|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHOSE
BABY IS IT? POST-MODERN INFLUENCE IN ADOPTION PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES *
|
|
|
Larry
D. Watson and Donald K. Granvold
|
|
|
The University
of Texas at Arlington, USA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
This article identifies the predominant
themes of the ‘closed adoption’ era during which remarkable measures were
instituted to keep the involved parties in a state of ‘not knowing’. The
authors explore how meanings were construed to ‘it’ a proprietary, closed
system. In contrast, the system of open adoption is addressed in which empowerment,
open communication, and interrelating of all parties is fostered. Postmodernism
is recognized as influential in the evolution of adoption practices.
Keywords: adoption, empowerment, open
adoption, adoption policy, strengths perspective
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has been a dramatic shift in child
adoption practices in the United
States over the past 40 years. Adoption as a
legal and a social construction has developed in response to societal values,
history, public policy and legislation. Originally, adoption in the United States
met a need to care for large numbers of homeless children. Today adoption in
the United States is concerned not only with the interest of children free for
adoption but also with the rights of adoptive parents and birthparents (Zamostny,
O’Brian, Baden, & Wiley, 2003).
These pervasive changes are evident in
birthparent and adoptive family functioning, social policy and laws governing
adoption, and in social perspectives on adoption. The evolution of adoption
practices parallels the postmodernism movement. The belief systems that gave
form to the adoption process historically are grounded in a modernist
perspective. Anderson (1990) contends that the recognition of all belief
systems as social construction has resulted in an ideological conflict, “not
merely conflict between beliefs, but
conflict about belief itself” (p. 3).
The beliefs that formed the bedrock of adoption practice in the past have been
scrutinized, challenged, and disavowed. The predominant stakeholders in
adoption have promoted multiple belief systems as their social reality.
The marked change in adoption practice can
be understood as a process that began with the empowerment of adult adoptees
and birthparents. Empowerment has been described as “a construct that occurs at
three levels: individual, which
relates to psychological and behavioral variables; organizational, which relates to resource mobilization and
participatory opportunities; and community,
which relates to sociopolitical structure and social change” (Schulz, Israel,
Zimmerman, & Checkoway, 1995).
This multilevel conceptualization suggests
a reciprocal relationship among constructs in which empowerment at each level
affects and is affected by the other (Shera, 1998). Today, child adoption is
practiced very differently than thirty or forty years ago. The assumptions
which formed the bases for adoption practices have come under formidable
challenge as adult adoptees and birthparents have become increasingly
empowered. Their empowerment brought organizational change in adoption agencies
as social workers began to adopt new models of openness in adoption practice. Together
as change agents, social workers, adoptees, adoptive parents and birthparents
have worked collectively to make changes in adoption law and in society’s
perceptions of adoption.
FANTASY
MYTH OF ADOPTION
For change to occur, it has been necessary
to deconstruct the fantasy myth of adoption. The concept of the ‘fantasy view
of adoption’ can easily be likened to the ‘fantasy view of marriage’, a well-known
concept to couple therapists. When couples enter marriage with an idealized
view of marriage it is often difficult to reconcile that it takes hard work to
maintain a quality marital relationship. This realization conflicts with the
romanticized view that marriage is a constantly blissful state (Doherty, 2001).
The fantasy view of adoption promotes the concept that all parties are
abundantly happy – maybe more than anyone would have been were it not for the
adoption. The young, beautiful couple adopts a beautiful baby who grows up
happy and well adjusted. The child is perfectly matched to the adoptive family
and others often exclaim that the child looks like the adoptive parents. The
birthparents go on with their lives and put the ‘unfortunate’ unplanned
pregnancy behind them. The adopted person considers the adoptive parents to be
the ‘real’ parents and never has a desire to seek out his or her birthparents.
The adoption experience is much different
from the mythical fantasy view. For every couple overwhelmed with joy upon the
arrival of a new baby, there is a birthmother, sometimes birthfather, birthgrandparents
and extended family grieving over the loss of a child. For many, it is a grief
experience that can only be compared to the grief associated with the death of
a loved one. Children adopted as infants often grieve for the loss of their
birthfamilies throughout childhood and as adults. Likewise, many adoptive parents
who have endured years of infertility treatment and repeated disappointments in
trying to get pregnant, grieve the loss of their dream of having a biological
child.
Historically, much of adoption practice has
been based on the disenfranchisement of the individuals in the adoption triad
(adopted child, birthparents and adoptive parents).
To mask the painful aspects of adoption and maintain the adoption myth, it
was necessary to keep birthparents hidden and to keep adopted children and the
birthfamilies separated. The adoption fantasy myth overlooks the realities of
the birthparent’s experience. Birthfamilies were expected to ‘move on’ with
their lives and to act as if there had been no birth. They were socialized to
this role by practices such as being prohibited from holding their child after
birth to prevent ‘bonding’ between mother and child. After the birth of the
child, young women were often told that they should forget about the
unpleasantness of the unplanned pregnancy, forget that their birthchild exists,
and move forward with their lives. Of course, the reality is that many
birthmothers report that they think about their lost child every day for the
rest of their lives. Many women report that they always think of their child as
a ‘baby’ even 40 years after the adoption. Others report that they frequently
wonder about their child as a toddler, teenager and adult trying to imagine what
they are like (Anonymous birthmothers, personal communications, 1986-1999).
Adoptive children have also been socialized
to maintain the fantasy myth. Latency age children will often “confess” to
professionals that they grieve for their birthparents but do not want their
adoptive parents to know because it may make them sad or upset. It is common in
post-adoption work to hear of adult adoptees who are waiting until their
elderly adoptive parents die before they attempt to be reunited with their birthfamilies.
Even as older adults, some adoptees believe that they must deny their desire to
rediscover their birthfamily. The closed adoption concept forces adoptees into
a state of divided loyalties should they act on their desire to establish contact
with birthfamily members (Jones, personal communication, 1992).
KEEPERS
OF THE MYTH
The motives undergirding the adoption myth
were protective. The constituencies collectively ‘bought into’ the matrix of
beliefs that essentially said, “it is best for all concerned that adoption
procedures be closed now and forever.” Birthparents could gain expedient
closure and generate a new beginning. Adoptive children could experience family
life more closely to non-adoptive family life. Adoptive parents could parent
more ‘naturally,’ unencumbered by the involvement of birthparents, the thought
of which brought fear and trepidation into the minds of adoptive parents. After
all, since they adopted this ‘needy child’ they should be entitled to parent autonomously. Furthermore, what would a
birthparent who was willing to give a child up for adoption, know about
parenting?
Another conceptualization inherent in the
propagation of the adoption myth was that the parties involved were flawed
(Rappaport, 1992). As a consequence, these flawed parties needed protection
from one another. The adoptive parents were seen as flawed because of their
infertility. These ‘barren’ people were in need of the protection of an
elaborate adoption system, where they could be studied and evaluated for their
worthiness to have a child while being shielded from the emotional costs of
adoptions. It was as if adoptive parents who had endured fertility should not
be subjected to the reality of birthparent pain. Birthparents were considered
flawed due to their ‘immoral behavior’ of pre-marital sex or their incapacity
to care for a child economically or emotionally. Even the children of adoption
were viewed as flawed due to their being labeled ‘illegitimate’ or ‘needy.’
THE
SYSTEM: LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY
Not only did constituent parties promote
the myth, professionals promulgated it. The task of the adoption system and
adoption workers was first and foremost to protect the adoptive parents and the
adopted child from the birthparents. (Rappaport, 1992). To do less would have
been an acknowledgement that there is not only great joy in adoption but also
great pain, grief, and loss.
Social Workers and attorneys played major
roles as keepers of the myth. Through a system of closed adoption, social
workers created and maintained policies and practices based on secrecy and
denial. In closed adoptions, most decisions were made by the professionals, not
by the adoptive or birthparents. Power and decision making control were
retained by the professionals. All information about the adoptive triad was
held private and confidential, and contact between adoptive parties was
disallowed before, during, and after the adoption (Rappaport, 1992). Adoption
practice developed as a way to protect the ‘flawed parties’ in adoption from
one another. Attorneys often orchestrated adoptions applying policies,
procedures, and laws consistent with the myth. The social work and legal
professions created an adoption system with the primary goal to protect and to
retain power and control.
The fantasy view of adoption was maintained
not only by adoption practice but also by laws mandating that adoption records
be sealed. In this system, birthparents were expected to legally ‘relinquish’
their parental rights to the adoption agency. Agency professionals would then
place the child with a couple deemed by the agency to be sound citizens,
potentially capable parents, and a good ‘match’ for the child. A ‘loyalty bond’
was promoted between adoptive parents and the adoptive agency. The birthparents
were the disenfranchised parties in this loyalty pact. The agency maintained
adoptive parent anonymity from the birthparents and safeguarded records that
would reveal birthparent identity. This anonymity insured that birthparents
would remain unidentified, unseen, and, most importantly, uninvolved. Adoptive
couples typically had great loyalty to the agency from which they had received
the child, not to the anonymous and unseen birthparents.
In many states within the United States
even the adopted person’s birth certificate validates the fantasy. When the
adoption was legally finalized, the original birth certificate was sealed by
the court and a new birth certificate was issued with the adoptive parents
listed as the parents. The fantasy had become, at a minimum, a paper reality. Subsequently, court records were sealed and agency
adoption records filed away along with the identities of the child and the
birthparents.
DISPELLING
THE MYTH
This deficits view results in
birthparents who relinquish children for adoption being viewed as
dysfunctional, marginalized, immoral and damaged human beings. These views fail
to recognize the tremendous positive potential influence that birthparents may
bring to bear on their placed children. From a strengths perspective (Saleebey,
2006), adoptive parents are viewed not as needing protection, but as capable of
developing healthy relationships with the parents of their child. Birthparents
are seen as capable of sustaining a quality relationship with their child and
possessing abilities to effectively participate in making thoughtful decisions
regarding their child. The child, birthparents, and adoptive parents are seen
as capable of healthy interrelationships with all parties benefiting.
The fantasy view of adoption supported a
system of closed adoption based on secrecy and protection of each member of the
adoption triad from each other. As birthparents and adult adoptees have become
empowered, they both have had a marked impact on adoption policy and practice.
Individual
change
In the late 1970s and early 1980s adult
adoptees began to speak out publicly regarding the impact of the adoption
system on their lives. At the same time, many women and some men who had
relinquished their children for adoption, began to speak out against a system
they had come to see as oppressive and unjust. These constituencies would no
longer remain silent and both adoptees and birthparents became more aggressive
in seeking out one another. Birthparents also began to speak out and to
organize themselves into advocacy groups. Adult adoptees and birthparents began
to search for one another in record numbers.
The popular media has been a major
influence in changing the social construct of adult adoptees and birthparents In
the early 1970s, the effort to reform sealed records laws and agency practices
was spurred by two influential autobiographical accounts of the psychological
effects of the sealed records policy—Florence Fisher’s (1975) The Search for Anna Fisher and Betty
Jean Lifton’s (1975) Twice Born: Memories
of an Adopted Daughter
Search and reunion
stories of adoptees and their birthrelatives are common themes often featured
in books, newspapers, magazines, daytime television dramas and talk shows. Movies
in popular release also have been built on an adoption search and reunion story
line. The adoption theme, particularly the theme of searching for birthparents,
has emerged as a compelling human-interest story and has inspired myriad
novels, plays and movies (Wegar, 1997).
The social construct
of those seeking their birth information has changed over time. Seeking to find
one's birthparents or offspring was often perceived symptomatic of underlying
pathology (Wegar, 1997). The Adoption Triangle
(Sorosky, Baran & Pannor,1979), written by a psychiatrist and two
social workers, concluded that “taking a child from one set of parents and
placing him/her with another set, who pretend that the child is born to them,
disrupts a basic natural process. The need to be connected with one’s
biological and historical past is an integral part of one’s identity
formation" (p. 67). Knowing the identities of one’s birthparents and
forging relationships with them are crucial parts of the ‘assumptive world’ of
many adoptees. For many, denial of one’s heritage represents loss trauma, a
likely threat to the integrity of one’s assumptive world, his/her sense of self
and unique ‘fit’ in the world. Gillies and Neimeyer (2006) note that, “to the
extent that losses undermine these assumptions, leading us to believe that our
world is malevolent, that life is meaningless, or that we ourselves are
unworthy or undeserving of good things, they cause us profound distress” (p.
34). In a recent study of the effects of open adoption, Siegel (2003)
emphasized that proponents of open adoption stress that knowledge of one’s
genealogy, ethnic heritage, and medical background are crucial to the adoptee’s
well-being both emotionally and physically (Campbell, Silverman, & Patti,
1991; Curtis, 1986; Silber & Martinez Dormer, 1990). In clinical and
popular literature, the desire to search is no longer perceived as unreasonable
or as symptomatic of underlying pathology. Today a lack of interest in one's
biological origins is often viewed as a sign of repression (Wegar, 1997).
Organizational
change in adoption practice
In challenging the closed records of the
adoption process, adults who were adopted as infants began to ask social
workers, “what gives you the right to keep my family heritage information from
me?” It was a good question, indeed, and as social workers began to deal with
this question, a major shift in practice began. When confronted with these
questions, many social workers joined with their clients and former clients to
begin to reform adoption practice and the laws governing adoption in the United States.
Deconstructing the fantasy myth that denied
the pain and grief associated with adoption was a difficult process. The
movement to modify adoption practice came to be known as ‘open adoption’. Silber
and Martinez Dorner (1990) called for ‘myth-free adoption’ by saying,
Myth-free thinking acknowledges that the birthparents
love (and will always love) the child they are placing for adoption, that
secrecy is not conducive to healthy adoptive functioning, and that it is normal
for an adoptee to be curious about his identity and roots. The latter is not
rejection of the adoptive parents. By dispelling the myth, the individual will
discover that his initial feelings of fear and threat disappear (p.21)
Today, adoption practices vary from the
traditional closed or ‘confidential’ adoption system to those agencies where
fully disclosed open adoption is practiced. Silber and Martinez Dorner (1990)
define open adoption practice as “the birthparents and adoptive parents meeting
one another, sharing full identifying information, and having access to ongoing
contact over the years” (p. 9). In open adoption practice birthparents choose
the parents of their child. They review all the couples approved for adoption
and may interview as many prospective adoptive parents as they wish before
making their decision. The couples and the birthfamilies negotiate their
adoption agreement that includes the role the birthparents will have in the
child’s life. It is a system based on openness and inter-relatedness rather
than anonymity and secrecy. It is a system based on belief in the strengths of
all the parties involved rather that a system based on a belief in the deficits
of the respective parties.
The deficits view results in birthparents
who relinquish children for adoption being viewed as dysfunctional,
marginalized, immoral and damaged human beings. Not only is this a highly
judgmental stance, these views fail to recognize the tremendous positive potential
influence that birthparents may bring to bear on their placed children. To the
contrary, traditional adoption practice supported a view that the involvement
of birthfamily members with the adoptive child would unduly interfere with the
bonding between adoptive parents and child, create a state of confusion and
divided loyalties, provide opportunities for parental conflict, and foster instability
and identity confusion in the child. Although the potential for conflict
between adoptive parents and birthparents exists in open adoptions, the
positive effects of open adoption are considered to weigh far more heavily. Rather
than existing in a silent partnership, birthparents and adoptive parents join
together in providing for the emotional well-being of the child in open
adoption. The questions about parentage that may preoccupy and trouble an
adoptive child are answered in open adoption, and the child may further greatly
benefit from the active love and caring from birthparents. The birthparents
avoid the sense of shame, guilt, and loss associated with severing all ties
with the child. Although unable to provide fulltime parental involvement, the
birthparents have a unique role to fulfill. The love, support, and involvement
of the birthparents, albeit limited, may effectively remove the void
experienced by adoptive children in closed adoption who have a burning desire
to know the identity of their birthparents and yearn for a relationship with
them. The adoptive child may benefit remarkably from the involvement of the
birthparents in his or her life. The birthparent benefits from the active
relationship with the child. Not only are birthparents aware of the child’s
development, they are allowed to maintain an active relationship with the child
and contribute to the child’s well-being.
Although there are obvious benefits to both
the adoptive child and the birthparents, one may question the rewards to be
derived by adoptive parents in open adoption. Perhaps the most important is the
knowledge that they are “doing the right thing” for their adoptive child. Their
child deserves to have an active relationship with birthparents and other
birthfamily members if appropriate and desirable (eg. birthgrandparents). It
may be helpful for a parent to know that the parental rights may be legally
relinquished but there is no way to legislate the meaning that most adoptive
children attach to their biological parents. Most adoptive children appear to
be driven to know the identity of their birthparents, and furthermore, to form
a relationship with them. Open adoption allows adoptive parents to know that
they are giving the gift of knowledge and human connectedness to their adoptive
child when they facilitate the involvement of the birthparents in their child’s
life.
It should be noted that there are
exceptions in which open adoption is not viable. There are birthparents who
prefer to remain anonymous and uninvolved with the adoptive child. Others may
seek to wield deleterious influence on the adoptive child, undermine the
relationship between adoptive child and adoptive parents, or behave in a
self-serving or devious manner. In these instances, the adoptive child and
adoptive parents should maintain little or no contact with the birthparent.
Social Workers have had to examine their
assumptions. In retrospect, adoption is one of the few areas of practice in
which social workers supported a system based on secrecy. The role of the
social worker is changing in adoption practice. The social worker is no longer
the decision maker, the controller and the placer of children. The adoption
social worker is a counselor and facilitator. As Florence Fisher asked, “Where
else was this kind of secrecy condoned?” (Wegar, 1997, p 83).
Certainly not all adoption professionals
embrace the practice of open adoption and may fiercely oppose it. Various concerns
have been raised by opponents of open adoption including: interference in
adoptive family life, confounding child identity formation, disrupt bonding
between child and adoptive parents, and interference with parental role
functioning (Kraft, Palombo, Woods, Mitchell, & Schmidt, 1985; Siegel,
2003). Although, not without resistance, it is undeniable that there has been a
major paradigm shift in ways that adoption practice is viewed. Adult adoptees,
birthparents, many adoptive parents, social workers and other adoption
professionals have come together and continue to construct the new open reality
for the practice of adoption.
Societal
change
The societal changes in adoption policy
that have influenced adoption practice can be viewed in the context of
Schneider and Ingram’s (1997) degenerative policy-making process model.(Watson,
2004) In this model, the social construction identifies four different kinds of
policy targets that are based on social constructs and the extent of the
political power of each group. The authors identify these groups as: (1)
advantaged (who are powerful and positively constructed); (2) contenders
(powerful but negatively constructed as undeserving or greedy); (3) dependents
(positively constructed as ‘good’ people but relatively needy or helpless, who
have little or no political power; and (4) deviants who have virtually no
political power and are negatively constructed as undeserving, violent, mean,
and so forth (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). In looking at adoption policy and
practice, it is instructive to view the stakeholders in adoption practice as
the targets of the policy within this framework.
Those advocating to maintain closed
adoption and sealed adoption records are, for the most part, members of the ‘advantaged’
class—affluent adoptive parents. As members of this group they carry a positive
social construct and are thought to be deserving. They are solidly a part of
the middle to upper class. Their inability to have biological children evokes
empathy and their decision to adopt is viewed as commendable. Those who
advocate sealed adoption records view adoption as “a perfect and complete
substitute for creating families through childbirth" (Samuels, 2001, p.
20).
As adult adoptees
have become empowered they have become an emergent contending group whose power
lies mainly in their legal, ethical, and moral claims for equality and justice
(Schneider & Ingram, 1997). Adult adoptee advocacy groups have been
successful in moving the public perception of adult adoptees from a status of
dependency to a status of emerging contender. Their challenge is to continue
their progress toward being seen as deserving of their rights and refuting
claims that this is being done at the expense of adoptive parents and
birthparents.
Birthparents are
often viewed, at best, as a dependent group and, at worst, a deviant group. At
the time of the adoption, they relinquished their rights and therefore are most
likely to be seen as having no claim to re-assert those rights. Public perception
of birthparents has shifted in a positive direction, however, largely as a
consequence of such factors as popular media interest in search and reunion
stories.
CONCLUSION
Open adoption may
be construed as a psychosocial element of the postmodernism movement. The
beliefs surrounding closed adoptions have been challenged and called into
doubt. The deleterious consequences of non-disclosure to the adoptive triad, in
particular the permanent and pervasive parental disenfranchisement of
birthparents and the extreme self-identity despair suffered by adoptees, have
been weighed against the benefits of closed adoption practices. The sentiment
of the major stakeholders along with adoption professionals is that the human benefits
of open policies and procedures are superior to the benefits professed by
closed adoption proponents. This evolution in adoption represents a better ‘fit’
in a postmodern world.
| |
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|
| Anderson, W.T. (1990). Reality isn’t
what it used to be. San Francisco, CA: Harper.
Campbell, L.H., Silverman, P.R., & Patti, P.B. (1991). Reunions between
adoptees and birth parents: The adoptees’ experience. Social Work, 36, 329-335.
Curtis, P.A. (1986). The dialectics of open
versus closed adoption of infants. Child Welfare,
65, 437-445.
Doherty, W.J. (2001). Take back your
marriage. New York: Guilford.
Fisher, F.(1975) The
search for Anna Fisher, London:
Michael Dempsey.
Gillies, J. &
Neimeyer, R.A. (2006). Loss, grief, and the search for significance: Toward a
model of meaning reconstruction in bereavement. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 19, 31-65.
Kraft, A.D.,
Palombo, J., Woods, P.K., Mitchell, D., & Schmidt, A.W. (1985). Some theoretical
considerations on confidential adoptions: Part I. The birth mother. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 2.
13-21.
Lifton, B. (1975) Twice born, New York: McGraw Hill.
Rappaport, B.M. (1992) The
open adoption book: a guide to adoption without tears.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2006). The
strengths perspective in social work practice (4th ed.).
Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon
Samuels, E. J. (2001). The idea of adoption: An
inquiry into the history of adult
adoptee access
to birth records. Camden, NJ:
Rutgers University..
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.
Schultz, A.J., Israel, B.A.,
Zimmerman, M.A., & Checkoway, B.N. (1995).
Empowerment as a multilevel construct: Perceived
control at the individual, organizational and community levels. Health Education Research, 10, 309-327.
Shera, W. 1995). Constructing and deconstructing
organizations: An empowerment perspective. In C. Franklin & P.S. Nurius (Eds.), Constructivism in practice: Methods and
challenge (pp. 311-322). Milwaukee, WI: Families International.
Siegel, D.H. (2003). Open adoption of infants: Adoptive
parents’ feelings seven years later. Social
Work, 48, 409-419.
Silber, K. & Martinez Dorner, P. (1990). Children of open adoption. San Antonio, TX: Corona Publishing Company.
Sorosky, A., Baran, A. & Pannor, R. (1979). The adoption triangle. Anchor Press.
Watson, L.D.
(2004). Degenerative policy design: An examination of sealed adoption record policy.
The Social Policy Journal, 3, 39-51.
Wegar, K. (1997). Adoption, identity, and kinship. New
Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Zamostny,K.O’Brien, K.,Baden, A.,Wiley, M.(2003). The
practice of adoption: history, trends, and social context. The Counseling Psychologist, 31,651-678.
*Paper presented July 17, 2007, at the
Seventeenth International Congress on Personal Construct Psychology, Brisbane, Australia.
| |
|
|
|
|
ABOUT THE
AUTHORS
Larry
D. Watson, PhD is on the faculty of the School of Social Work,
The University of Texas at Arlington,
USA. Prior to
faculty appointment, he served as Assistant Dean. Dr. Watson has extensive
experience in clinical practice and social services administration. He served
for many years as President of Methodist Mission Home, San Antonio, Texas,
where he pioneered innovative adoption practices. His primary areas of interest
are nonprofit sector social service delivery, youth services, adoption, and
services to people with disabilities. Email: lwatson@uta.edu
Home Page: http://www2.uta.edu/ssw/lwatson/
Donald K. Granvold, Ph.D. is Professor of Social Work, The University of
Texas at Arlington, USA. He has been a member of the
faculty at SSW UTA since 1974. Dr. Granvold has been a leader in the
advancement of cognitive treatment and constructivist psychotherapy methods
particularly as applied to couples treatment and divorce. Dr. Granvold has
maintained a part-time clinical practice since 1975. He is a Clinical Member of
the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy and is a Founding
Fellow of the Academy
of Cognitive Therapy.
Email:
granvold@uta.edu Home Page: http://www2.uta.edu/ssw/granvold/
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Watson, L. D., Granvold, D. K. (2008). Whose baby is it? Post-modern influence in adoption practices in the United States. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 5, 111-118, 2008
(Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp08/watson08.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 28 November 2007 – Accepted: 12 May 2008 –
Published: 23 December 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|