For my 3000th post I would like to discuss an issue that is important to me: adoption reform

[StevieM]

Last edited Wed Feb 8, 2017, 02:37 AM - Edit history (2)

It saddens me that in the year 2015 some of the worst abuses of the Baby Scoop Era remain a part of our society. Too many people are indifferent to birth mother grief, dismissing of fathers' rights and absolutely ignorant of the sense of loss that many adoptees feel.

For my 3000th post I would like to deliver a wish list. Perhaps these aspirations are many years off—or even generations off. But they are my way of hoping for a future that is more based on right and wrong than our current standards.

I pray for the day when no woman is brought adoption papers to sign while she is under the influence of drugs. That includes painkillers following birth.

I pray for the day when no woman is asked to sign adoption papers immediately after birth, when she is exhausted and hormones are racing.

I pray for the day when it is socially unacceptable to shame a pregnant woman, or girl, by calling her a slut, and then offering adoption as an opportunity for her to “redeem herself.”

I pray for the day when pre-birth matching is eliminated, thereby removing the pressure on a new mother not to “break the adoptive parents hearts.”

I pray for the day when we stop referring to prospective adoptive parents as adoptive parents before the baby is born and the papers are signed.

I pray for the day when expectant mothers and new moms are no longer called birth mothers, before the baby is even born and before the adoption is official.

I pray for the day when all adoptions must take place inside an actual courtroom.

I pray for the day when mothers and fathers are guaranteed legal representation, by people who actually represent them and their interests, before an adoption can go through.

I pray for the day when adoptions in every state can be cancelled in the first 30 days, so that adoptions that took place under duress can be nullified.

I pray for the day when fathers who wish to parent are allowed to block an adoption by simply stating that they wish to parent.

I pray for the day when all adoptees are granted access to their original birth certificates.

I pray for the day when open adoptions are legally enforceable.

I pray for the day when our society does not roll their eyes at adoptees who try to discuss their grief and sense of loss.

I pray for the day when international adoptions are closely monitored and regulated….and banned from countries where there is evidence of fraud and outright kidnapping.

I pray for the day when adoption agencies are out of business and there is no profit motive at all in the placement of children. In other words….I pray for an end to the adoption industry.

I am 40 years old….almost 41. Maybe these things won’t happen in my lifetime, at least not in the United States. But someday I believe our society will wake up and realize how horrible coerced adoptions are—and how prevalent they are.

In the meantime, while I am alive, I will pray for that day. And I will work towards that day.

[el_bryanto]

1. I was adopted

I have no interest in finding my birth parents, and no sense of loss at being raised by parents who wanted me and loved me.

Bryant

[StevieM]

13. Well, that may be true for you, but many adoptees feel differently.

And their feelings are no less legitimate.

Also, your feelings don't speak to the sentiments of your biological family, and especially your natural mother. Statistically speaking, most birth mothers love that child until the day they die. In many cases they grieve for that child for the remainder of their lives.

It's up to you as to whether you ever try to find your birth family. But please understand that if you did it might very well be the happiest day of your biological mother's life. Just because you were adopted that doesn't mean that your biological family didn't also love you and want you.

You don't know what happened that caused them to lose you. Your 1st mom might have been coerced, especially if you were born in the Baby Scoop Era. And she might have been in dire economic circumstances, and forced to accept a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

[el_bryanto]

15. See this is fucking hilarious

"Look you may feel a certain way, but you need to accept that other people feel differently. Now let me explain why you are a bad person for feeling the way you do."

Bryant

[StevieM]

16. I didn't say--and I don't think--that you are a bad person. And I'll reply to your post below, #11,

to elaborate further.

[el_bryanto]

17. If it would bring such joy to my birth mother for me to go find her

and if I don't know if she was coerced or not - don't I owe it to her to go find out?

Bryant

[StevieM]

21. Well I guess that's a question that only you can answer.

Last edited Fri Jul 31, 2015, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

But I think it is highly probable that your 1st mom would be overjoyed to hear from you.

And obviously you don't know whether or not she was coerced. But it is certainly possible. What year were you born in? I am curious as to whether you were born in the Baby Scoop Era, (circa 1945-1973), when women and girls really didn't have a choice.

[el_bryanto]

31. 1970.

Yep - you think i'm a jerk for not seeking out my birth mother - why do you deny it?


Bryant

[StevieM]

32. Well 1970 is definitely in the middle of the Baby Scoop Era. Your 1st mom almost certainly

didn't have a real choice. It is silly, if you know the history of that era, to say that women gave their children up. Society wanted a relinquishment and one way or another they were going to get that signature.

I don't think you are a jerk. I think that you have accepted the teachings of our society and don't quite grasp that, statistically speaking, you were almost certainly taken away from a devastated and loving mother. Or that to this day she probably thinks of you every single day.

What if you suddenly learned that you had been kidnapped before being taken to the adoption agency? And your a-parents honestly thought they were getting a baby who was legitimately placed, but in reality something had gone terribly wrong before their part began? How would you handle that type of hypothetical situation?

The reason why I ask is because I think many adoptions are not all that dissimilar to that scenario, especially ones that took place in the Baby Scoop Era.

[el_bryanto]

33. Well you've told me enough times that I should care about my birth mother

And that my adopted parents were presumably monsters for stealing me away from her. Willingly or unwillingly they were complicit in kidnapping.

And let's be clear about something - for all your BS about how I should respect other people's feelings, you clearly don't feel the same way. What you mean is that I should respect people who have the RIGHT opinion on their birth parents and adopted parents, but that people who have the WRONG opinion, like myself, are willfully blind.

Bryant

[StevieM]

34. I don't think your a-parents are monsters (if they are still alive) or that they were monsters

at the time of your adoption.

Our ENTIRE SOCIETY was complicit in the removal of children from loving mothers who were heartbroken by the loss.

It's not about opinions concerning birth parents, adoptive parents and adoptees. It is about opinions concerning statistics. Most 1st mothers today are IMO either coerced or in dire circumstances, and forced to accept a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

In 1970 and during the Baby Scoop Era those numbers were overwhelming.

I just want you--and everyone else for that matter--to understand the reality of the situation, at least in many cases. That's why I put up this post.

I think our society is constantly telling adoptees that they need not feel guilty if they never want to find their biological family. It is time that we start saying that it is also OK to offer our hearts to a devastated mother who has lost her child to adoption.

[LostOne4Ever]

44. Just wanted to post to say that there is NOTHING wrong with feeling the way you do

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Don't let that other poster get to you. I think that is very good way of looking at it.

Just because someone is not blood, does not mean that they can't be family.

I have no blood relation to one of my parents, but he is still been my father in every single way that matters[/font]

[StevieM]

48. I don't dispute that people can be your family whether they are blood related or not.

But this post set out to talk about something else. Something that is all too often ignored, or dismissed, in our society.

Birth parent grief is very real and very devastating. So is the sense of loss that some adoptees feel. I wanted to take the occasion of my 3000th post and use it to address these issues.

I wasn't trying to get to the poster. I was trying to express empathy for another group of people. The love--and pain--of a mother who has lost her child to adoption is every bit as legitimate as the love that an adoptee can have for their adoptive family.

[CountAllVotes]

2. my late mother was adopted

and she died not knowing who she was.

She had a painful life filled with misery and great harm/abuse afflicted upon her by her foster father. He was a real SOB and I remember him well even though I was all of 5 years old when he croaked.

I found out who my mother was upon the release of the 1930 census. I had the name of her birth mother but we never knew if it was correct.

As for the rest of it, frankly do not care because some adoptions do work out fine.

However, too many do not, as was the case w/my late mother.

The whole thing sucked and being abortion was not an option in 1920s, her birth mother did not have the right-to-choose.

Had she had such a right, who knows what she'd have done rather than give her baby away to someone who likely paid said birth mother a handsome price for that little bundle of joy that was so easy to slap around.

And on and on it goes -- one generation to next of abusers IMO. on this whole issue.

Bottom line: NO woman should have to have a baby she does not want. Period.

As for the drugs, I'll take 'em for my late grandmother. Sh*t, I'd take a handful too if I had to give my kid away because I HAD NO CHOICE!!

[el_bryanto]

7. So you think things would have been better if your Mother had been aborted?

Or am I reading you wrong?

Bryant

[StevieM]

10. I also pray for the day when adoptees are no longer told to be grateful that they weren't aborted.

Yes, an adoptee might have been aborted, but the same can be said for any one of us.

Abortion is a pregnancy choice. Adoption is a parenting choice.

Just because a woman was in a situation where an adoption wound up happening, that doesn't mean that she would otherwise have terminated the pregnancy.

[el_bryanto]

11. Are you and CountAllVotes the same person?

If so than please answer the question; if not than I don't really care what you have to say.

I'm tired of being told that as an Adopted person I should feel psychologically messed up because I didn't have my Birth Mother.

Bryant

[underahedgerow]

18. I SO agree with you about the whole 'I should feel psychologically messed up...'

part... Most people just don't understand that I really don't care that I was adopted. It makes absolutely no difference to me about who gave birth to me or who fertilized the little egg there.

They have nothing to do with who I am, what I feel and what I think and do in this life. Heck my adoptive parents don't either.

I feel quite sorry though for people who pin such high hopes and yearnings on such matters and who feel damaged by their adoption.

[StevieM]

20. The feelings of other adoptees are no less legitimate than yours are.

And while you may not care that you were adopted, it seems quite possible that your first mother does. I won't apologize for caring about her feelings too.

Birth parent grief is very real and their love for their children should not be dismissed.

[StevieM]

19. LOL, I promise that CountAllVotes and I are not the same person. This is my 3000th post, remember?

It's a celebration!!

I don't think you should feel messed up because you didn't have your birth mother. I'm just saying that it is quite probable that she loves you very much and wishes that she didn't have to lose you.

Bryant, why can't I be compassionate towards her too? I am tired of the pain suffered by first mothers being dismissed as illegitimate and irrelevant. That is largely what this post was about.

[CountAllVotes]

40. I have no idea

However, I think it is very sad that women did not have the right to choose at that time, that is what I think.

[REP]

42. My MIL was taken from her mother at 6 months

She was adopted by a reasonably well-off family who treated her well enough. No abuse; just no real affection but she didn't sleep in the fireplace or want for anything.

She spent most of her life trying to find her mother. It turned out, her mother had spent her entire life trying to find her, too. She finally found her brother and sister two years after their mother died. She was taken by people who could make a profit on her, and in 1930, divorced women with two little children and a new baby just couldn't fight the baby snatchers.

[StevieM]

51. Your MIL's story is so sad...but all too common.

It is insane that she wanted to find her mother and her mother wanted to find her, and yet a cruel and mean-hearted system would not allow mother and daughter to reunite. The American people tolerate it because they don't understand how often it works this way. That is especially true for Baby Scoop Era adoptions.

Adoption for profit needs to come to an end. The BSE may be officially over, but the adoption industry remains an all too powerful force.

[StevieM]

57. I don't feel that a woman under the influence of drugs can truly grant consent.

It can affect her ability to resist duress. It can cloud her judgement. There is no reason why the papers cannot be signed a month later, when the mother is not taking painkillers. Or when hormones aren't still racing, for that matter.

Our system is set up on the premise that once an adoption plan has been made, the rest is all a formality. Of course, the adoption industry knows just how untrue this is, and so they prepare in advance for a coerced adoption. And our lawmakers pass laws designed to get the adoption across the finish line.

In reality, a pregnant woman is NOT a birth mother. She is an expectant mother, and then she is the new mom. And prospective adoptive parents have absolutely no complaint with her if she changes her mind and decides to parent.

I am sorry for what happened to your mom and grandma. It is clear that many women back then, like your grandmother, had no choice.

[Scuba]

3. As the parent of two adopted children ...

... I agree that most of what you wrote would improve things for birth parents, adoptive parents and adoptees.

A couple of questions, however ...

What is the benefit of having all adoptions take place in court? Related to this, are you also advocating for the elimination of not-for-profit adoptions services? Both my adopted children were placed through a social service agency that did not make a dime. Do you consider them to be part of the "adoption industry"?

You didn't mention legal representation for adoptive parents. Do you also support guaranteed legal representation for them?

Finally, please elaborate on your desire that "fathers who wish to parent are allowed to block an adoption by simply stating that they wish to parent." Would you extend this right unconditionally?

[CountAllVotes]

4. What about the children of said "adoptees"?

You leave people like myself holding the identity bag.

You know not who you are so how dare you even THINK of having one of your own? Selfish you you say to yourself, selfish damn you and dare you even think such a thought!

Screwed me up as bad as it did my own mother not knowing who the hell she was!

And, the beat goes on ...

Sonogram anyone?

[Scuba]

5. I'm afraid I don't understand your post. Can you please clarify how I leave anyone holding the bag?

[StevieM]

9. Well, it would help if adopted children were granted full access to their original birth certificate

Everyone deserves to know who they are and where they come from. We are all entitled to the story of our origins.

[Scuba]

23. I'm certainly not denying that opportunity to my children, or any others.

[StevieM]

24. But in most states the law does deny them that opportunity. (eom)

[Adrahil]

6. I have no idea of what that word salad means...

My Dad was adopted. It didn't bother him and it doesn't bother me. I'm curious about his birth parents, but it is just curiosity.

My sister was adopted. We are very close. Now that our parents are dead, she as pursued the search for her birth family. I have helped finance that search. The way I look at it, her family is my family.

I hope you find peace.

[StevieM]

53. I think it is wonderful that you are helping your sister search.

For some adoptees this is a very deeply-held need. For others it is not.

For birth parents, and especially birth mothers, it is often a desperately held desire to reunite with their children. So many women in that situation really didn't have a choice when they relinquished.

I hope your sister is successful in her search.

[Adrahil]

55. Thank you. She has tracked many relatives through a DNA database.

She is in contact with many relatives who live close by (relatively speaking). Her birth father died some years ago. WE have narrowed her birth mother down to two people, but neither has indicated they want to be contacted.

She has found some joy in her new relatives, though, and that makes me very happy.

Good luck to you.

[StevieM]

8. I think every single adoption should be required to take place inside a courtroom.

Here are the reasons for that position:

First, it reduces the chances that the woman was placed under a temporary state of duress in lawyer's office, or family member's home or hospital. Look at how Amanda Knox was coerced into a false signing.

Second, it makes certain that the woman is out of the hospital before making a life-altering decision.

Third, it allows a judge to examine the situation for fraud. I have heard countless stories of a new mother changing her mind, at which point the adoption lawyer or agency social worker tells her that there could be overwhelming financial penalties and legal challenges if she does so. These claims are blatant lies, but that doesn't matter once they have her signature.

I agree that prospective adoptive parents should also have legal representation. I didn't mention that because I have never heard--not once--of a prospective adoptive parent who didn't have legal representation. It seems like the PAPs are always represented, and sometimes the expectant mother mistakenly believes that their lawyer, or their adoption agency, is supposed to be looking out for her too. But she isn't the one paying them--or not paying them, if the adoption fails to materialize.

It is tricky to define what constitutes not-for-profit. You can have an institution that pays good salaries to its employees who want to keep their jobs. And the board of directors, even if unpaid, are motivated by ideology. But the well-being of that adoption agency, and its long-terms viability, is maintained by driving through adoptions.

I don't fully understand the particulars of your own case, but what I would generally like is more state involvement, and for the social workers involved to be totally fine with it when a new mother decides to parent.

That reminds me, I need to edit my post to add one more: I pray for the day when expectant mothers and new moms are no longer called birth mothers, before the baby is even born and before the adoption is official. I can't believe I forgot to list that.

Good point about elaborating on fathers. I was talking about situations where the father does not want an adoption but the mother does. I feel that the adoption industry is ruthless and brilliant when it comes to deceiving court about a father's intentions when they know that he is opposed to the adoption. And some states, most notably Utah, deliberately make it virtually impossible for a father to claim his child.

Obviously, there are exceptions in extreme circumstances, like rape. I don't think rapists should have parental rights, and that includes visitation rights if the mother decides to keep the baby, which happens quite often. I have read that 85% of women who are pregnant by rape, and don't have an abortion or miscarriage, will keep the baby. (The numbers I saw were 50% abortion, 12% miscarriage, 32% parenting, 6% adoption).

And I definitely feel that women who love their children, even if conceived in rape, should not be questioned or shamed for their choice.

[pnwmom]

14. My granddaughter was adopted in a courtroom about nine months after she was originally given up,

but her birthmother decided not to come. Are you saying that she should have been forced to?

The father was someone in a one-night stand, and they looked for him and advertised. Should that baby have been unadoptable?

Also, the agency doesn't depend for its salaries on the fees, which were small. It actually has the focus of helping young mothers keep their babies, offering things like classes and clothing and diaper banks, etc. But every year they have a few mothers who decide to give their babies up. Why should an agency like this be barred from helping women who decide to relinquish?

[StevieM]

26. I think the story of your granddaughter helps to illustrate my point.

Last edited Wed Feb 8, 2017, 02:35 AM - Edit history (1)

She was legally adopted at 9 months old. How unreasonable is it that the adoption wasn't finalized until then? I don't think it was unreasonable, but we allow adoptions to be rushed through because supposedly everything will fall apart unless there is an immediate, permanent solution.

So let's take the case of your granddaughter's birth mother: If she says that she doesn't know who the father is, than why is it unreasonable to ask her to formally state that in front of a judge and under oath? Why not have the judge talk to her and clarify that if anyone has bullied or coerced her into say anything other than the truth then they have broken the law.

I think it is good that they made an honest effort to search for the father in this case. But that often doesn't happen. Often there is an effort to deny the father his parental rights.

I don't know why your granddaughter's biological mother did not show up for court. But if she isn't there to sign the papers then I would say a few things should happen: First, the adoption should take longer, as apparently it did. Because at that point we are no longer talking about a voluntary TPR--she is not signing papers to grant final consent. So the process should be far more detailed.

Second, I would like to know why she wasn't in court, and a final adoption should not take place until that question is answered. For example, is she from a religious right family that bullied her into submission? Does she really want to give up her daughter? If she does, then why weren't the papers signed earlier? These questions need to be conclusively answered, with precautions to protect against coercion and fraud, before any adoption can go through. And if that means that it takes 9 months....then it takes 9 months. If that means that the PAPs hearts are broken, because the baby is returned to the natural mother....then so be it.

The agency your daughter used sounds awesome. I would like it if they were all like that, but I believe that very few are. I think that the model you just described (or something along that line) should be the template for helping expectant mothers in need of assistance. And I would like it if adoptions, when they did happen, came from organizations like that--ones that are initially trying to help the woman or girl parent, and have no vested interest in pushing an adoption through.

[pnwmom]

30. The mother had signed the papers at 30 days. And since they looked for the father

and did the advertising for 30 days, and he didn't turn up, his ties were legally over at that point.

But in the next months till the adoption was final, the mother could have come forward and changed her mind. But she didn't. Her papers at 30 days were signed in front of her lawyer and a person from the agency. Why should she have had to go to court nine months later, seen the 9 month old baby, and gone through all that pain? You're completely discounting how wrenching that would have been.
As it is, she still hasn't asked to see the little girl, though it was an open adoption. She also hasn't sent any letters. My daughter sends her letters via. the agency.

The birth mother was in her late twenties, not a child coerced by religious parents. Since her live-in partner wasn't the father of the baby, she had the choice of keeping her partner (who was also the father of her other children) or keeping the baby from a one-night stand. So, in a way, she was coerced -- but by her partner, not the adoption agency, the lawyer, or the adoptive parents. She chose to keep her current family intact, even if that meant giving up the baby. That was her decision and I don't see how any legal regulations could force her partner to accept another man's baby into their home.

And this kind of situation isn't as unusual as you might think. Another extended-family member adopted a baby, from a 30+ year old mother, who got pregnant by a man she met in a bar while she was temporarily estranged from her husband. When she got back with her husband, and learned she was pregnant, he didn't want the baby.

Both children are better off being raised in open-adoptions by parents who deeply love them. The relative's child is 16 and recently met her birth mother and a sibling. My granddaughter's mother has yet to ask for contact, and it is up to her. My daughter and her husband will be ready if and when the birth mother reaches out.

[StevieM]

45. Let me start by saying that the two men you mentioned (who pushed for adoption) should be ashamed of

Last edited Sat Aug 1, 2015, 01:03 PM - Edit history (1)

themselves. They didn't care about what effect this might have on the women who they claimed to love. Of course, our society downplays how difficult it will be.

And what about their own children? How are those children going to feel when they grow up and find out that their father forced their mother to give away their little brother or sister? That could seriously scar them, if it hasn't already.

I disagree that adoption gave your granddaughter or that other child a better life--it gave them a different life.

I think it is wonderful that your daughter and SIL are committed to an open adoption. It seems far more common for adoptive parents to close the adoption after the papers are signed.

I completely disagree with what you wrote about "forcing her" to see the baby.

First, it wouldn't necessarily be required for the baby to be there when the mother and the PAPs go into court.

Second, most birth mothers don't want to be protected from the "pain" of seeing their child. Most suffer from the pain of NOT seeing their child.

And if this woman couldn't handle seeing the baby, then what does that say about how much coercion she was subjected to, even if it didn't come from the APs? That's why I think there should be a 30 day period in which to rescind, which apparently there was in your family's case. And that's why I also don't think that the adoption should happen until 30 days after birth, 60 if the child isn't with the mother for those first 30 days. The new mom should be encouraged to parent, in order to make certain that the adoption is truly what they want. That would also, in the cases you mentioned, have given the stepfather an opportunity to rethink their position after the child has actually arrived.

Regardless of what happened in your case, the adoption industry usually does everything they possibly can to avert that situation and make sure that the papers are signed as soon as humanly possible--even when the woman is still in her hospital bed, having just given birth in the last 24 hours.

I know what the common response is: "This would be too difficult for the mother. She should be allowed to do the adoption right away so that she can move on with her life, before it becomes too difficult because she has bonded with the baby and at that point it is too hard to let go." The problem with that analysis is that it misconstrues how easy a time the birth mother has, even if the baby is taken away quickly. Doing the adoption right away does not negate the mother-child bond, or minimize the first mother's pain. It simply denies her the opportunity to make a different decision, a more informed decision--a decision that is formed based on actual bonding with her child, so that she more fully comprehends what she is giving up. And that loss will be suffered whether she gets to briefly parent or not.

You talked about how wrenching it would have been for your granddaughter's natural mother to see her in court. All I am saying is that it is also, most probably, quite wrenching for her on a daily basis, whether she sees her daughter or not. Adoption can leave a gaping hole in a woman's heart, and one that is often not filled for the remainder of her life, even with an open adoption or a reunion. That is largely what this post was about.

Our system for collecting child support is seriously flawed. Fathers who threaten to abandon their wives or girlfriends, even if it is because she is pregnant with another man's baby, should immediately be forced to start supporting their children, and the women should be made aware that the men have that responsibility.

That's another thing: there should be mandatory counseling before an adoption can go through. Women should be taught what their rights are how they can put together a parenting plan. They should also be given access to information about adoption loss and how it can affect themselves and their other children. Right now, all prospective birth mother usually get is manipulative "counseling" from adoption agencies that are designed to get them to relinquish. It sounds like your granddaughter's 1st mom was treated better than that by her agency, at that is a great thing. But I don't believe that dynamic is the norm. I believe that coercion and manipulation is the norm at most adoption agencies and crisis pregnancy centers.

For the record, I would be shocked if your granddaughter's B-mom's relationship with her partner lasts. Oh, they may get married at some point, but in the end I think they will split up--or at least I hope they do. That awful man abused her in the most diabolical of ways. And as far as I am concerned, he also abused his own children by conspiring to banish their sister. He owed it to them to keep the family together, at least long enough to put together a feasible parenting plan for all the children, including the new baby. After stability had been achieved, he could have chosen a different direction for his romantic life, if that was what he wanted. But what he wanted instead--and what he got--was absolutely reprehensible.

I realize that our society doesn't see it that way. But IMO our society is wrong.

[pnwmom]

12. I agree with a large number of your points. But I don't think all adoption agencies

should be eliminated. A non-profit agency isn't working for profit.

And the alternative when friends and family can't step in -- placement through newspaper and online ads and lawyers -- isn't preferable, in my opinion.

[libodem]

22. I think the birth mother deserves the right to privacy

And that if the birth father has a criminal record or is on a sex offender registry they need not be notified about the disposition of the child. A lot happened before there was DNA testing. Lots of men denied paternity to avoid charges of carnal knowledge. They deserve no rights to the child.

[StevieM]

28. Birth mother privacy is the myth that the adoption industry has long used to screw the birth mother

over. They act like they want to help and protect her, when they are actually setting out to hurt her.

Adoption records, and birth certificates, were originally sealed to protect the adoptive parents. The APs were often terrified that the mother would come and reclaim her son or daughter. Another consideration was protecting the child from the "shame" of illegitimacy. Nobody was thinking of the needs of the birth mother....nobody gave a damn about her, especially not during the Baby Scoop Era.

Birth mothers don't have a long history of asking to protected from their children. And in the few states that allow adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates, when they allow for a birth parent veto, it is seldom used. Regardless, everyone is entitled to the story or their origins and the records of their birth IMO.

I completely disagree that if a father has a criminal record then they are not entitled to parent their child. How far would you like to take that? Can a mother be TPRed if she has a criminal record? And what crimes are enough to deny the man the right to parent? A non-violent drug offense from 10 years earlier? Do you trust all states to deal fairly with racial minorities?

If there are issues pertaining to custody, then so be it. If a man is unfit to have custody, or even visitation, then there are mechanisms by which we can place the child with other relatives, or in foster care. And if a man is permanently unfit, and there are no other family members who can or will take the child, then at that point a TPR can be discussed.

But only after going through an elaborate and official process, one that extends rights to all parties involved, rather than unilaterally declaring them unfit and TPRed without the right to contest. Because otherwise it seems likely that the adoption industry will do everything they can to arrange an adoption.

[libodem]

46. You elaborated very convincingly

But still think girls under 16 should not have to be exposed to public shaming if they have been molested or raped or both. And I damn sure dont think the molester birth father deserves a shot at the kid.

I believe if the mother wants privacy and closed adoption she should have the option. Maybe after 18 or 21 throw away the protection for the birth mother for a public shaming. And give the kid to the dad.

[StevieM]

49. I agree that a rapist should not have access to a child he conceives.

And that goes for situations where the mother keeps the baby too, which is what happens 85% of the time when there isn't an abortion or miscarriage.

A woman always has the option of a closed adoption. But when she chooses an open adoption, and the a-parents agree, I believe it should be legally enforceable. The number one factor in determining who gets picked to adopt a child is which PAPs are most convincing that they are committed to an open adoption. And yet most of the time it winds up closing.

States that have granted adoptees access to their original birth certificate have generally made them available to adults, 18 and older. I think there are a couple states that never sealed records to begin with.

And no woman should ever be shamed for getting pregnant. She has committed no sin and should not be subjected to public ridicule. Unfortunately, crisis pregnancy centers often do just that. They shame the woman into believing that she has no right to her own child and that if she truly loves the baby she will give it up. They use buzz words like "selfless" and "courageous" to manipulate her, the implication being that it is weak and selfish to keep her own child.

For the record, George W. Bush loved these places.

[stevenleser]

25. This is always very contentious at DU when raised. I tend to agree with you.

But this is up there on DU with talking about eating chicken at Olive Garden while plotting to bomb the moon.

Long time DUers will get the references.

[StevieM]

54. Well, I've been on DU for a large number of years, although I haven't posted as often as others

seem to. I only just reached 3000 posts, although I have been registered here for like 11-12 years.

But for the life of me I can't recall that DU pop culture reference you made about eating chicken at Olive Garden. I don't think I ever knew it to begin with. I guess that is what happens when you are not as prolific a poster as others are.

I agree that this issue tends to get contentious when it comes up--both on DU and elsewhere.

[stevenleser]

56. Chicken and Oliver Garden are two distinct DU memes/catastrophe topics. Here is Skinner re: Chicken

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3499154

[bigwillq]

27. Congrats on 3,000 posts!

[StevieM]

29. Thank you so much, bigwillq!!! I was wondering if I would get an actual post congratulating me on

hitting the big 3-0-0-0.

You were the first!! And I appreciate that greatly!!

[dsc]

35. Some of what you have here would be reasonable

but others are just horrid ideas. One particularly bad idea is the notion that a father should be able to stop an adoption by simply saying I want to raise the child. To take just one possible outcome of this. Woman gets raped, woman doesn't want to get abortion but also doesn't want to raise the child. Man says I want to raise the child. Child is now being raised by a rapist. Is that really what you think should happen here?

[StevieM]

36. I addressed that issue above in an earlier reply, and I will recopy what I wrote.

Here are the comments that I wrote above in response to another poster:

"Good point about elaborating on fathers. I was talking about situations where the father does not want an adoption but the mother does. I feel that the adoption industry is ruthless and brilliant when it comes to deceiving court about a father's intentions when they know that he is opposed to the adoption. And some states, most notably Utah, deliberately make it virtually impossible for a father to claim his child.

Obviously, there are exceptions in extreme circumstances, like rape. I don't think rapists should have parental rights, and that includes visitation rights if the mother decides to keep the baby, which happens quite often. I have read that 85% of women who are pregnant by rape, and don't have an abortion or miscarriage, will keep the baby. (The numbers I saw were 50% abortion, 12% miscarriage, 32% parenting, 6% adoption).

And I definitely feel that women who love their children, even if conceived in rape, should not be questioned or shamed for their choice."

[dsc]

38. even in cases far less extreme than rape this could lead to real problems

Many women have exceptionally good reason to think that the man by whom they got pregnant might well be a person they don't wish to share parenting duties with short of being raped by them. Unless you at least make the standard something other than a statement that I want to raise the baby, you make women wind up having to choose between getting an abortion or having to deal with the man for decades. It is one thing if a man wants to and can actually raise the baby with no help. It is quite another to allow a man to just say I want to raise a baby with no real thought to having to actually show he can do so. I would be fine with him having a first right to adopt if he proves himself fit. But I don't see giving him any more than that.

[StevieM]

47. I completely disagree with your position

I don't think a man should have to adopt his own child, any more than a woman should have to adopt her own child.

If a woman believes that the man who got her pregnant is an unfit father, than she can report her concerns to the courts. But she doesn't--or shouldn't--get to make that decision on her own. If the courts deem a man unfit, then they can take away custody and award it to a family member, or place the child in foster care. The father can then take parenting classes, or go for therapy, in order to establish his fitness, if it was previously not believed to be there. Under extreme cases there can be a TPR, after going through all the channels and actions that normally would accompany that process.

If a woman does not want to share a child with a man then she can either not sleep with him, or get an abortion if she winds up pregnant. But I don't believe that a woman has the right to deny her child's father his parental rights because she doesn't want to "deal with the man for decades." Using that rationale, why stop at adoptions that take place right after birth? What about a month later, when it is really clear how difficult the relationship will be? Of course, at that point the man's name is already on the birth certificate. Is there a certain window in a child's life when only the mother is the real parent, at least if she is unmarried?

What about women who are divorced? They often have to forever deal with a man who they despise. It is part of life.

[HeiressofBickworth]

37. A clarification

Fathers of children born IN wedlock, have the right to oppose adoption of his child, EXCEPT in the case where the Court determines he has effectively abandoned the child.

Fathers of children NOT born in wedlock have, since 1972, the right to his child. Stanley v. State of Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in a 7-2 ruling, held that the fathers of children born out of wedlock had a fundamental right to their children. Up until this ruling, when the mother of a child born out of wedlock was unable to care for the child, either through death or other circumstances, the child was made a ward of the state and placed in either an orphanage, foster care, or given up for adoption.

In 1972, I was working as an adoption paralegal. I had many different types of adoptions, agency, private, international agency, step-parent, and even a couple of adult adoptions. In all cases, the father had to be notified to consent/not consent or be found to have abandoned the child. I recall one case where the alleged father signed an affidavit that said that although he did not acknowledge parentage, he gave his consent to the adoption. In cases where the father either refused to participate or was unable to be located, the Court found that the child had been abandoned.

I don't know how it works in other states, but here all final adoptions are done in Court. (RCW 26.33 outlines the detailed process) The birth mother and father, with their attorney, if one is requested, review the paperwork and sign off everything. The Court appoints a guardian ad litem for the child who "shall make an investigation and report to the court concerning whether any written consent to adoption or petition for relinquishment signed by the parent or alleged father was signed voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences of the action.(RCW 26.33.070). A consent to adoption can be rescinded up to one year after signing, if "fraud or duress practiced by the person, department, or agency requesting the consent, or for lack of mental competency on the part of the person giving the consent at the time the consent was given." (RCW 26.33.160)

Washington has even passed a law allowing adoptees access to their birth certificates. (RCW 26.33.385)

While I'm generally in favor of adoptees accessing their information, I'm also mindful of the fact that not all birth parents wish to be found and their wishes deserved to be respected as well.

Hmm, guess this response was too much information...............

[StevieM]

50. No, I don't think any response is too much information. I want people to start talking about

these issues.

The laws vary from state to state. Most states do not allow adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates, not even when the birth parent does not object.

A few states allow access, along with with a birth parent veto. Very few birth parents have exercised that veto.

Many states, especially Utah, make it extremely difficult for the father to claim the child of a newborn whose mother is looking for an adoption. They nominally allow for it, while setting up roadblocks and hurdles that make it very difficult in practice.

And in South Carolina Dusten Brown had his daughter taken away from him after he had already gotten her back. In order to facilitate that, the U.S. Supreme Court completely gutted the Indian Child Welfare ACt, in what Sonia Sotomayer called: "A strained reading of the text."

[me b zola]

39. Congrats on 3K posts, and thank you for a wonderful thread

It is so tiresome, though, to read through some of the responses. Its like some people respond to imaginary text that is not written anywhere in the post. OTOH, it is good to see some of the responses discuss what you have written.

I dream of the day when infants no longer have their name changed and their personal documents locked/sealed away from them forever. Those practices are remnants of the time where children were considered "illegitimate" and women were considered "wayward" or "lose" for having a child out of wedlock. Today the practice continues but its intention is to make adoptive parents happy.

I don't think that most people have any idea of just how many infants and young children are trafficked in adoption. Taking away a child's identity and sealing their records allows bad actors to operate in and with the adoption industry.


Thank you for being a voice for adoptees and mothers of loss.

[StevieM]

43. It is an issue that I am very dedicated to...although many people don't even know there is an issue.

Last edited Sat Aug 1, 2015, 02:02 AM - Edit history (1)

There is such widespread misconception about adoption, and events surrounding it, and the parties involved.

I agree that it gets exacerbating to deal with. I have a few more posts to reply to and hopefully I'll be able to bring myself to do it tonight.

As a BSE survivor I know that you deal with this frustration regularly. Most people don't realize it happened, let alone have an interest in starting a process of attempting to right the wrongs that were done, at least to whatever extent possible. I would love it if at the end of my life there was some progressive city that finally chose to build a monument like the one in Australia acknowledging what happened.

http://alasqld.blogspot.com/2013/08/memorial-for-forced-adoptions.html

I agree about baby trafficking. It always amazes me how people hear these stories, like a kidnapping ring in eastern China, and are immediately convinced that it is a crazy aberration--one of those unusual things that almost never happens. As a friend of mine in the reform movement has said: "where there is one, there is more."

I hope that someday California will change its laws and you can finally have what you are rightfully entitled to: the records of your birth.

[REP]

41. Thank you for this thoughtful post

Adoption is a wonderful time thing when it is done in the best interests of the child. Unfortunately, that's usually not how it happens; young women are seen as vending machines for the desires of others and babies as commodities.

[StevieM]

52. I agree. It is terrible when we turn a woman into a breeding mule in order to procure an infant

for prospective adoptive parents.

Adoption should only be about finding a home for a child in need. It should never be about finding a child for needy prospective parents.