Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Abstract
The present paper focuses on open adoption as a widely debated social practice, discusses the positive and negative issues connected with open adoption, reflects upon the data and findings of current research on open adoption, and shows that the perspectives of open adoption are attractive and vital to society at the present stage of its development.
Introduction
One of the key social cells in the family. Obviously enough, a healthy family institute constitutes a success factor for the whole society; therefore, the welfare of the family is in the focus of social attention. The natural purpose of family is bearing and raising children; in its turn, this objective may give rise to two problems: inability to bear children on the one hand, or early and unwanted pregnancy on the other hand. In an attempt to balance those two issues, society has arrived at the idea of adoption that allows supplying childless couples with babies to raise and relieving the mother-against-her-will from the problems entailed by the necessity to bring up an unwanted child.
The practice of adoption has undergone major changes in the course of the historical development of society. Initially aimed at protecting the illegitimate children and the unmarried mothers from social stigmas and ostracism by non-disclosure of personal information between the biological and the adoptive parents, adoption has been gradually losing its confidential character since the early 1970s, allowing for more contact between the biological and adoptive families and the adopted children.
Such reinterpretation of the adoptive relations is caused by a whole range of psychological considerations and reflects a new way of perceiving adoption by society. For the author of the present paper, the topic of open adoption is especially vital, since there is a hands-on experience within the family of open adoption practice: the author’s daughter put her son up for open adoption when she was eighteen years old, and that decision has turned out to be beneficial both for the child, and the mother. Not only is she still actively involved in her son’s life, but she can also further her own course of existence without being burdened by the consequences of her early pregnancy.
Thus, the topic is personally relevant to the author, the present paper aims to focus on open adoption as such, discuss the positive and negative issues connected with open adoption, reflect upon the data and findings of current research on open adoption, and show that the perspectives of open adoption are attractive and vital to society at the present stage of its development.
Statement of the problem
Until the mid-1950s, adoption practices rarely went as far as to provide any personal information about birth parents to adoptive parents and vice versa. Adoption was viewed as a strictly confidential process aimed at protecting the children born out of wedlock, as well as their unwed mothers from social bias, on the one hand, and at saving the infertile married couples from the pains of childlessness on the other hand.
However, with the rise of the human rights movement (especially due to the efforts of women rights protectors), society has arrived at the idea of sharing more information between the birth and adoptive families. Increased level of tolerance towards gay/lesbian couples, single parents and infertile couples, the legitimization of abortions, and normalization of premarital sexual relationships have increased the social awareness about the ever-increasing demand for adopted children (Siegel 2006). Therefore, a necessity was perceived to allow the birth parents to consciously and deliberately choose the adoptive family that would bring up their child.
But since then, an ongoing debate has been splitting society into two opposing groups: the ones supporting the confidentiality of closed adoption, and the others confronting such self-contained practice that deprives adopted children and both of their families from the key information and contact that can benefit the process of child upbringing. It is the aim of the present paper to review the main findings of the available research literature on the issue of open adoption and to show that the benefits of this form of adoption should not be overlooked.
Literature review
Triggered by the ongoing social confrontation of different points of view on the more acceptable form of adoption, a whole corps of research has been conducted in recent decades. Psychologists have been trying to find out what exactly open adoption means, whether the benefits of open adoption are really that significant to adopted children and birth- and adoptive parents, whether social attitudes are changing towards the issue of open adoption, and whether open adoption is the advisable way to go in modern, adaptive practices.
One of the leading specialists in open adoption research, Deborah Siegel, together with Frederick Riemer (2006), strives to define open adoption and faces a whole variety of the term understanding depending on the ethical implications connected to the issue. The researchers themselves assert that open adoption takes place under the conditions that various forms of contact are maintained between at least one of the birth-parents and the adoptive family, that the parties have shared a certain amount of personal information, and that the adopted child is informed about the contact between the two families (Riemer & Siegel, 2006). However, these conditions are more than infrequently ignored by other researchers, and the view on the essence of open adoption varies greatly:
“… some maintain that adoption is open even if the criteria listed earlier are not met, but the possibility of contact exists. Others assert that for an adoption to be called open, the adopted child must participate in the contact. Yet others consider an adoption open if an adoptive parent has had contact with a birth-family member, though the child has no knowledge of this or is not allowed to participate in the contact. Still, others believe that adoption is open even when only first names are used, and letters are exchanged anonymously through an intermediary such as an agency or attorney.” (Riemer & Siegel, 2006, pp. 11–12)
Such a variety of perceptions reflects the complexity of views on open adoption in the society itself and suggests that it may be possible to apply the term open adoption to any adoptive relationship where at least some personal information is shared by at least two of the parties involved.
Together with the multiple views on the criteria of open adoption, Riemer and Siegel (2006) report a controversy concerning the goals and purposes of open adoption practices. The disagreement emerges on the basis of importance placed on the different parties taking part in adoption. Thus, for example, those who defend the birth-family rights emphasize the necessity for not condemning but respecting the courage of people who give their children away and for reckoning with the ultimate biological connection existing between birth parents and their child irrespective of latter’s upbringing circumstances.
Others emphasize the benefits of open adoption practices for the adoptive families: while the confidentiality of closed adoption puts up walls of estrangement and reticence within such families, freedom of information can promote trust and emotional support necessary for the successful functioning of any family, including adoptive one. The majority, however, insists on the rights of the adopted child and claims that being conscious of one’s genealogic, medical, and social background provides a positive stimulus to one’s life even if that background is far from positive. (Riemer & Siegel, 2006)
Following the debate on the benefits of open adoption, Ge et al. (2008) outline the pros and cons voiced by contemporary researchers of the issue:
“Opponents of open adoption maintain that continued contact between the adopted child and birth parents impedes the attachment and bonding between adoptive parents and their adopted child. […] Open adoption also was assumed to interfere with the grieving process that is essential for the mental health of the birth mother by not allowing her to experience a finality of the separation and a full mourning experience to gain perspective eventually. […] Proponents of open adoption … suggest that adoptive parents in open adoption benefit significantly from information about birth parents through ongoing contact with them. […] Open adoption also helps to mitigate birth mothers’ feelings of pain and loss, resulting in less destructive behavior and greater emotional well-being.” (Ge et al., 2008, pp. 530–531)
In their attempt to resolve the debatable issue by conducting a study, the researchers remark on certain methodological difficulties faced by their colleagues (Ge et al., 2008). Firstly, a sufficient study sample was difficult to obtain since families taking part in adoption generally tend to lead a secluded and less sociable life, limiting their contacts and not sharing too much information on the adoption issues. Secondly, assessment of the openness level in adoption was conducted on the basis of one openness criterion only.
Lastly, the studies assessed the level of adoption openness on different stages of adoption, which naturally could not provide objective results since the effect of openness on both families varies with the course of time. In order to make their research more efficient, Ge et al. (2008) strove to terminate the aforementioned hindrances and conducted their study among 323 matched parties of birth- and adoptive families at a fixed time period, nine months after the child placement. The sample embraced various geographic regions, as well as included a unique feature — the birth fathers. Interviews were held with both families, and each participant independently completed a set of computerized questionnaires.
For the purpose of obtaining more objective data concerning the level of openness in adoption, it was measured according to the subscales of perceived openness, contact, and knowledge, which were later “combined to create an aggregated openness measure for each informant (i.e., adoptive fathers, adoptive mothers, birth mothers, and birth fathers)” (Ge et al., 2008., pp. 532–533). The obtained data were then analyzed in terms of the correlation between the openness in adoption and the post-placement adjustment of birth- and adoptive parents.
Developing the issue of open adoption effects on birth- and adoptive families, Demick and Wapner hypothesized that different forms of adoption shape according to different organizational structures. When the adopted child is ignorant of his/her origins, the adoptive family atmosphere varies from differentiated and isolated to conflict. On the contrary, when the adoptee is less separated from his/her biological parents, the atmosphere is integrated (Damick, 2003). This theory was tested in a series of studies and has yielded significant results to be discussed in the next section of the present paper.
In addition to the effects open adoption has on families directly involved in the process, researchers have studied the development in perception of open adoption among the general public. Canadian sociologists Miall and March (2005) conducted an unprecedented in-depth survey where respondents from all over the country were interviewed for their opinion on the issues of adoption.
The survey was held in two phases: first, a selected range of 82 individuals in two Ontario cities was provided with a series of open-end questions on adoption and had the opportunity to expand and explain their answers. Those interviews were held at home, taped, and transcribed. The second stage of the research involved 702 individuals randomly selected across the country using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing methods and presented the participants with a 45-item questionnaire to be completed within 15 minutes. For the convenience of the interviewees, the questionnaire was conducted in both state languages.
Findings
All of the aforementioned studies have contributed significantly to understanding of open adoption, its benefits to both the adoptive and the biological families, and its perception by modern society. Firstly, it has been estimated that open adoption is understood widely depending on the different ethical implications: some researchers apply the term open adoption even to the cases when there are no real contacts between the biological and the adoptive families, but there is a possibility of such contact (Reamer & Siegel, 2007).
Secondly, statistical data has shown that the degree of openness during the adoption process is directly linked to the level of satisfaction with the adoption, and the quality of adjustment during the post-placement period as well depends on the openness of adoption both for the biological and adoptive parents (Ge et al., 2008). Thirdly, the choice of adoption form generally depends on the orientation of the adoptive family: couples led by cultural and political ideas on the family creating opted for open adoption practices, while those who maintained traditional, moral, or religious views would rather choose the closed adoption form (Damick, 2003).
Last but not least, society tends to demonstrate a relatively high level of understanding and approval of open adoption practices at various levels, according to Miall and March (2005) survey: approximately one-third of Canadians strongly approved of card and letter exchange through a mediator after the adoption had taken place; the same amount of interviewees spoke in favor of both families’ meeting before the adoption occurs; over twenty percent of Canadians approved of the families maintaining face-to-face contact after the adoption had been completed. Moreover, nearly eighty percent of interviewees voiced a strong conviction that adopted children should be informed about who their biological parents really are; and the majority of Canadians agreed that confidential information could be released to adult adoptees without permission of their adoptive or birth parents (Miall & March 2005).
Discussion
The abovementioned findings represent a significant basis for solving certain vital issues of open adoption as the family firm of the future. On the one hand, it is obvious that in the framework of different situations, different perceptions of open adoption are applicable: from totally unimpeded contact between the birth and adoptive families to a mere possibility of such contact recorded in the adoption contract specifications. The level of and necessity for openness within the adoption process is decided in each separate case depending on the direction and orientation of families towards certain values and standards, as outlined by Damick (2003).
Nowadays, as a result of multiple human rights movements’ activity, society is demonstrating much higher levels of tolerance towards childless couples, children born out of wedlock, and unwed mothers. The right for information and truth is recognized and promoted within adoptive procedure, and adopted children are generally considered to benefit from knowledge of their background (Miall & March 2005). Not only the children but also both the birth- and the adoptive families have been found to experience the positive consequences of openness in adoption: the mental stability and self-concept of both the adoptive and the biological parents are increased within the atmosphere of openness in adoption (Ge et al., 2008).
The adoptive parents gain more information on the child’s medical and social background, which allows them to adjust the upbringing process better to the child’s needs. The biological parents, by getting to know the adoptive family better, acquire more confidence and assurance that their child receives the proper level of medical and personal care. The sense of ignorance, uncertainty, and obscurity no longer impedes over the three parties of the adoption process — the child and both families — and all of them obtain the chance to adjust their behavior so that the general relationship gains by this openness. Considering that people are urged on adoption under quite adverse circumstances, and that adoption is a painful process, on the whole, the benefits provided by various subforms of an open adoption cannot be overlooked.
Conclusion
Adoption as a social practice is developing and acquiring new forms as social perceptions and values change throughout time. Open adoption, which appeared as a response to society’s demand for humanity and the right to information, has raised a wave of controversy within the general public. The level of openness and the necessity for sharing information are widely debated, and this debate cannot but interest sociologists. The results of the research conducted indicate that open adoption practices are of great benefit both to the child and to the birth- and adoptive families. The quality of adoption and adjustment process increases with the degree of openness in adoption, therefore open adoption is seen as a perspective way to go for childless families and unintentional mothers. Securing a higher level of satisfaction for its participants, open adoption can be regarded as the key to the social wellbeing of millions.
References
Damick, J. (2003). “Roots that clutch”: What adoption and foster care can tell us about adult development. In J. Demick & C. Andreoletti (eds.), Handbook of adult development (pp. 475–491). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.
An adjunct professor of education at Brown University, Jack Demick provides an insight into the psychology of adoption and foster care and reports research findings that reveal direct dependence between the kind of adoption and the values, expectations, and attitudes of the adoptive families.
Ge, X., Natsuaki, M. N., Martin, D., Leve, L., Neiderhiser, J., Shaw, D. S., Villareal, G., Scaramella, L., Reid, J., & Reiss, D. (2008, August). Bridging the divide: Openness in adoption and post-adoption psychosocial adjustment among birth and adoptive parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 529–540.
Conducted by a research team from multiple universities, the study focuses on the dependence between the degree of adoption openness and the birth and adoptive parents’ post-adoption adjustment shortly after the adoption placement. The results show that openness is a significant satisfaction factor during the adoption process and parents’ adjustment both for adoptive and birth parents.
Miall, Ch., & March, K. (2005). Social support for changes in adoption practice: Gay adoption, open adoption, birth reunions and the release of confidential identifying information. Families in Society, 86(1), 83–92.
Conducted by the scientists from Institute for Social Research at York University, this study is the first of the kind to provide information collected from a Canada-wide telephone survey on the general public assessment of adoption as an alternate family form, as well as of the currently undertaken changes in adoption. The key findings of the research are, inter alia, approval of adoption as such, and necessity for preserving the possibility of closed adoption.
Reamer, F. G., &. Siegel, D. H. (2007). Ethical issues in open adoption: Implications for practice. Families in Society, 88(1), 11–18.
Written by two professors of School of Social Work at Rhode Island College, this article discusses the current trends towards open adoption and provides an overview of ethical issues related with open adoption, as well as guidelines for efficient social work in the sphere of open adoption.
Siegel, D. H. (2006). Open adoption and family boundaries. In K. Wegar (Ed.), Adoptive families in a diverse society (pp. 177–189). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.
A renowned specialist on adoption issues, Deborah Siegel provides in-depth information on adoption as such, as well as on the modern trends towards open adoption and the ethical problems society faces as a result of this practice. This allows understanding the challenges faced by traditional family values and perceptions in the United States of America.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.