Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Vile, Blatant Baby Selling By So-called "Christians!"

African American baby gender unknown, due in TN in mid-June, 17K plus 4.5K legal

Caucasian baby gender unknown, due late-July in UT, 30.5K plus 5-7K medical

Caucasian baby gender unknown, due mid-August in UT, 30.5K plus 8-10K medical (minor drug/alcohol use)

African American/Caucasian baby girl, due late August in UT, 25K plus $5-17K medical

African American/Caucasian baby boy, due late July/early August, 23K plus 11-14K in legal/living

African American/Caucasian baby gender unknown, due mid-August, 23K plus 11-14K legal/living

African American baby boy BORN in VA on Feb 2011, 11.5K plus 10.5K (agency travel, living, legal) 1.5K for ICPC if you're out of state

African American/Caucasian baby due in Florida in October, 23K plus 14K legal/living, 1.5K for ICPC if you're out of state

Caucasian baby gender unknown, due October in AZ, 23K plus 14K legal/living, 1.5K for ICPC if you're out of state

African American baby gender unknown, due in August, 23K plus 14.5K legal/living

These are REAL LISTINGS posted on this blog by Karalee who identifies herself as:
"a mother of two beautiful children through the miracle of adoption, I am thrilled to be working as an adoption consultant for Christian Adoption Consultants. It is such an honor to help families on their adoption journeys find the baby meant for them!"
How is this legal, let alone moral???

Note that in addition to the vileness of pricing based on race... that no mention of openness is mentioned. Are these expected mothers being kept in baby farms? Are they receiving any impartial counseling as to their rights? Any support for an option to parent?

What happens if they accept these pre-birth offers to BUY their baby and then change their mind as 50% of expectant mothers who consider adoption do?

Karalee reminds viewers of her blog listing that:
"only a few of the agencies we work with publish situations online, so this is a sampling of the situations our clients can be shown to. If you have questions about any of these situations or about the services Christian Adoption Consultants offers, email me at
Have a great day!"
Yes, that is her email adress. Comments are not accepted on the blog, but feel free to write to Karalee!

Thursday, July 21, 2011


As printed in the AAC Decree, Summer, 2011 Vol 28/No. 2 Pp 8-10.

“REPEAL the SEAL!” Should this be our new battle cry, mantra and legislative action plan? 

Wouldn’t it be great to stop focusing our legislative energies on trying to “fix” or reform what is wrong with adoption, but on totally getting rid of the archaic draconian laws passed in the 1940s – for the most part, in all but two states – that created a second class of citizenry for those who are adopted? To stop being on defensive and go on the offensive!

For the past 60 years, since the records became sealed, grassroots activists worked to seek to restore rights unjustly taken from us. We have succeeded in gaining unconditional, unrestricted access in just six states in those 6 decades.

We were unarmed pioneers fighting sophisticated machines. Part our battle was overcoming the silence and shame surrounding these issues, including our own. We needed to make ourselves whole first and then conquer the mystique and glamorization of adoption; the misconceptions and long-held beliefs that adoptees should be grateful and birth mothers ashamed and seeking to hide on anonymity.

While we educated the public, we grew more empowered and became self-taught activists and lobbyists!  Now we are ready, as a movement, I believe, to move to the next step and go at this thing, not apologetically and politely, but with guns blasting full steam ahead.

In 1989, I first coined the phrase “equal access.” While I was on a book tour after the publication of shedding light on…The Dark Side of Adoption, at the AAC Region 3 conference that October, I presented a talk entitled “Inequality Must End” in which I put forth the argument that seeking open ”records” was too vague and open ended. Records? What records? It opened us up for Pandora Box criticism, and in general it sounded as if adoptees were asking for special treatment instead of what we were really seeking - equality. I pointed out that equality is a very American ideal and would gain us far us more support.  It was that year, for that presentation, that I printed up bright pink “Ask what equal means” button that are still for sale on my website and I hand out wherever I go.

I returned to activism after a respite following the death of my daughter to the realization that change occurs very slowly.  Most groups and organizations are using the phrase “equal access” but many still maintain “open records” in the name of their groups or in their mission states. Even Bastard Nation, the most “militant” among us has a mission statement, which, after starting out “advocating for the civil and human rights of adult citizens who were adopted as children” follows by speaking of a prohibition of “assessing [sic] personal records”…and records “held by their governments in secret” without ever mentioning original birth certificates (OBCs).

In 2006 I wrote “Dear Bastards: Demand Equality!” which appeared in the Bastard Quarterly, Bastard Nation, Vol. 8, No 1, Spring/Summer. In 2009 I presented "Reexamining Goals: Open Records versus Equal Access," at the AAC 30th Annual National Conference, Transforming Families, Connecting Lives, April 25

Mike Dougney recently observed that “the vague promise that adoptees might know the facts of their origins, and the outright confusion of birth certificates with seldom-specified ‘medical records’ that complicate, if not sabotage, the relatively simple matter of restoring a basic civil right and equal protection under the law to adoptees .” Dougney was aiming his guns at EBD and Adam Pertman, calling such language “an ongoing threat to human rights” yet failed to include BN, whose mission statement remains today as above, and many others amongst us who unintentionally likewise diffuse the clarity of our struggle as a human and civil rights issue with ambiguous terminology.

New Tools: Time for a New Approach

Evan B. Donadlson has produced three clear, cogent, and highly recommended handouts that are powerful new tools for activism and legislative work:
•    Setting the Record Straight: Why is OBC Access Important?
•    Setting the Record Straight: What were Birthmothers promised?
•    Setting the Record Straight: What are the negative consequences?

When you add to this the research of E. Wayne Carp, Elizabeth Samuels, the Oregon University Adoption History Project and Barbara Raymond, on the history of sealed adoption records, a clear picture emerges. Baby brokers such as Georgia Tann pushed for secrecy in adoption in order to practice slipshod, underhanded gray market adoptions without any scrutiny transparency would provide. Meanwhile, the Child Welfare League of America opposed secrecy and sealing of records and favored openness and honesty in adoption practice then, as they do today. It was the industry versus the experts concerned about the best interests of children and their families and the industry won to the detriment of the people.

Today, as then, it remains those whose livelihood depends upon the redistribution of children – the adoption practitioners and their lobbyists – who oppose access to OBC for adoptees. They now pretend it is out of concern for mothers when that was never the reason the records were sealed to begin with. State laws reflect the reasons for sealing adoption records and OBCs was to protect adoptees from the stigma of illegitimacy and to protect the adoptive family from intrusion of the birth family. Nothing about protecting birth mothers or any alleged promises of confidentiality because none exists. It began as moneyed interest against those personally affected by adoption, and it remains so. 

We must seek repeal because we need and deserve a return to pre-1940s parity with Alaska and Kansas. Even the best access legislation (that in Alabama, Maine, New Hampshire and Oregon) allows birth certificates to continue to be sealed to begin with making them not as pure as Alaska and Kansas. For example, consider the case of adoptive parents of a troubled teen who believe reconciliation with their child’s birth family might be worth trying to save him or her from self-destruction. In Alaska or Kansas they could access their child’s OBC because it was never sealed. However, in Alabama, Maine, New Hampshire or Oregon, unlike Alaska and Kansas, OBCs are still being sealed. Thus, unless the new law specified access for adult adoptees or their adoptive parents on behalf of their minor child, parents in a scenario as above would not have access without a court order. Such denial is unconscionable and unacceptable. Unless these laws have such provisions, they are less than perfect.

Additionally, only repeal allows the other parties named on the OBC – the mothers and in some cases fathers who relinquished – to likewise have access to those legal documents on which they are named.  Repeal is the only way to level the playing field and allow adoptees in all states to have parity with those born in Alaska and Kansas. Additionally, repealing the laws that sealed the records – unlike any other current legislation – eliminates all sealed OBCs and falsified birth certificates going forward.

A Tougher Road?

Repeal seems a clearer more direct road to achieve our goal of ridding states of these oppressive laws because civil rights cannot be compromised. It is not equality to require some citizens jump through hoops and overcome obstacles such as vetoes and age restriction – the latest being an attempt by Rhode Island to require the adoptee reach age 40 before being allowed access – that are not required of all citizens. Repeal leaves no opening for such unequal requirements.

Will it be tougher to get a sponsor for such a bill? No doubt. It appears to be without precedent except when you utilize Alaska and Kansas. Consider running for state Assembly and introduce your own bill!

Knowledge is power. We know this history and the present opposition and we have the documentation to prove our case. These were ill-conceived laws passed against the advise of the experts to profit baby brokers. Any real concern for protecting adoptees from the stigma of illegitimacy is long past.

The opposition, on the other hand, has no proof of their claims of promises made to mothers because there is none. Nor do their claims of increased abortion or decreased adoption hold water. We must also use the fact that remaining open in Alaska and Kansas has not resulted in any consequence.

We must use this power to come from an offensive position! Many of us have used the term “restore” our access. This is accurate as the discrimination and denial of civil and human rights of adoptees is a relatively new phenomenon – in effect only since the 1940s in MOST states. Restoration must become a regular part of our vocabulary because of its “dead on” accuracy. We want to be restored to pre-1940s America in regard to adoptee equality.

I also suggest demonstrations wherein adopted persons, with Amended Birth Certificates in hand, turn themselves to their local authorities for violating state and federal laws that prohibit being in possession of falsified government documents. See This can be combined with conferences or other events and properly announced to the media could make quite an impact on educating the public.

A wonderful opportunity for such demonstrations is approaching in July. On July 28 1868 the 14th Amendment was ratified giving the Federal Government the right to intervene when states and local governments deprive citizens of their rights. This crucial amendment has become the basis for all the Civil Rights legislation in the last 125 years and would be a great day to come out in force for the rights of adopted citizens.

Armed with the power of right on our side, we can boldly attempt to REPEAL the laws that have held us as second class citizens for six decades! We deserve no less and must demand what we deserve. Civil human rights cannot be compromised and anything other than unrestricted, unconditional access can be acceptable. It is unconscionable to promote and encourage adoption as a “loving choice” until such time as adopted citizens have no less rights than their non-adopted peers with no conditions or requirements that apply only to them.

by Mirah Riben c 2011

Friday, July 15, 2011

New Finding Confirms Higher Rates of Mental Health Problems Among Adopted Children

The report is: "America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being 2011." A link to the report is provided here, in: The Truth About Adoption: All You Need Is Love, And A Safety Net.

The section on adoption collected data from: The American Community Survey, a large annual survey of the U.S. population, providing estimates of a variety of groups and their characteristics; the National Survey of Children’s Health survey of households with a focal child age of 0–17 about their children’s physical, emotional, and behavioral health and their experiences with the health care system; and The National Survey of Adoptive Parents.

The section begins with these words:

"Because children develop best in the context of families, adoptive families are sought for children whose birth families cannot care for them."  CANNOT!  That does not extend to pressuring young girls that it is best for them to seek two parents for their child who may or may not remained a two-parent family it does not say we should encourage young women to pursue further education or a career in favor of parenting their own children.

It goes on to say: "Yet cchildren who are adopted, particularly those adopted beyond the first months of life, experience disruptions in parenting that can have longstanding implications for their development and well-being. Even children adopted as infants face challenges with identity development and issues of loss and grief regarding birth parents."

As quoted here, adopted children have higher rates of mental health problems than all other children, according to a federal report on the health and well-being of U.S. children released on Thursday.

About 2.5 percent of U.S. children are adopted, but the National Institutes of Health report found the disruption that affects some children who are adopted after the first month of their lives may have long-term effects.

While it addresses learning disabilities behavioral problems it still relates these issues to fetal exposure to alcohol and other substances, or early abuse or neglect at the hands of their original parents or institutions.  And it is not not confirming the kind of anecdotal data we know: that adoptees are over-represented in all mental health and youth facilities - some of which see nearly a 50% adopted clientele percentage. It does not address the increased rate in suicide we see in adoptees, although it is adoption is known to be a risk factor for suicide.

In the end, despite the headlines, it is nothing new and it totally disappointing as far as I am concerned.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Only The Good Die Young: Happy Birthday, Baby

7/15/67 - 2/27/95

by Elise Witt

In every hand that fights to right an old wrong
In every child who learns to sing a new song
In every hand that helps another to rise
In every child who reaches up to the skies
I do, I remember you
I do, I remember you

And when the mountain seems to steep
You remind me of the dream we keep
When the day becomes too long
You remind me to sing a new song
And I do, I remember you
I do, I remember you

When the job gets to gettin’ too tough
You remind me that one’s not enough
When I think I can do it alone
You remind me my heart’s not a stone
I do, I remember you
I do, I remember you

In every hand that opens toward me in love
In every child who spreads her wings like a dove
In every hand that crosses over the line
In every child who learns to speak her own mind
I do, I remember you
I do, I remember you
I do, I remember

[i carry your heart with me (i carry it in]
By E. E. Cummings 1894–1962

i carry your heart with me (i carry it in
my heart)i am never without it(anywhere
i go you go, my dear; and whatever is done
by only me is your doing ,my darling)
                                                      i fear
no fate(for you are my fate, my sweet)i want
no world(for beautiful you are my world, my true)
and it’s you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you

here is the deepest secret nobody knows
(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life; which grows
higher than soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart

i carry your heart (i carry it in my heart)

Please visit Alicia's Facebook Memorial page

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Gov. Christie: Obstructionist on adoptee rights

The Home News Tribune, Friday, July 8, 2011
The Asbury park Press, Friday, July8, 2011

Mirah Riben

"In our democracy, near equality is no equality...Government either treats everyone the same, or it doesn't.  And right now, it doesn't.  The question for every lawmaker is: Do you want to be remembered as a leader on civil rights?  Or an obstructionist?"
These words were spoken by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on May 27.

New York state lawmakers chose to be remembered as helping the cause of civil rights move forward and put an end to discrimination based on sexual preference.

Gov. Chris Christie, on the other hand, chooses to obstruct equality, continuing to deny marriage rights to some based on the gender of the two consenting adults who choose to enter into matrimony.  Christie cites his religious values while dismissing the message of Christ that all are created in God's image.

This obstruction of equality comes on the heels of Christie stomping on the rights of other adult citizens of the Garden State: those who were adopted as children.  The governor's defeat of adoptees' human rights is perhaps even more difficult to comprehend because surely people who are adopted do not act in a way that might be construed as being against God or any religious doctrine.  They have done nothing other than to be born and then adopted into another family.  Yet, because of Christie, they will continue to be treated as second-class citizens, denied the same rights as others have to unconditional access to the vital record of their own birth.

Christie's conditional veto called for restrictions that would apply to adopted people and adopted people only, singling them out as once black Americans were singled out for unique and separate treatment; as once women were relegated as unable to vote or to own property.

Creating and maintaining legislation that applies to some, but not all, of us is an affront to everything this nation stands for.  Just as Rhode Island and Missouri passed equal access legislation for adopted people this month, Christie turned his back on his constituents who begged for relief of antiquated laws.  Christie chose instead to side with special-interest groups whose livelihoods depend upon the transfer of children via adoption.

These lobbies oppose any and all efforts to regulate or create transparency in the practice of adoption, causing it to be called the "Wild West" by Adam Pertman, executive director of the prestigious Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a think tank that calls for ethical adoption and the human and civil rights of adopted people to be restored.

How can we promote adoption as a loving option for expectant mothers in crisis when that choice leads to a lesser life for their offspring, forever denied access to their heritage, lineage and genealogy?  Christie and any others who think they are following religious tenets by treating people unfairly ought to consider why the Judeo-Christian Bible begins with the Book of Genesis and details who begat whom.  Hebrews recognized lineage as of such great importance because Judaism is passed by matrilineal descent since only one's mother is certain (without DNA testing).

Christie sees the right to know from whom one received the gift of life as a right that he can restrict and obstruct of some people, such as his own sister, in spite of significant and substantial evidence that the reasons he has outline are based in rumor, not in fact.  In doing so, he tries to create an oxymoronic near-equality.  Christie has etched his name indelibly as an obstructionist of human rights in New Jersey.

Monday, July 11, 2011

JAYCEE LEE DUGARD: Adoption as a form of Kidnapping

JAYCEE LEE DUGARD. One of the worst parts of her entire 18 years of captivity and rape was that he - Phillip Garrido - took away her name. Wouldn't let her say it or write it.  It was a harsh, painful punishment she was forced to endure. All carefully orchestrated to dehumanize her and make her a compliant slave.

And one of the most liberating was the day she got to say her own name - and see her mother again!

Anyone who does not see adoption as legalized kidnapping is deluding themselves. Even when absolutely necessary - as it rarely is - it is still for the adoptee a form of kidnapping - having been taken from their mother and having their name taken from them, yet knowing they exist...somewhere...

And, like a kidnap victim or any abuse victim, the adoptee lives in constant compliant fear that their life could be worse if they bite the hand that feeds them...

Like a kidnap victim, adoptees wonder: If my mother really did this because she loved me, why doesn't she come and find me?

And, yes, I said FEW adoptions are truly necessary. Few adopted children are truly orphans or were removed from truly abusive or dangerously neglectful homes because the children are removed mostly remain in foster care and worldwide 90% of the children in orphanages are not orphans; they have at least one living parent and other have extended family. many have family who visit and hope to be reunited as was the case with the two children adopted by Madonna. In many parts of the world impoverished families use orphanages for temporary care, for medical care, food or education they cannot otherwise afford but they have no concept of permanent adoption.

Poor women all over the world are lied to,tricked, told their children are going to America for an education and they believe they will be returned.

Domestically women in prior decades were lied to and told their children will be better off adopted; it was loving thing to do and they were given no alternative to do otherwise. Most could not go home unless they let their child go.

Today, mothers are told they can have their cake and eat it to! Complete school, go on with careers while their child is well cared for by loving people and they can visit and be like an big happy family. But for far too many it's a lie, and unenforceable lie. Legal, attorney drawn, notarized documents outlining contact agreements merely serve to lull one into a false sense of security.

But, even when absolutely necessary - names are taken away. Human beings are stripped naked of their identity, the thing most precious to anyone. The thing that makes you who you are, your very essence. Stripped of your past -- and most often it the placement was necessary children are old enough to remember their mothers and often have siblings they may or may not be with.

Adoption is legalized kidnapping. Some recipient-captors are kind and caring...maybe even most. But the child is captive nonetheless, stripped bare of his name and identity, her original family that (s)he knows exists....somewhere. Small wonder many adoptee tell of rescue fantasies.

For some (many? most?) mothers it is similar too as we are left to wonder if our children are well, alive, well cared for. We are lulled into thinking the best rather than the worst case scenario...and some of us even escape into denial or total acceptance of it having been for the best, as we too were victims of brainwashing...

For the most part it's all a big game of charades - of ignoring the very obvious elephant in the room while tripping over it, or even having it thrown up in your face. But you comply and play the game of pretense to keep the peace, much as families who live with any kind of abuse or addictions. It is that way for the adoptee and for mothers and their family of origins...My parents went to their death never wanting to talk about "it."

The big difference for mothers who lost children to adoption and mothers of kidnap victims is that we get no compassion, no support. In fact we get quite the opposite: contempt! We do what we are told is best and loving and the minute we do, we become unfit, monstrous ogres! At best, we may get solicitous praise and thanks for the "gift" we "gave."

Thursday, July 7, 2011

FAQs: Family Preservation vs. Anti-Adoption

Q: What is family preservation?

A:  Family Preservation is a recognized part of social service practice, and is defined here by Child Welfare Information Gateway

My definition is similar, albeit more long term, and closer to that of the National Family Preservation Network: to keep families together and prevent unnecessary out-of-home placement of children.

There is also a Family Preservation Institute at Mexico State University...just to name a few.

The term is recognized in Australia which worked to reverse it's pro-adoption position to one of family preservation, offering support to single mothers and reducing the need for adoption loss and separation. West Australia went on to apologize for the era in which adoptions were encouraged, as they still are in the US.

In July 2011, Korea, too made shift in their policies  towards family preservation as indicated by the change of the name of the standing law from “The Special Act Relating to the Promotion and Procedure of Adoption” to “The Special Act Relating to Adoption.” Bill #1812414 marked the end of an era in which adoption was equated with the best interests of a child versus empowering the child’s family of origin.

See: "What is Family Preservation" tab 

Q: Is Family Preservation Pro-Life or Pro Right Wing "Family Values" 

A. NO, not at all! In the adoption community, Family Preservation clearly and specifically refers to helping families in crisis remain together and avoiding unnecessary permanent solutions for temporary problems.

"Open adoption and open records are important byways. But they are not the most compelling route. Family preservation is." Dr. Randolph Severson, The Soul of Family Preservation  

Q: Is Family Preservation a euphemism for anti-adoption?

A: No. In addition to the sources listed above who use the term, support of family preservation can be traced back to the negative reaction to the 'orphan train movement.'  The term dates back to the 1890s, and in the 1909 White House Conference on Children it was the top ranked issue. For more, see Wikipdia. Many states offer family preservation programs that can be found by googling the term.

Q: Am I, Mirah Riben, anti-adoption?

A: It is not a term that I am comfortable with as its pejorative use and negativity does not define my positions and is often linked with anger and bitterness rather than best interests of children and families.

I am not comfortable with the term because it seems to denote an absurd extremism that one supports any and every mother keeping a child - no matter how dangerous that might be for the child....a position not held by even the most extreme anti-adoptionists. I am as uncomfortable with that label as any pro-choice person would be opposed to being labeled anti-life or pro-abortion. Things are not as black and white as labels seem to imply. For more, see: Nomenclatures, Euphemism and Anti-Adoption Accusation.

Being against adoptions that begin with the eradication of blood ties and a falsified birth certificate, does NOT equate to preferring to keep kids in harms way or in foster care.

I am opposed to all unnecessary, unwarranted, pressured, lack of independent option counseling and lack of separate legal counsel, coercive adoptions.

I am against all profiteering in adoption.

I am against all falsified, fraudulent, fake birth certificates and lack of equal access or original and true birth certificates for ALL parties named on said birth certificates.

I have seen nothing that indicates that children in need of alternative care - those who are truly orphaned or have no parents or extended family or kin to care safely for them - cannot be provided such care via a form of permanent legal guardianship that does not alter their identity or sever their family ties.

See also: Why Some Say: ADOPTION SUCKS! And Why Some Are Anti-Adoption

Q: Do I believe that every natural mother should keep her baby?

A: I do not believe that any mother should be forced or coerced to parent any more than she should coerced or subtly pressured to not parent her own child. Mothers - after giving birth and seeing and hold their babies - deserve impartial option counseling that honestly tells them all the risks to them and their child of separation and the resources to be able to make an informed CHOICE.

I believe that baring any serious mental illness or sociopathic tendencies, any woman who gives birth to a child would prefer to have the help she needs to maintain that relationship. I believe that mothers deserve all the resources they need to achieve that goal. I believe that if they cannot accomplish their goal, extended family should be sought to help care for the child. I believe that this is in the child's best interest as well as the mothers, as most adopted people would much prefer to be blood related to the family that raises them and most people would not simply trade off all kin connectedness for better or more material advantages or a mother and father who have the same 50/50 chance of divorcing as all other couples.

Q: Am I a disgruntled, angry, bitter "birthmother"?

A: I am a mother who was lied to when I was told that adoption would be better for my daughter - my daughter who took her own life at 27 as a result of her "better" adoptive family. I am a mother who was told I would forget and get on with my life 42 years ago, who spends every day of my life working to change adoption policies as a direct result of my loss.

Dedicating my life to preventing other mothers suffering the lifelong, irresolvable guilt, grief and shame of unnecessarily losing her child to adoption is as normal and natural as any mother who has suffered the tragic unnecessary loss of a child, such as Candy Lightner who founded MADD or Maureen Kanka who founded Megan's Law. Are they asked if they are bitter?
My anger is perfectly justifiable and I will never apologize for it.

Q: Are my views radical and far too idealistic?

A: These views and positions are no more radical or idealistic than those of the The United Nations, UNICEF, The UN CRC, the Hague Convention on International Adoption, and Save the Children - all of which call for family preservation first, then kinship care and stranger adoption as a last resort - with international adoption the very last resource after no domestic adoption can be found. They also call for protection of original identity.

See "What is Family Preservation" link

Q: Don't you think that making adoption ethical would resolve all issues and allow it to proceed safely rather than abolishing it all together?

A: The word ethical is totally subjective. Unless we establish clear - enforceable - ethical guidelines, it means nothing more than "nice." All of the agencies who placed children that were kidnapped, or who were abuse or killed are considered reputable and ethical agencies and are still in business. Even the most unscrupulous baby brokers - such as Seymour Kurtz - receive a slap on the wrist simply reopen under a different name or in a different state.

What is ethical about domestic adoption agencies taking women out of state, enmeshing them with prospective adopters and making them feel indebted emotionally as well as financially for expenses paid for the room, board and medical costs? What is ethical about predatory practices such as prospective adopters in the delivery room denying the mother any bonding tome at all? What is ethical about providing one attorney to represent both parties - something that would never be done in real estate transaction but is done in very child adoption.

What is ethical about US adoption agencies - allegedly - accepting or adoption placement children who have been trafficked kidnapped, stolen and papers forged?

What is ethical about placing children with pedophiles and others who abuse or kill them, simple because they can afford to pay the brokers' fees?

What is ethical about exporting US children out of the country while we import kids by the thousands?

What is ethical about falsifying birth records?

There is no way to hold private business to ethical standards that cut into their bottom line in a country that admires, supports and encourages free enterprise and capitalism...and encourages adoption with tax and other benefits yet has NO family preservation programs or budget whatsoever. Who will establish and enforce regulations? The foxes are watching the hen house?

Ethica accepts no financial support from business that profit for adoption. The same is not true, however, of EBDAI which claims to "promote ethical adoption practices" and "better the lives of all those touched by adoption" is funded in part by Spence-Chapin, who established EBDAI, hired a marketing professional as Executive Director, and is also funded by other adoption agencies such as The Cradle and pro-adoption groups such as The Dave Thomas Foundation, according to their 2008 Annual report. The webpage of The Cradle is one big, polished marketing infomercial to recruit expectant mothers. Where are the ethics in this?

Other pro-adoption organizations, such as the NCFA, are more honest and "ethical" about whom they represent, although they lie about "protecting" adoptees and their original families.

Q: Doesn't guardianship amount to baby sitting or foster parenting?

A: Some may perceive it that way. However permanent legal guardianship (PLG) is the way adoption was always practiced up until the 1930's when adoptions began to become secretive and records sealed and falsified to protect the baby brokers like Georgia Tann and their paid clientele.

PLG gives caretakers all legal rights for their child's eduction and medical needs. The need to change a child's name is not necessary to provide care for a child, and never was prior to 1930's. Children are often raised by aunts or grandparents - or in step families - or by married parents with different surnames. With such a high rate of divorce today, there is no stigma to it. Physical and legal custody resides with the guardian and cannot be changed except by a judge and under highly unusual circumstances such as the death of the guardian or the abuse or abandonment of the child by the guardian. In that case, PLG would leave the door open for the original parent to step in, if able to - something not possible under current adoption laws that permanently relinquish all rights of the original parent. In PLG they would be forever in the background as a non-custodial parent in a divorce who generally have liberal visitation rights.

Prospective "adopters" who find this not in their liking do not have to, as there are hundreds of parents vying for each child in need.

Alternative child care is about what is about finding homes and families for orphans and children in need of safe care - it is not the last step in reproductive "rights."

Children need and deserve caretakers who want what is in their best interest not to have them as possessions or replacements or pretense for a biological child.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Caylee and Casey Anthony

Facebook, like the nation at large, is going viral with anger over the jury's decision.

Tonight on ABC's PrimeTime/NightLine one of jurors spoke and said, simply, without a cause of death they could not connect the dots. She said hey never proved a murder occurred, despite the forensic experts stating that a body with duct tape on it is a clear indication of murder. Other murder cases have been won based on circumstantial evidence, some even without a body at all. But this jury did not.

The public wanted vengeance for the angelic little angel. They and feel cheated.

But this is how our justice system works.  The job of the defense was to create doubt and they succeeded. As long as there is doubt, a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not possible. Perhaps the prosecution shot to high going for death penalty murder.

Three small silver linings:

1. I sure wouldn't want to be Casey Anthony.  Besides the risk to her life and safety due to the hostility of the public, especially in Florida, what will she do and where will she go?  How can she possibly go back to living with her parents after the accusations made by her defense? Unless they were all in on the game to confuse the jury! It's possible because anything is possible, but I doubt it. I wouldn't want to be her, and yet there are people who idolize and marry convicted murderers, so...

Will she write a book and try to profit from it all? That will only illicit far more anger.

2. While one loose screw on Facebook started a petition "demanding" federal charges against Casey for violating "various" civil rights of Caylee... there is a serious petition that has resulted from this.

Someone created a petition to create Caylee's Law, making it a felony to fail to report a missing child in a timely manner. This makes a great deal of sense and had it been in place, would have led to punishment for the adoptive parents of Edward Dylan Bryant, who would today be 18 years of age. He disappeared as a child in 2001. Austin Bryant, who would be 15, went missing around 2003.

The boys' adoptive father, Edward Bryant, 58, and mother, Linda, 54, who are separated, were arrested in Texas and in jailed in Colorado. But they have not been charged with the disappearance and possible murder of these two boys, just of keeping subsidies after they disappeared.

Support this petition!  If the link doesn't work, it's because it is getting so many hits!! More than 37,000 supporters join in less than 24 hours. Try it again in a day or so.

3. I'm tickled that the verdict pisses off Nancy Grace! Casey Anthony was her pet cause since the child first went missing. Grace had her hung from the start and never let up for a second, pissing off TMZ's Harvey Levin for her attack of the jury.

I just simply cannot stand the working mother who is far too judgmental of mothers for my taste... and am tickled that this really pisses her off no end.

Who is responsible for what happened to that poor innocent child we will never know for sure. Was it an accident and cover up? Why was Casey googling chloroform? Why did she make up a Nanny that didn't exist?  Why didn't the jury find that enough to find her guilty as the public surely did?

All we know for sure is that a child was killed and left to rot in the woods and her mother, Casey Anthony, danced and partied...

The Fresh Air Fund is in Need of 850 Loving Host Families

If you or someone you know is able to host, please sign up now. In 2010, The Fresh Air Fund's Volunteer Host Family program, called Friendly Town, gave close to 5,000 New York City boys and girls, ages six to 18, free summer experiences in the country and the suburbs. Volunteer host families shared their friendship and homes up to two weeks or more in 13 Northeastern states from Virginia to Maine and Canada.

Thanks to host families who open up their homes for a few weeks each summer, children growing up in New York City’s toughest neighborhoods have experienced the joys of Fresh Air experiences.

More than 65% of all children are reinvited to stay with their host family, year after year.

Fresh Air Fund Host Families

"It is rewarding to see the smile on our Fresh Air child's face as she enjoys the simple things we take for granted..."

Friendly Town host families are volunteers who live in the suburbs or small town communities. Host families range in size, ethnicity and background, but share the desire to open their hearts and homes to give city children an experience they will
never forget. Hosts say the Fresh Air experience is as enriching for their own families, as it is for the inner-city children. There are no financial requirements for hosting a child. Volunteers may request the age-group and gender of the Fresh Air youngster
they would like to host. Stories about real Fresh Air host families and their New York City visitors are just a click away!

Saturday, July 2, 2011

July 28: National Adoptee Rights Day

Adoptee groups petition to declare July 28 National Adoptee Rights Day


Lori Holden was named a Must-Read Mom by Parenting magazine and has written for Adoptive Families magazine, for regional newspapers, and for the readers of her blog, Write Mind Open Heart

Read the article, sign the petition, pass along the link.

Plan demonstrations at your local vital records; or go to your local police stations and turn yourselves in for being in possession of false ID! Send out PRESS RELEASES and get the attention of the media.

Bring signs and banners! Wear your group tee shirts or get shirts at Cafe Press or EqualAccess4Adoptees,org Be colorful and be LOUD!

Demand EQUAL ACCESS! Tell the press this is a civil and human rights issue.

Tell them why we have chosen July 28 to demonstrate: Because on that day in 1868 the 14th Amendment was ratified and became the basis for all the Civil Rights legislation in the last 125 years.

For more details:


PLEASE: Copy and share this message!


While the National Adoptee Rights Day petition is sponsored by four organizations including the AAC, the activities suggested in this event announcement are solely those of and any and all other groups, organizations and individuals who choose to support them. THE SUGGESTED DEMONSTRATIONS ARE NOT SPONSORED OR SUPPORTED BY THE ACC.  

The Vatican on A.R.T.

…human life is a gift from God that has been entrusted to men and women, who are called to appreciate its inestimable value and take responsibility for maintaining its dignity — with regard both to the human being called into existence and to the special nature of the transmission of human life. Because of the dignity both of the child and of the parents, the document declares that in vitro fertilization, whether used by a married couple or by unmarried individuals, is always wrong. The good and natural desire of parents struggling to conceive a child of their own, which the instruction praises, does not give them a right to one by any means whatsoever.

A new human being is not an object or a piece of property that adults have a right to manufacture, manipulate or destroy, but rather a personal subject biologically distinct from both father and mother whose dignity and individual rights must be respected and safeguarded. A child is a gift, not a thing. A child has the right to be begotten, not made, or as the document says, to be "conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up within marriage, [because] it is through the secure and recognized relationship to his own parents that the child can discover his own identity and achieve his own proper human development." The child, in other words, should be conceived as the fruit of the personal union and love of parents committed to each other for life, not fabricated by anonymous medical technicians earning a payday.

In vitro fertilization likewise violates the dignity of parents, by renting asunder the connection between love-making and life-making. A child is no longer the fruit of their personal bodily union, but merely the fusion of their gametes, separated from their bodies, washed, and paired by technicians on a lab bench. The wife is no longer impregnated by her husband during an act of love in the peaceful and romantic solitude of their bedroom, but by a doctor injecting her with a pipette in a hospital room surrounded by strangers with masks over their mouths, as her husband stands to the side. This image alone is enough to bear witness that the process is not worthy of human dignity and interpersonal love.

But the in vitro procedure brings with it other affronts to the intrinsic worth of both children and parents. In a typical process, about eight to ten eggs are fertilized. A whole large family of fraternal twins, in other words, is brought into existence. These brothers and sisters are allowed to grow for a couple of days in a laboratory, then some of them are selected to be injected into the mother. The other children are either frozen in liquid nitrogen to preserve them for future in vitro attempts or they are left to die or be destroyed. Therefore the cost of having a child through in vitro is measured not only in the tens of thousands of dollars that a couple needs to pay, but in the death or cryopreservation of most of the parents' children and the implanted child's siblings. Again, the image itself is enough to convince most people that the process is not commensurate with human dignity.

The whole practice, moreover, is open to abuses contrary to the intrinsic worth of both children and parents. Egomaniacal doctors have substituted their sperm in place of the father's and have genetically sired scores of half-siblings through unsuspecting mothers. Single women in their late sixties are using IVF to conceive children whom the actuarial tables indicate they'll leave orphans before high school graduation or maybe even before kindergarten. Children whose fathers were anonymous sperm donors are now coming of age and are seeking to know who their dads are, or what medical conditions they may have inherited; at present, however, they have no rights to this information, because the entire in vitro industry and the legislation that protects it are set up to satisfy adult desires, without concern for what is best for the child. [Also true of adoption!] And last but not least: IVF makes it possible for a child to grow up to discover that he or she has an anonymous egg donor for a biological mom, an anonymous sperm donor for a genetic dad, a surrogate mom as birth mother, and then a "father" and a "mother" who paid the other three for their services. These multiple layers of relations are creating not just a legal mess but a psychological one for such children.


"Heterologous artificial fertilization violates the rights of the child; it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personal identity.

"Furthermore, it offends the common vocation... of the spouses who are called to fatherhood and motherhood: it objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity; it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood and responsibility for upbringing.

"Such damage to the personal relationships within the family has repercussions on civil society: what threatens the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder and injustice in the whole of social life."

Adoption and Oppression?

I am posting this message from Charlotte, NC where I have spent the past four days at a General Assembly or national convention of Unitarian Universalists.

Unitarian Universalism is a combination of two religios and is the oldest liberal faith and have long been on the forefront of civil rights and social justice fiths, standing in solidarity on issues of racial and all forms of discrimination.

Currently, they have a initiated a slogan that began with their work for same sex equality and against gender-based violence and discrimination. It has grown to encompass immigration issues.

And, so I wanted to know how we could get our adoption civil rights issues included under this banner and discovered the qualifier is that they support OPPRESSED peoples.

And so I ask you: Are adoption separated persons oppressed? What does it mean to be oppressed?

–verb (used with object)

1. to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power: a people oppressed by totalitarianism.

2. to lie heavily upon (the mind, a person, etc.): Care and sorrow oppressed them.

3. to weigh down, as sleep or weariness does.


a archaic : suppress b : to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority

2: to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon

Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.[1] It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety.

I would say that withholding VITAL information from one is burdensome, cruel and unjust. Do you agree?

I would likewise way that encouraging women to be separated from their infant children is likewise oppressive and authoritarian, an abuse of power.

Now some will say that unlike gays we are not tormented and teased and threatned, and certiabnly noy physically abused or even killed because of our ststaus. And yet, adoptess do - or at least did in thee past -endure teasing in school. And, as a mother who relinquished I have been subjected to ugly judgements!

RussiaToday Apr 29, 2010 on Russian Adoption Freeze

Russi Today: America television Interview 4/16/10 Regarding the Return of Artyem, 7, to Russia alone

RT: Russia-America TV Interview 3/10

Korean Birthmothers Protest to End Adoption

Motherhood, Adoption, Surrender, & Loss

Who Am I?

Bitter Winds

Adoption and Truth Video

Adoption Truth

Birthparents Never Forget