Robyn.. this is what I found using your name and the word 'fault'..

This is what Kim said to you...
Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie.

I am not the source of that sentence..

Jackie

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22Yes,+it%27s+all+YOUR+fault+-+just+ask+Jackie.%22+group:alt.adoption&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=20020721172821.07789.00000239%40mb-ba.aol.com&rnum=9&filter=0
From: The All-Powerful All-Knowing One (ghoulagirl@aol.com.net)Subject: Re: Kim, you owe me a beer & Jackie, you were wrongView: Complete Thread (611 articles)Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.adoptionDate: 2002-07-21 14:29:13 PSTSubject: Re: Kim, you owe me a beer & Jackie, you were wrongFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: Sun, Jul 21, 2002 3:32 PMMessage-id: <L%D_8.30348$15.9910@www.newsranger.com>In article <20020721112706.28498.00000176@mb-fc.aol.com>, The All-PowerfulAll-Knowing One says...>Subject: Re: Kim, you owe me a beer & Jackie, you were wrong>From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com>Date: Sun, Jul 21, 2002 9:29 AM>Message-id: <ujldjalidtqh9e@corp.supernews.com>>>>"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message>news:g8n_8.3661$zX3.3004@news.indigo.ie...snip>> Don't forget: slowly and carefully - and concentrate on HER first - all else>> will follow in due course! (A bit like making love!)>>>Oh puleeeze! ;P What tripe. Hopefully Robyn's bmother isn't so *insecure*>that it has to be all about her her her. Have you met one that HASN'T required it to be all about HER HER HER? Ithink Helen is giving her perfectly reasonable advice - if Robyn doesn't makeeverything all about HER, her bmom is liable to lose interest rather quickly.Oh DEAR! I somehow always seem to stir up trouble :) Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie.However, out of curiousity, how exactly would I make it all about her?Rightnow we're just exchanging little letters - nice-nice, BS kinda stuff :) Ah, she's still in the "luring you in" phase.Ghoulagirl.


Robyn I put your name plus the word 'attitude' in the search place.

This is what I said to you about attitude..

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Robyn+attitude+group:alt.adoption+author: Jackie&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=ugm2kuc3ejsldglvrl59s0fmmfhih9q6lk%404ax.com&rnum=4&filter=0

From: Jackie C (jdajda@newsguy.com)Subject: Re: Kim, you owe me a beer & Jackie, you were wrongView: Complete Thread (611 articles)Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.adoptionDate: 2002-07-26 07:53:10 PSTOn Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:58:49 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <h5d0kuo41fnb0246umjr2feu9gukllfemn@4ax.com>, Jackie C says...On 23 Jul 2002 02:29:00 GMT, ghoulagirl@aol.com.net (The All-PowerfulAll-Knowing One) wrote:>>And *I* say "Don'ta worry, be happy" & "always look on the bright si--ide>>of life, dee-dum, dee-dah <BG>>> And what will you be saying when Robyn's heart is broken yet AGAIN?How was her heart broken the first time?Oy. Have you already forgotten how upset I was when I thought my bmom and Iwere starting over and she never responded to the letter I wrote her in March?But that is reunion..I seem to remember you found her.. she obviously needed time to sortthis.. and heck she was/is still 'bathed' in secrecy..It was not you she rejected you must know this by now..That's pretty amazing because you and I went back and forth over it for quitesome time.I was trying to discuss reunion issues with you..I was trying to tell you what it is like (or was like) to be in thesecrecy and what it was like to be overwhelmed by telling the secret..Oh, you know - When you told me that perhaps my bmom would respond to me if Ichanged my attitude?I tried to tell you to not get angry with her, to not take what Kimwas saying to heart.. I was adding my two cents to the thread!!!!!I was trying to point out that some folks trash their reunion becausethey have taken something to heart and have cut off..Reunion is incredibly difficult for some folks..Jackie

I stand behind what I said a year ago..

Jackie

In article <29ktpvg2kpb7caa8fnmdevjgvsmg89q81a@4ax.com>, Jackie says...Robyn.. this is what I found using your name and the word 'fault'..This is what Kim said to you...

What does Kim have to do with this? You still hooked on thinking that she was
"influencing" me?
Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie.I am not the source of that sentence..

<sigh> Um, but you are Jackie. Look it's water under the bridge at this point,
but you did make the comment. You didn't delete it by any chance, did you?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22Yes,+it%27s+all+YOUR+fault+-+just+ask+Jackie.%22+group:alt.adoption&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=20020721172821.07789.00000239%40mb-ba.aol.com&rnum=9&filter=0
snipRobyn I put your name plus the word 'attitude' in the search place.This is what I said to you about attitude..http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Robyn+attitude+group:alt.adoption+author: Jackie&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=ugm2kuc3ejsldglvrl59s0fmmfhih9q6lk%404ax.com&rnum=4&filter=0

Thanks for trying, but that's not the original post where you stated that maybe
my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude. This just has me referring
to that. Sorry, but I'm not a liar. I wouldn't make reference to something that
wasn't originally said.

snip
I stand behind what I said a year ago..

What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <DUPnb.25733$cJ5.4123@www.newsranger.com>, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> writes:
What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude?

http://www.google.com/groups?q=attitude+group:alt.adoption+author:Jackie +a
uthor:jdajda%40newsguy.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&as_drrb=b&as_mind=
1&as_minm=5&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=12&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2002&selm=hliodugphq
68hoqgl1825rlu5nj84tn9tl%404ax.com&rnum=1

Jeannette, bmom

Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.
Paul Boese


The Animal Rescue Site - Feed An Animal In Need
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:11:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <29ktpvg2kpb7caa8fnmdevjgvsmg89q81a@4ax.com>, Jackie says...Robyn.. this is what I found using your name and the word 'fault'..This is what Kim said to you...What does Kim have to do with this? You still hooked on thinking that she was"influencing" me?

I never said.. "It's all your fault."
Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie.I am not the source of that sentence..<sigh> Um, but you are Jackie. Look it's water under the bridge at this point,but you did make the comment. You didn't delete it by any chance, did you?

If I had of deleted it.. it would not have disappeared..
Copies in the form of a quote would still appear..

Show me where I told you it was all your fault..
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22Yes,+it%27s+all+YOUR+fault+-+just+ask+Jackie.%22+group:alt.adoption&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=20020721172821.07789.00000239%40mb-ba.aol.com&rnum=9&filter=0snipRobyn I put your name plus the word 'attitude' in the search place.This is what I said to you about attitude..http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Robyn+attitude+group:alt.adoption+author: Jackie&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=ugm2kuc3ejsldglvrl59s0fmmfhih9q6lk%404ax.com&rnum=4&filter=0Thanks for trying, but that's not the original post where you stated that maybemy bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude.

Jeannette found that post..
I answered it where she posted it..

You asked your birth mother to name your birth father.
She said to you.. Not now.. or something to that effect..

Then you asked again..

Why did you ask the second time?
This just has me referringto that. Sorry, but I'm not a liar. I wouldn't make reference to something thatwasn't originally said.

I did not tell you it was your fault..
I questioned your attitude towards your birth mother.

You bring your private information to this board..
You asked for comments on a daily basis..
But some comments are not wanted.. Right Robyn?
snipI stand behind what I said a year ago..What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude?

That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked at her
situation with respect. She could be telling you the truth..
She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed her into
telling you his name..


Jackie

On 30 Oct 2003 01:17:37 GMT, jrobnett1@aol.combustible (Jrobnett1)
wrote:
What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude?

I will repost here what I wrote yesterday..
On 30 Oct 2003 01:12:29 GMT, jrobnett1@aol.combustible (Jrobnett1) wrote:http://www.google.com/groups?q=attitude+group:alt.adoption+author:Jackie +author:jdajda%40newsguy.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=5&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=12&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2002&selm=hliodugphq68hoqgl1825rlu5nj84tn9tl%404ax.com&rnum=1From: Jackie C (jdajda@newsguy.com)Subject: Re: Baby classifiedsView: Complete Thread (3011 articles)Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.adoptionDate: 2002-05-10 16:05:08 PSTOn Wed, 08 May 2002 16:34:12 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:Also, when I asked her for my birthdad's last name and a little info on myhalf-siblings, I got back some babble about "some questions are unintentionallyhurtful and must be avoided". What the hell does that mean? Same thing aboutrefusing the 2nd time to give me my birthdad's last name - "I fear it would domore harm than good". To whom? Would it hurt people to find out about me?

written today

****This is the attitude that I questioned Robyn.******

She said.. "I fear it would do more harm than good."
You IMO were not actually accepting what she said..
You IMO did not respect her enough to even consider what she was
saying was valid..

Well, since it doesn't look like she's going to write me back, I guess I'llnever know. Whatever! ;)Maybe if you changed your attitude you may get more info..Maybe she needs to trust you before she discloses information that mayactually do harm..Do you really think she is the bad guy in all this?Jackie
Written in another thread yesterday.
I stand by that as well..IMO the woman was telling her that she did not want to tell Robyn who her birth father is.. There must be some kind of reason..When I made the comment about Robyn's attitude I meant that maybe she might get to know the woman on a level other than trying to get information off of her *at the beginning of the relationship*.Who knows what the secret is.. Exposing it may cause a lot of harm..Jackie

In article <bdl4qvsna8a0jksbp1it24ojc5hq18ujju@4ax.com>, Jackie says...
snip>****This is the attitude that I questioned Robyn.******She said.. "I fear it would do more harm than good."You IMO were not actually accepting what she said..You IMO did not respect her enough to even consider what she wassaying was valid..

Oy, see Jackie, what you don't seem to get is that I still to this day have no
idea what the heck she's talking about here. What does her sentence mean?!?
Harm to who? Her? Me? My bdad? WHAT?!?!

See, that's why I had an "attitude". How can I accept something I don't
understand? My bmom's use of cryptic language is rather annoying to me.



Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <imk4qv8vm7oprlp6418v30uf66t4vdsg5t@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:11:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <29ktpvg2kpb7caa8fnmdevjgvsmg89q81a@4ax.com>, Jackie says...Robyn.. this is what I found using your name and the word 'fault'..This is what Kim said to you...What does Kim have to do with this? You still hooked on thinking that she was"influencing" me?I never said.. "It's all your fault."

Maybe not, but it was implied. Like the reason my bmom cut off communication
was because of MY attitude?
> Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie.I am not the source of that sentence..<sigh> Um, but you are Jackie. Look it's water under the bridge at this point,but you did make the comment. You didn't delete it by any chance, did you?If I had of deleted it.. it would not have disappeared..Copies in the form of a quote would still appear..Show me where I told you it was all your fault..

I never said that you said that, that quote doesn't exist. The quote I was
referring to was the one you made about my attitude.

snipYou asked your birth mother to name your birth father.She said to you.. Not now.. or something to that effect..Then you asked again..Why did you ask the second time?

Oh gee, I don't know - Maybe because I feel that I'm entitled to that
information or, at the very least, a valid reason for not giving it to me. And
believe it or not, that's how we started communication again - so it was a damn
good reason I did reach out to her again after she cut off communication.
Funny, that, huh?
This just has me referringto that. Sorry, but I'm not a liar. I wouldn't make reference to something thatwasn't originally said.I did not tell you it was your fault..I questioned your attitude towards your birth mother.

Which, my bmom wasn't even aware of - that's why I got ticked off.
You bring your private information to this board..

And so do you, so?
You asked for comments on a daily basis..But some comments are not wanted.. Right Robyn?

Um, what's your point? You get comments you don't care for everyday. I'm not
sure what this has to do with the discussion.
snipI stand behind what I said a year ago..What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude?
That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked at hersituation with respect.

But I did (and do) - It was your interpretation that I wasn't.
She could be telling you the truth..

Which was what, exactly?
She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed her intotelling you his name..

Who? When? Where? Why? Do you know something I don't?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<yLtob.25996$cJ5.4233@www.newsranger.com>... In article <bdl4qvsna8a0jksbp1it24ojc5hq18ujju@4ax.com>, Jackie says... snip>****This is the attitude that I questioned Robyn.******She said.. "I fear it would do more harm than good."You IMO were not actually accepting what she said..You IMO did not respect her enough to even consider what she wassaying was valid.. Oy, see Jackie, what you don't seem to get is that I still to this day have no idea what the heck she's talking about here. What does her sentence mean?!? Harm to who? Her? Me? My bdad? WHAT?!?! See, that's why I had an "attitude". How can I accept something I don't understand? My bmom's use of cryptic language is rather annoying to me.



I agree.
It's that kind of cryptic language that does more harm than good.
It's not kind, and further mystifies the already mysterious - to you,
at least.
It would be better if she'd put up or shut up, IMO.
Either tell you what you want to know straight up, or else
categorically refuse and batton down the hatches, as is her right.


Rh.
Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

In article <dafc70.0310311116.775ff235@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<yLtob.25996$cJ5.4233@www.newsranger.com>... In article <bdl4qvsna8a0jksbp1it24ojc5hq18ujju@4ax.com>, Jackie says... snip>****This is the attitude that I questioned Robyn.******She said.. "I fear it would do more harm than good."You IMO were not actually accepting what she said..You IMO did not respect her enough to even consider what she wassaying was valid.. Oy, see Jackie, what you don't seem to get is that I still to this day have no idea what the heck she's talking about here. What does her sentence mean?!? Harm to who? Her? Me? My bdad? WHAT?!?! See, that's why I had an "attitude". How can I accept something I don't understand? My bmom's use of cryptic language is rather annoying to me.I agree.It's that kind of cryptic language that does more harm than good.It's not kind, and further mystifies the already mysterious - to you,at least.It would be better if she'd put up or shut up, IMO.Either tell you what you want to know straight up, or elsecategorically refuse and batton down the hatches, as is her right.

I completely agree.

Contrary to what some people here might believe <cough>, I do have a great deal
of respect for my bmom. However, that doesn't mean that I can't get ticked off
or frustrated over her not giving me concrete reasons for denying me
information. Sorry, but I'm not into mysteries - Especially when she knows the
real reason.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<GHyob.26044$cJ5.4273@www.newsranger.com>... In article <dafc70.0310311116.775ff235@posting.google.com>, Especially when she knows the real reason.



Exactly.
So long as you are prepared for anything, *and* willing to take an
strong oath (thanks, Rupa!) of confidentiality, I see no reason for
her not to tell you.



Rh.

I felt the same way about knowing the Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:49:18 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <bdl4qvsna8a0jksbp1it24ojc5hq18ujju@4ax.com>, Jackie says...snip>****This is the attitude that I questioned Robyn.******She said.. "I fear it would do more harm than good."You IMO were not actually accepting what she said..You IMO did not respect her enough to even consider what she wassaying was valid..Oy, see Jackie, what you don't seem to get is that I still to this day have noidea what the heck she's talking about here. What does her sentence mean?!?Harm to who? Her? Me? My bdad? WHAT?!?!

We don't know.. No one knows but your birth mom and maybe her family..
See, that's why I had an "attitude". How can I accept something I don'tunderstand? My bmom's use of cryptic language is rather annoying to me.

You can at least accept that you don't understand it..

That is why I recommended Rickie Solinger and reading about the
history of what some of us went through...
Secrets were a way of life for some of us.. It was how we survived..

Jackie

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:57:17 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <imk4qv8vm7oprlp6418v30uf66t4vdsg5t@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:11:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <29ktpvg2kpb7caa8fnmdevjgvsmg89q81a@4ax.com>, Jackie says...>>Robyn.. this is what I found using your name and the word 'fault'..>>This is what Kim said to you...What does Kim have to do with this? You still hooked on thinking that she was"influencing" me?I never said.. "It's all your fault."Maybe not, but it was implied.

Not for one second did I think of that when we exchanged posts on this
subject last year..
There is no fault..
Like the reason my bmom cut off communicationwas because of MY attitude?

I do not have clue why your birth mom cut off of communication.
I am sure as hell not going to guess..

And I hate that this has happened to you.
>> Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie.>>I am not the source of that sentence..<sigh> Um, but you are Jackie. Look it's water under the bridge at this point,but you did make the comment. You didn't delete it by any chance, did you?If I had of deleted it.. it would not have disappeared..Copies in the form of a quote would still appear..Show me where I told you it was all your fault..I never said that you said that, that quote doesn't exist. The quote I wasreferring to was the one you made about my attitude.

You asked about your birth father once and she answered you..
You asked again.. That was what prompted me to say that to you.

IMO what you did in asking the second time *may have* put across the
message that you thought the woman did not have a good reason (her
reason) to not tell you the name of your birth father.

IMO you challenged her reason for not telling you the information you
wanted..
snipYou asked your birth mother to name your birth father.She said to you.. Not now.. or something to that effect..Then you asked again..Why did you ask the second time?Oh gee, I don't know - Maybe because I feel that I'm entitled to thatinformation or, at the very least, a valid reason for not giving it to me.

Okay you had the attitude that you were entitled..

When I said maybe you should change your attitude.. This is what I was
looking at..
Andbelieve it or not, that's how we started communication again - so it was a damngood reason I did reach out to her again after she cut off communication.Funny, that, huh?

The key words here are she cut off communication.
This just has me referringto that. Sorry, but I'm not a liar. I wouldn't make reference to something thatwasn't originally said.I did not tell you it was your fault..I questioned your attitude towards your birth mother.Which, my bmom wasn't even aware of - that's why I got ticked off.

How do you know what she was aware of or not aware of?
You bring your private information to this board..And so do you, so?You asked for comments on a daily basis..But some comments are not wanted.. Right Robyn?Um, what's your point? You get comments you don't care for everyday. I'm notsure what this has to do with the discussion.

You pulled a "you really hurt me Jackie."
snip>I stand behind what I said a year ago..What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude?That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked at hersituation with respect.But I did (and do) - It was your interpretation that I wasn't.

Why did she cut off contact then?
She could be telling you the truth..Which was what, exactly?

I don't know what her truth is..
She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed her intotelling you his name..Who? When? Where? Why? Do you know something I don't?

I was putting up suggestions..

Jackie

On 31 Oct 2003 11:16:44 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
See, that's why I had an "attitude". How can I accept something I don't understand? My bmom's use of cryptic language is rather annoying to me.I agree.It's that kind of cryptic language that does more harm than good.It's not kind, and further mystifies the already mysterious - to you,at least.It would be better if she'd put up or shut up, IMO.Either tell you what you want to know straight up, or elsecategorically refuse and batton down the hatches, as is her right.

So you do a critique on the woman..

This is what pisses me off..
The damn shoulds.. The damn she should have sorted her crap years
ago.. The damn she was never promised privacy in the first place so
what is her problem..

Condemnation prior to investigation.

Jackie

In article <sju9qv8jcn3863cms9l1o4orpum33o0ter@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:49:18 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <bdl4qvsna8a0jksbp1it24ojc5hq18ujju@4ax.com>, Jackie says...snip>****This is the attitude that I questioned Robyn.******She said.. "I fear it would do more harm than good."You IMO were not actually accepting what she said..You IMO did not respect her enough to even consider what she wassaying was valid..Oy, see Jackie, what you don't seem to get is that I still to this day have noidea what the heck she's talking about here. What does her sentence mean?!?Harm to who? Her? Me? My bdad? WHAT?!?!We don't know.. No one knows but your birth mom and maybe her family..

No kidding.
See, that's why I had an "attitude". How can I accept something I don'tunderstand? My bmom's use of cryptic language is rather annoying to me.You can at least accept that you don't understand it..

Well, DUH, how could I not accept it? I've made it quite obvious that I don't
understand it. Why would you think I wasn't accepting it? Shoot, what other
choice do I have?


Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<tnv9qvgg05fk9f49e01tog7jtchnejtoja@4ax.com>... On 31 Oct 2003 11:16:44 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: See, that's why I had an "attitude". How can I accept something I don't understand? My bmom's use of cryptic language is rather annoying to me. > >I agree.It's that kind of cryptic language that does more harm than good.It's not kind, and further mystifies the already mysterious - to you,at least.It would be better if she'd put up or shut up, IMO.Either tell you what you want to know straight up, or elsecategorically refuse and batton down the hatches, as is her right.
So you do a critique on the woman.. This is what pisses me off.. The damn shoulds.. The damn she should have sorted her crap years ago.. The damn she was never promised privacy in the first place so what is her problem..


Oh, for heaven's sake, there's not a 'should' in sight, Jackie.
I just happen to agree with Robyn, and what I've said is no more a
'critique' of Robyn's mother than what you've written above about me.
It's an opinion, no more and no less.
I've never said or thought that she 'should have sorted her crap years
ago'. Or any of the rest . . . I don't say it, I don't think it, and I
don't buy your blather.

In fact, I acknowledge her right to refuse to divulge information.
But that passes you by . . .

Condemnation prior to investigation.


WTF?
Pull yourself together.



Rh.








Rh.

Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:lqu9qv49hbmusilcmrhslfjgolgmbct2kn@4ax.com... On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:57:17 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:


IMO what you did in asking the second time *may have* put across the message that you thought the woman did not have a good reason (her reason) to not tell you the name of your birth father.

There is no good reason (other than *truly* not knowing - in which case you
should explain *why* you don't know who it is) for not telling someone who
their bfather is.

Kathy 1

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<imk4qv8vm7oprlp6418v30uf66t4vdsg5t@4ax.com>... On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:11:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <29ktpvg2kpb7caa8fnmdevjgvsmg89q81a@4ax.com>, Jackie says...Robyn.. this is what I found using your name and the word 'fault'..This is what Kim said to you...What does Kim have to do with this? You still hooked on thinking that she was"influencing" me? I never said.. "It's all your fault."> Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie.I am not the source of that sentence..<sigh> Um, but you are Jackie. Look it's water under the bridge at this point,but you did make the comment. You didn't delete it by any chance, did you? If I had of deleted it.. it would not have disappeared.. Copies in the form of a quote would still appear.. Show me where I told you it was all your fault..http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22Yes,+it%27s+all+YOUR+fault+-+just+ask+Jackie.%22+group:alt.adoption&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=20020721172821.07789.00000239%40mb-ba.aol.com&rnum=9&filter=0 snipRobyn I put your name plus the word 'attitude' in the search place.This is what I said to you about attitude..http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Robyn+attitude+group:alt.adoption+author: Jackie&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=ugm2kuc3ejsldglvrl59s0fmmfhih9q6lk%404ax.com&rnum=4&filter=0Thanks for trying, but that's not the original post where you stated that maybemy bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude. Jeannette found that post.. I answered it where she posted it.. You asked your birth mother to name your birth father. She said to you.. Not now.. or something to that effect.. Then you asked again.. Why did you ask the second time? This just has me referringto that. Sorry, but I'm not a liar. I wouldn't make reference to something thatwasn't originally said. I did not tell you it was your fault.. I questioned your attitude towards your birth mother. You bring your private information to this board.. You asked for comments on a daily basis.. But some comments are not wanted.. Right Robyn?snipI stand behind what I said a year ago..What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude? That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked at her situation with respect. She could be telling you the truth.. She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed her into telling you his name.. Jackie

She could also be saying "Do I still not matter?"

If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before I
had even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matter
of trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are important
as a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To ask
for the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate to
her that she is being used as a data bamk for information only and
still doesn't really factor into the scheme of things.

I understand that this kind of problam can be the result of a sense of
disentitlement and anxiety but there are ways of establishing trust
between each other but it has to genuinely come from the heart rather
than the situation.

An adoptee I know on another US forum struggled for 17 year to
establish some kind of communication with her elderly mother, who was
being influenced and controlled by her other adult children. We talked
and she tried a different approach and now they are in a very close
and loving relationship and have been for a number of years now. Her
other children no longer control her life. It took only one letter to
break down the walls she'd built up.

Di

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/2/03 4:15 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com>
If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before Ihad even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matterof trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are importantas a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To askfor the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate toher that she is being used as a data bamk for information only andstill doesn't really factor into the scheme of things.

And with my reunion, it was the opposite. I was afraid to ask questions right
up front, just in case my bmom might feel like I was using her as you wrote
above.

When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said,
"What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Tried to
explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her for information.
She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bo3ktt$16671j$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:lqu9qv49hbmusilcmrhslfjgolgmbct2kn@4ax.com... On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:57:17 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote: IMO what you did in asking the second time *may have* put across the message that you thought the woman did not have a good reason (her reason) to not tell you the name of your birth father. There is no good reason (other than *truly* not knowing - in which case you should explain *why* you don't know who it is) for not telling someone who their bfather is.


ITA.


Rh. Kathy 1

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bo3ktt$16671j$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:lqu9qv49hbmusilcmrhslfjgolgmbct2kn@4ax.com... On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:57:17 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote: IMO what you did in asking the second time *may have* put across the message that you thought the woman did not have a good reason (her reason) to not tell you the name of your birth father. There is no good reason (other than *truly* not knowing - in which case you should explain *why* you don't know who it is) for not telling someone who their bfather is. Kathy 1



<above top post...



I think adoptees deserve one thing after having their lives decided
for them.
That one thing is truth. Beyond and above all else, they are the true
*victims* of adoption and all it's secrecy an lies. They were the
voiceless, the unwitting and the most neglected of all. Many were just
commodities.

At least the birthmother's had a voice, whether or not they feared to
use it, they had one. They could spread their legs and create life,
and now the big argument is for the adoptee to *respect* her needs and
secrets and forgo their truths if necessary.

Yet the claim is that one's needs do not supersede the other's...it's
all here, in post after post, painting one contradiction after
another. "If you bend to her", "change your attitude"...do, do, and do
more for her.

What?

This is to me like the adult child who blames his parents for
everything. Instead it is the birthmother blaming the government, the
agency, the social worker. But this is her truth, her action coming up
to bite her in the ***, not anyone elses. And in real everyday life
there comes a time that we have to take responsibility for ourselves,
for OUR actions or lack thereof, even if it is painful.



SoulWhisper

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said, "What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Tried to explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her for information. She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)

Sounds wonderful!

It's great that it went so well, Marla.

Rupa

Tagging a "me too" on to Rupa's. Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 11/2/2003
lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said, "What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Triedto explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her forinformation. She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)Sounds wonderful!It's great that it went so well, Marla.Rupa

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 14:19:52 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is no good reason (other than *truly* not knowing - in which case youshould explain *why* you don't know who it is) for not telling someone whotheir bfather is.

Lots and lots of people have made similar statements. Yet here we
have a person, Robyn, whose nmother is not, in fact, telling Robyn who
her nfather is.

I dunno. I mean there's nothing wrong with the statement itself. If
that's as far as you can get with it than that's as far as you can get
with it, but I think it deserves better.

GR

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031102183310.04882.00000040@mb-m22.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/2/03 4:15 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com>If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before Ihad even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matterof trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are importantas a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To askfor the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate toher that she is being used as a data bamk for information only andstill doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. And with my reunion, it was the opposite. I was afraid to ask questions right up front, just in case my bmom might feel like I was using her as you wrote above. When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said, "What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Tried to explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her for information. She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)

That's great. It was similar in my son's situation. Because I was the
one who search for my son I was already aware of the information he
might want to know and so gave him his fathers name on our first
meeting even though he hadn't asked. It sounds strange now but I had
this dread that something might happen and I'd never see him again so
I had to make sure he knew that information. On the other hand had he
looked for me a few years earlier I would not have even remembered his
fathers name. Come to think of it, it hadn't even computed that he had
a father let alone what his name was.

Di

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031102183310.04882.00000040@mb-m22.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/2/03 4:15 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com>If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before Ihad even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matterof trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are importantas a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To askfor the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate toher that she is being used as a data bamk for information only andstill doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. And with my reunion, it was the opposite. I was afraid to ask questions right up front, just in case my bmom might feel like I was using her as you wrote above. When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said, "What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Tried to explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her for information. She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)

You were very very lucky!

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031102183310.04882.00000040@mb-m22.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/2/03 4:15 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com>If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before Ihad even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matterof trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are importantas a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To askfor the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate toher that she is being used as a data bamk for information only andstill doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. And with my reunion, it was the opposite. I was afraid to ask questions right up front, just in case my bmom might feel like I was using her as you wrote above. When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said, "What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Tried to explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her for information. She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)

This whole seeking information deal bothers me. Okay so no one wants
to feel pumped for information, but when you know nothing of your
beginnings and you meet the one person who does, what else are you
going to do?

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<GHyob.26044$cJ5.4273@www.newsranger.com>... In article <dafc70.0310311116.775ff235@posting.google.com>, Rhiannon says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<yLtob.25996$cJ5.4233@www.newsranger.com>... In article <bdl4qvsna8a0jksbp1it24ojc5hq18ujju@4ax.com>, Jackie says... snip>****This is the attitude that I questioned Robyn.****** > >She said.. "I fear it would do more harm than good." >You IMO were not actually accepting what she said.. >You IMO did not respect her enough to even consider what she was >saying was valid.. Oy, see Jackie, what you don't seem to get is that I still to this day have no idea what the heck she's talking about here. What does her sentence mean?!? Harm to who? Her? Me? My bdad? WHAT?!?! See, that's why I had an "attitude". How can I accept something I don't understand? My bmom's use of cryptic language is rather annoying to me.I agree.It's that kind of cryptic language that does more harm than good.It's not kind, and further mystifies the already mysterious - to you,at least.It would be better if she'd put up or shut up, IMO.Either tell you what you want to know straight up, or elsecategorically refuse and batton down the hatches, as is her right. I completely agree. Contrary to what some people here might believe <cough>, I do have a great deal of respect for my bmom. However, that doesn't mean that I can't get ticked off or frustrated over her not giving me concrete reasons for denying me information. Sorry, but I'm not into mysteries - Especially when she knows the real reason. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

I agree Robyn. As I've written my situation is/was similar and I still
wanted to know and still can get very frustrated when I think that I
will never know that "half" of my mystery history. From what you've
written here (of course I only know that side) you seem to have
handled things very respectfully. You shouldn't let anyone else tell
you differently.

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311022139.7780275d@posting.google.com>...
That's great. It was similar in my son's situation. Because I was the one who search for my son I was already aware of the information he might want to know and so gave him his fathers name on our first meeting even though he hadn't asked. It sounds strange now but I had this dread that something might happen and I'd never see him again so I had to make sure he knew that information. On the other hand had he looked for me a few years earlier I would not have even remembered his fathers name. Come to think of it, it hadn't even computed that he had a father let alone what his name was.

My birthmother asked me to let her contact my birthfather, and for
some time to do it. I had no problem with this, and she did give me
what information she had about him. She also told me his full name
after a few weeks of reunion because she wanted me to have the
information in case something should happen to her.

She eventually wrote to him, and he contacted me right away. All went
just fine.

L.

In article <4b23522a.0311030219.160a5e8f@posting.google.com>, Debbie says...
snipI agree Robyn. As I've written my situation is/was similar and I stillwanted to know and still can get very frustrated when I think that Iwill never know that "half" of my mystery history. From what you'vewritten here (of course I only know that side) you seem to havehandled things very respectfully. You shouldn't let anyone else tellyou differently.

Thanks, I think I have too :)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/2/03 10:39 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311022139.7780275d@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20031102183310.04882.00000040@mb-m22.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/2/03 4:15 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com>If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before Ihad even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matterof trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are importantas a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To askfor the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate toher that she is being used as a data bamk for information only andstill doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. And with my reunion, it was the opposite. I was afraid to ask questionsright up front, just in case my bmom might feel like I was using her as you wrote above. When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said, "What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Triedto explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her forinformation. She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)That's great. It was similar in my son's situation. Because I was theone who search for my son I was already aware of the information hemight want to know and so gave him his fathers name on our firstmeeting even though he hadn't asked. It sounds strange now but I hadthis dread that something might happen and I'd never see him again soI had to make sure he knew that information. On the other hand had helooked for me a few years earlier I would not have even remembered hisfathers name. Come to think of it, it hadn't even computed that he hada father let alone what his name was.Di

It's funny how you *think* you're prepared for the moment (reunion), but when
it suddenly happens, all preparations fly out the window.

Before I found out bdad's name, bmom was talking a bit about him. She said she
was "intimidated" by him. I spent the next day thinking, "Oh God, what if he
was a date-rapist or something?"

So I spent a couple of hours trying to compose a thoughtful email----said that
if he was a real SOB and if it was painful to bring it up, right now, I'd
completely understand. I didn't want our reunion to cause her emotional
distress.

She called me and said "WHAAAAT? He was the nicest and kindest man I knew! I
was intimidated by him because he was very smart and funny and I was trying to
IMPRESS him!" LOL

<sigh> It's a tightrope we all walk on, in reunion, I guess. Am I asking too
much too soon? Am I not asking enough? I was busy tiptoeing around, and she
was getting impatient. ;-)

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: aspensky@knology.net (Debbie)Date: 11/3/03 3:17 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <4b23522a.0311030217.ca075f7@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20031102183310.04882.00000040@mb-m22.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/2/03 4:15 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com>If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before Ihad even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matterof trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are importantas a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To askfor the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate toher that she is being used as a data bamk for information only andstill doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. And with my reunion, it was the opposite. I was afraid to ask questionsright up front, just in case my bmom might feel like I was using her as you wrote above. When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said, "What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Triedto explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her forinformation. She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)This whole seeking information deal bothers me. Okay so no one wantsto feel pumped for information, but when you know nothing of yourbeginnings and you meet the one person who does, what else are yougoing to do?

Exactly! And unless they ask, how are adoptees supposed to know if their bfam
is all closed up with secrets, or ready to let it all hang out? Kind of seems
like a Catch 22.

"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uaibqv04mnn7k4itqkntl50r40i5p38r19@4ax.com... On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 14:19:52 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:There is no good reason (other than *truly* not knowing - in which case
youshould explain *why* you don't know who it is) for not telling someone
whotheir bfather is. Lots and lots of people have made similar statements. Yet here we have a person, Robyn, whose nmother is not, in fact, telling Robyn who her nfather is.

Right and imo there is no justifiable reason for it, be it incest, rape,
secrecy, etc.
I dunno. I mean there's nothing wrong with the statement itself. If that's as far as you can get with it than that's as far as you can get with it, but I think it deserves better. GR

Sure we can talk about the whys and wherefores of it and what can and can't
be done about it - which we have been doing. Those are useful conversations
and may shed light on the subject but at the end of the day either one
believes there are justifiable reasons for withholding that information or
they don't. Just weighing in with my stand on it.

On 2 Nov 2003 15:15:11 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude? That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked at her situation with respect. She could be telling you the truth.. She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed her into telling you his name.. JackieShe could also be saying "Do I still not matter?"

Yes.
If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before Ihad even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matterof trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are importantas a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To askfor the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate toher that she is being used as a data bamk for information only andstill doesn't really factor into the scheme of things.

I was hoping you would wade into this.

And this was a point I have been trying to make.

I understand that this kind of problam can be the result of a sense ofdisentitlement and anxiety but there are ways of establishing trustbetween each other but it has to genuinely come from the heart ratherthan the situation.

Yes.

An adoptee I know on another US forum struggled for 17 year toestablish some kind of communication with her elderly mother, who wasbeing influenced and controlled by her other adult children. We talkedand she tried a different approach and now they are in a very closeand loving relationship and have been for a number of years now. Herother children no longer control her life. It took only one letter tobreak down the walls she'd built up.


If you see a person in their map of the world..

Like that movie Deep End of the Ocean.. She saw the boy as he really
was.. Not who she wanted him to be.

Jackie

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031103092800.12560.00000097@mb-m06.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/2/03 10:39 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311022139.7780275d@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20031102183310.04882.00000040@mb-m22.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess >who... >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 11/2/03 4:15 PM Mountain Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com> >If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before I >had even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matter >of trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are important >as a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To ask >for the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate to >her that she is being used as a data bamk for information only and >still doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. > And with my reunion, it was the opposite. I was afraid to ask questions right up front, just in case my bmom might feel like I was using her as you wrote above. When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said, "What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Tried to explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her for information. She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)That's great. It was similar in my son's situation. Because I was theone who search for my son I was already aware of the information hemight want to know and so gave him his fathers name on our firstmeeting even though he hadn't asked. It sounds strange now but I hadthis dread that something might happen and I'd never see him again soI had to make sure he knew that information. On the other hand had helooked for me a few years earlier I would not have even remembered hisfathers name. Come to think of it, it hadn't even computed that he hada father let alone what his name was.Di It's funny how you *think* you're prepared for the moment (reunion), but when it suddenly happens, all preparations fly out the window.
Aint' that the truth! I thought after five years of waiting for him
to be ready I had covered all possibilities, but I never expected the
impact it
had on me.

Before I found out bdad's name, bmom was talking a bit about him. She said she was "intimidated" by him. I spent the next day thinking, "Oh God, what if he was a date-rapist or something?"

Lol! So I spent a couple of hours trying to compose a thoughtful email----said that if he was a real SOB and if it was painful to bring it up, right now, I'd completely understand. I didn't want our reunion to cause her emotional distress.
That's nice, and thoughtful.
She called me and said "WHAAAAT? He was the nicest and kindest man I knew! I was intimidated by him because he was very smart and funny and I was trying to IMPRESS him!" LOL

LOL! I was waiting for that. <sigh> It's a tightrope we all walk on, in reunion, I guess. Am I asking too much too soon? Am I not asking enough? I was busy tiptoeing around, and she was getting impatient. ;-)

Oh I know those eggshells/tightrope only too well:-) I'd been doing
the same thing. I'd been trying to make sure I don't crowd my son with
my needs and so took my cues from him as to how much contact I should
instigate. And then we eventually discussed the issue, with me finally
telling him that we will never really get to know each other if we
only contact each other so many times a year. And he responded
indignantly with "Well there is nothing stopping you from contacting
me, either." So there was my son doing exactly what I was doing -
assuming. We were taking our cues from each others actions or lack
thereof, rather than communicating what we really felt we needed. So I
guess the moral of this story is to assume nothing. Communication is
key. Now, if we can only find the key to overcome all the fear of
it.......

Di

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<48udqv86835ksutbvdsggia1rpt1a4lkq2@4ax.com>... On 2 Nov 2003 15:15:11 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: >What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude? That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked at her situation with respect. She could be telling you the truth.. She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed her into telling you his name. JackieShe could also be saying "Do I still not matter?" Yes.If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before Ihad even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matterof trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are importantas a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To askfor the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate toher that she is being used as a data bamk for information only andstill doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. I was hoping you would wade into this. And this was a point I have been trying to make.
Oh Jackie, I can't be bothered. So far all I see is the animosity.
While this discussion is about one persons 'rights' instead of their
'needs' it's a waste of time. Whether its politically correct or not,
AFAIC, open records is about reunion and reunions are about
re-establishing relationships, not just obtaining information by
demanding ones 'rights" by trampling over another persons 'right' not
to disclose it. We can all stomp all we want, but at the end of the
day the only 'rights' any of us have as those the other party chooses
to give us. And that requires compassion and trust, certainly not
bully boy tactics. It's part of the social etiquette of life and
pertains to adoptees as much as it does to everyone else.

The quickest way to make someone wary is to 'demand' something from
them before gaining their trust. Common logic I would have thought.

Di
I understand that this kind of problam can be the result of a sense ofdisentitlement and anxiety but there are ways of establishing trustbetween each other but it has to genuinely come from the heart ratherthan the situation. Yes.An adoptee I know on another US forum struggled for 17 year toestablish some kind of communication with her elderly mother, who wasbeing influenced and controlled by her other adult children. We talkedand she tried a different approach and now they are in a very closeand loving relationship and have been for a number of years now. Herother children no longer control her life. It took only one letter tobreak down the walls she'd built up. If you see a person in their map of the world.. Like that movie Deep End of the Ocean.. She saw the boy as he really was.. Not who she wanted him to be. Jackie

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote I do have to add something, Di. I don't agree with a lot of what you post here, but to be honest, I like reading your posts on Origins a lot more. I haven't lurked there for a long time, but there, where you are moderator, as an adoptee, I've really appreciated a lot of what you've had to say. I dunno, you seem to be a lot warmer, or more human there. Just the nature of alt, I guess. <snip>> I still can't explain the need, but I appreciate the validation I felt when you wrote about it. I've never seen anything in other adoption literature about it, but you hit it right on the nose. Thanks.

I am so glad you posted this.

Rupa

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311032324.2f688f53@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<48udqv86835ksutbvdsggia1rpt1a4lkq2@4ax.com>... On 2 Nov 2003 15:15:11 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:> >What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude?>> That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked at her> situation with respect. She could be telling you the truth..> She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed her into> telling you his name.>>> JackieShe could also be saying "Do I still not matter?" Yes.If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before Ihad even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matterof trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are importantas a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To askfor the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate toher that she is being used as a data bamk for information only andstill doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. I was hoping you would wade into this. And this was a point I have been trying to make. Oh Jackie, I can't be bothered. So far all I see is the animosity. While this discussion is about one persons 'rights' instead of their 'needs' it's a waste of time. Whether its politically correct or not, AFAIC, open records is about reunion and reunions are about re-establishing relationships, not just obtaining information by demanding ones 'rights" by trampling over another persons 'right' not to disclose it. We can all stomp all we want, but at the end of the day the only 'rights' any of us have as those the other party chooses to give us. And that requires compassion and trust, certainly not bully boy tactics. It's part of the social etiquette of life and pertains to adoptees as much as it does to everyone else. The quickest way to make someone wary is to 'demand' something from them before gaining their trust. Common logic I would have thought. Di


Di,

I am an adoptee and natural mother to one, so my view is from both
perspectives. I waited 8 months for my birthmother to agree to
contact, then I waited three long years after our reunion to give her
time to sort through all her emotions and difficulties. Those three
years of waiting and understanding robbed me of the only three years I
might have otherwise had with my birthfather. By the time I found out
who and where he was, he had died. Time wasted on secrets is a theft
of sorts and in my mind that is far more injurious than the
alternative.

After three years of trying to form a relationship with a closed
person who saw only herself, I just decided it wasn't a relationship
worth investing in at such a huge disregard to myself. I changed
lanes, so to speak, and respecting myself rather than someone else
who's methods and ways were no longer worthy of such an investment,
earned me the respect in that relationship that I desired.

To say that there is a rule to follow in these situations is lunacy,
it is a very personalized undertaking and one that requires our own
unique intuition to work through. What worked for me may not work for
someone else but the great thing about these boards is gaining
different perspectives, other ways and views that we might otherwise
have not considered.

Adoptees are not the second rate citizens that society would like to
maintain them as. To effect change their voices have to be heard. It
begins in places like these where others in the adoption arena are.
Where their thoughts, needs and feelings can be communicated,
singularly and as a group.


SoulWhisper

I understand that this kind of problam can be the result of a sense ofdisentitlement and anxiety but there are ways of establishing trustbetween each other but it has to genuinely come from the heart ratherthan the situation. Yes.An adoptee I know on another US forum struggled for 17 year toestablish some kind of communication with her elderly mother, who wasbeing influenced and controlled by her other adult children. We talkedand she tried a different approach and now they are in a very closeand loving relationship and have been for a number of years now. Herother children no longer control her life. It took only one letter tobreak down the walls she'd built up. If you see a person in their map of the world.. Like that movie Deep End of the Ocean.. She saw the boy as he really was.. Not who she wanted him to be. Jackie

In article <4b23522a.0311040457.6e61a647@posting.google.com>, Debbie says...
snipThat does make sense. I never thought about it that way. I was happythat my bmom wanted to meet me and knew how lucky I was to have"found" when so many other people were still looking, but at the sametime I was really angry that I had not been "found". I felt terriblefor feeling that way, but I did.

I can relate to that. When I first contacted the adoption agency to see if
there was a letter from her in my file with possible contact information, I was
initially quite upset when I was told there wasn't. My first thought was "How
could you not want to know me?" This is also the main reason why I originally
never wanted to search for my bparents. I thought that lack of a letter made it
abundantly clear that they didn't want to be found.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)Date: 11/4/03 4:41 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c403a139.0311040441.4034a31e@posting.google.com>patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<c599139c.0311032324.2f688f53@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<48udqv86835ksutbvdsggia1rpt1a4lkq2@4ax.com>... On 2 Nov 2003 15:15:11 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: >> >What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude? >> >> That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked at her >> situation with respect. She could be telling you the truth.. >> She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed her into >> telling you his name. >> >> >> Jackie > >She could also be saying "Do I still not matter?" Yes. >If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before I >had even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matter >of trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are important >as a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To ask >for the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate to >her that she is being used as a data bamk for information only and >still doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. I was hoping you would wade into this. And this was a point I have been trying to make. Oh Jackie, I can't be bothered. So far all I see is the animosity. While this discussion is about one persons 'rights' instead of their 'needs' it's a waste of time. Whether its politically correct or not, AFAIC, open records is about reunion and reunions are about re-establishing relationships, not just obtaining information by demanding ones 'rights" by trampling over another persons 'right' not to disclose it. We can all stomp all we want, but at the end of the day the only 'rights' any of us have as those the other party chooses to give us. And that requires compassion and trust, certainly not bully boy tactics. It's part of the social etiquette of life and pertains to adoptees as much as it does to everyone else. The quickest way to make someone wary is to 'demand' something from them before gaining their trust. Common logic I would have thought. DiDi,I am an adoptee and natural mother to one, so my view is from bothperspectives. I waited 8 months for my birthmother to agree tocontact, then I waited three long years after our reunion to give hertime to sort through all her emotions and difficulties. Those threeyears of waiting and understanding robbed me of the only three years Imight have otherwise had with my birthfather. By the time I found outwho and where he was, he had died. Time wasted on secrets is a theftof sorts and in my mind that is far more injurious than thealternative.After three years of trying to form a relationship with a closedperson who saw only herself, I just decided it wasn't a relationshipworth investing in at such a huge disregard to myself. I changedlanes, so to speak, and respecting myself rather than someone elsewho's methods and ways were no longer worthy of such an investment,earned me the respect in that relationship that I desired.To say that there is a rule to follow in these situations is lunacy,it is a very personalized undertaking and one that requires our ownunique intuition to work through. What worked for me may not work forsomeone else but the great thing about these boards is gainingdifferent perspectives, other ways and views that we might otherwisehave not considered.Adoptees are not the second rate citizens that society would like tomaintain them as. To effect change their voices have to be heard. Itbegins in places like these where others in the adoption arena are.Where their thoughts, needs and feelings can be communicated,singularly and as a group.SoulWhisper

I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day
one...

I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right
to do this...
Anyone?





Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...
snipI don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from dayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the rightto do this...Anyone?

Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real bdad.
That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0311032055.70bd634b@posting.google.c om... lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message
news:<20031103092800.12560.00000097@mb-m06.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by
guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/2/03 10:39 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311022139.7780275d@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20031102183310.04882.00000040@mb-m22.aol.com>...> >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written
by guess> >who...> >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)> >Date: 11/2/03 4:15 PM Mountain Standard Time> >Message-id: <c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com>> >If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before
I> >had even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a
matter> >of trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are
important> >as a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To
ask> >for the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate to> >her that she is being used as a data bamk for information only and> >still doesn't really factor into the scheme of things.> >>> And with my reunion, it was the opposite. I was afraid to ask
questions right> up front, just in case my bmom might feel like I was using her as you
wrote> above.>> When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she
said,> "What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!"
Tried to> explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her for information.> She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)That's great. It was similar in my son's situation. Because I was theone who search for my son I was already aware of the information hemight want to know and so gave him his fathers name on our firstmeeting even though he hadn't asked. It sounds strange now but I hadthis dread that something might happen and I'd never see him again soI had to make sure he knew that information. On the other hand had helooked for me a few years earlier I would not have even remembered hisfathers name. Come to think of it, it hadn't even computed that he hada father let alone what his name was.Di It's funny how you *think* you're prepared for the moment (reunion), but
when it suddenly happens, all preparations fly out the window. Aint' that the truth! I thought after five years of waiting for him to be ready I had covered all possibilities, but I never expected the impact it had on me. Before I found out bdad's name, bmom was talking a bit about him. She
said she was "intimidated" by him. I spent the next day thinking, "Oh God, what
if he was a date-rapist or something?" Lol! So I spent a couple of hours trying to compose a thoughtful
email----said that if he was a real SOB and if it was painful to bring it up, right now,
I'd completely understand. I didn't want our reunion to cause her emotional distress. That's nice, and thoughtful. She called me and said "WHAAAAT? He was the nicest and kindest man I
knew! I was intimidated by him because he was very smart and funny and I was
trying to IMPRESS him!" LOL LOL! I was waiting for that. <sigh> It's a tightrope we all walk on, in reunion, I guess. Am I
asking too much too soon? Am I not asking enough? I was busy tiptoeing around,
and she was getting impatient. ;-) Oh I know those eggshells/tightrope only too well:-) I'd been doing the same thing. I'd been trying to make sure I don't crowd my son with my needs and so took my cues from him as to how much contact I should instigate. And then we eventually discussed the issue, with me finally telling him that we will never really get to know each other if we only contact each other so many times a year. And he responded indignantly with "Well there is nothing stopping you from contacting me, either." So there was my son doing exactly what I was doing - assuming. We were taking our cues from each others actions or lack thereof, rather than communicating what we really felt we needed. So I guess the moral of this story is to assume nothing. Communication is key. Now, if we can only find the key to overcome all the fear of it.......

I hope things are going well for you both, Di.

Helen
Di

On 02 Nov 2003 23:33:10 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)
wrote:
Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/2/03 4:15 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com>If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before Ihad even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matterof trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are importantas a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To askfor the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate toher that she is being used as a data bamk for information only andstill doesn't really factor into the scheme of things.And with my reunion, it was the opposite. I was afraid to ask questions rightup front, just in case my bmom might feel like I was using her as you wroteabove.When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said,"What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Tried toexplain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her for information.She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-)

LOL! Well ain't that a blast?!? Good for both of you. I tell ya,
the gods are nothing if not perverse and none are more perverse than
the adoption gods, I swear. Must be why there's so much adoption in
mythology.

GR

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com>... She could also be saying "Do I still not matter?" If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before I had even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matter of trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are important as a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To ask for the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate to her that she is being used as a data bamk for information only and still doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. I understand that this kind of problam can be the result of a sense of disentitlement and anxiety but there are ways of establishing trust between each other but it has to genuinely come from the heart rather than the situation. An adoptee I know on another US forum struggled for 17 year to establish some kind of communication with her elderly mother, who was being influenced and controlled by her other adult children. We talked and she tried a different approach and now they are in a very close and loving relationship and have been for a number of years now. Her other children no longer control her life. It took only one letter to break down the walls she'd built up.


I completely agree.
I think that meeting 'face on face' is very important.
However, I imagine it could it become a problem when the mother
resists a physical meeting with her child for a protracted period.
In that kind of situation, I can understand why someone might feel
pressured to ask. It would be hard to resist, given that no more
intimate situation seems on the horizon.





Rh. Di

Like demanding secrecy. Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/2003The quickest way to make someone wary is to 'demand' something fromthem before gaining their trust. Common logic I would have thought.Di

My thought on some reasons is maybe due to fear or honor. Perhaps they made
promises never to talk about it or were threatened if they ever did talk about
it or they fear being exposed should it come up again or they fear the this
would begin a new link to the past or to the person (birthfather). Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by
guesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)Date: 11/4/2003
I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father fromdayone...

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... snipI don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from dayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the rightto do this...Anyone? Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real bdad. That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, Robyn. It wasn't a
requirement of adoption unless he was married to the mother or had
identified his paternity by paying maintenance for the child for a
period prior to adoption (of usually older adoptions). So, unless the
relationship was a resonably substantial one it is more than possible
that the mother has forgotten his name or never knew his surname in
the first place.

In my own case, my son's father's name was recorded on my Social and
Medical history, and then only the anglicised version, not his real
name. I didn't discover that until more recent years, and then only by
fluke. If those records had been destroyed or I had no legal access to
them, I would still not know his surname.

Di

Great post and so right. Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask
Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/3/2003
I'd been doingthe same thing. I'd been trying to make sure I don't crowd my son withmy needs and so took my cues from him as to how much contact I shouldinstigate. And then we eventually discussed the issue, with me finallytelling him that we will never really get to know each other if weonly contact each other so many times a year. And he respondedindignantly with "Well there is nothing stopping you from contactingme, either." So there was my son doing exactly what I was doing -assuming. We were taking our cues from each others actions or lackthereof, rather than communicating what we really felt we needed. So Iguess the moral of this story is to assume nothing. Communication iskey. Now, if we can only find the key to overcome all the fear ofit.......Di

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 07:47:20 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:
"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:uaibqv04mnn7k4itqkntl50r40i5p38r19@4ax .com... On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 14:19:52 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:There is no good reason (other than *truly* not knowing - in which caseyoushould explain *why* you don't know who it is) for not telling someonewhotheir bfather is. Lots and lots of people have made similar statements. Yet here we have a person, Robyn, whose nmother is not, in fact, telling Robyn who her nfather is.Right and imo there is no justifiable reason for it, be it incest, rape,secrecy, etc.

Well, honey, that's all well and good but.... SO WHAT? I mean, where
does it get you, exactly?
I dunno. I mean there's nothing wrong with the statement itself. If that's as far as you can get with it than that's as far as you can get with it, but I think it deserves better. GRSure we can talk about the whys and wherefores of it and what can and can'tbe done about it - which we have been doing. Those are useful conversationsand may shed light on the subject but at the end of the day either onebelieves there are justifiable reasons for withholding that information orthey don't. Just weighing in with my stand on it.

Uh-huh.

GR

On 3 Nov 2003 23:24:57 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
Oh Jackie, I can't be bothered. So far all I see is the animosity.While this discussion is about one persons 'rights' instead of their'needs' it's a waste of time. Whether its politically correct or not,AFAIC, open records is about reunion and reunions are aboutre-establishing relationships, not just obtaining information bydemanding ones 'rights" by trampling over another persons 'right' notto disclose it.

Re-establinshing relationships.. How do we tell folks that some women
just plain can not handle this?
We can all stomp all we want, but at the end of theday the only 'rights' any of us have as those the other party choosesto give us.

And if someone is ganged up on that someone may go looking for someone
else to gang up on them.. Maybe give them a contact veto..
Its ridiculous..
And that requires compassion and trust, certainly notbully boy tactics. It's part of the social etiquette of life andpertains to adoptees as much as it does to everyone else.The quickest way to make someone wary is to 'demand' something fromthem before gaining their trust. Common logic I would have thought.

Yes..

Jackie

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<HZVpb.4279$bD.16617@news.indigo.ie>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311032055.70bd634b@posting.google.c om... lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031103092800.12560.00000097@mb-m06.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess >who... >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 11/2/03 10:39 PM Mountain Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0311022139.7780275d@posting.google.com> > >lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message >news:<20031102183310.04882.00000040@mb-m22.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess >> >who... >> >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >> >Date: 11/2/03 4:15 PM Mountain Standard Time >> >Message-id: <c599139c.0311021515.7b300fcf@posting.google.com> >> >If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before I >> >had even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matter >> >of trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are important >> >as a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To ask >> >for the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate to >> >her that she is being used as a data bamk for information only and >> >still doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. >> > >> >> And with my reunion, it was the opposite. I was afraid to ask questions right >> up front, just in case my bmom might feel like I was using her as you wrote >> above. >> >> When I finally found out the name of my bdad, I thanked her, and she said, >> "What the heck were you waiting for? I thought you KNEW his name!" Tried to >> explain that I didn't want her to feel like I was using her for information. >> She said, "Ask away! I have no secrets!". ;-) > >That's great. It was similar in my son's situation. Because I was the >one who search for my son I was already aware of the information he >might want to know and so gave him his fathers name on our first >meeting even though he hadn't asked. It sounds strange now but I had >this dread that something might happen and I'd never see him again so >I had to make sure he knew that information. On the other hand had he >looked for me a few years earlier I would not have even remembered his >fathers name. Come to think of it, it hadn't even computed that he had >a father let alone what his name was. > >Di It's funny how you *think* you're prepared for the moment (reunion), but when it suddenly happens, all preparations fly out the window. Aint' that the truth! I thought after five years of waiting for him to be ready I had covered all possibilities, but I never expected the impact it had on me. Before I found out bdad's name, bmom was talking a bit about him. She said she was "intimidated" by him. I spent the next day thinking, "Oh God, what if he was a date-rapist or something?" Lol! So I spent a couple of hours trying to compose a thoughtful email----said that if he was a real SOB and if it was painful to bring it up, right now, I'd completely understand. I didn't want our reunion to cause her emotional distress. That's nice, and thoughtful. She called me and said "WHAAAAT? He was the nicest and kindest man I knew! I was intimidated by him because he was very smart and funny and I was trying to IMPRESS him!" LOL LOL! I was waiting for that. <sigh> It's a tightrope we all walk on, in reunion, I guess. Am I asking too much too soon? Am I not asking enough? I was busy tiptoeing around, and she was getting impatient. ;-) Oh I know those eggshells/tightrope only too well:-) I'd been doing the same thing. I'd been trying to make sure I don't crowd my son with my needs and so took my cues from him as to how much contact I should instigate. And then we eventually discussed the issue, with me finally telling him that we will never really get to know each other if we only contact each other so many times a year. And he responded indignantly with "Well there is nothing stopping you from contacting me, either." So there was my son doing exactly what I was doing - assuming. We were taking our cues from each others actions or lack thereof, rather than communicating what we really felt we needed. So I guess the moral of this story is to assume nothing. Communication is key. Now, if we can only find the key to overcome all the fear of it....... I hope things are going well for you both, Di. Helen Di

Thanks, Helen. Thankfully it is. Touch wood.

Di

Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess
who...

Group: alt.adoption Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2003, 9:35pm (MST+2) From:
jdajda@newsguy.com (Jackie)
On 3 Nov 2003 23:24:57 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:


Oh Jackie, I can't be bothered. So far all I see is the animosity. While
this discussion is about one persons 'rights' instead of their 'needs'
it's a waste of time. Whether its politically correct or not, AFAIC,
open records is about reunion and reunions are about re-establishing
relationships, not just obtaining information by demanding ones 'rights"
by trampling over another persons 'right' not to disclose it.
Re-establinshing relationships.. How do we tell folks that some women
just plain can not handle this?

We can all stomp all we want, but at the end of the day the only
'rights' any of us have as those the other party chooses to give us.

And if someone is ganged up on that someone may go looking for someone
else to gang up on them.. Maybe give them a contact veto.. Its
ridiculous..
And that requires compassion and trust, certainly not bully boy tactics.
It's part of the social etiquette of life and pertains to adoptees as
much as it does to everyone else.
The quickest way to make someone wary is to 'demand' something from them
before gaining their trust. Common logic I would have thought.
Yes..
Jackie

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

I have no animosity towards my birthmother. I am not searching first for
a relationship. I am first searching for answers that I have every right
to have. If a relationship follows that would be a plus but I know that
has to be something we both want. A relationship is not a right. That is
a need by both parties that can't be forced by one. But answers and
information is my right to obtain. If my "needs" are answers then it is
my right to have them. My birthmother lost control of my "needs" the day
she relinquished.
Windforest

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0311042108.3adac08f@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:<HZVpb.4279$bD.16617@news.indigo.ie>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311032055.70bd634b@posting.google.c om... lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031103092800.12560.00000097@mb-m06.aol.com>...
<snip for brevity only>
I hope things are going well for you both, Di. Helen Di Thanks, Helen. Thankfully it is. Touch wood.

I'm glad!

Helen Di

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<c8ogqvs8dfrrr6jid3hp9h632qga7ip7qq@4ax.com>... On 3 Nov 2003 23:24:57 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:Oh Jackie, I can't be bothered. So far all I see is the animosity.While this discussion is about one persons 'rights' instead of their'needs' it's a waste of time. Whether its politically correct or not,AFAIC, open records is about reunion and reunions are aboutre-establishing relationships, not just obtaining information bydemanding ones 'rights" by trampling over another persons 'right' notto disclose it. Re-establinshing relationships. How do we tell folks that some women just plain can not handle this?

I don't know, Jackie. I tend to think its more about being unable to
face the memories or to see what you've lost and can never get back.
We can all stomp all we want, but at the end of theday the only 'rights' any of us have as those the other party choosesto give us. And if someone is ganged up on that someone may go looking for someone else to gang up on them.. Maybe give them a contact veto.. Its ridiculous..
No-one can understand the terror of being exposed before they've been
able to start dealing with it all, Jackie. No-one can understand the
threat of social disgrace that was firmly ingrained in the mothers
psyche and which caused her to have to surrender her child - for the
child's sake. And then that child comes back into her life unwittingly
threatening to expose her disgrace to the very people she was told to
hide her shame from, and was told would not marry her if they knew of
her wicked past. In the end she wonders what the point was of living a
lifetime of secrecy and hurt and loss and sacrifice. And that's
what some mothers cannot face, because it means the adoption and all
of its consequences was all for nothing. All just a wicked waste.
And that requires compassion and trust, certainly notbully boy tactics. It's part of the social etiquette of life andpertains to adoptees as much as it does to everyone else.The quickest way to make someone wary is to 'demand' something fromthem before gaining their trust. Common logic I would have thought. Yes.. Jackie

In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... snipI don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from dayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the rightto do this...Anyone? Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real bdad. That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad.Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, Robyn. It wasn't arequirement of adoption unless he was married to the mother or hadidentified his paternity by paying maintenance for the child for aperiod prior to adoption (of usually older adoptions). So, unless therelationship was a resonably substantial one it is more than possiblethat the mother has forgotten his name or never knew his surname inthe first place.

Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eye
color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents did for
a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally not inclined
to believe this was all "made up".


Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...snipI don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father fromdayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have therightto do this...Anyone?Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad.That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad.Robyn

Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks)

Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purpose would it
serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?

And I have no respect for any birth mother that gave inaccurate information to
save herself. What a selfish *****...There are just no excuses for that.



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... snipI don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfrom dayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have therightto do this...Anyone? Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad. That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, Robyn
Di

Bullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were not
required to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father and it
was recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named on the
OBC which was sealed.

(snip)




Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/5/03 7:19 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... snip > >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfrom day >one... > >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have theright >to do this... >Anyone? Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad. That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad.Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, Robyn. It wasn't arequirement of adoption unless he was married to the mother or hadidentified his paternity by paying maintenance for the child for aperiod prior to adoption (of usually older adoptions). So, unless therelationship was a resonably substantial one it is more than possiblethat the mother has forgotten his name or never knew his surname inthe first place.Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eyecolor, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents didfora living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally notinclinedto believe this was all "made up".Robyn

Di is speaking for all first parents experiences again...Not to worry,
Robyn,...it isn't *all made up*.



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)Date: 11/5/03 11:25 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031105132530.07452.00000170@mb-m18.aol.com>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... snip > >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfrom day >one... > >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have theright >to do this... >Anyone? Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad. That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, RobynDiBullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were notrequired to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father anditwas recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named ontheOBC which was sealed.(snip)

My bfather isn't on my OBC, but he did give his name and provide the agency
with personal and family history.

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat)Date: 11/4/03 3:37 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031104183715.28634.00000218@mb-m24.aol.com>My thought on some reasons is maybe due to fear or honor. Perhaps they madepromises never to talk about it or were threatened if they ever did talkaboutit or they fear being exposed should it come up again or they fear the thiswould begin a new link to the past or to the person (birthfather). Kathy J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will never understand how a bmom could lie to her bchild and do it to protect
the bfather's *honor*. And what would she, as a grown woman,... have to fear
from him? I don't get it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)Date: 11/4/2003
I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father fromdayone...



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)Date: 11/5/03 10:27 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031105132749.18732.00000280@mb-m03.aol.com>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)Date: 11/5/03 11:25 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031105132530.07452.00000170@mb-m18.aol.com>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...> snip> >> >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfrom day> >one...> >> >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have theright> >to do this...> >Anyone?>> Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad.> That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad.>> Robyn> Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster> #1557Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, RobynDiBullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were notrequired to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father anditwas recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named ontheOBC which was sealed.(snip)My bfather isn't on my OBC, but he did give his name and provide the agencywith personal and family history.

How dare him. ;-)



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031105132749.18732.00000280@mb-m03.aol.com...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by
guesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)Date: 11/5/03 11:25 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031105132530.07452.00000170@mb-m18.aol.com>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy
says...> snip> >> >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth
fatherfrom day> >one...> >> >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have
theright> >to do this...> >Anyone?>> Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the
realbdad.> That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad.>> Robyn> Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster> #1557Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, RobynDiBullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were notrequired to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father
anditwas recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named
ontheOBC which was sealed.(snip) My bfather isn't on my OBC, but he did give his name and provide the
agency with personal and family history.

No name on mine. Of course, nobody bothered to tell him about me until I
did in 2000, a bit after the fact. The agency may have had Jack's name, but
I don't know since all the records were destroyed in 1970. Crittenden did
tell me that he was a man, white, Protestant, working class, high school
drop-out.

OK, he's man and white, BUT he's never attended church and was never
baptized so I don't know how he's a Protestant or anything else. He belives
that we live our current life in Hell. He's a grade school, not a high
school drop-out. His father forced him to quit school at age 13 to work,
and he got a job emptying slots.

Marley

"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20031105133145.07452.00000172@mb-m18.aol.com...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by
guesswho...From: tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat)Date: 11/4/03 3:37 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031104183715.28634.00000218@mb-m24.aol.com>My thought on some reasons is maybe due to fear or honor. Perhaps they
madepromises never to talk about it or were threatened if they ever did talkaboutit or they fear being exposed should it come up again or they fear the
thiswould begin a new link to the past or to the person (birthfather). Kathy
J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I will never understand how a bmom could lie to her bchild and do it to
protect the bfather's *honor*. And what would she, as a grown woman,... have to
fear from him? I don't get it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written
byguesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)Date: 11/4/2003I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father
fromdayone... Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In many cases nmoms were not permitted to list the father's name on the obc.
I know of other cases where they were listed, but social workers expunged
the name before the information was sent to the state and county.

Marley

In article <20031105132715.07452.00000171@mb-m18.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/5/03 7:19 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...> snip> >> >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfrom day> >one...> >> >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have theright> >to do this...> >Anyone?>> Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad.> That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad.Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, Robyn. It wasn't arequirement of adoption unless he was married to the mother or hadidentified his paternity by paying maintenance for the child for aperiod prior to adoption (of usually older adoptions). So, unless therelationship was a resonably substantial one it is more than possiblethat the mother has forgotten his name or never knew his surname inthe first place.Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eyecolor, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents didfora living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally notinclinedto believe this was all "made up".RobynDi is speaking for all first parents experiences again...Not to worry,Robyn,...it isn't *all made up*.

Thanks, I personally don't believe it is ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...snipI don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father fromdayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have therightto do this...Anyone?Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad.That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad.RobynMaybe Jackie knows ...(winks)Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purpose would itserve to conceal this information from the adoptee?

Well, "for the greater good of all.........." ;)
And I have no respect for any birth mother that gave inaccurate information tosave herself. What a selfish *****...There are just no excuses for that.

Eeek! You said something against bmoms. Now Jackie's going to get medieval on
your ***! ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Soulwhisper writes:
I am an adoptee and natural mother to one, so my view is from bothperspectives. >>

<snip>

We seem to have quite a few adoptees who also placed children for adoption here
on alt. a. Show of hands?


P2P

Kathy states:
I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father fromdayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the rightto do this...Anyone? >>

Secrets, Kathy, secrets. Think about it. I know a woman who placed a child for
adoption at birth because the father of the child was her sister's fiance. She
felt she could never divulge this information and didn't! Her family still
doesn't know and the placement of the child was 35 years ago!

In cases of incest, extra marital affairs, men in high profile positions (a
priest comes to mind), etc., you might find a pregnant woman unwilling to state
the name of the father. I have also read very young girls who are pregnant who
won't divulge the name of the sperm source have usually been raped within the
family and threatened about telling. I can think of many cases in which
secrecy would prevail, unfortunately.


P2P

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>... I have no respect for any birth mother that gave inaccurate information to save herself. What a selfish *****...There are just no excuses for that.


I think you need to stretch your imagination a bit.
There may not be excuses (certainly not *good* ones, anyway) but there
could be pressing reasons.



Rh. Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031105132530.07452.00000170@mb-m18.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... snip > >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day >one... > >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right >to do this... >Anyone? Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real bdad. That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, RobynDi Bullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were not required to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father and it was recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named on the OBC which was sealed. (snip) Oh bull**** Kathy. "Non-identifying" information mean no names are recorded on that infomration. Hense the name. And whether the mother gave the fathers
name or not is incedental because it was not a requirement unless they
were married. All they wanted was his particulars for matching
purposes. Relatively few places kept all the records bar the
officially signed documents. And providing the fathers name only
became a requirement in more recent years when the laws in some US
states began requiring his consent to the adoption. And even then if
he couldn't be found it was his bad luck once the adoption went
though. And plenty of women gave false names for various reasons and
it certainly didn't prevent the adoption from going through.

Oh, and look up the word "usually" and compare it to "never." Duh!

Di
Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:Chhqb.4536$bD.16632@news.indigo.ie... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:JIbqb.28194$Ec1.2598590@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message news:20031105133145.07452.00000172@mb-m18.aol.com... >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written
by guess >who... >From: tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) >Date: 11/4/03 3:37 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <20031104183715.28634.00000218@mb-m24.aol.com> > >My thought on some reasons is maybe due to fear or honor. Perhaps
they made >promises never to talk about it or were threatened if they ever did talk >about >it or they fear being exposed should it come up again or they fear
the this >would begin a new link to the past or to the person (birthfather). Kathy J >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I will never understand how a bmom could lie to her bchild and do it
to protect the bfather's *honor*. And what would she, as a grown woman,... have
to fear from him? I don't get it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"...
written by >guess >>who... >>From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) >>Date: 11/4/2003 > >>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth
father from >>day >>one... Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine." In many cases nmoms were not permitted to list the father's name on the obc. I know of other cases where they were listed, but social workers
expunged the name before the information was sent to the state and county. As far as I recall an unmarried mother couldn't list the bfather's name on the birth certificate *unless* he agreed to it. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I must find out. Helen Marley

I believe that's true in states now, but I'm not sure about the past. I
supsect you're right.

Marley

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:JIbqb.28194$Ec1.2598590@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message news:20031105133145.07452.00000172@mb-m18.aol.com...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat)Date: 11/4/03 3:37 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031104183715.28634.00000218@mb-m24.aol.com>My thought on some reasons is maybe due to fear or honor. Perhaps they madepromises never to talk about it or were threatened if they ever did
talkaboutit or they fear being exposed should it come up again or they fear the thiswould begin a new link to the past or to the person (birthfather).
Kathy J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I will never understand how a bmom could lie to her bchild and do it to protect the bfather's *honor*. And what would she, as a grown woman,... have to fear from him? I don't get it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguess>who...>From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)>Date: 11/4/2003>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from>day>one... Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine." In many cases nmoms were not permitted to list the father's name on the
obc. I know of other cases where they were listed, but social workers expunged the name before the information was sent to the state and county.

As far as I recall an unmarried mother couldn't list the bfather's name on
the birth certificate *unless* he agreed to it. I'm not sure if it's still
the case, but I must find out.

Helen
Marley

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/5/03 5:01 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311051701.26395496@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031105132530.07452.00000170@mb-m18.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...> snip> >> >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day> >one...> >> >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right> >to do this...> >Anyone?>> Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real bdad.> That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad.>> Robyn> Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster> #1557Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, RobynDi Bullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were not required to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father andit was recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named onthe OBC which was sealed. (snip) Oh bull**** Kathy. "Non-identifying" information mean no names are recordedon that infomration. Hense the name. And whether the mother gave the fathersname or not is incedental because it was not a requirement unless theywere married. All they wanted was his particulars for matchingpurposes. Relatively few places kept all the records bar theofficially signed documents. And providing the fathers name onlybecame a requirement in more recent years when the laws in some USstates began requiring his consent to the adoption. And even then ifhe couldn't be found it was his bad luck once the adoption wentthough. And plenty of women gave false names for various reasons andit certainly didn't prevent the adoption from going through.Oh, and look up the word "usually" and compare it to "never." Duh!Di

I never wrote that it was a requirement, Di.
I wrote that it happened more than you would like to admit...Marla's mom was
unmarried and gave the information to the social worker...as did many other
mothers that were also unmarried.

So get off of it...you make it sound like bmoms were usually trying to hide the
names of the fathers of their children. And stop with the damning of all social
workers...If they could get the fathers name, etc...they recorded it for non-id
information if they wanted to.





Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 11/5/03 4:25 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0311051625.630a5608@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>... I have no respect for any birth mother that gave inaccurate information to save herself. What a selfish *****...There are just no excuses for that.I think you need to stretch your imagination a bit.There may not be excuses (certainly not *good* ones, anyway) but therecould be pressing reasons.Rh.

I'm sorry but unless it is a good one...there is no excuse or pressing reason
other than for incest or rape.. for any mother's rights to supercede those of
her children's. It's not her father's name....It's her children's father's
name.

Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... snip > >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day >one... > >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right >to do this... >Anyone? Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real bdad. That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad.Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, Robyn. It wasn't arequirement of adoption unless he was married to the mother or hadidentified his paternity by paying maintenance for the child for aperiod prior to adoption (of usually older adoptions). So, unless therelationship was a resonably substantial one it is more than possiblethat the mother has forgotten his name or never knew his surname inthe first place. Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eye color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents did for a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally not inclined to believe this was all "made up".

Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since you
already have it. Have you found him yet?

Di Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...snipI don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from dayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the rightto do this...Anyone?Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad.That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad.Robyn Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks) Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purpose would it serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?
If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim it
is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! It
means they already have it. Besides they can always ask their
adopters given that they got that information as well.

Di



And I have no respect for any birth mother that gave inaccurate information to save herself. What a selfish *****...There are just no excuses for that.
Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/5/03 7:12 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311051912.739890cf@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...snip>>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfrom day>one...>>I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right>to do this...>Anyone?Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad.That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad.Robyn Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks) Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purpose wouldit serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim itis then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! Itmeans they already have it. Besides they can always ask theiradopters given that they got that information as well.Di

I never claimed any such thing...but continue to babble...

Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031105142302.23681.00000210@mb-m17.aol.com>... Kathy states:I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father fromdayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the rightto do this...Anyone? >> Secrets, Kathy, secrets. Think about it. I know a woman who placed a child for adoption at birth because the father of the child was her sister's fiance. She felt she could never divulge this information and didn't! Her family still doesn't know and the placement of the child was 35 years ago! In cases of incest, extra marital affairs, men in high profile positions (a priest comes to mind), etc., you might find a pregnant woman unwilling to state the name of the father. I have also read very young girls who are pregnant who won't divulge the name of the sperm source have usually been raped within the family and threatened about telling. I can think of many cases in which secrecy would prevail, unfortunately. P2P

Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the
adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all given
that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not all
still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to ever
lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.
Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago?

Di

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/5/03 7:39 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311051939.57644594@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20031105142302.23681.00000210@mb-m17.aol.com>... Kathy states:I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfromdayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have therightto do this...Anyone? >> Secrets, Kathy, secrets. Think about it. I know a woman who placed a childfor adoption at birth because the father of the child was her sister's fiance.She felt she could never divulge this information and didn't! Her family still doesn't know and the placement of the child was 35 years ago! In cases of incest, extra marital affairs, men in high profile positions (a priest comes to mind), etc., you might find a pregnant woman unwilling tostate the name of the father. I have also read very young girls who are pregnantwho won't divulge the name of the sperm source have usually been raped withinthe family and threatened about telling. I can think of many cases in which secrecy would prevail, unfortunately. P2PApropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give theadoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all giventhat information at the time of the adoption.

Where's the proof? Will you please stop making this stuff up.....geesh, Di.

If it's your opinion, say so...otherwise stop rewriting history.



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031105202835.18720.00000341@mb-m29.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/5/03 5:01 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311051701.26395496@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031105132530.07452.00000170@mb-m18.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess >who... >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com> > >Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message >news:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... >> In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... >> snip >> > >> >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day >> >one... >> > >> >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right >> >to do this... >> >Anyone? >> >> Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real bdad. >> That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad. >> >> Robyn >> Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster >> #1557 > >Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, Robyn >Di Bullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were not required to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father and it was recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named on the OBC which was sealed. (snip) Oh bull**** Kathy. "Non-identifying" information mean no names are recordedon that infomration. Hense the name. And whether the mother gave the fathersname or not is incedental because it was not a requirement unless theywere married. All they wanted was his particulars for matchingpurposes. Relatively few places kept all the records bar theofficially signed documents. And providing the fathers name onlybecame a requirement in more recent years when the laws in some USstates began requiring his consent to the adoption. And even then ifhe couldn't be found it was his bad luck once the adoption wentthough. And plenty of women gave false names for various reasons andit certainly didn't prevent the adoption from going through.Oh, and look up the word "usually" and compare it to "never." Duh!Di I never wrote that it was a requirement, Di. I wrote that it happened more than you would like to admit.

What do you mean "more than I would like to admit"? I could give a
flying fig whether the fathers names were recorded or not. What's it
to me?
I'm just telling it the way it is. Not the way I'd like it to be.

...Marla's mom was unmarried and gave the information to the social worker...as did many other mothers that were also unmarried.
So? I gave the information too. What's your point?
So get off of it...you make it sound like bmoms were usually trying to hide the names of the fathers of their children.

Oh God, Miss two short planks. When have I been known to mince words?
If I meant it I'd say it. Why don't you educate yourself on the issue
of past adoption practices and protocals for heavens sake? If you did
you'd know that regardless of whether the mother named the father or
not it was usually not recorded and certainly not on the OBC.


And stop with the damning of all social workers..

Sure. Consider it done.

If they could get the fathers name, etc...they recorded it for non-id
information if they wanted to.

...If they wanted to? Riiiiiight. Btw, non-id means no names are
allowed. You probably mean 'identifying' information, which is
something the closed era of our era never anticipated. Why would you
suppose they would have factored in identifying information on someone
who was not required to sign legal documents, let alone someone the
adoptee was never ever supposed to meet?
A bit of research wouldn't kill you you know. You might even learn
something as long as you hold the book the right side up.

Di Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/5/03 8:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says...
Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color,eye color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents didfor a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally notinclined to believe this was all "made up".Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet?

I think she means that they acknowlege having it, but won't allow her access to
the information.

In article <20031106092511.23177.00000260@mb-m20.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/5/03 8:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says... Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color,eye color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents didfor a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally notinclined to believe this was all "made up".Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet?I think she means that they acknowlege having it, but won't allow her access tothe information.

Exactly. Why would I have asked my bmom for his name (twice) if I already had
that information?

I was able to wheedle out his first name from the agency - Not too hard to do
since they'd already give me by bmom's first name.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c599139c.0311051946.4a1d8e15@posting.google.com>, Dian says...
snipBut the fathers names were all on the adoptees non ID information andOBC's. You said so yourself. So the mother has no need to tell.Adoptees just have to apply for it. Problem solved. Right?

Well, it certainly wasn't on mine - Neither my bmom's OR my bdad's names were on
it. The agency gave me my bparents' first names over the phone and my bmom's
maiden name at the time of my relinquishment was part of my original birthname
which was on my Judgment of Adoption papers (this my aparents did have).

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c599139c.0311051939.57644594@posting.google.com>, Dian says...palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031105142302.23681.00000210@mb-m17.aol.com>... Kathy states:I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father fromdayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the rightto do this...Anyone? >> Secrets, Kathy, secrets. Think about it. I know a woman who placed a child for adoption at birth because the father of the child was her sister's fiance. She felt she could never divulge this information and didn't! Her family still doesn't know and the placement of the child was 35 years ago! In cases of incest, extra marital affairs, men in high profile positions (a priest comes to mind), etc., you might find a pregnant woman unwilling to state the name of the father. I have also read very young girls who are pregnant who won't divulge the name of the sperm source have usually been raped within the family and threatened about telling. I can think of many cases in which secrecy would prevail, unfortunately. P2PApropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give theadoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all giventhat information at the time of the adoption. If they were not allstill maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to everlobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago?

C'mon, Di. You know for a fact this isn't the case in every situation. It
certainly wasn't the case in mine.

Or does it just give you satisfaction to lay blame on "adopters"?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c599139c.0311051912.739890cf@posting.google.com>, Dian says...meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...snip>>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day>one...>>I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right>to do this...>Anyone?Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad.That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad.Robyn Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks) Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purpose would it serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim itis then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! Itmeans they already have it.

Wrong - I cannot have access to my adoption files, only non-ID information which
doesn't name names (You DO know what NON-ID means, don't you?).

Besides they can always ask theiradopters given that they got that information as well.

Hate to burst your bible, but not all "adopters" get this information - Mine
didn't.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>...
snip Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eye color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents did for a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally not inclined to believe this was all "made up".Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet?

Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? If you reread what I wrote
above, you'll notice that I wrote that Spence-Chapin has a name - I do not and
neither do my aparents. None of us have access to that information.

But you already know that, don't you.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:3gtqb.26852$cJ5.4397@www.newsranger.com... In article <c599139c.0311051912.739890cf@posting.google.com>, Dian says...meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message
news:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written
by guess >who... >From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.com >Date: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com> > >In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy
says... >snip >> >>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth
father from day >>one... >> >>I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have
the right >>to do this... >>Anyone? > >Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the
real >bdad. >That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual
bdad. > >Robyn Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks) Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purpose
would it serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim itis then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! Itmeans they already have it. Wrong - I cannot have access to my adoption files, only non-ID information
which doesn't name names (You DO know what NON-ID means, don't you?). Besides they can always ask theiradopters given that they got that information as well. Hate to burst your bible, but not all "adopters" get this information -
Mine didn't.

We got non-identifying background information, typed on plain paper. It was
subsequently typed up by the agency on pretty paper in a style suitable to
be given to each of the children in their teens - which we did, of course.

We were only told the first name of one of the mothers, unfortunately.

Helen


Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:Bhtqb.26853$cJ5.4249@www.newsranger.com... In article <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... snip Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair
color, eye color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents
did for a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally not
inclined to believe this was all "made up".Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet? Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? If you reread what I
wrote above, you'll notice that I wrote that Spence-Chapin has a name - I do not
and neither do my aparents. None of us have access to that information.

Perhaps Di understood "Spence-Chapin" to be the 'significant' name in your
background?

Helen
But you already know that, don't you. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

In article <9Jtqb.4622$bD.17271@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:Bhtqb.26853$cJ5.4249@www.newsranger.co m... In article <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... snip>> Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, haircolor, eye> color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parentsdid for> a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally notinclined> to believe this was all "made up".>Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet? Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? If you reread what Iwrote above, you'll notice that I wrote that Spence-Chapin has a name - I do notand neither do my aparents. None of us have access to that information.Perhaps Di understood "Spence-Chapin" to be the 'significant' name in yourbackground?

LOL, oh dear, I think you're right ;)

I guess I should have written "Spence-Chapin Adoption Agency".

Di, if that is what you thought, I apologize.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/6/03 5:47 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311060547.33accd95@posting.google.com>
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031105202835.18720.00000341@mb-m29.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...

(snip)

Re: birth father's names

I wrote: I never wrote that it was a requirement, Di. I wrote that it happened more than you would like to admit.
What do you mean "more than I would like to admit"? I could give aflying fig whether the fathers names were recorded or not.

Well doesn't THAT just figure?

Getting back to my point...
It happened more than you would like us to believe that bfathers names were
given..You act as though you sat in on every relinquishment. Why do you
continue to generalize and fabricate, Di? Unless you have documental evidence,
why not say that it is your opinion? It's nauseating to continue to read where
you are revising history with possible mistruths. Since there are so few first
mothers on this ng....you owe it to all here to tell the truth and preface your
statements saying this it is only your opinion...
I'm just telling it the way it is. Not the way I'd like it to be.

The irony.

(snip)
Di

Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

Di blathers:
Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give theadoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all giventhat information at the time of the adoption. If they were not allstill maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to everlobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago?Di

What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple of decades
newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identities of all
parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's,
adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities were concealed.
Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identities of
their children's birthparents?

Oh, wait. I know. You want to blame adoptive parents for the inability of some
adult adoptees to obtain the names of their birthparents. Silly me!


P2P

>From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)
It happened more than you would like us to believe that bfathers names weregiven..


What I remember is... during the 60's and 70's in Illinois and Missouri (and to
date in Illinois, I think), a birthfather's name was not put on any legal
document unless said birthfather gave his consent via notarized signature... or
I'm guessing here... via signature made in front of a judge. Not sure about
before 1960, and don't know about any other state(s), but do know that Missouri
and Illinois are/were not the only 2 states with this law on the books.

I remember a few girls who were at Booth with me who talked about "friendly"
state employees who bypassed this law depending on mood/time of day. Who knows
for sure?

I just know that I was not allowed to put my daughter's father's name on her
birth certificate (but I plastered his name every other place I could!). "Oh,
that could ruin this poor guy's life, you know. <paraphrasing> His
reputation/good name could certainly suffer so why don't you just put that
thought right out of your stupid, vindictive little head right now!?"

"Vindictive" ?
For telling the truth.
Never did get that one.

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: mrosem2@aol.com (MRosem2)Date: 11/6/03 2:24 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031106172458.23287.00000332@mb-m20.aol.com>From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)It happened more than you would like us to believe that bfathers names weregiven..What I remember is... during the 60's and 70's in Illinois and Missouri (andtodate in Illinois, I think), a birthfather's name was not put on any legaldocument unless said birthfather gave his consent via notarized signature...orI'm guessing here... via signature made in front of a judge. Not sure aboutbefore 1960, and don't know about any other state(s), but do know thatMissouriand Illinois are/were not the only 2 states with this law on the books.I remember a few girls who were at Booth with me who talked about "friendly"state employees who bypassed this law depending on mood/time of day. Whoknowsfor sure?I just know that I was not allowed to put my daughter's father's name on herbirth certificate (but I plastered his name every other place I could!)."Oh,that could ruin this poor guy's life, you know. <paraphrasing> Hisreputation/good name could certainly suffer so why don't you just put thatthought right out of your stupid, vindictive little head right now!?""Vindictive" ?For telling the truth.Never did get that one.

Hiya Marla...:

Two points...
I was specifically speaking about mothers naming the bfather, his details, and
the adoption worker/social worker making note of it; see above, my statement,
names were given more than Di would like us to believe.

I understan that for unwed mothers, the father's names were not listed on legal
documents. I wasn't addressing this...

and yes, I know all about what some of us were not supposed to do...ruin dear
old dad's reputation. If my son's father had not married me...I know the
maternity home was the next step for me..

I don't know which was worse, being a kept woman in my parent's house or going
to hang out with the girls to compare bellies..

And I like you wonder just who were the vindictive ones...

Good to see you here, Marla...:)




Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)Date: 11/4/03 4:41 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c403a139.0311040441.4034a31e@posting.google.com>patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<c599139c.0311032324.2f688f53@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<48udqv86835ksutbvdsggia1rpt1a4lkq2@4ax.com>... > On 2 Nov 2003 15:15:11 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: > > >> >What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude? > >> > >> That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked at her > >> situation with respect. She could be telling you the truth.. > >> She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed her into > >> telling you his name. > >> > >> > >> Jackie > > > >She could also be saying "Do I still not matter?" > > Yes. > > >If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before I > >had even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matter > >of trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are important > >as a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To ask > >for the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate to > >her that she is being used as a data bamk for information only and > >still doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. > > I was hoping you would wade into this. > > And this was a point I have been trying to make. > Oh Jackie, I can't be bothered. So far all I see is the animosity. While this discussion is about one persons 'rights' instead of their 'needs' it's a waste of time. Whether its politically correct or not, AFAIC, open records is about reunion and reunions are about re-establishing relationships, not just obtaining information by demanding ones 'rights" by trampling over another persons 'right' not to disclose it. We can all stomp all we want, but at the end of the day the only 'rights' any of us have as those the other party chooses to give us. And that requires compassion and trust, certainly not bully boy tactics. It's part of the social etiquette of life and pertains to adoptees as much as it does to everyone else. The quickest way to make someone wary is to 'demand' something from them before gaining their trust. Common logic I would have thought. DiDi,I am an adoptee and natural mother to one, so my view is from bothperspectives. I waited 8 months for my birthmother to agree tocontact, then I waited three long years after our reunion to give hertime to sort through all her emotions and difficulties. Those threeyears of waiting and understanding robbed me of the only three years Imight have otherwise had with my birthfather. By the time I found outwho and where he was, he had died. Time wasted on secrets is a theftof sorts and in my mind that is far more injurious than thealternative.After three years of trying to form a relationship with a closedperson who saw only herself, I just decided it wasn't a relationshipworth investing in at such a huge disregard to myself. I changedlanes, so to speak, and respecting myself rather than someone elsewho's methods and ways were no longer worthy of such an investment,earned me the respect in that relationship that I desired.To say that there is a rule to follow in these situations is lunacy,it is a very personalized undertaking and one that requires our ownunique intuition to work through. What worked for me may not work forsomeone else but the great thing about these boards is gainingdifferent perspectives, other ways and views that we might otherwisehave not considered.Adoptees are not the second rate citizens that society would like tomaintain them as. To effect change their voices have to be heard. Itbegins in places like these where others in the adoption arena are.Where their thoughts, needs and feelings can be communicated,singularly and as a group.SoulWhisper I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day one... I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right to do this... Anyone? Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."


Kathy,

I don't understand it myself. Outwardly, it is as if they have some
pseudo sense of grandiosity, some over active ego that entitles them
as "mother" (Queen) to decide what we are allowed to know. As if
because they brought us into the world, it's all about them and they
are to be obeyed and bowed to. I can buy that during childhood with
the mothers who raise us but not in an adoptee/birthmother situation
where both are adults.

Lets face it, inwardly, these types of women do not live in reality
for the most part. They have problems that require addressing by
professionals. Any woman who has such phobias and fears that outweigh
her ability to help and even recognize her own offspring, has some
very sad and deep issues. Even so, I do not believe that we as
adoptees are or should be responsible for that. Or that we should be
made to suffer because of someone else's ineptitude's. We should not
be expected to deny ourselves knowing the rest of our families for
someone else who shows us nothing but indifference.

They need to step out of that 30 yr. old warm bath and into the cold
air of the here and now...

SoulWhisper

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031106092511.23177.00000260@mb-m20.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/5/03 8:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says... Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eye color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents did for a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally not inclined to believe this was all "made up".Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet? I think she means that they acknowlege having it, but won't allow her access to the information.

It's not, actually. She just said in another post that only his
Christian name and certain physical characteristics were recorded.
Fat lot of good that will do her when searchig for him.

Di

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<r_sqb.26841$cJ5.4409@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031106092511.23177.00000260@mb-m20.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/5/03 8:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says...> Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eye> color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents did for> a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally not inclined> to believe this was all "made up".>Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet?I think she means that they acknowlege having it, but won't allow her access tothe information. Exactly. Why would I have asked my bmom for his name (twice) if I already had that information? I was able to wheedle out his first name from the agency - Not too hard to do since they'd already give me by bmom's first name.

You said his information was recorded on your adoption files and
doubted what was recorded were lies. The argument was that fathers
names were not usually recorded and yet you claimed yours was. Make up
you mind. Was his full name recorded or not?

Di
Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<3gtqb.26852$cJ5.4397@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311051912.739890cf@posting.google.com>, Dian says...meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess >who... >From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.com >Date: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com> > >In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... >snip >> >>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day >>one... >> >>I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right >>to do this... >>Anyone? > >Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real >bdad. >That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad. > >Robyn Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks) Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purpose would it serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim itis then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! Itmeans they already have it. Wrong - I cannot have access to my adoption files, only non-ID information which doesn't name names (You DO know what NON-ID means, don't you?). Besides they can always ask theiradopters given that they got that information as well. Hate to burst your bible, but not all "adopters" get this information - Mine didn't.
If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it or not?

Di



Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<Bhtqb.26853$cJ5.4249@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... snip Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eye color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents did for a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally not inclined to believe this was all "made up".Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet? Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? If you reread what I wrote above, you'll notice that I wrote that Spence-Chapin has a name - I do not and neither do my aparents. None of us have access to that information. But you already know that, don't you.
You're the one who says yur fathers name is on your file, sweatpea.
Now if you cannot see your files how do you know if his (full or
real) name is on it or not? If you're going to contradict me then
make sure you have the evidence to prove me wrong.

And if your mother won't give you his name fight a bit harder to get
the records open so you CAN gain access to those files. You've never
shown any indication of being politically active. Are you? I notice
you ***** about your mother withholding, but not about the agency that
is also withholding that same information for you. Why don't you hound
them for it? Why aren't you angry wiht the agency. If your adopters
dont have access to your files then it would be a fluke that they
don't, because the majority do and did. Whether you or they want to
acknowledge that or not.

Di





Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... Di blathers:Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give theadoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all giventhat information at the time of the adoption. If they were not allstill maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to everlobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago?Di What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple of decades newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identities of all parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's, adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities were concealed. Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identities of their children's birthparents?

Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise I was referring to closed
adoption P2P. And read up on your legislations. Adopters certainly
were given the nmothers names even in the closed era. The nmother was
not given their names.
Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would ever
know who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing who
she was.

Di


Oh, wait. I know. You want to blame adoptive parents for the inability of some adult adoptees to obtain the names of their birthparents. Silly me! P2P

mrosem2@aol.com (MRosem2) wrote in message news:<20031106172458.23287.00000332@mb-m20.aol.com>...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)It happened more than you would like us to believe that bfathers names weregiven.. What I remember is... during the 60's and 70's in Illinois and Missouri (and to date in Illinois, I think), a birthfather's name was not put on any legal document unless said birthfather gave his consent via notarized signature... or I'm guessing here... via signature made in front of a judge. Not sure about before 1960, and don't know about any other state(s), but do know that Missouri and Illinois are/were not the only 2 states with this law on the books. I remember a few girls who were at Booth with me who talked about "friendly" state employees who bypassed this law depending on mood/time of day. Who knows for sure? I just know that I was not allowed to put my daughter's father's name on her birth certificate (but I plastered his name every other place I could!). "Oh, that could ruin this poor guy's life, you know. <paraphrasing> His reputation/good name could certainly suffer so why don't you just put that thought right out of your stupid, vindictive little head right now!?" "Vindictive" ? For telling the truth. Never did get that one.

Yep. The reason their names were not necessarily recorded is that they
were only deemed ot be putative fathers unless the admitted
paternity and signed stat decs to that effect. Additiioanlly if their
name was recorded on offical documentation they would have been
required to sign the consent papers....that's if they could be found.

Di

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031106173648.10798.00000185@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: mrosem2@aol.com (MRosem2)Date: 11/6/03 2:24 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031106172458.23287.00000332@mb-m20.aol.com>From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)It happened more than you would like us to believe that bfathers names weregiven..What I remember is... during the 60's and 70's in Illinois and Missouri (andtodate in Illinois, I think), a birthfather's name was not put on any legaldocument unless said birthfather gave his consent via notarized signature...orI'm guessing here... via signature made in front of a judge. Not sure aboutbefore 1960, and don't know about any other state(s), but do know thatMissouriand Illinois are/were not the only 2 states with this law on the books.I remember a few girls who were at Booth with me who talked about "friendly"state employees who bypassed this law depending on mood/time of day. Whoknowsfor sure?I just know that I was not allowed to put my daughter's father's name on herbirth certificate (but I plastered his name every other place I could!)."Oh,that could ruin this poor guy's life, you know. <paraphrasing> Hisreputation/good name could certainly suffer so why don't you just put thatthought right out of your stupid, vindictive little head right now!?""Vindictive" ?For telling the truth.Never did get that one. Hiya Marla...: Two points... I was specifically speaking about mothers naming the bfather, his details, and the adoption worker/social worker making note of it; see above, my statement, names were given more than Di would like us to believe.

Let me make this easier for you Kathy. Names were given but not necessarily
recorded. Do you understand it now?
I understan that for unwed mothers, the father's names were not listed on legal documents. I wasn't addressing this... and yes, I know all about what some of us were not supposed to do...ruin dear old dad's reputation. If my son's father had not married me...I know the maternity home was the next step for me.. I don't know which was worse, being a kept woman in my parent's house or going to hang out with the girls to compare bellies.. And I like you wonder just who were the vindictive ones... Good to see you here, Marla...:) Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would everknow who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing whoshe was.Di


I have no personal experience with adoptions prior to the current open period,
but based on all I've read and been told, the identities of all parties were
routinely concealed. If you are correct (doubt it) and adoptive parents prior
to the 1980's in the US typically were given the names of the birthmothers of
children they adopted, I'll eat my hat.


P2P

On 6 Nov 2003 19:32:24 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au
(Dian) wrote:
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<r_sqb.26841$cJ5.4409@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031106092511.23177.00000260@mb-m20.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...
Exactly. Why would I have asked my bmom for his name (twice) if I already had that information? I was able to wheedle out his first name from the agency - Not too hard to do since they'd already give me by bmom's first name.You said his information was recorded on your adoption files anddoubted what was recorded were lies. The argument was that fathersnames were not usually recorded and yet you claimed yours was. Make upyou mind. Was his full name recorded or not?Di

Di, listen carefully. I'll type slowly.

This is the US--adoption records are sealed in almost ever
state.

The birthfather's name is often contained in the adoption
file if the bmother provides that information; that adoption
file is sealed and off-limits to the adoptee.

The birthfather's name is almost never contained on the
original birth certificate; the original b/c is also sealed
and off-limits to the adoptee.

Most agencies will provide an adoptee with non-identifying
information from the sealed records. That information might
include rudimentary information on the birthfather, such as
whatever medical history was provided. It may even include
the bfather's *first* name if they're feeling generous.
Non-identifying information, by definition, does not involve
revealing a bparent's full name.

Ok? Do you understand now? I can try to reword this if
it's still too complicated for you.

Nancy

PS--I'm pretty sure you, of all people, know exactly how it
is. When are you going to get to the punch line?

BTW, I enjoyed seeing a glimpse of the kinder, gentler Di
the other day.




Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

On 6 Nov 2003 19:50:33 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au
(Dian) wrote:
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<Bhtqb.26853$cJ5.4249@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... snip>> Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eye> color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents did for> a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally not inclined> to believe this was all "made up".>Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet? Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? If you reread what I wrote above, you'll notice that I wrote that Spence-Chapin has a name - I do not and neither do my aparents. None of us have access to that information. But you already know that, don't you.You're the one who says yur fathers name is on your file, sweatpea.Now if you cannot see your files how do you know if his (full orreal) name is on it or not? If you're going to contradict me thenmake sure you have the evidence to prove me wrong.And if your mother won't give you his name fight a bit harder to getthe records open so you CAN gain access to those files. You've nevershown any indication of being politically active. Are you? I noticeyou ***** about your mother withholding, but not about the agency thatis also withholding that same information for you. Why don't you houndthem for it? Why aren't you angry wiht the agency. If your adoptersdont have access to your files then it would be a fluke that theydon't, because the majority do and did. Whether you or they want toacknowledge that or not.Di

Oops! I should have kept reading. Here's the punchline.

Nancy

On 6 Nov 2003 20:01:00 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au
(Dian) wrote:
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... Di blathers:Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give theadoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all giventhat information at the time of the adoption. If they were not allstill maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to everlobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago?Di What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple of decades newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identities of all parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's, adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities were concealed. Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identities of their children's birthparents?Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise I was referring to closedadoption P2P. And read up on your legislations. Adopters certainlywere given the nmothers names even in the closed era. The nmother wasnot given their names.Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would everknow who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing whoshe was.Di

That's not necessarily true everywhere in the US, Di. In
fact, it's seldom true. In my case, the aparents were given
the birthmother's name but the birthmother was not given the
aparents' name. However, if she knew where to look or who
to ask, she could have found it in about an hour.

BUT, and it's a big but, that was only applicable to one
particular jurisdiction in my state, and it eventually
changed. It was originally done to prevent legal
impediments to the adoption becoming final--i.e., the
birthfather's objection (or whatever). Later, that became a
lesser concern and the process was changed. Birthmothers
names were eliminated from the petitions to adopt, and her
name and the child's name were removed from the legal
notices as well. As time went by, it became extremely rare
for anyone to know anyone's name.

Nancy

Oh, wait. I know. You want to blame adoptive parents for the inability of some adult adoptees to obtain the names of their birthparents. Silly me! P2P

>And if your mother won't give you his name fight a bit harder to getthe records open so you CAN gain access to those files.

I have my entire court file and, unfortunately, not a mention of hte b'father.
B'mother will not tell me his identity - it's been nothing but an uphill
searching experience.

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/6/03 8:01 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... Di blathers:Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give theadoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all giventhat information at the time of the adoption. If they were not allstill maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to everlobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago?Di What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple of decades newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identities ofall parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's, adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities were concealed. Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identities of their children's birthparents?Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise I was referring to closedadoption P2P. And read up on your legislations. Adopters certainlywere given the nmothers names even in the closed era. The nmother wasnot given their names.Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would everknow who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing whoshe was.Di

You are delusional....I don't know many American adoptees where their aparents'
were in possession of their birth families names.

Do you make it up as you write? LOLOLOL



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)Date: 11/6/03 5:17 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c403a139.0311061717.7e3f6068@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)Date: 11/4/03 4:41 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c403a139.0311040441.4034a31e@posting.google.com>patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<c599139c.0311032324.2f688f53@posting.google.com>...> Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<48udqv86835ksutbvdsggia1rpt1a4lkq2@4ax.com>...> > On 2 Nov 2003 15:15:11 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:> >> > >> >What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed myattitude?> > >>> > >> That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked ather> > >> situation with respect. She could be telling you the truth..> > >> She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed herinto> > >> telling you his name.> > >>> > >>> > >> Jackie> > >> > >She could also be saying "Do I still not matter?"> >> > Yes.> >> > >If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others beforeI> > >had even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matter> > >of trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are important> > >as a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. Toask> > >for the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate to> > >her that she is being used as a data bamk for information only and> > >still doesn't really factor into the scheme of things.> >> > I was hoping you would wade into this.> >> > And this was a point I have been trying to make.> >> Oh Jackie, I can't be bothered. So far all I see is the animosity.> While this discussion is about one persons 'rights' instead of their> 'needs' it's a waste of time. Whether its politically correct or not,> AFAIC, open records is about reunion and reunions are about> re-establishing relationships, not just obtaining information by> demanding ones 'rights" by trampling over another persons 'right' not> to disclose it. We can all stomp all we want, but at the end of the> day the only 'rights' any of us have as those the other party chooses> to give us. And that requires compassion and trust, certainly not> bully boy tactics. It's part of the social etiquette of life and> pertains to adoptees as much as it does to everyone else.>> The quickest way to make someone wary is to 'demand' something from> them before gaining their trust. Common logic I would have thought.>> DiDi,I am an adoptee and natural mother to one, so my view is from bothperspectives. I waited 8 months for my birthmother to agree tocontact, then I waited three long years after our reunion to give hertime to sort through all her emotions and difficulties. Those threeyears of waiting and understanding robbed me of the only three years Imight have otherwise had with my birthfather. By the time I found outwho and where he was, he had died. Time wasted on secrets is a theftof sorts and in my mind that is far more injurious than thealternative.After three years of trying to form a relationship with a closedperson who saw only herself, I just decided it wasn't a relationshipworth investing in at such a huge disregard to myself. I changedlanes, so to speak, and respecting myself rather than someone elsewho's methods and ways were no longer worthy of such an investment,earned me the respect in that relationship that I desired.To say that there is a rule to follow in these situations is lunacy,it is a very personalized undertaking and one that requires our ownunique intuition to work through. What worked for me may not work forsomeone else but the great thing about these boards is gainingdifferent perspectives, other ways and views that we might otherwisehave not considered.Adoptees are not the second rate citizens that society would like tomaintain them as. To effect change their voices have to be heard. Itbegins in places like these where others in the adoption arena are.Where their thoughts, needs and feelings can be communicated,singularly and as a group.SoulWhisper I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father fromday one... I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have theright to do this... Anyone? Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."Kathy,I don't understand it myself. Outwardly, it is as if they have somepseudo sense of grandiosity, some over active ego that entitles themas "mother" (Queen) to decide what we are allowed to know. As ifbecause they brought us into the world, it's all about them and theyare to be obeyed and bowed to. I can buy that during childhood withthe mothers who raise us but not in an adoptee/birthmother situationwhere both are adults.Lets face it, inwardly, these types of women do not live in realityfor the most part. They have problems that require addressing byprofessionals. Any woman who has such phobias and fears that outweighher ability to help and even recognize her own offspring, has somevery sad and deep issues. Even so, I do not believe that we asadoptees are or should be responsible for that. Or that we should bemade to suffer because of someone else's ineptitude's. We should notbe expected to deny ourselves knowing the rest of our families forsomeone else who shows us nothing but indifference.They need to step out of that 30 yr. old warm bath and into the coldair of the here and now...SoulWhisper

Exactly! Thank you for reading my pov, and taking it in the spirit it was
intended...

:)

Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: nancy me@privacy.netDate: 11/6/03 8:30 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9u7mqv8kgq20jnrkfls0fcaapo2ikmv38d@4ax.com>On 6 Nov 2003 19:50:33 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au(Dian) wrote:Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<Bhtqb.26853$cJ5.4249@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>, Dian says... > >Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... snip >> >> Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, haircolor, eye >> color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parentsdid for >> a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally notinclined >> to believe this was all "made up". >> > >Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since you >already have it. Have you found him yet? Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? If you reread what Iwrote above, you'll notice that I wrote that Spence-Chapin has a name - I do notand neither do my aparents. None of us have access to that information. But you already know that, don't you.You're the one who says yur fathers name is on your file, sweatpea.Now if you cannot see your files how do you know if his (full orreal) name is on it or not? If you're going to contradict me thenmake sure you have the evidence to prove me wrong.And if your mother won't give you his name fight a bit harder to getthe records open so you CAN gain access to those files. You've nevershown any indication of being politically active. Are you? I noticeyou ***** about your mother withholding, but not about the agency thatis also withholding that same information for you. Why don't you houndthem for it? Why aren't you angry wiht the agency. If your adoptersdont have access to your files then it would be a fluke that theydon't, because the majority do and did. Whether you or they want toacknowledge that or not.DiOops! I should have kept reading. Here's the punchline.Nancy

LOL. Now that was funny! :)



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/6/03 8:11 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311062011.952460e@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031106173648.10798.00000185@mb-m23.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: mrosem2@aol.com (MRosem2)Date: 11/6/03 2:24 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031106172458.23287.00000332@mb-m20.aol.com>>From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)>It happened more than you would like us to believe that bfathers nameswere>given..What I remember is... during the 60's and 70's in Illinois and Missouri(andtodate in Illinois, I think), a birthfather's name was not put on any legaldocument unless said birthfather gave his consent via notarizedsignature...orI'm guessing here... via signature made in front of a judge. Not sureaboutbefore 1960, and don't know about any other state(s), but do know thatMissouriand Illinois are/were not the only 2 states with this law on the books.I remember a few girls who were at Booth with me who talked about"friendly"state employees who bypassed this law depending on mood/time of day. Whoknowsfor sure?I just know that I was not allowed to put my daughter's father's name onherbirth certificate (but I plastered his name every other place I could!)."Oh,that could ruin this poor guy's life, you know. <paraphrasing> Hisreputation/good name could certainly suffer so why don't you just put thatthought right out of your stupid, vindictive little head right now!?""Vindictive" ?For telling the truth.Never did get that one. Hiya Marla...: Two points... I was specifically speaking about mothers naming the bfather, his details,and the adoption worker/social worker making note of it; see above, mystatement, names were given more than Di would like us to believe.Let me make this easier for you Kathy. Names were given but not necessarilyrecorded. Do you understand it now?

Another attempt at sarcasm?



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/6/03 7:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311061940.230d640a@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<3gtqb.26852$cJ5.4397@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311051912.739890cf@posting.google.com>, Dian says...meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>...> >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguess> >who...> >From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.com> >Date: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time> >Message-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>> >> >In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathysays...> >snip> >>> >>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfrom day> >>one...> >>> >>I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they havethe right> >>to do this...> >>Anyone?> >> >Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't thereal> >bdad.> >That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad.> >> >Robyn>> Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks)>> Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purposewould it> serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?>If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim itis then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! Itmeans they already have it. Wrong - I cannot have access to my adoption files, only non-ID informationwhich doesn't name names (You DO know what NON-ID means, don't you?). Besides they can always ask theiradopters given that they got that information as well. Hate to burst your bible, but not all "adopters" get this information -Mine didn't.If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it ornot?Di

You really are nuts, Di.

Anything it takes to make your hate of adopters known to all. @@



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0311061928.fc11dea@posting.google.co m... lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message
news:<20031106092511.23177.00000260@mb-m20.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by
guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/5/03 8:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian
says...> Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair
color, eye> color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his
parents did for> a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally
not inclined> to believe this was all "made up".>Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet? I think she means that they acknowlege having it, but won't allow her
access to the information. It's not, actually. She just said in another post that only his Christian name and certain physical characteristics were recorded. Fat lot of good that will do her when searchig for him. Di

When I was tryiing to ID Jack many yeas ago, there was the big discussion
about recessive genes on list I was on, which made me think--wrongly as it
turns out--that he had brown eyes. So, some bright bulb suggested that I
just separate all the blue eyed men from the brown eyed men who lived in
Akron, Ohio between cerain dates, and I could find him. I'm serious.

Marley

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031107023516.27821.00000188@mb-m25.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/6/03 8:01 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.com>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... Di blathers: >Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the >adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all given >that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not all >still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to ever >lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks. >Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago? > >Di > > What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple of decades newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identities of all parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's, adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities were concealed. Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identities of their children's birthparents?Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise I was referring to closedadoption P2P. And read up on your legislations. Adopters certainlywere given the nmothers names even in the closed era. The nmother wasnot given their names.Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would everknow who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing whoshe was.Di You are delusional....I don't know many American adoptees where their aparents' were in possession of their birth families names.
You don't say! And yet you claim to know that in the majority of cases
the fathers names are listed on their adoption files? Psychic Kathy.

Di

Do you make it up as you write? LOLOLOL Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <c599139c.0311070306.6e825280@posting.google.com>, Dian says...
snipYou don't say! And yet you claim to know that in the majority of casesthe fathers names are listed on their adoption files? Psychic Kathy.

So what if they were/are? That doesn't mean that aparents and/or adoptees have
access to those files.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031107025757.27821.00000194@mb-m25.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/6/03 7:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311061940.230d640a@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<3gtqb.26852$cJ5.4397@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311051912.739890cf@posting.google.com>, Dian says... > >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguess >> >who... >> >From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.com >> >Date: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time >> >Message-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com> >> > >> >In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathysays... >> >snip >> >> >> >>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfrom day >> >>one... >> >> >> >>I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they havethe right >> >>to do this... >> >>Anyone? >> > >> >Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't thereal >> >bdad. >> >That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad. >> > >> >Robyn >> >> Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks) >> >> Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purposewould it >> serve to conceal this information from the adoptee? >> >If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim it >is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! It >means they already have it. Wrong - I cannot have access to my adoption files, only non-ID informationwhich doesn't name names (You DO know what NON-ID means, don't you?). Besides they can always ask their >adopters given that they got that information as well. Hate to burst your bible, but not all "adopters" get this information -Mine didn't.If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it ornot?DiYou really are nuts, Di.Anything it takes to make your hate of adopters known to all. @@

Hate to burst Di's bubble, but my aparents did give me every bit of information
that they had - they always told me that if I ever wanted to search, they do
whatever they could to assist me. In fact, when my Judgment of Adoption showed
up missing, my amom called Spence-Chapin to get another copy.

Granted my amom wasn't over thrilled when I DID find my bmom (frankly, I think
she was more upset that I kept that fact a secret from her for over a year), but
I couldn't have found her without their assistance.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c599139c.0311061950.2c92b80a@posting.google.com>, Dian says...
snipYou're the one who says yur fathers name is on your file, sweatpea.

Yes, and?
Now if you cannot see your files how do you know if his (full orreal) name is on it or not? If you're going to contradict me thenmake sure you have the evidence to prove me wrong.

Oh please, get over yourself. I was told it was there, but that I couldn't have
access to it. Shall I assume they were lying about that?
And if your mother won't give you his name fight a bit harder to getthe records open so you CAN gain access to those files. You've nevershown any indication of being politically active. Are you?

Not at all.

I noticeyou ***** about your mother withholding, but not about the agency thatis also withholding that same information for you. Why don't you houndthem for it? Why aren't you angry wiht the agency.

The agency is legally bound not to give out this information - My bmom is not.
Can you see the difference? Obviously, you're under the impression that I want
this information more than I actually do.

If your adoptersdont have access to your files then it would be a fluke that theydon't, because the majority do and did.

Can you prove this? Make sure you have the evidence before you make such a
statement.

Whether you or they want toacknowledge that or not.

Whatever - Mine didn't.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message
news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... Di blathers:Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give theadoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all giventhat information at the time of the adoption. If they were not allstill maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to everlobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago?

In the UK - England and Wales, as far as I know. They most certainly were
NOT given them here in the Republic of Ireland.

Helen

Di What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple of decades newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identities
of all parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's, adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities were
concealed. Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identities
of their children's birthparents? Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise I was referring to closed adoption P2P. And read up on your legislations. Adopters certainly were given the nmothers names even in the closed era. The nmother was not given their names. Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would ever know who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing who she was. Di Oh, wait. I know. You want to blame adoptive parents for the inability
of some adult adoptees to obtain the names of their birthparents. Silly me! P2P

In article <c599139c.0311061940.230d640a@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<3gtqb.26852$cJ5.4397@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311051912.739890cf@posting.google.com>, Dian says...meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>...> >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess> >who...> >From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.com> >Date: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time> >Message-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>> >> >In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...> >snip> >>> >>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day> >>one...> >>> >>I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right> >>to do this...> >>Anyone?> >> >Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real> >bdad.> >That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad.> >> >Robyn>> Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks)>> Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purpose would it> serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?>If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim itis then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! Itmeans they already have it. Wrong - I cannot have access to my adoption files, only non-ID information which doesn't name names (You DO know what NON-ID means, don't you?). Besides they can always ask theiradopters given that they got that information as well. Hate to burst your bible, but not all "adopters" get this information - Mine didn't.If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it or not?

Because as I stated in another reply, my aparents gave me every bit of
information that they had - as well as helped me get a new copy of a document
they'd misplaced. My aparents never kept any of this a secret from me. When I
asked for it, they gave it to me.

Like to assume the worst of adopters, don't you?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20031106232541.25789.00000187@mb-m02.aol.com...Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would everknow who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing whoshe was.Di I have no personal experience with adoptions prior to the current open
period, but based on all I've read and been told, the identities of all parties
were routinely concealed. If you are correct (doubt it) and adoptive parents
prior to the 1980's in the US typically were given the names of the birthmothers
of children they adopted, I'll eat my hat.

I think you are safe enough. <s>

Helen
P2P

In article <c599139c.0311061932.6a919309@posting.google.com>, Dian says...
snipYou said his information was recorded on your adoption files anddoubted what was recorded were lies. The argument was that fathersnames were not usually recorded and yet you claimed yours was. Make upyou mind. Was his full name recorded or not?

First of all, I wasn't involved in this "argument". I was told that his full
name was recorded. I have no reason to assume that the agency was lying to me.
However, I was told that his name probably WASN'T recorded on my OBC which is
why I haven't spent hours and money trying to get access to that.

Unlike some people, I don't think the worst of every situation.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c599139c.0311061928.fc11dea@posting.google.com>, Dian says...lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031106092511.23177.00000260@mb-m20.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/5/03 8:05 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says...> Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eye> color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents did for> a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally not inclined> to believe this was all "made up".>Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet? I think she means that they acknowlege having it, but won't allow her access to the information.It's not, actually. She just said in another post that only hisChristian name and certain physical characteristics were recorded.Fat lot of good that will do her when searchig for him.

Di, you really have to start paying attention. I was told that his full name
was recorded. They'd only allow ME his first name and physical characteristics.
I honestly fail to see why you're not getting this.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.com>... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... Di blathers:Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give theadoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all giventhat information at the time of the adoption. If they were not allstill maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to everlobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago?Di What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple of decades newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identities of all parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's, adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities were concealed. Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identities of their children's birthparents? Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise I was referring to closed adoption P2P. And read up on your legislations. Adopters certainly were given the nmothers names even in the closed era. The nmother was not given their names. Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would ever know who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing who she was. Di


Di,
You are partially correct. Often what the adoptive parents received
was simply the adoption papers which had only the childs original full
name and not the name of the birthparents.


SoulWhisper


<snip>

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031107023756.27821.00000189@mb-m25.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)Date: 11/6/03 5:17 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c403a139.0311061717.7e3f6068@posting.google.com>meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess >who... >From: soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) >Date: 11/4/03 4:41 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <c403a139.0311040441.4034a31e@posting.google.com> > >patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message >news:<c599139c.0311032324.2f688f53@posting.google.com>... >> Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<48udqv86835ksutbvdsggia1rpt1a4lkq2@4ax.com>... >> > On 2 Nov 2003 15:15:11 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: >> > >> > >> >What? That maybe my bmom would contact me if I changed my attitude? >> > >> >> > >> That maybe you and she could have a relationship if you looked at her >> > >> situation with respect. She could be telling you the truth.. >> > >> She could be saying that people would get hurt if you pushed her into >> > >> telling you his name. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Jackie >> > > >> > >She could also be saying "Do I still not matter?" >> > >> > Yes. >> > >> > >If someone wrote asking personal questions about me or others before I >> > >had even met them I'd be wary too. It sounds to me like it's a matter >> > >of trust. Everyone wants to feel they matter, that they are important >> > >as a person iin their own right in the eyes of the other party. To ask >> > >for the fathers name before even meeting the mother may indicate to >> > >her that she is being used as a data bamk for information only and >> > >still doesn't really factor into the scheme of things. >> > >> > I was hoping you would wade into this. >> > >> > And this was a point I have been trying to make. >> > >> Oh Jackie, I can't be bothered. So far all I see is the animosity. >> While this discussion is about one persons 'rights' instead of their >> 'needs' it's a waste of time. Whether its politically correct or not, >> AFAIC, open records is about reunion and reunions are about >> re-establishing relationships, not just obtaining information by >> demanding ones 'rights" by trampling over another persons 'right' not >> to disclose it. We can all stomp all we want, but at the end of the >> day the only 'rights' any of us have as those the other party chooses >> to give us. And that requires compassion and trust, certainly not >> bully boy tactics. It's part of the social etiquette of life and >> pertains to adoptees as much as it does to everyone else. >> >> The quickest way to make someone wary is to 'demand' something from >> them before gaining their trust. Common logic I would have thought. >> >> Di > > >Di, > >I am an adoptee and natural mother to one, so my view is from both >perspectives. I waited 8 months for my birthmother to agree to >contact, then I waited three long years after our reunion to give her >time to sort through all her emotions and difficulties. Those three >years of waiting and understanding robbed me of the only three years I >might have otherwise had with my birthfather. By the time I found out >who and where he was, he had died. Time wasted on secrets is a theft >of sorts and in my mind that is far more injurious than the >alternative. > >After three years of trying to form a relationship with a closed >person who saw only herself, I just decided it wasn't a relationship >worth investing in at such a huge disregard to myself. I changed >lanes, so to speak, and respecting myself rather than someone else >who's methods and ways were no longer worthy of such an investment, >earned me the respect in that relationship that I desired. > >To say that there is a rule to follow in these situations is lunacy, >it is a very personalized undertaking and one that requires our own >unique intuition to work through. What worked for me may not work for >someone else but the great thing about these boards is gaining >different perspectives, other ways and views that we might otherwise >have not considered. > >Adoptees are not the second rate citizens that society would like to >maintain them as. To effect change their voices have to be heard. It >begins in places like these where others in the adoption arena are. >Where their thoughts, needs and feelings can be communicated, >singularly and as a group. > > >SoulWhisper > I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day one... I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right to do this... Anyone? Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."Kathy,I don't understand it myself. Outwardly, it is as if they have somepseudo sense of grandiosity, some over active ego that entitles themas "mother" (Queen) to decide what we are allowed to know. As ifbecause they brought us into the world, it's all about them and theyare to be obeyed and bowed to. I can buy that during childhood withthe mothers who raise us but not in an adoptee/birthmother situationwhere both are adults.Lets face it, inwardly, these types of women do not live in realityfor the most part. They have problems that require addressing byprofessionals. Any woman who has such phobias and fears that outweighher ability to help and even recognize her own offspring, has somevery sad and deep issues. Even so, I do not believe that we asadoptees are or should be responsible for that. Or that we should bemade to suffer because of someone else's ineptitude's. We should notbe expected to deny ourselves knowing the rest of our families forsomeone else who shows us nothing but indifference.They need to step out of that 30 yr. old warm bath and into the coldair of the here and now...SoulWhisper Exactly! Thank you for reading my pov, and taking it in the spirit it was intended... :) Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."




Anytime!

SW

in article w6Mqb.4785$bD.17617@news.indigo.ie, helicon at helicon@eircom.net
wrote on 7/11/03 12:06 pm:
"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... Di blathers:> Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the> adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all given> that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not all> still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to ever> lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.> Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago?
In the UK - England and Wales, as far as I know. They most certainly were NOT given them here in the Republic of Ireland. Helen

The above statement says "nparents names" only the nparents' names as they
appeared on the child's original birth certificate are on the Adoption Order
which was given to aparents in England and Wales, before changes in the
legislation in 1958. After 1958 just the child's original name appeared on
the AO but that was quite sufficient information to purchase an OBC which
would reveal the name of the natural mother and of the father if he had been
present at registration. As most natural fathers were not on the OBC, it
would be unusual for an adoptive parent in England and Wales to know the
natural father's name. The natural father's name was often recorded on the
adoption files held by social services and the court. For adoptees to get
the information about putative fathers from the file is still sometimes
quite difficult in England & Wales, we don't have the same right of access
to court files that Scottish adoptees have.

Robin

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<hkIqb.30796$Ec1.2782751@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311061928.fc11dea@posting.google.co m... lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031106092511.23177.00000260@mb-m20.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess >who... >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 11/5/03 8:05 PM Mountain Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com> > >Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message >news:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... >> In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says... >> Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color, eye >> color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents did for >> a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally not inclined >> to believe this was all "made up". >> > >Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since you >already have it. Have you found him yet? > I think she means that they acknowlege having it, but won't allow her access to the information. It's not, actually. She just said in another post that only his Christian name and certain physical characteristics were recorded. Fat lot of good that will do her when searchig for him. Di When I was tryiing to ID Jack many yeas ago, there was the big discussion about recessive genes on list I was on, which made me think--wrongly as it turns out--that he had brown eyes. So, some bright bulb suggested that I just separate all the blue eyed men from the brown eyed men who lived in Akron, Ohio between cerain dates, and I could find him. I'm serious. Marley

hehehe...Some people must have a very limited world view. Ends at the
corner of their street.



Di

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<TyLqb.27042$cJ5.4302@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311070306.6e825280@posting.google.com>, Dian says... snipYou don't say! And yet you claim to know that in the majority of casesthe fathers names are listed on their adoption files? Psychic Kathy. So what if they were/are? That doesn't mean that aparents and/or adoptees have access to those files.

If they can't get access to their files how does Kathy know the father
names are usually on them as she claims they are? Is she perhaps
psychic?

Di Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<tCLqb.27043$cJ5.4422@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031107025757.27821.00000194@mb-m25.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/6/03 7:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311061940.230d640a@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<3gtqb.26852$cJ5.4397@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <c599139c.0311051912.739890cf@posting.google.com>, Dian says...> >> >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>...> >> >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess> >> >who...> >> >From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.com> >> >Date: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time> >> >Message-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>> >> >> >> >In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...> >> >snip> >> >>> >> >>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day> >> >>one...> >> >>> >> >>I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right> >> >>to do this...> >> >>Anyone?> >> >> >> >Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real> >> >bdad.> >> >That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad.> >> >> >> >Robyn> >>> >> Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks)> >>> >> Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purpose would it> >> serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?> >>> >If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim it> >is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! It> >means they already have it.>> Wrong - I cannot have access to my adoption files, only non-ID information which> doesn't name names (You DO know what NON-ID means, don't you?).>> Besides they can always ask their> >adopters given that they got that information as well.>> Hate to burst your bible, but not all "adopters" get this information - Mine> didn't.>If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it ornot?DiYou really are nuts, Di.Anything it takes to make your hate of adopters known to all. @@ Hate to burst Di's bubble, but my aparents did give me every bit of information that they had - they always told me that if I ever wanted to search, they do whatever they could to assist me. In fact, when my Judgment of Adoption showed up missing, my amom called Spence-Chapin to get another copy.


Where did it go missing from, and what information did it provide?

Granted my amom wasn't over thrilled when I DID find my bmom (frankly, I think she was more upset that I kept that fact a secret from her for over a year), but I couldn't have found her without their assistance.
How did you discover your nmums name if she wasn't searching for you?
Are your records open in your state?

Di
Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0311070611.1f7a6218@posting.google.c om... Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:<tCLqb.27043$cJ5.4422@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031107025757.27821.00000194@mb-m25.aol.com>, Kathy says...>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written
by guess>who...>From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)>Date: 11/6/03 7:40 PM Pacific Standard Time>Message-id: <c599139c.0311061940.230d640a@posting.google.com>>>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message>news:<3gtqb.26852$cJ5.4397@www.newsranger.com>...>> In article <c599139c.0311051912.739890cf@posting.google.com>, Dian
says...>> >>> >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>...>> >> >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"...
written by guess>> >> >who...>> >> >From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.com>> >> >Date: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time>> >> >Message-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>>> >> >>> >> >In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...>> >> >snip>> >> >>>> >> >>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth
father from day>> >> >>one...>> >> >>>> >> >>I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they
have the right>> >> >>to do this...>> >> >>Anyone?>> >> >>> >> >Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't
the real>> >> >bdad.>> >> >That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the
actual bdad.>> >> >>> >> >Robyn>> >>>> >> Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks)>> >>>> >> Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What
purpose would it>> >> serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?>> >>>> >If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim
it>> >is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they!
It>> >means they already have it.>>>> Wrong - I cannot have access to my adoption files, only non-ID
information which>> doesn't name names (You DO know what NON-ID means, don't you?).>>>> Besides they can always ask their>> >adopters given that they got that information as well.>>>> Hate to burst your bible, but not all "adopters" get this
information - Mine>> didn't.>>>If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it
or>not?>>Di>You really are nuts, Di.Anything it takes to make your hate of adopters known to all. @@ Hate to burst Di's bubble, but my aparents did give me every bit of
information that they had - they always told me that if I ever wanted to search,
they do whatever they could to assist me. In fact, when my Judgment of Adoption
showed up missing, my amom called Spence-Chapin to get another copy. Where did it go missing from, and what information did it provide? Granted my amom wasn't over thrilled when I DID find my bmom (frankly, I
think she was more upset that I kept that fact a secret from her for over a
year), but I couldn't have found her without their assistance. How did you discover your nmums name if she wasn't searching for you? Are your records open in your state?

You don't need an "official" record to have a successful search. In fact,
very few successful searches are done with docouments such as obcs. Of
course, you have to know what you're doing, and most people don't have a
clue.

Marley Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 6:04 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311070604.22477749@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<TyLqb.27042$cJ5.4302@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311070306.6e825280@posting.google.com>, Dian says... snip>You don't say! And yet you claim to know that in the majority of casesthe fathers names are listed on their adoption files? Psychic Kathy. So what if they were/are? That doesn't mean that aparents and/or adopteeshave access to those files.If they can't get access to their files how does Kathy know the fathernames are usually on them as she claims they are? Is she perhapspsychic?Di

I thought you were the psychic one.....LOL

***** to be caught up in your tangled web..eh, stoooopid?

Still waiting for you to repost where I wrote what you allege...



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <c599139c.0311070611.1f7a6218@posting.google.com>, Dian says...
snipWhere did it go missing from, and what information did it provide?

The document was the Judgment of Adoption, basically the finalization of my
adoption. My aparents thought that had it either in their house or in their
safe deposit box at the bank. When it could not be located, my amom called the
adoption agency and had another copy sent to their house. This document
contained my original birthname, Katherine *******. When I'd contacted the
agency approximately 7 months prior to this to get my non-ID information, the
social worker there gave me my bmom's first name over the phone. This is how I
ended up with a first and last name for her. 2 1/2 years ago, I hired a PI to
locate her using this name.
Granted my amom wasn't over thrilled when I DID find my bmom (frankly, I think she was more upset that I kept that fact a secret from her for over a year), but I couldn't have found her without their assistance.How did you discover your nmums name if she wasn't searching for you?Are your records open in your state?

See above. And no, the records are definitely not open in my state. I was born
in NY.

Now, as far as my bmom searching for me, if she wanted to be found, she could
have put a letter (and updated her information whenever she wanted) in my file
at the agency. My SIL who relinquished a baby 19 years ago recently updated her
information. The agency would have then give me this information when I
contacted them. Since she hadn't done so, I took that as a sign that she didn't
want to be found, which is one reason why I put aside the idea of searching for
7 years - And I think I was right.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c599139c.0311070604.22477749@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<TyLqb.27042$cJ5.4302@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311070306.6e825280@posting.google.com>, Dian says... snip>You don't say! And yet you claim to know that in the majority of casesthe fathers names are listed on their adoption files? Psychic Kathy. So what if they were/are? That doesn't mean that aparents and/or adoptees have access to those files.If they can't get access to their files how does Kathy know the fathernames are usually on them as she claims they are? Is she perhapspsychic?

How the heck should I know? Why don't you ask her?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c403a139.0311070518.626ccc91@posting.google.com>, soulwhisper
says...
snipDi, You are partially correct. Often what the adoptive parents receivedwas simply the adoption papers which had only the childs original fullname and not the name of the birthparents.

Bingo! Well, in my case anyway ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/03 3:46 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <tCLqb.27043$cJ5.4422@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031107025757.27821.00000194@mb-m25.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/6/03 7:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311061940.230d640a@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<3gtqb.26852$cJ5.4397@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <c599139c.0311051912.739890cf@posting.google.com>, Diansays...> >> >meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in messagenews:<20031105132253.07452.00000169@mb-m18.aol.com>...> >> >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... writtenbyguess> >> >who...> >> >From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.com> >> >Date: 11/4/03 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time> >> >Message-id: <PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>> >> >> >> >In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathysays...> >> >snip> >> >>> >> >>I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birthfatherfrom> day> >> >>one...> >> >>> >> >>I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they havethe> right> >> >>to do this...> >> >>Anyone?> >> >> >> >Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't thereal> >> >bdad.> >> >That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad.> >> >> >> >Robyn> >>> >> Maybe Jackie knows ...(winks)> >>> >> Of course I meant if she knew the name of the bfather. What purposewould it> >> serve to conceal this information from the adoptee?> >>> >If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim it> >is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! It> >means they already have it.>> Wrong - I cannot have access to my adoption files, only non-IDinformationwhich> doesn't name names (You DO know what NON-ID means, don't you?).>> Besides they can always ask their> >adopters given that they got that information as well.>> Hate to burst your bible, but not all "adopters" get this information -Mine> didn't.>If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it ornot?DiYou really are nuts, Di.Anything it takes to make your hate of adopters known to all. @@Hate to burst Di's bubble, but my aparents did give me every bit ofinformationthat they had - they always told me that if I ever wanted to search, they dowhatever they could to assist me. In fact, when my Judgment of Adoptionshowedup missing, my amom called Spence-Chapin to get another copy.Granted my amom wasn't over thrilled when I DID find my bmom (frankly, Ithinkshe was more upset that I kept that fact a secret from her for over a year),butI couldn't have found her without their assistance.Robyn

She very much wanted to be a part of it..It's pretty normal I think the way she
felt due to the nature of closed adoptions.

Getting back to Di
Yeah, she'll take any thread as an opportunity to blame adopters for this.





Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>You don't say! And yet you claim to know that in the majority of casesthe fathers names are listed on their adoption files? Psychic Kathy.Di


"Adoption files"? You mean those files that were sealed in almost all newborn
adoptions in the US prior to the 1980's?


P2P

Robyn to Di:
Like to assume the worst of adopters, don't you?Robyn


Oh, dear. You must be gunning for the Understatement of the Year award.


P2P

In article <20031107164909.28561.00000180@mb-m13.aol.com>, Palms2pines says...Robyn to Di:Like to assume the worst of adopters, don't you?RobynOh, dear. You must be gunning for the Understatement of the Year award.

Well, you know us adoptees - always aiming to please ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031107164357.28561.00000179@mb-m13.aol.com>, Palms2pines says...You don't say! And yet you claim to know that in the majority of casesthe fathers names are listed on their adoption files? Psychic Kathy.Di"Adoption files"? You mean those files that were sealed in almost all newbornadoptions in the US prior to the 1980's?

And guess who was born in 1961, ahem.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On 5 Nov 2003 05:02:44 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
Re-establinshing relationships. How do we tell folks that some women just plain can not handle this?I don't know, Jackie. I tend to think its more about being unable toface the memories or to see what you've lost and can never get back.

Hard to face.
We can all stomp all we want, but at the end of theday the only 'rights' any of us have as those the other party choosesto give us. And if someone is ganged up on that someone may go looking for someone else to gang up on them.. Maybe give them a contact veto.. Its ridiculous..No-one can understand the terror of being exposed before they've beenable to start dealing with it all, Jackie.

Bottom line.

No-one can understand thethreat of social disgrace that was firmly ingrained in the motherspsyche and which caused her to have to surrender her child - for thechild's sake.

Yes.

And then that child comes back into her life unwittinglythreatening to expose her disgrace to the very people she was told tohide her shame from, and was told would not marry her if they knew ofher wicked past. In the end she wonders what the point was of living alifetime of secrecy and hurt and loss and sacrifice. And that'swhat some mothers cannot face, because it means the adoption and allof its consequences was all for nothing. All just a wicked waste.

Well said Di.


Jackie

On 06 Nov 2003 03:28:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim itis then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! Itmeans they already have it. Besides they can always ask theiradopters given that they got that information as well.DiI never claimed any such thing...but continue to babble...

Just for the record..

Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..

I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..


Jackie..

On 07 Nov 2003 07:57:57 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it ornot?DiYou really are nuts, Di.Anything it takes to make your hate of adopters known to all. @@


Just for the record.. I think Di asked a very good question..

Kathy I think your nuts.. Na na..


Jackie

On 05 Nov 2003 23:32:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
I can't seem to think of a good enough reason why anyone could keep on lying...and put the rights of themselves over that of their bchildren who have theright to know the names of their parents...

I bet you can't think of a good enough reason..
Women, like these, are scumbags that use relinquishment as birth control.

Scumbags?

Very nice Kathy..
Iknow that this will burst Jackie and Di's bubbles....but I will not go alongwith the idea that women like you have just described are owed a courtesy forhaving kept self-serving secrets.

I have met the enemy and it is you..



Jackie

On 6 Nov 2003 17:17:22 -0800, soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)
wrote:

I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from day one... I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the right to do this... Anyone? Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."Kathy,I don't understand it myself. Outwardly, it is as if they have somepseudo sense of grandiosity, some over active ego that entitles themas "mother" (Queen) to decide what we are allowed to know. As ifbecause they brought us into the world, it's all about them and theyare to be obeyed and bowed to. I can buy that during childhood withthe mothers who raise us but not in an adoptee/birthmother situationwhere both are adults.Lets face it, inwardly, these types of women do not live in realityfor the most part. They have problems that require addressing byprofessionals. Any woman who has such phobias and fears that outweighher ability to help and even recognize her own offspring, has somevery sad and deep issues. Even so, I do not believe that we asadoptees are or should be responsible for that. Or that we should bemade to suffer because of someone else's ineptitude's. We should notbe expected to deny ourselves knowing the rest of our families forsomeone else who shows us nothing but indifference.They need to step out of that 30 yr. old warm bath and into the coldair of the here and now...SoulWhisper


So do tell SoulWhipper... Are you and Kathy friends on AOL?


Jackie

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 4:50 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <v3foqv4519lla2m3s4qk8j3ecqtpqv66te@4ax.com>On 06 Nov 2003 03:28:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim itis then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! Itmeans they already have it. Besides they can always ask theiradopters given that they got that information as well.DiI never claimed any such thing...but continue to babble...Just for the record..Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..Jackie..


Lmao.....Maybe you and Di could get a room together in the asylum. Happy
Trails...



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 4:50 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c9foqv8qf341n54gmi9jer2kn4i0fmsr8s@4ax.com>On 07 Nov 2003 07:57:57 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it ornot?DiYou really are nuts, Di.Anything it takes to make your hate of adopters known to all. @@Just for the record.. I think Di asked a very good question..Kathy I think your nuts.. Na na..Jackie

You hate adopters too?



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 7:50 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <c9foqv8qf341n54gmi9jer2kn4i0fmsr8s@4ax.com>On 07 Nov 2003 07:57:57 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it ornot?DiYou really are nuts, Di.Anything it takes to make your hate of adopters known to all. @@Just for the record.. I think Di asked a very good question..Kathy I think your nuts.. Na na..


I think all three of you are nuts.

Dad

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<w6Mqb.4785$bD.17617@news.indigo.ie>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... Di blathers: >Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the >adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all given >that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not all >still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to ever >lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks. >Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago? In the UK - England and Wales, as far as I know. They most certainly were NOT given them here in the Republic of Ireland. Helen
They were here, and another URL I put up here some time back, written
by an historian declared that adopters WERE given the nmothers names
in the US.
As I recall Marley responded to that post.

Di > >Di > > What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple of decades newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identities of all parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's, adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities were concealed. Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identities of their children's birthparents? Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise I was referring to closed adoption P2P. And read up on your legislations. Adopters certainly were given the nmothers names even in the closed era. The nmother was not given their names. Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would ever know who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing who she was. Di Oh, wait. I know. You want to blame adoptive parents for the inability of some adult adoptees to obtain the names of their birthparents. Silly me! P2P

soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311070518.626ccc91@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.com>... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... Di blathers: >Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the >adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all given >that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not all >still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to ever >lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks. >Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago? > >Di > > What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple of decades newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identities of all parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's, adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities were concealed. Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identities of their children's birthparents? Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise I was referring to closed adoption P2P. And read up on your legislations. Adopters certainly were given the nmothers names even in the closed era. The nmother was not given their names. Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would ever know who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing who she was. Di Di, You are partially correct. Often what the adoptive parents received was simply the adoption papers which had only the childs original full name and not the name of the birthparents. SoulWhisper
Okay, even IF adopters were ONLY given the child's original full name,
if the child is also entitled to NON-identifying information that
included ONLY their nmothers first name (as in Robyn's case) they then
have HER FULL NAME 'IF' they give the adoptee a copy of his own
original full name.

AND ALL WITHOUT REQUIRING OPEN RECORDS. It all depends on whether the
adopters are willing to give the adoptee a copy of his original full
name - which includes his and his nmother's surname. Like I said.

Di




<snip>

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ujOqb.31736$Ec1.2811323@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311070611.1f7a6218@posting.google.c om... You don't need an "official" record to have a successful search. In fact, very few successful searches are done with docouments such as obcs. Of course, you have to know what you're doing, and most people don't have a clue. Marley

Whihc doesn't help if you don't know how to do it. BTW how do you do
it wihtout a name to go by?

Di

In article <20031107202640.13612.00000132@mb-m26.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 4:50 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <v3foqv4519lla2m3s4qk8j3ecqtpqv66te@4ax.com>On 06 Nov 2003 03:28:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:>If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim it>is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! It>means they already have it. Besides they can always ask their>adopters given that they got that information as well.>>DiI never claimed any such thing...but continue to babble...Just for the record..Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..Jackie..Lmao.....Maybe you and Di could get a room together in the asylum. HappyTrails...

Oh dear ;)

While Di made have had a, ahem, "point", just because a name may be in an
adoption file, doesn't mean that it is legally accessible ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031107111916.29195.00000275@mb-m22.aol.com>,
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) writes:
I thought you were the psychic one.....LOL***** to be caught up in your tangled web..eh, stoooopid?Still waiting for you to repost where I wrote what you allege...


http://www.google.com/groups?q=bullsplit+group:alt.adoption&hl=en&lr=&ie=U
TF-8&scoring=r&selm=20031105132530.07452.00000170%40mb-m18.aol.com&rnum=1

From: Kathy (meagan787@aol.comsthesun)
Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guess
who...
View: Complete Thread (156 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.adoption
Date: 2003-11-05 10:25:53 PST

Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... snipI don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father from
dayone...I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have the
rightto do this...Anyone? Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the real
bdad. That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, RobynDi

Bullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were not
required to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father and it
was recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named on the
OBC which was sealed.

(snip)




Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."


Jeannette, bmom

Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.
Paul Boese


The Animal Rescue Site - Feed An Animal In Need
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites

In article <c9foqv8qf341n54gmi9jer2kn4i0fmsr8s@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 07 Nov 2003 07:57:57 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:If they've kept it a secret how will you ever know whether they had it ornot?DiYou really are nuts, Di.Anything it takes to make your hate of adopters known to all. @@Just for the record.. I think Di asked a very good question..

Perhaps, you think she did - However, it's obvious that she's under the
impression that all adopters keep their akids bio information from them.
Kathy I think your nuts.. Na na..

What about her nuts? ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <v3foqv4519lla2m3s4qk8j3ecqtpqv66te@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 06 Nov 2003 03:28:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim itis then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! Itmeans they already have it. Besides they can always ask theiradopters given that they got that information as well.DiI never claimed any such thing...but continue to babble...Just for the record..Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..

So, are you also under the impression that aparents hide their akids bio
information from them on purpose?

And here I thought you didn't judge....

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<uWPqb.27073$cJ5.4350@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c403a139.0311070518.626ccc91@posting.google.com>, soulwhisper says... snipDi, You are partially correct. Often what the adoptive parents receivedwas simply the adoption papers which had only the childs original fullname and not the name of the birthparents. Bingo! Well, in my case anyway ;) Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

And you could access her first name. Which means you were able
ascertain her
full name by combining the two without relying on open records.
HOWEVER, if your aparents had 'refused' to give you your own
original birth name, all you'd have is your nmothers first name,
which would leave you up **** creek without a paddle search-wise.

So you had to rely on your adopters to give you your own orgininal
surname before you could discover your own, and subsequently your
nmothers, full name.

Di

In article <rvuqb.26873$cJ5.4379@www.newsranger.com>, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> writes:
In article <9Jtqb.4622$bD.17271@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:Bhtqb.26853$cJ5.4249@www.newsranger.co m... In article <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>, Dian says... > >Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... snip >> >> Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, haircolor, eye >> color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parentsdid for >> a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally notinclined >> to believe this was all "made up". >> > >Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since you >already have it. Have you found him yet? Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? If you reread what Iwrote above, you'll notice that I wrote that Spence-Chapin has a name - I do notand neither do my aparents. None of us have access to that information.Perhaps Di understood "Spence-Chapin" to be the 'significant' name in yourbackground?LOL, oh dear, I think you're right ;)I guess I should have written "Spence-Chapin Adoption Agency".Di, if that is what you thought, I apologize.RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557

I don't see why you are apologizing. Everyone else here with any sense knew
exactly what was what.

KL

In article <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>,
patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) writes:
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...> snip> >> >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfrom day> >one...> >> >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have theright> >to do this...> >Anyone?>> Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad.> That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad.Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, Robyn. It wasn't arequirement of adoption unless he was married to the mother or hadidentified his paternity by paying maintenance for the child for aperiod prior to adoption (of usually older adoptions). So, unless therelationship was a resonably substantial one it is more than possiblethat the mother has forgotten his name or never knew his surname inthe first place. Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, hair color,eye color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parents didfor a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally notinclined to believe this was all "made up".Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since youalready have it. Have you found him yet?Di Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

Di, why don't you try reading for content, and reading ALL that is written? It
would be such a nice change for you. She said the AGENCY had his name, not
that she has it.

KL

In article <c599139c.0311071834.21669f20@posting.google.com>, Dian says...
snipOkay, even IF adopters were ONLY given the child's original full name,if the child is also entitled to NON-identifying information thatincluded ONLY their nmothers first name (as in Robyn's case)

Let me correct you here. My bmom's first name was NOT on my non-ID information.
They gave it to me verbally over the phone.

they thenhave HER FULL NAME 'IF' they give the adoptee a copy of his ownoriginal full name.
AND ALL WITHOUT REQUIRING OPEN RECORDS. It all depends on whether theadopters are willing to give the adoptee a copy of his original fullname - which includes his and his nmother's surname. Like I said.

Oh, you are so wrong - Do you think I initally went running to my aparents and
told them my bmom's first name? Not to mention, "I" had the copy of my
bioparents non-ID information - NOT them.

Di, you are assuming an awful lot here and all of which shows your prejudice
against aparents.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031107214222.05539.00002145@mb-m16.aol.com>, Jrobnett1 says...In article <20031107111916.29195.00000275@mb-m22.aol.com>,meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) writes:I thought you were the psychic one.....LOL***** to be caught up in your tangled web..eh, stoooopid?Still waiting for you to repost where I wrote what you allege...http://www.google.com/groups?q=bullsplit+group:alt.adoption&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&selm=20031105132530.07452.00000170%40mb-m18.aol.com&rnum=1From: Kathy (meagan787@aol.comsthesun)Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...View: Complete Thread (156 articles)Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.adoptionDate: 2003-11-05 10:25:53 PSTSubject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... snip > >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father fromday >one... > >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have theright >to do this... >Anyone? Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad. That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, RobynDiBullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were notrequired to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father and itwas recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named on theOBC which was sealed.

You will note that she didn't say "ALL" bimoms.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 6:39 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071839.6fd54717@posting.google.com>
Whihc doesn't help if you don't know how to do it. BTW how do you doit wihtout a name to go by?Di

Are you stoned again?....lol



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 6:11 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071811.6aa1ac4f@posting.google.com>"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in messagenews:<w6Mqb.4785$bD.17617@news.indigo.ie>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... > Di blathers: > > >Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the > >adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all given > >that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not all > >still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to ever > >lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks. > >Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago? In the UK - England and Wales, as far as I know. They most certainly were NOT given them here in the Republic of Ireland. HelenThey were here, and another URL I put up here some time back, writtenby an historian declared that adopters WERE given the nmothers namesin the US.As I recall Marley responded to that post.Di

Go fetch it...I want to see wher it said that all adopters got nmothers names
in the US.....

lol...still waiting for that other post I asked you to get too...fruitloop.



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 11/7/03 7:52 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031107215258.23307.00004236@mb-m29.aol.com>
Perhaps Di understood "Spence-Chapin" to be the 'significant' name in yourbackground?LOL, oh dear, I think you're right ;)I guess I should have written "Spence-Chapin Adoption Agency".Di, if that is what you thought, I apologize.RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557I don't see why you are apologizing. Everyone else here with any sense knewexactly what was what.KL
Well to be fair, us ugly Americans do have to keep in mind that quite a few
posters here aren't from the US, so they might not have any idea who
Spence-Chapin is. Honest mistake, IMO.

And no, I'm not kissing up. I had no idea wtf the Magdelen Launderies were
until I read about it in this NG.

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<MTPqb.27070$cJ5.4396@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311070611.1f7a6218@posting.google.com>, Dian says... snipWhere did it go missing from, and what information did it provide? The document was the Judgment of Adoption, basically the finalization of my adoption. My aparents thought that had it either in their house or in their safe deposit box at the bank. When it could not be located, my amom called the adoption agency and had another copy sent to their house. This document contained my original birthname, Katherine *******. When I'd contacted the agency approximately 7 months prior to this to get my non-ID information, the social worker there gave me my bmom's first name over the phone. This is how I ended up with a first and last name for her. 2 1/2 years ago, I hired a PI to locate her using this name.
I seem to have just replied in another thread and your explanation
mirrors what I suggested there. I will repeat though that if your
adopters had refused to give you your original full name as supplied
on your AO all you would have is your nmothers first name which would
not have given you enough to go on for a search. You were lucky in
that your adopters were of the mind that that information was yours
to have and supported your wish to know. Unfortunately many others
aren't.

How long has it been that adoptees are entitled to apply for NON
identifying information once they become adults, do you know?

Granted my amom wasn't over thrilled when I DID find my bmom (frankly, I think she was more upset that I kept that fact a secret from her for over a year), but I couldn't have found her without their assistance.How did you discover your nmums name if she wasn't searching for you?Are your records open in your state? See above. And no, the records are definitely not open in my state. I was born in NY. Now, as far as my bmom searching for me, if she wanted to be found, she could have put a letter (and updated her information whenever she wanted) in my file at the agency. My SIL who relinquished a baby 19 years ago recently updated her information. The agency would have then give me this information when I contacted them. Since she hadn't done so, I took that as a sign that she didn't want to be found, which is one reason why I put aside the idea of searching for 7 years - And I think I was right.

I don't think it works like that. She would still have the
difficulties she is dealing with now no matter when you tried. Just 7
years sooner. I hope you hear from her soon btw.

Di

Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswhoFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 7:28 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071928.556b6cec@posting.google.com>

(snip)

Top Post:

Robyn's **adopters**???

You mean her mother and father, her **parents**,..... don't you , true mother?
I will repeat though that if youradopters had refused to give you your original full name as suppliedon your AO all you would have is your nmothers first name which
wouldnot have given you enough to go on for a search. You were lucky inthat your adopters were of the mind that that information was yoursto have and supported your wish to know. Unfortunately many othersaren't.



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 5:03 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <s1goqv88hoiqffdpmm3sgat8hnof6utg08@4ax.com>On 05 Nov 2003 23:32:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:I can't seem to think of a good enough reason why anyone could keep onlying...and put the rights of themselves over that of their bchildren who have theright to know the names of their parents...I bet you can't think of a good enough reason..Women, like these, are scumbags that use relinquishment as birth control.Scumbags?Very nice Kathy.. Iknow that this will burst Jackie and Di's bubbles....but I will not go alongwith the idea that women like you have just described are owed a courtesyforhaving kept self-serving secrets.I have met the enemy and it is you..Jackie

:P~~



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/03 6:57 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <PYYqb.27233$cJ5.4387@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031107214222.05539.00002145@mb-m16.aol.com>, Jrobnett1 says...In article <20031107111916.29195.00000275@mb-m22.aol.com>,meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) writes:I thought you were the psychic one.....LOL***** to be caught up in your tangled web..eh, stoooopid?Still waiting for you to repost where I wrote what you allege...http://www.google.com/groups?q=bullsplit+group:alt.adoption&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&selm=20031105132530.07452.00000170%40mb-m18.aol.com&rnum=1From: Kathy (meagan787@aol.comsthesun)Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...View: Complete Thread (156 articles)Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.adoptionDate: 2003-11-05 10:25:53 PSTSubject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>...> In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says...> snip> >> >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfromday> >one...> >> >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have theright> >to do this...> >Anyone?>> Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad.> That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actualbdad.>> Robyn> Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster> #1557Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, RobynDiBullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were notrequired to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father anditwas recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named ontheOBC which was sealed.You will note that she didn't say "ALL" bimoms.Robyn

In between beers she might...burp

Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <20031107223615.26109.00000679@mb-m16.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswhoFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 7:28 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071928.556b6cec@posting.google.com>(snip)Top Post:Robyn's **adopters**???You mean her mother and father, her **parents**,..... don't you , true mother?

I have to admit, that I don't really like that term "adopters". I much prefer
yours.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031107220544.26109.00000676@mb-m16.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 6:39 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071839.6fd54717@posting.google.com>Whihc doesn't help if you don't know how to do it. BTW how do you doit wihtout a name to go by?DiAre you stoned again?....lol

Perhaps she's PWD? ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 6:34 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071834.21669f20@posting.google.com>soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in messagenews:<c403a139.0311070518.626ccc91@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in messagenews:<c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.com>... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in messagenews:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... > Di blathers: > > >Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the > >adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all given > >that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not all > >still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to ever > >lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks. > >Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago? > > > >Di > > > > > > What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple ofdecades > newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identitiesof all > parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's, > adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities wereconcealed. > Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identitiesof > their children's birthparents? Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise I was referring to closed adoption P2P. And read up on your legislations. Adopters certainly were given the nmothers names even in the closed era. The nmother was not given their names. Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would ever know who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing who she was. Di Di, You are partially correct. Often what the adoptive parents received was simply the adoption papers which had only the childs original full name and not the name of the birthparents. SoulWhisperOkay, even IF adopters were ONLY given the child's original full name,if the child is also entitled to NON-identifying information thatincluded ONLY their nmothers first name (as in Robyn's case) they thenhave HER FULL NAME 'IF' they give the adoptee a copy of his ownoriginal full name.AND ALL WITHOUT REQUIRING OPEN RECORDS. It all depends on whether theadopters are willing to give the adoptee a copy of his original fullname - which includes his and his nmother's surname. Like I said.

Oh go take a nappy.....you are frothing mistruths again, Di.



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 5:23 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <f9hoqv88pl09f1i9ecbhmoitl165suoobm@4ax.com>On 6 Nov 2003 17:17:22 -0800, soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)wrote: I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth fatherfrom day one... I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have theright to do this... Anyone? Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."Kathy,I don't understand it myself. Outwardly, it is as if they have somepseudo sense of grandiosity, some over active ego that entitles themas "mother" (Queen) to decide what we are allowed to know. As ifbecause they brought us into the world, it's all about them and theyare to be obeyed and bowed to. I can buy that during childhood withthe mothers who raise us but not in an adoptee/birthmother situationwhere both are adults.Lets face it, inwardly, these types of women do not live in realityfor the most part. They have problems that require addressing byprofessionals. Any woman who has such phobias and fears that outweighher ability to help and even recognize her own offspring, has somevery sad and deep issues. Even so, I do not believe that we asadoptees are or should be responsible for that. Or that we should bemade to suffer because of someone else's ineptitude's. We should notbe expected to deny ourselves knowing the rest of our families forsomeone else who shows us nothing but indifference.They need to step out of that 30 yr. old warm bath and into the coldair of the here and now...SoulWhisperSo do tell SoulWhipper... Are you and Kathy friends on AOL?

If this were true....what's it to you?

You the friendship cop? LOL!



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <20031107215258.23307.00004236@mb-m29.aol.com>, KL says...In article <rvuqb.26873$cJ5.4379@www.newsranger.com>, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> writes:In article <9Jtqb.4622$bD.17271@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:Bhtqb.26853$cJ5.4249@www.newsranger.co m...> In article <c599139c.0311051905.6ffc6968@posting.google.com>, Dian says...> >> >Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<jy8qb.26657$cJ5.4207@www.newsranger.com>...> snip> >>> >> Well, Spence-Chapin DOES have a name, as well as age, height, haircolor, eye> >> color, the age of his parents at the time of my birth, what his parentsdid for> >> a living, as well as the age of his younger sister. I'm personally notinclined> >> to believe this was all "made up".> >>> >> >Good, then your nmother won't need to give you his name since you> >already have it. Have you found him yet?>> Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? If you reread what Iwrote> above, you'll notice that I wrote that Spence-Chapin has a name - I do notand> neither do my aparents. None of us have access to that information.Perhaps Di understood "Spence-Chapin" to be the 'significant' name in yourbackground?LOL, oh dear, I think you're right ;)I guess I should have written "Spence-Chapin Adoption Agency".Di, if that is what you thought, I apologize.I don't see why you are apologizing. Everyone else here with any sense knewexactly what was what.'

Well, you know us adoptees always try to please :)

Heck I was giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c599139c.0311071928.556b6cec@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<MTPqb.27070$cJ5.4396@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311070611.1f7a6218@posting.google.com>, Dian says... snipWhere did it go missing from, and what information did it provide? The document was the Judgment of Adoption, basically the finalization of my adoption. My aparents thought that had it either in their house or in their safe deposit box at the bank. When it could not be located, my amom called the adoption agency and had another copy sent to their house. This document contained my original birthname, Katherine *******. When I'd contacted the agency approximately 7 months prior to this to get my non-ID information, the social worker there gave me my bmom's first name over the phone. This is how I ended up with a first and last name for her. 2 1/2 years ago, I hired a PI to locate her using this name.I seem to have just replied in another thread and your explanationmirrors what I suggested there. I will repeat though that if youradopters had refused to give you your original full name as suppliedon your AO all you would have is your nmothers first name which wouldnot have given you enough to go on for a search. You were lucky inthat your adopters were of the mind that that information was yoursto have and supported your wish to know. Unfortunately many othersaren't.

I agree - My aparents have told me since I was a child that they'd assist me if
I ever wanted to ssearch.
How long has it been that adoptees are entitled to apply for NONidentifying information once they become adults, do you know?

Beats the **** out of me. I can only speak for my experience with
Spence-Chapin.
snip See above. And no, the records are definitely not open in my state. I was born in NY. Now, as far as my bmom searching for me, if she wanted to be found, she could have put a letter (and updated her information whenever she wanted) in my file at the agency. My SIL who relinquished a baby 19 years ago recently updated her information. The agency would have then give me this information when I contacted them. Since she hadn't done so, I took that as a sign that she didn't want to be found, which is one reason why I put aside the idea of searching for 7 years - And I think I was right.I don't think it works like that.

Maybe - Maybe not. Let's keep in mind that for every 8 letters I've sent her,
I've received two. I understand that she's had stuff to work through, but I
need to get on with my life.

She would still have thedifficulties she is dealing with now no matter when you tried. Just 7years sooner. I hope you hear from her soon btw.

Thanks. I do expect to hear from her soon - however, I'm pretty sure her answer
to my suggestion of meeting will be "no".

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)
<20031107225305.26109.00000686@mb-m16.aol.com>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguess
So do tell SoulWhipper... Are you and Kathy friends on AOL?If this were true....what's it to you?You the friendship cop? LOL!Kathy

#####mother's are only allowed to be honored as birthmothers if they agree with
Jackie. Otherwise, it's not allowed.

In article <c599139c.0311071852.2dc9d7f7@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<uWPqb.27073$cJ5.4350@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c403a139.0311070518.626ccc91@posting.google.com>, soulwhisper says... snipDi, You are partially correct. Often what the adoptive parents receivedwas simply the adoption papers which had only the childs original fullname and not the name of the birthparents. Bingo! Well, in my case anyway ;)

And you could access her first name.

Well, no, I DID have access to her first name. I'm sure not every social worker
is so willing to give out this information.

Which means you were ableascertain herfull name by combining the two without relying on open records.

Yes, and?
HOWEVER, if your aparents had 'refused' to give you your ownoriginal birth name, all you'd have is your nmothers first name,which would leave you up **** creek without a paddle search-wise.

True, however, I hope you will have notice that they DID readily give me that
document. I can't help notice that you haven't mentioned that.
So you had to rely on your adopters to give you your own orgininalsurname before you could discover your own, and subsequently yournmothers, full name.

Well, to be honest, I could have had just about anyone call up the agency and
claim to be my amom and get this information.

Seriously, why are you totally glossing over the FACT that my aparents were
ready and willing to assist me in this?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031107224641.26109.00000683@mb-m16.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 5:03 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <s1goqv88hoiqffdpmm3sgat8hnof6utg08@4ax.com>On 05 Nov 2003 23:32:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:I can't seem to think of a good enough reason why anyone could keep onlying...and put the rights of themselves over that of their bchildren who have theright to know the names of their parents...I bet you can't think of a good enough reason..Women, like these, are scumbags that use relinquishment as birth control.Scumbags?Very nice Kathy.. Iknow that this will burst Jackie and Di's bubbles....but I will not go alongwith the idea that women like you have just described are owed a courtesyforhaving kept self-serving secrets.I have met the enemy and it is you..Jackie:P~~

:::SPEW!!!::: My chardonnay! :D

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)Date: 11/7/03 8:46 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031107224641.26109.00000683@mb-m16.aol.com>
Iknow that this will burst Jackie and Di's bubbles....but I will not goalongwith the idea that women like you have just described are owed a courtesyforhaving kept self-serving secrets.I have met the enemy and it is you..Jackie:P~~Kathy"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

Don't forget, Kathy, you were "golden". You had that ring. So you're not A
REAL birthmom. puke.

In article <20031107231227.06042.00000335@mb-m02.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)<20031107225305.26109.00000686@mb-m16.aol.com>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguessSo do tell SoulWhipper... Are you and Kathy friends on AOL?If this were true....what's it to you?You the friendship cop? LOL!Kathy#####mother's are only allowed to be honored as birthmothers if they agree withJackie. Otherwise, it's not allowed.

There are no words.... ;D

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 7:34 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071834.21669f20@posting.google.com>
Okay, even IF adopters were ONLY given the child's original full name,if the child is also entitled to NON-identifying information thatincluded ONLY their nmothers first name (as in Robyn's case) they thenhave HER FULL NAME 'IF' they give the adoptee a copy of his ownoriginal full name.AND ALL WITHOUT REQUIRING OPEN RECORDS. It all depends on whether theadopters are willing to give the adoptee a copy of his original fullname - which includes his and his nmother's surname. Like I said.Di

When I turned 21, my mom turned over absolutely everything my folks got from my
whole adoption process. From their application, to the court decree. It
included a one-paged little outline of non-id info about my bmom and dad. Also
included the cutesy little "official" card from LSS of the adoption ceremony
they went through in the adjoining church to make me "theirs" when they came to
take me home.

That's it. Total, finis. I was born in 1967.

Now this is just my experience from the state I was born in. Not to be
redundant, but there are 50 states, all that have had seperate, changing laws
over the years regarding adoption. Even our birth certificates aren't uniform
(that's why some adoptees have had trouble getting passports).

Usually, Di, when the aparents have actually gotten the full original name of
the adoptee, or bparents (not within the last 20 or so years, since adoptions
have been more open but before that), it has been by an administrative mistake,
not by common practice. Until the last couple of years, all but 2 states had
closed records.

I agree that if they have it, it's heinous that aparents haven't disclosed it
to the adult adoptee (and have shared before about a friend who found out her
aparents had that info 4 years after they died).

But in the majority of closed adoptions, this info isn't part of what is given
to adoptees or aparents, unless there is a fortunate (for us seeking) goof, or
loophole that wasn't covered.

So yeah, a lot of adoptees and bparents manage to reunite, DESPITE the closed
record system.

I was talking to my younger brother recently, and I'm hoping he'll let me see
his paperwork on this issue. I'll black out all the important stuff, and share
it, but I haven't seen anything like it addressed ANYWHERE. My aparents also
gave him his "file" when he turned 21, and I just find this extremely weird.

He was also adopted through LSS, but in a dif city. The agency told my folks
that his bparents were together, had admitted to using drugs (acid) during his
conception/pregnancy, and had actually signed a paper agreeing never to try to
find him.

I pooh poohed this whole thing, after being online and learning for awhile, and
dismissed it as adoption agency rhetoric. Sat down with my brother a few months
ago, and explained that whoever told his bparents didn't have the authority to
promise/threaten them with complete anonyminity (sp). Talked about the state
laws and all.

Well apparently, his paperwork says that he was released to a FEDERAL testing
agency at birth, because of his bparents' drug use (this was in 1969).
According to him, it DOES say that his parents agreed not to try to find him.
Not that HE couldn't seek THEM out, just that THEY wouldn't try to find HIM.

I don't want to be pushy (my parents DID raise us to believe that our personal
adoption stories were ours and ours alone, to be considered privately, and I've
already broke the mold by being such a blabbermouth about it). We're going to
get together next month, and I hope he'll show it to me.

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/03 9:18 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <g8_qb.27247$cJ5.4321@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031107231227.06042.00000335@mb-m02.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)<20031107225305.26109.00000686@mb-m16.aol.com>>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguess>>So do tell SoulWhipper... Are you and Kathy friends on AOL?>If this were true....what's it to you?You the friendship cop? LOL!Kathy#####mother's are only allowed to be honored as birthmothers if they agreewithJackie. Otherwise, it's not allowed.There are no words.... ;D

We only wish. LOL

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 9:34 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071834.21669f20@posting.google.com>

< snip >
Okay, even IF adopters were ONLY given the child's original full name,if the child is also entitled to NON-identifying information thatincluded ONLY their nmothers first name (as in Robyn's case) they thenhave HER FULL NAME 'IF' they give the adoptee a copy of his ownoriginal full name.AND ALL WITHOUT REQUIRING OPEN RECORDS. It all depends on whether theadopters are willing to give the adoptee a copy of his original fullname - which includes his and his nmother's surname. Like I said.



Well, that certainly cleared it up for me.

Dad

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.com
In article <v3foqv4519lla2m3s4qk8j3ecqtpqv66te@4ax.com>, Jackie says...
Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..So, are you also under the impression that aparents hide their akids bioinformation from them on purpose?And here I thought you didn't judge....
Get it right. Secrets are only ok for pre-approved Jackiecard bparents.
Everyone else is ****. Check that out..

meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote in message news:<20031107225119.26109.00000685@mb-m16.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 6:34 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071834.21669f20@posting.google.com>soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in messagenews:<c403a139.0311070518.626ccc91@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.com>... > palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... > > Di blathers: > > > > >Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the > > >adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all given > > >that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not all > > >still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to ever > > >lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks. > > >Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago? > > > > > >Di > > > > > > > > > > What are you talking about this time, Di? In the last couple of decades > > newborn adoptions in the US have been largely open, meaning identities of all > > parties are revealed during the process. However, prior to the 1980's, > > adoptions in the US were largely closed, meaning identities were concealed. > > Why would you assume adoptive parents of yesteryear have the identities of > > their children's birthparents? > > Anyone with an ounce of logic would realise I was referring to closed > adoption P2P. And read up on your legislations. Adopters certainly > were given the nmothers names even in the closed era. The nmother was > not given their names. > Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would ever > know who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing who > she was. > > Di Di, You are partially correct. Often what the adoptive parents received was simply the adoption papers which had only the childs original full name and not the name of the birthparents. SoulWhisperOkay, even IF adopters were ONLY given the child's original full name,if the child is also entitled to NON-identifying information thatincluded ONLY their nmothers first name (as in Robyn's case) they thenhave HER FULL NAME 'IF' they give the adoptee a copy of his ownoriginal full name.AND ALL WITHOUT REQUIRING OPEN RECORDS. It all depends on whether theadopters are willing to give the adoptee a copy of his original fullname - which includes his and his nmother's surname. Like I said. Oh go take a nappy.....you are frothing mistruths again, Di. Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

Poor Kathy ... I didn't realise lobotomies came with relinquishment
sin the US.
Best read Robyn's separate thread to me of the same name. She seems ot
agree with me as does Soulwhisper. Now your ingorant self was
saying....???

Di

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<PWZqb.27244$cJ5.4061@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311071928.556b6cec@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<MTPqb.27070$cJ5.4396@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311070611.1f7a6218@posting.google.com>, Dian says... snip >Where did it go missing from, and what information did it provide? The document was the Judgment of Adoption, basically the finalization of my adoption. My aparents thought that had it either in their house or in their safe deposit box at the bank. When it could not be located, my amom called the adoption agency and had another copy sent to their house. This document contained my original birthname, Katherine *******. When I'd contacted the agency approximately 7 months prior to this to get my non-ID information, the social worker there gave me my bmom's first name over the phone. This is how I ended up with a first and last name for her. 2 1/2 years ago, I hired a PI to locate her using this name.I seem to have just replied in another thread and your explanationmirrors what I suggested there. I will repeat though that if youradopters had refused to give you your original full name as suppliedon your AO all you would have is your nmothers first name which wouldnot have given you enough to go on for a search. You were lucky inthat your adopters were of the mind that that information was yoursto have and supported your wish to know. Unfortunately many othersaren't. I agree - My aparents have told me since I was a child that they'd assist me if I ever wanted to ssearch.
It's good they kept to their word. Shows they are secure in thei
rrelationship wiht you.
How long has it been that adoptees are entitled to apply for NONidentifying information once they become adults, do you know? Beats the **** out of me. I can only speak for my experience with Spence-Chapin.

Okay.
snip See above. And no, the records are definitely not open in my state. I was born in NY. Now, as far as my bmom searching for me, if she wanted to be found, she could have put a letter (and updated her information whenever she wanted) in my file at the agency. My SIL who relinquished a baby 19 years ago recently updated her information. The agency would have then give me this information when I contacted them. Since she hadn't done so, I took that as a sign that she didn't want to be found, which is one reason why I put aside the idea of searching for 7 years - And I think I was right.I don't think it works like that. Maybe - Maybe not. Let's keep in mind that for every 8 letters I've sent her, I've received two. I understand that she's had stuff to work through, but I need to get on with my life.
If you'd contacted her 7 years earlier she would be doing the same as
she is now I suspect.

She would still have thedifficulties she is dealing with now no matter when you tried. Just 7years sooner. I hope you hear from her soon btw. Thanks. I do expect to hear from her soon - however, I'm pretty sure her answer to my suggestion of meeting will be "no".
Is this the first time you've actually come right out and directly
asked her to
meet you, or have you tried to before?

Di
Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

"Robin" <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message
news:BBD154D6.2731A%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere.. . in article w6Mqb.4785$bD.17617@news.indigo.ie, helicon at
helicon@eircom.net wrote on 7/11/03 12:06 pm: "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>...> Di blathers:>>> Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the>> adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all given>> that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not all>> still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to ever>> lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.>> Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago? In the UK - England and Wales, as far as I know. They most certainly
were NOT given them here in the Republic of Ireland. Helen The above statement says "nparents names" only the nparents' names as they appeared on the child's original birth certificate are on the Adoption
Order which was given to aparents in England and Wales, before changes in the legislation in 1958. After 1958 just the child's original name appeared on the AO but that was quite sufficient information to purchase an OBC which would reveal the name of the natural mother and of the father if he had
been present at registration. As most natural fathers were not on the OBC, it would be unusual for an adoptive parent in England and Wales to know the natural father's name. The natural father's name was often recorded on the adoption files held by social services and the court. For adoptees to get the information about putative fathers from the file is still sometimes quite difficult in England & Wales, we don't have the same right of access to court files that Scottish adoptees have.

Yeah I know - that's what I meant. Natural parents' names were *never* given
to adoptive parents in Ireland.

Helen
Robin

In article <20031107224735.26109.00000684@mb-m16.aol.com>,
meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) writes:
In between beers she might...burp

Pffft. Pulled any pints lately, Kukumom?

Jeannette, bmom

Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.
Paul Boese


The Animal Rescue Site - Feed An Animal In Need
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites

In article <PYYqb.27233$cJ5.4387@www.newsranger.com>, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> writes:
You will note that she didn't say "ALL" bimoms.

Yes, but she denied saying it at all. Typical.

Jeannette, bmom

Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.
Paul Boese


The Animal Rescue Site - Feed An Animal In Need
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites

In article <c599139c.0311080216.692be0d8@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<PWZqb.27244$snip Beats the **** out of me. I can only speak for my experience with Spence-Chapin.Okay. snip> See above. And no, the records are definitely not open in my state. I was born> in NY.>> Now, as far as my bmom searching for me, if she wanted to be found, she could> have put a letter (and updated her information whenever she wanted) in my file> at the agency. My SIL who relinquished a baby 19 years ago recently updated her> information. The agency would have then give me this information when I> contacted them. Since she hadn't done so, I took that as a sign that she didn't> want to be found, which is one reason why I put aside the idea of searching for> 7 years - And I think I was right.I don't think it works like that. Maybe - Maybe not. Let's keep in mind that for every 8 letters I've sent her, I've received two. I understand that she's had stuff to work through, but I need to get on with my life.If you'd contacted her 7 years earlier she would be doing the same asshe is now I suspect.

<sigh> I completely agree with you.
She would still have thedifficulties she is dealing with now no matter when you tried. Just 7years sooner. I hope you hear from her soon btw. Thanks. I do expect to hear from her soon - however, I'm pretty sure her answer to my suggestion of meeting will be "no".Is this the first time you've actually come right out and directlyasked her tomeet you, or have you tried to before?

I suggested it once when we originally started communicating, but not like I did
this time - more along the lines above "If you'd ever like to meet, let me
know". She didn't respond to that.


Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c599139c.0311080203.2d5dd06a@posting.google.com>, Dian says...
snip
Poor Kathy ... I didn't realise lobotomies came with relinquishmentsin the US.Best read Robyn's separate thread to me of the same name. She seems otagree with me as does Soulwhisper. Now your ingorant self wassaying....???

Wait a sec - Just what am I agreeing with? ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031108002005.06042.00000342@mb-m02.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comIn article <v3foqv4519lla2m3s4qk8j3ecqtpqv66te@4ax.com>, Jackie says...Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..So, are you also under the impression that aparents hide their akids bioinformation from them on purpose?And here I thought you didn't judge....Get it right. Secrets are only ok for pre-approved Jackiecard bparents.Everyone else is ****. Check that out..

Considering how long I've been here, you would think that I would have caught
onto this by now ;)

Oh well, I can't help it, I'm just a stupid adoptee ;D

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

So how the hell are you Jeannette?



Jackie


On 08 Nov 2003 02:42:22 GMT, jrobnett1@aol.combustible (Jrobnett1)
wrote:
In article <20031107111916.29195.00000275@mb-m22.aol.com>,meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) writes:I thought you were the psychic one.....LOL***** to be caught up in your tangled web..eh, stoooopid?Still waiting for you to repost where I wrote what you allege...http://www.google.com/groups?q=bullsplit+group:alt.adoption&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&selm=20031105132530.07452.00000170%40mb-m18.aol.com&rnum=1From: Kathy (meagan787@aol.comsthesun)Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...View: Complete Thread (156 articles)Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.adoptionDate: 2003-11-05 10:25:53 PSTSubject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/4/03 3:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311041540.4f33a405@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<PmSpb.26536$cJ5.4339@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031104120243.10798.00000090@mb-m23.aol.com>, Kathy says... snip > >I don't know why birth mothers don't tell the name of the birth father fromday >one... > >I will never understand why some birth mothers think that they have theright >to do this... >Anyone? Well, I just had a thought today. Perhaps the bdad named isn't the realbdad. That, or perhaps the bmom isn't sure if that individual is the actual bdad. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557Usually the father's name isn't recorded anywhere, RobynDiBullsplit. I know many birthmothers, unmarried at the time, that were notrequired to give, but did give the social worker the name of the father and itwas recorded in the non-id information. In some cases, it was even named on theOBC which was sealed.(snip)Kathy"To err is human; to forgive, divine."Jeannette, bmomForgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.Paul BoeseThe Animal Rescue Site - Feed An Animal In Needhttp://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:44:35 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <v3foqv4519lla2m3s4qk8j3ecqtpqv66te@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 06 Nov 2003 03:28:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:>If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim it>is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! It>means they already have it. Besides they can always ask their>adopters given that they got that information as well.>>DiI never claimed any such thing...but continue to babble...Just for the record..Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..So, are you also under the impression that aparents hide their akids bioinformation from them on purpose?And here I thought you didn't judge....



Di is giving you other ways to sort this..

Maybe your aparents can get the name who knows?

But his name is in that folder.. I would suggest you go and get it..

Have you put yourself all over the net looking for him?

Have you registered with ISSR with you looking for him?

What have you done to find him.. other than asking your birth mother?


Jackie

"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20031107223615.26109.00000679@mb-m16.aol.com...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by
guesswhoFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 7:28 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071928.556b6cec@posting.google.com> (snip) Top Post: Robyn's **adopters**??? You mean her mother and father, her **parents**,..... don't you , true
mother?

Here we go again. "Adopter" is the term used both legally and
professionally. Look in any contemporary adoption literataure (outside of
sentimental mommie, daddie and NCFA crap) and that's what you'll find.
What else are they? It's what they've done. And yes, and far as I'm
concenred, biological parents are birthers.

Marley

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0311071839.6fd54717@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<ujOqb.31736$Ec1.2811323@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311070611.1f7a6218@posting.google.c om... You don't need an "official" record to have a successful search. In
fact, very few successful searches are done with docouments such as obcs. Of course, you have to know what you're doing, and most people don't have a clue. Marley Whihc doesn't help if you don't know how to do it. BTW how do you do it wihtout a name to go by? Di

I don't want to give away any secrets here and of course it depends on many
factors including public records access (those that anybody can access),
names (if you end up looking for a Smith or a Johnson you'll have a hell of
a time), access to paid databases, non-ID information. It's matter of
knowing how to use what you've got matching it all up. , It's a skilled
profession that at-tracts amateurs, con artists, money grubbers and con
artists. My search for Dottie cost about $5.00 (but then I had a name) and
Jack cost about the same. I know I'm fortunate in that I was dealing with a
very odd name that hardly anybody has (in the US we were the only ones, in
England there are less than 10 with different spellings).

Marley

Marley

"Jrobnett1" <jrobnett1@aol.combustible> wrote in message
news:20031108083114.08626.00001636@mb-m27.aol.com... In article <PYYqb.27233$cJ5.4387@www.newsranger.com>, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> writes:You will note that she didn't say "ALL" bimoms. Yes, but she denied saying it at all. Typical. Jeannette, bmom Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future. Paul Boese The Animal Rescue Site - Feed An Animal In Need http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites

Hey, Jeanette. How ya doin'? Where ya been?

Marley

In article <pl2qqvck2r7t21p0qf4os2qo9potla9ldh@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:44:35 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <v3foqv4519lla2m3s4qk8j3ecqtpqv66te@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 06 Nov 2003 03:28:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:>>If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim it>>is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! It>>means they already have it. Besides they can always ask their>>adopters given that they got that information as well.>>>>Di>>I never claimed any such thing...but continue to babble...Just for the record..Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..So, are you also under the impression that aparents hide their akids bioinformation from them on purpose?And here I thought you didn't judge....
Di is giving you other ways to sort this..

Sort what? Do I have something to sort?
Maybe your aparents can get the name who knows?

They can't - believe me, I've already looked into this and have spoken to
several adoption professionals and an attorney. They all told me the same thing
- The only person who can give you your biological father's name is your
birthmother.
But his name is in that folder.. I would suggest you go and get it..

LOL, suggest whatever you want, Jackie, but the bottom line is that I can't get
to it. Would you suggest that I burst into Spence-Chapin with an Uzi and demand
it. LOL!!
Have you put yourself all over the net looking for him?

Sure have.
Have you registered with ISSR with you looking for him?

Sure have.
What have you done to find him.. other than asking your birth mother?

See above.

Look everyone, I should get one thing straight. I'm not DYING to find my
birthfather. Would I like to know his last name? Sure. Can I get through the
rest of my life without knowing it? Absolutely.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote
Here we go again. "Adopter" is the term used both legally and professionally. Look in any contemporary adoption literataure (outside of sentimental mommie, daddie and NCFA crap) and that's what you'll find. What else are they? It's what they've done. And yes, and far as I'm concenred, biological parents are birthers.

Sure it's legal, but I'd say it's up to a person to decide whether the
people that raised them were their parents or not.

And surely "birther" doesn't have the same professional and legal heft
as "adopter"?

Rupa

In article <20031106232541.25789.00000187@mb-m02.aol.com>,
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:
Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would everknow who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing whoshe was.DiI have no personal experience with adoptions prior to the current openperiod,but based on all I've read and been told, the identities of all parties wereroutinely concealed. If you are correct (doubt it) and adoptive parents priorto the 1980's in the US typically were given the names of the birthmothers ofchildren they adopted, I'll eat my hat.P2P

My aparents weren't supposed to know my bmom's name....but the stupid clerk let
them carry the file upstairs to some other office they needed to go to for the
adoption. They could have copped a glance, but they didn't...more's the pity.

KL

In article <20031107231227.06042.00000335@mb-m02.aol.com>,
lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) writes:
Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)<20031107225305.26109.00000686@mb-m16.aol.com>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguessSo do tell SoulWhipper... Are you and Kathy friends on AOL?If this were true....what's it to you?You the friendship cop? LOL!Kathy#####mother's are only allowed to be honored as birthmothers if they agreewithJackie. Otherwise, it's not allowed.

There are no words..

In article <20031107222337.25789.00000222@mb-m02.aol.com>,
lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) writes:
Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 11/7/03 7:52 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031107215258.23307.00004236@mb-m29.aol.com>>Perhaps Di understood "Spence-Chapin" to be the 'significant' name in your>background?LOL, oh dear, I think you're right ;)I guess I should have written "Spence-Chapin Adoption Agency".Di, if that is what you thought, I apologize.RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557I don't see why you are apologizing. Everyone else here with any sense knewexactly what was what.KLWell to be fair, us ugly Americans do have to keep in mind that quite a fewposters here aren't from the US, so they might not have any idea whoSpence-Chapin is. Honest mistake, IMO.And no, I'm not kissing up. I had no idea wtf the Magdelen Launderies wereuntil I read about it in this NG.

Yeah, but it was pretty obvious she was talking about some sort of agency. I
have NEVER heard Spence-Chapin, but recognized what it was when I read it. Of
course I didn't have an agenda when I read it.

KL

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote
Would you suggest that I burst into Spence-Chapin with an Uzi and demand it. LOL!!

Hold that image right there.

I like it!

Rupa

In article <g8_qb.27247$cJ5.4321@www.newsranger.com>, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> writes:
In article <20031107231227.06042.00000335@mb-m02.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)<20031107225305.26109.00000686@mb-m16.aol.com>>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguess>>So do tell SoulWhipper... Are you and Kathy friends on AOL?>If this were true....what's it to you?You the friendship cop? LOL!Kathy#####mother's are only allowed to be honored as birthmothers if they agreewithJackie. Otherwise, it's not allowed.There are no words.... ;DRobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557

STOP READING MY MIND! ;-)

KL

"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in message
news:20031108163353.25517.00001964@mb-m15.aol.com... In article <20031106232541.25789.00000187@mb-m02.aol.com>, palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would everknow who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing whoshe was.DiI have no personal experience with adoptions prior to the current openperiod,but based on all I've read and been told, the identities of all parties
wereroutinely concealed. If you are correct (doubt it) and adoptive parents
priorto the 1980's in the US typically were given the names of the
birthmothers ofchildren they adopted, I'll eat my hat.P2P My aparents weren't supposed to know my bmom's name....but the stupid
clerk let them carry the file upstairs to some other office they needed to go to for
the adoption. They could have copped a glance, but they didn't...more's the
pity.

I know that in some agencies (who are all involved in search & reunion) they
sometimes leave the room during an interview with an adopted person, so that
they can accidentally-on-purpose 'find' their original birth name from the
open file on the desk. It lessens their load if the adoptees can do the
search themselves. :-) Occasionally though they lose the chance, being too
honourable to look at their OWN FILE!

Helen KL

"thomas" <thomformnospam@iaw.on.ca> wrote in message
news:bojt15$1f3blu$1@ID-191657.news.uni-berlin.de... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:P17rb.5041$bD.18210@news.indigo.ie... "Robin" <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:BBD154D6.2731A%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere.. . in article w6Mqb.4785$bD.17617@news.indigo.ie, helicon at helicon@eircom.net wrote on 7/11/03 12:06 pm: > > "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message > news:c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.c om... >> palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message > news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>... >>> Di blathers: >>> >>>> Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the >>>> adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all
given >>>> that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not
all >>>> still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to
ever >>>> lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the
folks. >>>> Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago? > In the UK - England and Wales, as far as I know. They most certainly were > NOT given them here in the Republic of Ireland. > > Helen The above statement says "nparents names" only the nparents' names as they appeared on the child's original birth certificate are on the Adoption Order which was given to aparents in England and Wales, before changes in
the legislation in 1958. After 1958 just the child's original name
appeared on the AO but that was quite sufficient information to purchase an OBC which would reveal the name of the natural mother and of the father if he
had been present at registration. As most natural fathers were not on the OBC,
it would be unusual for an adoptive parent in England and Wales to know
the natural father's name. The natural father's name was often recorded on the adoption files held by social services and the court. For adoptees to get the information about putative fathers from the file is still
sometimes quite difficult in England & Wales, we don't have the same right of access to court files that Scottish adoptees have. Yeah I know - that's what I meant. Natural parents' names were *never* given to adoptive parents in Ireland. Helen Robin Helen - I have my natural parent's information, and even with that found nothing - well except for one name. address and telephone number that I haven't phoned.

Doug - I forget (did I ever hear?) if you are talking about contact info in
Ireland? Can I help in any way?

Want to email me?
Will do it some time soon. Maybe even come and visit Ireland. Stock up on Guiness.

LOL - no need, it's always on tap in the local!

Helen
Doug Thomas

Robibnkoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<53_qb.27245$cJ5.4482@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c599139c.0311071852.2dc9d7f7@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<uWPqb.27073$cJ5.4350@www.newsranger.com>... In article <c403a139.0311070518.626ccc91@posting.google.com>, soulwhisper says... snip > >Di, > You are partially correct. Often what the adoptive parents received >was simply the adoption papers which had only the childs original full >name and not the name of the birthparents. Bingo! Well, in my case anyway ;) And you could access her first name. Well, no, I DID have access to her first name. I'm sure not every social worker is so willing to give out this information. Which means you were ableascertain herfull name by combining the two without relying on open records. Yes, and?HOWEVER, if your aparents had 'refused' to give you your ownoriginal birth name, all you'd have is your nmothers first name,which would leave you up **** creek without a paddle search-wise. True, however, I hope you will have notice that they DID readily give me that document. I can't help notice that you haven't mentioned that.So you had to rely on your adopters to give you your own orgininalsurname before you could discover your own, and subsequently yournmothers, full name. Well, to be honest, I could have had just about anyone call up the agency and claim to be my amom and get this information. Seriously, why are you totally glossing over the FACT that my aparents were ready and willing to assist me in this? Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

I'm not glossing over anything, Robyn. It's not really about your
aparents. I'm just using your situation as an example to show that
adopters (usually) have vital information that would allow the adoptee
to search without waiting for open records. As I've said earlier you
were one of the lucky one whose adopters didn't feel threatened by
reunion as so were willing to give you your information. The point was
that adopters generally have identifying information.

Di
of

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031107235304.03150.00000140@mb-m02.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 7:34 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071834.21669f20@posting.google.com>Okay, even IF adopters were ONLY given the child's original full name,if the child is also entitled to NON-identifying information thatincluded ONLY their nmothers first name (as in Robyn's case) they thenhave HER FULL NAME 'IF' they give the adoptee a copy of his ownoriginal full name.AND ALL WITHOUT REQUIRING OPEN RECORDS. It all depends on whether theadopters are willing to give the adoptee a copy of his original fullname - which includes his and his nmother's surname. Like I said.Di When I turned 21, my mom turned over absolutely everything my folks got from my whole adoption process. From their application, to the court decree. It included a one-paged little outline of non-id info about my bmom and dad. Also included the cutesy little "official" card from LSS of the adoption ceremony they went through in the adjoining church to make me "theirs" when they came to take me home. That's it. Total, finis. I was born in 1967. Now this is just my experience from the state I was born in. Not to be redundant, but there are 50 states, all that have had seperate, changing laws over the years regarding adoption. Even our birth certificates aren't uniform (that's why some adoptees have had trouble getting passports). Usually, Di, when the aparents have actually gotten the full original name of the adoptee, or bparents (not within the last 20 or so years, since adoptions have been more open but before that), it has been by an administrative mistake, not by common practice.

Adopters around the world are given a copy of the Adoption
Order/Decree. It is a legal document to show that the child they
adopted now legally belongs to them. The wording on those documents
included the exchange of names, eg "I do hereby declare that the
child previously known as Tommy Tipup will from henceforth be known as
Bob the Builder." They had to be given a copy of the Adoption order
to be able to prove the child is legally theirs and to apply for its
new ABC. Unles the babyis name was unknown as in the case of
abandoned babies their original name was always supposed to be on the
AO.


Until the last couple of years, all but 2 states had closed records.

Closed records only pertain to the infomration being withheld between
nmother and child. I agree that if they have it, it's heinous that aparents haven't disclosed it to the adult adoptee (and have shared before about a friend who found out her aparents had that info 4 years after they died). But in the majority of closed adoptions, this info isn't part of what is given to adoptees or aparents, unless there is a fortunate (for us seeking) goof, or loophole that wasn't covered. So yeah, a lot of adoptees and bparents manage to reunite, DESPITE the closed record system. I was talking to my younger brother recently, and I'm hoping he'll let me see his paperwork on this issue. I'll black out all the important stuff, and share it, but I haven't seen anything like it addressed ANYWHERE. My aparents also gave him his "file" when he turned 21, and I just find this extremely weird. He was also adopted through LSS, but in a dif city. The agency told my folks that his bparents were together, had admitted to using drugs (acid) during his conception/pregnancy, and had actually signed a paper agreeing never to try to find him. I pooh poohed this whole thing, after being online and learning for awhile, and dismissed it as adoption agency rhetoric. Sat down with my brother a few months ago, and explained that whoever told his bparents didn't have the authority to promise/threaten them with complete anonyminity (sp). Talked about the state laws and all. Well apparently, his paperwork says that he was released to a FEDERAL testing agency at birth, because of his bparents' drug use (this was in 1969). According to him, it DOES say that his parents agreed not to try to find him. Not that HE couldn't seek THEM out, just that THEY wouldn't try to find HIM.
That's the same as the laws here. Mother had to legally promise not
ot interfer in child's life or attempt contact.
I don't want to be pushy (my parents DID raise us to believe that our personal adoption stories were ours and ours alone, to be considered privately, and I've already broke the mold by being such a blabbermouth about it). We're going to get together next month, and I hope he'll show it to me.

It will be interesting to see what's there. Keep us informed.

Di

"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zi8rb.217933$0v4.16621623@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311071839.6fd54717@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<ujOqb.31736$Ec1.2811323@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311070611.1f7a6218@posting.google.c om... > You don't need an "official" record to have a successful search. In fact, very few successful searches are done with docouments such as obcs. Of course, you have to know what you're doing, and most people don't have a clue. Marley Whihc doesn't help if you don't know how to do it. BTW how do you do it wihtout a name to go by? Di I don't want to give away any secrets here and of course it depends on many factors including public records access (those that anybody can access), names (if you end up looking for a Smith or a Johnson you'll have a hell of a time), access to paid databases, non-ID information. It's matter of knowing how to use what you've got matching it all up. , It's a skilled profession that at-tracts amateurs, con artists, money grubbers and con artists. My search for Dottie cost about $5.00 (but then I had a name) and Jack cost about the same. I know I'm fortunate in that I was dealing with a very odd name that hardly anybody has (in the US we were the only ones, in England there are less than 10 with different spellings). Marley Marley

An unusual name helps. I found my son's afamily within 2 hours of
obtaining his ABC due to same.

Di

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)Date: 11/7/03 8:12 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031107231227.06042.00000335@mb-m02.aol.com>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)<20031107225305.26109.00000686@mb-m16.aol.com>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguessSo do tell SoulWhipper... Are you and Kathy friends on AOL?If this were true....what's it to you?You the friendship cop? LOL!Kathy#####mother's are only allowed to be honored as birthmothers if they agreewithJackie. Otherwise, it's not allowed.

I guess I just didn't go there in my head.



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/03 8:18 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <g8_qb.27247$cJ5.4321@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031107231227.06042.00000335@mb-m02.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)<20031107225305.26109.00000686@mb-m16.aol.com>>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguess>>So do tell SoulWhipper... Are you and Kathy friends on AOL?>If this were true....what's it to you?You the friendship cop? LOL!Kathy#####mother's are only allowed to be honored as birthmothers if they agreewithJackie. Otherwise, it's not allowed.There are no words.... ;D

Beauty.



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:P17rb.5041$bD.18210@news.indigo.ie... "Robin" <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:BBD154D6.2731A%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere.. . in article w6Mqb.4785$bD.17617@news.indigo.ie, helicon at helicon@eircom.net wrote on 7/11/03 12:06 pm: "Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:c599139c.0311062000.595222e7@posting.google.c om...> palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote in message news:<20031106143234.21118.00000503@mb-m12.aol.com>...>> Di blathers:>>>>> Apropos sectecy, why don't all the adoptive parents just give the>>> adoptees their nparents names? Afterall they were almost all given>>> that information at the time of the adoption. If they were not all>>> still maintaining their own secrets, there would be no need to ever>>> lobby for open records. Adoptees would only need to asks the folks.>>> Why didn't/don't they tell, and why didn't they, decades ago? In the UK - England and Wales, as far as I know. They most certainly were NOT given them here in the Republic of Ireland. Helen The above statement says "nparents names" only the nparents' names as
they appeared on the child's original birth certificate are on the Adoption Order which was given to aparents in England and Wales, before changes in the legislation in 1958. After 1958 just the child's original name appeared
on the AO but that was quite sufficient information to purchase an OBC
which would reveal the name of the natural mother and of the father if he had been present at registration. As most natural fathers were not on the OBC, it would be unusual for an adoptive parent in England and Wales to know the natural father's name. The natural father's name was often recorded on
the adoption files held by social services and the court. For adoptees to
get the information about putative fathers from the file is still sometimes quite difficult in England & Wales, we don't have the same right of
access to court files that Scottish adoptees have. Yeah I know - that's what I meant. Natural parents' names were *never*
given to adoptive parents in Ireland. Helen Robin
Helen - I have my natural parent's information, and even with that found
nothing - well except for one name. address and telephone number that I
haven't phoned.

Will do it some time soon. Maybe even come and visit Ireland. Stock up on
Guiness.

Doug Thomas

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/03 6:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <kIYqb.27221$cJ5.4396@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031107202640.13612.00000132@mb-m26.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 4:50 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <v3foqv4519lla2m3s4qk8j3ecqtpqv66te@4ax.com>On 06 Nov 2003 03:28:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:>>If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim it>>is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! It>>means they already have it. Besides they can always ask their>>adopters given that they got that information as well.>>>>Di>>I never claimed any such thing...but continue to babble...Just for the record..Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..Jackie..Lmao.....Maybe you and Di could get a room together in the asylum. HappyTrails...Oh dear ;)While Di made have had a, ahem, "point", just because a name may be in anadoption file, doesn't mean that it is legally accessible ;)Robyn

Yeah, really, Robyn, what the hell was up with that? Like this is something
none of us already knew.

Do you think Di takes herself too seriously?

(this may be a trick question)....;p


Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/03 6:44 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <nMYqb.27224$cJ5.4270@www.newsranger.com>In article <v3foqv4519lla2m3s4qk8j3ecqtpqv66te@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 06 Nov 2003 03:28:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:>If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim it>is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! It>means they already have it. Besides they can always ask their>adopters given that they got that information as well.>>DiI never claimed any such thing...but continue to babble...Just for the record..Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..So, are you also under the impression that aparents hide their akids bioinformation from them on purpose?And here I thought you didn't judge....Robyn

::::spew:::::

We'll know for sure when she starts to parrot Lady Di, and refers personally
to your parents as your adopters.....maybe next week at the rate she's
blowing...



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 11/8/03 4:24 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0311081624.42db5cf0@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote Would you suggest that I burst into Spence-Chapin with an Uzi and demand it. LOL!!Hold that image right there.I like it!Rupa

Me too!

Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/03 7:49 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <6JZqb.27238$cJ5.4454@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031107220544.26109.00000676@mb-m16.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 6:39 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071839.6fd54717@posting.google.com>Whihc doesn't help if you don't know how to do it. BTW how do you doit wihtout a name to go by?DiAre you stoned again?....lolPerhaps she's PWD? ;)

I dunno, and I don't wanna' know...lol



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)Date: 11/7/03 8:17 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031107231716.03150.00000139@mb-m02.aol.com>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy)Date: 11/7/03 8:46 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031107224641.26109.00000683@mb-m16.aol.com>> I>know that this will burst Jackie and Di's bubbles....but I will not goalong>with the idea that women like you have just described are owed a courtesyfor>having kept self-serving secrets.I have met the enemy and it is you..Jackie:P~~Kathy"To err is human; to forgive, divine."Don't forget, Kathy, you were "golden". You had that ring. So you're not AREAL birthmom. puke.

Perfect.

Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: "helicon" helicon@eircom.netDate: 11/8/03 5:14 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <vsgrb.5130$bD.18561@news.indigo.ie>"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in messagenews:20031108163353.25517.00001964@mb-m15.aol.com... In article <20031106232541.25789.00000187@mb-m02.aol.com>, palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:>Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would ever>know who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing who>she was.>>DiI have no personal experience with adoptions prior to the current openperiod,but based on all I've read and been told, the identities of all partieswereroutinely concealed. If you are correct (doubt it) and adoptive parentspriorto the 1980's in the US typically were given the names of thebirthmothers ofchildren they adopted, I'll eat my hat.P2P My aparents weren't supposed to know my bmom's name....but the stupidclerk let them carry the file upstairs to some other office they needed to go to forthe adoption. They could have copped a glance, but they didn't...more's thepity.I know that in some agencies (who are all involved in search & reunion) theysometimes leave the room during an interview with an adopted person, so thatthey can accidentally-on-purpose 'find' their original birth name from theopen file on the desk. It lessens their load if the adoptees can do thesearch themselves. :-) Occasionally though they lose the chance, being toohonourable to look at their OWN FILE!Helen

I've heard this as well from some here in The states, too...:)


Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/8/03 5:47 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311081747.19e93557@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20031107235304.03150.00000140@mb-m02.aol.com>...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/7/03 7:34 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311071834.21669f20@posting.google.com>Okay, even IF adopters were ONLY given the child's original full name,if the child is also entitled to NON-identifying information thatincluded ONLY their nmothers first name (as in Robyn's case) they thenhave HER FULL NAME 'IF' they give the adoptee a copy of his ownoriginal full name.AND ALL WITHOUT REQUIRING OPEN RECORDS. It all depends on whether theadopters are willing to give the adoptee a copy of his original fullname - which includes his and his nmother's surname. Like I said.Di When I turned 21, my mom turned over absolutely everything my folks gotfrom my whole adoption process. From their application, to the court decree. It included a one-paged little outline of non-id info about my bmom and dad.Also included the cutesy little "official" card from LSS of the adoptionceremony they went through in the adjoining church to make me "theirs" when theycame to take me home. That's it. Total, finis. I was born in 1967. Now this is just my experience from the state I was born in. Not to be redundant, but there are 50 states, all that have had seperate, changinglaws over the years regarding adoption. Even our birth certificates aren'tuniform (that's why some adoptees have had trouble getting passports). Usually, Di, when the aparents have actually gotten the full original nameof the adoptee, or bparents (not within the last 20 or so years, sinceadoptions have been more open but before that), it has been by an administrativemistake, not by common practice.Adopters around the world are given a copy of the AdoptionOrder/Decree. It is a legal document to show that the child theyadopted now legally belongs to them. The wording on those documentsincluded the exchange of names, eg "I do hereby declare that thechild previously known as Tommy Tipup will from henceforth be known asBob the Builder." They had to be given a copy of the Adoption orderto be able to prove the child is legally theirs and to apply for itsnew ABC. Unles the babyis name was unknown as in the case ofabandoned babies their original name was always supposed to be on theAO.

Are you insane, Di?

Your bald-faced lies....Unless you would like to preface your statement by
saying some or not many. You make it sound like this was routine. It may have
been in Au. but is sure was not so in The US, and I resent you speaking as
though it was fact for all adoption orders/decrees.






Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote in message news:<20031108163353.25517.00001964@mb-m15.aol.com>... In article <20031106232541.25789.00000187@mb-m02.aol.com>, palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would everknow who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing whoshe was.DiI have no personal experience with adoptions prior to the current openperiod,but based on all I've read and been told, the identities of all parties wereroutinely concealed. If you are correct (doubt it) and adoptive parents priorto the 1980's in the US typically were given the names of the birthmothers ofchildren they adopted, I'll eat my hat.P2P My aparents weren't supposed to know my bmom's name....but the stupid clerk let them carry the file upstairs to some other office they needed to go to for the adoption. They could have copped a glance, but they didn't...more's the pity. KL

That stupid clerk was mighty busy. How many other adopters do you
suppose didn't sneak a look at the name? And how many adopters do you
suppose didn't read the memo given to them to hand to the nursery
Sister to ensure that she gave them the correctly matched and allotted
child, whose name was noted on the memo? How many adopters do you
suppose didn't look at the hospital name tag that was often left on
the baby until it was off hospital grounds?

Wait until the records all open. Only then do you really get to see
what memorandums, orders, etc were given to whom and by whom and how
the paper trail progressed from point of application to adopt to
picking up baby.

Di

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0311081231.6909aabd@posting.google.c om... "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote Here we go again. "Adopter" is the term used both legally and professionally. Look in any contemporary adoption literataure (outside
of sentimental mommie, daddie and NCFA crap) and that's what you'll find. What else are they? It's what they've done. And yes, and far as I'm concenred, biological parents are birthers. Sure it's legal, but I'd say it's up to a person to decide whether the people that raised them were their parents or not. And surely "birther" doesn't have the same professional and legal heft as "adopter"? Rupa

Oh, I don't know. Birthers do the work and adopters pretend they did.
Perhaps not the same legal standing, but from a political pov, it's a class
thing.

Marley

Marley

"Kathy" <meagan787@aol.comsthesun> wrote in message
news:20031108215313.14843.00000315@mb-m22.aol.com...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by
guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/8/03 5:47 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311081747.19e93557@posting.google.com>lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in messagenews:<20031107235304.03150.00000140@mb-m02.aol.com>... >Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written
byguess >who... >From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) >Date: 11/7/03 7:34 PM Mountain Standard Time >Message-id: <c599139c.0311071834.21669f20@posting.google.com> >Okay, even IF adopters were ONLY given the child's original full name, >if the child is also entitled to NON-identifying information that >included ONLY their nmothers first name (as in Robyn's case) they then >have HER FULL NAME 'IF' they give the adoptee a copy of his own >original full name. > >AND ALL WITHOUT REQUIRING OPEN RECORDS. It all depends on whether the >adopters are willing to give the adoptee a copy of his original full >name - which includes his and his nmother's surname. Like I said. > >Di > When I turned 21, my mom turned over absolutely everything my folks gotfrom my whole adoption process. From their application, to the court decree.
It included a one-paged little outline of non-id info about my bmom and
dad.Also included the cutesy little "official" card from LSS of the adoptionceremony they went through in the adjoining church to make me "theirs" when theycame to take me home. That's it. Total, finis. I was born in 1967. Now this is just my experience from the state I was born in. Not to be redundant, but there are 50 states, all that have had seperate,
changinglaws over the years regarding adoption. Even our birth certificates aren'tuniform (that's why some adoptees have had trouble getting passports). Usually, Di, when the aparents have actually gotten the full original
nameof the adoptee, or bparents (not within the last 20 or so years, sinceadoptions have been more open but before that), it has been by an administrativemistake, not by common practice.Adopters around the world are given a copy of the AdoptionOrder/Decree. It is a legal document to show that the child theyadopted now legally belongs to them. The wording on those documentsincluded the exchange of names, eg "I do hereby declare that thechild previously known as Tommy Tipup will from henceforth be known asBob the Builder." They had to be given a copy of the Adoption orderto be able to prove the child is legally theirs and to apply for itsnew ABC. Unles the babyis name was unknown as in the case ofabandoned babies their original name was always supposed to be on theAO. Are you insane, Di? Your bald-faced lies....Unless you would like to preface your statement by saying some or not many. You make it sound like this was routine. It may
have been in Au. but is sure was not so in The US, and I resent you speaking as though it was fact for all adoption orders/decrees. Kathy "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

My adodption decree did have my original name on it, but not Dottie's first
name, and my paents had a copy of it. There are other decrees that don't
have that information. It all depends on the jurisdiction and the date.
Legal forms change constantly.

Marley

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 11/8/03 5:22 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031108192226.25517.00001966@mb-m15.aol.com>In article <20031107222337.25789.00000222@mb-m02.aol.com>,lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) writes:Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 11/7/03 7:52 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031107215258.23307.00004236@mb-m29.aol.com>>>Perhaps Di understood "Spence-Chapin" to be the 'significant' name inyour>>background?>>LOL, oh dear, I think you're right ;)>>I guess I should have written "Spence-Chapin Adoption Agency".>>Di, if that is what you thought, I apologize.>>Robyn>Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster>#1557I don't see why you are apologizing. Everyone else here with any senseknewexactly what was what.KLWell to be fair, us ugly Americans do have to keep in mind that quite a fewposters here aren't from the US, so they might not have any idea whoSpence-Chapin is. Honest mistake, IMO.And no, I'm not kissing up. I had no idea wtf the Magdelen Launderies wereuntil I read about it in this NG.Yeah, but it was pretty obvious she was talking about some sort of agency. Ihave NEVER heard Spence-Chapin, but recognized what it was when I read it.Ofcourse I didn't have an agenda when I read it.KL

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Then again, we can beat it to
death for the next year. ;-)

In article <vsgrb.5130$bD.18561@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says...
snip
I know that in some agencies (who are all involved in search & reunion) theysometimes leave the room during an interview with an adopted person, so thatthey can accidentally-on-purpose 'find' their original birth name from theopen file on the desk. It lessens their load if the adoptees can do thesearch themselves. :-) Occasionally though they lose the chance, being toohonourable to look at their OWN FILE!

Oh dear, you can bet your sweet bippie I would have been ripping my file open
and memorizing every little detail :)

There's an adoptee I know who when she began her search met with a social worker
at the agency. The social worker had her file right in front of her, but
wouldn't let her see it. I told her I would have grabbed that thing right out
of her hands and run out the door as fast as I could ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031108212938.14843.00000309@mb-m22.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 11/8/03 4:24 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <e5619372.0311081624.42db5cf0@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote Would you suggest that I burst into Spence-Chapin with an Uzi and demand it. LOL!!Hold that image right there.I like it!RupaMe too!

LOL, sorry to disappoint, but while I can be a *****, I'm relatively non-violent
;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031108212446.14843.00000307@mb-m22.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/03 6:40 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <kIYqb.27221$cJ5.4396@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031107202640.13612.00000132@mb-m26.aol.com>, Kathy says...>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguess>who...>From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com>Date: 11/7/03 4:50 PM Pacific Standard Time>Message-id: <v3foqv4519lla2m3s4qk8j3ecqtpqv66te@4ax.com>>>On 06 Nov 2003 03:28:08 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:>>>>If his name is already recorded on the adoption files as you claim it>>>is then the adoptee has no need to ask her for his name, do they! It>>>means they already have it. Besides they can always ask their>>>adopters given that they got that information as well.>>>>>>Di>>>>I never claimed any such thing...but continue to babble...>>Just for the record..>>Di you have made such an excellent point in this thread..>>I personally do not consider it babble in any way shape or form..>>>Jackie..>Lmao.....Maybe you and Di could get a room together in the asylum. HappyTrails...Oh dear ;)While Di made have had a, ahem, "point", just because a name may be in anadoption file, doesn't mean that it is legally accessible ;)RobynYeah, really, Robyn, what the hell was up with that? Like this is somethingnone of us already knew.Do you think Di takes herself too seriously?(this may be a trick question)....;p

D'oh! Say no more ;D

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <c599139c.0311081729.e55f53@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnkoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<53_qb.27245$cJ5.4482@www.newsranger.com>...snip
Well, to be honest, I could have had just about anyone call up the agency and claim to be my amom and get this information. Seriously, why are you totally glossing over the FACT that my aparents were ready and willing to assist me in this? Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557I'm not glossing over anything, Robyn. It's not really about youraparents. I'm just using your situation as an example to show thatadopters (usually) have vital information that would allow the adopteeto search without waiting for open records.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how MY situation speaks for other adoptions
throughout the world. I think research and statistics might prove your "point"
better than my personal story.

And don't forget, there are a lot of adoptees out there that were never named by
their bmoms. One that I know was called "baby girl". How helpful would have
information have been for a search?

As I've said earlier youwere one of the lucky one whose adopters didn't feel threatened byreunion as so were willing to give you your information. The point wasthat adopters generally have identifying information.

Can you prove this? Please show your research.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Just wondering, If parents that adopt are adopters, are parents who give birth
birthers? Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/8/2003
The point wasthat adopters generally have identifying information.Di

>Just wondering, If parents that adopt are adopters, are parents who givebirthbirthers? Kathy J>>

At least once annually I have to post the official Fair Adoption Lingo which
was developed by the Coalition for Adoption Lingo Fairness, or CALF:

If there are adopters, there are relinquishers.

If there are adoptive parents, there are birth parents.

If there are baby buyers, there are baby sellers.

If there are natural parents, there are nurturing parents.

Everyone print this out and tape it to your computer.

Thank you.

This has been a public service announcement.


P2P

In article <yo8rb.217961$0v4.16623397@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Hey, Jeanette. How ya doin'? Where ya been?

Busy. I have a house, a yard and 2 teenagers. What else is there? Plus I got
tired of all the war crap.

Jeannette, bmom

Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.
Paul Boese


The Animal Rescue Site - Feed An Animal In Need
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites

I call them that.

Marley


"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031109130058.07556.00000578@mb-m15.aol.com... Just wondering, If parents that adopt are adopters, are parents who give
birth birthers? Kathy J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by
guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/8/2003The point wasthat adopters generally have identifying information.Di

"Jrobnett1" <jrobnett1@aol.combustible> wrote in message
news:20031109132859.23171.00001966@mb-m05.aol.com... In article <yo8rb.217961$0v4.16623397@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:Hey, Jeanette. How ya doin'? Where ya been? Busy. I have a house, a yard and 2 teenagers. What else is there? Plus
I got tired of all the war crap. Jeannette, bmom Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future. Paul Boese The Animal Rescue Site - Feed An Animal In Need http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites

Do you have a ***** for your yard yet. I'd be glad to recommend a few, but
you, of course would have to do the interviews.

Marley

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 11/9/03 10:37 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <mPvrb.224730$0v4.16752544@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>I call them that.Marley


Top Posting:

It's different the way that you come across.
We are all aware of the legal lingo for adoptive parents...

However, Marley...you would not come across so clinical as Di has done
it...writing personally to an adoptee, (Robyn , in this case), and refer to her
parents so callously as adopters...

And that is the difference, Marley.

"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20031109130058.07556.00000578@mb-m15.aol.com... Just wondering, If parents that adopt are adopters, are parents who givebirth birthers? Kathy J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/8/2003The point wasthat adopters generally have identifying information.Di



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 11/9/03 10:07 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031109130700.10410.00000394@mb-m02.aol.com>Just wondering, If parents that adopt are adopters, are parents who givebirthbirthers? Kathy J>>At least once annually I have to post the official Fair Adoption Lingo whichwas developed by the Coalition for Adoption Lingo Fairness, or CALF:If there are adopters, there are relinquishers.If there are adoptive parents, there are birth parents.If there are baby buyers, there are baby sellers.If there are natural parents, there are nurturing parents.Everyone print this out and tape it to your computer.Thank you.This has been a public service announcement.P2P

Oh but Palms, you forgot the most important one to add to our list...

If there are brood mares, there's Di.

(snark)




Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/9/03 9:36 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9Wurb.27497$cJ5.4385@www.newsranger.com>In article <c599139c.0311081729.e55f53@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnkoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<53_qb.27245$cJ5.4482@www.newsranger.com>...snip Well, to be honest, I could have had just about anyone call up the agencyand claim to be my amom and get this information. Seriously, why are you totally glossing over the FACT that my aparentswere ready and willing to assist me in this? Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557I'm not glossing over anything, Robyn. It's not really about youraparents. I'm just using your situation as an example to show thatadopters (usually) have vital information that would allow the adopteeto search without waiting for open records.I'm sorry, but I fail to see how MY situation speaks for other adoptionsthroughout the world. I think research and statistics might prove your"point"better than my personal story.And don't forget, there are a lot of adoptees out there that were never namedbytheir bmoms. One that I know was called "baby girl". How helpful would haveinformation have been for a search?As I've said earlier youwere one of the lucky one whose adopters didn't feel threatened byreunion as so were willing to give you your information. The point wasthat adopters generally have identifying information.Can you prove this? Please show your research.Robyn

Don't hold your breath waiting for Di's proof,.. Robyn.

(sigh)



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <e5619372.0311081624.42db5cf0@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote Would you suggest that I burst into Spence-Chapin with an Uzi and demand it. LOL!!Hold that image right there.I like it!Rupa

Don't forget you must set fire to it first, and then pee it out. Must do
things in the right order you know. ;-)

KL

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 11/9/2003
At least once annually I have to post the official Fair Adoption Lingo whichwas developed by the Coalition for Adoption Lingo Fairness, or CALF:If there are adopters, there are relinquishers.If there are adoptive parents, there are birth parents.If there are baby buyers, there are baby sellers.If there are natural parents, there are nurturing parents.Everyone print this out and tape it to your computer.Thank you.This has been a public service announcement.P2P

Thanks P2P

<SNIPPED>

In article <20031109130700.10410.00000394@mb-m02.aol.com>,
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:
At least once annually I have to post the official Fair Adoption Lingo whichwas developed by the Coalition for Adoption Lingo Fairness, or CALF:

Surely you jest.

KL

In article <9Wurb.27497$cJ5.4385@www.newsranger.com>, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> writes:
<SNIPPED>And don't forget, there are a lot of adoptees out there that were never namedbytheir bmoms. One that I know was called "baby girl". How helpful would haveinformation have been for a search?

I knew a girl who was called BG, short for Baby Girl. Her mom took so long to
name her that the BG nickname just stuck. I kinda thought it was a terrible
thing, but they didn't seem to think so.

KL

In article <20031109112332.26389.00000187@mb-m23.aol.com>,
lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) writes:
Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 11/8/03 5:22 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031108192226.25517.00001966@mb-m15.aol.com>In article <20031107222337.25789.00000222@mb-m02.aol.com>,lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) writes:>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguess>who...>From: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)>Date: 11/7/03 7:52 PM Mountain Standard Time>Message-id: <20031107215258.23307.00004236@mb-m29.aol.com>>>>Perhaps Di understood "Spence-Chapin" to be the 'significant' name inyour>>>background?>>>>LOL, oh dear, I think you're right ;)>>>>I guess I should have written "Spence-Chapin Adoption Agency".>>>>Di, if that is what you thought, I apologize.>>>>Robyn>>Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster>>#1557>>I don't see why you are apologizing. Everyone else here with any senseknew>exactly what was what.>>KL>Well to be fair, us ugly Americans do have to keep in mind that quite a fewposters here aren't from the US, so they might not have any idea whoSpence-Chapin is. Honest mistake, IMO.And no, I'm not kissing up. I had no idea wtf the Magdelen Launderies wereuntil I read about it in this NG.Yeah, but it was pretty obvious she was talking about some sort of agency.Ihave NEVER heard Spence-Chapin, but recognized what it was when I read it.Ofcourse I didn't have an agenda when I read it.KLI guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Then again, we can beat it todeath for the next year. ;-)

Perfect..

;-)

KL

In article <c599139c.0311082130.6801cd43@posting.google.com>,
patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) writes:
klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote in messagenews:<20031108163353.25517.00001964@mb-m15.aol.com>... In article <20031106232541.25789.00000187@mb-m02.aol.com>, palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:>Closed reocrds meant that neither the child nor the nmother would ever>know who each other was. That did not apply to adopters knowing who>she was.>>DiI have no personal experience with adoptions prior to the current openperiod,but based on all I've read and been told, the identities of all partieswereroutinely concealed. If you are correct (doubt it) and adoptive parentspriorto the 1980's in the US typically were given the names of the birthmothersofchildren they adopted, I'll eat my hat.P2P My aparents weren't supposed to know my bmom's name....but the stupid clerklet them carry the file upstairs to some other office they needed to go to forthe adoption. They could have copped a glance, but they didn't...more's thepity. KLThat stupid clerk was mighty busy. How many other adopters do yousuppose didn't sneak a look at the name? And how many adopters do yousuppose didn't read the memo given to them to hand to the nurserySister to ensure that she gave them the correctly matched and allottedchild, whose name was noted on the memo? How many adopters do yousuppose didn't look at the hospital name tag that was often left onthe baby until it was off hospital grounds?Wait until the records all open. Only then do you really get to seewhat memorandums, orders, etc were given to whom and by whom and howthe paper trail progressed from point of application to adopt topicking up baby.Di

Excuse me Di, but your frothing over a bit, and got some on your shirt....

You don't know Jack**** about adoption in the US. I was given up for adoption
at birth, but wasn't actually given to my aparents until I was a few months
old. I certainly didn't come from the nursery at the hospital, and therefore
had no aforementioned hospital tag on me. I wasn't picked up from some nurse
Ratchett manning the fort. My parents went to the county offices and the
social worker handed me over. You really ought to know of what you speak
before you spew forth such venom.

KL

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 17:36:05 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
And don't forget, there are a lot of adoptees out there that were never named bytheir bmoms. One that I know was called "baby girl". How helpful would haveinformation have been for a search?

Some of us were told we were not supposed to name our children..

I thought I had no right.. How could I name him when I had not even
looked at him?

Jackie

On 09 Nov 2003 18:00:58 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Just wondering, If parents that adopt are adopters, are parents who give birthbirthers? Kathy J


I'm a birther ... I'm a bmom.. I'm a birth mom.. I'm a natural mom...
I am a mother..


Jackie~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/8/2003The point wasthat adopters generally have identifying information.Di

>palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:At least once annually I have to post the official Fair Adoption Lingo whichwas developed by the Coalition for Adoption Lingo Fairness, or CALF:Surely you jest.KL
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) writes:At least once annually I have to post the official Fair Adoption Lingo whichwas developed by the Coalition for Adoption Lingo Fairness, or CALF:Surely you jest.KL


Yep.


P2P

>Oh but Palms, you forgot the most important one to add to our list...If there are brood mares, there's Di.(snark)


That's an issue for a whole different committee, Kathy.


P2P

In article <rmhtqv4iitfkiqdkg5plda8kbuin2cnlga@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 17:36:05 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:And don't forget, there are a lot of adoptees out there that were never named bytheir bmoms. One that I know was called "baby girl". How helpful would haveinformation have been for a search?Some of us were told we were not supposed to name our children..I thought I had no right.. How could I name him when I had not evenlooked at him?

I guess that would depend on the individual. My SIL never saw the daughter she
relinquished and she had no problem giving her a name.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031109141854.29815.00001585@mb-m21.aol.com>, KL says...In article <e5619372.0311081624.42db5cf0@posting.google.com>,rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote Would you suggest that I burst into Spence-Chapin with an Uzi and demand it. LOL!!Hold that image right there.I like it!RupaDon't forget you must set fire to it first, and then pee it out.

On what? The Uzi? ;)

Must dothings in the right order you know. ;-)

I'll keep that in mind :D

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031109140002.20427.00000329@mb-m17.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/9/03 9:36 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9Wurb.27497$cJ5.4385@www.newsranger.com>In article <c599139c.0311081729.e55f53@posting.google.com>, Dian says...Robibnkoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<53_qb.27245$cJ5.4482@www.newsranger.com>...snip> Well, to be honest, I could have had just about anyone call up the agencyand> claim to be my amom and get this information.>> Seriously, why are you totally glossing over the FACT that my aparentswere> ready and willing to assist me in this?>> Robyn> Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster> #1557I'm not glossing over anything, Robyn. It's not really about youraparents. I'm just using your situation as an example to show thatadopters (usually) have vital information that would allow the adopteeto search without waiting for open records.I'm sorry, but I fail to see how MY situation speaks for other adoptionsthroughout the world. I think research and statistics might prove your"point"better than my personal story.And don't forget, there are a lot of adoptees out there that were never namedbytheir bmoms. One that I know was called "baby girl". How helpful would haveinformation have been for a search?As I've said earlier youwere one of the lucky one whose adopters didn't feel threatened byreunion as so were willing to give you your information. The point wasthat adopters generally have identifying information.Can you prove this? Please show your research.RobynDon't hold your breath waiting for Di's proof,.. Robyn.

Don't worry, I'm not. And I also realize that adoptions have changed vastly
during the time after my own occured. In fact, I spoke to two amoms this past
Saturday (their daughters and my daughter are in the same ballet/tap classes)
and both of them have extensive information about their daughter's bioparents,
which they will be giving to them on their 21st birthdays.'

One of the adoptions is a semi-open one, wherein the amom gives letters,
pictures, etc. to the agency who then passes them onto the bio mom. So far, the
bio mom has refused them. Still, the amom continues to send in these items and
hopes that one day, when she's ready, the bio mom will accept them.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031109134420.20427.00000326@mb-m17.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 11/9/03 10:37 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <mPvrb.224730$0v4.16752544@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>I call them that.MarleyTop Posting:It's different the way that you come across.We are all aware of the legal lingo for adoptive parents...However, Marley...you would not come across so clinical as Di has doneit...writing personally to an adoptee, (Robyn , in this case), and refer to herparents so callously as adopters...And that is the difference, Marley.

I agree, I'm not overly found of the term myself and would never refer to my
aPARENTS in such a manner.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/9/03 3:54 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <PsArb.27586$cJ5.4483@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031109134420.20427.00000326@mb-m17.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 11/9/03 10:37 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <mPvrb.224730$0v4.16752544@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>I call them that.MarleyTop Posting:It's different the way that you come across.We are all aware of the legal lingo for adoptive parents...However, Marley...you would not come across so clinical as Di has doneit...writing personally to an adoptee, (Robyn , in this case), and refer toherparents so callously as adopters...And that is the difference, Marley.I agree, I'm not overly found of the term myself and would never refer to myaPARENTS in such a manner.

Robyn, which makes me wonder about something. You don't suppose that Di when
talking with her son, refers to his parents as his adopters? I bet she does
not...so why would she take such liberty to disrespect you?





Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)Date: 11/9/03 3:29 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <20031109182917.26644.00000414@mb-m28.aol.com>Oh but Palms, you forgot the most important one to add to our list...If there are brood mares, there's Di.(snark)That's an issue for a whole different committee, Kathy.P2P

LMAO!


Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/9/03 3:53 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <ArArb.27585$cJ5.4524@www.newsranger.com>In article <20031109140002.20427.00000329@mb-m17.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written byguesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/9/03 9:36 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9Wurb.27497$cJ5.4385@www.newsranger.com>In article <c599139c.0311081729.e55f53@posting.google.com>, Dian says...>>Robibnkoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<53_qb.27245$cJ5.4482@www.newsranger.com>...snip>> Well, to be honest, I could have had just about anyone call up theagencyand>> claim to be my amom and get this information.>>>> Seriously, why are you totally glossing over the FACT that my aparentswere>> ready and willing to assist me in this?>>>> Robyn>> Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster>> #1557>>I'm not glossing over anything, Robyn. It's not really about your>aparents. I'm just using your situation as an example to show that>adopters (usually) have vital information that would allow the adoptee>to search without waiting for open records.I'm sorry, but I fail to see how MY situation speaks for other adoptionsthroughout the world. I think research and statistics might prove your"point"better than my personal story.And don't forget, there are a lot of adoptees out there that were nevernamedbytheir bmoms. One that I know was called "baby girl". How helpful wouldhaveinformation have been for a search?As I've said earlier you>were one of the lucky one whose adopters didn't feel threatened by>reunion as so were willing to give you your information. The point was>that adopters generally have identifying information.Can you prove this? Please show your research.RobynDon't hold your breath waiting for Di's proof,.. Robyn.Don't worry, I'm not. And I also realize that adoptions have changed vastlyduring the time after my own occured. In fact, I spoke to two amoms thispastSaturday (their daughters and my daughter are in the same ballet/tap classes)and both of them have extensive information about their daughter'sbioparents,which they will be giving to them on their 21st birthdays.'One of the adoptions is a semi-open one, wherein the amom gives letters,pictures, etc. to the agency who then passes them onto the bio mom. So far,thebio mom has refused them. Still, the amom continues to send in these itemsandhopes that one day, when she's ready, the bio mom will accept them.Robyn

Good for that *adopter* that she is trying to keep the lines of communication
open by sending briefs on the child. Hopefully, as you said, she will come
around... :-)

*hehehe*



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <20031109190618.29062.00000393@mb-m12.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.com
snipI agree, I'm not overly found of the term myself and would never refer to myaPARENTS in such a manner.Robyn, which makes me wonder about something. You don't suppose that Di whentalking with her son, refers to his parents as his adopters? I bet she doesnot...so why would she take such liberty to disrespect you?

Probably because I'm just a name in a newsgroup ;p

And I would hope that she wouldn't refer to her bio son's parents as "adopters",
but you never know.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:ArArb.27585$cJ5.4524@www.newsranger.com... In article <20031109140002.20427.00000329@mb-m17.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: "Yes, it's all YOUR fault - just ask Jackie"... written by
guesswho...From: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/9/03 9:36 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <9Wurb.27497$cJ5.4385@www.newsranger.com>In article <c599139c.0311081729.e55f53@posting.google.com>, Dian says...>>Robibnkoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<53_qb.27245$cJ5.4482@www.newsranger.com>...snip>> Well, to be honest, I could have had just about anyone call up the
agencyand>> claim to be my amom and get this information.>>>> Seriously, why are you totally glossing over the FACT that my
aparentswere>> ready and willing to assist me in this?>>>> Robyn>> Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster>> #1557>>I'm not glossing over anything, Robyn. It's not really about your>aparents. I'm just using your situation as an example to show that>adopters (usually) have vital information that would allow the adoptee>to search without waiting for open records.I'm sorry, but I fail to see how MY situation speaks for other adoptionsthroughout the world. I think research and statistics might prove your"point"better than my personal story.And don't forget, there are a lot of adoptees out there that were never
namedbytheir bmoms. One that I know was called "baby girl". How helpful would
haveinformation have been for a search?As I've said earlier you>were one of the lucky one whose adopters didn't feel threatened by>reunion as so were willing to give you your information. The point was>that adopters generally have identifying information.Can you prove this? Please show your research.RobynDon't hold your breath waiting for Di's proof,.. Robyn. Don't worry, I'm not. And I also realize that adoptions have changed
vastly during the time after my own occured. In fact, I spoke to two amoms this
past Saturday (their daughters and my daughter are in the same ballet/tap
classes) and both of them have extensive information about their daughter's
bioparents, which they will be giving to them on their 21st birthdays.' One of the adoptions is a semi-open one, wherein the amom gives letters, pictures, etc. to the agency who then passes them onto the bio mom. So
far, the bio mom has refused them. Still, the amom continues to send in these
items and hopes that one day, when she's ready, the bio mom will accept them.

You might suggest to her (if appropriate) that she should date the
envelopes, or number them. If they are ever given to her then they will be
in chronological order.

Helen
Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031109130058.07556.00000578@mb-m15.aol.com... Just wondering, If parents that adopt are adopters, are parents who give
birth birthers? Kathy J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Nope, we're breeders. Unless, of course one relinquishes then she becomes a
relinquisher. Adopters, relinquishers....who cares? It's like those people
who get all lathered up about who's a ~real~ parent.

Jack

In article <XhCrb.5270$bD.19063@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:ArArb.27585$cJ5.4524@www.newsranger.co m...
snip Don't worry, I'm not. And I also realize that adoptions have changedvastly during the time after my own occured. In fact, I spoke to two amoms thispast Saturday (their daughters and my daughter are in the same ballet/tapclasses) and both of them have extensive information about their daughter'sbioparents, which they will be giving to them on their 21st birthdays.' One of the adoptions is a semi-open one, wherein the amom gives letters, pictures, etc. to the agency who then passes them onto the bio mom. Sofar, the bio mom has refused them. Still, the amom continues to send in theseitems and hopes that one day, when she's ready, the bio mom will accept them.You might suggest to her (if appropriate) that she should date theenvelopes, or number them. If they are ever given to her then they will bein chronological order.

Thanks, Helen. She probably is, but I will mention this when I see them all
next Saturday. When we first started discussing adoption over the last year or
so, the amoms were very interested in my perspective on being an adoptee. I've
always stressed that I never had any issues growing up and actually didn't
"develop" any until I found my bmom :)

They're also dying to hear my bmom's response to my most recent letter - very
sweet, compassionate ladies who love their daughters more than anything on the
face of the planet and have offered their complete support no matter what the
outcome of my situation may be. I am delighted to know them :)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <vHDrb.22486$LK4.16543@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, Jack Bernhard
says..."Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20031109130058.07556.00000578@mb-m15.aol.com... Just wondering, If parents that adopt are adopters, are parents who givebirth birthers? Kathy J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nope, we're breeders. Unless, of course one relinquishes then she becomes arelinquisher. Adopters, relinquishers....who cares? It's like those peoplewho get all lathered up about who's a ~real~ parent.

Eeek, I know what you mean. One of my SILs told a friend of theres that I was
adopted (no biggee, I'm extremely open about it) and the first thing she asked
me was "Have you found your REAL parents?" Made me cringe ;p

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557