Why is pre-birth matching popular among prospective adoptive parents?

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".

MonkeyKitty, I totally agree with you. I have no idea what part of that process would be desirable. To watch a woman struggling, in emotional pain, grappling with such a decision, and such a painful eventuality...To have to watch her separate from her child...That's my worst nightmare.

Even if I knew the adoption was "ethical" in some magical fairyland, I still couldn't be compelled to watch, and then PARTICIPATE in something so painful. The idea of it makes my heart hurt. :-(

ETA: For the record, infertility has nothing to do with it. I am "an infertile", and there is not a snowball's chance in hell I could watch a mother give up a child. I'll say it again: I think to make assumptions about a person's motivations based solely on reproductive capacity is gross, whether we're discussing first parents or ap's. It's offensive, no matter to whom it is directed.

It could be used as coersion I guess in terms of the agency's intentions. If that's the case that is pretty evil.

I could see the adoption could run more smoothly for the child in this case because the parents have a connection already with each other and any complications in the seperation could be kept to a minimum. They say babies can hear their mother's voices, I wonder if hearing the prospective parent's voices before birth could aid in the transition?

For my adoptive parents, that was the way the agency (my adoption) and the the birth mother (my brother's private adoption) wanted things done. In the case of my adoption is was their procedure. Application, waiting list, match, birth, birth mother signs, agency takes baby to agency "cradle care", adoptive parents pick up baby from cradle care and take child home. In the case of my brother, his birth mother already had a husband that was not in the country and 2 other children. My brother's father was either in question or definitely not her husband's child nad she already had a cover story of the child being stillborn ready to go. In order for that to work she had to make sure that he had a home to go to. Because of this it was imperative to her that things be arranged. Both of these adoptions were before 1985, but I would imagine there are many women facing similar pressures still today. Perhaps they hope that by having things already "set up" they won't change their minds, maybe they think that will somehow makes things easier. Perhaps they already are confident and sure in their decisions, or at least think they are. I know for my parents, they would have jumped at any chance to be parents, and not cared about the risk of possible heartbreak. They had already been through the heartbreak of infertility and miscarriages, to them I think this would not have seemed any different than trying another fertility treatment and in many ways a great deal less painfull since at least there was a good chance adoption would work.

I guess it just wanting a womb fresh child or even wanting to be at the birth. I don’t really understand it why not just adopt a child/baby that is already legally available for adoption whose first parents already gave up or lost their right to the child. If someone is going to have an open adoption that can easily be worked out later does not have to happen prior to the birth. There is no harm at all in selecting parents after the baby has been born in fact I think that would be best in most cases.

I think because they want to be there for the birth if possible and bring the baby home from the hospital. I think that some PAPs are so desperate for the whole birth experience they are wiling torisk the possibility of the mother changing her mind.

I think pre-birth matching is very coercive and cannot think of one good reason for it to happen. I understand the reasoning that the natural parents(s) get to know the paps but the down side is if they change their minds then there is potential guilt tripping.