Tag: Adoptee Lived Experience

Understanding A Controversy

~ from Mind Tools – Improving Solutions by Arguing For and Against Your Options

To be honest, I wasn’t aware that there was a controversy . . .

He writes – as far as I know, adoptees are primarily upset with Nancy Verrier over the fact that she made money by writing LINK>The Primal Wound. (The train of thought being adoptees own their stories and it should be our place to tell them, not the adopters.) I totally understand that train of thought but am somewhat confused why this adversarial relationship between adoptees and Verrier doesn’t extend to her successors like LINK>Lori Holden, who often doesn’t even bother attempting to center adoptees in their work and deliberately try to obfuscate the idea that adoption is traumatic for adoptees.

Blogger’s note – I am aware of and have read content from both. Since I wasn’t aware that there was a controversy, I am intrigued.

He asks – Is there something else I’m missing here, or is Verrier generally enemy no. 1 moreso than others due to the fact that her work is much more often recommended by adoptees? I also know there was some drama that went on surrounding the LINK>Reckoning With The Primal Wound documentary.

One woman writes – I always recommend ‘Journey of the Adopted Self’ (Betty Jean Lifton’s book) FIRST, it then helps validate Verrier’s findings. One adoptee responds –  I honestly feel like Journey of the Adopted Self saved my life. It was big in me coming out of the “fog” and helped me to understand so many big emotions I’d had for my entire life. When the first woman was asked – would this be your primary recommendation for the support persons (parents, therapists, teachers, etc) as well as adoptees? She responds –  yes, it is the first book, along with ‘The Girls Who Went Away,’ that I always recommend reading first. I have read a ton of adoption related books, some good, some meh, and some bad. Another book that I think EVERYONE should read is ‘The Child Catchers,’ for a bird’s eye view into the criminal trafficking indu$try that “adoption” truly is!

Blogger’s note – but I still don’t understand – is there a controversy or not ?

Finally an explanation from an adoptee’s perspective – IMHO, as an adopted person, the disapproval of Verrier is not so much because she is an adoptive “parent”, but rather because her book has been so highly publicized and recommended, although she has little awareness of the fact that the adopted person is an actual person, whether child or adult. Her views have been slammed, as well, because of the manner in which she has objectified her own purchased child, who quite rightly has taken exception to being used for her “mother’s” own self aggrandizing efforts. When people are advised to perceive this author as some sort of “expert” in the understanding of the complex adoption experience, who has so little awareness of the actual lived reality of the person who has been purchased, this frequently and quite rightly is seen with quite a bit of justified skepticism.

Another adoptee points out – I feel like Verrier speaks a lot of the general theoretical adopted “child” when drawing from the experiences of her adopted child and her therapeutic clients. I don’t see her as an “expert”. Adoptees are the #1 expert of the adoptee experience imo. Verrier’s theory is also often treated as scientific “fact”, but it wasn’t a scientific study at all. That being said, I believe in adoption trauma. I can appreciate that the message Nancy Verrier was putting out there was pretty “radical” to many adoptive parents, although adoptees had already been saying similar things for a long time prior. Parts of The Primal Wound resonated with me, and I know it’s an important text for a lot of adoptees. But I think 30+ years on we can start referring to other texts when recommending adoption related media to people.

Another notes – All I would add is that, in 1993, this is the book that the publishers were willing to print. That’s what it comes down to. We’ll never know how many (if any) adoptee authors pitched books and were turned down. The Primal Wound is the one that made it through, so that’s the one we got.

It’s NOT Better

We teach our children to keep themselves safe from strangers.

Why do we as a society think it’s better to give a child away to strangers than to offer emotional, financial, and logistical support to the child’s first families in order to allow them to parent? Why is it seen as a good thing to permanently separate a child from their first family (in the absence of abuse)? What’s with the racist, classist belief that adoptive parents are more likely to raise healthy happy children, when all statistical evidence from studies on abuse in adoptive homes contradicts it?

There is a reason adoptees represent a larger percentage of people needing mental health treatment or committing suicide. There is a higher incidence of cancer, gut, and other diseases caused by toxic levels of years of cortisol. Birth moms, due to separation from their babies, tend to die 20 years sooner than mothers who remain with their children.

Complex Traumatic Stress – an over activated fight flight body response.

That child taken from its mother will try to save that child but has no power to help that child. That child is born with a “mom-operating system”. This never shuts down (cue adoptee reunions, if you doubt this).

Allowing complete strangers to raise a child is dangerous to that child.

So why is adoption promoted and not family preservation ? Because there is a ton of money to be made in selling children (which is what adoption actually is in most cases) but no money, only expense coming out of tax dollars, in keeping a family together.

Adoption is trauma. There’s no way around it. Even if you were to be the most incredible adoptive parent in the entire world, the trauma and hurt isn’t negated. Society needs to try to understand why the mom feels she can’t parent her child and give that mom the support she needs. You can love a child without taking them away from their parents.

This is true in infant adoptions, where altering birth certificates is standard procedure. The procedure may be different with a teen who has been in the foster care system for years and without being coerced, asks to be adopted. However, even then legal guardianship is still the best case procedure.

The truth about adoption trauma may be hard to accept because most people have been spoon fed what society wants us to believe about adoption. the difference between a viewpoint (for profit adoption narrative) and lived experiences (adoptees) can cause cognitive dissonance.

So to say, “…adopting a child can be a good option…” is actually an admission that adoption isn’t always good, and actually for anyone involved. Surprisingly, adoptive parents do not often have the happily ever after experience they bought into. So their “lived” experience as well because the traumatized child is more difficult to parent than a biological, genetic child – and most parents would admit that isn’t always easy either. Add in that layer of adoption and it is exponentially harder (check it out with some trauma informed therapist who works on adoption issues).

While it is true that some adoptees will tell you that they had good outcomes, I’ve read significantly more horror stories than happy outcomes… That is because I spend time in a space where it is safe for an adoptee to honestly express their own truth. Yes, there are cases where the biological family could have been as much (or even more) of a nightmare as an abusive adoptive family. The answer is to try and treat the issues in the biological, genetic family – addiction, poverty, poor parenting role models, etc.

And on the issue of mother/child separations – this story is indicative.

My grandmother started caring for me full time the day after I was born. I didn’t really spend time with my parents until I was 3-4 years old. I feel the trauma from that and its not even close to what someone who has been adopted must feel….I just remember feeling so strongly that all I wanted was to be with my mom when I was little. My grandmother is an amazing woman but its not the same. I still experience extreme anxiety and went through really bad PPD after I gave birth bceause I couldn’t understand why my mom couldn’t be there for me when I was that little. Anyway, my story isn’t really important I’m only trying to illustrate how deep the trauma goes when you’re separated as a child from your birth parents.

Just for good measure – what is the mainstream narrative ?

1) first is the idea that biological parents are incapable of parenting and don’t deserve to parent their own children, 2) that those saviors, the grace of willing adopters stepping forward, have prevented an abortion, or abuse, or neglect, or abandonment, and of course 3) that anyone who adopts will simply provide a “Better Life” and a “Forever Family” for these poor unwanted souls. These things are not the truth for the majority of people who end up adopted. These are the myths of the adoption industry.

Regardless of varying lived experiences – every single adoptee has experienced a traumatic loss: the separation from their mother.

And wrapping up – What is missing?

Better mental health services, care and protection for pregnant women, support for families and their communities could really improve many families’ situations. In many cases, it could do more that – actually enable them to parent adequately by most average standards.

No person should have their true identity and family erased for the rest of their life, simply in order to be cared for in a safe, loving, secure home during their childhood.

Adoption, at its core, is a legal construct that transfers ownership of a person. This is done by cancelling the adopted persons birth certificate and issuing a new one, falsely stating the adoptive parents (not actually related ie strangers) are the biological parents, and replacing the adoptee’s name and identity with a new false one.

If this sounds way to close to slavery, you are not mistaken.

The legal construct forces legal recognition and legitimacy of biological falsification for the adopted person’s lifetime, and that of all their descendants, and erases all legal ties and rights to their own family (parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins etc). All without the adopted person’s consent. Ask me, I know, I’m one of those descendants.

Moving a child to a “loving stable home” is not best if the adoptive parents seek to erase the birth parents 100% and “love the child AS IF it is their own.” (Say this sentence… “I’m going to love this a cat AS IF it is a dog.”) This will convey the idea.

It’s ridiculous isn’t it? “as if” is the Adoptive Parent theme song. Adoptive parents think they can buy an infant, and nurture it into becoming something it’s not— but this belief only causes more trauma to the child. The bottom line is this – it is ALWAYS unsafe for a child to be their authentic self in an adoptive home. The love received is conditional but the child must pretend to be something they are not in order to keep that love flowing.

I don’t really want to be redundant – there will be another blog tomorrow and the next day . . . in the meantime, my family history attracted to me this video (yep, adoption would appear to have been a “family tradition” in my own family of birth – but it also appears that our children may have broken the cycle with their own children – thankfully !!).

https://youtu.be/f_3Z4nnr2gs