Adoption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 a process whereby a person assumes the parenting of another, usually a child, from
that person's biological or legal parent or parents, and, in so doing, permanently transfers
all rights and responsibilities, along with filiation, from the biological parent or parents.
Unlike guardianship or other systems designed for the care of the young, adoption is intended to
effect a permanent change in status and as such requires societal recognition, either through legal
or religious sanction. Historically, some societies have enacted specific laws governing adoption;
where others have tried to achieve adoption through less formal means, notably via contracts that
specified inheritance rights and parental responsibilities without an accompanying transfer of filiation.
Modern systems of adoption, arising in the 20th century, tend to be governed by
comprehensive statutes and regulations.

Contents
[hide]

 1History
o 1.1Antiquity
o 1.2Middle Ages to modern period
o 1.3Modern period
 2Contemporary adoption
o 2.1Forms of adoption
o 2.2How adoptions originate
o 2.3How adoptions can disrupt
o 2.4Adoption by same-sex couples
 3Parenting and development of adoptees
o 3.1Parenting
o 3.2Effects on the original parents
 4Development of adoptees
o 4.1Identity
o 4.2Influences
o 4.3Effects on adoptees
o 4.4Public perception of adoption
 5Reform and reunion trends
o 5.1Reunion
o 5.2Controversial adoption practices
o 5.3Adoption terminology
 5.3.1Positive adoptive language (PAL)
 5.3.2Honest adoption language (HAL)
 5.3.3Inclusive adoption language
 6Cultural variations
 7Adoption as a human right
 8Homecoming Day
 9See also
 10References
 11Further reading

History[edit]
Antiquity[edit]
Adoption for the well-born

Trajan became emperor of Rome through adoption by the previous emperor Nerva, and was in turn succeeded
by his own adopted son Hadrian. Adoption was a customary practice of the Roman empire that enabled
peaceful transitions of power

While the modern form of adoption emerged in the United States, forms of the practice appeared
throughout history.[1] The Code of Hammurabi, for example, details the rights of adopters and the
responsibilities of adopted individuals at length. 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 political
and economic interests of the adopter,[4]providing a legal tool that strengthened political ties between
wealthy families and created 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] Adrogation was a
kind of Roman adoption which required the adrogator to be at least 60 years old.
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, used some form of adoption as well. Evidence
suggests the goal of this practice was 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 idea of adoption
with males adopted solely to perform the duties of ancestor worship.[14]
The practice of adopting the children of family members and close friends was common among
the cultures of Polynesia including Hawaii where the custom was referred to as hānai.
Middle Ages to modern period[edit]
Adoption and commoners

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 15 years, and to have fostered the
adoptee for at least six years.[16] Some adoptions continued to occur, however, but became informal,
based on ad hoc contracts. For example, in the year 737, in a charter from the town of Lucca, three
adoptees were made heirs to an estate. Like other contemporary arrangements, the agreement
stressed the responsibility of the adopted rather than adopter, focusing on the fact that, under the
contract, the adoptive father was meant to be cared for in his old age; an idea that is similar to the
conceptions of adoption under Roman law.[17]
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 and many of the foundlings were left on the doorstep of
the Church.[18] 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
a monastery. This created the first system in European history in which abandoned children did not
have legal, social, or moral disadvantages. As a result, many of Europe's abandoned and orphaned
children 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.[18]
As the idea of institutional care gained acceptance, formal rules appeared about how to place
children into families: boys could become apprenticed to an artisan and girls might be married off
under the institution's authority.[19] Institutions informally adopted out children as well, a mechanism
treated as a way 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]
This 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; 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
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[edit]
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 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] 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 Rooseveltin
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,
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.[39]

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 World War II, 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 people 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 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,[16][23] 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, in
general, 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.[44]
The number of adoptions in the United States peaked in 1970.[45] It is uncertain what caused the
subsequent decline. Likely contributing factors in the 1960s and 1970s include a decline in the
fertility rate, associated with the introduction of the pill, the completion of legalization of artificial birth
control methods, the introduction of federal funding to make family planning services available to the
young and low income, and the legalization of abortion. In addition, the years of the late 1960s and
early 1970s saw a dramatic change in society's view of illegitimacy and in the legal rights[46] of those
born outside of wedlock. In response, family preservation efforts grew[47] so that few children born out
of wedlock today are adopted. Ironically, adoption is far more visible and discussed in society today,
yet it is less common.[48]
The American model of adoption eventually proliferated globally. England and Wales established
their first formal adoption law in 1926. The Netherlands passed its law in 1956. Sweden made
adoptees full members of the family in 1959. West Germany enacted its first laws in
1977.[49] Additionally, the Asian powers opened their orphanage systems to adoption, influenced as
they were by Western ideas following colonial rule and military occupation.[50] In France, local public
institutions accredit candidates for adoption, who can then contact orphanages abroad, or ask for the
support of NGOs. The system does not involve fees, but gives considerable power to social workers
whose decisions may restrict adoption to standardized families (middle-age, medium to high income,
heterosexual, Caucasian).[51]
Although adoption is today practiced globally, the United States has the largest number of children
adopted per 100 live births. 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
and 129,000 during the period 2002 to 2006.[52]

Adoption/live
Country Adoptions Live births Notes
birth ratio

0.2 per 100 live Includes known

Australia 270 (2007–2008)[53] 254,000 (2004)[54]
births relative adoptions

England 0.7 per 100 live Includes all adoption orders in

4,764 (2006)[55] 669,601(2006)[56]
& Wales births England and Wales

between 20–35 0.8 per 100 live

Iceland 4,560 (2007)[58]
year[57] births

92 non-family adoptions; 171

0.4 per 100 live family adoptions (e.g.
Ireland 263 (2003)[59] 61,517 (2003)[60]
births stepparent). 459 international
adoptions were also recorded.

0.6 per 100 live

Italy 3,158 (2006)[61] 560,010 (2006)[62]
births

Breakdown: 50 non-relative, 50
New 0.26 per 100 live
154 (2012/13) [63] 59,863 (2012/13) [64] relative, 17 step-parent, 12
Zealand births
surrogacy, 1 foster parent, 18
international relative, 6
international non-relative

Adoptions breakdown: 438

1.1 per 100 live
Norway 657 (2006)[65] 58,545(2006)[66] inter-country; 174 stepchildren;
births
35 foster; 10 other.

10–20 of these were national

1.1 per 100 live
Sweden 1044(2002)[67] 91,466(2002)[68] adoptions of infants. The rest
births
were international adoptions.

The number of adoptions is

United approx 127,000 ~3 per 100 live
4,021,725 (2002)[70] reported to be constant since
States (2001)[69] births
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[edit]
Forms of adoption[edit]
Contemporary adoption practices can be open or closed.

 Open adoption allows identifying information to be communicated

between adoptive and biological parents and, perhaps, interaction
between kin and the adopted person.[71]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 UK and six states in
the United States).[72][73][74][75] Open adoption can be an informal
arrangement subject to termination by adoptive parents who have
sole custody over the child. In some jurisdictions, the biological and
adoptive parents may enter into a legally enforceable and binding
agreement concerning visitation, exchange of information, or other
interaction regarding the child.[76] As of February 2009, 24 U.S.
states allowed legally enforceable open adoption contract
agreements to be included in the adoption finalization.[77]
 The practice of closed adoption (aka confidential or secret
adoption),[78] which has not been the norm for most of modern
history,[79] seals all identifying information, maintaining it as secret
and preventing 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.[80] Today, as a result of safe
haven laws passed by some U.S. states, secret adoption is seeing
renewed influence. In so-called "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 adoption
advocacy organizations as being retrograde and
dangerous.[81] Closed adoption, lack of medical history and the
broken thread of family continuity can have a detrimental impact on
an adoptee's psychological and physical health. The lack of
openness, honesty and family connections in adoption can be
detrimental to the psychological well being of adoptees and of their
descendants.
How adoptions originate[edit]

The New York Foundling Home is among North America's oldest adoption agencies

Adoptions can occur either between related family members, or unrelated individuals. Historically,
most adoptions occurred within a family. The most recent data from the U.S. indicates about half of
adoptions are currently between related individuals.[82] 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.[83] 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%.[84][85]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 overpopulation out of the belief that it is more responsible to care for otherwise parent-less
children than to reproduce, to ensure that 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 experiences of women who adopt suggests they are most
likely to be 40–44 years of age, currently married, have impaired fertility, and childless.[86]
Unrelated adoptions may occur through the following mechanisms:

 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
connect with women directly, often with a written contract; this is not
permitted 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 been
arranged privately.[87]
Children associated with Hope and Homes for Children, a foster care
program in Ukraine

 Foster care adoption: this is a type of domestic adoption where a

child is initially placed in public care. Many times the foster parents
take on the adoption when the children become legally free. Its
importance as an avenue for adoption varies by country. Of the
127,500 adoptions in the U.S. in 2000[87] about 51,000 or 40% were
through the foster care system.[88]
 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.[87]More than 60,000 Russian children have
been adopted in the United States since 1992,[89] and a similar
number of Chinese children were adopted from 1995 to 2005.[90] 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 Hague Adoption Convention, which
came into force on 1 May 1995 and has been ratified by 85
countries as of November 2011.[91]
 Embryo adoption: based on the donation of embryos remaining
after one couple's in vitro fertilization treatments have been
completed; embryos are given to another individual or couple,
followed by the placement of those embryos into the recipient
woman's uterus, to facilitate pregnancy and childbirth. In the United
States, embryo adoption is governed by property law rather than by
the court systems, in contrast to traditional adoption.
 Common law adoption: this is an adoption which has not been
recognized beforehand by the courts, but where a parent, without
resorting to any formal legal process, leaves his or her children with
a friend or relative for an extended period of time.[92][93] At the end of
a designated term of (voluntary) co-habitation, as witnessed by the
public, the adoption is then considered binding, in some courts of
law, even though not initially sanctioned by the court. The particular
terms of a common-law adoption are defined by each
legal jurisdiction. For example, the US state of California
recognizes common law relationships after co-habitation of 2 years.
The practice is called "private fostering" in Britain.[94]
How adoptions can disrupt[edit]
Main article: Disruption (adoption)
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 analogous to divorce proceedings. It is a legal avenue unique to adoptive
parents as disruption/dissolution does not apply to biological kin.[95]
Ad hoc studies, performed in the U.S., however, suggest that between 10 and 25 percent of
adoptions disrupt before they are legally finalized and from 1 to 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.[95]
Adoption by same-sex couples[edit]
Main article: LGBT adoption

Legal status of adoption by same-sex couples around the world:

Joint adoption allowed
Second-parent adoption allowed
No laws allowing adoption by same-sex couples

Joint adoption by same-sex couples is legal in 26 countries, and in various sub-national territories.
LGBT adoption may also be in the form of step-child adoption, wherein one partner in a same-sex
couple adopts the biological child of the other partner.

Parenting and development of adoptees[edit]

Parenting[edit]
The biological relationship between a parent and child is important, and the separation of the two
has led to concerns about adoption. The traditional view of adoptive parenting received empirical
support from a Princeton University study of 6,000 adoptive, step, and foster families in the United
States and South Africa from 1968 to 1985; the study indicated that food expenditures in households
with mothers of non-biological children (when controlled for income, household size, hours worked,
age, etc.) were significantly less for adoptees, step-children, and foster children, causing the
researchers to speculate that, instinctively, people are less interested in sustaining the genetic lines
of others.[96] This theory is supported in another more qualitative study where in adoptive
relationships marked by sameness in likes, personality, and appearance, both adult adoptees and
adoptive parents report being happier with the adoption.[97]
Other studies provide 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."[98] Another recent study found that adoptive families invested more heavily in
their adopted children, for example, by providing further education and financial support. Noting that
adoptees seemed to be more likely to experience problems such as drug addiction, the study
speculated that adoptive parents might invest more in adoptees not because they favor them, but
because they are more likely than genetic children to need the help.[99]
Psychologists' findings regarding the importance of early mother-infant bonding created some
concern about whether parents who adopt older infants or toddlers after birth have missed some
crucial period for the child's development. However, research on The Mental and Social Life of
Babies suggested that the "parent-infant system," rather than a bond between biologically related
individuals, is an evolved fit between innate behavior patterns of all human infants and equally
evolved responses of human adults to those infant behaviors. Thus nature "ensures some initial
flexibility with respect to the particular adults who take on the parental role."[100]
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.[101] One author suggests a
common question adoptive parents have is: "Will we love the child even though he/she is not our
biological child?"[102] A specific concern for many parents is accommodating an adoptee in the
classroom.[103] 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."[104]
Adopting older children presents other parenting issues.[105] Some children from foster care have
histories of maltreatment, such as physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual
abuse, and are at risk of developing psychiatric problems.[106][107] Such children are at risk of
developing a disorganized attachment.[108][109][110] Studies by Cicchetti et al. (1990, 1995) found that
80% of abused and maltreated infants in their sample exhibited disorganized attachment
styles.[111][112] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems,
including dissociative symptoms,[113] as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out
symptoms.[114][115] "Attachment is an active process- it can be secure or insecure, maladaptive or
productive."[116] In the UK some adoptions fail because the adoptive parents do not get sufficient
support to deal with difficult, traumatized children. This is a false economy as local authority care for
these children is extremely expensive.[117]
Concerning developmental milestones, studies from the Colorado Adoption Project
examined genetic influences on adoptee maturation, 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 non-adoptive
families.[118]
Similar mechanisms appear to be at work in the physical development of adoptees. Danish and
American researchers conducting studies on the genetic contribution to body mass index found
correlations between an adoptee's weight class and his biological parents' BMI while finding no
relationship with the adoptive family environment. Moreover, about one-half of inter-individual
differences were due to individual non-shared influences.[119][120]
These differences in development appear to play out in the way young adoptees deal with major life
events. In the case of parental divorce, adoptees have been found to respond differently from
children who have not been adopted. While the general population experienced more behavioral
problems, substance use, lower school achievement, and impaired social competence after parental
divorce, the adoptee population appeared to be unaffected in terms of their outside relationships,
specifically in their school or social abilities.[121]
Effects on the original parents[edit]
Several factors affect the decision to release or raise the child. White adolescents tend to give up
their babies to non-relatives, whereas black adolescents are more likely to receive support from their
own community in raising the child and also in the form of informal adoption by relatives.[122] Studies
by Leynes and by Festinger and Young, Berkman, and Rehr found that for pregnant adolescents,
the decision to release the child for adoption depended on the attitude toward adoption held by the
adolescent's mother.[123] Another study found that pregnant adolescents whose mothers had a higher
level of education were more likely to release their babies for adoption. Research suggests that
women who choose to release their babies for adoption are more likely to be younger, enrolled in
school, and have lived in a two-parent household at age 10, than those who kept and raised their
babies.[124]
There is limited research on the consequences of adoption for the original parents, and the findings
have been mixed. One study found that those who released their babies for adoption were less
comfortable with their decision than those who kept their babies. However, levels of comfort over
both groups were high, and those who released their child were similar to those who kept their child
in ratings of life satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and positive future outlook for schooling,
employment, finances, and marriage.[125]Subsequent research found that adolescent mothers who
chose to release their babies for adoption were more likely to experience feelings of sorrow and
regret over their decision than those who kept their babies. However, these feelings decreased
significantly from one year after birth to the end of the second year.[126]
More recent research found that in a sample of mothers who had released their children for adoption
four to 12 years prior, every participant had frequent thoughts of their lost child. For most, thoughts
were both negative and positive in that they produced both feelings of sadness and joy. Those who
experienced the greatest portion of positive thoughts were those who had open, rather than closed
or time-limited mediated adoptions.[127]
In another study that compared mothers who released their children to those who raised them,
mothers who released their children were more likely to delay their next pregnancy, to delay
marriage, and to complete job training. However, both groups reached lower levels of education than
their peers who were never pregnant.[128] Another study found similar consequences for choosing to
release a child for adoption. Adolescent mothers who released their children were more likely to
reach a higher level of education and to be employed than those who kept their children. They also
waited longer before having their next child.[126] Most of the research that exists on adoption effects
on the birth parents was conducted with samples of adolescents, or with women who were
adolescents when carrying their babies—little data exists for birth parents from other populations.
Furthermore, there is a lack of longitudinal data that may elucidate long-term social and
psychological consequences for birth parents who choose to place their children for adoption.

Development of adoptees[edit]
Previous research on adoption has led to assumptions that indicate that there is a heightened risk in
terms of psychological development and social relationships for adoptees. Yet, such assumptions
have been clarified as flawed due to methodological failures. But more recent studies have been
supportive in indicating more accurate information and results about the similarities, differences and
overall lifestyles of adoptees.[129]
Evidence about the development of adoptees can be supported in newer studies. It can be said that
adoptees, in some respect, tend to develop differently from the general population. This can be seen
in many aspects of life, but usually can be found as a greater risk around the time of adolescence.
For example, it has been found that many adoptees experience difficulty in establishing a sense of
identity.[130]
Identity[edit]
There are many ways in which the concept of identity can be defined. It is true in all cases that
identity construction is an ongoing process of development, change and maintenance of identifying
with the self. Research has shown that adolescence is a time of identity progression rather than
regression.[131] One's identity tends to lack stability in the beginning years of life but gains a more
stable sense in later periods of childhood and adolescence. Typically associated with a time of
experimentation, there are endless factors that go into the construction of one's identity. As well as
being many factors, there are many types of identities one can associate with. Some categories of
identity include gender, sexuality, class, racial and religious, etc. For transracial
and international adoptees, tension is generally found in the categories of racial, ethnic and national
identification. Because of this, the strength and functionality of family relationships play a huge role
in its development and outcome of identity construction. Transracial and transnational adoptees tend
to develop feelings of a lack of acceptance because of such racial, ethnic, and cultural differences.
Therefore, exposing transracial and transnational adoptees to their "cultures of origin" is important in
order to better develop a sense of identity and appreciation for cultural diversity.[132] Identity
construction and reconstruction for transnational adoptees the instant they are adopted. For
example, based upon specific laws and regulations of the United States, the Child Citizen Act of
2000 makes sure to grant immediate U.S. citizenship to adoptees.[132] Although this act is specific to
particular laws created by the United States, it can be understood that such a notion reconstructs a
sense of identity for adoptees as a United States citizen. Transnational adoptees also have to
evaluate their racial, ethnic and cultural differences that are incognizant with their adoption family.
Therefore, these factors may explain how tension is created with transracial and transnational
adoptees.
Identity is defined both by what one is and what one is not. Adoptees born into one family lose an
identity and then borrow one from the adopting family. The formation of identity is a complicated
process and there are many factors that affect its outcome. From a perspective of looking at issues
in adoption circumstances, the people involved and affected by adoption (the biological parent, the
adoptive parent and the adoptee) can be known as the "triad members and state". Adoption may
threaten triad members' sense of identity. Triad members often express feelings related to confused
identity and identity crises because of differences between the triad relationships. Adoption, for
some, precludes a complete or integrated sense of self. Triad members may experience themselves
as incomplete, deficient, or unfinished. They state that they lack feelings of well-being, integration, or
solidity associated with a fully developed identity.[133]
Influences[edit]
Family plays a vital role in identity formation. This is not only true in childhood but also in
adolescence. Identity (gender/sexual/ethnic/religious/family) is still forming during adolescence and
family holds a vital key to this. The research seems to be unanimous; a stable, secure, loving,
honest and supportive family in which all members feel safe to explore their identity is necessary for
the formation of a sound identity. Transracial and International adoptions are some factors that play
a significant role in the identity construction of adoptees. Many tensions arise from relationships built
between the adoptee(s) and their family. These include being "different" from the parent(s),
developing a positive racial identity, and dealing with racial/ethnic discrimination.[134] It has been
found that multicultural and transnational youth tend to identify with their parents origin of culture and
ethnicity rather than their residing location, yet it is sometimes hard to balance an identity between
the two because school environments tend to lack diversity and acknowledgment regarding such
topics.[135] These tensions also tend to create questions for the adoptee, as well as the family, to
contemplate. Some common questions include what will happen if the family is more naïve to the
ways of socially constructed life? Will tensions arise if this is the case? What if the very people that
are supposed to be modeling a sound identity are in fact riddled with insecurities? Ginni Snodgrass
answers these questions in the following way. The secrecy in an adoptive family and the denial that
the adoptive family is different builds dysfunction into it. "... social workers and insecure adoptive
parents have structured a family relationship that is based on dishonesty, evasions and exploitation.
To believe that good relationships will develop on such a foundation is psychologically unsound"
(Lawrence). Secrecy erects barriers to forming a healthy identity.[136]
The research says that the dysfunction, untruths and evasiveness that can be present in adoptive
families not only makes identity formation impossible, but also directly works against it. What effect
on identity formation is present if the adoptee knows they are adopted but has no information about
their biological parents? Silverstein and Kaplan's research states that adoptees lacking medical,
genetic, religious, and historical information are plagued by questions such as "Who am I?" "Why
was I born?" "What is my purpose?" This lack of identity may lead adoptees, particularly in
adolescent years, to seek out ways to belong in a more extreme fashion than many of their non-
adopted peers. Adolescent adoptees are overrepresented among those who join sub-cultures, run
away, become pregnant, or totally reject their families.[137][138]
Concerning developmental milestones, studies from the Colorado Adoption Project
examined genetic influences on adoptee maturation, 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 non-adoptive
families.[118]
Similar mechanisms appear to be at work in the physical development of adoptees. Danish and
American researchers conducting studies on the genetic contribution to body mass index found
correlations between an adoptee's weight class and his biological parents' BMI while finding no
relationship with the adoptive family environment. Moreover, about one-half of inter-individual
differences were due to individual non-shared influences.[119][120]
These differences in development appear to play out in the way young adoptees deal with major life
events. In the case of parental divorce, adoptees have been found to respond differently from
children who have not been adopted. While the general population experienced more behavioral
problems, substance use, lower school achievement, and impaired social competence after parental
divorce, the adoptee population appeared to be unaffected in terms of their outside relationships,
specifically in their school or social abilities.[121]
The adoptee population does, however, seem to be more at risk for certain behavioral issues.
Researchers from the University of Minnesota studied adolescents who had been adopted and
found that adoptees were twice as likely as non-adopted people to suffer from oppositional defiant
disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (with an 8% rate in the general
population).[139] Suicide risks were also significantly greater than the general population. Swedish
researchers found both international and domestic adoptees undertook suicide at much higher rates
than non-adopted peers; with international adoptees and female international adoptees, in particular,
at highest risk.[140]
Nevertheless, work on adult adoptees has found that the additional risks faced by adoptees are
largely confined to adolescence. Young adult adoptees were shown to be alike with adults from
biological families and scored better than adults raised in alternative family types including single
parent and step-families.[141] Moreover, while adult adoptees showed more variability than their non-
adopted peers on a range of psychosocial measures, adult adoptees exhibited more similarities than
differences with adults who had not been adopted.[142] There have been many cases of remediation
or the reversibility of early trauma. For example, in one of the earliest studies conducted, Professor
Goldfarb in England concluded that some children adjust well socially and emotionally despite their
negative experiences of institutional deprivation in early childhood.[143] Other researchers also found
that prolonged institutionalization does not necessarily lead to emotional problems or character
defects in all children. This suggests that there will always be some children who fare well, who are
resilient, regardless of their experiences in early childhood.[144] Furthermore, much of the research on
psychological outcomes for adoptees draws from clinical populations. This suggests that conclusions
such that adoptees are more likely to have behavioral problems such as ODD and ADHD may be
biased. Since the proportion of adoptees that seek mental health treatment is small, psychological
outcomes for adoptees compared to those for the general population are more similar than some
researchers propose.[145]
Effects on adoptees[edit]
This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found
on Talk:Adoption. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably
sourced. (January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Adoption gives many children great opportunities that they may have never otherwise received.
Such opportunities include loving homes and environments, parents who are able to provide and
care for all their financial needs as well as access to education. While these are all positive factors
that will enhance the life of the adopted child, many do not realize that there are negative effects
adopted children can experience both mentally and emotionally.
According to studies from Princeton University, adoptees (especially those coming from closed
adoptions) may suffer from a wide range of mental effects at all stages of life. One of the largest
issues that an adoptee may deal with is the formation of their identity. It is believed that children who
are adopted may not feel as though they fit in with their adoptive families knowing that their adoptive
parents are not the people who gave birth to them. Especially in adolescence, many adopted
children begin to question where certain personality traits, likes or dislike, and physical
characteristics come from. What characteristics come from the biological family and which come
from the adoptive family? Adoptees struggle with whom they are or whom they could become
because they do not know or understand where everything about them comes from. For many, this
uncertainty can be unsettling and uncomfortable. They may begin to question everything about
themselves.
Adopted children also often find it hard to form comfortable and meaningful relationships. These
relationships can be friendly, familial or romantic. Because many adoptees feel that their biological
parents left them, they may be afraid to form new relationships in fear that those involved may
"leave" them as well. This can lead to holding back and withdrawing from relationships when they
feel like they are becoming too attached as well as not forming relationships at all. The fear of being
left or forgotten is what often holds adoptees back from creating such relationships. Many adoptees
feel that they can never truly relate to or trust anybody because their family experiences can be so
vastly different from those of people who have not been adopted. It is because of such fears that so
many adoptees find it hard to create relationships in their lives. Another common feeling that many
people who are adopted deal with is a feeling of guilt. This guilt is felt towards both their birth families
as well as their adoptive families. They may feel guilty towards their birth family because in many
ways, they have accepted their adoptive family as their own and would not want their birth family to
be upset or jealous. Many adoptees call their adoptive parents "mom" and "dad" and refer to
adoptive siblings as such, which adoptees feel may hurt their biological families, should they find out.
The sense of guilt towards adoptive parents comes from curiosity about biological families. Adoptees
often feel that any curiosity about their origins and their birth families may hurt their adoptive one.
They believe that the adoptive family will feel a sense of betrayal for wanting to know about where
they came from, especially if the adoption allows for access to such information. Adoptees may also
fear that their adoptive family may love them less because of their curiosity.
When adopted children grow into young adults, many worry about their health. For many adopted
children, their adoptive families are given little to none of their medical history, especially if the
adoption was international. This can be due to lack of information on the part of the biological family,
type of adoption or circumstance in which the adoptee was found (for example being left at an
orphanage in a foreign country). Simple trips to the doctor or dentist, for something as small as a
check up, can bring about great worry because there is so many unknowns to ones health when the
person is adopted. Anxiety over lack of medical history may become worse for those who are
seeking to get married and start a family. If one of the parents is unaware of medical history, having
a child becomes much more difficult. The risks of being unable to conceive, or the child being born
with certain health issues are higher because parental medical history is unknown.[146]
Public perception of adoption[edit]
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.

In Western culture, many see that the common image of a family being that of a heterosexual couple
with biological children. This idea places alternative 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.[147][148]
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."[149]
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.[150] There is, however, still
substantial criticism of the media's adoption coverage. Some adoption blogs, for example,
criticized Meet the Robinsons for using outdated orphanage imagery[151][152] as did advocacy non-profit
The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.[153]
The stigmas associated with adoption are amplified for children in foster care.[154] Negative
perceptions result in the belief that such children are so troubled it would be impossible to adopt
them and create "normal" families.[155] 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."[156]

Reform and reunion trends[edit]

Open Records emblem used in Adoptee Rights Protest, New Orleans, 2008, artist: D. Martin

Adoption practices have changed significantly over the course of the 20th century, with each new
movement labeled, in some way, as reform.[157]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,[158][159] create confusion regarding genealogy,[160] and provide little in the way of medical
history.
Family preservation: As concerns over illegitimacy began to decline in the early 1970s, social-
welfare agencies began to emphasize that, if possible, mothers and children should be kept
together.[161] In the U.S., 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 with their biological families, a striking shift
in policy that remains in force today.[162]
Open records: Movements to unseal adoption records for adopted citizens proliferated along with
increased acceptance of illegitimacy. In the United States, Jean Paton founded Orphan Voyage in
1954, and Florence Fisher founded the Adoptees' Liberty Movement Association (ALMA) in 1971,
calling sealed records "an affront to human dignity.".[163] 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.[164] and Lee Campbell and other birthmothers
established CUB (Concerned United Birthparents). Similar ideas were taking hold globally with
grass-roots organizations like Parent Finders in Canada and Jigsaw in Australia. In 1975, England
and Wales opened records on moral grounds.[165]
By 1979, representatives of 32 organizations from 33 states, Canada and Mexico gathered in
Washington, DC to establish the American Adoption Congress (AAC) passing a unanimous
resolution: "Open Records complete with all identifying information for all members of the adoption
triad, birthparents, adoptive parents and adoptee at the adoptee's age of majority (18 or 19,
depending on state) or earlier if all members of the triad agree."[166] 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.[167][168] Simultaneously, groups such as Origins USA (founded in 1997) started to actively
speak about family preservation and the rights of mothers.[169] 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."[158]
Reunion[edit]
Estimates for the extent of search behavior by adoptees have proven elusive; studies show
significant variation.[170] 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, exceeding 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 get their birth records
by other means.[171]
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 the 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.[172]
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.[173]
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. 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.[172]
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."[174]
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.[175]
The book "Adoption Detective: Memoir of an Adopted Child" by Judith and Martin Land provides
insight into the mind of an adoptee from childhood through to adulthood and the emotions invoked
when reunification with their birth mothers is desired.
Controversial adoption practices[edit]
See also: Adoption fraud
Reform and family preservation efforts have also been strongly associated with the perceived
misuse of adoption. In some cases, parents' rights have been terminated when their ethnic or socio-
economic group has been deemed unfit by society. Some of these practices were generally
accepted but have later been considered abusive; others were uncontroversially reprehensible.
Forced adoption based on ethnicity occurred during World War II. In German occupied Poland, it is
estimated that 200,000 Polish children with purportedly Aryan traits were removed from their
families and given to German or Austrian couples,[176] and only 25,000 returned to their families after
the war.[177]
The Stolen Generation of Aboriginal people in Australia were affected by similar policies,[178] as
were Native Americans in the United States[179] and First Nations of Canada.[180]
These practices have become significant social and political issues in recent years, and in many
cases the policies have changed.[181][182] 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.[183]
From the 1950s through the 1970s, a period called the baby scoop era, adoption practices that
involved coercion were directed against unwed mothers, as described for the US in The Girls Who
Went Away.
More recently the military dictatorship in Argentina from 1976 to 1983 is known to have given
hundreds of babies born to women captives who were then murdered to be brought up by military
families.[184]
Adoption terminology[edit]
Main article: Language of adoption
The language of adoption is changing and evolving, and since the 1970s has been a controversial
issue tied closely to adoption 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 problems in
adoption, as well as the fact that coining new words and phrases to describe ancient social practices
will not necessarily alter the feelings and experiences of those affected by them. Two of the
contrasting sets of terms are commonly referred to as positive adoption language (PAL)
(sometimes called respectful adoption language (RAL)), and honest adoption language (HAL).
Positive adoptive language (PAL)[edit]
In the 1970s, as adoption search and support organizations developed, there were challenges to the
language in common use at the time. As books like Adoption Triangle by Sorosky, Pannor and
Baran were published, and support groups formed like CUB (Concerned United Birthparents), a
major shift from "natural parent" to "birthparent"[185][186]occurred. Along with the change in times and
social attitudes came additional examination of the language used in adoption.
Social workers and other professionals in the field of adoption began changing terms of use to reflect
what was being expressed by the parties involved. In 1979, Marietta Spencer wrote "The
Terminology of Adoption" for The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA),[187] which was the basis
for her later work "Constructive Adoption Terminology".[188] This influenced Pat Johnston's "Positive
Adoption Language" (PAL) and "Respectful Adoption Language" (RAL).[189] The terms contained in
"Positive Adoption Language" include the terms "birth mother" (to replace the terms "natural mother"
and "real mother"), and "placing" (to replace the term "surrender"). These kinds of recommendations
encouraged people to be more aware of their use of adoption terminology.
Honest adoption language (HAL)[edit]
"Honest Adoption Language" refers to a set of terms that proponents say 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.[190][191] 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".[192] Terms included in HAL include terms that were used before PAL, including "natural
mother," "first mother," and "surrendered for adoption."
Inclusive adoption language[edit]
There are supporters of various lists, developed over many decades, and there are persons who find
them lacking, created to support an agenda, or furthering division. All terminology can be used to
demean or diminish, uplift or embrace. In addressing the linguistic problem of naming, Edna
Andrews says that using "inclusive" and "neutral" language is based upon the concept that
"language represents thought, and may even control thought."[193]
Advocates of inclusive language defend it as inoffensive-language usage whose goal is multi-fold:

1. The rights, opportunities, and freedoms of certain people are

restricted because they are reduced to stereotypes.
2. Stereotyping is mostly implicit, unconscious, and facilitated by
the availability of pejorative labels and terms.
3. Rendering the labels and terms socially unacceptable, people
then must consciously think about how they describe someone
unlike themselves.
4. When labeling is a conscious activity, the described
person's individual merits become apparent, rather than his or
her stereotype.
A common problem is that terms chosen by an identity group, as acceptable descriptors of
themselves, can be used in negative ways by detractors. This compromises the integrity of the
language and turns what was intended to be positive into negative or vice versa, thus often
devaluing acceptability, meaning and use.
Language at its best honors the self-referencing choices of the persons involved, uses inclusive
terms and phrases, and is sensitive to the feelings of the primary parties. Language evolves with
social attitudes and experiences.[194][195]

Cultural variations[edit]
Main article: Cultural variations in adoption
Attitudes and laws regarding adoption vary greatly. Whereas all cultures make arrangements
whereby children whose birth parents are unavailable to rear them can 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. Under Islamic Law, for example, adopted children must
keep their original surname to be identified with blood relations,[196] and, traditionally, women wear
a hijab in the presence of males in their adoptive households. In Egypt, these cultural distinctions
have led to making adoption illegal.[197]

Adoption as a human right[edit]

As a reaction against the bans and hurdles affecting international adoption, scholars Elizabeth
Bartholet and Paulo Barrozo claim that every child has a right to a family as a matter of basic human
rights.[citation needed] This claim devalues heritage or "cultural" claims and emphasizes the child's
existence as a human being rather than a "property" of specific nations or, for example, abusive
caregivers.
Homecoming Day[edit]
In some countries, such as the United States, "Homecoming Day" is the day when an adoptee is
officially united with their new adoptive family.[198] In some adoptive families, this day marks an
especially important event and is celebrated annually from thereafter. The term Gotcha Day is also
used to refer to this day. Many adopted people and birth parents find this term to be offensive.

See also[edit]
Main article: Outline of adoption

 Adoption by celebrities
 Adoption in the United States
 Adult adoption
 Affiliation
 Attachment disorder
 Attachment theory
 Attachment therapy
 Child welfare
 Child-selling
 Effects of adoption on the birth mother
 Genetic sexual attraction
 National Adoption Day
 Notable orphans and foundlings
 Parental leave
 Putative father registry
 Reactive attachment disorder
 Social work

References[edit]
1. Jump up^ Barbara Melosh, the American Way of Adoption page 10
2. Jump up^ Code of Hammurabi
3. Jump up^ Codex Justinianus
4. ^ Jump up to:a b Brodzinsky and Schecter (editors), The Psychology of
Adoption, 1990, page 274
5. Jump up^ H. David Kirk, Adoptive Kinship: A Modern Institution in
Need of Reform, 1985, page xiv.
6. ^ Jump up to:a b Mary Kathleen Benet, The Politics of Adoption, 1976,
page 14
7. Jump up^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 74,
115
8. Jump up^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 62-
63
9. Jump up^ W. Scheidel, The Roman Slave Supply, May 2007, page
10
10. Jump up^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 3
11. Jump up^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 53-
95
12. Jump up^ A. Tiwari, The Hindu Law of Adoption, Central Indian Law
Quarterly, Vol 18, 2005Archived 5 February 2009 at the Wayback
Machine.
13. Jump up^ Vinita Bhargava, Adoption in India: Policies and
Experiences, 2005, page 45
14. Jump up^ W. Menski, Comparative Law in a Global Context: The
Legal Systems of Asia and Africa, 2000
15. Jump up^ S. Finley-Croswhite, Review of Blood Ties and Fictive Ties,
Canadian Journal of History[permanent dead link], August 1997
16. ^ Jump up to:a b Brodzinsky and Schecter (editors), The Psychology of
Adoption, 1990, page 274
17. Jump up^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 224
18. ^ Jump up to:a b John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page
184
19. Jump up^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 420
20. Jump up^ John Boswell, The Kindness of Strangers, 1998, page 421.
21. Jump up^ Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan
Porter, A Good Home, A Good Home, page 29.
22. Jump up^ Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan
Porter, A Good Home, A Good Home, page 37.
23. ^ Jump up to:a b Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of
Oregon, Topic: Timeline
24. Jump up^ Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan
Porter, A Good Home, A Good Home, page 44.
25. Jump up^ Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan
Porter, A Good Home, A Good Home, page 45.
26. Jump up^ 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. Jump up^ Charles Loring Brace, The Dangerous Classes of New
York and Twenty Years' Work Among Them, 1872
28. Jump up^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of
Oregon, Topic: Charles Loring Brace
29. Jump up^ Stephen O'Connor, Orphan Trains, Page 95
30. Jump up^ Orphan Train Heritage Society of America, Riders' Stories
31. Jump up^ Wayne Carp (Editor), E. Adoption in America: Historical
Perspectives, page 160
32. Jump up^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of
Oregon, Topic: Home Studies
33. Jump up^ M. Gottlieb, The Foundling, 2001, page 76
34. Jump up^ E. Wayne Carp (Editor), Adoption in America: Historical
Perspectives, page 108
35. Jump up^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of
Oregon, Topic: Placing Out
36. Jump up^ Bernadine Barr, "Spare Children, 1900–1945: Inmates of
Orphanages as Subjects of Research in Medicine and in the Social
Sciences in America" (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1992), p. 32,
figure 2.2.
37. Jump up^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of
Oregon, Topic: Eugenics
38. Jump up^ Lawrence and Pat Starkey, Child Welfare and Social Action
in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 2001 page 223
39. Jump up^ H.H. Goddard, Excerpt from Wanted: A Child to Adopt
40. Jump up^ E. Wayne Carp (Editor), Adoption in America: Historical
Perspectives, page 181
41. Jump up^ 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. Jump up^ Barbara Melosh, Strangers and Kin: the American Way of
Adoption, page 106
43. Jump up^ Barbara Melosh, Strangers and Kin: the American Way of
Adoption, page 105-107
44. Jump up^ E. Wayne Carp, Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in
the History of Adoption, Harvard University Press, 2000, pages 103–
104.
45. Jump up^ National Council for Adoption, Adoption Fact Book, 2000,
page 42, Table 11
46. Jump up^ "US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez".
Retrieved 19 July 2011.
47. Jump up^ M. Gottlieb, The Foundling, 2001, page 106
48. Jump up^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of
Oregon, Topic: Adoption Statistics
49. Jump up^ Christine Adamec and William Pierce, The Encyclopedia of
Adoption, 2nd Edition, 2000
50. Jump up^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of
Oregon, Topic: International Adoption
51. Jump up^ Bruno Perreau, The Politics of Adoption: Gender and the
Making of French Citizenship, MIT Press, 2014.
52. Jump up^ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,U.S.
Trends in Foster Care and Adoption
53. Jump up^ Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Adoptions
Australia 2003–04, Child Welfare Series Number 35.
54. Jump up^ Australian Bureau of Statistics,Population and Household
Characteristics
55. Jump up^ UK Office for National Statistics, Adoption
Data Archived 11 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
56. Jump up^ UK Office for National Statistics, Live Birth Data
57. Jump up^ Íslensk Ættleiðing,Adoption Numbers Archived 23 April
2011 at the Wayback Machine.
58. Jump up^ Statistics Iceland,Births and Deaths
59. Jump up^ Adoption Authority of Ireland,Report of The Adoption Board
2003 Archived 11 March 2006 at the Wayback Machine.
60. Jump up^ Central Statistics Office Ireland,Births, Deaths, Marriages
61. Jump up^ Tom Kington, Families in Rush to Adopt a Foreign Child,
Guardian, 28 January 2007
62. Jump up^ Demo Istat, Demographic Balance, 2006
63. Jump up^ "Adoptions Data". Department of Child, Youth and Family.
Retrieved 1 March 2014.
64. Jump up^ "Live births (by sex), stillbirths (Maori and total population)
(Annual-Jun) – Infoshare". Statistics New Zealand. Retrieved 1
March 2014.
65. Jump up^ Statistics Norway, Adoptions,
66. Jump up^ Statistics Norway, Births
67. Jump up^ Embassy of Sweden (Seoul), Adoptions to Sweden, 12
February 2002
68. Jump up^ Statistics Sweden Births Archived 31 October 2008 at
the Wayback Machine., 2002
69. Jump up^ 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
70. Jump up^ U.S. Center for Disease Control, Live Births
71. Jump up^ What is Open
Adoption? http://adoption.com/wiki/What_is_Open_Adoption%3F
72. Jump up^ http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07316/833100-
84.stm Retrieved 29 February 2008
73. Jump
up^ http://www.unsealedinitiative.org/html/articles.html Accessed: 2
March 2008
74. Jump up^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 13
December 2010. Retrieved 2 May2008. Accessed: 2 March 2008
75. Jump
up^ http://adoption.about.com/od/adoptionrights/a/openingrecords.htm
Accessed: 2 March 2008
76. Jump up^ "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.
77. Jump up^ "Postadoption Contact Agreements Between Birth and
Adoptive Families: Summary of State Laws" (PDF). U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau.
2009.
78. Jump up^ "Closed Adoption definition". Retrieved 2016-11-28.
79. Jump up^ Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of
Oregon, Topic: Confidentiality
80. Jump up^ Bethany Christian Services Archived 7 April 2007 at
the Wayback Machine.
81. Jump up^ SECA Organization Archived 10 February 2009
at Archive.is
82. Jump up^ National Council For Adoption, Adoption Factbook, 2000,
Table 11
83. Jump up^ Berry, Marianne; Barth, Richard P.; Needell, Barbara
(1996). "Preparation, support, and satisfaction of adoptive families in
agency and independent adoptions". Child & Adolescent Social Work
Journal. 13: 157–183. doi:10.1007/BF01876644.
84. Jump
up^ 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
85. Jump
up^ https://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.
86. Jump
up^ https://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.
87. ^ Jump up to:a b c US Child Welfare Information Gateway: How Many
Children Were Adopted in 2000 and 2001?
88. Jump up^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 26
September 2006. Retrieved 2006-07-18. US Child Welfare Information
Gateway: Trends in Foster Care and Adoption
89. Jump up^ "Who Will Adopt the Orphans?". The Washington Post.
90. Jump up^ "Adopted Chinese orphans often have special needs". The
Boston Globe. 3 April 2010.
91. Jump up^ Countries ratifying or acceding to the Hague Convention:
Available: http://hcch.e-
vision.nl/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=69 Accessed: 20
May 2008.
92. Jump up^ The International Law on the Rights of the
Child (book),Geraldine Van Bueren, 1998, p.95, ISBN 90-411-1091-7,
web: Books-Google-81MC.
93. Jump up^ The best interests of the child: the least
detrimental alternative (book), Joseph Goldstein, 1996, p.16,
web:Books-Google-HkC.
94. Jump up^ Somebody Else's Child
95. ^ Jump up to:a b U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child
Welfare Information Gateway, Adoption Disruption and Dissolution,
December 2004
96. Jump up^ Case, A.; Lin, I. F.; McLanahan, S. (2000). "How Hungry is
the Selfish Gene?" (PDF). The Economic Journal. 110 (466): 781–
804. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00565.
97. Jump up^ L. Raynor, The Adopted Child Comes of Age, 1980
98. Jump up^ Hamilton, Laura. "Adoptive Parents, Adaptive Parents:
Evaluating the Importance of Biological Ties for Parental
Investment" (PDF). American Sociological Review. American
Sociological Review. Archived from the original (pdf) on 21 February
2007. Retrieved 3 June 2007.
99. Jump up^ Gibson, K. (2009). "Differential parental investment in
families with both adopted and genetic children". Evolution and Human
Behavior. 30 (3): 184–189. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.01.001.
100. Jump up^ Kaye, K (1982). The Mental and Social Life of Babies.
Univ. Chicago Press. p. 261. ISBN 0226428486.
101. Jump up^ A. Adesman and C. Adamec, Parenting Your Adopted
Child, 2004
102. Jump up^ Michaels, Ruth, and Florence Rondell. The Adoption
Family Book I: You and Your Child. Page 4.
103. Jump up^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 31
December 2005. Retrieved 12 March 2006. Adoption: An American
Revolution
104. Jump up^ http://www.familyhelper.net/ad/adteach.html Robin
Hillborn, Teacher's Guide to Adoption, 2005
105. Jump up^ Grade School: Understanding Child Development and
the Impact of
Adoption http://adoption.com/wiki/Grade_School:_Understanding_Chil
d_Development_and_the_Impact_of_Adoption
106. Jump up^ 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 (7): 549–559. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(96)00043-
9. PMID 8832112.
107. Jump up^ Malinosky-Rummell, R.; Hansen, D.J. (1993). "Long term
consequences of childhood physical abuse". Psychological
Bulletin. 114 (1): 68–69. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.114.1.68. PMID 8346329.
108. Jump up^ 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
109. Jump up^ Solomon, J. & George, C. (Eds.) (1999). Attachment
Disorganization. NY: Guilford Press
110. Jump up^ 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
111. Jump up^ 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.
112. Jump up^ 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.
113. Jump up^ Carlson, E.A. (1988). "A prospective longitudinal study of
disorganized/disoriented attachment". Child Development. 69 (4):
1107–1128. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06163.x. PMID 9768489.
114. Jump up^ 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 (1): 64–73. doi:10.1037/0022-
006x.64.1.64. PMID 8907085.
115. Jump up^ 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 (2): 572–
585. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02929.x.
116. Jump up^ "Developmental Issues For Young Children in Foster
Care". Pediatrics. 106 (5): 1145–50. November
2000. doi:10.1542/peds.106.5.1145. PMID 11061791.
117. Jump up^ 'I sent my adopted son back into care' BBC
118. ^ Jump up to:a b 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 (6): 442–
447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00458.x.
119. ^ Jump up to:a b AJ Stunkard, An adoption study of human
obesity, The New England Journal of Medicine Volume 314:193–198,
23 January 1986
120. ^ Jump up to:a b Vogler, G.P., Influences of genes and shared family
environment on adult body mass index assessed in an adoption study
by a comprehensive path model, International journal of obesity, 1995,
vol. 19, no1, pp. 40–45
121. ^ Jump up to:a b Thomas O'Conner, Are Associations Between
Parental Divorce and Children's Adjustment Genetically
Mediated?, American Psychological Association 2000, Vol. 36 No.4
429–437
122. Jump up^ Furstenburg, F.F. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1985). Teenage
childbearing: Causes, consequences, and remedies. In L. Aiken and
D. Mechanic (Eds.), Applications of social science to clinical medicine
and health policy (pp. 307–334). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
123. Jump up^ as cited in Kallen, D.J.; Griffore, R.J.; Popovich, S.;
Powell, V. (1990). "Adolescent mothers and their mothers view
adoption". Family Relations. 39 (3): 311–316. doi:10.2307/584877.
124. Jump up^ Donnelly, B.W.; Voydanoff, P. (1996). "Parenting versus
placing for adoption: Consequences for adolescent mothers". Family
Relations. 45 (4): 427–434. doi:10.2307/585172.
125. Jump up^ Kalmuss, D.; Namerow, P.B.; Bauer, U. (1992). "Short-
term consequences of parenting versus adoption among young
unmarried women". Journal of Marriage and Family. 54 (1): 80–
90. doi:10.2307/353277.
126. ^ Jump up to:a b Donnelly, B.W. & Voydanoff, P.
127. Jump up^ Fravel, D.L.; McRoy, R.G.; Grotevant, H.D. (2000).
"Birthmother perceptions of the psychologically present adopted child:
Adoption openness and boundary ambiguity". Family Relations. 49 (4):
425–433. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00425.x.
128. Jump up^ McLaughlin, S.D.; Manninen, D.L.; Winges, L.D. (1988).
"Do adolescents who relinquish their children fare better or worse than
those who raise them?". Family Planning Perspectives. 20 (1): 25–
32. doi:10.2307/2135594. PMID 3371467.
129. Jump up^ L. Borders, et. Adult Adoptees and Their Friends,
National Council of Family Relations, 2000, Vol. 49, No. 4,
130. Jump up^ Beauchesne, Lise M. (1997). As if born to: The social
construction of a deficit identity position for adopted persons (D.S.W.
dissertation) Wilfrid Laurier University
131. Jump up^ Meeus, Wim. "The Study of Adolescent Formation 2000-
2010: A Review of Longitunal Research". Journal of Research on
Adolescence. 21 (1): 88.
132. ^ Jump up to:a b Patton-Imani, Sandra (2012). "Orphan Sunday:
Narratives of Salvation in Transnational Adoption". Dialog: A Journey
of Theology. 51 (4): 301.
133. Jump up^ 24. Kaplan, Deborah N Silverstein and Sharon. Lifelong
Issues in Adoption.
134. Jump up^ Johnson, Fern L.; Mickelson, Stacie; Lopez Davila,
Mariana (22 September 2013). "Transracial Foster Care and Adoption:
Issues and Realities". New England Journal of Public Policy. 25 (1): 2.
135. Jump up^ Bauer, Stephanie; Loomis, Colleen; Akkari, Abdeljalil
(May 2012). "Intercultural immigrant youth identities in contexts of
family, friends, and school". Journal of Youth Studies. 16 (1):
63. doi:10.1080/13676261.2012.693593. Retrieved 9 December 2014.
136. Jump up^ Snodgrass, Ginni D. Research and Studies on Adoptees.
Statistics on the effects of Adoption. Appendix A. s.l. : George Fox
University, 1998.
137. Jump up^ Kaplan, Deborah N Silverstein and Sharon. Lifelong
Issues in A.
138. Jump up^ Adoption, and it's Associated Therapy Issues. A
Literature Review discussing the impact of adoption on Self-worth,
Identity and the Primary Relationships of the Adoptee and both the
Biological and Adoptive Parents. Christine Peers 11/7/2012
139. Jump up^ Kaplan, Arline, Psychiatric Times, 26 January 2009
140. Jump up^ Annika von Borczyskowski, Suicidal behavior in national
and international adult adoptees, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology Volume 41, Number 2 / February, 2006
141. Jump up^ William Feigelman, Comparisons with Persons Raised in
Conventional Families, Marriage & Family Review 1540-9635, Volume
25, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 199 – 223
142. Jump up^ Border, L. DiAnne (2000). "Adult Adoptees and Their
Friends". Family Relations. 49 (4): 407–418. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2000.00407.x. JSTOR 585836.
143. Jump up^ Goldfarb, W. (1955). Emotional and intellectual
consequences of psychologic deprivation in infancy: A Re-evaluation.
In P. Hoch & J. Zubin (Eds.), Psychopathology of Childhood (pp. 105–
119). NY: Grune & Stratton.
144. Jump up^ Pringel, M. L., & Bossio, V. (1960). Early, prolonged
separation and emotional adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 37–48
145. Jump up^ Hamilton, L. (2012). Adoption. In Blackwell Encyclopedia
of Sociology. Retrieved from http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/
146. Jump up^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 4 March
2016. Retrieved 4
November2014. http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=do
c&id=11455http://www.bemyparent.org.uk/features/who-am-
i,300,AR.html "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 10
September 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
147. Jump up^ Wegar, Katarina. "Adoption, Family Ideology, and Social
Stigma: Bias in Community Attitudes, Adoption Research, and
Practice". Family Relations. National Council on Family
Relations. 49 (4): 363–370. doi:10.2307/585831 (inactive 2017-01-
15). JSTOR 585831.
148. Jump up^ March, K. (1995). "Perception of Adoption as Social
Stigma: Motivation for Search and Reunion". Journal of Marriage and
the Family. 57 (3): 653. doi:10.2307/353920. JSTOR 353920. pg. 654.
149. Jump up^ National Adoption Attitudes Survey, June 2002, Evan
Donaldson Institute, page 20 and 38."
150. Jump up^ National Adoption Attitudes Survey, June 2002, Evan
Donaldson Institute, page 47"
151. Jump up^ 3 Generations of Adoption, 12 April 2007
152. Jump up^ Maya's Mom, 7 April 2007 Archived 3 May 2008 at
the Wayback Machine.
153. Jump up^ The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 9 April 2007
press release Archived 3 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine.
154. Jump up^ National Adoption Attitudes Survey, June 2002, Evan
Donaldson Institute, page 20."
155. Jump up^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 19
February 2006. Retrieved 12 March2006. The Evan B. Donaldson
Adoption Institute
156. Jump up^ http://pewfostercare.org/docs/index.php?DocID=41 The
Pew Commission of Children in Foster Care
157. Jump up^ Adoption History Project (University of Oregon),Topic
History in Brief
158. ^ Jump up to:a b Book Review: The Primal Wound by Nancy N.
Verrier
159. Jump up^ Miles, 2003: Does Adoption Affect the Adolescent
Eriksonian Task of Identity Formation?
Available: http://www.cs.brown.edu/~jadrian/docs/papers/old/2003021
2%20Miles%20-%20Adoptive%20Identity.pdf Retrieved: 30 January
2008
160. Jump up^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 19
February 2006. Retrieved 12 March2006. Why Adoptive Parents
Support Open Records for Adult Adoptees
161. Jump up^ Adoption History Project (University of Oregon), Topic
Illegtimacy
162. Jump up^ Martin Gottlieb, The Foundling, 2001, pg. 105–106
163. Jump up^ Adoption History Project Topic Confidentiality
164. Jump up^ ISRR – International Soundex Reunion Registry Reunion
Registry[permanent dead link]
165. Jump up^ R. Rushbrooke, The proportion of adoptees who have
received their birth records in England and Wales, Population Trends
(104), Summer 2001, pp 26–34."
166. Jump up^ TRIADOPTION Archives TRIADOPTION Archives
167. Jump up^ USA Today, As adoptees seek roots, states unsealing
records, 13 February 2008."
168. Jump up^ Bastard Nation, Bastard Nation – New
Hampshire Archived 9 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine.
169. Jump up^ Origins USA position papers Available: "Archived copy".
Archived from the original on 12 September 2007. Retrieved 2
May 2008. Accessed: 27 April 2008.
170. Jump up^ Schechter and Bertocci, "The Meaning of the Search" in
Brodzinsky and Schechter, Psychology of Adoption," 1990, pg. 67
171. Jump up^ 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
172. ^ Jump up to:a b March, K. (1995). "Perception of Adoption as Social
Stigma: Motivation for Search and Reunion". Journal of Marriage and
the Family. 57 (3): 653. doi:10.2307/353920. JSTOR 353920.
173. Jump
up^ http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/dissertations/AAINN60675/ K.
March, "The stranger who bore me: Adoptee-birth mother
interactions," Dissertation, McMaster University, 1990
174. Jump up^ Schechter and Bertocci, "The Meaning of the Search" in
Brodzinsky and Schechter, Psychology of Adoption," 1990, pg. 70
175. Jump up^ R. Sullivan and E. Lathrop, "Openness in adoption:
retrospective lessons and prospective choices," Children and Youth
Services Review Vol. 26 Issue 4, April 2004.
176. Jump up^ "Searching for missing relatives in Poland". Financial
Times. 30 October 2009.
177. Jump up^ Gitta Sereny, "Stolen Children", rpt. in Jewish Virtual
Library (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise). Accessed 15
September 2008.
178. Jump up^ "Sorry Day and the Stolen Generations". Australian
Government. Archived from the original on 12 May 2012. Retrieved 16
June 2012.
179. Jump up^ "The Adoption History Project". Department of History,
University of Oregon. Retrieved 16 June 2012.
180. Jump up^ "First Nations in Canada". Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development Canada. Retrieved 16 June 2012.
181. Jump up^ Yes, You Can Adopt!: A Comprehensive Guide to
Adoption. Books.google.com. 2003. ISBN 9780786710355.
Retrieved 12 December 2011.
182. Jump up^ Bernardo, Sanford M. (31 December 2012). "Internet
Adoption Scams and the Russian Adoption Ban". Adoptimist.
Retrieved 3 June 2013.
183. Jump up^ National Indian Child Welfare Association: the Indian
Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA)Archived 14 May 2013 at
the Wayback Machine.
184. Jump up^ Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo Archived 7 February 2006 at
the Wayback Machine.'s website (in English)
185. Jump up^ Birthparent Legacy Term TRIADOPTION® Archives
186. Jump up^ Birth Parents The Adoption History Project
187. Jump up^ Adoption Terminology Child Welfare League of American
1980s
188. Jump up^ Adoption Language Archived 26 April 2011 at
the Wayback Machine. by Brenda Romanchik
189. Jump up^ Speaking Positively: Using Respectful Adoption
Language Archived 24 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine., by
Patricia Irwin Johnston
190. Jump up^ Logan, J. (1996). "Birth Mothers and Their Mental
Health: Uncharted Territory". British Journal of Social Work. 26 (5):
609–625. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a011137.
191. Jump up^ Wells, S. (1993). "What do Birthmothers
Want?". Adoption and Fostering. 17 (4): 22–
26. doi:10.1177/030857599301700405.
192. Jump up^ "Why Birthmother Means Breeder," Archived 6 July 2008
at the Wayback Machine. by Diane Turski
193. Jump up^ Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The
Linguistic Problem of Naming, Edna Andrews, American Speech, Vol.
71, No. 4 (Winter, 1996), pp.389–404.
194. Jump up^ PAL 1992 Archived 12 January 2011 at the Wayback
Machine. OURS 1992
195. Jump up^ Holt 1997 Holt International 1997
196. Jump up^ Sayyid Muhammad Rivzi, "Adoption in Islam," [1], 9 April
2010,
197. Jump up^ Tim Lister and Mary Rogers, "Egypt says adoptive moms
were human smugglers," CNN, 23 March 2009,
198. Jump up^ Smit, Eileen M. (2002-12-01). "Adopted Children: Core
Issues and Unique Challenges". Journal of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Nursing. 15 (4): 143–150. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6171.2002.tb00389.x. ISSN 1744-6171.
1.Barbara Melosh, the American Way of Adoption page 10

Further reading[edit]
 Argent, Hedi. Related by Adoption: a handbook for grandparents
and other relatives (2014)
 Askeland, Lori. Children and Youth in Adoption, Orphanages, and
Foster Care: A Historical Handbook and Guide (2005) excerpt and
text search
 Carp, E. Wayne, ed. Adoption in America: Historical
Perspectives (2002)
 Carp, E. Wayne. Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the
History of Adoption (2000)
 Carp, E. Wayne. Jean Paton and the Struggle to Reform American
Adoption (University of Michigan Press; 2014) 422 pages; Scholarly
biography of an activist (1908-2002) who led the struggle for open
adoption records
 Conn, Peter. Adoption: A Brief Social and Cultural
History (2013) excerpt and text search
 Eskin, Michael. The Wisdom of Parenthood: An Essay (New York:
Upper West Side Philosophers, Inc. 2013)
 Fessler, Ann. The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of
Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades
Before Roe v. Wade (2007) excerpt and text search
 Gailey, Christine Ward. Blue-Ribbon Babies and Labors of Love:
Race, Class, and Gender in U.S. Adoption Practice (University of
Texas Press; 185 pages; 2010). Uses interviews with 131 adoptive
parents in a study of how adopters' attitudes uphold, accommodate,
or subvert prevailing ideologies of kinship in the United States.
 Melosh, Barbara. Strangers and Kin: the American Way of
Adoption (2002) excerpt and text search
 Minchella, Tina Danielle. Adoption in post-Soviet Russia:
Nationalism and the re-invention of the "Russian family" (2011)
 Pertman, A. (2000). Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution
Is Transforming America. New York: Basic Books.
 Seligmann, Linda J. Broken Links, Enduring Ties: American
Adoption Across Race, Class, and Nation (Stanford University
Press; 2013) 336 pages); comparative ethnographic study of
transnational and interracial adoption.
 Fictive Kinship: Making Maladaptation Palatable

[show]

Adoption and foster care

[show]

Family

[show]

Parenting

[show]

Reproductive health
Categories:
 Adoption
 Family law
 Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement
Navigation menu
 Not logged in

 Talk

 Contributions

 Create account

 Log in
 Article
 Talk
 Read
 Edit
 View history
Search
Go

 Main page
 Contents
 Featured content
 Current events
 Random article
 Donate to Wikipedia
 Wikipedia store
Interaction
 Help
 About Wikipedia
 Community portal
 Recent changes
 Contact page
Tools
 What links here
 Related changes
 Upload file
 Special pages
 Permanent link
 Page information
 Wikidata item
 Cite this page
Print/export
 Create a book
 Download as PDF
 Printable version
In other projects
 Wikimedia Commons
Languages
 ‫العربية‬
 Español
 Bahasa Indonesia
 Македонски
 Nederlands
 Русский
 Tagalog
 ‫اردو‬
 中文
48 more
Edit links
 This page was last edited on 14 April 2018, at 19:26.
 Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional
terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.

 Privacy policy

 About Wikipedia

 Disclaimers

 Contact Wikipedia

 Developers

 Cookie statement

 Mobile view


Adoption

On this page
Basics

 Summary
 Start Here

Learn More

 Related Issues
 Specifics

See, Play and Learn

 No links available

Research

 Clinical Trials
 Journal Articles

Resources

 Find an Expert

For You

 Children
 Teenagers

Summary
Adoption brings a child born to other parents into a new family. Birth parents have a number of reasons for
placing children for adoption. Overall, they want better lives for their children than they think they can give
them.

Children who are eligible for adoption come from many different settings. Some are in foster care, a temporary
home setting. Other children live in orphanages or with birth relatives until they can be adopted.

There are different kinds of adoption. Children may be adopted by a relative or a new family. Some parents
adopt children from the U.S, and some adopt from abroad.
Thinking About Adoption: FAQs

By: Elaine Schulte, MD, MPH, FAAP

Choosing to adopt a child is a big decision and is a beautiful way to create or add to a family.
Below you will find the answers to some commonly asked questions.

Q: I think I want to adopt. Where do I begin?

A: Thinking about adoption can be an exciting and overwhelming process, and with more than
125,000 children adopted in the United States each year, it's obviously become a popular
option. Adoptive Families is an award-winning resource for parents-to-be navigating the
adoption process and for parents raising children through adoption. Learn more about their How-
to-Adopt and Adoption Parenting Network.

Q: What are the different types of adoption?

A: Children can be adopted through the national public child welfare system, private agencies,
existing relationships, or the international process.

 In a public adoption, the child is placed in a home by an agency that is either operated
by the state or contracted by the state. Public adoption requirements can vary by state.

 In a private adoption, placement is made by a nonprofit or for-private agency. Parents

typically use an agency to assist with an international adoption.

 An independent adoption may be carried out by birth parents, a lawyer, a doctor, a

religious leader, or any other person who can help connect a child with a family.

For private and independent adoptions, the birth parent(s) can decide whether or not he or she
wishes to select the adoptive parents, meet with them, even maintain an ongoing relationship, if
he or she so chooses. That is called an open adoption. In a closed adoption, the names of the
birth mother and father and the adoptive parents are not shared with one another.
Q: What is the average cost of adopting a child?
A: The costs really depend on the type of adoption, and, to some extent, the length of time it
takes to adopt. Costs can range from $0 to $50,000. Child Welfare Information Gateway has an
excellent review of adoption costs with references. Many employers also offer adoption benefits
to help offset the cost. In 2013 the Federal Adoption Tax Credit was created to help families
cover the adoption costs, as well.

Q: How long does the process of adopting a child

typically take?
A: Parents hoping to adopt need to be prepared for a long and bumpy ride. Again, the length of
time varies based on the type of adoption. Adopting a newborn from the United States can
sometimes be extremely quick and/or could take years. The length of time to adopt
internationally also varies based on the country and the referral process. Adopting a child
internationally who has special medical needs can happen within 2 to 3 years. Adopting a child
from foster care may not take quite as long, but it can be more complicated.

Q: There are so many adoption agencies out there, how

do I know which I should use?
A: Selecting an adoption agency requires patience and perseverance. It's important that
prospective parents do their homework. This may start with an internet search. Parents should
look for an experienced agency and make sure the agency's values align with their own.
Agencies should be willing to share references. Talk to friends and colleagues about their
experiences, as well.

Q: Where can I learn more about the laws governing

adoption?
A: Information about adoption laws can be found on the Child Welfare Information Gateway,
which is a service of the Children's Bureau in the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.

Q: What sort of preparation do I need as a prospective

adopting parent?
A: As you consider the type of adoption you are going to pursue, you will need to get ready to be
an adoptive parent. There is no "one size fits all" preparation that provides exactly what you
need. Many agencies offer pre-adoptive training for prospective parents. For children who are
adopted from foster care, there may be mandatory certification or training. Talk to families
who've already adopted and gone through the process. Familiarize yourself with all the legal,
financial, medical, developmental, and behavioral issues related to adoption.
Q: How will I talk about adoption with my friends and
family?
A: If nobody in your family or circle of friends has adopted a child, it can be difficult to broach
the subject. There are a lot of misconceptions about the adoption process and adopted children in
general, and talking about it will invite people to voice what they know. HealthyChildren.org's
article, Respectful Ways to Talk about Adoption: A List of Do's & Dont's, will help you learn the
lingo, think about what you'd like to use, and educate your family and friends.

Q: What are the common medical and developmental

concerns facing adopted children?
A: Many adopted children have unique medical, mental health and developmental needs that are
rooted in their prenatal and pre-adoption histories. These needs may be present prior to, or at the
time of adoption, or they may not appear for several to many years after adoption.
Considering Adoption
In This Section

 Considering Adoption

 What facts about it do I need to know?

Is adoption right for me?

Some people choose adoption when faced with a pregnancy.
Information and support is important, but the decision is personal and
only you know what’s best for you.

Why do people decide to place their babies for

adoption?
If you’re facing an unplanned pregnancy, you’re not alone. About half
of all women in the U.S. have an unplanned pregnancy at some point
in their lives, and some decide to give birth and place their baby for
adoption. The process of adoption is when you give birth and then
choose someone else to parent your child. It’s a permanent, legal
agreement where you agree to place your child in the care of another
person or family permanently.

You are in charge of your choice. There are many families throughout
the country that are hoping to build their families through adoption.
There are laws in every state guiding adoptive families and protecting
you, so it’s important that you speak with an adoption agency or
attorney. The decision to place a child for adoption is personal, and
you’re the only one who can make it.

Everyone has their own unique and valid reasons for choosing
adoption. Some of the many different reasons people decide to place
a child for adoption include:

 They’re not ready to be a parent.

 They can’t afford to raise a child.
 They don’t want to be a single parent.
 They want to be the best parent possible to the kids they already
have.
 It’s not a good time in their life to raise a child.
 They want to finish school, focus on work, or achieve other goals
before parenting a child.
 They’re not in a relationship with someone they want to parent a
child with.
 They believe adoption is the best chance for their child to be
well-cared for.
 They’re in an abusive relationship or were sexually assaulted.
 They just don’t want to be a parent right now.

What can I think about to help me decide?

Family, relationships, money, school, work, life goals, personal beliefs,
and the well-being of your future child — most people think carefully
about all of these things before choosing adoption. But every person’s
situation is different, and only you can decide what’s best in your case.

Here are some things to ask yourself:

 Do I feel comfortable letting someone else parent my child?

 Do I believe my child will be treated well by the adoptive
parent(s)?
 Do I feel I can’t care for a child now?
 Would I consider abortion or parenting?
 Is someone pressuring me to choose adoption?
 Am I ready to go through pregnancy and childbirth?
 Am I prepared to cope with the feelings of loss I may have?
 Will I feel okay if I visit my child and their family 2 or 3 times a
year, or possibly never see them again?
 Do I have people in my life who will support me through my
pregnancy, birth, and adoption process?

There can be lots of stuff to consider, and it’s totally normal to have
many different feelings and thoughts when making your decision.
That’s why it’s important to get factual, non-judgmental
information about your pregnancy options. Support from other people
you trust can also help you figure out if adoption is right for you.

Who can I talk to about adoption?

Talking with your partner, someone in your family, a friend, a religious
advisor, or a counselor can be helpful when you’re making a choice
about an unplanned pregnancy. Lots of people lean on others to help
them with their decision. It’s good to choose people who you know are
supportive of you and won’t be judgmental.

An adoption agency can give you information and help you think
through your decision. Many family planning clinics (including your
local Planned Parenthood health center) have specially trained staff
that can give you accurate information about all your options and other
resources. The staff at your local Planned Parenthood can also refer
you to adoption agencies or other resources in your area.

No one should pressure you into making any decision about your
pregnancy, no matter what. At the end of the day, only you know
what’s right for you.

You might be wondering how to start the adoption process. Here are
some things to look for when you check out adoption agencies:

 They have an authentic, transparent, unbiased website.

 They listen to you.
 You’re treated with dignity and respect.
 They don’t judge you.
 They have fact-based answers to your questions and support
you no matter what you choose to do.
 When you make your choice — no matter what it is — they’ll
help connect you with the resources you need.

If you’re having a hard time finding someone in your life to talk with,
check out All-Options or The National Pro-Choice Adoption
Collaborative. Both offer free hotlines that give you a confidential
space to talk about your feelings about your pregnancy. They’ll give
you judgement-free support no matter what you decide to do.

How does it feel to place a baby for adoption?

It’s really normal to have a lot of different feelings after placing your
child for adoption. Lots of people who choose adoption are happy
knowing that their child is living with a family who loves and cares for
them. They may feel empowered as birth parents, because the
decision they made helped give their child a good life.

Some people find that the sense of loss is deeper than they expected.
It’s totally normal to feel grief after the adoption is complete. You might
also feel reassured and relieved. Having many different feelings is
very common, and your feelings might be complicated for a while.

Talking with a counselor who’s experienced with adoption and talking

with other people who’ve been through adoption can give you support
and help you work through your emotions, both during and after the
adoption process. If you work with an adoption agency, they may
provide counseling. If you have an independent adoption, you can
request counseling through a local adoption agency.

No matter which type of adoption you decide on, it’s important to find
people who will support you during and after your pregnancy and the
adoption. You can also call All-Options and The National Pro-Choice
Adoption Collaborative for judgement-free support anytime.

When do I have to decide about adoption?

It’s important to take the time you need to make the best decision for
you. Some people start planning their child’s adoption early in their
pregnancy, and others begin later in pregnancy. A few even start the
adoption process at the hospital after the baby is born. Your timeline
for making an adoption plan depends on you and your needs and
situation.
It’s a good idea to talk to a nurse or doctor as soon as you can so you
can get the best medical care possible. The staff at your local Planned
Parenthood health center is always here to provide expert medical
care and support, no matter what decision you make.
What facts about adoption do I need to
know?
In This Section

 Considering Adoption

 What facts about it do I need to know?

There are different ways to go through the adoption process. Here are the facts about
your options and info on where to get help and support.

What are the different types of adoption?

There are 2 kinds of adoption: open adoption and closed adoption.

Closed adoption (also called confidential adoption) is when the birth

parent(s) and adoptive family have limited or no information about
each other, and they don’t stay in contact after the adoption process is
finished. People may choose closed adoption in order to have more
privacy.

Open adoption is when the birth parent(s) and adopting family meet
each other before the adoption, and continue to build a relationship as
the child grows up. Most adoptions in the U.S. are open. Sometimes
there’s a lot of communication between the families and sometimes
there’s little, but in open adoptions the child always knows of the
adoption.

In open adoptions, you choose who adopts your child and you learn
important things about them like their values, lifestyle, educational
backgrounds, and religion. You develop a relationship with the
adoptive family, and there’s often a legally enforceable agreement for
ongoing visits with the child.

Birth parents and the adoptive family decide together what kind of
relationship they want to have, and how often visits, phone calls, and
updates happen. People may choose open adoption if they want to be
able to pick their child’s adoptive family and be in their child’s life.

What are the different ways to place a child for

adoption?
The adoption process can happen a few different ways.

Agency adoptions are when a state-licensed agency gives you

pregnancy options counseling. It’s important to work with an agency
that’s unbiased and will honor you as you explore all of your options
and decide which one feels right to you. If you choose adoption, you
choose from a pool of carefully screened families. The agency assists
you and the family as you build a relationship. The agency also helps
you make hospital arrangements for the birth, and gives you guidance
on legal matters. Some agencies provide ongoing counseling and
relationship guidance over the years.

Independent adoptions are handled through lawyers. These lawyers

are sometimes called "adoption attorneys." It’s best if the biological
parent(s) have their own lawyer to represent their best interests. If you
choose independent adoption, you can ask for counseling and
guidance through a local adoption agency.

Adoption by a relative happens when someone in the biological

parent's family adopts the child. This is also called "kinship adoption."
You and your relative(s) can work with an adoption agency, lawyer, or
your state department of human services to arrange the adoption.
Family members must meet all the same legal requirements as any
other adoptive family would. Even though a family member adopts the
child in an open adoption, birth parents have no more legal and
parental rights than if they had placed their child with strangers.

Your state, county, or local department of family or child services, or

your local Planned Parenthood health center, have resources on
adoption. They may be able to connect you with a social worker or
other adoption counselor who can help you through the adoption
process. Also, The National Pro-Choice Adoption
Collaborative specializes in providing unbiased, in depth options
counseling and open adoption services. You choose from a large pool
of diverse families who genuinely want to have an ongoing, extended
family relationship with you. They also provide lifelong counseling and
guidance.

How do I find an adoption agency?

You can get help finding adoption agencies in your area through your
local department of family or child services, or your local Planned
Parenthood health center, All-Options, or The National Pro-Choice
Adoption Collaborative.

An adoption agency can help guide you through the adoption process.
When you’re picking an adoption agency, it’s a good idea to ask lots of
questions to make sure they’re a good fit for you.

Ask:

 Will using your services cost me anything?

 Do you offer counseling or support groups for birth parents?
 If I’m under 18 does my family have to know I am considering
adoption?
 How do you screen the adoptive families you work with?
 Will I have a large, diverse pool of qualified families to choose
from?
 Will I be able to meet with adoptive families?
 Do the adoptive parents want a lifelong relationship with me that
includes ongoing visits?
 Do you provide ongoing relationship guidance?
 Will my child know who I am even if I choose not to visit?
 Will there be a legally enforceable post-adoption contact
agreement that outlines the number of ongoing visits?
 If I choose an open adoption, will you help me stay in touch with
the adoptive family?
 Can your agency help with medical costs for prenatal care and
giving birth?
 Do you work with families who want to adopt babies with a
different race and ethnicity, or special medical needs?
 What rights does the birth father have in my state?
 If I choose adoption, when is my decision final?

How do I find birth parents or an adopted child after a

closed adoption?
Sometimes adopted children or birth parents want to find each other
later in life after a closed adoption. Adoption registries may be able to
help you connect with your child, and some adoption agencies will
help birth parents and children find each other.

It’s not always possible to connect birth parents and adopted children
after a closed adoption. So if you think you’ll want to have some
contact with your child, an open adoption is probably a better choice
for you.

What are the laws surrounding adoption?

Adoption is legal and binding. All adoptions must be approved by a
judge in court.

Adoption laws are different in every state. An adoption counselor,

agency, or lawyer can help you understand the laws where you live.
Be sure to read everything very carefully and talk with your lawyer
and/or adoption agency before you sign any papers.
During your pregnancy, you have the right to decide on adoption and
change your mind later. If you choose adoption, you’ll have to sign
official "relinquishment papers" after your baby is born.

In most states, minors do not need a parent’s consent to place their

child for adoption.

The laws about birth fathers vary. Depending on the rights a birth
father has in your state, you may need their consent in order to plan
an adoption. Some states allow contracts for ongoing visits between
birth parents and adoptive families.
Introduction to Adoption
Adoption is the social, emotional, and legal process in which children who will not be raised by
their birth parents become full and permanent legal members of another family while
maintaining genetic and psychological connections to their birth family. Adoption has many
facets and touches people in different ways—depending on their role and perspective. In this
section, find information on the history of adoption in the United States, definitions and the use
of language in adoption, core issues in adoption, and information about social media in adoption,
as well as links to related resources and information.

Core Issues in Adoption

Adoption is a lifelong process for everyone involved, with significant emotional and legal
impacts. The classic "Seven Core Issues in Adoption," published in the early 1980s, outlined the
seven lifelong issues experienced by all members of the adoption triad: loss, rejection, guilt and
shame, grief, identity, intimacy, and mastery/control. Others have built on these core issues. In
this section find resources on the core issues in adoption.

Lifelong Issues in Adoption

By Deborah N. Silverstein and Sharon Kaplan

Adoption is a lifelong, intergenerational process which unites the triad of birth

families, adoptees and adoptive families forever. Adoption, especially of adolescents,
can lead to both great joy and tremendous pain. Recognizing the core issues in
adoption is one intervention that can assist triad members and professionals working
in adoption better to understand each other and the residual effects of the adoption
experience.

Adoption triggers seven lifelong or core issues for all triad members, regardless of the
circumstances of the adoption or the characteristics of the participants:

 Loss
 Rejection
 Guilt and shame
 Grief
 Identity
 Intimacy
 Mastery/control
(Silverstein and Kaplan 1982)

Clearly, the specific experiences of triad members vary, but there is a commonality of
affective experiences which persists throughout the individual’s or family’s life cycle
development. The recognition of these similarities permits dialogue among triad
members and allows those professionals with whom they interface to intervene in
proactive as well as curative ways.

The presence of these issues does not indicate, however, that either the individual or
the institution of adoption is pathological or pseudopathological. Rather, these are
expected issues that evolve logically out of the nature of adoption. Before the recent
advent of open and cooperative practices, adoption had been practiced as a win/lose or
adversarial process. In such an approach, birth families lose their child in order for the
adoptive family to gain a child. The adoptee was transposed from one family to
another with time-limited and, at times, short-sighted consideration of the child’s
long-term needs. Indeed, the emphasis has been on the needs of the adults – on the
needs of the birth family not to parent and on the needs of the adoptive family to
parent. The ramifications of this attitude can be seen in the number of difficulties
experienced by adoptees and their families over their lifetime.

Many of the issues inherent in the adoption experience converge when the adoptee
reaches adolescence. At this time three factors intersect: an acute awareness of the
significance of being adopted; a drive toward emancipation; and a biopsychosocial
striving toward the development of an integrated identity.

It is not our intent here to question adoption, but rather to challenge some adoption
assumptions, specifically, the persistent notion that adoption is not different from
other forms of parenting and the accompanying disregard for the pain and struggles
inherent in adoption.

However, identifying and integrating these core issues into pre-adoption education,
post-placement supervision, and all post-legalized services, including treatment,
universalizes and validates triad member’s experiences, decreasing their isolation and
feelings of helplessness.

LOSS

Adoption is created through loss; without loss there would be no adoption. Loss then,
is at the hub of the wheel. All birthparents, adoptive parents, and adoptees share in
having experienced at least one major, life-altering loss before becoming involved in
adoption. In adoption, in order to gain anything, one must first lose – a family, a child,
a dream. It is these losses and the way they are accepted and, hopefully, resolved
which set the tone for the lifelong process of adoption.

Adoption is a fundamental, life-altering event. It transposes people from one location

in the human mosaic into totally new configuration. Adoptive parents, whether
through infertility, failed pregnancy, stillbirth, or the death of a child have suffered
one of life’s greatest blows prior to adopting. They have lost their dream child. No
matter how well resolved the loss of bearing a child appears to be, it continues to
affect the adoptive family at a variety of points throughout the family'’ live cycle
issues of burgeoning sexuality and impending emancipation may rekindle the loss
issue.

Birthparents lose, perhaps forever, the child to whom they are genetically connected.
Subsequently, they undergo multiple losses associated with the loss of role, the loss of
contact, and perhaps the loss of the other birthparent, which reshape the entire course
of their lives.

Adoptees suffer their first loss at the initial separation from the birth family.
Awareness of their adopted status is inevitable. Even if the loss is beyond conscious
awareness, recognition, or vocabulary, it affects the adoptee on a very profound level.
Any subsequent loss, or the perceived threat of separation, becomes more formidable
for adoptees than their non-adopted peers.

The losses in adoption and the role they play in all triad members lives have largely
been ignored. The grief process in adoption, so necessary for healthy functioning, is
further complicated by the fact that there is no end to the losses, no closure to the loss
experience. Loss in adoption is not a single occurrence. There is the initial,
identifiable loss and innumerable secondary sub-losses. Loss becomes an evolving
process, creating a theme of loss in both the individual’s and family’s development.
Those losses affect all subsequent development.

Loss is always a part of triad members’ lives. A loss in adoption is never totally
forgotten. It remains either in conscious awareness or is pushed into the unconscious,
only to be reawakened by later loss. It is crucial for triad members, their significant
others, and the professional with whom they interface, to recognize these losses and
the effect loss has on their lives.

Birth Parent Adopted Person Adoptive Parent

"I don’t know why but I "You don’t love me anyway "I know my son George will
always miss the supervised – I’m out of here." blow it right before his
visits right before we go to birthday party again."
court."
REJECTION

Feelings of loss are exacerbated by keen feelings of rejection. One way individuals
seek to cope with a loss is to personalize it. Triad members attempt to decipher what
they did or did not do that let to the loss. Triad members become sensitive to the
slightest hint of rejection, causing them either to avoid situation where they might be
rejected in order to validate their earlier negative self-perceptions.

Adoptees seldom are able to view their placement into adoption by the birthparents as
anything other than total rejection. Adoptees even at young ages grasp the concept
that to be "chosen" means first that one was "un-chosen", reinforcing adoptees’
lowered self-concept. Society promulgates the idea that the "good" adoptee is the one
who is not curious and accepts adoption without question. At the other extreme of the
continuum is the "bad" adoptee who is constantly questioning, thereby creating
feelings of rejection in the adoptive parents.

Birthparents frequently condemn themselves for being irresponsible, as does society.

Adoptive parents may inadvertently create fantasies for the adoptee about the birth
family which reinforce these feelings of rejection. For example, adoptive parents may
block an adolescent adoptee’s interest in searching for birthparents by stating that the
birthparents may have married and had other children. The implication is clear that the
birthparents would consider contact with the adoptee an unwelcome intrusion.

Adoptive parents may sense that their bodies have rejected them if they are infertile.
This impression may lead the infertile couple, for example, to feel betrayed or rejected
by God. When they come to adoption, the adoptors, possibly unconsciously, anticipate
the birthparents’ rejection and criticism of their parenting. Adoptive parents struggle
with issues of entitlement, wondering if perhaps they were never meant to be parents,
especially to this child. The adopting family, then, may watch for the adoptee to reject
them, interpreting many benign, childish actions as rejection. To avoid that ultimate
rejection, some adoptive parents expel or bind adolescent adoptees prior to the
accomplishment of appropriate emancipation tasks.

Birth Parent Adopted Person Adoptive Parent

"I don’t tell anyone about "I can’t imagine that no one "Well, God didn’t like me
the child I relinquished – in all of China wanted me – I very much – I could never
they’d say, ‘how could you must be pretty weird." birth a child."
give away your own child’
and have nothing to do with
me."
GUILT/SHAME

The sense of deserving such rejection leads triad members to experience tremendous
guilt and shame. They commonly believe that there is something intrinsically wrong
with them or their deeds that caused the losses to occur. Most triad members have
internalized, romantic images of the American family which remain unfulfilled
because there is no positive, realistic view of the adoptive family in our society.

For many triad members, the shame of being involved in adoption per se exists
passively, often without recognition. The shame of an unplanned pregnancy, or the
crisis of infertility, or the shame of having been given up remains unspoken, often as
the unconscious motivator.

Adoptees suggest that something about their very being caused the adoption. The self-
accusation is intensified by the secrecy often present in past and present adoption
practices. These factors combine to lead the adoptee to conclude that the feelings of
guilt and shame are indeed valid.

Adoptive parents, when they are diagnosed as infertile, frequently believe that they
must have committed a grave sin to have received such a harsh sentence. They are
ashamed of themselves, of their defective bodies, of their inability to bear children.

Birthparents feel tremendous guilt and shame for having been intimate and sexual; for
the very act of conception, they find themselves guilty.

Birth Parent Adopted Person Adoptive Parent

"My mother said I broke her "If I was better my birth "If I were good enough to be a
heart when I got pregnant. parents would have kept me parent, God would have given
I’m just no good." – I guess I cried too much." me a baby."

GRIEF

Every loss in adoption must be grieved. The losses in adoption, however, are difficult
to mourn in a society where adoption is seen as a problem-solving event filled with
joy. There are no rituals to bury the unborn children; no rites to mark off the loss of
role of caretaking parents; no ceremonies for lost dreams or unknown families. Grief
washes over triad members' lives, particularly at times of subsequent loss or
developmental transitions.
Triad members can be assisted at any point in the adoption experience by learning
about and discussing the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression,
and acceptance (Kubler-Ross 1969).

Adoptees in their youth find it difficult to grieve their losses, although they are in
many instances aware of them, even as young children. Youngsters removed from
abusive homes are expected to feel only relief and gratitude, not loss and grief. Adults
block children’s expressions of pain or attempt to divert them. In addition, due to
developmental unfolding of cognitive processes, adoptees do not fully appreciate the
total impact of their losses until their adolescence or, for many, until adulthood. This
delayed grief may lead to depression or acting out through substance abuse or
aggressive behaviors.

Birthparents may undergo an initial, brief, intense period of grief at the time of loss of
the child, but are encouraged by well-meaning friends and family to move on in their
lives and to believe that their child is better off. The grief, however, does not vanish,
and, in fact, it has been reported that birth mothers may deny the experience for up to
ten years (Campbell 1979).

Adoptive parents’ grief over the inability to bear children is also blocked by family
and friends who encourage the couple to adopt, as if children are interchangeable. The
grief of the adoptive parents continues as the child grows up since the adoptee can
never fully meet the fantasies and expectations of the adoptive parents.

"As night follows day – grief follows loss."

Birth Parent Adopted Person Adoptive Parent

"When I had my second "I feel angry and since I "I already told Andy about
child, I could only think can’t talk about it, I’ll show his adoption – he’s known
about the one I gave away." you by my actions." about it all of his life I can’t
understand why he’s acting
out now that he’s 12."

IDENTITY

Adoption may also threaten triad members’ sense of identity. Triad members often
express feelings related to confused identity and identity crises, particularly at times
of unrelated loss.
Identity is defined both by what one is and what one is not. In adoption, birthparents
are parents and are not. Adoptive parents who were not parents suddenly become
parents. Adoptees born into one family, a family probably nameless to them now, lose
an identity and then borrow one from the adopting family.

Adoption, for some, precludes a complete or integrated sense of self. Triad members
may experience themselves as incomplete, deficient, or unfinished. They state that
they lack feelings of well-being, integration, or solidity associated with a fully
developed identity.

Adoptees lacking medical, genetic, religious, and historical information are plagued
by questions such as Who are they? Why were they born? Were they in fact merely a
mistake, not meant to have been born, an accident? This lack of identity may lead
adoptees, particularly in adolescent years, to seek out ways to belong in more extreme
fashion than many of their non-adopted peers. Adolescent adoptees are
overrepresented among those who join sub-cultures, run away, become pregnant, or
totally reject their families.

For many couples in our society a sense of identity is tied to procreation. Adoptive
parents may lose that sense of generativity, of being tied to the past and future, often
created through procreation.

Adoptive parents and birthparents share a common experience of role confusion. They
are handicapped by the lack of positive identity associated with being either a
birthparent or adoptive parent (Kirk 1964). Neither set of parents can lay full claim to
the adoptee and neither can gain distance from any problems that may arise.

"Who the hell am I?"

Birth Parent Adopted Person Adoptive Parent

"I’m a parent, but not a real "If I can’t belong anywhere "I cringe when people ask,
parent – I never know how to else I can belong to the Crips "Do you have any children of
answer when people ask, ‘do or the Moonies." you own?"
you have any children?’"

INTIMACY

The multiple, ongoing losses in adoption, coupled with feelings of rejection, shame,
and grief as well as an incomplete sense of self, may impede the development of
intimacy for triad members. One maladaptive way to avoid possible reenactment of
previous losses is to avoid closeness and commitment.

Adoptive parents report that their adopted children seem to hold back a part of
themselves in the relationship. Adoptive mothers indicate, for example, that even as
an infant, the adoptee was "not cuddly". Many adoptees as teen state that they truly
have never felt close to anyone. Some youngsters declare a lifetime emptiness related
to a longing for the birthmother they may have never seen.

Due to these multiple losses for both adoptees and adoptive parents, there may also
have been difficulties in early bonding and attachment. For children adopted at older
ages, multiple disruptions in attachment and/or abuse may interfere with relationships
in the new family (Fahlberg 1979 a, b).

The adoptee’s intimacy issues are particularly evident in relationships with members
of the opposite sex and revolve around questions about the adoptee’s conception,
biological and genetic concerns, and sexuality.

The adoptive parents’ couple relationship may have been irreparably harmed by the
intrusive nature of medical procedures and the scapegoating and blame that may have
been part of the diagnosis of infertility. These residual effects may become the
hallmark of the later relationship.

Birthparents may come to equate sex, intimacy, and pregnancy with pain leading them
to avoid additional loss by shunning intimate relationships. Further, birthparents may
question their ability to parent a child successfully. In many instances, the birthparents
fear intimacy in relationships with opposite sex partners, family or subsequent
children.

Birth Parent Adopted Person Adoptive Parent

"It always hurts – but "The only think I know "I wonder if I love my son as
somehow I pick men who will about my birthparents is much as I would if he were
hurt me again." they had sex at 14." born to me?"

MASTERY/CONTROL

Adoption alters the course of one’s life. This shift presents triad members with
additional hurdles in their development, and may hinder growth, self-actualization,
and the evolution of self-control.
Birthparents, adoptive parents, and adoptees are all forced to give up control.
Adoption, for most, is a second choice. Birthparents did not grow up with romantic
images of becoming accidentally pregnant or abusing their children and surrendering
them for adoption. In contrast, the pregnancy or abuse is a crisis situation whose
resolution becomes adoption. In order to solve the predicament, birthparents must
surrender not only the child but also their volition, leading to feelings of victimization
and powerlessness which may become themes in birthparents’ lives.

Adoptees are keenly aware that they were not party to the decision which let to their
adoption. They had no control over the loss of the birth family or the choice of the
adoptive family. The adoption proceeded with adults making life-altering choices for
them. This unnatural change of course impinges on growth toward self-actualization
and self-control. Adolescent adoptees, attempting to master the loss of control they
have experienced in adoption, frequently engage in power struggles with adoptive
parents and other authority figures. They may lack internalized self-control, leading to
a lowered sense of self-responsibility. These patterns, frequently passive/aggressive in
nature, may continue into adulthood.

For adoptive parents, the intricacies of the adoption process lead to feelings of
helplessness. These feelings sometimes cause adoptive parents to view themselves as
powerless, and perhaps not entitled to be parents, leading to laxity in parenting. As an
alternative response, some adoptive parents may seek to regain the lost control by
becoming overprotective and controlling, leading to rigidity in the parent/adoptee
relationship.

Birth Parent Adopted Person Adoptive Parent

"It all happened to me – I "The most important "I tried everything and still
guess I was just born a decision of my life was made didn’t have a child – so I
victim." without my say – it doesn’t don’t really feel entitled to
make sense so why don’t you ACT like a parent."
understand that I’m no good
at cause and effect thinking."

SUMMARY

The experience of adoption, then can be one of loss, rejection, built/shame, grief,
diminished identity, thwarted intimacy, and threats to self-control and to the
accomplishment of mastery. These seven core or lifelong issues permeate the lives of
triad members regardless of the circumstances of the adoption. Identifying these core
issues can assist triad members and professionals in establishing an open dialogue and
alleviating some of the pain and isolation which so often characterize adoption. Triad
members may need professional assistance in recognizing that they may have become
trapped in the negative feelings generated by the adoption experience. Armed with
this new awareness, they can choose to catapult themselves into growth and strength.

Triad members may repeatedly do and undo their adoption experiences in their minds
and in their vacillating behaviors while striving toward mastery. They will benefit
from identifying, exploring and ultimately accepting the role of the seven core issues
in their lives.
Adoption in the United States Research Paper
Adoption is the legal process whereby a child is taken into and raised as a member of a family. While the
practice is as old as human history itself, the means and ends of adoption have changed over time. Throughout
much of history, adoption has been used to accommodate the interests of the adopters or parents by cementing
familial or political alliances, securing youthful labor, ensuring continuation of lineages, or getting rid of
unwanted children who were a financial burden to the biological parents.

Adoption began to change with the rise of the modern nuclear family in the nineteenth century. Social
historians have explored the changing nature of the family over the past half-century or so, pointing to
industrialization and urbanization as the key factors in this change. Before the urban and industrial revolutions
of the nineteenth century, families were often extended, with non-nuclear kin living in a single household.
Moreover, the household was largely oriented toward production, whether of food in the countryside or
artisanal goods in urban areas. While relations among family members were no doubt based on emotional ties,
these were not primary. Instead, each member had a role in the household’s larger productive enterprise.
Children, though loved and cared for, also had to be productive members for the household to survive.
Households frequently adopted children—quite frequently, in fact, given the high rate of mortality and the
large number of orphans—with an eye to what they could contribute productively.

Industrialization and urbanization changed the structure and dynamics of the American family. Family
households —first in cities and then, to a lesser degree, on farms—became less units of production than units
of consumption. As their productive roles disappeared, families focused more on nurturing the young and
preparing them for adulthood, when they would have to make their own way in the world, outside the
household. There was a new emphasis on education. With urbanization families also shrank, as large
households became too unwieldy, and lower child mortality rates reduced the need for many children to ensure
at least some would reach adulthood.

The new nuclear families, thus, became more child-oriented, with childhood seen as a distinct and precious
phase in human development. Children were nurtured emotionally and educated for the needs of modern
society. And with these changes in the family came changes in adoption. The primary focus increasingly
moved from the needs and interests of the adopters to the needs of the adoptee.

History of Adoption
Historical references to adoption, dating back to Hammurabi’s Code in Mesopotamia during the second
millennium b.c.e. and the Hebrew Bible, largely emphasized its contractual nature and the economic
investment in raising the child. One of Hammurabi’s laws reads, “if a man adopt a child and to his name as
son, and rear him, this grown son cannot be demanded back again.” The ancient Hindus and Chinese employed
adoption to ensure passage to heaven, and in ancient Rome childless politicians commonly adopted to meet the
requirements for political officeholders to be heads of households. In societies ranging from pre-Columbian
America to medieval Europe, adoption, like marriage, was used to solidify political alliances between families
and clans and guard against invasion as a legitimate form of hostage taking.

Although other influences have affected the practice in America, U.S. policies regarding adoption were
originally based on European customs. These policies were informed by a belief in the inherent superiority of
blood kinship and existed primarily to ensure inheritance rights. This belief was stimulated in large part by
Catholic and Protestant reformers in the medieval and early modern era seeking to make church-sanctioned
marriage the sole arena of sexual activity. They saw adoption as a way around these mandates, especially as
nobles commonly used adoption to include their illegitimate sons in their inheritance. Horror stories of
accidental incest warned of the dangers of separating legitimate family.
Unwanted or unplanned children were often viewed as a commodity in the medieval and early modern eras.
Those who were healthy were useful as laborers, and many were “bound out” or indentured in exchange for
board and, with luck, some type of education. The English created a tiered system of apprenticeship. The
merchant classes paid a fee to apprentice their sons to lawyers or doctors, middle-class parents sent their
children to learn a craft to avoid “spoiling” them with too much love, and orphaned or abandoned children
were bound out to families to work and be educated. Although this system functioned in place of foster care
for many families, it was not limited to those who could not support their children. Affluent families also used
the practice to secure training for their children. As a system of apprenticeship, this form of “adoption” was not
stigmatized since its intended purpose of uplifting the condition of the child and family was clear.

Involuntary apprenticeship was based on the Elizabethan “Poor Laws,” derived from the doctrine of parens
patriae (“government as parent”), the idea that the king was the “father” of his people and as such was granted
the right to intervene in the lives of his subjects for their benefit. The poor laws were designed to address
vagrancy and general poverty. “Overseers of the Poor,” functioning in much the same way as modern social
workers, were vested with the power to remove children from families not able to care for them properly.
Colonial America copied the English Poor Law system, and during the mid-1700s, the Overseer “placed out”
7.3 percent of children living in Frederick County, Virginia.

Adoption as a formal and permanent situation was not generally recognized or recorded in America until the
midnineteenth century, when Massachusetts established what is considered the nation’s first adoption law.
Because adoption was only loosely understood to be for the benefit of the child and frequently resulted in
situations of abuse, the 1851 law ensured that the adoptive parents would provide a suitable home for the child;
this was the extent of the description, however, and “suitability” was a matter left to the discretion of the
individual judge. Organizations existed to house orphaned children, but before 1800 most of these were
almshouses, which served all the poor; children were housed with criminals and the insane.

These desperate circumstances for children inspired the creation of orphanages, organized primarily by
religious institutions. The orphanages, however, did not solve the problems of orphaned and abandoned
children, and many of these organizations suffered the same problems as the poorhouses. Poverty and crime
continued to threaten children, and seemed to be increasing as the growing immigrant population sought
opportunity in East Coast cities.

In response to this problem, Methodist minister Charles Loring Brace founded the Children’s Aid Society in
New York in 1853. Brace believed that the orphanages, rife with disease, overcrowding, and unsympathetic
and overworked staff, could not solve the problems of urban children. He believed the only suitable place for a
child was in a family, preferably a Protestant farming family that embodied what he viewed as the
quintessential American values. In 1854 he sent the first “orphan train” to the Midwest with 138 children to be
placed with farm families. Although his intention was sincere, his methods were questionable. Children’s Aid
Society workers combed the ghettos of New York picking up children to be placed with little evidence of
whether their biological parents wanted them or were capable of raising them. They wrangled children away
from immigrants who often did not speak English or understand what they were consenting to. By 1890, an
estimated 84,000 children had been placed in this way.

Although Brace believed he was “saving” children, even he ultimately admitted the problems with his system.
Orphan trains simply dropped children off in rural areas of the Midwest and West. Prospective parents would
gather at the depots, selecting the child or children of their choice, and taking them home. There were no
followup services whatsoever. Eventually Brace was criticized from all sides. Child welfare reformers accused
him of stealing children; representatives of the orphan train destinations accused him of dumping “poison” in
their states, the results of which were dramatic increases in vagrancy and prison population in those areas.
Critics of Brace rightfully drew attention to the lack of continuing services, hasty placements, overt racism,
and needless dissolution of poor, urban families.
In 1863, the Society for the Protection of Destitute Roman Catholic Children in the City of New York was
founded to ensure that dependent Catholic children would be brought up in the faith. An important aspect of
this organization was its focus on maintaining the natal family, an aspect largely overlooked by the Children’s
Aid Society, which, as noted earlier, often took children away from impoverished, urban families without their
consent. Casework was introduced as a way of creating a record of a family’s condition and progress under the
assistance of the fledgling organization. In 1883 the Presbyterian minister Reverend Martin Van Buren Van
Arsdale founded the American Education Aid Society (later, the National Children’s Home Society). Van
Arsdale understood that families were the best place for children, but unlike Brace he incorporated diligent
investigative casework and strived to maintain the natal family at all costs. He introduced the idea of a trained
staff, screening prospective parents before adoption, insisting on written acts of surrender by the biological
parents or current guardians, and maintaining detailed records of all placed children. In 1886, Van Arsdale also
created the Illinois Children’s Home and Aid Society.

The Progressive Era saw the influx of a large number of women into the field of social reform. Educated in
elite women’s colleges during the 1880s and 1890s, these social reformers galvanized their strength toward
improving all aspects of American life, especially the condition of women and children. These women were
responding to a growing problem in America. Rising populations of immigrant poor in the country’s rapidly
growing cities contributed to a rising number of orphans. Recognizing the problem, President Theodore
Roosevelt hosted the White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children in 1909, inviting a number
of female social reformers to participate. The most important outcome of the conference was the establishment
in 1912 of the U.S. Children’s Bureau (USCB). As its charter stated, the bureau was established to investigate
and report “upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life among all classes of our
people.”

The USCB was the first federal institution devoted to the treatment and condition of children. Operated almost
entirely by women, it was initially not allowed to create policy or distribute funds. Instead, it served as a
databank for information on child welfare in America. USCB was the first organization to collect data on
agency-sponsored and private adoptions, the treatment of children in orphanages and foundling homes, as well
as a host of other statistics. It monitored media representation of adoption and child welfare and diligently
controlled public perception of child welfare practices in both the public and private sector. Early staff
members such as Florence Kelly and Martha May Eliot helped make the USCB a powerful and influential
source of information on child and family welfare in America. Eventually the USCB was authorized to provide
pensions and assistance specifically for mothers with dependent children under the 1921 Sheppard-Towner
Infancy and Maternity Protection Act. To this day the USCB remains a part of the Department of Health and
Human Services. The Child Welfare League of America, founded in 1921, supplemented its work in the
private sector.

Although most families who adopt now typically ask for infants, this was not possible before the advent of
feeding formula in the 1920s. Infants were placed in foundling homes, where the mortality rate was often as
high as 95 percent. At the urging of the USCB, many states passed laws prohibiting the separation of mother
and child before the age of 6 months. After World War I and the great influenza pandemic of 1918–20, birth
rates were unusually low. This spurred an interest in adoption, especially of infants, but the many reforms
made to improve the safety of children had also made the process lengthy and invasive for many who simply
wished to start a family. Thus private adoptions surged during this period.

“Black market” adoptions arranged by private brokers generated huge profits. Largely unregulated, brokers
sought out pregnant, destitute women and coerced them into giving up their children when they were weak and
vulnerable. Brokers often took payments from the mothers, for the temporary care of their infant children, and
from the prospective parents, for the privilege of a smooth, private process. The USCB lobbied tirelessly to
regulate these practices, and the number of adoption agencies increased in an attempt to compete. Eventually
adoption laws were amended to ensure the fitness of the placement in court, before an adoption could be
finalized. These laws are still in effect today.
Black market adoptions, the association with criminality, the high mortality rate of the foundling homes, and
the abuse suffered by many children all played into a growing stigmatization of adoption. Medical science
contributed further with the theory of eugenics, which proposed that negative traits are inherited and persons
who carry them should be discouraged from reproducing. Families were terrified of introducing “bad blood”
into their families. In 1912, Henry H. Goddard, director of the Research Laboratory of the Training School at
Vineland, New Jersey, for Feeble-minded Girls and Boys, published his influential study The Kallikak Family:
A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness. The study suggested children were highly likely to inherit the
social pathology of their parents. At the same time, early proponents of intelligence testing portrayed strong
links, debunked by later advocates of such testing, between unmarried motherhood and feeble-mindedness.

The boom period following World War II created a renewed interest in adoption, although it was mainly
limited to infants. The diligent work of the USCB and other organizations in establishing uniform adoption
practices, including a guarantee that the children were not forcibly removed from their biological parents and
the adopting family is emotionally and financially sound, played an enormous part in making adoption safer
and more socially accepted.

By 1950, the number of adoptions in America had soared to some 80,000 annually, from just 5,000 or so in the
1930s. Couples eager to start families and share their success with those less fortunate embraced adoption as a
benevolent alternative. In contrast to the caution suggested by social reformers after World War I, adoption
was now enthusiastically supported as the most sensible option for all concerned: unwed mothers were relieved
of a burden they clearly could not handle, children were given a fresh start with two loving parents, and
childless couples were able to form families, an institution closely linked with patriotism at the time. This
enthusiasm lasted through the mid-1960s, but public opinion again turned against adoption by the 1970s.

Several factors played a role in this change of attitude. First and foremost was the women’s movement.
Prochoice activists came to view adoption as the enemy of abortion. Prevailing feminist opinion portrayed
adoption as unnecessarily burdening a woman with the pain of separation from a child she had developed a
relationship with during pregnancy. Black Nationalism, supported by the National Association of Black Social
Workers, found fault with transracial adoptions that became more prevalent with the Civil Rights movement
for further divesting black children of their cultural heritage. The Freedom of Information Act of 1966 also
threatened the practice of closed adoption, which prohibited children from learning their biological parents’
identity, complicating adoption for mothers who wished to relinquish their children without fear of discovery,
and changing societal views of sexuality and the family made single-parent households more common and
acceptable. From 1970 to 1975, legal adoptions by unrelated persons dropped nearly 50 percent, from a high of
89,000 in 1970 to 48,000 in 1975. In the latter year, the federal government stopped collecting information on
the number of adoptions, but later estimates suggest that annual total has remained fairly constant.

During the next 20 years, several important events significantly affected adoption policy. In 1980, the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act offered significant financial assistance to states that supported
subsidy programs for families willing to adopt children with special needs. In 1989, the United Nations held its
Convention on the Rights of the Child, inspiring the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-
operation in Respect to Intercountry Adoption in 1993, both of which examined and extended the rights of
children throughout the world. In 1994, the Multiethnic Placement Act (later revised as the Adoption
Promotion and Stability Act of 1996) addressed issues concerning interracial adoption, finally concluding that
race could not be considered at all when evaluating placement. By 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
while representing a child-centered approach, once again legitimized adoption as a sensible alternative to
family reunification when families could not guarantee stability. It did this by forging stronger ties between
adopting families and government and private, nonprofit social welfare agencies. More recently, the Child
Citizenship Act of 2000 granted foreign-born adoptees automatic citizenship on entrance to the United States.
This last act has spurred a dangerous expansion of Internet adoptions, reminiscent of the orphan trains.

Experts say poorly regulated Internet adoptions can and have led to instances of children being taken from
their biological parents without adequate safeguards concerning the biological parents’ willingness to give
their children up for adoption. At the same time, Internet adoptions often occur without sufficient assurance
that the child will be placed in an emotionally nurturing home.

Current State of Adoption in America

The Child Welfare League of America defines adoption as “the method provided by law to establish the legal
relationship of parent and child between persons who are not so related by birth.” Appropriate adoption
services include assisting birth parents with placement, placing children in adoptive homes, and maintaining
the adoptive home once it has been established. These services often involve medical and legal personnel, as
well as an array of counseling services employed by all members of the adoption triad (birth or natal parents,
prospective adoptive parents, and adoptees).

Some estimates place the number of American children currently looking for adoptive placement at more than
100,000, of whom 60 percent could be qualified as “special needs”—that is, children whose mental, physical,
or emotional problems make it more difficult to find adoptive families who can raise them with adequate
financial, health, and emotional sustenance. Older children, minority children, children with mental, physical,
or emotional handicaps, and siblings who should be adopted together are all children with special needs in
adoption placement.

Adoption is frequently discussed in the same breath as foster care. A foster family agrees to take in a child and
is compensated by the government. Foster homes are usually meant to be temporary waystations for the child
until he or she can be formally adopted. Because foster care is not a permanent placement, the natal parents
retain all legal rights over the child. Foster care is a temporary alternative for families struggling with other
issues— including substance abuse problems or domestic violence—who are temporarily unable to care for
their dependent children. Preadoptive placements differ from foster care in that they are viewed as
probationary periods to test the feasibility of adoption before it becomes final. Unsuccessful preadoptive
placements are referred to as “disrupted,” and termination of legal adoption is referred to as “dissolution.”

There are several types of adoption circumstances. “Stranger” adoptions refer to those placements in which the
prospective parents have no preexisting relationship with the child. A large percentage of adoptions are
placements within the blood family or by stepparents. In 1975, the National Center for Social Statistics
estimated that 75 percent of private adoptions were made by stepparents.

Private adoptions, in contrast with agency adoptions, are arranged by independent organizations not affiliated
with state or federal agencies such as the USCB, which assists local, state, and Indian tribal agencies in
adoption. These services have grown alongside federally regulated adoption agencies, providing an alternative
to the slow and often frustrating process of government-sponsored agencies. The Child Welfare League of
America is the umbrella organization that provides regulation and standard practices for private adoption
services. Its government-regulated counterpart is the U.S. Children’s Bureau in the Department of Health and
Human Services. The two organizations work in concert to maintain safe, standardized adoption practices.

Adoption Controversies
Adoption in contemporary America is beset by a number of critical controversies, involving the degree to
which adopted children can seek information on their biological parents, the role of public versus private
institutions in adoptions, the rights of biological parents to reassert their guardianship over children they have
given up for adoption, and whether nontraditional families—that is, families with gay parents or a single
parent—have the right to adopt.

Open versus Closed Adoption

Open and closed adoption refer to the level of information shared within the adoption triad: biological parents,
adoptive parents, and adopted child. In closed adoption, also known as traditional adoption, the adoptive
parents have no contact with the natal parents, and information concerning the natal family is closed to the
adoptee. The Freedom of Information Act has complicated this process. Under this law’s provisions, even
“closed” adoptions have been “opened,” when records exist, at the insistence of the adoptee.

By contrast, “open” adoptions involve a spectrum of relationships between the natal parents and the child they
gave up for adoption. At one end of the spectrum, families establish and maintain ongoing relationships. Often
presents and photographs are exchanged, and in some cases the natal mother might even have some input in
selecting the adoptive family. At the other end is simple disclosure of names, leaving further research to the
discretion of the adoptee. Although little empirical research has been done on outcomes in adoption, studies
suggest that both the adoptive family and adopted child have more empathic views of the relinquishing family
in open adoptions. It is also believed that open adoption shortens the grieving process for the natal mother as
more information about the placement gives her a greater sense of control, especially if she has some input in
the placement. Openness advocates also maintain that children who are aware of the circumstances leading to
their adoptions will view the experience less as a rejection by the birth mother. That knowledge can result in
fewer adjustment problems, stronger self-esteem, and a healthy relationship with the two families, fostering a
more secure personal identity.

Supporters of traditional adoption suggest that open arrangements can complicate the process of identity
formation by potentially dividing the adopted child’s loyalties. For adoptive parents, openness may result in a
weaker familial bond with the child. For natal mothers, continuing contact may prolong the grief process,
creating expectations that cannot be fulfilled by the adoptive family while preventing her from moving on with
her life.

Institutional versus Private Sources

Institutional adoption agencies operate strictly under the regulation and practices mandated by the federal
government and overseen by the Children’s Bureau. Many prospective adoptive parents turn to private
agencies because of the complicated procedures of government institutions. Both birth parents and prospective
adoptive parents typically bring a sense of urgency to the process and, historically, the institutional process has
been frustrating. This leads many to investigate other options.

The Child Welfare League of America is the oldest and largest private adoption resource, but many other
private agencies have promised vulnerable and emotional parents a speedy, minimally invasive, and in some
cases costly alternative. Currently the most pressing issue in private adoptions is the Internet. Online adoption
agencies are nearly impossible to regulate, and legislation such as the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, which
promises immediate citizenship for all adopted children, make this practice ripe for abuse on all sides. Families
who have been unable to adopt through traditional venues have turned to the Internet, but stories of abuse are
common. Kimberly and Belinda, for example, were 6-month-old twins adopted twice through the Caring Heart
adoption web site in 2001. Couples in the United States and Great Britain paid the organization a combined
total of $18,000 in fees to secure the children. The twins were settled with the first couple when the mother
came to “visit”—and never brought them back. Despite the involvement of the federal government, web sites
continue to advertise easy adoption. It is not only the prospective parents who are rendered vulnerable by this
process. As in the case of the nineteenth century orphan trains, this practice casts desperate children into
uncertain circumstances with little intervention or follow-up.

Rights of the Adoption Triad

Several issues surface when discussing rights in the adoption process, all of which are essentially driven by the
need for security for all members of the adoption triad. The adoption process begins with the birth or natal
mother; she must make the decision to relinquish the child. This decision has profound social and emotional
ramifications. The choice has traditionally been easier if the mother can be guaranteed anonymity. This notion
is at the root of virtually all state “safe haven” laws, which designate certain places such as hospitals and fire
stations as safe places to turn over unwanted children for placement in foster homes and eventually with
adopting families. Conversely, some mothers who initially feel unable to care for their children desire the
option to change their minds about relinquishing their children. This was the case with “Baby Jessica” DeBoer,
who in 1993 was removed from her adoptive home in Michigan when the natal parents changed their minds
about the adoption. The Supreme Court upheld the decision on the grounds that “neither Michigan law nor
federal law authorizes unrelated persons to retain custody of a child whose natural parents have not been found
to be unfit, simply because they may be better able to provide for her future and her education.”

The “Baby Jessica” case also has clear implications for adoptive parents who enter into the adoptive agreement
with reasonable expectations of security. They bring strong emotions to the process as well, many having made
the decision to adopt after unsuccessful attempts at having children naturally or after a long wait for available
children. Most agencies attempt to control for this possibility by mandating a probationary period during which
expectations of permanency are suspended until the situation stabilizes. If, as in the Baby Jessica case, the
parents change their minds after the probationary period, what becomes of the rights of the adoptive parents?
Many who oppose adoption altogether use this case as evidence of its inherently flawed nature.

Finally, the rights of the adopted child are essential. Until the 1970s children in adoptive circumstances were
accorded few rights at all. The prevailing belief was that if an orphaned child was unfortunate enough to be
placed for adoption, almost any reasonably safe arrangement would be an improvement. The Freedom of
Information Act, the UN Conference on the Rights of the Child, and other measures specifically devoted to
children’s rights have created new opportunities for the adopted child’s self-determination. Research on
successful identity formation have inspired children’s rights advocates to lobby for the right to research one’s
parents (“openness”) without obstacle, as well as giving older children input in the placement selection
process, including the right of refusal.

Who Should Be Allowed to Adopt?

Only recently have authorities begun to consider nontraditional family structures for possible adoptive
placements. In 1972 an Illinois court ruled that three children could not be taken from their biological father
simply because he was not married to their mother. This action, along with the growing number of single-
parent households, has forced states to embrace new family structures. Recent research indicates that gay and
lesbian families adopt more special needs children than any other group, forcing the courts to recognize these
families as legitimate. However, religious organizations continue to lobby against nontraditional families as
suitable placements. The recent trend in child placement has once again moved toward full legal adoption, as
opposed to family reunification in cases where families cannot provide consistent care and safety. It is likely
that the needs of children waiting to be adopted will outweigh the desire of special interest groups to control
who will be allowed to adopt.

By early 2008, nine states (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Vermont,
Washington, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia had formally legalized adoption by same-sex
couples. Five states (Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Utah) had banned the practice. In the other
36 states, the law remained ambiguous, with no recent legislation explicitly allowing or banning same-sex
adoption.

Conclusion
As old as the family itself, adoption has evolved as the family’s structure and purpose have changed. When the
family was primarily a unit of production, adoption focused on the financial needs of the adopting family
rather than the child’s emotional needs. With the development of the nuclear, child-centered family in the
nineteenth century, adoption became equally child-oriented.

Over the past half-century, the family has undergone yet another fundamental change. The traditional nuclear
family has given way to new types of families, from single-parent households to same-sex couples. The
changing definition of the family has not been without controversy, to say the least, and many Americans,
especially social conservatives, argue that “alternative” families are less emotionally and financially stable
than the traditional family. Thus, while adoption has historically changed with the institution of the family,
political and social resistance to current changes in the family suggests the nation’s laws may become more,
rather than less, restrictive regarding adoption by nontraditional families.
Adoption Conclusion

KATHRYN PATRICELLI, MA JAN 22, 2007

People choose to adopt for many reasons, and the process can take many directions
once it begins. As is the case with any family situation, there will be issues that need to
be addressed and worked through from the time the child enters the family until the
family system dissolves away with time and age. However, with education, hard work,
and desire, adoptive families and children make it through the grand process and
become the family that they dreamed of being for so long.
Adopt children legally, DSWD
urges families
Published February 9, 2012 6:59pm
By KAREN GALARPE, GMA News

During the Christmas season, visits to orphanages are popular among

Filipinos, who choose to share their blessings with children growing up without
their parents.

While this is a noble activity, the Department of Social Welfare and

Development (DSWD) desires something else: that these children be taken
out of orphanages.

“The DSWD wants these children placed either in foster care, which is
substitute parenting, or through adoption. Sana mawala na ang mga bata sa
mga institution. Dapat may pamilya sila,” Atty. Dulfie Shalim, director of the
DSWD’s Program Management Bureau, told reporters Wednesday at a media
forum.

The DSWD, said Undersecretary Parisya T. Taradji, has facilitated the

processing of the legal adoption of 6,558 children from 2006 to 2011, or an
average of 1,300 children annually.

The Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB), meanwhile, has placed 4,406

Filipino children for adoption in other countries from 2000 to 2011, said
Taradji, yielding an average of 400 Pinoy kids adopted by families abroad
yearly.

But these numbers are not enough. Many children are still in orphanages or
child care agencies, and it would be for the best interest of the children if they
can be placed in the care of families legally, the DSWD said.

This is the rationale for the Adoption Consciousness Week held every
February following Proclamation No. 72 dated Feb. 3, 1999, which seeks to
“highlight the various issues on adoption and generate public awareness and
support for the legal adoption program.”

The theme this year is “Isulong! Legal na Pag-aampon,” a theme the DSWD
feels is very timely, given that many children are being abandoned these
days. This year’s Adoption Consciousness Week runs from Feb. 4 to Feb. 10.

Lack of awareness

At the media forum, adoptive parents agreed with the DSWD and ICAB that
there is a lack of awareness about the legal process involved in adoption.

Pepito de Leon, who adopted two children with his wife Flor more than 20
years ago, said he tried to convince friends to consider adoption when they
have a hard time having a baby.

“It is still difficult to convince people to consider adoption. There is a lack of

knowledge and awareness, and there are fears that these children up for
adoption may be children of incest, rape, or have a problem with their parental
history,” he said.

Atty. Bernadette Abejo, ICAB executive director, however, said there is a need
to change such perceptions.

“These are children. We shouldn’t lump them as children of GROs, children of

crime. These children are not at fault. Ang problema ng parents, hindi
problema ng bata,” she explained.

Abejo added that media can do much to help put adoption in a good light.
“The appeal to media is to stop using adoption in a negative sense
in telenovelas and movies—with the line ‘Ampon ka lang.’ We want adoption
to be portrayed as a positive thing.”
No to simulated birth certificates

Abejo lamented that some people resort to simulating birth certificates so the
adopting parents can have their names written as the parents on their
children’s birth certificates. They think this is better than going through the
legal adoption process.

Doing so, however, creates a bigger problem.

“Simulation is a crime. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child

(CRC), the child has a right to his identity. Children should know who their
parents are. When you put your name in the birth certificate, you deprive a
child of that right,” Abejo said.

Under Philippine law, those found guilty of simulating birth may be punished
with imprisonment of six years and one day to 12 years, and/or a fine not
exceeding P50,000.

She added that children with simulated birth certificates will have to correct
their papers to make everything legal.

The legal process

The process of legally adopting a child may involve several steps, but these
are done to make sure the child is placed in a family that will best serve his or
her interest.

Shalim explained the steps as follows:

1. Application. Interested adoptive parents will have to go to the DSWD

office nearest them or to a duly accredited child placement institution.
They will then be required to attend an adoption forum at a DSWD Field
Office or at the Kaisahang Buhay Foundation and Norfil Foundation,
both licensed by the DSWD to receive and process domestic adoption.
After that, they are asked to submit required documents to the DSWD,
Regional Trial Court, or child caring agencies.
2. Preparation of homestudy report. A social worker will interview and visit
the home so she can evaluate “the parenting capability of prospective
adoptive parents and capacity to provide for the best welfare of the
child.”
3. Approval/disapproval of application
4. Matching or family selection. The National Child Welfare Specialist
Group will deliberate on cases.
5. Pre-placement of child. Information about the child is shared with the
prospective adoptive parents.
6. Placement. The social worker will bring the child to the prospective
adoptive parents.
7. Supervised trial custody. During a 6-month period, a social worker will
visit the home regularly to monitor the adjustment of the child and
parents.
8. Finalization of adoption. The social worker will recommend that a
Consent to Adoption be issued and signed by the DSWD
Undersecretary for Operations and Capacity Building Group.
Prospective adoptive parents then hire a legal counsel to file the petition
for the legalization of adoption and represent them in court.
9. Issuance of adoption decree. The Court issues an Adoption Decree and
Certificate of Finality.
10. Issuance of an amended birth certificate. The Court will forward a
copy of the Adoption Decree to the Local Civil Registrar for preparation
of the amended birth certificate.
11. Post-adoptive services. This will be provided by the social worker
as needed

The cost of the whole process depends on lawyers’ fees, publication fees, and
others, and these may range from P30,000 and up, said Shalim.
She also said the whole process of legal adoption may take one to two years.

Who are qualified to adopt?

Shalim said those deemed to be the “best family” for the child will be allowed
by the Court to adopt a child.

“They should have the best interest of the child,” she said. Even gays can
adopt, she added, but like anyone else, they must exhibit the characteristics
that will allow them to be considered the best family for the child.

Abejo also clarified that children of annulled parents, such as son Bimby of
Kris Aquino and James Yap, need not be adopted by the new spouse if one of
the parents decides to remarry.

The joy of adopting

The De Leon couple, along with Gil and Cecile Velez, and Joanna June
Esguerra, shared their story at the media forum.

The Velezes have adopted two children, who are blood siblings but who came
from different orphanages. The DSWD noted that the birth mother of the two
babies were one, and referred the second baby to the Velezes after they had
already adopted the first baby.

“It was a totally changing experience,” Gil said.

Esguerra, on the other hand, started out as a foster parent, but decided to
adopt the baby girl placed in her care, even if she already has two sons of her
own.

They all said they love their adopted children and treat them as their own. In
fact, Gil had an appeal: “Don’t call us adoptive parents. We’re parents.
Parents kami.”

Pepito agreed and said, “after adoption, he becomes our child. Anak mo na
‘yan. You use the term ‘was adopted’ – ‘was’ kasi tapos na. Tapos na ang
proseso. Anak mo na ‘yan.” - YA, GMA
Over 400 kids in
orphanages waiting for
adoption–DSWD
By: Dona Z. Pazzibugan - Reporter / @dpazzibuganINQ
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 07:01 PM December 14, 2012

MANILA, Philippines–Most orphaned or

abandoned Filipino children who are put up for adoption remain in social welfare
institutions.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
The Department of Social Welfare and Development said the stigma associated with
adopted children was apparently holding back interested families from adopting.

“There are so many children in orphanages and other child-caring agencies waiting to
be adopted. But families hold back on adoption because of its stigma,” Social Welfare
Secretary Dinky Soliman said at the launch of a campaign dubbed, “Love Sees Beyond
Differences.”
ADVERTISEMENT

This year alone, nearly 500 children were declared legally available for adoption. But
only 62 were adopted by Filipino families, according to the DSWD.

The DSWD and the Inter-Country Adoption Board have recently partnered with PR
giant McCann Philippines for an advocacy campaign to try to erase the stigma on
adoption and inspire families to open their homes to orphaned or abandoned children.

She said the campaign hopes to change the mindset of Filipinos about adoption and
encourage families to open their homes to adoptive children.

“We have long sought to undertake a communications campaign to give a new, more
relevant perspective to legal adoption. Now the Department together with ICAB and
McCann Erickson has finally made this possible,” she added.

From January to November 15 this year, the DSWD issued certificates for 457 children
declaring them legally available for adoption.

Twenty-four children were matched to local families.

The DSWD said 38 other children who were legally declared up for adoption in past
years were also matched this year to local families.

Central to the advocacy campaign is the song “I love you Anak” sang by Ogie Alcasid,
an adoption advocate whose US-based sister and American brother-in-law are currently
going through the process of adopting a Filipino child.
ADVERTISEMENT

Raul Castro, chief executive officer of McCann Worldgroup, said their latest advocacy
campaign shows their commitment to promote positive values that will help transform
lives.

John Boren, president of Adoptive Families Foundation Inc., said keeping adoption
secret from the adopted child as well as family and friends lead adoptive families to live
a lie.

Their group helps adoptive families during and after the process of adoption deal with
issues while encouraging them to share their stories and inspire other families to adopt.

ICAB member Bobby Tinio said some 1,000 foreign families are interested in adopting
Filipino children despite the stringent legal process.

He said 93 children have been cleared for adoption by foreign families as of September.

Since 1995 when the law on inter-country adoption was passed, 6,265 foreign families
have adopted Filipino children, according to the ICAB.