Antecedents of
American Adoption
Burton Z. Sokoloff
R
eference to adoption may be found in the Bible and in the ancient
codes, laws, and writings of Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians,
1,2
Hebrews and Hindus. It is believed that this practice was
usually employed to provide male heirs to childless couples, to maintain
family lines and estates, or to fulfill the requirements of specific religious
practices such as ancestor worship. It is commonly stated that adoption
law in the United States is based upon early Roman laws; however, as
Presser points out: “In contrast with current adoption law, which has as
its purpose the ‘best interests of the child,’ it appears that ancient
adoption law and particularly the Roman example, was clearly designed
to benefit the adopter, and any benefits to the adoptee were secondary.
Roman adoption law served two broad purposes: to avoid extinction of
3
the family and to perpetuate rites of family worship.“ Hollinger adds that
the adoptees were all male and usually adults, not children, and concludes that the relationship between adoption as known by the Romans
4
and adoption as practiced by Americans “is tenuous at best.“
Likewise, English common law cannot
be cited as the precedent for American
adoption law because the former makes
no reference to adoption and because the
first general adoption statute was not enacted in England until 1926, some 75 years
after passage of the first adoption statute
in the United States. Thus, as Hollinger
states, American adoption is “purely a
creature of the statutes which have been
enacted in this country since the mid-nineteenth century.“5
The Colonial Era Through
the Eighteenth Century
The absence of any laws relating to adoption in England at the time of American
colonization is commonly attributed to the
fact that there was no apparent need for
this practice. Adoption would not have
provided heirs for childless couples because inheritance was determined solely
by blood lineage. Adoption also was not
necessary to provide care for dependent
children. By the seventeenth century, a
variety of customs and practices were in
place in England which “made adoption
for social welfare purposes unnecessary.“6
These practices included “putting out”
(the placement of children in other
homes, for domestic service, for varying
periods of time), indenture, and apprenticeship. Although centuries earlier these
practices had been utilized by families
(usually the poor) to seek better care, dis-
The Future of Children ADOPTION Vol. 3 • No. 1 - Spring 1993
Burton Z. Sokoloff,
M.D., F.A.A.P., is a
pediatrician in Los
Angeles and a former
member of the Committee on Adoption and
Dependent Care of the
American Academy of
Pediatrics.
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SPRING 1993
18
cipline, and training for their children,
“they came to serve as a convenient means
for solving the problem of dependent children . . . .” 7 These customs and practices
were brought to the New World by the
Puritans and continued to be used
throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to care for dependent children who could not be taken into the
homes of relatives.
The industrial revolution and massive
immigration produced numbers of
dependent children which overwhelmed
the existing system.
Another institution that was brought
from England was the almshouse. This was
the principal public institution which
housed dependent children until they
reached the age of 6 or 7 years, at which
time they could be “put out” by indenture
or apprenticeship. Finally, there was the
practice of “informal transfers” of children
to substitute families, which existed in the
colonial era and which grew steadily as the
needs for child labor on farms increased
in the rapidly growing country. This practice developed a uniquely American character as owners of large plantations in the
South often took large numbers of dependent children into their families.8
These means of caring for dependent children, however, became inadequate to
meet the need by the beginning of the
nineteenth century. The industrial revolution and massive immigration produced
numbers of dependent children which
overwhelmed the existing system.
The Nineteenth Century
During the nineteenth century, adoption
laws developed in response to the desire
both to give legal status to children whose
care had been transferred and to encourage more available and better care for dependent children. For example, Presser
writes that the earliest adoption statutes in
the United States were, in part, a response
to the increasing demand on state legislators for the passage of “Private Acts” which
recognized adoption in individual situations. As the number of informal transfers
grew rapidly, many adoptive parents
wanted to assure that their “adopted” children would share in their estates and
sought legal sanction. As Presser observes:
“Whatever the genesis and development of
the Private Acts, by the middle of the nineteenth century legislatures grew weary of
the routine action on private bills for adoption and began to provide an easier way to
take new children into the family legally.“9
The first comprehensive adoption statute was passed in Massachusetts in 1851
and contained the following major provisions: (1) that written consent had to be
given by the natural parents of the child
to be adopted or by a legal guardian; (2)
that the child himself had to consent if he
was 14 years of age or older; (3) that the
adopter’s wife or husband (if he or she was
married) had to join in the petition for
adoption; (4) that the probate judge to
whom the petition for adoption was presented had to be satisfied that the petitioner(s) were “of sufficient ability to bring
up the child” and that it was “fit and proper
that such adoption should take effect” before he could decree and confirm the
adoption; (5) that once the adoption had
been approved by the probate court, the
adopted child would become “to all intents and purposes” the legal child of the
petitioner(s); and (6) that the natural parents would be deprived by the decree of
adoption of all legal rights and obligations
respecting the adopted child.10
The Massachusetts statute is particularly notable in that, for the first time, the
interests of the child were expressly emphasized and the adoption had to be approved by a judge.11
As this Massachusetts statute suggests,
providing a legal mechanism to establish
heir status was not the only goal of adoption statutes. They also were concerned
with the well-being of children. As Presser
points out, attributing the passage of the
Massachusetts statute and of the others
that followed solely to the “weariness” of
the legislators in hearing individual petitions for establishing the legal status of
adoption is too simplistic. Adoption law
developed as part of a larger movement
for child welfare which was then under way
and widespread. Presser summarizes the
social background of adoption legislation
as follows:
In the first half of the nineteenth century,
it became apparent that public means for
the care of dependent children were
grossly inadequate for the welfare of the
children. At first the system of private care
was like the old methods of public care,
Antecedents of American Adoption
with an initial period where the children
were kept in an asylum or institution to
receive rudimentary education, followed
by an indenture or apprenticeship. It
soon became apparent that the old systems of apprenticeship and indenture
were failing to educate and provide for
the needs of children because of changing economic conditions, and through
the efforts of philanthropists, private
agencies were formed for the care of dependent children. As it became impossible to provide early institutional care for
all, private agencies began to channel
their energies toward placing children,
often at very early ages, in foster homes
where they would be treated more like
members of the family than like servants.
Motivating many, if not all, of these child
welfare reformers was a strong religious
spirit which was an offshoot of a religious
revival then taking place. The reformers
believed that the children of the poor
were not basically different from the children of the rich. These religious and
egalitarian views of many of the child welfare workers led them to abandon the
system of indentures and to conclude that
the best way of caring for dependent children was to have them accepted into
“God’s Reformatory,” a family. Since a
child who was not indentured could not
be bound to a family in which he was not
properly cared for, the effort to provide a
proper family atmosphere became paramount. Many of the children placed by
such agencies as the New York Children’s
Aid Society found themselves in situations
which not only resembled “adoption” as
we know it today, but which were called
by the same name. As the phenomenon
of children in adopted homes became
more common, there was increased pressure not only to pass laws regulating and
insuring the legal relations between
adopted children and their natural and
adoptive parents, but to guarantee that
some benefits of heirship were conferred
on the adopted child. This pressure,
which originated with the activities of the
charitable associations working in child
welfare, led to the passage of the general
adoption statutes in the third quarter of
the nineteenth century.12
The same social forces Presser describes as being at work in Massachusetts
during 1851 clearly were also prevalent in
other areas of the United States, most
prominently in the large urban centers of
the East Coast. Among these, New York
19
City epitomized the problems. Early in the
nineteenth century, as described by English, “the lower East Side of Manhattan was
the most crowded area in the world: The
population density of 250,000/square
mile was twice that of the most crowded
areas of London. Waves of immigration,
begun by the Irish following the potato
famine of 1846, packed a mass of poorly
fed humanity into tenements, with unclean water, inadequate sewage and no
facilities for preparation and storage of
food.“¹³ The mortality rates for infants
and children were horrifying, and those
children who survived infancy were frequently left at a young age to fend for
themselves. The chief of police, George W.
Matsell, estimated in 1852 that between
10,000 and 30,000 vagrant children
roamed the streets of New York City.13
Some years earlier, in 1844, Dorothea
Dix conducted an inspection of almshouses in NewYork City to seek out abuses
of the mentally ill and reported that 15%
to 20% of the inmates were children,
mixed together with “undesirables” of all
ages.14 The revelations about the health
conditions on the East Side; the homelessness, vagrancy, and often criminality of
children on the streets; and the presence
of infants and children in the almshouses
prompted public outrage. In response,
two seemingly contradictory movements
evolved, both of which had major impact
on foster care and adoption in subsequent
years.
Placement of Children with Farm
Families
The first of these movements was a remarkable effort begun by Reverend Charles
Loring Brace, who, in 1853, founded The
Children’s Aid Society in New York City.
Brace was firmly committed to the belief
that institutional life of any sort was detrimental to children and that their placement with families was to be preferred.
Brace was convinced that farm families
would provide the best homes, and he
made these families the focus of his efforts.
Brace believed that his plan was bound to
be successful in view of the great demand
for labor in the rural areas of the expanding “western” areas of the country. He
wrote: “The emigration plan of The Children’s Aid Society is simply to connect the
supply of juvenile labor of the city with the
demand from the country, and to place
unfortunate, destitute, vagrant and aban-
20
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SPRING 1993
doned children at once in good families in
the country.“15
Initially children were placed on farms
in nearby New York, Connecticut, and
Pennsylvania. However, the demand for
children was so great and the numbers of
orphaned, abandoned, and vagrant children so vast that the “orphan train movement” was established to move children,
usually 2 to 14 years old, from eastern cities
to farm communities in the “west” (primarily those states now characterized as being
in the Midwest). Agents of The Children’s
Aid Society announced the forthcoming
arrival of the trains, which stopped at towns
along the way. The children were then
“shown” to the eager citizenry, who selected the ones they desired. The majority
of the orphan trains ran from 1854 to 1904,
although a few ran as late as 1929. It is
estimated that 100,000 children were
placed on farms throughout the Midwest
during those years. Fascinating accounts of
the orphan trains, the children, and their
futures may be found in the records of the
state historical societies of Nebraska, Kansas, and Indiana, among others. An Orphan Train Heritage Society still exists
today.16
Although Brace is considered by many
to have been a visionary in child welfare,
recognizing early on the value of permanent placement and the deleterious effects
of institutionalization, others held a contrary view. They believed that many of the
children placed probably had living, biological parents who had never consented
to the “emigration” of their children and
also that The Children’s Aid Society did
not adequately screen the families who
took children or follow the children’s progress after placement. With regard to adoption, it appears that most of the children
placed by The Children’s Aid Society were
never formally adopted by their families.17
However, it also appears that close, enduring, loving, and secure family relationships
were established in many, perhaps the majority, of these placements.
Foundling Homes and Placement in
Urban Foster Homes
The second response to the problem of
homeless dependent children in the large
cities was the establishment and proliferation of public and private institutions
committed to their care. These institutions, generally referred to as “foundling
homes,” were soon afflicted with very serious problems which continued until the
beginning of the twentieth century. The
most obvious of these problems was the
large number of dependent children with
which they were confronted as waves of
immigrants arrived and as conditions in
the urban slums worsened. This problem
“made it inevitable that children be placed
out in foster homes at an earlier age.“18
Also, the mortality rates in foundling
homes were extraordinarily high, particularly among the very young infants who
comprised the majority of the residents.
These high mortality rates resulted in part
from the malnutrition caused by the absence of nursing mothers and the inability
to find a sufficient number of wet-nurses.
In addition, recurrent outbreaks of diarrhea and respiratory illness, epidemics of
measles and other childhood contagious
diseases, and overcrowded conditions
took a fearsome toll.
Moreover, pediatricians began to report on the very striking developmental
delay which they observed in children in
the foundling homes and which they attributed to institutionalization itself. In 1870,
Abraham Jacobi, considered by many to be
the father of American pediatrics, reported
to the commissioner of public charities in
New York that the problems of the children’s institutions were insurmountable.
Antecedents of American Adoption
Jacobi recommended that these institutions be closed and that infants be boarded
out to the homes of wet-nurses.19 Despite
major opposition from the foundling
home supporters, some healthy infants
were placed in the homes of wet-nurses.
However, this process alone could never
have accommodated the number of infants
in the foundling homes, and these institutions continued to experience the very
high death rates while entering “the stiffly
competitive market for wet-nurses.“19 Because it was virtually impossible to obtain
adequate amounts of breast milk from wetnurses, several of the foundling hospitals
in the 1890s established “milk laboratories”
which studied the development and use of
formulas made from cows’ milk for infant
feeding. The development of formula not
only improved the survival rate among infants, but also set the stage for the beginning of early adoptive placement of babies
in the first quarter of the twentieth century.
As the frequency with which infants and
children were placed with families, rather
than in institutions, increased during the
last half of the nineteenth century, concerns likewise increased about the adequacy of investigation of the adoptive
homes before the placements and the lack
of supervision and follow-up of the children after the placements, many of which
were little more than informal transfers. In
response to these concerns, child welfare
reformers pressed for the passage of adop-
21
tion legislation similar to that passed in
Massachusetts. During the next 22 years,
16 additional states passed acts which provided for judicial supervision over adoption, and by 1929 all states had enacted
some form of adoption legislation.20 Virtually all statutes emphasized the “best interests of the child” as the basis for adoption.
The Twentieth Century:
First Half
During the first half of the twentieth century, secrecy, anonymity, and the sealing of
records became statutorily required and
standard adoption practice. The Minnesota Act of 1917 is commonly credited with
having initiated the secrecy and sealed records aspects of adoption.²¹ Actually, as
Hollinger points out, these practices “were
not designed to preserve anonymity between biological parents and adopters, but
to shield the adoption proceedings from
public scrutiny. These statutes barred all
persons from inspecting the files and records on adoption except for the parties to
the adoption and their attorneys.“²¹ Nevertheless, beginning in the 1920s and extending well into the 1940s, states progressively
amended their statutes “to provide not only
for the sealing of adoption records, but also
for denial to everyone of access to these
records except upon a judicial finding of
‘good cause.’”²¹ In these statutes, the identities of the birthparents and the adoptive
22
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SPRING 1993
parents were to remain secret, even from
each other. Toward this end, the original
birth certificate would be sealed and an
amended one would be issued at the time
of legal finalization of the adoption.
Major factors encouraging infant adoption were
the development of successful formula feeding and
the perception that environment, not heredity,
was the major determinant of child development.
The movement toward secrecy is said
to have been urged by social workers in
child-placing agencies with the goals of removing the stigma of illegitimacy from children born out of wedlock. These workers
believed that assuring the anonymity of the
birthmothers and the privacy of the adoptive family would make the integration of
the child into the adoptive family more
secure. This practice is still in place but has
come under increasing attack since the
1950s and will be discussed below.
In addition to the passage of adoption
legislation, the first half of the twentieth
century is characterized by a dramatic increase in interest in adoption on the part
of childless couples and in the steady trend
toward adoption of infants. Prior to the
1920s very few legal adoptions of children
actually took place when compared with
the numbers of children in institutions, in
foster care, or in situations created by informal transfers. Many childless couples
and, indeed, many child-placing workers,
had serious doubts about the future potential of poor, abandoned, and particularly,
illegitimate children. Concerns about inheritance of “bad blood” were widespread,
and even families who were motivated to
take homeless children in foster care were
often unwilling to establish a permanent
relationship through legal adoption. The
adoption of babies, let alone newborns,
was exceedingly uncommon. Added to
concern about the inheritance of undesirable traits was the general awareness of the
very high infant death rates and of the
difficulty of feeding infants without an
adequate supply of breast milk.
A New Demand for Infants
World War I and the influenza epidemic
that followed resulted in a sharp drop in
the birth rate and an increased interest in
infant adoption. During the 1920s, in response to the great demand for babies,
unregulated “baby brokers” and “black
market adoptions” became commonplace, eventually prompting passage of
legislation in most states which required
investigation of potential adoptive parents
and their homes, and court approval before finalization of adoption. Also in response to the explosion of “private”
adoption during this period, the number
of adoption agencies—both public and
private—grew rapidly throughout the
country.²² Major factors encouraging infant adoption were the development of
successful formula feeding and the perception that environment, not heredity,
was the major determinant of child
development.
Hollinger describes the end of the first
half of the twentieth century as follows:
By the 1950s, a complete transition had
occurred from the earlier interest in
adopting older children to the present
desire for adoptable babies; whereas boys
were once favored, infant girls became
more desirable. From the 1930s on, articles appeared routinely which bemoaned
the alleged shortage of adoptable infants.
A 1951 survey of 25 states indicated that
nearly 70% of children being placed for
adoption were under the age of one, although at the time of the filing of the
adoption petition, only 40% were under
two years. Well over half of the children
were born out of wedlock, two-fifths of the
mothers being under 18. The remaining
children came primarily from “broken
homes,” with many divorces and desertions being attributable to World War II.
Fewer than 10% of the children were
placed because both of their parents were
dead.23
The Twentieth Century:
Second Half
The major issues in adoption today arose
during the second half of this century and
are represented by the topics selected to
appear in this journal issue.
With the end of World War II came an
increased interest in adoption, particularly
adoption of healthy, young infants. For a
while during the late 1940s and the early
1950s, the number of infants placed by
adoption almost equaled the number of
applicants.24 At this time agencies apparently were still concerned about placing
infants of uncertain background and desirous of assuring the couple approved for
Antecedents of American Adoption
adoption of a healthy baby of known and
untainted heredity. 25 Accordingly, infants
were customarily kept in selected foster
homes—termed “study homes”—for six
months to a year before placement, during
which time physical and developmental assessments were made. According to Cole,
“infants with known pathology in their
background were considered unadoptable.“²²
A Growing Mismatch of Supply and
Demand
By the mid-1950s the demand for healthy
infants clearly exceeded the numbers
available, a trend that accelerated in succeeding decades. Agencies, faced with
large numbers of applicants, began to develop criteria designed to get the “best
parents” for each child and, in particular,
the “best fit.” Attempts were made in
many instances to match physical characteristics of adoptee and adoptors as well as
the presumed intellectual capacity, educational background, and socioeconomic
status of the potential adoptive couple
and the birthparents. Religion matching
was also common as were age restrictions
for the applicant couples. To avoid everlengthening lists of applicants, some
agencies established time frames in which
a placement could be made and after
which an unsuccessful couple would be
dropped from consideration to give others a fair chance. By 1975 many agencies
stopped accepting new applications for
white, nondisabled infants and, if time
frames were not in place, other agencies
informed applicants that the wait for such
a child was likely to be 3 to 5 years.26
Because of the lack of success with both
public and private agencies, couples seeking white, healthy infants turned with increasing frequency to independent
nonagency adoption.
Experts postulate that the discrepancy
between the number of couples seeking to
adopt and the number of available healthy
infants is the result of an increased incidence of infertility among married couples
and an absolute decrease in the numbers
of infants placed for adoption. The latter
resulted from greater availability of effective methods of contraception, the rise in
the rate of abortion following the 1973 Roe
v. Wade decision, and perhaps most significant, the sharp increase in the tendency of
unwed mothers to keep their babies rather
than place them for adoption. This trend,
which has been most pronounced among
23
white unwed mothers (black, Hispanic,
and Asian women rarely placed babies for
adoption at any time), has been attributed
to greater societal acceptance of single parenthood and the expanded availability of
social services and financial assistance
through welfare programs.27
As the shortage of same-race, non-disabled infants persisted and, in fact, increased, white infertile couples turned to
nontraditional sources in the search for
adoptable babies. Important among these
were transracial and international adoptions, which are discussed in the articles in
this journal issue by Arnold R. Silverman
and Elizabeth Bartholet. As advances in
technology have permitted, couples have
sought help through alternative means of
reproduction including artificial insemination by donor, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer, and most recently, surrogate
parenting. Examination of these methods
of achieving parenthood is beyond the
scope of this journal issue but the moral
and ethical issues surrounding them continue to stimulate discussion.
By the mid-1950s the demand for healthy
infants clearly exceeded the numbers available,
a trend that accelerated in succeeding decades.
In the same time period when increasing numbers of couples and individuals
have desperately been seeking infants to
parent, the number of older children, children of color, and children with physical,
mental, and emotional problems who are
in custodial care waiting to be adopted has
increased to an alarming degree. These
children (in the adoption field termed
“special needs children”) are the legacy of
the social, economic, and moral upheavals
of the 1960s and 1970s which continue
today: racism, poverty, unemployment, the
drug culture, and most recently, the epidemic of AIDS. They are in care because
of abuse, neglect, and abandonment, and
for them the numbers of families and individuals wishing to adopt are distressingly
small. Finding permanent homes for these
special needs children is the most pressing
current issue in child welfare. In this journal issue, the articles by Judith K. McKenzie, James A. Rosenthal, and Richard P.
Barth address the challenges inherent in
special needs adoption.
24
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SPRING 1993
The Concerns of Adoptees and
Birthmothers
The second half of the twentieth century
also marks the time when adoptees and
birthmothers began to claim rights which,
they believe, were denied them by existing
adoption laws and by the policies and practices of the majority of agencies. In the
1940s studies began to identify psychological problems in adolescent and adult
adoptees. Investigations in succeeding
decades disclosed difficulties in identity
formation and low self-esteem among
adoptees and attributed these problems,
in great part, to the total lack of knowledge
about their origins which was caused by
the secrecy, anonymity, and sealed records
aspects of adoption law and practice.28,29
Many professionals emphasized that
“knowledge of one’s heritage is a necessary
part of identity formation.“30 Most important, perhaps, as adopted children became
adopted adults, a great many developed an
urgent need to know, often precipitated by
marriage and the prospect of bearing children of their own.
As increasing numbers of adoptees
entered adulthood, vigorous challenges
to the sealed record barrier were raised.
Adult adoptees formed activist groups to
challenge the confidentiality and sealed
records statutes and to gain access to
birth records and other background information, to which they believed themselves constitutionally entitled. The
earliest of these groups was founded by
Jean Paton in 1954.25 The largest and
probably the most influential is the
Adoptees Liberty Movement Association
(ALMA) founded by Florence Fisher in
1971. Birthparents, too, began to press
for greater involvement in the adoption
process and for the right to know the
progress of the children they had relinquished. Toward this end they formed
Concerned United Birthparents (CUB).
On the other hand, many adoptive parents were deeply alarmed at the prospect
of opening records and losing anonymity,
and organizations such as the Association
for the Protection of the Adoptive Triangle
(APAT) were formed in support of sealed
records. Significant changes have taken
place in the past 25 years. At present, 25
states allow access to confidential records
upon mutual consent between the adoptee
and the birthparents; 17 states have established search and consent processes
through confidential intermediary serv-
ices; 3 states permit access to birth certificates upon the request of adult adoptees.
The sealed record controversy and the legal response to date are discussed by Joan
H. Hollinger in this journal issue.
Seeking to avoid the problems that had
been attributed to the “closed adoption”
policies and practices, Baran, Pannor, and
Sorosky in 1976 put forth the concept of
“open adoption” placement.³¹ In this
practice birthparents and prospective
adoptive families meet, share information,
and arrange for varying degrees and forms
of continuing relationship, including the
possibility of continuing direct contact
with the child. Open adoption has grown
rapidly in recent years, particularly in the
practice of private, independent adoption.
Also in this issue Annette Baran and
Reuben Pannor give their perspective on
open adoption; Mark T. McDermott discusses its place in independent adoption;
and Marianne Berry reviews the benefits
and risks, based upon current research.
The Roles of Public and Private
Placement
In the second half of the twentieth century,
“The need to find homes for dependent
children and the need to find children for
childless couples became more distinct.
Public agencies and publicly financed foster care began to work primarily with dependent, mistreated and abused children
while private agencies and intermediaries
(lawyers, doctors, physicians) began to focus on the task of finding adoptable children for childless adults.”³² This trend has
continued, and at present it is estimated
that two-thirds of adoptions of newborn
babies are accomplished through independent, private placements. However, as
discussed in this journal issue, the move to
private adoption has been condemned by
many adoption professionals and vigorously defended by private adoption practitioners. Arguments for agency and for
independent adoption are presented in
the articles by L. Jean Emery and by Mark
T. McDermott, respectively.
As we approach the end of the twentieth century, it is apparent that the major
issues in adoption today will continue into
the next century. Accordingly, it is appropriate now and it will be necessary in the
future to study the outcome of important
adoption policies and practices. Therefore, this journal issue presents articles
about the outcome of special needs adoption (written by James A. Rosenthal) and
25
Antecedents of American Adoption
transracial adoption (written by Arnold R.
Silverman), and about the long-term outcome of adoption in general (written by
David M. Brodzinsky).
Conclusion
History shows adoption as a unique and
ever-changing phenomenon. “No other
form of substitute care offers children—
or adults seeking children—the quality of
legal, psychological, and familial belonging that adoption creates.“27 Today, as in
the past, there are large numbers of couples and individuals who fervently wish to
parent and even greater numbers of children needing permanent homes in families. Matching these two needs, with the
best interests of the children always at the
forefront, has been and will continue to
be a challenging task.
1. Kadushin, A. Child welfare services. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980, pp. 465-66.
2. Cole, E., and Donley, K.S. History, values and placement policy issues in adoption. In The psychology of adoption. D.M. Brodzinsky and M.D. Schecter, eds. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1990, pp. 273-74.
3. Presser, S.B. The historical background of the American law of adoption. Journal of Family Law
(1972) 11:446.
4. Hollinger, J.H. Introduction to adoption law and practice. In Adoption law and practice. J.H.
Hollinger, ed. New York: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1991, p. 1-19.
5. See note no. 4, Hollinger, p. 1-18.
6. See note no. 3, Presser, p. 453.
7. See note no. 3, Presser, p. 455.
8. See note no. 3, Presser, p. 459.
9. See note no. 3, Presser, p. 464.
10. See note no. 3, Presser, p. 465.
11. See note no. 4, Hollinger, p. l-22.
12. See note no. 3, Presser, p. 488.
13. English, P.C. Pediatrics and the unwanted child in history: Foundling homes, disease, and the
origins of foster care in New York City, 1860-1920. Pediatrics (1984) 73:699-711.
14. See note no. 13, English, p. 701.
15. See note no. 3, Presser, p. 485.
16. Orphan Train Heritage Society of America, Rt. 4, Box 565, Springdale, AR 72764.
17. See note no. 4, Hollinger, p. l-32.
18. See note no. 3, Presser, p. 481.
19. See note no. 13, English, p. 705.
20. See note no. 3, Presser, p. 466.
21. Hollinger, J.H. Aftermath of adoption: Legal and social consequences. In Adoption law and practice. J.H. Hollinger, ed. New York: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1991, p. 13-5.
22. See note no. 2, Cole and Donley, p. 277.
23. See note no. 4, Hollinger, p. 50.
24. See note no. 1, Kadushin, p. 472.
25. Paton, J. The adopted break silence. Acton, CA: Life History Study Center, 1954.
26. See note no. 1, Kadushin, p. 470.
27. Jaffe, B., and Fanshell, D. How they fared in adoption. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, p. v.
28. Sorosky, A.D., Baran, A., and Pannor, R. The adoption triangle: The effects of the sealed record on adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1978; San Antonio,
TX: Corona Publishing Co., 1990.
29. Sachdev, P. Unlocking the adoption files. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989.
30. See note no. 29, Sachdev, p. 12.
31. Baran, A., Pannor, R., and Sorosky, A.D. Open adoption. Social Work (1976) 22:97-100.
32. See note no. 4, Hollinger, p. 1-51.