Arising from Joseph Heller’s famous novel of the same name, the phrase "Catch-22" has become a way for people to describe their frustration with bureaucracy or ill-conceived rules. It’s used to indicate a no-win situation or contradictory messages that can’t be reconciled. In the book, Catch-22 is a dandy piece of circular reasoning that prevents anyone from ever avoiding a combat mission.

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he [Yossarian] observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

Mothers and fathers who surrender a child and then try to revoke their consent (as is their right) often find themselves in a Catch-22 as well. They have to prove their fitness to parent their own child, and can almost never win against a richer, "more stable" two-parent family.

Not all states offer a window of opportunity for a change of heart, but even when such an opportunity exists, actually going to court and fighting to exercise your right is a Herculean task. The presumption of "fitness" is always with the hopeful adopters—after all, they "really want and deserve" your baby, while you didn’t. Judges and lawyers almost always place their sympathy with these models of domestic propriety, who tend to look better on paper than the original parents.

Here is the type of circular logic displayed in most revocation of consent cases:

• If you agreed to surrender your child, you are unfit, because who on earth would voluntarily give their baby away?

• If you revoke your consent you are unfit, because it is “selfish” to want to keep your own baby.

• If you are single and the hopeful adoptive parents are not, you are unfit, because two marrieds are always better than one single.

But here’s the real Catch-22:

• Even if you were actually coerced into signing and can clearly prove that you were swindled, you may still be labelled unfit. The tortuous reasoning here? If you’re dumb enough to let yourself be coerced, you wouldn’t be a good parent.

You can’t win.

The sheer difficulty of going to court and successfully overturning a relinquishment is overwhelming, and most people give up before they get started. In fact, despite the common perception that evil birthparents are forever snatching back their babies, it rarely happens.

For all of these reasons, it is much easier to be absolutely certain before you do set pen to paper and sign.

Despite what anyone tells you, there is no rush to sign the relinquishment papers. You can take as much time as you need to make up your mind. If your agency or lawyer tells you there is a time limit to sign, he or she is lying. Your child can stay with you, your family (or less desirably, in foster care) until you are ready.

Take that time. Be certain. Case after case has shown that birthparents who were pushed into signing are put in a Catch 22: first told they were bad people if they didn’t surrender, and then told they were bad people for surrendering, and no longer fit to parent their own children.