RULES OF ADOPTION SHOULD NOT PENALIZE ADOPTIVE PARENTS

When courts rule in cases dealing with children, judges must remove emotion from the issues. Most decisions are weighted toward parents, particularly natural parents, as opposed to the children. We can understand the supposition. The bond between parent and child is basic.

Disturbing, however, is a recent trend of returning children to their natural parents after years of a seemingly normal adoption. The losers are adoptive parents who may have followed all the rules -- until the rules changed.

These high-profile adoption reversals have the potential to shake the very foundation of faith that makes this system work. Promising parents may be less likely to invest in adoption if they realize the status may be short-lived.

Who can forget the heart-rending story of Baby Jessica? In 1992 Baby Jessica's biological parents were successful in their court effort to gain custody of their daughter from her adopted parents. The whole world watched, but not very many watchers understood.

The most recent case involved an 3-and-a-half-year-old Illinois boy. The facts are these:

The boy was given up for adoption by his mother and has lived with his adoptive parents since he was four days old. The natural mother told her estranged boyfriend at the time that the baby had died. They have since reconciled and married, and the father recently petitioned to exercise his parental rights.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of the father. In an unusual move, Ill. Gov. Jim Edgar intervened on the parents' behalf, as did the state legislature and the Chicago Tribune. In a more unusual move, the court linguistically attacked these do-gooders for "crass political intervention."

Emotion aside, this case smacks of injustice to both casual observers and adoption advocates alike. But push away the rhetoric and we still have the fate of a small child and two adoptive parents who secured all the necessary releases.

In many adoption cases, one parent, often the mother, relinquishes her rights. She may say the father is unknown or dead. Or she may tell the father that the baby is dead. Or she may not know the whereabouts of the father. We realize the possibility of fraud and confusion, but somehow protections must be guaranteed for the adoptive parents as well.

States shouldn't rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to sort out this confusion. This case should spur each state to re-examine its standards for adoption to guarantee protections for both the natural and adoptive parents.