Openness ArrangementsOur initial conceptualization of openness,
based on existing literature and discussions with staff at adoption
agencies, posited three levels of openness: confidential (or closed),
mediated (or semi-open or indirect), and fully disclosed (McRoy, Grotevant,
& White, 1988). We soon found that these categories did not fully describe
the experiences of our participants. Within confidential adoptions, there
were cases in which updated information was sent to the adoption agency for
inclusion in the child’s file. These updates were not necessarily intended
for immediate transmission to the other party and could either have been
sent once or a number of times. In most of these cases, either the
birthmother or the adoptive parents sent information such as an annual
letter on the child’s birthday. In both mediated and fully disclosed
adoptions, there were some cases in which contact was ongoing, some for whom
contact had stopped and others for whom contact was temporarily paused.
Our categorization of openness took these nuances into account. In
addition, there were large variations in the intensity of contact
(frequency, personal nature of the contact - e.g., a picture is more
personal than a purchased gift); type of contact (e.g., letter, picture,
gift, phone call, e-mail, visit); or participants’ satisfaction. Although
these variations were not registered in our openness categories , more
detailed qualitative analyses have explored these factors (e.g., Dunbar, van
Dulmen, Ayers-Lopez, Berge, Christian, Fitzgerald, Gossman, Henney,
Mendenhall, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2000; Berge, Mendenhall, Wrobel, Grotevant,
& McRoy, in press).
Children’s Inclusion in Openness
At Wave 1, comparison of parents' and children's reports of openness
revealed important gaps between parents' participation in open arrangements
and their inclusion of the adopted child in the communication. Almost half
the children in mediated adoptions were excluded from contact their adoptive
parents were having with their birthmother, but most of these children were
not aware of their being excluded. Most of the children in fully disclosed
adoptions were included in meetings with birthparents and were aware of the
arrangements (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998).
At Wave 1, adoptive mothers and birth mothers arranged most of the fully
disclosed contact; adoptive fathers had little primary responsibility for
arranging contact. As the adopted children got older, the birthmother and
adoptive parents reported that the adolescents had assumed responsibility
for arranging or requesting contact or would be taking responsibility for
contact in the future (Dunbar, van Dulmen, et al. 2000).
Changes in Openness from Middle Childhood to Adolescence
Before the first wave of data collection, changes in openness
arrangements had occurred since placement. For example?, Almost 2/3 of the
adoptions that were considered fully disclosed at Wave 1 began as mediated
(51%) or confidential (15%). In many of these cases, trust and mutual
respect were gradually established between the adoptive parents and
birthmother, until they made the decision to share identifying information (Grotevant
& McRoy, 1998).
In the period of time between Waves 1 and 2, the pattern of stability in
openness was similar for adoptive families and birthmothers. (Data are
presented separately for adoptive families and birthmothers because our data
set includes some adoptive families for whom we do not have birthmother data
and vice versa.) The majority of cases remained within the same openness
level (71.2% of adoptive families and 78.7% of birthmothers). Smaller, and
roughly equal, proportions increased in openness level (14.7% of adoptive
families and 10.2% of birthmothers) or decreased in openness (14.1% of
adoptive families and 11.0% of birthmothers.) Relatively few fully disclosed
cases stopped contact between Waves 1 and 2 (13.2% of adoptive families and
no birthmothers). Among adoptive families with ongoing mediated adoptions,
almost equal numbers continued in this category (N = 18), stopped contact (N
= 17), and increased to fully disclosed (N = 15). Among birthmothers, 21
continued, 14 stopped contact, and 9 increased to fully disclosed. The
majority of cases that were classified as confidential at Wave 1 continued
as confidential at Wave 2 (89.5% of adoptive families and 91.2% of
birthmothers). Despite the relative stability in openness level, especially
in the confidential and fully disclosed categories, many birthmothers and
adoptive families experienced changes in frequency, type of contact, or
persons involved.
When all changes were taken into account (including openness level and
changes in the type of contact, frequency of contact, or persons involved),
90% of the birthmothers experienced some change during the 8 year period.
Reasons for change were many (Henney, Ayers-Lopez, McRoy, & Grotevant,
2004). Mediated adoptions, those featuring indirect contact through an
intermediary at the adoption agency, posed special challenges in
communication because they required the ongoing presence of a reliable staff
person at the agency to keep the communication flowing in a timely manner.
When there were decreases in openness in adoptive kinship networks, the
birthmothers and adoptive parents tended to have incongruent accounts
regarding who initiated discontinuation of contact and divergent
understandings about why contact stopped (Dunbar, van Dulmen, et al., 2000).
Managing Contact
The management of contact in open adoptions involves a complex dance in
which the roles and needs of the participants change over time, affecting
the kinship network as a whole (Grotevant, McRoy, & van Dulmen, 1998). There
is no uniform pattern for open adoptions. Adoptive kinship networks have
contact by different means, among different people, at varying rates, and
with varying degrees of interest. Successful relationships in such complex
family situations hinge on participants’ flexibility, communication skills,
and commitment to the relationships.
Members of adoptive kinship networks involved in ongoing contact found
that their relationships were dynamic and had to be re-negotiated over time.
Early in the adoption, meetings were especially important for the
birthmothers, who were very concerned about whether they had made the right
decision, whether her child was safe, and whether the adoptive parents were
good people. After a while, birthmothers’ interest in contact sometimes
waned, especially as they were assured that their child was thriving. With
the passage of time, many birthmothers became involved in new romantic
relationships, sometimes taking attention away from the adoptive
relationships. According to the adoptive parents, the ability of
birthmothers to provide information when requested was not always in tune
with the timing of the request (Wrobel, Grotevant, Berge, Mendenhall, &
McRoy, 2003). Adoptive parents tended to become more interested in contact
as they became more secure in their role as parents. As the children grew
older and understood the meaning of adoption (see Brodzinsky, Singer, &
Braff, 1984), their questions tended to put pressure on the adoptive parents
to seek more information or contact (Wrobel, Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy,
1998, 1999).
Satisfaction with Contact
At Wave 1, children’s satisfaction with contact did not differ by level
of openness. However, by Wave 2, adolescents who had contact with
birthmothers reported higher degrees of satisfaction with their level of
adoption openness and with the intensity of their contact with birthmother
than did adolescents who had no contact. In general, satisfaction with
adoption openness was lower during middle adolescence (ages 14-16) than
during early (ages 12-13) or late adolescence (ages 17-20) (Mendenhall et
al, 2004).
Adolescents varied in their reasons for being satisfied or not satisfied
with having contact or not having contact (Berge, Mendenhall, Wrobel,
Grotevant, & McRoy, in press-2006). Adolescents having contact and
expressing satisfaction with the contact (45.5% of the sample) stated that
the contact provided an opportunity for a relationship to emerge that would
provide additional support for them. They also expressed positive affect
toward their birth mother, felt that the contact helped them better
understand who they were, and made them interested in having contact with
other members of their birth family, such as siblings. Adolescents having
contact but not expressing satisfaction (16.3% of the sample) typically
wanted more intensity in the relationship than they currently had, but they
were not able to bring it about. They felt that they could have good
relationships with both adoptive and birth parents, and that they did not
have to choose one over the other. Adolescents not having contact and
satisfied with the lack of contact (17.1%) felt that adoption was not an
important part of their lives. They did not feel that it was necessary to
have contact, sometimes expressing concern that contact might be a bad
experience for them. They felt they were better off where they were (in
their adoptive families) than they would have been if raised by their birth
parents. Finally, adolescents not having contact but dissatisfied with the
lack of contact (21.1%) sometimes desired contact but were unable to bring
it about. Some had negative feelings toward their birth mother or assumed
that she had not made an effort to have contact. Some worried that their
adoptive parents or birth mother might feel bad about their pursuing
contact.
Of the 127 birthmothers who were interviewed at Wave 2, about half were
adolescents at the time of placement and half were adults. Birthmothers who
were older at the time of placement were more likely to be satisfied with
their current openness arrangements at Wave 2. At Wave 2, birthmothers who
were older at placement also felt closer to the child’s adoptive mother than
did birthmothers who were younger at placement. Most birthmothers reported
feeling positive or very positive about their relationship with the child’s
adoptive mother and father and were satisfied or very satisfied with these
relationships. At the same time, the majority of the birthmothers indicated
that they had at least some concern about whether their contact or potential
contact interfered with the adopted youth or adoptive family functioning.
Almost 20% were “very concerned” about this issue. These “very concerned”
birthmothers were experiencing significantly more life stresses than the
norm (McRoy, Ayers-Lopez, Henney, Christian, & Gossman, 2001).
By Wave 2, birthmothers in fully disclosed adoptions were significantly
more satisfied with their role in relationship to the adopted youth than
those in confidential and mediated stopped arrangements. Birthmothers who
were more satisfied with their role in relation to the adopted youth also
reported more satisfaction with their relationship with the child’s adoptive
mother and adoptive father. Birthmothers who are more satisfied with the
role of the adopted youth in their lives were also more satisfied with their
relationship with the adoptive mother, adoptive father, and adopted youth.
Birthmothers who were more satisfied with their openness arrangements were
also more satisfied with their role in relation to the adopted youth and
adoptive parents and are more satisfied with the role of the adopted youth
in their lives. Birthmothers in adoptions characterized by stable contact
felt significantly more clear in their roles than those characterized by
increasing contact.
The majority of birthmothers (78.7%) remained in the same major openness
category from Wave 1 to Wave 2. Birthmothers who experienced no change in
major openness level expressed more satisfaction with openness than did
those who experienced a major increase or decrease, likely because of the
disruptive effect of such major changes. Satisfaction at Wave 2 was related
to openness level: birthmothers in fully disclosed adoptions expressed more
satisfaction than did birthmothers in confidential or mediated arrangements.
Adoptive parents were more satisfied when birthmothers respected their
family’s boundaries and let the adoptive family initiate most of the contact
(Dunbar, van Dulmen, et al, 2000).
Communication
Communication about adoption within the family is a process that unfolds
over time, with adoptive parents initially taking the lead and with their
adopted children playing an increasingly important role as they move toward
and through adolescence. Distinctive phases of the family communication
process can be discerned: the first, in which adoptive parents provide their
children unsolicited information; the second, in which parents respond to
their children’s curiosity by answering or withholding information; and the
third, in which children take control of finding their own information. Each
phase plays a unique role in the family’s evolving narrative about the
adoption, provides opportunities for meaning-making about the adoption, and
provides a context in which the adoptive parent-child relationship is
strengthened or weakened (Wrobel et al, 2003).
Boundary Ambiguity
Relationships between the adoptive family and birthmother have also been
examined through the lens of boundary ambiguity, which is said to exacerbate
family stress because of family members' inability to determine who is
inside and who is outside the family system (Boss, 1988). Boundary ambiguity
occurs when a family member is physically absent but psychologically
present, or vice versa. Fravel (1995) examined the psychological presence of
the birthmother in the adoptive family system, and found that boundary
ambiguity is almost inevitable in adoptive families but that it manifests
itself differently by level of openness. Management of the psychological
presence of the birthmother may also vary according to both level of
openness and some personality characteristics and relationship tendencies of
the adoptive parents such as tolerance for ambiguity (Fravel, Grotevant,
Boss, & McRoy, 1993; Fravel, 1995).
Birthmothers’ interviews were examined to determine the degree to which
they felt the psychological presence of the child they had placed for
adoption. There was a significant relationship between degree of
psychological presence and adoption openness arrangements. The highest
levels of psychological presence occurred in fully-disclosed adoptions,
followed by ongoing mediated, and confidential (Fravel et al, 2000).
At Wave 2, birthmothers in mediated stopped adoptions had a significantly
lower degree of psychological presence than birthmothers in ongoing mediated
adoptions or fully disclosed adoptions. Self-report results indicated that,
on average, the adopted youth was psychologically present to the birthmother
about once a month. Birthmothers in confidential adoptions had significantly
lower frequency of psychological presence than did birthmothers in ongoing
mediated adoptions and fully-disclosed adoptions; and birthmothers in
mediated stopped adoptions had significantly lower frequency of
psychological presence than those in ongoing mediated or fully-disclosed
adoptions. Birthmothers in confidential adoptions had significantly lower
intensity of psychological presence than birthmothers in fully disclosed
adoptions.
Adoptive Grandparents
Karen Schmid (1994) examined relationships between adoptive grandparents
and their adult children, as perceived by the adoptive parents. This study
focused on the way adoptive parents interpret their parents' reactions to
and feelings about adoption in general, and open adoption in particular; how
their relationships affect those in the nuclear family; and the consequences
of such variations for initiating or maintaining contact between the
families by birth and adoption. Most grandparents were little involved in
couples' decisions to adopt but were generally supportive. However, many of
them were guarded about couples' choice of openness, and adoptive parents
had to negotiate these relationships with their parents at the same time
they were establishing relational ties with their new child and the child's
birthparents.
