Giving Your Child Away

An adoptee asks – I wonder if it would make a difference if instead of ‘giving up for adoption’, it was changed to ‘giving your child away’? One person noted – “A pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.”

A mother of loss writes – The language is controlled by those who have the power, ie the adoption industry… That’s why everything is a euphemism and double speak. Of course, if it was called “giving your child away to strangers and causing them trauma” – we would never be able to be convinced it was the best for them.

Another adoptee writes – I was not “given up for adoption”…. I was “abandoned.” Nobody would’ve cared to find out what happened to me. In response, someone else writes – “There’s active trauma and inactive trauma. At before the active trauma of adoptee occurs, there’s the inactive trauma of abandonment.. I was removed as a teen and it makes me wonder if I had told earlier then I might have a different label. I’m not a former foster care youth or an adoptee because the system never found me a new home. ‘Abandoned and at risk for homelessness’ [I was homeless]. I tell myself it’s a blessing in disguise, but I feel abandoned twice – by both my mother and again by the system.”

Another mother of loss due to coercion writes – I think depending on the way it is said is what allows people to understand circumstances… I could say “my child was stolen/taken” that relates to coercion/manipulation or kidnapping that CPS (Child Protective Services/Div of Child and Family Services) likes to partake in (which is what happened to me, I was coerced). I could say “I gave my child up for adoption” that relates to willingly having my child adopted for whatever reason. I could say “my child was adopted” that could mean anything. like neglect, CPS involvement, kinship adoption, regular private adoption, foster to adopt situation without CPS involvement, anything…

A former foster care youth shares – I don’t know for sure if it would. I always said I was thrown away because my parents willingly signed me over when I was 14. Whenever I approach them about what they put me through, they brush me off and avoid the subject. I think a lot of people knew exactly what they were doing, and just didn’t care. Even so, there are circumstances where it’s an understandable decision, don’t get me wrong.

One person notes – In most jurisdiction, “abandonment” of a child is a crime. Relinquishment procedures legalize this crime. It would change a lot if we do away with the relinquishment process.

One adoptee writes – I always tell people I was sold and then people get all hurt about it. It’s really not far off…. my aunt offered to take me in, my biological mom agreed but then, ran off. Next thing my aunt heard is I was adopted and my biological mom got a lot out of it.

Another mother of loss shares – I tell people “I was not allowed to parent my child and lost her to adoption”.

A birth mother admits – Every situation is so different. I think the phrases that are used aren’t accurately interchangeable. In my case, I feel the phrase “sacrificed motherhood” is most accurate. However I know other first/birth mothers that “giving up” is more accurate. I’m positive that some would fall under that category… “giving your child away” would be most appropriate. In my experience with connecting with mothers like myself, I find that the most predominant issues that lead to adoption is fear, low self esteem, religious intolerance (groomed from religious indoctrination that is adoptive agency predatory), outright manipulation, and early childhood abuse that leads to the adoption paradigm.

One adoptee shares – I was not given up for adoption. I was taken by my grandmother against my mother’s will and given away to punish her for getting pregnant at 14. Oh, and she made her birth me vaginally without medication for the same reason. And my brother (trans-racial South Korean adoptee) was straight up fucking kidnapped and sold across the world by his pos biological dad. He found his birth mother 3 years ago through a 30 year old missing child poster. Another person replied to that – “I wouldn’t even call myself an adoptee. I would say human trafficking survivor, because that is insane… reminds me of another person I know who had something illegal and similar happen to them.”

One adoptee suggested the sentence – “Letting your child be raised by strangers”. Yet another adoptee writes – I tell people I was sold to the highest bidder. Essentially how it feels. I spent years being told that I was rescued from a life of poverty, and I should have been grateful. As an adult, I realized I was raised by a person who had more money but didn’t love me. My birth parents had a modest living and lots of love for me.

A first mom notes – I did not give my son away – he was taken from me without my consent!

To which another first mom (NM) really gets into it all – we don’t “give” our children away freely. Our child is also not a “gift”. “Give up” is another way of saying “surrender”. Surrender is the final, hopeless act of “the defeated enemy” who has been relentlessly attacked during warfare. “The defeated enemy” surrenders by raising a white flag to beg for mercy, to signal their hopeless defeat with dejected humiliation and a hung head. Make no mistake: birth mothers are treated as the enemy. They are told in no uncertain terms that they are “the enemy” to their own child and that strangers will be “better” for the child. Single moms, especially BIPOC moms are policed by foster care and society in a truly heartless and relentless way. Infant adoption agency “social workers” are paid handsomely to covertly wage war on a vulnerable mom. They present themselves as compassionate help, while secretly and tactically convincing her to “freely relinquish” her rights. Maybe change the language to “Adoptive Parents” (AP) pay people to “shake down” and “intimidate” vulnerable, young, poor women in crisis, and they “extort” a baby from her in exchange for its “protection”. Agencies have tactical manuals that have been developed over years of trial and error and are filled with marketing language that helps them wage this war. The primary objective of an agency is separation and destruction of the first family— for their own financial gain. They are mercenaries, paid by adoptive parents. Sometimes these agents believe their own lies— they see the birth mom as a dangerous enemy to her own child, and they imagine themselves as a savior to that child. Usually, APs never see how their dollars fuel this attack, this warfare, on the first family. They just thank the lord that somehow “fate” delivers them an “abandoned baby” who was “destined” to be theirs. And no one addresses the hallow, rubble of a mess left after the NM holds her baby in the air and says “Stop – Please for the sake of the baby – please make them safe.” Once a mother is stripped of her child, there is literally nothing left in her life. I left the hospital and felt like a bag full of crushed glass. Every step I took, I felt like people could surely hear the noise of broken shards shaking around inside of me. I was shattered, and hallow, and utterly alone in the rubble of my defeat. I did give up. I didn’t fight hard enough. I was alone in the aftermath; but many many many people walked alongside me to bully me into that outcome. I say it over and over and over again: it takes a village to raise a child… but it also takes an entire village to separate a mother from her child. Judges, lawyers, doctors, nurses, my own family, my friends all contributed to the final outcome: my surrender. Are there moms who literally abandon their children? Yes. But they are a rare exception. Most birth moms who “give” our baby to another family via domestic infant adoption (DIA) are victims of strategic warfare that extracts a “valuable resource” and coerces a vulnerable person to “freely surrender” that resource, so they can turn around and sell it for a very high price. The entire DIA Adoption industry is built around selling children to the highest bidder (APs). Maybe change the language to: NMs “lose their child” to heartless grifters and child traffickers disguised as “social servants”. And start calling APs what they are: purchasers who fuel a “blood diamonds” of baby trafficking. And start calling adoption agencies what they are: the morphia, grifters, child traffickers.

Clueless

If I hadn’t seen this, I would not have believed anyone could be so self-centered and willing to do something so illegal. Someone had the nerve to post this comment – “I would like to buy someone’s child on credit.”

Initially translated to read – “Furthermore, I would love to bless our family with another baby, perhaps helping a mother out that does not wish to be a mother. I understand the cost associated with this, and wish to help the mother, but I do not have the means currently to finance $50,000 in medical costs and attorney fees. If anyone has any advice, I welcome that. It is on my heart to be an adoptive mother.”

Further translated more directly – “I would like to grow my family by preying upon a mother who doesn’t have the resources/support to parent and instead of helping mothers through temporary circumstances, I’d like to pressure them into giving me their child and convince them it’s actually a good thing.”

The “translations” were simply her calling it like it is – if one is more informed than the average person about adoption issues. Someone said her that she “sounded like Satan was speaking through her”.

She says, “I think they got it a little twisted.” The person in that group tried to use the fact that very briefly she hoped to adopt. She had made one post about affording adoptions. She notes – “When my husband and I started to look into it, we realized it felt really gross and stopped trying to adopt. But God forbid someone see truth and change” (their perspective on the practice).

An adoptive parent admits – many of us had never heard that narrative before. We were told we were doing a wonderful thing. Good for you for challenging that narrative in such a blunt way. Hopefully even if she can’t hear it right now, your comments will make others think.

And this bit of history was shocking for me – Think about what the collateral on the loan would be. From 1619-1865, the collateral was the financed human being. If the loan wasn’t paid, the bank would come by, pick up the financed human being and resell them.

Someone responded with this – FINANCE A CHILD?! JUST WHEN I THOUGHT I’VE HEARD IT ALL!!

Another noted – “This is an excellent example of how people openly and publicly incriminate themselves. Posts like this should be reported to the authorities. Making clear statements of buying a human being is trafficking. Human trafficking is a crime. Period.” To which another agreed that it was is clearly an open offer to buy a child.

Finding The Right Fit

Therapy is hard. Finding a good fit with a therapist is hard too. It takes emotional effort and money but when it fits it’s great. Best thing ever. An adoptee from 1963 who spent 1 month in isolation before adoption, writes (including summing it up with the sentences above )-

As I was starting to unpack and really look at what adoption did to me – to us – a kept therapist told me, “But I know adoptees who are fine”. So I searched out one who was a former foster care youth and adopted at age 3. I thought she’d be a good fit, but she sacked me after 3 or 4 sessions because she couldn’t go to those places with me. I freaked her out. She couldn’t look at her own adoption wounds and didn’t want to.

Then my girlfriend was talking to a friend who had lost a baby (stillborn) and was seeing a therapist to help her cope. The therapist was a midwife for 10 years with hundreds of births behind her. She focuses her clinic on mother baby bond traumas. She sees women who have lost children and children who’ve lost mothers – and now me. I wrote to her and laid out where I was at in my journey out of the fog and, nearly 4 years ago, she agreed to make a space for me.

Setting The Record Straight

Simone Biles with Ronald and Nellie Biles

There is not a doubt that the support of grandparents is important in every child’s life. The Olympics have brought a renewed emphasis on the story of Simone Biles and how much her grandparents, who adopted her and a sister, have made her life possible when her parents just had challenges that prevented them from being good parents. I wrote about her quite a few years ago here.

Someone who’s perspective I appreciate shared what are for her key points in this story and so, I will share that here today.

1. The entire story focuses on adoption and adoptive parents and never adoptees. Athletes and celebrities have good PR teams around them to create a narrative about them. During the Olympics, this is when you hear the hardships stories because it allows people to create a connection which equals more money. These kinds of hardships stories are seen on talent shows too.

2. Simone was adopted by her grandparents. She has access to her roots, story, DNA. Kinship adoption is different than stranger adoption. The saddest part is the older children were separated from their younger siblings. The grandparents adopted the younger two which is Simone and her sister who were toddlers at the time, the older two were teens.

3. In 2016, an article said her grandmother, who became her adoptive mom, told the kids they can call her mom and be a real family. Simone stated ever since that day she called her grandparents “mom and dad”. How many adoptive and foster parents try to force or ask the children to call them mom and dad ? Another article said kinship should never try to replace the parents because kinship is about keeping connections.

4. The media paints her biological parents as terrible and adoption as amazing. Simone has contact with their biological mother and was part of her life. The media outlining her biological mother’s struggles and bashing her to uplift adoptive parents and adoption was gross. TMZ found her biological mom and she’s doing well now. It’s sad how people’s past, when they were struggling, is used against them. We didn’t need to know her biological mom’s story.

5. I’ve heard former foster youth and current foster youth who are upset that Simone is being used as a poster child for foster care and adoption. After the Rio Olympics, one of my former placements said she’s tired of hearing about Simone Biles because she felt she doesn’t represent the majority of foster kids. A former foster youth, said a foster child will never be an Olympic gymnast and it’s ridiculous to use her to recruit foster parents. Also, this forces the foster child to feel grateful.

6. Simone is an amazing gymnast but she has trauma and struggles with her own mental health. Placing her as a poster child for foster care and adoption, does a disservice to foster kids and adoptees. It also does a disserve to Simone. She’s not here to save the day.

7. Recently, a video has been going around of Simone stating adoption saved her and if it weren’t for adoption and her parents, she wouldn’t be here. The Today Show host Hoda is also an adoptive mom. I can’t say this enough, but if an adoptee says they’re grateful for adoption and their adoptive parents, please don’t use this against adoptees you disagree with or with your own children. Never ever expect your foster and adopted children to feel grateful for you or for adoption/foster care.

Unfortunately the media and public loves a good tragic back story, but Simone’s story shouldn’t be used against foster kids or adoptees. I remember cringing when my local agency said you can foster and adopt the next Simone Biles who made the Olympics. Gross.

Adoption and foster care IS traumatic.

If Simone ever decides to speak about any of her experiences that the public disagrees with or doesn’t tow the party line, she’d be called ungrateful. An adoptee went though this at the winter Olympics after saying she wanted to find her biological family. She said some things about adoption many didn’t like hearing.

I wish her family didn’t go public and allowed her to decide when she wanted to and if she wanted certain things shared. Now that it’s out there, she has to be careful about what she says.

Also, for those fighting reunification just stop. Supporting Simone means advocating for families to stay together. We don’t know where Simone would’ve ended up or who she would have become – if she didn’t have her grandparents to take her in. The majority of outcomes for foster kids are extremely sad. The odds of doing gymnastics as a foster kid are vanishingly very low.

One other note from an adoptee – I am quite sure many Black people do not acknowledge her adoption. It is common in our community for grandparents to step in and raise grandchildren, when the biological parents are incapable. The majority of us from the Caribbean were raised by our grandparents while our parents left for different countries, neglect us or new opportunities. (blogger’s note – in fact it is common in the rural community in Missouri where I live and there are very few Black people living here.)

Product Placement

Product placement is a marketing technique in which a product or service is showcased in some form of media, such as television shows, movies, music videos, social media platforms, or even ads for other products. Advertising professionals sometimes call this an embedded marketing strategy.

We watched this movie, Believe In Me, last night. It was an engaging and heartwarming story about the coach of a girl’s basketball team in the 1960s. What was a bit surprising was the insertion of a very common kind of adoption narrative into a movie that didn’t need that to succeed. The narrative was true enough on the surface, as depicted in the movie – the male’s infertility, the woman’s deep desire to become a mother, the visit by the social worker and the last minute call to rush to the hospital to get their soon to be adopted baby girl. I loved the part about the girls rockin and rollin dance moves on the basketball court, as a strategy that made the coach’s effort different from how boys would be coached to play.

Because I have been sensitized to all things adoption, I noticed and my husband even noticed too. He wondered what I thought of it. So, I went looking to see if the adoption part of the movie was part of the true story. The 2006 film is based on the novel “Brief Garland: Ponytails, Basketball and Nothing but Net” by Harold Keith. The novel is about Keith’s real life nephew, Jim Keith. Asked about how factual the book or movie were, the coach laughed and said, “The book about 80 percent and the movie maybe 70.” The coach passed away in 2011. That part of his story is in this WordPress blog – LINK>”Here I Stand“. His wife, Jorene, had died before him in October of 2009.

I eventually found that the adoption part of the story is true – as written up in The Oklahoman LINK>Oklahoman’s novel to become movie – the couple adopted two children: a son, James, who lives in Oologah OK, and a daughter, Jeri, who lives in Lansing KS. They also eventually were able to enjoy their three grandchildren being part of their lives.

So, I will admit that the insertion of an adoption story into this movie does not appear to be an effort by the adoption industry to add a positive element into a movie, that it was not otherwise a part of. No way of knowing how intentional the push may have been by anyone involved with the industry. However, the movie didn’t really need that additional part of the couple’s story. Common adoption narratives are – that the birth parent did not want the child, the birth parent could not afford to provide for the child (sadly, too often absolutely believed by the mother to be a real reason), the birth parent was negligent, abusive, or somehow incapable of parenting, and finally that the adoptive parents so wanted these children, and that does appear to be true in the actual story of Coach Keith.

The Story of an Open Adoption

Short on time, as is usual on Tuesdays. So I am just sharing a birth mother’s story.

Initially, I had the most open adoption experience with my son’s adoptive family. Saw him the day after we left the hospital, at least weekly for the first three years of his life and so often since. He’s nearly 21 and is close with me and my family. For years I would have called his adoptive mother one of my best friends. But we have no relationship now and I’ve been angry for a long time.

It started when I started listening to adoptees, began to understand the trauma, and told her I regret not parenting. We continued our relationship but I felt things change that day. Then, I left our previously shared faith. She was not able to continue after that and asked for a “step back” in our friendship. I didn’t know what that looks like. She crushed me when she said “we’re not family”. I literally felt broken.

But after that, I began to be able to see old things more clearly. I could look back on my pregnancy and see how coerced and unsupported I was. I kept a journal from that time, so even though memories are tricky, I have evidence of some of this. I wrote how badly I wanted to parent. I wrote about the time she (the adoptive mother) asked how she could pray for me and I said “pray that God will let me keep my baby”.

The adoptive parents were family friends, so I already knew them but they never offered me any support other beyond taking my child. She knew childcare was my biggest obstacle. She was a stay at home mom. She had already given the gift of childcare to another young single mom previously. She had the ability to help me with my biggest obstacle and supposedly prayed for me and supported my choice – but she never considered helping me.

The thing is back then I believed the rainbows and unicorns narrative of adoption. I didn’t know what I didn’t know and I didn’t go looking. Obviously, I understand now that we should always listen to the people most impacted in order to learn about a thing. (To learn about homelessness, we need to listen to unhoused people). And I have no excuse for not knowing that back then. But I didn’t. And she didn’t know about family preservation either (although she knew a little about the trauma he would experience).

My sister also offered me childcare and then rescinded her offer because she believed it was “God’s will” that I choose adoption and she didn’t want to encourage me to go against God’s will. We have since talked through a lot of this. My sister is willing to listen, has remorse and regret and has asked me to forgive her.

Even though my family was coercive and unsupportive, I continue to have a relationship with them but I want nothing to do with my boy’s adoptive mother. She continues to give me Christmas gifts every year (sends them through him) but I give her the cold shoulder, since she asked for a change in relationship.

But bitter and angry isn’t who I want to be, so I was thinking last night about what a reconciling with her might look like. And I know what it would take. I would need her to say “I didn’t know what family preservation was back then. I thought we did what was best when you decided to relinquish. I’m sorry I didn’t support you in parenting like I could have. Imagine what a beautiful thing we could have done together – our family supporting yours.” I don’t think that will ever happen and obviously those words can’t take away the loss and the pain – ALL the missing times. But those words could allow us to form a new relationship I think.

I’m NOT talking about my son here. He and I talk openly but he isn’t sure how he feels yet, isn’t ready to acknowledge or talk openly about trauma. I’m not ignoring his feelings but I won’t put the words in his mouth. I just want you to know that I’m not forgetting about him. He’s the most important piece – but this is about my relationship with her.

Is It An Amazing Act of Love ?

This is such a standard adoption narrative that there is even an adoption agency with the name A Act of Love Adoptions. It is used mostly to convince a woman to surrender her baby to adoption when it is born. That she would be selfish to keep her own baby.

So, a woman was trying to encourage people to put some thought into it, before choosing to adopt. She talked about the trauma – It’s important to remember that adoption causes a lot of trauma. Most of all to the baby who is taken away from its mother. The baby grows for nine months and knows their mother means safety, warmth and love. The baby will know it’s mother’s heartbeat and can recognize it from other heartbeats. When the baby is born, they look for all of that instinctively. When their mom is no longer there, the baby will be traumatized in a way that can never ever be repaired. She added – adoption should be avoided if possible but it’s not always possible to avoid.

Blogger’s note – that is also my perspective – being a realist and yet still wanting to see fewer adoptions whenever it is possible to avoid them.

The response to this woman was – There are so many situations where adoption is the kind and right thing to do. The reply was, Still is the fact is – trauma happens whenever any baby is separated from its mother. Undaunted, the hopeful adoptive parent says – adoption has worked out for so many parents and for so many kids. It is an amazing act of love.

Still, the woman continued to try and get through – But the trauma is still there. The trauma can’t be avoided and it has been scientifically studied. It is better that the world knows the truth about adoption. (Blogger’s note – that is the mission of writing a daily blog here.) All parties involved should be fully informed. Even if the adoption goes forward, the best interests of the adopted child must always guide whatever comes next in that child’s life. In fact, adoption informed therapy may be needed by the adoptee well into adult life.

And this person that wants to adopt is like so many – she is an adoptee, adopted at birth. She denies there was ever any trauma associated with that for her or her other 4 adoptive siblings. All 5 were adopted at birth. (Blogger’s note – I have been told repeatedly in recent months that I have more adoption in my family than anyone else they have ever encountered. And until I started waking up from that fog – I did think that adoption was the most normal thing in the world. I know differently now.)

We try our best to speak truth to the powerful pro-adoption narratives. It’s so frustrating to invest all that emotional labor, only to have one fogged adoptee swoop in and negate that effort. Those interested in adoption reform have a long effort to change hearts and minds and there is a whole industry promoting the adoption is beautiful narratives.

One adoptive mother asked her adoptee daughter about this – she said that although she was adopted at an older age and knows her biological mom and doesn’t have the same trauma from her adoption (compared to a baby separated at birth) there’s still trauma from the separation that exists no matter the reason for her separation. She said that there’s always trauma. By the way, this adoptee is only 13 but still knows this is the truth.

To which another adoptee notes – we know when we can safely express ourselves and not worry about someone silencing us, or getting angry because of our (perfectly reasonable) emotions. If someone believes in the rainbows & unicorn bliss version that adoption is always a gentle and loving way to develop their family, they will not be able to hear outside their “Lalalalala” song with hands on their ears. If they cannot see their own trauma reactions (as an adopted person) or the lifelong “I don’t know” that the adopted person experiences — even though that is the thing that overwhelms — still we cannot even express or know why — anyway, then they are not willing to really dig deep or look carefully.

Adoption Fragility

Fragility is often called out in regard to adoptive parents. Today’s blog was inspired by a mother who lost her child to adoption. This mother admits – I am also fragile. It’s often pointed out in response to an adoptive parent’s fragility. I am working on this. What is helping is getting all the adoption conditioning out of my body, heart, mind and soul. It’s deep and intense yet this work is helping.

My image above came from a Facebook page called LINK>The Open Adoption Project which focuses on improving adoptee experiences by encouraging open communication. Regarding this situation, they say “Sometimes, tragedy turns to triumph.” They note, Stevoni, the mom that Aymee is referring to, was struggling with drug addiction when her kids were removed from her care and placed with her ex-husband’s wife, Aymee. Stevoni’s parental rights were eventually terminated. Aymee adopted the kids. There were years of struggle and heartache with Stevoni going in and out of prison. Stevoni and Aymee eventually laid aside their differences for the kids. The Open Adoption Project says the two have formed one of the most admirable open adoptions we’ve seen. Stevoni now helps incarcerated individuals recover from their own addictions and is an active part of her kids’ lives.

So back to the original comment – Adoptive parents often get called out regarding their fragility. She says, I rarely see them change. Then, goes on to share her theory (while hoping she’s wrong).

Emotional manipulation of your adopted child/adult (withholding important information from them in relation to their biological family, guilt trips, passive aggressive behavior, savorism, jealousy, ownership, etc) is not because you are blind to your mind games, these behaviors are intentional.

Why? Perhaps because it is dynamic and this behavior has been in place from Day 1. The adopted child is groomed to feel responsible for your feelings. You like this dynamic because it makes you feel better.

Here’s the thing. Mind games are not Love. So if you are fragile and choosing to not deal with it, this is not love. It’s dysfunctional and extremely harmful. If you truly love your adopted kids, work on this. It’s not that hard but it does take work.

I spent a week in Oregon at Jean Houston’s house and she talked about that John Lennon song, Mind Games. The lyrics reflected John’s interest in a book with that title by Robert Masters and Jean Houston. The book stressed tapping into our mental potential to effect global change. So, just because, here is the song.

Really Missing The Point

This graphic image was posted in another group than the one indicated. It was posted in a group for all people who have an experience of adoption. I have learned a lot there. In the beginning, I didn’t know squat. I will admit it. Both of my parents were adoptees, both of my sisters gave up babies to adoption and even in my own life, I unintentionally lost physical (but not legal) custody of my first born daughter. All of this, I have learned, is at least somewhat, if not directly, related to my parents having been taken from their original mothers in the first year of their life.

So I did come into this particular group believing that adoption was a good thing. I got smacked down right out of the gate in getting to know this group. I shut up and started learning. One adoptive parent who adopted the children in her family out of the foster care system system, admits similarly – “There are a lot of things in this group that are hard to read. I will admit that my feathers were ruffled at first and thought I should leave. I’m so glad I didn’t because I have learned a lot that I hope will make me a better adoptive parent. The truth is spoken here. Sometimes the truth hurts but maybe that just means we need to learn to be comfortable being uncomfortable.”

One adoptee said – You know what pisses me off the most – about how they claim how “mean” adoptees are? The adoptive parents and foster parents that think that they can just “erase” the fact that the child was not born to them. Then, they think that when adoptees correct them, and say that our past SHOULDN’T and CAN’T be erased, we’re being mean. Like seriously, you want a “beautiful and life changing” relationship, but when somebody that has experienced what adoption is, and explains how to change it, it’s met with closed ears and we’re told “not every adoption is traumatic.” It’s absolutely infuriating. We’re trying to educate you, but honestly, you just want to continue to believe the stereotype and stigma that “adoption is all butterflies and rainbows” and it’s not. It’s just not.

One says – the anger is being treated as the minority opinion among adoptees, a voice that doesn’t matter and shouldn’t be as loud as that of grateful adoptees, because it is abusive to adoptive parents or hopeful adoptive parents.

To which one adds this clarification – I am more than my anger, and my anger doesn’t mean what I say is just out of anger. Calling people angry paints them as emotional and irrational, claims they see the world through a distorted lens or may make rash decisions. Being “angry” is a intentional mischaracterization.

No, when I’m angry, it’s because the research shows adopted people are suffering but “oh it’s just angry adoptees who had bad experiences projecting their trauma.” I’m angry because adoption in the US is a multibillion-dollar industry that commodifies the wombs and children of people in crisis, but hopeful adoptive parents don’t want to hear how they contribute to the demand for a domestic supply of infants. I’m angry when arrogant adoptive parents seem to think their kid’s experience will be the one that escapes trauma but they sound EXACTLY like my parents, and they don’t want to hear that.

I’m angry when people think there’s a magical formula where their kid will never have any hard questions for them, never develop any complicated emotions about adoption, never want to know where they came from. I’m angry when people assume any curiosity about our roots means SOMETHING about how we feel about our adoptive families. I’m angry when the people who could have a direct impact on the quality of an adopted child’s life come in here – expecting they won’t be told they have to learn and grow and change.

blogger’s note – A book consistently recommended in the all things adoption group (and one I have read myself) is Nancy Newton Verrier’s – The Primal Wound. What makes her unique is firstly – she is the mother of two daughters, one adopted and one her biological, genetic child. She also has a master’s degree in clinical psychology and is in private practice with families and children for whom adoption is a major component of their reason for seeking her out. She has both – heard much and experienced much – directly.

Reproductive Justice

And Reproductive Justice MUST include adoptee voices because adoptees are intimately familiar with the same systems of white supremacist violence that make reproductive justice necessary. Today’s blog is thanks to an op-ed by Tina Vasquez in LINK>Prism. The goal of this series about reproductive justice and adoption was simple – disrupt the adoption storytelling that has become the norm in mainstream media. These feel-good stories from the perspective of adoptive parents rarely include the voices of adoptees or question the preponderance of “cheap, easy, and fast” transracial and international adoptions by evangelicals that amount to little more than child trafficking.

No more salvation narratives. No more narratives of gratitude. No more framing adoption as a “win-win.” No more white saviors. We will question adoption as a system—its power dynamics, its economics, and its privileging of certain “reproductive destinies.” “Out of the Fog” is a phrase adoptees often use to describe facing the reality of their adoptions.

LINK>Operation Stop Child Protective Services (CPS) was founded by Amanda Wallace. She spent 10 years as a child abuse investigator before realizing that “she had become the silent enforcer for an oppressive system.” She now lends her insider knowledge to families navigating the system and trying to regain custody of their children.

About 27% of adoptions are transracial, according to a recent survey from the Department of Health and Human Services: birth mothers are disproportionately women of color, and adoptive parents are overwhelmingly white. Low-income Black and Native American children are the most likely to be separated from their families. Poverty is often interpreted as neglect when applied to these people.

When Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, white evangelicals wasted no time communicating their desire to take the babies that result from forced pregnancies. Never mind that most people denied abortion care simply become parents and that there is little evidence linking abortion bans to increases in adoption.

Time and time again, the solution offered to state violence is adoption, yet we fail to center adoptees whose lived experiences and areas of expertise touch every injustice and systemic problem our movements battle against. This is especially true when it comes to reproductive justice. While efforts are being made to explicitly discuss adoption as a reproductive justice issue, adoptees’ voices are still not being uplifted in these conversations. Adoptees are building their own movements—including Facebook groups like LINK>Adoptees for Choice—but will movements for sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice invite them into the fold?