Jackson, 4 days until your daddy's voice will be heard.
We hope you and your daddy can meet for the first time shortly.
We love you and see you soon!
Showing posts with label Utah adoption ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Utah adoption ethics. Show all posts
Friday, August 3, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Utah Council for Ethical Adoption Practices
Introducing...
UCEAP
(Utah Council for Ethical Adoption Practices)
a non-profit organization who's mission statement is
"To promote and enforce ethical and positive
adoption
standards and practices among all those involved
with adoption
in Utah."
President/Founder: Wes Hutchins
For those interested in ethical adoption practices please go to this facebook group for updates while our website is being developed.
Change will occur!
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Anderson Cooper Clips
Check out andersoncooper.com to see more about Jake's Journey on the Anderson Cooper show. It is amazing!
Sunday, January 29, 2012
This is amazing!
Utah adoption bill aims to give unwed fathers more protections
Legislation • Mothers required to give notice of intent by mail or publication.
A state lawmaker has introduced a bill aimed at preventing an unmarried woman from coming to Utah to give birth and pursue adoption without informing the biological father of her plan, a problem highlighted in a Friday Utah Supreme Court ruling involving an unmarried Colorado father.
House Bill 308, sponsored by Rep. Christine Watkins, D-Price, would require pregnant women to give notice by mail or publication to out-of-state unmarried fathers if they plan to give birth and place infants for adoption in Utah.
Watkins’ proposed bill also simplifies the process an unwed father must follow to initially protect his rights, eliminating the requirement that he initiate a court action before he can file a notice of intent to claim paternity with the state’s putative father registry. That change would apply to Utah residents as well as unwed fathers who reside elsewhere.
The bill would require a notice to be sent to the unmarried father’s last known residence or published in a newspaper where he was last known to reside that informs him of an adoption plan and what he needs to do to protect his rights. It sets a deadline of 30 days for the father to act once he receives the notice or the mother gives consent or relinquishes the baby.
An unwed father who files a paternity notice with the state registry would then have an additional 30 days to begin a court paternity action and file other declarations about his interest in assuming custody and caring for the child. If the unmarried father does not respond, his consent to the adoption would be assumed, the bill says.
“I am very sympathetic to fathers loving their children,” said Watkins, who has two brothers and four sons. “A lot of fathers don’t want to give up on their children. I thought, ‘You know, let’s give these guys a chance.’”
Utah’s current law says that once a birth mother consents to an adoption or relinquishes her child, that decision may not be revoked. Watkins’ proposed bill changes that, too. If a biological father successfully asserts his parental rights, a birth mother would have 30 days to then revoke her consent to the adoption.
Two Utah attorneys said the legislation was a “step in the right direction.”
“The state obviously needs a means to facilitate adoptions of out-of-state children but the current system is ripe for abuse,” said Joshua Peterman, an attorney for a Florida father whose effort to intervene in his daughter’s adoption is currently pending before the Utah Supreme Court.
Wes Hutchins, who is an adoption attorney and an adoptive father, consulted on Watkins’ bill. He is also president of the Utah Adoption Council but spoke independently of that organization on Friday.
He said the Utah Supreme Court’s rulingrequiring a rehearing in the case of Colorado father Robert Manzanares “lends considerable support for positive change in this area of the law,” including changes proposed by Watkins that are “designed to prevent birth mothers from forum shopping Utah just to cut bio dads out of the parenting picture.”
The justices determined Manzanares did not know and reasonably could not have known that a birth and adoption would take place in Utah, entitling him to intervene in the proceedings.
John Hedrick, Manzanares’ Colorado attorney, said given the current loophole in Utah’s adoption law, he has taken to urging unwed fathers to file in Utah any time a birth mother has the slightest tie to the state or its predominant Mormon religion, a practice he’ll continue unless the law is changed.
© 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Unfortunately
Unfortunately court did not go as we hoped on Tuesday. Judge Christiansen said that this case really disturbed him and even had called up Judge Kay in 2nd District and talked with him about the details of this case. Christiansen stated that since Larry Jenkins, and David Hardy went up to 2nd District behind his back, he no longer had jurisdiction over this case. He said the next step would be to petition the adoption up in 2nd District and try to plead our case to Judge Kay and try to get the adoption set aside. There is a grim reality for us that this is the end of these court actions, and our next step after 2nd District would be to appeal to the Utah Supreme Court. We still are baffled because no one has ruled yet that Jake DID not file timely even though that has been LDS Family Services argument.
We are still hoping and praying for a positive outcome. We would love more than anything to meet this sweet little boy of ours. There is not a day that goes by that we don't think of Jackson. He is such a special little boy and he will always have a special place in our hearts.
Thank you so much for all of the sweet words of encouragement. It truly helps us get through some of the days.
Jackson, we love you so much. One day, you will get to meet your sweet daddy, and the family that loved you first. We love you always and forever.
We are still hoping and praying for a positive outcome. We would love more than anything to meet this sweet little boy of ours. There is not a day that goes by that we don't think of Jackson. He is such a special little boy and he will always have a special place in our hearts.
Thank you so much for all of the sweet words of encouragement. It truly helps us get through some of the days.
Jackson, we love you so much. One day, you will get to meet your sweet daddy, and the family that loved you first. We love you always and forever.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Day 2 of Salt Lake Tribune Adoption Articles
Utah adoption law: model for nation or unjust burden?
Rights • Fathers have limited opportunity to fight the system.
Paul Fraughton | The Salt Lake Tribune David McConkie, who works for LDS Family Services, talks about programs and policies behind putative father registries.
More than three years after a Utah judge ruled he had failed to protect his parental rights, Rob Manzanares is still fighting for custody of his now nearly four-year-old daughter.
He has met her just once. The girl’s adoptive parents brought her to a court hearing in December 2009 and, before it began, Manzanares stood in a tiny meeting room and held his daughter for the first time.
“I didn’t want to cry too much,” he said. “I didn’t want to scare my daughter.”
At that meeting, Manzanares said he was offered a deal: Drop the legal fight and “there’s an opportunity to have visitation.” He refused and, more than a year after a hearing before the Utah Supreme Court, is still waiting a decision in a case that highlights how competing interests of unwed fathers and social policy can complicate adoption.
“It is my flesh and blood, she’s my child,” said Manzanares, 34, of Colorado. “I should have a right to raise my child first, over anybody.”
Related story • Stopping an adoption: In Utah, fathers rarely win • http://bit.ly/uT51Tc
That is not the way the law sees it, as a Utah Supreme Court justice argued bluntly in 2007:Men who father a child outside of marriage must take steps to assert a legal relationship to a child or “risk losing it altogether.”
That “biology plus” view is enshrined in a handful of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as adoption laws in Utah and numerous states. Utah’s adoption law explicitly puts men on notice that sex outside of marriage may result in a pregnancy and an adoption. It is up to him alone, the law says, to protect any claim to a child born in those circumstances.
Perhaps it is due to a lack of awareness, financial resources or simple disinterest, but few do. Some men who have tried to follow Utah law say the state purposefully makes it difficult to comply.
“It is these rare cases where you have a mom who, for whatever reason, wants to cut dad out of the decision making and a very active dad who wants to participate that makes the news and makes the law,” said Lisa Kelly, a University of Washington Law School professor and co-author of an adoption law textbook.
They may be rare, but such cases have surfaced with surprising frequency recently in Utah, where marriage is widely seen as a sacred institution and, in adoption cases, rights of unmarried fathers are narrow.
Unwed fathers had no custody rights at all until 1970, when the Utah Supreme Court found that holding a man financially responsible for his illegitimate offspring also entitled him to “custody and control as against all but the mother.”
Though just 10.7 percent of all births in the U.S. that year were to unmarried women, a seismic cultural change regarding illegitimacy was already in motion. As more women opted to keep their babies, states began to lean more heavily on unwed fathers to provide financial support for those offspring. At the same time, it left them out of most adoption decisions.
Then came a ground-breaking 1972 U.S. Supreme Court finding that a state could not remove three children from their father’s care after their mother’s death without a hearing simply because the parents, together for 18 years, had never married. In subsequent rulings, the court recognized Constitutional rights of unwed fathers who have a substantial relationship with their children but held that, sans a legal or substantial relationship, states could require such fathers to take steps, such as signing with a registry, to be entitled to notice of proceedings.
Utah established such a requirement in 1975 and strengthened it two decades later in sweeping revisions to the state’s adoption law. Reflecting the predominately Mormon Legislature’s view, one lawmaker observed during debate that “it is wrong to have children outside of marriage,” according to a 2009 article in the Journal of Law & Family Studies. A handwritten note on drafting instructions for the legislation read: “Change adoption law as we know it and test the bounds of Constitutional protection for biological fathers.”
As revised in 1995, the law says fraud by the mother — hiding a pregnancy or a plan to give birth in or pursue adoption in Utah — does not excuse an unwed father’s failure to act. However, it allows an out-of-state father to argue he had no prior knowledge his child would be born in or adopted in Utah, acted within 20 days of discovering the fact to comply with state law and previously protected his rights in his own state.
In Manzanares’ case, a Utah judge found Carie Terry, his daughter’s mother, deliberately deceived him and concealed information from judges in Utah and Colorado. Despite that, Manzanares’ attempt to derail the adoption failed because, by his own admission, he feared Terry might give birth in Utah but failed to take timely action here, the judge said.
“We believe the district court ultimately came to the correct decision,” said attorney David Hardy, who represented Terry at a late stage in the case.
Attorney David McConkie, who helped craft the legislation, calls Utah’s strict law a model for the nation.
The law requires a two-step process that includes filing with the registry and initiating a paternity action in court, along with submission of a detailed child care plan — though there’s no guidance on how to satisfy that mandate. One father who vowed to “assume all financial responsibilities,” for example, fell short of the mark. The Utah Court of Appeals ruled he had failed to specifically say how he’d earn that money or “identify who will care for the child while he is working to earn that income.”
Utah’s law is aimed at balancing the interests of all parties — the state, the mother, the biological father, the infant, the adoptive parents, said McConkie, now manager of children’s services at LDS Family Services, which arranges adoptions through its 62 offices in the U.S. and abroad and is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“There’s going to be cases where it doesn’t work very well, but you can’t craft a law around a specific case,” said McConkie. “You’ve got to craft a law that meets society’s interests and the parties’ interests more generally.”
What interests? Privacy, speedily finding homes for infants, ensuring those placements are final, and, most important of all, determining what’s best for a child, he said. Yes, interests sometimes conflict, he said.
“The mother has one way that she would like to go and the father has a way that he would like to go,” McConkie said. “And that’s a huge issue in this type of legislation — what do you do with this conflict of interest?”
Terry, for instance, testified in a Utah court hearing that she repeatedly told Manzanares that, despite his objections, she thought their child needed the “two-parent home” that adoption would provide “versus a hostile, stressful, anger situation.”
Critics such as Erik T. Smith of Ohio, a nationally recognized expert in putative father issues, say Utah’s answer has been to make the “window of opportunity as small as it can be” for unwed fathers to assert rights. But an even bigger problem, according to Smith, is most unmarried men don’t have the slightest inkling what the law requires — and McConkie doesn’t disagree with him.
At present, there is no information about the registry on the websites of the Utah Department of Health or Office of Vital Statistics, the state division charged with maintaining the registry, and the office won’t mail forms to fathers or their representatives, requiring them instead to appear in person.
“The thing I think is the hardest about Utah law, and I’m sensitive to this, is that fathers don’t know about it,” said McConkie. “I don’t know how you solve that problem, unless it’s advertised more.”
Another issue, as numerous unmarried fathers who don’t live in Utah have discovered: a judge in his home state may make a paternity finding but then be unable to address custody because the child resides and is part of an adoption proceeding here. As of 2010, Utah law specifically says a paternity order doesn’t entitle an out-of-state father to participate in such hearings, a change that came after several rulings in Manzanares’ tangled case.
Manzanares filed a paternity action in Colorado on Jan. 16, 2008, more than a month before his daughter’s birth. On Feb. 20, 2008, the day a hearing was set on the matter, Terry called the court and said she was unable to attend because she was in Utah visiting her sick father. What Terry didn’t disclose is that she’d given birth prematurely in Utah three days earlier and that very morning had signed papers before a Utah judge relinquishing the baby.
Nine days later, after the child’s birth was revealed, the Colorado court granted paternity, rights and responsibility for the infant to Manzanares. In July, a different Utah judge ordered the infant turned over to Manzanares, only to reverse the decision a week later and order another hearing. While the judge later vacated the court order approving Terry’s consent to the adoption, he ruled in August 2009 that Manzanares had not adequately protected his parental rights here, triggering his appeal.
Such lengthy court battles are typical and, some say, may erect a final, insurmountable hurdle for unwed fathers: If a father is found to have preserved his rights, a court then weighs his parental fitness and the child’s best interests, including the emotional and psychological impact of disrupting bonds between a child and the only parents he or she has ever known — although the Utah Supreme Court said in a 2007 decision such bonds are “legally irrelevant.”
The slow process prompted the author of a 2010 article in the Journal of Law and Family Studies to urge lawmakers to expedite adoption hearings, as done in child welfare cases.
Utah attorney Phil Lowry, who represented a North Carolina father in his failed custody bid, doesn’t expect solutions to such problems any time soon. Unwed fathers are an “under-represented group of individuals. And there are going to continue be problems for them and it is only going to get more aggravated as marriage becomes more fragmented,” he said.
—
Editor’s note
This is the second of four stories examining adoption in the context of unmarried fathers’ rights under Utah law.
Coming Tuesday • The as yet untold case of Jake Strickland, whose story painfully illustrates there is no defense in Utah law for fathers who may be misled by a mother or agency.
—
By the numbers: A look at 2010
52,164 • Utah Births
9,891 • Utah births to unmarried women
41 percent • U.S. births to unmarried women
19 percent • Utah births to unmarried women
30 • Filings in Utah’s putative father registry
1.3 percent • Estimate of unmarried women who choose adoption, U.S.
Source: Utah Office of Vital Statistics; U.S. Census; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Salt Lake Tribune reports
—
LDS Family Services
The agency, a party in at least 10 of the 27 high court decisions reviewed by The Salt Lake Tribune, is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church urges unmarried women to pursue adoption because they are generally unable to provide a stable, nurturing environment and because “unwed parents are not able to provide the blessings of the sealing covenant.” The faith believes that covenant ties a family together on earth and in heaven.
Excerpts from Utah court rulings
“It is conceivable, however, that a situation may arise when it is impossible for the father to file the required notice of paternity prior to the statutory bar, through no fault of his own. Due process requires that he be permitted to show that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to comply with the statute.”
Utah Supreme Court, 1980
“Those who conceive children outside the bonds of marriage may be loving parents, but experience teaches that the number of illegitimate children born each year contribute disproportionately to many of the serious social problems with which society must cope.”
Utah Supreme Court, 1984
Utah’s law “was not created to encourage a ‘race’ for placement to cut off the rights of fathers who are identified and present, but who are hours late in registering their claims because of ignorance of their statutory obligation.”
Utah Supreme Court dissent, 1984
[The statute] “does not distinguish between fathers in a monogamous relationship who are led to believe mother, father, and baby will form a family unit, and ne’er-do-wells who have nothing to do with the mother after a casual fling that culminates in conception.”
Utah Court of Appeals dissent, 2002
“We also hold that the phone call made to Mr. O’Dea in which Ms. Olea stated ‘I am in Utah’ gave him adequate inquiry notice that a qualifying circumstance existed” and he needed to comply with Utah law.
Utah Supreme Court, 2009
“Because the Natural Father failed to file his paternity action within the time required by New Mexico law, he did not establish his status as an acknowledged father, and the later paternity order was of no force or effect.”
Utah Supreme Court, 2009
© 2011 The Salt Lake Tribune
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas Jackson. Our hearts are empty, because you are not here. This time of year is about family, and all we can think about is you. We miss you so much and can't wait for the day we can finally meet you. Jackson, we will never stop fighting for you. We hope you enjoy your first Christmas.
WE LOVE YOU!
Monday, December 19, 2011
Letter two: LDS Family Services
LDS Family Services
% Adoption Services
President Monson
November 15, 2011
November 15, 2011
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to your office as a concerned mother, grandmother and citizen. My name is Jennifer Graham, my son Jake Strickland had his child placed for adoption through your Sandy office without his consent. Jake is rightfully contesting this adoption because he did not give consent to place his son. Jake supported Whitney Pettersson (the birth mother) through out the pregnancy, financially, emotionally and physically and they were planning to raise their son together.
I am sending this letter to request that you please review my concerns with your social workers and various individuals who work with birth mothers who are considering adoption. Please, please do not discount the birth father. He has rights to his unborn child, and his child has the right to know his/her father. I understand the position of the Church on unwed mothers, adoption and single parents. I also understand that the laws in Utah are written to support adoption and the adoptive couple more than the rights of the birth father. By not addressing the birth fathers you are potentially destroying one family to create another.
The issues which concern me are the actions taken by the social workers and LDS Service representatives in the case of my son and grandson. And more than likely other cases.
These actions included but were not limited to the use of some state adoption laws over others which were used to avoid and ensure that Jake the birth father would not be told of the plan to place his only child. Whitney unbeknownst to Jake is still legally married, and though Whitney told the social workers that Jake was Jackson’s (my grandson) father, her husband was called in to sign consent to place Jackson. Kyle, who is Whitney’s husband expressed his great concern of signing away another man’s child and expressed that he did not feel right to do so. There are several statements which were of great concern Kyle will testify to these in our case. But, my concern lies with the fact the social workers, Whitney, and yes even the adoptive couple and their family knew that Jake was Jackson’s father, not her husband. Yet, the part of the law which states the husband is the presumed father was used to have Kyle sign away Jakes’ rights to his only child.
I know for a fact that the adoptive couple knew of Jake, because I know the prospective father and his family. When I was a teenager I babysat this “man”, so I called his parents once I was made aware that they had my grandson and they told me that they knew Jake was Jackson’s (now called Ben) father. Why, then would Jake be talked about and known as Jackson’s father to all involved but not considered important enough to be contacted for consent? Why would Kyle, a man who stated and was clearly known not to be Jackson’s father be coursed into signing away another man’s child?
Whitney was with Jake the night before Jackson was born at the temple lights, they talked and text throughout the day Jackson was born, December 29th 2010. Whitney never said she was at the hospital or that she was in labor. Jake started a new job on the 30th of December and did not see Whitney but continued to talk and text her through January 5th when she finally told him that Jackson had been born and given away.
Whitney had told Jake about a “doctors” appointment that she was to have supposedly gone to on the 3rd of January, going as far as to say there was no change and Jackson was still to be delivered on Jan 12, 2011 at 7:30 via c-section. Jake had originally planned to go to the doctors with Whitney but then they had decided that he would be better off waiting until Jackson was born on the 12th and use his time off then so he could be with both Jackson and Whitney. You can see our story on our blog site getbabyjackback.com.
Though I am not holding the agency responsible for Whitney’s actions I am holding the agency responsible and questioning why an agency which uses the name of the Church would take such actions to ensure that Jake was not asked for consent, and placed a child through lies, deceptive and fraudulent actions. Jake would not have given consent he would have been able to file and made you aware that he would not give up his son.
To let you know, Whitney had threatened throughout the pregnancy that if Jake filed paternity he would never see his son. She stated over and over again that it would mean to her that he did not trust her. He should use the money it would cost to file and the cost of an attorney instead for her and their child. Since they were planning on raising Jackson together, and they both agreed on what and how Jackson would be raised Whitney told Jake that it was not necessary and would mean that he did not believe and trust her.
Funny, Jake was to distrust and not believe Whitney, the mother of his child, a woman that he had a relationship with and did not have any reason not to believe. But, from what we have been told the social workers working with Whitney trusted and believed her at her word. Interesting that from the outside looking in everyone knows better, and feels justified to judge others. Everyone involved states Jake should have filed and presumed Whitney was a liar – though LDS Family Services is and was not held to this same standard and accountability.
Now as a result of the actions taken to help Whitney give up Jackson, the deception used to ensure that Jake was not aware of her plan and actions, the adoptive couple has a child given to them through lies and fraudulent actions. They are now forced to create a family on a foundation of fraud, lies and deception, a foundation which will crumble and fall apart over time. LDS Services’ actions has not helped create a loving, caring home for Jackson, but one which will always have the shadow of deceit lingering overhead. The adoptive couple are aware and have been told that Jake did not place Jackson, and Whitney and the social workers acted through deception and misrepresentations to place Jackson with them. They also have been told by me through letters, a phone call I had with their parents and a social worker, Pam Taylor at LDS services. I will also share the truth with Jackson one day, and until then I will continue to tell Jackson’s story to everyone and anyone. Adoption through lies, deceit and fraud is wrong. Taking a child from a loving, caring, supportive and good father without his consent is wrong.
The truth of Jackson’s birth is supported through pictures of Whitney and Jake throughout the pregnancy, including pictures of them at Jackson’s baby shower. There are over 880 text messages, emails, letters, affidavits, time lines, money orders (paying doctor bills) receipts for his crib and bedding. Bank statements and various other documents all which support the truth that Whitney and Jake were together and Jake had been lead to believe that he and Whitney would be raising their son. Proof that Jake had supported and cared for Whitney and Jackson, that he did not and would not place Jackson for adoption all of this information will be given to Jackson when he is older as well.
The hurt and pain which has been caused by the misguided actions of these social workers who’s only thought was of placing a child with this couple at any cost, is unbelievable. There has been no consideration of the devastating ramifications to this “family” built on fraud. To the destruction of Jakes’ life without his son, or Jake’s extended family and friends devastation for not only not having Jackson, but the heartbreak of watching Jake being torn apart. The worst is the fact that there is no consideration to what these actions will do to Jackson when he learns the truth. That he was taken away from his loving father and family through lies and deception by Whitney and LDS Family Services.
Adoption is a very wonderful and necessary part of a civilized society, but when a child is taken from a loving, capable, good parent without consent it is not adoption, it is wrong. Adoptees have many issues which they go through in their lives because they are adopted. I am sure that you are very aware of the feelings which these individuals struggle with from childhood through out their adult lives. Even when there is no fraud, and the placement of the child was in their best interest, they struggle with these feelings.
Establishing one's identity is the major task of adolescence. Teenagers, whether adopted or not, must deal with such questions as, Who am I? Where do I fit? What do I want to do with my life? For those who were adopted, the search for personal identity is complicated every step of the way by the mystery of their genetic background. They wonder who gave them their particular characteristics, and they want answers to questions their adopted parents may not be able to provide: Where do I get my artistic talent? Was everyone in my birth family short? What is my ethnic background? Why was I placed for adoption?
A twenty-four-year-old adult adoptee, who was adopted as an infant, says, I feel like a cereal box with no ingredients. Even my furniture has a tag that says what it is made of. And written on the tag is `do not remove.'
Why should Jackson be made to go through these types of feelings and issues when he was not given up, he was and is wanted and loved by his father. Jackson has a sister, Whitney’s and Kyle’s daughter Emery. Emery and Jackson have the right to know each other, Kyle and Jake will see to it that they do. Jackson has cousins and family who love him and he has the right to know and be raised with them. Jackson has the right to know throughout his life what his “ingredients are” he did have a tag “do not remove” but it was torn off through lies, deception and fraud. And will be hidden by LDS Family Services if he allowed to be adopted and not returned home rightfully to his father.
Our Heavenly Father does not support fraud and deception; he does not support the outcome resulting from these actions. It is immoral and unethical to expect the adoptive couple to have to suffer the pain and devastation these lies, misrepresentations and deception will cause when their families are torn apart because the truth is known. What else will Jackson question later in life if all he has known with the adoptive couple was based on lies. How and who is he to believe and trust, when everything in his life is based on deception and fraud.
We are not to be the judge of our fellow man, nor are we to act as executioner in a civilized society. But, by using and manipulating the laws of the land and individuals to deny and unjustly cut a biological father out of his child’s life is wrong, immoral, and unethical.
To manipulate and use people when placing a child for adoption is not only devastating to the biological parents (in this case the father), but the adoptive child, adoptive couple, and their extended families. The power which has been given your agency as an industry to facilitate adoptions is not a power to be taken lightly or to be abused. The direct results of your actions will have lifetime consequences for everyone. Directly to the child, birth parents, adoptive parents and all extended families but society it self. Adult adoptees struggle daily with not only normal issues but additionally from the challenges from being adopted, whether or not it was good or bad. A fraudulent adoption or one which was done through lies and deception will only create pain and destruction later for that child.
You may then ask why tell Jackson about Jake if the truth will only hurt him?
Should Jackson be denied the right to know the truth because of Whitney’s lies and LDS Family Services deceptive actions, I do not believe so. Even LDS Services’ own legal counsel David Hardy believes that Jackson has the right to know the truth.
Please, please stop discounting birth fathers and their rights to their children. Do not allow fraudulent actions by birth mothers to destroy the adoptive families that you are creating. Though the State of Utah adoption laws allow for fraud in adoptions, it is not morally and ethically right. And by representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints you have the responsibility to be an institution of honesty, high morals and values which the church and our Heavenly Father stand for.
To the Sandy office, you have the authority to stop the adoption of Jackson. You can correct this injustice and return Jackson to Jake before the wounds are too deep. J and J should be placed with the child that they requested, one which was placed for adoption through the consent of both biological parents. Do not condemn J and J to a family built on Fraud. Do not deny Jackson his loving father and family.
Taking a child from a loving, good parent who is able to provide and care for them is the ultimate betrayal, to the child, parent(s) and society. To carry the name of the Church which stands for all that is good and honest, and then to take actions to ensure that a birth father is deceived, intentionally dismissed and avoided to take a child, is wrong.
The adoption laws in Utah need to be changed and the actions to exclude the birth fathers and unjustly terminate their rights to their children must stop. I pledge that I will do everything in my power to correct and change the laws, and stop this injustice. I also am asking that you, as an adoption agency, representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints take a stand to correct this case and take a stand for honest and consensual adoptions. It will take actions like this to stop the fraudulent, illegal actions taken and supported by the current Utah Adoption laws.
Adoption attorney Wes Hutchins said Utah law supports deception. "She can lie. She can misrepresent. She can commit fraud. That's expressly what the state permits the woman to do". He is also President of the Utah Adoption Council.
Utah’s Supreme Court Justice Christine Durham wrote, "Utah risks becoming a magnet for those seeking to unfairly cut off opportunities for biological fathers to assert their rights to a connection with their children." The statement was part of a dissenting opinion in the O'Dea v. Olea case.
As a society and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can we support adoption laws which our Heavenly Father does not and would not support, lying, misrepresentation and fraud. Are we as citizens of the United States of American and Utah going to allow Utah to become a breading ground for those who seek to adopt or place children for adoption under fraudulent and devious actions.
Stand up for what is right, bring Jackson home to his loving father and family and do not allow for fraud in our adoption laws.
Respectively,
Jennifer Graham
Jake’s mother and
Jackson’s grandmother
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Major Update:Devastating News
Many things and turn of events have occurred over the past few months in the on-going battle to fight for Jackson. I am going to try my best to bring you up to speed. Unfortunately, we have experienced many delays, set backs, heartbreaks, and loss of faith in the judicial system throughout this process.
If you remember from previous posts, clear back on May 9th, 2011, Judge Christiansen, heard our case, and was in awe with the series of events that had occurred. He recognized that Jake had not filed timely, but could see that this was due to the fact that Whitney Pettersson had blatantly lied, committed fraud, and deceived him so that he could not file the proper paperwork to protect his rights as a father. He ordered DNA testing to be completed, and really felt strongly about enjoining both cases (our case and the potential adoption case), because he knew that the outcome was going to affect both parties. After major delays on opposing counsel and the adoptive couples part to take Jackson a.k.a Benjamin in for genetic testing, the results had come in. Jackson was 100% Jake's son. Our next court hearing was scheduled for August 16th to discuss these findings.
On August 15th, 2011, we received a very surprising and frustrating call from our attorney's office that the judge had a family emergency and court was canceled the following day. We didn't feel like everything was adding up and so we proceeded to go ahead and show up to court anyways. We discovered that the judge DID NOT have a family emergency and was actually in court ready to hear our case. To our dismay though, our attorney as well as opposing counsel did not show up. This caused some great concern for the judge and demanded a telephone conference to be held that day with him, our attorney and opposing counsel from LDS Family Services. In that telephone conference, the real truth came out, that Dave Hardy(opposing counsel) is the one who took it upon himself to actually decide to cancel the hearing because he said he did not have proper notice of the hearing. When in fact, he had confirmed with Jake and Jenny in their depositions, only 2 weeks prior of the court date. This again, was one of their delay tactics, to prolong anything from moving forward with this case, and Jackson getting older and older.
In the telephone conference, the judge was notified of the DNA tests proving Jake to be the father. He then again enjoined the two cases, because opposing counsel had refused to provide our attorney with any information regarding the adoption, such as the case #, what district that case was being heard and who was representing the prospective adoption couple. The judge demanded answers to be told about this crucial information so that things could move forward. It was soon discovered that their attorney was Larry Jenkins and they had a pending case up in 2nd District in Ogden, Utah in front Judge Kay. Judge Christiansen also ordered that this case be resolved with in one district, and the way that would be determined was by who filed their paperwork first, Jake or the prospective adoptive couple.
Well, after a few weeks after this conference call, we found out we had some good news coming our way. We filed FIRST. Jake filed on January 6th, 2011, the very next day he found out about the adoption occurring, and the prospective adoptive couple filed on January 28th, 2011, giving us jurisdiction in having both enjoining cases be heard in front of Judge Christiansen. This was a very big plus for us because he already ruled in our favor once with ordering the DNA test as well as he saw the dishonest behavior of LDS Family Services Legal counsel blatantly NOT show up on purpose. Judge Christiansen ordered an evidentiary hearing to be heard in front of him to have all of the convicting evidence be shared. Judge Christansen knew he had a hard decision coming before him because he knew FRAUD was wrote into the law, and said "If I sanction fraud in my court, I will be denying a biological father thee right to his son, but if I don't I rule against this prospective adoptive couple who has grown to love and bond with this child."
Since mid-August we had not had much activity gone on since that real break through. There had been a conference call with Dave Hardy, Larry Jenkins and our attorney discussing how they would move forward and that was it. Our attorney had been working to get a new court date with Judge Christiansen and was not having much luck with opposing counsel cooperating, again another DELAY tactic.
We had unresolved business from a motion we filed originally back in January and were ordered to go back in front of the commissioner, in September, who originally heard our case and really didn't make any progress, due to her ordering us to go back to Judge Christiansen.
We had become very ancy, that no progress was being made. Calls and emails daily were being made to our attorney to see if any new updates had been made. NOTHING.
Finally, Jenny truly wanted to reach out to the adoptive couple, LDS Family Services, Dave Hardy, and families and truly just let them know what they are doing to Jackson. They aren't doing this in the best interest of the child, they are doing this in the best interest of their pocketbook. Since she is not part of this pending case, she reached out to them all via written letters. They were sent out on November 15th, 2011 and all were confirmed received within 2-3 days. Jake, nor his attorney had any knowledge of this to protect anything with the current case.
Little did we know, Larry Jenkins and the prospective adoptive couple had been collaborating and in the works with Dave Hardy on how they could try to get this thing maneuvered and finalized.
On Thanksgiving day, we received the most devastating and heartbreaking news yet throughout this whole ordeal. Jenny's father, who through the grapevine, has some connections with the prospective adoptive couple, heard that the adoption had been FINALIZED. What? How is this possible you ask? We were wondering the same thing. We could not believe this news could be true. There was NO possible way that this could happen right? We had been enjoined with the adoption case 2 different times. Since it was a holiday, we had to wait 4 grueling days until Monday, when our attorneys office was open for business. We called and had to DELIVER the devastating news to OUR own attorney. He was astonished just as we were. He immediately began calling to Larry Jenkins, Dave Hardy, and LDS Family Services, and AGAIN received NO information. Our attorney, wrote a letter to Larry Jenkins, to our dismay replied with a response we could not believe.
He informed us, that he checked with the court in 2nd District, and since Jake was not part of this adoption did not need proper notification of this adoption proceeding to move forward and that his client's were able to FINALIZE the adoption. WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? He DISOBEYED, Judge Christiansen's orders TWICE to enjoin the adoption case and our case. Judge Christiansen enjoined the cases for this EXACT reason, because he did not want someone to be able to make a final decision without both parties being heard. Judge Christiansen even filed a motion to stay on the case back in October, to make sure that their were no movements in this case until they came back in front of him. He also informed us that his clients felt threatened and would take protective action from the court if the harassment didn't stop. Which is ridiculous they would even say such a thing. There was nothing threatening wrote in the letters, it was the absolute truth, and Jenny's opinion, which she clearly states over and over she is not threatening anyone.
We will be posting the letters that were written by Grandma Graham over the next few days.
We are still 100% fighting this, and are in the process to intervene with the adoption. We are currently still awaiting to get a court date to go back before Judge Christansen, to share with him the news, that opposing counsel does not care what he rules or his orders, because he is going to go behind his back, LIE, and FRAUDULENTLY, get this adoption to go through.
Larry Jenkins was able to use FRAUD to allow his client to make a STOLEN baby theirs. They have a child who they want to bless, and get sealed in the LDS temple, and they are doing this KNOWING that they were dishonest, to get this to ultimately go through. We really aren't quite sure what they are thinking. Do they really not realize that Jackson will be 18 and we will tell him EVERYTHING? He will know the absolute truth and know that his so called parents took him against his will? They will have their world crashing down sooner than later. Time is flying by fast. Jackson is almost 1 years old. We only have to wait 17 more years to see our sweet boy.
If you feel as outraged about this as we do and did, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, voice your opinions to the adoptive couple, Larry Jenkins, LDS Family Services, Utah General Attorney Mark Shurtleff, and all of the Legislators in UTAH. This truly has to end. We can not have corrupt people creating the laws that deal with children, representing the laws that deal with children, and breaking the laws that deal with children.
Tune in tomorrow for Day 1 of the letter sequence. Also, a 4 page spread will be running in the Salt Lake Tribune, about the Utah adoption practices, ethics, and our story, beginning on Christmas Day.
Jackson, we have a had a few rough weeks with the holidays around and your birthday coming around the corner. Don't worry we have not forgotten about you and have not given up. We love you so much and will continue to fight until you are home with us and justice is serviced.
-Love,
Aunt Heidi
If you remember from previous posts, clear back on May 9th, 2011, Judge Christiansen, heard our case, and was in awe with the series of events that had occurred. He recognized that Jake had not filed timely, but could see that this was due to the fact that Whitney Pettersson had blatantly lied, committed fraud, and deceived him so that he could not file the proper paperwork to protect his rights as a father. He ordered DNA testing to be completed, and really felt strongly about enjoining both cases (our case and the potential adoption case), because he knew that the outcome was going to affect both parties. After major delays on opposing counsel and the adoptive couples part to take Jackson a.k.a Benjamin in for genetic testing, the results had come in. Jackson was 100% Jake's son. Our next court hearing was scheduled for August 16th to discuss these findings.
On August 15th, 2011, we received a very surprising and frustrating call from our attorney's office that the judge had a family emergency and court was canceled the following day. We didn't feel like everything was adding up and so we proceeded to go ahead and show up to court anyways. We discovered that the judge DID NOT have a family emergency and was actually in court ready to hear our case. To our dismay though, our attorney as well as opposing counsel did not show up. This caused some great concern for the judge and demanded a telephone conference to be held that day with him, our attorney and opposing counsel from LDS Family Services. In that telephone conference, the real truth came out, that Dave Hardy(opposing counsel) is the one who took it upon himself to actually decide to cancel the hearing because he said he did not have proper notice of the hearing. When in fact, he had confirmed with Jake and Jenny in their depositions, only 2 weeks prior of the court date. This again, was one of their delay tactics, to prolong anything from moving forward with this case, and Jackson getting older and older.
In the telephone conference, the judge was notified of the DNA tests proving Jake to be the father. He then again enjoined the two cases, because opposing counsel had refused to provide our attorney with any information regarding the adoption, such as the case #, what district that case was being heard and who was representing the prospective adoption couple. The judge demanded answers to be told about this crucial information so that things could move forward. It was soon discovered that their attorney was Larry Jenkins and they had a pending case up in 2nd District in Ogden, Utah in front Judge Kay. Judge Christiansen also ordered that this case be resolved with in one district, and the way that would be determined was by who filed their paperwork first, Jake or the prospective adoptive couple.
Well, after a few weeks after this conference call, we found out we had some good news coming our way. We filed FIRST. Jake filed on January 6th, 2011, the very next day he found out about the adoption occurring, and the prospective adoptive couple filed on January 28th, 2011, giving us jurisdiction in having both enjoining cases be heard in front of Judge Christiansen. This was a very big plus for us because he already ruled in our favor once with ordering the DNA test as well as he saw the dishonest behavior of LDS Family Services Legal counsel blatantly NOT show up on purpose. Judge Christiansen ordered an evidentiary hearing to be heard in front of him to have all of the convicting evidence be shared. Judge Christansen knew he had a hard decision coming before him because he knew FRAUD was wrote into the law, and said "If I sanction fraud in my court, I will be denying a biological father thee right to his son, but if I don't I rule against this prospective adoptive couple who has grown to love and bond with this child."
Since mid-August we had not had much activity gone on since that real break through. There had been a conference call with Dave Hardy, Larry Jenkins and our attorney discussing how they would move forward and that was it. Our attorney had been working to get a new court date with Judge Christiansen and was not having much luck with opposing counsel cooperating, again another DELAY tactic.
We had unresolved business from a motion we filed originally back in January and were ordered to go back in front of the commissioner, in September, who originally heard our case and really didn't make any progress, due to her ordering us to go back to Judge Christiansen.
We had become very ancy, that no progress was being made. Calls and emails daily were being made to our attorney to see if any new updates had been made. NOTHING.
Finally, Jenny truly wanted to reach out to the adoptive couple, LDS Family Services, Dave Hardy, and families and truly just let them know what they are doing to Jackson. They aren't doing this in the best interest of the child, they are doing this in the best interest of their pocketbook. Since she is not part of this pending case, she reached out to them all via written letters. They were sent out on November 15th, 2011 and all were confirmed received within 2-3 days. Jake, nor his attorney had any knowledge of this to protect anything with the current case.
Little did we know, Larry Jenkins and the prospective adoptive couple had been collaborating and in the works with Dave Hardy on how they could try to get this thing maneuvered and finalized.
On Thanksgiving day, we received the most devastating and heartbreaking news yet throughout this whole ordeal. Jenny's father, who through the grapevine, has some connections with the prospective adoptive couple, heard that the adoption had been FINALIZED. What? How is this possible you ask? We were wondering the same thing. We could not believe this news could be true. There was NO possible way that this could happen right? We had been enjoined with the adoption case 2 different times. Since it was a holiday, we had to wait 4 grueling days until Monday, when our attorneys office was open for business. We called and had to DELIVER the devastating news to OUR own attorney. He was astonished just as we were. He immediately began calling to Larry Jenkins, Dave Hardy, and LDS Family Services, and AGAIN received NO information. Our attorney, wrote a letter to Larry Jenkins, to our dismay replied with a response we could not believe.
He informed us, that he checked with the court in 2nd District, and since Jake was not part of this adoption did not need proper notification of this adoption proceeding to move forward and that his client's were able to FINALIZE the adoption. WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? He DISOBEYED, Judge Christiansen's orders TWICE to enjoin the adoption case and our case. Judge Christiansen enjoined the cases for this EXACT reason, because he did not want someone to be able to make a final decision without both parties being heard. Judge Christiansen even filed a motion to stay on the case back in October, to make sure that their were no movements in this case until they came back in front of him. He also informed us that his clients felt threatened and would take protective action from the court if the harassment didn't stop. Which is ridiculous they would even say such a thing. There was nothing threatening wrote in the letters, it was the absolute truth, and Jenny's opinion, which she clearly states over and over she is not threatening anyone.
We will be posting the letters that were written by Grandma Graham over the next few days.
We are still 100% fighting this, and are in the process to intervene with the adoption. We are currently still awaiting to get a court date to go back before Judge Christansen, to share with him the news, that opposing counsel does not care what he rules or his orders, because he is going to go behind his back, LIE, and FRAUDULENTLY, get this adoption to go through.
Larry Jenkins was able to use FRAUD to allow his client to make a STOLEN baby theirs. They have a child who they want to bless, and get sealed in the LDS temple, and they are doing this KNOWING that they were dishonest, to get this to ultimately go through. We really aren't quite sure what they are thinking. Do they really not realize that Jackson will be 18 and we will tell him EVERYTHING? He will know the absolute truth and know that his so called parents took him against his will? They will have their world crashing down sooner than later. Time is flying by fast. Jackson is almost 1 years old. We only have to wait 17 more years to see our sweet boy.
If you feel as outraged about this as we do and did, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, voice your opinions to the adoptive couple, Larry Jenkins, LDS Family Services, Utah General Attorney Mark Shurtleff, and all of the Legislators in UTAH. This truly has to end. We can not have corrupt people creating the laws that deal with children, representing the laws that deal with children, and breaking the laws that deal with children.
Tune in tomorrow for Day 1 of the letter sequence. Also, a 4 page spread will be running in the Salt Lake Tribune, about the Utah adoption practices, ethics, and our story, beginning on Christmas Day.
Jackson, we have a had a few rough weeks with the holidays around and your birthday coming around the corner. Don't worry we have not forgotten about you and have not given up. We love you so much and will continue to fight until you are home with us and justice is serviced.
-Love,
Aunt Heidi
Friday, December 9, 2011
EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT ADOPTION
We found the honest truth from an adult adoptee, here at this blog.. http://peaceofcricket.blogspot.com/p/open-letter-to-aps-paps-and-anyone-who.html.
And this I am sure is from a perspective of someone who was not STOLEN at birth, but given up. The letter is wrote below.
An open letter to APs, PAPs, and anyone who has even considered adoption
And this I am sure is from a perspective of someone who was not STOLEN at birth, but given up. The letter is wrote below.
An open letter to APs, PAPs, and anyone who has even considered adoption
(What you are about to read may shock you. It may challenge you. And, hopefully, it may inspire you to educate yourself further on the realities of adoption. Please read the following with an open mind, and try not to take anything said here personally. Because this is not meant to be an attack or a judgment; it is meant to be an honest and heartfelt expression of one adoptee's experience that would hopefully bring understanding and respect for the often ignored portion of the adoption equation.)
To all adoptive parents, hopeful adoptive parents, and anyone who has ever even considered adoption:
Being adopted hurts. Being adopted is hard. It is not beautiful; it is brutal, it is tragic, it is a cause for great sadness. For in order for a child to even be available for adoption, that child must first go through some sort of tragedy; whether that be abuse, hunger, homelessness, neglect, or even the simple fact that he or she is losing the life and family he or she was born into. This makes adoption a thing to mourn; not a cause for celebration or joy. To be joyful about adopting a child is to be glad that this tragedy happened.
I don't think there's a soul alive who would actually choose to be born into a situation where being relinquished for adoption, voluntarily or otherwise, was necessary.
Of course there will always be a need for children to be removed from their parent(s) and placed in safer, more stable, loving homes - but please understand that no matter how good and loving and wonderful the adopting parents are, nothing will ever erase the pain, the grief, and the loss that comes with being adopted.
The very foundation of adoption is that of loss - a child loses his or her mother, father, and entire family; a mother, father and family loses one of their children. And, yes, even a loss for the adopting parent - sometimes the loss of the expectation of having their own, biological offspring, the loss of a dream of having a baby of "their own." A separation of one family MUST occur before a new one can be built through adoption. Maybe it isn't a voluntary destruction, maybe the destruction is necessary for the health and safety of the child - but it is still a destruction of the very core, fundamental foundations of that child's life that will forever be altered.
Think of it this way...one of your parents dies, and your surviving parent eventually goes on to remarry. Though you might grow to love and have a great relationship with your parent's new spouse, no amount of love and happiness in this present situation will erase the grief you feel over the loss of your other parent. So please, if you have adopted or are considering adoption, keep this in mind.
Adoption should be the very last resort after all other options have been tried. Ask yourself this - does an adoption HAVE to happen? Is there anything I can possibly do to help this young mother keep her child? Are there resources I can direct her to, items I can supply her with, can I offer her the support and encouragement she needs to be a good parent? If so, then pursuing adoption is not the right choice. Too many unnecessary adoptions happen as a permanent solution to a very temporary problem. Adoption, after all, is forever - while a current living situation, job situation, etc., is temporary and can be changed and improved. Most women who relinquish their children do so because they feel they have no other choice...but what if she does have another choice, and only needs the support and encouragement to make it?
Adopted people know we are a second choice, a "Plan B," a solution to someone else's problem. While there are some people out there who would choose adoption first, most only do so after failed attempts at pregnancy or to "complete" a family of all boys or girls or to give their current child a sibling. Adding to your family through adoption should never be about meeting some need of your own...it should always and only ever be about providing for the CHILD'S needs. Please don't put the added pressure on an adopted child by forcing them to live up to the unspoken standard of the child you couldn't conceive or the son or daughter you couldn't produce. Adoption is not a cure for infertility, nor are adopted people "gifts" to be passed around in order to complete somebody else's life. We are human beings in our own right, with our own feelings, needs, and wants. Don't add to an already painful situation by expecting us to be something we weren't born to be.
Don't fall into the terminology trap. Adoptees know they have more than one set of parents...two that created them, and the parent(s) who are raising them. ALL are real to the adoptee. Don't get caught up in who is "real" and who is more important; let your adopted child choose the terminology that suits THEM. If you have been a good and loving parent, that's all you need. Besides, a parent can love more than one child, so why can't a child be allowed to love more than one parent? The heart has an infinite capability to love. Don't begrudge your adopted child the possibility of loving people he or she may not even remember.
And don't disparage the biological parents or family either. They may be evil people, the scum of the earth...but to say anything bad about the biological family is the same as saying something bad about your adopted child. The child did come from these people, after all; and better or worse we did inherit parts of ourselves from them. The old saying applies here more than anywhere else...if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
Adopted people experience a range of issues from having been adopted...many suffer from the fear of rejection and abandonment, have problems trusting others and forming relationships. After all, our very mothers could walk away from us, so what's to stop anyone else? Though not all adoptees experience these, many do, and to varying degrees. Just because the adopted person in your life hasn't mentioned it, don't think they don't feel it. Many will never, ever talk about their negative adoption issues for those exact reasons...fear of rejection, fear of abandonment, and just the overwhelmingly negative response they expect. If the adopted person in your life (your child, a friend or other family member) ever does talk about it, take your personal feelings and judgments out of it. Resist the temptation to say things like, "But you had such wonderful [adoptive] parents!" or "but you could have been aborted/thrown in a dumpster/etc.!" Adoptees are the only subset of society who are wholly expected to be grateful for our very lives, and with this expectation comes the need to try to suppress any negative emotion or feeling. Most adoptees won't even admit to themselves, let alone other people, that they are hurting. After all, we got this "better life," didn't we? We don't have the RIGHT to feel sad/angry/depressed. So many adoptees choose to stay silent and instead live a lie.
And, yes, that goes hand-in-hand with the child-parent relationship thing...remember, the PARENT is responsible for the health and well being of the CHILD, NOT the other way around. Only in adoption are adoptees somehow expected to always be careful not to "hurt" their adoptive parents; not to rock the boat or bring up something about their adoption because their PARENTS might not like it. This is another reason so many adopted people don't speak about adoption...we are afraid of hurting our adoptive parents. I know that as a parent myself, I would never expect my children to be responsible for my well-being...so please, don't ever place that expectation on adopted people either. After all, their adoptive parents WANTED to adopt, they WANTED a child, and chose this path for themselves. The adoptee most often did not choose it and had no say in the matter. Don't expect gratitude. ANYONE could have been aborted, could have been abandoned, could have been abused. These are not phenomena that are solely related to adoptees. Just because a person was adopted doesn't automatically mean they were unwanted, that they "could have been" anything...they are just people who are being raised by a different family and are living a DIFFERENT life, not necessarily a better one.
Please, if you are considering adoption or have already, educate yourself. Read books such as the Primal Wound. Read blogs by adopted people and relinquishing parents. Go into it with an open mind and open heart. Understand that there is the very real potential that the child you someday adopt might just struggle with it. And while you can be a terrific parent, a wonderful guide and mentor, the damage has already been done. Be prepared to do the hard work of helping your child deal with any grief, anger, and other issues he/she may feel. TALK to them about it. Adoptees are notorious for keeping things bottled up...let them know it's OK to talk with you about them. Reassure them that you will NOT be hurt, offended or damaged by their feelings. ALLOW them the freedom to feel whatever they feel.
If you are considering an open adoption or have entered into an open adoption, HONOR that. Unless there is some clear and present danger to the life of your child, KEEP THE COMMUNICATION OPEN. Don't cease contact with the biological family because it's an inconvenience for YOU. Understand that yes, at times it might be emotionally trying for your adopted child, your child may come away from visits or reading letters and feel depressed and angry, but don't take that as a reason to cease contact. TALK to your child. Help them understand WHY they are feeling this way. It's only natural that this might happen; and in the same breath, the biological mother/father/family may also feel overwhelmed at times and pull back, but do what you can to keep the lines of communication open. Remember, adoption is based on loss, and being reminded of that loss can be overwhelming. But that doesn't mean it should be avoided. Your adopted child will thank you someday for sacrificing your own happiness and comfort to allow him/her to keep this very important connection.
Try not to make a big celebration out of your child's adoption day (and PLEASE don't EVER use the horribly offensive and insensitive term "Gotcha Day). The same goes for birthdays. For while it may be a happy occasion to remember, keep in mind that it also marks the day that the adopted person was permanently and forever separated from their mother, their father, their original family. Birthdays are especially hard; for most adoptees have the knowledge that our births were not cause for celebration; nobody was bringing our mothers flowers and balloons and offering congratulations; our entrance into this world was one of sadness and trepidation. And it marks the day we were physically separated from our mothers; for many of us, it was the last time we ever saw her. So if the adoptee in your life withdraws around his or her birthday or doesn't appear to like celebrating, respect that. Understand that to many of us, it is not a cause for celebration.
I am not trying to tell anyone not to adopt. I am not saying, "shame on you" to anyone who already has adopted. What I am saying is, please step back and really think long and hard about the ramifications of adoption on the very person who is at the center of it all - the child you hope for or the child you have brought into your home. Be ready and willing to put a lot of hard work into helping this adopted child heal, to feel whole and complete in themselves. Be prepared to put your own needs and wants on the shelf and to put away your expectations, do what it takes to attend to the needs of your adopted child. All the love in the world, all the toys and gadgets and material things you might provide will never replace or erase what was lost.
Family preservation should always be the goal. Adoption should never, ever be utilized unless it is the last and only option left. Because adoption should be about finding homes for children in need; NOT finding children for people to fill a need. Jesus commanded us to help the orphan AND the widow...we as a society should do more to help families stay together instead of tearing them apart. Nobody really wants to be adopted...if given a choice, they'd rather their family situations could improve so that they wouldn't have to be separated. Would YOU have liked it if your mother gave you away?
Signed,
An Adult Adoptee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)