Anonymous wrote:

New responder to this part of the thread and yes, I think it is reasonable for the grandparents to come to you home or pick up their grandchild, referring only to the one child as their grandchild and treating the others with simple kindness and politeness and cordiality, but not as grandparents.

It would be similar if your husband had been married before you and his wife had died. You’ve married him years later and you now have more children together. Your husband’s first child is their grandchild. Your children can k with that their oldest child has an extra set of grandparents because she had a first mother before you. They are your oldest child’s relatives.

The difference here is that it was your choice to adopt a child and to have bio children so of course they are all your children. But the bio grandparents haven’t had more grandchildren.

My brother died 10 years ago. If his widow got married now and had babies, they wouldn’t be my nephews. I’d be kind to them and show interest in them because they would be my nephew’s siblings, but I wouldn’t expect my sister in law to let them come visit us or come to our extended family functions. That just makes sense to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We adopted our kids privately though our attorney. There is no planned contact wit the birth fmaily unless the kids want to on their own when they are 18.

I think this is often the least traumatic. We're seeing problems with our family member's open adoption and the full inclusion of the child's birth family. There are real concerns arising about how this will affect both the adopted child and other children in the family.

It’s more traumatic for kids not to know as well as the birth family.

How do you know this - can you cite a reference? Please show me some longitudinal studies which show that fully integrating the birth family into the child's life is psychologically healthy? I'm not talking about an occasional letter/photos or a visit once or twice per year. I'm talking about full-on involvement - contact at least weekly, birth parents choosing/deciding which clothing child will wear, having their extended family involved and visiting regularly and posting info on SM of "their baby." It's all happy family now while child is young but what happens when conflict arises? Where are the studies which show those impacts on the adopted child and the rest of the families? That information MUST be made available to birth families AND adopters if they want to fully understand the decisions they are making.

Wait, are you saying anything less than fully integrating the birth family is a closed adoption? Because I would call anything where the child knows who there birth family is (not even contact, just a name/birthdate/identifying info available to the child) an open adoption. I know a couple people who don’t have anything at all and I am extremely against hiding birth info from kids but I think there’s a lot of (healthy) space between nothing and fully integrating the birth family. There are studies showing that hiding birth info is unhealthy, but I don’t know of any assessing the degrees of openness and relationship between birth and adoptive families.

An open adoption is not just telling the child information about the birth family. It ranges from xx of pictures/letters a year to visits, phone calls, and emails. Telling my child about their birth family is a closed adoption. Emailing, talking to and seeing them regularly is an open adoption.

What is the term for an adoption where there is no contact between the families but the child is given information about them? If that is “closed” what is the term for an adoption where the child has no way of finding their birth family and the birth family has no way of knowing what happened to the child?

I think it has varied by era, for example:

My family member born in 1940s was issued a birth certificate with his adoptive parents' names. He wasn't even told he was adopted, but found out as an adult. He had to go to the courthouse to get his original birth certificate. Then he knew his birth mother's name. The birth mother had hired a private investigator to find her biological son, but she was unsuccessful. They didn't find each other while she was alive.

A family member who was born in the 1970s - his adoptive parents were given paperwork that described his birth parents appearance, health, hobbies, etc, but not their names. His parents gave him the papers when he was old enough, and the way it was set up, by agreement between parties and the agency, was that at 18, he could go to the agency and ask to get his birth mother's information, which he did.

I don't know enough about open adoptions, but someone upthread said that basically, only the adoptive parents have legal rights over the kid, so they can decide whether the kid has contact or not, at the end of the day. So if a family is practicing an "open" adoption in which they share pictures and accept visits, that's just a choice on their part, or maybe something they negotiated with the birth mom to seal the deal. I guess there's also the matter of whether the adoptive parent is willing to be found -- in the past, I think they could say no, but now because of DNA they don't necessarily get to choose.

You don't know anything about adoptions but keep posting as you do. A 1940's or 1970's adoption is very differs than today. Those are closed adoptions. Not everyone does DNA testing so the only way for someone to match is if both parties do the DNA testing or close relatives. You are talking in topics you know nothing, NOTHING about.

That's not how DNA tests work. I found my entire biology family, parents, siblings, by matching with a fourth cousin. The rest took about 15 minutes (!) and some Ancestry records. That fast. And yes, eventually DNA will dominate all adoptions, health issues, etc.

That was 100% your choice to go looking. However, a 4th cousin isn't very meaningful if family isn't close or in contact. DNA is great for those who want to look/registered but its a personal choice to do so.

These rant posts are silly to discourage someone from adopting.

There are all kids of adoptions for all kinds of reasons.

Listen, no one is ranting or even anti adoption here. The concept and practice, much like many other societal and sociological issues is now observed with a current lens- a lens that takes in consideration the systemic issues associated with adoption that were never considered before. All is not what it seems, there are lots of complexities, the rules have changed, adoptees have organized in a very big way, and all this should put out on the table...which I believe what was being asked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We adopted our kids privately though our attorney. There is no planned contact wit the birth fmaily unless the kids want to on their own when they are 18.

I think this is often the least traumatic. We're seeing problems with our family member's open adoption and the full inclusion of the child's birth family. There are real concerns arising about how this will affect both the adopted child and other children in the family.

It’s more traumatic for kids not to know as well as the birth family.

How do you know this - can you cite a reference? Please show me some longitudinal studies which show that fully integrating the birth family into the child's life is psychologically healthy? I'm not talking about an occasional letter/photos or a visit once or twice per year. I'm talking about full-on involvement - contact at least weekly, birth parents choosing/deciding which clothing child will wear, having their extended family involved and visiting regularly and posting info on SM of "their baby." It's all happy family now while child is young but what happens when conflict arises? Where are the studies which show those impacts on the adopted child and the rest of the families? That information MUST be made available to birth families AND adopters if they want to fully understand the decisions they are making.

Wait, are you saying anything less than fully integrating the birth family is a closed adoption? Because I would call anything where the child knows who there birth family is (not even contact, just a name/birthdate/identifying info available to the child) an open adoption. I know a couple people who don’t have anything at all and I am extremely against hiding birth info from kids but I think there’s a lot of (healthy) space between nothing and fully integrating the birth family. There are studies showing that hiding birth info is unhealthy, but I don’t know of any assessing the degrees of openness and relationship between birth and adoptive families.

An open adoption is not just telling the child information about the birth family. It ranges from xx of pictures/letters a year to visits, phone calls, and emails. Telling my child about their birth family is a closed adoption. Emailing, talking to and seeing them regularly is an open adoption.

What is the term for an adoption where there is no contact between the families but the child is given information about them? If that is “closed” what is the term for an adoption where the child has no way of finding their birth family and the birth family has no way of knowing what happened to the child?

I think it has varied by era, for example:

My family member born in 1940s was issued a birth certificate with his adoptive parents' names. He wasn't even told he was adopted, but found out as an adult. He had to go to the courthouse to get his original birth certificate. Then he knew his birth mother's name. The birth mother had hired a private investigator to find her biological son, but she was unsuccessful. They didn't find each other while she was alive.

A family member who was born in the 1970s - his adoptive parents were given paperwork that described his birth parents appearance, health, hobbies, etc, but not their names. His parents gave him the papers when he was old enough, and the way it was set up, by agreement between parties and the agency, was that at 18, he could go to the agency and ask to get his birth mother's information, which he did.

I don't know enough about open adoptions, but someone upthread said that basically, only the adoptive parents have legal rights over the kid, so they can decide whether the kid has contact or not, at the end of the day. So if a family is practicing an "open" adoption in which they share pictures and accept visits, that's just a choice on their part, or maybe something they negotiated with the birth mom to seal the deal. I guess there's also the matter of whether the adoptive parent is willing to be found -- in the past, I think they could say no, but now because of DNA they don't necessarily get to choose.

You don't know anything about adoptions but keep posting as you do. A 1940's or 1970's adoption is very differs than today. Those are closed adoptions. Not everyone does DNA testing so the only way for someone to match is if both parties do the DNA testing or close relatives. You are talking in topics you know nothing, NOTHING about.

That's not how DNA tests work. I found my entire biology family, parents, siblings, by matching with a fourth cousin. The rest took about 15 minutes (!) and some Ancestry records. That fast. And yes, eventually DNA will dominate all adoptions, health issues, etc.

That was 100% your choice to go looking. However, a 4th cousin isn't very meaningful if family isn't close or in contact. DNA is great for those who want to look/registered but its a personal choice to do so.

These rant posts are silly to discourage someone from adopting.

There are all kids of adoptions for all kinds of reasons.

You might not understand my explanation about DNA and finding family. You mentioned that the specific people have to be tested or registered online. What I'm explaining is that no, they do not. They dont ever have to have their DNA done or ever be online. They can even be dead. Connecting a match with a 4th cousin leads directly to online public records- census, death, marriage, family trees, and a million other things. I never even spoke to 4th cousin and they had zero to do with it. One just needs a "hit."

Yes, it was my choice to go looking and learned what I needed to know, but, on their own, my siblings did it for fun later than I did- never imagining anyone would pop up that they didn't know. And they didn't know. Adoptions are very much cloaked in secrecy. That is a really common event now.

You seem unfamiliar about how DNA has changed the landscape entirely. Adoptee advocates have offices in all international countries helping to find biological families everywhere- they use DNA and records. Usually they find some distant relative and move from there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do a lot of research about (domestic) open adoptions. Realize the life-long implications of having the birth parent(s) and their extended families involved in your child's life, and if that is something you are willing to take on.

We only want to do closed adoption.

Is it only possibly trough international adoption?

Totally closed adoption is not considered best for the child. Not sure how hard it would be to find an agency that allows it.

The child is likely to have questions down the line, and it is best if they have a road to getting them answered.

Some birth parents opt for little contact.

The worst is when it could be open, but birth parents just fade away (of their own choosing). Because then they knew the child and rejected them.

Trust me, that is far from the worst in open adoption. The unthinkable happened to us.

IMO our family member's open adoption situation is a ticking time bomb. Bio family was welcomed to be involved from birth and they blew that door wide open with extreme involvement. They've made it publicly clear over and over that this is THEIR family's child. It's almost as if the adoptive parents are nothing more than caregivers.

That wasn't what I was even remotely talking about. You clearly have no idea. We maintain a very open relationship with the "birthmother's" family and they are wonderful. We are all family. There is no birth vs. adoption or competition like your family member does. They are aunt/uncle/grandma/grandpa/cousins. We talk a minimum of a few times a month, often more. I don't have to worry about their intentions and they are very supportive of us (and we each consider each other family). We have what you'd consider extreme involvement and its wonderful not only for them, but us and our child.

Your relative sounds horrible.

We have a very good idea. It just isn't the same as your situation so don't point your smug finger.

Why does the relative sound horrible when it's the birthfamily which is being exclusionary? While you may all be one big happy family (sincere congratulations on that BTW) it sounds like you only have the one adopted child. It doesn't always work out like that especially if there are bio children in the family. The birth family does not consider the other bio children other than ancillary: "We are Larlo's grandparents." NOT "We are Larlo, Larla and Suzy's grandparents." Yet the adoptive family's side doesn't make that distinction.

This is an issue which is rarely talked about in many open adoptions and can be very thorny.

Its not exclusionary. They are not the other children's relatives and its their choice to include all kids or not. But, anyone decent in adoption isn't calling the kids bio vs. adopted and it sounds like there are a lot of issues in this family starting with you. The family through adoption are the legal grandparents. The birth family is only the birth family to one child. The parents should have thought about this and how they'd handle it prior to adoption. They should not be expected to have the same relationship, send gifts to all, etc. You are unreasonable.

No, I have multiple children. And my kids aren't my adopted kids. They are my children. They joined our family through adoption but that does not define their role in our family.

In your opinion it is reasonable for people to come into the home, focus on one child in the FAMILY, bring gifts/recognize birthdays of that one child, and ignore the others because they are not "relatives?" How is that not exclusionary?

But you are right that it should have been discussed, at length, before the private open adoption was agreed upon. Unfortunately the private adoption business is rife with problems not the least of which is making sure proper counseling/discussion is done prior to finalization.

New responder to this part of the thread and yes, I think it is reasonable for the grandparents to come to you home or pick up their grandchild, referring only to the one child as their grandchild and treating the others with simple kindness and politeness and cordiality, but not as grandparents.

It would be similar if your husband had been married before you and his wife had died. You’ve married him years later and you now have more children together. Your husband’s first child is their grandchild. Your children can k with that their oldest child has an extra set of grandparents because she had a first mother before you. They are your oldest child’s relatives.

The difference here is that it was your choice to adopt a child and to have bio children so of course they are all your children. But the bio grandparents haven’t had more grandchildren.

My brother died 10 years ago. If his widow got married now and had babies, they wouldn’t be my nephews. I’d be kind to them and show interest in them because they would be my nephew’s siblings, but I wouldn’t expect my sister in law to let them come visit us or come to our extended family functions. That just makes sense to me.

It probably doesn't make much sense to anyone else. In fact, it's pretty messed up, and really super sad.
I can't imagine grandparents singling out only their biological grandchildren, and excluding adopted grandchildren or even step grandchildren. BTW- there is a whole different thread on this. You might want to read that.

My parents exclude their grandchildren and prefer their partner's grandchild. It happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We adopted our kids privately though our attorney. There is no planned contact wit the birth fmaily unless the kids want to on their own when they are 18.

I think this is often the least traumatic. We're seeing problems with our family member's open adoption and the full inclusion of the child's birth family. There are real concerns arising about how this will affect both the adopted child and other children in the family.

It’s more traumatic for kids not to know as well as the birth family.

How do you know this - can you cite a reference? Please show me some longitudinal studies which show that fully integrating the birth family into the child's life is psychologically healthy? I'm not talking about an occasional letter/photos or a visit once or twice per year. I'm talking about full-on involvement - contact at least weekly, birth parents choosing/deciding which clothing child will wear, having their extended family involved and visiting regularly and posting info on SM of "their baby." It's all happy family now while child is young but what happens when conflict arises? Where are the studies which show those impacts on the adopted child and the rest of the families? That information MUST be made available to birth families AND adopters if they want to fully understand the decisions they are making.

Wait, are you saying anything less than fully integrating the birth family is a closed adoption? Because I would call anything where the child knows who there birth family is (not even contact, just a name/birthdate/identifying info available to the child) an open adoption. I know a couple people who don’t have anything at all and I am extremely against hiding birth info from kids but I think there’s a lot of (healthy) space between nothing and fully integrating the birth family. There are studies showing that hiding birth info is unhealthy, but I don’t know of any assessing the degrees of openness and relationship between birth and adoptive families.

An open adoption is not just telling the child information about the birth family. It ranges from xx of pictures/letters a year to visits, phone calls, and emails. Telling my child about their birth family is a closed adoption. Emailing, talking to and seeing them regularly is an open adoption.

What is the term for an adoption where there is no contact between the families but the child is given information about them? If that is “closed” what is the term for an adoption where the child has no way of finding their birth family and the birth family has no way of knowing what happened to the child?

I think it has varied by era, for example:

My family member born in 1940s was issued a birth certificate with his adoptive parents' names. He wasn't even told he was adopted, but found out as an adult. He had to go to the courthouse to get his original birth certificate. Then he knew his birth mother's name. The birth mother had hired a private investigator to find her biological son, but she was unsuccessful. They didn't find each other while she was alive.

A family member who was born in the 1970s - his adoptive parents were given paperwork that described his birth parents appearance, health, hobbies, etc, but not their names. His parents gave him the papers when he was old enough, and the way it was set up, by agreement between parties and the agency, was that at 18, he could go to the agency and ask to get his birth mother's information, which he did.

I don't know enough about open adoptions, but someone upthread said that basically, only the adoptive parents have legal rights over the kid, so they can decide whether the kid has contact or not, at the end of the day. So if a family is practicing an "open" adoption in which they share pictures and accept visits, that's just a choice on their part, or maybe something they negotiated with the birth mom to seal the deal. I guess there's also the matter of whether the adoptive parent is willing to be found -- in the past, I think they could say no, but now because of DNA they don't necessarily get to choose.

You don't know anything about adoptions but keep posting as you do. A 1940's or 1970's adoption is very differs than today. Those are closed adoptions. Not everyone does DNA testing so the only way for someone to match is if both parties do the DNA testing or close relatives. You are talking in topics you know nothing, NOTHING about.

That's not how DNA tests work. I found my entire biology family, parents, siblings, by matching with a fourth cousin. The rest took about 15 minutes (!) and some Ancestry records. That fast. And yes, eventually DNA will dominate all adoptions, health issues, etc.

That was 100% your choice to go looking. However, a 4th cousin isn't very meaningful if family isn't close or in contact. DNA is great for those who want to look/registered but its a personal choice to do so.

These rant posts are silly to discourage someone from adopting.

There are all kids of adoptions for all kinds of reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We adopted our kids privately though our attorney. There is no planned contact wit the birth fmaily unless the kids want to on their own when they are 18.

I think this is often the least traumatic. We're seeing problems with our family member's open adoption and the full inclusion of the child's birth family. There are real concerns arising about how this will affect both the adopted child and other children in the family.

It’s more traumatic for kids not to know as well as the birth family.

How do you know this - can you cite a reference? Please show me some longitudinal studies which show that fully integrating the birth family into the child's life is psychologically healthy? I'm not talking about an occasional letter/photos or a visit once or twice per year. I'm talking about full-on involvement - contact at least weekly, birth parents choosing/deciding which clothing child will wear, having their extended family involved and visiting regularly and posting info on SM of "their baby." It's all happy family now while child is young but what happens when conflict arises? Where are the studies which show those impacts on the adopted child and the rest of the families? That information MUST be made available to birth families AND adopters if they want to fully understand the decisions they are making.

Wait, are you saying anything less than fully integrating the birth family is a closed adoption? Because I would call anything where the child knows who there birth family is (not even contact, just a name/birthdate/identifying info available to the child) an open adoption. I know a couple people who don’t have anything at all and I am extremely against hiding birth info from kids but I think there’s a lot of (healthy) space between nothing and fully integrating the birth family. There are studies showing that hiding birth info is unhealthy, but I don’t know of any assessing the degrees of openness and relationship between birth and adoptive families.

An open adoption is not just telling the child information about the birth family. It ranges from xx of pictures/letters a year to visits, phone calls, and emails. Telling my child about their birth family is a closed adoption. Emailing, talking to and seeing them regularly is an open adoption.

What is the term for an adoption where there is no contact between the families but the child is given information about them? If that is “closed” what is the term for an adoption where the child has no way of finding their birth family and the birth family has no way of knowing what happened to the child?

I think it has varied by era, for example:

My family member born in 1940s was issued a birth certificate with his adoptive parents' names. He wasn't even told he was adopted, but found out as an adult. He had to go to the courthouse to get his original birth certificate. Then he knew his birth mother's name. The birth mother had hired a private investigator to find her biological son, but she was unsuccessful. They didn't find each other while she was alive.

A family member who was born in the 1970s - his adoptive parents were given paperwork that described his birth parents appearance, health, hobbies, etc, but not their names. His parents gave him the papers when he was old enough, and the way it was set up, by agreement between parties and the agency, was that at 18, he could go to the agency and ask to get his birth mother's information, which he did.

I don't know enough about open adoptions, but someone upthread said that basically, only the adoptive parents have legal rights over the kid, so they can decide whether the kid has contact or not, at the end of the day. So if a family is practicing an "open" adoption in which they share pictures and accept visits, that's just a choice on their part, or maybe something they negotiated with the birth mom to seal the deal. I guess there's also the matter of whether the adoptive parent is willing to be found -- in the past, I think they could say no, but now because of DNA they don't necessarily get to choose.

You don't know anything about adoptions but keep posting as you do. A 1940's or 1970's adoption is very differs than today. Those are closed adoptions. Not everyone does DNA testing so the only way for someone to match is if both parties do the DNA testing or close relatives. You are talking in topics you know nothing, NOTHING about.

That's not how DNA tests work. I found my entire biology family, parents, siblings, by matching with a fourth cousin. The rest took about 15 minutes (!) and some Ancestry records. That fast. And yes, eventually DNA will dominate all adoptions, health issues, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do a lot of research about (domestic) open adoptions. Realize the life-long implications of having the birth parent(s) and their extended families involved in your child's life, and if that is something you are willing to take on.

We only want to do closed adoption.

Is it only possibly trough international adoption?

Why do you only want to do closed adoption? Children who are actual orphans are…almost nonexistent. Except in the most extreme cases of abuse, it is horrific to sever the natural bonds of family completely, not just from natural parents, but from extended family/kin/clan. If you are not prepared to accept that you are family to a child who already has a family, you should not be adopting.

+1. It’s crucial for people who adopt to understand this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do a lot of research about (domestic) open adoptions. Realize the life-long implications of having the birth parent(s) and their extended families involved in your child's life, and if that is something you are willing to take on.

We only want to do closed adoption.

Is it only possibly trough international adoption?

Totally closed adoption is not considered best for the child. Not sure how hard it would be to find an agency that allows it.

The child is likely to have questions down the line, and it is best if they have a road to getting them answered.

Some birth parents opt for little contact.

The worst is when it could be open, but birth parents just fade away (of their own choosing). Because then they knew the child and rejected them.

Trust me, that is far from the worst in open adoption. The unthinkable happened to us.

IMO our family member's open adoption situation is a ticking time bomb. Bio family was welcomed to be involved from birth and they blew that door wide open with extreme involvement. They've made it publicly clear over and over that this is THEIR family's child. It's almost as if the adoptive parents are nothing more than caregivers.

That wasn't what I was even remotely talking about. You clearly have no idea. We maintain a very open relationship with the "birthmother's" family and they are wonderful. We are all family. There is no birth vs. adoption or competition like your family member does. They are aunt/uncle/grandma/grandpa/cousins. We talk a minimum of a few times a month, often more. I don't have to worry about their intentions and they are very supportive of us (and we each consider each other family). We have what you'd consider extreme involvement and its wonderful not only for them, but us and our child.

Your relative sounds horrible.

We have a very good idea. It just isn't the same as your situation so don't point your smug finger.

Why does the relative sound horrible when it's the birthfamily which is being exclusionary? While you may all be one big happy family (sincere congratulations on that BTW) it sounds like you only have the one adopted child. It doesn't always work out like that especially if there are bio children in the family. The birth family does not consider the other bio children other than ancillary: "We are Larlo's grandparents." NOT "We are Larlo, Larla and Suzy's grandparents." Yet the adoptive family's side doesn't make that distinction.

This is an issue which is rarely talked about in many open adoptions and can be very thorny.

Its not exclusionary. They are not the other children's relatives and its their choice to include all kids or not. But, anyone decent in adoption isn't calling the kids bio vs. adopted and it sounds like there are a lot of issues in this family starting with you. The family through adoption are the legal grandparents. The birth family is only the birth family to one child. The parents should have thought about this and how they'd handle it prior to adoption. They should not be expected to have the same relationship, send gifts to all, etc. You are unreasonable.

No, I have multiple children. And my kids aren't my adopted kids. They are my children. They joined our family through adoption but that does not define their role in our family.

In your opinion it is reasonable for people to come into the home, focus on one child in the FAMILY, bring gifts/recognize birthdays of that one child, and ignore the others because they are not "relatives?" How is that not exclusionary?

But you are right that it should have been discussed, at length, before the private open adoption was agreed upon. Unfortunately the private adoption business is rife with problems not the least of which is making sure proper counseling/discussion is done prior to finalization.

New responder to this part of the thread and yes, I think it is reasonable for the grandparents to come to you home or pick up their grandchild, referring only to the one child as their grandchild and treating the others with simple kindness and politeness and cordiality, but not as grandparents.

It would be similar if your husband had been married before you and his wife had died. You’ve married him years later and you now have more children together. Your husband’s first child is their grandchild. Your children can k with that their oldest child has an extra set of grandparents because she had a first mother before you. They are your oldest child’s relatives.

The difference here is that it was your choice to adopt a child and to have bio children so of course they are all your children. But the bio grandparents haven’t had more grandchildren.

My brother died 10 years ago. If his widow got married now and had babies, they wouldn’t be my nephews. I’d be kind to them and show interest in them because they would be my nephew’s siblings, but I wouldn’t expect my sister in law to let them come visit us or come to our extended family functions. That just makes sense to me.

It probably doesn't make much sense to anyone else. In fact, it's pretty messed up, and really super sad.
I can't imagine grandparents singling out only their biological grandchildren, and excluding adopted grandchildren or even step grandchildren. BTW- there is a whole different thread on this. You might want to read that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If she couldn't live and support her child which is why it appears "she wasn't forced into it" means that her circumstances forced the decision. Your argument is very surface level comparing unwed mothers of previous decades to women today. Society no longer judges unwed mothers and forces them and underage women and "forces" them to relinquish a child, but now it's financial and life circumstances. As a country, we don't even support families, any kind of family, on any level. .health care, family leave, flexible working schedules, the list goes on.

Women graduate college with unprecedented loans, and before you indicate that they could have gone to community college or a state school ( also not cheap) , perhaps a woman in veterinary or med school or any higher learning-might have to give up a child because she can't take a break due to the loans already incurred. My point is that the rich and unencumbered win children from these situations.

These women aren't forced into it by circumstances because there are plenty of women in the same circumstances who choose something else, whether abortion or raising their children. Moreover, as a woman who graduated with a ton of debt (you are responding to my post, and I believe that I already mentioned that my parents were poor and also I am in the first generation to go to college, so I know about college debt!), there are deferral periods and forbearances if you are not working, you can tie payments to income level, you can even just not pay -- are those good choices? Of course not, but those are choices that people have. No one is forced to place a child for adoption.

That kind of debt is not really the issue. Its far more complicated than that.

It's just an example, not the whole story. The basic fact is that adoptions are largely transactional. They have been, and still are. Some of the parameters have changed over the decades, but the one constant is $$. Always.

This last bit simply isn't true in all cases. We adopted DD from foster care having been her foster parents for two years. Our adoption-related travel costs were perhaps $1,500. Infact we received a stipend of about $12K a year, for two years, while we all waited for the adoption to be finalized. We didn't ask for the money and it wasn't a factor in our decision to be foster parents or to adopt from foster care. Even now, post-adoption, Medicaid is DD's primary health insurance. And if DD chooses to go to a state college in the state she was in foster care, her college tuition is waived.

I don't think you either understood my post or the sequence of posts regarding elitism.
I'm discussing the "baby" adoption industry and the upside down privilege system, i e., women with resources vs women without.

Your example is a foster care issue, quite different from early infant adoption, and we aren't really discussing the individual costs in adoption, that's quite another issue. We are discussing the economics and culture behind the adoption industry per se.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adoption is for children who need homes. Not for adults who want a child. Full stop.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

I think it should be about finding parents for an infant, not babies for the parents

But that is not what 99.99% of domestic infant adoptions are about. It’s about finding infants and making them available to the parents who are able to pay for them and want them. To make such babies available, a while industry with PR people and “counselors” are set on a marketing strategy to convince vulnerable young women, the vast majority of whom are in poverty, that the child would be better off with someone else. They take young women who may come from trauma themselves, who may have little resources and no social safety net, and they offer temporary security and emotional sustenance. Rent payments. Health care. Clothing. Regular calls reassuring her that she is doing the right thing, that she is special, that she is strong, that she is showing the bravest love possible by giving up her baby. And all do her natural instincts to want to mother her baby are selfish and foolish and immature.

There is no promise for housing for her and her baby. There are few social supports. Waiting lists for housing are years long. Child care subsidies are nonexistent in some areas. Instead of providing support and resources and guidance for those women, the adoption industry preys upon their vulnerabilities and convinces them that the desire to keep their baby is deeply wrong, and they paradise and reward the good, unselfish girl who hands over her baby, even allows the adoptees to be there for the birth.

And if after she gives birth, she needs more time with her baby, or she cannot let him go, the vultures descend with threats of legal action, financial claims, reminders of how crushed and hurt the hopeful adopters would be, and after all the help they’ve provided though the pregnancy, how could she who is not worthy of motherhood be so selfish? So she lets them take the baby. And then BOOM, is cut off. No more help. No more praise. No more check ins and emotional sustenance. Now she has an empty womb and a broken heart and no legal recourse to get her baby. In some states, consent to relinquish can be given on the same day the women gives birth! Most states require no counseling for mothers considering relinquishment, but those that do allow the counseling to be done by the agency placing the child for adoption…obviously not counseling in the best interests of the mother. In some states, consent can be revoked for 10 days. Some states like Kansas allow an agency to secure consent from the hospital bed just 12 hours after birth, and there is NO revocation period. The legal claim of the mother is irrevocably severed unless she can petition the court and offer proof that her consent was under duress. Of course she would have to pay for her own legal counsels up against an agency’s army of lawyers to fight her.

To clarify our total costs associated with adoption from foster care were $1,500. And this was for travel for three people to the family court to finalize the adoption. (Roundtrip flights were required). But these were our only costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If she couldn't live and support her child which is why it appears "she wasn't forced into it" means that her circumstances forced the decision. Your argument is very surface level comparing unwed mothers of previous decades to women today. Society no longer judges unwed mothers and forces them and underage women and "forces" them to relinquish a child, but now it's financial and life circumstances. As a country, we don't even support families, any kind of family, on any level. .health care, family leave, flexible working schedules, the list goes on.

Women graduate college with unprecedented loans, and before you indicate that they could have gone to community college or a state school ( also not cheap) , perhaps a woman in veterinary or med school or any higher learning-might have to give up a child because she can't take a break due to the loans already incurred. My point is that the rich and unencumbered win children from these situations.

These women aren't forced into it by circumstances because there are plenty of women in the same circumstances who choose something else, whether abortion or raising their children. Moreover, as a woman who graduated with a ton of debt (you are responding to my post, and I believe that I already mentioned that my parents were poor and also I am in the first generation to go to college, so I know about college debt!), there are deferral periods and forbearances if you are not working, you can tie payments to income level, you can even just not pay -- are those good choices? Of course not, but those are choices that people have. No one is forced to place a child for adoption.

That kind of debt is not really the issue. Its far more complicated than that.

It's just an example, not the whole story. The basic fact is that adoptions are largely transactional. They have been, and still are. Some of the parameters have changed over the decades, but the one constant is $$. Always.

This last bit simply isn't true in all cases. We adopted DD from foster care having been her foster parents for two years. Our adoption-related travel costs were perhaps $1,500. Infact we received a stipend of about $12K a year, for two years, while we all waited for the adoption to be finalized. We didn't ask for the money and it wasn't a factor in our decision to be foster parents or to adopt from foster care. Even now, post-adoption, Medicaid is DD's primary health insurance. And if DD chooses to go to a state college in the state she was in foster care, her college tuition is waived.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do a lot of research about (domestic) open adoptions. Realize the life-long implications of having the birth parent(s) and their extended families involved in your child's life, and if that is something you are willing to take on.

We only want to do closed adoption.

Is it only possibly trough international adoption?

Totally closed adoption is not considered best for the child. Not sure how hard it would be to find an agency that allows it.

The child is likely to have questions down the line, and it is best if they have a road to getting them answered.

Some birth parents opt for little contact.

The worst is when it could be open, but birth parents just fade away (of their own choosing). Because then they knew the child and rejected them.

Trust me, that is far from the worst in open adoption. The unthinkable happened to us.

IMO our family member's open adoption situation is a ticking time bomb. Bio family was welcomed to be involved from birth and they blew that door wide open with extreme involvement. They've made it publicly clear over and over that this is THEIR family's child. It's almost as if the adoptive parents are nothing more than caregivers.

That wasn't what I was even remotely talking about. You clearly have no idea. We maintain a very open relationship with the "birthmother's" family and they are wonderful. We are all family. There is no birth vs. adoption or competition like your family member does. They are aunt/uncle/grandma/grandpa/cousins. We talk a minimum of a few times a month, often more. I don't have to worry about their intentions and they are very supportive of us (and we each consider each other family). We have what you'd consider extreme involvement and its wonderful not only for them, but us and our child.

Your relative sounds horrible.

We have a very good idea. It just isn't the same as your situation so don't point your smug finger.

Why does the relative sound horrible when it's the birthfamily which is being exclusionary? While you may all be one big happy family (sincere congratulations on that BTW) it sounds like you only have the one adopted child. It doesn't always work out like that especially if there are bio children in the family. The birth family does not consider the other bio children other than ancillary: "We are Larlo's grandparents." NOT "We are Larlo, Larla and Suzy's grandparents." Yet the adoptive family's side doesn't make that distinction.

This is an issue which is rarely talked about in many open adoptions and can be very thorny.

Its not exclusionary. They are not the other children's relatives and its their choice to include all kids or not. But, anyone decent in adoption isn't calling the kids bio vs. adopted and it sounds like there are a lot of issues in this family starting with you. The family through adoption are the legal grandparents. The birth family is only the birth family to one child. The parents should have thought about this and how they'd handle it prior to adoption. They should not be expected to have the same relationship, send gifts to all, etc. You are unreasonable.

No, I have multiple children. And my kids aren't my adopted kids. They are my children. They joined our family through adoption but that does not define their role in our family.

In your opinion it is reasonable for people to come into the home, focus on one child in the FAMILY, bring gifts/recognize birthdays of that one child, and ignore the others because they are not "relatives?" How is that not exclusionary?

But you are right that it should have been discussed, at length, before the private open adoption was agreed upon. Unfortunately the private adoption business is rife with problems not the least of which is making sure proper counseling/discussion is done prior to finalization.

New responder to this part of the thread and yes, I think it is reasonable for the grandparents to come to you home or pick up their grandchild, referring only to the one child as their grandchild and treating the others with simple kindness and politeness and cordiality, but not as grandparents.

It would be similar if your husband had been married before you and his wife had died. You’ve married him years later and you now have more children together. Your husband’s first child is their grandchild. Your children can k with that their oldest child has an extra set of grandparents because she had a first mother before you. They are your oldest child’s relatives.

The difference here is that it was your choice to adopt a child and to have bio children so of course they are all your children. But the bio grandparents haven’t had more grandchildren.

My brother died 10 years ago. If his widow got married now and had babies, they wouldn’t be my nephews. I’d be kind to them and show interest in them because they would be my nephew’s siblings, but I wouldn’t expect my sister in law to let them come visit us or come to our extended family functions. That just makes sense to me.