Saturday, March 24, 2007
A Case With ENORMOUS RAMIFICATIONS
.
Indiana Newspaper has filed suit to open adoption records TO THE PUBLIC!
The Indiana Department of Child Services is challenging adoptions of twin girls born to a surrogate mother with an anonymous donation and adopted cross state lines by Stephen F. Melinger in New Jersey.
The adoption is being challenged on the grounds that adoptions out of Indiana to another state are reserved only for "hard to place" children. The state contends in their suit that this case violated interstate laws.
The girls' adoptions drew the state's attention after hospital employees raised concerns about Melinger's ability to care for the girls before they were discharged from a neonatal intensive-care unit. He showed up in Methodist's neonatal unit to visit the girls with a live bird in the left sleeve of his suit jacket and, later, bird feces on his clothing.
The Indiana newspaper, The Star, argues that denial of access to records violates the Indiana Constitution and rights of access under the First Amendment.
The Star's petition argues that the benefit of openly debating the Melinger adoptions outweighs any harm from further publicizing the children's names and the circumstances surrounding their births.
The petition also questions the constitutionality of Indiana's adoption secrecy law, arguing the legislature overstepped its bounds by passing a law telling the judiciary that adoption records cannot be disclosed.
"There is a presumption of openness in the operations of our courts, and it's important to preserve that."
Hamilton County attorney Steven M. Kirsh, who helped write the state's adoption laws, said adoption records should remain out of public view, regardless of how high-profile the case is.
NOW, please note who's privacy is of concern and who is neglected and overlooked in the following argument:
Kirsh said adoptive parents' privacy would be invaded if home studies that included personal information were publicly available. In other instances, adopted children might not want birth parents to find them because those parents abused or neglected them, he said.
Courts across the country appear to allow varying degrees of public access to adoption records during appeals. Rulings by appellate courts in Indiana have always been public.
However, The Star's petition notes the state's adoption secrecy law was written so broadly it appears to prohibit the issuance of public court rulings in adoption disputes.
These rulings are published by online services such as Westlaw and Lexis and in hardbound law books so attorneys and judges can refer to them for legal guidance. A review of Indiana adoption opinions shows they sometimes refer to the parties by name, including the children. They also disclose details about what transpired in secret before the trial court and quote from closed adoption records.
Confusing anonymity and confidentiality, Katrina Carlisle, an adoption counselor with St. Elizabeth/Coleman Pregnancy & Adoption Services, said she would prefer that adoption records were public, as long as birth mothers are informed from the outset.
"The stigma of having a baby and not being married is much less today," she said. "We have many women now who are proud of their choice."
In addition, Carlisle and other advocates say, the Melinger records should be opened to shed light on steps taken to ensure the girls' welfare.
"The case has already been opened and been in the paper so much, I don't see how keeping this particular case closed is in the best interests of children," said Cynthia K. Booth, an attorney and executive director of Indianapolis-based Child Advocates.
A member of her staff regularly supervised Melinger's visits with the twins at the request of Marion County's juvenile court while they were in foster care.
Booth said she would like to know how the trial judge was able to reopen the adoption case months after issuing the initial adoption decree. She also has questions about the process used to determine the children would be safe in New Jersey.
"Sometimes the light of day is really good for cases involving children."
Indiana Star link to post comments: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703230405
Here is what I posted:
Regarding the Star's suit to open adoption records to the public in the case of the Menninger adoption.
This adoption never should have taken place. Paid surrogacy should be outlawed.
Having said that, you are treading on a most dangerous precedent with enormous consequences.
Hamilton County attorney Steven M. Kirsh raised concern about adoptive parents' privacy if home studies were made public, and also had concerns for adopted persons. Note that he indicted no concern for the privacy of mothers who relinquish children for adoption.
Katrina Carlisle, an adoption counselor with St. Elizabeth/Coleman Pregnancy & Adoption Services attempts to speak for and about the concerns of mothers.
However, all these parties - and the Star - have totally confused and ignored the difference between CONFIDENTIALITY and ANONYMITY.
Adopees and their mothers are battling state by state to have adoption records opened TO THE PARTIES of the adoption. Only four states allow adopted persons access tot heir own birth certificates. Such legislation is blocked by lobbysists for adoption providers claiming that it would violate the mothers' rights to alleged promised confidentiality.
Now, the Star want to open records to the PUBLIC that even those involved cannot obtain based on the state constitution.
How can the state of Indiana jump from blocking such records to the parties themselves, to allowing public access?
The parties of an adoption deserve the same rights and protections as anyone else. They deserve a right to access to heir own records and some semblance of privacy from the public.
This case, may in fact require an exception to such a law, but it also could set a very dangerous precedent.
Indiana Newspaper has filed suit to open adoption records TO THE PUBLIC!
The Indiana Department of Child Services is challenging adoptions of twin girls born to a surrogate mother with an anonymous donation and adopted cross state lines by Stephen F. Melinger in New Jersey.
The adoption is being challenged on the grounds that adoptions out of Indiana to another state are reserved only for "hard to place" children. The state contends in their suit that this case violated interstate laws.
The girls' adoptions drew the state's attention after hospital employees raised concerns about Melinger's ability to care for the girls before they were discharged from a neonatal intensive-care unit. He showed up in Methodist's neonatal unit to visit the girls with a live bird in the left sleeve of his suit jacket and, later, bird feces on his clothing.
The Indiana newspaper, The Star, argues that denial of access to records violates the Indiana Constitution and rights of access under the First Amendment.
The Star's petition argues that the benefit of openly debating the Melinger adoptions outweighs any harm from further publicizing the children's names and the circumstances surrounding their births.
The petition also questions the constitutionality of Indiana's adoption secrecy law, arguing the legislature overstepped its bounds by passing a law telling the judiciary that adoption records cannot be disclosed.
"There is a presumption of openness in the operations of our courts, and it's important to preserve that."
Hamilton County attorney Steven M. Kirsh, who helped write the state's adoption laws, said adoption records should remain out of public view, regardless of how high-profile the case is.
NOW, please note who's privacy is of concern and who is neglected and overlooked in the following argument:
Kirsh said adoptive parents' privacy would be invaded if home studies that included personal information were publicly available. In other instances, adopted children might not want birth parents to find them because those parents abused or neglected them, he said.
Courts across the country appear to allow varying degrees of public access to adoption records during appeals. Rulings by appellate courts in Indiana have always been public.
However, The Star's petition notes the state's adoption secrecy law was written so broadly it appears to prohibit the issuance of public court rulings in adoption disputes.
These rulings are published by online services such as Westlaw and Lexis and in hardbound law books so attorneys and judges can refer to them for legal guidance. A review of Indiana adoption opinions shows they sometimes refer to the parties by name, including the children. They also disclose details about what transpired in secret before the trial court and quote from closed adoption records.
Confusing anonymity and confidentiality, Katrina Carlisle, an adoption counselor with St. Elizabeth/Coleman Pregnancy & Adoption Services, said she would prefer that adoption records were public, as long as birth mothers are informed from the outset.
"The stigma of having a baby and not being married is much less today," she said. "We have many women now who are proud of their choice."
In addition, Carlisle and other advocates say, the Melinger records should be opened to shed light on steps taken to ensure the girls' welfare.
"The case has already been opened and been in the paper so much, I don't see how keeping this particular case closed is in the best interests of children," said Cynthia K. Booth, an attorney and executive director of Indianapolis-based Child Advocates.
A member of her staff regularly supervised Melinger's visits with the twins at the request of Marion County's juvenile court while they were in foster care.
Booth said she would like to know how the trial judge was able to reopen the adoption case months after issuing the initial adoption decree. She also has questions about the process used to determine the children would be safe in New Jersey.
"Sometimes the light of day is really good for cases involving children."
Indiana Star link to post comments: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703230405
Here is what I posted:
Regarding the Star's suit to open adoption records to the public in the case of the Menninger adoption.
This adoption never should have taken place. Paid surrogacy should be outlawed.
Having said that, you are treading on a most dangerous precedent with enormous consequences.
Hamilton County attorney Steven M. Kirsh raised concern about adoptive parents' privacy if home studies were made public, and also had concerns for adopted persons. Note that he indicted no concern for the privacy of mothers who relinquish children for adoption.
Katrina Carlisle, an adoption counselor with St. Elizabeth/Coleman Pregnancy & Adoption Services attempts to speak for and about the concerns of mothers.
However, all these parties - and the Star - have totally confused and ignored the difference between CONFIDENTIALITY and ANONYMITY.
Adopees and their mothers are battling state by state to have adoption records opened TO THE PARTIES of the adoption. Only four states allow adopted persons access tot heir own birth certificates. Such legislation is blocked by lobbysists for adoption providers claiming that it would violate the mothers' rights to alleged promised confidentiality.
Now, the Star want to open records to the PUBLIC that even those involved cannot obtain based on the state constitution.
How can the state of Indiana jump from blocking such records to the parties themselves, to allowing public access?
The parties of an adoption deserve the same rights and protections as anyone else. They deserve a right to access to heir own records and some semblance of privacy from the public.
This case, may in fact require an exception to such a law, but it also could set a very dangerous precedent.
# posted by Senior Mom @ 9:45 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Maureen Flatley is a political consultant and media advisor specializing in child welfare and adoption, who worked, most notably, on the case of Masha the sexually abused Russian adoptee. She shares my observation that a 60-year-old single man is a major flasshing red light with sirens blaring. The birds, raise it to the level of a code DANGER, spelled scary "pedophile" - as in Michael Jackson disaster - just waiting to happen. Flatley has gotten hands-on involved in this case, and she wrote the following:
PS. The nonsense that adoptive parents have any special right to privacy flies in the face of fundamental US child welfare policy. If states did not
have the right to protect the best interests of the child - any child - at risk for abuse and/or neglect, the child welfare system in this country would shut down tomorrow. No one has a special right to privacy when there is a
question of child welfare.
More importantly as it becomes patently obvious that predators are
successfully manipulating the adoption system in the US to obtain children to exploit it becomes more important that ever to close loopholes and establish a single overarching standard in the US for home studies and post placement
supervision.
PS. The nonsense that adoptive parents have any special right to privacy flies in the face of fundamental US child welfare policy. If states did not
have the right to protect the best interests of the child - any child - at risk for abuse and/or neglect, the child welfare system in this country would shut down tomorrow. No one has a special right to privacy when there is a
question of child welfare.
More importantly as it becomes patently obvious that predators are
successfully manipulating the adoption system in the US to obtain children to exploit it becomes more important that ever to close loopholes and establish a single overarching standard in the US for home studies and post placement
supervision.
Flatley adds:
It's complicated but the interests of the children should be paramount. Our ethics and public policy have not kept pace w/ artifical repro, the use of the internet by everyone, but most especially predators. Privacy is an illusion in our society anyway.
It's complicated but the interests of the children should be paramount. Our ethics and public policy have not kept pace w/ artifical repro, the use of the internet by everyone, but most especially predators. Privacy is an illusion in our society anyway.
My raised kids don't have access to my medical files,nor does anyone else. Some things SHOULD be private - except when a child's safety is at stake, then exceptions should be made, IMO. BUT in closed court proceeding. It is only relevant to those deciding on the welfare of the child.
By the way, Katrina Carlisle was my CI. I have heard from others that have used her. She ain't all that great. She may have infact sabotaged my reunion. She is also the author of Adoption for Dummies, she is also the former director of Coleman Adoption Agency (now merged with St. Elizabeth Coleman), and she is the adoptive parent of two children. You noticed that Steven Kirsh also wrote a majority of the Adoption laws in Indiana. He saw to it that the laws were written too broadly. It allows agencies to do whatever the hell they want. At least he got it right about adoptive parents. He didn't use the typical preserving birth parent right to privacy.
More importantly as it becomes patently obvious that predators are
successfully manipulating the adoption system in the US to obtain children to exploit it becomes more important than ever to close loopholes and establish a single overarching standard in the US for home studies and post placement supervision.
Closed adoption is one huge loophole allowing adopters complete privacy and no accountability once the adoption is completed. I wish there were a central site where all incidents of abuse were chronicled, or all the sites chronicling them were listed, so that anyone could see that accountability and openness are needed in adoption.
successfully manipulating the adoption system in the US to obtain children to exploit it becomes more important than ever to close loopholes and establish a single overarching standard in the US for home studies and post placement supervision.
Closed adoption is one huge loophole allowing adopters complete privacy and no accountability once the adoption is completed. I wish there were a central site where all incidents of abuse were chronicled, or all the sites chronicling them were listed, so that anyone could see that accountability and openness are needed in adoption.
# posted by 
: 4:09 PM
: 4:09 PM
Thank you "mean & angry"
Those are very interesting "little" facts that should be noted on the The Star comment page and anywhere anyone writes on this case which gets more and more convoluted by the minute!
Those are very interesting "little" facts that should be noted on the The Star comment page and anywhere anyone writes on this case which gets more and more convoluted by the minute!
Mary -
Quite right. Closed adoption helps no one but adoption practitioners. The more crooked, the more "the seal" acts as a veil of silence and protection for their money-making baby brokering. Sealed records hide lots of crimes in the name of adoption - kidnapped kids, mothers lied to...babies given the names of their adopters with not a thread of evidence to trace them back - not even a sealed certificate.
We also need to do more than "chronicle" them!
Quite right. Closed adoption helps no one but adoption practitioners. The more crooked, the more "the seal" acts as a veil of silence and protection for their money-making baby brokering. Sealed records hide lots of crimes in the name of adoption - kidnapped kids, mothers lied to...babies given the names of their adopters with not a thread of evidence to trace them back - not even a sealed certificate.
We also need to do more than "chronicle" them!
And, in this particular case who would be listed as the mother and father on an original certificate? Mr and Mrs anonymous donor? Mr Sperm and Ms. Egg?
These twins were created like little Frankenstein monsters - to be abused by a far bigger and more dangerous, perverted monster! But hey, MJ made a good role model for pedophiles. If he could get away with it, maybe they could. Adoption, surrogacy - that's far better than just snatching kids! They can be your sex slaves forever - or at least until they get older and you grow tired of them.
These twins were created like little Frankenstein monsters - to be abused by a far bigger and more dangerous, perverted monster! But hey, MJ made a good role model for pedophiles. If he could get away with it, maybe they could. Adoption, surrogacy - that's far better than just snatching kids! They can be your sex slaves forever - or at least until they get older and you grow tired of them.
Exposure is just one of the steps, but an important one because most of society isn't even aware of all of the corruption in adoption. The heavy media propaganda eclipses it for the most part. Of course your book will help with exposure. But I used to know of a site that stored and chronicled links to abuse cases, and there were many.
# posted by : 5:25 PM
: 5:25 PM
There are sites that list all the kids who have been KILLED by adopters...the trouble is that no matter how much attention we try to bring to such issues, everyone wants to view them as "anomalies."
I've been working to expose the Derk Side of Adoption since 1988!
"When will they ever learn?"
Post a Comment
I've been working to expose the Derk Side of Adoption since 1988!
"When will they ever learn?"
<< Home
