Nomenclatures, Euphemism and Anti-Adoption Accusations

The right to self identify is a subject I have discussed many times in relation to the right of anyone - including mothers who lost children to adoption - to be called what they prefer to be called.  There is personal conversation and more formal situations. Even within the personal sphere, there may be more than one way. It is, for instance, common practice for one to say "Sally" with close friends, and "my wife or partner" when speaking to less familiar acquaintances or colleagues, and more intimate nicknames when speaking directly with one's mate.

In addressing or referring to an adopted person, it is clear: adopted "child" is reserved for a minor child and is never appropriate for an adult, despite the fact that to a parent their child is always their child.

Conversely however, adoptees, have different terms they would use when speaking to their mother or about her, Depending on to whom they are speaking!  Clarity may make awkward or undesirable prefixes a necessity.

Additionally, as groups become empowered and evolve, it becomes politically challenging to keep up with what is currently PC and inoffensive. I always suggest simply asking how someone prefers to be called: birth mother, first mother... Just as we might stop and consider whether we refer to someone as Black or African American because it is an individual choice: there is no universal standard of acceptable by all in the category.

It is complicated when established organizations keep their original names as times change. Two glaring examples of this are the NAACP: National Association of Colored People still exists although no one with any sense would use the term "colored people."  Likewise ARC, The Association of Retarded People is still known as ARC long after "retarded" has fallen out of grace.

There are other terms with which we define ourselves or our positions. Family Preservation is a recognized part of social service practice, as clearly indicated in this link at Child Welfare Information Gateway. there is also a National Family Preservation Network which offers research-based tools, training resources, and technical assistance to public and private child- and family-serving agencies and a Family Preservation Institute at Mexico State University...just to name a few.

I have clarified my definition and use of this term in the column to the right and also in the FAQs where I specifically reply to the question: Is Family Preservation a euphemism for being anti-adoption.

It is thus exasperatingly mind blowing to be repeatedly defending Family Preservation as not a "euphemism for being anti-adoption" - especially from those within the adoption reform community - as if preventing unwarranted adoptions was an evil.  The use of euphemism in this fashion is a specious attack against an individual's or organization's values. 

This is the same inflammatory tactic used by Pro-Lifers who say or infer that "pro-choice" is code for pro-abortion, or favoring baby killing.  This intentional exaggeration of the spectrum of those who identify as pro-choice, many of whom find the idea of being pro-abortion repugnant, is as intentionally inaccurate as the national Council for adoption claiming that mothers who relinquish want or were promised anonymity. Lies for political gain.

Just as the vast majority of people I know under the pro-choice umbrella are totally opposed to the overuse of abortion, I know of NO family preservationists who advocate keeping children in abusive homes, as our adversaries would infer.  Being against adoptions that begin with the eradication of blood ties and a falsified birth certificate, does NOT equate to preferring to keep kids in harms way or in foster care!


In the political arena, we see this inflammatory mud slinging regularly. Accusations of Barack Obama or other democrats, or health care legislation being "socialism" while GOPs are disparagingly called fascists.  

Nor is there any correlation between family preservation and a dislike for, or attack on any who have adopted. While I recognize that demand creates supply,  I do not equate those who adopt with abductors (expect for those who illegally adopt or keep a child after ordered to return him).  These are wild, totally unsubstantiated accusations made by angry and desperate people to support some pro-adoption position. As a family preservationist, I no more dislike adopters than does the UNCRC whose values I am in keeping with in regard to preserving the integrity and rights of children to remain in their families of origins.

Having the United Nations, I would be remiss not to mention yet another argument I am increasingly faced with. When I say that I m no more "radical" or extreme in my positions than the UN, the retort is that the UN is "under attack" and losing respect, etc.  Some even go as far as to say that the UN is evil because it has helped nations to fight child trafficking and in doing so halted adoptions in progress. Those involved in such pending procedures are virulent in their anger!  Additionally, may adoption practitioners and those who represent, lobby and market for them - all of whim are directly or indirectly reliant on the financial income that the redistribution of children provides them - are likewise opposed to restriction that the UN and hague have helped countries enforce.

Naysayers and name-callers come in various forms. First are those who profit from adoption. They will attack family preservation every chance they get.  More insidious, as with the fight for equal access and other reforms in adoption practice, are the attacks from those personally affected by adoption.  Adoptive parents often feel very threatened by issues of access and efforts to prevent an assumed entitlement to adopt.

As opposed to Family Preservation, which as an established and reputable definition, the "anti-adoption" label is used as a pejorative in a broad variety of ways such as Adoption.about.com claiming it is "For those of the adoption triad that feel that they have been lied to, mistreated, or abused by the adoption industry."

CUB is caught on both sides - it's officers often accusing other individuals and groups of being "too" anti-adoption, they themselves have been accused of the same as reported by BN.

Many use a broad brush and call all reformers "anti-adoption" as indicated in these quotes from Catholic Exchange.com:

"...grass roots, anti-adoption advocacy groups such as “Bastard Nation” and “Adoption: Legalized Ties” are seeking to discourage adoption, choosing rather to advocate for disgruntled adult adoptees and “natural parents,” including those whose children were taken from them because of abuse and neglect."

"By and large, anti-adoption groups have vilified both adoptive parents and the agencies that mediate the placements. Recently, however, the attack has expanded to birth parents as well..."

The latter allegation sites Unsealed Initiative's fight for equal access in NY as violating the alleged promise of anonymity! The article goe son to make anti-adoption claims against Catholics who support young parents.  The book Adoption Mystique is also lablled as ati-adoption (guess they ahven't rea dmine!)

There will also always be adoptees and mothers who want to write endlessly about how equal access is harmful and hurts people - some of whom have searched themselves or have been reunited! This again relates back to the pro-choice; pro-life movement which often recruits women who have had abortions to "testify." Some such individuals may be likewise used by adoption profiters for political goals. Other adoptees and mothers have formed strong opinions and are eager to express them or act on them by adopting or becoming social workers in the field. Each of these individuals is entitled to their sincere beliefs, and we need to respect their feelings while hoping that they extend the same respect to us.

Family Preservation is a widely accepted child advocacy practice and presents no threat - except to baby brokers and other profiteers - and thus needs not be demeaned or labeled as anything negative.  Anti-adoption, on the other hand seems to be a term used to decsribe anything or anyone from Bastard Nation, CUB and equal access attempts to Legalized Lies as an evil, depending on who is doing the finger pointing and attempting to discredit whom.

Anti-Adoption on The Web

Anti-adoption sentiment on the web is the subject of a blog post I recently cam across:

...Most of what I read was from people adopted long ago when adoption was not spoken of, swept under the rug, when young single women were coerced or forced to give up their infants for adoption. I am always horrified when I read such stories, see movies, or hear of cases like these. I believe it was wrong but this is not the only adoption scenario out there, certainly today, more and more young women are keeping their babies....Everything I read was so black and white...I don't know what to say. I can't begin to tackle the tangled emotions and thoughts that are broiling in my head right now.

My reply:

I would like to share some thoughts on your observations and comments. First, all the horrors of coercive adoptions are NOT relegated to past history. Yes, fewer U.S. mothers need to resort to losing their children to adoption s single parenthood is more acceptable and birth control more accessible. All that means is MORE pressure than ever on the few expectant mothers who do CONSIDER that option. It also means that a great deal more focus is now on international markets where women are not just coerced, but babies are actually STOLEN (in China and India) or kidnapped at gunpoint (as in Guatemala) and then sold to orphanages who then sell them to U.S. adoption agencies.

There is a great deal that is UGLY, bad, wrong, illegal, immoral and definitely unethical about adoption TODAY.

Add to that, that the people who have been negatively affected by it in the past - adoptees - are now grown adults able to speak out. And mothers in the US who were coerced into silence for may decades are likewise finding their voices more and more.

So the pendulum is shifting. Since the 1940s, when US adoptions began to become a business and records were sealed, adopters were put on a pedestal and adoption was seen through rose-colored glasses as a win-win. "Unwanted" children were finding living homes.

But now we know the truth. The curtain has been drawn and we have seen the little man behind it. We all know the Emperor has no clothes. The truth is that adoption is not about finding homes for orphans and kids who really could benefit from it - like 129,000 kids in foster care who could be adopted...instead its a multi-billion dollar industry paid for by those claiming to be "desperate" for a child and willing to pay enough to support illicit baby brokers who traffic inhuman life.

This is despicable and anyone who is not ooutraged is not paying attention.

Does it reflect badly on those who are adopting? Unfortunately Yes. It points out that it adoption is not quite as altruistic as even they might have been led to believe. There really are not as many "orphans" "languishing" in orphans. the numbers have been grossly inflated because nearly 90% of children in orphanages worldwide are not orphans at all but have at least one living parents and or extended family who hope to reclaim them and have placed them in care temporarily, as was the case with both children adopted by Madonna.

Adoption is corrupt and those seeking to adopt need to make some hard choices: to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

Infertility is a terrible loss, as is losing a child to adoption - or to miscarriage or any other loss. But you don;t see people who have lost limbs or their sight acting all entitled to someone giving up theirs for them - or exploiting the poor. Well, actually organs are being exploited form the poor, but it ILLEGAL!!

Infertility is awful but no one owes anyone a child and no one has a "right" adopt. Adopting one child at a time is not solving world hunger or the AIDS epidemic or global poverty. It is creating a lot of backlash and increasing the image of the ugly American who comes into impoverished countries with their ethnocentricity and their dollars and thinks that giving one child more material advantages outweigh=s his basic need and RIGHT to his family and culture.

It is sad for those who adopted believing they were doing a good thing. But, as I said, they can chose to be part of the solution. many have:

Read blogs such as fleasbiting,blogspot.com and bittersweet-story.blogspot.com/

The first is a U.S. couple, the second a couple from Australia each of whom adopted two Indian children and discovered they were stolen form their mothers. They did the RIGHT thing from the start in investigating heir doubts to uncover the through and then to help the child victims - and the families - deal with their situation.

Jennifer Hemsley stopped an adoption in the process in Guatemala when she suspected DNA tests were fraudulent.

ALL of these people have become advocates for eradicating the corruption in adoption. Each of us must chose what legacy we want to leave for our children and those who come after us. We can chose to hide from these ever increasing revelations of abuse, we can deny fiercely that OUR children were taken in any way but the most ethical...or we can face the reality and stand up and do something to stop the proliferation of child trafficking for adoption. It's your image you must face in the mirror each morning. Will it be something you are proud of? Will you be someone your children will be proud of?

I believe it was Robert Kennedy who said: "The greatest tragedy is for good men to see wrong and do nothing."

A position of adoption as a last resort, as is taken by the UN and many child advocacy NGOs around he world - or one of Family Preservation is less offensive than anti-adoption, just as pro-life is fare kinder than ant-abortion and pro-choice far more realistic than pro-abortion.

Every child has a RIGHT to remain in his family. Every family his the right to receive the support they need to remain intact. When that is not possible extended family are the next line of defense for children in need and only when there is not family whatsoever capable is state care required or a another family sought. That family should preferably be within the community of the original family for continuity of language, culture, and even possible visitation. International adoption must be a last resort.

This is not a negative position on adoption - it is a positive position, humane and ethical position for families in crisis.

Is it black and white? Are all adoption good or all adoptions bad, of course not. But enough are bad or questionable to cast a shadow of doubt on all. Unless you have met with both the mother and father of your child in person, who have been confirmed to be the mother and father by DNA tests or a birth you witnessed personally, then you don't know for sure.

FAQs

Updated: Sept 25, 2009

Q: What is family preservation?

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

My definition is similar, albeit more long term, and closer to that of the National Family Preservation Network: to keep families together and prevent unnecessary out-of-home placement of children। My definition appears in right hand the column of this page.

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

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

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

Q: Am I anti-adoption?

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

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

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

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

I am against all profiteering in adoption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Are my views radical and far too idealistic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is ethical about falsifying birth records?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro or Con?

I recently read, and recommend, "THE PERVERSE EFFECTS OF THE HAGUE ADOPTION CONVENTION ," an article by Roelie Post of the European Union and author of Romania: For Export Only.

Roelie (pronounced Rue-lee) begins her article with this disclaimer:

"I would like to distance myself from pro and anti-adoption labels and direct this discussion back to the heart of the matter: is intercountry adoption a child protection measure, or do children have rights in their own country and is intercountry adoption the ultimate breach of such rights?"

With all due respect for my learned colleague, I take a different position. I do not feel the need to distance myself or in any apologize for my firm family preservation position.

Language often puts us pigeonholes of others' making. That is why the right to label oneself as one sees fit is an integral and important aspect of self-determination. I am extremely proud and stand tall as an advocate of the rights of mothers and natural families.

I likewise have absolutely no difficulty or shame whatsoever in opposing all adoption profiteers.

Let us make no mistake where the lines are drawn - because you are either pro or con, there is no in between mid ground. You either profit from family separations that result in adoption placements - directly or indirectly - or you do not.

Secondarily, you either support organizations who do so with your membership, your volunteerism, and your dollars or you do not.

Politicians notoriously play middle of the road and are adept at using vague language that makes them appear to be on both sides of the fence of an issue at once. Adoption organizations, and many of their members and supporters, try to play the same "please everyone" game. The losers in that game are clearly those striving for family preservation and reunification.

Organizations claim to be on the side of activists who seek equal access and an end to falsified birth certificates, however what have they actually DONE to help accomplish these goals? Are they in fact just placating us and telling us what we want to hear while carefully balancing (and far more concerned about) the goals of their adoptive parent and prospective adoptive parent supporters whose funds the rely heavily on?

Organizations claim to be on the side of activists - and to represent all parties touched by adoption, but what are they doing to eliminate unnecessary and unwarranted family separations that result in adoption; to eliminate coercion and exploitation?

Many of these organizations are very fond of the term "ethical" adoption - a term as meaninglessly vague as the word "nice" without working to ensure any specific guidelines to prevent unnecessary losses and provide meaningful representation and impartial option counseling to mother considering voluntary surrender or facing the termination of their parental rights.

A case in point of trying to be all things to all people is The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute (EBDAI). If you had any doubts before on which side the fence Donaldson's feet were firmly planted, the ruse of being on both sides ended today with the announcement of their partnership with LifeCare for the sole purpose of "encouraging employer support for adoption."

"Encouraging employer support for adoption is critical to our mission of improving the lives of everyone touched by adoption," said Adam Pertman, Executive Director of the Institute. "By partnering with LifeCare, we now have the potential to reach employers of every type and size nationwide and the millions of people who work for them. We look forward to making significant progress with LifeCare and the families it helps to build."

Why does adoption need encouragement? They will tell reporters savvy enough to ask that it is because of the thousands of children in foster care. The same poppy cock used to increase the federal tax credit for adopters year after year. If either workplace assistance or tax benefits for adoption were limited to the children who might really benefit from permanent family and cannot be reunified with their own kin, that might be a good thing. However, less than 10% of adopters are foster care and all benefit from these programs that are sold to politicians as noble.

Would it not be far more charitable, moral and ethical to use the same moneys and resources used to encourage and assist stranger adoptions to sure up families in crisis?

Where are the efforts to enhance the lives of mothers in crisis? Nowhere, because there is no profit in that! The Donaldson Institute derives all profits from those who want to see adoptions thrive, prosper and even increase.

Adoption profiteering you're either for it or against it. You either buy into the rhetoric with kindly pats on the head and a few well turned phrases that sound supportive by those who are in the business of stomping out the rights of natural families for a buck - or you don't.

NOTE: It is unclear at this point in time what resources Donaldson Institute will be offering and partnering with LifeCare and which members of the so-called adoption "triad" and at what point they will be aimed at or available to. For example: resources to assist those interested in adopted? post adoption counseling resources and search help for adult adoptee employees? services for expectant mothers considering adoption?

I requested clarification from Adam Pertman, Executive Director of EBDAI, and received the following:

Hi Mira. It’s good to hear from you. For now, our partnership is quite nascent – so we haven’t devised any specific projects other than to commit to LifeCare that we will provide our information/products/expertise in the areas described in the press release. In my mind and in discussions, the adoptions we’re talking about are for children who genuinely need homes (I think, probably, mainly from foster care) or who already are in adoptive families. But we also will educate them from the research we’ve done on birthparents rights, adoptee access and the array of other work not only relating to parents (first and adoptive) but also adopted people and the families pre- and post-adoption. That’s the lay of the land so far. Because of our own limited staff/resources, we’ve made clear that we will make decisions on specific collaborations on a case-by-case basis. I can’t give you more info than that because, frankly, that’s about all I’ve got. Stay tuned … Adam.

Adam Pertman, Executive Director
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute

Anti-Adoption and PROUD OF IT!

I have shunned the label anti-adoption...and probably still will under most circumstances, for diplomacy purposes.

But the very word "adoption" says a great deal. It is a verb; an action: meaning to take. Adopt does not mean care for or protect...it means only to take.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):

1.	to choose or take as one's own; make one's own by selection or assent: to adopt a nickname.

2.	to take and rear (the child of other parents) as one's own child, specifically by a formal legal act.

3.	to take or receive into any kind of new relationship: to adopt a person as a protégé.

Take. Take. Take.

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child.
2. 1. To take and follow (a course of action, for example) by choice or assent: adopt a new technique.
   2. To take up and make one's own: adopt a new idea.
3. To take on or assume: adopted an air of importance.

Take. Take. take.

Where is the commitment? The permanence? Where is the care?

Where is there any recognition of the human being "taken" - and taken from whom or what?? Doesn't matter. Just TAKE. TAKE. TAKE.

So why is it then that some defend the process, believing it to be "imperfect, but the best we've got" or that it can be "reformed." Why do some defend the very word against not only more humane practices but alternative names for such alternative means of providing open and honest child care?

Why would we want to continue to use a term that speaks only of the taking and making another human being one's "own"?

What is so frightening about permanent legal guardianship for children who have no extended family who are able or willing to care for them? What is horrifying about not issuing a falsified birth certificate and beginning a child's life on a foundation of lies? Why are some perplexed at the the idea of family members having multiple surnames as so many families do today for a variety of causes such as divorce and remarriage, not to mention first marriages in which women do not change their names.

Let's look at women making that choice in marriage. First, they are adults making a CHOICE - not having it made for them. Secondly, why did the practice of not taking one's husband's name come about in recent decades? Simple. Women decided they refused to be "owned" as property! That is what renaming is about. Yet some insist on continuing the practice of human ownership of other humans.

Yes, I'm talking about children. Children have no rights, rights? Well, sorta true. They have right to know their name and the parents -- in coutries that abide by the Convention of the Rights of the Child. And even in the US, children over 12 are old enough to state a residential custodial choice in divorce. Seems simple enough to enact a name change for a child even as young as kindergarten age who really wants it.

Personally, I would much prefer a word that indicated - and a process committed to - finding a homes for children; or entrusting others with the care of some one else's kids. Not a word that only meant to take, take, take...

Radical Leadership for Radical Change

Sandra Musser, is mother and author of "What Kind of Love is This" and "I Would Have Searched Forever." She has long been my hero as a true martyr for our cause. I am prpud to know this tireless crusader and very pleased that she has given me permission to print a copy of this speech she presented at SAGAS, Secret Adoption Grief Art Show, Spokane, WA. November 3, 2000.

Radical Leadership for Radical Change
by Sandy Musser

Since the birth of our nation there have always been individuals in the forefront of their movement who were known as "radical." What exactly does it mean to be radical? In checking with Webster, we find that the word has two primary meanings - revolutionary and fundamental. Synonyms of revolutionary are nonconformist, rebel rouser, ringleader, but also activist and reformer. The word fundamental means such things as basic, essential, innate, original and constitutional - certainly these terms are appropriate to our discussion here today.

Think about it - were it not for radical leadership, slavery would still exist and women would still not be allowed to vote. William Lloyd Garrison began his personal attack on slavery in 1829 when he called for 'gradual emancipation.' But only two years later, he published the first issue of The Liberator and called for "an immediate end of an immoral institution." Yet 126 years passed before Rosa Parks dared to test the waters of racial equality fueling the Civil Rights movement of our century. Susan B. Anthony another one of those radical individuals, along with 15 of her friends was arrested on November 5, 1872 for daring to go to the ballot box, but it would be another 48 years following her arrest before the 19th Amendment was finally passed allowing women the right to vote.

It was sometime during the early 80's that I first recall someone referring to me as a 'radical.' I also remember feeling uncomfortable with that label because it seemed to have such a negative connotation. But it was during the late 70's that I had become committed to the cause of adoption reform at any cost. So the radical label was apparently correct. It was November 5, 1993 when I walked through the gates of a federal prison for daring to challenge our adoption laws. Why was I sent to Prison. Because I refused to plead guilty to the government's ridiculous charge of "conspiracy to defraud the government of confidential information:" and because I turned down their plea bargains. Early on, I had made a conscious decision that I would not be deterred by the threat of prison; primarily because I was so passionate about my beliefs.

Prior to being processed into the general population, I was placed in solitary confinement. I only mention that fact because I'm extremely claustrophobic and because I was denied medication during those three days. Needless to say, I was a basket case by the time I got out of solitary. Did I question myself as to whether it was really worth what I was going through? Yes, I did - in fact I had lots of time to consider that question. Did I suffer emotionally - I can assure you that I did! But do I have any regrets about my decision to stand my ground? No, I don't! What are you passionate about? What changes would you like to see and what are you willing to do to make them happen? What I'm going to share with you today may seem radical, but if it resounds within your heart and spirit, then I pray that you will commit yourself to radical leadership. Either way, I hope you will keep an open mind and hear me out.

Organizations and institutions rise and fall - they rise because they fulfill a purpose for a specified period of time and when the need for them no longer exists, they fall. The institution of adoption, as we know it, started its rise in the 40's, rose steadily during the 50's, 60's and 70's and then began a decline during the 80's and 90's. Many of us now living at the beginning of the 21st Century realize that an institution so riddled with secrecy and lies has no place in our society. There comes a time when a foundation is so decayed that it becomes necessary to tear it down rather than to try to build upon it. I believe that time has come. I can hear some of my old former cronies now saying "she wants to throw out the baby with the bath water." They're the same ones who believe the foundation of this institution can be "fixed", that somehow it can be improved upon and made better and stronger, but I propose to you that a crumbling, broken infested foundation cannot be fixed nor can it be repaired.

The reason is this - the major crack in the substructure is not whether adoptees should be entitled to their information (that goes without question - of course they should!!) or it's not in trying to determine how many hours should pass before a mother can sign a surrender paper (there aren't enough hours to justify a permanent separation of mother and child). No, the major crack in the foundation is the way adoption has been and continues to be constructed. What do I mean by the 'construction of adoption?'

Adoption has always been a charade using a game we all used to play when we were kids - the game of "Let's Pretend" - for instance, to the mother we say - 'let's pretend' you never had a baby; then you can go on with your life, start a career, and put all this behind you like a bad dream; to the adopters we say - 'let's pretend' that this child you're adopting was "given away" because he/she wasn't wanted and even though this child comes pre-packaged with their own unique genetic makeup, let's just pretend that adoption will wipe it out; and then when the adoptee gets older and starts asking the "Who Am I" question, we tell them to pretend that their ancestral roots which include their entire cultural, medical and social history really don't matter - those basic God-given innate constitutional rights just aren't important enough to break the almighty 'sealed record!'

This game of 'let's pretend' allows the adoption service providers, using the legal system, to carry out the charade. Here is the crux of the entire charade - it allows ASP (adoption service providers) to falsify (aka doctoring) legal documents and thereby sanction the legalizing of lies. Then they take the true and accurate information and hide it under the cloak of secrecy - all the while stealing and robbing the child of its constitutional birthright to know their roots, their culture, their entire history. We are then forced into the position of playing the game by their rules. When you, the adoptee, as a grown adult, request your own basic information, once again they hide behind the secrecy laws which they themselves created, put into place, and now, even in this age of enlightenment, continue to staunchly defend.

We need to stop the pretense so inherent in adoption. By its very nature and language, the entire process is full of pretense. Let me cite just a few examples from two of the many adoption documents - the final decree states "as if born to the adoptive parents now and forevermore" allowing the charade to begin. But more outrageous is the surrender paper which still uses the term "abandoned!" Can you think of anything worse than for a child to feel or be told that they were 'abandoned' by their own mother - or for a mother to feel she abandoned her child? I left the hospital that July day in 1954 with empty arms and a broken heart and the memory of my daughter never ceased, and though I was told to forget, I never did. I can assure you that I never believed I was abandoning her, but that's what the paperwork would have us believe. Was I in dire straits at the time - definitely! Do I wish there could have been another solution - absolutely! Was it a last resort and I finally "surrendered" - yes! But hardly abandonment! The real truth of the matter is that no mother wants to 'give away' her child. It is not the norm nor is it a natural act. In fact, it is probably one of the most unnatural acts known to the human race and, sadly, we are one of the few countries in the world that encourage mothers to give away their babies and endorse the taking of young children from poor families.

How did an institution supposedly built upon love and compassion for children become a billion dollar business requiring professional intermediaries and legislated rules and regulations to make it function? My friends, it's an outrage. The time has come for us to end this charade. We need to have a vision that no child has to be permanently separated from their family of origin - their birth kin. Now hear me out on this. I'm not so naïve that I don't realize there are times when a child needs to have other caretakers (formerly called guardians), but when it becomes absolutely impossible for a child to remain with the family of origin, then let us at the very least establish a way for them to maintain their family ties. And let us NOT eradicate their family name - it's who they are! Many of you are probably thinking that these are lofty, idealistic or unrealistic ideas, but if we are really pro-family, then we've got to begin somewhere. It's so important to remember that we don't just remove a child from a mother or a father; when a child is taken, they are taken from an entire family of aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. - their entire root system.

The trauma of separation from one's family of origin is one of the most agonizing traumas we suffer as human beings. I am reminded of Louise, a 56 year old searching adoptee who told our support group that on the way home from a former meeting, she began to think about her mother 'out there somewhere' and suddenly the tears began to flow and she began to cry. Over and over again, she cried "Mommy, Mommy, where are you?!" I remember her look of embarrassment as she was telling us about it, but everyone shook their heads with complete empathy and understanding as to what she had experienced. Yes, the loss is so great that all of us could well relate.

Then there was Elizabeth. Elizabeth was a mother whose words have been ringing in my ears since she first spoke them 24 years ago. She said "My social worker told me to get on with my life, to go to college get a degree and 'make something of myself.' I did just as she suggested because I had no other options open to me, but it didn't take me very long to realize that what I had done was to trade my child for a PhD and I've never gotten over that awful realization. I've regretted my decision every day since."

And finally there was Nora, an adoptive parent who pleaded with The Musser Foundation to locate her adopted daughter's mother. In her letter to us, she wrote, "My daughter is in so much pain. It breaks my heart to see her struggling with who she is and it doesn't seem fair that she would be denied this basic information" She went on to express how she hoped we would be able to locate her mother in time for her daughter's 21st birthday. She wanted to provide her with the information as a gift. We did complete the search, but not in time. Sadly, her mother had passed away just a short time before. She was totally devastated and is still dealing with the awful grief that is experienced when the search ends at the grave. Friends, time is always of the essence.

The trauma of separation caused by adoption affects all of us for all of our lives. Statistics have proven over and over again that our jails, our mental health facilities and our treatment centers are filled with those who became separated from their family of origin at an early age. And they're filled with rage. The repressed anger that results from the trauma of separation is, I believe, the most toxic emotion known to man. Traditional, closed, sealed, secret adoption has got to stop. Too many lives have been devastated in its wake.

So what needs to be done? We need to be creative as we search for new programs to help our young families remain together - we need to do everything we can possibly do to prevent the loss of separation from ever occurring in the first place. As Hal Aigner, author of Adoption in America stated using a medical analogy - "adoption healing is wonderful, but the better path in not to contract the disease."

While I was in prison, and soon after the 60 Minutes Show aired, I received a commendation from The Giraffe Project, a legitimate non-profit organization (www.giraffe.org) that encourages risk-taking. The Giraffe Award is presented to individuals who are willing to 'stick one's neck out for the Common Good.' I can tell you with pride that it's one of my proudest awards.

For the first time in this new century, I've decided to once again stick my neck out. Because giraffes have such long necks, they always see the "bigger picture" - the bigger picture is that someday no child will have to be separated from their family of origin. I'm hoping that those of you who also see the bigger picture will want to become giraffes and join me. If so, would you send me an e-mail and let me know.

On this cool Friday in November 2000, seven years to the day that I went to prison for adoption reform, I am calling for the abolition of adoption. As we go forward into the 21st Century, let's end this charade once and for all, and allow this archaic institution to fade into obscurity and become a 'thing of the past.' In doing so, we will truly be proponents for family preservation.