As you all may know I totallt agree with debsdone, dlouis, shirlyville. There are way to many different circumstances in the adoption world to make any blanket statements. We are talking about the dark ages here. The realities back then can not be appleid to today. Thats a given..we all know that.

Trish with that statement I need to disagree with your statement that adoptive families feelings were of the main concern back then! I would hope that it was the adoptees well being that was the main concern. Was it not true that the prevailing attitude of that time was that we the adoptee was a MAJOR problem for the birthmom, that women needed to be spirited away as not to show your growing belly...that source of shame....families kept it a big secret. I see that as protecting the birthmom. That was the problem that came first. Then what to do with this problem...put the child up for adoption....THEN came the adoptive famlies and there feelings. I don't believe that during the dark ages adoption agencys made the money they do today. State adoptions were much more prevelent, Adoptive parents were not told much of what the circumstances were. Ther were no adoption classes to educate EVERYONE involved. In fact I can remember people telling my parents how wonderful they were for adopting 4 children...someone elses problems....of course they know that tha.t was a wrong attitude. I can't help but think what really would have happened to us if were were kept in the day of such pervasive ingorance...we would have been the bastards,the bad seed ect.....

Everybodies realities are so different from our own...blanket statements just don't apply.

Donna

Just let me add that those prevailing attitudes and social mores of that time was arcaic and wrong but noneteless REAL! We are a product of our times. Adoptive parents of that time should not be lamblasted for what they thought was right and good....based upon what was socially accetable at the time.

[debsdone]

You know, I never thought too much about the "bastard" syndrome! All the secrecy and lies are so often declared as protection for the a-families to "pretend" we were their own. Couldn't it be said that , for those of us who are a bit, ahem, older....that WE were the ones being protected? The new buzzword is TRUTH, and I agree it is the better choice. But the stigma that affected birthmothers existed for "bastards" as well. That is a great point, I need to give it some more thought! Love, Debi

Debi, it only stands to reason that if the pregnancy was something to be ashamed off....wouldn't that shame transend to the child? When ever I hear Dianna Ross's song Lovechild...I think of that. That was the reality back then: " Love child, never quite as good, always second best"...that was a sixties song.

Donna

P.S. Does art imitate life?

[patrisha]

Donna & Debi,

You're right, not saddling the "bastard" label on your child was one of the biggest tools in the box for convincing young mother's to place their children. I believe the Catholic Church ran one of the biggest private agencies in my area in the late 60's, and that was one of their standard lines. All the social service resources were geared to helping the new adoptive parents adapt. To the benefit of the child, yes, in the adopted environment only. No encouragement to parent or assistance programs were offered to the birth mother at all.

I do still believe (agree to disagree) that the anonymity of closed adoption was geared more towards providing the adoptive parents a sense of future security, than to protect the birth parents or their families from future "embarassment".

Trish

Yes, I have to agree that there probuly was a lot of judgment going on,especially(!!!) by the catholic church, or catholic charities, there attitudes , I think were an extreme, but still an example of the times and horrible attitudes that prevailed by society. I KNOW that birth moms were treated horribly bt these instituations and it really sad, and underserved. But, I guess what I don't understand is the resentment felt my birtmoms towards adoptive parents OF THAT TIME....they were in the dark about the real situations...I believe....see as I was the adoptee i was there but unable to really "know".

I do know that in my case my bmom placed me with cc at first but because she didn't "pay up" they were going to bring about abandonment charges...also because she didn't come to see me...it was suppose to be just a temporary placement. They did hand me over to the state. The ironic thing about it is that my dad had looked into cc but became angry with them because it was about the money... more then the child. Hence the adoption through the state.

[patrisha]

"I guess what I don't understand is the resentment felt by birthmoms towards adoptive parents OF THAT TIME....they were in the dark about the real situations.."

I agree Donna. I don't resent the adoptive parents and apologize if any of my posts have sent that message. I do resent that society in general assumed that my baby (and alot of others) would be better off getting placed with any set of adoptive parents then he would have been growing up with his unmarried birth mother.

If you forgive the adoptive parent's behavior that resulted from the "as if born to" advice they were given, then birth mothers that "forgot it ever happened" and have no wish to reunite should be equally exonerated.

Closed adoptions with sealed records IMHO were quite possibly one of the biggest failed experiments that were ever foisted on our society.


Trish

[debsdone]

I guess I was so excited about Donna's post and the new information I was considering, that I wasn't clear. I have NO DOUBT that the closed adoptions were about protecting someone other than the birthmother.....in most cases. In MY case I know the adoption people, (private, through the state) were lying all over the place. It just so happens that my birthmom was lying as well. The ultimate comedy is that the agency (or whatever) people were lying to cover up something said by my birthmom....that wasn't even true! LOL It was all regarding my supposed ethnic background and how it could cause me to look "different" than my a-parents. Now, I THINK, what Donna is saying is also true in my case.....my a-parents were absolutely unaware of all the manipulating that was going on. They were duped as well. And they were told many things about adoption that they still believe today. And I KNOW that the lies they told me about my background were told to "protect" me. What would have been scandalous then, (the bastard thing) is quite ordinary today. But they remain of that time. And as a result of my birthmother disappearing right after my birth, and not responding to court papers, they assumed (correctly) that she didn't want to be found. It is just one situation, but it is enough to take the blanket off of general statements, IMO!! Love, Debi

[shirleyville]

Sharon,
Hey There! Hope all is well with you and yours -- it's been awhile since we've spoken!
I can understand how you might perceive what I said as a "blanket statement" -- I don't think maybe I was as clear as I should have been.
You said....

Your response was ALSO a blanket statement. MANY of us on this forum (I assume that's what you meant by "support groups") relinquished freely. I can't imagine that any human would be "happy" with such a decision... giving up your child forever because you are unable to care for it is no cause for celebration, regardless of whether or not you did it of your own free will.

And I totally agree. Those birthmoms who relinquished their children freely because they were unable to care for their children -- because they didn't have a way or a means to do so -- may have made "peace" with their decisions over the years, but by no means are they happy about having to (at the time) make such a heart wrenching decison.
What I was referring to were those birthmoms who relinquished freely because they simply had no desire to parent , period . There are women out there who found themselves pregnant and had absolutely no desire to keep the child -- means or not. They may have been able to keep the child, financially -- but emotionally had no desire to do so. There are, and were, women who just weren't made to parent...they don't have the maternal instinct, and they find the idea of a child in their world an annoyance, or an inconvenience -- or just plain something that isn't in their lifes plan. THOSE are the birthmoms I was referring to when I said what I said. And I am happy that they made the decisions they did and were able to move on.
At the time my birthmom relinquished me, she had no desire to parent. She was 21 and from all accounts, a bit of a "wild-child". Parenting wasn't in her plans. She didn't WANT a child. That is why she relinquished. And she did so HOPING she would never have to have this (meaning me) resurface. It's obvious from the statements she has made.
Now, she is 60 years old and a mother of three other children and seven grandchildren. She loves her children and her grandchildren. She's been in a lousy relationship since 1970 and her children are all she has. THAT is what she is "terrified of" -- it's not ME . She's afraid of losing that. She can't be terrified of me....she doesn't know me. All she can see is that I am a part of the past -- the part she didn't want. She was in a place in her life where parenting was not an interest of hers and she did what she wanted to do -- freely. People mature and they change and they find new feelings all the time. Somewhere along the way, she decided parenting was for her.....not parenting me -- but parenting Debbie, and the other two kids that came along. Her financial situation was no different -- but her desire was. Those kids have never known there was "another side" to our mom -- they never knew she wasn't "into" parenting and one day gave birth to their sister that she relinquished. She is afraid they won't understand that. THAT is what she is terrified of! It's not me.....it's the part of her life that she never wanted to come out.
I was trying to tie all of that into the original posters questions about "anonymity".......because anonymity was (and is) VERY important to my birthmom, and I can tell you about countless others I have heard about who felt the same.
I am sorry if I wasn't clear...and I didn't mean to make a blanket statement about a blanket statement! LMAO
Take care!
Giant Hugs,
Sally

[Sharon]

Sally,
thanks for clarifying. I know your bmom's not terrified of you personally, but of the idea of her past coming back to haunt her. I also realize how irrational her fear is, and I know you do too. I didn't mean that to sound insulting or hurtful. She doesn't know you, and if she did she'd see that there's no reason to be afraid.
Big hugs back to you,
~ Shar

[patrisha]

Debi,

The ultimate comedy is that my son's birth father (that was also adopted) is a therapist that earns his living counseling adoptees.

When my son contacted him, his response (with no paternity denial) was that "his life is not at a place right now that could support the stress of a reunion".

Can you imagine how my son felt?

Trish

Trish, I most certianly do and have already exonerated them(you), I was brought up to respect my birthmom and her reasons for placing. It was all very abstract because my parents didn't have any info....but I suspect they must have been told not to put birthparents down as that would harm the child...or maybe they just instinctivly knew that and I am not giving them enough credit! But anyway...I was not brought up with negative connoations where birthmom was concerned.

You know after being on these forums I realize more and more each day how special my moms were....my amom really was a smart women and of course being the rotten(not really) kid I was I haven't fully realized until now!

There were times in my relationship with my birthmom that I attemtped to mimimize our relationship,due to my own confusions ect. and to her credit she showed no anger or hurt ...just kept trying. Although she would not delve deeply into the circumstances around my birth...really got angry if I tried.

trish...you have got to be kidding....about your son b father...that makes me almost laugh if it wasn't so sad. Donna

[debsdone]

Oh no, how awful! I can just about hear the patronizing tone he would have used! That me me me mentality is my biggest pet peeve with some therapists. I have had some good therapists, have a GREAT one now, but I have had my share of losers as well. I am of the belief that right is right, pain not withstanding. First make me deal with having done wrong to another....then lets try to understand why I did that. SIGH, it sounds so logical to me, LOL Has your son ever contacted him again? Love, Debi

[patrisha]

Debi,

Well that was more revealing info than I ever intended to post - but today I guess I had a wicked streak.

My son gets an occasional email, and answers, but that's it. The hard part is that he has a brother on that side that he hasn't been permitted to meet. Allegedly the relationship with his other son has been too strained since his divorce to tell him.

I just can't fathom how an adoptee (that searched for his own birth parents) could shut out his son this way. The only good thing is that it is so obviously abnormal that my son hasn't felt as badly as he might have otherwise. If that made any sense?

Well, at least I didn't marry him (not that he offered). LOL

Trish