Why is pre-birth matching popular among prospective adoptive parents?
Forgive my ignorance, but I just don't see why it would be desirable, and I'm hoping someone can enlighten me. Why is pre-birth matching popular/desirable for those hoping to adopt relinquished newborns?
I think it's fairly obvious why it's potentially coercive to expectant parents, so I'm not really getting into that here.
My question is-- why do prospective adoptive parents want to do it, either? Having a "failed match" seems very hard on people, and when you match before the birth, the chances that the mother will go on to parent seem pretty high, anecdotally from the situations I've seen. Why go through it? What do you feel you would gain by matching before the baby is born or the mom is TPRed?
Is it just because it's the "done thing" for agencies, and people don't really question it?
Are the few weeks you might gain with the baby worth the risks that you won't end up being the baby's parent?
Why do so many prospective adoptive parents of newborns seem to want this?
I'm not trying to make a point; it's a genuine question, because I truly don't get it, and I'd love to have it explained to me from another perspective.
2009-09-05T12:22:55Z
Cam-- I can certainly see your point that you need to be compatible to maintain an open adoption; that totally makes sense. But does that relationship building have to happen BEFORE the birth? Is it to avoid using interim care? (I can actually get that if so, for the baby's sake.)
2009-09-05T13:14:57Z
Motherof4-- thanks for your opinion, but the question was about prospective adoptive parents, not the agencies. Unless you're suggesting that prospective adoptive parents are also being intentionally coercive in all/most cases?
Cam2009-09-05T12:18:56Z
Favorite Answer
The POINT of pre-birth matching is SUPPOSED to be for the benefit of the bio mom who makes the decision to adopt and hand select the AP's who will raise her child. It allows both parties to develop a relationship for the sake of the child. Particularly those who are committed to and maintain an open adoption.So since open adoption is based on trust how can a committed bio mom make that decision without meeting the AP's first? Even then it's a risk and all bio mom's have are their gut to rely on. How can they even begin to trust a stranger?
I know this method gets abused and can be seen as coersive. But for bmom's who make the informed choice to adopt and want an open adoption it works so long as everyone involved is trustworthy. AND well informed AP's know that the bio mom has the right to change her mind.
I however don't like the idea of agencies facilitating pre-birth matching. It's a personal decision between the bio mom and the AP's.
ETA: Monkey-Yes, good point and I'm glad you brought that up because I failed to mention it. Generally it completely avoids a baby to have multiple caretakers prior to placement.
I have talked to a bazillion of PAPs--and I'd say there are a lot of cluelessness but not a lot of dark hearts in the lot of them. There are the exceptions-I've read the same books that you probably have.
I can also attest LOUDLY that pre-birth matching and infertility has nothing to do with each other--it is highly offensive for people to assume that parents "pretend", infringe, control or even get that involved with the motivations outlined here with the idea that we are baby freaked out of control adults. I will concede that I've seen the out of control PAP--but they are the exception and not the norm.
I can tell by the way you worded the question you want to believe that PAPs are intentionally coercive in most/all cases and pre-birth matching is just another example of their treachery. I firmly believe that most PAP's are not being malicious--they truly just haven't thought about it in a way that puts them in the same shoes as a pregnant mother might with all of the coinciding conflicts going on at a very emotional time. Ignorance isn't an excuse and I am not forgiving it--but the assumption that most to all prospective adoptive parents have this huge nefarious well thought out plan gives them way too much credit. They are usually just as clueless as to what adoption is both in the short term and the long term as the surrendering parents.
When I do see PAP's get mad when a mother changes her mind right after giving birth....it is upsetting. They know what they are getting into and anyone who forks over cash prior to legal adoption taking place knows exactly what the risks are.
Frankly, I can't think of a single decision I'd be happier to have seen than a parent make than changing their mind---even in our own situation. I could absolutely respect it, understand it and in a way, I'd be very proud of them. I'd be the first to wish them the best.
The agencies in the US represent pre-birth matching to both the surrendering parents and the PAPs "as the only way" adoption is done privately.
IN the case of an open adoption, I compare it to dating before you get married. You have to get a long--and figuring out that you don't after the paperwork is already done would make for a REALLY long and frankly horrible situation.
Yes, it's sort of like an unhealthy dating experience. When someone is dating, if they don't like the other person, they quit seeing them. Unless they're only after one thing. Then they keep buying drinks/chocolates/flowers/whatever until they get what they want. Then they dump them on their way out the door. But I'm not really sure I would call this dating. I would call it just exactly what many pap's do to with expectant mothers in pre-birth matching.
I think that in some cases...the parents considering placing their children are "sure" of their decision while pregnant and feel that building that connection early on is important. Some are really that certain...but either way...it's very difficult for a potential adoptive parent to say "no...please have your baby and get back to us later". In that situation...most adoptive parents, including us, would likely risk the pain of a change of decision vs. having the parent move on to the next family.
From the adoptive parent point of view...I suppose it is a way to show support to the pregnant parents and show appreciation as well as establish a foundation for open adoption.
And I am CERTAIN the negatives of this set up apply. No doubt.
I understand pre-birth communications. How is a pregnant woman suppose to feel she chose the best family for her without at least meeting them? I just think it should be done with official, third party witnesses at all times PRIOR to birth and RIGHT after birth. No unsupervised visits.
Nothing should be signed prior to birth for all the reasons you pointed out in the question. I would absolutely ask a potential birth parent to wait until after the baby is born to sign anything. I'm not even sure if the alternative is allowed where I am.
Personally, I would feel more comfortable being contacted by parents who are certain of adoption after they have had time to think about it once the baby is born. I don't get why newborns are in such demand...that's my confusion.
So many mothers have told us that we are missing something by not having experience the "newborn stage"...but we don't really see that as a big deal. Our son was 10 months old...and older than that is fine with us too.
I know that many adoptive parents DON"T like the process of pre-birth matching at all, but unfortunely it's the norm with domestic adoption agencies and lawyers. I know a few families who asked their agencies about if it was possible to only "match" after a baby was born. They were told that since most women planning on adoption for their child contact and agency/ lawyer before birth and are encouraged to match before the birth, the wait for a situation like this could take a very long time, especially since it's one that many. a-parents would prefer.
We adopted our children internationally, and it was one aspect that we really liked about IA. Our children were already born, their first-mothers had already placed them for adoption, and 1-2 months had gone by when we were "matched".