Comments about ‘Proposal to create enforceable open adoption agreements stirs legislative debate’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 5 2013 8:10 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Maudine
SLC, UT

Why would you start with children in foster care? Those children have been removed from their parents for a reason. If you truly have the best interests of the child in mind, this is a horrible place to start.

mightyhunterhaha
Kaysville, UT

People should leave things alone. I was adopted. While I'm curious about birth parents I am g;ad they were not sticking their nose into my life growing up. Being a kid is confusing enough. You don't need a birth parent in the mix creating more confusion. My birth parents gave me up for adoption in hopes of giving me a better chance in life, as at that time of their life they couldn't be a proper parent. They are not my parents. They may be curious about me as well but they are not my parents nor should they have a prominent place in my life. This idea being floated around is wrong and is going to create some serious problems in kids.

Danny Chipman
Lehi, UT

I think it would be best for birth parents to have limited (letters, pictures and the like) or no contact with the children they put up for adoption. Namely I worry that they might attempt to kidnap the child away from his legal guardians (happens all the time--just check out the Missing Child notices posted around your neighborhood), or as mentioned in the article, leave the kids even more screwed up after visitations. Not only that, they might put up a stink if their input isn't solicited or followed by the adoptive parents when it comes to how to raise the child.

Ace
Farmington, UT

I think this bill sounds like a bad idea. Fact of the matter is if I am adopting a child, it becomes my child. I'm not babysitting for the birth mother.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

When we adopted our daughter, she became OUR daughter. We became financially responsible, responsible to educate, protect, guide, discipline, and teach her. She was integrated into our extended families and given unconditional acceptance and love. She was not shared with us, she was given to us by her birth mother. Like any other gift, I don't want the giver looking over my shoulder. I don't want to be forced to provide updates, pictures, or anything else to the birth mother. If we had decided to do that on our own fine, but I do not want that to be mandated. Sorry it that rubs some of you the wrong way, but she is OUR daughter and we are to protect her, even from her birth family if necessary.

millgshe
Riverton/Salt lake, UT

This article quoted just a few of the many feelings that I have regarding the adoptions of my children, and there is something I would like to clarify. While I am FOR open adoption, for the most part, I am AGAINST legally enforcing visitation agreements. I agree with the fact that these are MY children. When we signed the papers making this fact legally binding, we were told that these children were ours in every way that a child born naturally to us would be. And that definitely includes making the choice as to whom may have involvement in their lives. Our children's birth mothers have never tried to interfere in our parenting and there is no question, to anyone involved, that we are the parents. We do not co-parent. We simply choose to honor the fact that these children would not be ours had these women not brought them into our world. However, as the parents, we deserve to maintain the right to cease any and all involvement should the situation ever change to something that is no longer in our child's best interest.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

Open adoption idea is a concept that will destroy lives of 2 family's and the child or children.

Adoption is total surrender of claim or knowledge of a child. Like one adopted person said, I'm sure they should have full control of and voice of this legislation, it is their lives being put to stress. Adoption has been an act of complete separation of rights by birth parents to any facet of a childs life or development. Just because of financial hardships people give up their children does not give them the right to have any infromation.

The only change in adoption laws and it should be done at the federal level is that adoption consent must be by both biological parents and that neither father or mother can violate this consent. Its one thing to not notify fathers and keep a child from him but its criminal to deny a father his right to knowledge of or adoption of his birth righted children.

julie j
vancouver, WA

Former president of the Utah Adoption Council, Hardy, is quoted as saying "There's certainly concern we're cheapening the parental relationship if you have an enforceable agreement." Child custody orders in divorce decrees ARE enforceable. It's not cheapening anything because it's what was decided is best for the child. To change the terms, parents must return to court and present a case why it must change, and have the court agree. It can be done for good reasons. If AP's have legitimate reasons, then they can present that to a court as well. If they don't, then they shouldn't be changing the terms on their own. To not have that requirement in place is basically saying "open adoption" itself, not the child, is the bargaining chip to having any adoption at all, for those who have no intention of honoring the agreements they made to child's family. Those AP's who intend to keep their word, should have no problem with this legislation

julie j
vancouver, WA

Former president of the Utah Adoption Council, Hardy, is quoted as saying "There's certainly concern we're cheapening the parental relationship if you have an enforceable agreement." Child custody orders in divorce decrees ARE enforceable. It's not cheapening anything because it's what was decided is best for the child. To change the terms, parents must return to court and present a case why it must change, and have the court agree. It can be done for good reasons. If AP's have legitimate reasons, then they can present that to a court as well. If they don't, then they shouldn't be changing the terms on their own. To not have that requirement in place is basically saying "open adoption" itself, not the child, is the bargaining chip to having any adoption at all, for those who have no intention of honoring the agreements they made to child's family. Those AP's who intend to keep their word, should have no problem with this legislation

julie j
vancouver, WA

Although it specifies the initial legislation will be for the children adopted from foster care, I could see it eventual becoming a way to increase infant adoptions by convincing expectant mothers that adoption is the way to go because now open will actually mean open. The possibility that adoptions can currently close at any time, for any reason, may be enough to keep some of the mothers who know this, from relinquishing their own babies.

Jenkins said his adopted nephew's visits with his "birth mother"was a "negative experience" and "created more problems." Negative for whom? Problems for whom? Do they realize the importance & benefit to the child? Are they truly committed to the child having that contact? Is the child picking up on the negative feelings the adoptive family may have about open adoption? How are things being explained to the child? What can be done to improve the situation so the child can continue contact with his family? All questions that deserve explanation before simply closing an open adoption.

wicked
matamoras, PA

Ace. So then you logic makes the natural mother nothing more then a breeder..
CHS 85..So I assume then all that paperwork is the equivalent to a bill of sale then huh..
Infant adoption is a social experiment gone wrong. So sad to see the comments on here that show what is best for the adoptive parents and that's it,, Shouldn't it be what is best for the baby. But the adopters chose not to see it that way. They see their need as the only relevant need. In fact the best thing is not for the infant to be taken from its mother. Yes there are many children in foster care and in group homes (that's a nice word for orphanage) Adopt them. If you want to do what is best for the mother and child then help the mother keep her baby.. the way nature intended,,

julie j
vancouver, WA

Open adoption is NOT co-parenting. The AP's are the legal parents. However, adoptees will always have 2 families. Adoption does not stop the relationship of the child to his/her original family, nor the importance of it.

Adoption is always going to be a different experience than what biological families have, from both the child's and the parents' perspectives. Prospective adoptive parents should be thoroughly advised of these differences long before any adoption is finalized. Sometimes that might involve going outside of the adults' comfort level for the benefit of the child. AP's who are not prepared or willing to acknowledge and accommodate the adoptee's other family, perhaps may not be the best-suited candidates for adoptive parenthood. Perhaps those who insist upon exclusivity should consider getting a puppy instead.

K
Mchenry, IL

Actually child abductions are about parents and grandparents stealing child away from the other parent. Or a stranger.

Is a child confused about a step parent? Open adoption doesn't mean custody.

You are not going to get legal uncoerced placements with consent from both the bio dad and bio mom without openness. Why should a child lose all contact with their bio parent? Second cousin twice removed can have contact with their child but they can't? Really? When you treat bio family like evil people that are dangerous what are you saying to the child? It is no worse than bad talking the other parent in a divorce situation. They take it as a reflection on themselves. You should not be adopting.

Exactly what problems did this lawyer's nephew go through seeing him birth mom? Adoptees by an large wish they had this or are glad they have this. In fact in most open adoptions the children want more contact than their bio parents are available for.

Adoption isn't surrender. Bio parents don't give up. They place their child. They place trusting the openness will be honored. Its the AP going back and changing things.

FauxClaud
Kingston, NY

Yes! Open adoption agreements should be legally enforceable! Anyone who is saying the post adoption contact between the relinquishing families and the adoptive families is not a good idea is clearly ignorant of real adoption issues.

Many women who "choose" adoption do so based on the pretense that they will have continued contact with their child. In fact, the adoption industry has conducted market research on this and modified adoption starting in the early 1980's to be more open for this very reason. When the rates of relinquishment went down, the industry found out why.. mothers WANT to know what happens to their babies. Open adoptions are Promised to mothers and in return they relinquish.

I know 100's of mothers who were promised contact with their babies and would not have relinquished if they knew they were getting closed adoptions. This is bait and switch.It is false advertising on behalf of the agencies and adoptive parents and is beyond cruel.

Romany
MIAMI, FL

According to the professionals, open adoption is usually in the best interests of adopted children. It is not co-parenting. If you don't want an open adoption - don't promise one just to get "a child of your own". The only thing this proposed law will do is make you keep your word.

Many prospective adopters don't like having to compete with other prospective adopters, undergo intrusive home studies, pay exorbitant fees, endure follow up visits or answer the inevitable questions from their adopted child. Don't like it? Nobody owes you a child. Nobody is forcing you to adopt.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments