e-mail
The article entitled More on International Adoption: Why U.S. Parents Go Abroad published in Newsweek earlier this month has had me thinking for awhile. I am a firm believer that every adoptive parent (and expectant mother considering placement, for that matter) needs to make the decision that is right for them. Not every parent is cut out to adopt from foster care. Not every adoptive parent can handle the wait and red tape to adopt internationally. Not every parent is able to handle the intricacies of an open adoption.
Basically, the article preyed upon the fears that area already so prevalent in the adoption world. Near the end of the article, the author throws the Big Fear out there and all but justifies it.
International adoption is more expensive than any form of domestic adoption, but in many ways, it is also more straightforward. The chances of a birth parent calling the adoption off are effectively zero; and while costs are high, they’re also determined at the outset and tend not to change as the process wears on.
What the article neglects to point out is that birth parents, as in those who have already signed the Termination of Parental Rights thus giving them that title, rarely “call the adoption off.” In fact, in some states, once the TPR is signed, it is irrevocable. Birth parents are without ability to change their mind at that point. Maybe the author meant that expectant parents considering adoption can, at any point in time up until they sign the TPR, change their mind about relinquishment and choose to parent but, of course, that’s not what the author said.
Earlier in the article, however, the author really takes a swing at birth parents.
Most states allow birth parents to reclaim their children after the children have been placed with adoptive families, for time periods ranging from a few days in some states to several months in others. Critics of international adoption say this rarely happens. They are only partly right: it’s true that American birth parents don’t usually reclaim children once they’ve been placed with their adoptive families, but they can and do change their minds before the papers are signed—often after prospective parents have spent months planning for the baby’s arrival and in many cases paid the expectant mother’s medical costs.
Again, the author neglects to mention that the few states that allow birth parents to reclaim their children after the TPR has been signed only allow it in cases of duress, fraud or coercion. Once again, this author neglects to use the proper term and is labeling expectant parents considering placement as birth parents. The author effectively villanizes these parents for exercising their absolute right: to parent their own child. Of course, the issue of money comes into play but that’s something that I don’t agree with in the first place and that is in desperate need of reform.
The article, appearing in one of the most mainstream media outlets out there, does nothing to help that reform along, of course. By using the wrong terminology and chastising expectant parents for doing what is their right instead of chastising a system that leaves potential adoptive parents in the lurch regarding money spent out, this author does nothing but hurt the reform movement. People who read this who aren’t aware of where the real blame needs to placed will automatically place the blame on parents who are simply not obligated to give their children to any adoptive family.
It’s fine when adoptive parents choose international adoption. It’s fine when they choose domestic or foster-to-adopt programs. What’s not fine is when news outlets like Newsweek allow their journalists to so badly mess up terms, ideas, concepts and place the blame on mostly innocent people instead of the institution that has allowed the door to be left open for scammers and unethical humans. If anything, some U.S. parents will likely choose international adoption based on the fear-mongering of this article alone. That’s a shame.
