I wrote this out this morning:

Judith Ashton, Executive Director
NYS Citizens’ Coalition for Children, Inc.
410 East Upland Road Ithaca, NY 14850
607-272-0034
Fax: 607-272-0035
jashton@nysccc. org
http://www.nysccc. Org

Ms. Ashton,

Upon reading your note**** to Heather Kuhn regarding her article “New York is Ready to Change Its Adoption Laws”, as it was forwarded to OriginsUSA, I became curious as to what the New York State Citizen’s Coalition for Children was all about that would warrant it’s executive director to take such a hard stance. When reading the NYSCCC website, I found it very alarming that while under your bylaws you state that the mission is to “Represent the citizen’s viewpoint in advocating for improved adoption and foster care services.” yet, absolutely no where on the site is any reference to any of the natural parents involved in the adoption triad except in reference on how to get them to TPR

They have no services listed under post adoption services. There are no support groups with the needs of natural parents listed as a priority. You have no counseling for long term grief and other known effects of relinquishment as a recourse. New York is blessed to have in it’s midst one of the finest adoption counselors for adoptees and natural parent issues, Joe Soll, and not one reference to him is to be found. How can you hope to improve adoption, while you ignore the very present and real foundation of the issue? This is in direct conflict with your mission, as you effectively have silenced both the adult adoptee and natural parents as citizens who are represented. The site is so obviously one sided as to represent the adoptive parents viewpoint and be focused on their needs, and their needs only.

Regarding the bit about the use of “this outmoded reference” regarding natural parent and the accompany link to “respectful language”. The link states: ‘”Birth parent” is objective and respectful. It clearly and neutrally identifies who is being referred to without negative implications for adoptive parents.’ The use of Birth terms in regards to relinquishing parents is very objectifying, but not at all respectful. While this term usage might be considered to be better used by adoptive parents, it is not a term desired by the families of origin as a self identifier and any sub group has the right to self determine what they would like to be called. Many natural parents objects to being put in the limiting class as a mere breeder whose sole purpose is to create the child for relinquishment and has many negative implications for families of origins. Please see our website for the true history of the term and why families of origins object to being told what names they can call themselves.

Again stated: This change will benefit countless adoptive families throughout New York State and many others whose lives are touched by adoption.” Again the emphasis being on the benefit to the adoptive families, and anyone else as a mere afterthought. I can tell you as a New York citizen, and a mother of adoption loss, this change does not benefit me in any way shape or form. Again, it is very distressing that you find it possible to speak for me and other NY mothers of loss yet have no representation at all in your organization.

“To use “natural,” in reference to children and parents who are biologically related, implies that adoptive relationships are “unnatural,” that is to say, not genuine or of lower status” If you want to insists on propagating the concept of opposites then we must use the word “birth” and its accompanying true opposite term Death, so that all adoptive families are implied Death families. Now, isn’t that silly?

I also find it odd that while you have published the results of the study regarding adoptive parents views on open records, and that the results were clearly in favor of unsealing NY’s OBCs, you have no knowledge of bill A9823 nor any resources on the site for the fight to open the records. Clearly a link at the end of the study to NY’s Unsealed Initiative would be a simple, yet effective way for people to find their way to assisting in this very important piece of legislation that would benefit many adoptees, adoptive parents, and natural families as your own study indicated.

If your organization really wanted to represent ALL citizens of NY who care about adoption and the benefits for children, then the exclusion of natural parents and those who did not only benefit and profit from adoption needs to be addressed. At this time, it is surely lacking and I, officially, at a citizen of NY, object.

Sincerely,

signature, etc.:)

*** The orginal note:
Heather: For your information, NYS passed a law this year that does indeed provide for enforceability of conditional surrenders (so-called open adoptions). There is no evidence I am aware of that supports your assertion, “Open adoption enforcement is much more controversial than adopted adults accessing their birth records.”

What is meant by your statement, “New York State is ready to take the next step in updating the adoption laws.”?

Your article continually uses “natural parent” in reference to an adopted child’s birth parent. Please see our website, http://www.nysccc. org/Legislative% 20Information/ langlaw.htm, fpr information regarding the use of this outmoded reference. Judith Ashton