I'm going to ask:
Does anyone really think that it's all pretense, and that my daughter would be better off if I said, "Hi, Miss I, I'm Abebech. This is Dr.Bloom. Call us that. See, we aren't your parents, and we never will be. Your parents are gone, but you can stay with us for as long as you like, forever even (if you want), or until your first extended family is capable of taking you back. Even if that means a second cultural displacement so many years hence. Don't worry. We know genetics is the most important thing, and we're just not it"?
Really? Does anyone who thinks this know any children?
Maybe closed adoption was a failed social experiment. But can you imagine this experiment: raising children with no sense of permanence (except which they elect -- and have you met a two year old? a five year old? a thirteen year old?!), no sense of authority, no sense of family? Explaining that their current family is a poor substitute -- and living like a poor substitute -- will NOT teach them how to parent when the time comes.
What bothers me most about this is that no one said, "You know, now that I think about it, that could be psychologically damaging in its own way."
I'm pro-reform, particularly of domestic infant adoption (the need for which is far exaggerated by adoption agencies and paparent desires). But this?
For balance, though, I should add that this morning on the radio the humane society was announcing a dog who was looking for a new home only because his former family couldn't afford a $1000 heartworm treatment he required. The humane society was providing the treatment and seeking a new family, and I wondered why they wouldn't treat him at a discount and return him to his family.
If only everyone worried as much about children being displaced for similar reasons . . .