Young, Poor and Pregnant; Reasons to Relinquish?

Recently I added my first Dad to my Facebook friends list and he's been privy to some of my not so thought through status updates. However, in discussing this with him and my fiance, I have discovered that many of those status updates are merely topic sentences for blogs that I want to start, even if I'm not quite aware of that yet. I think I also need some of the feedback from my Facebook friends that these updates provide in order to clarify my own thoughts on the things I "say".

However, both my first Dad and fiance urged me to make disclaimer statements at the beginning of my "topic sentence" status updates and post the blog link in order to be able to view the entirety of my thought process. While I can't guarantee I'll remember to do that every time, it will be something I will strive for in the future.

Below is the status update that began this discussion.

"As I continue to read The Primal Wound one thing becomes blatantly, brutally obvious to me; it should be a crime to force, coerce, manipulate, cajole, or in anyway separate a child from their mother unless that parent is proven unfit. And it should be severely punishable should a person or persons be found guilty of this act. Adoption has got to be the most unnatural thing one human being can do to another in the name of a child's best interest."

In defense of my first Dad, he isn't a part of the Adoptees Rights Movements, or the Family Preservation Movements and is only just now beginning to be aware of it at all because of his avid interest in me, his daughter. Some things that perhaps might have been obvious to those of my Facebook friends who are intimately involved and aware of my positions wouldn't need any sort of disclaimer, but one of the things that my first Dad brought to my attention is that there may be people who, like him, have no point of reference and could find my statements very confusing.

Some of the salient points I should have clarified sooner are these:

• Who exactly "a person or persons" are.
• The legal status of adoption.
• What constitutes an unfit parent.

I want to address these points now.

When I refer to "a person or persons" I was in fact referring to attorneys or agencies whose sole purpose is the making of money from adoption. I never said adoption should be illegal, but that force and coercion and manipulation in order to obtain a baby for an adopting couple should be illegal. Informed consent is required for every single medical procedure we have; a doctor is obligated by law to give all the information about said procedure and the alternatives to the patient, yet there is nothing in place to keep an attorney or an agency from outright lying to a woman who is considering adoption and to me, that is plain wrong. While placing a child for adoption isn't technically a medical procedure, it is a life altering event for the surrendering mother, the child and the adopting parents. To be less than fully informed is, in my opinion, a criminal act. In the system we have today, adoption is a money making industry, motivated by greed, not good will, on the part of the vast majority of agencies and attorneys. It's not in the agencies or attorneys best interest to give a woman who is considering adoption all the information that is available on the repercussions of adoption on all members of the triad. Those people understand that should a woman be given this information, she will likely chose another option for her child, and they can kiss the money goodbye.

As for teen parents, their youth should not make them automatically unfit. I believe we need a movement in this country to keep the children of these teens at least within the biological family, should a teen mother and/or teen father prove unable to care for the child. Placing a baby with strangers doesn't help the child, no matter how loving, caring and attentive those strangers may be.

Some simple definitions of an unfit parent would include neglect, abuse (physical, emotional, mental), drug abuse. There are other definitions of "unfit", of course, but, that would be up to a judge to determine, using the law as precedent.

Financial abuse is a trickier situation, generally speaking. There are millions of children in this country alone who don't have health insurance. I'm ambivalent about this being an abusive situation; one, because we do have access to emergency rooms that by law must treat patients who seek treatment (and should the child need to be admitted to the hospital, there are financial alternatives that most hospitals offer for payment, either through medicare or payment plans), and two, because for things like immunizations there are free clinics in just about every community that a parent can take their child to. It was stated in a conference on adoption at the White House in the early 1900's that poverty is NOT an adequate reason to remove children from their families. Another thing to consider for financial "abuse" are that there are a great many community, private outreach programs designed to assist poorer families.

As for who is a better parent, according to The Primal Wound (and frankly, common sense) there are natural processes that a woman goes through during a pregnancy that does enable her to be the best parent to her child. Societal pressures are the factors from keeping that woman from fulfilling the imperative nature has provided. An adoptive mother hasn't gone through the 9 months of pregnancy that will make her uniquely able to care for that child. Can prospective adoptive parents provide a more financially stable environment? Perhaps, but as I stated earlier, I don't believe that poverty is a sufficient reason to take a child from it's mother. And that mother and child do not necessarily have to rely on tax payer money in order to survive.

Additionally, our society has a tendency to view a young pregnant woman in a static position. They see her as forever being young, immature and unable to provide for her offspring. This is an incredibly narrow view point, very limiting, imposing a certain set of criteria upon that person that common sense must dictate as purely illogical. One of the primary reasons why many prospective adoptive parents want an infant is because we know that babies grow incredibly fast, and are soon out of infancy. Humans grow. They grow up, get older, wiser, more mature. Of course not everyone does, however, telling a young, financially challenged woman that she cannot care for her child because of these very transitory situations in life is to risk creating in that person a mind set that, as soon as she signs the papers, becomes reality instead of only a possibility. Youth and poverty are not permanent. But when a woman is coerced into handing her child over to an eager, infertile couple, society has stated that woman will forever be a child, incapable of taking care of her child, establishing a destructive pattern of behavior in her that will keep a part of her forever that age when she relinquished, and even sadder, can cause so much damage as to compel the young woman to sabotage any efforts or attempts at creating a better life for herself.

Additionally, as the child grows, he or she can inevitably experience these exact same situations. Where the birth mother was unworthy to parent, the child was unworthy to be parented by their biological family. When one feels unworthy, there is no desire to better oneself. It can turn into a self perpetuating cycle to the point where the child turns into a birth parent themselves.

We regularly prosecute people for coercion, manipulation and force when these methods deprive another of health, happiness and well being; however, when done in the name of "the best interest of the child" we excuse the behavior, even if studies have shown time and again that adoption isn't always in the best interest of the child. Its criminal to leave a child in the hands of a parent who is patently unfit. Why then is it encouraged to take a child from a fit parent simply because of transitory situations in life?

I've Come A Long Way, Baby

Below is something I wrote just two short years ago. I still have some of the same feelings about my son's adoptive mother. I think it is obvious that I was moving through the adoption fog, but I was still deeply ensconced closer to the other side of things than I am now.

Enjoy, and please don't laugh too hard. ;)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

January 22, 2008

I recently contacted my son that I gave up for adoption 19 years ago and have yet to receive a reply. I'm good with this. The entire situation is overwhelming, to say the least. I can wait.

But that's not what this blog is for; it's only the catalyst that has spurred my musings. I've read and seen and heard a lot about "birth mothers" and all the other terms that are given to women who have signed papers to relinquish their parental rights.

I recently came across this quote that I can't get out of my head. It's not that I embrace this view point, but there are some very specific points it makes that have made me think.

"Exiled mother: A natural mother who has lost her child to adoption solely because of her age and/or lack of support, information or resources. An unrecognized mother, she has been thrown away, banished and discarded by her parents, the adoption industry and society, who deemed her unworthy to raise her own child. "

First, I don't consider the woman who adopted my son to be "unnatural". I met her. She was as human as I am. What makes ME natural and HER unnatural? I'm perhaps the FIRST mother, but that doesn't make me MORE natural. If it did, would that mean that I'm SUPERNATURAL?

Second, "lost her child"...hmmmm...I knew where my son was after we were released from the hospital, prior to signing the papers. Up until then, I had every right (by law, until I signed papers saying I was no longer legally a parent) to see my son. I didn't misplace him. And while I may not have known exactly where he was his entire life, I didn't LOSE him.

Third, yeah, I was placed into a position by my family, my son's father's family and what seemed to be society in general to put my son up for adoption. I felt maneuvered. Not by this supposedly all powerful "Adoption Industry", but by those around me whom I needed support from the most, and who abandoned me in my biggest time of need.
Fourth, “An unrecognized mother”: Ok, this is right on the money. I spent years without my son, and if I ever talked about him (and when I made friends, or even just chatting it up with someone, I talked A LOT about him), it was difficult to explain what happened. It’s different than it was when I was adopted. In 1969 people still had some of the “unwed mother” prejudice in place. It is suspected that my birth mother more than likely was made to move to the Sacramento area to have me. So, there must have been a lot of shame in her family concerning me. But in 1989, “things were different”, I had other options. Heh, see the third explanation. Some options. Back to the point; I WAS unrecognized! One thing I will agree with is that adoption has made me a first class liar. When asked how many children I have, my knee jerk reaction is 2. But I don’t have just 2 children. I have 3 children.

Fifth; ...and society, who deemed her unworthy to raise her own child.” Yeah, got a lot of issues here, too. I was unworthy on so many levels. Unworthy to be a wife to my son’s father (after the adoption we were married; however, his family strongly disapproved of me for getting Mark “into trouble”. That marriage was doomed.) I was unworthy of being my son’s mother by so many people. In short, it left me feeling like a totally unworthy human being. Within the three months of relinquishing Andrew/Timothy for adoption I sunk into an abject misery. Looking back at it now, I was clinically depressed. I eventually yanked myself up by my boot straps and got myself out of it, but I did just about everything known to man to self destruct. I wasn’t worthy to be a human, so why should I remain in this life? I’ve always felt that suicide was wrong (that’s a different blog), but I sure did one hell of a job to get there anyway. Just not consciously, that’s all.

While I don’t agree with the extreme group that claims the “Adoption Industry” is just waiting on baited breath to snatch single, pregnant women off the streets just to give privileged white infertile couples babies, there is an interesting, prevailing attitude in this society that I think very few people are aware of; and that pregnancy is a disease that we need to cure women of. This attitude is so prevalent on so many levels its sickening! There’s a strong push to separate mothers and children, even when the pregnancy is planned! (I have a whole other soap box dedicated to that particular subject). This attitude is subtle, but everywhere and most people don’t even realize they embrace it whole heartedly.

I guess we can thank our Puritan beginnings. I think they’d be proud of the influence they still wield even after 400 years.

A Question Posed

Recently, on Facebook, a friend asked me if I'm anti-adoption. Below is the rather lengthy, long winded reply I sent to her in a private message. I think it delineates my feelings succinctly.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

I just wanted to reply in this forum to your "personal question". Most of my FB friends have a good bead on my feelings about adoption, so it's not a "hiding my opinion" from them. I just didn't want any post to get lost in the shuffle, so to speak.

Yes, I am anti-adoption. Let me explain further before I go into why I am anti-adoption.

I am both an adopted person and a birth mother. I use the term, "birth mother" for those that aren't as familiar with other terms. Many preferences are first mom, natural mom or just mom. However, considering the nature of adoption, labels become necessary. The vast majority of "birth mothers" I know simply would prefer to call themselves what nature made us, moms. It took a long time for me to come around to this point of view, and I'm not nearly as offended by the term birth mother as others are. The reasons for this are due to my passion for midwifery, and the term birth doesn't have nearly the negative meaning for me as it does many other women. For many women that lost children to adoption, the term birth mother is derogatory, nearly as much as saying the "N" word to a person of African/American descent. The term itself was created by an adoptive mother, made to replace the term "natural mother" in adoption lingo. It made adoptive mothers feel bad. For many women who lost children to adoption, the feelings of the adoptive mother don't mean a whole lot to them. Using the term "birth mother" tends to make "us" feel as if we were only breeders, incubators, and that's simply not the case. In any other circumstance, the vast majority of first moms would have parented their children instead.

Now, as to why I'm anti-adoption.

Adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Adoption in this country used to be for placing children into a warm, loving, secure environment when their families no longer existed. In other words, adoption was originally meant for orphan children. It has changed since World War 2 into providing infertile couples with children. Basically, the focus changed, shifted from the child to the adults. And this being a strong capitalist society where if there's enough of a demand, someone, somewhere will find a supply. (Just as a side, I believe in our capitalist society; I didn't want that coming out like I'm anti-American. I'm NOT! I've very patriotic.) To further illustrate the supply and demand theory of infertile couple based adoptions, it is important to point out that only the people who could afford to pay for the home studies, attorney fees and/or agency fees would be able to adopt. If the infertile couple were poor, well then, they wouldn't be raising children.

Because of this, an industry popped up around adoption that today spends on the order of $3 Billion a year to keep going. In an effort to supply the huge demand for babies, a great deal of study, time, effort and money have been put into figuring out how best to make adoption palatable to poor, single women. Since our society has turned away from the shame based adoption (telling single young women that they're not good enough to parent), adoptions have gone down in drastic numbers, domestically at least. That's why you see so many people turn to international adoption. Now, poverty is the key to making young mothers hand their children over. However, the adoption industry has made concerted efforts into ensuring the young mom that she isn't shamed into the decision (at least on the surface), but instead telling her that her child will be so proud of her when she "makes something of herself" (gets that high school diploma or college degree and gets a good job).

All the while, this attitude perpetuates in our society the idea that the woman who placed a child for adoption just wanted to be loose, carefree and "go on with her life", when for the most part, nothing could be further from the truth. This continues to make "birth mothers" stigmatized. Once we were immoral sluts who couldn't keep her legs together, now we're poor immoral sluts who just want to keep having a good time.

As I said in the beginning, adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. A poor, young mother isn't always going to be young and doesn't always have to be poor. We have so many options in this society, that youth and poverty are simply excuses to obtain a healthy infant to place into the awaiting arms of an infertile couple.

That said, I understand that some of those poor, young mothers do a horrible job. In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty, and we cannot simply take a child away from a mother because of her youth or economic status. That being said, the mother who allows herself to become mired in a bad situation (drugs, abusive relationships, neglect of the child), and becomes an unfit parent, placement of a child or children into a warm, loving stable home in a foster to adopt is sometimes the best solution for the children; but should only be looked at as a last option.

I don't hate that I was adopted. My first mom and dad would have never married, my first mom was 17 when I was born, and was told by her father when she was pregnant with me that she ruined his life. She was maneuvered into placing me for adoption, but I don't think she saw much option in the long run. For the most part, I love my adoptive family (though, if you read in my notes section "The Story So Far", you'll see that my life has been far from idyllic.) My adoptive parents did the best they could with what they had/knew. Even if my adoptive father was a psychologist, he really didn't have a good bead on the trauma of an adopted child and the gratitude and perfection that child unconsciously takes upon themselves. So, my adoptive parents really did do the best they could.

As for placing my son for adoption, all I can say is that for me it was the worst decision of my life at the same time, perhaps being the best decision for my son. But to be honest, I'll never know, because I too was maneuvered into placing my first born for adoption. I'm frequently praised by my noble, selfless act and that I should feel proud of myself for placing my son for adoption. All I feel like is a failure as a mother because I didn't fight to keep my son with me where he belonged and now my first born treats me with indifference because he doesn't understand how painful my life has been without him.

I hope I didn't bore you to tears. I hope I didn't make you angry, or hurt your feelings, because that wasn't my intention. These are the reasons I am anti-adoption. For many women, it is a horrible, painful scar that never goes away, even with reunion. It is for me.