September 30, 2011
Lost Daughters: Love Is Not a Pie
Lost Daughters: Love Is Not a Pie: Rebecca asks here Are You an Attuned Adoptive Parent? : Most parents will bend over backwards to meet the needs of their children. Love, sa...
September 29, 2011
Senate Inquiry Hears Evidence
Senate inquiry hears harrowing evidence on forced adoptions
Sept. 29, 2011
Sabra Lane
"There is some people that have not even got a proper birth certificate and they don't even know their proper name. Mothers have given evidence that when they went to some of these institutions where they gave birth, they were admitted under a false name and that false name was put on the birth certificate.
Imagine trying to find who you are, tracing through that evidence chain. It is just non-existent."
TONY EASTLEY: A Senate committee has heard heart-breaking evidence from mothers who say they were forced to give up their babies for adoption.
The inquiry is examining whether the Commonwealth drafted legislation which the states and territories then used to compel unwed mothers to hand over their babies.
Chief political correspondent, Sabra Lane.
SABRA LANE: Judy McPherson wrote out her testimony.
JUDY MCPHERSON: If you'd bear with me, I've not done this before.
SABRA LANE: But she struggled to read it.
JUDY MCPHERSON: My daughter was born in Queen Victoria Maternity Hospital in Melbourne in November, 1964 and I first met her in 1990 (audibly upset).
SABRA LANE: A friend continued for her.
JUDY MCPHERSON'S FRIEND: I was given medication that had a profoundly sedative effect. I awoke at the moment of birth semi-conscious. I imagined my arms reaching to the door at the far left hand corner of the room as the nurse and doctor ran towards that door. I don't wish to speak to this anymore as it is very distressing.
This is the part of my birthing story that was rewritten by the issuing of a second birth certificate.
SABRA LANE: Judi McPherson's name was removed from her daughter's birth certificate; sealed records made it difficult for her to track her.
Christine Cole was 16, when her baby was taken from her at Sydney's Crown Street Women's Hospital. She's researched the history of forced adoptions in NSW for a PhD.
She's given evidence that in the 50s, 60s and 70s it was common practice that unwed mothers, often teenagers, were forced to hand over their babies.
The committee's heard evidence that many of these women were drugged and in some cases their signatures were forged on adoption papers.
CHRISTINE COLE: The file was marked BFA (Baby For Adoption). That was marked by the social worker whilst the mother was pregnant and when she first was interviewed by the social worker. They assumed that an unwed, unsupported mother - her baby was going to be up for adoption many months prior to giving birth. That reflected an internal health department policy.
SABRA LANE: The Australian Institute of Family Studies is currently examining how many women and children were the victims of forced adoptions.
The support group Origins says it can't accept a formal apology, as some mothers still don't know the truth - that they were unknowingly duped into a process known as a "rapid adoption".
That was a practice where the parents of a recently stillborn child were given a substitute baby - often from an unwed mother, who was wrongly told her child had died during or soon after birth. Origins spokeswoman Lily Arthur.
LILY ARTHUR: We have been approached since this enquiry started by women who have actually investigated what they thought was their stillbirths and have found out that there was in fact adoptions taking place. Now while ever there are women who do not know that they still have children out there, you can't apologise for these crimes that remain hidden.
SABRA LANE: The committee's considering whether the Commonwealth played a role in drafting the legislation used by the states and territories to carry out these adoptions.
It will also examine whether the Commonwealth should apologise, pay compensation, help with counselling costs and whether it should establish one central office to help separated families to reconnect.
TONY EASTLEY: The Senate committee inquiry is due to complete its final report in late November.
The inquiry chairwoman, Greens Senator Rachel Siewart is speaking here with our chief political correspondent Sabra Lane.
RACHEL SIEWART: It is a very emotionally charged inquiry. You really feel for the witnesses giving evidence. There is no inquiry yet that I've been at, or a hearing that I've been at for this inquiry that I haven't shed some tears. I think it is the same for other senators and certainly for the witnesses.
For some witnesses, it is the first time they have told their story in public. They are very powerful stories, they're harrowing and there is certainly ample evidence that these forced adoption practices were carried out in this country.
SABRA LANE: Some people are looking for an apology. Others say that they don't want that apology while there are still women who are under the impression that they gave birth to babies that were stillborn or who died shortly thereafter and there is evidence that those children are still alive.
RACHEL SIEWART: There is a group of women that very strongly support an apology and they look to the apology that the West Australian Government gave towards the end of last year and look at what a powerful response there has been to that but there is also a group of women that are saying, no, it is not appropriate to have an apology now. There is a lot of unfinished business.
They think there is illegal practices here that they want investigated, that there was mothers that were told their babies had died or were stillborn and then subsequently found out that in fact those babies lived and in fact will now be adults and that they haven't been able to trace them yet or, and more importantly some mothers don't know - they were told that their baby had died or was just stillborn and in fact they don't know whether that is in fact the truth.
And it has been raised previously where there was evidence from a mother who had been told the baby had died when in fact she subsequently found out that it was alive.
We've also had evidence from mothers who said that the experience was so traumatic that they actually had blocked it out and they weren't aware that they had given birth and they subsequently found out that they had.
The depths of the despair and the emotional impact this issue has had on these mothers is incalculable and there is certainly issues that we need to address here.
SABRA LANE: For some women and some children though, no amount of apology or money will ever be able to soothe their souls.
RACHEL SIEWART: That's right. There is some people that I believe have been irreparably hurt and it has had lifelong ramifications. That is not to say that therefore that we shouldn't be offering every, you know, as much support as we can - specialised counselling support, access to the medical services that are required, access to better record systems.
There is some people that have not even got a proper birth certificate and they don't even know their proper name. Mothers have given evidence that when they went to some of these institutions where they gave birth, they were admitted under a false name and that false name was put on the birth certificate.
Imagine trying to find who you are, tracing through that evidence chain. It is just non-existent.
TONY EASTLEY: Greens Senator Rachel Siewart who is also the inquiry chairwoman, speaking there with our chief political correspondent Sabra Lane.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3328313.htm
Sept. 29, 2011
Sabra Lane
"There is some people that have not even got a proper birth certificate and they don't even know their proper name. Mothers have given evidence that when they went to some of these institutions where they gave birth, they were admitted under a false name and that false name was put on the birth certificate.
Imagine trying to find who you are, tracing through that evidence chain. It is just non-existent."
TONY EASTLEY: A Senate committee has heard heart-breaking evidence from mothers who say they were forced to give up their babies for adoption.
The inquiry is examining whether the Commonwealth drafted legislation which the states and territories then used to compel unwed mothers to hand over their babies.
Chief political correspondent, Sabra Lane.
SABRA LANE: Judy McPherson wrote out her testimony.
JUDY MCPHERSON: If you'd bear with me, I've not done this before.
SABRA LANE: But she struggled to read it.
JUDY MCPHERSON: My daughter was born in Queen Victoria Maternity Hospital in Melbourne in November, 1964 and I first met her in 1990 (audibly upset).
SABRA LANE: A friend continued for her.
JUDY MCPHERSON'S FRIEND: I was given medication that had a profoundly sedative effect. I awoke at the moment of birth semi-conscious. I imagined my arms reaching to the door at the far left hand corner of the room as the nurse and doctor ran towards that door. I don't wish to speak to this anymore as it is very distressing.
This is the part of my birthing story that was rewritten by the issuing of a second birth certificate.
SABRA LANE: Judi McPherson's name was removed from her daughter's birth certificate; sealed records made it difficult for her to track her.
Christine Cole was 16, when her baby was taken from her at Sydney's Crown Street Women's Hospital. She's researched the history of forced adoptions in NSW for a PhD.
She's given evidence that in the 50s, 60s and 70s it was common practice that unwed mothers, often teenagers, were forced to hand over their babies.
The committee's heard evidence that many of these women were drugged and in some cases their signatures were forged on adoption papers.
CHRISTINE COLE: The file was marked BFA (Baby For Adoption). That was marked by the social worker whilst the mother was pregnant and when she first was interviewed by the social worker. They assumed that an unwed, unsupported mother - her baby was going to be up for adoption many months prior to giving birth. That reflected an internal health department policy.
SABRA LANE: The Australian Institute of Family Studies is currently examining how many women and children were the victims of forced adoptions.
The support group Origins says it can't accept a formal apology, as some mothers still don't know the truth - that they were unknowingly duped into a process known as a "rapid adoption".
That was a practice where the parents of a recently stillborn child were given a substitute baby - often from an unwed mother, who was wrongly told her child had died during or soon after birth. Origins spokeswoman Lily Arthur.
LILY ARTHUR: We have been approached since this enquiry started by women who have actually investigated what they thought was their stillbirths and have found out that there was in fact adoptions taking place. Now while ever there are women who do not know that they still have children out there, you can't apologise for these crimes that remain hidden.
SABRA LANE: The committee's considering whether the Commonwealth played a role in drafting the legislation used by the states and territories to carry out these adoptions.
It will also examine whether the Commonwealth should apologise, pay compensation, help with counselling costs and whether it should establish one central office to help separated families to reconnect.
TONY EASTLEY: The Senate committee inquiry is due to complete its final report in late November.
The inquiry chairwoman, Greens Senator Rachel Siewart is speaking here with our chief political correspondent Sabra Lane.
RACHEL SIEWART: It is a very emotionally charged inquiry. You really feel for the witnesses giving evidence. There is no inquiry yet that I've been at, or a hearing that I've been at for this inquiry that I haven't shed some tears. I think it is the same for other senators and certainly for the witnesses.
For some witnesses, it is the first time they have told their story in public. They are very powerful stories, they're harrowing and there is certainly ample evidence that these forced adoption practices were carried out in this country.
SABRA LANE: Some people are looking for an apology. Others say that they don't want that apology while there are still women who are under the impression that they gave birth to babies that were stillborn or who died shortly thereafter and there is evidence that those children are still alive.
RACHEL SIEWART: There is a group of women that very strongly support an apology and they look to the apology that the West Australian Government gave towards the end of last year and look at what a powerful response there has been to that but there is also a group of women that are saying, no, it is not appropriate to have an apology now. There is a lot of unfinished business.
They think there is illegal practices here that they want investigated, that there was mothers that were told their babies had died or were stillborn and then subsequently found out that in fact those babies lived and in fact will now be adults and that they haven't been able to trace them yet or, and more importantly some mothers don't know - they were told that their baby had died or was just stillborn and in fact they don't know whether that is in fact the truth.
And it has been raised previously where there was evidence from a mother who had been told the baby had died when in fact she subsequently found out that it was alive.
We've also had evidence from mothers who said that the experience was so traumatic that they actually had blocked it out and they weren't aware that they had given birth and they subsequently found out that they had.
The depths of the despair and the emotional impact this issue has had on these mothers is incalculable and there is certainly issues that we need to address here.
SABRA LANE: For some women and some children though, no amount of apology or money will ever be able to soothe their souls.
RACHEL SIEWART: That's right. There is some people that I believe have been irreparably hurt and it has had lifelong ramifications. That is not to say that therefore that we shouldn't be offering every, you know, as much support as we can - specialised counselling support, access to the medical services that are required, access to better record systems.
There is some people that have not even got a proper birth certificate and they don't even know their proper name. Mothers have given evidence that when they went to some of these institutions where they gave birth, they were admitted under a false name and that false name was put on the birth certificate.
Imagine trying to find who you are, tracing through that evidence chain. It is just non-existent.
TONY EASTLEY: Greens Senator Rachel Siewart who is also the inquiry chairwoman, speaking there with our chief political correspondent Sabra Lane.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3328313.htm
September 27, 2011
weaving love untangling confusion: The Invitation To my Bio-Dad
weaving love untangling confusion: The Invitation To my Bio-Dad: And yet another inspiration from 'The Invitation' I wrote this thinking about my bio-dad and my hopes and dreams of how we can con...
September 23, 2011
Adoption is Not a Solution for Poor Children ~ E.J. Graff
Adoption Is Not a Solution for Poor Children
E.J. Graff
09/22/2011
Here’s what matters most: Aronson told the adoption lobby that adoption is not the solution for the world’s needy children. She asks:
Why did we create such a marvelous bureaucracy to improve international adoption practices and not pour some of that money into the welfare of mothers in these countries?
Substitute “families” for “mothers”—some of those children are living with grandmothers, sisters, or cousins—and that’s the right question. Although UNICEF is often quoted as saying that there are 163 million orphans today, few people understand that the vast majority of those have lost only one parent—and most of the rest are living with extended families. In much of Asia and Africa, when children are living in institutions, it’s not because their parents are dead; rather, it’s because their families are too poor to keep them alive or have no childcare during the long days of bringing in the harvest. What we might call “orphanages” are usually child-welfare centers, places for the families to be certain that children are fed, housed, and educated. One African social-welfare minister declared, years ago, that there are no orphanages in Africa, just boarding schools for poor children. Our country has gone through that phase as well; a family friend of mine grew up spending his weekdays in an orphanage in Cleveland, going home to his working mother on the weekends.
Adoption, as Aronson emphasizes here, doesn’t solve this problem. What does? I’ve heard about some incredibly simple initiatives to enable children to stay with their families: PEPFAR gives seeds to grandmothers so they can grow vegetables and feed their AIDS-orphaned grandchildren or pays those children’s school fees so they can get an education without being officially relinquished. (Free public education is a developed-world luxury.) Sometimes needy children do need new adoptive families—the post-Soviet countries, in particular, still have many orphanages filled with developmentally starved children who were genuinely abandoned or taken away from alcoholic or abusive families—but far more often, what’s needed is support for existing families,so children are not given away because of parental illness or destitution.
But here’s what Aronson overlooks: The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, the “marvelous bureaucracy” of which she speaks and that was created to respond to growing reports of adoption-related fraud, coercion, and kidnapping, doesn’t merely put in place regulations to oversee adoption agencies. It also requires that its signatory countries create a healthy social-welfare infrastructure that assesses what kinds of help families might need to care for their children—and if those families are abusive or incapable, finds the right kind of homes. The Hague Permanent Bureau sends teams to evaluate and improve that infrastructure. So does UNICEF—which is, you may be surprised to know, hated by a large part of the adoption community. So do UNAIDS, PEPFAR, USAID, and a variety of dedicated nonprofits and NGOs—none of which work on adoption. Many different actors are working to help families keep their children home. Needless to say, none are adequate.
But it is important that the United States and other countries watch out for fraudulent adoption practices—because such fraud can undermine all those folks who are trying to do good. So long as local entrepreneurs in poor or corrupt countries realize how much money there is to be made by exporting healthy children, they will find ways to hijack humanitarian aid, development money, and international donations into “orphanages” that are actually profit centers.
http://blog.prospect.org/ej_graff/2011/09/adoption-is-not-a-solution-for.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150294251571254_18251636_10150295279776254#f18982bef37a924
E.J. Graff
09/22/2011
Here’s what matters most: Aronson told the adoption lobby that adoption is not the solution for the world’s needy children. She asks:
Why did we create such a marvelous bureaucracy to improve international adoption practices and not pour some of that money into the welfare of mothers in these countries?
Substitute “families” for “mothers”—some of those children are living with grandmothers, sisters, or cousins—and that’s the right question. Although UNICEF is often quoted as saying that there are 163 million orphans today, few people understand that the vast majority of those have lost only one parent—and most of the rest are living with extended families. In much of Asia and Africa, when children are living in institutions, it’s not because their parents are dead; rather, it’s because their families are too poor to keep them alive or have no childcare during the long days of bringing in the harvest. What we might call “orphanages” are usually child-welfare centers, places for the families to be certain that children are fed, housed, and educated. One African social-welfare minister declared, years ago, that there are no orphanages in Africa, just boarding schools for poor children. Our country has gone through that phase as well; a family friend of mine grew up spending his weekdays in an orphanage in Cleveland, going home to his working mother on the weekends.
Adoption, as Aronson emphasizes here, doesn’t solve this problem. What does? I’ve heard about some incredibly simple initiatives to enable children to stay with their families: PEPFAR gives seeds to grandmothers so they can grow vegetables and feed their AIDS-orphaned grandchildren or pays those children’s school fees so they can get an education without being officially relinquished. (Free public education is a developed-world luxury.) Sometimes needy children do need new adoptive families—the post-Soviet countries, in particular, still have many orphanages filled with developmentally starved children who were genuinely abandoned or taken away from alcoholic or abusive families—but far more often, what’s needed is support for existing families,so children are not given away because of parental illness or destitution.
But here’s what Aronson overlooks: The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, the “marvelous bureaucracy” of which she speaks and that was created to respond to growing reports of adoption-related fraud, coercion, and kidnapping, doesn’t merely put in place regulations to oversee adoption agencies. It also requires that its signatory countries create a healthy social-welfare infrastructure that assesses what kinds of help families might need to care for their children—and if those families are abusive or incapable, finds the right kind of homes. The Hague Permanent Bureau sends teams to evaluate and improve that infrastructure. So does UNICEF—which is, you may be surprised to know, hated by a large part of the adoption community. So do UNAIDS, PEPFAR, USAID, and a variety of dedicated nonprofits and NGOs—none of which work on adoption. Many different actors are working to help families keep their children home. Needless to say, none are adequate.
But it is important that the United States and other countries watch out for fraudulent adoption practices—because such fraud can undermine all those folks who are trying to do good. So long as local entrepreneurs in poor or corrupt countries realize how much money there is to be made by exporting healthy children, they will find ways to hijack humanitarian aid, development money, and international donations into “orphanages” that are actually profit centers.
http://blog.prospect.org/ej_graff/2011/09/adoption-is-not-a-solution-for.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150294251571254_18251636_10150295279776254#f18982bef37a924
September 14, 2011
"Power" ~ The Operative Word
© Photographer: Junial | Agency: Dreamstime.com
Adoptees should be just like every other American citizen and have full unconditional access to their OWN birth certificate, identifying information, and court records. Anything less is ludicrous, discriminatory, and strips them of human rights ~ for both adoptees and their children and lineage after them. It isn't about smoke-screen issues ~ it is about adoptees having the same civil right as every other American citizen to own their obc and know their identity, heritage, genealogy, and medical histories. Ethical issues in adoption cannot be adequately addressed without giving adoptees the same rights as other citizens ~ unconditional access to their obc upon adulthood.
I saw a clip of a commercial for an upcoming movie about civil rights. A elderly black gentleman was sitting on a bus, when the bus driver turned around with a snarl on his face and said "the colored area starts one row back", for which the gentleman replies, "no, it starts right here."
Adoptees rights have been trampled on for decades in this country. Our permitted "area" of vital statistics has been boxed in with blanks, untruths, amended, falsified birth certificates, and vetos for long enough. We need to stand up and say "NO" ~ we want to enjoy the same civil rights as our fellow citizens ~ and it should start NOW ~ actually yesteryear. Civil rights activists took gutsy stands in the face of opposition, law, and those who misunderstood and held the commonly held societal view of them.
Adoptees have been fighting this same battle for decades now in state legislatures. We are the only American citizens (6 million of us or more) who are delegated to a completely different set of rules and standards regarding our OWN identities, court records, vital statistics, genealogy, health histories, and personal rights. It is time NOW to be brave, and come out of the shame that "sealed records" laws have inflicted on us.
Wilbur Wilberforce fought for decades in the English Parliament to outlaw slavery. He had to overcome the prevailing view of the time that to outlaw slavery would vastly hurt the economy of the wealthy and elite. This "business" aspect of the slave trade and unethical laws and lobby of the slave-traders was able to "cloud" the reasonable, other-wise "compassionate" hearts of lawmakers and society for years ~ while black slaves and their children lost their identities and freedom.
The entire battle had to be won again in America, so that black people would not be held to a completely different and derogatory set of rules, not able to enjoy the same freedoms as their white counterparts.
Women could not vote in America for a long time, and they eventually had to go after that right themselves.
The same with adoptees in this country. Our lives and the lives of our children are significantly affected by inhumane and derogatory adoption laws and procedures. Most of us were born and relinquished in the "Baby Scoop Era" of the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's ~ a time in history where society completely shunned young, unwed mothers (and still do in many instances) and NEEDED healthy, white babies to fulfill the families of those who could not have their own. Today is just another chapter of the same story.
Until adoptees come together and shed the shame and feeling of complete disloyalty when we take up our own voices and realize that we are NOT being disloyal to our adoptive parents, to our natural families, to the role that we were given, we will never enjoy the same confidence, freedom, and rights as our counterparts.
Thank God for role-models like Alice Paul, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Wilber Wilberforce and the list goes on and on ~ They were all shunned and silenced with their messages of hope, freedom, and equality in their day. But are now revered for thier messages and the freedom they brought to thousands after them. God bless them! I'm so thankful for those in the adoption world who are heralding the message of equal access to adult adoptees. They are my heroes too! God bless them!
Alberta law gives power to adoptive parents
The Edmonton Journal
Published: 3:02 am
It may be the only case among developed countries.
An unidentified Alberta family has won a ministerial order to keep its adoptee, an adult, in the dark about his or her adoption.
"Alberta has one feature in its adoption law which is different than any other law that I'm aware of in the western world," Dr. Michael Grand, a prominent adoption researcher, said in an interview from the University of Guelph, Ont.
That feature is in a section of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act that lets adoptive families apply for a veto so biological parents can't see the adoptees' files. The veto can be used if the adoptive parents have not told their adoptees they are adopted, and where enlightening them "would be extremely detrimental to the adopted person."
The government has granted just one veto for an adoptive family, Children's Services spokeswoman Cathy Ducharme said.
Grand, a clinical psychologist who was co-director of a national study of adoption policies, said the provision is wrong-headed, particularly because it is aimed at adoptees who are now adults and who should be allowed to find out about their origins. Adoption records are closed until adoptees reach adulthood.
"Alberta has something unique that nobody else would even contemplate putting in," he said. "Why such a bizarre provision that doesn't appear anywhere else in the western world?"
He said he is familiar with adoption policies internationally, and has yet to come across anything like it.
Alberta opened its records to adult adoptees and their birth parents in 2004 so they can learn about each other and possibly reunite. As with other jurisdictions that have taken such a step, the province provided that it can veto access to the records, on request from the adoptees or birth parents.
British Columbia, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories have also opened their records to birth parents and adoptees, and Ontario is developing similar legislation. None of them have taken Alberta's step of granting veto rights to adoptive parents, and no other province has such a veto provision.
"It was put in place to respond to public concerns," said Cathy Ducharme, spokeswoman for Children's Services. "When these types of vetoes are granted by the minister, there needs to be a lot of evidence that it would be in the best interest of the adoptee not to have this information released."
When the government introduced the veto provision, it suggested adoptive parents might use it where adoptees were conceived through incest or rape. Grand said such adoptees in Ontario have demanded to see their files. In Alberta, while there has been just one veto granted for adoptive parents, there have been 3,000 vetoes for birth parents and adoptees since the adoption reforms took effect.
If an adult adoptee or a birth parent request a veto, the veto ceases when that person dies. But vetoes placed by adoptive parents are permanent, unless their adoptees somehow discover they are adopted and ask to lift them. Vetoes are possible only on adoptions that happened before 2005.
September 10, 2011
Lost Daughters: A Day of Remembrance
Lost Daughters: A Day of Remembrance: My First Mother, Norma Carol, was born on 9/11. She gave birth to me as a young, unwed mother in 1968 and was one of the first to inquir...
September 9, 2011
The Declassified Adoptee: The Disablist Nature of Anti-Rights and Anti-Narra...
I've spent the last few weeks advocating with the school system to make sure the proper supports are in place for my son to be able to succeed at school.
He has Sensory Processing Disorder, which affects his brain's ability to process visual, auditory, and emotional stimuli. Loud noises & bright lights can be physically painful to him and it affects his ability to focus and communicate. He was born 3 months early and only weighed a pound. When I remember back six years ago, helplessly watching him endure so many medical procedures in the loud environment of the NICU, I marvel at the miracle of how wonderful he is doing. But he still has much to overcome.
He has been having a hard time, and after several tries, we are hoping that a transfer will be approved for him to attend a slightly smaller, less sensory overwhelming school.
As as an adult adoptee and Mother of a child with special needs, (living it so close right now that I can't even come close to capturing the resulting emotions), it was a treat to read Amanda's post below.
Unfortunately,(especially for those disenfranchised within a system of "experts" who lack personal experience of the needs and rights of those they "serve"), many life-stories never get written except within.
It is with great hope that so many are writing about these issues...educating.
There is a time to stand up.
The Declassified Adoptee: The Disablist Nature of Anti-Rights and Anti-Narra...: Every time I see "mental illness" used as a label with the intention of controlling, negating, or silencing an adoptee's (or anyone's) n...
He has Sensory Processing Disorder, which affects his brain's ability to process visual, auditory, and emotional stimuli. Loud noises & bright lights can be physically painful to him and it affects his ability to focus and communicate. He was born 3 months early and only weighed a pound. When I remember back six years ago, helplessly watching him endure so many medical procedures in the loud environment of the NICU, I marvel at the miracle of how wonderful he is doing. But he still has much to overcome.
He has been having a hard time, and after several tries, we are hoping that a transfer will be approved for him to attend a slightly smaller, less sensory overwhelming school.
As as an adult adoptee and Mother of a child with special needs, (living it so close right now that I can't even come close to capturing the resulting emotions), it was a treat to read Amanda's post below.
Unfortunately,(especially for those disenfranchised within a system of "experts" who lack personal experience of the needs and rights of those they "serve"), many life-stories never get written except within.
It is with great hope that so many are writing about these issues...educating.
There is a time to stand up.
The Declassified Adoptee: The Disablist Nature of Anti-Rights and Anti-Narra...: Every time I see "mental illness" used as a label with the intention of controlling, negating, or silencing an adoptee's (or anyone's) n...
September 5, 2011
Last Night...
Last night I had a dream...so vivid, detailed, real.
It started out hazy, but with each scene became more clear.
I was watching a baby in a huge yard, just learning to crawl. She looked like any normal baby ~ beautiful, innocent, voiceless. But it was like I could get inside this baby, and inside, she was lost with no way to express herself. She crawled aimlessly, reluctantly, in circles, like in search, but could not find. She kept going from one stranger to the next, looking up, and realizing it wasn't right. All the while, the adults in this hazy picture were unaware, talking and laughing, and thinking the baby was just so cute. I finally picked her up and held her in my arms and comforted her. She smiled at me with a knowing smile.
The next scene in the dream was in a courthouse. With the baby still on my shoulder, I peered through a window, like we weren't supposed to be part of the happenings. It wasn't our business. I could see three young women sitting on the front row. They were all beautiful ~ the middle one had short curly red hair, the other two had black shiny hair. But all stared with blankness in their eyes. As if sitting in a line-up.
All of a sudden I KNEW I had to give this baby to her mother, but I didn't know which one. I felt they needed to be together, if even for a moment. Nothing could stop what I did next. I opened the courtroom door and walked through. Me and the baby.
My eyes were riveted on these three women. I wished I could hand the baby to all three, but couldn't. So I handed her to the one closest to me, on the end of the bench. She acted as if she couldn't take her from me, but let the baby fall gently onto her shoulder, unspeakably grateful. Immediately the baby curled into her like a glove and the women began to weep.
Then all three women cried uncontrollably, like a dam had been released in their souls, and they couldn't help it. Like someone had finally seen them.
I sat next to the woman and the baby on the bench as we watched the proceedings go on; like clueless foreigners, not able to understand the language being spoken. We just knew it was about us.
At one point I leaned over and whispered in the woman's ear, "You know you can change your mind, don't you?. You don't have to do anything today." She looked at me with surprise on her face, not able to believe it, and then answered back, "but wouldn't I just have to do it tomorrow?"
Scene 3 ~ I was in the backseat of a car being driven from the courthouse. It was packed full of people, driven by a sullen adoption worker. The mother was holding her baby in the front seat. We all sat quietly, but you could cut the air with a knife. The baby lifted her head off her mother's shoulder long enough to look back at me briefly, kind of like she was doing a double-take, and realized I was the one who had taken her to her mother. She sighed, like she had not breathed deeply in a long time, and smiled. Then snuggled her head back into the crook of her mothers neck. The mother seemed relieved too, as if it was dawning on her that she was a mother, and this was her child, whom she felt deeply.
The only conversation going on in the car was taking place between the driver and another woman who was leaning over the backseat as they whispered in concerned tones, snarls on their faces, carefully watching the mother with child.
This seemed to make the woman nervous, but she was relishing these moments snuggling close to her baby.
I tried to break the ice by casually talking to the mother and pointing out the amazing likeness she and her baby shared, even down to their beautiful hair. She was amazed too, how they just seemed to fit together. Like she never realized how her daughter would take after her so much.
After awhile, she glanced warily at the authority figure beside her, and finally burst out, "Why is everyone trying to pressure me?" She knew things were going too fast for her mind or emotions to keep up with, and was completely overwhelmed.
It was at this moment in the dream that I realized I had to do something. I could no longer just sit quietly and hope for the best, no matter how hard it was to open my mouth and speak. In the next few minutes I found myself telling my story with great urgency and emotion.
"I was adopted as a baby, and although I loved my adoptive family very much, I have always been searching and longing for what I lost so long ago and could never find. The connection to Myself, through my Mother."
I so wanted the baby in my dream to have that chance. So I kept speaking, through shaking voice and tears. Then, not knowing the outcome, I thought silently, "Please hear me", as the car pulled over and I stepped out onto a busy downtown street.
Strangely, I watched myself walk away, carrying a book bag at my side. And then I woke up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)