Adoptive parents, would you ever close your adoption agreement?

Yes. We began with an open adoption, despite the neglect and abuse our son experienced prior to and after birth. However, our son's original parents chose to "close" that openness by indicating they wanted nothing to do with our son. They now deny even having him!

We continued with an open relationship with our son's extended original family, and then his aunt & uncle chose to walk away as well. A few weeks later, they decided to come back into his life, then they walked away again. The last time they did this, they walked away for over a year. When I tried sending photos, they indicated they wanted "nothing" to do with our son. At that point, I made up my mind that we would not allow them back in his life again until he was old enough to choose whether he wanted a relationship with them or not. Our son's grandparents agree with us and are very supportive of that decision.

We know that our son will have enough to deal with as he matures enough to understand everything about his adoption and the sense of abandonment that he may feel. While I truly believe the more people who love him that are in his life, the better he will be, I also cannot allow people to "choose" when they want to associate with him or when it meets their needs to be involved. It is not fair to him.

We have a wonderful open relationship with our son's grandparents, and I would never want that to change. However, as with any situation, I must be responsible for my son's safety and well-being. If I ever felt that there was something that was causing him danger by being in an open adoption situation, I would have to close it to protect him. I feel that is the only reason an open adoption should become closed...when it is the child's safety or well-being at stake. It would be no different than having a biological child and not wanting to put them in any danger.

Dear Red Elephants,

I think Not a Single Drop said it PERFECTLY:

"I don't view it as an "open adoption", but more of a relationship between a lot of people, focused on our sons well being. All lasting relationships have ups and downs."

THIS is the attitude that should be had by BOTH sets of parents in an open adoption!! Adoption is supposed to be about what is BEST FOR THE CHILD(ren) and it is almost NEVER in their best interest to be completely isolated from their first family.

The ONLY time that an open adoption should be restricted* is if there is a legitimate safety concern for the child (or another party).

Also, I think that it is unfair to have relationships with multiple family members and then cease communication with everyone because of the actions of one family member.

*I think that even in cases where there is a possibility of harm at some point, there is still no need to permanently cut off ALL means of communication unless the danger is extreme. Certainly people need to be protected from harm, however, I feel that unless there is permanent factor of danger, there are still safe ways of preserving some kind of communication (ie: third party communication - such as through other family members) so that medical questions and other important items can still be exchanged without placing anyone in harm's way.

I'm an adoptive parent to three children adopted through the foster care system. Two have the same birth father and mother. We have an open adoption with the family of those two, but not with the other one, because his mother didn't want it.

We write and receive letters from the birth mother. The grandparents and some of the other relatives, we actually see and spend time with. They are nice people, and they come to our house, and we go to theirs. My main reason for this is because my little daughter lived with her birth family until she was two and a half, and continued to see them while she was a foster child, we adopted her when she was four. I felt like it would do her harm to totally take them out of her life. Her birth grandmother and I are close to the same age, and we are friends now.

In my opinion, there would never be a reason to close off pictures and letters. Visits, there might be, if the birth family caused trouble.

Only in the event of something that would make it legally and morally needed to protect the child's sake as in a natural parent would we close the door on our open adoption (examples: 1st parents being physically abusive towards anyone in the household, any reason that the child's physical or mental health would be affected negatively).

I think that visitation should be legally enforceable, in adoptions that have been promised as open. I think that any mother who is considering placing her child with an adoptive family should have that family take a lie detector test to make sure their answers about honoring open adoption hold up. I think that any agency who tells a PAP to check the box for open adoption, and then inform the adoptive parents to check it before they even ask how they feel about it should be closed down (I was told to check the box for open adoption, to open up more prospects for us while filling out the paperwork, and without talking about open adoption to anyone, knowing this agency would have screwed over any 1st mom who wanted open adoption, because they told me, "It isn't legally enforceable in this state (Arkansas)".

I think it needs to be treated under the courts in a very similar situation as divorce cases. I don't think custody should ever be changed, because once a child is adopted, it should never be changed to suit the parents, be it adoptive or natural, because kids need stability. I also think that instead of jail time, adoptive parents should be fined and that the fines could be collected by the sale of the home of the AP's, after all the children in the household are age 18, so that way, no child would be without a home.

I also think in cases where the natural parent don't bother to visit, or communicate in any way for a period of 2 years, or if they move without a forwarding address, and do not notify the adoptive family, that their rights should be surrendered.

I also think that in some cases of foster adoption, such as SOME milder cases of neglect, especially if a person has left the abusive spouse and moved on without them, that they should be able to apply for some kinds of visitation, even if it's just phone contact, or seeing a myspace page without identifying information. It depends on the child's desires, needs, and emotional ability to deal with the situation.

so, I do not actually have an open adoption agreement our children were adopted from foster care and we were not given this option.

My feelings about this subject are exclusive to ONLY the issues of Parental Rights. As a Parent I CAN Choose who has contact with the children I am responsible to care for and protect. If I decide my brother, the neighbor or any other person on earth is NOT a Good person to have contact with my children then I CAN DECIDE THAT!

This to me is the One and Only reason I feel that a Parent cannot be forced to allow contact. It would be the same as the courts ruling that my father had rights to contact with his grandchildren--we ALL KNOW that should NOT be Legally Binding and we all know there are some people parents have the right to protect their children from.

I do however, feel there are other legal ways to enforce an open adoption agreement and it shouldn't be much different then any Other Contact agreement situation between parents. Divorce Courts have a Huge Amount of experience dealing with Parental Rights, Custody, Contact and visitation situations...

Divorced people OFTEN make changes in these sorts of issues and legally we have courts who are able to hear and rule on such issues. I don't see why an Open Adoption Agreement could not be managed by the same courts who already deal with such matters.

*

I'm a PAP, so I can only speak from hope and not experience. We hope with all our hearts that we are able to have a life-long open adoption, and would welcome having that be legally enforceable.

As far as closing it afterwards, I think that should be left up to a judge or mediator who can look at any reasons/accusations and determine objectively if it's in the best interest of the child. Just like breaking any other legal agreement, there would have to have quantifiable evidence of why it should be broken or altered.

When we started looking into adoption and found out that open adoption agreements weren't legally enforceable, we were appalled.

Were I in that situation, the only reason I'd close it is if I thought the biological parents were a physical or psychological threat to my kids.

If I feel the person is dangerous and may try to kidnap the child or hurt them or anyone else in my family, it'd be closed, contact would be cut, and I'd probably move our family temporarily until the person is not longer a threat.

Psychological would be things like sending the child letters saying lies, trying to turn the child against us, or threatening.

Only if there were points in the agreement that weren't being followed and if my child was in danger in some way.

I DO believe that open adoptions should be legally enforceable, but not to the detriment of anyone involved: child, first parent(s), or adoptive parent(s). By detriment, I mean emotional or physical abuse or harm. I'm talking about threats ("If you come around my kid again, I'll kill you"), etc. If there is an agreement, those in agreement should stick to it for the sake of the child. Period. No one gets to move out of state without first notifying nparents and setting up visitation or giving a new address for letters, etc....no one gets to suddenly cut off contact 'just because,' and on and on.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: I'm an AP. Unless my child was in actual danger, no, I would not close my adoption agreement.

I think you should likely ask a similar question asking about infant adoptions only, where there was a "voluntary surrender" made by the mother.

The ethical considerations in such situations are immense. First off, open adoption was first researched and implemented as a means of getting more mothers to surrender their babies, as agencies were faced with diminishing income/sales and bankruptcies at the end of the BSE when surrenders began declining.

Open adoption is thus used as a promise or lure, to convince mothers to surrender their infants. Many who would NOT have surrendered to a closed adoption surrender on the promise of an open adoption. And they are led to believe it is a guarantee.

Thus, for an adoptive parent who adopts by promising an open adoption, using it to obtain a baby, and then closes the adoption, one has to ask if what they're doing it ethical. One has to perhaps consider if their original promise constituted fraud and if they should be sued for emotional damage caused to the natural mother.

That is where the issue of open adoptions closing gets ethically questionable.

I can't think of anything that would make us cut off contact.... I don't veiw it as an "open adoption", but more of a relationship between a lot of people, focused on our sons wellbeing. All lasting relationships have ups and downs.

I think an "agreement" should be open for change. If it were really about the kids, there shouldn't BE a need for an agreement.

I also think that these agreements can strain a relationship between the child and all of the parents.

Why can't people just do what's right and just love their kids and do right by them.

I don't see my son's relationsip with his family as a burden. I like them, they're fun, we have a good time.