Q: Should Congress pass a law requiring adoption agencies provide services to all potential parents, including gays, lesbians and single parents? Or should agencies continue to set their own adoption policies?
This question is being asked of social workers in light of adoption is becoming increasingly entangled in the gay rights struggle.
It seems to lead to a further conundrum: Should all adoption agencies be bound by the same rules or should religious agencies be allowed to follow their own set of standards and restrictions beyond those set by the state?
I think of myself at the time I was being pressured to relinquish my daughter. I was being convinced that my child deserved two parents: a mother and a father. That was reason number one for me to lose my parental rights, as it was for nearly all in that era. Thus, I would have been devastated, as many of us from that generation were, if I had found out that my child had been placed with or wound up being raised by, a single parent. (Gay couples did adopt at all back then. It was more unheard of than single parenting.)
Although I have never been religious and was in fact raised by parents who I jokingly refer to as non-practicing atheists, I was strongly aware of my Jewish ethnicity and as such selected a Jewish adoption agency so that my daughter would be raised in that heritage and culture. I trusted that by selecting an agency of a particular denomination, my child would be placed within that community. Not so for all who did likewise. As we collectively found out after the fact, once we sign the papers we lose all control. Our children became chattel of the agency to do with as they see fit, or shall I say what profits them most. And so, many of the babies placed with New York's most infamous Jewish agency, Louise Wise, were placed in non-Jewish homes.
So, on the one hand I believe that agencies should be able to provide specific services for those who desire such. However, if they are not going to able by the wishes of the mother anyhow, then why give them that power?
My own personal case is again enlightening. I chose an agency called Jewish Chid Care Association of New York (JCCA) now also known as Ametz. I was trying very hard to obtain the support needed to keep my daughter and delayed signing papers for six months at which time the arm twisting was too intense to resist any longer. I was told - it being 1967 - that to delay my decsion beyond six months would deem her "unadoptable" since it was a buyers market at the time with a huge inventory of infants. I was told she'd bond with her foster mother and no one would want to adopt her. In essence, sign by six months or doom her to a life of foster care. I signed.
Never during any of this process was I ever informed that she was being fostered by an Italian Catholic family in the Bronx. Mind you, I had not signed away my parental rights during this period and yet was uninformed that although I chose a Jewish agency and requested - assumed - a Jewish home for my child, that she was living in a Catholic home (albeit a very loving and caring family).
Oddly, despite the hard sell to sign by six months so she could be adopted, she was not adopted until she was a year of age. Again something I was never informed of.
Many years later, I was horrified to learn that my daughter had endured this horrible transfer at the age of a year - when she was in fact calling her foster mother Mommy. When I confronted the agency about their reason for doing this I was informed - more than a decade after - that the reason was that I requested a Jewish home for my daughter. Yes I had, but I was never asked if that criteria over-rode her remaining with a loving family with whom she had lived since birth and was very bonded....a family who despertaely wabted to adopt her.
What does all of this mean and how does it relate to the original question? I guess my feelings on the issue are that the MOTHERS who are relinquishing should have a right to selection criteria for their children while they are still their mothers and have the right to do so. They should be able to request a married man and a stay-at-home mother if that is their choice, or practicing Buddhists, an interracial couple, a single working mother, or two Daddies. Their choice - like the choice of who one dates, marries or creates a child with - is a personal one with personal criteria and not bound by laws of discrimination, civil equal rights.
But these are not the questions being asked. And when they are asked, they are not always upheld any more than requests for open adoption are...because when you relinquish your rights, you relinquish ALL of your rights.
The questions are always: how does adoption best serve the paying clientele? Can they "discriminate" against those willing to pay their fees, or should adoption be mandated like the sale of homes to be done blindly of any any discrimination?
Whose rights are paramount in adoption?
Whose rights should be paramount?
Since adoption is a privilege - not a right or entitlement - I see no reason why agencies and individuals in private adoption - cannot set criteria as they please, hopefully in the best interest of the child.
Let me be clear and forthcoming and state that is a radial as i am about adoption, I am equally as radical in all my liberal views and fully support same sex marriage as the right of adults to do as they chose. I also want to clearly state that I do not believe that either hetero- or homo-sexuals are inherently good or bad parents. I believe in fact that same sex parents may be optimal for, for instance, a gay child. I do not hold with the nonsensical and ttoally unproven mythology that homosexuality is learned nor that gay parnts would encourage it.
Discrimination based on age, sexual orientation, ethnicity has no place whatsoever in home sales or apartment rentals, employment etc. But children are not a commodity. They are human beings with their own right to the best care possible. Adoption agencies have always use selection criteria to screen who is best suited to parent based on facts such as age with precious few outcries of discrimination. I see no violation of anyone's rights in continuing to make such selection criteria based on the choices of mothers and the particular agencies religious or ethnic affiliation. I believe a Mormon agency has a right to place children only with Mormon families. I think we can no more legislate how a religious agency acts than we can legislate the dogma of their religion. If you don't agree with their beliefs, you simply pray at another house of worship or not at all. As a Jew, I would no more apply to adopt a child from an Amish adoption agency - if one existed and if I wanted to adopt - and then scream that they were discriminating against me.
I do not see adoption as part of the gay rights issues as adoption is not a right for anyone, nor as it is an age discrimination issue. The only discriminated against parties in adoption are those denied equal access to birth certificates on which they are named and i find it sad that gay rights are eclipsing that issue.
What do you think?
Showing posts with label Ametz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ametz. Show all posts
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Help Requested
I am posting to solicit your concrete suggestions as well as moral support.
Tomorrow night I will be attending:
FREE HOW TO ADOPT DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY MEETINGS - NY AND NJ
For those looking into adoption: In this time of economic worries and limited adoption options, Ametz rolls back the cost of attending out initial HOW TO ADOPT DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY MEETINGS. Come to these FREE sessions to learn the ins and outs, and possible options of domestic and international adoption, without committing to the process or JCCA. Co-Presenting: Ametz partner agency, Children's Home Society & Family Services.
Kathy Brodsky, LCSW
Director, Ametz Adoption Program/JCCA
120 Wall Street - NYC - NY - 10005
212-558-9949
www.jccany.org
NY and NJ licensed agency
Full Hague Accreditation through 2013
WHY Have I Registered to Attend?
Ametz, aka JCCA which stands for Jewish Child Care Association, was "my" agency.
My daughter, Alicia was born July 15, 1967. I refused to sign papers and Alicia was placed with a foster family while I tried to get my life together - without the help of my parents who wanted me to relnquish. I was able to visit her in a sterile room at the agency -- picture an interrogation room on any CSI show: table, two chairs and a huge two-way mirror occupying almost an entire wall. I knew they were watching to see if I would harm my daughter in any way. It was too awkward and surreal to imagine.
I never saw the foster mom and she never saw me. She handed "the baby" to a social worker and disappeared. Then "the baby" was handed to me in this room.
It being 1967, I was told repeatedly -badgered - that if I did not sign papers by the time she was 6 months old she become "unadoptable." And so on the day she turned 6 months old I finally caved. I have no idea what I signed because the papers were drenched with my tears that blurred my vision and I was never given a copy of what I signed. I left the agency in the same zombie-like state I entered and proceeded to medicinally numb myself for the next year or so...
Fast forward ten or twelve years. Late 70s, early 80's. I co-founded the original Origins. We held monthly support group meetings and as a result I began to see some mothers' relinquishment papers. It became very clear very quickly the wde variation of wording. Some stated that the mother agreed never to have any contact with her child. Some said she agreed not to have any contact during his minor years. Some said nothing about the future or any contact whatsoever.
So...wanting to find my daughter ad planning to initiate a search as soon as humanly possibly, I wrote to "my agency" and told them that having seen these varied agreements, unless I had a copy of what I had agreed to - how would I know if I was in violation of that agreement?
I was seeking a copy of my relinquishment papers - papers that preceded any adoption and had nothing that could identify her new identity or the adoptive family.
I was denied.
I wrote again and again over the years. I was told that the freedom of information did not apply to non-governmental agencies.
In 1982 I learned her new identity and wrote to her parents offering any medical history or anything else they might need. Sometime after meeting her aps and then my daughter, I wrote again to the agency naming her aps and saying that since I already knew who they were, could I now have a copy of my relinquishment papers that do not identify them anyhow. Still no.
In meeting her aps, I also found out that despite the pressure on me to relinquish by the time she was 6 months old, she remained in her foster home until she was a year old and calling her foster mother "Mommy" and then was suddenly removed when an appropriately approved adoptive family - with 3 biological sons - appeared.
In 1995, when I found out accidentally that my daughter took her life at 27 years of age I wrote yet again to JCCA. I was STILL denied even redacted copies - or even a BLANK FORM so that I could see the wording used in 1967 and thus know what I had agreed to or not.
So, why am I going? What do I hope to gain?
I want to pubkically confront Kathy Brodsky who refused me in writing in recent years.
I am VERY OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS. The following plan came to me while presenting at the ARM conference because I was on a panel with mothers who had lost children to death at birth or later. They made the connection and were very receptive to the loss we experience in adoption. So, I thought I would use that connection and empathy...
My plan is to wait until Q & A and then stand up say the following:
Most of us here in this room have experienced loss: loss of the dream of a pregnancy, misscarriage, possibly still birth. We know the pain of loss and want to maintain memories of our lost babies in any way we can. No longer are mothers told not to hold their babies who have not survived. We know now that mothers need remembrances.
Yet, I who have lost my daughter am denied any semblance of any shred of evidence that she was ever born to me and existed. (Not really true, as I DO have both her original and amended BCs). But I will let all in the room know that Kathy Brodsky and JCCA have denied me a copy of a "contract" I signed - something that is unacceptable in any other legal agreement.
What does that say about the ethics of Ametz?
Your thoughts, feedbacks and prayers encouraged...PLEASE!
Tomorrow night I will be attending:
FREE HOW TO ADOPT DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY MEETINGS - NY AND NJ
For those looking into adoption: In this time of economic worries and limited adoption options, Ametz rolls back the cost of attending out initial HOW TO ADOPT DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY MEETINGS. Come to these FREE sessions to learn the ins and outs, and possible options of domestic and international adoption, without committing to the process or JCCA. Co-Presenting: Ametz partner agency, Children's Home Society & Family Services.
Kathy Brodsky, LCSW
Director, Ametz Adoption Program/JCCA
120 Wall Street - NYC - NY - 10005
212-558-9949
www.jccany.org
NY and NJ licensed agency
Full Hague Accreditation through 2013
WHY Have I Registered to Attend?
Ametz, aka JCCA which stands for Jewish Child Care Association, was "my" agency.
My daughter, Alicia was born July 15, 1967. I refused to sign papers and Alicia was placed with a foster family while I tried to get my life together - without the help of my parents who wanted me to relnquish. I was able to visit her in a sterile room at the agency -- picture an interrogation room on any CSI show: table, two chairs and a huge two-way mirror occupying almost an entire wall. I knew they were watching to see if I would harm my daughter in any way. It was too awkward and surreal to imagine.
I never saw the foster mom and she never saw me. She handed "the baby" to a social worker and disappeared. Then "the baby" was handed to me in this room.
It being 1967, I was told repeatedly -badgered - that if I did not sign papers by the time she was 6 months old she become "unadoptable." And so on the day she turned 6 months old I finally caved. I have no idea what I signed because the papers were drenched with my tears that blurred my vision and I was never given a copy of what I signed. I left the agency in the same zombie-like state I entered and proceeded to medicinally numb myself for the next year or so...
Fast forward ten or twelve years. Late 70s, early 80's. I co-founded the original Origins. We held monthly support group meetings and as a result I began to see some mothers' relinquishment papers. It became very clear very quickly the wde variation of wording. Some stated that the mother agreed never to have any contact with her child. Some said she agreed not to have any contact during his minor years. Some said nothing about the future or any contact whatsoever.
So...wanting to find my daughter ad planning to initiate a search as soon as humanly possibly, I wrote to "my agency" and told them that having seen these varied agreements, unless I had a copy of what I had agreed to - how would I know if I was in violation of that agreement?
I was seeking a copy of my relinquishment papers - papers that preceded any adoption and had nothing that could identify her new identity or the adoptive family.
I was denied.
I wrote again and again over the years. I was told that the freedom of information did not apply to non-governmental agencies.
In 1982 I learned her new identity and wrote to her parents offering any medical history or anything else they might need. Sometime after meeting her aps and then my daughter, I wrote again to the agency naming her aps and saying that since I already knew who they were, could I now have a copy of my relinquishment papers that do not identify them anyhow. Still no.
In meeting her aps, I also found out that despite the pressure on me to relinquish by the time she was 6 months old, she remained in her foster home until she was a year old and calling her foster mother "Mommy" and then was suddenly removed when an appropriately approved adoptive family - with 3 biological sons - appeared.
In 1995, when I found out accidentally that my daughter took her life at 27 years of age I wrote yet again to JCCA. I was STILL denied even redacted copies - or even a BLANK FORM so that I could see the wording used in 1967 and thus know what I had agreed to or not.
So, why am I going? What do I hope to gain?
I want to pubkically confront Kathy Brodsky who refused me in writing in recent years.
I am VERY OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS. The following plan came to me while presenting at the ARM conference because I was on a panel with mothers who had lost children to death at birth or later. They made the connection and were very receptive to the loss we experience in adoption. So, I thought I would use that connection and empathy...
My plan is to wait until Q & A and then stand up say the following:
Most of us here in this room have experienced loss: loss of the dream of a pregnancy, misscarriage, possibly still birth. We know the pain of loss and want to maintain memories of our lost babies in any way we can. No longer are mothers told not to hold their babies who have not survived. We know now that mothers need remembrances.
Yet, I who have lost my daughter am denied any semblance of any shred of evidence that she was ever born to me and existed. (Not really true, as I DO have both her original and amended BCs). But I will let all in the room know that Kathy Brodsky and JCCA have denied me a copy of a "contract" I signed - something that is unacceptable in any other legal agreement.
What does that say about the ethics of Ametz?
Your thoughts, feedbacks and prayers encouraged...PLEASE!
Friday, May 23, 2008
Immoral, But Lawful?
...but what else is new? It's adoption!
As some may know, I have been asking my agency - Jewish Child Care Association (aka JCCA aka Ametz) for a copy of the surrender papers I signed in 1968 for approximately 30 years.
I was told that the NYC agency was not permitted, by law, to reveal that information, despite knowing that I had found my daughter, been reunited, and that she was now deceased.
I asked what law prohibited them from telling me. I was told on April 21, 2008:
However, what I do know is this: I did a search for the word "surrender" since I was asking for was a copy of my surrender or relinquishment of parental rights papers. You can see them highlighted. A search for parental rights yielded nothing.
So, while these regulations may pertain to adoption records, the surrender of parental rights is taken PRIOR to any adoption and these regaulations do not seem yo apply to then, as they are not mentioned therein. It seems as if when they were written there was absolutely no thought whatsoever given to any "rights" of the surrendering parent. Rights? What rights? Clearly not one thought to our right to papers we signed, or to any alleged "promises" of privacy.
Mothers will be interested in the section in bold about what information is available to aps, however... so much for the "protection" of our confidentiality once again!
§ Section 372. Records and reports. 1. Every court, and every public board,
commission, institution, or officer having powers or charged with duties in relation to abandoned, delinquent, destitute, neglected or dependent children who shall receive, accept or commit any child shall provide and keep a record showing: (a) the full and true name of the child,
(b) his sex and date and place of birth, if ascertainable, or his
apparent age,
(c) the full and true names and places of birth of his parents, and
their actual residence if living, or their latest known residence, if
deceased or whereabouts unknown and the name and actual residence of any other person having custody of the child, as nearly as the same can reasonably be ascertained,
(d) the religious faith of the parents and of the child,
(e) the name and address of any person, agency, institution or other
organization to which the child is committed, placed out, boarded out, or otherwise given into care, custody or control,
(f) the religious faith and occupation of the head or heads of the
family with whom the child is placed out or boarded out and their
relationship, if any, to the child,
(g) if any such child shall die, the date and cause of death and place
of burial,
(h) any further disposition or change in care, custody or control of
the child,
(i) the date or dates of reception and of any subsequent disposition
or change in care, custody or control and, in case of adoption, the name and title of the judge or surrogate making the order of adoption, the date of such order and the date and place of filing of such order,
(j) the reasons for any act performed in reference to such child
herein required to be recorded, together with such further information as the department may require; and shall make to the department upon blanks provided by the department reports of each such child placed out or boarded out, containing the information herein required to be kept; and shall furnish such information to any authorized agency to which any such child shall be committed or otherwise given into custody.
2. Every charitable, eleemosynary, reformatory, or correctional
institution, public or private, incorporated or unincorporated, and
every agency, association, corporation, institution, society or other
organization which shall receive, accept, or admit any child whether or not in receipt of payments from public funds for the support of such child shall provide and keep a record as described in subdivision one, and also showing how, by whom and for what reason such child shall have been given into its custody or committed to it and shall make reports of each such child to the department upon blanks provided by the department giving all the information required by subdivision one to be recorded together with such further information as the department may require. Except as to children placed out, boarded out or surrendered or for whom guardianship is accepted or adoption provided, the requirement of this section shall not apply to hospitals, day nurseries, eleemosynary day schools, and summer and vacation homes and camps, or to institutions for the care of convalescent, anaemic, under-nourished or cardiac children, preventoria, working boys' homes, emergency shelters and schools for the blind and for the deaf, but all such hospitals, homes and institutions shall keep such records and make to the department such reports as the department may require.
3. Such records maintained by the department or an authorized agency, including a local social services district, regarding such children are confidential, provided, however, that such records are subject to the provisions of article thirty-one of the civil practice law and rules. When either the subject foster child, or such child's parent, or such child's guardian if any, is not a party to the action, a copy of the notice or motion for discovery shall be served upon such parent, guardian, and child and, if the child is still a minor, the child's law guardian. Such persons may thereafter appear in the action with regard to such discovery. Where no action is pending, upon application by a parent, relative or legal guardian of such child or by an authorized agency, after due notice to the institution or authorized agency affected and hearing had thereon, the supreme court may by order direct the officers of such institution or authorized agency to furnish to such parent, relative, legal guardian or authorized agency such extracts from the record relating to such child as the court may deem proper. The department through its authorized agents and employees may examine at all reasonable times the records required by this section to be kept.
4. (a) All such records relating to such children shall be open to the
inspection of the board and the department at any reasonable time, and the information called for under this section and such other data as may be required by the department shall be reported to the department, in accordance with the regulations of the department. Such records kept by the department shall be deemed confidential and shall be safeguarded from coming to the knowledge of and from inspection or examination by any person other than one authorized, by the department, by a judge of the court of claims when such records are required for the trial of a claim or other proceeding in such court or by a justice of the supreme court, or by a judge of the family court when such records are required for the trial of a proceeding in such court, after a notice to all interested persons and a hearing, to receive such knowledge or to make such inspection or examination. No person shall divulge the information thus obtained without authorization so to do by the department, or by such judge or justice.
(b)(i) Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law to the
contrary, records relating to children kept pursuant to this section
shall be made available to officers and employees of the state comptroller or of the city comptroller of the city of New York, or of the county officer designated by law or charter to perform the auditing function in any county not wholly contained within a city, for the purposes of a duly authorized performance audit, provided that such comptroller shall have certified to the keeper of such records that he or she has instituted procedures developed in consultation with the department to limit access to client-identifiable information to persons requiring such information for purposes of the audit, that such persons shall not use such information in any way except for purposes of the audit and that appropriate controls and prohibitions are imposed on the dissemination of client-identifiable information obtained in the conduct of the audit. Information pertaining to the substance or content of any psychological, psychiatric, therapeutic, clinical or medical reports, evaluations or like materials or information pertaining to such child or the child's family shall not be made available to such officers and employees unless disclosure of such information is absolutely essential to the specific audit activity and the department gives prior written approval.
(ii) Any failure to maintain the confidentiality of client-identifiable information shall subject such comptroller or officer to denial of any further access to records until such time as the audit agency has reviewed its procedures concerning controls and prohibitions imposed on the dissemination of such information and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to eliminate such lapses in maintaining confidentiality to the satisfaction of the department. The department shall establish the grounds for denial of access to records contained under this section and shall recommend, as necessary, a plan of remediation to the audit agency. Except as provided in this section, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting the powers of such comptroller or officer to access records which he is otherwise authorized to audit or obtain under any other applicable provision of law. Any person given access to information pursuant to this paragraph who releases data or information to persons or agencies not authorized to receive such information shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
4-a. Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, social services districts shall provide a written summary of services rendered to a child upon the request of a probation service conducting an investigation pursuant to the provisions of section 351.1 of the family court act. Information provided to a probation service pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision shall be maintained by such service according to the provisions of subdivision five of section 351.1 of the family court act.
4-b.Notwithstandingany other provision of law, foster care
information governed by this section may be released by the department or an authorized agency to a person, agency or organization for purposes of a bona fide research project. Identifying information shall not be made available, however, unless it is absolutely essential to the research purpose and the department gives prior approval. Information released pursuant to this subdivision shall not be re-disclosed except as otherwise permitted by law and upon the approval of the department.
5. The requirements of this section to keep records and make reports shall not apply to the birth parent or parents, or relatives within the second degree of such parents. The reception of a child, or the power to receive the same, shall not make this section applicable to a humane society, or to a society for the prevention of cruelty to children.
6. The provisions of this section as to records and reports to the
department shall apply also to the placing out, adoption or boarding out of a child and the acceptance of guardianship or of surrender of a child.
7. An authorized agency as defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
subdivision ten of section three hundred seventy-one of this chapter or any primary or secondary school or an office of the division for youth, except agencies operating pursuant to article nineteen-H of the executive law, who shall receive, accept, enroll or commit any child under such circumstances as shall reasonably indicate that such child may be a missing person shall make inquiries of each such child to the division of criminal justice services in a manner prescribed by such division; provided that as used in this subdivision a court shall not be included within the definition of an authorized agency. If such child appears to match a child registered with the statewide central register for missing children as described in section eight hundred thirty-seven-e of the executive law, or one registered with the national crime information center register, such agency shall immediately contact the local law enforcement agency.
8. In any case where a child is to be placed with or discharged to a
relative or other person legally responsible pursuant to section ten
hundred seventeen or ten hundred fifty-five of the family court act,
such relative or other person shall be provided with such information by an authorized agency as is provided to foster parents pursuant to this section and applicable regulations of the department.
§ Section 114. Order of adoption. 1. If satisfied that the best interests of
the adoptive child will be promoted thereby the judge or surrogate shall make an order approving the adoption and directing that the adoptive child shall thenceforth be regarded and treated in all respects as the child of the adoptive parents or parent. In determining whether the best interests of the adoptive child will be promoted by the adoption, the judge or surrogate shall give due consideration to any assurance by a commissioner of social services that he will provide necessary support and maintenance for the adoptive child pursuant to the social services law. Such order shall contain the full name, date and place of birth and reference to the schedule annexed to the petition containing the medical history of the child in the body thereof and shall direct that the child's medical history, heritage of the parents, which shall include nationality, ethnic background and race; education, which shall be the number of years of school completed by the parents at the time of the birth of the adoptive child; general physical appearance of the parents at the time of the birth of the adoptive child, which shall include height, weight, color of hair, eyes, skin; occupation of the parents at the time of the birth of the adoptive child; health and medical history of the parents at the time of the birth of the adoptive child, including all available information setting forth conditions or diseases believed to be hereditary, any drugs or medication taken during the pregnancy by the child's mother; and any other information which may be a factor influencing the child's present or future health, talents, hobbies and special interests of parents as contained in the petition be furnished to the adoptive parents. If the judge or surrogate is also satisfied that there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed, the order shall direct that the name of the adoptive child be changed to the name stated in the agreement of adoption and that henceforth he shall be known by that name. All such orders made by a family court judge of Westchester county since September first nineteen hundred sixty-two, and on file in the office of the county clerk of such county shall be transferred to the clerk of the family court of such county. Such order and all the papers in the proceeding shall be filed in the office of the court granting the adoption and the order shall be entered in books which shall be kept under seal and which shall be indexed by the name of the adoptive parents and by the full original name of the child. Such order, including orders heretofore entered, shall be subject to inspection and examination only as herein after provided. Notwithstanding the fact that adoption records shall be sealed and secret, they may be microfilmed and processed pursuant to an order of the court, provided that such order provides that the confidentiality of such records be maintained. If the confidentiality is violated, the person or company violating it can be found guilty of contempt of court. The fact that the adoptive child was born out of wedlock shall in no case appear in such order. The written report of the investigation together with all other papers pertaining to the adoption shall be kept by the judge or surrogate as a permanent record of his court and such papers must be sealed by him and withheld from inspection. No certified copy of the order of adoption shall issue unless authorized by court order, except that certified copies may issue to the agency or agencies in the proceeding prior to the sealing of the papers. Before the record is sealed, such order may be granted upon written ex parte application on good cause shown and upon such conditions as the court may impose. After the record is sealed, such order may be granted only upon notice as hereinafter provided for disclosure or access and inspection of records. The clerk upon request of a person or agency entitled thereto shall issue certificates of adoption which shall contain only the new name of the child and the date and place of birth of the child, the name of the adoptive parents and the date when and court where the adoption was granted, which certificate as to the facts recited therein shall have the same force and effect as a certified copy of an order of adoption.
2. No person, including the attorney for the adoptive parents shall
disclose the surname of the child directly or indirectly to the adoptive
parents except upon order of the court. No person shall be allowed access to such sealed records and order and any index thereof except upon an order of a judge or surrogate of the court in which the order was made or of a justice of the supreme court. No order for disclosure or access and inspection shall be granted except on good cause shown and on due notice to the adoptive parents and to such additional persons as the court may direct. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to require the state commissioner of health or his designee to secure a court order authorizing disclosure of information contained in adoption or birth records requested pursuant to the authority of section forty-one hundred thirty-eight-corsection forty-one hundred thirty-eight-d of the public health law; upon the receipt of such request for information, the court shall transmit the information
authorized to be released there under to the state commissioner of health or his designee.
3. In like manner as a court of general jurisdiction exercises such
powers, a judge or surrogate of a court in which the order of adoption was made may open, vacate or set aside such order of adoption for fraud, newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause.
4. Good cause for disclosure or access to and inspection of sealed
adoption records and orders and any index thereof, hereinafter the "adoption records", under this section may be established on medical grounds as provided herein. Certification from a physician licensed to practice medicine in the state of New York that relief under this subdivision is required to address a serious physical or mental illness shall be prima facie evidence of good cause. Such certification shall indentify the information required to address such illness. Except where there is an immediate medical need for the information sought, in which case the court may grant access to the adoption records directly to the petitioner, the court hearing petition under the subdivision shall appoint a guardian ad litem or other disinterested person, who shall have access to the adoption records for the purpose of obtaining the medical information sought from those records or, where the records are insufficient for such purpose, through contacting the biological parents. The guardian or other disinterested person shall offer a biological parent the option of disclosing the medical information sought by the petitioner pursuant to this subdivision, as well as the option of granting consent to examine the parent's medical records. If the guardian or other disinterested person appointed does not obtain the medical information sought by the petitioner, such guardian or disinterested person shall make a report of his or her efforts to obtain such information to the court. Where further efforts to obtain such information are appropriate, the court may in its discretion authorize direct disclosure or access to and inspection of the adoption records by the petitioner.
As some may know, I have been asking my agency - Jewish Child Care Association (aka JCCA aka Ametz) for a copy of the surrender papers I signed in 1968 for approximately 30 years.
I was told that the NYC agency was not permitted, by law, to reveal that information, despite knowing that I had found my daughter, been reunited, and that she was now deceased.
I asked what law prohibited them from telling me. I was told on April 21, 2008:- New York State Social Services Law, Article VI - Children, Title I - Care and Protection of Children, Section 372 - Records and Reports
- New York State Domestic Relations Law, Article VII - Adoption, Title II - Adoption from an Authorized Agency, Section 114 - Order of Adoption
However, what I do know is this: I did a search for the word "surrender" since I was asking for was a copy of my surrender or relinquishment of parental rights papers. You can see them highlighted. A search for parental rights yielded nothing.
So, while these regulations may pertain to adoption records, the surrender of parental rights is taken PRIOR to any adoption and these regaulations do not seem yo apply to then, as they are not mentioned therein. It seems as if when they were written there was absolutely no thought whatsoever given to any "rights" of the surrendering parent. Rights? What rights? Clearly not one thought to our right to papers we signed, or to any alleged "promises" of privacy.
Mothers will be interested in the section in bold about what information is available to aps, however... so much for the "protection" of our confidentiality once again!
§ Section 372. Records and reports. 1. Every court, and every public board,
commission, institution, or officer having powers or charged with duties in relation to abandoned, delinquent, destitute, neglected or dependent children who shall receive, accept or commit any child shall provide and keep a record showing: (a) the full and true name of the child,
(b) his sex and date and place of birth, if ascertainable, or his
apparent age,
(c) the full and true names and places of birth of his parents, and
their actual residence if living, or their latest known residence, if
deceased or whereabouts unknown and the name and actual residence of any other person having custody of the child, as nearly as the same can reasonably be ascertained,
(d) the religious faith of the parents and of the child,
(e) the name and address of any person, agency, institution or other
organization to which the child is committed, placed out, boarded out, or otherwise given into care, custody or control,
(f) the religious faith and occupation of the head or heads of the
family with whom the child is placed out or boarded out and their
relationship, if any, to the child,
(g) if any such child shall die, the date and cause of death and place
of burial,
(h) any further disposition or change in care, custody or control of
the child,
(i) the date or dates of reception and of any subsequent disposition
or change in care, custody or control and, in case of adoption, the name and title of the judge or surrogate making the order of adoption, the date of such order and the date and place of filing of such order,
(j) the reasons for any act performed in reference to such child
herein required to be recorded, together with such further information as the department may require; and shall make to the department upon blanks provided by the department reports of each such child placed out or boarded out, containing the information herein required to be kept; and shall furnish such information to any authorized agency to which any such child shall be committed or otherwise given into custody.
2. Every charitable, eleemosynary, reformatory, or correctional
institution, public or private, incorporated or unincorporated, and
every agency, association, corporation, institution, society or other
organization which shall receive, accept, or admit any child whether or not in receipt of payments from public funds for the support of such child shall provide and keep a record as described in subdivision one, and also showing how, by whom and for what reason such child shall have been given into its custody or committed to it and shall make reports of each such child to the department upon blanks provided by the department giving all the information required by subdivision one to be recorded together with such further information as the department may require. Except as to children placed out, boarded out or surrendered or for whom guardianship is accepted or adoption provided, the requirement of this section shall not apply to hospitals, day nurseries, eleemosynary day schools, and summer and vacation homes and camps, or to institutions for the care of convalescent, anaemic, under-nourished or cardiac children, preventoria, working boys' homes, emergency shelters and schools for the blind and for the deaf, but all such hospitals, homes and institutions shall keep such records and make to the department such reports as the department may require.
3. Such records maintained by the department or an authorized agency, including a local social services district, regarding such children are confidential, provided, however, that such records are subject to the provisions of article thirty-one of the civil practice law and rules. When either the subject foster child, or such child's parent, or such child's guardian if any, is not a party to the action, a copy of the notice or motion for discovery shall be served upon such parent, guardian, and child and, if the child is still a minor, the child's law guardian. Such persons may thereafter appear in the action with regard to such discovery. Where no action is pending, upon application by a parent, relative or legal guardian of such child or by an authorized agency, after due notice to the institution or authorized agency affected and hearing had thereon, the supreme court may by order direct the officers of such institution or authorized agency to furnish to such parent, relative, legal guardian or authorized agency such extracts from the record relating to such child as the court may deem proper. The department through its authorized agents and employees may examine at all reasonable times the records required by this section to be kept.
4. (a) All such records relating to such children shall be open to the
inspection of the board and the department at any reasonable time, and the information called for under this section and such other data as may be required by the department shall be reported to the department, in accordance with the regulations of the department. Such records kept by the department shall be deemed confidential and shall be safeguarded from coming to the knowledge of and from inspection or examination by any person other than one authorized, by the department, by a judge of the court of claims when such records are required for the trial of a claim or other proceeding in such court or by a justice of the supreme court, or by a judge of the family court when such records are required for the trial of a proceeding in such court, after a notice to all interested persons and a hearing, to receive such knowledge or to make such inspection or examination. No person shall divulge the information thus obtained without authorization so to do by the department, or by such judge or justice.
(b)(i) Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law to the
contrary, records relating to children kept pursuant to this section
shall be made available to officers and employees of the state comptroller or of the city comptroller of the city of New York, or of the county officer designated by law or charter to perform the auditing function in any county not wholly contained within a city, for the purposes of a duly authorized performance audit, provided that such comptroller shall have certified to the keeper of such records that he or she has instituted procedures developed in consultation with the department to limit access to client-identifiable information to persons requiring such information for purposes of the audit, that such persons shall not use such information in any way except for purposes of the audit and that appropriate controls and prohibitions are imposed on the dissemination of client-identifiable information obtained in the conduct of the audit. Information pertaining to the substance or content of any psychological, psychiatric, therapeutic, clinical or medical reports, evaluations or like materials or information pertaining to such child or the child's family shall not be made available to such officers and employees unless disclosure of such information is absolutely essential to the specific audit activity and the department gives prior written approval.
(ii) Any failure to maintain the confidentiality of client-identifiable information shall subject such comptroller or officer to denial of any further access to records until such time as the audit agency has reviewed its procedures concerning controls and prohibitions imposed on the dissemination of such information and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to eliminate such lapses in maintaining confidentiality to the satisfaction of the department. The department shall establish the grounds for denial of access to records contained under this section and shall recommend, as necessary, a plan of remediation to the audit agency. Except as provided in this section, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting the powers of such comptroller or officer to access records which he is otherwise authorized to audit or obtain under any other applicable provision of law. Any person given access to information pursuant to this paragraph who releases data or information to persons or agencies not authorized to receive such information shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
4-a. Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, social services districts shall provide a written summary of services rendered to a child upon the request of a probation service conducting an investigation pursuant to the provisions of section 351.1 of the family court act. Information provided to a probation service pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision shall be maintained by such service according to the provisions of subdivision five of section 351.1 of the family court act.
4-b.Notwithstandingany other provision of law, foster care
information governed by this section may be released by the department or an authorized agency to a person, agency or organization for purposes of a bona fide research project. Identifying information shall not be made available, however, unless it is absolutely essential to the research purpose and the department gives prior approval. Information released pursuant to this subdivision shall not be re-disclosed except as otherwise permitted by law and upon the approval of the department.
5. The requirements of this section to keep records and make reports shall not apply to the birth parent or parents, or relatives within the second degree of such parents. The reception of a child, or the power to receive the same, shall not make this section applicable to a humane society, or to a society for the prevention of cruelty to children.
6. The provisions of this section as to records and reports to the
department shall apply also to the placing out, adoption or boarding out of a child and the acceptance of guardianship or of surrender of a child.
7. An authorized agency as defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
subdivision ten of section three hundred seventy-one of this chapter or any primary or secondary school or an office of the division for youth, except agencies operating pursuant to article nineteen-H of the executive law, who shall receive, accept, enroll or commit any child under such circumstances as shall reasonably indicate that such child may be a missing person shall make inquiries of each such child to the division of criminal justice services in a manner prescribed by such division; provided that as used in this subdivision a court shall not be included within the definition of an authorized agency. If such child appears to match a child registered with the statewide central register for missing children as described in section eight hundred thirty-seven-e of the executive law, or one registered with the national crime information center register, such agency shall immediately contact the local law enforcement agency.
8. In any case where a child is to be placed with or discharged to a
relative or other person legally responsible pursuant to section ten
hundred seventeen or ten hundred fifty-five of the family court act,
such relative or other person shall be provided with such information by an authorized agency as is provided to foster parents pursuant to this section and applicable regulations of the department.
§ Section 114. Order of adoption. 1. If satisfied that the best interests of
the adoptive child will be promoted thereby the judge or surrogate shall make an order approving the adoption and directing that the adoptive child shall thenceforth be regarded and treated in all respects as the child of the adoptive parents or parent. In determining whether the best interests of the adoptive child will be promoted by the adoption, the judge or surrogate shall give due consideration to any assurance by a commissioner of social services that he will provide necessary support and maintenance for the adoptive child pursuant to the social services law. Such order shall contain the full name, date and place of birth and reference to the schedule annexed to the petition containing the medical history of the child in the body thereof and shall direct that the child's medical history, heritage of the parents, which shall include nationality, ethnic background and race; education, which shall be the number of years of school completed by the parents at the time of the birth of the adoptive child; general physical appearance of the parents at the time of the birth of the adoptive child, which shall include height, weight, color of hair, eyes, skin; occupation of the parents at the time of the birth of the adoptive child; health and medical history of the parents at the time of the birth of the adoptive child, including all available information setting forth conditions or diseases believed to be hereditary, any drugs or medication taken during the pregnancy by the child's mother; and any other information which may be a factor influencing the child's present or future health, talents, hobbies and special interests of parents as contained in the petition be furnished to the adoptive parents. If the judge or surrogate is also satisfied that there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed, the order shall direct that the name of the adoptive child be changed to the name stated in the agreement of adoption and that henceforth he shall be known by that name. All such orders made by a family court judge of Westchester county since September first nineteen hundred sixty-two, and on file in the office of the county clerk of such county shall be transferred to the clerk of the family court of such county. Such order and all the papers in the proceeding shall be filed in the office of the court granting the adoption and the order shall be entered in books which shall be kept under seal and which shall be indexed by the name of the adoptive parents and by the full original name of the child. Such order, including orders heretofore entered, shall be subject to inspection and examination only as herein after provided. Notwithstanding the fact that adoption records shall be sealed and secret, they may be microfilmed and processed pursuant to an order of the court, provided that such order provides that the confidentiality of such records be maintained. If the confidentiality is violated, the person or company violating it can be found guilty of contempt of court. The fact that the adoptive child was born out of wedlock shall in no case appear in such order. The written report of the investigation together with all other papers pertaining to the adoption shall be kept by the judge or surrogate as a permanent record of his court and such papers must be sealed by him and withheld from inspection. No certified copy of the order of adoption shall issue unless authorized by court order, except that certified copies may issue to the agency or agencies in the proceeding prior to the sealing of the papers. Before the record is sealed, such order may be granted upon written ex parte application on good cause shown and upon such conditions as the court may impose. After the record is sealed, such order may be granted only upon notice as hereinafter provided for disclosure or access and inspection of records. The clerk upon request of a person or agency entitled thereto shall issue certificates of adoption which shall contain only the new name of the child and the date and place of birth of the child, the name of the adoptive parents and the date when and court where the adoption was granted, which certificate as to the facts recited therein shall have the same force and effect as a certified copy of an order of adoption.
2. No person, including the attorney for the adoptive parents shall
disclose the surname of the child directly or indirectly to the adoptive
parents except upon order of the court. No person shall be allowed access to such sealed records and order and any index thereof except upon an order of a judge or surrogate of the court in which the order was made or of a justice of the supreme court. No order for disclosure or access and inspection shall be granted except on good cause shown and on due notice to the adoptive parents and to such additional persons as the court may direct. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to require the state commissioner of health or his designee to secure a court order authorizing disclosure of information contained in adoption or birth records requested pursuant to the authority of section forty-one hundred thirty-eight-corsection forty-one hundred thirty-eight-d of the public health law; upon the receipt of such request for information, the court shall transmit the information
authorized to be released there under to the state commissioner of health or his designee.
3. In like manner as a court of general jurisdiction exercises such
powers, a judge or surrogate of a court in which the order of adoption was made may open, vacate or set aside such order of adoption for fraud, newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause.
4. Good cause for disclosure or access to and inspection of sealed
adoption records and orders and any index thereof, hereinafter the "adoption records", under this section may be established on medical grounds as provided herein. Certification from a physician licensed to practice medicine in the state of New York that relief under this subdivision is required to address a serious physical or mental illness shall be prima facie evidence of good cause. Such certification shall indentify the information required to address such illness. Except where there is an immediate medical need for the information sought, in which case the court may grant access to the adoption records directly to the petitioner, the court hearing petition under the subdivision shall appoint a guardian ad litem or other disinterested person, who shall have access to the adoption records for the purpose of obtaining the medical information sought from those records or, where the records are insufficient for such purpose, through contacting the biological parents. The guardian or other disinterested person shall offer a biological parent the option of disclosing the medical information sought by the petitioner pursuant to this subdivision, as well as the option of granting consent to examine the parent's medical records. If the guardian or other disinterested person appointed does not obtain the medical information sought by the petitioner, such guardian or disinterested person shall make a report of his or her efforts to obtain such information to the court. Where further efforts to obtain such information are appropriate, the court may in its discretion authorize direct disclosure or access to and inspection of the adoption records by the petitioner.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Calling All NY Mothers
Are you a mother who lost your child to adoption in New York?
Do you have a copy of your surrender papers?
If so, I would greatly appreciate hearing from you.
My agency - Jewish Child Care Association of New York (JCCA aka AMETZ) - has steadfastly, for the past 41 years, refused to give me even redacted or blank copies of the forms I signed! This, even after being informed that I had found my daughter and been in touch with her adoptive parents. And, still, years later, after being informed of the death of my daughter.
I recently wrote to Leona Ferrer, Disclosure Coordinator for JCCA:
Ms. Ferrer,
I am requesting a meeting to discuss the agency’s policies and ethical responsibilities in regard to the mothers they serve in general, and in particular the agency’s persistent refusal to give me even redacted or blank copies of the forms I signed. The fact Ametz/JCCA has a close working relationship with Adam Pertman and other representatives of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute who are speakers at your conferences, informs me that the Ametz/JCCA is well aware of their positions on ethical adoption practices in the 21st century. It might even suggest that Ametz/JCCA is in agreement with those ethical adoption practices.
I am a bereaved mother who would cherish any connection to my deceased daughter. How does such refusal fit within the agency’s ethos and decency? Who at this point in time and under the circumstances could possibly be violated by my seeing what I signed? The adoptive parents had access to information about me all along, and I have been in contact with them, as you have been made aware.
Her initial email response:
"Will you give me your daughter's name and birth date? Is it the surrender you want a copy of? Please let me know and thank you. Leona M. Ferrer"
I was quite hopeful and immediately replied back with my daughter's name. The response quickly became:
"Our attorney has advised that while we may not by law send you a copy of the surrender, you should be able to get a copy from the clerk of the court in which it was signed. Leona M. Ferrer"
Sooo, if you have received your papers from a NY agency, I need to hear from you!
ALSO SEEKING: A NY attorney to handle a wrongful adoption lawsuit.
Thank you!
Do you have a copy of your surrender papers?
If so, I would greatly appreciate hearing from you.
My agency - Jewish Child Care Association of New York (JCCA aka AMETZ) - has steadfastly, for the past 41 years, refused to give me even redacted or blank copies of the forms I signed! This, even after being informed that I had found my daughter and been in touch with her adoptive parents. And, still, years later, after being informed of the death of my daughter.
I recently wrote to Leona Ferrer, Disclosure Coordinator for JCCA:
Ms. Ferrer,
I am requesting a meeting to discuss the agency’s policies and ethical responsibilities in regard to the mothers they serve in general, and in particular the agency’s persistent refusal to give me even redacted or blank copies of the forms I signed. The fact Ametz/JCCA has a close working relationship with Adam Pertman and other representatives of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute who are speakers at your conferences, informs me that the Ametz/JCCA is well aware of their positions on ethical adoption practices in the 21st century. It might even suggest that Ametz/JCCA is in agreement with those ethical adoption practices.
I am a bereaved mother who would cherish any connection to my deceased daughter. How does such refusal fit within the agency’s ethos and decency? Who at this point in time and under the circumstances could possibly be violated by my seeing what I signed? The adoptive parents had access to information about me all along, and I have been in contact with them, as you have been made aware.
Her initial email response:
"Will you give me your daughter's name and birth date? Is it the surrender you want a copy of? Please let me know and thank you. Leona M. Ferrer"
I was quite hopeful and immediately replied back with my daughter's name. The response quickly became:
"Our attorney has advised that while we may not by law send you a copy of the surrender, you should be able to get a copy from the clerk of the court in which it was signed. Leona M. Ferrer"
Sooo, if you have received your papers from a NY agency, I need to hear from you!
ALSO SEEKING: A NY attorney to handle a wrongful adoption lawsuit.
Thank you!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Ethical Accountability to Mothers Who Have Surrendered
Reflections on the Conference Part III: Ethical Accountability to Mothers Who Have Surrendered
Many ethical issues of accountability remain beyond those covered at the conference. One is the obligation of adoption agencies and professionals in regard to post-adoption services.
Too often we learn of cases in which both parties have returned to file a waiver of confidentiality and expressed a desire for reunification, and the agency tells both parties that their counterpart is in fact not interested in meeting them. Is this carelessness, or playing God with people’s lives?
Agencies who do assist in reunification charge high fees to do so and maintain strict control with intermediaries who often approaching parties in an overly protective, negative manner. . ."assuring” them of their right to refuse contact. One agency has a condition of 3 anonymous, non-identifying contacts within a 12-month time period. If someone is not ready to make their decision within that time frame, it’s all over. Case closed. They cannot think about it and return a year or three later and say that they are now ready for a reunion. Such a limiting policy puts undue pressure on someone to whom it may come as a hock to be contacted by a long-lost relative, and needs time prepare and decide.
The time has come to recognize that adults are able to handle their own personal intimate life affairs and relationships and that there are sufficient laws to protect people from harassment. Adoptees and their families of origins do not need to be treated as a suspect class of people.
Another ethical accountability not addressed at the conference is one that touches my life personally: the right of surrendering parents to copies of all documents that pertain to them. The concept of "confidently" cannot explain denying people that which concerns - especially when a great deal of information about mothers of subsequently adopted children is given to adopters: both identifying and non-identifying, including social workers assessments of our "emotional state" - either too "cold" and appearing "uncaring" or too emotional and deemed "hysterical" or even "unbalanced" as a result of legitimate and appropriate behavior to a trauma. They are permitted to make assumptions about alcohol and drug use, and share that information causing us to be frozen in time as the confused, scared, unsupported teens and young adults we once were.
Denial of access to our own records, to know what was aid about us and to have a record of our having given birth is a tremendous violation of our rights.
I recently (9/14) wrote about Jayni Anderson who discovered 28 years after the fact that the child she had been repeatedly been assured by LDS workers was “fine” had in fact died of SIDS at six months of age. When Jayni decided to go public with her outrage at being lied to all those years, the newspaper she approached asked her for proof of the story she was telling them. Like many mother in her situation, Jayni was unable to provide one shred of evidence that she even given birth to a child 28 years prior, let alone that she has been placed for adoption through LDS, or any other agency. Had it not been for the fact that she has taken a support with her to the agency who witnessed her discussion with the worker who now revealed to her daughter’s alleged death, the newspaper would not have printed her story, exposing this agencies deceit (another whole major issue of ethical accountability!).
Many mothers are faced with this dilemma. Although the birth takes place prior to any termination of our parental right and certainly before an adoption takes place…in other words, while we are still clearly the mothers of our children…the certificate of that birth, bizarrely, becomes part of the “sealed records” of a legal action that takes place subsequent to the birth.
We, thus, have no record of papers we were asked to sign, which in any other area of law is a clear cut violation. We have no medial records of our birth to share with our physicians.
I relinquished my firstborn daughter to adoption in 1968. I left the agency a crushed shell of a person, with just my tears and a broken heart. Not a shred of paper to prove that any of it ever happened. . .to help me “forget” that it did, I suppose. Forty years later it is as fresh in my mind as it was that day, however.
By the early 70's learned about ALMA and adoptees in search. I co-founded Origins (NJ) with four other mothers in 1979 or 80. Meeting and speaking with other mothers nationwide, I quickly learned that not all adoption were “happily-ever-after.” Despite the promises made to us about “forever” families and two parents being better than one, adoptive parents die and divorce often leaving our children alone or with a single parent while we are married.
Mothers were finding troubled – and deceased – children and teens. Some died in infancy, others in car crashes or suicides. One mother was told she could gladly take her child back from his adopters -- who had, for all intents and purposes abandoned her son at a private school, having stopped paying all fees. Another found her child living in the back seat of car.
I knew now that there was no assurance whatsoever that my daughter had gone to a “wonderful, loving, “professional” couple as I had always imagined, or that she was adopted at all, or even alive. I could not wait until any magic age of adulthood to do all I could to locate my daughter.
While many of us had nothing to show for our labor, our unending pain and our devastating, irresolvable limbo loss, some mothers coming to Origins and CUB for support had copies of their relinquishment papers or “Consent to Adopt.” I got to see several over the years I ran our support group. I was immediately impressed with the variety of different forms and languages used by different agencies in different states in different years. (Click on collage to enlarge.) Some of these papers stated that the mother agreed to have no contact with her child. Some made no mention of that issue, simply terminating parental rights. Other papers stated that the mother was barred from contact with her child “for his minor years.”
Knowing I fully intended to initiate any means possible to locate my daughter and verify her well-being, as well as to offer my availability for updated medical history etc., I contacted my agency: Jewish Child Care Association of NYC (JCCA) explaining what I had seen on others’ papers, and my need to know what I had agreed to in signing my papers, in order o know if I would be in violation of that agreement if I searched for or found my daughter.
I was refused.
I wrote again and asked for a whited out copy. I was refused again.
I asked for a blank for to see the wording. Still no. (I have copies of all my letters and responses.)
In 1978 I was fortunate to locate my daughter. I wrote the agency. JCCA, again informing them that I knew her name, her parents names and address but needed to know if I was barred from contact or not, and thus needed copies of what I had signed. I was refused again.
I contacted her parents and was horrified to discover that my daughter had remained in her foster home until one week before her fist birthday. Her foster family longed to adopt the baby they had known and loved since the day she left the hospital and who was calling her foster mother “Mommy.” Despite their protestations, the agency, in its wisdom, removed her at a year of age because this Jewish agency had placed her in an Italian Catholic foster home and along came a Jewish family. I was overcome with uncontrollable grief learning of her traumatic re-placement.
In 1995, my daughter – who had been wrenched suddenly from "the only family she had ever known” and with whom she had a deep bond. . .committed suicide.
After morning her death for some time, I wrote to JCCA once more, telling them of her passing, and begged them one last time to share with me any shred of evidence that I bore this child who now lay in her grave. And, again, my request was denied.
As I write this today, Adam Pertman is preparing to present a keynote address at the forthcoming 14th Annual conference of The Ametz Adoption Program of Jewish Child Care Association: INFERTILITY, ADOPTION AND THE FAMILY on Sunday April 6, 2008 in New York City.
This years' keynote: Welcome to the Revolution: What We've Learned From & About Adoptive Families ironically focuses on how greater knowledge leads to better decisions - and to improved parenting.
It is of course “Intended for prospective parents, those who already have formed their families and the professionals with whom they work.” Notice who is left our of this equation? Notice whose “greater knowledge” is STILL – in 2007 - of no interest?
The conference is billed in their call for papers as “one of the premiere adoption events held in NYC” and its focus is “on the latest trends and changes in domestic and international adoption, including the Hague Convention, Openness in Adoption, Multicultural Families, the focus on Pre-Adoption Education and Alternatives to Family Building.”
Pre-adoption education for everyone but the party without whom there would be no adoption.
I publicly submit the following blurb of an abstract for a presentation for this conference and lay down the gauntlet to have me address these issues:
As our community becomes more aware of actively pursuing ethical adoption practices, we have a moral obligation to look backward as well as forward and restore whatever ounce of dignity we can to those who have been harmed by faulty adoption practices of the past.
Where is the moral and ethical responsibility of JCCA to the mothers they “served”?
Many ethical issues of accountability remain beyond those covered at the conference. One is the obligation of adoption agencies and professionals in regard to post-adoption services.
Too often we learn of cases in which both parties have returned to file a waiver of confidentiality and expressed a desire for reunification, and the agency tells both parties that their counterpart is in fact not interested in meeting them. Is this carelessness, or playing God with people’s lives?
Agencies who do assist in reunification charge high fees to do so and maintain strict control with intermediaries who often approaching parties in an overly protective, negative manner. . ."assuring” them of their right to refuse contact. One agency has a condition of 3 anonymous, non-identifying contacts within a 12-month time period. If someone is not ready to make their decision within that time frame, it’s all over. Case closed. They cannot think about it and return a year or three later and say that they are now ready for a reunion. Such a limiting policy puts undue pressure on someone to whom it may come as a hock to be contacted by a long-lost relative, and needs time prepare and decide.
The time has come to recognize that adults are able to handle their own personal intimate life affairs and relationships and that there are sufficient laws to protect people from harassment. Adoptees and their families of origins do not need to be treated as a suspect class of people.
Another ethical accountability not addressed at the conference is one that touches my life personally: the right of surrendering parents to copies of all documents that pertain to them. The concept of "confidently" cannot explain denying people that which concerns - especially when a great deal of information about mothers of subsequently adopted children is given to adopters: both identifying and non-identifying, including social workers assessments of our "emotional state" - either too "cold" and appearing "uncaring" or too emotional and deemed "hysterical" or even "unbalanced" as a result of legitimate and appropriate behavior to a trauma. They are permitted to make assumptions about alcohol and drug use, and share that information causing us to be frozen in time as the confused, scared, unsupported teens and young adults we once were.
Denial of access to our own records, to know what was aid about us and to have a record of our having given birth is a tremendous violation of our rights.
I recently (9/14) wrote about Jayni Anderson who discovered 28 years after the fact that the child she had been repeatedly been assured by LDS workers was “fine” had in fact died of SIDS at six months of age. When Jayni decided to go public with her outrage at being lied to all those years, the newspaper she approached asked her for proof of the story she was telling them. Like many mother in her situation, Jayni was unable to provide one shred of evidence that she even given birth to a child 28 years prior, let alone that she has been placed for adoption through LDS, or any other agency. Had it not been for the fact that she has taken a support with her to the agency who witnessed her discussion with the worker who now revealed to her daughter’s alleged death, the newspaper would not have printed her story, exposing this agencies deceit (another whole major issue of ethical accountability!).
Many mothers are faced with this dilemma. Although the birth takes place prior to any termination of our parental right and certainly before an adoption takes place…in other words, while we are still clearly the mothers of our children…the certificate of that birth, bizarrely, becomes part of the “sealed records” of a legal action that takes place subsequent to the birth.
We, thus, have no record of papers we were asked to sign, which in any other area of law is a clear cut violation. We have no medial records of our birth to share with our physicians.
I relinquished my firstborn daughter to adoption in 1968. I left the agency a crushed shell of a person, with just my tears and a broken heart. Not a shred of paper to prove that any of it ever happened. . .to help me “forget” that it did, I suppose. Forty years later it is as fresh in my mind as it was that day, however.
By the early 70's learned about ALMA and adoptees in search. I co-founded Origins (NJ) with four other mothers in 1979 or 80. Meeting and speaking with other mothers nationwide, I quickly learned that not all adoption were “happily-ever-after.” Despite the promises made to us about “forever” families and two parents being better than one, adoptive parents die and divorce often leaving our children alone or with a single parent while we are married.
Mothers were finding troubled – and deceased – children and teens. Some died in infancy, others in car crashes or suicides. One mother was told she could gladly take her child back from his adopters -- who had, for all intents and purposes abandoned her son at a private school, having stopped paying all fees. Another found her child living in the back seat of car.
I knew now that there was no assurance whatsoever that my daughter had gone to a “wonderful, loving, “professional” couple as I had always imagined, or that she was adopted at all, or even alive. I could not wait until any magic age of adulthood to do all I could to locate my daughter.
While many of us had nothing to show for our labor, our unending pain and our devastating, irresolvable limbo loss, some mothers coming to Origins and CUB for support had copies of their relinquishment papers or “Consent to Adopt.” I got to see several over the years I ran our support group. I was immediately impressed with the variety of different forms and languages used by different agencies in different states in different years. (Click on collage to enlarge.) Some of these papers stated that the mother agreed to have no contact with her child. Some made no mention of that issue, simply terminating parental rights. Other papers stated that the mother was barred from contact with her child “for his minor years.”
Knowing I fully intended to initiate any means possible to locate my daughter and verify her well-being, as well as to offer my availability for updated medical history etc., I contacted my agency: Jewish Child Care Association of NYC (JCCA)
I was refused.
I wrote again and asked for a whited out copy. I was refused again.
I asked for a blank for to see the wording. Still no. (I have copies of all my letters and responses.)
In 1978 I was fortunate to locate my daughter. I wrote the agency. JCCA, again informing them that I knew her name, her parents names and address but needed to know if I was barred from contact or not, and thus needed copies of what I had signed. I was refused again.
I contacted her parents and was horrified to discover that my daughter had remained in her foster home until one week before her fist birthday. Her foster family longed to adopt the baby they had known and loved since the day she left the hospital and who was calling her foster mother “Mommy.” Despite their protestations, the agency, in its wisdom, removed her at a year of age because this Jewish agency had placed her in an Italian Catholic foster home and along came a Jewish family. I was overcome with uncontrollable grief learning of her traumatic re-placement.
In 1995, my daughter – who had been wrenched suddenly from "the only family she had ever known” and with whom she had a deep bond. . .committed suicide.
After morning her death for some time, I wrote to JCCA once more, telling them of her passing, and begged them one last time to share with me any shred of evidence that I bore this child who now lay in her grave. And, again, my request was denied.
As I write this today, Adam Pertman is preparing to present a keynote address at the forthcoming 14th Annual conference of The Ametz Adoption Program of Jewish Child Care Association: INFERTILITY, ADOPTION AND THE FAMILY on Sunday April 6, 2008 in New York City.
This years' keynote: Welcome to the Revolution: What We've Learned From & About Adoptive Families ironically focuses on how greater knowledge leads to better decisions - and to improved parenting.
It is of course “Intended for prospective parents, those who already have formed their families and the professionals with whom they work.” Notice who is left our of this equation? Notice whose “greater knowledge” is STILL – in 2007 - of no interest?
The conference is billed in their call for papers as “one of the premiere adoption events held in NYC” and its focus is “on the latest trends and changes in domestic and international adoption, including the Hague Convention, Openness in Adoption, Multicultural Families, the focus on Pre-Adoption Education and Alternatives to Family Building.”
Pre-adoption education for everyone but the party without whom there would be no adoption.
I publicly submit the following blurb of an abstract for a presentation for this conference and lay down the gauntlet to have me address these issues:
As our community becomes more aware of actively pursuing ethical adoption practices, we have a moral obligation to look backward as well as forward and restore whatever ounce of dignity we can to those who have been harmed by faulty adoption practices of the past.
Where is the moral and ethical responsibility of JCCA to the mothers they “served”?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)