"No way! Obviously they were given up for a reason!"
"But it's still their child, though!"
Whew, what to do with this one... I feel like it's one of those "you have to be a parent to understand" kind of questions, but we're going to dive on in anyway.
If the biological parents give up their child to adoption, should they be allowed by law to have access to that child down the line?
So many factors can lead to a child being put for adoption, whether it's through malicious or thoughtful intent, but once that child is put for adoption and taken in by a new family, it's over, isn't it?
Well, no.
Even if being put up for adoption, the birth mother is required by law to be on the birth certificate. Even if that information is sealed by the biological parents, the adoptive parents and the child will have access to the document.
Even in the case of a closed adoption, with the introduction of a second birth certificate, the first one still exists.
However, not all cases of adoption are started at birth, or even initiated by the biological parents. Sometimes, the government is forced to step in and intervene when children are neglected and abused.
The fine line being walked in even recognizing and solving those horror stories is hard enough. Making it legally required for those parents to have access to their adopted children is inhumane, right?
For obvious reasons, once a child is adopted, the birth parent has no legal right to communication with the child. An agreement between the birth parents and the adopted parents would allow that contact, though.
Once a child turns 18, regardless of the adopted parent's wishes, they can seek their birth parents information and begin the process to finding more information on who they are. But if the biological parent wishes to remain anonymous then it will result in court cases and headaches.
In the case of young parents, which is a common reason for adoption, the birth parents feel forced to give up their child for the chance of their child having a better life. But when times passes and the biological parents are more stable, they may feel as though they would be able reassure their child why they were put up for adoption and "re-unite" a family.
However, many adoptive parents adopt because they are unable to have biological children of their own. Their adopted children are their biological children in their eyes and the thought of being "sponsor" parents disgusts them.
I have to agree.
While it's sometimes sad and unfortunate that good, thoughtful birth parents no longer have access to their children, the adopted parents have become their biological parents.
If the adopted parents feel as though the biological parents have their child's best interests at heart, they may even allow access.
There should be no law, though.
What do you think? Am I completely wrong? Heading in the right direction? It's up for interpretation, but I think biological parents being legally required to have access to the children they had put up for adoption is wrong.