This article was downloaded by:

On: 25 November 2010

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Adoption Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792303958

Adoption
Gordon E. Finleya
a
Department of Psychology, Florida International University, University Park Campus, Miami, FL,
USA

To cite this Article Finley, Gordon E.(2004) 'Adoption', Adoption Quarterly, 7: 1, 1 — 6

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1300/J145v07n01_01
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J145v07n01_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 EDITORIAL
Downloaded At: 11:53 25 November 2010

Adoption:
In Whose Best Interest?
Gordon E. Finley, PhD

In my final editorial, I would like to begin with a most heartfelt

thanks to the authors who have submitted manuscripts for review to
Adoption Quarterly, to the Editorial Board who went well above and
beyond the call of duty to generously, kindly, and thoughtfully critically
evaluate the manuscripts sent to them, and to the Book Review, Media
Review, Legal Intersections, and Research Digest Editors who also
gave so generously and strongly to the publication of a successful jour-
nal. Although we used only a few ad hoc reviewers, they also deserve
our gratitude: Elinor Ames, Anthony Burrow, Kerry Daly, Manfred van
Dulmen, William Feigelman, Deborah Lewis Fravel, and Christine
Groothues.

Adoption Quarterly, Vol. 7(1) 2003

http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J145
 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
10.1300/J145v07n01_01 1
 2 ADOPTION QUARTERLY

I have chosen “Adoption: In Whose Best Interest?” as the title of my

final editorial because, as will be seen below, the adoption field has un-
dergone such tremendously radical transformations in terms of whose
best interests have been served over the past half century. Without doubt,
change also will continue to be the dominant trend in terms of whose best
interests will be served by adoption in the future (Finley, 2000; 2002a).
Today, overviews of the adoption literature often begin with a sen-
tence something like: “The landscape of adoption has changed radically
over the past several decades.” And, this certainly is true. Depending on
the starting point of one’s historical analysis, one finds both linear and
cyclic trends over time. As one approaches the present, however, what
one finds are many divergent adoption realities and many competing
best interests. In this editorial, I briefly discuss five changes in adoption
that have occurred over the past half century. I then close with a few ob-
servations on future trends. At the heart of all topics is the issue of
Downloaded At: 11:53 25 November 2010

whose best interests are best served by adoption.

HALF-CENTURY CHANGES

Adoption Placement: From Calling to Business. At mid-20th century,

those involved in adoption placement tended to be social workers in pri-
marily public, non-profit, or religiously affiliated agencies who tended to
view all members of the adoption triad (birth parents, adoptive parents,
and adoptees) as “the clients.” They also tended to view adoption as a so-
cial intervention into the lives of children whose biological parents could
or would not raise them, and as a social service that met the best interests
of all members of the adoptive triad. Today, social workers and the pub-
lic, non-profit, or religiously affiliated agencies deal primarily with spe-
cial-needs adoption including: children in foster care, older children,
minority children, siblings, children with developmental difficulties, and
children who have experienced neglect or abuse (Burrow & Finley, 2001;
Finley, 2002b). By contrast, the more financially lucrative placement of
healthy, Caucasian infants, along with international adoptions, has come
to be dominated by adoption attorneys in frequent business partnerships
with private adoption agencies. Although prospective adoptive parents
continue to pay the bills, private attorneys and agencies tend to view the
birth mother primarily as the primary client because, without birth moth-
ers, there is no business. It is noteworthy that concern about adoption eth-
ics has risen to prominence as the 21st century begins. The widespread
availability of adoption “information” and the advertising of prospective
 Editorial 3

adoptees on the internet also has contributed to the current concern with
adoption ethics and questions regarding whose best interests truly are be-
ing served. Clearly, many whose interests are being very well served, per-
haps far too well served, are not members of the adoptive triad, but are
very well paid participants in the adoption process such as adoption attor-
neys and private agencies (Finley, 1999b).
Adoptive Families: From Relative Homogeneity to Striking Hetero-
geneity. At mid-20th century, one confidently could write about adop-
tion, secure in the knowledge that there was a great deal of similarity
among adoptive families and adoptees. The modal adoptive family con-
sisted of intact, Caucasian, middle class adoptive parents under age 40
with adoptees drawn from the pool of healthy, genetically sound,
“blue-ribbon” Caucasian infants in traditional closed adoptions. Today,
such adoptions continue to take place. However, two opposing supply
and demand factors have dramatically changed the range of adoptive
Downloaded At: 11:53 25 November 2010

families found today. An increasing demand for adoptees was spawned

by increasing rates of infertility (caused primarily by deferred child-
bearing and multiple sexual partners) which, in turn, was spawned by
the social, sexual, and ideological revolutions of the 1960s and the
1970s. This increased demand was accompanied by a sharply decreas-
ing supply of available domestic Caucasian infants spawned by the
self-same revolutions in social attitudes regarding the acceptability of
non-traditional family forms (e.g., the never-married). Changes also oc-
curred in our attitudes toward, and social policies regarding, the best in-
terests of children in foster care (Burrow & Finley, 2001; Finley,
2002b). The response to all of these social changes was to expand our
notions of what constituted acceptable adoptees, adoptive families, and
adoptive parents. To the earlier modal adoptive family, this expansion
has added transracial, international, and special-needs children and
families as well as older, single, Black, Hispanic, lower socio-economic
status, gay, and lesbian adoptive parents. Thus, the collage of adoptive
family forms today only remotely resembles the modal adoptive family
portrait of the mid-20th century. At a minimum, this makes adoption a
tremendously multifaceted and extraordinarily complex topic to write
about and virtually impossible to summarize easily.
The Ideology of Adoptive Kinship: From Confidentiality to Open-
ness. The earlier ideology of adoptive kinship dictated that the best in-
terests of all members of the triad were best served by the erection of
impenetrable barriers between the birth and the adoptive families and
between the genetic and psychological heritages of the adoptee. Current
adoptive kinship ideology either embraces the notion that: (a) some
 4 ADOPTION QUARTERLY

level of openness (face to face or agency mediated contact among triad

members) is optimal; or (b) that a complete range of openness arrange-
ments (anchored by closed on one end and fully disclosed on the other)
ought to be available to permit all members of the adoptive family kin-
ship network to select whatever they view as in their best interests at any
given point in their respective developmental trajectories.
Adoption as an Institution: From Stigmatized to Accepted. The so-
cial, sexual, and ideological revolutions noted earlier also transformed
the institution of the American family. Among the many family forms
spawned by these revolutions (e.g., never-married, divorced, single, co-
habiting, step, blended, reconstituted, gay, and lesbian), the adoptive
family no longer stands out so starkly against the backdrop of the for-
merly modal intact, biological family (Finley & Chiang, 2001). Al-
though attitudes regarding adoption as the “second best” route to
parenthood linger, today one only rarely encounters the stigmatizing
Downloaded At: 11:53 25 November 2010

vocabulary formerly linked to adoption: illegitimacy, sexual purity, and

bastard. Of great current interest is how both adoptees and adoptive
families fare in comparison to children and adults from all of the differ-
ent family forms found today (Finley, 1999a).
Infertility Solutions: From Adoption Alone to Adoption and the New
Reproductive Technologies. In earlier times, infertile couples who
wished to remain together faced two major choices, adoption or invol-
untary childlessness (Finley, 1998). Today, the many advances in re-
productive technologies have expanded the range of choices well
beyond adoption. Unfortunately, however, we as a society lag in our un-
derstanding of the psychological, social, and ethical issues involved in
such technologies. Currently it is recognized that adoptees and children
of the new reproductive technologies share many issues in common.
Foremost among them is the question: “Whose child am I?” The permu-
tations and combinations of the unholy trinity of sperm, egg, and host
resonate well with many of the genealogical and identity issues faced by
adoptees. The adoption literature easily can contribute to our under-
standing of the best interests of this newly created group of children.

FUTURE TRENDS

As implied in our discussion of the past half-century changes, it must

be taken as axiomatic that the only constant in adoption is change. Were
it only true that such change was driven by findings from sound re-
search! However, given the social, technological, and financially-driven
 Editorial 5

changes outlined above, the contribution of research to these changes

appears to be, at best, minimal. Given that so many changes have oc-
curred in such a brief time frame, perhaps the most certain near-term
prediction is that the adoption field will undergo a period of evaluation
and re-evaluation in which the best interests of all parties to adoption
(e.g., Finley, 2002c) will continue to be examined.
Only with this kind of research will the adoption field be in a position
to evaluate what kinds of adoptive family forms best serve the best in-
terests of those whose best interests ought to be served–members of the
adoptive triad–and not those outside the triad who often appear to bene-
fit financially or in power and prestige from being involved in the adop-
tion process. The complexity of this task is both daunting and
challenging, but also extraordinarily exciting. One place to follow this
excitement is the journal Adoption Quarterly.
Perhaps it is because my editorial term has come to an end, but, as I
Downloaded At: 11:53 25 November 2010

simultaneously reflect back and look forward, I see a number of trends

that make it virtually impossible to forecast long-term future trends in
adoption. This cloudiness in my crystal ball is caused, in large part, by
the uncertainty surrounding how adoption as a social and legal institu-
tion, and how adoptive families as a family form, will fare in the com-
peting “coupling” marketplace of what used to be non-traditional family
forms. Non-traditional family forms (e.g., single, divorced, never-mar-
ried, cohabiting, step, blended, reconstituted, gay, and lesbian) currently
are swamping the “coupling” marketplace for both adults and children
and have achieved a level of social acceptability unheard of a half cen-
tury ago. Today, the complexity and diversity of socially acceptable
family forms questions not only the sanctity, but also the survival of tra-
ditional marriage and family as social institutions, and makes prognos-
tications regarding the future of adoption, at best, risky. Today, the
formerly non-traditional has become the traditional, the formerly ille-
gitimate has become the legitimate, and the formerly illegal has become
the legal. Critically for our field: Where does this leave adoption as a so-
cial and legal institution? Finally, in the midst of all this complex social
and institutional change, who indeed is in a position to speak for the
“best interests” of each triad member–if indeed there are universal “best
interests” for all members of each triad membership category–the birth
fathers (Finley, 2002c), the birth mothers (Finley, 2002b,c), the adop-
tive fathers (Finley, 1999b), the adoptive mothers (Finley & Chiang,
2001), and–ultimately–the formerly voiceless adoptees who had no say
 6 ADOPTION QUARTERLY

whatsoever in whatever adoption contract was signed by the birth par-

ents, the adoptive parents, the intermediaries, and the family court
(Finley, 1999a; 2002a)?
Gordon E. Finley, PhD
Department of Psychology
Florida International University
University Park Campus
Miami, FL 33199 USA

REFERENCES
Burrow, A. L., & Finley, G. E. (2001). Issues in transracial adoption and foster care.
Adoption Quarterly, 5 (2), 1-4.
Finley, G. E. (1998). On individual difference, choice, selection, and complexity in
Downloaded At: 11:53 25 November 2010

adoption research. Adoption Quarterly, 1 (4), 83-91.

Finley, G. E. (1999a). Children of adoptive families. In W. K. Silverman & T. H.
Ollendick (Eds.). Developmental issues in the clinical treatment of children and ad-
olescents. (pp. 358-370) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Finley, G. E. (1999b). Unheard voices: Adoptive fathers on the adoption process and
adoptive fatherhood. International Conference on Adoption Research, Minneapo-
lis.
Finley, G. E. (2000). Adoptive families: Dramatic changes across generations. Na-
tional Council on Family Relations Report, 45 (2), F10-F12. [Special section on
“Visions for families: Continuity and change across cohorts and generations”].
Finley, G. E. (2002a). The best interest of the child and the eye of the beholder. [Re-
view of C. Panter-Brick & M. T. Smith (Eds.) Abandoned children]. Contemporary
Psychology APA REVIEW OF BOOKS, 47 (5), 629-631.
Finley, G. E. (2002b). Family and state in the context of abuse and neglect: An in-
put-output analysis. Adoption Quarterly, 5 (4), 1-6.
Finley, G. E. (2002c). Birth father rights and legislative interventions. Adoption Quar-
terly, 6 (1), 1-5.
Finley, G. E., & Chiang, Y. Y. (2001). Adoptive family divorce: A new perspective on
adoptee risk and protective factors. Adoption Quarterly, 4 (4), 1-3.