Often when considering open adoption, adoptive families are told that shared parenting is a myth and is not ever a good thing.
I believe differently. I DO believe that in most situations where shared parenting would be ideal for the child, the adoption probably shouldn’t have happened to begin with.
However how often have we seen it that a mom who is college bound and gentle and loving and without drug or alcohol problems winds up placing for whatever reason?
In many cases the first parents may not be interested in shared parenting, however if they are, why not?
Why is the first family considered to be “needed” and simultaneously “not needed”?
What exactly is the open adoption supposed to provide if not an acknowledgment that the adoptee has two families and needs all of them equally? How can the first mother to be considered an “equal” parent if she is clearly not allowed to be there for the child in the same way as the adoptive mother?
Why would a first mom not receive the same level of visitation as any other non-custodial parent?
Related posts:
- Does anti-openness peer pressure have an impact on how open an adoptive parent is willing to be?
- My son would like to get to know me. However, the custodial parents are against the idea. What should I do?
- Can I decide first family titles as the adoptive parent?
- Why do people think first mom is always best?
- How do I decline a first parent's requests?
Well, it’s an interesting idea but I don’t know how realistic it is for most families NOW, post-adoption. It may be some adoptions grow into something like this and it may be that some expectant mothers might want to try to find that kind of situation from the get-go but honestly, I think it’s beyond the scope of a lot of families. I know it’s beyond the scope of my family for lots of reasons that are way too complicated to get into here but mostly have to do with growing into our open adoption, which continues to be an ongoing process. I don’t think we’re ready (that I’m ready) to run all the parenting decisions by my husband and Madison’s first mom. I welcome her input but like we homeschool. I’d listen if Pennie had issues with our homeschooling but if she were adamantly against it, I wouldn’t go along with that because in our day-to-day family, homeschooling is what’s working. YKWIM?
When I think about coparenting in our open adoption, it seems impossible. I don’t want to suggest that it would be impossible for everyone, but in our case—four stable adults who respect each other and love the child they have in common—it would never work. We established before the adoption that we have some important things in common: we’re all liberals, we value diversity, we abhor spanking, and so on. But there are infinite issues beyond those on which we disagree: they put Cricket into preschool as soon as he could walk, while we’re planning to keep our kid out of preschool entirely; they had a plan for his introduction to solid foods that is very different from what we have in mind for our raised kid/s; we have very different taste in children’s clothes, and books, and so many other things; we’re going to raise our kid/s Catholic, whereas they are Jewish, and Cricket is Jewish. If they ran parenting decisions past us, we would either struggle for a long time and be unable to come to a consensus or (more likely) I would feel the pressure to rubber-stamp everything so as to avoid conflict. It might make our adoptive relationships worse.
I pretty much agree with everything Susie said. While I chose my daughter’s parents for similarities in thought and theory, the theories of parenting change during the practice. They learned that first, and I followed behind with my own changes in theory.
It also gets out of whack when you realize that adoptive families have all of the legal rights. Kind of makes it hard to voice a co-parenting decision.
More over, adoptive parents are also humans. Should they really have “ran it by me” before they divorced? That’s silly. In order to have been a part of that decision, I would have had to have known about the under-lying issues of their marriage. I’m not sure that would have been healthy for any party.
I agree that many adoptions in which co-parenting seems to be a valid theory should not have happened. However, the complications that such an issue would bring up make it a less than ideal theory.
To answer just one question:
“Why would a first mom not receive the same level of visitation as any other non-custodial parent?”
Because the birth family terminates their rights, or has their rights terminated. A non-custodial parent is legally still a parent.
I’m not sure that I see why shared parenting has to include every decision being run by the first parents? Shared parenting can mean varying things to varying families. It could mean the child spends the night twice a month with the first parents, it could mean the child lives down the street from their first parents and gets to spend evening with them a few nights a week.
I don’t see that as requiring a change of legal standing, or requiring adoptive parents to run every parenting decision by the first parents.
I see that as simply allowing the adoptees natrual relationship with their other parents to flourish the natural sense a parent child relationship can flourish.
I think adoptive parents tend to feel like they can allow the amount of visits that is just under that which would allow the child and first parent to have a real parent/child relationship. And I’m just saying, why not let it happen?
The original poster (not sure if that was you ‘cuz they come in anonymously but am assuming it is?) used the term “non-custodial parent” and usually (at least in my experience) the non-custodial parent is still parenting i.e., certain decisions are part of their province.
I guess I feel like this is another case where labels can kind of muddy the waters. I can off-hand think of several open adoptions that grew into this kind of scenario. So sure, why not? If it’s working for everyone, why not? But I do think that this level of openness for MOST (not all — who can say what’s right for everyone?) adoptions is something that happens organically and carefully.
You said: “I think adoptive parents tend to feel like they can allow the amount of visits that is just under that which would allow the child and first parent to have a real parent/child relationship.”
I think it really depends on the adoption and on the parents (both sets). In many of the most open adoptions I know of personally, there’s not this kind of structured thinking. It’s more what do people want? And how can we help them get it?
I would agree completely that shared parenting would be something that would grow over time with the first and adoptive families become closer and building trust, having conversations about parenting values, spending time together as a family… (first and adoptive families together) and growing in being there for the child.
It would also be something that would grow with the childs desire for more time with their first parents, in such a situation where the first parents were loving consistent caregivers.
I want to present another situation: A woman who is 18 years old, failed highschool, has learning disabilities and obstacles to holding down a job, and just escaped from an abusive home is offered a contract to work in the adult film industry. She signs and tries it once and finds that destroys her inside and she wants out.
Legally, she is required to finish the length of the contract. Is it ethical to uphold the contract? There are many ex-sex workers who have described this exact scenario to me personally. The law upholds the contract and they wind up being raped for a year with no legal recourse against it.
Is it right because it’s the law? What ethical responsibility to people have to do the RIGHT thing, even it’s not what the law GRANTS THEM POWER TO DO?
Rox, this sounds like a great topic to discuss on an adoption reform site or blog but I don’t think it contributes in any way shape or form to families/individuals struggilng to create openness. In fact, I think comparing adoption to the adult film industry is a great way to turn people off of this site, which really doesn’t do a damn thing for supporting openness. You are welcome to bring this kind of discussion to the comments on my personal blog but please don’t bring them here — they are as potentially offensive to adoptive parents as Melissa (the person I recently banned) was to first parents and it has no place here.
Reading your post I was reminded of a conversation that was started by my sons first father while I was still pregnant during one of our counselling sessions with our social worker.
At the time, he brought up most of what you say, only applying to myself and him of course.
I know his motivation at the time was accountablity. I mean, many people can make promises of being able to be ‘good parents’ but without experience, how do they really know that they will be?
My sons first father believed co-parenting would ensure that our son really did get everything that he wanted for him. Of course our social worker talked to him about the difficulty of co-parenting and how unlikely it would be that an adoptive couple would agree to do that.
Personally, I placed because I just didn’t feel that the role of ‘mom’ would be something that I could ever be able to do, at least not at the time of my pregnancy, considering the lack of personal resources. The thought of co-parenting was part of my hope for open adoption though.
I didn’t think of it as ‘co-parenting’ but now that I think about it, that’s what I was imagining.
I know now that being that involved is not something that my son parents will ever agree to.
In many ways, I am glad that they make all the decisions because they are the ones who spend the most time with my son, they would know what he needs, or most of what he needs.
I think in open adoption, the point of it is that adoptive parents cannot be *everything* that a child needs. Some needs, like the need for a biological connection(someone who looks, talks, is like them, etc) and for the source of the story of their beginnings. Also the chance for the adopted child to really *know* the family of his/her orgin. I guess in ‘knowing’ parenting could in theory take place, but really no more than an aunt or cousin or family friend ‘parents’ children from time to time, even in non-adoptive families!
Yes an adoptive parent could tell the child about it all, physical appearence and all. Really though, coming from the source has the benefit of being indisputable, for the most part.
Also, keeping first families including, in whatever way that life allows, is being *humane* in my opinion. Whether or not the first family has social problems such as drugs, alcohol, abuse, etc..
You know, personally I think that the cases where the first mom is suffering from the afore mentioned issues are the rarity, the exception. I think the rule of thumb is a women, who is not ready to raise her child because of lack of money and social support, not because of any substance abuse or personal abuse. Although I know there are such cases and the people involved in those cases are very very out-spoken about them.
“I think in open adoption, the point of it is that adoptive parents cannot be *everything* that a child needs. Some needs, like the need for a biological connection(someone who looks, talks, is like them, etc) and for the source of the story of their beginnings. ”
Are you saying that adoptive parents cannot raise their children to be happy, healthy, confident and whole individuals without the contact of the biological family? That every human NEEDS a biological connection to be whole?
Can you honestly imagine yourself not having a connection, a reason as to why you are the way you are in everyway? I know I can’t.
Also, I didn’t say anything about someone being ‘whole’ or not…
I think you misunderstood me. What I really meant is that adoptive parents are only human, and are not physically related to the children they raise. No matter how loving they can be to a child, they can’t personally provide that connection to their orgins like the first parents can.
I am a person that believes it really does take a ‘village’ to raise a person.
A parent, adoptive or not, cannot be *everything* to a child.
Neither can a first parent really, but I believe it helps to keep that connection.
Personally I don’t think of existance as being either ‘whole’ or ‘un-whole’ or whatever. I think of it as getting to know yourself more and more and being able to *be* yourself. I personally don’t think I could *be* myself without knowing my heritage like I do. It means alot to me, and I think it would mean alot to many adopted persons who really just want to know the ‘why’ of everything they are.
Not that they can’t be happy and successful and all that, it’s not about that.
In my mind it’s just a basic human need to know your hertiage in the best ways available, whatever way that is.
To the original poster – I think that every situation is different and what works for some people may or may not work for others. I’m really sorry if I offend anybody here, just putting in a different perspective. I have to wonder …. if you’re that interested in parenting, why relinquish the child? Because if lack of desire to parent at this time wasn’t at least part of the decision (ie: the desire to go to college instead of parenting at this time etc ..), than I’m imagining it has a lot to do with money – financially supporting the child, providing a home, food, opportunity for extra-curricular activities etc… So that would seem that you want to go to all the hockey games but not buy the equipment? Because that’s not really very nice. The birthfamilies of my 2nd child have this attitude and it very much makes me feel like nothing more than a paycheck and a babysitter, which is downright offensive. They want all the good times and none of the burdens. Not that making decisions isn’t difficult, but to say you want to to do so without committing to everything else that is involved in ‘parenting’ .. well, I’m not trying to offend anybody here but I don’t think that’s very fair to the adoptive family. I believe that if that’s the situation that you want, for someone else to take on the financial responsibilities, burdens etc but still allow you equal say as a parent, then that’s something you’re parents/family should have helped you with. I’m not sure I see it as fair for you to ask that of a stranger. If you’re own parents wouldn’t do this for you, why would a stranger? (which is what we are to eachother in the beginning) If it grows to a co-parenting situation, that’s one thing. But to think it should be that way from the beginning, I think that’s not fair to expect.
It’s interesting that you assume this was written by a first parent—I realize that I assumed it was written by an adoptive parent. That said, I think it’s unfortunate that you go into from the mindset that the first parents don’t deserve this/haven’t earned it. I’m sorry if your experiences have left you feeling diminished by your kids’ first parents, and I am a bit offended by your “pay to play” parenting model.
I thought it was an adoptive parent too!! Also, I love what you wrote here:)
I interpreted it as written by an adoptive parent also.
Ha! It’s like a rorshack (sp?) test! The posts come in anonymously — I have no idea who wrote it. After Rox posted, i thought she wrote it but really I have no idea.
It is a reminder of how emails, posts and responses can be misinterpreted so easy. We are creating the tone and atmosphere in our own heads. I may read something as being so rude–when maybe they didn’t read it all. Especially when someone doesn’t hold the same opinions and ideas as me.
I think you misintrepreting the idea here.
I think what the orginal poster is getting at is that co-parenting could benefit the *child*. I think that both first parents being involved could ensure the best possible outcome for the childs well-being.
As well…I just have to say Jayne …. that just because someone *wants* to parent does not mean that it’s the best situation for the child. Lack of ‘desire’ to do something is rarely the reason a person doesn’t do it.
I know, personally, I placed because of financial concerns, and I *did* see adoption as a way to provide everything I could not, not that I wouldn’t of if I could, I just couldn’t. Does that mean that I should be excluded from the joys that my son has because he has adoptive parents that provide things I can’t? I guess you think so…
Also, I want to say though, that just because a parent has money to fund extra-curricular activites and even the regular everyday stuff, does NOT mean that they deserve to parent more than a parent who struggles financially. As well, I do see my son’s adoptive parents as just his PARENTS.
No I did not want to relinquish my daughter at all. In my situation, no adoption should have happened at all. I would be happy to take her back and do all the work. Just to say, I bet your child’s first parents would love to do all the work. It’s possible if you could pick some things that are difficult for you, you could ask the first parents to help out?
I think the perception that first parents don’t want to do the work is sometimes correct and sometimes radically incorrect. Possibly, if the first parents are really wanting to engage in a level of visitation that would be fitting for a custodial parent, you could also ask for some financial assistance from them?
I would give anything to have those years back and do it myself. Unfortunately, I don’t have a time machine. (Crap!)
Raising my son of nearly three years, I can safely say, the work is part of the joy. There is no booger not worth wiping, no screaming nights of no sleep not worth staying up for, no unhappy tantrums not worth soothing…
The work is part of the joy. My daughter would be welcome to live with me and I would be more delighted than words could say to do 100% of the work. I would have been delighted beyond words to have done so from the beginning.
Unfortunately adoption counselors often present adoption in a light that makes women who want to parent feel that they adoption is the only way for their child to have a good life. If agencies would stop encouraging women who want to parent to believe they aren’t good enough, then I think it would be much better for adoptive parents as well. No one wants to be a participant in something unethical!
As someone currently pregnant and thinking about “the work” of parenting a child at this time in my life, I can definitely firmly say I don’t want it. Sure, financial concerns are part of it, but certainly not the be-all and end-all; if I wanted to badly enough, I would make it work. I’m just not ready to be a parent, I’m not ready to sacrifice my life and selfish personal goals to turn all my attention to the baby, something I believe parents should do: baby comes first. So adoption is obvious for me. OPEN adoption is not about me, though, or the adoptive parents; benefits to us are a happy coincidence. Open adoption is about the baby. It is best for kids to know where they came from to have some sort of relationship with those origins; the evidence for that is mounting every day. It doesn’t matter if it feels unfair to the adoptive parents other these people get to reap the benefits without doing “the work” the aparents do. It doesn’t matter if it hurts the first parents that other people get to reap the benefits without doing “the work” the first parents do (which you didn’t – you may wipe boogers and clean up messes, but you didn’t carry that baby, you didn’t give birth to it, and you didn’t go through the pain of signing it away). None of that matters – only the health of the baby matters, of the child raised by one and brought into the world by another.
That’s what co-parenting means to me: everybody pitches in, it takes a village, etc. to the extent that works for them and the relationship between the first and adoptive parents. But EVERYONE pitches in, EVERYONE gets to and has to be there, on board, full tilt. For the baby. They’re our future, ya know.
I couldn’t agree more with you.