What Anti-Adoption Means

You know, it seems I even have to clarify "Clarity." When I said "wanting to parent" does not give someone the RIGHT to parent, I meant that all the way to the bank.

So many who adopt are under the illusion that the child they adopt would have no where else to go if they did not step in and give that child their name and identity. That, in and of itself, is a questionable "gift." That child already has a surname and a family identity and that is taken from him.

I can bet that when this mother with the "unwanted" (read "unexpected or unplanned") pregnancy reached out for help, no one suggested giving her a hand in dealing with her personal situation so that she could be there for her child. I will also bet that no one tried to see if there was a family member that could assume kinship guardianship until Mom got on her feet, nor did they suggest making Daddy financially responsible for his casual pleasures. No, not any agency who stands to gain profit nor a state agency who would get goodies for their state would dare to give this mother all her options, especially any that would allow her to keep and raise her child.

You can also bet your layette that this surrendering mother has the same skewed view of surrender for adoption as do too many of the rest of her contemporaries. They grew up with the myth and actually think that it is "heroic" to turn their child over to facilitators who will, in turn, give that child to genetic strangers. They do not have a clue as to the ultimate grief and dismay they will experience and the inner (and often well-concealed from their adopters) pain and confusion of the adoptee as they try to digest the fact that they are round pegs carrying the surname of and trying to fit into square holes.

I also bet that no one suggested legal guardianship of said child with no legal lies involved including altered birth certificates, loss of family history and name and the biggest lie of all on that certificate...the names of the adopters inserted to allow them to pretend this child was "as if born to." It is a real privilege to care for a child who needs someone but there is no right to be called "Mommy and Daddy" when it just isn't so.

I have called adoption a myth and a fairy-tale. I was wrong. Myths and fairy tales are things that are harmless and entertaining most of the time.

Adoption is an outright lie, harmful and painful.

Clarity...It's Refreshing

Some may have noticed that I do not publish hostile, argumentative or mean-spirited comments, but I do read them all. It amazes me how many people scan but do not read and how many will take, or omit, one section or sentence out of context of the entire message. I also do not publish comments from people who tell me I should watch out what I say, be careful about what I say (I already do both), or who ridicule good people.

To the infertile, potential adopter who responded to my post about taking responsibility for situations; you must have missed the sentence where I stressed that not all people are infertile due to their own activities. You and others like you, though, are in the minority with the leading causes of infertility still being delayed childbearing, STD's and other lifestyle choices. Check with the medical researchers. And, even though it is unfortunate, and I am sure, painful, that you are infertile through no fault of your own, that infertility still does not give you the right to "parent" someone elses' child. I stand by my original statement and post.

To the adoptee who had the recalcitrant mother who insisted that surrender was her idea and that she wanted no contact with her adult child; Dear, I am so sorry. She is either terrified, brainwashed, ignorant or a combination of all three. Yes, such mothers exist, but our experience shows them, again, to be in the minority. Having such a mother, as well, does not allow or excuse hostility towards all mothers of loss to surrender. I know many adopted adults, reunited, who "get it" and who don't like what was done to us. Please note, I said "many," not "all." Again, I stand by my statement and original post.

We who are speaking out against the adoption industry, the crimes against mothers during the EMS and who are trying to reach our younger sisters with the truth of our experience are not speaking for everyone across the board. There are a few of us who did drink the Kool Aid the industry forced on us and that is heart-breaking.

And there are a few potential adopters who were hit by lightening where their infertility is concerned and we feel bad for these people. BUT, pretending to be the mother and father of another woman's child really doesn't work. You are still infertile, even after you adopt, and you have the disadvantage of not naturally having that "die for my child" bond. Having friends who have adopted and also had children of their own, I know, from their own words, that there is a difference. While the drive to reproduce is a natural one, adoption is NOT reproduction.

If someone is born without legs, they may be fitted with prostheses, but they will never have legs. A child should never be used as a prosthesis or panacea to fill a personal need.

A child should never be used, period.

What You Learn From Walking The Dog

Rocky woke me up at 4:00AM with that little urgent whine that let me know a walk was forthcoming. I struggled into my clothes, found the leash and we set out. The front of our house faces the northeast and the lights of Orlando and all the communities around it are to our southwest. There was a beautiful patch of sky there, with the moon surrounded by high, wispy clouds and lots of bright stars.

The humidity was down to a dull roar for a change and the temp was in the low 70's with a slight breeze. I thought about how wonderful it was to have a view of the night sky without all the neon and halogen and other lights of the ticky-tacky, plastic tourist region south of us obscuring the clarity.

I thought, then, about the fairy-tale, saccharine dog-and-pony show that surrounds the efforts to increase infant adoption. It's hard for a young mother-to-be to see the clear and natural reality when it is obscured by the manufactured bright lights of adoption mythology. The industry, social workers and their cohorts wave the image of the heroic but inept mother who cares only for her child's welfare, said welfare being, according to these spin doctors, surrender for adoption. That "heroine" label and $1.00 will get you a Whopper Junior. It tastes good at first, but doesn't last. There are a lot of adopted adults who would argue the perceived, skewed rightness of surrender.

We don't have a powerful lobby that would intercede on behalf of natural family continuity. We don't have an eager market for our message as does the adoption industry. All we have it the natural truth and you have to look away from the hype and the hooplah in order to really see it and understand it. While the industry pitches its product like a manic Billy Mays, we are trying to calmly tell the truth.

Maybe people will get tired of the noise and the bright lights and start listening.

The Myth of the Triad

Probably the most misleading concept to be brought into the adoption arena is that of the so-called "Triad." No one has said it better than Bastardette did in this post to her blog back in 2007.

No matter how it is drawn, triad means triangle...three equal parts with equitable powers that make up a whole. Adoption "Triadinists" use the natural mother, the adopters and the adoptee to symbolize their concept of a triad.

I've said it before and I will say it again. There is no such thing as an adoption triad. First of all, and thank you for this sentence, BD, "surrender does not equal adoption!" I just love that truth. We did not surrender our children to adopters. We were backed up against the wall and had to wave the white flag for agencies, the state, lawyers, our parents and social workers. We were the source of supply, only, and our rights ended where the facilitators' began. How can we be considered an equal partner when we were stripped of all autonomy from the get-go? There is NOTHING equal about what happened to us or to our children who are still being denied, in many states and provinces, the simple right to their own, true identities.

If we held up a scale, and placed the powerful on one platform and the powerless on the other, we natural mothers and our children would be hanging on for dear life to keep from sliding off. If the industry ever gets honest, which I believe will happen when it snows two feet at the equator, the general populace will be appalled.

The triad is another myth, misleading as were the things that were said to us when we were being warehoused and stripped of our parental rights. It's just another industry trick like "open" adoption and post-birth "counseling." In my opinion, a social worker with an adoption agency counseling a mother who has surrendered is like a murderer counseling the loved ones of their victim. This is why there are so many groups for mothers to get together and for adoptees to share experiences with each other. We cannot get compassion, understanding or cooperation from anyone but our own.

That triad weighs a million tons and it is sitting on our backs. Getting out from under is a fight but we are a scrappy lot. Adoption is an INDUSTRY and big business and the bottom line and spin doctoring have no place when the life and future of a mother and her child are concerned. The self-entitled are the market and the facilitators are coming up with all manner of ways to fill the demand. They have to be more creative, these days, than they were in the EMS, but, they still manage to play that religion card, appealing to the puritanical and the rigid.

So, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are a triad. Executive, Legislative and Judicial are a triad. Peace Love and Hope are a triad. But, there IS NO TRIAD IN ADOPTION.

Silver Linings and Rays of Sunshine

In these hard times and with the uphill battle so many of us are fighting, good news is always welcome. While we are pursuing recognition and redress for the mothers of the EMS, we are also normal people living our lives.

That's why is it so easy to delight in less "news-worthy" but very important good things. A friend, out of work for months, finally got a job. Home prices in our neighborhood rose a bit making our imminent retirement a tad easier and we have received two inquiries already. A friend's granddaughter decided against surrender and is going to keep and raise her expected little boy. A family member with liver failure finally received a transplant and is doing well. My sister-in-law is recovering well from her surgery for early-stage cervical cancer and another sister-in-law is making her way through the grief of the death of her son after three years and is taking a great deal of comfort from her faith. She has also adopted her late son's dog and the two of them have become very good friends. A little girl in my husband's family who was dealing with some hard times and parental neglect has been taken in by her aunt and is loving her new neighborhood and school and has made three new friends.

Those are the things of everyday living, but we tend to fail to appreciate them if we are too single-minded. We can also give the impression that all we are is the sum of our issues and debates online. That's why Internet communication can be misleading. People can seem so one-dimensional.

We mothers who lost our children to coerced surrender during the EMS are everywoman. We live lives that are very similar to everyone else's. Our lives are not constant bitterness and pain. We laugh, we celebrate when appropriate and we fight for justice when appropriate. We are in every walk of life from housewife to artist to secretary to teacher.

I think it is important to stress this so that those who oppose us know that they are not dealing with overgrown teens stuck in the past as has been charged. We were victims then. We are NOT victims today. Our very survival has made us strong. We won't back down from a fight. We have loving families that have our backs. We have adult reunited children who care enough to try to understand.

I would suggest that some of these folks who attack the EMS moms on Yahoo Answers and Craigslist not underestimate us. There is more to us than what you see on a message board.

This is just a FYI that is overdue.

See Next Page

I am feeling feisty and frustrated, this morning, tired of the Birthers and the Death Panel screamers and the Chicken Little tactics of the far right. Please see my post, The Sky Is Falling, on my other blog, Slightly Left of Center.

More on Responsibility

My friend, Musing Mother, just posted a piece that was written tongue-in-cheek with her usual funny sarcasm. Her post addresses the idiocy of the agencies, NCFA and others on that end who are scrambling away from any responsibility for the many injuries of adoption.

Her idea is simple but effective; if they want to keep the records closed, then let them and the powers that be (government) finance and institute regular DNA testings for the markings of possible disease characteristics. When faced with that kind of financial drain, they would be only too happy to open the records. It's like anything else in this sappy, happy, capitalistic society of ours. Threaten the bottom line and you get results.

The whole idea behind the "required mothers' medical history" touted in some open records proposals is their way of transferring the responsibility onto the mothers along with possible law suits and jail terms. Luckily, we have HIPAA protection as does everyone else in the country. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that the industry tried to circumvent the law for their own benefit.

It's still such a simple thing. Let adult adopted people have their OBC's and give them to the mothers, as well. We were still the parents of record when these documents were created, yet we were not given a copy of the OBC just like we were not given copies of our surrender documents.

If the industry wants to follow the path of least resistance and look a bit better in the eyes of the adopted people and their mothers, then let us find each other, develop whatever relationship we wish and share information the tried and true, old-fashioned way.

Unless, of course, they have anything to hide..................?

Aw, Ya Went And Got Yerself Pregnant!

That title says something about how women seem to be the ones who are responsible for everything sexual that goes on in this world. Somehow, a lot of folks don't hear that noise generated by the hurried unzipping of many a fly. Funny, but I remember that eighth-grade biology really emphasized how it takes a male to impregnate a female of most species, including homo sapiens.

To elaborate upon a theme, I noticed that one of the weapons used to keep us mothers silent and in our places has lost its effectiveness among those of us who think for ourselves. Some of the self-righteous, closed-records set still try to use the old, "well, you are the one who spread your legs" put-down as the killing point of their argument. They, of course, neglect to mention that we had a little help in that department.

What gives me the giggles is the fact that many of these blue-nosed hypocrites expect us to still feel guilty about having sex outside the holy chains of matrimony. Grow up, People! In the years since many of us awakened from the sleep of the good, little barfmuggle, we have learned a bit about life and truth. I do not feel the least bit repentant about having sex with my daughter's father. I was young, passionate and believed myself to be deeply in love. That happened to many a young woman in my time. Some were lucky and didn't get caught with a baby bump, some were suddenly wed in a whirlwind ceremony and some became part of the natural cycle of life and inmates of maternity prisons.

Very few of my contemporaries made it to their wedding bed, virginity intact. None of the young men from my era would admit to being a virgin when they got married. *wink, nudge* Yet we still have to deal with the anti-mother, closed records nimrods who will, when they run out of arguments, trot out the sex/sin card. Puleeeze!

Let me enlighten these folks. We are not complaining or repentant or regretful about our sexual activity during the EMS. We are angry about our treatment, about having our babies coerced from us, about being treated like non-mothers when our hearts and our bodies knew better, and about being left totally out of the loop when it comes to being allowed to speak for ourselves. Why would we go along with the agencies, adoption attorneys and the NCFA, who trot out (natural)mother privacy at the hint of an open records bill? They are not authorized to speak for us. That would be like allowing the fox to speak for the hens. If there are so many mothers who want to stay in that bad-girl closet in which you tried to imprison us, let them show their faces. So far, all we have seen are allusions to anonymous Jane Does in less than convincing numbers. If they are still allowing any person, institution or social group to keep them wrapped in a shroud of shame, then that's a problem they need to discuss with a good therapist.

Now hear this! For every shame-filled closet dweller from the EMS, there are scores of us unrepentant, unapologetic mothers who feel that a life-long stigma and separation from our children is too big a punishment for the non-crime of unwed sexual activity. Being overcome by passion, being swayed by the amorous whispers of a randy suitor and giving in to the dream of love, those things have happened since the beginning of recorded history, still happen and will happen in the future. So why do these hateful , spiteful mother-dissers think that we are going to fold and cry "Uncle!" just because they pull out the old "you're the one who raised your skirt" ploy?

I come from the Bible-Belt south. I was raised with southern Baptists and Victorian sexual attitudes. My sex education was less than informative. I lived with the shame thing for quite a while until I stopped comparing my insides with the outsides of others and started learning about human nature. I even took the blame for being raped by the father of my oldest son. If I can shed that shame, anyone can. And shed it, I did!

Let's get real. If you want to debate us, then give us some logical arguments. Stop with the attempts at emotional bullying by pulling out the dusty, irrational "naughty girl" crap. I am confident that I speak for many of us when I say we won't blush, retreat or hang our heads when you do that.

We'll just shake our heads and wonder if that is the best you can do.

Personal Responsibility And The Religious Man

Every so often, I am slapped in the face with the reality of the elitist, sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic nature of the large network of fundamentalist Christians in our midst. I cannot lie and say that it doesn't disturb and, at times, enrage me, but I do know that I will probably run afoul of this despicable ignorance throughout the remainder of my life and I had best be able to shrug it off.

We just got back from a wonderful trip that included several nights in a rustic cabin on the side of a mountain in West Virginia. The nights and mornings were cool, the days were warm and balmy without the oppressive humidity of Florida and the scenery and wildlife were breathtakingly entrancing. Our cabin was one of a group off Hy19, north of the New River Bridge and close to a sweet little town called Summersville. Due to the abundance of Mountain Laurel that grew wild on that mountain, along with wild black raspberries, blackberries and wild red currants, sweet peas, daisies and Queen Anne's Lace, the spot was called Laurel Ridge Cabins. Deer shared the meadow with the owner's horses and let us get close enough to take pictures.

The only "off" moment of this idyllic situation was in the form of an agreement we were required to sign for the benefit of the owner, a former Texan turned WV mountain man, with a large brood of five children, and a very quiet wife, who was a leader in his local church. Said document stated that we agreed to no public drinking, no drunkenness, no consumption of spirits outside your cabin and no profanity. It also stated that we were to "dress modestly," which meant, no drooping pants or going shirtless for the guys, but, more emphatically, no tube tops, short shorts, spaghetti strap tops, backless tops or swimsuits without "street clothing" covering them for the female guests.

Now this is something with which my hubby and I had no problem. We are past the age to dress in that manner, though we would have when we were younger and had the bodies for it. But, on very hot days, and having struggled through Florida summers, I was compelled to tell Mr. G that, in our part of the country, such dress was common and, indeed, necessary in order to withstand the heat and humidity. His reply put my back up faster than a cat when cornered by a dog.

He first said that he sure was glad he didn't live in Florida. Then, he said that he didn't want any husbands being tempted to stray by the sight of these scantily-clad nymphs. I replied that we should hope that the husbands of which he spoke had the maturity and self-control to avoid infidelity. With his broad Texas accent and his stock delivery style of the fundamentalist Christian, he offered this "wisdom." "Well, to me, it's like taking a person who really loves to eat, sitting that person down at a banquet and then telling them that they can't eat any of the food."

"So," I countered, "it is your belief that infidelity is the fault of women in provocative dress, that she bears the total responsibility for the transgression and that the man is excused of responsibility because of his inherent appetites?" He started to quote scripture and invoke the image of Eve, the seductress and I had to stop him. I told him that we were paying guests and that his rules were easy enough for us to follow and that we would just agree to disagree. He said he would pray for me, which meant that he would pray that I would see things his way and the subject was dropped.

All this brought back the mindset of the EMS/BSE. We were the transgressors and the fathers of our children were just boys being boys with a wink and a nudge. It is unfortunate that this dusty, moldy, archaic attitude still exists. How convenient for the fathers of our children that we were seen as the ones who must control the lust and lack of self-control of the male gender. St. Paul did a really good job incorporating thinly disguised mysoginy and patriarchy into the early church. A predominately male clergy has taken his letters and run with them.

I watched Mrs. G, a very sweet, pretty and talented lady, as she quietly followed her husband's lead in everything. She baked me one of my favorites, a carrot cake, for my birthday which fell during the time we were there. Yet, it was Mr. G who graciously presented me with the cake as if he were totally responsible for its existence. I made it a point to express my thanks to Mrs. G and telling her that she was a formidable baker (which she is). I felt like, any minute, Mr. G was going to pat his wife on the head and talk about how well she followed his orders. This is a man who admits to being weak enough to let a bathing suit or a tube top tear his moral fiber and compel him to commit adultry, yet he is the leader over his wife in all things because he is a man. WHAT is wrong with that picture?

Now, our beef with the EMS is about coerced surrender, mandated secrecy, civil injustice and lack of access to information about our children, not sexual behavior, but I feel that we must address this whole "responsibility" thing. We still get that ignorant, self-righteous comment, "well, you were the one who spread your legs" from time to time...usually from an adopter or an angry adoptee. Don't forget, for a minute, that, from the fathers of our children, there was a lot of cajoling, begging, manipulating and even threats that went into our perhaps unwise, but normal and predictable encounters with the fathers of our children. With my first pregnancy, which I thought of as a tragic love story, I will acknowledge 50%, and no more than that, of the responsibility for the conception of my daughter. I give the responsibility of her subsequent surrender to the facilitators, social workers, tormenters, family members and her faithless father who pushed me into that horror.

The conception of my son is 100% the fault of his father. What I refused to give, he took. Even that trauma was blamed on me due to my previous behavior with the father of my daughter. I had been marked with a scarlet letter and the animal who fathered my son was ego-driven to not be turned down by someone with my "past." Even those in authority saw my sexual assault as something I had, more or less, "asked for."

So, these randy deacons and elders, patriarchs and judges feel that a woman who dresses in a certain manner, or is no longer a virgin is a Jezebel who will lure them to their doom. Ergo, they must see themselves as weak, sex-obsessed, drooling satyrs who can be led around by the foreskin by any decent-looking young woman showing cleavage. I wonder if Mr. G really thought about what he said and his reasoning.

And I wonder if Mrs. G heard what he said and thought the same thing I was thinking. I am going to light a candle for her. She needs it.

Responsibility Goes Both Ways

I just love this picture. It shows just how insidious secrets can be. I also love the article it accompanies about STD's and Infertility.

We get a lot of very nasty comments from the general public, as well as those who have a stake in our criminalization, about taking the "responsibility" for the loss of our children to adoption. You've heard them all, I assume..."you didn't have to spread your legs," "you could have said no (what about rape?)," "no one held a gun to your head (they might as well have)," etc., ad infinitum! Well guess what? A lot of infertile people, who think they are more deserving of our children than us bad, old, unwed mommies didn't keep their knickers on and their chinos zipped, either! GASP!

It has long been known, by the medical community, that STD's, along with bad lifestyle choices such as smoking, obesity, prior drug use, etc., account for an appreciable number of infertility cases. Rather than a bundle of joy, these unfortunates received inability to produce those little swimmers, scarred and impassable fallopian tubes and other such goodies for their early sexual activities. Who is holding THEM responsible? On a personal note, I know one contemporary of mine, now the wife of a dentist, who was always raring to go when the boys suggested a trip to lover's lane. Yes, she adopted. Now I am saying, "Hmmmmmmm?"

Don't get me wrong. I do know that there are some infertile people who just were struck by lightening and are not responsible for their infertility. There are also many of us who were raped, molested and intimidated by older men or used by inconstant lovers and were not solely responsible for the results of those actions. For many of us, it was a matter of loving, not wisely but too well, believing in our beloved's constancy ('coff, coff') and being young and impulsive. This has been happening since the beginning of recorded history. Those that didn't get pregnant were the "lucky" ones, I thought. Well, looks like old Mr. Chlamydia might have had something to say about that along with The Great Applauder (clap).

The assumed sainthood of the infertile adopter grates on my sensibilities. Being called a slut and a tramp when you are nothing but a disillusioned and frightened girl who has values just like everyone else, can make you a bit resentful of the secrets and lies that put us in that position. We weren't sluts...we were PREGNANT..a perfectly natural condition for healthy, young women. Now, if I can get this straight, a girl can get pregnant in a committed (on her part, anyway) relationship with ONE partner. But contracting an STD usually occurs when the activity, on the part of one or both, has included MANY partners. Now who's a slut? Hey...just postulating, that's all.

In any event, I doubt that adopters who fit into this category will ever come clean (yuk, yuk) about it. I just think this knowledge gives us all a good, object lesson about judging, name-calling and assumptions. Before anyone else jumps, when they see a natural mother, to the conclusion that she was loose and immoral, remember these medically documented facts and think about it. It would be just as wrong to assume that we were sluts as it would be to label every adopter as an STD carrier.

What goes around.........

07/08/2009 *As a good friend pointed out in the "comments" section, I neglected another leading cause of infertility which is delayed childbearing. In the battle to "have it all," many women put off having children until they had/have attained some vision of what they consider success. The thing that chaps my bootie on this one is that these women then turn and predate on their sisters, using the desperation that comes when a woman has no other choice than to surrender their child against them. So, what I have learned from this is that childbearing is for the young and that the sisterhood of feminists flies out the window when it comes to the old "give me a child lest I die" syndrome. This is one HUGE women's issue that is ignored by NOW and anyone else who would be an advocate for the rights of all women.

Who's "Anonymity" is Protected?

As those of us who want our information are finding, not everyone was in the dark about who was who in adoption land. The whole argument about protecting the privacy of the natural mother flies out the window when you view actual adoption decrees and documents available to those who adopt.

One mother/adopted person from our era, who lives in MO, saw several adoption documents and, on ALL of them, the natural mother's name was right there, as clear as day. That means that the people who adopted KNOW the mother's name and could give it to their adoptees. This further proves that the parties protected by the closed, secret adoption process were the adopters, NOT the mothers. Tales are now coming out from several sources which back this up...that the mother's full name was available to most adopters.

One document pertaining to adoption from that era talks about being able to "guarantee that the (adopters) will be free of interference from the natural mother." The specter of the mother showing up, pining for her child, has long been the worst nightmare of the adopter. The fact that they fear this and that the adoption facilitators knew they needed some kind of safe-guard against that eventuality proves, to me, that they knew the emotional impact on the mother would be intense.

One mother is extremely angry about the fact that her son's adopters knew who she was. They could have saved her son a lot of trouble. Despite the fact that they told him they would help if he wanted to search, and despite the fact that they knew her name, they never volunteered the information to her son. It is also infuriating to think that we spent decades in the dark about the welfare of our children when the ones who had our children had open access to our identities.

So all this crap about "protecting the (natural) mother's privacy" is pure manure. The fact that many (No, I can't say ALL) of these people had our names means that fairness should ensure that we have equal access to their identities AND to the amended and original birth certificates of our children. We have been saying, for years, that none of us were ever promised life-long anonymity from our offspring. That has been nothing but smoke, mirrors and the adoption industry covering their pink asses.

The more we find out, the more there is for those in the industry and those who benefited from our loss to worry about. It's about time that the myth of the protection of the (natural)mother's privacy was laid to rest. I, for one, am tired of taking the heat from adoptees who believe that garbage and the ones who spread it around. It was the ADOPTERS who wanted and got the protection...period!

Let's try a little bit of truth in the mix.

When Can It Be About Us?

Ontario has much of which they can be proud, today. With much wrangling and a grudging acceptance of those dumb, disclosure vetoes, adoption records are open for both mother and adoptees. I want to believe that this means there is hope for us, in the US, for equitable access to records for those of us who lost the most during the EMS.

Even though I am reunited with both my adult, surrendered children, I would still like to have a copy of all my records, signed surrender agreements and the amended birth certificate. Fair is fair. With the adoption industry as part of the sacred, American bottom line, we lag far behind other nations in this important arena. If it makes money and is in that good, old spirit of free enterprise and capitalism, then it is one of those things that have to be dismantled, brick by brick, like the Berlin wall, and done with stringent opposition.

For the members of SMAAC, open records is not about reunion, although anyone saying that reunion is not an issue is in denial, nor is it just about adopted adults. It is about a national injustice visited on vulnerable, young women and their innocent babies. The industry and the government, social workers and "the experts" began by throwing our (the mothers) civil and human rights in the crapper and are now doing it to the children who came from us. The thing is, why do they want to control the right to know for adults in their 40's??? My daughter is a grandmother, for Pete's Sake! What is wrong with that picture?

To take it even further, what is wrong with the idea that we mothers need some recognition of just what was done to us? Why is this ignored? Whose ass is being covered? The industry has spent the majority of the time that this issue of open records has been around blaming us and our (fictional) "guaranteed privacy" and setting our children against us. I get so furious when these people presume to speak for us and don't even tell our truth. THE ONLY PARTIES GUARANTEED ANY PRIVACY OR ANONYMITY WERE THE ADOPTERS! Was that loud enough for you or should I enlarge the font?

Ontario has taken a giant leap forward and I applaud the efforts that got them to this place. Meanwhile, we in the US are still being dragged around in 1950's-style hypocrisy. It sucks.

Saying Good-Bye to Mom

This blog will have nothing to do with adoption or related topics, today.


You see, for the past 20 years of being married to her wonderful son, I have been honored to be allowed to call Alice Genevieve Case Westbrook "Mom." She knew all about my "scarlet" past, yet loved me unconditionally because I loved her son. She treated my children as her grandchildren, just as if they were her own. My two youngest call her "Grandmama Westbrook."

Mom was born on February 18, 1915. She married my late father-in-law when she was 18 and had eight children, which included one set of unexpected twins. She raised these children, did hard work on the farm and in the house and, when Dad got tired of Michigan winters, moved with him and their 3 youngest daughters to Florida. She also has 21 grandchildren (25 including mine), and I think, 27 great-grandchildren and 5 great-great grandchildren. The family is so large, there could be more or less in the "great-great" category. She lost her husband of 59 years in 1993. A little over 2 years ago, she lost the second man in her life, her gentleman friend, Grandy.

Although severely hampered by arthritis, loss of hearing and macular degeneration, Mom tried to live to the fullest, right up to the end. A defiant red-head, she would remind her daughters when it was time to hide the gray roots. She knew her bank balance to the penny and had every piece of business correspondence read to her and explained if she didn't get a point or two. She lived life on her own terms and died the same way.

Last night, at 11:25PM, one week after falling ill on Mother's Day, Mom passed away, peacefully and painlessly, in her own bed, in her own home with four of her children there. I was honored to participate in her care and be included at the bedside. At 94, Mom had decided she was due a good, long rest.

Mom was known to my hubby and I for what we call "Mom-isms." Our favorite is the one when she was complaining about all the shark attacks on Florida's east coast a few years ago. She grumbled about how no one could go to the beach and have fun, anymore, because it was too dangerous. My husband tried to remind her that, when people entered the surf, they were going into the shark's territory. "But they have the whole ocean!," reasoned Mom. We also will go the rest of our life knowing that Alzheimer's is really "Al Hizer's" and that you must "unthaw" anything that is frozen. She hated turning on the air conditioner, even when it was really hot and we would often have to turn the thermostat down in her house when she wasn't looking because we were sweating.

We will remember Mom's really not-too-good meatloaf, her refusal to buy bananas when they reached 50 cents a pound, how she loved a party, the way she would get pink-cheeked and sparkly-eyed after an eggnog or a glass of wine and her fondness for strawberries in any form. We will remember her generosity to her children that contrasted with her tendency to pinch a penny until it screamed. We will look through her massive collection of DVD's of old musicals and comedies which she would watch and re-watch, even after her sight started failing. We will remember her full and hearty laugh when something was funny.

I lost my mother when I was only 23, but, for the past 20 years, I can honestly say I had a Mom.

Goodbye Mom. Enjoy your rest.

Another Shout!

In this battle over unsealing closed adoption records, something interesting is happening in Missouri. There is an interesting post about this on Musing Mother's blog. She also has a link to an article about this issue. It is enlightening reading.

Seeing as how the records were sealed at the time of the adoption, NOT at the time of the surrender, we can figure out who actually wanted privacy. Those saintly adopters couldn't have us slutty beemommies reclaiming our babies and the agencies and attorneys couldn't afford our grief and awakening. The judges certainly didn't want to give up their God role of "creating families." So there you have it. They are throwing out a myth and hoping it passes as truth.

This just ticks me off, big time.

Can't Anyone Hear Us??

It seems that, no matter how many times we say it and in how many ways we say it, the ones who need to hear this just can't seem to pick it up. Here goes, one more time...NO WHERE, IN ANYTHING WE WERE COERCED INTO SIGNING WHEN WE WERE YOUNG, UNMARRIED MOTHERS CAUGHT IN THE EMS/BSE WEB, DID IT SAY ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT GUARANTEEING OUR 'PRIVACY!'

The whole argument given by the closed-records proponents seems to be built around protection of the natural mother's privacy. That is just so much reeking manure! Guaranteed privacy was for the adopters....not the mothers. We were supposed to go away, keep our loss a secret and, if the wishes of the adopters were granted, die young.

Too many of us took those injunctions to never speak of our experience to heart for too many years. There is a very small minority of mothers from that era who still operate from shame and secrecy. But they do NOT speak for the bulk of us anymore than the, so-called, experts do. In other words, ask US. Don't ask the Evan B. Donaldson Institute or the social workers or adoption attorneys and anyone who has adopted. They are going to cover their asses and lie.

The most ridiculous aspect of this whole thing is the fact that these people are trying to control free association between ADULTS!! My daughter's adoptress tried to make me back off after my daughter found me. I answered her by letting her know that my daughter was 33 years old and it would be her decision as to whether or not to pursue a relationship. And here I thought that the Civil War took care of this ownership of human beings thingy.

The legal machine in this country, the courts and the judiciary have played God so long that I think they actually believe they should have the power to create virgins out of young girls who have given birth and something superior to the blood bond when they "make a family." Puh-leeze, people! You can twist and pull at that bond, but it never breaks. Unfortunately, it does distort and causes unbelievable pain.

SMAAC and other groups like it are not about what happens after adoption. We are concerned with what happened to us from the time we became pregnant until surrender. Some of us are finding out that the period between surrender to the agencies and the actual adoption was a time when we were the only parents recognized. It was a time when, had we been told and received the proper support, we could have taken our children back. The lies we were told are legion. The truth-twisting of today is nothing more than the original liars trying to paste Kevlar to their quivering butt cheeks.

Stop blaming mothers and start opening the records for us all. It's time for the secrets and lies to be laid to rest.

And a word of advice to a few of you adopted people; It really scares a lot of the moms, who are still traumatized by the treatment we received when we lost you, to read the vile and hateful things many of you post about natural mothers. We DO have a right to protect our peace of mind and to protect our personal safety. Get mad at the right people and stop raking your mothers over the coals. Just a suggestion.

Stop, Children...What's That Sound...?

Everybody look what's going down.....

Sometimes, the best plans are not those that are touted while still in the embryonic stage, but that are carefully incubated and nurtured until they are ready to fly on their own merits. We are watching and formulating and refining our plans. We are standing up and speaking out.

Our adult children are turning out to be a very scrappy lot, as well. Their fight for their OBCs is admirable. I would love to know that those who believe the industry hype that it is us, their mothers, who block their worthy ambition, would read, listen and believe that we are capable of making our own decisions and forming our own relationships. We represent the majority and we want our children to know us.

We had our autonomy taken from us when we were vulnerable, alone, pregnant and without familial support. Now, in our 5th, 6th, and 7th decades of life, we are taking that autonomy back and speaking out. Though the message may differ a bit from mother to mother, the underlying truth that we all want to convey is this....we are mad as Hell and we are not going to take it, anymore. We are tired to our bones of pro-adoption entities, attorneys, agencies and social workers presuming to speak for us. Using "beemommie" privacy as a ruse to deny open records is one such presumptive action. Please, Mr. Legal Eagle...show me, in the body of the surrender documents that I was forced to sign as a minor, where it says that I am guaranteed any kind of privacy or protection from my own child. That's something I neither requested nor was I promised. But the myth rolls on.

Just as our children have a battle on their hands, so do we. We are the source. We are the first victims of the idiocy of transference of a healthy infant from our bodies to strangers. We are adults, now...no longer frightened, vulnerable young girls who can be controlled by shame and intimidation and horror stories.

So, to paraphrase the song...There's a woman with the truth over there, telling the industry, "you'd better beware."

Special thanks to a very talented Senior Mom for the graphic.

Someone Is Thinking Straight in Malawi

Huzzah and Hallelulia! The Malawi court has spoken. It seems that all the judges in this little nation cannot be bought by wealth and celebrity. Citing the 18-month residency requirement for adopting, a court has ruled that Madonna, the material, serial adopter-celeb, cannot adopt little Mercy James. This is good news, I am sure, for Mercy's grandmother and other family members. The photo at the left is the official reading of the order denying the adoption. At the right, looking extremely sweet, is the child in question.

It is being observed that, when the singer/actress adopted young David Banda, she was, at the time, married to Guy Ritchie. Now divorced, she petitioned to adopt Mercy as a single "parent." I can't help but chuckle at that one. It's about time that the sauce for the goose became gravy for the gander. Even if I do decry the sexism in that idea, it couldn't have impacted on a more deserving target.

At least one child, for now, has escaped the international adoption craze. This little girl is not going to be an accessory or artificial halo. Nor will she be an object for the arrogant assumption by a wealthy person that they would make a superior "mother." I hope, when she gets older, Mercy is able to count her blessings on this one.

I read about David Banda's (Madonna's first Malawi acquisition) visit with his father and was appalled. He said many things that lead me to believe that he had been coached. I am sure, all protestations aside, that the poor man was crushed by his son's inability to connect to him and the lack of sensitivity to his poverty, occupation and culture.

I am even more appalled at the kind of message this is giving the young women of today. I have even read where girls are talking about growing up to ADOPT. Hey! What happened to becoming mothers the way nature intended? Equally disturbing is the casual comment from a few years ago by a young co-worker. She said that, if she should become pregnant while still single and in school, she would want one of her professors, an infertile woman, to adopt the baby. She looked at me like I was speaking ancient Sanskrit when I mentioned that it would be a painful experience for her and her child to surrender her baby for adoption. "Oh, things aren't like that, anymore," she replied. I wonder if she believes that mothers no longer feel the pain and grief of loss?

Well, at least one adoption has been thwarted, for now, and it proves that money and fame cannot always get what it wants when it wants it. I sincerely hope that Ms. Cone-Tits plays with her boy-toys and backs off.

Now, if someone will just jam a stick in the spokes of Angelina's adoption wheel, I'll feel there is some justice in the world.

All's Fair In Adoption?

It would seem, according to this CNN story, that breaking the law of any country is okie-dokie if the perpetrator is a pair of adopters who "dreamed of becoming parents." In a country (Egypt) where adoption is not legal, our "heroes" falsified documents in order to procure children for their "parenting needs."

As the story comes out, the attorneys for these people are going for the sympathy vote by waxing eloquently about their overwhelming need for a child. The bitch of it is that no one respects the laws of the country involved, just as no one respects the culture of the country of a child's birth or the person who brought a child into the world. No...all the sympathy is with the heroic, saintly adopters who suffer from infertility. The suffering of the mothers, grief and pain, and the suffering of the children who are not allowed their own, true heritage, take a back seat to the problems of the infertile and the adopters seeking social canonization. In 1962, if I had been told that I had to either lose my children to adoption(which is what I was told to do) or be infertile and never give birth, I think I would have chosen the latter.

What is wrong with this picture? Have we, the American public, fallen so fast and hard for the industry hype that we only validate the pain of the adopters while negating the deeper pain of the mothers of adoption loss and their children, shorn of their civil right to their own identities?

What about the case of the couple who abducted and raised a young man after the mother and father changed their minds about surrender? Not only did the kidnappers (and make no mistake...that is what they are) get all the sympathy, but even the abductee involved was supportive of the criminals that raised him. No one spared a thought for the parents that had searched for their son for years. I still do a slow burn over the injustice of that one.

So now falsifying birth certificates in Egypt and breaking the laws of that nation is being excused as a means to a "noble" end. How noble is adoption which is really all about the selfish needs of the adults that adopt and the money made by the industry? No one who really knows the score pretends, any longer, that it is all about the children, except the industry spin doctors and the adopters, themselves. There is no compassion for the mothers who have been made to represent the "sins of Eve" to the prudish and hard-nosed among us. And the children are seen as ungrateful if they, as adults, insist on their civil rights.

When did our world become so off-kilter that there is no compassion for mothers who lose their children and children deprived of their mothers? Why is that sacred bond no longer honored for what it is? Natural family preservation seems to only be for those that follow obscure and judgmental rules that have nothing to do with loving thy neighbor. Churches have long tried to keep their hands in the social engineering pot, doing all they can do to see that children are raised by "the right kind" of people, ie., those who follow the tenets of the church.

Somewhere in this land of myth and legend, there has to be someone who cringes at the thought of punishing an unmarried and/or financially disadvantaged mother by taking her child. Diogenes needs to lend us his lantern, but, rather than searching for an honest man, we need to search for what we have lost...balanced values and true compassion.

It's out there. I know it is.

Separation Anxiety Is The Pits!!

We've only had him since December 13. He sheds, he wakes me up at 5:00AM for walkies and he loves to bark at anything and everything. He also owns our hearts, totally.

Today, I had to leave him at the vet. Rocky's unfortunate dietary quirks (snatching old garbage and worse if we don't get to him in time) has given him a case of pancreatitis. He will be receiving shots and IV fluids for three days and will be on meds and a special diet for the next three weeks.

As I watched the tech walk away with him, I found myself shaking and fighting back the tears, even though I know he is going to be OK. It just reminded me, too much, of how I felt when I had to say goodbye to my two oldest children. Of course, I know he is just a dog, but he is a member of the family and most dearly loved. If it is shaking me up this much to leave my dog at the animal hospital, how did I ever manage to make it without my babies?

I remember going totally numb after the second loss. I didn't want to feel anything. I was a zombie, emotionally. For years, I would become a screaming bitch every April and June. I would hide it, as best I could, from my raised children, but it was only denial, self-anesthetizing with excess food, pot and fantasy that allowed me to live any semblance of a normal life.

Someone on one of the groups said that every social worker should be a mother of adoption loss as part of the required experience for the job. Boy, would that turn things around! Every mother who has lost a child to adoption, unless she is cold to the bone, who insists she did the "right thing" and "has no regrets" is lying to herself. That lie will consume her, from the inside out. It will haunt her, even if she can't recognize the specter for what it is.

Adoptees are not the only ones who suffer from abandonment issues and separation anxiety. We moms have it, as well. Especially the separation anxiety. They say I will have him back in three days. I wish it had worked that way with my babies.

Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da

Life goes on, YEAH!

This is the very first picture I received of my newest great-grandson, Sean. He is now a healthy 4-month old. He is the grandson of my reunited daughter, my firstborn.

Sean comes into the world with his heritage intact. His genetic relatives are alive and kicking. Those of the adoptive variety are deceased or scattered. I and I, alone, have the honor of being his paternal great- grandmother.

Sean's big brother and his cousins know that Grandma was raised by other people, but that I am, in my oldest great-grandson's words, their REAL great-grandma. I am the one that sends Christmas and birthday gifts and receives the pictures and relates the stories about the cute things they say and do. There is no confusion or misunderstandings about why they have full lips, straight hair or big feet.

I hope you will forgive me a bit of a "so there!" attitude on this one. All the attempts, by the industry, the social workers playing God, and the adopters trying to live a fantasy, to wipe out the natural heritage of my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren has come to naught. Their socially engineered "solution" to my problem and that of my daughter's adopters has faded like a fog in the sun. Yes, we have the scars from that weird transplant surgery called adoption, but they are not crippling us for life and have not hidden the truth from the world. I am here, alive, available and honest about it all.

My reunited son also has the full story. I was noting, during a recent phone call, that he has a mannerism very much like one of my mother's and my raised daughter's. His reply was that you could "take the boy out of the Kinneys, but you couldn't take the Kinney out of the boy." I think that is a testament to the fact that the entire idea of secret, closed, coerced adoptions under the auspices of an intolerant society, has failed, completely.

Those trying to protect this struggling, sick dinosaur by filing suit to try to keep records closed, by closing off so-called "open" adoptions and raising the non-existent specter of (natural)Parents' right to privacy are spitting in the wind. Whether it happens in my lifetime or down the road, the beast is dying of internal rot. Adoption agencies are dropping like flies and all the corruption and child-theft is coming to light in the world at large. Mothers of adoption loss from the closed, secret era are making noises that repute the right of the nay-sayers to speak for them.

It was while organizing my photos and lingering over those of my great-grandchildren, the ones the industry would have prevented me ever knowing, that it came to me that every word we type or speak is being read or heard by someone. I can get discouraged at times, but I stood back and took a look and realized that what they are hearing are the first tremors of the earthquake to come. The industry and those that benefit from it are hearing the rumblings and feeling uneasy. I love to watch the adult adoptees, our children, rattle the chains of the status quo.

The dinosaurs were eradicated. The saber-tooth cat and the mammoth are no more. But life goes on. It will go on long after I am gone. And the best thing is that ALL my descendants will know from which branch of the Tree of Life they grew.

To those who shamed, punished, coerced us and tried to silence us; Ain't this a kick in the head?