Strangers and Kin: The American Way of Adoption PDF
Preview Strangers and Kin: The American Way of Adoption
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
Description:The list of books you might like
