Woman sues over reunion with child she gave up for adoption after being raped

[Novice]

Originally Posted by sluce

I do hope this case goes to court. Please remember that right now you are only hearing the side of the lawyer who represents the birthmother and both will benefit monetarily. Word in the industry is that when the facts come out the case will not look so cut and dry.

I hope that we get to hear the updated details....

Originally Posted by sluce

Please also keep in mind that there are very, very few adoptees as a result of rape. However, young women are sometimes told to say they were raped so there will be no need to identify a father which would then allow him to assert his parental rights if he wants. It is not used as much today but 20-30 years ago it was a tool used when they thought a birthfather might want custody. Leaving him out of the process was covered by claiming rape.

I didn't know that either... but I can understand why it would happen.

[maryk]

So they just said here's your mom's address go ask her why she didn't raise you or what?

I think for these things to work you either have to investigate yourself and be prepared for things not going that well, OR the state could have contacted both parties separately asking if they were interested in a reunion.

[Novice]

Originally Posted by sluce

I am pleased to have been involved in hundreds of reunions. People do not need the agency at all. It is pretty easy to get all the information you need to make contact without ever involving a social service agency. I have only had a few cases where the birthparent did not want a reunion. That usually happens because they have been living the lie and are now afraid of having to deal with it. Even in those cases they were willing to provide information and were very thankful to know that the adoptee was alive and well.

I know that the case that I know of, it was never the right time to tell one particular child. They have some strange issues anyway, but he doesn't know.
Her husband & daughter know but due to the circumstances of having this child it was a hard thing to discuss.
In the UK its much harder to find someone due to the data protection act but she's partially tried to make it easy for him to find her. The birth name is unusual.... he's still not made contact but she has said that never a day goes by when she doesn't think of him, but since he's not made contact she hopes that he's happy & settled in his new life.

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by sluce

That usually happens because they have been living the lie and are now afraid of having to deal with it.

Originally Posted by sluce

Word in the industry is that when the facts come out the case will not look so cut and dry.

even if the birth mother has been 'living the lie' as you say and never told anyone about the pregnancy and adoption, or lied about being raped, it doesn't give the agency the right to disclose her name and location to the adopted kid. it doesn't give them the right to violate their privacy. it is the woman's absolute right to never see or hear from that kid again if she doesn't want to, and that should be respected. it sucks for the kid, and i'm glad that in most cases, the birth mother does want to see the kid and know he/she is alright, but it should always be the birth mother who decides if she wants to be contacted. the adopted kid does not have the right to know who the birth parents are. it sucks for the kid, and maybe that explains why these kids have higher suicide rates, depression, whatever but that doesn't change the facts.

if the law changes and starts to favour the child's rights, all that is going to do is deter women from adoption. who wouldn't get an abortion if all you want is to have this unwanted pregnancy over with? if it turns out this can come back and haunt you years later, why bother carrying the pregnancy to term?

[sluce]

Originally Posted by sputnik

if the law changes and starts to favour the child's rights, all that is going to do is deter women from adoption. who wouldn't get an abortion if all you want is to have this unwanted pregnancy over with? if it turns out this can come back and haunt you years later, why bother carrying the pregnancy to term?

The laws have chaned in several states to allow open records and the rate of adoption did not change. Very, very few women chose adotion today and want secrecy. Relinquishing a child is no longer viewed as a shameful dirty secret that must be kept, thank God. Most placements involve a level of openness. The archaic practices have mostly been retired and adoptees are being given the same rights and consideration as non adopted people.

[greysfang]

And the key word there is "allow", not force. If there is no expectation of lifelong privacy I believe a large number of potential adoptions will turn into abortions.

[sputnik]

Originally Posted by sluce

The laws have chaned in several states to allow open records and the rate of adoption did not change. Very, very few women chose adotion today and want secrecy. Relinquishing a child is no longer viewed as a shameful dirty secret that must be kept, thank God. Most placements involve a level of openness. The archaic practices have mostly been retired and adoptees are being given the same rights and consideration as non adopted people.

i don't think women necessarily want privacy because of shame or because they view it as a dirty secret.
speaking for myself, i know if i gave up a child for adoption, the only way i could do it was if it was final and closed and that would be the last i would hear of it. of course i imagine you would always wonder and it can't be an easy decision, but to me, you either give your child up for adoption or you choose to remain in its life. it's one or the other, you can't give it up thinking you'll see him/her again because then you don't really have closure.
again, i'm just speaking for myself and in my case, if adoption meant the kid has a right to know who i am when it's older and i don't have a say in that, i'd get an abortion, no question about it.

[MohandasKGanja]

I don't see how someone who has become unexpectedly pregnant (raped or not) and is considering either abortion or adoption is going to be swayed toward adoption by the fact that her wish for absolute privacy won't be protected. If anything, it would probably go in the other direction.

[mella]

I grew up with my mother and a shitty stepfather . Still , I was never interested in my biological father or his family (and he was paying child support and I was insured through him) I don't know how it would have been later in life because he died when I was 14 . Today I live in the same city as my paternal grandmother and I have to force myself to visit her .

[Kittylady]

Originally Posted by sputnik

i don't think women necessarily want privacy because of shame or because they view it as a dirty secret.
speaking for myself, i know if i gave up a child for adoption, the only way i could do it was if it was final and closed and that would be the last i would hear of it. of course i imagine you would always wonder and it can't be an easy decision, but to me, you either give your child up for adoption or you choose to remain in its life. it's one or the other, you can't give it up thinking you'll see him/her again because then you don't really have closure.
again, i'm just speaking for myself and in my case, if adoption meant the kid has a right to know who i am when it's older and i don't have a say in that, i'd get an abortion, no question about it.

I think that, in some ways, the adoption or abortion situation can get women coming and going. If you abort you are at risk of being called a babykiller, of having loose morals and being made to feel shame and guilt for having to make that decision. If you have a child adopted there are those people who will snark behind your back that you are unfeeling, uncaring and (shock, horror!) unmaternal to be able to give your own flesh and blood away.

[celeb_2006]

Yes it would be interesting to see the whole story and both sides completely. In retrospect I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement about who should and who shouldn't seek out their biological parents and for that I apologize, it was a bit harsh.

[Aella]

Originally Posted by sluce

The laws have chaned in several states to allow open records and the rate of adoption did not change. Very, very few women chose adotion today and want secrecy. Relinquishing a child is no longer viewed as a shameful dirty secret that must be kept, thank God. Most placements involve a level of openness. The archaic practices have mostly been retired and adoptees are being given the same rights and consideration as non adopted people.

But when she gave the child up for adoption, it wasn't the case, right? Whatever the practice is now, it's a violation of her trust in the laws to apply it retroactively.

Why is this case even being argued?

[MoodyJenny86]

Originally Posted by Aella

But when she gave the child up for adoption, it wasn't the case, right? Whatever the practice is now, it's a violation of her trust in the laws to apply it retroactively.

Why is this case even being argued?

Word.

[sluce]

Originally Posted by Aella

But when she gave the child up for adoption, it wasn't the case, right? Whatever the practice is now, it's a violation of her trust in the laws to apply it retroactively.

Why is this case even being argued?

Actually, birthparents have never been promised their identify would never be known. In some states they were told the original birth cert would be sealed and not released. However, the names of the birth parents exists on many other documents that are not sealed. Once an adoptee knows where to look the identity is right there - legally.

I also ask you to consider the fact that an agreement was made that will impact the adoptees life without their consent. The adoptive parents and birthparents may make a deal but the adoptee was not given a voice and they are the party most impacted. It as if you are saying that when a person is pregnant they can sign a contract with another adult stating that their child will have to marry the other person. The child has no say but would be expected to be bound by the agreement made by the adults before their birth. Would that be fair? Adoption is supposed to be based on the best interest of the child - not the adults.

[greysfang]

Originally Posted by sluce

Actually, birthparents have never been promised their identify would never be known. In some states they were told the original birth cert would be sealed and not released. However, the names of the birth parents exists on many other documents that are not sealed. Once an adoptee knows where to look the identity is right there - legally.

What other documents would a birth parent's name be on other than the birth certificate and adoption records? I can't think of any, so that's pretty much tantamount to unsealing records without consent. Please give us all the dirt so we can counsel girls in trouble correctly, because if people are being told to expect privacy when that's a lie, people need to know before they go through with putting an unwanted child up for adoption.