sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote
I tried to phrase it so I wasn't taking liberties, but I did want try and enter imaginatively into the situation. I do feel a great deal of compassion for what this woman went though, and I do think that even though she was naive (IMO), she was also used and misled (whether deliberately or not, we'll never know. Probably not. But nevertheless, I think that when a person adopts a child through an open or semi-open adoption, that person has, if the situation calls for it, an ethical obligation to deliver, not just in the letter of the contract, but in the spirit of the contract as well.

I have to say that as far as the posts I saw went, they apparently did
so. The sent at least one video. They sent pix and letters twice
annually instead of once. They talked about the possibility of visits
at some later date when they felt more secure.

However, I think that whatever they did -- and I think they were
fairly accomodating, but not extremely so -- it would not have been
enough. The real issue was that the b-mom wished she had never
relinquished her daughter.

I think *that* situation would make a fully open adoption much more
difficult (quite aside from any logistical issues of geographic
separation) on both sides.The b-momwould likely find the contact
intensely bitter-sweet. The a-parents would probably feel guilty as
well as insecure. As for the child, who knows?

Legally enforceable open adoption agreements, would, to my mind, help
with some issues. The contract would spell out what was agreed on each
side. But I think it would help very little in cases like this, where
the real issue was that (a) she wished for much more contact than had
been agreed and (b) she wished she had not relinquished.

Rupa

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404190012.111f0778@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote I tried to phrase it so I wasn't taking liberties, but I did want try and enter imaginatively into the situation. I do feel a great deal of compassion for what this woman went though, and I do think that even though she was naive (IMO), she was also used and misled (whether deliberately or not, we'll never know. Probably not. But nevertheless, I think that when a person adopts a child through an open or semi-open adoption, that person has, if the situation calls for it, an ethical obligation to deliver, not just in the letter of the contract, but in the spirit of the contract as well. I have to say that as far as the posts I saw went, they apparently did so. The sent at least one video. They sent pix and letters twice annually instead of once. They talked about the possibility of visits at some later date when they felt more secure. However, I think that whatever they did -- and I think they were fairly accomodating, but not extremely so -- it would not have been enough. The real issue was that the b-mom wished she had never relinquished her daughter. I think *that* situation would make a fully open adoption much more difficult (quite aside from any logistical issues of geographic separation) on both sides.The b-momwould likely find the contact intensely bitter-sweet. The a-parents would probably feel guilty as well as insecure. As for the child, who knows? Legally enforceable open adoption agreements, would, to my mind, help with some issues. The contract would spell out what was agreed on each side. But I think it would help very little in cases like this, where the real issue was that (a) she wished for much more contact than had been agreed and (b) she wished she had not relinquished.
..



You're completely right there. Though I'd reverse a) and b).

I know I keep going on about that damn book, but insofar as it would
have mortified me, I can only imagine it (I'm not even talking content
here, just the fact that it was written at all) had a negative effect
on her.

When I wrote that 'the book speaks volumes', what I actually meant was
that the fact that it exists at all speaks volumes.
I don't want to read it, let alone pay for it, but I should get the
bloody thing and find out more about what's in it. I'd be interested
to know if there's any emphasis *at all* put on the importance of the
relinquishing woman informing herslf and/or being informed, or whether
its completely one-sided.
Maybe there's someone out there who can tell me?
Marley? Did you actually *read* it, or just take a glance and put it
down in disgust?
I was rather shocked that Cindy went into this knowing so little about
'open adoption', but as far as I'm concerned that makes it all the
more important that these 'transactions' should be closely overseeen
and regulated

I'm not trying to paint the adoptive parents as bad people, and it
does seem that they tried to be accomodating according to their
lights. I'm sure they didn't bargain on Cindy's reaction.
Unfortunately Cindy didn't either - which speaks to the crying need to
proper education and information prior to relinquishment .
But I do think that at best they were insensitive to publish so soon
after the adoption was finalized and without proper consultation at
the outset.


Rh.

Rupa

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0404190654.7d2022ac@posting.google.com ... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message
news:<e5619372.0404190012.111f0778@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote I tried to phrase it so I wasn't taking liberties, but I did want try and enter imaginatively into the situation. I do feel a great deal of compassion for what this woman went though, and I do think that even though she was naive (IMO), she was also used and misled (whether deliberately or not, we'll never know. Probably not. But nevertheless, I think that when a person adopts a child through an open or semi-open adoption, that person has, if the situation calls for it, an ethical obligation to deliver, not just in the letter of the contract,
but in the spirit of the contract as well. I have to say that as far as the posts I saw went, they apparently did so. The sent at least one video. They sent pix and letters twice annually instead of once. They talked about the possibility of visits at some later date when they felt more secure. However, I think that whatever they did -- and I think they were fairly accomodating, but not extremely so -- it would not have been enough. The real issue was that the b-mom wished she had never relinquished her daughter. I think *that* situation would make a fully open adoption much more difficult (quite aside from any logistical issues of geographic separation) on both sides.The b-momwould likely find the contact intensely bitter-sweet. The a-parents would probably feel guilty as well as insecure. As for the child, who knows? Legally enforceable open adoption agreements, would, to my mind, help with some issues. The contract would spell out what was agreed on each side. But I think it would help very little in cases like this, where the real issue was that (a) she wished for much more contact than had been agreed and (b) she wished she had not relinquished. . You're completely right there. Though I'd reverse a) and b). I know I keep going on about that damn book, but insofar as it would have mortified me, I can only imagine it (I'm not even talking content here, just the fact that it was written at all) had a negative effect on her. When I wrote that 'the book speaks volumes', what I actually meant was that the fact that it exists at all speaks volumes. I don't want to read it, let alone pay for it, but I should get the bloody thing and find out more about what's in it. I'd be interested to know if there's any emphasis *at all* put on the importance of the relinquishing woman informing herslf and/or being informed, or whether its completely one-sided. Maybe there's someone out there who can tell me? Marley? Did you actually *read* it, or just take a glance and put it down in disgust?

Unfortunately, I didn't read it. I glanced through it and gave it to my
think tank's library which is located in another state. I wish I had
now--of course, I never expecte this to happen. The gist of it all was how
you can bend the rules and still be legal if you follow the author's perky
advise . And if she's nothing else she's perky. It struck me as
media/market manipulation of the vulnerable.

Marley

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote I know I keep going on about that damn book, but insofar as it would have mortified me, I can only imagine it (I'm not even talking content here, just the fact that it was written at all) had a negative effect on her. When I wrote that 'the book speaks volumes', what I actually meant was that the fact that it exists at all speaks volumes. I don't want to read it, let alone pay for it, but I should get the bloody thing and find out more about what's in it. I'd be interested to know if there's any emphasis *at all* put on the importance of the relinquishing woman informing herslf and/or being informed, or whether its completely one-sided. Maybe there's someone out there who can tell me? Marley? Did you actually *read* it, or just take a glance and put it down in disgust? I was rather shocked that Cindy went into this knowing so little about 'open adoption', but as far as I'm concerned that makes it all the more important that these 'transactions' should be closely overseeen and regulated I'm not trying to paint the adoptive parents as bad people, and it does seem that they tried to be accomodating according to their lights. I'm sure they didn't bargain on Cindy's reaction. Unfortunately Cindy didn't either - which speaks to the crying need to proper education and information prior to relinquishment . But I do think that at best they were insensitive to publish so soon after the adoption was finalized and without proper consultation at the outset.

Thing is, we don't know what Cindy did or didn't know about the book.
All we know is double hearsay, as far as I can gauge. I haven't found
anything from Cindy about it.

And I don't know when the book came out, but it is now three years
since the adoption.

Rupa

>And I don't know when the book came out, but it is now three yearssince the adoption.Rupa

It was published in December 2003, according to Amazon.com.

Roberta
mom to Juliette, 8, adopted from China

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404190012.111f0778@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote I tried to phrase it so I wasn't taking liberties, but I did want try and enter imaginatively into the situation. I do feel a great deal of compassion for what this woman went though, and I do think that even though she was naive (IMO), she was also used and misled (whether deliberately or not, we'll never know. Probably not. But nevertheless, I think that when a person adopts a child through an open or semi-open adoption, that person has, if the situation calls for it, an ethical obligation to deliver, not just in the letter of the contract, but in the spirit of the contract as well. I have to say that as far as the posts I saw went, they apparently did so. The sent at least one video. They sent pix and letters twice annually instead of once. They talked about the possibility of visits at some later date when they felt more secure. However, I think that whatever they did -- and I think they were fairly accomodating, but not extremely so -- it would not have been enough. The real issue was that the b-mom wished she had never relinquished her daughter. I think *that* situation would make a fully open adoption much more difficult (quite aside from any logistical issues of geographic separation) on both sides.The b-momwould likely find the contact intensely bitter-sweet. The a-parents would probably feel guilty as well as insecure. As for the child, who knows? Legally enforceable open adoption agreements, would, to my mind, help with some issues. The contract would spell out what was agreed on each side.



I was in a hurry this a.m (crazy morning!) so I missed this part.
I agree. I'd hope it would also make it necessary to spell out to each
side their options as well as their obligations. The problem is that
Cindy didn't know what options were available to her. And those
options weren't made known to her by the paps (who did know). I've
just read Brenda Romanchik's post about this on the Adoption.com
forums, and she's dead right.



But I think it would help very little in cases like this, where the real issue was that (a) she wished for much more contact than had been agreed and (b) she wished she had not relinquished.



Further to what I've already written . . . I agree with the above,
except that if she'd been aware of her options, she'd probably have
expected and demanded more. Even though that still mightn't have been
enough, it's possible that it would have helped. Certainly she'd have
felt less of a dupe.

Rh.





Rupa

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404191355.21c2c54b@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote I know I keep going on about that damn book, but insofar as it would have mortified me, I can only imagine it (I'm not even talking content here, just the fact that it was written at all) had a negative effect on her. When I wrote that 'the book speaks volumes', what I actually meant was that the fact that it exists at all speaks volumes. I don't want to read it, let alone pay for it, but I should get the bloody thing and find out more about what's in it. I'd be interested to know if there's any emphasis *at all* put on the importance of the relinquishing woman informing herslf and/or being informed, or whether its completely one-sided. Maybe there's someone out there who can tell me? Marley? Did you actually *read* it, or just take a glance and put it down in disgust? I was rather shocked that Cindy went into this knowing so little about 'open adoption', but as far as I'm concerned that makes it all the more important that these 'transactions' should be closely overseeen and regulated I'm not trying to paint the adoptive parents as bad people, and it does seem that they tried to be accomodating according to their lights. I'm sure they didn't bargain on Cindy's reaction. Unfortunately Cindy didn't either - which speaks to the crying need to proper education and information prior to relinquishment . But I do think that at best they were insensitive to publish so soon after the adoption was finalized and without proper consultation at the outset. Thing is, we don't know what Cindy did or didn't know about the book. All we know is double hearsay, as far as I can gauge. I haven't found anything from Cindy about it.



Nor have I, but don't you think it curious that she never mentioned it *at all*?
You'd think she'd have done so.


And I don't know when the book came out, but it is now three years since the adoption.




I think that's too close for comfort.
Books, even superficial ones, take time in the making.



Rh. Rupa

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0404191626.754543c7@posting.google.com ... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message
news:<e5619372.0404190012.111f0778@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote I tried to phrase it so I wasn't taking liberties, but I did want try and enter imaginatively into the situation. I do feel a great deal of compassion for what this woman went though, and I do think that even though she was naive (IMO), she was also used and misled (whether deliberately or not, we'll never know. Probably not. But nevertheless, I think that when a person adopts a child through an open or semi-open adoption, that person has, if the situation calls for it, an ethical obligation to deliver, not just in the letter of the contract, but in the spirit of the contract as well. I have to say that as far as the posts I saw went, they apparently did so. The sent at least one video. They sent pix and letters twice annually instead of once. They talked about the possibility of visits at some later date when they felt more secure. However, I think that whatever they did -- and I think they were fairly accomodating, but not extremely so -- it would not have been enough. The real issue was that the b-mom wished she had never relinquished her daughter. I think *that* situation would make a fully open adoption much more difficult (quite aside from any logistical issues of geographic separation) on both sides.The b-momwould likely find the contact intensely bitter-sweet. The a-parents would probably feel guilty as well as insecure. As for the child, who knows? Legally enforceable open adoption agreements, would, to my mind, help with some issues. The contract would spell out what was agreed on each side. I was in a hurry this a.m (crazy morning!) so I missed this part. I agree. I'd hope it would also make it necessary to spell out to each side their options as well as their obligations.

In a perfect world that would happen. That would also happen in *every*
area of life. I can't help thinking though that the expectation that *laws*
are going to protect people and keep bad things from happening to them are
unrealistic. The onus is still on the person (unfortuanately) to find out
what their options are.

The problem is that Cindy didn't know what options were available to her.

Unfortunately she is not unique and the situation (of not knowing all
options *possibly* available to her) is not unique to adoption. For
instance (and I use this example because it is so fresh in my mind), when
one goes to a doctor he may only outline options that *he* feels comfortable
with, has experience with, or feels will help. Often times it is up to the
patient to find out if there are*other* options available to them. No law is
going to change that fact of life.


And those options weren't made known to her by the paps (who did know).

It would be nice if they had revealed them but obviously they weren't an
option *from their point of view*. When my father was having his ARDS
crisis, I researched information and found that one of the things they were
trying and having some success with, was proning (unfortunately by that
point he was too unstable to try it) *I* had to mention it to his team of
doctors, they didn't volunteer the information. Had he been at a
*different* hospital less than an hour away (where they had a leading ARDS
doctor) I wouldn't have had to mention it - it would have been done at the
beginning of his crisis *and* it may have made the difference between life
and death. Similarly if Cindy had chosen a different set of paps she may
have had a different outcome.

I've just read Brenda Romanchik's post about this on the Adoption.com forums, and she's dead right. But I think it would help very little in cases like this, where the real issue was that (a) she wished for much more contact than had been agreed and (b) she wished she had not relinquished. Further to what I've already written . . . I agree with the above, except that if she'd been aware of her options, she'd probably have expected and demanded more.

Yes she may have but adoption is not really all that different than any
other situation in life where the onus (unfortunately) ultimately rests with
the "consumer" to find out all options that are available.

Even though that still mightn't have been enough, it's possible that it would have helped. Certainly she'd have felt less of a dupe.

I think the book is what ultimately made her feel like a dupe rather than
the fact that she had less contact than others had in her situation.

Kathy 1 Rh. Rupa

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0404190654.7d2022ac@posting.google.com ...
When I wrote that 'the book speaks volumes', what I actually meant was that the fact that it exists at all speaks volumes. I don't want to read it, let alone pay for it, but I should get the bloody thing and find out more about what's in it. I'd be interested to know if there's any emphasis *at all* put on the importance of the relinquishing woman informing herslf and/or being informed, or whether its completely one-sided.


I haven't read this book but it's not exactly a new subject. In my town
library there are several titles on the shelves regarding do-it-yourself
adoptions. I've scanned them out of curiosity but never read them. I'd be
more than happy to borrow them and post my impressions.

Jack

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c636jp$7hrqp$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0404191626.754543c7@posting.google.com ... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404190012.111f0778@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote > I tried to phrase it so I wasn't taking liberties, but I did want try > and enter imaginatively into the situation. I do feel a great deal of > compassion for what this woman went though, and I do think that even > though she was naive (IMO), she was also used and misled (whether > deliberately or not, we'll never know. Probably not. But nevertheless, > I think that when a person adopts a child through an open or semi-open > adoption, that person has, if the situation calls for it, an ethical > obligation to deliver, not just in the letter of the contract, but in > the spirit of the contract as well. > I have to say that as far as the posts I saw went, they apparently did so. The sent at least one video. They sent pix and letters twice annually instead of once. They talked about the possibility of visits at some later date when they felt more secure. However, I think that whatever they did -- and I think they were fairly accomodating, but not extremely so -- it would not have been enough. The real issue was that the b-mom wished she had never relinquished her daughter. I think *that* situation would make a fully open adoption much more difficult (quite aside from any logistical issues of geographic separation) on both sides.The b-momwould likely find the contact intensely bitter-sweet. The a-parents would probably feel guilty as well as insecure. As for the child, who knows? Legally enforceable open adoption agreements, would, to my mind, help with some issues. The contract would spell out what was agreed on each side. > > I was in a hurry this a.m (crazy morning!) so I missed this part. I agree. I'd hope it would also make it necessary to spell out to each side their options as well as their obligations. In a perfect world that would happen. That would also happen in *every* area of life. I can't help thinking though that the expectation that *laws* are going to protect people and keep bad things from happening to them are unrealistic. The onus is still on the person (unfortuanately) to find out what their options are.


I'm not so naive as to think that there can ever be *laws* that will
do all that, but I do think there's a real moral if not a legal onus
on people who engage in transactual agreements to be jointly
accountable (each to the other)


The problem is that Cindy didn't know what options were available to her. Unfortunately she is not unique and the situation (of not knowing all options *possibly* available to her) is not unique to adoption. For instance (and I use this example because it is so fresh in my mind), when one goes to a doctor he may only outline options that *he* feels comfortable with, has experience with, or feels will help. Often times it is up to the patient to find out if there are*other* options available to them. No law is going to change that fact of life.
And those options weren't made known to her by the paps (who did know). It would be nice if they had revealed them but obviously they weren't an option *from their point of view*.



I thnk it would have been more than 'nice'. It would have been right.
As things were, not revealing them was at best a sin of omission.
At worst it was duplicitous.



When my father was having his ARDS crisis, I researched information and found that one of the things they were trying and having some success with, was proning (unfortunately by that point he was too unstable to try it) *I* had to mention it to his team of doctors, they didn't volunteer the information. Had he been at *different* hospital less than an hour away (where they had a leading ARDS doctor) I wouldn't have had to mention it - it would have been done at the beginning of his crisis *and* it may have made the difference between life and death.



I see the parallel.


Similarly if Cindy had chosen a different set of paps she may have had a different outcome.


Absolutely. The luck of the draw. Nevertheless, I don't think it means
that because these particular paps stayed within the legal limits they
don't share accountability, not do I think the onus was entirely on
Cindy. I've just read Brenda Romanchik's post about this on the Adoption.com forums, and she's dead right. > > But I think it would help very little in cases like this, where the real issue was that (a) she wished for much more contact than had been agreed and (b) she wished she had not relinquished. > > Further to what I've already written . . . I agree with the above, except that if she'd been aware of her options, she'd probably have expected and demanded more. Yes she may have but adoption is not really all that different than any other situation in life where the onus (unfortunately) ultimately rests with the "consumer" to find out all options that are available.



The paps were "consumers" too, and they did know their options.
Would you say 'Good for them', or something to that effect?

There are many many areas where consumer protection is a much greater
priority than in adoption.


Even though that still mightn't have been enough, it's possible that it would have helped. Certainly she'd have felt less of a dupe. I think the book is what ultimately made her feel like a dupe rather than the fact that she had less contact than others had in her situation.



I *entirely* agree with you there. The book must have felt like a
constant reproach for the fact that she had let herslf be duped - and
I think it's terrible for her kids (all of them, including the adopted
child) that it's out there.
Yech.



Rh.
Kathy 1 Rupa

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message news:<ct9hc.1$Oq6.0@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0404190654.7d2022ac@posting.google.com ... When I wrote that 'the book speaks volumes', what I actually meant was that the fact that it exists at all speaks volumes. I don't want to read it, let alone pay for it, but I should get the bloody thing and find out more about what's in it. I'd be interested to know if there's any emphasis *at all* put on the importance of the relinquishing woman informing herslf and/or being informed, or whether its completely one-sided. I haven't read this book but it's not exactly a new subject. In my town library there are several titles on the shelves regarding do-it-yourself adoptions. I've scanned them out of curiosity but never read them. I'd be more than happy to borrow them and post my impressions.



Thanks, Jack.
I'd be interested to hear them.
This goes against the grain, but if I can get it *really cheap* (not
otherwise!), I might even buy the Burns book myself.




Rh. Jack

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0404201110.d67d28f@posting.google.com. .. "kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in


I was in a hurry this a.m (crazy morning!) so I missed this part. I agree. I'd hope it would also make it necessary to spell out to each side their options as well as their obligations. In a perfect world that would happen. That would also happen in *every* area of life. I can't help thinking though that the expectation that
*laws* are going to protect people and keep bad things from happening to them
are unrealistic. The onus is still on the person (unfortuanately) to find
out what their options are. I'm not so naive as to think that there can ever be *laws* that will do all that,


I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that :) There are plenty of people
though that do think that way.


but I do think there's a real moral if not a legal onus on people who engage in transactual agreements to be jointly accountable (each to the other)

Yes I agree but people aren't always *completely* honest in all their
transactions, from selling a car, house, etc. Obviously the stakes are much
higher in adoption.

The problem is that Cindy didn't know what options were available to her. Unfortunately she is not unique and the situation (of not knowing all options *possibly* available to her) is not unique to adoption. For instance (and I use this example because it is so fresh in my mind),
when one goes to a doctor he may only outline options that *he* feels
comfortable with, has experience with, or feels will help. Often times it is up to
the patient to find out if there are*other* options available to them. No
law is going to change that fact of life. And those options weren't made known to her by the paps (who did know). It would be nice if they had revealed them but obviously they weren't an option *from their point of view*. I thnk it would have been more than 'nice'.


Poor choice of words on my part :(

It would have been right.


Yes, but would it have been realistic? If you aren't willing to have say
monthly visits, are you going to volunteer that there are other paps who
will? (General you) Conversely, if a pbm had her heart set on a particular
set of paps and she knew they might pass if she revealed that she knew of a
young girl with an infant that more closely resembled what they longed for,
would she reveal it? (A stretch I know given the state of adoption today ;)


<snip>

Similarly if Cindy had chosen a different set of paps she may have had a different outcome. Absolutely. The luck of the draw. Nevertheless, I don't think it means that because these particular paps stayed within the legal limits they don't share accountability, not do I think the onus was entirely on Cindy.

Nor do I. The whole situation is beyond sad.

<snip>

Further to what I've already written . . . I agree with the above, except that if she'd been aware of her options, she'd probably have expected and demanded more. Yes she may have but adoption is not really all that different than any other situation in life where the onus (unfortunately) ultimately rests
with the "consumer" to find out all options that are available. The paps were "consumers" too, and they did know their options. Would you say 'Good for them', or something to that effect?

I hope you are asking me that rhetorically ;) Of course I wouldn't say such
a thing.
There are many many areas where consumer protection is a much greater priority than in adoption.

No doubt and even in those areas people can still get screwed if they aren't
careful.

Kathy 1

On 19 Apr 2004 20:39:46 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Nor have I, but don't you think it curious that she never mentioned it *at all*?You'd think she'd have done so.


Adoption.com takes a post out if they don't like it..

She may have written a great deal about it..


Jackie

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<pSSgc.54496$K_.1223726@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0404190654.7d2022ac@posting.google.com ... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404190012.111f0778@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote > I tried to phrase it so I wasn't taking liberties, but I did want try > and enter imaginatively into the situation. I do feel a great deal of > compassion for what this woman went though, and I do think that even > though she was naive (IMO), she was also used and misled (whether > deliberately or not, we'll never know. Probably not. But nevertheless, > I think that when a person adopts a child through an open or > semi-open adoption, that person has, if the situation calls for it, an > ethical obligation to deliver, not just in the letter of the contract, but in > the spirit of the contract as well. > I have to say that as far as the posts I saw went, they apparently did so. The sent at least one video. They sent pix and letters twice annually instead of once. They talked about the possibility of visits at some later date when they felt more secure. However, I think that whatever they did -- and I think they were fairly accomodating, but not extremely so -- it would not have been enough. The real issue was that the b-mom wished she had never relinquished her daughter. I think *that* situation would make a fully open adoption much more difficult (quite aside from any logistical issues of geographic separation) on both sides.The b-momwould likely find the contact intensely bitter-sweet. The a-parents would probably feel guilty as well as insecure. As for the child, who knows? Legally enforceable open adoption agreements, would, to my mind, help with some issues. The contract would spell out what was agreed on each side. But I think it would help very little in cases like this, where the real issue was that (a) she wished for much more contact than had been agreed and (b) she wished she had not relinquished. > > . You're completely right there. Though I'd reverse a) and b). I know I keep going on about that damn book, but insofar as it would have mortified me, I can only imagine it (I'm not even talking content here, just the fact that it was written at all) had a negative effect on her. When I wrote that 'the book speaks volumes', what I actually meant was that the fact that it exists at all speaks volumes. I don't want to read it, let alone pay for it, but I should get the bloody thing and find out more about what's in it. I'd be interested to know if there's any emphasis *at all* put on the importance of the relinquishing woman informing herslf and/or being informed, or whether its completely one-sided. Maybe there's someone out there who can tell me? Marley? Did you actually *read* it, or just take a glance and put it down in disgust? Unfortunately, I didn't read it. I glanced through it and gave it to my think tank's library which is located in another state. I wish I had now--of course, I never expecte this to happen. The gist of it all was how you can bend the rules and still be legal if you follow the author's perky advise . And if she's nothing else she's perky. It struck me as media/market manipulation of the vulnerable.


I missed this before (due to fatal randomness)
Given the title, I'm sure you're right about the gist.
It sounds uncrushably perky.


Rh. Marley

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote
"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote
"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote
The problem is that Cindy didn't know what options were available to her. Unfortunately she is not unique and the situation (of not knowing all options *possibly* available to her) is not unique to adoption. For instance (and I use this example because it is so fresh in my mind), when one goes to a doctor he may only outline options that *he* feels comfortable with, has experience with, or feels will help. Often times it is up to the patient to find out if there are*other* options available to them. No law is going to change that fact of life. And those options weren't made known to her by the paps (who did know). It would be nice if they had revealed them but obviously they weren't an option *from their point of view*. I thnk it would have been more than 'nice'. It would have been right. As things were, not revealing them was at best a sin of omission. At worst it was duplicitous.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Cindy approached a couple she liked
the look of, on the Web. They discussed the level of openness they had
in their previous adoption (and, by inference, that they were
comfortable with).

Should they have told Cindy that she could keep her child? Given that
that was what Cindy really wanted (as she implied in a post later,
when she said she thought she had done the right thing for her child,
but she lost her daughter). I would imagine they felt she knew that.

Should they have said, If you approach another couple, perhaps you can
have even more openness? Maybe with visits? Given that Cindy
deliberately chose a couple in Hawaii, when she lived in Georgia, one
would have thought that Cindy was looking for a level of openness
*she* was comfortable with -- information, but no contact.

Neither Cindy nor the a-parents could have predicted the outcome as it
was: That Cindy would intensely desire more contact, and eventually
regret having relinquished.

What do you do, if you're an a-parent of a small child? And you are in
touch with the child's b-mother? I must say I would feel very
conflicted. If my child's b-mother really wanted the child back, I
think I would feel I lacked permission to parent it. And yet, you
can't really just hand a child back.
Similarly if Cindy had chosen a different set of paps she may have had a different outcome. Absolutely. The luck of the draw. Nevertheless, I don't think it means that because these particular paps stayed within the legal limits they don't share accountability, not do I think the onus was entirely on Cindy.

Aside from the book, which we can consider once we get hold of it,
what should the a-pars have done differently?
I've just read Brenda Romanchik's post about this on the Adoption.com forums, and she's dead right.

What did she write?

Further to what I've already written . . . I agree with the above, except that if she'd been aware of her options, she'd probably have expected and demanded more. Yes she may have but adoption is not really all that different than any other situation in life where the onus (unfortunately) ultimately rests with the "consumer" to find out all options that are available.
The paps were "consumers" too, and they did know their options. Would you say 'Good for them', or something to that effect?

I can't actually see anything very wrong with what they did. Cindy
knew they were in Hawaii. She couldn't have expected frequent visits,
and didn't discuss any visits. How did they know that she didn't know
that some adoptions had visits?

It's not as though they were concealing knowledge of paps in Georgia
who would be trustworthy and good parents, and who would allow Cindy
greater access. All the info they would have is that Cindy didn't want
to go through an agency, was searching the Web for paps, and found
them.

If it were me, I would assume that a person who was capable of finding
paps on the Web would also be able to check other adoption-related
information, including levels of openness in adoption, and their
enforceability in her own state. I would have assumed that one of the
reasons she chose paps some distance away would be to limit access.
After all, the adoption fora have quite a number of stories of b-moms
who close adoptions.

Rupa

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote> Yes, but would it have been realistic? If you aren't willing to have say monthly visits, are you going to volunteer that there are other paps who will? (General you) Conversely, if a pbm had her heart set on a particular set of paps and she knew they might pass if she revealed that she knew of a young girl with an infant that more closely resembled what they longed for, would she reveal it? (A stretch I know given the state of adoption today ;)

And if you do volunteer that there are other paps who will, how do you
(or she) know that those paps will keep their promises? Or be good
parents? You can know that about yourself (or at least, you can know
your own intentions), but you can't know that about the hypothetical
other paps.

And equally, a pbm might note another pbm who is looking for paps, but
why would she assume that the other pbm is a better match for the
couple she thinks will be perfect for her child? (About the only
things I can think of are gender and race of the child-to-be.)

Rupa

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c63ufj$7li2f$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0404201110.d67d28f@posting.google.com. .. "kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in > I was in a hurry this a.m (crazy morning!) so I missed this part. > I agree. I'd hope it would also make it necessary to spell out to each > side their options as well as their obligations. In a perfect world that would happen. That would also happen in *every* area of life. I can't help thinking though that the expectation that *laws* are going to protect people and keep bad things from happening to them are unrealistic. The onus is still on the person (unfortuanately) to find out what their options are. > > I'm not so naive as to think that there can ever be *laws* that will do all that, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that :) There are plenty of people though that do think that way. but I do think there's a real moral if not a legal onus on people who engage in transactual agreements to be jointly accountable (each to the other) Yes I agree but people aren't always *completely* honest in all their transactions, from selling a car, house, etc. Obviously the stakes are much higher in adoption. The problem is that Cindy didn't know what options were available to her. Unfortunately she is not unique and the situation (of not knowing all options *possibly* available to her) is not unique to adoption. For instance (and I use this example because it is so fresh in my mind), when one goes to a doctor he may only outline options that *he* feels comfortable with, has experience with, or feels will help. Often times it is up to the patient to find out if there are*other* options available to them. No law is going to change that fact of life. > > And those > options weren't made known to her by the paps (who did know). It would be nice if they had revealed them but obviously they weren't an option *from their point of view*. > > I thnk it would have been more than 'nice'. Poor choice of words on my part :(It would have been right. Yes, but would it have been realistic? If you aren't willing to have say monthly visits, are you going to volunteer that there are other paps who will? (General you) Conversely, if a pbm had her heart set on a particular set of paps and she knew they might pass if she revealed that she knew of a young girl with an infant that more closely resembled what they longed for, would she reveal it? (A stretch I know given the state of adoption today ;)


Ah, well. I wasn't talking 'realistic'.
But I think some people would - though not the type who'd 'fast track'
to adoption. Is that very silly of me?


.. <snip> Similarly if Cindy had chosen a different set of paps she may have had a different outcome. > > Absolutely. The luck of the draw. Nevertheless, I don't think it means that because these particular paps stayed within the legal limits they don't share accountability, not do I think the onus was entirely on Cindy. Nor do I. The whole situation is beyond sad. <snip> > Further to what I've already written . . . I agree with the above, > except that if she'd been aware of her options, she'd probably have > expected and demanded more. Yes she may have but adoption is not really all that different than any other situation in life where the onus (unfortunately) ultimately rests with the "consumer" to find out all options that are available. > > The paps were "consumers" too, and they did know their options. Would you say 'Good for them', or something to that effect? I hope you are asking me that rhetorically ;) Of course I wouldn't say such a thing.



Yep. It was, *of course*, rhetorical (general you).
I know you wouldn't say such a thing :-)


There are many many areas where consumer protection is a much greater priority than in adoption. No doubt and even in those areas people can still get screwed if they aren't careful.


Right enough. That's life. Though sometimes even being careful isn't
enough. Besides, some folks just are naturally cannier than others.

Personally, I think adoption's arse-backwards in the U.S.
It's *way* insufficiently controlled in some areas (actual process,
f'rinstance), and over-controlled in others (denial of access to OBCs,
f'rinstance).


Rh.


.. Kathy 1

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<d7uc80p2uk5thkgfdru8klmcibrco82inq@4ax.com>... On 19 Apr 2004 20:39:46 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Nor have I, but don't you think it curious that she never mentioned it *at all*?You'd think she'd have done so. Adoption.com takes a post out if they don't like it..


So I've heard.
One of the reasons I don't post there.




She may have written a great deal about it..


Or may have felt it would be unwise to do so.



Rh. Jackie

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404211044.7056825a@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote "kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote The problem is that Cindy didn't know what options were available to her. Unfortunately she is not unique and the situation (of not knowing all options *possibly* available to her) is not unique to adoption. For instance (and I use this example because it is so fresh in my mind), when one goes to a doctor he may only outline options that *he* feels comfortable with, has experience with, or feels will help. Often times it is up to the patient to find out if there are*other* options available to them. No law is going to change that fact of life. > > And those > options weren't made known to her by the paps (who did know). It would be nice if they had revealed them but obviously they weren't an option *from their point of view*. I thnk it would have been more than 'nice'. It would have been right. As things were, not revealing them was at best a sin of omission. At worst it was duplicitous. > I'm not sure what you mean here. Cindy approached a couple she liked the look of, on the Web. They discussed the level of openness they had in their previous adoption (and, by inference, that they were comfortable with).


Not sure about the 'inference'.
I think it's deceitful to conceal facts crucial to life-affecting
decisions from a person who's clearly ignorant of them.
That the uninformed person could or should have acquainted himself
with those facts is neither here not there as far as the person who
has *got* the information is concerned. They know they are in an
advantageous position, and consequently (IMO) have an obligation to
make the playing field even.



Should they have said, If you approach another couple, perhaps you can have even more openness? Maybe with visits?


I think so. I think it's incumbent on paps in a sitution like this to
make sure that the relinquishing mother has considered all her
options.



Given that Cindy deliberately chose a couple in Hawaii, when she lived in Georgia, one would have thought that Cindy was looking for a level of openness *she* was comfortable with -- information, but no contact.



One might have thought that. But from what I've read, Cindy simply and
unquestioningly went with her first web contact, the Burns. She may
well have been dazzled at the prospect of this successfull couple who
live in sunny Hawaii parenting her child.
I think it's likely that she confused 'information' with
'communication', though of course the two things are very different.
I'm not sure that this is what happened here, but it seems there's
often intense communication between paps and pbmothers prior to the
final relinquishment. But afterwards, as the aparents' attentions
become focused on the child, it tends to drop off, leaving the bmother
feeling rejected and used.


Neither Cindy nor the a-parents could have predicted the outcome as it was: That Cindy would intensely desire more contact, and eventually regret having relinquished.



Absolutely.
I completely agree with you there.



What do you do, if you're an a-parent of a small child? And you are in touch with the child's b-mother? I must say I would feel very conflicted. If my child's b-mother really wanted the child back, I think I would feel I lacked permission to parent it. And yet, you can't really just hand a child back. Similarly if Cindy had chosen a different set of paps she may have had a different outcome. The luck of the draw. Nevertheless, I don't think it means that because these particular paps stayed within the legal limits they don't share accountability, not do I think the onus was entirely on Cindy. Aside from the book, which we can consider once we get hold of it, what should the a-pars have done differently?




Well, we'll consider the book, as you say.
But I think they could (not necessarily 'should') have been more
yielding, more flexible.
They *could* have written more frequently, sent drawings by Mahlia,
sent casual stuff like the odd post card, maybe even phoned. They
could have accepted Cindy's gifts. That kind of thing may (or not, of
course) have helped Cindy and her son. It's possible that over time
her grief would have abated if not been entirely assuaged.
No matter how they felt about Cindy personally, they *were* in Hawaii,
so I can't see how she could have posed any significant threat.


I've just read Brenda Romanchik's post about this on Adoption.com forums, and she's dead right. What did she write?


It's under 'Voicing Our Opinions.'

She wrote, "Susan Burns talks a lot about 'birthmothers' making an
informed choice. Cindy did not make an informed choice. She thought
open adoption was getting pictures and letters twice a year. Susan
Burns let her think that. She did not inform her that there were other
adoptive parents out there willing to have more openness. From the
very beginning this adoption was about what Susan Burns wanted and she
manipulated it very well. That is what disgusts me."



Rh.


> Further to what I've already written . . . I agree with the above, > except that if she'd been aware of her options, she'd probably have > expected and demanded more. Yes she may have but adoption is not really all that different than any other situation in life where the onus (unfortunately) ultimately rests with the "consumer" to find out all options that are available. > The paps were "consumers" too, and they did know their options. Would you say 'Good for them', or something to that effect? I can't actually see anything very wrong with what they did. Cindy knew they were in Hawaii. She couldn't have expected frequent visits, and didn't discuss any visits. How did they know that she didn't know that some adoptions had visits? It's not as though they were concealing knowledge of paps in Georgia who would be trustworthy and good parents, and who would allow Cindy greater access. All the info they would have is that Cindy didn't want to go through an agency, was searching the Web for paps, and found them. If it were me, I would assume that a person who was capable of finding paps on the Web would also be able to check other adoption-related information, including levels of openness in adoption, and their enforceability in her own state. I would have assumed that one of the reasons she chose paps some distance away would be to limit access. After all, the adoption fora have quite a number of stories of b-moms who close adoptions. Rupa

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote> Not sure about the 'inference'. I think it's deceitful to conceal facts crucial to life-affecting decisions from a person who's clearly ignorant of them. That the uninformed person could or should have acquainted himself with those facts is neither here not there as far as the person who has *got* the information is concerned. They know they are in an advantageous position, and consequently (IMO) have an obligation to make the playing field even.

But what did they conceal?
They were honest about the level of openness they expected to have. If
Cindy had said that she wanted more, there would have been the choice
of talking about that "more" until they reached a point they were
comfortable with.

I completely don't see how it's incumbent on them to inform Cindy
about hypothetical Other Couples that might provide more openness --
even supposing that they realized at the time that she wanted more
openness. Supposing, for that matter, that Cindy herself realized it.


Should they have said, If you approach another couple, perhaps you can have even more openness? Maybe with visits? I think so. I think it's incumbent on paps in a sitution like this to make sure that the relinquishing mother has considered all her options.


Had Cindy been a child, yes. But she wasn't. She was, even three years
ago, a mature woman who had two other children, one of whom was a
teenager.

I can see where you're coming from, but I have a hard time blaming the
paps for Cindy not knowing that adoption with visitation was a
possibility. (Though I don't know if it would have been enforceable in
GA.)

What if they had said something like that to Cindy, sending her
looking for paps who would promise her absolute openness of the "come
whenever you like" kind -- and who then closed it?

And if Cindy found out that her first-choice couple had adopted
another child, and were sending that b-mom pix and letters and video?

In other words, I think there are too many 'what-ifs' here. I really
don't see it as the paps job (or even their place) to tell a mature
woman what her options are. She's not stupid. She had net access. Even
three years ago, there was Google.

My own take on it is that the situation morphed; how Cindy felt
before, immediately after, a year after, 2 years later, and 3 years
later were all different.
One might have thought that. But from what I've read, Cindy simply and unquestioningly went with her first web contact, the Burns. She may well have been dazzled at the prospect of this successfull couple who live in sunny Hawaii parenting her child.

She may have done; and to that extent, there was no false advertising.
They didn't live in Ohio but pretend to live in HI. They are
successful. They are apparently parenting the child just fine.
I think it's likely that she confused 'information' with 'communication', though of course the two things are very different. I'm not sure that this is what happened here, but it seems there's often intense communication between paps and pbmothers prior to the final relinquishment. But afterwards, as the aparents' attentions become focused on the child, it tends to drop off, leaving the bmother feeling rejected and used.

I think that is pretty much what happened. It's like being the mother
of the bride - lots of intense emotional interactions, then there's
the wedding, and the couple go off to live in another city.

My take is that Cindy had no way of knowing how much losing her
daughter would affect her.

I think it's easy to blame the paps. But so far, I haven't seen one
objective thing that was sneaky or deceptive or unethical on their
part.

(However, I haven't read the book.)
Aside from the book, which we can consider once we get hold of it, what should the a-pars have done differently?> Well, we'll consider the book, as you say. But I think they could (not necessarily 'should') have been more yielding, more flexible. They *could* have written more frequently, sent drawings by Mahlia, sent casual stuff like the odd post card, maybe even phoned.

According to Cindy, they e-mailed sometimes, which probably was easier
than phoning with time differences and conflicting schedules. They
upped the communication frequency from once annually to twice
annually. Had they been more flexible, and sent stuff once a month,
would that really have helped? IMO, if the problem was that Cindy
really wanted her child back (not in the sense of kidnapping it or
anything, just in the sense of "how I wish I hadn't!") then more of
this would likely just exacerbate the feeling.

One also has to consider the a-family; they've got two small kids and
two careers. They're probably taken aback by Cindy's need for contact,
if their son's b-mom hadn't done anything of the kind. Perhaps they
have some of the conflicted feelings I spoke of earlier.

In other words, I do understand that the greatest loss, the greatest
emotion, is the b-mom's. But there are a number of players here, and
they all have emotions.

I don't know if this is right, and in the end it's unknowable, but for
Cindy it may be that a closed adoption would have been better. It
might have been more final, not the tantalizing middle ground of "I
see you but I can't have you."

Like being hopelessly in love with someone who is unobtainable.
Is it easier to see him around, or even to get pix and news?
Or to just go away and not see him again until the emotion subsides?

I've just read Brenda Romanchik's post about this on Adoption.com forums, and she's dead right. What did she write?
It's under 'Voicing Our Opinions.' She wrote, "Susan Burns talks a lot about 'birthmothers' making an informed choice. Cindy did not make an informed choice. She thought open adoption was getting pictures and letters twice a year. Susan Burns let her think that. She did not inform her that there were other adoptive parents out there willing to have more openness. From the very beginning this adoption was about what Susan Burns wanted and she manipulated it very well. That is what disgusts me."

I can't agree with Brenda. Cindy wasn't a little 15 y-o. She was a
grown mature woman. She by definition had Web access. How would Susan
Burns know what Cindy wanted or didn't want?

Brenda talks as though Susan misled Cindy about the definition of
"Open Adoption." The fact is, there is barely a definition. Yes,
getting pix and letters twice a year is open adoption. Open Adoption
can refer to anything from the b-mom and a-pars knowing each other's
identities, to occasional updates by mail, to some specified contact,
to a regular friendly relationship with frequent contact. And as for
other couples out there willing to have more openness, what does
anyone know?

If I want to adopt a child, I tell the mother how much openness I am
comfortable with. I may know, theoretically, that other paps may be
comfortable with more, but it's unlikely I know any such couples, and
I don't know how to advise a pbmom as to how to sort the truth-tellers
from the ones who will say anything. I truly don't see how it was
Susan's job to educate Cindy on this.

I think Cindy's death was just so shocking that a lot of her friends
wanted to scapegoat the a-pars, particularly the a-mom. Adoption.com,
after all, is a support system, and a sort of 'family.' I don't think
they were examining the facts -- they were reacting to Cindy's
feelings. Which is the job of a support system; but then not fair,
IMO, to the person blamed.

Rupa

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0404212214.726b820d@posting.google.c om... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote> Not sure about the 'inference'. I think it's deceitful to conceal facts crucial to life-affecting decisions from a person who's clearly ignorant of them. That the uninformed person could or should have acquainted himself with those facts is neither here not there as far as the person who has *got* the information is concerned. They know they are in an advantageous position, and consequently (IMO) have an obligation to make the playing field even. But what did they conceal?
They were honest about the level of openness they expected to have. If Cindy had said that she wanted more, there would have been the choice of talking about that "more" until they reached a point they were comfortable with. I completely don't see how it's incumbent on them to inform Cindy about hypothetical Other Couples that might provide more openness --

I agree. When you see a doctor does he tell you "Hey maybe you should check
out Dr. X or Dr. Y he might be a better doctor for you. Not usually unless
the patient has indicated a specific problem that is beyond his scope of
expertise.

even supposing that they realized at the time that she wanted more openness. Supposing, for that matter, that Cindy herself realized it.


Should they have anticipated that she might want more (or what if she had
wanted less)? I see it more akin to a relationship unfolding (open adoption
in general) where you are tentative at first and things change (either for
the better or for worse) as the relationship unfolds.

Should they have said, If you approach another couple, perhaps you can have even more openness? Maybe with visits? I think so. I think it's incumbent on paps in a sitution like this to make sure that the relinquishing mother has considered all her options.

Do you think that is what she wanted - choosing as she did a couple so far
away? Should the pamother insisted that they at least meet? Should Cindy
have? And what does that say about the dynamics of the relationship and the
prospect for a good open adoption?
Had Cindy been a child, yes. But she wasn't. She was, even three years ago, a mature woman who had two other children, one of whom was a teenager.

It makes one wonder if she approached all such life changing decisions as
casually as it appeared she approached this one.
I can see where you're coming from, but I have a hard time blaming the paps for Cindy not knowing that adoption with visitation was a possibility. (Though I don't know if it would have been enforceable in GA.) What if they had said something like that to Cindy, sending her looking for paps who would promise her absolute openness of the "come whenever you like" kind -- and who then closed it? And if Cindy found out that her first-choice couple had adopted another child, and were sending that b-mom pix and letters and video?

And frequent visits.
In other words, I think there are too many 'what-ifs' here. I really don't see it as the paps job (or even their place) to tell a mature woman what her options are. She's not stupid. She had net access. Even three years ago, there was Google. My own take on it is that the situation morphed; how Cindy felt before, immediately after, a year after, 2 years later, and 3 years later were all different. One might have thought that. But from what I've read, Cindy simply and unquestioningly went with her first web contact, the Burns.

Scary.


She may well have been dazzled at the prospect of this successfull couple who live in sunny Hawaii parenting her child She may have done; and to that extent, there was no false advertising. They didn't live in Ohio but pretend to live in HI. They are successful. They are apparently parenting the child just fine. I think it's likely that she confused 'information' with 'communication', though of course the two things are very different. I'm not sure that this is what happened here, but it seems there's often intense communication between paps and pbmothers prior to the final relinquishment. But afterwards, as the aparents' attentions become focused on the child, it tends to drop off, leaving the bmother feeling rejected and used. I think that is pretty much what happened. It's like being the mother of the bride - lots of intense emotional interactions, then there's the wedding, and the couple go off to live in another city. My take is that Cindy had no way of knowing how much losing her daughter would affect her. I think it's easy to blame the paps. But so far, I haven't seen one objective thing that was sneaky or deceptive or unethical on their part. (However, I haven't read the book.) Aside from the book, which we can consider once we get hold of it, what should the a-pars have done differently?> Well, we'll consider the book, as you say. But I think they could (not necessarily 'should') have been more yielding, more flexible. They *could* have written more frequently, sent drawings by Mahlia, sent casual stuff like the odd post card, maybe even phoned.


Assuming they had the time/inclination. Everybody is different, every
relationship is different. Some people always send cards on holidays,
thoughtful notes (like my sister) others rarely if never do (like me ;)

According to Cindy, they e-mailed sometimes, which probably was easier than phoning with time differences and conflicting schedules. They upped the communication frequency from once annually to twice annually. Had they been more flexible, and sent stuff once a month, would that really have helped? IMO, if the problem was that Cindy really wanted her child back (not in the sense of kidnapping it or anything, just in the sense of "how I wish I hadn't!") then more of this would likely just exacerbate the feeling. One also has to consider the a-family; they've got two small kids and two careers. They're probably taken aback by Cindy's need for contact, if their son's b-mom hadn't done anything of the kind. Perhaps they have some of the conflicted feelings I spoke of earlier. In other words, I do understand that the greatest loss, the greatest emotion, is the b-mom's. But there are a number of players here, and they all have emotions. I don't know if this is right, and in the end it's unknowable, but for Cindy it may be that a closed adoption would have been better. It might have been more final, not the tantalizing middle ground of "I see you but I can't have you."


Imo, if a bmother isn't prepared to not see her child again (no matter what
is promised) she should not consider adoption.

Kathy 1

On 21 Apr 2004 23:14:23 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Brenda talks as though Susan misled Cindy about the definition of"Open Adoption."

Brenda connects with new birthmoms who are trying to sort OA.
She helps them.. She listens to them..

She is writing books about open adoption..

I believe Brenda..

Jackie

On 21 Apr 2004 12:09:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Adoption.com takes a post out if they don't like it..
So I've heard.One of the reasons I don't post there.


I don't care if they take my posts out.. I am there to try and help..

I do not do controversy over there..


Jackie

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<nf6i80pufpu5p4jmu8bc0rk3ov2vrib520@4ax.com>... On 21 Apr 2004 23:14:23 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Brenda talks as though Susan misled Cindy about the definition of"Open Adoption." Brenda connects with new birthmoms who are trying to sort OA. She helps them.. She listens to them.. She is writing books about open adoption.. I believe Brenda.. Jackie



If that's what Brenda is doing, that's great. Preferably *before* the
relinquishment, so that these issues don't come up.

What I was saying was that Cindy and the a-pars e-mailed and phoned a
good deal before the relinquishment. They agreed on a certain level of
openness. It's not as though they said, "We'll have an open adoption"
and then said to themselves Poor naive Cindy, she doesn't even know
what an open adoption is.

What Cindy had *was* an open adoption; she knew who the a-pars were,
she got letters/e-mails/photos and two videos (or one video and a
replacement for it).

You are right that relationships evolve. It seems to me that this one
was evolving in a negative way, if what you say is true.

Rupa

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<d7uc80p2uk5thkgfdru8klmcibrco82inq@4ax.com>... On 19 Apr 2004 20:39:46 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Nor have I, but don't you think it curious that she never mentioned it *at all*?You'd think she'd have done so. Adoption.com takes a post out if they don't like it.. She may have written a great deal about it..


She DID write a great deal about it--in a list just for birthmoms.
I'm not on that list but I know the owner and have spoken to her about all this.

The book upset Cindy greatly.

Heather

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message woman went though, and >>I was rather shocked that Cindy went into this knowing so little about
'open adoption'

Why shocked? It's not like they have a school to teach women how to
become birthmothers. Finding good unbiased information is not as easy
as you might think.

It's pretty much "on-the-job training" if you ask me.

Heather

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404212214.726b820d@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote> Not sure about the 'inference'. I think it's deceitful to conceal facts crucial to life-affecting decisions from a person who's clearly ignorant of them. That the uninformed person could or should have acquainted himself with those facts is neither here not there as far as the person who has *got* the information is concerned. They know they are in an advantageous position, and consequently (IMO) have an obligation to make the playing field even. But what did they conceal? They were honest about the level of openness they expected to have.



About that, yes, but *if* they were aware (and I concede that it's
possible, though unlikely, that they may not have been) of the fact
that she hadn't educated herself as to her options, they had a moral
obligation not to proceed with the adoption until she had.
In such a situation not to do so amounts to a con job.



If Cindy had said that she wanted more, there would have been the choice of talking about that "more" until they reached a point they were comfortable with. I completely don't see how it's incumbent on them to inform Cindy about hypothetical Other Couples that might provide more openness -- even supposing that they realized at the time that she wanted more openness. Supposing, for that matter, that Cindy herself realized it.



At the very least it was incumbent on them to tell her to go away and
do her homework.



Should they have said, If you approach another couple, perhaps you can have even more openness? Maybe with visits? I think so. I think it's incumbent on paps in a sitution like this to make sure that the relinquishing mother has considered all her options. Had Cindy been a child, yes. But she wasn't. She was, even three years ago, a mature woman who had two other children, one of whom was a teenager.



6, 16, or 60, makes no odds.
It's a mistake to assume that all decisions are rational acts.



I can see where you're coming from,


Can you?
I'm not so sure.



but I have a hard time blaming the paps for Cindy not knowing that adoption with visitation was a possibility. (Though I don't know if it would have been enforceable in GA.)


I don't blame them for the fact that she didn't know at the outset,
but it *was* their responsibility to find out if she did, and to
direct her to the proper information if she didn't.
At the very least they owed that to their prospective adoptive
daughter if not to Cindy.



What if they had said something like that to Cindy, sending her looking for paps who would promise her absolute openness of the "come whenever you like" kind -- and who then closed it? And if Cindy found out that her first-choice couple had adopted another child, and were sending that b-mom pix and letters and video? In other words, I think there are too many 'what-ifs' here. I really don't see it as the paps job (or even their place) to tell a mature woman what her options are. She's not stupid. She had net access. Even three years ago, there was Google.



They assumed what it suited them to assume.
A couple of years ago I worked with a group of people with emotional
and psychiatric problems who were trying to get back into the
workforce. The group included several talented individuals who were
under a great deal of stress. Because of their particular problems,
they weren't very good at looking after their own interests, and I can
well imagine that they would have been very vulnerable to exploitation
at that time. Not all, but a good number, are back on track. Cindy may
well have fallen into a similar category.


My own take on it is that the situation morphed; how Cindy felt before, immediately after, a year after, 2 years later, and 3 years later were all different. One might have thought that. But from what I've read, Cindy simply and unquestioningly went with her first web contact, the Burns. She may well have been dazzled at the prospect of this successfull couple who live in sunny Hawaii parenting her child. She may have done; and to that extent, there was no false advertising.



This is true.
However, 'false advertising' is market language.
They didn't live in Ohio but pretend to live in HI. They are successful. They are apparently parenting the child just fine. I think it's likely that she confused 'information' with 'communication', though of course the two things are very different. I'm not sure that this is what happened here, but it seems there's often intense communication between paps and pbmothers prior to the final relinquishment. But afterwards, as the aparents' attentions become focused on the child, it tends to drop off, leaving the bmother feeling rejected and used. I think that is pretty much what happened. It's like being the mother of the bride - lots of intense emotional interactions, then there's the wedding, and the couple go off to live in another city. My take is that Cindy had no way of knowing how much losing her daughter would affect her. I think it's easy to blame the paps. But so far, I haven't seen one objective thing that was sneaky or deceptive or unethical on their part.



It really isn't a question of blame, but of placing responsibilty.
I don't 'blame' the paps for Cindy's death. It may or may not have
happened anyway.
Sure, she wasn't on the ball when she embarked on the process, but
they had some responsiblity to make sure she knew what she was doing
before going ahead with the adoption.


(However, I haven't read the book.) Aside from the book, which we can consider once we get hold of it, what should the a-pars have done differently?> Well, we'll consider the book, as you say. But I think they could (not necessarily 'should') have been more yielding, more flexible. They *could* have written more frequently, sent drawings by Mahlia, sent casual stuff like the odd post card, maybe even phoned. According to Cindy, they e-mailed sometimes, which probably was easier than phoning with time differences and conflicting schedules. They upped the communication frequency from once annually to twice annually. Had they been more flexible, and sent stuff once a month, would that really have helped? IMO, if the problem was that Cindy really wanted her child back (not in the sense of kidnapping it or anything, just in the sense of "how I wish I hadn't!") then more of this would likely just exacerbate the feeling. One also has to consider the a-family; they've got two small kids and two careers. They're probably taken aback by Cindy's need for contact, if their son's b-mom hadn't done anything of the kind. Perhaps they have some of the conflicted feelings I spoke of earlier. In other words, I do understand that the greatest loss, the greatest emotion, is the b-mom's. But there are a number of players here, and they all have emotions.


Right now the children's is the greatest loss.
The eldest son has a particular burdon to carry.
I know we agree on that.


I don't know if this is right, and in the end it's unknowable, but for Cindy it may be that a closed adoption would have been better. It might have been more final, not the tantalizing middle ground of "I see you but I can't have you."



Could be.
I share your reservations about open adoptions.


Like being hopelessly in love with someone who is unobtainable. Is it easier to see him around, or even to get pix and news? Or to just go away and not see him again until the emotion subsides? > I've just read Brenda Romanchik's post about this on > Adoption.com forums, and she's dead right. What did she write? It's under 'Voicing Our Opinions.' She wrote, "Susan Burns talks a lot about 'birthmothers' making an informed choice. Cindy did not make an informed choice. She thought open adoption was getting pictures and letters twice a year. Susan Burns let her think that. She did not inform her that there were other adoptive parents out there willing to have more openness. From the very beginning this adoption was about what Susan Burns wanted and she manipulated it very well. That is what disgusts me." I can't agree with Brenda. Cindy wasn't a little 15 y-o. She was a grown mature woman. She by definition had Web access. How would Susan Burns know what Cindy wanted or didn't want? Brenda talks as though Susan misled Cindy about the definition of "Open Adoption." The fact is, there is barely a definition. Yes, getting pix and letters twice a year is open adoption. Open Adoption can refer to anything from the b-mom and a-pars knowing each other's identities, to occasional updates by mail, to some specified contact, to a regular friendly relationship with frequent contact. And as for other couples out there willing to have more openness, what does anyone know? If I want to adopt a child, I tell the mother how much openness I am comfortable with. I may know, theoretically, that other paps may be comfortable with more, but it's unlikely I know any such couples, and I don't know how to advise a pbmom as to how to sort the truth-tellers from the ones who will say anything. I truly don't see how it was Susan's job to educate Cindy on this.

Not personally to educate her, but where there was an obvious gap in
her knowledge, to direct her to the proper information - even to
insist that she acquainted herself with it before finalizing the
adoption. If they had 'lost' her, then so be it. There are other fish
in the sea, so to speak.



I think Cindy's death was just so shocking that a lot of her friends wanted to scapegoat the a-pars, particularly the a-mom. Adoption.com, after all, is a support system, and a sort of 'family.' I don't think they were examining the facts -- they were reacting to Cindy's feelings. Which is the job of a support system; but then not fair, IMO, to the person blamed.

I think Kathy made a good point when she questioned the value of this
kind of support. It has the potential for exacerbating suffering
rather than assuaging it.


But, as far as I'm concerned, this is not about 'blame' (nor is it a
moral discourse on profit and trade)


Cindy's 'rights' were not violated, but what was done to her was
unjust.



Rh. Rupa

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<rp6i80lsodp6t21ualrn71nn1acma19f26@4ax.com>... On 21 Apr 2004 12:09:15 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: Adoption.com takes a post out if they don't like it..So I've heard.One of the reasons I don't post there.



One of a few.
Mainly, I find it annoying.



I don't care if they take my posts out.. I am there to try and help..



That's good.
Keep it up.



I do not do controversy over there..


I've noticed.



Rh. Jackie

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c68h4p$92tu3$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message news:e5619372.0404212214.726b820d@posting.google.c om... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote> > Not sure about the 'inference'. I think it's deceitful to conceal facts crucial to life-affecting decisions from a person who's clearly ignorant of them. That the uninformed person could or should have acquainted himself with those facts is neither here not there as far as the person who has *got* the information is concerned. They know they are in an advantageous position, and consequently (IMO) have an obligation to make the playing field even. But what did they conceal? They were honest about the level of openness they expected to have. If Cindy had said that she wanted more, there would have been the choice of talking about that "more" until they reached a point they were comfortable with. I completely don't see how it's incumbent on them to inform Cindy about hypothetical Other Couples that might provide more openness -- I agree. When you see a doctor does he tell you "Hey maybe you should check out Dr. X or Dr. Y he might be a better doctor for you. Not usually unless the patient has indicated a specific problem that is beyond his scope of expertise.


Like I said to Rupa, not specifically.
But when I was diagnosed with a medical condition a few years ago, my
specialist stated his treatment preference. And while he didn't
explicitly tell me to check out Drs X , Y or Z, he did explain that
there were other options available and he outlined what they were. He
told me that they wouldn't be his personal choice for me, and
explained why. But the implication was that other doctors might
consider them, leaving me the option of getting a second opinion.
Perhaps I was lucky, but it's no more than I'd expect from someone in
a vocational profession.
On consideration, I don't think the doctor/patient relationship is a
sufficiently exact parallel to that of the pap/relinquishing parent.
For one thing, the doctor doesn't *want* anything the patient has ("I
really, really want X's appendix"). He doesn't benefit in any material
way. He's performing a service, for which he'll get paid, either
directly or indirectly.
I do think it is a doctor's obligation to inform and educate his
patients. If he knows of a procedure that will benefit the patient
that he can't, for some reason perform, he's under a moral obligation
to tell him of its existence.
"First do no harm".
To withold information that may impact on the patient's health *is* to
do harm. To that extent, I think there's a parallel. It's a 'sin of
omission'.




even supposing that they realized at the time that she wanted more openness. Supposing, for that matter, that Cindy herself realized it. Should they have anticipated that she might want more (or what if she had wanted less)? I see it more akin to a relationship unfolding (open adoption in general) where you are tentative at first and things change (either for the better or for worse) as the relationship unfolds.



So do I see it as a relationship unfolding, with unanticipated needs
surfacing and making themselves apparent on Cindy's part.
In that respect it looks as if the adoptive parents fell short. They
didn't answer those needs. Of course, they were under no 'legal'
obligation to do so.


> Should they have said, If you approach another couple, perhaps > you can have even more openness? Maybe with visits? > I think so. I think it's incumbent on paps in a sitution like this to make sure that the relinquishing mother has considered all her options. Do you think that is what she wanted - choosing as she did a couple so far away? Should the pamother insisted that they at least meet? Should Cindy have?



I'd say yes and yes to both questions.
What this story illustrates, for me at least, is that there were no
guidelines other than the individuals were left to make for
themselves.


And what does that say about the dynamics of the relationship and the prospect for a good open adoption?


That they didn't meet?
Not good.




Had Cindy been a child, yes. But she wasn't. She was, even three years ago, a mature woman who had two other children, one of whom was a teenager. It makes one wonder if she approached all such life changing decisions > as casually as it appeared she approached this one.



It does, and I've wondered too.
But it doesn't alter my opinion that adoption needs to be more tightly
regulated. In fact it confims me in it.


I can see where you're coming from, but I have a hard time blaming thepaps for Cindy not knowing that adoption with visitation was a possibility. (Though I don't know if it would have been enforceable in GA.) What if they had said something like that to Cindy, sending her looking for paps who would promise her absolute openness of the "come whenever you like" kind -- and who then closed it? And if Cindy found out that her first-choice couple had adopted another child, and were sending that b-mom pix and letters and video? And frequent visits. In other words, I think there are too many 'what-ifs' here. I really don't see it as the paps job (or even their place) to tell a mature woman what her options are. She's not stupid. She had net access. Even three years ago, there was Google. My own take on it is that the situation morphed; how Cindy felt before, immediately after, a year after, 2 years later, and 3 years later were all different. > One might have thought that. But from what I've read, Cindy simply and unquestioningly went with her first web contact, the Burns. Scary.


Very scary.
Illustrates the need for tighter controls.
IMO.

She may well have been dazzled at the prospect of this successful couple who live in sunny Hawaii parenting her child. She may have done; and to that extent, there was no false advertising. They didn't live in Ohio but pretend to live in HI. They are successful. They are apparently parenting the child just fine. I think it's likely that she confused 'information' with 'communication', though of course the two things are very different. I'm not sure that this is what happened here, but it seems there's often intense communication between paps and pbmothers prior to the final relinquishment. But afterwards, as the aparents' attentions become focused on the child, it tends to drop off, leaving the bmother feeling rejected and used. I think that is pretty much what happened. It's like being the mother of the bride - lots of intense emotional interactions, then there's the wedding, and the couple go off to live in another city. My take is that Cindy had no way of knowing how much losing her daughter would affect her. I think it's easy to blame the paps. But so far, I haven't seen one objective thing that was sneaky or deceptive or unethical on their part. (However, I haven't read the book.) > Aside from the book, which we can consider once we get hold of it, > what should the a-pars have done differently?> > Well, we'll consider the book, as you say. But I think they could (not necessarily 'should') have been more yielding, more flexible. They *could* have written more frequently, sent drawings by Mahlia, sent casual stuff like the odd post card, maybe even phoned. Assuming they had the time/inclination. Everybody is different, every relationship is different. Some people always send cards on holidays, thoughtful notes (like my sister) others rarely if never do (like me ;)


Make the time.
Force the inclination. It's a different situation.
This is not an established relationship as per family.
I don't write to my bro either, nor he to me (but then, we are sure of
each other)

According to Cindy, they e-mailed sometimes, which probably was easier than phoning with time differences and conflicting schedules. They upped the communication frequency from once annually to twice annually. Had they been more flexible, and sent stuff once a month, would that really have helped? IMO, if the problem was that Cindy really wanted her child back (not in the sense of kidnapping it or anything, just in the sense of "how I wish I hadn't!") then more of this would likely just exacerbate the feeling. One also has to consider the a-family; they've got two small kids and two careers. They're probably taken aback by Cindy's need for contact, if their son's b-mom hadn't done anything of the kind. Perhaps they have some of the conflicted feelings I spoke of earlier. In other words, I do understand that the greatest loss, the greatest emotion, is the b-mom's. But there are a number of players here, and they all have emotions. I don't know if this is right, and in the end it's unknowable, but for Cindy it may be that a closed adoption would have been better. It might have been more final, not the tantalizing middle ground of "I see you but I can't have you." Imo, if a bmother isn't prepared to not see her child again (no matter what is promised) she should not consider adoption.



Bingo.
So, IMO, considerable effort should be made (on both sides) to make
sure, and if one side seems to be lacking in certainty or information
it's up to the other (if they have it) to supply it.



Rh. Kathy 1

hslowe@earthlink.net (hslowe) wrote in message news:<b05701cf.0404231248.4ce822fd@posting.google.com>... Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<d7uc80p2uk5thkgfdru8klmcibrco82inq@4ax.com>... On 19 Apr 2004 20:39:46 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Nor have I, but don't you think it curious that she never mentioned it *at all*?You'd think she'd have done so. Adoption.com takes a post out if they don't like it.. She may have written a great deal about it.. She DID write a great deal about it--in a list just for birthmoms. I'm not on that list but I know the owner and have spoken to her about all this. The book upset Cindy greatly.


I can see why.


Rh. Heather

hslowe@earthlink.net (hslowe) wrote in message news:<b05701cf.0404231250.16fd806c@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message woman went though, and >>I was rather shocked that Cindy went into this knowing so little about 'open adoption' Why shocked? It's not like they have a school to teach women how to become birthmothers. Finding good unbiased information is not as easy as you might think.



I'm constantly shocked at how trusting people are.
And I have good reason to know that finding unbiased information isn't easy.



It's pretty much "on-the-job training" if you ask me.


I didn't, but yep.



Rh. Heather

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message Cindy's 'rights' were not violated, but what was done to her was unjust.

I guess I don't perceive it as something that was "done to her."
(Except the book, about which we are reserving judgement for now. I've
ordered a copy - not arrived yet - and when I'm done with it, I'd be
happy to mail it to you.)

My own perception is that the real problem is that Cindy relinquished
in a situation where she probably should not have done; that she had
no idea how hard it would hit her.

I must admit I keep wondering why she felt she needed to; she said
something about being able to go into a shelter with her son, and not
being able to do that if she didn't relinquish. But a few months
later, she speaks of decorating her apartment. And she mentions an
extended family who were there for the birth, and it seems harsh that
no one was able or willing to help. If they weren't.

I feel that quibbling over levels of openness really is beside the
point. Would Cindy have been happier had she relinquished to someone,
say, 50 miles away so she could visit once a week? I don't know.
Jackie has spoken of the pain of b-moms who commit to open adoptions,
find them nearly unbearable in practice, but keep their commitments.
My guess is Cindy would have been one of these.

The real issue, if we figure that there is one and it was not just the
miserable outcome of a mental illness that was not effectively
treated, I think is that -- that she regretted relinquishing,
especially once she was financially stable.

Rupa

Rupa writes:
Imo, if a bmother isn't prepared to not see her child again (no matter what is promised) she should not consider adoption.>>

I agree. This is a point I have tried to make concerning post adoption contact
agreements that are not legally enforceable. In other words, if a woman says,
"All that stands between raising my child and relinquishing my child is a
promise of ongoing access to my child" the woman should not relinquish. As one
wise poster put it, open adoption is not adoption lite. Regardless of future
contact or the lack of it, parents who voluntarily terminate their parental
rights have termintated their parental rights and *all* rights of access to the
children they place. If this is an unbearable reality, they should raise their
children, IMO.






P2P

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote
Rupa writes: Imo, if a bmother isn't prepared to not see her child again (no matter what is promised) she should not consider adoption.>> I agree. This is a point I have tried to make concerning post adoption contact agreements that are not legally enforceable. In other words, if a woman says, "All that stands between raising my child and relinquishing my child is a promise of ongoing access to my child" the woman should not relinquish. As one wise poster put it, open adoption is not adoption lite. Regardless of future contact or the lack of it, parents who voluntarily terminate their parental rights have termintated their parental rights and *all* rights of access to the children they place. If this is an unbearable reality, they should raise their children, IMO.

Actually, twasn't me that wrote that. I think it was Kat.

What I think is that while that may be ideal, a person may not realize
what they are prepared to do prior to the event.

Cindy, for instance, thought she would be fine with letters and pix
once a year. That was the basis on which she relinquished. Then, after
caring for the baby, she and her son both found themselves bonding
with her. This could have been her moment to back out, but she didn't.
After handing over the baby, she asked for videos, which the a-dad
agreed to. He also said they would send pix and letters twice a year,
not once; and there was some talk of a visit, though with no time or
date or frequency mentioned.

Things seem to have been fairly smooth initially -- letters, pix, and
video on schedule. Even so, when the baby was 18 months old, Cindy was
still hurting badly, and sought out the adoption forums. There, she
learned that some other mothers also had visits. (Not that they were
hurting any less because of them.)

By the time the baby was 2.5 years old, Cindy was saying that she did
what she thought was right, but she had lost her child. She was
posting to anti-adoption discussions.

What I'm getting at here is that she must have thought she was
prepared. After all, she had expected only an annual communication.
But in the end, she wasn't prepared.

Rupa

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0404231317.6f7e5098@posting.google.com ... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message
news:<e5619372.0404212214.726b820d@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote> > Not sure about the 'inference'. I think it's deceitful to conceal facts crucial to life-affecting decisions from a person who's clearly ignorant of them. That the uninformed person could or should have acquainted himself with those facts is neither here not there as far as the person who has *got* the information is concerned. They know they are in an advantageous position, and consequently (IMO) have an obligation to make the playing field even. But what did they conceal? They were honest about the level of openness they expected to have. About that, yes, but *if* they were aware (and I concede that it's possible, though unlikely, that they may not have been) of the fact that she hadn't educated herself as to her options, they had a moral obligation not to proceed with the adoption until she had. In such a situation not to do so amounts to a con job. If Cindy had said that she wanted more, there would have been the choice of talking about that "more" until they reached a point they were comfortable with. I completely don't see how it's incumbent on them to inform Cindy about hypothetical Other Couples that might provide more openness -- even supposing that they realized at the time that she wanted more openness. Supposing, for that matter, that Cindy herself realized it. At the very least it was incumbent on them to tell her to go away and do her homework. > Should they have said, If you approach another couple, perhaps you > can have even more openness? Maybe with visits? > I think so. I think it's incumbent on paps in a sitution like this to make sure that the relinquishing mother has considered all her options. Had Cindy been a child, yes. But she wasn't. She was, even three years ago, a mature woman who had two other children, one of whom was a teenager. 6, 16, or 60, makes no odds. It's a mistake to assume that all decisions are rational acts. I can see where you're coming from, Can you? I'm not so sure. but I have a hard time blaming the paps for Cindy not knowing that adoption with visitation was a possibility. (Though I don't know if it would have been enforceable in GA.) I don't blame them for the fact that she didn't know at the outset, but it *was* their responsibility to find out if she did, and to direct her to the proper information if she didn't.


Given that it has been stated in earlier posts that it is hard to find
unbiased information on this subject, where should they have directed her
to? I confess I have no idea where that might be. She had already rejected
the thought of using an agency. Leaving aside this situation specifically,
would most paps know where to find this type of information if bmothers
themselves have trouble finding it?

Kathy 1

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0404231635.6f5215e@posting.google.com. .. "kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c68h4p$92tu3$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message news:e5619372.0404212214.726b820d@posting.google.c om... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote> > > > Not sure about the 'inference'. > I think it's deceitful to conceal facts crucial to life-affecting > decisions from a person who's clearly ignorant of them. > That the uninformed person could or should have acquainted himself > with those facts is neither here not there as far as the person who > has *got* the information is concerned. They know they are in an > advantageous position, and consequently (IMO) have an obligation to > make the playing field even. But what did they conceal? They were honest about the level of openness they expected to have. If Cindy had said that she wanted more, there would have been the choice of talking about that "more" until they reached a point they were comfortable with. I completely don't see how it's incumbent on them to inform Cindy about hypothetical Other Couples that might provide more openness -- I agree. When you see a doctor does he tell you "Hey maybe you should
check out Dr. X or Dr. Y he might be a better doctor for you. Not usually
unless the patient has indicated a specific problem that is beyond his scope of expertise. Like I said to Rupa, not specifically. But when I was diagnosed with a medical condition a few years ago, my specialist stated his treatment preference. And while he didn't explicitly tell me to check out Drs X , Y or Z, he did explain that there were other options available and he outlined what they were.

You were lucky. That is not often the case. In the colon cancer group I
belong to (with several Canadian members as well) the patient frequently
has to research available options on their own.

He told me that they wouldn't be his personal choice for me, and explained why.

And for some patients they might be overly influenced by that - especially
if they are the type to never question authority figures.

But the implication was that other doctors might consider them, leaving me the option of getting a second opinion.

One always has that option whether the doctor indicates it or not. Cindy
also had that option.

Perhaps I was lucky, but it's no more than I'd expect from someone in a vocational profession.

Unfortunately, I would advise most people *not* to expect that based on the
*many* experiences I've heard about.

On consideration, I don't think the doctor/patient relationship is a sufficiently exact parallel to that of the pap/relinquishing parent. For one thing, the doctor doesn't *want* anything the patient has ("I really, really want X's appendix"). He doesn't benefit in any material way.


Not entirely true. You would be surprised at how expensive chemo can be and
how often it is pushed over other options. Or even intravenous chemo over
pill form chemo. For intravenous the doctor shares in the payment, for pill
form the pharmacy does.

He's performing a service, for which he'll get paid, either directly or indirectly.

And it behooves him to keep his patients rather than referring them to
another doctor.

I do think it is a doctor's obligation to inform and educate his patients.

There are good doctors out there that do just that but you would be
surprised at how many *don't* inform their patients of *all* their available
options. And I don't entirely blame the doctors, oftentimes it might simply
be a case of not being as up-to-date on the research as they should be.

If he knows of a procedure that will benefit the patient that he can't, for some reason perform, he's under a moral obligation to tell him of its existence. "First do no harm". To withold information that may impact on the patient's health *is* to do harm. To that extent, I think there's a parallel. It's a 'sin of omission'. even supposing that they realized at the time that she wanted more openness. Supposing, for that matter, that Cindy herself realized it. Should they have anticipated that she might want more (or what if she had wanted less)? I see it more akin to a relationship unfolding (open adoption in general) where you are tentative at first and things change (either for the better or for worse) as the relationship unfolds. So do I see it as a relationship unfolding, with unanticipated needs surfacing and making themselves apparent on Cindy's part. In that respect it looks as if the adoptive parents fell short. They didn't answer those needs

Is it really one person's "job" in a relationship to answer all the other
person's needs in a relationship? Perhaps those needs were becoming too
much. It really is hard to know from posts in a public forum. It is often
the case in relationships where what the people in a relationship thought
they had/wanted in the beginning changes over time and one party
wants/needs more and the other person then either decides to fulfill those
additional needs or withdraws.

.. Of course, they were under no 'legal' obligation to do so. > > Should they have said, If you approach another couple, perhaps > > you can have even more openness? Maybe with visits? > > > I think so. I think it's incumbent on paps in a sitution like this
to > make sure that the relinquishing mother has considered all her > options. Do you think that is what she wanted - choosing as she did a couple so far away? Should the pamother insisted that they at least meet? Should Cindy have? I'd say yes and yes to both questions. What this story illustrates, for me at least, is that there were no guidelines other than the individuals were left to make for themselves. And what does that say about the dynamics of the relationship and the prospect for a good open adoption? That they didn't meet? Not good. Had Cindy been a child, yes. But she wasn't. She was, even three years ago, a mature woman who had two other children, one of whom was a teenager. It makes one wonder if she approached all such life changing decisions >
as casually as it appeared she approached this one. It does, and I've wondered too. But it doesn't alter my opinion that adoption needs to be more tightly regulated.


I absolutely agree with that.


In fact it confims me in it. I can see where you're coming from, but I have a hard time blaming thepaps for Cindy not knowing that adoption with visitation was a possibility. (Though I don't know if it would have been enforceable in GA.) What if they had said something like that to Cindy, sending her looking for paps who would promise her absolute openness of the "come whenever you like" kind -- and who then closed it? And if Cindy found out that her first-choice couple had adopted another child, and were sending that b-mom pix and letters and video? And frequent visits. In other words, I think there are too many 'what-ifs' here. I really don't see it as the paps job (or even their place) to tell a mature woman what her options are. She's not stupid. She had net access. Even three years ago, there was Google. My own take on it is that the situation morphed; how Cindy felt before, immediately after, a year after, 2 years later, and 3 years later were all different. > > > One might have thought that. But from what I've read, Cindy simply > and unquestioningly went with her first web contact, the Burns. Scary. Very scary. Illustrates the need for tighter controls. IMO. > She may well have been dazzled at the prospect of this successful > couple who live in sunny Hawaii parenting her child. She may have done; and to that extent, there was no false advertising. They didn't live in Ohio but pretend to live in HI. They are successful. They are apparently parenting the child just fine. > I think it's likely that she confused 'information' with > 'communication', though of course the two things are very different. > I'm not sure that this is what happened here, but it seems there's > often intense communication between paps and pbmothers prior to > the final relinquishment. But afterwards, as the aparents'
attentions > become focused on the child, it tends to drop off, leaving the > bmother feeling rejected and used. I think that is pretty much what happened. It's like being the mother of the bride - lots of intense emotional interactions, then there's the wedding, and the couple go off to live in another city. My take is that Cindy had no way of knowing how much losing her daughter would affect her. I think it's easy to blame the paps. But so far, I haven't seen one objective thing that was sneaky or deceptive or unethical on their part. (However, I haven't read the book.) > > Aside from the book, which we can consider once we get hold of it, > > what should the a-pars have done differently?> > > > Well, we'll consider the book, as you say. > But I think they could (not necessarily 'should') have been more > yielding, more flexible. > They *could* have written more frequently, sent drawings by Mahlia, > sent casual stuff like the odd post card, maybe even phoned. Assuming they had the time/inclination. Everybody is different, every relationship is different. Some people always send cards on holidays, thoughtful notes (like my sister) others rarely if never do (like me ;) Make the time. Force the inclination.

I don't think it is as simple as that. Do you "make the time" if say the
bmother is calling every couple of days? Do you "force the inclination" if
things continually go badly at every visit?

It's a different situation. This is not an established relationship as per family. I don't write to my bro either, nor he to me (but then, we are sure of each other) According to Cindy, they e-mailed sometimes, which probably was easier than phoning with time differences and conflicting schedules. They upped the communication frequency from once annually to twice annually. Had they been more flexible, and sent stuff once a month, would that really have helped? IMO, if the problem was that Cindy really wanted her child back (not in the sense of kidnapping it or anything, just in the sense of "how I wish I hadn't!") then more of this would likely just exacerbate the feeling. One also has to consider the a-family; they've got two small kids and two careers. They're probably taken aback by Cindy's need for contact, if their son's b-mom hadn't done anything of the kind. Perhaps they have some of the conflicted feelings I spoke of earlier. In other words, I do understand that the greatest loss, the greatest emotion, is the b-mom's. But there are a number of players here, and they all have emotions. I don't know if this is right, and in the end it's unknowable, but for Cindy it may be that a closed adoption would have been better. It might have been more final, not the tantalizing middle ground of "I see you but I can't have you." Imo, if a bmother isn't prepared to not see her child again (no matter what is promised) she should not consider adoption. Bingo. So, IMO, considerable effort should be made (on both sides) to make sure, and if one side seems to be lacking in certainty or information it's up to the other (if they have it) to supply it.

Unfortuantely even that is not always enough to prevent situations like
this.

Kathy 1

Kathy 1 write of information parties might have or have access to in adoption:
Given that it has been stated in earlier posts that it is hard to findunbiased information on this subject, where should they have directed herto? I confess I have no idea where that might be.>>

<snip>

Exactly. There seems to be an assumption that people seeking to adopt have
access to certain types of information or that they are likely to be thoroughly
educated about all aspects of modern, ever-changing adoption (and even further,
that they routinely withhold information from pbirthparents). We have twice
adopted newborns. The first time and only subsequent times I have encountered
discussion about post adoption contact agreements in here. Why is it assumed
adoptive parents are capable of accessing thorough, complete information but
birth parents are not? Is it further assumed adoptive parents have an
obligation to educate birth parents?


P2P

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wroteFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
My own perception is that the real problem is that Cindy relinquishedin a situation where she probably should not have done; that she hadno idea how hard it would hit her. This is Monday morning quarterbacking. Nobody hardly knows what it will be like until they actually do it. I speak from experience.
I absolutely agree. But then this is all Monday morning
quarter-backing. What happened is now irreversible.

In terms of legislation, I support legal enforcement for OAs. However,
I don't know that OAs are always or even generally positive.

Rupa

On 23 Apr 2004 13:48:15 -0700, hslowe@earthlink.net (hslowe) wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<d7uc80p2uk5thkgfdru8klmcibrco82inq@4ax.com>... On 19 Apr 2004 20:39:46 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Nor have I, but don't you think it curious that she never mentioned it *at all*?You'd think she'd have done so. Adoption.com takes a post out if they don't like it.. She may have written a great deal about it..She DID write a great deal about it--in a list just for birthmoms.I'm not on that list but I know the owner and have spoken to her about all this.The book upset Cindy greatly.Heather


I grieve the death of this woman..

Jackie

On 23 Apr 2004 12:54:41 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<nf6i80pufpu5p4jmu8bc0rk3ov2vrib520@4ax.com>... On 21 Apr 2004 23:14:23 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Brenda talks as though Susan misled Cindy about the definition of"Open Adoption." Brenda connects with new birthmoms who are trying to sort OA. She helps them.. She listens to them.. She is writing books about open adoption.. I believe Brenda.. JackieIf that's what Brenda is doing, that's great. Preferably *before* therelinquishment, so that these issues don't come up.

I don't think they listen when they are deciding..
Thats the problem IMO.
What I was saying was that Cindy and the a-pars e-mailed and phoned agood deal before the relinquishment. They agreed on a certain level ofopenness.

Cindy was not given all the facts..IMO
It's not as though they said, "We'll have an open adoption"and then said to themselves Poor naive Cindy, she doesn't even knowwhat an open adoption is.

http://forums.adoption.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=163178#post163178

I HAVE WHAT SOME CONSIDER TO BE AN OPEN ADOPTION HOWEVER SINCE
VIEWING SOME OF THE POSTINGS HERE I NOW SEE THAT PICTURES EVERY SIX
MONTHS .... NO PHONE CALLS NO VISITS ... IS CERTAINLY NOT AS OPEN AS I
WISH ... I ONLY WISH I HAD KNOWN THEN THAT I COULD HAVE REQUESTED
VISITS AND MORE PHONE CONTACT ....
What Cindy had *was* an open adoption; she knew who the a-pars were,she got letters/e-mails/photos and two videos (or one video and areplacement for it).

http://forums.adoption.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=164647#post164647

As for an "external expression" the video I received at 1 year is one
of my favorites ... they taped her and her brother as well as her
alone just being kids ... edited it with my favorite songs and this
video had become as "dogeared" as a well loved and read book. I also
treasure the letters I receive .....

End of quoting from one of Cindy's first posts on adoption.com..
You are right that relationships evolve. It seems to me that this onewas evolving in a negative way, if what you say is true.

http://forums.adoption.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=166605#post166605

One thing I did know was I missed My Malia it was then that I
remembered all the videos I had of Brandon and Blair growing up and
realized I wanted to have them of Malia too ... that way no matter
when I missed her in the future I could play a tape and "see" her
......... so I called Scott at the hotel and made that request. After
calling my attorney and letting her know how important that was to me
.... He said sure ... so I hung up and looked around and knew I had to
do something to work through this grief .....


Rest in peace Cindy.. You are loved.. `

Jackie

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404231903.5882c37d@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message Cindy's 'rights' were not violated, but what was done to her was unjust. I guess I don't perceive it as something that was "done to her."


I shouldn't have put it that way. Apart from the fact that it doesn't
convey what I intended, it implies a deliberateness in the way she was
dealt with that may well not thave been there.

Let's just say that I don't think she recieved the kind of justice she
deserved, which would have included, from my pov, compassionate
consideration for her feelings and an understanding of her predicament
that would have motivated the aps to reach out . Justice isn't only
about legalities. It's also about fairness, and respecting the rights
of the other by carrying out the demands of a relationship.


(Except the book, about which we are reserving judgement for now. I've ordered a copy - not arrived yet - and when I'm done with it, I'd be happy to mail it to you.)



That is very sweet of of you Rupa, and I gratefully accept. You've
evidently noticed how unpalatable I find the prospect of buying it. I
think someone (Nancy?) said she couldn't contemplate the thought of
lining the coffers.
I sort of feel the same way, though conflicted. I'm curious, and also,
having shot my my mouth off already, I feel obliged to read the
beastly thing.
My penance.


My own perception is that the real problem is that Cindy relinquished in a situation where she probably should not have done; that she had no idea how hard it would hit her. I must admit I keep wondering why she felt she needed to; she said something about being able to go into a shelter with her son, and not being able to do that if she didn't relinquish. But a few months later, she speaks of decorating her apartment. And she mentions an extended family who were there for the birth, and it seems harsh that no one was able or willing to help. If they weren't. I feel that quibbling over levels of openness really is beside the point. Would Cindy have been happier had she relinquished to someone, say, 50 miles away so she could visit once a week? I don't know. Jackie has spoken of the pain of b-moms who commit to open adoptions, find them nearly unbearable in practice, but keep their commitments. My guess is Cindy would have been one of these.



I understand what you're saying, and I suspect your guess is right.
But we'll never know. I don't think Cindy thought that.
The impression I got was that much of her initial dissatisfaction was
because when she found out that there were other women who'd asked for
and got more. She felt she'd been short changed, though I've no doubt
she didn't spare herself blamewise.



The real issue, if we figure that there is one and it was not just the miserable outcome of a mental illness that was not effectively treated, I think is that -- that she regretted relinquishing, especially once she was financially stable.



I completely agree.
That's why I brought up the issue of the individuals I knew who
regained control over the lives after recovering from their mental
illnesses, and why I think all women who are considering
relinquishment deserve *much* more than they're getting in terms of
informed objective support and information.
I know that's a touchy comparison, but insofar as women who
contemplate relinquishment are almost invariably under horrendous
emotional pressure it's likely to be difficult for many, though not
all, to keep a clear perspective on their options (assuming they know
what they are, even), and to make decisions that are ultimately in
their own and their children's interests.


Rh. Rupa

In article <s9en80tou0hqog0crgv35cjmksu1tf9rud@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 23 Apr 2004 13:48:15 -0700, hslowe@earthlink.net (hslowe) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<d7uc80p2uk5thkgfdru8klmcibrco82inq@4ax.com>... On 19 Apr 2004 20:39:46 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: >Nor have I, but don't you think it curious that she never mentioned it *at all*? >You'd think she'd have done so. Adoption.com takes a post out if they don't like it.. She may have written a great deal about it..She DID write a great deal about it--in a list just for birthmoms.I'm not on that list but I know the owner and have spoken to her about all this.The book upset Cindy greatly.HeatherI grieve the death of this woman..

I grieve for the sons she left behind. Her suffering is over - Theirs will
continue.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0404250732.9f3be51@posting.google.com. .. rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message
news:<e5619372.0404231903.5882c37d@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message Cindy's 'rights' were not violated, but what was done to her was unjust. I guess I don't perceive it as something that was "done to her." I shouldn't have put it that way. Apart from the fact that it doesn't convey what I intended, it implies a deliberateness in the way she was dealt with that may well not thave been there. Let's just say that I don't think she recieved the kind of justice she deserved,

Hmm, "justice"?


which would have included, from my pov, compassionate consideration for her feelings and an understanding of her predicament that would have motivated the aps to reach out .

That would have been the ideal and one would hope the path taken by most
aparents.

Justice isn't only about legalities. It's also about fairness, and respecting the rights of the other by carrying out the demands of a relationship.


Given that definition of justice, would divorced people also be considered
to have been treated unjustly? Or even married people? Often times people
fall short in meeting the other person's needs in a relationship
..

(Except the book, about which we are reserving judgement for now. I've ordered a copy - not arrived yet - and when I'm done with it, I'd be happy to mail it to you.) That is very sweet of of you Rupa, and I gratefully accept. You've evidently noticed how unpalatable I find the prospect of buying it. I think someone (Nancy?) said she couldn't contemplate the thought of lining the coffers. I sort of feel the same way, though conflicted. I'm curious, and also, having shot my my mouth off already, I feel obliged to read the beastly thing. My penance. My own perception is that the real problem is that Cindy relinquished in a situation where she probably should not have done; that she had no idea how hard it would hit her. I must admit I keep wondering why she felt she needed to; she said something about being able to go into a shelter with her son, and not being able to do that if she didn't relinquish. But a few months later, she speaks of decorating her apartment. And she mentions an extended family who were there for the birth, and it seems harsh that no one was able or willing to help. If they weren't. I feel that quibbling over levels of openness really is beside the point. Would Cindy have been happier had she relinquished to someone, say, 50 miles away so she could visit once a week? I don't know. Jackie has spoken of the pain of b-moms who commit to open adoptions, find them nearly unbearable in practice, but keep their commitments. My guess is Cindy would have been one of these. I understand what you're saying, and I suspect your guess is right. But we'll never know. I don't think Cindy thought that. The impression I got was that much of her initial dissatisfaction was because when she found out that there were other women who'd asked for and got more. She felt she'd been short changed, though I've no doubt she didn't spare herself blamewise. The real issue, if we figure that there is one and it was not just the miserable outcome of a mental illness that was not effectively treated, I think is that -- that she regretted relinquishing, especially once she was financially stable. I completely agree. That's why I brought up the issue of the individuals I knew who regained control over the lives after recovering from their mental illnesses, and why I think all women who are considering relinquishment deserve *much* more than they're getting in terms of informed objective support and information. I know that's a touchy comparison, but insofar as women who contemplate relinquishment are almost invariably under horrendous emotional pressure it's likely to be difficult for many, though not all, to keep a clear perspective on their options (assuming they know what they are, even), and to make decisions that are ultimately in their own and their children's interests.

I agree and I think that is true of any person in a stressful situation.
Once the situation has passed or resolved I think it is fairly common for
the person to second guess themselves.

Kathy 1

On: 4/23/04 5:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:

<snip a bunch of "they should have[s] and "their responsibilit[ies]>
They assumed what it suited them to assume.

<snip>

You state this as fact. You know this how, Rh? Would you please direct me to
what it is that proves this to be fact?

Gary
PFC

In article <c6h43l$c3ffh$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>, kat says...snip

I agree and I think that is true of any person in a stressful situation.Once the situation has passed or resolved I think it is fairly common forthe person to second guess themselves.

I totally agree. Another thing is that it's plain that one cannot assess how
they will feel afterwards, despite any carefull planning and research. Sorry to
point at myself again, but when I got my tubes tied three years ago, I thought
it would be no big deal. I ended up being extremely sad and depressed for a
while afterwards. even though I definitely didn't want any more children - So,
my point is, while an individual can think they're prepared for a situation,
when it actually occurs, it can turn out to not be the case - as it would appear
to have been for Cindy.

BTW, I haven't read the book or Cindy's messages, but does anyone know how long
she had her daughter before she reliquinshed?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Robyn writes:
I totally agree. Another thing is that it's plain that one cannot assess howthey will feel afterwards, despite any carefull planning and research. Sorrytopoint at myself again, but when I got my tubes tied three years ago, Ithoughtit would be no big deal. I ended up being extremely sad and depressed for awhile afterwards. even though I definitely didn't want any more children -So,my point is, while an individual can think they're prepared for a situation,when it actually occurs, it can turn out to not be the case - as it wouldappearto have been for Cindy.


Exactly, Robyn. No one can predict the consequences of decisions. Sure, the
odds for positive outcomes can be increased with careful planning and fact
finding. But, in the final analysis everyone has to make decisions big and
small.

I am sorry for your unexpected sadness as the result of your decision to have
your tubes tied.




P2P

in article s9en80tou0hqog0crgv35cjmksu1tf9rud@4ax.com, Jackie at
forgetit@me.com wrote on 25/4/04 2:13 pm:
On 23 Apr 2004 13:48:15 -0700, hslowe@earthlink.net (hslowe) wrote: Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<d7uc80p2uk5thkgfdru8klmcibrco82inq@4ax.com>... On 19 Apr 2004 20:39:46 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:> Nor have I, but don't you think it curious that she never mentioned it *at> all*?> You'd think she'd have done so. Adoption.com takes a post out if they don't like it.. She may have written a great deal about it.. She DID write a great deal about it--in a list just for birthmoms. I'm not on that list but I know the owner and have spoken to her about all this. The book upset Cindy greatly. Heather

I grieve the death of this woman..

Do you grieve the death of every woman that you never knew who has died,
Jackie? You must have a very sad life (in every meaning of the word sad).

Cindy's death was terrible and tragic, particularly for the children that
she left behind. In my opinion the opportunistic bunch of disgruntled
birthmothers trying to create a martyr for their course out of this
situation, should be horsewhipped, they really are not showing very much
thought or consideration for the family that remain, it is for them that I
would grieve. Having their mother's death flounced around the internet for
basically political ends does little to honour those children's loss. I lost
my (a)mother when I was seven I know what it feel like, I know what the
long-term impact is. I suppose I should be grateful that for me, at least
the aftermath was not a public spectacle. In those days, despite all the
social wrongs that there were, at least respect was shown by all, for a
family's loss.


Robin

qwasimodem@aol.com (Qwasimodem) wrote in message news:<20040425205230.23604.00000047@mb-m12.aol.com>... On: 4/23/04 5:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: <snip a bunch of "they should have[s] and "their responsibilit[ies]>


Gosh, that's very kind of you.
Ta.


They assumed what it suited them to assume. <snip> You state this as fact. You know this how, Rh? Would you please direct me to what it is that proves this to be fact?


I don't know it as fact, Gary, and, yes, I did presume too much.
You are right to pick me up on it.
I should have prefixed that with 'It seems to me', or something like.
It was my responsiblity to do so (seriously)


Rh


Gary PFC

In article <20040425233542.09153.00000160@mb-m19.aol.com>, Palms2pines says...Robyn writes:I totally agree. Another thing is that it's plain that one cannot assess howthey will feel afterwards, despite any carefull planning and research. Sorrytopoint at myself again, but when I got my tubes tied three years ago, Ithoughtit would be no big deal. I ended up being extremely sad and depressed for awhile afterwards. even though I definitely didn't want any more children -So,my point is, while an individual can think they're prepared for a situation,when it actually occurs, it can turn out to not be the case - as it wouldappearto have been for Cindy.Exactly, Robyn. No one can predict the consequences of decisions. Sure, theodds for positive outcomes can be increased with careful planning and factfinding. But, in the final analysis everyone has to make decisions big andsmall.I am sorry for your unexpected sadness as the result of your decision to haveyour tubes tied.

Oh, it wasn't that big of a deal - More of a surprise to me that I felt that
way.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c6h43l$c3ffh$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0404250732.9f3be51@posting.google.com. .. rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404231903.5882c37d@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message > > > Cindy's 'rights' were not violated, but what was done to her was > unjust. > I guess I don't perceive it as something that was "done to her." > > I shouldn't have put it that way. Apart from the fact that it doesn't convey what I intended, it implies a deliberateness in the way she was dealt with that may well not thave been there. Let's just say that I don't think she recieved the kind of justice she deserved, Hmm, "justice"?


It does sound rather archaic, doesn't it?
But it's what I meant. And I think the kids were denied "justice" too.
Indeed, even more so, since they had no say whatsoever in the matter.
It sounds as if the eldest boy tried to get his opinion across, but
wasn't heard.



which would have included, from my pov, compassionate consideration for her feelings and an understanding of her predicament that would have motivated the aps to reach out . That would have been the ideal and one would hope the path taken by most aparents.



I believe you're right about that.
Wonder what Di would say? Or, to put it in bumper-sticker-speak, WWDS?
Come to think of it, she's being remarkably quiet on this whole topic.
And on the respective Origins forums, the silence is deafening.
Nerry a squeak.



Justice isn't only about legalities. It's also about fairness, and respecting the rights of the other by carrying out the demands of a relationship. Given that definition of justice, would divorced people also be considered to have been treated unjustly? Or even married people? Often times people fall short in meeting the other person's needs in a relationship


'Would divorced people be considered to have been treated unjustly?'
In many cases, yes.
You're right. It's an ideal (I have two friends who are going through
that particular divorce wringer right now), but not to be sniffed at
for all that.
And I think there are clear similarities for the children of divorce.
That's why I strongly agree with Rupa about legally protecting the
interests of the children of OAs.
I think that when OAs are done well they're well done, and a good
thing for all, especially the children - which is the whole point of
course, if adoption is, as it's supposed to be, in the best interests
of the child. But there's a lot potential for things to go wrong, and
that really needs to be minimized as much as possible. It's too
important to be allowed to depend on 'gentlemen/person's agreements'.


(Except the book, about which we are reserving judgement for now. I've ordered a copy - not arrived yet - and when I'm done with it, I'd be happy to mail it to you.) > > That is very sweet of of you Rupa, and I gratefully accept. You've evidently noticed how unpalatable I find the prospect of buying it. I think someone (Nancy?) said she couldn't contemplate the thought of lining the coffers. I sort of feel the same way, though conflicted. I'm curious, and also, having shot my my mouth off already, I feel obliged to read the beastly thing. My penance. > > My own perception is that the real problem is that Cindy relinquished in a situation where she probably should not have done; that she had no idea how hard it would hit her. I must admit I keep wondering why she felt she needed to; she said something about being able to go into a shelter with her son, and not being able to do that if she didn't relinquish. But a few months later, she speaks of decorating her apartment. And she mentions an extended family who were there for the birth, and it seems harsh that no one was able or willing to help. If they weren't. I feel that quibbling over levels of openness really is beside the point. Would Cindy have been happier had she relinquished to someone, say, 50 miles away so she could visit once a week? I don't know. Jackie has spoken of the pain of b-moms who commit to open adoptions, find them nearly unbearable in practice, but keep their commitments. My guess is Cindy would have been one of these. > > I understand what you're saying, and I suspect your guess is right. But we'll never know. I don't think Cindy thought that. The impression I got was that much of her initial dissatisfaction was because when she found out that there were other women who'd asked for and got more. She felt she'd been short changed, though I've no doubt she didn't spare herself blamewise. > > The real issue, if we figure that there is one and it was not just the miserable outcome of a mental illness that was not effectively treated, I think is that -- that she regretted relinquishing, especially once she was financially stable. > > I completely agree. That's why I brought up the issue of the individuals I knew who regained control over the lives after recovering from their mental illnesses, and why I think all women who are considering relinquishment deserve *much* more than they're getting in terms of informed objective support and information. I know that's a touchy comparison, but insofar as women who contemplate relinquishment are almost invariably under horrendous emotional pressure it's likely to be difficult for many, though not all, to keep a clear perspective on their options (assuming they know what they are, even), and to make decisions that are ultimately in their own and their children's interests. I agree and I think that is true of any person in a stressful situation. Once the situation has passed or resolved I think it is fairly common for the person to second guess themselves.



Sadly yes.


Rh. Kathy 1

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote> (Except the book, about which we are reserving judgement for now. I've ordered a copy - not arrived yet - and when I'm done with it, I'd be happy to mail it to you.) That is very sweet of of you Rupa, and I gratefully accept. You've evidently noticed how unpalatable I find the prospect of buying it. I think someone (Nancy?) said she couldn't contemplate the thought of lining the coffers. I sort of feel the same way, though conflicted. I'm curious, and also, having shot my my mouth off already, I feel obliged to read the beastly thing. My penance.

You're welcome.

The thing arrived today. I've only had a quick read of it so far, and
I'll go through it one more time before I mail it off to you (send yr
address to rk underscore bose at hotmail dot com, no spaces anywhere).

My initial impressions:

1. The tone of the book is very prgamatic and "how-to" ... I'd say the
best comparison I've seen to it are the job-hunting books. (You know,
How to Find a Job in The Industry you Prefer kind of thing.) Though
she reiterates several times the need for honesty and warmth in
communicating with b-pars, the tone of the book is not warm.

2. It's written from a totally p-a-par, goal-driven POV. Just as the
hypothetical job hunt book would be written from the POV of someone
who was very keen to find a job.

3. It says most of the "right" things:
- It recommends separate representation, particularly in the pregnant
woman is young.
- It supports open adoption, while indicating that there are levels of
openness. (It defines open adoption as maintaining a line of
communication between the two sets of parents.)
- It points out the importance of ensuring the b-mom was not coerced
both for legal and ethical reasons.
- It mentions the importance of ensuring the pbmom has space after the
baby is born.
- It stresses honesty in communicating with the pb-mom.
- It suggests having a written and signed contract, even though it's
not enforceable, because it sets out the expectations each side has,
in writing, and this would reduce the incidence of clashing
expectations.

4. Most of the quotes in the book are from a-pars. I think there's one
from a b-mom (who had a closed adoption, and thinks an open one with
letters and pix would have been better).

5. She refers to pb-moms as birthmothers. Annoying, but it seems a
style thing -- like people used to use "he" to mean "he or she."

6. She makes it clear she perceives her target audience as p-aps who
are completely inexperienced. They would not, in her mind, be any more
informed than the pbmom.

7.There's one identifiable mention of Cindy (though she is not named).
It's in the para about the birth of her daughter, and says nothing
much beyond the fact that she called them.

There are a couple of places where, if I were Cindy, I might be pretty
pissed off. One is a reference to b-moms placing additional demands
after the relinquishment. (It suggests negotiations to find a place
where both are comfortable, or otherwise taking advice from their
attorney.) It's not the content: I think negotiation is perfectly
reasonable. What would bug me is what I see as a reasonable request is
seen as "placing additional demands."

It also gives as an example: If the agreement calls for letters and
pictures every year, and afterward the b-mother wants more, a
compromise might be to send these twice a year or even more frequently
for a time.

There were several indications, like that, that suggested that they
were not especially in favor of increased openness.

It also makes it clear that the relationship before the birth should
be close and favor as much contact as possible -- to make sure that
the a-pars have as much information as possible on the child-to-be,
and that the pb-mom is on track with relinquishing. However, it also
notes that a-pars may find themselves providing emotional support for
a pb-mom at a difficult time in her life.

After the birth, the two tracks will naturally diverge. However, it is
for the a-pars to support the b-mom by sending a few e-mails and
phone-calls.

I can see how this book might have upset Cindy.

1. It makes it clear that there was no expectation of continuing the
level of intimacy in the relationship that had existed before the
birth.

2. It showed no real interest in openness beyond the letters/pix
already promised, so Cindy couldn't really hope for very much more. In
other words, it wasn't a question of her forgetting to ask so nobody
gave, it was more that she had run into the limits of what they were
prepared to live with.

3. Even though it says the right things, it objectifies b-moms. It
makes generalizations of the "Birthmothers generally prefer..." sort.
Rather like when the job hunt books say, "Employers generally prefer"
and makes lots of generalizations about employers.

I'll look forward to your impressions, too.

Rupa

Fast Track Adoption : The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt a Baby
by Susan Burns (Author)

The (current) reviews on amazon
Think Twice, April 19, 2004 Reviewer: Elizabeth O. McBride (see more about me) from Twin Cities, MNAs an adoptive parent I feel the techniques outlined in this book reflect the current view of adoption in this country, sad to say. Adoption is supposed to be about finding parents for children who need them, not about finding babies for people who want a baby. Adoption is a big business and like any big business there exists unethical practices. Some of the techniques Susan Burns outlines could definitely be viewed as coercive. The very title is objectionable. Adoptions need to be slow track, with careful attention to the needs of the child and the potential women relinquishing as well as fathers, who are often totally left out of the equation. The child's needs come before anyone else's needs. No women should relinquish prior to spending time with her baby. Potential adopters do not belong in the labor or delivery room, or at prenatal visits. Above all, promises made for openess must be honored. Hopefully the day will soon be here when open adoption arrangements will be
enforceable by law. I recommend that potential adopters read this book putting themselves in the shoes of the mother and father. If they do that they will see that maybe some of the techniques outlined are coercive.Elizabeth McBride Was this review helpful to you?6 of 34 people found the following review helpful: Informative and Relevant Guide to the Adoption Process, March 17, 2004 Reviewer: dcohen51 from Newport Beach, CaliforniaIf you have to choose just one book to read dealing with adoption issues, this is the best book you could ask for.Practical information combined with actual life-experience imbue this well-written guide with important insights into the maze which often surrounds the adoption process."How-to" information as well as important caveats about the whole journey are included, making this the outstanding reference book on the subject."Two Thumbs Up". Was this review helpful to you?7 of 33 people found the following review helpful: Fast Track Will Put Us On Track, March 17, 2004 Reviewer: A reader from Denver, ColoradoMy wife and I will use the adoption process to start our family. Like many couples, medical reasons have us pursuing this avenue. We've begun by reading a number of books and engaging adoptive support groups. We both read Fast Track Adoption, and will undoubtally pursue the approach that Dr. Burns explains. The book gave us confidence in knowing that we'll be successful, because of its many practical tips. Was this review helpful to you?6 of 32 people found the following review helpful: a must have for those hoping to adopt, February 8, 2004 Reviewer: A reader from San Francisco, CA United StatesThis is an excellent book that will help many hopeful adoptive parents make their dreams come true. It is clear, reassuring, and offers practical steps and tips. And it was the first time I hear a compelling argument as to why you don't need to go through an agency-a concept I'd never considered before. I, too, don't understand the comments made by another reviewer about ethics. Did she read the same book I did? I think Dr. Burns is highly ethical, and I would recommend her book without hesitation. Was this review helpful to you?8 of 32 people found the following review helpful: The importance of ethics, January 22, 2004 Reviewer: A reader from Atlanta, GAHaving thoroughly read Fast Track Adoption I find it to be a wonderful book that is very sensitively written. The author shows a lot of respect for both the birthmothers and pregnant women who are considering adoption. I was surprised by another reviewer's comments that the book's methods were coercive. In fact, the book repeatedly states just the opposite. Dr. Burns goes out of her way to stress the importance of honesty over persuasion and manipulation. Fast Track Adoption offers anyone who is thinking about adoption not only a path to a faster adoption but, most important, a very ethical one. Was this review helpful to you?9 of 30 people found the following review helpful: This is the best adoption book, December 15, 2003 Reviewer: A reader from FloridaI have read a lot of books on how to adopt and this one was by far the most helpful. Unlike others,it offers extremely practical advice, written clearly and leads readers through the domestic adoption process in a step by step way. It describes exactly what to do, what not to do and why. This book helped clear up a lot of confusion I had about adoption. For example, I learned that during the hospital experience,it is common for birth mothers to want to see and hold their baby, even if they have already decided to relinquish their child. Thanks to Dr. Burns, I would never have known this and would have probably gone to the hospital, seen this and flipped out completely. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in adopting.



This is what was written when all this started..
From: Jackie (forgetit@me.com)Subject: Fast Track Adoption: The Faster, Safer Way to Privately Adopt a BabyView: Complete Thread (228 articles)Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.adoptionDate: 2004-04-09 18:35:05 PSTSnipped some..
Reviewer: A reader from Ca, USAAnyone interested in this book should look into the AdoptionForums website regarding the authors adoption and birthmother. This does not include a happy ending. Open adoptions need to be respected and whatever promises adoptive families make- they need to keep their end of the bargain- for the childs sake. This family failed to see the importance of this. This child will never know her birthmother. How To Destroy A Family, April 9, 2004 Reviewer: fourbagger from Sanford, FLI am appalled that this book exists. Anyone who thinks that there is no longer coercion in adoption needs to read this book. It's subtle but it is there in abundance. Taking this kind of advantage of a young, vulnerable woman is criminal. Every new Mom should have the opportunity to have time with her baby before she makes such a life-altering "decision."It has also only furthered my opinion of most adopters as being selfish and self-serving and caring not one whit for the consequences to the baby or that baby's true Mother.There will be the hue and cry about the infamous "dumpster babies," but most adopters don't want those children. They only want that Healthy White Infant with which they can play out their fantasies.The upshot of this book is, "get the kid, write a book, close the adoption and live selfishly ever after." Not a child centred approach, April 9, 2004 Reviewer: paula_d7 from EuropeMs Burns writes a book that by its very title puts the wants and dreams of the prospective adoptive parents above all else. The child being taken from its rightful mothers arms, and the mother whose arms are left empty are of secondary importance. Approaching a preganant woman at her most vulnerable and then condoning the practice of the prospective adoptive parents being in the hospital at the time of the birth scream coercion. To view it any other way, would require huge selfishness.

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404262357.75ebaa69@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote> (Except the book, about which we are reserving judgement for now. I've ordered a copy - not arrived yet - and when I'm done with it, I'd be happy to mail it to you.) That is very sweet of of you Rupa, and I gratefully accept. You've evidently noticed how unpalatable I find the prospect of buying it. I think someone (Nancy?) said she couldn't contemplate the thought of lining the coffers. I sort of feel the same way, though conflicted. I'm curious, and also, having shot my my mouth off already, I feel obliged to read the beastly thing. My penance. > You're welcome. The thing arrived today. I've only had a quick read of it so far, and I'll go through it one more time before I mail it off to you (send yr address to rk underscore bose at hotmail dot com, no spaces anywhere). My initial impressions: 1. The tone of the book is very prgamatic and "how-to" ... I'd say the best comparison I've seen to it are the job-hunting books. (You know, How to Find a Job in The Industry you Prefer kind of thing.) Though she reiterates several times the need for honesty and warmth in communicating with b-pars, the tone of the book is not warm. 2. It's written from a totally p-a-par, goal-driven POV. Just as the hypothetical job hunt book would be written from the POV of someone who was very keen to find a job. 3. It says most of the "right" things: - It recommends separate representation, particularly in the pregnant woman is young. - It supports open adoption, while indicating that there are levels of openness. (It defines open adoption as maintaining a line of communication between the two sets of parents.) - It points out the importance of ensuring the b-mom was not coerced both for legal and ethical reasons. - It mentions the importance of ensuring the pbmom has space after the baby is born. - It stresses honesty in communicating with the pb-mom. - It suggests having a written and signed contract, even though it's not enforceable, because it sets out the expectations each side has, in writing, and this would reduce the incidence of clashing expectations. 4. Most of the quotes in the book are from a-pars. I think there's one from a b-mom (who had a closed adoption, and thinks an open one with letters and pix would have been better). 5. She refers to pb-moms as birthmothers. Annoying, but it seems a style thing -- like people used to use "he" to mean "he or she." 6. She makes it clear she perceives her target audience as p-aps who are completely inexperienced. They would not, in her mind, be any more informed than the pbmom. 7.There's one identifiable mention of Cindy (though she is not named). It's in the para about the birth of her daughter, and says nothing much beyond the fact that she called them. There are a couple of places where, if I were Cindy, I might be pretty pissed off. One is a reference to b-moms placing additional demands after the relinquishment. (It suggests negotiations to find a place where both are comfortable, or otherwise taking advice from their attorney.) It's not the content: I think negotiation is perfectly reasonable. What would bug me is what I see as a reasonable request is seen as "placing additional demands." It also gives as an example: If the agreement calls for letters and pictures every year, and afterward the b-mother wants more, a compromise might be to send these twice a year or even more frequently for a time. There were several indications, like that, that suggested that they were not especially in favor of increased openness. It also makes it clear that the relationship before the birth should be close and favor as much contact as possible -- to make sure that the a-pars have as much information as possible on the child-to-be, and that the pb-mom is on track with relinquishing. However, it also notes that a-pars may find themselves providing emotional support for a pb-mom at a difficult time in her life. After the birth, the two tracks will naturally diverge. However, it is for the a-pars to support the b-mom by sending a few e-mails and phone-calls. I can see how this book might have upset Cindy. 1. It makes it clear that there was no expectation of continuing the level of intimacy in the relationship that had existed before the birth. 2. It showed no real interest in openness beyond the letters/pix already promised, so Cindy couldn't really hope for very much more. In other words, it wasn't a question of her forgetting to ask so nobody gave, it was more that she had run into the limits of what they were prepared to live with. 3. Even though it says the right things, it objectifies b-moms. It makes generalizations of the "Birthmothers generally prefer..." sort. Rather like when the job hunt books say, "Employers generally prefer" and makes lots of generalizations about employers. I'll look forward to your impressions, too.


Thanks, Rupa.
You're a star (babe, whatever).





Rh. Rupa

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0404260613.66e23a63@posting.google.com ... "kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c6h43l$c3ffh$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0404250732.9f3be51@posting.google.com. .. rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404231903.5882c37d@posting.google.com>... > sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message > > > > > > Cindy's 'rights' were not violated, but what was done to her was > > unjust. > > > > I guess I don't perceive it as something that was "done to her." > > > > > > > I shouldn't have put it that way. Apart from the fact that it doesn't convey what I intended, it implies a deliberateness in the way she was dealt with that may well not thave been there. Let's just say that I don't think she recieved the kind of justice she deserved, Hmm, "justice"? It does sound rather archaic, doesn't it? But it's what I meant. And I think the kids were denied "justice" too.


Okay so are you using in it in a "life treated us unjustly" type thing? Or a
more specific "the aparents (in Cindy's case) or my mom (in her son's case)
treated me unjustly"
Does that even make sense lol?


Indeed, even more so, since they had no say whatsoever in the matter. It sounds as if the eldest boy tried to get his opinion across, but wasn't heard. which would have included, from my pov, compassionate consideration for her feelings and an understanding of her predicament that would have motivated the aps to reach out . That would have been the ideal and one would hope the path taken by most aparents. I believe you're right about that. Wonder what Di would say? Or, to put it in bumper-sticker-speak, WWDS? Come to think of it, she's being remarkably quiet on this whole topic.

Well she did say they killed Cindy as surely as if they had shot her in the
back themselves - or something to that effect.
And on the respective Origins forums, the silence is deafening. Nerry a squeak.

Curious.

Justice isn't only about legalities. It's also about fairness, and respecting the rights of the other by carrying out the demands of a relationship. Given that definition of justice, would divorced people also be
considered to have been treated unjustly? Or even married people? Often times
people fall short in meeting the other person's needs in a relationship 'Would divorced people be considered to have been treated unjustly?' In many cases, yes.

Yes if there was some deliberate action on one of the partie's part (say
adultery, abuse, etc.) but what if there was just a breakdown of the
relationship?
You're right. It's an ideal (I have two friends who are going through that particular divorce wringer right now), but not to be sniffed at for all that. And I think there are clear similarities for the children of divorce.

I'm a little uncomfortable with that analogy, as I outlined in another post.
That's why I strongly agree with Rupa about legally protecting the interests of the children of OAs.

To a certain extent but I think there is a point where you can cross a line.
Palms has a valid point when she states that courts have historically
determined that the *parents* have final say about who has access to their
child. They have consisently rejected claims from grandparents and others,
etc. who seek to have guaranteed access.

I think that when OAs are done well they're well done, and a good thing for all, especially the children - which is the whole point of course, if adoption is, as it's supposed to be, in the best interests of the child.

Absolutely.
But there's a lot potential for things to go wrong, and that really needs to be minimized as much as possible. It's too important to be allowed to depend on 'gentlemen/person's agreements'.

It will be interesting to see in twenty years or so (when adoptees come of
age) if "open" adoptions on balance are indeed a good thing or if they are
just another failed social experiment like closed adoptions.


Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: The Book "Fast Track Adoption"From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 4/27/2004 7:46 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0404270546.48585f58@posting.google.com>
Thanks, Rupa.You're a star (babe, whatever).

I second it! Thanks for providing the summary and review.


-------------------------
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

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote It will be interesting to see in twenty years or so (when adoptees come of age) if "open" adoptions on balance are indeed a good thing or if they are just another failed social experiment like closed adoptions.


But why do you consider closed adoptions a failed experiment?

Lori Carangelo aside, from what I've read, most adoptees do as well as
or better than the general non-adopted population. I'd hazard that
many of them do better than their comparable non-adopted
birth-siblings.

I still can't see any better way of handling the issue of a baby who
exists and cannot be cared for by its bio-parents. I don't think
foster care or orphanages really cut it.

Keeping adoptions closed may be failing, because of the Information
Age, when it's becoming easier to track down anyone.

Rupa

"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c6lpme$cbmsj$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0404260613.66e23a63@posting.google.com ... "kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c6h43l$c3ffh$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0404250732.9f3be51@posting.google.com. .. > rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404231903.5882c37d@posting.google.com>... > > sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message > > > > > > > > > Cindy's 'rights' were not violated, but what was done to her was > > > unjust. > > > > > > > I guess I don't perceive it as something that was "done to her." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I shouldn't have put it that way. Apart from the fact that it doesn't > convey what I intended, it implies a deliberateness in the way she was > dealt with that may well not thave been there. > > Let's just say that I don't think she recieved the kind of justice she > deserved, Hmm, "justice"? > > It does sound rather archaic, doesn't it? But it's what I meant. And I think the kids were denied "justice" too. Okay so are you using in it in a "life treated us unjustly" type thing? Or a more specific "the aparents (in Cindy's case) or my mom (in her son's case) treated me unjustly" Does that even make sense lol?


You make sense out of my nonsense. I wasn't very clear.
Anyway, I meant it specifically.
Cindy deserved better from the aps, and her son (children) didn't
deserve for his (their) mother to leave him (them) in the way that she
did. Acknowledging, of course, that a suicidal person can't be
considered responsible in the same way that a rational person would
be.



Indeed, even more so, since they had no say whatsoever in the matter. It sounds as if the eldest boy tried to get his opinion across, but wasn't heard. > > > which would have included, from my pov, compassionate > consideration for her feelings and an understanding of her > predicament that would have motivated the aps to reach out . That would have been the ideal and one would hope the path taken by most aparents. > > I believe you're right about that. Wonder what Di would say? Or, to put it in bumper-sticker-speak, WWDS? Come to think of it, she's being remarkably quiet on this whole topic. Well she did say they killed Cindy as surely as if they had shot her in the back themselves - or something to that effect.



Yep.
Or that she's "better off dead than spending her life mourning her
loss"



And on the respective Origins forums, the silence is deafening. Nerry a squeak. Curious.
> > >Justice isn't only > about legalities. It's also about fairness, and respecting the rights > of the other by carrying out the demands of a relationship. Given that definition of justice, would divorced people also be considered to have been treated unjustly? Or even married people? Often times people fall short in meeting the other person's needs in a relationship > > 'Would divorced people be considered to have been treated unjustly?' In many cases, yes. Yes if there was some deliberate action on one of the partie's part (say adultery, abuse, etc.) but what if there was just a breakdown of the relationship?



I wouldn't put this particular case into such a category. As far as I
can see, the relationship didn't simply 'break down' as such. More
like the balance was altered when the adoption went through, and the
aparents' needs changed.



You're right. It's an ideal (I have two friends who are going through that particular divorce wringer right now), but not to be sniffed at for all that. And I think there are clear similarities for the children of divorce. I'm a little uncomfortable with that analogy, as I outlined in another post. That's why I strongly agree with Rupa about legally protecting the interests of the children of OAs. To a certain extent but I think there is a point where you can cross a line. Palms has a valid point when she states that courts have historically determined that the *parents* have final say about who has access to their child. They have consisently rejected claims from grandparents and others, etc. who seek to have guaranteed access.



I need to think more on that.
(Ravening son has just arrived, demanding food.)





Rh.



I think that when OAs are done well they're well done, and a good thing for all, especially the children - which is the whole point of course, if adoption is, as it's supposed to be, in the best interests of the child. Absolutely.But there's a lot potential for things to go wrong, and that really needs to be minimized as much as possible. It's too important to be allowed to depend on 'gentlemen/person's agreements'. It will be interesting to see in twenty years or so (when adoptees come of age) if "open" adoptions on balance are indeed a good thing or if they are just another failed social experiment like closed adoptions.
Kathy 1

On 27 Apr 2004 12:35:36 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
But why do you consider closed adoptions a failed experiment?

Do you discount what the birthmother goes through in a closed
adoption?

Are we invisible?


Jackie

In article <aq2v80d35ge7rst33e367a2qe9to25bg19@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 27 Apr 2004 12:35:36 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:But why do you consider closed adoptions a failed experiment?Do you discount what the birthmother goes through in a closedadoption?

Of course not.Are we invisible?

Let us once again not forget, Jackie, that you are NOT the universal
birthmother. Many birthmothers actually wanted a closed adoption for THEIR
protection/privacy and did NOT/do NOT want to be found.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0404271135.12ef8f45@posting.google.c om... "kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote It will be interesting to see in twenty years or so (when adoptees come
of age) if "open" adoptions on balance are indeed a good thing or if they
are just another failed social experiment like closed adoptions. But why do you consider closed adoptions a failed experiment?

I think most adoptees have a need to know *something* about their bfamilies
so in that sense I see closed adoptions as a "failure". Not in the sense
that adoption itself is a failure.

Kathy 1

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<aq2v80d35ge7rst33e367a2qe9to25bg19@4ax.com>... On 27 Apr 2004 12:35:36 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:But why do you consider closed adoptions a failed experiment? Do you discount what the birthmother goes through in a closed adoption? Are we invisible?

I don't. I talked of the adoptees POV because it seems to me that
though the relinquishment decision and the adoption decision belong to
other people, "success" or "failure" is ultimately a question of
whether the child is better off adopted or not.

As far as the b-mom and b-dad go -- I am not convinced that OA is
universally better for them, either. Nor for the a-family. (I'm not
convinced it's worse, either, though I suspect see more potential
conflict than most people in this ng.)

We seem to be working with an assumption that OA is for the b-mom's
benefit; that Closed adoptions are for the a-family's benefit; and
that an adoptee would always benefit from Open Adoption.

I question those assumptions.

Rupa

><katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote It will be interesting to see in twenty years or so (when adoptees come of age) if "open" adoptions on balance are indeed a good thing or if they are just another failed social experiment like closed adoptions.


Side note: OA is not new. I have one book about adoption touting the benefits
of OA written in 1982. There are plenty of young adults who were raised in OA.
Hmmmm. I wonder why they aren't more vocal?

Go figure.


P2P

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<aq2v80d35ge7rst33e367a2qe9to25bg19@4ax.com>... On 27 Apr 2004 12:35:36 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:But why do you consider closed adoptions a failed experiment? Do you discount what the birthmother goes through in a closed adoption? Are we invisible?


You're being rather umbragious here, if you'll excuse my saying so.
I don't see that Kathy's ignoring the birthmother's situation, or that
she's indifferent to it.
If the birthmother is invisible, then the child, who has his or her
identity effectively erased, is equally, if not more so.
I don't see it as a 'success/failure' thing, so much as whether or not
'open' adoptions are a better solution to a difficult problem.


Rh.

Jackie

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote Side note: OA is not new. I have one book about adoption touting the benefits of OA written in 1982. There are plenty of young adults who were raised in OA. Hmmmm. I wonder why they aren't more vocal? Go figure. P2P

Well, we did have Lisa-Boo out here...hers was an open adoption, and
she was very positive about it.

Rupa

On 28 Apr 2004 11:48:41 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<aq2v80d35ge7rst33e367a2qe9to25bg19@4ax.com>... On 27 Apr 2004 12:35:36 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:But why do you consider closed adoptions a failed experiment? Do you discount what the birthmother goes through in a closed adoption? Are we invisible?I don't.

Its good to know that you don't discount the issues some birthparents
go through in a closed adoption.. Rupa.
I talked of the adoptees POV because it seems to me thatthough the relinquishment decision and the adoption decision belong toother people, "success" or "failure" is ultimately a question ofwhether the child is better off adopted or not.

Not knowing whether the son or daughter is alive or dead is crippling
for some people.. Not knowing if they are in trouble is horrible..

I would not wish what happened to some of us on anyone..

IMO its a failed experiment..
As far as the b-mom and b-dad go -- I am not convinced that OA isuniversally better for them, either.

I am.. I have corresponded with the women who knew or know how their
kids are doing.. Its a totally different ball game.. IMO

A person can get on with their life.. A person can grieve the loss
from the get go..
Nor for the a-family. (I'm notconvinced it's worse, either, though I suspect see more potentialconflict than most people in this ng.)

Just knowing is all the difference IMO.
We seem to be working with an assumption that OA is for the b-mom'sbenefit; that Closed adoptions are for the a-family's benefit; andthat an adoptee would always benefit from Open Adoption.I question those assumptions.

There has to be something other than not knowing.. IMO

Its a horrible way to live.. And I do not think the worry can be
therapized away..


Jackie.. who speaks only for herself..

On 28 Apr 2004 15:57:56 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<aq2v80d35ge7rst33e367a2qe9to25bg19@4ax.com>... On 27 Apr 2004 12:35:36 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:But why do you consider closed adoptions a failed experiment? Do you discount what the birthmother goes through in a closed adoption? Are we invisible?You're being rather umbragious here, if you'll excuse my saying so.I don't see that Kathy's ignoring the birthmother's situation, or thatshe's indifferent to it.

I was replying to Rupa..

Main Entry: um·bra·geous
Pronunciation: "&m-'brA-j&s
Function: adjective
1 a : affording shade b : spotted with shadows
2 : inclined to take offense easily

Good word..

What I was pointing out to Rupa was that some birthparents do consider
the closed adoption a failure..
I personally consider it a failure..
The pain caused some women (I don't know about the men) is wrong..
Did you know about your relinquished son the whole time? How did you
deal with not knowing if you did not know?

If the birthmother is invisible, then the child, who has his or heridentity effectively erased, is equally, if not more so.

Ah... So you can just wave a magic wand and say "Don't look at the
birthmom and her issues.." "Look at the child".

Perfect..
I don't see it as a 'success/failure' thing, so much as whether or not'open' adoptions are a better solution to a difficult problem.

A woman who gives her child up for adoption *should* be able to access
information about that child at any time..

That is *my* opinion..

Jackie..

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<h7n190podo3m93db2bgdrcn82o9ohset3r@4ax.com>... On 28 Apr 2004 15:57:56 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<aq2v80d35ge7rst33e367a2qe9to25bg19@4ax.com>... On 27 Apr 2004 12:35:36 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: >But why do you consider closed adoptions a failed experiment? Do you discount what the birthmother goes through in a closed adoption? Are we invisible? > >You're being rather umbragious here, if you'll excuse my saying so.I don't see that Kathy's ignoring the birthmother's situation, or thatshe's indifferent to it. I was replying to Rupa.. Main Entry: um·bra·geous Pronunciation: "&m-'brA-j&s Function: adjective 1 a : affording shade b : spotted with shadows 2 : inclined to take offense easily Good word..


It is.
And I spelled it wrongly :-)



What I was pointing out to Rupa was that some birthparents do consider the closed adoption a failure.. I personally consider it a failure.. The pain caused some women (I don't know about the men) is wrong.. Did you know about your relinquished son the whole time? How did you deal with not knowing if you did not know?




I knew nothing.
I'm sure I dealt with it in the same way as other women in this situation.If the birthmother is invisible, then the child, who has his or heridentity effectively erased, is equally, if not more so. Ah... So you can just wave a magic wand and say "Don't look at the birthmom and her issues.." "Look at the child". Perfect..


That is not what I said.
It's not what I meant.
And if that's how you choose to understand it, then you're wrong.



I don't see it as a 'success/failure' thing, so much as whether or not'open' adoptions are a better solution to a difficult problem. A woman who gives her child up for adoption *should* be able to access information about that child at any time.. That is *my* opinion..




You seem to think I disagree with you.
Or maybe you just want to disagree with me.




Rh. Jackie..

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040428151516.28998.00000093@mb-m22.aol.com...<katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote It will be interesting to see in twenty years or so (when adoptees
come of age) if "open" adoptions on balance are indeed a good thing or if they
are just another failed social experiment like closed adoptions. Side note: OA is not new. I have one book about adoption touting the
benefits of OA written in 1982.


My daughter was born in 1982.

There are plenty of young adults who were raised in OA.


I don't know about 'plenty'. I think the numbers have been increasing but I
doubt "open adoption" as it is today was the same in 1982.

Hmmmm. I wonder why they aren't more vocal?

Well if they are anything like my daughter they are too busy concentrating
on college/work/social life/boyfriend. I know personally I didn't give my
adoption a whole lot of attention until I had my own children (and even then
not much). I really didn't start exploring adoption in depth until my
bmother and I reunited. Of course with an open adoption the scenario is
different so maybe it is just another fact of life with them and they have
no desire to frequent forums where it is discussed.

Kathy 1

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0404290210.2b4e529b@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote Side note: OA is not new. I have one book about adoption touting the
benefits of OA written in 1982. There are plenty of young adults who were raised
in OA. Hmmmm. I wonder why they aren't more vocal? Go figure. P2P Well, we did have Lisa-Boo out here...hers was an open adoption, and she was very positive about it. Rupa

Yes and she (being in an open adoption) was in the minority. Once those who
are in open adoptions come of age in large numbers, I think we might get a
better perspective on open adoption.

Kathy 1

katlat writes of children raised in open adoptions, including her daughter??

<snip>
Well if they are anything like my daughter they are too busy concentratingon college/work/social life/boyfriend. I know personally I didn't give myadoption a whole lot of attention until I had my own children (and even thennot much). I really didn't start exploring adoption in depth until mybmother and I reunited. Of course with an open adoption the scenario isdifferent so maybe it is just another fact of life with them and they haveno desire to frequent forums where it is discussed.Kathy 1


Kathy forgive me for not knowing these details. Are you an adoptee who also
adopted a child? Was your daughter allowed access to her birth relatives
throughout her life?

Thanks. I do tend to agree that children raised in open adoptions with access
to birth relatives are more likely to grow up with that fact being quite the
non-issue.


P2P

On 29 Apr 2004 10:46:44 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
I don't see it as a 'success/failure' thing, so much as whether or not'open' adoptions are a better solution to a difficult problem. A woman who gives her child up for adoption *should* be able to access information about that child at any time.. That is *my* opinion..You seem to think I disagree with you.Or maybe you just want to disagree with me.

I think that if women knew how their kids were doing they could do the
proper grief work and get on with their lives..


Kathy obviously thinks it okay..

Kathy's reply..

I wrote..A woman who gives her child up for adoption *should* be able to accessinformation about that child at any time..That is *my* opinion..Jackie..

Please note I did not type 24/7... One would not want to get a social
worker up in the middle of the nite would one.. :)

Kathy wrote..
My opinion is that your opinion sucks if you think the woman should have accessto information 24/7. Why give the child up to begin with?The woman needs to abide by the agreement and all parties need to be protectedby law to protect the integrity of the adoption.

Protect the integrity of the adoption????????

What is wrong with giving information about the kid?

Whats wrong with the kid getting information about the birthparents?



Jackie

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20040429205129.15479.00000583@mb-m05.aol.com... katlat writes of children raised in open adoptions, including her
daughter?? <snip>Well if they are anything like my daughter they are too busy
concentratingon college/work/social life/boyfriend. I know personally I didn't give
myadoption a whole lot of attention until I had my own children (and even
thennot much). I really didn't start exploring adoption in depth until mybmother and I reunited. Of course with an open adoption the scenario isdifferent so maybe it is just another fact of life with them and they
haveno desire to frequent forums where it is discussed.Kathy 1 Kathy forgive me for not knowing these details. Are you an adoptee who
also adopted a child? Was your daughter allowed access to her birth relatives throughout her life?

No, it was merely a generalization that imo, most young adults are too busy
testing their wings to be exploring the nuances of adoption like we do here
;)
Thanks. I do tend to agree that children raised in open adoptions with
access to birth relatives are more likely to grow up with that fact being quite
the non-issue.


Yes I would imagine so if the relationship was generally positive. Even if
it is not though, I think it would be a little later in life before
exploring it in depth.

Kathy 1

Jackie <forgetit@me.com> wrote in message news:<9rd490hi4qo774t7845q3m83dv0uoallgh@4ax.com>... On 29 Apr 2004 10:46:44 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: >I don't see it as a 'success/failure' thing, so much as whether or not >'open' adoptions are a better solution to a difficult problem. A woman who gives her child up for adoption *should* be able to access information about that child at any time.. That is *my* opinion.. > >You seem to think I disagree with you.Or maybe you just want to disagree with me. I think that if women knew how their kids were doing they could do the proper grief work and get on with their lives.. Kathy obviously thinks it okay..




I doubt it.
It certainly isn't obvious to me.
This is just another example (IMO) of hair splitting (as opposed to
nit-picking, of which I wholeheartedly approve) for the sake of
argument.



Kathy's reply.. I wrote..A woman who gives her child up for adoption *should* be able to accessinformation about that child at any time..That is *my* opinion.. Please note I did not type 24/7... One would not want to get a social worker up in the middle of the nite would one.. :) .


So you didn't specify 24/7, but you *did* write 'at any time'.
Hence the 'confusion' (if one may call it that)



Rh.
..



Kathy wrote..My opinion is that your opinion sucks if you think the woman should have accessto information 24/7. Why give the child up to begin with?The woman needs to abide by the agreement and all parties need to be protectedby law to protect the integrity of the adoption. Protect the integrity of the adoption???????? What is wrong with giving information about the kid? Whats wrong with the kid getting information about the birthparents? Jackie

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404262357.75ebaa69@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote> (Except the book, about which we are reserving judgement for now. I've ordered a copy - not arrived yet - and when I'm done with it, I'd be happy to mail it to you.)



I can't say I've read it from cover to cover. I haven't had much time
recently, as you know, but things are quieting down a bit now, so
maybe I'll be able to do so in more depth soon. I will say that from
my point of view it's not a scintillating read ;-) but I have perused
it enough to confirm most of what you say
You're right, of course. It's a practical 'how-to' guide for
inexperienced paps on how to snare a suitable birthmother, and follow
through to the adoption of her child.

Already I've found more than a few things in it that disturb me - so I
can only imagine how they must have affected Cindy. For instance, I've
just opened the book randomly on a page that stresses the importance
of projecting a warm and nurturing image through your photographs -
which is common sense and not bad in itself, but it's hard to see it
written there in a such a calculating way.


I was saddened on Cindy's behalf by the absence of any reference to
her in the acknowledgements. I realise that the acknowlegments are
about people who contributed to the book, but Burns does thank "all
the many dedicated adoption professionals who worked so hard to make
to make our adoption dreams come true". This seems a little weird to
me. Was it her dream to write a 'how-to' book about adoption?


That is very sweet of of you Rupa, and I gratefully accept. You've evidently noticed how unpalatable I find the prospect of buying it. I think someone (Nancy?) said she couldn't contemplate the thought of lining the coffers. I sort of feel the same way, though conflicted. I'm curious, and also, having shot my my mouth off already, I feel obliged to read the beastly thing. My penance. > You're welcome. The thing arrived today. I've only had a quick read of it so far, and I'll go through it one more time before I mail it off to you (send yr address to rk underscore bose at hotmail dot com, no spaces anywhere). My initial impressions: 1. The tone of the book is very prgamatic and "how-to" ... I'd say the best comparison I've seen to it are the job-hunting books. (You know, How to Find a Job in The Industry you Prefer kind of thing.) Though she reiterates several times the need for honesty and warmth in communicating with b-pars, the tone of the book is not warm. 2. It's written from a totally p-a-par, goal-driven POV. Just as the hypothetical job hunt book would be written from the POV of someone who was very keen to find a job. 3. It says most of the "right" things: - It recommends separate representation, particularly in the pregnant woman is young. - It supports open adoption, while indicating that there are levels of openness. (It defines open adoption as maintaining a line of communication between the two sets of parents.) - It points out the importance of ensuring the b-mom was not coerced both for legal and ethical reasons. - It mentions the importance of ensuring the pbmom has space after the baby is born. - It stresses honesty in communicating with the pb-mom. - It suggests having a written and signed contract, even though it's not enforceable, because it sets out the expectations each side has, in writing, and this would reduce the incidence of clashing expectations. 4. Most of the quotes in the book are from a-pars. I think there's one from a b-mom (who had a closed adoption, and thinks an open one with letters and pix would have been better). 5. She refers to pb-moms as birthmothers. Annoying, but it seems a style thing -- like people used to use "he" to mean "he or she." 6. She makes it clear she perceives her target audience as p-aps who are completely inexperienced. They would not, in her mind, be any more informed than the pbmom. 7.There's one identifiable mention of Cindy (though she is not named). It's in the para about the birth of her daughter, and says nothing much beyond the fact that she called them. There are a couple of places where, if I were Cindy, I might be pretty pissed off. One is a reference to b-moms placing additional demands after the relinquishment. (It suggests negotiations to find a place where both are comfortable, or otherwise taking advice from their attorney.) It's not the content: I think negotiation is perfectly reasonable. What would bug me is what I see as a reasonable request is seen as "placing additional demands."




Yes.
I noticed that. Eeek.


It also gives as an example: If the agreement calls for letters and pictures every year, and afterward the b-mother wants more, a compromise might be to send these twice a year or even more frequently for a time. There were several indications, like that, that suggested that they were not especially in favor of increased openness. It also makes it clear that the relationship before the birth should be close and favor as much contact as possible -- to make sure that the a-pars have as much information as possible on the child-to-be, and that the pb-mom is on track with relinquishing. However, it also notes that a-pars may find themselves providing emotional support for a pb-mom at a difficult time in her life. After the birth, the two tracks will naturally diverge. However, it is for the a-pars to support the b-mom by sending a few e-mails and phone-calls. I can see how this book might have upset Cindy. 1. It makes it clear that there was no expectation of continuing the level of intimacy in the relationship that had existed before the birth. 2. It showed no real interest in openness beyond the letters/pix already promised, so Cindy couldn't really hope for very much more. In other words, it wasn't a question of her forgetting to ask so nobody gave, it was more that she had run into the limits of what they were prepared to live with. 3. Even though it says the right things, it objectifies b-moms. It makes generalizations of the "Birthmothers generally prefer..." sort. Rather like when the job hunt books say, "Employers generally prefer" and makes lots of generalizations about employers. I'll look forward to your impressions, too.




I find the book conspicuously lacking in real empathy, though there's
enough of the ersatz sort. Burns pays lip-service to the mother's
feelings in the hospital, but that rings hollow when she writes
"Adoptive mothers who ignore their birth mother once the baby arrives
risk sending the wrong message. Birth mothers who feel emotionally
abandoned at this difficult time may wonder if the concern you
previously showed them was genuine. Worse, they may question their
decision to place their child with you."
Yikers! If they haven't already signed the documents, they might even
change their minds, and then all will have been for naught.




The emphasis on ensuring that the mother was not co-erced for ethical
and legal reasons comes across as simple pragmatism. (Couldn't help
noticing the word 'coercion' is not in the index)

Anyway, ta again Rupa.
I'll spend some more time over it, shoot my mouth off (maybe), and
then if there's anyone else who's interested in reading it, I'll be
happy to follow in your estimable lead and mail it on to them.
Any takers?




Rh.
Rupa

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0404262357.75ebaa69@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote> (Except the book, about which we are reserving judgement for now. I've ordered a copy - not arrived yet - and when I'm done with it, I'd be happy to mail it to you.)



I can't say I've read it from cover to cover. I haven't had much time
recently, as you know, but things are quieting down a bit now, so
maybe I'll be able to do so in more depth soon. I will say that from
my point of view it's not a scintillating read ;-) but I have perused
it enough to confirm most of what you say
You're right, of course. It's a practical 'how-to' guide for
inexperienced paps on how to snare a suitable birthmother, and follow
through to the adoption of her child.

Already I've found more than a few things in it that disturb me - so I
can only imagine how they must have affected Cindy. For instance, I've
just opened the book randomly on a page that stresses the importance
of projecting a warm and nurturing image through your photographs -
which is common sense and not bad in itself, but it's hard to see it
written there in a such a calculating way.


I was saddened on Cindy's behalf by the absence of any reference to
her in the acknowledgements. I realise that the acknowlegments are
about people who contributed to the book, but Burns does thank "all
the many dedicated adoption professionals who worked so hard to make
to make our adoption dreams come true". This seems a little weird to
me. Was it her dream to write a 'how-to' book about adoption?


That is very sweet of of you Rupa, and I gratefully accept. You've evidently noticed how unpalatable I find the prospect of buying it. I think someone (Nancy?) said she couldn't contemplate the thought of lining the coffers. I sort of feel the same way, though conflicted. I'm curious, and also, having shot my my mouth off already, I feel obliged to read the beastly thing. My penance. > You're welcome. The thing arrived today. I've only had a quick read of it so far, and I'll go through it one more time before I mail it off to you (send yr address to rk underscore bose at hotmail dot com, no spaces anywhere). My initial impressions: 1. The tone of the book is very prgamatic and "how-to" ... I'd say the best comparison I've seen to it are the job-hunting books. (You know, How to Find a Job in The Industry you Prefer kind of thing.) Though she reiterates several times the need for honesty and warmth in communicating with b-pars, the tone of the book is not warm. 2. It's written from a totally p-a-par, goal-driven POV. Just as the hypothetical job hunt book would be written from the POV of someone who was very keen to find a job. 3. It says most of the "right" things: - It recommends separate representation, particularly in the pregnant woman is young. - It supports open adoption, while indicating that there are levels of openness. (It defines open adoption as maintaining a line of communication between the two sets of parents.) - It points out the importance of ensuring the b-mom was not coerced both for legal and ethical reasons. - It mentions the importance of ensuring the pbmom has space after the baby is born. - It stresses honesty in communicating with the pb-mom. - It suggests having a written and signed contract, even though it's not enforceable, because it sets out the expectations each side has, in writing, and this would reduce the incidence of clashing expectations. 4. Most of the quotes in the book are from a-pars. I think there's one from a b-mom (who had a closed adoption, and thinks an open one with letters and pix would have been better). 5. She refers to pb-moms as birthmothers. Annoying, but it seems a style thing -- like people used to use "he" to mean "he or she." 6. She makes it clear she perceives her target audience as p-aps who are completely inexperienced. They would not, in her mind, be any more informed than the pbmom. 7.There's one identifiable mention of Cindy (though she is not named). It's in the para about the birth of her daughter, and says nothing much beyond the fact that she called them. There are a couple of places where, if I were Cindy, I might be pretty pissed off. One is a reference to b-moms placing additional demands after the relinquishment. (It suggests negotiations to find a place where both are comfortable, or otherwise taking advice from their attorney.) It's not the content: I think negotiation is perfectly reasonable. What would bug me is what I see as a reasonable request is seen as "placing additional demands."




Yes.
I noticed that. Eeek.


It also gives as an example: If the agreement calls for letters and pictures every year, and afterward the b-mother wants more, a compromise might be to send these twice a year or even more frequently for a time. There were several indications, like that, that suggested that they were not especially in favor of increased openness. It also makes it clear that the relationship before the birth should be close and favor as much contact as possible -- to make sure that the a-pars have as much information as possible on the child-to-be, and that the pb-mom is on track with relinquishing. However, it also notes that a-pars may find themselves providing emotional support for a pb-mom at a difficult time in her life. After the birth, the two tracks will naturally diverge. However, it is for the a-pars to support the b-mom by sending a few e-mails and phone-calls. I can see how this book might have upset Cindy. 1. It makes it clear that there was no expectation of continuing the level of intimacy in the relationship that had existed before the birth. 2. It showed no real interest in openness beyond the letters/pix already promised, so Cindy couldn't really hope for very much more. In other words, it wasn't a question of her forgetting to ask so nobody gave, it was more that she had run into the limits of what they were prepared to live with. 3. Even though it says the right things, it objectifies b-moms. It makes generalizations of the "Birthmothers generally prefer..." sort. Rather like when the job hunt books say, "Employers generally prefer" and makes lots of generalizations about employers. I'll look forward to your impressions, too.




I find the book conspicuously lacking in real empathy, though there's
enough of the ersatz sort. Burns pays lip-service to the mother's
feelings in the hospital, but that rings hollow when she writes
"Adoptive mothers who ignore their birth mother once the baby arrives
risk sending the wrong message. Birth mothers who feel emotionally
abandoned at this difficult time may wonder if the concern you
previously showed them was genuine. Worse, they may question their
decision to place their child with you."
Yikers! If they haven't already signed the documents, they might even
change their minds, and then all will have been for naught.




The emphasis on ensuring that the mother was not co-erced for ethical
and legal reasons comes across as simple pragmatism. (Couldn't help
noticing the word 'coercion' is not in the index)

Anyway, ta again Rupa.
I'll spend some more time over it, shoot my mouth off (maybe), and
then if there's anyone else who's interested in reading it, I'll be
happy to follow in your estimable lead and mail it on to them.
Any takers?




Rh.
Rupa

>I'll spend some more time over it, shoot my mouth off (maybe), andthen if there's anyone else who's interested in reading it, I'll behappy to follow in your estimable lead and mail it on to them.Any takers?

I'd like to be on the list, please.

Sheila

>I'll spend some more time over it, shoot my mouth off (maybe), andthen if there's anyone else who's interested in reading it, I'll behappy to follow in your estimable lead and mail it on to them.Any takers?

I'd like to be on the list, please.

Sheila

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040522122904.27600.00001686@mb-m05.aol.com...I'll spend some more time over it, shoot my mouth off (maybe), andthen if there's anyone else who's interested in reading it, I'll behappy to follow in your estimable lead and mail it on to them.Any takers? I'd like to be on the list, please. Sheila

Add me as well.

KL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040522122904.27600.00001686@mb-m05.aol.com...I'll spend some more time over it, shoot my mouth off (maybe), andthen if there's anyone else who's interested in reading it, I'll behappy to follow in your estimable lead and mail it on to them.Any takers? I'd like to be on the list, please. Sheila

Add me as well.

KL




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) wrote in message news:<20040522122904.27600.00001686@mb-m05.aol.com>...I'll spend some more time over it, shoot my mouth off (maybe), andthen if there's anyone else who's interested in reading it, I'll behappy to follow in your estimable lead and mail it on to them.Any takers? I'd like to be on the list, please.




Done, Sheila :-)
You are numero umo.
Send me your address and I'll post it on to you in a day or so.


Rh. Sheila

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) wrote in message news:<20040522122904.27600.00001686@mb-m05.aol.com>...I'll spend some more time over it, shoot my mouth off (maybe), andthen if there's anyone else who's interested in reading it, I'll behappy to follow in your estimable lead and mail it on to them.Any takers? I'd like to be on the list, please.




Done, Sheila :-)
You are numero umo.
Send me your address and I'll post it on to you in a day or so.


Rh. Sheila

>whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) wrote in messagenews:<20040522122904.27600.00001686@mb-m05.aol.com>...I'll spend some more time over it, shoot my mouth off (maybe), andthen if there's anyone else who's interested in reading it, I'll behappy to follow in your estimable lead and mail it on to them.Any takers? I'd like to be on the list, please.Done, Sheila :-)You are numero umo.Send me your address and I'll post it on to you in a day or so.Rh. Sheila

Just sent you my addy.

KL, if you send me yours, I'll send it on as soon as I am done.

Sheila

>whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) wrote in messagenews:<20040522122904.27600.00001686@mb-m05.aol.com>...I'll spend some more time over it, shoot my mouth off (maybe), andthen if there's anyone else who's interested in reading it, I'll behappy to follow in your estimable lead and mail it on to them.Any takers? I'd like to be on the list, please.Done, Sheila :-)You are numero umo.Send me your address and I'll post it on to you in a day or so.Rh. Sheila

Just sent you my addy.

KL, if you send me yours, I'll send it on as soon as I am done.

Sheila