From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are two concepts mixed together on this page:

• Adoptions in which the biological parent(s) do(es) not have a role in raising the child surrendered for adoption.
• Sealed birth and adoption records

Compare with:

• Adoptions in which the biological parent(s) do(es) have a role in raising the child surrendered for adoption (Open adoption)
• "Open" birth and adoption records (i.e. accessible to the adopted person but usually not the public)

Intuitively, one would expect open adoptions to have open records, and closed adoptions to have sealed records, but it's possible to have a closed adoption with open records, or an open adoption with sealed records.Schizombie 07:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

References and citations are needed on this page DPeterson^talk 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Point of Veiw 2 Natural 2.1 Proposed merge with open adoption 2.2 "Secret adoption" term

[edit] Point of Veiw

I was wanting to know if anyone here was actually part of a clsoed adoption. I myself was adopted when I was ten, and I was wondering what their perspective on this whole matter was.Solon Olrek 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural

The term "natural" is vague. An adoptive parent is a natural parent, and likewise, a birth parent is also a natural parent. Thus, it is best to use "birth" or "biological" to differentiate the two.--Elizabeth Brey 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "Birth" is also problematic as can be viewed as insulting/demeaning. See the section on the language of adoption in adoption. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite apart from that, the "birth mother" is not necessarily the "biological mother," as in the case of a surrogate mother. Шизомби 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge with open adoption

See related talk section in Talk:Open adoption. --Ed Brey (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See related objection in Talk:Open adoption too. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Secret adoption" term

A Google search for "secret adoption" turns up numerous hits about a form of adoption where the child or friends of the adoptive family don't know about this adoption, which is different than a typical "closed adoption". This indicates that the common use of the terms "secret adoption" and "closed adoption" are not synonyms, and so "secret adoption" should not be in the first sentence. --Ed Brey (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It refers to both, Ed. My Google search throws up the following on the first page of results alone:

• http://www.abolishadoption.com/ (EB: POV site)
• http://www.amazon.com/review/R38952GDYH144K (EB: Book review by individual - not reliable source)
• http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=14688 (EB: unclear whether synonymous with closed adoption)
• http://books.google.ie/books?id=j5Y9lhzlzKIC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=%22secret+adoption%22&source=web&ots=2YjoOIQI-h&sig=YyRJlhWYgl5wc-c1pGaE2wNvU1M&hl=en
• http://www.bastards.org/activism/EBDreport.html (EB: POV site; also secret is modifying "adoption system", versus using "secret adoption" as a stand-along term)
• http://www.magyarorszag.hu/english/keyevents/a_alpolg/a_csalad/a_orokbefog20050802/a_orokbefogeng20070118.html
• http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Open-Adoption-Experience/Lois-Ruskai-Melina/e/9780060969578 (EB: Book review by individual - not reliable source)

All these examples use "secret" in the context of closed adoption, not "hidden from the adoptee". Do you want to revert yourself, or shall I insert them as references? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As is often the case, here I think the best option isn't either just reverting or leaving the edit unchanged. "Secret adoption" seems to have multiple meanings. You identified uses you believe are synonymous with closed adoption, and I agree many are. However, please keep in mind that the list above is less powerful than it may first appear. If you don't mind, I took the liberty of annotating the list with comments on the strength of the sources and how they used the term. (I realize that you weren't trying to list only high quality sites; this isn't a criticism of your work. Likewise, I'm not saying sites urging a POV aren't good to list; one must just be careful about whether they are using slanted terminology.) Considering that the Google search also brought up many hits with a different meaning than "closed option" and the relative obscurity of the term (10 to 1 difference in hits for "closed adoption" versus "secret adoption") it would probably be worth clarifying in the article the different meanings. There appears to be some controversy on the use of the term "secret adoption", which should also be discussed. This article [1] has an interesting commentary on a version of Closed adoption. --Ed Brey (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that one when I searched. "And I've never heard of any adoption being referred to as a 'secret adoption.' Sounds so Tom Clancy-ish, doesn't it?" Eh, well, this blogger didn't look too hard or deep, or beyond her own adoption experience. The point remains, the term is used in adoption circles, to describe what is more commonly known as closed adoption. Re your objections - POV sources can most certainly be used as references. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, I too think POV sites are good to reference. They are especially useful when describing a side of a controversy. Where we need to be careful is in using terminology from those sources outside of the context of describing the controversy, since in some cases POV sites use slanted terminology. An extreme - even silly - example that illustrates the point would be to consider an article on universal health care. Some US critics of it disparagingly refer to it as Hillary Care, yet a Wikipedia article would never state in the first sentence, "Universal health care (also called Hillary Care) is...". --Ed Brey (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)