When I first saw the photo, honestly, my first thought was "Oh no. If this works, my facebook wall is going to be bombarded with similar posts." My second thought was "And if a lot of them are about adoption, someone is going to say something to piss me off."
Well, it worked and there are plenty of people perpetuating the photo-with-message-on-posterboard problem, but so far, they haven't really upset me. I mean, in this case it was okay because the birth mother had the choice to not contact this young woman. No choices were taken away.
I know some adoptees don't ever seek out their parents. I wish I knew the secret formula for that. I know many who do search for them say they feel incomplete and I wish I knew how to make them feel complete without searching for their birth parents. To me, that's the ideal world.
I also know some birth parents have expressed regret or guilt over their decision. I wish I knew how to help them too.
On a very small scale, I do believe that part of those emotions come from the world. As a society, we still have not accepted adoptive parents as complete parents and we still put pressure on birth parents to make them feel they are selfish for their decision. Obviously, in a perfect world, no one would have to give up (or feel the need to abort) a child and no one would need or want to adopt. WE DO NOT LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD.
What got my husband riled up enough to send me the article was the comments. Frankly, he doesn't know that I've read much harsher comments on other articles and in newsgroups than these, but I admit, I'm frustrated too.
Several people are taking the opportunity to post information about themselves and who they seek. Good for them (but be careful. You don't want enough information for the nefarious element to use against you.)
A few comments down: (I am totally using these without permission, but don't care at the moment.)
"If the adoptive mother had sent her natural mother pictures then
A) How far adopters will go to hide the truth? How do you know that is the situation? Adoptive parents and birth parents decide how much contact there will be. Perhaps the birth mother only wanted to send pictures!
B) Everyone deserves to seek out their birth parents, but to know them? How will they ever really know them? They can't know the situation that led to adoption or the road to becoming the person they are. It's very easy for a young person who has no money, prospects, or education to give up the child, then get their life together, graduate high school, get a job, get promoted, have a future, then look back and wish they had kept the child, but the road would not have been the same with the tiny companion. Who they become is different than who they would have become if they had kept the child just like the child is different than who they would have been.
C)Money makers of the adoption industry...conceal the truth. Try not to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist or anything. Of course there is dishonesty like any industry, but there are also a lot of adoptions that are successful because of them.
"i'm looking for my niece"
Cruel of me to say this, I know, but that's a little distant and frankly not your business. I have no problem with this, exactly, but I do think people reach out too far desperately seeking some connection. Don't think that because you share blood, this is family you need or that they need you. The fact is, those of us who are connected biologically to our families can sometimes wish we weren't or seek out "family" in close friendships because we are treated the way we should by them and not our families. I guess what I'm trying to say can be shown with an example. If a gay young man comes out to his parents and his parents disown him, he must seek the companionship he needs elsewhere, right? So instead of seeking out your niece, seek out a connection with other real life humans around you. If none of them will have you, ask yourself why instead of forcing the unconditional love of blood relation on someone.
"Here's some advice from my own experience. My birth mother did not want to be thanked for placing me for adoption. She regretted her decision."
Wow. Sad. I'm sure this is an exception and not the rule, but this is why I advocate a national registry such as Adoptee Connection. I know there are many and it would be better if they all came together, but this is where adopted people can sign up, birth parents can sign up, and then hopefully everyone find each other. Only those who want to be found or want to find will be hooked up. Those who do not wish to to find or be found can keep their anonymity.
According to the article, which may have just skipped the information of course, the woman does not say she has tried any of these other channels. Who knows? Maybe they are successful, but Facebook photos is a newer, fresher story so of course that's the one we hear.
"One must go into a reunion with no expectations."
I think that is excellent advice. We know this can be true in many life situations, frankly.
"It is such a shame that a person has to resort to posting on facebook to find their parents-yep I said parent I do not like the term Birth Parent. I have been searching for my sister for 20 years, and still can not find her due to the fake birth certificates, and not allowing the "Adopted" adult access to the original certificates."
Ouch!
Where to begin. How about the dictionary?
Parent
A mother or father. THIS IS THE FIRST DEFINITION
--yeah, you're thinking giving birth, but let's define mother. As soon as you pass the circular arguments (a mother is a female parent) it is quickly defined as "a woman having or regarded as having the status, function, or authority of a female parent." I signed papers, she signed papers, we all signed papers legally giving me STATUS, FUNCTION, AND AUTHORITY of a parent. Read the adoption paperwork sometime. It's pretty clear that the person who raises a child is the parent and if you're going to use the piece of paper of a birth certificate as important information, you must also acknowledge the paper of adoption as important information. It's not like the Bible where you get to pick and choose. (oops, that was inappropriate)
--other definitions of mother and father include "protector", one who performs the tasks of caregiver, and my favorite, from dictionary.com (beautifully spoken) "to acknowledge oneself the author of; assume as one's own" In fact, that wording of author might be sparking some literary ideas of mine own. Oh great. Just what I need. Another plot bunny. Returning to my main point...
Of course, the dictionary next puts it coldly:
an ancestor, precursor, or progenitor.
Isn't a progenitor a mentor? Or model? So that would be the person raising the child, once again.
Definition #3 is even colder and much more about logic than instinct. It's like Sheldon's definition as opposed to Leonard and who would you rather have as Dad? Honestly?
a source, origin, or cause.
Yes, the two people who had sex caused the birth, but at the same time, if those people signed away their rights (part of the requirement for an absolutely complete adoption!) they are also the cause of the child being with their PARENTS...the one who raised them. Let's continue to FULLY DEFINE this word:
a protector or guardian.
to be or act as parent of
Do I need to specify how saying that the two people who conceived a child are not a parent without a modifier? We use words like birth and natural for a reason. If you take those away, then it's only fair to take away all modifiers. Now it's a circular argument because you take away the adjective birth parent and logically you must remove the adjective adopted child and then it's just a child. And a parent. If you aren't going to define the difference and claim that someone who gave birth to another person is all the work it takes to be a parent, then you don't understand what it is to be a parent.
Let's take adoption out altogether and look at a nuclear family. You have a kid who is a month, one year, ten years old - you choose. When you hold that baby or drive that kid to soccer are you thinking about the birth process? Or is that kid YOUR kid because you just know it, feel it, love it, and have taken care of it, made sacrifices for it, given it everything, cleaned up after it, taught it to be a wonderful beautiful person, etc, etc?
I find it telling that it is a sibling looking for another sibling. Sucks and all, but if this person doesn't have access to the original birth certificate, that was a choice made by this person's parents and it is the fault of the parents, not the system. I also know for a fact that this is not common. Calling the legal birth certificate a fake birth certificate is hot-headed, untrue, and ignorant. Example, where is my daughter's birth certificate? In my hands because none was distributed until I requested it from the state. The fact that in this person's case there may have been one previous to the legal one of the sibling is irrelevant. It does not make the legal one FAKE. If there are other fakes, again, that is the fault of those who made them, not the legal system.
Also, depending on the laws of the state, the adult can gain access to their records IF THE BIRTH PARENTS WISH IT. Why does the adoptee's rights trump the other rights? They may not have been involved in the decision, but just like non-adopted kids are stuck with the family they have (good OR bad!), so too are adopted kids. Maybe if we stop seeing it differently, it will change the face of adoption. Perhaps fewer people will regret their decisions because they will not have external pressure. I do not think people should be forced to give up a kid for adoption, but I also don't think someone who makes the decision to do so should be treated as though they made a poor choice. Ideally, once the adoption is finalized, that is the one and only family. The end. No one needs to feel bad and no one needs to seek out. Utopia, of course, does not exist.
"Why is it that adoptees aren't "supposed" to search for their birth parents, but everybody loves their reunions? Adoptees need to be provided full access to ALL their records regarding their adoption as soon as they become adults. Adults who were adopted as children cannot be bound to the adoption agreements in which they were not participants. And adoptees and their children are placed at increased risk of genetically-related diseases due to lack of medical background information. Adoptees have committed no crime to justify not being allowed to contact their birthparents. All adoption records should be opened when an adoptee becomes an adult."
A) Valid argument in the first sentence. I think adopted kids are afraid of hurting their parents, afraid of more rejection while the parents are afraid they will like the new parents more. The part where they are not supposed to look is separated from lovely reunions. No one mentions the stories like the one above where the birth parent did not want to be found. We want feel good stories, though I suspect this is going to change now that society wants the bad stuff more and more.
B)See above; why so much access? Why is that their right over the rights of those who signed away their rights as parents? They signed a piece of paper making that decision. Just because a person isn't happy with the family they have (who is?) doesn't mean they get to just throw it away and seek out a new one. If biological families want to do that, they have to seek out friends who treat them right. Why not the same for adopted kids? If they birth parents have signed away their rights, they can use resources to seek out the kid and the kid seek the parents, but if they don't want to find each other, I don't see why they have the right to those records.
C) is the reason you site for why they need full access, but for decades, states have required birth parents to provide medical history with the kid. What people don't realize is that less than one in a million cases, there is a genetic link to a problem, but in those cases, the birth parents withheld the information. BY CHOICE. Why are we so quick to take away choices of one just because of the temper tantrums of another? Scream loud enough and your choice is more important than another's? No. They have the choice not to disclose and you have the choice to GET OVER IT and accept the life you have just like everyone who is with their biological family accepts their life and deals with the reality of it.
D) Everyone gets to choose if the adoption will be opened or closed. Just like we cannot go back and change previous decisions in life without a time machine, no one person should be able go back and change that decision unless all involved parties make the decision. This is why we have services, detectives, the aforementioned webpage, and reality TV like The Locator.
That being said, a little while ago we had a birth father freaking out that his child was here in Utah and he wanted that child back. He was on the news saying that he got is girlfriend pregnant, they split, he did not know about the child. He was angry because Utah laws were making it difficult to get the child back.
A) Did the local news ever ask the parents for a reaction? No. Because the only anger that mattered was this birth father.
B) Where was he while his ex was going through the decision? No where, that's where. I mean, people break up, but don't you think she had a reason to keep it from him? Did the news try to track her down and find out? No. Perhaps he was abusive. Perhaps she tried and he was being a brat and ignoring her. Yeah, perhaps she just kept it from him because she's the beast in the situation, but we don't know that so it's highly unfair to assume.
C) Why is it okay for people to hook up, split up, then make claims on a child who is in a stable, intact home?
D) States require both biological parents to sign away their parental rights. It can only go through without those signatures if an effort is made to find the missing parent and he/she still cannot be found. Did the news mention this? Of course not. Outraged father is a much better story. It needed way way way more information for me to not raise an eyebrow at this story or to be on his side, but the news did not provide. Biased story. No shock from the media these days.
Utah laws can be tight, but they also take more time to finalize than many other states. The child must be a full six months old before an adoption can be finalized while many other states can be immediate or shorter periods like nine months. I appreciate this because it give everyone time to figure things out and think about what they've done, but when it's final, it is completely final and the parents don't spend their lives looking over their shoulders for the disgruntled parents.
Which brings me to another point I wanted to make. Why must we push so hard for these right when what it means is that it's not truly final. EVER. That life the person didn't have is always there, knocking at the back door. It's not just about adoptive parent's fear of retaliation that can make for a paranoid lifestyle (which would obviously affect the child!) it is also about an adoptive adult looking back as though seeing their past can change their future. It cannot. A psychologically sound adult can accept their past, present, and future, but arguing that they have all these rights and must know every detail, including birth parents does not allow them to move on and fully accept their reality.
Well, that's a little devil's advocate of me, honestly, because when we adopted our daughter, we did not do the standard "open for 3 years" adoption. We made the paperwork completely open as long as everyone wanted. We wrote up private paperwork with a private family attorney which everyone signed which stated that I would send a letter as long as the birth father kept me apprised of his address (the last two we sent him were returned 'addressee unknown') and in our situation, the birth mother has access to see or hear about her anytime she would like.
I have saved the letters sent by the birth father, but he did not write as often as he was able before they started being returned.
We have also always been honest with our daughter. She knows she is adopted. She knows her birth mother. She has asked about her birth father and I have told her what we know, she has seen the letters, and I have sought him out on Facebook and other webpages that offer a lot of information. I wish I had had the foresight to ask for a photo of him. She wishes she could at least see a picture of him and I feel bad that I didn't think of it, but I've been honest with her and while she is still young, she doesn't seem lost. She's curious, of course, but I am confident that when she is older, she may look out of curiosity, not out of loss. That is her right and I will not stand in her way or even try to influence her away from that, but of course there is the part of me that wonders what I could have done differently to make her not want to look. I've met adopted adults who have no desire and who can see their family as the only family they need and not even curious. Perhaps she is curious because her birth mother is so accessible. I don't know. The future may bring a lot of unsettlement in my opinions of these matters, but right now, I wish we saw things more finalized. People who adopt kids and don't treat them as they would their own should not have adopted in the first place. People ho treat adopted childen badly should be judged as harshly as anyone who mistreats their own. Certain news stories have implied in the past that it is understandable abuse when the child is adopted, but while I can see how it's "understandable" by society terms, it should NOT be seen that way.
Okay, see, now, a non-fiction book is certainly in my future on this subject. Clearly.
No comments:
Post a Comment