My name is Dr. Austin Foster. I am a clinical psychologist, who for the last twenty years has been actively involved in all aspects of adoption. I have served as consultant to adoption agencies. I have done counseling and psychotherapy with adopted adults and adopted children, I have worked closely with groups of adopting parents all over the country, and have advised them on child-rearing procedures. At last count, I have personally counselled with over six thousand pregnant teen-age girls who were contemplating placing their children for adoption. I have appeared as an expert witness in numerous court proceedings involving natural parents, adoptive parents, adopted children and others concerned with the entire adoption process. The reason I am stressing the breadth of experience which I have had in the area of adoption is to make a specific point: I am appalled by the lack of experience of the active membership of the committee which drew up the Model Adoption Act and I think many of the major defects in the Model Act can be traced to the lack of any sense of reality on the part of the nine members of the committee who actively participated in most of the work of the committee. I find it ironic that I as a single person have had more experience with the actual adoption process than all of the members of the committee combined. Far The Model Adoption Act, in many ways, is a legal nightmare. from simplifying adoptive procedures and removing barriers to adoption, it takes an almost paranoid approach to the adoptive process, and is so busy expressing concern for the rights of the natural mother, the putative father, the natural father, the infant and the later adult adopted child that it paralyzes the entire adoptive process and invites interminable litigation. We have fought for many many years for the rights of the infant. We have been very successful over the last half century in insisting that a child was a person and that adoption should be primarily concerned with the rights of the child. The Model Adoption Act returns the child to the role of possession or chattel and is entirely irresponsible in the amount of confusion it is willing to subject an infant to while elaborating on the rights of all of the others concerned. It is my considered opinion that if this Act were to be enacted by the states, infant adoption would be paralyzed. Specifically, it is considered the only satisfactory psychological practice to place an infant with parents as early as possible so that mutual imprinting is done and a genuine parent-child relationship is established from the beginning. The Model Adoption Act allows the natural mother opportunities to change her mind an infinite number of times. The provision of the Act which demands notification of the putative fathers of the birth of the child even though they have already relinquished their claims on the child is obviously an invitation to the young man to reconsider and file a claim for possession of the child. Anyone with any experience in adoption knows that the relationships between the natural mother and the natural father are strained, distant, freque ntly hostile, often vindictive. By tacitly urging each one of them to assert claims, the prospect is great that a majority of infant adoptions would be tied up in suits and counter suits with the child merely a chattel. I do not think the committee has realized the nightmare that it is proposing. I have a current legal case which illustrates what would be commonplace if this act were adopted: A young woman very much desired to place her infant for adoption. The young man, under great pressure from his mother who was angry at the natural mother and her family because she felt they discouraged the daughter from marrying her son, then filed suit for custody. The merits of the case are not my concern. My concern is that at this time this child has been in a foster home for eight months. By the time the case comes to trial and is decided and appealed, as it most certainly will be, there is a very great probability that this infant will have reached eighteen months or two years of age in foster care simply as a result of unnecessary and cruel litigation which completely disregards the right of the child.. The framers of the Model Adoption Act apparently had some inkling of what they were doing when they included provisions giving adoption cases priority; however, if you extend to the point of absurdity the rights of the natural mother and the rights of the putative father or actual father, you cannot then abridge the right to appeals and further consideration, so that the one who gets hurt is always the child. I strongly urge upon all concerned that these provisions be removed from any model adoption act, that it be again possible for a young woman to relinquish her rights and place her child for adoption in irrevocable fashion so that adoption can then proceed without legal interference or harassment. All events have to finally be decided and no point whatever is served by encouraging the young woman to change her mind. I think a serious moral question is raised by extending incredible rights to putative fathers. are young men who have never assumed parental responsibility, have not legitimated the child, who have not acted as common law husbands or in any way as responsible parent figures. Nonetheless, we are giving them the right to veto the young woman's desire to place her These child for adoption. Any young woman of sixteen years of age can have her child aborted. If for reasons of conscience and morality she decides it is preferable to place her child for adoption, we are doing everything we can with the Model Adoption Act to discourage her. We are subjecting her to harassment, to public exposure, to painful and difficult personal and legal confrontations with the putative father. The net result of this, instead of encouraging adoption will be to make a young woman very well advised to have an abortion and avoid all of the pain and complications that would ensue under this Act. This, I submit, is an immoral act in this sense. Why should it be made increasingly difficult for a young woman to place a child with a loving couple for adoption and at the same time made easier for her to destroy the child? I am also appalled that after two decades of struggle to eliminate the black market in babies, the framers of the Model Adoption Act let black market procedures in through the back door and essentially legitimate the black market by making it easy for anyone with no license, no credentials and no background to serve as an intermediary in the placement of a child. The precautions included in the act to prevent abuse and baby-selling are ridiculous and absolutely ineffective. Thus, at the very time that the Model Adoption Act would be making it exceedingly difficult to operate a licensed agency, they are making it very easy for any charleton or corrupt individual to serve as a black market baby broker with no effective interference. This, I submit, is not a model act in this regard. It is a destruction of much that we have been working for over the last twenty years. One final point, the paranoid approach toward the placement of infants taking in the Model Adoption Act is the lawyer's dream. I almost believe it was framed by people who were aware of the over-supply of attorneys in the United States at present and were kindly trying to provide them with work. As one who serves as an expert witness on occasion on adoption cases, I suppose I should welcome this act since it would assure me of a good livelihood over many years. However, I thought the purpose of the Model Adoption Act was to remove jurisdictional barriers and make it simpler and easier to place children for adoption so that children would not be held in hostage in foster homes or institutional care during their formative periods. It is my sincere recommendation to all concerned that the Model Adoption Act be returned to the committee, be completely revised, and that input be sought from people who have experience with adoption, with agencies, and with those involved in law at the state level so that the many millions of dollars and many hours of work may not be completely wasted. As it stands, the Model Adoption Act is an affront to the states and will certainly not serve as a model or as a guide. This seems to me a shame and I would earnestly like to request detailed reconsideration. Respectfully submitted, Austin Foster 66-706 0 - 81 18 ALMA ADOPTEES' LIBERTY MOVEMENT ASSOCIATION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FLORENCE FISHER, PRESIDENT (212) 581-1568 THE ALMA SOCIETY (ADOPTEES' LIBERTY MOVEMENT ASSN.) ANNOUNCED TODAY THE ALMA DATA BANK, IN OPERATION SINCE MARCH 1971, IS MAINTAINED AT THE ALMA NATIONAL OFFICE IN N. Y. BY A PROFESSIONAL GENEALOGIST. IT IS A MULTI-LEVEL CROSS INDEXING SYSTEM i.e., PLACE & DATE OF BIRTH, SEX, HOSPITAL, AGENCY, DOCTOR, IDENTIFYING BIRTHMARKS, ETC. ALTHOUGH AGENCY AND COURT RECORDS REMAIN SEALED, SEARCHING ADOPTEES AND NATURAL PARENTS DO HAVE ACCESS TO SOME OF THE INFORMATION MENTIONED ABOVE. THESE FACTS ARE FED INTO THE ALMA DATA BANK FOR MATCHING. THERE ARE FIVE MILLION ADOPTED PEOPLE IN THE U. S. ONE OUT OF EVERY 40 IN THE POPULATION, AND AT LEAST FOUR TIMES AS MANY NATURAL PARENTS, HALF-SISTERS AND BROTHERS, GRANDPARENTS, ETC. ADULT ADOPTEES ARE NOW DEMANDING THEIR BIRTH RECORDS. NATURAL PARENTS ARE SEARCHING FOR THE NOW-ADULT CHILDREN THEY SURRENDERED AT BIRTH. OUT OF THIS VAST MUTUAL YEARNING, ALMA WAS FOUNDED IN 1971. ALMA IS A NON-PROFIT, TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATION OPERATED BY ADOPTEES AND NATURAL PARENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL PERSONS SEPARATED THROUGH ADOPTION. ALMA NOW HAS 32 CHAPTERS IN THE U. S., PROVIDES ITS MEMBERS WITH A SEARCH MANUAL, HOLDS SEARCH WORKSHOPS, GIVES WOULD-BE SEARCHERS CONCRETE ADVICE ON HOW TO PROCEED, TRACK DOWN CLUES, ETC., AND PROVIDES CONTINUING EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DURING THE SEARCH. ALMA IS A SELF-HELP GROUP WHOSE SERVICE MUST BE SHARPLY AND CAREFULLY DISTINGUISHED FROM COMMERCIAL DETECTIVE AGENCIES WHICH ARE NOW ENGAGED IN FOUNDING REGISTRIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THEIR OWN BUSINESS INTERESTS AND SEDUCING NEW CLIENTS. NO REGISTRY CAN BECOME EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE UNTIL A LARGE VOLUME OF DATA HAS BEEN FED INTO IT. FOR THE ALMA DATA BANK, THIS CRITICAL POINT HAS BEEN PASSED. WITH MORE THAN 140,000 ENTRIES, THE ALMA INTERNATIONAL REUNION REGISTRY HAS BECOME A DATA BANK THAT PRODUCES MATCHUPS ON A FREQUENT AND REGULAR BASIS. NOW THAT ITS SUCCESS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED, WE ARE BRINGING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE NATION FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO THAT ALL SEARCHING ADOPTEES, NATURAL PARENTS AND ALL PERSONS SEPARATED THROUGH ADOPTION MAY AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEND IN THEIR DATA FOR POSSIBLE MATCHING. # LIVE INTERVIEWS WITH ADOPTEES AND NATURAL PARENTS WHO HAVE BEEN REUNITED THROUGH ALMA ARE AVAILABLE TO THE MEDIA UPON REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: PLEASE CONTACT: FLORENCE FISHER, PRESIDENT, ALMA - (212) 581-1568 Vol. ALMA began with a dream. The first ALMA reunion took place less than two months after our founding in 1971, between Diane Vetter, adoptee, New York and her natural mother in California. The first ALMA INTERNATIONAL REUNION REGISTRY DATABANK reunion took place in 1973 between adoptee, Barbara Kellar, Oregon and her natural mother and sister in California. Now, with nearly nine years behind us, and more than 4,000 reunions, ALMA has turned an impossible dream into a reality. They have sealed our records. They can never seal our minds! The success of the ALMA INTERNATIONAL REUNION REGISTRY DATABANK proves that human will and intellect can triumph over oppression. No. 197 DAILY Florence Anna Fisher NEWS New York, Wednesday, May 9, 1979 Sunny. Price: 20 cents She'll double her pleasure on Mother's Day By PAULA BERNSTEIN In a world where some daughters reject their mothers and other daughters never know their mothers, Susan Goodman "f Queens celebrates Mother's Day on Sunday with two mothers. Both hers. One gave her life One gave her a life. "Both are mothers. in different capacities." said Susan. 24. herself the mother of Adam, 15 months old. "I feel very complete, very whole. The missing part of the puzzle is now in place." Susan was adopted when she was six months old and that fact was never hidden from her "I even knew what my first name was - Karen. It's on the adoption papers. My parents were open and helpful about the whole thing." Still, like most adoptees, Susan longed to know her natural mother. "I would walk down the street and look at To find each other Susan was born in New York on Still "After she was born, they foster homes six months before she was "Johanna made me feel very good," Upset and frightened Yet other relationships, she has discovered, can be as strong as natural ties. The mother who gave her a life is the one she still calls Mom. Her adop tive mother, Rose Kahn, admitted she was upset and frightened when Susan apse and found Johanna. "I was pushed off center stage," she said. "But now I'm very happy that Susie found what she wanted. She's complete now. It all falls into place. Johanna has her place in Susie's life and we have our place in her life." Susan Goodman with her two mothers. Rose Kahn (left) and Johanna |