Many times in the adoption world the word gift is used. I've read that many adoptees and mothers of loss don't like this term in reference to adoption. I think they feel the word gift objectifies and devalues the adoptee and the pain both feel. I can understand that to a point but I think most adoptive parents don’t mean it that way. It comes down to a situation that causes emotions for all involved that are so very hard to put into words.
Let me try to explain to you what I mean when I say my boys are gifts. I think they are gifts of God given first to their other parents then to me through them. (That part is the same for me even though I adopted through foster care.) When most adoptive parents say they’ve been given a gift I don’t think they mean to imply that the baby is an object with a limited, though great, value. I think it’s more that we’ve been given what we wanted most in life, the chance to be a mother (or father). And you can’t put a price on that. In my opinion the word gift doesn't even begin to cover what that means but I can't think of a better one.
And here's where I get a little mad and insulted. Most “adopters” (ugh, I hate that word) appreciate that "gift" AT LEAST as much as any mom who gave birth. In general most people I think would agree that the more you go through to get something so important to you, the greater the appreciation you have for it. We went through as much, though in a totally different way, as those who gave birth. Let's be realistic. If we were talking about a posession instead of a child there wouldn’t be too many arguing over that. For example two men want Jags. One comes from a rich family and daddy buys it for him. The other works and saves most of his life and finally can afford to buy the car of his dreams. Who do you think appreciates the car more? And NO! I AM NOT CALLING A BABY A POSSESSION! Neither am I implying that it's about money. The exact opposite is actually my point. It's about the time, work, and emotion invested in the process. Because it IS a baby the emotions are infinitetly more intense and prevent the people involved from seeing this. Still, I dare say most of those moms who gave birth to their children feel that they are blessings or gifts too. They don't get taken to task for that. So it seems to me that mothers of loss and adoptees are implying that that blessing or gift has less meaning to us or that we deserve it less. Granted I’m assuming a little here but I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch. I’d be interested in responses from them, especially to set me straight if I’m wrong on either count. I don’t think that I was ”entitled” to any one woman’s child BUT I do think I deserved to be a mother. I never wanted my children at the cost of another woman’s pain but the fact is that SOME people DON’T deserve to be parents. Some of those people have kids anyway and those kids need homes. Are we worth so much less that we shouldn't be allowed to appreciate our children and our parenthood? Are our children not entitled to be treasured that way?
Showing posts with label adoption terminology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adoption terminology. Show all posts
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Name Game
As long as adoption exists so will the quandry of what to call the people involved. Today I read another complaint about the term birth mother. When I was new to adoption I used this term. To me it meant a mother who had placed her child for adoption, no insult intended. It was a frame of reference only, a way to distinguish between mothers in adoptive situations. I've since come to understand that many of those mothers were offended by the term, often citing that they felt it limited the importance of their role in their child(ren)'s life. Given what I know now about coercion and marketing in adoption I can respect their feelings on the matter. I've used the term in the past but as I said before as a frame of reference only. I've never used the term in reference to my sons' mothers in front of them. If I am speaking to them regarding their mom I SAY "your mom." They know who I mean and they know that I'm their mom too.
I've spoken about a little about this before but I felt the need to bring it up again. The reason is that while I can understand this mother's (whose blog I read today) reasons for NOT wanting to be called birth mother, it hurt that in the same blog post she called adoptive parents adopters. Then she wondered why we object to the term. I'd like to answer that here, although I am unconvinced she doesn't really already understand since it's basically the same reason they object to the term birthmother. I feel the term adopter does, and is meant to by at least some of the mothers who insist on using it, denigrate OUR roles in the lives of our children. I'm NOT an adopter. I adopted and now I'm a mother. It's as simple as that. And while I'm on the topic (a little bit at least)..."as born to" DOES exist. I've heard it said that no paper (meaning tpr) can change that and I AGREE totally with that. Time, good parenting, and love however CAN. It does this without severing the bond that the child will always have with his/her parents and their families. But it DOES exist. I would die for my boys, sacrifice anything that was mine to give. It's a mother's love for her sons. Plain and simple. Do they miss or cry for their mothers too? Yes. And I let them. I talk to them, look at pictures with them. I do what I can to acknowledge their loss and help them work through it. That's what a mother does no matter what her child is hurting about. So don't tell me (or my boys btw because they'd be the first to disagree with you) that I can't love them like they were born to me or that I'm not their mother.
It basically comes down to no one group's agenda is ever going to be heard, no change ever instituted in adoption as long as all we do is fling insults at each other and refuse to hear one another. It weakens every argument, every otherwise valid point of view. I'm tired of the insults and the pettiness. On all, yes ALL, sides. If you want to get justice for the violation of your rights in separating you from your baby, if you want your original records unsealed, or if you want reform in adoption it's time to grow up and focus on THAT. Stop taking your issues out on each other and either work together or at least learn to live and let live.
I've spoken about a little about this before but I felt the need to bring it up again. The reason is that while I can understand this mother's (whose blog I read today) reasons for NOT wanting to be called birth mother, it hurt that in the same blog post she called adoptive parents adopters. Then she wondered why we object to the term. I'd like to answer that here, although I am unconvinced she doesn't really already understand since it's basically the same reason they object to the term birthmother. I feel the term adopter does, and is meant to by at least some of the mothers who insist on using it, denigrate OUR roles in the lives of our children. I'm NOT an adopter. I adopted and now I'm a mother. It's as simple as that. And while I'm on the topic (a little bit at least)..."as born to" DOES exist. I've heard it said that no paper (meaning tpr) can change that and I AGREE totally with that. Time, good parenting, and love however CAN. It does this without severing the bond that the child will always have with his/her parents and their families. But it DOES exist. I would die for my boys, sacrifice anything that was mine to give. It's a mother's love for her sons. Plain and simple. Do they miss or cry for their mothers too? Yes. And I let them. I talk to them, look at pictures with them. I do what I can to acknowledge their loss and help them work through it. That's what a mother does no matter what her child is hurting about. So don't tell me (or my boys btw because they'd be the first to disagree with you) that I can't love them like they were born to me or that I'm not their mother.
It basically comes down to no one group's agenda is ever going to be heard, no change ever instituted in adoption as long as all we do is fling insults at each other and refuse to hear one another. It weakens every argument, every otherwise valid point of view. I'm tired of the insults and the pettiness. On all, yes ALL, sides. If you want to get justice for the violation of your rights in separating you from your baby, if you want your original records unsealed, or if you want reform in adoption it's time to grow up and focus on THAT. Stop taking your issues out on each other and either work together or at least learn to live and let live.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Up on My Adoption Soapbox (Again)
Something I read today on an adoption forum I frequent prompted some thoughts that I feel the need to get out. Before I continue I would like to emphasize again that my experiences with adoption have been in regard to older child adoption through foster care. I believe that domestic, newborn adoption is a very valid (though currently also very corrupt) option for some expecting parents. I also believe that those parents should not ever be pressured into making a decision in ANY direction. The decision should only be made by the parent(s), hopefully in an environment of honest support (as in we'll get you through this time NO MATTER which road you choose). Having clarified that I'll go on with what this post is really about...the foster care system.
A friend of mine is working with a young girl currently in foster care. As part of her job she has become aware of some of this young lady's home situation and it's not good. She honestly believes in keeping the family together whenever possible but wonders where that line should be drawn. I've been real close to this dilemma lately because of the situation with J and L and some things that went on with the case. I really feel that families should be kept together as much as possible but I still feel that the interests of the children should come before the family (which really most often reads as the adults in the family). The adults don't need protecting but the children in these situations do. As I mentioned before this pertains only to parents in the foster care system. An expectant parent who is considering placing a child for adoption for whatever reason DOES deserve and need the protection, support, and resources to make any decisions about their options.
It infuriates me that in these cases the children pay the price of preserving the family at all costs. At what point do we say the family is not worth the cost of a child languishing in care for far too long or returning to an unsafe situation? I'll admit I don't know the answer to this, at least in part because I'm too close to this problem. I honestly know that J and L can NOT go home because I believe the things they've told me and I know the history there (which extends far beyond even just the 2 of them). Can these parents really change? How many chances to seriously mess up and with how many children should these people get? How long should parents get to work out their problems while their children wait, wonder, and worry in care? When is enough enough already?
Like I said before I don't have the answers. I wish I did for the children's sake (and yes for the family's sake). What I'd like to see is all the help possible provided to these parents so that they can keep their family together. The only reason for removal of children should be that the resources provided do not alleviate the problems OR if the situation is so problematic that the child(ren)'s safety is not assured. Oh wait! This IS what's supposed to happen and when it works it's wonderful. The glitch in this policy is this: there are parents who can't or won't use the resources to honestly change. I think if it gets to the point (for either reason I mentioned) that children need to be removed, the parents should have to work hard and fast to prove that they can safely parent these children. 12 months or more seems too long in my opinion, especially when considering that most of these families have been offered services that could keep their family together for quite some time BEFORE the kids were removed. If the parents can't successfully learn to parent with those supports before the children are removed they shouldn't have much time after. They should have some time, yes, because actually realizing how close they are to losing their kids can force them to get it together. I think though that if that's going to happen it'll show relatively quickly in the parents' actions and cooperation.
What about severe cases? "Aggravated circumstances" cover what counts as reasons to remove children and not have to work with the family to reunify. The problem? I've seen first hand where this is totally ignored and children suffer for it. It's supposed to protect the children in dire situations but how can it do that if it's not used because people are trying to maintain family? Some people might argue with the use of "aggravated circumstances," citing "preserve the family at all costs" as a basis for that stance. Preserving the family is a very admirable and necessary goal but as I've said before I disagree with that mantra when it's the children paying the price. My stand on this issue is that if parents have gotten to the point where the conditions for "aggravated circumstances" are met, they probably don't deserve more time anyway. I say probably to acknowledge that there are exceptions to this (but believe they are probably few and far between).
There is a price that the children in foster care pay no matter what happens (issues from time spent in care even if they return to a good situation, returning to a bad situation, or issues from losing the parents forever even if it was the best choice among horrid options). It's time adults stop using the all holy family as a blanket defense to avoid the consequences of THEIR actions that put the children in the situation in the first place. It's time to put the kids, not family, first. The family is not a living person, children are. THEY are what matters. Yes it's important to consider the pain and issues that arise from losing family but only by looking at what is best for the children in each whole situation can we say whether that family should be preserved.
A friend of mine is working with a young girl currently in foster care. As part of her job she has become aware of some of this young lady's home situation and it's not good. She honestly believes in keeping the family together whenever possible but wonders where that line should be drawn. I've been real close to this dilemma lately because of the situation with J and L and some things that went on with the case. I really feel that families should be kept together as much as possible but I still feel that the interests of the children should come before the family (which really most often reads as the adults in the family). The adults don't need protecting but the children in these situations do. As I mentioned before this pertains only to parents in the foster care system. An expectant parent who is considering placing a child for adoption for whatever reason DOES deserve and need the protection, support, and resources to make any decisions about their options.
It infuriates me that in these cases the children pay the price of preserving the family at all costs. At what point do we say the family is not worth the cost of a child languishing in care for far too long or returning to an unsafe situation? I'll admit I don't know the answer to this, at least in part because I'm too close to this problem. I honestly know that J and L can NOT go home because I believe the things they've told me and I know the history there (which extends far beyond even just the 2 of them). Can these parents really change? How many chances to seriously mess up and with how many children should these people get? How long should parents get to work out their problems while their children wait, wonder, and worry in care? When is enough enough already?
Like I said before I don't have the answers. I wish I did for the children's sake (and yes for the family's sake). What I'd like to see is all the help possible provided to these parents so that they can keep their family together. The only reason for removal of children should be that the resources provided do not alleviate the problems OR if the situation is so problematic that the child(ren)'s safety is not assured. Oh wait! This IS what's supposed to happen and when it works it's wonderful. The glitch in this policy is this: there are parents who can't or won't use the resources to honestly change. I think if it gets to the point (for either reason I mentioned) that children need to be removed, the parents should have to work hard and fast to prove that they can safely parent these children. 12 months or more seems too long in my opinion, especially when considering that most of these families have been offered services that could keep their family together for quite some time BEFORE the kids were removed. If the parents can't successfully learn to parent with those supports before the children are removed they shouldn't have much time after. They should have some time, yes, because actually realizing how close they are to losing their kids can force them to get it together. I think though that if that's going to happen it'll show relatively quickly in the parents' actions and cooperation.
What about severe cases? "Aggravated circumstances" cover what counts as reasons to remove children and not have to work with the family to reunify. The problem? I've seen first hand where this is totally ignored and children suffer for it. It's supposed to protect the children in dire situations but how can it do that if it's not used because people are trying to maintain family? Some people might argue with the use of "aggravated circumstances," citing "preserve the family at all costs" as a basis for that stance. Preserving the family is a very admirable and necessary goal but as I've said before I disagree with that mantra when it's the children paying the price. My stand on this issue is that if parents have gotten to the point where the conditions for "aggravated circumstances" are met, they probably don't deserve more time anyway. I say probably to acknowledge that there are exceptions to this (but believe they are probably few and far between).
There is a price that the children in foster care pay no matter what happens (issues from time spent in care even if they return to a good situation, returning to a bad situation, or issues from losing the parents forever even if it was the best choice among horrid options). It's time adults stop using the all holy family as a blanket defense to avoid the consequences of THEIR actions that put the children in the situation in the first place. It's time to put the kids, not family, first. The family is not a living person, children are. THEY are what matters. Yes it's important to consider the pain and issues that arise from losing family but only by looking at what is best for the children in each whole situation can we say whether that family should be preserved.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Someone's Toes May Get Stepped On...
but mine were first!
Mother's day this year was a time for reflection for me. I'd never been to this place in my life before. This year I'm happy and secure as a mom to my 4 boys. Yes, 4. How can I include J and L? Well, they're my sons. For right here and now, whether they stay or go, they need that. And deserve it. Still, that could be a whole other post and this post wasn't going to be about that. Or exactly that, anyway. So back on track. Always before Mother's day has been about honoring my mom, dealing with the hurt the day caused me before I had the boys, or shoving my head in the sand just being in shock that I WAS a mom. This year I enjoyed my kids. I really did. But there was more. I spent a lot of my free time reading blogs (a new obsession). They were mainly adoption related and many were the blogs of parents who had placed or adoptees. Reading these blogs, and a call to Ty's mom on Mother's Day, triggered a lot of thinking on my part.
I understand that placing a child for adoption is losing a child. It doesn't matter if that child was involuntarily removed by a government agency (put first here ONLY because it's the situation for me and my boys), placed voluntarily after deciding it was the best decision to make in a bad situation with no GOOD choice, or placed "voluntarily" due to coercion. It still has to hurt. I can't honestly say I know what these parents go through but I can get a small idea. I dealt with the pain of wanting children and knowing how hard it would be for me to do that from the time I was 14 years old. I've dealt with nearly 2.5 years in all of fear and pain at the thought of losing first Ty and Cory and now J and L. Is it the same? No, of course not. Is it worse than what a parent who placed feels? No, I don't imagine it is. Is it a solid base to allow me to have compassion for what that parent has suffered? Yes, it is.
Another thing I've thought about these last few days is how much the system needs to be changed. How? God, I wish I knew. The only thing I DO know is that there'll always be corruption in it as long as it's allowed to be a business. Until that changes parents (both through birth and adoption) and adoptees will continue to "pay" for it. Dearly. But from foster care to private adoptions it needs to be overhauled for sure. Still, some of what I've read scares me. I've read posts that sound like adoption shouldn't even be an option. Faults and all, the truth is that adoption works sometimes. Is a necessary choice sometimes.
I read in several different places how domestic infant adoptions have decreased since abortion was legalized and women began to have more options that allowed them to parent. About abortion...I'm not going to debate my beliefs on that here in this post. What I WILL say is that it's still losing a child and that many women who have chosen that route have suffered emotionally because of that choice as well. What I did NOT read in any of the same places is that while d.i. adoptions may have decreased, the incidences of child abuse and neglect and the number of children in foster care have increased. That is NOT an implied slur on young, poor, or unmarried parents or expectant parents. I do NOT believe that they are any more likely to be abusive, neglectful parents than parents who adopted. I point it out simply to show that adoption in some form continues to be necessary. I'm stressing this because it sounded to me like some wanted to do away with it completely. Major reform? Again and again....YES! To take it away totally? I don't think that's an option. There is corruption in every sector of adoption: greedy, unethical agencies; manipulative, dishonest aparents; and bparents who are out to scam. That doesn't mean that EVERY agency, aparent, or bparent is that way. Nor does it mean that adoption is inherently wrong and evil. I guess it's like this. Even if placing was the best choice in your situation, you still have the right to grieve. If you were one of the countless parents that didn't have a choice or were coerced into the placement you have the right to be pissed off and get some justice. In fact, I hope you do. But I don't understand how you can accept taking that choice away when you see what being denied a choice did to you? Adoption IS a valid choice if every person facing an unplanned pregnancy is presented with all their options in an unbiased way and allowed to make the choice that is best for them. Whatever reform in adoption may look like, that's where it needs to end up in my opinion.
The last thing I noticed while reading was the use of the word natural mother in some blogs. I wonder, like every adoptive parent who has come across the term, what that makes me? What made me angry was that in some places I saw the term it was used not to empower or respect mothers but to degrade amoms. As in: we are NOT mothers. On that I beg to differ. I take care of my kids when they're sick, help them with their schoolwork, comfort them when they're scared, meet their basic needs, and I could go on and on. What other term is there for that? Ask my sons who I am...they know. I have lots of friends who've adopted...ask any one of their kids who that person who has taken care of them is. Does that have to make you a less important part of your child's life? Not at all. Not less, just different. Ask my sons that too. They know they have 2 moms and that they're allowed to love us both. It didn't take away any of the love I had for Ty or Cory as we added to our family. If I can love more than one child, why can't they love both their moms? I'm guessing it's hurt and anger that makes some parents act that way but I didn't cause your hurt. So put your anger and hurt where it rightfully belongs in your situation and leave the rest of us out of it. I am my 4 boys' mom and I won't feel guilty about it.
Mother's day this year was a time for reflection for me. I'd never been to this place in my life before. This year I'm happy and secure as a mom to my 4 boys. Yes, 4. How can I include J and L? Well, they're my sons. For right here and now, whether they stay or go, they need that. And deserve it. Still, that could be a whole other post and this post wasn't going to be about that. Or exactly that, anyway. So back on track. Always before Mother's day has been about honoring my mom, dealing with the hurt the day caused me before I had the boys, or shoving my head in the sand just being in shock that I WAS a mom. This year I enjoyed my kids. I really did. But there was more. I spent a lot of my free time reading blogs (a new obsession). They were mainly adoption related and many were the blogs of parents who had placed or adoptees. Reading these blogs, and a call to Ty's mom on Mother's Day, triggered a lot of thinking on my part.
I understand that placing a child for adoption is losing a child. It doesn't matter if that child was involuntarily removed by a government agency (put first here ONLY because it's the situation for me and my boys), placed voluntarily after deciding it was the best decision to make in a bad situation with no GOOD choice, or placed "voluntarily" due to coercion. It still has to hurt. I can't honestly say I know what these parents go through but I can get a small idea. I dealt with the pain of wanting children and knowing how hard it would be for me to do that from the time I was 14 years old. I've dealt with nearly 2.5 years in all of fear and pain at the thought of losing first Ty and Cory and now J and L. Is it the same? No, of course not. Is it worse than what a parent who placed feels? No, I don't imagine it is. Is it a solid base to allow me to have compassion for what that parent has suffered? Yes, it is.
Another thing I've thought about these last few days is how much the system needs to be changed. How? God, I wish I knew. The only thing I DO know is that there'll always be corruption in it as long as it's allowed to be a business. Until that changes parents (both through birth and adoption) and adoptees will continue to "pay" for it. Dearly. But from foster care to private adoptions it needs to be overhauled for sure. Still, some of what I've read scares me. I've read posts that sound like adoption shouldn't even be an option. Faults and all, the truth is that adoption works sometimes. Is a necessary choice sometimes.
I read in several different places how domestic infant adoptions have decreased since abortion was legalized and women began to have more options that allowed them to parent. About abortion...I'm not going to debate my beliefs on that here in this post. What I WILL say is that it's still losing a child and that many women who have chosen that route have suffered emotionally because of that choice as well. What I did NOT read in any of the same places is that while d.i. adoptions may have decreased, the incidences of child abuse and neglect and the number of children in foster care have increased. That is NOT an implied slur on young, poor, or unmarried parents or expectant parents. I do NOT believe that they are any more likely to be abusive, neglectful parents than parents who adopted. I point it out simply to show that adoption in some form continues to be necessary. I'm stressing this because it sounded to me like some wanted to do away with it completely. Major reform? Again and again....YES! To take it away totally? I don't think that's an option. There is corruption in every sector of adoption: greedy, unethical agencies; manipulative, dishonest aparents; and bparents who are out to scam. That doesn't mean that EVERY agency, aparent, or bparent is that way. Nor does it mean that adoption is inherently wrong and evil. I guess it's like this. Even if placing was the best choice in your situation, you still have the right to grieve. If you were one of the countless parents that didn't have a choice or were coerced into the placement you have the right to be pissed off and get some justice. In fact, I hope you do. But I don't understand how you can accept taking that choice away when you see what being denied a choice did to you? Adoption IS a valid choice if every person facing an unplanned pregnancy is presented with all their options in an unbiased way and allowed to make the choice that is best for them. Whatever reform in adoption may look like, that's where it needs to end up in my opinion.
The last thing I noticed while reading was the use of the word natural mother in some blogs. I wonder, like every adoptive parent who has come across the term, what that makes me? What made me angry was that in some places I saw the term it was used not to empower or respect mothers but to degrade amoms. As in: we are NOT mothers. On that I beg to differ. I take care of my kids when they're sick, help them with their schoolwork, comfort them when they're scared, meet their basic needs, and I could go on and on. What other term is there for that? Ask my sons who I am...they know. I have lots of friends who've adopted...ask any one of their kids who that person who has taken care of them is. Does that have to make you a less important part of your child's life? Not at all. Not less, just different. Ask my sons that too. They know they have 2 moms and that they're allowed to love us both. It didn't take away any of the love I had for Ty or Cory as we added to our family. If I can love more than one child, why can't they love both their moms? I'm guessing it's hurt and anger that makes some parents act that way but I didn't cause your hurt. So put your anger and hurt where it rightfully belongs in your situation and leave the rest of us out of it. I am my 4 boys' mom and I won't feel guilty about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
