This book is being written during a time of rapid and noticeable transformation within the field of adoption partially owing to the Internet. The most recent and significant of these changes can be seen within contact arrangements, particularly those that are not managed by an intermediary, between the adopted minors and their biological kin. Due to these recent shifts in these boundaries of contact and the ease with which digital and social media technologies facilitate their communication, the once-invisible and silent voices of the adopted individual and their biological kin have culminated in a new set of visible and sharable expression of feelings about themselves and each other. Whilst communication between both parties should be encouraged, it however does not mean that it should be in isolation, unmediated, or that continued improvements to the safeguarding of adopted minors should be scaled back or cease. On the contrary, it is only through the review of current policies, practices, and procedures that we can better safeguard and meet the ever-changing needs of children that have been adopted and are growing up in the digital age (in the context of this book the digital age is a term typically used to describe the prevalence and common use of digital technologies, in particular the widespread use of the Internet).
Delving deeper into concerns of contact that is not managed, it becomes clear that this dramatic shift and often-breached contact arrangements lend themselves to a further shift towards more openness within adoption. However, whilst this book attempts to cover some of the rapid changes within the field of adoption due to the Internet, it is important to point out that it does not offer a conclusive solution to adoption concerns in the digital age. Whilst it seeks to map out how and why the Internet continues to redefine adoption through its promises and threats, it cannot predict how these changes will continue to impact upon the adoption triad (adoption triad is a term typically used to describe the three-way relationship between the adopted individual, the adoptive family, and the biological family). Continuing to look towards open adoptions that are successful for possible solutions, whilst meeting the needs of all in the adoption triad, a new type of adoption begins to emerge, no longer shrouded with the shame and stigmas often associated with being raised by a family that is not bound by blood.
Why write this book? Having worked in both industry and education within the field of social and digital media technologies for over two decades, to me, the Internetās transformation of our everyday lives remains alluring. It is the unpredictable way with which people are able to connect and disconnect at the click of a button across culturally diverse social groups, without boundaries, particularly among the digital natives that continues to influence my research. It was whilst going through the adoption process myself that I began thinking about my pending childās future growing up as a ādigital nativeā (digital native is a term typically used to describe an individual that was born and raised in the age of the Internet), in a world where our reliance on technology continues to develop and reunification with oneās biological kin is but an Internet search away. Documenting some of the fundamental changes taking place, where adoption and social networking have collided, this book examines some of the emerging tensions. In this new and still uncharted digital territory, all aspects of what it means to be adopted continue to evolve in the context of networked media cultures.
The choice of material for the book was not without difficultly, partly owing to still emerging research-led material specifically relating to adoption in the digital age, but also due to the fact that many of the personal websites, blogs, and forum posts that initially appeared in searches that were bookmarked were often no longer available when ready to use. It was only due to the fact that I had taken screen prints of the sites that I thought might be useful in the future that I was able to evaluate whether it would make a useful contribution to the book. As well as summarizing some of what has been documented previously within this field relating to contact and identity, where possible I have provided the rationale for the current material in light of current changes within the field of adoption. One of the key objectives when setting out to write this book was to contribute to discussions about further openness within adoption, through the exploration of the dialectic of promise and threat of the Internet to contact arrangements, which is further opened up beyond the question of the child and the biological parents, being trailed by many anxious adoptive families and care workers.
Contact Arrangements in the Digital Age
To some extent, all adopters within the UK and the USA are already engaged in varying degrees of openness within adoption (MacDonald 2016: 3). This is maintained through ongoing contact arrangements between individuals that have been adopted and their biological kin, be it letterbox or face to face (MacDonald 2016: 3), many of which continue to be mediated by social workers and adoption agencies. Pertinent today with concerns of contact that is not managed, the role of the social work profession āin negotiating and supporting birth family contact following adoption from careā (MacDonald 2017: 34) remains critical. For many families that have adopted and engaged in letterbox contact, which does not include the exchange of photographs or gifts, a feeling that their adoption is closed or less open may prevail. According to McRoy and Grotevant (1998) ā[d]iscussions of openness are further complicated because open adoption has been defined in different ways by different people [sic]ā (p. 2). It is often this lack of understanding of what openness means within adoption that continues to fuel concerns about contact that is not managed.
McRoy and Grotevant (1998) offer a pragmatic explanation of the types of adoption available. The authors explained, ā[a]t one end of the openness continuum are confidential adoptions, in which minimal information is shared between adoptive and birthfamily members and is never transmitted directly [sic]ā (McRoy and Grotevant 1998: 2). The exchanging of photographs, letters, and gifts as well as occasional mediated meetings that continue to safeguard personal information facilitates levels of openness within contact arrangements (McRoy and Grotevant 1998: 2ā3), within adoptions that are less open or appear to be less so due to mediation by social workers and adoption agencies. At the other end of the adoption spectrum, there is āfully disclosed adoptions, which involve direct communication and full disclosure of identifying information between adoptive and birthfamiliesā (McRoy and Grotevant 1998: 3). Whilst concerns about contact that is not managed and adoption reunification due to digital and social media technologies should inform decision-making about future changes that extend beyond contact arrangements, they should not be the deciding factor.
Whilst the benefits of indirect letterbox contact for the maintenance of the connection with their heritage and their sense of identity is indisputable, for adopted individuals it is not without its own complications. For continuity and connection to their biological past, ā[m]ost often, the social work plan for post placement contact was to cease face-to-face contact and replace it with letterbox contactā (Selwyn et al. 2014: 167). Problems may arise if letters sent are not replied to or the response is inappropriate, for example. As discussions about further openness in adoption gain traction, this raises questions about the role and future of letterbox contact in the digital age.
Citing specific examples, Pavaoās online article āFinding Facebookā highlighted some of the opportunities for abuse of trust between adoptive families and biological family members that engage in letterbox contact. Pavao (2010) explained one particular instance where it had been agreed that, as part of the letterbox contact, the biological family would receive photographs of their now adopted child. However, initially, unbeknown to the family that adopted, the biological family was posting the photographs online. In Pavaoās opinion such incidents might occur because, on occasion, some adoption intermediaries āhave simply filed things and not passed them on to the intended recipientā (2010: 3). Continuing the author (2010) stated:
It is unfortunate that due to human error, adopted individuals may find themselves disconnected from their biological kin. It is partially due to these invisible bonds, ābirth bond and mother loveā (MĆ¼ller and Perry 2001: 42) and curiosity that many individuals seek out their biological family. It is within the search for reunification that we are reminded of the invisible and often unbreakable bond, of elation and pain, between the adopted individual and their biological kin.These types of mistakes lead people to circumvent the agency, feeling that they are withholding, or unfair, or untruthful, or even that they might have policies or procedures to which they adhere that are not in the best interests of the choices the adoptive parents or the adopted person or the birth parents wanted or want to make. (p. 3)
Whilst many adopted minors may be receptive to contact, for others being found by their biological kin reawakens traumatic memories (Kent 2013). Although letterbox contact continues to safeguard the āadopted familyās identity and location, Facebook offers no such guaranteeā (Kent 2013). Resonating similar concerns following dialogue with a āwhistleblowerā about the state of adoption within the UK, Kate Gallagher (2012) journalist for the Mail (online) argued that even within letterbox contact concerns about safety and privacy would escalate āespecially as children get older and start writing the letters themselves and adding lots of detailsā (para. 41). Continuing to open up both conflicting and disparate perspectives, the balancing of appropriate contact that is managed with potential emotional trauma remains paramount. Even within adoptions that are more open, different and varying degrees of trauma remain, both for the adopted individual and for the biological kin.
Authors, including Grigsby (1994), have extensively written about the significance of the relationship between attachment theory and contact, whilst others, including Moyers et al. (2006), Neil et al. (2011), and Dodgson (2014), are more critical, cautioning that any type of contact can be problematic. Dodgson (2014) for example stated, ā[w]hilst post-adoption contact can take the form of indirect contact, this form of contact may simply seek to worsen matters for the child and may not be ultimately promoted by the adoptive carers in any event despite prior assurances that it would beā (para. 4). Whilst the potential benefits of further openness within adoption are largely irrefutable, underpinned by attachment theory, indirect contact continues to facilitate identity formation and kinship, whilst limiting some of the negative impacts of separation. Indeed, citing J. Bennett, the learned judge Wall distinguished between adoption and contact, āthe purpose of adoption is for the child to develop in a quite different family ā¦ and the purpose of contact is ā¦ for identity purposes, not to develop a relationship between the natural parent and the child who is adoptedā (Dodgson 2014: 13). It is this type of distinguishments that further openness in adoption continues to challenge.
If we are to accept that there are benefits for considering further openness within adoption, there is another, and perhaps more fundamental, concernāhow do we continue to protect children that have been forcibly removed and not surrendered for adoption? In the majority of cases within the UK where children that have been forcibly removed from their biological family due to abuse or neglect, direct contact would not serve their best interest. For these children direct ācontact might result in additional traumaā (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2013: 5). Neil (2010) has written of how
It is due to the circumstances of the childās removal from the biological family and their placement within the care system that this āneed to examine the circumstances of the particular person with whom openness is sought and identify any issues that would mitigate against exposing the person to the childā (Ontario Association of Childrenās Aid Societies n.d.: 4) stems from. For those engaged in adoptions that are less open, there may be on rare occasions extenuating circumstances that might require the adopted child and the biological kin to meet in person, a death in the immediate biological family for example. For the vast majority of adopted individuals, for the foreseeable future, indirect contact facilitated by an intermediary continues to ensure some level of safeguarding.(a)doption in the UK primarily concerns the placing of children from the public care system, often against their parentsā wishes. Most such children have a plan for contact with their birth family, and a significant minority of children have direct (face-to-face) contact with parents, grandparents, siblings or other relatives [sic]. (p. 89)
Whilst further openness within adopt...