Sunday, October 10, 2010

Why the story of The Boy Now Called Grayson makes me crazy mad

Lorraine
Here we go again. I am hoping that the item I posted yesterday was correct-- that Christy and Jason Vaughn have signed a "return the boy" agreement, but since First Mother Forum is a place where anonymous comments are allowed, someone left a comment saying that is a rumor and that the Facebook page "Give Grayson Back," confirms that. Well, not so. And yesterday I tried to confirm the below statement from news media, but could not. So I will leave it at that. What I posted yesterday:

Late Breaking News  from the Facebook page: Give Grayson Back: This comes from Toledo:  "The Vaughns have signed new papers agreeing to give Grayson Wyrembek back to his father, Benjamin Wyrembek, by the end of the month, never to see him again, and to drop all further resistance to the law and justice and to stop trying to take this child from his Ohio family. Wyrembek apparently had, or is still having, a lengthy visit with his son over the weekend, and will continue to have such visitations until he the end of the month. To which we add: Great!
Now on to today's news: 
However--a good sign--things over at the Keep Grayson Home Facebook page have reached the truly hysterical, and they are urging everyone to contact the National Organization of Women (NOW) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as well as the National Right to Life (NRTL) in an effort to stop returning the boy at the heart of this to his rightful father. A few people who do not agree that Grayson ought to be kept "at home" are posting comments, angering the others. (To be able to do that, you have to agree that you "like" the Keep Grayson Home page. I did for that reason but then realized that all my FB friends were notified that I had done that...so I hit "unlike" and cannot post comments.

Most of the of the media stories have been skewed towards the "only family he has ever known," the Vaughns, and today a columnist for the Huffington Post got into the fray with this kind of language:
That child, now Grayson Thomas Vaughn to me and Grayson Bocvarov [Note: mother's last name] to others, is three years old and may be ripped from the only family he has ever known: Christy and Jason Vaughn -- his mom and dad. 
That is from Robin Sax, who says she is a former deputy district attorney, legal commentator and author. You might want to give her a piece of your mind: Baby Vaughn Court Battle. 

Why does this case make me so crazed, so angry, so ready to spit bullets? Because so many of us would have kept our children if we could have found the way. Am I sorry I surrendered my daughter to be adopted? Yes. Although my recently found granddaughter was raised in a good home by good people, her adoptive mom contacted me and told me that for quite a while after my daughter relinquished her for adoption, the natural father continued to try to take her home to his mother's house in Michigan, continued visitations with Lisa at the Catholic home where she was being taken care of, but was rebuffed by the state and the county. They were not fighting him, understand, they were not involved during this time. This was in 1986 in supposedly liberal Madison, Wisconsin.

But there's more today. A comment from the previous post arrived this morning, from of course, Anonymous:
 I don't get it? You sit here in judgement and against adoption, when you didn't even want to raise your own child? I never cease to amaze me that the bmoms who are the most vocal and anti-adoption are the ones who didn't want the burden of raise their child. Please explain? Is it guilt
Yeah, it is. In the memoir I'm working on about relinquishing my daughter in 1966, reuniting with her in 1981, and what happened after. My daughter Jane said she understood why she had been relinquished, she understood about the times and the societal pressures, but that did not mean all was well or that I was ever truly forgiven:

There were periods of calm, to be sure, when we’d be at the beach or having lunch in a restaurant, just the two of us, when she seemed happy and normal and we could take delight in just being together at last. And there were periods when we were not in touch, typically because I’d said something that she deemed unforgivable—it was always something that I hardly remembered because it had been so inconsequential, but she would decide that was reason enough to be out of my life for good. I was on trial. I was always on trial. I was the mother who had given her up, and to most adoptees, that registers, on some level, as abandonment: What was wrong with me? that my mother didn’t keep me? 

I came to realize that her visits sliced me open like a turkey being carved to serve, and guilt was the gravy. Was I guilty about having given her up? Was I guilty about the birth control pills I took when I was unknowingly pregnant—could they have been a factor in her epilepsy? Was I horrified thinking that some part of me realized given the circumstances it had been reasonable to relinquish her, that I never could have gotten through the years of raising her by myself? Did I feel that I could never do enough to make up for the past, no matter how upright and caring her family? Did her spending time here exhaust me emotionally? Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.--lorraine
---------------------
Sorry that the type turns into something different, but it happens whenever I lift something from another document of mine. I have spent more time than I care to remember trying to fix this glitch in this post and others. I give up. 

For more on the Wyembrek/Vaughn custody battle over Wyembrek's son, see earlier posts. What Ever Happened to Baby Emma? and good news on the Wyrembek boy
and Dad Wins Custody of Son, Again, in Ohio Court
and Transition Time in Contested Adoptions: Just Another Excuse for Delay

22 comments :

  1. As for Grayson's mother name. Her maiden name is Drucilla Banners. Her married name is Bocvaaraov

    ReplyDelete
  2. Children whose bparents fight so hard to keep them are going to feel so loved and valued. Why don't people get this?

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is no Constitutional right to place a child for adoption just as there is no Constitutional right to adoption to start with.

    Please read Erik Smith's article on the Vaughn case here: http://www.eriksmith.org/content/Article/?id=75

    The dragging out is getting laughable. I can actually feel some sympathy for paps under most circumstances, but the Vaughns lost my sympathy a long time ago. There is no way the USSC would ever grant cert. (and what the hell is NOW supposed to so about?) Ben followed Ohio law exactly He filed timely with the PFR and filed a paternity claim within the law.

    I was tempted to "like" the Vaughn's FB page to post this, but decided against it since they'd probably remove it.

    I feel a Lifetime movie coming. And no doubt the talk show circuit. And, lots of prayers and support from the "orphan care" crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was relinquished without my father's consent. As a minor in the 70's, he had no recourse. He did not even know I had been placed for adoption until days after my birth. His name was intentionally left off my OBC. I have been told that at some point in the 80's, my paternal grandmother hired PI's to try and find me.
    Now as the mother of sons, I can not tell you how important father's rights are to me. The thought that this atrocity could be done to a future grandchild of mine is stomach turning.
    My hope is that this little boy is returned to his father permanently very soon and that this case makes a lasting impact on adoption and the rights of all fathers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just a head's up on a few of those organizations. ACLU and NOW won't help them at all. In fact, I am one of those women who has watched her own children go through parental alienation. My ex is doing everything he can to alienate our children from me. NOW and the ACLU won't help me. I got better luck with another group that is involved in parental alienation research. More and more women if not just as many women are going through this as men.

    Most people don't want to be involved with a group of people where they don't know who to believe. Trust me, I have watched that happen to me. I have lost friends along the way. Many of these people have spoken with me on the phone where they have heard him cussing my daughters and I out over the phone. My ex admitted to being abusive to all of us. He admitted to drinking way too much. He also admitted to cheating. He would love it if I were to die or if I would just go away. I am not going away. I am standing up and fighting back. Blogging is the only way I know how.

    What these adoptive parents are doing is parental alienation which is still an unrecognized form of child abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. OK, I'm posting here a lot today, but I just had to share this gem that showed up a little while ago on the Keeping Grayson FB page> This may be my biggest WTF moment in this so far!

    From FB:

    Being here and now, the question should be 'What is in the best interest of this child?'. How it got to this point is irrelevant now. This innocent child is about to become a victim of our judicial system. People are not... 'property' and should not be treated as such. His spirit will be broken and he will forever suffer the emotional consequences of Reactive Attachment Disorder. Again, the question today (as it always should be) is: What is in the best interest of the child?' Period.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My son was adopted not only without his father's consent, but against his express wishes. He went to court, this was 1984, to fight the adoption. It's all so screwed up. It makes me crazy that it happened back then, and it makes me crazier that it still happens now. Give the boy to his father already!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I screwed my daughter's father out of his rights. Not intentionally, but I definitely was the cause. I bought the lie "if you name him as the father you won't get any assistance..." and the truth was so far from that it scares me - If I had named him, since he turned 18 just four days before she was born, he would have been the custodial parent!

    His rights were run over and smashed for someone else's greed....worse, her human right's were smashed because of the same greed...

    Nothing like a pretty, intelligent, drug free, alcohol free baby to draw out the greedy wannabe moms and dads...them and their dirty money.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "ripped from the only family he has ever known"..don't suppose he was ripped from his mother or father though?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Best interests of a child is often confused and lost in the judicial system. It is all about the pettiness of those entitled to children. My ex is one of those. All these types of folks do is hurt children further.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have hit 'Like' on that FB site and have left a few comments. So far I have not been 'banned', as has been my recent experience when speaking out on other FB forums in regards to adoption..most notably me a *birthmother* being banned from *birthmother* sites! Talk about WTF!! I had to leave comments on that Keep Grayson Home FB site...the craziness was just too much for me and had to have my say. Of course it was not appreciated...tough shite...for them!! That is the most insane place I have ever read or commented on...the God crap is totally extreme and the rationalizations/justifications as to why the Vaughns are the 'real' parents is just plain NUTS!! One stupid, ignorant woman...even said that the *birthmother* had regained her parental rights to "Grayson" because the adoption was not finalized...and this woman wrote that with much conviction. The majority of the people there are absolutely clueless when it comes to law. So much so I find it disturbing..that so many can write this type of gibberish, when actually they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. Talk about WTF! moments...that site is overloaded with them!
    Hopefully this will all soon be over and this little boy and his dad can get on with their lives..as father and son, in the best way possible.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Some of us didn't give our babies up for adoption, THEY WERE STOLEN FROM US.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am torn when I come to this page, because admittedly it has opened my eyes to a whole side of adoption, that as an adoptee, I never took the time to think about. As an adoptee, I was raised by a wonderul and loving family, of whom spoke very highly of my biological mother. Admittedly, before I began following the Grayson Vaughn story, I had never considered contacting my biological mother. I just felt like I wasn't ready for that Pandora's box, and I didn't have a yearning to find her. I wished her well, and if I could let her know that I was doing wonderful, without engaging in a relationship - I would. I just don't have this burning need to go down that path. I can appreciate the comments, passion and anger that many of the birth mothers feel. What I find hard, is that in a time, regardless of how it happened, many of your children were taken in by parents that immediately loved them - the way you would hope they would, if they couldn't be cared for by you. They loved them as their own, and disregarded the lack of biology. I know that is the way that I always felt. And so this too is what Christy and Jason Vaughn seem to have done. They loved this little boy immediately and without reservation - and so doesn't it make sense then why they are doing everything they can to keep him? I am not arguing here about the legalities of this - but I am do find it frustrating that it seems so many of the birth mothers on this page want it all ways - have been able to give their child a home that for one reason or another they didn't feel they could provide, yet also show such hatred and anomosity for this family. Just like your emotions when you gave your children up, probably outweighed logic, I would imagine that same is happening for the Keeping Grayson home community. If the entire world ran on logic and not on emotion - wouldn't it be a different?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rachel: I hope you will go back and read the previous posts about the Wyrembek/Vaughn custody case posted at firstmother.

    The father, from another state, began establishing paternity rights two weeks after the boy was born, and the Vaughns apparently never once considered that the boy in their home was another man's son who wanted to raise him.

    I do have a great deal of empathy for many adoptive parents, including the ones in my own life, those who adopted my daughter, and then the parents of the daughter she gave up for adoption--I am in contact with all of them--but I have no sympathy for people who keep another's child over his or her objections. The Vaughns could have returned the boy within weeks, but decided to keep him. That is nothing more than legalized kidnapping, and that is what the Vaughns are guilty of.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rachel, I was also adopted by a loving family and we are very close. One thing I know about them especially is that they would not have adopted me or my brother without our biological parent's permission. You see, SOME adoptive parents are ethical, honest, Christian and law abiding. I am very sorry for children who are adopted by a criminal element of society.These cases should come with more penalties IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Robin Sax's article is horrible. She has another article here: http://www.momlogic.com/2010/10/baby_vaughn_failed_adoptions_and_false_choices.php the replies sadly seem to be split 50/50 unless some people are using two names. I don't know why anyone publishes her nonsense... but there you have it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rachel,

    My parents would NEVER have gone through with my adoption if it was not moral or ethical...that is the key to stories like this...ethics and morals were NOT part of the process which has been proven for 3 years now.

    As an adoptee - I feel very deeply that "adoptees" must speak up and denounce people who bypass ethics and morals in adoption...who else will if we don't. I'm butchering the saying that says something like "all it takes for corruption is for good men to do nothing" really says it all.

    Adoption has to be ethical, moral, and transparent - or it should never happen.

    ReplyDelete
  18. ""I can appreciate the comments, passion and anger that many of the birth mothers feel. What I find hard, is that in a time, regardless of how it happened, many of your children were taken in by parents that immediately loved them - the way you would hope they would, if they couldn't be cared for by you. They loved them as their own, and disregarded the lack of biology.""

    And many adopted children were not. Quite a few aparents have "disregarded" the mothers of their adopted children thru out their lives, right into some of their reunions. Adoption does not automatically guarantee any adopted child a better life or a more loved life...only a different life.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As an adoptee, I got a different life. What I did not get was more love or more stability. I would have preferred my original life. I feel like I lived the wrong life in the wrong city, in the wrong state, with the wrong family, under the wrong name. But the MYTH behind adoption is that the child will get a "better" life.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I can appreciate the comments, passion and anger that many of the birth mothers feel. What I find hard, is that in a time, regardless of how it happened, many of your children were taken in by parents that immediately loved them - the way you would hope they would, if they couldn't be cared for by you. They loved them as their own, and disregarded the lack of biology."

    *sigh* MOTHERS. Women who give birth to their own children are not a convenient function. You do realize the term you used is offensive and derogatory to natural mothers? Have you ever once heard someone refer to their children as *birth* children? How ridiculous.

    There are so many things that are wrong about your statement.

    Yes, they do disregard biology. And the TRUTH. They disregard it to the point of severe denial. Are we meant to express gratitude for individuals who took our children they knew were loved and wanted? Are our children also expected to show forever gratitude for having been "saved"?

    'They loved them (as if) their own'? Loving a person doesn't include falsifying their identity and stripping them of their rightful heritage. Loving someone doesn't mean taking them from their true family and making them live a lie. Loving someone certainly doesn't mean ignoring their true identity and doing everything they can to change reality. If adopters did love those children they obtain, they would love and respect them for who they are.

    However, and sadly, adopters require something in return for all their hard-spent cash. And they feel entitled to make another person live their lie - to suit their needs. Why is it adopters believe the only way to care for a child is to destroy their relationship with their natural family and claim them 'as if' their own?

    What about guardianship? If these individuals are so concerned with helping children in need, why not provide the support and care a child needs without violating their rights? Oh, but guardianship would mean they are doing what is best for the CHILD. Guardianship would force paps and adopters to acknowledge that NO, you are NOT that child’s mother/father, and YES, the child’s needs are paramount to your desires. NO, you cannot FORCE a child to pretend that you are her/his mother or father. And yes, you do have to acknowledge and accept that that child has a mother and father and are a vital part of their life. And RESPECT them and their family.

    The fact is mothers and fathers who lost their children to adoption weren't *allowed* to love their children. Our children were taken and "open" adoptions were slammed shut in order for the adopters to claim to be something they are not. And our children were made to live that lie. That isn't love. It's selfish and deplorable.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am with Lissa.

    Rachel, I don't understand why you think mothers want it both ways? The majority of mothers who lost, yes LOST their children to adoption didn't do willingly. It wasn't like their were many options available to women in a certain day and age plus the fact it was the expected thing to do. The damage that has been done is extensive to both mother and child.

    Most mothers and adoptees who are against the Vaughns are against the hypocrisy of the situation. What they have done to the father of this child is sheer criminal. When has it ever been legal to just take another father's child? Even in mariage it is a crime to kidnap your own child from your spouse regardless of relationship and yet, why it is seen as okay in this instance? Regardless of your feelings for your own mother, this situation is wrong. Adoption or no adoption, this child was never placed for adoption by his daddy and therefore the adoption could never have been valid so I don't get why or how anyone could be fighting him? The sheer luncay of these people to hold onto a child AFTER a court has directed them to retunr this child to his father shows they don't care about the little boy AT ALL. If they did, they would have released him years ago and would not be holding onto him like a possession.

    Stranger who fight mothers and/or fathers for their children are no better than criminals. Kidnapping is illegal, so should this be as it is the same thing except just using the law to manipulate things. Just imagine if kidnapers started doing that... the outcry would be huge. To remove a chid from his/her parents when EITHER parent is unwilling is a crime. End of story, regardless of the law. The law sadly has no moral code and is not based on ethics in many cases but loopholes and ways to manipulate rules so someone get what they want or get away with doing something they know they shouldn't have done in the first place. The law allows murderers, rapists, child abusers to walk free all the time. It doesn't care about families. And that is adoption. Just a law, not a natural bond.

    This little boy deserves to have his natural rights protected and one of those rights is to grow up with his natural family as was meant to be.

    This whole case is sickening.

    ReplyDelete

BOTH JANE AND LORRAINE WILL BE AWAY FROM COMPUTERS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS IN EARLY AUGUST. PLEASE BE PATIENT.

We welcome comments from all, and appreciate letting us know how you relate to adoption when you leave your first comment.


COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. Our blog, our decision whether to publish or not. We are trying to find a way to end the endless anonymous comments, which drive many of us crazy. Pick a name! Any name. Choose the NAME/URL selection. You do not need a URL. Your name does not have to be your name IRL though we appreciate those who do, and we understand due to the sensitive nature of our subject, many will prefer to use a nom de plume. Okay with us, but the endless Anons are tiresome for everyone. If you post as "anonymous" you run the risk of not being posted.

We try to be timely but we do have other lives.

For those coming here from Networked Blogs on Facebook, if it does not allow you to make a comment, click the "x" on the gray "Networked Blogs" tool bar to exit out of that frame and it should then let you comment.