According to the Adoption Network, about 60-70% of domestic adoptions are open, meaning that there is some level of openness and acknowledgment of information between the adoptive and birth parents about the adopted child. However, while people believe that adopted children should be able to contact their birth parents, there is compelling evidence that suggests quite the opposite. In open adoptions, some states in the USA allow birth information to be conveniently accessible to the adopted child and adoptive family, but I believe that adopted children under the age of 18 should not be able to contact their birth parents under any circumstances. The key reasons are that it can detrimentally affect the adopted child’s development, can cause confusion and uncertainty in the adoptee, can force face-to-face contact that further stops the child from settling into their new family, undermines an adoptive parent’s sense of entitlement and ability to properly take care of the adopted child, causes racial and social differences that contribute to an unwelcoming environment for the child, puts the birth family in danger, and causes added negative repercussions to not only the adopted child but also for the people involved in contact arrangements if it is pursued.
Firstly, one reason that contact between an adopted child and their birth parents should be prohibited is that a child’s development is incredibly important, and contact can be a negative factor. Therefore, the development of an adopted child specifically is of significant concern to both adoptive parents and practitioners in social work and law. According to one study said in fosteringandadoption.rip.org, half of the children between the ages of 11 and 17 experienced contact that was ‘poor’ and saw birth relatives who were neglectful and undependable. This made it hard for the adopted children to cope with those frustrating experiences and the emotional impact they had on them. According to a scholarly journal ‘Post Adoption Contact and Openness in Adoptive Parent’s Minds: Consequences for Children’s Development’, senior lecturer in social work, Elsbeth Neil, argues that the relationship between contact and child outcomes also requires the consideration of two important factors: pre-adoption risk and post-placement risk. Pre-adoption risk typically includes the child’s genetic heritage, neglect, and pre-birth risk factors like drug and alcohol abuse, while post-placement risk includes family structure/size and educational opportunities. These factors are most likely to affect a child’s developmental pathway and how they respond to different situations in childhood and later in adulthood. Additionally, a published study in 1973 found a direct correlation between search and low self-esteem in 70 adults who were searching for their birth parents. Self-esteem is a very crucial part of a child’s development, powerfully influencing their attitude and their ability to learn and grow up to be creative and positive thinkers. However, low self-esteem in an adoptee not only causes a lack of confidence but makes them more self-critical and harsher on themselves. To further prove her points, Neil refers to developmental psychology professor, Jesus Palacios. Palacios states that “an adopted child’s development is affected by many interrelated biological and environmental factors, and an ecological perspective is warranted” (Palacios, 2006).
Secondly, contact between an adopted child and birth parents can cause confusion and considerable uncertainty in an adoptee. While open adoptions make up around 60-70% of all adoptions, the biggest risk is that openness and closeness because of contact with biological parents invade the relationship between the adoptee and their adoptive parents. Marianne Berry, a distinguished scholar of national and international standing in child welfare and associate professor of social work at UT Arlington, argues in her scholarly journal published by Princeton University, ‘Risks and Benefits of Open Adoption. The Future of Children’, that contact in open adoptions interferes with the bonding process between the adoptive parents and the adopted child. The concept of bonding is very crucial concerning adoption and produces many benefits, such as helping nurture human trust, which eventually carries through future generations to come. However, interfering with that necessary bonding between the adoptee and their adoptive family not only destroys trust and openness but also poses added concerns to the birth family. These concerns include confusion, personal boundary/safety issues, and unrealistic expectations. As an undesirable result, this also further interferes with the adopted child’s healthy development and emotional adjustment. Berry states: “Adoptees in confidential adoptions wrestle with the fantasy of ‘ghost’ parents, but shared information or direct contact with these parents may exacerbate rather than eliminate these fantasies” (Berry, 129). In her scholarly journal, Berry also mentions that in a few court cases discussing visitation between adopted children and their birth parents, courts have usually assumed that visiting and pursuing contact would confuse the child and result in harm rather than good. This proves that contact with the birth parents is more detrimental than beneficial to the adopted child and can cause confusion about loyalties to either the adoptive or birth parents.
In addition, contact between an adopted child and birth parents can force face-to-face contact that can hinder the adopted child from settling into their new family. Comparisons of various types of openness, like structural and communicative openness, do not support a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Therefore, the problematic method of contacting birth parents in person not only stops the adoptee from settling into their new adoptive family but can also affect the people around them. Going back to Elsbeth Neil, she appropriately refers to David Brodzinsky, a clinical and developmental psychologist of over 30 years, who argues that communicative openness is more beneficial than structural openness. Communicative openness relates to the attitude and behavior of the adoptive parents and how they can tackle different adoption-related issues in family life. Brodzinsky suggests that “regardless of whether a child grows up in a traditionally closed or open adoption arrangement, what is primary for healthy psychological adjustment is the creation of an open, honest, and emotionally attuned family dialogue, not only about adoption-related issues but in fact about any issue that impacts on the child’s and family’s life” (Brodzinsky, 2005, p.151). Therefore, just by having a more holistic and non-defensive approach towards adoption-related issues, can foster a more stimulating environment for the adoptee to thrive within their new family. To further prove her points, Neil quotes a psychology professor at Bethel University, Gretchen Wrobel. Wrobel states: “Children's needs and feelings change as they grow, and this can prompt changes in communication patterns within adoptive families” (Wrobel et al., 2003)
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Moreover, contact between an adopted child and birth parents undermines the adoptive parents' sense of entitlement and ability to properly take care of the child. If contact is made, adoptive parents may feel cheated or taken advantage of if the adoptive child tries reuniting with their birth parents. According to an essay written on lawteacher.net, a well-known and reliable website, the author argues that adoptive parents may have invested heavily to support the child’s welfare, which requires a great deal of dedication and is something to be taken seriously. Taking care of an adopted child can also involve many necessary sacrifices by the adoptive family, such as financial matters, social life, and time devotion. However, if the child wants to eagerly pursue contact with their birth family, it can be unfair to the adoptive family. The author of this essay, an unnamed law student, also states: “Contact between the child and birth family can be harmful to the adoptive parents, since biological parents can benefit from them, especially on financial matters” (lawteacher.net, pr. 8). When talking about finances and adoption, the cost is not a predetermined amount. When comparing costs, financing adoption is like financing home improvement projects, in the sense that it always costs more than your budget. Therefore, cutting out extraneous expenses like vacationing and adding in an adoptee’s essential costs like their necessities and schooling are only a few of the sacrifices that adoptive parents have taken upon themselves and away from the birth family.
As mentioned in earlier paragraphs, contact should not only be prohibited domestically but also in intercountry adoptions. While adopting transnationally specifically is influenced by one’s unique racial and social geography, it can equally contribute to an unwelcoming environment for the adoptee, and pursuing contact can be unsafe for the birth family as well. Indigo Willing, a lecturer and adjunct research fellow, and Patricia Fronek, a doctoral researcher and educator with thirty years of experience in social work, argue in their scholarly journal ‘Constructing Identities and Issues of Race in Transnational Adoption: The Experiences of Adoptive Parents’ that transnational adoptive parenting challenges social norms connected with identity, family, and belonging. This requires the adoptive parents to carefully discuss cultural issues concerning differences and diversity with members of their family. According to the 2005 Commonwealth inquiry, “transnationally adopted children were frequently identified by parents as having no culture prior to their adoptions, and adoptive parents were praised as possessing heroic attributes” (Willing and Fronek, 1132). An example would be an adoptee being perceived as white by their adoptive families due to their adoption by white parents, inadvertently causing an identity crisis within the adopted child. As a result, an adopted child may start feeling forced to live according to their adoptive parents and be unable to completely embrace their roots. Therefore, when a child is taken in by an adoptive family, it is fundamentally important that the adoptee has a strong sense of their cultural identity, so they grow up to be healthy, happy, and functional adults who feel accepted in society. Additionally, the lives and safety of international birth families are also put at risk if contact is pursued, because of the possible reasons that pregnancy in their culture is surrounded by negative stigma or that the idea of ‘adoption’ in their country severs the relationship between the birth parents and the children, which is common in many cultures.
And lastly, contact between an adopted child and birth parents can cause added negative repercussions to not only the adoptee but also the adoptive parents and social workers if contact is pursued, so it should be prohibited. While the needs and feelings of the child should be a priority when making decisions involving contact, it is also equally important to carefully consider the consequences for others if involved in contact arrangements. Published authors Janette Logan and Carole Smith, senior lecturers in the Department of Social Science at the University of Manchester, argue in their research paper ‘Face to Face Contact Post Adoption: Views from the Triangles’ that “outwardly similar contacts are likely to have mixed effects, partly because of their different social and emotional impact on those involved and because of the manner in which they change over time” (Logan and Smith, 10). Also, according to a funded study by the Nuffield Foundation that took place between 1997 and 1999, “adoptive parents or social workers did not want to approach relatives, mainly because the situation was difficult, and they didn’t want to risk ‘risking the boat’” (Logan and Smith, 12). While the adoptive parents and social workers did not want to approach the birth family because the situation was complicated, the adoptive families could also have suppressed resentment towards the birth parents. If the adopted child was previously harmed or mistreated by the birth parents, the adoptive family will not want to be associated with them. More evidence from Grotevant et al. (1999) showed that there were also incongruent feelings and beliefs between the adults in contact, which in turn created tension and problems for the adopted child. Therefore, a serious consequence of contact between the adoptive and birth parents is that it will worsen the adopted child’s feelings of grief and loss, making dealing with attachment more difficult. To further prove these points, Ph.D. social scientist Christine Jones and deputy head of faculty at Durham University Simon Hackett state in their scholarly journal ‘Redefining Family Relationships Following Adoption: Adoptive Parents' Perspectives on the Changing Nature of Kinship between Adoptees and Birth Relatives’: “Adopters also frequently characterized relationships between adoptees and birth relatives following adoption as fragile” (Jones and Hackett, 289).
Summing up, it may be concluded that personal contact between the adoptive family and birth parents does more harm than good to the adoptive child: developmentally, emotionally, physically, and psychologically. While contact may seem ideal in the short term, like finding out more information about their birth families, it can be proven that pursuing contact can have lasting negative effects on the adoptive child and the people around them, making it exceedingly difficult to deal with in the long term. Therefore, by prohibiting contact altogether, it is ensured that an adopted child under the age of 18 can live comfortably without the possibility of developing negative relationships, safety, and attachment issues with their birth family.
Stuck on your essay?
