Confronting a conundrum: the Uniform Adoption Act.

Anybody who has read a newspaper or watched television news over the last two years will know that adoption of children has risen to the top of public consciousness. We read disturbing stories about Baby Jessica, Baby Pete and, most recently, Baby Richard. The single theme connecting these cases is the struggle between birth and adoptive parents when something goes wrong. These cases expose some of the obvious problems of adoption law, not the least of which is the great lack of uniformity among the states.

The uniform law commissioners are walking directly into the maelstrom. During their 1994 annual meeting, they approved a new Uniform Adoption Act (1994), ending an extensive five-year project.

The new uniform act strives to be comprehensive. But adoption law is controversial at every point. Every issue is passionately contested. The objective of a comprehensive uniform act, therefore, can only be a reasonable resolution somewhere between polarized interests.

The new act tries to reach three major goals. The first is a resolution of the private vs. agency placement issue. Private placement adoptions, which often rely on less experienced staff, are most prone to serious mistakes in the process. The Baby Jessica and Baby Pete cases involved private placement agencies. Some pundits advocate their abolition. But agency placement also is criticized for the inefficiency and delay endemic to the bureaucracy.

The uniform act attempts to remedy the deficiencies of both. It requires evaluation (by professionals the court recognizes as experts) of prospective adoptive parents for private placements of children. The majority of private placement states currently do not require these evaluations. The act also attempts to streamline agency adoptions.

The second major objective of the uniform act is to diminish the potential for struggle between birth and adoptive parents. Current state rules governing consents to adoption for private placement, relinquishment of children to agencies for adoption and termination of parental rights share inconsistency, obscurity and inadequacy.

The act requires that birth parents be given information on the process and effect of adoption before they can relinquish a child. It gives birth parents 120 hours to reconsider a consent or relinquishment of a newborn. The goal is to make sure that birth parents understand what they are doing before they give up a child. After the allotted time has lapsed without rescission, the birth parents' consent or relinquishment is irrevocable, and they cannot take the child back.

In the event consent or relinquishment of rights is unobtainable, those seeking to adopt a child may terminate a birth parent's rights in a legal action that is part of the adoption proceeding. Grounds for termination include a birth parent's avoidance of responsibility for the child. The best interest of the child must be considered in the termination proceeding. An inattentive or unaware birth parent therefore has less opportunity to obstruct or upset an adoption.

Care must be taken in addressing the rights of birth parents--especially fathers. A large national effort is devoted to child support enforcement in the United States. For all their rights, society and the law exact large responsibilities from biological fathers. Termination of those rights requires fair proceedings and appropriate grounds.

The third big issue is confidentiality of adoption records. Records have been unavailable in most states to adopted children who want information about their birth parents. In recent years, confidentiality has been under assault. The poles of controversy involve the rights of birth parents, particularly birth mothers who have consented to adoption or relinquished children on the condition that their identity be kept secret, and the rights of adopted children, who want to know their birth history and want the right to contact their biological families. There are advocates of both positions, absolute confidentiality and absolutely open records.

Again, the uniform act attempts a fair balance. It gives adopted children access to existing nonidentifying information about their birth parents. The act provides for consensual access to identifying information and mandates a registry where birth parents, adoptees and adoptive parents can place information for disclosure.

It is clear that no reform will satisfy everyone. Polarization over most of the issues precludes that possibility. So the Uniform Adoption Act (1994) will come before the state legislatures in a climate of controversy.

The question of uniformity in that climate, if it is to be resolved, will depend upon the ability of legislators to recognize the need to balance interests, despite the inability of many people to compromise.

John M. McCabe is legislative director of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.