Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wroteNot really. In a worst case scenario, she still knows where her childis, and who have adopted her. She can be reasonably sure the child iswell-cared for. And she can find the girl when she is of age. This tome is quite different from a closed adoption where the b-mother doesnot even know where the child might be, and who its parents are.Rupa Cindy was betrayed.. She could not even express her feelings about her betrayal on adoption.com.. She was threatened by Susan Burns.. But Susan Burns can write a book and talk about Cindy without her permission.. Why is that? I would really like to know.. Are we second best? Are we easy to manipulate? I think we are.. Jackie

She may well have felt betrayed. All I know of the story is from the
link you published here. And I haven't read the book. (However -
anyone can write a book about anyone.) So I won't go into the
specifics of this particular case.

But if an adoption is based on the premise that it will be open, and
then it is closed -- for whatever reason -- the b-mom will indeed feel
betrayed. (Recall the discussion we had round Futurelove doing just
that, even though in her case she did send pics and updates, and the
adoption was closed because the *kid* wanted no further contact and
felt threatened by his b-sibs?)

I personally have a lot of doubts around open adoption. But I believe
that if there are open adoptions that form the basis for a
relinquishment decision, they should be legally enforceable. And if it
is not in the child's best interest to continue the open adoption, the
family should petition the Court to have it closed. I think that would
be more fair all round.

Rupa

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 4/13/04 10:44 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0404130944.4fa93cad@posting.google.com>

(snip)
I personally have a lot of doubts around open adoption.

I'd be interested to learn why you feel that way, Rupa.




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wroteFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)I personally have a lot of doubts around open adoption. I'd be interested to learn why you feel that way, Rupa.

Well, quite a few reasons. Starting by defining my terms here: Open
adoption means adoption with regular contact between B-parents (or at
least b-mom) and the a-family. The ideal is what Sue Tretter once
described: Four people working together for the child's good.

That's the ideal. In real life, and with real people, there could
easily be real problems.

I think it can work if the two families are compatible. If they
genuinely like each other and get along, then it can make a lot of
sense.

Even so, there may be issues, especially for the child. Things like
jealousies between the a-kid and the raised-kids, in both directions.
This could be exacerbated if there is a significant difference in the
way the children are being raised, and the resources available. If the
a-family has more than one a-kid, differences in the birth-families of
each child could feed into jealousies there as well. (Consider the
contrast between one b-parent who always calls on birthdays, and who
sends a card or gift, and another one who visits every year or two.)
I'm not saying these things can't be worked through, but they're an
additional layer of complication.

If the life-styles/ values/ personalities are not compatible, then it
could be a disaster in the making. The two families could start to
judge each other negatively. The kid is in the middle, or aligned with
one or other family, generally pissing off the other one.

It's like any situation where you have relatives you don't get along
with. (And I think in an open adoption, a-family and b-family do
become relatives of a sort, something like step-family or in-laws.)
Except here, there's a tight focus on the child, with both sides
having grounds for some sense of entitlement: The a-family because
they adopted the kid and its theirs, the b-mom because the child has
her genes, maybe her looks or temperament.

As the child grows into a teen, I can see all these things temporarily
becoming more complicated. It provides a perfect opportunity to raise
one's level of independence by playing the two sides off each other.

Given that most b-moms would be very young, and just at the start of
their lives, they may want to do something quite different -- leave
town, leave the country, marry someone who doesn't care for kids at
all. This is fine, and part of the reason, perhaps, that she
relinquished the child. But if she builds up a relationship with the
child and then disappears, it wouldn't just be like some aunt who used
to visit stops visiting. That's a mother -- not the raising mother,
but a mother.

I think it can also interfere, for some a-families, and at the early
stages, with the bonding between the a-pars and the baby. I think that
in the early months, perhaps even the early years, it is natural to
feel possessive about one's child. If it's an open adoption, both moms
might well feel this way. If it's something they can suck up and deal
with, good. If not, you can have a situation where the b-mom becomes
distraught that she ever parted with this child, and the a-mom becomes
distraught because she fears the other mother will steal the child --
its heart if not its body. Or, in a worst case situation, it may
interfere with the bonding between the baby and a-mom, so she never
really feels the child is hers or feels entitled to raise it.

(And I'd like to note that we have discussed to death the concept of a
b-mom not really knowing if she wants to relinquish until after the
birth. But we haven't discussed, at all, the reality that a-parents
face when they take the baby home. Something that seemed very possible
in theory may seem terribly difficult afterward.)

This doesn't mean I think all is wonderful with closed adoptions, and
all is terrible about open ones. I think Open Adoption should remain
an option, but it should be clarified early if it's open with legal
enforceability, or open at the pleasure of the a-parents.

And I'd like to see a lot more from a and b-parents who have open
adoptions. Futurelove discussed some of this a bit when she used to
hang out here. But no one else seems to have taken it up. I don't know
there's been any research either.

I have to say that with no experience at all, my misgivings are very
theoretical.

Rupa