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 10-11-2012, 06:24 PM
 
16,600 posts, read 14,081,890 times
Reputation: 20563

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Wow....you've just engaged in some of the most twisted and dishonest rhetoric, I've ever seen. Let's recapitulate. You first state that coercion in adoptions must stop. I than challenge you to provide evidence that coercion in adoptions is still occurring. You than state that it is impossible to prove either coercion in adoption or its absence. I than state the obvious conclusion to YOUR logic: That if you are correct, you've failed to prove that coercion exists in modern day adoption. You than reply that ANY coercion is a problem and its "disgusting" for me to say otherwise.
Lets do a recap with some reality in it this time ok.

1. I stated that coercion exists.
2. You asked for statistics on coercion showing it is a significant problem.
3. I stated that there are no such numbers as the secretive nature of adoption would make any statistics on it meaningless
4. You claimed lack of statistics proves no cases of coercion exist and then attempted to move the goal posts to arbitrarily limit your claim to domestic adoption .
5. I posted multiple lines of evidence and referenced thread you have commented on where coercion and out right baby theft have been shown.

It is absolutely possible to prove coercion exists, end of story, what I stated was that it is not possibel to prove one way or the other the degree to which it exists.

Quote:
Go back and read my earlier post. I actually didn't deny coercion existed. I said either directly or by implication that the primary coercion which exists today, long after the sexual revolution of the sixties has ended, are attitudes. Some grandparents may feel "put out" at the notion that their unmarried daughter wants to bring and infant home and expects the family to cooperate in raising it. I also said that some churches may continue to express adherence to standards which they have vocalized for decades or even centuries. If those attitudes anger some people, I'm sorry.
There was an entire thread about African babies being coerced in the last few years from young mothers specifically for international adoption. Another one talked about outright theft of babies in Hunan province in China for the same reason. Coercion and baby theft exist. And those illegally gained infants may have been adopted into this country.


Quote:
No. Absolutely not. However, those expecting reform or change in the system had better be able to provide concrete documentation about (1) what they are talking about when they use a broad word like "coercion"; and (2) the scope or extent of the abuses. Anyone seeking any other legislative change is expected to do the same thing. One example that I can think of would be legislation denying collective bargaining rights to public employees. Some assert that unions have resulted in huge pension liabilities that a state cannot afford. I think every public employee has a right to make their case that this is not what has occurred or that the scope of the problem is overstated before the legislature abolishes the right of public employees to bargain collectively.
You seem incapable of understanding a problem solving process.

First you identify the problem AND THEN you begin to work on a solution. You want to know the solutions FIRST so you can decide if you are willing to admit whether or not a problem exists.



Quote:
Jezebel is less than an ironclad source. I was struck by continued use of four letter words and lack of references in its articles. I don't dispute the basic point though that in the past some single mothers were forced to place their babies for adoption. That was wrong and you'll get no argument about it from me. However, both articles you cite primarily dealt with foreign countries and in both cases, the articles admitted the problems stopped in the 1980's. That's somewhere between 25 and 30 years ago.
You are the one who moved the goal post to domestic adoption not I. American parents adopting stolen babies from foreign countries is just as unacceptable as if they were babies born to American citizens.





Quote:
Do you actually read the sources you post? I did. I'll make just a few points:

1. The source is obviously a group that had problems with adoption before they collected the material.
LIES. Everyone one of the articles are from peer reviewed journals, THE standard in science.

Quote:
2. The most recent outcome studies appear to have been conducted in the 1970's. Honestly, claiming anything that old is relevant to adoption today is questionable on its face.
Maybe you are unaware of how science works but once something has been proven ad naseum we tend to move on to other things. I haven't seen many studies proving gravity exists lately either. By your reasoning that means gravity no longer exists.

Quote:
3. Some of the studies don't seem to reach definite conclusions at all.
Again you lack of understanding of science does not mean it is bad science at all. We are talking about sociological studies which cannot do anything beyond correlations with large enough sample sizes to be statistically significant. Because we cannot control for all factors we cannot make definite conclusions. The same way smoking has a very high correlation with cancer, high enough to be statistically significant (the same way many of those negative outcomes of adoptees were statistically ssignificant) yet it is not ethical to definitively prove smoking causes cancer in humans (which would require an empirical experiment). So expecting such a finding is more intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.

Quote:
4. Studies about adoption of Native American children are dated because adoption of Native American children by Caucasian couples has pretty much ended because of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
So what? Just because something is old doesn't mean it is wrong. It been nearly a 100 years since special rel was proven, no one is claiming it is wrong because no one is proving every 10 years it still exists.


Quote:
Once again, you run from the basic issue. The issue is that those seeking any major reforms in any area should be prepared to answer a few questions. First, define what they mean by coercion. Second, provide some documentation of the scope of the problem. Three, propose legislative changes that are tailored to fixing those problems while creating as few new problems as possible.
Coercion is a word with a definition, I understand you like to redefine words to suit yourself but I tend to go with the ones that already exist.

And again, you left out the first part. Admit a problem exists.

Quote:
Once again, you completely misrepresent my position. I've stated adoption fulfills dual purposes of:

1. Providing homes for children who need them.
2. Allowing infertile couples (and others) to build families.
No I didn't. I never said you stated the ONLY purpose was the second, but there it is again. You think adoption exists for the purpose of adoptive parents. Well it doesn't, not on a governmental or societal level. Please show me any government agency whose job it is to provide children to infertile people? Because otherwise you cannot support that the second "purpose" exists anywhere but in your head.


Quote:
It can be the case. No woman should be forced to place a child for adoption (except for those proven to be abusive and neglectful to the extreme). The "studies" you cite don't make your point very well. Got any information about adoption after 1990 or the year 2000? That would be a lot more relevant.
Ugh, gravity.


Quote:
I'm trying to assess your biases. I can make room for a person who has no connection to adoption who simply believes there have been abuses with it. You obviously have a very high level of interest in this subject and I have trouble believing that you are not in some way connected with adoption. I've found generally in life, that personal bias, goes a long way in explaining not only the opinions that people hold, but how adamant they are about those opinions. You obviously have a considerable personal investment in this issue that stems from something.
Ahhh, there it is. The real issue. If I don't agree with you I must have an agenda. Good luck trying to cook one up. I have been on CD for years, I am not adopted, I am married, have my own child the old fashioned way, I have lived in foreign countries and seen conditions in the third world first hand, I have no close relatives who are adopted (though one of my second or thirds cousins is) and have one friend of the same middling age who was adopted. We have been friends for most of our lives. He is not an "angry" adoptee in the slightest.

And lets be clear, lots of people are passionate about justice and child welfare for its own sake. Obviously you cannot imagine that anyone would care about anything that doesn't personally affect them, and really, that says FAR MORE about you than it does about me

Quote:
Well, I'm glad I motivate people to get active. Even if they don't come down on my side of issues.

Oh goodie. The legislative process is specifically designed for every person and organization to give their opinion. The legislature than decides what to do about the laws. I've spoken out on a number of issues over the years that affect my profession, our community, and families in general.



I'll stand by my comments. I won't stand by your distortions of what I have said. One of the things I'm learning about discussing adoption is that people don't read what you are saying. Instead, they read and hear what they want to extrapolate from your posts. There's not much you can do, other than try to keep the record straight. If you truly support adoption, sooner or later you are bound to be called things like "baby stealer" from a small, but vocal segment that is out there.
You are living proof of the first part of this.

And now we get to the next logical fallacy, the "no true scotsman". I am sure you APs are the sole arbitrators of what is "truly supporting adoption', but you are the one with the real bias. Adoption give you what you want. Increased regulation makes it harder to get what you want. Clearly your motivation is to make it as easy as possible for you to get a baby while keeping enough of a veneer of regulation to not niggle at your conscience.



Quote:
Wow...thank you for providing me finally, at long last with your definition of coercion. Force or threats have pretty specific meanings. I would suggest that by this strict definition there is very little coercion going on in domestic adoption in the USA today.

Now back to my question which you have now ducked twice. Is it coercion when a family tells a child that if she places her baby for adoption that they will never speak to her again? Perhaps, the very definition you have just supplied answers my question.
I have given multiple examples, definitions etc, regarding coercion. Why you like to set up strawmen is beyond me. Are you going for the fallacy trifecta? Coercion is threats, so yes, a family making threats is clearly emotional coercion. But every example I have given involved threats of a more substantial nature and given by agencies, both private and governmental. That is the coercion I am talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2012, 06:29 PM
 
16,600 posts, read 14,081,890 times
Reputation: 20563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlover9 View Post
Mark,

From what I have read, I agree completely. It looks like your words have been misinterpreted and your points have been distorted.

You are clearly a logical and linear thinker.

ib0714, it is true that your sources do not seem to support your claims as seem to think they do and I also question whether such old information really applies to adoption today. You do come across as someone who is extremely passionate about this issue. How did you become interested in adoption?
Yay, more people trying to marginalize my opinion.

I stumbled across this forum, that is how I became interested, I have been a long time poster to CD and the parenting forum in particular.

As for my "sources" you can pretend they do not support my claims but as an actual published researcher who TEACHES research at both the undergrad and high school level, I trust my own opinions regarding science. I may only have a masters in bio but it is close enough to evaluate sociological research.

Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 10-12-2012 at 05:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 08:34 PM
 
10 posts, read 10,226 times
Reputation: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiffjoy View Post
The only way to ensure adoption agencies act in an ethical manner is to impose laws upon them with clear consequences should they not. Isn't that the only way to enforce that any company behave in a manner accepted by society? There are very few laws governing adoption agencies, and I believe most of these are tipped in favor of the adoptive parents.

For instance, in California, the relinquishment papers are signed before the mom leaves the hospital. She may leave after 24 hours if there are no complications, which means that is when the papers may be signed. I do not believe that law adequately protects the mother. I could hardly even stand 24 hours after I gave birth, let alone think coherently about life-changing legal decisions. And I do not believe a decision to place a child before birth necessarily means a mom does not feel differently after birth. Again, I speak from the point of view of having given birth and feeling like a completely different person before and after.

In our adoption, because it was an unusual case, our daughter's parents had 30 days in which to sign the papers. They took 24 of those days to heal from the birth, carefully weigh their decision, and make their choice. I would put forth that this should be the norm rather than the anomaly.

The right to an independent counselor should be enacted by laws. It is something that should be a matter of course. Agencies cannot counsel first mothers without being incredibly biased to the agency they work for. Instead, there should be an independent group that does not exist dependent upon any one agency. I would imagine it would be easiest to make this a government group within social services. I'm fairly certain that is the only way to keep it unbiased. If you are concerned about tax payer dollars, then we could get rid of the adoption tax credit except in cases of special needs adoptions (which it was originally designed for) or older children foster adoptions.
I think I am beginning to understand what you are proposing.

(1) You propose creating a governmental agency to provide counseling to birthmoms. How will you pay for it? Do you really think that eliminating the adoption tax credit for domestic infant adoption will even come close to covering the bill to create an entirely new agency with staff, compliance personnel, oversight, monitoring, etc? Not to mention offices and staff across the nation to service prospective birthmoms nationwide.

Remember, there are only 14,000 domestic infant adoptions per year. The adoption tax credit isn't even available in all of these adoptions. It is phased out completely for adjusted incomes over $225,000 or so and only partially available for anyone with adjusted incomes of $190,000. For example, my husband and I were not eligible for a single penny of adoption tax credit.

Do you want to also eliminate the adoption tax credit for foster care adoptions, thereby removing another incentive for foster adoption? Do you really think that is in the best interest of foster children and our country?

Besides, if the adoption tax credit is eliminated, do you really think that money should be funneled into a governmental agency created to assist 14,000 women each year, as opposed to reducing the deficit, reducing the national debt or covering the rising cost of Medicaid and Medicare. These challenges also require money and they impact far more Americans.

Even if you, yourself, support using the money to open this new agency (as opposed to programs that touch hundreds of thousands of children more), do you really think that Americans will agree to that? Do you think that American citizens will find it more of a priority to fund this new agency that will service 14,000 prospective birthmoms than to fulfill our promises to our elderly through social security? Than to adequately fund a successful and promising public school system for our children, whom are our country's future? Than to offer food stamps to feed hungry children? I question that.

(2) More significantly, you propose enacting legislations requiring a prospective birthmom to wait a minimum of 30 days before she is allowed to relinquish her child.

You mention that in California, the relinquishment papers "are signed" before the birthmom leaves the hospital. I challenge that. In reality, they can be signed as early as before the birthmom leaves the hospital. A prospective birthmom can wait as long as she likes to sign relinquishment papers. She can wait 17 years and 360 days if she wants to.

If we require her to wait 30 days before relinquishment, two concerns arise.

First, what happens to the child if the prospective birthmom doesn't want to take her home? Should the baby be kept in some type of orphanage or foster care for 30 days and then have to make another transition (another loss) to the home of the adoptive parents? Should the baby be kept by the adoptive parents only to bond and suffer a loss if the prospective birthmom declines to sign?

Second, is it really fair to restrict a woman's choice by forcing her to wait such a long period of time before relinquishing? A birthmom can already choose to wait 30 days under our current law. Your proposed law would require her to do so, thereby restricting her ability to choose.

Last year, a bill was introduced in Oregon that required prospective birthmoms to wait eight days prior to relinquishing. There was an outcry from birthmoms who felt that their choice was being restricted. See the following:

The R House Blog

Birthmoms Blog

It sounds like you had a difficult birth if you could barely stand after 24 hours. Perhaps you had a C-section? It happens. Women in that position should exercise their right to wait before they sign relinquishment papers.

Other women, like myself, have easy, vaginal births. I was up and walking within a half-hour after giving birth. I was reviewing and signing legal documents within three hours of giving birth. The papers were not adoption-related, but they were very important documents.

The law in its current form allows women to have the flexibility to relinquish at the right time for them. Do you think it is fair for the government to restrict their reproductive choice?

Last edited by Catlover9; 10-11-2012 at 08:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 09:30 PM
 
509 posts, read 484,426 times
Reputation: 747
Catlover, I don't have time to respond to everything right now, but I will later. But I wanted to clarify that the first parents do not have any length of time to sign relinquishment papers. They are, under usual circumstances, signed before they leave the hospital. I'm not sure what you mean by waiting 17 years?? Then, the child would be in foster care. They can't be adopted until those papers are signed.

Our adoption was last minute and we hadn't completed a homestudy. So, in our unique case, the parents had 30 days. We were told that in usual cases, it's when they leave the hospital or 3 days time. No, I am not saying first parents must wait 30 days. I'm saying they should be able to do so. Our daughter's parents took 24 days. If that means adoptive parents aren't interested anymore, then I certainly question the integrity of people adopting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 06:08 AM
 
1,097 posts, read 1,734,097 times
Reputation: 1591
So the argument against being sure birth mothers are guaranteed/required to give informed consent is the national debt???

Most domestic adoptions are "private" adoptions - through agencies[non-profit or for profit and attorneys etc.].

States are not required to report "private" adoption figures to any compiling agency. The most recent figures on numbers are included in the 2010 census - which estimate 1.5 - 2 million adoptees in the US who are not considered "adult"adoptees. There are no clear figures on annual domestic adoptions.

That said, requiring private adoptions to include/obtain informed consent from birth mothers, and setting guidelines for what they are, effects the industry profit center. Paying for it is the industry's problem.

Rather than national debt, it would impact the cost of adoption _ a totally different consideration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 06:28 AM
 
203 posts, read 200,489 times
Reputation: 306
Mark and Catlover, it's okay. You do not have to keep fighting with us. We get it. You feel that the adoption industry is totally fine just as it is. Some of us disagree and we are working to raise awareness and effect change. You are clearly not interested in entertaining other points of view. This puts us at a stalemate. As long as someone feels that adoption should exist to serve the needs of infertile people, there will never be a meeting of the minds between them and those of us who feel that adoption should be focused only on the children involved. The adoption industry already serves the needs of infertile people. Those who like it this way obviously will not be interested in the changing the system. That's the bottom line.

The inquiry I pose now to those here who feel that the adoption industry should serve the needs of infertile people is how can this be done in an ethical manner that respects all of the parties involved? Do you feel that the current system accomplishes the goal of meeting the needs of infertile people in an ethical manner? Or do you see any room for change?

If you say that you feel the current system is operating in a totally ethical manner while meeting the needs of infertile people, then I really don't see how continuing the conversation is productive in any way. You can be content with things as they are based on your point of view. And others will continue working for change based on their point of view. If you do see room for change, however, I am very open to hearing those thoughts.

It is my hope that this inquiry will not go unanswered like so many other questions posed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 12:28 PM
 
10,510 posts, read 8,439,237 times
Reputation: 19262
Some recent posts here seem to have traveled far from the original subject of this topic, although they have also raised other significant issues and considerations. Perhaps a new thread or threads should be started to accommodate these other concerns.

Back to international adoption: as probably is clear from a number of my other posts, my main focus is international special needs adoption, along with the plight of orphaned children with special needs in the developing and "second world". I will be glad to discuss and/or respond to questions about this aspect of international adoption, as well as offering suggestions about how to assist children living in orphanages and mental institutions because of their special needs, along with assisting typical children living in orphanages. More than 80% of these children will never return to their families of origin, or be adopted either domestically or internationally.

Everyone here seems to care a great deal about helping orphaned children, though it's clear many disagree about how best to accomplish that. However, if we include in our focus the current needs of the children now living in the orphanages and institutions around the world, perhaps we can find more common ground and thus learn valid and effective ways to help, rather than continuously debating our differing opinions.

Disclaimer: I am not an employee of any agency, charity, non-profit, adoption agency, or ministry working with orphanages and institutions, although I have volunteered for and contributed to a number of orphan-related non-profit ngos. I have never contributed to an adoption agency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 02:06 PM
 
10 posts, read 10,226 times
Reputation: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185 View Post
So the argument against being sure birth mothers are guaranteed/required to give informed consent is the national debt???

Most domestic adoptions are "private" adoptions - through agencies[non-profit or for profit and attorneys etc.].

States are not required to report "private" adoption figures to any compiling agency. The most recent figures on numbers are included in the 2010 census - which estimate 1.5 - 2 million adoptees in the US who are not considered "adult"adoptees. There are no clear figures on annual domestic adoptions.

That said, requiring private adoptions to include/obtain informed consent from birth mothers, and setting guidelines for what they are, effects the industry profit center. Paying for it is the industry's problem.

Rather than national debt, it would impact the cost of adoption _ a totally different consideration.

I am not sure what you are reading. No one said that birthmoms shouldn't be informed and no one used the national debt to argue it.

We were discussing how to inform birthmoms in an effective and efficient manner.

Tiffjoy recommended the creation of a government agency to inform birthmoms. Given that we are currently running a deficit and have tremendous national debt, we would effectively borrow the money to create and run that agency. My question is whether it is prudent to borrow money (that our children will have to repay with interest) to create an agency that will benefit 0.00009% of the US population, particularly when almost 8% of the US population is unemployed and in need of income to support their families.

You claim that adoption reform would only increase the costs of adoptions, and not increase government spending. It sounds like you have a different idea of adoption reform than Tiffjoy. Please share it. What reforms do you think are needed? How can they been effectuated on the adoptive parent's dime without additional government expenditures?

I expect that most adoptive parents would favor paying more to ensure an ethical adoption. What adoptive parent wants to adopt a child from an unwilling or uninformed birthmom? I know I didn't. I don't know any adoptive parent who would.

BTW: The numbers come from the Evan Donaldson Institute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 02:15 PM
 
10 posts, read 10,226 times
Reputation: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcm7189 View Post
Mark and Catlover, it's okay. You do not have to keep fighting with us. We get it. You feel that the adoption industry is totally fine just as it is. Some of us disagree and we are working to raise awareness and effect change. You are clearly not interested in entertaining other points of view. This puts us at a stalemate. As long as someone feels that adoption should exist to serve the needs of infertile people, there will never be a meeting of the minds between them and those of us who feel that adoption should be focused only on the children involved. The adoption industry already serves the needs of infertile people. Those who like it this way obviously will not be interested in the changing the system. That's the bottom line.

The inquiry I pose now to those here who feel that the adoption industry should serve the needs of infertile people is how can this be done in an ethical manner that respects all of the parties involved? Do you feel that the current system accomplishes the goal of meeting the needs of infertile people in an ethical manner? Or do you see any room for change?

If you say that you feel the current system is operating in a totally ethical manner while meeting the needs of infertile people, then I really don't see how continuing the conversation is productive in any way. You can be content with things as they are based on your point of view. And others will continue working for change based on their point of view. If you do see room for change, however, I am very open to hearing those thoughts.

It is my hope that this inquiry will not go unanswered like so many other questions posed.
I am confused. Perhaps you do not understand my posts. I am not arguing against you. I am not refusing to listen to you. Quite the opposite. I am asking you questions.

There is no stalement. There is, however, a serious lack of clarity and definition of what "adoption reform" entails and how it should be accomplished. These are the questions that have gone unanswered. Please answer them before posing more.

I have read several posters advocating adoption reform, but I still can't get a grasp on what "adoption reform" means.

You cannot expect anyone to agree or disagree with "adoption reform" until that term is defined and we know what we are talking about.

Tiffjoy proposed an adoption reform plan. As far as I can tell, she is the only one who has done so. I asked a number of questions about how it could be accomplished while addressing other important issues facing our government and while fulfilling our other promises and responsibilities to our citizens. I promise you, these are questions that our governmental officials consider daily.

If you believe in adoption reform, by all means take this opportunity to educate us on what it means and a feasible way it can be accomplished. Welcome the opportunity to answer our questions and assure us that it can be accomplished efficiently and effectively. Use our questions as an opportunity to anticipate questions that lawmakers and the public may have and to sharpen your approach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2012, 03:06 PM
 
509 posts, read 484,426 times
Reputation: 747
This reply is in response to Catlover, but it's also a general statement.

Yes, I believe that there should be more government oversight of the adoption agencies. Yes, that will cost money. Yes, I believe this is a worthy use of our tax dollars. I do not see this as different from believing that our tax dollars should be used for Medicaid or reducing the defecit. Yes, there are finite resources. I believe this is a good use of our resources. You are free, of course, to disagree, but it doesn’t make me wrong. It simply means you have a different opinion of what is worthy of tax dollar funding.

Coercion exists in adoption. Kidnapping exists in adoption. I speak of both international and domestic adoption here. And any amount of crime is still crime, and we should never as a society be accepting of wrongdoing simply because we think there is only a little bit of it.

Just a few of the actions I believe federal government action should take:

The kidnapping of children and the subsequent court decisions in favor of the kidnappers must stop. This usually happens in the cases of international adoption (see the recent Guatemalan case) but it happens in domestic adoptions as well (see the John Wyatt case). This is criminal. Kidnapping is criminal. It should not be legal to say that the child has adjusted and sees the kidnappers as parents. Stockholm syndrome is not a legal defense for kidnapping, and neither should that type of statement be for adoptive parents involved in a kidnapping. I do not care of the amount in which is exists. The level of crime does not change the fact that crime exists.

I believe first parent should have longer than a day or three to release their parental rights and allow adoption of their child. No, I do not believe they should be forced to wait, but I believe they should have the option. Allowing a bit more time, I would advocate for 15-30 days, would help to alleviate situations like this. No, I do not believe they should have endless time to decide, but I don’t think a few weeks is asking to much when we are talking about a decision of such gravity. I have no issue with the adoptive parents taking the child home; while I do know that it would be heartbreaking for APs to give back a child, I also know that what I am advocating is for the child’s best interests to be served, not the APs. My husband and I faced this risk, and we said that above all, what was best for the baby was what mattered. I believe that unless it is an abuse case (in which DSS would be involved and that is different) it is almost always best for the child for families to stay intact.

Adoptees should have access to their OBC, and further adoption should not involve removing the biological parents from the document and replacing with the adoptive parents. An amended BC should contain the original facts of birth with the adoptive parents added as such. No records should be sealed.

I already mentioned the independent counseling.

I believe adoption agencies should not be allowed to close and leave first families without a connection to the adoptive family in which they placed their children. Laws should be in place governing the agencies as they are indeed operating as a business. Also check out this page I came across getting that article link. They say at the bottom that for one adoption agency, they have no records. Children adopted through that agency who are adults now seeking their biological parents are just plain out of luck. This is absolutely, 100% not acceptable.

Why do I believe all these things? Why do I seek change? Why am I searching out (I don’t just sit and chat about this stuff on forums, after all) ways for me to help truly enact these changes?

Because I am the mother of an adopted child. And she deserves better than a flawed system. I cannot change what was, but I can change what is.

I am not a hero or savior or good person for adopting my daughter. I am so uncomfortable with those words when used in regards to adoptive parents.

But I do want to be both my daughters’ hero by their own choice. I want them to see me as a good person. I want to earn that title by always standing up for them. By fighting for what is right. By acknowledging the truth instead of sticking my head in the sand. And this, adoption reform… it is what is right.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:30 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