The following is my letter to the editor, which was not selected for publication, but which may be of interest to professionals who work with adopted children and their families. It pertains to the long-standing controversy regarding the pros and cons of “open adoption.”
Nikita Stewart reports on the pros and cons of “Preserving Family Bonds” legislation, which would change N.Y. state adoption law when and if it is signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. Much of the article focuses on the question of whether to extend birth parent rights at the expense of limiting adoptive parent rights in permitting contact between the child and birth parent after parental rights have been terminated. Under the proposed law, a judge would be asked to determine whether such contact is in the child’s best interests, in a case by case basis. Presumably, the judge would seek input from professionals with expertise in child development in this process. Little mention is made about the rights of the child that are at stake. These include the right to know his or her historical place in both families, the family of origin as well as the adoptive family. As the child matures from early childhood through adolescence, there is a universal quest for developing a self-identity which reflects both genealogical and experiential factors. Sooner or later, the adopted child typically becomes interested if not driven to learn about commonalities shared with family of origin. The adopted child has the right to achieve psychological permanence, a state of emotional balance, derived from the resolution of inner conflict concerning questions about separation from birth parent and attachment to adoptive parent. This fundamental right of the child should supersede the rights of birth parents as well as of adoptive parents in determining what if any level of contact with family of origin should be permitted. Despite such valid concern that contact might complicate matters in the adoptive home, or might make it more difficult for agencies to recruit new adoptive parents, they pale in comparison with what is at risk when the child’s path towards attaining a healthy sense of self is impeded.
Publication announcement.
The article, “Family Treatment for Moderate Child Alienation,” co-authored by Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D. and James R. Gries, Psy.D., will be appearing in the November, 2019 edition of the Journal of Health Service Psychology (JHSP), the journal of the National Register of Health Service Psychologists, Washington, D.C.
Nikita Stewart reports on the pros and cons of “Preserving Family Bonds” legislation, which would change N.Y. state adoption law when and if it is signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. Much of the article focuses on the question of whether to extend birth parent rights at the expense of limiting adoptive parent rights in permitting contact between the child and birth parent after parental rights have been terminated. Under the proposed law, a judge would be asked to determine whether such contact is in the child’s best interests, in a case by case basis. Presumably, the judge would seek input from professionals with expertise in child development in this process. Little mention is made about the rights of the child that are at stake. These include the right to know his or her historical place in both families, the family of origin as well as the adoptive family. As the child matures from early childhood through adolescence, there is a universal quest for developing a self-identity which reflects both genealogical and experiential factors. Sooner or later, the adopted child typically becomes interested if not driven to learn about commonalities shared with family of origin. The adopted child has the right to achieve psychological permanence, a state of emotional balance, derived from the resolution of inner conflict concerning questions about separation from birth parent and attachment to adoptive parent. This fundamental right of the child should supersede the rights of birth parents as well as of adoptive parents in determining what if any level of contact with family of origin should be permitted. Despite such valid concern that contact might complicate matters in the adoptive home, or might make it more difficult for agencies to recruit new adoptive parents, they pale in comparison with what is at risk when the child’s path towards attaining a healthy sense of self is impeded.
Publication announcement.
The article, “Family Treatment for Moderate Child Alienation,” co-authored by Leonard T. Gries, Ph.D. and James R. Gries, Psy.D., will be appearing in the November, 2019 edition of the Journal of Health Service Psychology (JHSP), the journal of the National Register of Health Service Psychologists, Washington, D.C.
RSS Feed