By Jessica DelBalzo
Americans rarely think to question the practice of adoption, instead assuming that it is an acceptable option for children who cannot be raised by their natural parents for various reasons. Adopting is almost universally seen as a loving act with benevolent intentions, and as of this writing, the United States congress is working to pass a house resolution praising parents who surrender their infants to the adoption industry. The media is saturated with positive (though quite obviously one-sided) stories about celebrity adopters and others who have acquired children internationally, domestically, and through foster care. Finding the time and space in which to question adoption is not on the agenda for the average American.
However, having worked in the family preservation and anti-adoption movements for the whole of my adult life, questioning adoption comes to me as naturally as breathing. After compiling a massive collection of books, research studies, and other evidence illustrating the damage caused to children and families by our billion dollar adoption industry, I have come to the conclusion that adoption is neither an ethical nor a healthy option for children.
Of course, giving mothers and fathers the support they need to raise their own babies is the best course of action. Programs like Canada’s Moms & Mentors and Albany County’s Mentors & Moms, as well as the support services offered by Adoption: Legalized Lies, KeepYourBaby.com, and other similar groups are the ideal when it comes to adoption prevention. These services can help vulnerable parents avoid pressure from the adoption industry, giving them the tools they need to refute mal-informed, coercive “counseling” sessions that portray adoption as the “right” or “loving” route for young, poor, or single parents.
Beyond that, more and better family preservation programs are needed in the realm of child protective services. Countless studies have shown that children fare better with their natural families than they do with others, and family preservation programs have proven to be fiscally responsible as well. Though reunification is still cited as a main goal for children in foster care, government policies seem contrary to this bit of time-honored wisdom. Federal adoption bonuses, time limits on foster placements, and increasingly erroneous reasons for removing children from their parents prove that far too little emphasis has been placed on reunifying families.
Of course, even the best efforts to promote pregnancy prevention and family preservation will never address every single unwanted pregnancy nor every instance of unsafe parenting. That does not mean adoption is a necessary evil; however, it does mean that there will always be some children who need care outside of their families.
Permanent legal guardianship is an existing, ethical alternative to adoption that prevents many of the issues associated with adoption from developing. Guardianship has also been used successfully in Australia, where domestic adoptions are rare and largely discouraged, making that country an ideal model for nations like the United States where adoption is still seen as a requirement for many children.
Unlike adoption, children in legal guardianship arrangements are not deprived of their names, birth histories, and overall identities. They are not issued an amended (or more accurately speaking, falsified), birth certificate, and their natural parents remain their only parents in the eyes of the law. Legal guardianship allows for provisions to be made mandating contact between children and their parents, and also allows the parents to retain certain rights as long as it is safe for them to do so. Most importantly, guardianship is a respectful arrangement that provides children with loving homes without the damaging pretense that they are family “as if born to” their caregivers.
The differences between permanent legal guardianship and adoption are important from an ethical standpoint. Currently, adopted people do not have universal access to their original birth certificates. Few states allow them limited access to these documents, but adoptees have often been described as second class citizens, the only Americans restricted from knowing their own personal histories. Additionally, the government certifying of a document known to contain false information is absolutely unethical. It is not too much to ask that a birth certificate list the parents responsible for a child’s birth!
As one might expect, the falsifying of birth certificates in adoption is not only problematic from an ethical perspective. It can also be linked to many of the psychological problems faced by adopted people, especially issues of identity. In an adoption-friendly society like our own, adopted children are frequently told (both implicitly and explicitly) that being adopted is no different than being born into one’s family. Amended birth certificates, which support this myth, further the expectation that an adopted person will fit into his or her adopter’s family without a hitch. The reality could not be further from the truth.
While some adoptees may coincidentally share interests, mannerisms, and other traits with their adopters, others will grow up feeling entirely out of place, not knowing a single person who looks, acts, or thinks like they do. In both cases, adopted people understand early on that any similarities are the product of chance, and any differences contradict the familial expectations laid out for them by the adoption industry.
As a result, adoptees often report feeling conflicted about expressing their true selves. Others report a sense of belonging nowhere, being unlike their adopters and yet too far removed from their original families and cultures to fit in with them.
By ensuring that children grow up without false pretenses about their families, and by insisting that the honest, respectful nature of guardianship is critical to making the experience a successful one for the child involved, children who cannot be raised by their families can benefit from the security of a safe and loving home.
When we stop thinking of adoption as a catch-all solution, and instead recognize it as the ethical and social problem it is, the billion dollar adoption industry loses, and the children win. It doesn’t get any better than that.
