The next stage of adoption's evolution fell to the emerging nation of the United States. Rapid immigration and the American Civil War resulted in unprecedented overcrowding of orphanages and foundling homes in the mid-nineteenth century. Charles Loring Brace, a Protestant minister became appalled by the legions of homeless waifs roaming the streets of New York City. Brace considered the abandoned youth, particularly Catholics, to be the most dangerous element challenging the city's order.[26][27]
This system of apprenticeship and informal adoption extended into the 19th century, today seen as a transitional phase for adoption history. Under the direction of social welfare activists, orphan asylums began to promote adoptions based on sentiment rather than work; children were placed out under agreements to provide care for them as family members instead of under contracts for apprenticeship.[21] The growth of this model is believed to have contributed to the enactment of the first modern adoption law in 1851 by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, unique in that it codified the ideal of the "best interests of the child."[22][23] Despite its intent, though, in practice, the system operated much the same as earlier incarnations. The experience of the Boston Female Asylum (BFA) is a good example, which had up to 30% of its charges adopted out by 1888.[24] Officials of the BFA noted that, although the asylum promoted otherwise, adoptive parents did not distinguish between indenture and adoption; "We believe," the asylum officials said, "that often, when children of a younger age are taken to be adopted, the adoption is only another name for service."[25]
AdoptUSKids is operated by the Adoption Exchange Association and is made possible by grant number 90CO1133 from the Children's Bureau. The contents of this website are solely the responsibility of the Adoption Exchange Association and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Children's Bureau, ACYF, ACF, or HHS. Find out more about us.
Save 5% when you buy online and pickup in-store. Offer valid online only. Transaction total is prior to taxes & after discounts are applied. Offer valid on select merchandise when choosing In-Store Pickup. Savings will automatically reflect in the shopping cart with the purchase of qualifying merchandise. Maximum value $150. Offer not valid on gift cards, gift certificates, previous purchases, charitable donations and may exclude all or select items from the following brands: Adaptil®, Advantage®, Advantus™, Andis®, API®, Applaws®, Aqueon®, ARM & HAMMER™, Bayer, Benebone®, Blue Buffalo®, Brown's® Tropical Carnival®, Burt's Bees®, CANIDAE®, Capstar™, carefresh®, Castor & Pollux, Catit®, Cesar®, Charlee Bear®, Cheristin™, Chuckit!®, Cloud Star®, CRAVE™, DESIGNING HEALTH, DR. ELSEY'S® Precious Cat, DURAFORCE®, Eukanuba®, Fancy Feast®, Feliway®, flexi®, Fluval®, Free Spirit®, FRONTLINE®, FURminator®, Glandex®, GREENIES®, HALO®, Hikari, Hill's® Science Diet®, Himalayan Dog Chew®, Iams®, Jackson Galaxy®, JW Pet®, K9 Advantix®, KAYTEE®, KONG®, Kurgo®, Lafeber's®, Litter Genie™, Manna Pro, Merrick®, MILK-BONE®, Muse®, Natural Balance®, Naturally Fresh®, NATURE'S RECIPE®, Nature's Variety® Instinct®, NaturVet®, Nite Ize®, Nulo, NUTRO® ULTRA™, NUTRO® MAX CAT®, NUTRO® MAX®, NUTRO™, Nylabone®, Old Mother Hubbard®, Omega™, Outward Hound®, Oxbow™, PawZ®, PEDIGREE®, Pet Corrector™, PetArmor®, Petmate®, PetSafe®, PetSafe® Drinkwell®, PetSafe® ScoopFree®, Petstages®, Plato®, PureBites®, Purina® ONE®, Purina® Beyond®, Purina® Friskies®, Purina® Pro Plan®, Purina® Yesterday's News®, Rachael Ray™ Nutrish®, Redbarn, Royal Canin®, Seachem, SENTRY®, Seresto®, SHEBA®, Simple Solution®, Skout's Honor®, Smart Pet Love Snuggle Puppy™, Solid Gold®, Starmark®, Temptations™, The Missing Link®, ThunderShirt®, TropiClean®, True Chews®, TUFFY®, Vet's Best®, Virbac®, Vitakraft®, Vittles Vault®, Wellness®, WHIMZEES™, Whole Earth Farms®, WORLD'S BEST, ZOO MED™, Zuke's®, ZuPreem® Offer may not be combined with other promotional offers or discounts. Terms and conditions of this offer are subject to change at the sole discretion of PetSmart. Offer valid on PetSmart.com through November 22, 2019 @ 6:30 am EST.
The language of adoption is changing and evolving, and since the 1970s has been a controversial issue tied closely to adoption reform efforts. The controversy arises over the use of terms which, while designed to be more appealing or less offensive to some persons affected by adoption, may simultaneously cause offense or insult to others. This controversy illustrates the problems in adoption, as well as the fact that coining new words and phrases to describe ancient social practices will not necessarily alter the feelings and experiences of those affected by them. Two of the contrasting sets of terms are commonly referred to as positive adoption language (PAL) (sometimes called respectful adoption language (RAL)), and honest adoption language (HAL). 

Open records: Movements to unseal adoption records for adopted citizens proliferated along with increased acceptance of illegitimacy. In the United States, Jean Paton founded Orphan Voyage in 1954, and Florence Fisher founded the Adoptees' Liberty Movement Association (ALMA) in 1971, calling sealed records "an affront to human dignity.".[158] While in 1975, Emma May Vilardi created the first mutual-consent registry, the International Soundex Reunion Registry (ISRR), allowing those separated by adoption to locate one another.[159] and Lee Campbell and other birthmothers established CUB (Concerned United Birthparents). Similar ideas were taking hold globally with grass-roots organizations like Parent Finders in Canada and Jigsaw in Australia. In 1975, England and Wales opened records on moral grounds.[160]
In Spain under Francisco Franco’s 1939–75 dictatorship the newborns of some left-wing opponents of the regime, or unmarried or poor couples, were removed from their mothers and adopted. New mothers were frequently told their babies had died suddenly after birth and the hospital had taken care of their burials, when in fact they were given or sold to another family. It is believed that up to 300,000 babies were involved. These system – which allegedly involved doctors, nurses, nuns and priests – outlived Franco’s death in 1975 and carried on as an illegal baby trafficking network until 1987 when a new law regulating adoption was introduced.[180][181]
The next stage of adoption's evolution fell to the emerging nation of the United States. Rapid immigration and the American Civil War resulted in unprecedented overcrowding of orphanages and foundling homes in the mid-nineteenth century. Charles Loring Brace, a Protestant minister became appalled by the legions of homeless waifs roaming the streets of New York City. Brace considered the abandoned youth, particularly Catholics, to be the most dangerous element challenging the city's order.[26][27]
The nobility of the Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic cultures that dominated Europe after the decline of the Roman Empire denounced the practice of adoption.[15] In medieval society, bloodlines were paramount; a ruling dynasty lacking a "natural-born" heir apparent was replaced, a stark contrast to Roman traditions. The evolution of European law reflects this aversion to adoption. English Common Law, for instance, did not permit adoption since it contradicted the customary rules of inheritance. In the same vein, France's Napoleonic Code made adoption difficult, requiring adopters to be over the age of 50, sterile, older than the adopted person by at least 15 years, and to have fostered the adoptee for at least six years.[16] Some adoptions continued to occur, however, but became informal, based on ad hoc contracts. For example, in the year 737, in a charter from the town of Lucca, three adoptees were made heirs to an estate. Like other contemporary arrangements, the agreement stressed the responsibility of the adopted rather than adopter, focusing on the fact that, under the contract, the adoptive father was meant to be cared for in his old age; an idea that is similar to the conceptions of adoption under Roman law.[17]
His solution was outlined in The Best Method of Disposing of Our Pauper and Vagrant Children (1859) which started the Orphan Train movement. The orphan trains eventually shipped an estimated 200,000 children from the urban centers of the East to the nation's rural regions.[28] The children were generally indentured, rather than adopted, to families who took them in.[29] As in times past, some children were raised as members of the family while others were used as farm laborers and household servants.[30] The sheer size of the displacement—the largest migration of children in history—and the degree of exploitation that occurred, gave rise to new agencies and a series of laws that promoted adoption arrangements rather than indenture. The hallmark of the period is Minnesota's adoption law of 1917 which mandated investigation of all placements and limited record access to those involved in the adoption.[31][32]
Although adoption is today practiced globally, the United States has the largest number of children adopted per 100 live births. The table below provides a snapshot of Western adoption rates. Adoption in the United States still occurs at nearly three times those of its peers although the number of children awaiting adoption has held steady in recent years, hovering between 133,000 and 129,000 during the period 2002 to 2006.[52]
Adoption practices have changed significantly over the course of the 20th century, with each new movement labeled, in some way, as reform.[152] Beginning in the 1970s, efforts to improve adoption became associated with opening records and encouraging family preservation. These ideas arose from suggestions that the secrecy inherent in modern adoption may influence the process of forming an identity,[153][154] create confusion regarding genealogy,[155] and provide little in the way of medical history.

Reform and family preservation efforts have also been strongly associated with the perceived misuse of adoption. In some cases, parents' rights have been terminated when their ethnic or socio-economic group has been deemed unfit by society. Some of these practices were generally accepted but have later been considered abusive; others were uncontroversially reprehensible.

Externally focused theories, in contrast, suggest that reunion is a way for adoptees to overcome social stigma. First proposed by Goffman, the theory has four parts: 1) adoptees perceive the absence of biological ties as distinguishing their adoptive family from others, 2) this understanding is strengthened by experiences where non-adoptees suggest adoptive ties are weaker than blood ties, 3) together, these factors engender, in some adoptees, a sense of social exclusion, and 4) these adoptees react by searching for a blood tie that reinforces their membership in the community. The externally focused rationale for reunion suggests adoptees may be well adjusted and happy within their adoptive families, but will search as an attempt to resolve experiences of social stigma.[167]

×