MagicPointeShoes ([info]magicpointeshoe) wrote,
@ 2008-11-21 12:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
non fluff post attempt about deciding adoption
Dawn wrote a really good post about respecting that the expectant mother may change her mind about the adoption plan but also encouraging a match. Go read it. http://www.thiswomanswork.com/2008/11/21/another-perspective/

Now that you went and read that post... keep in mind that I realize that the audience is intended to be potential adoptive parents and not necessarily expectant mothers or mothers who already relinquished, but yet here I am responding anyway.

Personally I'm annoyed at the social worker in that post. While practically everything Dawn has ever written about her has come across as caring and as about as ethical as can be, something really got my knickers in a twist this time.

Just like the mothers who relinquished in Dawn's post, once I started the adoption plan that was it as far as I was concerned. And like those mothers, I too worried about my child being rejected by his potential adoptive parents.

But this is where domestic infant adoption is failing the expectant parents in counseling. If potential adoptive parents are supposed to really get that the soon to be born baby isn't their baby until the relinquishment and revocation periods are done and over... than the same should be expected from the expectant parents. Someone needs to explain fully that saying "if you relinquish" is pretty darn respectful.

Because what I see in being respectful towards the expectant parent with the feelings of "this is what I say I'm going to do and it ticks me off that you aren't buying it..." is actually more of don't risk losing a baby by rocking the boat.

I was sure as can be that I was relinquishing by the point of me walking into that adoption lawyer's office. With *no* counseling. Then the required counseling mentioned parenting options and we brushed them off and they smiled respecting our wishes and moved on to the next point on the agenda needing to be talked about. When told about how we could waive our rights to revocation, there was no person willing to say, this is your right and you should take it. It was a reaction of "Oh... okay... if that's what you want to do, THIS is how you do it."

There was no one saying, take your time with your baby in the hospital. No one saying take lots and lots of pictures. In fact it was a whole lot of "do what you feel is right" with no opinion on anything as to it mattering to me. Be on the maternity wing if you wish, but then it may be too hard so you can pick another wing.

I've been interrupted by potty training screeching too many times to make this a deeper post darn it. It's leaning towards convoluted fluff.



(Post a new comment)


[info]moominmama
2008-11-21 09:13 pm UTC (link)
I see what you're saying here and I agree with you. I think I misrepresented Denise though. She wasn't Pennie's social worker so I can't speak to what that social worker was saying -- only what Denise said to us.

But I can promise you that Denise never had a "don't rock the boat" attitude about the adoption. In this situation she basically said that Pennie felt condescended to on my part because I'd deflect any conversation about what we'd done to prepare for a baby's arrival. (Like I said, I had no idea what Pennie's social worker was saying so I can't speak AT ALL to the expectant mom experience at our agency -- only to our experiences specifically with Denise.)

So. Anyway. I just felt like I had to clear Denise's name!!!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]magicpointeshoe
2008-11-21 09:19 pm UTC (link)
Good because the way that advice sounded made it lean towards used car salesmanship instead of the reiterating integrity of interest and distance. ;o)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]rredhead
2008-11-21 09:42 pm UTC (link)
I think the attitude of the lawyer is an example of what happens when people who have a vested interest in the adoption represent both parties in it. They informed you of your rights, and when you brushed them off, they moved on.
It has occurred to me that agencies, lawyers, and other adoption professionals might work better if they worked more like real estate agents. In real estate, there is usually a "buyer's agent" and a "seller's agent". In adoption, there should be the "adoptive parents' agent" and the "expectant parents agent". Each one looks after the rights of his or her clients. Unlike in real estate, there wouldn't be commission. The "agents" get paid regardless of the decisions made.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]teendoc
2008-11-21 10:39 pm UTC (link)
Our agency had a social worker for us (potential adoptive parents) and one for our daughter's firstmother. As such it was similar to what happens in real estate (though I am not digging that parallel). Each social worker dealt with her particular "clients" and could do a better job in staying on their sides of the street. And it worked out pretty well, as far as open adoption situations go.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]rredhead
2008-11-22 01:46 am UTC (link)
I'm not comparing babies to houses. It's just that real estate is pretty much the only profession in which two people represent two different groups, often by law. Yes, lawyers fall into that category too, but then that gets confusing because lawyers are always involved in adoption, but not necessarily impartial.
If you come up with a better analogy, I'm all for it.
The thing about one agency having two social workers is better than nothing, but still, the agency benefits by having you adopt, so it's not entirely impartial. I would have agencies choose and be either entirely for expectant parents or entirely for adoptive parents. They could network, of course, but would still be independent.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…