It’s not at all like Madonna’s adoption story. They aren’t talking about this on Oprah, or every news media outlet, but even with just a small almost silent plop in the pond, “Birth Mother Entitled to Visitation with Child Given Up for Adoption” Posted on November 21, 2006 by Daniel Clement has the ability to sure make some waves.
It’s not going to hit the big media. Don’t look for the AP to care, after all it was just the New York Divorce Report, a blog really. But considering that New York has some of the most antiquated adoption laws in the country, and nothing in the way of binding open agreements, this is, in the adoption community, pretty dern groundbreaking. It’s actually huge.
When a woman thinks to place her child for adoption, indeed one of the “carrots” used to entice her that “adoption is the loving option” is the promise of an open relationship with her child. In fact, it is known that though scientific research such as the Mech/Leonard paper actually were used to change the way adoption is viewed by the incoming expectant women to make it seem more becoming of a situation. “Adoption as an Option for Unmarried Pregnant Teens” by Marcia Custer also has the tell tale signs of budding adoption “policy” also know as “how to convince these chicks that living without their babies is fun”. Many agency websites wrongly counsels a prospective mother things like “You choose the amount of contact you would like with your baby.”. When in fact, once the ink is dried and the child is in the hands of the adoptive parents, the natural mother chooses nothing. Adoption agreements are only recognized as legally binding in 13 states and even in these areas, the bias is most certainly in favor of the adoptive parents.
All that aside, many, many a relinquishing mother, does not know this going into the situation, being that they are trusting the “experts” at the caring agencies. So they really do believe that they hold some power and choice . Many have gotten blindsided and felt the stab in the back when the adoptive parents have opted to close the adoption and deny the moms access to their children. Often many will feel totally betrayed as they will say “But I trusted them. I liked them. I wouldn’t have placed Jr. with them if I thought they would do this.” And alas, there is nothing that they can legally do except wait for the child to become and adult and hope that they will meet again someday.
Ah, but not so in New York anymore. Whoever Mary M.O is, my hat goes off to her in great admiration and respect. Thankfully, she had enough determination and the means to pay for legal services as well as the gumption to take this to court and win. That’s another thing that the adoption industry counts on, you see. They fiqure if you don’t have the money to afford your baby, then you are not going to have the money for legal representation either. It is rather amazing though what can change in just a few years, and most moms who do place are not deadbeats and losers anyway, but motivated and goal oriented and want a better future. I am glad that Mary M.O. did not believe that she was worthless or that she had nothing to offer her child but saw that her child would be harmed by not knowing her.
I am really glad that the judge involved saw that too. Ruled in the best interest of the child, the court found:
“the child was aware that the petitioner was her biological mother and that a cessation of visitation could result in long term feelings of distress and abandonment. On the other hand, the Court found that continued visitation would convey a positive message to the child that the biological mother really cared.”
Let the agencies and wanna be adoptive parents beware. Don’t talk the talk if you aren’t prepared to walk the walk. You cannot shut a mother out if you promised her visitation. If that is a condition of her surrender than it is a condition of the adoption too. You might end up in court. You might also become the intense discussion on an internet adoption forum. You even might be seen as unethical and chastised by your peers. And, horror of all horrors, you might have to deal with the woman you tried to cut out of your life for no good reason and you might have to explain to your adopted child why.
Learn to keep your promises!
I have mixed feelings about these things. If a promise has been made to the relinquishing mother and she poses no threat to the child, then fine. What happens in cases where the mother who has relinquished IS a threat of some kind? I believe that the parents of the child are the ones who get to make all decisions concerning the child. I’d be pissed if anyone could tell me who I *had* to let visit my child. Well, that is why I wouldn’t agree to an open adoption, but the people who do have to live with that reality that other people will then have rights to their child. To me, adoption means the child has new parents (in other words, the parent is the one who can legally sign them up for kindergarten…a birthmother can’t do that; only the legal parent). The original parents sign away their parental rights and that’s it…don’t do it if you want to be called mommy or daddy. That sounds harsh, but I guess if I were an adoption counselor I’d put that reality right out there for expectant parents. Probably would make some of them realize the gravity of what they are doing and back out right then.
Sarah said:
What happens in cases where the mother who has relinquished IS a threat of some kind?
That is not the case it this judgment, the opposite is, I don’t understand why people immediately go to the place of “yeah but what is she is bad…”
Then you could explain it to a judge like anyone else.
and sarah:
To me, adoption means the child has new parents (in other words, the parent is the one who can legally sign them up for kindergarten…
Funny I have never been asked to prove I have legal custody of my son in any school related or even medical related event.
But more importantly what really frustrates me about adoption, as an adoptee is the child as new parents line. Yes the child will be raised by new parents BUT the CHILD is still a product of their Old or original parents.
The child is still a human, adoption is not like buying a car, cars don’t en masse form support groups and try to find their original owners but adoptees look for their original families.
The adoptive families don’t share dna and that’s it…don’t do it if you want a child that is exclusively yours. That sounds harsh, but I guess if I were an adoption counselor, I’d put that reality right out there for prospective adoptive parents. Probably would make some of them realize the gravity of what they are doing and back out right then.
Relatives are forever.Pieces of paper cannot abolish a blood relationship. Children seem to understand this better than some adults do.
In an intact biological family only the parents have “legal rights” over the children, but typically the children grow up knowing their grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, even though those relatives have no “legal right” to know the children. That is the way families work.
A child should have as many family connections as possible.Children should not be viewed as creatures to be kept in legal isolation only to be “visited” by a few ‘select” people.
If adopters cannot understand that, they shouldn’t adopt.
I agree with momkat. Kids need love and a variety of sources, why do so many people see them as property or as the new fashion accesory?
I’m sorry if I didn’t word it well enough, Joy. I know the woman in this situation wasn’t a threat of any kind. Just being hypothetical in the cases where she is…imagining the legal battles that would embroil. I also know what you mean about the child also being the biological child of other parents. Parents who adopt should be embracing every single aspect of their child, biological family included. My kids were adopted and I acknowledge that they have different DNA from me; but I’ve learned that you don’t need to share a child’s DNA to love, adore and cherish every single thing about them (including that they have different DNA…how convoluted does that sound?? LOL). I wouldn’t want my kids to be any other kids than who they are. I admit though to the selfishness of wanting to make all the parenting decisions for them while they are young and it is a turn-off to me that a judge could come in and tell me what to do with my kids. Hey, at least I’m admitting it! OTOH, I wouldn’t have made these visitation promises to biological parents without intending to live up to them no matter what.
I happened to come across this myspace site of a mother who just relinquished her baby girl. She’s in terrible grief and it just broke my heart. I think this girl needs some support badly.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=12964534
You wouldn’t be Sarah Guterman would you now?
Claud I linked this, it’s another grand post.
I also linked. Why can’t people get it?
I think, from the aparent perspective (mine) that “we” need to remember that this court case isn’t about a “bad birthparent” but much rather a “bad aparent”, or at least a deceptive one. The ruling further states that the first mother made the decision to place her child BECAUSE of the openness agreement and it was closed for no good reason.
Sadly, this isn’t about maintaining our rights as parents, but rather keeping the promises that made us parents in the first place. This mother was promised letters/parcels and 4 visits a year. 4 visits a year DO NOT undermine a parents influence on their child. As I posted else where about this … 4-8 hours a YEAR of supervised visitation with an appropriate (or even inappropriate) person could not possibly undermine the influence of a child’s full time parent.
What this does is even the playing field A BIT so that aparents are forced to be aware that promises made are sacred. And it allows a first parent to, hopefully, have some recourse if need be.
My last initial is K. Would rather not use my full name!
I know a young woman whose life would have been very different had this precedent been set eight (or even two) years ago.
Unfortunately, some who become parents via adoption can also be a threat to the child (overtly or passively through deception) and the birthmom is left with no recourse.
Well good for them. I can’t believe open adoptions agreements aren’t legally enforcable everywhere. It continues to boggle my mind.
What really is difficult is when an aparent goes way beyond the adoption agreement, and the first mother bounces in and out of the child’s life depending on her own emotions and current state of mind about contact. What really is difficult is when that first mother goes on to make assumptions and refuses to even stay in contact with the aparent. What really is difficult is when the aparent has been so roundly trounced on the internet by the first mother, that the aparent has lost all interest in facilitating reunion when the child is 18. What really is difficult is when the aparent continues to encourage the child to think about reunion anyway, and the child explicitly and emphatically says “no way” and the first mother assumes it is the aparent throwing up a roadblock. What really is difficult is not being able to respond to posts, because the picture of the aparent painted by the first mother is so horrible and inaccurate, that no one even considers the possibility that there’s another side to the situation. What really is difficult is when the aparent knows this post will most likely be pulled, but before it is, the aparent will be attacked by people who really don’t know the situation, even though they think they do.
I have heard that it is more common for birthparents to back out of open adoption agreements than adoptive parents. I have tried numerous times to get my child’s birthmother to meet us. We’ve even had dates set up and she hasn’t shown up. It amazes me that she could see our child any time she wants and she chooses not to. The sad thing is that our child is reaching an age where he will be aware that she is backing out of seeing him. I wish I understood this better and I wish it was something that would be discussed more because I know other adoptive parents in the same situation.
Karrie said:
“I wish I understood this better and I wish it was something that would be discussed more because I know other adoptive parents in the same situation.”
Exactly!
I went by the feelings of the adults, not our child, and continued with openness based on the first mother’s coping ability at the time. If she backed off, I had too much empathy for her, and not enough for our child, and agreed to wait for her to make the next move. After awhile, as our child got older, the inconsistency was too much. Also, in-person or phone contact was too confusing for our child. It also created conflict with her adopted sibling (which really DOES have to be considered for the adoptive family to grow healthily).
I asked for contact to be only between adults, since she was pulling in and out so often, on the advice of counselors and my gut feelings.
I continued to send photos and updates several times a year, but after awhile, I was told even email was too intrusive and upsetting.
I made a major life change and in the process of selling and buying my homes, moving, starting a new job, and having another child get married, I didn’t pass on my new address. Heck, I didn’t send anyone Christmas cards that year!
Once the first mother tracked the address down, she accused me of moving to make contact more difficult. When she began sending mail to our child, addressed to our child, I didn’t give it to her. I did save it and still have it, as I have every other letter, email, photo, and gift that was sent. Our daughter will get those things when she wants them.
Her first mother knew that I wanted mail to go to me. As the parenting mother, I knew when it would be in our child’s best interest to give things to her. And then wasn’t the time.
Because of actions taken by the first mother, I’ve withdrawn completely and even took out a restraining order because she was trying to contact our minor child through the internet, phone calls, and sending her husband to our doorstep.
First mothers who want an open adoption with contact with the child, cannot and should not pull back when it’s “too hard” for them. It’s not about them. It’s about the child. And the first mother needs to respect the decisions of the adoptive family regarding direct contact with the child.
At NO time did I close the adoption. I DID request adults only communication twice, after her withdrawals, but I did NOT close the adoption. The restraining order was not closure, but protection.
For not being a perfect adoptive mother, I have been castigated publicly and had lies written about me. I’ve been accused of things that the first mother knows are not true. She has forgotten that I was one of the first adoptive parents to pursue open adoption nearly 17 years ago. She has forgotten that I once loved her and considered her to be one of my closest friends. I don’t know if the damage can be repaired between us.
But I am not standing in our daughter’s way regarding contact once she is 18. That is her decision, and hers alone.
“travellingpants,” i know that this is you. you are still trying to defend yourself, to defend closing the adoption which you once said you did “because of the first mom’s emotions.” i understand that these emotions scared you, but what did anyone expect when she surrendered her child? severe depression, severe complicated grief, PTSD, serious contemplations of suicide because of the pain — it is not anything that a mother can handle with ease as seeing her child again only retraumatizes her, she has to relive that separation all over again when she next sees her child. and yet then separation causes extreme grief and loss so she is stuck.
so, if you did not expect these type of emotions in the first mother, why did you agree to take her child? she cannot just “get over it” as none of us do.
and you say that it affected the adoptive sibling, but it also affected the natural sibling who has had a hard time too trying to deal with the wall (yes i use that term intentionally) set up between them.
frankly i think you should all admit that adoption is an artificial situation and give that child back to the natural mother, re-integrate her with her natural family. like you said, she is almost 17. does she even know that “A” has tried to contact her at all over the past 2 or so years?
i know you are trying to “do your best” but I believe that the best thing would be for your (plural) daughter “B” to be back with her mother, for counselling to heal the rift that was caused. i’m not certain if “B” backed off not because of her own feelings but because of your feelings of being threatened by the first mother.
(note, i’ve kept all names out of this to respect your privacy, and haven’t even used the “real initials” of the first mother and the daughter).
Well, anon, I don’t know who you are. You don’t know the situation.Her emotions didn’t “scare me.” Her behavior was detrimental to our child. And again, it not ME who closed the adoption. Not at any time. I limited contact, but I NEVER closed it.
It’s easy to look in hindsight and say I should have been prepared for every emotion the first mother would experience. However, I WAS somewhat aware, and because of that, I erred in allowing more direct contact than was originally agreed on. There was never a written contract for anything past the first year.
I don’t understand if “seeing her first child re-traumatizes her” why I should subject a child to those intense emotions and resulting withdrawal? If it’s hard on the first mother, what about the effect on the child?
We still don’t know what open adoption actually means, and we still don’t know what effect varying degrees of openness have had on children in the last twenty years.
Anonymous wrote:
“so, if you did not expect these type of emotions in the first mother, why did you agree to take her child? she cannot just “get over it” as none of us do.”
I WAS concerned about her emotions. That’s why I told the social worker that if she changed her mind, we would understand. The first mother chose to continue with the placement.
Anon also wrote:
“and you say that it affected the adoptive sibling, but it also affected the natural sibling who has had a hard time too trying to deal with the wall (yes i use that term intentionally) set up between them.”
The first mother needs to re-assess what role she played in building any wall, and what role she played in making the adoption a difficult thing for her second child to handle. In fact, the first mother also said that she had to pull back because of the possible effects contact would have on her 2nd child.
She has that child to consider, and I have mine, the ones who live day-to-day with our child, the ones who have 17 years worth of in-person bonding. Their feelings and our child’s feelings are my priority. Not her first mother’s, and not her natural sibling’s feelings. That doesn’t mean I am callous about those feelings. It’s the reality.
anon also wrote:
“frankly i think you should all admit that adoption is an artificial situation and give that child back to the natural mother, re-integrate her with her natural family. like you said, she is almost 17. does she even know that “A” has tried to contact her at all over the past 2 or so years?”
Are you nuts???? What a horrible thing that would be to do to a child!! Talk about creating an emotional mess and a traumatized child!! This child doesn’t WANT to be part of the first family in that way. I’ve asked. And yes, the child knows because the first mother’s husband called our home. Our child refused to talk to him and was very put off by this attempt and this invasion of privacy.
anon also wrote:
“i’m not certain if “B” backed off not because of her own feelings”
This child will not discuss the situation any more at this time. The attempts to make contact were too much. Putting this child back with the first mother would be over the top, and would not heal the so-called “rift” which was caused by the first mother’s actions. You have no clue what you are talking about in that regard.
I’m certainly glad you left our child’s name and other names out of your post. To do otherwise would have over-stepped the bounds of decency.
“frankly i think you should all admit that adoption is an artificial situation and give that child back to the natural mother, re-integrate her with her natural family. like you said, she is almost 17. does she even know that “A” has tried to contact her at all over the past 2 or so years?”
Good thing you are not in charge of other peoples’ lives! You don’t take a 17 year old and “give her back” to her biological mother who gave her up (what kind of mother gives up her baby????). A child bonds to their family, becomes part of it…a family is based on daily love and experiences. Parenting is a commitment, not an act of giving birth. Being a mom means you care for and protect your child every day of their childhood. It means you are THERE, not loving them from afar. Big difference between birthmothers and adoptive mothers is that birthmothers view the word mother as a noun. They don’t think they have to do anything but give birth. An adoptive mother knows that mother is a verb. It’s the actions, it’s the love, it’s the BEING there. It’s knowing the child inside and out; not pretending that you know this child who you haven’t seen since birth. So yes, give a 17 year old away to some stranger. Yeah, right, again thank goodness that you can’t decide other peoples’ lives. Birthmoms need to admit that they made a horrible mistake and stop blaming everyone else and villifying the people who step up to parent a child.
Blue Velvet Moon, A is probably that crazy birthmother who used to have a blog and whine about the restraining order that her birthdaughter’s parents had against her. Whine, whine, whine. Look in the dictionary under “whine” and you’ll see who I mean LOL
anonymous the second,
I need to make it clear that our child’s first mother hasn’t said she should go back and live with her full-time.
In addition, I still try to think of her with respect. She is, after all, the first mother. If I could turn back time and have a do-over, I would. But there’s so much water under the bridge now, I don’t know that it’s possible.
“I WAS concerned about her emotions. That’s why I told the social worker that if she changed her mind, we would understand. The first mother chose to continue with the placement.”
But did she get the chance to take her child home and care for that child before it was taken for adoption? or was she told that the child had to “bond with the new parents” ASAP and that she “shouldn’t get attached”? how long did she have her baby for before she surrendered?
i don’t see any choice being there until the mother is fully recovered from childbirth. anything less is exploitation and coercion, because it is taking advantage of a mother who is not only uninformed and unexperienced in what she will feel towards her baby once her baby is there in her arms, but it is taking advantage of her vulnerability in being post-partum and recovering. of course, adoption agencies WANT mothers to surrender as close to birth as possible, WANT them to “commit to adoption” while still pregnant, because they know they can force more surrenders to happen this way. then the mother gets home and practically dies from the pain and loss, not realizing that she would feel that way because NO-ONE told her! that is how adoption agencies work: get them hooked early and keep them hooked into adoption until it is too late and they’ve gone home with leaking breasts and no baby. i hope that this was not the situation in your case.
“Birthmoms need to admit that they made a horrible mistake and stop blaming everyone else and villifying the people who step up to parent a child.”
you are totally ignorant about coercion and what “informed choice” means. losing a baby at birth is NOT a choice. it is being raped of your baby without consent, without information, and being exploited by a system that is set up to make a huge profit out of this type of rape.
And most of us did NOT have a choice. I certainly did not. my baby was taken AT BIRTH by the hospital because my parents were ashamed of me and I was never told about any way to raise her. not allowed to take her home as they even hit me from the relatives to hide my pregnancy. it was NOT a choice as i never got a chance to recover from the birth before she was taken for adoption and the hospital restricted contact so I could only see her for 5 minutes. have you never heard of the “The Baby Scoop Era”?!?
anon 1, this wasn’t in the dark ages. She knew the options, and had considered them. She also knew she had some weeks to change her mind before she signed the reliquishment papers. She had rooming-in for two days, which of course is not the same as taking the baby home. She knew how she felt about her baby. I don’t know what she was told about the baby needing to bond with the aparents, and I don’t know if she took an option to take her baby home or not. She knew that she couldn’t take care of that baby at that time. She also knew she had no support system. I think she was fully aware of her feelings.
You are referring to things that weren’t happening 17 years ago, as far as having the mother take her baby home, etc. It’s not her fault, my fault, our child’s fault, or the agency’s fault that we all did what we thought was best at that time. It was NOT the “Baby Scoop Era” by any way, shape, or form.
She had counseling. She was in groups with mothers who had placed their children for adoption.
To try to impose current day thinking on what occurred years ago is disingenuous at best and coercive at worst. Trying to say I should “give our child back” at this point is time is utterly ridiculous. As far as I know, the first mother is not advocating that.
You are speaking in hypotheticals, and you are 17 years too late. I educated myself to the extent possible at that time. There’s no undoing now what was done then. And for for me, there’s no undoing what she’s written on her blog and others at this time. As I said, the future of any relationship is up to our daughter.
The reality of the “baby scoop era” is that most unwed mothers still kept their babies. The majority of babies born to unwed mothers were not placed for adoption. You could have fought your parents. You could have run away and made a life for yourself instead of letting them take your child. So I have to say that I really don’t buy into the baby scoop era, even after reading “the girls who went away.” It just doesn’t ring true.
Blue,
I’ve been following this situation for years – read blogs, boards, articles, seen the changing of usernames, even been privy to emails. If one were to step back and smooth out the details of this tragedy I think several patterns would emerge.
1. The natural mother had no family support, no workplace support, no objective church support, had been abandoned by the natural father, was dealing with an industry that survives and thrives ONLY if she does not keep her baby, and is automatically place within a social rank equal to child molesters.
The adoptive parent is supported by family, is the only means of existence to a multi-million dollar adoption industry, is supported by our government tax laws, and is socially moved up the ranks to somewhere close to saint.
There was never an equity in understanding or empathy. To claim that the natural mother was well aware of anything for the first several years is an attempt to deny her humanity in a situation you know nothing about.
This conjours up images of how the Vietnam Vets were treated by idealist who sat back in judgement of a situation they only knew from the tv.
2. The natural mother did not have the luxury to deny feelings, to pretend she could slip back into her old social standing, to ignore the elephant in every room she entered. The choices boil down to physical suicide or social suicide. Any mother that has been a victim of the open adoption industry and is still alive is a monument to courage.
The adoptive parent is not presented with these horrors. They do not simultaneously get thrown into the pit and then ridiculed for attempting to climb out. To say that you pulled back, denied visitation, modified communication because the natural mother had intense feelings is nothing short of abusing the luxury of having a social and government backed choice.
3. All of the natural mother’s postings, bloggings, articles, poems, etc. convey one of these themes:
– love for her child (do you deny her this?)
– an expression of her pain (do you deny her this?)
– a lack of understanding of why you made the choices you did (while not needing to explain your every move, can’t you see that you have never been clear, have always waited until she sought clarity and never first volunteered it?)
– a passion to help others who find themselves in the same situation (do you deny her this?)
– an attempt to change adoption laws and educate others (do you deny her this?)
When I see where you have posted the themes seem to be the following:
– it appears that most of the places you post are places the natural mother posted first.
– you seem to assume that these post are always about you – at times addressing a subject that was not part of the post.
– constantly changing your name so as not to be identified while your postings clearly identify you. The natural mother uses her real name if not a username that all regular posters know.
– your appear to stalk her at every place she seeks to carry out her themes. What sort of goal in life is this?
In summary, the natural mother seems to want to heal, you seem to want to hurt. The natural mother speaks clearly while you speak crypticaly. The natural mother demonstrates her humanity while you demonstrate your lack of it. The natural mother has demonstrated her attempts at bringing everyone together while you demonstrate your need to separate.
These are observations based on what has been made public. If you think that this does not describe you then consider what you have put into the world and what you have not. I have seen your daughters myspace and what she says does not match what you say.
Life is hard – quit trying to make it easy for yourself at other’s expense.
Anonymous III
This is so sick, not to mention unworthy of my dear friend and her daughter.
I know she doesn’t want me to write. She has asked me to ignore this crap, but I’m sick of seeing this crazy woman stalk her (sometimes throwing her full name around) when she already got what she wanted, or so we thought.
I know the “birthmother” very well, and she is one of the most compassionate, kind, loving people I’ve ever known. “Travelingpants” knows this, too. Anyone who knows her knows this.
That this is the forum where this woman compulsively tries to communicate and invite her friends along where any doofus who doesn’t know anything can anonymously add their two cents says more about this person than anything. Doesn’t it? This is how she communicated throughout the entire adoption.
She only writes here because my friend cannot respond, and she knows it. When there was equal communication, she lied and then stopped communicating or even acknowledging my friend’s attempts to communicate.
She has indulged in this stalking crap for almost three years! She waits for my friend to say something then attacks her. Or, if she doesn’t find my friend, she starts talking about her by name. Look at the people she brings along with her. People who call t a “whiner,” people who call her an “idiot.” Nice.
T doesn’t go where this woman goes, doesn’t say anything to her, doesn’t try to get her attention on forums and boards and email groups, doesn’t want to know anything about her, doesn’t want a relationship with her after years of lies.
I saw the emails, saw my friend try everything with this extremely manipulative woman. Her “emotions” were based on hearing her daughter be lied to, on watching her daughter be placed in the middle of games created by this woman, based on on knowing her daughter had been hurt (at this woman’s admission), and a lot of other things that no mother could sit back and watch with her hands tied.
This woman did everything to push T away once she went through a change her in her own life.
From what I understand, this woman adopted two children and my friend was forced to make up for the other birthmother’s lack of invovement. My friend adhered to many things that weren’t part of the agreement. I watched her try everything to keep contact with her daughter, while this woman sickly treated this contact as if it were a benevolent gesture or a reward.
I could list details regarding how my friend bent over backwards to make this family comfortable, all of which are left out when this woman stalks her to these places and talks about her. It is just further proof of this woman’s motives.
This is a woman who googles my friends name night and day, spends hours hunting her down, even shows up in the wee hours of morning on my friend’s business website.
Who does this? Who stalks a grieving mother who is trying to give and get support from others in her situation. Not a normal person. Not a person who feels good about what they have done. Not a person of integrity. Not a truthful person.
The only “do over” my friend would want is to have known the truth from the beginning. This woman appears to imagine T would want anything to do with her.
She wants nothing from her, of her, or about her. She wants nothing that even passes through her hands after nearly two decades of lies and sickness. Just two months ago, I watched this woman dangle a photo in front of my friend’s nose on the comment section of another of these blogs, only to snatch it back, as she has done for years.
This isn’t “honoring.” This shit isn’t “respecting.” What a load of crap. This woman still talks out of both sides of her mouth.
We have all told T to take this woman to court and sue her ass, but she hasn’t done it because she is not like that. She hasn’t done it because this woman has a human shield, who she treats more like a reward than a human being.
You cannot reason with a person like this. A person like this needs to defer blame away from herself at any cost, must deny reality at any cost, must maintain appearances at any cost to t, to the kids, to anyone who might make her have to look at herself in the mirror.
My dear friend (I am so sorry, T) wouldn’t want anything to do with that sort of person now or ever.
This woman’s presence here is the greatest indictment of her.
Jaymie, tell “T” that she has more support out there than she knows.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I’m done. buy bye
Again, a helpful link:
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/npd.htm
It is really just best not to engage this kind of behavior. I want nothing to do with this person and ask those familiar with me to collectively ignore it. She has long since created her own irrelevance in my life.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh, and blue velvet moon and all of her aliases are to cease and desist in the following:
cyberstalking me, which includes attempting to bait and engage me, contacting me by proxy and via third parties, calling me out on public forums, etc.
In accordance with Califonia law and the terms of cox.net she is to refrain from any form of contact. Her contact is unconditionally unwelcome.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
blue velvet moon, all i can say is that that list of T’s comments you give about how wonderful the adoption sounds like she is simply being the “dancing bear”, trying to be the “perfect birthmother” so that maybe she could get more contact (and maybe fears that if she didn’t, she’d get NO contact?). i emailed the same “wonderful stuff” to my son’s adoptive parents in order to try to convince them, and myself, that they would not end his contact with me (they did anyway).
And yes, travelingpants, ALSO to convince HERSELF. It sounds a LOT like that, like she is trying to keep up the brainwashing that the agency did on her. TONS. in fact. i think that this is on the mark. the agency and her counselor told her that this is how she should feel, the “reality” she should live. and then it all came crashing down, as it always does for the first moms who then find that reality is FAR too painful and that the agency NEVER told them that this would happen to them.
read the articles by J. T. Condon, Judy Kelly, and Geoffrey Rickarby. about the pain that natural moms go thru. it is truly soul-destroying. agencies know this information and withhold it intentionally. after all, if you tell the mom that she stands more than a 50-50 chance of ending up an emotional cripple, will she surrender? NO!
T., only you can say whether these comments written to ‘travelingpants’ reflect agency brainwashing and your attempts to live up to the “role expectations” that the agency put upon you, and if you finally “woke up” and found that the pain was unbearable. if you did, then you are just the same as the rest of us, including me who almost walked out of a reunion and into suicide to escape similar pain.
just remember T, we support you and are here for you. we moms who have gone thru the same searing unbearable pain, the same brainwashing, the same agencies who deny the truth to us when we’re pregnant and under their sway.
travelingpants, how can you blame her for this devastation that she has undergone? this is the toll that was exacted on her so that you could be a parent, this is what a psychiatrist said about natural moms who came to his clinic:
“I found post-traumatic stress disorder to be most common in the ones who would come to child psychiatry. Those who joined peer group organisations tended to have a lot of pathological grief. Major depression was very common and sometimes dissociative disorder. … Some form of psychopathology is almost universal in my experience.” (- Dr. Geoffrey Rickarby, Social Issues Committee (1998). First Interim Report of the New South Wales Parliamentary Inquiry into Adoption Practices. p. 21
… dissociation, denial, and repressed emotions … all of these were identified by Haase and Karry as the main ways that natural moms can keep on living and breathing with the amount of pain they are forced to carry within them. it does drive many to suicide.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Blue Velvet Moon,
why have you closed the adoption? Why have you denied their access to each other?
The person who suffers the most is the daughter caught in the middle.
You make her feel like her mother has abandoned her and make her suffer.
Speaking has been nothing but gracious about you, she has written time and time again that she would gladly let bygones be bygones. She doesn’t hold a grudge, she just wants to have a relationship with her daughter.
She is so generous towards you that I think I will call her Saint Speaking from now on.
It’s the cruellest thing you can do to a person, close the adoption on them. It’s the meanest thing you can do. It’s such a disgusting abuse of power.
There are ways to have contact where you feel emotionally safe too yet you choose to just keep inflicting pain of a mother AND a daughter.
Even if Saint Speaking had done something to slight you, the punishment you have dished out, which is to deny her ANY contact or news of her daughter is so unbalanced and insanely cruel.
I believe in the law of Karma, I think you have a lot of amends to make Lady, you better start now because you have amassed some seriously BAD Karma.
The time will come and it’s not long to go where you won’t be able to legally keep this mother and daughter separate from each other, the truth will be told. You are lucky that Saint Speaking has a kind heart and won’t squash you like a bug. If it was me you had done this to you would have to look over your shoulder and sleep lightly at night.
You are lucky that you have hurt a saint and not a mere mortal.
Uh, I’m not contacting you through third parties. This isn’t your blog. I can comment on an open blog as much as anyone else can.
I AM a THIRD PARTY!! AND THIS IS MY< MY < MY BLOG!!
And in case the very neutral BUH BYE was not a hint..I DO NOT APPRECIATE THIS CRAP ABOUT MY FRIEND TAKING AWAY FROM MY STATEMENTS ( THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU..EXCEPT I GUESS THE “KEEP YOUR PROMISES’ GOT TO YOUR GULITY CONSCIOUS)
THIS IS UNWELCOME AND UNWANTED AND IT IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL PLAYGROUND. AND NOW, YOU HAVE MADE ME ANNOYED BEYOND BELIEF.BECASUE IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH YOUR INSANELY FREQUENT CYBERSTALKING..( HOW MANY TIMES A DAY DO YOU CHECK THIS…EGADS..LIKE 8?? PATHETHIC!!! DO YOU HAVE A LIFE?? TAKE UP KNITING..ITS HIP AND TRENDY) I MUST NOW DO SOMETHING I HAVE NEVER HAD TO DO…
I AM GOING TO CLOSE COMMENTS.
AND FOR THE RECORD..YOU GET BLAMED, BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS..THIS KIND OF ACTION..