This excerpt
illustrates that agencies were keenly aware of their responsibilities
to help adoptive parents tell, and tell correctly, in spite of the
shame that surrounded illegitimacy.
Agency staff also understood that psychopathology
studies made this task all the more difficult by implying that
bungled or tardy telling would ruin children. One example of such
a study was Marshall D. Schechter,
“Observations on Adopted Children,” 1960, which
is mentioned, indirectly, in these meeting minutes from Louise Wise
Services in New York.
Dr. Bernard discussed agency philosophy and policy regarding the
“telling of adoption.” She indicated that one of the
important things about telling of adoption is that it really should
be part and parcel of the entire complex experience and the whole
adoption process for parents and child even though, understandably,
it is often singled out as a pivotal issue. For without question,
it does tend to serve as a focal point around which many of the
parents’ anxieties and fears, attitudes and difficulties find
expression. It is also a point to which subsequent problems and
frictions in an adopted child’s life are readily ascribed
and from which a desire to find out more about his natural parents
may arise. This may frighten the parents with regard to the success
of the adoption.
Dr. Bernard proceeded to discuss some of the current articles on
this subject. She reassured the Board that LWS is keeping up with
developments in theory and knowledge in the field and with the pertinent
professional literature. . . . Several papers by
a few psychiatrists and analysts appeared a few years ago in which
adopted children were considered more prone to emotional disturbance
than other children. Thus, adoption was viewed, in a sense, as causing
emotional disorders in children. At least two of these authors made
the further suggestion that the maladjustment of these adopted children
was due to being told about their adoption at an early age. Dr.
Bernard regarded it as unfortunate that these opinions received
wide public circulation through being picked up by writers for popular
magazines. Although those of us in the adoption field should maintain
a scientific attitude and thus accept whatever new facts may appear
on the basis of sound investigation, it is important that premature
or unsubstantiated comments adverse to adoption be carefully reviewed
and evaluated lest publicizing them as authoritative threaten the
public’s confidence. . . .
We have also come to realize that adopted children may have special
difficulty in the psychological process of establishing their sense
of identity. Emotional problems in adopted children are caused by
a variety of reasons, just as they are for all children; but such
problems for the adopted children are more apt to be expressed through
symptoms involving their sense of identity. The telling about adoption
may make this task of growing a sense of identity more difficult
since it may be hard for a child to assimilate the concepts of two
sets of parents and, thus, harder to build a firm sense of self.
It would be a mistake, however, thinks Dr. Bernard, to try and protect
the young child from being told about his adoption, partly because
of the greater psychological burdens this places on the child-parent
relationship. In our experience, when the adopted child is emotionally
maladjusted, it is due not to the “telling” per se,
but to underlying problems of the sort that may obtain for any child,
including, of course, disturbing family relationships.
There are a number of ways by which we are learning more about
the psychological implications of the telling process for both parents
and children which, in turn, serves as a guide for improvements
in practice. Thus, at LWS, post-adoptive contact with parents—both
individually and in groups—helps the agency to expand its
understanding while also providing further help to the parents.
It has become apparent that the original casework discussions with
prospective adoptive parents at the time of placement are not retained
nor available when the time to tell about adoption actually arises.
Group meetings when the child is near the age to be told have [been]
found to be extremely useful for the parents and instructive for
the caseworkers. Our increased realization of what telling has really
meant in different situations, and how it becomes enmeshed with
the determinants of emotional health, has also been enhanced by
helping individual parents and children who return to the agency
when the children are young, when they are adolescents, and occasionally
when they are adults. . . .
By way of a case illustration, Dr. Bernard reported on a recent
consultation she had with a young man whose parents had adopted
him as an infant through LWS. The parents initiated the consultation
because their son was now expressing some desire to know more about
his biological parents. His parents told Dr. Bernard that although
they had never lied to their son about anything else, they had told
him that his natural parents had both died—which was not the
case—and they now felt anxiety on this score. . . .
At the interview it was apparent that despite what he had been
told, he was aware that he was probably the illegitimate child of
an unmarried mother. He had grown up not believing his adoptive
parents that his biological parents had died. By all the usual criteria,
this young man was a very well adjusted person, doing well at graduate
school, and, according to a reliable and knowledgeable informant,
the family relationships within this adoptive family had always
been excellent. Nevertheless, at the time of the consultation, there
were some psychological problems for both the parents and the young
man—though not of overwhelming magnitude—which might
have been obviated in the first place had the adoptive parents not
disposed of his natural parents originally by killing them off.
This is a very attractive solution to many adoptive parents since
it avoids the painful question of illegitimacy (the parents who
get killed off are always married) and it disposes of the worry
about whether the children will want to seek out their natural parents
and return to them. However, despite these advantages, in the short
run when the children are small and the telling looms large, it
can become, as in this instance, a source of later discomfort, anxiety,
guilt, mistrust, and a barrier between this young man and his adoptive
parents. |