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. Legal adoptions permanently transfer all rights and responsibilities, along with filiation, from the biological parent or parents.
In many jurisdictions, the adopted person's full original birth
certificate is cancelled and replaced with a fabricated post-adoption
birth certificate that states that the child was born to the adoptive
parents. This deception, when carried out, may continue with the adopted
person for life and can be the cause for many well-documented traumas
experienced by the adopted person, including loss of identity, family
history, culture, biological family (including not only biological
parents but also siblings and extended family), family medical history
and records, and increased risk of suicide, homelessness, incarceration,
PTSD, depression, and anxiety.
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, while others used less formal means (notably 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.
History
Antiquity
- Adoption for the well-born
While the modern form of adoption emerged in the United States, forms of the practice appeared throughout history. 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.
Markedly different from the modern period, ancient adoption
practices put emphasis on the political and economic interests of the
adopter, providing a legal tool that strengthened political ties between wealthy families and created male heirs to manage estates. The use of adoption by the aristocracy is well-documented: many of Rome's emperors were adopted sons. Adrogation was a kind of Roman adoption in which the person adopted consented to be adopted by another.
Infant adoption during Antiquity appears rare. Abandoned children were often picked up for slavery and composed a significant percentage of the Empire's slave supply.
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.
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, continued, in a limited and highly ritualistic form, so that an adopter might have the necessary funerary rites performed by a son. China had a similar idea of adoption with males adopted solely to perform the duties of ancestor worship.
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
- 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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." 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.
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."
Modern period
- Adopting to create a family
The next stage of adoption's evolution fell to the emerging nation of the United States. Rapid immigration and the 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.
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. The children were generally indentured, rather than adopted, to families who took them in.
As in times past, some children were raised as members of the family
while others were used as farm laborers and household servants. 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.
During the same period, the Progressive
movement swept the United States with a critical goal of ending the
prevailing orphanage system. The culmination of such efforts came with
the First White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children
called by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909,
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.
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 adoptive homes.
Nevertheless, the popularity of eugenic ideas in America put up obstacles to the growth of adoption.
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.
The period 1945 to 1974, the baby scoop era, saw rapid growth and acceptance of adoption as a means to build a family. 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. In this environment, adoption became the obvious solution for both unwed people and infertile couples.
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,
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 Catholic religion, in particular, on
the youth. This tradition of secrecy was carried on by the later
Progressive reformers when drafting of American laws.
The number of adoptions in the United States peaked in 1970.
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 of those born outside of wedlock. In response, family preservation efforts grew
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.
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.
Additionally, the Asian powers opened their orphanage systems to
adoption, influenced as they were by Western ideas following colonial
rule and military occupation.
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 "standard" families
(middle-age, medium to high income, heterosexual, Caucasian).
Adoption is today practiced globally. The table below provides a
snapshot of Western adoption rates. Adoption in the United States still
occurs at rates nearly three times those of its peers even though the
number of children awaiting adoption has held steady in recent years,
between 100,000 and 125,000 during the period 2009 to 2018.
| Country | Adoptions | Live births | Adoption/live birth ratio | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 270 (2007–2008) | 254,000 (2004) | 0.2 per 100 live births | Includes known relative adoptions |
| England & Wales | 4,764 (2006) | 669,601(2006) | 0.7 per 100 live births | Includes all adoption orders in England and Wales |
| Iceland | between 20–35 year | 4,560 (2007) | 0.8 per 100 live births | |
| Ireland | 263 (2003) | 61,517 (2003) | 0.4 per 100 live births | 92 non-family adoptions; 171 family adoptions (e.g. stepparent). Not included: 459 international adoptions were also recorded. |
| Italy | 3,158 (2006) | 560,010 (2006) | 0.6 per 100 live births | |
| New Zealand | 154 (2012/13) | 59,863 (2012/13) | 0.26 per 100 live births | Breakdown: 50 non-relative, 50 relative, 17 step-parent, 12 surrogacy, 1 foster parent, 18 international relative, 6 international non-relative |
| Norway | 657 (2006) | 58,545 (2006) | 1.1 per 100 live births | Adoptions breakdown: 438 inter-country; 174 stepchildren; 35 foster; 10 other. |
| Sweden | 1044 (2002) | 91,466 (2002) | 1.1 per 100 live births | 10–20 of these were national adoptions of infants. The rest were international adoptions. |
| United States | approx 136,000 (2008) | 3,978,500 (2015) | ≈3 per 100 live births | The number of adoptions is reported to be constant since 1987. Since 2000, adoption by type has generally been approximately 15% international adoptions, 40% from government agencies responsible for child welfare, and 45% other, such as voluntary adoptions through private adoption agencies or by stepparents and other family members. |
Contemporary adoption
Forms of adoption
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. 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. As of February 2009, 24 U.S. states allowed legally enforceable open adoption contract agreements to be included in the adoption finalization.
- The practice of closed adoption (also called confidential or secret adoption), which has not been the norm for most of modern history, seals all identifying information, maintaining it as secret and preventing disclosure of the adoptive parents', biological kin's, and adoptees' identities. Nevertheless, closed adoption may allow the transmittal of non-identifying information such as medical history and religious and ethnic background. 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.
How adoptions originate
The 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic led to large numbers of children being born with microcephaly, with adoption a frequent outcome.
The New York Foundling Home is among North America's oldest adoption agencies
Adoptions can occur either between related family members or between
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.
A common example of this is a "step-parent adoption", where the new
partner of a parent legally adopts 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.
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%.
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 reasons, the most recent study
of experiences of women who adopt suggests they are most likely to be
40–44 years of age, to be currently married, to have impaired fertility,
and to be childless.
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 with 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.
- 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, about 51,000 or 40% were through the foster care system.
- International adoption: this involves the placing of a child for adoption outside that child's country of birth. This can occur through public or 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. More than 60,000 Russian children have been adopted in the United States since 1992, and a similar number of Chinese children were adopted from 1995 to 2005. 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.
- 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 that 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. 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 U.S. state of California recognizes common law relationships after co-habitation of 2 years. The practice is called "private fostering" in Britain.
Disruption and dissolution
Although adoption is often described as forming a "forever" family,
the relationship can be ended at any time. The legal termination of an
adoption is called disruption. In U.S. terminology, adoptions are disrupted if they are ended before being finalized, and they are dissolved if the relationship is ended afterwards. It may also be called a failed adoption. After legal finalization, 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, although
biological family members are sometimes disowned or abandoned.
Ad hoc studies performed in the U.S., however, suggest that
between 10 and 25 percent of adoptions through the child welfare system
(e.g., excluding babies adopted from other countries or step-parents
adopting their stepchildren) 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 teenagers are more
prone to having their adoptions disrupted than young children.
Adoption by same-sex couples
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
additionally 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 of adoptees
Parenting
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 people are less interested in
sustaining the genetic lines of others.
This theory is supported in another more qualitative study wherein
adoptive relationships marked by sameness in likes, personality, and
appearance, were associated with both adult adoptees and adoptive
parents report being happier with the adoption.
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."
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.
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."
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.
One author suggests a common question adoptive parents have is: "Will
we love the child even though he/she is not our biological child?" A specific concern for many parents is accommodating an adoptee in the classroom. 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."
Adopting older children presents other parenting issues.
Some children from foster care have histories of maltreatment, such as
physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse,
and are at risk of developing psychiatric problems. Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment.
Studies by Cicchetti et al. (1990, 1995) found that 80% of abused and
maltreated infants in their sample exhibited disorganized attachment
styles. Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms, as well as depressive, anxious, and acting-out symptoms. "Attachment is an active process—it can be secure or insecure, maladaptive or productive."
In the U.K., 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.
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.
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.
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.
Effects on the original parents
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Identity
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.
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.
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.
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.
Influences
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Public perception of adoption
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.
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."
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. 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 as did advocacy non-profit The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.
The stigmas associated with adoption are amplified for children in foster care.
Negative perceptions result in the belief that such children are so
troubled it would be impossible to adopt them and create "normal"
families.
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."
Attitude toward Adoption Questionnaire (ATAQ): this questionnaire was first developed by Abdollahzadeh, Chaloyi and Mahmoudi(2019).
Preliminary Edition: This questionnaire has 23 items based on the
Likert scale of 1 (totally Disagree), up to 5 (Totally Agree) being
obtained after refining the items designed to construct the present tool
and per-study study. The analysis of item and initial psychometric
analyses indicate that there are two factors in it. Items
3-10-11-12-14-15-16-17-19-20-21 are reversed and the rest are graded
positively. The results of exploratory factor analysis by main
components with varimax rotation indicated two components of attitude
toward adoption being named respectively cognitive as the aspects of
attitude toward adoption and behavioral-emotional aspects of attitude
toward adoption. These two components explained 43.25% of the variance
of the total sample. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to measure
the reliability of the questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was
0.709 for the whole questionnaire, 0.71 for the first component, and
0.713 for the second one. In addition, there was a significant positive
relationship between desired social tendencies and the cognitive aspect
of attitude toward adoption as well as the behavioral -emotional aspects
of attitude toward adoption (P ≤ 0.01).
Reform and reunion trends
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.
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, create confusion regarding genealogy, 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.
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.
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.". 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. 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.
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." 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.
Simultaneously, groups such as Origins USA (founded in 1997) started to
actively speak about family preservation and the rights of mothers. 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."
Reunion
Estimates for the extent of search behavior by adoptees have proven elusive; studies show significant variation. 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 U.K. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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, and only 25,000 returned to their families after the war.
The Stolen Generation of Aboriginal people in Australia were affected by similar policies, as were Native Americans in the United States and First Nations of Canada.
These practices have become significant social and political
issues in recent years, and in many cases the policies have changed. The United States, for example, now has the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act,
which allows the tribe and family of a Native American child to be
involved in adoption decisions, with preference being given to adoption
within the child's tribe.
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 U.S. 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.
In Spain under Francisco Franco’s
1939–75 dictatorship the newborns of some left-wing opponents of the
regime, or unmarried or poor couples, were removed from their mothers
and adopted. New mothers were frequently told their babies had died
suddenly after birth and the hospital had taken care of their burials,
when in fact they were given or sold to another family. It is believed
that up to 300,000 babies were involved. These system – which allegedly
involved doctors, nurses, nuns and priests – outlived Franco’s death in
1975 and carried on as an illegal baby trafficking network until 1987
when a new law regulating adoption was introduced.
Rehoming in the United States
With
the increase in adoption rates over the many decades, the United States
has been faced with a new immoral practice: rehoming. This is the act
of caregivers posting an advertisement when they do not feel the child
should be in their care any longer. Investigation of the child's new
housing situation is not required in this practice, and this has created
an underground market, one where child traffickers can thrive. There is
a lack of regulation surrounding this practice and current legislation
contradicts each other, making this harder to combat.
When a parent adopts a child, they may not have been aware that
the child has special needs and thus, are not equipped to help this
child. The child may act out or not fit in with the family so the family
turns to rehoming. Rehoming is not adoption and because of that, the
government does not have to be notified and adoption agencies are not
involved. Thus, re-homing is a prime target for child and sex
traffickers. There are laws set in place to protect children through
adoption processes and against sex trafficking, but there are barely any
laws regarding rehoming. The courts authorize this practice because the
U.S. state law
may allow a parent, legal guardian or relative within the second degree
to place out or board out a child. However, while the U.S. federal bill
Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act would require
the family to make rational decisions and prioritize the health of the
child, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children
contradicts this. This states that the family only has to make sure
children are placed in adequate care only when the re-homing process is
done across state lines. There is no mention of maintaining the
children’s safety when rehoming within the same state.
The laws surrounding rehoming are basically non-existent which
puts adopted children at the risk of unequipped parents and all other
types of dysfunctional homes. This second-chance adoption, as some
parents see it, has led to negative effects that failed adoptions have
on children as they go through the process of readapting to a new home
environment again. With the statute that allows second-degree legal
guardians to put their adopted child in the care of someone else, and
the rising of re-homing websites and ads on social media, the rehoming
process highly exposes children to underground markets and other
trafficking prospects. In that regard, laws and statutes concerning
adoption and rehoming should be re-evaluated to ensure the full
protection of adopted children.
Adoption terminology
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)
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" 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), which was the basis for her later work "Constructive Adoption Terminology". This influenced Pat Johnston's "Positive Adoption Language" (PAL) and "Respectful Adoption Language" (RAL).
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)
"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.
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".
Terms included in HAL include terms that were used before PAL,
including "natural mother," "first mother," and "surrendered for
adoption."
Inclusive adoption language
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."
Advocates of inclusive language defend it as inoffensive-language usage whose goal is multi-fold:
- The rights, opportunities, and freedoms of certain people are restricted because they are reduced to stereotypes.
- Stereotyping is mostly implicit, unconscious, and facilitated by the availability of pejorative labels and terms.
- Rendering the labels and terms socially unacceptable, people then must consciously think about how they describe someone unlike themselves.
- 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.
Same-sex adoption controversies
Several religious organizations have resisted to allow adoption for
same-sex couples. Catholic foster and adoption agencies have been
criticized for not placing children with adults perceived to be living
an immoral lifestyle in Catholic theology.
Cultural variations
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, 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 opting instead
for a system of foster care.
Adoption as a human right
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.
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
In
some countries, such as the United States, "Homecoming Day" is the day
when an adoptee is officially united with their new adoptive family. 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.
