Family Journal, July 1981 http://mirahriben.blogspot.com

1. They call us birth mothers. We are
women who have given up our
children for adoption. Weare also
called biological mothers. Still oth-
ers call us "natural mothers"-
~
although for many this term is an
affront to the role of an adoptive
mother. I suggest to you that
women who surrender children to
adoption are simply mothers.
In her article "The Inevitable:
Question" (Vol. I, No.2), Susan Kli-
banoff points out that an adopted
child has a need to know his or her
past, genetic history, and roots. I
would like to add that just as the
adopted child is naturally curious
and seeks answers to fill the voids in
his or her past, so, too, is the child's
original mother.
Women who surrender children
to adoption, according to Ms. Kliban-
off, generally do so to provide
them with a better home than the
women themselves can offer. This
is a very self-sacrificing picture of
the mother. It is also true that there
aTe many women who do not sur-
render their children voluntarily.
Some mothers who feel that they
are quite able to provide a good
home are pressured into relinquish-
ing their children by social workers,
parents, and adoption agencies.
Whatever the reason for giving
up their children, however, most
mothers long to know that their
children are all right and are curious
about their circumstances. And in
attempting to satisfy this curiosity,
mothers who have surrendered
childn for adoption are defeated
They Call Us !Birth Mothers
by laws set up to keep adopted
children and their birth parents in
complete ignorance of one another.
These laws were originally in-
tended to protect the anonymity of
mothers who had surrendered their
children, and it was assumed that
once a mother signs relinquishment
papers she never again would want
any knowledge of the child. This is a
cruel and foolish assumption. No
birth mother 1 have ever met
wanted to get her child back or steal
it away from his or her adoptive
parents. But a birth mother does
have a curiosity and a desire for
assurance that her child is well.
Recently there has been much
publicity about adopted children's
right to know their "biological" par-
ents. I can foresee the day when the
law will be changed so as to no
longer deny adult adoptees access
to information about their heritage. i
It is my hope that the same relaxa- i
tion in the law will benefit mothers i
who have seen fit to relinquish i
their children at birth, but who i
need the reassurance of knowing i
their whereabouts and condition. i
Here in New Jersey, within the,
past year, four women, who had
surrendered children to adoption
many years earlier, were able to dis-
cover their children's new identities
and whereabouts. These women
received no help or guidance from
anyone other than each other. They
were even ostracized by such
groups as ALMA (Adoptees Liberty
Movement Association). ALMA
has a strong "over 18" rule-that is,'
parents should not contact children
until the child is over 18. Yet these
four women located their children
during early adolescence. Each had
to decide whether or not to wait
until her child reached 18 or to
pursue her desire at this time. Each
.woman followed her own instincts,
doing things that were considered
radical even to each other. Each
made difficult decisions, often
against the advice of family, friends,
and clergy.
Among the four there were three
different paths taken: two wrote
letters to the adoptive parents, one
telephoned her child directly, and
one went right to the door of the
child's house. It is interesting to
note that in each case the mother's
instincts proved to be right.
The mother who telephoned, did
so because she felt that her daugh-
ter, though only 14, could handle it.
Both the daughter and her parents
have accepted it so well that a visit
will take place this summer. The
one who went directly to the door
did so because she had always had
very strong feelings that something
was drastically wrong. Her fears
were not unfounded. Her child had
been sent away to a boarding school
and was not in contact with his par-
ents. Of the two who wrote letters
to the adoptive parents neither
sensed anything wrong; however,
each also did not feel that every-
thing was fine. They were cautious,
and they found their caution to
have been necessary. In both cases
the adoptive parents were recep-
--------.
JULY lQ81
tive. However, in the first case the
child did not know that he was
adopted. In the other, while the
child knew, she felt uncomfortable
with her adoptive status, and would
leave the room at the mention of
the word. Again the decision was
clearly correct to contact the par-
ents and not the child
Tome these cases clearly indicate
that maternal instincts had to be
still present to guide these women.
It is also interesting to note that the
success rate of these contacts is
much higher than the success rate,
given by ALMA and other groups,
who propose waiting until the child:
is 18.
Just as many adoptees long to
know the truth of their origins, !
whether they ask or not (for so i
many fear hurting their adoptive'
parents with questions), so too does
a birth mother long to know that
her child is all right, whether or not
she actively searches for him or her.
Far from wanting to disrupt the
lives of their children, women'-are
realizing that to wait or to do
nothing is not always the best solu-
tion. Those who have had their
worst fears confirmed are the best
able to testify to the fact that had
they not followed their instincts
!
and acted against all of the tradi- i
tional taboos, their children's wel- i
fare would have suffered, and they i
would never had been able to for-
give themselves for having waited. .
Marsha Riben .
OLD6R'.<"E.NEWJERSEY