Janette Logan reports on the findings of a research study which examined the experiences of adoptive parents and birth parents who were involved in an information exchange scheme. While both acknowledged the importance of exchanging information, different views were expressed as to how the exchange should happen and people's experiences were considerably influenced by their pattern and process of exchange. This study provides empirical evidence to suggest that the exchange of information is by no means straightforward and easy to accomplish in a way that satisfies the needs — in particular the long-term needs — of those involved in the adoption triangle.
BerryM, ‘Adoptive parents' perceptions of and comfort with open adoption’, Child Welfare72:3, pp 231–53, 1993.
2.
DeykinECampbellLPattiP, ‘The post-adoption experience of surrendering parents’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry54:2, 1984.
3.
DominickC, Early Contact in Adoption — Contact between birth mothers and adoptive parents at the time of and after adoption, Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Social Welfare, 1988.
4.
EtterJ, ‘Levels of co-operation and satisfaction in 56 open adoptions’, Child Welfare72, pp 257–67, 1993.
5.
FieldJ, ‘Views of New Zealand birth mothers on search and reunion’, in MullenderA, Open Adoption: The philosophy and practice, London: BAAF, 1991.
6.
FratterJ, ‘Adoptive parents and open adoption in the UK’, in MullenderA, Open Adoption, as above.
7.
FratterJ, ‘Parties in the triangle’, Adoption & Fostering14:4, pp 91–8, 1991.
8.
FratterJ, Adoption with Contact: Implications for policy and practice, London: BAAF, 1996.
9.
HallG, ‘Adoption and contact with birth families’, Adoption & Fostering18:3, pp 40–2, 1991.
10.
HughesBLoganJ, Birth Parents: The hidden dimension — an evaluation of a birth parent project, Research report, University of Manchester, 1993.
11.
IwanekM, A Study of Open Adoptions, Unpublished manuscript, 14 Emerson Street, Petone, New Zealand, 1987.
12.
LoganJ, ‘Birth mothers and their mental health: uncharted territory’, British Journal of Social Work26, pp 609–25, 1996.
13.
McRoyR, ‘American experience and research on openness’, Adoption & Fostering15: 4, pp 99–111, 1991.
14.
McWhinnieA, Adopted Children: How they grow up, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967.
15.
McWhinnieA, ‘The concept of open adoption: How valid is it?’, in McWhinnieASmithJ (eds), Current Human Dilemmas in Adoption, Dundee: University of Dundee, 1994.
16.
McRoyRGrotevantHWhiteK, Openness in Adoptions: New practices, new issues, New York: Praeger, 1988.
17.
PannorRBaranA, ‘Open adoptions as standard practice’, Child Welfare63, pp 245–50, 1984.
18.
PannorRBaranASoroskyA, ‘Birth parents who relinquished babies for adoption revisited’, Family Process17, pp 411–18, 1978.
19.
QuintonDRushtonRDanceCMayesD, ‘Contact between children placed away from home and their birth parents: research issues and evidence’, Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry2:3, pp 393–413, 1997.
RyburnM, ‘In whose best interests? Post adoption contact with the birth family’, Child & Family Law Quarterly10:1, pp 53–70, 1998.
24.
TriseliotisJ, In Search of Origins: The experiences of adopted people, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.
25.
TriseliotisJ, ‘Maintaining links in adoption’, British Journal of Social Work21, pp 410–14, 1991.
26.
WinklerRVan KeppelM, Relinquishing Mothers in Adoption: Their long-term adjustment, Monograph 3, Melbourne, Australia: Institute of Family Studies, 1984.
