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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)