MADAME COMPASSIONATELESS

RELAX, ALREADY . . . IT''S JUST A BOOK

2010-10-09T17:46:00.000-07:00

It’s been about 12 years since I read Primal Wound by Nancy Verrier. What incited my interest was hearing about the book from other adopted people in the adoption community.

The Primal Wound theory doesn’t mean much to me because I’m clueless about the science of the infant brain. Although, separating a baby from its mother seems to me a pretty traumatic event for both mother and child.

I did not conclude the book’s content to be a life-sentence for feeling screwed up by adoption; rather some interesting pieces of insight that provided clarity to a continuous niggle I couldn’t seem to shake off on my own.

The Primal Wound book gave me the awareness that I have a real Mother; that the mother I was separated from for 32 years was a real person.

That would be a Mother that gave birth to me, not some biological whatchamacallit that needed to go to school so it had to give me away so it could have a better life. It hadn’t been possible to grasp that I’d been created the same way other humans were created. I was adopted. So a mother, a woman who had been pregnant--with me and from whom I received life, an identity and a tribal tie to generations of people living and those who came before me was an alien notion.

For me, growing up without the presence of genetic parents, family, or tribe meant no understanding of how it feels to ‘be like’ anyone. And even after reuniting with my mother and after her untimely death I still didn’t get that she was my mother, forget about the whole ancestry and relatives bit. That came much later, long after I’d processed having a real mother and father. Reading The Primal Wound, though, restored the acuity I’d had as a child—before the years of being fed mixed messages, myth and parental absence – the certainty that there was a real woman who was my mother.

After reading PW it was easier to learn more about adoption secrecy laws and adoption as a universal mess that has affected millions of people around the world. Betty Jean Lifton’s book, Journey of The Adopted Self came next and stayed near by for about 4 years. I was happy the day I was able to look at that book and think, Yuk. Self-help books are supposed to provide insight then retire to the second hand bookshop. Post these adoptee-centred books, though, adoption as a systemic legal issue and discriminatory institution became much clearer, therefore no need to revisit those particular perspectives.

I see people periodically accuse The Primal Wound book of being the source of some sort of interminable adoptee victimhood. I don’t get that. Anyone I know that’s read PW simply read the book took from it what they wanted and moved on. It’s never talked about now in my circles other than joking about the people who feel some bizarre compulsion to demonize it and the readers who found it useful. It’s just a book with a few antidotes to assist folks trying to figure out adoption crap. It seems opponents to PW are more victimized by it than those they allege are trapped in a PW void.

Nancy Verrier may thank those who fervently oppose her PW book, because it’s likely through that anti-Primal Wound pack she has received, inadvertently, much publicity and praise.

SMAAC NEWS

2010-08-21T07:05:00.000-07:00

SMAAC: Senior Mothers Adoption Activists Coalition

WATCH IT NOW, SMAAC IS GOIN’ TO TEXAS!

How fantabulous is that!

It’s high time American women (our sisters) of adoption loss started speaking out against the corrupt adoption industry that has, for the last century, forcibly and deceptively taken and sold women’s children, then legally withheld the whereabouts and identities’ of those women’s missing daughters and sons.

I’ve always been surprised by the adoption industry’s position that keeping identifying information (true records of birth) from the adopted-away daughters and sons of these women is a means of mother-self-protection. Why, then, doesn’t the industry advocate for these women to know who their daughters and sons became and where they are? If the industry is so concerned about the well being of these women, why deny them information about their own children?

We won’t be surprised one bit after Mothers start taking their voices to the advocacy arena, when the true motive for sealing records rears its ugly head. It doesn’t take much reading and listening to figure out that who these sealed records are supposed to protect, are those raising other parents’ children and the industry’s insidious and financially motivated baby/child scooping schemes.

Neither has it ever been written into law or included in any adoption contract that mothers and their daughters and sons be compelled to a lifetime of anonymity from each other.

I certainly appreciate it when Mothers of adoption loss speak out against sealed birth certificates, but what I’d really like to see is these women fighting for the right to obtain identifying information about their own children. What about their human rights? It’s not the surrendering Mothers who seal the information – it’s the industry and the government. This is not and never has been a battle of adoptees vs. mothers and who’s got the more justifiable right to information. The system sealed all of it – and it's against the system itself where all effected by these discriminatory secrecy laws should wage war - not each other, and not one or the other.

The first time I was in Nova Scotia meeting my relatives, one cousin said to me after I’d explained sealed birth certificates to her, “So, this means that it was against the law for us to know you?” I hadn’t given that angle much thought, as I was always focused on my rights and my information belonging to me. But, seriously - how accurate she was. The sealed records business discriminates not only against the adopted person, but also against parents, all immediate family members and all relatives.

Being a mother and not knowing the location and identity of your child is beyond my understanding. A law that seals information from you as a mother about the identity and whereabouts of your own child is a concept I simply cannot grasp.

Does it matter if your child is missing because of adoption? Does it make the confusion, grief and loss easier? My guess is No. A missing child is a missing child no matter the separation circumstances. What’s different, perhaps, is the coping methods and stories conjured up to explain away the absent child/ren and the approach in which a person receives ‘support’ from society and professionals. If you were told over and over by everyone around you that your loss isn’t important, well . . . wouldn’t you start believing it after a while? As an adopted person I certainly bought into all the adoption lies and myths, so why wouldn’t our Mothers have done the same?

Even a woman with the means to raise a child, but felt that surrendering her baby/child to the system of adoption was her best option, still would not know how that decision to surrender her child to strangers would impact her. She likely has no idea what the sealing of a birth document really means or the long-term implications of that legal process. With an adoption contract and procedure, the Devil is most definitely in the detail.

One reason why mothers don’t always search is because they don’t believe they have the right to contact and know their own children. Adoption laws and propaganda were deliberately created and implemented to program the brain to think like that. It is only after years and years of self-introspection and seeking out people with similar experiences does the truth and validation start trickling in.

Next August (2011) SMAAC will be working a booth at the National Convention for State Legislatures (NCSL) in San Antonio, Texas. There they will speak the truth – crack open the vault of adoption lies and demand justice from lawmakers.

Stay updated through the protest and NCSL booth organizing team, The Adoptee Rights Coalition and by visiting Sandy Young, Musing Mother and SMAAC executive.

2010-07-03T04:49:00.000-07:00

Looking over some of the posts from last year on Grannie's blog, I re-read her diatribe on free speech.

Grannie Annie writes a bunch of insidious and inaccurate posts about an adoptee rights protest held at the National Convention of State Legislatures. Proponents of the protest respond to it.

Suddenly, in response to being challenged, Grannie Annie says it's her democratic right to say whatever she wants. No one said that it wasn't. Someone, please correct me if I'm off base here, but free speech was not granted solely to Grannie Annie, was it?

I can't imagine what a debate with this woman would be like. Would she start screaming, “Damn you! – I have the right to free speech!”

Marley says on Grannie Annie's blog (responding to my blog posts here) and some anonymous comments there:

"As for "anonymous," there may be more than one, but go here to read what at least one of them is saying: http://nsbloodline.blogspot.com/ Putting together various posts on that blog, and comments on BGA and Bastardette,"

Sorry to disappoint you, honey, but those Anon comments are not from me.

Though the surreptitious insinuation that I was one of the Anonymous commenters is typical Marley-tribe.

Marley also says about me on Grannie's blog:

"On her radio show front page Edmonds links to Illinois Open. http://www.theadoptionshow.com/home2.php Isn't that interesting. Edmonds says she supported full access in Illinois, yet she attacks those very organizations which carried that banner."

Yes, I do have the Illinois Open link on my home page. Yes, I do support full access in Illinois. I also have Bastard Nation on the links page.

The adoptee rights vision of these two organizations: Becoming.

The conduct of a few of these organization's members: Un-becoming.

DOUBLING UP ON THE DOUBLETHINK

2010-07-02T11:24:00.000-07:00

After posting the last piece on Mary Lynn Fuller and Anita Field (Bastard Grannie Annie) and their opposition to the Adoptee Rights protests for unconditional access for all adopted persons in the US, a friend reminded me of the below email we received last year from Mary Lynn and Anita (IllinoisOpen):

"Many of us do contact legislators and that is important. But coming out in numbers, in our own communities, in peaceful demonstrations certainly can't do any harm. We are working at a grassroots level right now. A cause does get attention when there are a number of people who publicly demonstrate their belief. Just think about some of the signs and floats that you have seen in different parades. We often see on the news or read in the newspapers about different rallies that have been held in various neighborhoods.

In our last eNewsletter we said that we would like for people to particpate in 4th of July parades that are held in their own communities. That holds true yet but we are open to any ideas regarding it or any other demonstration that you can think of that could help educate our neighbors and eventually lead Illinois to becoming one of the open records states.

Those willing to participate in 4th of July parades can coordinate them in their own cities. We will help out by posting your plans in our newsletter. The larger number of people participating in different parades the better. However even a small number of people will help to spread the word that adopted adults in IL are denied access to their OBC. We must start somewhere with demonstrations. Even if participants would be small in number this year, it could lead to having more next year. Family, friends, and other interested parties are welcome to join in!

The more people who participate in the fight for open records the better chance of success! Please forward as far and as wide as possible!"
_____________

Whoa, Nellie! This is the same person that wrote:

“Adoptees don’t belong to one huge fraternity. We have not taken an oath of allegiance to each other. We have never sworn to uphold the “party line.” We are individuals who happen to have been adopted.”

“Do you think that I should support your protest march or other events just because I am an adoptee? Are we going back to the days when all adoptees were supposed “to stick together” if we wanted to “get anything done?” Not on your life.”

Goodness, this paradigm of doublethink could make a hypocrite seem like a loyalist.

Do you want adoptees to fight in solidarity or not?

Mary Lynn and Anita wrote the plea for Adoptee Rights demonstrations shortly before the Philly Adoptee Rights Protest in July 2009. The comments about the Philly protest by Bastard Grannie Annie (who is also on the exec. committee of Bastard Nation) were written within one week after the Philly protest.

Surprisingly, I don't see a warning that 'deformers' not participate in their state-wide request for demonstrations.

One can only hope that these folk eventually get their act together.

KNOCK, KNOCK - YOUR STRATEGY ISN'T WORKING

2010-06-30T18:31:00.000-07:00

Ok, so here’s the kill the deformer strategy masterminded by Mary Lynn Fuller:

“We now have another group to fight - the deformers. We have got to come out in nigher numbers than they and educate the public that it is simply wrong to leave one adult adoptee behind. We will win so the sooner the deformers join us, the better for the adoption reform movement. They are currently a big hinderance and we must knock them down, lift them back up and educate them as to why it is so important to be a reformer.”

Last year Mary Lynn Fuller wrote a post about the Philadelphia Adoptee Rights protest saying she did not support it and she would write legislators assuring them that what the protesters were fighting for (unconditional access to birth records for all adopted persons in the US) was not her goal. Now that’s some priceless education on adoptee rights activism.

How on earth can Mary Lynn Fuller expect people to take her or her cause for open records seriously? Who would want to join her battle after she wrote that! The Adoptee Rights protests are indisputably about access for all.

And after Mary Lynn has knocked down a few people, then picked them up for educating – where exactly will this so-called education be available? A blog?

And from Marley responding to Mary Lynn:

“The "experienced" people who DO know the difference and don't care are a lost cause. They need to be shamed and ridicule and dismissed from relevancy. They are no better than NCFA, RTL, and the ACLU.”

Er, more priceless education. Hasn’t the above shaming and ridiculing strategy been used for the last decade? How’s that worked out? A really bad law in Illinois is one of many examples of how this strategy is completely ineffective. I’d suggest y’all put your wee heads together and sketch up a new plan. Maybe the strategy to dismiss people from relevancy hasn’t worked out so well.

Bastard Grannie Annie is right behind Mary Lynn in the race to shame, blame, and ridicule:

Last year, around the same time as Mary Lynn Fuller’s post about the Philly protest, BGA wrote a post on her blog declaring: “Your Goal is Not My Goal!” Aiming her words at the near 100 people fighting for unconditional birth record access at the National Convention of State Legislatures.

Here’s what BGA wrote:

“But the reason is so simple. It’s so basic! YOUR GOAL IS NOT MY GOAL."

"Why on earth would I march in any protest when my ideas of an adoptee equal rights bill do not agree with your ideas?!. Do you think that I should support your protest march or other events just because I am an adoptee? Are we going back to the days when all adoptees were supposed “to stick together” if we wanted to “get anything done?” Not on your life.”

Your goal isn’t to have all birth records unsealed for adopted people in the US? After some people gently directed BGA to the Adoptee Rights protest web site, she did manage to push out an apology for not knowing that the protest goals and her goals are actually aligned. However, what I’d like to know is on what premise did she base her initial assessment of the protest’s goals if she hadn’t read any material, not even the web site, which clearly states the access for all mission of the protests.

BGA also pulled another hissy when the suggestion that people fighting for adoptee rights work together. She didn’t seem to like that idea – apparently, BGA believes that just because some folks have the same vision for adoptee rights, doesn’t mean she has to work with them.

BGA’s bit on free speech and adoptees working together:

“I’ve been told that this is name-calling, ignorance, sabotage. But it’s not – it’s debate, dissent, disagreement.

“Adoptees don’t belong to one huge fraternity. We have not taken an oath of allegiance to each other. We have never sworn to uphold the “party line.” We are individuals who happen to have been adopted.”

With adoptee rights 'advocates' like these, why would anybody be surprised that birth certificates are still sealed and partial legislation has become acceptable.

Marley (I speak through both sides of my mouth!!) Greiner

2010-06-22T17:59:00.001-07:00

Anybody ever notice Marley's double-speak?

This is what Marley said on a facebook blog the other day when asked why BN doesn't publicly support the current clean bill in New York:

"Two years ago I was told to stay out of it. The name Bastard offends the legislature. If a clean bill passes great, but apparenlty Bastards are too shamefjul to take part."

Right. And about two years ago Marley created Buckeyes for Birth Records or some name like that to use for lobbying sealed birth certificates in Ohio. Why didn't she approach the legislature as a rep of Bastard Nation? Because, Marley stated, leggies in Ohio snickered in the public hearings when she presented as Bastard Nation - that they, she feared, were not taking her or the organization seriously.

Likely NY advocates suggested she not use BN's name in the legislature for the same reason she created a new org for Ohio. So it's acceptable to switch things up for Ohio, but not New York? And why would she and Bastard Nation completely dismiss and refuse to publicly support an equitable, clean Adoptee Rights bill for all adopted persons in New York?

How Low Can You Go

Now Marley has a post up with a an email sent to the private list of the respected NJCare folk about the NJ bill. Not only is it unprofessional to forward and post (non-approved by the moderator) mail from private groups, it also questions the integrity and trustworthiness of BN, an org that claims to be fighting for adoptee rights. And it's sure smelling like mole-town right about now.

Warning: Moderators of email groups: it's time to bring on the mole hounds to sniff out those slimy-dirty-dealing bastards and toss them off your lists!

Better watch out for the double-speak.

Book Review: One Small Sacrifice: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects

2010-05-15T16:00:00.000-07:00

Trace A. DeMeyer’s book One Small Sacrifice: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects is a marvelous read.

Trace narrates her story of growing up in small-town Wisconsin, US, with her younger brother, Joey and a very dysfunctional adoptive family, yet the only family she knows. What’s interesting about this book is how Trace takes the reader along with her on her journey. At times I felt I was with Trace, in her house struggling with abuse, listening from the back room as her parents and parish priests drank into the wee hours. I was sitting in the bar where she and her band were performing. I was also with her when she relentlessly searched for her family of birth. I pondered with her as she tried to make sense of her home environment – disturbed, abusive adoptive father, distracted adoptive mother – and a deep desire to know her roots and connect emotionally and physically with her sorely absent parents.

One Small Sacrifice: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects, provides a realistic representation of the pieces of identity that are missing year after year for those separated from their parents and tribe, as well as the laws, societal myths and pressures that require adopted children to play the role of daughter or son to those unrelated to them. There is a subtle message to readers how adopted persons, by being adopted and legally forbidden to know who they are adapt to their surroundings, while unwittingly abetting in the crime of secrecy of their own identity and past.

The reader struggles with Trace as she tries to cope with and overcome her constant questioning of all that is strange about human nature, but knowing instinctively not to blame herself for the perverse actions of others. We then share her appreciation for all the beauty in nature that is so often unnoticed. Trace shows us how to unearth the exquisiteness in birds, snakes, water and trees.

Trace is a writer, a very introspective and musical person; she has determination and a untamed spirit that keeps her moving bit by bit to find her truth, and the truth of her Indian-self and of her people who have suffered en masse through the controlling and untiring hands of the white man.

This book will help those who wonder how an adopted person is connected to an adoptive family, simply by “being there” and how complex it is to amalgamate one’s adoptive identity into a found identity, and how the mind plays tricks on you when paradoxically wishing for, yet accepting the life that is and the life that never was.

One Small Sacrifice: Lost Children of the Indian Adoption Projects is available as a download (e-book, US $3.00) or paperback (US $15.95) at: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/one-small-sacrifice/6242298 and at www.Amazon.com. Request at your favorite book seller. ISBN: 978-0-557-25599-3

ILLINOIS - STOP THE DISCRIMNATION AGAINST ADOPTED PEOPLE

2010-04-19T04:24:00.000-07:00

My birth certificate is locked up in the state of Illinois.

I wasn't even adopted there... I was born in Chicago, but adopted in Ontario. Illinois still won't give me my own record of birth. Now there's a bill to unseal BCs, but it has a discrimination clause - parents can file a disclosure veto, which removes their names from the record of birth. What's a legal record if all the legal information isn't there? It's a bogus document.

If non-adopted people in Illinois can receive their birth certificates with the names of their parents listed, so can the adopted. There is no difference between an adopted person and a non-adopted person. Adopted people are being severely discriminated against in the state of Illinois.

Visit, call, and write your senators now to have IL HB 5428 bill amended to include birth certificate access for ALL PEOPLE! For legislative contact info, go here: http://www.ilga.gov/reports/rptMemberList.asp?gaid=10&ChamberId=S

Adopted people: Don't allow your government to discriminate against you! There is no reason why you should be treated differently than everyone else in the state of Illinois.

PHILLY PROTEST 2009 A HUGE SUCCESS!

2009-07-31T17:06:00.000-07:00

On July 21, 2009 people from as far as England gathered in Philadelphia, PA to protest legally sealed birth certificates in the United States.

Adoptees, mothers, fathers and adoptive parents marched down Market St. in Philly to the Pennsylvania Convention Center, where the National Convention for State Legislatures was being held. Two police cars stopped traffic at each intersection to allow marchers to freely cross the street. Protesters yelled, “You’ve got yours – we want ours!”

While protesters spoke with legislators and other NCSL participants outside the building, others were inside the centre working at The Adoptee Rights Coalition booth. Lawmakers and stakeholders were educated for three days straight by experts, such as Joyce Bahr, president of New York’s Unsealed Initiative and Paula Benoit, former Maine senator and president of Adoptee C.A.R.E. , on successful legislation and current laws pertaining to legally sealed birth certificates. Visitors to the booth, I found, were extremely receptive to learning more about the issue of sealed birth certificates in their state. Some, not surprisingly, did not know adopted persons could not obtain their own birth certificate.

Birth certificates, based on the research I have done, were sealed (what’s on paper, not was is propagated) so the person adopted could not possess two official documents showing two identities. So why hide the names’ of the parents? A simple stamp on a birth registration stating, “Not for official use” would have been sufficient.

While digging through Ontario’s child welfare and adoption legislative archives (1890s-1950), I was not able to locate one document or stumble upon one sentence in any legislative material that stipulated or even suggested that mothers who had lost their daughters and sons to the system of adoption, were assured privacy/anonymity from those children sent away to be raised by people other their own families. The only reference I found to mothers was the recommendation that these women, post an unwed pregnancy, receive adequate counselling to help them integrate back into society and be deemed worthy of a respectable man’s admiration. Governments should be ashamed of the way they treated these women.

What legislators need to know is that sealing birth certificates with the idea that there was government-authorized privacy among family members, is a tall tale fabricated by proponents of legalized secrecy. How can anybody justify sealed birth certificates based on a law that does not exist?

A protest for adoptee rights is about offering people affected by adoption policy and laws, a platform to articulate to the lawmakers and the public how these laws are fictitious, discriminatory, and why they need to change. An adoptee rights protest, like any other protest proclaiming social injustice, attracts people with diverse experiences, and some express those experiences differently. But, to be sure, all participated in the Adoptee Rights Protest for the same reason: to reclaim what was unjustly taken from them- without compromise.

It was incredibly powerful meeting adopted people at the Philly protest who were, for the first time, speaking publicly about sealed birth certificates and fighting for their rights. How brave, how inspiring—how ‘right’ it felt. Bravo to my sisters and brothers for a job well done!

There were also two other events in Philly that cannot go unsaid –

Our dear friend Heather and her Mother, Carol reunited in person on July 20, 2009. About ten of us piled into two vehicles and headed to the Philly airport to wait with Heather, while she waited for Mom to arrive from Florida. Talk about a nail biting experience!

Heather held up a sign that said “Hi Mom” and we waited. We waited some more. We shifted left to right of the pathway leading out from arrivals. Then we shifted back to the left. Then, with what seemed like not a moment to blink, Heather’s sign dropped to the ground, her eyes were fixed on her Mother’s face – she and her Mother locked arms and held each other tight. It had only been 38 years since mother and daughter had been legally separated.

The other event was the road trip to Helium Comedy Club where we heard our Linda Gambino deliver her comedy routine. Linda is not just funny; she is sharp, gorgeous and can deliver the jokes without missing a beat. Let’s just say that she is a masterpiece. When Linda shows up at a comedy club in your city—get there fast.

Lastly, a gigantic thank you to all the participants and supporters of this Philly event. Of course another thank you goes to my comrades in The Adoptee Rights Coalition who pulled the demonstration and convention centre booth together.

We’re keepin’ it real.

Check out lots of
Pics & videos

THE ANTI-ADOPTION CONFUSION

2008-11-14T16:21:00.000-08:00

Not a week goes by without reading somewhere in adoptoland criticism about those of us who are anti-adoption.

I can't speak for all who claim to be anti-adoption, but I do have my reasons for being anti-adoption, so let me share them with you here on Bloggers Ending The Myth.

Adoption is:

a) a system that changed my identity and legally sealed my original one. (By doing that it legally removed my choice to know my parents, my ethnicity, my culture, my siblings, my grandparents, my relatives, and my ancestry.)

b) a system that fed me scraps of no-name-privacy-protected dribble about my family and called it: Non-Identifying Information. Basically, what they were saying was: please eat shit and be grateful that somebody actually provided you with that shit to eat. Non-Identifying information goes like this: "Birth mother had brown hair." "Birth sister born in NY -1958." "Birth father was Catholic."

c) a system that would not legally allow my mother, father, siblings or relatives access to my (changed)identity or an update of my whereabouts or well-being.

(I've left out the transfer from one set of parents to another, as I didn't need adoption for that to happen - that was done via foster care and permanent legal guardianship, where I still possessed my own identity and access to my family.)

d) a system that sealed my birth certificate and refuses to unseal it, based on the presumption that I will cause harm to my parents simply because I have the "adopted" tag hanging from my sleeve.

e) a system that deems me capable of causing harm, when it is that same system that sealed my birth certificate. So, the obvious question here would be: if the system that created adoption knows that it is creating potential criminals, why does this system exist?

f) a system that won't present to me on paper why my birth certificate is sealed and why I am deemed capable of causing harm to others.

g) a system that sells humans.

h) a system that in some jurisdictions, only allows a mother 24-48 hours to revoke her adoption consent. (Here of course the system has denied a child the right to be raised with its own mother and/or father or other family members.)

i) a system that, even when it allows humans to posses their own birth certificates, says, oh, but only some can have their birth certificates - the potential criminals don't get theirs because a parent has dropped a disclosure veto into their daughter or son's file.

k) a system that does not require mandatory child advocates representing the best interest of the child.

l) a system that will not allow me to obtain my mother's death certificate because I can't provide my birth certificate to prove that she was my mother.

m) a system that allows those who have adopted a child in an open adoption agreement, either the adopter(s) or the mother/parents to break that agreement without court intervention, which would advocate for the rights and of the person adopted and reinforce the ethical responsibilities of those who chose to bring a child into the world and those caring for the child.

Is there ever a reason to take a human's identity, change it, legally seal the original one and legally separate family members from one another? Well, maybe there is a parent who is completely insane and should really have no contact with any human, never mind their own child/ren - but don't phone companies offer services to help deal with these situations?

Anti-adoption is not about leaving children in unsafe environments just for the sake of maintaining one's identity or keeping a family together. That would be anti-child safety. It's about the multitude of unethical and discriminatory laws and policies inherent to the system of adoption. These laws and policies apply post the forced removal or voluntary surrender of a child. Surrendering mothers do not seal their children's birth certificates - a mother loses her parental rights. That is not adoption.

Finding a home for a child is not adoption. Child adoption is a paper process, a choice after a decision has been made for a child to be raised by anyone other than that child's parents. The system of adoption allows those planning to raise a child not born to them, the choice to enforce the changing and sealing of a that child's identity and the permanent legal separation from its family.

Until the adoption system abolishes many of its immoral practices and policies, the first being the legalized sealing of birth certificates, I will remain, anti-adoption.

2008-08-28T15:13:00.000-07:00

Welcome to our family's bloodline. I defied the law of secret-families-through-adoption (not to be confused with family secrets) and ~gasp!~ discovered my mother's ancestry.

This site lists the family names: Slauenwhite, Dillman, Andrews, Henley and Logan. These folk are the maternal ancestors of my mother, Elsie Florence White (b February 14,1934-d December 20,1996).

My siblings and I were all separated from our mother, fathers, and each other, through the systems of adoption and foster care. Most of us were reunited in 1995. Being legally separated from immediate family also means separation from grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. It means no knowledge of one's ethnic identity, genetic traits and nuances, cultural background and of course, ancestry, which also means no access to the people who hold information about one's ancestral past.

In April 2008, I began a serious search for information about my ancestors from Nova Scotia, Canada (not that the last 20 years of searching wasn't serious; but this time I didn't give up after a few empty clicks!). As I was bouncing around various ancestry sites, I kept running into the same person's name inquiring about the same ancestors I was researching. Was this person a relative? Of course she was! Thanks to the years of incredible hard work and persistence of this person, I was able to piece together quite a lot of family history in less than one month. Thank you to my newly-discovered relative -- the lovely Cousin Carol! Carol's mother, Alma was the sister of my grandmother, Della.

In 1784 (or thereabout) my fifth-generation grandfather, James Logan, a Scottish soldier who had fought on the side of the British in the American Revolution hopped off a ship and on to a small piece of land called Sheet Harbour in Nova Scotia. James and about 60 other soldiers had been given land grants in Nova Scotia by the British Government. Seems these 20 soldiers had been wounded in the war, sent to Bermuda to recpuerate, then sailed to Nova Scotia to begin a new life.

James Logan's arrival at Sheet Harbour brought him in face-to-face with a Micmac tribe of Indians - the only civilians living in the area. James met and married a Micmac woman named Dorothy. Her first name is the only name my cousin Carol and I have been able to find. James and Dorothy had about ten children. James and Dorothy are my fifth-generation grandparents. ETA: recent comment from a another fifth-generation descendant of James Logan, has informed that Dorothy might not have been a Native woman after all. Thanks, Frank. Good to see my relatives visiting the blog.