Post-Adoption Contact Agreements: Arizona

As opposed to Alaska, the state of Arizona gets a bit more specific when addressing post-adoption contact agreements. Of course, getting specific can sometimes create an obvious view of who is favored and who is, well, not favored by certain laws. Looking at the first section of wording in Arizona’s state statutes on the topic make it pretty clear and rather quickly!

What may be included in postadoption contact agreements?
Citation: Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-116.01
The parties to a proceeding under this chapter may enter into an agreement regarding communication with an adopted child, the adoptive parents, and a birth parent.

The agreement shall state that the adoptive parent may terminate contact between the birth parent and the adopted child at any time if the adoptive parent believes that this contact is not in the child’s best interests.

Okay, as opposed to Alaska, Arizona law does actually acknowledge that adoptive parents are pretty important to have included in the post-adoption contact agreement/contract. For a brief moment it seems as though we’re heading in a positive direction! And then, of course, BAM! The adoptive parents can, at any time, just simply terminate contact. While I agree that there are certain situations where this is a good thing to have on your side (drug use, suspected abuse, etc), too many adoptive families use the excuse of, “Well, it got too hard.” Or, “We didn’t know how to handle a situation.” “Best interest” of a child is too easy to prove, one way or the other. I’d like to see even more specific wording there to protect those birth parents who could never imagine engaging in an activity that endangered their child’s best interest.

Who may be a party to a postadoption contact agreement?
Citation: Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-116.01
The court shall not approve an agreement unless the agreement is approved by the prospective adoptive parents, any birth parent with whom the agreement is being made, and if the child is in the custody of the division or an agency, a representative of the division or agency.

I find the wording here rather interesting, don’t you? Just take a look while keeping in mind that most contracts for post-adoption contact are filed just prior to and/or with the finalization papers. The adoptive family is referred to as “prospective” while the birth parents are referred to as such. Granted, this probably has something to do with the fact that, in most cases, the Termination of Parental Rights has already been signed. But it seems lopsided to me! Anyway, looking at the wording, I do believe that it is important for those in Arizona to know that if you do not agree with what is being stated in your post-adoption contract, you should speak up so that it is not approved! Know your rights!

What is the role of the court in postadoption contact agreements?
Citation: Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-116.01
The court shall not approve the agreement unless the court finds that the communication between the adopted child, the adoptive parents, and a birth parent is in the child’s best interests. The court may consider the wishes of a child who is at least 12 years old.

The court retains jurisdiction after the decree of adoption is entered to hear motions brought to enforce or modify an order entered pursuant to this section. Before filing a motion, the party seeking to enforce or modify an order shall make a good faith attempt to mediate the dispute. The court shall not enforce or modify an order unless the party filing the motion has made a good faith attempt to mediate the dispute.

Again, this is good information for families to have on hand. Prior to taking everything back to court, the party that feels as though something is wrong is supposed to make a “good faith effort” to mediate (or fix) things. I think this is important for families to know as well so that we’re not busy dragging one another back to court for every infraction. “She didn’t send my pictures before her birthday so I want x-thing to fix it.” Instead, families should realize that the bulk of responsibility for making the relationship work lies on their own shoulders.

Are agreements legally enforceable?
Citation: Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-116.01
An agreement is not enforceable unless the agreement is in writing and is approved by the court.

An agreement entered into pursuant to this section is enforceable even if it does not disclose the identity of the parties to the agreement.

Of course, while it says that it is legally enforceable if proper protocol is followed, it doesn’t say how that would be enforced. This leaves many adoptive families living in fear and many birth parents confused as to what rights they have if an adoption is suddenly closed. Again, while some support and some are against legally enforceable agreements, simply saying that it is legally enforceable doesn’t do anyone any good. Knowing the repercussions (on both sides!) if you do not hold up your side of the deal would greatly benefit families living in states with legally enforceable agreements.

How may an agreement be terminated or modified?
Citation: Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-116.01
The court may order a modification of an agreement if it finds that the modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the adopted child and one of the following is true:

* The modification is agreed to by the adoptive parents.
* Exceptional circumstances have arisen since the agreement was approved that justify modification of the agreement.

The court may consider the wishes of a child who is at least 12 years old in determining whether to order a modification.

Every agreement entered into pursuant to this section shall contain a clause stating that the parties agree to the continuing jurisdiction of the court to enforce and modify the agreement and that they understand that failure to comply with an agreement is not grounds for setting aside an adoption decree or for revocation of a written consent to an adoption decree or relinquishment of parental rights.

Again, you can see some issue with wording here. Adoptive parents can have the agreement modified if they are in agreement but, what about the birth parents? Obviously, the argument here is that the birth parents have signed over their rights and, as such, have no right to determine what is in the best interest of the child. However, when dealing with open adoption, that creates a huge issue. Birth families who have done their part but are not seeing a reciprocating attempt by their child’s adoptive family should have a way to get things fixed and/or changed in states that support openness agreements. One-sided law, which was probably written with the basis of understanding that adoptive parents do have all rights to make decisions for their child, can end up hurting everyone in the end. While I don’t think that the laws need to favor the birth family, I think that they need to include birth families who have entered into the process with the best interest of their child at heart. (Meaning, “voluntarily” placed children, of course.)

You can see now, having had two very different writings of law from two different states, how vague and specific wording can be both a benefit and a detriment in their own ways. We’ll see some similar stuff as we continue looking through states that address this issue was well as some other stuff that will either make us scratch our heads, voice our protests or applaud.

We’ll be looking at California on Monday!

//
For more, read:

1. Post-Adoption Contact Agreements: Alaska.

2. NaBloPoMo on the Birth/First Parent Blog.

3. Information from the State Statute Search on ChildWelfare.gov in November 2007.

//
Photo Credit.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.