We have a lot to learn

I have to share this report from Evelyn Robinson. It's a comparison of adoption practices in Australia and North America. I have to point it out because I think we have a lot to learn here in the good ole USA. We, who think we have the greatest nation on earth, the ones who think everyone can learn from us because we do everything so much better than everyone else, we still have a lot to learn. Yes, we do have a great country. I truly believe that. I also believe that we have much room for improvement. If we keep on riding the crazy train that we've been riding we certainly won't continue to be the envy of others when it comes to how we treat women and children here in this country. We can learn from what other countries are doing.

Will we continue to be the envy of others if we continue to commodify children in this country? No matter how the agencies and adoptive parents want to spin the story, as long as money and children change hands in the same transaction, children continue to be viewed as products. If there is a profit to be made (and don't kid yourself, adoption is a multi-billion dollar for-profit industry in this country) on the backs of babies and children, profit will continue to be the primary motive behind adoption.


Here are just a few of the highlights I noticed about the difference in attitudes between the USA and Australia:


"Private adoptions are illegal in all states in Australia. All domestic adoptions are enacted by State Government departments. There are no commercially-based adoption agencies which are licensed to manage these adoptions, which means that there are no payments of any kind connected to the adoptions of these children." 


Let me emphasize that.... There are no commercially-based adoption agencies, there are no payments of any kind connected to the adoptions of these children.


"Expectant mothers in Australia, regardless of their circumstances, are generally encouraged and supported to prepare for raising their children. After the birth, a Parenting Payment is available from the Federal Government to anyone, regardless of their gender or marital status, who is a permanent resident of Australia and who has custody of a child. This payment, which is means-tested, is a recognition by the Australian government that children are the basis of a country's future. The government, therefore, makes financial support available to parents to assist them to provide for their children." 



Children are the future and worth the investment.


Here's another one....   "Under the South Australian Adoption Act (1988), consent to adoption cannot be given until the child is at least fourteen days old. Counselling after the birth is compulsory and must be completed at least three days prior to consent being given. The mother of the child must also be given information in writing regarding the consequences of the adoption, prior to any taking of consent. After the consent has been signed there is a period of twenty-five days during which the consent may be revoked. This period can be extended by up to fourteen days, but it cannot be shortened. In practice, the consent to adoption is sometimes not finalised until several months after the birth. While this may not be an ideal situation, it is felt to be of prime importance that children have every opportunity to be raised within their families of origin."


Here is the law in my state of FL....... 
A consent to the adoption of a minor shall not be executed by the birth mother sooner than 48 hours after the minor's birth or the day the birth mother has been notified in writing that she is fit to be released from the hospital or birth center, whichever is earlier.


So here in FL and many other states, 48 hours after giving birth, while a mother is still recuperating and feeling the post-partum hormone changes, she can sign a consent that is irrevocable. 


Couldn't help myself, I had to  highlight this entire section....

Meetings with prospective adopters

In Australia there is never any contact of any kind between expectant mothers and prospective adopters. I know that there are many who agree with me that such contacts are intrusive, disempowering to the expectant mother and potentially exploitative. They may even serve to encourage an inappropriate sense of 'ownership' in the prospective adopters, which, I believe, shows a lack of respect for and understanding of the sanctity of the mother/child bond. I am aware that this shocking practice is considered by many to be unethical.
In South Australia, only after the consent to adoption has been signed and after the twenty-five day revocation period has expired will the government department involved select adopters for the child. After this decision has been made, a meeting may take place between the prospective adopters who have been selected and the mother, if the mother requests such a meeting. Prospective adopters will not have any contact at all with the child until after the revocation period has expired and they have been notified that they have been selected to adopt.
I find it hard to understand how anyone can support the practice of having prospective adopters meet with expectant mothers and try to induce them to consent to the adoption of the child they are carrying. I believe that prospective adopters are sometimes even allowed to be present at the hospital while the birth is taking place. I was appalled to hear that this happens in North America. I find such behaviour totally inappropriate and unethical. It concerns me greatly that prospective adopters who behave in this way are not thereby considered as unsuitable to adopt.

Here in the USA it's standard procedure to have the HAPs  not only meet with an expectant mother but many even spend the labor with the mother, are present at delivery and cut the cord of the new infant. 


Below is the entire report from Evelyn. Please read. There is so much more to learn about the differences in our two country's attitudes toward mothers and children. There was a time when Australia's single mothers were treated the same way we were treated but look how far they've come. The change is astounding and it's time for the US to wake up.

Current Adoption Policy and Practice -
A Comparison Between North America and Australia by Evelyn Robinson (M.A., Dip. Ed., B.SW.)

Introduction

I am often asked about current adoption policy and practice in Australia and how this differs from policy and practice in North America. Although I have never worked in a situation where adoptions were actually taking place, I have had considerable experience in post-adoption services for the last fifteen years and, in that time, I have counselled many whose lives have been affected by adoption. I have also been able to acquire some understanding of current adoption policy and practice from colleagues in the field. During my visits to North America and through my contacts with colleagues there, I have also gained some background information on current adoption practices in North America. It seems to me that there are fundamental differences between what I perceive to be happening with domestic adoptions in Australia and what I perceive to be happening with domestic adoptions in North America.
I recognise that adoption policy is, in both places, subject to state rather than federal legislation and so there are variations in policy and practice from state to state (in this article, for simplicity, I have referred to 'state' legislation, although I am aware that in both North America and Australia there exist states, territories and provinces). My comments are, therefore, of a general nature only, as I appreciate that there are many local variations. I am most familiar, of course, with policy and practice in my home state of South Australia, but I am aware that most other states in Australia operate in similar ways. Adoption policy and practice in South Australia are based on the South Australian Adoption Act (1988) and have been in effect since that act was passed in 1989. Since 1989, it has been possible to appraise and monitor the outcomes of this legislation and the act was officially reviewed in 1994. At that time, submissions were invited from members of the public, as well as groups with an interest in adoption. Some minor alterations to the act were made on the basis of this review and there have been no official moves to make any alterations to the legislation since that time.
South Australia was the first state in Australia to put in place adoption legislation which seeks to protect and support the relationship between a newborn child and his or her families of origin, as well as allowing equal access to adoption information when the adopted child becomes an adult. Other states have followed with similar adoption acts.

Adoption agencies

Private adoptions are illegal in all states in Australia. All domestic adoptions are enacted by State Government departments. There are no commercially-based adoption agencies which are licensed to manage these adoptions, which means that there are no payments of any kind connected to the adoptions of these children.
In contrast, in North America, private adoption agencies are licensed to arrange domestic adoptions. Because adoption has been allowed to acquire a commercial status in North America, there are financial advantages for agencies in arranging as many adoptions as possible. Agencies in North America, therefore, have an incentive to attract customers, just as any other business does.
Many people have expressed to me that they find the fact that money and children change hands in the same transactions to be at the very least distasteful, if not, in fact, immoral.

Expectant mothers

Expectant mothers in Australia, regardless of their circumstances, are generally encouraged and supported to prepare for raising their children. After the birth, a Parenting Payment is available from the Federal Government to anyone, regardless of their gender or marital status, who is a permanent resident of Australia and who has custody of a child. This payment, which is means-tested, is a recognition by the Australian government that children are the basis of a country's future. The government, therefore, makes financial support available to parents to assist them to provide for their children. As far as I am aware, there is no corresponding payment available at a Federal Government level in North America, although I have been advised that there may be tax benefits for parents who are in paid employment.
While there is still a degree of disapproval in some quarters towards single parenthood, there is a much greater level of acceptance in Australia than there was in the past. This has resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of adoptions in Australia over the last thirty years. Last year in the state of South Australia (which has a population of more than two million people), for example, only one Australian-born child was adopted.
The term 'birthmother' (or 'birth mother') is currently out of favour with many of the support groups in Australia and certainly would never be used, as I have heard it used in North America, to describe an expectant mother. I have even heard the term 'birthmother-to-be' used to describe a pregnant woman. This sinister use of the term 'birthmother', before the birth has even taken place, implies that the separation of mother and child is a foregone conclusion. Expectant mothers in Australia, on the other hand, are generally encouraged to concentrate on their approaching motherhood throughout their pregnancies and no decisions regarding their child's future are expected to be made until after the birth has occurred. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that it is not possible for a mother to know how she will feel about her child until after the child has been born.

Expectant fathers

I know that, in North America, fathers who are not married to the mothers of their children have a difficult time being heard. In South Australia, an unmarried mother who is considering adoption will always be asked to name the child's father and attempts will be made to include him in the decision-making process. If the father is named on the birth certificate or if a man is recognised by the court as being the father of a child, then his consent is necessary before that child can be adopted. The father will be allowed time to establish paternity. If the father wishes to raise the child, he has the right to do so. If the mother and father do not agree with regard to the child's future, the matter may be decided by the Family Court. This would happen before any consent to adoption had been completed.

Consent to adoption

Under the South Australian Adoption Act (1988), consent to adoption cannot be given until the child is at least fourteen days old. Counselling after the birth is compulsory and must be completed at least three days prior to consent being given. The mother of the child must also be given information in writing regarding the consequences of the adoption, prior to any taking of consent. After the consent has been signed there is a period of twenty-five days during which the consent may be revoked. This period can be extended by up to fourteen days, but it cannot be shortened.
In practice, the consent to adoption is sometimes not finalised until several months after the birth. While this may not be an ideal situation, it is felt to be of prime importance that children have every opportunity to be raised within their families of origin. This will prevent the long term complexities in the lives of those children and their parents, which would occur if an adoption took place. During this period the child may remain with the mother and/or father.
I have heard of cases in North America, tragically, in which adoption consents have been signed even before the birth, or very soon after the birth. I have also heard of cases where attempts to revoke the consent the day after it had been signed have failed.

Meetings with prospective adopters

In Australia there is never any contact of any kind between expectant mothers and prospective adopters. I know that there are many who agree with me that such contacts are intrusive, disempowering to the expectant mother and potentially exploitative. They may even serve to encourage an inappropriate sense of 'ownership' in the prospective adopters, which, I believe, shows a lack of respect for and understanding of the sanctity of the mother/child bond. I am aware that this shocking practice is considered by many to be unethical.
In South Australia, only after the consent to adoption has been signed and after the twenty-five day revocation period has expired will the government department involved select adopters for the child. After this decision has been made, a meeting may take place between the prospective adopters who have been selected and the mother, if the mother requests such a meeting. Prospective adopters will not have any contact at all with the child until after the revocation period has expired and they have been notified that they have been selected to adopt.
I find it hard to understand how anyone can support the practice of having prospective adopters meet with expectant mothers and try to induce them to consent to the adoption of the child they are carrying. I believe that prospective adopters are sometimes even allowed to be present at the hospital while the birth is taking place. I was appalled to hear that this happens in North America. I find such behaviour totally inappropriate and unethical. It concerns me greatly that prospective adopters who behave in this way are not thereby considered as unsuitable to adopt.

Birth certificates

In South Australia, if the adopters are willing, they can have their names added to the child's original birth certificate instead of having a new one issued. This means that, after the adoption, the names of both the parents and the adopters appear on the same document, which is the child's legal birth certificate. The mother of the child has access to the original birth certificate from the time that the adoption takes place. The father also has access if his name appears on the birth certificate.
Regardless of the type of birth certificate issued, adopted adults in South Australia have access to their original birth certificates and other documentation pertaining to their adoption, when they are eighteen years old. The original birth certificate has details of their parents, including their names and addresses at the time of the adoption. They may have access prior to the age of eighteen with the consent of their adopters. The mother of the adopted child also has access to the replacement birth certificate when the adopted child becomes an adult, at the age of eighteen years. This document has details of the child's adopted name and the names of the adopters and their address at the time of the adoption.
These documents are also available to the children of the mothers, either if the mother gives permission or after her death and to the children of an adopted adult, if the adopted adult gives permission or after their death. Similar access to adoption information is available in all states, although in some cases, the release of information can be prevented by a person involved in the adoption. Fathers also have the right to access information about their children under certain circumstances. The legislation which allows this access has been in effect in South Australia since 1989.
I know that there are some states in North America where adopted adults are allowed to access their original birth certificates but there are no states, as far as I am aware, in which parents are allowed to access the replacement birth certificates once their children are adults. I look forward to the time when equal access to adoption information, such as exists in South Australia, will be accepted as a basic human right everywhere in North America. This is an on-going issue of social justice.

The right to raise a child

There seems to be an unhealthy attitude in North America that there are some people who are 'entitled' to raise children (whether their own or someone else's) and that there are others who are not. The result of this seems to be that, rather than adoption existing to serve needy children, adoption seems to exist to a large extent to serve needy adults. In some sectors of the media in North America, the idea that certain people have a right to acquire a child, by any means at their disposal, seems to go unchallenged. Although this misguided notion does, no doubt, also have some support in areas of the Australian media, I find this attitude to be much less prevalent in Australia than it is in North America.

Removing children from families

I was very shocked to learn that, in North America, parents who are married and already have children are being persuaded to relinquish newly-born infants. The subsequent separation of such a child from a previously intact family is causing enormous losses, for the child, for the parents, for the other children in the family, for the grandparents as well as many other members of the extended family. This does not, to my knowledge, happen anywhere in Australia.
Apparently, having children while on a low income is now perceived as such a crime in some parts of North America, that this dreadful punishment has been devised. If poverty is considered to be a disadvantage to such children, then government initiatives which address the issue of poverty would be more useful to them than replacing the complications created in their lives by poverty with the complications created by adoption.
In my professional opinion as a social worker, any prospective adopters who would be willing to acquire a child in this way, from an established family, would be considered to be unsuitable candidates to be entrusted with child-rearing responsibilities. It seems that a 'supply' of such children, who already have an entire family of relatives, is being engineered to meet the 'demand' created by affluent strangers, who wish to attempt to manufacture a family through adoption. I cannot comprehend how anyone could consider such a transaction to be anything other than exploitative and socially unjust.

Adoptions of older children

While there are many in North America who are working in family preservation programmes to prevent separations of mothers and babies, I am saddened by the fact that there are still those who believe that adoption is an appropriate outcome for older children who are unable to return to live with their families. Adoption is rarely considered to be an appropriate outcome for such children in Australia.
I have heard it said in North America that adoption can provide such children with a sense of security. In fact, in my opinion, the opposite is the case. Children such as these know who they are and to whom they are related. These realities do not change, no matter where the child is living. To deny that identity and those connections by issuing the child with a false birth certificate has, in fact, the potential to create an enormous sense of insecurity. If their identity and their family connections are so dispensable, then how can a child in this situation develop any sense of reality and permanence? We all know that being part of an adoptive family does not provide protection against abuse, death or divorce. Adoption, in fact, does not guarantee permanence of any kind and is actually an attempt to create relationships where none existed previously, rather than honouring those relationships which already exist.
In Australia, children who are unable to live with their families can be provided with a safe home environment, based on an arrangement which accepts and honours the reality of their identity and their existing relationships. This, I believe, can allow them to heal and recover without involving them in the deceit and denial associated with adoption. Some of these children have already been traumatised by the abuse or neglect which they have suffered. In my opinion, it is unnecessarily cruel to add to their trauma by subjecting them to an adoption.

Conclusion

I am not, of course, suggesting that every child in Australia lives in an ideal family environment. However, it is not considered to be appropriate in Australia to try to solve the problems of poverty and abuse in families, by removing children and arranging for them to be adopted.
Adoption is not a commercial transaction in Australia and it is gradually being replaced by other, more effective means of providing homes for children in need. This suggests to me that Australians respect the advantages in life which cannot be bought, including a sense of knowing who we are and where we fit, a sense of heritage and ancestry and a respect for the intrinsic value of family membership.
I look forward to the day when children all over the world will no longer be removed from what are perceived to be dysfunctional poor families and placed in what too often turn out to be dysfunctional affluent families.

© Evelyn Robinson, M.A., Dip. Ed., B.SW.
January, 2004

This article may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only, providing that
it is reproduced in its entirety and without alteration.

Evelyn Robinson, who is a counsellor, speaker and author of Adoption and Loss -
The Hidden Grief , welcomes contact from interested readers.

Clova Publications
PO Box 328, Christies Beach, South Australia 5165
Tel: +61 - 8 - 8384 5805 / Fax: +61 - 8 - 8384 5815
E-mail: erobinson@austarmetro.com.auWeb site: www.clovapublications.com 

Mothers in Exile

Hidden in shame, lies are told

about us, by us.

Gratitude for sacrifice slams the door.

Our motherhoods removed 

they think, they wish.

Behind the door our hearts beat, our arms empty, we wait.

Our children grow, we search and find.

Sometimes good, sometimes sad

but still we sit.......

Huddled together, a group outside.

The mainstream flows, comforted in their easy belief.

We push against the current hoping to get through.

Again the door slams shut.

Again we lean a little harder.

A small wave of light escapes from beneath.

Our stories are read.

Replies come fast and furious to put us in our place.

"just because you had a bad experience" they said.

Behind the door the words get larger.

Through mothers in exile silent voices heard.

Just a show

I watched Parenthood again this week. I'm not so sure it's good for me to watch that show anymore. All I ended up doing is yelling at the TV. The story line with the PAP and the pregnant girl really ticked me off this time. The PAP is doing her damnedest to help the expectant mother get her GED, find a job, and help her with her situation yet she still plans on taking her baby from her and calling the unborn child "hers". The writers of the show are making the PAPs out to be saviors of this young mom yet they're not helping her so she can KEEP her baby, of course not. It doesn't even seem to occur to the PAPs that the help they're trying to give her is the help she needs in order to do just that. I don't know what the writers have in mind for next week. If I do watch the show I'll be sitting there yelling at the girl to RUN! Run as far and as fast as you can. Don't let anyone talk you into adoption. Your situation is temporary, adoption is forever! Don't do this to you and your baby.

*sigh* ~  it's just a TV show yet I wish someday, sometime a story could be portrayed from the mother's point of view. Writers, give us the other side please.

What is there to disagree with?

This open letter to adoptive parents and PAPs has been around for a little while but I thought it worthy of attention again. This letter was written by an adult adoptee and shared on a blog by another adult adoptee. These are the thoughts and feelings of a person who has lived adoption her entire life.

When I first shared this letter I got a response from a person who disagreed with the writer. The person disagreeing is not an adoptee nor is he a natural parent who lost a child to adoption. Now, I'm not saying that people don't have the right to disagree with others, of course we all have that right. In this case though, what seems like a simple disagreement comes across to me as a dismissal of the adoptee's experience. The criticism of the letter was basically that the letter made adoptive parents seem selfish and that many adoptees would have ended up in foster care anyway had the aparents not adopted them. These are the typical talking points of adoption agencies and those who wish to justify the for-profit adoption industry. When someone says to me that those kids would have ended up in foster care if they hadn't been adopted, they're talking about me and I have to object. They may not realize it but when they say these things they're saying that had I been able to keep my daughter I would have been a terrible mom and she likely would've been abused or neglected. They're making the assumption that babies surrendered by their mothers were at high risk of ending up in foster care. That's a mighty big assumption and a hugely insulting one to mothers like me who were railroaded, coerced, forced and left unsupported, mothers like me whose voices are dismissed right along with the adoptee's voices.

In the letter the writer states:

"I am not trying to tell anyone not to adopt. I am not saying, "shame on you" to anyone who already has adopted. What I am saying is, please step back and really think long and hard about the ramifications of adoption on the very person who is at the center of it all - the child you hope for or the child you have brought into your home."

This adoptee acknowledges that there are times when a child has to be taken from their natural family. We all know that, we know it's an ugly fact of life. What this adoptee is trying to accomplish is getting people to step back from the industry propaganda and HEAR what an adult who grew up adopted has to say about it. She wouldn't be saying any of this if there weren't adoptive parents out there doing the things she's talking about.

If you're not one of those adoptive parents or don't know any of those adoptive parents then great, but don't dismiss what she has to say because you don't think that those other parents exist.

They DO exist and they need to read this, understand this and put children first.

So, here are the basic points that the writer makes in the letter. Tell me what there is to disagree with here:

1. Being adopted hurts. If you're not adopted you have nothing to say about that.

2. The foundation of adoption is loss. In order for someone to "grow their family" another family has to be separated. That's a fact. That's a devastating loss for the child and a devastating loss for not only the mother but for the entire family.

3. Adoption should be a last resort. To me that's a no-brainer. Family preservation should be priority number one. Adoption should not be used to fulfill an adult's needs. Someone said to me that anyone who adopts to fill a void is delusional. If someone has been through miscarriages or unsuccessful treatments for infertility and then adopts a newborn, isn't that adopting to fill a void? What else would you call that? If they only want a newborn and don't want to take care of a child from the foster care system who is already available for adoption then that is filling a void. The child is "plan B"

4. Tell the truth to the child. Every human being deserves the truth about where they come from and who they are. It's not just about medical history, it's about basic human feelings and rights. Why is it ok for non-adopted people to delve into their genealogy, work on their histories and family trees. The "as if born to" line on adoption papers just doesn't work. Babies are not blank slates and yes there are adoptive parents who like to pretend that the child was born to them. This is why it needs to be said.

5. Support adoptees searching. Many adoptees feel guilty if they want to search for their natural families. Many times this is because they don't want to hurt their aparents feelings. The search has nothing to do with adoptive families. It's a personal issue between the adoptee and their first family of origin.

6. Don't get caught up in the adoption terminology. Who is the "real" parent? Yes, real parents change diapers, kiss boo boos and help with homework. And, yes real parents are the ones who share their biological history with the child. I am still my daughters mother. I gave birth to her. I may not have raised her (not my choice) but I always was and always will be her mother. If a parent can love more than one child, a child can love multiple parents.

7. Don't disparage the child's natural family. You would think this would be a no-brainer but sadly this happens. Just think how often it happens in cases of divorce. People sometimes let their emotions get in the way of what's best for their children and say horrible things about a child's other parent. It's just plain wrong no matter what the situation. When you talk trash about a child's parent, you're talking trash about them. It does happen and she just wants to remind people to think of the child first. Again, if YOU would never do that then fine. But there are other people that do need to be reminded.

8. Don't expect gratitude. Too many adoptees hear things like "be thankful you weren't aborted" "be thankful you weren't raised by a druggie" "be thankful you weren't abused". Anyone can say things like that. Anyone could have been aborted. Why do adoptees have to be EXTRA grateful?

9. Honor open adoption agreements. You would think this would be a given but unfortunately it's not. Open adoption is just another way agencies have figured out how to get unsuspecting, young, vulnerable, pregnant women to agree to surrendering their babies. In most states it's not legally enforceable.

10. Please don't celebrate "Gotcha Day". She makes the point that Gotcha Day and birthdays can be painful for adoptees. Be careful with these and think of the children first. These are reminders of the what the child lost. Be sensitive to that.

11. Educate yourself. How in the world could anyone disagree with that. Learning more about how adult adoptees view adoption is crucial. Learning more from the natural mother's perspective is just as important. If you're an adoptive parent, wouldn't you want to know all you could about how adoptees see the world they live in?

So when the writer of the original letter makes points such as these, is she painting all adoptive parents with the same brush or is she simply pointing out that these things happen and she wants to remind people who are thinking of adopting to consider what their child might be feeling? Is she saying that all adoptive parents are selfish? Of course not but there are aparents out there who are filling their own need to be a parent when they adopt a baby. Adoption is not about the adoptive parents!!! It's supposed to be about the child's needs being met. It's not supposed to be about curing infertility or making a profit for an agency. It's supposed to be about helping a child who really is in need. Supposed to be...... 

Coercion is still happening, women are still railroaded into surrendering their babies to adoption. Keep an open mind and listen to other voices. Don't just listen to what the adoption industry says. Remember, they profit on other people's pain.

No Promises

The discussion regarding opening the records of adoptees and giving them the same rights as every other citizen continues. I recently listened to a radio show on this topic and I planned on doing a post about it from the natural mothers perspective but today I saw a post by Amanda at The Declassified Adoptee that was so spot on and eloquent that there really wasn't much I could add. Amanda - you're amazing! If you want to listen to the show I'm referencing, Amanda linked to it in her post.

The only other thing I could add is that from my point of view, listening to others speak for natural mothers grates on me the same way it grates on adoptees to have others speak for them. In my case I'm both so it's doubly irritating. In this instance one of the guests on the show felt that there was some danger in adoptees having access to information regarding their birth because of the risk of outing a mother who had surrendered a child. She was perpetuating the myth of mothers being promised anonymity. Once again as mothers we have to step up and say we were promised NOTHING! We were the ones told not to go looking for our children. We were essentially told to disappear into the woodwork, crawl under a rock, go away, pretend it never happened, go have other babies, leave this one alone or you'll damage the child, stay away, don't ask for anything or you're considered selfish, don't interfere, and so on and so on.

I'm here to say once again, I didn't want to be a secret from my own daughter. I didn't want anonymity. I wanted to be able to tell anyone who would listen that I had a daughter. I didn't want to hide away in a maternity home. I wanted her. I wanted her back from the moment I lost her. I spent every day for 22 years looking for her. If she had found me first I would have been shouting it from the rooftops. So to the people who have not walked in my shoes yet they think they can speak for me, to be perfectly blunt - SHUT THE HELL UP! No one has the right to tell adults who they can and can't associate with. No one has the right to keep an adult's personal information a secret from them.

In my opinion, as a mother of adoption loss and as an adoptee, the adoptee's right to know who they are and where they come from trumps anyone else's desire to keep secrets. As a child the adoptee had no say in the matter about a contract affecting them. As an adult an adoptee should have everything to say about that contract.

History Waiting

Grief in waves, lungs fill, water pours, breathing stops.

Sitting alone in the dark, wicker creaks beneath, wine glass drips condensation

in time with tears.

Clouds cover moon and darkness deepens.

Thoughts pass and flow from despair to hope and back again.

A shadow at the back screen door, silhouetted by 6 bright bulbs of the chandelier,

looks out wondering why?

Hiding in the dark of midnight waiting for the shadow to retreat so the sounds of sadness

don't have to be swallowed whole.

32 years, when does it end?

The graft is still tied to the stranger branch, being held back but yearning for the original, tongue tied,

arms released but still struggling against invisible restraints.

The roots are still and waiting, wishing, sending thoughts on the breeze heading north.

Keeping it light, texting a smile, another week goes by.

Expectations

My forearms brace, I rest my temple against the cool tiles.
The memories cascade as hot water runs down my back.

Off white, ecru, eggshell, ivory, every shade but lily. Lily was reserved for the good.
The girls who knew their place, the girls who stayed closed.
Standing firm and bright was just a facade.
The golden strands of faith tarnished.

I believed they would hold me up.
I believed the generation before me.
As the incense burned and the wafer melted I trusted.
Verses droned on and beads clicked.

Bless me father, I am not worthy.
The golden strands wrapped and smothered til the breath was gone along with my child.
The water runs cold.