In many societies, children have the privilege of growing up with either both or one of their birth parents present. Therefore, the perception of adoption is that of a family with fragile ties, for the adopted child is not from the family’s bloodline. Transracial and international adoptions are superlatively more precarious due to the fact that physical attributes, cultural and ethnical inclinations coincide to tell the difference between foster parents and their adopted children.
That is why both the parties involved in the adoption process stand to loose during its progression. The biological parents loose their child while the foster parents loose a chance to conceive and leave their own heritage. The adopted child looses even more in terms of lineage, culture and behavioral traits. This causes the adoptees to undergo painful psychological adjustments while they try to place themselves in their adoptive family. On the other hand, Oceanic and Eskimo societies have a very casual approach to adoption unlike most western societies and to them adopting a child needs not be a legally frustrating process. In Hawaii for example, the preceding ruler, Queen Luliuokalani was an adopted child and the documented process of her adoption was very simple in that her biological mother just gave her to the administrating chief who adopted her. This form of adoption was and is quite popular with the chiefs and it sends a message of unity and accordance to society.
More civilized societies like America only apply for adoption in moments of crisis, contravening the Oceanic method of adoption that is a lucid selfless act of love and compassion. These societies treat adoption as a social obligation, and it is deeply entrenched into their culture. These close-knit societies offer an advantage to the biological parents of the adoptee for they can still monitor their child’s progress and consequently maintain the bonds between the parent and the child. An Adoptee can be moved from parent to parent for a short or long periods depending on the prevailing circumstances of the biological parents.
The management of adoption in anthropological prose brings about sagacity that the notion has already been resolved. Anthropologists err in obliging this notion on others rather than embrace examination thus amplify the criterion of study. The indenture of a child is considered as an aspect of affiliation due to demographic conditions rather than a major social and cultural event.
This disregard points out the conventional approach in analysis taken by anthropologists. This is reflected back into society especially in the western world, which views adoptees as predestined persons who fall between the kin and non-kin dimensions. Such presumption are however not worldwide and other distinct societies view kinship as a special connection with a child either by feeding or spending time with it and a child is perceived to be born to and of society. Therefore, kinship is attributed to the fostering society and the environment a child grows up in, as a result kinship is considered designated rather than definite.
The study of adoption is hence crucial to anthropologists not only as a means to devise biological links, but also a way to discover the importance and inference of certain facets of culture that affect ethnicity, family and individual and hence influence human nature, human character and human behavior.
Conversely, adoptees in both western and isolated societies need to be shielded from harm. The essential motive of adoption is to form a stable and safe environment for a child to grow in so as to achieve its potentials determined by the consenting parties involved. One factor that is keenly observed is the ability of a parent to properly raise a child and the influence the parent has on this child.
Western societies have witnessed an expanding generation of younger parents who are prone to irresponsibility and unsociable behavior. Such parents would obviously provide a degraded setting for their child to grow up in and consequently negatively affecting the child’s growth and development. Civilized societies have mechanisms in place that extract the child from any harmful setting and it has also been discovered that indigenous societies also had social structures that were responsible for the welfare of any child born to that society. After being born, the child is placed in foster care and the biological parents might still be allowed to visit and engage with the adoptee, and this kind of adoption is referred to as open adoption. However, there are particular instances that may forbid a child from accessing information regarding his or her biological parents and this kind of adoption is known as closed adoptions, even though they are quite seldom. Discussed below are some of the reasons why a child’s rights to find his or her biological parents may be revoked either by the government or the foster parents;
If a biological parent happen to be of a negative influence to the adoptee is the first factor.
The circumstances surrounding the extraction of a child from his biological parents’ home may vary, but of interest is; are the parents responsible for negligence. Some biological parents might be drug addicts or alcoholics and such kinds of parents are basically suspected of having a poor moral compass. An adoptee would be highly discouraged or forbidden from interacting or even finding out about them for their union would more often than not lead the young child into the realms of drugs or alcohol. Children tend to relate more with what their parents do and a connection with parents who have a destructive personality might lead that child down that same road.
You may also encounter young parents who gave birth in their teens and were unable or unwilling to support the child and still hold onto that mentality.
Teenage pregnancies have been on the rise since mid 20th century and young mothers who are courageous enough not to have an abortion often end up giving up the child for adoption for their own subjective reasons. Others may find taking care of a child is a huge burden especially when coupled with school and other personal ambitions. By the time the child is grown up and ready to face his or her biological parents the then young biological parents would most likely have gone and started a more stable life and the adoptee being only a faint memory. This means that to allow a child to meet up with such biological parents would be setting them up for disappointment and emotional torment.
Hardcore criminals like rapists, murderers and robbers are generally not good role models. If adoptive parents or the adopting agency is aware of their criminal record, it is unlikely that a child would be allowed to find them. Psychologists believe that biological parents, especially mothers have a tremendous influence on their children and they link this to the vibrations of the mother’s voice that reach a baby while still in the womb.
Studies have shown that the mother’s tone is firmly etched into the child’s brain during fetal development and as such, the mother’s voice continue to have command over a person even when they are separated for a long time. If for example a mother has criminal traits and conveys them to the child as they speak, chances are that gradually the child will imprint these words and begin to manifest criminal behavior.
Biological parents may also be forced to give up their children for adoption due to the nature of their work. Absentee parents that are travelling almost every day of the week or officers who go undercover for several months or years are less likely to provide stability or emotional comfort that a child needs. They may also lack the option of leaving a child with relatives and so eventually decide to give it up for adoption. Foster parents can therefore revoke the right of that child to find his or her biological parents because introducing them to his or her life could only bring chaos and confusion to the child, destabilizing his or her emotional balance.
This could be reflected in poor grades in school, sudden outbursts of violence or a child may even turn suicidal. In the case of undercover police officers or high profile criminal lawyers, criminals may discover the person’s connection to the adopted child and may end up kidnapping him or her to use the child as leverage to avoid either arrest or prosecution. This inevitably brings grief to the foster family and so foresight is applied by barring the child from finding out his or her biological parents.
Parents suspected of being terrorists or religious extremists may also be a cause for revocation of an adopted child’s rights in finding his or her birth parents. Terrorists are well known to have the inclination to use close family members to carry out acts of terror. This can be one of the consequences if the adopted child is allowed to find his or her birth parents. Religious extremists on the other hand could be responsible of instilling propaganda and antisocial ideology into an innocent child.
Children born of such parents may be forbidden from accessing them or any information about them for the sake of their psychological and emotional stability.
Another reason that would lead to barring of an adopted child from finding out about his or her birth parents is violent and abusive conduct of the biological parents. It is possible that the child was being abused from a very tender age by either of the parents before he or she was extracted and put up for adoption. If this is the case, it is highly unlikely that the child would be allowed to find his or her birth parents. It has been scientifically proven that bad memories tend to linger in the subconscious, and a familiar sight like of the parent or smell of their perfume could act as a trigger allowing a wave of abusive memories to flood the child’s mind. This could gradually or immediately change a child’s behavior to one that is withdrawn and this can take time and a lot of expensive counseling to cure.