• No results found

Processes Linked to Contact Changes in Adoptive Kinship Networks

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Processes Linked to Contact Changes in Adoptive Kinship Networks"

Copied!
16
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Processes Linked to Contact Changes in Adoptive

Kinship Networks

NORA DUNBAR, PH.D.w MANFRED H. M.VAN DULMEN, PH.D.z SUSAN AYERS-LOPEZ, M.ED.‰ JERICA M. BERGE, PH.D.# CINDA CHRISTIAN, PH.D.ww GINGER GOSSMAN, M.A.zz SUSAN M. HENNEY, PH.D.‰‰ TAI J. MENDENHALL, PH.D.# HAROLD D. GROTEVANT, PH.D.w RUTH G. MCROY, PH.D.‰

The purpose of this study was to reveal underlying processes in adoptive kinship networks that experienced increases or decreases in levels of openness during the child’s adolescent years. Intensive case study analyses were conducted for 8 adoptive kinship networks (each including an adoptive mother, adoptive father, adopted ado-lescent, and birth mother), half of whom had experienced an increase in openness from indirect (mediated) to direct (fully disclosed) contact and half of whom had ceased indirect contact between Waves 1 and 2 of a longitudinal study. Adoptive mothers tended to be more involved in contact with the birth mother than were adoptive fathers or adopted adolescents. Members of adoptive kinship networks in which a decrease in level of contact took place had incongruent perspectives about who initiated the stop in contact and why the stop took place. Birth mothers were less satisfied with their degree of contact than were adoptive parents. Adults’ satisfaction with contact was related to feelings of control over type and amount of interactions and permeability of family

449

Funding for the Minnesota/Texas Adoption Research Project was provided by the William T. Grant Foundation; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Hogg Foundation for Mental Health; Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station; and the University Research Institute of the University of Texas at Austin to the principal investigators of this project, Harold Grotevant and Ruth McRoy. We especially thank the adoptive parents, adopted children, and birth mothers for generously sharing their perspectives with us.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Harold D. Grotevant, Department of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, 1985 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108. E-mail: hgroteva@umn.edu

wDepartment of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota. zDepartment of Psychology, Kent State University.

‰School of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin.

#Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota.

wwAustin Independent School District, Austin, TX. zzDepartment of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin.

(2)

boundaries. In all adoptive kinship networks, responsibility for contact had shifted toward the adopted adolescent regardless of whether the adolescent was aware of this change in responsibility.

Keywords: Adoptive Families; Open Adoption; Adolescence

Fam Proc 45:449–464, 2006

V

oluntary infant adoptions in the United States have changed dramatically over the past 30 years, moving away from arrangements in which no contact exists between members of the birth and adoptive families and toward those that include a range of contact options. Increasingly, adoption agencies offer the choice of mediated adoptions, in which communication occurs indirectly by way of a third party, such as an agency staff member; or fully disclosed adoptions, which involve full disclosure of identifying information and direct communication. Although adoptions may begin with one level of openness, participants may subsequently desire or make changes in openness. The purpose of this article is to illuminate the underlying processes that bring about changes in openness within the adoptive kinship network, the set of re-lationships that includes adoptive and birth family members linked together through the placement of the adopted child.

We view adoption as an ongoing, dynamic process that evolves over time, rather than a discrete event that concludes with the child’s placement into an adoptive family. This view of adoption is congruent with models that describe the family as an open, dynamic system in which members are interdependently connected and recip-rocally influence one another over time (Broderick, 1993). The openness context of the adoption shapes the nature of information flow, interdependence, and influence within the adoptive kinship network.

This investigation is guided by two important assumptions from family systems theory: (1) holism, that a system must be understood as a whole, and (2) self-reflivity, that human systems can make their behavior the focus of examination and ex-planation (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). In this study, the adoptive kinship network is understood as a whole by first examining the individual components rep-resented by the views of the birth mother, adoptive mother, father, and adolescent, and then using these multiple accounts to create a family-level narrative. This ap-proach gives voice to individual perspectives that may diverge from or contradict other family members’ views and allows for identification of emergent properties of the system. The assumption of self-reflexivity is critical to this study because participants are asked to examine and evaluate their own behavior and beliefs and the behavior and beliefs of other members of the system.

Relationships between birth- and adoptive family members can be described using concepts from the close relationships model (Kelley et al., 1983). In this model, rela-tionship development may progress in five phases: (1) acquaintance, (2) buildup, (3) consolidation, (4) deterioration, and (5) ending (Levinger, 1983). In adoptions in which no information is shared, relationships may not proceed to an acquaintance phase. If information is shared, adoptive kinship network members have the option to maintain an acquaintance-like relationship or explore intensifying the relationship. During the buildup phase, relationships are explored by gathering information, increasing the

(3)

frequency of interaction, and varying the types and settings of exchanges. If the re-lationship moves to the consolidation phase, the stability of the rere-lationship often increases, and partners become more interdependent. Deterioration occurs if one or both partners become less involved in the relationship, and ending may follow when contact is terminated.

Over the course of their interactions, an adopted child’s birth and adoptive parents attempt to negotiate a level of mutual comfort with the degree of closeness and interdependence in their relationship (Grotevant, McRoy, Elde, & Fravel, 1994). This process does not have to be overtly conscious or deliberate; it happens as a result of accumulated interaction experiences. Establishment and fine-tuning of a relational comfort zone requires time, communication, negotiation skill, and attitudes of open-ness and flexibility to move the relationship from the acquaintance phase to the consolidation phase. Relationship consolidation can be seen in the concept of collab-oration in relationships, a concept that refers to how the birth and adoptive parents manage the relationships in the adoptive kinship network (Grotevant, Ross, Marchel, & McRoy, 1999). In collaborative relationships, the birth and adoptive parents monitor the relationships and adjust their participation on behalf of what they per-ceive to be the adopted child’s best interests. In these situations, birth and adoptive parents interact over time to develop a mutually agreed-upon level of contact (Grotevant, McRoy, & Van Dulmen, 1998). Conversely, networks with members who do not have strong relational skills or the time and energy required to nurture com-plex relationships may be unable to develop collaborative relationships or to form a relational comfort zone.

Recent studies on changes in openness have examined the type and frequency of changes rather than the relationship processes responsible for the initiation of the changes. Findings suggest that over time, most changes lead to decreases in the type, amount, and intensity of contact, and transitions in who participates in the contact. However, in a minority of adoptive kinship networks, increases in contact seem to occur (Berry, Dylla, Barth, & Needell, 1998). Over a 2-year period (from 2 to 4 years postplacement), Berry et al. found decreases or stops in the amount of contact between adoptive and birth family members in almost half of the open adoptions (totalN¼764 adoptions; 52% were open adoptions). This change was most commonly initiated by the birth parent(s), and more likely when the adoptive parent(s) had not freely chosen an open adoption (i.e., the couple chose open adoption because they feared that they would not be able to receive a child from that agency otherwise, or the agency strongly recommended open adoption). Frasch, Brooks, and Barth (2000) found that decreases in openness and contact between birth and adoptive parents in foster care adoptions were most likely to occur between 2 and 4 years postplacement, whereas contact re-mained steady between 4 and 8 years postplacement. Over the 8 years of the study, the role of the adoption agency in initiating contact diminished, and by the last year of the study, agencies were no longer involved in mediation between adoptive and birth family members.

Grotevant et al. (1998) identified several factors that contributed to changes in openness occurring between placement and middle childhood. Increases in level of contact between birth and adoptive families were due to (1) mutual concern for the child’s well being, (2) satisfying personal relationships, and (3) unimpeded flow of communication. Decreases in contact were associated with (1) increased geographic distance, (2) perception of major differences between birth and adoptive parents, (3)

(4)

discouragement of contact by relatives or friends, (4) change in the birth mother’s personal situation (e.g. marriage, new child), (5) inability to negotiate a mutually agreed-upon comfort zone, (6) adoptive parents’ fear that contact was stressful or confusing for the child, and (7) problems with agencies as intermediaries.

The present investigation used an intensive case study method to identify processes taking place in adoptive kinship networks that either stopped or increased contact as the adopted children moved from middle childhood into adolescence. A unique feature of this article is that it incorporates the distinctive perspectives of four key members of adoptive kinship networks: the adoptive fathers, adoptive mothers, birth mothers, and adopted adolescents themselves.

METHOD

Participants

Data for this study come from the Minnesota/Texas Adoption Research Project, a longitudinal study examining the impact of variations in openness for adopted ado-lescents, adoptive parents, and birth mothers (for details, see Grotevant & McRoy, 1998). This nationwide (United States) study engaged 190 adoptive families and 169 birth mothers when their children were between the ages of 4 and 12 years (Wave 1) and members of 177 adoptive families and 127 birth mothers approximately 8 years later (Wave 2). A subset of the sample contains data for corresponding members of the adoptive kinship network, including information for the adoptive mother, adoptive father, adopted child, and child’s birth mother (47 corresponding sets at Wave 2).

Five levels of openness are used to distinguish between duration and type of contact within openness level. In confidential adoptions, no information is shared between birth- and adoptive parents after 6 months postplacement. In time-limited mediated adop-tions, information had been shared through an agency caseworker but had stopped, with no plans to resume sharing. In ongoing mediated adoptions, information ex-change mediated by the agency was currently occurring. In time-limited fully dis-closed adoptions, birth and adoptive parents had had direct fully identified contact, but this contact had stopped, and there was no intention for future contact. In ongoing fully disclosed adoptions, direct sharing of information was continuing and usually accompanied by face-to-face meetings.

At Wave 1, the study’s participants included 720 individuals: both parents in 190 adoptive families, at least one adopted child in 171 of the families, and 169 birth mothers. The vast majority of adoptive parents were Caucasian, Protestant, and middle to upper middle class. Of the 190 adoptive couples interviewed, 177 identified them-selves as Caucasian, 3 as Latino, 1 as African American, and 1 as Latino and Caucasian. Eight couples gave no indication of their race but were identified by interviewers as Caucasian. These couples reflect the population of families who adopted infants through private agencies in the 1980s, and the birth mothers reflected those who voluntarily made adoption plans for their infants through private agencies at that time. Virtually all adoptive parents in the study had adopted because of infertility. The average level of education was 16.2 years for adoptive fathers and 15.1 for adoptive mothers. Adoptive fathers ranged in age from 32 to 53 (mean¼40.7) and adoptive mothers from 31 to 50 (mean¼39.1). At Wave 2, most adoptive parents were still married. Five adoptive mothers and 3 adoptive fathers who participated were divorced; 1 adoptive mother and 2 adoptive fathers were separated;

(5)

and 1 adoptive father and 1 adoptive mother were widowed. Adoptive fathers ranged in age from 40 to 60 years (mean¼49.3), and adoptive mothers ranged from 40 to 57 years (mean¼47.4 years).

At Wave 1, the average number of adopted children in each home was 1.9. Ninety of the target adopted children were male, and 81 were female. Their ages ranged from 4 to 12 years (mean¼7.8 years). At Wave 2, 156 adopted adolescents participated. They ranged in age from 11 to 20 years (mean¼15.7 years).

At the time of the birth of their child, the birth mothers ranged in age from 14 to 36 years (mean¼19.1). Almost 91% were unmarried (N¼153). At Wave 1, the birth mothers ranged in age from 21 to 43 years (mean¼27.1), and the average number of years of education attained was 13.5. Income ranged from $0 to $50,000þ; the modal income range was between $20,000 and $29,000. In terms of ethnicity, 157 (92.9%) were Caucasian, 4 (2.4%) were Latino, 2 (1.2%) were Native American, 1 was African American, 1 was Asian American, and 4 did not list their ethnicity. About 57% of the birth mothers were married at the time of the Wave 1 interview, and they had from one to five children.

Subsample selection. The openness experiences of the families were complex and varied. A purposive sampling strategy was used to restrict the variability of experi-ences across adoptive kinship networks in order to enhance the discovery of com-monalities within subgroups. Data on Wave 1 to Wave 2 openness change from the perspective of birth mothers and adoptive parents were available for 30 of the 47 corresponding sets.

Openness changes were reported by the birth mother and/or adoptive parents in 17 of these 30 networks. Changes were most frequent in networks that had ongoing mediated adoptions at Wave 1 (N¼15). In these networks by Wave 2, 8 had experi-enced increases in openness, to fully disclosed status, and 7 had experiexperi-enced decreases in openness, to stopped mediated status. Networks in which the birth mother and adoptive parent interviews were more than 5 months apart were excluded in order to remove cases in which differences in openness could be due to real changes that oc-curred over time (N¼4). From the remaining 11 networks, 8 cases with the most complete data for all network members were selected for in-depth case-centered analyses, four of whom had increased in contact to fully disclosed (‘‘increasers’’) and four of whom had stopped contact (‘‘decreasers’’).

The 8 networks were equally divided between gender of the adopted adolescent (4 boys and 4 girls). At Wave 2, adolescents were between the ages of 13 and 20 years (mean age¼15). Parents’ characteristics mirrored the demographics of the larger sample presented above.

Decreasers. Three of the stopped, mediated adoptions initially involved agency-me-diated contact, but information sharing stopped when the adopted child was relatively young. In these networks, frequency of contact had varied from one to five letters exchanged per year. In one case, the birth mother did not participate in the exchange, choosing not to receive letters sent by the adoptive parents. The fourth case started as confidential and then moved to mediated at the request of the birth mother, before stopping. Stops in contact were initiated by the birth mother in two cases and by the adoptive parents in two cases.

(6)

Increasers. Three of the fully disclosed adoptions started as confidential, and moved to mediated sharing and then on to full disclosure. In two networks, the move to full disclosure was initiated by the adopted adolescent (through the adoptive parents and agency), and in two networks, the adoptive mother initiated the move. Frequency of contact varied widely, from direct letter exchanges twice a year to more than weekly face-to-face contact between the adopted adolescent and birth mother. There were two networks in which full disclosure was initiated by the adoptive mother. In one case everyone in the adoptive and birth family participated in frequent contact of all types, and in the other case, the adoptive mother and birth mother exchanged letters directly twice a year.

Interviews

All interviews were semistructured in format and asked specific questions but encouraged trained interviewers to probe for information as needed to fully under-stand participants’ responses. At Wave 1, the adoptive parent interview (administered separately to mothers and fathers) included numerous questions concerning motiv-ation for adoption, experience with adoptive placement, and experiences and feelings about their level of adoptive openness. The adopted child interview was designed to elicit open discussion of the child’s experiences and feelings about his or her adoptive family situation and knowledge of and attitudes about his or her birthparents. It covered general adoption issues and issues specific to the level of openness in the child’s adoption. Special training was provided for interviewers who worked with the children, and interviewers spent extra time to develop rapport with the child before the interview. The birth mother interview included an extensive set of questions dealing with her experience in making the adoption plan and the current adoption situation, including relationships with her birth child, the adoptive family, her family of origin, and the placing agency. Interviews with adoptive family members were conducted in their homes across the United States; interviews with the child’s birth mother were typically conducted by telephone.

At Wave 2, the interview for adoptive parents included questions concerning their experiences with being an adoptive family in society; the relationship with the target child; views about the family’s specific experiences with contact or no contact with birth-family members; views about various openness levels in adoption; and hopes for the future regarding relationships with birth family members. The adolescent interview at Wave 2 was designed to elicit open discussion of the adolescent’s experiences with, and feelings, knowledge, and attitudes about, his or her adoption, adoptive identity, adoptive family situation, and birth parents. It covered general adoption issues and issues specific to the level of openness in the adolescent’s adoption. At Wave 2, birth mothers were asked about the adoption process they had experienced; their experience with making an adoption plan for the child; and their current experience with the adoption, including relationships with the birth child, the child’s adoptive family, current relationships and any children the birth mother was parenting, and the placing adoption agency. Interviews with adoptive parents and their adolescents typically lasted about 1–2 hours each; inter-views with birth mothers lasted 1–7 hours (average 3.5 hours). Interinter-views were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim; transcripts constituted approximately 20–60 single-spaced pages per interview.

(7)

Data Analysis Procedures

Case study development and analysis unfolded through multiple steps. Issues pertinent to in-depth analyses had been identified through earlier conceptual work on openness (e.g., Grotevant & McRoy, 1998). Coauthors met to discuss these issues and to identify a case study structure. Issues were organized under three broad categories, with subcomponents for each: (1) what is happening with openness (management, relationships and interaction, communication, balance of responsibility, boundary maintenance), (2) actual or attempted changes (initiation, attribution, empathy), and (3) expectations for future contact and relationships (hoped for and feared, predicted or expected, long-range view of family dynamics, rationale).

Two coders were assigned to each of the eight case studies (for each adoptive kin-ship network). Case studies required the coders to take detailed notes about each of the points outlined above, including page numbers at which the evidence was found. Within each category (e.g., what is happening with opennessFbalance of responsi-bility), information was taken from the birth mother, adoptive mother, and adoptive father transcripts, noting the source and page number of each piece of information. Once the information on each topic from each participant was identified, the view-points from each adoptive kinship network member were compared and contrasted for consistency or divergence of views.

Each coder completed two case studies, one for a decreasing network and one for an increasing network. Each case study involved the collaboration of one coder from the Minnesota site and one from the Texas site, because staff from Texas were highly familiar with the birth mothers’ perspectives, whereas staff from Minnesota had broad experience with the adoptive families’ perspectives. Coders completed each case study independently before discussing differences and similarities in impressions across case studies. The two coders then collaborated to construct one case study document.

After reviewing the detailed case studies, the two first authors met to discuss next steps. Afterward, these ideas were discussed during a cross-site conference call. At this time, the decision was made to return to the original transcripts in order to include the perspective of the adopted adolescent. Final case studies contained the perspective of each person separately (adoptive mother, adoptive father, adopted adolescent, and birth mother) and the coder’s assessment of the adoptive kinship network as a whole. To process the information that was generated, three cross-site teams were created to summarize information across cases for each broad category at the level of (1) each perspective (birth mother, adoptive mother, father, and adolescent), (2) the adoptive kinship network, and (3) case type (decreaser or increaser). Teams nominated insights and patterns that emerged from the data.

An iterative discussion process (using meetings and cross-site e-mails and phone calls) was used for refining the themes. The two first authors compared the emergent themes with the information in the case studies and with their own impressions of the data. Themes lacking adequate support were dropped. Then the two first authors separately evaluated the remaining themes for their coherence and ability to accur-ately describe the data. Those themes that best characterized the data were developed and brought back to the Minnesota coding group for further discussion. Multiple drafts of the paper were distributed to coauthors for comments on interpretations of the data. The final themes were determined by consensus among the coauthors who developed the cases.

(8)

RESULTS

Four themes emerged from the analyses: gendered involvement in contact, diver-gent attributions about discontinuation of contact, control and satisfaction, and shift in responsibility from adults to the adopted adolescent.

Gendered Involvement in Contact

In all adoptive kinship networks, adoptive mothers were more involved in the management of contact and openness changes than were adoptive fathers. In cases in which contact had decreased, correspondence with the birth mother was managed by the adoptive parent who felt the most positive about the contact (in three cases it was the adoptive mother, and in 1 case, the adoptive father). When the adoptive mother handled the correspondence, the adoptive fathers were largely uninvolved and were unsure of when contact occurred or whether the adoptive mother had stopped writing. In the case in which the adoptive father was the primary contact, the adoptive mother shared some of the responsibility.

In James’s1family, the communication had occurred between the birth and adop-tive mother, and both reported that this sharing stopped about 5 years ago. However, when James’s adoptive father was asked about the last time contact occurred with the birth mother, he responded,

You know, you have to ask Joana [adoptive mother] specifically. She tends to kind of do this on her own. Used to be a Christmas type thing, so I would presume it’s probably been over [the] last year, but I’m not real for sure. It’s not something that we’ve discussed . . . it may have been longer than [that] I think now, ‘cause Joana hasn’t mentioned it for a few years now.

In cases with increased contact, adoptive mothers had been more involved than adoptive fathers in negotiating the increase in contact, either by initiating the change or by assisting the adolescent in initiating the change. Only one adoptive father had been and continued to be extensively involved in contact with the birth mother; the other adoptive fathers seemed content to let others engage in contact. Arnie’s father describes his lack of involvement as follows:

They’re [the birth and adoptive mother] probably closer ‘cause they’re the ones that do the communicating. I mean, I’ve never sat down and written to her. I’ve told [my wife] things to put in the letter that are of interest to me, and Arnie has yet to, so I’ve said the bond between the two people has been between [my wife] and the birth mother. I guess kind of like a motherly type of relationship.

Divergent Attributions About Discontinuation of Contact

In the cases with decreases in openness, there was a tendency for each party to name someone other than themselves as responsible for discontinuation of contact. All adoptive mothers believed contact stopped because of the birth mother’s actions, whereas two of the birth mothers placed this responsibility on the adoptive mother or parents. Adoptive fathers either did not have enough information about the change

1

(9)

in contact to know who was responsible for stopping (two cases), or thought the contact had ‘‘faded away.’’ In only one case did the birth mother, adoptive mother, and adoptive father share the same view as to who was responsible for stopping the contact: the birth mother.

In two networks, birth and adoptive mothers reported divergent understandings about why contact stopped. Adoptive mothers believed that the birth mothers stopped exchanging letters because they lost interest or their needs changed. However, the birth mothers believed that the adoptive mother or parents stopped answering letters because they were scared off by the content of the letters that the birth mother sent. Kristen’s birth mother believed that the adoptive parents purposefully chose not to respond to her last letter, whereas Kristen’s adoptive mother believed it was the birth mother who stopped writing:

I wrote them a letter. I told them all about my background, which is rough. I have a real rough background. Also I wrote Kristen a letter. That’s probably the one that scared them the most, I suspect. It devastated me. I mean it was like I bared my soul and they didn’t respond. And so it was very, very hard on my self-esteem. (Kristen’s birth mother)

Always I responded to the birth mother. She was the one who initiated it and I was willing to respond. If she doesn’t initiate again, I won’t respond. . . . I think she consciously made a decision to stop doing it. . . . My guess is that they’re probably just as okay with it as we are because the birth mother chose to end it. (Kristen’s adoptive mother)

The other two birth mothers initiated the stop in contact, one because she was ready to ‘‘let go,’’ and the other because contact kept her sense of loss too ‘‘fresh.’’ In both cases, the adoptive mothers also perceived the change in contact as driven by the birth mother’s actions:

I think that we both needed to let go. When I say ‘‘we’’ I mean his parents and myself. They needed to let go of me and I needed to let go of them. (James’s birth mother)

All of a sudden it just stopped. . . . I think it may have been a lifeFmaybe something she didn’t share with me, but she said she’d come to grips with the fact that she had given a child up. And it was kind of like ‘‘life needs to go on’’ or something like that. . . . I had to respect what I felt might be going on. (James’s adoptive mother)

Perspectives of members in networks in which there was an increase in openness exhibited a higher level of agreement about who was responsible for increases in contact. Across all cases, birth mothers and adoptive parents named at least one of the same network members as responsible for initiating the change in openness. In three cases, birth and adoptive mothers shared identical impressions of who was respon-sible. In two of these cases, the birth and adoptive mothers both believed that in-creases were initiated by the adopted daughter because she was ready for contact, curious, or needed reassurance.

Control and Satisfaction

Adoptive parents were controlling of family boundaries and satisfied with these boundaries in six of eight cases. Adoptive parents tended to see boundary issues only in terms of whether the birth mother had violated any adoptive family boundaries;

(10)

they did not evaluate whether they might have violated any of the birth mother’s boundaries. When adoptive parents perceived a high degree of control over changes (increases or decreases), they tended to be more satisfied. In the words of Arnie’s adoptive father, ‘‘I feel good, basically because I’m the one that controls it.’’ When increases in openness were initiated by the adopted adolescent, the adoptive parents reported feeling less control and satisfaction. Adoptive mothers who were satisfied tended to believe contact was at a ‘‘mutually satisfactory’’ level (i.e., birth mother is also satisfied), regardless of whether they had evidence of this. Adoptive mothers in recently fully disclosed adoptions that had been initiated by the adolescent appeared to have more conflicting feelings about the birth mothers, believing that the birth mother was trying to parent the adolescent or expressing difficulty in sharing the adolescent with the birth mother. Adoptive parents appeared more satisfied when the birth mothers expressed respect for adoptive family boundaries and let adoptive family members initiate the majority of the contact.

For example, shortly after moving to face-to-face meetings, Brooke’s adoptive mo-ther reported,

It was very intense. [the birth mother] called every day. Brooke would call her. . . . We talked to [the birth mother] on Saturday. We talked to her on Sunday. I don’t know how many times Brooke talked to them. But that became very hard for me, which was really weird because I had been totally comfortable and you know, I thought I had slain that dragon years before. . . . I just felt like we just had no breathing room. It was immediate and really overwhelming. You know, we had been so comfortable with this until the actual meeting that it was really hard to explain this irrational person screaming through my head just going, ‘‘Goll, just leave me alone. Get away from my family.’’

After several months of intense contact, Brooke and her adoptive mother were able to discuss the situation; after that point, her mother reported that the changes pro-gressed more satisfactorily.

Five birth mothers perceived strong and impermeable boundaries between them-selves and the adoptive parents, and expressed concerns about not wanting to violate the adoptive family boundaries (n¼6). In comparison with adoptive parents, birth mothers tended to be less satisfied, ambivalent, or dissatisfied with boundaries (i.e. too rigid, did not feel comfortable asking questions, did not feel comfortable asking for more contact). Two birth mothers in networks that increased in openness desired more contact or less rigid boundaries in the future but were willing to wait until they thought the adoptive family was comfortable with this because they did not want to intrude or be too pushy. These birth mothers were having difficulty knowing what their role with the adolescent was, but they were not dissatisfied with the fully dis-closed adoption per se.

I really try not to be real pushy and stuff and kind of let Tiffany lead the way. But I came to find out that she wasn’t going to. So I got a little more aggressive with our relationship as far as calling her more and seeing what she’s doing. And in turn, she has opened up a little more andF‘cause at the same time it’s hard for her too, to know what to do or what not to do. You know, how far to go, and how far not to go. (Tiffany’s birth mother).

I’m not real sure what to do. How much am I supposed to call him? That I’m not sure about . . . . I don’t want to push anything on him that he’s not comfortable with. And the same with

(11)

his parents. So, so far this is what he seems to be comfortable with. If he wants more, he hasn’t said so. (Carl’s birth mother)

In cases of stopped contact, the adoptive parents believed that the birth mothers were satisfied with the stop, desiring to move on with their lives regardless of the birth mother’s true feelings. In reality, only the birth mothers who initiated the stop in contact were satisfied with not having contact. For the birth mothers who did not initiate the stop, one was sad but accepting, and one was angry.

Shift in Responsibility From Adults to the Adopted Adolescent

Prior to the adopted child reaching adolescence, the responsibility for contact be-tween the adoptive and birth families belonged to the birth and adoptive mother. The adoptive fathers tended to have least responsibility overall. Across both increasing and decreasing cases, as the adopted child got older, the birth mother and adoptive parents reported that it was the adolescent who now had the responsibility for contact or who would have responsibility for contact in the future (new role). There was a tendency for responsibility for contact to move from the birth and adoptive mothers to the birth mother and adolescent in fully disclosed adoptions (n¼3) and for adoptive parents to plan for this responsibility to shift to the adolescent in adoptions that had decreased in openness (n¼4).

In the case of increasers, the responsibility for maintenance of contact was shared between the birth mother and adolescent, and network members shared a similar perception of this balance of responsibility. In Carl’s adoptive kinship network, the network members reported that the responsibility for the contact occurs or should occur between Carl and his birth mother.

Whatever is comfortable for him, whatever he decides is comfortable which I imagine will be a couple of times a year, contact. He’s an adult. Whatever he wants, so that’s his decision and he needs to be in control. [We wanted] open communication with [birth mother] and Carl to be able to share with her and talk to her and find out about her family and his roots and find out why she placed for adoption and I think she’s answered that for him, so just everything that we’ve wanted. (Carl’s adoptive father)

She’s always thrilled to hear from him and they do have long conversations. . . . I think that the times they talk I think are sufficient. I kind of get the feeling that she doesn’t want to call him too much. She’s very happy that he initiates the calls but she doesn’t want to be seen as interfering or whatever. . . . [In the future] I hope we [birth and adoptive family] can stay friends, stay in touch. I can’t see us getting much closer because of the time constraints. . . . I want them [birth mother and adopted adolescent] to be the way they are now, good friends . . . . I hope he gets to see her regularly. I think the only change I can possibly see is Carl maybe having some contact with his birthfather. (Carl’s adoptive mother)

I think Carl and I decided [we wanted more contact]. We were talking on the phone and I think we just kind of agreed that we’d call each other. . . . My focus was to do it for him. I really didn’t feel like I needed it too much except that I enjoyed the idea of making our relationship better and it was the idea of opening it up for him and what he needed. (Carl’s birth mother)

I call her maybe once a month or so and talk to her and tell her what’s going and everything. So, I basically let her know what happened to me and she tells me what’s going on up there

(12)

andFI’m sure we’ll meet again, how frequently, I’m not really sure. I might go up there again pretty soon, I’m not sure, maybe over spring break. (Carl)

In cases in which contact had decreased, each person left the responsibility for contact up to another network member. Adults believed it was up to the adolescent to reini-tiate contact or begin a search when he or she was ready. These systems seemed to be on hold while the adults waited, with varying levels of feelings of support and ap-prehension, to see what the adolescent would decide to do. The adults in Kristen’s adoptive kinship network provide a good example of this type of waiting and shift in responsibility:

I don’t really want [the birthparents] to play any role in my life. If Kristen chooses to form a relationship, she’ll be of age that she can be entitled to do so. . . . If Kristen chooses to have a role with her birth mother, sheFthat’s entirely up to her. I’ll feel comfortable with it. If she chooses to or if she thinks it would be for our best interest to meet her birth mother some-time, I wouldn’t be against it. (Kristen’s adoptive father)

Personally, I’d like to meet her. I really would. I would like to meet her with Kristen. Beyond that, I don’t know how much contact I would want to have with her personally and I don’t know how much contact I would want Kristen to have with her personally, but that would be Kristen’s choice. I don’t haveFas of right now, and I haven’t had all the way along, a fear ofFthat Kristen will change as far as being our family, you know. As our family being our family, I don’t have that fear. So it’s OK with me that she does that. So, whatever rela-tionship [the birth mother] develops with Kristen, I guess that will have to be Kristen’s choice. (Kristen’s adoptive mother)

I just don’t want to cause her harm in any way whatsoever and if I would initiate a search for her, that doesn’t tell me whether or not she’s ready for me to find her. And the only way that I would be comfortable would be if she wanted, if she initiated it, then I know she’s ready. But if I were to initiate it, she may not want it. She may not be ready. I just don’t want to cause her harm at all. (Kristen’s birth mother)

In some adoptive kinship networks, the adolescent was unaware that he or she held the key to contact. Adults in these networks had not always shared their own feelings about contact or all the birth mother’s information with the adolescent. For example, some adolescents did not know there had been contact between the adoptive and birth parents or did not know the extent of this contact. Withholding information such as the fact that the birth mother placed the adolescent out of love, or that the birth mother still loves the adolescent, may keep the adolescent from initiating contact. Without this information, the adolescent may not know that the birth mother still cares or desires contact, and this may increase the adolescent’s reluctance to initiate contact. Adoptive parents were often not clear about supporting or discouraging their adolescent’s interest in knowing more about or searching for the birth mother. These mixed messages may have heightened the ambivalence that the adolescents expressed about initiating contact with their birth mothers and increased their fear of hurting their adoptive parents.

DISCUSSION

This study revealed several underlying processes in adoptive kinship networks that experienced increases or decreases in levels of openness during the child’s adolescent

(13)

years. First, when contact within the adoptive kinship network decreased, members often had incongruent accounts concerning who initiated the decrease and why. When contact levels increased, network members had more congruent accounts. Differences in congruence of attributions may be explained by differences in the degree of direct communication within these networks. Participants in mediated adoptions must communicate through adoption agencies, potentially obscuring who is responsible for particular actions. Direct action is needed in order to move from mediated to fully disclosed status, whereas decreases in contact can occur as a result of inaction, such as not receiving or answering a letter.

It was both striking and poignant that network members may become distanced from one another because of inaccurate perceptions about each other’s intentions regarding contact. One remedy for this is active, ongoing communication among members of adoptive kinship networks. When communication is indirect (mediated by an adoption agency staff member), the possibility for inaccurate understandings and incongruent perceptions becomes greatly magnified. Even when communication is direct, parties should not assume that they fully understand each other’s perspectives without explicitly checking them out. Miscommunications are particularly evident when contact ceases; such cases merit special attention to make sure that participants have a shared understanding of what is happening and why it is happening.

Important findings also emerged with regard to satisfaction with openness. Birth mothers appeared less satisfied with the current openness level in their networks than were the adoptive parents. Adoptive parents were more satisfied with the openness level if they themselves initiated the change that occurred. Earlier research involving the complete sample of adopted adolescents at Wave 2 shed additional light on these findings about satisfaction with openness. Adolescents who had contact with their birth mothers maintained higher levels of satisfaction with contact status than those who did not have contact (Mendenhall, Berge, Wrobel, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2004). Most cases of dissatisfaction with openness came about because the adolescent was not able to bring about contact that he or she wanted. Thus, for both parents and adolescents, satisfaction appears linked to the perception of one’s own control over the openness in the relationship, including the ability to initiate or prevent contact, present or withhold information, and bring about an increase or decrease in contact when desired.

This study’s contribution is unique in at least two ways. It presented and integrated four distinct voices in adoptive kinship networks: birth mothers, adoptive mothers, adoptive fathers, and adopted adolescents. Without independent access to all four perspectives, we would not have been able to identify some significant challenges to relationship development in adoptive kinship networks. This study also established an important link between individual development and relationship change. As adopted children moved through adolescence, the adults around them assumed that they would be taking more independent control over contact with their birth motherF even if the adolescent was not aware of this assumption.

Implications

The results of this study have implications for adoption agencies, clinical practice, research, and policy. For many participants in adoptive kinship networks, the agency is the primary source of education about managing such complex relationships.

(14)

Agencies need to have research-based information available for their clients in order to increase the likelihood of their success with openness and prevent the possibility of relationship breakdown.

Recall that all the kinship networks featured in this study began as mediated adoptions. Agency staff play critical roles in keeping the communication flowing be-tween adoptive family members and birth family members in such arrangements, because the network members do not have identifying information (names, addresses, phone numbers) about each other. It is critical that agencies take their responsibility to transmit information in a timely manner very seriously. Because adoptive parents and birth parents tend to blame each other when communication breaks down, agencies serving as go-betweens have the potential to prevent or exacerbate commu-nication problems and inaccurate attributions. Agencies can also educate clients about the importance of communication and can provide specialized information about how to communicate effectively when the relationship is being mediated by the agency.

This research revealed that adoptive mothers play key roles in managing contact and communication between the adoptive family and birth mother. Consequently, agencies need to be aware of adoptive mothers’ needs for support and guidance in comm-unication strategies. It also means that a more systemic approach to working with adoptive kinship networks might be useful. Because adoptive mothers and fathers do not always view their family’s situation the same way, opportunities may arise for misunderstandings and problematic communication. An important key to effective working relationships in fully disclosed adoptions (which half of the ones in this study evolved into) is what we have called a ‘‘collaborative’’ relationship, in which all parties understand the situation in the same way, have mutual respect and empathy, and are working together on behalf of the best interests of the child (Grotevant, Ross, Marchel, & McRoy, 1999).

Finally, although adopted adolescents take on more responsibility for contact as they move through adolescence, many of the adolescents themselves were unaware that they were becoming the gatekeepers of contact. Agency personnel may be able to present this shift as a natural result of the adolescent’s increasing maturity and encourage discussion to create a smooth change in the management of the contact. Although agency staff may see their primary role as negotiating the initial placement, the agency’s role continues to be critical throughout the life span of a mediated adoption.

Therapists need to understand the challenges relating to contact that may arise within adoptive kinship networks even though they may not be involved with such families until problems have already emerged. Systems-oriented therapists are in a good position to help network members identify and deal with different perceptions about contact and control and to deal with boundary issues around frequency and intensity of contact. A developmental perspective would help therapists understand the normative nature of the transfer of control over the relationship with the birth mother from the adoptive parents to the adopted adolescent. All these issues could cause conflict, which could be beneficially approached from a developmental, systemic perspective that includes opportunities for enhancing communication and negotiation skills.

The findings of this study also reveal several implications for future research. A case-intensive qualitative approach was used to reveal common patterns; however, the small sample size and restricted types of cases limit generalizability. Research in progress will test the applicability of the emergent themes to our larger sample. Fu-ture research will examine whether the age-based shift in responsibility from adults to

(15)

the adopted adolescent is found in networks that experienced no changes in openness between Wave 1 and Wave 2. This would allow us to test whether the child’s devel-opmental level itself influenced the network-level shift in responsibility or if other factors, such as family functioning, better explain this change. The findings highlight the potential usefulness of the Kelley et al. (1983) model of relationship change. When mediated adoptions move to become fully disclosed, there is an intense build-up phase as noted in the model. When information exchange ceases or dwindles, the network may never move beyond the acquaintance phase or, in the case of existing relation-ships, may experience an extended period of relationship deterioration. Concepts of-fered by this model may be useful in future investigations of relationship change in adoptive kinship networks.

The research base is now substantial enough that changes in policy and practice regarding postadoption contact should be based on research findings rather than solely the claims of advocacy groups. When all adoptions were confidential and records were permanently sealed, policies assumed that ‘‘one size fits all’’ and did not have to allow for the possibility of change over the life course. In this era of mediated and fully disclosed adoptions, policies must acknowledge that the participants in adoptive kinship networks may have unique needs and wishes with regard to contact and that these may change over time. Policies that provide options recognizing the need for flexibility in response to individual needs and developmental change are critical. Fi-nally, because of the unique power that agencies play in mediated adoptions, agency policies should stipulate that their services such as mediation, facilitation, and counseling are available, preferably at no cost or with a sliding fee scale.

REFERENCES

Berry, M., Dylla, D.J., Barth, R.P., & Needell, B. (1998). The role of open adoption in the ad-justment of adopted children and their families.Children and Youth Service Review,20, 151– 171.

Broderick, C.B. (1993).Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Frasch, K.M., Brooks, D., & Barth, R.P. (2000). Openness and contact in foster care adoptions: An eight-year follow-up.Family Relations,49, 435–446.

Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (1998).Openness in adoption: Exploring family connections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grotevant, H.D., McRoy, R.G., Elde, C., & Fravel, D.L. (1994). Adoptive family system dy-namics: Variations by level of openness in adoption.Family Process,33, 125–146.

Grotevant, H.D., McRoy, R.G., & van Dulmen, M. (1998). The adoptive kinship network: Put-ting the perspectives together. In H.D. Grotevant & R.G. McRoy (Eds.),Openness in adop-tion: Exploring family connections(pp. 173–193). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grotevant, H.D., Ross, N.M., Marchel, M.A., & McRoy, R.G. (1999). Adaptive behavior in adopted children: Predictors from early risk, collaboration in relationships within the adoptive kinship network, and openness arrangements.Journal of Adolescent Research,14, 231–247.

Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.H., Huston, T.L., & Levinger, G., et al. (1983).Close relationships. New York: Freeman.

Levinger, G. (1983). Development and change. In H.H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J.H. Harvey, T.L. Huston, & G. Levinger, et al. (Eds.),Close relationships (pp. 315–359). New York: Freeman.

(16)

Mendenhall, T.J., Berge, J.M., Wrobel, G.M., Grotevant, H.D., & McRoy, R.G. (2004). Adoles-cents’ satisfaction with contact in adoption.Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,21, 275–290.

Whitchurch, G.G., & Constantine, L.L. (1993). Systems theory. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, & S. Steinmetz (Eds.),Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach(pp. 325–352). New York: Plenum.

References

Related documents

Standardized solder alloy samples were manufactured according to DIN-EN-50125. The dimension of the standard samples can be seen in Figure 2. The tensile strength tests were

Mapping distribution of non-volant small mammals has revealed that UPMKB has a potential to be used as a suitable buffer zone; this is particularly because as the planted

 Assign the channel to the user with the best relative channel quality  High throughput, fair.. – Max

Create fully routable street centerlines for all roads to support statewide applications by integrating data compiled from local government sources via the statewide E911 program,

Reported cases between 2005 and 2009 were linked to local weather parameters at the laboratory postcode loca- tions; namely: maximum, minimum and average daily temperature and

i) tabular and/or graphical presentation of the test results as a function of frequency; if more than one test specimen of a sample (of the same material) was tested, the

The marked-up bill kept the category “rehabilitative and habilitative services” but then added another category for “durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and

If other than genuine Volvo parts or genuine Volvo remanufactured parts are used for maintenance, replacement or repair of components af- fecting emissions, the owner should