MN/TX Adoption Research Project

Here are some results from a study by MN/TX Adoption Research Project.
http://fsos.che.umn.edu/projects/mtarp.html

First here is a little about what this study was for:
Since the mid-1970's, adoption practices in the U.S. have changed dramatically, and the confidentiality maintained in the past is no longer the norm. The trend is toward "openness" in adoption, in which contact occurs between the adoptive family and birthparent(s), either directly or mediated (e.g., through an adoption agency). Some adoption professionals argue that fully open adoption should be standard practice, that the secrecy of confidential adoptions has been harmful to all parties involved. Others argue that openness is harmful and experimental. Their view is that confidential adoption worked well, so why change it? Although such professionals hold strong feelings about adoption, almost no research on this topic has been available to guide adoption policy and to answer basic questions about the dynamics of adoptive kinship networks

Here are a few of the things I found interesting:

At Wave 1, comparison of parents' and children's reports of openness revealed important gaps between parents' participation in open arrangements and their inclusion of the adopted child in the communication. Almost half the children in mediated adoptions were excluded from contact their adoptive parents were having with their birthmother, but most of these children were not aware of their being excluded. Most of the children in fully disclosed adoptions were included in meetings with birthparents and were aware of the arrangements (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998).
At Wave 1, adoptive mothers and birth mothers arranged most of the fully disclosed contact; adoptive fathers had little primary responsibility for arranging contact. As the adopted children got older, the birthmother and adoptive parents reported that the adolescents had assumed responsibility for arranging or requesting contact or would be taking responsibility for contact in the future (Dunbar, van Dulmen, et al. 2000).

As everyone reading my blog knows I support complete open adoptions. Wide open. That first results of the adopted parents not sharing with the child that they are in contact with the natural parents is disturbing to me. I think it is actions like that where the natural mother believes she has agreed to an open adoption but the adopted parents choose to handle it in their own way…not telling the child. There are no laws to back up open adoption so they can. 1 of many problems out there.

When all changes were taken into account (including openness level and changes in the type of contact, frequency of contact, or persons involved), 90% of the birthmothers experienced some change during the 8 year period. Reasons for change were many (Henney, Ayers-Lopez, McRoy, & Grotevant, 2004). Mediated adoptions, those featuring indirect contact through an intermediary at the adoption agency, posed special challenges in communication because they required the ongoing presence of a reliable staff person at the agency to keep the communication flowing in a timely manner.
When there were decreases in openness in adoptive kinship networks, the birthmothers and adoptive parents tended to have incongruent accounts regarding who initiated discontinuation of contact and divergent understandings about why contact stopped (Dunbar, van Dulmen, et al., 2000).

I think this part is really important because my whole “love is the answer” is about the management of the relationship. I know the judges ruling on these issues don’t nee to hear “love is the answer” but when teaching adoptive parents how to raise a healthy child I believe that simply figuring out how to love and respect one another will be the answer.
The management of contact in open adoptions involves a complex dance in which the roles and needs of the participants change over time, affecting the kinship network as a whole (Grotevant, McRoy, & van Dulmen, 1998). There is no uniform pattern for open adoptions. Adoptive kinship networks have contact by different means, among different people, at varying rates, and with varying degrees of interest. Successful relationships in such complex family situations hinge on participants’ flexibility, communication skills, and commitment to the relationships.
Members of adoptive kinship networks involved in ongoing contact found that their relationships were dynamic and had to be re-negotiated over time. Early in the adoption, meetings were especially important for the birthmothers, who were very concerned about whether they had made the right decision, whether her child was safe, and whether the adoptive parents were good people. After a while, birthmothers’ interest in contact sometimes waned, especially as they were assured that their child was thriving. With the passage of time, many birthmothers became involved in new romantic relationships, sometimes taking attention away from the adoptive relationships. According to the adoptive parents, the ability of birthmothers to provide information when requested was not always in tune with the timing of the request (Wrobel, Grotevant, Berge, Mendenhall, & McRoy, 2003). Adoptive parents tended to become more interested in contact as they became more secure in their role as parents. As the children grew older and understood the meaning of adoption (see Brodzinsky, Singer, & Braff, 1984), their questions tended to put pressure on the adoptive parents to seek more information or contact (Wrobel, Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 1998, 1999).


At Wave 1, children’s satisfaction with contact did not differ by level of openness. However, by Wave 2, adolescents who had contact with birthmothers reported higher degrees of satisfaction with their level of adoption openness and with the intensity of their contact with birthmother than did adolescents who had no contact. In general, satisfaction with adoption openness was lower during middle adolescence (ages 14-16) than during early (ages 12-13) or late adolescence (ages 17-20) (Mendenhall et al, 2004).

I think this is Very interesting and I believe supports my beliefs.

Adolescents varied in their reasons for being satisfied or not satisfied with having contact or not having contact (Berge, Mendenhall, Wrobel, Grotevant, & McRoy, in press-2006). Adolescents having contact and expressing satisfaction with the contact (45.5% of the sample) stated that the contact provided an opportunity for a relationship to emerge that would provide additional support for them. They also expressed positive affect toward their birth mother, felt that the contact helped them better understand who they were, and made them interested in having contact with other members of their birth family, such as siblings. Adolescents having contact but not expressing satisfaction (16.3% of the sample) typically wanted more intensity in the relationship than they currently had, but they were not able to bring it about. They felt that they could have good relationships with both adoptive and birth parents, and that they did not have to choose one over the other. Adolescents not having contact and satisfied with the lack of contact (17.1%) felt that adoption was not an important part of their lives. They did not feel that it was necessary to have contact, sometimes expressing concern that contact might be a bad experience for them. They felt they were better off where they were (in their adoptive families) than they would have been if raised by their birth parents. Finally, adolescents not having contact but dissatisfied with the lack of contact (21.1%) sometimes desired contact but were unable to bring it about. Some had negative feelings toward their birth mother or assumed that she had not made an effort to have contact. Some worried that their adoptive parents or birth mother might feel bad about their pursuing contact.

There is so much more but I’ll leave it at this for today.