A happy but sad ending....

I found the story fascinating.

We have had adoptions into and out of our extended family, so this story was extra-special to me. Thanks.

I know a promotional 'puff piece' for an adoption agency when I read one.

From what I read, this young adult woman was in denial and manipulated. Of *course* she is rationalizing that her choice was 'the right one'.

While I can sympathize with the wanna-be adoptive parents, that should not even BE in a story about a woman's struggle about parenting or surrendering her baby.

I will go back and read this again, but this is my immediate reaction AS an adoptive mother and spouse of an adoptee. Maybe I missed the part where she had independent counseling about her life and her choice.

I was right in the first place. What a golden opportunity for that agency to reach college girls. It's 'outreach' (AKA procurement).

This reminds me of an agency in my area that used to give 'talks' to girls in high school. "Consider adoption. We're here if you ever need us." Don't you hope some attention-craving high schooler takes that to heart? Get pregnant. Give 'a gift' to a needy couple (who are paying the agency).

Chisue, I wouldn't have thought that myself (about the agency), and it does seem as though the pregnant mother initiated the story for her own reasons, but I do see your point. In fact, although I said the ending was happy--and on the surface it appears that everyone is more than satisfied--it could easily be a fragile happiness. Few things are more intense than maternal feelings, and this story has them in spades.

When she wrote during her pregnancy about wanting to keep the baby, and then deciding not to in order to stop the arguments with the boyfriend (even though he was an ex-boyfriend by this time, I think), I thought, uh-oh.....she shouldn't allow herself to get talked into something this important.

So I just hope it all continues to go well, for everyone's sake.

Thanks for responding. I see things through a different lens, having watched lawyers and agencies do a lot of awful things to get 'product'. It's the way they make a living. It's not a new thing, although it's become very profitable since the widespread availability of contraception and people waiting too long to start families. (Low Supply/ Increased Demand.)

Did you note the SEVENTY-TWO HOUR revocation of surrender for the baby's natural parents? A child isn't even REAL to many fathers until it's born. That's true of a woman in denial too, not to mention that the mother's hormones are still all over the place. Do you think there are many young mothers who could gear up for a legal fight about a surrender in that timeframe? Do you realize the prejudgement of society on a mother who signed a surrender in the first place? (Why not wait to take the surrender?)

Maybe you'll see how the deck is stacked from the minute an ADOPTION agency is involved. Follow the money.

I'm not opposed to adoption, just the way we allow baby brokering.

I don't know if I would call it a happy ending, exactly. at least for the birth mother. And I'm glad I read Chisue's opinion, because I read the story with a more informed eye. I do feel it is propaganda and sad to say that the babies are "product". But a moving story, nevertheless, as I wipe away the tears. I hope that little Leo has the life his birth mother wishes he will. And I hope she finds happiness and healing.

I hope all reading here will look a little differently at those advertisements offering to 'help' women with 'unplanned pregnancies' . Sometimes they appear to be from a want-to-adopt couple, but the toll-free phone number goes to an adoption agency or lawyer. There are large and small operations. Many sweep up the pregnant woman and take her away from home -- far from any influences to disuade her from surrendering her baby.

Most state's adoption laws are about protecting the transaction -- making a legal 'change of title'. They don't protect the mother, and they don't protect the child AS A UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL either.

If children were this interchangeable, when a mother left the maternity ward the nurse would hand her the baby nearest the door.

Can't "buy" kids around here - people wanting such for a fee have to use a U.S. agency ... with some training as to how to navigate the border ... and local medical systems.

Some use overseas agencies: very expensive!

ole joyful

OJ -- I've met some Canadian-born adult adoptees who came to the US via Catholic Charities. I don't know what's up with that now. (Most didn't know they were born outside the US -- 'sealed adoption records' hide all sorts of clever stuff.)

I bet that the adoption industry lobbied hard for the new anti-abortion law in Arkansas. (Elective in first trimester only.)

I think it would be confusing to the child to have "two mothers," but on the other hand everyone needs to know where and who they came from.

I was raised from age six weeks by my Grandmother, although I saw Mom often and did spend chunks of time with her. Grandma would threaten to cut off all contact with Mom if I ever seemed to be wanting to spend time with her. I had to learn at an early age to temper my excitiment and love for Mom in order to not incure Grandma's fury.

My husband was adopted as an infant. His adoptive parents had been on a list for a couple of years. They knew he was coming.

His birth mother gave him up at the birth in May. His "mother" informed the adoption people she could not take him until October because she had to "clean her (always spotless) house." So he was in a foster home for five months before he was handed over to the new "mother." A five month old baby knows his "mom," he knows his home. And he was simply jerked out of that foster home and given to a woman who's first comments were that she did not like how he was dressed and his hair was awful.

His childhood was hell. Oh he had food, and a roof, and clothes, and a private school. He was also yelled and screamed at and cursed nearly daily because he did not fit the mold of the "mother's" pre-conceived notion of what "her" son would be.

She told him often how he was more trouble than he was worth; what ever convinced her to adopt him. "Sorry little sh*t" was used more than his name.

To this day she will not allow anyone to use the word "adopted" son. She goes wild. She will not give him any info that could lead to finding his birth family. Even when he was diagonsed with a genetic blood disorder and the doctor wanted more info to track it, she would not give him a name. She said the situation would be no different than if he didn't know he was adopted; he'd not get any info about "those people" from her.

I guess this has tainted my views of adoption, although I know there are many reasons that it is the best option. I also know, or at least hope, that in this day and age a person with his "mothers" issues and mental problems would not be allowed to adopt a child.

How awful for your husband, Caroline! I know of a remarkably similar adoption story. This mother didn't have to clean her house (they had servants), but she didn't want to adopt. It was her husband's idea; she wouldn't even show up at the agency. Then when she did see the baby (her husband brought him home), she hated his hair and his clothes. Unbelievable! And yet now we now of two such cases, and there are undoubtedly more.

Also unbelievable that the adoption agencies a) didn't see your husband's adoptive mother's need to clean the house as a huge red flag and an adoption deal breaker, and b) allowed the above adoptive mother's impressive financial status to cloud their judgment.

Let us hope today's agencies aren't this bad. Most of them, anyway.

My DH was adopted as an infant by a couple old enough to be his grandparents -- and never told. His adoptive father wanted a child (and a do-over of his own life through that child). His adoptive mother did not want any child, and certainly not this one. They both knew his (impoverished) birth family, although the adoption was 'washed through' Catholic Charities.

His father died when my DH was nine. His will stipulated that his wife would lose her inheritance if she remarried before DH was 18. Since she was already 55 and soon developed RA, that option became closed to her. She was *stuck*.

So...two wealthy people bought a baby. Then he was left at nine with a bitter woman who despised him for reasons he could not guess -- despite being a wonderful and accomplished person. Some of the best days of his life came when she finally died in her eighties -- and together we discovered his adoption and found his birth family. For the first time it all made sense and he knew there was NOTHING wrong with HIM.

This abuse hasn't ceased. Now there are more people waiting to establish themselves financially before thinking about a family. They may be OLD long before the child is an adult, but they have money. They can adopt, paying $50K and up. Worse yet, they can have a baby created to BE adopted!

Nothing has changed regarding protection for the baby going into an adoptive home, nor for consideration of the rights of the adopted person. The FIRST consideration is that the adoption go through. No adoption, no fee. Sometimes the payment is a lump sum. Sometimes it is years of grateful donations to the agency that 'provided' A Baby. Most adoptive parents believe they want that impossible thing: An anonymous, clean slate Baby. Lawyers and agencies are happy to provide what's desired, and the sealed adoption records in effect in most states ensure that no inconvenient truths are revealed.