Di writes of open adoption:
It is the most insidious form of exploitation because her decision toplace is based on trust and her the promise that ongoing contact wouldbe maintained. It's all a con. A potentially deadly risk.>>

No one should consider placing a child in exchange for a promise of access to
the child.

No one should place a child in a planned open adoption without first
recognizing that the adoptive parents of the child will have full control over
future contact.*

You are wrong, Di, when you declare all open adoption plans "cons".


P2P

*The usual qualifiers apply. In some states children languishing in foster care
are now being freed for adoption by birth parents who first obtain legal, post
adoption contact agreements before voluntarily forfeiting parental rights.


P2P

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040412171130.15420.00000288@mb-m02.aol.com>... Di writes of open adoption:It is the most insidious form of exploitation because her decision toplace is based on trust and her the promise that ongoing contact wouldbe maintained. It's all a con. A potentially deadly risk.>> No one should consider placing a child in exchange for a promise of access to the child.

So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they make
when it comes to ongoing contact?

Di
No one should place a child in a planned open adoption without first recognizing that the adoptive parents of the child will have full control over future contact.* You are wrong, Di, when you declare all open adoption plans "cons".




P2P *The usual qualifiers apply. In some states children languishing in foster care are now being freed for adoption by birth parents who first obtain legal, post adoption contact agreements before voluntarily forfeiting parental rights. P2P

I wrote:
No one should consider placing a child in exchange for a promise of accessto the child.

Di responded:
So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they makewhen it comes to ongoing contact?Di

"PAPs" are a very large, diverse group. Only a fool, in my opinion, would
voluntarily relinquish a child based solely on a "gentleman's promise" with
absolutely no legal basis and under the assumption all people who agree to
specified forms of future contact cannot possibly renege or change their minds.


Again, Di, you are not likely to accept that birthparents are personally
responsible for educating themselves. Regardless, they are. Though you argue
relentlessly that birthmothers are entirely exempt from personal responsibility
as it relates to reproduction and child welfare, you are wrong.


P2P

Parents, employees testify in adoption case
2004-04-13
By Diana Baldwin
The Oklahoman


The multicounty grand jury heard witnesses Monday in the ongoing
investigation into private adoptions by Oklahoma City attorneys Robert
and Rebecca Boren.
Employees of the Borens' law practice and parents of children given up
for adoption testified Monday.

Oklahoma City police have searched the Borens' downtown law offices
and storage areas in the First National Center at least twice since
Nov. 4.

A special team of investigators have set up an office in the
courthouse annex as they go through years of business records of the
couple's private adoptions.

Police said they are looking for evidence of alleged violations of the
Oklahoma Corruption Organization Act, conspiracy to commit a felony,
trafficking children, forgery, extortion, obtaining money by false
pretense, embezzlement by attorney and falsifying corporate records.

The Borens have not been charged.

Defense attorney Mack Martin has said his clients will cooperate with
the investigation, which he said he thinks will end without criminal
charges being filed.

One of the search warrants named at least 200 people -- many who are
birth and adoptive parents -- as clients and possible victims of the
Borens, police said. The warrant remains sealed.


Contributing: Staff Writer Randy Ellis

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 4/13/04 2:26 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0404130126.5f124a2a@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040412171130.15420.00000288@mb-m02.aol.com>... Di writes of open adoption:It is the most insidious form of exploitation because her decision toplace is based on trust and her the promise that ongoing contact wouldbe maintained. It's all a con. A potentially deadly risk.>> No one should consider placing a child in exchange for a promise of accessto the child.So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they makewhen it comes to ongoing contact?Di

Those are your words.

Turn off your all about me channel, and reread what she wrote. "No one should
consider placing a child in exchange for a promise of access to the child."

What is so hard to understand about that, Di?








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

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they make when it comes to ongoing contact? Di

Some can, some can't. Just like any other promise.
Just like a b-mom in an open adoption can suddenly stop calling and
vanish off the map for years.

If it's not legally enforceable, it's subject to a change of minds by
either side. The reasons for the change of mind may be reasonable or
unreasonable -- but as long as there's nothing legal, it's entirely
dependent on the individuals concerned.

Rupa

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 4/13/04 8:07 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040413110729.25400.00000306@mb-m04.aol.com>I wrote: No one should consider placing a child in exchange for a promise of accessto the child.Di responded:So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they makewhen it comes to ongoing contact?Di"PAPs" are a very large, diverse group. Only a fool, in my opinion, wouldvoluntarily relinquish a child based solely on a "gentleman's promise" withabsolutely no legal basis and under the assumption all people who agree tospecified forms of future contact cannot possibly renege or change theirminds.Again, Di, you are not likely to accept that birthparents are personallyresponsible for educating themselves. Regardless, they are. Though you arguerelentlessly that birthmothers are entirely exempt from personalresponsibilityas it relates to reproduction and child welfare, you are wrong.P2P

Not defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation to educate
themselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to an
expectant woman. Women need to educate themselves to the possibilities that the
pap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water. They need to
inform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there really are no
guarantees that their child will even do better than if they were to raise
their children themselves. And I'm going to say this right now...there have
been way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to get the baby.
(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor, because I know in
fact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your boys had
access, visitation etc. with their birth families).

The point of this though is for Di to realize what you were really saying.
Women that relinquish have to realize the seriousness of their decisions to
relinquish. Open adoption should not be used to mitigate the seriousness of
that decision. A woman planning a relinquishment needs to educate herself to
the fact that once she signs the paper, she
no longer has rights to *anything unless she relinquished in a state that has
open adoption statute. To be fair, this also works both ways. Paps that only
want an open adoption have to realize that the birth family may choose to pull
out of their part of the bargain too, and disappear once the ink is dried on
their consents.




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

Rupa writes of casual agreements for ongoing post adoption contact:
If it's not legally enforceable, it's subject to a change of minds byeither side. The reasons for the change of mind may be reasonable orunreasonable -- but as long as there's nothing legal, it's entirelydependent on the individuals concerned.Rupa


True, Rupa. Casual agreements (as opposed to legal agreements) to maintain
contact between birth and adoptive parents are subject to many variables.
Parties can drift and often do. What seems reasonable, do-able and important
can seem unreasonable, inconvenient, intrusive, uninteresting,
counterproductive or painful down the road for parties on *either* side. For
these reasons, I do not predict widespread use of post adoption contact
contracts. They would not bode well for either side or children, in my opinion.
I do not believe legislators on a large scale will think such agreements meet
the needs of children in adoptions in terms of stability. I think, generally
speaking, most everyone sees adoption as something that needs to be final, as
simple as possible and utterly unshakable for the sake of the children
involved. Legally enforceable post adoption contact agreements would serve to
weaken and complicate adoptions, in my opinion. They would leave birthparents
with legal ties to the children they relinquish, which defeats one of the goals
of adoption itself.


P2P

Kathy writes of post adoption contact agreements:
Not defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation to educatethemselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to anexpectant woman. Women need to educate themselves to the possibilities thatthepap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water. They needtoinform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there really are noguarantees that their child will even do better than if they were to raisetheir children themselves. And I'm going to say this right now...there havebeen way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to get thebaby.(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor, because I knowinfact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your boys hadaccess, visitation etc. with their birth families).The point of this though is for Di to realize what you were really saying.Women that relinquish have to realize the seriousness of their decisions torelinquish. Open adoption should not be used to mitigate the seriousness ofthat decision. A woman planning a relinquishment needs to educate herself tothe fact that once she signs the paper, sheno longer has rights to *anything unless she relinquished in a state that hasopen adoption statute. To be fair, this also works both ways. Paps that onlywant an open adoption have to realize that the birth family may choose topullout of their part of the bargain too, and disappear once the ink is dried ontheir consents.


ITA 100%. Casual promises are casual promises. All parties to them should be
aware.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040413142737.03970.00000246@mb-m01.aol.com... Kathy writes of post adoption contact agreements:Not defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation to
educatethemselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to anexpectant woman. Women need to educate themselves to the possibilities
thatthepap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water. They
needtoinform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there really are
noguarantees that their child will even do better than if they were to
raisetheir children themselves. And I'm going to say this right now...there
havebeen way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to get thebaby.(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor, because I
knowinfact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your boys hadaccess, visitation etc. with their birth families).The point of this though is for Di to realize what you were really
saying.Women that relinquish have to realize the seriousness of their decisions
torelinquish. Open adoption should not be used to mitigate the seriousness
ofthat decision. A woman planning a relinquishment needs to educate
herself tothe fact that once she signs the paper, sheno longer has rights to *anything unless she relinquished in a state that
hasopen adoption statute. To be fair, this also works both ways. Paps that
onlywant an open adoption have to realize that the birth family may choose topullout of their part of the bargain too, and disappear once the ink is dried
ontheir consents.

As long as people breed indiscriminately and others suffer from babyee
rabies this crap will continue. A pox on all of them.

Marley ITA 100%. Casual promises are casual promises. All parties to them should
be aware. P2P

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 4/13/04 12:05 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <HRWec.27026$i74.537598@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040413142737.03970.00000246@mb-m01.aol.com... Kathy writes of post adoption contact agreements:Not defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation toeducatethemselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to anexpectant woman. Women need to educate themselves to the possibilitiesthatthepap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water. Theyneedtoinform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there really arenoguarantees that their child will even do better than if they were toraisetheir children themselves. And I'm going to say this right now...therehavebeen way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to get thebaby.(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor, because Iknowinfact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your boys hadaccess, visitation etc. with their birth families).The point of this though is for Di to realize what you were reallysaying.Women that relinquish have to realize the seriousness of their decisionstorelinquish. Open adoption should not be used to mitigate the seriousnessofthat decision. A woman planning a relinquishment needs to educateherself tothe fact that once she signs the paper, sheno longer has rights to *anything unless she relinquished in a state thathasopen adoption statute. To be fair, this also works both ways. Paps thatonlywant an open adoption have to realize that the birth family may choose topullout of their part of the bargain too, and disappear once the ink is driedontheir consents.As long as people breed indiscriminately and others suffer from babyeerabies this crap will continue. A pox on all of them.Marley

OK then.... Wishing her the pox or drag her thru the town center for a nice
little stoning...well, what's worse?


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: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 4/13/04 11:24 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040413142455.03970.00000245@mb-m01.aol.com>

(snip)

Re: enforcable open adoption statute, P2P writes:
They would leave birthparentswith legal ties to the children they relinquish, which defeats one of thegoalsof adoption itself.

I have no problem with this as long as this is what all parties of the adoption
agree to before the consents are given, and the papers are finalized. I mean
whoever thought that closed adoption wouldn't last for vnr? Open adoption
without binding statute is bound to get kicked to the curb too, or no?




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

"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040413154755.08046.00000346@mb-m11.aol.com...Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately
Adopt aBabyFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 4/13/04 12:05 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <HRWec.27026$i74.537598@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040413142737.03970.00000246@mb-m01.aol.com... Kathy writes of post adoption contact agreements: >Not defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation toeducate >themselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to an >expectant woman. Women need to educate themselves to the possibilitiesthat >the >pap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water.
Theyneed >to >inform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there really
areno >guarantees that their child will even do better than if they were toraise >their children themselves. And I'm going to say this right now...therehave >been way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to get
the >baby. >(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor, because
Iknow >in >fact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your boys
had >access, visitation etc. with their birth families). > >The point of this though is for Di to realize what you were reallysaying. >Women that relinquish have to realize the seriousness of their
decisionsto >relinquish. Open adoption should not be used to mitigate the
seriousnessof >that decision. A woman planning a relinquishment needs to educateherself to >the fact that once she signs the paper, she >no longer has rights to *anything unless she relinquished in a state
thathas >open adoption statute. To be fair, this also works both ways. Paps
thatonly >want an open adoption have to realize that the birth family may choose
to >pull >out of their part of the bargain too, and disappear once the ink is
driedon >their consents.As long as people breed indiscriminately and others suffer from babyeerabies this crap will continue. A pox on all of them.Marley OK then.... Wishing her the pox or drag her thru the town center for a
nice little stoning...well, what's worse?

But I want iti for all for all of them: producers and consumers. Leave
the planet a little bit nicer for normal people.

Marley 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: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 4/13/04 1:16 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <jUXec.17454$K_.514541@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040413154755.08046.00000346@mb-m11.aol.com...Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to PrivatelyAdopt aBabyFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 4/13/04 12:05 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <HRWec.27026$i74.537598@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040413142737.03970.00000246@mb-m01.aol.com...> Kathy writes of post adoption contact agreements:>> >Not defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation toeducate> >themselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to an> >expectant woman. Women need to educate themselves to the possibilitiesthat> >the> >pap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water.Theyneed> >to> >inform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there reallyareno> >guarantees that their child will even do better than if they were toraise> >their children themselves. And I'm going to say this right now...therehave> >been way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to getthe> >baby.> >(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor, becauseIknow> >in> >fact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your boyshad> >access, visitation etc. with their birth families).> >> >The point of this though is for Di to realize what you were reallysaying.> >Women that relinquish have to realize the seriousness of theirdecisionsto> >relinquish. Open adoption should not be used to mitigate theseriousnessof> >that decision. A woman planning a relinquishment needs to educateherself to> >the fact that once she signs the paper, she> >no longer has rights to *anything unless she relinquished in a statethathas> >open adoption statute. To be fair, this also works both ways. Papsthatonly> >want an open adoption have to realize that the birth family may chooseto> >pull> >out of their part of the bargain too, and disappear once the ink isdriedon> >their consents.As long as people breed indiscriminately and others suffer from babyeerabies this crap will continue. A pox on all of them.Marley OK then.... Wishing her the pox or drag her thru the town center for anice little stoning...well, what's worse?But I want iti for all for all of them: producers and consumers. Leavethe planet a little bit nicer for normal people.Marley

LOL! I'm glad that you clarified, I think...;-)




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

"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20040413162502.08046.00000350@mb-m11.aol.com...Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately
Adopt aBabyFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 4/13/04 1:16 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <jUXec.17454$K_.514541@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in messagenews:20040413154755.08046.00000346@mb-m11.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to PrivatelyAdopt a >Baby >From: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net >Date: 4/13/04 12:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id:
<HRWec.27026$i74.537598@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> > > >"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message >news:20040413142737.03970.00000246@mb-m01.aol.com... >> Kathy writes of post adoption contact agreements: >> >> >Not defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation
to >educate >> >themselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to
an >> >expectant woman. Women need to educate themselves to the
possibilities >that >> >the >> >pap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water.They >need >> >to >> >inform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there
reallyare >no >> >guarantees that their child will even do better than if they were
to >raise >> >their children themselves. And I'm going to say this right
now...there >have >> >been way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to
getthe >> >baby. >> >(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor,
becauseI >know >> >in >> >fact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your
boyshad >> >access, visitation etc. with their birth families). >> > >> >The point of this though is for Di to realize what you were really >saying. >> >Women that relinquish have to realize the seriousness of theirdecisions >to >> >relinquish. Open adoption should not be used to mitigate theseriousness >of >> >that decision. A woman planning a relinquishment needs to educate >herself to >> >the fact that once she signs the paper, she >> >no longer has rights to *anything unless she relinquished in a
statethat >has >> >open adoption statute. To be fair, this also works both ways. Papsthat >only >> >want an open adoption have to realize that the birth family may
chooseto >> >pull >> >out of their part of the bargain too, and disappear once the ink isdried >on >> >their consents. > >As long as people breed indiscriminately and others suffer from babyee >rabies this crap will continue. A pox on all of them. > >Marley OK then.... Wishing her the pox or drag her thru the town center for anice little stoning...well, what's worse?But I want iti for all for all of them: producers and consumers. Leavethe planet a little bit nicer for normal people.Marley LOL! I'm glad that you clarified, I think...;-)

Never doubt that I'm an Equal Opportunity Hater!

Marley 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

Kathy speculates:

<snip>
Open adoptionwithout binding statute is bound to get kicked to the curb too, or no?>>

I predict absolutely not. I do not see anyone wishing to return to secrecy in
adoption. Do you, Kathy? The opposite of open adoption is closed, meaning
birth and adoptive parents hide their identities from each other and hide from
each other. Who would wish for a return to that ridiculous fear-based, shame
based system/custom?




P2P

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote> True, Rupa. Casual agreements (as opposed to legal agreements) to maintain contact between birth and adoptive parents are subject to many variables. Parties can drift and often do. What seems reasonable, do-able and important can seem unreasonable, inconvenient, intrusive, uninteresting, counterproductive or painful down the road for parties on *either* side. For these reasons, I do not predict widespread use of post adoption contact contracts. They would not bode well for either side or children, in my opinion. I do not believe legislators on a large scale will think such agreements meet the needs of children in adoptions in terms of stability. I think, generally speaking, most everyone sees adoption as something that needs to be final, as simple as possible and utterly unshakable for the sake of the children involved. Legally enforceable post adoption contact agreements would serve to weaken and complicate adoptions, in my opinion. They would leave birthparents with legal ties to the children they relinquish, which defeats one of the goals of adoption itself.

I think it will be rather like post-nuptial agreements.

I think these post-adoption agreements will be fewer than the actual
number of open adoptions. But I think they will exist, and prudent
people going into an open adoption will use them.

Rupa

Rupa writes of post adoption contact agreements:
I think it will be rather like post-nuptial agreements.>>

I disagree, Rupa. I cannot identify any similarities between the two legal
situations.
I think these post-adoption agreements will be fewer than the actualnumber of open adoptions. But I think they will exist, and prudentpeople going into an open adoption will use them.>>

I disagree, again. I think birthparents who might insist on them should
reconsider their abilities to place a child for adoption. I think people
wishing to adopt would be wise to steer clear of pbirthparents wishing to
maintain legal ties to the child. I would bet big money against post adoption
contact contracts ever becoming widely accepted and used. JMHG.


P2P

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 4/13/04 2:14 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040413171440.09958.00000319@mb-m17.aol.com>Kathy speculates:<snip>Open adoptionwithout binding statute is bound to get kicked to the curb too, or no?>>I predict absolutely not. I do not see anyone wishing to return to secrecy inadoption. Do you, Kathy? The opposite of open adoption is closed, meaningbirth and adoptive parents hide their identities from each other and hidefromeach other. Who would wish for a return to that ridiculous fear-based, shamebased system/custom?P2P

No one said that. I think that you missed my point. Let me try again. As we
have seen vnr closed adoption get kicked to the curb, (for the most part
anyway), I truly believe that it is not an impossibility to imagine open
adoption without binding statute to be co-guttering with my old pal, closed
adoption.




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 a
Baby
From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)
Date: 4/13/04 3:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20040413181953.21030.00000318@mb-m28.aol.com>

Rupa writes of post adoption contact agreements:
I think it will be rather like post-nuptial agreements.>>

I disagree, Rupa. I cannot identify any similarities between the two legal
situations.
I think these post-adoption agreements will be fewer than the actualnumber of open adoptions. But I think they will exist, and prudentpeople going into an open adoption will use them.>>

I disagree, again. I think birthparents who might insist on them should
reconsider their abilities to place a child for adoption.

Why? I think it is progressive for some to insist on bettering adoption for
their child's fate, best interests by sealing it with statute. Note, I am not
advocating anything, just saying the way I think it's going to go in years to
come. There have been too many broken hearts made by broken promises, and
birthparents are not settling for crumbs anymore. Nor should they.








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

In article <20040413142455.03970.00000245@mb-m01.aol.com>,
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:
Rupa writes of casual agreements for ongoing post adoption contact:If it's not legally enforceable, it's subject to a change of minds byeither side. The reasons for the change of mind may be reasonable orunreasonable -- but as long as there's nothing legal, it's entirelydependent on the individuals concerned.RupaTrue, Rupa. Casual agreements (as opposed to legal agreements) to maintaincontact between birth and adoptive parents are subject to many variables.Parties can drift and often do. What seems reasonable, do-able and importantcan seem unreasonable, inconvenient, intrusive, uninteresting,counterproductive or painful down the road for parties on *either* side. Forthese reasons, I do not predict widespread use of post adoption contactcontracts. They would not bode well for either side or children, in myopinion.I do not believe legislators on a large scale will think such agreements meetthe needs of children in adoptions in terms of stability. I think, generallyspeaking, most everyone sees adoption as something that needs to be final, assimple as possible and utterly unshakable for the sake of the childreninvolved. Legally enforceable post adoption contact agreements would serve toweaken and complicate adoptions, in my opinion. They would leave birthparentswith legal ties to the children they relinquish, which defeats one of thegoalsof adoption itself.P2P

Some interesting ideas in your post, P. I won't hazard a guess as to how
widespread the use of post-adoption contracts might become. I agree that they
would complicate adoptions, but don't see that they would necessarily weaken an
adoption. Care to elaborate on that? And while such agreements, if
enforceable, do give the parents some legal rights vis a vis the child(ren),
I'd never thought of destruction of legal ties as a goal of adoption, so much
as a by-product of the process.

J.







Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

In article <20040413125814.29850.00000319@mb-m13.aol.com>,
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) writes:
Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 4/13/04 8:07 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040413110729.25400.00000306@mb-m04.aol.com>I wrote:> No one should consider placing a child in exchange for a promise ofaccessto> the child.>Di responded:So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they makewhen it comes to ongoing contact?Di"PAPs" are a very large, diverse group. Only a fool, in my opinion, wouldvoluntarily relinquish a child based solely on a "gentleman's promise" withabsolutely no legal basis and under the assumption all people who agree tospecified forms of future contact cannot possibly renege or change theirminds.Again, Di, you are not likely to accept that birthparents are personallyresponsible for educating themselves. Regardless, they are. Though you arguerelentlessly that birthmothers are entirely exempt from personalresponsibilityas it relates to reproduction and child welfare, you are wrong.P2PNot defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation to educatethemselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to anexpectant woman.

I'd say that anyone who needs such an education shouldn't be adopting in the
first place.
Women need to educate themselves to the possibilities thatthepap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water. They needtoinform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there really are noguarantees that their child will even do better than if they were to raisetheir children themselves. And I'm going to say this right now...there havebeen way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to get thebaby.(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor, because I knowinfact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your boys hadaccess, visitation etc. with their birth families).

There's no doubt that women need to know whether any promises made to them (by
agencies, facilitators, paps, or anyone else) mean anything legally. The Texas
Court of Appeals held some time back that an agency that told a woman about an
open adoption option had an obligation also to tell her that the promises
weren't binding under Texas law. (I never did find out what happened to that
case, if and when it ever went before the Texas Supreme Court. Anyone know?
The case was Vela v. Marywood, released almost 4 years ago.)

<snip>

J.

PS I decided to look for it again and found this:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
.............
No. 00-0583
.............
Marywood, Petitioner
v.
Corina Vela, Respondent
.................................................. ...
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas
.................................................. ...
Per Curiam

Petitioner's motion for rehearing is denied, the per curiam opinion
issued in this case on May 3, 2001, is withdrawn, and the following per curiam
opinion is issued in its place.

Marywood, a child-placement agency, petitions for review of the court
of appeals' judgment that a birth mother, Corina Vela, had not voluntarily
relinquished her parental rights before adoption procedures. 17 S.W.3d 750.
This case presents the question of whether a birth mother can revoke her
voluntary relinquishment of parental rights solely because the adoption agency
failed to advise her of the legal effect of an open adoption agreement. See
Tex. Fam. Code § 161.211.

After the court of appeals issued its opinion, the adoptive couple
with whom Marywood had placed the child voluntarily relinquished custody and
returned the child to Vela. We deny the petition for review.

Opinion Delivered: May 3, 2001




Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040413110729.25400.00000306@mb-m04.aol.com>... I wrote: No one should consider placing a child in exchange for a promise of access to the child. Di responded:So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they makewhen it comes to ongoing contact?Di "PAPs" are a very large, diverse group. Only a fool, in my opinion, would voluntarily relinquish a child based solely on a "gentleman's promise" with absolutely no legal basis and under the assumption all people who agree to specified forms of future contact cannot possibly renege or change their minds.


Let's get this right.
You have a low opinion of *any* birth parent who voluntarily
relinquishes to an 'open' adoption. You consider such a person a
'fool', who (presumably) has forfeited any entitlement to protection
under the law.
Paps, on the other hand, are members of a 'large and diverse group'
that includes the good the bad and the ugly (you presumably include
yourself in the first category)
Sounds like you are turning 'Caveat emptor' on its head (except of
course that the only recompense most of these fools hope for is
continued contact with their children. The agencies get the $$$)


Again, Di, you are not likely to accept that birthparents are personally responsible for educating themselves. Regardless, they are. Though you argue relentlessly that birthmothers are entirely exempt from personal responsibility as it relates to reproduction and child welfare, you are wrong.



It's true up to a point that they are responsible for educating
themselves. Easier said than done when they are presented with
misinformation at the outset. Not everybody is canny or educated -
that they aren't doesn't mean that they are stupid. It may simply be
that they are temporarily confounded because they are in an extreme
situation, and consequently unrealistic about things.



Rh. P2P

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404130842.50a0656f@posting.google.com>... patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they make when it comes to ongoing contact? Di Some can, some can't. Just like any other promise. Just like a b-mom in an open adoption can suddenly stop calling and vanish off the map for years. If it's not legally enforceable, it's subject to a change of minds by either side. The reasons for the change of mind may be reasonable or unreasonable -- but as long as there's nothing legal, it's entirely dependent on the individuals concerned. Rupa

That's right. In very few states is the contract legally binding. And
yet I've yet to see that fact emphasised on any adoption agency
website.
As I said, it's all a con. Some are lucky if the adopters are honest,
many, obviously are not.

Di

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040413181953.21030.00000318@mb-m28.aol.com>... Rupa writes of post adoption contact agreements:I think it will be rather like post-nuptial agreements.>> I disagree, Rupa. I cannot identify any similarities between the two legal situations.

I used the analogy in the sense that they are legal agreements that
are likely to be used in a small percentage of the underlying
contract: Adoption in one case, marriage in the other.


Rupa

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040413110729.25400.00000306@mb-m04.aol.com>... I wrote: No one should consider placing a child in exchange for a promise of access to the child. Di responded:So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they makewhen it comes to ongoing contact?Di "PAPs" are a very large, diverse group. Only a fool, in my opinion, would voluntarily relinquish a child based solely on a "gentleman's promise" with absolutely no legal basis and under the assumption all people who agree to specified forms of future contact cannot possibly renege or change their minds.

So in reality what you are saying is that only a fool would consider
an open adoption agreement in any state that doesn't have legally
enforcable open adoption contact agreements? Mind if I quote you?

Di



Again, Di, you are not likely to accept that birthparents are personally responsible for educating themselves. Regardless, they are. Though you argue relentlessly that birthmothers are entirely exempt from personal responsibility as it relates to reproduction and child welfare, you are wrong. P2P

jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in message news:<20040413190938.17713.00000300@mb-m28.aol.com>... There's no doubt that women need to know whether any promises made to them (by agencies, facilitators, paps, or anyone else) mean anything legally. The Texas Court of Appeals held some time back that an agency that told a woman about an open adoption option had an obligation also to tell her that the promises weren't binding under Texas law. (I never did find out what happened to that case, if and when it ever went before the Texas Supreme Court. Anyone know? The case was Vela v. Marywood, released almost 4 years ago.) <snip> J. PS I decided to look for it again and found this: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ............ No. 00-0583 ............ Marywood, Petitioner v. Corina Vela, Respondent .................................................. .. On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas .................................................. .. Per Curiam Petitioner's motion for rehearing is denied, the per curiam opinion issued in this case on May 3, 2001, is withdrawn, and the following per curiam opinion is issued in its place. Marywood, a child-placement agency, petitions for review of the court of appeals' judgment that a birth mother, Corina Vela, had not voluntarily relinquished her parental rights before adoption procedures. 17 S.W.3d 750. This case presents the question of whether a birth mother can revoke her voluntary relinquishment of parental rights solely because the adoption agency failed to advise her of the legal effect of an open adoption agreement. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.211. After the court of appeals issued its opinion, the adoptive couple with whom Marywood had placed the child voluntarily relinquished custody and returned the child to Vela. We deny the petition for review. Opinion Delivered: May 3, 2001


Thanks for finding it, J.



Rh. Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

On 13 Apr 2004 16:42:52 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
It's true up to a point that they are responsible for educatingthemselves. Easier said than done when they are presented withmisinformation at the outset. Not everybody is canny or educated -that they aren't doesn't mean that they are stupid. It may simply bethat they are temporarily confounded because they are in an extremesituation, and consequently unrealistic about things.

Cindy did not know what open adoption was when she entered into the
agreement with Susan Burns.. (according to what I have read on
adoption.com)

Apparently she was very upset when she learned that some women were
actually able to visit with the bson or daughter..

Jackie

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.)Date: 4/13/04 4:09 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040413190938.17713.00000300@mb-m28.aol.com>In article <20040413125814.29850.00000319@mb-m13.aol.com>,meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) writes:Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately AdoptaBabyFrom: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 4/13/04 8:07 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040413110729.25400.00000306@mb-m04.aol.com>I wrote:>> No one should consider placing a child in exchange for a promise ofaccess>to>> the child.>>>Di responded:>So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they make>when it comes to ongoing contact?>>Di"PAPs" are a very large, diverse group. Only a fool, in my opinion, wouldvoluntarily relinquish a child based solely on a "gentleman's promise" withabsolutely no legal basis and under the assumption all people who agree tospecified forms of future contact cannot possibly renege or change theirminds.Again, Di, you are not likely to accept that birthparents are personallyresponsible for educating themselves. Regardless, they are. Though youarguerelentlessly that birthmothers are entirely exempt from personalresponsibilityas it relates to reproduction and child welfare, you are wrong.P2PNot defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation toeducatethemselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to anexpectant woman.I'd say that anyone who needs such an education shouldn't be adopting in thefirst place.Women need to educate themselves to the possibilities thatthepap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water. They needtoinform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there really are noguarantees that their child will even do better than if they were to raisetheir children themselves. And I'm going to say this right now...there havebeen way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to get thebaby.(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor, because I knowinfact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your boys hadaccess, visitation etc. with their birth families).There's no doubt that women need to know whether any promises made to them(byagencies, facilitators, paps, or anyone else) mean anything legally.

Yes.

TheTexasCourt of Appeals held some time back that an agency that told a woman aboutanopen adoption option had an obligation also to tell her that the promisesweren't binding under Texas law. (I never did find out what happened tothatcase, if and when it ever went before the Texas Supreme Court. Anyone know?The case was Vela v. Marywood, released almost 4 years ago.)<snip>J.PS I decided to look for it again and found this:

I read about this case, but not the actually briefing. Thanks for putting this
out here, J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS............No. 00-0583............Marywood, Petitionerv.Corina Vela, Respondent........................................ ............On Petition for Review from theCourt of Appeals for the Third District of Texas............................................. .......Per Curiam Petitioner's motion for rehearing is denied, the per curiam opinionissued in this case on May 3, 2001, is withdrawn, and the following percuriamopinion is issued in its place. Marywood, a child-placement agency, petitions for review of thecourtof appeals' judgment that a birth mother, Corina Vela, had not voluntarilyrelinquished her parental rights before adoption procedures. 17 S.W.3d 750.This case presents the question of whether a birth mother can revoke hervoluntary relinquishment of parental rights solely because the adoptionagencyfailed to advise her of the legal effect of an open adoption agreement. SeeTex. Fam. Code § 161.211. After the court of appeals issued its opinion, the adoptive couplewith whom Marywood had placed the child voluntarily relinquished custody andreturned the child to Vela. We deny the petition for review.Opinion Delivered: May 3, 2001



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

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040413110729.25400.00000306@mb-m04.aol.com>... I wrote: No one should consider placing a child in exchange for a promise of access to the child. Di responded:So you agree that PAP's cannot be trusted to keep promises they makewhen it comes to ongoing contact?Di "PAPs" are a very large, diverse group. Only a fool, in my opinion, would voluntarily relinquish a child based solely on a "gentleman's promise" with absolutely no legal basis and under the assumption all people who agree to specified forms of future contact cannot possibly renege or change their minds. Again, Di, you are not likely to accept that birthparents are personally responsible for educating themselves. Regardless, they are. Though you argue relentlessly that birthmothers are entirely exempt from personal responsibility as it relates to reproduction and child welfare, you are wrong. P2P


Would you also agree that only a fool would adopt a child based solely
on a "gentleman's promise" that the child was not defective?

Adopters aren't suing natural mothers for "wrongful adoption."
They're suing their child procurers, the agencies and professionals
they paid to obtain HWI's for them. Nor are mothers suing adopters
for their defective parenting.

The difference is, we paid no one. We simply trusted that the product
marketed (adoption and adopters) would serve our children's best
interests, as advertised and promised. That was our primary motive,
and we were lied to.

Where does this leave adopters? It leaves them looking like raging
hypocrites for holding the adoption industry responsible for
defrauding *them* about adoption, whilst lecturing us mothers that we
should accept personal responsibility for having been defrauded.

Lest you forget, most of us were quite young when we surrendered. We
had nothing near adopters' education, experience, sophistication,
financial resources or social support at the time we surrendered our
babies. Nor did we pay anyone to get us a child, much less pretend
we'd be forever parents. To the contrary, we were counseled to get
out of Dodge, get out of our children's lives, and get over it. How
they wish we had.

Ho-hum. What else is new? Money is the meat and potatoes of adoption
and adopter hypocrisy is the icing on the cake.


Laura

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 4/14/04 2:05 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0404141305.7b6cc27a@posting.google.com>

(snip)
The difference is, we paid no one. We simply trusted that the productmarketed (adoption and adopters) would serve our children's bestinterests, as advertised and promised. That was our primary motive,and we were lied to.

Cow ****. Moo for yourself. Do you take lessons from Di, and think this is
your missive in life to lie and yap about all mothers?

Get your facts straight. I was not lied to by adopters or the adoption market.
Nobody promised me anything. I knew the risks,.... I gave my son up solely
because I had no where else to turn because my parents refused to help me when
I needed them most.

Luckily my son's parents did serve his best interests.
Where does this leave adopters? It leaves them looking like raginghypocrites

The better question is where does this leave you? You look like an asshole
blaming everybody adopters, and refusing to get into reality. You're the
hypocrite.


for holding the adoption industry responsible fordefrauding *them* about adoption, whilst lecturing us mothers that weshould accept personal responsibility for having been defrauded.

You're responsible for you, not adoptiers, and certainly none of the adopters
on this ng. owe you ****.


Lest you forget, most of us were quite young when we surrendered. Wehad nothing near adopters' education, experience, sophistication,financial resources or social support at the time we surrendered our
babies. Nor did we pay anyone to get us a child, much less pretendwe'd be forever parents.

To the contrary, we were counseled to getout of Dodge, get out of our children's lives, and get over it.

You're right about the last part, but why you continue to blame adopters for
the counseling you lacked or did not receive is lunacy.
Howthey wish we had.Ho-hum. What else is new? Money is the meat and potatoes of adoptionand adopter hypocrisy is the icing on the cake.

And don't forget to add that your moo in their coffee.




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

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040413142737.03970.00000246@mb-m01.aol.com>... Kathy writes of post adoption contact agreements:Not defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation to educatethemselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to anexpectant woman. Women need to educate themselves to the possibilities thatthepap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water. They needtoinform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there really are noguarantees that their child will even do better than if they were to raisetheir children themselves. And I'm going to say this right now...there havebeen way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to get thebaby.(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor, because I knowinfact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your boys hadaccess, visitation etc. with their birth families).The point of this though is for Di to realize what you were really saying.Women that relinquish have to realize the seriousness of their decisions torelinquish. Open adoption should not be used to mitigate the seriousness ofthat decision. A woman planning a relinquishment needs to educate herself tothe fact that once she signs the paper, sheno longer has rights to *anything unless she relinquished in a state that hasopen adoption statute. To be fair, this also works both ways. Paps that onlywant an open adoption have to realize that the birth family may choose topullout of their part of the bargain too, and disappear once the ink is dried ontheir consents. ITA 100%. Casual promises are casual promises. All parties to them should be aware. P2P



I'm glad you agree, because most mothers made no promises at all.
Rather, they were only promised and promised and promised.

I and many other mothers found and contacted our children when they
were minors. This was perfectly legal because we'd promised nothing
to anyone. We were shocked to discover that no matter how joyfully
our children greeted us, most of our children's adopters did not
welcome us with open arms as we'd hoped, but were outraged at our
audacity and begrudged us anything to do with our children. We were
not received as loving, unselfish mothers, but as dangerous,
threatening intruders. We have callous letters and threats from
adopters and their attorneys to attest to that.

It seems many adopters adopted our children only because they were
promised a reliable product, and exclusive rights to our children
forever. Imagine that! Some have said as much to our children.
Imagine that, too. Then imagine how we feel about all this. Or don't
you have a very good imagination?

Why are women considering adoption counseled to imagine the worst if
they raise their children, but only the best if they surrender them to
adoption?

Here's to awareness. Imagination, like adoption, can play strange
tricks on people.


Laura

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<q3bq70dvmbav970esr79nv357l7rlbdrue@4ax.com>... On 13 Apr 2004 16:42:52 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:It's true up to a point that they are responsible for educatingthemselves. Easier said than done when they are presented withmisinformation at the outset. Not everybody is canny or educated -that they aren't doesn't mean that they are stupid. It may simply bethat they are temporarily confounded because they are in an extremesituation, and consequently unrealistic about things. Cindy did not know what open adoption was when she entered into the agreement with Susan Burns.. (according to what I have read on adoption.com) Apparently she was very upset when she learned that some women were actually able to visit with the bson or daughter.. Jackie

So what happened was something like this?

Cindy went on the net to find a-parents for her expected daughter.
Susan went on the net to find a child. They linked up. Cindy and Susan
agreed on video and pictures every six months.

Afterward, Cindy found (1) her eldest, Brandon, was more disturbed
about the relinquishment than she had expected -- he had been the one
caring for the baby in the hospital (2) Such a thing as fully open
adoption existed, that included visits; and she wished she could have
arranged that instead (3) As she started posting about her despair at
relinquishment, Susan discouraged her and she also stopped her from
posting a photo of the kid on the net (4) When she read Susan's book,
she became convinced that her friendship with Susan was a false one.

If this is in fact what happened, I have to say this is much easier to
understand than an evil witch of an a-mom.

Rupa

In article <dafc70.0404140429.778a837b@posting.google.com>,
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) writes:
jmdjmh@aol.compostible (J.) wrote in messagenews:<20040413190938.17713.00000300@mb-m28.aol.com>... There's no doubt that women need to know whether any promises made to them(by agencies, facilitators, paps, or anyone else) mean anything legally. TheTexas Court of Appeals held some time back that an agency that told a woman aboutan open adoption option had an obligation also to tell her that the promises weren't binding under Texas law. (I never did find out what happened tothat case, if and when it ever went before the Texas Supreme Court. Anyoneknow? The case was Vela v. Marywood, released almost 4 years ago.) <snip> J. PS I decided to look for it again and found this: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ............ No. 00-0583 ............ Marywood, Petitioner v. Corina Vela, Respondent .................................................. .. On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas .................................................. .. Per Curiam Petitioner's motion for rehearing is denied, the per curiamopinion issued in this case on May 3, 2001, is withdrawn, and the following percuriam opinion is issued in its place. Marywood, a child-placement agency, petitions for review of thecourt of appeals' judgment that a birth mother, Corina Vela, had not voluntarily relinquished her parental rights before adoption procedures. 17 S.W.3d 750. This case presents the question of whether a birth mother can revoke her voluntary relinquishment of parental rights solely because the adoptionagency failed to advise her of the legal effect of an open adoption agreement. See Tex. Fam. Code § 161.211. After the court of appeals issued its opinion, the adoptive couple with whom Marywood had placed the child voluntarily relinquished custodyand returned the child to Vela. We deny the petition for review. Opinion Delivered: May 3, 2001Thanks for finding it, J.Rh.

You're welcome.

J.





Reply to jmhjmd at aol.

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 4/14/2004 5:48 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0404141348.6bc80315@posting.google.com>

< snip >
I and many other mothers found and contacted our children when theywere minors. This was perfectly legal because we'd promised nothingto anyone.

Since when is "perfectly legal" the only standard by which you justify your
behavior towards others? The adoption of your child was "perfectly legal", was
it not?
We were shocked

I rather doubt you were shocked. We can be just a territorial when it comes
to our *minor* children as any parents. If you weren't seeking their
permission, at the very least you should have served notice before contacting
their minor child.

Adult adoptees - all bets are off. But I would expect a call from another
parent seeking permission for something as insignificant as asking my daughter
to go on a sleepover. I would certainly expect the same for something 1000x
more significant, like a reunification out-of-the-blue after many years.

Face it, you disrespected them as their *minor* children's parents in a
significant way. What did you expect from them... a coming out party?
to discover that no matter how joyfully our children greeted us, most ofour children's adopters did not welcome us with open arms as we'd hoped,but were outraged at our audacity and begrudged us anything to do withour children.

People often don't take it well when others upset their family apple cart.
It's not just adoptive parents - this includes those birthmothers who
initially refuse contact from their biological children for the same reason.
I'm sure you can understand this.
We were not received as loving, unselfish mothers, but as dangerous,threatening intruders. We have callous letters and threats fromadopters and their attorneys to attest to that.

You set the standard. I suppose they're showing as much respect for you as
you held for them. Congratulations... you deserve each other.

Dad

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)Date: 4/14/04 6:33 PM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20040414203310.17552.00000253@mb-m20.aol.com>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 4/14/2004 5:48 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0404141348.6bc80315@posting.google.com>

Top posting: Couldn't agree more, Dad. Thanks for posting.
< snip >I and many other mothers found and contacted our children when theywere minors. This was perfectly legal because we'd promised nothingto anyone. Since when is "perfectly legal" the only standard by which you justify yourbehavior towards others? The adoption of your child was "perfectly legal",wasit not?We were shocked I rather doubt you were shocked. We can be just a territorial when itcomesto our *minor* children as any parents. If you weren't seeking theirpermission, at the very least you should have served notice before contactingtheir minor child. Adult adoptees - all bets are off. But I would expect a call fromanotherparent seeking permission for something as insignificant as asking mydaughterto go on a sleepover. I would certainly expect the same for something 1000xmore significant, like a reunification out-of-the-blue after many years. Face it, you disrespected them as their *minor* children's parents in asignificant way. What did you expect from them... a coming out party?to discover that no matter how joyfully our children greeted us, most ofour children's adopters did not welcome us with open arms as we'd hoped,but were outraged at our audacity and begrudged us anything to do withour children. People often don't take it well when others upset their family apple cart.It's not just adoptive parents - this includes those birthmothers whoinitially refuse contact from their biological children for the same reason.I'm sure you can understand this.We were not received as loving, unselfish mothers, but as dangerous,threatening intruders. We have callous letters and threats fromadopters and their attorneys to attest to that. You set the standard. I suppose they're showing as much respect for you asyou held for them. Congratulations... you deserve each other.Dad




-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20040414174720.23200.00000258@mb-m22.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 4/14/04 2:05 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0404141305.7b6cc27a@posting.google.com> (snip)The difference is, we paid no one. We simply trusted that the productmarketed (adoption and adopters) would serve our children's bestinterests, as advertised and promised. That was our primary motive,and we were lied to. Cow ****. Moo for yourself. Do you take lessons from Di, and think this is your missive in life to lie and yap about all mothers? Get your facts straight. I was not lied to by adopters or the adoption market. Nobody promised me anything. I knew the risks,.... I gave my son up solely because I had no where else to turn because my parents refused to help me when I needed them most.

Get YOUR own facts straight, Kathy. You are referring to YOUR family,
your experience. Not Laura's, not mine, not any other mother's
experience. Just your own. You were a married women who knew her
rights and claims to have known of the financial support you were
entitled to but chose not to apply for it. You knew as a married woman
you could have claimed maintenance from your son's father and chose
not to apply for it. You "knew the risks" associated with adoption as
you have just asserted. You have also claimed in earlier posts that
you voluntarily relinquished your son, not because you had no support
from your parents (although that also played it's part) but to PROTECT
HIM FROM HIS VIOLENT FATHER - who would have had to sign the consent
as well. So stop equating your own experience to unmarried mothers
whose experiences differed to yours. And stop disrespecting and
dismissing their experiences simply because theirs differed to yours.
oh, and stop changing your story.

Di

Luckily my son's parents did serve his best interests.Where does this leave adopters? It leaves them looking like raginghypocrites The better question is where does this leave you? You look like an asshole blaming everybody adopters, and refusing to get into reality. You're the hypocrite.for holding the adoption industry responsible fordefrauding *them* about adoption, whilst lecturing us mothers that weshould accept personal responsibility for having been defrauded. You're responsible for you, not adoptiers, and certainly none of the adopters on this ng. owe you ****.Lest you forget, most of us were quite young when we surrendered. Wehad nothing near adopters' education, experience, sophistication,financial resources or social support at the time we surrendered ourbabies. Nor did we pay anyone to get us a child, much less pretendwe'd be forever parents. To the contrary, we were counseled to getout of Dodge, get out of our children's lives, and get over it. You're right about the last part, but why you continue to blame adopters for the counseling you lacked or did not receive is lunacy.Howthey wish we had.Ho-hum. What else is new? Money is the meat and potatoes of adoptionand adopter hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. And don't forget to add that your moo in their coffee. 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: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 4/15/2004 12:46 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0404142046.7f39dd8b@posting.google.com>

< snip >

Now THIS is rich!
Get YOUR own facts straight, Kathy. You are referring to YOUR family,your experience. Not Laura's, not mine, not any other mother'sexperience. Just your own.

< snip >
So stop equating your own experience to unmarried motherswhose experiences differed to yours. And stop disrespecting anddismissing their experiences simply because theirs differed to yours.oh, and stop changing your story.

Can't see the forest for the trees. Typical relinquisher.

Dad

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian)Date: 4/14/04 9:46 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <9a095db9.0404142046.7f39dd8b@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20040414174720.23200.00000258@mb-m22.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately AdoptaBabyFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 4/14/04 2:05 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0404141305.7b6cc27a@posting.google.com> (snip)The difference is, we paid no one. We simply trusted that the productmarketed (adoption and adopters) would serve our children's bestinterests, as advertised and promised. That was our primary motive,and we were lied to. Cow ****. Moo for yourself. Do you take lessons from Di, and think this is your missive in life to lie and yap about all mothers? Get your facts straight. I was not lied to by adopters or the adoptionmarket. Nobody promised me anything. I knew the risks,.... I gave my son up solely because I had no where else to turn because my parents refused to help mewhen I needed them most.Get YOUR own facts straight, Kathy. You are referring to YOUR family,your experience. Not Laura's, not mine, not any other mother'sexperience. Just your own. You were a married women who knew herrights and claims to have known of the financial support you wereentitled to but chose not to apply for it. You knew as a married womanyou could have claimed maintenance from your son's father and chosenot to apply for it. You "knew the risks" associated with adoption asyou have just asserted. You have also claimed in earlier posts thatyou voluntarily relinquished your son, not because you had no supportfrom your parents (although that also played it's part) but to PROTECTHIM FROM HIS VIOLENT FATHER - who would have had to sign the consentas well. So stop equating your own experience to unmarried motherswhose experiences differed to yours. And stop disrespecting anddismissing their experiences simply because theirs differed to yours.oh, and stop changing your story.

Di, and her ironic moments. You've rewritten, and revised my son's
relinquishment for me. Why should I be allowed to tell it... Pathetic.

I asked for Laura to stop speaking for ALL that relinquished. Isn't that what
you always demand, you crazy *****?
What else is new? Money is the meat and potatoes of adoptionand adopter hypocrisy is the icing on the cake.

And YOU'RE both the double mocha in their coffee.*


*amending my statement






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

On 14 Apr 2004 16:09:56 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<q3bq70dvmbav970esr79nv357l7rlbdrue@4ax.com>... On 13 Apr 2004 16:42:52 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:It's true up to a point that they are responsible for educatingthemselves. Easier said than done when they are presented withmisinformation at the outset. Not everybody is canny or educated -that they aren't doesn't mean that they are stupid. It may simply bethat they are temporarily confounded because they are in an extremesituation, and consequently unrealistic about things. Cindy did not know what open adoption was when she entered into the agreement with Susan Burns.. (according to what I have read on adoption.com) Apparently she was very upset when she learned that some women were actually able to visit with the bson or daughter.. JackieSo what happened was something like this?Cindy went on the net to find a-parents for her expected daughter.Susan went on the net to find a child. They linked up. Cindy and Susanagreed on video and pictures every six months.Afterward, Cindy found (1) her eldest, Brandon, was more disturbedabout the relinquishment than she had expected -- he had been the onecaring for the baby in the hospital (2) Such a thing as fully openadoption existed, that included visits; and she wished she could havearranged that instead (3) As she started posting about her despair atrelinquishment, Susan discouraged her and she also stopped her fromposting a photo of the kid on the net (4) When she read Susan's book,she became convinced that her friendship with Susan was a false one.

I think that when she read the book she realized that there was no
true friendship between them.. She also said she thought her daughter
was in good hands.. She always said that.. According to a post on
adoption.com..
If this is in fact what happened, I have to say this is much easier tounderstand than an evil witch of an a-mom.

I do not think there was evil intent anywhere.. I just wish that
adoption was more regulated..


Jackie

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis)Date: 4/14/04 2:48 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <1a4c2bd3.0404141348.6bc80315@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040413142737.03970.00000246@mb-m01.aol.com>... Kathy writes of post adoption contact agreements:Not defending anything Di wrote, but paps also have the obligation toeducatethemselves to the seriousness of making an open adoption promise to anexpectant woman. Women need to educate themselves to the possibilitiesthatthepap's promises made with the best of intentions hold little water. Theyneedtoinform themselves to the fact that once they relinquish, there really arenoguarantees that their child will even do better than if they were to raisetheir children themselves. And I'm going to say this right now...therehavebeen way too many greedy types that promise open adoption only to get thebaby.(and of course, Palms this has nothing to do with your honor, because Iknowinfact that you would go to the end of the earth to make sure your boys hadaccess, visitation etc. with their birth families).The point of this though is for Di to realize what you were really saying.Women that relinquish have to realize the seriousness of their decisionstorelinquish. Open adoption should not be used to mitigate the seriousnessofthat decision. A woman planning a relinquishment needs to educate herselftothe fact that once she signs the paper, sheno longer has rights to *anything unless she relinquished in a state thathasopen adoption statute. To be fair, this also works both ways. Paps thatonlywant an open adoption have to realize that the birth family may choose topullout of their part of the bargain too, and disappear once the ink is driedontheir consents. ITA 100%. Casual promises are casual promises. All parties to them shouldbe aware. P2PI'm glad you agree, because most mothers made no promises at all.Rather, they were only promised and promised and promised.I and many other mothers found and contacted our children when theywere minors. This was perfectly legal because we'd promised nothingto anyone. We were shocked to discover that no matter how joyfullyour children greeted us, most of our children's adopters did notwelcome us with open arms as we'd hoped, but were outraged at ouraudacity and begrudged us anything to do with our children. We werenot received as loving, unselfish mothers, but as dangerous,threatening intruders. We have callous letters and threats fromadopters and their attorneys to attest to that.It seems many adopters adopted our children only because they werepromised a reliable product, and exclusive rights to our childrenforever. Imagine that! Some have said as much to our children.Imagine that, too. Then imagine how we feel about all this. Or don'tyou have a very good imagination?Why are women considering adoption counseled to imagine the worst ifthey raise their children, but only the best if they surrender them toadoption?Here's to awareness. Imagination, like adoption, can play strangetricks on people.

Leave it to your moo to take a discussion about casual open adoption promises
and compare it to this trite.






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

in article 9a095db9.0404142046.7f39dd8b@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice068@optusnet.com.au wrote on 15/4/04 5:46 am:

<snip>
Get YOUR own facts straight, Kathy. You are referring to YOUR family, your experience. Not Laura's, not mine, not any other mother's experience.

<snip>

Are sure you meant to address that bit that to Kathy and not Jackie?
So stop equating your own experience to unmarried mothers whose experiences differed to yours. And stop disrespecting and dismissing their experiences simply because theirs differed to yours. oh, and stop changing your story.

Oh right, you were addressing Jackie. I can't think anyone else here that
that last paragraph would apply to. Wait a minute though, you weren't by any
chance gazing into a mirror as you typed, were you?


Robin

"Jackie" <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:ecvs70t1jipout63kk6fuqcaqjac4u9oo6@4ax.com... On 14 Apr 2004 16:09:56 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message
news:<q3bq70dvmbav970esr79nv357l7rlbdrue@4ax.com>... On 13 Apr 2004 16:42:52 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: >It's true up to a point that they are responsible for educating >themselves. Easier said than done when they are presented with >misinformation at the outset. Not everybody is canny or educated - >that they aren't doesn't mean that they are stupid. It may simply be >that they are temporarily confounded because they are in an extreme >situation, and consequently unrealistic about things. Cindy did not know what open adoption was when she entered into the agreement with Susan Burns.. (according to what I have read on adoption.com) Apparently she was very upset when she learned that some women were actually able to visit with the bson or daughter.. JackieSo what happened was something like this?Cindy went on the net to find a-parents for her expected daughter.Susan went on the net to find a child. They linked up. Cindy and Susanagreed on video and pictures every six months.Afterward, Cindy found (1) her eldest, Brandon, was more disturbedabout the relinquishment than she had expected -- he had been the onecaring for the baby in the hospital (2) Such a thing as fully openadoption existed, that included visits; and she wished she could havearranged that instead (3) As she started posting about her despair atrelinquishment, Susan discouraged her and she also stopped her fromposting a photo of the kid on the net (4) When she read Susan's book,she became convinced that her friendship with Susan was a false one. I think that when she read the book she realized that there was no true friendship between them.. She also said she thought her daughter was in good hands.. She always said that.. According to a post on adoption.com..If this is in fact what happened, I have to say this is much easier tounderstand than an evil witch of an a-mom. I do not think there was evil intent anywhere..

Backpeddling now are you? Some of your previous commnets. . . . .
I hear you Di.. There has to be a special place in hell for this
couple..


When the birthmom (Cindy) read the book she said she realized that she
did not actually have a relationship with the potential aparents.

It was a con.

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..

Kathy 1

"Laura Lewis" <LauraLewis1@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1a4c2bd3.0404141305.7b6cc27a@posting.google.c om... The difference is, we paid no one. We simply trusted that the product marketed (adoption and adopters) would serve our children's best interests, as advertised and promised.

In some cases, no doubt. I think it's a fool's errand to try and squeeze
all adoptions underneath a certain umbrella. Sometimes, the child's best
interest is served by adoption. Sometimes it's the opposite. Other times,
it makes little difference. Last I checked, there were no working crystal
balls or guarantees.

That was our primary motive, and we were lied to.

Perhaps. On the other hand, wouldn't it be fair to point out that while
mothers suffered the most for this social experiment, that the lies you
speak of were commonly accepted wisdom? Even today, with little stigma
attached to bastardy and single parent households, there is an overwhelming
perception among the general public that adoption is a positive thing.

Where does this leave adopters? It leaves them looking like raging hypocrites for holding the adoption industry responsible for defrauding *them* about adoption, whilst lecturing us mothers that we should accept personal responsibility for having been defrauded.


I agree that there seems to be a double standard.
Lest you forget, most of us were quite young when we surrendered. We had nothing near adopters' education, experience, sophistication, financial resources or social support at the time we surrendered our babies.


Ehhh...education, experience, etal. doesn't necessarily imply complicity.
If adopters were sold the same bill of goods as yourself, how much blame can
you really lay at their collective doorstep?



Nor did we pay anyone to get us a child, much less pretend we'd be forever parents. To the contrary, we were counseled to get out of Dodge, get out of our children's lives, and get over it. How they wish we had. Ho-hum. What else is new? Money is the meat and potatoes of adoption and adopter hypocrisy is the icing on the cake.


Jack

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040413181953.21030.00000318@mb-m28.aol.com>...
I disagree, again. I think birthparents who might insist on them should reconsider their abilities to place a child for adoption. I think people wishing to adopt would be wise to steer clear of pbirthparents wishing to maintain legal ties to the child. I would bet big money against post adoption contact contracts ever becoming widely accepted and used. JMHG.

If you can admit that maintaining the *relationship* is important
post-adoption, why can't you see that a legal tie to support the
rights to that relationship is probably a good idea, too?

hslowe@earthlink.net (hslowe) wrote in message news:<b05701cf.0404161236.7ebb96e5@posting.google.com>... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20040413181953.21030.00000318@mb-m28.aol.com>...
If you can admit that maintaining the *relationship* is important post-adoption, why can't you see that a legal tie to support the rights to that relationship is probably a good idea, too?

Heather? Is that you?

Rupa

In article <1a4c2bd3.0404141348.6bc80315@posting.google.com>,
LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote:

I and many other mothers found and contacted our children when they were minors. This was perfectly legal because we'd promised nothing to anyone. We were shocked to discover that no matter how joyfully our children greeted us, most of our children's adopters did not welcome us with open arms as we'd hoped, but were outraged at our audacity and begrudged us anything to do with our children. We were not received as loving, unselfish mothers, but as dangerous, threatening intruders. We have callous letters and threats from adopters and their attorneys to attest to that.


Go figure. Tell me, did you respect the threats from the lawyers, or did
you just plow ahead?

It seems many adopters adopted our children only because they were promised a reliable product, and exclusive rights to our children forever.


No, but they WERE told that they were the legal parents, and that the
birth parents had relinquished their rights. One can see why they
wouldn't be too happy to see you inject yourself into their family life
while the child is still a minor.




steve

>Subject: Re: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt aBabyFrom: Steve White steve@spam.me.neverDate: 4/16/04 9:38 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <steve-F37F55.23382716042004@netnews.comcast.net>In article <1a4c2bd3.0404141348.6bc80315@posting.google.com>, LauraLewis1@msn.com (Laura Lewis) wrote: I and many other mothers found and contacted our children when they were minors. This was perfectly legal because we'd promised nothing to anyone. We were shocked to discover that no matter how joyfully our children greeted us, most of our children's adopters did not welcome us with open arms as we'd hoped, but were outraged at our audacity and begrudged us anything to do with our children. We were not received as loving, unselfish mothers, but as dangerous, threatening intruders. We have callous letters and threats from adopters and their attorneys to attest to that.Go figure. Tell me, did you respect the threats from the lawyers, or didyou just plow ahead?


It didn't matter Steve. Laura and company made no promises. Get it? Why should
they? They are the true mommies barging back in to claim their lost but now
founds.
It seems many adopters adopted our children only because they were promised a reliable product, and exclusive rights to our children forever.
No, but they WERE told that they were the legal parents, and that thebirth parents had relinquished their rights. One can see why theywouldn't be too happy to see you inject yourself into their family lifewhile the child is still a minor.




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: hslowe@earthlink.net (hslowe)Date: 4/16/04 1:36 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <b05701cf.0404161236.7ebb96e5@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20040413181953.21030.00000318@mb-m28.aol.com>... I disagree, again. I think birthparents who might insist on them should reconsider their abilities to place a child for adoption. I think people wishing to adopt would be wise to steer clear of pbirthparents wishing to maintain legal ties to the child. I would bet big money against postadoption contact contracts ever becoming widely accepted and used. JMHG.If you can admit that maintaining the *relationship* is importantpost-adoption, why can't you see that a legal tie to support therights to that relationship is probably a good idea, too?

Heather, don't hit and run like you have been doing the last few times you have
posted. It does nothing for furthering understanding or much for discussion.




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

LauraLewis asks:
Would you also agree that only a fool would adopt a child based solelyon a "gentleman's promise" that the child was not defective?

Ahh, you got me. Are there actually adoptions that include some sort of
"promises" (guarantees? warranties?) that the children involved are perfect?




P2P

**top**

Oh, my. Did Di actually write this?
Get YOUR own facts straight, Kathy. You are referring to YOUR family,your experience. Not Laura's, not mine, not any other mother'sexperience. Just your own.>>




P2P

>Here's to awareness. Imagination, like adoption, can play strangetricks on people.Laura

As can memories.


P2P

>So in reality what you are saying is that only a fool would consideran open adoption agreement in any state that doesn't have legallyenforcable open adoption contact agreements? Mind if I quote you?Di


::::rolling eyes:::::


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040418004600.22682.00000088@mb-m04.aol.com... LauraLewis asks:Would you also agree that only a fool would adopt a child based solelyon a "gentleman's promise" that the child was not defective? Ahh, you got me. Are there actually adoptions that include some sort of "promises" (guarantees? warranties?) that the children involved are
perfect? P2P

Obviously. My parents were promised perfection and they got it.

Marley

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 05:24:55 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040418004600.22682.00000088@mb-m04.aol.com... LauraLewis asks:Would you also agree that only a fool would adopt a child based solelyon a "gentleman's promise" that the child was not defective? Ahh, you got me. Are there actually adoptions that include some sort of "promises" (guarantees? warranties?) that the children involved areperfect? P2PObviously. My parents were promised perfection and they got it.Marley


YES!!!!!!!!!


Jackie

>"Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 4/18/2004 1:24 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <Hiogc.43008$i74.1081179@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040418004600.22682.00000088@mb-m04.aol.com... LauraLewis asks:Would you also agree that only a fool would adopt a child based solelyon a "gentleman's promise" that the child was not defective? Ahh, you got me. Are there actually adoptions that include some sort of "promises" (guarantees? warranties?) that the children involved areperfect? P2PObviously. My parents were promised perfection and they got it.

Yes, but wouldn't you credit the... um... family member who raised you with
that perfection?

(If I remember correctly, didn't you have a dog for a nanny? Or have I gone
mad??)
Marley


kj

"kj" <kjs668@aol.comeek> wrote in message
news:20040418123817.10652.00000002@mb-m27.aol.com..."Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 4/18/2004 1:24 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <Hiogc.43008$i74.1081179@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in messagenews:20040418004600.22682.00000088@mb-m04.aol.com... LauraLewis asks: >Would you also agree that only a fool would adopt a child based solely >on a "gentleman's promise" that the child was not defective? > > Ahh, you got me. Are there actually adoptions that include some sort of "promises" (guarantees? warranties?) that the children involved areperfect? P2PObviously. My parents were promised perfection and they got it. Yes, but wouldn't you credit the... um... family member who raised you
with that perfection? (If I remember correctly, didn't you have a dog for a nanny? Or have I
gone mad??)Marley

No, you not mad, but it was my dad who had the doggie nanny. . It was an
Airdale. He once pulled him out of traffic and my dad turned around and bit
him. This was c. 1918.

Marley

kj

>> Ahh, you got me. Are there actually adoptions that include some sort of "promises" (guarantees? warranties?) that the children involved areperfect? P2PObviously. My parents were promised perfection and they got it.Marley

Of course, Marley! Same situation with my parents.


P2P

>If you can admit that maintaining the *relationship* is importantpost-adoption, why can't you see that a legal tie to support therights to that relationship is probably a good idea, too?

Heather, you are misunderstanding me. I do not "not support". I happen to
think contracts that link birth and adoptive families together for the entire
life of an adoptee until the age of majority will not become commonplace.

I do think removing secrecy from adoption has been a wonderful change for all
parties involved. I do think whenever possible post adoption contact should be
considered and explored fully. It is good for the children, in my opinion, to
know birth relatives as real, breathing, loving people whenever possible. It
isn't always, of course. But, when post adoption doors remain open, I happen to
think the children involved have a chance to grow with a much healthier sense
of self than adoptees might have had back in the days of secrecy, shame,
mystery, fear.

Again, I am not lobbying against post adoption contact contracts. I do not
think legislators will ever agree on a large scale that they serve the needs of
children in adoptions well. Attorneys would love them. But, the courts
certainly would not.


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040418140610.28188.00000090@mb-m15.aol.com... Ahh, you got me. Are there actually adoptions that include some sort of "promises" (guarantees? warranties?) that the children involved areperfect? P2PObviously. My parents were promised perfection and they got it.Marley Of course, Marley! Same situation with my parents. P2P

I wouldn't expect any lest of the P2 Family.

Marley

>> >> Ahh, you got me. Are there actually adoptions that include some sort of> "promises" (guarantees? warranties?) that the children involved areperfect?>>>>> P2PObviously. My parents were promised perfection and they got it.Marley Of course, Marley! Same situation with my parents. P2PI wouldn't expect any lest of the P2 Family.Marley


Well...I dunno. My younger son crashes his bike a lot and likes to listen to
rock music way too loud. My older son thinks he is smarter than I am most of
the time. I think it's something genetic. Do I have the basis for a lawsuit?


P2P

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040418181455.22635.00000002@mb-m03.aol.com... >> Ahh, you got me. Are there actually adoptions that include some sort
of >> "promises" (guarantees? warranties?) that the children involved are >perfect? >> >> >> >> >> P2P > >Obviously. My parents were promised perfection and they got it. > >Marley > > > Of course, Marley! Same situation with my parents. P2PI wouldn't expect any lest of the P2 Family.Marley Well...I dunno. My younger son crashes his bike a lot and likes to listen
to rock music way too loud. My older son thinks he is smarter than I am most
of the time. I think it's something genetic. Do I have the basis for a
lawsuit? P2P

Does you son like Incubus? I do. If he's listeing to Justin Timberlake,
though, I'd ask for my money back.

Marley

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040418004600.22682.00000088@mb-m04.aol.com... LauraLewis asks:Would you also agree that only a fool would adopt a child based solelyon a "gentleman's promise" that the child was not defective? Ahh, you got me. Are there actually adoptions that include some sort of "promises" (guarantees? warranties?) that the children involved are
perfect? P2P

Are there any "promises"(guarantees? warranties?) with bio children?

My poor parents suffered long and hard through my teen years.

KL