 |
|
Current group: alt.adoption.
Re: IL - Baby Safe Haven - State law worked in baby's favorCouple,
| Robin Harritt | | rkbose at pacific.net.sg | | Robin Harritt | | rkbose at pacific.net.sg | | Robin Harritt | | rkbose at pacific.net.sg | | kat | | Robin Harritt |
|
|
| | From: | Robin Harritt | | Subject: | Re: IL - Baby Safe Haven - State law worked in baby's favorCouple, | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:25:56 +0000 |
|
|
 | Ahh...that's where it went, my inbox :)
Sorry for the radical snipping quoting seems to have gone very strange.
> I still don't see why it would be a fairy-tale... I'm not trying to
push you
> to provide more detail than you're inclined to do, but it sounds very
much
> as though, unless you found out other things to the contrary, she did
love
> you enough to make sure you were safe. She would have preferred you
to be
> with friends, but that's neither here nor there.
I have had access to a large part of the 270 page file that the agency
still holds, I have the court's file and the supervising local
authority's files including Guardian ad Litem and visiting officers
files, my adoptive parents didn't have access to any of that
> I don't know if they can look at the files, but I think the a-parents
would
> have enough info to know if the child was relinquished or dumped.
Hardly anything at all to base a 'live story' on, then?
>> What would you tell a child who was found disguised in carriers bag
in a deep
>> ditch under a hedge in mid January who was luckily enough to be
found by a
>> dog that was being walked in the remote area concerned. You couldn't
lie to
>> her as sometime she is going to be able to read all about it at the
newspaper
>> archive. Would you as an adopter be told enough in the US to, in that
>> situation
>>
> I believe so.
>> My a-dad He wasn't told very much, what he was told was garbled by the
>> adoption worker and further embellished by adoptive mother's fantasies.
> Or so you understand? (Didn't you say your a-mom died when you were
7? I'm
> sorry if I'm confused.)
I have as I said above, seen most of the files, I've even posted parts
of them here as a link to a temporary website, but that gave Dian
apoplexy, and Jackie felt compelled to join in the attack despite the
fact that it relates to circumstances 50 years ago and my natural mother
died in 1989.
>> I should think it [DNA testing for ethnic characteristics] is important
>> everywhere the UK is now a very racial diverse country. Within my
wider
>> family we have German, Italian, Irish, two American or Canadian (the
later
>> two of unknown ethnic origin, but >> one French by the sound of his
name)
>> That is if my mother was telling the truth about the fathers of her
other
>> children.
>>
> Now, pretty soon with DNA evidence, you'll only have to check the DNA
for
> sequences primarily found in those populations. (Of course, a few
> generations down the road, everybody will have DNA from everywhere...)
>> My mother may have had fairly diverse roots herself. I am fairly
sure there
>> are some east European Jewish links in my own line that are
responsible in
>> part for my Crohn's disease which has complex multi-factorial genetic
>> disposition through HLA class II & III alleles common amongst the
Jewish
>> population, apart form which I have some facial features which would
indicate
>> that and some anecdotal evidence. It would be interesting to see
what a DNA
>> profile indicates.
> Why not see if you can have one done? I believe it's possible in the US.
I live very close to Cambridge where much of the research is being done,
there are quite few commercial spin-offs doing testing for all sorts.
> I think in the US in closed adoptions, a-pars don't get the kid's
OBC; and
> b-pars don't get the a-pars' names.
That's shameful isn't it?
>> I think if you were the adoptee concerned you'd be pretty pissed off
>> with SH laws and lack of detail wouldn't you?
> Maybe. Then again, maybe you'd think, well, what details would she have
> given anyway? At least I wasn't found under a hedge in a paper bag by a
> dog-walker.
Carrier bags used for shopping here are made of plastic material, a baby
left wrapped in one of those would suffocate quite quickly. I'd know if
I'd left in that position that my mother had little love or concern.
>>> "We know nothing at all about your father, except what you learned
from the
>>> DNA readout. But that does happen to a lot of people, not just
adoptees, you
>>> know."
>> Yep but there's heck of lot more people that it doesn't happen to,
and those
>> that it does often have fathers who have chosen not to be involved.
If were
>> left at an SH how would I know whether my father had any say at all
in my
>> fate?
> Well, it's true. Lots of people happen to have fathers who were involved
> with them, and parents who chose to raise them. Some have fathers who
agreed
> to their being relinquished.
>
> And some people have fathers who don't know they exist because their
mothers
> didn't tell, whether she kept the kid or relinquished it. Or who have
been
> warned off.
>
> I know someone who in a moment of candor confessed he had a daughter who
> would now be 17; he's never seen her. Her mother kindly told him he
was too
> young (he was 17 at the time) to be a dad, she was taking the kid and
going
> away. He has no idea what the mom's name is now, what the kid's name
is, and
> where they are. He doesn't feel he has any right to search, and he would
> risk ruining their lives if he did. He assumes she raised the kid,
but then,
> she might not have done.
>
> I'd guess that unless an adoptee is in an open adoption, he or she
may not
> know whether his or her father had a say.
>
> And even this would differ from State to State in the US. (In India, the
> father's signature is not needed unless the woman is married, in
which case
> the husband's signature would be required whether or not he was the
> bio-dad.)
Even way back when I was adopted there was supposed to be an effort by
the SWs to find the father and even if he is not on the OBC he usually
gets a mention in the records, not much chance of that with SH laws and
father the gets no rights at all.
Robin
|
|
| | From: | rkbose at pacific.net.sg | | Subject: | Re: IL - Baby Safe Haven - State law worked in baby's favorCouple, hope to adopt girl brought to hospital | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 12:41:25 -0800 |
|
|
|
Robin Harritt wrote:
> rkbose@pacific.net.sg wrote
> >
> >OK. Let's not get bogged down with this...I think we were simply
trying
> >to decide whether "your mother loved you enough to make sure you
were
> >safe" was a fairy-tale and should be avoided.
>
> Yes but it paints a picture of what happened, a picture that my
parents
> just did not have, not a completely undistorted picture but clear
enough
> to contradict the many of the fundamentals of what I was told.
>
> >If we said, "Haven't the foggiest, dear," what conclusion would a
child
> >draw?
>
> That would have been a much more accurate summary of my a-parents
actual
> knowledge. If that is what they said I might have looked in to my
> background much earlier. I rather think the same may be true for many
> adoptees.
Does "Haven't the foggiest, dear" differ substantially from "She loved
you enough to make sure you were safe and she knew you would have
another family to care for you" ?
(Assuming a normal adoption where the child has been relinquished, not
a TPR or Dumpster situation.)
> >
> >What kind of "live story" do we mean here? We would know that the
b-mom
> >had taken the trouble to formally relinquish -- or not. We would
know
> >that she wasn't TPR'd.
>
> Today adoptees are given a life story book, not easy to arrange if
your
> state still practices some barbaric form of completely closed
adoption,
> I suppose. Nor if there was only 10 days of life before you got
dragged
> all the way across the Atlantic to a foreign country.
>
And only if there's sufficient delay between birth and adoption for the
child to have much of a life. If the b-parents relinquish the child
between birth and, say, 1 year -- there's not going to be much in that
life book.
The kid's life book will probably start with "You were born in America,
and here's a picture of your birth-Mom. This is you at 2 hours old.
Here's a picture of you with your birth-family. Here's the big plane
that brought you to England." Why would he be better off if his life
book had, "Here's the foster family that looked after you until you
were six months old" ?
Looking at it from his viewpoint, I really can't see why it's a
problem, unless you believe the a-pars to be unfit. It's clearly an
open adoption, in that she knows who they are, and vice versa. It's not
like they can disappear with no forwarding address. His b-mom will
always know where her son is, and probably, how he's doing.
In a closed adoption, clearly there is no chance of a life-book prior
to adoption. And no picture of the b-mom either. But I don't see how
you can conflate that with the Milliband thing.
>
> >
> >
> >> >> My a-dad He wasn't told very much, what he was told was
garbled by the
> >>
> >>
> >> >> adoption worker and further embellished by adoptive mother's
fantasies.
> >
> >Did those say what your a-mom's fantasies were?
>
> They did reveal that she had some fantasies. Particularly perhaps
about
> how harshly I had been treated in the past. I guess those may have
been
> simple fictions to encourage my a-dad to agree to the adoption.
Ah, the old "If we don't adopt him he will have a miserable life and
die young" thing?
>I can
> remember a lot of what she told me before she died and most of that
was
> accurate. Sadly I put some of it to the back of my mind for far to
long.
>
So she was given *some* accurate information, then. It wasn't entirely
a fiction?
> >I don't know. I think the adoptee should be able to access the
records
> >when adult, but I'm not completely convinced that open adoptions are
> >always good.
>
>
> I am convinced that completely closed adoption, except in cases
where
> birth family are likely to harm the child , are very wrong, even then
> the child should be told about his natural family in an age
appropriate way.
>
I think the jury is still out on that one. There's no proof either way,
I think.
But how can a child be told about his natural family if the a-pars
don't know anything about it?
> >> >> I think if you were the adoptee concerned you'd be pretty
pissed off
> >> >> with SH laws and lack of detail wouldn't you?
> >>
> >> > Maybe. Then again, maybe you'd think, well, what details would
she have
> >> > given anyway? At least I wasn't found under a hedge in a paper
bag by a
> >> > dog-walker.
>
> >>Carrier bags used for shopping here are made of plastic material, a
baby
> >>left wrapped in one of those would suffocate quite quickly. I'd
know if
> >>I'd left in that position that my mother had little love or
concern.
> >>
> >Quite so. So if a mother took the trouble to SH her baby, she
clearly
> >had more love and concern than the mother of the baby under the
hedge.
>
> The mother who dumps her baby under the hedge wrapped up in air-tight
> plastic in mid January probably is not the kind of mother who is
going
> to make an effort to find a Safe Haven under any circumstances.
>
A kid whose mother SH'd him will know that his mother didn't bag him,
she made sure he was safe.
A kid whose mother bagged him will know she wasn't thinking of him as a
person at all, only as a problem.
Rupa
|
|
| | From: | Robin Harritt | | Subject: | Re: IL - Baby Safe Haven - State law worked in baby's favorCouple, | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:13:17 +0000 |
|
|
| rkbose@pacific.net.sg wrote:
>Does "Haven't the foggiest, dear" differ substantially from "She loved
>you enough to make sure you were safe and she knew you would have
>another family to care for you" ?
>
>(Assuming a normal adoption where the child has been relinquished, not a TPR or Dumpster situation.)
>
>
Yes, but surely you would only tell a child the latter if you knew for
certain that it is true otherwise it is just a fairytale.
>
>
>>>What kind of "live story" do we mean here? We would know that the b-mom
>>>
>>>
>>>had taken the trouble to formally relinquish -- or not. We would know
>>>
>>>
>>>that she wasn't TPR'd.
>>>
>>>
>>Today adoptees are given a life story book, not easy to arrange if your
>>
>>
>>state still practices some barbaric form of completely closed adoption,
>>
>>
>>I suppose. Nor if there was only 10 days of life before you got dragged
>>
>>
>>all the way across the Atlantic to a foreign country.
>>
>>
>And only if there's sufficient delay between birth and adoption for the
>child to have much of a life. If the b-parents relinquish the child
>between birth and, say, 1 year -- there's not going to be much in that
>life book.
>
>
Well as I say there are 270 pages or there abouts on just one of the
files on my adoption, admittedly there is at least one carbon copy of
each document. But still quite a lot of history of me and my birth family.
>The kid's life book will probably start with "You were born in America,
>and here's a picture of your birth-Mom. This is you at 2 hours old.
>Here's a picture of you with your birth-family. Here's the big plane
>that brought you to England." Why would he be better off if his life
>book had, "Here's the foster family that looked after you until you
>were six months old" ?
>
>
How about some details of his original mother and her family and his
natural father and his family?
>Looking at it from his viewpoint, I really can't see why it's a
>problem, unless you believe the a-pars to be unfit. It's clearly an
>open adoption, in that she knows who they are, and vice versa. It's not
>like they can disappear with no forwarding address. His b-mom will
>always know where her son is, and probably, how he's doing.
>
>In a closed adoption, clearly there is no chance of a life-book prior
>to adoption. And no picture of the b-mom either. But I don't see how
>you can conflate that with the Milliband thing.
>
>
>
Well *I* hadn't actually mentioned the Millibands in this thread, it
applies to any long distance adoption where openness becomes difficult.
But as we've introduced the Millibands how about some pictures of the
paps lurking around in the delivery room as part of that life story book.
>>the child should be told about his natural family in an age appropriate way.
>>
>>
>
>I think the jury is still out on that one. There's no proof either way, I think.
>But how can a child be told about his natural family if the a-pars don't know anything about it?
>
>
>
I hope all a-parents in a domestic adoption in the US today would know
enough to have something to tell the child. There is a legal requirement
now in England for the a-parents to be told any important factors in the
child's background.
>A kid whose mother SH'd him will know that his mother didn't bag him, she made sure he was safe. A kid whose mother bagged him will know she wasn't thinking of him as aperson at all, only as a problem.
>
>
Will he? Will he even know that his mother had any part in the decision,
when anyone can drop off her child "on her behalf" as appears to be the
case in some places?
Robin
|
|
| | From: | rkbose at pacific.net.sg | | Subject: | Re: IL - Baby Safe Haven - State law worked in baby's favorCouple, hope to adopt girl brought to hospital | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 13:54:28 -0800 |
|
|
|
Robin Harritt wrote:
> rkbose@pacific.net.sg wrote:
>
>
>
> >Does "Haven't the foggiest, dear" differ substantially from "She
loved
> >you enough to make sure you were safe and she knew you would have
> >another family to care for you" ?
> >
> >(Assuming a normal adoption where the child has been relinquished,
not a TPR or Dumpster situation.)
>
> Yes, but surely you would only tell a child the latter if you knew
for
> certain that it is true otherwise it is just a fairytale.
>
I think in the US and the UK these days -- and even in the last two
decades -- anyone who relinquished an infant did so in the knowledge
that there would be another family to take care of them.
>
> >And only if there's sufficient delay between birth and adoption for
the
> >child to have much of a life. If the b-parents relinquish the child
> >between birth and, say, 1 year -- there's not going to be much in
that
> >life book.
>
> Well as I say there are 270 pages or there abouts on just one of the
> files on my adoption, admittedly there is at least one carbon copy of
> each document. But still quite a lot of history of me and my birth
family.
In your case, though, you were over a year old, and while your mother
wasn't TPR'd, it was a pretty complex situation, and social services
were involved. In adoptions involving social services in the US, the
files can grow pretty big, I imagine -- and I don't know that a-parents
are given access. (Maybe those who adopted from SS in the US can
comment on that.) I do believe most states give more info now than they
used to do.
>
> >The kid's life book will probably start with "You were born in
America,
> >and here's a picture of your birth-Mom. This is you at 2 hours old.
> >Here's a picture of you with your birth-family. Here's the big plane
> >that brought you to England." Why would he be better off if his life
> >book had, "Here's the foster family that looked after you until you
> >were six months old" ?
>
> How about some details of his original mother and her family and his
> natural father and his family?
Who knows? Maybe it's in there. Possibly the birth family provided all
the details. And since it is definitionally an open adoption, perhaps
Baby Miliband can, when he grows up, visit them and get as much info as
is available.
> >Looking at it from his viewpoint, I really can't see why it's a
> >problem, unless you believe the a-pars to be unfit. It's clearly an
> >open adoption, in that she knows who they are, and vice versa. It's
not
> >like they can disappear with no forwarding address. His b-mom will
> >always know where her son is, and probably, how he's doing.
> >
> >In a closed adoption, clearly there is no chance of a life-book
prior
> >to adoption. And no picture of the b-mom either. But I don't see how
> >you can conflate that with the Milliband thing.
>
> Well *I* hadn't actually mentioned the Millibands in this thread, it
> applies to any long distance adoption where openness becomes
difficult.
> But as we've introduced the Millibands how about some pictures of the
> paps lurking around in the delivery room as part of that life story
book.
There may be a picture of them holding him at a few hours old. I can't
say that he'll find that objectionable. Really the issue, if any, is
the b-mother's. If she doesn't have a problem, I doubt he will.
> >
> >I think the jury is still out on that one. There's no proof either
way, I think.
> >But how can a child be told about his natural family if the a-pars
don't know anything about it?
>
> I hope all a-parents in a domestic adoption in the US today would
know
> enough to have something to tell the child. There is a legal
requirement
> now in England for the a-parents to be told any important factors in
the
> child's background.
How do they define "important factors" ?
I really don't know how much non-Id information is provided in closed
adoptions.
I understand the majority of infant adoptions in California these days
are open, in which case the information would be available at some
point.
> >A kid whose mother SH'd him will know that his mother didn't bag
him, she made sure he was safe. A kid whose mother bagged him will know
she wasn't thinking of him as aperson at all, only as a problem.
>
> Will he? Will he even know that his mother had any part in the
decision,
> when anyone can drop off her child "on her behalf" as appears to be
the
> case in some places?
I imagine the SH records whether or not it was the mother (or a person
who claims parenthood) who drops off the child.
I guess he can tell himself that the person who bagged him or SH'd him
wasn't his mother, that she didn't know he wasn't stillborn, and his
father didn't know he existed. It's possible.
Rupa
|
|
| | From: | Robin Harritt | | Subject: | Re: IL - Baby Safe Haven - State law worked in baby's favorCouple, | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:55:20 +0000 |
|
|
| in article 1106517268.411618.27190@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg at rkbose@pacific.net.sg wrote on 23/1/05 9:54 pm:
> Robin Harritt wrote:
>
>>> Does "Haven't the foggiest, dear" differ substantially from "She
loved you
>>> enough to make sure you were safe and she knew you would have
another family
>>> to care for you" ? (Assuming a normal adoption where the child has
been
>>> relinquished, not a TPR or Dumpster situation.)
>>>
>> Yes, but surely you would only tell a child the latter if you knew for
>> certain that it is true otherwise it is just a fairytale.
>>
> I think in the US and the UK these days -- and even in the last two
decades --
> anyone who relinquished an infant did so in the knowledge that there
would be
> another family to take care of them.
>
Yes but that doesn't equate with loving the child, some mothers
relinquish just because they don't like children generally. An
a-parent shouldn't tell an adopted child that its mother loved him or
her unless they know that to be true. It is more honest to tell the
child that they do not know if that is the case. Some adoptees who have
been told such a fairytale are going to get a nasty shock when the seek
their natural mother. But I hope these days a-parents are told enough to
inform their child of the truth.
>>> And only if there's sufficient delay between birth and adoption for
the
>>> child to have much of a life. If the b-parents relinquish the child
between
>>> birth and, say, 1 year -- there's not going to be much in that life
book.
>>>
>> Well as I say there are 270 pages or there abouts on just one of the
files on
>> my adoption, admittedly there is at least one carbon copy of each
document.
>> But still quite a lot of history of me and my birth family.
>>
> In your case, though, you were over a year old, and while your mother
wasn't
> TPR'd, it was a pretty complex situation, and social services were
involved.
> In adoptions involving social services in the US, the files can grow
pretty
> big, I imagine -- and I don't know that a-parents are given access.
(Maybe
> those who adopted from SS in the US can comment on that.) I do
believe most
> states give more info now than they used to do.
>
Social services (or its predecessor, the children's department) were /
are involved in every adoption except step-parent adoptions they
provided the Guardian ad Litem and reporting service for the court
before CAFCASS took over that role, so most adoptees have an SS file
even if they were not adopted through SS. Social services were never
involved in any other way in my adoption it was an agency adoption
arranged by Barnardos.
>>> The kid's life book will probably start with "You were born in
America, and
>>> here's a picture of your birth-Mom. This is you at 2 hours old.
Here's a
>>> picture of you with your birth-family. Here's the big plane that
brought you
>>> to England." Why would he be better off if his life book had,
"Here's the
>>> foster family that looked after you until you were six months old" ?
>>>
>> How about some details of his original mother and her family and his
natural
>> father and his family?
>>
> Who knows? Maybe it's in there. Possibly the birth family provided
all the
> details. And since it is definitionally an open adoption, perhaps Baby
> Miliband can, when he grows up, visit them and get as much info as is
> available.
>
Again, I didn't think this thread was about the Milibands
>>> Looking at it from his viewpoint, I really can't see why it's a
problem,
>>> unless you believe the a-pars to be unfit. It's clearly an open
adoption, in
>>> that she knows who they are, and vice versa. It's not like they can
>>> disappear with no forwarding address. His b-mom will always know
where her
>>> son is, and probably, how he's doing. In a closed adoption, clearly
there is
>>> no chance of a life-book prior to adoption. And no picture of the
b-mom
>>> either. But I don't see how you can conflate that with the
Milliband thing.
>>>
>> Well *I* hadn't actually mentioned the Millibands in this thread, it
applies
>> to any long distance adoption where openness becomes difficult. But
as we've
>> introduced the Millibands how about some pictures of the paps
lurking around
>> in the delivery room as part of that life story book.
>>
> There may be a picture of them holding him at a few hours old. I
can't say
> that he'll find that objectionable.
I would if I were him.
> Really the issue, if any, is the b-mother's. If she doesn't have a
problem, I
> doubt he will.
If we are still talking about the Milibands It's the cattle market
aspect of US adoption, I think a lot of people here would find it
objectionable, anyone who grows up here may find it so. He'll always be
left wondering, what if I'd popped out with a serious physical defect
would they have walked of and left me in the delivery room?
>>> I think the jury is still out on that one. There's no proof either
way, I
>>> think. But how can a child be told about his natural family if the
a-pars
>>> don't know anything about it?
>>>
>> I hope all a-parents in a domestic adoption in the US today would
know enough
>> to have something to tell the child. There is a legal requirement
now in
>> England for the a-parents to be told any important factors in the
child's
>> background.
>>
> How do they define "important factors" ? I really don't know how much
non-Id
> information is provided in closed adoptions. I understand the
majority of
> infant adoptions in California these days are open, in which case the
> information would be available at some point.
First names of other family members and facts about them what there
jobs are etc is usual I think, any health info is important.
>>> A kid whose mother SH'd him will know that his mother didn't bag
him, she
>>> made sure he was safe. A kid whose mother bagged him will know she
wasn't
>>> thinking of him as aperson at all, only as a problem.
>>>
>> Will he? Will he even know that his mother had any part in the
decision, when
>> anyone can drop off her child "on her behalf" as appears to be the
case in
>> some places?
>>
> I imagine the SH records whether or not it was the mother (or a
person who
> claims parenthood) who drops off the child. I guess he can tell
himself that
> the person who bagged him or SH'd him wasn't his mother, that she
didn't know
> he wasn't stillborn, and his father didn't know he existed. It's
possible.
Hardly satisfactory is it, that a civilised modern society should
actively encourage such anonymous abandonment of infants? But then, it
it feeds the kind of ' total separation from birth family ' adoption
that some favour in the US.
Robin
|
|
| | From: | rkbose at pacific.net.sg | | Subject: | Re: IL - Baby Safe Haven - State law worked in baby's favorCouple, hope to adopt girl brought to hospital | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 00:52:24 -0800 |
|
|
|
Robin Harritt wrote:
> Ahh...that's where it went, my inbox :)
>
> Sorry for the radical snipping quoting seems to have gone very
strange.
>
No worries.
>
> I have had access to a large part of the 270 page file that the
agency
> still holds, I have the court's file and the supervising local
> authority's files including Guardian ad Litem and visiting officers
> files, my adoptive parents didn't have access to any of that
>
OK. Let's not get bogged down with this...I think we were simply trying
to decide whether "your mother loved you enough to make sure you were
safe" was a fairy-tale and should be avoided.
If we said, "Haven't the foggiest, dear," what conclusion would a child
draw?
> > I don't know if they can look at the files, but I think the
a-parents
> would
> > have enough info to know if the child was relinquished or dumped.
>
> Hardly anything at all to base a 'live story' on, then?
What kind of "live story" do we mean here? We would know that the b-mom
had taken the trouble to formally relinquish -- or not. We would know
that she wasn't TPR'd.
> >> My a-dad He wasn't told very much, what he was told was garbled
by the
> >> adoption worker and further embellished by adoptive mother's
fantasies.
>
> > Or so you understand? (Didn't you say your a-mom died when you
were
> 7? I'm
> > sorry if I'm confused.)
>
> I have as I said above, seen most of the files, I've even posted
parts
> of them here as a link to a temporary website, but that gave Dian
> apoplexy, and Jackie felt compelled to join in the attack despite the
> fact that it relates to circumstances 50 years ago and my natural
mother
> died in 1989.
>
Did those say what your a-mom's fantasies were?
>
> > I think in the US in closed adoptions, a-pars don't get the kid's
> OBC; and
> > b-pars don't get the a-pars' names.
>
>
> That's shameful isn't it?
>
I don't know. I think the adoptee should be able to access the records
when adult, but I'm not completely convinced that open adoptions are
always good.
>
>
> >> I think if you were the adoptee concerned you'd be pretty pissed
off
> >> with SH laws and lack of detail wouldn't you?
>
>
> > Maybe. Then again, maybe you'd think, well, what details would she
have
> > given anyway? At least I wasn't found under a hedge in a paper bag
by a
> > dog-walker.
>
> Carrier bags used for shopping here are made of plastic material, a
baby
> left wrapped in one of those would suffocate quite quickly. I'd know
if
> I'd left in that position that my mother had little love or concern.
>
Quite so. So if a mother took the trouble to SH her baby, she clearly
had more love and concern than the mother of the baby under the hedge.
> >
> > And even this would differ from State to State in the US. (In
India, the
> > father's signature is not needed unless the woman is married, in
> which case
> > the husband's signature would be required whether or not he was
the
> > bio-dad.)
>
> Even way back when I was adopted there was supposed to be an effort
by
> the SWs to find the father and even if he is not on the OBC he
usually
> gets a mention in the records, not much chance of that with SH laws
and
> father the gets no rights at all.
Which is true in any case in some States.
Rupa
|
|
| | From: | kat | | Subject: | Re: IL - Baby Safe Haven - State law worked in baby's favorCouple, hope to adopt girl brought to hospital | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:48:00 -0800 |
|
|
|
wrote in message
news:1106470344.101029.197790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Even way back when I was adopted there was supposed to be an effort
> by
> > the SWs to find the father and even if he is not on the OBC he
> usually
> > gets a mention in the records, not much chance of that with SH laws
> and
> > father the gets no rights at all.
> Which is true in any case in some States.
When there is an injustice the goal should be to correct it - not expand it.
Kathy 1
|
|
| | From: | Robin Harritt | | Subject: | Re: IL - Baby Safe Haven - State law worked in baby's favorCouple, | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:39:20 +0000 |
|
|
| rkbose@pacific.net.sg wrote:
>Robin Harritt wrote:
>
>
>>Ahh...that's where it went, my inbox :)
>>
>>Sorry for the radical snipping quoting seems to have gone very strange. No worries.
>>
>>
>>
>>I have had access to a large part of the 270 page file that the agency
>>
>>
>>still holds, I have the court's file and the supervising local
>>authority's files including Guardian ad Litem and visiting officers
>>files, my adoptive parents didn't have access to any of that
>>
>>
>>
>
>OK. Let's not get bogged down with this...I think we were simply trying
>to decide whether "your mother loved you enough to make sure you were
>safe" was a fairy-tale and should be avoided.
>
>
Yes but it paints a picture of what happened, a picture that my parents
just did not have, not a completely undistorted picture but clear enough
to contradict the many of the fundamentals of what I was told.
>If we said, "Haven't the foggiest, dear," what conclusion would a child
>draw?
>
>
>
That would have been a much more accurate summary of my a-parents actual
knowledge. If that is what they said I might have looked in to my
background much earlier. I rather think the same may be true for many
adoptees. As you know I work part time for a post-adoption support
charity. We always get a flood of calls when there has been a
documentary on TV that shows past adoption practice and they realise
that they may not have an accurate picture of their own adoption.
>
>
>> > I don't know if they can look at the files, but I think the a-parent would
>> > have enough info to know if the child was relinquished or dumped.
>>
>>Hardly anything at all to base a 'live story' on, then?
>>
>>
>
>What kind of "live story" do we mean here? We would know that the b-mom
>had taken the trouble to formally relinquish -- or not. We would know
>that she wasn't TPR'd.
>
>
Today adoptees are given a life story book, not easy to arrange if your
state still practices some barbaric form of completely closed adoption,
I suppose. Nor if there was only 10 days of life before you got dragged
all the way across the Atlantic to a foreign country.
>
>
>> >> My a-dad He wasn't told very much, what he was told was garbled by the
>>
>>
>> >> adoption worker and further embellished by adoptive mother's fantasies.
>>
>>
>> > Or so you understand? (Didn't you say your a-mom died when you were7? I'm
>> > sorry if I'm confused.)
>>
>>I have as I said above, seen most of the files, I've even posted parts
>>
>>
>>of them here as a link to a temporary website, but that gave Dian
>>apoplexy, and Jackie felt compelled to join in the attack despite the
>>
>>
>>fact that it relates to circumstances 50 years ago and my natural mother died in 1989.
>>
>
>Did those say what your a-mom's fantasies were?
>
>
They did reveal that she had some fantasies. Particularly perhaps about
how harshly I had been treated in the past. I guess those may have been
simple fictions to encourage my a-dad to agree to the adoption. I can
remember a lot of what she told me before she died and most of that was
accurate. Sadly I put some of it to the back of my mind for far to long.
>
>
>> > I think in the US in closed adoptions, a-pars don't get the kid's OBC; and
>> > b-pars don't get the a-pars' names.
>>
>>
>>That's shameful isn't it?
>>
>>
>>
>
>I don't know. I think the adoptee should be able to access the records
>when adult, but I'm not completely convinced that open adoptions are
>always good.
>
>
I am convinced that completely closed adoption, except in cases where
birth family are likely to harm the child , are very wrong, even then
the child should be told about his natural family in an age appropriate way.
>
>
>> >> I think if you were the adoptee concerned you'd be pretty pissed off
>>
>>
>> >> with SH laws and lack of detail wouldn't you?
>>
>>
>> > Maybe. Then again, maybe you'd think, well, what details would she have
>>
>>
>> > given anyway? At least I wasn't found under a hedge in a paper bag by a
>>
>>
>> > dog-walker.
>>
>>
>>Carrier bags used for shopping here are made of plastic material, a baby
>>
>>
>>left wrapped in one of those would suffocate quite quickly. I'd know if
>>
>>
>>I'd left in that position that my mother had little love or concern.
>>
>>
>>
>Quite so. So if a mother took the trouble to SH her baby, she clearly
>had more love and concern than the mother of the baby under the hedge.
>
>
The mother who dumps her baby under the hedge wrapped up in air-tight
plastic in mid January probably is not the kind of mother who is going
to make an effort to find a Safe Haven under any circumstances.
>
>
>>> And even this would differ from State to State in the US. (In India, the
>
>
>
>
>> > father's signature is not needed unless the woman is married, in which case
>> > the husband's signature would be required whether or not he was the
>>
>>
>> > bio-dad.)
>>
>>
>>Even way back when I was adopted there was supposed to be an effort by
>>
>>
>>the SWs to find the father and even if he is not on the OBC he usually
>>
>>
>>gets a mention in the records, not much chance of that with SH laws and
>>
>>
>>father the gets no rights at all.
>>
>>
>Which is true in any case in some States.
>
>
>
Which is another reason I am not keen on SH
Robin
|
|
|
| | |
|
 |