Separated by adoption reality: the adoptive parent experience

Posted on Updated on

Today, I had a conversation with a woman (whom I will call Helen) who had adopted a newborn 19 years ago. This child had behavioural problems while growing up, and the parents despaired. Eventually, the adoptive parents contacted the natural mother (“birthmother”) with hopes that the daughter would be “fixed” by some form of contact, and a reunion happened when the girl was 16.

And then, when the daughter was 18, she moved back in to live with her natural mother and full brother.

Helen is in shock. No-one had warned her that this would happen. I won’t elaborate on the contents of our conversation, as I respect her confidentiality, but it was clear that the agency she had obtained this baby from had not told her that the child could ever do this. In essence, this family was put together by the adoption industry, and then separated by adoption reality.

There is a sales-pitch that the industry promotes and tells to people hoping to adopt, manipulating them so that they will indeed hand over money ($25,000 or more in the current market) for that “perfect baby.” This is a brief sampling of what this sales-pitch can consists of:

  1. All families, both adoptive and natural, are the same.
  2. Your adopted child is now “As if born to” you, emotionally and socially. The amended birth certificate will say that you gave birth, so act as though you did. You are now the only mother.
  3. The child needs only you and not the love of their “birth parents.”
  4. Environment is everything – the child is a blank slate (“tabula rasa”). Personality is at least 80% due to environment.
  5. Rest assured that the “birth family” can never search for the child because records are sealed tight to protect you in most states and provinces.
  6. The natural mom is just an incubator, a “birthmother,” a “gene donor,” and her only purpose was to gestate that child. Her motherhood ended with the cutting of the umbilical cord.
  7. This child is unwanted, and the “birthmother” will never return or want her back.
  8. If loved enough, this child will never want to search.
  9. Adoptees will never feel hurt from being surrendered or taken. If they do have questions, love from adoptive parents will solve everything.
  10. “Adjusted” adoptees do not search, and those who do only want medical and historical information. Reunion entails a one-time meeting and then both parties separate.
  11. “The Primal Wound” is a complete myth. No adoptee faces it.
  12. This is a lifetime guarantee.

Even the loaded term “birthmother” primes the adoptive parents to believe that the natural mother is only a past and irrelevant part of the adoptee’s past, her entire role consisting of having given birth, as irrelevant to an older adoptee as a baby bottle would be. Or, as it was told to me by the man who had adopted my son:  “R— has only one mother, K—, and one father, me.”

So, this woman, like millions of people who have adopted, believed the word of the agency. After all, they’re supposed to be “adoption professionals,” right?

While I was talking to Helen, I began thinking about my son and the people who had adopted him. For those readers new to our story: I found him in 1999. We reunited in 2000. He moved back with me on New Year Day of 2003. I adopted him back in 2007.  He is now, in his eyes, a former adoptee. His former adoptive parents deny that I am related as “family” to him. “R— is a member of this family and shall not be shared in any way, shape or form” were their words to me in their 2001 attempt to forcibly end his reunion with me, to define me as being unrelated, a complete stranger, not-family.

They too believe(d) the adoption industry myths, the “sales pitch,” and it lead to them trying to control him and end our reunion. One more adoptee gets hurt, caught up in an agency promise of a “lifetime guarantee.” And the agency gets off scot-free. Agencies should be sued for false advertising.

I wonder if Helen’s adopted daughter will return to her entirely, will be adopted-back by her natural family, will maintain family connections with both families, or do none of the above? There is no predicting.

But agencies must stop promising adoptive parents that the baby they adopt is “as if born to” them. There is nothing preventing an adoptee, even one raised in a “good home” from feeling the strength of the blood-bond and returning once more to their natural family, whether it would be to build a family of 4 equal parents (2 natural, 2 adoptive) or to return exclusively to their natural parents. But would adoptive parents pay the same “big bucks” for a child who may only be “theirs” for 18 years? You make more money if you can sell an unrealistic, impossible-to-guarantee myth.

38 thoughts on “Separated by adoption reality: the adoptive parent experience

    Amyadoptee said:
    July 28, 2009 at 1:35 am

    My amom wishes desperately that I would meet my first mother. Not so that she could rid of me so that she and I both could understand me and my daughters better.

    From what I understand, the amoms from my era are not like her. It hurts her as much as me that I have been “denied.”

    Peach said:
    July 28, 2009 at 3:58 am

    Even though alot of adoptive parents are becoming more educated, it seems as if the majority of society and those who want to adopt STILL think the way Helen does. Your post was awesome and I wish everyone could read it.

    Mei-Ling said:
    July 28, 2009 at 9:51 am

    “And then, when the daughter was 18, she moved back in to live with her natural mother and full brother.”

    I didn’t think that was legally allowed.

    So who does the law legally consider her parents, then?

    angelle2 said:
    July 28, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    I am living in the middle of “Helen-world” right now with my son and it infuriates me the way his family makes him feel conflicted. By not seeing that we all share in this together they are fulfilling their own worst case scenarios.

    Cedar said:
    July 28, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Hi Mei-Ling, good to see you! 🙂 Yes, it is legal. Courts have ruled that “mature minors” (commonly 16+) have the right to decide whom to live with. (The “mature minor” principle in Canada is due in part to a court decision regarding the right to refuse medical treatment.) More common example: older children living with non-custodial parents after divorce. Even for younger children in divorce, the court will consider their POV, as to whom they want to live with

    The legal parents in this case are still the adoptive parents, unless/until the child is adopted-back. But “legal parent” certainly doesn’t mean much legally (other than inheritance and next-of-kin in medical emergencies) once a child is an adult.

    dory said:
    July 28, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    “I didn’t think that was legally allowed.”

    She’s 18 – she can live with whoever she wants to live with.

    I know I would have moved back in with my mother had the opportunity arose.

    Unlike Amy’s amom, my amother certainly fell for the industry rhetoric and admonished me if I did not tow the line. In her eyes she owned me.

    kateiskate said:
    July 28, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    Great post, Cedar.

    maybe said:
    July 28, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    Interesting situation. Do you think the a-mom would have ever sought out the natural mother if there had been no behavioral issues? Would she have been open to reunion if the daughter had turned out to be the perfect adoptee? Not accusing here, just curious how her view of the mother-daughter relationship might have been different if the circumstances had been a bit more rosy.

    I’m hearing more frequently about “adopting-back” by the natural parents, as well as changing the name back to the birth name in some form (even if not adopted-back). Most a-parents would be astonished to hear of these possibilities, IMO.

    Your sales pitch list is accurate, and mostly BS, as sales pitches typically are. In regards to the lifetime guarantee, do the APs get a refund if the adoptee returns to the natural family? Maybe they should include a disclaimer in super-fine print: “No refunds for imperfect, ungrateful, natural family-loving adoptees.”

    Lorraine Dusky said:
    July 29, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    My daughter started spending entire summers with me and my husband (not her father) when she was sixteen, and did that for several years, as well as live with us for other extended periods of time when she was older and … having a hard time figuring out herself. She immediately was attracted to my liberal artistic lifestyle/family/friends and while I know she felt loyal to her parents and her life back in Wisconsin I believe…what might have been…played on her mind, especially in her younger years. Adoptive parents simply do not understand when they adopt that their children will not grow up to be like them. And most of them are in for quite a surprise.

    Joe Esterhaz, (spelling uncertain) the script writer, also adopted his daughter back, and they were speakers, I believe, at the last AAC conference, right?

    Cedar: How old was your son when you reunited? This going back happens certainly more than adoptive parents hear about, and they certainly don’t hear about it from the agencies who are in business to market babies.
    lorraine from

    Sandy Young said:
    July 29, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    Awesome post, Cedar. It really is interesting how many women I know personally who have adopted back or their lost children have taken back their names.

    You are right…the industry should be sued for false advertising, and maybe if that were done there would be fewer lies and deceptions in adoption. A good place to start would be with the Original Birth Certificates…a legalized lie in any book!

    Keep up the good work, Cedar. Your blog is awesome!

    Melanee Packard said:
    July 30, 2009 at 12:26 am

    Thanks for the blog post. As a first mom I was gently suggested by a wonderful search angel to read “Primal Wound”…as an adoptee and a first mom who lost her son to a forced adoption it hadn’t occurred to me that the separation of my son would have a lasting psychological effect on him, as I knew that it would have on me. That daughter connected to her bmom on a cellular level; and I believe that to be true, almost an instinctual acceptance on both parts.

    And, like ‘maybe’..I wonder if the daughter HAD been ‘the perfect child’ whether she would have sought out the bmom, too.

    Sally Bacchetta said:
    July 30, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    I’m an adoptive parent of two, and I’m horrified by your “sales pitch” list. Not that you wrote it but that there are adoption agencies who actually say things like that.

    Even more, I think it’s pitiful for prospective adoptive parents to believe it or want to hear it. I often wish there was a brain scan that could detect what prospective adoptive parents really think about natural families. And that scan could be used to disqualify PAPs who pretend to want openness and pretend that they will honor the whole of their child’s personal evolution, including the natural family.

    It’s unforgivable that so many women have so much pain around adoption. Our kids’ birthmothers gave us the gift of LIFE. These women are more loving, gracious, balanced, and strong than most other people I know.

    BTW, I choose to use the term “birthmother” because it speaks to their power to give life. It’s a constant reminder that M and J chose to share their bodies to nurture life for strangers. For me the word is warm, maternal, loving, selfless and beautiful. I’m sorry if it offends anyone.

    Cedar said:
    July 30, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    Lorraine wrote: “Cedar: How old was your son when you reunited? ”

    I found him when he was 19, thanks to open records here in B.C. which provided me with the right to his adoptive name (for $50, I received a copy of the Registration of Live Birth which I had filled in at his birth and which later had his new name typed in at the bottom, plus a copy of the adoption order).

    We reunited in-person 1 day before his 20th birthday.

    I praise open records in B.C., where both adopted persons and natural parents can obtain both original and amended birth records. There is no discrimination.

    Mei-Ling said:
    July 31, 2009 at 5:26 am

    Sally, I don’t know who “M and J” is referring to in your comment – are they the bioparents of your children? I guess given the context, that’s the only thing that makes sense. Anyway, there was something I wanted to point out:

    “BTW, I choose to use the term
    “birthmother” because it speaks to their power to give life.”

    Do you mean just the simple of giving birth it self, or the ability to hand their babies over to strangers?

    Because I’m not sure there are a whole lot of women out there deciding to get pregnant for the sole purpose of giving up their flesh-and-blood, gift or NOT.

    joy21 said:
    July 31, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    “It’s a constant reminder that M and J chose to share their bodies to nurture life for strangers. For me the word is warm, maternal, loving, selfless and beautiful. I’m sorry if it offends anyone.”

    Nurture life for strangers?

    I am sorry, but that made me heave as an adoptee, my life is not a commodity given to my adoptive parents.

    Gut-wrenching post btw Cedar, you are right, but these kinds of things make me feel absolutely torn-up.

    Lorraine Dusky said:
    July 31, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    And Ceder, am I not correct that the change in the law in British Columbia happened when the province’s governor or minister…was a woman who had been adopted?

    Three cheers for getting adopted people into places of power in the government!

    Sally Bacchetta said:
    August 2, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    Yes, “M” and “J” are my kids bioparents. I don’t think there’s anything ‘simple’ about birth – conception, pregnancy, or labor and delivery. I think it’s all amazing and something to be celebrated.

    Neither “M” nor “J” ‘handed their babies over to strangers’, and I know them both well enough to be confident saying they would resent that flippant characterization of the most difficult decision either of them has had to make.

    Apparently I need to write more clearly. I’m 100% certain that neither “M” nor “J” set out to ‘get pregnant for the sole purpose of giving up their flesh-and-blood, gift or NOT.’ What they did do is make the decision to give life rather than have an abortion. They could have chosen abortion, they could have chosen to parent their children themselves, they could have chosen to abandon their newborn babies somewhere… but they didn’t.

    They chose to make adoption plans. They chose to interview I-don’t-know-how-many PAPs and their families to find the parents they thought would raise their children as they would themselves if their circumstances were different. They chose to seek prenatal care and carry their children in their wombs, knowing they were not going to parent. I wrote that they “chose to share their bodies to nurture life for strangers” because that’s exactly what they did.

    J M said:
    August 3, 2009 at 2:38 am

    I second Joy’s response of nausea.

    In my experience, condemning an innocent child to live with an arranged family is definitely NO guarantee that we will live happily ever after.

    Just because other people made that choice for me, does not mean it would have been mine.
    That NEVER would have been an option, if I had any say in it.
    I just wanted to grow up around people who looked like me, sounded like me, acted like me or at least looked at my quirks and said, “You get that from your Great Aunt Blah Blah Blah.”

    And sadly, when I finally had the chance to enter reunion with my n-family and get those questions answered, it shattered the already fractured relationship I had with my a family.

    We literally have not spoken since I announced I found my n-mother, and they have no idea what I have gone through since.

    Clearly, this was NOT part of the plan. I have written them that they should get their money back, since this was never hinted as a possibility by the agency….

    Mei-Ling said:
    August 3, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    “they could have chosen to parent their children themselves”

    You make that sound like a bad thing. :\

    ” … chose to share their bodies to nurture life for strangers”

    I’m sorry, I’m still not seeing how using the term “birthmother” equates to the above. You may be saying they chose an adoption plan – and I’m going to assume that they, for whatever reason, did not feel they could parent or didn’t want to – you’re saying they chose to share their bodies to nurture life FOR STRANGERS.

    In other words, getting pregnant and nurturing the life inside their bodies FOR STRANGERS. They had sex to create a baby and somehow instinctively knew all along that they weren’t meant to parent their own child? (and if that’s the case – as it could be – I really want to know WHY)

    How can the statements “nurture life FOR strangers” be seen as anything other than meaning to declare a woman became pregnant for the sole act of giving up her baby to strangers?

    Mei-Ling said:
    August 3, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    One more thing:

    Statement 1: they “chose to share their bodies to nurture life for strangers”


    Statement 2: “get pregnant for the sole purpose of giving up their flesh-and-blood, gift or NOT”

    Take out the “for strangers” part and I might have actually agreed with you. However, how can Statement 1 possibly NOT mean anything other than Statement 2?

    Sally Bacchetta said:
    August 3, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    This is the last response I’ll make on this topic, because I’m not the least bit interested in changing your view of the world or your experience of your life’s events, and to continue this back-and-forth would feel more to me like defending myself and trying to reform your perspective and less like expressing my opinion.

    I wrote: “they could have chosen to parent their children themselves”

    You wrote: You make that sound like a bad thing. :\.
    No, I don’t. I make it sound like a choice they could have made. They didn’t, which seems to upset you.

    I wrote: ” … chose to share their bodies to nurture life for strangers”

    You wrote: you’re saying they chose to share their bodies to nurture life FOR STRANGERS. In other words, getting pregnant and nurturing the life inside their bodies FOR STRANGERS. They had sex to create a baby and somehow instinctively knew all along that they weren’t meant to parent their own child?

    That’s so different from what I wrote that I wonder if your screen blipped while you were reading my response. If you read my words again you’ll see I never said they had sex or got pregnant for strangers. I said that once pregnant, they chose to share their bodies to nurture life for strangers. They did. They chose that from a myriad of other choices they could have made. They chose that, which also seems to upset you. It was their choice to make, no one else’s. Whether or not you choose to believe it, some birth mother’s believe it was the right choice for them and their child.

    Mei-Ling said:
    August 4, 2009 at 5:11 am

    Oh, no, my screen didn’t fade out or crash while I was reading your response. and I’m still going to respond even if you don’t reply, because of the viewpoint I am coming at and WHY I read it the way I did:

    What I read in your response is that “getting pregnant” means “nurturing the life [for strangers]” because pregnancy (if we don’t take into account smokers or alcoholics) IS nurturing life.

    Mei-Ling said:
    August 4, 2009 at 5:12 am

    “They chose that, which also seems to upset you.”

    No. It was the way that you worded it into the “meant to be” concept (for strangers) that upset me.

    Cedar said:
    August 4, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    “they chose to seek prenatal care and carry their children in their wombs, knowing they were not going to parent. ”

    Then there wasn’t a decision. If these women were roped into “making an adoption plan” while still pregnant, before an informed choice could be made, before they had recovered from pregnancy and child-birth, I don’t see them having made any decision about adoption. In fact, I would sincerely question the agency or person who was giving them counselling and advice, to find out what financial gain the person expected if “M” and “J” surrendered their babies.

    PLUS, if they had contact with prospective adoptive parents *before* signing the surrender papers, how can there be a guarantee that any of these relationships did not emotionally coerce these women into surrendering? Open adoptions and pre-surrender (pre-birth) contact is an agency practie that came about solely to increase surrender rates, ensuring that the mothers do not have a chance to make a decision (post-recovery) that is fair, informed, and uninfluenced by external factors.

    “These women are more loving, gracious, balanced, and strong than most other people I know.”

    This raises the question: if they are such perfect people, why didn’t they raise their babies themselves? What convinced them that they were not good enough for their babies, that they were unfit to be parents?

    I don’t see any decision or “choice” here — a coerced decision is not a decision at all. Neither is an uninformed one, and mothers must recover from pregnancy and get to know their babies first, become competant and informed as mothers, before they can make any “adoption decision” about what they want to give away.

    Adoption is for unloved and unwanted babies. It sounds to me like these capable and mature women wanted and loved their babies, in which case, the question arises of what caused them to feel they had to surrender them?

    Cedar said:
    August 4, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    The term “birthmother” denies a mother the right to be called a mother. It denigrates her into being nothing more than a vessel, a uterus, a gestational device. My son’s adoptive parents reserved the title of “Mother” for themselves, calling me nothing more than a “birthmother.” If motherhood is defined as ending at the cutting of the umbilical cord, then it defines the woman as being nothing more than a set of genitals, of no further relevance or importance in the life of her child. That’s the unfortunate truth in the term ‘birthmother’ as it was coined by the adoption industry and used by the industry and its paying customers. Mothers such as myself are now speaking up against being defined as being non-mother and ‘walking uteri.” I’m more than that in my son’s life.

    unicorn said:
    August 4, 2009 at 11:16 pm

    Lorraine – I think you are right. In Ontario, the premier has an adopted sibling who had trouble getting medical information.

    The Ontario government even fought a court case to keep the records open for everyone – very few governments would go that for. I can’t think of any similar cases like that (if anyone knows of any, I would be interested to hear about it).

    Although the Ontario government lost the case and they were forced by the judge to put in disclosure vetoes, the Ontario government did not waste any time in re-submitting and passing an open records law which states that for all future adoptions, the records must be available and that no disclosure vetoes are allowed on future adoptions. It is the best they could do while still complying with the court judgement.

    Myst1998 said:
    August 8, 2009 at 1:22 am

    Great post Cedar. It is a sad fact that MOST adopters are in this mindset; there is only a handful who are not. My daughter’s adopters certainly believe this crap as do most I have ever met and know.

    As for the whole abortion debate… please, that is so old. Adoption is NOT an alternative to abortion and certainly is not the lesser of two evils. Children still die in adoption, in fact for some it is a torturous way to live as they are abused, used as sex objects and then they ease their own pain by killing themselves so I see adoption and abortion in the same light… but abortion comes off better in the long run!

    At the end of the day, adoption is just an adults desire to have what they want. It never considers the life long effects on the child; its only interest is to fulfill an adult’s whim. Why esle would an adoptee need a second, false document issued to them? Why does the effect of adoption wipe out a child’s history? That isn’t fo their best interest but for the adopter to feel comfortable they are the “only” parent.

    And the term “birth” affixed to anything (like mother, child etc) is revolting.

    lissa said:
    August 11, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    I agree with Cedar and Myst.

    The term “birthmother” is an attempt to deny our true relationship with OUR children. The adoption industry refer to us in this derogatory manner to soothe the adopter’s feelings. I am astounded that adopters have this defensive attitude and declare themselves the *only* parents. They know it isn’t true. And they lash out at those of us who are our children’s true parents who refuse to go along with their wishes. It’s always about the adopters.

    I never consented to my daughter’s adoption. I was coerced in the most disgusting and horrific manner. I will never stop loving my daughter. Is this threatening to adopters? That we won’t have our mother/fatherhood denied? As our children’s parents, we want what is best for them. Why are adopters always thinking of their own selfish wishes?

    Sandra said:
    August 12, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    lisa, myst, unicorn, &cedar
    all apples in a basket are not the same. i have an adopted adult son. he’s the sweetest, loving person i know. he was given up-i had nothing to do with that but God sent him in our direction. I have pictures and video’s i would love to show his bio mother and dad. i want them to meet such a God loving man and his family. Yes these other “parents have grandchildren” and i want to share our joy they have given us. but the state laws-NOT THE ADOPTIVE PARENTS-are keeping us from that. he came through the home of redeeming love in oklahoma city. okla is a state with closed and sealed papers. THEY gave us a different birth certifciate and won’t share the orginial. I am the one looking for these 2-not my son. My son says he has parents but i feel it may be a deep down feeling of being rejected. So i will continue to search and if they want to meet my son—then it will happen.
    Turn your anger into energy and HELP TO FIGHT TO GET ADOPTION RECORDS OPEN

    unicorn said:
    August 12, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    My friends and I already did in Ontario.
    They are now open.

    In Ontario, there were a lot of adoptive parents, especially some politicians, who did everything they could to stop the records opening. One of them even tried to make sites like this one illegal!!

    BTW – my son’s adoptive parents did not exactly help my son when they lied to him about having my contact details. My son was very disappointed to find that out (they got my details from the Ont. government registry where they left some pretty nasty remarks about me and my son with regards to “defective genes”.)

    Despite that, I opened the door to friendship with them, only to have them slam it in my face – much to my son’s disappointment. I’m afraid that my experience with adoptive parents has not been a positive one. My son says that his adoptive father does not deny paying out a bribe.

    It also doesn’t help your case when adoptive parents keep saying “God sent him in our direction”.

    The social worker that handled my son’s wrongful adoption has admitted to others that she had been taking and paying out bribes for babies. The UN says that she denied my basic human rights when she denied me a lawyer in hospital and told me to sign *temporary* foster care papers or never see my son again.

    This “God-fearing, good” social worker even paid doctors to tell mothers that their babies had died at birth and then she put up the “dead” babies for adoption. She said that it was OK to break the law as she was “doing God’s work”. She did that to a friend of mine who very much wanted her baby and had a home and a fiancé who also wanted the baby, his son. God sent the baby to my friend and her fiancé – corrupt professionals sent their son to adoptive people, not God!

    Sorry – but now when I hear people say it’s “God work”, all I can think of is the bribe paying Catholic social worker that stole babies to order for money (and I’m pretty sure that none of that money went to God).

    unicorn said:
    August 12, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    One other thing I wish to say – my son was shocked at how his adoptive parents have treated me. He couldn’t believe it. Their unfriendly behaviour towards me has actually brought me and my son closer together.

    lissa said:
    August 18, 2009 at 9:07 pm


    Thank you for telling me and a few others here to ‘turn your anger into energy and HELP TO FIGHT TO GET ADOPTION RECORDS OPEN’.

    As Unicorn as stated, we now have open records in Ontario. The loss of adoption is devastating for both the mother and her child. This is OUR loss, our experience. Try to understand, this is not about the adopter.

    I have also extended a welcoming hand to my child’s adopters. They are threatened by my very existence and ignore my daughter’s needs and wishes. I am concerned only for my daughter’s feelings and best interests… they are concerned with themselves and their “status”.

    Your comment ‘he was given up-i had nothing to do with that but God sent him in our direction’ is ridiculous. First of all, are you even aware most mothers did not willingly surrender their babies? We were forced to give our babies to strangers. Please do not use the term ‘give up’. Most mothers were coerced, manipulated and lied to. We did not have independent advice, we were not allowed to see the documents we were ordered to sign, nor we were given copies of any documents. We were threatened with having our babies taken from us – that or “relinquish” them. We were absolutely capable of raising our children.

    ‘(I) had nothing to do with that’ — really??? It’s prospective adopters and adopters who drive the adoption industry. It’s all about the adopters. The natural parents and their children don’t matter in the eyes of the adopters, or the baby brokers. Your baby broker hunted vulnerable, young women to satisfy your desire to have a baby ‘AS IF’ your own. Does your God approve of child abduction and human trafficking?

    ‘God sent him in our direction’. Our babies are not conceived to be harvested by infertile couples. No woman has the right to take another woman’s child. Our children were conceived and grew in our bodies. We bonded to each other, only to be ripped apart. The consequences of being separated are devastating.

    May I suggest you educate yourself and limit your comments to those based in reality and truth. Go to AdultAdoptees.Org and learn how the people who were adopted truly feel.

    […] adoptee answers a question asked on a website regarding love between adoptees and adoptive parents: I was adopted as a baby by […]

    von said:
    December 18, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    ‘it was clear that the agency she had obtained this baby from had not told her that the child could ever do this’ maybe not but perhaps they should have told her that an adult adoptee could! Great post!

    Sandra said:
    February 23, 2012 at 9:15 am

    “Your right that Adoption agencies shouldn’t make emotional guarantees to prospective adoptive parents but, I as an adopted person thinks that “adopting back your blood” is wrong. How would you feel if you spent all of 18 yrs bringing up another persons child, looking after it when it was sick, being there at there first day at school to only then have the natural mother adopt it back !!! I think this is wrong, after all you weren’t there all those years were you, you didn’t have the bother of a babies demands, then when it grows up you want it because you don’t have to do anything for it.. you don’t deserve a relation ship with it now, that’s my opinion.

      Adoption Critic responded:
      February 23, 2012 at 5:49 pm

      “after all you weren’t there all those years were you, you didn’t have the bother of a babies demands,’

      This is like blaming a rape victim for not being a virgin. It was not HER choice. It was not MY choice either to not be there. No, I was not there during those years, but do you know I would have DIED to have been given the opportunity to? These years were stolen from me, each year, day, and moment. Frankly, if a child has been adopted because that child was first taken via a coerced surrender, then don’t blame the mother for wanting her child back. The adoptive parents can blame and sue the agency responsible for false advertising and fraud.

      As for caring for a child, I raised three more children, and there were no “babies demands.” It was a blessing and joy to care for my child every day. When my babies needed anything, I was right there. The joy they gave to me more than made up for anything they needed from me. Children are a blessing. My children owe me nothing, not gratitude, not “loyalty.” Children do not owe their parents anything, because they gave great joy to those parents already in their every smile, their every hug, their every accomplishment.

      “then when it grows up you want it because you don’t have to do anything for it..”

      No, I want (and have), a relationship with him because I am his mother, and twenty years of separation did not change this. Our love, our family relationship, survived all the years of separation. Have you been able to reunite with your natural mother again? No two reunions are the same, and for some the relationship takes decades to heal from the damage of adoption trauma. But if you have not yet reunited, then there is a chance that you will find the bond there as well.

      “you don’t deserve a relationship with it now,”

      My son is an “it”? I don’t think so. And, he asked me to adopt him back.

      I suggest, Sandra, that you read up on coerced surrender, forced adoption, and read the stories of all the mothers who were forced to surrender children they loved and wanted. It is a myth that the only children who are being brokered for adoption purposes are “unwanted.” My son was both wanted and loved. There was no valid reason for him to have been abducted at birth and provided by the hospital to a social worker who then illegally forced me sign the papers. The ONLY reason for it was a consumer demand for healthy newborns, and an adoption industry that arose to meet this demand. There is a difference between abandonment (“placing”) and forced surrender, just like there is a difference between consensual sex and rape. One is a choice, the other a violation.

    kindness said:
    May 10, 2012 at 1:37 am

    I live in canton ohio I would like for everyone to know we are trying to start up a wrongful adoption organization to help parents / families fight to get there kids / grandkids back we need have to sop cps we need all parents / families to come out of hiding join me & many other in our fight to bring our children / grandchildren home safe out of foster care I would like for anyone to contact or If u know of anyone that is dealing with cps we need a lot of help / support Let’s all come together in all states I would like for anyone to e-mail me STOP CPS NOW

    Unnatural mother said:
    November 27, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    Perhaps because I adopted older children from the state rather than an infant, but the term birthmother seems to fit perfectly. This may be insensitive, but I think of it the same way I do sperm donors who don’t get the label “father” or “natural father” as I saw for the first time here. My children were repeatedly hospitalized before coming into care, then infrequently visited (even when free transportation was provided), and lastly lived through beatings in one of their foster homes before making it here. That selfish woman is their birth mother. I won’t go into details about how she neglected them repeatedly for the sake of having a good time. I hate the pervading idea that giving birth to a child makes you a parent. That somehow there is a natural tie that makes residence in your uterus more important than the stable, loving residence in an actual home. It sounds like a lot of women in here felt tricked by the adoption agencies, but that does not create a blanket effect of rendering adoptive motherhood unworthy. I wonder what my children’s birth mom would say on here. How she was the best mom she could be? She was tricked by the state? She didn’t deserve to lose her children after almost killing them? I can feel for the adoptive moms that worry about letting kids see those who made the choice not to parent them. Though, in my case, this woman was simply caught making the choice not to parent vs giving them up. When my kids start wondering about their birthmom’s location/status, I will tell them how she has not returned any correspondence, how she didn’t come to court to plead her case (again even with the offer of free transportation), how she never said goodbye, and how those missed visits were the beginning of the end. Then I will hand them the CPS case file and let them know she may share stories of being tricked or it not being so bad, and that they should know what really happened when they meet her. Then they can begin the search as I have, hopefully finding out that she’s resurfaced rather than vanished without a trace. Certainly not all birth moms are villains, but neither are adoptive moms. And to say that is offensive to call you a mother only through birth, when you in fact are a mother only in the sense that you carried the child, seems a stretch. You either could not or would not sacrifice your own resources to be a mom to this child. And knowing that makes it a good decision to find an adoptive family. But don’t be mad when the person who actually goes about the business of raising your kid doesn’t somehow think of your birth bond as equal or superior to their own.

    This whole thing sounded much angrier than I intended, but what an awful lie to perpetuate. That it’s unfair to call someone a birth mom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s