tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33752164.post116215063521659549..comments2023-07-12T06:26:17.735-02:00Comments on Motherhood Deleted: A Week OffRobinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07580241881953821182noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33752164.post-1162342031603395972006-10-31T22:47:00.000-02:002006-10-31T22:47:00.000-02:00Robin,I can see that it appeared that he was sayin...Robin,I can see that it appeared that he was saying something revolutionary..but that isn't so... I think other adoption proponents and social workers have admitted that the records were sealed to protect adopters...Baran and Pannor, and Adam Pertman have said it, and adoptee reformer Jean Paton pointed it out decades ago. She was herself a social worker but did not do adoptions that I know of.<BR/>Watson is now working at the University of Texas:Arlington in the School of Social Work. He has a link on his website to the NCFA infant adoption awareness grant.He is clearly pushing adoption.He is no friend of natural parents.I wonder what he wrote this paper for...and what exactly he is trying to prove.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33752164.post-1162336651061571502006-10-31T21:17:00.000-02:002006-10-31T21:17:00.000-02:00I think I was just concentrating on that one state...I think I was just concentrating on that one statement which is good for us in that a known adoption proponent is telling a home truth....one that many advocates of closed records and no adoption reform have denied over the past few decades.<BR/><BR/>I found some disturbing things in the rest of the article, but I wanted that one fact pointed out to everyone....we didn't get records closed...adopters did.Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07580241881953821182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33752164.post-1162246318534719162006-10-30T20:11:00.000-02:002006-10-30T20:11:00.000-02:00Robin, I also read Larry Watson,LMSW and adoptioni...Robin, I also read Larry Watson,LMSW and adoptionist's , article on the blogspot. He used to be the director of the Methodist Mission "home'..a Texas maternity 'facility' and adoption agency. He is knee-deep in adoption..<BR/>While his article does state the truth that the records were sealed to prevent natural parents from "'interfering"' with the adoptive family...adoptionist Watson still seems to agree with that idea..and holds us responsible. He says that [birth]parents are seen as a dependent and /or deviant group and that we "relinquished" our rights to open records(this is false...an infant surrender is not a surrender of open records, and adoption existed long before the records were sealed). He says that adoptees should separate themselves from our causes, inclduing open records for ourselves..and that the only thing we can do for open records is to support adoptees in their quest for open records for themselves.He contradicts the statement that we didn't "ask for confidentiality" when he says that we relinquished our right to open records.<BR/><BR/>Either we did or we didn't...which is it. He also states that only NCFA and some powerful adopters and a few agencies are against open records..this is untrue..there are many more players in the "keep the records closed" game..the ACLU, PLanned Parenthood, most adoption agencies whether they belong to NCFA or not, are against opening records, to anyone. They want control.<BR/><BR/>I don't know what this guys game is, but it wouldn't be the first time an adoptionist has tried to pretend to be a "friend"....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com