Adoption Criticism - Page 7

[Starr]

In my previous reply I really was not using that example to say that not telling is Ok, I am very sorry if that is how it came out. I was simply trying to say that parents who adopt are not the only ones who decline to tell their children information about their family. I personally am going to let my daughter know about her biological family because its her history. I did not intend for it to be misread. I was just trying to post that biological or adoptive moms aren't all that different, we just want whats best for our children.

[Starr]

Originally Posted by Hells_Belle

Are you seriously saying that it's OK to not tell a child he or she is adopted? Are you seriously suggesting that not telling a child about his own history is the same thing as not mentioning some errant uncle?

Seriously, how can you even THINK that, let alone say it? :

THAT is exactly why open access to information needs to be legislated.

Ok, I'm done here. I can't maintain rational conversation on this topic when faced with statements like this, so I need to leave this thread. Thanks for listening.

I'm sorry you don't feel like you can maintain a rational conversation with us. For the most part this has been a good eye opening discussion for some. When you have a question or disagree with what someone is saying maybe you should ask that person, calmly, to make better known what they were trying to say. Instead of attacking the person. I hope you can stay and find a calm and respectful way to share your thoughts and opinions.

[Laurel]

Permanent guardianship

This idea of permanent guardianship is interesting, but troublesome. Basically, it sounds to me like the guardian would be a parent in every sense (except biology) but would not be granted the title of "parent". If that is the case, then it seems to me that the issue is all about adoptive parents taking the title of "parent". Especially since open records and birth certificate issues could all be addressed under the umbrella of adoption. Is it just that those who are against adoption are bothered by the taking of the term "parent" and applying it to someone who isn't the biological parent? Therefore, they prefer the term "guardian"?

It doesn't seem fair that these guardians would be parents in every single way except they wouldn't have the legal and social status of parents. It would be interesting to see whether or not this guardian status, over the period of however many years it takes to raise a child, would have an have a negative impact on the guardian's ability to effectively parent the child.

Dharmamama:

"As a parent in an adoptive family, particularly one that stands out as such, I have encountered so many instances of adoptive families being seen as "less than" or "other," not as valid as bio families."

To me, the idea of wanting some to be a "permanent guardian" instead of an "adoptive parent" is all about what you just mentioned above.

There are so many little things to think about. What you your child call you? I can't imagine having my child refer to me as "guardian". I suppose he could call me by my first name. But when I'm doing all the mothering things that I do, like rocking him to sleep, or having his arms wrapped around my neck when he's upset and crying, I can't imagine him calling me anything else except mommy. From his point of view, all his friends have mommies. I can't imagine *not* using the term "mom" and then trying to explain to him why all his little friends have a mom but he has a guardian.

Hopeland, I would be very interested to hear more of your perspective as someone who is a legal guardian. Are you planning to adopt your child at some point? I think I remember you saying that you were. If so, why is that important to you or to your child, rather than just remaining a guardian? Does that fact that you are considered to be a guardian rather than a parent affect you much? Does it affect how you see your role or how other perceive you? (From reading prior posts, it sounds like you perceive yourself as a mother, and I would perceive you as such too.)

[Hells_Belle]

Originally Posted by Starr

I'm sorry you don't feel like you can maintain a rational conversation with us. For the most part this has been a good eye opening discussion for some. When you have a question or disagree with what someone is saying maybe you should ask that person, calmly, to make better known what they were trying to say. Instead of attacking the person. I hope you can stay and find a calm and respectful way to share your thoughts and opinions.

Your post was pretty clear. The fact that it doesn't reflect what you were trying to say is not something I can help. I've re-read it several times, and I still think it says exactly what I read it to mean. I'm glad that's not what you meant, however.

[Starr]

Hells Belle I am curious as to where your relationship to adoption comes from. Its just kind of nice to know where they are coming from in trying to understand their point of view. If you want to remain anonymous thats fine I completely understand. I was just wondering if your views are from your own personal experiences with adoption or if second hand coming from a person you know who was touched with adoption. Not trying to be snide or nosy.

[Hells_Belle]

Starr, I don't mind answering. As I said upthread, my father is adopted and my DH is adopted. They were both closed adoptions; my DH was adopted in the UK and has since been reunited (illegally) with his birth mother. My father was adopted in Texas and has never had that option, and never will.

Originally Posted by Laurel

This idea of permanent guardianship is interesting, but troublesome. Basically, it sounds to me like the guardian would be a parent in every sense (except biology) but would not be granted the title of "parent"... If that is the case, then it seems to me that the issue is all about adoptive parents taking the title of "parent"... What you your child call you? I can't imagine having my child refer to me as "guardian"... It doesn't seem fair that these guardians would be parents in every single way except they wouldn't have the legal and social status of parents. I suppose he could call me by my first name.

I think you're misunderstanding what I've said (or I've just not been clear.) As far as I'm concerned, your child would still call you "mum" or whatever because, well, you're his mum. You would still be his mother. My point is that this legal costruct where he has no other mother - she legally doesn't exist in relation to him - has to go. It's the lie upon which the institution of adoption is built. It helps no one and harms many people.

[hopeland]

Hi,
I actually have "permanentguardianship" according to the paperwork but I was told by my attorney that my daughters previous adoptive mother could go to court and ask for it to be revoked if she chose to do so. In my situation she really shows very little interest in my daughter so it is not really a concern. My daughter considers herself adopted although I have treid to explain to her that she is actually not yet. I think to some extent that bothers her but she really doesnt understand. It is very,very important to her to feel she has a "forever family" she knows all too well that people change their mind and give you away. My reason for having guardianship as opposed to adoption is due to a legal type thing. It is a long story but basically it has to do with an attachment disorder and federal subsidies related to that. Yes, I do plan to adopt her one day since she has come to live with me 18 months ago there have been some changes that would make it better to do that later on. I do feel that I am her mom and she is my daughter! I do find it bothersome to explain to people that I have guardianship as opposed to her being adopted. The next thing out of their mouths is always "do you plan to keep her". As if because I have guardianship it is not a permanent thing. I often am tempted to just say she is adopted so I dont have to explain but I like to be honest. She calls me mom and knows she is part of the family. For legal type things like registering for school I use her legal name but in her class and other things she goes by my last name...she seems okay with that. I do worry a bit about peoples opinions especially court etc because I have not adopted her.

[hopeland]

I wanted to give my input on allowing adoptive children to know about their birth mothers/parents. AS some of you know my daughter went from birth mom to adoptive mom, and then to me(I have guardianship). My daughter has a limited knowledge of her birth mom. I fyou ask her she will tell you that her birth mom was on drugs. I didnt tell her that her former adoptive mother did. MY daughter knows her birth name...there again I didnt change it but her adoptive mother did. (A comment about that I think that some states actually encourage adoptive mothers to do that.) I disagree with it personally especially when a child is older. My daughter has also created her own reality regarding her birth family a bit. She describes what her birth parents look like and I dont think birth father was ever in the picture but it makes my daughter feel better so I go along with it. I know her birth mothers name and have her original birth certificate so when she grows up she can find her if she wants to. My daughter is actually much more interested in her former adoptive mother at this point..to her that was her mom and she is sad about losing her. It is really hard to try and explain why she nolonger wanted to parent her. I do my best to tell her that she "couldnt" parent her anymore that it was not because of anything my daughter did or didnt do. She has a very idealized opinion of her former adoptive mother. It is hard for me to remain quiet at times when I personally have very little regard for someone who would abandon her.

[Belleweather]

Laurel, I think you really set out for me what my big problem with 'legal guardianship' is on an emotional level -- that it says that biology is more important in determining what makes a parent than the actions of parents. And that's a tough thing to propose for a lot of reasons other than adoption, like new ways of reproducing, and blended families.

But coming from a legal perspective (I'm a law student, potential adoptive parent, and hope to work in family law) I've got two other problems with legal guardianship. One of them is probably just my own thing: I've served as a temporary court-ordered guardian and I've represented a mentally incapable client through guardianship proceedings. And NONE of that was anything like parenting. It wasn't even anything like caregiving - my responsibilites didn't extend to the person of the ward, just their property. It was a purely legal mechanism for protecting the property of someone who was suffering from alzheimers and could no longer make rational decisions about how to dispose of it. And so to me (and I think to a lot of lawyers) using the guardianship label really feels like treating children like property and I think all children deserve better than that.

And then, if we're going to take guardianship as a starting point, and then make it permanent, irrevocable, add a caregiving component, remove the focus on property and put it back on the person, and do all the other things that you're proposing we've gotten very, very far away from the legal concept of what a guardianship is. What we've really gotten to is adoption -- minus closed records. Especially if you'll allow for the child's name to be changed in some cases, and since the law would require termination of the birth parent's parental rights.

I guess if we're going to talk about changing the statutory scheme, my suggestion would be to continue to issue a new birth certificate with adoption, but to also issue an adoption record that retains the original information -as much as is known, anyway- about biological parents, place and time of birth, etc. and retain that information on-file with the state so that it can't be lost or destroyed and can be accessed by the child whenever they feel a need for that information.

I think that the new birth certificate not only serves an important purpose in letting the child chose when and how to disclose that they're adopted to the rest of the world, but might even be legally *required* for that reason -- right of privacy almost certianly extends to not having to let every airline ticket agent, DMV agent, or social security rep know the circumstances of your birth.

[Laurel]

Originally Posted by Hells_Belle My point is that this legal costruct where he has no [B

other[/B] mother - she legally doesn't exist in relation to him - has to go. .

OK, that makes sense--I can see where you're coming from. My understanding is that you're saying that this birthmother exists--and she *is* a mother because she has carried and birthed this child, is genetically related to him, and loved/continues to love him despite the fact that she is not parenting him. They have a bond--even if they have no contact, there is still some sort of relationship, though it may be in their minds only. Yet, there is no legal recognition that she exists or that she is his mother. I can totally understand why you feel that this is so wrong.

From my point of view, it seems that setting up a permanent legal guardianship rather than adoptive parenthood would be the opposite side of this coin. You would have someone who is a mother--because she is parenting and raising this child every day, and because she loves this child and has formed a mother/child bond with him despite the fact that she did not carry and birth him. Yet, there would be no legal recognition that she is his mother. There would be legal recognition that she exists--as a guardian. But not that she is his mother (even though she is).

Why can't there be a legal construct where the reality of both mothers (and fathers) are recognized?


It is true that we all are going to view this subject through the lens of our own personal experiences, so we will probably never see completely eye to eye. But I have learned a lot, and I hope I am understanding your point of view more clearly.

[Sitara]

Can't get away....

I'm sorry for upsetting a few people with the comment I made a few pages back about people shouldn't be able to pay some money to become a mother.

What are the answers to all of this?

I can't escape it. Just like that again i'm sucked back into the emotional pull adoption has always had on my life, that i've desperately tried to escape so many times.

I guess theres not a perfect answer for everyone. Not one law that will meet the needs of every child. I do know, however, that there are laws in effect in other countries such as australia, that work far better than the U.S. laws. And I firmly believe that the U.S. hasn't "adopted" ( no pun intended ) these laws because of the financial gain it makes from the adoption industry.

There are adopted individuals who unlike myself, don't have the passion to find their natural families for whatever reasons. That doesn't mean that the ones who do, such as myself, should have our rights and feelings overlooked. Which is one reason why I try very hard never to debate or argue with other adopted people on beliefs regarding adoption. We process it however we do and thats whats right for us, my point being, for those who desire it, Adopted people deserve equal rights to non adopted people.

I as an adopted person, deserve my original records and my original birth certificate, and I shouldn't have to jump through hoops and fire pits in order to get what is rightfully mine. I don't believe that my aparents changing my name without my consent was right. If years down the road, I wanted my name to be what theirs was, and expressed a desire to amend it, then so be it, but thats not what happens. Legal guardianship may feel like the child being property to some, but I feel like property to my adopted parents at times too. And I didn't have a bad life with them growing up. Thats just what happens to me when money has been exchanged for my delivery. Or when I'm told i was cheaper because they checked the box for accepting mixed race babies.

Where oh where am I going with this.....

Australia, recognized the flaws in their system and amended it. The following year there was a handful of adoptions compared to the thousands from the previous year. Adoptees can now access their original birth certificate and natural parents can access their adopted childs amended birth certificate. Their govt. assigned a number of organizations to all have access to all adopted persons information ie medical history, adoption records, court ordered documents, birth certificates etc. So the adoptees don't have to track down the place they were adopted from and just be out of luck if their papers were lost, burned in a fire, destroyed, or their agency is now closed.
And I have to wonder why, if majority of adoptees were found to be for this act, why were majority of adoptive parents opposed to it?

Their system works far better than ours here in the U.S. So why not take baby steps towards making that a way of life here? Why do people just continue to accept the system here? I guess thats what it really boils down to for me. I feel like, if someone is adopting a child, and surrendering a child through the current system, they in a way are supporting it. That goes for overseas adoptions as well.

I'm not saying that everyone should just stop helping the children who need it and need the help NOW, but does anyone else believe that if we all just put our foot down. That if the demand suddenly changed, to one that helped the child, AND demanded equal rights for the adoptee that it would happen?

The last group of individuals to be denied these same rights, were slaves. Other countries have amended their laws to honor the adopted and parents considering surrendering their rights. So I know its possible. This is what it boils down to for me. Change needs to happen. And until it does worldwide, I will not believe in adoption.

If anyone would like to read up on Adoption Laws in Australia click HERE

here is also a quick summary of the act:
Summary of basic principles of the Act
6.9 To sum up, the following may be regarded as the basic principles of the Act:


Providing rights to adult adopted persons and birth parents to birth certificates and thus to identifying information about each other, such rights being absolute in that their exercise cannot be prevented or limited by the person to whom the information relates, or by other persons.

Protecting the full parental rights of adoptive parents, and providing, in addition, rights to non-identifying information about the birth family during the adopted person's childhood.

Protecting the privacy of birth parents and adopted persons by making provision for each of them to forbid unwanted contact resulting from the release of identifying information under the Act.

Protecting the privacy of all persons by limiting the disclosure of information that unduly intrudes on their privacy; this provision would not however limit the disclosure of information which was necessarily involved in giving effect to the information rights created by the Act.

Providing to members of the family, on a discretionary basis, information relating to a deceased adopted person or birth parent.

Facilitating reunions between adopted persons, birth parents, and other people approved by the Director-General, where those persons have indicated their desire for such reunions.

I really need to stay away from this thread lol but i just can't.

[vermonttaylors]

Welcome back Sitara,

first of all, please know that you have been in my thoughts for a safe, healthy and happy birth experience. I hope this thread doesn't affect your peace of mind too much .

I agree that you should have access to whatever info you want and need. Period, end of story! I too think it is outrageous that a person should be denied information about their OWN HISTORY!!!! I can't imagine what that must feel like. I am a complete supporter of transparency in adoption. Tyou may think that sounds hypocritical coming from someone who chose international adoption, but please believe me when I say we made that choice based on a gut feeling. I honestly can't tell you exactly why we chose Kazakhstan other than we were drawn there by forces beyond our understanding. It really was almost like a magnetic pull. And then the way things fell into place, well it seemed that these children were supposed to be in our care and hearts.

I do think there is a place for adoption in the world we currently live in, although as I said in a pp, I desperately wish our world were different. I think we are all beholden to eachother and must each do what we can to right the worlds injustices. I love my children deeply. I will do whatever I can to help them find peace with their life's journey, be that find their birthparents (tricky in Kaz, but not impossible), or simply being an ear to listen if that's all they want.

I will continue to be a vocal supporter of transparency in adoption,(especially international adoption where the money trail is murky at best) AS WELL AS being a supporter for adfoption in general.

I guess I am trying to convey that I am one adoptive mother who supports adoption AND is on your side. I completely support the idea of people having access to their own records, and if all parties are OK with it, reunions.

Anyway, kids are getting a little hyper, gotta go referree .

One more thing, I didn't take offense at the "money" comment. I am glad we can discuss it. I have no problem with the fact that adoptioon is expensive, but I have BIG, BIG problems with the murkiness of the money trail, and I think that needs to be talked about.

Cheers!

[vermonttaylors]

Helles Belles,

I completely agree with the sentiment that pretending as if there was no birthmother has to go! That's lunacy, and a lie, if you ask me. Of course she existed! And even if they never meet, or even if her name is not known ( in the case of many international adoptions) her existence needs to be acknowledged and honored.

Kids are capable of great depths of love. I completely expect, and want, my kids to love me AND their birthmothers. i also expect her to reside in a part of their hearts to which I will never be admitted. That is as it should be. I am capable of loving both my chgildren fiercly and forever, they are capbale of loving 2 mothers too. Let's not, as a culture, give kids too little credit! I am forever connected to 2 women I have never met, and we talk about them and honor them like they were beloved friends. My children may be angry about the way their lives have gone someday, but none of it will be a secret, and we will help them in anyway we can.

OK, enough ranting. Too much coffee this morning. Gotta go turn the kids into a dragon and a koala bear for a halloween party!

Love this thread, makes me think in new ways (something I don't get enough of with 2 kids under 2 unless you count coming up with new ways of making a toddler eat )

Cheers!

[dharmamama]

Originally Posted by Sitara

Australia, recognized the flaws in their system and amended it. The following year there was a handful of adoptions compared to the thousands from the previous year.

Sitara, can you elaborate on this? What, specifically, accounts for the dramatic decrease in adoptions? I can't imagine that simply ammending laws pertaining to access to birth records cut the number of adoptions. Were there economic changes as well that enabled more woman to parent their children? Were laws changed that make it harder to release children for adoption? Are there now more kids in foster care instead of being adopted?

I have had contact with several Australian adoptive families, and they say that the adoption laws there are a nightmare (and they don't mean because adoptees now have access to their records). They say that the levels of buearocracy are staggering and the inefficiency is nightmarish and that kids are left in limbo for far too long.

Namaste!

[Hells_Belle]

Originally Posted by Laurel

OK, that makes sense--I can see where you're coming from. My understanding is that you're saying that this birthmother exists--and she *is* a mother because she has carried and birthed this child, is genetically related to him, and loved/continues to love him despite the fact that she is not parenting him. They have a bond--even if they have no contact, there is still some sort of relationship, though it may be in their minds only. Yet, there is no legal recognition that she exists or that she is his mother. I can totally understand why you feel that this is so wrong.

Yes, exactly, thank you for getting what I'm saying!

From my point of view, it seems that setting up a permanent legal guardianship rather than adoptive parenthood would be the opposite side of this coin. You would have someone who is a mother--because she is parenting and raising this child every day, and because she loves this child and has formed a mother/child bond with him despite the fact that she did not carry and birth him. Yet, there would be no legal recognition that she is his mother. There would be legal recognition that she exists--as a guardian. But not that she is his mother (even though she is).

In no way do I mean to downplay the importance of adoptive mothers or the bonds between these mothers and their adopted children. It's not like I see amothers as glorified babysitters or anything. I'm perfectly happy - and think it is in the best interests of the child as well - if we have a new legal construct that acknowledges and preserves the relationtionship of the child with the birth mother, and protects and legalises the relationship with the child's new family.

I think people are getting a bit hung up on my use of the word "guardianship." I use that term for no particular reason, and not because of any particular relationship with what we currently understand "guardianship" to be. I am advocating for a completely new vehicle, and you can call it anything you like.

Why can't there be a legal construct where the reality of both mothers (and fathers) are recognized?

No reason at all. That's what I'd like to see happen. I came into this discussion trying to explain why adoption (in my view) isn't respectful of children or of their birth mothers. I didn't mean to imply that people who adopt are not parents or not deserving of having their status recognised. I just wasn't speaking from that perspective. That doesn't mean I don't respect those women, too. I do.

It is true that we all are going to view this subject through the lens of our own personal experiences, so we will probably never see completely eye to eye. But I have learned a lot, and I hope I am understanding your point of view more clearly.

Thank you, that was a very nice thing for you to say. It's nice to be heard

[momsgotmilk4two]

Originally Posted by Irishmommy

I don't think that is correct. I know that once they place a child, they say no more (by adoption or pregnancy) for 18 months. An infertile couple I know was told to use bc when they got their child. I know all the pregnancy after adoption stories, but that is just insulting.

Wow, that really is insulting! And what is wrong with pregnancy after adoption anyway? : My aunt adopted a baby girl and then 5 months later, wound up pregnant. The kids ended up being 16 months apart and to this day are best of friends as well as brother or sister (they are adults now). People have bio kids close in age all the time. Mine are 19 months apart.

[momsgotmilk4two]

As for the topic at hand, people really need to keep their opinions to themselves unless they are asked for them. I think you handled the Target lady just fine There is this prevailing attitude that adopting from this country is so much more noble than adopting from other countries and I just don't get it. Kids all over the globe deserve families just as much as kids here do. People shouldn't be so nationalistic and closed minded. :

[Sierra]

I just wrote a long post and then lost it (bad, bad me for not writing in Word first). I am too tired to re-type it out right now. I'll just let it simmer for a bit. But I did want to say that I have heard stuff as well that was quite negative about the Australian system, from the perspective of foster parents providing permanency for kids. I think both systems have pros and cons for the kids involved.

[annarosa]

people can be so nosy and hurtful - really it is non of their business and certainly not their business to vent their basically racist views on you and your family

[Mizelenius]

Originally Posted by EFmom

My kids will never know who their birthparents are and that is something that deeply grieves me as I'm sure it will be a source of sadness to them, just as I'm sure it is to their birthparents.

My DH is adopted and has zero knowledge of his birth parents and does not care. He sees his mom as his ONLY mom. I was suprised that he wasn't curious, but I think that insulted him.