' [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Adopted...Looking to find birth/natural mother

DNA NEWS

You may transfer your raw DNA to FTDNA from either 23andme or ancestry.com FREE by going to https://tinyurl.com/z5art2s in the skinny search window at the very top of your browser screen.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Adopted...Looking to find birth/natural mother

The singer looking for his natural mother. It's Sunday, I've been working...like a dog and adoptive parent Frank Ligtvoet sent me this video.  I hope messages like this keep making it possible for adoptive parents and adoptees and natural mothers to look upon adoption/reunion in a different way.

Enjoy.

24 comments :

  1. Have you seen the news out of Nebraska? A child was returned to his birth parents because the Supreme Court ruled since "open adoption contracts" are not legally enforced and that means they are illegal and parental rights can't be terminated under those circumstances! The court finally got it right! The judge ruled the birth parents retain some parental rights since you can't give your child up for adoption and retain the right to see them. It's quite a victory for children! I'm sure adoption agency all over the country are quacking in their boots. The judge said until the law decides to regulate and enforce open adoption contracts they are invalid in a court of law!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evidently this started as a surrogate mother case: "Friends Teresa and Monty Sellers felt sorry for Rebecca Wissmann and discussed the possibility that Teresa might serve as a surrogate, court documents say. Both sides agreed the adoption would be open and the Sellerses would remain a part of the baby's life." It is not clear whose sperm and eggs were used, but this conception was planned as a surrogate birth, not just a regular adoption.

      From the article I found about this case, the ruling could also outlaw all open adoption arrangements in the future in Nebraska, not necessarily make them enforceable. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on other states and other open adoptions.

      In any event, this was not a predatory situation where an innocent young single mother was tricked into open adoption, but a gesture by one adult couple to their infertile friends that went sour. At least the baby is still young and had a lot of contact with the birth family so there will be minimum upset for the child. We need to hear more about this ruling and what it means in the larger picture. I think it a stretch seeing it as a "victory for children."

      As to video with the young singer, he seems like a very nice young man with a great voice and I do hope he finds his natural mother, and that this appearance helps. Pleasant that it was all handled so normally too by the judges.

      Delete
    2. Rose Still a RoseJune 1, 2015 at 2:14 PM

      Surprise, surprise, surprise, another "open" adoption gone sour. I believe we have only just begun to see the future reality of the open adoption guise and scams. It's just a cover for adopters to ultimately "get" the child, and it's being played out quite frequently all over the country. I am thrilled for the reunification of this child with his real family. I absolutely see it as a victory for children!

      Maryanne, you don't see this as a victory for children who are reunited with their natural families? And you're a first mother, right? (Scratching my head). Hopefully, more judges and states will begin to follow suit and will recognize the coercion involved in this hideous industry that destroys one family in order to create a new family, which displaces children like pawns. It is in the best interests of the child to stay with his natural parents if at all possible. (Assuming there aren't any safety or risk factors involved)

      Adopters need to stop trying to take (steal) other women's children. It must stop. Adopters need to get over their infertility issues and instead adopt a newborn kitten or puppy or just accept their pitiful lot in life and see a shrink to help them with their mental issues. (Wanting to buy or take someone else's newborn is a mental illness problem and is not normal or natural.) This baby selling/taking needs to end.

      This story is just another case of adopters who feel entitled to take someone else's child. Once they got the child, it wasn't good enough. They wanted exclusive rights. What in the heck makes these people think they are so entitled? This couple needs to focus on doting on Mr. Wissmann's 12-year-old daughter, and his new wife probably should see a shrink for her poor infertility problems.

      Delete
    3. No, I do not see this as a" victory for children." No children win with this decision. I do not know enough about the people involved in this case to make that judgement, and cannot see it as victory for the one child in this case, as he was conceived with the intent of giving him to another couple. He only existed to be given away, and was not stolen from anyone. I question the motives of all the adults involved in this situation. The alternative to open adoption is closed sealed record adoption, not "no adoption", and that is not a win for anyone. In some narrow sense it is a win for the natural parents in this case, not for their child nor for any other children.

      Yes, I am a reunited natural mother, but I believe that ethical open adoption (yes, there is such a thing) is better than closed adoption, in those cases where adoption is the lesser evil and the choice is not coerced. Not all adoption is baby selling, stealing, or stalking. You may see it that way, but it is not a realistic view. Such broad generalizations are never helpful to get others to see the true abuses in adoption that we are trying to fight.

      The one good thing out of this ruling is that it makes it clear that open adoption agreements are generally not legally enforceable, which is something any mother entering into one of these agreements needs to know and often is not told. If it leads to enforceable agreements, that is a good thing, but if it leads to open adoption being outlawed and only closed adoptions allowed, that is a step backward, not a good thing.

      Delete
    4. Maryanne's right, you know, Rose Still a Rose. Think about it. Don't just knee jerk.

      Delete
    5. You have open adoption, closed adoption and "just" adoption, with either fine tuned contact rules "contact to remain as is..." or no contact rules at all. Even if your prediction that closed adoption will be the only alternative, that still will mean that the child traders will have lost part of their bags of tricks, and thus increasing the probability of alternatives to child abandonment for adoption, just looking on the bright side of life.

      Delete
    6. What child traders? These 4 people cooked this idea up all by themselves and then made a complete mess of things by not agreeing on the terms of the open adoption.

      Delete
    7. Those who make, if not a profit, still a living from adoption. One can speculate about the importance of cases for the development of case law, that makes individual cases really important and not just mere curiosities.

      Delete
    8. Theodore, as far as the "making a living from adoption" aspect of this case goes, it was a not an agency adoption. It was a private adoption, cooked up by four adults. The only person who would have got any financial gain from it would have been the lawyer who finalized it.

      Delete
    9. Nobody made a living nor profit from adoption in this case, There is no reason to assume that money even changed hands nor that any sort of facilitator was involved.It seems these two couples set this up entirely on their own. We do not know all the facts, only what was reported in the media, and that is often inaccurate. Yes, we can speculate how this will affect case law around open adoption, but it is too early for those who want adoption abolished such as yourself to break out the champagne and celebrate.

      We all want adoption providers to lose their "bag of tricks" and deal honestly and ethically with pregnant mothers as well as prospective adoptive parents. We all know that too many of them do not. Open adoption should never be a trick and legal agreements should be enforceable. But open adoption is not in and of itself a trick, and works for some people. It is the abuse that is bad, not the concept of open adoption when done right.

      But it seems that you want something different, no adoption ever, due to your unfortunate family situation of your grandmother surrendering your mother to a relative and not acknowledging her. At least that is what I have gleaned from your convoluted explanations here of how you relate to adoption.

      Delete
    10. Theodore, I could be wrong but as far as I know FMF approves of "turkey-baster" surrogacy where, between friends, a woman agrees to carry a baby to term for another couple. I don't see this case as any different, except all went south after the birth of the child because the adults couldn't work it out.

      In reading the link supplied by Maryanne below, my feeling was that if this pushes open adoption agreements into the legal arena and they become legally binding, this could be a good thing,

      Delete
  2. Here is one of what I am sure will be many articles about this case:
    http://www.omaha.com/news/nebraska/judges-side-with-birth-parents-in-custody-dispute-saying-nebraska/article_4cc5d065-b131-5da4-80af-72bc225fc5a1.html?mode=jqm

    ReplyDelete
  3. They were reunited - article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2220767/X-Factor-USA-contestant-David-Correy-finds-birth-mother-show.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Correy has a great voice. So glad he and his original mom have found each other.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Beautiful voice but the beautiful thing is they have found each other....
    Incredible feeling being reunited with my son!

    ReplyDelete
  6. So lovely that David found his natural mom, and especially amazing as it was an international adoption. It can happen! It seems to be an old story, from 2012, but a good one. I hope David has had continued success in his career and in his reunion with his Mom in Brazil.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I disagree with Maryanne completely. I think this situation was as predatory as any open adoption lie. The birth parents were duped into believing it would be an arrangement where they would have a large part of their child's life. The adoptive parents agreed to this as most do to get their hands on baby. Once they had the baby they tried to close the adoption. There have been other cases where the judge ruled in the opposite way and the child remained with the adoptive family. I think this is a huge step forward in exposing the "open" adoption lie and protecting children. In this day and age I think women/birth parents would be much more likely to find a way to keep their baby than adopt them out in a closed adoption. I think "no adoption" IS more likely if fake "open" adoption are off the table. It doesn't matter if the child was created to be given away before conception occurred or after conception occurred, this case applies to both scenarios. It does an excellent job of highlighting the fact open adoptions are not legally enforceable as well and that can be nothing but positive. I honestly don't see how open adoptions as they stand are any better than traditional closed adoptions. An open adoption can legally become a closed adoption as soon as the birth parents parental rights are terminated so it's just a tool to coerce people into giving up a child thinking they will still be able to watch their child grow and be a part of their life. In a way open adoptions have the potential to be even more cruel!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The birth parents were duped into believing it would be an arrangement where they would have a large part of their child's life."

      Rain Clair, you seem to think these people are total victims. They are not. And they aren't "birth parents" either, except in the sense that they created the child.
      Their situation is not comparable to that of a woman struggling under pressure because of an unexpected pregnancy. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but to me and others it *does* matter that ths child was created to be given away.
      I think the judge made the only reasonable decision possible in this case, but this wretched couple bear a lot of the responsibilty for the mess they got themselves and their child into. At least as much as the other couple, in my opinion. Stupidity doesn't let any of them off the hook. The only victim here was the child.



      Delete
  8. A situation is not predatory if all parties, the adults, bio parents and adoptive parents, agreed to it before the child was even conceived. Nobody duped anyone here, this is more like a messy divorce custody fight than a coerced adoption. No child was protected by this case, he was torn between two sets of parents who both sound shady, and who knows what kind of life he will have? I do not see that child as better off with either of these sets of parents. Just a sad situation. It remains to be seen what impact this case will have on other open adoptions, good or ill.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hmmm, anonymous, I hear people say everything you just said about women who give their children up for adoption...they aren't victims, they made a mess, stupidity doesn't let them off the hook. Everything you said and more is said about birth mothers. Also, I'm not seeing the difference between a child being conceived to be given away and a child being conceived and then before they are even born being promised to another couple. This couple thought they were giving a wonderful gift just like birth mothers are told they are doing. This couple had an agreement to remain in the child's life in an open adoption and thought it would be honored only to find out it was not legally enforceable just like many birth mothers find out the hard way. Also, It's not as if adoption is the only option a woman struggling with an unwanted pregnancy faces. She could have an abortion. If she chooses to keep the fetus and allow it to develop into a baby instead she IS creating a child to be giving away.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rain Clair, some of us would never have an abortion because we believe it would be killing our child. Some of us feel that way for ourselves, but would not presume to choose for others who feel differently. I did not create a child to be given away. I got pregnant out of ignorance and love, I thought my boyfriend would marry me, when he did not I fell apart, developed severe post partum depression which led to the surrender of my child. In no way was he "created to be given way.". Speak for yourself here if you are a natural mother, but don't speak for me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maryanne, every one has a different story. I'm sure it was a very difficult and confusing time for you. I was in a similar situation to you in my teens. I met with an adoption agency and they even found a family who was very interested in adopting my baby through a semi open adoption. Ultimately I had an abortion instead. It was very difficult. I cried, before, during and after the procedure. However, I felt it was the best choice for myself and the baby I was carrying. I then had to lie and tell the adoption agency and the father I had miscarried because they were all staunchly prochoice. He didn't want to father the baby or support me though and adoption was not something I realized I could do. Now, What brought me to this blog initially was my husband and I had to do IVF to conceive or son. Now we have 9 frozen embryos, 6 girls and 3 boys, and we were struggling with what to do with them. We were seriously considering donating them to an infertile couple and I wanted to get feedback from the natural mothers and adoptees here about that choice. The feedback I got here convinced me not to donate/place the embryos with another family. It's just as emotional of a choice for me as my struggle to decide what to do with my unplanned pregnancy as a teen was. I've shed many tears over the embryos I created as well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Of course, that should have said "staunchly prolife". Interestingly, 15 years after the fact, the father tracked me down. I hadn't spoken with him since I told him I miscarried. He found me to tell me how sorry he was for everything he had put me through. He had married and had two little boys and realized how much of a jerk he had been for trying to force me into giving our baby up for adoption. I told him everything I had ever wanted to say, I ranted, I cried and I told him the truth that I had aborted under the pressure of having to chose between adoption and raising a baby alone at 18 years old. I told him I alone had to live with that pain all these years. He cried too and told me he wished he could do something to make up for all he had done wrong. I told him there was, he could raise his sons to be better men than he had been and make sure they would never abandon their girlfriend should they ever find themselves in the same situation. He promised he would make sure they didn't make the same mistakes. It was a completely unexpected exchange and one I never thought I would have in this lifetime. It went far to heal some very old wounds. I hope he keeps his promise.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As the bio mom in this case I just want to say thank you to those in support of our victory. There are many layers to this story, but yes we are bio parents and not surrogate. You can read my blog at: http://moandtsellers.tumblr.com/post/114873942542/nerves-hope-and-prayers-pt-1

    ReplyDelete

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. Anonymous comments from the same individual are more likely to be NOT POSTED. Select the NAME/URL selection, add a name. You do not need a URL. Fine to use a nom de plume.

COMMENTS AT POSTS OVER 30 DAYS OLD LESS LIKELY TO BE PUBLISHED.

We aim 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.

We are unlikely to post comments that consist of nothing more than a link and the admonition to go there.