After she wrote her post, I responded in this manner:
I just joined to email Angela but I wanted to comment on this one. I have three blogs and they stretch me out way too much. This site has commented on two of them. I own the Adoption and Its Triad, Coleman Moms and Babes, and Indiana Open.
When an adoptee is out of foster care, I agree that the records and circumstances should be sealed until the age of majority for the child. There are situations that are just too horrific for the child to continue to bear.
I think there does need to be a sense of transparency in adoption for all living adoption. That information however doesn't need to be public information. If you enter an open adoption, all parties including the first parents should honor it. If a closed adoption is chosen, please make sure that you get your child's information. Get that OBC for your child's sake. Whether or not they choose to act on it is another story. That is totally not connected to how an adoptive parent raises that child.
I am an adoptee rights activist. I believe the child should be told the truth no matter what. It should be age appropriate. The first parents should be spoken with kindness and respect. No matter how you personally feel about them.
The right to privacy is about the right to be free from governmental interference. Read Roe vs. Wade on the specifics. First parents most definitely have the right to say no to contact just as an adoptee does. That OBC is something that we will need to prove our American citizenship.
Sometimes very honestly people need to mind their own business. I have friends on both sides of the spectrum. One friend, V, is raising a child that by all legal means should be the legal mother of her son. This is where adoption really ticks me off. I realize the disparity of it. The "birth" mother (she is really a horrid woman) gave her son an adult dose of meth. How the boy survived is beyond me. She still has her parental rights. Because V. and her husband requested that the court venue be changed, they are just the guardians of this child. The judge in her case got mad at them for suggesting it. So every few months they have to go to Amarillo. This woman said that my friend's husband was the father. DNA tests have proven otherwise but they have been raising this boy for years now. This woman still has supervised visits. In this situation, the adoption should have been finalized. The case completely and utterly closed until her son is an adult.
I do understand the privacy issue but not at the child's expense.
He responded with pure hostile vitriol:
Interesting comment Amy. What an interesting treatment of adoptive parents. We are no more significant that baby sitters? First Parent is used by birthparents and adoptees who have an axe to grind about adoption. No, Amy, it is not appropriate. Put it any way you want to, but the child came to live with his adoptive parents because the birth parents couldn't, or for cause, weren't allowed to raise the child. One set of parents did do the job, and the other did not. The birth parents may be wonderful people, they still were not there for their child.
If the birth parents are first, then obviously the adoptive parents are second (in the case of one of my sons, counting foster families, I would be number 21). No Amy, we are not second best, we did what the child needed and we do not come after the birth parents in importance to the child. Yes, there are unaccepting adoptees who will argue this, but the bottom line is that it was the adoptive parents and not the birth parents who cared for them.
Using first parent sets up the thinking. All rights to the first family and the adoptee. The adoptive parents should have no rights to decide any thing, or be the sole decsion maker on anything.
Adoptive parents need to treat the birth parents with kindness and respect. No, wrong. The adoptive parents need to be kind to the child and respect that these are his birthparents. It is very wrong to do the 'Yes, they may have done some things wrong (like severe abuse), but they are your parents, and we need to get over this so we can make nice and think nice thoughts.' The child's emotions need to be validated, not minimized. Adoptive parents need to tell it honestly about the birth parents, being considerate of who these people are to the child.
Yes the adoptive parents are the collectors and guardians of the childs information. Yes, it needs to be disclosed at an age appropriate time. No, the adoptive parents are not inconsequential bit players. John
This John individual has no respect for natural parents. The topic wasn't even about terminology. It was about privacy. I most certainly understand the issues that she is having. Her child's story should have to be told over and over again to another who doesn't have a vested interest. It is no one's business. It is up to the child to discuss this story.
She brought up open adoption agreements and agencies forcing them into them to include foster care adoptions. I do think that open adoptions in domestic adoption are the best for the child. Adoption should be about the child. If the parents, both adoptive and natural, choose a closed adoption, I still believe that there should be a full disclosure of information for the sake of the child. Again adoption is about the child.
However, foster care is a whole nother ball game. That is dependent on the circumstances of the adoption. Foster care adoption is supposed to be about the best interest of the child. The information in the court case should not be public information but it should be available to the adoptive parents and the adoptee. It should not be sealed from those living adoption. We have got to keep these agencies accountable to us living adoption. The adoption industry defines confidentiality to suit its own purpose.
Okay terminology. In real life, I call birth/first/natural/biological parents mothers and fathers. I call adoptive parents exactly that adoptive parents. If I am in a particular pissy mood, I call them adopters or abductors. Lord knows I have seen enough of those. I am involved in two organizations. OriginsUSA and Concerned United Birthparents. I am also a member of several adoptee organizations too. Some natural parents don't mind being called birthparents. Others do. I do my best to be respectful to all. I personally don't like my natural mother being defined by my birth.
Its a shame that John wants to make a good discussion about confidentiality and privacy into an argument about terminology. FaithA I didn't want your blog hijacked from a good conversation.