Previously: Veronica Brown and the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Though she is now a walking, talking preschooler, the headline read, “Baby Veronica Handed Over to Adoptive Parents.”
On the night of Monday September 23, 2013, Veronica Brown was removed from the care of her biological father and transferred to the custody of the couple who wanted her. The case that started in South Carolina Family Court as “Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl,” went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and back to Oklahoma, seems to be fading from the media spotlight for now. Left behind in its wake are supporters and protesters on both sides, and perhaps an insight into some of the costs of the adoption process in America.
Adoption is supposed to be about providing a home for a child that needs one. All children have the right to be cared for someone who loves and wants them. It’s generally understood that there are times when being cared for by his or her genetic parents is not in a child’s best interests; in some of these cases, an adoptive family can be a wonderful source of permanency and support. However, it was quite clear that Veronica did have a home where she was loved and cared for by her father. It was obvious by his actions as he fought for the right to care for her. Veronica did not need an adoptive home. So what went wrong? How did this story of two families fighting over one little girl even happen?
The story of Veronica Rose Brown has put a sweet little face on the forefront of questions about the ethics involved in the domestic adoption industry. To understand just what went wrong, we have to start at the very beginning.
Adopting a Child Through Private Domestic Adoption
Whatever the reasons that led Veronica’s mother Christy Maldonado to call an adoption agency, this is when machine first started rolling.
It’s not that hard for a pregnant woman to find her way to an adoption agency in America. Any Google search on pregnancy will bring up about 50% adoption agency ads, while “pregnancy help” will yield even more. Many adoption agencies hire recruiters, and conduct massive marketing and informational campaigns in order to target “at-risk” pregnant women. Even nonprofit adoption agencies spend thousands of dollars on internet campaigns and remarketing ads that follow a targeted woman as she browses, continually reminding her of “the adoption option.”
There has been market research conducted on pregnant women and mothers to determine what would make adoption more appealing as a choice for an unplanned or crisis pregnancy, the results of which were published by the National Council for Adoption (essentially the political lobby arm of America’s adoption agencies and adoption attorneys) and used to justify a federally funded adoption awareness program. The Infant Adoption Awareness Training program has even made its way into public high schools, targeting the social and health care workers who come into contact with at-risk pregnant mothers at deemed vulnerable to the adoption message.
So what is that message, exactly? Adoption is promoted as a “loving option” for mothers who love their babies enough to desire a “better” life for them than what they are capable of providing. What they often fail to mention that adoption is a 13-billion-dollar industry in this country. Babies are desperately needed to fulfill the demand of the potential adoptive parents who are willing and able to pay the often-requisite $30 to $50 thousand dollars. Adoption requires the presence of a pregnant woman (who’s generally facing a host of difficult situations), a (usually wealthier) party who desires her child, and the adoption middlemen: lawyers, agencies, and facilitators, all of whom benefit from a successful transfer of parental rights.
Somewhere along the line, Christy made a call or answered an ad in Oklahoma, while in South Carolina, Matt and Melanie Capobianco hired Roger Godwin to act as their adoption attorney and used Nightlight Christian Adoptions (Godwin’s wife was the director of the South Carolina branch at the time) to approve their adoption home study. By all accounts and the court transcripts, as of June 2009, Christy had been matched with Matt and Melanie Capobianco. By that point, she had cut off all contact with Dusten Brown, Veronica’s father.
Adoption Options; Legal, Putative and Thwarted Fathers
Now, it’s generally agreed upon that adoption should be a viable option for pregnant women, and that it is their right to choose adoption if they so desire. The issue is that in adoption, it is common and acceptable practice to purposely keep a father out of the equation. It is not only legal in many cases, as a father’s rights are often not even a given if he is not married to the child’s mother, but all too easy to do. The difference between a “legal” father and a “putative” father is what many adoption professionals use in the adoption process. A married man is the legal father of a child born to his wife, but, if unmarried, the biological father is considered the “putative father.” A putative father is not considered the child’s father based on biology, but on his actions; which under most state laws translates into the level of monetary support he provides during the pregnancy.
With an understanding of how adoption is generally practiced, it’s highly likely that Christy was directed to cut off contact with Dusten and refuse any attempts at support. Under South Carolina adoption law, since Dusten did not live with Christy, but had to live four hours away on his Army base, if she refused support, then his consent to the adoption was not legally necessary. In other states, a father’s rights can be terminated by the posting of an advertisement, often unseen, in a newspaper. It doesn’t matter that this is not ethical, or right, or fair. It is legal.
In most articles about the case, the comments will bear endless arguments claiming that Dusten either wanted to support the pregnancy or abandoned Christy, but the judge in the original court case found that the key players in the adoption proceedings willfully conspired to keep him away. There is even a legal term for that: thwarted fathers.
The irony of this aspect of adoption is that if an unmarried mother should decide to parent her child, she will have the full force of law to go after the father for financial support. Yet, she chooses adoption, she is instructed not to go after the father, and not even to inform him what she has chosen to do. Then she can claim he never supported her. If he had tried to force his presence in her life, Dusten could have been labeled as “controlling” or “abusive,” even “dangerous;” again, this practice is all too common in adoption.
Even the question of whether or not Dusten said he wanted to relinquish his custodial rights via text message pre-birth cannot be considered paternal termination. It is not legal in any state to relinquish the rights of a child via text message; an issue that even SCOTUS failed to understand. The question should be why were images of said texts even taken ahead of time to be submitted as proof? That is a clear case of an adoption attorney directing a mother to document a lack of intent to support.
Supporting the Adoption Process
Of course, once adoption is in the picture, the mother is provided with other means of support throughout her pregnancy. The monetary support provided through the adoption agencies are all listed as “birthmother expenses.” While in this case, the state of Oklahoma has a $1000 cap on contributions; some accounts claim that the Capobiancos paid for past debts, living expenses and even contributed to or furnished Christy a new SUV up to, and perhaps, more than $10,000.00. State laws are often ignored and not often enforced when adoptive couples are seeking the cooperation, and the child of a woman who needs the money.
The accepted process of early matching with prospective adoptive parents also serves to remove the the expectant mother from anyone else who would not support the adoption of her child. Along with being encouraged to distance themselves from the fathers, extended family members, grandparents, and friends are counseled and then often “cut off” if they do not toe the adoption party line. In this case, Christy was not allowed to receive visitors during her hospital stay. At other times, the parents of the biological parents, or the fathers themselves, have found restraining orders placed against them and have been physically removed from the hospitals by police.
Dusten did not know when Veronica was born.
While Christy stayed home in Oklahoma, the separation of the mothers, fathers, and their families is often encouraged by adoption professionals and is employed in part by supplying “birthmother housing” in the adoption process. Many agencies will happily move a mother out of state to a more “adoption-friendly state” where the relinquishment consent laws move the adoption timeline along more quickly. Also, during the relationship created by the early connection of mother and adoptive parents, the mother is encouraged to emotionally disconnect from her own pregnancy and find satisfaction from the joy of the intended parents.
Even the use of the word “birthmother” on most adoption agencies websites, including Nightlight, is even considered a form of subtle coercion by inducing a mother to think of herself only as a facilitator of birth before her child enters the world. The TV show “I’m Having Their Baby” is a wonderful example of that subtle use of adoption language.
Hospital Ethics with Babies for Adoption
Having the adoptive parents present at doctor’s visits and in the delivery room is seen as “bonding” or “relationship building” by adoption standards, but are also means of making a mother emotionally dependant on the adopters’ emotions and feeling responsible for their happiness. Many media stories have joyfully reported how Matt Capobianco “cut the cord” at Veronica’s birth. The fact that the Capobiancos were even present during labor is highly unethical. Labor and delivery is a highly charged emotional time where any woman can feel extremely vulnerable. Even most adoption experts agree that the actual choice to relinquish must be made after the birth of the child, when the baby is more than just a concept, but a living, breathing identity.
Many mothers have found that they had serious second thoughts about relinquishing after the birth, but felt obligated to continue on with the plan in order to avoid hurting the feelings of the adoptive couple. Whether that would have happened to Christy or not isn’t the point; the fact is she didn’t have the opportunity or chance.
The first relinquishment of Veronica occurred the day after she was born. While still recovering from birth in her hospital bed, her child not even 24 hours old, Christy relinquished her rights to her daughter. This is legal in the state of Oklahoma and in many other states in the country. While she had 15 days to legally revoke her consent, after that she could not change her mind and cite duress. In many states, such as Florida, Massachusetts, or South Carolina, there is no revocation period at all.
One might wonder how it is ethical to ask someone to sign legal paperwork while in the hospital, without legal representation, and possibly under the influence of pain medication, but the relinquishment consent form is not considered a contract and therefore does not fall under contract laws. Adoption consent has it own set of standards. A minor cannot legally sign a contract, yet a minor child can relinquish her own child without parental consent or legal representation.
Also, in adoption practices, a mother can waive her right to have legal representation; this is often encouraged by adoption professionals, as it is presented as just another expense that the adoptive parents must pay for, rather than the biological parent’s right. Meanwhile, having a lawyer representing a birthmother who is paid for by the adoptive parents itself is actually unethical, but again, accepted adoption practices. The Capobiancos paid for Christy’s lawyers.
Most adoption agencies also offer to pay all medical expenses incurred through birth that results in an adoption for their clients. This can be a very appealing aspect to an impoverished mother, and prospective adoptive parents are often all too willing to ensure that their potential child receives the best in medical care. However, many agencies will extract the fees for medical care, and then enroll the expectant mother in the state-provided services, essentially having taxpayers unwillingly subsidize the adoption and help contribute to the agency’s profit. By time the original case went to court, Melanie Capobianco testified that the adoption had cost somewhere from $30 to $40 thousand.
The state of Oklahoma paid for Veronica’s birth, though if Christy had married Dusten, they would have been covered under both the military and Cherokee Nation medical plans.
This was how a little girl named Veronica came into the world. Before she even left the hospital, before she crossed state lines, before she was declared Cherokee, years before her father would be able see her face, before her story was heard by the highest court of the land, before the families involved were followed by the media and discussed on TV shows; Veronica was born into a very questionable set of circumstances.
Baby Veronica’s story is not that unusual. The current state of adoption practices are characterized by a lack of ethical oversight, which leads to an environment ripe for profit, corruption, and exploitation. The lack of public understanding of these issues, coupled with a desire to see adoption in a kind light, prevent a more objective view from receiving equal attention.
This a story that repeats itself day after day, all across the country. These practices are considered common and acceptable in the adoption process. If we are outraged by what happened to Veronica or Dusten or the Capobiancos, then we should be outraged that these adoption situations are considered legal. We should be outraged that this is what our laws and courts allow. We should hold adoption agencies and professionals accountable for their actions and demand better for all our children so they cannot be used as commodities, so that parents cannot outbid each other for possession. We must admit that just because something is legal does not make it ethical. We must be willing to see the truth about adoption, discuss its real problems, and find solutions that make sense.
Tags: adoption, adoptive couple vs. baby girl, claudia corrigan d’arcy, dusten brown, veronica rose brown
Related Posts
I wrote my comment above before I read yours. I suppose the best you can do is research, research, research. Don’t work with agencies in states whose laws are exploitative. Don’t work with an agencies whose policies are coercive toward birthparents. It seems that there are a lot of bad, bad practices out there. But there are also social workers and nonprofit agencies and state-run programs who truly want the best for all parties, just as you do. You need to work with people who are aligned with your values.
Good luck! And your final paragraph really resonates me. We’re not trying to save anyone or rob a child of his/her cultural heritage. We just want to have a family, and we hope to do so in the most respectful and mindful way possible.
I am so sad for this little girl and her dad.
I hope that someday, when she’s a little older, she googles herself and understands that she was very much wanted, and very much loved.
I honestly wonder what the Capobiancos are planning to do when she gets old enough to find and read the stories about herself. I fear (I hope not but really, really fear) that they’re planning to raise her to vilify her father, in hopes of pre-empting the “Parents, this story says my dad DID want me,” conversation.
I mean, if they were acting at all decent or genuinely trying to figure out visitation or not SUING him and the Cherokee Nation (the fuck?), then I might hope that they would tell her as honest and caring a story as possible, but right now their decency gauge is pretty much on empty.
But someday she’s going to see those pictures of herself beaming in his arms and see how much he loved her and wanted her, right? Please?
Crying now.
They are really awful humans. I mean, I get that there are people who are naive and uninformed and don’t realize the various complexities of adoption and so on and so forth and would have behaved differently, had they known. And there are people — in this very thread! — who want to adopt in the most ethical, least exploitative way possible and are doing their background research in order to do that.
The Capobiancos are not those people.
Yes, completely agreed. And the thing is, they’re pretty awful even if we take it as a given that the people on this thread are exceptional. There are lots of people who wouldn’t think ahead about how to adopt in an ethical way, and who would feel very much like she was theirs and not want to give her up — and would STILL have the basic empathy to let her father SEE her. And not try to get a half a million dollars from a devastated man whose daughter was just forcibly taken away from him.
Obviously I think everyone should bend over backwards to make sure adoptions are happening ethically, but this isn’t a situation where they just didn’t try quite hard enough or get enough information. They genuinely seem intent on destroying this man for the unspeakable crime of wanting to live with his own daughter.
What’s terribly sad is that it’s not going to matter what kind of people they are, all that much.
I wrote them a little note, predicting the future: http://thirdtimecharmed.com/wp/?p=267
Thanks for this piece. There are quite a few similarities between this case and my wife’s case. In the latter, when her mother got pregnant, her father offered marriage and her mother refused. (Interestingly, her mother’s family understands themselves to have a strain of Cherokee, but they aren’t registered.) Her mother went ahead with adoption proceedings. They say he knew what was going on, but this piece makes me wonder how much he really knew. My wife attempted a search for him, but was unsuccessful – he had an extremely common name. Our best guess is that he died in Vietnam.
I too, am adopted. My parents always told me that my mother gave me up because she loved me and wanted better for me. I always accepted that. I’ve never done a search.
This is eye-opening. I’ve read quite a few articles about the problems with international adoptions, but have never read much about domestic ones. I’m friends with several families who have tried to adopt domestically only to have the adoptions fall through when the children were returned to their birth parents; in one case the child was three years old and had lived with them since birth. That particular foster mother nearly lost her mind with grief.
If we as a society are really looking out for what’s best for the child, surely there is a way to allow BOTH birth parents a reasonable amount of (unpressured) time to decide while also protecting the hearts of prospective adoptive parents who want to provide a loving home. It’s not fair to either party to play these types of games, but it’s incredibly unfair to the child who has no vote in the decision.
yes, especially when the child is shuttled back & forth like Veronica. it can be very damaging to have that kind of instability.
Foster care adoptions come with their own issues. This article discusses private infant adoption and is not what your friend dealt with.
ugghhhhhhhhhh. These kids are HUMANS. Human people. They’re not objects or property.
I found myself feeling really conflicted about this story as I read it, probably because my husband and I are planning on adopting once I’m done with school. I think the difficult emotions stemmed from my feelings about wanting to be a parent and provide a healthy home for a child, and not wanting to think that it’s a bad or manipulative thing. There’s also the fear of possibly losing custody of a child if/when we adopt – which I think is a fear any adoptive parent is well acquainted with.
Then I focused on what I already knew: even as an adoptive parent, private adoption is a potentially harmful experience for the whole family. The costs are extremely prohibitive, and it FEELS like a black market situation as a result. Don’t even get me started about international adoption.
So I guess I’m just processing this in public, but I’m hoping that our plan – foster to adoption in our large urban area – is more ethical. There seems to be greater oversight with child protective services and the court system at least. I still have concerns (for example if the child is a different race or culture, will I be able to help raise them with an appreciation and awareness of their history) but I have to hope that providing a relatively healthy and loving home is worth the possible missteps that may happen?
good luck darlin’! ETA: They’ll DEFINITELY be better off with you than in the foster system; plus, the fact that you’ve thought about it already is a good sign for sure.
My friend is a social worker who handles children in the foster care system. “You want a baby? I’ll get you a baby next month,” she says.
I haven’t said “yes” yet, but maybe someday.
I think the way you’re thinking about this is both wise and compassionate, and that those traits will serve you really well and make you the best kind of adoptive parents a child can have. Good luck with everything; I hope you have a lot of support as you go through this.
Thanks all! I actually really appreciate the support, since it seems like there’s always a way to muck it up if you’re not careful. And it’s not something that feels appropriate to talk about and navigate with a lot of friends. I’m lucky to have a husband who is not only supportive but excited about adoption. I’ll let you know how it is if/when it happens!!!
Hey you’ve got the pre-emptive “What if I fuck this up” guilt already, so you’re already well on your way to being a True Parent 😉
*sigh*
Best of luck to you! My husband and I are also looking into adoption, and this article, and last week’s interview here on Baby Veronica, really struck a chord with me. I am fully aware of how “rigged” the system feels, and I am also trying to do my best to reconcile my desire to be a mother with my hope that I can participate in this system in a way that will be as respectful as possible to the birthmother and birthfather, and will create a happy, loving life for the child.
I applaud you for going through the foster-to-adopt system. We will likely pursue private domestic adoption, and actually attended our first informational session with an agency last week. This agency, like all agencies in my state, is nonprofit, and the information session, held by the Executive Director, made me feel so much better about the process. The ED talked about the process in a way that made me feel secure that my rights and the rights of the birthmother were both being carefully considered. She even detailed the various states whose laws she feels are ethical and make the process more equitable, and told us that she will not work in states, or with other agencies, whose laws and policies are not up to her standards.
I guess the bottom line is that, if you want to adopt, you need to take responsibility for what you are embarking upon, and do everything you can to research the system or agency you’ll be working through, in order to make sure that their practices and standards are sound and not exploitative toward any of the parties. I know exactly how you feel; I’m trying to do what’s right for my family, and I know my husband and I can provide a tremendous amount of love, stability, and honesty to an adopted child. But when I read about some of the inequities and manipulations perpetuated by the system, I get so nervous and so emotional. How can something that I’m exploring so mindfully and with the best of intentions be so fraught with corruption?
rebeccakp…
While I applaud the fact that you are aware the natural mother’s rights need to be protected, I would hope that you would be just as aware and protective of the father’s rights. Most states have laws that make it difficult, if not impossible, for fathers to assert their rights and make it very easy for other unethical parties to thwart those rights. I would hope that you would make sure that any child you look to adopt truly does not have the option of being raised in a fit environment by one of their parents because studies show that is what is best for the child.
You are absolutely right. That’s actually one of the many items on my “talk about with social worker” list. There are some states in which birthfathers do not need to be notified that they even have a child, and then cannot claim custody when/if they do find out. I won’t adopt from a state with that type of law intact. I would like to know that the birthmother and birthfather are both given the opportunity to go into this process with all of the information and agency that I have. That may limit my options, but so be it.
Rebecca, I’m glad you’re giving this considerable thought and are paying attention to this Veronica case. I do want to point out that “nonprofit” doesn’t equate with ethical. Nightlight Christian Adoptions is “nonprofit”, as are most adoption agencies. However, even in nonprofits, the executive directors can make millions. Many times, the ED of adoption agencies do make millions, despite the agencies being nonprofit.
I would also consider meeting with both first parents and get blood tests to make sure that 1) they are aware and supportive of the adoption, 2) both parents’ rights are respected, and 3) they are who you were told they are. This can help put your heart and mind at ease for a life-altering decision you might be making.
Also, I’m not sure if you are aware that in most states in this country, adopted people are not allowed to have their original birth certificate with truthful information about themselves and their own birth. No other US-born adult is legally denied such information about one’s own identity. Please help to end the legal discrimination against adopted people and respect adoptees’ equal rights. Thank you.
Thanks, Kym. Of course, nonprofit does not always equal “doing good”. I do, though, feel confident in the ethical practices of the agency I mentioned above. (And I’ve spoken with and researched many!)
Thanks for the advice. This conversation is giving me even more to think about…and I was giving the process a lot of thought prior to this! The importance of transparency and honesty from the moment an adoptive parent interacts with birthparents, and throughout an adopted child’s life, is of the utmost importance to me. Thanks again.
Rebecca,
Another important question to ask the agency is who provides the counseling for the pregnant mother and/or father. It is terribly unethical, and many times coercive for the agency, who only gains if a mother gives up her baby, to be the one counseling vulnerable, pregnant mothers.
I would highly suggest finding out if they offer the “options” counseling that is the standard form of counseling through most agencies. Claudia referred to this counseling in her article. It was created and is taught by the NCFA for only one reason, to convince pregnant mothers that they are not good enough for their children and the only way they can prove their love is to give there child away to somebody “better.”
If you are truly interested in an ethical adoption, please do not participate in one that involves options counseling or biased counseling through the agency. Pregnant mothers deserve the respect and care to be counseled by an unbiased therapist who specializes in helping their patients through crisis situations (which is what many mothers are facing when they walk into an adoption agency.)
So, Ms. D’Arcy, I appreciate the complexities of the situation but I’d love some more practical solutions. My husband and I tried to have a baby for years. After 5 miscarriages, we have no confidence that donor eggs or embryos would work for us. We want to be parents more than anything in the world. Yes we are white, and we can afford to adopt (with family assistance). We have chosen an agency who seems to be ethical according to most of your standards. They do allow birth mothers to choose whether to invite adoptive families to be present at the birth. (Every agency we researched allowed this.) They don’t match until late in the pregnancy–7.5 months at earliest. We’re attending lots of classes and a support group about transracial adoption. We live in a very mixed neighborhood, work in mixed-race communities. Yet the tone of your article makes me feel terrible. Really, just awful–and I’ve already felt awful for years now as I watched my dreams of having a child die time after time.
So what should people in our situation do to feel like we’re making good choices in this process, and not perpetuating the system? It’s certainly broken in some ways, but seems to work fine in others–notably absent in recent discussions of adoption on this site are the voices of any adoptees who had a good experience, or any birth mothers who feel they made the right decision. We want to do the right thing, but we also want a baby. We don’t think we “deserve” one, we don’t want to “save” anybody, we’re not remotely religious, we just want to grow our family, and we think we’ll be good parents. And I’d rather not have to feel this awful about it.
I’m not entirely certain if it would help you feel less awful, but one thing that made a big difference for me was researching the history of adoption in the U.S. and gaining an understanding of some very large factors that have been swept under the rug. The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade by Ann Fessler and Wake Up Little Susie: Single Pregnancy and Race Before Roe v. Wade by Rickie Solinger were two immensely helpful books in this regard.
Short version: there is not a goddamned thing wrong with wanting a baby. I am pregnant right now, after spending way longer than we wanted trying to get knocked up (though not anywhere near as long as you, and you have my deepest sympathies and empathies). But the tricky thing about adoption is that it’s ultimately not about you. It’s about the kid, and what’s best for the kid. (This is also the case for plain ol’ biological methods of kid-getting, though it isn’t quite as obvious quite as early on.) The raw reality of the situation is that there are 6 potential families for every potential adoptive kid in this country, and that promptly turns into a supply and demand dynamic that skews things tremendously. There are a lot of people who will exploit both your perfectly legit desire to have a kid and the economic, social, and personal factors that steer pregnant women towards adoption. Knowing that they DO NOT have your interests in mind–or anyone other than themselves–goes a long way towards saving yourselves grief.
They’ve been around for a long, long time, and there’s a reason why they mostly go for white, well-off couples. (Solinger’s book goes into some heart-wrenching detail in this regard.) There’s also a reason why practically everyone thinks they have the right to comment on your desire to have a kid, and nobody will say boo to me about mine. (First person to sanctimoniously suggest that your problem is that you want a baby rather than an older kid needs to explain how many kids they’ve adopted.) This issue ties into all kinds of complicated and painful attitudes about what makes a “real” family and who are “good” parents and who “deserves” to be a parent and who should be “punished” for being a parent. That’s part of the underlying awfulness that you feel. It is not on you or Ms. D’Arcy.
I feel for you. I really do, and I hope that things work out for you, your husband, and some lucky kid. It is incredibly rough to try and navigate, especially given how everyone in the free world feels compelled to comment on it, usually without knowing a damn thing about the process. But it’s worth understanding the process all the same, because it can be a meat grinder like no other.
I’d like to very gently point out something about your question here. You’re asking “How can I FEEL better about this potentially problematic thing I want to do?” instead of “How can I adopt a baby ethically, how can I make sure the birth mother’s feelings are protected and respected, or even should I do this potentially problematic thing?” Wanting to be a parent is normal and wonderful and loving your kid is the #1 most important thing you can do. It sounds like you’ll have that covered! What you’re feeling now is the pinprick of having your privilege pointed out to you, it’s a good thing! We’ve all been there for one reason or another. Your job now, is to take that pinprick seriously, struggle with it–don’t try to paper over it. Now is the time, before you’re entangled in another family’s life, to work through this stuff. I’m sure others will chime in with resources or suggestions. Good luck!
I wrote my comment above before I read yours. I suppose the best you, and I, and all other potential adoptive parents, can do is research, research, research. Don’t work with agencies in states whose laws are exploitative. Don’t work with an agencies whose policies are coercive toward birthparents. It seems that there are a lot of bad, bad practices out there. But there are also social workers and nonprofit agencies and state-run programs who truly want the best for all parties, just as you do. You need to work with people who are aligned with your values.
Good luck! And your final paragraph really resonates me. We’re not trying to save anyone or rob a child of his/her cultural heritage. We just want to have a family, and we hope to do so in the most respectful and mindful way possible.
I don’t have a magic wand where i can tell you the perfect ethical way to adopt. I wish there was one, but right now, with the current state of adoption laws accepted and the lack of oversight; even with the very best of intentions, there is a very good chance that you will unknowingly play a part in a situation that hurts. In fact, I think that is actually unavoidable no matter what in adoption.
The fact is ALL adoptions are based on a foundation of loss for ALL parties (except for the industry who gains); adoptive parents have already lost the opportunity to give birth to a biological child, the birth parents lose the opportunity to raise their child and the adoptee loses the chance o be raised in a biological setting. I find that come of the problems in the current messaging surrounding adoption is that IF all parties do it “right” then these losses and the more negative feelings associated with them can be mitigated. I do not believe they can be avoided, but are part and parcel of adoption and MUST be accepted.
While individuals will feel them differently and to different degrees, for instance not ALL adoptees with feel the full depth of the Primal Wound and have major trust issues through life, to enter into adoption one must be ready to see and feel the experience from all sides and for the full spectrum.
I think its a sign of health that you don’t feel good, truthfully. How can you feel completely happy when the act of getting a child you want is based on the deep loss of other human beings? Nothing you CAN do will prevent a mother form hurting an grieving the loss of her child, except hoping that you manage to find a mother who has a complete inability to bond ( which is a very small number in reality.. most mothers DO wish they COULD parent) and in that case, that is a deeper loss for your child? See what I mean? The loss MUST come out somewhere.
So aside from being willing to accept that and feel it if you do adopt, then I would suggest that you are insanely proactive and demand that any agency or professional is held to the highest of standards and then push them to go even further. Here’s a starting point: http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/is-your-adopt…
Hi Sara,
First, I think it is commendable that you are at least attempting to engage in ethical adoption practices. Reading both biological parents’ and adult adoptees’ experiences is a great way to gain some perspective on adoption.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is the difference between what is truly ethical and moral versus what an adoption agency will tell you is ethical and moral. Do most adoption agencies advocate for pre-birth matching? Yes. Is that practice truly ethical? No. Do some mothers invite prospective adoptive families to be present at the birth? Yes. Is that truly in her and the child’s best interest? No.
On our side of the adoption equation (the first parent side), there is only so much we can do to affect change in the ethics of the adoption industry. We can yell and scream about ethics until we are blue the face, but until prospective adoptive parents stand up and say, “what you are doing goes against our ethical and moral boundaries” it is my belief that nothing is going to change. Standing up for what is right may mean more time you have to wait to grow your family, but the question you need to ask yourself is what is more important? Is it more important that we start our family in any way possible as soon as possible or is it more important to grow our family the RIGHT way, the ETHICAL way, the MORAL way?
Ack. Of all the articles I’ve read about the Baby Veronica case, this is the first (that I can remember) that did not mention tribal sovereignty or the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA.) Claudia’s argument would have only been strengthened by including the historical context of this case, given that ICWA was designed to prevent the adoption of Native babies by white adoptive parents. It was a response to the sub-optimal, coercive adoption situations outlined above – perpetrated exclusively by white adoptive couples, targeting Native children.
Honestly, I’m kind of surprised that this article passed editorial muster at The Toast. While it outlines the legal problems surrounding adoptions in general, there is a shocking lack of legal information specific to this case.
Hi, Liz! I don’t know if you saw this, but we had a long discussion about the case, the Cherokee Nation, the ICWA and the history of forced Native adoptions last week with Meagan Hatcher-Mays: http://the-toast.net/2013/09/27/meagan-hatcher-ma…. I’ll throw a link to it up in the article so other readers who might have missed this can see it too.
Thank you!! I did miss that, it’s a great interview.
Glad you could get a chance to read it! This conversation would be so incomplete without looking at the ICWA.
I read it as an article that wasn’t trying to give an exhaustive analysis of this particular case, but as one that was intended to focus on the general legal problems around adoption, using this case as an illustration.
Totally agree that the ICWA is really important, but I don’t think anyone would argue. The recent interview with Meagan Hatcher-Mays really focused on that aspect.
@Liz, I purposely did NOT include anything about ICWA because of the simple fact that even without the use/misuse/ purpose of ICWA, there are other ethical implications that this case shows about adoption overall.
My stance on the Baby Veronica Case, and now, what is left of a “silver lining” if there can be one for the adoption community at large, is that it is NOT so unusual. These situations happen in adoption every day and are considered accepted practices.
So, away from this particular case, I want to widen the viewpoint. Outside of discussion the use of ICWA, let’s look at voluntary domestic infant adoption overall. It is probably too late to do anything more for Veronica now, but how can we, as a society, begin to question what’s quite troubling in adoption. Right now, the eyes of the country on on this issue; so it is time to look at the big picture.
Can I second that?
Veronica’s situation isn’t unusual because her first parents were coerced & excluded, respectively. It’s unusual in that the agency got caught. ICWA in some ways is the legal frosting on the adoption policy cake. A cake that is full of awfulness for poor and/or young parents.
Bravo to you Claud. Applause for this article and all you do. Kudos to The Toast for publishing.
This read like my own experience as a mother who surrendered her first born child to a baby broker. Because I know you will get the nay sayers who say this never happens, and children are better off with strangers and mothers go on with their lives I encourage them to read my blog or the details on the broker that took my child and sold her (placed) to a couple that until they had won their State Lottery could not afford to adopt. Adoption is all about money. Those who have it and those who don’t. It is rarely ever about the child.
Read about the brokers that placed my daughter with her adoptive family.
Read about a mother still struggling 27 years post surrendering her child to a baby broker.
Suz
Thank you for this excellent breakdown of adoption practices. Institutional adoption is such a quagmire of unethical laws and social pressure, my blood boils to think of it. I sympathize with those who want to be parents, but this bloody system is so corrupt. It’s such a shame, because the rights adoption offers to legally adopted children were meant to overcome the inability of “foundlings” to inherit their parents’ estates–it did away with the charity model of taking in children.
In _The Turkish Embassy Letters_, Mary Wortley Montagu writes about how surprised she was by Turkish adoption practices, and how superior they were to the British system. It was an epiphany for her– almost as grand as witnessing the effects of inoculations–because those children were treated so lovingly, and not like burdens. She lobbied for both practices to be taken up in England, though it took some time for those ideas to catch on. This is only to say that adoption as a legal policy supports the rights of the adopted, but adoption practices distort parental love to imply that if you really love your child, you will give it to someone who can offer it more opportunities that you can provide.
Infant adoption is often viewed as a “Christian” practice, and in fact, the most “profitable” non-profit organizations in the US are religiously affiliated adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities, Bethany Christian Services, and LDS Family Services. The practice is not Christian at all however. It originates in ancient Rome and pre-Christian Greece. One of the Latin words for adoption is also the root of the word ‘Arrogance.’ in English. Adoption was not practiced in Judaism at the time of Christ; there wasn’t even a word for it in the Hebrew language. No reference to it exists in the New Testament, and only two in the old: Moses – A forced relinquishment to save the child from the decree to kill all male Hebrew infants – and Ester – a kinship foster where the child was raised by her uncle, presumably as an orphan. As Dana points out, Islam does not generally practice adoption; instead in Islamic countries, the orphan is supported by the state/community and raised by an appropriate family without altering the identity of the child. Hindu society does not forbid adoption, but it forbids anyone charging a fee or making a profit from it.
The premise behind the argument for infant adoption assumes that two non-biologically related people can substitute for a single mother (or father). There is no evidence to support this assumption in the research literature, and a significant amount of evidence to the contrary. The last paper I read on the subject found that adopted children are four times more likely to be diagnosed with depression, ADD or ADHD than their non-adopted counterparts. Even the argument that the mother or child will be better off materially is contradicted by the evidence when one considers that unwed mothers from white, middle to upper middle class families are more than 10 times more likely to relinquish than are mothers from other racial or socioeconomic groups.
We live today in a world where the definitions of marriage and family are being hotly debated. It is not the legal construct of “marriage” that matters here, but the emotional and biological relationship between parent and child. It is not the pretense of “charity” that results in the “ownership” of the child to fill the need of the adopter at the expense of the mother and child’s bond and relationship that matters, but the genuine act of charity that helps to support the mother and the child in their time of need without preying on them for the profit of so-called “non-profit” adoption agencies..
I'm guessing that if you were face to face with the infertile women you assail with your version of reality–bio parents are the only real parents; donor gametes are really the offspring of the donors, not the parents–you'd reconsider your approach to the complex connection between fertility and adoption.
I type this with respect for your experience, which has clearly affected you, whatever it was: Your ideas are interesting, though I disagree with most of them profoundly. Viciously attacking the validity of parenting relationships that are not also genetic relationships is not an effective strategy to bring allies.
For now, I'll summarize: Insulting my humanity doesn't make me want to advocate for what we both think is right. It makes me hope I never meet you in person.
Ok but it's also biology that causes one species of animal to raise and care for a different species of animal as their own. Actually biology is a very broad term that simply means the study of life and that statement is pretty ambiguous and doesn't convince me of anything.
ok, does anyone else get a feeling of some kind of essentialism in this thread? that in the case of babies and parents, genetic or biological=natural=best. but I don’t have much of a stake in this discussion, so maybe my devil’s advocate application should be denied. there’s lots to educate me here, so thanks all.
Hi Puddleglum,
The best case scenario for a child is to be raised by their biological family (barring any neglect or abuse issues). Does that mean that all adoptees are forever scarred by being adopted, certainly not. Does that mean that adoption as a concept is inherently bad, again no. The focus of adoption should always be on the person being adopted, not the biological family or the prospective adoptive family. As a society, we need to focus more on family preservation and less on the wants of prospective adoptive persons.
Of course, there will always be biological mothers and fathers with zero interest in raising their offspring. That is unfortunate, but again, while it might be best for the biological parents to give the child up for adoption, it is not truly what is best for the adoptee.
If we can keep the best interests of the baby/child as the main priority, preserving the biological family becomes the main goal instead of focusing on the best interests of the adults involved.
Rebecca,
Another important question to ask the agency is who provides the counseling for the pregnant mother and/or father. It is terribly unethical, and many times coercive for the agency, who only gains if a mother gives up her baby, to be the one counseling vulnerable, pregnant mothers.
I would highly suggest finding out if they offer the "options" counseling that is the standard form of counseling through most agencies. Claudia referred to this counseling in her article. It was created and is taught by the NCFA for only one reason, to convince pregnant mothers that they are not good enough for their children and the only way they can prove their love is to give there child away to somebody "better."
If you are truly interested in an ethical adoption, please do not participate in one that involves options counseling or biased counseling through the agency. Pregnant mothers deserve the respect and care to be counseled by an unbiased therapist who specializes in helping their patients through crisis situations (which is what many mothers are facing when they walk into an adoption agency.)