I do wonder this often? Why would someone set out on a search for their birth mother or birth parents?
Of course, I get the need for people needing an organ or tissue donor...or some kind of medical emergency.
But for someone like me...not in need of medical information...why would I? How would it benefit me?
Am I really missing something?
Am I somehow inherently inadequate due to being adopted and just don't realize it yet? Or am in denial of my inadequateness?
I don't feel a void. Why would I? I have parents...I have siblings....I have a family.
I don't have a billboard in my yard alerting neighbors to my adopted status. There's no stigma.
I know where my parents live. I know who they are.
What would I gain?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Monday, August 6, 2007
Another quick thought on the Kiefer adoption case....
Just so I am clear...I am not siding with either party. It's a sad case for everyone involved and one that I think could have been avoided.
Just really sad for all the families.
Just really sad for all the families.
Another adoption in the shadows....
Speaking of adoptions being carried out in the grey areas...what is the deal with the case over in Mississippi.
The two sisters are Jamie Kiefer and Rikki Swann. Kiefer is the biological mother of the infant. Her lawyer said she was "preyed upon by her ex-husband, Daniel Kiefer, who took advantage of her extreme depression to have her give up the child, who was fathered by his brother, Jimmy."
The baby went to co-workers from the restaurant where she worked...however she soon requested to void her surrender of the baby. The adopting couple didn't want to give her up...so Ms. Kiefer started to go through the courts.
For whatever her reasons, it now seems that she is accused of 'kidnapping' her own child by force from the adoptive family.
I don't see where this is going to have a happy ending...and it's just so sad. Why, oh why, does the law make it possible to transfer ownership of a child like an item at a garage sale. Seller's remorse happens in garage sales...it should NEVER come into play in an adoption.
It ought to be a celebration....not a conspiracy.
Two sisters have pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from the alleged abduction of a 5-month-old infant more than a week ago.
The two sisters are Jamie Kiefer and Rikki Swann. Kiefer is the biological mother of the infant. Her lawyer said she was "preyed upon by her ex-husband, Daniel Kiefer, who took advantage of her extreme depression to have her give up the child, who was fathered by his brother, Jimmy."
The baby went to co-workers from the restaurant where she worked...however she soon requested to void her surrender of the baby. The adopting couple didn't want to give her up...so Ms. Kiefer started to go through the courts.
For whatever her reasons, it now seems that she is accused of 'kidnapping' her own child by force from the adoptive family.
I don't see where this is going to have a happy ending...and it's just so sad. Why, oh why, does the law make it possible to transfer ownership of a child like an item at a garage sale. Seller's remorse happens in garage sales...it should NEVER come into play in an adoption.
It ought to be a celebration....not a conspiracy.
Farmington Utah Adoption Case
I have been off and on following the case of Nikolas Thurnwald out in Utah.
His child was put up for adoption against his wishes and without his consent. Three years have gone by and NOW the lawyer is saying it would be mean to take the child away. Well...duh...it's been three years. It is mean.
But who is the mean one? Seems like the father tried to step up to the plate but was not allowed to stop the adoption.
I can't imagine the trauma of seperating this child from the only family they know after 3 years....terrible. But why was this ever allowed to happen in the first place.
I guess that's my hangup...why is adoption a shady back door, sneaky thing? It should be a celebration...not something done in the shadows.
Oh what a tangled web....
His child was put up for adoption against his wishes and without his consent. Three years have gone by and NOW the lawyer is saying it would be mean to take the child away. Well...duh...it's been three years. It is mean.
But who is the mean one? Seems like the father tried to step up to the plate but was not allowed to stop the adoption.
I can't imagine the trauma of seperating this child from the only family they know after 3 years....terrible. But why was this ever allowed to happen in the first place.
I guess that's my hangup...why is adoption a shady back door, sneaky thing? It should be a celebration...not something done in the shadows.
Oh what a tangled web....
My thoughts on the Open vs Closed Adoption idea....
I've read over the description discussing open adoption vs. closed adoption....
It should be noted that I:
a)was born in in California.
b)became a ward of the state sometime after birth
c)was adopted in a closed adoption in California at 14 months.
Therefore...I only have the personal experience of an adoptee in a closed adoption...
That being said...I can see other reasons for a closed adoption rather than the mentioned preference to "preserve the myth" that the family was biological.
What if the birth parent is an abuser or harmed other children in his/her custody? The adoptive family should not live in fear of harm or kidnapping by forcing the exchange of information across the board. There is undoubtedly a time and place where closed adoptions are in the child's best interests.
I do not feel that my parents were ever trying to "preserve the myth." They were always open and honest about my adoption and it certainly was never a mark of shame.
To paint adoptive families with the wide brush and taint of having conspired to "preserve the myth" seems like bologna. The description makes it seem as if adoptive parents are guilty of something.
Bah...I don't buy that.
That being said...as a mother...could I just hand my child over sight unseen to whomever was at the top of the waiting list. It's a baby...a human being...not a burger out the windows at McD's.
And if you believe the state has the best interest of the child in mind....well... go pick up a newspaper.
It should be noted that I:
a)was born in in California.
b)became a ward of the state sometime after birth
c)was adopted in a closed adoption in California at 14 months.
Therefore...I only have the personal experience of an adoptee in a closed adoption...
That being said...I can see other reasons for a closed adoption rather than the mentioned preference to "preserve the myth" that the family was biological.
What if the birth parent is an abuser or harmed other children in his/her custody? The adoptive family should not live in fear of harm or kidnapping by forcing the exchange of information across the board. There is undoubtedly a time and place where closed adoptions are in the child's best interests.
I do not feel that my parents were ever trying to "preserve the myth." They were always open and honest about my adoption and it certainly was never a mark of shame.
To paint adoptive families with the wide brush and taint of having conspired to "preserve the myth" seems like bologna. The description makes it seem as if adoptive parents are guilty of something.
Bah...I don't buy that.
That being said...as a mother...could I just hand my child over sight unseen to whomever was at the top of the waiting list. It's a baby...a human being...not a burger out the windows at McD's.
And if you believe the state has the best interest of the child in mind....well... go pick up a newspaper.
Open Adoptions vs. Closed Adoptions....
A Wikipedia overview of the differences between open adoptions and closed adoptions:
Open adoption is a term generally used to describe a variety of arrangements allowing for ongoing contact between members of the 'adoption triad' (adoptive family, birth family, and adopted child). The level of openness in any relationship varies widely. Degrees of open arrangements span from mediated contact, which implies letters and photographs sent through a third party (so that the adoptive family can maintain privacy), to full the full disclosure of the adoptive family's personal information. In fully open adoptions, there is actual physical contact, through meetings and visits between the birth family and the adptive family. Sometimes an adoption agency may describe an adoption as 'open' when the birth-mother (and/or birth-father) may have a say or may make the actual decision on who is chosen to parent their child, though this is not the generally accepted definition.
An adoption where the adoptive and birth parents do not become aware of each others' identities and where only medical and historical information is given to the adoptive parents is known as a closed adoption.
Although open adoptions are thought to be a relatively new phenomenon, in fact most adoptions in the United States were open until the twentieth century. Until the 1930's, most adoptive parents and birth parents had contact at least during the adoption process.[1] In many cases, adoption was seen as a social support: young children were adopted out not only to help their parents (by reducing the number of children they had to support) but also to help another family by providing an apprentice.
Adoptions became closed when social pressures mandated that families preserve the myth that they were formed biologically. One researcher has referred to these families, that made every attempt to match the child physically to their adoptive families 'as if' families.
Openness became the norm when infants available for adoption became scarce, and birth parents had the ability to negotiate acceptable terms for their children, including the ability to participate in decisions about who they wanted to parent their child.
Proponents of open adoption maintain that such adoptions are better for the child and represent best practice. Increasingly, as children growing up in open adoptive homes are studied, adoption researchers are finding that this might be a preferable adoption arrangement. Civil rights advocates argue that openness is the right of all children, who are entitled to information about their history and heritage.
One important fact related to openness is that open adoptions are not legally enforceable agreements in many jurisdictions. The adoptive parents may terminate all contact with the birth parent(s) at any time and for any reason.
Open adoption is a term generally used to describe a variety of arrangements allowing for ongoing contact between members of the 'adoption triad' (adoptive family, birth family, and adopted child). The level of openness in any relationship varies widely. Degrees of open arrangements span from mediated contact, which implies letters and photographs sent through a third party (so that the adoptive family can maintain privacy), to full the full disclosure of the adoptive family's personal information. In fully open adoptions, there is actual physical contact, through meetings and visits between the birth family and the adptive family. Sometimes an adoption agency may describe an adoption as 'open' when the birth-mother (and/or birth-father) may have a say or may make the actual decision on who is chosen to parent their child, though this is not the generally accepted definition.
An adoption where the adoptive and birth parents do not become aware of each others' identities and where only medical and historical information is given to the adoptive parents is known as a closed adoption.
Although open adoptions are thought to be a relatively new phenomenon, in fact most adoptions in the United States were open until the twentieth century. Until the 1930's, most adoptive parents and birth parents had contact at least during the adoption process.[1] In many cases, adoption was seen as a social support: young children were adopted out not only to help their parents (by reducing the number of children they had to support) but also to help another family by providing an apprentice.
Adoptions became closed when social pressures mandated that families preserve the myth that they were formed biologically. One researcher has referred to these families, that made every attempt to match the child physically to their adoptive families 'as if' families.
Openness became the norm when infants available for adoption became scarce, and birth parents had the ability to negotiate acceptable terms for their children, including the ability to participate in decisions about who they wanted to parent their child.
Proponents of open adoption maintain that such adoptions are better for the child and represent best practice. Increasingly, as children growing up in open adoptive homes are studied, adoption researchers are finding that this might be a preferable adoption arrangement. Civil rights advocates argue that openness is the right of all children, who are entitled to information about their history and heritage.
One important fact related to openness is that open adoptions are not legally enforceable agreements in many jurisdictions. The adoptive parents may terminate all contact with the birth parent(s) at any time and for any reason.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Adoptee Registries....
I must say, that although I have looked at many, many different registries and search board for adoptees and birth parents....I have never signed up on one or submitted my information to any adoption search board.
Ewww...my luck is that there would be a match. lol
It's not that I'm not curious. I am.
But I haven't found a board that allows you to remain a fly on the wall.
You know....learn who it is...but never have to actually trade information to unveil my identity.
lol...nothing like having my cake and eating it too.
But....I like my life and love my family. I don't know that I can risk 'finding' a complete freak.
Perhaps someday I will be braver and sign up on a adoption search.
Ewww...my luck is that there would be a match. lol
It's not that I'm not curious. I am.
But I haven't found a board that allows you to remain a fly on the wall.
You know....learn who it is...but never have to actually trade information to unveil my identity.
lol...nothing like having my cake and eating it too.
But....I like my life and love my family. I don't know that I can risk 'finding' a complete freak.
Perhaps someday I will be braver and sign up on a adoption search.
Searching for a Birth Parent....
Wow...now I've got to say that searching for a birth parent must be a mind-boggling quest to decide to undertake.
I mean...how does someone decide to do this. I mean...to really do it. Sign up in the adoption registry and search boards...the whole nine yards. To actually really connect with this person(s).
I know everyone who is adopted has their own story....and for many I can quickly understand why they'd want to know.
However...could I ever take that step.
Ouch...I dunno. Maybe I'm a coward...lol...that part of me that just "knows" that whoever it is would probably be a jerk so why bother.
You know....the part that says no way could I trust that a complete stranger would act like a decent human being if I ever 'found' them....
I mean...how does someone decide to do this. I mean...to really do it. Sign up in the adoption registry and search boards...the whole nine yards. To actually really connect with this person(s).
I know everyone who is adopted has their own story....and for many I can quickly understand why they'd want to know.
However...could I ever take that step.
Ouch...I dunno. Maybe I'm a coward...lol...that part of me that just "knows" that whoever it is would probably be a jerk so why bother.
You know....the part that says no way could I trust that a complete stranger would act like a decent human being if I ever 'found' them....
"Birth Parents" vs "Adopted Parents"
Birth parents....hmmmmm....the term just seems like a misnomer to me.
It's not that I am upset with the person who gave birth to me, nor do I think they are some lesser form of life. I am quite pleased that I was brought into this world.
lol... quite the ego I have. ha
However, I do not think I could relegate my parents to some artifical position of "adoptive parents" because of curiousity about the person that gave birth to me. As if they suddenly slip into a different category. They are my parents....no designation...just my parents. They raised me. They love me. Despite my goofiness...or because of it. lol
It's not that I am upset with the person who gave birth to me, nor do I think they are some lesser form of life. I am quite pleased that I was brought into this world.
lol... quite the ego I have. ha
However, I do not think I could relegate my parents to some artifical position of "adoptive parents" because of curiousity about the person that gave birth to me. As if they suddenly slip into a different category. They are my parents....no designation...just my parents. They raised me. They love me. Despite my goofiness...or because of it. lol
Some thoughts on my adoption story......
Since I am adopted, my attention is often caught by news stories about adoption. I know many have their own opinion on the topic...this is just mine.
The article I was reading in the OC Register stated:
Unmarried girls who found themselves with child some 40 or 50 years ago were always reassured that adoption was the best course.
Babies were given to loving parents unable to have their own children.
Everyone will be content, said social workers in the mid-20th century.
But life doesn't always work out the way the experts predict.
"The adoption experience makes development of a sense of self, the ability to understand 'Who am I?' very difficult," says Joey Nesler, a Newport Beach psychotherapist.
Nesler, who was a adopted as a baby, has built her career on working with birth parents who gave up children for adoption, adoptive parents and the adoptees themselves.
"It's difficult in later life," she says. "It's a challenge to know who you are."
I read that opening again...and questioned myself. Do I know who I am? As being adopted made that difficult???
It's not so much that I disagree with the line of thought, but perhaps my experience is not the norm. I am well aware of who I am and have never felt confused about that.
However, further in the article it reads:
Q: Do adult adoptees come to you to work out these specific problems?
A: People – usually in their late 40s and 50s – usually say their adoption was a great experience. They say they are coming for other reasons, such as depression, problems with their career.
Once they are in therapy, they discover what's causing their trouble is abandonment, no sense of where they came from or who they were.
Hmmmmmm.... that is interesting. I am 38, so a bit younger than the age group mentioned. Maybe that's why I haven't sensed a dread of abandonment. If it were me analyzing myself (ha).... I'd have to say that rather than fearing abandonment, I just avoid that feeling altogether by not allowing myself to get too close to people or to trust them.
That is eerie. lol
I wonder if it's because I fear being abandoned...or just because I think that only a rare few people are actually trustworthy. Most folks are just in it for what they can get out of it...users. I generally feel that they have an ulterior motive. They have generally proven this true.
So...is it because I was adopted that I feel this way...or are people just self-interested jerks (by and large) who would eat their grandma if it enriched them.
..........
The article I was reading in the OC Register stated:
Unmarried girls who found themselves with child some 40 or 50 years ago were always reassured that adoption was the best course.
Babies were given to loving parents unable to have their own children.
Everyone will be content, said social workers in the mid-20th century.
But life doesn't always work out the way the experts predict.
"The adoption experience makes development of a sense of self, the ability to understand 'Who am I?' very difficult," says Joey Nesler, a Newport Beach psychotherapist.
Nesler, who was a adopted as a baby, has built her career on working with birth parents who gave up children for adoption, adoptive parents and the adoptees themselves.
"It's difficult in later life," she says. "It's a challenge to know who you are."
I read that opening again...and questioned myself. Do I know who I am? As being adopted made that difficult???
It's not so much that I disagree with the line of thought, but perhaps my experience is not the norm. I am well aware of who I am and have never felt confused about that.
However, further in the article it reads:
Q: Do adult adoptees come to you to work out these specific problems?
A: People – usually in their late 40s and 50s – usually say their adoption was a great experience. They say they are coming for other reasons, such as depression, problems with their career.
Once they are in therapy, they discover what's causing their trouble is abandonment, no sense of where they came from or who they were.
Hmmmmmm.... that is interesting. I am 38, so a bit younger than the age group mentioned. Maybe that's why I haven't sensed a dread of abandonment. If it were me analyzing myself (ha).... I'd have to say that rather than fearing abandonment, I just avoid that feeling altogether by not allowing myself to get too close to people or to trust them.
That is eerie. lol
I wonder if it's because I fear being abandoned...or just because I think that only a rare few people are actually trustworthy. Most folks are just in it for what they can get out of it...users. I generally feel that they have an ulterior motive. They have generally proven this true.
So...is it because I was adopted that I feel this way...or are people just self-interested jerks (by and large) who would eat their grandma if it enriched them.
..........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)