Strangers and Kin: The American Way of Adoption

337 Pages·2006·0.99 MB·English

by  Barbara Melosh

STRANGERS AND KIN

Barbara Melosh
STRANGERS AND KIN
The American Way of Adoption
HARVARD
UNIVERSITY
PRESS
Cambridge,
Massachusetts
London, England
Copyright © 2002 by the President and Fellows ofHarvard College
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States ofAmerica
First Harvard University Press paperback edition, 2006
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Melosh,Barbara.
Strangers and kin :the American way ofadoption / Barbara Melosh.
p.cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-674-00912-6 (cloth : alk. paper)
ISBN 0-674-01953-9 (pbk.)
1.Adoption—United States. 2.Adoption—United States—History. I.Title.
HV875.55 .M444 2002
362.73(cid:1)4(cid:1)0973—dc21 2002017159
Contents
Preface vii
Introduction 1
1 Wanted—A Child To Raise as Our Own:
Claiming Strangers as Kin 12
2 Families by Design:
“Fitness”and “Fit”in the Creation ofKin 51
3 The “Best Solution”:
Adoption Embraced 105
4 Redrawing the Boundaries:
Transracial and International Adoption 158
5 “Tell It Slant”:
Adoption and Disclosure 201
6 Adoption Challenged:
Beyond the Best Solution 238
Epilogue 287
Notes 293
Index 321
PPrreeffaaccee
For Mike
Preface
This book would not have been possible without the generosity and
trust of those who maintain the records of the Children’s Bureau of
Delaware (CBD).My heartfelt thanks to Iris Synder and Lisa Reticker,
who ªrst alerted me to these records and encouraged me to think I
mightbeabletogainaccesstothem.TheCBDnolongerexistsasanor-
ganization, but the several social agencies that succeeded it have been
faithful stewards of its records and of the adoptive families whose sto-
ries are told in them.Al Synder believed in the importance of the his-
tory of adoption and trusted me to use the records to tell that story.
LydiaDurbinsuppliedmewithusefulbackgroundinformationandas-
sisted my work at the agency in many ways large and small.Typical of
bothherthoughtfulnessandsenseofhumor,shesuppliedmewithata-
bleandchairinthecorridoroutsidetherecordroom,anddigniªedmy
laborswithaprintedsignoverit:“CenterfortheStudyoftheHistoryof
Adoption.”
Ialsowishtoacknowledgetheprodigiousmemoryandfaithfulstew-
ardship of Susan Burns. When I ªrst began to use the records, I was
pleased,andalsopuzzled,toencounternewspaperclippingsinmanyof
themthatsuppliedinformationaboutadoptivefamiliesyearsaftertheir
contact with the CBD ended. The mystery was solved one day when I
met Susan in the record room,ªling clippings in the records of clients
she still remembered. Later, I beneªted from her detailed comments
and criticisms as she read a full draft ofthe manuscript.
Ihaveusedthoserecordsunderthetermsof aconªdentialityagree-
viii Preface
ment that binds me to maintain that trust. Neither my research notes
northisbookcontainanypropernamesfromthoserecords.Iusesim-
ple letter designations—Mr. and Mrs. G.—when I have needed to use
names for adult individuals.I have frequently changed the prospective
adopters’ initials when repetition would lead to confusion within a
chapter.I identify children by assigned pseudonyms (“George,”Mary,”
etc.).In cases where unusual circumstances might identify the persons
involved,Ihavechangedotherdetailstoprotectthatconªdentiality.My
notes and draft manuscripts identify cases by a numerical code whose
key is stored at the agency. Because these records are not available for
publicaccess,Idonotincludeidentiªcationnumbersinthedocumen-
tation for this book; instead, I indicate the year of the record so that
readers can follow the chronology I trace.
The language of adoption is a revealing index of its anomalous
status,and any choice of terms itself represents an implicit position or
evaluation. I use “prospective adopters” to describe adults seeking
children to adopt, and “adoptive mothers,” “adoptive fathers,” and
“adoptive parents” to identify those in families formed by law. At the
time of this writing, there is no consensus on the best term for those
who give birth to children and then decide to plan adoption for them.
Adoptive parents object to the phrase “natural parents”as a term that
denigrates adoptive kinship. “Biological parents” strikes many as cold
andclinical,evendehumanizing.“Birthparent”acknowledgesthetieof
reproduction, and the term emerged as a protest against the erasure
embodiedintheterm“illicitpregnancy.”“Birthparent”doesnotwork
well, though, in the earlier decades of adoption, when few mothers
placed children at birth. Still, I take up this terminology as the best
among available alternatives.
In describing termination of parental rights, I use the term “relin-
quishment.” No longer current in social science literature, the term
seems to me worth rescuing; I ªnd it a compelling expression of both
theintentionalityandthepainthatattendthisact.Anotheralternative,
also currently in disuse, is “surrender”; this poignantly expresses the
loss of relinquishment, but I am uneasy with its connotations of war
anddefeat.Adoptionprofessionalscurrentlyfavorthephrase“tomake
an adoption plan.”More respectful of relinquishing parents, the term
Preface ix
nonethelessseemstometoobloodlessandinstrumentalandtherefore
not a faithful rendering of the complicated emotions and constrained
choices that attend adoption.
Many colleagues and friends assisted this work over the years by
reading drafts, listening to conference papers, sending me newspaper
articles and references, sharing their own work, and talking with me
aboutadoption.Iampleasedtoacknowledgetheirgoodcompanyand
theirhelp:MargoAnderson,SusanPorterBenson,E.WayneCarp,John
Gillis,CynthiaHarrison,EllenHerman,BrianHorrigan,RichardJohn,
Deborah Kaplan, Lee Klesius, Rebecca Knight, Michael Lacey, Amy
Levine, Elaine Tyler May, Judith S. Modell, Marianne Novy, Leslie
Reagan,RoyRosenzweig,EllenRoss,MargaretRossiter,SarahSherman,
Christina Simmons,Judith E.Smith,Rickie Solinger.
I am pleased to acknowledge also the support of George Mason
University, especially for the 1994–1995 Faculty Study Leave that
enabledmetogetthisprojectunderway.TheNationalEndowmentfor
the Humanities and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholarsassistedatthecrucialwritingstage.ThegenerosityofCornelia
and Lawrence W. Levine was a source of much-appreciated support
during my residency in Washington,DC,as a Wilson Center Fellow.
I beneªted from the ªne readings of the penultimate draft by Ellen
Herman and Daniel Walkowitz, who provided detailed comments. At
Harvard University Press, Joyce Seltzer offered superb editorial
guidance and encouraged me to broaden my argument and address.
Susan Wallace Boehmer brought a discerning ear and careful editorial
eye to the copyediting.
Zoªa Burr read many versions of this book. Her comments guided
my rethinking and rewriting, and the gift of her friendship sustained
me in the intellectual and emotional labor ofwriting.
Finally,Iwanttothankthestrangersandkininmyownfamily.My
motherandfather(heisnowdeceased)werecompassionatesupporters
as my husband, Gary, and I faced infertility and turned to adoption.
Garyhasspentmanyhoursthinkingwithmeaboutadoption.Withhis
encouragement, I was able to accept the Wilson Center grant; he
handledthingsathometogivemetheluxuryof focusedtimetothink
andwrite.Hisreadingsofthemanuscriptinitslaterstageswerecrucial