UPDATE: Cohen Ponzi "Pmzi" baby Selling Scam

Korean Government Taking Bold and Noble Stance on Adoption

A proposed Korean bill "starts with the idea that foreign, and even domestic, adoption is not the best option for children and that public assistance should be given to mothers to help them raise their children, a concept that follows international adoption practices. It also incorporates the notion that adoption processes need to be more strictly regulated to prevent possible abuses by adoption agencies."

Rather than pushing adoption, we should reinforce the original family to prevent further separation between mothers and their children,” said Reverend Kim Do-hyun, who is the director of KoRoot, which provides accommodation for Korean adoptees returning to the country.

Among proposed revisions, including access for adoptees, would be to give mothers a minimum of 30 days to make a decision on adoption.

Observers say women are often forced to sign an agreement on adoption almost right after giving birth. If the mothers change their mind, the agencies charge them for all expenses they’ve incurred, from child delivery to the shelters they run. They said adoption agencies tend to encourage adoption rather than telling the women that there are other options available such as raising their child on their own.

Jane Joeng Trenka, author and the president of the Truth and Reconciliation for the Adoption Community of Korea (TRACK) and one of the adoptees who filed the appeal at the commission, notes: “Adoption may be an act of love, but all adoptions are meant to separate children from their mothers.”

The full article, Korea: A Generation Fights to Reform Adoption Laws.


A related story about Korean adoptees searching for their roots, here.

Bogus Promises and Outright Lies

Much of what is disturbing about currenrt american adoption practice are the lies and broken promises, justified by a need for secrecy to "protect" parties from one another.

Yet who is being protected by all of it? Just one party: the paying client!

The falsified birth certificate is the most major lie.  The lie gibes the paying client all the power t never tell their child anything else but what it says therein: that they child was born to them. Gives them all the power and makes the adoptee and their original families powerless victims.  Did you know that would happen when you signed away your parental rights? 

Promises of openness - a marketing tool to pressure mothers in crisis with no legal counse to informthem that such promises are unenforceble.

Lies, all lies.  But one of the one that bothers me the most is being told that I was given a promise in exchange for my child!  How dare ayone imply that I or anyone else ever asked for, requested or assumed to have anonymity from our own child?  How dare anyone imply that i or anyone else was given any CONSIDERATION in exchnage for that coerced signature?

Consideration is a legal term in contract law defined as: "Some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party of a contract, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other."

In simpler language...:
 
An exchange of "consideration" whether it be financial or of another sort between the parties to a contractual arrangement is crucial for the agreement to be legally enforceable..

It is the reason a family member will "sell" a house to a relative for $1.00.

NOTE: The 'something of value' may be either something that the person actually hands over (that they would not otherwise be indebted to hand over) or some right that they give up (that they would otherwise have been entitled to exercise).

Consideration is an essential element for the formation of a contract. It may consist of a promise to perform a desired act or a promise to refrain from doing an act that one is legally entitled to do. In a bilateral contract—an agreement by which both parties exchange mutual promises—each promise is regarded as sufficient consideration for the other. In a unilateral contract, an agreement by which one party makes a promise in exchange for the other's performance, the performance is consideration for the promise, while the promise is consideration for the performance

Modern courts have de-emphasized the distinction between unilateral and bilateral contracts. These courts have found that an offer may be accepted either by a promise to perform or by actual performance. An increasing number of courts have concluded that the traditional distinction between unilateral and bilateral contracts fails to significantly advance legal analysis in a growing number of cases where performance is provided over an extended period of time.

Suppose you promise to pay someone $500.00 to paint your house. The promise sounds like an offer to enter a unilateral contract that binds only you until the promisee accepts by painting your house. But what constitutes lawful performance under these circumstances? The act of beginning to paint your house or completely finishing the job to your satisfaction?

Most courts would rule that the act of beginning performance under these circumstances converts a unilateral contract into a bilateral contract, requiring both parties to fulfill the obligations contemplated by the contract.

What did any of get in exchange for the loss of our children besides pain and grief?

Relinquishment agreements are in fact unconscionable contracts.

In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power. An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept. Courts find that unconscionable contracts usually result from the exploitation of consumers who are often poorly educated, impoverished, and unable to find the best price available in the competitive marketplace. ...

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; these circumstances include, for example, the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties. 

Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of Fraud and deceit, where the deliberate Misrepresentation of fact deprives someone of a valuable possession. Whenever someone takes unconscionable advantage of another person, the action may be treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of deceit.
No standardized criteria exist for measuring whether an action is unconscionable. A court of law applies its conscience, or moral sense, to the facts before it and makes a subjective judgment.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

She May Be At It Again!

Angelina Jolie reportedly plans to add a girl from Syria to her brood of six kids, according to Al Arabiya and OK! Angelina and recently visited Iraqi refugees in the country, which borders Iraq, and now she's decided her next kid will come from Syria. Brad's name is reportedly not on the papers filed with the US Immigration and Naturalization Service, which could bode ill.

Brad and Angelina have five kids under the age of five, plus oldest son Maddox, who's eight. Add two high-powered movie career and all their charity work, and you wouldn't blame either of them for feeling overwhelmed. "[Brad] has made it clear that six children are more than he can handle," a family "insider" tattled to Metro UK. "The idea of one more seemed ludicrous, but Angie is determined to complete her rainbow family."

Adopting a Stolen Child

Some adoptive parents "looked the other way" when they heard reports about child trafficking in Hunan province years ago, said Jane Liedtke, founder of Our Chinese Daughters Foundation, a nonprofit organization that offers programs and tours for families with children from China. Now that trafficking cases have been documented not just in Hunan but also in Guizhou, Guangxi and other provinces, "people say, 'Oh, I didn't know. My agency didn't tell me. If I'd known, I wouldn't have adopted.' "

To that, Liedtke responds: "Oh, yes, you would have. You wanted a child."

Read the full story, "Trafficking reports raise heart-wrenching questions for adoptive parents: Accounts of Chinese children being kidnapped, bartered and sold to orphanages have many adopters wondering about their children. Some may try to track down the birth parents -- but then what?" in the LA Times.

I have to agree with Liedke based on my experiences and interviews with many who have adopted, some under clouds of suspicion. In Guatemala they chode to beleive tht mothers were s poor they were selling thir children rather than accept the fact hat they were being kidnapped.  Even now that there is hard cold DN evidence of the trafficking, some claim mothers are lying in hindsight rather than face their own culpability, even unwittingly

Some discovering afterward - or are forced to really accept the truth afterward.

People want to believe what they want to believe. Like your girlfriend whose dating a real jerk looser but refuses to accept it because he's in L-U-V!!!  Becoming a mommy is also about hormones (as in one's ticking internal time clock) and falling madly in love.

Afterwards the attachment is so profound that all these adopters want is some absolution. They want to find out they did nothing wrong. They want to be able to tell their child they did everything they could - like going back years and years alter and finding nothing!

They want vindication even if it is based oly on justification that the end justifies the means - that they are giving their kidnapped and stolen kids a good life, probbaly insome ways "better" than the life they would have had with their own mothers, in their own houses, in their own villages.

I understand, but I do not condone - nor do I judge.  I cannot even imagine being in their shoes for even a mili-second! 

All I know is that more people to read these reports and hesitate far more BEFORE they adopt...before they get their hearts all tied up in knots.

Like our friends who eventually end their bad relationships - they all say "If I only knew then, what I knew now!" 

I am asking all adoptive parents to complete a brief questionnaire sharing their hindsight for an upcoming article.  If you re an adoptive parent, know of any, are on any lists and can share this request, plea e have them contact: MRiben@AdvocatePublications.com and request to be part of the "Adoption Hindsight" Project. Thank you.

Learning Disabled Parents Losing Children To Adoption

A follow-up to Is Britain Playing Eugenics? Nov 8

by samedifference1

Against a background of prejudice and out-of-date assessments, six out of 10 parents with learning disabilities are having their children removed for adoption, research by Bristol University suggests.

In Birmingham, where children’s services were described as “not fit for purpose” in a government report, social workers have told the BBC the system is loaded against the learning disabled who are more likely to lose their children than keep them.

A whistleblower in Birmingham City Council’s social services department said: “We frequently remove children from young mothers who continue to have children.

Children’s champion faces up to change

“We frequently go back and remove one child after the other, but we’ll find there’s been very little or no work done with that mother from having a first child removed to giving birth to the second child.”

Anna Marriott, a researcher at the Nora Fry institute based at Bristol University, said the system discriminated against the learning disabled.

She told the BBC: “Rather than looking for any actual evidence of problems with parents coping, (social workers) just assume the parent won’t be able to cope.

“And rather than looking to put a support plan in place, they’ll look to initiate child protection proceedings.”

The Birmingham whistleblower agrees, claiming once one child has been removed, removal of the family’s next child is virtually automatic.

She added, once one assessment has been made by social workers and psychologists, the same assessments are likely to be re-dated and re-used for when another child comes along.

The whistleblower said: “Lots of people will copy over old info, not checking the primary source of material.”

‘Helping children’

Isabelle Plumstead, a leading family court judge said she had concerns about multiple child removals and wanted to see much more support put in place.

“If you help the parents, of course you are helping the children.

“And when you, as I have, come across the eighth, ninth, 10th, or even in one case the 14th child of a parent being in care proceedings, how much better if the thing could have been cracked at number one.”

Christine Spooner had two children removed from her care and placed for adoption by Birmingham Children’s Services.

At the time her condition, Aspergers syndrome, had not been diagnosed.

Family judge Isabelle Plumstead said she had concerns about the removals

She said: “They didn’t understand the person I was. They just seemed to look at the weakest parts, what I couldn’t do. They didn’t even try and think about what I could do”.

Support for learning disabled parents is available through organisations such as Citizen Advocacy South Birmingham (CASBA).

Specialist workers help to guide learning disabled parents through a complex legal process which can be emotionally draining.

CASBA serves the whole of South Birmingham but is staffed for only 58 hours per week.

Vice chair Sior Coleman said: “The harsh reality is that we don’t have enough money.

“There is an understanding from the authorities that it’s an important service, but it’s seen as a luxury – as an add-on.”

The whistleblower said she had been in meetings along with 17 professionals and one parent with no representation or support.

I’ve got to change that because I would agree with you that isn’t fair, that isn’t proper and that isn’t right Colin Tucker director of Birmingham Children’s Services

She said in some cases the parent had been identified as having issues with anger management, poor communication skills, or poor concentration.

She added: “So they have to sit and listen to the most intimate details of their lives and their children’s lives [being] discussed in a professional forum and they are expected to behave as professionals.

“And if they are not behaving in that way, they will be judged on that.”

The BBC put the social worker’s claims to the new director of Birmingham Children’s Services, Colin Tucker, who said: “I’ve got to change that because I would agree with you that isn’t fair, that isn’t proper and that isn’t right.

“I want to talk to parents with learning disabilities, not to patronise them or make excuses, but to genuinely listen to their stories and see how I can respond to that.”

It is too late for Christine Spooner, though, whose children have now been adopted and are with new families.

She has devoted herself to volunteer work, helping to support parents going through a similar experience, and is campaigning for change.

She said: “I’m sick and tired of the negative attitude and I want people to think more positively about learning disabled people.

“Realistically I would love to be a parent again, but what if it happens again? What if it goes on again?

“I don’t want to have my heart torn out the third time in a row. I’ve had enough pain in my life. I don’t want any more”.

Equal Access: A Modest Proposal

I've been advocating the use of the phrase "equal access" (as opposed to open records) since 1989, when I presented the subject at an AAC regional and again in 2006 when I wrote about it in the BN newsletter....and it is slowly catching on.

Now for my modest proposal. Imagine approaching state legislators with a bill that requests everyone who is named on a birth certificate has access to that information: the mother, father, child named therein.  No exceptions. Simple.

Do you think legislators would have trouble with that?  Is there any issue of conflicting interest?  Violating "secrecy" or promises of anonymity?

It is then pointed out that people separated by adoption SUBSEQUENT to the occurrence of the birth, are denied that right that is allowed all others.  Why should they be denied the right to a birth certificate which is by all rights theirs and theirs alone?

Why should adoption annul the birth that preceded it? At the time of the birth the child was in every way - naturally, biologically and LEGALLY, the mother's (and father's, if named).

While adoptions proceedings are sealed to "protect" adoptive families from outside scrutiny, and the birth family can never find or interfere with children relinquished...the birth is not part of the adoption, as an adoption can take place at any time during the first 18years of a person's life.  It has no more to do with birth than a subsequent marriage which likewise often changes a person's name.

Mothers and adoptees standing side by side, meeting with legislators, asking for EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS to a document on which they are named, seems hard to argue with.

Worst case scenario they drag out the old alleged promises made to alleged mothers and suggest vetoes. Nothing new, they do that now.  Though the counter argument is that all the adoptee would gain is their original birth certificate which may be very diffcult to lead to any current ID of their natural mothers, or fathers, especially if they did not want to be found.  But whether they wanted to meet or not, every person has a right to their own birth certificate!

I believe that legislators seeing us together, side by side, both victims of sealed records - not as opposing parties with rights in conflict...it would be a help.  It takes nothing away from adoptees, and makes the issue very clean and simple.

I think it's worth a try if anyone wants to propose such legislation.

We are likewise ALL entitled to all medical and nay other records that refer to us, and only us.In other words, adoptees - like any non-adopted person - is entitled to pediatric birth records, but not records that of the mother which would be HIPAA protected and accessible to her and her only. The mother should access to all hospital records, her and that of the child born of her body which might contain information that might be of importance to her in regard subsequent pregnancies or offspring, and which any other mother is entitled to.  We and our subsequent offspring should not be punished for us having done what we were told is the right thing to do.

UPDATE: Are they kidding - ignoring OUR needs?

The American Medical Association voted today to oppose the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and declared that gay marriage bans contribute to health disparities.

The health disparities policy is based on evidence showing that married couples are more likely to have health insurance, and that the uninsured have a high risk for "living sicker and dying younger," said Dr. Peter Carmel, an AMA board member.

Is anyone working this angle? Trying to get them onboard on access to our records?