[sam_i_am_71801]

I did bond with my birth mother............in the womb....You don't forget that.......Before I found my mother I would cry for her,...the need to reconnect was so strong...................we each have different stories, different views and experiences......so don't let one book or one persons theory defer you from believing in who you are and who you have become..........all authors are not the smart...........just because they have book on the market does not make them experts in the field..........look at Dr Spock who never had kids......portraying to be an expert in the field of rearing children........what a hokie he was.....he didnt poop the kid out he didnt change the crappy diapers,,,he didn't wake up all hours of the night to tend to a crying baby.........but he had the gaul to call himself an expert........hes a man for crying out loud....GGGeeeeeezzzzzzzz.

[sam_i_am_71801]

I guess I should have signed my post.......I am sammie.....lol thanks for listening............

[Rayma]

I never read that book, but after reading everyones story all I can say is that some of us (ADOPTEES) never bonded with our a/families, like me. I beleive that we are the ones who would be damaged, and some of us may not be. I was quite, never smiled, and when I was old enough to develope as appion, I hated them and never wanted to be part of that family. And that was before I found out that I was adopted! I was so relived to find out that I was adopted - I did not and never wanted to be part of that faqmily! I never felt like I belonged there ayway. I do not have a relaitionship with them. I'm glad to be rid of them! I have not met my bmom.

[lemonchutney]

I already posted this on the adoptive parents bulletin board, and I want to post it here too. Hope no one minds the double posting.

I was just reading Nancy V's controversial book this morning and have isolated one of the reasons it irks me. She has set up a system, much like astrology, where you are bound to recognize yourself in the pages because she never clearly defines what exactly constitutes evidence for a wound, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT: She never defines what would be evidence for a LACK of a wound. In her system, conflicting data are taken as equally valid evidence for her theory!

For instance, say a three-year-old Sally is playing, and her a-mother tells her that in 10 minutes she is going to have to stop playing and put on her shoes so they can go to the store.

Case 1: Sally has a tantrum and refuses to put on her shoes.

Case 2: Sally compliantly puts on her shoes.

In case 1, the rebellion agaist authority is taken as clear evidence of a primal wound. In case 2, the compliance is also taken as clear evidence of a primal wound because Sally is "obviously" a perfectionist and is complying because she is afraid of abandonment.

This is a DOUBLE BIND. This is a religious system, not a scientific theory. In science, if the data do not match the hypothesis, you throw out the hypothesis. In the primal wound system, if the data do not fit, then instead of reexamining the hypothesis the woundists claim the well-adusted parent and child are in DENIAL. This is browbeating and crazy making. That's why I want to fling the book.

On the other hand, Nancy V. makes a lot of valid points. Adoption does entail loss for all triad members and that loss is best dealt with by acknowledging it. She's right that adoptive families are different from non-adoptive families, and that pretending otherwise is not healthy. I completely agree with that, and I know that especially in past decades the losses of all triad members were not acknowledged. I know about disenfranchized grief and that it is harmful. What I find ludicrous is the birth trauma/primal wound/bio-mother idealization aspect of the book. And I'm annoyed by the claim that such hogwash is scientific when it's obviously NOT.

[emm]

Lemonchutney,

You are the most thought provoking person I have met. I enjoy all your posts, whether I agree or not. Thank you.
However, I am inclined to agree with you concerning the "wound". In my previous post I was trying to say that the "wound" if it exsists can be found in any unhappy child.

[lemonchutney]

Thanks Emm!

Here's some more...

Much of the behavioral "evidence" Nancy V. describes is within the bounds of normal human behavior. She offers no reasoning for why we should see these behaviors as evidence of a primal wound, and not attribute the behavior to something else more likely. Here's another double bind:

Susan and Becky are both 25-year-old adult adoptees.

Case 1: Susan sleeps around a lot and hasn't made a serious commitment to anyone.

Case 2. Becky is celibate. She's a virgin and is afraid of contact with men.

Nancy V. would most likely say both of these women are exhibiting clear signs of their primal wounds, yet their behaviors are opposite. Furthermore, their behaviors are quite common in the world of 20-something women, adopted or not. She does this kind of thing all throughout the book, and it's complete garbage.

[emm]

Lemonchutney,

For the sake of your sanity don't you think you should stop reading that blinkin book It could do your head-in I think you have made some valid points, I hope NV reads these posts and rethinks her theory. Some of us truly believe that children can be damaged far more by bad parenting than adoption. I would love there to be a bond between my daughter and me, not at the expense of her relationship with her mother (although it would appeal to my ego).

If my daughter feels a bond to me (we have not seen each other since she was 5 day old) I like to think its because I carried her with love, but it could just be some thing chemical. I would hate to think that carrying her with love put a barrier between her and her mother and stopped her from bonding with her mother. I will let you know if I ever get the chance to ask her.

From what I have read and your explanation of the book, I am sure you have read it correctly, my daughter is a prime example of someone suffering from Primal Wound because she is 27 and still lives at home with her mommy and daddy.She likes to stay home, describes herself as a home bird. I thought she was just really happy with her home life. Was that not what I had hoped for by placing her for adoption?

Thanks again for the insight.
hugs
emm

[lemonchutney]

Yeah, Emm, I am going to stop reading the book. I think I've gleaned from it all that I need to.

Your example of your b-daughter makes me grin. In my case, I moved out of my a-mom's house when I was 17, moved back when I was 19, out again when I was 20, back at 22. Stayed until I finished college at 26. I've been on my own for the last eight years, ever since I started my career.

My birthmother, who is not adopted, is 55 and is living in the home in which she was raised. She moved out briefly in her 20s, then moved back home with her parents and stayed there. She never married, but has had several loving relationships. Before anyone assumes she is living at home because of the trauma of giving up twin babies, her brother is also living there and has never moved out except when he went away to college, and he's never been pregnant as far as I know....

Basically, I think boiling down the behavior and idiosyncrasies of all adoptees into a primal wound denies our autonomy. I went to see a therapist to talk about my feelings about my adoptive father. Well, this therapist is a self-described adoption expert, and she told me my real problem wasn't my adoptive father, but my primal wound. She disrepected my autonomy and in so doing proved herself to be a complete failure as a therapist.

OK, enough ranting. Sheesh.

[radical]

Well, I do believe that primal wound theory can suffer under close scrutiny. It's a theory...like natural selection. But it does merit consideration as well. The baby does know it's own mother and prefers her milk to other breast milk. I do believe that bonding is not accomplished at birth for either mother or child. It's a process, and may be disrupted by many factors (intrusive hospital practices such as taking the baby to the nursery right away, etc...) The whole concept of attachment parenting involves ongoing tactile interaction between mother and baby, whether this mom is natural or adoptive. I do beleive that children bond with their adopters, and can be very happy. I also agree that a good adoption experience is less damaging than poor parenting by a natural mother or mother/father unit. But a woman who is considering adopton for her unplanned infant needs to know the statistics. Yes we all know what Disraeli said, "Lies, ****ed lies, and statistics!" This does not mean that we should not take a look at the correlation between adoption and ADHD. We are only being responsible to the children if we can look honestly at the motives behind infant adoption, and even foster placement. Many children are taken from loving homes and placed in abusive foster homes. I do not deny that abuse takes place, whether physical, sexual or verbal/emotional. If primal wound theory is not "a foregone conclusion", then neither is the idea that an older, middle class couple are going to parent a child more effectively than a sensitive, bright young single mother.

I would like to add that another reason for symptoms of adopted child syndrome may relate more to the cognitive dissonance of reconciling the idea being "given away" with the concept of a "loving choice". Also reconciling one's own identity from a position of having no starting point from which to glean blood lines as in the case of closed records adoptions.

Many adoptees assume that they weren't wanted by their natural parents. In some cases this may be true, but far too often the woman is pressured, shamed and otherwise coerced into relinquishing custody of her child. How is it in the child's best interests to be seperated from a mother who wanted to keep her baby but was without help or resources? Why offer subsidies to adopters instead of to the natural parents?

[lemonchutney]

You've brought up a lot of topics. I will try to address what you mentioned about ADHD and adoption.

I know a couple who are Dr. Sears-loving attachment-parenting perfectionists. They allowed their three bio-children to self-wean, did home schooling, the whole works...Well two of their three boys have ADHD. Is this because of poor parenting? No, it's because ADHD runs in the father's family.

Why the correlation between ADHD, abuse, and adoption? I believe there is a connection, but it often runs the other direction. Have you ever tried to parent a child who picks up an expensive glass vase, asks you if it is breakable, grins broadly, and drops it on the floor? Have you parented a child who does and says whatever crosses his mind, all day long, no matter the consequences? If you have, then you know how frustrating it can be. You will do almost anything to modify the child's behavior, and nothing works. I have spoken with several hapless parents of ADHD children who have resorted to corporal punishment on occasion, and regretted it deeply. Only the most patient and well-trained parents can manage these children.

Unfortunately the birth parent often has a similar neurological disorder, as these disorders tend to run in families. She may be unable to raise children effectively, even under the best of circumstances. And when the child cannot control his behavior, discipline may go to far, or, she may put the child up for adoption voluntarily.

[radical]

Well, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule....but why NOT look at correlations?

I think it might be easier to study the genetic theory in cases of open adoptions than it has been heretofore. I know that I don't have ADHD, nor does the father of my daughter...but she suffers from ADHD and OCD. (She was raised by an adoptive family.) Lots of good families have problems, whether bio or adoptive, I know. I just think the assumption that adoption is in "the best interests of the child" needs to be examined in the light of research and testimonies. I know many adoptees are happy, but do know for sure that you wouldn't have been happy with your genetic families?

And just to defy my own argument here...when I was growing up I used to wish that another family would adopt me as my mother was very rejecting. So....I just think that we really need to commit resources to MOTHER'S primarily, so that REAL choices can be made instead of the the choice between evils which women face today.

[lemonchutney]

>>do know for sure that you wouldn't have been happy with your genetic families?

Well, it's hard to know for sure. Temporarily putting my deep love and respect for my mom (adoptive) aside and only thinking about my bio-mother, I have to say my bio-mother is an intelligent, sensitive, generous woman, who often makes me cackle and giggle with her silly stories. Ironically, it was in finally meeting my bio-mother that I realized what I didn't have -- and how great my loss was. The opportunities for me to know her in the way I know my mom are gone. And in that way, I have had to lose her a second time.

So believe me, I know all about the "what if" game.

What provides me a clear-cut answer to your question is that my bio-mother has been diagnosed as "slightly schizophrenic," she can't drive, she has a difficult time with personal hygeine, can't keep track of time, and can barely earn a living.

When I add to this the relationship I have with my a-mom, I can say, yes, I'm sure I was better off being adopted. Besides, if I wasn't adopted, I wouldn't be living where I'm living; I wouldn't have the husband and child I have. My whole life would have been different. I love my life now, I like who I turned out to be, so I wouldn't want to change a thing about the past.

[radical]

Respectfully acknowledged... radical

[esp1222]

I haven't posted in a while, but I was just reading back through this post and saw something that caught my attention. melissa (a mothers love) said that a mother never just gives her baby away and that babies are wanted by their mothers (I am summarizing, that may not be exact)...anyway, she is right, a "mother" never gives just gives away her baby. The operative word in that sentence is mother. My bmother may be called a mother, but she wasn't one to me. She is one by definition, but not all "mothers" feel like one.

Just a late thought.

Erika

[Rayma]

My son was dianosed with ADHD, then ADA. After checking things out I found out that these are being over dianosed. A lot of childern who are said to have ADHD or ADD are just normal active childern. Many times the teachers first say that the child has one of these and then the child is sent to the school psyoicalagist who then "conforms" it. Some teachers just don't want to deal with active childern. And sometimes it's just bad parenting. ADHD and ADD are or were ( when my son was dianosed) a catch all dianoses. I don't know if my son had it or not but I didn't see any change with any of the meds he was put on. Some people said that they saw a change. Even the doctor said that there was something else wrong with him (with the ADD) after I said something is wrong and its not ADD.


thank You, Rayma