Susan Marks: Adoption option for mothers far from acceptable

It is wrong for the likes of Weekend Herald columnist Sandra Paterson to say that adoption should not be discouraged because we have learned from the mistakes of the past. In fact, adoption today is not radically different.

No law protects any agreement in an open adoption arrangement. Children can still suffer because the issues are the same even though they may see their mothers and fathers. And the law still allows only 10 days to sign adoption papers, with no revocation period.

Mothers are able to pick prospective parents out of scrapbooks, but that is about it. It is still the norm for children to be placed with strangers, new birth certificates to be issued as if the child was born to these people, and for mothers to be replaced.

The mothers may be allowed to visit, but many adoptive parents fear open adoption out of concern that the birth mothers will be too intrusive.

The psychological fallout of losing a child to adoption is well documented, and there are many mothers who say the grief and pain of losing a child this way is a living hell that never ends.

A mother might think on an intellectual level that her baby is better off in a "stable" home. That card has been played many times over the years and many have fallen victim to such mind games. "If you really love your baby, you will give it two parents" - something that mothers knew they were unable to offer.

Of course, we all want what is best for our children. What mothers aren't told is that all they need is their mother.

Who tells a mother that her child can pick her face out of a gallery of photos minutes after birth, knows her voice, has such a spiritual and psychological link, and knows that even the best substitute mother cannot replace her?

A baby is a baby for a very short time and having to sign a child away for life is a big deal, not just a formality. It is not just her baby, it is all her future generations.

What right does anyone have to say a mother has two options: raise the child on a benefit or have an abortion? Neither is particularly good for her or the country.

If a teenager chooses to go ahead with the pregnancy and have her child, she has the right to keep it or not, but she must be made aware of all the facts. An unwanted pregnancy is a far cry from an unwanted baby; once you have it in your arms, any intellectual decision can be annulled.

Adoption should not even be mentioned unless a mother has turned down financial help, foster care and other options. It should be the last resort. A mother should be allowed to have as long as it takes to think things through - not make a decision within days of giving birth and in the most vulnerable state a woman can be.

Why should teenage mums feel obligated to supply children for adoption just because they are young? They do not feel any different to any other mother. Mothers do not stay teenagers, just as babies do not stay babies. They have the right to parent their child if they wish.

There is no greater satisfaction than watching a part of you grow, learn and thrive. Everyone chooses different paths. We might think we can parent someone else's children better than them, but we do not have the right.

There is no denying that the queue of fantastic parents who wish to adopt children is getting bigger, and that until science comes up with a cure for infertility raising someone else's child is the only option. Either that or learning we do not always get what we want in life.

Years of unsuccessful fertility treatment is unfair. Has there been an uproar about tax dollars going into research in this area? I have not heard a public outcry about this sort of funding, so why complain about solo mothers trying to make a go of it?

Adoption is a relic of a bygone era when illegitimacy and shame were sins and needed to be covered up. It was never meant to be about providing infertile couples with children.

Changes need to be made to introduce an honest system that does not try to rewrite a child's history or destiny; you can only be born once. The distinction about the hush-hush arrangements of the past and today is not a great deal. The outcome is still the same.

Where are the statistics for the women who have committed suicide over their lost children, and vice versa? Where are statistics showing how many adoptees and mothers are in psychotherapy, prison systems and so on?

Adoption is far from an acceptable option and should be discouraged. If we have learned anything from our mistakes, it is that for these babies and their mothers relinquishment and adoption are not concepts. They are experiences from which neither fully recovers.

* Susan Marks, a Wellington public servant, gave up a child in the 1970s.