We need to change the dialogue about adoption. Decades ago, a girl got pregnant outside of wedlock and the baby was shipped off for (closed) adoption, the grandparents raised the kid as their own, the girls are forced into marriage, etc, and often the girls had to drop out of school.
Now, they have lots of options to stay in school, take control of their own bodies, and if they decide on adoption, to have some contact so they don't feel so lost. Meanwhile, the shame is still there and people judge those who want to give babies up or sometimes judge those who don't.
I feel like we need to change the dialogue altogether. Is a teen/adult selfish for allowing her baby to be adopted? Absolutely not. Giving a baby to a family who wants to love and raise it is the most selfless thing a person can do! Believe me, I'm grateful for the birth mother of my beautiful daughter.
Can teens be good moms? Or adults without jobs? Absolutely. And if they don't want to be moms (or maybe just not yet) should they feel shame by that decision? Absolutely not! It doesn't make a woman less of a woman just because she doesn't want to have kids. Or get married. It also doesn't make her a crazy feminist (feminists are not crazy! but that's a whole other discussion!) It makes her exactly who she is and we have an obligation to embrace that.
And for the sake of equality, if the birth father wants to raise the kid, then he should. However, if the birth mother has reasons to think he shouldn't raise that kid, her voice should be heard (as should his). I mean, it took them both to make the kid, but the mom is the one who has had to do nothing except think about the well being of the child for nine months. In the end, a dad is not required to think about it at all, if he chooses, and even if he does, he will never think of it as constantly as the woman carrying that child. I know it's not very fair to put it that way and it's not very feminist to say that women are different, but they are! And thank the gods they are because intellect and growth cannot occur between two people who think exactly the same. Women are not lesser because of the way they think, they are simply the opposition. It's a generalization to say women think this and men think that anyway so let's just recognize both sides and agree to the reality which is the woman with this thing growing inside of her will have her POV colored by it in every situation she encounters for those months, but a man will not be up in the middle of the night with heartburn and wondering what it will be like someday when his kid gets heartburn and how are you going to take care of it, then sleep for ten minutes only to wonder what you're going to do if the kid doesn't like strained peas. Men, generally, think about the big things or about carrying on the family name or whether or not he can provide (in some cases, it's his ego saying he wants it to look like he can provide even if he cannot). A mom thinks about how that kid will feel, where the kid will be happiest, who can take better care of him/her, and what she'll be like as an adult.
Which is more important? The impression made upon the world of how the birth parents look or the well being of the child? If the birth parents are driven at all by how THEY look, then they need to stop it right there. If the birth parents are thinking about what's best for the child, then they will make the right choice between adoption or raising the child themselves.
Unfortunately I feel the former has been the drive for both parents more often that not. They let their parents shame them into keeping the kid or let their parents become pseudo parents who end up just spoiling the kid.
I've had an ever changing view on this subject so I'm sure I will be schooled and able to grow more, but it is important to see that the dialogue about adoption needs to change.
I know we hear about kids who feel lost because they don't know who their "real" parents are. Frankly, we all feel lost from time to time. If we weren't adopted, we figure out other reasons why we feel lost. In at least some of those situations, I wonder if it's not an abandonment issue, but is instead part of the process of finding out who you are. And yeah, who you are is something internal - it's not completely dependent on your DNA.
I don't think there is anything wrong with getting to know who your birth parents are, but tread carefully. The ones who raised you, loved you, sacrificed things they wanted to give you the things you wanted - these are your real parents and it's not unreasonable for us to ask that you don't say things like you want to get to know your "real" family or that you feel like less of a person because you were given up for adoption. You weren't given up. You were given love.
At the same time, adoptive parents need to remember that it might be a part of their child's journey to meet their biological parents so try not to be jealous or threatened of that. The bio parent might be awesome to your kid, sweet, and wonderful, but all sides concerned need to remember that we are who we are because of our experiences. Had that "wonderful" person been raising that particular kid his or herself, don't you think they would have been a different person 16 years later? We can't assume they would have the ability to be that wonderful person.
Things I think we shouldn't hear anymore:
You'll regret it
You'll miss out on his/her life.
You're selfish
That child is a part of our family and you have no right.
You don't know who your "real' parents are?
You need to know DNA and medical history!
I need to know where I come from in order to be a whole person
Sometimes kids are taken away from the parents without their consent.
Yeah, that's true... but laws are changing and updated constantly so that happens less and less often. I still see stories where the mother claims the baby was taken from her 5 years ago and she wouldn't have given her up if she had known. Sadly those are stories of our past, but they are not often the stories of the present. For more than twenty years, the paperwork, the conversations, and the requirements have made this incredibly difficult. This truth just needs to catch up with the people who still tell stories about articles they read in Reader's Digest 15 years ago about the mom who didn't know her baby was given up without her permission. At that time the story was probably 20 years old! It's outdated information.
While we still see things on the news, let's remember that we need to be advocating for the child to be in the best home for them, not worrying so much about the mom who changed her mind ten years later or the adoptive parent who wasn't perfect. Of course mistakes still happen, but that's not a reason to talk badly about adoption (or not giving up for adoption for that matter). It's no excuse to say hurtful things about these situations. You could be talking to an adopted child, an adoptive parent, or a birth parent in any conversation. Remember that they all have the right to their decision and that they deserve respect.
My perspective:
I also don't like certain things that have come up. Like "It's so great to love a child that isn't your own. I mean, by birth." Yeah, you tried to correct yourself, but all you did was make yourself look like a heartless fool. I'm not convinced that mothers love their children because they came out of them. Sometimes, yes, but I think it's also the emotional bonding, the growing, experiencing things with your child. This happens from day one so it seems like it's the birth process, but maybe it's just proximity. Maybe I can love my child as much as the one you popped out. Maybe I have a heart without prejudice.
The other one is a comment along the lines of it being great because it probably was a better situation for the mother... but stated in a way that implied she must be some drug addict or skanky drunk teen who doesn't understand consequences. I've gathered that a lot of people think the only way a person would give up a kid is if their life is a mess. This is a huge thing that needs to change. My niece was mature and responsible for her age. That's why she made the decision she made. It was a smart decision for her. I have learned that in a lot of situations, it's not that the mother is a mess, it's that she isn't. As long as we hold onto that myth, it also tells prospective bio moms thinking about adoption that they are messed up mentally, physically, or otherwise to consider adoption. No! We need to make sure they understand it can show they are intelligent, mature, and responsible.
Showing posts with label adoption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adoption. Show all posts
Friday, May 25, 2018
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Penn. man wants to take child from adoptive parents
Adoption in the news
Legally, we need to close the loophole that allows this to happen. That's the first thing I have to say. I understand that even though the things I have to say on the subject are going to make it sound like I don't care about this guy's feelings.
But here's the thing. That baby has known only his adoptive parents for 2 years. That's pretty formative. For me, it was also the hardest part of raising a kid so I'm probably biased in saying it's too damned late to take the kid away. I think that the news is pretty good at portraying the side of the wronged biological father. They have pretty much always managed to make that side pretty clear and I don't want to discount that side of it, but we all know it. We hear it. The question, though, is it better to rip the kid from his parents' arms because you weren't on good terms with the biological mother when she gave up the kid for adoption? Or for all the months she was pregnant and came to this decision? I don't particularly care to hyperbolize with the word 'rip', but have you ever taken a 2 year old away from the arms of their parents when they didn't want to go? For longer than a night of babysitting?
I reiterate, we need to close this loophole! I've heard people terrified of adopting because they hear these stories. They don't want to become attached to a child only to have it taken away. They need to be allowed to feel like that child is their child. If they have fear that the baby they have just adopted can be taken by a biological parent at any point along the way, it will affect every little action of how they raise and think of that child! Whether it is in relation to an adopted child or any other experience we have as humans, our responses are, consciously or sub-consciously, going to be affected. When the only news reports we hear about adoption are related to kids being taken from the only families they know, the result can only be adoptive parents treating their adopted children slightly differently.
Meanwhile, adoptive parents and the children they have adopted have created this family of their own. A family is love, but it is also knowledge of each other. Trust. Being able to predict others' behaviour because we know them that well! Familiarity. Comfort. Attachment.
Yes, a two year old can re-establish those bonds with a new family. It happens when a young child's parents get divorced, the parents remarry, and they end up liking their step-parents. It happens when a toddler's parents are killed in a car accident and they go to love with beloved aunts and uncles. It happens, that is true, but if a biological father loves his kid so much, then shouldn't the thought of what it will do to the child at least cross his mind? Is it really because it breaks your heart not to see the kid or because you can't let got of something you think you should possess? If someone steals your car, you want to take them to court, prove it's yours and get it back. No one thinks about how the car feels, but the victim is likely to say things like "I love that car. It's my car. It belongs to me."
Guess what? A kid is not a car. Why does the thought never come up that these guys think about that kid's feelings? Why do we never hear a tale where he's saying "Hey, maybe it's for the best. I just want to know what's going on in my kid's life. Maybe some pictures and letters or let me visit as a family friend." No. It is always the immediate jump to "I must have my child back." What are you going to provide that child? What plans do you have to offer that child more than it is getting right now? I see how that comes dangerously close to saying that a rich family deserves to keep a kid more than a single poor guy. I do not believe that. There is much more to raising a kid than money like love, attention, and desire to have that kid around. I understand these biological fathers have those things, but sometimes love is about giving the person what they want and what's better for them than about what you want. Isn't sacrifice the purest show of love?
I also notice the news never asks about what the bio-mom has to say to defend herself. I fully support the idea that bio-mom's should discuss her plans with bio-dad before making any decisions about the baby, but let's keep something huge in mind. We want men and women to be treated equally, but they will never really be equal and one of the most defining reasons for that is the ability to get pregnant. Women know from childhood that this is their contribution and responsibility to the world. By the time they can have babies, they realize that they have to think about it every time they are with a guy. Do you think guys spend that much time thinking about what could happen if they fertilize the wrong egg? Of course not. We've sort of taught our young women that one way they can behave equally to men is to engage in sex as frivolously as they do. They have the right to be promiscuous without being sluts (let me come back to that comment in a second....) and they do, but a guy never ever ever has to worry about the consequences of a mistake the way a woman does. At the back of his mind he knows that if he gets her pregnant, he can choose whether or not to be involved in the decision. A women doesn't get that choice, does she?
Quick tangent on that comment. The same people who think that a biological parent has more rights over a kid often seems to be the same kind of person who will still call a woman a slut in this age of "enlightenment", but the dude is a playa, not a slut. He's not a jackass for skipping necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy or, say, skipping the sex altogether. No, a man doesn't really have to look at it the same way as woman, does he? I mean, this is a huge issue.
In the story above, we're talking about a young man who is now of legal age who broke off relations with the girl because she was younger than he was first told. Well, it's not like the age he *thought* she was is particularly upstanding either. As far as the age argument goes in my world, there isn't a lot of difference between a 40 year old wife and a 53 year old husband, but there is an ENORMOUS difference between an 16 year old and an 18 year old. Starting high school and thinking about college or a career are two different lives completely.
So you know what, dude? It is unfair. It is unjust. It's unfair to you. It's unjust to the child. Still, can you take five seconds to think about how unfair and unjust it will be to the baby if you snatch him from the only parents he has ever known? Parents who, btw, had a reason for adopting. Maybe they've had their own struggles. The idea of adopting your kid didn't come easily to them, you know, and I would like to hear at least one of these guys admit that they have given at least as much thought to taking the kid away, the complexity, the grey area, as the bio-mom who carried it in her womb and contemplated 24/7 for nine months or the people who came to the decision to adopt a child for whatever reason they came to that decision. Stop and think for a minute. If you're taking the kid back like a toy someone stole or you are more upset that the chick who gave birth to this baby lied to you than anything else, maybe you need to spend more time thinking about it.
Letting your kid be adopted isn't a reflection that you're a bad person. It doesn't mean you'll be a bad father someday. A person isn't selfish because they let that sperm create a great kid and then became less involved in that kid's life. It actually shows that you are strong, selfless, and humble to be able to forget the law and do what's best for the child.
Legally, we need to close the loophole that allows this to happen. That's the first thing I have to say. I understand that even though the things I have to say on the subject are going to make it sound like I don't care about this guy's feelings.
But here's the thing. That baby has known only his adoptive parents for 2 years. That's pretty formative. For me, it was also the hardest part of raising a kid so I'm probably biased in saying it's too damned late to take the kid away. I think that the news is pretty good at portraying the side of the wronged biological father. They have pretty much always managed to make that side pretty clear and I don't want to discount that side of it, but we all know it. We hear it. The question, though, is it better to rip the kid from his parents' arms because you weren't on good terms with the biological mother when she gave up the kid for adoption? Or for all the months she was pregnant and came to this decision? I don't particularly care to hyperbolize with the word 'rip', but have you ever taken a 2 year old away from the arms of their parents when they didn't want to go? For longer than a night of babysitting?
I reiterate, we need to close this loophole! I've heard people terrified of adopting because they hear these stories. They don't want to become attached to a child only to have it taken away. They need to be allowed to feel like that child is their child. If they have fear that the baby they have just adopted can be taken by a biological parent at any point along the way, it will affect every little action of how they raise and think of that child! Whether it is in relation to an adopted child or any other experience we have as humans, our responses are, consciously or sub-consciously, going to be affected. When the only news reports we hear about adoption are related to kids being taken from the only families they know, the result can only be adoptive parents treating their adopted children slightly differently.
Meanwhile, adoptive parents and the children they have adopted have created this family of their own. A family is love, but it is also knowledge of each other. Trust. Being able to predict others' behaviour because we know them that well! Familiarity. Comfort. Attachment.
Yes, a two year old can re-establish those bonds with a new family. It happens when a young child's parents get divorced, the parents remarry, and they end up liking their step-parents. It happens when a toddler's parents are killed in a car accident and they go to love with beloved aunts and uncles. It happens, that is true, but if a biological father loves his kid so much, then shouldn't the thought of what it will do to the child at least cross his mind? Is it really because it breaks your heart not to see the kid or because you can't let got of something you think you should possess? If someone steals your car, you want to take them to court, prove it's yours and get it back. No one thinks about how the car feels, but the victim is likely to say things like "I love that car. It's my car. It belongs to me."
Guess what? A kid is not a car. Why does the thought never come up that these guys think about that kid's feelings? Why do we never hear a tale where he's saying "Hey, maybe it's for the best. I just want to know what's going on in my kid's life. Maybe some pictures and letters or let me visit as a family friend." No. It is always the immediate jump to "I must have my child back." What are you going to provide that child? What plans do you have to offer that child more than it is getting right now? I see how that comes dangerously close to saying that a rich family deserves to keep a kid more than a single poor guy. I do not believe that. There is much more to raising a kid than money like love, attention, and desire to have that kid around. I understand these biological fathers have those things, but sometimes love is about giving the person what they want and what's better for them than about what you want. Isn't sacrifice the purest show of love?
I also notice the news never asks about what the bio-mom has to say to defend herself. I fully support the idea that bio-mom's should discuss her plans with bio-dad before making any decisions about the baby, but let's keep something huge in mind. We want men and women to be treated equally, but they will never really be equal and one of the most defining reasons for that is the ability to get pregnant. Women know from childhood that this is their contribution and responsibility to the world. By the time they can have babies, they realize that they have to think about it every time they are with a guy. Do you think guys spend that much time thinking about what could happen if they fertilize the wrong egg? Of course not. We've sort of taught our young women that one way they can behave equally to men is to engage in sex as frivolously as they do. They have the right to be promiscuous without being sluts (let me come back to that comment in a second....) and they do, but a guy never ever ever has to worry about the consequences of a mistake the way a woman does. At the back of his mind he knows that if he gets her pregnant, he can choose whether or not to be involved in the decision. A women doesn't get that choice, does she?
Quick tangent on that comment. The same people who think that a biological parent has more rights over a kid often seems to be the same kind of person who will still call a woman a slut in this age of "enlightenment", but the dude is a playa, not a slut. He's not a jackass for skipping necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy or, say, skipping the sex altogether. No, a man doesn't really have to look at it the same way as woman, does he? I mean, this is a huge issue.
In the story above, we're talking about a young man who is now of legal age who broke off relations with the girl because she was younger than he was first told. Well, it's not like the age he *thought* she was is particularly upstanding either. As far as the age argument goes in my world, there isn't a lot of difference between a 40 year old wife and a 53 year old husband, but there is an ENORMOUS difference between an 16 year old and an 18 year old. Starting high school and thinking about college or a career are two different lives completely.
So you know what, dude? It is unfair. It is unjust. It's unfair to you. It's unjust to the child. Still, can you take five seconds to think about how unfair and unjust it will be to the baby if you snatch him from the only parents he has ever known? Parents who, btw, had a reason for adopting. Maybe they've had their own struggles. The idea of adopting your kid didn't come easily to them, you know, and I would like to hear at least one of these guys admit that they have given at least as much thought to taking the kid away, the complexity, the grey area, as the bio-mom who carried it in her womb and contemplated 24/7 for nine months or the people who came to the decision to adopt a child for whatever reason they came to that decision. Stop and think for a minute. If you're taking the kid back like a toy someone stole or you are more upset that the chick who gave birth to this baby lied to you than anything else, maybe you need to spend more time thinking about it.
Letting your kid be adopted isn't a reflection that you're a bad person. It doesn't mean you'll be a bad father someday. A person isn't selfish because they let that sperm create a great kid and then became less involved in that kid's life. It actually shows that you are strong, selfless, and humble to be able to forget the law and do what's best for the child.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
'Switched at Birth' is about to make me either very happy, or very mad.
Jane and I found this show a few months ago when it hit Netflix with some new episodes. I took ASL in college, Jane has a deaf friend who has been teaching her so that was the initial appeal. The next appeal is that even though it is not about adoption, it certainly addresses the issues of what makes a parent quite well. Yeah, it's idealized and sometimes a little naive, but they have spent some time touching on some of the emotions and situations I've either dealt with or thought about.
Certain things annoy me, but I won't bring them into it unless it really starts to upset me.
Right now SPOILERS! they are addressing parenting through one of the parents who seems to think having a one night stand with a woman gives him the right to take "his" kid back from the parents who adopted him. One of the daughters opposes it. Great. So how will it end? Either with me happy or mad. Time will tell.
I must throw this line out there which was spoken which I loved, but it was really about the *way* it was said... "My parents" and then she hesitates as she realizes what she has said "Are still my parents."
Movies I love: Juno, August Rush
Movies I should probably see: The Odd Life of Timothy Green
Shows I can't watch because it is more likely to make me angry than pleased: Secret Life of an American Teenager
Oh, and I tried the Fosters, but I couldn't get into it. Meanwhile, I heard there is a problem where one parent treats her birth child differently than her foster kids. That is probably enough to piss me off right there....
Jane and I found this show a few months ago when it hit Netflix with some new episodes. I took ASL in college, Jane has a deaf friend who has been teaching her so that was the initial appeal. The next appeal is that even though it is not about adoption, it certainly addresses the issues of what makes a parent quite well. Yeah, it's idealized and sometimes a little naive, but they have spent some time touching on some of the emotions and situations I've either dealt with or thought about.
Certain things annoy me, but I won't bring them into it unless it really starts to upset me.
Right now SPOILERS! they are addressing parenting through one of the parents who seems to think having a one night stand with a woman gives him the right to take "his" kid back from the parents who adopted him. One of the daughters opposes it. Great. So how will it end? Either with me happy or mad. Time will tell.
I must throw this line out there which was spoken which I loved, but it was really about the *way* it was said... "My parents" and then she hesitates as she realizes what she has said "Are still my parents."
Movies I love: Juno, August Rush
Movies I should probably see: The Odd Life of Timothy Green
Shows I can't watch because it is more likely to make me angry than pleased: Secret Life of an American Teenager
Oh, and I tried the Fosters, but I couldn't get into it. Meanwhile, I heard there is a problem where one parent treats her birth child differently than her foster kids. That is probably enough to piss me off right there....
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Adoptee rights?
Woman finds birth mother through viral Facebook photo
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 why was
she unable to tell her about her natural mom?? I think it shows how far
adopters will go to hide the truth. I'm so happy that the search went
smoothly for her though! Everyone deserves to know their natural family
and have the right to their original birth certificate....even if
adopters and the money makers of the adoption industry will do any and
everything to conceal the truth. "
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.
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.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Adoption
This has become something of a MomBlog so that's going to be its new official unofficial title.
Our situation is unique. I know that. But to think my feelings about adoption are invalid because of that is unfair and naive.
Nutshell: Our daughter is adopted. Her birth mother is my niece. They are and will have a relationship of sorts. Her birth father moved and started his own family. While we kept the doors open, we haven't heard from him in quite some time and the last two letters sent with the intention of keeping him updated have been returned unknown.
TV, movies, Reader's Digest, and various news articles have always addressed the situation of adoption and they have sometimes tried to be fair, sometimes been 'sensational', and often annoy me in some ways. It's not their fault. It is not their responsibility to be a moral guide or good example.
Last night we watched the Pilot of Once Upon A Time [SPOILERS] At one point, the woman whom we know will end up being wicked witch says (to birth mother who has recently been found by adopted son) a speech about how she is the one who was there to change diapers, stay up nights, feed him, clothe him, etc. It's a truth we adoptive parents feel; the strain of being a parent that a non-parent can imagine, but never quite understand. The problem I had is that I know this woman will end up being the evil step mother figure. Birth mom is nice, sweet, child of lovely, innocent Snow White.
It just bugs me in a way I can't put into exact words today. I think it's because of the stories where the adopted/foster child thinks of the person who took them in as the evil not-really-my-mom way and surely the person who gave up the child was under such duress that giving up the child was their only choice or maybe they weren't given the choice. Well, I know I come off as the mean one. Why? Because I am the disciplinarian. Birth Mom comes into the picture after the child has learned to be a wonderful person and gets to play with Birth Mom. She doesn't have to criticize or hurt the child's feelings because Adoptive Mom has already done that job. Let's keep that in mind.
Today, I saw a description for a movie that will probably be nothing like it's described, but just reading the description and watching the first two minutes sent me right to this blog to get out these feelings.
It explains that a boy's parents fight the adoptive parents for custody of a young boy. In the first two minutes, you see a man arrested as his pregnant abused wife looks on, crying. Seven years later, he's out of prison, the two are cleaned up and ready to start over.
I can only assume this is why they go after the boy, but you know what? They have no right. Let me repeat. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT.
She voluntarily gave up the child in this particular story, see, and it's my opinion that we need to stop thinking in this world in terms of the birth parents giving up a child because things suck, but when they clean up, they can just fix it.
I can't help but ask why we don't think in terms of it being a permanent situation. If you give up your child for adoption, you are giving it a better home; in theory the one you would like to give it if you could, but you can't. HANDS CLEAN. It is a good thing you have done and you are done now. I realize those ties don't just dissolve and your feelings don't go away the minute you sign the adoption papers, but people die and you lose them. You cannot have them back. When an adoption is finalized, the child lives, it's true, but you cannot have them back.
I once saw a guy on the news complaining that Utah has one of the hardest adoption policies. Granted, I felt bad for this guy because his child was given up without his permission. I still don't care, though. Utah is not the hardest for birth parents, imo, it's just the most protective for the REAL PARENTS. The ones who have been raising the child. Utah takes 6 months after birth to finalize. That's just about long enough for a parent to become too attached to a child to give it up without it being as much of a heartache to them as it was to the birth parent who gave up the child in the first place. Why on earth should the adoptive parents' heart be less important than the one who hasn't been the child's parents for the last 6 months?
The one who changed the diapers and stayed up nights are now the parents. I think we should, as a society, see it as that. They are the parents and the birth parents no longer enter into the decisions. I know adoptive parents live that way because they have to for their own sanity, but stories in the paper and this world constantly undermine that. They don't want to discard the feelings of the birth parents, but you have given genetics and a womb. THAT IS ALL. I don't mean to demean the importance of that great task, but getting pregnant and making a baby is not a miracle, it's base instinct. Monkeys do it, okay? Brine shrimp do it. What a birth parent did is not nearly as miraculous as the parent who took the child into their home and their heart and raised it as their own. Adoptive parents aren't "saving" the child. They are just being parents, but we know from stories and experience that it takes a special kind of person to treat a child who is not biologically their own as their own.
Examples: step families, foster families, etc. In so many cases, a parent cannot quite treat the other kids as well as they treat their own. Therefore, it is the minority of adoptive parents who are good enough to raise the kid. Babies are made and born with little help from the parent (when something like miscarriage goes wrong, is it not often blamed on something the parent had no control over?), therefore that part is NOT the miracle. Being the actual parent is the miracle. Why is this discounted? Why must we cater to the person who gave up the child? I appreciate the birth mother more than can ever be expressed, but I also know in my heart that I am the mother. The real mother. The only mother.
I am more attached to my child than the birth mother is. Maybe she doesn't think so, but I know that to be true. A huge part of coming to terms with giving up the child is what's in your heart. If your heart cannot let go, neither should you. Meanwhile, if you think you can train you heart to know better, then let go and let the adoptive parents drop the adjective and be, simply, THE PARENTS
Our situation is unique. I know that. But to think my feelings about adoption are invalid because of that is unfair and naive.
Nutshell: Our daughter is adopted. Her birth mother is my niece. They are and will have a relationship of sorts. Her birth father moved and started his own family. While we kept the doors open, we haven't heard from him in quite some time and the last two letters sent with the intention of keeping him updated have been returned unknown.
TV, movies, Reader's Digest, and various news articles have always addressed the situation of adoption and they have sometimes tried to be fair, sometimes been 'sensational', and often annoy me in some ways. It's not their fault. It is not their responsibility to be a moral guide or good example.
Last night we watched the Pilot of Once Upon A Time [SPOILERS] At one point, the woman whom we know will end up being wicked witch says (to birth mother who has recently been found by adopted son) a speech about how she is the one who was there to change diapers, stay up nights, feed him, clothe him, etc. It's a truth we adoptive parents feel; the strain of being a parent that a non-parent can imagine, but never quite understand. The problem I had is that I know this woman will end up being the evil step mother figure. Birth mom is nice, sweet, child of lovely, innocent Snow White.
It just bugs me in a way I can't put into exact words today. I think it's because of the stories where the adopted/foster child thinks of the person who took them in as the evil not-really-my-mom way and surely the person who gave up the child was under such duress that giving up the child was their only choice or maybe they weren't given the choice. Well, I know I come off as the mean one. Why? Because I am the disciplinarian. Birth Mom comes into the picture after the child has learned to be a wonderful person and gets to play with Birth Mom. She doesn't have to criticize or hurt the child's feelings because Adoptive Mom has already done that job. Let's keep that in mind.
Today, I saw a description for a movie that will probably be nothing like it's described, but just reading the description and watching the first two minutes sent me right to this blog to get out these feelings.
It explains that a boy's parents fight the adoptive parents for custody of a young boy. In the first two minutes, you see a man arrested as his pregnant abused wife looks on, crying. Seven years later, he's out of prison, the two are cleaned up and ready to start over.
I can only assume this is why they go after the boy, but you know what? They have no right. Let me repeat. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT.
She voluntarily gave up the child in this particular story, see, and it's my opinion that we need to stop thinking in this world in terms of the birth parents giving up a child because things suck, but when they clean up, they can just fix it.
I can't help but ask why we don't think in terms of it being a permanent situation. If you give up your child for adoption, you are giving it a better home; in theory the one you would like to give it if you could, but you can't. HANDS CLEAN. It is a good thing you have done and you are done now. I realize those ties don't just dissolve and your feelings don't go away the minute you sign the adoption papers, but people die and you lose them. You cannot have them back. When an adoption is finalized, the child lives, it's true, but you cannot have them back.
I once saw a guy on the news complaining that Utah has one of the hardest adoption policies. Granted, I felt bad for this guy because his child was given up without his permission. I still don't care, though. Utah is not the hardest for birth parents, imo, it's just the most protective for the REAL PARENTS. The ones who have been raising the child. Utah takes 6 months after birth to finalize. That's just about long enough for a parent to become too attached to a child to give it up without it being as much of a heartache to them as it was to the birth parent who gave up the child in the first place. Why on earth should the adoptive parents' heart be less important than the one who hasn't been the child's parents for the last 6 months?
The one who changed the diapers and stayed up nights are now the parents. I think we should, as a society, see it as that. They are the parents and the birth parents no longer enter into the decisions. I know adoptive parents live that way because they have to for their own sanity, but stories in the paper and this world constantly undermine that. They don't want to discard the feelings of the birth parents, but you have given genetics and a womb. THAT IS ALL. I don't mean to demean the importance of that great task, but getting pregnant and making a baby is not a miracle, it's base instinct. Monkeys do it, okay? Brine shrimp do it. What a birth parent did is not nearly as miraculous as the parent who took the child into their home and their heart and raised it as their own. Adoptive parents aren't "saving" the child. They are just being parents, but we know from stories and experience that it takes a special kind of person to treat a child who is not biologically their own as their own.
Examples: step families, foster families, etc. In so many cases, a parent cannot quite treat the other kids as well as they treat their own. Therefore, it is the minority of adoptive parents who are good enough to raise the kid. Babies are made and born with little help from the parent (when something like miscarriage goes wrong, is it not often blamed on something the parent had no control over?), therefore that part is NOT the miracle. Being the actual parent is the miracle. Why is this discounted? Why must we cater to the person who gave up the child? I appreciate the birth mother more than can ever be expressed, but I also know in my heart that I am the mother. The real mother. The only mother.
I am more attached to my child than the birth mother is. Maybe she doesn't think so, but I know that to be true. A huge part of coming to terms with giving up the child is what's in your heart. If your heart cannot let go, neither should you. Meanwhile, if you think you can train you heart to know better, then let go and let the adoptive parents drop the adjective and be, simply, THE PARENTS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)