Adoption
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sister Irene
of New York Foundling Hospital with children. Sister Irene is among the
pioneers of modern adoption, establishing a system to board out
children rather than institutionalize them.
| Family law |
| Marriage & Similar status |
|
|
| Dissolution of marriage |
|
|
| Parent legal |
|
|
| Child legal |
|
|
| Conflict of laws |
|
|
| Related areas |
|
|
|
|
Adoption is a process whereby a person assumes the
parenting for another and, in so doing, permanently transfers all
rights and responsibilities, along with
filiation, from the original parent or parents. Unlike
guardianship
or other systems designed for the care of the young, adoption is
intended to effect a permanent change in status and as such requires
societal recognition, either through legal or religious sanction.
Historically, some societies have enacted specific laws governing
adoption; where others have tried to achieve adoption through less
formal means, notably via contracts that specified
inheritance rights and
parental responsibilities without an accompanying transfer of
filiation. Modern systems of adoption, arising in the 20th century, tend to be governed by comprehensive
statutes and regulations.
Adoption has a long history in the Western world, closely tied with the legacy of the
Roman Empire and the
Catholic Church.
Its use has changed considerably over the centuries with its focus
shifting from adult adoption and inheritance issues toward children and
family creation; its structure moving from a recognition of continuity
between the adopted and kin toward allowing relationships of lessened
intensity.
History
Antiquity
- Adoption for the well-born
Trajan became emperor of Rome through adoption, a customary practice of the empire that enabled peaceful transitions of power.
While the modern form of adoption emerged in the United States, forms of the practice appeared throughout history.
[1] The
Code of Hammurabi, for example, details the rights of adopters and the responsibilities of adopted individuals at length. The practice of
adoption in ancient Rome is well documented in the
Codex Justinianus.
[2][3]
Markedly different from the modern period, ancient adoption practices
put emphasis on the political and economic interests of the adopter,
[4] providing a legal tool that strengthened political ties between wealthy families and created male heirs to manage estates.
[5][6] The use of adoption by the aristocracy is well documented; many of Rome's emperors were adopted sons.
[6]
Infant adoption during Antiquity appears rare.
[4][7] Abandoned children were often picked up for slavery
[8] and composed a significant percentage of the Empire’s slave supply.
[9][10]
Roman legal records indicate that foundlings were occasionally taken in
by families and raised as a son or daughter. Although not normally
adopted under Roman Law, the children, called
alumni, were reared in an arrangement similar to guardianship, being considered the property of the father who abandoned them.
[11]
Other ancient civilizations, notably India and China, used some form
of adoption as well. Evidence suggests the goal of this practice was to
ensure the continuity of cultural and religious practices; in contrast
to the Western idea of extending family lines. In
ancient India, secondary sonship, clearly denounced by the
Rigveda,
[12] continued, in a limited and highly ritualistic form, so that an adopter might have the necessary
funerary rites performed by a son.
[13] China had a similar idea of adoption with males adopted solely to perform the duties of ancestor worship.
[14]
The practice of adopting the children of family members and close friends was common among the
Cultures of Polynesia including
Hawaii where the custom was referred to as
hānai .
Middle Ages to Modern Period
- Adoption and commoners
The nobility of the
Germanic,
Celtic, and
Slavic cultures that dominated Europe after the decline of the
Roman Empire denounced the practice of adoption.
[15] In
medieval society,
bloodlines were paramount; a ruling dynasty lacking a natural-born
heir apparent was replaced, a stark contrast to Roman traditions. The evolution of European law reflects this aversion to adoption. English
Common Law, for instance, did not permit adoption since it contradicted the customary rules of inheritance. In the same vein, France's
Napoleonic Code
made adoption difficult, requiring adopters to be over the age of 50,
sterile, older than the adopted person by at least fifteen years, and to
have fostered the adoptee for at least six years.
[16]
Some adoptions continued to occur, however, but became informal, based
on ad hoc contracts. For example, in the year 737, in a charter from the
town of
Lucca,
three adoptees were made heirs to an estate. Like other contemporary
arrangements, the agreement stressed the responsibility of the adopted
rather than adopter, focusing on the fact that, under the contract, the
adoptive father was meant to be cared for in his old age; an idea that
is similar to the conceptions of adoption under Roman law.
[17]
Europe's cultural makeover marked a period of significant innovation
for adoption. Without support from the nobility, the practice gradually
shifted toward abandoned children. Abandonment levels rose with the fall
of the empire and many of the foundlings were left on the doorstep of
the
Church.
[18] Initially, the clergy reacted by drafting rules to govern the exposing, selling, and rearing of
abandoned children. The Church's innovation, however, was the practice of
oblation, whereby children were dedicated to lay life within monastic institutions and reared within a
monastery.
This created the first system in European history in which abandoned
children did not have legal, social, or moral disadvantages. As a
result, many of Europe's abandoned and orphaned children became
alumni of the Church, which in turn took the role of adopter. Oblation marks the beginning of a shift toward
institutionalization, eventually bringing about the establishment of the
foundling hospital and
orphanage.
[18]
As the idea of institutional care gained acceptance, formal rules
appeared about how to place children into families: boys could become
apprenticed to an
artisan and girls might be married off under the institution's authority.
[19] Institutions informally adopted out children as well, a mechanism treated as a way to obtain cheap
labor, demonstrated by the fact that when the adopted died, their bodies were returned by the family to the institution for burial.
[20]
This system of
apprenticeship
and informal adoption extended into the 19th century, today seen as a
transitional phase for adoption history. Under the direction of social
welfare activists, orphan asylums began to promote adoptions based on
sentiment rather than work; children were placed out under agreements to
provide care for them as family members instead of under contracts for
apprenticeship.
[21] The growth of this model is believed to have contributed to the enactment of the first modern adoption law in 1851 by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, unique in that it codified the ideal of the "best interests of the child."
[22][23] Despite its intent, though, in practice, the system operated much the same as earlier incarnations. The experience of the
Boston Female Asylum (BFA) is a good example, which had up to 30% of its charges adopted out by 1888.
[24]
Officials of the BFA noted that, although the asylum promoted
otherwise, adoptive parents did not distinguish between indenture and
adoption; "We believe," the asylum officials said, "that often, when
children of a younger age are taken to be adopted, the adoption is only
another name for service."
[25]
Modern period
- Adopting to create a family
The next stage of adoption's evolution fell to the emerging nation of the United States. Rapid immigration and the
American Civil War resulted in unprecedented overcrowding of orphanages and foundling homes in the mid-nineteenth century.
Charles Loring Brace, a Protestant minister became appalled by the legions of homeless
waifs
roaming the streets of New York City. Brace considered the abandoned
youth, particularly Catholics, to be the most dangerous element
challenging the city's order.
[26][27]
His solution was outlined in
The Best Method of Disposing of Our Pauper and Vagrant Children (1859) which started the
Orphan Train
movement. The orphan trains eventually shipped an estimated 200,000
children from the urban centers of the East to the nation's rural
regions.
[28] The children were generally
indentured, rather than adopted, to families who took them in.
[29]
As in times past, some children were raised as members of the family
while others were used as farm laborers and household servants.
[30]
William and his brother Thomas. They rode the Orphan Train in 1880 at
the ages of 11 and 9, respectively. William was taken into a good home.
Thomas was exploited for labor and abused. The brothers eventually made
their way back to New York and reunited.
The sheer size of the displacement—the largest migration of children
in history—and the degree of exploitation that occurred, gave rise to
new agencies and a series of laws that promoted adoption arrangements
rather than indenture. The hallmark of the period is
Minnesota's
adoption law of 1917 which mandated investigation of all placements and
limited record access to those involved in the adoption.
[31][32]
During the same period, the
Progressive
movement swept the United States with a critical goal of ending the
prevailing orphanage system. The culmination of such efforts came with
the First White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children
called by President
Theodore Roosevelt in 1909,
[33]
where it was declared that the nuclear family represented "the highest
and finest product of civilization” and was best able to serve as
primary caretaker for the abandoned and orphaned.
[34][35]
Anti-institutional forces gathered momentum. As late as 1923, only two
percent of children without parental care were in adoptive homes, with
the balance in foster arrangements and orphanages. Less than forty years
later, nearly one-third were in an adoptive home.
[36]
Nevertheless, the popularity of
eugenic ideas in America put up obstacles to the growth of adoption.
[37][38]
There were grave concerns about the genetic quality of illegitimate and
indigent children, perhaps best exemplified by the influential writings
of
Henry H. Goddard who protested against adopting children of unknown origin, saying,
Now it happens that some people are interested in the welfare and
high development of the human race; but leaving aside those exceptional
people, all fathers and mothers are interested in the welfare of their
own families. The dearest thing to the parental heart is to have the
children marry well and rear a noble family. How short-sighted it is
then for such a family to take into its midst a child whose pedigree is
absolutely unknown; or, where, if it were partially known, the
probabilities are strong that it would show poor and diseased stock, and
that if a marriage should take place between that individual and any
member of the family the offspring would be degenerates.[39]
The period 1945 to 1974, the
baby scoop era, saw rapid growth and acceptance of adoption as a means to build a family.
[40] Illegitimate births rose three-fold after World War II, as
sexual mores
changed. Simultaneously, the scientific community began to stress the
dominance of nurture over genetics, chipping away at eugenic stigmas.
[41][42] In this environment, adoption became the obvious solution for both unwed mothers and infertile couples.
[43]
Taken together, these trends resulted in a new American model for
adoption. Following its Roman predecessor, Americans severed the rights
of the original parents while making adopters the new parents in the
eyes of the law. Two innovations were added: 1) adoption was meant to
ensure the "best interests of the child;" the seeds of this idea can be
traced to the first American adoption law in
Massachusetts,
[16][23]
and 2) adoption became infused with secrecy, eventually resulting in
the sealing of adoption and original birth records by 1945. The origin
of the move toward secrecy began with Charles Loring Brace who
introduced it to prevent children from the Orphan Trains from returning
to or being reclaimed by their parents. Brace feared the impact of the
parents' poverty, in general, and their Catholic religion, in
particular, on the youth. This tradition of secrecy was carried on by
the later Progressive reformers when drafting of American laws.
[44]
The number of adoptions in the United States peaked in 1970.
[45]
It is uncertain what caused the subsequent decline. Likely contributing
factors in the 1960s and 1970s include a decline in the fertility rate,
associated with the introduction of
the pill, the completion of legalization of
artificial birth control methods, the introduction of
federal funding to make
family planning
services available to the young and low income, and the legalization of
abortion. In addition, the years of the late 1960s and early 1970s saw a
dramatic change in society's view of
illegitimacy and in the legal rights
[46] of those born outside of wedlock. In response,
family preservation efforts grew
[47]
so that few children born out of wedlock today are adopted. Ironically,
adoption is far more visible and discussed in society today, yet it is
less common.
[48]
The American model of adoption eventually proliferated globally. England and
Wales established their first formal adoption law in 1926. The
Netherlands passed its law in 1956. Sweden made adoptees full members of the family in 1959.
West Germany enacted its first laws in 1977.
[49]
Additionally, the Asian powers opened their orphanage systems to
adoption, influenced as they were by Western ideas following colonial
rule and military occupation.
[50]
Although adoption is today practiced globally, the United States
remains the leader in its use. The table below provides a snapshot of
Western adoption rates. Adoption in the United States still occurs at
nearly three times those of its peers although the number of children
awaiting adoption has held steady in recent years, hovering between
133,000 to 129,000 during the period 2002 to 2006.
[51]
| Country |
Adoptions |
Live Births |
Adoption/Live Birth Ratio |
Notes |
| Australia |
270 (2007–2008)[52] |
254,000 (2004)[53] |
0.2 per 100 Live Births |
Includes known relative adoptions |
| England & Wales |
4,764 (2006)[54] |
669,601(2006)[55] |
0.7 per 100 Live Births |
Includes all adoption orders in England and Wales |
| Iceland |
between 20–35 year[56] |
4,560 (2007)[57] |
0.8 per 100 Live Births |
| Ireland |
263 (2003)[58] |
61,517 (2003)[59] |
0.4 per 100 Live Births |
92 non-family adoptions; 171 family adoptions (e.g. stepparent). 459 international adoptions were also recorded. |
| Italy |
3,158 (2006)[60] |
560,010 (2006)[61] |
0.6 per 100 Live Births |
| Norway |
657 (2006)[62] |
58,545(2006)[63] |
1.1 per 100 Live Births |
Adoptions breakdown: 438 inter-country; 174 stepchildren; 35 foster; 10 other. |
| Sweden |
1044(2002)[64] |
91,466(2002)[65] |
1.1 per 100 Live Births |
10–20 of these were national adoptions of infants. The rest were international adoptions. |
| United States |
approx 127,000 (2001)[66] |
4,021,725 (2002)[67] |
~3 per 100 Live Births |
The number of adoptions is reported to be constant since 1987. |
Table 2: Adoptions, Live Births, and Adoption/Live Birth Ratios
are provided in the table below (alphabetical, by country) for a number
of Western countries
Contemporary adoption
Forms of adoption
Contemporary adoption practices can be open or closed.
- Open adoption
allows identifying information to be communicated between adoptive and
biological parents and, perhaps, interaction between kin and the adopted
person. Rarely, it is the outgrowth of laws that maintain an adoptee's
right to unaltered birth certificates and/or adoption records, but such
access is not universal (it is possible in a few jurisdictions –
including the U.K. and six States in the U.S.).[68][68][69][70][71]
Open adoption can be an informal arrangement subject to termination by
adoptive parents who have sole authority over the child. In some
jurisdictions, the biological and adoptive parents may enter into a
legally enforceable and binding agreement concerning visitation,
exchange of information, or other interaction regarding the child.[72]
As of February 2009, 24 U.S. states allowed legally enforceable open
adoption contract agreements to be included in the adoption
finalization.[73]
- The practice of closed adoption, the norm for most of modern history,[74]
seals all identifying information, maintaining it as secret and
preventing disclosure of the adoptive parents', biological kins', and
adoptees' identities. Nevertheless, closed adoption may allow the
transmittal of non-identifying information such as medical history and
religious and ethnic background.[75] Today, as a result of safe haven laws
passed by some U.S. states, closed adoption is seeing renewed
influence. In safe-haven states, infants can be left, anonymously, at
hospitals, fire departments, or police stations within a few days of
birth, a practice criticized by some adoptee advocacy organizations as
being retrograde and dangerous.[76]
How adoptions originate
Adoptions can occur either between related family members, or
unrelated individuals. Historically, most adoptions occurred within a
family. The most recent data from the U.S. indicates about half of
adoptions are currently between related individuals.
[77]
A common example of this is a "stepparent adoption", where the new
partner of a parent may legally adopt a child from the parent's previous
relationship. Intra-family adoption can also occur through surrender,
as a result of parental death, or when the child cannot otherwise be
cared for and a family member agrees to take over.
Infertility
is the main reason parents seek to adopt children they are not related
to. One study shows this accounted for 80% of unrelated infant adoptions
and half of adoptions through foster care.
[78]
Estimates suggest that 11–24% of Americans who cannot conceive or carry
to term attempt to build a family through adoption, and that the
overall rate of ever-married American women who adopt is about 1.4%.
[79][80]
Other reasons people adopt are numerous although not well documented.
These may include wanting to cement a new family following divorce or
death of one parent, compassion motivated by religious or philosophical
conviction, to avoid contributing to perceived
overpopulation
out of the belief that it is more responsible to care for otherwise
parent-less children than to reproduce, to ensure that inheritable
diseases (e.g.,
Tay-Sachs disease)
are not passed on, and health concerns relating to pregnancy and
childbirth. Although there are a range of possible reasons, the most
recent study of experiences of women who adopt suggests they are most
likely to be 40–44 years of age, currently married, have impaired
fertility, and childless.
[81]
Unrelated adoptions may occur through the following mechanisms:
- Private domestic adoptions:
under this arrangement, charities and for-profit organizations act as
intermediaries, bringing together prospective adoptive parents and
families who want to place a child, all parties being residents of the
same country. Alternatively, prospective adoptive parents sometimes
avoid intermediaries and connect with women directly, drafting contracts
through a lawyer (these efforts are illegal in some jurisdictions).
Private domestic adoption accounts for a significant portion of all
adoptions; in the United States, for example, nearly 45% of adoptions
are estimated to have occurred through private arrangements.[82]
- Foster care adoption:
this is a type of domestic adoption where a child is initially placed
in public care. Its importance as an avenue for adoption varies by
country. Nevertheless, the example of the United States is instructive.
Of the 127,500 adoptions that occurred in the U.S.[82] about 51,000 or 40% were through the foster care system.[83]
- International adoption:
involves the placing of a child for adoption outside that child’s
country of birth. This can occur through both public and private
agencies. In some countries, such as Sweden, these adoptions account for
the majority of cases (see above Table). The U.S. example, however,
indicates there is wide variation by country since adoptions from abroad
account for less than 15% of its cases.[82] More than 60,000 Russian children have been adopted in the United States since 1992,[84] and between 1995 and 2005, Americans adopted more than 60,000 children from China.[85]
The laws of different countries vary in their willingness to allow
international adoptions. Recognizing the difficulties and challenges
associated with international adoption, and in an effort to protect
those involved from the corruption and exploitation which sometimes
accompanies it, the Hague Conference on Private International Law
developed the [Hague Adoption Convention], which came into force on 1
May 1995 and has been ratified by 85 countries as of November 2011.[86]
- Embryo adoption: based on the donation of embryos remaining after one couple’s in vitro fertilization
treatments have been completed; embryos are given to another individual
or couple, followed by the placement of those embryos into the
recipient woman’s uterus, to facilitate pregnancy and childbirth. In the
United States, embryo adoption is governed by property law rather than
by the court systems, in contrast to traditional adoption.
- Common law adoption: this is an adoption which has not been recognized beforehand by the courts, but where a parent, without resorting to any formal legal process, leaves his or her children with a friend or relative for an extended period of time.[87][88] At the end of a designated term of (voluntary) co-habitation,
as witnessed by the public, the adoption is then considered binding, in
some courts of law, even though not initially sanctioned by the court.
The particular terms of a common-law adoption are defined by each legal jurisdiction. For example, the US state of California recognizes common law relationships after co-habitation of 2 years. The practice is called "private fostering" in Britain.[89]
How adoptions can disrupt
Disruption
refers to the termination of an adoption. This includes adoptions that
end prior to legal finalization and those that end after that point (in
U.S. law, the latter cases are referred to as having been
dissolved). The Disruption process is usually initiated by adoptive parents via a
court petition
and is analogous to divorce proceedings. It is a legal avenue unique to
adoptive parents as disruption/dissolution does not apply to biological
kin.
[90]
Ad hoc studies, performed in the U.S., however, suggest that
between 10–25 percent of adoptions disrupt before they are legally
finalized and from 1–10 percent are dissolved after legal finalization.
The wide range of values reflects the paucity of information on the
subject and demographic factors such as age; it is known that older
children are more prone to having their adoptions disrupted.
[90]
Adoption by same-sex couples
Legal status of adoption by same-sex couples around the world.
Joint adoption and stepparent adoption legal
Stepparent adoption legal
Joint adoption and/or stepparent adoption illegal
Homosexuality illegal
Unknown/ambiguous
As of May 2012, adoption by same-sex couples was legal in at least some jurisdictions of about twenty states.
[91]
Parenting and development of adoptees
Parenting
The biological relationship between a parent and child is important,
and the separation of the two has led to concerns about adoption. The
traditional view of adoptive parenting received empirical support from a
Princeton University
study of 6,000 adoptive, step, and foster families in the United States
and South Africa from 1968 to 1985; the study indicated that food
expenditures in households with mothers of non-biological children (when
controlled for income, household size, hours worked, age, etc.) were
significantly less for adoptees, step-children, and foster children,
causing the researchers to speculate that, instinctually, people are
less interested in sustaining the genetic lines of others.
[92]
This theory is supported in another more qualitative study where in
adoptive relationships marked by sameness in likes, personality, and
appearance, both adult adoptees and adoptive parents report being
happier with the adoption.
[93]
Other studies provide evidence that adoptive relationships can form
along other lines. A study evaluating the level of parental investment
indicates strength in adoptive families, suggesting that parents who
adopt invest more time in their children than other parents and
concludes, "...adoptive parents enrich their children's lives to
compensate for the lack of biological ties and the extra challenges of
adoption."
[94]
Another recent study found that adoptive families invested more heavily
in their adopted children, for example, by providing further education
and financial support. Noting that adoptees seemed to be more likely to
experience problems such as drug addiction, the study speculated that
adoptive parents might invest more in adoptees not because they favor
them, but because they are more likely than genetic children to need the
help.
[95]
Psychologists' findings regarding the importance of early
mother-infant bonding created some concern about whether parents who
adopt older infants or toddlers after birth have missed some crucial
period for the child's development. However, research on
The Mental and Social Life of Babies
suggested that the "parent-infant system," rather than a bond between
biologically related individuals, is an evolved fit between innate
behavior patterns of all human infants and equally evolved responses of
human adults to those infant behaviors. Thus nature "ensures some
initial flexibility with respect to the particular adults who take on
the parental role.”
[96]
Beyond the foundational issues, the unique questions posed for
adoptive parents are varied. They include how to respond to stereotypes,
answering questions about heritage, and how best to maintain
connections with biological kin when in an open adoption.
[97]
One author suggests a common question adoptive parents have is: "Will
we love the child even though he/she is not our biological child?"
[98] A specific concern for many parents is accommodating an adoptee in the classroom.
[99] Familiar lessons like "draw your
family tree"
or "trace your eye color back through your parents and grandparents to
see where your genes come from" could be hurtful to children who were
adopted and do not know this biological information. Numerous
suggestions have been made to substitute new lessons, e.g., focusing on
"family orchards."
[100]
Adopting older children presents other parenting issues. Some
children from foster care have histories of maltreatment, such as
physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse,
are at risk of developing psychiatric problems.
[101][102] Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment.
[103][104][105]
Studies by Cicchetti et al. (1990, 1995) found that 80% of abused and
maltreated infants in their sample exhibited disorganized attachment
styles.
[106][107] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms,
[108] as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out symptoms.
[109][110] "Attachment is an active process- it can be secure or insecure, maladactive or productive."
[111]
Development
The consensus among researchers is that adoption affects development
throughout life, with the fact of "being adopted," creating unique
responses to significant life-events, e.g., the birth of a child. As a
result, researchers often assume that the adoptee population faces
heightened risk in terms of psychological development and social
relationships. Earlier literature on the topic supported the conception
of such problems, however, much of that research has since been deemed
flawed due to methodological failures.
[112]
Some conclusions about the development of adoptees can be gleaned
from newer studies, though, and it can be said that adoptees, in some
respect, seem to develop differently than the general population while
facing greater risks during adolescence. Many adopted persons experience
difficulty in establishing a sense of identity.
[113]
Concerning developmental milestones, studies from the Colorado Adoption Project examined
genetic influences
on adoptee maturation, concluding that cognitive abilities of adoptees
reflect those of their adoptive parents in early childhood but show
little similarity by adolescence, resembling instead those of their
biological parents and to the same extent as peers in non-adoptive
families.
[114]
Similar mechanisms appear to be at work in the physical development
of adoptees. Danish and American researchers conducting studies on the
genetic contribution to
body mass index
found correlations between an adoptee's weight class and his biological
parents' BMI while finding no relationship with the adoptive family
environment. Moreover, about one-half of inter-individual differences
were due to individual non-shared influences.
[115][116]
These differences in development appear to play out in the way young
adoptees deal with major life events. In the case of parental divorce,
adoptees have been found to respond differently than children who have
not been adopted. While the general population experienced more
behavioral problems, substance use, lower school achievement, and
impaired social competence after parental divorce, the adoptee
population appeared to be unaffected in terms of their outside
relationships, specifically in their school or social abilities.
[117]
The adoptee population does, however, seem to be more at risk for
certain behavioral issues. Researchers from the University of Minnesota
studied adolescents who had been adopted and found that adoptees were
twice as likely as non-adopted people to suffer from
oppositional defiant disorder and
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (with an 8% rate in the general population).
[118]
Suicide risks were also significantly greater than the general
population. Swedish researchers found both international and domestic
adoptees undertook suicide at much higher rates than non-adopted peers;
with international adoptees and female international adoptees, in
particular, at highest risk.
[119]
Nevertheless, work on adult adoptees has found that the additional
risks faced by adoptees are largely confined to adolescence. Young adult
adoptees were shown to be alike with adults from biological families
and scored better than adults raised in alternative family types
including single parent and step-families.
[120]
Moreover, while adult adoptees showed more variability than their
non-adopted peers on a range of psychosocial measures, adult adoptees
exhibited more similarities than differences with adults who had not
been adopted.
[121]
There have been many cases of remediation or the reversibility of early
trauma. For example, in one of the earliest studies conducted,
Professor Goldfarb in England concluded that some children adjust well
socially and emotionally despite their negative experiences of
institutional deprivation in early childhood.
[122]
Other researchers also found that prolonged institutionalization does
not necessarily lead to emotional problems or character defects in all
children. This suggests that there will always be some children who fare
well, who are resilient, regardless of their experiences in early
childhood.
[123]
Furthermore, much of the research on psychological outcomes for
adoptees draws from clinical populations. This suggests that conclusions
such that adoptees are more likely to have behavioral problems such as
ODD and ADHD may be biased. Since the proportion of adoptees that seek
mental health treatment is small, psychological outcomes for adoptees
compared to those for general population are more similar than some
researchers propose.
[124]
Effects on the original parents
Several factors affect the decision to release or raise the child.
White adolescents tend to give up their babies to non-relatives, whereas
black adolescents are more likely to receive support from their own
community in raising the child and also in the form of informal adoption
by relatives.
[125]
Studies by Leynes and by Festinger and Young, Berkman, and Rehr found
that for pregnant adolescents, the decision to release the child for
adoption depended on the attitude toward adoption held by the
adolescent’s mother.
[126]
Another study found that pregnant adolescents whose mothers had a
higher level of education were more likely to release their babies for
adoption. Research suggests that women who choose to release their
babies for adoption are more likely to be younger, enrolled in school,
and have lived in a two-parent household at age 10, than those who kept
and raised their babies.
[127]
There is limited research on the consequences of adoption for the
original parents, and the findings have been mixed. One study found that
those who released their babies for adoption were less comfortable with
their decision than those who kept their babies. However, levels of
comfort over both groups were high, and those who released their child
were similar to those who kept their child in ratings of life
satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and positive future outlook for
schooling, employment, finances, and marriage.
[128]
Subsequent research found that adolescent mothers who chose to release
their babies for adoption were more likely to experience feelings of
sorrow and regret over their decision than those who kept their babies.
However, these feelings decreased significantly from one year after
birth to the end of the second year.
[129]
More recent research found that in a sample of mothers who had
released their children for adoption four to 12 years prior, every
participant had frequent thoughts of their lost child. For most,
thoughts were both negative and positive in that they produced both
feelings of sadness and joy. Those who experienced the greatest portion
of positive thoughts were those who had open, rather than closed or
time-limited mediated adoptions.
[130]
In another study that compared mothers who released their children to
those who raised them, mothers who released their children were more
likely to delay their next pregnancy, to delay marriage, and to complete
job training. However, both groups reached lower levels of education
than did their peers who were never pregnant.
[131]
Another study found similar consequences for choosing to release a
child for adoption. Adolescent mothers who released their children were
more likely to reach a higher level of education and to be employed than
those who kept their children. They also waited longer before having
their next child.
[129]
Most of the research that exists on adoption effects on the natural
parents was conducted with samples of adolescents, or with women who
were adolescents when carrying their babies—little data exists for
natural parents from other populations. Furthermore, there is a lack of
longitudinal data that may elucidate long-term social and psychological
consequences for natural parents that choose to release their children
for adoption.
Public perception of adoption
Actors at the
Anne of Green Gables Museum on
Prince Edward Island,
Canada. Since its first publication in 1908, the story of the orphaned
Anne, and how the Cuthberts took her in, has been widely popular in the
English-speaking world and, later, Japan.
In Western culture, many see that the common image of a family being
that of a heterosexual couple with biological children of their own.
This idea places alternative family forms outside the norm. As a
consequence, research indicates, disparaging views of adoptive families
exist, along with doubts concerning the strength of their family bonds.
[132][133]
The most recent adoption attitudes survey completed by the Evan
Donaldson Institute provides further evidence of this stigma. Nearly
one-third of the surveyed population believed adoptees are less-well
adjusted, more prone to medical issues, and predisposed to drug and
alcohol problems. Additionally, 40–45% thought adoptees were more likely
to have behavior problems and trouble at school. In contrast, the same
study indicated adoptive parents were viewed favorably, with nearly 90%
describing them as, "lucky, advantaged, and unselfish."
[134]
The majority of people state that their primary source of information
about adoption comes from friends and family and the news media.
Nevertheless, most people report the media provides them a favorable
view of adoption; 72% indicated receiving positive impressions.
[135] There is, however, still substantial criticism of the media's adoption coverage. Some adoption blogs, for example, criticized
Meet the Robinsons for using outdated orphanage imagery
[136][137] as did advocacy non-profit The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.
[138]
The stigmas associated with adoption are amplified for children in
foster care.
[139]
Negative perceptions result in the belief that such children are so
troubled it would be impossible to adopt them and create "normal"
families.
[140]
A 2004 report from the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care has
shown that the number of children waiting in foster care doubled since
the 1980s and now remains steady at about a half-million a year."
[141]
Reform and reunion trends
Open Records emblem used in Adoptee Rights Protest, New Orleans, 2008, artist: D. Martin.
Adoption practices have significantly changed over the course of the
last century, with each new movement labeled, in some way, as reform.
[142]
Beginning in the 1970s efforts to improve adoption became associated
with opening records and encouraging family preservation. These ideas
arose from suggestions that the secrecy inherent in modern adoption may
influence the process of forming an
identity,
[143][144] create confusion regarding
genealogy,
[145] and provide little in the way of medical history.
Family preservation: As concerns over illegitimacy began to
decline in the early 1970s, social-welfare agencies began to emphasize
that, if possible, mothers and children should be kept together.
[146]
In America, this was clearly illustrated by the shift in policy of the
New York Foundling Home, an adoption-institution that is among the
country's oldest and one that had pioneered sealed records. It
established three new principles including, "to prevent placements of
children...," reflecting the belief that children would be better served
by staying in their own families and communities, a striking shift in
policy that remains in force today.
[147]
Open records: Movements to unseal adoption records for adopted citizen proliferated along with increased acceptance of
illegitimacy.
In the United States, Jean Paton founded Orphan Voyage in 1954,
Florence Fisher the Adoptees' Liberty Movement Association (ALMA) in
1971, calling sealed records "an affront to human dignity.".
[148] While in 1975, Emma May Vilardi created the first mutual-consent registry, the
International Soundex Reunion Registry (ISRR), allowing those separated by adoption to locate one another.
[149] and Lee Campbell and other birthmothers established CUB
Concerned United Birthparents.
Similar ideas were taking hold globally with grass-roots organizations
like Parent Finders in Canada and Jigsaw in Australia. In 1975, England
and Wales opened records on moral grounds.
[150]
By 1979, representatives of 32 organizations from 33 states, Canada and Mexico gathered in Washington, DC to establish the
American Adoption Congress
(AAC) passing a unanimous resolution: "Open Records complete with all
identifying information for all members of the adoption triad,
birthparents, adoptive parents and adoptee at the adoptee's age of
majority or earlier if all members of the triad agree."
[151] Later years saw the evolution of more militant organizations such as
*** Nation
(founded in 1996), groups that helped overturn sealed records in
Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire, Oregon, Tennessee, and Maine.
[152][153]
Simultaneously, groups such as Origins USA (founded in 1997) started to
actively speak about family preservation and the rights of mothers.
[154] The intellectual tone of these recent reform movements was influenced by the publishing of
The Primal Wound by
Nancy Verrier.
"Primal wound" is described as the "devastation which the infant feels
because of separation from its birth mother. It is the deep and
consequential feeling of abandonment which the baby adoptee feels after
the adoption and which may continue for the rest of his life."
[143]
Reunion
Writer Lesley Lathrop (left), an adoptee, at reunion
Estimates for the extent of search behavior by adoptees have proven elusive; studies show significant variation.
[155] In part, the problem stems from the small adoptee population which makes random surveying difficult, if not impossible.
Nevertheless, some indication of the level of search interest by
adoptees can be gleaned from the case of England and Wales which opened
adoptees' birth records in 1975. The UK Office for National Statistics
has projected that 33% of all adoptees would eventually request a copy
of their original birth records, exceeding original forecasts made in
1975 when it was believed that only a small fraction of the adoptee
population would request their records. The projection is known to
underestimate the true search rate, however, since many adoptees of the
era have access to get their information by other means.
[156]
The research literature states adoptees give four reasons for
desiring reunion: 1) they wish for a more complete genealogy, 2) they
are curious about events leading to their conception, birth, and
relinquishment, 3) they hope to pass on information to their children,
and 4) they have a need for a detailed biological background, including
medical information. It is speculated by adoption researchers, however,
that the reasons given are incomplete: although such information could
be communicated by a third-party, interviews with adoptees, who sought
reunion, found they expressed a need to actually meet biological
relations.
[157]
It appears the desire for reunion is linked to the adoptee's
interaction with and acceptance within the community. Internally focused
theories suggest some adoptees possess ambiguities in their sense of
self, impairing their ability to present a consistent identity. Reunion
helps resolve the lack of self-knowledge.
[158]
Externally focused theories, in contrast, suggest that reunion is a
way for adoptees to overcome social stigma. First proposed by Goffman,
the theory has four parts: 1) adoptees perceive the absence of
biological ties as distinguishing their adoptive family from others, 2)
this understanding is strengthened by experiences where non-adoptees
suggest adoptive ties are weaker than blood ties, 3) together, these
factors engender, in some adoptees, a sense of social exclusion, and 4)
these adoptees react by searching for a blood tie that reinforces their
membership in the community. The externally focused rationale for
reunion suggests adoptees may be well adjusted and happy within their
adoptive families, but will search as an attempt to resolve experiences
of social stigma.
[159]
Some adoptees reject the idea of reunion. It is unclear, though, what
differentiates adoptees who search from those who do not. One paper
summarizes the research, stating, "…attempts to draw distinctions
between the searcher and non-searcher are no more conclusive or
generalizable than attempts to substantiate…differences between adoptees
and nonadoptees."
[160]
In sum, reunions can bring a variety of issues for adoptees and
parents. Nevertheless, most reunion results appear to be positive. In
the largest study to date (based on the responses of 1,007 adoptees and
relinquishing parents), 90% responded that reunion was a beneficial
experience. This does not, however, imply ongoing relationships were
formed between adoptee and parent nor that this was the goal.
[161]
The book "Adoption Detective: Memoir of an Adopted Child" by Judith
and Martin Land provides insight into the mind of an adoptee from
childhood through to adulthood and the emotions invoked when
reunification with their birth mothers is desired.
Controversial adoption practices
Reform and family preservation efforts have also been strongly
associated with the perceived mis-use of adoption. In some cases,
parents' rights have been terminated when their ethnic or socio-economic
group has been deemed unfit by society.
Forced adoption based on ethnicity occurred during World War II. In
German occupied Poland, it is estimated that 200,000 Polish children
with purportedly Aryan traits were
removed from their families and given to German or Austrian couples,
[162] and only 25,000 returned to their families after the war.
[163]
The
Stolen Generation of
Aboriginal people in Australia were affected by similar policies,
[164] as were
Native Americans in the United States[165] and
First Nations of Canada.
[166]
These practices have become significant social and political issues in recent years, and many cases the policies have changed.
[citation needed] The United States, for example, now has the 1978
Indian Child Welfare Act,
which allows the tribe and family of a Native American child to be
involved in adoption decisions, with preference being given to adoption
within the child's tribe.
[167]
From the 1950s through the 1970s, a period called the
baby scoop era, adoption practices that involved coercion were directed against unwed mothers, as detailed in
The Girls Who Went Away.
Adoption terminology
The
language of adoption is changing and evolving, and since
the 1970s has been a controversial issue tied closely to adoption reform
efforts. The controversy arises over the use of terms which, while
designed to be more appealing or less offensive to some persons affected
by adoption, may simultaneously cause offense or insult to others. This
controversy illustrates the problems in adoption, as well as the fact
that coining new words and phrases to describe ancient social practices
will not necessarily alter the feelings and experiences of those
affected by them. Two of the contrasting sets of terms are commonly
referred to as
positive adoption language (PAL) (sometimes called
respectful adoption language (RAL)), and
honest adoption language (HAL).
Positive Adoptive Language (PAL)
In the 1970s, as adoption search and support organizations developed,
there were challenges to the language in common use at the time. As
books like
Adoption Triangle by Sorosky, Pannor and Baran were published, and support groups formed like CUB (
Concerned United Birthparents), a major shift from natural parent to birthparent
[168][169] occurred. Along with the change in times and social attitudes came additional examination of the language used in adoption.
Social workers and other professionals in the field of adoption began
changing terms of use to reflect what was being expressed by the
parties involved. In 1979, Marietta Spencer wrote "The Terminology of
Adoption" for The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA),
[170] which was the basis for her later work "Constructive Adoption Terminology".
[171] This influenced Pat Johnston's "Positive Adoption Language" (PAL) and "Respectful Adoption Language" (RAL).
[172]
The terms contained in "Positive Adoption Language" include the terms
"birth mother" (to replace the terms "natural mother" and "real
mother"), "placing" (to replace the term "surrender"). These kinds of
recommendations were an attempt to encourage people to be more aware of
their terminology.
Honest Adoption Language (HAL)
"Honest Adoption Language" refers to a set of terms that proponents
say reflect the point of view that: (1) family relationships (social,
emotional, psychological or physical) that existed prior to the legal
adoption often continue past this point or endure in some form despite
long periods of separation, and that (2) mothers who have "voluntarily
surrendered" children to adoption (as opposed to involuntary
terminations through court-authorized child-welfare proceedings) seldom
view it as a choice that was freely made, but instead describe scenarios
of powerlessness, lack of resources, and overall lack of choice.
[173][174]
It also reflects the point of view that the term "birth mother" is
derogatory in implying that the woman has ceased being a mother after
the physical act of giving birth. Proponents of HAL liken this to the
mother being treated as a "breeder" or "incubator".
[175]
Terms included in HAL include terms that were used before PAL,
including "natural mother," "first mother," and "surrendered for
adoption."
Inclusive Adoption Language
There are supporters of various lists, developed over many decades,
and there are persons who find them lacking, created to support an
agenda, or furthering division. All terminology can be used to demean or
diminish, uplift or embrace. In addressing the linguistic problem of
naming, Edna Andrews says that using "inclusive" and "neutral" language
is based upon the concept that "language represents thought, and may
even control thought."
[176]
Advocates of
inclusive language defend it as inoffensive-language usage whose goal is multi-fold:
- The rights, opportunities, and freedoms of certain people are restricted because they are reduced to stereotypes.
- Stereotyping is mostly implicit, unconscious, and facilitated by the availability of pejorative labels and terms.
- Rendering the labels and terms socially unacceptable, people then must consciously think about how they describe someone unlike themselves.
- When labeling is a conscious activity, the described person's individual merits become apparent, rather than his or her stereotype.
A common problem is that terms chosen by an identity group, as
acceptable descriptors of themselves, can be used in negative ways by
detractors. This compromises the integrity of the language and turns
what was intended to be positive into negative or vice-versa, thus often
devaluing acceptability, meaning and use.
Language at its best honors the self-referencing choices of the
persons involved, utilizes inclusive terms and phrases, and is sensitive
to the feelings of the primary parties. Language evolves with social
attitudes and experiences.
[177][178]
Cultural variations
Attitudes and laws regarding adoption vary greatly. Whereas all
cultures make arrangements whereby children whose own parents are
unavailable to rear them can be brought up by others, not all cultures
have the concept of adoption, that is treating unrelated children as
equivalent to biological children of the adoptive parents. Under Islamic
Law, for example, adopted children must keep their original surname to
be identified with blood relations,
[179] and, traditionally, observe
hijab
(the covering of women in the presence of non-family) in their adoptive
households. In Egypt, these cultural distinctions have led to making
adoption illegal.
[180]
Further reading
- Christine Ward Gailey. Blue-Ribbon Babies and Labors of Love: Race, Class, and Gender in U.S. Adoption Practice
(University of Texas Press; 185 pages; 2010). Uses interviews with 131
adoptive parents in a study of how adopters' attitudes uphold,
accommodate, or subvert prevailing ideologies of kinship in the United
States.
- Pertman, A. (2000). Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution Is Transforming America. New York: Basic Books.
See also
