by Karen Wilson Buterbaugh
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>
Transfer interrupted!
er 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.
The author, Karen Wilson, is co-founder of Mothers
for Open Records Everywhere (M.O.R.E.) and OriginsUSA,
and is a mother who lost her daughter to adoption in 1966.