Home

I stare at myself in pictures throughout a lifetime wondering who I am and where I belong.  Not here.  I am with people I call "family" but I am alone.  In a world of strangers.  

I feel no connection.  Nothing.  My soul in constant reach.  Unable to make contact.  

My people are across the sea.  In another time and place.  

Those around me fade into the background as I gaze into the distance.  

Always searching the horizon for something I know not of.  

Humanity in my bones.  They ache.  As a stranger in a foreign land.  

I wait.  For what.  I do not know.  

My son, please land somewhere grand.  God give us a home. 

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.   

Infant-Maternal Separation Has Lasting Effects

© Photographer: Dmccale | Agency: Dreamstime.com

"Separation in early life is associated with changes in

hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) responses to stress [38], transient and

long-term changes in immune competence in non-human primates [39], and reduced

maternal-infant attunement [40]. The impact of maternal-infant separation during
the sensitive period may permanently alter affectional ties [23], and may
consequently influence developing organ systems, including the nervous system[8].

 

Events that affect the ability of the mother to attend to her infant shape
the capacity of the newborn to tolerate stress, since the immature nervous

system is unable to regulate states of high arousal. Events occurring during

labor and delivery that may affect the mother or the infant's ability to bond

include early separation, pain in the mother or infant, the use of medication

such as anesthesia, and anxiety, among others [23]. Whereas healthy newborns

demonstrate more rapid returns to baseline cortisol following exposure to stress

[41], babies born following mild obstetrical complications have less optimal HPA

responses [42] as well as decreased habituation and sensitization to stressors

[41]. Maternal-infant separation following cesarean sections is common and

appears to negatively impact quality of maternal-infant interactions [43-46] as

well as frequency of breastfeeding [46]."

http://www.veroniquemead.com/somatic_early.php

 

"CONCLUSIONS: Skin-to-skin contact, for 25 to 120 minutes after birth, early

suckling, or both positively influenced interaction 1 year later

when compared with routines involving separation of mother and infant."

***NOTE: If a ONE HOUR PERIOD of bonding with mother influences

relationships a year later, then what does mommy disappearing do???

My friend and fellow advocate (a first mother) Lori also pointed out in her comment a revealing article from Psychology Today:

An infant, due to the amount of time in the womb, and until the discovery of motor skills such as crawling, usually around 9 months old, is unaware that they are not a physical part of their mothers.

 

*Being both an adoptee as well as mother to a preemie who spent his first four months in a neonatal intensive care unit, reading these studies 'explain' the issues and behaviors so readily apparent in both myself and my son, and also saddens and angers me. Dr. John Bowlby and others have researched the importance of the mother/infant bond for years.

 

Yet both the medical and adoption communities have been either too slow or completely unacknowledging of the ABUSES they have committed against human lives.
Taking an infant away from mother immediately after birth is damaging to a child. Yet it is practiced daily in hospitals everywhere, and applauded in "open adoption", all for the benefit of waiting adoptive parents. Furthermore, research like this is avoided during "options counseling" when adoption agencies spout the "benefits" of adoption in marketing pregnant mothers. These conclusions are certainly not provided to prospective adoptive parents either.

 

How can we call "counseling" provided by the very "professionals" who make their living in adoption non-directive or ethical?
 

I recently attended the "grand opening" celebration of a new NICU in our local Children's Hospital and could hardly hold back the tears touring this beautiful "mother/child" friendly facility. Each room is completely private, with a warming bed/incubator, a comfortable recliner, and even a pull-out bed. The best-practice philosophy in neonatal care is "family-centered" where the mother (rightly) becomes an integral part of her newborns care from day one, including "kangaroo care" (skin to skin contact) as much as possible. I would have given anything for this environment when my son was born. He lived in a "pod" of open space with numerous other babies within just a few feet. I sat for four months propped on a tall bar stool by his side, with no privacy, noise and traffic surrounding us continually. The "alarms" alone were enough to send even an adult through the roof at times. What did they do to tiny, under-developed nervous systems? Just thinking back to this experience causes my heart to race with anxiety.

Last night I snuck away to a women's meeting at my church and then went out to eat with a dear friend afterwards. I got home after my son was already in bed asleep. Mind you, he is 4 years old now and has come a long way after his traumatic start in life. But this morning, he threw a huge panicked fit, ordering me to "GO AWAY!!!" over and over again. He was still reeling from my (just a few hours) absence last night. This is very typical for him and it has been so hard. It hurts me to see him hurting - dealing with high-anxiety and insecure attachment. All because he was separated from me for so many months at the beginning of his life.

True, I got to hold him when he was two weeks old and then on, but only for minut periods of time. Getting to hold him for even an hour a day was a privilege that we didn't get to partake of until he was well past 2 months old. His vital signs calmed, and so did mine. But even that was not enough to give him the foundation he needed. God comforted me with a verse in Isaiah 66 which promises, "I will comfort you as a mother comforts her child" and I literally lived and breathed this to keep going.

I am so thankful the medical community is finally beginning to "catch up" with the known research of maternal/infant health.

 

Yet, the adoption community continues to ignore and contradict these important studies for their own benefit.

 

According to the research above, not only are children affected emotionally and psychologically by being separated from their mother, their physical health is detrimentally affected as well.

This growing body of research can't be ignored much longer. We call upon ethical professionals to take these studies seriously and use the knowledge to change policies and laws surrounding adoption. To protect voiceless children who are caught in the web of a financially, supply/demand driven adoption industry. Even puppies are not separated from their mothers until well after the time of weaning ~ for a reason. Shouldn't human children be given this same respect and more?

While finally allowing myself to grieve the loss of my own mother through adoption (several years before the birth of my son) I wrote several poems. The feelings of a human-being who experiences the trauma of pre-verbal separation from mother run so deep, it is truly fearful to acknowledge and experience them (especially in a society which disregards them, causing further trauma,'disenfranchised grief'). Yet, that is exactly what is necessary to bring healing. That which is kept in the dark and is never exposed to the light can never be healed. You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. That is why "sealed records" in adoption is a crime, perpetuating painful shame for all involved.

Here I Lay

Alone in the nursery I lay
Cries ring out like radar
Searching, searching, searching
In circles around my bed they reach
Striving to find the woman I know
Her breath, her hair, her touch
No where.

Alone in the nursery I lay
The ceiling so far away
Arms flinging hoping to find
Nothing but emptiness I feel

Where is she? Why isn't she here?
I am lost and alone. I can't feel.
The cries stop. There is no use
She is long gone
She or me? I do not know
Here I lay in the nursery alone.

The Decision That Changed My Life

The Decision That Changed My Life:
Keeping My Baby
by Maya Angelou

Originally Published in Family Circle Magazine; October 8, 2001, Page 56

At age three, after the dissolution of her parents' marriage, the poet, playwright and director Maya Angelou was raised, until age 14, in Stamps, Arkansas, by her paternal grandmother. Angelou's eloquent series of five memoirs includes I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and, most recently, A Song Flung Up to Heaven (Random House). Here the 74-year-old recounts the most important event of her life, a daunting decision she faced after she returned to San Francisco as a teen to live with her mother:

"When I was 16, a boy in high school evinced interest in me, so I had sex with him -- just once. And after I came out of that room, I thought, Is that all there is to it? My goodness, I'll never do that again! Then, when I found out I was pregnant, I went to the boy and asked him for help, but he said it wasn't his baby and he didn't want any part of it.

I was scared to pieces. Back then, if you had money, there were some girls who got abortions, but I couldn't deal with that idea. Oh, no. No. I knew there was somebody inside me. So I decided to keep the baby.

My older brother, Bailey, my confidant, told me not to tell my mother or she'd take me out of school. So I hid it the whole time with big blouses! Finally, three weeks before I was due, I left a note on my stepfather's pillow telling him I was pregnant. He told my mother, and when she came home, she calmly asked me to run her bath.

I'll never forget what she said: "Now tell me this -- do you love the boy?" I said no. "Does he love you?" I said no. "Then there's no point in ruining three lives. We are going to have our baby!"

What a knockout she was as a mother of teens. Very loving. Very accepting. Not one minute of recrimination. And I never felt any shame.

I'm telling you that the best decision I ever made was keeping that baby! Yes, absolutely. Guy was a delight from the start -- so good, so bright, and I can't imagine my life without him.

At 17 I got a job as a cook and later as a nightclub waitress. I found a room with cooking privileges, because I was a woman with a baby and needed my own place. My mother, who had a 14-room house, looked at me as if I was crazy! She said, "Remember this: You can always come home." She kept that door open. And every time life kicked me in the belly, I would go home for a few weeks.

I struggled, sure. We lived hand-to-mouth, but it was really heart-to-hand. Guy had love and laughter and a lot of good reading and poetry as a child. Having my son brought out the best in me and enlarged my life. Whatever he missed, he himself is a great father today. He was once asked what it was like growing u p in Maya Angelou's shadow, and he said, "I always thought I was in her light."

Years later, when I was married, I wanted to have more children, but I couldn't conceive. Isn't it wonderful that I had a child at 16? Praise God!"

Copyright © 2001 First Mothers Action
www.keepyourbaby.com
www.mayaangelou.com