e-mail
Connecticut is the next state in our alphabetical review of post-adoption contact agreements. While both Arizona and California hit on some good ideas, Connecticut decided to burst the bubble of progress. Instead, this particular state decides to leave us with more questions and answers by their vague language that is parading around as specific language. Wordiness is not the same as being specific, dear states! Remember that!
What may be included in postadoption contact agreements?
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 45a-715(k)
The terms of a cooperative postadoption agreement may include the following:* Provision for communication between the child and either or both birth parents
* Provision for future contact between either or both birth parents and the child or an adoptive parent
* Maintenance of medical history of either or both birth parents who are a party to the agreement
Like California, Connecticut states what can be included in the contact agreement. It provides for immediate openness, future openness or the exchange of medical information only (otherwise a closed adoption).
Who may be a party to a postadoption contact agreement?
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 45a-715(h)Either or both birth parents and an intended adoptive parent may enter into a cooperative postadoption agreement regarding communication or contact between either or both birth parents and the adopted child. Such an agreement may be entered into if:
* The child is in the custody of the Department of Children and Families.
* An order terminating parental rights has not yet been entered.
* Either or both birth parents agree to a voluntary termination of parental rights, including an agreement in a case that began as an involuntary termination of parental rights.The postadoption agreement shall be applicable only to a birth parent who is a party to the agreement. Such agreement shall be in addition to those under common law.
Counsel for the child and any guardian ad litem for the child may be heard on the proposed cooperative postadoption agreement. There shall be no presumption of communication or contact between the birth parents and an intended adoptive parent in the absence of a cooperative postadoption agreement.
I like some of the specific wording here. The use of “either or both birth parents” is inclusive of biological fathers who often get the short end of the stick when it comes to openness agreements. Unfortunately, I think the addition of the section that states that the agreement is only applicable to the parties of the agreement may turn around to bite either poorly counseled birth mothers and biological fathers in the rear or just biological fathers who were purposefully left out of the adoption proceedings. Poorly counseled birth parents might not think that they need an agreement and fathers who have no knowledge of the adoption or the fact that they could be privy to an open adoption contract (or the benefits of open adoption) surely aren’t going to benefit from Connecticut’s wording on the issue.
What is the role of the court in postadoption contact agreements?
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 45a-715(i)
If the probate court determines that the child’s best interests will be served by postadoption communication or contact with either or both birth parents, the court shall so order, stating the nature and frequency of the communication or contact. A court may grant postadoption communication or contact privileges if:* Each intended adoptive parent consents to the granting of communication or contact privileges.
* The intended adoptive parent and either or both birth parents execute a cooperative agreement and file the agreement with the court.
* Consent to postadoption communication or contact is obtained from the child, if the child is at least 12 years old.
* The cooperative postadoption agreement is approved by the court.
My problem here is that the court can decide not to approve a cooperative post-adoption agreement if they feel it isn’t in the best interest of the child. This is after adoptive and birth parents have agreed on what contact should consist of between the adult parties. So, if you end up with a judge who is spouting an agenda or lacks education on the subject of open adoption, your agreement could get booted out of court. While I foresee this being a good thing to have on their side in cases of child removal, I think it creates a problem in voluntary relinquishments. If adoptive and birth parents agree, that should be the end of the discussion. The court should stamp it and move on.
Are agreements legally enforceable?
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 45a-715(j)
A cooperative postadoption agreement shall contain the following:* An acknowledgment by either or both birth parents that the termination of parental rights and the adoption is irrevocable, even if the adoptive parents do not abide by the cooperative postadoption agreement
* An acknowledgment by the adoptive parents that the agreement grants either or both birth parents the right to seek enforcement of the cooperative postadoption agreement
Uh, contradictory much? Granted, I don’t think the answer is that adoptions should be revoked when adoptive families fall short, however, this statute doesn’t give birth parents any idea of what to expect should they “seek enforcement.” It leaves the issue very open-ended and only creates more questions than answers. Of course, no other state thus far has adequately answered the question other than California stating that the adoptive family cannot be sued (monetarily) for neglecting to keep up their end of the deal.
How may an agreement be terminated or modified?
Citation: Gen. Stat. § 45a-715(m), (n)
The court shall not act on a petition to change or enforce the agreement unless the petitioner had participated, or attempted to participate, in good faith in mediation or other appropriate dispute resolution proceedings to resolve the dispute.An adoptive parent, guardian ad litem for the child, or the court on its own motion may, at any time, petition for review of communication or contact ordered by the court if the adoptive parent believes that the best interests of the child are being compromised. The court may order the communication or contact to be terminated, or order such conditions in regard to communication or contact as the court deems to be in the best interest of the adopted child.
Like all other states, the court system is only going to help those that have already tried to help themselves. I continue to agree with this line of thinking but am now left to wonder: what is considered “good faith.” How long and how far to parties have to go before it is considered an appropriate amount for the court system? Again, I think that this creates a few more questions than answers.
But I’m bothered, of course, as the birth parents are not allowed to petition for review. I’m curious, then, how birth parents are to “seek enforcement” from the previous part of the statute. If birth parents aren’t allowed to petition the court to review the contact agreement, then I’m not quite sure how they would seek that kind of enforcement. Furthermore, this, once again, leaves birth parents feeling as though they have no say as to what goes on in the agreement. They simply have to “suck it up” as they can’t petition for a review.
Connecticut obviously leaves some room for improvement. They are, however, the first state to recognize, in wording, the importance of updating medical information even if the adoption is mostly closed. I think Connecticut could learn a lot by looking at some other states and working on the specifics of their wording.
//
For more, read:
1. Post-Adoption Contact Agreements: California.
2. Post-Adoption Contact Agreements: Arizona.
3. Information from the State Statute Search on ChildWelfare.gov in November 2007.
//
Photo Credit.
