Once the adoption order is final, there is no turning back for an adoptive parent. At that point, just as biological parents must accept the child who is born to them, so must adoptive parents be prepared to face whatever problems may arise. Parents can divorce each other, but the law does not allow parents to divorce their children unless there are strong and compelling reasons to sever the tie. The fact that a child is not "perfect" is not a strong and compelling reason. There is absolutely no basis for the irrational, improper, and irresponsible idea that if there is some defect in an adopted child, the "adoptive" parents, by virtue of their "adoptive" status, should be able to abdicate their responsibilities and return the child to the adoption agency.
Most reasonable people understand that difficulties with children are a fact of life. All parents must accept the responsibility for their children for better or for worse. Obviously, there are times when the parent-child relationship should be severed. There could be no adoption without the termination process, because the parent-child relationship to each living parent must be legally severed before a child can be legitimately placed for adoption. Biological mothers and fathers make the ultimate sacrifice when they realize that the infant which they have created would be better off if parented by someone else. By determining that their child's best interest would be served by placement for adoption, they have acted with the utmost responsibility.
However, not all voluntary terminations stem from such altruistic motives. There are instances where parents simply attempt to avoid their responsibilities by seeking to voluntarily relinquish their rights, because, when parental rights are terminated, so also are the parental privileges, duties and financial responsibilities. These cases require close and careful scrutiny, because under Texas law, only a "parent" owes a legal financial duty to support a child. A caretaker (including a conservator, an adoption agency, or a guardian) does not have such a duty. The caretaker may have a duty to provide the basic necessities, but if a caretaker fails to provide for a child, there is no legal provision to require a caretaker who is not a parent to pay child support. Therefore, the future plan for a child is extremely important, because adoption is the only permanent plan for a child which requires ending the existing parental tie, including the duty to support.
The key issue is what is best for the child and not what may be better for parents or adoption agencies. Termination would never be in a child's best interest unless the severed rights, privileges, duties, and responsibilities are replaced with equivalent emotional and financial support, or other equally important factors. A child must never leave the courtroom at a greater disadvantage than when he or she entered.
Sometimes, children with disabilities are born or adopted into families. Does the fact that a child happens to be born with mental retardation absolve the family of further responsibility to the child? Of course not, and there is no legal distinction between the duties owed to a biological child and an adopted child who might be disabled. The adoptive family owes the exact same duty to support and care for an adopted child as biological parents owe to their natural children.
There are adequate remedies in law for most adoption problems which might arise. For example, if a placement agency were less than candid with the prospective parents, the family might accept a child who they would not otherwise have taken. In this instance, should a family in this situation be allowed to return the child to the adoption agency? Absolutely not. After all, birth parents cannot return their physically or mentally disabled infant. However, this does not mean that the agency is absolved of responsibility for concealing negative facts. The agency should be required to assume part of the financial responsibility attributable to its material misrepresentations. This would not be unlike a medical malpractice award birth parents might seek to recover damages due to the negligence of a doctor or hospital which caused a crippling injury to an infant at birth. The family should get a financial partner to help with the expenses of raising a child with physical or mental infirmities, but in either case the responsibility for caring for the child remains with the family.
It is tragic to see how some families treat their children. The basic problem with crime and delinquency in our great nation today is the abdication of the family of its obligations and responsibilities to its children. Most families treat their children with the dignity and respect which the child deserves. However, some people do not understand or cannot accept the commitment which is necessary to be a good parent. Perhaps it is indeed fortunate that some of them cannot be biological parents. A strong, deep commitment is required to appropriately parent children, and those who cannot accept the obligations of parenthood should not be parents, either biological or adoptive. Children, after all are just children. They are not "biological" or "adopted" but simply children.