coercion

Out Of The Fog: Mothers Speak About Adoption

Posted on

The fantastic video “Out Of The Fog: Mothers Speak About Adoption” by producer/director Suzie Kidnap has been released on Youtube.    I strongly recommend it.  This is a landmark video about the natural mother’s experience.

The Definition of Adoption Coercion

Posted on Updated on

Update on September 22:   A week ago I posted a proposed definition of adoption coercion.   Thank you so much for all who gave feedback.  This below is the revised definition, based on your feedback:

Adoption coercion is any form of overt or covert pressure, manipulation, convincing, force, fraud, human rights violation, or withholding of services that results in a woman surrendering a baby for adoption.

It includes any practice specifically designed and intended to ensure or significantly increase the odds that a mother will surrender her baby for adoption. It also includes any practice designed to restrict or remove a mother’s freedom of choice by the use of influence, persuasion, fraud, or duress. A coerced ‘choice’ is not a ‘choice’ at all. There is no ‘decision’ where there is coercion.

“ Perpetrators of adoption coercion may include anyone in a position of trust, authority, or relative power in relation to the mother.  Examples are: adoption industry employees, hospital staff, medical professionals, prospective adopters, social workers, government social policy makers, the mother’s own parents, clergy and nuns, etc.”

Again, what do you think?

You may also be interested in reading these related posts where I elaborate more on specific coercion practices:

And the “Coercion Checklist for Mothers” on the Origins Canada site.

Adoption: “Studies on How to Take Babies”

Posted on Updated on

A literature review was recently done on a collection of peer-reviewed journal articles on natural mothers published between 1978 and 2008. The results of this literature review were published as part of a masters thesis on trauma and are reprinted here with permission of the author.

In this literature review, 98 articles were identified, and 91 of them obtained.  The author did a thematic analysis of the articles, using grounded theory to identify the themes present in these articles.  Nine themes were identified, including search and reunion, the surrender experience, open adoption relationships, and advice for professionals.  But there were two main themes in this literature that were found to be above and beyond all others in terms of frequency. I am going to quote directly from the thesis:

” There were found to be two main themes in literature on natural mothers.  These can be viewed as two “streams” of research, as the articles within a stream mainly refer to other work and prior research within that one stream.  The first stream (43 articles) examines the consequences of surrender on the mother. The second stream (32 articles) examines factors that may predict and/or influence rates of surrender, often stating with concern that surrender rates have declined significantly and should be increased.  The latter stream contains three main sub-themes: factors (socio-demographic, educational, attitudinal, familial, or economic) that distinguish mothers who surrender their babies from mothers who keep their babies, surveys to determine what would encourage expectant mothers to consider adoption, and comparisons of differing agency practices and their effects on surrender rates.”

Let’s come to the point and put it into more concrete terms:  These 32 articles are on how to take babies.

The author of this thesis provides a list of some of these articles (below, reprinted with  permission).   So, seeing these, how can anyone believe that a “decision” about adoption is free from influence, coercion, or manipulation?   When agencies have 30 years worth of research on how to increase the likelihood a mother will surrender her child, is she really making an informed decision completely of her own free will?

Article

Summary

Bachrach, Stolley, & London (1992) Analysis – how demographic/economic/social trends affect and predict future surrender rates, plus factors distinguishing mothers who surrender from those who don’t.
Baran, Pannor, & Sorosky (1976) Results from a focus group on how to increase adoption:  Open adoption can persuade single mothers to surrender.
Barth (1987) Research on adolescent girls and mothers: how to make adoption more appealing. Recommends open adoption as a way to encourage more adolescent mothers to surrender.
Berry (1991, 1993) Study on effects of open adoption on family members and relationships.  Suggests that open adoption can benefit adoptive parents by enticing more mothers to surrender.
Caragata (1999) Examines teen pregnancy as an economic problem.’  Suggests open adoption to entice more mothers to surrender, that adoption should be “restructured,” and that meeting with prospective adopters might prevent a mother from “changing her mind”
Chippendale-Bakker & Foster (1996) Studies of what demographic/economic/social factors distinguish mothers who surrender from those who don’t.
Cocozelli (1989) Research – what situational variables predict surrender rates.  plus factors distinguishing mothers who surrender from those who don’t (life plans, social worker visits, sign consent before delivery)
Custer (1993) Research on influencing attitudes, beliefs and decision-making about adoption among pregnant adolescents.  Found that deterrents to surrender include:  fear of harm to baby, social disapproval, feeling that it shows lack of responsibility, lack of knowledge of benefits, “failure of professionals to actively initiate discussion of adoption with clients,” and anticipated psychological discomfort.  Suggests that these issues be actively addressed in “social programs and political interventions.”
Daly (1994) Research on adolescents to find out what keeps them from considering adoption.  Recommends agencies do educational and public relations programs to explain the benefits of adoption, promote open adoption, and conduct face-to-face outreach programs to adolescents.
Donnelly & Voydanoff (1991) Research on pregnant adolescents and new mothers: attitudes, demographics, relationships, experiences, and perceptions of early pregnancy distinguishing mothers who surrender from those who don’t.   Suggests programs to present benefits and “promote positive attitudes towards adoption” as those who surrender have more positive attitudes than those who don’t.
Dworkin, Harding, & Schreiber (1993) Research on pregnant adolescents, regarding how adoption knowledge, social/psychological functioning, familial influences (grandmother and father of baby), and demographics correlate with surrender rates.
Geber & Resnick (1988) Research on family functioning, cohesion and adaptability differences between parenters vs. surrenderers using “FACES II” questionnaire.
Hanson (1990) Research on factors distinguishing mothers who surrender from those who don’t, to recommend early intervention based on those figures, especially to get mothers “who might exhibit poor parenting styles” to surrender.
Herr (1989) Research study on maternity home inmates to examine what affected their decision most:  parents, “decision counseling,” and peer role models who are parenting.
Kallen, Griffore, Popovich, & Powell (1990) Research study on attitudes towards adoption and open adoption in mothers who surrendered, mothers who don’t, and their own mothers. .
Kalmuss, Namerow, & Bauer (1992) Research study on socio-demographics, family, education differences of mothers who surrender vs. those who don’t.   Plus 6-month outcomes on life satisfaction, outlook, relationships, etc.
Leon (1999) Instructions to physicians on treating surrendering mothers, including how to promote adoption to pregnant mothers.
Low, Moely, & Willis (1989) Research factors distinguishing mothers who surrender from those who do not, in terms of parental influence and vocational goals.
Miller & Coyl (2000) Analysis of how demographic/economic/social trends affect and predict future surrender rates, plus factors distinguishing mothers who surrender from those who don’t.
Moore & Davidson (2002) Socio-psychological influences (family background, peers), cognitive functions, beliefs, and decision-making in pregnant adolescents, to determine how to best influence decision-making processes as part of “adoption education” of adolescents and promoting “more reasoned choices” (i.e. adoption) for pregnant teens
Namerow, Kalmuss, & Cushman (1993) Research on what social, demographic, beliefs, and attitudinal factors influenced the pregnancy decision.
Resnick (1984) Overview/analysis of research on decision-making and what distinguishes mothers who surrender from those who keep. Mentions sociological, psychological, factors.
Resnick, Blum, Bose, Smith, & Toogood (1990) Studies of demographic/economic/social factors distinguishing mothers who surrender from those who don’t, including their views on adoption vs. parenting vs. abortion.
Sobol & Daly (1992) Overview and summary of the literature and findings: Factors influencing adolescents’ decisions about adoption.  How to get more babies surrendered:  Promote open adoption; make surrender easier; encourage pregnancy counsellors to suggest adoption; and present more “options” to make adoption more attractive.
Warren & Johnson (1989) Research on factors distinguishing mothers who surrender from those who don’t.
Weinman, Robinson, Simmons, Schreiber, & Stafford (1989) Research on mothers who initially planned to surrender but then decided to keep their babies: decision-making process, demographic/psycho-social and health differences, and treatment plans.
Weir (2000) Research on what familial, developmental and peer barriers might prevent mothers from surrendering, and suggests how to remove them through group and family therapy.

Related Posts:

“Dear Incubator”

Posted on Updated on

An analysis of what is REALLY behind “Dear Birthmother Letters”

Dear Incubator

We want you to give us your baby. We know that by meeting us and seeing just how perfect we would be for your child, you will gladly do this.

Why do we know this?

Because you are young, vulnerable, and don’t feel confident about your ability to be a mother. We know that we will appear mature, confident, capable, and will make you feel like we could take care of your baby better than you can. We may even remind you of your own parents.

Because we know that the reason you are considering adoption is out of fear and guilt. Guilt that you have disappointed your parents by irresponsibly getting pregnant.  Fear because you do not know what to do and you don’t know if you’ll be a good parent or not.  We can take advantage of your fear and your guilt, and we don’t have any qualms about doing it.

We know that research shows that mothers who “meet” and “choose” prospective adopters during their pregnancies will give up their babies out of guilt and obligation.  Especially if we are in the delivery room with you, or “bonding with” OUR newborn in the hospital with our family and friends congratulating us.  How would you DARE think of keeping our darling newborn from us? Giving us a “failed adoption” by “not carrying through with your adoption plan.”  We are scared that if you take your baby home first before deciding, that you likely wouldn’t give her to us, so our agency’s “birthmother counsellor” will ensure that won’t happen.

We know that if we befriend you while you’re still pregnant, you won’t have a choice. In fact, we’re happy to take that choice (and all choice) away from you, because we are desperate and we know we deserve your baby more than you do. After all, we’ve paid thousands to the agency – you just had a broken condom.

We also know that our promises of open adoption will sounds great, and the same pregnancy hormones that make you feel trusting of others and insecure about yourself will make you believe us, and WANT to believe us. And we also know that these promises have NO basis in law, that we can close the adoption any time we want. And we will close it, especially if it looks like OUR baby loves you when you visit (as many adopted children do with their natural mothers). We’ll just crush that pesky blood-bond by stopping those upsetting visits. They will only “confuse” our child.

If need be, we can get you a counsellor at an adoption agency. We know that the more visits you have with agency staff, the more likely you will be to surrender your baby.  They will have lots of time to work on you and convince you how expensive and difficult it would be to raise a child at your age.  Can you actually afford it?  Like any other luxury commodity, only the rich should be allowed to obtain (and keep) a child.  Poor?  Too bad.  You should have kept your legs crossed.

We promise we will treat you like a queen while you are gestating our baby, while we are “Paper Pregnant” and counting down the days until we get our freshly made bundle of joy from you. We’ll praise you and call you things like our “heaven sent angel” and “God’s gift” to boost your ego and make you feel valued and incredible and loved during your pregnancy — the love and support that your parents and those around you don’t show.

We’ll even give you flowers and a “birthmother gift” when you hand over OUR baby to us — a reasonable exchange, right?  If you’re lucky, the hospital will give you a teddy bear to take home with you – standard practice now, right?

And of course we or our paid agency worker will be right there with you in the delivery room, to make certain you don’t try to “bond” with our baby. We’re paying too much money to the agency/lawyer/facilitator for this baby to allow THAT to happen.

Speaking of money, we offer to pay your medical and hospital expenses.  This will make you feel like you “owe” us that baby.

But frankly we don’t care what we do to you — how we will manipulate you, exploit you, and then cast you aside like a used container (and that’s what you are, right?) — because we’ll be better parents than you will ever be.  That’s why we’re writing you this letter:  We know we deserve that baby more than you do.   We pay more in taxes than you earn in a year (but we’re sure looking forward to that $10,000 adoption income-tax credit that we’ll get!).

Contact us at our 1-800 number, and check out our “profile page” to see how good-looking we are and how confidant and mature we look compared to you.

Signed,

Two “Waiting Parents”
Praying that God will bring us Our Little Angel

~

shortlink:  http://wp.me/p9tLn-k1

“Adoption Ethics” is a Contradiction in Terms

Posted on Updated on

This  post was prompted by a thread on an adoption-related discussion board this morning.  I wanted to share it here, because even though my thoughts on adoption and ethics might be known by my regular readers, some of my new readers may appreciate a summary.

“Adoption ethics” is a contradiction in terms.

Why?  Because as long as adoption contains falsified birth records, coercion, reproductive exploitation, human rights abuse, and fraud, it is NOT ethical in the slightest.   But one has to back up and examine the elements which constitute child adoption in order to see this.   The only reason that most people accept modern day adoption and so few have questioned it is because or a long time it has been all around us as an accepted part of society.   But, the same once held with domestic violence and child abuse (anyone else remember “Spare the rod and spoil the child’?).   And, just like these ethically unacceptable acts, reproductive exploitation and coercion happens behind closed doors.  But society can change.

Adoption, as it was invented in 1851 and practised ever since, has been institutionalized in Western nations in such a way that these following elements are inherent to it:

  1. Falsified birth records: Fabrication of a legal lie that the people who are adopting gave birth to the child.  Forbidding the mother from filling out a birth record.  In any other situation, intentional fabrication of a federal or state government record is a felony offence.
  2. Coercion — See the “Coercion checklist,” “Open Adoption:  They knew it would work,”  “Proof of Coercion in the Industry’s Own Words“, etc.”   Coercion is ANY method that is intentionally employed in order to increase the percentage chance that the mother will surrender her baby.  Includes pre-birth matching, separation of mother and baby at or near birth.  To get an idea of what constitutes coercion, compare practices pre-adoption industry (1930s, 1940s) to practices once the Post-WWII adoption industry arose.  Compare to practices in the U.K. (e.g. mother has 6 wks protection post-birth to recover and experience motherhood before signing) and Australia.  The Trackers International survey of 1000 natural mothers found that 98% had been pressured to surrender their babies.  That means only 2% who were NOT coerced!
  3. Fraud: Withholding vital information from the mother regarding social services and financial support that would have enabled her to keep her baby, withholding information or blatantly lying to her about the devastating emotional consequences of surrender for most mothers, convincing her that she is unworthy of keeping her baby and that the adoptive family are perfect and almost “heaven-sent.”  Convincing her that parenting is overwhelming and that she is emotionally or financially  incapable of doing it.
  4. Human Rights Abuse: Many articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but especially Article 25, which guarantees mothers the support and resources they need to keep their babies, and in effect guarantees babies the support and resources they need to keep their mothers! Also the recent guidelines for substitute care of the child published by the General Assembly in 2009..  We are ALL human beings. We are not dogs or pond scum.  To treat us like animals, like livestock, is act of violence aganst the inherent dignity and personhood of each one of us.
  5. Reproductive exploitation : Just as bad as sexual exploitaiton.  Why should it be considered any better, any more excusable?
  6. Human Trafficking (Baby Selling):   Adoption is an industry that thrives because baby brokers profit from the exchange in human flesh.  This is no different from slavery, where people “paid for” human beings to work as labourers for them.  Similarly, in adoption, people “pay for” human beings to act as “offspring”  for them.  Children sell up for $50,000 or more, and this pricing does depend on race:  white children are “worth more” than children of colour.   Check out an online price-list (there are many) for buying yourself a child, where babies are euphemistically called “situations”:

“The following are a few situations available to our clients from the agencies we work with:
“African American baby boy due Oct. 5 in UT. Agency fees are 16K plus medical.
“Caucasian/African American baby girl due Oct. 17 in UT. Agency fees are 22,500 plus medical.
“Caucasian/African American baby boy due in Oct. Agency fees are 26,500 plus 4K in assistance to mom.
” Caucasian baby boy due Jan. 11 Agency fees are 30,500 plus medical”

Gee, in case #4 the mother even gets a cut of the profits!

The United Nations has even reacted with alarm over the sale of babies:

“During the course of 2002, the Special Rapporteur received many complaints relating to allegedly fraudulent adoption practices. Where such practices have the effect that the child becomes the object of a commercial transaction, the Special Rapporteur, like his predecessor, considers that such cases fall within the “sale” element of his mandate. The Special Rapporteur was shocked to learn of the plethora of human rights abuses which appear to permeate the adoption systems of many countries” (p. 25, Rights of the Child:  Report submitted by Mr. Juan Miguel Petit, Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2002/92.“).

It is my serious opinion that adoption is SO flawed that it is impossible to reform.  That is why I do not believe in “adoption reform.”   What we need, instead, are laws that protect mothers and children from exploitation and coercion, from babies being sold like loaves of bread.   We need provisions that are based on ethics, not on exploitation for profit.

Shortlink to this post:  http://wp.me/p9tLn-ju

They admit it was illegal!

Posted on Updated on

I have always said that the theft of my baby was an illegal adoption.  No adoption could be legal when it begins with an abduction, a baby being taken from a tied-down mother against her will, withheld from her forever more from that point, the choice to keep her baby robbed from her, the “decision” of adoption made by others but not herself.

So, in Western Australia, exiled mothers are going to receive an apology from the government for exactly the same practices that myself and tens of thousands of young and unwed Canadian mothers endured!

I will include the full article here, because I do not want readers to have to surf over to second site to see what I am talking about.

Of course, an apology does not make up for the fact that criminal acts and human rights violations were committed. For that, IMHO, the perpetrators should be brought to justice.  There should be recompense for the victims, and the people who illegally obtained children for adoption purposes (the sole reason WHY these crimes were committed, to supply the market for healthy white infants wanted by infertile people who were deemed to deserve our children more than WE were!) should be treated in the exact same way as anyone in possession of stolen property.  But an apology if it is actually an admission of guilt, is a good first step.

Unmarried mums get State apology

DANIEL EMERSON, The West Australian September 1, 2010, 6:32 am

The State’s apology to unmarried mothers illegally separated from their babies under harsh adoption practices is set to happen within weeks.

WA is to become the first State or Federal government worldwide to admit hospital and welfare authorities were wrong to immediately separate mothers from their babies after giving birth out of wedlock. Mothers from around Australia keen to hear the apology have been told it will be delivered in Parliament on October 19.

Experts say tens of thousands of WA babies were adopted illegally when their unmarried mothers were prevented from seeing, touching, naming or bonding with their children immediately after birth between the 1940s and the early 1980s.

Health Minister Kim Hames said the exact format of the apology was still being finalised but it would be “to unmarried mothers of adopted children who were adversely affected by past adoption practices”.

Christine Cole, of the NSW-based Apology Alliance, said it was also important for the Government to say sorry to the children taken. “They were denied their family of origin and the culture of that family,” she said.

More on Pre-birth Matching: Assumptions Some People Make

Posted on Updated on

My previous post on pre-birth matching was inspired by a question asked in a forum that is supposedly to support everyone who has been touched/torched by adoption.

I received a response from another member of this group, who had adopted, and she displayed some assumptions in her response that are very common in society.  I am glad she responded as she did, so that maybe another point of view could be provided, by a mother who has actually been there and has lost a baby against her will.

This is what this woman who had adopted said:

“Obviously, for an expectant mother to see these profiles, they must be looking for families to adopt their babies.  I’m not sure – what do you think would be a better thing for an expectant mother who thinks she wants to place her baby to do?  We don’t want her to leave the baby on a doorstep.  So what should she do, if we lived in a world where no one wrote ‘dear birth mother’ letters?”

Reading this, the first question that came to my mind is:   No it is NOT obvious.  Why do people think that a mother looking at prospective adopters’ profiles is REALLY, concretely, at the stage of looking for a family to adopt here baby?  Is this expectant mother really 100% at that point yet and never going back to the question “Should I, can I, keep my baby?”?

So this, the rest of my post here, is my response to her:

Actually, I think that it’s possible that for many mothers, they are not looking for a family to adopt their babies, they are still deciding “Should I surrender or keep my baby?”  The mother is still making up her mind, and these profiles can influence this decision.

I know mothers who read these online profiles during their pregnancies and it made them feel they had no right to keep their babies, that they would be selfish and greedy and “unchristian,” as they are made to feel that there are these wonderful people out there who deserved to be parents much more than the mothers did. It was one more nail in their coffin of insecurity and lack of self-esteem. Worse yet if an adoption agency is coaching them that parenthood would be too much of a struggle for them and that their babies “deserve more.”

If you are a woman who has given birth, a mother, you know the emotional changes that come with late pregnancy, labour, and birth. This can be a shock to new moms, how much they may want their babies once their babies are in their arms.  And many moms separated from children by adoption feel, from experience, that the final decision about this should (or must) be made post-birth once the mother has her baby in her arms and knows her emotions, preferably given a few weeks so she can recover from birth first.

Viewing profiles of course leads to forming a relationship with someone hoping to adopt — later on — BUT how much pressure does this relationship put on her to “not change her mind” and cause a “failed adoption” —  in many cases, lots. (i.e.

Paul Meding, a Columbia attorney who has been taking adoption cases for 12 years [says] “In my opinion, when the birth mother has  more input and can see first hand how important the adoption is to the family, it is more difficult for her to back out and disappoint them.” (“Open Doors,” The Columbia Star, April 29, 2005)”.

What Meding talks about here is also called “emotional coercion.”

So, another person who had adopted responded and asked me what an mother should do instead (i guess, instead of boarding the adoption bandwagon while her child is not yet born).  I responded:

I think that the supports are in place already that expectant mothers can obtain necessary prebirth and post-birth counselling and get care and resources such that she can make this decision once recovered from birth, without the decision being influenced by relationships with or expectations from people hoping to adopt.

A good example is South Australia: Adoption offices are ready with substitute care for the baby if the mother wants this while the mother makes up her mind, and she is encouraged to have visits, given parenting mentorship, and to bring her baby home overnight. Various public service agencies have programs providing this type of “cradle care” already in place.  After the mom recovers from birth, then an adoption agency (or child welfare office) can provide her with profiles of couples she can interview and choose, *if* she then finds first-hand that she doesn’t want [to raise] her baby.  I corresponded with adoption workers in the state of South Australia, who confirmed this information.  Evelyn Robinson also has written about it, and she can be contacted through Clova Publications at http://www.clovapublications.com.  In Australia, an adoption workers’ paycheque does not depend on the sales she or her agency makes per year, on how many babies they can broker for $25,000 and up.

There is no reason to fear that children will be “left on doorsteps” if there is no pre-birth matching. And there is no need for mothers to be pressured to make decisions about adoption pre-birth, or even soon post-birth.   Pre-birth matching is just another tactic that agencies use in order to obtain more babies for the market.

I seriously do not think that any person who adopts can claim that the mother was not coerced, if they have engaged in pre-birth or even pre-surrender matching.  How can they guarantee that they did not affect the mother’s decision?  Do they even care how they obtained the baby?  Several people in the same group, when asked, said that they felt that the mother’s reasons for surrendering “were her own,” indicating that they did not care if she was coerced or not, or whether they themselves had pers0nally engaged in coercion.  I find this to be very sad that anyone would s0 blinded by “baby hunger” that they would put this ahead of having ethics, did not care how or why that baby was being surrendered for adoption.

Shortlink to this post: http://wp.me/p9tLn-if