Bridge over troubled waters

There are certain conversations that adoptive parents can find difficult. One such classic: ‘Oh, she’s going to have her mother’s good looks, isn’t she?’

Does that mean we can’t or shouldn’t have these discussions with our children, albeit using different noun phrases and at a slightly different angle? ‘Yes, X-,’ we might find ourselves saying, for example, ‘You’ve got your birth mother’s eyes/hair/nose’ [circle and/or delete as appropriate].

I am, to use the neologism, ‘conflicted’ when it comes to the issue of ‘contact’ between adopted kids and blood relatives. I’m not sure how it works everywhere – somehow I doubt it happens much in international adoption – but in many instances I know of there is an arrangement/agreement to keep all three arms of the adoption ‘triad’ in dialogue: birth parents, adopters, adoptees.

The arrangement can be individualised in any number of ways, depending on the circumstances, but essentially it boils down to either regular letters [one- or two- way], face-to-face meetings, a mixture of both, or none. Some expression of intent for how contact should happen is usually set out as part of the legal orders when the formal adoption takes place.

In theory the arrangement is in the adopted child’s best interest because it keeps the lines of communication open and gives both child and adoptive parent a way into talking about the adoption.

Thus those odd, slightly tangential conversations I referred to earlier can take place more successfully, or at least with more information behind them. The child, and the adopters, will have a much clearer idea about, for example, physical characteristics having met or at least corresponded with [and possibly received pictures] from the biological mother and/or father.

And if in fact child X grows up having stayed in touch with birth mum and/or dad then he or she will gradually form their own opinion of them. It will be a realistic opinion, untainted by magical thinking ['I'm really a princess and one day my mummy the Queen will come to rescue me'] and free of any bias, whether intentional or non-intentional, imparted by the adoptive parents. That’s the theory, anyway.

Contact is a difficult area. It’s one that many potential adopters are put off by, and also an issue that many people in the wider population are reluctant to accept, I suspect partly on moral grounds. ['They've (the birth parents) had their chance: it'll only mess things up to go back to them now.']

However, the logic behind it is sound – if you accept the theory that it is in the child’s interests. To extend the analogy of The Primal Wound, it’s better for the child to keep reopening the wound, letting it heal gradually from the bottom up, rather than allowing it to close over and risking the development of an abscess.

The trouble is that contact so often appears to be more in the birth parents’ interest. Contact stories I’ve come across often end with hyped up/hyperanxious, overloaded children, while the adoptive parent rages that the birth family have broken the terms of the agreement, either by being late, or arriving pissed and/or stoned or subverting children through sneaky gifts and suggestions. At different times many people – some adoptive parents and some interested observers such as family friends – have said that contact simply doesn’t work.

There’s huge potential for cock-up, too. Over at the Adoption UK website there’s a thread on the message board about social services mistakenly sending birth parents’ the addresses of their adopted kids’ new homes. That is most definitely not the kind of stress that a family needs to have in their lives!

Yet contact may prove to be of value eventually, despite all the heartache. What about the child adopted young who doesn’t remember his/her birth parents but grows up with regular contact through birth siblings placed with other families, or in different parts of the country? This type of relationship could be of massive help to a young man or woman trying to work through identity issues, especially if his/her adoptive parents never met biological mum and/or dad.

It is a dilemma, and there are no easy answers. Actually, I’m beginning to think that there are no answers, full stop. Perhaps all you can do is make sure that when your child asks about ‘tummy’ mummy or daddy you can look them in the eye and say you did your best and found out as much about them as you could.

In the meantime, there are other conversations about identity that adoptive parents can also have with their kids. Here are two examples: ‘Aren’t you generous, X- – just like daddy?’. And: ‘Yes, you’re a brilliant cook: you love sharing time in the kitchen with mummy, don’t you?’

2 Responses to Bridge over troubled waters

  1. That was one of those pieces that provoked my thoughts but left them in a muddle – do you know what I mean? When you have lots of thoughts but not a lot of sense materialises from them?

    I think though that I would find having outside involvement in my children’s lives very very difficult. I guess if it is something you know and accept from the start then you go into it knowing that that is what you have to do. But I cannot see I would manage it. It’s not that I think I know best, just that I think that having regular input from someone else, with perhaps very different lifestyle, motives or whatever, would jiggle the harmony you try to achieve and cause bumps and cracks. But I suppose to an extend it happens anyway – MILs, schools, friends all have influences that are not always good but I guess it is part of life, learning to cope with the jolts and getting back on track after being thrown off.

    I guess what I think is that as a family it is nice to be a self-contained little entity, where you feel you have some control and limits etc. And that is much harder for you and G and S.

    As for what is best for the child, that must surely depend upon the personality of the child, the nature of the birth parents, the way the adoptive parents cope with the contact and all sorts of factors. One model is not right for every child whatever the issue at stake.

    Sorry – that was just waffle, wasn’t it? But you got me thinking how easy my life is in comparison to yours.

    Don’t give up blogging though, eh? I love reading your pieces and hearing your thoughts.

    Oh yes, I did have one question – when people assume that S is your natural child as I’m sure they do from time to time – do you correct them, leave it or does it vary according to whether you feel it is someone you are likely to spend time with? I suppose what I am getting at is the extent to which S is going to go through her life pointing out that she is adopted or whether in most cases she will just be able to be like everyone else.

  2. adoptivedad says:

    RB, you’re right: one model can’t be right for every child. But I don’t know what the other options are either. This piece was me banging my head against the system and coming back with a bit of a headache.

    As regards S- and ‘openness’ it depends on who it is, I guess. I think it’s best to be honest about these things but not print it on a teeshirt, if you see what I mean. Maybe ask me again in a few years when I’ll have more experience of it and [unlikely as it sounds] have a clearer idea of what I’m doing?

    Thanks for the encouragement. It’s nice to be appreciated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.