tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post1950693886935927643..comments2024-03-27T20:48:39.389-04:00Comments on [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: Mandated counseling for mothers-to-beLorraine Duskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285341379272250245noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-17805027549211045322015-04-17T14:12:03.522-04:002015-04-17T14:12:03.522-04:00Anon,
DC adoption laws are created by the District...Anon,<br />DC adoption laws are created by the District government just as state adoption laws are created by state legislators. The first step in adoption reform is to become knowledgeable on the laws. You can find the DC adoption laws at the Child Welfare Information Gateway, https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/state/?hasBeenRedirected=1.<br /><br />If you have a lawyer friend, ask him/her to help you understand the laws. You can probably figure them out on your own, though. Because you don't live in DC, there is little you can do on your own. You need to work with someone in DC who can contact a member of the DC Council to begin working on reform. There may be a group working on reform in DC. Do any of our readers know?Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-70329671420260110992015-04-17T07:26:01.863-04:002015-04-17T07:26:01.863-04:00Jane, do you have advice on how one could begin to...Jane, do you have advice on how one could begin to take up this issue for adoptions closed in Washington DC, which is a "court order" place? I would like to be an advocate, but I am not from there and have no connection there and don't understand whether the smallness and non-state aspect of the area makes it easier or more difficult. I believe they recently legalized weed. Priorities ???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-79971220234870151222015-04-16T07:00:34.822-04:002015-04-16T07:00:34.822-04:00Thanks for clarifying that, Jane. So it was a choi...Thanks for clarifying that, Jane. So it was a choice to just amend existing law in order to get something passed now. Hopefully a real adoptee rights law will be passed in the future. Eventually states will start dropping one by one, like gay marriage.As you say, the majority of people support adoptee rights or do not care one way or the other. It is just the special interest groups who get in the way.maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-72500437785160377172015-04-15T12:55:51.899-04:002015-04-15T12:55:51.899-04:00A law can be changed wholesale. Legislators are no...A law can be changed wholesale. Legislators are not bound by past laws. The practicality is that legislators don't like wholesale changes, too much political risk. It's much easier to get a bill passed if you can argue that it just fixes a small inequity than if it does a 180. <br /><br />"Legacy" law may be a phrase used in Montana to describe the reluctance to make big changes but I doubt that it has any legal authority. The Montana legislators like those i many states are likely part-time, employed as farmers, shop owners, lawyers, doctors, salespeople, and so on. Adoption reform is not on their agenda when they run for office. They're focused on jobs, taxes, education, crime, and so on. When an issue comes before them, they try to listen to both sides and carve a path down the middle. There's an old saying -- two things you don't want to see made are laws and sausage, When a bill comes out, it has a bit of everything.<br /><br />When legislators are unwilling to compromise, nothing gets done. We see this in Congress. The Oregon law was changed by ballot measure. Voters are not afraid of big changes. <br /><br />I suspect that the Montana law will be re-visited in a few years and improved. In the meantime, it's better than it was.Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-1395979914179183512015-04-15T06:06:39.165-04:002015-04-15T06:06:39.165-04:00I am learning more and more about my deep ignoranc...I am learning more and more about my deep ignorance of how the law works. I had thought that no matter what law formerly existed, it could be replaced with a whole new law when times changed. Wasn't that what happened in Oregon, New Hampshire, other early open records states? The law formerly stated that the records were sealed forever unless the adoptee got a court order which in reality was seldom granted. The new law said the adoptee could get his or her records at age 18. Whatever the former law said no longer held true. Even here in NJ we were able to pull a bill once that got horribly amended, and start over with a new bill the next year. The people working on NJ law at the end did compromise in order to finally get a bill passed after 30 years, but it was nothing as confusing as the current Montana law.<br /><br />I was told there was something called a legacy law in Montana which meant not much could be changed because of what the law previously said. OK, then how can anyone go back and demand a clean law in several years? If they could not do it now because of the legacy law, how can they do it in several years? There was mention of some law proposed by AAC and Fred Greenman in 97. If that set up the 30 year waiting period originally, what were they thinking and are they really for adoptee rights?<br /><br /> Thanks for asking, Cindy, it is comforting to know I am not the only one confused by all this.maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-4502628767631824342015-04-14T23:47:30.991-04:002015-04-14T23:47:30.991-04:00Those adopted between 1985 and 1997 are not exclud...Those adopted between 1985 and 1997 are not excluded entirely. They can get their records when they turn 30. <br /><br />It doesn't make any sense but to understand why the law ended up this way, you'd have to understand the history, the laws that preceded this one. There's an old saying in law: A page of history is worth a volume of logic. I imagine that in several years, advocates will go to the legislature and demand a clean law -- every adoptee gets their OBC at age 18, no first mother vetoes. In the meantime they took what they could get which is more than adoptees get in most states.Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-17772614761848545332015-04-14T22:49:35.265-04:002015-04-14T22:49:35.265-04:00I can't understand the 12 year period of exclu...I can't understand the 12 year period of exclusion to records except by court order for Oct. 1 1985 to Oct 1 1997 adoptees. Why are these adoptees being excluded and, quite frankly, tormented? cindy aulabaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-32628003454932584612015-04-14T20:23:23.291-04:002015-04-14T20:23:23.291-04:00I hear that is was "the best that could be do...I hear that is was "the best that could be done given the situation at hand". But it is still a compromise. It remains about favors, not rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-2644411223103437682015-04-14T20:06:33.585-04:002015-04-14T20:06:33.585-04:00Thanks Beth,
This is what I had originality. But ...Thanks Beth,<br />This is what I had originality. But after maryanne's comment I thought I had better back away so as not to mislead anybody. <br /><br />Again I congratulate you on getting the bill through.<br /><br />maryanne, it's not so much reading legalese as knowing the history--what the law was before the new law was passed. Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-30587978196455015742015-04-14T15:05:12.385-04:002015-04-14T15:05:12.385-04:00Beth wrote: ". I think your inability to unde... Beth wrote: ". I think your inability to understand legalese is not a good reflection of the actual law." That's right,I SAID I did not understand it. Thank you for the corrections and explanations. Now that I know what the complicated law is about I still do not find it a true adoptee rights law. I did read the explanation at your site, it still took me a while to figure out who could get what when. But then I am old and slow.<br />Sorry. I know you worked very hard for this, but I am an old-school adoptee rights person and this is at best partial adoptee rights for some adoptees who fit some conditions. It is good for those it is good for, insulting to others, but call it what it is. It is not an open records law and adoptee rights have not been restored in Montana, even if some things are a little better for some. People's opinions on this differ, and I can get the concept that something is better than nothing, and things can be fixed by increments. I am cynical enough to disagree, but I may well be wrong. It won't be the first time:-)maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-1505562846488906942015-04-14T12:12:43.843-04:002015-04-14T12:12:43.843-04:00No you are incorrect. People whose adoptions were ...No you are incorrect. People whose adoptions were finalized on or before 9/30/97 have unrestricted access at the age of 30. So adoptees your age are not SOL - in fact they weren't even banned from their OBCs. It was a partial access state. People adopted between July '67 and Sept '97 were never going to have access without a court order and the courts weren't giving those out. This bill removed that restriction. Yes they have to wait until they are 30, but that was the best that could be done given the situation at hand. They have no other restricitions or conditions to meet. They get the same price as non-adopted people. They have the same process and no additional waiting periods and nobody playing a role in their potential reunion unless they want that. I think your inability to understand legalese is not a good reflection of the actual law. I'm not a big legalese person either. That is why I took the time to write a long explanation at http://www.adoptionmandala.org/Bill%20SummaryAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134834475044652857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-33824607227574422712015-04-13T18:30:51.916-04:002015-04-13T18:30:51.916-04:00Your story intrigues me, Scott. Do you mind sharin...Your story intrigues me, Scott. Do you mind sharing more? We don't hear from a lot of first fathers.Robinhttp://www.allinthefamilyadoption.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-4449529464897672062015-04-13T14:28:26.276-04:002015-04-13T14:28:26.276-04:00Thank you Jane for calling this bill to attention....Thank you Jane for calling this bill to attention. I am pleased at the responses. Sadness & trauma continue in the arena adoption. First hand accounts are so vital. I would have loved to have been proved the father of my baby, been on her certificate, or had the mamma been able to find me stop this madness adoption. I just hate laws that are so compromised they are doomed to fail people's needs, then later used to justify what people believe is already happening that counseling is mandatory. Well the points have been covered, but its sad its harder to change a law then it is to make one. I wish this law was aimed at the parties intended, I see how you feel this a win (sigh)(not really for mothers & babies) and have to respect your history & your will to fight these draconian practises.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06100607223784688345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-76290227363379888522015-04-13T12:25:33.656-04:002015-04-13T12:25:33.656-04:00The birth certificate is available to persons adop...The birth certificate is available to persons adopted 30 or more years ago and to adoptees born after 10/1/97 subject to a first mother veto. Not a perfect bill but I put it in the "win" column because it's better than nothing which is what adoptee get in big population states--California, New York, Texas, Florida--,and the majority of other states.<br /><br />We've seen in Ohio and Colorado that these law which separate adoptees depending on their date of birth eventually do get fixed. <br /><br />Until the adoption reform community succeeds in changing the narrative that mothers were promised confidentiality, we are going to see more of these bastard laws. Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-13312839576819558252015-04-13T08:04:54.692-04:002015-04-13T08:04:54.692-04:00It does not sound like it, near as I can figure fr...It does not sound like it, near as I can figure from reading this confusing bill. maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-25855353554982973342015-04-13T07:52:49.684-04:002015-04-13T07:52:49.684-04:00Which of course is what we all did, dumped our kid...Which of course is what we all did, dumped our kids....NOT.... you might want to think about what you are writing and where you are writing it Marley. Unless you just wanted to be offensive and if that was the case you succeeded.K.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-90608971855154628442015-04-13T07:12:46.790-04:002015-04-13T07:12:46.790-04:00Here is a link to the actual Montana bill, and if ...Here is a link to the actual Montana bill, and if you can figure out which adoptee can get what information when, you are a smarter person than me! I do think it a stretch to call this convoluted document an Open Records or Access to OBC law. I I wrong in reading that some adoptees, no matter what their age now, must wait 30 more years to get their OBC? An adoptee my age would be SOL.<br /><br />https://legiscan.com/MT/text/HB397/2015<br />maryannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-29993465371940197742015-04-13T00:11:19.565-04:002015-04-13T00:11:19.565-04:00I agree with Maryanne. There needs to be others in...I agree with Maryanne. There needs to be others involved in the counseling ''without a horse in the race''. <br /><br />This 'law' leaves this mother feeling very leery and suspicious of the real motives behind it. Is it just something to pull out of the closet later and say, "well your (birth) mother had counseling. It was ''mandated'' by law. There are so many ways to ''obey the letter'' and completely get around the aspect of -fair and impartial- counseling. All they have to do is lean on the potential negatives of parenting (as they do now) and presto, counseling was done and it's a done deal. ... too bad for you mommy. <br /><br />Point number 2 of this law says, --- "Counseling MUST be performed by a person EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT or by a staff person of a licensed CHILD- PLACING agency **designated** to provide this type of counseling." -------- EEK! HULLO. Can anybody say, ''same old stuff and severe conflict of interest'?? Then they really cover the bases and say that this --"counseling requirement can be waived for GOOD CAUSE by a court"-- and many of us know that ''good cause'' can be something as insignificant as -someone blinked-. This is in no way a good thing.<br /><br />NOPE. I don't like this ''law'' as it is written. I do not like it or trust it to be in any way beneficial for the best outcome for mother and child. They want to make counseling beneficial.. have an adoptee or two, one who 'likes' being adopted and one who is struggling with having been adopted, and a natural mother and father..with at least 15-20 years of dealing with adoption/ loss behind them. They should all be present for the counseling with the mother... Then maybe I could call it counseling. No one with infertility issues should be allowed to provide counseling to an expectant mother without others present. It presents a bias... there is an empathy for themselves or others who may be desiring a child through adoption. This is not said to 'be cruel'. You don't have someone who does not know pregnancy and motherhood and all the emotions and feelings that go with it, nor have one who may be desiring or has 'received' a child through adoption, nor should you have someone who will receive a huge payment through the sale of a child (money needs to be completely removed from adoption) to provide counseling to a mother about her and her unborn child's life and future**. It simply should not be done. <br /><br />3 hours of counseling.... really. You spend more time considering what refrigerator or washing machine to buy than 3 hours. I feel sorry for any one who thinks 3 hours of biased counseling is ''reasonable'' for a consideration that will impact the many people involved for the **REST OF THEIR LIVES**.cindy aulabaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-50196102323075041952015-04-12T16:59:59.677-04:002015-04-12T16:59:59.677-04:00I have to object to the characterization of the &#...I have to object to the characterization of the 'safe haven' laws. These laws were put in place as a response to what was already happening....women who didn't choose any of the three choices available to them abortion, adoption or raising their child. Instead they had the child and disposed of the child like trash often because of fear and shame. Knowing a safe haven law is in effect isn't going to make a woman get pregnant with the sole purpose of delivering it herself then dropping it off at a police station. The safe haven laws did not create the problem of abandoned babies, that's a problem older than recorded history. Just look at all the oral tales of foundlings and babies found on doorsteps. It's a response in the hope that if the mother doesn't get prenatal care, if she doesn't deliver under the supervision of a doctor or midwife, if she does not want her child (through fear, shame, hormones, whatever) that the child at least has a chance if she can remember the 'safe haven'. It beats 'disposing' of the child in a toilet, a dumpster or on the side of the road, don't you think?Mashkanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-31418308864508657142015-04-12T15:57:11.482-04:002015-04-12T15:57:11.482-04:00An independent and impariial source for counseling...An independent and impariial source for counseling is something we could all agree on. The problem is first, who would pay this counselor? Obviously not the expectant mother. If it's the PAPS, then the counselor has the same conflict of interest. I'm sure paying adoption counselors would not be high on government's budget priorities. "Gee, Gov. Christie, would you include in your budget funds to pay counselors so naive women don't give away their babies?"<br /><br />Further, unless some kind of state licensing or certification program is set up, there's no guarantee that the counselor would be competent, let alone unbiased. Finally,I doubt you could get a consensus of what unbiased is -- the way one counselor presents information would be biased to another person. <br /><br />The Montana law requires the counselor to render an opinion on whether the expectant mother understood the information and was capable of consent. This is something that could be contested if the mother later decided to try to get her child back. <br /><br />If I had this counseling, I'm fairly sure I would have kept my daughter, making whatever sacrifice necessary. Instead I was in la la land about adoption. Jane Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715622112694146946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-69597657782819131412015-04-12T12:15:20.556-04:002015-04-12T12:15:20.556-04:00I am naive enough to believe that this was already...I am naive enough to believe that this was already happening. This should be mandatory.Leslie Gray Streeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07716481773363709718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-27593041964842577492015-04-12T10:29:17.605-04:002015-04-12T10:29:17.605-04:00Yes to all that.Yes to all that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-74412274179246391962015-04-12T08:08:06.362-04:002015-04-12T08:08:06.362-04:00Do you know if continuing adoption counseling is a...Do you know if continuing adoption counseling is also available to the adoptee once he or she becomes an adult?Robinhttp://www.allinthefamilyadoption.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-12227860130071042152015-04-12T06:39:02.796-04:002015-04-12T06:39:02.796-04:00I believe I would have benefited greatly from ANY ...I believe I would have benefited greatly from ANY counseling - any possibly made different decisions. Unfortunately, I had none. On top of that, I had no family to speak of, except for a much older sister who was actually trying to orchestrate a private adoption with a friend of her attorney's (which would have been disastrous and thank god my 18 pea brain knew it). My support was an adoption agency (found in the yellow pages) case worker (3 years older than myself) who naturally did everything in her power to convince me my decision was 'the best thing I could do' for my unborn child. She was the ONLY person in my ear.<br /><br />I could have benefited greatly from meeting a few women who were in (had been in) my situation. Or, how about meeting an adoptive parent? An adoptee? How about an independent 3rd party from C&FS to tell me about any resources that would be available to me? Having grown up in a middle class environment (probably upper class, considering the town I grew up in), I had no knowledge that state assistance existed.<br /><br />Not only do I feel this counseling would have benefited me, I also believe the same counseling should be required of adopting parents, so they fully comprehend their potential child isn't immaculately convinced and comes with biological ties to other human beings. My daughter's adoptive parents despise me with the fire of a thousand suns, simply for reappearing when my daughter was 19. I believe the words they said, when my daughter was 22, were "if we wanted an open adoption, we would have had one".<br /><br />In my case, know one seemed prepared for the outcome of this monumental decision. I was stuck on "doing the right thing" for this beautiful baby. They were stuck on having a baby they couldn't have on their own. My daughter is just a product of her circumstances, through no choice of her own.<br /><br />Hilarynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-574300303008890516.post-32131645831758546132015-04-12T06:09:20.182-04:002015-04-12T06:09:20.182-04:00"Counseling must be performed by a person emp..."Counseling must be performed by a person employed by the department or by a staff person of a licensed child-placing agency designated to provide this type of counseling. " While I applaud the concept of counseling for mothers considering adoption, and the contents of that counseling as mandated here, I am very concerned that this counseling will come from child-placing agencies rather than an independent and impartial outside source. An employee of an adoption agency has a stake in the counseling steering the mother to the "right" choice. For an adoption agency, that choice is surrender and adoption as that is what their livelihood is dependent upon. A bit of conflict of interest, eh? I would like to see this counseling come from a truly neutral party who would be equally pleased with a mother choosing to keep the child as choosing surrender, not somebody with "a horse in the race."<br /><br />Even with the content mandated, there are subtle and not-so-subtle ways that a counselor could comply with the letter of the law, but not the spirit. A specific example from my own experience: I vaguely remember some social worker reluctantly mentioning I COULD apply for welfare, but as a nice white middle-class girl I really would not want to live like that. End of discussion. She also implied I could not live with my parents and get welfare, and where the hell else could I live with no job, no skills, and suffering from severe depression? I got reams of "counseling", but it was all aimed at breaking down what little self-esteem I had left,and belief I could do any good for my child. Since he was in foster care, the emphasis was on how he was getting more shopworn by the day and soon would be bargain basement goods. In the end I gave up and surrendered, literally. As a bargain basement child he went to sub-standard parents. That's how the market works.<br /><br />Marley, you are so right about "Safe Havens" too. They feed on fear and encourage mothers to risk their lives and that of their child by delivering alone. And they make it all neat and tidy with no records to find, ever.maryannenoreply@blogger.com