 |
| Lorraine |
Circuit Court Judge David Jones ruled that the mother, Encarnacion Bail Romero, had abandoned her son while she was in jail after the raid in 2007. After she was jailed, her six-month-old son was looked after by family members and then others, and arrived at the home of the Mosers when he was two. They proceeded to adopt him, even though his mother never gave her consent, and in fact, with limited resources from jail, made it clear that she did not want him to be adopted.
Bail Romero spoke no English. She had lousy court-appointed lawyers who spoke only English and were eventually removed from the case. But what is clear is that she never agreed to any adoption. Papers were put in front of her she did not understand, but she knew enough to keep stating that she did not want her child adopted by someone else. Here is what she wrote to the court:
"I do not want my son to be adopted by anyone," she scrawled on a sheet of notebook paper on Oct. 28, 2007. "I would prefer that he be placed in foster care until I am not in jail any longer. I would like to have visitation with my son."However, she did not understand the tremendous power of the adoption industry in this country and how she was in danger of losing her son. She did not understand the system.
HER RIGHTS WERE 'WRONGFULLY' TERMINATED
A ray of hope occurred in December, 2010 when the state's highest court ruled that her rights had been wrongfully terminated. The Mosers adoption was thrown into limbo. But instead of awarding Bail Romero custody of her son and allowing her to leave the country with him, as she had hoped, the court ordered a retrial. One would think that decent people would return the boy to his rightful mother. Instead, the Mosers dug in for a fight, and the court allowed the boy, renamed the same as an Irish whiskey (Jameson) with one letter different, Jamison, to stay with the couple. We rightly assumed that Bail Romero would have trouble ever getting her son back as the months and years dragged on.
Finally--more than a year later--a two-week trial in March and April got underway. It was closed to the public, and the documents and evidence remain sealed. Three months later--today--the judge ruled. The judge may have based his decision on what he considered to be Carlitos' "best interests" Laws in many states allow judges to uphold adoptions even if parents' rights were violated if the judge believe it is in the child's best interests. "Best interests" often means whatever judges wants it to mean. A poor mother in the US illegally who knows little English wouldn't stand a chance under the best interests test.
WHERE DO (ADOPTABLE) BABIES COME FROM?
The adoption system won again. A woman--albeit in this country illegally--lost her son to a system she did not understand. The Mosers? They played by the rules. And the rules favor those with more money and a "stable" home, unlike his poor mother who only wanted to take him back to Guatemala. In the past, the Mosers also used the argument that all such baby-snatchers use: we are the only parents he has ever known. And of course, they used the unstated argument that underlies all contested adoption cases, that his best interests lay with middle class adopters than his poor single mother, made even stronger when the adopters are American and his mother is from one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere.
But babies do not arrive in eggs, like those you buy at the supermarket. Nor do are they created from matter in outer space and arrive in spaceships. Babies begin with their real mothers, who have nourished them in their bodies, and they are connected forever to those mothers. Yet in today's corrupted ethos of what is permissible in a legal adoption, poor mothers lose their children to people who will do anything to keep a child, even when his real mother wants him back, and is capable of caring for him. By that logic, one could nab an infant in the supermarket while the mother is looking away, and raise him for a time, and then say--as the legal process drags on--we are the only parents he has ever known, we have a "stable" home, therefore, he belongs to us.
There must be a special place in hell reserved for such people as Seth and Melinda Moser. --lorraine
----------------------------
Many of the comments at the CNN website are not supportive of the natural mother's right to raise her own children; people are talking about the "better life" that "Jamison" will have.
CNN:
Undocumented immigrant mother loses adoption battle
From FMF: An immigrant fights for her son, illegally adopted
Guatemalan mother seeking return of son gets her day in court
Doubly Damned by Adoption turns Victim into a Fighter
When "best Interests of the child" violates reason and decency
So a child whose mother is in prison should remain without a family forever? He should pay for her crimes as well? To be destined by the age of 6 months to never call anyone mommy?
ReplyDeleteI hope you follow this boy until he's in college. You'll find a healthy, happy young man who will be infinitely grateful that he remained with his parents.
There is not much good to come from being bounced between "family" members from age 6 months to 2 years.
And ANY mother who has raised a child on this forum will agree that children crave the security of home, their room, the constant presence of similar faces putting them to bed. DNA doesn't mean a damned thing to them!!!
What good comes to THIS BOY to be returned to his birth/first mother now, at the age of 5? None. He would be traumatized. Destroyed.
But let's go ahead and do that because he is PROPERTY of a woman who committed a crime that landed her in prison and unable to care for him. Let's return him to her now, because she OWNS him and never relinquished OWNERSHIP.
Yes, that sounds EXACTLY the act of a loving birth/first mother.
I'm "anonymous" from yesterday, by the way. My name is Madeline, not that it matters in the online world.
Madeline,
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear. Bail Romero is not an ordinary criminal; she used someone else's identify, not to steal, but to work at a job Americans would not take. After her conviction, the US Supreme Court questioned the validity of the law under which she was convicted. She trusted others to care for her son. One of them, a sleaze bag named Laura Davenport, who worked as a "parent educator", arranged for the Mossers to take Bail Romero's son.
If the Mossers had done the right thing in the first place, we wouldn't have the spectacle of a five year moved from his home. Nonetheless, children of Carlitos' age have been returned to their real parents without trauma.
By allowing the Mossers to keep Carlitos, the court is sending the message that might makes right. Of course Bail Romero is just a poor foreigner, a nobody. But what if someone snatched your child and a few years later got to keep him? Adverse possession may make sense when it comes to property but not when it comes to children.
As for how well Carlitos will fare with the Mossers, the track record for children adopted from Central or South America is poor. I attended a continuing legal education program on adoption nine years ago. One of the speakers stated as an established fact that children from our southern neighbors do not adjust to their adoptive homes. Many go into treatment programs and a fair number end up in jail. I've seen this with families that I have known.
Does anyone have a copy of the decision so that readers can assess the basis for the court's actions for themselves?
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, Bail Romero is not in jail; she is in this country provisionally now while this case wended its long circuitous way through the courts. She has been fighting to get her son back since she was released from jail.
ReplyDeleteMadeline, you are going to find our posts disturbing. I don't go to sights of adoptive parents and rant at them. What is your issue?
Are you an adoptee? Adoptive parent? Just an interested bystander?
Okay I have never commented on an adoption blog before. I'm not an an adoptee,
ReplyDeleteI'm not a first mother and I'm not an adoptive parent. I just someone from outside the
adoption circle with a few things to say. The industry claims that giving a infant up for adoption
gives the child a "better life."
But what is this better life they speak of? More material items? More THINGS?
I grew up in a shack and now that I think about it, I was a lot happier in that
old shack, than I am in the huge house that I am living in now. So it just proves money can't buy happiness.
So once again I ask APs and the industry, what is this "better life" you speak of?
@Madeline
Let me ask you this.
Let's say if you had a 6 month old daughter and you took her shopping with you
one day. And you have her in the shopping cart in a baby carrier.
Let's say you turn
your head for just 2 seconds then turn your head back only to see
your daughter is gone?
You frantically search for her and call the police.
Meanwhile your daughter is being very well taken care of and is very much loved by her kidnappers.
They have taken her to a foreign country, were she has learned their language culture etc.
She no longer knows your language and culture and her kidnappers have more money than
you.
Let's fast forward 5 years later, you are still frantically searching for your daughter.
Then you get a phone call that your daughter has been found!
And she is still very attached to her kidnappers, and only knows their language.
And she only knows them as "mommy and daddy."
So what would you do? Are you going to leave her with them since they are "the only parents your child has ever known?"
Or are you going to bring her home?
@J
ReplyDeleteThe court proceedings are sealed.
@Jane Edwards
The US Supreme Court did not just question the validity of the law under which Bail Romero was convicted. They threw out the law as unconstitutional.
For a while I do read this Blog but because of the short sighted view from Madeline I do feel a urgent need to speak out;
ReplyDelete@Madeline, I am really sorry but DNA does count! The ONLY destruction for this young boy will be the real truth about his adoption later on in his life. Even if he will be raised with love & affection by third parties. Period!
@Moonstar, thank you for your excellent comparison, couldn't have done better.
ESP (former adoptee/ mother/ stepmother and above all a child of my birthmother)
@ Moonstar, great comment!
ReplyDeleteThe issue with adoption is really it is falsifying a person's life. Of course children should have permanency and stability - however when women are imprisoned for trying to work to provide for her child and in order to do so had to break a law then we have to look at WHY this happened and not the very short-sighted issue of the immediate care of the child.
This whole case is wrong and that child should be with his mother. Basically what was done here amounts to kidnap by the state. The US adoption system is shameful. It has no morality whatsoever and operates outside normal accepted ethical practises.
Madeline wants to talk about ownership... yes, that is what adoption papers are.
Madeline sounds like she makes her living off of adoption. She certainly has a vested interest in assuring us that adoption just does wonders for the child.
ReplyDeleteSupporting the Mosers is supporting a very dangerous legal precedent. This case is basically saying that it does not matter how someone acquires a child, that once the child has been with them for a period of time the PAPs get to claim squatter's rights to the child. What this case is advocating for is a form of legalized kidnapping under the guise of "the best interest of the child".
This boy may very well be horrified when he learns that his mother never gave him up for adoption, fought desperately to keep him and that his adoptive parents used their superior financial resources and power to essentially steal him from his vulnerable mother. This certainly doesn't sound like a recipe for a great adoptive parent/child relationship in the future.
Madeline, you are obviously not a mother. You have no clue of what you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that if a child had a saying in adoption, there would be no doubt. I am staying with my parents. Poor parents are not criminals. And as Moonstar says: what is a better life? I am adopted and had "the better life". But I would have given all that up to be raised by my parents.
ReplyDeleteMadeline, you sound like every other self-righteous, know nothing I have ever heard rant about law and other people's rights. The facts do not support these kidnappers nor do the laws of the United States.
ReplyDeleteBecause people like Madeline are willing to stand there and spout crap until it is believed by others, our world is full of Madelines. How sad is that.
Bail Romero - Bail means "dance" in Spanish. What a lovely thought to know that you come here and do a job the self-righteous know nothings will not do - and the only cost? Your dignity, your children, your life....
Some days I simply do not understand the wannabe mommy adopters like Madeline -
How do you justify your ignorance?
@ Madeline who said:
ReplyDelete"I hope you follow this boy until he's in college. You'll find a healthy, happy young man who will be infinitely grateful that he remained with his parents." and "What good comes to THIS BOY to be returned to his birth/first mother now, at the age of 5? None. He would be traumatized. Destroyed"
We don't know what this boy will feel about losing his biological family as he grows. He may love his adopted family very much, but may not be grateful that he has lost his biological family. And yes all children deserve security and love. But DNA does mean something. Knowing where you get many of your personality and physical traits does mean something.Knowing your family members and history does mean something. Genetic mirroring does mean something. Knowing that your mother went to jail to try to provide a better life for you does mean something. Please don't discount DNA or natural mothers entirely or as of little significance.
And will this boy be destroyed by the act of removing him from his adoptive parents and returning him to his mother? It is possible if she does not have the ability to care for him. But caring for him in a loving way and providing for his needs does not mean he needs to live a life as a middle to upper class American does. And remember "Baby Jessica" from all those years back? Anna Schmidt was returned to her biological family when she around three years old. There were dire predictions her life would be destroyed but she adjusted very well and was happy to have grown up with her natural family.
When I read your post it came off to me as you believe this child now has the better parents so everything is fine no matter how or why this happened. Little consideration is given to the fact that a child has lost his mother and family. That a mother has lost her son for the crime of trying to put food on the table for him. The adoptive parents have won their court battle. They have won the right to raise this child. I think one day when they look back they will find there were no "winners" in this situation. But it may take them years to learn this.
This is a very sad commentary on how inhumanly "illegal" immigrants are treated in this country. I bet this is not the only mother who has lost her child this way. "no human being is illegal." Not just a bumper sticker!
ReplyDeleteWow, "Madeline"... you are accusing a mother of acting as if her own flesh and blood, which came from her body PROPERTY; that she OWNS him and claims OWNERSHIP? Sounds more like an adopter to me, which is what I am sure you are. Why don't you go to hell.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are suggesting is that is okay for a child to be kidnapped and stay with people who are harboring a kidnapped child, because they have claimed their own brand of "OWNERSHIP" on said child?
This is one sick, deluded society we live in.
J, the decision to leave Carlitos with the Mossers was made by a trial court. Unlike appellate court decisions, trial court decisions are not published; in fact they may not be written formally, just an oral decision from the bench taken down by a court reporter.
ReplyDeleteEven though the proceedings were secret, the decision and the judgement are public although the parties may be identified only by their initials.
From what I read about the case, it appears that the basis for the decision was that it was in Carlitos' "best interests" to stay with the Mossers.
Apparently Missouri, like other states, have laws that say that even if parents' rights are violated, the trial court can uphold an adoption if it is in the child's best interests. Best interests means whatever the judge wants it to mean. Natural parents rarely win best interests cases.
As an adoptive mother, I find this blatant abuse of power chilling and heartbreaking. This is not adoption. This is nothing less than kidnapping, and I cannot get my mind around how kidnappers have been allowed to keep their victim because he supposedly will have a better life with them.
ReplyDeleteAs for saying that the child would be traumatized now to be returned to his mother, that's not true. Children are incredibly resilient. Look at that case of the father who fought for years to get his son returned to him after his mother took him out of the country then died- the Goldman abduction case. I cannot understand why this case is not being treated in the same manner, unless it is that the woman is not an American, is poor, and it involved adoption.
Besides, wrong is wrong. No matter how long kidnappers hold their victims, when found out, they are not allowed to keep them simply because this is the only life the kidnapped child has known. That's twisted logic.
There is no excuse for what the Mossers did. None. They are criminals, too, and far worse ones than the real mother, whose crime was incredibly minimal. It sickens me that this poor mother is enduring this nightmare,m and even more so that people are siding against her. My heart breaks for her.
So a judge made this decision. Hmmm wonder if he was an adopter? Many judges do not recuse themselves when they should presenting clear bias point of view.
ReplyDeleteI would think being raised by a natural parent would be in every child's best interest.
When it comes to adoption even when child is taken after court decides he should be returned as in a case a couple of years ago they ran off raised child when found out they were older and got away with kidnapping. The child they raise felt they were good parents.
Please tell me if this case could be taken to the US Supreme Court. Also, whatever happened to invoking the assistance from Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, and the Guatemalan Embassy?
ReplyDeleteIt surely qualifies as abuse of power: Sanctioned Kidnapping by the State!
Is this over for Ms. Romero? Can her attorney still help her?
What happened to this woman is so wrong!
ReplyDeleteThis is most certainly kidnapping, the comments in the CNN article are disgusting.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that most of them are adoptive parents or "wanna-be" adoptive parents.
The Mossers need to be behind bars now!
I was also reading about how that American couple who was trying to adopt from Ghana
got arrested for human trafficking. If this could happen more often, I bet less
prospective adoptive parents would do this.
I think that when a family knows that they are adopting a child, who's parents or
one parents still wants them. They should be arrested along with the agency or attorney etc.
And what's even more scary is the comments in the CNN article. Why does society
favor kidnapping when the word "adoption" is used. It's almost as if the word it's self
has some psychological affect. I wonder if the word had ever been used, to describe
Jaycee Dugard's kidnapping, would people had still felt the same about it?
Alothough I do gotta say, even the kids in the Jaycee kidnapping case were taken from
"the only parents they ever known." Because her kidnapper had the kids refer to
his wife as "mommy" ever since they were toddlers. They only knew their real mother
Jaycee, as their "sister." But still, no one ever said anything bad about them
returning home. A messed up society we live in.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe Mosers have apparently released the court document:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.intheinterestofjamison.com/judgment-7-18-12.pdf
Vilma,
ReplyDeleteThe next step would be to appeal the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. To be successful, Bail Romero's attorney would have to show the trial judge erred on the law. If Bail Romero loses there, that's probably as far as she can go. It's unlikely the case would go to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court hears only a small fraction of the cases brought to it.
It's possible the Guatemalan government would get involved. It might be able to work out something giving Bail Romero visitation.
Last night I was driving into NYC in the rain so I turned my radio on and was flipping the channels. One of the shows (Mike Huckabee I think) was discussing this case. He's very conservative, but since I was interested in this topic which was being discussed on FMF I decided to listen He had lawyers on for both sides and a fair discussion,which surprised me. He did emphasize that it is such a trauma for a mother to lose a child(I think he even used the word 'lose') and that the mother didn't consent to the adoption He's probably in favor of the adoption but I couldn't really be sure. The woman caller was against the adoption and the men callers emphasized that she had committed a crime and should lose her child. What crime??? She was simply here illegally-just trying to survive- and rounded up with others and put in jail- and basically had her baby stolen.The people who refuse to return her child are the real criminals here. Signed, Anna
ReplyDeleteEven if APs can love a non-bio child as much as a bio-one, this does not mean that it makes no difference to the adopted child that s/he was raised by genetic strangers rather than her original parents.
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear please - no, her incarceration should not be grounds for losing her child. Period.
ReplyDeleteHowever, no one forced her to come to the U.S., falsify documents, assume another's identy and break our country's laws.
No one else might care, but I do. I have family members who go out every day and are charged with defending these borders. And guess what? A whole bunch of ick is trying to cross over who DO mean our nation/peoples harm and they don't wear a warning label advertising their intentions.
Again, I state: the boy should be sent back to his mother, but please let's not minimize her crimes and those of this nature.
The next time of your own is affected by a crime committed by someone here illegally or your identity is tapped, you might pause at characterizing her crime "as minimal".
Sticking to the issue would have been enough.
Sue
OK...being that I'm currently involved in a fight with Missouri courts, I kinda know some of the laws on this.
ReplyDeleteTo TPR a parent, there MUST be a finding of the parent being unfit, unwilling, or unable. Best interest is a secondary consideration. If these court documents are correct, this court decision is NOT being made based on best interest alone. The best interest and other issues are icing on the cake, sad as it is.
What I don't understand is why the child was allowed to be passed around informally instead of being taken into foster care and then the mother being provided a case plan and services. I also find it silly that they expect a woman to pay child support out of a prison commissary account!
Reading this judgement makes me wonder about the mother's mental health and if she truly understands what is going on around her. Did she have a clear understanding of what adoption was or did she see it as we see foster care?
Again, reading the court documents, this decision was not made solely on best interest.
This case highlights the conventional wisdom that white adoptive parents are always superior to the natural parents. Where did this idea come from?
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about how the Elian Gonzales case was handled and how it might have ended differently had he been placed in a home with white folks who wanted to adopt him. In his situation it was extended family who were fighting to keep him while his father demanded his return to Cuba. They resorted to the same argument used by all adopters, that of a "better life" with them, but they didn't play the court system to drag it out for years. Luckily his father got him back, albeit in an overly dramatic raid on the home. I don't think this would have occurred with white APs using the "better life" adopter card and drawn out legal maneuvers.
maybe said...
ReplyDelete"This case highlights the conventional wisdom that white adoptive parents are always superior to the natural parents. Where did this idea come from? "
I don't get either.
I feel so sorry for Carlitos having his spanish name culture and identity etc
stripped from him. The Mossers are changing his name to something irish and english,
because they see that as superior. They are not doing him any favors.
They are stripping him of his heritage by doing this, it's disgusting!
I have talked to a few former nannies. They always tell me how they bonded with
the children they raised. How they did everything and the parents did very little to
nothing. So why should adopters have any more legal rights to the children they
raise, than nannies?
Name changing is definitely kidnapper mentality. Elizabeth Smart's and
Jaycee Dugard's kidnappers did the same thing to them. They made them change their names
while they were held captive.
Yes, Bail Romero should never have come illegally with false documents. But this is not grounds
to take her some from her.
All adopters are not bad. MOST aren't. But it was important to me to choose adoption over fertility treatments. I did not want my adopted child to feel like she was a consolation prize, that I tried everything I could to keep from adopting her. Such adoptions don't sit well with me.
ReplyDeleteI had thought I could learn a lot from this blog about relating to my child's birthmother, and I guess I have to some extent. But I've always been weary of groups who are so extreme because generally the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
You cannot negate the importance of DNA and adoptive parents should absolutely embrace a child's heritage/culture/family of origin. Someone unwilling to do this should not adopt. Someone wanting to pretend like they gave birth to the child should not adopt. They didn't, and the one who did should be revered. Adopting to me is a whole different deal than rearing a child you birth yourself. It is constantly trying to tend the wound of adoption loss that may or may not rear its head one day -- sometimes it doesn't. It's beginning in the child's infancy to lay down "cushions" that will lessen the blow of this loss for the child: talking comfortably, often, and openly about how the child came into the family -- something the adoptive parents in the above story clearly will not be able to do! It's keeping communication open to the birthmother. It's making sure at all times the child knows a connection is possible. I tell my six year old often just in case she ever needs to hear it that we have her birthmom's cell phone number and we communicate on the computer and if she ever needs her she's there. If a parent is not willing to do this, they should not adopt.
So the term "sounds like an adopter" used in a negative connotation is wrong. In addition if I were to find out today my own mother was a "genetic stranger" would that change how I feel about her? No. I love her because she nurtured me. Now, we would have a lot to discuss! But she would be my mother. When I was young a story made the news about 12 year old girls switched at birth. One died; the parents who raised her found out about their living child and wanted her back. My mother was horrified. I heard her tell someone (about me), "I love Stefanie because she is Stefanie. I loved her when she was born, but not like I love her now." It was overhearing this conversation that formed my idea of what a mother's love is. She loved me for me-- all the things that made me me. These words are one reason I became an adoptive parent.
So, adoptive parents are wrong if we negate the child's birth identity. Birthparents are wrong if you negate the love bond created by nurturing. Like I said, we will only find truth in most things meeting in the middle, and this is clearly not the place for that, which of course is totally fine.
They or someone using the situation to their advantage are asking for DOnATIONS OF MONEY!! To refund all the lawyer's fees they paid to keep the boy apart from his mother.
ReplyDeleteThis boy's mother is NOT a birth mother. she's the ONlY mother. Since there was NO CONSENT to the adoption then it can't be recognized as an adoption.
UGH at this site just ugh: http://www.intheinterestofjamison.com/
"Welcome to the United Nations. It's your world." How does International Law Protect Human Rights?
ReplyDeleteDoes this mother have any recourse via the United States Supreme Court? If she does not, International Law protects human rights, specifically, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights," Articles 12, 16(3), and 25(1).
Where domestic legal proceedings fail to address human rights abuses, mechanisms and procedures for individual and group complaints are available at the regional and international levels to ensure that international human rights standards are indeed, respected, implemented, and enforced at the local level.
Were I an attorney, I would help this mother get her child back!
Stefanie wrote:"So, adoptive parents are wrong if we negate the child's birth identity. Birthparents are wrong if you negate the love bond created by nurturing. Like I said, we will only find truth in most things meeting in the middle, and this is clearly not the place for that, which of course is totally fine."
ReplyDeleteStefanie, I agree with you and there are a few of us here who take a middle view similar to yours, but that is not often the case on adoption reform blogs. They have become more extreme and the extreme have become more strident. Still there is a place here for a middle view, if you are willing to take the heat for expressing it.
Adoption is complex and individual. It is neither the "unicorns and rainbows" at one end of the blog spectrum, nor is it "the worst thing in the world" at the other end. But it is sadly easier for some to pick black or white extremes and dismiss anyone not agreeing 100%.
It can be difficult to identify where the middle is located on adoption blogs because the journey is ever-evolving. One may appear more extreme or strident based on what is currently happening in our adoption situation. Good reunion gone bad, open adoption becomes closed - there are countless changes (good and bad) that occur over the years for those of us living with the complexity of adoption. Responses are often impacted by the ever-changing circumstances which can make one slide back and forth on a continuum rather than landing squarely in the middle.
ReplyDeleteNow that the VICTIMS of the billion-dollar adoption machine have slowly begun coming out of the horror-filled adoption-closet A COUPLE OF DECADES AGO, the VICTORS have TODAY begun to defend themselves, often attempting to convince said victims (with glazed-over eyes) that both natural parents and adoptive parents are of value, "The truth lies somewhere in the middle," they say. It's cute & comforting.
ReplyDeleteHow does that ubiquitous, hackneyed, phrase sit with other victimization?
Let's say, "How would that phrase sit with Holocaust survivors?" The truth lies somewhere in the middle!
Ok, let's try another victimization on for size? "How would that phrase fit within pedophilia?" The truth lies somewhere in the middle!
Ok, let's try on a less EXTREME (not really, it costs lives) victimization. "How would that phrase sit with bullying?" The truth lies somewhere in the middle!
There's just no reasonable, civilized, way to explain away victimization!
Herein lies one problem: People refuse to see the degree to which adoption - family separation - is an atrocity. (Imagine the separation of your family!)
But, I predict, adoption-adorers (which is everybody except the victims) will soon be forced to realize the atrociousness of adoption as more victims come out of the closet not just in our supportive blogs but also in the mainstream media.
The adoption machine's victims, as of 2012, are still not allowed in the mainstream media. Why is that? What will it take?
(Thank you to the courageous adoptive parents who come to participate in these healing blogs. Victimization is not a pretty picture! We realize that adoptive parents are also victims of the adoption machine, too. Sort of?)
Lots of assumptions here. Because the trial court transcripts are sealed, we don't know the basis of the decision. In fact, one poster who is familiar with Mo law says that best interest of the child is secondary to other concerns.
ReplyDeleteBail Romero had previously left her other children in Guatamala for her sister to raise. That previous abandonment might have neen the grounds for the court's decision.
Another thing- Lorrainne blames this on the Adoption Industry. But this would fall within the arena of the system. Do you consider that part of the Adoption Industry, even though it ia a government agency?
ACtually, Jen, you can read the decision. See link above.
ReplyDeleteAdoption industry today--I should have said that "pro-adoption consciousness of the wider world today."
This case is complicated and the first error was letting the son go to people who were potential adopters, rather than foster parents while his mother was jailed. The "adoption industry" is what channeled Carlos into the hands of people who wanted to adopt; then the industry was facilitated by judges who think poor people with unstable lives should turn over their children to middle class people who do not have disrupted lives and do not know grinding poverty.
And yes, I have been to the Mosers site, and yes they are soliciting donations.
ReplyDeleteCaleigh: Love your response about victimization and meeting in the middle. Welcome back.
lorraine wrote:Caleigh: Love your response about victimization and meeting in the middle. Welcome back."
ReplyDeleteThanks Lorraine,for letting us know where you really stand. If we are not anti adoption we are no better than pedophiles or holocaust deniers according to caleigh. No middle ground here, evidently.
Caleigh, First Mother Forum does not believe that all adopters are victimizers:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.firstmotherforum.com/p/what-we-think-about-adoption.html
Stefanie wrote:" In addition if I were to find out today my own mother was a "genetic stranger" would that change how I feel about her? No. I love her because she nurtured me. Now, we would have a lot to discuss!"
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can really say this since you are not adopted and really do not understand the experience of being an adoptee. Actually, what you wrote above is called being a Late Discovery Adoptee (LDA) which is particularly traumatic. I think you are in over your head speaking about how you would feel if you were adopted and how that would affect your relationship with your APs (especially if until adulthood you had believed them to be your biological parents).
I agree with Caleigh that there is no middle ground in certain issues. Also, usually it is important to take a strong and what many consider an extreme position at the time in order to effect any kind of change at all.
Lorrainne, I can't seem to find the link to the decision. All I see is a CNN article and a few blog entries. Where ia it?
ReplyDeleteHere are the Missouri Supreme Court decisions from before this latest trial:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=40251
In the first try at adoption, the Mossers and their atty didn't even try to prove that the mother was unfit and only went for best interest. Also, no one involved had the right to place the child for adoption.
From the first decision: "Although we do not vouch for the veracity of the
evidence presented on Mother's behalf in this appeal, the fact that none of this evidence was presented to the trial court is a result of Respondents' failure to follow the statutory process. The legislature developed a set of laws to determine how custody may be lawfully taken away from a parent; therefore, substantial actions outside of that statutory scheme were prejudicial to Mother.
...
We have never allowed courts to choose between competing parents on the simple standard of "best interests" of the child. By allowing this type of transfer, we would not only contradict the statutory requirements, but would also open the door to the black marketing of children. The failure to comply with the adoption procedures invites fraudulent presentations of incomplete information to the trial court."
http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=43941
What I don't understand is that in this decision, the Missouri Supreme Court states that "On October 28, 2007, Mother sent Mr. Hensley, Adoptive Parents’ attorney, a letter written in English and Spanish stating that she did not want her child adopted, she wanted her child placed in foster care, and she requested visitation."
Yet in the link posted by the Mossers of the latest lower court decision, the court states that the mother never requested DSS services. That's a bit odd, no? On the flip-side, this letter shows that she had plenty of notice of potential legal proceedings and that she knew where the child was and that she was able to send letters.
Romero's atty failed to dispute evidence regarding neglect and abandonment during the trial. Therefore, any evidence regarding this cannot be reviewed during appeal.
"As Mother did not object to Ms. Davenport’s testimony, the trial court did not err in considering Ms. Davenport’s hearsay testimony. This Court will review this evidence with all other evidence in the record on appeal when considering Mother’s sufficiency of evidence claims."
See pages 31-34 regarding the court finding that Romero did abandon the child.
This decision sends the whole case back to trial and unless the Romero raised the proper objections regarding the findings of abandonment, it's unlikely that she will be able to appeal again.
Samantha P asked why this child was allowed to be based around instead of going into foster care and have child welfare be involved which is what should have happened. Busy-body Laura Davenport, the "Parent Educator" took it upon herself to pass him around rather than contacting child welfare. The details are in the Missouri Supreme Court opinion reversing the earlier trial court opinion. Here's a link. http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=43941
ReplyDeleteThe horror of victimization and trauma runs deep and long - a lifetime - it's just managed a little better with healing. Being heard, GRIEVING OPENLY, is the key to any kind of healing. Grieving in secret does not heal wounds! ViCTIMS STAY SILENT! It's very, VERY, difficult for victims to come forward and speak!!! Ideally, grieving is acknowledged in the mainstream media - we hear it every day.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying all that to say that I was on terrible tenterhooks afraid that the moderators of FMF would not publish my last comment under this post about "the truth being somewhere in the middle." Thank you, Lorraine & Jane, for being honorable and, as a result, helping us heal!
I wrote a couple of comments under the July 15, 2012, post about Catelynn and Tyler and under the July 11, 2012, post about Vladimir Makovsky's painting. How does that work? Do commenters typically check past posts for straggling comments?
There's so much great info on this site! If the illustrious mainstream media wanted to report the truth, they'd have to go no further than this site. Media doesn't want to report the truth because the adoption-machine is too powerful a lobby group - too many adoption-adoring viewers out there.
But, of course, I foresee that changing soon. We all know that the truth always wins out - the truth will not be denied! Sometimes it just takes awhile!
In a previous comment under this Guatemalan post, an adoptive parent called this blog group - FMF - EXTREMISTS!
ReplyDeleteWOW! Really? I like it! Yeaaaahh! That's very interesting!!!
(I thank her for that - see, we learn from each other. If we were extremists, you - the community of adoptive parents - would have never gotten our kids.)
The framers of our United States Constitution were considered criminals and extremists!
The abolishers of slavery were certainly viewed as extremists, and worse.
Fighters for women's right to vote, equal pay, etc. were considered daring extremists.
Freedom-fighters all over the world are considered extremists, criminals, and terrorists - just look at Syria.
Since we all know that, "Mothers don't give children away," what we, extremists, are asking for is very simple:
We would like the adoption-machine, the adoption-industry, to kindly stop finagling, coercing, children from our VULNERABLE single moms and dads through various subtle and not-so-subtle maneuvers and tricks and brainwashing. That's all we ask! There are laws on the books against coercion, lack of full disclosure, and the like.
If that's EXTREME - then THANKS for the compliment! We're in good company.
(I don't mean to be "picking on" the courageous adoptive parent who assessed us as being extreme. Well, yes, we could be viewed as extreme since society-at-large hasn't been allowed to hear from us yet! We haven't been allowed to speak yet! She, and the rest of society, has been groomed to think that single moms and dads don't deserve to parent their own children. She and the rest of society has been groomed to believe that it's perfectly ok to take the children of another. She probably doesn't know that this adoption healing movement is huge - there are a gazillion of us, extremists, out here; both adoptees and moms are healing and we're gonna' be heard soon.)
Betty: I would never dream of saying that adoptive parents are victimizers. The adoption industry victimizes, brainwashes, vulnerable single moms and dads. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
ReplyDeleteJen: copy of current judgement. It is listed above in one of my comments. It was released by the Mosters and if you go to the home page you can send them nice words and also donate to their fund!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.intheinterestofjamison.com/judgment-7-18-12.pdf
In my last comment, I meant to say in the last sentence
ReplyDelete"this decision sent the case back to trial and if Romero's attorney didn't object to the specifics of the abandonment and neglect allegations, they won't be able to bring it up on appeal."
Anonymous way up the comment roll: You apparently misunderstood my comment. Caleigh in now way calls for a "middle ground." Quite the opposite. And I was agreeing with her. Sorry about the hurried comment that led to the misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteThanks for filling in the detais of the court's action, Samantha.
ReplyDelete@Lorraine @ 9:23 today:
ReplyDeleteIf you were referring to the comment by Anon 7/23 4:09, I did not misunderstand that you were agreeing with Caleigh. That was quite clear. I was appalled by Caleigh's comments and shocked that you agreed with her 12:59 post, these analogies in particular:
Caleigh wrote:
"How does that ubiquitous, hackneyed, phrase sit with other victimization?
Let's say, "How would that phrase sit with Holocaust survivors?" The truth lies somewhere in the middle!
Ok, let's try another victimization on for size? "How would that phrase fit within pedophilia?" The truth lies somewhere in the middle!
Ok, let's try on a less EXTREME (not really, it costs lives) victimization. "How would that phrase sit with bullying?" The truth lies somewhere in the middle!"
Those comparisons are the kind of extremism that divides rather than enlightens. It seemed out of character with the stated goals here that you so enthusiastically agreed.
Leave out all examples and comparisons and ask the following:
ReplyDeleteIs there a middle ground when one is discussing victimization?
There are some who say Pres. Obama was born in Kenya and others who say he was born in Hawaii. Let's find a middle ground and say he was born in Indonesia where he lived until he was about ten.
ReplyDeleteEvery person involved in adoption was not victimized, although many were. It is not that simple. All adoption is not victimization.
ReplyDeletePersonally, if you are a mother or an adoptee you are victimized. Losing your first and only bond at the beginning of one's life does a real number on a person's whole life.
DeleteIf this weren't true we would not have so many people searching sometimes their whole lives.
I prefer NOT to be called a victim. I am a survivor of the failed social experiment called adoption. Reunited mother
Thanks to all of you for your great and clever, and/or concise, and/or funny, comments! You "guys" are terrific!
ReplyDeleteI stumbled onto a couple of interesting sites. Who knew? On the sites adoptive parents were talking about hating their adopted kids. They were complaining about "everybody saying how wonderful adoption is." Also, one of them said that they can see why Islam has banned adoption. Whaaaat!? When I have time, I'm going to see if my eyes had deceived me.
(All day it's been feeling like a Saturday! Weird!)
"Who knew? On the sites adoptive parents were talking about hating their adopted kids. They were complaining about "everybody saying how wonderful adoption is." Also, one of them said that they can see why Islam has banned adoption. Whaaaat!? When I have time, I'm going to see if my eyes had deceived me. "
ReplyDeleteWhat nasty people they must be. And how wrong. The reason why Islam banned adoption can be read here, under "Duties of Parents":
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/In-Ke/Islam.html
"Due to the importance of patrilineal descent, adoption is not permitted in Islam (Qur'an XXXIII: 4–5), although before the advent of Islam it was practiced in Arabia."
It is not surprising to me that the Mosers are asking for donations. Litigation is extremely expensive and this case have been extensively litigated.
ReplyDeleteCalling this kidnapping is ridiculous. You may disagree with the courts decision but that does not make the Mosers criminals. In fact, according to the court, they were in the right.
If you read the court judgement, there are appear to have been several issues with the natural mother which troubled the court. She left two children behind in Guatemala and has not seen them in seven years. She did not take adequate steps to care for the child before her incarnation. In addition to being guilty of, and convicted of, identify theft she apparently committed tax fraud. She also admitted that she intended to continue breaking US immigration laws. Finally, she appears to have also committed perjury during the proceeding. While this is a crime that is seldom prosecuted, it won't help you win your case if the Court believes you are lying.
It's easy to see reading the judgement, why she lost her case.