31 October 2010

"Love" in adoption

Cassi at Adoption Truth recently blogged this post "You said what??" about the fallacy of loving your child so much you would abandon them.

This topic is much like a red rag is to a bull for me (see also previous post "Love and abandonment") given it is the one tactic that tipped me over the edge and so I am going to expand on it further.

I basically wanted to centre this post around the quote Cassi found which said:

“Birth parents can be wonderful loving people, in fact the most loving people when they do a very loving thing by giving their child to a family.”

WTF?? Are you freaking serious?

Okay, so if I walked up to the next stranger on the street I saw with a baby and asked them to hand it over to me because I would be a better parent for some irrelevant reason like money or whatever, I shouldn't expect to be "cussed out" or slapped. Rather, I SHOULD expect them, because they apparently love their child so much, to just hand THEIR child, their precious family member, over to me, a complete stranger, just to PROVE they love their child. Sound ridiculous to you? It does to me!! And I know the rest of the world would just think this was some sick joke yet in adoption, this is what mothers and fathers are not only EXPECTED to do but somehow, if they DON'T do it, i.e. if they do what everyone else does in this world and keeps their child, they are abused for it and told they are going to ruin their child's life.

This concept of proving love by abandoning your child is a one way street. Again, only in the sordid world of adoption, is this lie seen as truth and rammed down the throats of vulnerable and confused pregnant women who only want what is best for their child. The adopters on the other hand are EXPECTED to keep this child and should the real parents DARE to do what was naturally expected of them and ask for their child back well, the adopters are given all of the support whilst the family of the child is kicked to the curb and quite literally shat on in the media.

I have even seen adopters say things like, "I could never give X back, I love him/her to much" and yet the mother would most likely have been told if they truly loved their child they would place them for adoption.

This says two things. One, that love can only be proven by abandoning someone and two, that adopters don't love the children they adopt (which happens to be true in many cases; (note I didn't say all!) they love what the children can do FOR them as opposed to the child themselves). Now, I am sure those saying "give up your child to show you really love them" didn't mean to imply the second point. But they obviously didn't follow the natural conclusion of this distorted logic.

So if you do take the time to follow this logic through to its conclusion, you see not only how contradictory it is but that it aims to make a lie out of EVERYTHING we know of love and how we feel when we are in love. Since when has abandonment EVER said Love?? In fact, I would say it says quite the opposite... like "what was so wrong with me that he/she didn't stay/left/gave me away etc?" And, applying it to adoption as in this instance, it also says adoption isn't really about love because adopters wouldn't prove the love for the child they adopt by giving him/her up so the whole theory of adoption being this loving option then goes out the window too.

It truly is a ridiculous lie, and a very, very dangerous one.

I wish I had realised this earlier in my brainwashing. I wish I had known this was just a ruse they used to get me to do something I had already said I would NOT do. But sadly, THIS, THIS LIE amongst the threat of her being taken and another lie of a three day trial, tipped the balance for me. Because had I NOT had this lie, I wouldn't have cared about the three day promise and the threat that if I didn't sign someone else would. I cannot describe how much I loved and still love my first born. It was unlike anything I had ever experienced and I was told over and over and over etc if I really loved her, really cared for her well being, I would hand her over to a stranger. For me it was the final nail in our coffin. And so I signed. Within hours of her being taken out of my arms, I realised the lie. And thus started my battle to get my daughter back.

I wish I had been a lioness. In the animal kingdom, barring murder or a tranquiliser, if you dared to try and remove a cub from his/her mother, you could safely expect to be torn to shreds. And she would be well within her rights to do so. In fact if she didn't, it wouldn't be seen as normal. Yet in the human realm, we treat mothers with so little respect or reverence. They are seen as interchangeable where the desire suits. Replaceable. And this is in direct contrast to how a newborn sees his/her mother. To them they are their world. They KNOW when their mothers, the ones they grew inside are gone. They KNOW. And this hurts them more than we could ever imagine. Yet we still do it in the name of "Love".

Love. Have we lost the meaning of what love is? Is that what is happening, or has happened? Love is not abandoning one's child to fulfill the lust of another stranger. Love is not keeping a child from his/her family. Love is not denying a person their name, heritage, family roots. Love is not meant to be conditional. And yet adoption is all these things and more. Follow this through and you see what I see. Love and adoption are worlds apart.

14 October 2010

How dare they?

Over the past few years I have encountered many stories very similar in theme to the current case playing out with the V family and the father of the child the V's literally took.

And what gets me is the audacity of PAP's and adopters who feel they have the right to another person's child and, when a member of that child's family decides to do what is their natural right and NORMAL, i.e. to raise their child, these selfish strangers decide to fight to take away this child from their heritage, identity and only family.

Please keep in mind, this post is ONLY about the cases of adopters fighting for children the parents want to raise and not about this that and the other in family law. Really. I don't want to hear it because it isn't pertinent to this subject.

When I first lost Amber because some people decided they would be better parents because they were married and had some money (well not heaps but more than me), I was told my story was unusual and so yes it was justified that I would be angry. Since then I have discovered this is just not true. Mothers from all over the world have emailed me with their stories; some in the process of trying to fight for their children, others who fought and lost and in none of these cases had the mothers done anything "wrong" (none of these mothers were alcoholics, promiscuous before the pregnancy, into drugs etc)... except, they fell prey and then easy victim to the adoption industry. And, instead of realising to truly love a child and want a child's best interests and welfare is to ensure the mother and child bond is retained and continued, selfish people have literally taken the children of these mothers away feeling they were more entitled.

Well I have a message for all of you who do this. You are despicable human beings. Truly and completely despicable and your actions prove to the world you do NOT and are NOT capable of loving the child you take from another woman's (or in some cases, man's) arms. If you really loved the child you say you do, you would do the right thing and put aside your desires and wants and give the child back to his/her family no matter what you think of them. To take a child against their parent's wishes regardless of what a court says is really no different to abduction because like abduction it is a crime against both the child and the parents. It doesn't matter if you look after the child, if you give them items they might not otherwise have. It doesn't matter if you have a beautiful house and this toy or that. Those things are merely that, just things. They do not give a person security in their identity. They do not show a person who their family tree is. They do not mean anything.

You could be cool, awesome or whatever to your friends and family but the action of taking a child against his/her mother OR father's wishes is a crime. A crime against the child. A crime against the parent. And a crime that will have lasting affects throughout the coming generations. You think just because a court says its okay that redeems you? Well, no. It doesn't. Every day the so called law courts do the wrong thing, and justice is seldom done. People get away with doing unimaginable crimes whilst others go to prison for doing nothing. In the eyes of Nature and those with a moral conscience, anyone who fights to take a child from their family is a criminal. A person with no moral fibre and has stooped to being a low life just to get what they want. That is what criminals do. They see what they want and they take it with no care or thought what their actions will do to others. And that is what any adopter/PAP's who fight in court against a mother and/or father for their family is. A low life criminal only thinking about their needs.

Stop lying to yourselves. You don't love that child. You can't.

And to those adopters out there who close open adoptions or lie to the child they adopt by not being honest, you are of the same filth. You are liars, dishonest thieves and I am sick of your existence littering the earth hurting people as you go. Shame. Shame on you. I pray Karma comes back and hits you when you least expect it. I am capable of compassion. I know I am. But when I see people CHOOSING to be blind to the pain they cause DELIBERATELY to ease their own guilty conscience, then my compassion is replaced by white, hot rage. You are not deserving of my compassion. Or anyone else's for that matter. The sad thing is you make adoptive parents who strive to care, love and understand their children look bad. Because all you care about is yourself. God have mercy on you because I sure as hell do not.

In the Bible I have read of the "unforgivable sin". Well in that same vein, as a person who is supposed to be created in God's likeness, I have one of those as well. And it is the theft of my child. My daughter, conceived by rape but still loved by me and the rest of her family, was not meant for adoption. I was bullied, coerced, lied to in order to pry her out of my arms and then when the Judge overturned my consent by saying the original agreement for her to live somewhere else no longer stood because I was standing there accepting my responsibility to raise her, two people decided they wouldn't accept that and fought for her, using corruption and deception. I didn't lose my child, she was stolen because of people like the V's. I pray this little boy will be reunited with his father quickly where he belongs and the V's learn their place in life. As strangers to him, like they were before he was born.

PAPS/Adopters: You do NOT have the right to another family's child. Whatever your reason is for adopting, it does NOT ENTITLE YOU TO ANOTHER MOTHER AND FATHER'S CHILD. Please, for the sake of the children you covet (and the rest of their family), get this in your head.

And because I know I am likely get some hate mail out of this because it isn't done to speak the truth, bite me. I don't care. I am sick of playing the adoption game. If you want to see adoption with blinkers on, fine, your choice. But for the rest of us enlightened ones, we will continue to speak the truth because we are sick of living in the dark created by the likes of you.

11 October 2010

The "Primal Wound" debate

Every time I see this debate rear its head I feel sick. My first thought is "Really? Again? (sigh)"

Literally months before I gave birth to my daughter and then lost her during the long fight to keep her (shock, horror, how dare a mother want to raise her own child, who would dream of doing such a thing!), I completed my diploma in Early Childhood Education. Over the course of my studying, I learned and researched studies and theories which support what I was to read years later in Nancy Verrier's book.

On top of the books, papers and studies I read, I was able to observe the mother/child bond first hand through my many placements and previous work. One of these placements included a mother who was clearly postnatally depressed and I saw how this led to a devastating fracture in her relationship with her barely 5 month old daughter and the effect it had on her.

I am not going to discuss the book or its theory here. It has been rehashed a million times and the argument is circular but what I will say is that outside of adoption, in the realm of normality where the truth of the bond between a mother and her born-to-her child is accepted, the "Primal Wound" theory makes sense. Not just about children adopted but to all children who for a myriad of reasons have to be separated from their mothers. There have been numerous research studies recently which have proven the detrimental effect of removing children from the care of their mother even for a few hours; the stress and anxiety it causes in a child has been lodged through the testing of DNA. So it is easy to believe a child removed from their mother's care entirely would undergo an even bigger trauma. But, enter adoption and again - shock, horror, this is all thrown out. All of a sudden children are seen to be more resilient and can therefore cope with more trauma so it is okay to inflict this ridiculous insitution on them because they will not be affected.

Suddenly all the science, research and truth in the entire world is meaningless when adoption is introduced on the scene. Infants are suddenly blank slates with no feelings, no personalities - in a word they are seen as abnormal*. Yes, that is what I said. I am not going to beat around the bush. Children being adopted are somehow seen as DIFFERENT to children kept. They are discriminated against, their feelings are totally dismissed, their personalities denied. I have watched this in my own child and it angers me greatly. People do NOT have a right to treat children this way. Children are NOT TOYS. They are NOT little puppies and kittens that can be transferred from one mother to a stranger without damage. Anyone who denies the truth of the damage done in separating a mother and her child does so to suit their own needs, they do it for the love of themselves. There is no love for the child in this action and is truly sickening.

As I have said before in another post, adoption is purely hypocritical. It takes everything that is known and recognised as normal and true and throws it out the window. People like to see adoption as some altruistic institution but it is completely the opposite. There is no room for altruism in adoption. If people were truly altruistic, they would be helping to build communities (see previous posts) and helping families stay together. But oh no, it is too easy to give into one's desires and take what one wants than to put those desires aside and do what it takes to be ethical.

So, people will and can continue to dismiss the evidence behind the Primal Wound theory until they are puce in the face. It won't change that it speaks a universal truth which is a mother and her children should be kept together and where there needs to be intervention (i.e. in actual, real, dire situations like abuse), that intervention needs to be as gentle as possible and not the great hulking devastation that adoption brings. It will not change the absolute fact that adoption hurts and emotionally maims lives. I have heard people use the excuse that children and people are resilient, they will adapt. That is a reason to cause pain? Would you walk up to someone and shoot them in the arm and say, "oh well, you will adapt, you will heal so this won't matter"? (too bad if it leaves you crippled for the rest of your life) This really is the same thing. It is known adoption causes pain and yet people continue to push for it. Shooting someone falls under a criminal act. Adoption should to, particularly infant adoption, as it is also a weapon of destruction and hurts in a different way. It hurts families; not just those immediately involved but siblings, children, grandchildren, uncles, aunties etc.

The "Primal Wound" might have been a book written in recent times by an adoptive mother. But it speaks an ancient knowledge and truth which does not need science, arguments and the like. Its truth has stood the test of time and will always be that way despite the depravity of mankind to seek what they want, what they lust after.


*I just want to say I DO NOT see adoptees as abnormal. I see people who have been adopted as discriminated against and beaten down and it angers me. I used this word to describe how I feel others perceive adoptees based on the numerous blogs, Yahoo! Answers answers (lol), forums, posts etc I have seen where adoptees are dismissed. I also want to say I know quite a few adoptive parents who do NOT fall in the category of the type of adopters I have posted about. I know there are adoptive parents who understand all to well the truth of the pain adoption brings and kudos to them for recognising this. You know who you are (I hope :) )