Relinquished: The Politics of Adoption and the Privilege of American Motherhood

by Gretchen Sisson

A powerful decade-long study of adoption in the age of Roe, revealing the grief of the American mothers for whom the choice to parent was never real

Adoption has always been viewed as a beloved institution for building families, as well as a mutually agreeable common ground in the abortion debate, but little attention has been paid to the lives of mothers who relinquish infants for private adoption. Relinquished reveals adoption to be a path of constrained choice for those for whom abortion is inaccessible, or for whom parenthood is untenable. The stories of relinquishing mothers are stories about our country's refusal to care for families at the most basic level, and to instead embrace an individual, private solution to a large-scale, social problem.

With the recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization revoking abortion protections and the upcoming decision in Brackeen v. Haaland likely to revoke the Indian Child Welfare Act, we are in a political moment in which adoption is, increasingly, being revealed as an institution devoted to separating families and policing parenthood under the guise of feel-good family-building. Rooted in a long-term study, Relinquished is an analysis of hundreds of in-depth interviews with American mothers who placed their children for domestic adoption. The voices of these women are powerful and heartrending; they deserve to be heard as a response to this moment.

Genres: Nonfiction, Adoption, Politics, Feminism, Audiobook, History, Parenting

311 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 27, 2024

About the author

Gretchen Sisson, PhD, is a sociologist who studies abortion and adoption in the United States. She is a researcher at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, part of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. Her research examining adoption decision-making after abortion denial (as part of The Turnaway Study) was cited in the Supreme Court’s dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health from Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. In response to the oral arguments and decision in Dobbs, she authored pieces in the Washington Post, The Nation, and the Washington Post (again). Gretchen’s research been featured on NPR’s All Things Considered and Consider This, as well as in New York Magazine, VOX, and other outlets.

Reviews

[Jamie Park · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had my first baby at 18 in 2003. I was pursued relentlessly by adoption agencies, prospective parents, and even LDS elders. I spent the next few years afraid someone was going to take her away from me, which led to some other bad decisions (marriage).
When I was pregnant way back then we still had Roe V Wade. We now live in a post Roe world and I can only imagine it was intended to boost adoptions. The adoption industry is worth billions, and with only 1% of babies being relinquished they have to do something. We don't send girls way anymore. We do however still traumatize pregnant women.
I love the history in this book. We should never forget how enslaved mothers were brutally separated from their babies.
Anyway, I was crying throughout the book. I could have been one of these mothers if I wasn't such a menace and anti people pleaser. I think alot about the people who wanted to adopt my baby. I ended up with a master's degree, a house in a good neighborhood, published books, and some degree of prestige. I was so poor when I had her but we got through it and ended up doing better than a lot of the families that were trying to adopt. They were very surface level successful but weren't all that wonderful in the end.
I have already recommended this book to all my friends.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars

Deeply appreciated this book about adoption and how it often disenfranchises birth mothers. Gretchen Sisson does an excellent job of highlighting birth mothers’ painful, negative emotions about relinquishing their children, and she writes clearly and intelligently about the sociopolitical factors that contribute to adoption (e.g., financial disparities between birth mothers and adoptive parents, the conservative and religious forces promoting a private solution to a public problem, etc.) What I loved most about this book was the in-depth stories directly told by birth mothers themselves. So often these people’s perspectives are silenced or erased and it was powerful to read about their traumas, resilience, and insights related to relinquishing their children.

As Sisson names toward the end of this book, reading this may stir up negative feelings (e.g., defensiveness) from people who have positive feelings about adoption. I hope that readers who feel this way can honor both their potentially positive experiences with the lived realities and difficulties of the birth mothers who courageously shared their stories in Relinquished.

[Jillian B · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is such an important read for anyone concerned with reproductive justice. By centering the voices of birth mothers, it opened my eyes to some tough truths about adoption.

Based on substantial original qualitative research, this book makes the case that most birth mothers who relinquish their child would prefer to parent them, but lack the financial resources or social support they would need to do so well. Most of the women the author interviews were never choosing between adoption and abortion. They were choosing between adoption and parenting. It also raises the idea that placing a child for adoption is a deep trauma, even in “ideal” cases where the birth mother goes on to a successful life.

This book is a rallying cry to advocate for more support for young and single parents. It underscores that an important part of reproductive justice is ensuring that those who want to parent are able to.

[Hannah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the second book I’ve read about the impact of adoptions that no one talks about. First one was What White Parents Should Know about Transracial Adoption by Melissa Guida-Richards last year. That was from the perspective of the adopted child (written as an adopted adult). This book was just as powerful. I’m so glad we are now talking about a fuller picture of what it means to give up a child for adoption, especially in light of the Dobbs decision.

[Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading about adoption has been an eye-opening experience. The U.S. adoption lobby is powerful, making most of us supporters without fully realizing the issues at play. Books like this, The Child Catchers (an expose on international adoption) and The Girls Who Went Away (about young American women forced to give up babies for adoption in the mid-20th century) have expanded my perspective on the aspects we tend to overlook.

This book focuses on the experiences of birth mothers, based on in-depth interviews with 77 of them over more than a decade. It’s structured similarly to the The Girls Who Went Away or The Turnaway Study (which this author was also involved in), alternating sections by the author explaining the big picture and putting the stories in context, with narratives from the women themselves. This is an effective format and it’s quick and engaging reading.

Sisson provides a sharp critique of adoption as it’s practiced in the U.S. today, from a social justice perspective: essentially, that private infant adoption is the practice of transferring babies from families with less privilege to families with more—primarily in terms of wealth, though adoptive parents are also overwhelmingly white while adopted children are less so. (Up through the 1990s, 90% of relinquishing mothers were white, but this is now down to 55%, and many of their babies are mixed race. Even mothers seeking adoptive parents of the same race as the baby often couldn’t find them.)

But we tend to erase birth families from the picture, and to stereotype birth mothers in ways that don’t reflect reality. Indeed, our adoption lobby is so strong that we tend to overlook the family separation aspect altogether while more or less assuming well-off people have a right to adopt other people’s children: for conservatives it’s about getting children into two-parent, Christian homes; for progressives it’s about singles and queer couples getting children; everybody wants infertile couples to be able to get them. But all of this centers the adoptive parents, not adoptees or the families split up to make this happen.

From the birth mothers, the overall message is that relinquishing a child for adoption is the most traumatic and awful experience they have ever had (even for people with a lot of trauma—for instance, the one whose baby was born from rape). This is true even when they’re ostensibly the ones making the choice: in reality these choices are too constrained for the mothers to feel they have real agency, sometimes due to blackmail or legal misinformation, often because of the practice of choosing an adoptive family before the birth and being expected to sign final paperwork very quickly thereafter, but also just because they want to parent and feel socially or financially backed into a corner, rather than truly wanting to give away their babies. Lacking money is the primary reason for relinquishment, while a significant number of the women here were also simply unmarried and belonged to conservative, “pro-life” families and communities who wouldn’t support them in single parenting but valorize giving up children for adoption. “Open adoption” becoming the norm also doesn’t help as much as you might think. These agreements are rarely legally enforceable if the adoptive parents decide to cut off contact (as many do), and the adoptive parents have all the power in the relationship.

It’s especially interesting to see the mothers’ views evolve over time: many are quite pro-adoption for the first few years (during which the adoption agencies trot them out to speak publicly at every opportunity), but become more critical as time goes on (at which point they get dropped and no longer have a platform). In the end, half the birth mothers here say they regret the adoption, and most of those who believe some good came of it still report trauma or dissatisfaction. There are some interesting wrinkles: for instance, feeling forced to give up a baby started some of these women on a social justice path, ultimately putting them at odds with the conservative, religious families they’d chosen for their babies. It’s also interesting to see the long-term repercussions for other children in the family, and on the mothers’ decisions about whether to have subsequent children.

What’s especially disturbing is the systemic push for adoption in spite of all this: the U.S. government wants to drum up more adoptable babies. Per the Dobbs opinion, the reduced adoption rate is a problem to be solved by outlawing abortion, and government money goes to many of these pro-adoption groups, which target pregnant women seeking help. Sisson found, however, that women weren’t actually debating abortion vs. adoption—they decided whether to give birth first, then moved on to whether they could make parenting work. (And unlike adoption, abortion is rarely regretted and easily put behind you.) Other developed countries have far lower adoption rates than the U.S., presumably because they’re providing more support to new parents—one group helping new mothers to keep their kids found that $500 was on average enough to make the difference (up to more like $2500 now with housing prices). As one of these women says: “If they took the money they spent telling me how empowered I am for giving up my kid, just a small part of that money, and gave it to me when I was pregnant, I would actually have been empowered to raise her.”

Of course, to do this one must believe keeping families together is important, rather than judging parents as inadequate for being in a tough spot while offering redemption through relinquishment. Perhaps what’s most noticeable is that despite all this effort, only 18,000 to 20,000 babies are given up for private adoption in the U.S. annually, out of 4 million births: under 0.5%.

A few areas where I’d like to see more: there is some suggestion that adoptees aren’t necessarily better off in adoptive families either, as they have higher rates of depression, anxiety and other mental health struggles, but that isn’t the focus. My interest was piqued, however, by the fact that 20% of the participating birth mothers were adopted themselves! Sisson suggests that perhaps adoption is most normalized for them, and their adoptive parents are naturally pro-adoption and thus more likely to encourage it. But I can’t help wondering—given that adoptive parents are also disproportionately well-off, so presumably could help their daughters out if they chose (and that’s why the birth mothers are parting with their children to begin with! "A better life" in which heartrending decisions don’t have to be made for lack of cash)—whether this is also a sign that adoptive parents’ love is more conditional, whether they are less likely to help an adult child whose decisions they disapprove and less invested in non-biological grandchildren. On the other hand, it is a small sample size.

I also want to know more about the demographics of women relinquishing infants. One mother, who volunteered with a crisis pregnancy center, notes that it’s those women most capable of parenting who plan for adoption, which I’d noticed too: these mothers aren’t impoverished so much as they are broke. Many are college students, were recently laid off, etc., which explains how a one-time cash infusion can help so much. And in a way it makes sense: someone who grew up in generational poverty knows how to manage in that situation and has examples all around her of parents making do. These demographics may be affected by the author’s methodology, however: she recruited participants through adoption-related support groups, message boards, and listservs, and while she appears to have sought participants in spaces with both a pro- and anti-adoption bent, these would be places most accessible to people either with time and transportation to attend meetings, or who have a device and the technological know-how to participate in online groups (perhaps by 2020 this was no longer a major barrier). Of course, recruiting from those places also selects for people who remain very invested in adoption.

At any rate, overall an informative and eye-opening read. My biggest criticisms are that the structure can be a bit nebulous, and some of the sections toward the end felt less compelling. There’s one on the portrayal of birth mothers in media, and a section about the importance of including the right to parent one’s children as a reproductive justice issue, which feels mostly geared toward academics and activists. Still, this is a quick read and one I learned a lot from, so I’m glad to have read it.

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Incredibly pertinent read following the aftermath of the 2022 archaic ruling of Supreme Court decision Dobb’s v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization (known to the public primarily as the case overturning Roe v. Wade ) made by a conservative-packed majority not as representative of what most Americans want/believe, but instead straight down partisan lines.

Unfortunately, the judiciary and its highest body, The Supreme Court, were dispelled of any hope for what the Court has always been known for: remaining neutral in the face of controversial political decisions, and governing instead by what they cite as their clear interpretations of our constitutional rights.

Everyone seemed shocked when Roe was overturned, and I can’t, for the life of me, understand why. Mitch McConnell very openly expressed his desire to pack the Supreme Court with the youngest and most conservative judges years before the decision, drawing from The Federalist Society’s list of judges who hold the highest number of decisions restricting reproductive freedoms - and making a deal with Donald Trump that he would support him and encourage his fellow Republicans to support him as president, if Trump fulfilled just one obligation for him: ensuring that judges with the most restrictive records on abortion rights were given any open seat on the Court.

Amy Coney Barrett, whom this book mentions as a pivotal figure in not only overturning Roe but also as a Supreme Court justice whom pushes the “adoption as an alternative to abortion” argument. During oral arguments for the case, while pretending as if actually considering both sides, Barrett theorized :
”It seems to me that the choice more focused would be, between, say, the ability to get an abortion at twenty-three weeks or the state requiring the woman to go fifteen, sixteen weeks more, and then terminate parental rights at the conclusion.” Relinquishment, Barrett argued, would allow women to continue pregnancies while still avoiding the “consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy.”

These conservative justices conveniently gloss over extensive studies throughout decades, showing that over 99% of women did not regret their decision to terminate a pregnancy, but rather, every mother interviewed for this book, as well as cited in other studies, described their adoption experience as “mostly negative”, “not a choice at all”, “something they were forced into”, and sadly, “the most traumatic event of their lives.”

Is it any wonder women feel this way? Nearly every, if not all mothers interviewed, stated they’d wished they had been given more support, counseling, and resources by the state, so that they could parent their own child. Even pregnant women who initially sought out abortions but were either denied on the basis of strict anti-abortion state policy, or were simply too far along in their pregnancies to have an abortion anywhere, would have preferred parenting to adoption. Conversely, not a single mother who has terminated her pregnancy or chosen to parent her child has expressed regret over not taking the adoption route instead.

Why is this? Do we really need to pretend as though it’s some sort of mind-boggling mystery? Of course women terminating pregnancies after a few months, never experiencing the procedure as “the loss of a child” will not suffer the same depression and lifetime of regret that relinquishing mothers are forced to endure.

There’s unmistakably an inevitable bond that develops between a mother and her child when she is forced to carry that child to full-term, giving birth to the baby, holding the baby in her arms, and starts imagining a life with this child, starts to forget that the child will not be going home with her.

To grab an infant out of a new mother’s arms to hand off to an adoptive mother once the woman who gave birth to the child has been able to bond with and since place a name, face, and personality to the baby, is of course going to be cruel and cause a lifetime of loss and trauma for these young and/or not yet financially stable women.

The relinquishing mothers almost always initially are coerced to give up their newborn to a “more deserving family”, at least to some extent, by the adoption agencies they consider (I don’t believe “more deserving” is ever used by the agencies or its workers, but it is certainly much implied).

At a time when they are highly vulnerable, a time which is short and where making a quick decision is thought to be critical, women are rarely informed about their other options. Given that most have either faced stigma amongst their friends, family and community (or imagine that their family will not accept their decision to parent) - it is all too easy for these women to accept the praise being given them - at a time when they feel unworthy - they’re “heroic”, they’re “selfless”, they’re “unbelievably mature and wise.” But if that were true, then it begs the question: why shouldn’t they parent their child if they indeed possess such wonderful qualities?

Relinquishing mother Christina explains after an initially positive experience (which many mothers call “the honeymoon period”, in which they see themselves as being trapped in a fog in which they eventually snap out of) that the adoptive parents began to increasingly limit contact, and all of the love and support she’d initially felt from the agency and community simply vanished as soon as she’d handed her baby over.

As she states in the book,
”There’s no doubt that I could have parented her, though, so it’s hard to feel confident in my choice. That’s been really hard to navigate – I feel like I don’t have say in anything because I surrendered my rights. I don’t really wish what I have now on any other birth mom. There will always be women who choose adoption, but I want it to be better for the women to come.”

Cassie, another young woman who relinquished her son at the age of 22, explains how she had been feeling very low about herself, making just $9/hour with family she didn’t feel she could turn to for support, and how she’d initially just visited a center for a pregnancy test, which quickly turned into an immediate campaign to convince her of how wonderful it would be to give her baby up to a “family in need”:
”They were extremely supportive of the adoption, though. They were like, ‘it’s such a smart, mature decision’, which is pretty much what everyone told me…I immediately felt like adoption was my only choice. I went to an adoption agency.

I wasn’t super excited about adoption, but I went there. The agency has such a lovely, warm, welcoming performance that they put on. They say, ‘oh, you’re so smart and responsible, and you’re doing, like, the most wonderful, best thing.’ They seemed so nice. They just said, this is just going to be such a wonderful, happy thing for you and for your baby.”

While it’s wonderful that this book gives a voice to the birth mothers, who are all too often overlooked as soon as they hand their baby over (and all too often portrayed as ignorant, incapable, even unstable, in popular pop culture) I had to deduct a star for two major reasons (at least, to me).

The first reason being that although I certainly do not blame the interviewees, I could not understand why the book’s author did not edit many of their answers by at least taking out the filler words. A good journalist/researcher can change or omit a minimal amount of words without fundamentally changing the understanding of the women’s stories. Many of the birth mothers spoke extremely articulately. Yet, just because some used filler words such as “like” or repeat themselves doesn’t make them inarticulate. Often it’s just a nervous habit that can be overcome with enough practice.

I just feel as though the author could have done away with this wording. It doesn’t paint the birth mothers in an ideal light (even though as I said, I recognize it’s often anxiety leading to these problems) - yet many readers may unconsciously develop a bias of these mothers as indeed being immature and not ready for parenthood. How your story is told matters.

My second gripe is even though at the end of the book, in “a note on adoption language” Sisson mentions that she primarily uses “gendered text”, given that her research has been primarily on women - with one nonbinary participant, who still chose to describe herself as a “mother” - she “does not mean to erase the experiences of nonbinary or transgender people who have given birth and relinquished their parental rights.”

Considering she often refers to “pregnant people” in the text, and even feels it necessary to mention her research has been primarily on women, just continues to undermine the fundamental truth of pregnancy, which is that only women CAN get pregnant, making it a WOMEN’S ISSUE.

With all of the new oppressive anti-abortion legislation being enacted throughout the nation, now is not the time to raise such trivial matters as “preferred pronouns”, or to in any sense pretend that men can get pregnant. I remember reading a book about abortion stories in 2021 or 2022, which referred to “pregnant people.” I have no issue with people identifying however they want: what I DO take issue with, however, is when a very, very small minority’s rights infringes upon the rights of a historically marginalized majority.

I was right to worry back then as I am right to worry now, I believe: shortly after that book was released, and the radical left had taken to referring to pregnant mothers as “people”, my state Senator, Marco Rubio, stated a relevant point in the face of their own (il)logic: “I don’t understand how you are framing this as a women’s issue, when your Party has repeatedly stated that it is people, not women, who get pregnant.” My point? Let’s shelve the pronoun debate when we have a much more serious issue to address.

Of course, I’d still recommend this book, and I hope to see continued studies showing the truth about adoption, the darker aspects of the stories in which agencies seek to silence, as opposed to the rosy-lensed view in which most Americans have come to believe is the most definitive picture of the experience.

(Yikes, didn’t mean for this review to be so long!)

[Hayley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely breathtaking. A must-read for anyone interested in bodily autonomy and reproductive justice. This is a deeply researched book about mothers who have relinquished infants for adoption, uplifting voices that have been erased from the discourse around adoption and abortion for far too long. As Dr. Sisson explains through these women's stories, people of all political leanings have uncritically embraced adoption as this perfect solution for many social issues surrounding parenting - but that's not the reality for so many birth/first parents. Many have been coerced by private adoption agencies or felt they were left with no other choice but to relinquish when they preferred parenting or abortion but didn't have access to the resources they needed. And that says nothing of the larger structural issues of the adoption industrial complex and what makes a "good" family, another topic that Sisson covers in-depth. This book is heartbreaking in so many ways, but SO needed. It helps fill an enormous gap in social sciences research on reproductive autonomy. Will definitely be a common citation in my own work!

Thank you to St. Martin's Press for the ARC.

[Matthew Dimick · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Safe, legal, and rare” was once the expression of those advocating for reproductive choice while attempting to court more conservative or moderate “pro-life.” However, this mantra has fallen under a great deal of criticism by pro-choice and feminist scholars for fear of the stigmatization impact it may have on the abortion procedure.

Considering the conclusions and recommendations of Sisson’s book, I was waiting for her to adapt this slogan for adoption.

Before I continue, I want to be clear: overall, I believe this book is beneficial for contributing to a better understanding of the third part of the adoption triad—birth mothers. I appreciated that this book is a helpful empathetic tool in understanding the perspective of birth moms. For many adoptive families, the inner world of birth moms remains a mystery or unknown. Perhaps these stories might offer possible answers to adoptees trying to imagine the experiences of their birth parents. The 10-year later perspective is an incredible addition and shows what changes over time. Though many of the narratives express dissatisfaction with having chosen relinquishment, even those who are still certain they made the right decision share the grief they experience. Hearing their stories about manipulative practices from private adoption agencies or cohesion from community and family is heartbreaking. The need for better advocacy for birth mothers is demonstrated in the narratives about the breakdown of relationships in open adoptions with adoptive parents and unmet expectations demonstrate. Clearly, abusive practices exist, and changes should be made to enhance the autonomy of women and provide access to legal counsel that is not part of the agency’s agenda. In this sense, the book is 5 stars!

But ultimately, those narratives (and the research) act in service to Sisson’s adoption abolitionist agenda.

Sisson exposes adoption as a policy panacea for pro-life politicians and judges to inoculate against arguments for abortion access. Adoption stands as a barrier to full reproductive choice. Furthermore, through research and personal narratives, Sisson demonstrates that the lack of a social safety net means that many of these women lack autonomy to parent and are forced into relinquishment. She cites stories where women say for $500-$2,500 they would not have needed to place their child in an adoptive home. She juxtaposes this with the money that is spent by adoptive parents to adopt—drawing a distinction of power between the birthmother and adoptive parent. The powerless and the powerful. By the end of the text, Sisson’s perspective is shared that adoption is akin to other colonial practices and should be abolished for the sake of true reproductive freedom.

“If we lived in a more equitable world,” she writes, “adoption would fade into obsolescence.”

Yet 19th-century feminist made this same point concerning abortion.

Indeed, many arguments against adoption in Sisson’s book seem taken right out of the pro-choice playbook including arguments about overall satisfaction with decisions/grief/guilt. Or painting the practice as immoral. Indeed, even some of the recommendations have profoundly glaring parallels to the pro-life rhetoric. For example, the proposed mandatory counseling before choosing adoption.

It is shocking the comparisons are not addressed in the text and I feel that Sisson’s failure (or decision) not to acknowledge these similarities weakens her argument.

I was particularly surprised how quickly Sisson dismisses the selection bias evident in her methodology of drawing from support groups/snowball samples. In the experience of anyone who has ever worked with support groups—often those are the individuals feeling the most grief, anger, or ambivalence about a given subject. However, Sisson reasons: “because these groups represented a range of ideology around adoptions—with several promoting and endorsing adoption with others being more critical—the use of these groups as sites of recruitment should not suggest that these women are particularly more in need of support than other relinquishing mothers.” This just seems like a rationalization to avoid critical engagement with the inability to capture the voices of those who do not seek support groups. I do not expect that every voice could have been captured or that Sisson; that would simply be unreasonable. Why couldn’t she have acknowledged this as an actual limitation?

Another limitation is a lack of control data. Sisson presents data on the outcomes of women who were turned away from abortion clinics; but how could a study capture women turned away from the adoptive process? How do we capture what life might have been otherwise for both these birth mothers and their children? This is expressed in some of the narratives—knowing one made the right choice while also holding regret. Concerning the data on satisfaction of decision making—how do we capture how social stigma against birth moms and the social expectation on mothers to feel a certain level of attachment impact their perspective?

Last, as a person who studied social ethics and as a clinician who has often been engaged in conversations around medical ethics—particularly autonomy—I think this text would have benefited from engaging in what autonomy means. Sisson longs for a world where a person can make a choice without undue duress or limiting factors—but that is hardly ever the nature of moral decision making. Even decision made due to (often previously held) religious or personal values is looked upon with suspicion.

In the post-Dobbs world, reproductive choice is at risk. Although I long for a more equitable and socially just USA, we do not seem to be getting closer to those ideals. Adoptive families exist in an imperfect system, also struggling to provide for their children, overcome inequality and stigmatization, and trying to be morally good in an imperfect world. Maybe there’s a world where everyone has what they need and moral decisions can be made in a perfect vacuum(maybe that world is New Zealand!).

This is why I was disappointed by the ultimate conclusion of the book: it could have been grounded examination in the development of a more equitably adoption process with realistic policy proposals but instead chose to point towards sweeping aspirations peppered with a few (sometimes contradictory) recommendations.
It spites the good (the creation of adoptive families) for the sake of the perfect (a world where social/economic equality is reached). Perhaps in that world, adoption would be rare--but even in that world I would hope it would still be support rather than stigmatized.

[George Stenger]

I have not finished the book so I will review it but not rate it. I read more than 40% of the book because it was for a social justice book club.

I am biased because I have 2 adopted children from Asia. My boys were both about 5 months of age when they were adopted. I am very familiar with international adoption because we completed our home study to adopt from China through one agency. However, shortly after, China changed their requirements and if you already had a child, the possibility of adopting there were greatly diminished. We ended up working with another agency and another country.

The author starts with her view of the history of adoption. She stated that the Native American schools were to eliminate the Indian and save the person. That is accurate. However, that has been acknowledged as morally wrong. I agree that it was reprehensible, but it was in the past.

She also talks about Georgia Tann and her baby stealing adoption service. That was illegal and also reprehensible, but I am unsure of the relevance to adoption today.

She stated that many of the birth mothers had only another $2,000 or so dollars, they would have not given their child up for adoption. It could be certainly true but that is a pittance compared to the cost of raising a child.

She also states relating to additional support, "In these cases, just a minimal investment in families -- more affordable housing, easier options for public health insurance, better-paying jobs with parental and family leave, affordable and reliable child care -- would create an essential safety net that allows these mothers to raise the children that very much want to raise." Page 78. I don't disagree but the latest changes indicate that the above-mentioned support is already greatly decreased in the last couple of months and/or will soon be greatly decreased.

She states, "in recent years, only about 19,000 women have relinquished newborns annually out if approximately 4 million births and in contrast to just under 1 million abortions." I don't doubt her statistics and I reviewed international adoptions, and they have also dropped dramatically.

I also found the following facts in my research: As of 2021, there were about 113,589 children in the USA waiting to be adopted and there are more than 440,000 children in foster care. Also, in 2021, 54,200 foster kids were adopted.

Why is this relevant? I know that there is not an exact correlation, but it raises the question for me, how many of these children were entered in foster care because the parent was unable to support them.

There are no easy answers, and it would be great if all birth mothers could raise their child if they wanted. The affordability to do this is being lessened by the reduced government support.

One last point that may not be relevant, but in my oldest son's adoption, all nineteen of his living relatives had to sign off for the adoption so it was very transparent.

Sorry for the long review without finishing the book but this is a subject very near and dear to me.

[Jenna · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is chock-full of important and timely information about adoption, a topic I know I’m not alone in knowing shamefully little about. In particular, this book is interested in exploring exploitation and general poor practices within the private adoption industry; the mental health impacts on mothers who relinquish children for adoption; and how social inequities and injustice leave mothers vulnerable to making the decision to relinquish — a “choice” that often doesn’t seem like much of one at all in a society in which having children is so expensive and where minimal supports are offered to mothers, parents, children, and families in need. This is a heavy, more scholarly book -- literally a research project, as described in the methodology section in the end -- and it definitely reads like a thesis or dissertation and took me some while to get through as a result. However, the density is leavened somewhat by occasional first-person excerpts from mothers who were interviewed. (The readers in the audio version do a great job with these too.) I wish there could have been more of these and that the overall text had been revised and edited down for more mainstream readability, but it wasn’t a dealbreaker, and I’d rather this info be available in some form rather than not at all.

[Frrobins · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’d read Ann Fessler’s "The Girls Who Went Away" about the history of adoption prior to Roe v Wade and was saddened to learn about how so many women were coerced into giving their babies up for adoption, a trauma that followed them through life. "Relinquished" followed up on adoption following Roe v Wade when open adoptions became more common and pregnant women were no longer sent away to homes to spend their pregnancies in. Given that the women in Fessler’s book were severely traumatized by having to give up their babies, "Relinquished" asks whether having more control over the adoption process and whether open adoptions make the process more humane for birth mothers.

The findings were that adoption is not a popular choice, even when abortion is removed from the table. The vast majority of mothers would like to raise their babies but because of financial hardships (some of those hardships temporary) or lack of familial support were unable to. Many would have been able to keep their babies if they had been given as little as $1000 to get them set up with a car seat or get a deposit for stable housing and tide them through the transitional period, which is far less than what adoptive parents pay for the babies these mothers relinquish.

Birth mothers still went through an intense grieving process and felt it was traumatic and the vast majority went through a honeymoon period and then became more and more dissatisfied with the adoption as time went on. Either there was a falling out with the adoptive family or the birth mother realized that she was more capable of caring for her baby than she thought at the time. Even when birth mothers were given a lot of access to their children and allowed to visit having to leave them with someone else after a visit tended to be a perpetual source of guilt and pain.

The book argued strongly that adoption is not a great solution for an unplanned pregnancy by focusing on how dissatisfied birth mothers tend to be. I will say that I have worked with many women who have parented kids that weren’t planned, have had abortions and a few who have relinquished kids for adoption and the ones who relinquished their children for adoption did have the hardest and longest recovery process. Many feel as though they were not adequately informed of their rights and that being matched with an adoptive family before they gave birth made a lot of them feel obligated to relinquish their children after they were born because they didn't want to let that couple down, many of them signed papers terminating their rights when they were recovering from giving birth and some of them heavily medicated and a surprising number do not remember signing their rights away because the papers were stuck in with other hospital forms they were filling out. And while unwed mothers are no longer shuttered away to homes and forced to give up their babies, many birth mothers feel that because of financial pressures they did not have a genuine choice in relinquishing their children.

One of the big weaknesses in this book was the postmodern framework of claiming that the modern family is a social construct. By doing this I feel she missed an opportunity to talk about the science of attachment theory which really would have bolstered her case that it is hard to do ethical adoptions. Yes, we humans are smart but at the end of the day we are mammals with the drives of a mammal. We are an adaptable species and this has enabled us to settle in a myriad of environments but every human culture grapples with the intensive demands of rearing our young. Human infants and children require a longer period of dependency than any other animal and for that reason we have certain hardwired survival instincts that are far stronger than culture and reason.

One of those is how mothers bond with their babies before they are born and how babies bond with their mothers before they are born. Mothers in any culture feel a strong drive to take care of their children. We have to feel this to push us through caring for a helpless infant when we’re tired and exhausted from pregnancy and childbirth (especially tens of thousands of years ago when we were hunter gatherers and didn’t have homes and beds to rest and recuperate in). After a baby is born the mother and infant are not truly separate beings, they form a complex dyad that is fascinating and that science is still unraveling. This is hardwired human biology and it is not a social construct.
Once again, we are an adaptable species, so if mom is sick, unavailable or dead the baby can attach to another caregiver, but there will be an early attachment trauma from the loss of the mother that the infant spent 9 months growing in. Newborns prefer to look at their moms, they prefer their mom’s smell and their mom’s voice. A good enough caregiver can step in and heal the attachment trauma and sometimes this has to happen, but as someone who works in mental health I also feel that this is something that we need to avoid if possible. This is also why I feel that if a child is placed for adoption we need to also weigh the risks to that infant of grieving the loss of their mother, forming a bond with a new caretaker, and then being given back to their mother (or another caregiver) again.

Monogamy, which Sisson derides as a western social construct is very successful way of ensuring that children are more likely to survive and thrive. Yes, other cultures find other successful ways to do this, we are an adaptable species, but it was more than an imperialistic belief system driving monogamies’ success. Where we have diverged is how our modern society has moved away from alloparenting, with extended social networks helping to raise a child. This puts a lot of pressure on parents and many families feel the loss of the village, so when an adoptive family and a birth mother can make that work that is a beautiful thing, but I also wonder how realistic it is to expect that with a ticking clock of an unplanned pregnancy, a couple hoping to adopt with financial means putting their best face forward, and a vulnerable and financially strapped mother trying to accurately gauge their character and whether the adoptive couple and mother can truly get to know each other and determined whether or not they really want to make an 18 year commitment to each other before everything is signed and done.

Overall I do agree that more needs to be done to support mothers, who are doing valuable work by raising the next generation of children. I have a lot of compassion for couples experiencing infertility and the pain that results and unfortunately encouraging mothers with unplanned pregnancies to adopt to meet the demand for couples wanting babies is a solution I feel is cruel to both the birth mother and baby. Sometimes it does have to happen but it should be avoided if possible.

And by dismissing the biological basis for a lot of these drives and embracing a postmodernist philosophy Sisson really undermined her book in a way that was frustrating. Basically her arguments could have been a lot stronger if she had leaned into attachment theory.

A final frustration, having worked with parents with CPS cases and having worked with children who have experienced abusive situations so horrific that it has given me nightmares, having financial resources does not stop abusive parenting. Now people who have money are more likely to get away with abuse but it also doesn’t mean that abusive people who are poor wouldn’t be abusive if they had money. Sisson does acknowledge that sometimes certain people shouldn’t raise their kids but also wants to leave the door open to parents having access to their kids. To this I say that mothers like Diane Downs are not going to become loving, good mothers with money, time and all of the therapy in the world will not cure them and should not have any access to their children, ever. Severe psychopathy does not result from systemic oppression and we have every right to be discerning and judgmental when faced with it and we have every right to protect children from a parent who is a psychopath or is otherwise severely mentally impaired.

Overall there was a lot I agreed with Sisson on. I don’t think there are ways we can do adoption that aren’t traumatic for the mother and baby and therefore we should do more to support mothers. I do agree that mothers interested in relinquishing their children for adoption need to have access to lawyers who are not benefiting from them agreeing to adoption to inform them of their options and I think this book raises interesting questions about the ethics of pairing prospective birth moms with prospective adoptive parents before the birth has taken place. But this book could have been a lot stronger with some different framing.

[Jessica Lozoya · Rating 3 out of 5]

What a perspective changing read! Such a sad, heavy topic that it took me a while to get through. 3 stars for feeling a bit like my college essays, fact heavy and a bit repetitive. Sorry, I had to throw in a joke to bring some levity after having my heart treaded on for a few weeks…

[Meg · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would definitely recommend this book. The end got a little dry but it was really interesting overall. It explores the US cultural narrative around adoption, and how the “feel good” vibes most people have on this topic are missing a big part of the story. We typically focus on the joy of adoptive parents, but ignore the inequality and trauma that are required to make adoption possible.

If you want a more extensive summary of what stood out to me, read on.

—-

This book was written by a sociologist and draws heavily from her conversations with women who gave their children up for adoption. Almost none of the women who gave their children up for adoption *wanted* to do so. They did so because they felt they had no other choice. In many cases, the support they felt they would have needed to be capable of parenting was incredibly small - but they did not find it. (Those who actively went searching for resources or advice were often directed to adoption agencies, who preyed on their fears by telling them they were incapable of parenting and needed to give the child to someone who could do a better job.)

The number of people waiting to adopt is much higher than the number of babies available. This creates a market incentive for adoption agencies - and hopeful parents - to disregard the interests of expectant mothers and push them towards adoption. Expectant mothers are often given inaccurate information about topics such as: How often do mothers regret giving their children up for adoption? (Often) What kind of contact will they have with their children? (Much less than promised - often none) Is adoption best for the child? (Maybe - but it is also linked with a variety of mental health issues and isn’t a simple ‘yes’.) It’s not just private money either - government funds are spent promoting these pro-adoption narratives and exploring issues like “why aren’t more babies available for adoption?” (In fact, it’s a rare example of bipartisan agreement!)

Lastly, private adoption is pretty much always the transfer of children to people who are in a position of power from people who are not. This is only possible because such dramatic inequality exists, so maybe we should be thinking of adoption as the symptom of a social problem rather than as a solution.

With this mindset, we might ask: What prevents expectant mothers from feeling capable of raising their own children, and how might we address those barriers?

Maybe this makes the problem seem overwhelming, as if we have to solve poverty before we can do anything. Actually - the money is out there, we’re just spending it in wacky ways. If you adopt a child you can get a tax credit of up to $16k to help cover the costs. (Apparently we spend $1 billion a year on this.) Meanwhile, this book claims that of birth mothers they surveyed, most said they would have needed just $2.5K to have been able to parent their own kids. This would primarily help cover the cost of rent while they were unable to work. It seems that if we just reallocated government spending on this issue, most mothers would feel able to parent their children themselves (and in theory, this would cost just a fraction of the current credit!)

This is clearly a complex topic, but these are the ideas I was left with after reading this book. It was definitely thought provoking, and I’ll have to wait and see how my perspective keeps shifting as I learn more.

[Also for context, I was a bit wary of adoption when I started reading this book - it seemed weird to me that you are sort of buying a child - but was still open to it as a means of family building I might one day use. I was curious to learn if the author would recommend specific practices to look for in an agency or steps to take that might make the exchange more ethical. There were some ideas for what might be “better” but I did not leave with the feeling that any were “good.” Based on what I learned, I do not think I would choose to build my family through adoption.]

—-

For myself: manually adding highlighted quotes

“[Adoption] abolition is about creating the conditions under which adoption, as practiced today, becomes obsolete… the conditions under which families are not separated as a result of systemic oppression…and in which children are not commodified and displaced for the benefit of others’ family-making desires and a lucrative industry.”

“If we understand adoption as a practice intended to meet the needs of children and not the dreams of would-be parents, then the desires of those who wish to become parents through adoption are not truly relevant to whether adoption, as it is currently practiced, should continue to exist.”

[Laura Solar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Adoption isn’t a subject I ever gave much thought to, but overall, I saw it in a relatively positive light. Relinquished taught me so much and completely made me rethink the way I feel on the subject. While incredibly well-researched, the writing never feels too academic or inaccessible, and the way birth mothers’ stories are interwoven throughout gives the book a really nice flow. Reading about the trauma experienced by mothers who have relinquished devastated me, particularly when many years had gone by with little to no progress on healing. The chapter I found most intriguing discussed how adoption is shown in pop culture, and how much it shapes the opinions of viewers. I can certainly admit to never giving birth mothers much thought in the past, but seeing the way they are presented with this new lens truly appalled me. I found it so interesting to see how the birth mothers interviewed came from vastly different backgrounds and situations, but all came to the same basic conclusion when reflecting on their adoptions: Abortion access is essential, and adoption is not a solution to unplanned pregnancy.

Through countless interviews with sociologists, adoptees, birth mothers, and other experts, Dr. Sisson has written a thoroughly compelling book that will make you rethink what you’ve been conditioned to believe and demand we work to change it.

[Karenbike Patterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it because I learned the updated version of how the system works today. But I "relinquished" in the closed system days before the birth control pill and before Roe V Wade. Those were the days when you didn't have sex before marriage, you didn't get pregnant out of wedlock, and you were forever shamed by your family, friends, and society if you did get "knocked up." You were a slut.

This author has chosen antidotes that are rather one-sided. They are women who want to mother their babies but are either poor, homeless, jobless, waited too long, or it's against their religious beliefs and practices. But what of the women who didn't want babies, and didn't want to be a mother- ever? What of the mothers who were relieved by relinquishing? What of those who wanted the privacy of the closed files? In the "old days," these women were assured that privacy was a law frozen and unchanged. Not true. Now birth mothers can be found, identified, and introduced. What are their rights?

However, I do agree that women who want to keep their babies need more justice. They need help with finding and paying for apartments, transportation, health care, and training. Biracial babies need to be supported and not "Scooped up" and adopted by all-white families. If this nation is going to outlaw abortions, then it needs to support mothers who want to keep them.

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

I grew up being taught that adoption was the obvious solution for unwanted pregnancy. I mean, adoption makes everyone happy! Adoptive parents get a baby! Baby gets a stable and loving home! Birth mom doesn't have to worry about raising a baby she doesn't want! I could say SO MUCH about this book, but the short version is, it turns out this is another thing I was taught that doesn't work quite the way I was taught. That's really turning into a thing!

The two most impactful things for me were this:

1) Most women who relinquish babies aren't choosing between abortion and adoption, they're choosing between parenting and adoption. And it turns out that deciding that you're not in a place to parent - especially when that decision isn't really based on who you are but on outside circumstances - circumstances that could change! - is pretty traumatizing. Carrying a child that you'd love to parent to term and then giving it away is really hard! I mean, when I type it out that like it seems like common sense, but boy, does the pro-life community just blow right by that. Most women actually don't regret having an abortion. Most deeply regret relinquishing a baby for adoption even when their child ends up in a loving and happy home. Because the child still isn't with them.
2) A lot of the birth moms interviewed over the course of this book talk about how the message they received from crisis counselors, adoption agencies, etc. sometimes subtly and sometimes blatantly, was that they didn't deserve to be mothers. Sisson really interrogates how we as a society fail families of origin over and over and over, especially when they're not in privileged classes. It's not a coincidence that adoption pretty much always transfers an infant from someone with few resources and little societal privilege to someone with lots of resources and more societal privilege.

Anyway, as someone who was raised in a very "Adoption is the answer!" community and who seriously looked into both domestic and international adoption for a while, I found this book to be challenging, thought-provoking, and kind of devastating.

[Claire · Rating 5 out of 5]

The timing of this book is so pertinent to what is occurring in the US at the moment and it is heartening to know that the injustices that exist around the societal narrative and cultural conditioning of adoption are being given such in depth study, backed up by case studies of mothers and especially the re-interviewing of them 10 years down the road, where in virtually every case, things changed significantly and not for the better.

There is so much to share from this, but I'll be coming back to note down what I want to remember from this book.

If you have any interest in the subject of family preservation, and creating conditions where families are supported not separated, read this. If you want to know the truth behind the experience of relinquishing a child (a lifelong trauma), not to mention the impact that has on the child (loving family or not), become more well informed by reading this excellent work.

[Carrie Rose · Rating 2 out of 5]

I struggled with what rating to give this book, because I respect the author and I think she told a lot of stories that needed to be told, but ultimately, I only gave it two stars because I just didn't personally like it much. Sisson was honest about how she did her recruiting and interviewing for the stories for her book, and it was not designed to be random or unbiased.

She constantly used the term "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" unless she was quoting someone. "Anti-abortion" is accurate, I suppose, but in most cases she was careful to use the terms preferred by the people to whom she was referring. Since most people against abortion prefer the term "pro-life," it felt like she was being deliberately disrespectful. That's her prerogative as an author, but over the course of the book, it grated on me.

Ultimately, I disagreed with enough of Sisson's points that it got really annoying to be hit with them over and over. I would have appreciated the book more if it had told the birth mothers' stories with fewer of her conclusions thrown in. But I completely understand why she included her own opinions - it's her book!

What I hope would come from her book would be more support for pregnant women, including help making parenting plans, and making sure they have accurate information. But I haven't turned against adoption because of this book.

[Abby · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The desire to parent that I found at the heart of many relinquishing mothers’ stories is a narrative lost in the rhetorical contrast of abortion and adoption. More often than not, adoption is not about ‘saving babies’ from abortion. Instead, adoption is about transferring infants from mothers that have become convinced—by virtue of their poverty, their youth, or their single status, or all three—that they are poorly prepared to parent. While adoption has been framed as the political common ground in the abortion debate, supporting people in parenting probably ought to have been the goal that both sides of the aisle rallied around.”

A heart-rending but research-based account of why Americans love to celebrate adoptions—and how the mothers (and babies who are relinquished) never really get over that separation and trauma. Reading this made me feel reinforced in my conviction that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare—and that this country can do a hell of a lot more to support mothers. There’s a question Sisson asks rhetorically of anti-abortion advocates who push adoption on women that has been sticking in my mind: Under what circumstances would you give up your own child? Try to answer that before you suggest that impoverished women do.

[Kaitlyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a deeply researched book about mothers who have relinquished their babies for adoption. This book gives birth mothers a voice and tells many of their stories. It raises the idea that placing a child for adoption results in deep, long lasting trauma for the birth mom (even in ideal situations). Open adoptions aren’t always open and it depicts the reality of life for the birth mom after her baby is relinquished to the adoptive parents. This is a must read for anyone interested in reproductive justice.

[Jenna Deaton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Relinquished is an interesting and at times heartbreaking look at the topic of adoption. In reading this work, I have recognized that there is a lot I did not know about private adoption and about the way options are presented to those who are pregnant. I will definitely be looking deeper into this topic and I’m thankful to the author for writing.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book, about a topic i have thought and learned a lot about, still offered me more perspectives i haven't been fully present to. it helped deepen my empathy and my commitment to talking honestly about the unethical nature of how non-kinship adoption happens. it mixes history with a lot of personal stories and is really well-narrated. this book was thoughtful and deeply human.

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the US adoption is seen as a win/win - a young woman who's not ready to parent can give her child to a more stable family and a family struggling with infertility can have a child to love. Adoption is also seen as a "middle ground" between abortion and parenting - something seemingly everyone can agree is a good thing. More recently open adoptions have become the norm after the backlash from the pre-Roe era when many women in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s were forced to give up children produced out of wedlock in closed adoptions. But in Relinquished Gretchen Sisson pulls back the curtain on adoption after spending 10 years interviewing birth mothers about their experience with giving up a child for adoption. What she reveals is eye-opening. I think most people who know someone involved in adoption either know adoptive parents or an adopted child. Birth mothers are still shamed and not really publicly discussed unless they are used as a symbol of the anti-abortion movement. There are MANY factors that contribute to a woman choosing abortion or adoption. But now that we're in a post-Roe US that changes things even more. Sisson is very thorough in the book covering the history of adoption in the US, the pre-Roe era, all the way to our current adoption climate. I think this is a hard book overall to read - especially for adoptive parents or birth parents. But I think anyone who pushes adoption as the best choice for everyone really needs to read this book. My main takeaway from this book is that probably 99% of birth mothers regret their decision and that is something that needs to be heard.

Some quotes I liked:

"...the same CDC report would suggest that there are at least forty-five prospective families waiting to adopt for every infant relinquished for domestic adoption." (p. 16)

"In April 2020, I was invited to attend a meeting hosted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This convening of adoption researchers, advocates, and lobbyists was intended to help develop ' strategies for overcoming barriers to private infant adoption.'...What was never asked: Why do we want to increase adoptions? If the decrease in adoptions reflects a lowering birth rate because people have more tools to prevent unintended pregnancies, why is that a problem? If fewer relinquishments means that more people feel equipped to parent in the way they would like to, why do we want the number of adoptions to go up? Who is being served here?" (p. 41-43)

"What is particularly sad about these stories is that, more often than not, little was done to support these mothers, even as they came into contact with social service workers, healthcare facilities, and adoption agencies. The only intervention offered to them was the opportunity to transfer their child to another family. They received little support accessing safe and affordable housing, medical treatment, or addiction services; they were almost never offered options like temporary guardianships, crisis nurseries, or other types of care that would allow them to retain their parental rights while navigating their own paths to safety and wellness." (p. 76)

"This idea of openness overlooks the ways that ongoing connection is valuable and protective for everyone involved, and often means that adoptive families have less of a commitment to making the open adoption work than the birth parents do. Often the burden falls on relinquishing mothers to initiate visits, stay in the adoptive family's good graces, and accommodate the adoptive parents' conception of an open adoption over their own desires - or risk having contact cease altogether." (p. 115)

"So much of adoption is adoptive parent centered, and if you think that adoption is a beautiful thing from that side, then you can't really accept how dark it is from the losing side." (p. 166)

"My colleagues [of the Turnaway Study] found that women who relinquish infants experienced the highest incident of regret and the most negative feelings about their pregnancies, compared to both women who received the abortions they wanted and women who chose to parent after being denied abortion care...many of the mothers I interviewed turned to adoption because they believed they would be less likely to regret that outcome than if they were to have an abortion." (p. 176-77)

[Bethany Hanson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Book highlighting stories around infant adoption- the good, the bad, & why individuals choose adoption & the systemic failures that commonly lead to this choice.
It’s important to note the book only discusses infant adoptions, mostly through adoption agencies & this is not representative of all adoptions (but I’m guessing the systemic failures of our society would only be further highlighted in other adoption stories).

[Robyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

FDigitalLibrary | Devastating | Earlier this spring, I attended a presentation by a transracial adoptee and his adoptive mom, in which they stressed the point that "Adoption always starts with the death of a relationship". While this was a family with a lot of love and support for each other, the presentation, and the emphasis on grief being an inherent part of adoption, made me start thinking more critically about something I hadn't deeply considered before. In my volunteering with foster youth, I have dealt intimately with "failed adoption", and I have seen the results of people who think all they have to provide is a White home, a middle class home, and those things *automatically* make them "better" parents than the biological parents. I've seen the fallout of churches pushing their parishioners to adopt, creating communities in which couples are coerced into adopting in order to bring children to the church and adoptive parents are socially shamed out of admitting their struggles, seeking help outside of the faith, or questioning the dogma of their ultimate right to others' children. I've seen cultural ties severed, biological parents spoken of disparagingly, savior narratives, and a rush to dismiss an adoptee's trauma in favor of the idea that they were "meant" to be parented by the adoptive parents. I've seen people applaud at foster-to-adopt hearings, walk away, and never think of the child again. In my personal life I've known wealthy adoptive parents who received children at birth from mothers who selected them during the pregnancy. I've known teen moms who raised their babies and teen moms who relinquished because their parents decided. I've known adoptees of various ages. I've even known a young father who didn't learn there had been a pregnancy until three years after the baby was relinquished and he could not know his child. I've known lots of people who have had abortions, both friends and in my volunteering in support of PPA. I have a family member who was adopted by kin following maternal death during childbirth. I feel like I have been surrounded by many different types of parenting stories.
And yet, somehow I never sat down and thought about whether adoption, in general, makes sense and is equitable. It was just one of the choices, right? I fought for a society in which pregnant people could choose parenting, adoption, abortion. Relinquished made me reconsider my assumptions, and opened my eyes to some prejudices I didn't know I had about what is "best for the baby" and "best for the mother". In my portion of the foster care volunteer world, we want reunification if it can be managed. We try to help parents to parent, find the social and emotional supports, keep families together as much as we can. I know what separation does to all parties. And I know the statistics of the long-term effects of adoption on adoptees, especially transracial adoption. But I had simply failed to apply that knowledge to birth mothers. I recently reviewed a memoir about a couple's experience with foster-to-adopt, which made me deeply uncomfortable because it was all the ways the adoptive parents wanted to game the system to get the baby they wanted, so *they could have a baby*. It was all centered on their desires, and their longing for someone else's child. Relinquished extrapolated my unease with that couple out into unease with the adoption system. That someone has the money to support their want does not elevate them to a position of being more worthy of fulfilling that want. This was almost a one-sitting read, so it's really filled up my thoughts. I suspect I'll have a couple of critical notes after it's settled (the very last section veered abruptly into changed terms, and as a disabled person I take deep exception to activists who use the term Crip. I know what they think they're doing and, no. I hate being called Crip or being told someone is fighting for Crip justice so much that when I hear it I can't see that person as working alongside me, a disabled person, in good faith. Stop it.), but as I write this review I've already recommended the book to three people. On a Sunday evening when I don't generally pester people.

[Alexis · Rating 5 out of 5]

this was enraging and horrifying. It’s exclusively about babies who are relinquished as infants, not foster care (a different and separate ethical problem).

The short version is that infant adoption, as practiced in the US, is unethical and in my opinion, maybe not reformable. Certainly not as long as adoption is arranged by agencies with a vested interest in maintaining themselves. We like to think that adoption has moved on from Georgia Tann and the Girls Who Went Away. In a lot of ways, we haven't. We may not send girls to unwed mothers' homes, but girls and women are still pressured into adoption explicitly and implicitly, and the ways in which the agencies operate are still unethical and in some cases illegal (violations of ICWA, threatening women if they don't go through). Their business is supplying babies. They lie to women about adoption, promising support and access that don't exist. They sponsor adoption related education in schools (sometimes the money for this is taken from block-granting TANF that could have been used to support families).

We know that women, when they have the choice, usually choose to parent or have an abortion. Adoption is by far the least popular choice. But agencies and conservative politicians love adoption. They set up a system of political and social pressure that denies women the alternatives. True reproductive justice means that all choices are available and accessible: avoiding pregnancy, abortion, adoption, and parenting. Meanwhile they promote a social narrative that sees birth mothers as selfless and adoptive parents as saviors.

The stories of the birth mothers profiled arr heartbreaking and complex. Too often their stories are not told because we want to believe in the fiction that it’s all about what’s best for the baby. I know I have a bias here — as I’ve said my own mother was a birth mother. But even without that bias I think this book would have convinced me.

[Erin Matson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Domestic adoption happens most of all because the birth mother doesn’t think she can raise a child. Usually it’s about money and/or deeply gendered and and racialized notions about who is fit to parent. In this brilliant, deeply researched book, Gretchen Sisson lays out the horrors of domestic adoption from the perspective of relinquishing mothers. It’s a brutal and sad read, and infuriating because even modest social supports might have prevented the tragedies these women experienced.

The anti-abortion movement is a crock, and the notion that adoption is a solution to banning abortion even more-so. As many of the women Sisson spoke to point out, the trauma of adoption can be never-ending.

Finally, I want to be clear there are other forms of adoption not interrogated, or in some cases, much introduced at all in Sisson’s work. I would be remiss to say I am an adoptee myself, under very different circumstances than the people she interviewed. And I can solidly say my adoption by my father is one of the best things that’s happened to me. That doesn’t negate the important point she’s making about the women in this country being pressured to give their children to wealthier families.

[Amber Jimerson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must-read, regardless of whether or not you are involved in adoption.

It is certainly not every day that someone personally unaffected by a life experience would choose to dedicate so much time and energy into investigating, researching, comprehensively understanding, and then giving a voice to those most marginalized in that experience. This is what Gretchen has done with adoption and with mothers who have relinquished children to adoption. In the process she has tied together many fundamental truths about how we got here and why, and where we might hope to go in the future.

I've been in the same spaces she drew insight from for many years now and yet there was so much data and information I was surprised to read. 'Relinquished' will be a top recommendation going forward.

Gretchen has created such an important work, maybe precisely because it does not come from someone within the adoption community. I hope many outside of our echo chambers engage with her work and continue the conversation.

[Vivian · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read one other book about relinquishing mothers related to international adoption, so I had a related background in this subject. But nothing could've prepared me for how different these two contexts are, and that is thanks to Sisson's cogent, concise, and thorough illustration of pregnancy in America. For anybody concerned about the accessibility of a more research-heavy, nonfiction book, do not be afraid. I felt that this was very easy to read, especially because of the testimonials throughout. I was reading it partially out of personal interest, and partially for a book club--I ended up way more invested than I expected.

While this is hardly a comprehensive picture of domestic adoption in the US, I do think it's an almost exhaustive look at the perspective of relinquishing mothers. It's genuinely impressive, particularly because she follows up ten years later and gives us a perspective I never could've expected but absolutely needed. Sisson doesn't shy away from the realities of giving up a child, or of theoretical motherhood. I think she lays out a very clear pathway of the minimum things we'd have to do to make domestic adoption a more ethical practice (which is great if you're reading this from the perspective of wanting to make a change). Importantly, it never really feels like preaching because often times she is just quoting relinquish mothers, and when she is making a statement from her own perspective, she has laid out such a stunning argument prior that it starts to feel self-evident, rather than preaching. I think there's also still enough acknowledgment about the complications and complexities at every turn that, even then, she doesn't feel overly prescriptive.

I felt consistently challenged by the material and in my assumptions about what it is birth mothers want; why they give kids up; the assumptions we make about poverty; and so much more. I feel that this is probably one of the best nonfiction, quasi-political books I've ever read. I'd recommend it to anyone, whether or not they're all that invested in the subject.

[NoraDawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very thorough, researched, and well written book about what a disadvantaged pregnant person experiences when/if they begin to explore the possibility of adoption. I learned so much about what that experience is like, the pressure placed on the expectant mothers and the feelings that follow, as well as the many ways they are treated dishonestly, unfairly, and without compassion. One of the most interesting things to me is that restricting abortion does not lead to an increase in infants available for adoption. I'm glad to be so much better informed about this topic after reading this book.