The Problem with Adoption (More Talk about Ethics.) // Part 2

This is the second in a short series where I flesh out some of my thoughts about ethics and domestic infant adoption. I'm still learning, and many of my thoughts and opinions have evolved over our own adoption journey. I hope this is received with all the truth and grace I'm intending.

----

In my last post I talked a little about the financial side of the adoption industry, and the difference between non-profit and for-profit adoption professionals. This leads into some specific issues that I think are worth discussing.

Money is a motivator and adoptive parents are the customers. In order to stay profitable and keep  
customers, attorneys and agencies need to keep providing a product: babies.

It sounds crass, and it should. It shouldn't be this way.

What weighs so heavily on my heart is when I see adoptive families cut corners or make ethical sacrifices for the sake of a successful placement.

Best case, it's out of sheer lack of knowledge. Worst case, it's purposeful.

Here are some of the ways I've seen this play out:

Ignoring the legal rights of biological fathers. When I received a phone call from our social worker about a potential match, one of the first questions I asked her was: "Does the baby's father agree with her adoption plan?" The answer to that question was important, and would determine whether or not we would move forward.

The legal rights of unmarried biological fathers vary state to state and are extremely complicated. It is [almost always] unethical for the identity of a biological father to be withheld by the mother. I say "almost always" to acknowledge the existence of extra-complicated situations involving domestic violence or rape.

Fathers need to be identified! If they are not involved, they need to be notified - not just notified of the pregnancy, but notified of the adoption plan. They need to be notified of what action they need to take if they do not consent to the adoption plan, and then given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

Utah is especially problematic in this area. In the state of Utah (and sometimes even outside the state of Utah but when Utah law has jurisdiction) legal loopholes allow women to place their baby for adoption without notifying, and sometimes even naming, the baby's father. Some agencies even move a mother to live in Utah for the remainder of her pregnancy (at the financial expense of the adoptive family) for this reason.

To the left is a screenshot from A Guardian Angel Adoptions, a for-profit LLC located in Utah. This was taken from a portion of FAQs for expectant mothers. It was since removed from their website and I was unable to find an updated FAQ section, so I don't know if or what the wording was changed to say.

COERCIVE METHODS
In the world of adoption, coercion is when any form of overt or covert pressure, manipulation, or fraud is used to influence an expectant mother to place her child for adoption. Some methods are more subtle while others are outright. Here are a few things that I (and many other adoptive parents and birth parents) find to be potentially coercive.

• Calling a woman a "birth mother" prior to placement. At this point, she is simply an expectant mother making an adoption plan.
• The payment of excessive "birth mother expenses" by adoptive families. Some agencies have adoptive parents pay for rent, utilities, cell phone, cable, groceries, gas, and more for an expectant mom. Sometimes it is reasonable, but I've personally seen many adoption situations where these expenses easily exceed $10,000. Many states have legal caps on these sorts of payments, but courts often still approve these higher amounts.
• Making promises that won't be kept after finalization.
• Using guilt or shame by continually telling her that adoption is the only "brave, loving, and selfless" decision and that the adoptive family can provide a much better life than she can. 

To the left is another screenshot, this time from the website of Shorstein & Kelly, Florida based adoption attorneys. This was part of their FAQ page for adoptive parents, and addresses what happens to those "living expenses" (discussed above) if the expectant mother chooses to parent. 

First of all, she isn't a birth mother yet. But what troubles me the most is that expectant mothers are asked to sign an agreement, before placement, agreeing to pay back what often amounts to thousands of dollars! It's safe to say that if they had this kind of money, they might not be making an adoptive plan in the first place. Paying these expenses should be a gift with zero expectation to place or repay. Anything less is coercive. 

Often times we say, "Well, that's just the way it's done!" But as (potential) adoptive parents, we have the honor and responsibility to stand up and fight for things to be done better. We have to be a voice, and we have to be the ones to say a firm "NO" when asked or led to do something that is not in the best interest of all members of the adoption triad - especially the ones in the most vulnerable position (and that is not you, adoptive parent!). 

"With adoption, there is always loss. And barring concerns of true neglect or abuse, a biological family who wants to raise their child should be supported in doing so; not coerced, guilted, and forced into placement through legal measures they don’t have the means to combat. Adoption should always be about finding a home for children who need them; not about supplying babies for families who want them." 

-Leah Campbell on adoption.net

----

Part 3 will be about some things we can do to ensure we avoid these issues.