[icunurse]

Just wanted to share this article printed in the Chicago Tribune yesterday (August 11, 2004). I am still steaming at it....


Anti-adoption activists defy popular opinion

By Dru Sefton
Newhouse News Service
Published August 11, 2004

"Anti-adoption" sounds ludicrous. Who could oppose placing an unwanted child into a loving home?

An entire movement, it turns out--fighting with a primal passion to expose what activists insist is adoption's darker side: The lifelong trauma of women coerced into surrendering babies. Adoptees denied their heritage. And, they say, a billion-dollar industry that focuses more on money than youngsters' welfare.

Some leave careers to write letters, track legislation, research articles and books. They work in anti-adoption non-profits. They educate "vulnerable mothers" and provide baby supplies and financial resources.

The activists insist a mother should first be helped to keep her child. In cases in which that is impossible (say, the woman is incapacitated), a family member or other caring adult should have guardianship. The child should be aware of that relationship. Money should not be exchanged.

Adoption supporters say that logic is flawed.

"The fundamental problem with anti-adoption folks is their lack of recognition that parenting is vastly more than conceiving and giving birth," said Thomas Atwood, president and CEO of the National Council for Adoption in Alexandria, Va. "It takes the full-time, selfless commitment of a mature person. If a woman is not ready to parent, her most loving and responsible decision may be to make an adoption plan."

Psychotherapist Joe Soll, himself an adoptee and longtime anti-adoption activist, disagreed.

"There will always be babies who need new homes," Soll said from his Congers, N.Y., office. "But why must names be changed, records sealed, why must children lose contact with their family?"

Soll has spent 20 years counseling single, pregnant women for free. Thousands of anti-adoption activists share his zeal.

"I've been in children's welfare a long time and I've never seen this level of volatility in other issues. Feelings run very high," said Madelyn Freundlich, attorney and author of the book "The Impact of Adoption on Members of the Triad" (Child Welfare League of America), the triad being mother, baby and adoptive couple.

Anti-adoption groups confront a public puzzled by their cause. Some 94 percent of adults polled either held "very favorable" or "somewhat favorable" opinions of adoption in a 2002 national survey by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a non-profit focusing on adoption policy and practices.

But people don't know the whole truth, said Jessica DelBalzo, who runs Adoption: Legalized Lies, from Flemington, N.J. It's an Internet-based support and activism non-profit with about 250 members worldwide.

"Offering up fake parents is not serving the best interest of a child," DelBalzo said.

A focus on money

Adoption, she said, centers on money, not the child.

Revenue statistics are elusive. Adoptions are handled at the state level through thousands of licensed and unlicensed public and private agencies, as well as independent attorneys; fees vary widely. Marketdata Enterprises Inc., a research firm in Tampa, estimated in a 2000 national report that adoption services are "a $1.4 billion business."

Nor is the number of adoptions systematically compiled. Estimates from agencies and experts range from 60,000 to 138,000 in the United States each year.

DelBalzo, 24, mother of a 21-month-old, was first troubled by adoption after writing a paper in high school. Her research since has put her in contact with hundreds of mothers who surrendered children, "and 99.9 percent," she said, "did so without full information." The majority later regretted it, DelBalzo said.

She said women report feeling pressured to do the "best thing" for their children and aren't advised of other options: seeking financial assistance (WIC, welfare, food stamps), asking a relative or father of the baby for help, aborting the pregnancy. (There are both anti-abortion and abortion-rights advocates within the movement, DelBalzo added.)

Some anti-adoption activists surrendered children during the so-called "baby scoop era," the 1940s to 1970s. Then, pregnant, unmarried women often were sent to "maternity homes" run by social workers or religious groups.

Karen Wilson Buterbaugh became pregnant as a high school senior in 1966 in Annandale, Va. Her parents sent her to a maternity home in Washington, D.C. She gave birth and her daughter was taken 10 days later.

"We're trying to educate society about what occurred then and what's happening now with adoption," said Buterbaugh, of Richmond, Va. "It benefits those who adopt, and people with money and power backed by religious groups and the adoption industry."

Buterbaugh, 56, is co-founder of MORE (Mothers for Open Records Everywhere) and Origins

USA, working toward an inquiry into "illegal, unethical and improper adoption practices."

Activists like Buterbaugh "are raising legitimate issues in regard to the way adoption is provided," said Freundlich, policy director for Children's Rights Inc., a legal advocacy and child-welfare watchdog group in New York City. "There are ethical concerns we should all be thinking about."

Carnegie Mellon University cultural anthropologist Judith Schachter first encountered the anti-adoption movement in the 1980s.

"I thought they were extremely logical," said Schachter, whose books, written as Judith Modell, include "A Sealed and Secret Kinship: The Culture of Policies and Practices in American Adoption" (Berghahn Books).

"We've been a wee bit too cavalier to think that a birth mother will give up a baby and forget," said Schachter, an adoptive mother. "We're becoming more focused on the birth parent, and that's been a real and important change."

But that's not enough, said Soll, the psychotherapist. He heads Adoption Crossroads, a non-profit with 475 adoption search and support groups worldwide.

`Scared and vulnerable'

"I've never seen anyone more scared and vulnerable than a pregnant woman without resources," he said. The problem is, "if they ask for help, more than likely they are advised to give up their child."

Activist Laurie Frisch, 42, of Marion, Iowa, sees herself as "protecting the rights of mothers and natural families--fathers, grandparents and siblings--as well as adoptees." A longtime avionics systems engineer, she resigned her job in January to tackle the issue full time.

Due to family pressures, Frisch unwillingly surrendered two babies in her 20s. "I was never advised of alternatives, never advised of legalities--such as whether there was a revocation period--never offered help," she said. "I was told I would soon `get over it' and `feel good about it."'

She never did.

She became active in several groups after noticing newspaper ads "soliciting mothers to separate their children from them and not telling them anything about the reality."

That reality, she said, can be long-term emotional pain. "The whole thing is so psychologically complex."

For instance, adoptees often are told their mothers made a loving choice to give them a better life. "But a lot of adoptees have said they feel like a nine-month abortion, which is exactly the opposite of what their mothers wanted," Frisch said.

Susan Caughman, editor and publisher of Adoptive Families Magazine, in New York City, said anti-adoption activists "represent the extreme manifestation of the belief that blood trumps everything else. And there is something to that, what can you say? It is good to know who your people are."

However, Caughman added, "There are larger social welfare issues at work: medical insurance, minimum wage, education. Mothers are giving up children they can't afford, and that's a dreadful concept.

"In a just world, there'd probably be no adoption."


Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

[34andhopeful]

wHAT EVER! He seems to only know about CLOSED adoptions. And in my search I NEVER found anyone who wanted a closed adoption. Not only that! Why does he talk about stuff that happened 40 years ago!? Whatever. Ignore it, and chalk it up to politics.

And there is no talk about what, we as adoptive parents go through!!!! That is a whole book, not just a silly article by a silly man.

Don't fret and forget - ooh that rhymed..LOL

[DebCsMom]

I agree, he spoke of the kinds of adoptions that no longer happen. VERY rarely do you find a closed adoption. Records aren't sealed anymore as far as I know.

I hate it when the WHOLE story is not told!!!!! Makes such a wonderful thing into a NASTY thing.

Deb

[crick]

And let's not forget that the article not only caters to much out dated practices, but doesn't discuss the facts of 100,000 plus children in the foster care system waiting for families. These children should stay in group homes, etc. never having a family to call their own? Is it a "fake parent" when a parent adopts a child from the system whose "REAL" parent abused them? And in the event that the parent cannot care for the child, the children should live with relatives. Okay, if it works, great. So where are the relatives of all these waiting children? This is only 1 of the flawed theories these anti adoption groups hold.

I do agree that the records and past history should be open. That's important and the legislature really needs to change on that front. Records are still sealed in a lot of cases, believe it or not.

As always, a lot of these articles only discuss the points they can stress to support their beliefs. It's up to us as educated individuals to know the difference and keep doing what we are doing, which is raising our kids and loving them.

Crick

[BrandyHagz]

I am saying this, not in support of the article, but just for information…

There are only a handful of states (very few) that unseal records with a non-judicial request from the adoptee.

Currently, all states “seal” adoption records.

Most states still require you to request your records via the court system, and they require you to show “just cause” for the unsealing, for example, medical reasons.

[Child of Wonder]

Yes, records are always sealed in the United States once an adoption takes place. An amended birth certificate is issued with the adoptive parents names replacing the bparents' names and that entire adoption record and OBC is sealed up for 99 years.

Only 4 States allow for adoption records to be unsealed once the adoptee reaches the age of majority. Most states require a court order to open a sealed record and even that is very hard to do.

I work primarily with bmothers and adoptees. While an "open" adoption can alleviate the anxiety of not knowing and can answer those nagging questions, it doesn't mean that it will be less painful for either party. Open adoption comes with a new set of issues.

It has been my experience that (and this is an estimate) out of 10 open adoptions, 7 to 8 of them will "close" at some point, for any reason, leaving behind confusion, pain, and more questions.

[HappyMomAnna]

Oh my I have had my tangles with the Anti-adoption groups for sure especially recently!

Crick88--I have been on one of their forums and have talked about the 'waiting' and 'special needs' children and have been flabergasted by the attitude they come back to me with.... The Political Stand point these people have for adoption of our older, special and waiting children is that WE the Adopters should have enough respect to obtain Legal Guardianship and NOT change the childs birth certificates or sever the ties with their biological families... EVEN if everyone AGREES that these children should NEVER be around or near their biological families they should not be lied to and told that NOW it is the same as if we gave birth to you............

The anit adoption movement will not accept the fact that for US wanting to parent these children this option is not one we even have to consider---can you imagine telling the caseworkers, "Yes we want to be the parents of this child but we want to do so as only a legal guardian.... SURE we would be given that chance!!! Just until a family who did wish to adopt came along...

These people have some bazarr ideas. There is even a movement for birthfamilies to Adopt back thier Adult children torn away by adoption... On their websites words like Birthmom are not permitted as the mom is not cattle and not a breeder for the adoptive family.... The only acceptable word is NATURAL Mother and on thier website the term Adoptive Parent is banned because we are nothing more the ADOPTERS...

The website I am watching will not allow discussion of Adoption as an open topic and the only discussion they allow is ANTI-ADOPTIVE chatter--and the focus of this movement for re-adopting the adult adoptees... They talk about how adoptive parents have brain washed the child and they talk about how the adoptive family because is was not natural caused the child to be sickly and needy...

I once asked them to expaline to me how they think their website would feel for the adopted child who has looked and found thier birthfamily but been rejected---by the birthmother and they have no real answer for me about this... I have asked them how many sucessful re-adoption they know of and they have NONE....

There is active and posted efforts to inflitrate this website... It is a mission and they do inspire memebers to come HERE to start things....and stir up the issues on this site.... They go so far as to believe that even a child who is orphaned by the death of their natural parents should NOT be adopted....We who adopt are simply filling our own needs by doing so that if all we wanted was to be good parents why do we have to change the childs birth certificate and lie to them.....

IT IS A SCARY movement.... I could care less about how they feel and what they wish to accomplish as I do not think the need for adoption will ever end---What scares me is the grown child finding this site and then wanting his or her birthmother to be one of these people who wants to adopt them back---The TRUTH is that I know more adoptees who have been disappointed with reunion then NOT and I know MANY adoptees who only cry and wish that their birthmother would even bother to look for them....


Anyway--I guess we need to remember this group and attitude is out there.... I want to keep aware of it so that I can educate my children about this movement.... and not have them stumble onto it doing a high school project on the internet

[34andhopeful]

child of wonder - I guess when you put it that way, I can see a point. Still angers me. Because in the eyes of the law, that child is yours and no one elses (after the finalization). I guess that is why the records are sealed. But you are right, they should be allowed to be open if BOTH sides agree.

I am glad that my adoption is open. And awsome point about stumbling on to "that" site.

[HappyMomAnna]

I personally do not have a problem with open records... Oregon is one of the states that does provide an original birth certificate (agreed to or not by the birthmother) at the age of 21....

My ex--husband got his about a year and a half ago and all he heas now is a name and age of his birhmother--he is still not in contact with her.... he cannot find her....

He was adopted in the era where you hoped it would all just be forgotton and no one talked about it.... The thing that has hurt him was the discover that his adoptive parents either lied or did not know the real story...He had always been told his parents were college students who wanted to finish college... His birthcertificate states his mother was not even 16 and there was no father listed.... My sister in law also got her's and she was devasted to learn that she was NOT named by her birthmother....she was just "baby girl"

I think today that most of us who adopt even if it is not an open adoption want to provide our children with as much info as possible.... I know that I do and will. In my case one of my children will remember and her sibling will not.... But I do plan to make sure that the names stay and that they understand what happened... and I pary every night that their mother is able to pull her life together so that when her children do look for her there is someone to find....

[spaypets]

I didn't know that new adoption records were still sealed. I'm bothered by that...Just in the same way my marriage is a public record, and a birth is a public record, my daughter's adoption should be. I've always thought it was odd that a new birth certificate was issued -- they should be called parental certificates to record date of birth and legal parents (this should be true of all children). The reason birth certificates are amended is that people need to show them for a whole lot of things and it's the only way to prove you are the legal parents of a child.

The only reason for sealing a record is if there is a danger to the child--then it should be done by court order.

It really bugs me that these folks are claiming I'm lying to my daughter...I'm not. I have her records and will show them to her when she's older and give them to her when she's an adult.

It seems to me these groups are a lot of bitter women who haven't come to terms with the decisions and choices they made and instead are lashing out at the system intead of dealing with their own actions. Many of their concerns have been addressed--birthmothers have many more choices than they did a generation ago. It's not perfect--I think contact agreements should be binding on the adoptive parents. But to be anti adoption where there are children who need homes and families is revolting.

[Opus]

I've also had my tangles in the past with anti adoption people. They apparently don't know what to do with those of us who are for open records, favor open adoptions yet are very pro adoption particularly when it concerns those hundreds of thousands of kids languishing in the US' foster care system except to ridicule us as evil adoptors.

I think the most important point to make regarding the anti adoption movement as defined by Soll, DeBalzo and others like them is to not confuse them with adoption reform or the open records movement. Groups such as Origins USA and Adoption:Legalized Lies are not interested in merely reforming adoption and opening up records, they would like to see it totally abolished. Open records groups such as the Green Ribbon Campaign and Bastard Nation are not anti adoption but they are certainly for adoption reform. There seems to be a lot of confusion among adoptive parents regarding this.

[HappyMomAnna]

spaypet--I agree with you and advise you to never visit their sites the hostility is horrifying and there is no room for debate with these people....

I agree with your ideas about the parent certificate--when I talk to Makala about the certificate I do compair it to a Marriage certificate... THe other day I had to get a new drivers license because I lost the old one.... In line at the DMV Makala was asking what the papers were that I had.... And I explained to her that it was my birth certificate and marriage certificate and we talked about her original and amended birth certificates and why it was changed...... she reacted the way I thought she would and did seem confused....

Oh yeah---In Oregon Marriage certificates are not public records...but Original Birth Certificates are????? Figure that one out!

[redhedded]

The article is dangerous because it makes sweeping generalizations about what is best for people - adoptees and birthmothers and the reasons for their personal decision making when we know that each situation is unique. There are some valid points in the article that should lead to an honest and reflective dialogue, such as past practices, which whisked young women off to maternity homes and pressured/guilted them into placing their children by disparaging them with you cannot do it, what will people think of you and us, how will you support yourself, etc. Society certainly affirmed this expectation, but so often the pressure came from within the family, not externally. Baby trafficking is still an international problem as evidenced by many Southeast Asian countries closing their international adoption programs. These are both adoption issues, past and present, that must be addressed. However, the article does not reflect the many birthmothers who, past and present, choose not to have open adoptions (there are many, I know them.) It does not reflect the perspective of adoptees that have chosen not to seek birth connections or those who wanted reunion and contact, but not because they were unhappy or dissatisfied with their experiences as adoptees.

The continuation of sealed adoption records is abhorrent to me for several reasons, and it requires an entirely separate discussion than most of what is mentioned in the article. I was appalled one year ago when we had some issues with the Social Security Administration in receiving our daughter's card. While on the phone with a clerk, he asked some personal information. In front of him was my daughter's original birth certificate. It is bulls*** that some guy from SSA is privy to my daughter's personal information, that neither she nor I have access to.

[BrandyHagz]

My chief complaint: If I am not angry about my being adopted, or placing, I am in deep denial, pushed there at the hands of the nasty adopters.

I am a happy birthmother.

No one forced me to do anything I didn’t want to do; I am at piece with my decision.

It bothers me a great deal that the anti movement wants to push me into silence and speak for me…according to them; anything I say is due to the obvious coercion that was used against me.

I am quite happy with things the way they are now, and I wouldn’t change things for the world!

Isn’t it ironic that the method they are using to “right the wrong” is the same method they vehemently oppose, on every level?

[NanaC]

<<<And in my search I NEVER found anyone who wanted a closed adoption.>>>

Really? I run across prospective adoptive parents on a daily basis who ONLY want a closed adoption. I know plenty of people who have adopted in the past five years who have closed adoptions, and the vast majority have semi-closed and wish they were totally closed.

<<<Why does he talk about stuff that happened 40 years ago!? Whatever. Ignore it, and chalk it up to politics.>>>

The situations the reporter discussed may have happened a number of years ago (not 40!) but that doesn't make those situations irrelevant and it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen today. It is relevant and it does happen today.

Parents are forced and coerced into surrendering their children every single day of the week. Nothing much has changed in the last 40 (!) years except that the tactics used to get to a surrender have been tweaked to allow for the differences in how society sees an unplanned pregnancy. For example, no one can get away, these days, with securing a surrender by telling a pregnant woman that she is a tramp, an embarrassment to her family and no man will ever want her. So, they tell her what a "loving choice" she is making, how good, strong, unselfish, courageous, bla bla bla, that she is. They make her feel like she would be some awful excuse of a mother to want to keep her baby when she is in a vulnerable position, which basically, is NOT the truth.

<<<And there is no talk about what, we as adoptive parents go through!!!! That is a whole book, not just a silly article by a silly man.>>>

Well, I have noticed that there ARE whole books about it. Tons of them. But, look what happens when one person dares to write an article about the other side of adoption.

I have also noticed that when any of the thousands of *fluffy-duffy ain't adoption great* articles are printed in newspapers each week, none of them mention the pain that families experience when their family member is wrenched from them by adoption agency brokers who didn't care anything about them or their welfare, and only wanted to help a paying client "build their family." SILLY REPORTERS!

Get real. There is room for this article in the newspaper, there are valid points made in this article, and people have valid reasons why they aren't worshipping at the altar of adoption.