Foremost, do I think biological relationships are important? Yes, I do. Are they important to everyone? No, and I'll just say that once instead of having to qualify the points I make every time with the disclaimer *not all adoptees feel this way.* And essentially, that's really up to the individual person to decide for themself. I think it is perfectly understandable for an adoptee to want to know their biological family members and to feel a bond with them or want to establish one. I have my own opinions on where this need to connect comes from such as the nurturing experience during pregnancy and birth. Perhaps the need to see ourselves reflected in those around us. It may even be the collective unconscious, what perhaps explains the adoption "synchronicity"--something about us and our families that nature and nurture cannot explain, yet still connects us to others, our loved ones.
This post is not about any of those things, it is about a fourth reason that I could speculate, rather. It may or may not be a driving force that leads us to want to reunite but it is definitely a reminder of how we're different. It's the cultural lense we are given to view family, belonging, and connection that we see in our everyday lives. It's not that we were told that biological relationships are meaningful to a lot of people. In fact, I am betting a lot of us were told the opposite and we may have tried really hard to believe it for ourselves. No, it is that we could see that many people value their biological relationships with our very own eyes. We live in the same communities that the non-adopted/biologically-raised do, we see the family relationships around us, we learn that biological relationships are valuable. At the same time, we're sent the message that the same relationships cannot be valuable to us. People will say and write to adoptees "biology doesn't make a family" but many of us just can't help but notice that quite a few people don't actually feel that way when it comes to their own family. When it came to working out what role adoption plays in my life and identity, it was perhaps that double standard that would sting the most.
Looking at the comments section of that CafeMom article, I can see what others really feel when it comes to valuing biology:
Six commenters are glad their children LOOK like them because it is how they tell that their children are THEIRS. Yet for adoptees, we're supposed to believe it is silly to notice that we don't look like anyone in our adoptive family and feel a lack of belonging because of it. Yet when adoption isn't the theme of a situation, for the parents, who looks like them signals who belongs with them.
One commenter speculated that the two girls and their parents had frustrating relationships and no bond because the girls were not birthed by the mothers who raised them. This commenter writes:
"Imagine not feeling an emotional bond with your child or shared interests and blame yourselves and find the reason is because that life you carried inside of you for 9 months you never raised. The same way with the child..feeling like you never really "belonged."Do adoptive mothers and adoptees often times report frustration in their relationships when they are completely different people with different interests and talents? Yes. Do adoptees often report feelings of not "belonging?" Yes. However, I find it remarkable, likely because adoption isn't in the equation, that someone would automatically assume that not being biologically-related and not being raised by the mother who nurtured you in the womb would automatically mean you and your parents had a horrible time and no emotional bond. Good grief.
About half of the comments had some sort of theme of how horrible it is to find out that the child you raised isn't really "yours" (translation: biologically-related to you). As a mother to biologically-raised children, I will condede that I do feel it would be horrible to have had this happen to my family. Not because of the same reasons a lot of CafeMom commenters clearly felt that way (e.g. because the non-biological status meant the kid didn't belong) but because I personally feel that children have a right to be raised within their biological families if and whenever possible and when it doesn't happen, especially because of an avoidable mix-up, it is sad that the child was not able to benefit from this right. But here we see how opinions about family and biology are different when the entity that is adoption is not in the picture and we have a labeling of the situation that is very parent-centric. When parents do want to raise a child that is not biologically related to them and adoption is involved, non-biological relationships are the most wonderful thing ever. When you raise a child that is not biologically yours on accident and it was never your intention to do so, it becomes, as at least one commenter put it this strongly "every parents worst nightmare."
One commenter, who says she is the adoptive mother of six children, says that biology doesn't make a family but concedes it must be scary for the daughter to be in a non-biological family, since her parents didn't want to give her up.
Having ambivalent feelings or not about your family ties based on whether or not your parents are satisfied with how the family is formed? Yes, we adoptees are familiar with our prescribed acceptable feeling about the adoption experience is supposed to be identical of how our parents feel or what they wanted. For adoptees, since adoption is wonderful for our parents, we are not generally culturally permitted to have an acceptable opinion otherwise about adoption or any sadness about missing biological relationships. In the HuffPo article about this case, we see the panic that sets in when biology=belonging and one of the Russian girls, who was raised by her parents for 12 years, begs her mother "mum, please don't give me away!"
One person did say that she, as a mother, would handle this situation "[t]he same way they did, sue, and love my child despite the parternity and give them opportunity to know the birth parents. But I would be upset very upset." I could nitpick but it was probaby the best (no, I'm not being sarcastic) comment.
What I take from this are three main themes: how biological relationships and families are viewed when adoption as a theme is or isn't present, the cultural view of family around us that adoptees are magically supposed to rise above and reject the same things being important for ourselves, and how a family experience must be based on how the parents feel or wanted, as just like in adoption, the dominant sought-out voice is adoptive parents and people still won't seek out adoptee opinions about the adoption experience. Although there are many APs who the world could learn a thing or two from--adoptees are certainly the most under-utilized resource adoption has.
I was not raised by biological family. I value both of my natural and nurturing ties. I accept what I cannot change and I am happy with my life. However, I no longer be held to a different standard of what I can or cannot value just because I am adopted. I no longer accept people trying to convince me that what I see other people value about their families (e.g. biology) is just a figment of my adopted imagination. I gladly continue to lend my voice and support the voices of other adult adoptees so that society can continue to come to accept that there are more people in the adoptive family whose opinions matter other than just the adoptive parents (my a-mom will say this to you too "ask my daughter"). I won't try to convince myself that what I notice others value about their families isn't real. I won't pretend that it doesn't hurt to see people say that having raised a non-biological child is "every parents' worst nightmare."
Good luck to these girls and their families. May others be kind to you.