Wednesday, October 31, 2007


As I am not getting through those adoptees happy with the Coleman Adoption Agency search specialist, let me present some bullet points.

  • Katrina Carlisle is the former director of Coleman Adoption agency before the agency was bought by St. Elizabeth, a Catholic Charities organization in 2005. I hope you know that Catholic Charities organizations are dead set against adoptees. They continue to fabricate lies to our legislative leaders in all states.
  • We now know that she cowrote a book on adoption.
  • Did any of you know that you also spent time in a foster care? Yep I spent three to four weeks in foster care. My mother left the home on August 9, 1965 and my adoptive parents picked me up in September 1965.
  • According to the law, there is no restrictions on contact with our natural fathers
  • There is no restriction on which CI a Coleman adoptee can use. I was told by Ms. Carlisle that she was the only one I could use. That too is in both the DCF handbook as well as written law.
  • There is no written law that states the number of times an adoptee/natural parent can contact or be contacted. Again refer to both the law or the DCF handbook.
  • Conflict of Interest also plays a part in this. Katrina is interested only in protecting the agency. Our parents nor adoptees are not the top of her concern. She is someone who has profitted and continues to do so off all of us.
  • Did you know that the adoption agency probably received foster care subsidy money off us? They got money from our natural parents. They got money from our adoptive parents. They got money from us. Most of our adoptions were not finalized for one year. So they got to continue in their profiteering. They made massive amounts of money off us. They control the laws concerning our civil rights. We as a group continue to allow them to do this. They don't represent us.
  • This agency was just as bad as all the others. They hurt our mothers, some beyond repair. You still support them? Boggles my brain

With that being said, lets take a look at the stalking and harassment laws of Indiana. As I have said, I have done my research.

§ 35-45-10-1. "Stalk" Defined. 1993

§ 1. As used in this chapter, "stalk" means a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened. The term does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity.

§ 35-45-10-2. "Harassment" Defined. 1993.
§ 2. As used in this chapter, "harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes but is not limited to repeated or continuing impermissible contact that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include statutorily or constitutionally protected activity, such as lawful picketing pursuant to labor disputes or lawful employer-related activities pursuant to labor disputes.

With the state allowing the CIs to contact our parents, this is probably considered a statutorily protected activity. Hmmmmmm, does this make you think yet? I have noticed Adult Adoptee and BethGo have stopped commenting. Lisa, I suspect you are Katrina anyway. Yes Look at the bottome of this web page. Its called a sitemeter. I know who visits and have your ip address. You must really think I am stupid. Katrina, you are having this women come to me and try to bluff me into thinking differently. I have the law on my side. I have taken the time to research adoption and its horrible laws especially in the state of Indiana.

Please read here for further information on another adoptee's fight against the CI system. Its Kevan's story on adoption, the CI system and his experience.

Monday, October 29, 2007


Let me state the facts. I have done my research for the last two years. Have you? I have read the law inside and out. I can't for the life of me figure how Katrina and the Agency can twist the law to continue to hurt us adoptees and our families. I have been told that it is because they are a private agency.

Katrina Carlisle is the former adoption agency director at Coleman Adoption Agency. In case you happy adoptees don't understand this. This woman helped in the taking of babies from mothers. Natural mothers don't like hearing from someone like her. Don't believe me? Go check the links off the side there. Ask them. They HATE them. They don't ever want to hear from the agency ever again. Its not you that they dislike. Its her. It is that simple. I have done my research. I have spoken with hundreds if not thousands of mothers across this country of ours. Its always the same. I doubt that she told any of you that.

Did she tell you about this book that she cowrote? Yep a how to guide to adopt.

Did you know that our adoptive parents didn't get a copy of the records either? Not even a copy of the very records that they signed. Yep many adoptive parents accepted that they were the best of the best. I don't think so. It sounds like a Georgia Tann thing to me. Did you even read what Janice wrote? THEY TIED OUR MOTHERS TO THEIR BEDS WHEN THEY BEGAN GIVING BIRTH. They did this to prevent them from touching their stomachs Doesn't that make you even the slightest bit angry? Hell it set me on FIRE. It set my adoptive mother on fire.

She told me that only she would access to my records. That no other person would be allowed to read my records but her. I found out that this was false. Do you know that most CI's in the state of Indiana steer away from Coleman? They rip adoptees off period. Did you know that CI's out of Fort Wayne Catholic Charities are charged a much lower sum to review their records? I heard this from several other CI's. They don't want to deal with the Coleman Agency or St. Elizabeth. I can choose any CI that I want in Indiana. I was told that I could not contact my father because my mother refused. I found out that this was a lie from several other CIs. She also told me that my father and siblings could not contact me via the Adoption registry.

Catholic Charities is also known for taking money and giving zilch in return. In fact, Indiana has had an issue with this for quite a while.

Now I want to introduce the law into this.

IC 31-19-22-2
Requirements for release of identifying information
Sec. 2. The state registrar, the department, a county office of family and children, a licensed child placing agency, a professional health care provider (as defined in IC 34-6-2-117), and a court shall release identifying information in the entity's possession only if:

(1) the information is requested by a person described in IC 31-19-18-2(a); and
(2) the following persons have submitted a written consent under IC 31-19-21 (or IC 31-3-4-27 before its repeal) to the state registrar that allows the release of identifying information to the person requesting the information:

(A) The adult adoptee.
(B) A birth parent.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.11. Amended by P.L.1-1998, SEC.161; P.L.145-2006, SEC.257.

Where does it say "birth" mother? Do you see it? I don't. I see "birth" parent. There is no restriction if one parent refuses. It just says "birth" parent. I see no restriction on "birth" fathers. For once think outside that little box that you have ensconced yourselves. All of this can be read at that link.

IC 31-19-24-4
Search for information and persons

Sec. 4. The confidential intermediary shall:

(1) make complete and reasonable efforts to locate the medical, identifying, or nonidentifying information;
(2) attempt to locate any person necessary to obtain the medical, identifying, or nonidentifying information;
(3) inform the person contacted of the medical or other need set forth by the petitioner; and
(4) obtain the needed medical, identifying, or nonidentifying information.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.11. Amended by P.L.196-1997, SEC.15.

Do you see any restriction on only one call? I don't. That is a Coleman policy.

IC 31-19-24-14

Appointment of confidential intermediary; requirements

Sec. 14. A court may only appoint a person to serve as a confidential intermediary under this chapter if the person:

(1) agrees to abide by the order of the court under section 3 of this chapter without advocating either the opening or maintaining the confidentiality of adoption records;

(2) does not have a personal relationship with either the petitioner or the person from whom the medical, identifying, or nonidentifying information is being sought; and

(3) agrees to comply with the limitations set by the court in searching for the information specified by the court under section 3

(4) of this chapter.As added by P.L.196-1997, SEC.22.

Where does it state that she is the only CI that we can use only her? I don't see it. I can prove what I say. I have been doing for years now. This is nothing for me. She needs the light shown on her. The agency needs the light shown on it as well. Open your eyes. Read the law yourselves.

Here is what the Vital Statistics Handbook says on adoptee and natural parent access. It states the same thing. It states "birth" parent. The CIs in Indiana have free reign to do whatever they want and to charge whatever THEY deem reasonable. There is no accountability of CIs in the state of Indiana.

The State Registrar shall release a copy of the Medical History to an
interested person, which is defined as:
(1) an adoptee,
(2) a birth parent,
(3) an adoptive parent,
(4) a relative of a birth parent,
(5) a relative of an adoptive parent,
(6) the DFC or the COFC,
(7) an adoption agency (a licensed child placing agency), or
(8) a court.
In addition, the State Registrar may release a copy of the Indiana Medical
History Report to any person who satisfies the Registrar that the person
has a legitimate need for the information. Any category of information
not prescribed by the Indiana Medical History Report shall not be released
under IC 31-19-19-4.
720.322 Non-identifying and Identifying Information
In accordance with IC 31-19-18-2, non-identifying and identifying
information may be received or transmitted for inclusion with the
adoption history by the following persons:
(1) An adoptee who is an adult (age 21) or over; or if the adoptee is
deceased, the adoptee’s spouse or relative (parent, children, brother,
or sister), providing this relationship existed at the time of the
adoptee's death.
(2) A birth parent; or, if the birth parent is deceased, the birth parent’s
spouse or relative (parent, children, brother, or sister) providing this
relationship existed at the time of the birth parent's death.
(3) An adoptive parent.
(4) A pre-adoptive sibling
720.33 Registering on the Adoption History Registry

These registration forms must be filed with the State Registrar of Vital Records
(Indiana Adoption History Registry), the state or county office of family and
children, child placing agencies, health care providers or courts. However, COFCs
are encouraged to instruct applicant(s) to forward the forms and other required
identification, documentation and changes directly to the State Registrar of Vital
Different forms are used to register to receive medical, non-identifying and
identifying information as follows:
720.331 Filing for the Release of Non-Identifying Information:
The pink “Non-identifying Information: Adoption History Registration
Form” is used to file for the release of non-identifying information. See
subsection 720.312 for the definition of non-identifying information. A
copy of this form is in Appendix FFF to this section.

Procedures for Obtaining Adoption History Information Not Available from the State Registrar
In accordance with IC 31-19-22-7, an adoptee or a birth parent who submits a written consent
for release of identifying information may request the attorney, child placing agency (LCPA) or
county office of family and children (COFC) to contact the adoptee or birth parent whose
consent is necessary before identifying information can be released. Also, any interested
person, as defined in 720.321 above, who has a need to obtain medical non-identifying or
identifying information not contained in the Adoption History Registry information through the
State Registrar and not forthcoming from the sources noted above may file a petition with any
court with probate jurisdiction in Indiana for the desired information. The petition must contain,
to the best of the petitioner’s knowledge, the following:
(1) The full name and address of the petitioner.
(2) The adoptee's full name, sex, date of birth and if known, the place of birth and the nature
of the medical information being sought; current address, county of adoption proceeding,
name and address of the agency that placed the adoptee; the full name and current
address of the adopting parents, if any; date of adoption proceedings, full name and
current address of the birth parent.

Where oh where is the restriction on natural fathers? I don't see it. I don't see any restriction on the number of times an agency can contact. This is the agency's policy. As Katrina works for this agency, I thus call her a liar and a thief. I have proof. Its there for you in red black and white. Open your eyes.

Katrina, why are you having happy adoptees coming here? Why can't you come out to play? Afraid of us here at the blog? Your tactics have hurt three mothers here on this blog. Your tactics have hurt three adoptees here. Two of them are still drinking Coleman koolaid. Not for long, you can take that to the bank. You brought them here. I will educate. As well as many other souls who visit here and the other blog.

By the way, I will be presenting this information to the Indiana state legislators at the Adoptee Rights protest in July of 2008. That is the state legislators convention. Things will change. You will soon have to find work elsewhere.

Saturday, October 27, 2007



I promised a comment from our resident mother, Janice. Actually she has been a mother to me and many other adoptees to include Tanya, and others in Indiana and country wide. I too wonder what the hell they told our mothers. I wonder what Katrina tells them to discourage them so much. Is she scaring them?

Dear Adoptee,

I was at the Coleman Home. It was such a good experience that the other mothers are afraid to talk about it? I lost weight being there. Just fed the minimal. I was lied to and treated like a commodity. No counseling what so ever at any thime. We were kept in the basement of the home, alone, til the pains were 2 minutes apart. Then sent to the hospital. My hands were tied down when it came time to deliver. No pain meds til the baby was coming out so we couldn't see any of the birth.I didn't want to sign any papers and they told me it didn't matter cause they could take her anyway. I later found out they said I came from a girls school and made her a ward of the court and took her away. Said I didn't know who the father was. If I came from a girls school how did I get pregnant? Also I was told I could name her and the adoptive parents agreed they would keep the name. No where on the papers was the name I had given her. I found put she was sold by my parents for money and the agency went along with this. They must have recieved a bunch themselves. I had asked to go to church as I was Catholic and was denied that.I have tried for years to find another coleman mother to talk to me and they are all afraid to. They were brainwashed pretty good. I have felt for years I was such a bad person for getting pregnant but if I was so bad why did someone want a baby I had? We were just a means and a business like anything else. It is so sad that there are so many of us who have gone on and been so unhappy because we were talked into something and didn't get to make our own decision.We weren't monsters to be treated that way, we were girls who made a mistake.

Janice Barnes

If this alone doesn't wake you up, I don't know what to say to you. If Julie's comment doesn't wake you, then I don't know what to say. Adoptees across this country in non open record states have gone through what we went through. Here you are, fifty something woman, being treated like a child. Its time to come out of the fog and get angry. I met another mother who was at Coleman for three days. Her son was born the day before me. According to her there was no other women there with her. So I doubt my own birthday. Indiana is known for changing dates and children from incestral relationships. So whose your mama now?

Thursday, October 25, 2007


This comment was left on my blog today. I thought I would answer it. I am also going to post it here so that a natural mother from Suemma Coleman Home For Unwed Mothers can answer it too.

Beth G said:

I used the St. Elizabeth Coleman agency and Katrina as my search specialist in 2005. I was adopted from Suemma Coleman in 1952. I would recommend Katrina Carlisle to anyone, and have already, for the process of searching for a bith-family. The money used for the research and time they spend looking through years of records, birth certificates, marriage records, and death certificates isworth spending. I spent hours searching through books. The web sites were asking so much money and wanted private information.Katrina showed me and my birth family nothing but respect and kindness. As an adoptive mom, she understands what we are going through. I talked to Katrina about 6 months before I decided to go thru with the search. She informed me from the start that my birth mom may not want contact with me, or she may not be found. I went into the process knowing I might have to accept the word "no." Yes, it would hurt but it still needed to be respected!When Katrina contacted me the first time she had my files and read several items from it. I was told to ask questions as she read because the files would be sealed afterwards. I learned several things about my birth mom from the files. She was very popular. And she was treated with the utmost respect. I received a call from Katrina about 3 months into the search. She not only found my mom but had talked to her. Katrina told her about the paper work she needed to fill out, sign and send back, then we could contact each other.She could have changed her mind before receiving the paperwork but Katrina could not contact her again because of privacy and harrasment issues.She said her stay at the home was good. She remembered many people, made many friends, and kept in contact with some of them for many years.If she had not given me up for adoption, my life would not have been as good as it is. I was adopted, CHOSEN by a couple who could not have children. They did not have to raise me, have many sleepless nights, and spend money on me and my education. But they CHOSE to do so. And for that I love them very much.I know she made the best decision she could in her circumstances. I am thankful for the life she gave me, both in birth and future family.I inform anyone that asks me about searching for birth families that there are many ups and downs to the search process, outcomes not expected, but must be respected, and laws not accepted by everyone, that are made to protect everyone involved in the process.I believe health records for adoptees should be made available, not at the expense of disrupting an unexpecting, unknowning family but through doctors who can review your files. I was blessed to have Katrina find my birth family. Not all searches are as fast and successful as mine. Not all outcomes are good. Be prepared to accept the decision of the birth mom. It is not the fault of the agency or the CI. Ask questions and ask about the laws having to do with adoption searches. Think about it and make sure this is what you want to do. Understand the outcome may not be what your expect.

My answer to you is no, you have drunk too much of adoption koolaid. I have heard from many people in Indiana that Katrina does not reunite adoptees and mothers. There is Vincent who had the same exact story as I did. I know another adoptee who had to ask three to four times for her information to be sent to her. Her mother approved the contact. Another mother friend in Indiana said herself that Katrina screws adoptees and their families over. I will not accept no contact unless my natural mother herself tells me. Only her. I feel that Katrina is a liar and a scam artist.

Did you know how our mothers were treated? Ask Janice when she posts about this and she will. She is the resident Coleman mother. Our mothers were tied to the bed. Don't be fooled by Katrina. They were not allowed to touch their stomachs, not allowed to see us or hold us. They were fed three sparse meals a day. Did you ever wonder why you didn't weigh as much as your children? I was six pounds and three ounces. Why did my children weigh 8 lbs, 6oz and 7 lbs, 9oz? They didn't feed OUR mothers. Ever wonder why your adoptive parents didn't get any paperwork? Mine didn't either. All adoptees and adoptive parents didn't get squat. My adoptive mother called up there asking Katrina to contact her and find my father. It is not against the law to contact my father. I have read the laws. All this agency is doing is covering their butts. They shamed and humiliated our mothers. Don't believe me? Read The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler. Its in paperback now so it should be cheap to buy. Go to the library and read it. Also read Wake Up Little Suzie by Rickie Solinger. Our mothers were verbally and emotionally abused by this agency. Natural mothers from all over this country were treated this way. Every story I have heard from natural mothers is consistently the same.

I too had great adoptive parents. Even my adoptive mother is ticked about my natural father. Do you know what it is like to be told that your natural father wanted to raise you but you can't make contact because your natural mother supposedly refused? I do. Then again being told that your mother said yes and then changed her mind is just as cruel. Is that the true story? I don't know. You should be PISSED. I bet more than not Someone somewhere dropped the ball in your case. How do you know that Katrina didn't call her back and tell her that you didn't want contact? For Christ's sake, she is the former director of the agency. How do you know that she doesn't have something to hide?

Why should you always be grateful? Don't you know that abortion wasn't an option back in our days? The only way she could redeem herself was to give you up. It was never a choice of your natural mother. She was treated like a breeder. She was coerced all the way. I can guarantee it. Did you know that Catholic Charities is known for taking adoptees money and not providing an information? Did you know that the agency itself changed the names our mothers gave us? I have done my research extensively. Check out my other blog, Adoption and Its Triad.

Sorry to be so angry. I want you angry. I want you to write the Indiana legislators. We are adults and should be afforded that courtesy and respect. We should have the same rights as other non adopted individuals. The state of Indiana is violating our right to privacy. The right to privacy is about the right to be free from governmental interference. I challenge you to read the other adoptee blogs. I challenge you to read the natural mother blogs. It would open your eyes wide. I highly suggest some cool clean water to drink instead of the koolaid.


I have noticed that I have had visitors spreading this blog's message throughout the state of Indiana and Illinois. I have also had visitors googling Suemma Coleman Home for Unwed Mothers.

I wonder if those emailing this address all over that part of the country what are you saying. Do you agree with the message? Do you disagree with the message?

If you disagree with it, this is my response.

I am an adoptee who should have access to the very records that accurately record my birth and the six weeks that followed. It is about me. I did not have a choice in this adoption. It was a contract created between the adoption agency, my natural parents, and my adoptive parents. Why am I held to a contract that I did not sign? I am now an adult. I have served my country. I am a working mother. I am married. I vote and follow my civic duties as I should. Why can't I have access to something that rightfully belongs to me.

Don't give me the hogwash about the right to privacy. The right to privacy is the right to be free from governmental interference. So whose right is really being violated here? It is my rights. I am responsible enough to pay taxes, vote, fight for my country, and even drink. I am not responsible enough though to have access to my documents.

Another issue that all living adoption need to be aware of. The government is now requiring accurate birth certificates. Mine is not complete. It does not have the date that it was filed on it. According to the Department of Homeland security, I would be a suspect for terrorism because I can't produce documents accurately recording my birth. I am thereby a prisoner in my own country. I can leave it but I would not be able to return. Even though I am a military veteran who has gone to war for her country, I would still be suspect. Adoptive parents this includes your children. Do you have the documents accurately recording the birth of your child?

If you really believe adoption is the cure of abortion, here is my argument against that even. In familial privacy, women are practicing the right to privacy with abortion, contraception, and parenting. In two of those subjects alone, it is a medical issue. In parenting, a mother has the right to raise her child as she sees fit. In adoption, the mother is relinquishing her rights to include the right to privacy from her own child. She does not have to deal with governmental interference unless of course she wants to reunite with her adult adoptee. Then the government won't let her have access to the same documents. It is the same for many adoptive parents. If they chose to help their adult adoptee search, they too can't have access to the very documents that record their adoptee's birth. Sealed birth certificates is about one thing. Covering thy proverbial ass. Many adoption agencies then and now are scared to death of what is in those records. They violated the rights of mothers because they were single. Motherhood back in the day was only defined by a woman's marriage. It was not defined by giving birth to a child. In Oregon, the adoptee access law promotes adoption. In states with adoptee access, they are historically got lower abortion rates and higher adoption rates than compared to the national average.

If you are concerned with what I and others have said about the CI laws in the state of Indiana. You should be very afraid. They control the exchange of information and the reunion. They say and do things that disallow you from contacting both of your parents. Even though the law states "birth" parent, there is nothing prohibiting from one contacting her/his natural father if the natural mother refuses. Somehow someway this is included. The Department of Vital Statistics manual says nothing about prohibiting contact. Trust me I have read it over and over. There is a law that allows an adoptee to make contact with their pre-adoption siblings. I had one. I have a sister. I can't contact her because she is my natural father's daughter. Again my mother supposedly refused.

If you are here because you agree, please please spread the message. Write the Indiana state legislators. Attend the Adoptee Rights Protest in July of 2008. The links are on the side. Step up and fight back against a system that violates our rights as those living adoption.

Saturday, October 20, 2007


This article came up in the Indy Star. Since the Indy Star only allows articles to be posted for a week, I have posted the story here. This young girl should have gone back to her father the moment that her mother became unfit. Sadly we have become a country that disenfranchises parents of their children. I imagine the Florida DCF department probably was going to get a nice penny or two for her. That is their motivation behind fighting to keep her here.

WASHINGTON -- Children in the foster care system face enough challenges without adding politics and ideology to the mix, never mind the C-word.
"Elian II," the sequel we hoped never to see, is what fathers' groups are calling a Miami case that once again highlights our confusion about paternal rights in child custody battles.
This time, the dispute revolves around a 5-year-old Cuban girl, her biological father in Cuba, her mentally unstable mother in the U.S., a passel of relatives, therapists, guardians ad litem, activist attorneys and, finally, a wealthy, influential Cuban-American foster family.
Elian and "E," as we'll call the girl, have similar stories. In Elian's case, the father wanted his boy returned to Cuba after the child's mother drowned en route to the U.S., but family members in the U.S. wanted him to grow up here. Few can have forgotten how then-Attorney General Janet Reno sent armed troops to remove Elian from his Miami home and return him to Cuba.
In E's case, the facts are a little muddier, but the principle is the same: Does the biological father, assuming he is fit, have a right to his own child? The answer should seem obvious: Not yes, but hell yes.
But what's obvious isn't always so. E is another tragic case in point. There isn't enough space here to describe the many complications -- and questionable behavior -- in this sordid saga. In her recent ruling, for instance, Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen criticized "unprofessional conduct by certain members of the defense team and a general hostile environment in the courtroom."
Briefly, E was 2 when she came legally to the U.S. along with her mother, Elena Perez, a half-brother and a "stepfather," who agreed to marry Perez so that he could make the trip, according to Cohen's ruling. Perez had won a Cuban visa lottery that allows the winner, a spouse and minor children to emigrate to the U.S. under special parole authority.
The stepfather dumped Perez and the children immediately upon arrival, whereupon Perez began to unravel. When she attempted suicide in 2005, she lost custody of her kids to the state.
Both E and her half-brother were placed in temporary custody with a well-known Miami couple, Joe Cubas and his wife, Maria. Cubas is a wealthy sports agent, both controversial and revered by many in the Cuban community for helping Cuban athletes defect and assume careers in American baseball leagues. Cubas also has worked with a Miami orphanage for abused children stuck in long-term foster care.
Among those he helped was E's half-brother, whom the Cubases have adopted.
The custody case has dragged on so long that E has bonded with the Cubases, who have a home in upscale Coral Cables, a swimming pool and a boat. Life is good, and few dispute that the Cubases have offered a stable, nurturing home to the two children.
By contrast, E's father, Rafael Izquierdo, is a poor farmer who lives with his common-law wife and another child in rural, central Cuba. He is generally regarded as hardworking, though as Cohen wrote in her ruling, he is a "somewhat passive and unsophisticated individual who approaches life in very simplistic and concrete terms."
Projecting our own values, it's easy to imagine that E would be materially better off in America. We'd all prefer to live among prosperity in a free country than in relative poverty under a communist dictatorship.
But that's not the point. We don't disenfranchise parents or deny children their natural parents, assuming they're fit, based on politics, income or material goods.
In fact, Cohen ruled last month that Izquierdo is a fit father and that E should go home with him. But child welfare officials want to keep her here and have spent $250,000 to that end, by The Miami Herald's estimate.
On Monday, state attorneys filed a notice of appeal to try to overturn Cohen's ruling, claiming that E's removal from the Cubases would be damaging to her.
Separating E from her foster family now may indeed cause emotional trauma for all involved. But it's hard to imagine under what circumstances a child would be given to foster parents over a fit biological parent who wants to raise her.
The sad truth is that E should have been put on a plane back to Cuba as soon as her mother was determined unfit.
E had a father then. She has one now.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007


I have read very heavily into Indiana law concerning adoptee rights. I was told by the agency CI, Katrina Carlisle, that natural fathers have no rights in the state of Indiana. If the natural mother refuses contact, the natural father can't be contacted. Interestingly enough, the law doesn't specify that.

I found this little bit of information on HB 1217 which was enacted into law on March 30, 2005. It was put into effect on July 1, 2005. All the laws state "birth" parent. It does not specify mother or father just birth parent. I have yet to get any kind of answer from any Indiana state legislator on any of this. When I spoke with another court sanctioned CI, I found out that natural fathers can be contacted.

The law states:

IC 31-19-18-2 (a); and (2) the following persons have submitted a written consent under IC 31-19-21 (or IC 31-3-4-27 before its repeal) to the state registrar that allows the release of identifying information to the person requesting the information:

(A) The adult adoptee.
(B) A birth parent.

In the HB 1217, the adoption agency and the state is to provide this information in copy form minus identifying information to me or to any adoptee or natural parent.

Sec. 5.
(a) This section applies to an adoption that is granted before July 1, 1993.
(b) Upon the request of an adoptee who is at least eighteen (18) years of age, a person, a licensed child placing agency, or a county office of family and children shall provide to the adoptee available information of social, medical, psychological, and educational records and reports concerning the adoptee. The person, licensed child placing agency, or county office of family and children shall exclude from the records information that would identify the birth parents.

You see I was read this information via a telephone call. I never received any kind of paper work except the so called transcripts from the phone conversations between my natural mother and the agency CI. That was not even on company letterhead. I have no idea if those are authentic. I paid these kind folks over at the St. Elizabeth Coleman $325.00. I really got nothing. Because I feel that I was lied to on so many counts, I honestly don't believe anything on those transcripts.

This is something that all adoptees and natural parents should be aware of. This agency now charges at least $200.00 to natural parents who are searching for their children. This agency charges $325.00 for adoptees who are searching for their parents. If at all possible, do not use this agency for search purposes. I have heard repetitively from many others that this agency sabotages reunions. Take the fight to the legislators of Indiana. Its time to make a difference. Indiana adoptees and mothers take a stand. Its time to take our rights back from the agencies and the state. Its time to claim our rights to the very documents that accurately record our lives. If the non adopted affected have those rights, why can't we?

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Triggering Kind of Night

Its always hard for me to attend these rodeo events out here. I never know what kind of rumor or fight is gonna break out. I never know from what direction they are going to attack me, my children or my husband.

They have already found out that I will absolutely not allow my children to be attacked or beaten up. I will take it to the owners, no matter what. I don't care. If they don't like it, screw them. It is my job as a parent to protect my children. I am also the same way with my husband. I love my husband with all my heart. I have no doubt in my mind that he is the most perfect man for me. I also know that he is one of the best cowboys out here.

Last night one of the cowboys made a comment that sent my husband reeling. They called him a worthless piece of shit cowboy. Now I live with that daily. I hear it from my other blog. The "you should be grateful that your natural mother didn't abort you or throw you in a dumpster" or "your adoptive parents are so ashamed of you" are said behind my back, on my blog, and in my travels in the adoption underground. If it weren't for these people and my family, I would not have made it. I would have ended it long ago. I don't get near as down on myself as I used to. First, let me explain. Abortion was not an option for me. I bet that my own natural mother wanted my natural father to marry her. I have no doubt that she loved him. That was the only reason why she went the route that she chose.

So at this point my husband is very upset and hurt. He is trying to get this idiot to talk to him. The other jerks kept interfering. They were blaming my hubby. They were in his face about it. It made me mad because they were invalidating him.

Invalidation is what irks me about adoption right now. The industry itself has spent a lifetime and beyond invalidating adoptees and natural parents. I mean to stop dead in its tracks.

Thursday, October 11, 2007


This is written by Jack Sweeley. I always wondered about this. Jesus and Moses were both adoptees of sorts. I wonder if the biblethumpers out there would really understand this. If I had met this man in my travels, I probably would not have left the Catholic Church.

N.B. Documentation of the linguistic changes in the text cited is proven by citing the same text from the BGL, BibleWorks Greek LLX (Hebrew translated into Greek for Greek speaking Jews in Egypt)/BNT (New Testament Greek; the LXE, Brenton's English translation of the LXX; the VUL, Jerome's Latin Vulgate; the KJV, King James (1611-1769); and the NRS, New Revised Standard Version (1989). Sources are cited in this order, where applicable, because the Greek LXX was Jerome's source for his translation of the Old Testament into Latin, Jerome's Latin Vulgate was the only authorized version of both the Old and New Testaments until the Protestant Reformation when it was translated into national vernacular languages, the King James version 1611-1769 was the first accepted standard version of the Bible in English, and the New Revised Standard Version is the most widely accepted scholarly version of the Bible in English. I have placed the specific words and phrases in bold that need to be emphasized.There is evidence in the Gospels that there was a cloud over Jesus' birth. The idea of supernatural impregnation by the Holy Spirit of Mary makes a good myth, but for the rational person it is only myth when confronted with the reality of the biology of conception. Even with the best efforts of the church to impose this belief on the faithful, a Renaissance artist expressed his disbelief by painting the Annunciation with a large funnel in the clouds, its long tapered end reaching earth and disappearing under Mary's dress.The Gospel of Matthew states that Joseph was preparing to divorce a pregnant Mary, to whom he was betrothed but with whom he had not consummated the marriage (Matthew 1: 18-25). The verses that cite this are numbers eighteen and nineteen.KJV Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.NRS Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. 20 But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us." 24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.It is to be noted that at this time in Judaism a betrothed couple was considered married even though they lived in their own parents' houses, had no sexual contact, and no marriage ceremony had been performed. Thus, if Joseph believed Mary was pregnant by another man the only way he could end the betrothal was to divorce her. It is quite clear in Matthew that Joseph had no doubt that Mary was pregnant by another man, the child within her was not his, and that under Jewish law the child to be born was a bastard.One may ask, "If Joseph truly loved Mary, why didn't he just marry her and claim the child to be his?" The answer to that question is the real reason for Joseph's intended divorce. A mamzer, or bastard, and any descendants of that mamzer to the tenth generation would be prohibited from being part of the Jewish community (Deuteronomy 23:2).LXT Deuteronomy 23:2 ouvk eivseleu,setai qladi,aj kai. avpokekomme,noj eivj evkklhsi,an kuri,ouVUL Deuteronomy 23:2 non ingredietur mamzer hoc est de scorto natus in ecclesiam Domini usque ad decimam generationemKJV Deuteronomy 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.NRS Deuteronomy 23:2 Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.This meant that a bastard, male or female, and all of that bastard's progeny for ten generations could never marry a Jew or become a part of the Jewish community.In the Gospel of John the Pharisees ask Jesus, "Where is your father?" (John 8:19).KJV John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.NRS John 8:19 Then they said to him, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also."Many scholars believe that this is a question regarding Jesus' paternity. If Jesus were a bastard, anything he said or did could easily be discredited and would not be believed because he would not have been a part of the Jewish community. Not only he but his very words and deeds would be illegitimate. However, other scholars caution that not too much attention be placed on this verse or its presumed historicity. This is because John often uses the literary technique of making a theological proclamation in which he creates situations and statements rather than reports them.Almost from its very beginning Christianity placed great emphasis upon the miraculous impregnation of Mary and little attention was given to his paternity. It was assumed by Christians, despite the belief at that time that many important men were the offspring of supernatural impregnation, that Jesus' case was different because of the Immaculate Conception; that is, Mary had been conceived without Original Sin so that she could give birth to not only a man but to God. Does this sound like science fiction? It does to liberal scholars, who believe that if the statement in Matthew has any credibility, Jesus was a bastard.To put this into perspective, prior to Christianity bastardy was considered to be de rigueur in all cultures of the Ancient Near East except for the Hebrews. In fact, Strabo writes of Amazon-like cultures where females were dominant, men played the traditional female role and were restricted from owning property or going to war, and children were raised communally without regard to paternity. Thus the pejorative designation ascribed to bastards crept into Christianity via its Jewish roots.The theological advent of the supernatural impregnation of Mary made it absolutely necessary for Christianity to make a distinction between the conception of Jesus as bastard from that of common bastards. The ability of Christianity to define and regulate all aspects of society as it spread across Europe over the centuries mandated and legitimized the treatment of bastards as people to be avoided, scorned, shamed, and disenfranchised by all social and legal institutions.Using England as a template, a review of the status of bastards in English law will reveal to what degree Christianity's need to deny the bastardy of Jesus and Jesus as more than a common bastard have had of the lives of bastards. Let us begin with the legal definition of bastard.BASTARD (0. Fr. bastard, mod. batard = fils de bast, " packsaddle child," from bast,saddle), a person born out of legal wedlock. Under law bastards were classified either as nothi, children born in concubinage, or spurii, those not so born. Both classes had a right of succession to their mother, and the nothi were entitled to support from their father, but had no rights of inheritance from him. Both, however, had most of the rights of citizenship.However, prior to the Roman invasion of England and after the Romans retreated, German law prevailed in England until the 13th century. The Germanic law was based upon an entirely different principle. It recognized as legitimate only those whose parents were of the same social rank. All others were regarded as bastards, and took the status of the parent of inferior rank. The aim of all the Germanic codes was to preserve purity of race, not to improve morals, for incestuous unions were not censured. The influence of the Germanic law lasted throughout the early feudal period, and bastards were subsequently barred from rights of inheritance.In the 13th century the influence of Roman law tended to modify the severity of Germanic law. An exception made in the case of those whose fathers were of royal blood. In these cases it seems that no stigma was attached to the accident of a bastard birth, nor did royal bastards suffer from the usual disabilities as to inheritance which attended non-royal bastard birth. For instance among the Franks Theodoric I, a natural son of Clovis , sharing the kingdom with Clovis' bastard sons. Even William the Conqueror assumed the appellation of bastard.In English law a bastard still retains certain disabilities. His rights are only such as he can acquire. He can inherit nothing as he is looked upon as the son of nobody and is thus sometimes called filius nullius and sometimes filius populi. However, being a bastard does not impact on issues of morality; that is, he cannot marry his mother or bastard sister. However, he may gain a surname by reputation though he has none by inheritance. He also may be made legitimate and capable of inheriting by the transcendent power of an act of parliament .For poor law purposes, all legitimate children take the settlement of their father, but a bastard takes the settlement of its mother. The mother of an illegitimate child is entitled to its custody in preference to the father, and consequently the responsibility of its support falls primarily on her.But English law has always recognized the principle that to a certain extent the father must share in that responsibility. This, however, was imposed not with the idea of furnishing the woman with a civil remedy, nor to have a penal effect against the man, but solely to prevent the cost of maintenance of the bastard child from falling upon the parish church. The legislation upon the subject, which dates back to 1576, was until 1845 an intimate part of the poor law.The act of 1576, the basis of English bastardy law, empowered justices to take money for the punishment of the mother and reputed father of every bastard child left to the care of the parish church, and to charge the mother and reputed father with the payment of a weekly sum or other needful sustenance. Other acts were passed in 1609 and 1733, enabling the mother of any child chargeable or likely to become chargeable to the parish church to secure the apprehension , and even the imprisonment, of the father until he should indemnify the church. These provisions were made more stringent by acts passed in 1809 and 1810.In 1832 a commission was appointed to inquire into the operation of the poor laws, and the commissioners in their report gave great attention to the subject of bastardy. They reviewed the various acts from 1576 to 1832 and gave examples of their operation. The conclusion to which the commissioners came was that the laws "which respect bastardy appear to be pre-eminently unwise," and give rise to many abuses.For example, the weekly payment recovered by the parish church was usually transferred to the mother and in many cases was guaranteed. The commissioners recommended that the mother alone should be responsible for the maintenance of the child. "This," they said, "is now the position of a widow, and there can be no reason for giving to vice privileges which we deny to misfortune."Acting on the recommendation of the commissioners, the Poor law amendment Act of 1834 endeavored to discourage the principle of making the putative father contribute by introducing a somewhat cumbersome method of collection. The trend of public opinion proved against the discouragement of affiliation, and an act of 1839 transferred jurisdiction in affiliation cases from quarter-sessions to petty-sessions (from a superior to an inferior court).A commission of inquiry on the working of the bastardy acts in 1844 recommended "that affiliation should be facilitated," and, accordingly, by the Bastardy Act this was accomplished by giving the mother an independent civil remedy against the putative father. Consequently, the parish church was no longer a part of the proceedings.Subsequently, legislation gave the parish the right of attaching, and in some cases suing for, money due from the putative father for the maintenance of the child. The existing law is set out under affiliation.The incapacities attaching to a bastard consist principally in that he cannot be heir to any one. As a nullius filius he is not related to anyone and has no ancestor from whom an inheritance can be derived. Therefore, if there is no other claimant upon an inheritance than the bastard child, it escheats to the lord. And as bastards cannot be heirs themselves, so neither can they have any heirs but those of their own bodies. This is because all kinship relationships consists in being derived from the same common ancestor. As a bastard has no legal ancestor he can have no collateral kindred. Consequently he has no legal heirs except by a lineal descent from himself. Subsequently, if a bastard owns land and is without issue and intestate, the land escheats to the lord of the fee. Originally a bastard was deemed incapable of holy orders; disqualified by the fact of his birth from holding any dignity in the church but this doctrine is now obsolete.By the law of Scotland a bastard is not only excluded from his father's succession because the law recognizes no father who is not a married man he is also denied from all heritable succession, whether by the father or mother, because he cannot be cited as the lawful heir by the inquest in terms of the brief. He is also barred from the movable succession of his mother because he is not her lawful child and legitimacy is implied in all succession deferred by the law. But a bastard, although he cannot succeed jure sanguinis, may succeed by destination where he is specially called to the succession by entail or testament.In Scotland, as in England, a bastard can have no legal heirs except those of his own body. Thus if a bastard dies without kindred or dies intestate without wife or child, his effects go to the king as ultimus haeres, However, a grant is usually made for the effects by letters of patent and the grantee becomes entitled to the administration of the bastard's effects. Historically, bastards in Scotland without issue of their own could not make a will, but this disability was removed by statute in 1835.According to the common law which is the law of England, a bastard cannot be divested of his state of illegitimacy unless by the supreme power of an act of parliament. But in those countries which have followed the Roman or civil law, a bastard's status may be provisional, and he can be made legitimate by the subsequent marriage of his parents.It is interesting to speculate what the place and role of bastards would have been in the history of the Western World had Christianity acknowledged and celebrated Jesus' bastardy. Perhaps not only would bastardy have become the preferred and time-honored model of creating families, but bastards would have been the leaders and benefactors of Western culture instead of being disenfranchised and persecuted as non-persons under the law.

Rev.Msgr. Jack Sweeley, Th.D.
Sophia Divinity School
Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch - Malabar Rite