Attachment, Trauma, And Conflict Of Interest

 

 

 

 

 It seems like every day my sweet son decides he wants

to "be" something different when he grows up. 

The other day he came home from school
proclaiming he wants to ride bulls...
what every mother wants to hear! 

 

As I sat through an all-day seminar entitled,
"Trauma: How it Affects Growth and Development in Children,"
hosted by the OK Adoption Coalition,
I felt as if I was getting a taste of my son's desired profession.





Being adopted is quite a ride in itself. 
Then we hear "professional" commentators give the "play by play,"
with no riding experience of their own. 
Adoptees are left to dismount and clean up
after the animal ourselves.




Does adoption, the way it is viewed today,
truly serve the child, 
or those in the business of "building" families?

"Attachment Theory" labels a child 
if they fail to "attach" to their care-giver 
(who get's to define this concept?),
because, as the speaker stated...

 

"It's not in their DNA...
babies will 'indiscriminately' attach up to six months old. 
That is why it is SO important to terminate parental rights
as quickly as possible and provide 'permanence' for these "kiddos". 

 

We are not ducks who will "imprint"
on the first person we see after hatching from the egg. 

We are humans who experience profound life-long loss
when separated from our mothers and families.   

 

If DNA and genetic mirroring were not essential parts of our human experience in relational development...
why is the internet full of searching adoptees and first families?

 

And what of this:
 

 

 

This is a visual of a theory which the adoption industry
works hard to dismiss. 
Nancy Verrier, a psychologist and adoptive mother, says...

"There exists a great need for legislative action and concern for the rights of adoptees.
Few dare give voice to that which they know in their hearts: that the connection between biological family and child is primal, mystical, mysterious, and everlasting.
Far more than merely biological and historical, this primal connection is also cellular, psychological, emotional, and spiritual."

I can't tell you how difficult it is to live in a society
which dismisses the very humanity of adoptees.

If we want to be truly trauma-informed,
we must acknowledge the adoptee's reality.

 Changing a child's name,
sealing their genetic identity and history from them,
and then asking them, as well,
to fulfill a "role" in their "new" family...with which 
they share no genetic connection;
with caretakers who need to be 
legally and emotionally known
as "Mother and Father", 
only serves to disenfranchise an adoptee's
 trauma and loss, 
and piles on added layers of complex loyalty issues.

The only valid "connections"
according to some behavioral health "experts" 
are made in court-created "legal" families through adoption. 
Mentions of natural families are made in 
condescending tones,
referring to "the bios" which are, of course, 
the source, and only source, of the child's "trauma."

What about the trauma of changing a child's identity
and expecting them to play a role 
for which they were not created to fulfill? 

A defining moment during this seminar, 
occurred when the entire room erupted in applause 
after the speaker made the assertion...

"'culture" is only defined through 'relationship'".   

 

"Best interest" of a child cannot be undermined in the "name of culture".    

 

It was obvious, everyone was thinking of the Baby Veronica case and the role ICWA played in that long-drawn out tragic battle over a child's very identity, family and personhood.

Veronica Cappobianco is living her life separated
from the family and blood that created her,
the connections that could have, and did, nurture her very core. 
All because of this theory, unethical adoption practices, 
and the power it has garnered by an adoption community 
that still sees children as "blank slates" and, unfortunately, possessions.

When will America wake up and ensure an end to the commodifying of children and conflict of interest in our adoption and child welfare systems?   

The inherent right of a child to be raised by
his/her own family is often thwarted by a system
which gives agencies and foster/hopeful adoptive parents
the legal ability to draw out a contested adoption in court
and then argue "best interest" of a child to stay
with the "only family they have ever known".

We need to ensure ethical adoption laws which
protect natural families. 
Every child deserves his/her own attorney.       

Adoptees are viewed as perpetual children in the middle
of a never-ending game of keep away. 
We are marginalized by being labeled "bitter" 
if we speak of the injustice of having our names changed, identities sealed, or families separated through coercion or conflict of interest. 
Sealed records in adoption not only strips adoptee's of their identity, but it also fails to ensure ethical adoption and child welfare practices. 
A lot can be hidden behind a sealed record.

I once spoke to an adoption attorney who asserted that a new "amended" birth certificate and name must be assigned to an adoptee in order to prevent them from being seen as "second class". 
The more I thought about it, the more I realized, that it is the act of changing and sealing our identities that actually makes us "second class".

It gives the message that adoptee's are not
accepted unless "amended".

This could be the real reason why
a child struggles with "attachment". 

Yes, "attachment" to a caregiver is necessary for survival,
but for an adoptee it feels like holding on for dear life,
while dangling over the edge of a cliff.

The last thing we need is a lucrative adoption industry
feeding society myths and flawed theories
which disenfranchise and exploit
the very ones they claim to be serving. 
Yet these same "experts" are the ones who seem
to have the ear of our court systems, DHS, legislators
and behavioral health services. 
The ones making policy decisions.
 
We now have "professionals" contracted by those who earn their living
 by adoption, defining terms such as "best interest", "psychological parent", "permanency", and "attachment"
based on the perceptions of adoptive parents,
rather than protecting the inherent right of a child
to their identity, family history and connections.

With flawed theories of "attachment" expressed in the quote below,
no wonder adoptee's live a life-time of disenfranchised grief.   

  

Since "child placing" agencies are contracting
with behavioral health "experts"
who perpetuate these myths
(and many others)
to legislators, policy makers,
and foster and adoptive parents,
whose interests are we serving? 
 
Children deserve better. 

We need to start honoring the child,
not who the child can become to complete a new family.

The fact foster and adoptive parents
don't have a biological understanding of their child,
foster and adoptive children are more at risk of being
abused or drugged just to conform
to unrealistic expectations. 

 When a child doesn't have any mirroring of their own self
 through their family, they struggle with anxiety and hyper vigilance. 
It often presents as ADD or even sensory issues. 
Yet it is termed as "attachment issues" or "RAD"
and the child is given a label for a truly natural response,
rather than the problem being placed on the system
that put the child in the unnatural situation in the first place. 

 

My heart went out to one mother who stood up asking for help
for her eighteen year old adopted son. 
She said he had gone through all "the therapy"
and was still struggling. 
What could she do? 

Out of an entire room full of self-asserted "expertise",
she got no help whatsoever. 
Instead of given resources that could have really helped her family and son,
she was given a "band aid". 

The speaker described an exercise they do with "traumatized" children which consists of giving the child a band aid and asking them to put it on their body. 

This supposedly helps the child feel more comfortable to "unload their baggage" because through acknowledging they have an "owie" somewhere on their body, they will acknowledge "heart" issues more easily. 

 

How can an adopted person honestly find their heart in the midst of loyalty issues?

Adoptees must live an identity and narrative defined by others.
That script is skewed based on societal myths
perpetuated by an adoption system that serves the "demand"
for adoptable infants and children.

The sealing of our records steals
not only our identities,
but also any accountability over the "professionals"
who profit from us.  

 Federal adoption incentives influence child welfare philosophy
and adoption policy, when states are rewarded monetarily
for each adoption completed, but not for services towards natural families, family preservation, and reunification efforts.  

"Swift Adoption" programs and "Bridge" foster parents 
whose ultimate goal is adopting, adds to the conflict of interest
in a child welfare system whose goal should be preservation
 of kinship and natural families.

We need to ensure that "permanency" isn't influenced
by financial incentives and tax credits
which adds money to state budgets 
each time they encourage "adoption" placements
over reunification efforts with a child's natural family.


An adopted child's mastery of developmental and relational tasks 
are stunted because of myths perpetuated by an adoption industry 
that splits us apart.  

  
 
I could only accept myself when I was able to know, 
and embrace my dual identity...
by both birth and adoption.
  
When I found the courage to grieve
the losses that had been disenfranchised,
I was finally able to feel and fully experience 
both the good and bad in life.

Only then, as a whole person,
could I embrace myself and my families. 

The only other adoptee I knew in the building that day
 was a darling infant boy dressed in business casual
being cooed over and passed around the table like fresh meat. 

I pray for him, and for the eighteen year old son of the concerned mother. 
And for all of us.   

Oklahoma legislative task force on adoption completes work

Oklahoma legislative task force on adoption completes work | NewsOK.com

Adult adoptees in OK appreciate the work Representative Nelson has done in ensuring better financial over sight in adoption. It was gravely needed, based on the findings of this Oklahoma Grand Jury investigation . Interestingly enough, the task force consisted mostly of those who make their living in the business of adoption.

Six U.S. states have passed legislation restoring the UNCONDITIONAL human right of adult adoptees to access their original birth certificate. The legislation recently passed in both Maine and New Hampshire, for example, is strongly supported by The Child Welfare League of America. The states that have passed this legislation, as well as the Tennessee Supreme Court, determined that birth parents were never guaranteed "perpetual anonymity" under the law. Sealed records were not even enacted until the 1940's to protect newly formed adoptive families, not birth parents. Mothers were given no choice but to relinquish their children under sealed records laws, and a whopping 97-99% WANT to know where their child is. "Birth parent privacy" is a myth of the adoption industry. In fact, mother's who surrendered their babies for adoption are also asking for records to be unsealed. Kansas has never sealed obc's of adult adoptees. Abortion rates do not go up, and adoption rates do not go down in states which have done the right thing and restored the dignity and rights of adult adoptees.

In state law now, a Judge can open adoption records for "just cause". Adding any mention of "birth parent privacy" into the law is a farce, because state after state is realizing that it didn't/doesn't exist. If a birth mother relinquishes her child for adoption, but for some reason the child is not legally adopted and lives in foster care, for example, their original birth certificate is never sealed from them.

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute has an excellent report on their website entitled "For the Records" which explains this issue in depth. This is a civil rights issue for millions of adoptees in America. There is more work to do.

In the task force meeting, it was made to sound as if the intent in the new bill would be that a Judge should always determine the adult adoptee's right to obtain their records as a right that outweighs "privacy rights" of a birth parent.

We tried to explain that:

1) Adoptee's don't request medical records of a birth parent ~ they request their OWN original birth certificate or adoption file, and

2) In states that have passed unconditional access legislation, it has been found that "birth parent privacy" rights is a myth, because birth parents did not ask for, nor were they promised "perpetual anonymity" under the law.)

However, the language that made it to Oklahoma Senate Bill 510 was this:

I. In consideration of a request for the disclosure of birth-parent medical records to an adult adoptee, the court shall authorize the disclosure of such records only if the rights of the adult adoptee outweigh the privacy rights of the birth parent.

Every other American citizen has the right to obtain their original birth certificate, and adoptee's should have that right restored also.

We are thankful that the OK Legislature commissioned the OK Adoption Review Task Force and that it was open to the public. They heard the voices of adult adoptees, first parents, and adoptive parents who attended the meetings, and SB 510 will help to provide better recording and financial oversight in OK adoptions.

The author of the bill and several other legislators we've spoken with understand the issue of adoptee's accessing their records in adulthood, and have agreed to remove the language. The OK Adoption Code currently allows a Judge to grant adoptee access to their file/obc with "just cause", and until OK joins the growing list of states who pass true Adoptee Access legislation, it is better than the language recommended from the task force.

•Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
-- "Letter from Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963 ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Adoptee Rights Demonstration

Adoptee Rights Demonstration

11am July 25, 2010
Louisville, KY

All Americans, adopted or not, have a right to access government records about their own lives. That’s why we are organizing an Adoptee Rights Demonstration, a rally and protest in Louisville, KY, at 11 AM on July 25, 2010. This rally will coincide with the opening day of the Annual Summit of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Adult adoptees in most of the advanced, industrialized nations of the world have unrestricted access to their original birth records as a matter of right. In contrast, adult adoptees in all but six states in the U.S. are forbidden unrestricted access to their own original birth certificates, due to archaic laws that are a legacy of a culture of shame that stigmatized infertility, out-of-wedlock birth and adoption.

Adult adoptees and their supporters have worked diligently in different states for decades to overturn these laws, but have been opposed by well-funded lobbies representing certain adoption agencies and lawyers who have a vested interest in keeping birth certificates sealed.

Please join us in Louisville as we fight to restore our dignity and equality! If you can’t attend the demonstration, you can still help. Participate in our writing campaign to inform all state legislatures of the urgency of unsealing our records to restore the equality of adoptees in the United States. Help spread the word about the protest on your blog, or to any groups or mailing lists you belong to. And if you can afford it, your donation would be greatly appreciated.

Make a difference, be a part of history and get involved today!

Adoptee Rights Demonstration 2010

Your Rights — Your Voice — Your Protest

To sign up for ARD 2010 Louisville, please visit http://www.AdopteeRights.net

Three Decades after Adoption, DNA reveals painful Truth

Three decades after adoption, DNA test reveals painful truth
By Frank D. Roylance

Baltimore Sun reporter
October 12, 2009

For Cockeysville businessman Ron Ryba, the long walk from the parking lot to the stadium in Philadelphia was a 29-year trail of memories.

He had come to meet the son he and his high school sweetheart had never seen when they gave him up for adoption nearly three decades earlier. Now, the baby was a grown man. What would he say to him? What would he look like?

For Phil Bloete, too, the 2004 meeting at a Phillies game, was the culmination of a lifelong dream. He was 28, a high school English teacher in New Jersey. He had enjoyed a happy childhood, and was well-loved by his adoptive parents. But he had always wondered about his birth parents.

Mostly, Bloete said, he wanted to know more about his genetic heritage. He and his wife wanted to start a family, and "if there were any inherent risks, I wanted to know about them."

Their meeting was warm, if a bit tentative. "We laughed a little bit, and talked, and hugged," Ryba recalled. And he was astonished at Bloete's appearance.

Bloete is 6 feet 2 inches tall, 240 pounds with dark hair. He's been a swimmer, lifeguard, soccer coach. Ryba played football in high school and college, but he's blond, 5 feet 8 inches tall, and tips the scales at 175.

"I'm thinking to myself ... 'Man, did he get the good genes,'" Ryba said.

As it has turned out, Bloete, Ryba, and Ryba's high school girlfriend, Kathleen Butler, share no genes at all.

More than three decades after Ryba and Butler gave up their baby son to Catholic Charities of Trenton, N.J., for adoption, and four years after the agency facilitated their "reunion" with Bloete, genetic testing revealed last year that none of them are related.

Lisa Thibault, a spokeswoman for Catholic Charities of Trenton, acknowledged that the situation is "tragic," and that a "mistake" was made somewhere. But she said the agency has done all it is legally able to do for them.

That has shaken Ryba's lifelong faith in the Catholic Church, or at least in those who lead it. And, it has launched him on a thus-far fruitless quest to find the son he believes Catholic Charities has "lost."

Their story began in 1975.

Ryba was a high school football star. Butler was a cheerleader. They were crazy in love, but when Kathy became pregnant at 16, they knew they were both too young to provide a proper home and a secure future for their child.

So, they agreed to give their baby up to Catholic Charities, which arranged an adoption. They were promised updates on the boy's well-being, and assured the agency would mediate a reunion -- if the boy were willing after he grew to adulthood.

"The solace for me was the fact I would someday reunite, and know that the journey I took was for a good reason," said Ryba.

Catholic Charities' assurances were "a very big reason why I believed that what we were doing was the right thing. I never lost faith in that," he said.

Ryba went on to graduate from high school and earned a degree from Glassboro State College. In 1982, he moved to Maryland to open a sporting goods store in Cockeysville. Now 51, he lives in Timonium with his wife and two children. He owns and operates a business that sells uniforms to the U.S. Department of Defense.

But he has never forgotten the boy he and Butler gave up for adoption. And for three decades, Catholic Charities seemed to have kept its promises to Ryba and Butler.

Their baby was born Nov. 25, 1975, at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Camden. On Dec. 1, according to documents given to Ryba, the infant was transferred to St. Elizabeth's Home in Yardville, a home for unwed mothers run by Catholic Charities. And on Jan. 7, 1976, Phil -- identified on the state adoption consent papers as "Baby Boy Butler" -- was adopted by Anne and Edward Bloete, of Brielle, N.J.

Ryba and Butler split up after high school, and went off to college. They stayed in touch, but married others and lived separate lives. Both have their own children.

Over the years, Catholic Charities case workers sent Ryba baby pictures and information on his son's progress. And in 2004, the agency contacted Bloete and mediated the first direct communications between him and Ryba, which led to the "reunion" in Philadelphia.

Phil Bloete is 33 now, with a wife and daughter of his own. He said he had a happy childhood, and was well-loved by his adoptive parents.

"My whole life I grew up believing that Ron's story and Kathleen's story was the story of my [birth] parents," he said. "Catholic Charities had provided that all along."

Ryba said his long dream of a reunion with his firstborn son, and a resolution to decades of heartache and hope, seemed to have been realized in 2004 when he and Bloete agreed to meet for the first time at a Phillies game.

For Bloete, too, it was the culmination of a lifelong dream. "I had sorta prepared myself my whole life for the possibility that this day would never come," he said. "When it did, I was just surprised."

In the years that followed Ryba, Bloete and Butler grew closer, visiting, sharing photos and family stories and introducing relatives. They set aside the difficulty they all had in seeing family resemblances.

Ryba thought maybe Bloete got Butler's eyes. "You try to make it fit, in a way," Ryba said. "They told me this was my son, so it's my son. You want to believe."

They all tried, but Butler said there weren't any tall genes on her side. Ryba's wife and their 16-year-old son didn't see much resemblance either. Doubts nagged.

So, four years after they had become "family" and friends, as Ryba prepared to add Bloete to his will, he asked for a paternity test. Bloete, with his own doubts, readily agreed.

When the initial test found a "zero percent chance" that he was Bloete's father, Ryba called Butler, and posed the difficult, but inevitable question: Was there someone else? Butler told him, in no uncertain terms, "If you're not the father, then I'm not the mother."

So, they all agreed to a $1,200 DNA test that would stand up in court, if need be. The results again were conclusive. None of them were genetically related.

"We were all just stunned; shocked," Ryba recalled. "Now I realize we don't know who or where our son is. And then I realize Phillip has no origins."

The next call went to Catholic Charities.

"I said, 'You told me for 30 years this was my son. Can't you just go in your files? Maybe you mixed up some files,'" Ryba recalled.

Catholic Charities did provide some documents, but there was nothing to reveal who Bloete's real parents were, or where Baby Boy Butler might have gone.

A meeting was arranged for Ryba, Butler and Bloete with Catholic Charities director Francis Dolan. Ryba was hopeful.

"I'm feeling we're all in this together," he said. He expected that Catholic Charities would agree to search its files, find his real son, and uncover the records for Phil's birth parents.

Instead, the meeting with Dolan ended for Ryba in disappointment and anger, with few answers to his biggest questions. "I finally said to him, 'Are you here to help us?' His recollection is that Dolan replied that his agency had no further obligation to help.

"I don't think there was anything he could have said that could have been more hurtful," Ryba said.

Dolan chose not to speak directly with The Baltimore Sun. Lisa Thibault, his spokeswoman, said that throughout Catholic Charities' contact with Ryba, Butler and Bloete, "we have been mindful of the tragedy inherent in their situation, and have on numerous occasions ... expressed sympathy for them and their situation."

Ryba felt no such sympathy from this agency of the Catholic Church, to which he had belonged all his life.

"The one time I've turned to them ... for their cloak of comfort and help and justice, and they slowly closed the door on me, and said, 'We can't help you,'" Ryba said. "It doesn't diminish my faith in God. It diminishes my faith in the men who lead us to God."

Thibault acknowledged that the situation is "tragic," and that a "mistake" was made somewhere, although she suggested it may have been made before the Butler baby was moved to Catholic Charities' custody at St. Elizabeth's.

Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute in New York, a leading research and policy organization in the field that has long advocated an end to secrecy in adoption records, said, "The secretive ways of the past don't yield very good outcomes."

The mix-up in the adoption of the baby given up by Ryba and Butler -- and the mystery of Bloete's origins, even his true date of birth -- is "an abject lesson on how to not conduct good, strong, ethical adoptions," he said.

Catholic Charities did take one other step to try to shed light on the mystery. In September 2008, the agency went into Superior Court in Mercer County, N.J., asking for permission to release information from its files that is normally barred from disclosure under state or federal law -- information it said "would be helpful to [Phil's] search for his identity.".

In April, however, a judge denied the request, and in a June 5 e-mail, William Isele, Catholic Charities' attorney, told Ryba that the documents in the case were sealed. So were the judge's reasons for the denial.

"You can, of course, use your own counsel if you want to petition the court to unseal the Statement of Reasons and the underlying medical documents in the file," Isele told Ryba. "Our client, Catholic Charities, tried to do just that and was told 'no' by the Court."

Contacted by The Baltimore Sun, Isele declined to discuss the case, noting that records in the matter were sealed.

For Catholic Charities, Thibault said, the court's refusal to open the records was the end of its legal options. But perhaps not for Ryba, Butler and Bloete.

Birth records that reveal the identities of adopted children in New Jersey were sealed by a law passed in 1940 and are closed to both the general public and the parties to an adoption. The laws were designed to protect adoptive families from the interference of birth parents.

But there are exceptions when parties to an adoption can show "good cause" to have them opened, according to Steven Sacharow, an attorney with extensive experience in New Jersey adoptions.

"In the case of adult adoptees," he said, "the burden of proof should shift to the state to prove that good cause is not present. I would think the state would have an interest, in the best interests of all the children potentially involved in this situation, to determine what occurred, and as to the integrity of the adoption," Sacharow said.

The experience has sown the seeds of doubt in Ryba's mind. He wrestles with dark suspicion about what happened back at St. Elizabeth's. "How do we not let our thoughts go that way when they're not willing to help us?" Ryba asks.

Angry, and worried about his first-born son's fate, Ryba consulted with a private investigator. He even tried to file missing person and kidnapping reports with the New Jersey attorney general's office. He said he was turned away.

As Ryba continues to search for answers, he recognizes that a lawsuit may be his only option. But so far, he has been unable to find an attorney willing to take his case. He also worries about the cost.

Still, he said, "I would like to know where my son is."

Just in Time for Christmas!

© Photographer: Prometeus | Agency: Dreamstime.com
* Attention, Attention: important commercial break. Anyone in the market to purchase a human before Christmas? Note the price-list closely, please. White infants are premium product, and will cost you quite a bit more cash.

Hopefully you realize this post - except for the REAL "situations" found online - is a piece of sarcasm against a "system" that completely disgusts me and should anger every moral citizen. It should be illegal to sell humans, and seal their own birth certificates from them indefinately. But it isn't.

Notice that many of these "BM's" (yep - birthmothers ie. wombs for rent, heroic, selfless, gifters - until the papers are signed at least) are repeat suppliers and their "expenses" are considerably HIGH (paid by YOU, desperate,"Dear Birthmother" letter-writing, completely clueless women) - even to the tune of 40,000 bucks (not including legal, travel, and finalization "fees").

Yes, these "expenses" essentially BUY her child for your "own". The CHOSEN child. Not to mention profits made by supposedly "non-profit" agencies, facilitators (brokers) and attorneys, who perpetuate legal contracts transferring humans as if property.

We, the "chosen" get a life-time of sealed records and identity confusion, wondering WHY the selling of humans can still take place in our great nation, the supposed "Land of the free".

"Home of the brave"? Where's home?

...So hurry! Don't miss these Blue-Light Specials!
http://www.abcadoptions.com/prosituations.htm

African American baby girl Due December 10th. Just in time for Christmas!!! Birthmother would love to find a two parent home, christian based Couple to place her child with. Birthmother is 29 and parents an 11 year old boy 8 year old girl 4 year old Girl and 2 year old Boy. Baby will be born in Alabama. She is requesting picutres and updates after placement. Birthmother has full prenatal care, All medicals as well as background and photos have been obtained. Birthfather is diffrent from other children and will sign, Birthmother has sickel cell traitm Birthfather does not. No substnace abuse or smoking. Fees are about $16,000.00not including travel. To be considered please email or send your profile to Unique Adoptions Inc. 951-600-2575
-----------------------
la@adoptioninsight.com
Adoption Facilitator
99.164.29.91
August 31, 2009
Birth Mother due December 14, 2009 with a Full Hispanic Baby gender unknown. Birth Mother would prefer a semi-open adoption with letters and pictures after the birth of the baby. Fees will be approximately $34,000.00 which includes everything except travel and finalization. Birth Mother will only place with a Alternative Female Couple. If interested and for more information please call our office at (760)356-5565.
---------------------------
I am an adoptive mom of 3 and our BM is pg. She has asked me to help her find and screen families - I am NOT a facilitator nor am I being paid for helping. She is Russian - due March 2010 - Gender unknown - full caucasian baby. Prenatal care from the beginning. No Drugs, alcohol, smoking. BM expenses are $35,000 excluding legal exp and travel. Our attorney is available if you want a referral. He has finalized 2 of our adopted children from this BM. Your choice. Birthfather rights will be terminated in the courts and is in full agreement with adoption plan. If you are interested, please call me ASAP at xxx-xxx-1960. Please leave a message if I don't answer - I will get back to you ASAP. Thank you
----------------------
la@adoptioninsight.com
Adoption Facilitator
74.87.212.148
August 15, 2009
Code Name:SDBC Birth Mother due March 2010 with a 3/4 Native American 1/4 Caucasian baby gender unknown. Birth Mother denies all drug, alcohol and tobacco usage. Birth Mother has placed four times previously and is very committed to the adoption plan. Fees will be approximately $35,000.00 which includes everything except travel and finalization. For more information contact our office at (760)356-5565. Thank You
----------------------------
patricesic@yahoo.com
Adoption Facilitator
173.58.90.66
July 28, 2009
African American baby girl Due Sept 25th. Full prenatal care and all medical records. Sonogram on DVD with 3-D photos. No substance abuse or smoking. FEes are $15,300.00 total. If homestudy ready and want to be considered please email patricesic@yahoo.com for consideration. Birthmother is letting agency select AP's with approved homestudy . Unique Adoptions Inc 888-637-8200-Office 951-712-7205-Cell

adopt@adoptionwise.com
Adoption Facilitator
74.87.212.229
July 02, 2009
Birth Mother due January 2010 with a Full Caucasian Baby gender unknown. Birth Parents are married and the Birth Father is in agreement with the adoption plan. Birth Mother denies all drug and alcohol usage but does admit to smoking 1/2 a pack of cigarettes per day. This will be the Birth Parents third Adoption and they are very committed to the adoption plan. Fees will be approximately $40,000.00. For more information contact Adoption Insight at (760)356-5565.

Adoptee Rights - Philadelphia 2009

Adoptee Rights Protest 2009 Philly

Adoptees and OBC's

Adoptees protest for access to original birth certificates
By Jeff Gammage
Wed, Jul. 22, 2009
Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer

Former Maine State Sen. Paula Benoit stood at an information booth yesterday, trying to persuade people to follow the Pine Tree State:

Let adult adoptees have their original birth certificates.

It's not as simple as it sounds. Those records are sealed in 44 states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey. And for Benoit, pushing legislative colleagues toward change has been difficult.

"They're oftentimes open-minded and will listen," she said. "But if there's not enough people in their constituency, they won't support it because there's nothing in it for them."

Yesterday, Benoit, herself adopted, staffed a booth for the Adoptee Rights Coalition, among the groups pressing their causes to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which is holding its annual meeting at the Convention Center.

Benoit, a Republican, now works as executive director of Maine-based Adoptee CARE, the Adoptee Council for Adoption Reform Education, which means traveling to events like the one in Philadelphia.

Outside the hall yesterday, about 120 adoptees and birth parents from as far as England staged a loud, sign-waving demonstration. They marched to the Convention Center from People's Plaza, near Independence Hall, ignoring the rain, helped by police who stopped traffic at Market Street crossroads.

"You got yours . . ." came the call from protest organizers.

"I want mine!" shouted the marchers.

Tourists and pedestrians, confused or amused, stood aside to let them pass.

"You deserve your rights!" one bystander shouted at the group, adding, "My cousin's adopted."

In the United States, laws passed in the 1930s and 1940s created "amended birth certificates" that replaced the names of biological parents with those of adoptive parents. Adoption was considered shameful, and experts favored permanent separation between birth parents and children.

Today it's common for birth parents, adoptive parents, and children to be in contact. But only Alaska, Oregon, Kansas, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Maine allow adult adoptees to have unrestricted access to their original birth records. And the battle over access ranks among the most controversial issues in the field.

The National Council for Adoption, a well-known advocacy and policy group, staunchly opposes open records, saying that birth mothers who were promised privacy deserve to keep it. State chapters of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are opposed, as are Catholic organizations.

None of those groups were present yesterday - nor did they need to be. They're winning the argument, noted adoptee Dan Haines of Egg Harbor. That forces adoptees to mount a state-by-state appeal to lawmakers that could go on forever.

And while that happens, he said, birth parents grow old and die.

That fact lends urgency to what adoptees call the nation's last civil-rights battle.

"There's no sane reason for us not to have the information," said Heather Holmes, an adoptee who was born in New York and raised in England.

On Monday, she met her biological mother for the first time, at Philadelphia International Airport. They've corresponded for several years, connecting after each searched for the other.

"Whatever relationship adults want to have, it's not the government's business," Holmes said in a crisp English accent.

"It's a major Big Brother thing," added her mother, Carole Baker, of Orlando, Fla.

The nation's newest open-records law took effect Jan. 2 in Maine. Benoit, defeated for reelection, went immediately to get her birth certificate.

She discovered she was one of nine siblings - and that two Maine state legislators were her nephews.

Her work for Adoptee CARE often involves telling her story, explaining to legislators that adoptees can't get their birth records.

"Half of them don't even know," she said. "They say, 'I have adopted nieces and nephews, and they can't get their original birth certificates?' "
----------------------------------------

Contact staff writer Jeff Gammage at 215-854-2415 or jgammage@phillynews.com .

Find this article at:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090722_Adoptees_protest_for_access_to_original_birth_certificates.html

Due Process in Adoption? Hardly

Due Process in Adoption? Hardly
William H. Mild III

Adoption is generally perceived as a positive thing — hope, love and new
beginnings. We prefer not to dwell on the negatives that usually precede an
adoption — anguish, anger and severing of family ties. The purpose of this piece
is to look at the due process implications of making a child available to be
adopted. I am not addressing the process whereby the New Jersey Division of
Youth and Family Services may obtain involuntary termination of parental rights
because of abuse, neglect and/or other parental unfitness. Although some of the
concerns expressed herein are also applicable to intra-family adoptions and
approved agency placements, this piece will focus on the adoption process
arising out of non-agency placements with potential adoptive parents who are not
part of the child's original family, commonly referred to as private placements
or private adoptions.

The parent-child relationship has long been recognized as a fundamental interest
in which parent and child are each protected by the due process requirements of
access to counsel, notice and a higher burden of proof — clear and convincing,
rather than mere preponderance. For instance, see In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1
(1966); Crist v. NJDYFS, 135 N.J. Super. 573 (App. Div. 1975); NJDYFS v.
Wandell, 382 A.2d 711 (J.& D.R. Ct. 1978); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745
(1982).

As a custody or termination proceeding inevitably affects fundamental interests
of both parent and child, both are indispensable parties, Bruno v. Mark MaGrann
Associates, 909 A.2d 768 (App. Div. 2006). Because contact with other family
members can also be important, grandparents and siblings have been granted a
limited statutory right to apply for visitation, N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1.

Private adoptions are almost always based upon the voluntary relinquishment of
birthparents and their consent to an adoption. Relinquishment is a difficult,
emotion-laden process for birthparents. Many relinquishing parents are unmarried
and in their teens and early 20s. Many are immature, naïve, depressed and
economically dependent upon their own parents for physical necessities and
guidance. Parents of birthparents often feel acute embarrassment at an
out-of-wedlock pregnancy and push birthparents toward relinquishment. Other
relatives, clergy, teachers and family friends may convince a vulnerable
birthparent that the child will be "better off" with an adoptive family with
"more to offer". Suggested reading is Ann Fessler's The Girls Who Went Away: The
Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades
Before Roe v. Wade. Very few relinquishments are "voluntary" in any cheerful
sense.

To be valid, a surrender document cannot be signed by a birthparent before the
birth of the child or within 72 hours of the birth. It is the rare birthparent
who can afford access to independent legal counsel in a private adoption. Only
the adoptive parents have an attorney and it is their attorney who prepares all
the documents. The formal surrender document may contain waivers of counseling,
legal representation and/or further notice concerning the adoption proceeding.
The adoptive parents' attorney will probably give the birthparent(s) a Notice of
Intention to Place which formally advises the birthparent(s) that they will
receive no further notice of subsequent proceedings and will have no right to
object to the adoption unless he/she files a written objection with the
Surrogate of the county within 20 days, or 35 days if a nonresident. The Notice
of Intention to Place process relies entirely upon the integrity of the adoptive
parents' attorney and offers an opportunity for fraud, if the particular
attorney is so inclined and especially if the birth parent(s)or the adoptive
parents reside outside of New Jersey. The Notice of Intention to Place becomes
the basis of what is essentially a default judgment of adoption. The attorney
represents only the adoptive parents, not the birthparent(s) or the child at a
time when independent legal counsel is urgently needed.

However well-intentioned, the adoptive parents' attorney who explains legal
documents to a birthparent has an inherent conflict of interest. Regardless, the
birthparent(s) is/are typically dependent upon the adoptive parents' attorney to
explain the documents' contents and answer any legal questions.

Birthparents, like the public at large, generally understand that they are
surrendering a child to be adopted and raised within a substitute family without
interference. They do not realize, however, that they are de facto, as the
child's legal guardian, also surrendering the child's right to know and be part
of his or her original family.

They do not understand that their signature will, following completion of the
adoption, lead to the permanent sealing of their child's original birth
certificate, well beyond the scope of their parental rights, which normally
"expire" when the child becomes an adult. The child's adoption record, including
the child's original birth certificate, will remain sealed against the child for
the rest of his or her life, unless he or she can sustain the burden of proving
to a court that there is "good cause." As "good cause" is not defined, the
outcome will likely depend upon the personal predilections of the judge. See
Backes v. Catholic Family & Community Services, 509 A.2d 283 (Ch. Div. 1985),
which denied access to sealed medical or genetic information because the adult
adoptee's mental condition was deemed insufficiently pathological.

Unless the adoptee is later able to learn his biological identity by some other
means, the long-term effect of relinquishment is to strip the adopted person of
his or her natural identity, including their genetic and medical background and
their family and ethnic heritage, for their entire lifetime. None of this is
explained in the surrender documents the birthparent(s) are given to sign.
Indeed, the attorney for the adoptive parents has no reason or obligation to
explain it.

The right to obtain a copy of one's own birth certificate is routinely exercised
by all citizens, unless you were adopted. Although parent-child relationships
are supposed to be fundamental and constitutionally protected, children's
relationships with their parents, grandparents, siblings and other family
members are routinely and permanently severed, first, by the inadvertent effect
of the unrepresented birthparent(s)' signature on surrender documents and,
second, by a court's judgment of adoption. The child has no guardian ad litem,
attorney or other qualified person to represent and protect his or her interests
and the adoption statute does not require it.

In fact, the only time the adoption statute requires the appointment of a
guardian ad litem in a private adoption is if the court-appointed agency
recommends a child be removed from the home of the proposed adoptive parents,
N.J.S.A. 9:3-48a(2)(c). Apparently, our legislature sees no need for a guardian
ad litem before a private placement is made.

After the surrender papers are signed, the child is placed with the adoptive
parents who are required to file a Complaint for Adoption within 45 days of
receipt of the child, according to N.J.S.A. 9:3-44. Neither the complaint nor
any notice thereof is served upon the birthparent(s) if they were given a Notice
of Intention to Place and failed to file a written objection. Upon the filing of
the complaint, the court is required to fix a date for a preliminary hearing and
to appoint an approved agency to investigate and submit a written report. This
presents the agency with a bit of a fait accompli because, by this time, the
child has been in the adoptive home approximately 45 days.

At the preliminary hearing, assuming the agency report is favorable to the
adoptive parents, the court terminates the birthparent(s)' parental rights,
schedules a final hearing and appoints an approved agency to supervise and
evaluate the continuing placement of the child. If the final report of the
approved agency recommends that the adoption be granted and the court is
satisfied that the best interests of the child will be served thereby, the court
may dispense with the final hearing and enter a judgment of adoption
immediately.

It seems to me that a significant number of New Jersey adoptions, particularly
private adoptions, are on shaky legal ground. A court's termination of parental
rights based primarily upon the Notice of Intention to Place and the report of
the approved agency is considerably weaker than the "clear and convincing
evidence" required to pass constitutional muster. Birthparents should not have
been expected to navigate these labyrinthine statutes without independent
counsel. Without counsel, birthparents have virtually no way of knowing the
long-term effect of their relinquishment and the post-adoption sealing of the
court's file, including the child's original birth certificate, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 9:3-52.

The child is an indispensable party and requires independent counsel to protect
his or her own fundamental rights and interests — including adult rights and
interests — from being needlessly compromised.

Due process in adoption? Hardly.

William H. Mild III served for 23 years as a deputy attorney general within the
New Jersey Division of Law representing the Division of Youth and Family
Services in numerous guardianship and civil child abuse/neglect cases. He
retired from the Division of Law in 1999.

NO COMPROMISE

Why can one group of adults withhold another group of adult's personal histories and identities from
them? Adoptees are unjustly viewed & held captive as perpetual children in the eyes of the
law. Even the Child Welfare League of America strongly supports legislation which restores the right of adult adoptees to their original birth certificates. When will America wake up?

To: CARE and Cal-Open

From: Assemblywoman Fiona Ma

RE: AB 372

I want to start by thanking all of you for the hard work and time spent to
help craft AB 372. After many weeks of meetings with stakeholders,
committee staff and members of the Legislature, we have come to a pivotal point
in
the legislative process. I understand the issues which adoptees face in their
pursuit to obtain their identity, as well as the concerns which will be
raised in committee. After hearing from all of the stakeholders, it is clear
that
in order to provide adoptees with greater access than what is already allowed
by law, compromises will have to be made.

In order to keep the bill moving and do as much as possible to provide
greater openness, I have decided to draft the following amendments:
> >
Amend the Health and Safety Code section 102705 to require the courts to
> > release the original birth certificate contingent upon the finding of a
> > serious medical condition requiring familiar information.
> >
> > -Starting Jan 1, 2010 and going backward, the state shall open the original
> > unamended birth certificate in an ³Informational Only Copy² form to an
> > adult
> > adoptee age 25 or older if all of the following conditions are met:
> >
> > 1 -A certified, return receipt letter is sent to the best-match address of
> > the biological parent notifying them of the change in law and allowing
> > them to keep their record confidential by signing an enclosed form and
> > returning to the Department of Health.
> >
> > 2 -A period of six-months from the time of the biological mother
> > receiving notice is given for them to respond with the opt-out notice.
> > -Should the Department not receive a return receipt, the record shall
> > remain
> > confidential/sealed (per status quo).
> >
> > -If both biological parents are listed on the certificate and one, but not
> > both
> > choose to remain confidential, the certificate shall released with the name
> > of
> > the bio parent who wishes to remain confidential redacted.
> >
> > -Prospectively, starting Jan 1, 2010, all adoptions completed shall have
> > notification to the biological parents that the child who is being adopted
> > shall
> > have unrestricted access to their original un-amended birth certificate in
> > the
> > form of an ³Information Only Copy² upon their 25th birthday. This
> > notification shall require signature from both biological parents that they
> > understand this and agree to the provisions stated, so long as both are
> > listed
> > on the birth certificate.
> >
> > -This notification shall include an opt-out form, allowing either of the
> > biological parents to keep the birth certificate confidential and sealed
> > and
> > shall state: For reasons including but not limited to rape, incest,
> > religious
> > or personal reasons, I decline to allow the record of birth to be released
> >
> > -If both biological parents are listed on the certificate and one, but not
> > both choose to remain confidential, the certificate shall released with the
> > name of the bio parent who wishes to remain confidential redacted.
> > The Assembly Judiciary Committee has noted that this bill will be heard on
> > April 28, 2009. These amendments do not guarantee approval in committee,
> > but provide AB 372 with a better chance to succeed. Should the bill not
> > pass,
> > it will not be eligible to be heard again this year.

> > I fully understand the concerns of those directly affected by this
> > legislation.
> > I have stated in previous meetings that I believe that adoptees do have
> > claim to
> > this information. Knowing that, understand that this legislation, if
> > amended,
> > has the best chance of moving further through the process. We hope your
> > organizations will continue to support our effort to allow as many adoptees
> > to
> > access their original birth certificate. My Office is attempting to do the
> > most
> > we can to assist adoptees using all the tools at our disposal.

> > Thank you for working with me and my Office. Your input and stories have
> > painted a fuller picture of the landscape we are embarking upon and
> > provided
> > for legislation that will greatly improve adoptees¹ access to their
> > original
> > birth certificate.

> > In Peace and Friendship,

> > Fiona Ma

Reprinted for educational purposes only.

I liked what Mirah had to say on her blog about this issue:
"The issue is EQUAL RIGHTS. It is NOT about search and reunion. Not about
emotional need to know. Not about heritage or any other feel-good issue.

IT IS ABOUT EQUALITY. EQUAL RIGHTS. It is about ending discriminatory
restriction that applies only to adoption separated persons, and RESTORING
rights that were abrogated against all the best advise of adoption experts.

Focusing on search and reunion and medical need makes it an issue that pits one
person's needs against another's because it effects more than one person. Equal
rights is about the rights of each individual to be equal to that of every other
individual."

The Unknown Soldier

The Story of the Unknown Soldier

by Ron Nydam, Ph.D.

In June of 1998 a headline in the Rocky Mountain News read, "DNA Yields Identity of Unknown Soldier." The Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington National Cemetery, overlooking the Potomac River, holds the remains of several soldiers from both World Wars, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Fourteen years ago then President Reagan presided over the burial of the remains of a serviceman killed in South Vietnam whose identity was not known. DNA testing that could have determined the man's identity was not available at that time. This past summer a sample of mitochondrial DNA scraped from a pelvic bone matched the blood sample given by Jean Blassie, mother of First Lt. Michael Blassie, an Air Force pilot whose A-37 jet had crashed in flames near the Cambodian border, on May 11, 1972. Five months later, South Vietnamese soldiers recovered his remains: four ribs, his right humerus, and part of his pelvic bone. But tests in Hawaii could not conclusively match these fragments to Blassie and the bones were classified as unknown in origin. Blassie was listed as missing in action in Vietnam. In a solemn, symbolic state funeral, President Reagan laid these bones to rest in the Tomb of the Unknowns on Memorial Day, 1984, 12 years after Blassie's death. Today Michael's bones lie buried in St. Louis, next to the grave of his father, George (a World War II veteran who died in 1991). Now the bones have a name.

It was all of interest to me. The Tomb of the Unknowns is a sacred place, the centerpiece of Arlington National Cemetery, one of our national memorials to soldiers who died for the "cause" of our country. If you are "unknown" you represent everybody-all 2,087 MIA's from the Vietnam War. These bones were placed in the Tomb to remind us of the unknowns. He was the son of our country; he was related to all of us. (His bones reminded me of my high school friend, Len Chesley, who played baseball with me. Len died of a grenade blast running from one foxhole to another with medical supplies.) Our nation appropriately honors, even glorifies the Tomb; we are reverent before the markers of sons and daughters who died for our country. They gave their lives for the good of America... even if Vietnam was not such a "good" war.

But now, we as a nation took the bones out of the Tomb. We gave them a name, Michael, and a family, the Blassies. In so doing, we healed a wound. Jean and George are real people in the pages of history who had a real son, Michael, who sadly flew his fighter jet in a fireball into the ground near the Cambodian border. His bones were moved from Washington, D.C., to St. Louis, from a nameless national memorial to an ordinary family plot. Do we see what happened? We tampered with the Shrine to the unknowns because we gave the bones their name. Our nation could no longer consider Michael's four ribs, humerus and pelvic bones as without a name, without identity. These bones became real to his mother 26 years after Michael's death. He was once again a real person, a son who really died on May 11, 1992. And Jean, his mother, could stand over his grave and weep tears that every mother weeps with the loss of a child. Michael Blassie was not only identified by the DNA match with Jean's blood sample; if anyone looked further Michael could also be found in his mother's heart.

I was thankful! As a country we did the right thing... though the Pentagon obscured his bones for years. "If we give Michael's bones their identity, we may have to do the same thing with all the other bones in the Tomb of the Unknowns! All the bones will get their names...and pretty soon there will be no bones in the Tomb of the Unknowns." Well, what a wonderful day that would be! Every bone deserves its name!

In our American society the adoptee is, in part, the Unknown Soldier...a warrior, fighting for the greater cause of human dignity, but unknown, marching without a name. I am referring specifically to the part of the adoptee that cannot be relinquished and adopted, no matter how much their caring adoptive parents love them. This is the part of the adoptee's self which, historically in the closed adoption system, has been buried in the Tomb of the Unknowns. But this is a soldier, male or female, a fighter who struggles to stay alive despite all the mortar fire of people like Bill Pierce and others supporting the proposed Uniform Adoption Act who want to keep the bones in the Tomb unknown so that adoption can be glorified in a way that even harms adoption. (The practice of adoption must be honest about the names of the bones sealed in closed court record tombs.) Adoptees are the Unknown Soldiers who must fight their way through the barrage of everyone else's opinion about who they should be. The temptation for many is to duck, to compromise self, to sacrifice the need for identity and just obey orders. But the mission, the right mission-sometimes Mission Impossible-is to go to battle for the right to know your name, your heritage, your whole story. And for birth parents, as for Michael's mother, Jean, it is better to grieve at the grave of your son with his name etched in granite than to forever wonder about bones buried in an unknown tomb.

The adoptee foot soldier is faced with complex challenges which are unique to adoptive development. Yes, the relinquished and adopted person probably marches to the beat of a different drummer...and probably for good reason. It may look like everything is okay. It may look like compliance to parental orders. But, if we watch carefully, and walk closely by, and listen to the heartbeat of the adoptee, we will notice that something more is going on. Sometimes these soldiers even go AWAL because they hear something else...off in the distance in birth parent land.


Grief
Travis was one little soldier who will probably always remember the day that he marched. It was a humid Saturday evening when almost everyone in a northwest Iowa town gathered for a benefit in the local concert hall. At age eight Travis sat in the front row of the small auditorium with his friends and a bag of popcorn. His adoptive parents were sitting towards the back with the rest of nearly all the adults in town. Halfway through the concert the singers stopped to dedicate a song to all the boys and girls in the world who did not have parents. The reference was to the children of the back country villages of Uganda where the adult HIV infection rate is as high as 80%. But Travis heard it differently. He put down his bag of popcorn and, with tears running down his cheeks, walked back up the middle aisle in search of his parents. He curled up in his mother's lap and wept, telling her, "Mom, I miss my birth mother." Wisely, supporting his grief, his mother responded, "Honey, I know you do."

When relinquished and adopted little soldiers reach the age of seven or eight, they master the ability to conceptualize, to "get" an idea...like relinquishment. Usually, at that age, they experience some depression when they figure out the reality of the existence of their ghost birth parents. And, normally, they grieve. And adoptive parents are the resources that adoptees turn to, if they can, to do their grieving. But their grieving is normal-an additional developmental challenge for the adoptee foot soldier. If, however, relinquished and adopted children are taught not to grieve, but, instead, to make believe, as our society does, that relinquishment doesn't make a difference, then the adoptee is left feeling confused and partial, not fully self-honest or fully real. Many soldiers know that "you cannot fix a problem if you say it is not there." The grief is there.


Identity
And what about marching without dogtags? For most of us in the non-adopted world, our identities are understood, known, and, for better or worse, accepted. But living with unknown identities, as many adoptee foot soldiers have been called to do, makes the road ahead less clear. It is difficult to know where you are going if you are not sure of who you are. What are the genetic givens? What are you good at? What ailments may come your way? What do you know of your parents' professions, skills, and talents? The closed adoption system has, for the last 50 years, kept the answers to those questions locked up in sealed courtroom records. So missing pieces of one's story are a problem. "Unknown" is a dangerous word. It is only when we really know about ourselves that we can forget about ourselves and move forward toward getting to know others. As long as our identities are on front stage, as is normal in adolescence, our attention to others gets compromised. It should come as no surprise that relinquished and adopted adolescents are over-represented in clinical populations in hospitals across our country. Again, it is normal for them to struggle when they know less about themselves than they need to know to be happy.

But there's more. Adoptees often have to march along taking in a negative piece of their personal histories as part of their identities. Unlike many of us in the non-adopted infantry, relinquished and adopted persons have to mold their identities out of stories of relinquishment, sometimes feeling like a mistake in time, unwanted, or optional. It is no easy task to march along without a clear sense of personal importance which gives confidence to fight the battles. But adoptees, often too "unknown" for their own good, are called forward to do so. Another extra challenge along the way.


Intimacy
There are days when relinquished and adopted people walk alone, without the rhythm and beat of a marching army. We all, adopted and non-adopted alike, avoid deep connections if we have trouble with trust. If our lives start out with breaks in attachment, then it is quite understandable that we might be gun-shy in the battle for closeness with others. Adoptees, for example, may struggle with relinquishment sensitivity, being fearful of taking risks because the sting of rejection has painful echoes from the past. If being relinquished is the organizing principle by which we guide our relationships, then our ways of relating to others, especially those we may love romantically, may be preconsciously loaded with conflict. We may avoid close connections with others altogether in order to do "an end run" around ever getting relinquished again. Or we may arrange close relationships in order to recapitulate the primal rejection. We may relinquish our mates because of an underlying belief that they will leave us, or hang on in very dependant ways to avoid rejection, or treat our mates in such a fashion that sooner or later they relinquish us. Intimate relationships always encounter problems, but, for adoptees, these problems may relate especially to the unresolved pain that often accompanies relinquishment...even if it is at less-than-conscious levels.

When Tom, the adoptee foot soldier, found himself "falling" for his 27-year-old secretary, though not in a sexual way, his wife threw the Rolodex at him and the next day dragged him into a counseling office. He did not know why his secretary had come to mean so much to him, but she had. Traditional marriage counseling did little to change things. After three months, Tom knew more about his adoptive history...but still "loved" his secretary. It was only when he brought in his 41-year-old adoption papers and read that his birth mother was 27 years old when she gave birth to him that Tom began his grieving of the mother he never knew. Unknown is a dangerous word. He had never mourned the loss of his birth parents. He had wished to leave his wife/adoptive mother and return to his secretary/birth mother. Interpretation of this painful reality slowly brought peace to Tom's conflicted marriage. Search and reunion with his birth mother helped more. If adoptees do not courageously deal with the pain of relinquishment, it often shows up in the middle of "love." Makes marching forward more difficult.


Fantasy and Reality
Sigmund Freud, one of the great generals in the army of psychology, suggested a hundred years ago that it is normal for children growing up to make believe that they are really from another family, a royal family, which would treat them with much more kindness and honor than the parents at home do. He called this the (other) "family romance fantasy" and suggested that it was a way that children used to deal with their anger at their parents as well as slowly separate from them. But what happens when the (other) "family romance" is real, meaning that there are real but "ghost" parents out there? The adoptee is left wondering about the reality of who these people are. No wonder adoptees often report rich fantasy lives about the who and what of their birth parents as well as about the why of relinquishment. Their fantasies connect them in important ways to their birth parents, keeping connection and hope for more reality with them alive. More to carry along the way as these foot soldiers grow up.

One relinquished and adopted adult recalls imagining that her birth mother was the president of a big company in Omaha. Another imagined the opposite-that her birth mother was a waitress in a greasy spoon restaurant. The first "borrowed" goodness in terms of her own self-image by making up a presidential mother. The second kept her birth mother at a distance, seeing her low in life, "not amounting to much." But our point is that regardless of how birth parents may be valued in imagination, they are significant. And adoptees need to know the truth about their birth histories in order to feel fully real. Ask them. Even bad news is good news because it is real news.

These challenges are the marching orders for adoptee foot soldiers, the Unknown Soldiers of our day. They each have to do the march of grieving, of identity formation, of managing intimacy, and resolving fantasy into as much reality as possible. With heart and soul they keep fighting for a sense of belonging and being complete as persons in the Great War on secrecy and denial and a society that, at least historically, does not even want to know that the Battle is going on. "We disavow any knowledge of their secret selves" are the words from the top. So they fight alone, without the backup of the very community that commissioned them, in adoption, to "figure things out and make their lives work." These Unknown Soldiers, who are battling for the wholeness of the next generation, need the Pentagon behind them. There are 47 states to go!

Now, back to Michael's bones buried in the Tomb of the Unknowns, resurrected to their original identity and brought to St. Louis to lie with the bones of his father. Every bone deserves its name. The truth is that bones come back to life when they have identities. So it is with the foot bones and the back bones and the heart bones of adoptees. Give them a name and they come back to life. The hidden and the unknown become seen and known and real in the light of the day of open records. Then, finally, soldiers can lay down their arms and be at peace with all the pieces of history. The Unknown Soldiers become the known sons and daughters of known mothers and fathers. And they no longer have to fight.


This article is a summary of an address made at the American Adoption Congress Southern Conference in Orlando, Florida, October 1998. Ron Nydam is the director of Michigan Adoption Dynamics and Assistant Professor of Pastoral Care at Calvin Theological Seminary. His book, Adoptees Come Of Age: The Emotional and Spiritual Struggle with Relinquishment, will be published in August 1999 by Westminster/John Knox Press.