Shana asks:

You have written that Ruth and Nora are in the waiting pool again.  I was curious if they are using the same agency?  I am curious if the way the agency treated you and Mr. Book influenced their decision this go-round.  If this is too personal I apologize.

They are using the same agency—but it’s an agency that Mr. Book and I had essentially no contact with. Here’s the deal: their agency (Agency A) was not licensed in the state in which I was living. Agency A referred me to Agency B, which was a truly crappy agency. Agency A apparently supported Ruth and Nora and gave them what they were looking for—Agency B treated us all pretty shabbily. However, Ruth and Nora have stated that if they were to receive a query from Agency B a second time, they would be willing to proceed with a match. (I talked about this more here.) That has left me wondering whether I should be slightly more explicit about my feelings re: the adoption experience. But based on what they’ve said in conversation, I suspect nothing that I could say about ethics or regret would persuade Ruth and Nora to walk away from a possible match.

3 thoughts on “Shana asks:

  1. It’s so upsetting to read about some agencies’ and attorneys’ unethical and illegal practices. I’ve been wondering if agencies strongly discourage expectant moms from trying to talk with a first mom already in an OA with a couple whose profile she’s considering. Even if the expectant mom got to talk with a first mother in an OA with that couple, there are pressures discouraging/preventing the first mom from speaking candidly…

    • I’ve decided to be part of the problem on this one, I guess—I am not willing to talk to a woman whom Ruth and Nora match with, since I feel that my options are either tell her that things are great and feel guilty and awful or be candid with her and expect retribution in the form of reduced access to Cricket. Heck, our agreement doesn’t specify what a visit looks like; they could stand across a room for fifteen minutes once a year without letting Cricket know we’re there and satisfy its requirements.

      • I think that’s the right route to take. It’s better to decline talking to someone than to risk having R&N cut you out. No matter what you said, if an expectant mom decided not to match with R&N at some point after talking with you, they’d potentially hold you responsible.

        I wish that OA agreements would have a built-in date for a potential revision. It wouldn’t permitting unilateral reduction in visits below the original minimum. But people would have a predetermined opportunity to touch base and potentially increase contact or address communication issues. Even just discussing how well everyone is honoring their commitments (or in R&N’s case, not honoring certain commitments).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s