Dian
12-12-2004, 06:14 AM
snip, snip, snip I imagine blaming the construct of adoption itself for the adoptees lack of vital information would be totally out of the question for this ng?
The question that I pose is that the laws which are passed by
legislators
are proposed by someone for a reason. Who are the laws "protecting" if
not
the b-parents?
With little effort you could read up on the legislation that explains
how the closed system was introduced to protect the newly formed "as
if born" to each other adoptive families from any intrusion from the
natural mother.
I have not seen (within my limited experience) any b-parents
lobbying to have these laws nullified.
I have. They do it by letters/submissions.
The b-parent(s) know who they brought
into this world.
That's news to me. Many of us were not even allowed to see the child
we gave birth to. And those who did were usually only allowed to see
the baby after the consent was signed. Most mothers would not know if
the child they saw was even their own child. They played dirty tricks
on many of us like telling us we gave birth to a girl when it was a
boy etc., to ensure we wouldn't know how to search or who to search
for. In fact many of us signed consents to the adoption of our
children based solely on anecdotal information provided by the
allotment officer. Without a DNA test I still don't know if my child
is really my child. The entire history of the adoption process has
been based on fraud. The system knew it was illegal under numerous
statutes and applied it for decades regardless. Which makes it
fraudulent concealment. And of course given that it was the medical
profession that was instrumental in devising these practices and
carrying them out they are also in breach of their professional duty
to disclose their neglect and fraudulent deceit. It was no coincedence
that for the fist time in the history of mankind millions of newborn
babies around the world were being made available for adoption en
masse to the general public. Fraud was their instrument of choice. And
fraudulent concealment has no statute of Limitations to get over.
Many of us have little knowledge, if any, about who brought
us in this world.
And you can thank the legislators and those who supported that
legislation for your lack of information. They rather forgot that
babies grow up and become adults with adult needs, not all of whom are
quite so willing to go along with the fiction. I don't see many
adoptees jumping up and down on those legislators who killed off their
biological history with the stroke of a pen or on those oposing open
records..
I understand, at a certain level, the desire of b-parents
to distance themselves but I also understand, in some depth, the
desire to
know who I am. Who has the more right?
Statistically, 87%-95% (depending on the study) of all mothers would
welcome contact. Going by vetoes placed by them, few have taken up
that legal option. Adopted person as are more likely to place them as
it turns out.
IMO, it's not contact vetoes that need to be argued as much as
information vetoes. They are the REAL ISSUE. Why I say that is because
if someone really doesn't want any form of contact, or are just not
ready for it, they certainly don't need to place any contact veto to
make their position known. or to deny communication.
A compromise in balancing the rights of both parties is to allow
contact vetoes on the condition that all identifying information is
still forthcoming as long as the vetoee signs an agreement that they
won't make contact with the vetoer directly. Such is the case in Oz
other than two states.
That way the adopted person is still fully entitled to his OBC and all
information pertaining to himself, his bio and medical history (at
least what is on record) and his adoption, as of right.
On the other hand an information veto does not allow the adoptee or
mother to obtain identifying information at all ie their OBC/ABC.
Which means they are locked into the closed system forever, or until
the veto is lifted, whichever comes first. THIS must be fought
against.
Unfortunately while the fight against vetoes keeps the records closed,
even more time is lost and the risks of no reunion at all, due to
death, is much greater as none of us are getting any younger. Even
where vetoes have existed, within a decade most people have lost their
fear of reunion and have come to accept come what may, as it has in NZ
and Oz.
eg http://odin.mdacc.tmc.edu/~cyn/adoption/newzealand.html
Raymond
The question that I pose is that the laws which are passed by
legislators
are proposed by someone for a reason. Who are the laws "protecting" if
not
the b-parents?
With little effort you could read up on the legislation that explains
how the closed system was introduced to protect the newly formed "as
if born" to each other adoptive families from any intrusion from the
natural mother.
I have not seen (within my limited experience) any b-parents
lobbying to have these laws nullified.
I have. They do it by letters/submissions.
The b-parent(s) know who they brought
into this world.
That's news to me. Many of us were not even allowed to see the child
we gave birth to. And those who did were usually only allowed to see
the baby after the consent was signed. Most mothers would not know if
the child they saw was even their own child. They played dirty tricks
on many of us like telling us we gave birth to a girl when it was a
boy etc., to ensure we wouldn't know how to search or who to search
for. In fact many of us signed consents to the adoption of our
children based solely on anecdotal information provided by the
allotment officer. Without a DNA test I still don't know if my child
is really my child. The entire history of the adoption process has
been based on fraud. The system knew it was illegal under numerous
statutes and applied it for decades regardless. Which makes it
fraudulent concealment. And of course given that it was the medical
profession that was instrumental in devising these practices and
carrying them out they are also in breach of their professional duty
to disclose their neglect and fraudulent deceit. It was no coincedence
that for the fist time in the history of mankind millions of newborn
babies around the world were being made available for adoption en
masse to the general public. Fraud was their instrument of choice. And
fraudulent concealment has no statute of Limitations to get over.
Many of us have little knowledge, if any, about who brought
us in this world.
And you can thank the legislators and those who supported that
legislation for your lack of information. They rather forgot that
babies grow up and become adults with adult needs, not all of whom are
quite so willing to go along with the fiction. I don't see many
adoptees jumping up and down on those legislators who killed off their
biological history with the stroke of a pen or on those oposing open
records..
I understand, at a certain level, the desire of b-parents
to distance themselves but I also understand, in some depth, the
desire to
know who I am. Who has the more right?
Statistically, 87%-95% (depending on the study) of all mothers would
welcome contact. Going by vetoes placed by them, few have taken up
that legal option. Adopted person as are more likely to place them as
it turns out.
IMO, it's not contact vetoes that need to be argued as much as
information vetoes. They are the REAL ISSUE. Why I say that is because
if someone really doesn't want any form of contact, or are just not
ready for it, they certainly don't need to place any contact veto to
make their position known. or to deny communication.
A compromise in balancing the rights of both parties is to allow
contact vetoes on the condition that all identifying information is
still forthcoming as long as the vetoee signs an agreement that they
won't make contact with the vetoer directly. Such is the case in Oz
other than two states.
That way the adopted person is still fully entitled to his OBC and all
information pertaining to himself, his bio and medical history (at
least what is on record) and his adoption, as of right.
On the other hand an information veto does not allow the adoptee or
mother to obtain identifying information at all ie their OBC/ABC.
Which means they are locked into the closed system forever, or until
the veto is lifted, whichever comes first. THIS must be fought
against.
Unfortunately while the fight against vetoes keeps the records closed,
even more time is lost and the risks of no reunion at all, due to
death, is much greater as none of us are getting any younger. Even
where vetoes have existed, within a decade most people have lost their
fear of reunion and have come to accept come what may, as it has in NZ
and Oz.
eg http://odin.mdacc.tmc.edu/~cyn/adoption/newzealand.html
Raymond
