changing child's name (orphan, birth, options, parents)

[sheena12]

Originally Posted by Dark of the Moon

I never said I was anti-adoption. I asked only why the birth mother should have more rights than the child she gave away.

You have not but others have. I think that you, and all the other adoptees who have been dreprived of this information HAVE THE RIGHT to this! I have said this,
I didn't say that say this.

I did say that I know of two adoptees, and they never mentioned this to me.



I'm 55 years old and my birth parents are long deceased. Yet I still do not have the right to my own birth certificate, because I was born in a state that seals those records. When do I get MY rights as an adult?

And there is no reason for this, as I stated. However this has nothing to do with adoption.
It has to do with a law, that was probably made at the turn of the last century by social engineers of the time.

IT SHOULD CHANGE.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by sheena12

And there is no reason for this, as I stated. However this has nothing to do with adoption.
It has to do with a law, that was probably made at the turn of the last century by social engineers of the time.

IT SHOULD CHANGE.

How can you deny that this law has to do with adoption? It is because adoption that it exists & it is because of the adoption industry that it continues to exist despite how many adoptees, their biological families, & adoptive parents have protested it.

[Green Irish Eyes]

Originally Posted by sheena12

I did say that I know of two adoptees, and they never mentioned this to me.

Oh Sheena, c'mon -- do you think that adoptees all walk around telling everyone that they don't have copies of their own birth certificates? (Plus, some adoptees DO have access to their records -- it depends on where those records are located.)

Just because the general public doesn't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just doesn't affect people that, well, aren't affected by it.

[susankate]

Originally Posted by thethreefoldme

How can you deny that this law has to do with adoption? It is because adoption that it exists & it is because of the adoption industry that it continues to exist despite how many adoptees, their biological families, & adoptive parents have protested it.

The downloadable document on this link gives an insight into the hows, whys and therefores of adoption records being sealed. It is only adoptees whose records are sealed. It is not sealed on relinquishment butat the time the adoption is finalised.

The Strange History of Adult Adoptee Access to Original Birth Records by Elizabeth Samuels :: SSRN

[gcm7189]

Originally Posted by sheena12

I am hurt that people think that my daughter should not be my daughter and that children who need homes should be deprived of them.

Adoptees are the daughters and sons of two different families. There are aspects of our identities that come from both. Acknowledging and openly recognizing this does not mean that an adoptive parents should not be an adoptive parent. It means that adoptive parents should go into the adoption experience fully accepting that the child they are going to raise has another family from which he or she has inherited certain part of his or her identity.

I have not witnessed any evidence of anyone implying that children should be deprived of safe, secure homes. The thing is that adoption does not automatically guarantee a safe, secure home for an adoptee. As I've pointed out on other threads, people who adopt are human beings just like everyone else. They can be addicted to drugs and alcohol. They can sexually abuse the children in their care. They can physically abuse the children in their care. They can emotionally abuse the children in their care. They can lose their jobs and become homeless. They can get divorced and end up raising the child in their care as a single parent. What some of us find issue with is the notion that adoption automatically guarantees a "better life" for the child. This is simply not the case. Adoption can only guarantee a different life. It cannot guarantee a better one.

I'm all for children having safe, secure homes. But I also know adoptees who were raped by their adoptive fathers, beaten by their adoptive mothers, and expected to take on the role of the child their adoptive parents couldn't produce themselves. Some adoptees trade one hellish situation for another. This fact should not be ignored and those of us point out the harsher realities of adoption should not be accused of wanting children to suffer unless they are adopted. We know that children can also suffer after being adopted. Because adoption is complicated and not all adoptive parent go into it with the child's best interests in mind. Adoption is not as simple as a couple taking in a waif from another country. To take such a simplistic view is a bit too idealistic. And this view is so pervasive that the harsher realities are purposefully overlooked so that adoption can maintain its false sense of being a win-win endeavor for all involved.

[sheena12]

Originally Posted by Dark of the Moon

Oh Sheena, c'mon -- do you think that adoptees all walk around telling everyone that they don't have copies of their own birth certificates? (Plus, some adoptees DO have access to their records -- it depends on where those records are located.)

Just because the general public doesn't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just doesn't affect people that, well, aren't affected by it.

I am all for your having what you need. This is not my issue. I'm not your enemy.

Am I anyone's enemy? Yeah. People who do not think that I have a right to adopts and that children with out families have no right to find ones that want them and can care for them.

Have you noticed that trend here?

In terms of people adopted in the 50s and 60s - I am not knowlegable.

But I'll repeat - I think you have this right.

I am searching for common ground here. Do you see any with me and with other Adoptive Parents and children?

Do you think I am lying when I say my daughter is disinterested?

If she wanted to visit Korea, I'd move heaven and Earth to get her there.

[sheena12]

Originally Posted by gcm7189

Adoptees are the daughters and sons of two different families. There are aspects of our identities that come from both. Acknowledging and openly recognizing this does not mean that an adoptive parents should not be an adoptive parent. It means that adoptive parents should go into the adoption experience fully accepting that the child they are going to raise has another family from which he or she has inherited certain part of his or her identity.

I have not witnessed any evidence of anyone implying that children should be deprived of safe, secure homes. The thing is that adoption does not automatically guarantee a safe, secure home for an adoptee. As I've pointed out on other threads, people who adopt are human beings just like everyone else. They can be addicted to drugs and alcohol. They can sexually abuse the children in their care. They can physically abuse the children in their care. They can emotionally abuse the children in their care. They can lose their jobs and become homeless. They can get divorced and end up raising the child in their care as a single parent. What some of us find issue with is the notion that adoption automatically guarantees a "better life" for the child. This is simply not the case. Adoption can only guarantee a different life. It cannot guarantee a better one.

I'm all for children having safe, secure homes. But I also know adoptees who were raped by their adoptive fathers, beaten by their adoptive mothers, and expected to take on the role of the child their adoptive parents couldn't produce themselves. Some adoptees trade one hellish situation for another. This fact should not be ignored and those of us point out the harsher realities of adoption should not be accused of wanting children to suffer unless they are adopted. We know that children can also suffer after being adopted. Because adoption is complicated and not all adoptive parent go into it with the child's best interests in mind. Adoption is not as simple as a couple taking in a waif from another country. To take such a simplistic view is a bit too idealistic. And this view is so pervasive that the harsher realities are purposefully overlooked so that adoption can maintain its false sense of being a win-win endeavor for all involved.

"adoption does not automatically guarantee a safe and secure home"

I agree.

Giving birth does not guarantee that either. More abusive home are biological than adoptive. I know people who were raped abused and starved by biological parents and step parents.

When children are taken from their homes because of abuse, odds are that it will be better.

It might not but being abused at any sort of parent requires removal. And fast termination.

[sheena12]

Originally Posted by sheena12

And there is no reason for this, as I stated. However this has nothing to do with adoption.
It has to do with a law, that was probably made at the turn of the last century by social engineers of the time.

IT SHOULD CHANGE.

Darl although this was not posed as a question can you see what my feelings are here?

As you know me, do you in any way think that because I suffered from Premature Ovarian Failure of unknown etiology, that I should have just lived with it? Sucked it up and gotten a hobby or something? My children are not my hobby. They are my life.

While other parents beat abuse and molest their kids, I should deny myself the one thing in life that I have always wanted?

[susankate]

Originally Posted by sheena12

Darl although this was not posed as a question can you see what my feelings are here?

As you know me, do you in any way think that because I suffered from Premature Ovarian Failure of unknown etiology, that I should have just lived with it? Sucked it up and gotten a hobby or something? My children are not my hobby. They are my life.

While other parents beat abuse and molest their kids, I should deny myself the one thing in life that I have always wanted?

I live in a country and was born in another country that both have low levels of most forms of adoption. Thus presumably, there are many women there in similar position for whom adoption is an option that has longer waits. I assume that if they do wish to be parents and don't want a long wait for infants, they would then foster or foster/adopt, there are usually children requiring fostering available like elsewhere though I concede that I don't know how similar children in Australian and NZ foster care are from the US.

If someone wishing to adopt was then also not prepared to compromise on contact with any biological family at all (and by the way if there was abuse, in most cases, one wouldn't have to have contact with bparents, but the child might still want contact with siblings or a loving aunt/grandparent), then that would limit their options even more.

It seems to me that there will always be some sort of option for loving women unable to have children who wish to care for other children. It might not always mean adoption, it might involve compromises but there are options.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by sheena12

Giving birth does not guarantee that either. More abusive home are biological than adoptive. I know people who were raped abused and starved by biological parents and step parents.

More biological homes are abusive than adoptive homes because there are obviously way more biological homes compared to adoptive. Adoptive parents are just as likely to abuse (or not abuse) as biological parents, however. The need/desire to adopt & the ability to pass a home study does not prevent someone from being abusive, as evidence of all the adoptees who have been raped, abused, starved, & murdered.