Mediation Help

We are adopting an almost 2 yr old we have had since she was 18 months old. Her mother is low functioning too and was not able to care for her. We agreed to 4 visits a year, plus pics throughout the year. We keep in contact through a PO box. So far, she has not responded to the first letter about a visit. I think for her, 4 visits was too much, but that is what her lawyer wanted and we agreed to. If she misses two visits, then we are under no obligation to continue to try to make visits.

Was it written into the mediation that if she misses two visits then you don't have to continue? This mom was only having one visit a week and she only made maybe one a month, and less when she was pregnant. Now that she is expecting again I am expecting her to start missing them again. Her husband, father of our other FD, has had 5 terminations in CA. I don't see them getting this one back either. He is not father of our 3 year old. She's been with us for almost 2 years. He is presumed the father of her unborn though. Father of our 3 year old called and cancelled yesterday. You would think with a term next month he would try to make an effort. How long did it take to do the mediation?

My little guy's mom is also low-functioning. We went through mediation and agreed to 3 visits per year, plus updated pics x1 a year. All visits are at my descretion as to when, where and how long. Who is allowed at the visit is also my call. From the first meeting of mediation until the final signing was approx. 3 months.

It is written into our legal papers that if she misses two visits, then we are no longer required to maintain contact, of any kind. We did not do mediation. We got a call from our CW who said come to court now! We raced over to the court about 20 minutes away and the CW tells us that Mom has decided to relinquish and name us as the adoptive parents. The Mom's lawyer wanted her to sign so she would have some rights to seeing the baby. The lawyer explained the papers she had drawn up, we read them and agreed right then and there. Everyone signed the paperwork and it was done. We did not have to see the judge that day, only the lawyers did. If we had been able to mediate the details, I would have pushed for fewer visits for the Mom, not in an effort to keep her out of the baby's life, but because I know the pressure is too much for her and she will probably not live up to her end and lose what rights she has. We will attempt to keep contact however for as long as we can, because we think ti is what is best for our daughter. IMO, it is better for the child to have some time away from the bio parents so that they can integrate into their new life and not have the turmoil of seeing the previous family and then not going home with them. They need to get to a point where they understand that the new home is forever home and that is so difficult with young kids. I would have preferred a span of at least 6 moths before visits would start, but it might be that anyway as Mom has yet to respond to a request for a visit. I also control when, where and for how long.

Hi mstauss1881, We went through mediation last year. We podcasted about it and you can listen to the audio [URL="http://fosterpodcast.com/episode-32-mediation-is-more-exciting-than-it-sounds/"]here[/URL]. (The following two episodes give updates on how it ended.) We gave lots of details because we knew other fost-adopt parents in the same situation would want the specifics of how things go in mediation. The best advice we received was to not agree in writing to any more contact than the minimum we'd ever be comfortable with. We followed that advice and now have reason to be very glad we did!

I am just getting start towards getting my fost-adopt license with classes starting next week. I really don't foresee myself wanting continued contact with the bio-parents after I adopt. Is it mandatory? I seem to remember reading somewhere before, although I don't remember where and I can't find it now, that an agreement for post-adoption contact is totally voluntary on the part of the adoptive parents and that the adoption can't be denied because the adoptive parents won't sign an agreement (of course this would apply only to involuntary TPR since in voluntary surrenders the bio-parents would obviously have more bargaining power to force an agreement). Is this true? Can you just say "no, I don't want any contact" and be done with it? If you do have an agreement, can it be changed later if it is not working out? I am interested in adopting younger children (infants and toddlers) so, presumably, the kids would not already have an attachment to the bio-parents that it would be in the kids best interest to maintain.

longing2bmom - Please don't take this the wrong way. Sometimes in life we have to do things that we'd rather not because it is in the best interests of someone else if we do. Adoption can be one of those times. Think of it this way. What if you adopt an infant/toddler and absolutely will not agree to visitation/contact because you "don't want continued contact with the bio-parents". Now, fast-forward 18/20 years. Your child wants to find his/her bio-parents. They search and find them only to find out that they had wanted contact through the years, but that you wouldn't allow it. How will you explain it to your child? All that aside, there are many reasons to keep the contact lines open. What if, heaven forbid, your child developed a life-threatening illness - say they needed a kidney transplant. Would you rather that their bio-parent be available and willing to donate a kidney, or would you rather your child have to go through the kidney donor registry to find an unrelated match? What if your childs' bio-parent comes down with a hereditary illness? Without some form of communication how would they be able to let you know that your child should be tested? All this is assuming that the bio-parents and their extended family would be of no threat to your family or your child. There are cases where continued contact could and would be very detrimental or dangerous to both your child and your family. I know it is a very emotional decision and not one to be taken lightly. I've only tried to give you some food for thought. In my case, I couldn't deny my son the chance to know his bio-mom. She is the one who gave him life, and ultimately me my son. Blessings to you as you work through this very personal decision.

Withay and I have very similiar opinions on this. I would rather my daughter know her birth parents and grow up with an understanding of how she came to be our daughter than fantasize about things or wonder why she couldn't see her birth parents.That said... after just two post-adoption visits, it would seem our adoption is closed now. But, we can always tell her that we TRIED to have an open adoption but biomom and dad weren't able to continue for reasons we don't know.

I also agree with Withay. I am a big advocate of open adoption. There are many reasons why it is helpful and beneficial for my son - and for our whole family. To the OP: I think it is great that you are going to mediation. We begged to have our case mediated, but bmom''s lawyer refused (big mistake). As a lawyer I have taken several cases to mediation. It hasn't always result in an agreement. But when it has, the agreements have been far superior to what the state typically draws up. Mediation is not just about "how many visits". But also an opportunity for you to get to know bparents in a less confrontational way. It should help everyone understand how much your child is loved by everyone. It is also a great opportunity to work out how contact will happen. Our (state written) contract had requirements for mom requesting visits (one month in advance, must be in specific month, must request specific times) that was just too much for her limited cognitive abilities. We decided that wasn't really fair and have scheduled the visits for her without a request - She always shows and we have great visits. You never know what can come out of mediation. Go in with an open heart - and you just might be amazed. Good luck.

I want to start with your question "Can it be changed if not working out"? It can. Whenever open adoption agreements from foster care are written, there are clauses that allow for the adoptive parent to terminate visits if they are not safe or determined (by the adoptive parent) not to be in the best interest of the child. The contracts are written with many protections for the rights of the adoptive parents. You also commented that because you are looking to adopt infants and toddlers they would not have an attachment to their bio parents. In my experience as a foster and adoptive mom and an attorney in child protection cases - that is just not accurate. I just had a foster baby leave after seven months. He came to me when he was four months old. There was never any question that he had a bond with his birth mom. And after seven months there wasn't a question that he had a bond with me. Rather than looking at it as "is there any reason for this attachment to be maintained" have you thought about turning it around? "Is there any harm to maintaining the attachments that exist?" When you are fostering and/or adopting. Your children come to you with a history. It isn't your history. It isn't always pretty. But it is a part of who they are. I have heard some adoptive parents (and social workers) talk about children needing a "clean slate" whan they are adopted from foster care. I disagree. They may need a new forever family - but you can't erase who they are or where they came from. You have to allow your child to know and embrace his whole self. And many times contact with the bfamily is an important part of allowing your child to know his "whole" self. We have an open adoption after foster care. When we were fostering we were hesitant to have an OA. We didn't think that bmom would follow through. But she has - and it has been good. For our son, for us and for her. OA from foster care is not always appropriate. There are certainly histories where OA is just not realistically safe. But where it can work, I do thing that you should try. And it might surprise you (as it did us) and be a blessing. This is a tough journey. And a learning process every day. I wish you all luck.

This thread has taken a different turn than the original, but I just wanted to comment on the open adoption issue. Our youngest and first adoption was a girl relinquished by her mom to social services and mom did not want any contact and there has been no contact for 9 years. Our daughter is happy, perfect, and knows her adoption story, but I can't imagine that a letter or card or some contact wouldn't be great for her. Our oldest girl and second adoption has no contact with her birth mom who was abusive and has fled from authorities. Contact is not recommended or really even possible. Our middle girl and third adoption falls into the same category. So, I guess my point is that if you prefer to have no contact, it is certainly possible. You might even end up with no contact and not have a choice about it, like us.

If it is not too late, I would like to point out that open adoptions DO NOT equal open adoption agreements. There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR AN OPEN ADOPTION AGREEMENT to have openness. Mediation is NOT about deciding between open or not open. You don't need mediation or an agreement for that at all. Mediation is, bottom line, about deciding how much you are willing to contract with another parent in exchange for their child. It is becoming fashionable for courts to push prospective parents into it to save the state time and money. I see no other reason for it. I may get flamed for that opinion, but if the parent won't sign without the agreement or is more ready to sign with it, what else is but a contract for a child? In all the years I've been on these boards, I have yet to see anyone give a reason for having an agreement other than to influence the parent to relinquish. There are child-based reasons for openness, but I have yet to read or hear of any child-based reason for an agreement. Mediation is also about how much you want to be the deciding factor or appear to be the deciding factor in the fact that first parent and child will be separated legally. Your child will know about the agreement, how it came into being, and what the outcome of it was. I would never want my child to look at me and think, "You are the reason my first parent relinquished." And mediation is about how willing you are to make legally or ethically binding promises to another adult to make your child available to them over the course of their entire childhood. Can there be protections that give you absolute discretion? Sure, but then why have an agreement that builds false expectations and a sense of entitlement? There are more reasons I don't think they are a good idea. The last I'll mention here, though, is the way they change the nature of the relationship from something that is wanted and sought to something that is required and considered a right by one of the parties. Lots of people respond to questions about agreements as if they are questions about openness when they are not. If you are persuaded to try openness, great, but I think it is important to not fall into the trap of thinking that openness requires an agreement when it really, really does not.