CAPÍTULO 2: FUNDAMENTOS TEÓRICOS
2.1 El género judicial
4.2.1 THE HISTORY OF SECRECY
In the past, adopters commonly kept information about adoption a secret and did not inform their child about their adoptive status, resulting in many
adoptees being shocked when they later discovered their parents had not been open with them (Sorosky, Baran, & Pannor, 1978). Furthermore, adoptees unaware of information relating to their birth family were vulnerable to emotional, identity and behavioral difficulties (Brodzinsky, 2006; Grotevant, 1997; Grotevant et al., 2005). Today, information-‐sharing in a developmentally appropriate manner is considered important for positive parent–child
relationships and the psychological well-‐being and identity formation of the adoptee (Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes, 2002). In support of this, adult adoptees who experienced open communication within their families reported more satisfaction with their adoption experience (Howe & Feast, 2000), felt closer to their adopters (Sobol, Delaney, & Earn, 1994) and had fewer insecurities and
emotional difficulties (Brodzinsky, Smith, & Brodzinsky, 1998). The disclosure
of adoption is now viewed as morally compulsory (Palacios & Sánchez-‐ Sandoval, 2006),but as in ED/DD conception, there is no legal mandate to
disclose.
4.2.2 THE DISCLOSURE PROCESS
When do adopters disclose?
Most families begin the process of disclosure between two and four years old (Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes, 2002; Brodzinsky et al., 1998). However, whilst young children might know that they are ‘adopted’, what they understand about
this term is rather limited. Brodzinsky, Singer, and Braff (1984) conducted interviews with 200 adopted children between the ages of four and 13 years old. When aged around four or five-‐years-‐old, children demonstrated little, or no understanding that being adopted is any different to children who live with their birth families. By around six-‐years-‐old, children could differentiate between these two family types, but could only usually explain adoption by repeating what they had been told, rather than formulating their own
understanding. It was not until around eight to 11 years, that children displayed a deeper understanding of adoption, and could acknowledge the relevance of genetic relationships. Brodzinksy (2011) notes that between the ages of six and 12, children begin to realise that birthparents may have other options rather than just placing their child for adoption, and may begin to question their connection to two different families.
Reasons for early disclosure
Harrigan (2010) conducted 11 in-‐depth interviews with adoptive mothers which explored how and why parents tell their young children ‘adoption stories’. The first reason was to build familiarity; the story helped children to grow a sense of awareness about adoption from a young age. This was
important so that children were never surprised by this fact in the future. The second reason was that telling the adoption story provided an opportunity for parents to become acquainted with adoption-‐related talk; they acknowledged that this is not an easy or smooth process and that the early delivery of the adoption story allowed information articulation without worrying that they might say something inappropriate or unclear. Brodzinksy (2011) supports this and notes that early disclosure ‘normalises’ the term adoption for both the child, and the parents who may experience anxiety when initially discussing adoption. Disclosure as a process
Adopters view disclosure as an on-‐going occurrence rather than a one-‐off event.
However, Jones and Hackett (2007) found that they were often uncertain when
to discuss certain aspects of adoption. Their children demonstrated a range of curiosity about their adoption, with some seeking answers from an early age,
and others seemingly disinterested. They did not want to pursue
communication too insistently due to concerns that it might upset, or embarrass their child. Howe and Feast (2003) found that if an adoptee does not ask
questions, or raise discussions about their origins, it does not necessarily mean that they do not wish to discuss it. This highlights one of the predicaments that adopters might encounter: they may risk revealing precise details of adoption before their child is emotionally or cognitively able to take this information on, but could also risk the perception that they are concealing important
information. In respect of frequency, Brodzinsky (2005) suggested that it is one-‐ dimensional to adopt a “more is better” approach to adoption communication, because children’s needs differ over time, and instead the quality of
communication is more important.
How do adopters disclose to their children?
In terms of the quality of communication, openness in adoption consists of two aspects: ‘structural openness’ -‐ the contact and sharing of information between the adoptive family and the birth family; and ‘communication openness’ -‐ discussion within the adoptive family about the adopted child’s birth family, history, and other adoption related facets (Brodzinsky, 2006). Wrobel, Kohler, Grotevant, and McRoy (2003) developed the Family Adoption Communication (FAC) Model: a theory-‐based design that attempts to explain the evolution of family communication about adoption. It found that adoptees might withhold information from their children for a number of reasons, including: how much information they possess about the birth family, how comfortable they feel sharing information, parents’ own goals, beliefs and values, their relationship with their child, children’s curiosity and questioning, children’s developmental stage. Overall, the FAC model considers some of the complex decisions
experienced by adoptive parents throughout their child’s adoptive journey, particularly with regards to the delivery or withholding of information. It does, however, not account for the emotional aspects of adoptive communication, which has been explored by other researchers.
Why might adoptive parents decide to withhold information?
In support of the FAC model, research has found that adopters worry that children’s reaction to certain new knowledge could affect family dynamics, self-‐ esteem or sense of security; so withholding information serves as a protection mechanism (Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes, 2002). Interviews with 20 adoptive parents (MacDonald & McSherry, 2011) revealed that although they thought that honesty was imperative, they were cautious about what level of
information they shared, often referring to the child’s birth family history as ‘huge’, ‘disturbing’ and a ‘burden’ for the child26. They found it difficult to strike
the balance between sharing complex and potentially emotional topics, whilst still promoting their child’s self-‐esteem. Adopters were aware that their child only grasped a basic understanding of adoption but felt that it was age-‐
appropriate and considered themselves as ‘gatekeepers’, keeping more complex details safe until their children were old enough to understand.
4.2.3 THE CREATION OF CHILD-‐FRIENDLY STORIES
Storytelling is deemed imperative because it acts as a tool to begin to form the child’s sense of their own identity (Galvin, 2003) and can impact upon their self-‐ worth (Friedlander, 1999). Jones and Hackett (2007) interviewed 10 UK
couples that had adopted children ranging from seven to 26 years old.
Participants told a minimum of three stories: the adoptive parents’, the adopted child’s, and the birth parents’, which dealt with a range of complex, and
sometimes competing motivations, feelings and experiences27. The stories
reflected happiness, welcomed the child into the family, and conveyed information about birth families. In another study, 11 in-‐depth interviews examined what and how mothers disclosed to their children aged three to 17 years old (Harrigan, 2010). Analysis revealed disparity in the method and frequency of storytelling, but a theme common in all families was that the story was told in an interactive manner that ensured that children were actively
26This is likely to be more problematic today when large numbers of adoptions follow
neglect/abuse, rather than in the 1960s when adoptions frequently occurred as a result of the pregnancy of unmarried women
involved. Parents did not deem the story as complete, but rather one that requires developing over the course of time, supporting the notion of disclosure as a process. In terms of story evolution, participants did not alter the original content, but instead added details according to children’s reactions, questions or developmental stage. The stories had two overarching aims: to positively reinforce feelings about adoption, and to help the child build a complete life history.
Positively reinforcing adoption
Adoption stories can positively reinforce perceptions in several ways (Harrigan, 2010). First, by reinforcing the birth parents’ positive intentions that adoption was a result of love and concern of the well-‐being of the child. Second, adopters reinforced positivity by telling children about the ‘great lengths’ they went to in order to adopt, to demonstrate how wanted they are. Third, the permanent nature of the adoptive family was emphasised to reassure children that these relationships are of a lasting nature. Fourth, parents stressed their desire to become parents to demonstrate how much thought had gone into the process. Finally, the special qualities of the child were emphasised, and how it was that particular child that adopters were looking for. However, presenting adoption in a positive manner does not come without challenges, specifically when sharing
information relating to the rejection of a child by a birth mother or father, whilst attempting to maintain positivity and honesty (Jones & Hackett, 2007).
Building a complete history.
Harrigan (2010) also found that adoption stories allowed parents to fill in any potential gaps in their child’s history, and to generate a sense of completeness. To this end, adopters felt that it was vital to tell the story from the very
beginning, so that their child could develop a true understanding of their adoption. They did not want to leave their child to fill in any ‘blanks’ and thought that adding untrue elements of fantasy would be deceiving their children. Therefore, they only engaged in sharing factual information, and did not fabricate or speculate upon unknown information.
4.2.4 DISCLOSURE COMPARISONS BETWEEN ADOPTION AND ED/DD
There has been little research directly comparing disclosure processes in adoption and ED/DD. In the MacCallum and Keeley (2012) UK study, all 24 adoptive mothers had told their child about their adoptive status, whereas only three ED mothers (18%) had begun to disclose to their child. The study also included a sample of IVF mothers, who were much more inclined to disclose compared to ED mothers, thus the authors concluded that the key issue influencing non-‐disclosure in ED mothers was explicitly the use of third-‐party conception. On examining the content of what parents had told their children, almost all adopters had used the term ‘adopted’ with their child, and provided some information about what this means i.e. ‘She is aware that she isn’t our blood child, she does know that.’ (p.746). Around a half of the adopters explicitly discussed pregnancy and felt that their children had understood that ‘tummy mummies’ are different from social mummies. In comparison, ED mothers provided fewer details of genetic relationships, and as discussed, none of three disclosing mothers had specifically referred to the use of other people in their conception.