Tag: Adoption

Multi-Generational Impacts

I did read this book and I know that the impacts of adoption did have generational effects. I’ve written about this before. In today’s story, an adoptee shares it’s effects in her life and family.

I see many adoptees who have such beautiful relationships with their own children. Are there others out there who struggle with relationships with their own children? My birth mother and I were both products of the baby snatch era. She discovered she was bought by her parents only after they died. She abandoned me as a toddler to an orphanage. I was adopted but later returned to foster care by my adopted parents. I became pregnant at 15 and forced to give birth. I could not place my son for adoption due to my own negative experience as an adoptee but received no form of parenting support/skill training. My birth mother found me as a young adult (only after finding her birth mother first) – only to disown and reabandon me. I have no relationship with my adopted mother, my birth mother, or adult son. I feel like I failed to interrupt multi generational trauma. My failure pains me greatly and I feel very alone in this.

Bribing DNA Test Sites ?

I do have my doubts about the bribing but it is a real concern for the adoptee in today’s story.

I have semi-recently remembered that I am adopted, something that my parents hid from me and still do not admit. So are my siblings, but all of us are not related to our parents and each other. Certainly, not as closely as immediate family. We started to guess that we were adopted when we were children. Our allergies were very different. And for me again in 7th grade, when we did a genetics unit. My siblings and I don’t talk about it now as adults. When I was in college, I hired a private investigator and he unearthed so much that everyone was lying about, including this. I’m really wanting to do so again, but can’t afford it. A DNA test isn’t a given, because my parents have money (I don’t) and they can bribe the testing site to give fake results, it’s happened before. I did get real results when I was an adolescent, but I can’t remember what they were except for a few parts. I don’t know what happened to the test result papers. I had wanted to keep them forever.

One suggestion – Once you do an Ancestry or 23 and Me test, I suggest joining DNA Detectives and ask for a search angel. Search angels are volunteers who help you find your biological family for free, if you are interested in that.

Someone else pointed out – Ancestry, 23andMe etc have very strict rules and I very much doubt that they could be bribed to give you false results. You wouldn’t even have to get your parents to test. With a bit of detective work and some close enough matches, you can prove if you are related to your parents or not. 

Yet another person notes – you’d probably be disturbed to learn the extents small local places are willing to go to protect recipient parents. I wouldn’t be surprised if a local facility was supportive and even somehow involved with misinforming the adoptee. Something can be illegal, yet people/businesses can still (and often do) break the law. “Illegal” doesn’t mean “impossible” or even “unlikely”.

More than one expressed this thought – now is NOT the time to tell original poster to seek mental health help. Dissociation is a trip. It’s not surprising someone would suppress or dissociate away from the information that they’re adopted. Imagine finding something like that out after being lied to. People are going to process something like that at their own speed and seek help when they feel ready.

One adoptee added – don’t we all need some professional mental healthcare for our adoptions and lifetimes of traumas!? The lucky few have access to those resources.

And something like this DOES happen and so someone shares this story about a person that didn’t find out he was adopted until he was 40. His sister said that they tried to tell him when he was 6 years old and he got really upset – so they decided to just not bring it up again. He was very different looking to his parents. He finally got tested. It took him a bit to be ok with it all but now he is.

Truth No Longer Matters ?

When there is no agreed criterion to distinguish science from pseudoscience or just plain ordinary BS, it is post-empirical science, where truth no longer matters and it IS potentially very dangerous.

Case in point – Diane Baird – who labeled her method for assessing families the “Kempe Protocol” after the renowned University of Colorado institute where she worked for decades. From a ProPublica expose – LINK>An Expert Admits Her Evaluations Are Unscientific.

From that story – Diane Baird had spent four decades evaluating the relationships of poor families with their children. But last May, in a downtown Denver conference room, with lawyers surrounding her and a court reporter transcribing, she was the one under the microscope. Baird is a social worker and professional expert witness. She has routinely advocated in juvenile court cases across Colorado that foster children be adopted by or remain in the custody of their foster parents rather than being reunified with their typically lower-income birth parents or other family members.

Was Baird’s method for evaluating these foster and birth families empirically tested? No, Baird answered: Her method is unpublished and unstandardized, and has remained “pretty much unchanged” since the 1980s. It doesn’t have those “standard validity and reliability things,” she admitted. “It’s not a scientific instrument.” Who hired and was paying her in the case that she was being deposed about? The foster parents, she answered. They wanted to adopt, she said, and had heard about her from other foster parents.

Had she considered or was she even aware of the cultural background of the birth family and child whom she was recommending permanently separating? (The case involved a baby girl of multiracial heritage.) Baird answered that babies have “never possessed” a cultural identity, and therefore are “not losing anything,” at their age, by being adopted. Although when such children grow up, she acknowledged, they might say to their now-adoptive parents, “Oh, I didn’t know we were related to the, you know, Pima tribe in northern California, or whatever the circumstances are.” (Actually, the Pima tribe is located in the Phoenix metropolitan area.)

A fundamental goal of foster care, under federal law, is for it to be temporary: to reunify children with their birth parents if it is safe to do so or, second best, to place them with other kin. Extensive social science research has found that kids who grow up with their own families experience less long-term separation trauma, fewer mental health and behavioral problems as adolescents and more of an ultimate sense of belonging to their culture of origin.

But a ProPublica investigation co-published with The New Yorker in October revealed that there is a growing national trend of foster parents undermining the foster system’s premise by “intervening” in family court cases as a way to adopt children. As intervenors, they can file motions and call witnesses to argue that they’ve become too attached to a child for the child to be reunited with their birth family, even if officials have identified a biological family member who is suitable for a safe placement.

A key element of the intervenor strategy, ProPublica found, is hiring an attachment expert like Baird to argue that rupturing the child’s current attachment with his or her foster parents could cause lifelong psychological damage — even though Baird admitted in her deposition that attachment is a nearly inevitable aspect of the foster care model. (Transitions of children back to their birth families are not just possible, they happen every day in the child welfare system.)

In the Huerfano County case, Baird filed a report saying that the baby girl’s life with her foster parents was “predictable, safe, and filled with love”; that removing her from them and placing her with her biological grandma — with whom the girl had been having regular, joyful visits — would “derail her healthy development and create lifelong risk”; and that her “healthy development and mental health will be best protected if her current caregiving environment does not change.”

Baird, in an interview with ProPublica, admitted that “I do sometimes use the same verbiage in one report as I did in others.” But, she added in an email, “My consistency is not a boiler-plate approach, but rather reflects developmental science which applies to all children.” She emphasized, “In all cases I advocate for what I am convinced is the child’s best interest.”

Baird also noted that in many cases she is hired by county officials, rather than directly by foster parents, although ProPublica’s interviews and review of records show that this typically happens when officials are in agreement with the foster parents that they should get continuing or permanent custody. Baird, despite not being a child psychologist, achieves credibility with these officials — and with judges — in part via the impressive label that she uses for her methodology: the Kempe Protocol.

Founded in the 1970s, the Kempe Center is best known for getting laws passed across the country requiring “mandated reporters” like teachers and police officers to call in any suspicion of child abuse or neglect to a state hotline — after which kids were to be removed from their families, into foster care, if there was evidence of maltreatment. “No organization,” said Marty Guggenheim, the founder of the nation’s indigent family defense movement, “played a more direct role in shaping the modern system of surveillance, over-reporting, and under-emphasizing of the harms associated with state intervention.”

In recent years, Kempe has taken a more critical look at its past, accepting some institutional responsibility for what it has called the “myth of benevolence”: the idea that certain kids should be redistributed from their families to (often better-off) foster and adoptive parents. The center recently released a statement saying that it had participated in ignoring poverty by placing sole responsibility for poor children’s health and well-being on their families’ alleged maltreatment of them. The statement acknowledged the center’s “complicity” in its “generation-spanning impacts.”

Some of Kempe’s staff have called Baird’s method a “bogus Kempe protocol” and “junk science” used “to rip apart families.” She is “leveraging the Kempe name to bolster her opinion.” Drawing from the foster parents’ version of events, Baird routinely reports to the county or testifies in court that visits with the birth family have been detrimental to the child, and, accordingly, she recommends that the foster parents keep the child indefinitely or permanently, on the basis of attachment theory. She has called just this amount of evaluation “the Kempe Protocol” in several cases we reviewed.

Sadly, there appears to be no clear recourse for all of the birth families who’ve lost their children in the past because of Baird’s work. 

Changing Perspectives

A woman writes – I am a foster parent/almost an adoptive parent. I am adopting my two foster kids in a few weeks. As I’ve been thinking about what comes next, I am really drawn to turning in my foster license and joining LINK>Safe Families for Children as a host family. I would really like to support natural parents and family preservation by helping families in crisis. However I’m wondering how that will impact my adopted kids? Would doing this potentially be traumatic for them? I don’t want to do anything that introduces more trauma unnecessarily.

Some responses – a lot of them wanted her to “just focus on the kids you’re adopting.” An adoptee asks – “Why do you need to split your attention and not focus fully on the children currently in your care They should be your main and only priority at this point, especially if you’re adopting them. If you want to support family preservation efforts, I’d do so with dollars. Give money to organizations that actively work to keep families out of the system to begin with.”

One foster parent admitted – “I would worry a little that they might resent the fact you didn’t do this for their natural parents. The kids could be hurt that their adoptive mom is helping others to keep their kids. I just think this is going to be another major trauma to her littles in the long run. They can be told all day long that their natural parents were not good for them, but seeing their adoptive parent help others keep their kids is still going to hurt them in the long run; how could it not ?”

Another sees the idea differently – Speaking from experience, I can tell you, there is no one who understands another kid in “care” like another kid in “care”. We have adopted, then fostered, and then did safe families and because this was our joint family mission, it worked great ! Make sure you are always on the same page before saying yes to a placement, take breaks when someone needs it and be flexible. Safe families is short term and a fantastic family mission.

Another with similar experience shares – Safe Families is structured to have many different volunteer opportunities…you don’t have to host…you can be a coach or a family friend…those positions don’t require having other kids in your home…My adoptive daughter thinks I am going to “get rid of her” every time a kiddo leaves our home…so we have decided to only take on parenting teens moving forward and give them the opportunity to age out with our children in their life … changing my role to be more of a model/guide, while still being able to help vulnerable families…I do respite for safe families and maintain contact with children and their parents and continue to support, even after they are fully home…you can still help and also not have your kids go through any additional trauma.

One pediatric psychologist asked – “How old are the kids you’re planning to adopt ?” Then, noted – “I would recommend involving them in the decision and honoring whatever feelings they have about it. Consent is super important and unfortunately foster children’s consent is historically non-existent.”

Our Very Own Chimera

I learned a long time ago that a little bit of every baby one carries in pregnancy stays in the mother as some of that baby’s cells. Was reminded of that recently by a Medium notifications of an essay by an adoptee, Mindy Stern LINK>My Dead Mother and Me, (which I couldn’t actually read much of because I am no longer a Medium member) and went looking for more. I found this – LINK>Fetal Maternal Microchimerism. This phenomenon gets its name from the chimera, a creature you might have heard of in Greek mythology that was part goat, lion, and dragon, hence the image I selected for today. Fetal Maternal Microchimerism explains situations where a mother’s body contains stem cells from her child in her body for years after childbirth. 

Stem cells are the building blocks of life. They’re found in our body’s tissues, blood, organs, and immune systems. Once in the body, they use chemical cues from neighboring cells to grow into the same material as their surroundings. What makes them so unique is their ability to help repair or replace damaged or diseased cells within the body. Because of this innate ability, they can treat various medical conditions such as blood disorders, cancers, and immunodeficiencies. You may surrender your baby to strangers to raise in what is referred to as adoption but bits of that baby will be with you always.

When a woman is pregnant, she experiences placental immune suppression, which keeps the body from viewing the baby as an “intruder.” Scientists believe this occurrence allows for microchimerism because it will allow the fetus’ cells to sneak past the mother’s immune defenses without being marked as foreign. Since this immune suppression can remain for several months after delivery, there is ample time for the fetal cells to establish themselves and become a part of the mother’s body. Women do not produce Y chromosomes, yet research findings suggest that the Y chromosomes come from the cells of their sons being transmitted during pregnancy (blogger’s note – which interests me as I have given birth to 2 sons). Scientists have found fetal cells in scar tissues, specifically scars left by C-sections. It is theorized that these cells from the baby help the mom recover after birth by repairing wounds (blogger’s note – both of my sons were delivered C-section).

Both child and mother benefit from this exchange of fetal cells. The mutual desire to survive requires cooperation from both mother and baby. The baby’s innate desire to survive is prominent long before birth. Looking out for their mother’s health ensures the baby can develop safely. Science is proving that there is a very deep fetal-maternal bond. With my sons, I know I influenced their taste in food and, beyond my heartbeat and voice, my emotional energy enveloped them in utero. A newborn is not a blank slate, where it can be assumed the gestating mother can be easily replaced. The relationship between a mother and her child goes far beyond the nine months of pregnancy. Maybe someday, we will no longer separate the two of them, as is currently encouraged by governmental pro-adoption policies.

The Luck of the Irish

Mary Jane Davis Hempstead

The luck of the Irish, may not actually be lucky. I never forgot my dad’s birthday (actually March 18th) because he was coincidentally named Patrick, even though his actual great grandmother was full-blooded Irish. I say coincidentally because he was adopted from The Salvation Army. His unwed mother had an affair with a married Danish immigrant, not yet a naturalized citizen. She had lost her mother at the age of 3 months. She had stubbornly refused to return to North Carolina with her father, sister and an abusive step-mother after visiting her aunt (the sister of her father) in La Jolla, California. She handled the pregnancy with the same self-resiliency that she handled everything life threw at her.

My ancestral line is this – Mary Jane was born in New York City in 1840. Mary’s parents were both born in Ireland – Robert (born 1808) and Mariah (born 1813) Davis were married in 1867. Mary had lots of brothers and sisters. Austin E and Mary J Hempstead had two children, Raphael Vandervort Hempstead (my dad’s grandfather) and Laura Eldridge Hempstead (my dad’s great aunt). Raphael was born January 28 1870 at Greenport New York. Laura was born 1873 at Oyster Bay New York. Austin E died in San Diego near his daughter Laura on May 18 1932 at the age of 90.

My dad feared what was behind his surrender to adoption. When my adoptee mom wanted to find her own mother, he cautioned her that it might be opening a can of worms. Sadly, my dad’s biological, genetic half-sister was living only 90 miles away from him in New Mexico when he died. PS – my dad LOVED to drink beer but not the green kind.

My dad on my wedding day in 1988

It Is NOT The Easy Answer

I don’t know who Megan Devine is but her words seemed perfect for a Huffington Post personal essay I read today by Joanna Good – LINK>At 17, I Gave My Baby Up.

She was scrolling through her social media and came upon a mother asking for advice. She had just found out she was pregnant, and because she and her husband already had several children, he didn’t want any more. Though he was sure of his decision, she wasn’t, and wanted help figuring out what to do. She writes – “I was feeling so many emotions at once that I wasn’t sure I could even identify them all, but I definitely felt frustration, anger, and yearning swirling through my body.”

She goes on to note – “People who have never been touched by adoption always seem to think of it as easy, but as a mother who placed her child for adoption, struggled through the chaotic emotional aftermath of the separation, and then reconnected with my child later on, I know the truth. Even though it was the right choice for me at the time, adoption is anything but easy.”

She admits – “I had never stopped thinking about Hanna (blogger’s note – the adopted name of the baby girl she gave up to adoption) — never. But the adoption had forced me to grow up quickly, and I did. I had come out stronger. Sturdier. Wiser. I continued to feel so many emotions, but now I was able to handle most of them. The guilt was a different story.”

No one really talks about what follows you through life after adoption. There is no such thing as a clean break. She realized that “I knew my little girl might never know me, yet I saw her face everywhere — in the photographs her adoptive parents continued to send me, but also in other children’s faces at the grocery store, at library story time . . . I often wondered if Hanna ever thought she saw my face in a crowd.”

She saw her daughter again when the little girl turned 6. Joanna shares – that her daughter poked her in the stomach and said, “Mommy said God put me in your belly because she couldn’t have me in hers.” Then, when Hanna was 13, she got a message from Hanna that hit her like a train going full speed. They had begun chatting almost daily via Facebook messenger — something she always looked forward to — but she never expected to see these two words pop up on her screen – “I’m trans.” (A person whose gender identity does not correspond with the sex registered for them at birth.)

Typical of an Evangelical Christian response – “Hanna’s adoptive parents offered no support and referred to his brave coming out as ‘a phase’. They refused to use any other name but the one they bestowed upon him and would not allow him to seek counseling or see a doctor for potential hormone blockers. Instead they looked to religion and prayed this phase would end.”

Joanna shares that she – “decided to become the solution. I would be there for my birth son no matter what and I promised to be the parent I couldn’t be at 17. . . . I was there every step of the way as Hanna slowly transitioned to Aarron.”

She concludes her essay – “Adoption. It might seem easy — the perfect solution for an unexpected child and an unprepared mom. But too often we don’t talk about the messiness. The trauma. The endless questioning. Or that there really is no such thing as a truly severed connection.”

What response could she possibly offer this pregnant woman in need of support when there is no one true answer? “Then I realized the one thing I most needed to hear when I was in her place all of those years ago. I typed, Hey, I understand. I’m here if you need to talk, and hit post.”

What Can Happen

Today’s story (and not mine, which is usually the case with the stories I share but which I ALWAYS feel have an important point to make). The woman is both an adoptee herself and a mother of loss (meaning no longer has physical custody of her children).

Basically, my rights were violated (I know, everyone who is a mother who lost custody of her child/children had that happen) and I didn’t even sign a Termination of Parental Rights (TPR). No, the State didn’t take my children; my sister was my guardian, co-guardian with my parents and SHE signed the TPR paperwork; I didn’t even see it – to allow my parents to adopt my children.

Both my children are under 18 years old, the oldest is only a few years away, but she’s “incapacitated” and wouldn’t be able to make the decision to come find me, which I’m not even sure they’re even being told that they were adopted. The youngest is under10 years old and was still a toddler when COVID happened (the Christmas before is when I spent longer than 5 minutes with her). I doubt she would remember me.

I’ve been told I could adopt them back but being an adopted child myself, I hesitate to do something traumatizing to my children like what happened to me. Being that my parents are the ones that raised my children and the only ones they know as “parents”, would it be selfish of me to move forward with this ?

I just hope one day that the right questions get asked and the youngest starts looking for me. Then I can address whether it’s best to keep my children with my parents. The adoption took place in late 2018, early 2019 (the time it probably took for finalization). I wasn’t ever told the exact date; but I know that a court hearing took place in 2018.

When a commenter said – “pretty sure that’s illegal!! And I’m pretty sure all parties have to be notified and served for a court date! Your children deserve to have their mother and I mean their real mother, not some wanna be, in their lives. Are these the people that adopted you ?” The woman clarifies –  “I was there at all court dates, but my sister insisted on being my “voice” and of course, I didn’t want to be held in contempt – so I kept my mouth shut except to say to the judge, ‘this is what they want, I don’t really have a say.’ The sister that signed is my biological half sister (I didn’t know that she was only a half sister until adulthood). She was adopted at the same time I was. She worships the ground the adoptive parents walk on.”

The commenter makes a guess – “They threw you away the moment they had your precious babies in their clutches ! Was there ever an access order put in place when the adoption was finalized ?” She responds – “They ‘promised’ to keep me ‘in the loop’, but then COVID happened and they used that as an excuse to cut me out completely. They were technically still my guardians until June of 2022, but they never came to actually see me; it was all done over the phone.” The commenter answers – “I’d be finding a way to sue these people ! I know it’s probably not possible but what they’ve done to you is wrong !! And they need to be stopped from doing it again. The children will have trauma – no matter what – and quite frankly being with their mommy is what’s best for them !”

Another commenter asked an obvious question – “What was the reason for the guardianship, I am not judging.” The woman’s reply was – “I consented to a temporary guardianship when they sat at my kitchen table and I let them (adoptive mother and sister) take care of all the paperwork. When I got to the court hearing, suddenly it was a permanent guardianship and I had no idea how to object at the time. I was 23, in an abusive relationship, and pregnant (even though they’ll argue that the pregnancy should have no bearing on my consent). Some background – I graduated at 19 from high school, moved 3+ counties away for “independent living” care help when I was 20, moved to where I currently live when I was 21 for a job (which I’ve had going on 16 years), and basically got “ghosted” by them from then on, until suddenly they reappeared in November when I was 23, in order to petition for guardianship.”

Some advice about smoothing a transition came – “I would definitely accept the opportunity to get them back. You can do a transition to minimize damage and increase visits over time and perhaps some therapeutic visits or therapy for them with someone who would help them navigate the transition back to you as smoothly as possible.”

The Answer

Legal guardianship is the answer. Adoption erases one’s entire identity — changes their birth certificate, their name, their culture, severs their ability to find/know their family as well as family medical history.

Legal guardianship provides a path where the child is in a safe environment while also retaining their autonomy over their identity. It isn’t necessary to steal someone’s identity in order to provide a home for them.

Let’s talk responsibility. Ignorance is not an excuse. So you’re an adoptive parent and you conveniently didn’t realize the adoption industry is corrupt and the trauma associated with it until your family was “complete.” You are still responsible for it. So you’re a natural mom who was coerced. While that is horrible, you are still responsible for signing on the dotted line.

What does this say though about kids who aren’t wanted by family? Shouldn’t someone take them in and give them in a chance? What about someone who didn’t want their kids?

Why not choose guardianship?

Adoptees are the only ones in the adoption triad who had no right at all to consent. Even in the case of a truly forced termination of parental rights, most of these parents had some responsibility for the reasons why their rights were terminated. When we make natural mother’s the victims, we once again erase adopted people. It’s not healthy for adopted people. when their natural mothers make themselves the victim.

Who Is Really Responsible

Sharing some intelligent and knowledgeable thoughts today (no, not my own but so good, I had to share) –

Responsibility In Adoption

WHO IS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR FORCED ADOPTIONS?

A few people make the point that sometimes foster parents are forced by the state to adopt their foster children. Since there was some demand for a topic addressing forced adoptions from foster care, I thought this topic was important. Let’s start with some language.

ARE FOSTER PARENTS FORCED OR ARE THEY COERCED?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, “force” includes situations where a person may be threatened into cooperating with an action they would prefer not to perform. In this way, you can say that adoptive parents are “forced” to adopt from foster care under some circumstances. But I think the word “coerced” is better because it is a more nuanced word that conveys the fact that while there were no good choices, adoptive parents still made a choice.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE FORCED ADOPTIONS?

There’s a who and there’s a what. Let’s start with the “what.”

What we’re talking about is the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), a Clinton-era law intended to encourage state agencies to find and secure permanent homes for children waiting in foster care following the termination of parental rights. This act provides Federal monies for state agencies for each child adopted out of foster care in a given fiscal year. In order to continue to receive this stipend, the state agencies must increase the number of adoptions compared to the previous year. Agencies, therefore, train their caseworkers to push for (or coerce) adoptions so that they continue to receive these federal funds for their services. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) is largely responsible for the number of children in foster care waiting to be adopted as well as the coercion in adoption.

The “who” is the adoptive parent.

I know you don’t want to hear this. It is so much easier to blame someone else for your involvement in a system of oppression. But let me put this simply: You would not have been forced to adopt, if you had not been involved in foster care as a foster parent in the first place.

Leaving aside any feelings many of us have about adoption and foster care in the first place, this is factually true. The caseworker could not have coerced you to adopt, if you had not already been fostering, which most of you signed up for in the first place.

THE REALITY OF FORCED ADOPTIONS

They do happen. Period. But when we put the emphasis on adoptive parents, we shift the tragedy of forced adoptions away from the helpless party: The adoptee. We also shift the emphasis from the party who truly had no choice and was literally forced: The natural family. Because the adoptee didn’t choose to be in foster care — the adoptive (formerly foster) parent did. Because biological parents didn’t choose to engage with the system — the adoptive (formerly foster) parent did.

Before you argue that biological parents chose to engage with the system, sit down and listen. Please.

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) demands a supply of children to be adopted out of foster care, and Child Protective Services uses increasingly aggressive techniques to source these children. Many children in the system, even post-Termination of Parental Rights, are in the system because their parents were facing temporary situations and then the system saddled them with requirements they simply could not complete. When parents don’t complete the objectives of their case plan, their rights are terminated. Their children may be adopted “for the sake of permanency.”

ADOPTIVE PARENTS AREN’T VICTIMS

It is harmful to adoptees and their original families when adoptive parents make themselves out to be the victims in adoption. Not only does this potentially (likely) harm the adopted child and/or their first family, but it prevents the adoptive parent from healing the parts of them that are wounded by whatever causes led them to adoption. You have to be responsible for your choices. Period. As a first mother who lost her children to CPS and is now in reunion, I strive to recognize that whatever I may feel, I am not the victim. My children were. For the sake of your child, keep things in perspective. In the long run, it will also help you.

BUT WHAT ABOUT KINSHIP ADOPTION?

Kinship adoption is a true tragedy. The majority of kinship adopters didn’t set out to foster or adopt in the first place and accept responsibility for a relative’s children to keep them out of the system. In many states, they are then threatened with stranger placement, if they don’t adopt their kinship child. Adoption isn’t the right answer, but keeping children with family has to come first whenever possible. No adopter gets a free pass, but if there is an argument that can be made that kinship adopters have almost no choice because they didn’t choose to participate in the system apart from the pressure applied by the need for care inside the family.

YOU CAN DO THE WRONG THING WHILE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING

It’s easy for those suffering cognitive distortions (often as a result of childhood abuse and trauma) to believe that participating in a broken system makes them a bad person.

Nobody’s saying that. We recognize the choicelessness you felt when confronted with the option to either adopt or allow a child you care deeply for to be removed from your home to be adopted by strangers — and you may never see them again.

But it is important, for the sake of your adopted child — that you not make yourself the victim of some third party — especially when that third party is faceless and nameless (“the system”).

LET’S GET VISIBLE!

Reactions and short comments can bump this topic. But comments of five words or more will help boost it in the algorithm, so it will show up in people’s personal news feeds. The way Facebook and WordPress function, your comments contribute to making sure more people see valuable content. Thank you for your support!