Tuesday, June 16, 2009

She Said: Adoption

The LDS Church believes that every effort should be made to assist young women who conceive out of wedlock to first try to establish an eternal family relationship. If the unwed parents are unable or unwilling to marry, they are then encouraged to place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services.

The Church stresses that unwed parents who do not marry should not be urged to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of some desire to care for one's own. They consider that the best interests of the child in this situation is to be placed for adoption. The Proclamation on the Family states:
Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

The wording of this sentence makes me uneasy and raises a few doctrinal questions. If children are "entitled" to birth within just such a traditional family, then why does God permit them to come to earth in such varied circumstances as they do? I presume he has control over where the spirits are sent, over men's and women's fertility, and such. I am tempted to believe that when a child is sent to a certain mother that she is "entitled" to raise it as her own.

Since I now have 6 girls who could potentially bear children, this is a topic of concern to me. I would be devastated if a child who was born into our family was given up for adoption. I would be willing to provide any support needed for such a child to remain in the family. I am also concerned that because of the Church's policy, LDS Social Services is not providing much needed information and support so that young women can make informed decisions. Michelle Renaud provides one example involving Don Staheli, who worked for LDS Family Services and now is Regional Representative of the Twelve.

The LDS Family Services site "It's About Love" shows how heavily slanted this organization is toward convincing a young woman to give her child up for adoption. The many options are explored with a purpose of convincing the pregnant woman that the best and most moral choice is adoption.

I have seen a great change in this policy just in the course of my lifetime. When I first joined the Church, the counsel to young women was that they should keep and raise their children. It often was suggested to them that this would be part of the repentance process. I don't feel that this policy, any more than the current one, is perfect for every situation. I feel that the families involved should be counseled on their options and encouraged to pray and make their own decisions based on their desires and family resources. Since the preferred counsel has changed so much over the years, I feel satisfied in declaring that giving up children for adoption is merely a policy currently preferred by Church agencies which may change and is not doctrinal. I don't think that anyone can make a blanket statement that certain types of families or individuals are any less able to successfully raise children than the traditional, two-parent, husband and wife pair.

What do you think?

24 comments:

  1. I don't think that anyone can make a blanket statement

    While we can't make blanket statements, we can certainly make statistical statements about what kinds of family situations give a child the best chance. From what I have read there is a lot of evidence that being raised by two parents is (statistically) better for children. In the absences of blanket statements, would statistical arguments like those I have alluded to give you pause?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, yes. Statistics DO show that children in two parent homes are less likely to commit suicide and to commit crimes (and probably lots of other things I don't have time to look up right now). But I don't think we have much info on whether those two parents are the child's natural parents or not, or whether it makes a difference. I was not able to find, for instance, a study of child abuse between biological or adoptive parents. I would tend to be swayed by statistical arguments, but there are many factors which must be weighed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Okay, good. Then we are on the same page. I agree that we can never be sure about any specific case, but that with studies we can try to tease out the statistically-best course of action.

    The studies I have seen said that adopted children in two parent homes do as well or better than biological children in two parent homes as long as they were adopted within the first six month or so. I think this is a good reason to encourage people to give the child up for adoption if they cannot offer the child a stable two-parent home (for whatever reason).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jacob, you still haven't convinced me that it isn't best for a child to remain with its biological parent or family when possible. But in the interest of fair play, here are some more stats to back you up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I appreciate the fair play. Honestly, I am not expert enough on this topic to feel comfortable trying to convince someone else. I was mostly interested in finding out what kinds of arguments you would be swayed by and as it turns out they are the same kinds of arguments I would be swayed by. I assume that if I were in the position to make a decision relative to this question, I would do my best to become familiar with the studies that exist on both sides of the issue and this would influence my decision greatly. If there are studies showing areas where adopted children do worse that would be interesting to see as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You mentioned that you would do anything to provide support to keep the child within the family. We differ in opinions about this one. If one of my children conceived out of wedlock and there was not the potential for a good marriage, I would do all I could to encourage adoption. Throughout my life I have been around people who were born into circumstances such as these, but not put up for adoption. Life has always been more challenging for these children. They are very confused about their place in the world. There is always this longing in them that will never be satisfied.

    The girls who keep their babies will almost certainly live in poverty and have a reduced chance of marrying. I would want more for my son or daughter than that. It would break my heart to give up a grandchild, but I could never forgive myself for potentially sacrifcing a child's well-being to satisfy my desire for a baby with my blood.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have to agree with anonymous on this one. I, too, have seen young women decide to keep the baby (because of grandma) and it has been a sad thing to witness. Does everyone love the child? Yes, of course. Does everyone have a place to live and food to eat? Yes. But there is also an incredible amount of stress caused by this situation. The baby's father is barely, if ever, around. The grandparents, who had dreams of what they might do when their kids were grown, have changed their lives dramatically. Grandma now stays home with the grandchild, while Mom goes and works to provide. I think the reason the counsel is different now is because the world is different. Many households need two incomes now, whereas before many only required one. Years ago, lack of a college degree didn't dampen your job prospects as much as it does now. Of course it would be heartbreaking to give up a child to adoption-even when someone has spiritual confirmation, it's still not an easy thing to do. Somewhere in that prayer that considers desires and financial situation though, there needs to be a thought for what will be best for that child.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You know me, but I am posting anonymously. I had a baby out of wedlock almost 30 years ago, and I kept her. I love my daughter very much. My life is very very different from how it "might have been" if I had put her up for adoption. I never really seriously considered adoption. But here's what life as a young mother involved: day care. Full-time work at dead end jobs. No college.

    My parents were great, but I was an adult (if a young one), not a teen. I didn't want to live at home. They didn't want to take care of a baby full-time. They helped me a lot financially, but letting me and my child move in with them and paying for everything so I could go to college just wasn't in the cards, financially OR emotionally.

    My daughter had a baby out of wedlock. She was younger than I was. She put the baby up for adoption. The story is that it is happily ever after for everyone. The reality is that there is virtually no social support for a woman who gives up her baby. Some few pay lip service, but the majority react somewhat as you did - how could she? What kind of person gives her baby away? Close family, people who care about her, said things like "I would have an abortion before I would give my child away." Ten years later, she doesn't tell anyone; not even close friends.

    The reality is, there is no "good" option for a girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock. None. And the only choice that lets her get on with her life quickly is abortion. Adoption lets you get on with life eventually, once the social stigma and the overwhelming loss fade a bit. Keeping the baby changes your life irrevocably, and in my experience, NEVER for the better. Grandparental intentions notwithstanding, if you're going to carry the baby to term, it's almost always better for the baby AND THE MOTHER to put the baby up for adoption. And almost nobody does, because all there is for them is loss.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The girls who keep their babies will almost certainly ... have a reduced chance of marrying."

    I would hope that this isn't the case. If so, it says something very frightening about the men we are raising...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ender2K

    I wouldn't be that hard on men who choose not to date a single mother. A single mother has less time to date and meet eligable men. She has to put the needs of her child/children first. Like it or not, having stepchildren creates complications in a marriage that would not otherwise be there. I admire men who are good fathers to their stepchildren, but it is not realistic to expect all men to be able to take on this kind of responsiblity.

    My question for Anon: what can we do to better support those who choose adoption?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Support of adoption is not just "a policy currently preferred by Church agencies." The Church has been pretty consistent in encouraging adoption since 1919, when the Relief Society Social Service Department was formed. If you heard different counsel, then it was coming from your local leaders and was contrary to official counsel.

    Through my work and because of people I know, I have had numerous interactions with people from LDS Family Services, and I can tell you that their policy is not to pressure a woman to choose adoption. They are open about their support for adoption, but they recognize that it's the woman's decision, and if she's pressured into making a decision she doesn't feel good about, it benefits no one. They actually do provide information about a woman's other options (except abortion). And they will help women who choose to parent their children. But yes, they do advocate adoption in general and support the First Presidency's position on it.

    And to Anonymous above, I am sorry your daughter had such a bad experience and that people were so heartless. I have to say, though, that I have met many young women whose experiences were much more positive. If you go to LDS Family Services' website, linked in the original post, you can hear women (real birth mothers) share their own stories about their adoption experiences.

    ReplyDelete
  12. One more thing--the January 2008 Ensign has an article ("Why Adoption?) that explains why the Church supports adoption. (I would link to it, but I have no idea how to do links here.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. God sends spirits into less-than-ideal situations for many reasons, most of which are known to Him and to the spirits who chose that path but not so much to us. One thing though is: if God only ever sent children in to perfect homes (aside from how few children would be born at all) then that would be clearly interfering with our agency. He doesn't do that. He teaches us the pattern but we have to chose to live it or life is nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you for this post and the very informative quotes and links!

    I agree totally that encouraging adoption violates God's plan and not in the best interest of the child or the family into which he is born to be separated from the, especially under US adoption laws that sever all ties forever and make them a secret to all the parties involved. Even so-called "open adoption" begins with the mother permanently and irrevocably surrendering ALL of her rights as parent of her child. Any contact between her and the adoptive family or her child is a promise that can be broken with no legal enforcement, and all at *their* decsion. It can also make the pain of not be able or allowed to parent even harder.

    There is great deal of information to support the harm done to children and their families by separating them. Thus out-of-family adoptions should only take place as a last resort, after all efforts to keep families intact - and keeping children within their kinship circle - have been exhausted. It is the only moral (Christian? Loving?) thing to do - to offer help and assistance, not to punish. WWJD? Family preservation, kinship care and adoption as a last resort are supported by the United Nations, UNICEF, CRC and many other child advocacy organizations.

    Yes, parenting is difficult and challenging. Yes it strains the family. But the trauma and strain of the loss of child is far greater as it never goes away, though children do grow up and become less of a "burden." And any mother will tell you it's all worth it!

    When a mother is encouraged to place a child out of the family, she often resents her parents and church leaders for making her do so and it effects all of her future relations with them as well as with any man she might marry and any children she may or may not subsequently have.

    It is not natural or healthy for any of the parties. A little bit of struggle to pull together and help out is what families, churches and communities are SUPPOSED to do. Would they not do so if a married women with young or infant children lost her husband? Of cure they would. But as you said, this is punitive and why should children suffer for their mother's "indiscretions" when it is well known that adoptees suffer lifelong feelings of rejection and abandonment, as well as identity confusion, and anger.

    Adoption is BIG BUSINESS, and LDS is in the midst of it! As they say, follow the money! You might be interested to read: Adoption And The Role Of The Religious Right By Mirah Riben www.countercurrents.org/riben041107.htm

    ReplyDelete
  15. AdoptAuthor,

    You make some bold assertions. What evidence (beside anecdotal) do you have that a child kept by an unwed teenager and her family is better off physcially, emotionally and academically than a child placed with a loving adoptive family? Can you point us to any studies that show that birth-mothers are worse off for having placed their children for adoption? I could be wrong, but your assertions seem to be based on emotion rather than fact.

    By the way, LDS Family Services in not for profit and is subsidized. They make no profit from their adoptions. You know that! :) I know this a sensitive topic for you, but let's get our facts straight.

    I know that in many situations family wants to "help out" with out-of-wedlock babies. What does that really mean? How much "help" does a child need to take the place of a father?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Definitely the child should stay with its mother and NOT be adopted. Children do fine with single parents, particularly when they have the support of their extended families.

    Adopted children have a lot of trauma from being separated from their mothers. They are overrepresented in adolescent treatment centers and twice as like to attempt suicide. They are stressed growing up with people who do not share their looks, interests, or talents. A good place to start learning about this is "The Primal Wound" by Nancy Verrier.

    I surrendered a daughter for adoption in 1966 and I, like all the many birthmothers I know, I very much regret it. All birthmothers suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome. Check out "The Girls Who Went Away" by Ann Fessler.

    My surrendered daughter was raised by Mormon parents. I've written on the FirstMother Forum blog about the Mormon position on adoption. http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2008/09/adoption-and-mormon-church.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. To MIchelle renaud,

    LDS social Services does provide help for birth mothers. If that was what you were seeking you went to the right place. If you wanted marriage counseling all you had to do was ask Don for it! I know him to be an excellent marriage counselor and a fine man. I find your opinion appalling! You blame him--why didn't you seek out your own information and resources? Why di dyou interpret his word welfare as demeaning, would that have been a better road for you and your baby? How can you expect him to know all the things you have now discovered and then blame him for not telling you? I think your story is bull crap. Grow up! Quit blaming and take responsibility. You were pregnant and vulnerable--and where was the man that impregnated you--was he a fine upstanding man, like Don Staheli who did what he could to help you? Of did he run and hide from the responsibility? You made choices, quit whining!
    I think adoption is a great thing, maybe not for everyone but certainly great for some!
    Kara Heugly

    ReplyDelete
  18. ANON,

    No studies have been done or can be done to compare how a child MIGHT HAVE faired if his family received the resources they needed as compared to being adopted out to unrelated strangers. As for studies of the lifelong negative affects of adoption on mothers and their children there are several. Please check Origins-USA.org for some. Are you aware that studies are often slanted depending on who funds them? Adoption is a multi-billion dollar industry with paid lobbyists and marketing companies who produce studies.

    Not-for-profit is a tax status. It does not mean that owners, operators, employees are not paid salaries and other expenses need to be paid. Adoption agencies - whether LDS or other - are BUSINESSES. Their business depends upon family separations and the redistribution of children. Anyone who can pay the fee can adopt a child - there is no one judging if the placement is in the best interest of the child, as proven by the fact that children have been physically and sexually abused ad killed by their adopters. "Anecdotal" FACTS!

    Are you aware of the divorce rate? That does not include fathers who die. So a child starting our with a mother and father - by birth or adoption has no guarantee of remaining in the same situation.

    As I said previously, would you not help out a widowed mothers with young children? How much help would be enough for her? that;s the same answer to how much help is enough for a single mom. BTW - are you are that single woman now adopt and have babies via "donor" insemination etc? Is that OK? It seems to be ok for those who accept their money to do it!

    Mirah Riben

    ReplyDelete
  19. What can we do to offer more support? Well, we can stop wondering what kind of monster would give her baby away.

    That's hyperbole. But there really is suspicion about the character of a woman who would place a baby for adoption. The assumption seems to be that she's selfish and shallow; that a "real" woman would never give her baby away.

    My daughter does not regret her decision, I think. But I have been surprised at how people respond.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am an adopted child and as an adult, to look at the eternal perspective is the only way to go. If a family can't have a child and the Lord wants them there how else are they suppose to get there? Adoption is an option and if you look at most single mom's out there, they are struggling or their family is supporting the majority of the child's extra things. With an adopted child they usually aren't struggling with the simple things of life. Yes they are issue of many different things in there life, but they are managable. When a single parent is raising a child, there are issues too, just different ones. Everyone has issues, whether adopted or not. Adoption is an option for families to be created. I am adopted and I have issues, but whose to say I wouldn't have more issues if I had been raised by my biological mother? I am the product of a family that had it struggles, but in the eternal perspective that is how I grow. I know no other way. I wouldn't trade my family for anything. If I do ever meet my bio-mother then I will share in that relationship also and I am blessed to have both. The curiosity of not knowing is hard, but what do you blame all your issues on when you aren't adopted - "raised by a single parent, raised in poverty, raised by grandparents, etc." I was raised by a single parent for a time, my father died when I was 11, that could of happened even if I wasn't adopted. Everything happens for a reason and we may not know why but we do what is best for that moment and choose what we feel is right! As an adult, I don't blame anyone or anything for my issues, I just need to learn to deal with them just like everyone else!
    S'more

    ReplyDelete
  21. It just comes down to choice. My sister gave her child up for adoption when she was sixteen. And thank goodness she did. She's been married twice and engaged twice. Has four kids and is completely crazy right now. I can't imagine the child she gave up growing up in a worse situation. Let's not judge. Whether a woman decides to keep her baby or not it's her choice and let's respect that without calling her selfish or a monster. What's best for her and her baby is her decision to make.
    Anon 12

    ReplyDelete
  22. In response to Kara Heugly’s comment

    Kara Wrote "I find your opinion appalling! You blame him--why didn't you seek out your own information and resources? Why di dyou interpret his word welfare as demeaning, would that have been a better road for you and your baby? How can you expect him to know all the things you have now discovered and then blame him for not telling you? I think your story is bull crap. Grow up! Quit blaming and take responsibility. You were pregnant and vulnerable--and where was the man that impregnated you--was he a fine upstanding man, like Don Staheli who did what he could to help you? Of did he run and hide from the responsibility? You made choices, quit whining! Kara Heugly"

    Kara Heugly should not be a counselor for anyone most importantly innocent families. She has NO room to criticize anyone for their choices. To know the truth about Kara’s unethical behavior dealing with children and their family check out her DOPL discipline record. Kara needs to look at herself, and what choices she makes. Kara I think your story is bull crap. Grow up! Quit blaming and take responsibility for what you have done.You made choices, Kara quit whining!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. In response to Kara Heugly’s comment
    Kara Heugly leave those kids alone!!!!!!
    Kara DOPL report Case # 2007-249
    She had her son in on her manipulations also

    PUBLIC REPRIMAND



    On July 20, 2010, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline: Public Reprimand against Dusten L. Heugly for violation of Rules 1.7(b)(4) (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients), 8.4(d) (Misconduct), and 8.4(a) (Misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.





    In summary:



    Mr. Heugly agreed to represent clients in a family court matter. Mr. Heugly expressed that if he were to be retained by the clients he would clearly have a conflict of interest based on the fact that his parent was a counselor and court appointed supervisor. Mr. Heugly did not get a written waiver for this conflict and entered an appearance in the parental rights case. Mr. Heugly’s actions caused harm by undermining the confidence in the proceedings and calling into question the fair, impartial, and just administration of the case.

    Kara needs to be terminated from hurting anymore family's.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In response to Kara Heugly’s comment

    Kara Heugly just does not have any business with children period! I do thank DOPL and Utah State Bar for listening to me finally and hopefully stopping some of this unethical and very bias behavior. Kara lies every time she opened her mouth even under oath. Way to go Kara I bet it makes the LDS proud. Kara forged her supervisors name on her client’s child recommendation to the courts favoring fathers without ever meeting the mother of the child. She also had her son become the attorney of her clients to do a mother and son tag team to have advantage of the custody cases. Here is her son's public Reprimand
    On July 20, 2010, the Chair of the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah Supreme Court entered an Order of Discipline:
    In summary:
    Mr. Heugly agreed to represent clients in a family court matter. Mr. Heugly expressed that if he were to be retained by the clients he would clearly have a conflict of interest based on the fact that his parent was a counselor and court appointed supervisor. Mr. Heugly did not get a written waiver for this conflict and entered an appearance in the parental rights case. Mr. Heugly's actions caused harm by undermining the confidence in the proceedings and calling into question the fair, impartial, and just administration of the case.
    Kara needs to leave those children alone and let them have a kind, loving, happy, healthy and natural life with both parents.

    ReplyDelete