' [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: First Mother Forum makes some people mad

Saturday, January 19, 2013

First Mother Forum makes some people mad

Dr. Martin Luther King
Vitriol, anger, falsehoods about what we say about adoption--these are just a few of the slings and arrows thrown at First Mother Forum over the years. But the attack on us remind us of Dr. Martin Luther King as we celebrate him on Monday. His message? If your words are all sweetness and light, you will never achieve justice.

Here's a few recent criticisms directed at FMF from a couple of sweet-as-pie women, who claim they have no problem with FMF's message but FMF's methods send them up a wall. A would-be adopter who goes by Single Infertile Female (S.I.F.) writes:
"There is simply a level of vitriol there [at FMF] that is uncomfortable to witness. The years (decades) of hurt and anger are palpable (and even understandable); a mix of emotions splayed across the screen that makes it difficult to look away, but can also be off-putting and I think ultimately – detrimental to their cause. 
 "The authors are clearly intelligent and their writing is well-researched and easy to follow." (FMF appreciates the flattery.) "It seems to me that they could actually be capable of effecting a lot of change, if it were not for the way the anger oozes from their words and distracts from all else – including their ability to see the issues surrounding adoption from any vantage point but their own." 
S.I.F.'s post was picked up by adoptive mother, "Rain", ("Rain brings all good things ... and makes me feel happy. I have always loved rain more than sun") who wrote:
"…[T]here seems to be a theme that somehow wanting to adopt a child is somehow wrong, immature, and greedy. That hurts.

...[W]hile I’m sure that unethical adoptions still happen, they are far fewer than in 1950. Yes, we should do what we can to stop unethical and coercive….well, anything…including adoptions. But, to say that the adoption industry hasn't changed in over 60 years is just uneducated. 
...Some of the birth mothers ... have regrets about giving their child up for adoption. Okay. I’m sorry. I simply can’t imagine the pain of giving up a child. ... At the same time, [pain] has very little to do with adoption. You made a choice, a hard choice, but a choice. And every day, everywhere, people make horrible choices. And, taking responsibility for those choices is part of being a functioning member of society. (Emphasis added)"

'Tis true that Lorraine and I are angry at injustice. See Lorraine's recent post about Terry Achane again being denied his daughter, Teleah, for an  example her righteous anger. However, we have never said that adoption hasn't changed since the Baby Scoop Era. In fact, we've written many times about the changes, particularly open adoption. We are thrilled when we hear from adoptive parents, as we do from time to time, who praise us for opening their eyes to the experiences of their children, and the mothers who bore them. We've never said all adoptions are wrong; clearly there are children, and unfortunately always will be, who need families. We've never said those wanting to adopt are immature or greedy; however, we're critical and continue to be critical, of those who believe they are entitled to another woman's child, and that is the attitude we often read between the lines in the blogs of women who are anxiously awaiting another woman's child. We read over and over about adopters who treat it as a tragedy when a mother decides to take home her baby. In contrast, we are pleased to know that is one child who will not grow up to endure the adoption ennui that our readers, our adopted readers, have told us about in heart-wrenching terms.

To say mothers "choose" to surrender their children today is a gross over-simplification. A quick review of adoption websites clearly demonstrates that this "choice" is often dictated by sleek advertising campaigns trumpeting the rewards in giving your baby to strangers (euphemistically called "making an adoption plan"). As for writing that pain has very little to do with adoption, we don't even know how to counteract that, it is so preposterous. Loss, and pain from that loss, is at the heart of adoption for both (birth) mothers who relinquish and the children so relinquished. Adoptive parents are the ones who do feel not the pain of giving up a child, the sense of loss and abandonment that being given up generates.

S.I.F.'s and Rain's claim that they support adoption reform is reminiscent of white moderates who claimed to support civil rights but urged Dr. King to go slow. Dr. King's response, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," has become a classic:
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'. Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will."
In answer to the questions "'Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?'" Dr. King wrote: "[Negotiation] is the very purpose of direct action....It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."

In other words, until you get their attention, you can't effect change, and you can't get their attention by being nice when the facts cry out for rage. Until the voices of first mothers and birth fathers become so loud, and so disturbing, that the media cannot close their ears, parents and children will continue to be separated needlessly. Incidentally, Letter from Birmingham Jail was initially commissioned by the New York Times Magazine; when it came in, however, editors from the South at the paper found it too inflammatory to run. If we have ruffled feathers with our rhetoric, at least we have gotten someone's attention. It is a start. --jane and lorraine
Single Infertile Female, now what?
I didn't do anything wrong
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Encyclopedia of Alabama, The Civil Rights Movement

I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World, Special 75th Anniversary Edition (Martin Luther King, Jr., born January 15, 1929)  --A fine collection of texts by Dr. King. Coming in at less than 300 pages, this is a concise but meaty book, and includes the text of  "Letter from Birmingham Jail"; the "I Have a Dream" speech; his Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

From FMF
Utah Supreme Court delays return of Baby Teleah to her father
What We Think About Adoption
How the Internet is changing adoption: "One of the most disquieting aspects of adoption on the Internet (as well as through other venues) is the way services are sometimes marketed. ...Some [sites] commodify children and/or women, essentially describing them as products to be marketed, others provide only partial or questionable information," according to a new report, Untangling the Web, from the Donaldson Adoption Institute, an adoption think tank.

Harvey Shapiro, an editor at the NY Times Magazine, commissioned the Letter from a Birmingham Jail when Dr. King when he was in jail, Harvey was a friend of Lorraine's. He passed away January 7.  Harvey Shapiro dies at 88


  1. Bah, ignore the critics. Anyone fighting for justice has always been declared one thing or another... From insane, to angry, to bitter to sad. The saying at school when I was little was 'Tell the truth and shame the devil' and so that is what I have done. Truth is not something intended to make others feel comfortable. It merely exists and many don't like it. They don't want it told because the want to remain comfortable. Well stuff that!

    I find it hilarious but oh so unsurprising that the adopter rain (interesting name) completely dismisses the very real pain that is at the very core of adoption... So of course anyone pointing to that concrete fact is going to be labelled and boxed in order for the lie I her head to stay comfortable.

    Truth fighters are not about keeping people comfortable and snug so they can keep committing the same unethical crimes over and over again. He'll no, we will keep getting the message out there and if they don't want to hear the message that is on them. They are the closed minded ones because they would rather allow families to be ripped apart, mothers and children to feel the ultimate pain just so they can feel comfortable.

    Yeah, nah... Not gonna happen. Screw em!

  2. Pain has very little to do with adoption?

    Wait, what?

  3. The pain of the mothers makes them feel uneasy, queasy, because they see themselves and that makes them uncomfortable. Easier to deny the truth than to look at themselves.

  4. SIF took it upon herself to simply address my response to her idiocy - by emailing me. I tried, against my better judgment to "help" open her mind..... I have given up.

    I will remain a bitter old bag that was too useless to raise her own child......

    Sigh, ignorance is bliss.... SIF is orgasmic.

  5. Keep up the good fight. The truth will always anger those who reap the benefits of the lies. While adoption has come so far since the 1950s, we have so much work left to do. And I hope these angry adopters tell all their friends how angry and miserable you are. They're helping the cause just by telling people about it.

  6. I love FMF because you do piss people off! You tell it like it is, even if some don't want to hear it.

  7. Thanks everybody...I must admit I was tempted to leave a comment at SIF's blog but when Jane did she got a 10,000 word response. Well, Okay, probably only 5,000. Who has the time? Like Sandy says, our pain and sense of eternal loss makes adoptive mothers and prospective adopters uneasy. They don't want to know. Ignorance is easier on their mind.

  8. Their message sounds like "shut up and go sit in the back of the bus."

    They don't want to hear our message because if they really acknowledge it they will have to accept that they are complicit in causing our pain. So it's easier to just write us off with "if you don't play nice, I'm going to take my marbles and go home."

    The fact that we are making people uncomfortable is a good sign. It means they are sitting up and taking notice. And some people really have seen the light from what you and Jane have written (and the comments) and have changed their views completely on adoption.

  9. Coveting another woman's child is immature and greedy.

  10. In the blogging world, those people are called "tone trolls". They don't actually have any real argument against what you are saying other than to complain about your tone.

  11. "Pain has very little to do with adoption" My jaw dropped when I read this. I think she is baiting us-she can't be serious It's all about pain-a lifetime of it. And complaining about our anger She should be happy that at least we know we are angry. It's the unconscious anger that is the most dangerous-and gets passed on to those closest to us-and to future generations

  12. remember how we were told these are the best parents ever, loving, taking tons of classes will tell our children how much we love them?

  13. what did austrailia do to receive a public apology and reform and reduction in adoptions?

  14. Having worked in the public,in the state legislature, delivering the natural biological family preservation message for many years, I have observed the adoption industry using anger and tears to get "their message" across whenever it suits them.
    For example, I
    have seen pre-adoptive parents sob, shake and claim in testimony to have "lost" a baby that was still inside his mother's womb when the mother changed her mind at 5 months pregnant and decided to raise her own unborn son.
    So why does it bother them so much when first mothers or adopted people cry or become angry...why is the loss of our original family members denied?

    I think that our so-called "vitriol" is not really offensive to these people...rather I think it scares them to the core. They want their needs to be recognized as paramount.....and to do that original family needs, rights and bonds must be denied.

    I think the writers you have cited do have a problem with our "message" itself. IMO, I think that they realize that the very simple truth is that we wanted our children, and we still do.

    WE wanted our children and the adopters wanted our children...there is no compromise on that. We natural parents had a natural and legal right to our children. The pre-adoptive parents had no actual "right" to a stranger's child at all. I remember being shocked at the outrage that some strangers were going to get my child..in 1968..I couldn't believe it was going to happen....but it did.

    Loss of a child, loss of a family is life-long or even longer than that.

  15. What discredits both SIF and Rain is the fact that adoptees are in so much pain to and also are (rightfully) angry. It isn't just biological mothers. Of course they would probably just call adoptees ungrateful or neurotic. Infertile women always find some excuse to ignore the injustices and abuse they and the adoption system cause.

  16. While we are writing about this, some idiot adoption agency has tried to post a comment on a December post, to wit:

    "...The benefits we offer to Adoptive Parents are: Extensive Birth Mother Outreach to help you adopt a healthy baby. Expert Adoption Staff to quickly present you with an adoption opportunity with the right Birth
    Mother. Licensed and Proven Adoption Law Services for your protection and peace of mind. Adoption Financing Available including loans, grants, tax credits and other ways to assist you with your adoption journey..."

    Idiotic, right? And they leave a link for those anxious to adopt. someone whose nom de plume is WilliamSmith, whose Goggle profile has been viewed 12 times, hit "Publish" 3 times. I would make it 13.

    In other news, at Rosie O'Donnell's blog, you see a photograph of a naked infant. and a poem about a baby anchoring her to connections. What about the baby's "connections?"

  17. My children came into my life via direct open adoption. The birth family chose us on their own after knowing us and our struggles with infertility. Definitely no coercion to place our daughter or later our son. I am glad the placements were solely their choice with no agency involvement because we all know without a shadow of doubt that this is what the first parents wanted. The openess is wonderful as my children get to know many members of their first family and any questions can be answered immediately by all involved. That being said, I do understand the pain felt by potential adoptive parents when a first mother chooses to parent. Most of the time the pain is due to yet another dream of parenting fading away and after struggling with infertility and dream crushing after each failed cycle or loss, that pain is excruciating in its own right. It doesn't usually equal entitlement or a desire for the first mom to fix the pain but it is its own seperate pain. I don't feel as though the pain of an infertile is less or more important than a first mother's pain because each pain is unique and comes from a different experience. Neither should ever be discounted. If my childrens' first parents had decided to parent either or both of my children I would have experienced pain from the loss of the idea of parenting that child however I never felt entitled to my children. I feel blessed and grateful and am glad that the relationship is very open.

  18. My post to her blog:
    I read with interest your comments on the anger emanating from the FMF. I am a member of their group and I am an adoptee who searched and found my birthmother in 1992. We share a wonderful bond and I count her as one of my closest friends. I also was active at that time as a searcher for a search group and met my husband there. He's also an adoptee in reunion- with both his birthmom and birthfather. He too has great relationships with them and has been successful in expanding his family to include all parts. My adoptive situation was not as good and my two families will always have lines drawn- not by me.

    Through my decades of helping families search and reunite, I have seen open adoption move from a fringe option to the mainstream that it is now. International adoption has also grown exponentially (previously it was more like that of my husband's and my brother's- catholic charities worked with international catholic ministries to bring adoptees to the US based on US immigration allowances- so in the mid 60's to 70's we saw many Canadian adoptions and italian as well. ) Its a bit different now.

    Adoption has definitely changed- some for the better and some for the worse. In the babyscoop era, adoption was a social answer to unwed motherhood and illegitamacy. Now, it is more an answer to infertility and as such, has truly moved from more of a social institution to an industry based on profit. Adoption agencies sponsor the National Council for Adoption-and they have lobbied to maintain adoption as that industry.

    What I'd like to see is cohesion across the country with national adoption laws. I'd like to see much lower costs regarding adoption- both domestic and internationally. That would take away the benefits to third parties who may coerce, lie by omission or in some extreme cases(especially in some international communities) stealing babies for profit. As a nation, we are fairly egocentric in thinking that many third world country children are so much better off with US adoptive families that we don't see how those children get into the orphanages. With domestic adoptions, I would prefer to see foster to adoption the prevalent norm. I think infant adoption should be a choice- but its hard not to see how agencies paint an idyllic picture of adoption for a expectant mom and perhaps limit the options or information of the resources for parenting that are available to her- because they are in the business to place babies for adoption. Agencies shouldn't be allowed to advertise for crisis pregnancies- there should be another group who is answering those calls who fully inform an expectant mom of her options and resources then refers to an agency. We need to take the $ out of adoption. I am not against adoption; I do however want adoption to be in the best interest of children and do not see how the present circumstances with agencies encouraging moms to give birth in Utah because that state favors adoptive parents (although hopefully that will be changing!) and not the birth fathers. I also do not approve of pre-birth contracts to place babies for adoption. In my state of residence- FL- a mom does not have the right to change her mind after signing her relinquishment papers if- and only if- the baby is under 6 months old. (Infants are the most desirable product.) I also would like there to be a standard of time AFTER birth where the mom cannot legally relinquish- like a 4-7days.


  19. I know that when I had a colonoscopy my release form said not to sign legal papers for 48hrs because of after affects of medication yet moms who have had a lot more medication are allowed to do so. I also think a nationwide standard of 30 days is humane for a mom to be allowed to change her mind about her adoption placement. I would also like to see foster care laws follow a national standard for time horizons for reunification and release for adoption. Again-I want the focus to be on the welfare of the child. Additionally- I would like to see that there are ways to enforce open adoption agreements- all too often I've seen birthparents being refused the communication or ability to see their child which was promised when contracting an open adoption placement. Very often I've spoken to birthparents who were only given profiles to review of out of state adoptive parents because the agency is trying to make it more difficult for the birthparent to have a fully open relationship. On the flip side, birthparents should be held accountable to their commitments of updating adoptive families as well. I can't imagine how an adoptee whose adopted siblings have a good open relationship with their birth parent feels when their own birthparent isn't interested in contact or updates. Agencies should never lose sight that their ultimate client is the child; that just doesn't seem to be the case today with all agencies.

    As an adoptee- I do also want to see national laws to allow adoptees access to our original birth certificates. Did you know that some adoptees have been refused drivers licenses or passports because their amended birth certificates were issued at adoption (often 6-18months after birth) and some municipal agencies called them 'fake'?

    Adoption can be a wonderful way to build your family, but please be aware that adoption is based on loss- both the birthparent(s) and adoptee suffer that primal loss and adoptive parents often have to grieve the loss of their potential genetic children. Raising an adopted child is not the same as raising a genetic child- although you may love them all the same. As long as we all recognize that this is a different way to build a family and look towards the adoptee's best interest- both on a personal and some day a national level- it can be successful.

    Just another opinion to show that while anger may spur our move towards legislative change, that is because we have for so long been a hidden movement- frought with challenging state changes before we can even look at the national change and we need adoptive families to join our voices so that we can all take the industry out of adoption and put back the truth and reality-its about families.

  20. But Anon! Rain's husband says the pain is in adoptee and first moms heads! He thinks everyone just needs to own up to their part and be grateful! Rain's son doesn't have a chance. Poor kid.
    And S.I.F. Looks like she's at least pushing thirty but she writes like an angsty adolescent. I can't imagine anyone voluntarily giving her a kid if they've read her blog. Girl is one hot mess.

  21. I think Renee, and Reagan and Trevor's Mommy put it perfectly! The adoption industry desperately needs reform.
    However, to an extent I do agree with what SIF says in reference to the message of FMF not being portrayed very effectively to those outside the circle so to speak. While the cause, and the arguments put forward by FMF are great, I think the confrontational nature that comes with presenting such an emotionally charged subject may be off putting to those with no direct experience of adoption. I'm definitely not implying that the posts should be emotionless, but perhaps concentrating on facts would be better.

    Furthermore, in reference to "Anonymous" above in which she calls SIF a "hot mess" and many other users who are being equally insulting - do you really think that insulting a visitor to the forum who doesn't agree with your views is the best way to convince them of your cause? This isn't the first post I've noticed this behavior, and I don't think it does FMF any favors.

    I don't tend to comment, but I couldn't help myself this time. I truly think both sides in this have some good points to make. Although I agree with users pointing out Rain's comment about there being no pain from adoption (I mean, seriously?! How can anyone, even outside the circle, believe this?)

    I also want to point out that SIF - from her comments - obviously thinks FMF has a good cause and convincing arguments, but has concerns over how they are voiced. Maybe she didn't word that very effectively by herself.

    Sorry this comment is a bit lengthy! Good luck in your campaign for a better adoption industry, it's a wonderful and truly worthwhile cause.
    Beth x

  22. The anger you sometimes read here in our posts (I make no assessment of the comments; we post almost all that we receive in order to give first mothers [and adoptees] a place to vent, as FMF states under the title) comes from hearing/reading that people do go overseas particularly to avoid adopting from the US so they do not have to deal with birth parents--in any way shape or form.

    We know not every adoptive parent is like that, but many are. We know what has been said to us (which I have written about previously). This is an emotional subject for us, this is a blog for mothers like us, and we are not writing here in language we feel will not offend or be strong.

    When an adoptive grandfather you are sharing a table with at a mutual friend's house looks across the table and--after you tell him you are a birth mother whose daughter eventually spent time here with you--he says, You are our worst nightmare, the moment for politeness has passed. How might this color anyone's feeling about adoption as a business? His son had gone to Siberia to adopt. Twice. To avoid the natural mother of any children he might adopt. He said so, in fact, I am not just imagining this.

    When the adoption industry and adoptive parents in general have worked so hard to seal original birth certificates and obliterate the natural mother, the time for mild language is long gone. What that adoptive grandfather--once in a position to influence programming on television--said to me indicates how very little the attitudes of so very many adoptive parents have changed. Is this more suitable language: Please, could adoptees have their original birth certificates and please, could birth mothers have access to the names of the people who adopted their children? Many of them suffer lifelong grief and have PTSD, and would you please, adoptive parents, support this? Thank you for your consideration.

    What Jane and I write here is not how we write to legislators, but are birth/first/natural parents not allowed to express their anger and hurt and feelings because it might offend someone? That is not how a movement of such magnitude makes progress.

  23. It cracks me up that people who don't come from a place of an adoptee or a first mother can come and judge a site that has nothing to do with them. Instead of taking what you read and learn from it you judge and and decide you know better. What a hoot!

    Do you do it because its makes you feel smaller then what you want to portray? Does it make you scared because it just might be reality and not as they say the unicorn and roses that you want to hear...especially if it makes you feel like a "real" mother, or a savior...or a "wonderful person who brought those poor unfortunates into your home" a comment that was just told to me at the age of 55...

    Seriously, I have huge resverations about anyone who try to speak for me and as much as i might have some differnces with SOME birth mother attiudes I actually choke at some of the a aparent comments...iI was NOT born to make my mom and dad family...I was born under less then ideal circumstanses and my mom and dad needed a family...they got the truth, even back in the 50's and sixties. why the heck can''t this generation of wanna be moms and dads..WE WERE NOT BORN TO SUPPLY YOUR NEED...we were born into bad situations that needed adults to get that and raise us accordly. Not to cure infertility and not to make you all feel like saviors. If you can't get that . don't adopt, your not good enough for the hurting souls that are out there.

  24. Incidentally someone is also mad at Jane (and me too) and left an angry comment at the recent post on Russian adoptions. (12/28) So it goes.

  25. Ummm...have you read SIF's blog? The one night stands...the drinking...the sleeping with married men... The drunk dialing. Lather, rinse, repeat. She is an embarrasment. Why is it mean to say she behaves like an aging adolescent? It seems to be what her entire blog is about ad nauseum. Personally, I am surprised she can pass a home study with the antics she reveals on her blog.
    It's "mean" to point out what a hot mess she is?
    You know what I think is mean? Supporting those horrible people who are keeping Terry Achane from his daughter. That is mean.

  26. Anonymous said...

    "But Anon! Rain's husband says the pain is in adoptee and first moms heads! He thinks everyone just needs to own up to their part and be grateful! Rain's son doesn't have a chance. Poor kid. And S.I.F. Looks like she's at least pushing thirty but she writes like an angsty adolescent. I can't imagine anyone voluntarily giving her a kid if they've read her blog. Girl is one hot mess"
    What a smart man he is eh? He dwells amongst other male geniuses who believed menstrual pain was in women's heads. It is SCARY how much unnatural power ap's have. Although actually it is even more than that. It is DANGEROUS.

  27. @Beth.
    You're an idiot. Why should the oppressed be "nice" to the oppressors? Also, if you are offended at my lack of manners you should know they are locked inside the same vault as my OBC. Smirk.

  28. @ Reagan and Trevor's Mommy:

    "That being said, I do understand the pain felt by potential adoptive parents when a first mother chooses to parent. Most of the time the pain is due to yet another dream of parenting fading away and after struggling with infertility and dream crushing after each failed cycle or loss, that pain is excruciating in its own right."

    And that mother has every right to parent her own child. You not being able to produce your own is not hers or anyone else's problem. You sit there and say that no pain "discounts" the other, but I'm not buying it. I am a firm believer, after being on the receiving end of lies and deceit for an infertile to get her hands on my child, that the "infertile" wants to transfer her "pain" onto that of a woman who can become pregnant when she can't. There is no doubt in my mind of it. That is why so many adopters end up treating us despicably after they get their hands on our infants. You are not fooling me with you tales of how "wonderful" your so called open adoptions are. I wonder how wonderful they'd be if that mother wanted HER child back.

  29. I wonder how many adoptive parents would, if after adopting and finding themselves pregnant would give that child to an infertile couple that would just love to raise YOUR baby? Just think how happy you would make another woman? Just think how selfless you would be? It would make you all adoptive parents without having to deal with the pesky biological element...because bio does not matter right?

  30. @Call Me Karen. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said the pain for a potential adoptive parent involved in a placement that doesn't happen is a real and valid pain. I never said it was the responsibility of another woman to make the pain of infertility go away. Of course it is that parent's right to raise their own child and I already admitted that I would have felt pain if the birth parents had chosen to parent but I wouldn't have been mad at them about it. What is your point? Our open adoption IS wonderful with plenty of open communication with all involved. The child they are parenting spends weekends with us and all of the bio siblings know and love each other. Our children know all sides of their family and nothing is or will be hidden from them. It matters none if you believe me or not. They also have their OBCs in their life boxes.

  31. Lorraine, yes Jane's post on Russian adoption made me mad because it's filled with so many inaccuracies that can't even possibly be addressed in one comment. Anyone with her education who chooses to write on a subject, who has the ability to influence others, should at least strive for accuracy. Unless, of course, her only purpose is to disparage a certain group. If that's her goal, then the group she's hoping to insult by her lies, will yes, be insulted. Shocking. If you want to write about Russian adoptions, at least have the decency to do more than a sixth grade level of research. Or, expect people to be mad.
    As for OBC's, I'm at a loss as to who is fighting against these.
    As to going to Eastern Europe to avoid original families, why do so many adoptive parents I know spend thousands on birth family searches, travel, reunions. We're not hiding. Our kids parental rights had been severed usually over a year before we came into the picture. We're trying to heal our children's pain, not trying to hide them across the universe. Our stories of reunion span the spectrum, as do all similar stories. Mothers ecstatic to know what became of their child, mothers requesting no contact, mothers wanting only occasional photos....it runs from one extreme to another.
    So yes, when you outright lie or exaggerate, some people will get angry. I'd hope you'd want to do better. But, if you're only hoping to ruffle feathers, and not really make a difference, then keep shooting for "making people angry'. That's the easy way out.

  32. Hi, I just want to say that while I may not be portrayed in the best light on this blog...I appreciate your mission. Thank you for reminding me to be more compassionate and loving towards you all.

    If you'd like, I have a few thoughts on this post over on my blog. If not, no worries and I hope you have a great day.

  33. @Reagan and Trevor's Mommy said...

    "Our open adoption IS wonderful with plenty of open communication with all involved."

    Suuurreee. It would be willing to bet you think it is so "wonderful" because you are in control. Like I said, I wonder how "wonderful" it would be if their mothers wanted them back?

    That's my point, "mommy".

  34. What I don't seem to be reading on here is anyone taking responsibility for their actions of getting pregnant in the first place...you made the choice to have sex and now you are blaming the world for the consequences...maybe focus your plight towards educating women and teens on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Which in turn would reduce adoptions...

    And to compare your plight to that of Martin Luther King is ludicrous...and downright arrogant...your choices led to where you are today...

    MLK had no choice in the color of his skin....don't belittle his plight by making such a demeaning comparison...

  35. I posted your comment Anon because you have no idea about which you speak. Yes, we had sex and got pregnant. Many of us had absolutely no choice about whether we were going to keep our babies our not; it was not a choice at all. Agencies today use all kinds of techniques to pressure women into giving up their babies to keep their agencies funded and profitably, despite the "non-profit" status of many. Adoptive parents at every turn have been opposed to unsealing sealed original birth certificates, and by doing so, treat their children, now grown, as chattel. I posted your comment so that our readers can see the depth of your spleen and your belittling, patronizing attitude towards women who relinquish their children. I must assume you are an adoptive parent; I am sorry for the child in your care, or the one that will be, should you succeed.

    Why not adopt a child who truly needs a home, one from foster care? If that were your plan, you would not be reading the blogs that directed you here.

  36. What brought me to your site was a search on Martin Luther King and I was appalled that you have the audacity to compare!

    Your actions brought you to where you are in your life...

  37. Anonymous said: "What I don't seem to be reading on here is anyone taking responsibility for their actions of getting pregnant in the first place...you made the choice to have sex and now you are blaming the world for the consequences...maybe focus your plight towards educating women and teens on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Which in turn would reduce adoptions..."

    Are we really back to the "you had sex" argument - sigh...

    I for one am damn glad my mother and father had sex.

    I am not thrilled that my mother had no other choice but adoption. That isn't a choice at all.

    What I am forever grateful for is that I did NOT get adopted into a family that lacked empathy, compassion, held themselves as superior and lacked common sense to understand that our mothers had no choice.

    Instead my parents recognised the reality and held my mother up as an equal in the equation - regardless if we would ever meet or not. What amazes me is that if mom and dad could understand that half a century ago - why doesn't everyone get that today - seeing as today people are supposed to be so much more evolved. I guess not so much.

  38. @Annonymous 9:47 AM

    So what if they made the choice to have sex, everyone makes mistakes. But I guess you must be so perfect! Oh so holier than thou!

    Only 8 adoptions happened in the whole country of Australia, last year. Seriously, only 8! Compare that to the 14,000 adoptions, that happened here in the U.S last year. And it's not because women and teens are not having sex, in Australia.

    It's because women and teens, have more support to care for their babies in Australia. Plus, they have more access to birth control. There is no coercion, agencies are non-existent and private adoptions are illegal there. Money does not exchange hands in adoptions in Australia.


    All about how adoption works in Australia, is in that link. You want to talk about making the bad decision to have sex? According to the CDC, one of the most common causes of infertility, is STDs. So what about some of the adopters bad decisions? The ones spread their own legs, and caught the STD that made them infertile to begin with? Oh, so you don't want to talk about that, do you?

    (Yes I know not everyone who suffers from infertility, is not infertile due to that. But according to the CDC, quite a large number are.)

  39. Anon @9:47 am Do you really think that unmarried women need to pay for their supposed crime of premarital sex by relinquishing their children to poor, needy infertiles?
    So you think we should all be living Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel "The Handmaid's Tale".
    Well, I have news for you, we are not living in a freaky alternative universe nor are we living in the year 1813. It's 2013 and women have the right to parent their children no matter how they were conceived.
    I shudder at the thought of living in your world where the price for premarital sex is the forced separation of families forever.
    And yes, I believe FMF's comparison to MLK is completely justified due to your implication that unwed mothers need to pay the price with their own flesh and blood. How barbaric!

  40. My point is the complete arrogance and audacity of making a comparison to Martin Luther King...The rest is your own issues...and your own choices that brought you where you are...you are not condemned by the color of your skin...it has nothing to do with Australia or venereal diseases...battling out your own demons is fine...but my comment has to do with the unmitigated gall to make such an egregious comparison.

  41. No white Bee you don't get to compare!

  42. Any way I am out.

    You all want to scream about your injustices and how no one could understand and then make a comparison to something that you would never be able to understand...hypocritical to say the least...show some respect and then you will get respect...the comparison is completely disrespectful!

  43. Bee wrote:"I shudder at the thought of living in your world where the price for premarital sex is the forced separation of families forever."

    While I certainly don't agree with it, I do somewhat (okay, only a little bit) understand these people who feel the mother should be punished for her actions. But why does the child have to be punished, too? Is the child guilty by association? Why does the child have to be denied living with her biological kin and be separated from her original family for all time? Denied a medical history, denied being raised by the people she looks like, denied being part of the family where she belongs? Is the child really so guilty, that this is the price s/he has to pay for something her parents' did?

  44. @ anonymous all over the place who thinks we all have such "GALL"...

    Funny how you would mention we have the gall to compare our plights to that of MLK, Jr. I witnessed on my own lost son to adoptions Twitter page last night him comparing abortion to slavery; that the fetus is the same as a "slave" and a woman has NO right to make a decision about her own body once an egg has been fertilized.

    Yes, the GALL indeed. His adopters even taught him to dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her own body; something this particular mother is appalled by.

  45. Anonymous, it is really unlikely that you found FMF because you were searching MLK, and er, your search does not show up, and no one apparently got here because of a MLK search. So?

  46. This entire comment string makes me sad. I defended FMF on SIF's blog a week or so ago, because I truly understand and support the need for adoption reform. Adoption is not an option in our house if we have daughters who get pregnant unexpectedly, and neither is abortion. We believe that as their parents, it is our job to help them be good parents to their children, and to not give their children to other couples.

    With that said, FMF has lost me and my support. The comments in this thread are appalling and nauseating. I think that the general message from FMF is a good one, but the nastiness that is perpetuated in the comments on this site are just disgusting.

    It's too bad. I really like the FMF message, but I cannot support a group with such mean-spirited people constantly tearing others down. You had the support of one of those who isn't adopted, isn't an adoptive parents, and isn't a birth/first mother - just a regular gal who agrees with your general thoughts. But you've lost me for good.

  47. Anonymous @ 4:43, I don't believe you.

  48. ""Robin said...

    Bee wrote:"I shudder at the thought of living in your world where the price for premarital sex is the forced separation of families forever."

    While I certainly don't agree with it, I do somewhat (okay, only a little bit) understand these people who feel the mother should be punished for her actions.""

    HUH??? 'punished for her actions'? Because she had sex outside of marriage????? WHY??? Do you honestly feel ("okay, only a little bit) that women should be punished for their involvement in sexual intercourse. Is anyone going to tell me that no infertile woman had sex before she married? But...it isn't the sex that is the 'sin' nor the problem...to be punished for. If one does not get pg, no one knows about the 'sin', some women commit quite often. The 'sin' only occurs once the 'sin' starts bulging from the woman's body. I simply cannot believe the crap I am reading here...in the year 2013. Utter crap, ignorance, hatred, envy and jealousy. What in the hell is wrong with some of the women writing here? It scares me to know how little progress we have made in American Society. So many women hating, being envious, being jealous, coveting that which another woman has. I'm very much dismayed after reading some of the comments here and for a few...disgusted!!

  49. @Call Me Karen. Why so bitter towards me and my particular situation? Our openess is a two way street where there is no need for control. And your attempt to insult me with quotes around the word mommy is rather immature. And evidently your interest isn't for the children since you wish to portray them as pawns and property that can be given and taken back at whim. Their first mother is comfortable and at peace with her decision. She in fact made the same decision twice as our children are bio siblings. Not sure why that upsets you so much.

  50. @Gypsywinter,
    I wrote "understand" as in comprehend, not agree with. I think the belief is so ludicrous that I can barely even understand where they are coming from at all and why they would say such a thing.

    You completely missed my point.

  51. If adoptive parents truly honor open adoptions agreements, and are truly open to the first mother, I actually appreciate hearing from them here. Some readers may not agree with all that Reagan and Trevor's mother says, but I see no point in trashing her simply because she is an adoptive parent. She says she feels blessed that the relationship is open. That is quite enough for me.

    I may not like adoption, but some mothers choose it today, when it appears to us they could have made a different choice. But it is, and if she has an open adoption, let us not close our ears to what she has to say. I appreciate that she is sharing her thoughts here.

  52. Robin-
    There are plenty of happy, successful people who were raised by single mothers, former President Bill Clinton and our current President come to mind. Do you really think they felt "punished" to have been raised by their single mothers? Do you think they wish their mothers had given them away to strangers? Really?
    How are we punishing children by keeping them with their families? I don't see how that is a punishment.
    And as far as punishing women for having sex outside of marriage...hmm...really? Once again I am compelled to remind you that the year is 2013 and not 1813 and thank goodness for that. Scarlet letters anyone? No thank you.

  53. Robin, I just reread your comment and realized you are not saying it is a punishment to keep a child in his family. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  54. "Anonymous said...

    What I don't seem to be reading on here is anyone taking responsibility for their actions of getting pregnant in the first place...you made the choice to have sex and now you are blaming the world for the consequences...maybe focus your plight towards educating women and teens on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Which in turn would reduce adoptions...

    And to compare your plight to that of Martin Luther King is ludicrous...and downright arrogant...your choices led to where you are today...

    MLK had no choice in the color of his skin....don't belittle his plight by making such a demeaning comparison..."

    @ anon,
    Riiight your point is what exactly? Oh you don't have one? Just here to be a coward hiding behind an anon title because you have no guts to face up to your nasty words.

    Yes, thats right, rape is a choice as is sexual abuse... those girls asked for it! I know I begged my rapist to give it to me good when I was raped... oh yeah I had to beg him to rape me and leave me injured and bleeding. Oh and getting pregnant? Yes... I planned that too because I have some superpower to ensure that my rape would ensure me a baby... and of course, NO ONE else involved need be responsible for THEIR actions... oh no, IT WAS ALL ME because that is what some anon troll dictates.

    Tell you what, crawl back into your miserable little hole and come back out when you have been raped and assaulted, become pregnant and had your child actively stolen for nothing more than a desire of infertiles to have a kid. You are what is wrong with adoption but hey, thanks for showing your colours again, I appreciate that hole you dig yourself.

    As for MLK, I doubt he would be offended by our use of his quotes... on the other hand you are the type of person he was actively fighting against.

  55. Oh SIF has gone and written herself a little "poor me" post to defend her actions... nothing like someone with something to hide who needs that right?

    As for their commenters... LOVE THEM because they show adoption for what it is.. their hypocrisy and their inability to see fact for what it is just lends more support to how rotten adoption is. Now they are taking Cassi on because Cassi had the audacity to take on the "coerced" parenting bs... Oh and some of them are bringing out their favourite labels because they have nothing better to add... yes, we are all bitter and angry which is surprising how many I know here who are anything BUT bitter. Angry yes because we have a lot to be angry about and they would be too if they walked in our shoes... but no, they want to live in their narrow minded little bubble where they are "beautiful people" and are never in the wrong. Puhlease! It is courtesy of the likes of them adoption is the stinking rotting carcass that it is! Without these sorts perhaps adoption would have a redeeming quality to it but it hasn't because adoption is about people and the majority of people involved in adoption are amongst the ugliest I have ever seen in the world (and I have seen some pretty ugly people and no I don't mean skin deep ugly). Grabby, materialistic, with no ability for love, compassion or empathy... shudder, makes you feel bad for any child they profess to be "saving". Oh and the latest comments go right to the fact that we all made this choice - because yeah, we are all that powerful to force others to adopt our kids in unethical ways.

  56. Thanks for putting me in my "birthmother" place, Lorraine. As a blog owner who has written several posts about open adoption fraud yourself, don't you dare tell me I am criticizing this woman just because she is an "adoptive parent". I don't like the way she speaks for the mother of the children she covets. It is easy to say your "open adoption is so wonderful" when you are the one in control. Do you know for a fact his woman is being truthful, Lorraine before you rush to her defense?

    You are so wishy washy and I won't comment on your blog anymore either. I won't even bother reading anymore. I thought this was a place for First Mothers to vent, not ass kiss adopters. Thanks.

    @Reagan and Trevor's "Mommy" (YOU are the one who makes sure she has the title of Mommy on your blog page, so I was just pointing out the obvious) no, children aren't pawns and they should not be in this position in the first place. My point was if you are so comfortable with the mother of the children you covet, you'd have no problem with her taking her child(ren) back, now would you? They are hers, not yours.

    This is no "First Mother Forum", that is for damn sure.

  57. Dr. King spoke out against all injustice, not just discrimination against black people. He spoke against war and for sanitation workers striking in Memphis for decent wages, for example. He said "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."

    It's naive to believe that the loss of a child to adoption is always a self-inflicted wound. Many women who became pregnant were young and taken advantage of.

    They lost their children through coercion, manipulation, poverty, and out and out kidnapping to meet the needs of those who were able to pay large sums for their children.

    Many fathers have lost their children through laws designed to trick them.

    A just society would provide support to families to enable them to keep their children. A just society would have consent laws that assure mothers and fathers have the time and information to make informed decisions about adoption. A just society would allow adoptees to have their original birth certificates.

  58. Feeling the need to defend myself here, although I don't know why except that continuing to talk to each other through our blogs feels incredibly sophomoric at best. I attempted e-mail early on in the hopes of having an actual conversation, but I got nowhere with that. So since my personal character is being assassinated here - I will try this and then be done.

    As women, I think it is incredibly sad when a difference of opinions has to then degrade into attacks on personal character. I see that happening on both sides here, and as much as it hurts me - it makes me apologetic as well. There is no need for slut shaming either way, and it is disturbing no matter what direction it is coming from. That is not something I would EVER condone, because as the anonymous commenter above pointed out - I am certainly not innocent when it comes to the bedroom choices I myself have made. Although, for the record - I have NEVER slept with a married man. That is just an egregious exaggeration of the truth meant to paint a very different picture of me than what is real.

    The only other thing I want to say is in response to this Lorraine:

    "Why not adopt a child who truly needs a home, one from foster care? If that were your plan, you would not be reading the blogs that directed you here."

    For the record, I personally AM adopting from foster care. In fact, my heart is set on adopting an older child, a teenager most likely. This just goes to prove my point though, about painting all adoptive parents with a brush just a little too broad. You obviously have taken no time at all to even attempt to see where I am coming from in all of this if you are making a comment like that. I do not now, nor have I ever, felt "entitled" to another woman's child. And I do believe whole-heartedly that there is a need for reform. My ONLY issue with this space here is the way in which it completely degrades anyone who might be coming at the issues from a different place. I KNOW there are horrific adoption stories out there, and my heart bleeds for those of you who felt manipulated and forced into giving up your children. I just don't believe that painting adoptive parents as the enemy, or shutting out any stories from adoptive parents or adoptees who may have had a different experience from your own, is the way to accomplish change.

    And I really don't think that tearing other women and their choices down simply because they have a different view than your own is the way to accomplish anything.

    I understand that I have issues with being too wordy, in just about everything I do. But my heart almost always comes at things from a good place. I am not the enemy. I am sorry for those of you who think I am.

    I would be happy to engage in an actual conversation with anyone who would like to take the time to put up with my verbosity in the hopes of appealing to that part of me that truly does want to understand. My e-mail address, for those who are interested, is singleinfertilefemale@yahoo.com I can't say I will just blindly agree with any information or views thrown my way, but I CAN say that I will always do my best to take in those perspectives for exactly what they are - one more piece of a giant jigsaw puzzle that is neither simple or neat.

    Again, I truly do apologize for any who may be offended by anything I have personally have said. But I think it is fair to point out that at the end of the day, we all have reasons for coming at these issues in the way that we do. Open-mindedness is a two way street, and real change always comes from taking the time to get to know and understand the views of others that may differ from your own. It is the only way any of us can ever expect the same in return.

  59. @S.I.F

    You can not make blogs about first mothers who lost their children to INFANT adoption and compare it to FOSTER care adoption. And say the pain is only in their heads. Foster care adoption and infant adoption, are very, very two different things. And they should not under any circumstances, be put in the same category. Foster care adoptions are children whose first parents, have already been proven unfit. Infant adoptions are children whose first parents, have not been proven unfit.

    Some like to assume that infant adoption, prevents abuse. But I can tell you it has already been proven, that it does NOT! Most first mothers, who lost their children to infant adoption, have already been proven time and time again, that they are fit and stable enough to parent. Some have gone on to have more children that they kept and raised, and have done a much better job, than the people who have adopted their first child. Adoptions seem to increase child abuse rates, rather than decrease them. As I said before, infant adoptions have been pretty much eradicated in Australia, and their child abuse rates have declined since. Doesn't surprise me since according to statistics by RAINN (Rape Abuse and Incest National Network) that abuse was even more common in homes, where BOTH parents were NOT biologically related to the child.(Sounds like adoptive and foster parents.)

  60. @Bee,

    No, I certainly don't think it is a punishment for a child to be raised by a single mother. I would love to have been raised by my own natural unmarried mother.

    I think punishing a woman for having sex outside of marriage is bat sh*t cray, cray. There are, however, people who have this misguided, ridiculous belief. And they don't seem to realize that by using relinquishment as punishment that they are also punishing the child.

  61. so what's your stance on adoptions of puppies and kittens from the ASPCA?

  62. @Robin, thanks for clarifying. Sorry I misunderstood you. You had me worried!! (smiles)

  63. @Robin, thank you for clarifying. My apologies for my misunderstanding.

  64. To Call Me Karen:

    Sorry that I was so brash and quick in my reaction to your reaction to the adoptive mother posting comments here. In reading it over, I see that I was. I certainly didn't mean to put your in your place or diminish you, but we do disagree in our reaction to what she said. I don't know who you are, so I don't know if you will ever read this, but you certainly are needed in this movement. I read over what you said about your son and I am horrified. I don't think of myself as wishy-washy however, having been involved in unsealing records since the Seventies, starting when my daughter was six or so, and just speaking about this at all caused an enormous pushback from adoptive parents and their fellow travelers. I've been called all kinds of names in my day, but never wishy-washy.

  65. To SIF:

    I am a far out-liberal politically, and I realize that engaging in conversations with neoconservatives gets nowhere and just becomes a tiresome, time-wasting exercise in bloviation. Yes, it is your verbosity that keeps me from engaging you; I skimmed the incredibly long response you sent to Jane (after she left a comment) and decided I did not want to engage you personally, because, why?

    I do not have the time. You read what we wrote and were outraged! So it goes. I am not going to change my opinion of the self-serving and entitled and "poor-me" attitudes that can be found in the writings of a great many prospective adopters. I did read enough of you on adoption to sense that I did not want to read more because you were just talking about how great adoption was, and how great it was going to be for you. Somewhere in there you may have talked about adopting an older child, but not within the hundreds of words I did read.

    We have no problem with that, in fact, that is what we encourage, and say so at one of our permanent pages, What We Think about Adoption. Yet you quoted from that as if it were the Mein Kampf of adoption.

    May I remind you that you are the one who started this blog war? We did not know you existed until I noticed that we were getting traffic from a strange blog. Same with Rain.

    You chose to attack us in your SIF blog, where we are called bitter and mean and postmenopausal (the last one we are, BTW, but I don't see that as a slur, merely factual) while everybody there is defending you. You seem to be most upset over one comment about you, which neither Jane or I wrote, and which surely is no worse than "bitter and mean" which I found being called, well, somewhat amusing.

  66. I have been admittedly "loosely" following this thread. I don't know if S.I.F. will return to read any more of these comments, but there are a few things that I'd like to say. Hopefully my scrambled thoughts will make some kind of sense!

    As a first-mom, I appreciate this forum because there are very, very few places I feel like I can be "uncensored" in my thoughts and opinions. Yes, being able to "educate" is important and sometimes the goal of posting, but other times, we might just want to vent and be angry without judgement. Many of us have been living as "first moms" for more years than we'd like to remember! For me, it's been almost 28. There is pent up anger, hurt, frustration, heart-break, etc. that creeps out when we read something or someone's opinion that triggers one of those emotions. At that point, we may not care if anyone "hears" us or not! lol We just want to speak our piece.

    Next, this "choice" that we made for ourselves and our child...I laugh first, then get mad and indignant when I read those type of comments. "Choice" indicates we had more than one viable option. Most of us did not. We were manipulated by family, clergy, and social workers with the one thing that they KNEW would "work" on us...our love for our baby. Speaking as a Mom, knowing one of my children is hurting or is in pain is one of the worst, most helpless feelings in the world. "God, take their pain away and give it to me to bear." So guess what manipulative tactic finally broke me down, getting me to give in and give her up? "Your child will suffer if you keep her. You will be hurting her...do you really want to do that? Do you want her to resent you for bringing her into this situation? You will cause her pain. What kind of mother does that?!" I was 17 and not married, although still together with her bfather...that was the "unstable, hurtful" situation I was "dragging" her into. Personally, I would die before I let any of my kids suffer or deliberately cause them pain. My love for my baby was taken advantage of and used against me. And I'm not the only one...countless "first" moms went before me, and countless have gone after me with those SAME TACTICS used.

    And speaking of being painted with a broad brush, how many times have first-moms who lost babies to infant adoption been lumped in with the people who were deemed "unfit" and had their children removed from them? COUNTLESS times! I'll bet a majority, if not most, of the people who have children forcibly removed from their care never even gave a fleeting thought to giving their children up for adoption as infants. There are different circumstances for those "birthparents"...be it addiction, mental problems, whatever. All of the first-moms I have had contact with had the "misfortune" of being young, vulnerable, possibly facing hard financial times, and were compliant with society and authority figures who had their own "agendas." Are there girls/women who get pregnant and honestly have no desire to be a parent, but who choose against abortion? Absolutely. That's why I think adoption is necessary on rare occasions. After all measures of keeping the child in it's family of origin are exhausted, then "stranger" adoption becomes necessary and apparently can work out well according to various blogs I have come across.

    So, sometimes our opinions come across as harsh, but there is so much behind them that the average person cannot possibly understand. And sometimes we get tired of "educating" and just want to vent! We are probably the most misunderstood and least supported side of the triad, and that gets annoying at the very least. Forgive us if we get our "first-mother" feathers ruffled, but there's more going on behind the scenes than you might even imagine.

  67. Lorraine,

    Again, your sweeping generalizations are so very off the mark. I am, in fact, also a bleeding heart liberal - not a neoconservative as you seem to have determined me to be. My recent passions have been along the lines of gun control and health care, and I can assure you that no one who has taken the time to get to know me would ever accuse me of being conservative in any way. I happen to work with an impoverished and marginalized population, and am always drawn into a variety of social issues. I am not who you think I am. Within the comments of several posts on this blog, you have declared me to be a woman hoping to adopt internationally, as well as one against open adoption, and now one who would never consider foster care adoption - all extreme falsities which could be learned fairly quickly about me with just a modicum of effort.

    You also are wrong on me finding you. I had never before heard of your site, until I became a topic of conversation within your comments (which you engaged in) and Jane contacted me and directed me here. I responded to Jane with a open mind and heart, more than willing to engage in a private conversation on the issues. When I received no response, I made a point of reading here to see what you were all about. For almost 2 weeks I read every word of every new post you wrote, as well as several old ones, prior to posting my own thoughts publicly. I was more than open to trying to understand just where you were coming from (clearly far more open than you were to giving me the same courtesy) and to trying to learn what I could of your plight. When I did post publicly, it was not to tear you down personally or degrade your core objectives - in fact, I agreed openly that there is a very real need for reform - but rather to discuss all that is lost when the quest for change takes the form of vilifying and shutting out an entire other piece of the equation. I have witnessed in the last several weeks, birth mothers and adoptees with more positive experiences being ripped apart for telling their truth - shut down completely for sharing a different side of things, based on their own personal experiences. That seemed to be a highly ineffective way to garner attention and support for your cause to me - when, just as in politics, there are likely so many voices sitting more in the middle who would likely be turned off by such tactics. Voices that could otherwise have been valuable allies. None of that left me "outraged", and I think anyone reading what I wrote logically and with an open mind would very clearly be able to see that there is no anger on my part. Just disappointment, because I do believe it is a valid and worth-while cause, but one that is stunted in seeking to paint this whole other piece of the equation in such a broad and negative light. That is not to say that your personal experiences, or those of others who have been damaged, should not be shared - but rather that they should not be presented as the only possibility. Because doing so is just as erroneous as presenting adoption in only a positive light.

  68. Just to be clear also, I have never interacted with Rain before. She and I are not comparing notes, or even sharing emails, behind the scenes. But in digging through HER blog as well, I have discovered that the mother of her adopted son is actually in prison, meaning she was in no position to raise her child. Rain actually goes above and beyond to encourage as much openness there as humanly possible, and has a compassion for this woman that is unparalleled. She has researched the issues surrounding women in prison, made herself an advocate for those women, and gone out of her way to support her sons first mother in any way she can. For those interested in reading her most recent post with open eyes, she actually clears up a lot of inaccuracies that have been presented here about her as well. She too is a voice that could otherwise be used to promote change - if she was not first being vilified simply for being an adoptive parent.

    We are not the enemy. Painting us as such with inaccuracies and falsehoods without even taking the time to first verify the accusations and generalizations you are throwing out makes you the one not open to another perspective, not the other way around. I was, and I continue to remain, open to being educated on the issues. But educating people is hardly ever accomplished by first insulting them, judging them, generalizing them, and then shoving your version of the truth down their throats while closing yourself off completely to hearing theirs. I did not seek out this place. I was sought out, and told to open my eyes. So... Open them. But you might want to try opening yours as well in the process.

  69. Amy,

    I just want to say that I really appreciate everything you had to say. As you can see, I have major issues with being concise. It annoys me just as much as it may annoy anyone else, I promise. But this is how I have always been... I really do apologize for that, but I hope you will take the time to read what I have written as well.

    I did not seek out this site, I was directed here by Jane herself. I had never even heard of FMF before, and never do I ever go out searching for negativity on the internet. But I feel so misrepresented in this case, that I just HAD to see if there was any room for common ground. Because I may be a lot of things – socially awkward, verbose, sensitive, and if you were to believe the anonymous commenter above, also a big giant slut – but I am not, nor have I ever been, close-minded.

    So while I can absolutely see, and sympathize, with those who view this as a safe place and venting ground for women who have been irreconcilably scarred by the adoption industry, that is not how it was presented to me. Nor did it appear that way to me as I poured through post after post. Instead, it felt like an attack on adoptive parents, as well as those birth mothers and adoptees who may try to present a more positive story than what those here have experienced. That was hard for me to swallow, and it rang a little false as I view myself as a future adoptive parent who is absolutely open to this plight and the changes that need to be made.

    For the record: I absolutely agree that those of you who have been harmed SHOULD have a safe place to share those wounds without being judged. I know within the infertility community, that is often a desire as well. I get that, and I support it. But just as within the infertility community, I would never recommend a space try to pull the dual functions of acting as an advocacy site AND a venting ground. Those two functions tend to be a little counter-productive to each other.

    I also understand you feel as though you too have been painted with a broad brush, but… Have I done that? Have you seen me personally attempt to paint all birth mothers in the same light? If I have – I truly do apologize, as that was never my intention and I was wrong if I did it. I actually have a close friend who gave up her daughter for adoption over 12 years ago, and I greatly respect her, her story, and her hurts – so I would never want to do anything that would appear as though I was disrespecting all that she has been through. But in my heart, I really don’t believe that I personally have done that. Which means that once again, I am getting lumped into this perceived belief of what all adoptive parents must be like. I just don’t believe that is an accurate representation, and I hope I am expressing myself in a way that makes that clear.

    Again, I truly am sorry for all you have experienced, and my mind and heart are more than open to hearing about changes that need to be made. If this space is not meant to do that, than I misjudged it completely and obviously should have just let sleeping dogs (and broad generalizations) lie. But since I was directed here by one of the authors, I assumed that advocacy was the goal. And while I can support the cause, I cannot support the method of doing it – by vilifying all others who may come at the issues from a different angle. I don’t support that in politics, advocacy, or life, so I can’t support it here. I absolutely believe you deserve a place to be able to freely vent without feeling judged, I just hope that you know at your heart that all adoptive parents are not evil. They are not all the embodiment of those you have personally dealt with. I would at least like to believe that I am not.

  70. Dear SIF,

    1) I assumed you were a liberal. That is why I used that analogy in expressing why I did not comment on your blog.

    2) I had never heard of you until we began getting people coming from a blog I had never heard of--Single Infertile Female--so I checked it out an Lo! Your first post about FMF and the noxious things that appeared on FMF. I find your statement to the contrary disingenuous.

    3) We do not think all adoptive parents are conniving thievers or evil. We know they are not. I have worked with adoptive parents on adoption reform. Like everyone else in today's society, I know many adoptive parents, and they have the best intentions. I have also been attacked plenty by adoptive parents. We do know many of the deeply wounded women who come to FMF have been hoodwinked by adoptive parents and treated badly by the system, the lawyers, the social workers, their parents, their extended families, ad infinitum.

    4) As for the rest of my reason--no wish to drown in your verbosity--Q.E.D.

  71. Lorraine,

    In response to your point number 2, that you had never heard of me before I wrote about FMF and that I am disingenuous for implying otherwise:

    • On December 27th, I put up a post detailing various adoption stories I had seen recently in the news. It just so happened that FMF had written recently about some of the same stories. I never referenced FMF at any point during that post, because I had never heard of FMF at that point.

    • On that same exact day, FMF posted about one of the stories I had mentioned, that of Colin Kaepernick and his birth mother. You should be able to find that post to remind yourself of the sequence of events here: http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2012/12/a-son-refuses-to-meet-his-birthfirst.html

    • Within the comments of THAT post, Bee posted a link to my blog. You went on to have this response:

    "Lorraine Dusky said... Bee: I couldn't read that endless blog you linked to all the way to the endless end but I got her point: woe is me, I want to adopt internationally, I will be the parent whose kid doesn't want to meet his biological parents. Perhaps you or someone could gently urge her to read our post? December 28, 2012 at 11:08 AM"

    • At that point, I had still never heard of FMF. Jane later went on to comment on my original post, which again – Bee linked to – and directed me to FMF herself - something YOU had suggested someone do:

    "Jane Edwards said… Bee, I posted a comment on that single infertile female blog telling her she had everything wrong and asking her to read our posts on Russian adoptions and Heidi Russo/Colin Kaepernmick. December 28, 2012 at 8:48 PM"

    • The very next night, December 29th, I e-mailed Jane back after having visited your site for the first time. On the 30th I realized that e-mail had not gone through, and I resent it.

    • On January 7th, a full 11 days after I was first mentioned and discussed on FMF (a conversation which you clearly took part in), after having spent an exceptional amount of time pouring over your blog hoping solely to gain a bit of perspective on where you were coming from, and after realizing I was never going to hear back from Jane, I wrote a post about FMF which then led to the traffic you mention above.

    I am going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply may not have remembered taking part in that conversation, or ever visiting my blog, but as you can see above – there is absolutely nothing at all disingenuous about my stating that you, and FMF, were discussing me before I had ever even heard of your site - and long before I ever wrote the post you mention then sending traffic here. I never even would have found this space had it not been for Jane directing me here, on your suggestion, in the comment she left on my blog on a post that had nothing to do with FMF and never mentioned your site at all.

    I am not a disingenuous person… yet another descriptor you seem intent on labeling me with, even though it could not be further from the truth. Is this how you deal with everyone who may not agree with your tactics? Throw as many negative depictions as you can think of at them, until something sticks? Because all I am sure of at this point is that while I took the time to dig into FMF pretty thoroughly in an effort to understand your perspective, you have done nothing but misrepresent me again and again without taking even a second to try to understand where I am coming from or what kind of person I am. I am not the close-minded one... I hope that much is at least clear to you now.

  72. SIF: You have me there. I apologize. I checked and you appear to be correct that Jane's comment in late December led to the initial connection (such as it is) between our two blogs, and persons. What I was aware of was the traffic that we got from SIF and then some from Rain. However, your post about our blog which quoted FMF extensively and talked about the level of "vitriol" here, which did lead to a number of your readers ending up here, which is what I remembered.

    Sometimes on that post called "First Mother Forum," I think you were talking about the blog that Jane and I write, and you quote it extensively; other times, the comments, but it is not worth deciphering (at least to me) what was FMF and what was from a comment. You did seem to be horrified by what first mothers have to say about adoption, and the lies and pain that goes into it from this end--where it all begins. We are the most marginalized group in the adoption circle. Be that as it may, again I apologize for misstating how the connection started. Neither one of us wanted to respond to your extremely long response you sent to Jane, for the reasons stated in my earlier comment to you.

    One last note, if you do adopt someone from foster care who truly needs a home, that is a good thing. AshLee on The Bachelor, and someone who I spoke to a couple of years ago who "aged out of foster care" as she told me holding back tears, remind me that older kids really do need homes. Perhaps you will be the right person for someone, and if that is what you do, I wish you, and the individual, the very best.

  73. By the way, has anybody seen the series of adoption articles the Huffington Post is doing?

    Rain seems to fit in there quite well.

  74. Wow SIF, you sure caught us...talking about you. Isn't that the whole point of having a blog? So that people will talk about you.
    I disagree strongly with the things you had to say in regard to adoption and the fantasy land you seem to be living in. I was however, never offended. Just simply dismayed. I brought your blog to attention here as a contrast to those who have actually experienced adoption.
    It was you who chose to, in your words, "pour over" this blog and then wrote a highly judgmental post entitled First Mother Forum.
    I am not sure what exactly you are trying to prove. From your post, it is very obvious that you were offended by what Jane and Lorraine are doing here and you felt superior to their cause because they expressed a side you did not wish to see or experience. You are the one who opened up a bigger discussion.
    The comments here initially that you offer as proof of first offense were in fact fairly innocuous and by your own admission were not unkind. You are the one who threw a big rock and titled it First Mother Forum.
    And now you and your followers want to categorize the readers and commenters of FMF as "post menopausal" trolls. Post menopausal? What a lovely word choice. Does not describe me personally, far from it. Interesting label considering the context though.
    So yes, you've certainly caught us all here for...talking about you and disagreeing with you. Perhaps you should go back to your own space and hang out with the people who think you are absolutely right and wonderful.

  75. Hey there SIF...I don't know whether you personally made the "birthparent equals unfit parent" generalization but I was just pointing out an assumption made by MANY people that we have to contend with, and defend against. I don't know much about you actually...just bits and pieces from the exchanges above. :)

    I know all p/adoptive parents aren't evil! I'm not that shallow. I do believe that quite a few of them are uneducated on first-mom/adoptee issues. I am completely aware that in our society, the attitude is "can't have a baby of your own, just adopt!" (on a personal level, I KNOW it's not that easy) Initially, there is little thought to 'where' that baby comes from. I know this because besides being a first-mom for nearly 28 years now, I am the daughter of an adoptee (who loved and adored her adoptive grandparents, btw), and I have 3 adopted first cousins by 2 different aunts/uncles. I've seen the mind-set first hand. One aunt just wanted to make sure she got a daughter after having 2 sons and then had a bio-daughter 7 months after adopting! Pure selfishness. No, not all adoptive parents are like her...thankfully! lol Anyway, I have several different perspectives from which to view adoption...not just as a first-mom.

    Oh, and sort of off topic but this was mentioned above...being justifiably punished by losing your baby for having premarital sex. What a sick assessment! First of all, I wasn't doing anything different than anyone else in my high school. I am one of the 2 girls in my senior class who got "caught!" Blame it on high fertility and not being responsible or cautious I suppose. My daughter's father was my boyfriend...only the 2nd person I ever had sex with, and I went on to marry him (26 years now!). FAR from being a "slut" or trashy girl. There were people doing WAY worse than me, but they got away with no consequences. I can see that crucifiction was fair punishment for my "indiscretion." NOT.

    I do think that even with our venting or raging, we have a message to be heard...even if it's not our intent at the time. You may or may not like the delivery, but with an open mind, you can extract valuable bits of information from what we have to say.

    That is all for now!

  76. Theodore: Yes, I have seen the series and I am appalled. They are a celebration of the joys of adoption for everyone but the adopted. I just read the one from the first mother who says keeping that baby was never an option, but also talks about her fiance and the terrible time she had carrying due to health issues, such as diabetes.

    I don't get it. We have made adoption seem like a normal way to raise a child--when it should always be the abnormal--and this has seeped into the ethos of the times.

  77. "We have made adoption seem like a normal way to raise a child--when it should always be the abnormal--and this has seeped into the ethos of the times."

    This issue of adoption being normal is a double-edged sword for me. OTOH, I don't want it to seem normal to give up one's child or for a child to be raised outside of his biological family. OTOH, the more 'normal' adoption is considered and the more it is accepted by society, the less stigma there will be on children who are adopted. I would think that children adopted in the 21st century would have a much easier time with their adoptee status than adoptees who were born say in the 1930s and 40s.

  78. I've been reading FMF for a while, mostly because as a recent adoptive mother and an adult adoptee from foster care, I find many topic written about interesting and thought provoking. I'm all for adoption reform. When this topic came up, I went over to read Rain's blog and Single Infertile Female post. And then I came back here to read the comments. Frankly I'm shocked, especially how Rain's posts and comments were treated. I read back through her blog and her experiences with foster care. From what I can tell, she is the kind of adoptive parent that FMF is saying the world needs. While Rain's husband seems to be a typical male and doesn't understand the emotional issues involved, Rain seems to be the type to get it. I do think her words and meanings were very skewed on this forum.

    As for Single Female, she has some strong opinions, but none of them seem radical enough to warrent such anger from the readers here.

    I feel like if adoption reform is to happen, it needs to happen with the co-operation of bloggers and adoptive mothers. Who of you who actually read Rain's blog think she's an enemy in all this? And Single Female? While they may not be perfect advocates for the mission of FMF, they both seem to understand the need for openness and changes to the adoption industry.

    So, why are we treating them like some clueless, hate-mongers?

  79. I fell out of love with Rain when I read how she treated the children she fostered. She would be quite caring and loving until she learned a child was unavailable for adoption. I believe she strongly advocated for one infant her husband disliked for crying too much until they learned she would not be adoptable, then they returned her.
    This is not the point of fostering. I feel they fostered for the wrong reasons and I found the things she wrote about the children she fostered to often be unkind.
    I had no intention of adding to this conversation until the above post appeared. Rain's blog especially during her time as a foster parent is full of cluelessness and entitlement.
    Her husband's post about owning up to one's choices and being grateful is particularly grating because it completely lacks any empathy.
    I just do not find Rain and her husband to be particularly nice people.

  80. Amanda, to me Rain sounds exactly like the enemy.

    "Of course you’re in pain. I feel for you. At the same time, that has very little to do with adoption."

    That said, her Cadet needed a stable replacement family, and she seems to be doing a good job of giving him that, no problem there, we should not make a Mrs. Sanger out of her.

    SIF seems more like an innocent bystander stumbling into a minefield and causing some damage there...

  81. I'm starting to find this very common among people who adopt from foster care. A lot of them seem to have a worse attitude than those who adopt infants or internationally.

    I have been reading more of the articles about fathers, who were duped by Utah's adoption laws. In the comments of those articles, most of the APs were siding with the fathers, (especially Terry Achane) But there was two adoptive fathers, who adopted from foster care, who questioned Terry's character. And said an investigation needed to be done on Terry, to make sure he was fit to parent, and to make sure he didn't really abandon his daughter. He said a lot of awful things about Terry and other natural fathers, he kept referring to him as a "sperm donor." Other people argued with him saying, "he's in the military, what more investigation is needed?" but the adoptive father wouldn't stop making excuses.

    But many other APs and adoptive fathers who went through infant adoption or adopted internationally, were happy to hear Terry Achane is reunited with his daughter and didn't question his fitness to parent.

    Not saying everyone who adopts from foster care is like that, but it's something to look into. Or maybe it's the fact that there aren't enough infants to adopt, and they're angry they have to resort to foster care.

    Just a thought.

  82. To be fair, some of the children in foster care who have been through hell are disturbed and I see no reason to accuse the parent who commented to expecting perfection. But hell is hell, and a child who is that damaged may be more than they could handle. It sounds like they have done a lot trying to help her. I'd give them a break.

  83. Anonymous@12:20

    I've been a follower of Rain's blog for a while now. I started following her blog when her and her husband started foster care. My partner and I are long-time foster care providers. She fell into the common trap of most foster-adopt parents, thinking that everything would fall into place. They were fost-adopt parents, not straight foster parents. I know many foster parents who also are fost-adopt and they run into the same problem. Lies are pretty common among social workers. They are so desperate to find a house for a child, they will say anything to get the foster parents to say "yes", even if the child is not really up for adoption or has more severe needs than the family can realistically handle.

    You have to understand that the foster system is very broken and isn't really a good place for soft-hearted people (like Rain).

    1. AAAUUUUGGGGHHHHH if they were desperate to find children a home they wouldn't be lying to take them out of good homes in the first place!!!!!!!!! give that foul adoption credit to single moms and stop making trouble greedy fucked up baby thieves (foster care has tons of children baby thieves took and then decided they didn't want) social workers aren't lying to protect babies look at the big picture PLEASE!

  84. Seriuosly these foster/adopt, paps and general society really need a commuupnce when it comes to foster children wehter they be international or domestic.

    These babies are TRAUMATIZED, they have been broken, abused, shifted around like cattle and then placed in homes that are ill equiped to deal with them. NO, I do not give these foster parents or adoptive parents a break because just like many might say that the birthparents are the cause its their lack of education that is the problem. Its the ability to throw their hands up and just dump the child AGAIN. What do they expect the child to do, they know no other way to act, they may never know how to heal and thats what happens when you parent. YES these children are disturbed, horrible disturbed, just as disturbed as any child from any orphanage in another country. Then they go one to be abused again and again. Some abuse is obvious(sexual, putting them in cages, physical, withholding food, being treated like slaves) to the more subtle ,the situaion decsribed above send the child back because they won't be able to adopt. Do you know what that does to a child? Does anyone really care?

    I agree the foster care system is very broken and to all the people that truly do it to care for a broken human being for the sake of the human being and not to "get something" out if , my hats off to you.

    I have heard about some of the good orphaneges that are out of country and wonder if thats a better solution for these children then what we are doing now. Better oversight of the child, better openness of society andbetter treatment for the severly hurt. Many of the workers are very warm, loving people that take good care of the children. the babies, children can keep their names keep their persona.

    What we are doing now sure as heck is not working. I agrree in some cases in foster care the child can not stay with their families due to sever dysfuction but the goal should NOT be adoption to give someone a family ,but a safe loving home to give stabilty to a child without taking away their idenity, their souls, and making them be what the parents want instead of who they are.

    I have heard many parents and people say that they would not adopt from foster care because of the "disturbed" children...I think most people should not...for the childs sake, not the adults. ITs the adults that are not good enough for the child, not the child not being good enough for the adults.

    Gawd the more supposedly "evolved" we have become the more robotic and selfish we have become in our care for vunerable children. Need a child at any cost is t he motto nowadays...need a girl/ boy and however I get is ok...because the rest of the world is all wrong... not a "hopeful" adoptive parent, not a potential "birthmother" thats just not ready to parent.....its ok to just pass babies, eggs, sperm araound... because they are not really human and i want what i want...and that little creation that i attainted is mine all mine and just better know how lucky they are to be living and breathing...

    Yes, I am angry at the appalling attitudes adoptees need to listen to.

    And i had a decent situation, loving mom and dad, normal life and got respect for my adoptee status from them. Was also a foster child...still don't like the fact i was adopted. Wish i could have stayed with my biomom OR be born to my adoptive parents...

  85. Check out all the comments by someone who goes by the name of "alecniles" on this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENMZZdaHI64&list=UUXwwjdgwg2Rjw8WtJL0iN3w&index=7

    He or she says "birthmothers" are nothing more than "incubaters" or "birthers" and need to stop blaming the agency and "stop blaming others for they're actions." And that adoptions is better for children cause it "keeps them off welfare" This person is a moron.

    I'll list the persons comments.

    "No one made you contact an agency. You asked an agency to place your child by walking through the door. You have missed placed blame for your own actions. It's irresponsible of you to place blame on others for your actions. It's not up to the hospital 2teach a mom 2b a mom. They only show U how 2latch on & change a diaper. But parents are suppose to research parenting practices b4 birth. In the same respect it's not the agencies job to teach you to cope w/adoption. It's on you & your family."

    "An incubator, a birther, & a surrogate do the same thing. They incubate embryo from zygote through the stages of fetal development, then birth new born for the the REAL parents. A person can incubate & deliver, but that does not make the Birther the parent. A complex person w/feelings can still be a Birther. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it makes them more complex. A Birther is no less a Woman for NOT being the Mom. You didn't have to birth. Misplaced blame won't change it. "

    One person even argued that adoption only benefits adults not children and alecniles replied.

    "mother's should be called what they are, a mother, no matter how they had their child. Nature doesn't decide the mother. The nurturer decides to be the mother. You are right, adoption benefits the parents. B/c a child is a gift from God. "

    Yep, just shows how much society is brainwashed by the industry. A lot of Christians also claim this too when it comes to the definition of "mother." However as I was going through other blogs, I found what the definition of mother really is in the Bible. It comes from the Hebrew word 'em it's spelled ALEPH MEM-SOFIT. Mem is the 13th letter in the Hebrew alphabet, it symbolizes water and is associated with the womb. Just as the waters in baptism, symbolizes spiritual birth. All out through the world, water has always symbolized giving birth. That is why in the 4 elements of fire, earth, water and air, water has always been considered a feminine element.

    So yes, according to the biblical definition of "mother" a mother is someone who gives birth, not someone who raises a child.

  86. One more thingI forfot to put out there, to any APs, PAPs or any "pro-adoption" person who might be reading this.

    My mom was almost 19 at having me. And yes, she and my dad had to go on welfare temporarily. I did not under any circumstances "suffer" as some say welfare children do, while they were on it. I was very, very happy with my life and with my REAL parents. Yes the ones who conceived me and gave birth to me. I'm very, very grateful, they did not give me up. And may I repeat one more time, I was HAPPY! I was happy, healthy and thriving!

    I hope this confirms to some APs and PAPs, that they are not "saving" a child from a "hard life of welfare" when they adopt a infant.

    1. thank you moon star so much. and if you work in a group home or prison you will know that no mater the amount of money buyers have, adoption ruins tons of lives (adoptees that are dissolved to an institution because (they are bad?). i think the subtle differences in the way buyers talk is reflected in the real problems of adoption. rain bought children to call attention to herself. or listen to delilah, she can't stop talking about her wonderful zach and now that she has one of her own she realizes that kids are just like that. must really horrify these purchases of hers. though i think she does try.

  87. Moonstar:

    You're wrong, actually. The word for mother in Hebrew is not "ALEPH MEM-SOFIT"...in fact Aleph Mem and Sofit are simply letters or grammatical notes.

    The word for mother in Hebrew is Em or Am. The first letter of Hebrew is Aleph (meaning strong) and the second is Mem (meaning water). The meaning, when combined, means "strong water" or "binding water". Meaning that mother is the one who binds the family together.

    Please do your research before you start spouting misinformation.

  88. I wasn't spouting misinformation. I did my research.


    As there is also em kol chai. Which mother of all living Eve. Once again were em is used.


  89. And just in case here's one more.

  90. One thing I forgot to mention is that Aleph Mem Sofit is one time when mother is mentioned Mem is how it's spelled. Sorry for any misunderstandings. In the sentence of "strong binding waters" but Mem is the mother part.Sorry for any misunderstandings from my typing and leaving out words.

  91. Rain???? Soft hearted?
    Now that is a hoot.

  92. nadese:

    For some reason the comment I believe you are responding to did not publish with the rest of your comment. You may wish to add it? I can see it in light type, but when I hit publish, it did not come up. You may wish to try again. Sorry for the problem.

    1. yeah but i can't remember. I some day will have to find my journal of new parenting because rain has it wrong. my heart grieves for that situation. if they had any idea of how much damage taking one child away does to a family... please baby buyers, don't buy more than one.... only children can be taught sharing if the mom does tons of play dates. and seriously what mom doesn't need a break, taking some else child for a day and then returning them is a blessing a gift since you buyers love this "gift" idea.



COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. Our blog, our decision whether to publish.

We cannot edit or change the comment in any way. Entire comment published is in full as written. If you wish to change a comment afterward, you must rewrite the entire comment.

We DO NOT post comments that consist of nothing more than a link and the admonition to go there.