Monday, February 25, 2008


Nannie nannie boo boo. Stick your head in Doo Doo. I know an adoption search specialist who got bypassed. I know an adoptee who got her information. I know that St. Elizabeth Coleman didn't scam another adoptee. Poor Katrina Carlisle didn't spin another lie out for an adoptee. Poor Katrina didn't get another free $325.00 buckeroos. Katrina didn't ruin a reunion. This person actually has a chance. The best part is that its on the adoptee's terms. Not some former agency director's terms.

This individual found out that Katrina lied to them about what is in their records. I wonder does she have scripts for all the adoptees. All of our stories are amazingly similiar in some context. Does she tick off our mothers? Does she rehumiliate them again and again? Afterall she used to be the agency director of Coleman. I am sure she got real good at it when she was "convincing" these young women to relinquish.

For those Coleman mothers and adoptees still searching, guess what there is going to be an Adoptee Rights Protest on July 22, 2008 in New Orleans. You really ought to be there. If you can't, start writing the legislators up there. Be careful of Senator Meeks. He thinks our mothers need to be protected from us. He considers us bastards as the unwanted children. Time to educate.

Thursday, February 21, 2008


This is from Grannie Annie.

Friends of IllinoisOpen

I have had some contact with Representative Sara Feigenholtz over this last weekend. The bill she and her aide Melisha Mitchell have written has apparently not yet been filed. They had indicated that it would be posted on Tuesday February 19th but so far, it isn’t there.But no matter what, I was told that the bill will definitely not be an unconditional bill where ALL adoptees in the state would be treated equally.Representative Feigenholtz’s bill has a disclosure veto. All past denial affidavits that have been filed with the Registry will be honored. Additionally, if this bill should pass, it contains a one year period called an “information campaign” during which a birth parent can file a non-disclosure affidavit which will be honored by the state. If one birth parent files a denial, the birth certificate might still be issued but all information about the other parent will be redacted; that is, whited out.The bill has a prospective element but that too contains provisions for birth parents to file non-disclosure affidavits.A good percentage of Illinois’ adopted adults would be able to get their original birth certificate with this proposed bill. But not ALL. The only category of adopted persons that would ALL be able to receive their original birth certificate with no restrictions would be those adoptees born before 1946.I expected the bill to have been already posted but so far it isn’t. I honestly don’t know why. I could speculate but that isn’t really productive.The last time I spoke to Representative Feigenholtz was on Sunday, Feb. 17th. I told her about the many of you who have written to her, more than once, to express your opinions but received no reply. She replied that it had something to do with the clerk’s sorting the mail. I told her straight out that she should be listening to you all.Representative Feigenholtz told me that in her experienced opinion, an unconditional access bill, such as the ones in Oregon, New Hampshire, Alabama and Maine, would NEVER pass in Illinois. She said that if she were to file a 100% unconditional access bill, it would languish and die in the Rules Committee. It would go nowhere. She told me that “it just won’t fly.” Her reason is that the politics of IL are different from these other states. Representative Feigenholtz maintains that much of the opposition comes from the Chicago Bar Association. I tried very very hard to persuade the Representative that she should be listening to adoptees, not attorneys. I tried to persuade her to go with the contact preference form that was put into place in Oregon and is in the bills of the other open states. I twice sent her the texts of the bills from each of these states plus the text of every contact preference form. I also sent her the latest statistics on how the contact preference forms are being used. I wish I had better news to report. At this point, this is all I know about what Representative Feigenholtz’s plans.Now I’ll tell you how I feel personally.I believe that “ALL” minus even one adoptee, is not ALL, and is therefore not acceptable. If true unconditional access can work so easily in these other states mentioned, then it could work in Illinois too, if people wanted to work hard to make it work. In my opinion, we’re not so different here as the Representative purports. I believe that if you are going to expend so much energy, time, talent and money into a bill that champions adoptee rights, then you don’t stop short of your goal. All adopted adults in Illinois must be treated equally under the law. I believe that we must not leave even one adoptee behind.I tried to explain to Representative Feigenholtz that a true adoptee rights bill is different than a search/reunion bill. But she doesn’t seem to get it or if she does, she doesn’t want to act on it. She always brings us back to the attorneys who are worried about their clients, (past, present and future). And that is a search/reunion issue. It is not about the human and civil right of every adopted adult to own his or her own truth.I expressed my opinions, and many more arguments, over and over and over to Representative Feigenholtz. She replied that I’m living in some “sort of dream world.” She says that I don’t live in the real world of politics. That may be true, but I still believe that my dream is better than all of the conditional plans presented - plans which still allow the state to have control over adopted adults.

Stay tuned.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008


Today I write you again. I beg and implore you to look into these issues. Its time for change. Soon this legislative year will be over. We start again in September. Only this time I hope that you will be further educated. I look forward to meeting you in New Orleans at the state legislators convention. There will be many adoptees, natural parents, adoptive parents protesting for this right. We are having an Adoptee Rights Protest while you are there. I will bring to you changes and ideas that will revitalize and change adoption as a whole.

Sadly I do bring to you the stories of adoptees, natural parents and adoptive parents. It is to us that the state must answer. Please read and learn.

I fight for adoptee access in many states. Sadly I do not think Indiana will ever change. Even though I am an Indiana adoptee, I see my state of Texas changing long before Indiana. I really do not think that the state of Indiana cares about those living adoption in Indiana. I do not mean to incite you but to help you change the laws to make them better to show that adoption needs drastic change.

Bryn Ayre, a graduate student in Indiana, met a young woman with two kids. She got pregnant. He wanted to raise his daughter. He named her Theresa. This woman jumped states. She attempted to place in Indiana but he was on the putative registry. She couldn't place without his consent. Someone connected her to Texas. He too placed himself on the Texas registry. In fact, with a group called Adoption Associates and Jennalee Ryan. They put the mother in contact with a Utah agency, American Center of Choice. They then shipped her to Utah. He also placed himself on their putative father registry. This agency has quite a reputation for violating a parent's right to raise their own child. There are two other fathers fighting this agency currently. They are Cody O'Dea and Joshua Simmerson. This agency has been banned from practice in Illinois by the Attorney General and the Governor of Illinois. Is promoting adoption so important that we forget those who want to parent their own children? Is promoting adoption so important that we forget those living adoption? Is it more important to violate a few parents rights to make sure that the status quo of adoption remains?

You have had two adoptive mothers who have killed their adopted children. One was Melanie Addington who shook and then slammed her adopted infant son against the wall. This is a child who was born in Indiana. He will forever spend the rest of his life in foster care because of the severe brain damage. Another adoptive parent, Rebecca Kyrie, killed her adoptive daughter by doing the same thing. Who are the adoption agencies involved? One agency, Bethany, is responsible for the Rebecca Kyrie adoption. Who is involved in the other adoption? It is also my understanding that there is an adoption agency individual, Jeanenne Smith who ran the Families through International Adoption. She is the one that coordinated the adoption of Masha Allen. A child that was adopted by the pedophile, Matthew Mancuso. This woman was fired before the adoption was finalized. She then started the agency, Reaching out Through International Adoption.

Then even in recent news an adoption facilitator was arrested for theft and fraud. She was sentanced to three years of prison time. How many of these kind stories must continue before the state legislators take action? How many people are hurt before you stand up and make a stand?

Then you have the adoptees who struggle within the system. I have had Senator Robert Meeks tell me in an email that we must protect birthmothers from their unwanted children. Its sad that someone from your legislature would say something so horrible to an adoptee. I am an adoptee who has used the system. I am better off struggling with finding my natural parents on my own. After I used the system that the state provides, I have discovered many things. The agencies and the state twist the laws to suit their own agendas. I have spoken with an Executive director of an adoption agency here in Texas. She admits herself that the adoption industry wants power and control over those living adoption. She tells of stories where the adoption agency takes money from the searcher. Promises contact with the searchee whether it be the adoptee or the natural parent. They never make contact. There have been issues of this in Indiana. The state legislators still turn a blind eye. The law states birth parent. The state, Mary Hinds, and the agencies assume it to mean natural mother. It doesn't state that. Because of this, I am restricted from contacting my father. A man who wanted to raise his own daughter. Just like Bryn Ayre, Cody O'Dea, Joshua Simmerson and many other fathers that I have been in contact with since starting this crucade of mine. I have an older sister from this man. The law again states birth parent. It is also interpreted to mean birth mother.

As an adoptee who has been supposedly refused contact, I fight for adoptees to have equal access to the same document that the non adopted take for granted. In Oregon, they have kept updated information on adoption since changing the laws. Low and behold, adoption has increased. Low and behold, abortion has decreased. In states with full unrestricted adoptee access, 99% of natural parents want contact. In these same states there has been NO bad reverberations. There has also been no cases of unwanted contact. We already have stalking and harassment laws in place.

Surrounding states of Indiana are currently considering legislation allowing adoptee access. It puts the heat on Indiana. Adoption is suppose to be adoptee centric. It is about the agencies and attorneys themselves. Adoptee access is about the same constitutional rights as the non adopted. Indiana is violating the adoptee's right to privacy. Indiana is currently violating the fourth amendment rights of adoptees by withholding their birth certificates on the presumption of harm. If adoption has the capability of creating harm, then the state of Indiana should explain why its in the business of adoption.

Adoption is not protected by right to privacy. No such right exists at this time. If anything, Roe vs. Wade supports our issue. The right to privacy is about the right to be free of government intrusion. This includes states. Adoption is basically a transfer of rights. Some consider it a contract. Adoptees are held bound in this contract that we had no choice. Adoptees born before 1993 are held bound by this agreement based on their birth. Indiana creates a set of second class citizens in their adoptees. Its high time that this is changed. Its up to you to change it. Its up to you to put adoptees on a level playing field.

Amy K. Burt
aka Amyadoptee
aka Michellin Baby Girl

My resources:

Sunday, February 3, 2008


Woman sentenced for adoption scam.


A judge sentenced a woman to three years in prison for a child adoption scam he called one of the "cruelest crimes" he's seen in 20 years on the bench.
Before sentencing Diana Groves on Friday, Greene County Circuit Court Judge David Holt read portions of letters written by her victims in which they described their pain.
"Diana ripped our hearts out," one victim wrote. "She stole our hopes. She stole our dreams."
Last month, Groves pleaded guilty to seven counts of theft in exchange for prosecutors agreeing to dismiss a habitual offender charge. The plea agreement left her sentencing to the discretion of the judge.
Groves was arrested by the FBI in April 2007 following a three-month investigation.
She was accused of falsely telling several different couples that she was working with a pregnant teen who wanted to give her child up for adoption.
Groves then asked the hopeful couples for money to help with the teen's expenses. Previously, prosecutors said she bilked her victims out of a total of about $15,000.
At the time of her arrest, she was serving a three-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty to a felony charge of neglect of a dependent.
Groves' attorney, Fred Turner, called two of the defendant's children to the stand. Both daughters asked that their mother be released so she could continue to be a part of their lives and be evaluated for a possible mental health issue.
During her testimony, Laura Groves sobbed as she asked the court to let her mother come home. Groves said her mother needed therapy, not jail time.
"It's not benefiting her," she said. "She needs to be home with her kids."
Groves also addressed the court. She apologized to her victims and asked Holt for probation.
Turner argued that Groves had admitted her guilt, saving the victims from having to testify in court. He also said she'd also given a "heartfelt" apology.
Holt agreed that Groves had accepted "some degree" of responsibility. He sentenced Groves to three years for each of the seven counts to be served concurrently. She was also fined $100 for each count.
"I feel you need to be held accountable for what you did," Holt told Groves.
Groves indicated she would appeal the sentence. She was declared indigent, so Holt appointed a public defender, but asked Turner to continue to work with Groves until her new attorney can take over.

It happens everyday in every state. The states themselves need to hold these kind of folks to a higher standard. When will it get done?