The differential treatment of a minor’s decision to have an abortion and a minor’s decision to relinquish parental rights and consent to adoption is striking. Are the decisions so dissimilar as to justify this difference? Three reasons are commonly given for why minors should not be making the decision about abortion on their own: 1) health risks associated with all medical procedures, including abortion; 2) emotional fallout after abortion; and 3) the seriousness of the decision. The decision about relinquishment of parental rights and consent to adoption seems to share these characteristics with the abortion decision. In addition, the adoption decision differs from the abortion decision in at least one significant way: the legal complexity of the adoption decision.
* * *
Adoption is a
legally-created and pervasively regulated enterprise. The hallmark of adoption law, traced to the
first “modern” adoption statute in 1851, is the complete replacement of the
biological family with the adoptive family:
The early adoption statutes provided a mechanism for
the transfer of full parental control from one person to another. The statutes
carefully specified that the adoptive parents stood in the shoes of the
biological parents with respect to custody, obedience, and care. They
explicitly transferred "all" parental rights from the biological
parents to the adopting parents, with a corresponding transfer of the child's
legal obligations of obedience, support, and maintenance. Thus, although the
parent-child relationship was transformed with respect to the parent's
identity, the nature of parental rights and authority remained unchallenged.
Adoption thus confirmed the indivisibility of parental rights by allowing new
parents to replace legally the birth parents.
For that
replacement to be effectuated, a court must first terminate the parental rights
of the birth parents before granting parental rights to the adoptive family.
The Supreme Court has long
recognized parental rights as fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution.
Because of the fundamental nature of parental rights, the Supreme Court has
said that a state cannot lightly revoke those rights. When a state seeks to
terminate parental rights involuntarily (without the parent’s consent), the
Constitution requires a heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence.
Despite the fundamental nature of parental rights, a parent can voluntarily
relinquish these rights.
Voluntary relinquishment of parental rights cuts off all
parental rights, including “the parent's right to the custody of the child and
his right to visit the child, his right to control the child's training and
education, the necessity for the parent to consent to the adoption of the child
and the parent's right to the earnings of the child, and the parent's right to
inherit from or through the child.”
A minor birth parent may not know or understand what rights parents have, so
that she does not fully understand the rights she is relinquishing. Consider the case of 17-year-old LaTonya
Chienta Anderson. She signed a relinquishment and consent
that read as follows:
Know all men by these presents, that I, LaTonya Chienta Anderson,
the mother of . . . do hereby consent to the adoption of my said child . . . in
order that said child may have all the privileges which may accord her by the
Laws of Alabama upon her legal adoption.
And I do hereby consent and request that the Probate Judge make all such
orders and decrees as may be necessary or proper to legally effectuate said
adoption.”
The affidavit made no mention of the termination of
LaTonya’s rights, only that the child would acquire certain unnamed legal
privileges. The affidavit gives permission to the judge to make all orders
necessary to legally effectuate the adoption, but does not inform LaTonya that
one of those necessary orders would be the permanent and irrevocable
termination of her parental rights. The
child was being adopted by the parents of the putative father, and the mother
had been freely visiting the child while in the custody of the grandparents,
but nothing in the affidavit informs LaTonya that she would no longer have a
legal right to visit her child. There
was evidence from the social worker conducting an investigation prior to
finalization of the adoption that the mother did not understand the finality of
the adoption and the legal implications.
After the social worker explained it to the mother, she said she wanted
to withdraw her consent.
The appellate court held that the consent was valid because the mother “freely
and willingly” signed the consent after reading it and “choosing not to
question anything.”
This case seems to
illustrate perfectly why a minor needs additional protections in signing an
adoption consent. It is easy to imagine
that she saw the adoption as a way to make the custody “legal,” without
understanding the implications for her own parental rights. All that is encompassed in her request that the
judge “make all such orders and decrees as may be necessary or proper to
legally effectuate said adoption,” was likely just so much mumbo-jumbo to the
minor mother.
Voluntary relinquishment of parental rights and consent
to adoption must be knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily given. Because of the complexity of the legal
decisions involved in adoption, it is difficult to see how a minor’s actions in
this regard could be knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily given – at least
without support from a legal professional.
Consider a student in my Adoption Law class. Now an adult, she had relinquished a child
for adoption when she was 16 years old.
She shared that information with the class, and said key to her decision
to place her child for adoption was that she had been given a choice of adoptive
parents and the promise of continuing contact.
During the course of the class, she was dismayed to learn that the
promise of continuing contact – an “open adoption” agreement – was not legally
enforceable in the state in which she entered into it. When she looked with adult eyes at her
relinquishment affidavit, she realized that she had relinquished the child to
the adoption agency, not to her chosen adoptive parents, and that the agency
could have placed her child with other adoptive parents.
She learned during the course of the
class that her child’s right to inherit from her had been terminated. She discovered that she could not have access to her child’s original birth
certificate, even though her name was on it as mother.
This birth mother was obviously intelligent, proven by her graduation from high
school and college, and her admission to law school. But at age 16, she was not aware of the legal
intricacies of the adoption placement decision.
The issue of open adoption, or post-adoption contact, is
a particularly thorny legal issue in adoption placement.
Since adoption requires termination of parental rights of the biological
parents, they possess no residual rights to insist on post-adoption contact. Only in the minority of states where there is
legislation on point does a birth parent have an enforceable right to
post-adoption contact. It is still common practice in states without
enforceable open-adoption agreements, however, for agencies and adoptive
parents to enter into such unenforceable “agreements.” For example, Amazing Grace Adoption Agency, based in Raleigh,
North Carolina, offers the following services to birth parents: “Choosing and meeting with an adoptive
family; Receiving information and pictures of your baby following an adoptive
placement; Different levels of openness with the adoptive family.” If you visit the website of Missouri Adoption
Agency, a page will describe open adoptions, and includes a testament by a
birth mother describing her contact with her relinquished child: “It was my
desire to have an open adoption and this has worked beautifully for all of us.” At Spirit of Faith Adoption Agency in Ohio,
the agency describes open adoption as an option: “Most importantly, because of
openness, there can be contact in the future and an ongoing story to share of
your child’s life; a story that is based on love. When there is openness, or
on-going communication between adults, your child will know that the decision
you made was not an easy one, and made out of love for him/her.” The birth parents may not be
aware that the openness promised by these agencies will not be legally binding in these states.
In those states with enforceable open adoption agreements, there
are complex legal requirements to limit the parties who can enter into such
agreements and to limit the types of adoptions in which such agreements are enforceable.
For example, in Connecticut, post-adoption contact agreements are not
enforceable in private adoptions, only in adoptions from foster care. In Nebraska, court-approved contact
agreements are only renewable two-year terms.
In Wisconsin and Vermont, open adoption agreements are only enforceable in
stepparent adoptions. In Indiana, the agreement is enforceable only
if the child is over age 2 at the time of the adoption, while in Oregon, if the child is under age 1,
the child must have spent at least half his or her life with the birth relative
seeking an open adoption agreement. Similarly, in Oklahoma, the agreement is enforceable only if the child resided
with the birth parent prior to the adoption.
In Montana, a court can refuse enforcement of an open adoption agreement if
enforcement would be detrimental to the child or undermine the adoptive
parent’s parental authority, or if due to changed circumstances, compliance
with the agreement would be unduly burdensome.
Even without these limitations, most
states with enforceable agreements require careful attention to the intricacies of
the statutes. In most states, open
adoption agreements are enforceable only when approved by a court and/or
included in an adoption decree.
In Texas, a post-adoption contact agreement is enforceable only if a judge
incorporates it in the termination of parental rights order; it is not
enforceable if it is only included in the affidavit for voluntary
relinquishment of parental rights, or if it is only included in the adoption
decree.
These are not requirements that a minor birth mother is likely to know.
Minor birth parents may not be aware of legal rights associated
with revocation of consent
or when consent is invalid,
with inheritance rights,
with right of access to information and/or contact in the event of a medical
emergency, or with any of the other
multitude of rights and obligations affected by the legal relinquishment of
parental rights and consent to an adoption.
If the only adults with whom the relinquishing minor interacts are the
adoptive parents or the lawyer or agency representing the adoptive parents, a
minor will have little access to information crucial to a voluntary and knowing
consent. The judge overseeing the
adoption is not usually in the position to serve this function. Though adoption
is a legal process, it is not uncommon for a birth mother never to set foot in
the courtroom. Statutes allow a birth parent to waive notice
of any and all hearings at the same time the affidavit of voluntary
relinquishment is signed. Thus, there is no opportunity for a birth parent
to ask questions in court, for a judge to assess the maturity of the minor
birth parent or what the birth parent understands about the legal parental
rights she is waiving. Judicial involvement in the adoption does not
necessarily allow for judicial oversight of the minor’s decision about adoption
placement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you've managed to read down this far, and you're a birth mother who relinquished as a minor, I'd love to hear more about your understanding of the legalities of your relinquishment. Please comment!
Thank you for posting these pieces of you article. Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI continue to be amazed at the ways the laws are always twisted and the realities ignored in adoption.
ReplyDeleteSomething has to change - glad you have taken on this project and hope changes are made across the board in all states.
Last year, I edited the California Labor Law Digest. I have a degree from a prestigious university. I had to read several paragraphs over and over again to determine what they meant, with the help of a legal dictionary.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the problem understanding relinquishment is unique to minor birth parents. I think all parents considering relinquishing their rights need to have the laws explained in standard high school level English (or whatever language they speak).
I also think it would be nice if someone would explain the laws to adoptive parents in the same manner, as we're expected to glean what we can from forums and web sites.
This is important because these children were "Swept" away from their family in one of the most Unbelievable ways you could ever imagine. Their 17 year old Mentally Unstable Mother was able to sign them up for Adoption right under her family's nose. After reading this Family's story you will be aware of why we need all the support we can get.....Here is their story as told by Their Grandmother............ We want to get this exposed and while doing so perhaps it may help others that face similar issues or may not know that these issues exist. We Hope That legislation will restructure some of the laws when it comes to Teens and Adoption so this type of thing doesn't happen to other families, although it happens quite frequently. I am the parent of a 17 year old daughter who happens to be the mother of two children. She has suffered from mental health issues since she was about 12 which has a lot to do with her being a mother at such a young age.We have been seeking help for her, my family and I are there for her and the children. Well on Jan 28th 2012 my daughter was raped at gunpoint by 4 men, Of course this devastated us. After the rape We immediately sought counseling as she began acting out and not like herself. It got so bad that we came to the conclusion that she may need In-patient care AGAIN. So I called our local mental health hospital for adolescents and was told I had to wait a couple of days until they were able to get a bed for her. On feb 9th 2012 my daughter disappeared with the children I called her constantly on her cell phone to see where they were finally she called me back and stated that she was at a good friend of hers house and asked could I come and get her, I did. We discussed her taking the kids and leaving without my consent due to her mental state and she was told not to do it again. Fast forward to feb 14th 2012 I wake up in the morning and go to my daughters room and realize that she and the children are not there, again I try calling her but get no answer. As I stated earlier due to her mental state I became worried and filed a police report...later that evening my daughter was found at the bus station getting ready to board a bus without her children. I came to pick her up while the police held her there. She tells me that she has signed adoption papers on her children and that they are gone. I was shocked but I know in the state I reside that there is a 5 day period to withdraw an adoption consent I mention it to her and she tells me that she signed the papers back on feb 9th. She told me that she had texted the adoption agency and told the coordinator that she lied about everything she told them and that she wanted her kids back(I have copies of those text) of course she was told it was too late. My daughter was admitted into the hospital and upon explaining to the nurse what my daughter did she stated that after being raped my daughter was not in her right mind and that this happens to people that experience a traumatic event. I have a letter from the doctor that states she is suffering from PTSD and Major depression from being raped. She called Family Adoption Services (the adoption agency) to explain but to no avail. I called also to explain and again to no avail. They are not budging. Even though the law allows them to sign these papers and they have a child does not make them capable of making such a serious decision. Some of these agencies give the girls money and gifts,(my daughter was given these things, which is AGAINST THE LAW, (A Class C Felony) and can be considered as "BUYING CHILDREN". They Use very persuasive Tactics including telling them this is what they need to do to make a better life for their kids and making them feel as though since they are Teens this is the only choice. A lot of times the Teen's parents are supporting the teen and the baby, at least in this case that's how it is.
ReplyDelete