“Secrecy” Versus “Privacy” in Adoption
Recently, I was thumbing through the magazines in my doctor’s waiting room when I came across a magazine that touted the lead article being about Mariah Carey’s “secret” wedding. My first thought was that just because a celebrity wants to keep her wedding private does not make that wedding a “secret.” Any bride has the right to decide who will attend her wedding. Just because Mariah Carey is a celebrity does not mean that all paparazzi must be invited.
That got me thinking about how society in general seems to have trouble understanding the distinction between “secret” and “private.” In this day and age where anything can be broadcast worldwide within seconds, we seem to have lost sight of what privacy is. Anything that a person wants to keep private is viewed as being a secret.
I see this a lot in the adoption world. Once upon a time, everything about an adoption was a secret. The birth mother kept it a secret that she placed a baby for adoption. The adoptive parents kept the adopted child’s adoption a secret, never revealing the truth until it came out in a shocking way much later in the adoptee’s life.
Now, the pendulum has swung, and the adoption world is cramming openness down our throats. As Linny pointed out in the comments here, we have situations in which both the expecting mother and the hopeful adoptive parents want a closed adoption, but the adoption agency forces more openness, supposedly in the best interest of all involved. The extreme is the social workers who try to force an open adoption for children who were removed from abusive birth parents.
Somewhere between complete openness and complete secrecy is privacy. My son’s adoption is not a secret, but some elements of his adoption are private. It is nobody else’s business why my son’s birth parents chose to place him for adoption. When I refuse to answer questions about his birth parents’ motivations, some people view this as my keeping it a “secret.” A secret implies that there is shame or “something to hide,” when neither is the case. In my son’s situation, his birth parents truly made a loving choice in his best interest. However, I am under no obligation to blab the details to the world just so others will know that there is no shame involved in this situation.
Some adoptions work out well being fully open. Patricia Dischler’s adoption situation is a good example of this. Some adoptions need to remain closed, such as when the adopted child was removed from an abusive environment. Many adoptions fall somewhere in the middle.
Like anything else in life, adoption is not a “one size fits all.” I will be so glad when the pendulum swings back to the middle, and people recognize that it is okay to keep some things private.
Photo credit: Lynda Bernhardt
Trackback URL for this post:
http://ouradopt.com/trackback/2281
In my last post, Talking About Birth Family With Adopted Child, I referenced the following comment that Amyadoptee left on my blog entry “Secrecy” Versus “Privacy” in Adoption:
The first parents should be spoken with kindness and
On my blog entry “Secrecy” Versus “Privacy” in Adoption, Amyadoptee posted the following comment:
The first parents should be spoken with kindness and respect. No matter how you personally feel about them. - Amyadoptee
I agree w
On my blog entry “Secrecy” Versus “Privacy” in Adoption, Amyadoptee posted the following comment:
I am an adoptee rights activist. I believe the child should be told the truth no matter what. It should be age appropriate. - Amyado
- FaithA's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Technorati
Right to Privacy
Faith,
I just joined to email Angela but I wanted to comment on this one. I have three blogs and they stretch me out way too much. This site has commented on two of them. I own the Adoption and Its Triad, Coleman Moms and Babes, and Indiana Open.
When an adoptee is out of foster care, I agree that the records and circumstances should be sealed until the age of majority for the child. There are situations that are just too horrific for the child to continue to bear.
I think there does need to be a sense of transparency in adoption for all living adoption. That information however doesn't need to be public information. If you enter an open adoption, all parties including the first parents should honor it. If a closed adoption is chosen, please make sure that you get your child's information. Get that OBC for your child's sake. Whether or not they choose to act on it is another story. That is totally not connected to how an adoptive parent raises that child.
I am an adoptee rights activist. I believe the child should be told the truth no matter what. It should be age appropriate. The first parents should be spoken with kindness and respect. No matter how you personally feel about them.
The right to privacy is about the right to be free from governmental interference. Read Roe vs. Wade on the specifics. First parents most definitely have the right to say no to contact just as an adoptee does. That OBC is something that we will need to prove our American citizenship.
Sometimes very honestly people need to mind their own business. I have friends on both sides of the spectrum. One friend, V, is raising a child that by all legal means should be the legal mother of her son. This is where adoption really ticks me off. I realize the disparity of it. The "birth" mother (she is really a horrid woman) gave her son an adult dose of meth. How the boy survived is beyond me. She still has her parental rights. Because V. and her husband requested that the court venue be changed, they are just the guardians of this child. The judge in her case got mad at them for suggesting it. So every few months they have to go to Amarillo. This woman said that my friend's husband was the father. DNA tests have proven otherwise but they have been raising this boy for years now. This woman still has supervised visits. In this situation, the adoption should have been finalized. The case completely and utterly closed until her son is an adult.
I do understand the privacy issue but not at the child's expense.
First Parents
Interesting comment Amy. What an interesting treatment of adoptive parents. We are no more significant that baby sitters? First Parent is used by birthparents and adoptees who have an axe to grind about adoption. No, Amy, it is not appropriate. Put it any way you want to, but the child came to live with his adoptive parents because the birth parents couldn't, or for cause, weren't allowed to raise the child. One set of parents did do the job, and the other did not. The birth parents may be wonderful people, they still were not there for their child.
If the birth parents are first, then obviously the adoptive parents are second (in the case of one of my sons, counting foster families, I would be number 21). No Amy, we are not second best, we did what the child needed and we do not come after the birth parents in importance to the child. Yes, there are unaccepting adoptees who will argue this, but the bottom line is that it was the adoptive parents and not the birth parents who cared for them.
Using first parent sets up the thinking. All rights to the first family and the adoptee. The adoptive parents should have no rights to decide any thing, or be the sole decsion maker on anything.
Adoptive parents need to treat the birth parents with kindness and respect. No, wrong. The adoptive parents need to be kind to the child and respect that these are his birthparents. It is very wrong to do the 'Yes, they may have done some things wrong (like severe abuse), but they are your parents, and we need to get over this so we can make nice and think nice thoughts.' The child's emotions need to be validated, not minimized. Adoptive parents need to tell it honestly about the birth parents, being considerate of who these people are to the child.
Yes the adoptive parents are the collectors and guardians of the childs information. Yes, it needs to be disclosed at an age appropriate time. No, the adoptive parents are not inconsequential bit players. John
Where did I say?
Honestly where did I say that adoptive parents were second best? The "birth parents" are the first parents whether good or bad. I never said that adoptive parents were inconsequential bit players. I am being respectful to natural parents. That is what I usually call them. You sound a bit insecure about your parenthood, John. You are not the owner of your child. He/She is still an individual with the same human rights as you. Adoptive parents are not unnatural parents either. They are the adoptive parents.
Yes I do have an axe to grind with adoption. I think it needs massive reform in this country and for that matter, the world. You act like the "birthparents" did not care for the child. In foster care, yes I can see how you got to that way of thinking. In infant domestic adoption and international adoption, that is a subject that is debatable. There are thousands of stories both past and present where parents were coerced into relinquishing their children. That list is massively long.
I personally think adoption is about the adoption industry ability to make money. I think adoption is about the needs of the entitled adopters. I am sure as heck not saying that you are one but you sure act like it. Adoption is about the child but you are making it about you. You seriously need to separate foster care adoption from infant and international adoption. All three are different entities.
You need to stop and think outside the box.
Read your comment
Nowhere in your comment Amy, do you specify that you are only talking about infant adoption. In fact, an example you give near the end of your comment is about a child abused by his birthmother. Yes, my viewpoint is foster care adtoption. That is very much adoption too.
In infant adoption, it can be argued that the birthparent surely would have cared for the infant if circumstances allowed it. I would think that is true in most situations. It is still the adoptive parents who cared for and raised the child, they are not second, and yes if you are going to reserve first for the birth family, then the adoptive parents by mathmatics are no higher than second. Who did the job and who didn't, without excuses?
The opposite of natural is unnatural, not adoptive. I have two eyes, two ears, one nose and one mouth, I am not unnatural.
Entitled adoptors, get a grip Amy. Would that include the adoptive parents who get to make frequent trips to the emergency room for injuries to them from their physically aggresive adopted child who is filled with rage over the abuse he has lived through? What about the adopted child who is in constant trouble with the school and the law, again due to unresolved rage? I have done both, I am not a saint, just a parent. My sons are my sons, yes Amy, they belong to me and I belong to them. That means we own each other, we are a real family. We are adopted. John
http://amyadoptee.blogspot.co
http://amyadoptee.blogspot.com/2008/07/secrecy-vs-privacy.html
John, rather hijack her blog, I will discuss it on my blog. I promise to publish your responses.
Your blog
Amy there doesn't seem to be any comments or response on your blog. As I thought you do not see adoptive parents as full parents, only birth parents, that is from the stuff you did post (When I am pissy...). John
Interesting comment
Hi, Amy. I responded to your blog on the off-topic issue. Thanks for moving the discussion over there. :0)
"I have three blogs and they stretch me out way too much. This site has commented on two of them."
Take that as a compliment. We like to talk about interesting topics. That just means that you choose topics that are interesting to discuss. :0)
"If a closed adoption is chosen, please make sure that you get your child's information. Get that OBC for your child's sake. Whether or not they choose to act on it is another story."
Unfortunately, with the way adoptions are practiced. adoptive parents do not have that option if they enter into a closed or semi-open adoption. Because the original birth certificate (OBC) contains the last names of the birth/first parents, providing the adoptive family with the OBC is considered a violation of the terms of the adoption.
Personally, I think that all OBCs should become public record when the adopted child becomes a legal adult. If the parties want to agree to seal the OBC until then, fine, but then the law needs to step in and make the OBC public record when the child is a legal adult. I can think of no other segment of the population who is denied this basic information about themselves. Also, as an adult, you are entitled to basic information about your own history.
"I believe the child should be told the truth no matter what. It should be age appropriate. The first parents should be spoken with kindness and respect. No matter how you personally feel about them."
I will write on my blog about these issues because they are important ones. I have written about both topics before at my last adoption blogging job, but I have not written much about them on this blog.
Re: telling the truth no matter what -- I agree. Some truths are hard, such as being conceived through rape or incest. However, I do believe the child has the right to know, and it is better to learn in a "softer" way from a loving parent than to have the truth blow up in your face when the adoptee goes searching for birth/first family.
Re: always speaking about first parents w/kindness in respect -- In most cases, I agree. However, I disagree when it comes to abusive birth/first family. I wrote a little on the topic here. As someone who was abused throughout childhood by my biological mother and others, I can tell you how damaging it is when people only say nice things about your abuser, even as you are sharing horrendous things. It feels like the people you love are minimizing your experience and saying that what was done to you was okay. Nothing good that my mother ever did will compensate for the memories of her sexually abusing me and all of the rapes I endured when she handed me over to her friends to be used as they pleased. I cannot tell you how good it felt the first time somebody validated my experience instead of telling me "no matter what, she is still your mother."
I could go on and on, so I will save it for a blog entry.
I am so sorry to hear about your friend's situation. Adoption of a child who has been abused is a whole different issue than adoption of a child who is lovingly placed for adoption. As someone who has lived severe abuse, I know how bad it can get. Many people have asked how I survived all of my abuse as well. You just do. Your drive to survive is stronger than what is being doled out on your mind and body by sick, twisted, and evil people.
While it is possible to heal, I will never be the same as a person who was never abused. I will always have things that "trigger" my horrible memories, just as this child will. The best that abused children can do is have the courage to break through the lies they have been told (that they are worthless, etc.) and choose to love themselves. For me, part of taking back my power has been writing a personal blog on healing from child abuse as well as writing here on Trauma Tuesdays and Trauma Thursdays to provide insight into the mind of the abused child to help adoptive parents understand why their abused adopted children do the things that they do.
Take care,
- Faith
++++++++++
We must BE the change we wish to see in the world. - Ghandi