We all know that reunions between birth parents and adoptees don’t always go smoothly or last the distance. But why is it that relationships between biologically related people are so difficult and take so much work?

I came across a blog post by Amba which addresses this sensitive subject. In her post, she reviews a book by David Jones entitled “My Father’s House”, an adoption memoir written twenty odd years ago. In this book, a couple of thought-provoking ideas are raised.

The overall theme is that blood is not thicker than water, ie that being genetically related does not guarantee acceptance or bonding. Jones describes a practise in ancient Roman times when a man who sired a child had to have that child placed at his feet after birth, so that he could pick it up and “bond” or adopt it as his own. Without this happening, the father has not committed himself to being the father of that child.

Jones goes on to align adoption with marriage. In marriage, each person chooses the other and makes a commitment to a relationship. In adoption, there is also choice and an agreement to commit to an ongoing relationship.

Jones’ message is clear. When parents and children are forced apart by adoption, the “bond”, albeit biological, has been broken and is not strong enough to ensure a connection when these parties meet later on in life. He believes that the reason that adoptees see their adoptive parents as their “real” parents is because of the choice factor, despite it being one-way rather than two-way.

This perspective may evoke some heated debate. Is Jones mainly speaking about birth fathers who don’t carry the grief and loss that birth mothers do? And how does he explain the really strong relationships between separated families wen they are finally reunited? And what about the myriad of other factors that come into play when families affected by adoption come together?

For those adoptees who struggle with the question about why their reunions haven’t succeeded, such a theory makes perfect sense. Perhaps it is a chink of the puzzle that forms the complex picture of adoption.

In some of these posts, I’ve vented my frustrations about retinoblastoma not being taken seriously by medical specialists because it is so rare.

In response to this, James Spangler sent me a comment that attracted my attention. He is part of a public health program in America that recognises the need for comprehensive eye examinations for all babies in the early stages of their lives. These exams are free of charge and are carried out by members of the American Optometric Association. As well as other eye conditions and vision problems, these tests pick up retinoblastoma.

I went and had a look at the website InfantSEE and was really impressed with what I found there. There is a lot of easily accessible information for parents and medical professionals on eye care and vision. What struck me most was a couple of sentences on their home page which highlighted the ease of identifying significant developmental stages in a baby - such as sitting up, making different sounds - compared with the ability to recognise visual growth stages. How many of us know that vision, too, goes through developmental stages? Apart from the normal indicator of seeing a baby focus on you after six weeks or so, I don’t think many of us think about what else happens with the eyes. And such development isn’t easy to track without the use of specialised tools.

I also didn’t know that although paediatricians conduct eye examinations, they don’t have the relevant equipment or tools to detect all eye conditions.

InfantSEE has been providing this service since 2005 and the recognition of its worth is growing. Thanks, James, for letting me know about it. Maybe something similar can happen in Australia.