|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 20, 2009 13:59:02 GMT -5
 Denise, the "respect" has gone on far too long now. I believe it is way beyond that reasoning now. The "respect" has injured too many people who also have rights to be respected. I'm sorry but I find no respect in keeping the truth from others who have a right to know the truth of their past and family history. Respect is not the word I would give to one who is keeping siblings and other family members apart for their own personal reasons. One can not live a lie and not expect their life to be disturbed somewhere down the road. It never fails to happen. Nothing stays as a secret forever. I ask you to remember that just that one lie is a act on one person's part that hurts and affects many, many more who are involved. In this country everyone is suppose to have equal rights and it is time for the adopted child to receive theirs. Many States have already realized this and have opened up their sealed records. NYS will eventually have to follow suit sooner or later, but why does it have to be later when for many the "time" to be reunited and to know the truth is so very precious. Let me just add this. If a natural parent wants no contact with the children they put up for adoption then a simple "no" will be sufficient. Hey, I've known parents who have told the same thing to their own biological children they have raised. 
|
|
|
|
Post by denise on Jan 20, 2009 23:11:33 GMT -5
I'm sorry Bobbie. Life is not all moonlight and roses. Sometimes pregnancy doesn't always come by way of rainbows and unicorns. Sometimes the circumstances may be upsetting, and the birth mother opted to choose adoption as opposed to other avenues. I believe that there may be some circumstances where the birth mother may just be happy enough to know that her child went to family who wanted him/her. I don't believe that said birth mother should be hunted down like a dog. Maybe during the adoption process there should be better accounting of family health history in case a major issue arises and the birth mother would prefer not to be contacted.
On the other hand, I think it is wonderful when people who want to be reunited are reunited. It is a lovely and beautiful thing.
People who adopt, should absolutely tell their child that they are adopted as soon as they are old enough to understand. No one should go through the pain of finding out something like that by accident or through a third party.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 21, 2009 11:40:09 GMT -5
Denise, even without these records being unsealed the "searches" will continue as they have been throughout the years. Nothing is going to stop that as long as there are people who are being kept from the answers to their family's information. The only person who can provide all that information is the natural mother who made the decision to give the child up for adoption. Please remember in a family there are two sides to a family not just the mothers. In most cases the father did not make that decision or was given a say in the mother's decision. Many were not even told they were becoming a father. The natural mother holds the key to the door with information on both sides. It's not just all about her. The focus is not on a reunion with the mother or wanting a relationship with her. If that takes place it's only viewed as a plus. The focus is on having the "right" to know who you are, where you came from and who your biological family is and all other information important in ones life. I guess it boils down to this. One has to be the adopted child to be able to feel the pain and confusion of not knowing what most were granted at birth. Make no mistake, the "searches" will continue for the person who can provide that vital information. 
|
|
|
|
Post by denise on Jan 21, 2009 11:51:36 GMT -5
Which is why vital information should be listed in the adoption record. Why not list family medical history at the initiation of the adoption process. If this was done and then a medical emergency arose during the adopted child's life, all pertinent and important information would be readily available.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 21, 2009 12:17:19 GMT -5
The reason is because the mother refuses, for whatever her reasons are, will not give all the information. No way to force her to either. 
|
|
|
|
Post by denise on Jan 21, 2009 12:35:21 GMT -5
It should be mandatory to provide family medical history as a part of the adoption process.
I would think that would be a much better alternative for a birth mother if she did not want to be contacted later on.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 21, 2009 12:55:30 GMT -5
Ok, enough about being able to contact the birth mother which seems to be your focus. What do you suggest in finding out info concerning the birth father or siblings? All goes back to the mother who refuses to give out all information or lies about info given to the adoption agencies. As I stated earlier in this post, my adopted daughter or her adoptive parents were never told she had siblings. She found that out in her "search" through an unusual means. There is no legal way to force the mother to give all info or to stop her from lying during the adoption procedures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jan 21, 2009 13:11:38 GMT -5
I guess I have to agree with Bobbbiez on this issue. With sex, conception, and parenthood, whether intentional or accidental, whether wanted or unwanted, comes responsibility.
I don't think a biological mother should be forced to meet her child that she put up for adoption, but she should be required to furnish other family history to the child as it reaches adulthood, or to the adopted parents, who need to know medical history, not only at the time of birth, but as the biological parent ages and medical conditions occur.
Whether the actual adopted child is given access to the mother or not. The child does have a right to know the circumstances surrounding her birth and adoption. They also have a right to know who their father is.
To get pregnant, have a baby and just put it up for adoption, WITH THE IDEA THAT GIVING THE BABY AWAY ENDS YOUR MORAL RESPONSIBILITY is disgusting. It may be acceptable to allow someone else to raise the kid, but it is unacceptable to deny the kid their geneology when they get older. I think that if a person is not ready to accept that responsibility, they need to keep their legs crossed or their pecker in their pants. There are exceptions to that, when rape or incest is involved, but that also should be addressed at some point.
That is simply an opinion, and not one formed by experience. I could be wrong, but I think EVERYONE deserves to know where they came from and who gave birth to them.
If a face to face meeting is not desireable, possibly the agency can be a go between and furnish the detailed info to the adopted individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 21, 2009 14:35:18 GMT -5
Clipper, in all most all cases that is all that is wanted and needed by the adopted child. A face to face meeting would be as I stated, just a plus, but not necessary for the adopted child to have the same "birth rights" as you and I.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 21, 2009 18:28:19 GMT -5
Something not mentioned is the mother's decision to abort or to allow the child to be adopted. Were the laws such that she feared being hunted down some day by a child for whatever his or her reasons, the mother might opt to terminate the pregnancy. A child could search no matter what the law, of course, but legislation that completely opened records would almost guarantee that a mother who wished to remain anonymous could not do so. Her options would be severely limited. As Denise points out, often the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy are fearful and bitter. To add a dimension of exposure to the scale might be detrimental to the fetus.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 21, 2009 22:19:05 GMT -5
Dave, I feel the decision to abort is made even before the thought of adoption enters the woman's mind because medically it must be performed in the very early stages of the pregnancy. Most women who abort do so because they do not want to carry a baby for the nine months. I don't believe open records will ever change that. Let me assure you as fact that there was always a way to get information from sealed records. There is no guarateen to any woman who gives her child up for adoption the secret will remain a secret forever. How do you think programs as Oprah and Montel Williams manage to unite people who have tried for years on their own? There are people out there who have a price. It'll cost you thousands of dollars and if you're capable of paying you'll receive all the information you want. I'm sure that is one of the reasons most States now are opening their sealed records.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jan 21, 2009 22:26:39 GMT -5
There are people out there who have a price. It'll cost you thousands of dollars and if you're capable of paying you'll receive all the information you want. I'm sure that is one of the reasons most States now are opening their sealed records.
Yup, the new way to fight crime. Make the offense legal. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 21, 2009 22:31:05 GMT -5
Or is it............. make it possible so everyone is capable of having their birth rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by denise on Jan 21, 2009 22:39:17 GMT -5
I agree with Dave.
Who really knows why women choose adoption over abortion and/or keeping their child. What it boils down to is not all pregnancies come about under happy circumstances. POSSIBLY if a woman knows she will eventually be hunted down like a dog by a child she put up for adoption, MAYBE she will opt for abortion instead. That would solve That Problem. Who really knows?
As for birth fathers, it seems to me that possibly in some cases maybe the birth father isn't known, let's say if the woman is a rape victim. Yea! How productive to dredge all that up 16, 18 or 20 years later. How wonderful for the birth mother and the adoptive child.
Sometimes it is just better to let sleeping dogs lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Jan 21, 2009 23:07:09 GMT -5
Denise/Dave, Most children given up for adoption usually are produced from an unhappy circumstance. Never heard of one that wasn't. No one is asking to unite the natural mother and father. In most cases, as in my daughter's and others I work with in the adoption field, the mothers would not name the father and none were rape victims. Most women who get pregnant under those circumstances usually do abort. If sleeping dogs were meant to lie, then many laws would not have been changed for the betterment or to provide equal rights for all.
|
|
Denise, the "respect" has gone on far too long now. I believe it is way beyond that reasoning now. The "respect" has injured too many people who also have rights to be respected. 
