from the we-made-the-grade-and-still-we-wonder-who-the-hell-we-are dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
A more open approach to adoption is needed so that adopted people do not lose relationships with people who have been important to them in their life, according to new research by the University of East Anglia (UEA).
[...] Prof Elsbeth Neil, of UEA's School of Social Work and one of the study authors, said: "Adoption has often been seen as 'a fresh start' with a 'clean break' from the child's birth seen as necessary. But now new research with adopted adults demonstrates the problems this approach causes throughout the lifespan.
"Without information about their background and family of origin adopted people struggle with questions of identity, and many feel a sense of loss at losing significant relationships, or simply not having the chance to get to know parents, brothers, sisters or others in their birth family.
"Tens of thousands of adopted adults and their birth relatives have been affected by the lack of openness in adoption, but services to help them deal with the consequences of this need more priority."
[...] Dr. Joanna North said: "Our work in connecting adopted people to their lost family of origin has shown us the cost of human suffering when people cannot connect with their birth relatives in a timely fashion. These searches are time sensitive. On too many occasions the system has been so slow to respond to our requests for records that the subject of a search may have died before we reach them.
[...] PAC-UK National Strategic Lead Mike Hancock said: "We are at an exciting time of potential change in adoption where questions are being asked about whether the severing of ties with birth family and the consequent secrecy around identity is beneficial to adopted children. The message we are getting for many adopted adults is that it is not."
This can be a very emotional situation for all involved: the child, the one who gave up the child, and the one who adopted the child. However, I wonder if the assumption of this work is quickly becoming moot as we move forward into the age of genetic ancestry where the child can almost certainly find out who their parents are, whether the parents wish it or not. [hubie]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 24 2022, @11:39AM (8 children)
My understanding is that the main reason that they try to keep the adopted kid and bio parents apart is that there's a very real risk of the bio parents kidnapping the kid away from the adoptive parents, or alternatively (for somewhat older kids) a real risk of the kid running away from the adoptive family to be with their bio parents. So to make the adoption "stick", the people who organize them decided to keep the identities of the bio parents and adoptive parents secret from each other.
But obviously that's less of an issue when the kids are all grown up and can arguably have 2 families.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 24 2022, @03:57PM (3 children)
Kids have enough problems without trying to juggle two sets of parents. The parents put the kid up for adoption for a reason. In the event that they did so, it's not fair to the child or the adoptive parents for the biological parents to then say, just kidding or thanks for the free baby sitting. Still, it may be a good thing for adopted children to at least have the legal right to find their biological parents. As having been put up for adoption can lead to them wondering why. Which can negatively impact their lives. In the event that they know they can check who their parents were once they're adults. It may give them some sense of relief / control.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday October 24 2022, @04:12PM
It can lead to that, but perhaps addressing that would be the right way to go. Even with access to the records you don't know what you're going to get. Sure there are some people that put children up for adoption because they simply aren't in a place to take care of them, but some people are just absolute monsters and they just happened to make one right decision to free their child of that.
Apart from the typical shared appearance, the only real way any of us know that our parents are our parents is that we've been told that. We were too young to remember that. These days there are sophisticated DNA tests, but for most of the existence of our species we had to take for granted that our parents were our parents and not imposters.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 24 2022, @10:33PM (1 child)
My experience is that what kids benefit from is adults who are reasonably competent at adulting, and care about the kid's well-being enough to put some time and effort towards them. Those can be bio-parents, adoptive parents, godparents, grandparents, family friends, other relatives, etc etc. Each reasonably competent adult in the kid's life shows the kid a way of functioning in the world, and the more examples they get the more likely they'll find good things to want to imitate.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday October 25 2022, @01:28PM
I would posit that a parent(s) that gave their child up for adoption is not likely to be "reasonably competent at adulting" as you put it. At least not on average.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday October 24 2022, @04:07PM (3 children)
It's also worth recognizing that with all the DNA testing that's going on these days, the practical ability to be secretive about this is ending. Get your data to one of those ancestry companies and they'll probably figure out whom the parents are eventually.
That being said, there are a bunch of reasons why the parties involve prefer the arrangement where there is that separation. Even though it does lead to the situation where fathers may not ever have the opportunity to meet their children as typically there is no requirement that the father agree to the adoption or even be aware that it's happening.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 24 2022, @04:23PM (2 children)
The last bit seems to be a failing of the law in my mind. Sure, it used to be that children needed a mother or they would die. We've not been at that intersection of history for a very long time now. A father is required to pay child support, if they don't want anything to do with the mother and/or child. A mother should be given the same opportunity.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday October 24 2022, @04:31PM
There is no good solution to that. The father might not be known for one reason or another. The father might be a sex offender or somebody that the mother doesn't want to deal with for similar reasons. He may be a married man that's got a family where being notified could cause further problems.
That being said, I do think that there needs to be a better way of handling it. There should be a presumption that the father has a right to know about any children he has, provided that he can be located to notify and there isn't any safety reason to keep it secret. It's a similar problem to abortion, but unlike abortion, once a child is born they don't need their specific mother for survival and many children do grow up to be successful despite not having their birth mother..
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday October 24 2022, @06:21PM
>it used to be that children needed a mother or they would die.
When was that exactly? In remote prehistory before we began domesticating animals? Historically, childbirth was one of the leading causes of deaths among women, and yet those children would still survive just fine, even without a wet nurse. Dog, cow, goat, sheep, camel, etc. milk isn't a perfect substitute for human milk, but it's close enough to keep a child alive until they can start processing mashed foods effectively. And in the small tribes of pre-history social bonds were likely strong enough that finding a wet nurse was simply a question of whether anyone was weaning their own child.
The stigma against single fathers has always been cultural rather than practical, and we're long past due to re-evaluate it.
Now, I'm firmly in the camp that abortion is 100% the woman's business. It's her body, and what she chooses to do with an incredibly burdensome internal parasite is her business.
But if she decides to have the child and give it away? Seems like the biological father should get "first dibs" on "adoption", unless there's a damned good reason against it.
But neither seems to have anything to do with the question at hand - which is what happens *after* the adoption. And that's a much more complicated question. I can certainly see good arguments that adult adoptees should be able to track down their birth parents as the default, though those parents should probably have the option of not providing that information in case any of a wide range of good reasons that are no business of the bureaucracy. I can also see good reasons to allow the leaving of a message on file - explanations, warnings, whatever the parents want to offer to an adult child that wants to try to trace their ancestry.