ITS TIME TO STAND UP AND PAY ATTENTION:
Yes oh Yes it is your turn. Its bad enough that you have joined the ranks of Georgia Tann. Interestingly enough, your organization was even for adoptee rights and shock ~ family preservation as seen in this document when the legislation to seal records was place into statute. The governor at the time was an adoptive parent from Georgia Tann. A fellow blogger brought this up herself. Many natural mothers have in fact written in to Catholic Charities about using them as a way to block adoptees from getting their OBCs. As a 1965 adoptee from Indiana, I can attest that I DO NOT have current medical information on file with my adoption agency. It is also NOT listed on the Indiana Medical History Registry. Trust me I have checked. It tain't there. So just in case you ignore the mothers' letters. They will forever be posted on my blog to be retrieved at a moment's notice to remind you. We all really know why you don't want adoptees having access to their records. Between the priests and the unethical practices, you want to protect yourselves from the resulting lawsuits.
From Mary Anne:
Dear Ms. Roger,
I heard that you had asked for the feelings of birthmothers. I surrendered a son in 1968, so I qualify to speak to that issue.I am also a practicing Catholic, in the choir and parish council at Our Lady of Mercy Parish in Whippany. I am very distressed that my church is opposing adoptee rights under the guise of "protecting birthmothers". I neither want nor need "protection" from my own son, who is a 40 year old adult and entitled to the same rights as other adult citizens, including access to his original birth certificate.
When I surrendered my son, I gave up ALL parental rights. I was promised nothing. I certainly was not promised anonymity. I have the surrender paper I signed, and it contains no promises and gives no rights to me. Nobody cared about me when I surrendered. Why is something I was supposedly promised which I did not want and never heard of so important now that it is used to deny adopted adults their civil rights? Why should any parent have this kind of authority over what an adult child may know or see?
I am reunited with my son, and was able to give him information, including medical, in a private way without the state intruding, as one adult speaking to another. This is as it should be. But that is not the point of adoptee rights legislation, which is only about the birth certificate, not about the private and personal matter of any relationship that may develop.
This is issue is not about adoptees versus birthparents, nor is it about competing rights of any sort. I have been active in adoption reform groups since 1976 and have had contact with many other surrendering mothers. We overwhelmingly support adoptee rights, even though our support should not be a major concern. Enlightened adoptive parents also overwhelmingly support their adult children. The "anonymous birthmother" is just a straw figure that our opponents hide behind. I am so glad you have asked for feedback from real birthmothers, as I am sure you will get lots. We are so tired of others using us and our silence to further an agenda we abhor.
PLEASE get beyond the hysteria our opponents have generated and look at states that have always had open records, like Kansas, or the growing number of states like New Hampshire, Oregon, and Maine that have more recently opened theirs. NOTHING terrible has happened in these states. Life goes on, adoption goes on, abortions have not increased.Research it yourself. Although not everyone who wants their original birth certificate searches or makes contact, for those who do, the numbers of welcoming birthparents greatly outnumber those who want no contact. The majority of surrendering mothers are glad to hear from their adult children. Those who are not can express the wish not to meet, and those wishes are honored. The horror stories predicted do not happen. Please look at what is actually happening in states that have open records rather listening to fear-mongers going on about what "might" occur.The sky isn't falling. Chicken Little and those who oppose adoptee rights are wrong.
This issue is about rights, the right of adopted adult citizens to be treated the same as other adult citizens in regards to their original birth certificate. It is not really about reunions. The fact is, sealed records have never prevented search, contact or reunion. Check out any adoptee or birthparent search and support group to verify this.People have been finding each other for years by other means, and will continue to do so. Sealed records protect nobody. They are a mistaken social policy that have caused great pain to many, and it is time the state rectified this injustice to adopted citizens. This is not in any way dangerous, anti-life, or controversial, just an idea whose time is long overdue in NJ and other states. It is certainly an idea that Catholics in good conscience can and do support.
PLease try to see that Catholics should be favor of openness, honesty, charity and love in adoption, not fear and enforced secrets and lies. The truth sets EVERYONE free. If you are honest about wanting to know what birthmothers really want and what their experience has been, I hope this letter and others like it help to open your eyes and your heart.Thanks for your time, and feel free to share this letter with anyone.
Mary Ann
Marlene Lao-Collins, Director Patrick R. Brannigan, Executive Director Lois Rogers, Features Editor
New Jersey Catholic Conference
149 North Warren Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08608
Dear Marlene Lao-Collins, Patrick R. Brannigan and Lois Rogers:
As a birth mother, I'd like to thank you for giving us an opportunity to speak for ourselves. Too often it is those outside of the experience but with an agenda of their own, who purport to speak for us and do so erroneously. I surrendered a child in 1979 after nine months of directive counseling provided by my mother, her priest, Catholic Charities and others who said that it was in the best interest of my child to go to a two-parent home. It was never asked what I wanted, which would have been to keep my child and trust that God would provide. In the end I didn't surrender through Catholic Charities, but through my doctor instead, as I couldn't bear the thought of total anonymity. It felt as though I'd be sending my child into a black hole where I would know nothing about where he was going and who he'd be with, and they would know nothing about me. With the doctor, there would be a mutual contact; this way they (or as an adult, my son,) could contact me if they/ he ever needed anything. Many birth parent's did not have this opportunity and consequently live with the 'black hole'. As so many birth parents, I have always welcomed future contact with my son. I had told my future husband about him before we married and in accepting this, he was accepting my son as a part of me.It is deeply grievous to me, that those who would promote the continuation of sealed records, often because of what the adoptive parents and adoption agencies want, not birth parents, do so under the guise of "birth mother privacy".They are projecting the wants of others, onto us. This must stop. Those who do this are in effect telling the world that we would "reject" our children a second time, when it was not the truth the first time around, nor the second. Is this in an adoptee's best interest? I know it is not. Proverbs 6 says it is an abomination unto God to sow discord among brethren (family). I appeal to the New Jersey Catholic Conference to promote the truth; and endorse unconditional access to original birth certificates for ALL adoptees, leaving no one behind, no one left out.There is nothing on my surrender documents that says I was promised privacy, and I feel it is unjust to deny adoptees in New Jersey their original unaltered birth certificate. If you read the Bible, you will see that God thinks geneology is important. There is a small minority of birth parents who have kept the matter hidden due to the deep shame and condemnation put upon them years ago, when mercy was not shown. Restoring adoptee access to their original birth certificates, for those who wish to contact their birth parents (not all will), will be for many, an opportunity for openness, honesty and resolution, rather than a perpetuation of secrets poisonous to the spirit, health and mind. Give them a chance to be freed from this prison, by unlocking the original OBC's for adoptees.Luke 12:2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Isa 49:15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Prov 6: These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: . . . a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethrenThank you again for being willing to hear from real birth mothers.
Sincerely,
Mary R.
Hi there Ms. Roger,
I understand you are curious to know what birthparents want. Thank you for asking - most people never bother to check.
Volumes could be written to answer your question, but the bottom line is, just like any other parents, we love our children and we want them to be happy. Naturally, this involves honesty - giving them their own truth so that they grow into happy and healthy individuals.
I do not understand the sheer persistence of the myth that birthparents have been promised anonymity. My surrender papers say nothing about this topic. I can think of few of us who would have wanted such "protection" from our own offspring (the rare exception might be cases of rape, but I know birthmoms who were raped who still maintain open adoptions with their children). We don't want secrecy or lies because we want our kids to have access to their heritage, since we know that this is a simple human right as well as the foundation of a healthy identity. My rights to privacy do not include the right to deny my own child, or to deny him the facts of his conception, birth and identity. Nor should the government have the right to alter history and conceal the truth from an entire segment of the population. Please let me know if you have any additional questions that you'd like to ask a birthparent.
Heather
Ms. Rogers,
Unless you are a birthmother or an adoptee, you can't "get it." No one whohasn't been there can.I highly recommend a couple books. One, "The Other Mother" by Carol Shafer was written several years ago. Ann Fessler's "The Girls Who Went Away" is more recent. The former is just one birthmother's experience; the latter is more of a scientific study woven into the stories of many a birthmother. Do you know how many girls relinquished? The number is in the millions!Shocked? I was, and I'm one of them. We never received any counseling and most of us were made to feel ashamed and disgraced.Are you a mother? If so, how would you feel if your baby were taken fromyou? You probably think that our babies weren't actually taken from us.Maybe not. But we had no other choice. I was told I could not go home if I kept my son. Google one of the many registries. Adoption.com has one. Look at how many are searching. Another thing, as a birthmom I know my son's parents are his adoptive parents. I would never do anything to take that away from him or them. Most birthmothers feel that way. But we still would like to know if our child is okay. Of course, most of us will never get the opportunity. Myself, I support open records for adult adoptees, unless there is a goodreason for opening the records sooner.Never assume birthmothers do not want to be found. That is untrue. 95% of us DO want to be found.One example for open records is for medical information. For the pastcouple years I (and three search groups) have attempted to help a young man"Matt" find his birthmother. He knows his maternal grandfather died very young during open-heart surgery. His two young daughters have heartconditions. Despite letters from his daughters' pediatrician and cardiologist, they judge was unable to unseal the records. What's wrong with this picture???? I fully expect you will get numerous responses. Mine may sound angry. My anger is not for myself but for those like Matt who would benefit from those records. Matt's quest is not just for medical. After I recommended Ann Fessler's book, and he read it, he told me that he no longer feels "so discarded."The adoption industry has hurt so many people. Adoptees and birthparents.So many of us are screwed up beyond belief. Drugs, alcohol, abusive relationships, etc., etc. I can't believe that a good God could have wanted this for us. Can you?
Carol
Dear Lois:
Has anyone even been paying attention to the ABC newspoll ?? or any other polls taken over the years ??The vast majority of adult adoptees and yes, even birthparents want OPEN RECORDS.......I am a reunited birthmother and birthaunt who relinquished thru Catholic Social Services and was NEVER PROMISED CONFIDENTIALITY....in fact we were PROMISED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REUNITED once our children were of the LEGAL AGE OF 18 !! If the very concept of FINAL and NEVER were given to me I would have never parted with my child if that was even an option .., I would have found a way .....So many lies and cover ups on behalf both Religious and Political have come up with the MYTH of CONFIDENTIALITY .to PROTECT THEMSELVES ....it may apply to a minority under circumstances and they in fact should have to file for the right of confidentiality ............not the opposite..................we have been jumping thru hoops here for years !!Wake up people and listen !!!!! We have been shouting on deaf ears for years and have yet to follow in the footsteps of other states ....the vast majority of birthmothers want to be found . Check online and see the thousands of search and support groups ...do the numbers count for anything?Its people and their lives that are at stake here..grown adoptees , their children .......even a purebred dog comes with paperwork , ....shouldnt a grown human being be allowed to know their beginnings???? their genetics??? their medical histories?????? Shouldnt' two grown adults that want to find be able to legally ??Lets finally end this Myth ....Just a few random thoughts ..Jacqueline
Marlene Lao-Collins, DirectorPatrick R. Brannigan, Executive DirectorLois Rogers, Features Editor
New Jersey Catholic Conference
149 North Warren Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08608
Dear Marlene Lao-Collins, Patrick R. Brannigan and Lois Rogers:
I am responding to the article “Calling all birthmothers…” I understand that you are looking to hear from natural mothers who have relinquished their babies to adoption. I am an adoptee and ask that you read my letter.
My three remaining parents are: 92 year old adoptive mother, 83 year old natural father and 73 year old step mother. None of them are adoption activists. They do not want to come forward to talk publicly, but they have given me permission to speak for them. I’ve written a book that will be published in a few months. My parents are well aware of what I wrote.A mutual consent registry would not give adoptees their civil rights to their birth certificates. Adoptees are the only segment of American society discriminated against because they cannot legally obtain their original birth certificates. Reunions are a separate issue.
Adoptive parents who adopt “in good faith” ought to adopt with the full acknowledgment and understanding that they are taking in someone else’s child. This means that they ought to be open minded toward their adoptee’s need to know their histories, with the complete acceptance of a possible reunion someday. All adoptees have two sets of real parents. If pre-adoptive parents can’t accept that fact of life, they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. Selfish adoptive parents cause tremendous guilt, anxiety and identity confusion in their adoptees. Adoptive parents who accept the facts of life support their adoptees in their unique status in life.
I’ve been in the adoption reform movement for 34 years. For over three decades, many adoptive parents told me that they adopted from foreign countries because they didn’t want their children to seek out and find their “real” parents --- with a foreign adoption, adoption is “safer” for adoptive parents.Adoptees do not need parents’ consent, written, or spoken, to: vote, go to war, drink, get married, have children, give up a baby to adoption, associate with a political party, change religions, get a divorce. Adults have their own freedoms in this free country. Except adoptees. (In fact, minor children can give up a baby for adoption without parental notification nor permission)
My 31 year old father was talked into giving me, his youngest child, up for adoption three months after my birth and one month after the death of my mother in 1956. A Catholic priest suggested adoption because the baby needs two parents. Why didn’t the Catholic priest find ways to keep this family together? Didn’t the other four children need two parents, too? No one came forward with grief counseling for the family. No one came forward with money, clothes, volunteers to help with childcare or housework. The Christian advice was: give the baby up for adoption so you can go on with your life and the baby could have two parents.
My father reluctantly relinquished me to a sealed adoption. The court judge verbally told him to “stay away from the adoptive parents” and “you may look for your daughter when she turns 18.” My father did not sign a contract of confidentiality, nor was he promised that his identity would remain sealed forever and his secret would never be found out. For the sake of the four other children, he pressed on. But he thought of me every day and wondered how I was and he thought of me in the name he and my mother gave me at birth. My siblings never forgot that Mom was pregnant and that the baby never came home.
Why was my widowed father told he could find his daughter in 18 years when not-married-mothers were, and are, told they will never see their daughter or son again?My 4 older siblings found me when I turned 18 in 1974.
Even now, 34 years later, at age 52, I cannot legally obtain a copy of my original birth certificate because birth records of adoptees are sealed in New York State. Note that I am not an “adopted child."
Clearly, sealed records protect the adoptive parents, not the identity of natural parents, and not the adoptee.
All adoptees have two sets of real parents. All people are products of sperm and egg. And someone has to give birth, which is a natural act. Adoptees also have adoptive parents who took on the social role of parenting. Both sets of real parents are important to the identity of adoptees.
Adoptees have two birth certificates: an amended birth certificate (a false document) and the original birth certificate that gives the facts of birth.
My amended birth certificate lists facts of my birth (date, place, hospital, time, single birth) and lists two people who are not responsible for my conception and birth. The mother named on this certificate did not give birth to me.“I did not give birth to you,” Mom said recently. “I missed out on all of that. You are right. This birth certificate clearly states that I gave birth to you, that you were a single birth, and that the birth occurred in this hospital. This is wrong.”How does my natural father feel about seeing my amended birth certificate? Terrible. He created me with my mother. The birth certificate that states so is sealed, not legal, so he is not my legal father. But he is my father.
My adoptive father passed away in 1982, eight years after my reunion with my natural family. He accepted the reunion better than my adoptive mother did at the time. He said to me, “I’m glad the secret is out.” For him, the guilt had been lifted. For Mom, she held onto the irrational fear that I’d run away from home and denounce her as my mother.
The reality is: adoptees do not forget their childhood and their upbringing. A reunion with another set of parents does not erase the foundation of a family life. But adoption does wipe out the existence of the first family. I still have a hard time accepting that my adoptive parents knew the truth and deliberately chose to lie to me for the first 18 years of my life. And then treat me with contempt for accepting a phone call from a full-blood sister I never knew. There is no justification for that.
Amended birth certificates should be illegal and immoral. A truthful adoption certificate should be issued instead. Adoptees, like all other American citizens, should have one, and only one, birth certificate: the one legally recorded five days after birth—the one that names who the parents are who are responsible for their conception and birth. All citizens ought to receive equal protection and civil rights. The truth of our births belongs to us. Our parents (all 4 of them) have the responsibility to tell the truth. The State should not stand in the way of honesty. Nor should the Church.
I was baptized on March 4, 1956, in the Roman Catholic faith by a priest at the bedside of my dying mother. I was given the name of Doris Michol Sippel. A baptismal certificate was issued to my parents with their names on it and my name and the names of my god parents.Three years later, in 1959, my adoptive parents needed a baptismal certificate for me so I could go to Catholic schools and receive Catholic sacraments. Their attorney wrote to the head of the Church in Buffalo who contacted the church from which I was baptized. The priest, a different one from the one who wrote out the original baptismal certificate, wrote out a new baptismal certificate giving the date of my baptism, the new parent’s names, and my new adoptive name, as well as naming my god-parents. The priest signed his name to this paper. He was fully aware that he lied. Not only did he lie and officially issue a falsified religious document, but he also gave my adoptive parents the names of my god-parents ---- my natural mother’s brother and his wife (my aunt and uncle). By virtue of this being a closed, sealed adoption, the priest gave out confidential and secret information to adoptive parents who should never have been given that information, according to the strict adherence to closed and sealed adoption practices.
My god-mother died this past summer of 2007. No one told me she was alive and living a few miles from me. She was divorced from my god-father. At her memorial service, my god-father sobbed in my arms. He and his first wife took care of me for several months while my mother was dying.
Because this was a private adoption, when my natural father handed me to my new parents in court, he gave my adopting parents my newborn photo, my original birth registration, my original baptismal certificate, and my hospital birth certificate. With no guidance from anyone, my adoptive parents were terrified to tell me the truth. They pampered me for 18 years. Then, my eldest sister telephoned me a few months after I turned 18 --- on March 5, 1974. With that phone call, I was reunited with my first family. A few days later, in a fit of anger, my adoptive mother dumped these documents out of a manilla envelope onto a table. Also inside were my final order of adoption, my amended birth certificate, and my amended baptismal certificate.I was baptized as Doris Michol Sippel, not Joan Mary Wheeler. Joan is my legal name, not the name God recognizes to get me into heaven. At one time, I wanted to become a nun. To take final vows, nuns must use the name given to them in the eyes of God. How is an adoptee supposed to do that when adoptees aren’t supposed to know their true name on their baptismal certificates because of sealed record laws?
Is it any wonder why I left the Catholic Church at age 14?
You don’t need the testimony of the mother to render a verdict. We don’t live in biblical times. We live in a complicated world with ever-more complicated life issues for adoptees and donor-conceived people. Take the wisdom of adoption researchers, social workers, psychiatrists, attorneys and today’s adoptees and today’s natural mothers and fathers: Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Fess up to that truth. Stop fooling yourselves, for the ones who suffer for the sake of their parents’ misguided possessiveness, selfishness, niavity, hopelessness, guilt, and lack of help, are the children. Children grow up to be adults to make sense of the troubled mess their parents and the government and the Catholic Church made for them.These issues are deeper than open records or reunions. What about the Snowflake adoption agency and other embryo adoption centers? There is no legal adoption taking place. Those embryos are given to another couple, gestated inside a mother who is not the genetic mother, and then the baby’s birth certificate lists the mother who gave birth as the mother and her husband as the father: no legal adoption and all lies. And the parents go about their lives, happy that they saved an embryo from destruction, but because they can lie on the birth certificate, they can lie to the child and never tell the child the truth, ever. And this is done by Christians!
How about the lies told when parents use sperm or egg donors? Same thing. Mother is carrying a baby fathered by an anonymous sperm donor. Baby is born and the husband is named on the birth certificate as the father. Wrong. Did he adopt that baby? No. The name of the sperm donor should go on the birth certificate of a person conceived by a sperm donor. If her husband wishes to adopt that baby, they know to take those steps, and then that child will have two fathers. When a mother gives birth to a baby conceived by an egg donor, two mothers should be named on that birth certificate along with the husband, if his sperm was used. If not, then the sperm donor’s name should go on the birth certificate.
Solomon was not prepared to answer these questions of who the “real” mother is. To simplify today’s complex adoption and reproductive technologies by tossing around the wisdom of the mother in Solomon’s times is to completely ignore the facts of adoption today: Not-married mothers and sometimes widowed fathers never wanted to give up their babies to adoption. Adoptive parents selfishly and possessively lie to their children, as does the government and the Catholic Church. Adoptees and donor-conceived people have more than two parents. Is it morally correct that young women and men sell their gametes so that others can have their children?
Non-adopted people have no moral, religious or legal right to continue to play games with the lives of adoptees and donor-conceived individuals. Government and religious documents ought to tell the truth. All parents have the moral and ethical and religious and legal responsibility to tell the truth. Give adoptees the legal right to their own true birth certificates.Since I’m writing to the New Jersey Catholic Conference, I’d like you to know that, outside of writing about this in my up-coming book, I’ve not written to any other Catholic Church entity about this topic. You are the first. Years back, I questioned a family friend who is a priest about it and wrote about what he said in my book.
I’d like the Catholic Church to be held accountable for fraud and forgery. I’d even like to take this all the up to the Pope. Lying is a sin.
If this letter results in a published article, please contact me. If this letter results in real dialogue to end discrimination against adoptees and donor-conceived people and their natural parents, please inform me of who is informed so that I might be a part of history making changes to improve Catholic understanding of adoption, and to end falsified birth and baptismal certificates.
Thank you,Ms. Joan Wheeler
(born as) Doris Sippel
Buffalo, New York
reunited adoptee since 1974
adoption rights activist
Social Worker
Dear Lois:
I relinquished my daughter in 1966 (we were reunited on the 32nd anniversary of the day I signed the papers). Since our reunion in 1998, I have not only worked tirelessly for open records, I have also done extensive research about not only adoption, but about the experience of relinquishment. I am current the Texas Representative of the American Adoption Congress, and working toward my Master degree in Women's Cultural History at the University of Texas at Arlington. I graduated from UTA with an Honors BA this past May. My honors thesis, entitled "Sisters from the Society of Secrets and Lies," centered on women that relinquished children between the years 1950 - 1979. Over two hundred women participated in my study. I am attaching a copy of this paper.I would like to respond to two issues in your email."The assurance of secrecy regarding the identity of the natural parents enables them to place the child for adoption with a reputable agency, with the knowledge that their actions and motivations will not become public knowledge," Brannigan testified. "Assured of this privacy by the State, the natural parents are free to move on and attempt to rebuild their lives after what must be a traumatic and emotionally tormenting episode in their lives."Many of the adult adoptees seeking open records are children of women who relinquished during the 3 decades of my study. Most of us were not given choices. We did not have options that young women have today. There was no choosing a "reputable agency" - there was no "making an adoption plan" - there were no options of open or closed adoptions. We were NEVER promised confidentiality, and especially not from the children we felt forced to give up. We did not want our neighbors or people around us to know of our pregnancy because of the stigma and shame associated with single motherhood. Most of us did not give up our babies because we did not want them. There are many very reputable studies about the history of sealing records. The records were sealed to protect adoptive parents -- never to protect the birthmother. Adoptive parents were promised by agencies that birthmothers could not and would not ever return."The adoptive parents, he noted, also have an interest in having the birth records under seal. "They have taken into their home a child whom they will regard as their own and whom they will love and raise as an integral part of their family unit."First of all - open records is not about reunion. It is about an adult having access to their OWN records-just like every other (unadopted) citizen has. Thousands and thousands of adult adoptees and birthmothers have found ways to search and find each other. Addressing the quote above, the reuniting of an adoptee with his or her biological family does not destroy or alter the adoptive family's relationship. There is something that the best, most loving adoptive parent cannot give their son or daughter--that is their roots, their heritage, their bloodline.My daughter was raised by wonderful parents. She and her mother share a close, intimate and loving relationship. Our reunion and relationship has in no way altered or diminished that relationship. Her parents and I share a beautiful loving bond. When Juli married this past May, her parents insisted that I sit on the front row with them. Both of Juli's mothers lit her Unity Candle together. Juli is the product of BOTH of her families.There are two wonderful books you might want to read. The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler and The Baby Thief by Barbara Bradford. The first book features 100 women that relinquished babies from 1950 – 1973. The second book is illustrates how amended birth certificates and sealed records came to be the standard for adoptions—through the infamous Georgia Tann of Tennessee.
Gwinnetta
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
INDIANA OPEN PETITION
http://indianaopen.blogspot.com/2008/03/preview-petition-submission.html
This is a petition that Indiana Open set up to be sent to Indiana state legislators. All adoptees, adoptive parents and natural parents please sign this. We can do this. Its time for the Indiana state legislators to stop treating us like forever children incompetent to know our truth.
This is a petition that Indiana Open set up to be sent to Indiana state legislators. All adoptees, adoptive parents and natural parents please sign this. We can do this. Its time for the Indiana state legislators to stop treating us like forever children incompetent to know our truth.
BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT
ACTION ALERT - PLEASE FORWARD FREELY
MICHIGAN HOUSE BILL 4896
A bill has been introduced into the House of Representatives in Michigan. This bill will allow all adopted adults to request and receive, unconditionally, their original birth certificate. The bill contains a non-binding contact preference form. It is as close to a perfect bill as you'll ever see!Dee Lindeman, Co-Moderator "Michigan Searching,” reports that The Michigan House Committee on Family & Children's Services will be hearing testimony on the bill this Wednesday, March 5th at 1030 am. Letters written in support of the bill are being accepted via e-mail to her local House Rep, Lisa Wojno, who introduced the bill on her behalf. They will then be copied and distributed at the hearing. You can send them to: lisawojno@house.mi.gov .Please write now, before you leave your computer. It won't take but a few minutes. Believe me, this bill is worth it!!Here is a link to House Bill 4896 (Senate Bill 0592 is an exact duplicate in its wording): http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/pdf/2007-HIB-4896.pdf
Anita Walker Field
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization
**************************************************************
GRANNIE ANNIE SENDS AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL SUPPORTERS OF MICHIGAN HB 4896
Hi Dee and All Your Supporters:I think it was a very wise choice to pattern your bill, HB 4896, after Oregon's, because of its track record in both the state and federal courts. That's a really good selling point. Don't forget the electorate who voted overwhelmingly for the bill and also the legislators, who legally could have changed that ballot initiative, but didn't.All you people who were involved with writing this bill should be very proud of yourselves. You all are filing a near-perfect bill. This is a bill that deserves a fight to the finish. Your bill is the one which everyone in the adoption community has been waiting for and can support it until it is passed into law. That's because your bill treats all adopted adults in an identical manner and all birth mothers with understanding and respect.Yes, there are always rumors of legislators and others lurking in the wings to amend your bill. You must not let them do this. They are not right. You are!! Believe in your bill 100%. Remember, you are not asking the legislators for pity, or for favors, or for crumbs. You aren't asking them for a registry or a Confidential Intermediary System. You are asking them to change an archaic sealed records system so that once again, all adopted adults can get their original birth certificates. You know all this already and I realize that I'm just preaching to the choir. But please bear with this old adopted grannie who has been around for a long, long time now. I write to encourage all of you to remain strong. Don't give in! Your first hurdle is the committee hearing that is coming up this week. Don't let any legislators decide what is right for you. YOU already know what it is right for you. And your bill says exactly what you expect. Don't accept anything else. Go into that hearing with your heads held high. You have the perfect bill! Some legislators will expect you to kow tow to them and to change your bill. That's what's happened way too often in the history of adoptee rights. Surprise them! Insist that they change their minds, because you are not going to change your bill.You can look for support from the adoptee rights network all over the country. Believe me, we are all behind you 100%. We want to help you take this unconditional bill all the way to the governor's office for his signature. Remember, too, that your bill is an adoptee rights bill – not a search/reunion bill. You'll probably have to educate a lot of people along the way who think that the intent of your bill is to facilitate searches and reunions. Please keep in mind that the people who want search and reunion bills are the very same people who want to see the state continue to exercise control over adopted men and women. Your bill deals with civil and human rights. You don't just pass out civil and human rights to some citizens and not others. It's all or nothing. Your bill rightly mandates the state to release all of its control over all of its adopted adults. I apologize for being such a cheer leader but the older I get, the more sure I am that a bill such as yours must not be wasted. It MUST be passed into law. You can do it!Thanks for your patience. Please feel free to circulate my letter.And remember, if you need any help, just whistle.
Sincerely,
Anita,
aka Grannie AnnieAnita Walker Field
awfield@gmail.com
Director: Illinois Open Org.obc@ilopen.org
Executive SecretaryBastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organizationwww.bastards.org
MICHIGAN HOUSE BILL 4896
A bill has been introduced into the House of Representatives in Michigan. This bill will allow all adopted adults to request and receive, unconditionally, their original birth certificate. The bill contains a non-binding contact preference form. It is as close to a perfect bill as you'll ever see!Dee Lindeman, Co-Moderator "Michigan Searching,” reports that The Michigan House Committee on Family & Children's Services will be hearing testimony on the bill this Wednesday, March 5th at 1030 am. Letters written in support of the bill are being accepted via e-mail to her local House Rep, Lisa Wojno, who introduced the bill on her behalf. They will then be copied and distributed at the hearing. You can send them to: lisawojno@house.mi.gov .Please write now, before you leave your computer. It won't take but a few minutes. Believe me, this bill is worth it!!Here is a link to House Bill 4896 (Senate Bill 0592 is an exact duplicate in its wording): http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/pdf/2007-HIB-4896.pdf
Anita Walker Field
Bastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organization
**************************************************************
GRANNIE ANNIE SENDS AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL SUPPORTERS OF MICHIGAN HB 4896
Hi Dee and All Your Supporters:I think it was a very wise choice to pattern your bill, HB 4896, after Oregon's, because of its track record in both the state and federal courts. That's a really good selling point. Don't forget the electorate who voted overwhelmingly for the bill and also the legislators, who legally could have changed that ballot initiative, but didn't.All you people who were involved with writing this bill should be very proud of yourselves. You all are filing a near-perfect bill. This is a bill that deserves a fight to the finish. Your bill is the one which everyone in the adoption community has been waiting for and can support it until it is passed into law. That's because your bill treats all adopted adults in an identical manner and all birth mothers with understanding and respect.Yes, there are always rumors of legislators and others lurking in the wings to amend your bill. You must not let them do this. They are not right. You are!! Believe in your bill 100%. Remember, you are not asking the legislators for pity, or for favors, or for crumbs. You aren't asking them for a registry or a Confidential Intermediary System. You are asking them to change an archaic sealed records system so that once again, all adopted adults can get their original birth certificates. You know all this already and I realize that I'm just preaching to the choir. But please bear with this old adopted grannie who has been around for a long, long time now. I write to encourage all of you to remain strong. Don't give in! Your first hurdle is the committee hearing that is coming up this week. Don't let any legislators decide what is right for you. YOU already know what it is right for you. And your bill says exactly what you expect. Don't accept anything else. Go into that hearing with your heads held high. You have the perfect bill! Some legislators will expect you to kow tow to them and to change your bill. That's what's happened way too often in the history of adoptee rights. Surprise them! Insist that they change their minds, because you are not going to change your bill.You can look for support from the adoptee rights network all over the country. Believe me, we are all behind you 100%. We want to help you take this unconditional bill all the way to the governor's office for his signature. Remember, too, that your bill is an adoptee rights bill – not a search/reunion bill. You'll probably have to educate a lot of people along the way who think that the intent of your bill is to facilitate searches and reunions. Please keep in mind that the people who want search and reunion bills are the very same people who want to see the state continue to exercise control over adopted men and women. Your bill deals with civil and human rights. You don't just pass out civil and human rights to some citizens and not others. It's all or nothing. Your bill rightly mandates the state to release all of its control over all of its adopted adults. I apologize for being such a cheer leader but the older I get, the more sure I am that a bill such as yours must not be wasted. It MUST be passed into law. You can do it!Thanks for your patience. Please feel free to circulate my letter.And remember, if you need any help, just whistle.
Sincerely,
Anita,
aka Grannie AnnieAnita Walker Field
awfield@gmail.com
Director: Illinois Open Org.obc@ilopen.org
Executive SecretaryBastard Nation: The Adoptee Rights Organizationwww.bastards.org
Monday, February 25, 2008
THE A.S.S. GOT CIRCUMVENTED AGAIN
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.
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
ACTION ALERT FROM BASTARD NATION
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.
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
DEAR INDIANA LEGISLATOR,
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.
Sincerely,
Amy K. Burt
aka Amyadoptee
aka Michellin Baby Girl
My resources:
http://indianaopen.blogspot.com/
http://colemanmomsandbabes.blogspot.com/
http://amyadoptee.blogspot.com/
http://www.adultadoptees.org/forum
http://abrazos.org/
http://adopteerights.net/nulliusfilius/
http://www.adoptiontriad.org/
http://www.koreanfocusindiana.com/
http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ADOPTION/
http://www.adoptionscams.net/
http://www.origins-usa.org/
http://www.bastards.org/
http://www.babybrokerwatch.com/
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/index.php
http://www.babybrokerwatch.com/
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.
Sincerely,
Amy K. Burt
aka Amyadoptee
aka Michellin Baby Girl
My resources:
http://indianaopen.blogspot.com/
http://colemanmomsandbabes.blogspot.com/
http://amyadoptee.blogspot.com/
http://www.adultadoptees.org/forum
http://abrazos.org/
http://adopteerights.net/nulliusfilius/
http://www.adoptiontriad.org/
http://www.koreanfocusindiana.com/
http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ADOPTION/
http://www.adoptionscams.net/
http://www.origins-usa.org/
http://www.bastards.org/
http://www.babybrokerwatch.com/
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/index.php
http://www.babybrokerwatch.com/
Sunday, February 3, 2008
ADOPTION SCAMS ABOUND IN INDIANA
Woman sentenced for adoption scam.
BLOOMINGTON, IN
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?
BLOOMINGTON, IN
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)