I think Dawn’s and Barb’s comments highlight what can make adoption so difficult and complex: multiple parties with incredible psychological, emotional and physical needs that cannot reasonably be met all at the same time. We can approximate a balance but it’s never perfect. What makes it even more complicated is just what Dawn mentions, that no one’s experience of parenthood is the same (case in point is Barb’s comment–I never anticipated placing the Snapper, whereas she went into delivery planning for it). And there’s no way of knowing, even if you’ve given birth or adopted before, what exactly you will need and how you will react. What I’m trying to get at is that I’d like to see more flexibility in adoption ‘plans’ that keeps these contingencies in mind. Of course no one should be forced to parent just because some people like me have the experience of gradual physical separation. But maybe temporary parenting should at least be on the table. It may shock you to hear me say this if you remember that we passed on a situation in which the parents wanted just that. When discussing it with Attic Man we agreed that with a sensitive and ethical social worker and a relationship with the potential first parents we might be more open to that kind of thing in the future. I haven’t quite figured out what that would mean for the child. I have a lot more to work out before we pursue adoption again. It feels, actually, like we’re starting over now that we’ve been through the process partially once and have birthed a son. There’s just so much more ground to go over.
Re: One Flesh
February 2, 2007 by boomerific
Posted in Adoption | 3 Comments
3 Responses
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Categories
- Adopting
- Adoption
- All Wet
- Dazed and Confused; or, Living Well with ADD
- Dissertating
- Fitness
- Food
- Food Glorious Food
- I'm angry today
- I'm not supposed to blog about my family
- I'm Trying to be a Feminist
- It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Marriage
- Memes
- Parenting
- Planet Sster
- Race
- Reading
- Stuff We Want
- Teaching
- The guys
- The Hounds
- The Prairie
- The Snapper
- Uncategorized
- Writing
Meta
Blogroll
- A Wrung Sponge
- American Family
- Artificially Sweetened
- Big Mama Hollers
- Bigger than a Breadbox
- Bitch, PhD
- Cigarettes and Coffee
- Crunchy Granola
- deliver us from weasels
- Digital Digressions
- Dooce
- Growing Family
- Heart, Mind and Seoul
- Holding Still
- I Blame the Patriarchy
- Just Enjoy Him
- OmegaMom
- Peter’s Cross Station
- The Love Project
- Third Mom
- This Woman’s Work
- WordPress.com
My Blogger Archives
Archives
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Yes, taking the baby home to try on parenting should *always* be on the table and I know that’s one of the things that hallmark an ethical agency but I’m not sure the best way for an agency to go about this. I know our agency paid lip-service to it but really, how clear did they make it as a possibility? I know that the social workers say clearly, “You can take this baby home” but I don’t know if they urge, “Take this baby home” or if they say, “We can get you clothes and diapers and things if you want it.” I don’t know how real a possibility they make it. Jessica and I haven’t talked about the content of when she surrendered — we’ve only talked about bits and pieces of it.
OK, now my brain is wandering off into all these other things so really I should get off the computer and go to bed!
I do know that many first families and adoptive families have gained a great deal from pre-birth relationships, but I can’t help but think any benefit of “temporary parenting” as a strategy of noncoersion would be offset by that match hanging in the balance.
With temporary parenting as an uncommon choice, doesn’t it seem as if first families who choose to do so are really saying “I want to give parenting a go and I just need more social support”? Were I to be in a match with a first family who said they wanted to parent for awhile first, I would pass too, not because it wouldn’t feel right for me but because I would know in my heart that she/he/they wanted — needed, even — to parent permanently. And if we had contact, I believe I would say so. (Which is why I was no good at this).
On the other hand, were an agency to contact a potential aparent after a parent had parented for eight weeks and given it that go before relinquishing, that would seem as noncoersive as possible and a choice to be honored to me.
Of course, my experiences with Little Bun and the Divine Miss I have informed this position. I need to be able to look my daughter in the eye when she’s an adult and to say it couldn’t have been any other way.
I’ve read your previous post and this one with interest, and I was wondering if you realize that you are proposing a “solution” to the birth mother’s situation which is objectively harmful to the baby. Infants grieve when separated from caregivers, so what you are basically saying is “let’s allow this baby to form a strong attachment to his mother before she gives him up forever.” Children need permanency, and that need supercedes any other need on the part of the adoptive or birth parents. That is not to say that the decision you make at birth is irrevocable. Chlidren can be reliquished for adoption at any point. But having a baby isn’t like moving in with someone to see if you might want to get married. The child only gets one shot at life, and only one shot at infancy. Babies who experience interruptions in their attachments also experience interruptions in their development. In some cases, this can even lead to RAD.