As fall rolls in, this September also marks the four year anniversary of Veronica Brown's forced removal from her father and family. Forced to live with strangers she had no memory of, slapped with a fake name and a fake birth certificate that states those strangers gave birth to her. Forced to remain with them and encouraged to call them Mom and Dad even though they were complete strangers to her and possibly even seen as monsters to her then four year old mind.
As the years have passed, her case, her face and her name have been lost into obscurity. As far as the general public is concerned, her case is over and time to move on. For those within the adoption community, her name and face represent everything that is wrong with current infant adoption practices in the United States. It showed the world that the laws were so twisted against fathers that complete strangers could kidnap a 4 yr old child from her family and the courts would back them up. For those in support of the kidnappers, Matthew and Melanie Capobianco, they see no issue with how her case played out. They see no issue with tearing a 4 yr old child from her family to be sent off with strangers. They see nothing wrong with the adoption laws.
Recently, it was finally revealed that the Capobiancos had indeed adopted another child. This was the newborn they had pictured Ronnie with mere months after kidnapping her. Rumors had been rumbling in those early months that they'd adopted another child, but many of their supporters claimed the newborn was actually a relative's child. There'd also been a baby registry with Target under the Capobianco's name. Again, it was dismissed.
Well, the rumors were actually true. The newborn Ronnie was pictured with was actually the other child they adopted. Let that sink in. They were in the process of adopting another child while they were actively trying to steal Veronica. I cannot wrap my brain around any of that. To me, it just proved without any shadow of a doubt that they were monsters. They were about to get their little loyal adoptling and yet they were still hell bent on stealing away a 4 yr old child from all she knew and loved.
How does that not scream MONSTERS?
It makes me wonder how things will play out as both Veronica and the Capobianco's daughter grow up. While I cannot vouch for the validity of what I have heard, rumors still float around that Veronica still calls Dusten "Dad" (kidnappers were pushing her to call him by name). There have also been whispers that she still asks to go home. Will Matt and Melanie's daughter push her into compliance? Will she dismiss Veronica's longing to go back to her family? Or will she question her own adoption when Veronica tells her how she was stolen from her parents and grandparents? Will it be revealed that their daughter's adoption was nothing more than a replacement should they have lost their case to Veronica's Dad? Will the Capobiancos find themselves face to face with their wrath and questions and unable to bullshit their way out of it?
I hope so. I hope Veronica turns on them and turns their daughter against them. It's only a matter of time before she does. It's what they deserve after what they've done. If you say that makes me a shitty person, so be it.
Showing posts with label unethical adoption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unethical adoption. Show all posts
Monday, September 11, 2017
Sunday, March 20, 2016
The Save Lexi Campaign ***UPDATED***
Hello again, kiddie winkles. I know it's been a while and I do apologize. I've been rather busy with a writing project, some vacation planning, an upcoming Comicon and well, adulting in general.
Today I bring to you a case that once again oozes of pure entitlement. Rusty and Summer Page took in a little girl as a foster placement several years ago. She'd become a dependent of the state as a toddler and had been shuffled between a few homes before landing in the Page's home. They originally took her in as respite care, but that eventually turned into full fostering of the girl.
But there was a catch.
Lexi is recognized as Choctaw. And from the moment the Pages took her in, they were well aware that ICWA was dictating the child's case. The tribe permitted the Pages to continue fostering her so it would keep her closer to her father during the reunification planning. But one thing was certain, placement preference would prevail if and when adoption was put on the table. The Pages knew this and had originally agreed to this.
When reunification efforts failed, it was made clear the child would be transitioned to out of state family. That is when the Pages dug their heels in and tried to fight her removal. Sound familiar, no? Time and time again, we hear about entitled fosters and PAPs who cling to the children they take in and try to cry "only home they know". Of course, that is what the Pages are doing. A couple of years, few court hears and an appeals decison later, the child is being removed within the next 24 to 48 hours and they've managed to wrangle a circle of supporters crying foul over what they all say is an unjust law.
For those curious about the background, here is the appeals decision:
Court of Appeals
Of course, if you go to their Facebook page (they all have FB pages, don't they?), they make it sound like the child's native status is a shock, how she's only X% and shouldn't be considered native enough for ICWA to apply and boo hoo, her removal is oh so sudden.
Last time blood quantum came into question, it was when those bastard Justices in the US Supreme Court questioned Veronica Brown's native eligibility. Same shit, different case. Supporters of Veronica's kidnappers held onto her low blood quantum with an iron grip. Nearly every supporter and every media outlet who regurgitated the BS the public relations firm spoon fed them focused on how little native blood Veronica had. And now supporters of the Pages are doing the same.
Funny how a bunch of ignorant non native people clamor on about who should and shouldn't be considered native. Especially when it's a child they want to snatch for their own. They seem to forget that if the tribe considers the child eligible, then that's just how it is, regardless of how much or how little native blood runs through that child's veins. WE don't get to determine that decision. The US Supreme court doesn't get to determine that decision (they haggled over it, but ruled primarily on the Existing Indian Family doctrine). The decision to determine eligibility exists with the tribe alone.
The one thing I caught on to with the Save Lexi campaign were the familiar faces of some of their supporters. A great deal of their supporters supported the kidnapping of Veronica Brown and supported the Hodgins in stealing back Sonya McCaul. Even the Facebook page holds a striking resemblance to the Save Veronica campaign and Keep Sonya Home campaign. And the infamous Lori Alvino-McGill - who is well know for calling Veronica and her sister "illegitimate spawn" and who represented Veronica's seller in a lawsuit to dismantle ICWA - is on board with this case, spewing her usual lies. Kid you not. She posted an update on the family's Facebook support page, claiming that the family Lexi will be going to doesn't even know the child.
Everyone supporting the Page family keeps rattling on about how it's the only home she's ever known, it will be traumatic, it's not in her best interest. They said the same about the Hodgins and Sonya (the Hodgins literally stole the child and tied it up in court for 8 yrs). Funny how 2 1/2 yrs ago they were saying tearing Veronica Brown away from her dad to live a life as a hostage wouldn't hurt her at all. Tearing a 4 yr old little girl away from the only family she knew and being forced to live with people she didn't remember and only met once during a brief supervised visit. It's perfectly fine when wanna be adopters do it, but if it's the other way around, then it's the end of the world for the child and so horrible.
They just need to admit that they're thinking about their own best interest. Not the child's. The child isn't being torn away to live with strangers. She's had frequent contact with the family she is going to and had it for quite some time. Everyone involved knew the child would go to out of state family if reunification efforts with her father failed. It's not a surprise. This isn't some sudden change in placement that hit them broadside. The Pages have known for years that the child would not be theirs to adopt. They're the ones to blame for dragging this out longer than necessary. They're the ones who tied it up in court for nearly three years in the hopes they'd get a best interest ruling. They're the ones who have now turned what should be a simple and quiet transfer of placement into a big goddamned circus. People are actually suggesting they help bar social workers from removing the girl by force. They support making this child's transition as traumatic as humanly possible. How is that in the child's best interest?
3/22/2016 ***UPDATE***
On 3/21/2016, around 3:00PM PST, LA County Children's Services arrived to pick Lexi up from the Page home. Surrounded by screaming protesters, news crews and the infamous Troy Dunn, who is best known for stalking Veronica Brown at her school, Lexi was moved through a sea of cameras and screams. People rushed the car with cameras and phones, yelling at her through the glass. Summer Page and the Page children stood in the driveway in hysterics over handing the child over.
It was a horrific thing to watch. And this is what the Page family and their supporters wanted the world to see. They could have arranged a secluded and private transfer somewhere away from the circus, but no, it couldn't happen any other way.
Today I bring to you a case that once again oozes of pure entitlement. Rusty and Summer Page took in a little girl as a foster placement several years ago. She'd become a dependent of the state as a toddler and had been shuffled between a few homes before landing in the Page's home. They originally took her in as respite care, but that eventually turned into full fostering of the girl.
But there was a catch.
Lexi is recognized as Choctaw. And from the moment the Pages took her in, they were well aware that ICWA was dictating the child's case. The tribe permitted the Pages to continue fostering her so it would keep her closer to her father during the reunification planning. But one thing was certain, placement preference would prevail if and when adoption was put on the table. The Pages knew this and had originally agreed to this.
When reunification efforts failed, it was made clear the child would be transitioned to out of state family. That is when the Pages dug their heels in and tried to fight her removal. Sound familiar, no? Time and time again, we hear about entitled fosters and PAPs who cling to the children they take in and try to cry "only home they know". Of course, that is what the Pages are doing. A couple of years, few court hears and an appeals decison later, the child is being removed within the next 24 to 48 hours and they've managed to wrangle a circle of supporters crying foul over what they all say is an unjust law.
For those curious about the background, here is the appeals decision:
Court of Appeals
Of course, if you go to their Facebook page (they all have FB pages, don't they?), they make it sound like the child's native status is a shock, how she's only X% and shouldn't be considered native enough for ICWA to apply and boo hoo, her removal is oh so sudden.
Last time blood quantum came into question, it was when those bastard Justices in the US Supreme Court questioned Veronica Brown's native eligibility. Same shit, different case. Supporters of Veronica's kidnappers held onto her low blood quantum with an iron grip. Nearly every supporter and every media outlet who regurgitated the BS the public relations firm spoon fed them focused on how little native blood Veronica had. And now supporters of the Pages are doing the same.
Funny how a bunch of ignorant non native people clamor on about who should and shouldn't be considered native. Especially when it's a child they want to snatch for their own. They seem to forget that if the tribe considers the child eligible, then that's just how it is, regardless of how much or how little native blood runs through that child's veins. WE don't get to determine that decision. The US Supreme court doesn't get to determine that decision (they haggled over it, but ruled primarily on the Existing Indian Family doctrine). The decision to determine eligibility exists with the tribe alone.
The one thing I caught on to with the Save Lexi campaign were the familiar faces of some of their supporters. A great deal of their supporters supported the kidnapping of Veronica Brown and supported the Hodgins in stealing back Sonya McCaul. Even the Facebook page holds a striking resemblance to the Save Veronica campaign and Keep Sonya Home campaign. And the infamous Lori Alvino-McGill - who is well know for calling Veronica and her sister "illegitimate spawn" and who represented Veronica's seller in a lawsuit to dismantle ICWA - is on board with this case, spewing her usual lies. Kid you not. She posted an update on the family's Facebook support page, claiming that the family Lexi will be going to doesn't even know the child.
Everyone supporting the Page family keeps rattling on about how it's the only home she's ever known, it will be traumatic, it's not in her best interest. They said the same about the Hodgins and Sonya (the Hodgins literally stole the child and tied it up in court for 8 yrs). Funny how 2 1/2 yrs ago they were saying tearing Veronica Brown away from her dad to live a life as a hostage wouldn't hurt her at all. Tearing a 4 yr old little girl away from the only family she knew and being forced to live with people she didn't remember and only met once during a brief supervised visit. It's perfectly fine when wanna be adopters do it, but if it's the other way around, then it's the end of the world for the child and so horrible.
They just need to admit that they're thinking about their own best interest. Not the child's. The child isn't being torn away to live with strangers. She's had frequent contact with the family she is going to and had it for quite some time. Everyone involved knew the child would go to out of state family if reunification efforts with her father failed. It's not a surprise. This isn't some sudden change in placement that hit them broadside. The Pages have known for years that the child would not be theirs to adopt. They're the ones to blame for dragging this out longer than necessary. They're the ones who tied it up in court for nearly three years in the hopes they'd get a best interest ruling. They're the ones who have now turned what should be a simple and quiet transfer of placement into a big goddamned circus. People are actually suggesting they help bar social workers from removing the girl by force. They support making this child's transition as traumatic as humanly possible. How is that in the child's best interest?
3/22/2016 ***UPDATE***
On 3/21/2016, around 3:00PM PST, LA County Children's Services arrived to pick Lexi up from the Page home. Surrounded by screaming protesters, news crews and the infamous Troy Dunn, who is best known for stalking Veronica Brown at her school, Lexi was moved through a sea of cameras and screams. People rushed the car with cameras and phones, yelling at her through the glass. Summer Page and the Page children stood in the driveway in hysterics over handing the child over.
It was a horrific thing to watch. And this is what the Page family and their supporters wanted the world to see. They could have arranged a secluded and private transfer somewhere away from the circus, but no, it couldn't happen any other way.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
The Fight For Baby Kaylee
Colby Nielson is a young 20 yr old Utah father to a three week old baby girl named
Kaylee. Through out the pregnancy, Colby and his then girlfriend
Amily, were pushed to relinquish for adoption by Amily’s own parents.
Discussions were had and even a meeting with a potential couple (who are
friends of the mother’s parents). Colby and Amily decided adoption was
not an option and when Kaylee was born, they brought her home to
Colby’s parents’ home. Colby doted upon his new daughter. Amily seemed
unsure. At some point, Amily simply left, leaving Colby alone to care
for his newborn daughter.
Colby got the shock of his life when he received word that Amily, under the pressure of her strict uber religious parents, had signed relinquishment papers and the couple seeking to adopt Kaylee had obtained a court order demanding the infant’s turnover from Colby’s care. They sent police to his home to snatch his baby girl.
Colby was on Kaylee’s birth certificate. Kaylee even had his last name. Paternity was verified. And yet, Utah law allows unwed mothers to relinquish their children for adoption without the permission or knowledge of the child’s father. Colby isn’t alone in this. There are numerous men still fighting against the kidnapping of their children. Some have been fighting for years and years.
Colby’s heartbreaking story came across as a simple Facebook post asking for shares. The public was outraged that the courts could demand a father hand over his child to strangers without any notice when he’d done nothing wrong. Soon media began picking up the story and a sobbing Colby pleads with the baby snatching adopters to give him back his daughter.
The names of the baby snatchers were revealed publicly and they received a great deal of angry hate mail from an outraged public. It was the same couple they’d talked with prior to Kaylee’s birth, the friends of Amily’s parents. Out of the blue, with no notice to Colby or his lawyer, Kaylee was simply given back to her mother and Colby has yet to see his baby girl. The baby snatchers made a public statement claiming they did not know that Colby wanted to parent. This claim was refuted quickly when Colby’s lawyer revealed text messages between Colby and the baby snatcher woman, begging them to not take his daughter and to give her back. The baby snatcher woman responded with “This is god’s will” and “it will be an open adoption” and “you’ll be part of the family”.
So….what was that about not knowing he wanted her again? And their insistence that he’d met with them prior to Kaylee’s birth and they thought he was totally on board with the adoption? Well, let’s see….meeting with a potential couple does not equal consent to an adoption and I would think taking his daughter home with him from the hospital was also a sign he clearly had no plans on relinquishing.
Amily still has baby Kaylee and is refusing Colby contact. His lawyer is working hard to right this wrong. Many speculate the mother may try to pass baby Kaylee off to a new couple. Given how ridiculously biased Utah law is, no doubt she is keeping Kaylee from him not only as punishment for refusing to go through with the adoption, but to also claim lack of interest/abandonment so she can simply give Kaylee up again.
A small few are trying to claim the fight is over, but this fight is far from it. It won't be over until Kaylee is back with her Daddy.
Colby got the shock of his life when he received word that Amily, under the pressure of her strict uber religious parents, had signed relinquishment papers and the couple seeking to adopt Kaylee had obtained a court order demanding the infant’s turnover from Colby’s care. They sent police to his home to snatch his baby girl.
Colby was on Kaylee’s birth certificate. Kaylee even had his last name. Paternity was verified. And yet, Utah law allows unwed mothers to relinquish their children for adoption without the permission or knowledge of the child’s father. Colby isn’t alone in this. There are numerous men still fighting against the kidnapping of their children. Some have been fighting for years and years.
Colby’s heartbreaking story came across as a simple Facebook post asking for shares. The public was outraged that the courts could demand a father hand over his child to strangers without any notice when he’d done nothing wrong. Soon media began picking up the story and a sobbing Colby pleads with the baby snatching adopters to give him back his daughter.
The names of the baby snatchers were revealed publicly and they received a great deal of angry hate mail from an outraged public. It was the same couple they’d talked with prior to Kaylee’s birth, the friends of Amily’s parents. Out of the blue, with no notice to Colby or his lawyer, Kaylee was simply given back to her mother and Colby has yet to see his baby girl. The baby snatchers made a public statement claiming they did not know that Colby wanted to parent. This claim was refuted quickly when Colby’s lawyer revealed text messages between Colby and the baby snatcher woman, begging them to not take his daughter and to give her back. The baby snatcher woman responded with “This is god’s will” and “it will be an open adoption” and “you’ll be part of the family”.
So….what was that about not knowing he wanted her again? And their insistence that he’d met with them prior to Kaylee’s birth and they thought he was totally on board with the adoption? Well, let’s see….meeting with a potential couple does not equal consent to an adoption and I would think taking his daughter home with him from the hospital was also a sign he clearly had no plans on relinquishing.
Amily still has baby Kaylee and is refusing Colby contact. His lawyer is working hard to right this wrong. Many speculate the mother may try to pass baby Kaylee off to a new couple. Given how ridiculously biased Utah law is, no doubt she is keeping Kaylee from him not only as punishment for refusing to go through with the adoption, but to also claim lack of interest/abandonment so she can simply give Kaylee up again.
A small few are trying to claim the fight is over, but this fight is far from it. It won't be over until Kaylee is back with her Daddy.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
They Call Us Anti-Adoption
Titles can be annoying. For some, it's easier to slap a title onto a group in an effort to deflect and sway the opinion of outsiders. It's a handy weapon in the heat of battle, especially when there are those involved in the debate/battle who are not completely familiar with the situation at hand or the two opposing groups.
Trio and the minions love to refer to many of us as an anti-adoption group. It was used during the last legal battle and is again being used in the more current legal battle. It's a knee jerk terminology. Something that strikes a nerve with the populace who is often only familiar with the feel good stories that appear in the local papers. After all, who in their right mind is against an institution that helps find homes and families for children in dire need of one? How often do you hear from those who talk about the need to find homes for the orphans in third world countries or those poor abused foster children who would have died if left in the care of their biological families? When people hear the word adoption, this is what they see and believe. Children who need a home. Children who will die in their country of origin or languish in foster care if some wonderful family doesn't open their home.
They call us anti-adoption because we do not support all adoptions. They believe that once the child is placed in that home, no matter what laws were skirted or outright broken, the child should remain there. Refusing to support entitled couples who believe they have more right to a child than their own biological family means you're anti-adoption. Refusing to support forced adoption means you're anti-adoption. Refusing to support manipulation of the courts to keep a child a couple is not entitled to means you're anti-adoption.
SM and VB are just two cases in which the supporters for the abductors (i.e. potential adoptive family) have called us anti-adoption. Refusing to support the discriminative laws in place that rob fathers of their right to their children means we are against adoption as a whole. Never mind that these laws were put in place by the adoption industry itself in an effort to keep their commodity flowing. Can't make their money if those pesky fathers have equal rights to their children, right?
Those who support the Hodgins and the kidnappers of VB support the dark side of adoption. They are against families having the right to raise their children. They support laws being skirted and in some cases, outright broken. They support unethical means to obtain a child. They support the current laws in place to keep fathers away. They support ripping children from their homes and forcing them to live a life of slavery in another home with another couple and support forcing that child to call their abductors mom and dad. They support foster couples side-stepping Children's Services and dependency laws in an effort to claim a foster child as their own, even with the child's family fighting to get the child back.
They support holding onto a child that is not theirs to hold onto in an effort to sway the courts and the public. After all, how often do you hear "well, if the parents really loved their child, they'd give up and not take the child from the only home they know". This is their ammo. Obtain and restrain. The longer they can hold onto the child, the better their chances. Never mind if the child's family had been fighting since the beginning, once the legal battle has spanned a few years, the biological family is then seen as the monster trying to rip the child from their home. And if you are unwilling to side with the wanna be adoptive parents, you are labeled anti-adoption.
I don't doubt there are those who are truly anti-adoption. I have heard from quite a few adoptees themselves who believe adoption should be eradicated completely and only guardianship be available. Adoption in its current form erases the child's history, that is a fact. Seals their birth records and any information of their family of origin forever under the misguided ideal of "birth parent privacy". Those who are truly against adoption are not against a child having a permanent home, but believe a permanent home with strangers should be a last resort and the child should still be able to keep their heritage, name and access to their records. Guardianship gives a person almost all the same rights as a parent, but doesn't change the child's record of birth and history. The only issue with this is that those who seek to raise a child as their own often want the records of the child's birth altered and changed to reflect them as the child's family. They want the fraudulent birth certificate that erases the child's parents' names and puts the strangers' names in their place. They prefer the "as if born to" ideal that has haunted the adoption world since the days of Georgia Tann.
I'm not anti-adoption. I support adoption when all is done legally and ethically (both parents consenting, no coercion, or the father being served properly and given time to contest should he wish to do so). I support adoption when it is about finding a home for a child that truly needs one. It's clear in the SM case and the VB case that efforts were made to side-step the father. Clear that it has nothing to do with finding a home for a child. Both cases clearly are about finding a child for a couple at all costs. Refusing to support the entitlement of strangers does not make us anti-adoption. Refusing to support the current adoption practices and laws does not make anyone anti-adoption. We are against illegal adoptions, unethical adoptions and the dehumanization of the child's family. We are against those who seek to make it open season on our children. Foster families should have no right to circumvent Children's Services or family in an effort to claim a child as their own. Wanna be adoptive couples should have no right to battle a mother and/or father in court for the right to raise a child. These cases highlight the proof that it is never about the child, but about the people hell-bent on taking that child.
Those who seek to take children from fit families know they are wrong and know it is only about them and not the child. The Capobiancos and the Hodgins are poster children for entitlement. It was and is always about what they want and to hell with everyone else, including the children they claim to love. And Trio encourages this entitlement. Of course, the public cannot know it's all about the non-related adults who want the child as their own. Easier to spin the tale of the deadbeat father who abandoned his pregnant ex-fiance or the jailbird father who spent most of the child's life in prison. Hit the unsuspecting public in their heart. Paint the entitled couples as saviors to these poor children who can provide so much more than the child's family.
And if you refuse to believe their bullshit and dare to investigate the case further, you are automatically labeled as anti-adoption.
Trio and the minions love to refer to many of us as an anti-adoption group. It was used during the last legal battle and is again being used in the more current legal battle. It's a knee jerk terminology. Something that strikes a nerve with the populace who is often only familiar with the feel good stories that appear in the local papers. After all, who in their right mind is against an institution that helps find homes and families for children in dire need of one? How often do you hear from those who talk about the need to find homes for the orphans in third world countries or those poor abused foster children who would have died if left in the care of their biological families? When people hear the word adoption, this is what they see and believe. Children who need a home. Children who will die in their country of origin or languish in foster care if some wonderful family doesn't open their home.
They call us anti-adoption because we do not support all adoptions. They believe that once the child is placed in that home, no matter what laws were skirted or outright broken, the child should remain there. Refusing to support entitled couples who believe they have more right to a child than their own biological family means you're anti-adoption. Refusing to support forced adoption means you're anti-adoption. Refusing to support manipulation of the courts to keep a child a couple is not entitled to means you're anti-adoption.
SM and VB are just two cases in which the supporters for the abductors (i.e. potential adoptive family) have called us anti-adoption. Refusing to support the discriminative laws in place that rob fathers of their right to their children means we are against adoption as a whole. Never mind that these laws were put in place by the adoption industry itself in an effort to keep their commodity flowing. Can't make their money if those pesky fathers have equal rights to their children, right?
Those who support the Hodgins and the kidnappers of VB support the dark side of adoption. They are against families having the right to raise their children. They support laws being skirted and in some cases, outright broken. They support unethical means to obtain a child. They support the current laws in place to keep fathers away. They support ripping children from their homes and forcing them to live a life of slavery in another home with another couple and support forcing that child to call their abductors mom and dad. They support foster couples side-stepping Children's Services and dependency laws in an effort to claim a foster child as their own, even with the child's family fighting to get the child back.
They support holding onto a child that is not theirs to hold onto in an effort to sway the courts and the public. After all, how often do you hear "well, if the parents really loved their child, they'd give up and not take the child from the only home they know". This is their ammo. Obtain and restrain. The longer they can hold onto the child, the better their chances. Never mind if the child's family had been fighting since the beginning, once the legal battle has spanned a few years, the biological family is then seen as the monster trying to rip the child from their home. And if you are unwilling to side with the wanna be adoptive parents, you are labeled anti-adoption.
I don't doubt there are those who are truly anti-adoption. I have heard from quite a few adoptees themselves who believe adoption should be eradicated completely and only guardianship be available. Adoption in its current form erases the child's history, that is a fact. Seals their birth records and any information of their family of origin forever under the misguided ideal of "birth parent privacy". Those who are truly against adoption are not against a child having a permanent home, but believe a permanent home with strangers should be a last resort and the child should still be able to keep their heritage, name and access to their records. Guardianship gives a person almost all the same rights as a parent, but doesn't change the child's record of birth and history. The only issue with this is that those who seek to raise a child as their own often want the records of the child's birth altered and changed to reflect them as the child's family. They want the fraudulent birth certificate that erases the child's parents' names and puts the strangers' names in their place. They prefer the "as if born to" ideal that has haunted the adoption world since the days of Georgia Tann.
I'm not anti-adoption. I support adoption when all is done legally and ethically (both parents consenting, no coercion, or the father being served properly and given time to contest should he wish to do so). I support adoption when it is about finding a home for a child that truly needs one. It's clear in the SM case and the VB case that efforts were made to side-step the father. Clear that it has nothing to do with finding a home for a child. Both cases clearly are about finding a child for a couple at all costs. Refusing to support the entitlement of strangers does not make us anti-adoption. Refusing to support the current adoption practices and laws does not make anyone anti-adoption. We are against illegal adoptions, unethical adoptions and the dehumanization of the child's family. We are against those who seek to make it open season on our children. Foster families should have no right to circumvent Children's Services or family in an effort to claim a child as their own. Wanna be adoptive couples should have no right to battle a mother and/or father in court for the right to raise a child. These cases highlight the proof that it is never about the child, but about the people hell-bent on taking that child.
Those who seek to take children from fit families know they are wrong and know it is only about them and not the child. The Capobiancos and the Hodgins are poster children for entitlement. It was and is always about what they want and to hell with everyone else, including the children they claim to love. And Trio encourages this entitlement. Of course, the public cannot know it's all about the non-related adults who want the child as their own. Easier to spin the tale of the deadbeat father who abandoned his pregnant ex-fiance or the jailbird father who spent most of the child's life in prison. Hit the unsuspecting public in their heart. Paint the entitled couples as saviors to these poor children who can provide so much more than the child's family.
And if you refuse to believe their bullshit and dare to investigate the case further, you are automatically labeled as anti-adoption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)