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.