Falsehoods Are Common

A CPS lawyer is arguing that her clients (social workers) didn’t know that
you cannot lie in court in order to take a parents’ children away from them.

This came up in a thread where someone questioned – The mother was 19, they put her age as 16. I was 17 when this was dated, but this family wasn’t made known to me until March, 2018. 6 months into the pregnancy after being excluded prior. I am just wondering why her age isn’t what it actually was and if anyone has any ideas as to why she was listed as being younger? The dates are also listed differently.

I don’t really know the answers to this specific situation but I saw this behavior back in the mid-1930s in the surrender papers prepared by Georgia Tann related to my mom’s adoption. The ages of my genetic maternal grandparents were deliberately misrepresented as were the occupations of my grandparents.

It was noted – There’s quite a few court cases on YouTube where child protection workers were caught lying and forging documents to the courts or injecting themselves into families. There are so many lawsuits.

One person noted – The information packet my sister received also had false information like this. I believe this is a common practice in adoption. It was supposed to contain her identifying information and it was this bizarre package of lies and it was literally redacted in a lot of parts. I had no idea things like that happened in adoption until she showed me her redacted information package of lies and she told me how common it actually is for information to be falsified. It makes it more difficult for the adoptee to get to the truth/find their biological families.

One youth/family counselor wrote – When working with kids who are involved with Div of Children and Family Services (in Illinois specifically) I’ve experienced my kids caseworkers and the supervisors changing constantly. I really believe a lot of the records that are kept are incomplete and false because of high staff turnover rate, low oversight, rampant unchecked bias, and pure laziness on behalf of a lot of the workers. They care a lot less about the paperwork being true and more about it matching whatever case they are arguing to the judge. It’s maddening and makes it difficult for EVERY entity involved to know what is even going on. That is absolutely insane, and a very clear example of how harmful it is that these adults (Child Protective Services workers/shady adoption agencies) simply don’t care to make sure the information is truthful or correct for the kids’ sake at ALL. The paperwork serves them, not the kids. None of it serves the kids.

An advocate notes – They just flat out lie and there was actually a case about it in California, I believe where they argued the right to lie. While some cases may be due to understaffing, a lot of it is just flat out corruption. They want that Title IV funding (LINK>Title IV-E – Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance) and they have to destroy families to get it. It always shocks me when people act like CPS/DHS/Adoption agencies aren’t corrupt. Because they are. Systematically. It is insane how many families have told me stories like this. It is absolutely a product of how the system is set up.

Georgia Tann’s Impact

Blond girl (not my mom) with Georgia Tann

From a blog by New Hope Investigations, LINK>How a Criminal’s Dark Actions Continue to Shroud Adoptions in Unnecessary Secrecy.

My husband said today, regarding my mom’s adoption facilitated by Georgia Tann, that my mom had been stolen. My mom believed that and had her own story about it. Mostly, thanks to Georgia Tann, my mom’s adoption was “closed” and the file “sealed”, which kept her from obtaining what I now possess (her whole adoption file including letters from my mom, her adoptive mother and her biological genetic mother). I saw falsehoods incorporated into alternate surrender documents to match my adoptive grandmother’s “specifications” for the baby girl she wanted to adopt (a Jill to go with the previously adopted brother, the Jack, in the children’s rhyme). My adoptive grandmother was a repeat customer of Georgia Tann’s, though she was actually more closely involved with Fannie Elrod, who was the superintendent of the Tennessee Children’s Home Society’s entire operation headquartered in Nashville.

The children’s rhyme is actually a dark one – Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after. Oh my !!

Ms. Tann orchestrated over 5,000 adoptions between 1924 and 1950, though the actual number is likely closer to 6,000. She kidnapped many of those children before placing them for adoption into families who were only screened for their wealth. Before Georgia Tann entered the picture, adoption was extremely uncommon. With her black market practice, she singlehandedly popularized adoption, kickstarting it into existence as we know it today.

Very unfortunately for adoptees even still today, Georgia Tann made it common practice to falsify adoptees’ birth certificates to reflect incorrect information. She did this to cover her own tracks and mask her sinister crimes. Legislators were all too eager to approve this practice with the supposed intent of sparing adoptees’ the stigma of illegitimacy. In all reality, many of those legislators turned their heads the other way because they themselves had adopted children through Georgia Tann.

Still today, all 50 states issue an original birth certificate to adoptees, as well as an amended birth certificate that reflects the adoptive parents as the birth parents. The original certificate is typically then sealed forever, unable to be accessed even by the adoptee him or herself. (blogger’s note – I am fortunate to actually have a copy of my mom’s original birth certificate.)

As the child of two adoptees who this affected, I grew up not knowing our biological facts, cultural history or ethnic make-up, and nothing of our family medical history. Some adoptees have only bits and pieces of knowledge about themselves. (blogger’s note – this was true for both of my parents at some point in their lives but never a complete knowledge before they each died 4 months apart, after over 50 years of marriage.)

(Blogger’s note – my mom definitely registered her DNA with Ancestry’s database in the hope of uncovering biological family members but it never happened for her. She tried to construct a family tree, based only on the adoptive families for both her self and my dad, but had to give it up because she simply knew it was not “real”. Adoptees are forced to live a false identity.)

Even when Georgia Tann’s crimes were finally publicly outed, she remained safeguarded because of the numerous politicians, legislators, judges, attorneys, doctors, nurses, and social workers who would have gone down with her. She had such a wide net of accomplices that to take her down would have also meant the collapse of a very widespread group of prominent citizens. Memphis was a terribly corrupt city at the time. Georgia Tann died from cancer on September 15, 1950 at age 59.

Certainly, this describes my mom’s mother’s circumstances – The majority of children targeted by Georgia Tann came from poor, white, single mothers who had no resources or support. During the era of Ms. Tann’s operations, and very much perpetuated by Ms. Tann herself, single mothers who kept their children began to be regarded as selfish. It became the norm for the majority of these women to choose adoption when they no longer received support from their families and were instead sent away for the duration of their pregnancies with shame attached to their “condition”. (blogger’s note – my maternal grandparents were married but the lack of financial support from her father or her husband allowed my grandmother to be exploited and coerced by Georgia Tann to surrender my mom.)

The terribly sad effects of adoption – identity crises, bereavement for the loss of their old lives, feelings of isolation, grief over separation from siblings placed elsewhere, depression, confusion, and a host of other negative feelings, behaviors, and difficult experiences – stay with adoptees into their adulthoods. In 1995, the state of Tennessee made original birth certificates available to adoptees who had been born IN the state. (Blogger’s note – that my mom was born in Virginia, although adopted in Memphis, was one of the excuses the state made to deny her the adoption file.)

Blogger’s note – In fact, it was because my mom knew a great deal about Georgia Tann by the early 1990s from a multitude of stories that came out in Good Housekeeping, on 60 Minutes and thanks to Oprah, that my mom believed she had been stolen from her poor, illiterate parents in Virginia and transported to Memphis to be sold by Georgia Tann. That was not the reality and I grieve that although the actual reality of her circumstances does not change the fact that she was adopted, she could have been allowed to know how much she was loved by the woman who gave birth to her and how she struggled to find a way to keep them together.

The New Hope Investigations piece notes in conclusion – “However, over 20 years after Tennessee’s victory, adoptees still face pushback and denial of access to their original birth records.” Also that they wrote their blog inspired by Barbara Bisantz Raymond’s book, The Baby Thief, and praised that she really did her homework having conducted over 1,000 interviews for her phenomenal book. Barbara Bisantz Raymond also previously contacted this blogger, thanks to my own efforts with this blog. When my mom died, still knowing nothing, I felt the responsibility to complete the effort my mom had made to learn her own origins. In having succeeded, I have honored my mom’s trust in sharing her feelings and beliefs with me. Sadly, my adoptee dad was unsupportive.

Handmaid’s Tale

One woman who gave up a child to adoption said – An adoptive mom watching a natural mom give birth gives off handmaiden’s tale vibes to me. The question that elicited this was – why do hopeful adoptive parents feel the need and expect to be in the delivery room ? Do you really need to see someone else’s baby born to raise it ?

Hard to believe but some go as far as getting a room and being in a hospital gown with their hair done to look like they gave birth. Then after the baby was born, had a photo made to appear that she gave birth. The one describing this goes on to say – She did this twice and took away babies from moms that honestly could’ve been good moms but according to someone close to this circumstance, it is believed the child protective services worker involved in these cases had been paid cash under the table. She said – Just thinking about it makes me ill. Prospective adoptive parents have no reason whatsoever to be anywhere near the hospital at the time of birth.

One adoptee said – they think we are like geese and imprint on the first thing we see. Another notes – to make the baby – as if – born to the prospective adoptive mom. Another says – when I hear an adoptive parent say they witnessed the birth of “their” child, I want to say, “No ma’am you did not!!! You violated another human beings rights by barging your way into her life to take her child!” Someone else notes that being there violates two people’s rights (the birth/first/real mother and newborn). God forbid a real mom has even a moment to just look at her baby and then decides to parent her baby ! It is a form of coercion.

In the realm of adoption reform – the adoptive parents would never be anywhere near the expectant mother when she gives birth. Also that she is allowed time with her baby before following through on such a life changing decision for both of them – one that may haunt her for the rest of her life and affect her baby in ways she may not be informed enough to understand.

Graft

Today’s blog is thanks to my friend, Ande Stanley and her The Adoption Files.

I like to garden. I was looking at fruit trees at the local plant nursery. An employee was describing the benefits of grafted fruit trees over the non grafted variety.

This seemed a natural process to compare with adoption. We even have the images of family trees to grapple with; whose tree do we belong to?

We are frequently informed, both directly and indirectly, of how much better off we are as adoptees, grafted onto this superior tree. So much so that there is no need, supposedly, for us to be curious about our origin tree. The tree that brought us forth, gave us life, and then lost a part of itself.

With grafts, a wound is left on the tree of origin. An incision is made on our next tree, a wound that closes around us to create a new fruiting branch.

We are on the tree, but not of it.

As I listen to the employee talk about extended life and new vigor and flowering and fruiting; about the cost of the tree and the benefits I would enjoy by planting this tree in my garden; I can’t stop thinking of another definition of the word graft: obtained by means of corruption.

So much corruption, deception, and coercion exists in adoption. Politicians routinely ignore this reality. There’s too much power and money involved for most to find an interest in backing the rights of adopted people. Always a loophole or a fabricated obstacle that can be employed to deny adoptees access to the truths of our origins. A way to perpetuate the graft.

Adoption Reform Is Reproductive Justice

The article LINK>Meet the New Anti-Adoption Movement in The New Republic by Emily Matchar is dated September 1 2013 but the need for reform has not progressed all that much. True more states do now allow adult adoptees to have access to their original birth certificates and that is a very precious document for those who are able to obtain one. It is subtitled – the surprising next frontier in reproductive justice.

Adoption has long been perceived as the win-win way out of a a difficult situation. An unwed mother gets rid of the child she’s not equipped to care for; an adoptive family gets a much-wanted child. But people are increasingly realizing that the industry is not nearly as well-regulated and ethical as it should be. There are issues of coercion, corruption, and lack of transparency that are only now being fully addressed.

The past decade (note that she is referring to before 2013, however much remains as described here) has seen the rise of a broad and loose coalition of activists out to change the way adoption works in America. This coalition makes bedfellows of people who would ordinarily have nothing to do with each other: Mormon and fundamentalist women who feel they were pressured by their churches, progressives who believe adoption is a classist institution that takes the children of the young and poor and gives them to the wealthier and better-educated, and adoptive parents who have had traumatic experiences with corrupt adoption agencies.

They’ve formed several grassroots activist organizations, including Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform, Origins-USA, and Concerned United Birthparents. Some call themselves adoption reformers. Others prefer terms such as “adoption truth advocate.” A few will come straight out and say they’re anti-adoption. They want, among other things, a ban on adoption agencies offering monetary support to pregnant women. They want to see laws put in place guaranteeing that “open” adoptions (where birthparents have some level of contact with their children) stay open. They want women to have more time after birth to decide whether to terminate their parental rights. These activists have become increasingly loud of late, holding prominent rallies, organizing online, and winning several recent legislative victories.

I belong to such a private, members only, community on Facebook – Adoption:Facing Realities. Discussions in that community can be difficult and uncomfortable for some (often the adoptive – including “hopeful” – or foster parents who join). I remember getting slammed almost immediately when I arrived. I had a positive perspective on adoption since BOTH of my parents were adoptees. I have learned so much there, stuff one doesn’t encounter often online or out in the world. Adoptees and former foster care youth are privileged voices in that community. It is NOT a support group for adoptive or foster parents. They do not promote a rainbows and unicorn perspective on adoption.

Reproductive justice activists see adoption reforms as equally important to the issues of abortion and contraception, when it comes to men and women having full control of their destinies. It is true that adoption in America has changed vastly since the end of the so-called “Baby Scoop Era,” That ended in the early 1970s. During that era, many pregnant young women were “sent away” and their babies put up for adoption. During the 50 years of legalized abortion, along with a drastic lessening of the stigma against unwed mothers (I personally know several), the number of babies available domestically has been shrinking since the mid-’70s. In fact, one of the arguments put forth by Justice Alito was that ending abortion would increase the supply. Back in 1963, about 9 percent of babies born to unmarried women were placed for adoption. In 2013, that number was 1 percent. At the time this article was written, there were about 14,000 domestic infant adoptions per year, which was only about 15 percent of US adoptions – with the rest from foster care or internationally sourced, which has now in 2023 also decreased as those country’s governments clamp down on the export of their own citizens.

The Legacy of Georgia Tann

I was reminded today of Georgia Tann’s belief that taking babies from poor families and placing them in wealthier circumstances improved their outcome. Totally not a provable theory but never the less. An adoptee was asking about the effects of changes in socio-economic mobility in subsequent generations for the children and grandchildren of adoptees. I watched the Mary Tyler Moore movie about Georgia Tann on YouTube one night during my roots discovery journey in 2017.

I responded from my own circumstances as the child of adoptee parents (both) – My mom was a Georgia Tann adoptee and would have grown up in poverty had she remained with her original mother’s family. That is what I have been informed by genetic family I’m in reunion with. Her adoptive parents were a banker and his socialite wife. My dad’s socio-economic situation was relatively the same as it would have been if he remained with his natural mother (he was adopted out of The Salvation Army). His adoptive parents had a home based entrepreneurial business and never had any wealth but managed to buy a house. We witnessed two very different socio-economic worlds growing up. My dad was union at a refinery. My mom went to work while we were yet young. We didn’t have a lot growing up but enough. Both of my parents got “some” inheritance when their adoptive parents died. Some is locked up in a trust to be divided by 5 grandchildren when my mom’s adoptive brother dies (generation skipping). I think our perspective was broadly balanced. But whatever residual economic improvement was slight, if any.

Today, I found an interesting LINK> blog – Until We Learn from the Legacy of Georgia Tann, We’re Doomed to Repeat It by (I believe) Rebecca Vahle who is the admin for the “Family to Family Support Network. She describes her own self this way – an adoptive parent since 1998, the founder of a hospital-based adoption support program since 2004, a radio host hearing 5 years of stories of people impacted since the era of Georgia Tann. In addition, I have trained thousands of nurses in adoption-sensitive care in Women’s Centers around the country. I have heard stories coast-to-coast from mothers, fathers, adoptees, birth mothers, birth fathers and adoptive families, and I have seen first-hand the invasion of technology in this process. Yes, it has been an invasion. The Internet has poured gasoline on the embers of Georgia Tann’s legacy and until we address what it happening, I worry her legacy of corruption will continue.

She refers to the books by Lisa Wingate – the fictional but accurate Before We Were Yours I have read (and it was riveting for me). She then offers perspectives on “Why & How Georgia Tann’s Legacy Continues.” You can read through them at the link. Her bottom line was this – “When couples don’t know what they don’t know and, like myself, find out too late that their adoption placement was saturated with unethical tactics and financial profits for the agency.” She adds – We cannot look away, justify behaviors, ignore the impact of the Internet and discount the shadow of Georgia Tann that continues to fall across portions of the infant adoption industry.

Understandably, she is promoting her own efforts of providing a hospital-based standardized program of training for healthcare professionals. This blog is not a recommendation – just bringing awareness only.

Ethics In Adoption

From an adoption community post –

There is an economy at work in adoption.

Let’s begin with adoption agencies –

An adoption agency connects hopeful adoptive parents with expectant mothers in crisis who may wish to relinquish their child for adoption. In the process of negotiating, the adoption agency receives money from the hopeful adoptive parents (in most cases), and sometimes (rarely) from expectant mothers. The money is used to pay for the associated legal fees, the matching service, and sometimes for care for the expectant mother. This money also pays the salaries of the agency employees. This is true even if the agency is listed as a “not for profit” agency. The employees, social workers, and directors are not working for free.

Hopeful adoptive parents reach out to agencies for help in finding an available child (usually an infant) to adopt. There are 40 hopeful adoptive parents (couples/families) for every infant available for adoption. That is an estimate, some say it may be as high as 1,000 hopeful adoptive parents for every infant who becomes available for adoption.

If you look on websites and in social media, an expectant mother who indicates anywhere that she is considering adoption, will receive hundreds, often thousands, of responses from people who would like to adopt her baby. The demand far exceeds the supply of infants available for adoption. In the leaked Supreme Court draft written by Alito he makes a note of that lack of supply.

So, let’s apply the law of supply and demand –

In order for an agency (which, whether for profit or not for profit, stands to make money from the transaction) to keep itself in business, the agency must provide a certain percentage of infants for the demand. When supply is low and demand is high, coercion enters into these transactions. Agencies must obtain children for their market and are willing to do whatever it takes to supply that market. Social workers and agency contacts do whatever it takes to convince an expectant mother that one of their adoptive couples is better for her child, than she could ever be.

If she receives any money from the agency to cover her expenses but then decides she wants to parent, they will call her a “scammer” or a “fraud.” In many states there is no revocation period during which a woman who has given birth but indicated she is willing to give up her baby can change her mind. Those are considered “adoption-friendly” states Some have short revocation periods. In many cases, social workers pressure expectant mothers to hand their babies over and sign their termination of parental rights, while the new mother is still within the first 48 hours after birth.

Coercive tactics are part and parcel of domestic infant adoption. International infant adoption is even more coercive and heinous because some parents are not even told that their legal rights to their child are being severed.

So, what about the children in foster care ? They’ve already had their parental rights severed. Some hopeful adoptive parents believe they are only motivated to help these unfortunate children. But there’s an economy at work there too. You can be forgiven for not knowing that, thanks to the many promotions of this method of adoption by various states. A federal stipend is paid to foster parents for children of all ages, from under a year old until they age out of the foster care system at 18.

In 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) went into effect. Its purpose was to achieve permanency for children who had been in foster care for a long period of time by having them adopted. The intent of the law was good: permanent placements for children who had been abused, neglected, or abandoned. Its implementation, however, has proven faulty. It has amplified the corruption that has always been endemic within the Child Protective Services system.

The ASFA provides federal stipends to state agencies for each adoption they process out of foster care. Because the states receive money for having children adopted out of foster care, they now have a financial incentive to take children from actually SAFE families and place them into foster homes, so that they can be adopted. The more recent Family First Prevention Services Act includes federal funds to pay for services aimed at preventing the use of foster care by providing better support to parents at risk of losing custody of their children.

Regarding the current concept of “Foster to Adopt” –

Foster parents already receive a generous stipend from the state for caring for the state’s ward. Often, a foster parent will even receive an infant fresh from the hospital due to “risk of future harm” from their parents. These infants are placed with foster parents whose aim is to adopt. Both the foster parents (who wanted to adopt an infant) and the state child protection agency (which receives federal monies for every adoption from foster care) stand to gain from the adoption of this infant “out of foster care.”

The economic implications of adoption are the most straightforward and fact-based way to address whether ethical adoption is even possible. To whatever degree this all matters to you personally – consider the social impact of adoption and the reasons why adoption is considered unethical based upon social reasons.

Include in your considerations why children are removed by protective agencies simply due to perceived neglect caused only by poverty. Consider how it is possible that stipend money paid to them somehow makes foster caregivers more fit to parent than the biological parents. Look into the statistics for suicide and mental health issues among adoptees. Contemplate why laws promote adoption rather than legal guardianship.

Adoption is a contract made between two people – in which a third person is subjected to its ramifications – without their consent. Thank you for contemplating the ethical ramifications of adoption and the use by the state of foster care to increase adoptions.

The Anti-Adoption Movement

There is definitely a movement to reduce the adoption of newborns from unwed mothers and from people whose only sin is poverty. That’s not to say that it is not also important that children are never left in a seriously abusive situation. Unfortunately, what is “abusive” to some who insist on interfering in other people’s lives is not what true abuse actually is. Very few activists are claiming that adoption shouldn’t be an option, but the activists currently involved in the issue recognize that adoption is far from the perfect solution it was so long perceived to be.

Already hopeful adoptive parents living in Texas are celebrating a bumper crop of adoptable babies in about one year from now. I suspected that as one of the motivations all along.

One woman describes her experience. The adoption agency had her move to another state while pregnant, purposely isolating her from friends and family who might have helped her. Though she knew who her baby’s father was, the agency told her not to tell him she was pregnant. She could have sued him for child support—he was a wealthy lawyer—but the adoption agency didn’t talk about that, only about the hardships she would face as a “welfare mom,” should she keep her child. They called her a “family-building angel” and a “saint” for considering adoption. “It was crazy subtle, subtle, subtle brainwashing.”

One issue is where an “open” adoption is promised but the adoptive parents sooner or later renege on that promise. So one reform is seeking to guarantee that “open” adoptions (where birthparents have some level of contact with their children) stay open. Activists also want women to have more time after birth to decide whether to terminate their parental rights. Given time with their newborn, many new mothers change their mind about adoption and decide to give parenting their child a serious effort. Young women who find themselves pregnant and unmarried still face pressure to choose adoption.

Reproduce justice activists tend to focus on rights to contraception and abortion. Adoption reforms are equally important when it comes to men and women having full control of their destinies. Thanks to legalized abortion and a drastic lessening of the stigma against unwed mothers, the number of babies available domestically has been shrinking since the mid-’70s. Fifty years ago, about 9 percent of babies born to unmarried women were placed for adoption. Today that number is 1 percent.

Adoption is too stark in its severance of the legal relationship between those adopted and their birth family, and out of line with the emotional realities for most involved. Adoption is not a risk-free panacea. It is highly complex, with implications for all concerned that endures for decades. The identity needs of adopted people are very important and adoption, in its current form, does not recognize these.

There are other options, such as kindship placements or guardianship, which can provide safety and stability for children, but do not require such a severe break with key relationships. When we do not provide financial support to families in need but instead take their children away from them, we have to ask ourselves – Are we really promoting the human rights of all children, irrespective of background, to live safely within their families of origin? It would appear that we do not.

Some of the above was excerpted from The Trauma of Adoption. Other parts of this blog were excerpted from Meet the New Anti-Adoption Movement. Some comments are my own.

A Sad Reality

Adoptees are 4 times more likely to commit suicide than non-adoptees are. Why is that ? Maybe because being adopted is not all unicorns and rainbows.

So today comes this sad story.

I work in animal rescue because I couldn’t handle working for the Department of Children and Families. It’s a corrupt system.

Today I took a phone call that really got to me and started a small debate between others in the office at the time.

The caller said a 26 year old adoptee had killed herself and left four cats behind. One cat was found dead with her. One cat a friend took and the other two the rescue I work in is taking. We learned these animals were without food for sometime. Meaning no one had checked up on her.

I was told the adoptive mom was a bad alcoholic, adoptive father is a prominent well known doctor. That the 26 year old suffered years of mental health issues. I told the caller we would take in the two two cats no questions asked and no surrender fee. When the caller asked me why… I responded that as an adoptee myself….

My heart breaks for any adoptee who was this upset and hurting to take her own life in front of pets who she saved and loved. I said most adoptees have trauma and pain and it seldom gets better even with the best therapy! She thanked me and I’ll meet the lady Friday with the two cats.

When I got off the phone the two other people in the office told me I cannot generalize adoptive people that way. That many adoptive people are happy! I’m like no… I’m an adoptee and while my life on the outside may look perfect and my own children are …. I cry daily and have struggled my entire life. In my teens, I wanted to die! So I told them unless they were an adoptee nothing that they could tell me would change my view!

The truth is that the lived experience of many adoptees makes those who have not experienced it, uncomfortable.

October 30th is Adoptee Remembrance Day.

Maternal Grief

There is more than one way to “lose” a child. Certainly, the most obvious is the most permanent. Today, many adoptees are going through reunions with their biological families. That gives hope that the kind of loss that is giving a child up to adoption may not be a permanent one. That said, one can never regain the years the locusts have consumed. The bible promises a restoration but the reality is, those years can never fundamentally be retrieved. They are forever lost.

Adoption is, in its idealized form, is suppose to be about finding homes for children that need them, not about finding children for parents that want them. That perfect world is a place we all know we do not live in. There is nothing inherently wrong about wanting to be a parent, but it can become wrong depending on how you go about becoming a parent. Once they have achieved their goal, adoptive parents might desire to remain ignorant regarding the real loss involved for the other participants in their own path to parenthood.

Surrendering a child can really hurt emotionally, in a way that is completely indescribable and that words could never do justice regarding, if one attempts to convey it to any other person who has not had direct experience with it. Relinquishment can never be undone and all a birthparent can do is continue live their life throughout the time knowing that someone else is raising their child.

Hear it described by the most honest and real, courageous and brilliant adopted persons and you will learn that many of the feelings they have for having been adopted do not express feelings of gratitude, or contentment, but of loss and primal rejection, as well as confusion, anger, many unanswered questions and often unsatisfactory love, truth be told regarding the adoptive parents who settled for second best.

These unfulfilled adoptive parents also grieve – the child they wanted to have – compared to the child they settled for. All around a disagreeable situation. Adoption & Child Welfare Services were expected to bring in a revenue of 14 Billion Dollars during 2015. Even the banking and insurance industry has more regulations applied to them than adoption and some of the things they do to try and make money at all costs is unethical. Adoption is the largest, mostly unregulated, industry in the US allowed to do business.

It is human nature that if you put few regulations in the way and add to that large sums of money to be made from taking part in the industry, it is a situation that asks to be corrupted. A lobby group with a deceiving name, The National Council for Adoption (and an even more disturbing game) is paid for by the adoption agencies, pro-life groups, and given federal tax funds and grants – all to promote adoption.

The goal is to separate families not protected by money or the Godly union of marriage in favor of giving their child to a legally married, heterosexual, Christian couple. Many mothers have truthfully lost their children to adoption and they suffer in isolation what can only be described as a very real diagnosis of “birthmother grief”. These are women who are and could have been good parents. These children were in no danger of being bumped around in foster care for years. There was no threat of them being abused.

Maybe they would have had a few first years of lean times, maybe it would have been hard but they would have parented. There is a huge difference between child protection and child surrender. Child surrender is voluntary, it is often not really necessary, but made out to be beneficial. The real “good” of the child is questionable depending on your personal interpretation of what is “better”. Often fraught with myths, and misinformation that sway the participants involved for the benefit of the adoption agency and, often, the desires of their paying clients (the perspective adoptive parents). It is finding children to fit the needs of the industry which is based entirely on transferring the parental rights from one party to another for a profit.

Adoption adds a whole bunch of baggage to any adoptee’s life. They had adoptive parents that tried their best, made mistakes, and loved them lots. The fact is though, that if a child does not need to be separated from their original family – experts agree it is a person’s birthright to be with their original family. There are enough adoptees and natural parents searching for each other that we cannot humanly deny that it is not a primal and necessary urge in many cases. It’s not a whim, not a phase, nor a sign if immaturity, nor selfishness, nor of poor adoptive parenting, or anything else might we believe. Adoptees may have the reality of having two sets of parents, adoptive and birth parents, but they need to know and have relationships with their original, biological families – regardless of how good the adoptive family was. It is also clear by how many birthmothers never quit searching for their child that being reunited is also a unrequited need in most maternal hearts.