Back to Basics

The recent announcement of the Evan B. Donaldson Institute study on first parent rights has triggered a considerable amount of debate on this issue around the internet. I say debate deliberately – much of it has been angry, attacking, and frankly disturbing.

The negative reactions to the study's recommendations that I've read, and they far outweigh the positive, suggest, among other things, that closed adoption is best for children, and that adoptive parents have a financial stake in the outcome of open adoption. What I found particularly dangerous about the opinions voiced is that they were based in individual personal experiences. Drawing on experiences with failed reunions and challenging open adoption situations, adoptive parents and adoptees offered their pronouncements on appropriate adoption policy. And they were decidedly unwelcoming toward first mothers.

We're all products of our personal experiences. Every one of us interested in the future of adoption practice in this country and around the world comes to the dialog with a particular point of view. That point of view is shaded by our personality, our political and religious and social views, our preferences, and our experiences with adoption.

If we're sharing our opinions in an open forum, this is as it should be. But adoption law and policy shouldn't be based on the opinions of individuals – it should be based in justice and a desire to protect human rights. Instead, it seems to be a jumble of archaic and judgmental policies veneered as social service, designed "in the best interests of the child" to "let the mother get on with her life."

Imagine this, if you will. A woman, mother to an infant child. You know nothing about her – her age, financial situation, marital status, nothing. All you know is that she's struggling. You worry about her, you want to help. If you do, it's likely you offer financial assistance of some kind, perhaps hands-on support, or food.

Now add a piece of information to the picture: the woman is under 20. Now you may question why she has a child and is in such dire straights at such a young age, but you see how clearly she loves her little one, so you extend your hand. You offer help.

One more detail: the woman is also unmarried. Does your offer of assistance still stand? Or does your mind wander to adoption – she's so young and has no husband. Her baby would be better off with a couple, a stable family with great financial possibilities. She has her whole life ahead of her.

We need to remember: a woman's whole life may already be in her arms when she gives birth.

Yes, I'm looking at this simplistically. But we need to bring the discussion of adoption policy back to the most basic level – back to a discussion of a woman's human rights. Too many of our adoption laws are based in archaic perceptions of a woman's fitness to mother. They single out the unmarried mother as one to be judged, justifying the removal of her rights and rationalizing the lies that may be told to her by those who want her child. And unless her behavior is deemed perfect in the eyes of those who adopt her child, she can be cut out of the adoption relationship with little if any recourse.

In spite of the ugly opinions I've seen the past couple of days, I believe that change is possible. I hope the Donaldson study encourages positive discussion, discussion that leads to action, action that leads to change.