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
