National Council for Adoption Names Mary Robinson New President

The National Council for Adoption is an important organization to support if you are concerned about the thousands of children in the U.S. in need of permanent, loving homes. NCFA has consistently advocated for the needs of all three sides of the adoption triad with a truly pro-life position — I heartily endorse them.

Mary Robinson Named President and CEO of the National Council For Adoption Alexandria, VA – Mary Fasenmyer Robinson of Bethesda, Maryland has been named president and chief executive officer of the National Council For Adoption (NCFA). The announcement was made today by board chairman Stan Swim, noting Ms. Robinson’s extensive experience in nonprofit development, strategic marketing and software innovation. “We are extremely delighted and proud to announce Mary Robinson as NCFA’s new president and CEO. NCFA was founded on the unwavering belief that all children deserve a loving, permanent family. I am confident that Mary possesses the depth of leadership experience, marketing expertise and passion for adoption, as an adoptive parent herself, to lead NCFA through a period of continued growth, and to keep us focused on our mission of finding families for all children,” Swim said.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “National Council for Adoption Names Mary Robinson New President

  1. Since when has the NCFA advocated for adoptees? They activley lobby against the opening of records. They believe that adopted people should be treated differently and with less rights than other US citizens.

    Like

  2. NCFA works tirelessly to support all three sides of the adoption triad, and believes records should be available by mutual consent.

    The rights of all three sides of the triad need to be taken into account. I’m sorry you don’t feel the same way.

    Like

  3. Why does an adult need consent from an unrelated third party to have access to their OWN birth certificate?

    Every other citizen of the U.S. has the right to their BC without the involvement of a third party.

    Like

    • This issue has already been discussed at length here. Here’s the link.

      Bottom line: The rights and needs of ALL sides must be respected. I understand how frustrating this must be for those who are unable to get the information they seek. On the other hand, stories like this one reveal the very real consequences of unilateral open records.

      Like

  4. I’ve removed two posts from RAGAMUFFIN that I felt did not warrant posting because he (David Tommey) insisted on prolonging the discussion about open records vs. the standard of mutual consent even after I indicated to him this topic had already been treated here, and he was not adding to the constructive dialogue.

    Naturally, he protested. So I blocked him.

    But as I thought more about it, I realized that the problem really goes deeper than the one issue, and wrote about it here: http://mommymonsters.blogspot.com/2009/09/sigh.html

    I’m sure it won’t be well received — no doubt the Bastards will be all over it, decrying what an “ignorant infertile” I am. But since I don’t read those blogs, it’s really not something I worry about too much.

    What does concern me, very much, is that MY readers — those who are committed to helping their child grow up to become happy, well-adjusted adults — realize that there is nothing wrong with protecting the bond you have established with your child. You don’t have to stand by silently when your motives are questioned, or your sacrifices are disregarded — any more than any other mother stands silently by when she is disrespected.

    You ARE your child’s real mother. He is blessed to have you!

    Like

  5. As an adoptive parent who is very much committed to helping my child grow up to become a happy, well-adjusted adult, I have to disagree with your underlying assumption that my bond with my child requires protection from his biological family members. I am a father to my son, perhaps the only father he will ever know. That does not mean, however, that I am his only man that ever cared for his future or his only father in my son’s view. As so many are fond of saying, adoption can be an act of love. If that is true, then why should we assume that our bonds required protection from others who love our children?

    It is my view that the ability to know his origins is fundamental to his ability to become a happy, well-adjusted man, one who is capable of making his own decisions about how to conduct his life and who he shall include in his life. I put my beliefs into practice ten years ago, by arranging for him to meet and come to know not only his mother, but his siblings and grandparents. His father is yet to be found.

    My son has integrated his biological family into his life very well. In doing so, he has only strengthened his bond with me.

    Like

    • Every family is different. I’m glad yours has managed to integrate the extended family so well.

      However, the fact that some adoptive triads do manage to “blend” so well does not automatically mean that this is the case for all, or that automatic open records is, in every case, in the best interest of everyone concerned. There are too many variables on all sides of the triad for there not to be some safeguards in place.

      It is also a mistake to argue from one anecdotal case, or to suggest that because it is true for one it is true for all. For example, my reasons for believing strongly in the principle of records by mutual consent have nothing to do with my children’s situation, as they already know their birth parents (though they will not have contact with them until they reach age 18 for reasons I will not discuss here). Because I know that their birth parents desire reunification, I plan to help my kids re-establish contact when they reach adulthood. Nevertheless, I can appreciate that not all birthparents would want this, and I believe their decision should be respected.

      The last line of your note caught my attention: that in integrating his biological family into his life, “he has only strengthened his bond with me.” You don’t mention your son’s mother, and since his biological father is not a part of this scenario there would seem to be no competing or conflicting “claims for affection.” I wonder if this is a factor in how successfully your son “integrated” the two sides of the family.

      Thanks for writing.

      Like

  6. My wife was hesitant to introduce my son to his biological family, for a number of reasons including what she acknowledges was an unfounded fear of competition with his biological mother. My wife is extremely happy with the way things have worked out; if anything, she wishes our son would have more contact with his biological family.

    My opposition to a requirement of mutual consent to the opening of original birth certificates predates my son’s reunification with his birth family. It is founded on the belief that the act of adoption in and of itself is no justification for treating an adopted adult any differently than any other citizen. In my state, for example, a child born to an unwed mother has unrestricted access to his or her birth certificate after age 16. All foster children have access to their’s, as well, regardless of the age at which they were fostered. Why, then, does the act of adoption create any special privilege?

    Each of us, in my view, has the right to know not only from whence we came, but to whom we may be related, by blood or otherwise. The decision to contact , or refuse contact by, another adult is a right we all have. I see no reason my son, or his biological parents, should receive any special treatment in this regard.

    Like

    • “The decision to contact , or refuse contact by, another adult is a right we all have.”

      This is a good example of how two people can have the same set of facts, and interpret them differently. From your point of view, automatic release ensures this “right.” From my point of view, this is best accomplished by mutual consent — otherwise the birth parent has no right to “refuse contact by” another adult — or to have his or her life forcibly turned upside down by another adult.

      The same would be true of a man who donated sperm to a fertility clinic. Biologically, he is related to that child; legally, at least at this time, his privacy is protected.

      I don’t deny that every child has a strong desire to know his or her origins and roots; legally, the decisions made on behalf of the child by his parents must be protected. Mutual consent — combined with a centralized, well publicized national registry — is in my view the best way to assure this. As I’ve said here many, many times before.

      Thanks for writing.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s