Yes All Adoptees Feel A Sense Of Loss

Joy’s post got me thinking about this…..

http://joy21.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/not-all-adoptees-feel-this-way/#comments

I do agree that all adoptees must feel a loss.  I too don’t why so many adoptive parents either completely dismiss this or just don’t want to focus on it.

I wonder if it has something to do with the way grief itself works.  You know the whole stages of mourning thing.  Anybody who has lost someone knows that grieving is a strange thing.  First you are consumed, then it comes and goes.  When you’ve lost somebody you do get to the point that you can function, you don’t think about all the time, life does go on to a degree.  You appear to be normal, observers would tend to think that you are getting over it, whatever that means.  But at any moment grief can grab you and it’s like you’ve just lost that person.  That’s normal, it’s the way it works.  Eventually you just get better at hiding it.  And by doing that sometimes you can even convince yourself that you are over it.

But everyone who has ever lost anybody knows, you never really get over it.  Pretending that you have only makes it worse.  That grief is going to come back and bite you in the ass at some point.  

Infants can’t express their grief.  I’m certain that they can feel it and process it to some degree.  I wonder if the time between experiencing the loss and being able to express that loss brings many adoptees to the point that they can appear to be functioning normally.  Combine that with the message that everything is as it should be, and you’ve got a real problem.

Think of it this way, you’d never tell a person who had lost a close family member that everything is as it should be two years after their loss.  You know that in their world, as good as it may be, they will still miss someone.  You know they miss these people on holidays, you know they think about them on birthdays and anniversaries of their deaths.  Most of us do the same thing.  Once we reach a certain age, it’s something that we all sadly share.  

So why would you deny that an adoptee feels a loss?  Think that  one can replace the ones that you have lost?  I’m sure that you have lost someone.  You have other relatives, other friends, but none of them are that relative or friend.  Things will never be the same without them.  The ones lost to you are unique.  So are the ones that the adoptee has lost.  As an adoptive parent you may fulfill a role, you may do it well, but you are not that person the adoptee lost.  They, and you, are unique.  

Loss doesn’t always show. Can you tell immediately if someone that you meet parents are living, can you tell that they are widowed?  Would it be much harder to ever know if society told them that they had lost nothing?

Do You Know Who I Am?

I don’t know who you are.  Well I do know who some of you are, but not all of you.  I don’t know how you found me or why you came here.  Are you looking for information, entertainment, a good laugh, or a shoulder to cry on?  

And what do you really know about me?  It’s pretty easy to see that I have an agenda.  But what exactly is that agenda?  And where does it come from?  Childhood trauma? A desire to do good? Brain injury?  

Do I have anything to say that is worthwhile?  That’s for you to judge.  You could look at my associations.  But you’ll never really know if that seek me out or I have come to them.  Would that make a difference?  Should you judge me by them?  Do you think that I would always agree or defend them?  

What’s the point of this post anyway?  I’m not sure that I even know.  But I do know one thing, you need to ask yourself these questions.  Everybody has an agenda, and at the end of the day, it is all their own.  We are all privateers.

Cooperation only comes when the goal serves all involved.  Working together for a common goal is the coming together of the best and worst of our natures.  It is a worthwhile pursuit, but much like sausage, you don’t really want to know what’s in it.  

Ask some questions about who I am.  Ponder why I’m here.  Then do the same with everybody else.  But don’t tell me or anyone else what you see.  Some things aren’t meant to be shared.   

I don’t really want to know who I am, or who you are.

Strange Bedfellows

Well, I’m not sure how strange they are, but I did a guest bolgging gig over here..

 

http://ouradopt.com/adoption-blog/dec-2008/guestblogger/guest-blog-there-one-born-every-minute

 

Oh and while you are it, go see my friend Ungrateful Little Bastard, she’s strange in a good way.

http://ungratefullittlebastard.blogspot.com/2008/12/philadelphia-adoptee-rights.html

She has big news about the Philly protest.

Did Jesus Tell You To Lie?

Seems that somebody is having a bit trouble with the truth.  I had engaged in a very civil discourse on open adoption records with this liar and she twisted my words.  I don’t like that.  It seems that she wants to make people believe that I support “mutual consent” in matters of birth certificate access.

Crazy lying bitch.  I do not in any way support mutual consent laws.  I believe that adoptees should have free access to their birth certificates.

Here’s the post followed by comments..

he Legal History of Adoption in the U.S.

“Kippa Herring” has posted several comments regarding the research of Professor Elizabeth Samuels, who published her overview of the legal history of adoption in the U.S. in the Rutgers Law Review ( Winter 2001), entitled  “The Idea of Adoption.” Rather than print selected quotes from Samuel’s work, I’ve decided to refer you to the article so you can read it in its entirety.

Although Professor Samuels (like Kippa) is in favor of mandated open records (as opposed to the “mutual consent” approach advocated by the National Council for Adoption and myself), Samuels’ paper is helpful in providing a historical context for understanding the complexities of the issue, and how balancing the respective (often conflicting) needs and responsibilities of all three sides of the adoption triad have challenged state legislatures and social agencies alike for more than sixty years.

For those of you who are new to this, mandated open records ”unseal” original birth certificates of adult adopted children (and other persons of interest), regardless of whether the biological parents agree to having identifying information released to the (adult) child.

At this time, only a handful of states allow adult adoptees unrestricted access to their original records, although this is something that a variety of nationally organized advocacy groups (such as “Bastard Nation” and “Unsealed Initiative” are fighting to change).

Nevertheless, adoptive parents will want to educate themselves about the issue so you can be prepared when your child broaches the subject of his birth parents. Not all adopted children decide to look for their birth parents, but most have feelings about their birth families that we — their parents – need to help them work through, even if search and reunion is not a possibility.

Information is power, the saying goes. By educating ourselves about the issues surrounding adoption, we empower ourselves to give our children the support they need to reconcile and integrate the two sides of their heritage.

No two families will approach this the same way. It may be that your child has no interest in finding his birth family. If he does, try to relax and not take it as a sign that he is rejecting you.From what I’ve read, there seems to be little connection between an adopted child’s desire to know his birth family and the strength of the bond he has with his adoptive parents. Just this afternoon I spoke with a radio producer whose older sister found her birth family, and yet he had no desire to do so.

In any event, this article is well worth reading, no matter where in the adoptive triad you stand.

4 Responses to “The Legal History of Adoption in the U.S.”

  1. Thank you for posting this, Heidi.

    “Information is power, the saying goes.”
    Which is one reason, among others, why adopted people deserve to have the right to information about their origins restored to them – and I use the word “restored” deliberately, because that right was eroded and eventually lost during the middle of the 20th century.

    I would also like to include the opinion of Margaret Somerville, Canadian ethicist and academic. She is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine and the Founding Director of the Faculty of Law’s Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University. She is a remarkable woman and someone to be taken seriously even where one disagrees with her.

    The excerpt (below) is from a 2007 panel discussion about ethical problems relating to assisted reproductive technology, but she also relates to children’s human rights in general:

    “Recently I’ve been working on children’s human rights with respect to their biological origins and biological families.
    In that work I’ve argued that we must recognize that children have human rights with respect to knowing the identity of their biological parents and, if at all possible, their immediate and wider biological families; having a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents; and to come from natural biological origins.”

    She also says that “It is one matter for children not to know their genetic identity as a result of unintended circumstances.
    It is quite another matter to deliberately destroy children’s links to their biological parents, and especially for society to be
    complicit in this destruction.”

    You can read more here:
    http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/files/pdf/The%20Intersection%20of%20Freedom%20-%20Margaret%20Somerville.pdf

    She also believes that emphasis should be placed on the rights of the child, so that if an adopted person seeks disclosure of their adoption records, that information should be disclosed *whether the parent who placed the child consents or not*, because everyone has the human right to know their origins.
    The reverse, on the other hand, wouldn’t necessarily hold true. In her opinion, a parent would only be entitled to information about a child who’d been placed for adoption if they consented.

  2. “For those of you who are new to this, mandated open records ”unseal” original birth certificates of adult adopted children..”

    Also for those who are new to this it might be worth noting that adoptees do not remain children all of their lives. They do become adults. For perspective should those not adopted be referred to as adult biological children, adult natural children, adult unadopted children? Sounds rather silly, doesn’t it?

  3. I would think that even those who are new to adoption would realize that children (by definition) grow up.

    It was a simple typo. Thanks for pointing it out.

  4. Kippa:

    “…having a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents; and to come from natural biological origins.”

    With regard to reproductive technology, I’d have to say that Professor (?) Sommerville is arguing against invitro and other forms of artificial reproduction, which is consistent with traditional Catholic teaching. And I fully agree that, if mandated open records becomes the norm, donor records must also be released as well. That would be simple justice — the same standard for both mother and father.

    As for the final paragraph, it’s important to distinguish between “rights” and “desires.” As “Addie” pointed out, these individuals are no longer children, but adults. “Mutual consent” would seem to be the logical middle ground.

    Nice try fuckwit.

    here’s the second comment she refused to put up…

    Comment:
    Please do not presume that I would think that mutual consent would be a logical middle ground.  I do not.  My biological history belongs to me, just as yours belongs to you.  I have as much right to know what that heritage is as anyone else.

    There is no middle ground.  Something that is so uniquely mine cannot be denied me, it is my right to know this.


    And the response..

    Frankly, it’s not my concern whether you think this is logical middle ground — you are entitled to your opinion, and the express it … on YOUR blog.

    As I’ve said to Kippa, I’m not interested in prolonging the discussing about open records on my blog at this time. There are strong points of view, and frankly because each of us has formed an opinion from which we are unlikely to budge, further discussion is pointless. I’ve deleted your comment, in keeping with my comments policy.

    Feel free to link and respond as you see fit … but at EMN, I get to moderate and direct the conversation as I see fit. I’m sorry if you disagree with my viewpoint.

    Heidi Saxton

    Author, “Raising Up Mommy” and “Behold Your Mother” (http://www.christianword.com)

    Founder, “Extraordinary Moms Network”
    (
    http://extraordinarymomsnetwork.wordpress.com)

    Proud of herself, isn’t she?
    Well that bitch can lick me.
    She’s a liar who will do anything to support her little bitty position.  Her faith and/or intelligence is obviously so weak that she will not take on a civil debate.  She just another useless crying bitch who can’t back up what she lays down.
    Now go do your penance for being a liar, little Heidi.  Jesus will forgive you.

Oh, and if you’ll notice she said that she would delete my comment from her blog.  She hasn’t done that either.  Just another lie.

OK, she finally took that down.  But she’s still a liar.

Here’s my latest communication with Heidi The High Strung Convert..

Hah! Thanks for such a constructive and thoughtful response.

I’ve not read your blog, and based on what I’ve read about your perspective
so far, I seriously doubt that will change anytime soon. But I’m sure there
are plenty of those who share your viewpoint who will be happy to let you
“preach to the choir.” I just happen not to be one of them.

H.

And my response..

No sweetie, it’s you that has the choir.  I have minions, they look
like the monkeys that fly out your ass every time you lie.  Well I
have the minions, and I have readers.  You see if I bring up a topic
I’m willing to defend my position, it’s called integrity. I doubt you
would know anything about it.


Adoption Rocks!

I don’t get this at all. .

Some dork wearing an Adoption Rocks! t-shirt.

 

Adoption Rocks?  What are adoption rocks?  Are people adopting rocks now?  Are they like Pet Rocks?

I remember Pet Rocks.  Now that was a great piece of marketing.  Imagine convincing everyone that they should pay $3.95 for a rock.  Everybody just had to have one, because everybody else had one.  You wouldn’t want to feel left out.  If they would have come up with Pet Rocks today even Madonna would have one, hell she’d be out on the Pet Rock World Tour right now.

Wait a minute, this couldn’t be about adoption could it?  No way.

There’s no way someone is financing their adoption adoption selling these t-shirts.  Can’t they get a HELOC or something?  What are their plans for the future?  Are they going to start selling “Community College Rocks!” t-shirts when tuition time rolls around in a few years?  That’s just wrong.

If they are serious about this they do realize that saying anything “Rocks” at this point is passe, or at the very least the height of irony, right?  Because adoption does not rock.  In fact, I suspect that international adoption is very fast becoming passe.  Let’s face it, it came out yesterday that we are in a recession.  Displays of excess like giant SUVs, Birkin Kelly bags, and toting an ethnically diverse adoptee, are out.  Green, useful and frugal are in.  You’ll get over in a much bigger way in your hybrid, toting a kid recycled from our very own foster care system.  You can easily still get them in a variety of colors and sizes.  

Besides isn’t having to sell t-shirts in order to pay for your international adoption a bit like wearing a Rolex Daytona with a Members Only jacket?