Come Out Come Out Wherever You Are!

Observation #1:

The majority of natural parents we hear from clearly wish adoptees to have access to birth records.

The majority of adoptees we hear from clearly wish to have access to their birth records.

Some adoptive parents (and I use this word respectfully to those APs who speak out on the subject and do so consistently and sincerely. I know that there are many of you out there, just not nearly as many as there should be.) SOME adoptive parents we hear from clearly wish their adult children to have access to their birth records.

Observation #2

The majority of people who actively oppose adoptees obtaining their birth records are-

Adoption Agencies

Organizations who are supported by Adoption Agencies

Adoptive Parents and Pre-Adoptive Parents

Lawyers

Churches

Do you see a connection here?

The THEORY which they ALL use is ALWAYS the same: “Birthparents deserve their privacy”.

Conclusion:

These groups who oppose open records are:

A. Doing so out of a sincere concern for the welfare of natural parents the world over.

or

B. Using this theory as socially acceptable cover for their own personal motives which are fueled by fear. And of course for those in the industry motive could certainly come from the thought of a possible loss of revenue by not supplying that which many of their CLIENTS (PAPs) demand.

If I were a natural mother in hiding I would keep my ear to the pulse of the open records effort. I would stay informed on a subject that brought me such fear. People always fight that which they fear. They do not remain silent even if they must speak out anonymously. Which means if those who oppose open records are correct and the mere THOUGHT of open records terrifies masses of natural parents then those NPs must be staying informed. They must be reading. Apparently they are just not commenting???

I ask you fearful mothers and fathers in exile……….PLEASE, come out of hiding and speak your mind! Do so anonymously if you must. Please, no agency, org. or AP cheaters commenting anonymously as natural parents. That would not be fair.

COME OUT COME OUT WHEREVER YOU ARE!!!!!

And if these “masses” of fearful natural parents do not exist? Well, then…….what exactly are we left with?

“Your honor if it pleases the court I would like to enter into evidence selection B.”

Advertisements

26 Comments

Filed under Adoption Politics, Adoption Schmoption, Adoptive Family, Natural Family, Open Records, Truthful Musings

26 responses to “Come Out Come Out Wherever You Are!

  1. Cath

    I am a natural mother that WANTS open records and have said so publicly – along with hundreds of others.

    I was NOT promised anonymity or privacy from my son.

    In Ontario, most adoption orders have the mothers surname – where is this “privacy” in light of that? How on earth can it exist?

    In fact (and many natural parents will tell you this) that I was PROMISED that I would see my son again!

    Here are other mothers that say they want open records too.

    Birthmothers for Open Records
    http://www.b-for.org/b-for_g.html

    Mothers for Open Records
    (which has the names of THOUSANDS of us mothers telling the world that we WANT open records!)
    http://geocities.com/moreopenrecords/

    BTW, I have happily reunited with my son (happy reunion of 4 yrs) – all he wants is what belongs to him – his rightful birth certificate with the CORRECT BIRTH information on it (like everyone else has!)

  2. Cath

    One other point.

    In the recent court case where the judge struck down the open records law in Ontario, NOT one mother was a client of the lawyer that pushed for this law to be shut down.

    The people that objected to the open records law were 3 ADOPTEES and an ALLEGED FATHER who denied paternity and refused to prove one way or another that he was in fact a father at all.

    The judge actually allowed this pathetic man to represent (bio) parents – what a travesty of justice that is!

    This cad of a man abandoned the mother of his (alleged) child and he denied paternity. The judge should have ordered a DNA test – it would not have been hard to do as the adoptee in question had been found and wanted answers from this coward who would not give him the time of day.

    If this coward still denied paternity and still refused a DNA test, he should NOT have been allowed representation in court as a “father” – period.

  3. mia

    Absolutely, that man should not have been allowed the privledge of calling himself a father in a court of law and yes Cath I know there are a scant few idiots among us. No denying it. One is left scratching their head at how deep the opposition will dig to find such people no? One has to wonder how many rocks had to be overturned.
    It was brought to my attention (although I am not certain of it’s validity and would welcome anyone who may know to comment) that all three of those adoptees already HAD access to their birth records. It certainly would not surprise me to find this is true. I can see how it would be much easier to throw the rest of us under the bus if they were not diving in right behind.

  4. Anonymous

    I am confused – tell me again why adoptees who do not want their birth family to find them should not have their rights respected?

  5. Hmmmm. Anon don’t you know that natural parents don’t have access to those records? Yet we are protecting them? Hmmm me thinkst its Polly wanna cracker.

  6. mia

    Anon. adoptee’s rights aren’t being respected now!
    As for unwanted contact, as my good friend Wraith always says there are already laws in place for such things as unwanted contact. Right to identity has nothing at all to do with choosing to have a relationship with another human being. One can certainly choose who they associate with. As things stand we aren’t even given the choice.

  7. Every child (especially one over 18) should have the right to their original birth certificate regardless and if parents do not want contact, a notorized letter/form stating their wishes should be attached to that birth certificate.

  8. Cath

    Dear Mia

    2 of the 3 adoptees had access to identifying information on their (bio) parents. The judge said so in his statement (which he contradicted later in his statement when he said that no one has!)

    Here is the judges statement – you can check it out for yourselves.

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2007/2007canlii38387/2007canlii38387.html

    Both Joy Cheskes and Denbigh Patton (2 of the adoptees) were adopted before 1970 – they told me so, they told the media that and they also told the judge that.

    ALL adoption orders in Ontario before 1970 have the mothers surname on them – ALL OF THEM (including ALL private adoptions). Furthermore, most adoptees are given a lot of very personal information which does help them to find – such as the age of the mother and father (Denbigh Patton said he knew his (bio) parents ages and actually had those facts printed in the Toronto Star back in Apr. 2005 – I still have the original article. He even knows the marital status of his mother at the time of his birth. In later articles, he lied to the press and said that he knew nothing about them (hoping that people like me would not remember his earlier statements).

    It should be pointed out that in Ontario, the non-id that adoptees receive can be very extensive – and extremely personal. It oftens gives the composition of the entire family and their ages – including aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, etc. It can give the occupations of ALL of the relatives in the bio families, their hobbies, and so much more. It is far more identifying than these adoptees would have you believe.

    Yet these two people say that other adoptees (particularly those adopted after 1970) are NOT allowed the same as them – hypocrites! The rules changed and many – but not all – adoptees could still get their mother’s surname. Whether they got the mother’s surname was based solely on who the caregiver was prior to the adoption. It should also be noted that the US Freedom of Information Act allows Canadian adoptees adopted by Americans their (bio) parents names and other info on them via their naturalisation papers.

    One of the lawyers that worked with Clayton Ruby (the lawyer who was opposed to this law) also had LOADS of identifying information – she was adopted by her stepfather but had stayed with her bio mother. She claimed that NO ONE should have what she had – yet she had so much information on her father that she even had his best friends names!!! She has identifying information on her father – but this hypocrite also says that NO ONE else should have the same things as her. Unbelievable!

    Here is an article about that from Law Times.
    http://www.lawtimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1020&Itemid=82

  9. Cath

    To Anon – there are a number of reasons that (bio) parents are being granted the right to the adoptee’s name in Ontario.

    First of all, most of us were PROMISED that we would be given this information! That is a fact.
    I have been given my son’s first adoptive name – but many mothers were misled into believing that they would have the whole name – or that the name would NOT be changed.

    Secondly, adoption corruption was rife in Ontario.
    The Ontario government has admitted this – as have a number of CAS’s who admitted to taking bribes for babies. Did you know many fit parents were told that their babies died at birth – and then the “dead” baby would be adopted out? The CAS’s now admit that babies were taken from fit parents without their permission – they admit doing that to me and my son’s father.

    Our human rights were abused to an extreme degree. We were denied independent lawyers, drugged up and told to sign foster care agreements in hospital “or never see your children again”. This also happened to me – the word adoption did not appear on the document that I signed. There were no witnesses.

    Worst of all, the hospitals ran an “Unwed Mothers Punishment Policy” which was implemented by the late Dr. Marion Hilliard in 1956. It ran until at least the 1980’s. Dr. Hilliard said (and I quote from the Daily Telegraph, Nov. 1956) that “unwed mothers should be taught a lesson. They must be PUNISHED by taking their babies from them”.

    This was NOT to help the baby – it was done to HURT the mother in the most outrageous way possible. The UN calls this “cruel and unusual punishment”.

    “Teaching them a lesson” also included verbal and physical abuse at the hands of hospital staff (as well as other professionals).

    I complained to the UN about the treatment of myself and others. Do you know what the UN said to me? That my treatment was SO bad that I have been placed on the TORTURE registry in Geneva.
    It has to be BAD – VERY BAD – to be on there.
    I am talking Iraqi prisoner bad!!

    The UN was so disgusted at this that they asked if I would like to leave my complaint on their web site to pressure the Ontario government to open the records for adoption fraud victims – especially as the police REFUSED to investigate any of these crimes including the “dead” baby scam which was clearly illegal. My complaint is at the UN Human Rights web site in their archives under “Violence Against Women (by the State) under Canada.

    Adoption fraud victims have the right to know what happened to the children that were STOLEN from them!

  10. mia

    I’m so sorry Cath. That must have been unbearably difficult. I am glad that you remain pro-active in an effort to create a better world today. Something very good that came out of the horrible way you were treated. This speaks volumes for your character. Thank you for sharing.
    (((Cath)))

  11. Cath

    To Anon – one other point – a legal one.

    Ontario law states that if the government gives out your personal information to a legal stranger, you have the LEGAL RIGHT to know who that person is!

    As many adoptees have A LOT of identifying and extremely personal information on their bio parents, it is only fair that the other party is aware of who has their SENSITIVE INDENTIFYING information and what they are doing with it!

    For example, Denbigh Patton had his mother and father’s ages printed in the Toronto Star, along with her marital status at the time of his birth (not all mothers were single – many widows and deserted wives lost their children too – this has happened to friends of mine).

    Along with his approx. date of birth, it would not be difficult for a decent PI to find her.

    Doesn’t this woman have the right to know what a legal stranger is doing with her personal information, especially when it is posted very publicly in a national newspaper? Where are her rights? I bet Denbigh didn’t even ask her when he did this to her.

    By not allowing (bio) parents the LEGAL RIGHT to know who has their SENSITIVE, PRIVATE, PERSONAL AND ** IDENTIFYING ** information, you are treating them ** less equal ** before the law – which is clearly against the Canadian Constitution.

    It HAS to be both ways under Ontario law – or not at all.

    If my son had no information on me, maybe your statement would be fair – but that is NOT the case.
    He knows A LOT of things about me – much more than people realise – and probably even more than my raised children do about me. It is sensitive identifying information that I am not allowed any control over. That is not right or fair to be held hostage that way by the law which says that NO ONE else in Ontario is allowed to be treated that way by a legal adult stranger.

  12. mia

    Thanks for the comment LeRoy. This is an interesting idea. I have to say it made me laugh wondering how many parents are out there that would rush down to the VSO to staple no contact letters to their offspring’s BC’s, adopted or not. LOL

  13. Anonymous

    A friend adopted a child whose birth mother promptly disappeared after the adoption, no forwarding address. She has my friend’s number, and my friend has tried to get ahold of her through the agency. She also writes letters and sends pictures once a year. None have been picked up. My friend has not heard from her in 4 years. There is at least one mother, therefore, who shows no desire to know what happens to her child after adoption.

    And I have read the blog of one Petunia, who seems fine with being adopted and not knowing who her birth mother is.

  14. mia

    But you see Polly if your friend was looking out for her daughter’s best interests she would have demanded that information be given to her directly so she could have it available for her daughter in the future. If she DID that then that woman’s child will know WHO her mother is even if she doesn’t actually know her mother personally. She will know. And that is everything.

    And Polly, regarding Petunia I was under the impression she knew who her mother was??? Well regardless one thing is abundantly clear….you two are a match made in heaven. Please give her my regards when you bury your head back in the sand.

  15. Mia I really admire you, I just wanted to come here and say that.

  16. mia

    Well the admired admires the heck out of the admirer too.

    ~grin~

  17. Mary

    I am not a Canadian adoptee, but a Texas born adoptee whose natural mother was told that her baby died at birth. Scams and criminal acts are rife in the adoption system. Agencies and lawyers don’t want records opened because of this. I am also the only US born adoptee in my family and I was the only one denied access to my OBC.

  18. joy

    Petunia…

    Yes the ONE Petunia, who is in reunion, but now we are going to deny the rights of many for the wish of one?

    Makes sense to me!

    But then I live in adopto-land.

    La la la.

  19. Petunia and her firstmother are totally in contact. I fact,I believe she has met her entire family. She doesn’t like them but she’s met them.

    I also believe that Petunia instigated the reunion out of “curiosity” and didn’t like what she found.

    So, that’s ok, eh?

    READ her blog. It’s all right there.

    Hooked on phonics might be the program you’re looking for Anon!

  20. Amy

    I thought Petunia didn’t like her parents but she was glad she searched. She does feel that adoptees should have access to their records. I have taken the time to read her blog. I guess this has missed you Polly. She is just frustrated with us because we appear so angry. There are many of us who speak of our emotions in adoption. Now I love my amom. I am one of the lucky ones. There is no doubt on that. Even she feels that I deserve my records. She wants me to have them. This includes the adoption records that she signed and never received from the agency. Very honestly I want to see those as well. What you fail to realize is that we, being adoptive parents, natural parents and adoptees want to control our own records. It should not be up to the state nor the adoption agency to interfere with OUR lives. Its none of their business. The right to privacy is about the right to be free from governmental interference. Hmmm you are government. Why don’t you quit interfering with our lives and our business?

  21. Amy

    Polly read through this links.

    http://stupidstuffithink.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

    The post about Adoptees Should Know. says it all right there.

    She has a semi open adoption. She obviously wants her child to know her heritage. Go bark somewhere else. She won’t take to you either.

  22. Anonymous

    I am in regular contact with my children’s birth mothers and my children know about them and have even talked to them. I support open adoptions whole-heartedly. I think it is healthier mentally for all involved. Mia, that’s why I read your blog. I agree with much what you write. Not all, but a lot.

    When you guys get self-righteous and mean, though, it pleases me to stir the hornet’s nest, to try to get you to think. It never works, but I am an optimist. I think brains work even when we don’t want them to. It sinks in somewhere and sits quietly, waiting to come out at a later time.

    I know Petunia knows her birth family. I read her blog sparingly because she is a bit too rabidly conservative for me politically. I like her stance that not all adoptees are messed up and angry and longing for their birth mommies. She provides another perspective that I find refreshing.

    My friend did indeed get all the info from the birth mother of her son she could. She also tells her son he’s adopted and will let him know as much as she can as he gets older. The young woman was determined to disappear and she did. She was renting a place, which she left after the adoption, no forwarding address. My friend continues to send letters to the agency, which do not get picked up. She could hire a private detective, but that is my point: the woman does not want to be found. Why harass her? You assume all adoptive mothers are out to steal children. Sometimes birth parents dump their kids and take off for the better life. Not all birth mothers are angels. Some get pregnant due to rape, incest, or just stupidity, and want to move on with their lives without that constant reminder. The mothers of my two wanted to move on, not only with mine, but with all their others as well (five other siblings between the two of them). I would have felt sorrier for them had they not abandoned every child they ever gave birth to. My daughter’s three other children are with her mother; she hasn’t seen them in over 9 years, although she could quite easily. She could even parent them. Her mother would love to not have three children while trying to enjoy retirement.

    For those who do want to stay in contact, like my children’s birth mothers, it has worked out fine. For my friend’s son’s mother, she has sent a clear message about what she wanted the day she disappeared.

    Mia, keep writing and thinking and doing what you do best. I like your blog, even if I am unwelcome here. That is the great thing about blogs. You can reach people you don’t even want hanging around.

  23. Hey anon…
    So you deliberately lied about Petunia’s situation to try to rile us all up and get us to think? And now you tell us that you don’t even like her yourself after you recommend her to us all as an adoptee to aspire to be?
    Yeah, that’s logical. You sure are a smart one.
    By the way, do your employers know that you harass adoptees on their blogs while you’re at work? Are they ok with that?

  24. “to try to get you to think. It never works”

    This is really unfair.

    “the woman does not want to be found. Why harass her?”

    Some things to think about:
    Information and contact are not the same thing, and contact and harassment are not the same thing either.

    If your friend already has that information, keeping her child from having an obc wouldn’t change anything, would it?

    I can walk into an office and get my bc. I would want my daughter to be able to do the same thing (if it were possible).

  25. Just catching up on the back and forth between ya’ll and the Anonymous poster.

    Going out of one’s way to needle people who have suffered a trauma society does not recognize is not nice. It’s mean. And calling adoptees who question the institution of adoption and who express honest emotions about their status, “messed up” is dismissive. I am far from “messed up.” I’m a fully functioning adult, wife and mother who once made six figures. Why is somebody like Petunia held up as a shining example to the rest of us? What purpose does that serve? Is this high school? And yes, not all first mothers want contact. Not all first mothers want their babies and not all first mothers are nice or welcoming when we find them. But we STILL have a right to know who they are and where we come from. This sort of…”but this birth mother is bad” is just an excuse to continue infantalizing adoptees…into adulthood! If our mothers are less than ideal, so what? My own first mother is a great personal challenge…but she’s MY mother and finding her was the best thing I ever did for myself. I was able to get my story, fill in all those missing blanks and put myself in context. It doesn’t matter that it’s not a very nice story. But it’s MINE.

  26. cookiebaker

    Since NCFA keeps bringing up how we minority birth mothers (yes, Tom Atwood called birth mothers a minority in his recent NPR interview), need protection, we need to keep refuting that idiotic notion. I do whenever I get the chance.

    We do need to keep pointing out that it IS mainly adoptive parents and those who profit from adoption who REALLY want records to remain sealed. One of the reasons adoption agencies want records to stay sealed is to protect all the lies that might otherwise get uncovered. Even without open records, their lies surface often these days.

    For the one commenter who does know what open records even means, open records only allow an adoptee to obtain a copy of their OBC (original birth certificate). They are not forced to seek reunion, nor do open records apply to birth parents. Even with open records, birth parents will not have access.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s