Advertisements
Advertisements
I just [URL="http://birthparents.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/a-birth-parent-processes-sheryl-crow-s-t"]wrote about Sheryl Crow's adoption on the Birth Parent blog[/URL]. She has an interview and photo shoot in the newest OK! Magazine which I quoted a few things.
Basically: the adoption is domestic and closed, though she has the medical histories (WOO FOR THAT! I'm so happy to hear it!). She says she will be supportive of her son's future desire to search for his birth family. When asked about how/when they'll talk about the adoption, she said "when he's old enough," which is my least favorite answer. But I digress. My mind has gone to a related by separate question for birth parents (either closed or open adoption), meaning those who have already relinquished a child.
Pick your favorite celebrity. Go back to the time that you were making your adoption decision. Imagine that celebrity wants to adopt your baby. How do you feel? What do you do? How does it end up effecting your decision? Would you have accepted less contact simply because of the status of the celebrity? Would you have forced said celebrity to sign an open adoption agreement if it was legally enforceable in your state? If the celebrity (or celebrity couple, really) wasn't on the same page as you regarding openness, could you have walked away? If you changed your mind, could you have walked away?
And anything else you'd like to add.:prop:
browneyes0707
However, being that I was 17 when I made my adoption plan, my 17 year old self would have probably been all for it, given how teens love celebrity!!!!
Ah, that's a point I didn't even think of, being that I was older when I placed. My SEVENTEEN year old self would have also been greatly swayed by the allure of celebrity status.
Good and interesting point there.
For me, at 22, I'd like to say I was intelligent enough to realize that the stability of the homes within celebrity life was not what I was looking for... but again... I need to think a bit more. LOL
Advertisements
I'm not a birthmother, but I was wondering if the prospect of seeing your child's family mentioned in the news would contribute to someone's choice of placing with a celebrity.
I mean, you would almost always be able to know how many siblings your child has, whether their mom and dad are still together, or who they have married now. There might also be the occasional picture in the news. And heaven forbid, if something happened to the child, that would be sure to be publicised. And you would know all that even if the adoption were closed, or even if the adoptive parent(s) didn't mention it to you directly.
Maybe those would not be things that one would think of up front, but once the profile of a celebrity showed up in a stack of family profiles those might seem like attractive reasons. Of course I don't know for sure, just something I wondered about.
DianeS
I'm not a birthmother, but I was wondering if the prospect of seeing your child's family mentioned in the news would contribute to someone's choice of placing with a celebrity.
I mean, you would almost always be able to know how many siblings your child has, whether their mom and dad are still together, or who they have married now. There might also be the occasional picture in the news. And heaven forbid, if something happened to the child, that would be sure to be publicised. And you would know all that even if the adoption were closed, or even if the adoptive parent(s) didn't mention it to you directly.
Maybe those would not be things that one would think of up front, but once the profile of a celebrity showed up in a stack of family profiles those might seem like attractive reasons. Of course I don't know for sure, just something I wondered about.
Whereas in a fully open adoption, you could actually VISIT with your child instead of being blind-sided by your child's picture on the front of a magazine as you shop for groceries less than a month after placement.
To me, everything you have stated is a strong defense NOT to place with a celebrity. I am never caught off guard by the Munchkin's presence on my television screen, computer newscasts or in the line at the grocery store. People don't talk about her in random conversation or as a household name. I would never learn something about her life over the watercooler at work just because I happened to miss the latest Gossip show the night before; instead, I KNOW these things. I know when I will be in contact with her. I know when I will see and hold her. I won't be forced to watch through the looking glass.
I think, perhaps, the things you are suggesting might have been a "welcome" idea for those who had no choices in the closed adoption era. (Welcome in the sense of at least it's something.) But when the open adoption era is alive and continuing to make leaps and bounds, it sounds like a harsh life sentence to me.
I'm an amom in an open adoption and I am disappointed that someone as high profile as Sheryl Crowe is in a closed adoption. This is just another example that my ignorant relatives will point to! I expected more from someone whose public persona is so "cool" I suppose it is possible that the birthparents are the one who chose a closed adoption, and if that is the case it is their perogative. But I would love to see some good positive examples of open adoptions for the media to focus on. It could help educate a lot of people on the benefits of openness for all parties involved.
I would never have placed my daughter with a celebrity. It's not the kind of life I want for my daughter.
It is upsetting that Sheryl Crow has chosen a closed adoption.
Advertisements
The post on Nicole Kidman's kids brought me to the an episode of Oprah with Melissa Gilbert. Melissa was there to promote the new show (at the time) Adoption (I think that was the name of it) on Hallmark.
Anyway, Melissa relayed that she was adopted and that she searched for her birthparents. Unfortunately, she found her birthmother to late, she had already passed. At the time of the show, (about 4 years ago) she had recently found her birth father. When she called him, he had know he had a child, but did not know that this child was a celebrity. WHen she told him she had been on tv and was on Little House, her birthfather immediately knew - You're the one with the pigtails!
I found that so funny. Oprah and she commented on it. It was at just that point that he realized she had similar features to others in the family. At the time of the show, they hadn't met in person yet.
I really wish I could find out it everything worked out well.
Sorry, SchmennaLeigh, I missed typing some of my thoughts. I was thinking about Sheryl Crowe's adoption being a "closed" one and wondering if an adoption by a celebrity could ever be truly closed in the same way that adoption by a common citizen can be closed.
Open adoption is indeed alive and making leaps and bounds as you said, but there are still too many birthparents who placed their children with the promise of contact, who do not get the contact they were promised.
For people who worry about being left without information after placing their child, placing that child with someone who could never truly drop out of sight might be appealing. Likewise, for those who are afraid of never seeing their child again, perhaps they would prefer to be "blindsided" over the possibility of never hearing another word about their child - not even if the child were dead or alive.
I was not talking about those people who enter into an open agreement which is kept. I was only talking about those who want contact, who think that an open agreement may not be kept, and who may consider placing with a celebrity as a way of ensuring they can alway find out some kind of information about their child.
I am responding to Michelle's statement that many adoptive kids by celebrities are being raised by nannies instead of a two parent household.
When Angelina Jolie recently adopted her son Pax from Vietnam she stated that she would be home with him to help with the bonding process. A few weeks later I read in a popular magazine that approx. 8 days after the adoption she signed a movie contract and went back to work. I was disappointed to read that.
Amy K, NJ
Advertisements
Jenna - what a great question. My initial answer is no, but I need more time to think about the question to give a more indepth answer.
Interesting question Jenna -
When I placed D, it was definitely still the "closed" era, and as I think about it -- maybe it was just my extended family by that time -- most actors were considered to have almost as immoral a life style as girls who got pregnant outside of marriage!!!!
Seriously though, my desire/need was to provide D with a consistent, settled family-life with 2 parents... one that was similar to my own upbringing. The lifestyle of most celebrities would not appeal to me as desirable for my child. The scrutiny of celebrities' lives by the press is not something I would willlingly subject my child to. Of course, placing D with a father who was clergy and a mother who was a social worker, provided D with constant scrutiny of a different sort, but that's a question for a different thread!
[FONT="Century Gothic"]I have been thinking about this since you posted it and quite honestly : NO[/FONT]
Kathy brings up another thing that I searched for in a family: similar upbringing.
I'm still forming my "formal" answer. LOL
Advertisements
I'm going to go with the gut instinct of NO.
I think there are some celebrities that do a great job of appearing like hands on parents (true or not I don't know.) Hugh Jackman comes to mind. He has two children that he and his wife adopted and I believe it might even be semi-open, although I am not sure (I will try to find out about this).
I say no because I would want the openess and I think I would be afraid that because of the status of the parent they would not be willing to agree or would change thier mind more easily.
I will think more about this though...
As far as Cheryl Crow goes, What if she is just saying that the adoption is closed to protect the birthmom from the never-ending questions from the media. Can you imagine what the media would do to a birthmom of a celebrity child?! AHHH!!! If I were a celebrity, I may say that it was a closed adoption even if it really were very open to protect my child's birthfamily from the craziness.