.
More than six million American mothers surrendered
children for adoption. In the wake of Oregon's decision to
open records, society has a renewed interest in these heretofore
invisible women. America has been unwilling to look behind
the scenes at adoption practices. After all, adoption is so
sacred that it was enshrined on a postage stamp. Myths surround
these mothers, who are either cast as sacrificial heroines
or vilified as unnatural women who abandoned babies. Society
believes that these mothers willingly gave up their babies
and that they want privacy from their adult children. Fact
is, these women long for contact and were never promised privacy.
It is important to hear this story so you understand
that these women were pressured on all sides into surrendering
their children and that in many cases their human rights were
violated. I know this story because it is my story and the
story of many others like me.
When a mother loses her child to closed adoption,
it feels as if her child has died, yet there is no wake, no
funeral, no sympathy cards, no public acknowledgment. There
are no friends or relatives to offer comfort and support.
There is no obituary, no grave to visit, no flowers to bring,
no grieving permitted and no closure.
Closed Adoption Era
During the era of closed adoption (1950s - 1970s),
this was the experience for hundreds of thousands of young
women who were unmarried and pregnant. They disappeared into
shame-filled prisons called maternity homes. The babies' fathers
went forward with lives uninterrupted, their part not criticized,
not punished.
It was the era of rock n' roll, the assassinations
of both Kennedys and Martin Luther King, civil unrest, hypocrisy
and enormous social change. The media played up the swinging
60s, while "unwed mothers" paid a heavy social price.
Once their "problem" became known, they were at
the mercy of their parents, society and the adoption industry.
The largest residential facility for unwed mothers,
Florence Crittenton, had "homes" throughout America.
The evangelical women there offered help to "unfortunate
girls" by providing food, clothing and shelter. They
taught job and parenting skills and provided childcare while
mothers worked. When mothers left, they visited frequently
bringing food, clothing and money until the mother could fend
for herself and her baby.
After the 1940s, things changed. Adoption history
indicates that social workers specialized in unwed motherhood.
They felt that this would elevate their professional status.
Viewing themselves as authorities in adoption and unwed motherhood,
they insinuated themselves into maternity homes.
The social workers at the Washington, D.C. Crittenton
appeared to agree with the evangelical women's position of
helping unwed mothers keep their babies. Their 1950s brochure
states:
"Would it be better for mother and child
if the baby were given away (adopted)?"
"Not in most cases . . . social workers
have learned that no material advantage can make up for
the loss of its own mother. Better a poor home, with mother
love, they say, than an adopted home in luxury . . ."
As social workers recognized the market for
white babies for infertile couples, they decided girls were
not worthy to parent. These attitudes freed white babies for
adoption by two-parent families. Social Work and Social Problems
(1964), published by the National Association of Social Workers,
insinuates half-jokingly that unwed mothers served as "breeders":
". . . babies born out of wedlock [are]
no longer considered a social problem . . . white, physically
healthy babies are considered by many to be a social boon
. . .
" Because there are many more married
couples wanting to adopt newborn white babies than there
are babies, it may almost be said that they, rather than
out of wedlock babies, are a social problem. (Sometimes
social workers in adoption agencies have facetiously suggested
setting up social provisions for more 'baby breeding.')"
In Unmarried Mothers (1961), sociologist Clark
Vincent commented on an "emerging pattern":
"We predict that-if the demand for adoptable
infants continues to exceed the supply . . . unwed mothers
will be 'punished' by having their children taken from them
right after birth. A policy like this would not be . . .
labeled explicitly as 'punishment' . . . it would be implemented
through such labels . . . as 'scientific findings', 'the
best interests of the child', 'rehabilitation of the unwed
mother' . . ."
Rights Were Violated
Many of these mothers were never told about
government programs nor were they advised about child support.
They did not receive psychological counseling or legal advice.
They were not directed to read surrender documents nor asked
if they understood them. These mothers never spoke to a lawyer.
Instead, they signed legal papers drafted by adoption agency
attorneys. Many mothers now question the ethics of this arrangement
and raise issues of signing under duress, lack of informed
consent, and conflicts of interest.
Marriage was discouraged by maternity homes.
Maternity home "inmates" were forbidden communication
with the fathers. Most homes censored mail according to "approved
lists." Were these restrictions designed to ensure that
fathers could not propose a marriage that would allow them
to keep their babies?
Many mothers were forbidden to see their newborns.
Some were told to sign surrender papers before giving birth.
Others were told to sign while heavily drugged or still recuperating.
Some were drugged to unconsciousness during the birth while
others were given no medications at all. These mothers now
raise issues of coercion, pressure tactics, and abuse.
Questions Remain
While living in "wage homes" contracted
by the maternity homes, mothers were entrusted with the care
of other people's children as unpaid nannies. Yet they were
deemed incapable of parenting their own babies.
How strange that the state paid foster parents
- complete strangers - to care for babies rather than allowing
their own mothers to care for them for free. Why weren't they
told that they could see their baby in foster care or of the
waiting period during which they could reclaim their babies?
Were agencies afraid that they would bond even more and not
sign surrender papers? We hear stories from mothers who wanted
to keep their babies only to be warned severely by social
workers that, if they did so, they must pay all costs: hospital,
doctor, lawyer and foster care.
Why are surrender documents the only legal contracts
in America that can be signed by a minor? Because these babies
were wanted by the adoption industry, a tremendous market
with high demand for "the product." According to
Marketdata Enterprises of Tampa, the adoption industry earns
$1.4 billion annually in the U.S. The company estimates gross
income for even small agencies at $400,000 a year and at $10
million or more for larger agencies. It states that "stories
of unscrupulous operators abound in this loosely regulated
field."
Invisible Mothers Return
These invisible, non-mothers have been ignored
when requesting information that pertains to their experience.
Requests are met with refusal even when some policy manuals
state that they could be provided with access to their files.
Today, the stigma of unwed motherhood may be
gone but the perception that these mothers willingly gave
away their babies is not. Mothers who lost their children
to adoption are now coming forward in record numbers. Having
walked out of the fog of enforced silence, we are angry and
we will be heard. We are here to set the record straight.
Copyright © 2001
Karen Wilson Buterbaugh
