Talk:Open adoption

Initial comments

I believe that eveyone that can have a kid should also be able to have the responsibilities it takes to take care of the kid. no one should abort there baby or put them up for adoption.

You are 100% correct.

SO, you would rather have a pregnant 15 year old, drop out of school to care for a child when she is still a child herself? According to the statements above, no help should be provided to this teen mother. Adoption is a very viable alternatie as it allows a second chance both to the birth mother and the child. 68.4.74.17 20:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideally nobody would get pregnant unless they could handle it.

Wikipedia is not really a place for these comments, though I agree with the above statement. In response to the pregnant teenager cenario, that's why you find a foster family or relative to help you until you yourself can assume responsibiltiy. Emperor001 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the focus on newborn adoption?

This article, like so much of public perception of adoption, makes it sound like domestic newborn adoption is "normal" adoption and adoption of children through the foster care system is some kind of uncommon variation. Instead of listing foster/older adoption like it's an afterthought, why not rewrite the whole article so that both types of adoption are portrayed as "typical" adoptions? Triangular (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations

{{cn}} citations are needed on this page and should be in <ref> format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Many women who place their children for adoption are not only adults, but parents themselves. I myself am a birthmom who placed my son when I was 26 because of financial and social difficulties.

Placing a child for adoption can be a responsible and wise choice that benefits the child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindy.psbm (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Info from adoption

Here's some info from adoption, it was put the wrong spot. Further, it should be shortened and sumarized. And the conclusion at the end is totally inappropriate. WLU 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Other adoptions are open from the start with expectant parents meeting prospective adopters and agreeing on a mutual arrangement of contact which may be through letters, sending photos or in personal visits. True open adoption involves a relationship between the child and his original family, not just between the two sets of parents.

A longitudinal study of changes in adoption practices related to openness found increasing numbers of agencies are offering fully disclosed adoption - from 36% in 1987 to 79% in 1999. Fully disclosed adoption is defined in "The Impact of Openness on Adoption Agency Practices: A Longitudinal Perspective" as "when the parties share information, and/or meetings, and/or phone calls, and the sharing is conducted directly with the other party." According to the study by Henney, McRoy, Ayers-Lopez and Grotevant, by 1999 only one-third of agencies were offering confidential adoptions ("no information is shared beyond 6 months after placement") and none were offering confidential only. The study, published in Adoption Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 3, consisted of phone interviews with private adoption agency staff in 1987-1989 (31 agencies), 1993 (34 agencies) and 1999 (24 agencies). The shift in practice has occurred primarily because of birthmother demand - in 1999, 87% of agencies reported that as a factor for the practice change. To order this article, go to: http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=J145.2000

As of December 2005, 22 U.S. states have statutes that allow open adoption contact agreements, while 28 do not. In most jurisdictions, however, such agreements are not legally enforceable.

Openness in adoption is healthier for adoptees who suffer less feelings of rejection and abandonment and are not confused as to who is their mother.

References

History of open adoption

I moved the following paragraph here because it paints confidential adoption as having come about via questionable motives, yet doesn't have a reliable source (a citation needs more than an author and a year). --Ed Brey (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoptions became closed when social pressures mandated that families preserve the myth that they were formed biologically. One researcher has referred to these families, that made every attempt to match the child physically to their adoptive families, as 'as if' families.

References

Merge from adoption

When merging from Adoption, a few topics had duplicate coverage, in which case I retained the coverage that seemed the most relevant and unbiased. For the history section, I wrote a more comprehensive treatment. There had been a paragraph that open adoptions aren't new which I didn't include, instead focusing on a context of adoptions between parties who don't know each other. The statement, "In many cases, adoption was seen as a social support: young children were adopted out not only to help their parents (by reducing the number of children they had to support) but also to help another family by providing an apprentice," should be re-included with a source and context (how open were such adoptions?). The statement, "Openness became the norm when infants available for adoption became scarce, and birth parents had the ability to negotiate acceptable terms for their children, including the ability to participate in decisions about who they wanted to parent their child." would need a source to be included. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The history of adoption is currently a bit disjointed and confusing. One point of clarification needed is to differentiate open adoption between parties that knew each other previously and those that were matched only after deciding to adopt. This confusion makes the clause "Although open adoptions are thought to be a relatively new phenomenon" confusing. --Ed Brey (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with closed adoption

Much of the content on Closed adoption overlaps with Adoption and Open adoption. I propose merging Open adoption and Closed adoption into a single article Openness in adoption. Thoughts? --Ed Brey (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WHOAH! Stop. You've already made major changes to this article without discussing them first. I notice the history of open adoption has now become a history of closed adoption and strangely now neglects to mention at all that all US adoptions were open until the 20th century. Instead it states the opposite... Let's talk about these changes and getting some balance back before you go making any more, please. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you can have an "open adoption" with "open records" and a "closed adoption" with "closed records," an "open adoption" with "closed records" and a "closed adoption" with "open records." I would urge caution here too. Шизомби (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted merge of content from adoption - no consensus for it. By all means expand what's here in a NPOV and referenced way, but let's keep the accuracy. Adoption in most of the Western world started as open, then became closed in the last century, before openning again. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding questions on the summarization merge not related to the proposed merge with closed adoption, I added more info on the merge to the merge section above. --Ed Brey (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro: The histories of open and closed adoption are tied together, and so the history covers both; a combined openness in adoption article would naturally address both. --Ed Brey (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro: Regarding the variability in the various degrees of openness (e.g. an "Open adoption" with "closed records"), I believe addressing these would be an advantage of a combined "openness in adoption" page. --Ed Brey (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro: Would make information on the adoption controversy more accessible because it will not be scattered as it is now. (Avoiding information scattering is also a benefit of having a clear distinction between the summary in Adoption versus the main article.) --Ed Brey (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The pro/con stuff needs to include the point of view that openness before birth can often lead a birth parent to feel coerced to place the child rather than parent the child. A lot of ethical adoption activists feel that it's totally out of place for a prospective adoptive parent to be going to doctor's appointments, be present for the birth, etc., because it makes the birth parent(s) feel that they can't then change their mind and decide to parent their child, which should of course always be an option. Triangular (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Natural parents

Why does this page refer to "natural" parents? Adoptive parents are not unnatural. "Biological parent" is a more accurate phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.230.225 (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed

US only?

I'm not an expert on this field, but it does strike me that the details here refer specifically to US adoption law. If so, this should be clarified. Tsuguya (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm Mikiyas Getachew. I'm in Ethiopia Addis Ababa;

Email Address;
         mikiasgetachew23@gmail.com

Contact;;; +251922855966 Mikiyas Getachew (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Open adoption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512145410/http://adoption.about.com/od/adoptionrights/a/historyofopen.htm to http://adoption.about.com/od/adoptionrights/a/historyofopen.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-open-adoptions.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Summon/Record?id=FETCH-LOGICAL-c1346-8a25fdc07e0a1257e1bc2b7e8d11586e554550fafe69b4c63d73c774959a59de1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.allforchildren.org/for-birth-parents/your-adoption-choices.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213112859/http://apostille.us/news/bill_looks_to_open_adoption_records.shtml to http://apostille.us/news/bill_looks_to_open_adoption_records.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912150651/http://originsusa.memberlodge.org/Default.aspx?pageId=24588 to http://originsusa.memberlodge.org/Default.aspx?pageId=24588

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

More than one link either did not work or the article had been deleted. Also, the links are not very up to date. Lastly, some references are from biased sources. Bmichelleh (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Bmichelleh, I moved your comment to the bottom, where new comments go. OK--which links aren't "up to date" and what do you mean with that? And what sources you say are biased? Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Dr Aaij, More than one link either did not work or the article had been deleted-- http://www.allforchildren.org/for-birth-parents/your-adoption-choices.php; History of Adoption: Closed Adoption. There is not a single link from after 2013. Some of them even go back as far as 2008. The link Closed Adoption, SharedJourney is biased. Oddly enough, it is biased on closed adoptions. The link http://www.sisterwish.com/ is a blog with nothing but biased stories and peoples opinions. Bmichelleh (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Bmichelleh, good work. Mind you, something's not wrong because it's from before 2008. This SharedJourney stuff, you'll need to explain how that is biased. Now pull all that together, in a couple of paragraphs with specific details, and that will be good. But don't forget to also look at the actual article (its text, its coverage, etc.), not just the references. BTW, are there references that are academic articles, books, etc.? Dr Aaij (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Dr Aaij, more than one link either did not work or the article had been deleted- http://www.allforchildren.org/for-birth-parents/your-adoption-choices.php; Access to Adoption Records; History of Adoption: Closed Adoption; http://www.onevoicenosecrets.org/main/. There is not a single link from after 2013. Some of them even go back as far as 2008. This explains why almost half of the links are dead. The information is not up to date and should be edited to accommodate those doing research today.

      There are many places in the text that could be worded differently to explain facts in a more coherent manner. For example, I would change the last sentence in the first paragraph to read, “In Open Adoptions, the adoptive parents hold all the rights as the legal parents. Both the biological and adoptive families may exercise their right to contact one another. This contact may include but is not limited to sending mail and/or photos, phone calls, or having face-to-face visits.” Also, percent and % are alternated throughout the text. I propose changing all of the signs to the spelled-out version.

      The link http://www.sisterwish.com/ is a blog with nothing but biased stories and people’s opinions. Due to this, it is not a reliable source. I also feel that this article is biased to the United States. It seldom talks about adoption in other countries. I feel that the article should be titled Open Adoption in the United States. Bmichelleh (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

      • I'd agree with most of that; the blog - while not necessarily biased, it's one person's lived experience - can't be used as a reliable source; and the article is definitely US-centric. I'd agree with moving the page to the new title as proposed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)