adoption

Also from Answers.com... Prostate Cancer What every man should know to protect his health.

[L. adoptio, allied to adoptare to adopt: cf. F. adoption.]

1. The act of adopting, or state of being adopted; voluntary acceptance of a child of other parents to be the same as one's own child.

2. Admission to a more intimate relation; reception; as, the adoption of persons into hospitals or monasteries, or of one society into another.

3. The choosing and making that to be one's own which originally was not so; acceptance; as, the adoption of opinions. Jer. Taylor.

noun

A ready taking up of something: embracement, espousal. See accept/reject, give/take/reciprocity.

Definition: choosing or taking something as one's own
Antonyms: pass, rejection, repudiation

n

Definition: support
Antonyms: rejection

n

Definition: taking in
Antonyms: abandonment

Definition

Adoption is the practice in which an adult assumes the role of parent for a child who is not the adult's biological offspring. The process usually involves some legal paperwork.

Description

The ancient practice of adoption was a way of ensuring male heirs to childless couples in order to preserve family lines and religious traditions. In the 1850s the Children's Aid Society of New York City began to move dependent children out of city institutions. Between 1854 and 1904 orphan trains carried an estimated 100,000 children to families on farms in the Midwest; these children were to provide farm work in exchange for care.

Modern U.S. adoption laws are designed with the best interests of the child in mind, not the best interests of the adult who intends to adopt. Throughout most of the twentieth century, adoptions were conducted in secret, and records were often sealed to protect those involved from the social stigma of birth out of wedlock. After World War I, the advent of commercial formula facilitated raising babies without their being fed by breast. Adults were trained in parenting, and childless couples became interested in adopting. Because of the rapidly increasing interest in infant adoptions, many state laws demanded investigations of prospective adoptive parents and court approval before the adoption could be completed.

In the early 2000s, state laws on adoption vary. Adoptions can be conducted privately between individuals, between independent agencies and individuals, and between public agencies (such as a state's child protective services) and individuals. Adoptees may be infants or older children, they may be adopted singly or as sibling groups, and they may come from the local area or from other states or countries. Adoptive parents may be married couples, single men or women, or nontraditional couples. Adoptive parents may be childless or have other children.

Demographics

In the 1990s, roughly 120,000 children were adopted annually in the United States. This number remained proportionate to the U.S. population throughout that decade and into the early 2000s. During this period, nearly 10,000 children were adopted from abroad.

Types of Adoptions

PUBLIC ADOPTIONS. In 2000 and 2001, about 127,000 children were adopted annually in the United states. Since 1987, the number of adoptions annually has remained relatively constant, ranging from 118,000 to 127,000. Adoptions through publicly funded child welfare agencies accounts for about 40 percent of all adoptions. More than 50,000 public agency adoptions in each year (2000 and 2001) accounted for 40 percent of adoptions, up from 18 percent in 1992 for 36 states that reported public agency adoptions in that year.

PRIVATE ADOPTIONS. In a private adoption, children are placed in non-relative homes through a non-profit agency licensed by the state in which it operates. In an independent or non-agency adoption, children are placed in non-relative homes directly by the birthparents or through the services of a licensed or unlicensed facilitator, certified medical doctor, member of the clergy, or attorney.

About 40 percent of the 127,000 adoptions in 2000 and 2001 were primarily private agency, kinship, or tribal adoptions. There were 58,420 adoptions (46%) private adoptions reported in 2000–2001. With the available data, it is not possible to separate figures within this group for types of adoptions. However, in 1992, for example, stepparent adoptions (a form of kinship adoption) alone accounted for 42 percent of all adoptions.

Informal adoptions occur when a relative or stepparent assumes permanent parental responsibilities without court involvement. However, legally recognized adoptions need a court or other government agency to award permanent custody of a child to adoptive parents.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Interim Estimates for 2000 as of August 2002 reports 30,939 foster parent adoptions and 10,612 relative adoptions through the foster parent system. (Relatives who were also foster parents were counted as relatives.)

The U.S. Census is the principal source of data on adopted children and their families on a national level. The report for 2000 presents information on 2.1 million adopted children and 4.4 million stepchildren of householders, as estimated from the census sample, which collected from approximately one out of every six households. Together, these children represented approximately 8 percent of the 84 million sons and daughters of householders. In 2000 there were more than twice as many stepchildren as adopted children in U.S. households, with stepchildren representing 5 percent of children in the household. While these data are non-specific, it is safe to say that a significant number of the stepchildren were neither kinship nor stepparent adoptions. Since almost all adoptions by related applicants are independent, it is likely that most independent adoptions were by relatives.

TRANSRACIAL. In transracial adoptions, children are placed with an adoptive family of another race. These adoptions may be through public and private agencies or be independent, but most transracial adoptions take place through the public child welfare system. The civil rights movement of the 1960s led to an increase in transracial adoptions involving black children and white parents. This practice peaked in 1971, and one year later the National Association of Black Social Workers issued a statement opposing transracial adoption. The association argued that white families were unable to foster the growth of psychological and cultural identity in black children.

An estimated 15 percent of the 36,000 adoptions of foster children in 1998 were transracial or transcultural adoptions. Many Americans continue to be troubled by these adoptions. The National Association of Black Social Workers called them a form of cultural genocide. That point aside, there are in fact not enough African American adults willing to adopt to fill the need of African American children in need of adoption.

INTRANATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL. In response to a shortage of healthy, Caucasian infants, prospective adoptive white parents started adopting children from Japan and Europe. In 2003, approximately 21,616 children were adopted through international adoption. International adoptions accounted for more than 15 percent of all U.S. adoptions, an increase from 5 percent between 1992 and 2001. This practice showed a dramatic increase between the mid-1990s and the early 2000s.

Between 1999 and 2004, international adoptions grew in popularity in the United States as more families recognized the global humanitarian need to provide homes for waiting children. Besides this pressing need, international adoptions have proven to be safe and successful, so they provide an attractive option for people who have been trying without success to adopt within the United States.

Though U.S. citizens adopted children from 106 different countries in 2001, nearly three-fourth of all children came from only five countries: China (25%), Russia (22%), South Korea (10%), Guatemala (8%), and Ukraine (6%). The Chinese government's population control policy, which penalizes families who have more than one child, and the greater value placed on male heirs in Chinese culture have led many families to abandon female Chinese infants. These babies constituted a bountiful source of adoption candidates for American families. In 2003, U.S. interest in adopting from Kazakhstan also grew as many U.S. families reported a fast, smooth adoption experience there. Americans adopt children from Peru, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, and the Philippines. Some adoptions come from Vietnam. Adoption from India, however, is difficult for non-Indian parents. In 2002, Cambodia and Romania stopped international adoptions.

SINGLE PARENT. According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, 33 percent of adoptions from foster care are by single parents. Most of these single parents are women. Single women are more likely to adopt an older child than an infant. Single men adopted some children, and unmarried couples adopted some children in the same period. As one-parent households increase in number and become more acceptable, adoptions in these households also become more common. More than one half of African-American children, nearly one third of Hispanic children, and one fifth of Caucasian children live with a single parent because of divorce and unmarried mothers. This prevalence gives adoption agencies a more open-minded approach toward single parent adoptions. Also, the issue of personal finances and single income families has become less important since adoption subsidies are available nationwide.

Treatment of Adoption Information

Through most of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century, adoptions were often informal and unofficial. Agencies, counselors, doctors, and private attorneys were generally not involved. If a young woman was pregnant out-of-wedlock, the baby's adoption might be arranged by the mother's parents with the help of the head of her extended family. Some family member or close friend took in the child. The child might refer to the adoptive parents as aunt and uncle, but people in the immediate social circle might know the child's biological parent.

In the early twentieth century, as governmental and independent agencies became involved with adoption, information about the individuals involved tended to be restricted. Decisions about who could adopt which baby were often made solely by agency personnel. In closed adoptions, mothers gave up parental rights immediately after birth. They did not see or hold their babies.

In the later twentieth century and in the early 2000s, information about adoptions is open to the participants. The birth mother may room in with the baby in the hospital. The birth mother and adoptive parents may have a contract before delivery and a formal or informal agreement about shared responsibility for the baby. The birth parent may have visitation rights after adoption takes place. This arrangement often occurs between a teenage birth parent and grandparents who become the legal parents through adoption. Open adoptions may also take place between surrogate and adopting parents.

Fraud By Adoption Agencies

Adoption fraud may involve the misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment of a child's pre-adoption history. Some state laws require full disclosure in good faith of information pertaining to the child's health. This information helps adopting parents anticipate any special needs the child may have. Full disclosure by the adoption agency facilitates the child's receiving appropriate intervention and treatment as needed.

Parental Concerns

Adoptions are expensive. Most of the financial expenses are attorney or court fees, and the cost of preparing the home for a new child. Expense results from parents' lost wages for time off to meet with social agencies or to have their homes inspected. Adoptions are emotionally taxing as well. The adoptive parents deal with uncertainty, and if there are other children in the household already, the parents deal with those children's responses and feelings as everyone involved prepares for the possibility of a new family member. Time must be spent with a social worker whose task it is to evaluate the home.

In some cases, the adoptive child is placed in the adoptive home before the legal termination of parental rights has freed the child for adoption. In these cases, child protective services are fairly certain the courts will decide in favor of the adoptive placement, but this tentative situation imposes a potentially uncomfortable arrangement on the adoptive family and their household.

Adoption is challenging for the adopting parents, for other children if they have them, and for the adopted child. Soon after the new child arrives, the adoptive parents should schedule a medical exam. Adopted children from other countries may be at greater risk for certain illnesses or conditions related to possible substandard care they received before their arrival in their new home. Medical evaluation may identify special needs the adoptive parents can then address.

Adopted children should be told early that they are adopted. Knowing from early childhood of the adoption is better for children than learning about it later. Three-year-old children can understand the story of their adoption.

Adolescents may have questions about identity that are connected to their not knowing their biological parents. It is common for them to spend time tracing records and trying to find their birth parents. This activity does not necessarily constitute a rejection of the adopting parents. Children seek out their birth parents because they need information about themselves in order to shape a sense of who they are and where they belong in the world.

Sometimes the adopted child will feel loss, abandonment, and resentment toward the birth parent and the adopting parents. For a period, the adoptive family may not be able to compensate the child who faces the loss of the birth family.

Parenting the Adopted Child

Adopting parents who intuitively understand the sense of loss and separation anxiety experienced by an adopted child and communicate with their child about the adoption can develop closeness. Even tiny infants have a bond with their mother before birth. A child knows his mother and instinctively wants to be with her. Even babies may experience loss of the natural mother and a sense of confusion regarding the stranger who assumes the role of mother. Parental separation from the child can also be traumatic. The adoptive parents need to be attuned to the child's emotional responses to loss.

In the absence of genetic markers (facial features, gestures, body language, basic personality, interests, and talents) both adoptive parents and the adopted child must learn how to communicate. The adopted child may have trouble fitting into the adoptive family when genetic traits are not mirrored or reflected.

There are many ways for adoptive parents to help an older child deal with sorrow, anger, anxiety, and low self-esteem caused by separation from the biological parents:

• Celebrate birthdays a week or so before the birthday, if the birthday is really the date of separation from the natural parent.
• Take extra time to prepare the child for changes in routine, a new school, and family life.
• Listen more and talk less to the adopted child.
• Respond to painful feelings with support, rather than by discounting them in any way.
• Respect and value the differences between the child and other members of the family.
• Encourage the child's talents and interests, even if they are different from the adoptive family.

Parenting an adopted child is parenting plus. But with intuition, information, understanding, and empathy, it can be a rewarding experience.

Resources

Books

Adamec, Christine. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Adoption. East Rutherford, NJ: Penguin Group, 2005.

Rothman, Barbara Katz. Weaving a Family: Untangling Race and Adoption. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2005.

Volkman, Toby Alice. Cultures of Transnational Adoption. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005.

Wolfe, Jaymie Stuart. The Call to Adoption: Making Your Child Your Own. Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media, 2005.

Web Sites

Craft, Carrie. "Developmental Grieving." Available online at (accessed December 12, 2004).

——"Teaching Foster/Adoptive Children How to Respond to Common Questions." Available online at (accessed December 12, 2004).

Rapport, Bruce M. "Open Adoption History." Independent Adoption Center (IAC). Available online at www.adoptionhistory.org/ (accessed December 12, 2004).

Schlossberg, Patty D. "Helping Your Older Child Adjust." Available online at (accessed December 12, 2004).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Available online at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb (accessed December 16, 2004).

[Article by: Aliene S. Linwood, R.N., DPA, FACHE]

For more information on adoption, visit Britannica.com.

In Jewish law, the adoptive relationship does not totally eliminate the relationship between the adopted child and his or her natural parents, who must continue to provide for the child's needs if the adoptive parent is unable to do so. The adopted child does not automatically inherit from the adoptive parent, who must make special provision in his or her will. Although adoption does not have legal status as constituting a new family relationship, this special provision is effective even if the adopted child is referred to in the will as "son" or "daughter." Because adoption does not alter personal status, no prohibitions regarding marriage or divorce exist between, on the one hand, the adopter and his or her family, and, on the other hand, the adoptee.

In Israeli law, a district or rabbinical court order of adoption severs all rights and obligations between the adoptee and his or her natural parents, while establishing a new and binding legal relationship with the adoptive one(s). Thus, the adoptee is usually considered to be a legal heir and there is no need for a special provision in the adoptive parent's will.

The small number of biblical references---implicit or explicit---to the institution of adoption include Sarah's wish to have a son by having her handmaiden cohabit with her husband (Gen. 16:2); Moses' adoption by Pharaoh's daughter (Ex. 2:10); and Esther's adoption by her uncle Mordecai (Est. 2:7) although the last relationship could be interpreted as foster parenthood.

It remains uncertain whether or not adoption was practiced in ancient Israel. Certain biblical passages relating to the patriarchal period, are interpreted by scholars as alluding to adoption e.g. Genesis 15:3; 16:2; 30:3. Jacob "adopted" his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh granting them inheritance rights equal to those of his own sons, Reuben and Simeon (Gen 48:5). When the child Moses was brought to the daughter of Pharaoh, it is related that "he became her son"; the verse (Ex 2:10) is understood as the adoption of Moses. Ruth 4:16-17 is likewise interpreted as referring to adoption.

The assumption that adoption was practiced is probably influenced by the fact that adoption was widely diffused in ancient Mesopotamian culture. It would be strange, it is maintained, if an institution so widely practiced in ancient Mesopotamia were not to find some echo in the narratives of the patriarchal period, which is strongly influenced in its legal practices by those of ancient Mesopotamia.

In opposition to this view, other scholars maintain that (a) the verses cited may stand on their own without any allusion to legal adoption; (b) biblical legislation on the family, generally elaborate, makes no mention of adoption; and, (c) if legal adoption did exist in biblical times, it would certainly be part of the living legal tradition carried over into the rabbinic period, yet no trace of it is to be found in the Talmud. Even the two biblical verses (Est 2:7; Ps 2:7) that appear to refer explicitly to adoption can, on further consideration, be understood as implying guardianship rather than adoption. As for the verses in Genesis (16:2; 30:3-8) presumed to imply adoption, one must reckon with the fact that children by a maid or concubine were regarded as the legitimate offspring of their male progenitor (cf Judg 8:31). The institution of adoption did occupy a central place, however, in biblical theology. In the Bible the unique tie between God and the king is often expressed by means of a father-son imagery (II Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7-8) which can be traced back to the nomenclature of adoption known from Mesopotamian juridical documents. Similarly, on a national level, adoption terminology is employed to express the bond which exists between God and Israel. The nation, "adopted" by God, is called, "Israel, my firstborn" in Exodus 4:22; and in Jeremiah 31:9, God declares "I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn". Moreover, as a father bequeathes his inheritance to his son (i.e., eternal dynasty and gift of nations to the Davidic king), so God allots and validates his gift of the land of Israel to his "sons", the Children of Israel (Jer 3:19).

The sect of the Essenes were known to have adopted children according to Josphus (War 2.120). When the NT mentions adoption (Rom 8:23; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5) it is in the theological sense of adoption as sons of God. Paul regarded adoption as a promise for the future yet to be realized: "And I will be his God and he shall be my son" (Rev 21:7).

Adoption, the process of legally transferring parental rights and obligations from a child's biological parent or parents to one or more adults, is an age-old practice. The Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylonia provided for such a transfer. Adoption was also practiced in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. These adoptions focused on the needs of adults with regard to issues such as inheritance and religion. In 1851, Massachusetts passed the first modern adoption law, signaling a profound change in the meaning of adoption—the needs of the child, not the adult, would be paramount.

The Road to Legalized Adoption

Before 1851, legal adoption in the United States was extremely rare. English common law, on which American laws were based, did not recognize adoption because it jeopardized the inheritance rights of blood relatives. However, informal adoption (raising a child as one's own without any legal tie) was not uncommon. Beginning in the colonial era, dependent children were cared for in the homes of relatives, neighbors, or strangers, with the relationship often being formalized through indenture. Although indenture represented an economic relationship—providing for a child's basic needs in return for his or her labor—these arrangements could also be of a more familial nature. Childless couples often took these children, who were abandoned or orphaned, or whose parents were, for some reason, unable to care for them, sometimes using their wills to provide for their future. In addition, state legislatures occasionally passed private bills that changed a child's name and implicitly acknowledged its adoption.

By the mid-nineteenth century, a number of social and cultural transformations had occurred that set the stage for the passage of the Massachusetts Adoption Act of 1851. As the United States became more industrialized with the accompanying growth in cities and immigration, the number of orphaned, homeless, or neglected children rapidly grew as a result of the dislocations and uncertainties caused by these dramatic changes. Orphanages were opened to care for these children, but by midcentury some reformers began to argue that children needed the natural environment of a family, a setting that, not incidentally, was less expensive. In addition, affectionate child nurture and the belief in childhood innocence became more important, especially among the middle class, as homes lost many of their productive functions and became private havens presided over by a loving wife and mother.

Efforts to find homes for children intensified over the last half of the nineteenth century, with New York City reformer Charles Loring Brace leading the way. In 1853, Brace founded the New York Children's Aid Society, which "placed-out" poor and homeless urban youths into rural homes. In 1854, Brace loaded up 138 children and sent them west to Pennsylvania by train. In the ensuing decades, dozens of similar societies were created, and by 1930, "orphan trains" had relocated as many as 200,000 children to western states. Relatively few of these children were legally adopted, since the majority had at least one living parent or were older than adopters preferred.

Nevertheless, the placing-out movement contributed to the development of adoption laws and the growing acceptance of adoption. As more people took in unrelated children and raised them as their own, the need for a standardized legal means to formalize and protect that relationship grew. Meanwhile, courts had begun in the early nineteenth century to consider "the best interests of the child" when making decisions about custody. Under this doctrine, affection and nurturance could be viewed as equally significant as paternal rights or blood ties. Together, these changes led the Massachusetts legislature to pass the 1851 adoption act. The statute made the adoption procedure clear. The measure required the written consent of the biological parents or of a child's guardian if its parents were dead, severed all legal bonds between the biological parents and the child, created legal ties between the adoptive parents and the child as if it had been born to them, and required the judge to determine that the adoptive parents were "fit and proper" before issuing the adoption decree. By the end of the nineteenth century, most states had passed adoption statutes that, like the Massachusetts law, focused on the welfare of the child.

Social Workers, Stricter Adoption Laws, and Issues of Background

During the Progressive Era, some reformers began to focus specifically on adoption and to develop placement standards that emphasized investigation to ensure that a child's biological family was not unnecessarily broken up. The policy of keeping birth families together, which was widely accepted by 1910, coupled with social workers' efforts to encourage unwed mothers to keep their children, meant that relatively few children were available for adoption. Some of the few who were available were placed through private adoption agencies, which were first opened during this period. Unlike social welfare professionals, these volunteer-staffed agencies did not insist that un-married mothers keep their infants.

Meanwhile, adoption was gradually gaining acceptance. From 1907 to 1911, the Delineator, a popular women's magazine, ran a child-rescue campaign that urged its largely white and middle-class readers to adopt a dependent child as part of their patriotic duty. Since Americans understood all women to be essentially maternal, the magazine even encouraged single women to adopt. The campaign led to the adoption of at least two thousand children. It also contributed to the acceptance of adoption by downplaying the significance of a child's heredity—a primary fear of many prospective adopters—and emphasizing the power of a nurturing, Christian environment to overcome any genetic taint.

Heredity was a controversial issue in adoption, as were questions of race, ethnicity, and religion. Very few child welfare agencies existed to serve the needs of African American children, and blacks continued the tradition of informally adopting needy children in their communities. Concerns about race mixing also meant that any child whose race was not crystal clear would not be placed. The focus on racial matching, however, could conflict with efforts to preserve a dependent child's natal religion. In 1904, whites in Arizona kidnapped forty Irish orphans that Catholic nuns had placed with Mexican Catholic families and placed them in white families. The courts allowed the white families to keep the children over the vigorous objections of the Catholic Church.

In the 1920s, social workers continued to work for stricter adoption laws that stressed investigation and professional oversight. One goal was to revise state adoption statutes along the lines of the Children's Code of Minnesota, passed in 1917. Although the 1851 Massachusetts Adoption Act required a judge to determine an adoptive home's suitability, those investigations were notoriously superficial. By contrast, the Children's Code required a thorough investigation into the adoptive home by a state agency before the adoption could be approved, as well as a six-month probationary period before the adoption could be finalized. The code also closed adoption records to public inspection. By the end of the 1930s, most states had passed new adoption laws or updated old ones, and many contained the principles of the Children's Code. Nevertheless, almost half of all adoption placements were still made without the initial oversight of social welfare professionals. In these independent or private agency adoptions, lawyers, physicians, and volunteers placed children largely based on their intuition.

Adoption As the "perfect Solution"

The 1940s saw significant changes in social workers' views toward illegitimacy and an explosion in the number of adoptions. Social welfare professionals began to argue that unwed mothers did not make the best parents and that their children would forever suffer from the stigma of illegitimacy. Psychological theory buttressed this position, suggesting that unwed mothers were neurotic young women whose pregnancies signaled a more deep-seated problem; by placing her child for adoption, the woman would gain a second chance to solve her problem and live a normal life. This view was especially appealing given that the war had seen a dramatic rise in the number of illegitimate births, including those to white, middle-class teens.

At the same time as the supply of adoptable infants increased, so did the demand. Already by the 1930s, concerns about a dependent child's heredity had lessened and the number of adoptions had grown. During the war and the postwar period, the number of legal adoptions swelled, as childless couples scrambled for a child with whom they could take their place in the postwar baby boom. In the mid-1930s, estimates put the number of adoptions at about 17,000 annually. By 1945, estimates had it at 50,000 a year; by 1965, the number had increased to 142,000. Adoption had became the "perfect solution" for all three parties to it.

Problems with the "perfect Solution"

Although the numbers of adoptable children had increased, the supply could in no way meet the growing demand. In response, social workers in the late 1940s began to redefine the concept of "adoptability" to include minority, older, disabled, and foreign-born children. Most significantly, professionals began to focus for the first time on the needs of African American children. When efforts to find African American homes fell short, social workers in the 1960s began to place black children in white homes for adoption. By the early 1970s, approximately fifteen thousand transracial adoptions had occurred. In 1972, however, the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) issued a statement that rejected transracial adoptions as a form of cultural genocide. In the wake of this pronouncement, many states required same-race placements. In the 1980s, the issue resurfaced because of the large percentage of black children in foster care who needed permanent homes. In the 1990s, a number of white foster parents filed antidiscrimination suits in order to adopt African American children. Despite the NABSW's continued resistance, Congress passed the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, which prohibited agencies from delaying or denying the adoption of a child in order to find racially matched parents. Any agency that did so risked the loss of federal aid.

The postwar shortage of white, American-born children also led to an interest in intercountry adoption. Orphaned and abandoned children from Germany and Japan were adopted in the years immediately after World War II. The adoption of Asian children increased dramatically after the Korean War; between 1966 and 1976, Americans adopted 32,000 foreign-born, primarily Korean, children. In 2000, Americans adopted more than 18,000 foreign children, over half from Russia and China. Girls comprised the overwhelming majority of Chinese adoptees, because Chinese families prize male children, whose value has increased since China began its one-family-one-child policy to curb population growth. In 2001, foreign-born children made up about 20 percent of all American adoptions. To combat the confusion and corruption that often marred these adoptions, such as exorbitant last-minute fees and failure to disclose a child's health problems, the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions was written in 1993. This multinational treaty, which the United States ratified in 2000, establishes, among other things, accreditation standards for agencies; it remains to be seen if nations will abide by the treaty.

The shortage of white infants intensified in the early 1970s. Feminism and the cultural acceptance of premarital sex created a climate in which unmarried mothers no longer felt compelled to place their children. The legalization of abortion in 1973 also seems to have reduced the number of available children. The result was a rapid decline in the number of unrelated adoptions in the early 1970s, from almost ninety thousand in 1970 to fewer than fifty thousand in 1975. And for many of the mothers who still wished to place their children, a new attitude prevailed. These women now often took a role in choosing their child's parents, sometimes maintaining ongoing contact after placement. Although the trend at the start of the twenty-first century was clearly toward more openness, there was considerable opposition to these "open adoptions," with a concern that children would be confused as to who their "real parents" are.

Meanwhile, birth mothers and adoptees who had been part of the "perfect solution" began to critique the secrecy surrounding adoption. Although laws had closed records from the public, birth parents and adopted persons often had access to their case histories before World War II, since many children had been placed at an age when they could remember their biological families. With more unwed mothers giving up their children after the war, agencies sealed case files to protect all parties from the stigma of illegitimacy. In 1971, an adoptee, Florence Fisher, founded the Adoptees' Liberty Movement Association with the goal of unsealing records once an adoptee reached the age of eighteen. The adoption rights movement also included birth parents, primarily mothers, some of whom founded Concerned United Birthparents in 1976. Unsealing adoption records has proved to be an extremely contentious issue; as a compromise, many states have established state adoption registries and passed "search and consent" laws that assign a confidential intermediary to locate the birth parents to ensure that they desire contact.

More recently, adoptions by gays and lesbians became a hotly contested issue. Although by the end of the twentieth century a number of states routinely accepted gay parents, restrictive legislation still existed. In 2001, a federal judge upheld Florida's 1977 law that automatically disqualified gays and lesbians. Gay activists, in addition to contesting such laws, also challenged legislation that prevented homosexual couples from adopting together.

Bibliography

Ashby, Le Roy. Endangered Children: Dependency, Neglect, and Abuse in American History. New York: Twayne, 1997.

Bartholet, Elizabeth. Family Bonds: Adoption and the Politics of Parenting. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993.

Berebitsky, Julie. Like Our Very Own: Adoption and the Changing Culture of Motherhood, 1851–1950. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.

Carp, E. Wayne. Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Gordon, Linda. The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Grossberg, Michael. Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985.

Holt, Marilyn Irvin. The Orphan Trains: Placing Out in America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992.

Kunzel, Regina. Fallen Women, Problem Girls: Unmarried Mothers and the Professionalization of Social Work, 1890–1945. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993.

Marsh, Margaret, and Wanda Ronner. The Empty Cradle: Infertility in America from Colonial Times to the Present. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Rappaport, Bruce M. The Open Adoption Book: A Guide to Adoption Without Tears. New York: Macmillan, 1992.

Wadia-Ells, Susan, ed. The Adoption Reader: Birth Mothers, Adoptive Mothers, and Adopted Daughters Tell Their Stories. Seattle, Wash.: Seal Press, 1995.

—Julie Berebitsky

A two-step judicial process in conformance to state statutory provisions in which the legal obligations and rights of a child toward the biological parents are terminated and new rights and obligations are created in the acquired parents.

Adoption involves the creation of the relation of parent and child between individuals who are not naturally so related. The adopted child is given the rights, privileges, and duties of a child and heir by the adoptive family.

Since adoption was not recognized at common law, all adoption procedures in the United States are regulated by statute. Adoption statutes prescribe the conditions, manner, means, and consequences of adoption. In addition, they specify the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved.

De facto adoption is a voidable agreement to adopt a child, based on a statutory proceeding in a particular state, which becomes lawful when the petition to adopt is properly presented.

Equitable adoption, sometimes referred to as virtual adoption, is treated by the law as final for certain purposes in spite of the fact that it has not been formally executed. When adoption appears to comply with standards of fairness and justice, some states will grant a child the rights of one who has been adopted even though the adoption procedure is incomplete. An equitable adoption might be enforced by the court for the benefit of a child in order to determine inheritance rights, for example. Similarly, adoption by estoppel is the equitable adoption of a child by promises and acts that prevent the adoptive parents and their estates from denying the child adoptive status.

Who May Adopt

To be entitled to adopt a child, an individual must meet the qualifications under the laws of her or his state, since the state has sole power to determine who may become an adoptive parent. Unless otherwise provided by state statute, U.S. citizenship is not a prerequisite for adoption.

A child may be jointly adopted by a husband and wife. If not contrary to statutory provision, either may adopt without being joined by the other. Unmarried people may adopt unless prohibited by law.

A growing area of controversy by the courts is whether adoption by a child's grandparents is a viable alternative. Such adoption might be considered in the child's best interests if the natural parents die or if the custodial parent is found unfit. A legal guardian may adopt a child but is not ordinarily given preference in the court proceedings.

The best interests of the child are of paramount importance in policy considerations toward adoption. Although legislative policy prefers such conditions as adoption by people of the same religion as the prospective adoptee, an interfaith adoption is allowed when it does not adversely affect the welfare of the child.

Elements in determining who will be suitable adoptive parents include race, religion, economic status, home environment, age, and health. Most of these criteria are taken into consideration in placements by agencies or in private placements where state law requires that adoptive parents be investigated.

Who May Be Adopted

Since the status of an adopted person is regulated by state statutes that authorize the adoption, state law determines whether an individual is a proper candidate for adoption. In addition, to be subject to adoption in a particular state, the individual must be living within that state.

Children may be adopted in situations where their natural parents are living, dead, or unknown, or where they have been abandoned. An adoption will not be prevented by the fact that a child has a legal guardian.

Some statutes expressly limit adoption to minors, and others expressly provide for adoption of adults. The adoption of adults is regarded by statutes and the courts in a manner similar to the adoption of children. Practically, however, the adoption of adults differs greatly, since it serves different purposes and creates few of the difficulties arising out of the adoption of children. In most cases, the purpose of adult adoption is to facilitate a device for inheritance. One may designate an heir by adopting an adult. Generally, the adoptee would not otherwise be entitled to inherit but for the adoption.

Social Considerations

In the past, adoption was viewed primarily as a means for a childless married couple to "normalize" their relationship. The focus has switched, however; now, adoption is ordinarily seen as an institution that exists to help place children into improved environments.

A number of states have, in recent years, enacted statutes that permit subsidization of adoptions. The adoption procedure thereby became a social instrument for the improvement of the lives of underprivileged children. Subsidized adoption tends to encourage adoption of children by suitable individuals who would otherwise be unable to afford it. This type of adoption has a significant effect upon placement of children labeled hard-to-place. Such children, who are frequently either physically or mentally handicapped, might have no other alternative except protracted institutionalization.

State law may require that the adopting parent have custody of a child for a certain period before obtaining an adoption decree. This requirement is designed to prevent premature action and to establish whether the best interests of the child will be furthered by the adoption.

Transracial Adoption

In recent years, the issue of transracial adoption has come under close scrutiny by courts, legislatures, and the public. Americans are sharply divided on this issue. Is it a positive way to create stable families for needy children and well-meaning adults? Or is it an insidious means of co-opting members of racial minorities and confusing their sense of identity?

In 1972, when the number of African American children adopted annually by white families rose to fifteen thousand, the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) issued its opinion on the subject. Igniting a furious national debate that continued in the mid-1990s, the association equated transracial adoption with cultural genocide for African Americans.

The NABSW and other minority groups opposed to the adoption of African American children by whites claim that the children are deprived of a true appreciation and understanding of their culture. Their childhood is skewed toward white values and assimilation. Without a sense of racial identity and pride, these children cannot truly belong to the African American community; yet, by the same token, racism prevents their full inclusion in the white world.

Despite these arguments, some African Americans applaud the unconditional love and permanence offered by transracial adoptions. Transracial adoption supporters argue that it is much worse to grow up without any family at all than to be placed with parents of a different race. Because a disproportionate number of African American children are placed in foster care, mixed-race adoptions may be necessary to ensure permanent homes for some African American children. Transracial adoption may also be viewed as an opportunity to achieve integration on the most basic level.

Controversies involving transracial adoption soon found their way to the courts. In 1992, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a district court's order to transfer a three-year-old African American girl from her suburban Minneapolis foster home to her maternal grandparents' home in Virginia (In re Welfare of D. L., 486 N.W.2d 375 [Minn. 1992]). Referred to as Baby D in court records, the child had been raised since birth by white foster parents who had been married for twenty-four years and had already raised three grown children. Baby D's birth mother placed her in foster care almost immediately after delivery and had not seen the child since. When no relatives could be found to claim the child, the foster parents decided to adopt the girl, whom they had grown to love.

When Baby D's grandparents learned that their daughter had delivered a baby, they set out to find their grandchild and to obtain custody. (The couple was already raising their daughter's three other children.) When the foster parents' petition to adopt Baby D surfaced, the grandparents vigorously opposed it.

The Minnesota Minority Heritage Preservation Act mandated a preference for placing children with relatives and adoptive parents of the same race (Minn. Stat. Ann. § 259.57(2)). An intermediate appeals court and the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that under the law, the Virginia grandparents must be granted custody. Despite the white foster parents' argument that they had provided security and loving care for the child, the grandparents' claim to Baby D was superior. Although many African Americans applauded the decision, some critics questioned the constitutionality of a law favoring same-race adoption.

A similar case in Lexington, Texas, produced a different result in 1995. Two foster parents, Scott Mullen and Lou Ann Mullen, who are white and Native American, respectively, applied to adopt two African American boys in their care. Initially, social workers for the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services denied the Mullens' request, stating that departmental policy required them to seek adoptive parents of the same race as the children.

A civil liberties group called the Institute for Justice filed suit against the department on behalf of the Mullens. The institute also filed suits in other states, arguing that adoption decisions based on race are unconstitutional. The Texas department reconsidered and allowed the Mullens to adopt the boys despite race differences.

Another statute affecting transracial adoptions is the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C.A. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA), a federal law giving special preference to family and tribal adoptions of Native American children. Prior to its enactment, nearly one quarter of all Native American children were removed from their parents' care and placed in foster care, through which some were adopted. ICWA's sponsors argued that the adoption of Native American children by white parents was not necessarily in the children's best interests and was unquestionably harmful to tribal membership. The law was intended to preserve Native American culture and to support an Indian child-rearing philosophy that relies heavily upon the extended family.

Under the 1978 law, tribes have jurisdiction over the proposed adoption of any Native American child living on a reservation. Extended families or tribal placements are given automatic priority over all other applicants.

Another law covering transracial adoptions is the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 622, 5115a, 5115a note). Sponsored by Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), the law prevents federally assisted child welfare agencies from screening prospective adoptive parents on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Although agencies may still consider the cultural or racial identity of children when making permanent placements, the law is intended to prevent discrimination and to speed the adoption process. The intention of the law is to give thousands of minority foster children who are eligible for adoption a greater chance of finding permanent homes.

Consent

Virtually all statutes make parental consent to adoption an indispensable condition. Most statutes set forth detailed requirements for the form and procedure of such consent. Ordinarily, statutes dispense with the parental consent requirement only when a parent has reached a serious level of unfitness that would be so significant as to terminate parental rights, or when such rights have already been judicially terminated.

In addition to parental consent, most states require a child to consent to the adoption if the child has reached a certain age, generally between ten and fourteen years.

The increasing number of divorces has resulted in deemphasis of the necessity of consent to adoption by noncustodial parents, the purpose being to ease integration of children of a former marriage into the family created by a subsequent marriage. Some statutes allow adoption without the consent of the noncustodial parent if that parent has been unable to or has failed to contribute to the support of a child for a certain period of time. Grounds for termination of noncustodial parental rights are generally more easily provable than those governing normal severance of such rights. Courts are more inclined to find abandonment — a common ground for termination of parental rights— in cases involving noncustodial divorced parents.

Unmarried Father's Consent

Historically, if a child was illegitimate, most jurisdictions required only the consent of the child's natural mother to the adoption of the child. The right to grant or withhold such consent was not extended to the fathers of illegitimate offspring, since they were not considered to have sufficient interest in the benefits and obligations of raising a child to determine whether the child should be released for adoption.

In 1979, this trend was reversed in Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 99 S. Ct. 1760, 60 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1979). The key issue was whether the consent of an unwed biological father need be obtained before an adoption could be finalized.

In Caban, a mother of illegitimate children and her husband filed a petition for adoption. The children's natural father filed a cross petition to adopt. The New York Surrogate's Court granted the mother's petition, and the natural father appealed. The decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and subsequently affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law depriving all unwed fathers of the right to decide against adoption, whether or not they actually took care of the children in question, was unconstitutional and a form of sex discrimination. The unwed father in Caban had lived with the mother of the children for five years prior to the birth of the children. The Court held that he had the right to block their adoption by a man who subsequently married the mother.

Consents that are signed by the parents either immediately before or after the birth of the child may be particularly subject to challenge by the natural mother. Owing to the mother's weakened physical and mental condition, findings of involuntary consent frequently have been handed down in such cases.

A parent can forfeit the right to give or deny consent for the adoption of his or her child in certain instances. Abandonment, the nonperformance of the natural obligations of caring for the child, including support, is one such case. The parent and child will ordinarily be kept together by the courts when the parent exhibits a continuing interest in the child's welfare.

A finding of abandonment may terminate a parent's rights and free the child for adoption with or without parental consent. A parent's rights may also be severed in cases of serious child abuse or neglect. Some statutes provide that a noncustodial parent cannot veto an adoption; however, that parent is generally entitled to be heard when a court considers the case. This is particularly true when the parent has established some kind of family tie with the child, either by having been married to, or having lived with, the custodial parent or by taking the child into her or his home.

State law may require that if a child has been placed in the custody of an agency, the agency's consent is a prerequisite for an adoption. Similarly, consent of a guardian having custody of a child is necessary. The consent of the natural mother's parents may also be required if she is under eighteen years of age and unwed.

Invalid Consent

If coercion or deception plays any part in the decision to terminate parental rights, the birth parent's consent may be ruled invalid. In the wake of the highly publicized battle over "Baby Jessica," it appears that regardless of the length of time or quality of a child's placement, the consent rights of the birth parents outweigh the best interests of the child.

In an agonizing case that divided the adoption community, Michigan couple Roberta DeBoers and Jan DeBoers lost custody in 1993 of Jessica, the two-and-a-half-year-old child they had raised from birth (In re Clausen, 442 Mich. 648, 502 N.W.2d 649 [1993]). Courts in both Iowa and Michigan concluded that the necessary consent by Iowa birth parents Cara Schmidt and Daniel Schmidt was flawed. After a protracted legal battle, Jessica was ordered to return to Iowa to live with her biological parents.

Shortly after Jessica's birth on February 8, 1991, the DeBoers filed a petition in Iowa juvenile court to adopt her. The couple, who for ten years had tried to conceive or adopt a child, were named her temporary guardians and custodians. When Jessica was less than four weeks old, however, birth mother Cara Clausen sued to have her maternal rights restored. The birth father, Dan Schmidt, also sought custody.

Unmarried at the time, Clausen had signed a release-custody form, terminating her parental rights, approximately forty hours after giving birth to Jessica. (Iowa law requires a seventy-two-hour waiting period before waiving parental rights.) The man Clausen identified as the child's father — not Schmidt — also signed a release form. Seventeen days later, Clausen informed Schmidt that she had lied on the release form and that Schmidt was actually the father.

On March 6, 1991, Clausen sought to revoke the custody agreement, naming Schmidt as the child's father. Upon learning that he was the baby's father, Schmidt filed an affidavit of paternity and asked for a court intervention to prevent the adoption proceedings. Clausen and Schmidt were married shortly thereafter.

The district court and subsequent courts determined that Dan Schmidt was indeed the biological father and that he had not agreed to have his parental rights terminated. Because he had not abandoned the baby, it was not clearly in the best interests of Jessica to remain with the DeBoers. Also, the parental rights waiver signed by Cara Schmidt was invalid because the statutorily imposed waiting period had not been observed. Therefore, early in the legal skirmish, the court ordered the baby returned to the Schmidts.

The DeBoers continued to fight Jessica's removal from their custody. With the legal maneuvering and delays, the case stretched out over a twenty-nine-month period. By the end, the DeBoers had developed a close bond with Jessica, even though they knew from the time Jessica was an infant that their claim to her might not hold up in court. But with the passage of time, the DeBoers could make a powerful claim that Jessica needed them more than the Schmidts. After all, they were the only parents she knew. The DeBoers argued that it was in Jessica's best interests to remain with them, or she could face possible emotional and psychological damage.

After Iowa courts refused to change position on the custody, the DeBoers took their case to Michigan, hoping that the best-interests-of-the-child argument would be persuasive. However, Michigan courts also agreed that Jessica should be returned to her Iowa birth parents. She was delivered to the Schmidts on August 2, 1993, and renamed Anna.

Methods of Adoption

There are several types of adoption placement procedures. Foreign adoptions are affected by the policies and procedures of the adoptees' countries. Agency placement and independent placement are governed by statute, as is adoption by contract or by deed. Some people adopt through illegal purchase of a child or arrange to have a child by a surrogate mother.

Foreign Adoption

Because of the scarcity of healthy babies for adoption in the United States, many U.S. citizens are pursuing adoption of orphaned and abandoned babies from foreign countries.

Most U.S. parents with children in foster care do not relinquish their parental rights. Foster children in the U.S. may also be difficult to place because many are older and carry the emotional scars of physical or sexual abuse.

Since the 1950s, U.S. couples have adopted thousands of Korean children. The number of Korean adoptions is declining, however, reportedly because the Korean government is uncomfortable with its reputation as a baby exporter. On the other hand, children from South America are being adopted in greater numbers by U.S. citizens, as are children from China, Romania, and Russia. In these countries, poverty, natural disasters, abandonment, war, and collapsed governments have resulted in an increased population of needy children.

Each country has different adoption policies regarding the age, income level, and marital status of prospective parents. Often, foreign adoptions are handled privately. Countries may allow children to be escorted to the United States or may require adoptive parents to come and stay for days or even months to complete the adoption paperwork. The costs of adoption also vary from nation to nation.

Agency Placement

In agency placement of a child, the arrangements are made by a licensed public or private agency. Such agencies exist solely for the placement of children, and part of their responsibility involves a thorough investigation of the suitability of the potential adoptive parents. Such an investigation is ordinarily quite detailed and takes into consideration the background of both child and prospective parents.

Statutes generally provide for agencies that are operated or licensed by the government to act in an intermediary role between natural and adoptive parents. The method by which a child is transferred to an adoption or placement agency is by the execution of a formal surrender agreement that the natural parents sign. By surrendering a child to an agency, the parent relinquishes all rights to the child. The agency is then given complete authority to arrange for adoption. In arranging for an adoption, agencies must take into consideration such issues as whether a particular child is a proper subject for adoption, whether the proposed home is a suitable one, and whether the adoption is in the child's best interests.

Agency placement has three basic advantages: (1) It minimizes such risks as the adoption of nonhealthy children, the discovery of the adoptive parents' identity by the natural mother, and the natural mother's changing her mind about the adoption. (2) The suitability of adoptive parents is determined by a stringent investigation, which minimizes the risk that a child will be adopted by unfit parents. (3) Adoption through an agency minimizes fees incidental to the adoption.

One essential disadvantage of agency placement is that it involves a long, detailed process. The adoptive parents might be forced to wait for many months while they are being investigated as to their suitability. A second disadvantage of agency placement is that only a limited number of children are available for adoption through agencies.

Independent Placement

In independent placement, or private adoption, a child is directly transferred from the natural mother, or her representative, to the parents seeking to adopt. This type of placement is ordinarily arranged by the natural mother's family or doctor. Generally, neither the natural nor the adoptive parents are thoroughly investigated. The adoptive parents often arrange to pay all medical bills incidental to the pregnancy and birth, in addition to legal expenses. Private adoptions are lawful in most states.

Like agency placement, independent placement has both advantages and disadvantages. Private placement facilitates the adoption of a child by parents who might otherwise be forced to endure an extended waiting period or who might be unable to find a child through agency channels because of stringent requirements or mere nonavailability of adoptable children. As with all adoptions, there is an inherent risk that the natural mother might change her mind and never complete the adoption procedure. With some private adoptions, the natural mother remains anonymous. With others, her identity is known to the adoptive parents at the outset.

Independent placement aids mothers who do not have financial resources, by arranging for the payment of medical expenses by the adoptive parents. Such a procedure can, however, lead to a black market if not carefully monitored.

Other disadvantages of private placements are the risks of adoption of an unhealthy child or of nonsuitability of the adoptive parents.

Some states prohibit lawyers from obtaining babies for adoption by clients under any circumstances. Attorneys, however, are ordinarily permitted to accept fees for handling the legal aspects of adoption.

Surrogate Motherhood

During the 1980s, many infertile couples turned to surrogate motherhood as an alternative to traditional adoption. A surrogate mother was paid a fee to bear a child conceived through artificial insemination. Once the child was born, the surrogate mother agreed to terminate her parental rights in favor of the sperm donor, typically the husband of the woman unable to have children. For public policy reasons, paid surrogate motherhood has been denounced as an unacceptable means of buying and selling babies.

The wrenching "Baby M" case proved to be the ultimate downfall of surrogate motherhood contracts. In In re Baby M, 109 N.J. 396, 537 A.2d 1227 (1988), Mary Beth Whitehead entered a written agreement to bear the child of William Stern, whose wife, Elizabeth Stern, was unable to have children. Whitehead was to be paid $10,000 for her services. When the baby girl was born in 1985, Whitehead refused to give her up and fled with the infant to Florida. Four months later, she was apprehended by authorities, who gave the baby over to the Sterns.

Despite Whitehead's efforts to regain the child, the New Jersey Superior Court stripped her of parental and visitation rights and allowed the Sterns to adopt the baby, whom they had named Melissa. The decision had little to do with adoption policy but centered primarily on contract enforcement. The court ruled that Whitehead was obligated to honor her contract with the Sterns.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the lower-court decision, declaring that surrogate motherhood contracts are unenforceable because they violate public policy. The Sterns were allowed to maintain custody of Baby M, although the adoption was voided and some of Whitehead's parental and visitation rights were restored. After the decision, most states passed legislation to prohibit surrogate motherhood contracts altogether.

Adoption by Contract or Agreement

Generally, an adoptive relationship cannot be formed by private contract, either express or implied. Although adoption contracts are not usually considered to be injurious to public welfare, they are discouraged on the basis of the principle that a parent should not be permitted to trade away her or his child.

A court may, however, choose to treat a contract of adoption as an agreement to be enforced, with the outcome being equivalent to a formal adoption. The courts have upheld contracts between parents and institutions. In addition, in a number of states, an adoption contract between a natural parent and an institution that provides that the parent is not to be informed of the child's location is enforceable.

Since courts are not eager to deprive natural parents of the right to care for a child, adoption contracts are not enforced when they are in conflict with the welfare of the child. Some states provide that a contract made by one parent alone, absent a showing of clear consent by the other, is not valid. The procedure for adoption by a written declaration or deed is permitted in some states. Ordinarily, it must be properly recorded before the adoption will be valid.

Revocation

A court will allow an agreement for the adoption of a child to be broken by a natural parent if the circumstances warrant it, such as when a parent was forced into an adoption agreement.

The court has discretion over whether to permit revocation of an adoption agreement. In such cases, the court will scrutinize the circumstances under which the parent gave consent as well as the parent's reasons for revoking the contract.

Consequences of Adoption

Adoption ordinarily terminates the rights and responsibilities of the natural parents to the child. The death of an adoptive parent does not restore the rights of the natural parents.

Adoption creates the same rights and responsibilities between a child and adoptive parents as existed between natural parent and child. An adopted child is entitled to the same rights as a natural child. When an adult is adopted, however, the adoptive parent does not assume the usual duty of support.

State law governs whether or not the name of a child will be affected by adoption. When a minor child is adopted, his or her legal residence is changed from that of the natural parent to that of the adoptive parent.

Inheritance

A state legislature has the authority to impart or remove inheritance rights of adopted children or adoptive parents. Statutes usually provide that adopted children can inherit from adoptive parents in the same capacity as natural children and, conversely, adoptive parents can inherit the property of an adopted child who predeceases them.

Revocation of Adoption

If an adoption decree is acquired by fraud, it may be revoked. In addition, in the absence of the requisite consent of all concerned parties, an order of adoption is void. After a decree is revoked, a child assumes the status she or he had prior to the adoption proceedings.

Summary of Adoption Procedure

The formal steps in adoption of a child are generally uniform in all states.

Notice

Notice of adoption proceedings is given to all parties who have a legal interest in the case except the child. In the case of illegitimacy, both natural parents should be given notice if they can be located.

Some statutes provide that a parent who has failed to support a child is not entitled to notice. Ordinarily, a parent who has lost custody of a child in a divorce or separation case is, however, entitled to notice. Similarly, an adoption agency that has custody of the child is entitled to notice.

Petition

The parents seeking to adopt must file a petition in court that supplies information about their situation as well as the situation of the child. The filing of a proper petition is or- dinarily a prerequisite to the court's jurisdiction.

The petition indicates the names of the adoptive parents, the child, and the natural parents, if known. In addition, the child's gender and age are stated, and some states mandate that a medical report on the child must also accompany the petition. An example of such a petition is found on page 98.

Consent

Written consent of the adoption agency or the child's natural parents accompanies the petition for adoption. Consent of the natural parents is not required if their parental rights have been involuntarily terminated as a result, for example, of abandonment or abuse of the child.

Hearing

A hearing is held so that the court may examine the qualifications of the prospective parents and either grant or deny the petition. There must be an opportunity for the parties to present testimony and to examine witnesses at such a hearing.

Adoption proceedings are confidential, so the hearing is conducted in a closed courtroom.

Ordinarily, the records of an adoption hearing are available for inspection only by court order. Confidentiality is thought to promote a sense of security for the child with his or her new family.

Probation

Most states require a period of probation in adoption proceedings. During this period, the child lives with the adoptive parents, and the appropriate state agency monitors the development of the relationship. The agency's prime concern is the ability of the adoptive parents to properly care for the child. If the relationship is working well for all concerned parties, the state agency will request that the court issue a permanent decree of adoption.

If the relationship is unsatisfactory, the child is either returned to her or his previous home or is taken care of by the state.

Decree

An adoption decree is a judgment of the court and is given the same force and effect as any other judgment.

Birth Certificate

Following the adoption proceedings, a certificate of adoption is issued for the adopted child, to replace the birth certificate. It lists the new family name, the date and place of the child's birth, and the ages of the adoptive parents at the time the child was born.

Generally, the certificate of adoption does not indicate the names of the child's natural parents or the date and place of adoption. A child may never know that he or she was adopted unless the adoptive parents reveal the information, since the old birth certificate is sealed away and may be opened only by court order.

Right to Information on Natural Parents

Ordinarily, all information concerning an adopted child's origins is sealed, in compliance with the court adoption proceedings, to facilitate development of a relationship between the adoptive parents and child free from the natural parents' influence.

Most state statutes deny adoptees access to records that disclose information about the natural parents. Often, the natural parents make their consent to the adoption contingent upon the condition that no information about them should ever be revealed.

In recent times, because of a growing public interest in tracing ethnic and family backgrounds, many adoptees, as adults, have been calling for the right to obtain access to sealed adoption records.

The adult adoptees recognize that a disclosure of this kind of information could be traumatic to minor adoptees, but they contend that lack of access could cause serious psychological trauma to them as adults. In addition, they cite medical problems or misdiagnoses that could be caused by absence of genetic history, lack of religious identity, and fear of unwitting incest.

Adult adoptees contend that most adoption statutes do not make a distinction between adoptees as minors and later as adults, which causes the adults to be deprived of the right to trace their background. In addition, the adults allege that they have been denied equal protection of law because their status precludes them from receiving medical information readily available to nonadoptees.

Various approaches are being used to resolve this problem. One approach involves the enactment of a legislative requirement that public and private adoption agencies be required to open their records upon request to adults who were adopted as children, with certain limitations. For example, if the child had been placed by the natural parents prior to the effective date of the legislation, the natural parents could prevent the adoptee from seeing the records.

The issue of right to access to adoption records by adoptees when they reach adulthood also encompasses the legal consideration of the natural parents' right to privacy, which could be violated if free access to sealed court records were given to adult adoptees. The adult adoptees' right to know must be balanced against their natural parents' right to privacy. The way to achieve such a balance, however, has never been clearly determined.

See: Child Custody; Children's Rights; Child Support; Family Law; Illegitimacy; Infants; Parent and Child; Surrogate Motherhood.

• Chookooloonks All about adoption, parenting, Trinidad & Tobago, and the Caribbean.

For other uses, see Adoption (disambiguation).

Sister Irene of New York Foundling Hospital with children. Sister Irene is among the pioneers of modern adoption, establishing a system to board out children rather than institutionalize them.

Adoption is the act of legally placing a child with a parent or parents other than those to whom they were born. An adoption order has the effect of severing parental responsibilities and rights of the original parent(s) and transferring those responsibilities and rights to the adoptive parent(s).

Contents 1 History of adoption 1.1 Antiquity 1.2 Middle Ages to Modern Period 1.3 Modern period 2 Contemporary adoption 2.1 Forms of adoption 2.2 How adoptions originate 2.3 How adoptions disrupt 2.4 Embryo adoption 3 Parenting and development of adoptees 3.1 Parenting 3.2 Development 3.3 Public perception of adoption 4 Reform and reunion trends 4.1 Reunion 4.2 Treatment of Aboriginal Cultures 4.3 The language of adoption 5 Cultural variations in adoption 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links

History of adoption

Antiquity

Adoption for the well-born

Trajan became emperor of Rome through adoption, a customary practice of the empire that enabled peaceful transitions of power.

Adoption has been called the quintessential American institution, embodying faith in social engineering and mobility.^[1] While it is true that the modern form emerged in the United States, civilization has a long history of the practice of adoption. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, details the rights of adopters and the responsibilities of adopted individuals at length while the practice of adoption in ancient Rome is well documented in the Codex Justinianus.^[2][3]

Markedly different from the modern period, ancient adoption practices put emphasis on the interest of the adopter,^[4] providing a legal tool that strengthened political ties between wealthy families and creating male heirs to manage estates.^[5][6] The use of adoption by the aristocracy is well documented; many of Rome's emperors were adopted sons.^[6]

Infant adoption during Antiquity appears rare.^[4][7] Abandoned children were often picked up for slavery ^[8] and composed a significant percentage of the Empire’s slave supply.^[9][10] Roman legal records indicate that foundlings were occasionally taken in by families and raised as a son or daughter. Although not normally adopted under Roman Law, the children, called alumni, were reared in an arrangement similar to guardianship, being considered the property of the father who abandoned them.^[11]

Other ancient civilizations, notably India and China, utilized some form of adoption as well. Evidence suggests their practices aimed to ensure the continuity of cultural and religious practices, in contrast to the Western idea of extending family lines. In ancient India, ‘secondary sonship,’clearly denounced by the Rigveda,^[12] continued, in a limited and highly ritualistic form, so that an adopter might have the necessary funerary rites performed by a son.^[13] China had a similar conception of adoption with males adopted solely to perform the duties of ancestor worship.^[14]

Middle Ages to Modern Period

Adoption and the commoner

At the monastery gate (Am Klostertor) by Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller.

The nobility of the Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic cultures that dominated Europe after the decline of the Roman Empire denounced the practice of adoption.^[15] In medieval society, bloodlines were paramount; a ruling dynasty lacking a natural-born heir apparent was replaced, a stark contrast to Roman traditions. The evolution of European law reflects this aversion to adoption. English Common Law, for instance, did not permit adoption since it contradicted the customary rules of inheritance. In the same vein, France's Napoleonic Code made adoption difficult, requiring adopters to be over the age of 50, sterile, older than the adopted person by at least fifteen years, and to have fostered the adoptee for at least six years.^[16]

Europe's cultural makeover marked a period of significant innovation for adoption. Without support from the nobility, the practice gradually shifted toward abandoned children. Abandonment levels rose with the fall of the empire, many of the foundlings being left on the doorstep of the Church.^[17] Initially, the clergy reacted by drafting rules to govern the exposing, selling, and rearing of abandoned children. The Church's innovation, however, was the practice of oblation, whereby children were dedicated to lay life within monastic institutions and reared within the monastery. This created the first system in European history in which abandoned children were without legal, social, or moral disadvantage. As a result, many of Europe’s abandoned and orphaned became alumni of the Church, which in turn took the role of adopter. Oblation marks the beginning of a shift toward institutionalization, eventually bringing about the establishment of the foundling hospital and orphanage .^[17]

In parallel with the move toward institutionalization, from the end of Antiquity into the Modern Era, there is evidence that informal adoptions continued to occur. For example, in the year 737, in a charter from the town of Lucca, three adopted children were made heirs to an estate. Contemporary arrangements stressed the responsibility of the adopted rather than adopter, focusing on the fact that under the agreement the adoptive father was meant to be cared for his old age; an idea that recalls conceptions of adoption held under the provisions of Roman law. ^[18]

As the Foundling Hospital Model gained acceptance, however, more formal rules were created for placement of children into families: boys were usually apprenticed to an artisan and girls were married off under institutional authority. ^[19] Hospitals continued to informally adopt out children as well, a mechanism regarded as a means to obtain cheap labor, demonstrated by the fact that when the adopted died, their bodies were returned by the family to the institution for burial. ^[20]

The system of apprenticeship and informal adoption extended into the 19th century, today seen as a transitional phase for adoption history. Under the direction of social welfare activists, orphan asylums began to promote adoptions based on sentiment rather than work and children were placed out under agreements to provide care for them as family members instead of under contracts for apprenticeship. ^[21] The growth of this model is believed to have contributed to the enactment of the first modern adoption law in 1851 by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, unique in that it codified the ideal of the “best interests of the child.” ^{[22] [23]} Despite its intent, though, in practice, the system operated much the same as earlier incarnations. The experience of the Boston Female Asylum (BFA) is a good example, which had up to 30% of its charges adopted out by the 1888. ^[24] Officials of the BFA noted that, although the asylum promoted otherwise, adoptive parents did not distinguish between indenture and adoption; “We believe," the asylum officials said, "that often, when children of a younger age are taken to be adopted, the adoption is only another name for service.” ^[25]

Modern period

Adopting to create a family

The next stage of adoption’s evolution fell to the emerging nation of the United States. Rapid immigration and the aftermath of the American Civil War resulted in unprecedented overcrowding of orphanages and foundling homes in the mid-nineteenth century. Charles Loring Brace, a Protestant minister became appalled by the legions of homeless waifs roaming the streets of New York City. Brace considered the abandoned youth, particularly Catholics, to be the most dangerous element challenging the city’s order. ^[26][27]

Charles Loring Brace.

His solution was outlined in The Best Method of Disposing of Our Pauper and Vagrant Children (1859) which started the Orphan Train movement. The orphan trains eventually shipped an estimated 200,000 children from the urban centers of the East to the nation’s rural regions.^[28] The children were generally indentured, rather than adopted, to families who took them in.^[29] As in times past, some children were raised as members of the family while others were used as farm laborers and household servants.^[30]

William and his brother Thomas. They rode the Orphan Train in 1880 at the ages of 11 and 9, respectively. William was taken into a good home. Thomas was exploited for labor and abused. The brothers eventually made their way back to New York and reunited.

The sheer size of the displacement—the largest migration of children in history—and the degree of exploitation that occurred, gave rise to new agencies and a series of laws that promoted adoption arrangements rather than indenture. The hallmark of the period is Minnesota’s adoption law of 1917 which mandated investigation of all placements and limited record access to those involved in the adoption.^[31][32]

During the same period, the Progressive movement swept the United States with a critical goal of ending the prevailing orphanage system. The culmination of such efforts came with the First White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children called by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909,^[33] where it was declared that the nuclear family represented "the highest and finest product of civilization” and was best able to serve as primary caretaker for the abandoned and orphaned.^[34][35] Anti-institutional forces gathered momentum. As late as 1923, only two percent of children without parental care were in adoptive homes, with the balance in foster arrangements and orphanages. Less than forty years later, nearly one-third were in an adoptive home.^[36]

Nevertheless, the popularity of eugenic ideas in America put up obstacles to the growth of adoption.^[37][38] There were grave concerns about the genetic quality of illegitimate and indigent children, perhaps best exemplified by the influential writings of Henry H. Goddard who protested against adopting children of unknown origin, saying,^[39]

Now it happens that some people are interested in the welfare and high development of the human race; but leaving aside those exceptional people, all fathers and mothers are interested in the welfare of their own families. The dearest thing to the parental heart is to have the children marry well and rear a noble family. How short-sighted it is then for such a family to take into its midst a child whose pedigree is absolutely unknown; or, where, if it were partially known, the probabilities are strong that it would show poor and diseased stock, and that if a marriage should take place between that individual and any member of the family the offspring would be degenerates.—Henry Goddard, Wanted: A Child to Adopt

It took a war and the disgrace of Nazi eugenic policies to alter attitudes. The period 1945 to 1974, the Baby scoop era, saw rapid growth and acceptance of adoption as a means to build a family.^[40] Illegitimate births rose three-fold after WWII, as sexual mores changed. Simultaneously, the scientific community began to stress the dominance of nurture over genetics, chipping away at eugenic stigmas.^[41][42] In this environment, adoption became the obvious solution for both unwed mothers and infertile couples. ^[43]

Taken together, these trends resulted in a new American model for adoption. Following its Roman predecessor, Americans severed the rights of the original parents while making adopters the new parents in the eyes of the law. Two innovations were added: 1) adoption was formulated as a legal act meant to ensure the "best interests of the child;" the seeds of this idea can be traced to the first American adoption law in Massachusetts, 1851 which mandated that placements consider the welfare of the child, ^[44][45] and 2) adoption became infused with secrecy, eventually resulting in the sealing of adoption and original birth records by 1945. The origin of the move toward secrecy began with Charles Loring Brace who introduced it to prevent children from the Orphan Trains from returning to or being reclaimed by their parents. Brace feared the impact of the parents' poverty and their Catholic religion, in particular, on the youth. This tradition of secrecy was carried on by the later Progressive reformers when drafting of American laws. ^[46]

The number of adoptions in the United States peaked in 1970. ^[47] It is uncertain what caused the subsequent decline. Besides the legalization of artificial birth control methods and abortion, the years of the late 1960s and early 1970s saw a dramatic change in society’s view of illegitimacy. In response, family preservation efforts grew^[48] so that few children born out of wedlock today are adopted (Refer to Table 1). Ironically, adoption is far more visible and discussed in society today, yet it is less common.^[49]

Race	Before 1973	1973-1981	1982-1988	1989-1995	1996-2002
All Women	8.7%	4.1%	2.0%	0.9%	1.0%
Black Women	1.5%	0.2%	1.1%	0.0%	NA
White Women	19.3%	7.5%	3.2%	1.7%	1.3%

Table 1: Percentage of Infants (Born to Never-Married Women) Who Were Relinquished^[50]

The American model of adoption eventually proliferated globally. England and Wales established their first formal adoption law in 1926. Holland passed its law in 1956. Sweden made adoptees full members of the family in 1959. West Germany enacted its first laws in 1977. ^[51] Additionally, the Asian powers opened their orphanage systems to adoption, influenced as they were by Western ideas following colonial rule and military occupation.^[52]

Although adoption is today practiced globally, the United States remains the leader in its use. The table below provides a snapshot of Western adoption rates. Adoption in the United States still occurs at nearly three times those of its peers although the number of children awaiting adoption has held steady in recent years, hovering between 133,000 to 129,000 during the period 2002 to 2006.^[53]

Country	Adoptions	Live Births	Adoption/Live Birth Ratio	Notes
Australia	443 (2003-2004)[54]	254,000 (2004)[55]	0.2 per 100 Live Births	Includes known relative adoptions
England & Wales	4,764 (2006)[56]	669,601(2006)[57]	0.7 per 100 Live Births	Includes all adoption orders in England and Wales
Iceland	between 20-35 year[58]	4,560 (2007)[59]	0.8 per 100 Live Births
Ireland	263 (2003)[60]	61,517 (2003)[61]	0.4 per 100 Live Births	92 non-family adoptions; 171 family adoptions (e.g. stepparent). 459 international adoptions were also recorded.
Italy	3,158 (2006)[62]	560,010 (2006)[63]	0.6 per 100 Live Births
Norway	657 (2006)[64]	58,545(2006)[65]	1.1 per 100 Live Births	Adoptions breakdown: 438 inter-country; 174 stepchildren; 35 foster; 10 other.
Sweden	1044(2002)[66]	91,466(2002)[67]	1.1 per 100 Live Births	10-20 of these were national adoptions of infants. The rest were international adoptions.
United States	approx 127,000 (2001)[68]	4,021,725 (2002)[69]	~3 per 100 Live Births	The number of adoptions is reported to be constant since 1987.

Table 2: Adoptions, Live Births, and Adoption/Live Birth Ratios are provided in the table below (alphabetical, by country) for a number of Western countries

Contemporary adoption

Forms of adoption

Contemporary adoption practices can be divided into two forms: 1) Open and 2) Closed.

Open adoption allows identifying information to be communicated between adoptive and biological parents and, perhaps, interaction between kin and the adopted person. Rarely, it is the outgrowth of laws that maintain an adoptee's right to unaltered birth certificates and/or adoption records, but such access is not universal (it is possible in a few jurisdictions - including the U.K. and six States in the U.S.).^{[70][70][71][72][73]} More often, open adoption is an informal arrangement subject to termination by adoptive parents who have sole authority over the child (in some jurisdictions, the biological and adoptive parents may enter into a binding agreement concerning visitation, exchange of information, or other interaction regarding the child, however).^[74]

The practice of closed adoption, the norm for most of modern history,^[75] seals all identifying information, maintaining it as secret and baring disclosure of the adoptive parents', biological kins', and adoptees' identities. Nevertheless, closed adoption, may allow the transmittal of non-identifying information such as medical history and religious and ethnic background. ^[76] Today, as a result of safe haven laws passed by some U.S. states, closed adoption is seeing renewed influence. In safe-haven states, infants can be left, anonymously, at hospitals, fire departments, or police stations within a few days of birth, a practice criticized by some adoptee advocacy organizations as being retrograde and dangerous.^[77]

New York Foundling Home, the institution is among North America's oldest adoption agencies.

How adoptions originate

Adoption occurs between related family members and unrelated individuals. Historically, most adoptions occurred within a family, though. The most recent data from the U.S. indicates about half of adoptions are currently between related individuals. ^[78]. A common example of this is a "stepparent adoption", where the new partner of a parent may legally adopt a child from the parent's previous relationship. Intra-family adoption can also occur through surrender, as a result of parental death, or when the child cannot otherwise be cared for and a family member agrees to take over.

Infertility is the main reason parents seek to adopt children they are not related to. One study shows this accounted for 80% of unrelated infant adoptions and half of adoptions through foster care.^[79] Estimates suggest that 11%-24% of Americans who cannot conceive or carry to term attempt to build a family through adoption, and that the overall rate of ever-married American women who adopt is about 1.4%.^[80][81] Other reasons people adopt are numerous although not well documented. These may include wanting to cement a new family following divorce or death of one parent, compassion motivated by religious or philosophical conviction, to avoid contributing to perceived overpopulation out of the belief that it is more responsible to care for otherwise parent-less children than to reproduce, to ensure inheritable diseases (e.g., Tay-Sachs disease) are not passed on, and health concerns relating to pregnancy and childbirth. Although there are a range of possible reasons, the most recent study of women who adopt experiences suggests they are most likely to be 40–44 years of age, currently married, have impaired fertility, and childless.^[82]

Unrelated adoptions may occur through three mechanisms:

1) Private Domestic Adoptions: under this arrangement, charities and for-profit organizations act as intermediaries, bringing together prospective adoptive parents and families who want to place a child, all parties being residents of the same country. Alternatively, prospective adoptive parents sometimes avoid intermediaries and solicit pregnant women directly, drafting contracts through a lawyer (this is illegal in some jurisdictions). Private Domestic Adoption accounts for a significant portion of all adoptions; in the United States, for example, nearly 45% of adoptions are estimated to have occurred through private arrangements.^[83]

2) Foster care adoption: this is a type of domestic adoption where a child is initially placed in public care. Its importance as an avenue for adoption varies by country. Nevertheless, the example of the United States is instructive. Of the 127,500 adoptions that occurred in the U.S.^[83] about 51,000 or 40% were through the foster care system.^[84]

3) International adoption: involves the placing of a child for adoption outside that child’s country of birth. This can occur through both public and private agencies. In some countries, such as Sweden, these adoptions account for the majority of cases (see above Table). The U.S. example, however, indicates there is wide variation by country since adoptions from abroad account for less than 15% of its cases.^[83] The laws of different countries vary in their willingness to allow international adoptions. Recognizing the difficulties and challenges associated with international adoption, and in an effort to protect those involved from the corruption and exploitation which sometimes accompanies it, the Hague Conference on Private International Law developed the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which came into force on 1 May 1995 and has been ratified by 75 countries, to date.^[85]

How adoptions disrupt

Disruption refers to the termination of an adoption. This includes adoptions that end prior to legal finalization and those that end after that point (in U.S. law, the latter cases are referred to as having been dissolved). The Disruption process is usually initiated by adoptive parents via a court petition and is analgous to divorce proceedings. It is a legal avenue unique to adoptive parents as disruption/dissolution does not apply to biological kin.^[86]

No known official statistics track the number of disruptions in any country. Some ad hoc studies, performed in the U.S., however, suggest that between 10-25 percent of adoptions disrupt before they are legally finalized and from 1-10 percent are dissolved after legal finalization. The wide range of values reflects the paucity of information on the subject and demographic factors such as age; it is known that older children are more prone to having their adoptions disrupted.^[86]

Embryo adoption

The state of Georgia in the United States of America is the first jurisdiction to include human embryos in it adoption laws. Conservative evangelicals are the primary supporters, considering it a recognition of embryo life and a mechanism to save that life.^[87] These developments in adoption law are not without critics, however, even among religious communities. While the Catholic Church has not announced its support or opposition to the adpotion of embyros, its theologians are divided on the issue with some deeming it a "grave violation of nature," and others viewing it as an act of charity.^[88]

In the absence of adoption laws, embryo relinquishment has occurred under property laws, being transferred from one set of individuals to another. As of 2003, 400,000 embryos had been frozen in the United States alone and an estimated 2% or 9,000 were available for donation; the rest were reserved for future use by the parents or for medical research.^[89]

Parenting and development of adoptees

Parenting

Biological ties are the hallmark of parent-child relationships, and its absence has caused concern throughout the history of adoption. No less an authority than Jessie Taft, a pioneer in the professionlization of adoption services and herself an adoptive mother, commented on the difference in adoptive parenting, “No one who is not willfully deluded would maintain that the experiences of adoption can take the place of the actual bearing and rearing of an own child.” ^[90]

Along these lines, a Princeton University study of 6,000 adoptive, step, and foster mothers in the United States and South Africa from 1968-1985 indicated that food expenditures in households with non-biological children (when controlled for income, household size, hours worked, age, etc.) were significantly less, causing the researchers to speculate that, instinctually, people are less interested in sustaining the genetic lines of others.^[91] Moreover, the perception of similarities between adoptive parent and child appears important to successfully parenting. In relationships marked by sameness in likes, personality, and appearance, both adult adoptees and adoptive parents report being happier with the adoption.^[92].

Adopted family of Mr. Clark Griffith 1925.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that adoptive relationships can form along other lines. A study evaluating the level of parental investment indicates strength in adoptive families, suggesting that parents who adopt invest more time in their children than other parents and concludes, "...adoptive parents enrich their children's lives to compensate for the lack of biological ties and the extra challenges of adoption."^[93]

Beyond the foundational issues, the unique questions posed for adoptive parents are varied. They include how to respond to stereotypes, answering questions about heritage, and how best to maintain connections with biological kin when in an open adoption.^[94] One author suggests a common question adoptive parents have is whether, "Will we love the child even though he/she is not our biological child?" ^[95]. A specific concern for many parents is accommodating an adoptee in the classroom.^[96] Familiar lessons like "draw your family tree" or "trace your eye color back through your parents and grandparents to see where your genes come from" could be hurtful to children who were adopted and do not know this biological information. Numerous suggestions have been made to substitute new lessons, e.g., focusing on "family orchards."^[97]

Adopting older children presents other parenting issues. Some children from foster care have histories of maltreatment, such as physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, are at risk of developing psychiatric problems.^[98][99] Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment.^{[100][101][102]} Studies by Cicchetti et al. (1990, 1995) found that 80% of abused and maltreated infants in their sample exhibited disorganized attachment styles.^[103][104] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms,^[105] as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out symptoms.^[106][107]

Development

Significant debate has unfolded over the years as to whether the personality and psychological development of adoptees is different from those of nonadopted persons.

While answers remain unclear, researchers from the University of Minnesota studied adolescents adopted at very young ages and found that adoptees are twice as likely as nonadopted people to suffer from oppositional defiant disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (with an 8% rate in the general population).^[108]

Studies from the Colorado Adoption Project examined genetic influences on adoptee development, concluding that cognitive abilities of adoptees reflect those of their adoptive parents in early childhood but show little similarity by adolescence, resembling instead those of their biological parents and to the same extent as peers in nonadoptive families. ^[109]

Public perception of adoption

In Western culture, the dominant conception of family revolves around a heterosexual couple with biological offspring. This idea places alternatives family forms outside the norm. As a consequence, research indicates, disparaging views of adoptive families exist, along with doubts concerning the strength of their family bonds.^[110][111].

Actors at the Anne of Green Gables Museum on Prince Edward Island, Canada. Since its first publication in 1908, the story of the orphaned Anne, and how the Cuthberts took her in, has been widely popular in the English-speaking world and, later, Japan.

The most recent adoption attitudes survey completed by the Evan Donaldson Institute provides further evidence of this stigma. Nearly one-third of the surveyed population believed adoptees are less-well adjusted, more prone to medical issues, and predisposed to drug and alcohol problems. Additionally, 40-45% thought adoptees were more likely to have behavior problems and trouble at school. In contrast, the same study indicated adoptive parents were viewed favorably, with nearly 90% describing them as, “lucky, advantaged, and unselfish.”^[112]

The majority of people state that their primary source of information about adoption comes from friends and family and the news media. Nevertheless, most people report the media provides them a favorable view of adoption; 72% indicated receiving positive impressions.^[113] There is, however, still substantial criticism of the media's adoption coverage. Adoption blogs, for example, criticized Meet the Robinsons for using outdated orphanage imagery ^[114][115] as did advocacy non-profit The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.^[116]

The stigmas associated with adoption are amplified for children in foster care.^[117] Negative perceptions result in the belief that such children are so troubled it would be impossible to adopt them and create “normal” families.^[118] The result is that many children who would thrive in a loving family instead wait years in foster care, and even “age out” of the system at 18 without a family. A 2004 report from the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care has shown that the number of children waiting in foster care doubled since the 1980s and now remains steady at about a half-million a year."^[119]

Reform and reunion trends

Open Rights efforts, a key platform of modern adoption reform.

Adoption practices have significantly changed over the course of the last century, with each new movement labeled, in some way, reform.^[120] Beginning in the 1970s efforts to improve adoption became associated with opening records and encouraging family preservation. These ideas arose from suggestions that the secrecy inherent in modern adoption may influence the process of forming an identity,^[121][122] create confusion regarding genealogy,^[123], and provide little in the way of medical history.

Family preservation: As concerns over illegitimacy began to subside in the early 1970s, social-welfare agencies began to emphasize that, if possible, mothers and children should be kept together.^[124]. In America, this was clearly illustrated by the shift in policy of the New York Foundling Home, an adoption-institution that is among the country’s oldest and one that had pioneered sealed records. It established three new principles including, “to prevent placements of children...,” reflecting the belief that children would be better served by staying in their own families and communities, a striking shift in policy that remains in force today. ^[125]

Open records: Movements to unseal adoption records for adopted citizen proliferated along with increased acceptance of illegitimacy. In the United States, Florence Fisher created the Adoptees’ Liberty Movement Association (ALMA) in 1971, calling sealed records “an affront to human dignity.”^[126] while in 1975, Emma May Vilardi created the first mutual-consent registry, the International Soundex Reunion Registry (ISRR), allowing those separated by adoption to locate one another.^[127] Similar ideas were taking hold globally. In 1975, England and Wales opened records on moral grounds.^[128]

Later years saw the evolution of more militant organizations such as Bastard Nation (founded in 1996), groups that helped overturn sealed records in Alabama, Delaware, New Hampshire, Oregon, Tennessee, and Maine.^[129][130]. Simultaneously, groups such as Origins USA (founded in 1997) started to actively speak about family preservation and the rights of mothers.^[131] The intellectual tone of these recent reform movements was influenced by the publishing of The Primal Wound by Nancy Verrier. "Primal wound" is described as the "devastation which the infant feels because of separation from its birth mother. It is the deep and consequential feeling of abandonment which the baby adoptee feels after the adoption and which may continue for the rest of his life."^[121]

Reunion

Photograph of adoptee Lesley Lathrop and mother at their reunion

Estimates for the extent of search behavior by adoptees have proven elusive; studies show significant variation.^[132] In part, the problem stems from the small adoptee population which makes random surveying difficult, if not impossible.

Nevertheless, some indication of the level of search interest by adoptees can be gleaned from the case of England and Wales which opened adoptees' birth records in 1975. The UK Office for National Statistics has projected that 33% of all adoptees would eventually request a copy of their original birth records, exceededing original forecasts made in 1975 when it was believed that only a small fraction of the adoptee population would request their records. The projection is known to underestimate the true search rate, however, since many adoptees of the era have access to get their information by other means.^[133]

The research literature states adoptees give four reasons for desiring reunion: 1) they wish for a more complete genealogy, 2) they are curious about events leading to their conception, birth, and relinquishment, 3) they hope to pass on information to their children, and 4) they have a need for a detailed biological background, including medical information. It is speculated by adoption researchers, however, that thee reasons given are incomplete: although such information could be communicated by a third-party, interviews with adoptees, who sought reunion, found they expressed a need to actually meet biological relations.^[134]

It appears the desire for reunion is linked to the adoptee’s interaction with and acceptance within the community. Internally-focused theories suggest some adoptees possess ambiguities in their sense of self, impairing their ability to present a consistent identity. Reunion helps resolve the lack of self-knowledge.^[135]

Externally-focused theories, in contrast, suggest that reunion is a way for adoptees to overcome social stigma. First proposed by Goffman, the theory has four parts: 1) adoptees perceive the absence of biological ties as distinguishing their adoptive family from others, 2) this understanding is strengthened by experiences where non-adoptees suggest adoptive ties are weaker than blood ties, 3) together, these factors engender, in some adoptees, a sense of social exclusion, and 4) these adoptees react by searching for a blood tie that reinforces their membership in the community. It is important to note, that, at least, the externally-focused rationale for reunion suggests adoptees may be well adjusted and happy within their adoptive families, but will search as an attempt to resolve experiences of social stigma.^[136]

Some adoptees reject the idea of reunion. It is unclear, though, what differentiates adoptees who search from those who do not. One paper summarizes the research, stating, “…attempts to draw distinctions between the searcher and non-searcher are no more conclusive or generalizable than attempts to substantiate…differences between adoptees and nonadoptees."^[137]

In sum, reunions can bring a variety of issues for adoptees and parents. Nevertheless, most reunion results appear to be positive. In the largest study to date (based on the responses of 1,007 adoptees and relinquishing parents), 90% responded that reunion was a beneficial experience. This does not, however, imply ongoing relationships were formed between adoptee and parent nor that this was the goal.^[138]

Treatment of Aboriginal Cultures

Reform and family preservation efforts have also been strongly associated with the perceived mis-use of adoption in aboriginal cultures. In some cases, parents' rights have been terminated when their ethnic or cultural group has been deemed unfit by the controlling government. Historically, the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal people in Australia were affected by such policies, as were Native Americans in the United States and First Nations of Canada. Moreover, unwed mothers in many countries still are (and in many more countries used to be) pressured or forced by families, religious bodies or governments to relinquish their children for adoption, due to the social stigma attached to illegitimacy. These practices of the past have become emotionally-charged social and political issues in recent years, and many cases the policies have changed. The United States, for example, now has the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, which allows the tribe and family of a Native American child to be involved in adoption decisions, with preference being given to adoption within the child's tribe.^[139]

The language of adoption

Main article: Language of adoption

The language used in adoption is changing and evolving, and it has become a controversial issue tied closely to reform efforts. The controversy arises over the use of terms which, while designed to be more appealing or less offensive to some persons affected by adoption, may simultaneously cause offense or insult to others. This controversy illustrates the problematic nature of adoption, as well as the fact that coining new words and phrases to describe ancient social practices does not alter the feelings and experiences of those affected by them.

The two contrasting sets of terms are commonly referred to as "Positive (or Respectful) Adoption Language" and "Honest-Adoption Language."

Positive Adoptive Language (PAL)

It is believed that social workers in the field of adoption, most notably Marietta Spencer, created and began the promotion of what they termed "Positive Adoption Language" around the mid 1970s.^[140]. The terms contained in ""Positive Adoption Language" include the terms "birth mother" (to replace the terms "natural mother" and "first mother"), "placing" (to replace the terms "relinquishment" or "surrender"), and restricting the terms "mother" and "father" to refer solely to the parents who had adopted. It reflects the point of view that (1) all relationships and connections between the adopted child and his/her previous family have been permanently and completely severed once the legal adoption has taken place, and that (2) "placing" a child for adoption is invariably a non-coerced "decision" the mother makes, free of coercion or pressure from external circumstances or agents.

Honest Adoption Language (HAL)

"Honest Adoption Language", on the other hand, refers to a set of terms that reflect the point of view that: (1) family relationships (social, emotional, psychological or physical) that existed prior to the legal adoption often continue past this point or endure in some form despite long periods of separation, and that (2) mothers who have "voluntarily surrendered" children to adoption (as opposed to involuntary terminations through court-authorized child-welfare proceedings) seldom view it as a choice that was freely made, but instead describe scenarios of powerlessness, lack of resources, and overall lack of choice.^[141][142] It also reflects the point of view that the term "birth mother" is derogatory in implying that the woman has ceased being a mother after the physical act of giving birth. Proponents of HAL liken this to the mother being treated as a "breeder" or "incubator".^[143]. Terms included in HAL include the original terms that were used before PAL, including "natural mother," "first mother," and "surrendered for adoption."

Cultural variations in adoption

Main article: Cultural variations in adoption

Attitudes and laws regarding adoption vary greatly. Whereas all cultures make arrangements whereby children whose own parents are unavailable to rear them to be brought up by others, not all cultures have the concept of adoption, that is treating unrelated children as equivalent to biological children of the adoptive parents. In Egypt, for example, and under Muslim law, adoption is illegal.^[144]

See also

Category:Adoptees Adoption home study Adoption by same-sex couples Adoption by celebrities Adopted child syndrome Adoption in ancient Rome Adoption in Islam Adoption in the United States Affiliation Attachment disorder Attachment theory Baby scoop era Bastard Nation

Child welfare Disruption Effects of adoption on the birth-mother Family Foster care Genetic sexual attraction Gotcha Day Illegitimacy International adoption Language of adoption Orphan train Parental leave Reactive attachment disorder Notable orphans and foundlings Michael and Sharen Gravelle Uniform Adoption Act (United States)

References

This article's citation style may be unclear. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking.

1. ^ Barbara Melosh, Strangers and Kin: the American Way of Adoption page 10
2. ^ Code of Hammurabi
3. ^ Codex Justinianus
4. ^ ^{a b} Brodzinsky and Schecter (editors), The Psychology of Adoption, 1990, page 274
5. ^ H. David Kirk, Adoptive Kinship: A Modern Institution in Need of Reform, 1985, page xiv.
6. ^ ^{a b} Mary Kathleen Benet, The Politics of Adoption, 1976, page 14
7. ^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 74, 115
8. ^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 62-63
9. ^ W. Scheidel, The Roman Slave Supply, May 2007, page 10
10. ^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 3
11. ^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 53-95
12. ^ A. Tiwari, The Hindu Law of Adoption, Central Indian Law Quarterly, Vol 18, 2005
13. ^ Vinita Bhargava, Adoption in India: Policies and Experiences, 2005, page 45
14. ^ W. Menski, Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa, 2000
15. ^ S. Finley-Croswhite, Review of Blood Ties and Fictive Ties, Canadian Jorunal of History, Aug 1997
16. ^ Brodzinsky and Schecter (editors), The Psychology of Adoption, 1990, page 274
17. ^ ^{a b} John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 184
18. ^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 224
19. ^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 420
20. ^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 421.
21. ^ Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, A Good Home, page 29.
22. ^ Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, A Good Home, page 37.
23. ^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, Topic: Timeline
24. ^ Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, A Good Home, page 44.
25. ^ Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, A Good Home, page 45.
26. ^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, Topic: Charles Loring Brace, The Dangerous Classes of New York and Twenty Years' Work Among Them, 1872
27. ^ Charles Loring Brace, The Dangerous Classes of New York and Twenty Years' Work Among Them, 1872
28. ^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, Topic: Charles Loring Brace
29. ^ Stephen O’Connor, Orphan Trains, Page 95
30. ^ Orphan Train Heritage Society of America, Riders’ Stories
31. ^ Wayne Carp (Editor), E. Adoption in America: Historical Perspectives, page 160
32. ^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, Topic: Home Studies
33. ^ M. Gottlieb, The Foundling, 2001, page 76
34. ^ E. Wayne Carp (Editor), Adoption in America: Historical Perspectives, page 108
35. ^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, Topic: Placing Out
36. ^ Bernadine Barr, “Spare Children, 1900-1945: Inmates of Orphanages as Subjects of Research in Medicine and in the Social Sciences in America” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1992), p. 32, figure 2.2.
37. ^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, Topic: Eugenics
38. ^ Lawrence and Pat Starkey, Child Welfare and Social Action in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,2001 page 223
39. ^ H.H. Goddard, Excerpt from Wanted: A Child to Adopt
40. ^ E. Wayne Carp (Editor), Adoption in America: Historical Perspectives, page 181
41. ^ William D. Mosher and Christine A. Bachrach, Understanding U.S. Fertility: Continuity and Change in the National Survey of Family Growth, 1988-1995,Family Planning Perspectives Volume 28, Number 1, January/February 1996, page 5
42. ^ Barbara Melosh, Strangers and Kin: the American Way of Adoption, page 106
43. ^ Barbara Melosh, Strangers and Kin: the American Way of Adoption, page 105-107
44. ^ Brodzinsky and Schecter (editors), The Psychology of Adoption, 1990, page 274
45. ^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, Topic: Timeline
46. ^ E. Wayne Carp, Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption, Harvard University Press, 2000, pages 103-104.
47. ^ National Council for Adoption, Adoption Fact Book, 2000, page 42, Table 11
48. ^ M. Gottlieb, The Foundling, 2001, page 106
49. ^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, Topic: Adoption Statistics
50. ^ U.S. Center for Disease Control, Adoption Experiences of Women and Men and Demand for Children to Adopt, 2002, page 34, August 2008."
51. ^ Christine Adamec and William Pierce, The Encyclopedia of Adoption, 2nd Edition, 2000
52. ^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, Topic: International Adoption
53. ^ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,U.S. Trends in Foster Care and Adoption
54. ^ Austrlian Institute of Health and Welfare, Adoptions Australia 2003-04, Child Welfare Series Number 35.
55. ^ Australian Bureau of Statistics,Population and Household Characteristics
56. ^ UK Office for National Statistics, Adoption Data
57. ^ UK Office for National Statistics, Live Birth Data
58. ^ Íslensk Ættleiðing,Adoption Numbers
59. ^ Statistics Iceland,Births and Deaths
60. ^ Adoption Authority of Ireland,Report of The Adoption Board 2003
61. ^ Central Statistics Office Ireland,Births,Deaths,Marriages
62. ^ Tom Kington, Families in Rush to Adopt a Foreign Child, Guardian, January 28, 2007
63. ^ Demo Istat, Demographic Balance, 2006
64. ^ Statistics Norway, Adoptions,
65. ^ Statistics Norway, Births
66. ^ Embassy of Sweden (Seoul), Adoptions to Sweden, February 12, 2002
67. ^ Statistics Sweden Births,2002
68. ^ The National Adoption Information Clearinghouse of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, How Many Children Were Adopted in 2000 and 2001, 2004
69. ^ U.S. Center for Disease Control, Live Births
70. ^ ^{a b} http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07316/833100-84.stm Retrieved 29th February 2008
71. ^ http://www.unsealedinitiative.org/html/articles.html Accessed: 2nd March 2008
72. ^ http://apostille.us/news/bill_looks_to_open_adoption_records.shtml Accessed: 2nd March 2008
73. ^ http://adoption.about.com/od/adoptionrights/a/openingrecords.htm Accessed: 2nd March 2008
74. ^ Postadoption Contact Agreements Between Birth and Adoptive Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2005, http://childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/cooperative.cfm 
75. ^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, Topic: Confidentiality
76. ^ Bethany Christian Services
77. ^ SECA Organization
78. ^ National Council For Adoption, Adoption Factbook, 2000, Table 11
79. ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/q0nh2715217r1287/ M. Berry, Preparation, Support and Satisfaction of Adoptive Families in Agency and Independent Adoptions, at pg. 166, Table 2, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2 (April 1996).
80. ^ http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2800496.html William D. Mosher and Christine A. Bachrach, Understanding U.S. Fertility: Continuity and Change in the National Survey of Family Growth, 1988-1995 Family Planning Perspectives Volume 28, Number 1, January/February 1996
81. ^ http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_027.pdf U.S. Center for Disease Control, "Adoption Experience of Women and Men and Demand for Children to Adopt in the U.S. page 19, August 2008.
82. ^ http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_027.pdf U.S. Center for Disease Control, "Adoption Experience of Women and Men and Demand for Children to Adopt in the U.S., page 8, August 2008.
83. ^ ^{a b c} US Child Welfare Information Gateway: How Many Children Were Adopted in 2000 and 2001?
84. ^ http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm US Child Welfare Information Gateway: Trends in Foster Care and Adoption
85. ^ Countries ratifying or acceding to the Hague Convention: Available: http://hcch.e-vision.nl/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=69 Accessed: 20th May, 2008. The only Hague member countries not to have ratified the convention by this date are Ireland and the Russian Federation. Celebrities such as Angelina Jolie who have adopted internationally are thought to have contributed to the popularity of international adoptions.
86. ^ ^{a b} U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfard Information Gateway, Adoption Disruption and Dissolution, December 2004
87. ^ A. Sheinin, Georgians get 89 new laws to obey and enjoy, Atlanta Journal Constitution, July 1, 2009.
88. ^ A. Cooperman, Catholics Split on Embryo Issue, Washington Post May 31, 2005.
89. ^ A. Cooperman, Catholics Split on Embryo Issue, Washington Post May 31, 2005.
90. ^ E. Herman, Adoption History Project, Department of History, University of Oregon, Topic: Jessie Taft.
91. ^ How Hungry is the Selfish Gene?' by Anne Case, I-Fen Lin and Sara McLanahan , Economic Journal, October 2000
92. ^ L. Raynor, The Adopted Child Comes of Age, 1980
93. ^ Hamilton, Laura. "Adoptive Parents, Adaptive Parents: Evaluating the Importance of Biological Ties for Parental Investment" (pdf). American Sociological Review. American Sociological Review. http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/Feb07ASRAdoption.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-06-03. 
94. ^ A. Adesman and C. Adamec, Parenting Your Adopted Child, 2004
95. ^ Michaels, Ruth, and Florence Rondell. The Adoption Family Book I: You and Your Child. Page 4.
96. ^ http://www.adoptionfilm.com/video.html Adoption: An American Revolution
97. ^ http://www.familyhelper.net/ad/adteach.html Robin Hillborn, Teacher's Guide to Adoption, 2005
98. ^ Gauthier, L., Stollak, G., Messe, L., & Arnoff, J. (1996). Recall of childhood neglect and physical abuse as differential predictors of current psychological functioning. Child Abuse and Neglect 20, 549-559
99. ^ Malinosky-Rummell, R. & Hansen, D.J. (1993) Long term consequences of childhood physical abuse. Psychological Bulletin 114, 68-69
100. ^ Lyons-Ruth K. & Jacobvitz, D. (1999) Attachment disorganization: unresolved loss, relational violence and lapses in behavioral and attentional strategies. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.) Handbook of Attachment. (pp. 520-554). NY: Guilford Press
101. ^ Solomon, J. & George, C. (Eds.) (1999). Attachment Disorganization. NY: Guilford Press
102. ^ Main, M. & Hesse, E. (1990) Parents’ Unresolved Traumatic Experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status. In M.T. Greenberg, D. Ciccehetti, & E.M. Cummings (Eds), Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention (pp161-184). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
103. ^ Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D., & Braunwald, K. (1995). Finding order in disorganization: Lessons from research on maltreated infants’ attachments to their caregivers. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds), Child Maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 135-157). NY: Cambridge University Press.
104. ^ Cicchetti, D., Cummings, E.M., Greenberg, M.T., & Marvin, R.S. (1990). An organizational perspective on attachment beyond infancy. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & M. Cummings (Eds), Attachment in the Preschool Years (pp. 3-50). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
105. ^ Carlson, E.A. (1988). A prospective longitudinal study of disorganized/disoriented attachment. Child Development 69, 1107-1128
106. ^ Lyons-Ruth, K. (1996). Attachment relationships among children with aggressive behavior problems: The role of disorganized early attachment patterns. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64, 64-73
107. ^ Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment classification and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development 64, 572-585
108. ^ Kaplan, Arline, [1] Psychiatric Times], January 26, 2009
109. ^ Plomin, R., Fulker, D.W., Corley, R., & DeFries, J.C. (1997). Nature, nurture, and cognitive development from 1-16 years: A parent-offspring adoption study. Psychological Science, 8, 442-447.
110. ^ http://www.jstor.org/pss/585831 Katrina Wegar, Adoption, Family Ideology, and Social Stigma: Bias in Community Attitudes, Adoption Research, and Practice, Family Relations, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 363-370.”
111. ^ http://www.jstor.org/pss/353920 K. March, Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 August 1995: pg. 654.
112. ^ National Adoption Attitudes Survey, June 2002, Evan Donaldson Institute, page 20 and 38.”
113. ^ National Adoption Attitudes Survey, June 2002, Evan Donaldson Institute, page 47”
114. ^ 3 Generations of Adoption, April 12, 2007
115. ^ Maya's Mom,, April 7, 2007
116. ^ The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, April 9, 2007 press release
117. ^ National Adoption Attitudes Survey, June 2002, Evan Donaldson Institute, page 20.”
118. ^ http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/polface.html The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
119. ^ http://pewfostercare.org/docs/index.php?DocID=41 The Pew Commission of Children in Foster Care
120. ^ Adoption History Project (University of Oregon),Topic History in Brief
121. ^ ^{a b} Book Review: The Primal Wound by Nancy N. Verrier
122. ^ Miles, 2003: Does Adoption Affect the Adolescent Eriksonian Task of Identity Formation? Available: http://www.cs.brown.edu/~jadrian/docs/papers/old/20030212%20Miles%20-%20Adoptive%20Identity.pdf Retrieved: 30 Jan, 2008
123. ^ http://www.bastards.org/activism/support.htm Why Adoptive Parents Support Open Records for Adult Adoptees
124. ^ Adoption History Project (University of Oregon), Topic Illegtimacy
125. ^ Martin Gottlieb, The Foundling, 2001, pg. 105-106
126. ^ Adoption History Project Topic Confidentiality
127. ^ Bastard Nation, The Basic Bastard
128. ^ R. Rushbrooke, The proportion of adoptees who have received their birth records in England and Wales, Population Trends (104), Summer 2001, pp 26-34.”
129. ^ USA Today, As adoptees seek roots, states unsealing records, 2/13/2008.”
130. ^ Bastard Nation, BASTARD NATION - New Hampshire
131. ^ Origins USA position papers Available: http://originsusa.memberlodge.org/Default.aspx?pageId=24588 Accessed: 27th April 2008.
132. ^ Schechter and Bertocci, “The Meaning of the Search” in Brodzinsky and Schechter, Psychology of Adoption,” 1990, pg. 67
133. ^ R. Rushbrooke, The proportion of adoptees who have received their birth records in England and Wales, Population Trends (104), UK Office for National Statistics, Summer 2001, pages 26-34
134. ^ http://www.jstor.org/pss/353920 K. March, Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 August 1995: pg. 653-660
135. ^ http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/dissertations/AAINN60675/ K. March, “The stranger who bore me: Adoptee-birth mother interactions,” Dissertation, McMaster University, 1990
136. ^ http://www.jstor.org/pss/353920 K. March, Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 August 1995: pg. 653-660.
137. ^ Schechter and Bertocci, “The Meaning of the Search” in Brodzinsky and Schechter, Psychology of Adoption,” 1990, pg. 70
138. ^ R. Sullivan and E. Lathrop, “Openness in adoption: retrospective lessons and prospective choices,” Children and Youth Services Review Vol. 26 Issue 4, April 2004.
139. ^ National Indian Child Welfare Association: the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA)
140. ^ Speaking Positively: Using Respectful Adoption Language, By Patricia Irwin Johnston
141. ^ Logan, J. (1996). "Birth Mothers and Their Mental Health: Uncharted Territory", British Journal of Social Work, 26, 609-625.
142. ^ Wells, S. (1993). "What do Birtmothers Want?", Adoption and Fostering, 17(4), 22-26.
143. ^ "Why Birthmother Means Breeder," by Diane Turski
144. ^ Tim Lister and Mary Rogers, "Egypt says adoptive moms were human smugglers," CNN, March 23, 2009,

Further reading

• Rosenberg, Elinor B., The Adoption Life Cycle : the children and their families through the years, New York : Free Press ; Toronto : Maxwell Macmillan Canada ; New York : Maxwell Macmillan International, 1992. ISBN 0029270553.

External links

• Adoption at the Open Directory Project

v • d • e Family planning and Reproductive health Rights Reproductive rights (Contraceptive security · Genital integrity) Education Sex education · Pre-conception counseling · Genetic counseling Planning Childfree · Parenting (Childbirth, Adoption, Foster care) Implement Birth control · Safe sex Health Men's · Women's (Vulvovaginal) Pregnancy Maternal health · Obstetrics · Prenatal care · Pregnant patients' rights · Unintended pregnancy · Pregnancy options counseling · Abortion · Teenage pregnancy Medicine Andrology · Gynaecology · Obstetrics and gynaecology · Reproductive endocrinology and infertility · Genitourinary medicine Disorder Sexual dysfunction · Infertility (Assisted reproductive technology) · Reproductive system disease · Sexually transmitted disease (clinic, test) See also Templates: {{Birth control methods}} · {{Pregnancy}} · {{Sex}} · {{sexual abuse}} · {{STD/STI}}

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)