babbs455@aol.com (BABBS) wrote in message news:<eaa4cb11.0310170511.66935664@posting.google.com>...
I have to agree here....I think enough is enough! I for one would not want to be in Bernices shoes about now! The constant harassment and "flaming" has gone on long enough. I feel if all of this energy was put into something more constructive instead of public display of non affections....someone may actually help someone... I know alot of this stuff started over accusations and my (and others) ultimate decision to leave ALIA but enough is enough! (just one cog in the ever spinning wheel) Points have been made, feeling have been deeply deeply hurt to the point of no return... (I am sure)...but really enough is enough! It is time to put this baby to bed...although it has been highly amusing to a point..I for one have had enough... No one,,,and I do mean no one should have to endure all of this...i sure would not..and I am sure if you sit back and ponder a bit...you would not want to be in this place either. It is a horrible place to be in I am sure....some of you I know have been just there...wink wink....lets just move on and do what we do best..and that is help bring all these lost angels soaring back home. I'm not one to maliciously spread any gossip or hurt any one intentionally... those of you who know me know that I will bust my *** for you in helping you find your lost family...and I will ask nothing of you in return other than to Pay it Forward>>>>>>>>>>>>>>if someone helps you do something nice for someone else....pay it forward!! great concept. Now lets let this CEASE and DESIST!!! enough is enough... I have no ill feelings towards anyone...I just move on.....and that is what I am asking all of you to do!!! Lets move on! please... babbs owner soaringangels


Babbs and all,
This is the one and only post I will ever put on here. I don't have
the guts, stamina, nor the will to deal with this disgusting display
of vengence and anger. To vent and get it out of your system is one
thing; to continue to disparage, harrass, embarrass, and humiliate
another is something else entirely. Babbs, I agree with you 110%!!!!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! Cease and Desist!! Grow up, forgive, move on, and
be productive! As Babbs said, Pay It Forward!! Nothing is being
accomplished by this public display of stupidity and ignorance. I
personally have called and/or spoken with several of "us" involved
here by telephone, and I am asking, requesting, pleading, begging
again, here in public, on the board, STOP!!!!! Please.....that's all
I have to say, and that should be all anyone with any maturity and
common sense should say; STOP!!!

Take care and many blessings to you all,
Carla - owner new england adoptions

> Babbs and all, This is the one and only post I will ever put on here. I don't have the guts, stamina, nor the will to deal with this disgusting display of vengence and anger. To vent and get it out of your system is one thing; to continue to disparage, harrass, embarrass, and humiliate another is something else entirely. Babbs, I agree with you 110%!!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! Cease and Desist!! Grow up, forgive, move on, and be productive! As Babbs said, Pay It Forward!! Nothing is being accomplished by this public display of stupidity and ignorance. I personally have called and/or spoken with several of "us" involved here by telephone, and I am asking, requesting, pleading, begging again, here in public, on the board, STOP!!!!! Please.....that's all I have to say, and that should be all anyone with any maturity and common sense should say; STOP!!! Take care and many blessings to you all, Carla - owner new england adoptions



I also agree. Enough is enough, this is getting real old real fast.
Searching is something that requires patience, kindness and human
compassion, non of which are being demonstrated here.

That is everyones common goal here....searching and finding...isnt
it?? or is it to be rude and nasty ??

Lets put energy into searching and finding and know when to say enough
is enough.

Theresa

On 18 Oct 2003 08:51:10 -0700, Anglks2@aol.com (Theresa) wrote:
Babbs and all, This is the one and only post I will ever put on here. I don't have the guts, stamina, nor the will to deal with this disgusting display of vengence and anger. To vent and get it out of your system is one thing; to continue to disparage, harrass, embarrass, and humiliate another is something else entirely. Babbs, I agree with you 110%!!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! Cease and Desist!! Grow up, forgive, move on, and be productive! As Babbs said, Pay It Forward!! Nothing is being accomplished by this public display of stupidity and ignorance. I personally have called and/or spoken with several of "us" involved here by telephone, and I am asking, requesting, pleading, begging again, here in public, on the board, STOP!!!!! Please.....that's all I have to say, and that should be all anyone with any maturity and common sense should say; STOP!!! Take care and many blessings to you all, Carla - owner new england adoptionsI also agree. Enough is enough, this is getting real old real fast.Searching is something that requires patience, kindness and humancompassion, non of which are being demonstrated here.That is everyones common goal here....searching and finding...isntit?? or is it to be rude and nasty ??Lets put energy into searching and finding and know when to say enoughis enough.Theresa

But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that
he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for
therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track?

Do you not think this is wrong?





Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:p445pv8lm3pmf1ibsfpvcq3123ftohc6sl@4ax.com... On 18 Oct 2003 08:51:10 -0700, Anglks2@aol.com (Theresa) wrote: Babbs and all, This is the one and only post I will ever put on here. I don't have the guts, stamina, nor the will to deal with this disgusting display of vengence and anger. To vent and get it out of your system is one thing; to continue to disparage, harrass, embarrass, and humiliate another is something else entirely. Babbs, I agree with you 110%!!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! Cease and Desist!! Grow up, forgive, move on, and be productive! As Babbs said, Pay It Forward!! Nothing is being accomplished by this public display of stupidity and ignorance. I personally have called and/or spoken with several of "us" involved here by telephone, and I am asking, requesting, pleading, begging again, here in public, on the board, STOP!!!!! Please.....that's all I have to say, and that should be all anyone with any maturity and common sense should say; STOP!!! Take care and many blessings to you all, Carla - owner new england adoptionsI also agree. Enough is enough, this is getting real old real fast.Searching is something that requires patience, kindness and humancompassion, non of which are being demonstrated here.That is everyones common goal here....searching and finding...isntit?? or is it to be rude and nasty ??Lets put energy into searching and finding and know when to say enoughis enough.Theresa But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track? Do you not think this is wrong? Jackie

You won't find a professional searcher who would lecture someone on their
motives for searching. In the real world a professional searcher is
employed by the person who is in search of family and does their job. The
motive is irrelevant.

Searching is an inherently politically subversive act. The Mod Squad seems
to desire the status quo of sealed records and adoptee subservience. NCFA
must love them.

Marley

in article X6xkb.184575$0v4.14275951@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 3:22 pm:


But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track? Do you not think this is wrong?
Jackie
You won't find a professional searcher who would lecture someone on their motives for searching. In the real world a professional searcher is employed by the person who is in search of family and does their job. The motive is irrelevant. Searching is an inherently politically subversive act. The Mod Squad seems to desire the status quo of sealed records and adoptee subservience. NCFA must love them. Marley

Unseal sealed records and you'll take away their raison de être, they've
become so absorbed in 'doing finds', that they do, I suspect, have little
else in life. And if their exhibition here is anything to go by, they lack
the intellectual and social skills and graces to find anything else to do in
life. They should perhaps be pitied, not mocked.

Robin

"Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BBB8768B.250C6%nospam@harritt.net... in article X6xkb.184575$0v4.14275951@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 3:22 pm: But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track? Do you not think this is wrong? Jackie You won't find a professional searcher who would lecture someone on
their motives for searching. In the real world a professional searcher is employed by the person who is in search of family and does their job.
The motive is irrelevant. Searching is an inherently politically subversive act. The Mod Squad
seems to desire the status quo of sealed records and adoptee subservience.
NCFA must love them. Marley Unseal sealed records and you'll take away their raison de être, they've become so absorbed in 'doing finds', that they do, I suspect, have little else in life. And if their exhibition here is anything to go by, they lack the intellectual and social skills and graces to find anything else to do
in life. They should perhaps be pitied, not mocked. Robin

You an imagine the harm these types do to their "clients" interests. More
than one adoptee or nmother has had her search totally destroyed by the
"good intentions" of an amateur.

Marley

> But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track?

What if the searcher was told via a post on a board for all to see. With a
majority of up to 1700 members in agreement?
Unseal sealed records and you'll take away
their raison de être, they'vebecome so absorbed in 'doing finds', that they do, I suspect, have littleelse in life.

This is true hovever think of the innocent
victums who wish to maintain privacy and do not wish to have a relationship or
contact within the triad. This may open a whole new can of worms and they may
become absorbed in some other type of activity that could possibly reap some
other type of horror show. Insted of "finds" it maybe "ambushes" or some other
type of intrusion. These people have a need to feel some type of
accomplishment at whatever and whoevers disadvantage. "D"

in article KkAkb.7156$Ec1.644209@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley
Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 7:02 pm:
"Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBB8768B.250C6%nospam@harritt.net... in article X6xkb.184575$0v4.14275951@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 3:22 pm:> But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that> he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for> therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track?>> Do you not think this is wrong?>> Jackie You won't find a professional searcher who would lecture someone on their motives for searching. In the real world a professional searcher is employed by the person who is in search of family and does their job. The motive is irrelevant. Searching is an inherently politically subversive act. The Mod Squad seems to desire the status quo of sealed records and adoptee subservience. NCFA must love them. Marley Unseal sealed records and you'll take away their raison de être, they've become so absorbed in 'doing finds', that they do, I suspect, have little else in life. And if their exhibition here is anything to go by, they lack the intellectual and social skills and graces to find anything else to do in life. They should perhaps be pitied, not mocked. Robin You an imagine the harm these types do to their "clients" interests. More than one adoptee or nmother has had her search totally destroyed by the "good intentions" of an amateur. Marley

I can do more than just imagine, we have just a few amateurs with no sense
here as well. Why British adoptees need to use anyone else to search, unless
they are living abroad is a mystery. At he moment access to vital records is
easy and more or less unrestricted. It is usually recommended that they use
an experienced intermediary to actually make first contact. But there is a
'Consultation' taking place at the moment on restricting access, I'm just
taking a break from writing my submission on that. It is distressing to
think that officials at ONS and representatives in parliament who are
researching this may have looked in at these these newsgroups. I hope if
they have, they realise that these lunatics are all Americans.

Robin

"Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BBB8B85C.25102%nospam@harritt.net... in article KkAkb.7156$Ec1.644209@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 7:02 pm: "Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBB8768B.250C6%nospam@harritt.net... in article
X6xkb.184575$0v4.14275951@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 3:22
pm:>> But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that>> he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for>> therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track?>>>> Do you not think this is wrong?>>>> Jackie> You won't find a professional searcher who would lecture someone on their> motives for searching. In the real world a professional searcher is> employed by the person who is in search of family and does their job. The> motive is irrelevant.>> Searching is an inherently politically subversive act. The Mod Squad seems> to desire the status quo of sealed records and adoptee subservience. NCFA> must love them.>> Marley Unseal sealed records and you'll take away their raison de être,
they've become so absorbed in 'doing finds', that they do, I suspect, have
little else in life. And if their exhibition here is anything to go by, they
lack the intellectual and social skills and graces to find anything else to
do in life. They should perhaps be pitied, not mocked. Robin You an imagine the harm these types do to their "clients" interests.
More than one adoptee or nmother has had her search totally destroyed by the "good intentions" of an amateur. Marley I can do more than just imagine, we have just a few amateurs with no sense here as well. Why British adoptees need to use anyone else to search,
unless they are living abroad is a mystery. At he moment access to vital records
is easy and more or less unrestricted. It is usually recommended that they
use an experienced intermediary to actually make first contact. But there is a 'Consultation' taking place at the moment on restricting access, I'm just taking a break from writing my submission on that. It is distressing to think that officials at ONS and representatives in parliament who are researching this may have looked in at these these newsgroups. I hope if they have, they realise that these lunatics are all Americans. Robin

Unfortuantely, they are Americans. Too bad we can't deport them to Ivory
Coast where their bushwhacking expertise woud no doubt come in handy. The
British are much more civil. They name their dogs Rupert Brooke and marry
them, or obsess over CPB. BTW, Brenda has a side job! She' and John
Cleese sell cordless vaccuum cleaners in the afternoon during the soaps.
I'm not sure if the Prince is aware of this, so please don't let it drop in
conversation.

Marley

in article gyDkb.185428$0v4.14321130@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 10:41 pm:
"Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBB8B85C.25102%nospam@harritt.net... in article KkAkb.7156$Ec1.644209@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 7:02 pm: "Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBB8768B.250C6%nospam@harritt.net...> in article X6xkb.184575$0v4.14275951@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,> Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 3:22 pm:>>>>>> But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that>>> he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for>>> therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track?>>>>>> Do you not think this is wrong?>>>>>>> Jackie>>> You won't find a professional searcher who would lecture someone on their>> motives for searching. In the real world a professional searcher is>> employed by the person who is in search of family and does their job. The>> motive is irrelevant.>>>> Searching is an inherently politically subversive act. The Mod Squad seems>> to desire the status quo of sealed records and adoptee subservience. NCFA>> must love them.>>>> Marley>> Unseal sealed records and you'll take away their raison de être, they've> become so absorbed in 'doing finds', that they do, I suspect, have little> else in life. And if their exhibition here is anything to go by, they lack> the intellectual and social skills and graces to find anything else to do in> life. They should perhaps be pitied, not mocked.>> Robin You an imagine the harm these types do to their "clients" interests. More than one adoptee or nmother has had her search totally destroyed by the "good intentions" of an amateur. Marley I can do more than just imagine, we have just a few amateurs with no sense here as well. Why British adoptees need to use anyone else to search, unless they are living abroad is a mystery. At he moment access to vital records is easy and more or less unrestricted. It is usually recommended that they use an experienced intermediary to actually make first contact. But there is a 'Consultation' taking place at the moment on restricting access, I'm just taking a break from writing my submission on that. It is distressing to think that officials at ONS and representatives in parliament who are researching this may have looked in at these these newsgroups. I hope if they have, they realise that these lunatics are all Americans. Robin Unfortuantely, they are Americans. Too bad we can't deport them to Ivory Coast where their bushwhacking expertise woud no doubt come in handy. The British are much more civil. They name their dogs Rupert Brooke and marry them, or obsess over CPB. BTW, Brenda has a side job! She' and John Cleese sell cordless vaccuum cleaners in the afternoon during the soaps. I'm not sure if the Prince is aware of this, so please don't let it drop in conversation. Marley

Brenda, side job? I had heard she was having to stretch the Privy Purse a
bit. She is of course also Queen of Australia and Canada, I'm wondering when
they are going to do their bit and put her up for a few years each. Things
will be different when I take my rightful place.

Robin

"Lipstik43" <lipstik43@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031019153331.13842.00001100@mb-m29.aol.com...

Robin wrote:

Unseal sealed records and you'll take
away their raison de être, they'vebecome so absorbed in 'doing finds', that they do, I suspect, have littleelse in life.

Lipstik43 replied:
This is true hovever think of the innocent victums who wish to maintain privacy and do not wish to have a
relationship or contact within the triad.


Ugh. Triad. Makes me retch.

Anyway, they can simply say so. If the person keeps hassling them then one
can call the cops just as any other non-adopted or relinquishing person can
do.

Remember, nobody is forced to have a relationship or even talk to anyone
else. Their is always the option of telling the other person to go piss up
a rope.

BTW, have you been to www.bastards.org yet?


This may open a whole new can of worms and they may become absorbed in some other type of activity that could possibly reap
some other type of horror show. Insted of "finds" it maybe "ambushes" or some
other type of intrusion. These people have a need to feel some type of accomplishment at whatever and whoevers disadvantage. "D"


Nah. They'll simply implode. They need drama. If these folks lose the
motivating reason behind their group they'll likely just disappear to create
drama in their own little pathetic lives.

Jack

"Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BBB8C62A.2510A%nospam@harritt.net... in article gyDkb.185428$0v4.14321130@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 10:41
pm: "Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBB8B85C.25102%nospam@harritt.net... in article KkAkb.7156$Ec1.644209@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 7:02 pm:>> "Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message> news:BBB8768B.250C6%nospam@harritt.net...>> in article X6xkb.184575$0v4.14275951@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,>> Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03
3:22 pm:>>>>>>>>>> But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private)
that>>>> he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for>>>> therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track?>>>>>>>> Do you not think this is wrong?>>>>>>>>>> Jackie>>>>> You won't find a professional searcher who would lecture someone on> their>>> motives for searching. In the real world a professional searcher is>>> employed by the person who is in search of family and does their
job.> The>>> motive is irrelevant.>>>>>> Searching is an inherently politically subversive act. The Mod Squad> seems>>> to desire the status quo of sealed records and adoptee subservience.> NCFA>>> must love them.>>>>>> Marley>>>> Unseal sealed records and you'll take away their raison de être, they've>> become so absorbed in 'doing finds', that they do, I suspect, have little>> else in life. And if their exhibition here is anything to go by, they lack>> the intellectual and social skills and graces to find anything else
to do> in>> life. They should perhaps be pitied, not mocked.>>>> Robin>> You an imagine the harm these types do to their "clients" interests. More> than one adoptee or nmother has had her search totally destroyed by
the> "good intentions" of an amateur.>> Marley I can do more than just imagine, we have just a few amateurs with no
sense here as well. Why British adoptees need to use anyone else to search, unless they are living abroad is a mystery. At he moment access to vital
records is easy and more or less unrestricted. It is usually recommended that they use an experienced intermediary to actually make first contact. But there
is a 'Consultation' taking place at the moment on restricting access, I'm
just taking a break from writing my submission on that. It is distressing to think that officials at ONS and representatives in parliament who are researching this may have looked in at these these newsgroups. I hope
if they have, they realise that these lunatics are all Americans. Robin Unfortuantely, they are Americans. Too bad we can't deport them to Ivory Coast where their bushwhacking expertise woud no doubt come in handy.
The British are much more civil. They name their dogs Rupert Brooke and
marry them, or obsess over CPB. BTW, Brenda has a side job! She' and John Cleese sell cordless vaccuum cleaners in the afternoon during the
soaps. I'm not sure if the Prince is aware of this, so please don't let it drop
in conversation. Marley Brenda, side job? I had heard she was having to stretch the Privy Purse a bit. She is of course also Queen of Australia and Canada, I'm wondering
when they are going to do their bit and put her up for a few years each. Things will be different when I take my rightful place. Robin
I hope you're kind to former relatives. After all, you shouldn't hold
Brenda responsible for the way her parents treated your dearly departed
father. David, was a worry, you know, and I daresay Queen Mary wasn't too
pleased with him either. (Don't get me started on HER!) And Brenda did
speak to Wallis after his death--which is more than I would have done.

Speaking of the Privy Purse, Brenda carries a small purse awhile she cleans
the carpet. What do you suppose is in it? Is she still a heavy smoker?
That she can tear apart an engine is great, but I don't fancy seeing her do
it with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth.

Marley

What galls me Lipstik, is the fact that Her Largeness and Top Mod
consider themselves EXPERTS enough to try and tell you WHY it is you
should be searching. A person who has a ninth-grade education and
never worked a day in her life whose only hobby in life is her Web-TV
and then a birthmom who relinquished EIGHT children because she was
too busy drinking and sleeping around? BOTH of those women told you
that you couldn't be helped by any of their "search angles" because
they didn't approve of the reasons you were searching, correct me if I
am wrong. What gives these two idiots the right to play God? Nobody
on that list is allowed to express an opinion except Top Mod because
they will be booted, pronto. Everything must be kept light. That
group is proof that true ignorance is bliss.

Don't know if you knew this or not but Bernice's own birthmother has
been found but does not want contact. Bernice has some wild idea
since the woman denied contact, then it cannot POSSIBLY be her
birthmother. Mind you, she's never even bothered to call her on the
telephone and speak directly with the woman herself. She's had others
make her contact calls for her. As for Bernice's birthfather, she
knows what she needs to do but won't get off her *** and do it. She
knows what and how she needs to research, but heavens, that means
spending time away from the Web-TV. She claims she will do lookups in
Charleston, WV but has never ONCE done a favor for anybody on her
groups.




On 19 Oct 2003 19:33:31 GMT, lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote:
But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that> he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for> therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track? What if the searcher was told via a post on a board for all to see. With amajority of up to 1700 members in agreement?Unseal sealed records and you'll take awaytheir raison de être, they'vebecome so absorbed in 'doing finds', that they do, I suspect, have littleelse in life. This is true hovever think of the innocentvictums who wish to maintain privacy and do not wish to have a relationship orcontact within the triad. This may open a whole new can of worms and they maybecome absorbed in some other type of activity that could possibly reap someother type of horror show. Insted of "finds" it maybe "ambushes" or some othertype of intrusion. These people have a need to feel some type ofaccomplishment at whatever and whoevers disadvantage. "D"

in article N9Ekb.185484$0v4.14324434@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 11:23 pm:
"Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBB8C62A.2510A%nospam@harritt.net... in article gyDkb.185428$0v4.14321130@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 19/10/03 10:41 pm:
Unfortuantely, they are Americans. Too bad we can't deport them to Ivory Coast where their bushwhacking expertise woud no doubt come in handy. The British are much more civil. They name their dogs Rupert Brooke and marry them, or obsess over CPB. BTW, Brenda has a side job! She' and John Cleese sell cordless vaccuum cleaners in the afternoon during the soaps. I'm not sure if the Prince is aware of this, so please don't let it drop in conversation. Marley
Brenda, side job? I had heard she was having to stretch the Privy Purse a bit. She is of course also Queen of Australia and Canada, I'm wondering when they are going to do their bit and put her up for a few years each. Things will be different when I take my rightful place. Robin
I hope you're kind to former relatives. After all, you shouldn't hold Brenda responsible for the way her parents treated your dearly departed father. David, was a worry, you know, and I daresay Queen Mary wasn't too pleased with him either. (Don't get me started on HER!) And Brenda did speak to Wallis after his death--which is more than I would have done. Speaking of the Privy Purse, Brenda carries a small purse awhile she cleans the carpet. What do you suppose is in it?


Well, and I may be sailing close to wind with the OSA here, you know that
brief case Dubya carries around everywhere, with "the buttons" in it.
Advanced British technology has been able to miniaturise that. Because of
TB's unhealthily close relationship with GWB it was thought best that Brenda
have direct charge of our independent nuclear deterrent. It also gets over
the critical time factor caused by the constitutional requirement that TB
ask her permission first even if he then ignores it completely.

Is she still a heavy smoker? That she can tear apart an engine is great, but I don't fancy seeing her do it with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth.


She no longer smokes in public. I have heard, though it may just be rumour,
that when at home she enjoys a pipe of rough shag. I believe the royal
appointment seals no longer appear on packs of Benson Hedges since the
demise of her dear sister.

Robin

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:22:47 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track? Do you not think this is wrong? JackieYou won't find a professional searcher who would lecture someone on theirmotives for searching. In the real world a professional searcher isemployed by the person who is in search of family and does their job. Themotive is irrelevant.

Yes..

You get to decide what you want to do with the information..
Searching is an inherently politically subversive act. The Mod Squad seemsto desire the status quo of sealed records and adoptee subservience. NCFAmust love them.

Ego.. the ego of I know what is best for you..


Jackie

On 19 Oct 2003 19:33:31 GMT, lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote:


I wrote.. But what of the issue of someone telling a searcher (in private) that> he or she is searching for all the wrong reasons and should go for> therapy in order to get his or her mind put back on track? What if the searcher was told via a post on a board for all to see. With amajority of up to 1700 members in agreement?

Horrible... Horrible beyond words..


Not sure who wrote..Unseal sealed records and you'll
take awaytheir raison de être, they'vebecome so absorbed in 'doing finds', that they do, I suspect, have littleelse in life. This is true hovever think of the innocentvictums who wish to maintain privacy and do not wish to have a relationship orcontact within the triad.

This is what I keep trying to discuss..
This may open a whole new can of worms and they maybecome absorbed in some other type of activity that could possibly reap someother type of horror show. Insted of "finds" it maybe "ambushes" or some othertype of intrusion. These people have a need to feel some type ofaccomplishment at whatever and whoevers disadvantage. "D"

Its much easier to sort someone else's business because sorting ones
own business takes work.. What a great diversion this must be..

A power trip.. Great emotions and all the drama you want..


Jackie

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:00:45 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"
<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:
Ugh. Triad. Makes me retch.Anyway, they can simply say so. If the person keeps hassling them then onecan call the cops just as any other non-adopted or relinquishing person cando.

What of the adoptee in Australia who's birth mother is/was going to
court to change his adoption status?
I remember you got very hot under the collar over that one.
Remember, nobody is forced to have a relationship or even talk to anyoneelse. Their is always the option of telling the other person to go piss upa rope.

Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can and
should be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted..
IMO she is forced to have a relationship..

Jackie

>Subject: Re: Lipstick43 is nutsFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/20/03 6:46 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <uok7pvs1ac2fcjk8fmpvcuq1eie0679i5j@4ax.com>
Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can andshould be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted..IMO she is forced to have a relationship..Jackie

No she isn't. She can refuse to participate. She just can't dictate the
relationships of other adults.

In article <uok7pvs1ac2fcjk8fmpvcuq1eie0679i5j@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:00:45 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:Ugh. Triad. Makes me retch.Anyway, they can simply say so. If the person keeps hassling them then onecan call the cops just as any other non-adopted or relinquishing person cando.What of the adoptee in Australia who's birth mother is/was going tocourt to change his adoption status?I remember you got very hot under the collar over that one.Remember, nobody is forced to have a relationship or even talk to anyoneelse. Their is always the option of telling the other person to go piss upa rope.Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can andshould be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted..IMO she is forced to have a relationship..

But she's not being forced to have a relationship. I know an adoptee, who after
being rejected by her bmom, "bypassed" her and now has wonderful relationships
with her four half-siblings. Does she have a relationship with her bmom? Not at
all - in fact she loathes the woman (they started off having a relationship,
then her bmom sent back all her letters and pictures with a note stating, "I
don't know who you are. Don't ever contact me again).

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031020093336.07004.00000425@mb-m18.aol.com...Subject: Re: Lipstick43 is nutsFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/20/03 6:46 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <uok7pvs1ac2fcjk8fmpvcuq1eie0679i5j@4ax.com>Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can andshould be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted..IMO she is forced to have a relationship..Jackie No she isn't. She can refuse to participate. She just can't dictate the relationships of other adults.

Yeah. I had a relationship for a couple years with my nmom's akids before I
had any contact with her. I certainly did not have a relationship with my
nmom during that time.

Marley

In article <20031020093336.07004.00000425@mb-m18.aol.com>,
lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) writes:
Subject: Re: Lipstick43 is nutsFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/20/03 6:46 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <uok7pvs1ac2fcjk8fmpvcuq1eie0679i5j@4ax.com>Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can andshould be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted..IMO she is forced to have a relationship..JackieNo she isn't. She can refuse to participate. She just can't dictate therelationships of other adults.

Thank you
KL

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:uok7pvs1ac2fcjk8fmpvcuq1eie0679i5j@4ax.com... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:00:45 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:Ugh. Triad. Makes me retch.Anyway, they can simply say so. If the person keeps hassling them then
onecan call the cops just as any other non-adopted or relinquishing person
cando. What of the adoptee in Australia who's birth mother is/was going to court to change his adoption status? I remember you got very hot under the collar over that one.Remember, nobody is forced to have a relationship or even talk to anyoneelse. Their is always the option of telling the other person to go piss
upa rope. Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can and should be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted.. IMO she is forced to have a relationship.. Jackie

With who? Unless you define a relationship as not communicating with the
birthchild in any way, shape, or form. Is that your definition of a
relationship?

Kathy 1

>I know an adoptee, who afterbeing rejected by her bmom, "bypassed" her and now has wonderfulrelationshipswith her four half-siblings. Does she have a relationship with her bmom? Notatall - in fact she loathes the woman (they started off having a
relationship,then her bmom sent back all her letters and pictures with a note stating, "Idon't know who you are. Don't ever contact me again)

Thats just it at least the birthmom had a chance to let her other
children know about the adoptee. It all boils down to common sense and
respect. I have half siblings that I will not contact because in this case
they don t know about me. I respect my bmoms wishes. Had she wanted them to
know me she would have told them. Not all people can rationally think things
through and fail to consider the consequences that selfish actions can bring. I
just have the advantage of knowing my half siblings as cousins. Unless it
meant a life or death situation I have no desire to hurt them.

lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote in message
I have half siblings that I will not contact because in this case they don t know about me. I respect my bmoms wishes. Had she wanted them to know me she would have told them. Not all people can rationally think things through and fail to consider the consequences that selfish actions can bring. I just have the advantage of knowing my half siblings as cousins. Unless it meant a life or death situation I have no desire to hurt them.


But wouldn't you say yr situation doesn't quite parallel a stranger
adoption? Your half-siblings are legally your cousins, but you know
them and consider them family, and vice versa. There's nothing "just"
about that advantage.

In a stranger adoption, if the b-mother tells the adoptee that no
contact with half-sibs is allowed, it actually prevents them from
knowing each other. Unless the adoptee makes friends with them on some
other pretext entirely -- and even then, I'd imagine a b-mom who
prefers no contact is going to fear something would slip out.

I'm torn on this one. I do believe that b-moms deserve some special
respect. And yet, in the end, people have to live their own lives, and
if the b-sibs are adults, I think the adoptee has the right to contact
them.

I think a parallel case would be a mother who forbids her daughter,
say, to stay in touch with her divorced son's ex. To the mother, it's
a matter of family loyalty. To the daughter, it may be a matter of
keeping up with an old friend. Does the mother have that right when
all the players are adults?

Rupa

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:17:32 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can and should be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted.. IMO she is forced to have a relationship.. JackieWith who?

With the relinquished son or daughter..
Unless you define a relationship as not communicating with thebirthchild in any way, shape, or form. Is that your definition of arelationship?

The dynamics in that family group will change..

That is a relationship to me.


Jackie

In article <2a9apvg055m9nsdf44t44pco9uq7r7pc4e@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:17:32 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote: Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can and should be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted.. IMO she is forced to have a relationship.. JackieWith who?With the relinquished son or daughter..

How so, if they have no contact with each other?
Unless you define a relationship as not communicating with thebirthchild in any way, shape, or form. Is that your definition of arelationship?The dynamics in that family group will change..

Not necessarily.
That is a relationship to me.

Maybe so, but that's NOT what a relationship actually is. Get thee hence to a
dictionary.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031020202236.28427.00001381@mb-m12.aol.com>, Lipstik43 says...I know an adoptee, who afterbeing rejected by her bmom, "bypassed" her and now has wonderfulrelationshipswith her four half-siblings. Does she have a relationship with her bmom? Notatall - in fact she loathes the woman (they started off having arelationship,then her bmom sent back all her letters and pictures with a note stating, "Idon't know who you are. Don't ever contact me again) Thats just it at least the birthmom had a chance to let her otherchildren know about the adoptee.

Ah, but SHE didn't. She kept her initial relationship with her bdaughter a
secret from them - and then abruptly ended it for some unknown reason. After
spending six months in a state of heart-broken shock, the adoptee went BEHIND
her bmom's back and contacted her half-siblings. Believe me, the bmom didn't
want her bdaughter to have ANYTHING to do with her other children. But the
adoptee took that matter out of her hands.

It all boils down to common sense andrespect. I have half siblings that I will not contact because in this casethey don t know about me. I respect my bmoms wishes. Had she wanted them toknow me she would have told them. Not all people can rationally think thingsthrough and fail to consider the consequences that selfish actions can bring. Ijust have the advantage of knowing my half siblings as cousins. Unless itmeant a life or death situation I have no desire to hurt them.

But can't you see the difference here? - You DO know them. I have a half-bro
and half-sis that I DON'T know. While I have no desire to hurt my half-bro or
half-sis (I'm another one of those "secrets", BTW), when my bmom passes on - and
if she still has kept my existence a secret - you can bet your life that I will
be contacting them. I'm also keeping my distance out of respect for my bmom;
however, if she's no longer in the picture, all bets are off.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: Lipstick43 is nutsFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 10/21/03 10:40 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <bn3chi$sl5sj$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:2a9apvg055m9nsdf44t44pco9uq7r7pc4e@4ax .com... On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:17:32 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:> Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can and> should be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted..> IMO she is forced to have a relationship..>> JackieWith who? With the relinquished son or daughter.. Unless you define a relationship as not communicating with thebirthchild in any way, shape, or form. Is that your definition of arelationship? The dynamics in that family group will change.. That is a relationship to me.Okay so this another instance of you making up definitions of words to suityour purpose rather than using the universally accepted meaning of them. Ifmy father has an affair with a woman that changes *our* family dynamics Iguess that means *I'm* having a "relationship" with that woman even thoughI've never laid eyes on her or spoken with her. Sheesh.Kathy 1

Ow. LOL

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2a9apvg055m9nsdf44t44pco9uq7r7pc4e@4ax.com... On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:17:32 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote: Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can and should be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted.. IMO she is forced to have a relationship.. JackieWith who? With the relinquished son or daughter.. Unless you define a relationship as not communicating with thebirthchild in any way, shape, or form. Is that your definition of arelationship? The dynamics in that family group will change.. That is a relationship to me.

Okay so this another instance of you making up definitions of words to suit
your purpose rather than using the universally accepted meaning of them. If
my father has an affair with a woman that changes *our* family dynamics I
guess that means *I'm* having a "relationship" with that woman even though
I've never laid eyes on her or spoken with her. Sheesh.

Kathy 1

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote
, "Jack Bernhard"<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:
>> What of the adoptee in Australia who's birth mother is/was going to >> court to change his adoption status? >> I remember you got very hot under the collar over that one. > > >I still think it's wrong. [Re: the adoptee in Australia who's birth mother is/was going to court to change his adoption status]. If the guy wants to do it, fine. He's an adult. (snipped) > I assume from her description he doesn't really care about the whole >deal. What pissed me off is that she said she would go for it against his >wishes. > >>

Jackie: I do not think it was done (or thought of) to score a political point.. I believe it was about taking the perpetrators to justice.. Punishing someone so it did not happen again.. Making sure folks know that illegal stuff is being done.. or was being done.. Any woman who is imprisoned illegally and against her will and has her baby taken should be able to have redress.. IMO Yes the sons life will change... But how about the adoptee that was taken from his or her mother without his or her permission and then ends up seeking redress by ensconcing himself in the original family? In both situations lives are changed..

They are. But it seems to be true that it's the person most affected
who gets to decide. For instance, in the West at least, marriages are
decided by the young couple, even though it impacts both their parents
and by extension, the whole family.

I'd suggest that it is the adoptee that is most impacted by a
determination of who his legal parents are. If his adoption is
overturned, the parents he grew up with, the ones who he expected to
care for all his life and vice versa, the people he would inherit from
-- are legal non-relatives. In some sense, I suspect that in a Western
context this would be even more disturbing than LDA.

Jackie:>
Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can and >> should be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted.. Ah.... What about this issue of wanting to get back into the original family? The family that the adoptee was taken from without his or her permission.. Is this getting back into the original family a right?

I don't know if making contact with one's b-sibs is equivalent to
"getting back into the original family." It's adding another family,
for some people; adding congenial friends, for others; and I suppose
there must be some for whom it's knowing there are some people you
don't actually want to know. Jackie: Is this the same mother that some adoptees want to know? The mother who had other kids who are the adoptee's brothers and sisters.. Funny how it changes..
Jack: Her rights were abrogated long ago. She can go after the people who did it. Jackie: Not if the adoptee has to change his or her name back.. Or not if the relinquished son or daughter is inconvenienced.. Correct?

It changes a lot more than just the name (which actually may or may
not change, since the adoptee could just change his name back to his
old one...in fact, might seriously want to, if he has been living
under that name for years and has bank accounts, school certificates
and driving licenses in that name).

It changes Next of kin rights and Inheritance (unless wills are made
in his favor).

It does not change the genetic heritage.

If it's done against the adoptee's will, it may change his
relationship, actual or potential, with his b-mom.

Rupa

On 27 Oct 2003 21:45:18 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:

snipped some..
Any woman who is imprisoned illegally and against her will and has her baby taken should be able to have redress.. IMO Yes the sons life will change... But how about the adoptee that was taken from his or her mother without his or her permission and then ends up seeking redress by ensconcing himself in the original family? In both situations lives are changed..They are. But it seems to be true that it's the person most affectedwho gets to decide.

Who decides who is most affected? The nmom who is freaked by the
adoptee contacting the siblings or the (adult) adoptee that is the
subject of a court battle over an illegally obtained adoption..
For instance, in the West at least, marriages aredecided by the young couple, even though it impacts both their parentsand by extension, the whole family.I'd suggest that it is the adoptee that is most impacted by adetermination of who his legal parents are. If his adoption isoverturned, the parents he grew up with, the ones who he expected tocare for all his life and vice versa, the people he would inherit from-- are legal non-relatives. In some sense, I suspect that in a Westerncontext this would be even more disturbing than LDA.

Interesting point.
Jackie:> Ah but if a birth mother is still in hiding some here say she can and> >> should be bypassed and the siblings can be contacted.. Ah.... What about this issue of wanting to get back into the original family? The family that the adoptee was taken from without his or her permission.. Is this getting back into the original family a right?I don't know if making contact with one's b-sibs is equivalent to"getting back into the original family."

It may be about this if the nmom is in secrecy.
It's adding another family,for some people; adding congenial friends, for others; and I supposethere must be some for whom it's knowing there are some people youdon't actually want to know. Jackie: Is this the same mother that some adoptees want to know? The mother who had other kids who are the adoptee's brothers and sisters.. Funny how it changes.. >Jack: Her rights were abrogated long ago. She can go after the people who did it. Jackie: Not if the adoptee has to change his or her name back.. Or not if the relinquished son or daughter is inconvenienced.. Correct?It changes a lot more than just the name (which actually may or maynot change, since the adoptee could just change his name back to hisold one...in fact, might seriously want to, if he has been livingunder that name for years and has bank accounts, school certificatesand driving licenses in that name).It changes Next of kin rights and Inheritance (unless wills are madein his favor).

You are right Rupa.
It does not change the genetic heritage.If it's done against the adoptee's will, it may change hisrelationship, actual or potential, with his b-mom.

Yes.. Then the adoptee is angry.. Feels betrayed.

But what about seeking redress for an illegal adoption.
Look at adoption in the US.. It is out of control..
How does one fix it?
What if illegal adoptions where taken to legal redress?


Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote But what about seeking redress for an illegal adoption. Look at adoption in the US.. It is out of control.. How does one fix it? What if illegal adoptions where taken to legal redress?


I think the treatment in the US, if any such thing were to happen,
would be a civil suit against the people who forced the relinquishment
(I'm assuming that it was the relinquishment part of it that was
flawed and not the adoption part of it). She could sue for pain and
suffering, I guess.

Maybe J has a better idea of what is possible.

Rupa

In article <e5619372.0310290408.7d84387e@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote But what about seeking redress for an illegal adoption. Look at adoption in the US.. It is out of control.. How does one fix it? What if illegal adoptions where taken to legal redress?I think the treatment in the US, if any such thing were to happen,would be a civil suit against the people who forced the relinquishment(I'm assuming that it was the relinquishment part of it that wasflawed and not the adoption part of it). She could sue for pain andsuffering, I guess.Maybe J has a better idea of what is possible.Rupa

Generally, I think its a tough case. Most of the cases I've read involving
claims of fraud, misrepresentation and duress have failed, and they sought only
to overturn the adoption. Assuming that you could get a claim for damages to
the judge or jury, that claim could adversely affect the perception of your
motives for bringing suit (if you were also seeking to overturn the adoption or
if you ahven't sought to overturn the adoption but were now seeking damages.)
Those are tough cases witthout the money damages claim, in any event. Whether
you allege fraud, misrepresentation or duress, you're ultimately trying to
prove that you didn't do it voluntarily. As in the rest of our lives, actions
speak louder than words. If a woman initiates the process and signs the
papers, it's tough to get the court to go past that and accept her subjective
experiences at the time as proof of the claim.

Some states might not even allow a claim for damages, if the adoption statutes
don't authorize such claims. A similar rationale has been used in some states
for refusing to enforce open adoption agreements.

At leat one state has allowed a claim for damages, though under circumstances
entirely different than one normally sees in these cases: West Virginia, in the
Leavitt case in 1997. Here's an excerpt from the court's synopsis of the case:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
January 1997 Term
___________

No. 23557
___________

JOHN WOODRUFF KESSEL AND RAY MILLER KESSEL,
Plaintiffs Below, Appellees and Cross-Appellants,

V.
DAVID KEENE LEAVITT, ANNE GILMORE CONATY,
ELEANOR WOLFE CONATY, THOMAS J. CONATY,
AND BRIAN P. CONATY,

Any person or persons who plot, plan, scheme, or otherwise
conspire to affirmatively, intentionally, and willfully conceal
information regarding a newborn child's birth or physical location, or
indicating where and in whose care the child may be found, in response
to inquiries by the child's parent for such information, may be held
liable for his/her or their participation in such civil conspiracy.


A parent may maintain a cause of action against one who
tortiously interferes with the parent's parental or custodial
relationship with his/her minor child, which right accrues the instant
the child is born.


To make out a prima facie claim for tortious interference with
parental or custodial relationship, the complaining parent must
demonstrate: (1) the complaining parent has a right to establish or
maintain a parental or custodial relationship with his/her minor child;
(2) a party outside of the relationship between the complaining parent
and his/her child intentionally interfered with the complaining parent's
parental or custodial relationship with his/her child by removing or
detaining the child from returning to the complaining parent, without
that parent's consent, or by otherwise preventing the complaining parent
from exercising his/her parental or custodial rights; (3) the outside
party's intentional interference caused harm to the complaining parent's
parental or custodial relationship with his/her child; and (4) damages
resulted from such interference.


Where a parent presents a prima facie case of tortious
interference with his/her parental or custodial relationship, the party
interfering with such relationship may assert the affirmative defense of
justification, i.e., the party possessed a reasonable, good faith belief
that interference with the parent's parental or custodial relationship
was necessary to protect the child from physical, mental, or emotional
harm, as contemplated by W.áVa. Code º 49-1-3 (1994) (Repl. Vol. 1996).
A party also cannot be held liable for tortious interference with a
parental or custodial relationship if he/she acted negligently, rather
than intentionally; possessed a reasonable, good faith belief that the
interference was proper (i.e., no notice or knowledge of an original or
superseding judicial decree awarding parental or custodial rights to
complaining parent); or reasonably and in good faith believed that the
complaining parent did not have a right to establishawarding parental or
custodial rights to complaining parent); or reasonai.e., mistake as to
identity of child's biological parents where paternity has not yet been
formally established).


A parent cannot charge his/her child's other parent with
tortious interference with parental or custodial relationship if both
parents have equal rights, or substantially equal rights (as in the case
of a nonmarital child where the putative biological father seeks to
establish a meaningful parent-child relationship with his child and,
until such a relationship has been commenced, does not have rights
identical to those of the child's biological mother), to establish or
maintain a parental or custodial relationship with their child.

jmdjmh@aol.com (J.) wrote in message news:<20031029094851.25815.00004079@mb-m07.aol.com>... In article <e5619372.0310290408.7d84387e@posting.google.com>, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote But what about seeking redress for an illegal adoption. Look at adoption in the US.. It is out of control.. How does one fix it? What if illegal adoptions where taken to legal redress?I think the treatment in the US, if any such thing were to happen,would be a civil suit against the people who forced the relinquishment(I'm assuming that it was the relinquishment part of it that wasflawed and not the adoption part of it). She could sue for pain andsuffering, I guess.Maybe J has a better idea of what is possible.Rupa Generally, I think its a tough case. Most of the cases I've read involving claims of fraud, misrepresentation and duress have failed, and they sought only to overturn the adoption. Assuming that you could get a claim for damages to the judge or jury, that claim could adversely affect the perception of your motives for bringing suit (if you were also seeking to overturn the adoption or if you ahven't sought to overturn the adoption but were now seeking damages.) Those are tough cases witthout the money damages claim, in any event. Whether you allege fraud, misrepresentation or duress, you're ultimately trying to prove that you didn't do it voluntarily.

What would happen in a case where the child was not relinquished at
all? As in, for instance, a child was stolen; its whereabouts unknown;
it was then given in adoption in good faith. And then through some
strange luck the parents do track down their child?

There was such a case in India. A couple of toddlers of a tribal
couple wandered off, or were possibly lured away by some
mischief-doer. They were put on a suburban train in Mumbai, ended up
lost at a large station, and put in a Home. The parents searched
everywhere for them, but not being educated or wealthy, they had no
idea of how to go about it.

The two girls were adopted to Sweden (I think). Several years later (I
think 7-8) a voluntary aid agency helped the mother track down her
daughters, and they discovered where they had gone. She sought to get
the adoption overturned and the children returned. The Indian Courts
ruled that though it was a hard case, it would not be in the interests
of the children, who by now spoke primarily Swedish.

I don't know whether anything happened after that -- whether the girls
were informed, or if they ever made contact with their birth-mother.

I can barely imagine the extent of culture-shock on both sides.

But supposing they were to find the person/s who took the children in
the first place. Would the mother have any recourse (in a parallel
situation in the US) beyond a criminal prosecution of the kidnappers?

Rupa

On 27 Oct 2003 21:45:18 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:

<snip>
If it's done against the adoptee's will, it may change hisrelationship, actual or potential, with his b-mom.

Of course. That's something that she needs to think about before she
embarks on this course of action. Still, I wouldn't remove the
possibility of this course of action from any mother who'd had her
child kidnapped and illegally adopted, nor would I automatically give
her a ration of **** for forcing the justice system to legally
acknowledge what was done and correct the record of her family. It's
her right to seek justice for this and I can't blame her for doing so.

GR

On 29 Oct 2003 04:08:49 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote But what about seeking redress for an illegal adoption. Look at adoption in the US.. It is out of control.. How does one fix it? What if illegal adoptions where taken to legal redress?I think the treatment in the US, if any such thing were to happen,would be a civil suit against the people who forced the relinquishment(I'm assuming that it was the relinquishment part of it that wasflawed and not the adoption part of it). She could sue for pain andsuffering, I guess.

No, given the right DA (as always), they could be prosecuted for their
criminal acts. It's not legal to coerce or force someone to give you
their baby. It is illegal to adopt a child who has not been properly
relinquished, even in the US.
Maybe J has a better idea of what is possible.

Could be, but he seems to know about the UK, not the US.

GR

On 29 Oct 2003 04:08:49 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote But what about seeking redress for an illegal adoption. Look at adoption in the US.. It is out of control.. How does one fix it? What if illegal adoptions where taken to legal redress?I think the treatment in the US, if any such thing were to happen,would be a civil suit against the people who forced the relinquishment(I'm assuming that it was the relinquishment part of it that wasflawed and not the adoption part of it). She could sue for pain andsuffering, I guess.

Interesting.
Maybe J has a better idea of what is possible.

I would love to know everyones thoughts on this.. Illegal
incarceration.. Or an illegal trick to make sure the girl
relinquished.. The woman finds out years later that it was an illegal
trick to make sure she relinquished..

What kind of redress does she have in the US?

Some nmoms would not dare to disturb the life of the relinquished son
or daughter even tho they were treated very badly. Heck would not if
they knew that important paper work (inheritance) would be altered..

I wonder if (some) people use this kind of thinking to do as they
please..



Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote I would love to know everyones thoughts on this.. Illegal incarceration.. Or an illegal trick to make sure the girl relinquished.. The woman finds out years later that it was an illegal trick to make sure she relinquished.. What kind of redress does she have in the US? Some nmoms would not dare to disturb the life of the relinquished son or daughter even tho they were treated very badly. Heck would not if they knew that important paper work (inheritance) would be altered..
From J's answer on the other thread, I gather she would have a hard
time getting redress.

OTOH, if what they did was criminal, and it can be proven, perhaps
they can be prosecuted.

Rupa

In article <e5619372.0310292346.5c73448c@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote I would love to know everyones thoughts on this.. Illegal incarceration.. Or an illegal trick to make sure the girl relinquished.. The woman finds out years later that it was an illegal trick to make sure she relinquished.. What kind of redress does she have in the US? Some nmoms would not dare to disturb the life of the relinquished son or daughter even tho they were treated very badly. Heck would not if they knew that important paper work (inheritance) would be altered..From J's answer on the other thread, I gather she would have a hardtime getting redress.OTOH, if what they did was criminal, and it can be proven, perhapsthey can be prosecuted.Rupa

Yes but unfotunately there would probably be a problem with the statute of
limitations running out.

KL

In article <e5619372.0310292346.5c73448c@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote I would love to know everyones thoughts on this.. Illegal incarceration.. Or an illegal trick to make sure the girl relinquished.. The woman finds out years later that it was an illegal trick to make sure she relinquished.. What kind of redress does she have in the US? Some nmoms would not dare to disturb the life of the relinquished son or daughter even tho they were treated very badly. Heck would not if they knew that important paper work (inheritance) would be altered..From J's answer on the other thread, I gather she would have a hardtime getting redress.OTOH, if what they did was criminal, and it can be proven, perhapsthey can be prosecuted.Rupa

Perhaps. In my state, there are few crimes that can be prosecuted more than 3
years after the crime. If I weren't so lazy today I'd look it up.

J.

In article <e0g0qv4935jm3ra8i99acgdvrhvuscr1h4@4ax.com>, GR
<gragain@earthlink.net> writes:
On 29 Oct 2003 04:08:49 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote But what about seeking redress for an illegal adoption. Look at adoption in the US.. It is out of control.. How does one fix it? What if illegal adoptions where taken to legal redress?I think the treatment in the US, if any such thing were to happen,would be a civil suit against the people who forced the relinquishment(I'm assuming that it was the relinquishment part of it that wasflawed and not the adoption part of it). She could sue for pain andsuffering, I guess.No, given the right DA (as always), they could be prosecuted for theircriminal acts. It's not legal to coerce or force someone to give youtheir baby. It is illegal to adopt a child who has not been properlyrelinquished, even in the US.Maybe J has a better idea of what is possible.Could be, but he seems to know about the UK, not the US.GR

I think you have me confused with someone else. I know little about either, but
less about the U.K.

J.

In article <e5619372.0310291413.1f4f01a1@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:
jmdjmh@aol.com (J.) wrote in messagenews:<20031029094851.25815.00004079@mb-m07.aol.com>... In article <e5619372.0310290408.7d84387e@posting.google.com>, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote>> But what about seeking redress for an illegal adoption.> Look at adoption in the US.. It is out of control..> How does one fix it?> What if illegal adoptions where taken to legal redress?>I think the treatment in the US, if any such thing were to happen,would be a civil suit against the people who forced the relinquishment(I'm assuming that it was the relinquishment part of it that wasflawed and not the adoption part of it). She could sue for pain andsuffering, I guess.Maybe J has a better idea of what is possible.Rupa Generally, I think its a tough case. Most of the cases I've read involving claims of fraud, misrepresentation and duress have failed, and they soughtonly to overturn the adoption. Assuming that you could get a claim for damagesto the judge or jury, that claim could adversely affect the perception of your motives for bringing suit (if you were also seeking to overturn theadoption or if you ahven't sought to overturn the adoption but were now seekingdamages.) Those are tough cases witthout the money damages claim, in any event.Whether you allege fraud, misrepresentation or duress, you're ultimately trying to prove that you didn't do it voluntarily.What would happen in a case where the child was not relinquished atall? As in, for instance, a child was stolen; its whereabouts unknown;it was then given in adoption in good faith. And then through somestrange luck the parents do track down their child?There was such a case in India. A couple of toddlers of a tribalcouple wandered off, or were possibly lured away by somemischief-doer. They were put on a suburban train in Mumbai, ended uplost at a large station, and put in a Home. The parents searchedeverywhere for them, but not being educated or wealthy, they had noidea of how to go about it.The two girls were adopted to Sweden (I think). Several years later (Ithink 7-8) a voluntary aid agency helped the mother track down herdaughters, and they discovered where they had gone. She sought to getthe adoption overturned and the children returned. The Indian Courtsruled that though it was a hard case, it would not be in the interestsof the children, who by now spoke primarily Swedish.I don't know whether anything happened after that -- whether the girlswere informed, or if they ever made contact with their birth-mother.I can barely imagine the extent of culture-shock on both sides.But supposing they were to find the person/s who took the children inthe first place. Would the mother have any recourse (in a parallelsituation in the US) beyond a criminal prosecution of the kidnappers?Rupa


I'm not aware of any cases on the subject, but I don't see why a lawsuit
wouldn't fly. Of course, first you have to find a lawyer who thinks there is
someone with money to go after. As a result, you may be more likely to see a
suit against the school, day care, etc. from which a child was stolen than
against the thief himself. At least until he's sold the movie rights.

J.

..OTOH, if what they did was criminal, and it can be proven, perhapsthey can be prosecuted.Rupa Yes but unfotunately there would probably be a problem with the statute of limitations running out. KL

Unless of course there is an interstate issue involved and a pattern
of abuse can be proven, then under civil RICO, the count down for the
statute of limitations is 4 years after LEARNING of the specific
pattern of abuse, rather than the count down beginning at the time of
the abuse. Interesting thought.

On 29 Oct 2003 14:48:51 GMT, jmdjmh@aol.com (J.) wrote:
Whetheryou allege fraud, misrepresentation or duress, you're ultimately trying toprove that you didn't do it voluntarily. As in the rest of our lives, actionsspeak louder than words. If a woman initiates the process and signs thepapers, it's tough to get the court to go past that and accept her subjectiveexperiences at the time as proof of the claim.


I was looking at the woman who was incarcerated against her will and
had her baby taken because someone pretended she was younger than she
was..

A deliberate lie.


Jackie

On 29 Oct 2003 23:46:40 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote I would love to know everyones thoughts on this.. Illegal incarceration.. Or an illegal trick to make sure the girl relinquished.. The woman finds out years later that it was an illegal trick to make sure she relinquished.. What kind of redress does she have in the US? Some nmoms would not dare to disturb the life of the relinquished son or daughter even tho they were treated very badly. Heck would not if they knew that important paper work (inheritance) would be altered..From J's answer on the other thread, I gather she would have a hardtime getting redress.OTOH, if what they did was criminal, and it can be proven, perhapsthey can be prosecuted.


I was hoping to bring this interesting discussion out of 'Lipstick is
nuts'...


Jackie

On 30 Oct 2003 22:13:57 GMT, jmdjmh@aol.com (J.) wrote:

<snip>

I wrote:Could be, but he seems to know about the UK, not the US.GR
I think you have me confused with someone else.

Yep. Totally. I had you momentarily confused with English Robin.
Duh to moi and sorry.
I know little about either, butless about the U.K.

Okay.

GRJ.

On 30 Oct 2003 16:21:41 -0800, mhjtw@hotmail.com (Melinda Walmsley)
wrote:
.OTOH, if what they did was criminal, and it can be proven, perhapsthey can be prosecuted.Rupa Yes but unfotunately there would probably be a problem with the statute of limitations running out. KLUnless of course there is an interstate issue involved and a patternof abuse can be proven, then under civil RICO, the count down for thestatute of limitations is 4 years after LEARNING of the specificpattern of abuse, rather than the count down beginning at the time ofthe abuse. Interesting thought.

Very interesting. I'd wondered about a similar hold on the statute of
limitations in the case of an nmom or adoptee who only learned of the
criminal acts later on in their lives. Probably wouldn't apply in
most jurisdictions and it's not necessarily RICO related.

GR

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:56:15 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"
<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:

<snip>

Jackie wrote: It may stop someone else from doing the very same thing.
Possibly, but it seems, at least to me, that the worm has turned inAustralia.

I think that worm migrated to Guatemala and parts elsewhere.

<snip - interesting conversation between you and Jackie>
The bible is a buncha horse****.

Amen to that.

GR

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 03:41:17 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip - interesting conversation between you and Jackie>


I backed down and said that if legal names are changed and this
interferes with inheritance then it should not happen if the person
does not want this..

Survival..


Jackie