Questions for any Adult adoptees on here

[Anonymous]

Did I understand this correctly. The parents of an adopted child expect the parents of the birth mother to pay for their child’s college tuition and to also provide for the college tuition of their other children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did I understand this correctly. The parents of an adopted child expect the parents of the birth mother to pay for their child’s college tuition and to also provide for the college tuition of their other children?

No. The BIOLOGICAL GRANDPARENTS of the adopted child have set up a college education fund. They are not financially able to do it for the other children in the family who are not biologically related to them.

John and Suzy's (J&S) daughter gave up her child for adoption, let's call her Mary.

A couple named Jess and Jason have one biological child. They adopt Mary. Then they have another biological child. It is an open adoption and J&S visit the home frequently. All the children develop a relationship with them, although only Mary is biologically related to them.

The parents of all the children do not expect anything - they have NOT asked for anything from any of the grandparents. They intend to pay for the education needs of all their children.

But J&S decided to open a college education fund for Mary only - who is their biological grandchild. They cannot open one for the other two children in the family as they can't afford it.

[Anonymous]

I think in this instance it isn't any different than a child's godparent deciding to set up a fund for a godchild. If one of my children's godparents does something special for them, I have no expectation that they should be doing it for our other child. The adoptive parents should let the fund be created by the bio grandparents for the adopted child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I understand this correctly. The parents of an adopted child expect the parents of the birth mother to pay for their child’s college tuition and to also provide for the college tuition of their other children?

No. The BIOLOGICAL GRANDPARENTS of the adopted child have set up a college education fund. They are not financially able to do it for the other children in the family who are not biologically related to them.

John and Suzy's (J&S) daughter gave up her child for adoption, let's call her Mary.

A couple named Jess and Jason have one biological child. They adopt Mary. Then they have another biological child. It is an open adoption and J&S visit the home frequently. All the children develop a relationship with them, although only Mary is biologically related to them.

The parents of all the children do not expect anything - they have NOT asked for anything from any of the grandparents. They intend to pay for the education needs of all their children.

But J&S decided to open a college education fund for Mary only - who is their biological grandchild. They cannot open one for the other two children in the family as they can't afford it.

How is this an issue at all? It was very kind and thoughtful of them. Say thank you and be appreciative. What did you think adoption looked like? They should not be opening up college funds for all three kids. This is really bizarre; you expect that.

My only issue with this and we decline money from the grandparents but that is because we are financially much better off and they struggle. I want to make sure they don't sacrifice thinking we need it when we don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I understand this correctly. The parents of an adopted child expect the parents of the birth mother to pay for their child’s college tuition and to also provide for the college tuition of their other children?

No. The BIOLOGICAL GRANDPARENTS of the adopted child have set up a college education fund. They are not financially able to do it for the other children in the family who are not biologically related to them.

John and Suzy's (J&S) daughter gave up her child for adoption, let's call her Mary.

A couple named Jess and Jason have one biological child. They adopt Mary. Then they have another biological child. It is an open adoption and J&S visit the home frequently. All the children develop a relationship with them, although only Mary is biologically related to them.

The parents of all the children do not expect anything - they have NOT asked for anything from any of the grandparents. They intend to pay for the education needs of all their children.

But J&S decided to open a college education fund for Mary only - who is their biological grandchild. They cannot open one for the other two children in the family as they can't afford it.

How is this an issue at all? It was very kind and thoughtful of them. Say thank you and be appreciative. What did you think adoption looked like? They should not be opening up college funds for all three kids. This is really bizarre; you expect that.

My only issue with this and we decline money from the grandparents but that is because we are financially much better off and they struggle. I want to make sure they don't sacrifice thinking we need it when we don't.

How is this an issue? Well, when you have 3 children who grow up considering a couple their collective grandparents and then those kids find out that only the bio grandchild/adoptee has a college fund do you not think that might cause some challenges? Or do you expect the other kids to just say, "Wow, wonderful that Mary has an extra $XXX for college from 'our' grandparents. So happy she won't have to get a part-time job to supplement like the other 2 of us must."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I understand this correctly. The parents of an adopted child expect the parents of the birth mother to pay for their child’s college tuition and to also provide for the college tuition of their other children?

No. The BIOLOGICAL GRANDPARENTS of the adopted child have set up a college education fund. They are not financially able to do it for the other children in the family who are not biologically related to them.

John and Suzy's (J&S) daughter gave up her child for adoption, let's call her Mary.

A couple named Jess and Jason have one biological child. They adopt Mary. Then they have another biological child. It is an open adoption and J&S visit the home frequently. All the children develop a relationship with them, although only Mary is biologically related to them.

The parents of all the children do not expect anything - they have NOT asked for anything from any of the grandparents. They intend to pay for the education needs of all their children.

But J&S decided to open a college education fund for Mary only - who is their biological grandchild. They cannot open one for the other two children in the family as they can't afford it.

How is this an issue at all? It was very kind and thoughtful of them. Say thank you and be appreciative. What did you think adoption looked like? They should not be opening up college funds for all three kids. This is really bizarre; you expect that.

My only issue with this and we decline money from the grandparents but that is because we are financially much better off and they struggle. I want to make sure they don't sacrifice thinking we need it when we don't.

How is this an issue? Well, when you have 3 children who grow up considering a couple their collective grandparents and then those kids find out that only the bio grandchild/adoptee has a college fund do you not think that might cause some challenges? Or do you expect the other kids to just say, "Wow, wonderful that Mary has an extra $XXX for college from 'our' grandparents. So happy she won't have to get a part-time job to supplement like the other 2 of us must."

Having three kids is a choice. Adopting one child after having two kids is a choice. A responsible parent would take things into consideration when doing family planning. My kids work summers and I'm not seeing that as an issue. If Mary has grandparent money, how is that a bad thing? They are not collective grandparents. They are Mary's grandparents. Same as if it were step-siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I understand this correctly. The parents of an adopted child expect the parents of the birth mother to pay for their child’s college tuition and to also provide for the college tuition of their other children?

No. The BIOLOGICAL GRANDPARENTS of the adopted child have set up a college education fund. They are not financially able to do it for the other children in the family who are not biologically related to them.

John and Suzy's (J&S) daughter gave up her child for adoption, let's call her Mary.

A couple named Jess and Jason have one biological child. They adopt Mary. Then they have another biological child. It is an open adoption and J&S visit the home frequently. All the children develop a relationship with them, although only Mary is biologically related to them.

The parents of all the children do not expect anything - they have NOT asked for anything from any of the grandparents. They intend to pay for the education needs of all their children.

But J&S decided to open a college education fund for Mary only - who is their biological grandchild. They cannot open one for the other two children in the family as they can't afford it.

How is this an issue at all? It was very kind and thoughtful of them. Say thank you and be appreciative. What did you think adoption looked like? They should not be opening up college funds for all three kids. This is really bizarre; you expect that.

My only issue with this and we decline money from the grandparents but that is because we are financially much better off and they struggle. I want to make sure they don't sacrifice thinking we need it when we don't.

How is this an issue? Well, when you have 3 children who grow up considering a couple their collective grandparents and then those kids find out that only the bio grandchild/adoptee has a college fund do you not think that might cause some challenges? Or do you expect the other kids to just say, "Wow, wonderful that Mary has an extra $XXX for college from 'our' grandparents. So happy she won't have to get a part-time job to supplement like the other 2 of us must."

Having three kids is a choice. Adopting one child after having two kids is a choice. A responsible parent would take things into consideration when doing family planning. My kids work summers and I'm not seeing that as an issue. If Mary has grandparent money, how is that a bad thing? They are not collective grandparents. They are Mary's grandparents. Same as if it were step-siblings.

You don't have children, do you?

It's standard advice that all children (bio or adopted) should be treated the same.

There is no way that this doesn't negatively affect all the kids in the family. Period.

Nice way to estrange the kids in the family from each other.

[Anonymous]

And this is why open adoption can be very messy. At the end of the day though, even though Mary's bio-grandparents are willing to pony up some $ for college, they were not willing to step up and raise her. That is a hurt which Mary will someday feel and which her siblings via adoption will not be burdened with. The adoptive parents should be okay with Mary getting this bit of monetary acknowledgement from her bio family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And this is why open adoption can be very messy. At the end of the day though, even though Mary's bio-grandparents are willing to pony up some $ for college, they were not willing to step up and raise her. That is a hurt which Mary will someday feel and which her siblings via adoption will not be burdened with. The adoptive parents should be okay with Mary getting this bit of monetary acknowledgement from her bio family.

Maybe they were willing but weren’t offered or other reasons. I don’t get why you resent it. If it’s your kids save more. Simple. You choose this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I understand this correctly. The parents of an adopted child expect the parents of the birth mother to pay for their child’s college tuition and to also provide for the college tuition of their other children?

No. The BIOLOGICAL GRANDPARENTS of the adopted child have set up a college education fund. They are not financially able to do it for the other children in the family who are not biologically related to them.

John and Suzy's (J&S) daughter gave up her child for adoption, let's call her Mary.

A couple named Jess and Jason have one biological child. They adopt Mary. Then they have another biological child. It is an open adoption and J&S visit the home frequently. All the children develop a relationship with them, although only Mary is biologically related to them.

The parents of all the children do not expect anything - they have NOT asked for anything from any of the grandparents. They intend to pay for the education needs of all their children.

But J&S decided to open a college education fund for Mary only - who is their biological grandchild. They cannot open one for the other two children in the family as they can't afford it.

How is this an issue at all? It was very kind and thoughtful of them. Say thank you and be appreciative. What did you think adoption looked like? They should not be opening up college funds for all three kids. This is really bizarre; you expect that.

My only issue with this and we decline money from the grandparents but that is because we are financially much better off and they struggle. I want to make sure they don't sacrifice thinking we need it when we don't.

How is this an issue? Well, when you have 3 children who grow up considering a couple their collective grandparents and then those kids find out that only the bio grandchild/adoptee has a college fund do you not think that might cause some challenges? Or do you expect the other kids to just say, "Wow, wonderful that Mary has an extra $XXX for college from 'our' grandparents. So happy she won't have to get a part-time job to supplement like the other 2 of us must."

Having three kids is a choice. Adopting one child after having two kids is a choice. A responsible parent would take things into consideration when doing family planning. My kids work summers and I'm not seeing that as an issue. If Mary has grandparent money, how is that a bad thing? They are not collective grandparents. They are Mary's grandparents. Same as if it were step-siblings.

You don't have children, do you?

It's standard advice that all children (bio or adopted) should be treated the same.

There is no way that this doesn't negatively affect all the kids in the family. Period.

Nice way to estrange the kids in the family from each other.

Yes, I do and we adopted. The parents need to treat the kids the same, not the grandparents.

[Anonymous]

I also don't see a problem with this and I'm an adoptee and a parent to adopted and bio children. If there's an additional source of college funding for one child, it lessens the collective burden for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I understand this correctly. The parents of an adopted child expect the parents of the birth mother to pay for their child’s college tuition and to also provide for the college tuition of their other children?

No. The BIOLOGICAL GRANDPARENTS of the adopted child have set up a college education fund. They are not financially able to do it for the other children in the family who are not biologically related to them.

John and Suzy's (J&S) daughter gave up her child for adoption, let's call her Mary.

A couple named Jess and Jason have one biological child. They adopt Mary. Then they have another biological child. It is an open adoption and J&S visit the home frequently. All the children develop a relationship with them, although only Mary is biologically related to them.

The parents of all the children do not expect anything - they have NOT asked for anything from any of the grandparents. They intend to pay for the education needs of all their children.

But J&S decided to open a college education fund for Mary only - who is their biological grandchild. They cannot open one for the other two children in the family as they can't afford it.

How is this an issue at all? It was very kind and thoughtful of them. Say thank you and be appreciative. What did you think adoption looked like? They should not be opening up college funds for all three kids. This is really bizarre; you expect that.

My only issue with this and we decline money from the grandparents but that is because we are financially much better off and they struggle. I want to make sure they don't sacrifice thinking we need it when we don't.

How is this an issue? Well, when you have 3 children who grow up considering a couple their collective grandparents and then those kids find out that only the bio grandchild/adoptee has a college fund do you not think that might cause some challenges? Or do you expect the other kids to just say, "Wow, wonderful that Mary has an extra $XXX for college from 'our' grandparents. So happy she won't have to get a part-time job to supplement like the other 2 of us must."

You were wealthy enough to adopt, therefore you are wealthy enough to provide for all of your children,
Start a college savings account for the other children. That is your responsibility.
All kids will be equal then.
Sounds more like reluctance from your part to do your duty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is whole different narrative today than from years ago. There is no such thing as a closed adoption. All parties will be known, including bio parents, grandparents, siblings, etc. Adoption was always adoptive parent centered ( saviors, rescuers) and never child centered (each child comes with their own identity, no one is being "saved"- women make adoption choices for various reasons, not because of shame or morals), but now it's child centered.

Yes, they need to be told. No, they do become the adoptive family's culture and ethnicity because they look like it or pass, yes they should know everything when age appropriate, and adoptive parents should encourage ancestry and bio family connection if child wants to. The child's identity, birthdate, everything is their own.

DNA has replaced all the cloaked secrets. There's no wondering or guessing anymore. No secrets.

I don’t know where you get any of this information from. Yes, there are still MANY closed domestic infant adoptions. And even when an open adoption is promised to a mother considering relinquishment, there is literally NO legal recourse to that mother if the adopters take her child and then immediately cut off contact, or cut off contact at a later date for whatever reason they want. And some studies show more than half of options that were promised to be open are actually closed by the adopters.

Yes, it is true that commercial DNA can reveal secrets and rcinnvtvfikyes separated by adoption loss, but that doesn’t in any way ameliorate the loss or the betrayal to both parent and child if an open adoption is later closed by the adopters.

You are also VERY wrong that relinquishing mothers no longer make these choices out of shame. Christian maternity homes are more popular than ever in the U.S. and they are almost entirely run by evangelical sects that do indeed very purposefully inflict great shame upon the pregnant girl or woman, with the entire premise of adoption being that the act of such “selfless” love is redeeming, and that by giving away their baby to more worthy parents, they are redeeming their their terrible sins of sex outside of marriage.

The podcast Liberty Lost goes into this kind of pervasive shame based messaging in great detail. The first episode opens with a scene where a relinquishing teen mom is forced into participating in this creepy ceremony where she and the father of the baby have to walk him down the aisle in a public ceremony and place him in the adopters’ arms up at the altar, to great praise from the gathering of their families and others. The entire ritual is framed as redemptive and cleansing. But everything about it is shame based

I am talking about the current general societal paradigm of adoption now vs. the Baby Scoop Era.
Yes, there are legally closed adoptions, but that is no longer something that has to be done. Closed adoptions now are much rarer because adoption is no longer just in the adoptive parents control. Or a court.

The example you gave above is extremely esoteric and culture bound, it's certainly not the norm for today compared to the 50s and 60s. There are religious sects who do creepy things, and what you describe is definitely not common at all, but keeping girls in maternity homes, out of school is actually illegal unless a family can prove she's homeschooled and there is oversight. Young mothers also have rights if they choose to buck this antiquated system, whereas years ago they had no rights. What you are talking about only exists in extreme rarity. Depending on the state, too, as marriage at 16 is still legal in some states, but that doesn't mean it's the norm.

Society has entirely changed sinced earlier generations. No mandated maternity homes, no need to marry, no need to give the child up- and that is societal, not religious. The mother has more rights when she does give the child up, too.
With regard to DNA, there is literally no more issue with biological identity at all. There is actually zero way to keep any part of the members involvement a secret. Yes, I'm sure there are open adoptions that didn't comply, but the main thing is that these children will always know who their biological family is, at some time or another.

The adoption industry is corrupt and while abuses like you mention are not as common as they used to be, there are still abuses.
Birth mothers are a necessary evil to adoption agencies. They are offered the carrot and the stick.
Just look up savings our sisters and you will see

I don't need to see. I am an adoptee and am very involved in many adoptee organizations. The issue now are religious organizations that prey on women. The big difference is that women can always choose, there's no social stigma anymore. If people are coerced into something that's an issue in itself, but the adoption process and paradigm has changed dramatically over 60 years. There's no secrets anymore.

Well, yes! WOMEN can always choose but when the "woman" is an 18 year old without any financial resources from a low-income family and they are psychologically coerced by adoptive organizations and shady adoption lawyers to give up their children with promises of a "wonderful life with a wonderful family" then, yes then that is a coercive issue. Dangle money along with that (despite it being illegal - it is done) and you have a child-for-sale situation.

To make it worse, couch it under the "private" adoption and there is virtually no oversight.

Yep, but again you are referring to religious organizations not societal. The problem for all women young, or not, is the resource angle. This is a whole different story, but it still vastly differs from even 40 years ago where even having and keeping the baby was impossible. There's ways to seek assistance, the woman just needs to know what and how. The baby daddy is now held to account, regardless of age -child support,everything. If he cannot, he will go through the law.
Regarding private adoptions, which still are happening, there are definitive laws around those. It's not gray market or black market as a general rule, although I'm sure it happens, especially with overseas adoption. My birth certificate is not even real, and I will never know my actual birthday. I was literally sold to the highest bidder. Laws have tightened up.
But, exploitation happens in all arenas regarding family building- fertility clinics, sperm and egg donation, surrogacy for sure, and adoption. The difference is woman can still choose, they can abort ( depending where they live now) they can be unwed, they can still work, and if they do choose adoption, there's no more anonymity.

You obviously have a pro-adoption narrative you are pushing because nowhere in that post is there a mention of religious organizations.

I am referring to the fact that targeting low-income teens and young women to give up their children to those with more income and money to pay to acquire those children, should be a crime that is prosecuted along the same lines as human/sex trafficking. Period.

Forty years ago it was not impossible for women to keep their babies so I don't know where you are getting that nonsense from. I have several friends who chose to keep their babies and had social and family support. It was tough but there wasn't much stigma and family/friends all rallied to help out. Those kids are now in their 40s and seem to have been fine raised by single mothers and are living life well.

I also know one girl from school who went to a "maternity home" and gave her child up for adoption. She had a much more difficult time and to this day has an emptiness in her life and IMO has never psychologically recovered from that.

Yes, there is "no more anonymity" in adoption which is even worse. Now those girls/women are being told they can have open adoptions but are RARELY told that the adoptive family can rescind that at any time, for no reason. So a mother spends a year or two maybe getting to know her child via the open process and then on a whim and perhaps with no reason, the adoptive family decides she can't see the child any more.

I know of a case of that, too. The rather arrogant adoptive couple didn't like a couple of minor comments made by the bio mom so they decided it was best to cut her out. They were looking for an excuse. I hope they can explain that to their kid when they get old enough to ask.

It is problematic to speak in absolutes concerning the logistics of this issue because it is global, and situations that are no longer the norm in one locale may still be conventional in others.

However, it is my conviction as an international adoptee, a feminist and a sibling to kids who were profoundly damaged pre and/or post-birth by their birth families in such a way that they have had no ability to cultivate truly meaningful relationships, familial or otherwise, and who not only have added nothing of value to family life but in fact have detracted from it, that bringing children into the world for whom one is unable and/or unwilling to provide a life that, barring unforeseen catastrophe, imparts the resources to become a well-educated, independently functioning and emotionally, psychologically and physically healthy adult capable of attaining reasonable financial security and also happiness via meaningful relationships (familial, romantic and/or platonic) and the use of his/her/their talents to benefit him/herself/themselves and society, is not simply profoundly selfish but ethically and morally irresponsible, particularly on the part of birth parents in societies where education is compulsory through at least age 16, and abortion is a viable option. There is no adoption "industry" without people having babies for whom the rest of society has to step up and care in the first place, and while every one of us deepens our collective carbon footprint, people given consistent stability in the form of healthy familial relationships and continuous access to the basics (healthy food, safe housing and neighborhood, excellent health care and schools and opportunities to discover interests and talents via rich extracurricular activities and experiences such as visits to museums, zoos, reasonable vacations, etc.) usually make up for that debt through beneficial contributions to society as adults. It's everyone's collective responsibility not to produce children who won't be capable of becoming healthy, independently functioning adults. So I am not particularly concerned about the "rights" of birth parents, especially given a context where courts often have given precedence to them at the expense of their children's well-being. (And for the record, I am all for instituting age-appropriate education on what it means to be in and cultivate healthy familial, platonic and romantic relationships, what it means to be a good parent; financial literacy, and the relationship between how we live and its effect on the environment that all should be a regular part of school curricula; free, unlimited birth control; the development of birth control for men; and accessible abortion at any point in the pregnancy. Re: this last: do I like the idea of late abortions? No, but I like the idea of imposing decades of unnecessary suffering via the birth of an infant born with, say, FAS even less).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I understand this correctly. The parents of an adopted child expect the parents of the birth mother to pay for their child’s college tuition and to also provide for the college tuition of their other children?

No. The BIOLOGICAL GRANDPARENTS of the adopted child have set up a college education fund. They are not financially able to do it for the other children in the family who are not biologically related to them.

John and Suzy's (J&S) daughter gave up her child for adoption, let's call her Mary.

A couple named Jess and Jason have one biological child. They adopt Mary. Then they have another biological child. It is an open adoption and J&S visit the home frequently. All the children develop a relationship with them, although only Mary is biologically related to them.

The parents of all the children do not expect anything - they have NOT asked for anything from any of the grandparents. They intend to pay for the education needs of all their children.

But J&S decided to open a college education fund for Mary only - who is their biological grandchild. They cannot open one for the other two children in the family as they can't afford it.

How is this an issue at all? It was very kind and thoughtful of them. Say thank you and be appreciative. What did you think adoption looked like? They should not be opening up college funds for all three kids. This is really bizarre; you expect that.

My only issue with this and we decline money from the grandparents but that is because we are financially much better off and they struggle. I want to make sure they don't sacrifice thinking we need it when we don't.

How is this an issue? Well, when you have 3 children who grow up considering a couple their collective grandparents and then those kids find out that only the bio grandchild/adoptee has a college fund do you not think that might cause some challenges? Or do you expect the other kids to just say, "Wow, wonderful that Mary has an extra $XXX for college from 'our' grandparents. So happy she won't have to get a part-time job to supplement like the other 2 of us must."

How much is in the adopted child’s college fund? Can you use some of what you have saved for the adopted child to equalize what the others have for college? Like, if you have 3 college funds, can you distribute them differently among the children so that the other two aren’t at a disadvantage because the adopted child has 2 accounts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is whole different narrative today than from years ago. There is no such thing as a closed adoption. All parties will be known, including bio parents, grandparents, siblings, etc. Adoption was always adoptive parent centered ( saviors, rescuers) and never child centered (each child comes with their own identity, no one is being "saved"- women make adoption choices for various reasons, not because of shame or morals), but now it's child centered.

Yes, they need to be told. No, they do become the adoptive family's culture and ethnicity because they look like it or pass, yes they should know everything when age appropriate, and adoptive parents should encourage ancestry and bio family connection if child wants to. The child's identity, birthdate, everything is their own.

DNA has replaced all the cloaked secrets. There's no wondering or guessing anymore. No secrets.

I don’t know where you get any of this information from. Yes, there are still MANY closed domestic infant adoptions. And even when an open adoption is promised to a mother considering relinquishment, there is literally NO legal recourse to that mother if the adopters take her child and then immediately cut off contact, or cut off contact at a later date for whatever reason they want. And some studies show more than half of options that were promised to be open are actually closed by the adopters.

Yes, it is true that commercial DNA can reveal secrets and rcinnvtvfikyes separated by adoption loss, but that doesn’t in any way ameliorate the loss or the betrayal to both parent and child if an open adoption is later closed by the adopters.

You are also VERY wrong that relinquishing mothers no longer make these choices out of shame. Christian maternity homes are more popular than ever in the U.S. and they are almost entirely run by evangelical sects that do indeed very purposefully inflict great shame upon the pregnant girl or woman, with the entire premise of adoption being that the act of such “selfless” love is redeeming, and that by giving away their baby to more worthy parents, they are redeeming their their terrible sins of sex outside of marriage.

The podcast Liberty Lost goes into this kind of pervasive shame based messaging in great detail. The first episode opens with a scene where a relinquishing teen mom is forced into participating in this creepy ceremony where she and the father of the baby have to walk him down the aisle in a public ceremony and place him in the adopters’ arms up at the altar, to great praise from the gathering of their families and others. The entire ritual is framed as redemptive and cleansing. But everything about it is shame based

I am talking about the current general societal paradigm of adoption now vs. the Baby Scoop Era.
Yes, there are legally closed adoptions, but that is no longer something that has to be done. Closed adoptions now are much rarer because adoption is no longer just in the adoptive parents control. Or a court.

The example you gave above is extremely esoteric and culture bound, it's certainly not the norm for today compared to the 50s and 60s. There are religious sects who do creepy things, and what you describe is definitely not common at all, but keeping girls in maternity homes, out of school is actually illegal unless a family can prove she's homeschooled and there is oversight. Young mothers also have rights if they choose to buck this antiquated system, whereas years ago they had no rights. What you are talking about only exists in extreme rarity. Depending on the state, too, as marriage at 16 is still legal in some states, but that doesn't mean it's the norm.

Society has entirely changed sinced earlier generations. No mandated maternity homes, no need to marry, no need to give the child up- and that is societal, not religious. The mother has more rights when she does give the child up, too.
With regard to DNA, there is literally no more issue with biological identity at all. There is actually zero way to keep any part of the members involvement a secret. Yes, I'm sure there are open adoptions that didn't comply, but the main thing is that these children will always know who their biological family is, at some time or another.

The adoption industry is corrupt and while abuses like you mention are not as common as they used to be, there are still abuses.
Birth mothers are a necessary evil to adoption agencies. They are offered the carrot and the stick.
Just look up savings our sisters and you will see

I don't need to see. I am an adoptee and am very involved in many adoptee organizations. The issue now are religious organizations that prey on women. The big difference is that women can always choose, there's no social stigma anymore. If people are coerced into something that's an issue in itself, but the adoption process and paradigm has changed dramatically over 60 years. There's no secrets anymore.

Well, yes! WOMEN can always choose but when the "woman" is an 18 year old without any financial resources from a low-income family and they are psychologically coerced by adoptive organizations and shady adoption lawyers to give up their children with promises of a "wonderful life with a wonderful family" then, yes then that is a coercive issue. Dangle money along with that (despite it being illegal - it is done) and you have a child-for-sale situation.

To make it worse, couch it under the "private" adoption and there is virtually no oversight.

Yep, but again you are referring to religious organizations not societal. The problem for all women young, or not, is the resource angle. This is a whole different story, but it still vastly differs from even 40 years ago where even having and keeping the baby was impossible. There's ways to seek assistance, the woman just needs to know what and how. The baby daddy is now held to account, regardless of age -child support,everything. If he cannot, he will go through the law.
Regarding private adoptions, which still are happening, there are definitive laws around those. It's not gray market or black market as a general rule, although I'm sure it happens, especially with overseas adoption. My birth certificate is not even real, and I will never know my actual birthday. I was literally sold to the highest bidder. Laws have tightened up.
But, exploitation happens in all arenas regarding family building- fertility clinics, sperm and egg donation, surrogacy for sure, and adoption. The difference is woman can still choose, they can abort ( depending where they live now) they can be unwed, they can still work, and if they do choose adoption, there's no more anonymity.

You obviously have a pro-adoption narrative you are pushing because nowhere in that post is there a mention of religious organizations.

I am referring to the fact that targeting low-income teens and young women to give up their children to those with more income and money to pay to acquire those children, should be a crime that is prosecuted along the same lines as human/sex trafficking. Period.

Forty years ago it was not impossible for women to keep their babies so I don't know where you are getting that nonsense from. I have several friends who chose to keep their babies and had social and family support. It was tough but there wasn't much stigma and family/friends all rallied to help out. Those kids are now in their 40s and seem to have been fine raised by single mothers and are living life well.

I also know one girl from school who went to a "maternity home" and gave her child up for adoption. She had a much more difficult time and to this day has an emptiness in her life and IMO has never psychologically recovered from that.

Yes, there is "no more anonymity" in adoption which is even worse. Now those girls/women are being told they can have open adoptions but are RARELY told that the adoptive family can rescind that at any time, for no reason. So a mother spends a year or two maybe getting to know her child via the open process and then on a whim and perhaps with no reason, the adoptive family decides she can't see the child any more.

I know of a case of that, too. The rather arrogant adoptive couple didn't like a couple of minor comments made by the bio mom so they decided it was best to cut her out. They were looking for an excuse. I hope they can explain that to their kid when they get old enough to ask.

It is problematic to speak in absolutes concerning the logistics of this issue because it is global, and situations that are no longer the norm in one locale may still be conventional in others.

However, it is my conviction as an international adoptee, a feminist and a sibling to kids who were profoundly damaged pre and/or post-birth by their birth families in such a way that they have had no ability to cultivate truly meaningful relationships, familial or otherwise, and who not only have added nothing of value to family life but in fact have detracted from it, that bringing children into the world for whom one is unable and/or unwilling to provide a life that, barring unforeseen catastrophe, imparts the resources to become a well-educated, independently functioning and emotionally, psychologically and physically healthy adult capable of attaining reasonable financial security and also happiness via meaningful relationships (familial, romantic and/or platonic) and the use of his/her/their talents to benefit him/herself/themselves and society, is not simply profoundly selfish but ethically and morally irresponsible, particularly on the part of birth parents in societies where education is compulsory through at least age 16, and abortion is a viable option. There is no adoption "industry" without people having babies for whom the rest of society has to step up and care in the first place, and while every one of us deepens our collective carbon footprint, people given consistent stability in the form of healthy familial relationships and continuous access to the basics (healthy food, safe housing and neighborhood, excellent health care and schools and opportunities to discover interests and talents via rich extracurricular activities and experiences such as visits to museums, zoos, reasonable vacations, etc.) usually make up for that debt through beneficial contributions to society as adults. It's everyone's collective responsibility not to produce children who won't be capable of becoming healthy, independently functioning adults. So I am not particularly concerned about the "rights" of birth parents, especially given a context where courts often have given precedence to them at the expense of their children's well-being. (And for the record, I am all for instituting age-appropriate education on what it means to be in and cultivate healthy familial, platonic and romantic relationships, what it means to be a good parent; financial literacy, and the relationship between how we live and its effect on the environment that all should be a regular part of school curricula; free, unlimited birth control; the development of birth control for men; and accessible abortion at any point in the pregnancy. Re: this last: do I like the idea of late abortions? No, but I like the idea of imposing decades of unnecessary suffering via the birth of an infant born with, say, FAS even less).

What are you talking about?