If an abused child is adopted, doesn't this change the "open vs closed" adoption argument?

If the rights were terminated due to abuse, I would cut off all contact with the bio parents. I mean if they are civil you could contact CPS, and have all correspondence go through them. Like you could send pictures to a CPS office that they then in turn could send to the parents. To keep them updated. Then when the children are old enough they can contact CPS to find their parents. That is just an option. And in my opinion I would sever all contact with the parents directly if they really cared they would not be in the situation in the first place

It does change the situation. Absolutely. Children adopted through foster care are in an entirely different siituation.

However, there are situations where it would be safe/beneficial for there to be some openness, and whenever possible, this is important. It really is case to case, and I would hope that ALL parents would do what is in the best interest of their child at the end of the day.

However, in saying that, there must be some understanding of what it takes for parent's rights to be terminated in the first place. In most (not all) cases, that parent is NOT a safe person for their child to be around. But, when the child's worker recommends it, and it seems like a safe situation, it should be at least explored in order to make sure that the child has the best possible situation.

The thing about foster adoption is that it is rarely, if ever black and white. It is not as simple as private sector adoptions because there is an entirely different dynamic at play.

I will say though, that a child having consistent contact with an ABUSER is not generally in their best interest. However, there are times when having some contact or openness with a non-abusive parent or sibling is very much in their best interest.

Again, case by case.

Well we have to define open and closed.

Technically we have a closed adoption. Our children were similar to yours, and there is no contact with parents. This said, I made a choice to meet with the mom myself, and will do so once a year, bringing pictures, etc. etc. etc. and allwoing her to give gifts.

Understanding the cycle of abuse, I know that she too was abused. This does NOT excuse her behaviour, but i do look at her and see nothing more than an older version of my girl. If not for me, my girl would be her in 15 years, so that is how I look at it.

I also know my kids will want some kind of confronting of hteir past when they are older. Who am I to say they can never know who their mom and dad were? Maybe the parents change when they are older and maybe a good relationship can be formed. I don't want to keep this informaiton from my kids.

So I keep it open as in I know the mom, will make sure I stay connected with her, because even though she made grave grave errors, I see her as an overwhelmed person who just wasn't grown up or mature enough to handle four kids and lashed out at the easiest targets, the kids themselves.

Open/closed adoptionj argument is not just about contact right now, but openness and willingness to do what is right for the child throughout the child's life.

I definitely support protecting the safety of the child. I definitely feel the child should be kept safe from their abusers.

However, a history of parental abuse doesn't necessarily mean a totally closed adoption is the only way to go. If it can be done safely, I think the child should still have the opportunity to grow up knowing their grandparents, or extended family or other siblings or people like that. Yes, there will be cases where it isn't possible to maintain contact with the family and to still ensure the child's safety, but in many cases, it is an option and it should definitely be explored.

I think most here will agree that safety is always comes first. So, while typically open is the best option, this may not always be the case for children adopted from Foster care.

When we first adopted our son, we did not have contact with his other family. His father was very abusive and it was not in our son's best interest. But, when he passed away, Drew was able to have contact with his family and now even has extended visits.

i guess it depends. it would not have been safe for me to see my family but i remember one girl in one of my foster homes could see her dad. he was mentally ill i think and couldnt take care of her, but wasnt mean or anything especially on visits. but her mom was really abusive.

my family was very abusive. when i was 9 and in foster care i used to pray they wouldnt show up for visits. it got pretty bad. had someone had the sense to terminate their rights, and had i been adopted a closed adoption would have been a good idea.

also, sunny--its not unusual in foster care and fc adoption to have a lot of kids, and they probably were all abused if they were in fc. theyre only supposed to have 6 but some places are too short of foster homes, so they ignore the rules and then the fp's adopt the kids.

i was in a home once with 10 kids, all biological siblings that the fps had adopted. a few had moved out already because they were older, but it definitely happens more than you would think. they WERE all abused. one of them was actually beaten so bad that he was in a wheelchair. his parents had tied him up and dragged him behind their truck.

i know it sounds insane but i lived it and this stuff happens.

i had half open adoption (maternal family) and half closed (paternal family) because of abuse. i wanted contact with the paternal family (all except the sperm donor) but the Grannie was on his side, and the rest would never have had contact with me without telling her, so it was impossible.

i 100% agree that children should not have contact with their abusers. there are so many children who are not adopted who don't want contact with their abusive parents. it is not true that all children want contact with their natural parents even if they abuse them (I have actually read that on this board!!!).

the birth mother was 50% nasty 50% nice while i lived with her but was nice after i left, so i guess it depends on the individual.

there is no way i should ever have had contact with her husband. they actually had a no contact order to keep him away, before i was adopted, but because of contact with his family, it was impossible to enforce. the Grannie told him when and where i was seeing them.

open is better than closed, because you dont lose all the other relatives, but in the case of abuse the cons outweigh the pros, its better to be closed.

The most important thing to remember, I think, is that whether it's good or bad to have an open adoption, the power to make that choice is 100% in the hands of the adoptive parents. That means the adoptive parents have a responsibility to make the right choice.

I'm going to say that it's individual to each child. Let's say I was removed from my abusive family, and my adoptive parents needed to decide whether or not to allow my family in my life. I can honestly say that as long as visits were supervised, it would have been a positive thing in my life. My parents are fun people. I get so many of my personality quirks from them, and I really enjoy a lot of the little ways that I can connect myself to my parents. It's comforting to know where my mismatched pinky toes come from (one looks like my mom's, and one looks like my dad's). If my parents didn't have the chance to abuse me, they wouldn't have (they were WAY too concerned with appearances to be abusing me in front of people)...and any visits I'd have had with them would have had a positive influence on my life.

However, there are many children who cannot have safe contact with their families of origin, for various reasons. If having any level of openness would endanger the child (mentally, physically, emotionally, etc.), then of course, the openness should be limited to SAFE contact only...even if that means NO contact. But you can't just say, "they were abused, no contact", end of story, without looking any deeper. For some children, even seeing their parents from a distance would be frightening and harmful to them. But some children may benefit from safe contact with their families.

Yes. I believe that the "open vs closed" argument applies to situations where abuse and safety are not issues. No one I know of would think that an open adoption with an abusive parent is a good thing.

A closed adoption may be best for the time being, but when that child becomes an adult they deserve the same freedoms as any other person, and that would be freedom of association. If this grown adoptee choses to meet or have a relationship with their abuser it is acceptable for them to do so.