Should adoptions be legal?

Hi Gothic Bug,

All children deserve to be in safe, loving homes, preferably with their natural family members. When that is not possible, then other arrangements need to be made. We recognize that children need help making these types of important decisions so we have a system that is meant to act to make those provisions for them while they are minors. This does not have to be legal adoption as we know it, but for this post, let's assume it is.

From reading the replies on here claiming nobody has a choice in their families, there is an important distinction that needs to be made about that which has been missed so far:

There are some people who were raised with their natural families & there are some people who were not. What they all have in common is they were all born into their natural families, right? That is what they all did not choose, so that part is equal for everyone.

If a legal adoptive change to the natural order of things is going to be made on some children’s behalf, then it logically follows that yes, it should be those adoptees’ option to disregard that contract when they have the legal capacity to take over making decisions for themselves. Note that NO change was ever made to those who were raised by their natural families so they have no legal contract to opt out of. It's a totally different situation. It's a bit like saying single people have the same right to get divorced that married people do. If they get married first, then yes they do. Until then, there's nothing to UNdo. (Of course if those raised by their natural family members want to enter into an adult adoption contract once they reach adulthood, they are certainly free to make that decision for themselves too).

Similar questions have appeared here before & I support the concept of adoptees having the option to get out of the adoption contract once they are of legal age. Obviously all adoptees will not choose that route & that's ok. There are valid reasons for those who do & they currently only have the options of either being adopted by someone else OR of changing their legal name to something else. Neither of these options is adequate for all adoptees.

Changing their legal name does not change their legal family so considerations such as child custody, inheritance, or authority to make medical decisions on the adult adoptee's behalf could still be factors for them. The idea of having to be adopted by someone else first to get out of an adoption is akin to having to marry someone else first to get out of a marriage. And it still leaves them as an adoptee & some adults do not wish to remain adoptees forever. Yes, there should be a way for them to dissolve a legal status that was involuntarily conferred upon them as children if they do not wish to continue it once they can act in their own legal capacity.

Let’s not forget that AP’s always have the option to “opt out” of the adoption contracts if they later decide the adoption situation or the adopted child is not what they want. It’s so common there are names for it – adoption disruptions & adoption dissolutions. Those rates for children from foster care or foreign adoptions can run higher than 20% of all adoptions – and all at the AP’s discretion. Adoptees themselves are never allowed to utilize these choices while minors.

Furthermore, most people do not rely on their parents to continue making decisions for them for the rest of their adult lives. The routine decisions made on the behalf of a child mentioned here such as what they eat, what they wear, vaccinations, bedtime, etc. have nothing to do with the decision of an adult to continue in an adoption contract & to continue in their adoptee status. By recognizing their legal competence by having an adoption annulment option, we would also be removing the associated requirement that adult adoptees must live in a perpetual state of childhood, incapable of deciding this for themselves. Until society provides better options than adoption on a wide scale for all children in need, I'm going to support the annulment option for adult adoptees. Thanks for bringing up this question.

julie j

reunited adult adoptee

I like the idea of permanent guardianship very much. I believe no child should have to surrender his or her identity for the loving family every child deserves.

I can also imagine that a child who has finally found his or her family might very much want to share their name, and ought to be allowed to do so. He or she also ought to be allowed to change his or her mind about that later. Maybe once guardianship became the norm, kids would realize that changing one's name as a sign of loyalty isn't necessary, and would stop doing it. Or they might choose to combine both names, or whatever they decided was appropriate for them. Because this is something he or she could give no consent to, and because it is his or her task to deal with it throughout life, the adoptee's name and legal status should be left up to the adoptee.

There is, in fact, a difference between being adopted and not being adopted. This would seem to be obvious, but judging by some of these answers it isn't. That people can even compare "not choosing" to stay in their family of origin and not choosing to lose their original identity and lifelong heritage to adoption is evidence of the powerful doublespeak of contemporary adopto-think.

I would also be in favor of an adoption annullment when the child reaches the age of majority. Your point is well taken in that the adoptee had no say in the decision, why should they have to live forever with an agreement that they had no say in?

The is a major flaw in your questions. It doesn't take into account that there are natural parents who aren't raising their children because they were lied and bullied into surrendering and there are parents who have had their children on false allegations which is proved but social services still force adoptions which is actually illegal.

I never consented to my son's adoption but it still went ahead as I was lied to and as I didn't know my rights, wasn't shown any paperwork and it is questionable I signed anything. There is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't have raised my son but he was still adopted.

It's not just about choices or ability it's also about whether a child should or shouldn't have be removed from their parents in the first place. What about the parents rights as there are many parents including myself who were/are denied the right to raise our child for no other reason than that's what other people wanted.

I have to agree with JulieJ....the adoption annulment is an excellent option/choice for those adult adoptees who wish to do so. Afterall the act of adoption is a *contract*. And as far as I know, or at least imagine so...relatively few *contracts* are held into infinity. Usually contracts have a time limit. If adoptive parents can dissolve the adoption contract at will, then the adult adoptee should have the same recourse, same choice, same option.

I think adoption should be abolished and replaced with a system that focuses on children who are in need of care and homes... rather than focused on what adults want as adoption is.

There is sadly, a need for some children to be separated from their families due to abuse, neglect etc but these are the children left in the system; the children being adopted are children who already have families, already have parents who just need support.

Adoption is a guillotine which takes a child's name, heritage, basic human rights, etc and locks them away. If a child wants this for themselves, then yeah, its up to them and not adults who do not know them and who have no idea what their life is like.

Generally, adoption doesn't have a child's best interests at heart, rather it has the adults' who are providing the demand.

I am ok with your idea of holding off adoptions until the child is of age as long as it applies to biological families as well, and the child can choose at a certain age if they want to continue being part of the family or move on to other care. Children do better in healthy stable environments - that is not to say adoptive ones, but in stable ones. I think its better for children to have that then to be kept in group homes or tossed around in foster care if possible. Kids aren't given a choice about going to school, asked about what boosters they want, what medical care they think they should get, what church they should go to, what they eat for breakfast, etc - adults make certain choices for them. We hope the adults in question are choosing whats best for the kids, but in a lot of circumstances its better then letting the kids choose themselves.

The "consent" argument doesn't really work in child custody situations.

Children can't consent to adoption... but they can't consent to guardianship, either. Or to foster care. Or to living with mother versus father. If we're going on the premise that children need to consent to who has parental rights to them, then all children are going to be raising themselves unless they come from an intact nuclear family-- and even then, they never agreed to it, it just happened by default.

Children need to have these decisions made for them, because they don't have the maturity to decide for themselves. And we can't single out adoption for that. Adults need to place children in safe homes where they will be cared for; ideally, that's the biological family, but if the biological family is incapable or unwilling, adults need to designate a responsible substitute.

Now, I don't think that birth certificates should be amended or sealed away. I don't think children should be denied contact and visitation with their biological families unless there's a safety issue or the family is causing emotional trauma. There are aspects of adoption that I don't feel should be legal. That's probably what you're truly getting at, anyway... adoption is a broad concept.

But it doesn't make sense to use lack of consent as an argument against adoption at all-- because children can no more consent to ANY of the other alternatives either, and they have to live SOMEWHERE. Children aren't adults, and they need to be cared for. Period.

Adoptions ARE legal and should stay legal.

YOU'RE AN IDIOT ADOPTIONS ARE LEGAL AND SHOULD REMAIN THAT WAY