kjs668@aol.comeek (kj) wrote in message news:<
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message
>> Incidentally, I don't really know what promises they broke. Cindy did> get photos and letters and at least one video:>Promises can be explicit or implict. I guess it looked like a'promising' situation to Cindy at the outset, but it's clear that shebegan to feel short-changed as time went on.I kind of get the impression that she was lulled into a sense of falsesecurity by the frequency and quality of contact that went on beforethe adoption took place. It seems as if, on one level, she acceptedthat there'd be less contact afterwards but that the withdrawal wassudden and brutal, and reality bit hard.I'm truly surprised to see you, Sara, of all people to assume another'spersonal situation.Color me shocked. (no sarcasm) I thought she was giving her impressions of the situation, not assuming anything was absolute. Of course, I could be wrong...

I think several things happened, the first and most important being
that she was hit *much* harder by the baby's absence than she had
expected.

Beyond that, she began to realize that fully open adoptions existed,
and craved much more contact than she had agreed to prior to the
relinquishment (letters and photos once a year). The a-pars did in
fact agree to send these twice a year instead, and also send video/s
-- but of course it wasn't enough, because what she really wanted was
not to have relinquished the child.

And finally, I think she started having questions as to whether she
had done the right thing for the baby by relinquishing her. She read
some studies that showed adoptees had problems with self-confidence
and separation. If this relinquishing wasn't good for the baby, then
she had made a big and irreversible mistake, since it wasn't good for
her or for her oldest kid.

Probably a final - but probably relatively minor - element was the
reported falling out with the a-parents about posting the child's
pictures publicly.

All of this must have been terribly hard, but not necessarily harder
than what all birthmothers must face. However, coming on top of all
the other things, including the clinical depression, it apparently
became too much.

Rupa

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0404172008.3a548339@posting.google.c om...


I think several things happened, the first and most important being that she was hit *much* harder by the baby's absence than she had expected. Beyond that, she began to realize that fully open adoptions existed, and craved much more contact than she had agreed to prior to the relinquishment (letters and photos once a year). The a-pars did in fact agree to send these twice a year instead, and also send video/s -- but of course it wasn't enough, because what she really wanted was not to have relinquished the child.


I think that is the most accurate assessment of the situation I have seen to
date, imo.

Kathy 1

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404172008.3a548339@posting.google.com>... kjs668@aol.comeek (kj) wrote in message news:<meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)>From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)>rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message>>>> Incidentally, I don't really know what promises they broke. Cindy did>> get photos and letters and at least one video:>>>Promises can be explicit or implict. I guess it looked like a>'promising' situation to Cindy at the outset, but it's clear that she>began to feel short-changed as time went on.>I kind of get the impression that she was lulled into a sense of false>security by the frequency and quality of contact that went on before>the adoption took place. It seems as if, on one level, she accepted>that there'd be less contact afterwards but that the withdrawal was>sudden and brutal, and reality bit hard.I'm truly surprised to see you, Sara, of all people to assume another'spersonal situation.Color me shocked. (no sarcasm) I thought she was giving her impressions of the situation, not assuming anything was absolute. Of course, I could be wrong... I think several things happened, the first and most important being that she was hit *much* harder by the baby's absence than she had expected. Beyond that, she began to realize that fully open adoptions existed, and craved much more contact than she had agreed to prior to the relinquishment (letters and photos once a year). The a-pars did in fact agree to send these twice a year instead, and also send video/s -- but of course it wasn't enough, because what she really wanted was not to have relinquished the child. And finally, I think she started having questions as to whether she had done the right thing for the baby by relinquishing her. She read some studies that showed adoptees had problems with self-confidence and separation. If this relinquishing wasn't good for the baby, then she had made a big and irreversible mistake, since it wasn't good for her or for her oldest kid. Probably a final - but probably relatively minor - element was the reported falling out with the a-parents about posting the child's pictures publicly. All of this must have been terribly hard, but not necessarily harder than what all birthmothers must face. However, coming on top of all the other things, including the clinical depression, it apparently became too much.


I don't disagree with what you say. I'm sure as she discovered more,
the more things preyed on her
But I wouldn't discount the discovery of the book as being
unimportant.
It may not have been instrumental, but even if not the most unkindest
cut of all it was surely a cruel blow.
Not even to be informed, let alone consulted, though nonetheless used
as a textbook example of a 'suitable birthmother' is, IMO, tantamount
to a betrayal of trust.
That's how it would have seemed to me, anyway.
The book speaks volumes.



Rh. Rupa

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0404180823.70c2da55@posting.google.com ... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message
news:<e5619372.0404172008.3a548339@posting.google.com>... kjs668@aol.comeek (kj) wrote in message news:< >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) >>From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) >>rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message >>> >>> Incidentally, I don't really know what promises they broke. Cindy
did >>> get photos and letters and at least one video: >>> >>Promises can be explicit or implict. I guess it looked like a >>'promising' situation to Cindy at the outset, but it's clear that
she >>began to feel short-changed as time went on. >>I kind of get the impression that she was lulled into a sense of
false >>security by the frequency and quality of contact that went on before >>the adoption took place. It seems as if, on one level, she accepted >>that there'd be less contact afterwards but that the withdrawal was >>sudden and brutal, and reality bit hard. > >I'm truly surprised to see you, Sara, of all people to assume
another's >personal situation. > >Color me shocked. (no sarcasm) > I thought she was giving her impressions of the situation, not
assuming anything was absolute. Of course, I could be wrong... I think several things happened, the first and most important being that she was hit *much* harder by the baby's absence than she had expected. Beyond that, she began to realize that fully open adoptions existed, and craved much more contact than she had agreed to prior to the relinquishment (letters and photos once a year). The a-pars did in fact agree to send these twice a year instead, and also send video/s -- but of course it wasn't enough, because what she really wanted was not to have relinquished the child. And finally, I think she started having questions as to whether she had done the right thing for the baby by relinquishing her. She read some studies that showed adoptees had problems with self-confidence and separation. If this relinquishing wasn't good for the baby, then she had made a big and irreversible mistake, since it wasn't good for her or for her oldest kid. Probably a final - but probably relatively minor - element was the reported falling out with the a-parents about posting the child's pictures publicly. All of this must have been terribly hard, but not necessarily harder than what all birthmothers must face. However, coming on top of all the other things, including the clinical depression, it apparently became too much. I don't disagree with what you say. I'm sure as she discovered more, the more things preyed on her But I wouldn't discount the discovery of the book as being unimportant. It may not have been instrumental, but even if not the most unkindest cut of all it was surely a cruel blow. Not even to be informed, let alone consulted, though nonetheless used as a textbook example of a 'suitable birthmother' is, IMO, tantamount to a betrayal of trust. That's how it would have seemed to me, anyway. The book speaks volumes. Rh. Rupa

Did the book actually name her, or enable readers to find out who she was?
Would she have had a right to sue the author or publisher of the book? Can
her next of kin or somebody sue now?
This was an invasion of privacy, surely?

Geopelia

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote
But I wouldn't discount the discovery of the book as being unimportant. It may not have been instrumental, but even if not the most unkindest cut of all it was surely a cruel blow. Not even to be informed, let alone consulted, though nonetheless used as a textbook example of a 'suitable birthmother' is, IMO, tantamount to a betrayal of trust. That's how it would have seemed to me, anyway. The book speaks volumes.

I think I'm going to get a copy. No point in discussing it until I've read it.

Rupa