In case you were working under the impression that I only post comments that are sympathetic to my point of view, I’d like to direct you over to “Mommy Monsters.”
While this is one of the more extreme examples of comments I’ve received in the past few weeks, it is by no means the only example of bloggers who use the shield of privacy (ironic, huh?) to attack and demean. It is also a good example of why I am DONE talking about the sealed/amended/open records issue for the foreseeable future on this blog.
I think I’ll go write another song about my puppy now.
Perhaps you can have the comments off option turned on for this post? That way nobody can comment on the sealed records issue.
Since I am here, I want to say that we don’t have sealed records in my country (Australia) Both mothers and adoptees are given access to the true original birth certificates. Only in the state of Victoria is there some other law that I am not familiar with.
Also in my country we don’t do a lot of things that are done in America in regards to advertising for children or enticing pregnant women to come into agencies. I could be wrong but I don’t even think we have adoption agencies in Australia. Adoption is treated as a non profit activity and mothers are encouraged to parent rather than relinquish.
I know that if people want to get children they usually go to the poorer countries to adopt now. There is a lot of work being done to stop that because many people see that as an exploitation of people who are in a weaker economic position.
Thanks for letting me have a voice here.
Kim, I’ve been reading more about the Australian and NZ approach and I think it’s really sane. No one should be circling a pregnant woman or girl like a vulcher. I believe you have something like a 14-day waiting period, not just a few days, and that no adoption plan with anyone can be made before that time. Fathers should know their rights and exercise them within this time frame. I think such measures would help everyone. The advertising and the pressure should be ratcheted way down. Prospective adoptive parents also need to know that the child they are adopting is truly available for adoption and every avenue for family preservation has been exhausted. After that, they also need to be free to parent without fear of reprisals.
That “circling a pregnant girl like a vulture” comment really threw me for a loop. really.
tells nothing about beauty contest that all families who wish to adopt have to go through to get the birth mother to pick them. tells nothing about the girls who string along several families at once getting all her medical expenses paid plus a lot of “extras” only to choose to keep the baby at the very last moment….and she doesn’t have to give any of that money back…talk to a few families who have waited for many years for an American born child to adopt before you slam International adoption. Then look at the fact that in many countries you are not taking the child from it’s parents…you are taking it out of an ORPHANAGE.
oh, and the question is not rearing vs adoption….it’s ABORTION vs adoption. These ladies have already decided in most cases not to keep the kiddo.
I agree in principle. I think that you ought not to be signing anything until the end of a 30 day period. When I relinquished you signed after 5 days and then got a 30 day revocation period (if that is the right word)
I feel that I was rushed and that I signed too soon, I have always felt haunted about that. I wish that everyone had just backed off and let me decide and that I’d not been allowed to sign until after 30 days. I still don’t know what I would have decided but I am thinking I would not have relinquished.
Either way I don’t think rushing a mother so soon after she has given birth is a good idea. I am still haunted about leaving that new born baby, I was her mother I should have taken her home with me.
I also agree that the people adopting ought to do so with a clear conscience, no pressure, no coercion, just take some distance and let the mother not feel obligated to relinquish.
Just to clarify I was agreeing in principle to the comment made by Osolomama, not the other one that seems to be very unkind. Perhaps I misunderstood? Why have so much anger and then have a blog with jolly Christmas songs? These are the things in life that baffle me.
I don’t want to come back to this blog anymore if it’s going to have such mean comments like that one.
Thanks for letting have a voice Heidi. All the best.
Hi, Kim: Regarding your message about the “mean” post (I think you mean the one by “Mighty Mom,” one of my contributing writers), I’d have to say that in the grand spectrum of comments I’ve been fielding this past week, hers was mild by comparison. It was also one of the few that wrote from an adoptive mother perspective — almost all the rest wrote from an AA/BM perspective. I’m guessing it’s because most AMs (those in the trenches) aren’t as passionate about the subject as the other two sides of the triad. Not because it isn’t important, but because there are other issues that are more pressing to the AM’s immediate life experience.
Kippa: Regarding Dr. Somerville (and the latest comment you left at “Sneak Preview”), I believe my point was that IF mandated records become the standard, then the AR/invitro records should also be opened. I continue to believe that (a) the state’s primary responsibility is to the parents who are raising the child (adoptive parents, which as Professor Samuels indicated was at least partly the reason why the records were sealed in the first place) and (b) open records should have a safeguard (such as mutual consent, or mutual veto) to protect the privacy of all parties.
If you have not already done so, I’d encourage you to read the NCFA website on mutual consent: http://www.adoptioncouncil.org/mutual_consent.html
Also the Atwood related article: http://www.adoptioncouncil.org/resources/documents/ConsentorCoercion-AFBIV.pdf
How did I ever get the spelling of vulture that wrong?!! Looked at it a few times and thought. . .ooooh, that’s not right. But anyway. . .just to add that there are people who string people along in all sorts of ways. But when it comes to policy, it would seem to me that a policy that ensures the mother has had time to experience her newborn and be totally comfortable with an adoption plan if that is what she is doing would be the best for everyone, including prospective a-parents. Would you not want to know for certain that a child was genuinely free to be adopted?
Mighty Mom, I think the downside you refer to would also be minimized if fewer plans were finalized before the child is born. If countries can make it work then maybe we should be studying their results. And by the way, I never slammed international adoption. I am the single mother of a child adopted internationally. I know all about orphanages. Where you got that idea from my post is beyond me.