Sensible Legislation Recognizes Sibling Rights...or Does it?

ADOPTIVE PARENTS CAN'T SUMMARILY DENY SIBLINGS' VISITATION RIGHTS, COURT SAYS

Adoptive parents cannot ignore blood bonds between siblings and may be ordered to permit visitation upon proof it would be in the adopted child's best interests, a unanimous NJ state Supreme Court held Wednesday.

The Court ordered a hearing for an adult sister to proffer such evidence, finding the record in In the Matter of D.C. and D.C., (A-71-09), inadequate to determine "this life altering issue."

But the Court cautioned that the best-interests standard "cannot likely be satisfied by siblings who have no connection to each other or by those whose bonds are flaccid, or worse, toxic."

The case concerned twin girls placed in a foster home at three months old, whose adult older sister had her visitation rights revoked.

Adoption Film Screening Opportunity!

Don't miss these Fall screenings of the documentary film, "Resilience":


A story of loss and separation, Resilience takes a unique look at international adoption from the perspective of a Korean natural mother and her American son.

Washington DC
Sat October 9, 2010 at 1:00pm (FREE)
DC APA Film Festival - Awarded Best Documentary Feature!

San Diego, CA
Mon October 25, 2010 at 6:00pm
Thu October 28, 2010 at 4:00pm
San Diego Asian Film Festival

Boston, MA
Sat October 30, 2010 (time TBD)
Boston Korean Adoptees Film Festival

Vancouver, CAN
Nov 4-7, 2010 (screening info TBD)
Vancouver Asian Film Festival

Minneapolis, MN
Sun November 7, 2010 at 3:00pm
Minnesota Transracial Film Festival

Philadelphia, PA
Sat November 13, 2010 at 6:30pm
Korean Adoptee Association of Philadelphia
(more info coming soon)

For more information or to host a screening near you email: info@resiliencefilm.com

View the trailer and learn more:

www.resiliencefilm.com
twitter.com/RESILIENCEfilm
www.facebook.com/resiliencefilm
www.youtube.com/ResilienceFilm

Is The Tide Turning: A Father is Recognized!!

"The right of a natural parent to the care and custody of his child is one of the most precious and fundamental in law." Ohio Supreme Court, 2010 in the case of Jason and Christy Vaughn v. benjamin Wymrembek

Benjamin Wyrembek had a brief affair with a married woman. She became pregnant in 2007 and, along with her husband, decided to place the child for adoption. Wyrembek had no way of knowing if the child was his or not and possibly neither did the woman, although neither the article nor the opinion says. But he timely (within 30 days) filed his claim of paternity with the Ohio Putative Father Registry and brought suit in juvenile court in December, 2007 to establish paternity. In January, 2008, the adoptive parents, Jason and Christy Vaughn, filed their suit to adopt the child.

Genetic testing determined that the child is Wyrembek’s and every court has since ruled in his favor. He’s the father - genetically and legally (because his rights have never been relinquished or terminated) and he had  done every legal thing to get custody of his son and every court has ruled that the adoption can’t go forward.

But, true to form, it has taken 3 years and the child is still not returned.

On Tuesday, the Vaughns were served with an order from Lucas County Juvenile Court to hand over the nearly 3-year-old boy named Grayson to Mr. Wyrembek, prompting their attorney to file another flurry of motions to prevent the surrender.

Hope the Fathers' Rights organizations are right. They believe this case might be a turning point.

The rights of biological fathers in adoption cases are no longer the pushovers they once were. This case and others stand for the proposition that, in adoption cases, courts will no longer allow mothers to control fathers’ rights. A mother’s hiding the child or hiding information about the child’s paternity will no longer suffice to deprive a father of his parental rights. It’s a win for dads.

UPDATE 9/29: 

The lawyer for the Vaughns (who is calling them "Grayson's adopted family") say they've agreed to mediation with Wyrembek.

A statement was signed by the Vaughns and Wyrembek saying they're trying to resolve their dispute in the boy's best interest.

Reportedly, 30 supporters of the Vaughns showed up for the hearing.

The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys has filed a brief asking the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, saying that its earlier order “rewrote Ohio adoption law.”

Sooo interesting that NOW they are willing to talk!  Now that they keep loosing every legal battle and are ordered to return the child...

See Facebook Page: Give Grayson Back

St John's University Conference

Hope to see many of you at the St John's University Conference

Open Arms, Open Minds:

The Ethics of Adoption in the 21st Century

October 14-16th 2010

(Thursday evening to Saturday afternoon)

The 6th Biennial Adoption Conference will be held at:

St. John’s University in Manhattan.

The conference will take place in lower Manhattan at

St. John’s University
Manhattan Campus
101 Murray Street
New York, NY 10003

 I will be presenting on the 16th: "Defining Ethics in Domestic and Global Adoption Practice."  See full program here.

You can register at the door.

This is the sixth, biennial adoption conference at St. John’s University. Our first conference in 2000 was entitled, “The Adoption Journey: Psychological, Socio-Political, and Legal Challenges”; the second conference in 2002 focused on “The Lifelong Adoption Journey: Through the Eyes of the Adopted”; the 2004 conference was entitled, “The Dynamics of Adoption: A Three-Way Mirror;” the 2006 conference focused on “Families Without Borders? Adoption Across Culture and Race”; and the 2008 conference was entitled “Identity and the Adopted Teen: Surviving the Crucible of Adolescence.” In keeping with our goal to create conferences that address adoption themes relevant to the training of mental health professionals as well as to the personal growth and understanding of adoption triad members themselves, our sixth conference will focus on issues related to ethics of adoption in the 21st century.


The 2010 conference theme will highlight emerging changes in the practice of adoption since the start of the new century. The topics presented will include consideration of ethics and also address openness (or the lack thereof) in adoption. We are particularly pleased to include attention to issues of  search and reunion, third party reproduction adoption and openness to contact with donors and surrogates, GLBT adoptees and/or parents, contact between foster care providers and adoptive families, and clinical issues with various members of the triad, and open records legislation and adoption reform.

When Adoption Becomes ABDUCTION: ILLEGALLY KEEPING GRAYSON FROM HIS FATHER!

AND HERE IT IS YET AGAIN!!!!

Ind. couple, natural father fight for 3-year-old

SELLERSBURG, Ind. —

An Indiana couple is holding on to the son [NOT their "son"] they've tried to adopt for nearly three years even though a court has ordered them to surrender the child to his biological father in Ohio.

The Lucas County Juvenile Court this week ordered Jason and Christy Vaughn to hand over the nearly 3-year-old boy named Grayson to Benjamin Wyrembek, prompting their attorney to file a flurry of legal maneuvers to prevent the surrender.

"This isn't my fault and, quite frankly, it's not the birth father's fault. It's not the birth mom's fault. Everybody is doing what they think is right," Jason Vaughn told The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Ky.

Wyrembek's attorney, meanwhile, says courts have ruled in his client's favor and the case shouldn't be tried in the media.

GRAYSON SAYS:

Yet one MORE case of abductors refusing to follow the law and allow a son and his father be together AS GOD and the law intends them to be!!

What gives people the right?

How can they justify KIDNAPPING?!

UPDATE here.

Vital Records by Jean Strauss

Twenty-two minute film n the web here along with a trailer for "For The Life of Me."

A handful of states now allow adopted adults access to their original birth certificates - but the vast majority of adoptees in America are denied the ability to know their past. "Vital Records" illuminates the ongoing debate about adoptee access, shedding light on the realities and myths of the sealed records system, and hearing both the champions and opposition to this very human need. It will make you cry - and think...

Hear Tom Atwood state that finding our who you are "undermines adoption" and that adoptive parents are "adequate" and his belief that the right of privacy continues into the grave....and his use of his term "mandatory openness."

Jean intersperses his comments with the converse of opinion - showing him clearly to be an out an out liar -  making her the Michael Moore or John Stewart of adoption, without the humor!

The downside is that it focuses on New Hampshire which has a contact veto. The upside is that it is a reminder of Annette.

See it and share the link  !

UPDATE On West Australia Apology Event

From Evelyn Robinson:

Some people outside of Australia have asked me when things are going to take place on the 19th of October so that they can arrange to acknowledge the apology wherever they are in the world. The apology is taking place in Perth, Western Australia and so if you visit the world clock web site you can work out what time it will be where you are. [Note: Perth is exactly 12 hours EARLIER THAN US EST time.]

For those who are interested, this is the plan for the day:

Everyone will meet at the pergola on the southern side of Parliament at 2.00 pm and then flowers will be laid in the sunken garden for all the children lost to adoption. At 2.30 there will be a short speech and then one minute's silence will be observed for all the mothers in Australia and around the world who have lost children to adoption. At 2.40 everyone will make their way through the main entrance to the House to hear the apology, which is expected to start at 3.00.

It is likely that the apology will be transmitted live on the government web site. [We will hope for a rerun!]

Please be assured that those of us who are present for this historical event will be thinking of all of you who are not able to be there.

Another Adoption "Disruption"

What makes this one more horrific than previous publicized terminated adoptions, is the fact that this child was adopted as a newborn infant, fresh from the womb.

Also notable is the fact that she was adopted by a couple who had a biological son and believed they could not have another child naturally, and yet did subsequent to the adoption. All the blame however is cast onto the child's behavior and the natural mother's lack of total honesty in revealing her health history which may have been a contributing factor to the behaviors this family refused to deal with.

Lori and Criag Gertz say she was not able to be raised in a "family constellation" yet found another family to do exactly why they were unwilling to!

Conversely, I have seen episodes on Discovery Health Channel of parent coping with unexpected mental illness in children they bore in remarkable ways. Even when the child posed a risk to other members of the family, one family moved to two apartments in the same complex so either the mother or father could be with the disturbed child at all times while keeping his younger sibling safe.

The idea that an adopted child is disposable is beyond abhorrent and reprehensible and defies all the platitudes of it being "the same as" a child born into a family.  That people who do this speak out and seek - and receive - sympathy merely adds to the insanity of it all. We vilify natural mothers who cannot cope and sympathize (or are with those who commit to being expected to) forever families and abandon the vulnerable beings entrusted to them.  Where, for instance, is the sympathy for the raped Philippine migrant worker mother who abandoned her newborn on an airplane as she fled? No, she "has come under plenty of criticism."

Even mothers who legitimately relinquish after being told it is the best, loving, only choice are stigmatized because every knows a mother is supposed love a child she gives birth to. Just ask Nancy Grace!  Not so those who adopt, however. They should not have to be burdened with others' troubles when it was not what they expected or "signed on for."  And that should be understood and acceptedable. !?! Well it AINT!!!

The Limitations of Open Adoption

I have said it over and over from my first book (The Dark Side of Adoption) in 1988 and again in The Stork Market (2007): "open adoption" is a step in the right direction and alleviates SOME of the issues associated with adoption loss and separation, but it is not a panacea and remains painful in different ways for both the child and original family members. Like all of adoption, it's merely a trade off...something different, not necessarily better and certainly comes with no guarantees.

For the child, if it is truly open and visitation is ongoing, she gets to see who she looks like.  For the mothers, she is relieved of worrying if her child is alive and cared for.

Yet both get to see and have to deal with realities that those who grew up or dealt with closed adoptions did not. Mother have to hear their child calling someone else Mommy and bear witness to parenting styles that may make them bristle or worse.

Children have to deal with the question of "why couldn't you keep me" in new, deeper and more painful at far younger ages, as they see their mothers' choice to complete her education or watch her marry and or have other children.

On a website about the destruction of lives by cocaine, Aullie asks:  
Wһаt аrе tһе effects οf adoption on a child? Knowledgeable people, һеlр!?
Wһаt аrе tһе psychological consequences οf a kid, wһο wаѕ ѕау, adopted аt 8 аn һаԁ an alcoholic, previously heroin addicted birth mother, and never knew tһеіr father? Anyone experienced in psychology οr social work οr something сould help. Wаѕ anyone adopted wһеח tһеу wеrе a kid, wһаt һаѕ уουr life bееח lіkе аftеr tһаt?


I replied: 
First of all if these children were born with fetal alcohol syndrome, or were abused emotionally or physically, adoption will not change, erase, or “heal” the traumas they have been through and may add new and different ones.

My 30 plus years researching issues related to adoption, leads to the clear position that being raised by grandparents or any extended family is far superior to being adopted by unrelated strangers. If that is totally impossible, the child should remain with people who look as much like him as possible – people of the same race who sill be able to understand the unique challenges faced by those of that ethnicity (for example.

It is also essential to allow children who remember their parents to have the ability for ongoing visitation, with supervision if that is necessary, but a sudden cutoff causes far more pain and feelings of rejection for a child who believes it is something he or she did that caused the problem.

Anyone who adopts an older child needs to be prepared for acting out, anger, and disciplinary problems and needs to not expect the child to be able to form bonds easily or even at all.

Anyone who adopts a child of any age needs to be able to allow them to grieve their losses. Even if they have elevated their living conditions and gained some material “advantages” by being adopted, and left behind nothing but squalor and maltreatment, it is a tremendous loss to a child to lose his home and family. Treat him as if his family has died and recognize his grief and sadness, while allowing visits, photos etc that keep them alive for him. Help him understand it was not his fault and that his parents love him but they are ill or have problems. Allowed to visit and know them, he will see this for himself.

I hope you all will share your replies as well here.


And then, the very next day I came across a very poignant, articulate and painful illustration of exactly what i was trying to explain. Here it was described in detail as felt by the child herself. I hope you will all read, bookmark and share this link. Share it with mothers considering open adoption so they can see the pain they and their child will still have to deal with.

Adoption does not cure the loss that begins it. It does not magically replace one mother with another anymore than it cures infertility or replaces the child a woman may have conceived and birthed. It is an artificial replacement and it as such is imperfect.

Life is painful or as the Buddhists say, life is suffering. A child with an absent father mourns his loss no matter who steps in to fill that role he or she will always wonder why their first parent left them and what is wrong with them.

Wise parents, like Christine and J are there to allow the grieving to be expressed and VALIDATED and that's all we can do once a loss has occurred.  Far to few have this ability. Most see what they want to see - that the child APPEARS to get past it and they admire the child's strength and coping abilities. We read all the time of children taken on airplanes and into a foreign land with people speaking a whole new language and their new parents simply doting over how well they "adjusted" to it all because to recognize the grief and mourning is to accept some culpability for it.

Because we know there are questions that have no "right" answer that will take away the hurt of these severed children. And every adoptive mother knows the bottom-line question the child really wants to ask is: "Why didn't you help my Mommy keep me?" And that's the questions she cannot answer.

As a society we need to try to our very best ability to avoid as many losses and separations as we can. To not PROMOTE or ENCOURAGE adoption as an easy or acceptable or even "loving", "brave", or "noble" act on the part of either the natural or adoptive families.  It is NOT!

We do not promote or encourage fathers to abandon their families. We track them down and require at least financial accountability.

Marriage and child support laws were created to protect children financially and remove that burden form the state. But kids needs far more than financial support or the material advantages adoption provides to grow into productive adults.

They need to feel wanted and not by just anyone but by those who brought them into the world. Once that connection is shattered, there will always be a hole. Some learn to cope with it and some never do. But no matter how well the hole is covered and coped with, it is still always there, just as the loss for the mother is as well...

Open adoption? Just one more social experiment with no consistent long-term history on results and a new sales pitch here in the US...

Evelyn Robinson on West Australia's Apology to Mothers

Evelyn sent the following as a comment to yesterday's post on Origin's rejection of the WA government apology to mothers whose children were taken from for adoption during a social climate unsupportive to unmarried mothers.  I am grateful for the work Evelyn and others have put into this apology and grateful to know her. 


Her reply to my previous post was too good to be lost in comments and so I present it here:

The apology in Western Australia came about because a small group of mothers approached a member of the Western Australian parliament and explained to him how things were for them when they lost their children to adoption.

There is an informal group in Australia called the Apology Alliance, which is a collection of support groups, organisations and individuals who have been working towards a federal apology for some time. They are, of course, supportive of the Western Australian apology.

It is impossible to know how many people in Australia are happy about the apology and how many are not. Those who welcome the apology will benefit from it, those who do not can disregard it.


The first government apology in Australia was the federal apology to the Stolen Generations in February, 2008. This was a momentous event for all Australians and the country virtually came to a standstill, to allow everyone to view the apology live on television. I was not able to be present in parliament for that apology, but I was present for the apology to the Forgotten Australians and the Child Migrants, which took place in Canberra, our capital city, last year. I know from talking to the people who were there how moved they were that their issues were being recognised and that the government had decided to say ‘sorry’ for what had happened to them in the past. Both apologies included a recognition of the damage which had occurred and funding for services to address that damage.


Nothing that is said now can change what happened in the past for any of us, but these apologies have drawn the attention of the nation to the issues involved and they are an acknowledgement on the part of the government that past policies and practices were damaging.

I believe that the forthcoming apology in Western Australia will not only help many people with their individual healing, but will also increase community awareness of the issues that many of us have had to deal with since our children were taken from us to be adopted. I have heard from many, many mothers around the world who are heartened by news of the Western Australian apology. This comment is very typical: "I can't tell you how it soothes a damaged heart to hear that at last there is some recognition of the suffering of mothers, fathers and children involved in adoption. My ambition now is to live long enough to see an apology given in Gt. Britain."


We have been told that other states and territories are now also considering apologising and many of us have drawn the attention of our own state and territory governments to the fact that the apology is taking place in Western Australia. There have also been discussions with the federal government and they are currently considering what would need to happen before a federal apology could be given.

I believe that this apology is a very important step in increasing community understanding of adoption separation issues. The more we can educate people about what has already happened for those who have experienced adoption separation, the more likely it is that current and future policies and practices will be informed by that knowledge. There is so much ignorance in the community, not just in Australia, but around the world, of the long term outcomes of adoption separation and I think that anything we can do to educate and inform people is worthwhile.

I will be travelling to Western Australia next month for the apology, to share the experience with mothers from all around Australia.

Personally, I think it is a big step in the right direction to have a government say, ‘This is what happened. We are sorry that it happened and we’ll make sure it won’t happen again.’ I believe that Australia is setting an example and I hope that other countries will follow our lead.

Origins SPSA, Inc. Rejects Australia's Apology

Claiming to represent all Australian mothers who relinquished, Origins NSW rejects the government's apology.

When I announced the upcoming apology on Facebook, Some commented praising Dian Welfare in this regard. I never knew Dian, but judging from the many "followers" she accumulated, I have no doubt that she was a devoted well-meaning a person and zealous activist who gave her all for what she believed in.  However, it is my understanding that Dian and Origins, Inc. have always opposed to the apology as they still do.  It this seems somewhat incongruous to applaud her for Australia reaching this milestone that she opposed.

Further, it is my understanding from many within Australia, that Origins, Inc. no more represents all mothers there than CUB or Origins-USA or any other US group represents all US mothers, or BN represents all US adoptees' opinion regarding access legislation.  These issues are complicated and people have different feelings, views and opinions as to how far is far enough, how much is enough, what can we logically expect and accept as a victory.

Evelyn Robinson, a reunited mother and author who has lived and worked for adoption reform in Australia for decades, for one, welcomes the apology and will be present when it is made and part of the ceremony. Many consider it a huge victory, others apparently are less than pleased. There is a divide. Neither opinion is totally universal.

This is how it is in a democracy.  And this is how it is in movements that are non-homogeneous. We have our adoption experience/loss in common but come to it from varying religious, educational and social backgrounds and different degrees and lengths of "denial" before dealing with our adoption issues, and finally, different reunion outcomes. Some of us are more aware of and lived through or researched more of the history of adoption reform efforts, wile other get their entire views from the one group they joined when 'waking up" and coming out of their cocoons - groups which others accused of being cut-like and serving up kool-aid dogmas. (A micro recreation of disagreements about religious and political beliefs in the bigger world).

All of which shapes and colors the lens through which  we view the issues. We thus come to different conclusions, which often create discord.

I share here the view of Origins, Inc. for the purpose of clearing up misconceptions of who is for, supported and responsible for and deserves credit for the apology and who is against it.

See also my previous posts on the adpology here, here, and here.

UPDATE  9/21: PLEASE SEE REPLY BY EVELYN ROBINSON HERE for a view from on the ground in Australia on the issue.

And here is a statement by Lily Arthur, Origins NSW:

Lily Arthur

In response to the forthcoming apology to mothers who have lost children to adoption in Western Australia, Origins would like to make the following observations:

Having admitted that past adoption practices in WA were unlawful, the West Australian government has usurped the notion that those responsible for serious crimes committed under Common Law can be rectified by a few chosen words, instead of facing the justice system, thus absolving the perpetrators of premeditated breaches of various statutory Crimes Acts

This (adoption crimes) would be the only instance where the law would absolve perpetrators of serious crimes to face accountability by the legal system. How a dismissal of crimes such as kidnapping, willful intent, Fraud, false imprisonment, assault, and a litany of other such breaches of law can be casually ignored by apologists who have the audacity to think that this attempt of contrition at will placate the victims of such crimes that have remained denied for decades, not only undermines basic human rights but also erodes the criminal justice system

An “apology” without exposure, redress or accountably for criminal behavior is not only an insult to an established legal system but also opens the opportunity for other types of criminal actively to occur on a grand scale, such as past adoption practices. Crimes can be perpetrated on victims with the knowledge that if you can hide your crimes long enough then you can get away with it.

Such mentality would not appease any other family who has had a child forcibly taken away and hidden from them, and yet mothers affected by the theft of their child for the adoption market are seen as an exception to those protected by Common Law, they are not deemed to have the same avenue to the legal system as any other victim of crime

The forthcoming apology may assist those mothers who felt they may have played some part in the surrender of their child, but will not placate those who know they have been treated unlawfully, and Origins Inc will continue to pursue accountability for those mothers who have been affected by these past unlawful practices either through the criminal justice system or though the Civil Law. (Lily Arthur, Origins, NSW)

Who's Missing from These "Reunions"?

Embryo adoption celebration unites families

BOTHELL, Wash. - A unique reunion on Sunday brought together families who have adopted once-frozen embryos. The embryos were leftover from in-vitro fertilizations, now adopted and born into families.  Melanie and Brian, along with their son Julian, are the guests of honor.
Melanie and Brian (whose last name is not disclosed) wanted a baby more than anything.  But they were devastated, they couldn't conceive on their own.  Now, baby Julian is their dream come true.
"All we want is to fill our house with laughter and love and be a family.  We didn't mind where the baby came from," said Melanie.

 Julian came from a freezer tank in a medical facility.

"Julian was in the freezer for about four years here in Seattle," said Melanie.
Julian was stored as a frozen embryo, leftover from a different couple's in vitro fertilization. The process can create extra embryos, which are often frozen indefinitely. Melanie and Brian adopted one of those embryos and it was implanted. Julian is the first baby born from Embryo Adoption Services of Cedar Park, an agency which teams up with Cedar Park Church in Bothell.

"We're still the only church in the world that does this," said Pastor Joe Fuiten.
On Sunday, Melanie and Brian spoke to the Cedar Park Church congregation, as they celebrated "Embryo Adoption Sunday."

 "It allows me the experience of being pregnant and giving birth, and there's such a long wait for infants, and we were thrilled with the option of experiencing pregnancy even though its a baby that isn't genetically ours," said Melanie.

Other "freezer babies," as they're called, joined baby Julian's party after the services.  Other expecting parents who've adopted embryos were also there.   Baby Julian gives other infertile couples hope of happy endings.

It seems clear that the purpose of these "reunions" are to make the couples doing this normalize their choices. I would be curious if they continue to do this as their kids mature...not unlike international adopters who create a world filled with other families who adopted from the same country they chose to.
"I can't imagine loving any baby more than I love this baby. In my mind, its not like he's adopted or anything. We adore him.  We love him more than life itself," said Melanie.

VIDEO: Prayer for Truth

To Mothers of Pregnant, Unmarried Young Women Considering Adoption...

To mothers of prgenant, unmarried young women considering adoption...

Once your daughter is pregnant, any choice she makes will impact her the rest of her life. One she delivers a child she IS a mother and will... forever be a mother, whether she parents or not. If she places her child for adoption, she may experience LIFELONG grief. This has been verified in many studies (see tinyurl.com/universal-grief). 

Adoption does not guarantee a better life, only a different one. Adoptive parents divorce, die and even abuse children they are entrusted with. 

Open adoption - watching someone else be called Mommy etc. - often exacerbates the grief, regret, guilt and shame for her, and also may deepen confusion for her child trying to come to terms with shy he was given away, and his lifelong feelings of rejection. She needs to prepared for the fact that he or she may hate her for placing him...and your daughter may well hate you for encouraging it 

Finally - be sure that your daughter is prepared to give away what may be the ONLY child she will ever have. Studies indicate a higher incident of secondary infertility among mothers who relinquish. And if she is fortunate enough to have other children, how will she explain this to them? Will they fear they could be given as well? Or will she try to keep it secret and make matters worse when they find out and feel betrayed? 

Adoption doesn't make the "problem" of an unintended pregnancy and birth go away it just adds different aspects to it than parenting does.


Celeste Billhartz shares her feelings on the subject: 

Heavy Heart
©2008 and ©2010 Celeste Billhartz
I wrote The Mothers Project after I came to grips with my failings as an adoptee who didn’t “get it” about adoption and the incalculable sorrow felt by my natural mother ... who was lied to and taken advantage of so that my infertile adoptive mother could buy a child.

I had a good life, a generous adoptive family and many advantages. I have lovely relatives. My rants are not about them, nor about my adoptive parents. They did nothing wrong. Adopting is legal, beloved, treated as the best thing since sliced bread.

My adoptive parents and millions like them, then and now, bought, loved and raised millions of us whose own grandparents would not risk society’s censure for their daughters and themselves. Middle-class girls having babies out of wedlock was not allowed, back in the old days and in the decades after. It still isn’t, really.

Today it is tolerated, but many mothers still don’t support their unmarried daughters’ desire to keep their babies. Often, they push for open adoption, insist on it, refuse to provide any financial help, thus making it impossible for a young mom to support herself and her child.

That is despicable. I understand the heartache of thinking your daughter will “ruin her life” ... by keeping her child, but I think it is despicable that mothers and fathers/families do nothing to help the pregnant daughter or niece or cousin, that they do everything in their power to make sure that baby doesn’t come home with her.

Your refusal to help your daughter and your grandchild is, truly, heartbreaking. I understand it, that need to look good to family and friends and to save your daughter’s reputation, but I also know that such a demand will be devastating to her. She will never get over the loss of her baby; never.

She may not ever tell you that, but I know about that heartache from late-night conversations and emails and phone calls. I know about it from the girl/mothers of 40 years ago, and those of the 70’s, and of recent years ... the many young moms today ... frozen in place, limited to a few photographs, cut off from seeing their sons or daughters by the adoptive mothers who, of course, don’t want the competition.

What I don’t understand is why any woman talks her own beloved daughter into one of these open adoptions and has the gall to tell her that it is a good thing. Herself a mother ... surely she knows that no woman who buys a child and presents him/her to the world as “mine” is going to tolerate one bit of bonding between the child and his/her natural mother. It ain’t gonna happen. All that will be tolerated is the bare minimum ... and the child’s mother damn well better be cheery and respectful or the lines will be darkened and the contact limited, cut back, or ended.

Why do mothers of the girl/mothers pretend that the open adoption is best? Why do they demand that their daughters surrender their precious babies?

I think they don’t know, or don’t want to know, the truth. I think they want to stay in the little white middle-class envelope of lies:

1. Good girls from good families don’t have sex until they are married.2. Girls who “give up” their babies will get over it, put it behind them and marry a nice fellow, someday.3. Babies who are surrendered and adopted will not remember their mothers and will adjust to their new families.

Unlike the girl/mothers of past generations, who were shamed into surrendering their babies to closed adoptions, today’s young mothers are schmoozed and befriended into open adoptions and promised ongoing information about and periodic contact with their child.

Fat chance ... unless the young mother stays on the good side of the adoptive mother, who bought the baby, fair and square, and is not about to share the mother role. If the open adoption succeeds it’s because the young mom knows her place and stays in it, for all time.

Please, if your daughter is pregnant and young and unmarried ... please, help her keep her child. Surely, you and other family members can all pitch in to get her through her rough times. Surely, you want to know that you did your part to help her ... and your grandchild.

I think women who adopt infants and toddlers are taken advantage of for their money, but not as much as the girl/mothers who are shamed and schmoozed into surrendering their infants.

Most woman who lost their infants to adoption in past generations never got over the loss. We know that, now.

Why don’t we presume that most girl/mothers will change their minds, no matter what their own mothers want them to do, or how much they like the proposed adoptive families, or what agreement they signed when they were terrified and pregnant? Most have no idea how motherhood will change their minds.

Why don’t we forbid adoptions to happen until the young mother has had sufficient emotional and financial support and she — and her family — have had two months with her child?

Well, of course, we know why. Adopting is about money/donations for the adoption business or agency. Adopting is about women wanting a baby and having the money to get one. And, as in the past, adopting is still about mothers-of-young mothers not wanting to raise another child. It is rarely about a young mother not wanting her child.

This is why I urge women to not adopt infants and toddlers. This is why I say, adopting is woman’s inhumanity to woman. Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary situation.

I urge grandmothers-to-be ... to support their daughters and not force them into lives of regret. You — who demanded/insisted that they surrender their babies years ago — owe your daughters an apology.And, I hope to God you haven't demanded/insisted the same of younger women in your family. I hope you have the courage to speak up ... tell them to keep their babies ... help them to keep their babies.

Ed: Help save YOUR GRANDCHILD from being raised by strangers...and a lifetime of regrets!

Adoptees: Heads Up

ATTENTION! Seeking ADOPTEES who found out that their amended/altered birth cert had the wrong date of birth, time, place.

This information will be used as a component of a documentary on the importance of OBCs to adoptees.

Please feel free to forward widely.

Contact:
Hayden Bennett, westbenn@cox.net

Monetary Incentives for Family Dissolution

The Milwaukee Sentinel Business Section reports: State awarded $276,000 for increasing adoptions

Wisconsin has received $276,348 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for increasing the number of children adopted from foster care.

States received $4,000 for every child adopted above the total in their best year, plus $8,000 for every child age 9 and older and $4,000 for every special needs child adopted above a baseline year.
The states given the adoption incentive awards this year completed more adoptions in 2009 than in the 2007 baseline year.

A total of 38 states and Puerto Rico received incentive awards Wednesday.

"All children deserve loving, safe and permanent homes," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. "It is gratifying that most states continue to excel in promoting the adoption of children from foster care. I sincerely thank every adoptive family in the state Wisconsin that has welcomed a child into their home."

A list of each state's adoption incentive awards can be found here. A total of 38 states received awards; the program distributed a total of $39 million.

Among the highest paid states:
North Carolina - $1M
Oklahomoa $1.2M
Alabama $1.4M
Arkansas - $1.3M
Pennsylvania $2.175M
Michigan $ 3.5M

Florida - also known for some very bad adoption practices - received $5,718,271

And the grand prize winner: TEXAS, which received $7,468,475

Even more horrific is the (reported in Salt Lake tribune) fact that UTAH - notoriously embattled in numerous cases of illegally taking children from other states in cases in which their fathers want them and did not consent to any adoption - received $432,00.

The number of children adopted out of foster care in Utah has steadily increased since 2005, according to DCFS numbers. Though the total number of children in the foster care system is also increasing, the number of children adopted as a percentage of the total also increased last year to 18 percent, according to a Tribune analysis of DCFS numbers.

Note that one red cent is awarded to anyone for PREVENTING children being removed by providing services to families in crisis. 


Like police quotas, certainly these monetary incentives help some children.  But it also encourages rampant and far too quick permanent solutions to temporary problems with families and denies the assistance of extended family members by only offering such incentives when a stranger adoption occurs.

No funds are even mandated to locate extended family members as a resource for these children before seeking to adopt them out to unrelated strangers. The financial effect would be the same to the state which would save the cost of foster care payments, but it would provide - already at-risk - with continuity and less of feelings of rejection and abandonment that is known to be felt by adoptees.  


How can we call ourselves a civilized nation when we expend government funds to destroy families and children instead of helping them?

In-home programs that provide parenting, anger management and substance abuse recovery have been found to be effective and less expensive than traditional foster care, but they are seldom used. Family Finding finds double digit family members able and willing to provide assistance to their blood related kin in foster care, but it is seldom used and when it is it is for adolescents aging out of foster care - not for those first going into the system. 

Pumping dollars into a known BAD system may feel good but is is bad quick "fix."

For All Adoption Reformers

The following is a forwarded message from Evelyn Robinson. It is of importance to all of us who wish to reform adoption. Please stay tuned for more information:

Below are some links to information about the forthcoming apology to those who were adversely affected by past adoption policies and practices. This is a world first - a government apology. I'm going to travel over to Western Australia (1000 miles each way!) next month to be present for this important event. I've been in touch with Sue McDonald in Western Australia, who has done so much to bring this apology about. She has been trying to contact other adoption support groups around the world to let them know and somehow include them. She has asked me to pass this on to as many people as possible. Sue wants to ensure that mothers around the world who have lost children to adoption are made aware that the apology is taking place. They may wish to arrange something at a local level to acknowledge the apology and get some publicity for the long term loss and grief associated with adoption separation. Could you please circulate this message - thanks. My email basically said that I will try to draw  attention to the fact that this happened in all western countries, in my radio interview tomorrow that I mentioned to you. Also that on the day of the apology we will gather and walk about a kilometre to the Parliament at 2.00 pm our time. The apology will take place around 4.00 pm so this might be a time for them to co-ordinate something over there.  We are toying with the idea of laying flowers on the steps of parliament or at the King Edward Memorial Hospital to acknowledge all mothers and babies including those overseas - a day or so before or on the day. I also said that if there was not enough time or interest to co-ordinate something, that our hearts will deeply acknowledge all mothers around the world who have suffered the loss of loved and cherished children and that we will be connected with them in spirit.  We could take the time when we rally to light a candle for them before we walk to Parliament. Evelyn could you embody this in an email to them all as I am unable to.  Thanks Sue   http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2010/03/05/2838001.htm?site=perth

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-adoption-apology-an-australian-first-20100907-14z3e.html

http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia-to-apologise-over-adoptions/story-e6frfkvr-1225915397597

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-adoption-apology-an-australian-first-20100907-14z3e.html

http://www.vanish.org.au/?q=node%2F14

http://news.9msn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7957572

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Lists/Statements/DispForm.aspx?ID=133968

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/6889508/state-to-apologise-for-harsh-adoption-acts/

http://www.theage.com.au/national/decades-on-pain-of-forced-adoption-lingers-20100219-oly4.html

http://cedartrees.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/apology-adoption-abduction/

http://hoydenabouttown.com/20100305.7302/wa-government-to-apologise-for-abusive-illegal-adoption-system/

The experiences of mothers in Western Australia who are going to receive this apology were very similar to the experiences of mothers in many countries around the world. This is an opportunity for us all to support the apology and perhaps use it to draw attention to our issues. I am still happy to receive more contributions for my new book about parents' adoption separation experiences around the world.

I have met many mothers on my travels to different countries and I've heard from many more who have read my books and visited  my web site. My thoughts will be with all of you on the day of the apology. Best wishes, Evelyn Robinson

Previous reports related to this apology here, and here,  Apology refused here.

Catholic Charity Attorney Forges Termination of Parental Rights

Georgia Family Law Attorney Forged Judge's Signature

Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) agents arrested Georgia family law attorney Lynn Swank at her office and charged her with four counts of forgery, two counts of perjury and one count of theft by deception, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

Specifically, the Stockbridge lawyer stands accused of forging four separate court orders terminating parental claims and then lying under oath by telling the judge her ex-husband forged the signatures. The orders, required to place a child for adoption were presented to Lynn Swank by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Atlanta.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Gail Tuson alerted the GBI in January after she saw her faked signature on the four orders.

Agents claim Lynn Swank was paid last March for legal services that never were performed as promised; so Catholic Charities promptly fired her. Immediately after she was terminated by her client, according to agents, she filed the forged orders with the Fulton County Superior Court Clerk's office.

The smoking gun, it turns out, was an incorrect name on one of the orders. Catholic Charities asked Judge Gail Tuson to review the order, which led to her discovery that they were faked. Pat Chivers, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said the organization was very surprised:

"We had worked with her before and had no problems."

The actual adoptions were not impacted by the alleged forgery and perjury Pat Chivers said.

Digging her hole deeper, Lynn Swank testified under oath that her ex-husband forged the documents; but an investigation found that he actually was out of town at the time. Agents said Lynn Swank was not surprised by her arrest and was taken to Fulton County Jail without incident.

She faced charges of ethical misconduct in 1999 for advising both the husband and the wife in a divorce, which is not legal, without notifying either party. She continued to represent the wife but also was having an affair with her ex-husband.

Adoption: Biggest Money-Making Operation in Haiti

“Adoption and child sponsorship is the biggest money-making operation in Haiti right now,” Susie Krabacher of the Aspen-based relief organization Mercy & Sharing. “Everybody and their aunt is starting one. You can raise a lot of money if you have kids in rags who look hungry. A lot of them will round up 50 kids from the neighborhood every time a white person shows up — and once the foreigner leaves, everybody goes home.” ...

That frustrating new phenomenon in the long-neglected and impoverished communities which the Krabachers have made their life’s work, they believe, is now keeping some children from getting the help they need....

“I have nothing against adoption,” Susie said. “But we’ve found that a lot of adoptive families cherry-pick — they want a baby that is perfectly healthy....We are very adamant about raising the kids to become leaders in their own country, not cherry-picking the best, the healthiest, the cutest, and sending them off to foreign countries.”

Chenet said she believes Haiti’s children should grow up proud of their homeland, not trying to flee it.

“The children are Haitian, they should be raised as Haitians and to give back to their country,” she said.

Full story here.

Barbie Adopts a Chinese Baby!

 

According to The Gloss and Marie Claire Magazine, "Going Home Barbie" that features a very white barbie holding an Asian baby is only available at the White Swan Hotel in Guangzhou, China notorious for housing tourists there to adopt.

Origins-USA Needs Your help

The annual Origins-USA board meeting was held on Tuesday, August 31, 2010, and the incoming Board members were announced. I want to acknowledge each of the previous Board members and thank them for their dedication, their deeds and their foresight.

As the newly elected president I'm not overstating that, despite the strong efforts of the previous Board members, I'm very concerned that without your help Origins-USA will no longer be able to function and our mission to protect the natural right of mothers to nuture their children will go stagnant. The Board will meet the week of November 14, 2010, to consider your response.

There are sound, strong reasons to keep Origins-USA actively involved in protecting mothers' rights.
In some states, mothers sign away all parental rights before the child is born, while in other states mothers sign irrevocable surrenders of parental rights upon leaving the delivery room.
In most states, if a mother receives any counseling, the adoption industry usually provides it and the industry is paid only if the mother surrenders her child.
In many states, the same attorney represents the prospective adopters and the mother. In other states, the mother's attorney, if she has one, is paid for by the prospective adopters.
The adoption industry is a largely unregulated billion dollar a year business.
Origins-USA works for legislative changes on the behalf of mothers.

In order to continue operations Origins-USA needs your member dues, your donations and your volunteer time.

Origins-USA is a national tax-exempt, non-profit organization and, although we do have dues paying members, the majority of our operating expenses are funded by a few generous donations.

Origins-USA is a lean organization with minimal expenses such as the website, a USPS mailbox, a telephone line, annual corporation fee, fee for professional accounting and tax services, and a monthly fee to provide members the ability to submit their dues and donations via a secure website.

All of the day-to-day operations of the website (e.g., Mother's Stories; Books, Movies and Music; membership; etc.), community outreach and the newsletter are possible, thanks to volunteers.

Origins-USA needs additional donations and volunteers.

We need a volunteer who is experienced with financial records to be Treasurer, a position that entails approximately 10 hours per month. We need a volunteer who is experienced with social networking, blogs, magazine articles and op-ed pieces to handle media. This position needs someone who can devote time to monitoring news related to all aspects of adoption and be willing to respond carrying forward Origins-USA's message. We need a volunteer to work on policy and legislative issues. This entails oversight of policy development based on research and supporting evidence to submit to the Board for approval, working with the Board to develop a legislative agenda and strategies, and develop relationships between Origins-USA and legislators.

Please take a few moments to consider the state of Origins-USA. We need your response by Saturday, November 13, 2010.

Thank you for your support of Origins-USA.

Jeanine Biocic
President
jmbiocic@origins-usa.org

John Wyatt's Battle for His Daughter

John Wyatt says this is the thought that keeps him going: One day, he will be with his daughter.

Wyatt knows the daughter he calls Emma, now 18 months old, only through photographs. Since her birth in a Virginia hospital, he has waged a battle in two states to assert his right to have custody of Emma.

The next round will take place Thursday before the Utah Supreme Court, where attorneys will argue adoption law, jurisdiction and, perhaps, whether a child is better off being raised by two parents than a single father.

Wyatt claims Utah’s laws are unfairly aligned against unmarried biological fathers and that a Utah judge ignored legal decisions made in his home state and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.

“I have the law on my side,” said Wyatt, 22. “These people are blatantly breaking the law. They are just trying to wait us out, hope that we’ll run out of money or give up.”

But about a dozen other biological fathers, most from other states, have failed in similar fights against Utah’s tough paternity requirements. Rulings found that the fathers failed to strictly meet a law requiring them to register their paternity within a certain time frame and to prove in court they could care for the child — regardless of action taken in their home states.

Larry Jenkins, the Salt Lake City adoption attorney who has been involved in at least seven of those cases, also is representing the couple who took custody of Wyatt’s daughter days after her birth.

Jenkins said Wyatt’s claims were filed too late in both Utah and Virginia.

See also:  Utah Adoption: Some call it kidnapping, others racketeering

"...several times each year, a mother who is unable to place her baby for adoption in her home state because the baby's father objects finds her way to Utah where many legal observers' both inside Utah and elsewhere say the laws are tilted against the fathers more than in any other state. "Several times each year," may not sound like that much, but when you listen to the fathers moan about missing their baby they've never met--and their mothers who miss their grandchild that they've never met--it starts to sound all too frequent.....

"The president-elect of the Utah Adoption Council has a novel legal argument of his own in an adoption case poised to cause quite a stir as it matures. His client, Michael Duane Hunter, of Washington state, accuses the mother of his child, the adoption agency and several others of a criminal conspiracy. They conspired, attorney Wes Hutchins argues, "for the sole purpose of getting around laws that otherwise apply to the placement of a Minor Child in Washington ... which would have required defendants to provide Hunter with notice of and an opportunity to object to any attempted placement of the Minor Child for adoption." (page 34). Hutchins cites the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act--a law setup to take down the Mob--as the basis for the complaint. Put another way, he's accusing a Utah adoption agency of being at the center of an organized criminal syndicate. Heavy stuff."

Adopters Charged with Abusing Three Russian Adopted Sisters

Court proceedings for a Colorado couple accused of abusing three girls adopted from Russia were postponed on Tuesday after a defense lawyer told a judge that plea negotiations were under way.

Edelwina Leschinsky, 44, and her husband Steven Leschinsky, 43, were arrested in March after an investigation by child welfare authorities in which the girls -- aged 12, 13 and 14 -- described being physically abused by their adoptive parents.

"We do anticipate a disposition (final settlement) in this matter," Edelwina Leschinsky's lawyer Alex Garlin told Larimer County District Court Judge Terence Gilmore during a brief hearing.
The couple are charged with child abuse and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The girls have been removed from the home.

The case has drawn media attention in Russia after a woman in Tennessee put a 7-year-old boy she had adopted from Russia on a plane back there, saying he had violent tendencies and psychological problems.

According to a police affidavit, the girls, who were being interviewed after the 12-year-old came to school with a black eye, said the Leschinskys forced them to perform hundreds of push-ups and sit-ups a day and to hold themselves over a board with nails protruding from it.

The girls also told authorities their adoptive parents spanked them with belts and pieces of wood and made them slap each other in the face for punishment.

Prosecutors declined to discuss the case with reporters at Tuesday's hearing.

"These are good, hard-working people who, with the purest of intentions, adopted three Russian sisters," Garlin said in a statement.

"Some extremely difficult adjustments for the children caused great stress within the family, (and) parental discipline occurred, but we disagree with various things written in the police affidavit."

The next hearing in the case has been set for October 7.

Discrimination Against Mothers Who Relinquish

I have written that about my clear memories of the 1960s, right after I relinquished and was trying to "pass" for normal and go about my life...there was a headline making contested adoption case of Baby Lernore: The DeMartinos v. Helen Olga Scarpeta.

My co-workers were following it like decades later people followed the OJ case. There was no escaping it. Every day I rode the NY subway to and from work over hearing people talking about the case.

And ALL sympathy was on the side of the adopters. The mother, Helen Scarpeta was VILIFIED for "changing her mind" and taking her child from the "only mother she had ever known."  How DARE SHE?!

And the words that seared into my mind that I will never forget were: "Any dog can give birth."

I had thought that times had changed and people were a bit more sophisticated, educated and sensitive now.

And then three days ago I received a comment to my update post about the Baby Jessica contested adoption case. Unlike the DeMartinos who defied court orders and absconded with the child, in Jessica's case she was returned to her parents.

It is now 2010. We've evolved -- or have we? The following is the comment I received. I debated all this time whether to post it or delete.

Just because the law says one thing, it doesn't make it right. Many unjust laws that were on the books in the past have been changed, and this is the same thing. So what if Dan and Cara were her biological parents? Barnyard animals can copulate; that alone doesn't make anyone a fit parent. She willingly gave her away and LIED on the adoption documents. As an adult, she has full responsibility. People get depressed, but as adults, we still take ownership of our actions. We don't scurry around, trying to deflect the blame. So, we can safely assume that Cara, being such a good Christian, apologized to the Deboers and asked their forgiveness, as others forgave her for her horrible misbehavior? Oh, and Mirah, the seeds have been planted to overhaul the adoption process and to get the laws that you are so fond of changed. There's no going back! :D

This anonymous idiot speaks about the law, but ignores the fact that the law was on the side of Dan and Cara and that Cara IS her daughter's other by birth, law, custody and in every way imaginable.

As for taking "ownership" of actions - those who take children using coercion need to do just that.

Anyone who lives or work with animals - barnyard or not - knows that you never take a baby of any breed away from its mother until she has weaned that baby. Yet we treat human babies with less concern than we treat animals!

The moronic anonymous commenter is correct that Cara lied. That is why Dan's constitutional right to parent his child was violated and that is what gave HIM the right to contest the adoption, and that is why HE WON!

Pilot Project to Curb International Adoptions

The Ethiopian government and a faith-based U.S. charity are teaming up on an experimental project to help orphans thrive in their home countries rather than be put up for adoption overseas.  From the town of Bantu, our correspondent reports that the U.S. government is studying the project as Ethiopia becomes the nation of choice for American families seeking international adoptions.

Hundreds of Bantu's tiniest children stand in a muddy field at the Bright Hope Education Center, singing a welcome song to a team of foreign visitors led by U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

Three years ago, Bantu was little more than a collection of huts connected to the outside world by a footpath.  Its population was decimated by drought and disease.  Countless orphans were left to fend for themselves.

Today, many of these orphans attend classes and receive two meals a day at the newly built Bright Hope Education Center.  The center is a joint project of the Ethiopian government and the Buckner Foundation, a Texas-based charity dedicated to helping children, and Ethiopia's Bright Hope Church.

Senator Landrieu has come to Bantu to look at how the project can be used as a model for reaching orphans and impoverished children worldwide.

"This is an example of an exciting partnership that is absolutely scalable," said Senator Mary Landrieu. "This road, electricity and compound was built within three years - extraordinary when you think about it.  Over 600 children receiving education here, some of the poorest of the poor because this partnership between Ethiopia's government and a foundation, we would call it a charity, has brought private money from the U.S., matching the money from the government of Ethiopia creates an exciting opportunity."

Forty million Ethiopians, half the country's population, are less than 18 years of age.  The United Nations Children's Fund estimates that 5.5 million of them are orphans, meaning that each has lost at least one parent.

The sheer number of orphans and Ethiopia's relatively lenient adoption standards help explain the rapid rise in the number of Ethiopian children being adopted in the West.

Five years ago, Ethiopia provided only two percent of foreign children adopted in the United States.  By last year, that figure had jumped to 18 percent.  Analysts say trends indicate that Ethiopia will surpass China this year as the number one country of origin for foreign adoptions by U.S. parents.

But the 5,000 Ethiopian children adopted worldwide last year is a tiny fraction of the country's 5.5 million orphans.

Senator Landrieu says the overwhelming numbers dictate caring for orphans near their birthplace, while international adoption should be a last resort.

"Not just Americans, but many countries around the world desire to follow this international treaty which says children should stay with their birth families," she said. "But if something happens and that child is separated from the mother or father - death or famine or disease - then the treaty says the children should be placed with the nearest kin or relative who is willing or responsible to raise them, and then as sort of the last step, rather than putting the child out on the street or putting the child in an institution where they're not loved and nurtured, to find a family somewhere in the world."

U.S. Ambassador Susan Jacobs, the State Department's adviser for children's issues, accompanied Landrieu to Bantu.  At a time when many countries are tightening rules governing adoption, Jacobs says the Bantu model deserves a closer look because it helps Ethiopian orphans to better their lives at home, while identifying the neediest children for placement abroad.

"There are a lot of American families that want to adopt, that feel the need," said Susan Jacobs. "They want a family [or] to complete their family, so we hope adoptions will remain open all over the world and in Ethiopia."

Buckner Foundation President Kenneth Hall acknowledges the Bantu project reaches only a small percentage of Ethiopia's orphans, much less the estimated 140 million orphans worldwide.  But he says he is excited about the possibilities of replicating the public-private partnership model internationally.

"When you look at it from the macro, or broad scale, it can be defeating," said Kenneth Hall. "But in the work I'm in, you've got to address the issue.  We want to replicate models that work.  The resources are available financially from the private sector in partnership with the public sector.  That's how you get there.  This is not that expensive to do when you partner with a lot of people and you let the national leadership, not only of the government, but [also] the private leaders here.  So this is an Ethiopian project with just a little bit of assistance from America."

Pastor Getahun Nesibu Tesema, director of the Bright Hope Education Center says three orphans from Bantu have been adopted by U.S. families during the past three years.  Almost all of the rest will remain with relatives in Ethiopia, with nutrition and education assistance from the Buckner Foundation and Bright Hope.  

A First!

WA adoption apology an Australian first

September 7, 2010 - 3:04PM

Western Australia will become the first state to apologise to women, children and families affected by its past adoption practices.

Health Minister Kim Hames said on Tuesday that Premier Colin Barnett would put forward a motion in parliament on October 19 that would enable him to make the apology.

The apology would be made on behalf of the state institutions that engaged in adopting out children under past governments, Dr Hames said in a statement.

He said "vulnerable" mothers may have not been given the opportunity to make informed decisions.
Dr Hames said from the 1940s to the 1980s, the legal, health and welfare systems of the day were unsupportive of pregnant unmarried women.

"I have spoken to mothers who were affected by these practices and have heard first-hand the impact that (it) has had on their lives," Dr Hames said.

"They have told me an apology will go some way to assisting to overcome what has, for some, been lifelong trauma."

Dr Hames said there were also plans to create a memorial.

Racial Gap in Fatherless Children

"If we, in the 21st Century, have fostered a culture where 'baby mama' is an acceptable term, we have little to be proud of."  

Mitch Albom uses sports figures as a starting example in his column entitled, 8 kids with 6 moms? NFL star is shameful. The article's title focuses on New York Jets defensive back Antonio Cromartie, 26. And yet, he is not the worst offender. Travis Henry, the former NFL running back, reportedly has fathered at least 11 children with 10 different women.

Albom goes on to see the problem as a cultural issue that affects Black Americans far more than Whites.  In recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics, 72% of new babies were born out of wedlock, versus 28% among whites and 17% among Asians.

WE know, thanks to the research of Rickie Solinger, that the racial gap effects adoption mores and practices as well which in turn effects the racial disparity of children being raised by single mothers. White babies are a far more sought after commodity for the adoption market and thus White women are far more pressured to relinquish than are Black women. The social pressures are greatly different as well. By and large, White women are more "expected" to complete higher education before considering motherhood than are Black women.

One also has to wonder if these "out-of-wedlock" figures count the (White) women who chose to go ahead and become single mothers because their biological clock is running way ahead of their ability to meet Mr. Perfect who meets up to their standards. This phenom is in fact also effecting Black women who are bettering themselves with higher education and professional careers. The pool of men for them to choose from is pitifully small as more of their male peers are in jail than White men of the same age category.

So, is the acceptability of the term "baby mama" - the acceptability of women allowing themselves to get "knocked up" in transient relationships and hook ups an indication of a society in great danger? Or are these simply women who need our support?  Is making men pay child support enough, or for children, as Albom and other suggest, being raised without a father the underlying cause of much delinquency and crime? Does the same apply for the affluent women who become single moms by choice - and if so, why is no one raising that issue as a concern? Answer: Because they can AFFORD to financially support their children without a man, and that makes it acceptable, because after all the whole purpose of marriage is to provide financial support for children so as not to burden the state.

And where are those so concerned about the "fatherlessness of America" when father's constitutional right to parent are stomped on? Where is David Blanehorn who literally wrote the book on fatherlessness and his Center for Families and Marriage  (straight, heterosexual marriage) and others concerned about this issue when fathers who are begging to stand up and care for their children are told they did not dot their i's and cross their t's in a timely enough manner to exercise their right?

Where were these concerns as states approved legalized abandonment of babies in so-called Safe Havens? And initiated Putative Father Registries...all in an effort to expedite adoption of children before a father had an instant to claim his intentions?

Let us also not forget that many of same self-righteous "Family Values" proponents also themselves have fathered "out-of-wedlock" children often while married to another...and let us also forget that many of these same self-righteous "Family Values" types are solidly opposed to women's right to chose whether to carry an unintended pregnancy full term.   And are first in line to block same-sex marriage while being promoting marriage!

Family Values needs to value all families and respect the rights of all fathers and all mothers.

Baby Vanessa Update

I've blogged about this case. between Benjamin Mills, father, and Stacey Doss, foster mother.

The latest news is that a lawyer says mediation has been unsuccessful between a California woman trying to adopt a toddler and Benjamin Mills, the father from Ohio who is trying to stop the adoption. Richard Hempfling says his client, Stacey Doss, has been in Dayton for mediation involving 2-year-old Vanessa.

Montgomery County Juvenile Court Judge Nick Kuntz on Friday urged further negotiations and rescheduled a custody hearing for December.

Doss, of Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., in July was granted an emergency block of a court order that required the girl to be sent back to Ohio. 

Father Benjamin Mills Jr., of Dayton, filed for custody in Ohio in 2008 before the adoption was finalized. A spokeswoman for his attorneys at Legal Aid of Western Ohio declined comment.

Safe Haven "Protection" - Denies Any Possibility of Truth

The following case is difficult to read. It shows how so-called "safe haven" laws are used to deny a mother proper counseling and deny a child any possibility of EVER finding his truth.

Remember as you read this that it is considered unethical to ask a window to make legal decisions such as selling her home while she is grieving, but mothers are allowed to make such a terminal decision for their child while under extreme stress, without seeing and holding him and allowing for a clear decision. And of course, the child's rights are eroded with no decision or choice on his part.

It clearly indicates the the purpose of the safe haven law is not to save babies from death, but to allow for anonymous abandonment. And of course the father's rights are obliterated.

Extracted from the full case history: In The Matter of Noel Doe, a minor

The novel issues to be resolved in this case involve the scope and applicability of the New Jersey Safe Haven Infant Protection Act , N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.5 to 15.11.  The initial question is whether Noel Doe,1 an infant who was delivered and then immediately surrendered by her mother, Jane Doe, in a hospital maternity ward, qualifies as a Safe Haven Baby. The Division of Youth and Family Services (hereinafter “the Division”) filed a petition on January 5, 2010, seeking to terminate the parental rights of John and  Jane Doe under the New Jersey Safe Haven Infant Protection Act. Upon careful
consideration of the evidence presented, as well as an analysis of the legislative intent and public policy of the statute, the court finds that Noel Doe, the infant, was properly surrendered under the Safe Haven law. For all the reasons contained in this opinion, the Division’s petition for termination of the parental rights of John and Jane Doe to Noel Doe is granted.

Factual Background

 The child, Noel Doe, a girl, was born on December 16, 2009, at South Jersey Regional Medical Center in Vineland, New Jersey. The mother presented herself to the hospital in labor, was admitted to the maternity ward, and gave birth there.  The hospital took her name and other identifying information as a delivering mother; however, the documents provided to the court in evidence redact her name or list her as “Unknown, Doe,” as upon delivering her child, Jane told the workers at the hospital that she wished to surrender her baby and requested anonymity.  Jane was allowed to leave her baby at the hospital under Safe Haven protection and was discharged on December 17.  

A social worker interviewed Jane prior to her discharge from the hospital and recorded the results of the interview on the confidential patient information form.  The form indicates that Jane only spoke Spanish, and was provided with information about the Safe Haven law in Spanish.  When interviewed by the Spanish speaking social worker, who came on a referral that Jane wished to place the baby for adoption, Jane repeatedly requested complete anonymity.  Jane informed the social worker that she
already had one child, and that the father of Noel had disappeared and was not in contact with her. Jane stated that she could not raise another child, especially with no help, and wished to give this child up for adoption.  Jane was noted to be sad, but repeatedly requested to give the child up for adoption with complete anonymity and stressed that this was her own decision.  Jane requested a discharge letter stating that she had miscarried the baby so she could tell her family that, instead of telling them that she had placed the baby for adoption.  The social worker informed her that the hospital could not do this, but the doctor agreed to write her a medical leave letter for six weeks of maternity leave and
to keep the letter very general and vague so as not to divulge the nature of the situation.

Factual Background

 The child, Noel Doe, a girl, was born on December 16, 2009, at South Jersey Regional Medical Center in Vineland, New Jersey. The mother presented herself to the hospital in labor, was admitted to the maternity ward, and gave birth there.  The hospital took her name and other identifying information as a delivering mother; however, the documents provided to the court in evidence redact her name or list her as “Unknown, Doe,” as upon delivering her child, Jane told the workers at the hospital that she wished to surrender her baby and requested anonymity.  Jane was allowed to leave her baby at the hospital under Safe Haven protection and was discharged on December 17.  

A social worker interviewed Jane prior to her discharge from the hospital and recorded the results of the interview on the confidential patient information form.  The form indicates that Jane only spoke Spanish, and was provided with information about the Safe Haven law in Spanish.  When interviewed by the Spanish speaking social worker, who came on a referral that Jane wished to place the baby for adoption, Jane repeatedly requested complete anonymity.  Jane informed the social worker that she

to keep the letter very general and vague so as not to divulge the nature of the situation.

[The Safe Haven law is reviewed and a discussion of whether it applies in this case or not.]
 
The law should not cut off its promise of anonymity and legal immunity at the maternity ward door. An interpretation of the Safe Haven law that limits so strictly the definition of a Safe Haven site to a hospital emergency room discourages mothers giving birth from seeking medical care at an early stage of delivery. This cannot be a desirable public policy goal, especially given that the stated intent of the statute is to preserve the lives of these infants.

The court finds that the New Jersey Legislature, in passing Safe Haven, intended to provide the benefits of safety, anonymity, and immunity from prosecution in circumstances like these, where the mother delivers the baby in a hospital maternity ward, then clearly and unambiguously states her desire to surrender that infant anonymously and the other Safe Haven statutory requirements are met.  The court finds that encouraging mothers to give birth in a hospital setting is an overwhelmingly
favorable public policy.  Additionally, the court finds that Jane Doe did precisely what the Legislature intended pregnant mothers with unwanted infants to do; she presented herself to the hospital, gave birth to a healthy baby in the hospital, and then clearly and unambiguously stated her desire for Safe Haven protection.  To disqualify Jane Doe from these protections after she undertook the very steps at the heart of the spirit of Safe Haven would do a great disservice to the legislative intent.

 In finding that Noel Doe and Jane Doe qualify for the protections of the Safe Haven law, the court is satisfied that the Division is under no requirement to notify the surrendering parent of the pending petition to terminate her parental rights.  In this case as in, very likely, many Safe Haven cases, there are myriad reasons a mother may request, and indeed very much desire, the complete anonymity provided by Safe Haven.  Here, for example, Jane Doe went so far as to request that the hospital provide her with paperwork stating she had a miscarriage, so she could show that to her family.  This
makes clear that Jane does not want her family to know that she gave birth to a live, healthy child.  Sending notifications to her home that she might share with certain family members, especially given that she is a struggling single mother already, could cause her serious family consequences.  Just as the law is extremely careful in terminating parental rights, the law should, when creating an anonymous way for parents to surrender those rights, be extremely careful in reneging on its promise of anonymity and immunity.  This court finds that Jane made a knowing and voluntary surrender of her child under the Safe Haven law of the State of New Jersey.  

A discussion of the father, John Doe’s, rights is also necessary in this case. Several statutes provide guidance to the court regarding the necessity of service upon an unknown father in a Safe Haven case.  N.J.S.A. 9:2-15 states that “[n]o surrender of custody by, nor termination of the parental rights of, one parent shall affect the rights of the other parent; nor may one parent act as the agent or representative of the other parent in the surrender of custody or termination of parental rights.”  However, N.J.S.A. 9:3-45(d) indicates that no notice is required of termination of parental rights or adoption proceedings “[i]n any case where, within 120 days of the birth of the child or prior to the date of the preliminary hearing, whichever occurs first, the identity of a birth parent cannot be determined or where the known parent of a child is unable or refuses to identify the other parent, and the court is unable from the other information before the court to identify the other parent.”  Further guidance is provided by N.J.S.A. 9:3-45(b)(6), which provides that notice to a potential father of adoption proceedings is not required where the father has not acknowledged paternity within 120 days of the child’s birth.  Most notably, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-17(c) states, “[i]n any case where the identity of an absent parent cannot be determined or the known parent of a child is unable or refuses to identify the other parent, and the court is unable from the other information before the court to identify the other parent, service on that parent shall be waived by the court.”  

Here, Jane Doe was unwilling to identify the father of her child. She indicated only that he was no longer in contact with her and had not been for some time prior to the birth of Noel.  The court is unable, on the evidence before it, to determine who John Doe might actually be.  The court further notes that consistent with N.J.S.A. 9:3-45(d) and N.J.S.A. 9:3-45(b)(6), courts should wait the stated 120 day period before signing an order for termination of parental rights in these cases. The court finds that notice to John Doe of the proceedings is not required in this case under the statutory law.  However, in Safe Haven cases, where the Division has information regarding the father of the surrendered child and he was not involved in the surrender of the child, the Division is required to serve him with notice of the proceedings.  Because the Division has no information regarding his identity and the mother has refused to identify him, in this case the Division is under no duty to serve John Doe with notice.
 

Safety, anonymity, and legal immunity are the cornerstones of Safe Haven, providing an uncomplicated, safe waynes of Safe Haven, providing an uncomplicated, safe way to surrender an unwanted to child that could otherwise be left in dangerous circumstances.  If the focus is to be on allowing for and encouraging the delivery of safe, healthy infants, mothers giving birth should be encouraged, not discouraged, from seeking medical care to deliver their infant, while being allowed to maintain their anonymity.  For all the reasons in this opinion, the court grants guardianship of Noel Doe to the Division so that she can obtain permanency
through adoption.