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)
 
Old 10-09-2017, 01:24 PM
 
1,409 posts, read 809,555 times
Reputation: 2336

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
So is this "primal wound" the reason why you are against the majority of adoptions?

With all the adoption activity in our family and among our friends, I have never heard of it until I googled it just now. From what I read, there isn't any scientific proof for it and it seems controversial.

What is suggested to get an adopted person who feels this way, through this trauma so they can lead a healthier life?

It seems that blaming adoption agencies and adoptive parents is misplaced, my goodness, these are the people reaching out to save the unwanted or abused children from a life in foster care.

My cousin is bitter about her adoption, but she is angry that her birth mother didn't want her, not mad at her adoptive parents.

I don't agree that the earlier the wound the more damaging it is. What about the young children that spend years since birth building relationships and love with parents and siblings and then get taken away at 4 or 5 to live with a birth parent they don't know? We have experience with that too, it's horrifying and unbelievable to everyone involved.
It's primal wound, not "primal wound".... in the same way it's adoptive parents not adoptive "parents"----
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-09-2017, 02:11 PM
 
Location: planet earth
4,859 posts, read 1,856,441 times
Reputation: 10823
I believe many adoption agencies probably promote false ideas about the trauma of adoption and like one poster said here, might be focusing on the wrong things in screening people (clean house as opposed to good character).

I think agencies would be remiss if they didn't disclose that, due to trauma of being taken away from birth mother (and depending upon age, any additional traumas that might have been suffered with birth mother), there is risk of the child being irreparably damaged - in other words, the adoptive parents are not shopping for a perfect, blank-slate baby/child . . . the baby/child comes with issues - some emotional issues that might be difficult for the adoptive parents to handle down the road.

People who have rescued pets know that the pets come with all kinds of issues and idiosyncrasies . . . it's strange that adoptive parents are so ill-prepared for the traumas of the children they take on.

Their reasons for adopting should be stringently vetted and all kinds of pie-in-the-sky fantasies should have their bubbles burst - and then if they wish to go ahead, they should have to sign a disclaimer that informs them of their risks in adopting.

Birth mothers should have to sign a disclaimer saying they will most likely regret their decision down the road and be offered resources to keep the child if they are mentally stable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2017, 07:28 PM
 
9,221 posts, read 9,289,216 times
Reputation: 28907
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness View Post
I believe many adoption agencies probably promote false ideas about the trauma of adoption and like one poster said here, might be focusing on the wrong things in screening people (clean house as opposed to good character).

A belief is one thing. Some proof establishing it would be what most people would want to see.

I think agencies would be remiss if they didn't disclose that, due to trauma of being taken away from birth mother (and depending upon age, any additional traumas that might have been suffered with birth mother), there is risk of the child being irreparably damaged - in other words, the adoptive parents are not shopping for a perfect, blank-slate baby/child . . . the baby/child comes with issues - some emotional issues that might be difficult for the adoptive parents to handle down the road.

There is lots of risk in life. How does the risk of being adopted compare with the risk of being raised by a single mother in a financially poor household? Perhaps, this risk has been overemphasized, but it is real. Poor kids raised by single parents are more at risk for most problems than children raised in middle class two parent households.

People who have rescued pets know that the pets come with all kinds of issues and idiosyncrasies . . . it's strange that adoptive parents are so ill-prepared for the traumas of the children they take on.

This is an insult to most adoptive parents. We are not perfect, but we are very aware of the fact that the children we adopt are not "blank slates". Adoptive parents are generally better situated than most parents to obtain resources for at-risk children that include counseling, medical services, and special educational instruction. What proof do you have that as whole adoptive parents are not prepared for these challenges?

Their reasons for adopting should be stringently vetted and all kinds of pie-in-the-sky fantasies should have their bubbles burst - and then if they wish to go ahead, they should have to sign a disclaimer that informs them of their risks in adopting.

They are. Its called a "home-study". Most agencies operate workshops of different kinds to prepare parents for adoption.

Birth mothers should have to sign a disclaimer saying they will most likely regret their decision down the road and be offered resources to keep the child if they are mentally stable.
No group is probably as subsidized in this country as single mothers are. No one should forget that. Any single mother without a job can expect medicaid to pay for delivering her child and providing medical attention thereafter. She is eligible for government assistance through TANF (temporary assistance for needy families). A high school teenager who is pregnant can expect special education at a special high school for teen mothers with child care for her baby while she attends school. Food stamps are available for such women. Subsidized housing is another benefit and single mothers with children go to the top of the list.

I believe mothers who want to keep their children should be able to do so and should receive some level of public assistance. I also believe though that the anti-poverty programs that already exist are fairly generous and target this group more than any other group of the poor and impoverished.

We are reaching a point in this country where adoption is soon to become a relic of the past if we aren't there already. On some levels this is good. However, not all mothers are good mothers and no amount of government fixes will change this for some individuals. We've eliminated adoption, but no sane person thinks that child welfare has significantly improved because of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 07:40 AM
 
844 posts, read 303,476 times
Reputation: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
No group is probably as subsidized in this country as single mothers are. No one should forget that. Any single mother without a job can expect medicaid to pay for delivering her child and providing medical attention thereafter. She is eligible for government assistance through TANF (temporary assistance for needy families). A high school teenager who is pregnant can expect special education at a special high school for teen mothers with child care for her baby while she attends school. Food stamps are available for such women. Subsidized housing is another benefit and single mothers with children go to the top of the list.

I believe mothers who want to keep their children should be able to do so and should receive some level of public assistance. I also believe though that the anti-poverty programs that already exist are fairly generous and target this group more than any other group of the poor and impoverished.

We are reaching a point in this country where adoption is soon to become a relic of the past if we aren't there already. On some levels this is good. However, not all mothers are good mothers and no amount of government fixes will change this for some individuals. We've eliminated adoption, but no sane person thinks that child welfare has significantly improved because of it.
Just want to mention that single Dads also have these opportunities. These single Dads may be in these circumstances because they went through divorce, or they blew their one-and-only choice about pregnancy by not choosing to not wear their protection. Still, if they're notified, they may have the opportunity to co parent, in which case, the listed programs are also available to them when they become single parents. (I've met quite a few Moms who pay support.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 09:15 AM
 
1,409 posts, read 809,555 times
Reputation: 2336
Mark

Couple things real quick--

The post the other poster wrote had to do with understanding the risk of trauma occurring in any child relinquished for adoption. You replied that a lot of things in life have risk ( we aren't discussing "a lot of things" were debating adoption trauma... also you said that would be versus the risk of growing up poor with a single mother. Since you stated you like to see proof, do you have proof that adoptees always grow up "poor with a single mother" and if they do, where is your scientific evidence to show that's worse than losing your natural parents?

And as for home studies--- yea about those. What about em?? They are something an agency performs to go through the motions to check off their list in order to get that kid adopted. They do not counsel the parents at any depth or length about what a primal wound is. They're in the business of getting kids out of there to be adopted-- any mention of the child having trauma would be soft pedaled and presented in a light that glosses over it. The emphasis is on the adoptive parents being able to "provide the child with a better home"-- read couple with career, older, money, nice neighborhood - it's bogus that adoption agencies highlight and educate the adopters on the child has trauma because in order to be available for adoption always means hat child lost his first parents to begin with. I saw a short tape that showed the last leg of an adoption journey for a couple in their late 30s early 40s. They were so excited getting the magazine perfect nursery ready, driving to the hospital where the birth mother was in labor. No mention once about that first mother-- she was just a breeder for them . After he was born the nurse brings him in to the adoptees with violin music playing. They scoop the baby up and are so excited holding him. The adoptive mother then says "he didn't come with a name- so it's like to us, we think of it as if he didn't have any other parents- he had no name- so we are naming him Jacob. We are his only parents, because when the nurse brought him to us he didn't have a name, so it's as if he had no other parents before! WE are his only parents!" Ok we get your excited lady, but , no... just sorry, but it's just not true, hate to burst your bubble but the woman in the other room from where your being filmed, she has a name and she just spent nine months carrying him and another 12 hours laboring to deliver him. She is his first mother. This was recent in 2009, what kind of job did that agency do educating those parents for them to say those things? Seems like they didn't get the memo that their baby actually came from another first mother and that he is not in fact a blank slate and that because the first mom either didn't give him a name or kept it in her heart doesn't equate to meaning he came from the baby stork.
- yay
Money and status don't automatically translate into good parenting.

Last edited by mondayafternoons; 10-10-2017 at 09:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2017, 12:23 PM
 
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
9,355 posts, read 16,856,847 times
Reputation: 11463
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons View Post
Mark

Couple things real quick--

The post the other poster wrote had to do with understanding the risk of trauma occurring in any child relinquished for adoption. You replied that a lot of things in life have risk ( we aren't discussing "a lot of things" were debating adoption trauma... also you said that would be versus the risk of growing up poor with a single mother. Since you stated you like to see proof, do you have proof that adoptees always grow up "poor with a single mother" and if they do, where is your scientific evidence to show that's worse than losing your natural parents?

And as for home studies--- yea about those. What about em?? They are something an agency performs to go through the motions to check off their list in order to get that kid adopted. They do not counsel the parents at any depth or length about what a primal wound is. They're in the business of getting kids out of there to be adopted-- any mention of the child having trauma would be soft pedaled and presented in a light that glosses over it. The emphasis is on the adoptive parents being able to "provide the child with a better home"-- read couple with career, older, money, nice neighborhood - it's bogus that adoption agencies highlight and educate the adopters on the child has trauma because in order to be available for adoption always means hat child lost his first parents to begin with. I saw a short tape that showed the last leg of an adoption journey for a couple in their late 30s early 40s. They were so excited getting the magazine perfect nursery ready, driving to the hospital where the birth mother was in labor. No mention once about that first mother-- she was just a breeder for them . After he was born the nurse brings him in to the adoptees with violin music playing. They scoop the baby up and are so excited holding him. The adoptive mother then says "he didn't come with a name- so it's like to us, we think of it as if he didn't have any other parents- he had no name- so we are naming him Jacob. We are his only parents, because when the nurse brought him to us he didn't have a name, so it's as if he had no other parents before! WE are his only parents!" Ok we get your excited lady, but , no... just sorry, but it's just not true, hate to burst your bubble but the woman in the other room from where your being filmed, she has a name and she just spent nine months carrying him and another 12 hours laboring to deliver him. She is his first mother. This was recent in 2009, what kind of job did that agency do educating those parents for them to say those things? Seems like they didn't get the memo that their baby actually came from another first mother and that he is not in fact a blank slate and that because the first mom either didn't give him a name or kept it in her heart doesn't equate to meaning he came from the baby stork.
- yay
Money and status don't automatically translate into good parenting.
and no money and no resources CERTAINLY do not either......

This primal wound thing has apparently been a theory for about 25 years or so..... interesting that I had never heard of it being that I am an adoptee and always interested in learning about what makes people tick...... I'm guessing it never gained much traction in the scientific community.....

I just did a bit of reading about it, and this passage really grabbed my attention:
Some birth mothers have spoken of the love they directed to their child in the uterus before the adoption. If feelings and emotions get through to a fetus, it was exposed to and felt that love. However, it makes no sense that only love gets through. In many cases the child was also exposed in utero to the motherís denial of his existence; the motherís feelings of fear, shame, hurt, and betrayal; and the motherís wishing him dead and trying to kill him.
Thus, a baby still in the womb could feel abandoned, unwanted, insecure, sad, angry, and unable to trust even his mother. Not surprisingly, too many teenagers who were adopted soon after birth feel the same way.

Skeptics may deny any link between the teenage feelings and the time in the uterus because those teens cannot consciously remember that time. However, neither can they consciously recall their infancy (including leaving the original mother). Thus, if the skeptics are right, the primal wound theory also falls.

So, one has to wonder.... do only positive emotions, such as love, anticipation joy, affect the child before birth?? How do stress, distress, sadness, worry, shame and any other of a myriad of negative emotions not affect the child also??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2017, 02:57 PM
 
1,409 posts, read 809,555 times
Reputation: 2336
Silly question- of course "only positive feelings" are not the only ones a person including in this case a fetus would sense. What's your point? Some of the most in denial are adoptees- it comes across as trying too hard to prove being given away for adoption and losing ones natural parents had no effect. Do we really need some type of scientific measure to "prove" loss? Where then is your "scientific proof" that a person experiences loss and grief in general? It must all be their imagination...proof please that all children if they were kept with their natural family would have "NO money, and NO resources"??

I don't have time to research when the primal wound condition was first made known-- ok you say it was 25 years ago and then you go on to say how because you "never heard of it" it must mean it "never gained much traction in the scientific community"-- your making a lot of loose assumptions and correlations that all adoptees would've otherwise grown up with zero money or resources, and your claim that since you don't recall hearing of the primal wound it must mean it isn't valid.


The adoption industry as it was known to be back in the day, 50's, 60's and early 70's ran a tight ship that saw the natural parents and unborn child in a predatory manner to quickly provide babies to adoptive parents. The whole manner in which the pregnancy and birth/post partum was done in such a way to inhibit and prevent the natural mother from even being able to hold her child. Pregnant women were commonly sent to homes "for unwed mothers" where they were indoctrinated to believe it was all for the best (as opposed to exploring avenues or resources that would enable the mother to keep her child) and that her baby would have no understanding from that and she could one day go on to have another child and in time would forget all about her first child.
Fail.
Adoptive parents were sold a bill of goods that the child they would receive was a blank slate. Amended birth certificates were issued that falsified the names of the parents (instead of documenting baby girl x was born on May 3 to natural parents, it stated the baby was born on May 3 to (the adoptive parents names). This was all done in order to make the adoptive parents feel good and take home the belief they were the only set of parents. To discuss any notion of trauma to the child would not serve the industry's purpose, for obvious reasons.

Last edited by mondayafternoons; 10-15-2017 at 03:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2017, 09:19 AM
 
1,409 posts, read 809,555 times
Reputation: 2336
This only applies to adoptive parents who would've liked to adopt here but chose international adoption because they didn't want their adopted child to ever hear of or even see on one occasion their mother and father... that they don't want to "put in the work of parenting" and take a chance some day their adopted child will seek out his mother and have divided loyalties-- newsflash- whether you adopt a child from your own city or across the world they will always have a tie to their mother and father. They may not feel safe or comfortable expressing that to the adoptive parent when they have given the message there isn't any place to wonder or ask about their parents, let alone actually have a need to find out more about them or possibly meet them.
A child adopted from across the world still in their heart and body has the imprint and bond with their parents. They can still potentially one day go back (and I've seen that happen) to country of origin to find their parents.
Take away is one person cannot control or manage the heart ties of another, even if they think they are putting up as much of a block, so if a person adopts it should only be done with the understanding and respect for the fact their adopted child came from the first parents in order to be adopted - if there was no set of parents that came before, you would have no adopted child. Rather than trying to oppress this or deny or control it, in the best interest of the adopted child it should be honored and to make sure they know they are more than welcome to talk about their parents and even seek info or even try to contact them one day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2017, 07:31 AM
 
1,409 posts, read 809,555 times
Reputation: 2336
I started therapy through victims of crime program recently, the state covers the cost and they gave me a list of some therapists for voc. I called several and found a couple who seemed excellent- went in to meet separately w both therapists to see which one might be more helpful to me. One therapist does somatic therapy for ptsd a model that was I believe the brainchild of a UCLA psychologist who largely treats ptsd in trauma survivors. I met with her twice and she took a history from birth to present- although the dv assaults are why I'm going for the depression and ptsd she needed to get an overall picture. She paused at the part of having been adopted and asked how I felt about it and as we talked a bit she said some things about how that was a loss, and that the reasons back then for adoption when the parents were teenagers wasn't a reason in her understanding of having also worked with adoptions as a lcsw to be a reason to relinquish- she said if I continue w her at some point if I want she would be willing to address and work through the trauma of that and how it plays into my life .

Second one I met with had a different approach not somatic or body experiencing for ptsd, she's a psyd who uses several other approaches to help process and heal trauma for victims of violence. I decided on her as an overall better fit for my personality - even though somatic body therapy is supposed to be a good standard for ptsd, overall I felt she was able to "speak my language" of how I think and process. Last night during a session we were talking about how my ex abuse of me affected my self worth. I started crying and breaking down and asked her why do you think I can't seem to stop feeling he is somehow "better" than me? Despite what he did and being in prison nownfornit I have this unexplainable belief he is better than me, and I'm inferior. We talked about it a while and she did obviously bring up the fact of how he belittled me, and how all the abuse affected me. But then she asked me about the adoption-- began asking me some questions delving into that even though I honestly never made an issue of it when she did the intake- I made mention of it because it was part of the intake. But last night she initiated exploring how the fact I was adopted probably created in me a feeling from the time I was very young of having been given away, and how there's a natural associated feeling or belief that tends to accompany that of not being good enough-- and how that may be enhancing the feelings of low self worth a dv victim would have anyways.

My ex'smother was 18 when he was born but she kept him and raised him amongst some pretty tough circumstances - it hurts me to know that no matter what bad thing he ever does including as a middle aged man felony assault, she has his back-- when he was arrested he called her to get her to pay for a private attorney-- his real dad left when he was a year old- and his mother is now on her third dh-- he became his stepfather when he was already almost 40, so it's not as if he was like a dad to him- they never lived together and in his mind he told me he's like another boyfriend of hers although their married. Yet she got him to shell out over 10,000$ for his defense, as a middle aged man (my ex, not his step dad)

The reason I'm bringing this up is that it seems like perhaps the fact she is his real mother has to do with her having his back and is supportive of him even when he commits crimes. Otoh my adoptive mother was always negligent in parenting me fromtime I was young. Couple examples-- when I was only 13-14 I became dangerously sick with life threatening anorexia nervosa. At the point where I weighed 92 pounds at 5'6" tall (i eventually dropped to 86 pounds) my mother had me signed up and would bring me to swimming lessons- I remember having a thought to myself about that and the instructor asked me if I "felt well enough to swim"-- I said ok. I was raised in Palos verdes in those days ( and to a large degree present day)teachers or instructors didn't question parents in an affluent community. She never spoke to me trying to get me to open up about how I was feeling or about the obvious emergency that I was starving to death. It was all about image to her. The other example was at 15 a high school boy assaulted me, two blocks from my house- I came home with a bloody nose and had been hit in the head hard enough to knock me off my bike and make me see stars. When I told her in hysterically crying she said calm down, I'll call his grandma and see what happened! Instead of calling the police or an ambulance. She got off the phone and said she didn't want to "cause a big uproar over it and have neighbors find out so she smoothed it over with his grandma whatever the hell that means and hat she promised she would have a talk with the "boy" so he wouldn't hurt me again.

So after my ex began abusing me I didn't feel like my mother knowing would help me feel supported in any way. She actually saw me once with the remnants of a black eye and started to say "your eye.." and I said "what?" because I didn't feel she would sincerely actually care or want to know the truth.. she said "oh nevermind" ... I never told her about his arrest or the court case because of that but last week I blurted out briefly that I was assaulted and it went to court and she said "oh for god sake, what are you talking about?" When I briefly emphasized yes, I was assaulted, it was a court case... " and let her know if she wanted to ever know about it we could talk.. she never wanted to know I guess since then she called once to let me know there was going to be some hot weather last week, what a joke. Didn't seem to feel like she should follow up and find out wth happened to me.

I realize there are bio parents who don't enable or offer monetary/ emotional support for their middle aged children when they commit crimes and that there are adoptive parents who are not negligent, but since this was my experience it deeply affects my self worth

Last edited by mondayafternoons; 11-01-2017 at 08:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2017, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
5,701 posts, read 3,659,792 times
Reputation: 16646
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondayafternoons View Post
The reason I'm bringing this up is that his mother knowing he committed felony assault serious enough to warrant state prison time, didn't allow him to bear the consequences of that by him just having to have a public defender. She got her dh to pay thousands of dollars for a private attorney.
What you call "having his back," I call "enabling." Maybe if she had allowed him to suffer the consequences of his actions at an earlier age, he wouldn't have thought it would be acceptable to abuse you.

Your own mother may have gone too far the other way, but your ex's mother certainly isn't doing him any favors.
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.

© 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