make them safer, more ethical transitions.
Speaking from my own experience with my first two children, DFS was waiting to remove them. They were not going to remain with birthmothers, period. If their birthfamilies did not opt to place them as newborns, they would have gone into the system, no doubt suffered more issues, and more likely than not, still have been placed for adoption (closed ones I might add).
In my opinion these kids have enough on their plate to deal with (not just adoption, but inherited health and mental health issues) that I just cannot see how placing them for adoption as newborns has not saved them some further damage.
As I see it this is an ethical way to help many children, by placing them before they suffer more needlessly. The current system however, does not make that easy, I agree.
I do agree that the adoption agency, money and marketing mentality, needs to be removed from the equation so only children in true need are placed. Often those children DO come from backgrounds of disfunction that are not going to change over months or even years.

Just as a note, foster care adoptions are often fraught with ethical issues as well. Ask me sometime about my own niece and nephews were taken into the system during a messy divorce. My husband and I were given no consideration to adopt, and repeatedly refused contact when we applied. I also know closed adoption is not so hot.

"Why is it so hard for many adoptive parents to distinguish between birth parents who want to make adoption better and those few who want to eliminate it entirely?"

I think because many adoptive parents want to "protect" their child. I think they often feel that if the child had been in the position of needing to be adopted, then there must be something that the child should be protected from - i.e. something in the natural family that 'caused' the need for adoption in the first place, and something not desirable for the child to have in his/her life.

I think that sums it up pretty simply... obviously different adoptive parents with this attitude define the reason(s)for "protecting" their child, some reasons being valid and others being completely contrived or even misunderstood.

"...if a country is known for shoddy and unethical pracices, baby stealing and baby buying, ethical issues are likely plentiful."

Unfortunately there are a lot of things wrong with international adoption - some come from the adopting parents while other issues are at the very root of a country's international adoption law or policies.

Its up to the adopting parents to make sound decisions about the ethical practices of an agency/program/administrator.

3.5 years ago, I made this when I was asked to be interviewed about the ethics of international adoption. (opens with Windows Media)

Er, here's the link http://www.worldadopt.org/WB38121303LOWRES.wmv

Jan, older child adoption has its own ethical issues. Theses are not birth mother issues, they affect the adoptive parents, but it still involves ethical behavior on the part of the agency. Misleading the family about problems the child faces, or allowing a misconception to stand where the adoptive parents simply don't understand a complex problem. Another problem is children who do not really want to be acopted, and this information is greatly downplayed, or not even mentioned. Ethics affects more than just birthmothers Jan.

The second issue with ethics, is it is a personal definition. Your version of ethical behavior is your version, other reasonable people may have a somewhat different idea of what ethical behavior is. A birth mother coerced into giving up her baby is an easy call, unethical. What about a mother who is truly on the fence, but the agency can see major issues that will likely prevent her from providing even minimal parenting for a long time? My view, with kids who have been damaged would be, placement is probably the ethical choice. I would guess you would come down on the other side. Reasonable people will not all have the same thoughts. It does sound very pious Jan when you keep placing yourself at the pinicle of ethical behaviour. Are you really that perfect? John

Deb, I understand what you are saying about dysfunction, but a lot of the children being adopted today don't need saving from anything. My child would have been perfectly safe, secure, and well-cared-for had he stayed with me. He would have grown up in an educated, upper middle class family with plenty of advantages. What was the point?

And the thing is, my story is not the only one like this. Clearly, if a child is likely to suffer in any way by remaining with the original family, adoption can be a very good idea. But currently we are parting children from their families for no good reason at all - yet still leaving children in dysfunctional families. It's so screwed up.

I agree with Heather. Who determines which children go home with their mothers and which are taken by agencies?? It does seem all backwards. If the maternity head nurse at the hospital where my single daughter gave birth were judge and jury, my grandson would not be with us merely because SHE did not like the fact that my daughter is not married. In fact, we believe that she called social services to evaluate my daughter's home situation. We can never go back to that system!!

Deb - a birthmother is a woman who has signed adoption papers. A woman who gives birth to a child and leaves the hospital with HER child with no intention to relinquish her child is a mother (not a birthmother), regardless of how unworthy she may seem and regardless of the outcome of her ability or lack a ability to parent.

Yes, I agree with all of you. The system is corrupt and is fraught with perils for all parties, especially the children who are harmed. Ugh!!

Jnaet

An ethical adoption is more likely to take place, in general, from foster care for a simple reason.

Mmmh, I must admit I struggle mightly with this statement. I understand the idea behind it, but...have you worked with kids from our foster care system? Have you seen what the lack of attachment can do to children who never had a secure, loving attachment very early on? Check out our juvenile system and the local prison or hang out at your local school and t/w the foster kids.

I have worked in group homes (kids continually trying to be reunited with birthparents and twenty different placements over a lifetime). My sister is a social worker. I am a teacher.

I think it comes down to "What is in the best interest of the child?" This may be the birth family or it may be an adoptive family, but I cringe at the idea of destroying a child just to "be sure" the birthparent is the wrong one or until the child is dead or so severly screwed up that nothing will help them. Then the adoptive parents are the right ones? Please help me understand that?

Absolutely there are ethical problems in our adoption system, but if you look at studies on attachment and bonding (the earlier the better) I fail to see how delaying an adoption until we are "sure" is in the best interests of the child.

Thanks,

Romee

As an adoptive parent, I have no trouble distinguishing between the birth parents who want to make adoption better and those who want to eliminate it entirely.

I think that it is important to remember that everyone is coming from different "realities". Jan, you are coming from the place of being a birthmother, who felt coerced into placing her baby for adoption, and now obviously, standing up for and being a voice for young pregnant women who may be considering adoption is one of your priorities. Demanding ethical treatment of young pregnant women and demanding ethical newborn adoptions is CERTAINLY a great thing.

However, I am coming from the place of having seen my children in horrible, abusive and neglectful conditions. If they had stayed with their birth mothers, they would have suffered. My son was born to a mom who had a SEVEN year old in psychiatric care because he was "a danger to himself and others". She had an almost 2 year old son who was literally, left in a crib ALL DAY. He sat in the same diaper, and had food tossed into the crib for him. He was delayed in every way and was completely ignored. The mom had no interest in being a mom, and she had already placed another child for adoption. Drugs and alcohol were involved. I have NO doubts that our son being placed with us a newborn was in his best interest.

Do I think his adoption would have been any more ethical if he had been placed in the foster system first? Certainly not...he merely would have suffered due to multiple moves in a short period of time. His birth mother chose us, we had a very open relationship, and he was with us, in a safe and loving environment, from his second day of life.

Our daughters came to us right from their birth mother at ages 6 and 9. They had been neglected severely...they had been beaten with extension cords and anything else their birthmom could get her hands on. They did not live in a healthy or loving environment in any way.

Their birthmother chose our family for them. We stay in contact with letters and updates. The girls know that their mother chose us, and that she wanted them to have a better life than the one she was giving them.

The girls were on their way into the foster system, and would have ended up there if a family was not found quickly, as the mom just wanted them out of the house. Do I think that the girls' adoption would have been more ethical if they had been placed in foster care first? Certainly not. I think it would have been horrible for them to go through more placements, and possibly even be separated, as foster care often separates siblings into different foster homes. Through the private adoption they were placed relatively quickly, they had only one move and change of caregivers, they were able to stay together and we were able to maintain contact with their first family.

I fully recognize that there are many birthmothers out there like you and like Heather, whose babies, as Heather said, would have been loved and well cared for if they stayed with their first families. I know that there are other mothers who are coerced, and I know that there are mothers who truly choose adoption because that is what they feel is best, without coercion. There is no one stereotypical birthmother, just as there is no one stereotypical adoptive parent. Every parent, every family and every situation is unique.

I think that (and often say that) adoptive parents have the responsibility to make sure that their adoption is ethical. They cannot just assume or hope it is, but need to do as much research as possible, and demand that it is ethical.

Unfortunately, I think that there is always going to be unethical things going on in adoption...any time you have an emotional issue and lots of money involved, it is very easy for people to take advantage.

However, there is also a ton of good in adoption. There are true orphans finding permanent and loving homes. There are children who would grow up in unsafe and unloving environments being placed in loving and permanent homes.

I do not believe that the good being done makes the bad ok... I don't believe that in any way. Even one birth mother being coerced into placing her baby is unacceptable. Even one baby being taken from a family in another country who maybe could have cared for that child, is unacceptable. And I believe, as I have said, that it is the responsibility of all adoptive parents to expect and demand ethics in their adoption.

But I do not think that the children should suffer as a result of trying to make things more ethical. If all children in the US had to go into foster care before they could be adopted, that would NOT be in the best interest of the children. If every international adoption program that had an unethical agency working there was closed down, countless children would pay the price.

As an example... just in the country of Ethiopia right now... there is an agency with VERY unethical behavior. I won't go into specifics, but they are the very picture of what an agency SHOULD NOT be and should not do.

On the flip side, the agency we used to bring our daughter home from Ethiopia is doing so much good. Not just for the children they are placing, but for the children left behind. They have made sponsorship programs so that every child who could possibly stay with their birth family, can do so. They have programs to get schooling and medications to children left behind. They take in older children, sick children and large sibling groups...all of which are very difficult to place for adoption (unlike some agencies who only want the easy to place babies and toddlers). They are doing a ton of good for a ton of children. There are other agencies doing similar things...not just finding homes for children, but trying to make life better for the people of the country they are working in.

Should the first agency be shut down? Absolutely. Should the entire Ethiopia adoption program be shut down? Certainly not. Many, many children would suffer if that happened.

I don't have all of the answers...I don't know how to weed out the corruption and the unethical people and agencies involved in adoption, while strengthening all of the ethical people and agencies who are doing so much good. But that has to be the goal. If adoptive parents and birth parents and others can work together, we'll be that much more effective.

Erin

Sorry... I also meant to say that I am well aware that there are, unfortunately, some adoptive parents out there who don't really care about "where" or "how" their kids come from...they just want a baby.

However, I do not think that those represent the majority of adoptive parents...not in any way. I am in touch with hundreds and hundreds of adoptive parents, and almost all of them are VERY concerned with ethics on every level.

Just like I would never categorize all birthmothers as uncaring and abusive just because a small number are, it is not fair to categorize adoptive parents as selfish and uncaring, just because a small percentage are.

"An ethical adoption is more likely to take place, in general, from foster care for a simple reason. For children in foster care for whom reunification is not possible, there is no question that they need homes (in most people's minds.) If every effort made to keep them with their families has failed, an adoptive parent can feel confident that they are not taking a child who could have remained with their original family. From day one, an adoptive parent can feel confident that no one will be making any attempt to regain custody of a child."

I'm not sure about this. I think the foster care system is in BAD NEED OF REFORMS. They put too much store on blood and do not, for the most part seem to do what is right for the child.
I think, and it's a bit offensive, that a parent who has had their child taken away from the system should have a set limited time to make the changes to get that child back. There is no way a child should be bounced from the biological parent's home, to foster care, back to the biological parent's home, back to foster care only to suffer all sorts of attachment issues and problems from abuse, neglect and not having a primary care giver.
The system should really be streamlined to make things better for these children so the cycle doesn't repeat when they are old enough to have children of their own...

Also, in the case of international adoptions.. there are things that have come to my attention that are too horrible to think about. Such as children being abandoned on the streets or sold to brothels.
In the case of countries that have some unethical processes, it isn't right to shut down the whole country (Guatemala comes to mind, horrible depressing things about Cambodia that hurt too much to think about.) and make many children who need homes suffer, but at the same time every effort should be made to make adoption from these countries honorable and ethical.

Jan, several people have pointed this out... Foster care isn't any more or less ethical then other kinds of adoption.

I think you were just trying to say that "non-risk" placements AKA when parental rights have been terminated already... This is the best kind of placement.

Foster care does place children for adoption prior to parental rights being terminated. This are called risk placements.

I was told by my social worker (assigned by foster care system) that if I really wanted to adopt within the next few years.... I needed to be open to risk placement.

And talk about a big old ethical mess... Social workers are overworked and don't check on events as frequently as they should. Foster parents in many systems are set up to "mentor" the natural families. Talk about setting up a big old ethic mess if the foster parents want to adoption. They can help set up the natural parents for failure. I am not saying this happens with great frequency, but it does happen.

Side note... They are called the natural parents up to their parental rights are terminated.

Oh, to answer your question for me at least.

It isn't hard for me to see there are people who want adoption reform. They are typically “child focused” as opposed to “adoptive parent” or “first parent”.

“Child focused” is when people try to keep the child in a safe and familiar environment. The placement attempts are in this order:

1) In the immediate family
2) With relatives
3) In same town
4) In same county
5) In same state
6) In same country

And many countries actually have a system set up for this. In Ukraine parental rights must be terminated before a child is made available for adoption.

Children must be registered for domestic adoption for 14 months. Then they are available for international adoption.

Ukraine was actually critized by the International Social Service (http://www.iss-ssi.org/index.html) for the 14 month waiting period. The ISS believe that Ukraine is keeping the children in the orphanage too long.

There is a balance that every country is trying to find. Be child focused but get them out of the orphanage system.

Angela, a question I constantly wonder about.
Why does it seem like some children adopted at a year or older have more problems then children adopted at an older age?
Email me the answer at bluetail 42 at yahoo dot com

Erin, Well said.

happygmom, I am well aware of who exactly a "birthother" is. I was speaking of my own children's birthmothers, who all left the hospital, and voluntarily signed adoption papers. I would have accepted any decision they would have made at that time, and I have, they placed.

typo- should say "Birthmother"

"I think you were just trying to say that "non-risk" placements AKA when parental rights have been terminated already... This is the best kind of placement."

Thank you Angela - that was what I meant, and thank you for not twisting my words, putting words in my mouth, and accusing me of everything under the sun. I appreciate greatly that at least you did not jump on the bandwagon.

I absolutely agree that first parents are more likely to have been treated ethically, and the child's right to biological family if at all possible is more honored, in adoptions of foster kids.

Why?

Because the mantra of the foster system is to keep children in their biological families if at all possible.

Meanwhile, the mantra of the infant adoption system in the U.S. is to convince mothers to think about the "best interest" of the child.... and they usually translate "best interest" to mean "in the home of a paying customer" (the potential aparents).

Does the foster system need reform?

HECK yes.

Are some bio parents given too many chances?

HECK yes.

Is the foster system perfectly free of ethical concerns--even ethical concerns regarding bio family treatment?

No.

(And by the way, YES, I ACTUALLY HAVE worked in that system... as an adoption caseworker for foster care kids.)

However, if we're talking about which type of adoption is LEAST likely to have minimized, trivialized, coerced, or manipulated the biological family, then I absolutely stand firm with Jan in agreeing that non-risk fost-adopt placements are far and away the best kind.

"However, if we're talking about which type of adoption is LEAST likely to have minimized, trivialized, coerced, or manipulated the biological family, then I absolutely stand firm with Jan in agreeing that non-risk fost-adopt placements are far and away the best kind."

And if instead we're talking about which circumstance is LEAST likely to have minimized, trivialized, marginalized, traumatized, neglected or mistreated children ...?

Just a note to thank Jan for writing this thought-provoking blog. And to thank the responders for adding information that is rich in information for pondering the welfare of children and their families.

Deb - it was not clear to me in your post whether you writing about your specific situation with "birthmothers" or generalizing to mothers considering adoption. Thanks for the clarification.

Janet