AdoptaPundit

New Organization to Probe Adoption Abuses

2007-11-15T06:31:00.001-08:00

Plano, TX -- November 14, 2007 -- A new organization has been formed to investigate and shed light on what is known as the “Baby Scoop Era.” This was the period in American social history between 1945 – 1972. During this time, unprecedented numbers of white, middle-class mothers surrendered babies for adoption, often against their will.

The Baby Scoop Era Research Initiative, also known as BSERI, was founded in October 2007 by two mothers, Karen Wilson-Buterbaugh and Barbara Franks-Morra. Both lost newborns to adoption during this period.

Franks-Morra explained that maternity homes radically changed after 1945. As social workers took over management from altruistic religious organizations, homes that had once sheltered single mothers and prepared them to raise their children began instead to promote closed, stranger adoption.

Wilson-Buterbaugh stated, “The social work profession brought a psychological bias to their work with single mothers. They introduced the untested notion that single mothers were ‘neurotic’ and could be cured by taking their babies. This idea radically altered the outcomes for single mothers during this period. These practices persisted through 1972, when the number of domestic adoptions began to drop dramatically.”

“These homes, which were sometimes little more than reformatories, often used coercive practices such as shaming, blaming, and removing or withholding babies from new mothers to force adoptions. Mothers were then told to ‘go on with their lives’ as if nothing had happened. Obviously this was impossible for most of them.”

Franks-Morra said, “We demand acknowledgement of the historical truth surrounding past adoption practices in the United States. We demand recognition for the millions of women who were systematically denied their inalienable right to raise their infant sons and daughters.”

“The Baby Scoop Era has become a footnote in American social history, except to the mothers who survived these practices. These women have carried into their adult lives burdens of worry, grief, pain and a corrosive secret. The lifelong consequences of these forced adoptions are still operating in the lives of millions of American women.”

For more information, www.babyscoopera.com or email bseri@babyscoopera.com

For the Love of Green

2007-04-15T10:14:00.000-07:00

As Rutgers Coach C. Vivian Stringer so acutely observed last week: "The color is GREEN."

A Child's Waiting Adoption Agency of Akron, Ohio and the *****, the people who wish to adopt Evelyn Bennett, continue to game the adoption system which is supposed to both protect children and their natural families from exploitation, and provide children with "a better life." The ***** continue to hold Baby Evelyn hostage on the advice of A Child's Waiting. They simply refuse to do the right thing -- return her to her mother and family.

Evelyn's mother, Stephanie Bennett, signed surrender documents for her five month old daughter Evelyn after a visit with her high school counselor Thomas Saltsman. Stephanie was a student at Glen Oak High School in Canton, Ohio at the time. She was interested in making a schedule change when she went to see him in his office in a public school building. She made the mistake of mentioning the word "adoption" to Mr. Saltsman, who immediately pulled A Child's Waiting information out of his desk drawer. He arranged a meeting for the next day between Stephanie and A Child's Waiting, in his office - in a tax payer supported, public school building.

AdoptaPundit's first question is this; Why in the world are we as citizens and parents allowing adoption agency shills access to the public school systems?

As Stephanie's story unfolds, these salient details become apparent: Stephanie was on the receiving end of threats against her and her family, designed to force her to give the baby up. These threats were coming from the child's putative father. This fact evidently was not unearthed by Mr. Saltsman. Stephanie met with A Child's Waiting and signed paperwork the day after meeting with Mr. Saltsman. Obviously, she was not given viable counseling nor any time to consider her decision. She was advised by A Child's Waiting to run away from home so she could sign away the child without her parents interferring ( Baby Evelyn was being raised in their home and with their help.) These details add up to one plain fact; this was a hurried, coerced, perhaps even forced decision made without counseling or time to consider the ramifications. The papers were signed under duress.

Stephanie changed her mind almost immedately after signing the papers.

But by then, the game of Hide-The-Baby had begun. The sadistic nature of this game is crystal clear. As with Babies Jessica and Richard, the game of running out the clock has been deployed in the Baby Evelyn Case. The *****, the potential adoptors, have been advised by A Child's Waiting to sequester the baby and not allow her any contact with her family as they run out the clock.

In ethical adoption, the baby would be returned to the mother as soon as possible after the mother changes her mind. But when potential adoptors and adoption agencies decide to game the system, scenarios like the ones associated with Babies Richard and Jessica are the result.

AdoptaPundit has a second question: Why are people still allowed to get away with this sort of behavior without penalty? If a mom changes her mind and rescinds the surrender, that child is by definition not available for adoption. To hide a child away from her mother and refuse to return her in this situation should be considered kidnapping by law, in my opinion. That's just common decency and common sense. But as cases like this show, decency and shame are dead in adoption; cruelty, envy, greed, and entitlement are king.

And that, dear readers, is the moral of this story.

When potential adoptors write or say that they are "desperate" to adopt, they should be taken at their word. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Holding onto a child of a mother who was coerced and threatened into signing surrender documents is desperate. Holding onto the child of a mother who never received viable counseling about adoption is desperate. Holding onto a child whose mother entered her high school counselor's office to talk about a schedule change and instead left with surrender documents in her hand, is desperate.

Desperate indeed.

As everyone knows or should know domestic healthy white newborns are worth a lot of green to the agency who handles the transaction. And just in case you don't know who A Child's Waiting Adoption Agency is, you can refresh your memory here (A Child's Waiting was the agency involved with the Walters special.) Or, if you are feeling particularly stout-hearted, you can learn more about the way they do business here. (Warning; Not for the faint of heart.)

The Bennett's heartbreak is a cautionary tale for all of us about the way young women are being used as breeders for the domestic adoption market. The Bennetts' story could be almost any American family's story. Adoption preys upon the vulnerable and uninformed; and adoption is unforgiving for those who lose their children.

It seems that most people simply do not realize the magnitude of the loss until it is too late, that is, until the baby is actually gone. For some reason, the permanent loss of a family member is treated as an abstraction instead of what it is, which is to say, a major, life long loss.

There are few if any protections in the law for natural families who lose their babies to adoption in the way Stephanie Bennett did....because the laws have been written not to protect the vulnerable, but to accomodate the business of adoption.

AdoptaPundit's messge to American families should be clear: RUN AWAY FROM ADOPTION.

And AdoptaPundit's message to A Child's Waiting and the ***** :

DO THE RIGHT THING.

America. Is. Watching.

Evelyn Bennett Timeline
/06 – Stephanie found that she is pregnant and hid it from her parents until 3 weeks prior to delivery. She is tall, this is a first pregnancy and the popular baggy clothes worn by young people made that possible.

/06 – Stephanie delivered Baby Evelyn Bennett and named her for her Great Grandmother. The plan is that, with her family’s support, Stephanie will raise the baby.

Stephanie’s parents are not wealthy people, so Stephanie and Evelyn go on Medicaid.

/06 - Stephanie told her parents that the father was a school friend. She lied to her parents because she was afraid of the real father who had been making serious and repeated threats against her family. Stephanie attempted to protect them from him and what he would do to her family, to her and to Baby Evelyn.

9/07/06 – After 5 months of repeated and serious threats to her family’s health and safety and emotional abuse from the putative father of her child, Stephanie approached Thomas Saltsman, Counselor, at Glen Oak High School in Canton, Ohio. Stephanie originally went to discuss a schedule change, but mentioned adoption. As soon as Stephanie mentioned adoption, Mr. Saltsman turned, got a brochure from his desk for A Child’s Waiting Adoption Agency and arranged a meeting for the next day in his office.

9/8/06 – ONE DAY LATER. Stephanie signed the initial paperwork that began the process. Mr. Saltsman signed as witness, in his office, at the high school. This was the ONLY meeting between Stephanie and the agency people, until the agency worker came to take Baby Evelyn on 9/12/06. There was no counseling nor protection offered to Stephanie. An attorney was present, as Stephanie’s “independent counsel”, but she also handled adoptions for A Child’s Waiting Adoption Agency on a regular basis.
9/12/06 - As a policy, Medicaid demands the name of a father, or they require DNA testing on any possible ones. The young man that Stephanie claimed was the father in order to protect her family’s safety from the real father went to have his DNA tested. Stephanie was to bring Evelyn in for her test to see if they matched, but Stephanie never came. She had already run away, as directed by the agency rep in the school guidance counselor’s office, to avoid the DNA testing. The involvement of a father in the proceedings would complicate things for the agency. Proven fathers have rights that require protection. DNA evidence is proof of paternity. No proof and there are only putative fathers, who legally need not be consulted. Evelyn was not tested, as she had already been taken from her mother by the agency.

9/12/06 – Stephanie and Evelyn ran away (at the agency’s suggestion, in the Guidance Counselor’s office,) to Carrol County where Stephanie’s parents could not interfere. This was the last time Stephanie saw Baby Evelyn. The agency rep came to this place and picked up Baby Evelyn.

10/2/06 – Judy and Ranza Bennett got temporary custody of Baby Evelyn; went to the agency in Copley Township in Summit County accompanied by Copley Police. Agency told the police that they had spoken to the 17-year-old but told her that they could not do business with her while she was a minor and that neither child was at the agency.

10/16/06 - Judy and Ranza notified by Canton police that they were to appear in court on 10/17/06. They were not informed as to why.

10/17/06 – Judy and Ranza went to court, even though there was still no information as to why they were called there in the first place. Stephanie appeared accompanied by A Child’s Waiting. Court placed Stephanie into a Respite Home due to allegations of abuse made against Judy and Ranza Bennett by the putative father - the same man who been making the threats against Stephanie and her family which led to Stephanie signing surrender papers for Baby Evelyn. He stated that there was neglect and abuse against both Evelyn and Stephanie. A case worker came to Judy and Ranza's home to investigate the charges of abuse.

10/18/06 – Stephanie ran away from the Respite Home and called a friend, who called the caseworker, who advised him to take Stephanie to Family Court. While in court, Stephanie told the judge that she wanted to return home to her parents and her sister. The Lawyer for Child Protection told the Judge that there was no sign of neglect or abuse in the home. Evelyn’s pediatrician stated that he had no concern about Evelyn being in the home.

/06 - Stephanie then told her parents who the father actually was (there is no more information about the father available beyond this as yet, as charges are pending and any information leaked could jeopardize the case).

Attempted to find an attorney who could handle the case and would work for payments that could come later, for Stephanie and the baby.

Dec. 31, 2006 – Rick Armon’s article appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal.

Early January, 2007 - Sandy Young called the Bennett family to offer help. They said that they could use it.

January 07 - Hired Paul Reiners to defend Stephanie. He agreed to work on a pro bono basis, unless they won the case. In that event, they would owe him standard fees.

1-19-07 - The first time Stephanie went to court in Summit Co. with Mr.Reiners. She was not allowed in the court room. Paul Reiners came out of the court room and told Stephanie that the Magistrate, Diana Stevenson, had put a gag order on all parties involved in the case.

2/2/07 – Judge in Stark Co. ruled that the custody order of Ranza and Judy Bennett was no longer in effect; That another court had precedence.

2-21-07 - Stephanie went back to court in Summit Co, where she is still fighting for the return of her daughter Evelyn. This date was to determine if the Surrender could be overturned. The judge was to rule on this matter on March 27, 2007. The briefs were to have been turned in on the 23rd, with the judge ruling several days later.

March 07 - The Bennetts replaced Reiners with Jennifer Lowry, who obtained a continuance on the ruling by the judge and obtained the court transcripts. She could find no evidence of any gag order on any party to the case. She still prefers to have Stephanie remain silent, as a matter of choice, and to protect her, but her parents and the attorney are not so bound.

April 07 – Obtained copies of the complaint filed against the agency in the matter of Stephanie Bennett by her mother. The agency was found to be not in compliance in numerous areas. So far, no actions have been taken against the agency by the state, despite being out of compliance.

April 9, 2007 – Meeting with Jennifer Lowry. She was excited about the Bennetts having a copy of the complaint. Also has started to plan a reunification.

Blogger Blitz Called to Bring Baby Evelyn Home

2007-04-12T12:48:00.000-07:00

Blogger Blitz Called to Bring Baby Evelyn Home

As court battle for Baby Evelyn trudges on, new details of case are revealed. OriginsUSA calls for Adoption community bloggers to help.

Source: OriginsUSA
Apr 12, 2007 08:54:20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(PRLog.Org) – Richmond, VA April 12, 2007 - OriginsUSA, Inc. is organizing a Blogger Blitz for Monday, April 16, 2007, to increase media and public awareness of the coercion used to obtain the surrender and removal of five month old Evelyn Bennett from her seventeen year old mother, Stephanie Bennett, on September 12, 2006, in Canton , Ohio.

Traditional media, with the exception of Rick Armon of the Akron Beacon Journal, have largely ignored this story. As outlined by Mr. Armon in the original story on December 31, 2006, the Bennett case has many unanswered questions. Despite the lack of media coverage, the interest of the online community has not diminished and has been kept alive for months via blog articles, adoption forums and online chats.

Kicking off the Blogger Blitz will be a live stream, online, radio interview with Judy Bennett, Stephanie’s mother and grandmother to baby Evelyn. “The Adoption Show,” with Michelle Edmonds, will air on Sunday, April 15, 2007, and will be available online thereafter at www.theadoptionshow.com . The interview will break the codes of silence and gag orders imposed upon the family, while showing that this story is more tragic than even previously known.

A factual time line will be available to bloggers, along with further, as yet unrevealed, details. Links to this information and a list of participating bloggers will be available on the OriginsUSA website at www.originsusa.org . The online adoption community, other mothers who have been forced to surrender, adult adopted persons, and people who have adopted will have the opportunity to react to the new information. They then can respond as to why this case is important not just to people involved in adoption, but to all who care about truth and justice.

It is hoped that attention generated by bloggers will inspire renewed interest from mainstream media and cause widespread support for the Bennett family. To date, the Bennetts remain separated from their daughter and granddaughter and are fighting in court for the return of baby Evelyn. Sandy Young of OriginsUSA, who has been working with the Bennett family said, “Wrongly ignoring cases like the Bennett’s, and the many other stories of forced adoption that still occur in America as accepted adoption practice, allow these abuses to continue. OriginsUSA fights for justice and the preservation of natural families.”

If you are interested in being part of the Blogger Blitz or would like more information about how to help the Bennetts, please contact BOD@originsusa.org
*****
For more information about the truth of adoption, past and present, join us at OriginsUSA.
OriginsUSA, Inc. advocates for the preservation of natural families and, as a last resort, alternative systems of child care that respect the needs and dignity of both mother and child above permanent adoption separation. We provide support for people separated by adoption, fight coercive adoption practices, and educate the public and policy makers about the effects of adoption separation. A national organization, we are internationally affiliated with Origins Inc. ( NSW Australia), Origins Canada, and other Origins branches in those countries. OriginsUSA, Inc. has also aligned with Tracker’s International in the U.K. and with Adoption Crossroads in the U.S.
# # #

Trailer for Love, War, Adoption

2007-04-10T19:52:00.000-07:00

Free Evelyn Bennett

2007-01-30T17:41:00.000-08:00

According to The Akron Beacon Journal, Stephanie Bennett of Canton, Ohio signed adoption surrender documents on the second meeting with a representative of "A Child's Waiting" adoption agency. She had been introduced to an agency representative by her high school counselor on the grounds of her public high school, Glen Oak High School in Canton. Stephanie, who was 17 at the time, was advised by the adoption agency representative to run away from home and sign documents in another county.

Stephanie Bennett's parents went to court in Stark County and were awarded custody of their grandchild, Evelyn, but the adoption agency refuses to return Stephanie Bennett's baby.

If you are so inclined, you can add your voice to the growing number who demand the immediate return of Baby Evelyn to her legal and natural family by signing the petition below.

I personally believe that until there are adequate legal safeguards written into law that clearly define such behavior as kidnapping, with appropriate legal remedies and punishments for same, such behavior will continue.

With the Bennett case coming as it does on the heels of the Quets case, it is apparent to me that we need to demand American lawmakers do their duty to protect ALL the people (see, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25(2) "Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection"), not just monied adoption industry lobbyists, adoption agencies and people desperate to adopt children.

Teen mother has change of heart, from the Akron Beacon-Journal

From the article:

Their story includes accusations that a guidance counselor at GlenOak High School arranged a meeting on school grounds between the teenager and the adoption agency, and that the adoption agency urged her to run away from home so it would be easier to sign papers away from her parents.

Ranza and Judy Bennett have obtained temporary custody of Evelyn, but A Child's Waiting has disregarded the court order and, according to the Bennetts, urged the adoptive family to keep the child hidden and not disclose their location.

``We just want our grandbaby home,'' Judy Bennett said at their two-story town house on Rem Circle Northeast. ``This has been nothing but a total nightmare.''

To sign the petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/828030483

Another Family Learns about "Adoption" the Hard Way

2007-01-05T11:23:00.000-08:00

Teen mother has change of heart, from the Akron Beacon-Journal

From the article:

Their story includes accusations that a guidance counselor at GlenOak High School arranged a meeting on school grounds between the teenager and the adoption agency, and that the adoption agency urged her to run away from home so it would be easier to sign papers away from her parents.

Ranza and Judy Bennett have obtained temporary custody of Evelyn, but A Child's Waiting has disregarded the court order and, according to the Bennetts, urged the adoptive family to keep the child hidden and not disclose their location.

``We just want our grandbaby home,'' Judy Bennett said at their two-story town house on Rem Circle Northeast. ``This has been nothing but a total nightmare.''

Moms, dads....your teens are being advised by their high school counselors, on school grounds, to surrender their babies for adoption without your knowledge or consent. Your tax dollars are supporting this. Your children are being advised to run away from home so your grandchildren can be "placed" into a stranger's home forever - and for a profit. Your grandchildren can be secreted away from you and held indefinitely, despite court orders, until the clock runs out on you.

What are you going to do about it?

The Allison Quets Debacle

2007-01-02T11:12:00.000-08:00

The story of Allison Quets is one that has been heard over and over again in AdoptionLand. A vulnerable pregnant woman is coerced into signing surrender papers against her will and/or better judgement. She is emotionally and psychologically brutalized until she cracks - and loses her precious children.

AdoptaPundit does not condone Quest's actions when she fled the country with her children. AdoptaPundit, does, however, understand the emotional devastation that occurs when a mother loses to adoption the child(ren) she has carried for nine months. She further understands that Quest attempted to use the legal channels to address the way she was wronged by people intent on obtaining these childen for adoption. Quets evidently spent her entire life savings on using the legal system to address the situation. She naively expected to receive justice from within the system. What Allison evidently did not understand is that adoption law does not treat surrendering mothers equally with potential adoptive parents. LEGALLY SPEAKING, the cards are stacked against Allison, AND HAVE BEEN EVER SINCE SHE MADE CONTACT WITH THE ADOPTION SYSTEM.

AdoptaPundit is convinced that thus entire debacle could have been avoided had there been adequate legal protections in place for Allison Quets, and by extension, all pregnant American women.

Allison's story is instructive for us all because of the facts of her age , level of accomplishment, and her financial status. If a 49 year old engineer with a half million dollars in life savings can be exploited of her child, NO ONE IS SAFE.

Evan B. Donaldson Institute: More Protection Needed For Mothers

2006-11-28T15:03:00.000-08:00

The Evan B. Donaldson Institute, in observation of what some have called National Adoption BewareNess Month has published a White Paper titled "Safeguarding The Rights And Well-Being Of Birthparents In The Adoption Process."

This White Paper was immediately picked up by The New York Times and MSNBC.

A nugget from the Donaldson paper:

Research on birthparents in the era of confidential (closed) adoptions suggests a significant proportion struggled - and sometimes continue to struggle - with chronic, unresolved grief. The primary factor bringing peace of mind is knowledge about their children's well-being.

The Donaldson White Paper is a sea change for the reason that it publicly acknowledges what has been known privately for decades:

The body of literature and research on women who relinquished their children when adoption was a highly surreptitious, stigmatized process demonstrates the ongoing, negative impact of their experiences on many areas of their lives, particularly by causing chronic grief, difficulties in intimate relationships, and/or complications in the parenting of subsequent children.

Women (like this writer) whose parental rights were contravened by adoption agencies between 1945 - 1972 (also called the Baby Scoop Era) have lived for decades with the results outlined above. Although it is my opinion that the report does not go far enough in stating the sequelae, which can include a PTSD like condition, severe recurrent depression even to the point of suicidal ideation, secondary infertility, and other ills, I wish to salute the Evan B. Donaldson Institute for finally stating what we and our families have known for decades. Chronic, corrosive and irresolvable grief is the result of forced child loss to adoption. Not only does the woman who loses the child suffer these ills, but her husband and subsequent children are at high risk, as well.

For further documentation in the form of oral histories of women who sustained such losses, please see this 50 minute movie. (WARNING: this is a large .wmv file that will download to your hd.)

The focus of the Donalsdon White Paper is protecting the rights of mothers who may be considering surrendering a child for adoption. This writer surmises the reason for this is the human toll taken on women who lost children to adoption in the past, and whose suffering is outlined in the White Paper..

The Donaldson paper contains 7 recommendations that if implemented would partially correct the flagrant denial of parental rights that were so common during the Baby Scoop Era, and which continue in a more covert form today. The recommendations are not specific enough, in my opinion, and their intent can be easily frustrated by people intent upon securing infants for quick, for-profit adoptions.

Recommendation 3 falls short specificity-wise. It addresses providing two sessions of non directive counseling in order to fully inform a woman of her rights and options regarding her child's future. But is is far too general. It does not specify that the counseling should be done by a neutral third party. It does not specify where the counseling is to take place, or who should pay for it. The tone of such counseling and the conditions under which it may occur can greatly affect the outcome. There are no recommendations as to what will be included. There are also no recommendations on how to enforce such a requirement, nor any outline on possible penalties for failure to comply with the counseling requirement.

Recommendation 4 of the paper specifies a minimum waiting period of one week before surrender documents can be signed. It also recommends longer revocation periods after the documents are signed. The Institute is to be congratulated for recognizing that hurrying a mother who has just given birth, into signing surrender documents, is coercive at best. These women aren't "birth" mothers. They are mothers with full parental rights. They have signed nothing. First time mothers especially may not realize what it is to give birth to a child. Before birth, the child is still an abstraction; after the birth, a living, breathing reality. A new mother needs time to learn what it is she is agreeing to surrender.

That means time alone with her child. Allowing potential adoptive parents into the delivery room and the mother's post partum room should therefore be should be strongly discouraged. Recommendation 4 stops short of specifying a
sheltered, private time alone for mother and baby, without the undue influence of individuals who may wish to raise her baby themselves.

In a related vein, prebirth contact with a couple desperate to adopt a healthy white infant is common in adoption practice today. Such contact between a needy woman and a desperate couple can set up dynamics in which the pregnant woman comes to feel obligated to the couple. Prebirth financial arrangements also can taint the context in which a decision to surrender is made -- or not made.

Protecting parental rights means protecting women from people who would use her neediness as a pathway to gratify their own.

This writer salutes the Donaldson Institute for the groundbreaking aspects of this White Paper, but hopes for more specific guidelines to assure that parental rights are well and truly protected in domestic adoption practice. In the current political climate where a doctor who believes that abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy is appointed to the post of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs such protections become more critical than ever.

Original draft of the diary crossposted at Daily Kos. Updated version crossposted at Mother Talkers

"Safeguarding the Rights and Well-Being of *****parents"

2006-11-18T00:27:00.000-08:00

TERMINOLOGY WARNING

AdoptapPundit salutes the Evan B. Donaldson Institute for their courage in publicly stating what has been privately known for decades.

The Evan B. Donaldson Institute has released a study in time for National Adoption BewareNess Month that brought tears to AdoptaPundit's eyes.

"SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS AND WELL-BEING OF *****PARENTS IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS" makes a great number of points. Those of us who have worked for a decade or longer to draw attention to our issues will be most interested, perhaps, in these:

Principally because adoption is not well understood by the public generally, most women struggling to make decisions about unplanned pregnancies do not have accurate information with which to make an informed choice about whether this is a reasonable option for them.

....
Research findings consistently show that women who feel pressured into placing their children suffer from poorer grief resolution and greater negative feelings. Most states do not have laws that maximize sound decision-making, however, such as required counseling, waiting periods of at least several days after childbirth before signing relinquishments, and adequate revocation periods during which birthparents can change their minds.

Research on birthparents in the era of confidential (closed) adoptions suggests a significant proportion struggled - and sometimes continue to struggle - with chronic, unresolved grief. The primary factor bringing peace of mind is knowledge about their children's well-being.
...

Women who have the highest grief levels are those who placed their children with the understanding that they would have ongoing information, but the arrangement was cut off. Such contact/information is the most important factor in facilitating birthparents' adjustment, but only 13 states have laws to enforce post-adoption contact agreements in infant adoptions.

Salient points:

1) The public does not have accurate information about adoption and therefore women contemplating adoption can not make an informed choice..

2)Women need their own attorney to represent their interest independent of the agency or adoptors.

3) Coercion leads to emotional problems later on; laws need to be put into place that encourage sound decision making. These laws would include proper counseling and adequate revocation periods.

4) We whose children were taken in the BSE still struggle with the emotional aftermath.

5) Women who surrender into open adotions that close suffer the most.

They recommend a great many things, among them:

A parent should have the right:

To make the placement decision in a fully informed manner, devoid of pressure or coercion.

To reconsider an adoption plan at any point prior to the legal finalizing of the relinquishment.

To be informed from the start of any monetary expectations - such as repayment of financial assistance -- if she changes her mind about placement.

To exercise all parental rights she/he wishes prior to placing a child for adoption.

To be treated with dignity, respect, and honesty.

To have independent legal counsel to protect her/his best interests in the process.

To receive nondirective counseling to help her/him understand all of the options and resources available and the implications of the decision.

To be legally assured that promises and agreements made as a part of the process will be adhered to.

Finally, the Evan B.Donaldson Institute recognizes what we have been saying for three decades now:

The Institute also concludes that total secrecy has become rare in current infant adoption practice, and it is considered poor practice for everyone concerned by a growing majority of professionals. So-called closed (or confidential) adoption, in which there is little or no contact or exchange of information, is actually a relatively recent phenomenon that became prevalent in the U.S. by the 1950s. The body of research on birthmothers who relinquished children for adoption in the era of total secrecy chronicles a negative, long-term impact of this experience on many areas of their lives, including triggering chronic, severe grief reactions and contributing to ongoing complications in future parenting and marriage relationships.

What this report lacks is specificity regarding its recommendations. While it quite correctly observes that the public's perceptions about adoption are inaccurate and therefore women can not make an informed choice, it does not address the content of the counseling needed to fully inform a woman about the aftermaths of adoption to both mother and child. It specifies at least two sessions of non directive counseling but does not specify who should do it or what it should contain. This non directive counseling can arguably become an agency tool used to further their economic agenda of obtaining chidren for adoption if misused.

AdoptPundit proposes a third pary counselor situated off site and paid for by the pregnant woman. Each side of this debate -- family preservation vs adoption -- should produce a thirty minute tape advancing their very best arguments. Both tapes should be shown to the woman in question.

Fully informed consent also would include adequate private bonding time for mom and child, so she can expereince first hand what it is she will be surrendering. Informed consent means experiencing motherhood and bonding with the baby without the presence of an adoption nanny, ie, an agency person or adoptor present. Giving birth is a one or two times in a lifetime event whose boundaries should be more than respected. There should never be an agency person or adoptor in the delivery room. The mere presence of an anxious adoptor hovering at the hospital is coercive, and an agency person doubly so. AdoptaPundit recommends banning adoptors and agency persons from the hospital completely, and recommends at least a week of privacy in their own home for mom and baby, before any papers can be signed.

Happy To You!

2006-11-14T22:56:00.000-08:00

A friend who knows of and identifies with our sadnesses gave me an article she clipped from the Dallas Morning News this evening. It is a beautiful essay about a 16 year old mom and her mom. It is a happy ending piece for a cold winter's evening in November, National Adoption BewareNess Month. It is with pleasure that I share with you The Dance Of MotherHood

Even More CyberScreaming about Honest Adoption Language

2006-11-09T17:10:00.000-08:00

When will the adoption industry -- and its paid and unpaid t00ls -- get it?

The recent well publicized kerfluffle about the "b" word ( hereafter referred to as "the * word " in this post) is not the latest battle in the War Over Words that has raged for decades over Honest Adoption Language. The adoption industry has invested decades in teaching the public that the women whose children they take for adoption are mere incubators. *moms. Things be to used. Functions. Disposable. UnWomen.

The arguments for honest adoption language, and most specifically, the use of the *word, are clear and convincing.

1) The *word is dehumanizing. It relegates women to the status of objects to be used and discarded.

2) The *word is limiting. It limits our roles in out children's lives to their births. With reunion and the reestablishment of relationships with our children, this is manifestly no longer the case.

3) As one anonymous poster sagely observed elsewhere, the * word is a signal to society at large that the *mom is a woman whose boundaries can be crossed in ways that are wholly unacceptable in any other situation.

4) As Sandra Pace observed in "Out Of The Fog", the *word is not a word that many of us chose for ourselves. Like any other member of society, we have the right to name ourselves. The adoption industry does not have the right to name us. "It's our right to say {what we will call ourselves}; it's the job of the rest of society to accede to that right."

As our knowledge of adoption and its aftermaths changes and grows, the language we use to talk about it also changes and grows.

Honest Adoption Language and specifically the use of the words "natural," "first, " or even just plain "mother" to describe ourselves is an idea whose time is NOW.

Love, War, Adoption

2006-11-06T17:45:00.000-08:00

Here is the trailer for Love, War, Adoption.

Another Adoption Blog

2006-11-06T17:42:00.000-08:00

But this one belongs to us.

There are some ground rules here. Adoption friendly, anti-woman, and anti-mother comments are not welcome here. They will be deleted.

This blog is intended for the use of women who have lost children to adoption, and for families separated by adoption.

Please respect our boundaries.