Adopted in the UK

The life of a UK adoptee

Posts Tagged ‘Responding to emails

7rin respecting Narey?

with 5 comments

The following’s a direct c’n’p of an email response from myself to “Adoption Czar” <vom> Martin Narey, which occurred as a result of me finally poking him often enough of Twitter to get him to respond. It’s on here because it explains so much of what I’m fighting for, and why.

At some space near in time to 02/10/2012 11:03, Martin Narey swore:

> Dear [7rin],

It’s Mx [surname], but please, feel free to call me 7rin[snippage].

> Thanks for this E mail which I saw for the first time yesterday (my
> guess is that the anonymity of your E mail address will be picked up
> by other Spam filters as well as mine).

Point accepted, however this email address is as old as Gmail (bar a few months), and so it’s not something likely to change in the near future.

> Also, I’m sorry if you thought I should have replied sooner but,
> contrary to popular belief, I have no staff, no assistance and am
> supposed to work on adoption issues for just one or two days a week.

I didn’t know you were so limited on the time you’re supposed to spend working on adoption issues, given your (sorry, but it’s appalling) title of Adoption Czar. I did also imagine you would have at least some staff aiding you in your task, however, the nudge on Twitter to reply was, as much as anything, to let you know the email had been sent. After all, there would be little point emailing you again to ask if you had received it, because if you hadn’t, then chances are you would also not receive the prompt asking such. I apologise, however, if it came across as demanding an immediate response (a “yes I’ve got it, I’m working on it” reply on Twitter would have sufficed – but of course, you weren’t to know that).

> I can’t help you with your wish to change the law so that an adult
> can annul adoption.

Your sentence following ^this aside, can you please enlighten me on why you – our famed Adoption Czar – can not help with such a thing? Only, it seems to me that such a thing could easily be integrated into any improvements you plan on making to the current adoption system, as it would simply be yet another improvement made. Thus if our famed Adoption Czar can not help change adoption for the better, then surely your role is essentially redundant?

> Others will have told you this but, essentially, at the age of 18 we
> are all adults and adoption has essentially expired. Your adoptive
> parents cannot restrain your behaviour in any way. You can change
> your name and, if you so wish, ignore the fact that you were ever
> adopted.

If that were true, then I would have no qualm with adoption – however, it is patently false that at the age 18, adoption has essentially expired. We remain adopted for the entirety of our lives, once adoption has occurred, and yes, even as adults, our adopters can – should they wish – restrain our behaviour. The following examples highlight instances of where the adopted remain – even as adults – perpetually infantilised by their adoptee status.

Example 1.

Contrary to popular belief, not all adopters are suitable parents, and some are overtly abusive to the children they adopt. Further, even those who are generally suitable as parents, may in fact be abusive in ways are not currently recognised as being abusive – such as attempting to prevent the adoptee from even contemplating reunion with their genealogical relatives by demonstrating that their feelings would be incredibly hurt by such. It is for this reason that many adoptees – including Michael Gove (who explained exactly this in his interview available at ) – suppress their own entirely natural desire to seek out the genetic reflection necessary for the healthy development of the personality that can be found from reuniting with their genealogical relatives. Even where adopters (nor the wider adoptive family) do not emphasise this, the adoptee remains pressured by socialisation to not reunite – with those doing so being described as “bad adoptees” or “ungrateful”. Again, Mr Gove’s interview gives an example of this, as he shares that his adoptive mom has previously informed him that “My mother has always said if I want to [trace her] I should”, yet he still says that “I know, though, that she would take it as an indication that I did not feel my life or upbringing was fulfilled”. Whilst it is understandable that there may be apprehension and wariness of the unknown (especially for those removed through Social Services’ interventions), being perpetually forced into the role of a child results in many adoptees negating their own needs in order to satisfy what they have been taught is the ‘right’ way to behave as a grateful adoptee.

Example 2.

Adoption is the legal severance of a child from one family, whilst grafting that child legally on to a different family, in the main for whom they are not I any other way related to. As adults, these adoptees remain legally severed from their own genealogical relatives, despite the fact that they may live with them. Indeed, I am aware of some older adult adoptees who were expelled from their adopters’ homes at 15 years old, and who have spent the intervening decades living with and amongst only their own genealogical relatives, having absolutely no contact what-so-ever with any of their sill-legally related adoptive families. Yet should anything happen to those adoptees, it is the still-legally related adoptive families whose preferences would be taken into account should any decisions need to be made regarding those adult adoptees, despite the fact that they abandoned the adoptee before adulthood *and* that the adoptee has spent the intervening years encompassed within their genealogical relatives. It is for these people that the ability for adoptees to be able to annul THEIR OWN adoptions is necessary.

Example 3.

This example stems from my own personal circumstances.

I lost my genealogical family connections at seven months old because Social Services wanted to put me into foster care (yet strangely, they didn’t want to remove my half-sister, who was 18 months older). In order to “save” me from “bouncing around” foster care (her words), my mom asked around friends and family to find out if there was anyone who would be willing to take me in for adoption. Thus, the Saturday before the Wednesday that Social Services were planning on removing me, the couple who eventually adopted me turned up following a telephone call to their next-door neighbour (the sister of a friend of my mom’s friend) to decide if they wanted to take me on “as if” I was “their own” (which is what adoption implies). As they had been unable to produce a child of their own they had already been seeking to adopt, and had recently been “scammed” by someone who eventually gave the boy they were planning on adopting to a different family. Thus, they decided that I would be a suitable replacement for both the child that they had been unable to produce between themselves and that the boy that they had hoped to adopt, and took me away immediately, and the adoption order was granted six months later. The day that I was taken away from my mom and my sister was the last time I saw anyone to whom I am genealogically related (other than my own daughter whom I bore at 18 years old), until I entered reunion at 37 years old.

Following reunion, I discovered that in addition to my maternal older sister (whose existence I was only informed of at the age of 17 whilst my adoptive mom was enraged at discovering I was pregnant with my daughter), I also have a younger maternal brother. Due to the appalling state of the bedsit in which my brother was living, at the beginning of this year, my brother moved in with us (again – he originally moved in within four months of reunion, but moved out to take on the bedsit that turned out to be in horrendous condition).

This brings me to my final point in this section.

Under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), Nearest Relative (NR) is a default designation that is applied to family. As my maternal half-brother is living with us, were he to be taken into (adult) care under this act, I would usually become his default NR due to our sibling relationship. However, because I am adopted, we are no longer legally related, thus any decisions that would need to be made would automatically default back to our mom, who abused both my siblings enough that either of them being detained under MHA is not beyond the realms of possibility (I am also suffering similarly, but from being adopted rather than from not being adopted). If I were able to annul my own adoption, this horrific state of affairs would no longer be true as my brother and I would share a legally recognised sibling relationship.

Information taken from:

In addition to this point, were ANY of my genealogical relatives admitted to hospital, because I am no longer legally related to ANY of them, it is entirely possible that the hospital could refuse me entry to see any relative, as I am unable to provide ANY proof of our relationship. Further, the converse would be true were I myself to be admitted to a hospital, with it being possible for my genealogical relatives to be barred from seeing me due to our lack of legal relationship.

Thus, as you see, adoption does NOT “essentially expire”, and continues to create problems for both adoptees and our genealogical kin far into adulthood – hence the necessity for it to become possible for adoptees to annul THEIR OWN adoptions *should THEY CHOOSE to*, because yes, our adopters can, should they wish, still control our lives.

> But, of course you should continue to campaign for what you believe
> in.

Oh, I will. Whilst I may feel like I am forever pounding my head upon a brick wall with not a soul listening except thousands of other adoptees who also experience these problems, I will continue to fight because if no-one fights for it, then those who remain unaffected by these issues may never learn that these issues exist for us.

> But you should, I suggest, look realistically at the fact that your E
> petition has only 37 supporters.

Early days yet.


No, I don’t expect to get anywhere near the number of signatures necessary to get my petition heard in Parliament, but this is far more to do with the general public’s perception that adoption is all sunshine and rainbows. Whilst I already suspected such would be the case (due to interactions I’ve previously experienced around the Internet), this has been confirmed by some of the responses my posting the link to the petition has garnered, and so I do have a FAQ post under construction detailing some of my responses to the criticisms (and insults) that have been aimed at the petition itself, as well as at myself for daring to want such a change. Unfortunately, both living life and coping with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder due to adoption has hindered my writing skills somewhat – although constructing this response has aided in clarifying even more of some of my ideas, so hopefully the FAQ won’t take too much longer to produce (once I have completed cleaning up which has been created as a repository for adoption-related information).

> What I really wanted to say to you however (and because your tweets
> have sometimes been misleading but at least have been courteous)

Please do not presume that every comment I have made about you has been equally as courteous. I do not deny that I have made comments far more vindictive towards you than either Mr Hemming or Mr Lonsdale have shared on Twitter. I just don’t think somewhere ‘public’ like Twitter is the place for such displays, though obviously their opinion is otherwise.

> is that however much your experience of adoption has been painful for
> you it undermines you to suggest that is always the case.

I have never yet met an adoptee who wasn’t in pain. Some – many – disguise it by fitting into the image of a “good” adoptee, of which Michael Gove is a perfect example (e.g. previously mentioned article). Unfortunately, this results in those of us who do express the trauma we have experienced as being “bad” or “ungrateful” adoptees, whilst the truth is far more like Amanda explains in this post over at The Declassified Adoptee:

> Describing adoption as *n**ever right* as a *horror* or as *stealing*
> (as you have tweeted in the past few days) weakens any reasonable
> reservations about it which you may have.

That I may have? I understand that you’re saying my language goes too far in my expressions, but the latter half of your sentence has confused me. Feel free to rephrase if the following part fails to answer what you’re commenting on though.

Whilst I actually am aware that not every single adoption is unwanted (indeed, I actually assisted a friend who had been a long-term foster parent to two youths in his fight to adopt them because that is what the youths in question wanted), if no-one is seen to be complaining about nor suffering from $subject, then change is not deemed necessary. Unfortunately then, without extremists highlighting the worst case scenarios, it is extremely unlikely that necessary changes will occur within that subject. Thus, I speak in extremes in the majority of my Internet interactions in order to bring attention to the issues, but (as I’m hoping this email to you demonstrates), I am capable of rational discussion on an issue without being quite so extreme, as within a rational discussion, both sides *should* be able to listen to each other far more easily than in general interactions on social media.

> Because, of course, adoption isn’t always right. I believe (and say
> frequently) that it is only appropriate for a small minority of the
> children taken into care in England, largely those neglected by
> parents who are unlikely ever to be able to be successful parents. It
> is indisputably right that for those children adoption brings
> stability and compensates for that neglect.

And therein lies the problem; the belief that adoption _does_ bring stability, *and* that it _does_ compensate. Again, it is part of the socialisation aspects popularising adoption, while negating the actual real everyday issues that adoptive families face, the same as every other family. Adopters – especially in the current economical situation – are as prone to job loss, and death, and divorce, and the myriad other issues that occur throughout life. Further, the very societal insistence that “adoption is good” adds even greater pressure to the adoptee, since it means that even those who are abused by their adopters (I know several adoptees who were physically, sexually, and mentally abused by their adoptive families) are still expected to proclaim the joys of adoption.

Adoption doesn’t make life better, it just makes it different. I was no better off growing up away from my genetic relatives than I would have been growing up with them, despite the fact that my kept maternal siblings suffered recognised abuse, while I was raised by a decent family. Closed adoption is ultimately destructive, and I have seen no indication that you desire to move away from as closed an adoption system as possible – however I am willing to be corrected upon this perception.

This also highlights how difficult talking about “adoption” is. Research into open adoption may show far different outcomes than research into closed adoption, yet it all categorised as “research supports the view that adoption is good”, while not delineating between which aspects are relative to what. I say adoption is abhorrent, you say adoption is great – nowhere in those sentences is enough information to tell if we are discussing remotely similar circumstances other than that the child involved can use an adoption certificate for identification purposes.

This is just another reason why I believe that adopted adults should be given the choice as to whether or not *they* want their adoption to be “forever”.

> Research around adoption is very clear about that.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of that research is funded by those with a vested interest in the continuation of the trade in children. In example, how many of the books on have you read? My guess would be not a single one of them (though I am always happy to be proven wrong about such things), yet these are books that are strongly recommended by adoptees as these are books that deal with the traumas of adoption in a far more honest manner than a single article or book that I have seen from (for example) BAAF. Indeed, BAAF, Adoption UK, TACT, etc. not only produce adoptER centric material, the adoptEE material they produce do nothing more than reiterate the message that adoptees are “special” and “chosen” and “lucky” – even in the writings that directly state that these things are not the case, they still manage to make the adoptee seem to need to feel grateful for being “rescued” (regardless of circumstance).

Please, talk to people like Nancy Newton Verrier (see for more details) as the research from such as she is far more realistic than that put out by BAAF, Adoption UK, TACT, etc.

> My interest in it is an objective one, prompted by my experience in
> running Barnardo’s (who are involved these days in very few
> adoptions) and my anxiety about our tolerance of neglect and the need
> for us to intervene more promptly on neglect cases.

This is a conflation of issues though. Child protection can be done without the legal annihilation that is inflicted by adoption. This is why we have other measures such as Legal Guardianship. This is something I covered in my post over at that was posted last night.

> There are some cases where the care decision may be wrong and of
> course not all children are taken into care because of neglect. You
> and others are right to expose such cases and the anger of some of
> your co-tweeters is understandable because sometimes they have lost
> their children. But my sincere advice to them is to concentrate on
> those cases rather than seek to suggest that adoption is *always*
> wrong. That is the stance often taken by John Hemming MP, and I’m
> afraid he may sometimes encourage others to take that approach. It
> does them no good at all (nor,might I add, does the abuse generated
> on Twitter, including some from someone who works for Mr Hemming).

Whilst I understand that you personally cannot look into each and every case – why not make it possible for cases to be presented to a TRULY independent body in order for their merit to be assessed? After all, with Social Workers under such pressures as they currently claim to be (a claim I am not denying may contain a vast amount of truth), then surely a system in which issues can be referred elsewhere will both free up time from those SWers who are having to try to repeatedly fight the same problems over and over, and give the public a far greater confidence in the work actually carried out?

I do sincerely detest the idea of children being removed for “at risk of future emotional harm” however, as removing children period inflicts emotional harm. This particular phrasing is something I will not fail to fight against, as it does NOT protect the very children it is claimed to be helping, but DOES inflict the emotional harm that is supposed to be being prevented in the first place.

> A few final points. You recently tweeted that Martin Narey *p**oint
> blank refuses to talk to adult adoptees. *That isn’t so. I talk to
> adult adoptees frequently and I know some adult adoptees particularly
> well including some whose lives have been transformed for the better
> by their experience.

My apologies – however, it was incredibly frustrating to see you responding to John Hemming and co’s insults, whilst seeming to ignore my own very un-insulting request for support for my ePetition. Even had it only been a short reply to say “I’ll look into it” or “email me to discuss this as Twitter’s not a suitable place to be able to discuss this”, it would have been better than no reply at all.

In reference to the talking to other adult adoptees, I would question whether those adoptees are in denial of the problems created by adoption, such as Mr Gove (as covered elsewhere), or whether they accept that there are issues within adoption? An example of alternative perspective to those in denial of the issues can be found at for comparison.

> I also talk to and exchange views frequently with some who disagree
> with me about adoption.

Which aspects though? There’s a difference between disagreeing about minor issues such as the time-scale that X should happen within, than about whether it should exist at all.

> The BBC radio documentary tomorrow night only includes John Hemming
> because I urged the BBC to speak to him and because i believe the
> system will sometimes get things wrong. We need to do more to
> identify those cases while accepting that care is right for the vast
> majority. You need to decide for yourself whether or not Mr Hemming
> serves the interests of those he claims to represent.

Oh, fret not. I’m well aware of whose interests Mr Hemming serves, however, up until I found the FFJ types at the start of this year, I felt like a bit of a lone voice in the UK. Previously, the only other people I had found interested in discussing the deep psychological impact that adoption has upon the person tended to be American adoptees. American adoptees, in the majority of states, have far less ‘rights’ than UK adoptees, and thus has engendered a far larger ‘movement’ towards fighting for adoption reform.

> So, continue to pursue that which you believe in. But don’t undermine
> the specifics of your argument by ignoring the reality of neglect and
> the need for us as a society, when parents cannot be supported to
> offer decent homes (often because of drink and dug addictions) and if
> good quality kinship carers cannot be found, to find an alternative
> stability through adoption.

Please note, I’m in no way suggesting that children should be left within abusive situations – this is again a conflation of the issues of child protection with adoption, a common mistake that is encountered by many attempting to highlight the issues facing adoptees. I am only suggesting that the ADULT adoptee is given a choice as to whether or not they wish to remain adopted. Surely it is of little relevance whether the adoptee chooses to or not, since, as you yourself have said, “adoption essentially expires at 18 years of age” anyway? Thus, making it legal for an adoptee to annul their own adoption can only be beneficial to the system, as it means that it is not a permanent solution inflicted on someone who was in no position to give THEIR OWN consent to such legal annihilation.

Sincerest thanks for your considered reply, and I ask that we may please continue this dialogue? Whilst it may ultimately prove fruitless (from my perspective), I would far rather exhaust the discussion completely and retire knowing that at least we did try to find solutions, than to just have my very real and valid concerns dismissed as a one-off rarity. I am not a one-off, rare, special case. I didn’t have a “bad” adoption, nor did I suffer from an awful adoptive family – yet adoption still did not leave me (nor many others) any “better off” than any kept and abused siblings – it simply gave us different problems to deal with that are currently unrecognised by the majority of society. This results in us being further traumatised as – unlike our kept and abused siblings – our traumas are dismissed as nothing more than us “having a bad experience”.

After all… “Adoption Loss is the only trauma in the world where the victims are expected by the whole of society to be grateful.” – The Reverend Keith C. Griffith, MBE

As a final note, I will be pasting this reply of mine to you into a post on my site, – not in an attempt to discredit you, nor show you up, nor any such thing, but (a) because it demonstrates that I was wrong and that you actually do talk to adoptees, and (b) helps explain some of my own ideas, thoughts and suggestions without having to write separate posts out. Whilst I have no problems with putting completely new posts on the site, I find it redundant to re-write something already explained elsewhere.

Yours, with respect

Written by 7rin

Thu, 4 October, 2012 at 4:44 pm

What would 7rin do?

with 13 comments

During one of my recent sojourns on to one of the pro-adoption sites on Facebook, I was asked by someone I’d been debating the adoption issue with why I fight, and what I think should actually happen instead. This isn’t the first time (today even) that I’ve been asked this question, but this time when I answered, I remembered to CTRL+C so that I could CTRL+V over here, and turn this into a post. Thus, the following is the answer to the question asked in the title (wrt adoption, obviously).

Fwiw, I’m all for protecting the kids that need protecting, and if that means removing kids from abusive situations, then so be it. However, there is a massive difference between finding homes for those kids who really have needed to be removed from unsafe situations, to soliciting pregnant women for their babies because you can afford to buy such a purchase.

Traditionally, parent considering adoption (aside from those who really don’t care about their kids, and who’re probably only carrying to term because they found out too late to get an abortion) do so because they’ve brought into at least one of the many perpetuated lies.

One example lie is that “children need a mom and a dad”. Now admittedly, having two parents who love you and want you IS the ideal, however, that does NOT mean that living with a caring, loving single parent will necessarily inhibit your life chances. This lie is further confounded by the fact that there are now many single parent adoptions.

Another example lie is that “kids born to poor parents would be better off with better off parents”. This is absolute bunkum – and more so in the economically uncertain world that we’re living in today, since even the well-off can suddenly find themselves plunged into (relative) poverty, either due to redundancy, illness, etc. Also, this lie ignores the fact that living with genetic strangers takes a toll on EVERY child (which isn’t to say that no child adapts), and is SECOND-BEST to growing up surrounded by the genetic mirroring that ones own biological family can provide.

Yet even in the circumstances where a child does need removing from its own biological family for its own safety, I still disagree with adoption, since all adoption currently does is create a legalised lie that pretends the child is born to the adoptive parents, and in the process obliterates the child’s genetic heritage. This is entirely unnecessary, and only serves to reinforce the idealisation of those who want a “blank slate” baby to pretend they’re their own. Babies, even those who are taken in by someone else from birth, and NOT “blank slates”, they come pre-programmed with personalities and foibles that living life simply builds upon, and pretending that they are blank slates is to do the child a massive disservice as it means that they have to live yet more of a lie, and are expected to become someone other than who they really are.

What I’d like to see is a change to the documentation that we adoptees come with, in which we do NOT lose our genetic heritage, but instead INCORPORATE our newly adoptive lives WITH our own genetic heritage. One way to do this would be to stop reissuing the birth certificate perpetuating the legalised lies of being born to someone other than who we were born to, and instead acquire an adoption certificate (which we get over here in the UK, and I *think* happens in at least some of the states in America) that has spaces to include ALL of our parents on it. That way, the child does not have to grow up not knowing who they originate from (I would’ve cheerfully killed as a kid just to know what my parents names are/were), and it would help prevent those adopters who refuse to inform the child of their own heritage from doing so (which can lead to all kinds of medical ramifications).

I’ll stop here, but please, if you have any questions, feel free to ask, ’cause I’m all for intelligent discussion on the issue.

The last sentence is also aimed at anyone who reads this post that I’m writing in here. I’d also like any comments about how or why you think things should be done differently to the suggestions I’ve already made.

Written by 7rin

Wed, 18 August, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Responding to positive propaganda

with 5 comments

The following post was created in response to a couple of emails I received from a bmom, who was responding to my posts on the Y!A Adoption section.

I wasn’t expecting the start of this post to explode quite so much as it did, and so I decided that I would try to make the most of this post to help get some of the things I feel about adoption out – however, as usually happens, once I’d stopped writing and gone to sleep, restarting proved problematic, as I had lost the thread of where my writing was going, and so after the first question, my answers become more abrupt, and much less involved.

I can see this going one of three ways:

#1 – It’s entirely likely that both of us could get fed up of doing what, to each of our own selves, looks like bashing our own head off a brick wall, and say to ourselves “fuck it”, and give up on this conversation.

If, however, the conversation continues, there are two remaining probabilities that could occur, each of which is merely a mirror of the other:

#2a – I manage to make you understand why I – as someone who states that I was abandoned to adoption, truly feels that way. This could not happen until I perceived you as coming out of what I view as “the adoption fog”, and so it would mean that you would have completely changed absolutely everything you’ve believed in (about adoption) up until now.

#2b – You manage to make me understand why you – as someone who states that adoption is a good thing, truly feels that way. This could not happen until you perceive me as coming out of what you view as “believing the lie”, and so it would mean that I would have completely changed absolutely everything I’ve believed in (about adoption) up until now.

Wanna play? ;)

Either way, I’m now going to answer the questions you asked, and respond to the statements made within both of your messages to me, in order to attempt to explain to you, and help you to comprehend why I feel the way I do.

I know it must have been difficult for you to be placed for adoption. But, know you were not abandoned.

Which shows exactly how little you actually know about the circumstances surrounding _my_ adoption. To answer one of your later questions/statements, yes, I have met my mom, and I’ve also met my dad. I’ve also met two of my brothers, but am having trouble mourning my brother who died at seven months old because all I can currently see his death as is karma kicking my mom’s arse for abandoning me at the same age my brother was when he died, less than a year before he died.

Yes, it _was_ abandonment. I can say this with absolute certainty because I’ve heard the “exact” details surrounding my adoption, i.e. I’ve heard the story from the perspectives of those involved – namely my four parents, as well as having read case files from Social Services.

It absolutely *was* abandonment. My mom couldn’t be arsed with putting the effort in to raise the second of the two kids she’d thus far sprouted, to the point that Social Services were looking at stepping in and putting me into foster care. I was going to be put into care on the Wednesday, had someone not already taken me away the situation. Fortunately for me, the aparents that I grew up with turned up to see if they wanted me on the Saturday, after finding out that I was up for grabs.

How they found out is interesting, and again helps to clarify my explanation of why I see it as abandonment.

Despite any and all appearances to the contrary, my bmom actually *is* human. With this enchantment called humanity, comes the ever popular model most commonly called “flawed”. This is something I accept and understand and comprehend completely. That my heroes will contain “flaws” is a something that I have long since accepted, and long ago deemed as unimportant in relation to my feelings towards them; thus I have no issue with accepting that my mom is flawed.

Another part of the whole being human stuff involves talking to people, and – as people do – my mom discussed her desire to get rid of me with the people that surrounded her – e.g. those she considered to be friends. Luckily for me, the couple whose next-door neighbour went around to tell them that her sister had telephoned because her mate had a mate who wanted to know if anyone wanted her 7 month old baby that she didn’t want, were damn good people. Not perfect, admittedly, but damn good.

I was utterly and deeply lucky, because it could have been anyone who walked through that door in order to look at the 7 month old baby that was going spare. The only “lucky” part to my adoption was that I was “lucky” not to have been palmed off on to someone considerably worse.

A massive number of adoptees experience abuse from one or more adoptive parent, which means that those adoptees given away by their mothers just because their mothers think that material goods are more important in life than their child getting its own mother’s love and its own mother’s protection have suffered abuse *because* they’ve been adopted.

Adoptive parents are just as likely to suffer from the same problems and issues as are faced by biological families. The western culture is rife with divorce, and given the number of times the world economy has crashed in recent decades, pretty much every adoptee can be faced with growing up in a life of (relative to “the dream”) poverty, sometimes coupled with single parenthood, and sometimes not.

I have no idea what percentage of the general population are estimated to be alcoholics, but I have – as of yet – found no reason yet to explain why the number of adoptive parents within that percentage wouldn’t be proportional to their percentage within the general population.

Shit happens to everyone, and being adopted no more guarantees that you will live the dream life that all adoptees are supposed to get, than you would have lived if you had stayed with the mother who didn’t give you away.

I have – for an adoptee – led an exceedingly charmed life. My aparents sprout from relatively sane and functional families, who pretty much all possess a genuine and caring work and moral ethic, and so – like an adoptee living the dream, I have grown up with a fantastic amount of scaffolding upon which I have been able to build myself upon. My afamily (aunts, cousins, granddads, etc.) are what families are *supposed* to be. The vast majority are in happy, life-long relationships with people they love and trust and care about enough to have *chosen* to have and raise kids with, and those who aren’t seem to be on at least friendly terms with those they have separated from.

In other words, I have grown up seeing all of the people around me NOT being abandoned, and I have seen how so much more solid their lives and relationships have been. I have seen how families are meant to work, instead of the experience I had, of being abandoned so that someone else could do all the hard work.

I know it is difficult growing up and not having that piece of your idenity.

Do you? Do you *really* have any clue what it is like to have to grow up in a world with no familiarity to help guide your path? Do you *really* know what it is like to grow up in a world where every time you fill in a medical questionnaire, you have to write “unknown” for every single answer? Do you *really* have the vaguest clue about what it is like not to know ANYTHING about your own history, or identity, or even your own ‘race’?

Maybe its time you find it in other things. Hobbies?

Oh yes, because having a hobby TRULY makes up for not having lost your own family and not having your own identity! Besides which, I have plenty in my life to keep me occupied, thanks very much. I don’t need any more time-sinks.

It is time you stop beating yourself up about what happened to you thirty some years ago and start living.

I’m not beating myself up about what happened to me thirty some years ago, what I’m doing is living with the consequences of what happened to me thirty some years ago. This does not mean that I’m not living, as you suggest, it instead means that I’m still – even now – trying to learn and understand how the world works because up until September 2009, I had no way of seeing what I might become, or of seeing how people I comprehend react to the world.

If I wasn’t living, then I would not be able to type this reply out to you because, well, I’d be not alive.

Find a counselor who cares and can begin to move you more forward into using this experience to catupult you rather than bring you down.

I would *love* to be able to find a counsellor who can help me begin to “get over” this experience, however, counsellors that understand the issues of adoptees are few and far between, and sadly, we can’t usually get such help free of charge, despite this being a result of something that was done to us, rather than as a result of anything we did to ourselves.

Also, you presume too much if you think that abandonment can be in any way mitigated by counselling. Being abandoned cuts to the core of the being, and since (in my case at least) I was too young (at seven months old) to even begin to comprehend anything other than abject misery at the loss of everything I’d ever known and ever loved, it is not something that can be rationalised away. Rationally, I understand that I did grow up in what was probably a safer and more caring environment compared to my maternal biological siblings, but I most certainly did NOT grow up in a safer and more caring environment than my paternal siblings – in fact, my paternal siblings grew up living the life that I spent my childhood wanting to lead.

If you never find satisfaction in life, then what is the hope in living?

I don’t need to hope to live, thanks, sadly, it just comes naturally – and satisfaction has bugger all to do with life, unless you’re very lucky.

Life is about taking challenges as they come and takeing responsibility for your life.

You’re presuming that I don’t take responsibility for my life, which is entirely incorrect. I take complete responsibility for everything I do or say as an adult who can comprehend the psychology behind the things that I do and say – what I refuse to take responsibility for, however, is the abandonment that I suffered, because that abandonment was not by my own doing. Abandonment is what happened to me, not what I did.

As for taking the challenges as they come; do you think I would still be here and alive if I hadn’t taken them as they came?

Sorry you had a tough life.

Why, when it wasn’t you who abandoned me, should you be sorry?

I didn’t have a tough life, relatively; I had a different life.

But when are you going to grow up.

LOL. According to my closest friends, never. Apparently I’m Peter Pan’s evil twin.

The rest of the world has problems too.

You don’t say?! That is so shocking, and deeply condescending. Do you think that as an adoptee, my adoption is the only issue I am faced with in my life? Do you think that because I am adopted, that everything else in my life runs perfectly? Of course it doesn’t. Being adopted doesn’t help pay the bills (yet), nor do is provide structure and love and care for my daughter – all that being adopted has done is given me insight into how traumatic it is to be adopted, so that I can hope – in the future – to be able to help challenge and change the rules that govern the care of children who need to be removed from their own families for their own safety.

I am a birthmother and adoption is not this horrible thing. Stop spreading negative propanganda in something you know little about.

Aaah, so you’re an abandoner, well that answers everything. Speaking as the one who got abandoned, yes, adoption IS horrible. Adoption hurts kids, and adoption separates families.

As for knowing little about adoption – bwahahaaaa! Sorry, but just no. I am the one who has had to live through this, and so I am the one who CAN spread the negative propaganda, because I am the one who has had no choice but to live through it.

How about you stop joining in with the positive adoption propaganda instead, since you’re not the one who has had to grow up living this, and so you have no clue what-so-ever what living with this is like. How about you come out of the rainbow-farting unicorn fog and admit that losing your child, and your child losing her family hurts, instead of convincing other women to also abandon their kids? Why not, instead of buying into the positive adoption party line, you instead help women who are considering adoption find resources so that they can keep their kids, so that their kids can grow up without having to experience the bewilderment of having to grow up in an unrecognisable world that has no familiarity to it.

My daughter had a better life because of me.

Did she, did she really? Or did she just have a different life?

Speaks four languages and lived in a nice home.

Yes, because being able to speak four languages and having material possessions really does make up for a lack of genetic mirroring, and a lack of genetic history, and a lack of known medical knowledge in which one can protect oneself from potential medical difficulties. Of course being able to speak four languages and living in a nice home makes up for not having your own mom there, someone that you can recognise and understand intuitively.

She would have grown up dirt poor if she would have grown up with me.

My daughter has grown up dirt poor, and she’s turned out ok. I grew up relatively well off, but that hasn’t helped in the slightest, since material objects are of little consequence. Yes, having nice things is, well, nice, but it’s entirely possible to live without the nice things, and I would much rather have grown up with my own self being reflected back at me than have grown up with as many toys and gadgets as money can buy.

Material objects can not, and do not, give love.

I did not abandon her. I made a responsible decision.

No, you abandoned her. You brought her into the world, and then palmed her off on to someone else to raise just because you think material objects are worth more than a mother’s love.

The responsible decision would have been to either abort, or to raise her yourself – the irresponsible decision was to palm her off on to someone else to raise.

Don’t ruin your life with this lie.

I don’t need to ruin my life with this – my life was long ago (at the age of seven months old) ruined by this. It is not a choice that I have.

Stand up and take responsiblity.

See, I did, unlike you. I took the responsibility of raising my own child, instead of abandoning her. I took on the responsibility of educating and guiding the daughter that I gave birth to, instead of palming her off on to someone else – unlike you.

At every moment, we have the chance to stand up and begin again in life.

Actually, no we don’t. It’s impossible (currently) to turn back time – all we can do from this point on is continue to live until we don’t.

My daughter and I have made contact and are close. Have you and your mother reunited? I hope this will bring closure for you.

Sorry, no, meeting my biological family has not – and is almost certain never likely to – “bring closure”. Meeting my biological family has helped massively in filling in some of the gaps in my life, but now I’ve got four families that I don’t quite fit into, instead of just two families.

Praying for you.

Please don’t, otherwise I might get tempted to pray for you too, and I sincerely doubt that you would enjoy having my god take notice of your life, because he’s not a very nice person at all.

Written by 7rin

Sun, 8 August, 2010 at 3:52 pm

Posted in Reactions

Tagged with

%d bloggers like this: