Why are closed adoptions discouraged in Jewish law?
According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_adoption#Background_and_procedure, the reasons for “closed adoptions” are “Historically, the four primary reasons for
married couples to obtain a child via closed adoption have been (in no particular order)
infertility,
asexuality, having concern for a child's welfare (i.e. would not likely be adopted by others), and to ensure the sex of the child (a family with five girls and no boys, for example). In 1917,
Minnesota was the first U.S. state to pass an adoption confidentiality and sealed records law.
[1] Within the next few decades, most United States states and Canadian provinces had a similar law. Usually, the reasons for sealing records and carrying out closed adoptions is said to be to "protect" the adoptee and adoptive parents from disruption by the natural parents and in turn, to allow natural parents to make a new life.”
There are objective legal and subjective policy considerations for Jewish law opting for closed adoptions preference. The discussion at bQeddushin 69a-75a argues that a child whose pedigree/lineage cannot be determined cannot be permitted to marry Jews whose lineage is [a] clear and [b] licit. These laws are listed at Maimonides, Forbidden Sexual Relations, 15:21-33.
Since a convert is regarded as a newborn with no pedigree “baggage,” Maimonides, Testimony, 13:2, in order to avoid sad scenarios, Orthodox practice is to adopt and convert parentless non-Jewish babies.
If it can be shown that the offspring comes from a Jewish mother without taint of disqualifying blemishes, the adoption by Orthodox Jews could under those circumstances proceed.
What are the ethical values underlying these restsrictions? When Israel went into Egypt, they did so as families; when the courageous midwives saved the Israelite baby boys, in defiance of Pharaoh’s genocidal decree, God gave them “houses,” probably families. The Torah maintains that the happiness of the individual is best assured when families are strong. When we see the parent, one learns a lot about the child. A bad parent is worse than no parent. It seems to me—offering “a” but not “the” Jewish view, that there is an implied Jewish moral order that underlies specific acts of legislation. And the individual Jewish men and women are reminded that it is easier to make a baby than it is to make the baby a mentch, a human being worthy of God’s image.
This policy has been taken to an extreme by Jews of the extreme. On one hand, Orthodox Jews may neither add to nor subtract from the Torah [Deuteronomy 4:2 and 13:1] In the non-canonical Kalla 1:16, it is suggested that a child born to a woman who was not cleansed of her menstrual impurity will have a bad character. Deuteronomy 24:15 rejects the doctrine that there is a necessary connection between parental wrongs and offspring’s Torah accountability. On the other hand, newly Orthodox Jews, misnamed “repentant one’s,” [bShavu’ot 4a teaches that repentance is returning to the original, Torah starting point] are really closer to “converts” who discover the new and correct path. There are Orthodox Jews who disallow the intermarriage of “frum,” ritually complaint Jews from Orthodox families to “intermarry” with the offspring of non-observant Jews, however observant that offspring may be.
Since [a] the “law” discouraging the union of a child of a menstruant does not appear in the Talmud, where the right to make apodictic decree ends with Ravina I and Rav Ashi [bBaba Mezia 86a], [b] the “law” sounds like folkore and not legislation, [c] and is not cited by Maimonides in his compendium, this stricture may, and in my view should, be discounted. We only forbid the forbidden, we do not add rules upon rules because that policy makes us fools.
While the law as recorded in the Talmud and Maimonides is binding, every case is unique. Therefore in practice, each special case should be referred to a rabbinic expert.