What do you think?
Rate this book


330 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 2023
There is a substantial power imbalance in all adoption arrangements. If everyone in the adoption constellation were to sit at a theoretical family gathering, adoptive parents would be at the adult table. Adoptees would be at the kids’ table, no matter their age. Birth parents would be standing on the porch looking in through the front window with a casserole that’s gone cold.
Growth happens at the boundary between comfort and discomfort.
As mammals, attachment is our preeminent need and key to our survival. Thus, facing separation— experienced or anticipated—from those to whom we’re attached is our greatest human threat.
later in life, adoptees may feel betrayed by too-quick acceptances of statements they’d shared before they started thinking more critically about adoption.
Child developmental psychologist Dr. Gordon Neufeld explains: “Adoption is one of the earliest and primary disruptions in the continuity of connection which can last throughout life. It doesn’t end right after adoption. That facing of separation is developmental and it will be there until the day you die.”
Relationships with our adoptive mothers can feel especially fraught since we’ve already learned mothers leave. This can extend to relationships with other females, or generally to any relationships where closeness could lead to future abandonment. Outside our awareness, we might back out of these relationships—or feel an overwhelming desire to run away from them.
We simply cannot escape the emotion of alarm. This is true for adoptees and nonadoptees alike. But alarm can be exacerbated by our experiences of relinquishment and adoption. Adoption and foster care are not possible without separation from our first attachments (even in open adoptions) and so our alarm system, already working to keep separation from taking us down, can end up staying in the “on” position to ensure we’re never caught off guard again.
While it may be a challenge for others to see, sometimes attacks on our loved ones reflect a certain amount of safety in the relationship.
Mixed emotions come with age and maturity. Developmentally, young children don’t have the capacity for both/and feeling until ages five to seven—and often longer for the especially sensitive (and I would argue that ALL adoptees are sensitive due to the early trauma we have experienced). Some adults, for that matter, have trouble holding onto two conflicting emotions at once.
adoptees are four times more likely to attempt suicide than nonadoptees.
When we speak of adoptees and suicide, Katie reminds us that “in adoption, we usually talk about abandonment. But really, it’s a survival story.”
Race is a social construct, rather than a biological one. Perhaps this is why many people are tempted to say things like, “Race doesn’t matter,” or, “I don’t see color.”
There’s inherent judgment in the rescue narrative that doesn’t honor birth parents, birth cultures, and in turn, adoptees.
While much religious messaging revolves around giving thanks and seeing the blessings in one’s life, when applied so vocally to adopted children, it can reinforce a core belief that adoptees are merely tools to meet our adoptive parents’ wishes and needs.
For adoptees growing up in religious homes, they need spaces where they are not silenced, used, and spiritually bypassed. They need space for their losses within their families and faith communities to better support their mental and spiritual health.
While not every adoption begins with corruption, our westernized, religious view has excused human-rights abuses in order to promote a message of saviorism around adoption.
Looking at the ills of adoption requires rethinking long-held beliefs. This will be difficult, especially when it comes to a long perception of adoption as nothing less than holy.
Birth parents often wonder, If I hadn’t given them my baby, would the adoptive parents still care about me as a person?
Adoption in the United States is unique in that states lack the oversight, and apparently the spine, to prevent unlicensed individuals and entities from opportunistically meddling in the adoption field (and let’s be clear; if an unlicensed entity is preying on expectant moms, you can bet it is also preying on people eager to adopt a baby).
Ambiguous loss is one that results from a life event that produces a loss without closure.
Many times, in the loss of a loved one through death, people receive closure one way or another. We don’t host a wake for a person who is still alive, and we certainly don’t host a funeral when a new arrival is being celebrated elsewhere. Mothers who relinquish a child for adoption don’t receive a day of mourning as it is not only unusual but also typically unspoken loss.
Relinquishment is not the norm for mothers, making it an adverse birth and postpartum outcome. Birth mothers may be at higher risk for experiencing Postpartum Depression (PPD), which affects thirteen percent to nineteen percent of childbearing women, with the strongest risk factors being prenatal depression and current abuse.8 It is estimated that 3.17% of women experience PTSD after childbirth, as the highest factor of vulnerability “most strongly associated with birth-related PTSD [being] depression in pregnancy.”
Adoption agencies have historically charged lesser fees for the adoption of Black children than for the adoption of non-Black children.
A question that is often posed in adoption circles is that if an expectant mother is considering adoption mainly due to financial reasons, why can’t the prospective adoptive parents just give her the money they
would have spent on the adoption? While at first this sentiment feels like the missing puzzle piece, it’s more practical and realistic to view the unsolved financial solution as a policy failure rather than the failure of an individual couple to empty their life savings to help someone else support their family.
Striving for equity within the adoption relationships takes great courage. Holding on to power with a tight fist may stem from fear or insecurity, but it is not to be mistaken for strength. Rather, it is a weakness that may cause our children to feel anguish in choosing sides and insecurity in themselves,
Birth moms in open adoptions often say that leaving a visit sometimes feels like being back in the hospital all over again. Not only do they feel the intensity of that memory, but they may also be shocked to be dealing with this at all, as so many believed that having an open adoption would make relinquishment less painful.
A major falsehood that many adoptive parents and birth parents initially believe about open adoption is that post-placement communication is done as a favor for the comfort of the birth mother and her emotions. Holding the belief that open adoption is a courtesy to the birth mother is a fair indicator of a fundamental misunderstanding of openness and, in turn, the ignorance of the magnitude of the role adoption plays in the life of an adoptee. It is reductive to describe open adoption as the basic act of allowing a birth parent to watch their child grow up from afar.
Our relinquishment, from a legal perspective, terminates our parental rights and responsibilities, giving us a false sense of security as though we don’t have a duty to our children. On the contrary, we hold crucial duties to help them discover their origin stories and biological information.
Our roles and responsibilities as birth parents never vanished with our signature upon consent forms.
Many birth mothers in closed adoptions count down the days until their child turns eighteen, hoping and dreaming that they will finally reach out to them and want to get to know their mother. When there is only empty space in the place of a relationship, there is that much capacity for optimistic fantasy.
Open adoption lessens secrecy and solves a portion of issues rooted in the lack of information that was present in the era of closed adoption, but it does not offer respite from grief; it simply changes the scenery of grief.
Instead of watching their child grow and develop every day as a more involved parent would, birth mothers capture the progression of their child in short instances, producing snapshots of each stage of the child’s life.
Though open adoption is by no means a panacea for the loss that comes with adoption, it has been an important step in centering adoptees’ needs.
Once we unlearn that there can be more than one “real” mom or “real” dad in a child’s life, we start to make a shift. We can recognize and honor that our child has the biology of one set of parents and the biography of another. When we shift from an Either/Or mindset—either they matter or I do—to a BothAnd5 heartset—we signal that all are integral to the adoptee. It’s a crucial step for parents to take for the sake of the adoptee and to set the stage for integration.
When we parent a child through adoption there is no way to erase our child’s suffering. It is simply not possible when adoption occurs because of and through loss. But again, that powerlessness over the cards dealt to our child can fill us with grief and it can be compounded by almost overwhelming guilt and shame, wondering if we had a role in creating pain for our children. Sometimes, in fact, we may have and there’s mourning in this knowledge, too.
Those who are especially sensitive may also feel grief on behalf of our child’s birth parents. If we think about their loss or have the opportunity to see it up close through an open adoption, we can be filled with more grief. Our gains have come at a price for another—even in situations where a parent voluntarily chooses adoption. Witnessing another’s loss is sad as is knowing you get to watch and participate in milestones that another parent is missing out on.
At the root of much dysfunction in adoptive families is often a sense of insecurity that comes from not being the only mom or the only dad. There’s no way around it: adoption includes more than one set of parents and recognizing this can be a painful reality. Sharing isn’t always easy—especially when it comes to sharing a beloved child.
Categorizing people and situations is something we humans do as a means of simplifying a complex and ever-changing world. Categorization isn’t bad, but without checks and balances it can turn polarizing—
When adoptive parents find a way to sense, acknowledge, and address insecurity that stems from not being the only mom or dad, from not giving birth to their child and sharing their DNA, from the existence of another legitimate family, they can begin to heal their wounds and better support the adoptee they love. Insecurity can resolve bit-by-bit as parents become more aware of others’ perspectives, namely adoptees and birth parents—and their own deeper emotions around being parents by adoption. Ultimately, the goal is to see all parents as real, leading the way for adoptees to be able to comfortably feel this way, too.
We all understand the unspoken message that whatever we can’t or won’t talk about must mean there is something awful about it.
Further, the idea that an Either/Or mindset can make way for a BothAnd heartset has yet to become a mainstream idea. Society is still stuck in a closed adoption-era notion that there can be only one legitimate set of parents and the resulting zero-sum game decrees that any legitimacy granted to birth parents comes at the expense of the adoptive parents.
Adoptees report that adoptive parents’ ability to make space for birth parents, whether present in an adoptee’s life or not, actually strengthens their bond with their adoptive parents rather than weakening it and research bears this out.
Insecurity comes not only from within an adoptive parent but also from a culture that says there can be only one “real” set of parents. This is why so many adoptive parents have work to do to remedy their sense of insecurity within themselves and as a cultural narrative.
It’s a paradox of adoptive parenting: if an adoptive parent wants their child’s heart, they need to be willing to share it with whomever else the adoptee needs to invite in.
To be able to metabolize insecurity about birth family and culture, and transform it into openness and curiosity, is one of the greatest gifts a parent can give their child.
Boundaries get a bad rap. We often think of boundaries as creating separation. But in truth, and in the words of Prentis Hemphill, “boundaries are the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneously.”
It takes a high degree of emotional intelligence to monitor and manage the emotions that ebb and flow in one’s self, one’s child, and the adoptee’s birth parents over time. Contrary to what some initially believe, open adoption does not mean a relationship without boundaries. Instead, healthy open adoptions—like all healthy relationships—require an ability to set boundaries of the Goldilocks sort: not too little and not too much. When we mess up on boundaries, which we inevitably will, we count the learning experience and do our best over and over.
As Joanna stated so well in our podcast interview, “If your narrative has you as the hero and the child as being saved, your community will see you as a gift to your child, and your child will always carry the burden of being ‘saved.’ ”
Domestic infant adoption is a multi-billion-dollar industry.2 Every year, at least a million3 prospective parents pay a licensed agency, a private attorney, and/or an unlicensed “facilitator” or “consultant” more than a billion dollars4 in hopes of finding and adopting a baby.
Research from sociologist Dr. Gretchen Sisson shows that “birth mothers were most often choosing between adoption and parenting, not adoption and abortion,”8 and that ninety-one percent of those seeking abortion and denied one will parent instead of relinquish.
Pronatalism, perhaps the very first -ism that arose in humans, is the deeply ingrained belief that parenting is prized over nonparenting, and the consequence that those who parent are elevated in countless ways over those who don’t.
many come to adoption through heartbreaking loss, which requires grieving so that we don’t unconsciously expect an adoptee to resolve our heartache.
Parents who are less familiar and facile with the dance of attachment can end up believing that the child is solely responsible for a negative impact on the whole family system, and then the child is at risk of being scapegoated.
It’s not up to our children to attach to us; it’s up to us to help make it safe for them to attach to us.
The emotional responses to separation offer insight into how to dig deeper and respond accordingly. Alarm and defensive detachment need an answer: an increase in connection and a reduction in separation to make it safer to depend.
As Dr. Pavao says, “It’s very popular to diagnose children with reactive attachment disorder. I’m opposed to that. You cannot have attachment anything without another. The child doesn’t have attachment disorder. The child and whoever have attachment disorder.”
Judgment breeds shame, while empathy breeds connection.
Providing a separate attorney for birth parents is simply the right thing to do
Grace, understanding, and empathy support a healthy long-term relationship better than legal action, which has potential to ultimately hurt the adoptee more than anyone.