Help adoptees reach first parents
Photo credit: iStock | Adoption
Lorraine Dusky of Sag Harbor is the author of the memoir Birthmark.Ask the man on the street if people who were adopted as babies should be able, as adults, to find out the identities of their original parents, and the typical answer is: Sure, isn't that their right?
Only for the fortunate few. In all states but six -- and New York isn't among that half-dozen -- individuals adopted at birth are still denied the unrestricted right to even look at a copy of their original birth certificates. Without that piece of paper, it's hard to have that longed-for mother-and-child reunion....First Mother Forum published the rest of the piece at an earlier blog: Help Adoptees Reach First Parents.Below is what was printed in Newsday in response... an angry adoptive mother who chose to misunderstand my meaning--god forbid I fail to mention nights at the hospital, cut knees and high fever, but the word limit is 735--and a fearful adoptee who wants an excuse for not searching and has found it in the idea that how women of my generation are going to be freaked out if contacted by their surrendered children. Only a few, Lady, and their right to stay in the closet should not supersede those of adoptees to come out as who they were when the were born, before adoption.
Unfortunately, unless you are a subscriber to either Newsday or Cablevision (which owns Newsday) you cannot leave a comment or email them. If you do feel compelled to respond (it would be good for the movement if you did and I would love you forever), send a snail mail to Newsday, Letters to the Editor, 235 Pinelawn Road, Melville, NY 11747. Mention the original piece and the letters. Keep it short and brisk. And let me know here!
'More adoption information may not be good'
Lorraine Dusky's opinion article, "Help adoptees reach first parents" [May 13], states that questions of identity "ring deep in the breast, and neither time, nor the love of an adoptive family, can erase them." How dare she make such a declaration.It's not a fact, it's Dusky's conception due to the pain that she has of missing a child she gave up for adoption. It's an insult to those of us who have cherished our child. We are an adoptive family.
How dare Dusky state with such ignorant boldness that our love can't make up for the love of the person who gave our son away? I am the one who stayed up all night holding him in the emergency room with a 106-degree fever. I wipe his tears and celebrate his joys. We taught him to walk and ride a bike. I'm his mother. There's more to being a mother than giving birth. His birth mother (not his "first mother") gave away four other babies, too.
He is our son in every sense of the word. And as for the other reasoning Dusky gave, namely that the child needs to know his or her medical history, this was all provided in the background of the birth mother and father.Our son knows he is adopted, and he's known it since the beginning of his life. We've made no secret about it. He told me that he adopted us, and he knows exactly who he is.
Elizabeth Gari, Westbury
LD HERE: Ms. Gari apparently found our use of "first mother" offensive, as in, Get back in the closet, you nasty "first" mother. Yes ma'am anything you say--I'll sit in the back of the bus. My Newsday editor could not have been nicer about not using the term. I use it at the blog because "birth mother" is what people still Google.
------------------------
The goal of delivering a baby safely to his or her parents may be achieved by a Lamaze "natural" birth, birth with epidural or by Caesarean section. I extrapolate that to my delivery safely to my parents through my adoption.Lorraine Dusky writes that opening adoption records would cause women who chose anonymity to have only temporary discomfort and embarrassment. In fact, for these women -- who may be in their 70s and older, and likely have husbands, children and grandchildren -- to be "outed" could be devastating.
Virginia Gunther Fankhauser, East Northport
LD: Well, yikes, what to say to that? I'm one of the generation she is talking about, though I'm not in my seventies. A lot of us told our husbands (not the fathers) at the getgo. And poor Virginia was apparently not born the normal way.
______________________________
Virginia and Elizabeth, and other adoptive parents and adoptees: some suggested reading above. Primal Wound is written by an adoptive mother, Nancy Verrier; Birthmark (Lorraine Dusky), Waiting to Forget (Margaret Moorman) and The Other Mother (Carol Schaefer), written by first/birth mothers; and Twenty Things Kids Wish their Adoptive Parents Knew by an adoptee, Sherrie Eldridge
.
Lorraine,
ReplyDeleteI read the article and thoroughly enjoyed it.
It always boggles my mind that:
a) as a healthy white infant we are the ultimate prize and pointed to with such awe as so cute, wonderful, smart, going places individuals with access to educational advantages...and the perfect solution that people line up for and wait years to attain.
b) but once that healthy white infant grows up and becomes an adult - we instantly turn into psycho individuals out to cause absolute havoc for our "birth" mothers, fathers and extended family by gasp - sending a letter or even worse picking up the phone.
c) that meeting your child is obviously the last thing anyone ever, ever, would want to do - rather you want to hide in shame.
Makes no sense to me and people just need to get a grip...
And that medical info that is given at birth as an excuse, although they do a better job today than my day - it is still given by someone too young to know enough of the family history, plus by the time you need it - it isn't worth anything because like a stale dated check - it has no value left...none...most of the info needed happened after the surrender - and some of us pay a pretty steep price indeed.
How dare you indeed. The adoptive mother is an nincompoop. Hard to believe some people really think that way. I couldn't read the other one. Saw the word Lamaze and I glazed over.
ReplyDeleteMy belief as an adoptee is that only adoptees have a right to say how they feel and how they regard their own adoption.No adoptee needs an adopter to speak for them, especially once an adult.
ReplyDeleteThat American adoptees do not have their rights and that mothers do not have their chance for much longed for reunion is shameful.It warrants appearance before the Court of Human Rights.Good luck this time around with the legislation.It has been way too long.
Posting a link if I may Lorraine, thanks for another great post.
When I placed my dauhter 19 years ago there were a few health problems that I knew of on my mothers side. Now we have found that my dad is a carrier for hemophilia, my mom has a genetic factor for forming blood clots, my 21 year old niece has a genetic liver disease with no cure and that was only discovered that se had it a year and a half ago. Even the health problems that I knew about and gave the agency didn't all get to the adoptive parents.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't every person have the right to know their family? To know where they get their eye color from? Doesn't every child deserve to know who they look like? Where the get their personality from?
Babies have no say if or when they are adopted, as adults don't they deserve to know why they were? Don't they deserve to know all of their family?
How very unfortunate that there are people out there that actually think that garbage is true or remotely real!
ReplyDeleteFirst, a nanny can be the one staying up with a child or sitting in the waiting room of a hospital, that doesn't make them the child's mother.
Second, why assume that it is okay to adopt and yet acknowledge that someone can miss a child that is surrendered? Does that not state, emphatically, that the idea that coercion is used to take a child is acceptable to the adopter?
Third, while I honestly don't believe all adoption is bad, I have to wonder how anyone can acknowledge these things as real, which they most certainly are, and still assume that adoption is an answer.
Fourth, the statement that the mother "gave away four other babies" is unrealistic.... most women that are forced to give away that number of children are usually victims of the foster care system, so this statement is one that is a direct attempt to justify an adoption that may not have been necessary.
Fifth,just because it offends me - BIRTH MOTHER is an affectation of those that simply can't reconcile with their own lack of motherhood in a natural setting... BITE ME..... you barren loser. Sorry, I really hate that term.
To the Adoptee - I am so glad you drink the koolaid... I hope you never get ill or need any transplants that require a relative.... you will die.
ugh. I think I just threw up a little.
ReplyDeleteThe desire to know one's birth parents is a common theme throughout literature and religion because it is such a basic need. I thought of this as I was reading "Eragon" which my eight year old grandson gave me to read. Eragon's mother left him with his aunt and uncle when he was born.
ReplyDelete"Eventually he had learned to live with it, but he always had a nagging suspicion that he had not been good enough for his mother. 'I'm sure there was a reason for what she did; I only wish I knew what it was.' One other thing bothered him: Who was his father? ... He wished that he knew who it was, if only to have a name. It would be nice to know his heritage."
Unbelievable. And here you have it folks... a prime example of how we as NATURAL, REAL and FIRST mothers are dehumanized and treated as if we are nothing but incubators for the infertile.
ReplyDeleteThe gloating "I am the one who stayed up all night holding him in the emergency room with a 106-degree fever. I wipe his tears and celebrate his joys. We taught him to walk and ride a bike. I'm his mother." is just salt rubbed into the wound that we have to carry around with us for the rest of our lives. If not for us FIRST mothers they would never have had the privilege of doing all of those things we should have done for our children.
Let me gloat for a bit...
I am the one who created and carried my child in my body. I am the one who anguished about whether or not I should go through with an "adoption plan" to give him "a better life" (no such thing, only a different one). I am the one who went through hours of labor as a scared young woman and had a cesarean section to give birth to my child; which took me weeks to recover from. I will bear the scar from that for the rest of my life. I am the one who missed my child every second of every day. The eyes, hair color and complexion he sees every time he looks in the mirror are all mine. He quiet, reserved disposition is identical of mine. He get's his creativity from his blood. I AM THE REASON HE IS HERE. I AM HIS MOTHER.
It takes more than the ability to buy a child from a baby broker and play mommy to someone else's child to be a mother. It takes nature, too. That is such a difficult concept for selfish, self entitled adopters to grasp.
How dare SHE make such a declaration (that we don't matter). We do and always will.
Elizabeth Gari from Westbury can shove it.
First of all, I want to thank all the first mothers who work so hard to help adoptees get access to their OBCs. I am touched, impressed and humbled that you put so much energy into this issue when after all you are probably not adopted and have your own OBCs. So my heartfelt thanks to all of you.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, so many comments from APs are actually the AP speaking for the adopted child. "My child has no problem with being adopted because I AM his/her REAL mother." Yes, my a-mother was up with me when I was ill and attended my dance recitals. And yes, that does make her a mother. However, my first mother would have given anything to be able to do those things for me. In my heart and mind my first mother was also my mother every day of my life.
As for the medical history, as others have stated what information is given is often not very useful 20, 30, 40 years down the road. Most first mothers are very young and in good health. Even the grandparents are often young and what problems may turn up later are often not known at the time of surrender. Some attorneys and other adoption workers also want to minimize health problems to seal the deal (i.e. assure the APs they are getting a very healthy child). Although this may have been a more common phenomenon back in the day.
The responses are disgusting but not surprising. The article gave them an easy entrée.
ReplyDeleteIt is an example of why why it is so important to focus public attention solely on the main issue, which is adoptees right to their OBC, and not conflate it with reunion.
Hey Lorraine, Here is my brief and highly politically incorrect response to Newsday which I will not apologize for due to the fact that Ms. Gari's national jibe against us is as politically and morally incorrect as they come. My response (being mailed today):
ReplyDeleteIn her response to your article re. opening of birth records in New York, Elizabeth Gari of Westbury feels compelled to inform the national public that her son's relinquishing parent "gave away four other babies, too."
And thank goodness she did, Ms. Gari. Or you wouldn't be in the lofty position to write this letter now would you?
Sorry to bust your proud mommy bubble, Ms. Gari, but I am the biological, physical, and genetic mother of my daughter from the instant of conception through eternity. And no piece of paper will ever change that, whereas a piece of paper created your motherhood and a piece of paper can quickly and easily terminate it, as well.
ReplyDeleteNow, do you feel some of the pain your remarks inflicted upon us mothers who lost children to the adoption industry because of greediness of adopters like you that marginalized, shunned, shamed, and tore our babies from us so you could gloat happily ever after about what a wonderful mother you are?
Priscilla Sharp
Mother of loss '64
Search angel/genealogist/adoptee rights advocate
Mothers of Loss (to Adoption) on Facebook
Ms. Gari apparently found our use of "first mother" offensive, as in, Get back in the closet, you nasty "first" mother. Yes ma'am anything you say--I'll sit in the back of the bus. My Newsday editor could not have been nicer about not using the term. I use it at the blog because "birth mother" is what people still Google.
ReplyDelete...and in refer to Virgnia's letter:
Well, yikes, what to say to that? I'm one of the generation she is talking about, though I'm not in my seventies. Yet. A lot of us told our husbands (not the fathers) at the getgo. And poor Virginia was apparently not born the normal way.
I hope this womens disgust for this boys mother bites her in the ass when he grows up
ReplyDeleteLousy comments in Newsday. I really did not like the illustration either, little hands reaching for big hands. What has that got to do with adult adoptee rights?
ReplyDelete"He told me that he adopted us, and he knows exactly who he is."
ReplyDeleteAWWWWWWWWW... Isn't that just the most touching thing a person could say. The love between the adoptee and his purchasers just makes the heart melt. They all love each other so much while that damn "birth" mother best stay the hell away!!
I can't help but read the desperate validation of her motherhood in that statement.
They have him trained well, just like so many do...
So because she did all that a nanny does she thinks that makes her a "mommy"? Oh puhleeese. She actually made me laugh. I and many of my friends have done all those things she has done for many children not my/our own however we have never attempted or desired to call those children our own. I happen to have loved my job in caring for children because I loved kids fullstop. Not because I wanted to glorify what I did for them and certainly not to take their mothers' (the natural mothers, the ones who actually giave birth and are thus in nature recognised as their mothers) place. Typical adopter response as well as reaction to feeling second best.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, adoption is portrayed as the ownership of a child that was bought & paid for by the adopters. It will be amusing many years later when the adoptee seeks information as to his origins only to find out that his mother, namely the one who adopted him has, bad mouthed her over the years. Imagine she tossed out at least 5 of her children. It is always amazing that the same words have been used over and over again, i. e., “there’s more to being a mother than giving birth.” Of course, giving birth is something that we did and she did not. Therefore, it is inconsequential. How else can they justify that they ARE the mothers and we are NOT.” He is our son in every sense of the word.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/son definition: 1. Human male offspring especially of human beings. 2. Male adopted child. Sorry adopters but you are still ranked second. Perhaps the 2 adopters who had their letters published in response cannot comprehend that adoptive families are created by taking a child from the birth family. That is a fact and neither one should be able to disavow the other. Whether one calls her the birthmother, natural mother, first mother, they are one and the same created by the loss of her child to another family that adopted her child. Now the new mother is the adoptive mother or any other descriptive words one chooses. They are both really their child's mothers. Adoptees have two sets of parents so why cannot they all love the child that they share in common. Someday perhaos they will realize that there are women of all ages who are opening their arms to the children they gave away. “To be outed could be devastating.” To whom? Sharing the truth openly and honestly is needed. Too many secrets and lies were perpetuated by the adoption industry. How do I know, because I am 67 and gave away my son when I was 18. His birth was never my secret but everyone else’s. I never asked for confidentiality but was told it is the law.
ReplyDeleteI never asked for confidentiality but was told it is the law.
ReplyDeleteTruer words were never spoken.
There's so much talk of "possession" here.
ReplyDeleteIt really is quite disturbing.
I just have a question for all you first or birth mothers.. and this is not attacking anyone or taking sides. Why is it so upsetting about someone posting about the love for their adoptive child and the love back from that child? Is that not what most of you wanted for your child to have when he/she was given for adoption? Why so much hate for these adoptive moms (or what some of you call "purchasers")? Haven't they taken care of these children the same way a birth mother would? Haven't these children had a better chance of life than what it was offered at birth? Were any of you forced into this?
ReplyDeleteLike I said, this is only my personal curiosity, I do not know the answers to these questions but would love to know your side of the story.
Response to Mrs. Gari for op-ed piece “Help Adoptees Reach First Parents,”
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate your passion concerning your adoptive family, I’m afraid that you are misinformed on what it is truly like to be adopted. As an adoptive mom and an adoptee, I feel I can speak to your letter. Lorraine Dusky’s piece was right on! Let me first establish that I was adopted as an infant and always knew that I was adopted. I have great parents and had a great childhood. I love my parents and they love me. That does not mean that I do not want to know “who I am.” You are confusing two different matters. I have the right to learn who my biological parents are, my medical history, and my lineage. I can love my adoptive parents completely and still have NONE of that. One has nothing to do with the other. My adoptive family can’t give me any of that. Love is not enough, Mrs. Gari. I have a right to be able find my origins. A relationship with those that I find is not guaranteed, but having the information should be.
Even if you obtained medical information when your son was born, that information changes over time. Yes, you are the one who raised and nurtured your child, but again that does not replace the need in most adoptees to find out about their origins. Your relationship with your child and the need for an adoptee to “know” are very separate things. Your very feelings about this issue could cause your own son not to express his desire of wanting to know more about his birth family because you have declared it “unsafe” to discuss.
I love my daughter with all of my heart. You obviously feel the same way about your son. I encourage you to show this love in a manner that enables him to fully express the pain of relinquishment and desire to know his past, to whatever degree he ultimately decides. After all, adoption is supposed to be about the children.
(sent to Newsday)
D. Carroll, Atlanta, GA.
First mothers: I am wondering (as an adoptee during the closed era of the 60's, also when abortion wasn't legal), do you all generally want to have a relationship with your child? Even if it was from some one time hormonal night gone wrong?
ReplyDeleteI ask because I think thats what happened to me/how I was conceived.
And I also know that I was relieved very much after getting an abortion myself.
Were some of you relieved to get this problem out of the way? Or because you carried the baby, ect and maybe bonded, that changed it?
Thanks for your replies. Hope I am not offensive in any way, no intentions at all for that.
Obviously, it would have been soul-wrenchingly hard, I can't imagine, and from that era, I feel for you the lack of support, and the societal coercion going on.
Just wondering how my first mother may feel.
Anon asks:
ReplyDelete"Why is it so upsetting about someone posting about the love for their adoptive child and the love back from that child? Is that not what most of you wanted for your child to have when he/she was given for adoption?"
We're not opposed to anyone loving anyone, child or adult, adopted or not adopted and proclaiming their love anywhere they choose to do so. The world would be a better place with more love.
"Why so much hate for these adoptive moms (or what some of you call "purchasers")?"
We don't hate adoptive moms. Read "What we think About Adoption" on the Sidebar.
We oppose unethical marketing ploys which lure mothers who could nurture their children into giving them up to meet the demand for healthy infants. We oppose corruption in foreign countries to obtain infants for the Western adoption market. We support programs in the US and abroad to help women keep their children.
We encourage women to have children when they are able to do so. We encourage those who seek to build their families through adoption to take children from American foster homes. Reducing demand for healthy infants will reduce exploitation and corruption in adoption and provide homes for children who need them.
"Haven't they taken care of these children the same way a birth mother would?"
No. It's impossible for an adoptive mother to care for a child in the same way that his natural mother would have because adoption is always an issue that has to be dealt with.
"Haven't these children had a better chance of life than what it was offered at birth?"
In many cases the answer is no. While adoptive parents may have more resources in the short term, the child grows up with people who do not look like him and may not share his talents and interests. He may suffer from feelings of not belonging. The child may be deprived of knowing his original identity. Adoption promises a different life, not a better life.
Experts agree that children should be raised in their birth families if possible. See "Favorite Adoption Quotes" on the Sidebar.
Were any of you forced into this?
Yes, many of us were forced, misled, or downright lied to in order to get us to give up our children. The pressure may have come from family members, religious figures, or the industry industry. The industry spends millions marketing adoption to young women. It employs "counselors" who often provide distorted information to pregnant women. The industry refers to these women as birth mothers even though they haven't given birth or surrendered their child in order to get them to disassociate from the child they are carrying. The industry has gotten laws passed in all states sharply reducing the time mothers have to decide on adoption. See "State by State Adoption Laws" on the Sidebar.
Anon, you should have done your homework before posting your comment.
Dear Adoptee Anon (a name would have made addressing you so much easier):
ReplyDeleteWe have covered the topics you mention repeatedly in our more than 500 posts.
I do not mean to ignore your earnest questions, but please use the search function at the bottom of the blog for the answers you seek. You will find they have all been addressed.
And good luck.
From my experience in support groups, birth mothers grieve for their lost child and welcome a reunion no matter the circumstances of how their pregnancy, their opinion of the birth father, or the fact that they would have had an abortion if it had been possible.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there are birth mothers who feel differently but they are in a closet somewhere, not in a support group.
Haven't they taken care of these children the same way a birth mother would? Haven't these children had a better chance of life than what it was offered at birth? Were any of you forced into this?
ReplyDeleteWho are you to say that someone else's child would have been taken care of better by strangers? Who are you to assume that a child has "a better chance at life than offered at birth"? Those assumptions and fallacies are pure arrogance and reek of self entitlement and a "we are so much better" mentality.
Just because someone is young and unmarried does not equate to them potentially being a bad parent and/or mother. That is an assumption made by adoption agencies, pap's and the like; because all of them have something to gain by separating a mother and child. They all gain and she (and her child) both lose.
Don't get me started on the "we could provide more material things" nonsense. What infant, toddler, child, flesh and blood human being born in this world cares what someone can buy for them. I know I didn't. My mother couldn't always buy me everything I wanted but there was not one moment in my life when I wished that I did not know her as my rightful mother and my family as my rightful clan. I truly believe that a great many adopted children (including my own son) were taught that material things were/ are so much more important than being in their rightful families. I believed this nonsense.
That is one of the reasons I lost my son, tragically.
What, exactly, have you provided that makes you so much better (and who gives a flip?) A private, parochial school (to further brainwash a child), perhaps? Hundreds of birthday and Christmas gifts? A trip somewhere? Wow, HOW impressive.
Some of us went on to become good mothers to subsequent children who want for nothing. You being able to buy material things means nothing to me and is not indicative that you are such a superior parent than a natural mother.
And oh yes, lest we forget that none of us were "FORCED". I hear that line more than enough. Let me elaborate, since this never seems to get through to anyone who got the 'goods', you know, from us "birth" mothers...
Being coerced, lied to, deceived, brainwashed to believe that you would not be a good mother to your own child, because you were young and unmarried is a subtle manipulation (carried out by people who have everything to gain from you believing and trusting them). Throw the 'open adoption' fraud into the mix and you have a recipe a lifetime of regret and unresolved grief for mothers who realized they were duped.
So, you are offended if someone refers to you as anything other than 'mommy', yet you don't care how it offends so many women when you refer to us a walking incubators? I, for one, could care less. I will not live my life for the comfort of adopters and their feelings, when the people who made off with my child cared less about mine.
"Why is it so upsetting about someone posting about the love for their adoptive child and the love back from that child?"
ReplyDeleteIs it "love" or ownership and/ or possessiveness?
An adopted child can show "love" to you and your family but not to his/ her natural family? Why isn't the natural mother allowed to "love" her child? Why is she banished from her child's life when all she was trying to do was what she THOUGHT was best? Why is she most often than not pushed out of the picture as if she doesn't exist? Why isn't she shown any "love", by anyone?
Very interesting and one sided indeed; as domestic infant adoption always is...
I think what some are say, and I agree to a point, that anyone can birth a child (unless they’re infertile. But not every woman can be a good mother and raise her child.
ReplyDeleteNot all adoptive families are perfect and not all bio families are either. But the act of creating a child doesn't give one the right to say they are the only/best one to raise it. It's a fact, anyone can give life but not everyone can sustain it.
I also wonder if some of you birthmother have said the same thing to your bchild and/or their parents? I would hope not!
Anon, I wish you would use some other handle than anon.
ReplyDeleteYou state that anyone (almost) can birth a child but not everyone can be a good mother. This is the same tired argument adoptive mothers and the adoption industry have been making for years. What's your point? Do you believe that some authority should redistribute newborn infants from those who birthed them to those the authority think will make better parents?
Of course the act of creating a child gives a mother the right to say she is the best one to raise HER child. Mothers are designed to nurture their young. Experts, including the umbrella organization for adoption agencies, the Child Welfare League of America agree that natural families are the best environment for children in most cases.
"You state that anyone (almost) can birth a child but not everyone can be a good mother. This is the same tired argument adoptive mothers and the adoption industry have been making for years. What's your point? Do you believe that some authority should redistribute newborn infants from those who birthed them to those the authority think will make better parents?
ReplyDeleteOf course the act of creating a child gives a mother the right to say she is the best one to raise HER child. Mothers are designed to nurture their young. Experts, including the umbrella organization for adoption agencies, the Child Welfare League of America agree that natural families are the best environment for children in most cases."
Jane
Unfortunately it is a fact, some children should not be raised within their biofamilies and it has nothing to do with adoption. Again, all of the organizations you state push for children in foster care being returned to abusive families under the same umbrella. There are many wounded souls walking this earth who were born into dysfunctional/abusive families.
Also, being a young single parent doesn't make you a bad parent. However, being an unprepared parent sometimes can have bad consequences. Some, not all, aparents are mentally, physically, emotionally and financially prepared to raise a child at the time of its birth. It has nothing to do with the bmother being poor (in "my" eyes) but everything with being prepared to raise a child without the majority of help coming from someone else.
“I think what some are say, and I agree to a point, that anyone can birth a child (unless they’re infertile. But not every woman can be a good mother and raise her child.”
ReplyDeleteAnd not every desperate for a baby infertile woman who can buy a child has the right to someone else’s. Money does not make someone a better parent. Not by a long shot.
It may take some young women time to grow into becoming the mother she is meant to be; but she will grow into that role and does not need someone stepping in to claim HER child because you think you are so much more “financially, mentally and physically” prepared for something that is not yours.
I hardly think some diluted, self entitled woman is more “fit” and “mentally stable” to raise someone else’s child. Women have been giving birth and raising their children for millennia and guess what, anonymous, only in recent times has our society made the claim that a child should be separated from his/ her rightful family because a young woman may not be as well off as a potential adoptive family. Who are YOU to say someone is not financially, mentally and physically able to raise her own flesh and blood. What business is it of yours? You make it your business because you are not able to produce your own child and that disgusts me. Stay out of the wombs and lives of people you don’t even know. You don’t belong there. It is not anyone’s problem if you cannot become pregnant. While many may sympathize with your plight, it is no one’s duty to provide you with THEIR offspring.
“Not all adoptive families are perfect and not all bio families are either. But the act of creating a child doesn't give one the right to say they are the only/best one to raise it. It's a fact, anyone can give life but not everyone can sustain it.”
See above
“I also wonder if some of you birthmother have said the same thing to your bchild and/or their parents? I would hope not!”
I wonder, anonymous adopter, what you have said to the ADOPTED child you covet, about their natural families. I would hope you would have not spoken ill of them, but I would be willing to bet anything you most certainly have; to ensure all loyalties and love get directed your way at all times.
Lastly, anonymous, (speaking for myself) I do not have a “bchild”, I have a son, who is my child. His adopters got to raise him because they manipulated me with lies and false promises of a bogus open adoption. You call THAT the better option to be parents; liars who deceived me? I think not.
I actually have two sons that I brought into this world, both of whom should have been raised in their rightful families, not just one.
"There are many wounded souls walking this earth who were born into dysfunctional/abusive families."
ReplyDeleteAnd I wonder how many wounded ADOPTED children are walking this earth because of all of the lies, deciet, brainwashing and control they have had to endure for their entire lives. I wonder how many ADOPTED children are walking wounded because they have to play a role and live their lives to satisfy the almighty adopter and make them happy?
Anon, The answer to unprepared parent is to prepare them, not take their children away. I've met many unprepared adoptive parents who leave it to nannies to raise the children. I've many adults who had been adopted into dysfunctional families.
ReplyDeleteWe do not support organizations that push for children in foster care be returned to abusive families. In fact no such organizations exist.
Anon, you've filled your head with so many myths about adoption and child welfare I can't begin to straighten you out. Please do your homework and read books on the American Adoption Congress list and articles by the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform before you write again.
Our conversation is beginning to reminded me of the Lewis Carrol poem "You Are Old Father William"
I have answered three questions, and that is enough,
Said his father; "don't give yourself airs!
Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
Be off, or I'll kick you down stairs!
Jane, not all unprepared parents want to raise a child, or are capable of doing so. Yes, help those who want to raise the child and can be helped but need some temporary assistance, but accept the fact that some really choose to surrender, and some have issues so grave that "a little help" won't do it, and even a lot of help won't do it in time for the child to have a decent childhood.
ReplyDeleteAdoption is not the worst thing in the world, and for some people in some situation it is the lesser evil and the best solution for those particular people. Not all surrenders are coerced, and not all people who give birth want to or are fit to raise a child.
Maryanne, when a young pregnant woman, escaped from an abusive relationship, she noticed she was a) pregnant and b) too far to abort the pregnancy. She asked for help, on a first mom board, she got the same advice from all points of the adoption triangle: KEEP! (AP, adoptees, who started a fight about whether it is better to be aborted or to be adopted, by a pretty fine adoptive family, and first moms). Had an happy end, mother forgot all that terrible adoption nonsense as soon as she had given birth.
ReplyDelete"Foster care" is the solution for the problem that a child cannot be raised by its parents. "Adoption" in a birth relation is just a post-natal abortion of motherhood. Nobody dies, but being denied the most primal interhuman relationship injures. Yes, sometimes it is the lesser evil, but a great evil nevertheless, and quite often it's not the least evil.
Theodore, I disagree. Adoption is not intrinsically evil nor is it comparable to abortion. There is no such thing as "post-natal abortion". This is the kind of reasoning the opponents of adoptee rights use to equate birthmother confidentiality from her adult child to a "reproductive right".
ReplyDeleteAdoption is a legal construct that does not kill anyone, nor does it wipe out motherhood in the biological and genetic sense, as that is not possible. Adoption gives the adoptee different legal parents, which is some cases is necessary and preferable.
There is a lot wrong with adoption as it is now practiced and legally constructed under sealed records, and yes, depriving adopted adults of their identity forever is evil. That does not make adoption itself nor adoptive parents evil as a group. Adoption needs to be reformed to be transparent and honest, not abolished. Many surrenders should never have happened, which needs to be corrected as well, but again, that is not all surrenders or all adoptions. Yes, there is pain and loss in adoption, but there is also pain in being raised by unfit biological relatives, or growing up in foster care with no legal family at all.
Foster care is NOT the alternative answer to adoption. Ask any kid who grew up in and aged out of foster care.
Re: Maryanne's comment 4:37 pm
ReplyDeleteI think the sidebar "What we think about adoption" addresses the issue that certainly some adoptions are necessary and good. There are first parents who would not be able to raise their child even with a lot of help. And for those first parents who don't want to parent, shame on them for being too selfish to take responsiblity for the child they created. How cruel to cause their rejected child so much pain for basically no reason.
Adoption isn't the worst thing that can happen to a person. It is not on a par with something like the Holocaust of World War II. However, it does cause serious and lasting damage and further damage can hopefully be PREVENTED by forums like this one.
"Adoption" in a birth relation is just a post-natal abortion of motherhood. Nobody dies, but being denied the most primal interhuman relationship injures. Yes, sometimes it is the lesser evil, but a great evil nevertheless, and quite often it's not the least evil."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely.
If my motherhood was not "wiped out", why was I banished from my child's life because I was young and unmarried? Why was I denied promised information and updates for no reason? Why am I referred to as a "birth" thing and not my child's MOTHER, as I am?
Yes, I see my son as my child in every sense of the word and genetically we are mother and child, but that is completely one sided. Our whole society begs to differ and I am not seen as as my his rightful mother at all. That is my "punishment" for being young and unmarried some 21 years ago. Such hefty price to pay, don't you think?
It IS cruel and dehumanizing and while no, it may not be the worst thing to happen to anyone, it was the worst thing that has ever happened to me.
I am really becoming baffled at all of the judgmental people here and elsewhere whom are so obsessed with the ability of someone to raise their own children, as well. Very scary... Who is anyone to say whether someone is "fit" to raise her own flesh and blood?
Perhaps we should stay out of the wombs of other women we don't even know...Now that's a thought.
"Theodore, I disagree. Adoption is not intrinsically evil nor is it comparable to abortion."
ReplyDeleteAdoption as we know it now, ALWAYS involves a cutting of ties with the previous family, that is intrinsically bad. An abortion of motherhood is, just like an abortion of a launch, not an abortion of a pregnancy.
"There is no such thing as "post-natal abortion". This is the kind of reasoning the opponents of adoptee rights use to equate birthmother confidentiality from her adult child to a "reproductive right"."
What? A mother can sign her rights away, not her duties. To a degree I tend to agree with the idea that birtmother confidentiality from adult children, if chosen, should be a right, from teen adoptees and younger, no way Jose. I mean you should make sure young adults have the information needed to make the choice whether they want to become an ex-adoptee.
"Adoption is a legal construct that does not kill anyone, nor does it wipe out motherhood in the biological and genetic sense, as that is not possible. Adoption gives the adoptee different legal parents, which is some cases is necessary and preferable."
It stops the display of maternal behaviour towards the right recipient, it removes recognition of motherhood. "First mother" does already sound like, former mother or ex-mother, a has-been. I mean, if I would talk about a first wife, a first husband, a first dog, a first bicycle, it strongly suggests that that is not the current one.
"There is a lot wrong with adoption as it is now practiced and legally constructed under sealed records, and yes, depriving adopted adults of their identity forever is evil."
Local difficulties.
" That does not make adoption itself nor adoptive parents evil as a group."
Who is talking about adoptive parents?
" Adoption needs to be reformed to be transparent and honest, not abolished."
Reformed by chainsaw, I hope. Adoption needs to be EXPOSED as a source of misery, needs to be PROHIBITED if the birth mother can and will offer her child ANYTHING as a parent.
" Many surrenders should never have happened, which needs to be corrected as well, but again, that is not all surrenders or all adoptions. Yes, there is pain and loss in adoption, but there is also pain in being raised by unfit biological relatives, or growing up in foster care with no legal family at all."
You justify the DBM-letter writers with accidental misery? What are you, a Latter Day Satanist? Adoption is both a natural behaviour and an evil, not the root of all evil. Look, I have nothing against adoption, provided the papers are signed by adopter and adoptee, bio-family has been properly informed beforehand and been given the chance to protest and block and the judge sides with the adoptee's interests only.
"Foster care is NOT the alternative answer to adoption. Ask any kid who grew up in and aged out of foster care.""
It depends upon your jurisdiction, where I live you cannot adopt anybody, but your own fosterchildren. From my point of view an adoptive family is just a foster family XXXXL. Preventing family disruption by aging out is the only thing adoption is needed for,(and reduction of inheritance taxes, granted, but that one does not fly as well in court).
Sorry, I was a bit too fierce, working through lots of sickening data about Dutch Domestic adoption. I am still wondering, the report suggests to place children in "Perspective Offering Fostercare", which seems much better. Is totally unlike adoption, mother keeps her legal status, visitation rights can be enforced, easily reversible(compared to adoption), child is not "given away", so the shame seems to be less and it tends to offer your child a chance to grow up in a fairly normal family. :)
ReplyDeleteTheodore wrote:"You justify the DBM-letter writers with accidental misery? What are you, a Latter Day Satanist? Adoption is both a natural behaviour and an evil, not the root of all evil."
ReplyDeleteGiving you a break by assuming that English is not your first language, what sort of nonsense is this? No, not a Latter Day Satanist or even Latter Day Saint! No sympathy for the Devil here:-) I am a cultural Catholic, if my religious denomination makes any difference, and a reunited birthmother. My son whom I surrendered was born in 1968. I do not think my situation was everyone's nor do I speak for anyone but myself. I have been involved in adoption reform since the 70s so I too know a lot of stories, from horrors to fairytales and everything in between.
I do not like extemes or absolutes, like "adoption is evil". I think some children are better off adopted than growing up with their biological families. I believe in family preservation where it makes sense, not in all cases, and that there should be less adoptions, not no adoptions.I think it is just as wrong to say that adoption should be abolished as to say all unwed mothers should surrender and all adoptions are happy. Both are simplistic. Neither is true.
Foster care in the USA is a horror. I do not know what it is like in your country or others so cannot comment on that.
Theodore:
ReplyDeleteYou stance is coming from a bparents POV (point of view)!
What good is it if the bioparent don’t want to raise the child but wants to “claim the title and the perks that come with it?” Where does the limitation end with it being ALL ABOUT the bio’s then the child?
Let’s be honest, when one finds themselves pregnant they have many choices: parent, abortion or adoption. Why do you think children are on “layway” until the parents get it together?
There is no “easy out of parenthood” when you bring a child into the world.
"You stance is coming from a bparents POV (point of view)!"
ReplyDeleteAnd what POV are you coming from, anonymous, from the I am entitled to someone else's child adopter or prospective adopter?
"What good is it if the bioparent don’t want to raise the child but wants to “claim the title and the perks that come with it?” Where does the limitation end with it being ALL ABOUT the bio’s then the child?
Not one natural mother, including myself, that I have ever know has said they "DIDN'T WANT TO RAISE OR KEEP" their child, but felt like they had no choice because of being young and unmarried, coerced, lied to and manipulated. Women of earlier generations were really given no choice. If they were young and unmarried that is what society said they did. Women of my generation and up to now had the "choice" of open adoption, which is really no "choice" at all, after we realize we have been conned and duped with hormones raging and at our most vulnerable.
How does someone "claim" a title that is theirs in the first place? That is ludicrous. When a child is born, a mother is born. Sorry you are not able to "claim" that for yourself, as you so desperately want to.
Let’s be honest, when one finds themselves pregnant they have many choices: parent, abortion or adoption. Why do you think children are on “layway” until the parents get it together?
There is no “easy out of parenthood” when you bring a child into the world.
How can stealing a child's mother, family, history and identity be anything but evil? It may be outweighted by benefits, but if positive associations with adoption can cause women to use their right to relinquish, when there is no need to do so, against the wishes of her family, the moral thing would be to bring the evil of adoption into the spotlights, to counter adoption industry propaganda.
ReplyDelete"I do not like extemes or absolutes, like "adoption is evil". I think some children are better off adopted than growing up with their biological families."
True. That does not mean that the lesser evil is not evil.
"I believe in family preservation where it makes sense, not in all cases, and that there should be less adoptions, not no adoptions."
OK, but what about no adoptions of non-consenting people? A pre-adoption raising period until the child is 12 or so, seems copletely reasonable to me.
"I think it is just as wrong to say that adoption should be abolished as to say all unwed mothers should surrender and all adoptions are happy. Both are simplistic. Neither is true."
Ah, you mistook my statements for reflections of a simple worldview :) Adoption is in my philosophy always an evil thing, but it can be a very good thing at the same time. Morality is everything but simple to me.
"Foster care in the USA is a horror. I do not know what it is like in your country or others so cannot comment on that."
Adoption in the USA is a horror too. Improving foster care, the image of foster families, using foster care as an alternative to open adoption. Answering during the reading over a hundred pages how horrible it is in my country, may have led me to becoming a bit too dark :) Would anybody here like a summary of the Dutch adoption horror?
Of course it is about the child, its mother just should not be using her right to relinquish for some problem that will be mostly forgotten when the child hits puberty.
ReplyDeleteSorry, reading about the adoption misery of too many others, makes me react in a rather snarling way.
Oh, and I hope you'll have a painless paw, Lorraine.
@ anonymous:
ReplyDelete"There is no “easy out of parenthood” when you bring a child into the world."
"Easy out?" Adoption is no easy out, but in fact one of the most hardest, most painful things a mother, a parent can endure. Who are you to claim it is an "easy out", when you are sitting on the side whom gained? When you yourself has lost a child to a needless adoption, then feel free to come back and tell us all how "easy" it is.
Theodore said, "if positive associations with adoption can cause women to use their right to relinquish, when there is no need to do so, against the wishes of her family, the moral thing would be to bring the evil of adoption into the spotlights, to counter adoption industry propaganda."
ReplyDeleteFrom my observations, most women, particularly those not in a dire economic situation, who relinquish 'voluntarily' do so in large part *because of* the wishes (real or imagined) of their families. Sometimes it can even be the child's father who exerts pressure, especially if he is already married.
Theodore, are you an adoptee from the Netherlands? Sorry if you have already told us but I must have missed it. What is your situation?
ReplyDelete"There is no “easy out of parenthood” when you bring a child into the world."
ReplyDeleteAnon 1:03:
I was addressing Theodore in regards to his suggestion of keeping a child in foster care. As I said before, there's no "easy out" when it comes to parenthood. You can't put a child on the shelf until one gets its.
Maryanne, I am basically a child of one. I do not mind telling details in private e-mails.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, foster care is the closest thing there is to reversible adoption, it is not intended to layaway a child, but used as an adoption alternative, it is rather like putting a plant from a garden in a greenhouse for the winter. Placing into fostering is not an easy-out, it is rather the hard- back-in to parenting, giving the mother the time to kick that drugs habit or something like that.
And yes, adoption pushing families are part of the problem, but keeping pushing families exist too.
@ Anonymous 8:05
ReplyDeleteI know what you said and I will say again that Adoption is no easy out. When you have been faced with an unplanned pregnancy and losing your own child to adoption, come back here and tell us all how what an "easy out" it is. I don't care who you are talking to. You are on a forum where many mothers come to write from the POV of the pain of losing a child to adoption. I for one don't appreciate your suggestion any of it has been "easy".
"it is rather like putting a plant from a garden in a greenhouse for the winter."
ReplyDeleteTheodore, what do you think of the Coram Foundation (London, U.K) model of "concurrent planning" ?
"Coram's instant adoption plan helps to keep babies out of care system":
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
life_and_style/women/families/article6898675.ece
and:
http://www.coram.org.uk/section/adoption/Babies-under-two
"it is rather like putting a plant from a garden in a greenhouse for the winter."
ReplyDelete"Theodore, what do you think of the Coram Foundation (London, U.K) model of "concurrent planning" ?
"Coram's instant adoption plan helps to keep babies out of care system":"
Well, the underlying premises are somewhat alien to me, but I do agree that if a long term or permanent placement of a baby is/seems/may very well be necessary, it is best to place the child directly from the bio-family into the replacement family.
Theodore,one of your parents was an adoptee? It does not seem too much to ask what your connection is to adoption and to get a brief public answer. I gave you mine, most people are upfront about what their interest in adoption is.
ReplyDeleteI cannot recommend foster care as it works (or does not) in this country as an alternative to adoption, especially not if it goes on for years. Children need some kind of permanence and stability for their whole childhood, not a scheme where they get shuttled around or back and forth at the convenience of the adults involved. In some cases, especially children placed with relatives, a form of guardianship can also guarantee permanency, but anything that leaves it open to shift the child around is not really a good thing.
Kids in foster care here have no permanence at all, and those who stay in the system are often moved from one home to another many times. When there are severe problems in the birth family like long-term recurrent drug or alcohol addiction, child abuse or serious mental illness, children's lives cannot be put on hold until the biological parents get it together.
This is where open adoption is a better choice, some contact is maintained with the biological family, if that is safe, but the child has permanent legal parents who are responsible for him.
Yes, there are bad and abusive adoptive parents just as there are bad and abusive biological parents. Nobody is denying that. In situations where the biological parents just need some temporary help to raise their child, they should get that help and the child should remain with them, never go into foster care in the first place. This was and is the case for many surrendering mothers, adoptions that should not have happened.
But on those situations where the problems in the original family are so great they really can't care for the child, foster care is the worst outcome for the child. Again, ask anyone who grew up in and aged out of foster care in the USA. I have heard varying opinions on growing up adopted, but have never heard a person who was left in foster care who felt it was a good thing or a happy childhood.
Maryanne wrote:" but the child has permanent legal parents who are responsible for him."
ReplyDeleteIt is not just having "legal" parents but that the child feel 100% that s/he is a member of the family. This is why open adoption from the child's perspective could make him feel like s/he is neither fish nor fowl. That s/he is not fully a member of the a-family and is certainly no longer fully a member of his bio-family since s/he isn't being raised by them. I see open adoption as being kind of like a divorce type situation for the child from the get go. With the bio-family having visitation the same way a non-custodial parent does. Though I certainly think the child should know who his bio-parents are, I think the most important thing is that the child has the strongest possible sense of being rooted in a family even if in some unfortunate cases this has to be an adoptive family rather than his original family.
Well, my privacy I do not care about, but I would be revealing stuff about the relatives of other people too, including a very little girl, so I am reluctant to do it in a public forum. As I said, you want to know more about the mess, e-mail me.
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess that having the first 18 years of your life one set of fosterparents, who do not claim that they are your real parents, who do not beed to have their names on your birth certificate, who cannot change your official name is fairly stable and permanent.
"Open adoption?" If it works, great idea, but is often used as marketing trick, to trick women into giving up babies they could have easily kept, after which the adopters close it. It is not enforceable. Good thing that Open Adoption is prohibited in the Netherlands. Opening up closed adoptions is allowed and a lot more fun.
Show me ONE adopter in an open adoption who has relinquished the child so the biological mother could be just the mother again.
"In situations where the biological parents just need some temporary help to raise their child, they should get that help and the child should remain with them, never go into foster care in the first place."
This statement does not start to make sense, foster care is meant to take care of children whose parents cannot take care of them, but that inability may very well be temporary. Say single mother with a really bad postnatal depression or a traffic accident,
something like that. Do you really think that ANY child would prefer to have been adopted over being in fostercare until mom is better again? And if mom doesn't get better, after all, upgrading the foster family all the way to an adoptive one is still a possibility.
Oh, I am too rather upfront about it, but I am not the last of my family, and to the Dutch cultural mind (and the Tamils of southern India, who knows what other cultures more), relinquishing a child means rejecting a child, relinquishing mothers are not seen as heroines or brave girls, but as bad mothers and evil persons, and that tends to have rather a disastrous effect on one's social life.
ReplyDeleteI have hardly screened my identity, Theodore IS my name, (OK, official spelling is slightly different), one can deduce easily from my blog where my closesrt blood relatives are living and if you have my e-mail addy you have my family name. Googling the combination of my first name and my family name tends to find only one person: ME.
I just try to protect the dignity and privacy of my relatives.
“Theodore,one of your parents was an adoptee? It does not seem too much to ask what your connection is to adoption and to get a brief public answer. I gave you mine, most people are upfront about what their interest in adoption is.”
ReplyDeleteMaryanne, I am curious to know where you get off demanding people identify themselves and their own personal stories and/ or situations. Are the blog identity gustapo, or am I missing something here?
Theodore, Maryanne seems to think she is an expert on adoption and what is best for everyone and likes to hijack blogs to denounce others experiences and feelings. Maryanne seems to think that a lot of other women’s children, whom she does not know from Adam, are better off raised with adopters (whom by the way, also have alcohol/ drug problems, are emotionally abusive, and the like.) I might be more inclined to agree with Maryanne and her constant denouncing of others experiences and feelings if she personally knew all the adoptees and mothers in this world whom she claims were so much “better off” without each other.
Moreover, it is a slap in the face to the thousands of women who have lost children to fraudulent open adoptions for you (and others who seem to know so much about it) and to promote it as if it is such a “better option”. When did you become such an expert on that, or let me guess, you personally know mothers and adoptees that have been affected so “wonderfully” by bogus open adoptions?
Theodore said:
"Open adoption?" If it works, great idea, but is often used as marketing trick, to trick women into giving up babies they could have easily kept, after which the adopters close it. It is not enforceable. Good thing that Open Adoption is prohibited in the Netherlands. Opening up closed adoptions is allowed and a lot more fun.
Show me ONE adopter in an open adoption who has relinquished the child so the biological mother could be just the mother again.”
Open adoption is a con here in America, a trick used to lure and sway a woman into a revocable decision that will have lasting negative repercussions on a mother (and her child for the rest of their lives). Where is the outrage for people who deliberately close them, after they get what they want from her? Only in America, where capitalism reigns, is there no outrage. Only in America, do you have people coming to a first mother blog promoting it, as if it is such a "good option". Sickening.
And yes, Maryanne, I am chosing to be "anonymous" in my post. That is my right and quite frankly, none of your business....
Theodore said "I do agree that if a long term or permanent placement of a baby is/seems/may very well be necessary, it is best to place the child directly from the bio-family into the replacement family."
ReplyDeleteUnder Coram's concurrent planning model, if the bio-mother was unable to get her life in order (with professional help) sufficiently to be able to take care of her child independently within the allotted time frame (a year, I think), that replacement family would become the child's permanent legal adoptive family.
This seems like a humane and reasonable approach to me. What do you think?
Another thing. Adoptees who are 18 and over who have been adopted in England, Wales or Northern Ireland can apply for a copy of their original birth certificate (although if they were adopted before 1975, they have to see an experienced counsellor first).
Adult adoptees can also obtain a copy of the adoption certificate issued after the adoption order was granted.
It is not so easy to get a child out of foster care in the USA once the child has been put there, even voluntarily. The mother has to prove a whole lot of things she would never have had to prove if she had just taken her child home from the hospital with her. Once a child is in foster care the state has stepped in and that complicates things. It should be avoided at all costs unless the child is in danger. Mothers who want to raise their children and are able to with a little help should get that help, and the child should be with relatives if the Mom is temporarily disabled.
ReplyDeleteTemporary foster care is a last resort, and in some cases would work, but again, what do you define as "temporary"? 6 months, a year, 5 years, 8 years? Is a child just a possession of either the biological or adoptive family, or a person who eventually has feelings of his own?
Open adoption is NOT about eventually giving the child back to the biological parents, it is about permanency for the child with contact with their blood relatives, but the adoptive parents are the ones legally responsible for the child.
I have no desire to know your real name, Theodore, or to know or embarrass any of your relatives, or to start a private email conversation. I asked a simple question, are you an adoptee? Evidently not, question answered as much as you are willing.
**Open adoption is NOT about eventually giving the child back to the biological parents, it is about permanency for the child with contact with their blood relatives, but the adoptive parents are the ones legally responsible for the child.**
ReplyDeleteYes, with other words, the bio-family has no rights, but can just beg for some scraps the adopters may give them. Old show. I did not say that getting kids back out of foster care is always easy, but there is always the possibility, and it leaves the bio/parents much stronger compared to the replacements than adoption. (Look, I know it is not popular, but it is an alternative.)
**I have no desire to know your real name, Theodore, or to know or embarrass any of your relatives, or to start a private email conversation. I asked a simple question, are you an adoptee?**
No, you asked something else and your question was answered. If you wanted to know why I am interested in the adoption topic, you should have asked that, as that question was not asked and not answered. If you were interested in me, my background or something like that, you could have sent me an e-mail. You did not, so you are not interested in the things you ask and you misrepresent the questions you asked before.
OK, anybody here wants to read more about Dutch adoptions?
Well, that Coram baby thing seems mostly bussiness as usual,though using a tough kind of PAP, but Coram seems rather adoption-happy.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I have no idea what is "best for everyone", unlike a lot of people who comment here about family preservation being the BEST for all, no matter what, and adoption always being the worst. I think every situation is different and needs to be weighed on its own merits. My own surrender should never have happened, nor should those of many women I know. But that does not mean there should never be surrender or adoption. My opinion is just my opinion, like yours and everyone else who comments here.
ReplyDeleteI asked what Theodore's connection to adoption was just as countless others have asked whether certain commenters were adopters, from the tone of their writing, or just assumed that they were. I am not the only person to have asked that someone specify their interest or connection to adoption. If he chooses not to say, ok. I was just curious, since he seems to have an unusual point of view.
Of course you have every right to remain anonymous, but that is something people get called on here too, especially if they are not going along with the prevailing point of view.
Please correct me if I am wrong, Theodore, but based on everything you've said, it seems that you believe children who need to be cared for by people other than their original family should be returned at any time the bio-parents are in a position to receive them - no matter how long they may have been with the substitute family, or the circumstances of the original separation.
ReplyDeleteMaryanne, please, stop telling lies about what you asked: You asked whether I was an adoptee from the Netherlands, not what was my connection to adoption.
ReplyDeleteWell anonymous, my position is not half that extreme, but I do think that in principle a child has a right to his or her original mother, and that that right should trump, for instance, a mother's right to relinquish and any right to the child of replacement parents, of course the child's right to a degree of safety trumps the child's right to the original/real mother, just to give an example, but blood and love in combination should be able to beat ink and former weakness .
I think we have a language problem, Theodore, and I do not appreciate being accused of "telling lies". I asked:"Theodore, are you an adoptee from the Netherlands? Sorry if you have already told us but I must have missed it. What is your situation?"
ReplyDeleteYou left out a sentence. "What is your situation?" means if you are not an adoptee, what connection to adoption do you have? So where have I lied about what I asked?
Here is your only, ambiguous reply to that question:"Maryanne, I am basically a child of one. I do not mind telling details in private e-mails."
The only thing your name here links to is a bunch of poems, evidently about the Holocaust, no private email, no other blog. But as I said I do not care to have a private conversation with you, was just curious what your adoption connection is, since you purport to be an expert on adoption in the Netherlands, but if you prefer not to tell, ok. But don't be calling me or anyone else a liar based on your misunderstanding of what was said.
Theodore:
ReplyDeleteAs a Dutch American, I am very interested in hearing about the differences between US Domestic Infant Adoption and that of the Netherlands, my ancestral homeland. I am sure there are many. Feel free to email me anytime.
"Well anonymous, my position is not half that extreme,"
ReplyDeleteExcuse me for finding your answer rather evasive.
I'll try again, using a more specific example.
Do you think that "love and blood" should always triumph, even in cases where a child has been with their legitimately acquired alternative family for many (two, three, five, whatever number of) years.
Particularly as disruption itself is known to be harmful, and the child has already been disrupted once.
Personally I do not think any mother can expect an indefinite amount of time to get her life in order. Putting a plant in the greenhouse over winter and then planting it outside in the spring is not comparable to raising a child in a second home for a protracted period and then returning that child to its original family years later.
@ Anonymous 9:18
ReplyDelete"Do you think that "love and blood" should always triumph, even in cases where a child has been with their legitimately acquired alternative family for many (two, three, five, whatever number of) years."
You sure don't with your adoption agenda, do you? I,for one am coming from a POV of children and their mothers not being seperated needlessly.
What does "legitimately acquired" signify? Being "legitimately" bought from a baby broker? Being procured via a promised "open adoption" that closes?
Yeah, real "legitimate"...That is not so "legitimate" to those of us who did not have to lose our children to adoption.
Maryanne, if I should not call your untruths lies, OK, sorry for that. But the intention of your words was clear to me, fully clear, it was just not the right question.
ReplyDeleteCan we stop this bickering, please?
@ anon 11:51
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question "What does "legitimately acquired" signify?", it means children who do not have parents or extended family willing or able to care for them and who consequently gain another 'legal' family through adoption.
To make it quite clear, I do NOT mean children who have been "needlessly" separated from their parents.
Such children do not deserve to grow up as mere wards of state. They deserve to have a legal family to raise them. Equally importantly, they do *not* deserve to have their original identity and history obscured by that same state.
I also believe that, ideally, such children also deserve to be able to maintain contact with their original family and to grow up knowing them. And no, I am not starry-eyed about open adoption. I think of it as something that has to be chock-full of ambiguities.
I should add that your assumption that I support "buying children through baby brokers" or that I think it's right to use "promises of open adoption" to inveigle parents into surrender is totally off the wall.
I can only assume that one of the reasons you have come to your twisted conclusion is because I said that I don't think that biological parents should be able to take whatever time suits them to keep their children in storage until they decide to claim them. I stand by that.
I also don't think that paps should use the "only family he/she has ever known" argument to keep children away from parents who have been duped into relinquishing them.
Duh.
@ anonymous 9:18 PM
ReplyDelete"Do you think that "love and blood" should always triumph, even in cases where a child has been with their legitimately acquired alternative family for many (two, three, five, whatever number of) years"
DUH. Your the one who sounds twisted.
"it means children who do not have parents or extended family willing or able to care for them"
You mean orphans in foster care with NO family? I have no problem with that either, not at all. What about the children who's mothers were able to care for them or who did have other family such as grandparents, aunts, uncles; many members of their blood clan? Why aren't they considered a viable option, as opposed to a child being legally separated from his biological family forever, to genetic strangers? A great many women who lose their children to adoption today do so needlessly, as they are perfectly capable of caring for their own flesh and blood. How many of those adoptive families include a natural mother or her family into the life of their lost family member? Not many from what I read. A woman is punished for the rest of her life because she dared get pregnant outside of marriage. Her punishment is being banished from her own child. Sounds pretty TWISTED to me.
Adoption is big business and women are coerced and manipulated into relinguishing their infants without being fully informed of the repercussions to them or to their children. Once a child is lost to adoption, it is irrevocable. There is no turning back.
Your reasoning is so black and white. Do you know the complete circumstances of all adoptions that take place where you believe that natural families should just be cut out of the picture after a few years because they made a mistake by going through with adoption?
People such as yourself seem to think you are experts on adoption. When you have lost your own child, please feel free to elaborate a little more.
"I also don't think that paps should use the "only family he/she has ever known" argument to keep children away from parents who have been duped into relinquishing them."
But you do think natural parents should take a hike after their children are "legitimately acquired in alternative family for many (two, three, five, whatever number of) years."
Which is it, Anonymous?
Your just full of contradictions, aren't you and you have all the answers about what is best for everyone (including people you don't even know) don't you? No you don't.
DUH.
I stand by the fact that natural families are the only one who lose while adopters gain. There is nothing twisted about that. That is a fact.
COMMENTS TO THE POST ARE CLOSED.
ReplyDeleteSounds to me as if the writer of the letter to NEWSDAY (or one of her compatriots) objecting to the idea that love of adoptive parents cannnot quell genetic curiosity found our blog.
COMMENTS TO THE POST ARE CLOSED.