If you thought Arizona was in the business of getting specific and wordy with their statutes on the matter, wait until you look at what California has to say about post-adoption contact agreements. I mean, they're all about covering bases. I think families in all states could benefit from reading up on how this state words their laws so that they could consider putting different things in their own contact agreements.

Let's dive in, shall we?

What may be included in postadoption contact agreements?
Citation: Fam. Code § 8616.5; Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.29
The terms of any postadoption contact agreement shall be limited to, but need not include, all of the following:

* Provisions for visitation between the child and a birth parent or parents and other birth relatives, including siblings, and the child's Indian tribe if the case is governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act
* Provisions for future contact between a birth parent or parents or other birth relatives, including siblings, or both, and the child or an adoptive parent, or both, and in cases governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act, the child's Indian tribe
* Provisions for the sharing of information about the child in the future

The terms of any postadoption contact agreement shall be limited to the sharing of information about the child, unless the child has an existing relationship with the birth relative.

Okay then! Californian law makers are wordy! In case you're confused, this particular part of the law states that the contracts made between adoptive parents and birth parents (or other birth family members) can only include the above mentioned things. Those things include present contact and visitation (immediate openness), future contact and openness (for those wanting a "child lead" open adoption in the future) and information sharing (for a more closed kind of adoption).

Who may be a party to a postadoption contact agreement?
Citation: Fam. Code § 8616.5; Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.29

The following persons may be parties to a postadoption contact agreement:

* The adopting parent or parents
* The birth relatives, including the birth parent or parents
* The child
* In cases governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act, the child's Indian tribe

A child who is 12 or older must consent in writing to the terms and conditions of the postadoption contact agreement and any subsequent modifications of the agreement.

California takes Arizona's "parties" a step further and includes the tribe of cases governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act. Again, when you get specific about who is "covered" by this particular statute, it helps people understand what to expect. Kudos to California.

What is the role of the court in postadoption contact agreements?
Citation: Fam. Code § 8616.5; Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.29

At the time an adoption decree, the court entering the decree may grant postadoption privileges if an agreement for those privileges has been entered into, including agreements entered into pursuant to § 8620(f) [pertaining to agreements between an Indian child and the child’s tribe].

Upon the granting of the adoption petition and the issuing of the order of adoption of a child who is a dependent of the juvenile court, juvenile court dependency jurisdiction shall be terminated. Enforcement of the postadoption contact agreement shall be under the continuing jurisdiction of the court granting the petition of adoption.

Ah, legalese. Kind of makes your head explode, no? Basically, this says that the court can/will approve a contact agreement if the parties have entered into an agreement. Redundant, yes, in a way. However, I'm thinking that it means that the court isn't going to force an openness agreement upon those who are not interested (both parties being uninterested, that is). This also includes the provisions for tribe contact with the child. It goes on to say that the new contract cancels out the old stuff and that the new court has the yay or nay on what goes on from thence forth. Wordy, wordy.

Are agreements legally enforceable?
Citation: Fam. Code § 8616.5; Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.29

Enforcement of the postadoption contact agreement shall be under the continuing jurisdiction of the court granting the petition of adoption. The court may not order compliance with the agreement absent a finding that the party seeking the enforcement participated, or attempted to participate, in good faith in mediation or other appropriate dispute resolution proceedings regarding the conflict, prior to the filing of the enforcement action, and that the enforcement is in the best interests of the child.

Documentary evidence or offers of proof may serve as the basis for the court's decision regarding enforcement. No testimony or evidentiary hearing shall be required. The court shall not order further investigation or evaluation by any public or private agency or individual absent a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child may be protected or advanced only by that inquiry and that the inquiry will not disturb the stability of the child's home to the detriment of the child.

The court may not award monetary damages as a result of the filing of the civil action [for enforcement of the agreement].

Ah, now here's a state who talks about legal enforcement and gets specific about its nature. Obviously this would be a civil suit and not a legal suit and so the mention that monetary damages are not available to the party that files the complaint is probably necessary. Setting limits for parties to know what they can and cannot expect from filing is a wise thing for a state to do! I don't think that adoptive parents should have to live in fear that they would have to pay their child's birth family if they were having an issue with contact or vice versa on the birth family's head! However, knowing that there are steps available to get the court involved in a matter such as this must be comforting for some individuals.

How may an agreement be terminated or modified?
Citation: Fam. Code § 8616.5; Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.29
A postadoption contact agreement may be modified or terminated only if either of the following occurs:

* All parties, including the child if the child is 12 or older at the time of the requested termination or modification, have signed a modified postadoption contact agreement and the agreement is filed with the court that granted the petition of adoption.
* The court finds all of the following:
o The termination or modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child.
o There has been a substantial change of circumstances since the original agreement was executed and approved by the court.
o The party seeking the termination or modification has participated, or attempted to participate, in good faith in mediation or other appropriate dispute resolution proceedings prior to seeking court approval of the proposed termination or modification.

Ah-ha! That's a little bit better! As opposed to Arizona, California states that the contract can be modified if all parties are in agreement! That's a big relief for birth parents and ethical adoptive parents, I'm sure! Of course, birth parents can also live in fear that they would get an unfriendly judge who thought that any contact with birth families wasn't in the best interest of the child and, as such, get stuck with a terminated contract just simply for existing. However, I do believe the provision for the best interest of the child needs to remain in these laws to make sure that children are being protected! It's my hope that judges in our legal system won't abuse this wording because of long-standing stereotypes.

In my opinion, thus far, California has the best wording of this particular set of laws. The best interest of the child is constantly mentioned, giving (adoptive) parents dealing with problematic birth families recourse to close an adoption. At the same time, birth parents are given almost equal representation in what it takes to modify a contract instead of giving all of the power to the adoptive family. This is a great improvement, in my opinion. Again, those who believe that since the birth parents signed the Termination of Parental Rights that they shouldn't have any power, whatsoever, well, they're not going to be pleased with that kind of wording in the statutes. However, open adoption is a unique and complex relationship. While the adoptive family does have legal rights, acknowledging that most birth parents are in favor of the best interest of their placed child and therefore should be privy to helping make decisions about the relationship involving the lot of them can only help the child in the end.

//
For more, read:

1. Post Adoption Contact Agreements: Arizona.

2. Post- Adoption Contact Agreements: Alaska.

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

//
Photo Credit.