There is a general consensus that communicative openness is a positive aspect of adoptive family life (Brodzinsky, 2005; Neil et al., 2013; Von Korff & Grotevant, 2011). In contrast, the debate surrounding post-adoption contact is unresolved. The importance of contact is recognised, particularly for older adopted children (Parker, 1999). However, contact cannot be assumed always to be in the best interests of the child (Neil et al., 2011) and the complexities of these practices must be recognised (Jones, 2013). Adoptive parents may find the task of contact difficult due to additional sensitivities they must consider, including the child’s pathway to care and the potentially different needs of siblings within the same family (Jones & Hackett, 2007). It has been argued that adoption agencies in their role as mediators are crucial to manage and support post-adoption contact arrangements (Neil et al., 2011).
Practice rightly purports that post-adoption contact be in the best interests of the child (Neil et al., 2011). Adopted children often report satisfaction with mediated contact and any dissatisfaction seems to be associated with wanting increased contact (Thomas, Beckford, Lowe & Murch, 1999; Macaskill, 2002). Research has identified certain benefits for children in maintaining contact with birth relatives: (a) they are able to continue having relationships with birth relatives with whom they have an attachment (Slade, 2002), (b) contact can reassure the child that birth relatives are safe (Macaskill, 2002; Smith & Logan, 2004), (c) contact can help the child to understand their background and reasons for their adoption (Thoburn, 2004), and (d) contact can help to resolve identity issues due to the provision of information and reduce feelings of self-blame by an increase in understanding of birth family difficulties (Fratter, 1996). Of key importance to adopted children is the provision of information gained through contact (Fratter, 1996; Macaskill, 2002; Neil et al., 2011).
However, there can also be several risks inherent in contact arrangements for some children. Children who have a history of neglect or abuse can be unsettled or even re- traumatised by contact (Macaskill, 2002; Howe & Steele, 2004; Smith & Logan, 2004). The quality of contact can also be affected by the difficult or inappropriate behaviour of birth relatives (Macaskill, 2002). Past relationships with birth relatives may not be maintained due to the often infrequent nature of contact, and therefore birth relatives and children may not be able to relate to one another anymore (Neil, 2002a). Although the needs of the child should be central and paramount to contact decisions, other parties in the
19
network can also be affected by and influence the contact experience (Neil & Howe, 2004, Neil et al., 2011). Cossar and Neil (2013) argue that contact not only continues pre-existing relationships, it can change these relationships and create new ones, involving a negotiation of family boundaries. Contact in itself sends a message about which birth family relationships are valued and who is a family member (Cossar & Neil, 2013).
As Macaskill (2002: 74) argued, the “positive aspects of contact [are] usually complexly interlinked with negative aspects”. Therefore, the complexity of the contact ‘dance’ occurs within adoptive kinship networks and can change over time. Table 1 outlines the knowledge we have through selected empirical research regarding the benefits and challenges of openness, including communicative openness and post-adoption contact. This table highlights the controversy that still surrounds openness and the debate that continues.
Table 1: Existing empirical knowledge surrounding the benefits and challenges of openness
Benefits Challenges
Communicative openness
A strong indicator of positive adoptee adjustment, higher self-esteem, and fewer behavioural problems (Brodzinsky, 2006). Can build trust between adoptive parents
and their adopted child (Kohler, Grotevant & McRoy, 2002).
Adoptees who experienced more
communicative openness about adoption did not experience split loyalties and could manage the dual relationships involved in contact (Richardson, Davey & Swint, 2013: 370).
Can aid the development of a positive adoptive identity (Howe & Feast, 2000). Open conversations can also act as a
resource in adulthood for adoptees,
especially during search and reunion (Petta & Steed, 2005).
Communicative openness
Adoptive parents can underestimate the difficulty their adopted children have talking about their adoption and
communication can vary between families and also within the family with different siblings (Wrobel, Kohler, Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Beckett et al., 2008). Children and parents often differ about the
level of communication in the family (Brodzinsky, 2006).
Adoptive parents can struggle to meet the level of communicative openness
recommended by professionals (Howe & Feast, 2000).
Post-adoption contact
Contact has been associated with placement stability (Barth & Berry, 1988; Ryburn, 1998,1999).
Contact can aid attachment in the early stages of placement (Fratter, 1996).
For the adopted child, contact can maintain relationships with siblings (Fratter et al., 1991), provide reassurance about the wellbeing of birth relatives (Macaskill, 2002), and allows them to explore identity
Post-adoption contact
There can be differing desires about contact and boundary issues between adoptive and birth families (Macaskill, 2002; Siegel & Smith, 2012)
Adoptive parents and birth relatives can find it difficult to collaborate and their needs can sometimes overshadow the needs of the child (Grotevant et al., 1999).
In relation to the methods of contact used, letterbox contact has been reported to be
20 issues (Hoopes, 1990; Grotevant, 1997;
Macaskill, 2002).
For adoptive parents, contact provides more positive attitudes towards their child’s birth relatives and greater empathy for their child and birth relatives (Neil, 2003). Contact can also increase their sense of entitlement to the child (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998) and reduce fears of the birth relatives (Berry, 1991; Neil, 2009). Adopters also gain a greater understanding of their child’s background (Macaskill, 2002).
For birth relatives, contact can help them to accept the adoption (Macaskill, 2002), and reduce feelings of loss and guilt (Raynor, 1980).
Contact can enable higher levels of communicative openness and improved relationships between adopted children and their adoptive parents (Grotevant & McRoy, 1998; Brodzinsky, 2006; Neil, 2009;
Grotevant et al., 2011).
Contact can be a resource to adoptee, adoptive parents, and birth relatives by providing information and understanding, role clarity and understanding dual
connection, and relationships (Neil, Beek & Ward, 2013: 281).
complex and does not maintain genuine communication and relationships (Logan, 1999; Neil, 2009). Direct contact with birth relatives who were involved in the child’s abusive pathway to care, can bring back painful memories for the child, and in some cases re-traumatise them (Macaskill, 2002). Child distress following contact was caused
by: contact too soon after placement, too frequent contact, and a negative relationship between adults (Macaskill, 2002).
Mediated methods of contact have been criticised as not allowing ‘family-like’ relationships and interactions (Jones & Hackett, 2012)
Empirical evidence has highlighted the benefits of contact for many children. However, the difficulties encountered are often related to the sensitive and complex relationships within the adoption kinship network. The negotiation of relationships post-adoption will involve the task of ‘emotional distance regulation’, which is defined as “navigating the dimension of closeness-distance in these relationships” (Grotevant, 2009: 295). Over a period of time, due to emotional distance regulation and other interpersonal processes, members of the adoption kinship network negotiate a level of contact that suits all (Grotevant, 2009). Adopter motivation to maintain contact is influenced by their ability to see the benefits of contact for their child. However, problems can occur when contact is not equally advantageous (Smith & Logan, 2004).
Using the theoretical framework of Boss (1988), Fravel, McRoy, and Grotevant (2000: 425) define ‘boundary ambiguity’ as “a condition that exists when an individual’s physical and psychological presence in the family are incongruent, thereby increasing the likelihood that the family members may have difficulty determining whether that person is inside or outside the family”. Boundary ambiguity in adoptive families is mediated by the physical
21
and psychological presence of birth mothers in everyday family life (Fravel et al., 2000). The psychological presence of the birth mother increases with openness, and is highest in fully-disclosed adoptions where birth mothers must face the reality of their new role in their child’s life (Fravel et al., 2000). Positive attitudes of adoptive parents and relationships with birth relatives provide continuity to the child and allow them to manage the existence of ‘two families’ more easily (Macaskill, 2002: 116). In the ‘close relationships model’ (Kelley et al., 1983), it is argued that a ‘comfort zone’ is created through interaction and information seeking whereby relationships between strangers are established. However, unique to the adoption situation are power asymmetries and agency involvement in contact (Grotevant, McRoy & van Dulmen, 1998: 174). When interactions and relationships are positive, individuals will risk more contact outside of their comfort zone in the future (Grotevant, 2009). Grotevant et al. (1998: 178) outlined key factors that increase or decrease openness and the level of contact in the adoptive kinship network (Table 2).
Table 2: Factors that increase and decrease openness (Grotevant, McRoy & van Dulmen, 1998) Factors that increase openness Factors that decrease openness
Adoptive and birth family’s mutual concern for the child’s wellbeing Emergence of satisfying relationships Unimpeded flow of communication
Increased geographical distance Differences in lifestyle and
incompatibility
Friends/relatives who discouraged contact
Change in birth mother’s situation (e.g. marriage)
Inability to negotiate an agreed comfort zone of contact
Adoptive parents feeling that contact was stressful for the child
Agency intermediaries not keeping contact up to everyone’s satisfaction
Despite the increase or decrease of openness over time, certain qualities within the adoptive kinship network will ensure that the experience of openness is positive and meets the needs of each member. Siegel and Smith (2012) identified a range of opportunities and challenges regarding openness in their survey of 100 adoption agencies offering infant adoptions in the USA. They argue that the following four factors can lead to strong open adoptions and relationships:
22
A shared understanding of what openness is: child-centred focus, understanding benefits of openness and moving beyond fear, openness does not erase feelings of loss, and importance of role clarity.
Foundational relationship qualities: empathy, respect, honesty and trust and, commitment to maintaining the connection.
Self-determination from all parties in shaping open relationships: ability to set boundaries and adaptability of relationships.
Collaborative communication in planning contact and discussing needs and feelings: planning and the availability of support services. (Siegel & Smith, 2012: 24).
The dynamics of the adoptive kinship network evolve over time, mainly due to the entrance and exit of members (Grotevant, 2009). However, Grotevant (2009: 308) argues that openness is still a new enough development that there is no ‘relationship template’ or an idea of what relationships are ‘supposed’ to look like in the adoptive kinship network. For example, when the adoptee gains more control over contact and their relationships with birth relatives in adolescence, they must decide the level of closeness they should have with their birth family without the mediation of their adoptive parents (Grotevant, 2009).
A recent study highlights the complexities involved in the maintenance of openness and contact. MacDonald and McSherry’s (2011) study, including interviews with 20 sets of adoptive parents from the Northern Ireland Care Pathways and Outcomes Study, explored parent views about contact and talking to their child about adoption. The study found that although adoptive parents talked sensitively to their child about adoption, complexities were evident, and all forms of contact were thought to be emotionally and practically burdensome. Adopters in MacDonald and McSherry’s (2011) study were aware of their child’s changing developmental needs regarding contact. However, they lacked the interfamilial communication with the birth family to be able to informally make the changes needed, and there were no formal mechanisms to be able to respond to their child’s changing needs either. This highlights potential limits of openness in its current form in its ability to meet the needs of all adopted children and their families.