Baby Farms: If you cant have them - grow them in the poor

[Rock]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319106,00.html

"couples are exploiting poor women in India — a country with an alarmingly high maternal death rate — by hiring them at a cut-rate cost to undergo the hardship, pain and risks of labor."

[David Rothscum]

That's terrible ofcourse, but please also look at it from the perspective of these infertile couples. I can't imagine the pain they must have gone through because they can't give birth to their own children the natural way. We know this is becoming a bigger problem each and every day, because of all the toxins in our vaccines (I doubt it's only happening in the third world, which is a documented fact) and our environment. I bet lots of them are desperate and don't know any other way.

[Dig]

I have friends who fall into that category and the desperation is palpable.  But hopefully we can wake people up to the source of the disease rather than the temporary, zero-sum-game solutions.

If we got rid of vaccines, flouride, fast food, radiated food, natural soap and shampoos, and chemtrails we would not have such high infertility rates.

problem, reaction, solution.

let's stop obeying their solutions and expose the sources of the problems.

[industria]

That's terrible ofcourse, but please also look at it from the perspective of these infertile couples. I can't imagine the pain they must have gone through because they can't give birth to their own children the natural way. We know this is becoming a bigger problem each and every day, because of all the toxins in our vaccines (I doubt it's only happening in the third world, which is a documented fact) and our environment. I bet lots of them are desperate and don't know any other way.

Well they had better figure about another way, and also work to change the poisonous environment we live in.

Warning to some guys. The following is "female" talk. I know some of you are weirded out about this stuff! Don't read it then. OK?   

Look, I have sympathy for infertile couples, and can't speak directly to that issue have 2 adult children myself, but I can speak to the issue of people using cruel means for personal gain. It is wrong. Period. Whether it's for the personal gain of having a child of your "own", financial profit, or in my case, vanity and some highly questionable health benefit.

I was presented with that a choice when I hit a very early natural menopause at age 42. My choice was to use Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) specifically Premarin, or not. Virtually all Western women who experience early menopause either natural like I did, or because their ovaries are surgically removed, rely on HRT, and to forestall the symptoms of menopause.

Premarin is made from pregnant mares urine. Pre-mar-in. Because so much of it is prescribed, its production requires the operation of some 700 "farms". On these farms are about 80,000 horses who live their entire lives  in tiny stalls, unable to even turn around or lie down. They are deprived of water to increase the concentration of the urine, repeatedly impregnated, and connected to hoses to collect the urine. In the last 60+ years, well over a million horses (at least), have been subjected to this treatment.

So it was an easy choice for me. I refuse to subject earth's precious creatures to a life of cruelty for my vanity or a dubious health benefit.

[Dig]

Well they had better figure about another way, and also work to change the poisonous environment we live in.

Warning to some guys. The following is "female" talk. I know some of you are weirded out about this stuff! Don't read it then. OK?   

Look, I have sympathy for infertile couples and can't speak directly to that issue have 2 adult children NYSE, but I can speak to the issue of people using cruel means for personal gain. It is wrong. Period. Whether it's for the personal gain of having a child of your "own", financial profit, or in my case, vanity and some highly questionable health benefit.

I was presented with that a choice when I hit a very early natural menopause at age 42. My choice was to use Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) specifically Premarin, or not. Virtually all Westerns women who experience early menopause either natural like I did, or because their ovaries are surgically removed, rely on HRT, and to forestall the symptoms of menopause.

Premarin is made from pregnant mares urine. Pre-mar-in. Because so much of it is prescribed, its production requires the operation of some 700 "farms". On these farms are about 80,000 horses who live their entire lives  in tiny stalls, unable to even turn around or lie down. They are deprived of water to increase the concentration of the urine, repeatedly impregnated, and connected to hoses to collect the urine. In the last 60+ years, well over a million horses (at least), have been subjected to this treatment.

So it was an easy choice for me. I refuse to subject earth's precious creatures to a life of cruelty for my vanity or a dubious health benefit.

thanks for the warning ; )

[industria]

Warned you!      haha

To me this boils down to personal responsibility. We can't just go charging around the planet taking what we want to make ourselves feel better. The personal repercussions spiritually and conscience wise, and the global repercussions of using imperial tactics over other people are both immeasurable.

Personally I see this baby farming idea only one notch above the massive international organ harvesting trade, and the sex and labor slavery trade.

[jamba]

So for less than the cost of a hospital birth and normal prenatal care in the US, you can pay someone else to gestate and birth a baby for you. Nice.  Really, on the one hand, I understand the desire to have a baby, and I understand the desire to help an infertile couple, but this really creeps me out. It just feels like usury to me. If they were paying closer to what you'd pay an American surrogate, maybe I would feel differently. In the States, you can expect $20-80,000 depending on circumstances. I know adjusted for wages, etc, they seem to be paid well for their area, but I still think the women carrying those babies are being used.

What do you tell the baby when it's old enough to ask where it came from? "We wanted you so much that we went out bargain hunting for the cheapest womb to grow you in."  "We got a poor, sweet Indian woman to leave her family and risk her life for a year so we could use her womb... We got two babies for the price of one this way. Just like we get at WalMart."

Now the premarin....wow industria! Thank you for the info! How awful!!! And disgusting! We as a society cannot be so selfish to think that we can use and abuse for our own personal gain. I wonder if society will ever see that?

[Bozer]

If we got rid of vaccines, flouride, fast food, radiated food, natural soap and shampoos, and chemtrails we would not have such high infertility rates.

problem, reaction, solution.

let's stop obeying their solutions and expose the sources of the problems.

Once again, well-said Sane!  It's also true what Industria was saying.  It's a strange combination of ignorance and hubris.  These poor souls are blind to their plight, but also at the same time have a sense of entitlement to the world.  We just need to keep waking them up.

[shirteesdotnet]

Premarin is made from pregnant mares urine. Pre-mar-in.

Thanks for the info Industria! I didnt know any of that.

My wife and I want to have kids in a year or so (we are 34 and 26) and she is from eastern europe. We live decent but cant fathom paying $8,000 or more just to have a baby these days (in California anyways). We are considering flying home for the birth because of there its free and my wife is not comfortable with American doctors and the drugs they try to push.

[jamba]

My wife and I want to have kids in a year or so (we are 34 and 26) and she is from eastern europe. We live decent but cant fathom paying $8,000 or more just to have a baby these days (in California anyways). We are considering flying home for the birth because of there its free and my wife is not comfortable with American doctors and the drugs they try to push.

That's why so many are using midwives and having their babies at home. (I am) There's a group called Midwives Alliance of North America and they keep a registry of midwives who attend homebirths. From their website you can find an email address to request a list of local midwives. They (mws) are by far more knowledgeable on pregnancy, birth, and health than any OB or Dr I've ever seen. You're far safer birthing in your home than in an american hospital these days.

[Rolloffle]

How ironic, 126,000 babies are aborted every single day but people will pay good money for someone to have a child for them. 

[life0repeats]

How ironic, 126,000 babies are aborted every single day but people will pay good money for someone to have a child for them. 

i was thinking the same thing - minus knowing the exact figures.  would be great though if people in that situation would adopt children here in the states or become foster parents.   lots of kids in our own country that seriously could use some loving parents.

[Rolloffle]

i was thinking the same thing - minus knowing the exact figures.  would be great though if people in that situation would adopt children here in the states or become foster parents.   lots of kids in our own country that seriously could use some loving parents.

Here is a website with good abortion statistics.

There are nearly as many deaths from abortion as there are from all other causes (155,000) [source]; abortions aren't counted in mainstream death statistics -- of course.

[Mythandariel]

Why not advertise this 'Adoption Option'? I know the abortion clinics would loose business, but sheesh.

Abortion should only be used in extreme circumstances such as; rape, incest, abuse, or when the baby dies mid-term. It happens, and then the mother has to carry the child, because of the existing abortion laws, and give birth to a corpse.

[sweet*sugar]

That's terrible ofcourse, but please also look at it from the perspective of these infertile couples. I can't imagine the pain they must have gone through because they can't give birth to their own children the natural way. We know this is becoming a bigger problem each and every day, because of all the toxins in our vaccines (I doubt it's only happening in the third world, which is a documented fact) and our environment. I bet lots of them are desperate and don't know any other way.

the vaccines could be avoided, and even if u take vaccines you can still keep off infertility with good diet and exercise, being out in fresh air......but the average american doesnt know that....hmm

[TruthHunter]

Surrogates have been used for years and I don't recall ever seeing much outrage over it. Why is it suddenly different when poor Indian women are involved? 

[Pheonix Renewed]

Adoption is nothing but exploiting the poor and human trafficking, unless it's adoption from foster care-- except even that isn't exempt, what with the subsidies states recieve for every successful "placement."

I'm shocked beyond words to see people here, of all places, supporting this horrific practice.

Some suggested reading for you: The Girls Who Went Away, and The Primal Wound.

Human trafficking, nothing more, nothing less. A 1.8 billion dollar a year profitable INDUSTRY, TOTALLY UNREGULATED, and people actually still support it.

Because after all, all those poor infertile people DESERVE to be parents-- no matter who has to lose their child, be exploited, or be dehumanized and degraded to provide one!

Adoptees have ZERO rights. They are sold like cattle to people who can afford it, removed from "unsuitable" mothers through coercive tactics. Our government gives the "National" Counsel for Adoption (NCFA) over 700 million (yes, that's SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION) dollars per year to research ways to "overcome reluctance" in women who want to KEEP their children.

Yes. We, the taxpayers, pay to ensure that women are extorted and coerced out of their children so that people can profit off of selling them to wealthy, greedy, selfish infertiles.

Don't believe me? Do some research. If it were really all about "fees" instead of the SELLING of children with intent to profit, why do even "nonprofit" adoption agencies pay their executives upwards of %100,000 per year in salaries? And if it's not about profit, but only about fees, how come Healthy White Infants (that these infertiles are so greedy for) COST anywhere from 30 grand to over 150 grand... while those "less desirable" races like AAs and Hispanics only COST between 10 and 25 grand?

You tell me.

Don't support this horrific child trafficking. Don't support raping one woman of her child for sale of that child to another woman. Why must a child lose his or her entire life history and be sold to someone else and get a whole new bill-of-sale that wipes out their true identity, only because someone is infertile? What did that child ever do wrong?

 

[life0repeats]

a couple of girls i used to know where in foster care.  neither of them had any family who wanted them that was in the position to have them with them - meaning both of their mothers were locked up and the fathers didn't want them and extended family was never known to them.  adoption - be it babies or from foster homes - is something i agree exploits the poor most of the time, but there are circumstances that make it still the best option for some couples and for some fo the children.  its a tough issue to fix if the underlying poverty, lack of education, etc issues never get real solutions attempted. 

[Pheonix Renewed]

a couple of girls i used to know where in foster care.  neither of them had any family who wanted them that was in the position to have them with them - meaning both of their mothers were locked up and the fathers didn't want them and extended family was never known to them.  adoption - be it babies or from foster homes - is something i agree exploits the poor most of the time, but there are circumstances that make it still the best option for some couples and for some fo the children.  its a tough issue to fix if the underlying poverty, lack of education, etc issues never get real solutions attempted. 

Both the loss of a child and the loss of your family and real identity through being purchased like a cow are lifetime pains. And they are DEEP, DEEP pains, far worse than being poor or growing up with a single mother.

Now, adoption from foster care is a good idea gone bad. But frankly, the people who buy these newborns through domestic infant adoption have all kinds of excuses for why THEY cannot POSSIBLY adopt from foster care. I mean, do you know how HARD it is to raise foster children? YIKES!

This is why adoption from infancy or from other countries is so popular. Because they are lied to about what international adoption is really like, and because they demand a newborn fresh from a womb, NOT one of those 'broken kids.'

There's something sick and distorted about a society that praises those who buy newborns fresh from the wombs of the underpriveleged, and demonizes foster children who, through no fault of their own, are actually in need of the "rescuing" that is being done to the children who already have mothers who want them.

As a matter of fact, it's EASIER to exploit and take the children of mothers who DO love, care for, and want their children than to get those who don't care about their children and abuse them to give them up.

Adoption saves no one but adopters and the 1.8 billion dollar industry that profits off of the exploitation of the grievous, life-long, horribly traumatic loss of mothers and children.

[Pheonix Renewed]

That's terrible ofcourse, but please also look at it from the perspective of these infertile couples. I can't imagine the pain they must have gone through because they can't give birth to their own children the natural way. We know this is becoming a bigger problem each and every day, because of all the toxins in our vaccines (I doubt it's only happening in the third world, which is a documented fact) and our environment. I bet lots of them are desperate and don't know any other way.

My mother died. I was devastated. It was horrible, and painful, and a terrible loss.

Can I buy your mother? I mean, don't I deserve to have a mother? Surely, you don't need yours. Don't worry, when I'm done with her in 18 years, I'll let you talk to her once, before I guilt trip her out of ever speaking to you again. After all, she's MY mother now!

Sometimes, as horrible as life can be, you have to accept what you get. Even if it's infertility. Buying someone else's child isn't the answer. Exploiting a woman who is poor and in desperate need, and forcing her to lose a child she has carried for 9 months in the most intimate union imaginable between two people... is not excused by "desperation."

[aviana]

Adoption is nothing but exploiting the poor and human trafficking, unless it's adoption from foster care-- except even that isn't exempt, what with the subsidies states recieve for every successful "placement."

I'm shocked beyond words to see people here, of all places, supporting this horrific practice.

Some suggested reading for you: The Girls Who Went Away, and The Primal Wound.
snip

I know this is an old post, but I just joined the forum and had to respond to this.  With all due respect Pheonix, your summation of adoption is completely off base.  First of all, the book, "The Girls Who Went Away"... you should have mentioned the rest of the title, "The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade", i.e. 1973 (and I have read the book - it is an excellent book to help understand why adoption is shrowded in myths and is the taboo subject that it is today - though, that is changing).  Yes, up to and  post WWII, adoption was not handled very well and was purely advocated in order to aid the American family hide the indignity of a pregnancy outside of marriage.  The girl would be wisked away to a maternity home where she would then be pretty much forced, though not always, to give up her baby.  It caused a lot of grief for birth mothers and adoptees alike.  Adoptions then were closed with no exchange of information and records were sealed.  However, some records are now being opened up and reunions are happening.  I recognize that there are still some issues for those whom were effected by the adoption methods of the day, to where adoptees are not able to find their birth parents, or the birth parents are not able to find the child they placed, but that does not mean that adoption today is bad.  It is far from it.

Today, there are three types of adoption; open, semi-open, and closed.  The birth mom gets to choose which type, and if she chooses semi or open, she also gets to choose the adoptive parents for her baby, from a list of couples with matching criteria on adoption options.  Adoption agencies vary so much with fees and practices.  There are many good ones all over the nation, with many being Christian agencies.  Christian pregnancy center counselors are being trained on how to talk about adoption as one of the three parenting choices, which are parenting, adoption or abortion.  A counselor will not favor one option over another, but aim for the choice of life.  Most girls that walk into pregnancy centers are abortion minded.  Not only is this killing babies, but is causing an epidemic of post abortive stress syndrome in many women (PASS).  This is a condition that Planned Parenthood and other 'choice' lobbys will tell you does not exist.  Believe me - it does, and is seen on a regular basis in the PASS recovery bible classes.

Basically, today, abortion is being sold as the best parenting choice (think Nancy Pelosi and birth control, think Eugenics and population control...).  In many clinics, abortion is often pushed over parenting, or adoption.  Whereas post WWII up to 1973, adoption was pushed.  There are almost 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt a new born in the US (NCFA).  There are also 1.5 million abortions each year (CDC).  Adoption saves lives and creates families.  Reform is happening, standards are being set and adoption education is out there.  Adoption isn't for everyone.  Just today, I learned of a young lady who had decided to place her 19mo child for adoption as she could not cope and could not provide for her child.  She wanted better for her child.  After her pregnancy counselor had some liaison with adoption agencies, the girl discovered that her parents would help her and she decided not to place her child after all.  Praise God!

Please rethink what adoption means today.  There are millions of birth parents and adoptive couples who have open communication with each other, and I have heard countless stories of joy.  Yes, I head the odd sad story too, but the good far, far exceeds the bad.

[Pheonix Renewed]

I know this is an old post, but I just joined the forum and had to respond to this.  With all due respect Pheonix, your summation of adoption is completely off base.  First of all, the book, "The Girls Who Went Away"... you should have mentioned the rest of the title, "The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade", i.e. 1973 (and I have read the book - it is an excellent book to help understand why adoption is shrowded in myths and is the taboo subject that it is today - though, that is changing).  Yes, up to and  post WWII, adoption was not handled very well and was purely advocated in order to aid the American family hide the indignity of a pregnancy outside of marriage.  The girl would be wisked away to a maternity home where she would then be pretty much forced, though not always, to give up her baby.  It caused a lot of grief for birth mothers and adoptees alike.  Adoptions then were closed with no exchange of information and records were sealed.  However, some records are now being opened up and reunions are happening.  I recognize that there are still some issues for those whom were effected by the adoption methods of the day, to where adoptees are not able to find their birth parents, or the birth parents are not able to find the child they placed, but that does not mean that adoption today is bad.  It is far from it.

Today, there are three types of adoption; open, semi-open, and closed.  The birth mom gets to choose which type, and if she chooses semi or open, she also gets to choose the adoptive parents for her baby, from a list of couples with matching criteria on adoption options.  Adoption agencies vary so much with fees and practices.  There are many good ones all over the nation, with many being Christian agencies.  Christian pregnancy center counselors are being trained on how to talk about adoption as one of the three parenting choices, which are parenting, adoption or abortion.  A counselor will not favor one option over another, but aim for the choice of life.  Most girls that walk into pregnancy centers are abortion minded.  Not only is this killing babies, but is causing an epidemic of post abortive stress syndrome in many women (PASS).  This is a condition that Planned Parenthood and other 'choice' lobbys will tell you does not exist.  Believe me - it does, and is seen on a regular basis in the PASS recovery bible classes.

Basically, today, abortion is being sold as the best parenting choice (think Nancy Pelosi and birth control, think Eugenics and population control...).  In many clinics, abortion is often pushed over parenting, or adoption.  Whereas post WWII up to 1973, adoption was pushed.  There are almost 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt a new born in the US (NCFA).  There are also 1.5 million abortions each year (CDC).  Adoption saves lives and creates families.  Reform is happening, standards are being set and adoption education is out there.  Adoption isn't for everyone.  Just today, I learned of a young lady who had decided to place her 19mo child for adoption as she could not cope and could not provide for her child.  She wanted better for her child.  After her pregnancy counselor had some liaison with adoption agencies, the girl discovered that her parents would help her and she decided not to place her child after all.  Praise God!

Please rethink what adoption means today.  There are millions of birth parents and adoptive couples who have open communication with each other, and I have heard countless stories of joy.  Yes, I head the odd sad story too, but the good far, far exceeds the bad.

You are very, very, very wrong. The coercion still happens, and ADOPTION is being sold as "saving babies from abortion." Young girls who love and want their babies are being targetted. They are being coerced. You know nothing, you have drunk the "adoption saves babies from abortion, adoption is wonderful" kool-aid, like so many other people.

Why don't you sit down and THINK for a minute. Just exactly HOW is adoption billed in the USA? Exactly HOW are young mothers treated when they even mention they MIGHT, MAYBE, consider adoption?

Adoption is billed as THE "loving" option. THE ONLY LOVING option. Young women are told that IF THEY LOVE THEIR CHILD, they will GIVE THE CHILD AWAY to those MORE SUITED to raise a child:

2 parents
more money
their own home
they can't have more children, but she can
family support
able to afford college and future for the child
older and more stable

ALL of the things that the young mother doesn't have, they tell the young mother that the baby MUST HAVE in order to thrive... and if the mother doesn't give up the baby to these SUPERIOR PEOPLE, the mother is DEPRIVING and HARMING the child.

Statistics are shown to the young mother. How many people in prison are the offspring of the dreaded SINGLE MOTHER!!!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!! HOW COULD YOU DO THAT TO YOUR CHILD!?!?!?! YOUR CHILD WILL MOST LIKELY GO TO PRISON BECAUSE YOU ARE A SINGLE MOTHER!!!!!!!!

Your glowing recommendation of the wonderful adoptions unfortunately overlooks and ignores the FACTS of how the majority of these adoptions happen. COERCION AND OUTRIGHT LIES.

The NCFA gets SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS a year from the US government TO RESEARCH WAYS TO GET RELUCTANT (read: mothers that want to KEEP THEIR BABIES) to RELINQUISH. To give up the child they love and want.

Adoption exploits the LOVE the mother has for the unborn child. IF YOU LOVE THE CHILD, you MUST give the child to those SUPERIOR TO YOU, FOR HIS OWN GOOD!!

That is NOT, and NEVER will be, A HAPPY STORY. No matter what anecdotal evidence you give that "OBVIOUSLY" everyone is "HAPPY" about the adoption. The biggest problems are that we all who are involved in adoption, EXCEPT for the PURCHASERS, have to LIE to each other and to society as a whole. WE are lied to, and we cannot EVER admit that "you know what, I WANT MY MOMMY- MY REAL MOMMY!" Adoptees tell stories, but only to each other (because people like YOU would tell us we are UNGRATEFUL for being SAVED FROM ABORTION), of sitting for sometimes hours and staring out the window, daydreaming that our REAL mother decided that she really DID love us after all... and came back and got us. A tearful reunion, an apology for abandoning us... ah... one can only dream.

Because after all, you know, NO ONE IS EVER COERCED ANYMORE! That's OLD news! It doesn't happen NOW. EVERY child NOW adopted WOULD HAVE BEEN ABORTED INSTEAD. Yeah. Because, you know, EVERY pregnant teen is a potential abortion! WE MUST SAVE THE CHILDREN by STEALING THEM from their worthless whore abortionist bitches and giving them to GOOD people!

Listen to yourself. You drank the kool-aid.

Abortion and adoption ARE TWO DIFFERENT CHOICES, they ARE NOT related. It's a LIE to get you to swallow the "wonder" of STEALING A CHILD FROM A MOTHER and SELLING IT.

[Pheonix Renewed]

One last thing. Here's what the Bible says about you, and your support of the ATROCITY of ripping babies from their mothers' arms through these coercive tactics:

"The WICKED snatch fatherless children from their mother's breasts, and take a poor man's baby as a pledge before they will loan him any money or grain." Job 24:9

Without the lie of "adoption saves babies from abortion," people would be properly outraged at the exploitation of the love these mothers have for their children. But things like open adoption were created for one express purpose... TO OVERCOME OBJECTIONS to giving up children. Only in 3 states are they even enforced, and in those three states, breaking the agreement gets the purchasers of the baby a fine, AND NO REQUIREMENT WHATSOEVER to reinstate contact.

It's a LIE with the singular purpose of overcoming a mother's reluctance to giving up the child she so deeply loves.

But  yeah, okay, that's a "happy ending." The theft of children from their mothers by telling the mother that IF SHE LOVES HER CHILD, she will give the child up to BETTER PEOPLE.... is a real happy ending.

[aviana]

Phoenix - I am so sorry for whatever it is that causes this anger in you, but you have it completely and flat out wrong.

From the book, which I gather you have read entirely, you will know that the maternity home staff and social workers of the day (post WWII and pre 1973) were the adoption advocates.  Today, who are the adoption advocates?  Generally, the adoption agencies.  Playing Devil's advocate... in order for a woman to be coerced into placing her child for adoption, she would have to be be in direct contact with the adoption professionals. 

Q. In the US, where does a woman go if she thinks she might be pregnant? (we're talking specifically about unplanned pregnancy here) 

A. #1. She might goto Planned Parenthood to get a test.  They will tell her she is pregnant, talk about her options - possibly mention adoption, but very unlikely - even though PP are allegedly trained to talk about adoption - then they will almost certainly steer her toward abortion.  She chooses to parent or abort. 

A. #2. She might goto her OBGYN for a test.  They tell her she is pregnant and talk about parenting.

A. #3.  She might goto another 'Woman's Clinic' to get a test.  See #1.

A. #4.  She might goto a Crisis Pregnancy Center. They will tell her she is pregnant and talk about her options.  Again, they might mention adoption.  Many counselors don't know how to talk about adoption accurately, so don't mention it at all. (1984 study showed only 20% of counselors talked about adoption accurately - that is slowly changing).

A. #5.  She might get a test from the pharmacy.  If she is pregnant then she might take any of the previous routes.

Not at any point is she likely to speak to an adoption professional, unless she has chosen adoption as her parenting choice.  Then she will be referred to an agency.

Do you know anything about the adoption laws?  You know they are now structured so that the birth mother has as many rights as the child?  Pre 1973, it was all about pleasing the adoptive parents with the perfect baby.  You know that a birth mom does not have to sign her relinquishment papers straight away?  In Texas, the father can sign at any time, but the mom CANNOT sign the papers until at least 48 hours after giving birth, to make sure she is not under the influence of pain meds etc.  Even then she doesn't have to sign, and sometimes it happens that having spent time with her baby, she decides not to place.  Then there is a lot of hurt for the adoptive parents that had been chosen, but they knew that possibility going in. 

The current adoption laws are not perfect - far from it.  But that is not your point.  Your point is about coercion.  For the sake of argument, could you provide a current day example of how a woman might be coerced into placing her child for adoption, from the discovery of her pregnancy up to the coercion?

Today's standards are different.  Society dictates, through it's moral relativism: it's okay to have an out of wedlock pregnancy; it's okay to be a single parent; it's okay and perfectly legal to have an abortion.  Women are empowered and have the freedoms to do what they want - they want choice - and they have choice.

The bottom line is that a pregnant woman needs to know about all of her parenting choices so that she can make an informed decision.  I have heard, time and again, of women who aborted that say they may have chosen life if they knew the truth about adoption.

I am sad to say, that because of opinions like yours, adoption continues to be frowned upon as a parenting choice in much of society and abortion remains king.

[aviana]

One last thing. Here's what the Bible says about you, and your support of the ATROCITY of ripping babies from their mothers' arms through these coercive tactics:

"The WICKED snatch fatherless children from their mother's breasts, and take a poor man's baby as a pledge before they will loan him any money or grain." Job 24:9

Quoting bible versus needs to be done in context.  This suggests that the child being snatched was actually loved and wanted by the mother - yes - that is a wicked and evil act.  Abominable.  However, think about the unwanted children.  That is the issue here.  You know about the Safe Haven laws?  Many women are taking their babies to a designated safe place and leaving them, relinquishing their rights as a mother.  We have to make provision for the unwanted babies and children. Prospective adoptive parents would say there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

btw, you know that there are great examples of adoption in the bible?  Moses was adopted.  His own mother deliberately placed him in that basket, in the Nile, to save him from certain death, knowing that he would be found.  Jesus was adopted by Jospeh as his earthly father.  Mordecai adopted Esther...

You mentioned that open adoption is only enforced in three states.  I cannot vouch for that, but what you imply and what that means are two different things.  Enforcing an open adoption means that if either of the parties decide to stop contact, the law states that they must continue with the agreed level of contact.  In other states, yes, it could not be enforced.  Adoption law needs massive reform, and it is happening.  It needs to be consistent, and we are far from it.  But does that mean we should give up?

It's a LIE with the singular purpose of overcoming a mother's reluctance to giving up the child she so deeply loves.

Yes that happened in the past - but not today.

Tell me Phoenix...  would you rather see a woman abort her baby that choose life?

[Pheonix Renewed]

I cannot believe that ANYONE can continue to be so staggeringly uninformed about the truth about adoption. Anyone who has contact with any woman who is pregnant, is considered to be an "adoption professional." Doctors are taught how to overcome objections. People at PP are paid kickbacks for referrals to adoption agencies. Doctors, nurses, and various other "adoption professionals" are paid kickbacks for referring mothers to adoption agencies.

You are trying to claim that "adoption professionals" are only those who are working at agencies, and social workers. This is not true by even the tiniest margins. There are no specific "adoption professionals," because ANYONE who can tell mothers that adoption is THE only LOVING option, are considered ADOPTION PROFESSIONALS. That means that if the receptionist mentions adoption to a mother, SHE becomes an "adoption professional." AND she can get kickbacks from adoption agencies if she directly refers a mother to them.

I don't know where you got your little Q and A there, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of adoptions come through DOCTORS offices to begin with. The DOCTORS send the young, single, poor mother to a social worker (or calls the social worker in), where the social worker follows their agenda... that of removing babies from poor families. THAT IS THE JOB OF SOCIAL WORKERS when it comes to children.... TAKE CHIILDREN AWAY FROM POOR PEOPLE, and if the child is young enough, sell the child to middle class people. Keep them silent about the epidemic of infertility in our country.

You know nothing at all about the adoption system. You know nothing about the coercive tactics used on women.

Do you know about "dear birthmother" letters? The woman hasn't even relinquished yet, but she's ALREADY A BIRTHMOTHER. She has already been told that HER ONLY JOB in this child's life IS BIRTH. Period.

Once a woman says the word "adoption," she is bombarded by how many POOR DEAR couples WANT a child SO BADLY. About how she's obviously making the right decision (even if she hasn't actually... you know... MADE THE DECISION). She is told that she must take care of THE baby (not HER baby) by eating well, etc. She is called a birthmother, and from the moment she says she's CONSIDERING adoption, she is treated like she WILL do the adoption. She said the magic word... and now she's money.

Adoption is a VERY lucrative INDUSTRY. IT's about MONEY. 1.8 billion dollars a year IN PURE PROFIT off of selling children.

Adoption DOES NOT save babies from abortion. Abortion or no abortion = the first choice for any woman considering it at all. NOT "adoption... or abortion... hmmm?" Abortion, or no. That's the first choice.

THEN, if the woman chooses no abortion, the choice is "parent or give it away?" This is where the pirhanas like you come into the picture. Suddenly she's hearing, "well, adoption is so wonderful." She doesn't hear, "well, you know, you CAN do this. Women do it all the time. YOUR child NEEDS YOU." No, she hears about how adoption will SAVE her child from abortion (only, she was never going to abort).

The psychological pain and suffering of women who have lost children to adoption, even so-called WILLINGLY, is far worse than the suffering that women who have had abortions have. Women who have had abortions suffer psychological trauma, but women who have lost their children to adoption suffer PTSD on a level that rivals that of men in the battlefields.

And what about the psychological suffering of adoptees? That's OKAY, because they're not dead?

Of course, they wouldn't suffer this psychological suffering, if they could STAY WITH THEIR FAMILIES, but... that's just not important, because we can't get past the LIE that it's "adoption or abortion."

PARENTING IS THE LOVING OPTION.

There is NO "adoption saves babies from abortion." Abortion is one choice... adoption OR PARENTING is another.

You are part of the eugenics lie. You support the moving of children from poor families to middle class wealthy couples. THAT IS ALL ADOPTION IS ABOUT, taking children away from the poor and SELLING THEM to wealthy couples. This keeps people quiet about the infertility, and it causes secondary infertility in the mother who has lost her child FOREVER.

Do you know anything about the adoption laws?  You know they are now structured so that the birth mother has as many rights as the child?  Pre 1973, it was all about pleasing the adoptive parents with the perfect baby.  You know that a birth mom does not have to sign her relinquishment papers straight away?  In Texas, the father can sign at any time, but the mom CANNOT sign the papers until at least 48 hours after giving birth, to make sure she is not under the influence of pain meds etc.  Even then she doesn't have to sign, and sometimes it happens that having spent time with her baby, she decides not to place.  Then there is a lot of hurt for the adoptive parents that had been chosen, but they knew that possibility going in.

Well gosh. How sad. The adopters might not get to buy a baby. DAMN THAT BITCH TO HELL FOR HURTING THE POOR PARENTS! Because you know, SHE AIN'T A PARENT! Yeah, that's not coercive. Think about the POOR adopters and how it will SO HURT THEM if you change your mind! OMG! The SUFFERING OF THE POOR ADOPTERS! I mean, you will live with a LIFETIME of AGONY from having LOST A CHILD... your child will grieve the loss of HER MOTHER for her whole life.... BUT THINK OF THE POOR ADOPTERS!!!

As far as not signing the papers straight away... ARE YOU KIDDING ME WITH THAT CRAP?? Right away? 48 hours to LOSE YOUR CHILD FOREVER... but that's NOT RIGHT AWAY?!?!

Doctors won't let women make the choice to have their tubes tied while pregnant, BECAUSE SHE'S NOT IN THE RIGHT MIND TO MAKE LIFETIME DECISIONS... but it's perfectly okay to take advantage of the bonding chemicals in her bloodstream and bond her to a couple and then tell her that she's just a BIRTHMOTHER... AND HAVE HER SIGN AWAY HER BABY FOR LIFE?!?!

Do you THINK before you say things like "not straight away, I mean, 48 hours!" like that's a LONG time?!

A child got to stay with his mother. A mother got to keep her child. A FAMILY. A REAL family, not a replacement family. And all you can say is, "a lot of hurt for the people who didn't get to buy that baby"? You ARE part of the THEFT of babies from their mothers.

"The WICKED snatch fatherless children from their mother's breasts, and take a poor man's baby as a pledge before they will loan him any money or grain." Job 24:9

The current adoption laws are not perfect - far from it.  But that is not your point.  Your point is about coercion.  For the sake of argument, could you provide a current day example of how a woman might be coerced into placing her child for adoption, from the discovery of her pregnancy up to the coercion?

I'll follow this post up with lots and lots and lots of examples. You want examples, I got examples, coming out the wazoo.

The bottom line is that a pregnant woman needs to know about all of her parenting choices so that she can make an informed decision.  I have heard, time and again, of women who aborted that say they may have chosen life if they knew the truth about adoption.

I am sad to say, that because of opinions like yours, adoption continues to be frowned upon as a parenting choice in much of society and abortion remains king.

I promise you this. Upon the grave of my REAL mother, I promise you this.

I will not stop until BOTH are a thing of the past, or until I'm dead, too.

Quoting bible versus needs to be done in context.  This suggests that the child being snatched was actually loved and wanted by the mother - yes - that is a wicked and evil act.  Abominable.  However, think about the unwanted children.  That is the issue here.  You know about the Safe Haven laws?  Many women are taking their babies to a designated safe place and leaving them, relinquishing their rights as a mother.  We have to make provision for the unwanted babies and children. Prospective adoptive parents would say there is no such thing as an unwanted child.

btw, you know that there are great examples of adoption in the bible?  Moses was adopted.  His own mother deliberately placed him in that basket, in the Nile, to save him from certain death, knowing that he would be found.  Jesus was adopted by Jospeh as his earthly father.  Mordecai adopted Esther...

You mentioned that open adoption is only enforced in three states.  I cannot vouch for that, but what you imply and what that means are two different things.  Enforcing an open adoption means that if either of the parties decide to stop contact, the law states that they must continue with the agreed level of contact.  In other states, yes, it could not be enforced.  Adoption law needs massive reform, and it is happening.  It needs to be consistent, and we are far from it.  But does that mean we should give up?
Yes that happened in the past - but not today.

Tell me Phoenix...  would you rather see a woman abort her baby that choose life?

Children who are placed for adoption are almost always loved and wanted. In fact, THAT is how they manage to get the mother to do THE LOVING ACT of adoption.

Because think for half a second, if you can. WHY WOULD THEY SELL IT TO MOTHERS WHO DON'T LOVE THEIR CHILDREN AS A LOVING ACT???

[Pheonix Renewed]

Open adoption, the WONDER of it... oh yeah:

In October of 1995, I received an introductory package from Small Miracles, a local adoption agency in Englewood, Colorado, USA. In it I received a Cover Letter and various other informational items.


I subsequently contacted the agency and began to pursue my options for an "Open Adoption". I thought this was the best answer possible to my difficult situation. I could provide a stable home for my as yet unborn child, and not have the fear that she would never know who I was. I realize the importance of maintaining ties to the Birthfamily, and that is why I wanted to maintain contact.


I signed the Adoption Agreement, and as I did I noted that in the agreement there was a time period following the Birth of my daughter, in which I was free to change my mind and regain custody, if that was my desire. Above all it was stressed to me, both by the agency and the "prospective" parents, that my desires and wishes would be followed, and we were all bound by the promises in the Adoption Agreement.


After my daughter was born I gave physical custody of her to Small Miracles and the prospective adoptive parents under the terms and conditions outlined in our agreement.


The following three weeks were filled with what-ifs and doubts as to whether I had made the right decision. I was worried that the agreements of the adoption wouldn't be kept. I finally came to the realization that I did not want to place my daughter and that I wanted her back.

During a conversation with my 'counsler' at Small Miracles I was forced into making a decision to relinquish or not. At that moment I told the counselor I wanted my baby back. Instead of her assuring me I would regain custody of my daughter as stated in the Agreement, the woman on the phone informed me that I would now have to undergo an evaluation by Social Services to determine whether or not I was FIT TO PARENT my own daughter! They never informed me as to which Social Services office would have to investigate or how I was supposed to proceed.

I was then told by Small Miracles that a man by the name of Jeff Levenhar would do the evaluation. That was the OWNER of the Agency, so how could he be qualified as an attorney to do an evaluation of my parenting capacity and skills? When I pointed this out the woman at the agency stated that indeed he was qualified.


I then pointed out that as the owner of the Adoption Agency he had a vested interest in the adoption and therefore should be barred from evaluating me because it was a conflict of Interest. Well, it seems that this is not a concern for Small Miracles, and why should it be, after all they are the ones who stand to gain by his role in the evaluation! He will then be the one who decides whether they lose 40% of the Adoption Fee or not. Plainly what I call a stacked deck, and it's not in the Natural parents favor by a long shot!

The agency rep then told me I would have to go and get my daughter. I was glad to do this, if only they would have told me WHERE I was supposed to find her! I asked her to give me the address, tell me where my baby was. She refused!


I was then informed that the adoption agency would go to court and have me declared abandoned of my daughter! How could I have abandoned her when I am begging for them to tell me where she is so I can get her?

I was told that the adoption would proceed without me! I was scared and I didn't doubt for a minute that they would have me declared unfit without my knowledge or go to court without me. I had refused to go to the first relinquishment hearing because of this whole mess.

When my daughter was 5 weeks old, 2 weeks after I had informed Small Miracles that I wanted my daughter BACK, I received a letter from my Daughter's Prospectiv Adoptive Parents. Now, keep in mind that all the conversations between me and the Agency workers are supposed to remain confidential. The Adoptive people's letter to me addressed every one of the reasons I told the Agency Worker I wanted my daughter back. How could they have known WHY I was reconsidering relinquishment?


There is only one answer and that is the Small Miracles breached the contract I had signed, that stated that our conversations would not be repeated to the prospective parents. It is my belief that the adoption agency shared my thoughts in an effort to try and brainwash me into signing over my baby to them and coached the 'prospective' adopters so they could say and do what I wanted to hear and see in their efforts to coerce my daughter from me. Why wouldn't they? The adoption agency and the adopters lose money and the adoptive parents lose custody in matters like this, BUT that is the risk that they take, adopters enter into adoption knowing this.

Efforts to see my daughter as per the agreement (see prospective adoptive woman's letter to me) resulted in this farce of a letter from Brenda. Brenda KNEW I wanted my baby back as she attended two meetings with me. One at a Village Inn and the other at the offices of Small Miracles. Brenda's Letter

I couldn't allow my daughter to be stolen away from me so eventually I ended up hiring a lawyer to help me reclaim my child. I am not financially "privileged" and it was hard to pay for the attorney fees, BUT my daughter was worth it!

The relinquishment hearing were far from objective as they were presided over by the MAGISTRATE Judge Schwartz, herself an adoptive mother. How can an adoptive mother hear cases and rule in favor of justice when decisions that favor a natural parents could have bearing on her PERSONAL life? Is this not a classic form of CONFLICT OF INTEREST? If she were to serve on a jury in a case involving adoption wouldn't she most likely be excused? Apparently this is not a concern in the Arapahoe County Colorado Court System.

In my case, Judge Schwartz ruled on my motion to set aside the relinquishment before she even held a hearing on the matter! Or Small Miracles could submit an answer. She had to have ignored the documents and letters we provided with our complaint.


 

Judge Schwartz also ignored a Federal Mandate that comes into play in my case because my daughter is part American Indian. According to the Indian Child Welfare Act, every possible effort is supposed to be made to place an Indian Child in an Indian Family so she is assured of learning of his culture and Birthrights. Small Miracles, and Judge Schwartz blatanly chose to ignore this Federal Law. Is this not a crime? Shouldn't Judge Schwartz be forced to resign from her position because of this? Again, not according to the Arapahoe County Courts!

Upon receiving her decision I immediately asked for a review by Judge Schwartz's superior, Judge Stuart. He in turn vacated Schwartz's original decision and remanded the case back to her court for a review. Judge Schwartz is an adoptive parent herself. I had no chance of winning my case as long as she presided over my case.


The review never came. Instead of an explanation and proof of a formal review, Judge Schwartz made her final judgement before the time period even ran out. She simply stated that her decision stood for all the reasons she outlined before. Nothing more was said. Should she not be forced to detail what she did to review the case? Apparently there are no provisions in place to assure that even when ordered to by the court, that a judge will competently re-review a case. Furthermore, why should the judge who made the initial decision be ALLOWED to review it? Shouldn't it go to another judge? How can a judge even allow himself to consider turning over his own verdict, wouldn't this serve only to discredit himself? Surely it is common sense that this would be considered a flawed procedure and a drastic miscarriage of justice!

After her Final Judgement I was crushed. I couldn't afford to file an appeal and all for a situation that should never have been allowed to continue past the first day of my phone call when my daughter was just 3 weeks old.

In a last ditch attempt to procure justice for myself and my daughter I wrote a personal plea to Judge Stuart. I thought surely he would remember the case and surely he would see the corruption I had pointed out to him.

Instead of taking action to stop this horrendous nightmare, Judge Stuart simply informed me that the ONLY remedy I had available was an Appeal. As I said I couldn't afford the attorney's fees for this situation, so once again the adoption industry prevails over the Natural parents, with no hope for redemption.

Now, all I can do is sit and wonder. Wonder, will her adopters fill her head with lies about me? How could they tell her the real truths?

I wonder, will they even keep their promise and tell her she is adopted? Or will they serve their selfish needs to remain in control of my child?

IF they do tell my daughter, will she see through the lies? Will my daughter know that I love her to this day with all that is me? Will she know that I fought for her till there was no way I could continue?

Will my daughter know of the countless nights I have spent crying, not knowing whether I will ever see her again?

My daughter deserves to know the truth! How can I trust that she will be given that opportunity? How can I trust the promises of those who vowed to respect my wishes and then turned their backs to keep their prize?

Yes, World, the Baby Selling Trade is alive and well in Colorado as well as across the United States.

"Open" Adoption? Will your loved one be next?

http://www.exiledmothers.com/open_adoption/shasmith95.html

[aviana]

You are very, very, very wrong. The coercion still happens<snip>

Lastly, I am interested in knowing where and who is doing this coercion.  I really want to see evidence or solid examples.  Because if that truly is the case, it needs to be addressed.

[Pheonix Renewed]

More exploitaton and coercion:

"I so desperately wanted to believe i had done the right thing"
by Jessica

My dear fellow natural mothers,

My name is Jessica, aged 31 from Malaysia, an Asian country bounded by reputation and honor.

In Sept 1999, I found myself pregnant three months from my relationship with my ex-fiance with whom i have already broken-up two months before.

When contacted he only wanted an abortion. I decided for single motherhood. My own mother threatened to kill me and my baby. Ironically she her self is a single parent after my father left her when i was born.

I was too ashamed to confide in family member and relied on the help of a father figure, a master from a spiritual movement. He offered to help me out financially and advised me to quit my job. He claimed he knew the spiritual nature of my child and that the child is someone important for his movement. Being a humanitarian wanting to sacrifice for the future of the world i was, i believed every word he said. When i was seven months pregnant, he suddenly told me that he wont be able to help me financially because he had lost some money. I did not have money to buy food, or medical bills or even maternity clothes as my own saving had run out by then. That was when he suggested that i should consider adoption.

He said all the words listed on your website:

"That i was not fit to be a mother"
"That my baby required a two parent family"
"That i am doing whats best for my chiild"

and even more,
"That my sacrifice would benefit the whole world"
"That i would evolve spiritually"

I flatly refused. But things got harder and I didnt even have enough money ready for my delivery. By the time i was nine months pregnant i was surviving on rice and fried eggs. Why i never got out it, i can never answer. I was staying in a house in a remote town so that 'to stay away from unwanted eyes" and my only companion was a dog. The master would visit once forthnightly.

Around the eighth month he brought a couple who i knew from the same movement to see me. They have been childless for seven years. They were extremely caring in my state and he suggested that i should go and live with them in my last month in case of any emergency.

I did not want to but he forced me and said he had to give up the house.

He then brought up the issue of adoption again. When I refused he said perhaps I should consider an open adoption and he says that my baby will stay with the couple until I was back on my feet. He told me to trust him. He claim to be a spiritual master-in fact someone next to God coming to save the world. How could I not trust him...

My daughter was born a day before my birthday on 7th of Feb 2000. I signed no paper. Everything was arranged by them. The master insisted i breast fed for a month so that the baby will get the proper nutrition. Then he told me to go to a different city to help do some work for him. I had hardly recovered from my delivery. When I refused to go, he said that I have failed him as a disciple.

So despite every single heartstring i felt pulling within my soul, i packed my bags for two weeks like he told me. That was the last i saw of my baby. The couple did not want to take my calls and the master told it was all for my good.

I dripped of breast milk for 2 months, each baby i saw on T.V. or heard from next door, even baby clothes from supermarket tore out of my heart and i went out of my mind. I never stopped crying for even 1/2 hour straight. i have no idea how i lived. I became a living dead. Still i had faith in what the master was doing and hoped one day, I will see my daughter Maria agaiin. I so desperately wanted to believe i had done the right thing like the master said though every single nerve in my body was screaming out NOOO!!!

After one and a half years, I saw her. The couple perhaps felt it was safe enough to bring her out in front of me in the presence of the master. but that was their biggest mistake.

I knew instantly i had to get her back, and one look of her thin body, I knew her soul was missing me.

I left the movement, told the master to go to hell and am now in midst of legal proceedings to get her back. But they are being difficult. In desperation i searched the internet for some solace, to know whether there are others like me out there and i landed on this website and i felt i had arrived! I know now that God would not want a mother to be cheated out of her child -- weren't mothers created because God could'nt be eveywhere everytime?? Only the selfishness and cruelty in a human heart could cause so much of suffering to a mother's heart.

I have a question to every woman out there who has adopted a child knowing the mother is suffering out there: How could YOU as a fellow woman and an aspiring mother live with yourself after such a betrayal of love and trust of the grieving mother and that child in your hands that will never be yours no matter how much you'd like to pretend to be??? It is only when you have truly understood and experienced a mother's grief, are you qualified to be a mother yourself. Causing sorrow to a mother by taking away her child is the greatest treachery you can do unto your own soul. Put a stop to this pain!!

I pray for all the exiled mother to be reunited in love with their children again and please pray that my Maria will be safely back in my arms again very soon. I need your love & strength.

http://www.exiledmothers.com/babies_taken_for_adoption/jessica.html

[Pheonix Renewed]

More:

"I feel lost without her...." - Katharine

My name is Katharine. I am a young, unwed mother, 16 years of age. I, too, feel the pain of losing my first born. I love her very, very much. I gave birth to my daughter, Erin Michelle, on January 7th 2002. I remember my first experience, when they first gave me the looks and stares. I went to tour the hospital that I would be giving birth in, all the nurses -- mean old women -- just stared at me. I heard their whispers from down the hall. That was just the beginning, then came deciding what would happen to my child.

My parents refused to help me raise her. My boyfriend of two years would abandon me if I kept her. My attorney told me the law would take her away if I kept her. I was lost. I was in a whirlpool of social workers, doctors, parents, and my boyfriend telling me that adoption was the unselfish thing to do. I was totally and completely brainwashed. These were adults, didn't they know what was best? I was wrong, dead wrong.

On January 7th, I put my daughter in the arms of her adopters. I had a horrible mess of tears in my eyes, she was my flesh and blood! She was the beautiful creation of my boyfriend and I, she was everything to me.

Now days have gone by and I sit in my room and cry. I am her mother and she needs to be with me, I love her and feel totally lost without her to love.

Mother and daughter belong together. Now I can't help but push my boyfriend away when he tries to hug me, and I snap so easily at him on the phone. I haven't bothered being polite and nice to our attorney, after all I listened to the people I trusted, the people who were supposed to help me, not break me!!! I feel lost without her....

http://www.exiledmothers.com/babies_taken_for_adoption/katherine.html

[Pheonix Renewed]

Father don't count, I guess...

Infant Adoption - Fathers Losing Their Own Precious Sons and Daughters to Adoption 

 In 1984, a 22-year-old woman learned she was pregnant. She and her baby's father were separated. The dad was not wealthy and neither was the mom. Her "Christian" parents were middle-class, but they said that to help her out with her baby would be committing a mortal sin - she must "give" her baby away. She reluctantly told the baby's father ... and not long afterwards he committed suicide.

Fathers often suffer over the loss of their children. Other fathers are relieved when their child is adopted because they don't have to bother with child support. If they are planning to run for office or they are religious leaders, they are more concerned about public opinion than they are about their own son or daughter. Sadly, the Dads who want to abandon their children get better treatment in our society than the Dads who want to take responsibility. By "society" I mean the United States of America.

This page is dedicated to fathers who lost their babies to adoption. The adoption promoters say you are just "birthfathers". We say you are real father - you are heros - if you tried to support and love your child and work with his mother.

Though we are dismayed that the disparaging word "unwed" and "birthfather" is used in this article, we applaud the dad who tries to take responsibility for his wonderful child.

 

From the New York Times:

Single ("Unwed") Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers
By TAMAR LEWIN
Published: March 19, 2006


Jeremiah Clayton Jones discovered that his former fiancée was pregnant just three weeks before the baby was due, when an adoption-agency lawyer called and asked if he would consent to have his baby adopted.


Jeremiah Clayton Jones, who failed to file with a state registry for unwed fathers, is appealing the termination of his parental rights.


"I said absolutely not," said Mr. Jones, a 23-year-old Arizona man who met his ex-fiancée at Pensacola Christian College in Florida. "It was an awkward moment, hearing for the first time that I would be a father, and then right away being told, 'We want to take your kid away.' But I knew that if I was having a baby, I wanted that baby."

 


Please click on the link below to read the rest of this article about "birthfathers" and adoption:

"Unwed" Fathers Fight for Babies Surrendered to Adoption by Mothers

 

In many states, a dad has to sign the "Putative Father's Registry" IN ADVANCE or he - and his child - are essentially SCREWED.

Eric L. Smith has written extensively about the Putative Father's registry and we suggest you look up all his articles.

Because the laws differ from state to state, adoption businesses often MOVE THE NAIVE MOM TO A DIFFERENT STATE TO GET A BABY TO SELL TO CUSTOMERS. The adoption businesses make money. Infertile people and gay people get babies. Babies get "replacement" parents in spite of the fact that they have real moms and/or dads that love them.

http://www.exiledmothers.com/babies_taken_for_adoption/fathers.htm

[Pheonix Renewed]

How it's done (how adoption "professionals" are taught to groom women to give up their babies-- willing or not):

'Unwed' Mothers - Common Coercion Tactics Used by 'Professionals' to Get Babies for Adoption

     Below is a list of some common practices used systemically by the adoption industry on unwed mothers (and grandparents-to-be) in English-speaking nations from about 1950-onwards, as means of obtaining babies for adoption. These tactics might variously have been applied by social workers, clergy, "adoption facilitators," nurses, nuns, clergy, doctors or others with a vested interest in obtaining a baby to broker for adoption.

A. Psychological Coercion. Purpose: To convince you that you were unfit as a mother and thus had to give your baby to people "more fit' or "more deserving."

"Adoption Professionals" Techniques:

You were told you that you were unfit to be a mother because you were unwed.
You were told that you would be inadequate as a mother.
You were told that keeping your baby would be selfish.
You were forced to draw up a list comparing what you could give to your baby with what adopters could give.
It was stressed to you that your baby "needed a two-parent family."
It was stressed to you that the needs of your baby came before your own needs and that you could not fulfill your baby's needs.
The doctor who delivered your baby told you that you must sign-over your baby to him for adoption. (Did you later find out that the baby was adopted by friends of the doctor?)
You were told that if you did not surrender your baby, that your baby would be put into foster care until you did sign.
You are told that surrendering your baby is an expression of how much you love your baby (message: if you keep your baby then you don't love your baby).
You are told that adoption is "thinking about what is best for your baby." (message: adoption is best for your baby).
You are told that adoption is "putting your baby's needs first." (i.e., before your own needs. Message: your baby does not need you.)


B. Psychological Coercion. Purpose: To convince you that you have an emotional obligation to surrender your baby.

Methods used by "Adoption Professionals":

You were told to think only of the joy that you'd "give to a couple who could not have children of their own."
You were told that if you changed your mind, you would be disappointing a wonderful mother who was "waiting for her first baby."
You were told that you could not keep your baby as your baby has been promised to someone already.
You were encouraged to have the adopters pay your medical or living expenses such that you felt you "owed" them your baby.
You were encouraged to meet with the adopters and after meeting them felt you could not bear to disappoint them by choosing to keep your baby
You were encouraged to establish a relationship with the adopters, and then "fell in love with" with them prior to surrender.
You were told by your parents that you could come home once you had "disposed of the problem" (i.e. surrendered your baby).
You were encouraged to have the adopters in the labour or delivery room with you, for the birth of "their" baby, and thus you felt you could not bear to disappoint them by "changing your mind."

C. Psychological Coercion. Purpose: To remove from you all personal support systems and make you reliant on adoption professionals for advice, counselling and emotional support. To distance you from any person who might try to provide alternatives to surrender.

Methods used by "Adoption Professionals":

Your family members or boyfriend were discouraged by adoption professionals from helping you..
Your family members and/or boyfriend were prohibited from seeing you.
You were incarcerated by your parents in a maternity home or wage home where adoption was stressed as "the loving option" and/or "the only option."
Contact with your parents, boyfriend, fiance, etc. was restricted by the agency, maternity home, or social worker(s).
Your correspondence in or out of the maternity home or wage home was screened.
Telephone use was restricted in the maternity home or wage home.
Your boyfriend was lied to by adoption professionals that the baby was not his.
You were told that your parents were coercing you by encouraging you to keep your baby, that "they only want to be grandparents."
You were encouraged to distrust anyone who didn't support you surrendering your baby.


D. Psychological Coercion. Purpose: To psychologically and physically distance you from your baby in order to increase the probability that you would surrender. To ensure that surrender of your baby was seen by you a "inevitable."

Methods used by "Adoption Professionals":

Your baby was taken from you at birth by either medical professionals or prospective adopters.
Your access to your baby in the hospital was severely restricted by medical and/or nursing staff.
You were put into a ward other than the maternity ward for recovery, a distance away from your baby.
Your baby was immediately transferred without your consent to a different hospital.
While still pregnant you were labelled a "birthmother," to put you into the mind-set that your only role in the life of your child was to give birth.
You asked for your baby and were told "No!"
You were told that you were not allowed to see your baby unless/until you signed the surrender papers.
You asked for your baby and were told that it was best that you did not see your baby.
You were given general anesthetic for the birth and kept under anesthetic until your baby was removed for adoption.
You were given mind-altering drugs such as scopalamine by medical staff for several days after the birth in order to induce amnesia.
Your signature was obtained while under the influence of mind-altering drugs administered to you by medical staff..
The drug Stilboestrol was administered to you as a lactation suppressant without your consent.
You asked for your baby back and the adopters stalled until the "revocation of consent" period had expired.

E. Psychological Coercion. P urpose: To psychologically traumatize you to decrease the chances of you bonding with your baby.

Methods used by "Adoption Professionals":

Information about labour and delivery was deliberately kept from you such that you were scared and traumatized by the unfamiliar process once labour began.
You were left isolated and alone during labour.
If there was a hospital attached to the maternity home, were you and other inmates forced to dispose of the placentas?
You were physically assaulted and/or mutilated by hospital personnel during labour and/or birth (see "Catherine's Story")
You were called derogatory names or otherwise derided by doctors, nurses or medical personnel during your pregnancy, labour or birth.
The episiotomy was cut, or sewn-up, without anesthesia.
The episiotomy cut thru ligaments, was cut down your leg, or was otherwise unnecessarily large.

F. Financial Coercion. Purpose: To make you feel financially pressured to surrender. Note: young single mothers are often in a financially-vulnerable situation anyway and thus financial coercion is often a major factor.

You are told, or led to believe, that no social assistance was available that would provide you with the financial support necessary to enable you to keep your baby.
You are told near or after the birth that if you change your mind, you would be liable for paying for medical bills or other costs beyond your ability to pay.
The hospital refused to release your baby to you unless you pay them a large sum of money beyond your ability to pay.

G. Fraud. Purpose: To guarantee the surrender of your child.

Methods used by "Adoption Professionals":

Your baby was taken immediately into foster care with no explanation and kept there with the location kept secret from you until the social worker could use "abandonment" as a basis for revoking your parental rights.
You were told at some point that the adoption was "final" and found out later that it wasn't.
You were told that your baby had died at birth and later found this was false. Note, this is known in the adoption industry as "rapid adoption" - see the article "Rapid Adoptions." ALL single mothers who were told that their baby was stillborn and were not permitted to see the body should demand to see the certificate of death!
You were told that the adoption was "final" and found out later that it wasn't at that point in time.
You were told that there were no other alternatives. (information about social assistance was withheld from you).
You were led to believe that a promise of open adoption was a legally-binding agreement and the adoption later closed.
You were told you would "get over it" and be able to return to your "normal life."
The documents were signed by someone else forging your signature without your knowledge or consent.
You were informed after signing a "pre-birth consent" that it would be held binding in a court-of-law.

H. Withholding information from the mother. Purpose: To you to surrender by withholding known information about risks or negative consequences.

Methods used by "Adoption Professionals":

Information withheld about the known lifelong implications, risks, and emotional consequences of surrender (see www.birthmothers.info for information adoption professionals are aware of but commonly withhold)
Information withheld about options that would enable you to keep your baby (i.e. financial assistance, temporary foster care, foster care for you and your child together, temporary guardianship, or filing through court for child support from your baby's father)
Information withheld about your right to independent legal counsel to explain the legal document you were signing and the legal ramifications of it and to be present in the room to protect your rights as you signed it.
Information withheld about the existence of a "revocation of consent" period.
You were not permitted to read the documents you were signing.
You were not given a copy of the documents you signed.
You were pressured to decide on adoption while still pregnant, or to surrender your infant without being able to first care for your infant for several weeks post-partum in order to make an informed decision about motherhood?
Information withheld from you about your right to take as many days, weeks or months as you needed before deciding on adoption, if you decided on it at all.
Information withheld about your right to care-for and nurture your baby in the hospital.
Information withheld about your right to take your baby home from the hospital with you.


In Contrast: Your Rights as a Mother:

These are some of the rights that may have been denied to you, no matter what your age or social situation was when you gave birth:

You had the right to see your baby after he/she was born.

You had the right to hold, nurse, and care for your baby.

You had the right to be told the sex of your baby.
You had the right to independent legal counsel to explain the legal documents were were signing and to be present when you signed them.

You had the right to care for your baby without feeling pressured to decide about adoption within ANY certain time period.
You had the right to adequate financial support which would have enabled you to keep and raise your baby.
These rights come from application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html), which has since 1948 guaranteed ALL citizens of Canada, the U.S. and other nations these protections:

Article 12. - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, FAMILY, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.


Article 16(3) - The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


Article 25(1) - Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
DECISION: The ability to make a fully-informed, non-coerced choice between two or more viable options. Starvation, homelessness, or harm to our children are NOT viable options.


How They Committed a Crime by Taking Our Babies.

Abduction is illegal in most civilized nations. Example: the Criminal Code of Canada (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/42433.html) states, "(281) Abduction of Person Under Fourteen - Every one who, not being the parent ... unlawfully takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbours that person with intent to deprive a parent ... of the possession of that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."

" They had no "legal authority" to take our children away from us any more than they would have had the legal authority to do it to an older, married mother. If your baby was taken and withheld from you before you signed any surrender papers, it was abduction.

http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/adoption_coercion.html

[Pheonix Renewed]

Open adoption. So beautiful....

Open Adoption? "I have learned a life lesson: Never trust anyone." By Amy K. Brown

Hello. I am a 21 year old first mother. I have a story to tell.

At 19 years old I was already a single mother of twins and expecting one more child on the way. This was my son Jacob. My family had told me that if I kept this child that they would be forced not to help me with the two I already had. Well, not receiving child support for the twins, and not having a job, I felt alone and out of options. I had no friends or support of any kind and I was very worried for all of us. So I decided to pursue what I had heard to be "OPEN ADOPTION". I thought this would be the only chance to get to still see my son and still raise the twins I already had the best I knew how.

Then came along the day that I found out that an ex-boss I knew was trying to conceive a child with his wife with no luck. I thought this to be may be the answer I was looking for. So I had a meeting with Tom and Lori. I had always known Tom and liked him very much, but Lori was a stranger. Months passing, we had numerous lunches and phone conversations. Hell, my mother, my twins and I even went to their house for a BBQ and met their whole family. We had become good friends. Tom and Lori fully understood that my wishes were to get to see my son as much as I wanted, and that his brother, sister, and grandmother would also be a part of his life. They totally were not hesitant to agree before me, my friends or my mother. They hired a private attorney and assured me that he would take care of all the paperwork and everything would be great.

The day came when Jacob, now Cade, was to leave the hospital with his new adoptive parents. That was the day that I died. Tom and Lori's last words to me before I left the hospital were :"Don't worry Amy, you will see him very soon. We love you."

When he was two weeks old I went to court to get him back ... I could not take being apart from my son, and I had made myself very ill. My luck was that the judge hearing my case was an adoptive mother and she dismissed my case without even hearing it. Thanks, Judge Rankin!

My son will be two years old next month, and I have only seen him twice. For 30 min. each time.

I still have not given up on trying to find a hole in the Texas state laws. But I have learned a life lesson: "Never trust anyone, and your children are worth the hardships, whatever they may be."

Thank You for reading my story, I hope this helps someone before they make a life altering decision that is forever.

Amy K. Brown

http://www.exiledmothers.com/open_adoption/amy.html

[Pheonix Renewed]

No, no coercion in adoption:

Pregnant and Single? "Coercion in Adoption is Alive and Well in the USA: Tarin's Story" by Tarin's mother, Melinda


Coercion in adoption is alive and well in the USA. The latest and greatest tactic for coercing young mothers into signing a binding consent to adoption is through the use of a pre-birth consent and dual representation. What young person who is inexperienced in legal matters would ever question her own lawyer's dedication and honesty towards her? This misguided trust is a powerful tool used to convince a young mother that she is legally bound to an adoption agreement before she actually is, ensuring her consent will be obtained for the binding relinquishment.

Lawyers are not the only ones using this tactic. Trusting your counsellor is just as automatic as trusting your lawyer. You may spend weeks or months talking with your adoption councilor before giving birth. She seems so sympathetic towards your fears and concerns and is dedicated to reassuring you, and you firmly believe it is your interest only that she cares about. But don't be fooled! If an adoptive family is already chosen she will be sharing with them vital information concerning the things you want to hear so that they will know exactly what to say to you to ensure you do give them your baby.

For my daughter, Tarin, trusting an attorney in dual representation turned out to be the most heartbreaking mistake of her life. It was just two weeks before her due date when she went to see a new doctor, unaware that the receptionist in that doctor's office was on a mission to find a baby for her friend as soon as possible. Prior to that day, Tarin had never even considered the adoption of her child, but agreed to meet with the receptionist's friend for supper after her appointment. Pressure was applied to meet again the next evening with the potential adoptive couple's lawyer.

The lawyer was friendly, and seemed caring, always smiling, laughing and comforting. In no way did she appear threatening or dangerous or corruptly evil. She offered to represent Tarin, free of charge. How much nicer could a lawyer be? The first step was to get a pre-birth consent from both her and the baby's father. "This pre-birth consent does not commit you do the adoption plan," she said. It was only to be a non-binding form to show your intent to continue looking into the option of adoption with them. The potential adoptive father did not want to risk getting his heart broken, and so until you are willing to sign something, to show an intent, he would not agree to meet. Seemed harmless enough, though a day was hardly long enough to give serious consideration to the idea.

Arrangements were made for the signing the following Monday. The meeting began with friendly small-talk and an explanation of the importance of continuing contact between mother and child in what was to be an open adoption with lots of visitation. Once the papers were signed, suddenly the casual non-threatening talk turned to one of legal issues. "We got the judge I wanted. He is an adoptive father," said the lawyer to the potential adoption mother. Seemed innocent enough, but there was more to come.


Tarin's lawyer started explaining that a pre-birth consent's validity was up to the discretion of the judge in the event that either parent chose not to sign again 12 hours after birth. This was said for reassurance of course. It came across as, "don't worry, if Eric doesn't show up at the hospital to sign again, it doesn't matter because a pre-birth consent is binding at the judge's discretion and this judge does consider them binding. Although her words were true to some degree, she failed to specify that this was only in regards to a father's pre-birth consent to adoption. The purpose was to ensure that Tarin and I believed that she was already legally bound to the adoption plan.

"You'll have to sign again after birth, but if you try to change your mind it's going to cost you a huge amount of money," she said. From there the conversation led into what the results would be if either party changed their mind. "What if they change their mind," Tarin asked. The lawyer responded, "then it will cost them a huge amount of money." It was explained to Tarin that it would have to be settled in court and the party who changed her, or their minds would be responsible for the payment of everybody's legal fees. "I will have to withdraw and testify, so you will both have to find new attorneys."

After the friendly, but none-the-less threatening and deceitful discussion about the legal issues, the clincher was in returning to the discussion of visitation. We were again reassured that they were looking forward to frequent visitation from Tarin. But the lawyer made sure she knew that if a conflict occurred and they had to go to court to adopt in a contested adoption, they could decide to close the adoption. Without this concern, the other threats would have had little result. After all, what was there to lose aside from money if she wanted to keep her baby. Contact! Knowing her baby and being a part of her life! That was what she had to lose if she protested.

A week later 8 lb. 5 oz, Katelynn was born, healthy and perfect. Tarin knew the moment she laid eyes on her sweet baby girl she could never stand to no longer be a part of her life. She wanted to take her home. She loved her with all her heart, like no love she had ever dreamed possible. But she also knew that if she did not go through with the adoption, they would take her to court based on her pre-birth consent and that the judge was an adoptive father who considered pre-birth consents to be binding. They would make her pay for everyone's legal fees preventing her from being able to go to college in the fall, and also would never allow her to see her child again. She was devastated.

At 12 hours after birth, the second relinquishment was to be signed. By ten hours after birth, she was so distraught over the thought of the loss of her baby girl she could barely speak. Out of fear of never seeing her daughter again, and with regular reassurances throughout the day from the adoptress that Tarin was welcome at their home any time, at 12 hours after Katelynn's birth, she signed the paper and was shortly released from the hospital, falling apart in hysterical tears immediately upon stepping outside the hospital.

The next morning, she begged me to call a lawyer and see if there was anything she could do to get her baby back. I did, but the news was bad. The lawyer said that once a consent is signed, 12 hours after birth, there was nothing you can do. We went back to the hospital and told the adoptress that it was just too hard and that Tarin wanted her baby back. But she made it clear that was not going to happen. Oh she was nice enough about it. She reassured us that Tarin should stop by every time she was in town and again encouraged her to come by each day during those first three weeks that she would be taking off of work, so they could get better acquainted. Tarin's feeling were attributed to hormones.

Knowing there was nothing to do, and so much to lose if she made any effort to contest, Tarin accepted the visitation and tried to deal with the lose of her daughter. Three weeks later, the adoptress told her that her husband had decided he was not comfortable with the visitation. "If it were up to me, you could come by any time. But he just isn't comfortable with the idea." Tarin would still be able to see her daughter on her birthday, and perhaps another time or two, and she would not cancel the visitation that was already scheduled for next week for her grandmother to meet little Katelynn, but other than that, visits would be few and far between if at all. How could she trust that they would even allow her to see her on her birthday, after they had already lied to her about wanting frequent contact? She knew she could not live with that, and the adoption would be final in two weeks. She hired a lawyer to contest the adoption.

Court was an experience that I still find impossible to believe. We actually thought it was going well. I was the first to testify. While on the witness stand, I was shown a letter that was supposedly given to Tarin at the first meeting. It was suppose to have been written by the adopters' adopted son's natural grandparents. I was asked to identify it. I was familiar with the letter, but by the grace of God, in that one slight moment, my eyes went straight to one word 2/3 down the page. The word, "Jarvis" had been inserted, where on the original letter no last name had been provided.

The adoptress had told me their last name was "Johns" and had encouraged me to call them. But she didn't know their number and "they are very poor" she told me. I wrote down their name and did try to call them later, but there was no "Tom and Barb Johns" listed and so I assumed that because of poverty, they either did not have a phone or were unlisted due to irritating calls from creditors.

The judge then held in his hands, the altered version of that letter and the real letter that did not provide a name. I had testified that this was not the real letter. That the name we had been told was"Johns." The judge even pointed out that even the font was different. This evidence had been altered for court.

Depositions had been done earlier, and the lawyer had admitted that she had made a comment to Tarin about the judge in the case being an adoptive father. However, Tarin's lawyer did not view her statement as coercion, because it was a simple statement of fact, so he did not ask her that question again on the witness stand. When Tarin testified to this statement made by the attorney, the judge instantly doubted her credibility, pointing out how unlikely it was that such a statement had been made on December 20, when he had not been assigned to the case until the day after the baby was born on December 29th. Again, we thought we had them. Though the judge was unaware of this, and the attorney had been dismissed, if the adoptress did not admit the statement had been made, Tarin's attorney would be able to recall the attorney on rebuttal and ask the question again. She would have no choice but to admit that she told Tarin this about the judge, 9 days before there was a judge on the case. To avoid additional related questions on the subject in rebuttal, the adoptress admitted the statement had in fact been made.

Katelynn's father did not want Tarin to win, and he testified for the adopters. His testimony was well rehearsed but when he was subjected to cross-examination, and the same questions were posed in different ways he completely changed his answers. After numerous contradictions, it was obvious that his answers had been rehearsed, so Tarin's lawyer asked him how many times he had met with the adopter's attorney to rehearse his testimony. He answered, "a few." Wanting a specific number, her lawyer asked him how many that was. He said, "once or twice." Well which was it, once or twice, asked Tarin's lawyer. "Once, I think," he answered.

Even Eric's mother joined in on the battle to assist the adopters. While I was under cross examination, I was handed an affidavit, signed by Katelynn 's other grandmother, claiming I had been harassing her and had tried to get her to get Eric to lie for Tarin. Despite the disclosure rules, Tarin's lawyer had never before been given a copy of this. Fortunately, when Malissa took the stand, she completely fell apart and admitted that it was untrue. The deceitful means that these people were willing to go to, many of which involved illegal court activity, was so obvious that it looked like the court process was going well.

The attorney had even admitted to making comments about a pre-birth consent being considered binding but pointed out that in her opinion, though never challenged in a court of law, a father's pre-birth consent is binding, so the statement was true, thus not coercion. It was not her fault Tarin never asked if she was referring to all pre-birth consents or just a father's pre-birth consent. As Tarin's lawyer, it certainly seemed to us that she would have had the obligation to make that difference clear.

The testimony got long and tedious, and difficult questions were asked that could have shown fraudulent and coercive behavior towards her client. Disbarment was an obvious concern. More than 60 times, she would not give a direct answer to questions asked of her. She preceded every difficult answer with words that literally meant that the statement to follow, may or may not be accurate. Again and again, she preceded her answers with, "I would have," "I might have," "I may have," "I probably," and other phrases that protected her from perjury charges if it were later shown that the words that followed these phrases were inaccurate. Her evasion of answers that specified what actually occurred was brought to the attention of the judge, who seems unconcerned by it.

At the time of the pre-birth consent signing, another form was also signed. This form was for the purpose of approving the lawyer's dual representation of both parties. Tarin was asked to sign page 3. At the bottom of page three, the lawyer signed, just below a statement which stated that the adopters had already agreed to the same terms of this contract. Page four was for their signature and consent to the terms, which included the fact that if a conflict developed, the attorney would withdraw and be called to testify against them. Page four was not signed, but we assumed they had already signed another copy and did not question this at the time.

Though every witness for the adopters proved non-credible, though they were clearly caught at having altered evidence, though there was strong indication of manufactured evidence and though many coercive remarks were admitted to, Tarin lost in district court. On appeal, the fact that the lawyer had evaded answering so many questions was brought to the attention of the appellate court, who ruled that in dual representation, once a conflict occurs, the attorney must withdraw from "ONE" but not both of her dual clients. This left the adopters protected under attorney-client rules.

We filed a complaint with the disciplinary administrator, because the lawyer had signed the statement stating that the adopters had agreed that she could testify against them, and yet no such signed agreement was turned over under sopoena order. This is fraud, if she claimed to have their signed consent in order to get Tarin to agree to the terms, but in reality did not have their consent. The lawyer admitted that she did not have their signed consent, but claimed that at the time she signed that paper, saying that they had agreed she could testify against them in the event of conflict, she did have it, but later lost it. The disciplinary administrator saw this as a reasonable explanation for what occurred. Tarin went on to the Kansas State Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, both of which denied her petition for their review. A rehearing request was also denied by the United States Supreme Court in January, 2002.

Immediately following the US Supreme Court denial for review, the United Nations, Human rights Commission was contacted and were interested in hearing more. They had established the office of Special Rapporteur of the sale of children in 1990 to address international adoption fraud problems. In those past 11 years, they had been able to establish that the primary source of the problems in the international adoption industry was the high demand for children by USA citizens. For this reason, they were interested in USA domestic adoption fraud and coercion.

We were able to send the United Nations, a full copy of the court transcripts of everyone's testimony and piles of other evidence. From this they could see that fraud and coercion were not even in dispute. Much had been admitted to, crimes had been clearly proven and not denied, and yet, still, four separate courts declined to return Katelynn to her mother, including the highest federal court in the country. With this much evidence, Dr. Juan Miguel Petit, special Rapporteur on the sale of Children for the United Nations, Human Rights Commission, decided that if evidence could be gathered to show this was not an isolated incident, action could be sought.

It was time to get busy and to persuade other USA victims of adoption fraud and coercion to turn in their stories as well. With the help of internet friends who had themselves lost children to coercive adoption practices, the word spread fast. Articles were sent to the UN showing federal involvement in promoting adoption. Financial motivations were shown, proving that the state governments had financial motivation for permitting fraudulent adoption practices in private, agency and Child Protective Services adoptions. Numerous cases had complaints against the United States Government submitted for action. Court case decisions were sent in, showing that in some states, father's rights to their children had been completely done away with and others showing that when a parent could not parent, priority was given to strangers to adopt, rather than allowing relatives to raise the child.

Fraudulent and coercion tactics in private and agency adoptions were described to the UN and evidence provided. Most importantly, it was shown beyond any shadow of doubt that all three branches of the government were participating together in promoting these coercive and fraudulent practices, defying the basis human rights of parents to raise their own children, and permitting the sale of children who were obtained through fraud and coercion to infertile American couples who could pay tens of thousands of dollars for a baby.

The evidence was so overwhelming that the UN Human Rights commission decided to take the most influential means available in handling the problem. They established a special committee known as a 1503 committee to take over the case, exam the evidence and confront the United States Government with demands of action in both general adoption practices and on some specific cases. This committee takes over on May 24th, 2002, and decisions will be made as to what action will be demanded of the USA government in August 2002. If President Bush refuses to cooperate, the full UN Human Rights commission will vote on what action to take against the United States government in April of 2003. To avoid this, we are hoping that President Bush, realizing the immensity of the evidence will agree to voluntarily take action to stop these coercive adoption practices and to prosecute those responsible in recent cases and to return the youngest of the children involved, to their mothers. Time will tell.


Submitted by Melinda Walmsley

http://www.exiledmothers.com/open_adoption/tarin.html

[Pheonix Renewed]

Open Adoption? "I fought with the adoption agency till he was 6 months old for the visitation I was promised."- Beckie


In October of 1999, I met two people who went by the presumed names of Julie and Bill. I met them at a local restaurant. After talking for about 2 hours, I decided I would like them to adopt my son who was due in March.  After telling them this, they became extremely nice. I invited them to be part of all my doctor’s appointments that they did come to. They said call their cell phone, day or night if I needed them. So I did. 

On March 4 of 2000 I went into labour with my son.  After about 3 hours of hard labor, the baby I named Benjamin Robert Siegel (presumably now renamed Nicholas Glen). They were both present for the delivery and came by a few times when I was in the hospital. While I was in the hospital they promised I could see my son whenever and I could call their cell phone whenever I wanted. They even gave me a letter that says,"This is not the end of our relationship, it’s just the beginning." 

On March 6 (Monday) at about 8pm, I turned my precious son over to these people. Again they promised they would keep in touch. They gave me a post office box number and I already had their cell phone number. They kept their end of the bargain for about 3 months. I requested that they send letters a little less frequently being that it was hard on me. So they did. But then when I was feeling better, I asked they send me more. Well they didn't, they closed their post office box and shut off their cell phone and cut all ties. 

When the baby was about 3 months old. I fought with the adoption agency for 3 months till he was 6 months old for the visitation I was promised.  Finally the agency had Julie contact me. We agreed to meet at a local diner in Oak Park.  We met for about 30 minutes, where both Julie and Bill were very agitated and very jumpy. It was easy to see they did not want to be there. After that meeting they wouldn't keep in touch again! So again I fought with the agency.  Finally they agreed to send a picture a month and sometimes they even did. On Christmas, I bought the baby and his adopted sister some gifts only to find out the new post office box they claimed to have opened wasn't theirs - it wasn't anyones! It was in the name of a lady named Mary Bobeck who had closed the box 9 months before. So who are Julie and Bill?  Are those even their real names? I’m not sure. But the scary part is that this is becoming a wide spread problem and it needs to be stopped. 

So what can I do now? Fight with the agency again?  Fight with the agency all the rest of my life? The answer is no! It’s time the public had a chance to see this. We must open the public’s eyes to the cold hard truth of adoption:  the pros, the cons, and everything that can happen if you’re not made aware of your rights. Too many people will take advantage of a young naive girl in a bad situation, and it has to stop! Please help me on my crusade to end this nightmare.

(Another instance of an open adoption closing. Another instance where it was probably NEVER the adopter's intention that the adoption would remain open. If you can help Beckie in ANY way to regain access to see her son, please contact her at < email removed by me >)

http://www.exiledmothers.com/open_adoption/beckie.html

[Pheonix Renewed]

More open adoption "fun":

Open adoption - Quotes from real moms who lost their own sons and daughters to adoption based on lies:
"I thought that if I gave my son up for adoption he would have a better life. She also promised me that if I did let them adopt my son that I could see him whenever I wanted and nothing would really change. I would always be welcome. A week after I signed the papers, she changed her tune. All of a sudden, I was a 'bitch' for giving up my child. I was an 'irresponsible' parent,etc. My son is now ten-years-old, 'she' has long since divorced her husband and remarried TWICE and her biological son forced my son into doing sexual acts!!!! The courts gave my son back to her!!! Now, none of us sees him at all." - Melinda James, Kansas"


"I had my son when I was 21. Unfortunately, I was much too naive to understand my rights ... I played right into the hands of a couple looking to adopt -- a couple who told me they'd watch him for the few months it took me to get back on my feet during my divorce and getting out of the Army. Well, they took my 18-month-old from me. He's now seven years old now, and I don't know where they are. PLEASE don't let anyone do this to you. Find out what legal assistance is available and don't ever give up! - From a grieving mother, Jennifer from Florida, July 2001"

"Yes, and to anybody considering adoption.. do not fool yourself. I was not stupid. I didn't just pick some couple out of a hat. This couple was perfect on paper. Young, financially secure, passed a homestudy with flying colors. They were sweet, and sympathetic, they praised open adoption and even agreed to include Dylan and my little sister in the openess. Just like most liars, they were good at their lies. I fell for it, hook line and sinker." - Kati, on Adoption Insights

"I promised an open adoption to a first cousin, I fulfilled all my obligations -- she has very cruelly broken hers. She has repeatedly placed my daughter, now 8, in danger due to a meth addiction. She burned their home in 1998 by meth lab, and my daughter is now going through trial -- molested and abused at 4 and 5 -- still being left with single, unstable alcoholics and drug abusers -- and no-one including CPS cares. An illegal adoption by fraud, undue influence, duress, deceit, drugs/narcotics, child endangerment, cruel mental & emotional cruelty to me & my daughter now 8 -- no one cares." - Sonya Tucker from Texas

"I am the natural mother of a adopted child. My mom took her away from me at the age of 16 and gave her to the DSS people. After they took her, they told me I could not get her back and had to give her up for adoption or give her to some one who could not have kids. So a girl friend at school told me she had a brother and his wife who could not have kids, and they wanted her. They told me that I could see her after they got her. They didn't want me to see her. They split-up in three years and moved with her to another state. I found her -- now she is 27 yrs old and doesn't want to see me - she was told that I wanted nothing to do with her." - Donna from South Carolina

"I put my first son up for adoption 12 years ago. This was thru an agency that is still operating out of San Antonio TX. It was supposed to be a 'semi-open' adoption. I was to receive, at minimum, an annual photograph of my child. In the first year of his life, recieved two very nice letters & two sets of photos from the adoptive parents, whose names are Bob and Marianne. After that, they never sent me anything, ever again. I have been pleading with the adoption agency for over a decade to do something, to correct this situation, but they won't do anything. They just give me the same old run-around year after year. I don't know if my son's alive or dead. What was done to me was unethical in the extreme, if not illegal. The agency misled me about what I could expect from them and from the adoptive parents. They took advantage of my youth and ignorance. My son's name is Ben. He'll be 13 in June. I think about him every day and wonder if he's okay." - Heather Webb, TX, USA.

"I waited until my son was 18 and I sent a letter to the address I believe he is living. It was an 'open' adoption in the sense that I know where he lives and got a picture once a year. (I am so grateful to know he is at least outwardly in good shape, but he looks so angry in the pictures.) The letter was delivered and not returned, but there is no contact from him and I am coming to believe he wants none. The anger and fear are fresh, and neither my husband nor my long-time friends understand, though they try. I have told my daughter that I had a baby a long time ago but he couldn't come live with me and it is very sad. That's about all she can handle. One of my worst fears was realized - my son doesn't want anything to do with me. Another huge fear of mine is that my daughter will think I think children are expendable because I 'gave' him up for adoption." - Anne.


"My family didn't believe that I could be a good mother, so they took my babies from me. They needed me to sign the papers, so they told me that I would be able to see my children as much as I wanted. So I did what I thought was best. I was so young. Now my kids live with some family far away and I never get to see them and I never get to talk to them. My heart breaks everyday, and I feel like there is nothing I can do. I miss my children so much." - Shannon, Texas

"The adoptive parents PROMISED me phone calls and pics every month. Well, guess what?? Now they have changed thier phone number and i get no more pics. My son is only almost 4 mos. old. They want to forget that I ever existed. My heart breaks over & over again every morning when i have to wake up without my precious son. There are not even words to describe what i am feeling." - Nancy Horton, Virginia

http://www.exiledmothers.com/open_adoption/index.html

[Pheonix Renewed]

WHY was open adoption created, and WHO BENEFITS? HOW are adoption professionals taught to OVERCOME OBJECTIONS?

Adoption Counselors Training
The following quote shows how moms are coerced to hand over their own sons and daughters for use in adoption:

"OVERCOME OBJECTIONS AND STEREOTYPES"

"Counselors must be trained to give women sound reasons that will counter the desire to keep their babies. One example is to reinforce the notion that it takes a strong, mature woman to place a child for adoption. Honestly addressing the issue of financial survival can be compelling as well. Counselors must communicate that adoption can be an heroic, responsible choice and that the child benefits tremendously ..." - From The Missing Piece: Adoption Counseling In Pregnancy Resource Centers by Curtis J. Young. Family Research Council (2000).

"Successful" Open Adoption
Experts consider an adoption "successful" not based on the outcome for the child - or the outcome for the natural family, but only on getting a baby to "sell" to their customers, the adopters. See this quote from Paul Meding, a Columbia attorney who has been taking adoption cases for 12 years:

For Meding, this process has been successful. “In my opinion, when the birth mother has more input and can see first hand how important the adoption is to the family, it is more difficult for her to back out and disappoint them.” -- Open doors - Adoption doesn’t have to be a secret, by Natasha Whitling, The Columbia Star, April 29, 2005.


The "process" Meding is referring to? Getting a relationship going in advance between the mom and the unrelated people who want to buy her child, so she feels beholden to them.

The History of Open Adoption
On a webpage about adoption history, Bruce Rappaport, PhD of the Independent Adoption Center explains how "open" adoption has helped to get more children from families that might otherwise have kept them. He says he was "struck by how few options were available if fertility treatments did not work".

In the opinion of those adoption agencies and lawyers whose job it was to get babies for people, the fact that people were raising their own kids was a problem. How could they get more children - babies in particular - away from their moms and families?

To make more "options" available to those who wanted to get a baby to use, the adoption attorneys and agencies began to offer "open" adoption. Ostensibly, the ability to select prospective adopters and possibly have some contact helped to "counterbalance" the mom's suffering from the horrendous loss of her child.

Unlike closed adoption, with "open" adoption a mom who surrenders her child can "experience firsthand the new parents’ excitement".With closed adoption, "Ironically the very separation that was supposed to protect the adopting parents from the birthparents' changing their minds, has often resulted in the parents having no child to adopt at all."

So with "open" adoption offered it was possible to get a mom to identify with the prospective adopters' desires rather than to consider her own child's needs and her own needs. Having her thinking about the prospective adopter's desires results in getting her child more often.

By offering "open" adoption, Rappaport explains, business picked up and they were able to charge significantly higher fees within a few years time.

According to Rappaport, it is "unfortunate" that so many moms are keeping their families together - and it is "hard on the kids" to be raised by single parents. (Hard on kids, being raised in their own families, with their own loving grandmothers, mothers, fathers and siblings around them? .... Later - on the same webpage - he states how great is is that more aging and divorced people can adopt.)

Rappaport claims "the procedure is more normal" than the closed adoption system and "appeals to young people" (Perhaps the naive young people don't realize how they are being used.) The real goal is made clear in the last sentence: "Instead of long waits or arbitrary agency restrictions around age or divorce", most people can get someone else's child "often within six to eighteen months".


So with the "miracle" of "open" adoption, not only do they get more babies, but there are fewer restictions on adopters. The natural parents and the children themselves wind up being less well-served, the real customers (the adopters) get babies to use and the agencies and lawyers are able to charge much higher fees and expand their businesses.


http://www.motherhelp.info/open_adoption.htm

[Pheonix Renewed]

Open Adoption 'Options' and Modern-Day Adoption Coercion

As more parents and grandparents work together to keep and nurture their own children, adoption agencies and adoption attorneys are promoting "open" adoption to get more babies for people who want to adopt.



Domestic Adoption "Baby Boom" - Exploiting Women and Families in America
by Laurie Frisch

The announcement of a domestic adoption "baby boom" has undoubtedly brought hope to people wanting to adopt an infant. But this announcement begs the question: Where are these babies coming from? Is there a systemic issue to be addressed?


Marion, IA (PRWEB) June 9, 2004 -- The recent headlines must give hope to people who want to adopt a baby: "Local adoption agency has rare openings" and "Catholic Charities expands its adoption program". The first article describes a domestic adoption "baby boom"; the second article announces an expansion in a domestic adoption program. But by announcing domestic adoption "baby booms" these agencies might as well be announcing their role in the exploitation of United States citizens.

Not only do mothers who lose children to adoption have life-long problems so severe that some commit suicide as a result, but there is also a higher rate of suicide, childlessness, divorce, alcoholism, and other addictions among adoptees than the norm in society.

Those who profit from adoption blame the adoptees' problems on genetics. If genetics is the cause, the collection of statistical data might clear up any doubt. In the many cases where mothers married their adopted-out child's father and had other children, it could be determined what percentage of the kept children experienced the same problems as the adopted-out ones.

According to statistics compiled on adoption.com the mothers who lose babies to adoption "often come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. These women come from intact families." (Stolley, 1993) These mothers and their families are more likely to be naïve than to be genetically defective. Told "everyone benefits" from adoption and in the absence of any real information, they may think it's true. In poorer families, younger "adoptable" children and babies are systematically taken under the guise of child protection. The poverty frequently follows divorce or is related to medical problems of some family member. Most of the mothers have jobs. And although the people who know these moms may see a caring, wonderful, competent individual from the perspective of the government they are only a source of babies for adoption.

The fact that adoptees and natural mothers frequently have serious problems due to separation is well known to experts.

In a paper entitled "CHALLENGING THE SILENCE OF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMUNITY ON ADOPTION ISSUES" published in the Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, Vol. II, No. 2. April 2002, Douglas B. Henderson (University of Wisconsin, Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychology) discusses some of the reasons for the experts silence on the issue: Professionals not wanting to admit to failure, the money to be made in adoption, and an unwillingness on the part of adoptees to appear ungrateful to their adopters are a few.

He explains the techniques used by the National Council For Adoption, which represents the agencies that profit from adoption, to silence others: "...the NCFA has attempted to marginalize and pathologize anyone who reports that adoption experiences are problematic. Setting themselves up as the national experts on adoption, while actually representing not the adoptees and (natural) parents who have lived adoption but rather the agencies making money on adoptions, the NCFA has long accused anyone who criticized adoption practices as being 'antiadoption.'"

With all that is known by experts about the ill effects of separating family and of the secrecy in adoption, it remains that adoption is a very lucrative business. Thanks to lobbying efforts we now have government funding for Infant Adoption Awareness training, maternity homes, adoption counseling, subsidies and other aid for adopters, and so-called "safe havens" where a frightened mother unsure of how to get real help may leave her newborn son or daughter. In some states there are adoption aid "Choose Life" license plates, with proceeds going toward advertising and adoption services.

Those in the health professions can become an "Adoption Specialist" after a free three-day training program. There is no requirement that this training inform trainees of the life-long emotional consequences of surrender/adoption to mother, child or other family members.

By implementing the Adoption University@ curriculum in schools both mother and father may be influenced to "choose" adoption before they are even expecting. All risks are hidden and the implementation of this training in a group setting makes it possible for an opposing viewpoint to be squelched by the group.

The joy and pride of parents and grandparents who have maintained hope, worked through their issues and kept their children is very evident. But with all the adoption training now implemented, a pregnant mother is likely to encounter teachers, doctors, nurses, counselors and others who will not mention the joys of motherhood, but instead will pressure her to surrender all parental rights and will speak of surrender in glowing terms to her parents as well. Her baby's father is unlikely to support her when adoption has been presented as "better" than taking responsibility for his own child.

A young pregnant mother or her parents may be lured by a "dorm" with "park-like setting", "beautiful swimming pool" and "cozy fireplace". Separated from family and society to aid in "decision-making" and repeatedly hearing "It's your choice" the mothers will leave this maternity home still bleeding from childbirth saying "It was my choice". With their thoughts constrained by the carefully chosen phrases provided by the adoption industry, it'll be years before they comprehend that in the their best interest and the best interest of their child the risks of adoption should have been disclosed and the choice to keep children they give birth to should have been promoted.

Other coercive tactics used to obtain babies include having prospective adopters chosen in advance and even present at the birth (and we wouldn't want to disappoint them, would we?).

The cruelest tactic used to obtain a baby is the use of the open adoption "carrot", the promise to a mother or family of continuing contact with their child. Many parents don't know that the adoption may be closed at any time without their consent. Frequently, the adoption is closed immediately; the promise of openness made only to lure them in. For the natural family, it's devastating.

From the industry standpoint, open adoption has a clear advantage: Mothers whose children were adopted-out know that for speaking out honestly about the effects of adoption on themselves, their child and the rest of their family, the "punishment" will be cutting off all contact with their child. So, as they see their adopted-out children cared for by nannies, treated harshly by male adopters who didn't really want them in the first place, denied access to their siblings or experiencing other problems these mothers keep quiet or even continue to promote adoption. They may have to convince themselves it is "better" or was "meant to be" just to cope.

The intense solicitation to obtain babies now includes offers to pay "expenses" far beyond pregnancy-related costs. These "expenses" include scholarships, car payments, entertainment, house maintenance, credit card payments and personal loans. How does this compare to soliciting to buy children from families off the streets in Cambodia? THAT is considered criminal! After accepting this aid, a mother may be coerced by agencies or lawyers using the lie that she will have to pay all expenses back if she decides to keep her child. Not surprisingly, there is adopters insurance to protect the adopters.

New tactics to obtain babies are being developed all the time. Even whole nuclear families may be advised that it is "best" to surrender their new baby if a parent has been laid off temporarily.

In his paper, Douglas B. Henderson concludes: "It is time for the silence of the mental health professions on issues related to adoption to end…. Continuing the silence will serve the interests of no one, and will lead to further difficulties for all those touched by the adoption process."

A domestic adoption "baby boom" should not be a source of pride, but of shame on the part of agencies, medical experts, the government and others for having exploited citizens of our own country, the United States, to obtain babies.

http://originscanada.org/thewall/

[Pheonix Renewed]

80% of open adoptions CLOSE.

Considering "Open Adoption"?


Agencies will tell you that open adoption means that you can see your baby or receive information or updates. They will tell you that the "choice" is up to you. What they don't tell you is that the choice actually is not yours at all, but is the sole decision of the adoptive parents.

Don't believe promises that "open adoption" will let you see your baby. It is not guaranteed.

Once you relinquish your baby and the adoption is finalized, you no longer have any legal right to see your child or receive information. Open adoption "agreements" are not legally binding and they will not stand up in court. Adoptive parents hold all the parental rights. You will legally have no more right to see your child than any other stranger would. Even mediation and courts cannot help if they decide to move to another state.


They are now the sole "legal parents" and your child is considered legally as if born to" them, they have every right to "close" the adoption if they see fit.

Want to keep an open adoption from closing? Be prepared to abide by whatever the adoptive parents set as the rules or conditions. They have the right to set rules for how or when you see your child, how you interact with your child, what you can do in your child's presence -- even what you can write in birthday cards. They can close the adoption at any time. Legally. And they have no obligation to provide you with a reason.

One adoption agency employee from a major national "Christian" agency let slip that 80% or more of their "open adoptions" close. Don't be exiled from your child!

 

"I thought that if I gave my son up for adoption he would have a better life. She also promised me that if I did let them adopt my son that I could see him whenever I wanted and nothing would really change. I would always be welcome. A week after I signed the papers, she changed her tune. All of a sudden, I was a 'bitch' for giving up my child. I was an 'irresponsible' parent,etc. My son is now ten-years-old, 'she' has long since divorced her husband and remarried TWICE and her biological son forced my son into doing sexual acts!!!! The courts gave my son back to her!!! Now, none of us sees him at all." - Melinda James, Kansas"
"I had my son when I was 21. Unfortunately, I was much too naive to understand my rights ... I played right into the hands of a couple looking to adopt -- a couple who told me they'd watch him for the few months it took me to get back on my feet during my divorce and getting out of the Army. Well, they took my 18-month-old from me. He's now seven years old now, and I don't know where they are. PLEASE don't let anyone do this to you. Find out what legal assistance is available and don't ever give up! - From a grieving mother, Jennifer from Florida, July 2001"
"Yes, and to anybody considering adoption.. do not fool yourself. I was not stupid. I didn't just pick some couple out of a hat. This couple was perfect on paper. Young, financially secure, passed a homestudy with flying colors. They were sweet, and sympathetic, they praised open adoption and even agreed to include Dylan and my little sister in the openess. Just like most liars, they were good at their lies. I fell for it, hook line and sinker." - Kati, on Adoption Insights
"I promised an open adoption to a first cousin, I fulfilled all my obligations -- she has very cruelly broken hers. She has repeatedly placed my daughter, now 8, in danger due to a meth addiction. She burned their home in 1998 by meth lab, and my daughter is now going through trial -- molested and abused at 4 and 5 -- still being left with single, unstable alcoholics and drug abusers -- and no-one including CPS cares. An illegal adoption by fraud, undue influence, duress, deceit, drugs/narcotics, child endangerment, cruel mental & emotional cruelty to me & my daughter now 8 -- no one cares." - Sonya Tucker from Texas
"I am the natural mother of a adopted child. My mom took her away from me at the age of 16 and gave her to the DSS people. After they took her, they told me I could not get her back and had to give her up for adoption or give her to some one who could not have kids. So a girl friend at school told me she had a brother and his wife who could not have kids, and they wanted her. They told me that I could see her after they got her. They didn't want me to see her. They split-up in three years and moved with her to another state. I found her -- now she is 27 yrs old and doesn't want to see me - she was told that I wanted nothing to do with her." - Donna from South Carolina
"I put my first son up for adoption 12 years ago. This was thru an agency that is still operating out of San Antonio TX. It was supposed to be a 'semi-open' adoption. I was to receive, at minimum, an annual photograph of my child. In the first year of his life, recieved two very nice letters & two sets of photos from the adoptive parents, whose names are Bob and Marianne. After that, they never sent me anything, ever again. I have been pleading with the adoption agency for over a decade to do something, to correct this situation, but they won't do anything. They just give me the same old run-around year after year. I don't know if my son's alive or dead. What was done to me was unethical in the extreme, if not illegal. The agency misled me about what I could expect from them and from the adoptive parents. They took advantage of my youth and ignorance. My son's name is Ben. He'll be 13 in June. I think about him every day and wonder if he's okay." - Heather Webb, TX, USA.
"I waited until my son was 18 and I sent a letter to the address I believe he is living. It was an 'open' adoption in the sense that I know where he lives and got a picture once a year. (I am so grateful to know he is at least outwardly in good shape, but he looks so angry in the pictures.) The letter was delivered and not returned, but there is no contact from him and I am coming to believe he wants none. The anger and fear are fresh, and neither my husband nor my long-time friends understand, though they try. I have told my daughter that I had a baby a long time ago but he couldn't come live with me and it is very sad. That's about all she can handle. One of my worst fears was realized - my son doesn't want anything to do with me. Another huge fear of mine is that my daughter will think I think children are expendable because I 'gave' him up for adoption." - Anne. 
"My family didn't believe that I could be a good mother, so they took my babies from me. They needed me to sign the papers, so they told me that I would be able to see my children as much as I wanted. So I did what I thought was best. I was so young. Now my kids live with some family far away and I never get to see them and I never get to talk to them. My heart breaks everyday, and I feel like there is nothing I can do. I miss my children so much." - Shannon, Texas 
"The adoptive parents PROMISED me phone calls and pics every month. Well, guess what?? Now they have changed thier phone number and i get no more pics. My son is only almost 4 mos. old. They want to forget that I ever existed. My heart breaks over & over again every morning when i have to wake up without my precious son. There are not even words to describe what i am feeling." - Nancy Horton, Virginia 

Adoption agencies and lawyers stress to potential adopters that "openness agreements" are informal and can be modified later on. "Open adoption" is also defined as being "some degree of information exchange between parties." Thus, if you know the first names of the people who want to adopt your child, then it's technically an "open adoption" and they have no further obligation towards you. Once they become legal parents, they have NO obligation to honour ANY promises they previously made to you, in ANY STATE OR PROVINCE.

http://www.keepyourbaby.com/open_adoption.html

[Pheonix Renewed]

Open Adoption: They knew it would work [as coercion]

by Cedar


Open adoption is the norm these days, contrasting with the closed adoptions of the Baby Scoop Era, which may have ended in the mid-1970s in the United States but continued far longer in Canada. I knew single moms in the mid-1980s whose babies were still being taken at birth with the mother not being allowed to see or touch her baby. It was done to me in fact in 1980.

So, why did open adoption begin? Frankly, it began because mothers had begun keeping their babies, finding parental support and access to financial assistance that did not exist in the Baby Scoop Era when shamed parents shipped their daughters off to maternity facilities and “wage home” to return as “born again virgins.” Agencies faced the prospect of going out of business unless they found a new way to persuade moms to surrender their newborns. Research was done, and open adoption was found to be the key.

Examples are below, but the data is far more extensive and other articles examine the exact statistical affect of various open adoption practices such as meeting prospective adopters before the birth vs. after the birth, the baby going home with them from the hospital, pre-birth consents signed, etc.

This raises a huge ethical issue that is not being discussed in adoption literature. If a mother’s decision about surrendering her baby is being influenced by practices carefully researched and applied to increase the odds she will surrender increase, is it really a freely-made decision at all? Especially if she is kept unaware of this manipulation? In effect, is any open adoption truly ethical as this practice was designed to obtain babies for the market, to keep agencies in business, and to exploit the vulnerability of poor, single, or young mothers?

1976 — The Research Begins …

“Recently one of the authors met with a [focus group] of young unwed mothers … the women talked about their struggles, frustration and feelings of bitterness and anger. They regretted their inability to offer their children the kinds of loving care they had expected to give them. Regarding adoption, the women felt that although they were failing to provide adequately, they could not face the possibility of a final and total separation from their infants .. When they were asked about how they would feel about open adoption, thier attititudes were totally different: They thought they could face and even welcome adoption for their children if they could meet the adoptive parents, help in the separation and move ot a new home, and the maintain some contact with the child.” (pp. 98-99)

Note: This was the study that started it all: the first research deliberately done to find out how to separate more mothers from their children.” Yngvasson (1997) says about this article: “[Open adoption] was proposed by Baran and her colleagues as a way of encouraging unmarried women (and specifically unmarried white women) to relinquish their babies for adoption at a time when they were increasingly choosing to raise them alone”

1987 — Studies continue …

“Adoption practices are changing partly in response to the falling relinquishment rate” (Barth, 1987, p. 323). [Note: open adoption being offered to counter-act mothers keeping their babies]

“Taken together, these studies suggest that more vigorous and frequent presentations of adoption options and the possible benefits of relinquishment outweight the possible risks to the practitioner-client relationship.” (Barth, 1987, p. 331)

1990 … a study of 105 white and African-American “keepers” and “releasers” and their mothers, their attitudes toward adoption practices.

“A review of the responses … indicated that the major issue for the adolescent keeper and her mother was the extent to which the birth mother would have information about the baby as it grows up. Thus, there was clear rejection of the idea of not knowing how the baby was doing as it grew up. There was clear support for choosing the actual famiy who gest the baby, for finding out how the baby is doing now and then, for meeting three families and knowng for sure that one of them will get the baby, and for seeing the baby as it grows up …. Movement to a more open procedure, which provides the birth mothers more choice and more information about the fate of her baby might, indeed, increase the consideration of adoption by pregnancy adolescents.” (Kallen et al., 1990, p. 315).

“Of course, the mere availability of open procedures will not be sufficient. Family professionals must take advantage of the opportunity to provide information, guidance, and counselling in support of open adoption.” (Kallen et al., 1990, p. 316).

1991 — Promote it as a way to get more babies to market…

“In a very general way, openness benefits prospective parents because it may increase the pool of adoptable infants. For biological parents to have some continuing knowledge about their relinquished child may help them to choose adoption as an option (Barth, 1987), thus increasing the number of children available and decreasing the wait for an adoptable child.” (Berry, 1991, p. 638)

“Cocozzelli (1989) warns that the potential benefits of open adoption may persuade some adolescent mothers to relinquish a child who would not otherwise have done so. Those mothers who relinquish in the expectation of continued contact may risk prolonged uncertainty and grief.” (Berry, 1991, p. 641)

1999 …

“A ‘confidential’ adoption … may be a factor in the number of young women who choose to keep their babies. … Rather, we must be concerned to the extent that the cost of losing contact with the infant effects a rejection of adoption as a pregnancy outcome.” (Caragata, 1999, p. 116)

“As many young women who choose to place thier baby change their minds following the birth, factors such as having met with the adoptive parents could affect these decisions.” (Caragata, 1999, p. 117)

Below are the references cited, plus related studies. In purple are the actual research studies conducted on whether open adoption would work to get more babies surrendered:

1. Baran, A., Pannor, R., & Sorosky, A. (1976). Open adoption. Social Work, 21, 97-100
2. Barth, R. (1987). Adolescent Mothers Beliefs about Open Adoption. Social Casework, 68, 323-331
3. Berry, M. (1991) “The Effects of Open Adoption on biological and Adoptive Parents and the Children: The Arguments and the Evidence”. Child Welfare, 70, 637-51.
4. Berry, M. (1993). Risks and benefits of open adoption. Adoption, 3(1), 125-138.
5. Caragata, L. (1999). “The construction of teen parenting and decline of adoption”, in James Wong and David Checkland (eds) Teen Pregnancy and Parenting: Social and Ethical Issues, University of Toronto Press, Ontario: Toronto.
6. Cocozelli, C. (1989). Predicting the decision of biological mothers to retain or relinquish their babies for adoption: Implications for open placement. Child Welfare, 68, 33-44.
7. Daly, K. (1994). Adolescent perceptions of adoption: Implications for resolving an unplanned pregnancy. Youth and Society, 25(3), 330-350.
8. Kallen, D. J., Griffore, R. J., Popovich, S. & Powell, V. (1990). Adolescent mothers and their mothers view adoption. Family Relations, 30, 313-316.
9. Sobol, M. & Daly, K. (1992). The adoption alternative for pregnant adolescents: Decision making, consequences, and policy implications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(3), 143-161.
10. Yngvesson, B. (1997). “Negotiating motherhood: Identity and difference in “open” adoptions.” Law and Society Review, 31(1), 31-80.

Copyright 2008 by Cedar Bradley.
(reprinted from http://cedartrees.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/open-adoption-they-knew-it-would-work/)

http://www.keepyourbaby.com/open_adoption_research.html