On 11 Apr 2004 11:25:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Hmm.Let's just say they didn't immediately use this tragedy as somethingon which to capitalise, in the way that you have.


The woman exploited Cindy and then wrote a book about how to do it to
other pregnant woman.. She used Cindy and her situation in her book as
part of the fodder (and did not get her permission) and then told
Cindy should could not write about her situation on adoption.com..
Told her that if she did not stop she would be punished... Cut off..
Told to go away.. Will never get a picture again..Or will only get
fuzzy pictures that show nothing..

She did not care about Cindy.. She did not give her a second thought
other than what a bother she was..

Jackie

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<uhsk70prfqo5ft0qrmubo7dqul5lh9togl@4ax.com>... On 11 Apr 2004 11:25:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Hmm.Let's just say they didn't immediately use this tragedy as somethingon which to capitalise, in the way that you have. The woman exploited Cindy and then wrote a book about how to do it to other pregnant woman.. She used Cindy and her situation in her book as part of the fodder (and did not get her permission) and then told Cindy should could not write about her situation on adoption.com.. Told her that if she did not stop she would be punished... Cut off.. Told to go away.. Will never get a picture again..Or will only get fuzzy pictures that show nothing.. She did not care about Cindy.. She did not give her a second thought other than what a bother she was..


I understand all that, Jackie, and I think the book is execrable. I'm
sure it exacerbated Cindy's depression.
But Di's immediate and (dare I say?) 'typical' reaction was to leap at
an opportunity to generalize about adopters, not to express sorrow or
sympathy for the family left behind.
'Nuf said.



Rh. Jackie

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0404121135.1641c62e@posting.google.com>... Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<uhsk70prfqo5ft0qrmubo7dqul5lh9togl@4ax.com>... On 11 Apr 2004 11:25:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Hmm.Let's just say they didn't immediately use this tragedy as somethingon which to capitalise, in the way that you have. The woman exploited Cindy and then wrote a book about how to do it to other pregnant woman.. She used Cindy and her situation in her book as part of the fodder (and did not get her permission) and then told Cindy should could not write about her situation on adoption.com.. Told her that if she did not stop she would be punished... Cut off.. Told to go away.. Will never get a picture again..Or will only get fuzzy pictures that show nothing.. She did not care about Cindy.. She did not give her a second thought other than what a bother she was.. I understand all that, Jackie, and I think the book is execrable. I'm sure it exacerbated Cindy's depression. But Di's immediate and (dare I say?) 'typical' reaction was to leap at an opportunity to generalize about adopters, not to express sorrow or sympathy for the family left behind. 'Nuf said.
How many more open adoptions need to be closed by adopters before th
epenny drops and you begin to recognise that such typically two faced
promises of openness are ones they had no intention of ever keeping?

And as for my not expressing sorrow to the family, my sympathy has
already been expressed to those who actually did know her and loved
her and who are devastated by her death. Not that it's any of your
business of course. Has yours? Or need I ask?

Di







Rh. Jackie

On 12 Apr 2004 12:35:31 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<uhsk70prfqo5ft0qrmubo7dqul5lh9togl@4ax.com>... On 11 Apr 2004 11:25:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Hmm.Let's just say they didn't immediately use this tragedy as somethingon which to capitalise, in the way that you have. The woman exploited Cindy and then wrote a book about how to do it to other pregnant woman.. She used Cindy and her situation in her book as part of the fodder (and did not get her permission) and then told Cindy should could not write about her situation on adoption.com.. Told her that if she did not stop she would be punished... Cut off.. Told to go away.. Will never get a picture again..Or will only get fuzzy pictures that show nothing.. She did not care about Cindy.. She did not give her a second thought other than what a bother she was..I understand all that, Jackie, and I think the book is execrable. I'msure it exacerbated Cindy's depression.

Its the betrayal that I look at.. Cindy read that book and realized
that the woman had used a formula to get her to like her.. To get her
to decide to do a private adoption with her..

But Di's immediate and (dare I say?) 'typical' reaction was to leap atan opportunity to generalize about adopters, not to express sorrow orsympathy for the family left behind.'Nuf said.

And we all say awwww how horrible but hey.. this is not a real
adoption this is a net adoption and everyone deserves what they get..

And Susan publishes her new book on how others have done it on the
net.. Makes a bundle..

Jackie

In article <69jn705q0u5vl6ujikvi01r0bdu7tj5ep3@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 12 Apr 2004 12:35:31 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<uhsk70prfqo5ft0qrmubo7dqul5lh9togl@4ax.com>... On 11 Apr 2004 11:25:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: >Hmm. >Let's just say they didn't immediately use this tragedy as something >on which to capitalise, in the way that you have. The woman exploited Cindy and then wrote a book about how to do it to other pregnant woman.. She used Cindy and her situation in her book as part of the fodder (and did not get her permission) and then told Cindy should could not write about her situation on adoption.com.. Told her that if she did not stop she would be punished... Cut off.. Told to go away.. Will never get a picture again..Or will only get fuzzy pictures that show nothing.. She did not care about Cindy.. She did not give her a second thought other than what a bother she was.. > >I understand all that, Jackie, and I think the book is execrable. I'msure it exacerbated Cindy's depression.Its the betrayal that I look at.. Cindy read that book and realizedthat the woman had used a formula to get her to like her.. To get herto decide to do a private adoption with her..But Di's immediate and (dare I say?) 'typical' reaction was to leap atan opportunity to generalize about adopters, not to express sorrow orsympathy for the family left behind.'Nuf said.And we all say awwww how horrible but hey.. this is not a realadoption this is a net adoption and everyone deserves what they get..

Um...Who's said that? Who is this "we" you speak of?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0404122030.148be436@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0404121135.1641c62e@posting.google.com>... Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<uhsk70prfqo5ft0qrmubo7dqul5lh9togl@4ax.com>... On 11 Apr 2004 11:25:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: >Hmm. >Let's just say they didn't immediately use this tragedy as > something on which to capitalise, in the way that you have. The woman exploited Cindy and then wrote a book about how to do it to other pregnant woman.. She used Cindy and her situation in her book as part of the fodder (and did not get her permission) and then > > > told Cindy should could not write about her situation on adoption.com.Told her that if she did not stop she would be punished... Cut off.. Told to go away.. Will never get a picture again..Or will only get fuzzy pictures that show nothing.. She did not care about Cindy.. She did not give her a second thought other than what a bother she was.. > I understand all that, Jackie, and I think the book is execrable. I'm sure it exacerbated Cindy's depression. But Di's immediate and (dare I say?) 'typical' reaction was to leap at an opportunity to generalize about adopters, not to express sorrow or sympathy for the family left behind. 'Nuf said. How many more open adoptions need to be closed by adopters before the penny drops and you begin to recognise that such typically two faced promises of openness are ones they had no intention of ever keeping?


When will the penny drop that you understand that I have no difficulty
in recognising that there are untrustworthy people and that some are
adopters?
Probably never, since your mind is so stuck in it's groove of
prejudice.

'Typically two-faced' was inclusive, Di. You were not just referring
to those those in 'open' adopters. You put all adopters under the same
umbrella and make no bones about it. It's silly for you to now pretend
that you distinguish.
I'm sceptical of open adoptions in general, but am persuaded that in
the best case scenarios they're probably better than closed for the
children (and maybe in some cases for natural parents)

BUT I have *always* supported making them legally enforcable, because
I'm very much aware that they put the natural parent (and child) in an
untenably vulnerable situation.

And as for my not expressing sorrow to the family, my sympathy has already been expressed to those who actually did know her and loved her and who are devastated by her death. Not that it's any of your business of course. Has yours? Or need I ask?



Apparently, you need.
Read, Di.
I didn't say 'to', I said 'for'.
I don't think it's the place of people, such as myself, who didn't
know Cindy and her close friends and family, to intrude on their
grief.
I have expressed, here and elsewhere, my sorrow and concern for her
family, specifically her children.
I'm not going to post about this poor woman again. It's bad and sad
enough that she was used by Susan Burns while she was alive, let alone
by others after her death.



Rh. Di Rh. Jackie

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: Jackie forgetit@me.comDate: 4/13/04 4:26 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <69jn705q0u5vl6ujikvi01r0bdu7tj5ep3@4ax.com>On 12 Apr 2004 12:35:31 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:<uhsk70prfqo5ft0qrmubo7dqul5lh9togl@4ax.com>... On 11 Apr 2004 11:25:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: >Hmm. >Let's just say they didn't immediately use this tragedy as something >on which to capitalise, in the way that you have. The woman exploited Cindy and then wrote a book about how to do it to other pregnant woman.. She used Cindy and her situation in her book as part of the fodder (and did not get her permission) and then told Cindy should could not write about her situation on adoption.com.. Told her that if she did not stop she would be punished... Cut off.. Told to go away.. Will never get a picture again..Or will only get fuzzy pictures that show nothing.. She did not care about Cindy.. She did not give her a second thought other than what a bother she was.. > >I understand all that, Jackie, and I think the book is execrable. I'msure it exacerbated Cindy's depression.Its the betrayal that I look at.. Cindy read that book and realizedthat the woman had used a formula to get her to like her.. To get herto decide to do a private adoption with her..But Di's immediate and (dare I say?) 'typical' reaction was to leap atan opportunity to generalize about adopters, not to express sorrow orsympathy for the family left behind.'Nuf said.And we all say awwww how horrible but hey.. this is not a realadoption this is a net adoption and everyone deserves what they get..

Them IS your words. You're projecting again, Jackie.


Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 4/13/04 5:31 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <m4Rec.1203$H4.91@www.newsranger.com>In article <69jn705q0u5vl6ujikvi01r0bdu7tj5ep3@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 12 Apr 2004 12:35:31 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in messagenews:<uhsk70prfqo5ft0qrmubo7dqul5lh9togl@4ax.com>...> On 11 Apr 2004 11:25:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)> wrote:>> >Hmm.> >Let's just say they didn't immediately use this tragedy as something> >on which to capitalise, in the way that you have.>>> The woman exploited Cindy and then wrote a book about how to do it to> other pregnant woman.. She used Cindy and her situation in her book as> part of the fodder (and did not get her permission) and then told> Cindy should could not write about her situation on adoption.com..> Told her that if she did not stop she would be punished... Cut off..> Told to go away.. Will never get a picture again..Or will only get> fuzzy pictures that show nothing..>> She did not care about Cindy.. She did not give her a second thought> other than what a bother she was..> >> >>>>I understand all that, Jackie, and I think the book is execrable. I'msure it exacerbated Cindy's depression.Its the betrayal that I look at.. Cindy read that book and realizedthat the woman had used a formula to get her to like her.. To get herto decide to do a private adoption with her..But Di's immediate and (dare I say?) 'typical' reaction was to leap atan opportunity to generalize about adopters, not to express sorrow orsympathy for the family left behind.'Nuf said.And we all say awwww how horrible but hey.. this is not a realadoption this is a net adoption and everyone deserves what they get..Um...Who's said that? Who is this "we" you speak of?

The voices in her head. Isn't this sad that Jackie isn't in counseling for her
paranoia?




Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote
I'm sceptical of open adoptions in general, but am persuaded that in the best case scenarios they're probably better than closed for the children (and maybe in some cases for natural parents) BUT I have *always* supported making them legally enforcable, because I'm very much aware that they put the natural parent (and child) in an untenably vulnerable situation.


That would be my position, too.

I would support legal enforceability, but would want it to be
enforceable both ways. While the main problem in the early years may
well be situations where the a-parents close the adoption, in later
years the issue is more often -- from what I've read here -- b-moms
who disappear, leaving the family and child wondering.

I think a recognition of more than two legal parents would be a good
first step, and it would probably benefit large numbers of children
who have step-parents as well as bio-parents. (I think NSW in Oz has
done this, or at least discussed it.) A further distinction (during
the child's minority) would be custodial vs non-custodial.

Not every family would go for this kind of open adoption -- but it
should be an option, and if it is used, it should be enforceable.

JMO

Rupa

Rupa writes:
I think a recognition of more than two legal parents would be a goodfirst step, and it would probably benefit large numbers of childrenwho have step-parents as well as bio-parents. >>

"Legal parents" have responsibilities that go along with rights. If
birthparents were to retain "legal parent" status, they should certainly also
retain responsibilities for the children including support.

Rights = responsibilities. No changing that equation.


P2P

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<69jn705q0u5vl6ujikvi01r0bdu7tj5ep3@4ax.com>... And we all say awwww how horrible but hey.. this is not a real adoption this is a net adoption and everyone deserves what they get..


Excuse me?




Rh. And Susan publishes her new book on how others have done it on the net.. Makes a bundle.. Jackie

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<m4Rec.1203$H4.91@www.newsranger.com>... In article <69jn705q0u5vl6ujikvi01r0bdu7tj5ep3@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 12 Apr 2004 12:35:31 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<uhsk70prfqo5ft0qrmubo7dqul5lh9togl@4ax.com>...> On 11 Apr 2004 11:25:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)> wrote:>> >Hmm.> >Let's just say they didn't immediately use this tragedy as something> >on which to capitalise, in the way that you have.>>> The woman exploited Cindy and then wrote a book about how to do it to> other pregnant woman.. She used Cindy and her situation in her book as> part of the fodder (and did not get her permission) and then told> Cindy should could not write about her situation on adoption.com..> Told her that if she did not stop she would be punished... Cut off..> Told to go away.. Will never get a picture again..Or will only get> fuzzy pictures that show nothing..>> She did not care about Cindy.. She did not give her a second thought> other than what a bother she was..> >> >>>>I understand all that, Jackie, and I think the book is execrable. I'msure it exacerbated Cindy's depression.Its the betrayal that I look at.. Cindy read that book and realizedthat the woman had used a formula to get her to like her.. To get herto decide to do a private adoption with her..But Di's immediate and (dare I say?) 'typical' reaction was to leap atan opportunity to generalize about adopters, not to express sorrow orsympathy for the family left behind.'Nuf said.And we all say awwww how horrible but hey.. this is not a realadoption this is a net adoption and everyone deserves what they get.. Um...Who's said that? Who is this "we" you speak of?


She doesn't mean herself, presumably.
I guess she's including me, since her response is to me.
As for the rest, I can only conclude she means almost everybody else
who posts here.
The fact that I (certainly) don't think this way, and that no one else
has expressed such an opinion, doesn't signify.

On the other hand, maybe she's not being facetious, and she's using
the Imperial 'We', does mean herself and is reflecting on her own
tenuous grasp of reality . . . . you know, it's all just 'words on a
screen'.


Rh. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040413143003.03970.00000247@mb-m01.aol.com>... Rupa writes:I think a recognition of more than two legal parents would be a goodfirst step, and it would probably benefit large numbers of childrenwho have step-parents as well as bio-parents. >> "Legal parents" have responsibilities that go along with rights. If birthparents were to retain "legal parent" status, they should certainly also retain responsibilities for the children including support. Rights = responsibilities. No changing that equation. P2P

I don't quarrel with that. I think child support is set according to
the incomes of the parents, and I think that's fair. If the b-parents
are liable for support in the same way, then an impoverished b-mom or
b-dad would not have much of a liability.

Rupa

I wrote of post adoption contact agreements:
"Legal parents" have responsibilities that go along with rights. If birthparents were to retain "legal parent" status, they should certainlyalso retain responsibilities for the children including support. Rights = responsibilities. No changing that equation. P2P


Rupa replied:
I don't quarrel with that. I think child support is set according tothe incomes of the parents, and I think that's fair. If the b-parentsare liable for support in the same way, then an impoverished b-mom orb-dad would not have much of a liability.


While I understand your vision, Rupa, surely you see how impractical. If open
adoption without legal contracts can be messy and painful, try to imagine open
adoptions with contracts under which several people have legal ties to a child,
legal responsibility for the child as well as parental rights.

Children raised by committees?

I don't think so.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 4/13/2004 6:24 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <20040413182436.21030.00000319@mb-m28.aol.com>I wrote of post adoption contact agreements: "Legal parents" have responsibilities that go along with rights. If birthparents were to retain "legal parent" status, they should certainlyalso retain responsibilities for the children including support. Rights = responsibilities. No changing that equation. P2PRupa replied:I don't quarrel with that. I think child support is set according tothe incomes of the parents, and I think that's fair. If the b-parentsare liable for support in the same way, then an impoverished b-mom orb-dad would not have much of a liability.While I understand your vision, Rupa, surely you see how impractical. Ifopenadoption without legal contracts can be messy and painful, try to imagineopenadoptions with contracts under which several people have legal ties to achild,legal responsibility for the child as well as parental rights.Children raised by committees?


It takes a village.

Dad

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404130931.a5d9d9a@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote I'm sceptical of open adoptions in general, but am persuaded that in the best case scenarios they're probably better than closed for the children (and maybe in some cases for natural parents) BUT I have *always* supported making them legally enforcable, because I'm very much aware that they put the natural parent (and child) in an untenably vulnerable situation. That would be my position, too. I would support legal enforceability, but would want it to be enforceable both ways. While the main problem in the early years may well be situations where the a-parents close the adoption, in later years the issue is more often -- from what I've read here -- b-moms who disappear, leaving the family and child wondering. I think a recognition of more than two legal parents would be a good first step, and it would probably benefit large numbers of children who have step-parents as well as bio-parents. (I think NSW in Oz has done this, or at least discussed it.) A further distinction (during the child's minority) would be custodial vs non-custodial. Not every family would go for this kind of open adoption -- but it should be an option, and if it is used, it should be enforceable. JMO

And it seems like a pretty good one to me.


Rh. Rupa

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote While I understand your vision, Rupa, surely you see how impractical. If open adoption without legal contracts can be messy and painful, try to imagine open adoptions with contracts under which several people have legal ties to a child, legal responsibility for the child as well as parental rights. Children raised by committees? I don't think so.

Actually, I think it's the idea of the exclusive two-parent family
that is...different? I think kids are meant to be raised by lots of
people. De facto, they already are: Relatives, daycare, preschool,
teachers, and specially when they're teens -- friends. And TV.

(Scary voice: BE WARNED. YOU HAVE LESS CONTROL THAN YOU THINK!)

But I don't know if this will legally be much different than a
situation in which there are step-parents. One couple are the
custodial parents - in this case, the a-parents. They are the primary
legal parents. The b-parent/s have visiting rights, spelled out at the
time of the adoption contract being drawn up. If necessary, it can
also be spelled out where the visitation will take place: at the
a-par's home, in a shopping mall, in a park; and whether or not the
a-par will be present. The non-custodial parents also pay a small
amount of child support, thus acknowledging their ties to the child.

What this does is that it (a) codifies everything so there is less
confusion about what is promised and what is not (b) makes it clear
it's a legal agreement so there is less incentive to violate it (c)
makes it clear that there's a commitment and responsibility on both
sides. There's already a legal structure in place to deal with
disagreements, so it will not require lots more infrastructure.

It also provides a situation where in case something goes seriously
wrong with the adoption, the b-pars become the presumptive parents.

I like the idea of more than one legal parent because I think,
realistically, about 30-40% of American kids grow up with more than
two parents in their lives, owing to divorce and re-marriage.

So you can have a situation where, say, a woman marries a man with a
toddler, and they have custody. The mother is off somewhere finding
herself. A few years later, the step-mom has been raising young Todd,
and loves him like her own. Mom shows up again, having found herself,
and visits start. Now Todd has two moms...the one who raised him, and
his b-mom.

Only, his step-mom's not his mom. And if Todd's dad divorces her, that
may be the last she sees of the kid who was her son for 5 years. If
Todd's dad dies, Todd may well be forced to return to his b-mom, who
he knows only casually from visits, and again, never see his step-mom.

This could be prevented if she could adopt him, but she can't, unless
his b-mom would relinquish her rights to him.

So there you are. I think there are several modern-day problems that
would be solved by permitting multiple parents.

Rupa

On 13 Apr 2004 11:36:54 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<69jn705q0u5vl6ujikvi01r0bdu7tj5ep3@4ax.com>... And we all say awwww how horrible but hey.. this is not a real adoption this is a net adoption and everyone deserves what they get..Excuse me?


Don't you think it horrible that the Cindy took her life?

And IMO a lot of people think that when someone arranges an adoption
over the net they deserve what they get..

I have learned since I wrote that that Cindy never met Susan Burns
real time.. Susan says they had an open adoption but they never met.

And please excuse me for using 'we'.. I assumed that everyone here did
not like adoptions conducted over the net..



Jackie

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote Don't you think it horrible that the Cindy took her life? And IMO a lot of people think that when someone arranges an adoption over the net they deserve what they get.. I have learned since I wrote that that Cindy never met Susan Burns real time.. Susan says they had an open adoption but they never met.

I'm confused. What about that touching scene where her son Brandon
hands over the baby to Susan, and Susan promises Brandon that "she
will know you and you will know her."

Was it Brandon alone who handed her over? And Cindy wasn't there?

Rupa

In article <e5619372.0404140954.1e3264bb@posting.google.com>, Rupa Bose says...Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote Don't you think it horrible that the Cindy took her life? And IMO a lot of people think that when someone arranges an adoption over the net they deserve what they get.. I have learned since I wrote that that Cindy never met Susan Burns real time.. Susan says they had an open adoption but they never met.I'm confused. What about that touching scene where her son Brandonhands over the baby to Susan, and Susan promises Brandon that "shewill know you and you will know her."Was it Brandon alone who handed her over? And Cindy wasn't there?

Is that even legal? I don't know all the details of this situation, but I
remember being told several years ago that the only way a private adoption was
legal was if the bmom physically handed the child to the PAP (this was the case
in my abro's adoption). Since when does a bbro hand over a baby to a PAP?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<76aq70l9g2v3i90fck5opm8bfmh4gs0ej6@4ax.com>... On 13 Apr 2004 11:36:54 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<69jn705q0u5vl6ujikvi01r0bdu7tj5ep3@4ax.com>... And we all say awwww how horrible but hey.. this is not a real adoption this is a net adoption and everyone deserves what they get.. > >Excuse me? Don't you think it horrible that the Cindy took her life? And IMO a lot of people think that when someone arranges an adoption over the net they deserve what they get.. I have learned since I wrote that that Cindy never met Susan Burns real time.. Susan says they had an open adoption but they never met. And please excuse me for using 'we'.. I assumed that everyone here did not like adoptions conducted over the net..


Eh?
I'm even more confused.
Personally, I don't think anyone deserves the treatment that Cindy
Jordan got, net adoption or not.

I'm afraid your use of the word 'we' did seem to imply that the
majority of folks who post on this ng are among those who think that
people who conduct adoptions over the net deserve to get screwed.
Are you sure that isn't what you meant?





Rh. Jackie

On 14 Apr 2004 10:54:08 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote Don't you think it horrible that the Cindy took her life? And IMO a lot of people think that when someone arranges an adoption over the net they deserve what they get.. I have learned since I wrote that that Cindy never met Susan Burns real time.. Susan says they had an open adoption but they never met.I'm confused. What about that touching scene where her son Brandonhands over the baby to Susan, and Susan promises Brandon that "shewill know you and you will know her."Was it Brandon alone who handed her over? And Cindy wasn't there?


Oh lordy Rupa I don't know.. This thing keep shifting..

I will keep reading..

Jackie

On 14 Apr 2004 11:25:20 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<76aq70l9g2v3i90fck5opm8bfmh4gs0ej6@4ax.com>... On 13 Apr 2004 11:36:54 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<69jn705q0u5vl6ujikvi01r0bdu7tj5ep3@4ax.com>...>> And we all say awwww how horrible but hey.. this is not a real> adoption this is a net adoption and everyone deserves what they get..> >> >>>>Excuse me? Don't you think it horrible that the Cindy took her life? And IMO a lot of people think that when someone arranges an adoption over the net they deserve what they get.. I have learned since I wrote that that Cindy never met Susan Burns real time.. Susan says they had an open adoption but they never met. And please excuse me for using 'we'.. I assumed that everyone here did not like adoptions conducted over the net..Eh?I'm even more confused.Personally, I don't think anyone deserves the treatment that CindyJordan got, net adoption or not.I'm afraid your use of the word 'we' did seem to imply that themajority of folks who post on this ng are among those who think thatpeople who conduct adoptions over the net deserve to get screwed.Are you sure that isn't what you meant?


I should not have used the term 'we'.

Sometimes I get careless in my typing..

I think I meant that everyone says awwwww.. And then I added personal
comments..

Sorry for the confusion..

Jackie

in article j5vs70pm8n88a2todc1rnpbq1nbpdekhdm@4ax.com, Jackie at
forgetit@me.com wrote on 15/4/04 3:17 pm:
On 14 Apr 2004 11:25:20 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:
I'm afraid your use of the word 'we' did seem to imply that the majority of folks who post on this ng are among those who think that people who conduct adoptions over the net deserve to get screwed. Are you sure that isn't what you meant? I should not have used the term 'we'. Sometimes I get careless in my typing..


I suppose it makes a refreshing change for you.. from being careless with
your thinking..

Robin

"Robin" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message
news:BCA469FF.3BB1C%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article j5vs70pm8n88a2todc1rnpbq1nbpdekhdm@4ax.com, Jackie at forgetit@me.com wrote on 15/4/04 3:17 pm: On 14 Apr 2004 11:25:20 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: I'm afraid your use of the word 'we' did seem to imply that the majority of folks who post on this ng are among those who think that people who conduct adoptions over the net deserve to get screwed. Are you sure that isn't what you meant? I should not have used the term 'we'. Sometimes I get careless in my typing.. I suppose it makes a refreshing change for you.. from being careless with your thinking.. Robin

I think they deserve to be screwd--on both sides.

Marley

in article WByfc.29163$K_.731571@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley
Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 15/4/04 5:19 pm:
"Robin" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:BCA469FF.3BB1C%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article j5vs70pm8n88a2todc1rnpbq1nbpdekhdm@4ax.com, Jackie at forgetit@me.com wrote on 15/4/04 3:17 pm: On 14 Apr 2004 11:25:20 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:> I'm afraid your use of the word 'we' did seem to imply that the> majority of folks who post on this ng are among those who think that> people who conduct adoptions over the net deserve to get screwed.> Are you sure that isn't what you meant? I should not have used the term 'we'. Sometimes I get careless in my typing.. I suppose it makes a refreshing change for you.. from being careless with your thinking.. Robin I think they deserve to be screwd--on both sides. Marley


I think they deserve to be fined a large amount of money and / or a term of
imprisonment, but then, in my country that is what they would get.

Robin

Robin <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:<BCA4830B.3BB5B%karakoram@postadoption.info>... in article WByfc.29163$K_.731571@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 15/4/04 5:19 pm: "Robin" <karakoram@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:BCA469FF.3BB1C%karakoram@postadoption.info... in article j5vs70pm8n88a2todc1rnpbq1nbpdekhdm@4ax.com, Jackie at forgetit@me.com wrote on 15/4/04 3:17 pm:> On 14 Apr 2004 11:25:20 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)> wrote:>>> I'm afraid your use of the word 'we' did seem to imply that the>> majority of folks who post on this ng are among those who think that>> people who conduct adoptions over the net deserve to get screwed.>> Are you sure that isn't what you meant?>>> I should not have used the term 'we'.> Sometimes I get careless in my typing.>>


Must be catching. I didn't express myself properly either.
IMO, going over the net to find paps doesn't *necessarily* make a
woman a 'fool', though it is a peculiarly naive thing to do, and
makes one wonder.
Skewed judgement can happen for reasons other than sheer idiocy.
I certainly don't think this screwing was deserved.



I suppose it makes a refreshing change for you.. from being careless with your thinking.. I think they deserve to be screwd--on both sides.


Fine.
But equally screwed?
With no consideration given to the particular situation?
Unless the laws change there'll continue to be screwers and screwees.
I think they deserve to be fined a large amount of money and / or a term of imprisonment, but then, in my country that is what they would get.


Unfortunately the same rules don't apply.
I hope one day they will.



Rh.
Robin