Writing My Wrongs

The National Council for Adoption:MOTHERS, MONEY, MARKETING, & MADNESS

Copyright for this post goes to Claud at Musings of the Lame. Reprinted with her permission.

The National Council for Adoption: MOTHERS, MONEY, MARKETING, & MADNESS

The National Council for Adoption usually has something to say about any adoption issue. One would think they should just based on their name. After all “National Council” makes it sound as if an official governmental appointment was made. That they are the official US stance, made after long thought out meetings by a Council, on all things related to adoption. Alas, that is just a well thought out play on the name made to make one think that is what they are.

By their own Mission Statement, they are something else:

“Founded in 1980, the National Council for Adoption (NCFA) is a research, education, and advocacy organization whose mission is to promote the well-being of children, birthparents, and adoptive families by advocating for the positive option of adoption. NCFA is an adoption advocate and expert in the halls of power and the courts of public opinion, on behalf of all parties to adoption and its member adoption agencies around the country.”

It’s very clear, as noted in the bolded emphasis, that their self appointed job is to promote adoption and that promotion is benefitting the adoption agencies. They are a lobby group, pure and simple, bought and paid for to use their power and resources to sway the public in such a way that adoption is seen as positive.
How they do such things is no mystery.

Their 2005 IRS form #990 states clearly that they have the resources. Their total gross receipts for that year were $2,920,818.00. That’s almost 3 million dollars. Just for reference, if we compare similar adoption groups there is quite a difference in funding. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute is the next biggest competitor as an Adoption information and research group coming in at $671,296. The American Adoption Congress filed their 990 for $39,338.00 as income. Bastard Nation declared $2,872.00 and Concerned United Birthparents has 10 chapters listed with none of them having an income greater enough to be eligible for filing status. With the exception of the EBD, none of the other adoption groups have compensated employees relying instead on all volunteer activities. Simple math computes that the NCFA operates at a greater budget than all their opposition combined.

It makes sense to wonder were their money comes from.

Just over 1 million of the NCFA funding comes from “public support”. This does not including another 50 plus thousand that comes from membership dues. Once again, the National Council for Adoption members consists of non-profit adoption agencies. The Gladney Centers for Adoption and Bethany Christian Services are all members. While both are, indeed, non–profit, one only has to look at their IRS 990’s to see where the money is rolling in. The Gladney Centers in Texas have one main “hospital” group and two other big “funds”. Combined there is over 39 million dollars declared as assets and another $12,154,675.00 claimed as income after expenses. That’s over 50 million dollars.

Bethany Christian Services breaks out to three main states; North Carolina, Iowa, and Michigan with a combined income of $ 3,098,830.00 and assets of $ 1,236,37. While Bethany is not quite as hard to stomach as Gladney in terms of excessive figures, seeing these huge “non-profit” numbers makes it easier to comprehend how American adoption services is over a 3 billion dollar a year industry. It behooves the agencies to fund a lobby group that promotes their needs, causes public opinion to be swayed in their favor and facilitates an environment beneficial for their bottom line by promoting adoption.

The NCFA is also privately funded by various moral majority groups such as the Family Research Council who “champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society…. values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family”. Pro-life organizations and the LDS church also support the NCFA viewpoints as they all mesh together in some absurd God fearing way.

However, the greatest portion of the NCFA’s funding is received from “government contributions/grants”. In 2005 that figure topped out at $ 1,615,588.00, but historically, 2005 was not one of their very best years:

2004: $ 5,331.093   2003: $ 8,323,973 2002: $ 4,497,484  2001: $ 1,091,555

And that total is over 20 million dollars from government grants. Tax levees collected from US citizens from the federal government and awarded to an adoption agency lobby group so that they can tell us what to think and fell about adoption. Over half their operating budget received from our tax money, but they still promote what favors the other half of their funding, the agencies.

So what do they actually do with all that money??

They have to pay their hard working staff. President and head honcho, Thomas Atwood, is a very busy man. He must keep up with EBD’s Adam Pertman, battling him head for head on NPR and in print. Dumpster diving to save babies pays well for Atwood makes a pretty penny defending the poor, scared, surrendering mothers from their annoying adoptee spawn. He worked 60 hours a week for the $150,104.00 he brought home in 2005. His benefit package seems pretty substantial at $26,046. He receives health, dental and life insurance, plus a pension plan. Interestingly enough, his pay is broken down into compensation, management, and fundraising. I do wonder if he doesn’t get a percentage of what he brings in out of fundraising. None of the other board members get paid though there are other paid employees at the NCFA. Not counting Mr. Atwood, the NCFA claims $754,122.00 in other salaries and wages.

We do have the income of some key players to account for: Daniel Resse, the Development Director gets $115K plus another15K in benefits. Lee Allen who serves as the Communication Director makes $91K plus another 16 in benefits and perks. And at last, the hard working Training Director, Charles Johnson, rakes in 88K plus 13 putting together all the national training opportunities to convince folks that adoption is swell. They do not get reimbursed for travel and other expenses but the agency pays out directly those $237,485.00in expenses.

Their other expenses are not so huge really consider that they have employees, buildings, an apartment, etc. Boring expected things like supplies, the phone, over 60K in postage, conferences, etc. are included as operating expenses. Oddly enough, nothing at all under legal fees and only $332.00spent in advertising. Likewise, only $1,088 in income tax, but I guess the whole “non-profit” status fits in there.

Being a lobby group it makes sense to see what the NCFA invests in their legislative efforts.  In their own words they “provides strategic policy briefs, expert testimony at legislative hearings, personalized briefings on adoption issues, conferences, grassroots leadership, and monitoring and reporting on adoption-related legislative activities. Policy makers in all levels and branches of government, look to NCFA for leadership and analysis of adoption policy issues.” 

Here we can see the numbers over several years:
2005:$297,611  2004: $405,814  2003: $613,703  2002: $400,234.

Adding up the four year total results in $1,717,362.00 spent on convincing our elected officials, with our tax monies that: Americans need to recognize Adoption as a loving option, more people need to be able to afford to adopt, privacy is desired and mothers need to be protected from bad fathers who might force them to parent unwanted children

They spent their lobby money wisely as the NCFA did convince the government to sponsor the Infant Adoption Awareness Initiative. All together the first federal grant was 8.6 million given to four agencies with the lion’s share of 6.1 million going to the NCFA over a four year period.

Growing out of legislation by the U.S. Congress in 2000, the primary purpose of the program was to train pregnancy and health counselors in federally funded clinics to present adoption as an option to women with unplanned pregnancies. It has since expanded to target and include anyone who might ever come in contact with anyone experiencing an unplanned pregnancy in order to present adoption as a positive option. Parenting is not on their agenda.

In more than 1,700 training days since 2002, NCFA’s IAATP has trained more than 17,000 individuals from all 50 states. They offer two and one day trainings with lodging and a meal stipend provided to all participants. The trainings continue in 2007 as the NCFA is pleased to be designated as the Infant Adoption Training Initiative Grantee for Health Region 3. In 2005, the Infant Adoption Awareness Training claims expenses of $1,657,620.00. The IAATP education is separate from other services and their expenses and looks to operate as a fiscally positive venture for the NCFA as well as its members.

Aside from the IAATP, the NCFA brings in an additional $162,175 from their “educational publications” that people and professionals must buy. They operate at a loss there as they claim $240,022 for printing these gems. Separate from that is the very similar sounding “member services” for the public at $147,687.00 in expenses and the education for agencies, charities, and more public at $204,039.00. Bottom line is that the NCFA spends lots of money telling Americans how adoption is a positive option.

Where did they get that idea?

Since the NCFA was created in order to advocate for the positive attributes of adoption, it stands to reason that a negative feeling regarding adoption had to be the predecessor. Listed in their 2005 expense category is their ‘research’ costs of $239,932.00 and the NCFA has a long history of conducting research on what makes mothers think warm and fuzzy thoughts about adoption. They do it often in cahoots with their pals, The Family Research Council, who gets credited for publishing the “The Missing Piece”.

Back in 2000, the Missing Piece found that adoption was associated as a painful sacrifice that no mother should be asked to make. Adoption was thought to be “a lie, abandonment, harmful, deceptive, and painful” They then put their heads together to try to figure out how to make mothers view adoption differently so they would look into the “loving option” and the IAATP was born.

This time around the NCFA went more achedemic, hiring CharlesT Kenny, PhD to author their newest publication. They needed “new understandings into the dynamics of birthmothers’ decisions that will facilitate better presentation of the adoption option in pregnancy counseling and through the media.” Dr. Kenny who just happens to be, president of The Right Brain People., had just the way to conduct this important research.

“Right Brain Research is an in-depth, one-on-one methodology that includes the use of visualization, relaxation and repetition to uncover the subconscious emotional motivators that are not apparent …….The Right Brain People’s methodology uncovers emotional needs and emotional barriers that drive consumer decisions in the marketplace. The nature of consumers' emotional reactions are uncovered, rather than sampling their surface opinions. Right Brain Strategy Development works hand in hand with Right Brain Research to assist clients in translating the findings from the research into dynamic brand strategy plans. The unprecedented synergy between research and strategy development has allowed the firm’s clients to leverage their brands as never before...”

Using Mothers who had previously surrendered as guinea pigs, the Right Brain folks advertised for mothers to come forth for this research from Texas and Chicago areas. They paid 51 mothers $100 each. Mothers did not know what they were being question for or who the final “client” was. They report being blindfolded the whole time, making them relive the trauma of their experiences so that the researchers could “take an inside look at the psychological pressures that come to bear when a women decides how to address the painful question of abortion, adoption or motherhood….and understand more about how the counseling process can affect women's choices as they decide their futures."

The results of this research became the grand NCFA publication, “Birthmother, GoodMother: The Heroic Story of her Redemption” The findings conclude that:

“After working through their fears and conflicts, birthmothers choose adoption because they believe that it is best for their children. They realize that adoption is not abandonment; it is a loving, responsible act. By choosing what is best for their children, birthmothers see themselves as good mothers. Instead of feeling like bad mothers for abandoning children or "giving them away," they now begin to see that placing their children with loving couples is what it means for them to be good mothers. They redeem themselves, transforming their mistakes into positive outcomes. Adoption allows them to recover their self-esteem, restore their identity, and renew their dreams and goals.”

This can be seen as a total polar opposite of the way mothers had been viewed and treated in the country. In the past, mothers were shamed into surrendering their children if born out of wedlock and given no choice at all.

"Illegitimacy is taboo in our society. A child born out of wedlock carries a stigma for life, while his unwed mother is often treated as a social outcast - an irresponsible, sexual delinquent who must be forced into seclusion as punishment for her flagrant violation of our most sacred principles."

Forced by their own families into maternity homes, ostracized by society, denied employment and a place to live, mothers signed away their children because they were “bad girls”. There was no redemption, just secrecy and false stories “moving on” and “getting over it”.

As society changed and it became impossible to openly treat women in such ways, the adoption industry had to find another way to keep fresh babies in the coffers. No longer could they be forced nor shamed into it, mothers had to be convinced that surrendering a child to adoption was a good idea. That becoming a birthmother meant being a “Good mother”. What has been embraced by the adoption industry is the concept of “owning“ the decision to surrender. Adoption, if viewed as a choice even if there is lack of other viable options, becomes completely the mothers’ responsibility. “Creating an Adoption plan” is said to be “empowering”.

" We actually influence [her] choices because by our questions, by the considerations we place before [her], by our examination together with [her] of [her] feelings and impulses and their relation, implicit or explicit, to social expectations, we attempt to affect [her] decision to act in ways that are compatible with society's standards and values... [Her] choice... may well be affected by the caseworker's holding [her] to careful considerations of [her] immediate drives and wishes in relation to social expectations and the adjustment [she] seeks, which is adjustment in [her] society. Perhaps this pervasive influence of the 'social' consideration has marked our major difference from other forms of helping or therapy."

In the end, it is portrayed that adoption professionals are only asking the “hard questions’ that need to be asked and asking for all to “support” the mother as she makes her decision. In this way, if adoption does turn out to be a negative or regretful situation, the mother has no one but herself to blame.

The IAATP is a training course instructing professionals on how to do this effectively. Adoption professionals are encouraged to “develop techniques” to clarify concerns that arise in a crisis pregnancy such as what their long term goals are, imagining life as a single mother, examining their current support structure, having them imagine how life would be with a six week old, never sleeping, colicky baby and homework, how they might feel knowing their baby had a loving caring, two parent home, etc.

Apparently learning to adequately council a mother with theses questions “Helps clients gain insight into their own beliefs and needs, and helps counselors assist their clients to act wisely in preparing for the birth of their babies”. It also seems to that having less than perfect answers would sway a mother to think that her baby would be “better” if “loving placed” within the traditional “God-ordained institutions of marriage and family” . That all falls right within the doctrine of the Family Research Council, the NCFA, various Pro –life and rightwing group agendas.

To recap: An Adoption Agency lobby group uses federal grant money to hire a research and marketing firm to probe into the minds of mothers developing a “birthmother brand development” to sell to the “consumers’ in order to promote a more positive public perception of adoption so that more mothers will “make the loving choice” to be separated from their babies fulfilling the needs to the clients, the agencies.

Who follows to these recommendations?

How does this translate into influencing agencies and the like? After all, they claim over 17,000 professionals who might come in contact with mothers facing an unplanned pregnancy have received the training instructing mothers that adoption is not painful, not a lie, not harmful, not abandonment and not deceitful. One only has to go to almost any agency website and see what they are saying.

From American Adoptions: 

Placing a baby for adoption, rather than ending a life, is an extraordinary expression of selflessness, requiring a complex decision-making ability concluding adoption to be a win-win-win choice. Women who choose adoption not only choose to give the miracle of life to a new human being, but also to give the gift of parenthood to families who want nothing more in the world.
When faced with great adversity, birth mothers show great courage and understanding. Out of nothing more than pure love for their baby, birth mothers choose adoption - giving not only their babies a life full of love, but parents a baby to cherish. Just as they cherish their new baby, adoptive parents will also cherish the birth mother for not choosing to "give up" on her baby.
Rather than "giving up" their babies, birth mothers do quite the opposite - they place their babies into the arms of an eternally grateful, loving family that will spend their days doing nothing more than cherishing the gift that birth mother gave them.

From Courageous Choice:

Pregnant and considering adoption?  Only very courageous and unselfish women choose adoption. The tough choices ahead are yours to make but we are here to help guide you throughout this process with love and friendship. We’re to assist you not only with your adoption plan, but also with your overall life situation. Our hope is that your experience will be one of learning, growth, giving, and perhaps a “fresh start.”

From Bethany Christian Services:

Facing an Unexpected Pregnancy with Courage
Birthparents who care would never consider adoption.
You may think that if you consider adoption for your child, you are a cold, uncaring, selfish person. Maybe you're afraid others will think you don't love your child. In fact, women who make adoption plans for their children are among the most courageous, for they put their child's needs first. Your pregnancy counselor can arrange for you to speak with birthparents who have already placed a child for adoption and struggled with this issue. You will see how much they love their child. Allowing your child to be born is a loving choice. Choosing to place your child with a family that can provide a stable, loving home is an act of love and sacrifice, not an act of abandonment.

From Gladney Canter for Adoption:

Adoption is the loving act of biological parents (birth parents) who choose a family to nurture and care for their child. When considering adoption, you're thinking about your child and what's best for his or her life. Adoption finds forever homes for children, homes where emotional and financial support create a stable, lifelong future for your child. Adoption is not about giving away your baby. Adoption's about making a plan for your child's life. Adoptive parents often tell their children, even as babies, of the tremendous love their birth parents have for them. Adopted children grow up with a great deal of respect and a very special love and appreciation for their birth parents.

It is very clear that a great number of agencies and professionals have taken these techniques and recommendations to heart when providing information to mothers considering adoption. With the assistance of the NCFA, the Infant Adoption Awareness Training Program and research such as “<Birthmother, GoodMother: the Heroic Story of her Redemption”, the tools are clearly in place to coax mothers into believing that adoption is not only positive, but often best. It would not be such a terrible thing if these facts were as true as they were portrayed, but they are not.

What they ignored:

Other scientific research has also been conducted since the beginning of adoption practices and the various findings contradict what the NCFA and agencies falsely advertise.
A study published in 1999 taking in all previously published scientific studies, concluded that:

“The relinquishing mother is at risk for long term physical psychological and social repercussions. Although interventions have been proposed, little is known about their effectiveness in preventing or alleviating these repercussions”

In fact, without question, every study, the historical evidence, the anecdotal evidence, and statistics all point out, to various degrees, that mothers who relinquish are significantly altered by the surrender experience and not in positive nor redeeming ways. While “counseling” is often seen as a way to mitigate negative feelings, reassuring an exiled mother over and over again that her decision was “right” and “best”, it frequently does little but create more internal conflicts as the proposed logic of the surrender’s validity is juxtaposed with her natural maternal yearnings. Of course, none of this information is ever included when the educational information released by an agency that profits financially though the surrender. The NCFA didn’t tell them too. The real scientific evidence might be seen as “negative” and goes against the mission of “promoting a positive” feeling for adoption.

It is frequently proposed that as society and our views of adoption have evolved to an accretive and positive way, then the negative feelings of more current relinquishing mothers will also be on a decline. The Origins-USA 2007 study Mothers' Voices, Surrender Experiences and Long-Term Effects, concludes that while the approach and methodology of adoption has changed, the internal feelings, the life long grief and the natural feelings of mothers has not changed over almost a 50 year period. It seems that the internal make up of mothers does not permanently and drastically change over time just because everyone tells her it is a good thing. Unfortunately, it does however seem, that the teachings of the NCFA do have a temporary effect.

OMG! What have I done?

The perverse marketing of positive family separation has infiltrated not only adoption professionals, but the media and general public alike. With “goodmother” and promises of continued contact via open adoption, the numbers of infants “voluntarily” relinquished has stood firm somewhere under 15,000 a year despite legal abortion, advances in birth control, acceptance of single parenting etc. By glorifying and “honoring” the good mothers, something might have back fired on the NCFA. Previously, mothers who surrendered were expected to slink back with their secrets into normal life, but now, they are taught to be proud and wear their birth mother status as a red badge of courage. As mothers talk to other mothers and share the experiences, they realize that they are not alone in their natural feelings of grief and loss. As younger mothers talk to older mothers they see their own future ahead where time will not heal this wound. The true information that contradicts the NCFA message is easier to come by.

For what ever the reason, mothers are finding out sooner, rather than later, that living through adoption is not all it was portrayed to be. No longer does it take 40 years until an adult adoptee reunites, or even 18 until they are of age for the message to come home. Not even a few years into a continuously painful open adoption, or the birth of the second, parented child, that allows a mother to see what she has lost is needed. For those who bother to notice, the cries of pain and despair are happening very soon after surrender. One mother who runs a support board just recently agreed:

“I have noticed a change in the air lately. You are totally right. I've had so many Moms come here as soon as they place regretting their decision. I wish we could get to more before they sign the papers.”

and then, it is too late.

Perhaps, the NCFA’s systematic and over saturated teachings are being given to women who would not have, in earlier years, been as vulnerable to the “adoption option”. Perhaps the market is so desperate for infants and the high profits that an infant relinquishment brings to an adoption business those women are subjected to this “goodmother” scrutiny when previously they would not be even seen on an agencies radar. Perhaps the professionals have polished their skills to such perfection that mothers are truly not “choosing” but getting convinced, brainwashed even, into giving away their babies.

It actually has to be expected. The bottom line is that the National Council for Adoption wants mothers to be separated from their children. Their very existence was conceived to make family separation seem like a good idea and teach others in the field the same positive view. The NCFA does this to protect their members’ interests. Their members are adoption agencies. Adoption agencies make billions of dollars in profits from family separation. They need babies to continue business.
Millions of dollars given and spent to convince the public and mothers that giving your baby away is a good thing. And for what reason?

Follow the money. Babies are the products to be sold and then be grateful. Mothers are a market to be exploited in the guise of redemption for a false sin of sex and fertility. Hopeful adoptive parents are the clients willing to shell out thousands to make their dreams come true. Agencies are the brokers, trading products to the next highest bidders and the National Council for Adoption paints the public picture of the whole thing, blows smoke, and tells everyone how good it all feels.

Don't pay the Ferry Man. Don't even fix a price.

"You always admire what you really don't understand." - Blaise Pascal

When I was living alone in the maternity prison known as Gehring Hall, I was visited frequently by my headcase worker.  She would take me out to lunch, buy me clothes, pretend she was my friend and that she cared about me.  She regularly filled my kool-aid glass with praise for the wonderful, amazing, wealthy, perfect, highly educated uber-parents that would acquire my child. She told me how lucky I was that their agency had such wealthy qualified infertile couples.  My daughter would have ponies and pools and birthday parties and pretty pink dresses and a college education. Could I guarantee her that?

Every time she pushed them higher up on a pedestal she pushed me farther down. The more she raved about how fabulous they were the more I became aware of what a loser I was and how they deserved my child and I did not.

Over time, I became dependent on my headcase worker and completely believed everything she said to me. I liked her and wanted her to like me and as such I complied with her requests and believed everything she said.  I was truly enamored with her. I have my own diaries from that time period and they are chock full of loving goo for my headcase worker -- the person who would be in the labor room with me and in a matter of days spirit my child away to the more deserving people. Oh, how I adored her for that. How lucky I was! Giving your baby away means you are a good mother and no longer a dirty little slut girl. What a great deal!

Looking back, now, I believe I was suffering from my own version of Stockholm Syndrome. She was my only link to the outside world. She was my passage out of the hell I was in provided I did what she told me and believed all she said. That included believing I was nothing and the prospective adopters of my child were the bomb diggity. If I wanted my child to have a good life (without me) I had to go along with all that she said. I could not make her angry. I could not risk losing her as well. She was going to save my child from me. Ooh, how wonderful she was.

Were those prospective adopters that much better than me?  Would they or could they do better by my daughter than I could?

No. Not by a long shot.

But I did not believe that at the time and no one wanted me to think otherwise. My parents wanted the problem to be solved and for the “good girl with so much potential” to be returned to them in her original state. The agency wanted to make a profit and fulfill their commitment to the lovely couples lining up at their doors with their hands out ready to hold the child, any child (not specifically MY child), that they had previously only dreamed of. And me? I just wanted someone, anyone, to love me and to love my daughter. I saw separation of us as the only way for that to happen.

Who is to blame here? Is it really a matter of blame?  Will blaming anyone change the facts? Will blame get my daughter back? Will it fix her fractured identity?

Thoughts of culpability came to me last night along with these memories. I was engaged in dialogue with an adoptive dad who believes that adoptive parents are often (if not always) taken advantage of by the agencies just like mothers are.  I am inclined to agree.

Many of my mother/sisters disagree. They hold hard to the belief that adoptive parents are fully aware of the trauma that adoption causes to mother and child. They further believe that adoptive parents intentionally go out to rip children from their mother’s milk laden breasts and steal them. They believe that adoptive parents are selfish, evil creatures that care only about feeding their need for a child. (Side note: If that is to be presumed true then all mothers like me are indeed slut or nut crack whores, no?)

I believe once again, we are giving adoptive parents way too much credit here.  They really aren’t that crafty.

No offense, but my experience has shown that adoptive parents can be as ignorant and as used as natural parents.

They are human after all.

Should adoptive parents be more probing, questioning and ethical in their adoption process? I don’t think anyone would doubt that.

But one could also argue that natural parents should be more informed of the damage of adoption to children.

How do you make that happen if both parties are relying on a middle man to tell them the alleged truth?

A middle man that is making mucho dinero by taking advantage of all parties involved?

A middle man that cares little about the welfare of the child and a lot about filling their own coffers.

Muy necesitado

"We can find the balance between needing people too much and not letting ourselves need anyone at all." - Unknown

A few years back my husband and I began providing my eldest son with a weekly allowance. There were many motives behind doing so. We wanted him to understand the value of money, to think about saving, spending and the difference between needs and wants.   

We informed our son that his allowance was his spending money for things he wanted versus needed. If he needed new shoes, mom and dad would purchase those. If he wanted a pack of pokemon cards while we were grocery shopping, they were his to purchase. He had to decide how valuable those pokemon cards were in the great scheme of things. Sometimes he bought the frivolous items. Other times he saved and saved well. (He saves so well that I am often caught borrowing money from him!).

The concept of need vs want occurred to me last night after a number of conversations and blog comments about needy mothers or needy adoptees.

Again, I question if need is the right word in all cases

I understand what is meant by suggesting a person is “needy”. In my world that means they are high maintenance, unable to source their own soul, demanding and emotionally draining. They look to the outside world an those around them for love and validation and constant stimulation.

But I wonder if that “neediness” isn’t a symptom of something else, specifically, a desire to be loved or part of the others life. Furthermore, the rejection of such needy people is truly a rejection of love. Love that frightens you. Love that makes you unstable and unsure.

Early in my reunion with my daughter I wrote her fairly frequently. Even if she did not answer I would write her weekly, sometimes several times a week.  I would share family events, status of her brothers, pictures, and my own life happenings. I included her on every set of family event pictures ala Shutterfly. I would ask her questions about her life, her school, her likes and dislikes.  More often than not these notes fell on onto a deaf keyboard. There was no reply at all.

As our reunion progressed, I began to write less frequently. Lacking any sort of feedback from her on even the most benign of emails, I began to feel that I was going to appear to her as a high maintenance needy person. While she never told me so, I suspected she was sitting at her keyboard, launching her gmail and upon seeing my address in her inbox, she would roll her eyes, expel a loud breath of air and quickly hit the delete key.  After doing so, she would say to herself “Gosh, that woman is so frikkin annoying”.  Alternatively, I have also assumed that I am simply marked as spam and she never even sees the mail I send her.

I began to feel as if, and I had no proof of this, that I was one of those needy annoying mothers in reunion. Writing her too frequently, asking too many questions, being too interested in her life, violating some invisible boundary. If I wasn’t, wouldn’t she respond? If she was interested in me, capable of talking to me, wouldn’t she? 

So I decreased communication. I have even ceased sending gifts for holidays. I feel our relationship is very one sided and that I – with all my good intents – am making her feel stalked, uncomfortable and bothered.

I am not a needy person. In fact, I have been accused of not needing anyone, of being too cold, too independent, too analytical, and too guarded. I have been told I don’t let anyone in and I spend too much time in my thinking self – versus my feeling self.

(I could argue that this personality trait came from being left by all when I needed them the most but that would be an entirely different post.)

So if I know I am not a needy person, but I fear I am making the impression of a needy person to my daughter, what does it really mean? Am I just a nutter or is there something more here?

I suspect there is something more.

Do I need my daughter? Does my entire existance depend upon her and her alone? Of course not. 

Do I want to know her? Hold her? Talk to her? Love her? Help her? Hear her giggle? See her latest hair color up close and personal? Do I want hear her dreams? Help her achieve those? Do I want to hear her voice? Go shopping with her? Share a vodka martini with her? Discuss literature with her?

Oh god yes.

Needy Mofos

“What you need to know about the past is that no matter what has happened, it has all worked together to bring you to this very moment. And this is the moment you can choose to make everything new. Right now.” - Unknown

What is an adopted adult really expressing when they make comments about their natural mothers possibly being “needy”? Why would the idea of a needy mother be disturbing to an adoptee and what exactly would define a needy mother? Is needy the correct word to use?  Don’t all mothers need their children?

I have some thoughts on this needy business. Of course, they are based on my own experience, my reading and thoughts from friends.

Like all things adoption, not all adopted adults are afraid of needy mothers. Some want them. Some are willing to take any kind of contact and that includes neediness. These adopted adults are self aware and capable enough to establish boundaries with their mothers - adoptive and first.

Others? Not so much. The idea of receiving any type of emotion from their natural mother terrifies them. They shun reunion, the push away contact, they are passive aggressive, cold, or other.

To me, needy implies unstable.

Maybe it implies the same to some adoptees. The assumption is being made that if a natural mother “needs” her child she is somehow projecting her own aching, empty heart on to her child and expecting the child to fill that gap and lick her wounds for her. Somehow, somewhere, many adoptees get this message about reunion. They feel a huge burden that they are the “fix” to their wounded mother.  To be fair, there is some truth to this fear. I know many seriously disturbed needy first mothers. Does that mean we all fit that stereotype? No. If we aren't all crack whores, rest assured we certainly aren't all needy emotional wastelands. Some of us have actually worked through our "stuff" or can respect boundaries.

But why would our children think we would be "needy"? I have a few theories based on my own experience only.  As always, the only experts on what an adoptee would think and feel is an adoptee. I am merely suggesting a few possibilities. I welcome agreement or disagreement from my adoptee friends.

Many adoptees were indeed purchased, adopted, and assimilated to “fix” an infertile couple. The adopters felt a void in their life and they filled that void with a child born to someone else.  How convenient, eh? This dynamic alone can put a tremendous amount of pressure on a child to fix a needy person.

Many of my adopted friends cite the never ending pressure to “perform”. To assume the role of the absent ghost child their parents could never have. They are living in overdrive and exhausting huge amounts of emotional energy to be perfect – the prettiest, smartest, most caring, amazing, thin, uber adoptee imaginable. 

Dance, dance, dance.

Live up to the implied emotional warranty.

Your adoptive parents were promised, guaranteed, that adopting the child of another would be just like, as if born to, and damn you adoptee – you better do that. Make all their dreams come true. Make an infertile woman fertile. (Amazing how this does actually happen. Many adoptive parents miraculously become pregnant after adopting someone else’s child). Turn water into wine.

Dance adoptee, dance. For if you don’t, if you are not perfect, if you cannot keep your adoptive parents happy, fulfill all their wildest parenting dreams, YOU WILL BE GIVEN BACK AND UNLOVED.

Don’t doubt me on this. I have friends who were told this. I have adoptee friends who were told – throughout their lives – if they were not good, perfect, etc. they would be given back. Where exactly is back? Where would they go?  DCFS?

Then dance, dance, dance. Give but never take. Be all you can be – for them. Make them happy. They paid a lot for you (and you should be eternally grateful.)

Dance, dance, dance, dance.

Enter upon reunion and the adoptee is faced with yet another aching wounded mother. A mother who has suffered for years due to loss of her child. Not unlike the adoptive mother of years gone by, the natural mother has been aching for her child.

It is quite possible that natural mother will project her aching needs onto her child and expect the child to fix her just like that child had to “fix” the adoptive mother of years gone by.

I am not an adopted adult but I can tell you that if this situation, or any semblance of it, were to occur in my life, I would run like hell. It would suck. I would imagine adoptees don’t want to be the glue that holds anyone’s emotional pieces together. It is tiring. Exhausting. When you are spending all your reserves making someone else happy, when do you get to think about yourself?

I believe my own daughter feels some unspoken obligation to fix me. Furthermore, I find her insinuations that I am broken, needy and unstable to be HIGHLY offensive. Even though I have told her, point blank, time after time, that she is not responsible for my pain and certainly not capable of assuaging it, I don’t think she believes me. Why?

How could she? She has lived twenty something years in environment that made her the cause and fix of everyone’s problems. She has no other basis for comparison. Since she barely knows me, she can only assume, I would guess, that I will be needy and clingy. She can probably actually see me waving the snot rag and grasping for walls.

Do I need my daughter? Yes. But I don’t need her to fix me. I can do that on my own.

More on what I mean by "needing" my daughter in another post.

What Dreams May Come

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die." - Edward Kennedy

There was no kids table this year.

I liked that.

My parents decided to add onto their dining room table by extending its length with a folding table that the kids could sit at. It was nice to have all sixteen of us from age 5 to 66 sitting at one table.

We started our meal with our usual question to the children:

“What are you thankful for?”

The burden of answering this question – honestly – typically falls on the first respondent. After that all others tend to copy the previous answer. Regardless, it is cute and I believe it is a good exercise to get our children to realize how fortunate they are.

We had answers that ranged from being thankful for the food, for everyone being together to the New England Patriots. My own son, the youngest child in our family, said with the sweetest most sincere voice:

“I am very thankful that everyone could be here with us today.”

While the response had been heard previously there was something deeply sincere in his five year old voice that made the entire table utter a loud “Awwww.”

The food was somewhat cold by the time we got to actually eating  but regardless it was excellent.

What was not so excellent was when family storytelling began. 

My oldest son adores hearing stores of Grandpas childhood in Poland, my own childhood, family memories.  Some started sharing stories and everyone was laughing and enjoying themselves.

Suddenly, my oldest son stands up and decides he has a story to share. All eyes on him, we listen.

“Oh, oh, Uncle John. Mommy told me about the wet dreams you had when you were a child!”

Yes. At this point I want to die.  At the very least I want to grab the bottle of Riesling or Chivas in front of me, slice open a vein and begin an IV line. I am quite confident my family is not going to truly appreciate the fact that my son is a pre-teen and we have recently been discussing how his body will change and what will happen to him in his puberty years.

Privately, in the confines of my own home, I am quite proud of the openness with which my son and I can discuss this stuff. Publicly, I suddenly realize I forgot to share that fine print with my son.

“DO NOT DISCUSS WET DREAMS AT THE THANKSGIVING TABLE.”

The table gasps.  I quickly spin my head toward my father and mother and see them alternating between amusement and horror.

Not exactly Thanksgiving dinner conversation.

My siblings and their children continue the laughing. My poor brother (the wet dreamer) is shocked into silence.  My darling younger sister tries her best to change the subject.  My son has that “did I say something wrong?” look on his face.

I urge him to sit down, continue eating, and talk about something else.

As conversation begins to turn to something more palatable, my 12 year old nephew raises his hand and screams:

“Well, I can honestly say I haven’t had a wet dream yet”

The laughter begins again.  I reach for a knife to get that IV line going.

My sister points a finger at her children (the only brood yet to pipe up about their own nocturnal emissions) and says “My children better keep their thoughts to themselves”.

At this point, my father does indeed become annoyed and somehow, by the grace of someones god, the conversation gets dropped.

Dinner was followed by the consumption of my sisters amazing baked delights, more conversation (of the cleaner variety), picture taking, talking and eventually a visit from the local PD after a drunk neighbor backed his truck into my mothers car.

I know everyone had a good time. I saw the look on my mothers face as the evening drew to a close and she scanned the room and admired her own four children and their children.  She was happy.

The day after Thanksgiving my  mother sent an email to all of us thanking us for celebrating at her house, reinforcing the value of family and highlighting how much she and my father enjoyed having everyone there.

My heart ached a bit at that statement. 

Everyone was not there, Mom. 

My daughter wasn’t there. You may have enjoyed having all your children there but I will never experience that. I wonder what that feels like, Mom? 

Everyone was not there. 

While my pre-teen son ponders wet dreams and my mother lives her dreams of having all her children under the same roof, I am left dreaming of a daughter lost to adoption that I may never get to share a meal with.

Define Support

"Isn't supporting an expectant mother who wants to surrender (ahem, abandon) her child to adoption still a means of supporting her?"

I admit I struggle with this.

I would want to know, need to know, WHY she wants to surrender her child. I am hard pressed to believe any woman truly WANTS to surrender her child. Most, that I know  (and I know hundreds) HAD to. Big difference between had and want or need and want.

If an expectant mother had money, housing, emotional support, guidance and all the other things women so often lack when it comes to an unplanned pregnancy and still wanted to surrender her child to a closed, domestic, infant adoption, would I support her? Assuming she has been told about primal wound, life long trauma of adoption separation on mother and child and still wants to sign away her child?

Um, I guess I would support her. But what does that mean? Does that mean telling her I think she is doing a good thing? That she is right to give away her child and force her child to a life of closed records, changed names and fractured identities?

I couldn't do that.

So, I guess I could not support her - not entirely.  Respect it, realize it was her decision, not mine? Yes. That I could do. Chances are I would just not discuss it with her. I would however stay in contact with her for it is highly probable down the road she is going to need a sister to support her when the reality of what she did to herself and her child smacks her hard in the face. Adoption sounds like such a win-win for all involved.  Often the parties touting this win-win are those that will benefit by it (either financial or by receiving the child or by absolving themself of shame) or those with NO knowledge of the pain of surrender.

When the individuals that "support" you stand to profit from your pain and that of your child, I suggest you think long and hard about their motives.

I am agnostic (surprise, surprise).  This means when it comes to religion I often have to part ways with friends on that topic. That doesn't mean I don't like them or don't talk to them, just that I know where they stand and they know where I stand. Dont try to convert me, save me or damn me and I will promise you the same in return.

If a friend were to be faced with an unplanned pregnancy, I would help them identify resources, housing, options, therapists to talk it through with. I would advocate kinship, open adoption and guardianship after all efforts towards family preservation had been exhausted. I would remind them that children always change your life, are always expensive and college can be attended at any time of your life.

Knowing what we know today about the damage of adoption to mother and child, I struggle to support anyone doing it. For me it would be telling them it is okay to abuse their child. For me, and only me, I believe domestic infant adoption - as it stands in the United States today - is a form of child abuse.

I cannot support that.

Furthermore, I choose not to believe that there are women in the world that feel nothing, nada, zilch, nunca, niema nietz for the children they birth.

The very idea of that frightens me deeply.

I dont like the idea of living in a world populated by women who can birth babies and not care.

That type of world is not one I want to live in.

The Sin of Women

"Why had no one told me that my body would become a battlefield, a sacrifice, a test? Why did I not know that birth is the pinnacle where women discover the courage to become mothers?" - The Red Tent

I don't understand women.

I really don't.

You would think being a female creature I would understand them.

But I don't.

I don't understand all women.

Maybe I am not supposed to.

If men feel more confused than I feel right now when they deal with women, I really feel for men. Poor creatures.

I am currently the casual observer to an unplanned pregnancy. I am "counseling" a family on options. (By counseling, I mean sharing my own story, books and resources). The expectant mother and her mother are calling me and writing me regularly. They are on opposite sides of the fence (but trying to meet in the middle).

The expectant mother in question wants to keep her child. Her own mother, like my own mother and many of our mothers, is encouraging her to surrender the child to adoption.

This makes me ill, angry and dumbfounded.

Let me say that as a women whose mother encouraged her to abandon her first born, I don't like this feeling. It is wrong. My expectation at that time of my life was that my mother would help me. She should have valued my feelings, my sanity, my soul and therefore valued my child. She valued what the neighbors thought, she valued what the church would say, she valued what my father thought. She did not value me or my feelings.

As my MOTHER, she would have shown me how to be a mother, helped me to be one.

I am not suggesting it was my mothers job to take care of my child - financially or other. I am suggesting that I felt if my mother valued me, she would have valued my child. I am suggesting that women, mothers, sisters, daughters should help fellow females, not hurt them.

Now, I have done enough reading and talking and soul searching to accept the fact that my own mother was a product of her upbringing, the church and the political climate (Sollingers and Fesslers books really helped in this regard.). Acknowledging this allowed me to get past the majority of my anger towards my mother and the apparent ease at which she was able to discard me and my daughter.

However, I still get angry when I see modern day mothers turning away from their daughters and their crisis pregnancies.

Women are supposed to stick together, aren't we? Aren't we the alleged lesser gender and therefore we need to band together? Shouldn't we all gather in the Red Tent and discuss the womanly ways?

Why oh why do we allow these crimes to continue to be acted out on the hearts and souls of our sisters and their children?

How does an infertile, adoptive mother who presumably felt the ache of a child she could not have, encourage her own daughter to give hers away?  Is she repaying some perceived debt?  A baby for a baby as a opposed to an eye for an eye? Does her daughter not feel like she does? Not matter like she did?

Why do women who cannot have their own child feel it is okay to take that of another - often at any cost? Why do women think their needs or desires trump those of another? Most importantly, why do some women feel it is more important to feed their own  hunger for a child than the child's hunger for his natural mamma?

Why do we do this to each other?

How can any one of us advocate open records and reform when we stand by and watch other women perpetuate the very crime that caused the need for reform?

It pains me.

With all the research available, with the legions of women and adopted adults voicing the horror of adoption, why do we continue to turn our daughters away?

I have recently offered, on two separate occasions, to two separate expectant mothers, to house them. I have organized a support drive for another single mom who recently lost her job. My ehbabes moms and adopted adults sent food, gifts, and gift cards.

We did NOT call the authorities on the unemployed mom, we did not tell the expectant mothers that they should surrender their children. We did not question their ability to be a good mother. It never occurred to us that these mothers were not worthy or capable of caring for their child. They simply need help, guidance, hope and a support. Don't we all at some time in our lives?

Sure, you can argue that I obtained my wisdom from my despair. You can argue that I do this only because of the loss of my daughter. But you cannot know that for sure. Just like there is no guarantee that a child is better off being raised by a wealthy, two parent family than with his own natural family. You simply cannot know.

Yet many pretend that they do.

And our daughters and their children pay the price of that ignorance.

Validation of Self

"Religion is sort of like a lift in your shoes. If it makes you feel better, fine. Just don't ask me to wear your shoes." - George Carlin

I am enjoying the dialogue on my recent post. The differing experiences and viewpoints really stir something in me. So thank you.

A few things I liked:

Kippa asked: Why was it any of her business?

I agree (now) with Kippa that it probably wasn’t her business. I also suspect that my then fiancé felt the same. (He reads here so he may pop up and state his own position).

Why did I feel then that it was her business?

I can say that I felt, deeply, that my fiancé was getting damaged goods. I wasn’t good enough for my own child, how could I be good enough for a man like him?

I had been told as a child and during my unplanned pregnancy that a decent man would never marry a woman like me – a woman who had a child out of wedlock. I had been told by friends and family members and my Catholic teachings that I was damaged, dirty, and yesterday’s trash. Jezebel. Hester Prynn.  Forever branded and never, ever, good enough. Men want virgins, men want the first child a woman has to be HIS child…not some bastard child of another man. (I really was told all this crap).

I believed this. I really did. When my boyfriend asked me to marry him, I was shocked, excited but not trusting. Always at the back of my mind was that big old voice screaming “whore, harlot, bad mother, you are trash”. 

I suppose I needed, wanted, a test of that. I wanted to see if it could be true. I wanted to know, BEFORE, I made the plunge into marriage if I was going to be judged and discarded at any point in the future. Leave me now before I get too attached was my mantra. Judge me now so I don’t have to deal with it later.

When your own family discards you and your unborn child, why shouldn’t or wouldn’t every other person you encounter?

Najah asked: Why didn’t I tell her myself?

Excellent question.  I am not sure I have an answer for that. It never occurred to me. I assumed it was his place.  A discussion mother and son should have about “marrying down” or something. (Again, keep in mind the judgment and shame based religion I grew up with).

I can say that I was afraid and maybe I wanted my fiancé to bear the brunt of any negative reaction. Additionally, as noted, it was some sort of psychological test of my fiancé. I know that now. I wanted to see if he would or could discuss that. Turned out, he couldn’t, wouldn’t or didn’t need to.

But I needed him to.

I needed, desperately, for someone to stand up for me. Defend my honor. Prove their love for me. To be proud of me.  To SEE me for me. A good girl that had been broken and betrayed, flailing like a squirrel that had recently been run over, but still a good girl.

I still had this need as recent as three years ago. When I found my daughter and I reunited with her father, I waited, unconsciously, for him to come out of the closet. I waited for him to finally claim me, and her, and I felt that could be done by him telling his family, his other children, his parents, of our daughter’s existence.

For reasons known only to him, he did not.

This hurt me deeply – again. It was like being thrown away, discarded, a second time.

Again, I was seeking validation, support, respect that I did not get. I was hoping, in some dark corner of my heart, that he would finally stand up for me, for us, for her. I needed that.

I am happy to say that over the years and through the help of a wonderful therapist skilled in many aspects of marriage, family and trauma  therapy, that I have finally gotten to a place where I don’t need anyone else to tell me who or what I am.  I can self validate. Sure, there are still times when I feel scared, anxious and I worry that I will be discarded once again for my history but I work through it.

I did nothing wrong.

I was a good girl who loved a man who loved her back.

I gave birth to a beautiful baby girl.

I don’t give a rat’s ass about the Catholic Church and frankly, never did. I tried to fit into that box. I don’t fit. It’s okay. I don’t need to.

It is no longer about others respecting me.

It is about me respecting me.

Tapping Nails

The pain is unrelenting; one does not abandon, even briefly, one's bed of nails, but is attached to it wherever one goes.” - William Styron

In 1995, prior to getting married, I had several conversations with my fiancé about my daughter’s existence.  One of the many topics I urged him to consider was sharing my daughter’s birth and surrender to adoption with his mother.

He chose not to.

I never pushed the topic but I felt it was a mistake. I really felt, deep in my soul, that it was a bad idea not to tell his mother that her future daughter in law had a child out of wedlock.

I don’t know what I was hoping to prove back then or why it mattered to me so much but I do know now that his decision NOT to was interpreted by me as a shame based response. Perhaps it was my usual litmus test. Prove to me that you can handle this. Prove to me that you really are okay with this.  Stand up for me. Show the world you believe in me.

His decision was to not share it with her.  I took it that he was indeed embarrassed by me and that he did not want to have to deal with his mothers reactions.

I have no idea if any of this is true and I am not intending to speak for him. What I am intending to do is highlight one of the many ways that adoption trauma wove itself into every life defining moment for me.

In reflecting on that time today, I realized perhaps for the first time, that it wasn’t just my fear that was urging him to tell his mother but I was also hoping, for once in my life, someone, ANYONE, would stand up publicly for me and say I did an okay thing and they were not ashamed of me, that I was not evil, rotten, wrong or bad. I wanted someone, anyone, to say it was okay, that I was okay and that they stood by me.

I just wanted someone to please stand in the fire with me and not shrink back.

Inadvertently, intentionally or not, the decision not to inform  my mother in law – at that time – of my daughters existence pound another nail into my coffin of shame.

I really hate those nails.

Yes? Can I help you?

I fit your search criteria. How may I be of assistance to my visitor from Redwood, CA?

Be sure to check out this site too if you are desirous of more information on Easter House. It's an enlightening read of how wonderful and honest our American adoption industry is.

Baby Broker Watch