U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-13-2012, 07:45 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,678 posts, read 23,279,104 times
Reputation: 48876

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hml1976 View Post
Interesting. I think everyone should be able to obtain whatever records exist, it is after all YOUR record.
And I agree with that. All human beings should have access to to all records that they desire conserning themselves.

At the same time, people should be afforded privacy if that is what they desire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2012, 08:04 PM
 
116 posts, read 85,530 times
Reputation: 82
Haven't had the chance to be back here for several hours, so thank you moderators and others for your help with the formatting errors I made.

Also, thank you for understanding about the posts I made. Since they were my words, I didn't think I needed to post a link to them online in another website. Thank you for clarifying!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2012, 08:12 PM
 
116 posts, read 85,530 times
Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
With the world "real", I don't like it when it is used to specify either lot of parents as opposed to the other.

Having said that, often when people use the word "real" when asking about bparents, it is normally a terminology thing so if it bothers anyone when someone uses it, they should just gently reply to that person by replacing "real" with their word of choice.

I have more of a problem with people making statements telling the adoptee who their "real" parents are. It is the adoptees (in fact, any person's) own business whom they consider their real parents.

I consider all my mothers and fathers to be "real" mothers and fathers. I refuse to have anyone else tell me whom I should consider my real parents.
I, too, don't like it when other poeple say the wrod "real parents". Sometimes, it is said in this way: "Are you searching for your real parents?" And other times it is said this way: "Your real parents are the ones who raised you."

I let people know that I have two sets of real parents. Both exist. Both are real. Even if I didn't have a reunion, I would still have another set of parents who gave me life, and respect their role and meaning in my life. And, the parents who raised me, gave me love. And that was reciprocated. A child loves her parents.

And, after my reunion at my age of 18, though there was much arguing and shouting because they never wanted me to know the truth, we still loved each other.

All of my parents are now deceased. I love them and miss them differently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2012, 08:15 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,678 posts, read 23,279,104 times
Reputation: 48876
Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
Sheena, I know you feel it is no big deal but what if your daughter had been different and wanted to search or wants to do so later?

Often, the extent of curiosity by an adoptee is a personal thing and is not a reflection on their APs parenting.

If you do adopt an oldrer child who has memories of their bparents and bfamily, how will you handle that?

(Sheena) Birth Certificates were changed and reissued with the name of the adoptive parents replacing those of the birth parents.

They still are and, as pointed out earlier, the majority of US adoptees will never get to see their original birth certificate.
If she completely changes her point of view and wants to meet this woman that would be her business. She's almost grown now and so far does not. When she has children, her curiosity could be peaked, but she has strong immutable, opinions so I doubt it will happen. Like any mom, I know my children.

Would I welcome any sort of a co-grandparenting or involving them in family celebrations? No.Never.
But, remember; that was not what I signed up for. It was not part of the TOS, if you will.

Knowing my daughter and her lack of sentimentality, (not lack of love or compassion) it would be a huge leap of hypothetical thought to even imagine that she'd want that.

We are not that into our extended family, our genealogy, our ethnic background or any thing. We do not feel that we "owe" it to anyone to be present on holidays or anything of the sort.

Strong family systems are more interested in that. We are not that tight knit. I don't sentimentalize my parents. They had there good points and bad points. I had a nice child hood and my needs were well taken care of. My sisters and I have little in common.

When I select greeting cards for my dad, who is still living, it is a long process. Most are way "tooo mushy".


BTW my daughter was born in Korea in 1996. Her birth certificate lists us as her parents. This is not problematic to any of us.
We also don't know her sur name. The one she had at the time of adoption was that of her foster mom and it's a very popular name in Korea.

Last edited by sheena12; 09-13-2012 at 09:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2012, 08:48 PM
 
116 posts, read 85,530 times
Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheena12 View Post
In the United States in the 50s - 80s adoption was a shameful thing.

In some cultures it still is. In the US they were often not told that they were adopted. When they found out, sometimes it was by accident - looking through a desk and coming across some paper work and being horrified that their parents were not there "real" parents and that they were not their parents "real children'
Social Workers and adoption agencies went to great lengths to match children to their adoptive families, putting children who physically resembled their prospective parents together, in effort to hide the fact.

Birth Certificates were changed and reissued with the name of the adoptive parents replacing those of the birth parents.

BTW I do not have my daughter's first birth certificate. I have the one issued to me with my daughter's name and my husband's and my names.

We do not know the names of her birth parents. In our case we don't have any interest in searching for them, so it is not a big deal.

BTW There is actually a book "Real Parents, Real Children, Real Families" I have never read it but I know it's from the adoptive family point of view.

We adoptive families are also frequently attacked as not being "real" "normal" or "natural".

It is the last sentence above that I wish to address. There are a few emotions that come out when people misuse the terms. As I've explained in another post, both sets of parents are real. I don't think the whole of society actually understands the concept. Most people have one mother and one father; adoptees have two mothers and two fathers. Most people have trouble defining this or conceptualizing this in their minds. To "split" is to have mental illness, so anything that contradicts the norm is attacked. Adoptees' realities are split due to adoption, and so, adoptive parents may not be seen as real. Adoptees do not have mental illness for making the distinction and accepting their reality. Adoptive parents feel they must defend themselves.

"Normal" can be tricky. Because I've lived with this for so long, I've come full circle on where I stand. I personally see adoption as "not normal" because it is taking someone else's child and making that child as if born to you (the generic "you"). It is living a fantasy,not accepting your own reality, of perhaps infertility. One cannot fabricate another person's child and make her your own.

There is so much here that is dangerous for the mental health of all involved. The false birth certificates, for example, say that the new set of parents gave birth to the child who actually is adopted. So, many adoptive parents feel that they don't have to tell the adoptee the truth. I know of many adoptees who find out at age 45 or 55 or 65 years old that they were adopted --- their whole lives have been lived in many lies. That is not normal. It is not normal to lie to your children you supposedly love.

It is not normal for gay men to ask for, demand, expect, and fight for laws granting them to have two fathers named on a birth certificate. Or two women. Gay or Lesbian rights do not enter in here. Reality does. One sperm and one egg make one baby. To say otherwise on a legal birth certificate is not normal. It is also illogical. A child of such a same-gender-two-parent household will understand at an early age what the "birds and the bees" are and will question the sanity of the two parents who fought like hell to win the legal right to demand they be named on a birth certificate for an adoptee.

An adoption certificate, yes. A birth certificate, no.

This same arguement holds for a mother and father, by adoption, who are named on a birth certifcate that is legal proof that they actually gave birth. This does not make logical sense. This creates cognitive dissonance in adoptive parents who believe such a document (giving them the sense that they own this child; or that they have a sense of entitlement over this child). This also creates cognitive dissonance in the adoptee who sees the birth certiticate and knows it is not true, yet, by law, we are not allowed to see or own a certified copy of our own birth certificates.

Again: one birth certificate, and one adoption certificate. I've been saying this for decades. It was like this in USA prior to 1930...


As far as "natural" is concerned, again, you won't like my answer. "Natural" is a legal term. It is also a biological term, meaning nature. The mother cell has two daughter cells...and genetic inheritance. In some adoption papers, a distinction is made between the "natural" parents and the "adopting parents". There is nothing wrong in making such a disctinction. In adoption, this is necessary.

Back to the idea of the original post: whenever I would make the destinction between my natural father and my adoptive parents, people grew angry with me. It seems they wanted me to say simply "Mom" or "Dad" And I did, to their faces. But when describing my family to other people, I would make the destinction so others would know the difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2012, 09:02 PM
 
10,452 posts, read 10,640,017 times
Reputation: 12537
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykee View Post
It is the last sentence above that I wish to address. There are a few emotions that come out when people misuse the terms. As I've explained in another post, both sets of parents are real. I don't think the whole of society actually understands the concept. Most people have one mother and one father; adoptees have two mothers and two fathers. Most people have trouble defining this or conceptualizing this in their minds. To "split" is to have mental illness, so anything that contradicts the norm is attacked. Adoptees' realities are split due to adoption, and so, adoptive parents may not be seen as real. Adoptees do not have mental illness for making the distinction and accepting their reality. Adoptive parents feel they must defend themselves.
I agree. Both sets of parents are real, so I shy away from the term "real" (especially when "real" and "biological" are equated with one another). I just call my adoptive parents my parents, and my biological parents my biological parents.

Quote:
As far as "natural" is concerned, again, you won't like my answer. "Natural" is a legal term. It is also a biological term, meaning nature. The mother cell has two daughter cells...and genetic inheritance. In some adoption papers, a distinction is made between the "natural" parents and the "adopting parents". There is nothing wrong in making such a disctinction. In adoption, this is necessary.
I understand the need to make the distinction, and have to make it in discussions about adoption too. I personally prefer "biological father" or "birth mother" to "natural mother/father". For some reason it just has a better ring to it, at least to my ear. I think it's because "natural" (and its opposite, "unnatural") is often used in arguments that at their core, seek to diminish people. For example, people often use the term "unnatural" to justify their prejudice against gay people, so I guess I associate it with that usage.

Quote:
Back to the idea of the original post: whenever I would make the destinction between my natural father and my adoptive parents, people grew angry with me. It seems they wanted me to say simply "Mom" or "Dad" And I did, to their faces. But when describing my family to other people, I would make the destinction so others would know the difference.
Wow, I personally can't imagine making that distinction without the topic of my adoption coming up. For example, to introduce my adoptive parents, I would say "This is my dad, [John]" and "This is my mom, [Jane]"--not "This is my adoptive mom [Jane]" and "This is my adoptive dad [John]." But if people me where I'm from I will say "I'm from Russia" and then explain (usually after they assume my parents are Russian) for example, that my "adoptive dad" is American. Even though I usually still say "dad" without qualifying it because from context, the person knows I'm talking about my adoptive parents (explaining why we're different nationalities).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2012, 09:25 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,864,566 times
Reputation: 1462
quote=sheena12;26084011: If she completely changes her point of view and wants to meet this woman that would be her business. She's almost grown now and so far does not. When she has children, her curiosity could be peaked, but she has strong immutable, opinions so I doubt it will happen. Like any mom, I know my children.

As you say, that is her business, no-one elses.

Would I welcome any sort of a co-grandparenting or involving them in family celebrations? No.Never.
But remember that was nt what I signed up for. It was not part of the TOS, if you will.

When an adoptee has a child, it is up to them who they consider to be grandparents of their child. I know of some adoptees who consider all their parents to be their child's grandparents. Your daughter probably wouldn't want anyone else but you and the father's parents to be grandparents and that is HER right. However, other adoptees do and that is THEIR right. So in regards to co-grandparenting, that is entirely up to the adoptee. Of course, when it comes to family celebrations that you are hosting, it is your right whom you want there. If the adoptee is organising the family celebration, it is her right to have whom she wants there.

Once an adoptee is an adult, it is their right to call anyone anything they like - if they want to have their bparents as "co-grandparents" that is their right. Whether you did or didn't sign up for that is irrelevant as it is not your choice but your daughter's.


(Actually, your daughter could end up marrying a man whose parents are divorced and thus has two stepparents, so their children may still end up 4 grandparents and 2 stepgrandparents. Btw, I have never had any living grandparents)

Knowing my daughter and her lack of sentimentality, (not lack of love or compassion) it would be a huge leap of hypothetical thought to even imagine that she'd want that.

I'm not overly sentimental either. I didn't look out of sentimentality but out of curiosity.

We are not that into ur extended family, our genealogy, our ethnic background or any thing. We do not feel that we "owe" it to anyone to be present on holidays or anything of the sort.

I wasn't really that much into genealogy etc until I decided to find out more about my bfamily and thus I've become far more interested (and I'm interested in both bfamily and afamily genealogy). I was able to work out my ancestors names with the help of Births, Deaths and Marriages and subsequently found out that I was related to a convict. I found a website that had family history books and I wrote away for them and as a bonus found pictures of my bfamily in there. Also listed are the names of my 7,000 closest maternal biological relatives lol. Finding pictures spurred me on and I actually contacted my bfamily via that site.

Strong family systems are more interested in that. We are not that tight knit. I don't sentimentalize mt parents. They had there good points and bad points. I had a nice child hood and my needs were well taken care of. My sisters and I have little in commom.

I wouldn't call my adoptive family system a "strong family system" - my amom came from a "strong family system", my adad from a "weak family system" and because the rest of the extended afamily are still in NZ, then we had very little to do with them. I don't sentimentalise my parents either. My aparents have their good and bad points and I always felt safe and never felt unloved. In regards to my bparents, I don't know them - I don't know who bfather is and in regards to bmom, I want to know more about her, so that I can picture her as a normal human being. In fact, my bfamily is always saying lovely things about her and I've said to them, I'd like to know some of her faults lol. I now know a few and that makes her more human to me (I share some of those faults).

My bfamily aren't at all sentimental but they are very close without being on top of other - a lot of this has to do with them having grown up in a small country town where they and their ancestors have lived for many generations. What I mean by being very close without being on top of each other is that their doors are always open to each other if they want to visit but they all have their own lives.

When I select greeting cards for my dad, who is still living, it is a long process. Most are way "tooo mushy".

Totally agree, I hate mushy cards. I prefer the empty ones, then you can write what you like in them.

BTW my daughter was born in Korea in 1996. Her birth certificate lists us as her parents. This is not problematic to any of us.

I have two birth certificates - original birth certificate and amended birth certificate. I haven't looked at my amended certificate for a long time but I do know with some people, their "place of birth" has been changed to their APs place of resident. Many adoptees also feel that a "birth certificate" should reflect those who gave birth to them.

We also don't know her sur name. The one she had at the time of adoption was that of her foster mom and it's a very poular name in Korea.

The agency may have more information if she ever does decide to look (presuming you went through Holt). There are many adoptees who have no wish to look for their bparents but would still like to know that the option was available if they did.



Last edited by susankate; 09-13-2012 at 09:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2012, 09:43 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,678 posts, read 23,279,104 times
Reputation: 48876
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykee View Post
It is the last sentence above that I wish to address. There are a few emotions that come out when people misuse the terms. As I've explained in another post, both sets of parents are real. I don't think the whole of society actually understands the concept. Most people have one mother and one father; adoptees have two mothers and two fathers. Most people have trouble defining this or conceptualizing this in their minds. To "split" is to have mental illness, so anything that contradicts the norm is attacked. Adoptees' realities are split due to adoption, and so, adoptive parents may not be seen as real. Adoptees do not have mental illness for making the distinction and accepting their reality. Adoptive parents feel they must defend themselves.

"Normal" can be tricky. Because I've lived with this for so long, I've come full circle on where I stand. I personally see adoption as "not normal" because it is taking someone else's child and making that child as if born to you (the generic "you"). It is living a fantasy,not accepting your own reality, of perhaps infertility. One cannot fabricate another person's child and make her your own.

There is so much here that is dangerous for the mental health of all involved. The false birth certificates, for example, say that the new set of parents gave birth to the child who actually is adopted. So, many adoptive parents feel that they don't have to tell the adoptee the truth. I know of many adoptees who find out at age 45 or 55 or 65 years old that they were adopted --- their whole lives have been lived in many lies. That is not normal. It is not normal to lie to your children you supposedly love.

It is not normal for gay men to ask for, demand, expect, and fight for laws granting them to have two fathers named on a birth certificate. Or two women. Gay or Lesbian rights do not enter in here. Reality does. One sperm and one egg make one baby. To say otherwise on a legal birth certificate is not normal. It is also illogical. A child of such a same-gender-two-parent household will understand at an early age what the "birds and the bees" are and will question the sanity of the two parents who fought like hell to win the legal right to demand they be named on a birth certificate for an adoptee.

An adoption certificate, yes. A birth certificate, no.

This same arguement holds for a mother and father, by adoption, who are named on a birth certifcate that is legal proof that they actually gave birth. This does not make logical sense. This creates cognitive dissonance in adoptive parents who believe such a document (giving them the sense that they own this child; or that they have a sense of entitlement over this child). This also creates cognitive dissonance in the adoptee who sees the birth certiticate and knows it is not true, yet, by law, we are not allowed to see or own a certified copy of our own birth certificates.

Again: one birth certificate, and one adoption certificate. I've been saying this for decades. It was like this in USA prior to 1930...


As far as "natural" is concerned, again, you won't like my answer. "Natural" is a legal term. It is also a biological term, meaning nature. The mother cell has two daughter cells...and genetic inheritance. In some adoption papers, a distinction is made between the "natural" parents and the "adopting parents". There is nothing wrong in making such a disctinction. In adoption, this is necessary.

Back to the idea of the original post: whenever I would make the destinction between my natural father and my adoptive parents, people grew angry with me. It seems they wanted me to say simply "Mom" or "Dad" And I did, to their faces. But when describing my family to other people, I would make the destinction so others would know the difference.

Could you accept that people are different and some people adopted or not see this differently?

I can accept that.

Can you accept that my daughter's point of view is that she has two parents - US?

No we did not give birth to her. But we are her parents.

The other two people are not her parents.. Not to her her to my husband her brother or me.Not legally.

You see this differently and that's OK

I can accept that. They can both be right. One does not need be the "wrong" way of looking at things.

It is hurtful that you don't think my family is normal and that I'm not living a lie or livi8ng i a fantasy world or land or what ever. My daughter has two parents. They are in my house now.

Your way of looking at this is unique to say the least. According to law I am the parent of two children.

Last edited by sheena12; 09-13-2012 at 10:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2012, 09:45 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,864,566 times
Reputation: 1462
The point of what I'm try to say is that it doesn't matter what the adoptive parents signed up for - once an adoptee reaches adulthood, it is their choice to make whatever decisions they wish, just like every other human being.

I'm very respectful of my amom's feelings and would never hurt her but I am not going to allow her wishes to stop me from doing what I wish to do (not that she has any problems with my being in reunion but just saying that if she did, then that would be her issue to deal with, not mine, although I would be as respectful and understanding as I could be).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2012, 09:57 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,678 posts, read 23,279,104 times
Reputation: 48876
Quote:
Originally Posted by susankate View Post
quote=sheena12;26084011: If she completely changes her point of view and wants to meet this woman that would be her business. She's almost grown now and so far does not. When she has children, her curiosity could be peaked, but she has strong immutable, opinions so I doubt it will happen. Like any mom, I know my children.

As you say, that is her business, no-one elses.

Would I welcome any sort of a co-grandparenting or involving them in family celebrations? No.Never.
But remember that was nt what I signed up for. It was not part of the TOS, if you will.

When an adoptee has a child, it is up to them who they consider to be grandparents of their child. I know of some adoptees who consider all their parents to be their child's grandparents. Your daughter probably wouldn't want anyone else but you and the father's parents to be grandparents and that is HER right. However, other adoptees do and that is THEIR right. So in regards to co-grandparenting, that is entirely up to the adoptee. Of course, when it comes to family celebrations that you are hosting, it is your right whom you want there. If the adoptee is organising the family celebration, it is her right to have whom she wants there.

Once an adoptee is an adult, it is their right to call anyone anything they like - if they want to have their bparents as "co-grandparents" that is their right. Whether you did or didn't sign up for that is irrelevant as it is not your choice but your daughter's.


(Actually, your daughter could end up marrying a man whose parents are divorced and thus has two stepparents, so their children may still end up 4 grandparents and 2 stepgrandparents. Btw, I have never had any living grandparents)

Knowing my daughter and her lack of sentimentality, (not lack of love or compassion) it would be a huge leap of hypothetical thought to even imagine that she'd want that.

I'm not overly sentimental either. I didn't look out of sentimentality but out of curiosity.

We are not that into ur extended family, our genealogy, our ethnic background or any thing. We do not feel that we "owe" it to anyone to be present on holidays or anything of the sort.

I wasn't really that much into genealogy etc until I decided to find out more about my bfamily and thus I've become far more interested (and I'm interested in both bfamily and afamily genealogy). I was able to work out my ancestors names with the help of Births, Deaths and Marriages and subsequently found out that I was related to a convict. I found a website that had family history books and I wrote away for them and as a bonus found pictures of my bfamily in there. Also listed are the names of my 7,000 closest maternal biological relatives lol. Finding pictures spurred me on and I actually contacted my bfamily via that site.

Strong family systems are more interested in that. We are not that tight knit. I don't sentimentalize mt parents. They had there good points and bad points. I had a nice child hood and my needs were well taken care of. My sisters and I have little in commom.

I wouldn't call my adoptive family system a "strong family system" - my amom came from a "strong family system", my adad from a "weak family system" and because the rest of the extended afamily are still in NZ, then we had very little to do with them. I don't sentimentalise my parents either. My aparents have their good and bad points and I always felt safe and never felt unloved. In regards to my bparents, I don't know them - I don't know who bfather is and in regards to bmom, I want to know more about her, so that I can picture her as a normal human being. In fact, my bfamily is always saying lovely things about her and I've said to them, I'd like to know some of her faults lol. I now know a few and that makes her more human to me (I share some of those faults).

My bfamily aren't at all sentimental but they are very close without being on top of other - a lot of this has to do with them having grown up in a small country town where they and their ancestors have lived for many generations. What I mean by being very close without being on top of each other is that their doors are always open to each other if they want to visit but they all have their own lives.

When I select greeting cards for my dad, who is still living, it is a long process. Most are way "tooo mushy".

Totally agree, I hate mushy cards. I prefer the empty ones, then you can write what you like in them.

BTW my daughter was born in Korea in 1996. Her birth certificate lists us as her parents. This is not problematic to any of us.

I have two birth certificates - original birth certificate and amended birth certificate. I haven't looked at my amended certificate for a long time but I do know with some people, their "place of birth" has been changed to their APs place of resident. Many adoptees also feel that a "birth certificate" should reflect those who gave birth to them.

We also don't know her sur name. The one she had at the time of adoption was that of her foster mom and it's a very poular name in Korea.

The agency may have more information if she ever does decide to look (presuming you went through Holt). There are many adoptees who have no wish to look for their bparents but would still like to know that the option was available if they did.

"strong family systems" is a sociological term. It is not a value judgement.

My daughter does not want them in her life nor do I think that will change. I know it will not change. My grad children will have 2 grandparents on the maternal side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:06 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top