- Topics
- Child placement forms
- Abuse in child placement
- Child placement system
- Child trafficking
- Disrupted placements
- Family preservation
- History of child placement
- Attachment therapy
- Case archives
- Case news
- Popular Content
- Recent posts
- Topics search
- Adult Aftermath
- Sick Pups
- Country information
- Organizations
- Demons of Adoption Awards
- Blogs
- Groups
Cool website for the unmarried and pregnant
Wed, 2007-07-04 16:56 - neophyte
Dear Birthparent: What The Baby Brokers Don't Tell You
Dear Birthparent: What The Baby Brokers Don't Tell You
About Adoptees and the Truth!
For all the things that are written and told about adoption, few are the truth. As a reunited adult adoptee I hope to shed as much light on this issue as possible within my lifetime.
If asked by anyone considering adoption "Is adoption a good choice"? My answer unreservedly would be "NO". Adoption is NOT a healthy or a good choice. If you ask a baby if they want to be adopted they would say if they could talk a thousand times over "NO". Each year hundreds of people are lied to about adoption, it is time for those who are it's experts to come forward and share it's reality.
Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary situation. It is important to stress that it is NOT the baby that is a problem, it is the circumstances in one's life that is or could be presently challenging.
Adoption is a negative, punitive exercise of robbing babies and children from their mothers, their heritage, their roots, their identities, and their rights as human beings. Adoptees lose from the minute they are separated from their mothers. This loss is cloaked in lies, and illusions.
For those promoting adoption, the idea is that it is a gain for the baby or the child. Being surrendered for adoption is not a gain in the least. No amount of money, or a two parent family, nor anything can replace the real and natural mother for adoptees. Nothing can replace the heritage and connections with others in the natural family as well. They won't tell you this but I will - from day one we grieve and are sad to have lost our mothers and are not happy! Not only are babies sad they are also afraid. We know our mothers, we grow inside their wombs. We hear the music of their hearts, we know their smell, we trust and love them by nature. They are ours, our universe - all that we know, all that we feel, love and are attached to. Adoption takes our universe away. If someone took away all that you love and all that you know how would you feel?
When we are born we only want one thing to be held and loved by our own mothers. We know them, they belong to us and us to them. To take that away is not good for babies it is the worst most abusive act emotionally to inflict. When adoptees lose their mothers they lose themselves as well. They forever lose the person that they were born to be, and they lose the joy and right of being that person.
Above all we lose trust from the very beginning of the separation. The loss of trust is not a temporary feeling that is lessened by being adopted. That is another famous lie promoted by baby brokers. It is forever and permanent just like adoption is.
When the first lesson in life is that the one person you love and trust will go away it is hardly a good start for anyone. Along with the broken trust is grief and sorrow. This is not a lesson or anything that should be encouraged to inflict on helpless infants. Being severed from your mother and family is not anything that adoptees are happy about. The loss in adoption for adoptees can rarely ever be expressed or acknowledged. There is a horrible expectation and false belief that the adopters and adoption will overcome any damage done to adoptees. This is another lie - it cannot undo our pain in losing our real families. In fact it makes the pain worse as it is so often denied to begin with. The truth is that we are traumatized from the separation and always will be. The grief that we feel as infants is not ever acknowledged. This lack of support also breaks our trust. It also makes us untrusting of our own feelings when our first feelings are blatantly ignored. It is normal for babies to be sad and in grief when they lose their mothers - what is NOT NORMAL IS ADOPTION to begin with.
Anyone considering adoption should know and see themselves as having value and worth. Above all they should know that they are NOT replaceable. Babies are not interchangeable entities to be adopted without negative effects either. In truth, the bonds of nature are not replaceable any more then the mother or the baby is to begin with!
Along with the broken trust and the grief, the second lesson in life for adoptees is to be fake and live in worlds of illusions. From the minute of the adoption we are conditioned to be someone else.
Adoptees are forced to take on the identity of strangers. We are not born to adopters, social workers or social agencies. We are born to two parents. Our birth certificates are falsified, then locked away. Our grief is not locked away though! Adoption changes our names it cannot change either a babies or a mother's heart or the lifelong loss that both will forever experience.
One of the arguments for adoption is that adoptees will gain two parents. This is ridiculous as we all ready have them. This is the first lie used to coerce people considering adoption. If you are pregnant and reading this know reality - you are the baby's mother not anyone else. The baby also has a father. The father may be unsupportive, or supportive but the reality is your baby has 2 parents to start with.
Our personalities and our lives are assumed to be shaped to those of our adopters. The famous lie we will be just like them. Babies are born with set personalities, genes, behaviors, temperaments, likes and dislikes. This is not an idea it is a FACT! The idea of shaping a baby that is all ready a human being with a personality is again not healthy it is negative. For adoptees fitting into another persons life at the expense of not being themselves - does not foster self-esteem or happiness. It breeds only one thing - insecurity, self-doubt and fear. It is not natural to live with strangers and pretend to be born to them. It is not fair, and it is not in the best interests of anyone other then adopters. It denies babies and children their rights to be only one thing - exactly who they were born to be.
This continual lying that adoptees must live with manifests itself in thousands of ways. Adoptees are sad to be adopted, angry and insecure. The myth of the happy, grateful adoptee is nothing more then a blatant fantasy spread by baby brokers, and adopters. It is hardly the reality that I live with and not a reality for most adoptees that I know and have worked with.
It is a huge burden to deny who you are and to try and be someone that you are not for someone else. It is not child oriented it is adopter oriented. It is not fair to expect an innocent child to be another person. This alone makes the lack of trust worse. Not only have we lost our mothers breaking our trust but we also lose ourselves further breaking trust more as well. The message for us is to be someone else. It says to us that who we are to start with is not worthy, it says that it is not good. It says that our mothers and our own heritage is not good either. If it was of value then why should it be denied? If it was of value then why falsify, lie and deny it?
The denial of our real selves causes irreparable harm and again breaks trust! This is not in our best interests or any child's for that matter.
For adoptees being adopted does not feel like love or happiness. It feels as though we are unloved. It feels like we are unwanted, not good enough and not quite right. These feelings are not just light feelings that adoptees experience for a short time. They are life-long, deep and permanent. They cause permanent scars that do not go away. Situations can change. For adoptees though once adopted forever adopted. The permanency is not changeable and the negative side effects not worth it for any reason.
Other lies that adoption promotes are things like the baby will be just like the adopters? As I have said we are born to parents to start with, we have genetic influences that are strong, and in fact stronger then nurture to start with. Babies and children will NOT BE JUST LIKE ADOPTERS, they will in fact favor and be like their real parents. Above all why should we be just like strangers, we are not their children we are the children of our real parents. All children should have the right to love and be proud of themselves, and to love and be proud of who they are. Adoption turns pride into shame, love into fear, and robs children of their right to be happy as they are.
For many promoting adoption the idea of income and wealth for the child may sound appealing. Fancy houses, cars and trips around the world is a shallow way to look at life, Life is not about money. It is much deeper then that. The poorest of children if loved will be rich in the ways that count. Adoption for material gain is wrong. Material possessions and financial opportunities do NOT replace a babies or a child's desire to love and be parented by their own parents. NO AMOUNT of money in a child's life is worth it to be separated from their real parents. Better to be poorer and loved by your own then to be richer and live with lies, secrets, illusions and sorrow.
Another despicable myth is that the natural mother will be sentenced to poverty forever. This is a condescending and ridiculous lie. Having worked with hundreds of natural mothers I can attest to the fact that the average first mother was not the negative myth of the starving street person that baby brokers have lied about for years! A person may well be having some financial difficulty and may well be worried of providing for a child at some point in their lives. Finances can change. Jobs are available, training and education are both available, other alternatives are available! While a persons finances can change adoption can not. Again it is a permanent solution that will not change! If you are considering adoption due to a temporary financial situation then please think of this as being exactly that "temporary". I believe humans are more then capable of productive and healthy changes. Everyone can learn new things and grow. One's situation now can always change - adoption can NOT!
Yet another argument used to promote adoption is the question of youth. Being young is not a bad thing, it is not negative and it is not dangerous. Young people can be excellent caregivers and parents. For those that wish to support adoption and promote it - this is yet another thing that they manipulate and lie about. It is as if the young person will be young forever. They will always be 16, or 17 or the age at the time of pregnancy. Just as babies grow so do teenagers, so do adults. You will not be young forever. You will mature and you will grow. It is more then possible to learn how to parent at a young age. The baby brokers will convince you that it is not - will you believe them or will you believe yourself? Above all will you believe in the lives of strangers or the lives of you and your baby as being more then possible to be happy and healthy?
You can grow with your baby, learn new things and parent a child at a young age. There is a myriad of resources to help young people with parenting. Babies living with older strangers is hardly in their best interests. Being older is not and does not mean better then a young mother or father period. Always remember you will not be young forever! It will not matter to your baby if you are young as your baby will love you regardless of age.
Adoption does permanent harm to children. It effects them forever. It causes low self-esteem, identity problems, fear, trust issues, grief, anger and a lifetime of not feeling secure. That is the truth that is what baby brokers will NOT tell you. That is what I will share as an adoptee and as someone who has worked with adoptees for 11 years. Adoption is the only thing that I know of that makes strangers family bound in secrets and lies, and families strangers by the same secrets and lies. I hope for anyone reading this that they hear the truth. Adoption is not good for children!
For mothers as well I would like to again stress that you are NOT replaceable. You are unique, your baby knows and will love you. They are your child, your flesh and blood, body and soul. You do not replace things that are sacred without paying a heavy price. And the price is children haunted by their own faces, that carry forever with them the coffins of infants that only in being born ever wanted one thing - to be loved by their own mothers. Babies want to grow into what they first knew and loved at birth - their own mothers and themselves. Adoption robs them of their right to nature, their mothers and the essence of life.
Finally I would like to ask anyone considering adoption one thing. If you were surrendered for adoption and you lost your most beloved person - your real mother? If you were forced to deny that the loss hurt you and pretend that it did not? If you were forced to live with strangers. If you were forced to be someone that you were not. If your life was a lie and you were forced to be part of a family that you are not a part of. If your identity was hidden from you. If your identity was lied about by everyone in your life. If you were forbidden to know your real name, see your real family, know your real life - would you be happy or grateful? Likely not. I hope this article says something to anyone considering adoption.
By Anne Patterson
Open Records Activist
Adoption Should End Activist
Early Childhood Educator
Licensed Searcher
Reunited Adoptee
Copyright © 2001 Anne Patterson
- Add new comment
- 2132 reads
Comments
for the young and pregnant -- yet another "thou shouldst"
In Brazil there was a 9yr old girl who had been raped for 3 years by her stepfather. That's right, since the age of 6, she'd been raped repeatedly, and thus impregnated.
At age 9, she was carrying twins.
The Church said, "she has an abortion, everyone involved will be excommunicated. Those fetuses have lives that are sacrosanct. The child is unwittingly a sexual being. She needs to step up."
The doctor said, "this child will die if she has the twins. She can't carry them." She had an abortion. Everyone was promptly excommunicated (the doc, the mom, the child).
The Bishop said angrily, "she should have had a C-section, and she should have given the babies in adoption."
Now, had she done that -- to save her mortal soul and spiritual life -- she would read on THIS WEBSITE that she's committed yet another grave error that will destroy the babies forever. That all babies need to be raised by their -- what was that endearing term again? -- oh yes, "real mother." That no prob -- you'll grow with the babies -- so what if you're a 9yr old child and your own parental unit is abusive? So what if you have no means, nowhere else to live but with a stepfather who rapes you every night. Hey, maybe you'll even have more babies that way!
Some girls can never get a break from this crappy, judgmental world.
Life or Death
I think anyone who takes the time to peruse through the History of Child Placement, it becomes abundantly clear just how heavily involved "The Church" has been in terms of social services, family care, and "second chances". If you ask me, I don't think many of the things done to mothers and children can/should be seen or considered as being even remotely "morally correct"... but then, I'm known to be quite critical of the Catholic Church and the way in which they judge and treat certain actions and people.
Personally, I think in some cases, abortion IS the most humane thing a pregnant female can do for herself AND the unborn baby. I feel this way because I know there are many times I wished I was dead (or never born, let alone adopted by the family "chosen" for me) and I know there are many adult adoptees who have suffered greatly, thanks to The Church, and their new ultra religious (physically abusive) owners. Many of these adults have not been able to recover from all that happened to them during childhood. Many have committed suicide, as a result. So what good is it keeping a life (increasing the quantity of souls a given church can "save") if the quality of those lives is really poor and sad, and ends in death, anyway?
Abortion or adoption
Yes, but see, you're making also a judgment on behalf of the child or woman who is pregnant. This website underscores what's becoming really obvious to me -- that America is NOT a free country for women, especially not those who have the bad luck to become pregnant against their choice.
This country is SO JUDGMENTAL against mothers. Folks, let it rest -- girls and women are just doing the best they know how to do.
Those of you who had bad family lives and are hurting/mad at your adoptive families are taking it out on every other female who is facing the trauma of choosing what to do about a pregnancy. Get therapy, get over it, just leave the rest of us out of your angst.
Sounds like something my birth mother would say
"Get therapy, get over it, just leave the rest of us out of your angst."
Sounds to me we have a fed-up birthmother who doesn't like to hear grown-up adoptees complain about the many issues they face. Well excuse us for living and voicing an opinion on many different things that have everything to do with adoption.
Maybe today's "girls and women who are doing the best they know how to do" are actually being lied to and are not being told the truth about a lot of things once the baby is born. And maybe for many, adoption angst has nothing to do with the birthmothers, but the system itself. (What an ego to think all adoption issues revolve around the vessel that gave birth!) Maybe a lot of adoptees AND AP's are really concerned about the politics, corruption and kidnapping that takes place AROUND THE WORLD because unethical adoption exists (it always did). Maybe adoption is not limited to the American experience and maybe more people and judges need to wake up and smell the baby formula and look at the global picture before adoption practices get worse, if that's even possible. Maybe people like you don't care, but there are many adoptees and AP's who are very worried that adoption has become a great source of personal income for so many, and the implications are huge. Maybe that worry doesn't apply to you. For the rest of us, these issues matter, whether we have your "motherly" care and concern, or not.
Informed decision
You are certainly right America is not a free country when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. When seeking counseling many women are still pushed towards the adoption option, because there are those that make money selling infants. There are still areas where abortion is not readily available for those who choose so. There are still places where women are shunned when raising a child on their own. So unfortunately in all too many cases none of the choices is taken on a strictly personal ground, but involves societal pressure for one option over the other.
Each choice also has its consequences. Keeping a child can mean single parenthood, which in combination with keeping a job can have its impact on children. Placing a child for adoption will have its impact on children. Abortion does not lead to children, so in that case there at least is no impact on them.
On this website we show those consequences in relation to the adoption choice. We have several articles dealing with the effects adoption can have on the children involved and on their lives as adults. We furthermore address the issue of abuse in adoptive families to underscore the fact that adoptive families are not by definition good families. There are great adoptive parents and there are insanely horrible ones.
With an industry that is in the business of making money through the legal sales of children, an image of the adoptive family has been created of all loving and forever. It's is that selling point that is presented when women seek pregnancy counseling and happen to run into adoption agency affiliated counselors. It's that selling point that received federal Infant Adoption Awareness program funding. It's that selling point that we address on this website.
I think women deserve a personal choice when facing an unwanted pregnancy. That choice eventually may include children, so the consequences of that choice are not strictly personal to bear. So from a moral point of view the interest of eventual children should be taken into consideration. I bet most women do, that's why the plight of adoption agencies (the children deserve a better home, only our clients can provide) works. We present another picture, one that shows the dark side of adoption. A picture in which adoptive parents can be among the worst scum in the world. The adoption agencies will show all loving and happy families wanting to adopt. We show there are horrible, vile and totally incompetent people out there to adopt.
When facing the choice what to do in case of an unwanted pregnancy it's morally just to weigh the risk taken. There is a chance a child will grow up in a loving family, having only mild issues with the fact being adopted and there is a chance the child will be molested, abused, killed or going through serious separation issues. It's not up to me to weigh that risk, but I can help to present the information so someone can make that decision for herself.
Society and the Unwanted Pregnancy
Neils wrote:
You are certainly right America is not a free country when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. When seeking counseling many women are still pushed towards the adoption option, because there are those that make money selling infants.
When faced with an unwanted pregnancy in this country, a woman is 50 times more likely to keep and raise her child than to choose adoption. She is 35 times more likely to end her pregnancy with an abortion. Statistically, her unborn child is at greater risk from natural miscarriage than it is from being adopted at birth.
Despite the contention that "many" women are still pushed towards the adoption option, infant relinquishment rates are a tiny fraction of what they once were during the late 60's. "Many" seems to be a rather misleading quantifier, unless of course your ultimate objective is zero. Then "one" adopted infant becomes one too "many".
There are still areas where abortion is not readily available for those who choose so.
Women choose to abort (or keep) their children in numbers exponentially greater than infant adoption, even in those areas where abortion is not readily available.
There are still places where women are shunned when raising a child on their own.
There will always be places where women are shunned for raising a child on their own. My amish neighbors couldn't agree with you more.
One could very reasonably make the argument that societal (and peer) pressure works against those mothers who may want to consider infant adoption. The statiscal trends over the past 40 years seem to bear this out.
So unfortunately in all too many cases none of the choices is taken on a strictly personal ground, but involves societal pressure for one option over the other.
Yes, major life decisions are never made in a vacuum free of societal and familial influences. Is the decision to abort or keep a child any different in this context than the decision to place a child for adoption? No.
I'm not claiming that the huge drop in infant relinquishment rates is a bad (or good) thing. I'm not much of a fan of infant adoption - domestic or foreign. But to claim the pressures to place a child for adoption are somehow greater than (or equal to) the other two options when the trends clearly indicate otherwise is simply unfounded.
Dad
whose to profit?
The fact that many women nowadays do not choose for adoption, doesn't mean there is no push towards it. Just check this Google search. Page after page of agencies offering adoption services and pregnancy counseling. What option do you think gets most attention?
There is a big difference between the choice to abort, keep a child and relinquish for adoption. Only the latter involves the opportunity for some to make serious money. only the latter received $66,000,000 in federal funding.
You are absolutely right, major life decisions don't take place in a vaccuum, they also take place against the back drop of a money crazy world.
funding
While I am a strong believer that there are many people profiting improperly from adoption, I also don't think that the the other side of the coin - the abortion providers are free from guilt of profit either.
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the US. According to their annual report, about 300,000 each in 2006 and 2007, plus distributing 1,400,000 emergency contraception kits per year - presumably those include morning after pills, although only. some of those kits would have been utilized. Their funding was 1,308 million dollars, of which 350 million (more than 25%) came from the federal government. While in the recent past, the federal funds could not be used to provide abortions, per se, they were used to pay for the facilities and other activities, which indirectly does support their abortion services.
Most doctors in the US earn 6 figures plus, I suspect abortion providers are no different. I am often appalled by adoption service providers making 100,000 plus - I think really I should be appalled by all people serving low and moderate income families who make huge sums.
The adoption lobby advocates to maintain or increase adoptions.
The abortion lobby advocate to keep or increase the availability of abortion.
Both have agendas I think.
I guess we all have our agendas.
I fully support the work of PPL because I agree that some adoptive/foster homes are not good places for children. I am not anti adoption though. I am anti bad placements. I am anti corruption. I am anti trafficking. I am anti coerced adoptions and anti violating birthfathers rights. I believe we can utilize the information gathered on PPL to improve the lives of children. To improve child welfare decisions which would include many things - leaving some children in their birth families with better supports to ease troubles; better screening of adoptive and foster homes; better support for adoptive and foster families, especially those with Special needs and traumatized children. Better supervision of adoption service providers. Eliminating service providers who are clearly only in the business for the $$$ and who ignore the rights of children and families (both birth and adoptive).
[Huge bobble-head nod and sob]
It's taken me almost 10 years for someone to put my many mixed thoughts and ideas into very clear and simple words. Whoda thunk 10 years ago those words would be written by an AP?!?
Silent 1, you made me not only really proud to have someone like you on the PPL team, but you give me hope and you made me -- a grown woman who has trouble with her emotions-- cry like a stupid little baby!!!
Now I am crying ~~
I am glad my words made sense, and I am very glad to be part of this team!
Niels wrote: "We furthermore
Niels wrote: "We furthermore address the issue of abuse in adoptive families to underscore the fact that adoptive families are not by definition good families. There are great adoptive parents and there are insanely horrible ones. We present another picture, one that shows the dark side of adoption. A picture in which adoptive parents can be among the worst scum in the world. The adoption agencies will show all loving and happy families wanting to adopt. We show there are horrible, vile and totally incompetent people out there to adopt. There is a chance a child will grow up in a loving family, having only mild issues with the fact being adopted and there is a chance the child will be molested, abused, killed or going through serious separation issues."
Niels, this is a very skewed argument. Of course there are scumbag adoptive families. Are you ignoring the very obvious fact that there are many MANY more "scumbag" biological families??
Hey, just take a look at the news! Just Google! Every single day I read stories about many many many more idiot bio parents abusing, raping, imprisoning, impregnating, and murdering their children. You want cases? The parents in North Carolina that beat and tied their 13yr old biological kid to the tree for 2 days until he died of dehydration. The young and unmarried mom who sadistically burned, beat, and scalded her 5yr old biological son until Child Protective Services finally rescued him. The Maryland woman whose male partner left them and who lapsed into mental illness and killed all 5 of her biological kids. My own neighbors -- with a dad who went crazy one day and killed his wife and 3 biological kids. The case of the dad in Austria who imprisoned his 9yr old biological daughter in a dungeon under his house for 15 yrs, fathering her 7 children. Shall I go on?
None of these were adoptive families.
So by your argument, there should be no more babies! No more births! Just don't do it! Hey, at least abortion doesn't hurt a kid, so if you get pregnant, best thing is to just get it outta there!
Don't worry about the trauma or loss to yourself, just think about the TREMENDOUS ODDS that your child will be abused -- no matter whether raised by a bio family or adoptive family.
Yet this society -- and especially this website -- insists on painting biological parenthood in soft, romantic colors. Oh, the natural, hormonal love of a bio mother for her child! Oh, the salvation of being raised by your "real" family!
Your argument is simply not supportable.
other people's misery
On this website we address issues as abuse within child placement to make the case that adoption is not always a safe option, something that is in sharp contradiction to the promotion made by many of the adoption agencies. As much as paying attention to the genocide in Darfur doesn't deny the holocaust, paying attention to abuse in adoptive families doesn't deny abuse happening in biological families.
My argument is that women facing an unwanted pregnancy should be allowed information about the various options available, including the risks involved. I don't believe for a second an agency worker will tell a woman seeking counseling, there is a chance the child will be abused or even be killed, while that chance exists (see: abuse cases). Agency worker are unlikely to inform women facing an unwanted pregnancies that some adoptees suffer from serious separation issues. Instead many agencies speak of forever families, speak of the oportunities a child has growing up in stable. loving families. That story is a myth. Some adoptive families are great others are horrible and many are somewhere in between. Some adoptions work our fine, others are a disaster, many are somewhere in between.
Our efforts on PPL have predominantly to do with workings of the child placement industry, which not only tells fairy tales, but is also involved in child trafficking, coerced adoption, father's rights violations. We show that adoption is not always forever, since a significant number of adoptions end in disruption.
In that sense the debate is not about individual families, but about an industry making money out of other people's misery.
making money from misery
Niels, you're making several different arguments. One I do agree with, the other just doesn't make sense.
I do agree that there is a problem with the fact that so much money changes hands in adoption.
We need to focus our efforts in taking the ginormous amount of money involved OUT of adoption. Take the money out of adoption, and you'd end the potential for greed. Take the greed out and you'd end the corruption. Take the potential for corruption out, and controversy about adoption would not exist.
Where I disagree is your argument that adoption is inherently dangerous for the child. Or that there was ever a promotion of the belief that "ADOPTION" = "ALWAYS SAFE".
Niels, adoption IS an **opportunity** for orphans to be raised in families that love and care for them forever. It IS an **opportunity** to form a forever family. Do some families abuse their adoptive children? OF COURSE. Tell me, please, what does that have to do with ADOPTION? Why is it such a "myth" that adoption truly presents the opportunity for a forever, loving family?
Abuse is about someone in a position of power taking advantage of someone who is vulnerable. What does that have to do with "ADOPTION"? The risk of abuse occurs in all relationships where there's a power imbalance.
ABUSE occurs between husbands and wives too -- should we therefore eliminate the institution of marriage? Force the couple to examine the inherent risks before allowing a wedding? Because millions of women around the world die at the hands of their husbands every year.
Should we eliminate the money-making Catholic Church? ABUSE can occur whenever you send your kid to be taught by your parish priest.
Should we eliminate schools? Stop paying our ISD taxes? Because ABUSE can occur whenever you send your kid to a public or private school.
Please clarify why you keep turning to this argument? It doesn't make any sense.
safety of adoption
Let's look at the assumption "adoption is always safe". Here are some statements made in the press and on websites of adoption agencies.
All the above statements say that the placements by these agencies related to loving families, tell that to the more than 400 children listed in our abuse cases archive.
Adoption has very little to do with orphans, unless we call every relinquished child, or child whose parents have their parental rights removed an orphan. Domestic infant adoption is not about orphans, foster care adoption is not about orphans, and inter-country adoption is in most cases not about orphans either. Unless we change the meaning of orphan of course. The icareaboutorphans.org website shows how this works.
It starts quoting James 1:27: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
Well in reality the website omits the widows and skips the keeping oneself from being polluted by the world, as to focus on the obligation of Christians to look after orphans. The website even states that explicitly Christians have a clear command to care for orphans, and there are many ways to get involved-like praying, giving, mobilizing your church, or adopting.
Then the website continues stating: Whichever you decide, we'll provide guidance and support as you walk down this incredibly rewarding path. So embrace the call, avoid the trap of thinking "someone else will help," and let's make the US a place where every orphan waiting in foster care has a family.
So according to Focus on the Family (the organization that runs icareaboutorphans.org) the children in foster care are orphans!!!
Let's look at some dictionaries to get a taste of the meaning of the word orphan: a child deprived by death of one or usually both parents (Merriam Webster), a child bereaved of parents (Concise Oxford Dictionary). That is the traditional meaning of the word orphan, which in the context of adoption has acquired a new meaning (created by the organizations that do adopions) to mean: A child who has been deprived of parental care and has not been adopted.
This new meaning indeed makes every adopted child an orphan by definition. A child whose mother signed away her parental rights because she has chosen adoption by this new definition, first makes the child an orphan, so it can be saved by the adoptive family. Children in foster care become orphans, because a judge takes their parent's parental rights, so some adoptive family can save them.So only by this strictly American and placement industry invented marketing definition is adoption about orphans. If we stick to the traditional definition, which was probably the one the translators of the bible had in mind too, most adoptions are not about orphans, but about children whose parents are for some reason not capable of caring for them. Calling these children orphans makes something absolute and simple, which in reality is far from absolute and simple.
Many children in the foster care system don't belong there in the first place. Of course in the news papers we read the horror stories, children being severely abused, but in reality that is only a small subset of the children in foster care. Most of them are there because of poverty related issues. Parents have their children removed because they can't afford proper housing is a common reason to remove children. The same is true for many children involved in inter-country adoption.
Adoption is indeed an opportunity to form a family. The question remains, for whom? Who actively form a family? The answer, I believe: "Grown ups do.". Children don't form families, they are part of a family, but don't actively form a family. That's what grown ups do when they marry, start living together, or in the case of singles, when they adopt their first child.
Of course the child placement system includes singles without children who intend to adopt in the definition of family, otherwise they couldn't make the statement they placed a child with a loving family. In that sense it is telling that District Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said about Masha Allen: "They then immediately placed the girl in a foster home, and after she was adopted by a family, they moved her out of Pennsylvania." As long as Masha was in foster care she lived in a home, the moment she was adopted, she was done so by a family, who (in plural form) moved her out of Pennsylvania. In reality Masha was adopted by a single woman and only in the newspeak of those involved in child placement is one person a family.
But I digress. The family formation argument has nothing to do with children, but has everything to do with grown-ups wanting to form a family. It's that aspect that dominates adoption. That is the reason there is so much money involved in adoption. That is the reason why coercive methods are used to create "orphans". That is the reason why it is only lip-service when adoption agencies claim they are searching families for children, not the other way around. Just look what waiting list is maintained by agencies in domestic infant adoption and inter-country adoption. Do they have a list of children in need of a family or do they have a list of families looking for a child? Who are the primary customers of adoption agencies, children or grown-ups? On whose behalf do adoption agencies operate? Why is it that adoptive parents pay to receive a child? Why don't we give money to a child so it can buy a family?
Of course there are adoption agencies who try to work by the principle of finding good families for children, but with so many adoption agencies around (Pennsylvania has according to my latest count 206 licensed agencies), it's not hard to find one that cares little about the child, but loves to be of service to a prospective adopter. People only need one approved home study of one of those agencies or licensed social workers to get the paper work going. That's often the only requirement. In many cases the adoption agency has never even met the prospective adoptive parents, all they know is that a licensed social worker approved the adoption, so they are cleared to continue the process.
With a system like that, almost anyone can adopt. At least, if you have the money to do so. With a system like that there are little or no guarantees a child will indeed end up with a loving family. Making adoption somewhat less consumer-friendly, by making sure that people disqualified to adopt don't go shopping for a second, third or fourth opinion that will approve them, by making the number of approvals/disapprovals public, the safety of children can be improved. Now almost any lunatic with enough money can adopt. Matthew Mancuso is living proof of that.
We live in Pennsylvania
"Over the past year, through the efforts of advocates, caseworkers, families and the children themselves, we have made many great strides toward finding permanent, loving homes for special needs children across Pennsylvania," said Secretary Richman. "With so many more children still waiting to find a permanent home, this year's conference takes on added meaning as we work together to make the dream of adoption a reality."
PR Newswire (USA) - July 11, 2007
We live in Pennsylvania and adopted twice through foster care. There is nothing wrong with the above statement. It is an objective - a mission statement. An unattainable ideal worth striving for, but it is not an absolute "guarantee" in any way shape or form. Why do you claim it's presented as one? So you can hold it up as another one of adoption's little lies?
But just in case there's any confusion, I would like to clear some things up about adoptive parents. We are not permanent. We will probably croak just like most of you. Sometimes we divorce, get sick, or fall down the stairs and become disabled. A few of us are indeed not fit to be parents, just like our biological counterparts.
And Neils, last time I checked family court judges in Pennsylvania terminated parental rights because of child abuse and/or neglect, not so adoptive parents can march in and save them. 80% of children who enter foster care have outcomes other than adoption. The forest is getting in the way of your trees.
Dad
making your personal experience into a political crusade
Niels wrote: "When facing the choice what to do in case of an unwanted pregnancy it's morally just to weigh the risk taken. There is a chance a child will grow up in a loving family, having only mild issues with the fact being adopted and there is a chance the child will be molested, abused, killed or going through serious separation issues. It's not up to me to weigh that risk, but I can help to present the information so someone can make that decision for herself."
Which would be a great thing, Niels, except that the "POUND PUP LEGACY" website emphasizes that adoption is inherently bad for kids. You're not truly following your stated mission here. You're not presenting all sides of the adoption picture, but only the dark side.
Which leads someone like me to think that this website has an agenda that differs from what is explicitly stated. What's apparent to me is that this is a website meant for adult adoptees to vent their rage at their own private, personal family experiences. And then to force those personal experiences into something of a crusade against adoptions everywhere.
And just look at the name you've chosen for this website: Pound Pup Legacy. Are you really referring to adoptees as "pound puppies"? Really??
Name-choice
The phrase "Pound Pup" came from discussions I used to have with abused/angry adult adoptees posting on adoption.con. In fact, it was a phrase first made by a married male adoptee who saw himself as being the runt no "good" person could ever want to love and keep. [His a.father physically abused him and his A.mother committed suicide on his 15th birthday.] His "Pound Pup" phrase seemed to catch-on quickly because so many could relate to being the young (unwanted) pup who ended-up in a shelter somewhere... a shelter that would sell it's living inventory to anyone who had an interest in "adding to the family" and had money. Many could relate to the idea that only the cutest, smartest, most well behaved little ones got the nice , happy, loving homes, while the sickly runts, older slow ones, and downright ugly mutts got left behind in crap or sold to owners who were not so nice and not so loving and not so caring at "home".
Like it or not, there ARE people who identify with the phrase, "I was treated like a dog", and like it or not, when one hears the word "adoption", many immediately associate that word to pets and to children. Like it or not, there are some seriously sick pups out there in this world, and it MUST be known that some of them have been allowed to adopt. Like it or not, lots of children around the world are put in shelters (or "in-care") and are treated like dogs... like animals.... like creatures not worthy of love, affection or attention, and it's my very strong belief these stories need to be told so this sort of practice ENDS, period.
This, by no means minimizes domestic violence that takes place within a biologic family. However, the fact that abuse in-care DOES take place should alarm more people. Children deserve to be treated with care and dignity and when one is removed and 'placed' (for whatever reason) in a so-called safer-haven, that child should NOT be neglected or treated badly or put into the hands of a person who appears one way in public, but acts like a psycho, when "home" and alone.
Many readers may not like the title or the name of a website that reveals a dark-side to foster/adoption practices... I personally HATED the personal life experience, and as such, there is a lot I'd like to see changed within the entire child placement system. I would like to live and die knowing my life -- my interests, my passion -- left a very positive legacy; I would like to know all that I have been put through was not a "mistake", but a necessary hurt and evil that has a very significant meaning, purpose and reason. If I can die knowing adult adoptees and grown-up foster kids in private support groups aren't telling their stories about their really F-ed up owners, I can believe there is hope in humanity. Pound Pup Legacy (PPL) is about the people who have lost their voice and the people getting hurt because of negligence and greed.
Pregnancy, adoption and future therapy
I've been taking some time to think about the various ways in which a female can experience pregnancy, and I'd like to share what memory and experience has shown me. First of all, I do NOT think all pregnancies are the same. I birthed four of my own and I can honestly say each one was very different for a wide variety of reasons. Secondly, I know very well how personal relationships can alter the pregnancy experience. Being alone and scared and pregnant is not at all the same as being loved and supported during pregnancy. Living among those who respect women and pregnancy is not the same as living with those who could care less about some bitch and some baby. In an ideal world, each pregnancy would be planned and very much wanted and loved by both parents and both extended families, but we do NOT live in Nirvana yet. In an ideal world, females would not be raped and pregnant woman would not do things that would hurt their unborn babies.. so in our messed-up world we have people who see pregnancy not as a Gift from God, but rather a real hellish experience that needs to stop.
What fascinates me is this strange suburban belief many of my own friends have -- they seem to think all pregnancies are equal, and I simply don't see that. I see and have seen the very stressed yet happy Planned Pregnancy; I have seen the badly timed Crisis Pregnancy (the one that happens at a really bad time or the one that isn't wanted by a partner or family); I have see the very scary Traumatic Pregnancy (the one that happens after a rape or the one that can kill the mother), and I have seen the very odd-but-true Emotionally Detached and Removed Pregnancy (it's odd because it can be a very good healthy surrogate situation or a very irresponsible careless pregnancy). My point is, we DON'T always know "what's best for baby's future" because not all facts may be known. So this is where I get a little squirrely when it comes to adoption recruiters eager to book pregnant women for their adoption programs -- if a pregnant female decides adoption is the option SHE can live with, how much consideration is given to the child's future well-being and how much of this is discussed during the adoption process? Now keep in mind, I'm not talking about the old-school adoption/abandonment issues that we adoptees have to get over, and I'm not even talking about the chance each mother takes when she allows someone else take and care for her child.... I'm talking about the problems biology brings an offspring and how a half-story can really complicate things later in life.
I learned about Rape Babies a few years ago. A few adult adoptees (male) wrote to me privately because they were having a really hard time coping with "a family situation". The were afraid to discuss their concerns with their wives and it soon became obvious to me why. They wanted to meet their biologic mothers. They had medical concerns and certain questions that they wanted answered. Unfortunately, after a long search, those mothers wanted nothing to do with the boys they birthed long ago. It turned out, those boys were the product of rape. Two HUGE issues came-out. 1) The adult adoptee was terrified what this meant, from a psychological-profile sort of way. "My biologic father was a rapist. Does that mean I take after him?" and 2) The adult adoptee had a new set of problems and questions. "How will I ever know my family medical history? What sort of psychological illness is in my blood and what does this mean for my wife and kids?"
The sad thing is, these men really understood how difficult it must have been for a woman/girl to keep a pregnancy that came from rape. They understood why they were not kept... they really appreciated the life they were given, and they had no wish or desire to be part of this birth-woman's life. They simply had some serious concerns and they could not understand the reaction given to "a biologic child" when all that adult-child wanted was a few answers. So... while I can appreciate the very difficult decision birthmothers make, there's more to the adoption-story. These stories don't take place in the delivery room or after the last signature is written on an adoption contract... No. This sort of stuff happens 20-30 years later... and this is the sort of stuff that can made a once-happy child become an adult who wants to commit suicide.
adoption story and effect on children
That is a truly heartrending story, and thank you for sharing that. I especially appreciated your point about how each pregnancy is unique -- that there is no one way to predict how it will turn out.
But I'm left with a very basic question: What was the birthmother supposed to do here? She'd been raped. She'd been impregnated. She chose life for the baby, not death. I'm pro-choice, and I would have supported that woman in choosing abortion (had she ever asked my humble opinion). I do have to admire a woman in this circumstance. Wouldn't it have been easier on her to abort? Didn't she choose the more difficulty pathway?
Now we expect -- what? She should have stepped up 20 years later and faced the adult child with answers? I do understand how this boy/man has been left with no closure, and no way to answer his questions about himself.
But even if his birthmother had courageously faced him as an adult -- mustering up the last vestiges in herself to face it all once again -- what answers would she have? Could she have told him, "no, you're not at all like the fiend who raped me"? Could she have truly said, "I love you unconditionally" even though that child was the product of the darkest descent into hell she'd probably ever been through?
No, but I do think that a therapist could help that young man understand the unanswered questions in his life. We all face existential and spiritual mysteries that no human can really answer 100%. How to grapple with them? How to get to the bottom of them? Sometimes the bottom of the well seems unreachable.
Mama (whether bio or adoptive) can't answer them all, either. We Americans just place too much burden of expectation on women/mothers.
Facing future problems
I very much admire the very difficult decisions made, as well. Unfortunately, the birthmothers of the men who contacted me did not want any contact with the boys. In fact, one had a restraining order put against him. I thought that was a bit harsh... but I guess she did what she felt like she had to do to protect herself (emotionally).
How could this type of situation been handled? I honestly think had these men been told by these women, "I will try to give you whatever family health history I can, but please understand that was a very traumatic time in my life, and there is much I do not know.", they (the adoptees) would have felt acknowledged and respected. With that, I'd like to think BOTH sides could have walked away from one another feeling a little better because SOME closure was found. If the adoptees still had serious fears, I believe those fears should be discussed with someone that adoptee really likes and trusts.
The point I'd like to make is this: ALL actions bring consequences, and when it comes to the lives of other people, those decisions should not only be based on the here-and-now; those decisions need to consider the future, too. With that, it's my belief when a mother voluntarily relinquishes a child, she MUST remember that child in the future may one day come back with a few burning questions only she can answer. Will she be prepared... and will she be able to handle it? Adoptees also must consider the consequences "search and reunion" might bring. Adoptees must be aware "going back" has it's dangers. There is a very good chance the things they learn about the past and certain people can be very disturbing and upsetting. This is why I suggest people "weigh the risks" before they make any long-term life-changing decision.
Karma = law of action and reaction
Or at least I think that's right ;)
Kerry, I definitely agree with you on that one. Every action does have a reaction. And everyone involved must weigh the risks of their choices. You're one of the first people I've *met* to say what I've long thought -- that in the area of adoption, more thought needs to be given to the future repercussions of search and reunion.
It occurred to me recently that there are many more women nowdays choosing donor insemination as a means of becoming pregnant. Some are married/partnered and their guys are not producing. Some are single and wanting to become moms. And that the vast majority of the sperm banks have "closed" donors -- that is, any children born from the donors' sperm may not be told the identity of the genetic fathers. Some will allow the child to search after 18. Though many still insist on the donors' confidentiality/anonymity.
Not many question their right to remain anonymous. After all, it could have financial repercussions on the donor. No man wants to donate sperm only to find that a child or a mom comes back later asking him for financial support!
But if we extend this argument a bit more -- the one that adoptees are left without answers and that adoption is inherently damaging -- then what about those children born from sperm donors? Why do we continue to protect the men's right to anonymity, but not the women's right? Is it something to do with our romantic notions of biological MOTHERHOOD?
And if we start closing the doors to anything but biological parenthood, that's a slippery slope for us all. Government-mandated parenthood for those who are pregnant (since abortions are already so regulated, and now adoptions would not be allowed), maybe millions of abandoned babies (desperate girls and women will always find a way out), and meanwhile no chance for those who can be a parent and long to do so, but can't produce on their own.
Is that the society we all really want?
father: "unknown"
<HUGE heavy sigh>.... yes, the "unknown father" issue is a very real problem for many adoptees and test-tube babies. I can't recall the names or links, but I have been moved by some of the blogs written by now-adult test-tube babies. Many seem to be bothered because they know so little about their "origins" and biological links, and some seem to feel guilty because they don't want their mothers to know they want more than what was given. In so many ways, "the need to know" is so very powerful, and I tend to believe this "left without answers " tickle and tease extends itself into the lives of women who want to know if , in fact, Motherhood is Magical. Is motherhood magical? I dunno.... I thought pregnancy was... but motherhood...<hmm>... there are far too many days I feel as if motherhood is for the birds because it's a lot of work that never seems to end!!
Personally, I don't agree with this no-naming policy that exists in sperm-banks. I also have a difficult time embracing the idea that men are using sperm-banking as a way to make "a better future". It's comical, in a sick sort of way, when you start reading some of the stories, especially when you add "search and reunion" into the family equation:
Give me (and my fellow brothers and sisters) a freakin break!
Good Lord, people. Before you all tell me how terrible it is to face an unwanted pregnancy and how friggen terrible biologic family abuse really is, let me tell you about the method behind the madness of my post. You see, most ignorant people want to believe all adoptions are the result of some sort of horrible birth-family abuse situation. Not so, you narrow minded fools.
News flash you propaganda following morons. Since the dawn of time, unwed mothers have been told just how morally unfit they are to raise their own child. Since the dawn of time, the crap that married people make better parents has been sold like it's friggen gold crusted bread.
We now live in a day where the single homosexual parent-wanna-be claims The Right to have children, yet no one cares to see how this money making opportunity affects the lives of innocent human beings. Fools. So many of you are freakin FOOLS!!!!!!!
My adoptive parents were assholes. There. I said it. They were psychotic lunatics. Abusive assholes of the higest order. They were married and absolute assholes. They allowed shit that should never have happened. They were Approved by a freaking adoption agency. And then I read there's a website that tells unwed pregnant females, "adoption hurts".
Damn right it does, for lots of reasons. Reasons people not adopted or so called Happy Adoptees don't want to believe.
Pregnant women need to know about the reality behind adoption. There's a good chance the person who adopts your child has some sort of hidden mental illness, but we, the adoptees, aren't allowed to confess this. It's crazy bullshit if ever I hear and saw it.
My birth mother could have been a single woman with ambitious dreams and put me in day-care every single day. She could have sent me to a pedophile priest to comfort me. She could have thrown dishes at me, or chase me around the house with a knife. She could have put all her clothes on backwards and feed me only cereal. It sure as hell beats the shit I was put through. At least with her, I would have known my roots. I would have known she was a psycho bitch. I would have known there's mental illness in my family, and I should be careful. At least with her, if I was fucked up it was because of her, and not because of strangers who were seen as being better than her. News flash folks, adoptive parents are not always as perfect, as loving or as "CAPABLE" as many would like to think. Some of them of them are nut-job FREAKS!
I'm tired of people bad mouthing birth parents. I'm tired of people not seeing adoptive parents being what they truly are. Wanna bes.
It takes courage to see another side to the adoption coin.
Deal with it.
Whether the general public wants to accept this reality or not, I need to believe my birth mother wanted me, but felt bullied to get rid of me. Does anyone know what this means? That's the only thing that lets me sleep at night. I need to believe she was led to believe adoption was the best option, otherwise what does her decision mean? How in the freakin world does an abused adoptee tell her birth parent, YOU FUCKED UP?????
Where's my f'n bottle?
So, if I happen to find a website that tells pregnant women to seek help and not choose adoption, you better believe I'm going to let others know. Boo hoo all you pro-adoption people want. I know from whence I write and speak. I lived the psycho nightmare. It ain't nice. It ain't pretty. Kids and mothers need to know. Like Tina says, "Adoption hurts - truth ignored". http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/19734 The truth must be known so others don't live like I (and so many) did.
sometimes even within the adoptive home...
the psycho fools the other parent.
Kerry said:
"that child should NOT be neglected or treated badly or put into the hands of a person who appears one way in public, but acts like a psycho, when "home" and alone."
People need to know HOW psychos can fool the public; but they need to be aware these Pedophiles are right inside the homes of MANY biological AND adoptive homes. Look around; red flags are everywhere!
How many times did the one parent think something was "not quite right" and then tell themselves, "not in MY home?"
It happens... and it's right in the homes. FORGET the trumped-up hogwash about the boogie-man behind the bush! It's IN THE HOMES!
What did I ever do to deserve this... Teddy
ranting and crusading
Whew, this is what I was talking about.
This rant has no basis in logic or reason. Sorry, Neophyte -- I know you've suffered, but I'll ask again: WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ADOPTION?
Don't you know how many people say exactly the same thing you are saying (minus the adoption rant)? Bio adult children too. Don't you KNOW that?? Or are you just deliberately ignoring that fact?
See, I'm on this website trying to find ways that I can help get the moolah out of adoption. I want to find REAL ways -- to preserve the goodness of adoption, but to eliminate the greed and corruption.
All I'm finding here is an agenda, a bunch of folks with a blindly fanatic crusade, who can't see anything but your own personal hate and pain. There's nothing of reason here. You're just ranting, just pushing your pain on each other. It's not even good therapy. The bad stuff isn't getting solved. The good is being destroyed.
What a shame.
Finding the goodness
First of all, if a person is ranting, it's often because that person is angry/upset about something and wants to be recognized and validated. The rant may not have logic, it may not seem to have much reason, but sometimes the steam needs to be let out before anyone can see what's in the boiling pot.
A knot grows in my stomach when I read:
Abusive foster/adoptive parents exist and that's a problem for many. How many? We don't know. It doesn't seem as if anyone has really checked. I think most would like to think the adoption-process itself screens out most "high risk" people. While some agencies may do an excellent job with home-studies and background checks, (on both the PAP and child to be adopted), some are not so good. Some agencies will even sell stolen children because lots of money can be made through the adoption industry. Deliberately ignoring the fact that fostered/adopted children are being abused worries me. [It reminds me of the Catholic Church and how many did not want to think priests could be pedophiles. It took 9 years to review 60 years of institutional care to say what many children put in-care have been saying for decades: "Children in-care have been severely abused and no one stopped it."]
Ignoring a problem does not make it go away, and while our pages don't feature nearly as many abused children as a site about "children abused by bio-parents" could, I would like to think there are people in this world who would take take the time to look at those case pages, see the growing list, read the stories and say to themselves, "This isn't right. How can it be changed? How can children put in-care be safer?" The first step to fixing a problem is recognizing the areas that need fixing.
Personally, I do think foster/adoptive parents need to be better than an abusive bio-parent, otherwise what's the point of foster care and adoption? I also think the profit-side to adoption contributes to poor placement decisions. So here's my question: how can a person know if an adoption agency is really good when it comes to placing a child in a good (safe) home, and how can a person know if an adoption agency is only concerned about making placements because each placement means "money"?
Petition on child protective services asap
Here is a web site for everyone to not only petition cps but their is pictures and stories of children that where murdered and died while in protective services all over the usa warning it's very sad to see and heart breaking.
Http://suncanaa.com/cps