Saturday, March 17, 2007
Q & A
.
The following are some comments/arguments/questions I have heard. Some I had myself in the past.
Only lunatic, radical nuts are anti-adoption.
No, Annette Baran and many other highly well educated people have favored guardianship for decades.
To be anti-adoption is commit political suicide.
I agree that using that term is. However, while I have always been against the promotion of adoption, and for reforming it, I have come to the unequivocal conclusion that it needs far more than reform. It needs a complete overall. I do not at all support adoption as it practiced in America today. I am therefore against it and pro-family.
If you're anti-adoption and pro-family, does that mean you think every mother should keep her kid, no matter what?
No, it means that every mother deserves the right to be given all the help possible to allow her family remain intact (just as the CRC & UNICEF state). It means that expectant mothers have a right to totally non-objective counseling and dealt with totally separately from anyone seeking to adopt. No adoption decision should be made until well after the birth. And extended family should be given and opportunity to assist in any way they can before a child is sent off to strangers. AND...all children who remain unadopted in foster should have their files reviewed and their mothers and family contacted on an annual or bi-annual basis to see if their situation has changed and made it possible for them to parent. (No, I am NOT suggesting that kids stay in foster care until their parents are ready. I am saying that if they are already in foster care and have not been adopted, their parents should not be FOREVER discarded as an viable option for them instead of a life in foster care.)
No one would accept guardianship – it’s like being a permanent baby-sitter.
There is no problem with weeding out those who want a child as an accessory, the latest fad, or any other selfish reason and leaving just those who truly want to give a home to an orphaned child or a child who had no family able or willing to care for him no matter how much help they are offered to do so.
Regarding stopping falsified bc’s: Adoptees would prefer to have the same name as those who raise them. It’s unfair to stigmatize them by keeping their original name.
Many people are raised by aunts or grandparents and have different surnames names. Many husbands and wives today have different surnames. If they re-marry, some women go back to their maiden name, their children may keep their fathers name and their step father has yet another name. Happens all the time. There are families (right in my own church) that have as many as four surnames in one family. Some of these are adopted families who have chosen to honor their child’s full original name. With a 50% divorce rate and very high re-marriage rate it is more than likely that any kid going to school today will be in a class with LOTS of kids that have different surnames than their one or both parents. If a child decides later, that he’s uncomfortable with it, it can be changed legally. There is no more “stigma” in having a different name as there is in illegitimacy.
Not everyone concerned about open records is concerned about children being currently adopted and thus family preservation.
BUT – the entire purpose of adoption is finding homes for children who need them. Adoption is NOT about the needs of adults. It was never intended to be. It’s not about finding babies to meet a demand. It’s not about solving infertility. It’s about doing what is best for children when they have no family to do so. Yes, children grow up and become adults and there is also a need to restore the rights taken from those already adopted. No debate on that! There is however no way to restore what was taken from their mothers! As a mother, and not an adoptee, and therefore I put my efforts on prevention and family preservation as it will help mothers and children. It is said what’s been done to adoptees in the past, and I fully support their efforts, but it is not my issue as I am not adopted.
Some see a lot wrong but focus on doing what they can and that’s fine. Others see myopically just one thing that needs to be fixed – open records for adults – and everything else about adoption is perfectly fine, or at least that is what some adoptees project.
When you look at the bigger picture - the whole mess that adoption has become with a multitude of problems above and beyond the rights of adult adoptees and their mothers - we can each have our own main focus and yet all be working to reach the same solution: an end to adoption as we know it today in America. Working from both ends of the spectrum – the beginning and the end; mothers still being convinced to relinquish their infants to adoption and the problems they face as adult - strengthens one another’s position.
When experts and those with personal experience speak out against lies and secrets in families and people come to recognize that TRULY open adoption (enforceable relationship between the child and his mother and or father) is far healthier than keeping family secrets, or telling half-truths. When Ann Fessler and Rickie Solinger get the word about the effects of relinquishment on mothers, this is good. When books like Verrier’s Primal Wound and Kirschner’s new book are released, we can discuss the pros and cons in terms of our personal experiences - whether we agree or disagree with their theories - but they too add to the big picture of problems caused by adoption separation and they should be respected and applauded for that. Fessler, Solinger and Kirschner, after all, have no personal stake – or bias - in the cause of shedding light on adoption, as do the works of BJ Lifton and many, many others.
Instead of embracing all of these as part of the whole that helps one another, BN wants to stay as far away from any medical or emotional need to know as possible. Instead of seeing a book like Kirschner’s as being helpful…they see it as “pathologizing adoptees” when in fact Kirschner is pathologizing closed adoption, not those who have lived within the crazy-making of lies or half-truths. And we all know the censorship issue BJ faced because of other hard-liners.
It is all these knee-jerk reactions and hard line attitudes that prevent us from thinking outside the box and seeing what each of has to offer toward the whole and even to one another. Adult adoptees quest to reinstate their rights points to what adoption has taken from them, unjustly. When mother speak out about their losses it speaks to another aspect of injustice caused by the adoption industry. Looking at it from the perspective of the best interest of the child – draws it all together IMO and is far more heart wrenching and difficult to ignore or find objection to. And so they all compliment one another. A win-win!
It ALL because it all points to one thing – the current way adoption is done STINKS! It is harming the very children it is designed to help – and it harms them all of their lives. Not to mention the harm suffered by their mothers.
The following are some comments/arguments/questions I have heard. Some I had myself in the past.
Only lunatic, radical nuts are anti-adoption.
No, Annette Baran and many other highly well educated people have favored guardianship for decades.
To be anti-adoption is commit political suicide.
I agree that using that term is. However, while I have always been against the promotion of adoption, and for reforming it, I have come to the unequivocal conclusion that it needs far more than reform. It needs a complete overall. I do not at all support adoption as it practiced in America today. I am therefore against it and pro-family.
If you're anti-adoption and pro-family, does that mean you think every mother should keep her kid, no matter what?
No, it means that every mother deserves the right to be given all the help possible to allow her family remain intact (just as the CRC & UNICEF state). It means that expectant mothers have a right to totally non-objective counseling and dealt with totally separately from anyone seeking to adopt. No adoption decision should be made until well after the birth. And extended family should be given and opportunity to assist in any way they can before a child is sent off to strangers. AND...all children who remain unadopted in foster should have their files reviewed and their mothers and family contacted on an annual or bi-annual basis to see if their situation has changed and made it possible for them to parent. (No, I am NOT suggesting that kids stay in foster care until their parents are ready. I am saying that if they are already in foster care and have not been adopted, their parents should not be FOREVER discarded as an viable option for them instead of a life in foster care.)
No one would accept guardianship – it’s like being a permanent baby-sitter.
There is no problem with weeding out those who want a child as an accessory, the latest fad, or any other selfish reason and leaving just those who truly want to give a home to an orphaned child or a child who had no family able or willing to care for him no matter how much help they are offered to do so.
Regarding stopping falsified bc’s: Adoptees would prefer to have the same name as those who raise them. It’s unfair to stigmatize them by keeping their original name.
Many people are raised by aunts or grandparents and have different surnames names. Many husbands and wives today have different surnames. If they re-marry, some women go back to their maiden name, their children may keep their fathers name and their step father has yet another name. Happens all the time. There are families (right in my own church) that have as many as four surnames in one family. Some of these are adopted families who have chosen to honor their child’s full original name. With a 50% divorce rate and very high re-marriage rate it is more than likely that any kid going to school today will be in a class with LOTS of kids that have different surnames than their one or both parents. If a child decides later, that he’s uncomfortable with it, it can be changed legally. There is no more “stigma” in having a different name as there is in illegitimacy.
Not everyone concerned about open records is concerned about children being currently adopted and thus family preservation.
BUT – the entire purpose of adoption is finding homes for children who need them. Adoption is NOT about the needs of adults. It was never intended to be. It’s not about finding babies to meet a demand. It’s not about solving infertility. It’s about doing what is best for children when they have no family to do so. Yes, children grow up and become adults and there is also a need to restore the rights taken from those already adopted. No debate on that! There is however no way to restore what was taken from their mothers! As a mother, and not an adoptee, and therefore I put my efforts on prevention and family preservation as it will help mothers and children. It is said what’s been done to adoptees in the past, and I fully support their efforts, but it is not my issue as I am not adopted.
Some see a lot wrong but focus on doing what they can and that’s fine. Others see myopically just one thing that needs to be fixed – open records for adults – and everything else about adoption is perfectly fine, or at least that is what some adoptees project.
When you look at the bigger picture - the whole mess that adoption has become with a multitude of problems above and beyond the rights of adult adoptees and their mothers - we can each have our own main focus and yet all be working to reach the same solution: an end to adoption as we know it today in America. Working from both ends of the spectrum – the beginning and the end; mothers still being convinced to relinquish their infants to adoption and the problems they face as adult - strengthens one another’s position.
When experts and those with personal experience speak out against lies and secrets in families and people come to recognize that TRULY open adoption (enforceable relationship between the child and his mother and or father) is far healthier than keeping family secrets, or telling half-truths. When Ann Fessler and Rickie Solinger get the word about the effects of relinquishment on mothers, this is good. When books like Verrier’s Primal Wound and Kirschner’s new book are released, we can discuss the pros and cons in terms of our personal experiences - whether we agree or disagree with their theories - but they too add to the big picture of problems caused by adoption separation and they should be respected and applauded for that. Fessler, Solinger and Kirschner, after all, have no personal stake – or bias - in the cause of shedding light on adoption, as do the works of BJ Lifton and many, many others.
Instead of embracing all of these as part of the whole that helps one another, BN wants to stay as far away from any medical or emotional need to know as possible. Instead of seeing a book like Kirschner’s as being helpful…they see it as “pathologizing adoptees” when in fact Kirschner is pathologizing closed adoption, not those who have lived within the crazy-making of lies or half-truths. And we all know the censorship issue BJ faced because of other hard-liners.
It is all these knee-jerk reactions and hard line attitudes that prevent us from thinking outside the box and seeing what each of has to offer toward the whole and even to one another. Adult adoptees quest to reinstate their rights points to what adoption has taken from them, unjustly. When mother speak out about their losses it speaks to another aspect of injustice caused by the adoption industry. Looking at it from the perspective of the best interest of the child – draws it all together IMO and is far more heart wrenching and difficult to ignore or find objection to. And so they all compliment one another. A win-win!
It ALL because it all points to one thing – the current way adoption is done STINKS! It is harming the very children it is designed to help – and it harms them all of their lives. Not to mention the harm suffered by their mothers.
# posted by Senior Mom @ 3:47 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Deni,
I agree with totally!
We have all been pathologized because the entire process is unnatural not us!
I once had access to an agencies records that were thrown in the garbage - whole files - no attempt to shred anything!
You should have read what they say about mothers! They would describe us weak, or overbearing. We cried too much or not at all. All kinds of judgments about our psychological state and our future abilities as if they had a degree AND a crystal ball!
I would be absolutely horrified for my daughter to have read any of that before meeting me. I was no doubt described as some drug addict! Many hospitals made similar judgments,especially on patient entering from homes for "UNWED" mothers! You know, the ones with the big red letter on them! Or, was it an"S" for slut! As you said: "My mental state is no one's business."
Adoption treats both you and I as non-persons!
Yet there are adoptees asking for ALL of their records, which would include these agency files. The children I've raised cannot have access to my medical records! there are HIPPA laws. We each have a right to our BC's and to medical information that about ourselves. An adoptee has a right to the PEDIATRIC hospital records, but not the records about their mother. Sorry 'bout that. But that is what is equal to what everyone else gets.
Yes, there are other hard-liners, other than BN with their own niche issues. Almost as if we were all, say Christians, but some follow raising snakes, other polygamy, etc...each picking one aspect from the same book to ficus on. Some of us are either end of the spectrum, the rest inbetween anywhere along the continuum...
I agree with totally!
We have all been pathologized because the entire process is unnatural not us!
I once had access to an agencies records that were thrown in the garbage - whole files - no attempt to shred anything!
You should have read what they say about mothers! They would describe us weak, or overbearing. We cried too much or not at all. All kinds of judgments about our psychological state and our future abilities as if they had a degree AND a crystal ball!
I would be absolutely horrified for my daughter to have read any of that before meeting me. I was no doubt described as some drug addict! Many hospitals made similar judgments,especially on patient entering from homes for "UNWED" mothers! You know, the ones with the big red letter on them! Or, was it an"S" for slut! As you said: "My mental state is no one's business."
Adoption treats both you and I as non-persons!
Yet there are adoptees asking for ALL of their records, which would include these agency files. The children I've raised cannot have access to my medical records! there are HIPPA laws. We each have a right to our BC's and to medical information that about ourselves. An adoptee has a right to the PEDIATRIC hospital records, but not the records about their mother. Sorry 'bout that. But that is what is equal to what everyone else gets.
Yes, there are other hard-liners, other than BN with their own niche issues. Almost as if we were all, say Christians, but some follow raising snakes, other polygamy, etc...each picking one aspect from the same book to ficus on. Some of us are either end of the spectrum, the rest inbetween anywhere along the continuum...
adopttalk,
yes, I agree.
the agency files which contain the social worker notes, on us, obtained during counseling are protected under mental health counseling privacy laws. I was told this at the time of my counseling, 40 years ago.And I assume that HIPAA now covers that also.Those records belong to us, not our children.
It is similar to marriage counseling records.While the troubled couple may have children, and the children may certainly be affected,, they have no right to see or obtain the marriage counseling files on their parents.
I called the state office that oversees the adoption records where mine are located and told the head social worker there that I totally support the right of adopted people to have their birth certificates. I also told her that my counseling files were to remain private, and not to be released to my child or his adoptive family. I said if that was not honored I would sue.And I put that in writing.
Birth certificates are one thing. Counseling records are entirely another.
yes, I agree.
the agency files which contain the social worker notes, on us, obtained during counseling are protected under mental health counseling privacy laws. I was told this at the time of my counseling, 40 years ago.And I assume that HIPAA now covers that also.Those records belong to us, not our children.
It is similar to marriage counseling records.While the troubled couple may have children, and the children may certainly be affected,, they have no right to see or obtain the marriage counseling files on their parents.
I called the state office that oversees the adoption records where mine are located and told the head social worker there that I totally support the right of adopted people to have their birth certificates. I also told her that my counseling files were to remain private, and not to be released to my child or his adoptive family. I said if that was not honored I would sue.And I put that in writing.
Birth certificates are one thing. Counseling records are entirely another.
# posted by 
: 5:21 PM
: 5:21 PM
Actually, K.R., it was a comment =from you that got me thinking about this. Funny thing, when I first heard b/f/n mothers say they didn't want their kids to have to their medical records, my knee-jerk reactions was: that's selfish! Then I had to ponder the fact that the kids I raised don't have that right.
I think those of effected by adopted - adoptee and mother - sometimes have to stop and think "what is normal" because nothing about is normal!
Divorce records are another area of misplaced confidentiality, at least here in NJ. Marriage records are sealed and not divorce records - they are (or at least were) open to the public, with every bit of dirt - and lie - each party threw at the other,right there in print. I know because of a search I once helped my adopted foster son do. (He was thrown out by his aps!) There was some real NASTY stuff in there...VILE! I had to keep telling the kid that he has no idea how much of it is pure lies!
But once you read something like it has a way of sticking in your mind - like a judge telling a jury to ignore what was said. And there'll always be that doubt about how much of it is real. Most of us tend to believe that in every lie there's an element of truth.
I think those of effected by adopted - adoptee and mother - sometimes have to stop and think "what is normal" because nothing about is normal!
Divorce records are another area of misplaced confidentiality, at least here in NJ. Marriage records are sealed and not divorce records - they are (or at least were) open to the public, with every bit of dirt - and lie - each party threw at the other,right there in print. I know because of a search I once helped my adopted foster son do. (He was thrown out by his aps!) There was some real NASTY stuff in there...VILE! I had to keep telling the kid that he has no idea how much of it is pure lies!
But once you read something like it has a way of sticking in your mind - like a judge telling a jury to ignore what was said. And there'll always be that doubt about how much of it is real. Most of us tend to believe that in every lie there's an element of truth.
adopttalk,
that is why language is so powerful. It does tend to stay with us.
Are you speaking of court divorce records? I think those do tend to be open to the public.And I am not at all sure that having all those details available to everyone is a good idea.But I do think we need to know who has been married.That is a matter of public record.
But I know that the marriage counseling that my own parents had, is not an open record.
I didn't think too much about this either until one day, a number of years ago I received, in the mail the "complete file" of an adopted person sent to me from Kansas. She was searching for her mother, and had gotten her file which was open to her by law.The counseling notes, the home study notes(a condensed version) were there.
I now have in my possession some very personal stuff written by social workers about people I do not know.I keep it, because it is an example of just what can be released on people without their knowing where the hell it will go.
I think that most people would be really shocked if they knew.
that is why language is so powerful. It does tend to stay with us.
Are you speaking of court divorce records? I think those do tend to be open to the public.And I am not at all sure that having all those details available to everyone is a good idea.But I do think we need to know who has been married.That is a matter of public record.
But I know that the marriage counseling that my own parents had, is not an open record.
I didn't think too much about this either until one day, a number of years ago I received, in the mail the "complete file" of an adopted person sent to me from Kansas. She was searching for her mother, and had gotten her file which was open to her by law.The counseling notes, the home study notes(a condensed version) were there.
I now have in my possession some very personal stuff written by social workers about people I do not know.I keep it, because it is an example of just what can be released on people without their knowing where the hell it will go.
I think that most people would be really shocked if they knew.
# posted by : 6:15 PM
: 6:15 PM
And imagine that an adoption agency can close down and just toss such records - non-shredded - for anyone to find!
So much for "confidentiality"! A mother i know who was found by her son discovered that he had all kinds of records about her! It's one thing to share such records with a person face-to-face, AFTER getting to know one another. But not before. This young man proceeded to "interrogate" his mother about lies..and had a very hard time accepting the truth. Between the lies his a-p's told him and these awful court records.
So much for "confidentiality"! A mother i know who was found by her son discovered that he had all kinds of records about her! It's one thing to share such records with a person face-to-face, AFTER getting to know one another. But not before. This young man proceeded to "interrogate" his mother about lies..and had a very hard time accepting the truth. Between the lies his a-p's told him and these awful court records.
Exactly. where is the justice in that?
How do we defend ourselves?
We continue to be lied about. We want our children to hear the truth from us, and we are willing to tell them.
I also had to deal with the lies the ap's told my son. but at least I did not have to deal with court lies and agency files.
How do we defend ourselves?
We continue to be lied about. We want our children to hear the truth from us, and we are willing to tell them.
I also had to deal with the lies the ap's told my son. but at least I did not have to deal with court lies and agency files.
# posted by : 7:42 PM
: 7:42 PM
Adopttalk,
and speaking of how confidentiality has been abused and misused: about 15 years ago I received an adoption agency newsletter in the mail with a cheery story of a reunion.The church-run agency had arranged the reunion between the 21 year old adopted man and his biological father. Father and son met, joyfully, and then the father began to tell the son "the truth.'But,it seems that the story, as related in the newsletter, was all about the "sad and tragic life of the mother" who "married a drug dealer' and 'ended up tragically." The conclusion of the story was that the young man was very happy he had escaped such a terrible fate by being adopted. He said he was "more grateful than ever to have been adopted".
So, I called the agency director after reading this, and I asked him why they printed such a gossipy story in a Christian publication.The director was surprised, but said"well, we didn't use the mother's name."
I said"you destroyed that mother's reputation with her son, just the same. What if she wants to reunite with him? Did it ever occur to you that the father might have had a biased viewpoint? That it might not even be the truth?That it is wrong to just badmouth people?"
Adopttalk, I have seen this kind of thing again and again and I bet you have too.
and speaking of how confidentiality has been abused and misused: about 15 years ago I received an adoption agency newsletter in the mail with a cheery story of a reunion.The church-run agency had arranged the reunion between the 21 year old adopted man and his biological father. Father and son met, joyfully, and then the father began to tell the son "the truth.'But,it seems that the story, as related in the newsletter, was all about the "sad and tragic life of the mother" who "married a drug dealer' and 'ended up tragically." The conclusion of the story was that the young man was very happy he had escaped such a terrible fate by being adopted. He said he was "more grateful than ever to have been adopted".
So, I called the agency director after reading this, and I asked him why they printed such a gossipy story in a Christian publication.The director was surprised, but said"well, we didn't use the mother's name."
I said"you destroyed that mother's reputation with her son, just the same. What if she wants to reunite with him? Did it ever occur to you that the father might have had a biased viewpoint? That it might not even be the truth?That it is wrong to just badmouth people?"
Adopttalk, I have seen this kind of thing again and again and I bet you have too.
# posted by : 8:12 PM
: 8:12 PM
Yes, names were used for both father and son. I don't know if they were real or not.
# posted by : 8:34 PM
: 8:34 PM
I have also seen unpleasant details like that in news articles. I cannot tell you how many times I have read it said: "So much for confidentiality!" Stories of reunion, for instance...
They print the names and hometowns of both parties and then print the non-id info the adoptee found while searching...
"she knew her mother had been just 15 when she had her first child and the she as the second child born a year later..."
And aps scream because a child is identified as being adopted! As if that is something to be ashamed of. But our lives can be exposed with any sordid details, true, exaggerated, totlaly false included...
That's because all throughout th process we have been dehumanized - like armies do to their enemies in order to destroy the. We are invisible stereotypes....unfit, uncaring. Society's garbage, like bag ladies.
And seeking 'their papers" adoptees perpetuate this image of us...which they grew up with. We were NOTHING to them. That's the message that was reinforced for the majority.
Adoptees want was taken from them. Some seem to think they have a “right” to all records about their adoption, not just their birth certificates.
THEY want their "papers" their "files" their “records.” There is an intent on the part of open record reformers to depersonalize their fight for their rights. (See comments from Deni to Q & A). This is fine as a political strategy.
They feel entitled to all of their records because they were denied; their rights were abrogated. The have righteous indignation about this denial of their rights. And rightly they should! I wish nothing more than more and more adoptees getting angry and standing up and saying it, and demanding changes!
But what is unfortunate and unfair is when an adoptee gets caught up in the furor of empowering him or herself from victimization to the point that he or she does not or cannot differentiate between the political and the personal; and a difference between anonymity and confidentiality.
The vast majority of mothers do not want anonymity from their children, but we are entitled to our confidentiality just like anyone else. We are not just facts written on paper. We are human beings. Some adoptees – especially those involved in activism – can get so caught up empowering themselves from victimization, and their righteous indignation, and anger (some of which is at us) that they forget that. And I think legislators are not clear about those differences either - they are BIG differences.
They print the names and hometowns of both parties and then print the non-id info the adoptee found while searching...
"she knew her mother had been just 15 when she had her first child and the she as the second child born a year later..."
And aps scream because a child is identified as being adopted! As if that is something to be ashamed of. But our lives can be exposed with any sordid details, true, exaggerated, totlaly false included...
That's because all throughout th process we have been dehumanized - like armies do to their enemies in order to destroy the. We are invisible stereotypes....unfit, uncaring. Society's garbage, like bag ladies.
And seeking 'their papers" adoptees perpetuate this image of us...which they grew up with. We were NOTHING to them. That's the message that was reinforced for the majority.
Adoptees want was taken from them. Some seem to think they have a “right” to all records about their adoption, not just their birth certificates.
THEY want their "papers" their "files" their “records.” There is an intent on the part of open record reformers to depersonalize their fight for their rights. (See comments from Deni to Q & A). This is fine as a political strategy.
They feel entitled to all of their records because they were denied; their rights were abrogated. The have righteous indignation about this denial of their rights. And rightly they should! I wish nothing more than more and more adoptees getting angry and standing up and saying it, and demanding changes!
But what is unfortunate and unfair is when an adoptee gets caught up in the furor of empowering him or herself from victimization to the point that he or she does not or cannot differentiate between the political and the personal; and a difference between anonymity and confidentiality.
The vast majority of mothers do not want anonymity from their children, but we are entitled to our confidentiality just like anyone else. We are not just facts written on paper. We are human beings. Some adoptees – especially those involved in activism – can get so caught up empowering themselves from victimization, and their righteous indignation, and anger (some of which is at us) that they forget that. And I think legislators are not clear about those differences either - they are BIG differences.
Here is just the very latest example. Just checked my email and this was sent by Adoption News Service:
http://tinyurl.com/3xfg2k
http://tinyurl.com/3xfg2k
yes, I agree. There is a right to privacy and confidentiality...it is not absolute...but we all have that to a certain degree. And some records, even those considered public, are restricted.This is not a violation.
Actually, it is standard practice in order to balance the rights of citizens. Where adopted people and their mothers are concerned, it has not been balanced at all..we have simply been cut off.It is as if we never had any connection or history with each other at all.
Then, it seems that people get this idea that they are not violating us if they print all kinds of personal details about our lives in the media, as long as they do not publish our names!.
And, sometimes, they think it is okay to publish our personal details if they just publish the adopted person's name..as if that won't be a violation of the adopted persons' privacy!Or ours. Apparently, they think this because we supposedly are no longer related to each other.
Once I received another agency newsletter(I get a lot of them!) with a front page illustrated story of "Adoptive Parents of the Year" and their little adopted boy. His name and his picture were featured along with "the story of his life...born to a mother with syphilis and cocaine in her system."
I was shocked an sickened.And again, it was all about the sordid life of the mother and how the child was now safe...which may have been true, but the story was now plastered all over with the childs name and picture and had been published in 4 states.And he was just a little tiny kid with nothing to say about any of it.
I took it with me to the Donaldson Conference on Ethics in Anaheim and showed it to the head of CWLA and asked her if she thought it was "ethical". And she said"No, I do not."
I called the agency that published it and the director apologized and said'we just let the adoptive parents publish that and I can see it was not a good idea"
Actually, it is standard practice in order to balance the rights of citizens. Where adopted people and their mothers are concerned, it has not been balanced at all..we have simply been cut off.It is as if we never had any connection or history with each other at all.
Then, it seems that people get this idea that they are not violating us if they print all kinds of personal details about our lives in the media, as long as they do not publish our names!.
And, sometimes, they think it is okay to publish our personal details if they just publish the adopted person's name..as if that won't be a violation of the adopted persons' privacy!Or ours. Apparently, they think this because we supposedly are no longer related to each other.
Once I received another agency newsletter(I get a lot of them!) with a front page illustrated story of "Adoptive Parents of the Year" and their little adopted boy. His name and his picture were featured along with "the story of his life...born to a mother with syphilis and cocaine in her system."
I was shocked an sickened.And again, it was all about the sordid life of the mother and how the child was now safe...which may have been true, but the story was now plastered all over with the childs name and picture and had been published in 4 states.And he was just a little tiny kid with nothing to say about any of it.
I took it with me to the Donaldson Conference on Ethics in Anaheim and showed it to the head of CWLA and asked her if she thought it was "ethical". And she said"No, I do not."
I called the agency that published it and the director apologized and said'we just let the adoptive parents publish that and I can see it was not a good idea"
# posted by : 9:13 PM
: 9:13 PM
That made my skin crawl! I think you and I have a side campaign here, K. Like I said, aps complain all the time that their kids are even identified as adopted in the media. Often in those cases, it seems to me a relevant factor in the story. If someone kills a member of his family, and they "related" by adoption, to me, that's relevant to the story. Just as if theie relationship was as business partners, or say two people having an adulterous affair. it goes to motive int he crime and is relevant.
Your wrote: "It is as if we never had any connection or history with each other at all."
Sure! Because that is the myth that they need to keep reinforcing! We are NOTHING to our children and they are nothing to us. Our name on a piece of paper made it so! That changed our hearts and their DNA! HAHA. K.have you started the book, yet. There's a whole chapter on how deep this mythology goes and its very negative effects.
But, it is because they think of us as they do that they don't even think twice about printing stuff like that. We are anonymous syphiletic zombies to them! And, yes, it just goes to prove what major BULLSHIT it is when the NCFA cries "protection of mother's right."
Your examples are excellent for pointing out not only their violation of another's rights, but also just how ludicrous the NCFA allegation!
Let's "talk" privately more about this. I'd like to see a Jane Doe class action suit against the next agency that does this. It think it will help to make us real, live human being who have rights and feelings. We are NOT sluts who abandoned our kid son a doorstep and tan off! A public law suit could do for us what Fessler's book is doing, make us more real.
Your wrote: "It is as if we never had any connection or history with each other at all."
Sure! Because that is the myth that they need to keep reinforcing! We are NOTHING to our children and they are nothing to us. Our name on a piece of paper made it so! That changed our hearts and their DNA! HAHA. K.have you started the book, yet. There's a whole chapter on how deep this mythology goes and its very negative effects.
But, it is because they think of us as they do that they don't even think twice about printing stuff like that. We are anonymous syphiletic zombies to them! And, yes, it just goes to prove what major BULLSHIT it is when the NCFA cries "protection of mother's right."
Your examples are excellent for pointing out not only their violation of another's rights, but also just how ludicrous the NCFA allegation!
Let's "talk" privately more about this. I'd like to see a Jane Doe class action suit against the next agency that does this. It think it will help to make us real, live human being who have rights and feelings. We are NOT sluts who abandoned our kid son a doorstep and tan off! A public law suit could do for us what Fessler's book is doing, make us more real.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. John F. Kennedy
adoptalk wrote:
"Instead of embracing all of these as part of the whole that helps one another, BN wants to stay as far away from any medical or emotional need to know as possible."
Yup. Bastard Nation's argument is based on a right to know, not a need to know. Personally, I've speculated that this is based on the desire to know rather than a individual need to know. And I'm really grateful that there is ONE, LONE organization that clearly and unambiguously articulates a right to know.
Post a Comment
"Instead of embracing all of these as part of the whole that helps one another, BN wants to stay as far away from any medical or emotional need to know as possible."
Yup. Bastard Nation's argument is based on a right to know, not a need to know. Personally, I've speculated that this is based on the desire to know rather than a individual need to know. And I'm really grateful that there is ONE, LONE organization that clearly and unambiguously articulates a right to know.
<< Home
