The Legacy of In-Fighting in the Internet Age

I've written much about in-fighting in the adoption reform movement. It's not unique to adoptionland. In-fighting exists in all grassroots movements, in entertainment, sports, in academia, and in the business world.  

Often, people on the same team with the same goals disagree about how to achieve those goals. The more passionate the issues, the more likely there will be differences of opinions.  And our issues are often very personal and emotionally charged. Disagreements are a part of life and likely there'd be little progress without a heated debate, now and then, as to how accomplish a desired outcome. Compromise is not easy when strong feelings are involved.

In the case of adoption we have people coming at the issues from different perspectives and with vastly different levels of education (both formal and knowledge of adoption issues and history), varying levels of awareness and insight, varying levels of tact, and varying levels of  hurt and healing. 

Obviously there are going to be disputes. We cannot expect everything to just go along rosy. The issue is, how we deal with these disagreements, especially in the Internet age.

We all know that once a naked picture or sex tape gets on the Internet or the cloud it is there to stay. Permanent. (Irrevocable, like a relinquishment of parental rights!)  No do-overs. And no apology can ever erase it. 

Case in point: I googled "B J Lifton" adoptee, distinguished author, lecturer, and highly regarded figure in the history of adoption reform and this is, sadly, what came up. 

First two "hits" on the first page:

This is a huge embarrassment! For one thing, the whole rift was RESOLVED, but of course that, like retractions in newspapers is buried or non-existent.

Secondly, that it happened in the first place is ridiculous. Trifling!

It was wrong and that is why the conference organizers reascended their banishment of BJ from the conference. 

I posted about it as well because it so WRONG and i cna tell you that controversy "sells." My blog posy about this incident got more comments than ANY ever!! And BNs nearly crashed the stratosphere. 

We WILL disagree. Connecticut, which is getting ready to introduce a bill closing up the gap of the years not covered in the first bill that granted adoptee access, will prove once and for all that laws can and WILL be passed incrementally!  Hopefully (though I must admit doubtfully) it will end the name-calling and ruckus made by a small vocal (though not well known or recognized) group of adoptees who put more effort into dissing the hard work of others than trying to get any meaningful legislation passed. Hopefully, it will end their (fear-based) claim that "imperfect" or "unclean" access laws will never be changed. 

Of course the argument ignores the fact all access laws change the existing status quo of laws created to close records that were originally unsealed...and ignores prohibition that came and went. Laws come and go and are changed and amended all the time. It was never an argument that made any sense but it was - and is - the argument against "accepting compromises" - as if any of us want to! (And if those who complained the loudest actually did any work on legislation, they'd know that compromise is the name of the game and you try for as little as possible but have to give in order to get anything!)  

But I digress.

My point here is, and the lesson I hope we can all take from this is that when we disagree let's try to do it in PRIVATE message exchanges and not blast the Internet with our dirty laundry that will remain long after the issue has been resolved.  

Before pressing "POST" remember that you are not just hurting the individual or group you disagree with, but you are hurting the movement and our progress.  And try to disagree with dignity and respect. 

As another example, if you google my name, or my name +adoption you will find thousands of "hits."  One adoptive mother who got her panties in a crunch because I called her on the FACT that she adopted from the same convicted baby broker -  Lauryn Galindo  - used by Angelina Jolie. The ap in question apparently has the money and the inclination to keep her scathing reply to me among the first page of google results! So there it is. The world can see that when you are a mover and shaker and make waves, you upset people! Well shucks.  I ain't a "well-behaved" woman, I'm an activist! 

While we want to be outspoken and HEARD in our activism and NOT silenced, respect among and between us is always a good thing. 

Think long and hard before posting what you want YOUR legacy to be as well as the legacy of others of us. BJ did not deserve to be treated this way and surely does not deserve to be remembered for one of the ugliest scars on the entire history of adoption reform!  It was all much ado about nothing but has left it's mark for time immemorial.

And respect also goes to the heart of the BJ incident - respect for the language we use. None of us want to use language that would hurt another of us, but we also need to be left to use the language we ourselves are perfectly comfortable with,knowing full well the arguments against its use. I see it as exactly the same issue as Black vs African American. To each his own! And even those old-timers who cling to using negro, as the NAACP retains its original name. 

All oppressed groups of people demand and deserve to SELF-IDENTIFY, that often is very individual. 

These are blots on our history and hopefully though they remain have receded from the foreground and allowed us to focus our limited time and precious energy on the far more important issues of equal access, ending corruption, profiteering, coercion, exploitation and commodification. 

HUFFINGTON POST

TO ALL MY FRIEND,S FANS AND FOLLOWERS....

PLEASE FOLLOW ME AT http://HuffingtonPost.com/Mirah-Riben

I will likely still come here to VENT in ways that would be inappropriate for a more formal and more public venue....

But PLEASE do follow my Huff Posts because they are IMPORTANT issues that will benefit greatly from LIKES, SHARES and comments.

Private Adoption: White Knights or Flesh Peddlers

In the late 1980s Geraldo Rivera had a talk show. It was shortly after the world was rocked by the Joel Steinberg trial for the death of his adopted daughter Lisa. See all four short segments of the show to see Aaaron Britvan and Bill Pierece square off on private adoption. 

Part I of the four-part video of the program introduces the audience to Rebekah Dulik, a minor who was lured out-of-state and coached no to tell her parents where she was or that she was pregnant and having her child adopted.  

Judi Cochran of Children's Right of PA addresses Rebekah's situation. 

In Part II Adopters, Lisa and Earl who obtained a child by placing over 100 ads in newspapers. A home study was done a week after they took the baby home from the hospital.

Aaron Britvan, notorious adoption attorney and Bill Pierce, NCFA, who speaks out AGAINST private adoption. Britvan claims the Joel Steinberg case was not an adoption. Pierce and Cochran both set him straight.

Part III Aaron Britvan talks about baby brokers and slipshod adoption attorneys.

Britvan and Bill Pierce of NCFA debate whether Joel Steinberg adopted or abducted Lisa.

I speak out on behalf of the rights of the child in adoption, against private advertising, and for more regulations.

Part IV Aaron Britvan, Judi Cochran and Bill Pierce of NCFA discuss the usage of advertising for babies. Bill Pierece defends Edna Gladney agency. Pierce also compares ads for babies for sale to ads for escort services that are ads prostitution. 

How I Came to Meet Joan Rivers

As the nation mourned of the death of the beloved comic icon, I recalled my meeting with Joan Rivers when I was guest on her short-lived a daytime talk show, in March 1990.

But the story of how that came about began in 1987 with a horrific tragedy that garnered headlines of a “house of horrors” and a six year old girl called Lisa, who died after years of abuse.

In the dimly lit, filthy Greenwhich Village home of attorney Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum where Lisa had endured unspeakable abuses, police discovered a toddler boy tethered to a table leg in soiled diapers with a bottle of rancid milk. He, like Lisa, had been illegally adopted by the couple. Hedda, who once wrote children's books, was badly abused, and drug addicted. She was given immunity to testify against Joel who was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 8-1⁄3 to 25 years in prison.  He was denied parole twice and released after serving his time.

The media focused on how Lisa’s abuse had occurred for six years and no one, even in Lisa's school, had known or reported it. It was portrayed as an anomaly in terms of adoption that "slipped through the cracks."

I was writing articles, speaking at local and national conferences, and appearing on talk shows such as Geraldo, and the Morton Downey Jr. Show, twice addressing the need to unseal adoption records. Lisa’s death sent shock waves through the adoption community.

Adoptees of all ages identified with the two victims while mothers who had been persuaded to relinquish children for adoption in the hope they would be provided a better life, worried about the safety and well-being of their children. Could such a tragic end befall their children? How could this have happened?

These two adoptions were labeled “illegal” because Steinberg had failed to file final adoptions papers. Other than that, there was really not much difference between these adoptions and any other privately arranged, independent adoption. It was not then, and is still today, not uncommon or illegal for doctors and attorneys to arrange the transfer of custody of infants without an adoption agency involved in the process.  

In order to bring light to the loopholes in the adoption process, I organized a candle light vigil from Lisa's home to her Greenwich Village elementary a school. The march was televised and garnered news coverage we hoped would help prevent other such tragedies.

At the same time, I worked with the attorney general's office to identify and locate the mother of the toddler boy called Mitchell. I discovered that his mother was a teenager named Nicole Smigel who had kept her pregnancy a secret from her mother who had just hours to deal with finding out about the pregnancy and a baby being born.  The doctor who delivered the child said he had a friend (Joel Steinberg) who would adopt the baby. Nicole's mother, Grace Ann Smigel made all the arrangements.

I contacted Grace Ann and she was initially extremely vested in maintaining the secret. She had done everything so quickly. She never told her husband, Nicole's father or Nicole's grandmother. Nor did the baby father's know anything about his son or the decision to have him adopted. Grace Ann couldn't bear to break it to them that the baby in the headlines was THEIRS! She wanted to keep it all buried and just allow the child to be re-adopted by another family.

I called Grace Ann over a period of weeks.  Every time we spoke I impressed upon her that she and her grandson were given a second chance and that the only way she could be assured of his safety and well-being was to reclaim him. Finally, she and Nicole told the family the truth and reclaimed Nicole's son who she named him Travis.

My 1988 book, “shedding light on…The Dark Side of Adoption” was published with a dedication to Lisa.

And so, Joan Rivers, looking for hot trendy news issues for The Joan Rivers Show invited Grace Ann to describe how her grandson wound up in the midst of this front page horror story. Joan also wanted an "expert" to address adoption laws and explain how this was allowed to occur, and Grace Anne wanted me to be there with her.  And so the two of us were guests on the show along with Joyce Johnson author of “What Lisa Knew.” 

Also appearing on that same Joan Rivers Show was Joan’s friend Howard Stern who recently spoke at her funeral and Angela Bowie, former wife of David Bowie who had just written a tell-all that included how she caught her husband in bed with Mick Jagger!   (I remember being concerned for her young daughter was there with her, backstage, as she revealed this.)

My sister attended the taping with me as did some colleagues.  The Joan we met was professional and obviously wanting to be seen as more serious than her usual comedic persona by conducting an interview about a hot, but unpleasant topic as child abuse, as part of a series she was doing on secret-keeping.

When Joan interviewed Grace Ann, she was initially incredulous that her 17-year-old daughter had successfully hidden a pregnancy for more than nine months, especially from her own mother. Nicole had worn loose clothing and pooh-poohed questions about her modest weight gain. Joan, whose own daughter Melissa was not more than a teenager at the time, appeared sincere in her empathy with Grace Ann’s dilemma in trying to protect everyone.

Apparently, the public preferred Joan as a jokester, however, and the show was soon cancelled. Grace Ann and Nicole kept in touch with me, sending holiday cards and photos of Travis, and updated me until he got into college. My second book, THE STORK MARKET: America's Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry (2008) tells the story with photos.

WCBS-TC News coverage of the candlelight vigil for Lisa

The Tangled Web of Entitlement, Resentment and Justification

Entitlement is often spoken and written and blogged about in the adoption community. We know it fuels adoptions. But...do we recognize how deeply it motivates through justification.

I was watching a re-run of an old crime show on TV. The detective on a murder case commented on how feelings of entitlement  -  I deserve it (whatever "it" is) - especially when combined with feeling it unfair that others have what you feel entitled to, can lead to justifying most anything. The "it" could be a promotion, a husband or wife, wealth, fame... or a child.

Think about it. Rapists often it feel it unfair that women tease or simply say no after feeling they were led on. They feel entitled and take what they want, even with force. 

Child molesters justify their action because the children want their "affection." They believe they are being "good" and loving to the their victims.

Thieves, too often feel a deep sense of injustice that others have wealth and possession they cannot afford but feel entitled to. Same with white color criminals. they're just - in their justification - leveling an unfair playing field. 

Men who feel their wives are not giving them enough sexually, feel entitled and justified cheating. Women who catch their husbands cheating likewise use it to justify their doing likewise. It's only fair!

Injustice, unfairness, entitlement.... put them together and they justify taking anything by any means.

Infertility builds strong resentments and immense feelings of unfairness. Why can other women get pregnant so easily, even when they don't want to or are not ready, but they can't? UNFAIR!  Monumentally unfair when you "know" you would make as good or better a parent than teens who get pregnant... Infertile women and same sex couples hear about women aborting and they think how UNFAIR!  They read about mothers who abuse, neglect, abandon and they know it is UNJUST!  Entitlement is joined by it's first cousin:  resentment, bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly.

In adoption, this attitude and way of thinking is what allows prospective adopters in Finding Fernanda to ignore blatant signs of corruption and illegalities such as seeing multiple photos of the same child with different names or seeing the same name labeling photos of different children. They know it's not right and they ignore it because it might harm their chances of getting what they want, what they lust for and feel entitled to.

It is illustrated vividly in the documentary Wo Ai Ni (I Love You), Mommy that follows a woman as she goes to China to adopt. And there, in a hotel room, she counts out piles of cash on her hotel bed and says: "I know this looks wrong, but it's just how things are done." The essence, the very definition of justification!

Adoption differs however from crimes that are committed based on entitlement, resentment, envy and justification because adoption is not just socially accepted, it is encouraged and promoted. Those who adopt are treated as heroes.  . 

Bonus - adopters not only get what they long for, they initially receive compassion for the loss of their fertility and after adoption,  society's  admiration for rescuing an 'unwanted' child!  Win-win for them!

Society buys into "the ends justifies the means" hook, line and sinker. It matters not what bribes are paid, how mothers are coerced, how children are trafficked, or who is exploited... We - actors and society - ignore the exploitation of "them" as "other." "They" - destitute and desperate mothers are not "us."  The public can identify with the longing for a child to parent and care for, but cannot identify with being coerced or pressured, or merely lacking the resources to provide... They become "other" -- dehumanized - like enemies in war.   

And their children? The end up going to "better" homes. Our social mores and our laws put their seal of approval on anything goes tactics because the end justifies the means - any means.

The US State Dept even turned a blind eye when Guatemala revoked an adoption after affirming that Anyeli was kidnapped from her mother, Olga Rodriguez. DNA testing to deny or confirm the kidnapping allegation and was never orders  and the adoption of Anyeli Hernandez Rodriguez by Timothy and Jennifer Monahan's of Missouri was declared  "legal."

Kidnapping justified by not just the perpetrators, but by the highest law in the land.  Kidnapping justified by ethnocentric enlistment and the belief that the end - an American life - justified the means. (Similarly, many contested adoptions involve two states fighting for entitlement.) 

Reversing these motivators is no easy task. Simply exposing the exploitation and corruption has proven to have very limited effect. One country closes, another is targeted. Nothing will stop until the social justification ends. 

Reducing infertility would also help reduce demand, but we as a society do virtually no preventive education. Why bother, when you can "always adopt"?  Why prevent a problem that supports two multi-billion dollar industries - infertility and adoption?  certainly those profiting have no reason to help with prevention of infertility or family preservation.

The severest cases of adoption entitlement are seen in contested adoptions. The audacity of adopters to go to the lengths they do to fight loving, capable parents. The become obsessed in their belief of themselves as superior and more entitled to the child than th child's blood mother, father or both. They seem never to think how they will justify it to the child later in life when the child eventually reads the details and/or meets the loving/capable parents who fought to keep their child.

And the cause of many contested adoption are are broken openness promises once the adoption is finalized.

Birth/First Moms: Do you have an adopted child?

Moms, when you speak of your interest in adoption are you ever asked these two questions?:

• Are you an adoptive parent?
• Are you adopted?

It happens to me often because of my activism and because I am an author. When I am asked these questions it is almost always JUST THESE TWO questions. 

The third, and correct, option that makes adoption of personal interest to me is never considered....or is it that I don't fit the stereotype of a teenager or drug addict or impoverished woman?

I usually use it as an education moment. But today I was asked by the neighborhood gossip and just answered NO to both questions. But the I got to thinking...

She did not ask if i was an adoptive parent, she asked if I had an adopted child. .If she asked if I was an adoptive mother, that requires no thinking. 

But I'm a very literal person and I was asked if I have (had) an adopted child. Did I? Do you?

All of us have children who were adopted. Does that mean we have children who are adopted??

In a sense yes.

Do you ever say that you have a child who was "adopted out"? Do you hate that phrase? is it as bad as "given up" for adoption - a phrase which BTW was used on the fairly new TV show "MOM."

Threats to Family Presevation

Money. Demand. Lack of regulation of adoption"professionals," facilitators, and adoption agency business.

Exploitation. Coercion. Secrets and lies.

All of these are threats to the sanctity of families, particularly families in crisis and those lacking affluence.

Demand is a major part of the problem and demand will continue until such time as we face infertility as a major health problem and add information on reducing infertility risk to high school health education classes. of course, this is unlikely inasmuch as infertility supports several multi-billion dollar industries: infertility treatment and adoption... and now surrogacy. Until we stem the tide, nation after nation will be stripped of their children to meet the demand.

However there is another very important underlying cause of family disruption that is seldom if ever addressed:  The doctrine of "best interest."  

Best interest can be used to justify taking any child and placing him or her with a wealthier family who can provide more "advantages." As long as we as a culture place more value on material "advantages" than on connectedness, we will continue on a path of family destruction and recreation.

We see the very dangerous effects of this "best interest" doctrine in contested adoptions. Instead of being treated as kidnappings - which illegal, fraudulent or coercive adoptions are - the courts too often look at the "best interest" of the child...or at least those who hold the child captive from his or her family hope they will, and use delays and postponements to increase their boding time with the captive child.

In conjunction with this misused premise is the underlying belief that the end justifies the means.

This end-justifies-the-means belief is extremely dangerous in terms of adoption custody transfers as it can be used to condone a great many illegalities.  When end-justified is applied in adoption, it becomes OK to lie to mothers, dupe them, coerce then... all in an effort to remove their children to be raised by those deemed "better."

End-justifies-means has left Loyda Rodriguez's daughter, Anylie with Jennifer and Timothy Monahan despite Guatemala demanding the return of this kidnap victim.

End-justifies the means causes "desperate" for a child, prospective adopters top ignore blatant red lights, such as those delineated in the book Finding Fernanada and to condone paying bribes, as seen in the film Wo Ai Ni (I Love You) Mommy.

Entitlement? Yes. But entitlement is a personal feeling. But it takes the cultural acceptance of best-interest and end-justifies-the-means to uphold policies and court decisions that support personal beliefs of one party's entitlement over another's.

And the underlying prejudice in play in all of this is that wealth equals entitlement and less affluent parents are less fit and less able to provide for their child's "best interest" based on their financial status.

Biology, blood, genetics sadly seem to hold no sway in weighing a child's best interest. We as a society put no importance on these factors except when a doctor asks our medical history or when a baby is born and relatives debate who the newborn resembles most or parents want to take credit for their offspring's abilities or talents.

Buying is NOT Adoptiing

Russell D. Moore identifies himself as an "Ethicist" though he is obviously an ethicist with strong "Christian" beliefs and a single-minded purpose to defend certain "Christian" world views, in particular Southern Baptists, including adoption expressed here. 

Had Moore been around before the Civil War, he most assuredly would have found ETHICAL arguments in favor of the buying, owning and perhaps even torturing human beings. 

Regarding homosexuality, Moore says it's Ok to welcome them into your home, but not to attend their weddings. He cautions pastors to recognize that: "more than likely people in your congregation that struggle themselves or love people that struggle or have a neighbor who walks in that lifestyle" suggesting that all gays struggle. (Wonder how he feels about transgendered folk at his dinner table, or Jews, or atheists?)

But when it comes to Snowflake babies, he is not just accepting of embryo adoption, he ENCOURAGES it! Hallelujah: More soldiers for Christ! A totally helpless source of converts up for grabs for those who can pay the price tag for high end, high quality merchandise rather than accept into their hearts and homes the children of poor, unwed, possibly addicted mothers. Just as Christ himself would have encouraged! Amen, 

Moore says: "Adopting an embryo is the exact same thing morally and ethically as adopting a child in any other way."

REALLY?  Choosing an embryo is exactly the same as taking a child foster care? Even having a child of one's own, naturally, is not the same as taking a child from foster care. And this man calls himself an ethicist!      Me thinks the man greatly confuses legally the same with morally and ethically the same,

Missing the point totally Moore goes on:

"[S]ometimes people will say, 'A Snowflake adoption is the wrong thing to do because of the ethical problems with in vitro fertilization.' That is not the case, because what is happening with Snowflake adoption is not the creation of new people through in vitro fertilization. This is actually rescuing already conceived persons who are locked away in cryogenic storage units. So adopting an embryo is the exact same thing morally and ethically as adopting a child in any other way."

"The exact same thing morally and ethically as adopting a child any other way."  YES, if you judge ALL adoption as unethical and immoral!

In my moral and ethical view not all adoptions are equal - not by a long shot!

Adoptions run the gamut from downright illegal black market trade is trafficked, kidnap victims, to children who were coerced from mothers with lies and false promises ranging from telling mothers who cannot read English that their children are coming to america (or Western Europe) for an education, to falsely promising American mothers an "open adoption" or threatening that they will have to repay medical expenses if they do not go through with a relinquishment.

Far too many adoptions involve coercion and exploitation and profiteering. Far too few adoptions are in the best interest of the child.  Every child has a right to be remain with a capable parent or relative before being placed with unrelated strangers and given a new identity.

Any and every adoption - even necessary placements - that falsifies a child's authentic identity and denies him access to that information, is an act not that child's best interest, and that includes step-parent adoptions in 49 of 51 states in this country.

Every child who is taken from a perfectly capable mother who has been convinced that she is too young or too poor or simply not of the "proper" martial status to raise a child, is immoral and unethical. Every child taken by the state to meet a quota or gain increased federal funding is immoral.

Moore and his ilk are not ignorant to the fact that children are priced by skin color, age and health and thus frozen embryos of WHITE babies from non-addicted parents are of value. They are also not ignorant of the corruption and child trafficking for adoption that has closed countries like Guatemala or the abuse of adopted children that closed adoptions from Russia.

Moore and others of his persuasion turn a blind eye to all of these despicable practices not out of ignorance that they exist. After all, Southern Baptists and other fundamental Christians are all well aware of the uproar over failed adoption attempts of over-zealous missionaries in Haiti. And, they are all now aware of Kathryn Joyce's expose, The Baby Catchers.

No, it is not ignorance of the lack of regulation in the multi-billion dollar adoption industry and the commercialization of "Snowflake" embryo selling... it is the firm conviction that the end justifies the means.

In their case, the end justifies getting a convert by any means possible.  But make no mistake about it. This same "end justifies the means" logic is what keeps the entire public blind to every dark aspect of adoption practice! The average person - as well as our most prestigious adoption organizations (AAC) and think tanks (Evan B. Donaldson) remain firm that DESPITE abuses, adoption is to be supported and encouraged, because in the end, the child is getting a good life...probably better economically, than what he might have had otherwise.

These pro-adoptionsist will stand loud and proud and declare that "THE MAJORITY" of adoptions are in fact happily ever after, DESPITE a few ugly "anomalies" and despite recognizing that adoption is "the wild west" and anyone can hang a shingle" and arrange adoptions, not one piece of legislation has been proposed to reign in on the unregulated industry.

In adoption practice "ethical" is undefined making the term "ethical adoption" and oxymoron on a level with "civil war",  "friendly fire" and "peacekeeper" bombs.  Embryo adoption, like sperm or egg "donor" is an exact equivalent of "paid volunteer" - a classic oxymoron. Selling is NOT donating; buying is NOT adopting!!!

We have slipped so far down on morals that we have come to totally accept that "fees" are justifiable and paying $40,000 or more to adopt is ethical and makes sense...so it's a very easy slope from that to buying eggs, sperm and embryos, without a thought to the moral imperative against buying and selling human beings!

Adoptions are not all equal and they are certainly not all ethical.

Every adoption that pressures a mother to relinquish a newborn, every international adoption and every embryo adoption (or surrogate birth) ....  is one more adoption for the purpose of filing a demand and NOT for the purpose of finding homes for children who COULD be adopted from US foster care. How are they moral equivalents, Mr.Moore?

How is buying yourself a white blue-eyed baby from parents who had the wherewithal to pay for IVF to begin with,  in any way, shape or form equal to opening your heart to an older child or sibling group? How is taking a child from his culture and heritage equal to helping a child to have his needs met within his own nation by donating to charities that build schools and provide water and medical care where needed?

I wonder where Mr. Moral stands on the sale of egg and sperm and commercial surrogacy? After all, if life begins at conception then surely these practices involve selling the building blocks of life and should be far more egregious than organ selling, which is illegal because of it preys on the poor and vulnerable as does adoption. But the again, masturbation: spilling. wasting and MURDERING the seed of life has never been condemned as abortion. Yes, spare the unborn - they are marketable commodities.

And, after all, all these methods have the added bonus of being able to actually BIRTH a baby. So tell me again ho this is "exactly the same as adoption by any other means'?

Not only does one get the entire pregnancy and delivery experience, but it very conveniently makes it all to easy to never feel any necessity reveal to ANYONE - not even the human being being manufactured - that he or she is not EXACTLY THE SAME as any child created totally naturally by you, the way God intended babies to be created...(even in "wrong" tummies, sometimes).

Where is YOUR moral and ethical compass Mr. Ethicist?  Mr. Ruseel D. (have a gay to dinner and buy white babies) Moore.

But what can we expect from a group who defended slavery - even quoting bible versus to support their argument. In one Baptist minister’s words, slavery “stands as an institution of God.” They claimed slaves were treated with kindness and slavery brought "heathens to a Christian land where they can hear the gospel" just as adoption does today.

Golden Cradle

She was 23 in a long term unmarried relationship and pregnant. 

They forced a closed adoption on us, we wanted open, and we decided on a adoption as I was in labor, not a day before that did this cross our minds, so we were NOT educated in any way shape or form. We didn't know we had a choice. 

An adoption lawyer told me that she and her colleagues always brings bagels or doughnuts to the nurses . . . .That is wrong. And it should have been a concern to the whole medical department, including my doctor, who knew how excited I was and etc about my son. I was very ready for him, yet a day or two before I said I wanted an adoption. I only got to meet with the agency for an hour and while I was medicated, then I did change my mind the day I was discharged but I still went through with the adoption because I was panicking and not sleeping, disoriented and very confused. And now, even though I am in my right to revoke it, they are coming up with a million and one reasons why they cannot return him. I know I will have my son back. I KNOW it. And I am sure after this, I will be helping out as many women as I can so I can prevent them from going through this.

This is the kind of stuff women get into when they get hormonal and are not properly educated and get scared. My son did NOT need to be placed for adoption. 

This did not happen in  the 1960s or the 70s or 80s.  It did not happen inn the 20th century.

It happened in APRIL, 2014 in the USA, not a third world country.  It happened in Gegisinger Wyoming Valley Hospital, in Wilkes Barre, Pa.

The agency, Golden Cradle, is located in [Cherry Hill] Nj, and they basically performed a Pa adoption except that the termination of parental rights was through Nj. The adoptive parents were an hour away from me. They didn't need an ICPC paper because [the baby] wasn't leaving the state, etc. The Nj paper just allowed me to have "irrevocable" parental rights. When I served them court paper for the release of my son, they panicked. Said he was in Nj with the parents I picked and was assured were in Pa, that I signed the 100a form, and it was Nj legal. But at court yesterday, they admitted the family and my son were in Pa, but that Nj had jurisdiction because their office is in Nj and I singed the ICPC contract and my termination of my rights. Basically, they did a Pa adoption and didn't think I would fight it, so they didn't do the correct paperwork. And when they noticed I would fight it, they panicked, forged a 100A paper, and now even filed for the adoption to be finalized in NJ 3 months after my son's birth. And from my understanding, also 3 months before they are allowed to, as in NJ they need 6 months of placement with the adoptive parents to finalize the adoption. 

under PA law, I have revoked the consent for adoption, several times already ( I am in my right to do so, since I am a resident of Pa, I gave birth in Pa, my son is still a resident of Pa with his adoptive parents, I signed in Pa and was Pa notarized, only thing I did was sign an Nj paper that said my parental rights would be terminated through Nj). 

The dad signed after me at the coercion of the agency, because I already singed away so it was basically "a done deal, and he didn't really want full custody of a newborn". Their words to him. He was just as hesitant as I was about this.

Why are predatory practices like this allowed? We do not allow funeral directors to solicit business to families of terminal patients in hospitals, why do we as a nation allow adoption agencies to prey on women in labor???

They HAVE committed fraud, and I am on my way to undoing it, but I know that having testimony against them will help in every way possible. Anything helps. 

I am of course going to have to go back again to court to fight this (already went yesterday for the first time), and it was even found that they have falsified my signature on an 100A paper for the ICPC (because they claimed my son was not in Pa, but at least they admitted that he was). 

You can help this mom and dad get their son back. 

If you have dealt with Golden Cradle or have any documentation of a pattern of coercive/deceptive adoption practices by Golden Cradle please contact me.

In a recent discussion of this case, while at linch with senator Diane Allen (D:NJ) after the bill signing, the senator's aid said some babies need to be signed away immediately in the hospital or they'd just be abandoned.  But this was not the case. Mothers can be discharged and babies can remain until decisions are made. Foster care can be provided until a mother can think with a clear head, and discuss option with her family and the bay's father and his family, perhaps, if appropriate. CARE of the baby is certainly necessary, but that does not neccesitate or justify pressuring a mother into a lifelong IRREVOCABLE permanent decision for herself, the child, and many other extended family that will be affected by the loss....in a moment of confusion! 

PROSPECTIVE ADOPTERS BEWARE!!!

You need to know about such predatory and coercive policies and avoid agencies that utilize them because if you engage in a slipshod adoption like this, you risk bonding with a child who may be returned to his or her rightful blood kin who want him and are capable of caring for him!

We have known about the sleazy, aggressive practices of Golden cradle since car part salesman Artie Elgart started it. I wrote about it in the Dark Side of Adoption in 1988.

This agency started out with billboards and fast food tray liner MARKETING campaigns. their goal was always clear: Finding babies to meet the demand of paying clients. they commonly housed expectant mothers with would-be adoptive parents. 

UPDATE:
A mother who relinquished through Golden Cradle in 1982 wrote in response to this blog post of her experience in an effort to help:

"Promised open.....never happened. Promised she would go to wealthy family that owned mansion and chain of restaurants....they lived in one berm apartment, were waitress and bartender...Drugged me up so much that I thought insects were crawling one me....Was bullied by attorney at hospital bedside and threatened with huge hospital bill....Called me a birth thing from day one and counseled me constantly in infertility, baby was never called mine...many things...
They said I could not take her home that she would have to go to foster care because contemplating adoption makes one unfit in the eyes of the law...I already had a child and they said that child would be taken from me too. He was twenty one months old..."

There is a long, clear PATTERN of coercive practices. 

Golden Cradle's Federal 990s up until recently said that they were non profit to "prevent cruelty to children".

Adoption Activism History: The ORIGINAL ORIGINS

Before there was Origins in Australia or the UK, and LONG before Origins-USA .... back in the pre-Internet dark ages ...

In 1980, five women from New Jersey found one another and formed the original "ORIGINS: an organization for women who lost children to adoption."

We put out a national bi-monthly newsletter and held local in-person meetings for more than a decade.

We were pioneers! I was on the Mort Downey Jr. Show twice with adoptees and adoptive parents bringing light to the issue that was never even spoken about before. I was later on the Joan Rivers Show talking about the Joel Steinberg case, with Grace Smeigel.

The five founders of The Original ORIGINS were: MaryAnne Cohen, Allison Ward, Lucy Pare, Evelyn Ziemtez and myself. 

Mary Anne Cohen is the poet laureate of adoption reform.

Lucy Pare gained national infamy in a "sting:" set up by a TV news network to catch evil mothers trying to find and "stalk" their lost children by paying money to an "underground" searcher.  They sent a couple pretending to be birthparents to infiltrate one of our meetings! The news reports of her being "caught in the act" made her look like a dug dsealer exchanging money for information in a parking lot. But, when they made it known it was a sting and shone lights and cameras on a stunned Lucy, she stood her ground and compared her work to the underground railraod that helped slaves escape and let them know it was CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE to disobey laws that kept mothers and their children apart!

Left to right: MaryAnne Cohen, Sherry Chait, Mirah Riben, Washington DC, 1989. 

First national Match on Washington DC to unseal adoption records. 

We are holding our ORIGINS quilt made with patches for our lost children and our logo in the center.

This hearty group including Marilyn Bursen, Judy Taylor, Sharon Bell, and Joe Soll...

marched from NYC to Washington where they were joined by hundred of others of us.

This entire March and SpeakOut at the Washington Memorial was organized by Origins, the AAC and Council for Equal Rights in Adoption (CERA), without the Internet! We were a powerful and strong network of support group across the country! 

WE BELIEVE YOU, Dylan Farrow!

I believe you first and foremost because, as Mackenzie Philips said: Why would you lie?  What you did in speaking your truth to power took incredible courage and strength of character. I wholeheartedly believe you and applaud you, support you and defend you.

Woody Allen became officially labeled a pedophile in my book the day his affair with Soon Yi was exposed.  I personally have not seen a Woody Allen movie since. Their continued affair and subsequent marriage removed any and all doubt in that case!

My refusal on principal to see his films has led, over the years, to many passionate discussions of his creative genius to which I reiterate my firm conviction that I personally will not ever spend one red cent out of my pocket to support this incestuous pedophile.

The argument that it was not "technically" incest, or that she MAY have been - or he may have THOUGHT she was older than she was...are all irrelevant. Their age difference alone, and his money and power, made it INAPPROPRIATE!

Those who defend Allen's actions with Soon Yi as not incestuous - are they saying that it is OK for all adoptive fathers to seduce their adoptive daughters/ What about step-fathers?  That's OK too? It wasn't so OK in the movie Precious - nor is it ever in real life OK for a mother's boyfriend to rape or even carry on a consensual relationship with his girlfriend's child.

His relationship with Soon Yi's MOTHER, Mia Farrow, made him Soon Yi's psychological step-father at the very least, and their relationship - no matter how log lasting -  inappropriate in its origins and indicative of his lack of healthy boundaries.

Woody Allen's Women

At 19 Allen married a 16-year old named Harlene Rosen. He then married Louise Lasser and never married again until Soon Yi.  Diane Keaton - whose given name is Annie Hall - was chosen to replace Mia Farrow in the co-starring role for Manhattan Murder Mystery. Allen and Farrow were on the rocks professionally and personally and Keaton stepped in in both roles. Their romantic relationship over, they reportedly remain friends

He next had an affair with but did not marry, Stacey Nelson, who like the others was featured in his films. Woody has such power over young, impressionable and powerless GIRLS that his former young lover, Stacey Nelkin, recently went public -- not prove his pattern of sick behavior (which he displays in some of his mvie plot) - but to defend the man who at 41 was in a relationship with her when she was just 17.  Power is indeed corrupting, and this unattractive, nerdy creep mesmerizes young. impressionable women by putting them in his movies!

Woody's infamous relationship with Mia Farrow began approximately 1980 and ended in 1992 whens the proverbial shit hit the fan in the form of photos taken by Allen of her daughter Soon Yi.

I Am Not Alone

I am far from the only one who believes Dylan's accusations are factual and Woody Allen's actions less than stellar. Bravo to Perez Hilton for her piece, Woody Allen's Molestation Accusations From Dylan Farrow: 10 Facts You Need to Know!  A must read.

Many who live with and have studied the intricacies of adoption and the effects on those whose lives are touched by this circumstances KNOW that absence of kinship reduces the technical or legal taboo on incest and puts adoptees - including those in step-parent adoptions - at higher risk than non-adoptees for sexual abuse, not just by adoptive parents but also by siblings. We know and recognize this dynamic on foster care but somehow wish to turn a blind-eye to it in adoptive families.

The reasons lie in the entrenched belief of adoption as a "good" in our society with the lobbying power of a mega billion dollar industry to promote it as such. Adoption is romanticized as a win-win where in a homeless unwanted orphan is rescued by a childless couple desperately yearning for a child to love and complete their family and lives. It is also, as a publisher once told me, our 'fall-back' position for child care and we need cannot afford to see its flaws.

And, after all, part of believing in the myths that surround adoption are the one that assure us that those who adopt are carefully screened and vetted in addition to being highly motivated to begin with. After all, they didn't just have a child by chance or accident.

Those of us in the know, however, know all too well of the "forever" families that abandon their kids, re-home them or send them off to ranches or boarding school. We know of ALL kinds of unspeakable, incomprehensible abuses that adopted children have endured at the hands of their "saviors" - being caged, burned, starved, forced to drink hot sauces and take cold showers, left to live outdoors... We know of the sexual abuses and, yes, even the murders that have taken place at the hands 'noble' altruistic adopters.

We know, as Nicole Soojung Callahan writes, that in the case of Dylan Farrow her adoptive status matters, and matters very much both in the horror she lived through and in the public's ability to believe her or not.

“Because adoption involves children moving from a family of lesser privilege, that move is often seen as an unequivocal good,” Gretchen Sisson told me. “These children are avoiding whatever circumstances of their birth — poverty, a teen mother, a life in a developing country, etc. — have been deemed unsuitable. This makes adoptive parents into rescuers; they are providing their child with a ‘better life.’ Abuse is incompatible with this idea, as is the idea that adopted people should speak out about their abuse. After all, might they not still be better off if they hadn’t been adopted?”

We believe you! Allen is a pedophile and adoption is a breeding ground for non-technical incest.

We know what a farce home studies that are paid for by prospective adopters are and that salaries of those who work for adoption agencies are paid for only by completed adoptions.  We know of all the other pedophiles such as Mancuso and William Peckenpaugh, and we know the sordid history of the agency though which you were adopted, almost as notorious as the Baby Seller, Georgia Tann who also served the rich and famous.

We know that money talks in adoption and buys adorable, curly blonde-haired, blue eyes prizes liek you were -- looking just like A Shirley Temple version of Little Orophan Annie!

Dylan you are not alone. The adoption reform community stands with you as you expose just one of many ugly truths of the scared cow that is adoption. Too many of us have walked a mile in your shoes, abused by those entrusted to care for us... raped by those who committed to our care and protection... You are not alone!