Some thirty-five years ago two Pennsylvania women took part in the process of adoption. At this point, the reader might guess that one woman adopted a child that had been carried by the second woman. That, however, was not the case.

One woman did indeed adopt a baby boy. Pleased with her first exposure to the process of adoption, that same Pennsylvania woman decided to adopt a second baby. During that second adoption, her neighbor also played a part in one chapter of the entire process of adoption.

In the region around Philadelphia, a region familiar to both of the above-mentioned women lived a rather large family. The father lacked the means to support any addition to that family. Then, as fate would have it, his wife became pregnant.

After much soul-searching the couple decided to have the baby, and to put it up for adoption. The Pennsylvania couple with one adopted son was approached about adopting this family’s baby. Although that couple had wanted to adopt a girl, they agreed to drop a child of either sex from that large and economically pressed family.

After that baby had been born, the process of adoption called for the entrance of a “third party.” That “third party” was supposed to receive the baby boy from the infant’s grandmother. The woman who planned to adopt that baby boy asked her neighbor to act as “the third party.”

That was how two Pennsylvania women, women living on the same street, took part in the process of adoption. They did not know that both would soon learn more about adoption. What they would learn would not concern the adoption process but would instead focus on the strange consequences of adoption.

Several years later, a minister built a new church not far from the street where the toy adopted boys lived and played. The minister and his wife had a toddler, a boy. One day the woman who had acted as “the third party,” along with the adopted boys and their mother, visited the minister’s wife.

Although familiar with adoption, both women had assumed that the minister’s son was his biological child. In their minds, the toddler “looked like” his parents. Somehow they mentioned the seeming resemblance.
After they had revealed their assumption—that the minister’s son was his biological child—they learned that the toddler had actually been adopted.

Both women were quite surprised. Once they had recovered from their initial shock, they realized that they should share their own “secret.” Therefore, they told the minister’s wife that her two young, male visitors had also been adopted.

The discovery of such a coincidence can not be held up as a typical part of the adoption process. Such a discovery does, however, shine a light on one of the wonders that have emerged due to the diligent the efforts of all those who have taken part in that process.

In fact, the development and growth of each adopted child becomes a constant source of wonder to his or her parents. In most cases, the parents remain forever grateful for their exposure to the process of adoption.