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.