Archive for June, 2007

ADOPTION AS IT STANDS NOW MUST BE STOPPED AND INVESTIGATED.

June 29, 2007

Before the adoptive parents and the happy adoptees blow up at me, understand I have been researching this for a year and a half. Understand I have viewed things from all sides of the fence. I have spoken with too many mothers past and present to continue in the belief that adoption can be a good thing. Yes I have had it good with my own situation. I have do have a great deal to be grateful. That is not the point of this post. It does not matter whether I am happy or not. It does not matter how I was raised. My adoptive parents are not bad people but there are adopters who are. You just need to look at Allison Quets and Stephanie Bennett. Too many of these cases are occurring. Its not about a woman changing her mind years after the fact. Its about women today changing their minds minutes and hours afterwards.

Recently I spoke with a wonderful woman. She was trying to get away from an abusive spouse and made some choices. Those choices by our societal standards would be used against her today. In fact they are. I can’t do a GOD DAMN THING about it. After she and I talked, I was so angry that no amount of Ambien CR could allow me to sleep. No amount of Hydrocodone would let me sleep. All I could do was hold my husband. Words racing in my head. What I wanted to write and what I promised not to say. I am probably taking it too far as it is.

I can preach adoptee access would keep these things from happening. I doubt it though. The adoptees in fourty years will discover their own truth. Heads will roll. Hearts will be broken. Granted its the ultimate responsibility of adoption attorneys and agencies, it also lies in the adoptive parents’ culpability. Yes adoptive parents, you are responsible for the system for being what it is. You are not responsible for choices these women are forced to make. You are not responsible for their social situations that may or may not warrant relinquishment of their children. Its your desire for a child that creates the high demand. I am not saying that its wrong to desire a child. For most women, that is normal. Adoptive parents can and should demand that adoption is based on honesty and openness. It is their responsibility to make sure there is no coercion. It is their job to research the adoption agency and attorneys. It is their money that makes the adoption industry go round and round. It is their money that makes these individuals and agencies do illegal things. Because the end result is money. Its the swimming pool, the mercedes sedan, or the country club membership. Its giving their children the ivy league

Our society still shames a woman for being in an abusive situation. Our society still blames a woman if she gets pregnant without a husband. The right to life movement pushes adoption without ever researching the long term effects on mothers. It does take two to make a child. It still falls on the woman to make a choice. Those choices are centered on permanent solutions for a very temporary situation. After reading the amendment for TANF funds, these types of laws encourage the usage of “second chance homes” or maternity homes. I am just beginning this research. Many people in this reform movement have been doing it for years. Adoption is not God’s will. Its man’s version of the HIS truth. Every adoptee in the bible returns to his roots. Even Jesus returns to his father. He too was an adoptee light. What would Jesus do in this? Would he really take the babies from mothers to give to others? Doesn’t it say to help the widows and the orphans?

Like I said before starting this, this is not based on my experiences or emotions. It is based on human beings that I have met. Its about knowing exactly where these adoptees will be in 40 years. Adoption as it is practiced now must be stopped and investigated. Changes must take place. I just can’t take the treatment of the mothers and children anymore. It sickens and angers me that so many people turn a blind eye to human suffering. Instead of solving the problem, they want to use a permanent bandaid.

MINOR AS PARENTS

June 27, 2007

http://www.clasp.org/publications/minor_parent.pdf

I came across this particular article. It really concerns me. It doesn’t allow minors as parents to access needed welfare benefits. It does not promote family preservation. The article actually stated that TANF does not want to reward teenage childbearing. So these young women are left without any help unless of course they live with their parents. No one considers that the young woman’s parents may have kicked her out. One of her family members may have caused the situation. Yet she and her child pay the ultimate price in judgement.

BASTARD NATION ACTION ALERT

June 26, 2007

BASTARD NATION PRESS RELEASE

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE FREELY!
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!
MAINE RESTORES THE RIGHT OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE ACCESS!
HB 1084 PASSES OVERWHELMINGLY—GOVERNOR SIGNS

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization congratulates Maine on becoming the fourth state since 1998 to restore the right of original birth certificate access to adult adoptees. Following in the footsteps of Oregon, Alabama, and New Hampshire (Kansas and Alaska never sealed records) Maine’s activist organization OBC for ME has shown that through focus, perseverance, and a refusal to compromise the rights of all for the privilege of a few, that a clean unconditional access bill can be passed. Overwhelmingly passed,

Despite naysayers, on June 18, near the close of the legislative session, the Maine House overrode and over ran the HB’s 1084 “Do Not Pass” recommendation from the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary, 104-39. The next day, the Senate followed, passing, the bill 20-15. On June 20, the bill returned to both houses and passed “by the hammer” with no amendments. Bim! Bam! Boom!

Bastard Nation was highly critical of the 2006 records access campaign which began with a clean bill and finished threatened with compromises that made it unrecognizable. This time, OBC for ME (love the name!) ran a mostly under-the-radar operation. Activists emphasized the “localiness” of adoptee rights and the state’s responsibility to its adopted people.

HB 1084 had an extremely strong sponsor, Rep. David Farrington, and the quiet personal lobbying of adoptee Sen. Paula Benoit to shepherd it through with non-partisian support. Benoit’s dignified presentation for records access is credited by friends and foes of access with keeping the debate from the bitterness and acrimony that marked last year’s circus.

Rep. Farrington’s June 18 statement on the House floor ranks him as one of BN’s heroes, though we were not involved in the bill. You can listen to Rep. Farrington and Sen. Benoit and other supporting speakers, along with a bit of anti-adoptee gas baggery (especially from the House side) at http://www.obcforme.org/.

Governor John Baldacci signed the bill on Monday, June, 25, 2007. It will take effect on January 1, 2009 and gives anyone adopted in Maine 18 and older, upon request, the right to their original birth certificate.

Bastard Nation salutes the come-backs kids of Maine! And we thank those legislators who agreed to undo the wrong done to Maine’s adoptees in 1953 when their records were sealed from them. Other states take note: You can win without compromising your principles and the rights adopted persons. Maine rocks!

Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization
PO Box 1469
Edmond, OK 73083-1469
415-704-3166
email: bn@bastards.org
www.bastards.org
www.myspace.com/bnadopteerights

MAINE

June 25, 2007

THE GOVERNOR OF MAINE JUST SIGNED THE BILL THAT WILL ALLOW ADOPTEE ACCESS TO THEIR RECORDS. DOING THE HAPPY DANCE HERE IN TEXAS.

Locusts! Frogs! I had a flat tire! (Very Late Guest Post)

June 25, 2007

My suit didn’t come back from the cleaners! My computer was struck by lightning! I ate some bad sushi! The dog ate my post!

Yep, that’s me, a day late and a dollar short.

But let me tell you something, Amy never is. She would have got a tarantula after the locusts, ignored the frogs, fixed her own flat tire, had another suit, fixed the computer, avoided the sushi all together, and made the dog behave. She’s cool like that.

She’s also cool like she knows her stuff.

IN ENGLAND THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BELONGS TO THE CHILD.

June 25, 2007

I found this article most interesting. The title of it is what caught my eye. Someone gets somewhere. Too bad the United States doesn’t.
Friday, 22 Jun 2007 12:20

The Government propose to require mothers to name fathers on a birth certificate. Until now, mothers have been able to leave the father’s name on a birth certificate blank. This proposal has provoked a quite predictable controversy. One detail has escaped much attention, however, if the father is a rapist, or has been violent towards the mother, then the mother will not be forced to name him. This detail reveals the fundamental flaw in the whole debate: that it focuses upon the mother instead of on the child. The person who benefits from – and owns – a birth certificate is the child, not either of the parents, named or unnamed. To want to know the identity of your closest relatives in the world – your biological parents – is part of human nature, and there can be very few people who wish to be ignorant about the identity of their father. The idea that anybody, even one’s mother, should be allowed for reasons of her own to prevent one from knowing who their father was, must surely infringe a child’s human right to a family life. Besides, who is to decide the list of crimes on the basis of which the mother will be allowed to conceal the father’s identity from the child? Why is it just rapists and wife-beaters whose children will not know their father? What about the children of mass-murderers, armed robbers, paedophiles, drug-dealers, drunken drivers, or terrorists? It seems odd that if a father has a conviction for slapping his wife once, then his child may never know him, but if the father has a conviction for war crimes which resulted in the deaths of thousands, then that is OK. If the motive behind the idea is in fact merely to protect the child from harm, by hindering contact with a violent natural parent, then surely a woman who has convictions for murder or child-abuse should have her name omitted from the child’s birth certificate as well? It is clear that allowing any person to prevent their child from knowing their ancestry, simply because one parent disapproves of the other’s behavior, is impossible to implement fairly or sensibly. Children should have a fundamental right to know who their ancestors are. The Government needs to realise that a birth certificate is the property of the child, not of the mother. ENDS NOTE TO EDITORS 1. The Equal Parenting Alliance is a new UK political party, formed in February 2006. We aim to promote a system of family justice in the UK that puts the needs and interests of children first. 2. We fought seats in the recent Scottish parliamentary elections and the English local government elections. We intend to put up a large number of seats in next years local elections and the general election. 3. We think the family justice system should respect the right of children to normal parenting by their two parents above the rights or wishes of either of their parents alone. The current system does not do this. To give the most obvious illustration of this; it allows one parent to easily eliminate the other parent from a child’s life, if they wish. We believe this is fundamentally wrong and bad for children.

IS THIS EVEN WISE?

June 24, 2007

Seriously, is this even wise? Who will pay the ultimate price is someone defaults on the loan? A state legislator out of Ohio is suggesting just this. This state just increased its adoption credit. Instead of putting families in financial jeopardy, why don’t they take the money man out of the deal?

http://www.adoption.com/includes/frame.php?url=http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070620/NEWS01/706200413

COLUMBUS – The state Senate unanimously passed legislation Tuesday making it easier for Ohio families to adopt. State Sen. Eric Kearney, D-North Avondale, who sponsored Senate Bill 30, said it allows prospective parents to get state loans for all costs related to adoption.
Currently, 2,800 children are on a waiting list to be adopted in Ohio, according to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Kearney said he hopes adoption rates will increase because of the bill. “This bill addresses a great need in the state of Ohio in a fiscally responsible manner,” Kearney said during a floor speech. Parents are eligible to receive up to $3,000 – or up to $2,000 if the child is adopted from out-of-state. Statewide, total loans are capped at $500,000. The money comes from interest on a state unclaimed-funds account, primarily from idle savings and unclaimed insurance accounts.

Interest rates on the loans, to be repaid to an “adoption loan fund,” will be determined later, according to Dennis Evans, a spokesman with the state Department of Job and Family Services.
“Ohio is moving to become one of the leading states in terms of adopting,” Kearney said.
Kearney first introduced the bill shortly after he was appointed to the Senate in December 2005. Kearney and his wife adopted a son, Asher, about three years ago. “This is something near and dear to my heart,” he said.

The senator and his wife, Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney, met several families interested in adoption during required classes, the senator said in an interview. Financial strains forced some families out of the adoption program, he said.

Sen. John Carey, R-Wellston, said the bill complements legislation previously passed by state lawmakers. Senate Bill 20 tripled the state’s income-tax credit for adoption from $500 to $1,500 per child. That legislation, sponsored by state Sen. Patricia Clancy, R-Colerain Twp., will take effect Aug. 30. Kearney’s bill still must be approved in the Ohio House.

Awhile back on my blog, I reported that the NCFA had a credit card just for this purpose. I am sure that MBNA, a credit card company, gives Gladney and the NCFA a kickback. I do have to wonder though. Does someone lose their house if they default on the loan? Is it the child that must be returned? Does the child upon adulthood have to assume the cost of the loan? Enquiring minds and all. Legislation like this makes adoptees an endentured person in my opinion. Legislation like this puts potentional adoptive family at a serious disadvantage. A Better idea would be to take out the money out of the adoption machine. Laws like this endenture the adoptive family to the adoption industry. We need to seriously get away from this.

Amy’s Home

June 23, 2007

I am glad to let you all know that Amy is back home after surgery. She is understandably tired and will return to her “post” in another day or so…

In the meantime, here’s an update on adoption legislation on the Michigan OBC bills:

Senate bill #0592

June 19, 2007, Introduced by Senators OLSHOVE, BARCIA, JANSEN, JACOBS, PAPPAGEORGE, HARDIMAN and BIRKHOLZ and referred to the Committee on Families and Human Services.

http://www.legislat ure.mi.gov/ (S(lgxthr55xyluc oafo340ahnj) )/mileg.aspx? page=getobject&objectname=2007- SB-0592&queryid=18541853

Or http://tinyurl. com/39w6j5

Companion House bill #4896

June 12, 2007, Sponsors: Lisa Wojno (primary), Frank Accavitti, Fred Miller, Andy Meisner
Referred to Committee on Families and Children’s Services

http://www.legislat ure.mi.gov/ (S(lgxthr55xyluc oafo340ahnj) )/mileg.aspx? page=getobject&objectname=2007- HB-4896&queryid=18541906

Or http://tinyurl. com/yunlt2
************ ******
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled

“Public health code,”

by amending section 2832 (MCL 333.2832), as amended by 1996 PA 307,

and by adding section 2832a.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 2832. (1) When a new certificate of live birth is

established, the actual place and date of birth shall be shown. The

new certificate shall be substituted for the original certificate

of live birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the

evidence of adoption or sex designation are not subject to

inspection except as otherwise provided in section 2832A OR 2882(2)

or (3) or upon a court order. Evidence in support of other birth

record changes is subject to inspection as provided in sections

2882 and 2883.

(2) Upon receipt of notice of annulment of adoption or a copy

of an order of rescission, the original certificate of live birth

shall be restored to its place in the files. The certificate

created under subsection (1) is not subject to inspection except

upon a court order.

(3) If a certificate of live birth is not on file for the

individual for whom a new live birth certificate is to be

established under section 2831, a new live birth certificate may be

prepared on the delayed birth certificate form in use at the time

of adoption, legitimation, or paternity determination.

(4) When a new certificate of live birth is established by the

state registrar, all copies of the original certificate of birth in

the custody of a custodian of permanent records in this state shall

be sealed from inspection or forwarded to the state registrar, as

the state registrar directs.

SEC. 2832A. (1) AN ADOPTED INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS BORN IN THIS

STATE AND WHO IS 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY OBTAIN A CERTIFIED

COPY OF HIS OR HER ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH THAT WAS

SEALED FROM INSPECTION UNDER SECTION 2832. UPON RECEIPT OF A

WRITTEN APPLICATION, THE STATE REGISTRAR SHALL ISSUE TO THE ADOPTED

INDIVIDUAL A CERTIFIED COPY OF HIS OR HER ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF

LIVE BIRTH. A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH

PROVIDED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL HAVE THE PHRASE PRESCRIBED IN

SECTION 2882(4) MARKED ON THE FACE OF THE COPY. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE

PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, THE PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AN APPLICANT

FOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF LIVE BIRTH UNDER THIS PART AND THE FEES

PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 2891 APPLY TO AN ADOPTED INDIVIDUAL WHO

REQUESTS A CERTIFIED COPY OF HIS OR HER ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF

LIVE BIRTH UNDER THIS SECTION.

(2) AT ANY TIME, A BIRTH PARENT OF AN ADOPTED INDIVIDUAL WHO

WAS BORN IN THIS STATE MAY SUBMIT TO THE STATE REGISTRAR A CONTACT

PREFERENCE FORM. UPON RECEIPT OF A CONTACT PREFERENCE FORM FROM A

BIRTH PARENT UNDER THIS SUBSECTION, THE STATE REGISTRAR SHALL MATCH

THE CONTACT PREFERENCE FORM WITH THE ADOPTED INDIVIDUAL’S SEALED

RECORD AND SHALL FILE THE CONTACT PREFERENCE FORM WITH THE ORIGINAL

CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH THAT WAS SEALED FROM INSPECTION UNDER

SECTION 2832. A CONTACT PREFERENCE FORM THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY

A BIRTH PARENT TO THE STATE REGISTRAR UNDER THIS SUBSECTION IS

CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL BE PLACED IN THE ADOPTED INDIVIDUAL’S SEALED

FILE UNTIL ISSUED AS PROVIDED IN THIS SUBSECTION. IF A CERTIFIED

COPY OF AN ADOPTED INDIVIDUAL’S ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH

IS ISSUED UNDER SUBSECTION (1), THE STATE REGISTRAR SHALL ALSO

ISSUE TO THE ADOPTED INDIVIDUAL A COPY OF THE CONTACT PREFERENCE

FORMS IN THE FILE AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL

PRESCRIBE THE CONTACT PREFERENCE FORM, WHICH FORM SHALL INCLUDE THE

FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED AT THE OPTION OF THE BIRTH

PARENT:

(A) I WOULD LIKE TO BE CONTACTED.

(B) I WOULD PREFER TO BE CONTACTED ONLY THROUGH A CONFIDENTIAL

INTERMEDIARY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 68B OF CHAPTER X OF THE PROBATE

CODE OF 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 710.68B.

(C) I PREFER NOT TO BE CONTACTED AT THIS TIME. IF I DECIDE

LATER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BE CONTACTED, I WILL REGISTER WITH THE

CENTRAL ADOPTION REGISTRY ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 27B OF CHAPTER

X OF THE PROBATE CODE OF 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 710.27B. I HAVE

COMPLETED AN UPDATED MEDICAL HISTORY AS PART OF THIS CONTACT

PREFERENCE FORM.

Guest Blog: Boycott Update

June 20, 2007

Mirah Riben here guest blogging for Amy. While we pray for a speedy recovery for Amy’s surgery, I wanted to update ya’ll on the Adoption.com boycott:

Adoption.com, solely owned and operated by entrepreneur, Nathan Gwilliam, is a money-making venture that provides resources such as blogs, forums and chats for anyone with an interest in any aspect of adoption – and does so for one purpose only: to support their advertisers who profit from adoption placements. Many of these advertisers are unregulated adoption businesses, some of which have been investigated for corrupt practices.

Neither the bloggers, nor their “editors” – who are paid by Adoption.com – apply any restrictions on attacks, libel or slander contrary to their own rules.

Adoption reformers have been lured into using this site which profits adoption practitioners of questionable ethical standards.

Parents and Professionals for Family Preservation and Protection is opposed to the purpose of this site, its advertisers and its practices and urges all who are truly interested in preserving families to boycott Adoption.com and its affiliates.

The site exists to promote infant adoption through advertisings that glamorize relinquishment with lies and coercion – such as photo listing of families seeking to adopt with phrases such as “find the perfect parents for your child” and do not ensure informed option counseling, legal counseling or any other protections for such women.

Adoption reformers need to stand on the side of ethics in adoption and boycott this commercial endeavor to capitalize on the pain of adoption losses while assisting in the increased proliferation of exploitation and corruption in adoption.

We join and support an already existing boycott of Adoption.com by PotentialParents.com. Our support of the boycott against Adoption.com in no way is meant to imply support of any other goal of PotentionalParents.com nor support of the rights of gays, or anyone else, to adopt. Our interest in this is mutual only in boycotting Adoption.com.

The purpose of adoption is to find the best possible family to meet the needs of orphans and children needing permanent care, not to find children for anyone who wants one, thus, we do not support anyone’s “right” to adopt a child.

Supporting this boycott are:

SEE ALSO: ADOPTION.COM BOYCOTT: MEMBERS WALK; WILL ADVERTISERS FOLLOW? Thursday, June 14, 2007

Full story appears at: www.associatedcontent.com/article/287277/boycott_adoptioncom.html

It also appears at: Op Ed News website

This article has been placed in the OpEdNews_Op_Eds category with subjects:
Adoption; Advertiser Boycott; Children; Ethics; Families; Family; Mothers;
Social Justice; Womens Issues

****To “spread the word” about your article, and maximize the number of readers, we suggest you click on the “Social Networking site” icons you’ll find below. And tell your friends and family to click them, too.

This technique can increase the number of readers of your article by thousands, even tens of thousands.




IRELAND

June 19, 2007

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/negative-reports-on-wouldbe-parents-ignored-by-board-704794.html

http://www.independent.ie/health/adoption-cost-soars-to-euro45000-704745.html

Seems like Ireland is having some issues with adoption.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2007-06-14/news/baby-brokers-i-heart-the-mexican-a-jones-for-jones/

Mirah Riben was in the Dallas Observer. Yeah!!!!!!!

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/06/rising_illegiti.php

OH Good Grief!!!!!!

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/10protest.txt

Good Grief again.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/13530607/detail.html

Is this a safe haven situation or not?

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070617/LIFE/706170309

A reunion story

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/06/ex-gay-stephen-bennett-smears-adoptive-families-yet-again/

Is the religious right at it again? Twisting the law to their own interpretation

http://www.bounty.com/News.aspx?Article=18182942

This one is interesting

Just some interesting stories to read. I will be out of the loop for a week or two. Everyone take care and I will be back soon. Enjoy these and the writings of two dear friends.

Hugs to all

Amy