Yesterday I posted Adoption Truth Subverted AGAIN.
I was angry and shared my frustration at having spent the previous week researching studies on suicide and adoption in the wake of the most recently widely publicized suicide death of Marie Osmond's son. It ws upsetting to note that such research has been being conducted back to the 1990s and poo-pooed and ignored. I tied that into to the story of Samoan adoptions being likewise silenced.
I then sent a link my post to a list of adoption professionals I am on and got some very angry feedback. I was told that I was obviously "upset about something that happened in [my] situation" and there are "certainly cases where people were forced to place a child for adoption or were tricked into it, but [I] need to stop besmirching all adoptions!"
This was followed by a lecturetelling me that MOST adoptions are "successful", his adoptions were wonderful, and a lesson on the many reasons some mothers need to place children by someone who subsequently identifies as "director of an adoption exchange, where we essentially only deal with kids with special needs whose parents are not able or willing to parent them" which is a horse of a whole different color.
Another on the list defended telling me that some mothers who lost children to adoption found it to be a "benefit" and that it brought them "happiness." Now you can tell me that some mothers are "content" with their decisions, but...
I asked her if she would tell anyone who had lost a loved one to death that death brought some a benefit and happiness? In fact someone ready to file for divorce might welcome the death of their spouse as a joyous occasion to celebrate, but you would not say that to another grieving widow, would you? In a private email, I told her I was hurt and offended but instead of an apology to hurting my feelings, I was told to stop "ranting."
I was at my wits end, upset and nearly in tears...feeling attacked by both of these folk...when a light bulb dawned and I realized that both of the upset parties were people whose incomes depended - directly or indirectly upon on the continued flow of adoptions.
The IRONY of these replies coming immediately following my posting:
"telling the truth about adoption is bad for business. It's like being a whistle blower in the pharmaceutical industry."
It's like saying the emperor has no clothes! As for the fact that MOST adoptions are "successful"... does that mean children should not be taught how to protect themselves from strangers who might abduct them, since MOST children are never abducted? Should we not teach fire and drowning safety rules since most homes do not burn down and most people do not drown?
Speaking out against doption atrocities in an effort to curtail them is not for sissies! It's often pretty thankless and tiresome. I take my lunps and keep on going...
And then...a stranger on the list ttoally defended me!
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Adoption Truth Subverted AGAIN
All week my posts have had a common theme: there are facts, studies, research...evidence of the harm of adoption. These facts have been known since the records became sealed. But they are kept surprised. Books and articles will never get published because they go agents the tide. I know this all to well! Get one adoptive parent on an editorial board and wham! Censored.
Just as in all research, it is affected by its funding in the same way media bends to its advertisers. As a result, studies go unfunded because they might prove "unpopular" or "unpleasant" facts.
In my first book in 1988 I called for several post-adoption studies: to determine the percent of adoptees in all types of youth facilities, mental hospitals and prison as compared to the general populace; to compare the divorce rate of couples who adopt as compared to those who do ot; to compare the rates of sexual abuse - including between siblings - in adoptive homes compared to non-adoptive homes, as we know the rate is higher in foster care and attribute it to absence of kinship taboo; suicide rates of adoptees compared to non-adoptees.
Were any of these studies ever undertaken? No. And if a study does come out stating that adoptees experience anxiety, depression, feelings of rejection, feelings of helplessness, doubts, fears, isolation, abandonment...they are pp0o-pooed and the lobbyists for the baby brokers put out there studies to "prove" that everything is just peachy keen in adoptionland and everyone is happy, fa-la-la....
On top of that, facts about child trafficking are treated the same way. "It's just an anomaly." "Don't stop all adoptions because a FEW are tainted!" We turn our heads and ignored proven cases of kidnapping for adoption. Our nation does nothing to even investigate them - in violation of internationally treaties! So powerful is the adoption lobby and so under its spell are our legislators.
WHY? Because telling the truth about adoption is bad for business. It's like being a whistle blower in the pharmaceutical industry. It's like having said a generation ago that tobacco was dangerous! And just like then, people are DYING as a result of lack of access to their original birth certificates and thus an inability to find out their family medical history. Others commit suicide because of the despair and discrimination. How many mothers have committed suicide not being able to live with feeling betrayed by lies and wondering if the child they lost to adoption is alive and well and knowing how badly they are thought of for letting their own flesh and blood go... Do we know? Does anybody CARE?
And just as those who speak about about other dangers are labelled whistle blowers (as if that's a bad thing) we are supposed to be stopped by being labeled "bitter" "ungrateful" and 'anti-adoption." You bet I am!!
And now this...MaryAnne Jolie, a respected colleague and one of the few brave souls who bucks the tide and exposes the truth has done it yet again...
Just as in all research, it is affected by its funding in the same way media bends to its advertisers. As a result, studies go unfunded because they might prove "unpopular" or "unpleasant" facts.
In my first book in 1988 I called for several post-adoption studies: to determine the percent of adoptees in all types of youth facilities, mental hospitals and prison as compared to the general populace; to compare the divorce rate of couples who adopt as compared to those who do ot; to compare the rates of sexual abuse - including between siblings - in adoptive homes compared to non-adoptive homes, as we know the rate is higher in foster care and attribute it to absence of kinship taboo; suicide rates of adoptees compared to non-adoptees.
Were any of these studies ever undertaken? No. And if a study does come out stating that adoptees experience anxiety, depression, feelings of rejection, feelings of helplessness, doubts, fears, isolation, abandonment...they are pp0o-pooed and the lobbyists for the baby brokers put out there studies to "prove" that everything is just peachy keen in adoptionland and everyone is happy, fa-la-la....
On top of that, facts about child trafficking are treated the same way. "It's just an anomaly." "Don't stop all adoptions because a FEW are tainted!" We turn our heads and ignored proven cases of kidnapping for adoption. Our nation does nothing to even investigate them - in violation of internationally treaties! So powerful is the adoption lobby and so under its spell are our legislators.
WHY? Because telling the truth about adoption is bad for business. It's like being a whistle blower in the pharmaceutical industry. It's like having said a generation ago that tobacco was dangerous! And just like then, people are DYING as a result of lack of access to their original birth certificates and thus an inability to find out their family medical history. Others commit suicide because of the despair and discrimination. How many mothers have committed suicide not being able to live with feeling betrayed by lies and wondering if the child they lost to adoption is alive and well and knowing how badly they are thought of for letting their own flesh and blood go... Do we know? Does anybody CARE?
And just as those who speak about about other dangers are labelled whistle blowers (as if that's a bad thing) we are supposed to be stopped by being labeled "bitter" "ungrateful" and 'anti-adoption." You bet I am!!
And now this...MaryAnne Jolie, a respected colleague and one of the few brave souls who bucks the tide and exposes the truth has done it yet again...
Adoption watchdog suppresses Ethiopia findings
Updated
One of Katie Bradshaw's adopted children was told by the adoption agency that she was going to the US on a study trip. (Supplied)
A powerful international adoption overseer is refusing
to release the results of its inquiry into the disturbing activities of
American adoption agencies operating in Ethiopia.
The inquiry was launched after ABC TV's Foreign Correspondent exposed deep and dangerous flaws in the system.
The Joint Council of International Children's Services (JCICS) says
it has completed its probe, but to release its conclusions would not be
"appropriate".
Foreign Correspondent's story last year exposed a dysfunctional,
largely unregulated adoption industry in Ethiopia, where children were
being harvested from families, and mothers claimed they were tricked
into surrendering their children.
Full story here
VOTES NEEDED FOR ADOPTEE RIGHTS - NOW!!
PLEASE FORWARD AND DISSEMINATE WIDELY VIA NEWSLETTERS, FACEBOOK,
TWITTER, BLOG, EMAIL LISTS ETC!!!
Round Two is ON. March 1-12.
Whether you voted before or not - VOTE AGAIN NOW!!!
http://tinyurl.com/vote-4-equality
It is very competitive and we need to be in the top ten. The Top 10 Ideas for Change in America. To formally announce the winners, Change.org will host an event in Washington, DC, where each of these top 10 ideas will be presented to representatives of the media, the nonprofit community, and to relevant officials in the Obama Administration. After the announcement, Change.org will mobilize the full resources of our staff, our 1 million community members, and our extended network of bloggers to support a series of grassroots campaigns to turn each idea into reality.
VOTE and share this link with all in your address book: friends, family, co-workers, church members and tell them how important it is to you personally! http://tinyurl.com/vote-4-equality
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Painful Legacy of Adoption
The Painful Legacy of Adoption
LOUISE BELLAMY
THE AGE: 30-Jun-1993
In the past, adoptive parents were encouraged to raise the child as their own and birth parents were advised to forget about the child.
Now adoption is open, but the complex issues of separation remain significant throughout the lives of those involved.
TRISH feels like skipping in the street. Eleven years after first being reunited with her birth mother _ "feeling like we were stepping on eggshells every time we met" _ her mother finally admitted that she had refused to sign the adoption papers for three months, before being bullied into giving up her baby by the parish priest.
For Trish, discovering that her mother was so reluctant to agree to an adoption has brought to an end years of suffering and feelings of abandonment _ and even occasional thoughts of suicide.
"Until last week I felt like a suitcase which had been left at a station and picked up by someone who really didn't want it. That sense of despair has gone now.
Trish, 44, is just one of the tens of thousands of adoptees living in Victoria. While the advent of abortion and the single mothers' benefit in the early 1970s have drastically reduced the number of children put up for adoption each year, thousands of adoptees still live with the pain of separation from their natural parents and the associated sense of rejection.
Some welfare organisations are concerned that there is insufficient recognition in the community of the traumatic effects of adoption, and a lack of support for the families involved.
Dr Sheila Parks, consultant psychiatrist at the Royal Children's Hospital who works with adopted children, says while many adoptions work out, "adoptees do not have the same experience as a child brought up by his or her biological parents".
"Giving a child a family is one of the most splendid things a human being can do, but one must remember that it may not, necessarily, be as easy for the adoptee. How many times does a mother look at her child and ponder over which family member the child most resembles that day? An adopted child is always looking but never finding.
It is a point not lost on Trish. Adopted in 1949 at the age of nine months, the 44-year-old nurse talks about the stigma of adoption that clouded her childhood, and the profound effect that had on her life.
"Adopted children were regarded as having bad blood. I used to walk to school with my best friend. We were very close. When her mother found out I was adopted, the walks and the friendship terminated immediately.
Sometimes, she says, the pain of being rejected was so great that suicide seemed the only way to stop it. "Most adoptees hate birthdays. I hate Christmas because it's for families. It's such a genetic-related society. People assume adoption is a good thing, but it's roots ... genes ... which are important. You can't even go to the doctor without being asked about your family. Without a family we don't have the same rights.
Trish never married. She explains she has always been cautious of close relationships. "I would have liked children but I have lived with the feeling that that if my mother didn't want me no one would.
At its inception in Australia in the 1920s, adoption was seen primarily as a service to provide middle-class childless couples with a child to cement their marriage and meet their emotional needs. With no effective means of contraception, let alone a single parents' benefit, many illegitimate children were born and relinquished.
Society and the church endorsed it.
There were so many relinquished children that couples planning to adopt only had to show proof of their infertility and their racial origin was closely examined to assure "the best match".
But times have changed. According to the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages, there are between 62,000 and 64,000 adoptees in Victoria. From 1969-72, there were 1800 adoptions each year. In 1992 there were 31 _ mostly infant adoptions.
The introduction of the single mothers' benefit under the Whitlam Government in 1972 and the ruling, in the same year, by Mr Justice Menhennit of the Supreme Court that pregnancies could be terminated if a mother's health was considered at risk, have
made adoption all but extinct.
Further developments have ensued. Under the Adoption of Children Act (1984) adoptees over the age of 18 can obtain their original birth certificates, court and adoption agency records and other assistance to trace their natural parents. In the past nine years, a total of 18,500 people have registered _ 12,000 to 13,000 of these adoptees.
These days relinquishing parents are actively involved in the selection of permanent care givers and are encouraged to continue to have contact with their children.
But while adoption numbers plummet, there are thousands of adoptees who have grown up with the legacy of separation. Bridgid, 24, was told she was adopted as a baby, when she was seven. But, she says, she always knew "because the three of us (her, a brother and a sister) looked so different".
A self-assured young woman, Bridgid, claims she feels lucky that she was adopted. "I had a happy childhood. I've done drugs a bit and been on the streets, but that's because I let the wrong type influence me.
It had nothing to do with being adopted.
The unemployed Bridgid has had the papers to contact her birth mother for two years but has done nothing about it. Why? "I'm lazy. I even think I know where she lives. But I'll go through the proper channels.
It would be too hard on her to just ring up and say: `I think I'm your daughter'.
Bridgid is one of thousands of children adopted in the 1960s. Now they are young adults and some are finding the going tough.
Dr Frank Bishop, consultant psychiatrist at the Royal Children's Hospital for 18 years, who specialises in the effects of separation and loss on infants and children, says children can remain angry about the broken attachment to their birth parents.
"Adoption was regarded as good. But in reality it's a severe emotional insult to be rejected by a birth mother. Adoptive parents are told love and affection are important but adopted children may need more.
Gillian Thomas works at the Victorian Adoption Network and helps adoptees locate and reunite with their birth parents. Ms Thomas had an illegitimate son at 18. With no family support, she had him adopted.
Later she married and had four children. Four years ago the son she relinquished made contact. "No one talks about the long-term effects of separation. Society saw it as my solution, but my son who was adopted is always searching for an identity," she said.
Ms Thomas said the biggest shock was to realise that her son did not consider that the adoption was in his best interests. "I thought, quite naively, that it would be me that would feel the pain. Then came the realisation of the ripple effect of adoption, which was still impacting on myself and my family.
"I have had other children, which only exacerbates my son's sense of worthlessness. He is caught in-between. People want that genetic link.
My son considers he reflects nothing and identifies with nothing.
There are no Australian studies available on the long-term effects of adoption but some overseas studies indicate the effects are significant. Two American papers examining psychological and academic adjustment in adopted children (D.M.Brodzinsky, L.M.Singer and A.M.Braff, `Child Development', 1984) show that adopted children are rated as more poorly adjusted compared with non-adopted children, but are still well within the normal range of behavior.
A University of Texas study by Dr Harold Grotevant, Dr Ruth McRoy and Ms Vivian Jenkins in 1988 of 50 adolescents in residential care, showed that adopted children are referred for psychological treatment two-to-five times as frequently as their non-adopted peers.
Dr Bishop from the Childrens' Hospital says many of the problems he sees arise when adoptees have been placed in alternative care following the failure of the adoption.
Indeed, some welfare organisations argue that it is imperative that adoptive parents, clinicians and society realise the traumatic effects of adoption and provide better assistance for families who have adopted children.
Sue Green, convenor of Origins, Advocacy and Kinship, a voluntary group for adult adoptees, said she is concerned that in cases where adoptions do not work out, adoptees and their adopted parents do not have enough support to resolve their differences.
Ms Green said the system is based on quick fix solutions that provide alternative care _ such as group family homes, substitute and foster care _ when problems arise. "It means the child is rejected twice _ once by his or her birth mother, then by the adoptive family. This often leads to the child running away from the alternative care and becoming homeless.
Ms Green, who is the last of a large family, was adopted when she was a baby when the family doctor advised her mother to relinquish her.
"I was brought up to think I was the chosen baby. I was never bitter because I always knew I was adopted and knew I had a birth and adoptive family. Not everyone is so lucky.
However, Ms Green said many adoptees feel they do not have a culture.
"You live with people who don't look like you, no personal reference points. Yet the spirit of the birth family is passed on independently of the contact with that family. When problems arise between adoptees and their adopted parents, the welfare system removes them. The consequences are dire.
Brother Alex McDonald, a Jesuit who has worked with homeless young people in St Kilda for 10 years, says of the 147 suicides of young people caused by drugs and abuse in the area over the past decade, 142 came from adoption backgrounds.
He says the high incidence of suicide among adoptees indicates that there should be more understanding and support for them in the community. "One lives with constant questions: `Who am I? Why am I here?' "Young adoptees who have problems with their adoptive families look to the streets to find verification for their identity. They often link in with the criminal and welfare systems, which focus on the problem, not the person.
Brother McDonald was estranged from his own mother until last year, having been raised in Catholic Institutions after being transported to Australia as a small boy under the post-war Child Migrant Scheme.
Community Services Victoria's program manager (monitoring and review), Mr John Prent, said the incidence of breakdowns between adoptees and their new families should not be exaggerated. He said that, of the 1059 placements over the past six years there were 39, or 3.6 per cent, total breakdowns.
"Of the 50,000 to 60,000 adoptions over the past 50 years, the vast majority have been very successful. Where there are difficulties, the emphasis of CSV is to support the child within the family. Only as a measure of last resort is consideration given to placing child in another family.
He said that in the case of a total breakdown, adoptive children were placed in family group homes and cared for by cottage parents who usually had their own children. Placements in institutions had been phased out over the past 20 years.
SUPPORT AND SELF-HELP GROUPS Victorian Adoption Network 167 Drummond Street, Carlton. Phone: 663 8064, 008 334 043.
Association of Relinquishing Mothers, 57 Annandale Crescent, Glen Waverley. Phone: Gillian on 803 3331, Merrilyn on 570 4826 or Robyn on 798 1166.
Origins, Advocacy and Kinship, POBox 5260 BB, Melbourne 3001.
Geelong Information Service, Suite 2, 142 Little Ryrie Street, Geelong. Phone (052) 222991.
Adoption Information Service, 29 Coventry Street, South Melbourne.
LOUISE BELLAMY
THE AGE: 30-Jun-1993
In the past, adoptive parents were encouraged to raise the child as their own and birth parents were advised to forget about the child.
Now adoption is open, but the complex issues of separation remain significant throughout the lives of those involved.
TRISH feels like skipping in the street. Eleven years after first being reunited with her birth mother _ "feeling like we were stepping on eggshells every time we met" _ her mother finally admitted that she had refused to sign the adoption papers for three months, before being bullied into giving up her baby by the parish priest.
For Trish, discovering that her mother was so reluctant to agree to an adoption has brought to an end years of suffering and feelings of abandonment _ and even occasional thoughts of suicide.
"Until last week I felt like a suitcase which had been left at a station and picked up by someone who really didn't want it. That sense of despair has gone now.
Trish, 44, is just one of the tens of thousands of adoptees living in Victoria. While the advent of abortion and the single mothers' benefit in the early 1970s have drastically reduced the number of children put up for adoption each year, thousands of adoptees still live with the pain of separation from their natural parents and the associated sense of rejection.
Some welfare organisations are concerned that there is insufficient recognition in the community of the traumatic effects of adoption, and a lack of support for the families involved.
Dr Sheila Parks, consultant psychiatrist at the Royal Children's Hospital who works with adopted children, says while many adoptions work out, "adoptees do not have the same experience as a child brought up by his or her biological parents".
"Giving a child a family is one of the most splendid things a human being can do, but one must remember that it may not, necessarily, be as easy for the adoptee. How many times does a mother look at her child and ponder over which family member the child most resembles that day? An adopted child is always looking but never finding.
It is a point not lost on Trish. Adopted in 1949 at the age of nine months, the 44-year-old nurse talks about the stigma of adoption that clouded her childhood, and the profound effect that had on her life.
"Adopted children were regarded as having bad blood. I used to walk to school with my best friend. We were very close. When her mother found out I was adopted, the walks and the friendship terminated immediately.
Sometimes, she says, the pain of being rejected was so great that suicide seemed the only way to stop it. "Most adoptees hate birthdays. I hate Christmas because it's for families. It's such a genetic-related society. People assume adoption is a good thing, but it's roots ... genes ... which are important. You can't even go to the doctor without being asked about your family. Without a family we don't have the same rights.
Trish never married. She explains she has always been cautious of close relationships. "I would have liked children but I have lived with the feeling that that if my mother didn't want me no one would.
At its inception in Australia in the 1920s, adoption was seen primarily as a service to provide middle-class childless couples with a child to cement their marriage and meet their emotional needs. With no effective means of contraception, let alone a single parents' benefit, many illegitimate children were born and relinquished.
Society and the church endorsed it.
There were so many relinquished children that couples planning to adopt only had to show proof of their infertility and their racial origin was closely examined to assure "the best match".
But times have changed. According to the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages, there are between 62,000 and 64,000 adoptees in Victoria. From 1969-72, there were 1800 adoptions each year. In 1992 there were 31 _ mostly infant adoptions.
The introduction of the single mothers' benefit under the Whitlam Government in 1972 and the ruling, in the same year, by Mr Justice Menhennit of the Supreme Court that pregnancies could be terminated if a mother's health was considered at risk, have
made adoption all but extinct.
Further developments have ensued. Under the Adoption of Children Act (1984) adoptees over the age of 18 can obtain their original birth certificates, court and adoption agency records and other assistance to trace their natural parents. In the past nine years, a total of 18,500 people have registered _ 12,000 to 13,000 of these adoptees.
These days relinquishing parents are actively involved in the selection of permanent care givers and are encouraged to continue to have contact with their children.
But while adoption numbers plummet, there are thousands of adoptees who have grown up with the legacy of separation. Bridgid, 24, was told she was adopted as a baby, when she was seven. But, she says, she always knew "because the three of us (her, a brother and a sister) looked so different".
A self-assured young woman, Bridgid, claims she feels lucky that she was adopted. "I had a happy childhood. I've done drugs a bit and been on the streets, but that's because I let the wrong type influence me.
It had nothing to do with being adopted.
The unemployed Bridgid has had the papers to contact her birth mother for two years but has done nothing about it. Why? "I'm lazy. I even think I know where she lives. But I'll go through the proper channels.
It would be too hard on her to just ring up and say: `I think I'm your daughter'.
Bridgid is one of thousands of children adopted in the 1960s. Now they are young adults and some are finding the going tough.
Dr Frank Bishop, consultant psychiatrist at the Royal Children's Hospital for 18 years, who specialises in the effects of separation and loss on infants and children, says children can remain angry about the broken attachment to their birth parents.
"Adoption was regarded as good. But in reality it's a severe emotional insult to be rejected by a birth mother. Adoptive parents are told love and affection are important but adopted children may need more.
Gillian Thomas works at the Victorian Adoption Network and helps adoptees locate and reunite with their birth parents. Ms Thomas had an illegitimate son at 18. With no family support, she had him adopted.
Later she married and had four children. Four years ago the son she relinquished made contact. "No one talks about the long-term effects of separation. Society saw it as my solution, but my son who was adopted is always searching for an identity," she said.
Ms Thomas said the biggest shock was to realise that her son did not consider that the adoption was in his best interests. "I thought, quite naively, that it would be me that would feel the pain. Then came the realisation of the ripple effect of adoption, which was still impacting on myself and my family.
"I have had other children, which only exacerbates my son's sense of worthlessness. He is caught in-between. People want that genetic link.
My son considers he reflects nothing and identifies with nothing.
There are no Australian studies available on the long-term effects of adoption but some overseas studies indicate the effects are significant. Two American papers examining psychological and academic adjustment in adopted children (D.M.Brodzinsky, L.M.Singer and A.M.Braff, `Child Development', 1984) show that adopted children are rated as more poorly adjusted compared with non-adopted children, but are still well within the normal range of behavior.
A University of Texas study by Dr Harold Grotevant, Dr Ruth McRoy and Ms Vivian Jenkins in 1988 of 50 adolescents in residential care, showed that adopted children are referred for psychological treatment two-to-five times as frequently as their non-adopted peers.
Dr Bishop from the Childrens' Hospital says many of the problems he sees arise when adoptees have been placed in alternative care following the failure of the adoption.
Indeed, some welfare organisations argue that it is imperative that adoptive parents, clinicians and society realise the traumatic effects of adoption and provide better assistance for families who have adopted children.
Sue Green, convenor of Origins, Advocacy and Kinship, a voluntary group for adult adoptees, said she is concerned that in cases where adoptions do not work out, adoptees and their adopted parents do not have enough support to resolve their differences.
Ms Green said the system is based on quick fix solutions that provide alternative care _ such as group family homes, substitute and foster care _ when problems arise. "It means the child is rejected twice _ once by his or her birth mother, then by the adoptive family. This often leads to the child running away from the alternative care and becoming homeless.
Ms Green, who is the last of a large family, was adopted when she was a baby when the family doctor advised her mother to relinquish her.
"I was brought up to think I was the chosen baby. I was never bitter because I always knew I was adopted and knew I had a birth and adoptive family. Not everyone is so lucky.
However, Ms Green said many adoptees feel they do not have a culture.
"You live with people who don't look like you, no personal reference points. Yet the spirit of the birth family is passed on independently of the contact with that family. When problems arise between adoptees and their adopted parents, the welfare system removes them. The consequences are dire.
Brother Alex McDonald, a Jesuit who has worked with homeless young people in St Kilda for 10 years, says of the 147 suicides of young people caused by drugs and abuse in the area over the past decade, 142 came from adoption backgrounds.
He says the high incidence of suicide among adoptees indicates that there should be more understanding and support for them in the community. "One lives with constant questions: `Who am I? Why am I here?' "Young adoptees who have problems with their adoptive families look to the streets to find verification for their identity. They often link in with the criminal and welfare systems, which focus on the problem, not the person.
Brother McDonald was estranged from his own mother until last year, having been raised in Catholic Institutions after being transported to Australia as a small boy under the post-war Child Migrant Scheme.
Community Services Victoria's program manager (monitoring and review), Mr John Prent, said the incidence of breakdowns between adoptees and their new families should not be exaggerated. He said that, of the 1059 placements over the past six years there were 39, or 3.6 per cent, total breakdowns.
"Of the 50,000 to 60,000 adoptions over the past 50 years, the vast majority have been very successful. Where there are difficulties, the emphasis of CSV is to support the child within the family. Only as a measure of last resort is consideration given to placing child in another family.
He said that in the case of a total breakdown, adoptive children were placed in family group homes and cared for by cottage parents who usually had their own children. Placements in institutions had been phased out over the past 20 years.
SUPPORT AND SELF-HELP GROUPS Victorian Adoption Network 167 Drummond Street, Carlton. Phone: 663 8064, 008 334 043.
Association of Relinquishing Mothers, 57 Annandale Crescent, Glen Waverley. Phone: Gillian on 803 3331, Merrilyn on 570 4826 or Robyn on 798 1166.
Origins, Advocacy and Kinship, POBox 5260 BB, Melbourne 3001.
Geelong Information Service, Suite 2, 142 Little Ryrie Street, Geelong. Phone (052) 222991.
Adoption Information Service, 29 Coventry Street, South Melbourne.
Another Throw-Away Child: Adoption Give Back
Reversing Adoption of 17 year old?
Okay, so, this isn’t an easy ask, but I am the end of my rope! My husband and I had adopted a girl (14 at the time) that we were told definately didn’t have reactive attachement disorder (RAD – look it up if you’re unfamiliar). She also has ADHD. Nevertheless, we have done attachment therapy for three years and tried over and over with this child. She is fully disruptive and mean to us and the other kids in the home. Now she refuses schooling and anything else that will prepare her for the world. My question is, does anyone know how to start the proceeding to un-adopt her? Not what I want to do as a mother of 6 adopted children, but I really don’t know how I can live one more day with this child in my home. I am fully aware of the moral obligation that we have taken on, but in reality, we really didn’t want this type of responsibility of anyone that it is impossible to attach with. Please help with PRODUCTIVE answers. Thank you.
STOP convicted criminals and child abusers of adopted from adopting again
Call for Full Investigation into Amelya Frances Kirkpatrick's Adoption in Utah
According to a court document obtained by PEAR, on February 9, 2010, Scott and Karen Banks, former owners of adoption agency Focus on Children, were allowed to adopt another child, originally from China. The Banks were indicted on 135 Federal counts in 2007 for a fraudulent adoption scheme in Samoa. In 2009, they pled guilty to Aiding and Abetting the Improper Entry of an Alien in a plea deal made with the US Attorney's office in Utah. They were given a sentence of five years probation during which time they are forbidden to participate in the adoption business and are required to make payment into a trust for the victims.
The recent adoption occurred after evidence of their illegal activities with their Samoan adoption program were put on record in Utah courts. Also supplied was information regarding the Banks two previously adopted Romanian children.
According to numerous media sources and their now-adult Romanian daughter's own affidavit, this child and her sibling were flown to Samoa by Scott Banks and left without legal documentation in 2000, leaving these adoptees in a legal limbo. In addition, according to an affidavit given by their caregiver in Samoa, the Banks have had no contact with either child since their arrival, nor have they supported the children in any way since abandoning them in Samoa.
Furthermore, a third child of the Banks, suffering from cerebral palsy and also adopted from Romania, has been alleged in various documents to have been severely neglected in their home. This child was placed in a group home in Utah.
PEAR (Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform) believes that anyone convicted of crimes involving children should be barred from the possibility of adopting any other children. We also believe that any parents convicted of or with a history of legitimate allegations of child abuse and neglect should be barred from adopting children.
PEAR opposes any practice that does not protect the rights of the child to live a life free from abuse and neglect with qualified and loving adoptive parents. To not hold these rights paramount in an adoption proceeding undermines every moral and ethical standard that each child deserves.
We are sponsoring a petition to be sent to the Governor of Utah asking his office to open an investigation into how and why this family was allowed to adopt another child given their dubious history. If you agree with the statements made please take a moment to sign the petition.
The petition can be found here.
According to a court document obtained by PEAR, on February 9, 2010, Scott and Karen Banks, former owners of adoption agency Focus on Children, were allowed to adopt another child, originally from China. The Banks were indicted on 135 Federal counts in 2007 for a fraudulent adoption scheme in Samoa. In 2009, they pled guilty to Aiding and Abetting the Improper Entry of an Alien in a plea deal made with the US Attorney's office in Utah. They were given a sentence of five years probation during which time they are forbidden to participate in the adoption business and are required to make payment into a trust for the victims.
The recent adoption occurred after evidence of their illegal activities with their Samoan adoption program were put on record in Utah courts. Also supplied was information regarding the Banks two previously adopted Romanian children.
According to numerous media sources and their now-adult Romanian daughter's own affidavit, this child and her sibling were flown to Samoa by Scott Banks and left without legal documentation in 2000, leaving these adoptees in a legal limbo. In addition, according to an affidavit given by their caregiver in Samoa, the Banks have had no contact with either child since their arrival, nor have they supported the children in any way since abandoning them in Samoa.
Furthermore, a third child of the Banks, suffering from cerebral palsy and also adopted from Romania, has been alleged in various documents to have been severely neglected in their home. This child was placed in a group home in Utah.
PEAR (Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform) believes that anyone convicted of crimes involving children should be barred from the possibility of adopting any other children. We also believe that any parents convicted of or with a history of legitimate allegations of child abuse and neglect should be barred from adopting children.
PEAR opposes any practice that does not protect the rights of the child to live a life free from abuse and neglect with qualified and loving adoptive parents. To not hold these rights paramount in an adoption proceeding undermines every moral and ethical standard that each child deserves.
We are sponsoring a petition to be sent to the Governor of Utah asking his office to open an investigation into how and why this family was allowed to adopt another child given their dubious history. If you agree with the statements made please take a moment to sign the petition.
The petition can be found here.
Still More on Adoption and Suicide
This post is a follow up to this one, and this one.
"Adoption as a Risk Factor for Attempted Suicide During Adolescence"?
PEDIATRICS vol 108 No. 2, August 2001, by Gail Slap, Md; Elizabeth Goodman, Md; and Bin Huang, MS
ABSTRACT
Depression, impulsivity, and aggression during adolescence have been associated with both adoption and suicidal behavior. Studies of adopted adults suggest that impulsivity, even more than depression, may be an inherited factor that mediates suicidal behavior. However, the association between adoption and adolescent suicide attempts and the mechanisms that might explain it remain unknown.
The objective of this study was to determine the following: 1) whether suicide attempts are more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents rather than biological parents; 2) whether the association is mediated by impulsivity, and 3) whether family connectedness decreases the risk of suicide attempt regardless of adoptive or biological status.
Conclusions. Attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents. The association persists after adjusting for depression and aggression and is not explained by impulsivity as measured by a self-reported tendency to make decisions quickly. Although the mechanism underlying the association remains unclear, recognizing the adoptive status may help health care providers to identify youths who are at risk and to intervene before a suicide attempt occurs. It is important to note, however, that the great majority of adopted youths do not attempt suicide and that adopted and nonadopted youths in this study did not differ in other aspects of emotional and behavioral health. Furthermore, high family connectedness decreases the likelihood of suicide attempts regardless of adoptive status and represents a protective factor for all adolescents.
Thanks to Darlene McNutt Gerow for sharing this resource
Exploring links between past adoptions and suicide
"Adoption as a Risk Factor for Attempted Suicide During Adolescence"?
PEDIATRICS vol 108 No. 2, August 2001, by Gail Slap, Md; Elizabeth Goodman, Md; and Bin Huang, MS
ABSTRACT
Depression, impulsivity, and aggression during adolescence have been associated with both adoption and suicidal behavior. Studies of adopted adults suggest that impulsivity, even more than depression, may be an inherited factor that mediates suicidal behavior. However, the association between adoption and adolescent suicide attempts and the mechanisms that might explain it remain unknown.
The objective of this study was to determine the following: 1) whether suicide attempts are more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents rather than biological parents; 2) whether the association is mediated by impulsivity, and 3) whether family connectedness decreases the risk of suicide attempt regardless of adoptive or biological status.
Conclusions. Attempted suicide is more common among adolescents who live with adoptive parents than among adolescents who live with biological parents. The association persists after adjusting for depression and aggression and is not explained by impulsivity as measured by a self-reported tendency to make decisions quickly. Although the mechanism underlying the association remains unclear, recognizing the adoptive status may help health care providers to identify youths who are at risk and to intervene before a suicide attempt occurs. It is important to note, however, that the great majority of adopted youths do not attempt suicide and that adopted and nonadopted youths in this study did not differ in other aspects of emotional and behavioral health. Furthermore, high family connectedness decreases the likelihood of suicide attempts regardless of adoptive status and represents a protective factor for all adolescents.
Thanks to Darlene McNutt Gerow for sharing this resource
-----------------------
Exploring links between past adoptions and suicide
Stories of depression and suicidal thoughts were common among adoptees and birth parents participating in a study conducted by James Cook University social work senior lecturer Dr Susan Gair. (Gair, S. Camilleri, P. (2000) Attempted suicide: Listening to and learning from young people, Queensland Journal of Educational Research, Vo l16, No 2, pages 183-206)
The study involved gathering anecdotal evidence through interviews with birth parents, adoptees and adoptive parents.
Dr Gair said her study showed that previous adoption processes were not ideal and that recent reforms will go a long way to improve future adoptions situations.
“In February, The Adoption Bill 2009 was introduced into Queensland Parliament, granting more flexibility and choices to people involved in adoption. This Bill brings Queensland into line with other Australian states,” she said.
“Theorising about past adoption practice can and should inform clinical practice and future adoption legislation and policies,” Dr Gair said.
Dr Gair said the study revealed distressing stories of depression, suicide attempts and completed suicides.
“There were common themes in the stories: powerlessness, feelings of rejection, despair and hopelessness,” Dr Gair said.
“Many of the participants discussed how they felt required to silently suffer these feelings as society dictated a level of gratitude and shame associated with adoption”.
Some of the stories told by birth parents reveal that at the time of the adoption, they were told they had no rights and were told to just ‘get on with (their) lives’.
“Some adoptees discussed feelings of depression, of being a ‘second class citizen’, and of having ‘borrowed an identity’. One adoptive parent discussed how her child died by suicide after being unable to face more rejections,” Dr Gair said.
The report also featured stories where participants identified ‘turning points’ which were described as having “saved (their) life”. These incidents mostly involved finding a link with their birth parents/children, meeting a grandparent or finding a match on the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)