Reuben
Pannor's perspective as a nationally recognized
expert in the field of adoption and as co-author of
The Adoption Triangle is broad and
highly respected. He has been looking at adoption
professionally for over thirty years, acquiring an
historical perspective available to only a few. In
recognition of his popular work over the past twenty
years with adoptive parents, we invited Reuben to
share his thoughts with our PACER members as part of
our commitment to better addressing the needs and
interests of all members of the adoption triad.
Susie:
Reuben, I've been reviewing The Adoption
Triangle and I'm again deeply impressed to
see what you and your colleagues were thinking as
early as 1978. I'm curious about how our
understanding of adoption has evolved since your
unprecedented call for open records and open
adoption twenty years ago. What does it look like to
you?
Reuben:
Opening closed adoption records remains our single
biggest challenge, although I acknowledge the
increase in awareness and growing powerful dialogue.
We've come a long way with the greatest progress
having been in opening adoptions. The opportunity
for birthparents and adopting parents to meet each
other has opened a big door. The closed system that
we were battling twenty years ago left behind it a
tremendous trail of problems, terrible problems.
I started
working in adoption 30 years ago at Vista Del Mar, a
residential center for emotionally disturbed
children. There, I was surprised to note that every
third child had been adopted and had problems. When
I began doing research, I realized this was an area
that hadn't been touched. Many things had already
been written about in child welfare that utterly
contradicted the practices that we in adoption were
engaged in. One of many was that we knew that you
don't remove a troubled child from the base of
support, the family. Yet, we removed pregnant
teenagers from the East Coast and sent them
thousands of miles away to the West Coast to
accomplish a relinquishment. We hid them away in a
maternity home and then shipped them back to their
families when it was all over.
"Front-loading" was another startling practice. We
put everything into the beginning phase by focusing
on the initial problem (an unplanned pregnancy and
inability to parent, a childless couple, a baby who
needed a family) and never offered any after care.
We told the birthmother to forget what had happened
and go on with her life. We discouraged her from
ever contacting the agency because it would look
like she was not doing a good job of going on with
her life. If she called we told her she had
psychological problems and she should get help. We
did not treat the whole person or recognize that the
loss needed to be acknowledged and grieved. We knew
all of this in our practice in child welfare where
we worked for family preservation but we did not
apply our knowledge in adoption! We applied
different rules to adoption. An example is the whole
subject of secrecy, and anonymity.
When The
Adoption Triangle came out we presented at a
psychiatric conference in San Francisco. The room
was packed as this was a new issue. The audience
couldn't imagine that we could treat a patient and
withhold basic information. They couldn't understand
it. But we did it. Records were sealed by the state
court and we never encouraged any information coming
back to the agency. So when both mothers and
children came to ask for information, we knew very
little - not even if children were alive! It was
tragic. We have fought a long, hard battle since
then to educate the professionals that this practice
was wrong and had to change.
Susie:
Can you assess this-how we've done on education-
legal professionals, social workers, clergy,
teachers, and the general population? I'm
remembering a young woman in upstate New York who
relinquished her child in an open adoption. The
judge was strongly opposed to this and argued
vigorously against their plan. He believed the open
arrangement to be so ill-advised that he required a
12-month waiting period rather than the customary
six for finalization because both parties agreed to
this "unhealthy" arrangement. He saw the birthmother
as "disturbed" because she was not able to let go of
her child. This was in 1997!
Reuben:
Clearly we still have a long, long way to go to
educate the general and professional population
about the realities of adoption. However, despite
the "locked-in" position of many, there are also
many new people who do "get it" and are doing a lot
toward changing perceptions. Their challenges are in
dealing with boards of directors in agencies and
courts everywhere.
Susie:
Reuben, when we talked last, you mentioned a recent
article from the New York Times citing what people
understand about adoption. I remember that you were
quite surprised. Can you summarize it for us? What
stood out for you?
Reuben:
There is a lot of confusion. In the survey
referenced, 40% of the people said open adoption is
a good idea. Then when the question was asked about
whether it is important for adoptees to know about
their birthparents and maybe have contact with them,
they said "perhaps." Then there were questions about
"social engineering," meaning "Wouldn't children be
better off with families who had more to offer
them?" Most people thought so without really
thinking through this more deeply. It would be a
good idea to look at how the families in the
affluent areas are actually doing. How ARE their
children?
Family
preservation has been our goal in the past several
years, yet this doesn't seem to apply to adoption.
We still don't apply the same standards. Most
infants placed for adoption come from poor families.
Check with any of the adoption agencies and their
adoption lawyers to verify that the number one
reason for relinquishment today is the inability to
afford to raise the child. This is a sad commentary
on the richest and most powerful country in the
world. Even poor married couples are relinquishing
their children. Think about what this says to the
older children who have been "kept." This must be
very confusing to them.
Susie:
In the introduction to the latest edition of
The Adoption Triangle, you have listed
several thoughts "that merit consideration." Among
these is "Our society needs to recognize that
maintaining children in their own homes and
providing adequate support systems must be given the
highest priority." From what you just said, it
sounds as though you fault our progress here.
Reuben:
We're not doing a good job of this at all. And it's
crazy because from an economical standpoint, it's
far cheaper to leave children in their own homes and
do it properly, offering the necessary support to
their families. Foster care and the correctional
system, which is where some of these children end
up, costs far, far more.
Susie:
Reuben, your speaking of economics brings up
something that's current. Hillary Clinton was
recently here in Berkeley speaking to adoption
professionals at Cal about the new federal law
designed to get children out of foster care and into
permanent placements. What do you think about this
law? How can we do this well so that the placements
will actually be permanent?
Reuben:
New York tried this about five years ago and their
experience shows us how NOT to do it. They took
state-supported kids out of foster care, group
homes, and institutions. They followed
permanency-placement law which allows 18 months to
get a plan for each child. Here "front-loading"
really applied. They hired extra attorneys to get
the job done who, among other services, held classes
on how to "get" the relinquishment. It actually
constituted fraud in some cases.
The problems
began. First, children were completely cut off from
their families and extended families. You can't do
that! No matter how bad the situation is. Many of
these kids came from serious situations like drug
problems and criminal environments. Even so, as a
result of the abrupt cut-off, the children began to
develop fantasies about their families. The adoptive
families couldn't handle it. And there wasn't any
help available for them. These well-meaning middle
class couples had adopted very special needs
children and were left on their own to solve
whatever came up.
Eventually,
New York instituted a system of guardianship.
Children were not relinquished in adoption, but were
placed with a guardian-often extended family
members. The family connection was not broken and
the guardian was given a lot of on-going support.
This worked much better. One of these plans is now
starting to take hold here in California is to work
with extended family guardian or foster families
near the community where the child has grown up.
This lessens the trauma of separation and
transition.
Susie:
Recently, there was an all-day rally in Oakland
sponsored by adoption agencies to create awareness
of the kids in foster care in the Bay Area. The
names of about 2000 adoptable children were read out
and interested adults were told that the
requirements for becoming an adoptive parent are not
so strict as one might think. These are mostly
African American and Latino children and many with
special needs as they have been in "the system" for
some time. What do you think about this kind of
community "service"?
Reuben:
I think it can work very well to have the
involvement of the community. The key is on-going
support of some meaningful kind. Otherwise, you
could have the failed New York kind of experience.
One good example that comes to mind is the adoption
programs that are in many African American churches
here in the L.A. area. A member family agrees to
adopt a child that needs a home. Then the whole
congregation supports this adoption in every way.
The ties with the birth family are NOT severed, the
child stays in his community and there is no
secrecy. There are many successful models like this.
Susie:
Do you have any thoughts or concerns about children
who are in international adoptions today?
Reuben:
Of course. And I believe there are many myths about
there being fewer issues with a child adopted from
abroad based on not having to deal with the birth
family. It's not true. The issues are just the same
and more so. First you have to be sure you're
dealing with a reliable agency and that you know
what you're doing. There can be huge expenses if you
don't.
Also, we need
to look at the long term goal. When you start taking
the next generation out of a country, what is the
long term effect? The future of the country is
changed because it depends of the next generation.
This is a long-standing moral and philosophical
concern for me. Native Americans have held this
point saying that we cannot remove their children
from the reservations because it will cause the
tribe/culture to die out.
The Korean
situation of a generation or so ago is very
different from what is happening from say the
Eastern European countries today. The Korean young
people have been able to go back to Korea and
establish a relationship with their extended birth
families. The couple who adopts now from Russia, for
example, often thinks once they get the child here
that child is theirs. They have no plan or intention
or means to remain in touch with the birthfamily.
There are a lot of problems with many of these
children--some even ending up in residential
facilities.
Most Chinese
adoptees can only have a generic heritage story.
Their background is completely obliterated when they
leave China. The Chinese government has said that
they know of our closed system and believe this is
what we want. However, if the adoptive parents
demand information, before they leave China with the
baby is the time to get all the information that's
available.
This raises
the issue of what I think about adoption in general.
I believe that adoption is here to stay and it's
needed. I only have a problem with how we do it.
There are many, many children who need permanent
homes. But, those from abroad should be linked with
a contract that says..."We will help you, but for
every child that's placed here, you have to make a
plan to place a child in your country. We will help
you develop your own resources like setting up
agencies." And this is time limited--for say, ten
years.
Susie:
Reuben, I'm interested in hearing about your current
work with adoptive parents. What are they asking you
for?
Reuben:
Lots of information is available out there, but it's
not always in the best interest of their children.
Adoption is being featured all around us -- Oprah,
"Secrets and Lies," television. There's a lot and it
isn't all good. Parents realize they have to be
prepared to protect and inform their children. For
example, most of the children adopted today have
siblings. What is the best way to handle this? This
is a hard question and parents want to have
available to them the tools they need to help their
children. They want to be good parents and the drive
is to do whatever is best for their children. So,
they are reaching out as they realize they are
lacking information.
In the
beginning of my career with adoption, I was involved
with ALMA and Florence Fisher and focused on the
needs and issues of adoptees. Then I connected with
CUB and added birthparents. And at some time, I
realized that we have excluded adoptive parents in
unfriendly ways. And they have, in turn, seen us in
unfriendly ways. Then I got it that they are the
group that we really should be focusing more on.
They've got the kids! And they're not the enemy or
an appropriate place for all our anger and hurt and
hostility. We've been blocking opportunities when we
need to make them part of the process. So, I began
to shift my primary focus to working with adoptive
parents and I've been doing educational groups with
them for nearly twenty years.
One of the
things that needs to be covered is the essential
nature of the connection of the child with his
birthmother. And adoptive parents need help with
this. They need to see the birthmother as a real and
loving person who has entrusted her child to them.
And I do everything I can to facilitate their having
contact with the birthfamily. Children need
information about who they are and where they came
from. Very often this will start off with pictures
and letters exchanged. Then after about a year it
tapers off-- usually by the birthmother. Then the
adoptive family wants to know how to re-establish
the connection. Birthfamilies need to know that it
is important for them to keep in touch in an open
adoption. Often seeing that their child is safe and
well cared for in this open relationship enables
them to move on with their lives. And when the
adoptive parents get this and see there is no threat
from the birthmoms, they can relax and get on with
the job of parenting. This is the real value of good
initial contact. Counseling and education can play
an important part in this being successful.
Susie:
What do you see as the greatest challenge for
adoptees of all ages?
Reuben:
Adoptees have the need to become knowledgeable about
adoption. There is a lot of good literature
available. There are support groups and it's their
responsibility to learn about it. And I say this to
the adoptive parents first. Your child needs to
understand the issues of adoption. Adoption isn't a
simple way to build a family. There are many complex
factors. and dealing with them is a lifelong
process. We used to get involved only when they were
angry and hostile and hurting or when they began to
search. The more an adopted child learns, the less
"different" he will feel.
Susie:
What do you say to an adoptive parent who says,
"Mary doesn't ask about adoption, so I know she
isn't interested."
Reuben:
Well, first, I'd ask if the child is free to talk
about it. "What is the climate in the home?" Often
children think it's a big secret so they keep it a
secret. "It's your responsibility as an adoptive
parent to become educated about adoption so that you
can talk comfortably with your child at all
developmental levels in an informed way and so that
you can educate your community." We should write
this in the adoptive agreement from the beginning.
Susie:
You and your son, Jonathan who is a clinical social
worker, are scheduling groups for adoptive parents
here in the Bay area. Can you tell us something
about these groups?
Reuben:
These are educational workshops designed to help
adoptive parents understand adoption better. We've
organized them to reach parents of specific age
groups starting with 0 - 4 years old. The excitement
of the preparation for and actual event of adoption
is over. Regardless of how much education was done
prior to placement , parents aren't fully available
to take everything in because their focus was on
other aspects of the child joining the family. Now,
parents are in a heightened state of readiness with
the child firmly a part of the family. This
four-session program is for couples, single parents
and adult family members who have recently adopted
and are beginning to deal with some of the early
issues. Topics will include: When to tell your child
about adoption, How to discuss adoption with your
child, How much to tell your child about adoption,
Talking with family, school and community about
adoption, Identity and self esteem, Birthparent
issues, and Understanding and working with open
adoption.