On 01 Nov 2003 01:36:56 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:

<snip>
I am glad you said something Kathy, because it seemed to me that Jackie wantsthe cake and wants to eat it as well. It seems hypocritical to say, "I am notin favor of (contact veto's)" while protesting that if a bmother refuses thanher rights should trump all others.

Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She's
looking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she's
insisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be going
on with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approaching
them that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades.
They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye to
understanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in the
path of those seeking information.

She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs.
Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are going
to have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how much
understanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't want
nmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees.

I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view.

GR

In article <ed49qvcdg7oldq3rs6mc14jin48c16i1l9@4ax.com>, GR
<gragain@earthlink.net> writes:
On 01 Nov 2003 01:36:56 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:<snip>I am glad you said something Kathy, because it seemed to me that Jackiewantsthe cake and wants to eat it as well. It seems hypocritical to say, "I amnotin favor of (contact veto's)" while protesting that if a bmother refusesthanher rights should trump all others.Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She'slooking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she'sinsisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be goingon with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approachingthem that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades.They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye tounderstanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in thepath of those seeking information.She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs.Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are goingto have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how muchunderstanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't wantnmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees.

But that's not how I read her. I may have read her wrong, and if so, I hope
she will correct me, but I got the feeling that she was totally for adoptees
complete obeyance to the wishes of the bmom. Again, could just be me, but
others seem to have gotten the same drift from her.
I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view.GR

I think that is yet to be seen.

KL

GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ed49qvcdg7oldq3rs6mc14jin48c16i1l9@4ax.com>... On 01 Nov 2003 01:36:56 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: <snip>I am glad you said something Kathy, because it seemed to me that Jackie wantsthe cake and wants to eat it as well. It seems hypocritical to say, "I am notin favor of (contact veto's)" while protesting that if a bmother refuses thanher rights should trump all others. Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She's looking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she's insisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be going on with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approaching them that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades. They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye to understanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in the path of those seeking information. She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs. Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are going to have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how much understanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't want nmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees. I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view. GR



You and Jackie seem to both advocate the poor birthmom's rights and
imagined fears to the neglect of the adoptee. To every cry you reply,
"poor her" So lets gather round the campfire for another tiresome
verse of woe is she...la,la,la puke! And then we can sing a rendition
of Lets throw ourselves under the bus for mommy... And when some of us
are really nauseated you can entertain us with your own tune "lets
keep her a victim"...

SoulWhisper

soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311021428.9d5cc3d@posting.google.com>... GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ed49qvcdg7oldq3rs6mc14jin48c16i1l9@4ax.com>... On 01 Nov 2003 01:36:56 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: <snip>I am glad you said something Kathy, because it seemed to me that Jackie wantsthe cake and wants to eat it as well. It seems hypocritical to say, "I am notin favor of (contact veto's)" while protesting that if a bmother refuses thanher rights should trump all others. Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She's looking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she's insisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be going on with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approaching them that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades. They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye to understanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in the path of those seeking information. She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs. Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are going to have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how much understanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't want nmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees. I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view. GR You and Jackie seem to both advocate the poor birthmom's rights and imagined fears to the neglect of the adoptee. To every cry you reply, "poor her" So lets gather round the campfire for another tiresome verse of woe is she...la,la,la puke! And then we can sing a rendition of Lets throw ourselves under the bus for mommy... And when some of us are really nauseated you can entertain us with your own tune "lets keep her a victim"... SoulWhisper

What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or
information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy
of his OBC. Nothing more. So if the mother isn't ready she isn't
ready. You rather forget that thanks to adoption they are no longer
related. They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no
longer the child's mother and the child is no longer
her child. According to law there is no legal, moral or parental
responsibility once the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death
of the parental-child relationship. And that means neither side owes
anyone anything.

All complaints can be lodged with the legislators. If you don't like
the consequences then take it up with them.

Di







Di

On 02 Nov 2003 19:29:20 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:

<snip>

I wrote:Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She'slooking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she'sinsisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be goingon with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approachingthem that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades.They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye tounderstanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in thepath of those seeking information.She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs.Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are goingto have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how muchunderstanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't wantnmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees.But that's not how I read her.

Well I'm reading her and that's exactly what I read from her.
I may have read her wrong, and if so, I hopeshe will correct me, but I got the feeling that she was totally for adopteescomplete obeyance to the wishes of the bmom. Again, could just be me, butothers seem to have gotten the same drift from her.

I think that's a superficial interpretation of what Jackie says and
lacks any real comprehension of her writing. Complete obedience to
anyone has never been her thing, not that I ever knew anyway. Jackie
may *wish* that adoptees' had infinite patience and understanding for
their nmoms and say so. She may insist on always putting forth ideas
and thoughts about what an nmom in the closet for decades might fear,
or dread, or not be able to handle and how that could happen. That
doesn't mean she supports contact vetoes and she's stated quite
plainly that she does not support them.

To me it's simply exploring the issue and its questions,
ramifications, possibilities, angles, emotions. If I want to look at
those things from a closeted nmom's point of view (as I often do),
does that mean I support contact vetoes?
I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view.GRI think that is yet to be seen.

Well I've read her on and off for many years and I think she has a
reasonable and valid point of view.

GR

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com>... soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311021428.9d5cc3d@posting.google.com>... GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ed49qvcdg7oldq3rs6mc14jin48c16i1l9@4ax.com>... On 01 Nov 2003 01:36:56 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: <snip> >I am glad you said something Kathy, because it seemed to me that Jackie wants >the cake and wants to eat it as well. It seems hypocritical to say, "I am not >in favor of (contact veto's)" while protesting that if a bmother refuses than >her rights should trump all others. Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She's looking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she's insisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be going on with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approaching them that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades. They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye to understanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in the path of those seeking information. She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs. Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are going to have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how much understanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't want nmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees. I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view. GR You and Jackie seem to both advocate the poor birthmom's rights and imagined fears to the neglect of the adoptee. To every cry you reply, "poor her" So lets gather round the campfire for another tiresome verse of woe is she...la,la,la puke! And then we can sing a rendition of Lets throw ourselves under the bus for mommy... And when some of us are really nauseated you can entertain us with your own tune "lets keep her a victim"... SoulWhisper What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC. Nothing more. So if the mother isn't ready she isn't ready. You rather forget that thanks to adoption they are no longer related. They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no longer the child's mother and the child is no longer her child. According to law there is no legal, moral or parental responsibility once the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death of the parental-child relationship. And that means neither side owes anyone anything. All complaints can be lodged with the legislators. If you don't like the consequences then take it up with them. Di
Di,

You can spout about all the "laws" you want to, that "legal" death is
only good for 21 years, after that you cannot erase blood facts.
Morality? Nothing lacks so much morality as a birthmother turning her
back on her offspring.

I am not a blank slate! I am a person! I will not be rendered
voiceless for anyone or any law that really doesn't exist.

It's all bureaucratic bull**** that people manipulate to suit their
points of view. And you have eloquently demonstrated that here.

SoulWhisper

On 02 Nov 2003 19:29:20 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
But that's not how I read her. I may have read her wrong, and if so, I hopeshe will correct me, but I got the feeling that she was totally for adopteescomplete obeyance to the wishes of the bmom.

Please back up what you are saying here..

Jeannette .. Are you there????

Can you find that post..
Again, could just be me, butothers seem to have gotten the same drift from her.

And whom would that be..


Jackie

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 03:41:14 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thatdoesn't mean she supports contact vetoes and she's stated quiteplainly that she does not support them.


From day one I have said the reunion should be between the two people
involved..

Contact veto's allow big brother to control the relationship between
the two reuniting..IMO



Jackie

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.c om... soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message
news:<c403a139.0311021428.9d5cc3d@posting.google.com>... GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<ed49qvcdg7oldq3rs6mc14jin48c16i1l9@4ax.com>... On 01 Nov 2003 01:36:56 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: <snip> >I am glad you said something Kathy, because it seemed to me that
Jackie wants >the cake and wants to eat it as well. It seems hypocritical to say,
"I am not >in favor of (contact veto's)" while protesting that if a bmother
refuses than >her rights should trump all others. Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She's looking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she's insisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be going on with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approaching them that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades. They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye to understanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in the path of those seeking information. She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs. Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are going to have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how much understanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't want nmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees. I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view. GR You and Jackie seem to both advocate the poor birthmom's rights and imagined fears to the neglect of the adoptee. To every cry you reply, "poor her" So lets gather round the campfire for another tiresome verse of woe is she...la,la,la puke! And then we can sing a rendition of Lets throw ourselves under the bus for mommy... And when some of us are really nauseated you can entertain us with your own tune "lets keep her a victim"... SoulWhisper What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC. Nothing more. So if the mother isn't ready she isn't ready. You rather forget that thanks to adoption they are no longer related. They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no longer the child's mother and the child is no longer her child. According to law there is no legal, moral


The law defines moral obligations now does it? How does that work exactly
say with abortion? Because it is defined as "legal" does that imply that it
is also defined as "moral"? I think some pro-lifers might disagree with your
assessment.

Kathy 1

in article c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 3/11/03 3:06 am:
soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311021428.9d5cc3d@posting.google.com>... GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ed49qvcdg7oldq3rs6mc14jin48c16i1l9@4ax.com>... On 01 Nov 2003 01:36:56 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: <snip>> I am glad you said something Kathy, because it seemed to me that Jackie> wants the cake and wants to eat it as well. It seems hypocritical to say,> "I am not in favor of (contact veto's)" while protesting that if a bmother> refuses than her rights should trump all others.> Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She's looking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she's insisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be going on with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approaching them that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades. They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye to understanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in the path of those seeking information. She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs. Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are going to have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how much understanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't want nmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees. I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view. GR You and Jackie seem to both advocate the poor birthmom's rights and imagined fears to the neglect of the adoptee. To every cry you reply, "poor her" So lets gather round the campfire for another tiresome verse of woe is she...la,la,la puke! And then we can sing a rendition of Lets throw ourselves under the bus for mommy... And when some of us are really nauseated you can entertain us with your own tune "lets keep her a victim"... SoulWhisper
What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC. Nothing more.
Again, that depends where in the world you are, I hope, post Gunn-Rosso that
we are entitled to a little more than that from the files in England and
Wales. Scottish adoptees are entitled to have the court file un-sealed. The
information bit isn't entirely up to the birthmother.

So if the mother isn't ready she isn't ready. You rather forget that thanks to adoption they are no longer related.

So if the mother isn't ready, adoptees will be looking for information
elsewhere.

They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no longer the child's mother and the child is no longer her child.

The relationships are severed but I'm not so sure that they legal strangers,
birthmothers and children they have relinquished are still regarded in law
as having the same prohibited degree of consanguinity under marriage acts
as if an adoption had not taken place. Same thing for siblings adopted
adopted away from each other.

According to law there is no legal, moral or parental responsibility once the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death of the parental-child relationship. And that means neither side owes anyone anything.

Again I'm not sure about that, what about if two people who are genetically
related have been separated by adoption. If they both know about the
adoption one certainly has a compelling moral duty to pass on any vital
genetic health information to the other. In some places that could probably
be pressed to a legal argument.

All complaints can be lodged with the legislators. If you don't like the consequences then take it up with them.

Have you had a look at the Law in Norway?


Robin

soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311030241.41400cb0@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com>... soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311021428.9d5cc3d@posting.google.com>... GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ed49qvcdg7oldq3rs6mc14jin48c16i1l9@4ax.com>... > On 01 Nov 2003 01:36:56 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: > > <snip> > > >I am glad you said something Kathy, because it seemed to me that Jackie wants > >the cake and wants to eat it as well. It seems hypocritical to say, "I am not > >in favor of (contact veto's)" while protesting that if a bmother refuses than > >her rights should trump all others. > > Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She's > looking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she's > insisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be going > on with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approaching > them that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades. > They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye to > understanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in the > path of those seeking information. > > She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs. > Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are going > to have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how much > understanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't want > nmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees. > > I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view. > > GR You and Jackie seem to both advocate the poor birthmom's rights and imagined fears to the neglect of the adoptee. To every cry you reply, "poor her" So lets gather round the campfire for another tiresome verse of woe is she...la,la,la puke! And then we can sing a rendition of Lets throw ourselves under the bus for mommy... And when some of us are really nauseated you can entertain us with your own tune "lets keep her a victim"... SoulWhisper What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC. Nothing more. So if the mother isn't ready she isn't ready. You rather forget that thanks to adoption they are no longer related. They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no longer the child's mother and the child is no longer her child. According to law there is no legal, moral or parental responsibility once the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death of the parental-child relationship. And that means neither side owes anyone anything. All complaints can be lodged with the legislators. If you don't like the consequences then take it up with them. Di Di, You can spout about all the "laws" you want to, that "legal" death is only good for 21 years, after that you cannot erase blood facts. Morality? Nothing lacks so much morality as a birthmother turning her back on her offspring. I am not a blank slate! I am a person! I will not be rendered voiceless for anyone or any law that really doesn't exist. It's all bureaucratic bull**** that people manipulate to suit their points of view. And you have eloquently demonstrated that here. SoulWhisper


You're entirely missing the point. It's precisely because of those
laws that
these problems with some, especially older, mothers, exists. Blaming
them for complying with the mindset imposed on them by such laws is
typical of many,
including yourself obviously. So you can screech "my rights" all you
want, but until such mothers are helped to reconnect to themselves,
their emotions, and their own human rights, the needs of their now
adult child may never be met.

Di

Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:<BBCC5594.26CC1%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere>... in article c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 3/11/03 3:06 am: What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC. Nothing more. Again, that depends where in the world you are, I hope, post Gunn-Rosso that we are entitled to a little more than that from the files in England and Wales. Scottish adoptees are entitled to have the court file un-sealed. The information bit isn't entirely up to the birthmother.

Robin, you have a right to whatever is on file. No-one has a right to
demand any information another person chooses not to provide, adopted
or not.
They might have a need for that information but they do not have an
automatic right to obtain it.
So if the mother isn't ready she isn't ready. You rather forget that thanks to adoption they are no longer related. So if the mother isn't ready, adoptees will be looking for information elsewhere.
Yep. Although usually no-one but the mother will have it. Unless it's
recorded somewhere. They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no longer the child's mother and the child is no longer her child. The relationships are severed but I'm not so sure that they legal strangers, birthmothers and children they have relinquished are still regarded in law as having the same prohibited degree of consanguinity under marriage acts as if an adoption had not taken place. Same thing for siblings adopted adopted away from each other.

You can't be born to two women. It's a biological impossibilty. According to law there is no legal, moral or parental responsibility once the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death of the parental-child relationship. And that means neither side owes anyone anything. Again I'm not sure about that, what about if two people who are genetically related have been separated by adoption. If they both know about the adoption one certainly has a compelling moral duty to pass on any vital genetic health information to the other. In some places that could probably be pressed to a legal argument.
If they know it, yes they probably do. But it wasn't and still isn't a
requirement of adoption to keep updating medical health records or to
name the father on the records. Nor is it a requirement of agencies to
pass that information on if it was given. Oddly enough, the people
complaining loudest about their lack of rights, their right to obtain
their fathers name, and their medical history are the same people who
scoff at those who would put an end to the very system that denies
them their information - adoption. Go figure. AFAIC, if you accept
adoption you accept the restrictions that accompany it. No point
*****ing that's its all the mothers fault when it's adoption itself
that created this mess in the first place. If she'd been given the
support to keep her child you would have always known your medical
histories and probably even your fathers. But by all means ***** all
you like about your nmothers if you think it will bring about changes
for adoptees. Although I sincerely doubt it will do anything but close
even more doors to obtaining the information they want, because most
mothers believe they've already been judged quite enough.
All complaints can be lodged with the legislators. If you don't like the consequences then take it up with them. Have you had a look at the Law in Norway?
No. Should I?

Di
Robin

On 3 Nov 2003 18:31:47 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au
(Dian) wrote:
Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:<BBCC5594.26CC1%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere>... in article c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 3/11/03 3:06 am: What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC. Nothing more. Again, that depends where in the world you are, I hope, post Gunn-Rosso that we are entitled to a little more than that from the files in England and Wales. Scottish adoptees are entitled to have the court file un-sealed. The information bit isn't entirely up to the birthmother.Robin, you have a right to whatever is on file. No-one has a right todemand any information another person chooses not to provide, adoptedor not.They might have a need for that information but they do not have anautomatic right to obtain it. So if the mother isn't ready she isn't ready. You rather forget that thanks to adoption they are no longer related. So if the mother isn't ready, adoptees will be looking for information elsewhere.Yep. Although usually no-one but the mother will have it. Unless it'srecorded somewhere. They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no longer the child's mother and the child is no longer her child. The relationships are severed but I'm not so sure that they legal strangers, birthmothers and children they have relinquished are still regarded in law as having the same prohibited degree of consanguinity under marriage acts as if an adoption had not taken place. Same thing for siblings adopted adopted away from each other.You can't be born to two women. It's a biological impossibilty.

I thought the law recognized that one is born to one, and to
the other one is raised "as if" born to. But what do I
know? I'm not a birthmother.
According to law there is no legal, moral or parental responsibility once the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death of the parental-child relationship. And that means neither side owes anyone anything. Again I'm not sure about that, what about if two people who are genetically related have been separated by adoption. If they both know about the adoption one certainly has a compelling moral duty to pass on any vital genetic health information to the other. In some places that could probably be pressed to a legal argument.If they know it, yes they probably do. But it wasn't and still isn't arequirement of adoption to keep updating medical health records or toname the father on the records. Nor is it a requirement of agencies topass that information on if it was given. Oddly enough, the peoplecomplaining loudest about their lack of rights, their right to obtaintheir fathers name, and their medical history are the same people whoscoff at those who would put an end to the very system that deniesthem their information - adoption. Go figure. AFAIC, if you acceptadoption you accept the restrictions that accompany it. No point*****ing that's its all the mothers fault when it's adoption itselfthat created this mess in the first place. If she'd been given thesupport to keep her child you would have always known your medicalhistories and probably even your fathers. But by all means ***** allyou like about your nmothers if you think it will bring about changesfor adoptees. Although I sincerely doubt it will do anything but closeeven more doors to obtaining the information they want, because mostmothers believe they've already been judged quite enough. All complaints can be lodged with the legislators. If you don't like the consequences then take it up with them. Have you had a look at the Law in Norway?No. Should I?Di Robin

in article c599139c.0311031831.ed4b459@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 4/11/03 2:31 am:
Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:<BBCC5594.26CC1%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere>... in article c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 3/11/03 3:06 am:

What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC. Nothing more.

Again, that depends where in the world you are, I hope, post Gunn-Rosso that we are entitled to a little more than that from the files in England and Wales. Scottish adoptees are entitled to have the court file un-sealed. The information bit isn't entirely up to the birthmother.

Robin, you have a right to whatever is on file. No-one has a right to demand any information another person chooses not to provide, adopted or not. They might have a need for that information but they do not have an automatic right to obtain it.

Yes that¹s and that's lot different than 'open records only entitles the
adopted person to a copy of his OBC', if that were strictly true, then I
would be very concerned. The decision to trace someone with a view to
reunion needs to be an informed decision, as informed as it can possibly be
in the circumstances.


So if the mother isn't ready she isn't ready. You rather forget that thanks to adoption they are no longer related.

So if the mother isn't ready, adoptees will be looking for information elsewhere.

Yep. Although usually no-one but the mother will have it. Unless it's recorded somewhere.


On the other hand, unless she has led a very isolated existence never
married, had children, kept in touch with her own parents and siblings,
there usually is someone other than the mother with information of
importance to an adopted person. That's something you have to rely on if
turns out she has died before being found. And if the mother is never ready
then it is to those other people that the adoptee will go to, especially
their own siblings.

They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no longer the child's mother and the child is no longer her child.

The relationships are severed but I'm not so sure that they legal strangers, birthmothers and children they have relinquished are still regarded in law as having the same prohibited degree of consanguinity under marriage acts as if an adoption had not taken place. Same thing for siblings adopted adopted away from each other.

You can't be born to two women. It's a biological impossibilty.


I don't think anyone has ever said you can be have they? But show me where
it says I'm no longer genetically related to my natural mother or her other
children.

Adoption of Infants Act 1926 Section 5.-(1) Upon an adoption order being
made, all rights, duties, obligations and liabilities of the parent or
parents, guardian or guardians of the adopted child, in relation to the
future custody, maintenance and education of the adopted child, including
all rights to appoint a guardian or to consent or give notice of dissent to
marriage shall be extinguished, and all such rights, duties, obligations and
liabilities shall vest in and be exercisable by and enforceable against the
adopter as though the adopted child was a child born to the adopter in
lawful wedlock, and in respect of the same matters and in respect of the
liability of a child to maintain its parents the adopted child shall stand
to the adopter exclusively in the position of a child born to the adopter in
lawful wedlock: Provided that, in any case where two spouses are the
adopters, such spouses shall in respect of the matters aforesaid and for the
purpose of the jurisdiction of any court to make orders as to the custody
and maintenance of and right of access to children stand to each other and
to the adopted child in the same relation as they would have stood if they
had been the lawful father and mother of the adopted child, and the adopted
child shall stand to them respectively in the same relation as a child would
have stood to a lawful father and mother respectively.

That part of the 1926 Act was still in force when I was adopted.

At the same time I think it is still acknowledged in the sections of the
current Adoption Act re marriage and incest that I am still related to my
natural mother and brothers and sisters see

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20038--e.htm#74

So the law doesn't see me and my natural family as totally unrelated.

According to law there is no legal, moral or parental responsibility once the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death of the parental-child relationship. And that means neither side owes anyone anything.

Again I'm not sure about that, what about if two people who are genetically related have been separated by adoption. If they both know about the adoption one certainly has a compelling moral duty to pass on any vital genetic health information to the other. In some places that could probably be pressed to a legal argument.

If they know it, yes they probably do. But it wasn't and still isn't a requirement of adoption to keep updating medical health records or to name the father on the records.


There was a burden on the court in English adoption law to obtain the
consent of any person who could lay claim to be a parent or guardian of the
child therefore in the earlier years considerable effort was made to get for
the father and make at least some attempt to trace him. Therefore a father
or putative father's name usually appears in the G ad L report if not on any
other record.

Adoption of Infants Act 1926 Section 1(3) An adoption order shall not be
made except with the consent of every person or body who is a parent or
guardian of the infant in respect of whom the application is made or who has
the actual custody of the infant or who is liable to contribute to the
support of the infant: Provided that the Court may dispense with any consent
required by this subsection if satisfied that the person whose consent is to
be dispensed with has abandoned or deserted the infant or cannot be found or
is incapable of giving such consent or, being a person liable to contribute
to the support of the infant, either has persistently neglected or refused
to contribute to such support or is a person whose consent ought, in the
opinion of the court and in all the circumstances of the case, to be
dispensed with.

Nor is it a requirement of agencies to pass that information on if it was given. Oddly enough, the people complaining loudest about their lack of rights, their right to obtain their fathers name, and their medical history are the same people who scoff at those who would put an end to the very system that denies them their information - adoption.


Well that last bit is hardly surprising is it, in that the one does not
justify the other.

Go figure. AFAIC, if you accept adoption you accept the restrictions that accompany it.


Oh damn now I've got to try and remember how to spell non-sequitur again.

No point *****ing that's its all the mothers fault when it's adoption itself that created this mess in the first place. If she'd been given the support to keep her child you would have always known your medical histories and probably even your fathers. But by all means ***** all you like about your nmothers if you think it will bring about changes for adoptees. Although I sincerely doubt it will do anything but close even more doors to obtaining the information they want, because most mothers believe they've already been judged quite enough.


Really, and do you think birthmothers were forced to abrogate of all moral
responsibility along with everything else, when an adoption took place?

All complaints can be lodged with the legislators. If you don't like the consequences then take it up with them.

Have you had a look at the Law in Norway?

No. Should I?


Just wondered how felt about there being a legal requirement for birthmother
to answer the letter that social services send to them if an adoptee is
searching?

Robin

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311031713.4c231e6d@posting.google.com>... soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311030241.41400cb0@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com>... soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311021428.9d5cc3d@posting.google.com>... > GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ed49qvcdg7oldq3rs6mc14jin48c16i1l9@4ax.com>... > > On 01 Nov 2003 01:36:56 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > >I am glad you said something Kathy, because it seemed to me that Jackie wants > > >the cake and wants to eat it as well. It seems hypocritical to say, "I am not > > >in favor of (contact veto's)" while protesting that if a bmother refuses than > > >her rights should trump all others. > > > > Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She's > > looking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she's > > insisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be going > > on with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approaching > > them that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades. > > They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye to > > understanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in the > > path of those seeking information. > > > > She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs. > > Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are going > > to have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how much > > understanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't want > > nmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees. > > > > I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view. > > > > GR > > > > You and Jackie seem to both advocate the poor birthmom's rights and > imagined fears to the neglect of the adoptee. To every cry you reply, > "poor her" So lets gather round the campfire for another tiresome > verse of woe is she...la,la,la puke! And then we can sing a rendition > of Lets throw ourselves under the bus for mommy... And when some of us > are really nauseated you can entertain us with your own tune "lets > keep her a victim"... > > SoulWhisper What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC. Nothing more. So if the mother isn't ready she isn't ready. You rather forget that thanks to adoption they are no longer related. They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no longer the child's mother and the child is no longer her child. According to law there is no legal, moral or parental responsibility once the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death of the parental-child relationship. And that means neither side owes anyone anything. All complaints can be lodged with the legislators. If you don't like the consequences then take it up with them. Di Di, You can spout about all the "laws" you want to, that "legal" death is only good for 21 years, after that you cannot erase blood facts. Morality? Nothing lacks so much morality as a birthmother turning her back on her offspring. I am not a blank slate! I am a person! I will not be rendered voiceless for anyone or any law that really doesn't exist. It's all bureaucratic bull**** that people manipulate to suit their points of view. And you have eloquently demonstrated that here. SoulWhisper You're entirely missing the point. It's precisely because of those laws that these problems with some, especially older, mothers, exists. Blaming them for complying with the mindset imposed on them by such laws is typical of many, including yourself obviously. So you can screech "my rights" all you want, but until such mothers are helped to reconnect to themselves, their emotions, and their own human rights, the needs of their now adult child may never be met. Di


Agreed! And that is why it is important to me that attitudes begin to
change and adoptees feelings gain much more recognition.


SoulWhisper

On 3 Nov 2003 17:13:00 -0800, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
, but until such mothers are helped to reconnect to themselves,their emotions, and their own human rights, the needs of their nowadult child may never be met.

Yes.


Jackie

Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:<BBCD3D15.26DCA%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere>... in article c599139c.0311031831.ed4b459@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 4/11/03 2:31 am: Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:<BBCC5594.26CC1%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere>... in article c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 3/11/03 3:06 am:> What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or information?> open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC. Nothing> more. Again, that depends where in the world you are, I hope, post Gunn-Rosso that we are entitled to a little more than that from the files in England and Wales. Scottish adoptees are entitled to have the court file un-sealed. The information bit isn't entirely up to the birthmother. Robin, you have a right to whatever is on file. No-one has a right to demand any information another person chooses not to provide, adopted or not. They might have a need for that information but they do not have an automatic right to obtain it. Yes that¹s and that's lot different than 'open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC', if that were strictly true, then I would be very concerned. The decision to trace someone with a view to reunion needs to be an informed decision, as informed as it can possibly be in the circumstances.
Get real, Robin. Since when did an informed anything factor into
adoption?

> So if the mother isn't ready she isn't ready. You rather forget that thanks> to adoption they are no longer related. So if the mother isn't ready, adoptees will be looking for information elsewhere. Yep. Although usually no-one but the mother will have it. Unless it's recorded somewhere. On the other hand, unless she has led a very isolated existence never married, had children, kept in touch with her own parents and siblings, there usually is someone other than the mother with information of importance to an adopted person. That's something you have to rely on if turns out she has died before being found. And if the mother is never ready then it is to those other people that the adoptee will go to, especially their own siblings.

But not necessarily the fathers name.
> They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no longer the child's> mother and the child is no longer her child. The relationships are severed but I'm not so sure that they legal strangers, birthmothers and children they have relinquished are still regarded in law as having the same prohibited degree of consanguinity under marriage acts as if an adoption had not taken place. Same thing for siblings adopted adopted away from each other. You can't be born to two women. It's a biological impossibilty. I don't think anyone has ever said you can be have they? But show me where it says I'm no longer genetically related to my natural mother or her other children. Adoption of Infants Act 1926 Section 5.-(1) Upon an adoption order being made, all rights, duties, obligations and liabilities of the parent or parents, guardian or guardians of the adopted child, in relation to the future custody, maintenance and education of the adopted child, including all rights to appoint a guardian or to consent or give notice of dissent to marriage shall be extinguished, and all such rights, duties, obligations and liabilities shall vest in and be exercisable by and enforceable against the adopter as though the adopted child was a child born to the adopter in lawful wedlock, and in respect of the same matters and in respect of the liability of a child to maintain its parents the adopted child shall stand to the adopter exclusively in the position of a child born to the adopter in lawful wedlock: Provided that, in any case where two spouses are the adopters, such spouses shall in respect of the matters aforesaid and for the purpose of the jurisdiction of any court to make orders as to the custody and maintenance of and right of access to children stand to each other and to the adopted child in the same relation as they would have stood if they had been the lawful father and mother of the adopted child, and the adopted child shall stand to them respectively in the same relation as a child would have stood to a lawful father and mother respectively. That part of the 1926 Act was still in force when I was adopted.
At the same time I think it is still acknowledged in the sections of the current Adoption Act re marriage and incest that I am still related to my natural mother and brothers and sisters see http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20038--e.htm#74 So the law doesn't see me and my natural family as totally unrelated.> According to law there is no legal, moral or parental responsibility once> the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death of the parental-child> relationship. And that means neither side owes anyone anything. Again I'm not sure about that, what about if two people who are genetically related have been separated by adoption. If they both know about the adoption one certainly has a compelling moral duty to pass on any vital genetic health information to the other. In some places that could probably be pressed to a legal argument. If they know it, yes they probably do. But it wasn't and still isn't a requirement of adoption to keep updating medical health records or to name the father on the records. There was a burden on the court in English adoption law to obtain the consent of any person who could lay claim to be a parent or guardian of the child therefore in the earlier years considerable effort was made to get for the father and make at least some attempt to trace him. Therefore a father or putative father's name usually appears in the G ad L report if not on any other record. Adoption of Infants Act 1926 Section 1(3) An adoption order shall not be made except with the consent of every person or body who is a parent or guardian of the infant in respect of whom the application is made or who has the actual custody of the infant or who is liable to contribute to the support of the infant: Provided that the Court may dispense with any consent required by this subsection if satisfied that the person whose consent is to be dispensed with has abandoned or deserted the infant or cannot be found or is incapable of giving such consent or, being a person liable to contribute to the support of the infant, either has persistently neglected or refused to contribute to such support or is a person whose consent ought, in the opinion of the court and in all the circumstances of the case, to be dispensed with.

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that these principles of
legislation were necessarily followed, Robin. Nor is it a requirement of agencies to pass that information on if it was given. Oddly enough, the people complaining loudest about their lack of rights, their right to obtain their fathers name, and their medical history are the same people who scoff at those who would put an end to the very system that denies them their information - adoption. Well that last bit is hardly surprising is it, in that the one does not justify the other.

I beleive it does. A case of "If thyne hand offends cut it off." Go figure. AFAIC, if you accept adoption you accept the restrictions that accompany it. Oh damn now I've got to try and remember how to spell non-sequitur again.
No point *****ing that's its all the mothers fault when it's adoption itself that created this mess in the first place. If she'd been given the support to keep her child you would have always known your medical histories and probably even your fathers. But by all means ***** all you like about your nmothers if you think it will bring about changes for adoptees. Although I sincerely doubt it will do anything but close even more doors to obtaining the information they want, because most mothers believe they've already been judged quite enough. Really, and do you think birthmothers were forced to abrogate of all moral responsibility along with everything else, when an adoption took place?
Of course not. But making them your enemy as you are prone to do might
do the trick.> All complaints can be lodged with the legislators. If you don't like the> consequences then take it up with them. Have you had a look at the Law in Norway? No. Should I? Just wondered how felt about there being a legal requirement for birthmother to answer the letter that social services send to them if an adoptee is searching?

Never heard of it.

Di
Robin

soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311040555.79ff504f@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311031713.4c231e6d@posting.google.com>... soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311030241.41400cb0@posting.google.com>... patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com>... > soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311021428.9d5cc3d@posting.google.com>... > > GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ed49qvcdg7oldq3rs6mc14jin48c16i1l9@4ax.com>... > > > On 01 Nov 2003 01:36:56 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > >I am glad you said something Kathy, because it seemed to me that Jackie wants > > > >the cake and wants to eat it as well. It seems hypocritical to say, "I am not > > > >in favor of (contact veto's)" while protesting that if a bmother refuses than > > > >her rights should trump all others. > > > > > > Funny. I haven't read Jackie's comments that way at all. She's > > > looking for an ideal, certainly, aren't we all? What I think she's > > > insisting on is a serious consideration of what might really be going > > > on with these closeted nmoms - that it matter to those approaching > > > them that there are *reasons* for nmoms to be closeted for decades. > > > They deserve to be looked at with compassion, with some eye to > > > understanding about their lives. Not simply as obstructions in the > > > path of those seeking information. > > > > > > She's not going to say that adoptees' needs trump nmoms' needs. > > > Period. At the same time, she recognizes that some adoptees are going > > > to have nmoms who will never help them, no matter how much > > > understanding an adoptee has when they contact them. She doesn't want > > > nmoms having contact vetoes that would hurt those adoptees. > > > > > > I think she has a reasonable and valid point of view. > > > > > > GR > > > > > > > > You and Jackie seem to both advocate the poor birthmom's rights and > > imagined fears to the neglect of the adoptee. To every cry you reply, > > "poor her" So lets gather round the campfire for another tiresome > > verse of woe is she...la,la,la puke! And then we can sing a rendition > > of Lets throw ourselves under the bus for mommy... And when some of us > > are really nauseated you can entertain us with your own tune "lets > > keep her a victim"... > > > > SoulWhisper > > What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or > information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy > of his OBC. Nothing more. So if the mother isn't ready she isn't > ready. You rather forget that thanks to adoption they are no longer > related. They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no > longer the child's mother and the child is no longer > her child. According to law there is no legal, moral or parental > responsibility once the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death > of the parental-child relationship. And that means neither side owes > anyone anything. > > All complaints can be lodged with the legislators. If you don't like > the consequences then take it up with them. > > Di Di, You can spout about all the "laws" you want to, that "legal" death is only good for 21 years, after that you cannot erase blood facts. Morality? Nothing lacks so much morality as a birthmother turning her back on her offspring. I am not a blank slate! I am a person! I will not be rendered voiceless for anyone or any law that really doesn't exist. It's all bureaucratic bull**** that people manipulate to suit their points of view. And you have eloquently demonstrated that here. SoulWhisper You're entirely missing the point. It's precisely because of those laws that these problems with some, especially older, mothers, exists. Blaming them for complying with the mindset imposed on them by such laws is typical of many, including yourself obviously. So you can screech "my rights" all you want, but until such mothers are helped to reconnect to themselves, their emotions, and their own human rights, the needs of their now adult child may never be met. Di Agreed! And that is why it is important to me that attitudes begin to change and adoptees feelings gain much more recognition. SoulWhisper

And I suggest that before changes can occur the mothers feelings need
ot be understood and given recognition so they can be helped to deal
with whatever is keeping them oppressed/suppressed.

Or let me put it another way. If you keep beating a dog into
submission, it's likely to either continue to cower away, or cock its
leg and piss on you. Think about it.

Di

in article c599139c.0311060801.5bd5dfff@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 6/11/03 4:01 pm:
Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:<BBCD3D15.26DCA%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere>... in article c599139c.0311031831.ed4b459@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 4/11/03 2:31 am:
Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:<BBCC5594.26CC1%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere>... in article c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 3/11/03 3:06 am:

>> What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship or>> information? open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of>> his OBC. Nothing more.>>
> Again, that depends where in the world you are, I hope, post Gunn-Rosso> that we are entitled to a little more than that from the files in England> and Wales. Scottish adoptees are entitled to have the court file un-sealed.> The information bit isn't entirely up to the birthmother.

Robin, you have a right to whatever is on file. No-one has a right to demand any information another person chooses not to provide, adopted or not. They might have a need for that information but they do not have an automatic right to obtain it.

Yes that¹s and that's lot different than 'open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC', if that were strictly true, then I would be very concerned. The decision to trace someone with a view to reunion needs to be an informed decision, as informed as it can possibly be in the circumstances.

Get real, Robin. Since when did an informed anything factor into adoption?

Well, it factored into mine when I decided that I needed to make an informed
decision as to whether or not to contact various birth relatives and others
involved in my adoption. Big ongoing fight with adoption agency, to get some
of that information. But the decision to trace my birthmother and once I
discovered her death, her later children depended on what was in the file.

>> So if the mother isn't ready she isn't ready. You rather forget that>> thanks to adoption they are no longer related.
> So if the mother isn't ready, adoptees will be looking for information> elsewhere.
Yep. Although usually no-one but the mother will have it. Unless it's recorded somewhere.

On the other hand, unless she has led a very isolated existence never married, had children, kept in touch with her own parents and siblings, there usually is someone other than the mother with information of importance to an adopted person. That's something you have to rely on if turns out she has died before being found. And if the mother is never ready then it is to those other people that the adoptee will go to, especially their own siblings.

But not necessarily the fathers name.

A father will more often than not be named on the court file in English
adoptions. Whether or not it is the actual father may be a very different
matter, hence the need for full access to adoption society / local authority
SS records.
>> They are legal strangers. The woman who gave birth is no longer the>> child's mother and the child is no longer her child. The relationships are>> severed but I'm not so sure that they legal strangers, birthmothers and>> children they have relinquished are still regarded in law as having the>> same prohibited degree of consanguinity under marriage acts as if an>> adoption had not taken place. Same thing for siblings adopted adopted away>> from each other.

You can't be born to two women. It's a biological impossibilty.

I don't think anyone has ever said you can be have they? But show me where it says I'm no longer genetically related to my natural mother or her other children.
Adoption of Infants Act 1926 Section 5.-(1) Upon an adoption order being made, all rights, duties, obligations and liabilities of the parent or parents, guardian or guardians of the adopted child, in relation to the future custody, maintenance and education of the adopted child, including all rights to appoint a guardian or to consent or give notice of dissent to marriage shall be extinguished, and all such rights, duties, obligations and liabilities shall vest in and be exercisable by and enforceable against the adopter as though the adopted child was a child born to the adopter in lawful wedlock, and in respect of the same matters and in respect of the liability of a child to maintain its parents the adopted child shall stand to the adopter exclusively in the position of a child born to the adopter in lawful wedlock: Provided that, in any case where two spouses are the adopters, such spouses shall in respect of the matters aforesaid and for the purpose of the jurisdiction of any court to make orders as to the custody and maintenance of and right of access to children stand to each other and to the adopted child in the same relation as they would have stood if they had been the lawful father and mother of the adopted child, and the adopted child shall stand to them respectively in the same relation as a child would have stood to a lawful father and mother respectively. That part of the 1926 Act was still in force when I was adopted. At the same time I think it is still acknowledged in the sections of the current Adoption Act re marriage and incest that I am still related to my natural mother and brothers and sisters see http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20038--e.htm#74 So the law doesn't see me and my natural family as totally unrelated.>> According to law there is no legal, moral or parental responsibility once>> the consent is signed. Adoption is the legal death of the parental-child>> relationship. And that means neither side owes anyone anything.>>> Again I'm not sure about that, what about if two people who are genetically> related have been separated by adoption. If they both know about the> adoption one certainly has a compelling moral duty to pass on any vital> genetic health information to the other. In some places that could probably> be pressed to a legal argument.> If they know it, yes they probably do. But it wasn't and still isn't a requirement of adoption to keep updating medical health records or to name the father on the records. There was a burden on the court in English adoption law to obtain the consent of any person who could lay claim to be a parent or guardian of the child therefore in the earlier years considerable effort was made to get for the father and make at least some attempt to trace him. Therefore a father or putative father's name usually appears in the G ad L report if not on any other record. Adoption of Infants Act 1926 Section 1(3) An adoption order shall not be made except with the consent of every person or body who is a parent or guardian of the infant in respect of whom the application is made or who has the actual custody of the infant or who is liable to contribute to the support of the infant: Provided that the Court may dispense with any consent required by this subsection if satisfied that the person whose consent is to be dispensed with has abandoned or deserted the infant or cannot be found or is incapable of giving such consent or, being a person liable to contribute to the support of the infant, either has persistently neglected or refused to contribute to such support or is a person whose consent ought, in the opinion of the court and in all the circumstances of the case, to be dispensed with.

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that these principles of legislation were necessarily followed, Robin.


They weren't *necessarily* followed, but they were followed often enough
that most G ad A reports have a putative father mentioned on them somewhere.
And it's not unknown for several possibilities to be mentioned. Peter who
was named on my adoption file, couldn't be found at the time of the
adoption, he was not at the totally fictitious address at which he
supposedly lived and that the SW had allegedly visited. He was not as
alleged "in the Merchant Navy". Strangely despite no end of effort he
couldn't be found, yet 35 years latter it was no problem at all for me to
find out exactly where he had been living at the time. But for all that, he
was named.

Nor is it a requirement of agencies to pass that information on if it was given. Oddly enough, the people complaining loudest about their lack of rights, their right to obtain their fathers name, and their medical history are the same people who scoff at those who would put an end to the very system that denies them their information - adoption.

Well that last bit is hardly surprising is it, in that the one does not justify the other.

I beleive it does. A case of "If thyne hand offends cut it off."

Umm...a fine piece of medical advice in the days before antibiotics, all
things change.

Go figure. AFAIC, if you accept adoption you accept the restrictions that accompany it.
Oh damn now I've got to try and remember how to spell non-sequitur again.

No point *****ing that's its all the mothers fault when it's adoption itself that created this mess in the first place. If she'd been given the support to keep her child you would have always known your medical histories and probably even your fathers. But by all means ***** all you like about your nmothers if you think it will bring about changes for adoptees. Although I sincerely doubt it will do anything but close even more doors to obtaining the information they want, because most mothers believe they've already been judged quite enough.

Really, and do you think birthmothers were forced to abrogate of all moral responsibility along with everything else, when an adoption took place?

Of course not. But making them your enemy as you are prone to do might do the trick.


I can't think of any birthmothers who I'm enemies with in real life, but
then most that I do encounter are asking me for help. And if I can that is
what I do, help them.

Just wondered how felt about there being a legal requirement for birthmother to answer the letter that social services send to them if an adoptee is searching?
Never heard of it.

Norway has a law that all of its citizens must answer any letter that they
receive from the government or face a fine or imprisonment. This law is used
in tracing birth parents. I imagine it rather roots out the ones who hope
not to be found. Bit unfortunate considering that world wide universal
legally binding guarantee, that some people seem to think was given to every
birthmother everywhere throughout human history, that they would never hear
of their relinquished child again.

Robin

In article <c599139c.0311060801.5bd5dfff@posting.google.com>,
patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) writes:
Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in messagenews:<BBCD3D15.26DCA%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere>... in article c599139c.0311031831.ed4b459@posting.google.com, Dian at patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 4/11/03 2:31 am: Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:<BBCC5594.26CC1%alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere>...> in article c599139c.0311021906.58cd5392@posting.google.com, Dian at> patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 3/11/03 3:06 am:>> What makes you think 'anyone' has a right to a relationship orinformation?>> open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC.Nothing>> more.> Again, that depends where in the world you are, I hope, post Gunn-Rossothat> we are entitled to a little more than that from the files in England and> Wales. Scottish adoptees are entitled to have the court file un-sealed.The> information bit isn't entirely up to the birthmother. Robin, you have a right to whatever is on file. No-one has a right todemand any information another person chooses not to provide, adopted or not.They might have a need for that information but they do not have an automaticright to obtain it. Yes that¹s and that's lot different than 'open records only entitles the adopted person to a copy of his OBC', if that were strictly true, then I would be very concerned. The decision to trace someone with a view to reunion needs to be an informed decision, as informed as it can possibly be in the circumstances.Get real, Robin. Since when did an informed anything factor intoadoption?

Since some women DO make an informed decision to relinquish.

KL

<SNIPPED REST>