It may come as a surprise to those not intimately involved in the world of adoption that there is a significant school of anti-adoptionists. I try to listen to their points of view and gain understanding of their perspectives. Many of these anti-adoption folks are adoptees themselves with some powerful negative life experiences that developed their current stance against adoption.
Sadly, every so often there is a media focus—sometimes even a media frenzy—on an adoption-gone-wrong, because hey, nice adoption stories where everyone lives happily-ever-after don't really sell the news, do they? When I see these stories, I can't help but think that the situations are ones that fuel the arguments of the anti-adoptionists, and who can blame them? Adoption-gone-wrong is a messy, painful trauma.
Yesterday, unfortunately, I came across one such story, in which a man is alleging his son was placed for adoption by the birth mother without the knowledge or consent of the birth father.
Where do I start?
First and foremost, news agencies or anyone else talking about adoption—STOP CALLING IT "GIVING THE CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION!" This terminology is blatantly negative and there are about 200 better choices, such as: made an adoption plan, placed the child with a family for adoption, or any other phrase that does NOT make the adoptee feel "given up," nor make subtle judgment of the birth parents.
Okay, adoption language rant done. Don't worry, you'll get used to them.
Like almost all of these high-profile adoption-gone-wrong situations, we are left with far more questions than answers upon hearing about this particular case.
Why has this case supposedly been going on for three years now? The baby was born in 2010. Who is advocating for the child and an expedient legal ruling, so that the child has his life and parentage determined as quickly as possible?
What would make a birth mother completely exclude the child's birth father from her adoption plan? I acknowledge that there are people out there capable of doing such a thing, but it does bear consideration that perhaps the birth mother DID in fact consider giving custody to the birth father, but decided not to for a valid reason that we are not privy to rather than the malicious retribution the birth father is suggesting occurred. Remember, there are always two sides to a story and this article does not interview or appear to present the birth mother's position.
Why didn't the birth father register his biological interests in his son with the registry that apparently exists for such a purpose in Utah, even if the birth mother threatened him not to?
I could probably write a book of further questions that are unanswered by the media's coverage of this heartbreaking case, but those questions don't really matter.
The birth father may or may not be a victim in this scenario. We may never know the true situation or what really happened between him and the birth mother, but I'm also not sure 130 million dollars is going to fix all the things that are broken in this scenario, nor will it make up for missing three years of his son's life, if the birth father truly has only altruistic motivations.
The real victims in this shocking situation and other stories like this, are the child who was adopted and possibly the family who adopted the child—although in this case, the birth father claims the parents who adopted his son are also involved in the wrong-doing.
If the parents who adopted that child did so in good faith, can any of us imagine having our three-year-old son taken from our custody, possibly to never see him again? If they were involved in duping the birth father, what was their motivation? Did they even know and understand the full story or were they also duped?
If the legal proceedings determine that the birth father's rights were violated and the adoption is not valid, the child could potentially be taken from the only parents he has ever known and placed with a stranger. I cannot begin to imagine the psychological damage this could cause the child, regardless of whether the adoptive parents are guilty of any crime or not.
My wish for the humans in this scenario is that the media shifts their focus from the salaciousness "lying, scamming woman and crooked adoptive parents/man-got-done-wrong" angle they are currently presenting, to the innocent victim of the scenario in the hopes of generating dialogue about ways that all parties involved could come out of this with the least amount of trauma.
No matter what happens, cases like this make me sad for so many reasons. Adoption is a complicated process, but it's not mechanical. There are human lives at stake here—young, innocent victims.
I hope that this case is dealt with quickly and that the people involved, the media, and the general public following the story all keep their hearts and minds open and full of love for the child and his best interests.
Isn't that what adoption is supposed to be about in its best form?
Printer-friendly version