August 31, 2009

The Day My Mother Told Me


The day my mother told me: 'Your father is not your real father'
By MIRANDA GLOVER
29th August 2009

Miranda Glover's life changed dramatically when the secret identity of
her father was revealed.
It’s early June this year, and I’m standing in a beautiful garden at
Hay-on-Wye. It’s the book festival’s 21st birthday party. Lots of
people I know are here, but the two most significant are my 25-year-
old half-sister Daisy and her mother, the writer and broadcaster Rosie
Boycott. We are bonded in an extraordinary way, by a secret that was
only unleashed when I was 16.
Until then I didn’t know that Daisy and I shared a natural father, the
war correspondent David Leitch. He has clearly passed us both his
genes: we share his Danish blue eyes, his slight frame – and his
passion for books.
1968, the year I was born, was a time of radical social change. So why
would a mother feel the need to keep her love child a secret? Perhaps
because most British families continued to live by the 1950s model
where parents married, worked hard, and where love children spelt
shame. My mum was like that: a young wife with two daughters and Mike,
a respectable businessman husband. She had one chink in her domestic
armour – her first love; the attractive, flawed and incredibly clever
Cambridge graduate David Leitch.
David had spent the past decade abroad covering world affairs for The
Sunday Times. They kept in touch, via the odd letter or lunch. He was
about to head to Vietnam to cover the war, but something made him call
her. They had lunch and then, rather inconveniently, they made me. He
went to Vietnam, she went home. When she realised she was pregnant
with his child she told no one, not even David, who was by now out of
reach.

She decided to tell her husband the truth.
Extraordinarily, he agreed to raise the baby as his own, so long as
she kept the secret firmly to herself. And so she had me within her
marriage, put a brave face on it, and carried on.
When I was seven, my mother got divorced and remarried. The original
pact no longer seemed relevant. She told her new husband – and David –
the truth about me. David was ecstatic. He had just had a son, and now
he had a daughter. Being adopted himself, connections with his genetic
offspring felt significantly important. Even so, my mother refused to
let him into my life. She said that one change was enough to manage at
such a tender age. She inherited four stepchildren, so now we numbered
seven kids most weekends.
My sisters and I still saw our father, Mike, every other weekend. It
was a busy, lively childhood, a melting pot where, paradoxically, it
was the many differences, not similarities between us that bound us
together as a family.
David Leitch was irregularly mentioned only if his voice came on to
Radio 4 or when one of his latest collections of journalism hit the
shelves (we had them lined up in the sitting room, always inscribed to
my mum). I met him a few times over the years. Once he brought this
little sandy haired boy Luke to lunch. I thought little more than that
I admired what he did. Coincidentally, I knew from an early age that
I, too, wanted to write.

I was aware of being different from my sisters – they were tall and
dark, I was small and blond. I was quite academic as a teenager – I
wanted to read Baudelaire whereas they were disinterested in studying,
keen to get out into the world. They had left home by the time I found
out my true identity; the day my mother and stepfather whisked me away
for a weekend to a remote cottage, to let me in on this very big
secret.
‘Your father is not your real father,’ my mother stated, a little too
steadily as we curled up in front of the fire. How often must she have
rehearsed that line? And how hard must it have been to get those words
out? I sat still, trying to absorb the shock, then glanced expectantly
at my stepfather, sitting uneasily next to her. ‘No, your stepfather
is not your natural father either,’ she added, almost by way of
apology. I loved him, but the fact was a strange relief. I knew who he
was to me, and didn’t want that to change.
My mother handed me an envelope as she told me my father’s name. She
looked worried, expectant. Inside was a letter in strangely familiar
handwriting, handwriting I almost share. And photographs, one of a
woman, Rosie, holding a small baby, Daisy, aged six months, another of
David, my new father, and a third of his son, the handsome nine-year-
old Luke, from an earlier marriage.
David’s letter eloquently introduced this other family to me. It had
been written as part of the plan, I was now told, made by my parents
with Rosie and David over dinner a week before. My natural father was
keen to know me. My mother had agreed that perhaps it was time.

My spirit shook with the shock of it. Slowly, the truth unfolded. I
felt no anger. My initial feeling was one of sadness for my mother,
for having held on to this weighty secret for so long. But I loved her
and I trusted her instincts in all things, even this.
I went to bed and reread the letter, looked at the photographs over
and over. The next morning I felt disembodied. I had walked into that
cottage in one skin and I was walking out in another.
Collectively, we told my sisters – their shock was understandable, but
they were generous in their response. Even so, I sensed a wariness in
them, a subtle distancing from me. Over time, that sense of
separateness has diminished again. When I told my friends, they looked
at me with incredulity and I felt a bit of a freak. But I was excited,
too, about meeting David, knowing this other genetic part of me.
We agreed that he would phone me. When the call came I felt so anxious
I needed the loo and told him so. He laughed and said so did he. We
both hung up, then rang back once we’d been. Now the ice had been
broken and we chatted. His voice was familiar and he put me at ease.
We met for lunch the following weekend. I felt immediately comfortable
around him, he was good at drawing me out, was interested in me, and
we shared similar loves, of art, books, French literature.
The first time I went to stay with David, I took a train to Paddington
and was met by Rosie with Daisy in her arms. The bond with them began
then and has grown steadily. Rosie drove me to their home, a rambling,
book-filled Georgian flat overlooking the canal in Little Venice. I
liked the smell of it – library-like, familiar. Luke was loitering at
the top of the stairs. ‘Hello,’ he said, ‘you must be my sister.’



‘When I had my son, Fen, David would delight in his time with him.
When Fen was four he patiently taught him to play chess’
David appeared later, hugged me tightly and talked too much and too
quickly, kept moving from place to place. Even though he couldn’t
contain his excitement, I could sense that my presence made him
anxious. It was a time for adjustment for us all.
Fundamental differences between my first and second families fast
became evident. I was a state-educated parochial girl; my father was a
known London bon viveur, a serious drinker, an intellectual with
children in the best private schools. He had a boho lifestyle,
indulged in complicated relationships and had a renowned feminist
wife. Luke came and went between his parents.
Often I hung out with Rosie and Daisy. They became a safety net for me
within David’s chaotic world. At one party David’s Cambridge friends
and Luke’s mum came. They were fascinated by this secret daughter
about whom they had all known for years. I felt uneasy. Strangely
foreign inside my own skin.

I felt I was trying my new personality out for size. In some ways I
felt more confident about my ambitions as a writer, in other ways it
made me feel diminished, as if, against such a literary, successful
family, I was just pretending to be something I was not. With
hindsight I think I tried too hard to make all the pieces of the
jigsaw fit, believing that I could be cohesive again. Since marrying
and having my own children I believe that we are who we were always
going to be, all along.



I continued to see David over the following 20 years. Our meetings were wonderfully enthusiastic, and
engaged in the subjects we both loved: story-making and the characters
who lived in our midst. I ended up living only a few streets away from
David for the last few years of his life.
Essentially, I loved David from the start, felt a true and instinctive connection.
David died four and a half years ago, at home in his bed, aged 67. I
had seen him the day before, with my daughter, Jessie-May, then two
and a half. He had become prematurely infirm.
A veteran war correspondent with a serious drink problem was never
going to live into later life. The death certificate stated that he
died of fatigue. I miss his friendship and his input into my work. I
had my first novel published just months after he died. He used to
read my manuscripts, encourage me in my writing, and helped me edit
the first draft.
I never discussed my knowledge of David with Mike. He knew I knew but
he chose not to talk of it. He had been kind to me, treated me as his
daughter. I don’t think the subject would have been easy to address.
When I was 22 Mike died, suddenly, of a stroke. He took my secret to
his grave.
I wonder, if the truth had never been let out of its box, would I
still be standing here, at Hay-on-Wye with those two people who met me
from the train on that life-changing day; Rosie and Daisy, talking and
laughing as we gaze towards the dusky village of books that has
brought us all here. Scientists agree that nature and nurture affect
the paths we follow, shape the people we become. My path,
instinctively, has brought me into this book-filled world. In my case,
I would vouch that nature has enjoyed the
upper hand.

Miranda’s latest novel, Meanwhile Street (£6.99, Transworld), will be
published on 10 September. To order a copy with free P&P, call the YOU
Bookshop on 0845 155 0711 or visit you-bookshopco.uk

August 29, 2009

Another Reunion

Published August 28 2009
By: Chad Richardson, The Hastings Star-Gazette

MaryLou and Bernard Bauer did the paperwork. Attended the classes. And
were given the go-ahead. They could adopt children to live on their
farm south of Hastings near Highway 52.

And then the great news came. MaryLou was pregnant.

The great news, though, came at a bit of a price. The Bauers would
slide to the bottom of the adoption priority list.

The Bauers went on with their lives, figuring adoption might not be in
their plans.

Then one winter day, the phone rang. MaryLou, just a month away from
giving birth, raced around the farmyard, looking for Bernard. She had
to share the good news and couldn’t wait. They were going to adopt a
son. In just one month, their house of two would be a house a four.
They were going to have a real family.

It turns out, nobody ahead of the Bauers on the adoption priority list
wanted Michael. He was a mixed-race child. Half black. Half white.

It was the early 1970s. The world was a much different place. But for
MaryLou and Bernard Bauer, none of that mattered. They wanted a family.

When he was just 18 days old, little Michael came home to Hastings.

For 36 years of his life, the only mother he knew was MaryLou. Of
course, he knew he was adopted. And he wondered about his birth mom.
Who was she? Where was she?

When he was 18 years old, he checked into her identity just briefly.
But when he hit a wall, he stopped his search and went on with his life.

Fate brought them together in May 2008, and they met for the first
time just two days before Mother’s Day. It was a tearful reunion, but
as Bauer’s birth mom put it, they were all tears of joy.

The past 16 months have been a whirlwind for Bauer. He’s developed a
strong relationship with his birth mom, all the while his love and
admiration for his adoptive parents has grown. They supported him
through all of this, and are happy he has reconnected with his birth
mother.

Now, Bauer is busy reconnecting with the other members of his family.
Just last week, he met his three sisters for the first time. The three
of them and their families came to the Twin Cities from Houston to
spend five days here in Hastings to get to know their brother.

It was the final chapter in a story that reads like a tear-jerking
Lifetime movie.

How he found his birth mother

Bauer and two friends were talking about adoption one night, and Bauer
began to tell his story. He told them what he knew: He was from St.
Paul, and he actually knew his birth mother’s maiden name (Barbara
Schaefer). It had been left on a piece of paperwork that MaryLou Bauer
received with the adoption.

Bauer’s friend, Johana, thought it was quite a coincidence, really.

She knew a Barbara Schaefer who would be about 16 years older than
Bauer. And she was from St. Paul.

A day later, Johana approached Schaefer at a small concert. Johana
laid it all out there, telling a teary-eyed Schaefer everything she
knew about this man.

“I just kept saying, ‘That’s my son. That’s my son,’” Schaefer said.

Phone numbers were exchanged, calls were made and a few days later,
they met at the Applebee’s in Inver Grove Heights.

“I walked in, and she stood up and said, ‘Michael?’” Bauer said. “We
had a few tears in our eyes that night.”

The two talked for three hours.

Schaefer took a cell phone photo of Bauer in the booth at Applebee’s,
and sent it to her daughters in Texas. They finally knew what their
brother looked like.

On adoption

Schaefer was 16 years old when she learned she was pregnant. Adoption
was the answer.

“I had no choice,” she said.

It was a closed adoption. She didn’t know where he went or who got him.

Schaefer eventually married and had a family. She lived in Chicago,
New York, Michigan and Connecticut before coming back to Minnesota.

“My heart was always wanting to find him, to know more about him,”
Schaefer said. “But there’s always that fear: Is he going to be mad at
me? Will he understand?”

Bauer does understand why his mother put him up for adoption, and
harbors no resentment.

Now they are reunited, and all the lingering doubts and questions that
have been in the back of Schaefer’s mind have been put to rest.

“Every February, when his birthday came around, I was sad and
depressed,” Schaefer said. “To know he was happy, it was like the
whole world had been lifted off my shoulders.”

The Bauers

Just two weeks after Michael came home from St. Paul, the Bauers
delivered a son, Joe.

They were far from being done having children. The family adopted 12
more children.

“He was such a pretty little baby,” MaryLou said. “He inspired us to
adopt more. Michael was always a joy to have around.”

Bauer’s sibling total has now reached a whopping 16. There are the 13
brothers and sisters from the Bauer farm and his three sisters from
Schaefer.

MaryLou and Bernard are thrilled at these developments. They were a
big part of the big reunion last week.

“It’s like Michael really is with his family,” Bernard said.

Schaefer is stunned at the way she has been received by the family.

“You have to think about what a wonderful woman (MaryLou) is, to open
her heart to me,” she said. “They’ve accepted me and never looked down
on me.”

His sisters

Schaefer’s three daughters made a trip here last week to meet their
brother for the first time. LaQuita, Jonnette and Jasmine drove up
from Houston to meet Bauer.

“Now I get a brother after all these years,” LaQuita said.

“I think it’s really cool he grew up on a farm,” Jasmine said. “That’s
a totally different lifestyle than us.”

“We’re the city girls, and we have a farmer as a brother!” Jonnette
said.

Bauer and his wife, Amy, have six children of their own. So, getting
the eight members of his immediate family together with his three
sisters, their husbands and their children meant his farmhouse was a
busy place last week.

On the reunion, getting caught up was an easy thing to do.

“It’s just kind of been natural,” Jasmine said.

“We all fit together,” Bauer said.

August 28, 2009

Shotgun Adoption


Shotgun Adoption 
By Kathryn Joyce
This article appeared in the September 14, 2009 edition of The Nation.

Carol Jordan, a 32-year-old pharmacy technician, was living in Greenville, South Carolina, in 1999 when she became pregnant. She'd already decided against abortion, but she was struggling financially and her boyfriend was unsupportive. Looking through the Yellow Pages for help, she spotted an ad under "crisis pregnancies" for Bethany Christian Services. Within hours of calling, Jordan (who asked to be identified with a pseudonym) was invited to Bethany's local office to discuss free housing and medical care.

Bethany, it turned out, did not simply specialize in counseling pregnant women. It is the nation's largest adoption agency, with more than eighty-five offices in fifteen countries.

When Jordan arrived, a counselor began asking whether she'd considered adoption and talking about the poverty rates of single mothers. Over five counseling sessions, she convinced Jordan that adoption was a win-win situation: Jordan wouldn't "have death on her hands," her bills would be paid and the baby would go to a family of her choosing in an open adoption. She suggested Jordan move into one of Bethany's "shepherding family" homes, away from the influence of family and friends.

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), the nonprofit pregnancy-testing facilities set up by antiabortion groups to dissuade women from having abortions, have become fixtures of the antiabortion landscape, buttressed by an estimated $60 million in federal funds. While there is growing awareness of how CPCs hinder abortion access, the centers have a broader agenda that is less well known: they seek not only to induce women to "choose life" but to choose adoption, either by offering adoption services themselves, as in Bethany's case, or by referring women to Christian adoption agencies. Far more than other adoption agencies, conservative Christian agencies demonstrate a pattern and history of coercing women to relinquish their children.

Bethany guided Jordan through the Medicaid application process and in April moved her in with home-schooling parents outside Myrtle Beach. There, according to Jordan, the family referred to her as one of the agency's "birth mothers"--a term adoption agencies use for relinquishing mothers that many adoption reform advocates reject--although she hadn't yet agreed to adoption. "I felt like a walking uterus for the agency," says Jordan.

Jordan was isolated in the shepherding family's house; her only social contact was with the agency, which called her a "saint" for continuing her pregnancy but asked her to consider "what's best for the baby." "They come on really prolife: look at the baby, look at its heartbeat, don't kill it. Then, once you say you won't kill it, they ask, What can you give it? You have nothing to offer, but here's a family that goes on a cruise every year."

Jordan was given scrapbooks full of letters and photos from hopeful adoptive parents hoping to stand out among the estimated 150 couples for every available baby. Today the "birthmother letters" are on Bethany's website: 500 couples who pay $14,500 to $25,500 for a domestic infant adoption, vying for mothers' attention with profuse praise of their "selflessness" and descriptions of the lifestyle they can offer.

Jordan selected a couple, and when she went into labor, they attended the birth, along with her counselor and shepherding mother. The next day, the counselor said that fully open adoptions weren't legal in South Carolina, so Jordan wouldn't receive identifying information on the adoptive parents. Jordan cried all day and didn't think she could relinquish the baby. She called her shepherding parents and asked if she could bring the baby home. They refused, chastising Jordan sharply. The counselor told the couple Jordan was having second thoughts and brought them, sobbing, into her recovery room. The counselor warned Jordan that if she persisted, she'd end up homeless and lose the baby anyway.

"My options were to leave the hospital walking, with no money," says Jordan. "Or here's a couple with Pottery Barn furniture. You sacrifice yourself, not knowing it will leave an impact on you and your child for life."

The next morning, Jordan was rushed through signing relinquishment papers by a busy, on-duty nurse serving as notary public. As soon as she'd signed, the couple left with the baby, and Jordan was taken home without being discharged. The shepherding family was celebrating and asked why Jordan wouldn't stop crying. Five days later, she used her last $50 to buy a Greyhound ticket to Greenville, where she struggled for weeks to reach a Bethany post-adoption counselor as her milk came in and she rapidly lost more than fifty pounds in her grief.

When Jordan called Bethany's statewide headquarters one night, her shepherding mother answered, responding coldly to Jordan's lament. "You're the one who spread your legs and got pregnant out of wedlock," she told Jordan. "You have no right to grieve for this baby."

Jordan isn't alone. On an adoption agency rating website, Bethany is ranked poorly by birth mothers. Its adoptive parent ratings are higher, although several adopters described the coercion they felt "our birth mother" underwent. But neither is Bethany alone; in the constellation of groups that constitute the Christian adoption industry, including CPCs, maternity homes and adoption agencies, Bethany is just one large star. And instances of coercion in adoption stretch back nearly seventy years.

Ann Fessler, author of The Girls Who Went Away, has meticulously chronicled the lives of women from the "Baby Scoop Era": the period from 1945 to 1973, when single motherhood was so stigmatized that at least 1.5 million unwed American mothers relinquished children for adoption, often after finishing pregnancies secretly in maternity homes. The coercion was frequently brutal, entailing severe isolation, shaming, withholding information about labor, disallowing mothers to see their babies and coercing relinquishment signatures while women were drugged or misled about their rights. Often, women's names were changed or abbreviated, to bolster a sense that "the person who went away to deliver the baby was someone else" and that mothers would later forget about the babies they had given up. In taking oral histories from more than a hundred Baby Scoop Era mothers, Fessler found that not only was that untrue but most mothers suffered lifelong guilt and depression.

The cultural shift that had followed World War II switched the emphasis of adoption from finding homes for needy infants to finding children for childless couples. Karen Wilson-Buterbaugh, founder of the Baby Scoop Era Research Initiative, has compiled sociological studies from the era, including Clark Vincent's speculation in his 1961 book Unmarried Mothers that "if the demand for adoptable babies continues to exceed the supply...it is quite possible that, in the near future, unwed mothers will be 'punished' by having their children taken from them right after birth"--under the guise of protecting the "best interests of the child."

The Baby Scoop Era ended with Roe v. Wade, as abortion was legalized and single motherhood gained acceptance. The resultant fall in adoption rates was drastic, from 19.2 percent of white, unmarried pregnant women in 1972 to 1.7 percent in 1995 (and lower among women of color). Coinciding with this decline was the rise of the religious right and the founding of crisis pregnancy centers.

In 1984 Leslee Unruh, founder of Abstinence Clearinghouse, established a CPC in South Dakota called the Alpha Center. The first center had opened in 1967, but in 1984 Unruh's CPC was still a relatively new idea. In 1987 the state attorney's office investigated complaints that Unruh had offered young women money to carry their pregnancies to term and then relinquish their babies for adoption.

"There were so many allegations about improper adoptions being made and how teenage girls were being pressured to give up their children," then-state attorney Tim Wilka told the Argus Leader, that the governor asked him to take the case. The Alpha Center pleaded no contest to five counts of unlicensed adoption and foster care practices; nineteen other charges were dropped, including four felonies. But where Unruh left off, many CPCs have taken up in her place.

It's logical that antiabortion organizations seeking to prevent abortions and promote traditional family structures would aggressively promote adoption, but this connection is often overlooked in the bipartisan support that adoption promotion enjoys as part of a common-ground truce. In President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, he suggested that one solution to lowering abortion rates is "making adoption more available." And in a recent online debate, Slate columnist William Saletan and Beliefnet editor Steven Waldman proposed that unmarried women be offered a nominal cash payment to choose adoption over abortion as a compromise between prochoice and prolife convictions.

Compared with pre-Roe days, today women with unplanned pregnancies have access to far more information about their alternatives. However, Fessler says, they frequently encounter CPCs that pressure them to give the child to a family with better resources. "Part of the big picture for a young woman who's pregnant," she says, "is that there are people holding out their hand, but the price of admission is giving up your child. If you decide to keep your child, it's as if you're lost in the system, whereas people fight over you if you're ready to surrender. There's an organization motivated by a cause and profit. It's a pretty high price to pay: give away your first-born, and we'll take care of you for six months."
Christian adoption agencies court pregnant women through often unenforceable promises of open adoption and the option to choose the adoptive parents. California's Lifetime Adoption Foundation even offers birth mothers college scholarships. Additionally, maternity homes have made a comeback in recent years, with one network of 1,100 CPCs and homes, Heartbeat International, identifying at least 300 homes in the United States. Some advertise almost luxurious living facilities, though others continue to "bill themselves as homes for wayward girls who need to be set straight."

Most homes are religiously affiliated, and almost all promote adoption. Many, like Christian Homes and Family Services (CHFS), reserve their beds for women planning adoption. Others keep only a fraction for women choosing to parent. Most homes seamlessly blend their advertised crisis pregnancy counseling with domestic and international adoption services.

Religious women may be particularly susceptible to CPC coercion, argues Mari Gallion, a 39-year-old Alaska mother who founded the support group SinglePregnancy.com after a CPC unsuccessfully pressured her to relinquish her child ten years ago. Gallion, who has worked with nearly 3,000 women with unplanned pregnancies, calls CPCs "adoption rings" with a multistep agenda: discovering and exploiting women's insecurities about age, finances or parenting; then hard-selling adoption, portraying parenting as a selfish, immature choice. "The women who are easier to coerce in these situations are those who subscribe to conservative Christian views," says Gallion. "They'll come in and be told that, You've done wrong, but God will forgive you if you do the right thing."

Mirah Riben, vice president of communications for the birth mother group Origins-USA, as well as author of The Stork Market: America's Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry, says that many mothers struggle for decades with the fallout of "a brainwashing process" that persuades them to choose adoption and often deny for years--or until their adoptions become closed--that they were pressured into it. "I see a lot of justification among the young mothers. If their adoption is remaining open, they need to be compliant, good birth mothers and toe the line. They can't afford to be angry, because if they are, the door will close and they won't see the kid."

Such was the case for Karen Fetrow, a Pennsylvania mother who relinquished her son in 1994 through a Bethany office outside Harrisburg. Fetrow, a formerly pro-adoption evangelical, sought out a Christian agency when she became pregnant at 24. Although Fetrow was in a committed relationship with the father, now her husband of sixteen years, Bethany told her that women who sought to parent were on their own.

After Fetrow relinquished her son, she says she received no counseling from Bethany beyond one checkup phone call. Three months later, Bethany called to notify her that her legal paperwork was en route but that she shouldn't read it or attend court for the adoption finalization. "I didn't know that the adoption wasn't final and that I had three months to change my mind," says Fetrow. "The reality was that if I had gone, I might have changed my mind--and they didn't want me to."

Although for thirteen years Fetrow couldn't look at an infant without crying, she continued to support adoption and CPCs. But when she sought counseling--a staple of Bethany's advertised services--the director of her local office said he couldn't help. When her son turned 5, she stopped receiving updates from his adoptive parents, although she'd expected they would continue until he was 18. She asked Bethany about it, and the agency stalled for three years before explaining that the adoptive parents had only agreed to five years of updates. Fetrow complained on Bethany's online forum and was banned from the site.

Kris Faasse, director of adoption services at Bethany, said that while she was unaware of Fetrow's and Jordan's particular stories, their accounts are painful for her to hear. "The fact that this happens to any mom grieves me and would not be how we wanted to handle it." She added that only 25-40 percent of women who come to Bethany choose adoption, which, she said, "is so important, because we never want a woman to feel coerced into a plan."

Shortly after Fetrow was banned from Bethany's forum, the local Bethany office attempted to host a service at her church, "painting adoption as a Christian, prolife thing." At a friend's urging, Fetrow told her pastor about her experience, and after a meeting with the Bethany director--who called Fetrow angry and bitter--the pastor refused to let Bethany address the congregation. But Fetrow's pastor seems an exception.

Enthusiasm for Christians to adopt en masse begins to seem like a demand in need of greater supply, and this is how critics of current practices describe it: as an industry that coercively separates willing biological parents from their offspring, artificially producing "orphans" for Christian parents to adopt, rather than helping birth parents care for wanted children.
In 1994 the Village Voice investigated several California CPCs in Care Net, the largest network of centers in the country, and found gross ethical violations at an affiliated adoption agency, where director Bonnie Jo Williams secured adoptions by warning pregnant women about parenthood's painfulness, pressuring them to sign papers under heavy medication and in one case detaining a woman in labor for four hours in a CPC.

There were nineteen lawsuits against CPCs between 1983 and 1996, but coercive practices persist. Joe Soll, a psychotherapist and adoption reform activist, says that CPCs "funnel people to adoption agencies who put them in maternity homes," where ambivalent mothers are subjected to moralistic and financial pressure: warned that if they don't give up their babies, they'll have to pay for their spot at the home, and given conflicted legal counsel from agency-retained lawyers.
Literature from CPCs indicates their efforts to raise adoption rates. In 2000 the Family Research Council (FRC), the political arm of Focus on the Family, commissioned a study on the dearth of adoptable babies being produced by CPCs, "The Missing Piece: Adoption Counseling in Pregnancy Resource Centers," written by the Rev. Curtis Young, former director of Care Net.

Young based the report on the market research of consultant Charles Kenny, who questioned women with unplanned pregnancies and Christian CPC counselors to identify obstacles to higher adoption rates. Young argued that mothers' likelihood to choose adoption was based on their level of maturity and selflessness, with "more mature respondents...able to feel they are nurturing not only their children, but also, the adoptive parents," and "less mature women" disregarding the baby's needs by seeking to parent. He wrote that CPCs might persuade reluctant women by casting adoption as redemption for unwed mothers' "past failures" and a triumph over "selfishness, an 'evil' within themselves." Though Young noted that some CPCs were wary of looking like "baby sellers," he nonetheless urged close alliances with adoption agencies to ensure that the path to adoption was "as seamless and streamlined as possible."

Young was speaking to a larger audience than the FRC faithful. Care Net runs 1,160 CPCs nationwide and partners with Heartbeat International to host a national CPC hot line. Kenny is tied to the cause as a "Bronze"-level benefactor of the National Council for Adoption (NCFA), the most prominent adoption lobby group in the country, in the company of other benefactors like Bethany; Texas maternity home giant Gladney; the Good Shepherd Sisters, a Catholic order serving "young women of dissolute habits"; and the Mormon adoption agency LDS Family Services.

The federally funded NCFA has a large role in spreading teachings like these through its Infant Adoption Awareness Training Program, a Department of Health and Human Services initiative it helped pass in 2000 that has promoted adoption to nearly 18,000 CPC, school, state, health and correctional workers since 2002. Although the program stipulates "nondirective counseling for pregnant women," it was developed by a heavily pro-adoption pool of experts, including Kenny, and the Guttmacher Institute reports that trainees have complained about the program's coercive nature.

In 2007 the FRC and NCFA went beyond overlapping mandates to collaborate on the publication of another pamphlet, written by Kenny, "Birthmother, Goodmother: Her Story of Heroic Redemption," which targets "potential birthmothers" before pregnancy: a seeming contradiction of abstinence promotion, unless, as DelBalzo wryly notes, the abstinence movement intends to create "more babies available for adoption."

Even as women have gained better reproductive healthcare access, adoption laws have become less favorable for birth mothers, advancing the time after birth when a mother can relinquish--in some states now within twenty-four hours--and cutting the period to revoke consent drastically or completely. Adoption organizations have published comparative lists of state laws, almost as a catalog for prospective adopters seeking states that restrict birth parent rights. Among the worst is Utah.

Jo Anne Swanson, a court-appointed adoption intermediary, has studied a number of cases in which women have been lured out of their home states to give birth and surrender their children under Utah's lax laws--which require only two witnesses for relinquishments that have occurred in hotel rooms or parks--to avoid interstate child-placement regulations. Some women who changed their minds had agencies refuse them airfare home. And one Utah couple, Steve and Carolyn Mintz, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the director of their adoption agency flew into a rage at a mother in labor who'd backed out of their adoption, and the mother and her infant ended up in a Salt Lake City homeless shelter. Many complaints have been lodged by birth fathers who sought to parent their children but were disenfranchised by Utah's complicated system of registering paternity.

Utah isn't alone in attacking birth fathers' rights. From 2000 to 2001, a Midwestern grandmother named Ann Gregory (a pseudonym) fought doggedly for her son, a military enlistee, to retain parental rights over his and his girlfriend's child. When the girlfriend became pregnant, her conservative evangelical parents brought her to a local CPC affiliated with their megachurch. The CPC was located in the same office as an adoption agency: its "sister organization" of eighteen years. The CPC called Gregory's son, who was splitting his time between home and boot camp, pressuring him to "be supportive" of his girlfriend by signing adoption papers. The agency also called Gregory and her ex-husband, quoting Scripture "about how we're all adopted children of Jesus Christ."

What followed, Gregory says, was "six weeks of pure hell," as she felt her son and his girlfriend were "brainwashed" into adoption. She researched coercive adoption and retained a lawyer for her son. When the mother delivered, the attorney had Gregory notify a hospital social worker that parental rights were being contested, so the baby wouldn't be relinquished. Two days later, as the adoption agency was en route to take custody, Gregory filed an emergency restraining order. The matter had to be settled in court, where Gregory's son refused to consent to adoption. The legal bill for two weeks came to $9,000.

Both parents went to college, and though they are no longer together, Gregory praises their cooperation in jointly raising their son, now 8. But she is shaken by what it took to prevail. "You've got to get on it before the child is born, and you'd better have $10,000 sitting around. I can't even imagine how they treat those in a worse position than us. They say they want to help people in a crisis pregnancy, but really they want to help themselves to a baby."
"A lot of those moms from the '50s and '60s were really damaged by losing their child through the maternity homes," says Gregory. "People say those kinds of things don't happen anymore. But they do. It's just not a maternity home on every corner; it's a CPC."

August 22, 2009

Transparent Rugged Cross
© Photographer: Lincolnrogers | Agency: Dreamstime.com

As Joseph
thrown out by family;
last minute sale
to strangers on a trip

Wrenching in panic
among those not my own

Head spinning in disbelief of
this exile;
walking still by necessity
alone.

*Yet, never alone.

For He was despised and rejected by others,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

But surely He took up our pain
and bore our suffering;

He was pierced for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The punishment that brought us peace was on Him,
and by His wounds we are healed.

Isaiah 53

August 19, 2009

Baby Buyers


Baby Buyer Heads Back to Court
By Melissa Langbehn

STEVENS POINT (WAOW) -- A Stevens Point man accused in a bizarre illegal adoption case heads back to court.
30 year old Jason Dolski is accused of illegally taking a child, falsifying adoption papers and a birth certificate.
Those felonies, plus a misdemeanor child neglect charge, carry penalties of nearly 25 years behind bars.
His wife, Bobbi Jo faces those accusations plus drug charges.
In May police were looking into illegal drug activity at the couples Stevens Point home when questions came up about how the Dolski's got 14 month old child.
Prosecutors say the couple couldn't afford a legal adoption so they hatched a plan to with the child's biological mother to take her baby.

*Why is it illegal for a "baby buyer" to falsify a birth certificate, but lawful for an adoption facilitor to order an "amended" (falsified) "Certificate of Live Birth" changing names to those who had no involvement with the child's birth or genetic history? Then forever "seal" their original (accurate, truthful) birth certificate in court? Isn't this JUST as unethical for the adopted individual and his/her decendents? Falsified government documents either way. An approach with integrity would be to issue a truthful "Certificate of Adoption" and not tamper or falsify a child's birth certificate in any way, nor "seal" it from his/her possession. When will America wake up to this injustice?

August 13, 2009

Adoption & the Fight for Human Rights


EDITORIAL: International Adoption and the Fight for Human Rights

International adoption has quietly become a large, lucrative business. While international adoption agencies would no doubt like to keep it this way, adult international adoptees are now asking questions. They are participating in a debate over whose best interests the practice actually serves, or should serve: the adopter or the adoptee? Taking a critical look at the practice of international adoption, chairman of United Adoptees International Hilbrand Westra explores its disturbing overlaps with free market practices and religious justifications, and lays out solutions for practical legal reform. Westra shows the power of an emerging collective adoptee voice shaping what was once seen as an inevitable inequality.

International Adoption and the Fight for
Human Rights
By Hilbrand W.S. Westra
Chairman, United Adoptees International

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2009 CONDUCIVE

"There are simply not enough healthy, adoptable infants to meet Western demand - and there's too much Western money in search of children. As a result, many international adoption agencies work not to find homes for needy children but to find children for Western homes."

From, 'The Lie we Love', E.J. Graff, associate director and senior researcher at The Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism

Saving children from starvation and death will always make news headlines. In the case of adoption, especially intercountry adoption, this is far from the reality most of the time. What once was presented as a last resort for children without parents has become a global enterprise where children seemingly are sold to the highest bidder under the supervision and agreement of involved nations.

The practice of adoption has become an international market where children migrate mainly from relatively impoverished countries to more affluent countries with the help of funding from churches, NGOs, and financial institutions. Prospective adopters find themselves in a cafeteria system, where they can choose between domestic or intercountry adoption, and then have their pick from a variety of genders and skin tones. These consumers can also decide whether or not they are up to the task of raising a child with a physical or mental handicap. The final cost will determine which international program they will be limited to. For some it’s not a matter of money because banks and financial institutions, especially in the United States, will provide loans to facilitate overseas adoptions.

Some people will be shocked by this characterization of adoption which is commonly perceived to be a purely humanitarian gesture. But, for those of us who do intercountry adoption research, such indicators of a warped child welfare system can be seen everywhere in the Western world, from Australia to Europe and from the United States to Canada.

What is even more shocking is to learn that race and gender are big factors in assigning a monetary value to those children made available for adoption. Caucasian boys generally carry the highest price tag with Asian girls following close behind. Prices can reach as much as $35,000 according to an ABC News report, depending on demand which usually hinges on the child’s racial and/or ethnic background.

The undeniable correlation between annually increasing infertility rates in Western countries and the growing demand for children put up for adoption forces one to question why the general public is slow in calling for the protection of the most vulnerable members of society.

Instead of establishing and funding good healthcare and social services, countries like South Korea and the United States have used adoption as a means to export their socially ostracized or racially undesirable children to families in countries like the Netherlands.

Organizations like UNICEF, International Organization for Migration, Save the Children, the European Union for Fundamental Rights Agency, Terre des Hommes, and even World Vision report on child abduction, trafficking, and trade worldwide for the purposes of adoption. Academics, such as David Smolin and Brian Stuy, followed by Kay Johnson, report regularly about children stolen for adoption, as well as the flaws and weaknesses in adoption laws, if such laws even exist, in both sending and receiving countries. Authors, such as Mirah Riben (The Stork Market: America’s Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry), and Roelie Post, a European Commission official (Romania for Export Only: The Untold Story of the Romanian Orphans), have written extensively on how deep international politics has penetrated the racket of trafficking children. They have exposed a horrific money-making scheme that is motivated by pure political and financial interests.

But, lest we forget the role of the Church in paving the way for child trafficking, initially within Western countries and later in their colonies, Carine Hutsebaut, criminologist and founder of ICMAC (International Center for Molested and Abducted Children), wrote a very important book (Kleine zondaars – Kerk en kinderhandel [Little sinners – The Church and Child Trafficking]), explaining how the Catholic church had a hand in trafficking children to childless parishioners in different cities and countries.

The fortress that religious groups, adoptive parents, agencies and politicians have built to protect their monied interests and feelings of entitlement to other people’s children appears to be almost impregnable. However, the first cracks in their bastion are slowly becoming visible. The question we must ask ourselves, though, is who else is willing to push for necessary changes? Until now, the group fighting for children’s rights and family preservation programs is small, but committed.

Establishing Legal Protections

There is an urgent need to come up with solutions to the problems plaguing the practice of intercountry adoption; if not for the sending countries that are reconsidering their views on intercountry adoption due to the exchange of information amongst themselves, then certainly for those adult adoptees who are the victims of falsified birth certificates, identity theft, or embezzlement of their origins by authorities who do not want them to find out the truth behind their adoptions. But, first and foremost we need to acknowledge the close relationship between money and adoption that leads to charges of modern-day slavery and cultural appropriation for the single-minded interest of procuring babies and children for the well-off.

A switch from private to state-controlled adoption agencies should be initiated. First, in order to put a stop to the coercion and corruption caused by the exchange of money and adopting a child, an internationally accepted range of fees, independent of the child’s origins, should be established. Also, a switch from private to state-controlled adoption agencies should be initiated.

Next, an independent international agency should be established quickly. It would be charged with monitoring and enforcing international adoption procedures in order to protect first parents and their children from exploitation and corruption. Child trafficking for the purpose of adoption should be treated as seriously as any other type of human trafficking. International criminal law should be enhanced to apprehend and prosecute those who would abuse adoption for financial gain. This mission would be to uphold each person’s physical and mental integrity in the face of possible exploitation and abuse during the adoption process, being especially mindful of the vulnerability of children.

The present Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption should be regulated and policed to eliminate corruption in adoption

Finally, the present Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption should be regulated and policed to eliminate corruption in adoption. I also advocate working through the existing legal frameworks of technical assistance and aid, ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

For more information on child trafficking and international adoption see
The Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism
Against Child Trafficking

Related Stories:

Transnational Adoption and the "Financialization of Everything"

Copyright ©2009 Conducive. All rights reserved.
CONDUCIVEMAG.COM

A New Day


Each day offers us new hope. It's wonderful to simply be alive and to have this new day as a fresh opportunity to help make the world a little better. Or simply to experience the day itself.

Scripture says that God's mercies are made new again with each new day. He does not carry a grudge, but gives us a fresh start each morning (each moment, actually). (See Lamentations 3:22,23)

This is the day the Lord has made, let's rejoice and be glad in it. Amen. (Psalm 118:24)

August 10, 2009

Exactly the Point...


This "ad" for adoption points to the exact problem with adoption as it is practiced today in America.

A billion-dollar industry per year, of transferring human lives through "amended" birth certificates, proves that adoption is more in the best interests of adults rather than children, unfortunately. 

Adopted individual's role in life is NOT to fulfill the needs and desires of adults who want to be parents. 
 
 But just as this picture portrays, that is exactly what the adoption industry has been allowed to do ~ deceive society into believing that coercing vulnerable parents to give up their babies is actually "heroic."  So "more deserving" parents can have the opportunity to parent, "as if" the child was their own.  Adoptive parents are the customer. 

In adoption law, adoptee's birth certificates are "amended" (falsified) to state their new parents actually gave birth to them. It tries to create a new, untruthful, reality by legally severing a child's true identity and family connections. This requires the adoptee to deny their own truth, loss, and identity in order to receive care.  Whose best interest does that serve?   It creates a double-bind for adoptees and compounds trauma, instead of lessening it.  
 
Adoptees feel shame because everything about us has to be "amended" in order to be accepted in our society. 
 
If we dare want our true identities, or speak about the unethical aspects of adoption, we are labeled as "angry" and "bitter.  Our voices are further silenced and our grief disenfranchised.     

These practices force adopted persons into a role that isn't honest or congruent with truth.  Adoption law strips us of our God-given birth identity and traps us as "perpetual children" without our own genealogical, medical, or biological histories.

Until these laws are changed and ALL transfer of money (adoption "bonuses", "fees", and "expenses") is eliminated, adoption will continue to be wrought with unethical practices and conflict of interest issues. It is a business in legalized child-trafficking.  Australia has reformed their adoption practices and issued a national apology.  When will America wake up?

The only other time in American history where birth certificates were falsified and humans were transferred at the hands of contracts was during the period of slavery.

Isn't this a sad commentary (shedding light) on adoption practice today?  It is this under-world of adoption providing "forever families" for paying customers which led our court system and society to applaud the abusive "transfer" we watched Veronica Brown endure...and continue to endure. 

August 7, 2009

Do We Need To Be Protected?

Sunflower
© Photographer: Mrspants | Agency: Dreamstime.com
Open Records vs. Birth Mother Protection: Do We Need to be Protected?
From Jan Baker, for About.com

Many voices purport to speak for birth mothers to explain to the world what we want and need in regards to open records. Some say we did not want our children to begin with and, therefore, we want/need to be protected from our children coming back into our lives. Unfortunately, many of those who claim to know how we felt about our children and how we feel about them now, actually know nothing about our true feelings. Yet, they do not hesitate to speak on our behalves.
Like many other birth mothers, I have finally found my voice and can now speak for myself. I will be silent no longer and will challenge those who claim to know my wishes and desires. To begin with, I did not relinquish my child because I did not want or love him, nor did any mother I know.
Our pregnancies were unplanned, and most of us were young, unmarried and with limited financial resources. We were led to believe that it was "better" for our children to be raised by a two parent family that "wanted" to parent and was wealthier, more mature, better prepared and more deserving than we were. All the authority figures that swarmed around us (priests, parents, social workers) had little faith in our ability to raise our own children and gave us no encouragement to do so. Their lack of faith in us, coupled with our own insecurities, made adoption seem a reasonable option for our unplanned pregnancies. Little did we know. We expected it would hurt us, at least for awhile, but had no idea the pain of losing our children would last a lifetime. No one hinted our children might be affected in the least - that is the cruelest deception of all.
Two main scenarios prevailed: 1) We were brainwashed into thinking adoption was a nearly perfect solution to an unplanned pregnancy, and, therefore, made a choice based on flawed and inaccurate information; or 2) We were minors and therefore at the mercy of parents and given no choice at all. Our trusted "advisors" made it appear that if we loved our children, and had their best interests at heart, we would let them be adopted by those better suited to parent them. If you check out adoption sites on the Internet even today, most still highly praise those "brave" young women willing to "put the best interests" of their children first, i.e. relinquishing them. They still insinuate it is selfish for a young woman to keep her child if she is not as well-equipped as adoptive parents waiting in the wings that are older, wealthier, more "deserving" and prepared to be parents.
We needed to be "protected" when we were young, pregnant, unwed and profoundly vulnerable. However, instead of protecting and nurturing us, helping us develop the skills to become good parents, providing some temporary financial and psychological support, our "advisers" took advantage of our vulnerability. They convinced us we were incapable and unworthy to be parents to our own children and snatched our babies away into the waiting arms of adoptive parents deemed more deserving than we were to parent.
Some of us did have some say in the decision to relinquish, but, a choice based on flawed information and typical adoption propaganda is hardly a legitimate choice. Society did not protect us when we needed some protection and support. Now that we are older and wiser, we can make decisions for ourselves. We can and should decide if we want to reconnect with our children without being "shielded" by archaic laws to protect our anonymity. Giving birth to a child is not an event that should be shrouded in lies and secrecy - our children deserve better. Few mothers want or need to remain anonymous, most especially from their own children.
To view this page in its original form, please visit: http://adoption.about.com/od/adoptionrights/a/openbirthmompro.htm

Doe v. Sundquist

Scales in hand
© Photographer: Olgapshenichnaya | Agency: Dreamstime.com
Federal Appellate
Doe v. Sundquist, 106 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 1997) (open records)

The constitutional right to privacy did not include a right to remain anonymous in adoption surrenders.
A Tennessee bill made adoption records available to adoptees 21 years of age or older. Information could be released only to the adult adoptee, parents, siblings, lineal descendants, or lineal ancestors, of the adoptee, and only with the adoptee's written consent.

A birth mother, an adoptive couple, and a child-placing agency moved to block the statute's enforcement, arguing that it violated their constitutional right to familial privacy and reproductive privacy. The district court denied their motion.

On appeal, the sixth circuit first noted that births were both intimate occasions and public events, records of which the government had long kept, for many reasons. The court then rejected the familial privacy argument because the statute would still leave people in Tennessee free to marry, raise children, adopt children, and surrender children for adoption. The court also rejected the reproductive privacy argument, reasoning that, because statute did not limit adoptions or unduly burden the adoption process.

Six U.S. states have passed legislation restoring the unconditional right of adult adoptees in their states to obtain their original birth certificate just like other citizens. But in most states these records and the adoptee's orginal birth certificate are sealed from them, even in adulthood.
Vital Records: The Issue of Open Records for Adult Adoptees
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHB0mCSnRE4 ~ Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDv4EBe9wcE ~ Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfBMiKGUDLs ~ Part III

www.plumsite.com/shea/leg-0.html
I am writing as the adoptive parent of 12 children, six of them adopted with special needs, in support of HB 2810/SB 6496, a measure giving adult adoptees access to their original birth certificates. Also an author and professional in the adoption field, I commend Washington state legislators for considering the rights of adopted Americans. In this country, our tradition has been to support the best interests of the child in all adoption proceedings. We owe adoptees no less consideration to their interests when they become adults.

THE PROMISE OF PRIVACY.
Opponents to birth certificate access argue that the "promise of privacy" given to birth parents will be violated if adult adoptees receive accurate records of their birth. The truth is that birth parents have not been promised secrecy, have not wanted secrecy, and have no constitutional right to keep their identities "private" from their children--findings upheld in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions in Doe vs. Sundquist, a court case revolving around this very issue.

In actual practice, the identities of birth parents are routinely available to adoptive parents. Adoption petitions, hospital records we are given, social work and nursing records, and other documents passed from state and private agencies to foster parents and on to we adoptive parents often identify birth parents by name. Often we also find our children's birth parents' social security numbers and addresses in our children's records. To defend against wrongful adoption lawsuits, adoption agencies and facilitators must disclose so much to adoptive parents that any so-called "promise" of withholding identifying information about birth parents can only be a myth.

ADOPTION PROFESSIONALS SUPPORT OPEN RECORDS.
Adoption professionals and adoption groups, in the majority, support adoptee access to the original birth certificate. In my new book, In Whose Best Interests? Ethics in American Adoption (in press, Greenwood), I reported results of a 1994 study I conducted of the country's 50 state licensors of adoption agencies and 23 professional, adoption-relate or child welfare associations. My findings showed that the majority (62%) said that adult adoptees should be given access to their original birth certificates, supporting the idea that the professinal ethics of confidentiality and client self-determination can be observed without conflict in adoption practice.

My findings were similar to those of others who have researched professional attitudes toward open records, showing that the value of supporting client self-determination (in the case of the adult adoptee wanting his original birth certificate) and that of observing confidentiality (of the birth parents) need not conflict or be resolved through the American practice of sealing of adoption records. Most other nations operationalize the confidentiality of adoption records in much the same way that medical records are safeguarded in the United States. Such records can be released to and by those to whom they belong, thus supporting the ethic of confidentiality while also respecting that of client self-determination.

OPEN RECORDS AND ABORTION.
Opponents to adult adoptee access to the original birth certificate also say that such access promotes abortion. Kansas, my neighbor to the north, has always given adult adoptees access to their birth certificates. Abortion rates in Kansas have been lower than in neighboring states having closed records. The United Kingdom (including Scotland and Wales) and New South Wales, Australia experienced declines in abortion rates after they gave adult adoptees access to their birth certificates. Statistics from the governments of these countries were accepted as testimony in Doe v. Sundquist before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and resulted in Tennessee's open records law being upheld. Thus, those who support the unborn child's right to live ought also to support the adult adoptee's right to have his or her own honest and unadulterated birth certificate.

ADOPTIVE PARENTS SUPPORT OPEN RECORDS.
The majority of adoptive parents support adult adoptee access to the original birth certificate:

In 1992, Adoptive Families of America surveyed their predominantly adoptive-parent membership about their opinions concerning access to the birth certificate. The majority supported adult adoptee access to the original birth certificate.
In 1958, 1968, and 1978 Paul Sachdev researched adoptive parent, adoptee, and birth parent attitudes toward open adoption records in Unlocking the Adoption Files (1989). Sachdev, whose work is highly respected worldwide, found that 69.7% of all adoptive parents surveyed, as compared with 88.5% of birth mothers and 81.8% of adoptees, said that adult adoptees should be able to receive identifying information.
The New York State Citizens' Coalition for Children (NYSCCC), in cooperation with Cornell University professor Rosemary Avery, Ph.D., developed a survey of adoptive parents in New York state about adult adoptee access to the original birth certificate. Again, the majority of adoptive parents supported access.
Having worked recently with Washington state adoptive parents adopting waiting children in your state and others, I am keenly interested in contributing to every effort that supports adoptive families. I believe that HB 2810/SB 6496 is a bill that ultimately supports adoptive families because it gives adoptees rights that the non-adopted have always had, removing a stigmatizing barrier that has historically only been applied to American adoptees. We adoptive parents and our children want to be regarded and treated like everybody else: like real families, for that is what we are.

HB 2810/SB 6496 is a measure that acts in the best interests of adopted children and adopted adults--the very people we say we want to serve. I hope you will join me in supporting adoptee access to their own records.

Sincerely,
L. Anne Babb, Ph.D.
North American Council on Adoptable Children
National Adoption Assistance, Training,
Resource, and Information Network
(NAATRIN-OK)

Burr v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 491 N.E.2d 1101 (Ohio 1986) (wrongful adoption)
The adoptive parents could sue the adoption agency for wrongful adoption where they were fraudulently misled to their detriment by the agency's misrepresentations about the child's background and condition.

In Burr, the adoption caseworker told the prospective adoptive parents that the infant they sought to adopt had been borne by an eighteen-year-old unwed mother and had no health problems. After the adoption, however, the child suffered mental and physical problems, including being classified as mentally retarded and diagnosed as having Huntington's Disease.

During treatment, the adoptive parents got a court order opening the sealed records. The records revealed that the natural mother had been a thirty-one-year old mental patient with a "mild mental deficiency, idiopathic, with psychotic reactions." The father too was thought to have been a mental patient. The records also showed that the child suffered a fever at birth, and that the agency knew the child was developing slowly.

The adoptive parents sued for medical expenses, claiming they would not have adopted the child had they been told the truth. The jury awarded the adoptive parents $125,000. The agency appealed, arguing that any costs incurred in caring for the child were incidental expenses that all parents were obligated to incur for their children.

The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the adoptive parents had proven fraud, which was: (a) a representation or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact, (b) which is material to the transaction at hand, (c) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true or false that knowledge may be inferred, (d) with the intent of misleading another into relying upon it, (e) justifiable reliance upon the representation or concealment, and (f) a resulting injury proximately caused by the reliance.
www.eriksmith.org

August 4, 2009

In unearthing her roots, she found her true sound


In unearthing her roots, she found her true sound
By John Gerome, Associated Press | August 4, 2009

NASHVILLE - As a child, the closest Diana Jones came to country or
folk music was listening to the Johnny Cash records she swiped from
her brothers’ rooms.

The 43-year-old singer-songwriter, who was raised in the Northeast,
was classically trained as a vocalist and sang in the school chorus.
She had little exposure to rootsy Southern music.

“Anything I heard that had a rootsy feel to it, I’d listen to,’’ Jones
said recently. “There was Irish music on the radio and I wanted more
of that sound. So I gravitated to it, but it wasn’t really part of my
culture.’’

It would take a search for her birth parents - Jones was adopted as an
infant - to find that the sound she seemed to be strangely drawn to
wasn’t so strange at all.

After she discovered that her biological family had roots in
Appalachian folk music, Jones began moving away from the contemporary
coffeehouse folk of her earlier records and closer to the heart of the
old mountain songs that her grandfather Robert Lee Maranville, a
singer and musician who performed with Chet Atkins when he was a teen,
had sung while growing up - tunes like “Pretty Polly’’ and “Poor
Wayfaring Stranger.’’

Her latest album, “Better Times Will Come,’’ is a collection of 11
songs written by Jones that sound as though they sprang from a
Tennessee hollow circa 1930. There’s hope for better days (the title
track), a murder ballad (“If I Had a Gun’’), and the story of a dying
coal miner (“Henry Russell’s Last Words’’).

Released in May, the album is Jones’s second disc to fully embrace
traditional sounds of rural Appalachia. Her plaintive voice over
guitar, fiddle, and mandolin is warm and soothing.

“What’s always gotten me is the honesty of her performance,’’ said
Louis Meyers, executive director of Folk Alliance International, a
Memphis-based organization that named Jones best emerging artist in
2007. “It comes through in the voice and in the songs.’’

Jones’s search for her birth family began in the New York Public
Library in 1989 when she was in her early 20s and living in Manhattan.
She had wondered about them much of her life.

“It was almost like a rite of passage for me,’’ said Jones, who now
lives in Nashville where she’s also a portrait painter.

Jones not only discovered her personal history but also the
unvarnished Appalachian folk songs that are part of her family’s
heritage - songs that would inspire her music.

With help from her adoptive father, Jones learned that her birth
mother’s last name was Maranville. She began spending hours at the
library searching genealogical records and phone books from across the
country.

“I was hitting all these Maranville dead ends and making a lot of long-
distance phone calls. I was feeling discouraged,’’ she said. “Then I
had a dream I was in a post office and a woman in the post office who
worked there said, ‘Your mother is from Tennessee.’ ’’

Her search quickly turned to the foothills of the Great Smoky
Mountains in Maryville. She called the Maranville family there and
asked if they knew her mother.

It turned out that Jones was speaking to her grandmother, who didn’t
fully understand who Jones was and what she was trying to tell her.
She told Jones to call back in the morning.

“So I called back the next day and they told me I was their grandchild
and they had wanted me to contact them all their life. My mother was
in England. She had married a British man just before I was born who
didn’t want to raise a child that wasn’t his.’’

There was more: She had a sister, two brothers, and two nephews.

“It was like finding the Waltons,’’ Jones said.

She traveled to Tennessee to meet her family. Her mother arrived from
England and Jones’s grandmother cooked a “Thanksgiving meal’’ in
February 1990.

“I was almost floating above myself because it was so much more than I
could hope for,’’ she said.

Jones grew particularly close to her grandfather. After his death in
2000, she found comfort in the mountain folk songs he had sung - and
began writing and singing in that style.

“I decided to stop trying to sound like someone else and find what
resonates for me,’’ said Jones, who released her first album in 1997.
“I stopped listening to the contemporary and went to the old stuff,
what people were listening to [in order] to make sense of their lives.’’

© Copyright2009 The New York Times Company

"Landmark Adoption Ruling" Leaves Some Adoptees Behind


Landmark adoption ruling a bittersweet victory for Falcon man

JOHN C. ENSSLIN
2009-07-31
On the day Jeffrey Hannasch’s daughter was born, a nurse came to him
with a long questionnaire on his family’s medical history.

“I won’t waste any time or any trees,” he said, handing her back the
paperwork. “I’m an adoptee.”

“Oh, you’re one of those,” the nurse said.

One of those.

Encounters like that hospital conversation six years ago have always
left Hannasch, who lives in Falcon northeast of Colorado Springs,
wondering about his origins.

Two years ago, he set out to do something about it. He went in search
of his birth parents. His search produced more than he expected.

In April, the 44-year-old plumber’s legal battle for his adoption
records led to a landmark Court of Appeals ruling. As a result, some
8,000 people adopted in Colorado between July 1, 1951, to July 1,
1967, will have an easier time obtaining their previously sealed
adoption records.

The case has led several agencies to revamp the way they process
records requests for people adopted in that 16-year slice of time.

He’s heard from several people who’ve found their birth parents
because of the ruling. Hannasch is pleased at the ripple effect the
ruling is having, but he was hoping for so much more.

“I wanted a tsunami.”

Back when he was a ninth grader at Air Academy High School, Hannasch
did a classroom assignment on his family’s genealogy.

He loved his adoptive parents and knew all about their history. His
father was an accountant. His mom was a nurse. They had adopted him
two week after he was born in a Denver hospital.

Hannasch knew how their ancestors had homesteaded near Cheyenne Creek
in the 1870s.

But he also felt he was living a lie. The family tree he created was
just names on a piece of paper to him.

Two years ago, he came into possession of a piece of paper that would
change his life.

His father had died. As executor of the estate, he found his adoption
decree from 1965. For the first time he saw his birth mother’s name.

Finding her was a relatively easy Google search. The next step was not
so easy. Who would he find? What would her reaction be? What if she
wanted nothing to do with him?

His search took him to a small town where his birth mother had grown
up. He went into a public building to ask about her and was led to a
room that had his mother’s picture.

His wife and daughter had been waiting outside. He called them in.

“There she is,” he told them. The woman in the picture was the
spitting image of his daughter.

In January 2008, he sent the woman a vague letter. He got no reply. He
tried again, this time being more explicit about the fact that he was
her son.

In May, she wrote him a cordial, if somewhat reserved letter. Hannasch
described her reaction as friendly, but somewhat shocked that he had
found her after so many years.

He asked her about his father. She said she could not remember his
name. All she knew was that he had been stationed at Denver’s Lowry
Air Force Base in the mid-1960s.

Over the next three months, Hannasch contacted about 250 airmen who
were stationed at the base during that period. His calls had the
unintended effect of enabling some of them to reunite. But none could
help him find his dad.

Meanwhile Hannasch took his search for his father to El Paso County
Juvenile Court, where he filed a request for his adoption records.

The magistrate turned Hannasch down, contending that the records he
sought were confidential and directing him instead to use a
confidential intermediate service, that acts as a link between
adoptees and birth parents. A 4th Judicial District judge upheld the
denial.

However, when Rich Uhrlaub, a volunteer coordinator with Adoptees in
Search —The Colorado Triad Connection, heard about Hannasch’s case, he
helped bring in lawyers from Holland and Hart, who agreed to take the
case on appeal on a pro bono basis.

On April 16, Hannasch had stopped in a friend’s store in Calhan when
his cell phone rang. It was his lawyer calling. They had won the case
in a unanimous decision.

“I just about passed out,” he recalled.

Two months later — after the ruling had gone uncontested — Adoptees in
Search held a victory celebration. The state Registrar agreed to come
and present Hannasch with the documents he had been seeking for so long.

Hannasch remembers going on stage to accept the manila envelope as the
crowd burst into a prolonged standing ovation.

Then he stood at one side of the stage and opened the envelope. He
stared at it for a long, long time. There was his father’s name.

That night, Hannasch and his wife got home late. She went to bed. He
sat down at his computer. Fifteen minutes later, he found something
that stopped him cold.

His father was dead. He had died in 1973 in another state.

Hannasch had prepared himself for this possibility. But there it was
staring him in the face.

He turned off the computer and lights and went to bed.

What did it all mean? Was it worth all that effort? Has Hannasch’s
daily life changed all that much?

Not a lot. But in some ways, the differences are profound.

He now has three binders full of his birth family’s history. Among the
surprising discoveries: he is a third generation Coloradan. His blood
relatives are buried about 20 miles from the old homestead of his
adoptive family.

He now knows he was 4 pounds, 12 ounces and 17 inches when born.

He gets calls now and then from people who’ve found their birth
parents thanks to the precedent his case established. This makes him
feel good.

Perhaps most important, he no longer has that feeling of uncertainty
that the maternity room nurse’s question hit upon when his daughter
was born.

“I just have a different outlook now. I have stopped wondering about
the past.”

“Adoption just doesn’t stop with me. That’s what I realized when my
kids were born. Not having a point zero was becoming increasingly more
difficult to bear.”

Now he won’t have to pass that uncertainty on to his children.

Then he choked up for a moment.

“I’m fortunate enough to have two moms and two dads.”


*A Colorado court decision has recently opened adoption records ONLY for adoptees born between 1951-1967. These discriminatory laws create a tier-effect for ADULTS who should have the (same) rights to obtain their own personal records in adulthood.

Upon a child's adoption, they are issued an amended (falsified) "Certificate of
Live Birth" with the names of their adoptive parents written as if they gave
birth (some even have amended (changed) birthdates and places of birth). The
child's original birth certificate (which has the name of the mother who gave
birth to the child) is "sealed" once the child is adopted.

If a mother relinquishes her child for adoption, but for some reason, the child
remains in foster care or an adoption is not finalized, the child's original
birth certificate remains intact, and is never "sealed". This proves what
thousands of birthmothers are revealing ~ they were never promised
confidentiality, and in fact, didn't want it. The "sealed records" laws were
not enacted to protect their confidentiality, but to protect the privacy of the
newly formed adoptive family.

The video news story (click on the title of this post to be linked) also points out that adoption agencies would frequently put "false" names on their records and even adoptee's original birth certificates.
No wonder the National Council for Adoption lobbys against the recommendations
of The Child Welfare League of America and many other organizations to legislate
access (to OBC's) for ALL adult adopted individuals.

Adults adopted as children are currently viewed as "perpetual children" in the
eyes of the law. Six U.S. states have passed laws which restore the civil right
of ALL adopted citizens to obtain their original birth certificate in adulthood.
Mutual consent registries and intermediary systems are not working and serve to
continue discrimination against millions of U.S. citizens who deserve the same
identity rights as everyone else.

My adoption was finalized in 1968 ~ one year past the golden time-frame of this court decision, and my first mother had registered on several "mutual consent registries" that failed to create a match for us. All this was due to the fact she had been been given inaccurate information at the time of the adoption. She died from breast cancer at the age of 32 while searching for me, but died searching for a son, because she was not permitted to even see me after her delivery. These registries and intermediary services are literally crumbs thrown out to those separated by unethical adoption laws in this country. It will be a beautiful day when ALL adopted individuals in America are given the same rights as every other citizen to own their original birth certificate, and no longer have to live as "perpetual children" in the eyes of society.