Should An Adopted Daughter Tell Her Adopted Brother What She Knows of His Origins?
Returning for a moment to the law of agency, an agent’s responsibility to his or her principal (the person who entrusted the agent with information in the first place) ends with the principal’s death, so it could be said that after your father’s death, you are no longer bound by his insistence on secrecy.
My suggestion is to do all you can to learn the names of George’s biological family members, and as soon as possible. Since your father is unwell, time is of the essence.
The crux of the question is whether the knowledge George has long sought will be helpful to him in understanding his life, which is, after all, the goal of every human being. You know George and believe it will help him.
If you’re able to learn more from your father and then postpone giving George the information until after your father’s death, you may feel less disloyal to your parents and better able to give George what could turn out to be the precious piece of his life story that he now lacks.
The dilemma you face is one reason I favor open adoption, discussed in depth here, the website of the American Association of Open Adoption Agencies, some of whose beliefs and guiding principles are:
Open Adoption is the healthiest form of adoption. We define open adoption as a form of adoption in which the birth family and the adopted child enjoy an ongoing, in-person relationship. … Given the extraordinary vulnerability of all the participants in adoption, it is crucial that services are provided according to the highest standards. We are keenly conscious that, for all its potential, there are painful dimensions to adoption. We recognize the importance of family preservation and view open adoption as an extension of that thrust. The essence of open adoption is respect and candor.
The legal standard of asking what is in the best interests of the child — and not of the birth parents or even the adoptive parents — strikes me as more important than doing everything possible to protect the privacy of the parents involved and deeming the child’s interests to be secondary to the adults’. The child did not ask to be born, nor to be given up for adoption, and has a basic human right to know his or her origins, if he or she desires this knowledge. Among the finest writings on this subject is the luminous In Search of Origins: The Experiences of Adopted People by John Triseliotis .
Most important for your peace of mind is to know that the best thing you can do for him is to be, as you’ve been since the age of five, his protector and loving sister, which will be all the more important with the death of his second adoptive parent.
Whatever the outcome of providing your brother with this “forbidden” knowledge, there is much you can do for him through your kindness, sustained loyalty, emotional support, devotion, good sense, and love. Knowing you are available to him may be, no matter what happens with his birth mother, the greatest gift you can give him.
—Belladonna Rogers
Do you have questions? Belladonna Rogers has answers. Send your questions or comments about politics, personal or cultural matters, or anything else that’s on your mind, and Belladonna will answer as many as possible. The names, geographic locations and email addresses of all advice-seekers will be kept confidential. Names and places and other personal information will be changed to protect the identity of the questioner. Send your questions or comments to: advice@pjmedia.com
A major clue here is that the adoptive parents had no reservations about revealing (limited) birth information to their adopted daughter, however they strictly concealed ANY AND ALL information from their adopted son!
The discrepancy shows the adoptive parents have a reason to conceal the birth information from one adopted child that doesn’t exist in the case of the other adopted child.
It shouldn’t be assumed without question that the reason for the secrecy of the adoptive parents is because their adopted son was born out of wedlock, since other information about the birth parents (such as their occupations, as shared with their adopted daughter) could have been shared with him without divulging that fact.
Considering the absolute inflexibility of the adoptive parents’ refusal to share any information at all with their son, the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that the birth mother probably only consented to the adoption of her son by these adoptive parents under a condition of strict secrecy, and the adoptive parents are honoring their vow to her.
Considering the care given to the secrecy, there’s a strong likelihood the birth mother could even be a relative or friend of the adoptive parents, and already be well-known to the the adopted son!
The daughter could still ask her adoptive father, why can’t even limited information be shared with her brother when it’s obviously extremely important to him to have some knowledge about his own origin? If there was such a vow on his part to the birth mother, maybe he could honor the vow by contacting the mother directly and asking for her permission to reveal her identity (possibly her circumstances no longer require the same degree of secrecy).
Alternatively, depending on the terms of such a vow, maybe he could be persuaded to reveal some limited information that doesn’t reveal the identity of the birth mother and/or birth father.
Could be, although in the letter to Belladonna, the questioner does say, “Everyone else involved in my brother’s adoption, other than his birth mother and my father, is now dead,” so the birth father is gone, too. I think the father has been unfair not only to his son, but to his daughter, for having put her in such an untenable position. Even if the birth mother is known to the son in some way already, he still has a right to know, and the daughter has the right to some peace of mind. The father acted selfishly by unburdening himself to his daughter and then telling her, an intelligent, thoughtful adult, that she cannot speak without breaking a “vow” she had no part in negotiating. It was imposed on her without regard to her beliefs and judgment.
Considering the care given to the secrecy, there’s a strong likelihood the birth mother could even be a relative or friend of the adoptive parents, and already be well-known to the the adopted son!
That’s a reach to far, adding info that’s just not there.
I could speculate that George’s father is in fact his father and that he is the adulterer. Adding like this confuses the issue, but at the same time you can see what George must be going through. He’s speculating and guessing where he came from.
I don’t think your suppositions are out of the realm of possibility.
There are really three parties that you must consider:
1. Your brother.
2. Your parents.
3. The birth parents.
Since your father freely shared the circumstances of your own adoption with you but has been so guarded about your brother’s, consider that your father may be protecting the birth parents. Consider that the relationship between the birth mother and birth father may be heretofore unknown and the sudden revelation of their relationship might cause serious upheaval. Things could get very messy. You could cause a great deal of hurt and harm by disclosing anything to your brother.
Your father has entrusted you with a little information about your brother’s adoption and sworn you to secrecy. He did so because of your intelligence, trusting that you are intelligent enough not to let your heart overrule your mind.
Interesting points. However, the author states the current preference of family courts and other courts judiciously and accurately when she writes:
“The legal standard of asking what is in the best interests of the child — and not of the birth parents or even the adoptive parents — strikes me as more important than doing everything possible to protect the privacy of the parents involved and deeming the child’s interests to be secondary to the adults’. The child did not ask to be born, nor to be given up for adoption, and has a basic human right to know his or her origins, if he or she desires this knowledge.”
When you write, “things could get very messy,” I should note that the field of adoption law is intrinsically “messy.” Yet the courts have consistently held that the child is not to be penalized by the “messiness” of his or her adoptive parents’ and/or biological parents’ actions.
The interests of the three parties you list are not adjudicated as if the interests of all three were equal. The child’s interests are deemed paramount, and all knowledge the child seeks is, furthermore, deemed in the best interests of the child, no matter how “messy,” i.e., potentially embarrassing, it may be to all other parties to the adoption. It is decided case law that any and all knowledge sought by the adoptee is his or her right to know, even if the facts are as unsavory as can be imagined, including rape and incest. The legal precedent is on the side of the proposition that it not for others to decide the right of the adoptee to know of his or her origins. The right is absolute, no matter the consequences, and regardless of the inherent “messiness.”
Maybe the father in question is the father of the son.
Seems like after publishing this the brother is bound to get a clue anyway.
It may “seem” that way, but in responding to personal questions such as this, I am guided by the principles stated at the end of every advice column, “The names, geographic locations and email addresses of all advice-seekers will be kept confidential. Names and places and other personal information will be changed to protect the identity of the questioner.” In fact, I change all identifying data — not merely the names and places –to make it impossible for anyone connected to the question to recognize the facts as pertaining to them. The advice column addresses the issues sent to me for advice, but masks all specific facts that could signal, in this instance, to the “brother” or the “father” that this column is about either of them or their “family.” I protect the confidential information sent to me in many different ways.
I agree that the brother should be given as much information as possible, if only because sometime in his life, he may need to know the medical history of his birth family.
I am very troubled by the suggestion that all adoptions should be open. As an adoptee, I have zero interest in knowing how my birth parents were. I think it would have been confusing to grow up with two full sets of parents–not the more-standard mom and step-dad + dad and step-mom, but mom and dad + mom and dad from day 1? Good Lord, how do you keep your emotional connections straight?
If I can ever afford to adopt, I would absolutely not agree to an open adoption. My parents are the people who gave their time, money, and energy to raise me–period. I would want my children to feel the same way.
That said, I think Belladonna’s advice is correct. If a child WANTS to know and the parents have the information, it should be shared. My point is that I don’t want to know and I wouldn’t want it forced on me.
My guess is that the relationship between the father and son is already severely damaged because of the secrecy. A similar situation occurred for one of my nieces. Everyone except the children knew the she was adopted by her father; her half-sister found out from the birth-father and told her. Now she is estranged from her parents because she feels betrayed and embarassed.
The best thing the father can do is tell the son. By sharing information with the daughter alone, he has done both children a disservice.
I think the guy up to his hipboots in adoption issue- the attorney, has the clearest and most forcefully compassionate comment on the whole mess. My vote’s with him and Belladonna Rogers.
Forced helplessness is a guaranteed way to cultivate a full-scale depression. It works in mice. It works in people. A great deal of the religious writings of St Paul, and the philosophical writings of epictetus and marcus aurelius are of ways to feel somewhat in control of yourself, or willfully submitted to something else- and these guys’ writing has stayed around for millenia.
The daughter is being given information, but not allowed to act according to her best lights. The son has information withheld- basic, simple information. Stuff that is so basic that we can find parish records going back to the barbarian dark ages- that’s pretty much a definition of what they were- the destruction of records ages- and it’s a definition today of barbaric practices- lying on records- enough that some people hold the current president a liar from the beginning—-both are being rendered helpless by the father’s judgment calls. He’s human, and thus, fallible. They are rightfully upset.
We keep airing out- what if the parents are terrible? The daughter mentions the brother is in some distress and state of estrangement. Perhaps knowing his parents would be like opening a window just a little right before a tornado- it would equalize the pressure between his inner turmoil, and his apparent beginning turmoil. This is what worked for a friend’s brother. He was “hell on wheels” from the beginning. He met his birth mother, and she talked about the same character issues as if they were expected, delightful good things- it reminded her of his biological father. She’d been looking forward to seeing how this energy and zest for life played out. He’s a far, far different man than he was child, and I don’t know that he would have survived to adulthood without meeting his biological mother.
That’s a best-case scenario. Maybe it forecloses feeling put-upon and estranged, and misunderstood. Maybe you want to ask who? and what? and where? and why? and why? some more. A close acquaintance was a mercy adoption from two very terrible, immature people. She was able to forgive everyone, and see that it was the best of bad options.
Maybe what the adopting family looks upon as flaws are really good traits. The willingness to believe a scoundrel is a willingness God shows for all of us sinners. So the girl has a baby. This might be the finest thing either of the two people do in their lives. Maybe she was raped, and chose the baby, and chose to make sure s/he or he is in the basket in the river, like Moses- she wanted a better life for this kid. That’s what Sam Ellis, astronaut, found out about his grandmother- it’s in the news, right now.
Adoption is a sign of messiness. What you are doing is trying to do some corrective surgery on very scarred up, twisted tissue. I’m not a doctor, but I think I’ve read this is the hardest sort of tissue to operate on- it’s fragile, and unexpected. So, be kind and wise. And by having consulted Belladonna Rogers, the letter-writer has shown herself to be both.
In lieu of data, conjecture runs rampant. I would suggest to the daughter that she approach he father with two questions: 1) What is the purpose of the secrecy? 2) How does this secrecy serve your son?
Yes, she needs to go back to her father. The information given, while helpful, is still too vague and may serve to harm her brother unnecessarily. She should get as much information from her father as she can, and his assent in letting her brother know whether now or after his death. She should, if she’s given the information, contact the birth mother and get her assent as well, since George likely will want to open a relationship.
My brother & I are both adopted. When I was in my teens I was helping my Mom clean her bedroom. As I was going thru some papers I came across my brother’s original birth certificate. Even as a teenager (my brother is a couple of years older then me) I knew it was wrong to break a confidence. I put the papers back. After my Mom passed away I found the birth certificate again gave it to my brother and our lives went on.
With only the birth mother and your adopted father still alive…who cares? Your loyalty should now be with “the truth” your brother.
Unless your brother is a real JFK Jr. I wouldn’t worry about it. If it brings shame after 52 years…who cares they should have kept it in their pants.
Stop pining for no reason or ask your Dad for the info and divulge it after he passes. This type of thing isn’t even a stigma anymore.
You’re making the assumption that the only reason this information has been kept secret for so long is because of the social stigma of out-of-wedlock childbirth during the adoptive parents’ generation, not to mention the scandal of a married man having an affair with a younger woman. The truth is none of us know the full specifics of what led to the biological mother giving up her son. For all we know, the adoptive father may have used the term “affair” because he does not want to voice the word “rape,” or even “incest.” Heck, we could go so far as to say the brother’s father is a vampire; that certainly counts as an older man!
In other words, there is much more here that we don’t know than there is that we DO know. Hence the need to take slow, measured steps rather than brash action.
I agree with you, MWR.
My goodness, I can understand how the questioner “Agonized” would be in great agony. This case is not simple, and seems to require the wisdom of a Solomon, and I can’t presume to be able to offer a solution. I’d like to offer some cautionary suggestions, though. I think that some of the commenters here are being too hard on the father who adopted the boy and girl. Judging by the information provided, he and the adopting mother were very good, decent, loving parents, and it seems to me that they might have what could be considered good reasons for withholding information, regardless of how customs and mores might have changed since the adoptions occurred. I think that today, sometimes there is way too much emphasis and value placed upon openness in many situations. Sometimes forbidden knowledge is forbidden for a good reason. While I think that the advice from Belladonna Rogers is very reasonable, I’m not sure I share her enthusiasm for “open adoption.”
I am no expert on adoption, but in the course of my job I occasionally work with probate court adoption case files from the 1930′s onwards. As most of you already know or can guess, there are some real horror stories related to some of the cases. There also are many stories which don’t appear sensational in the records, but which still carry a great deal of pain for those involved. As others have pointed out, it is reasonable and understandable for the adopted son to want to know his background, but, also, the revealing of information might have major, unexpected and very painful implications for him and for others. The suggestion to “Agonized” of sensitively trying to find more information from the father seems to be a good one. Maybe after that she can guage which direction to go.
I would mainly caution the commenters here not to jump to conclusions, especially about the adopting parents. This might be a case in which whatever decision “Agonized” makes will be difficult, yet also just and reasonable. What the letter of the law says is one thing. What appropriateness and justice say might be something different.
Let’s pray for the father, brother, “Agonized” and others involved. Based on the sensitivity that she shows, I suspect that “Agonized” will make the right decision whichever way she decides to go.
As I compute the ages of the adopted brother and sister, clearly, neither are youngsters (assuming Ms. Rogers has not changed birth years drastically). The sister is 58 and the brother is 53. If the brother is interested in knowing more about his biological parents, why doesn’t he just ask his father to tell him? The father has got to know that once you tell someone a secret, it’s no longer a secret, and it will be just a matter of time before his son will find it out one way or another. Also,with the son being 53, if he want to know who are his biological parents, why hasn’t he asked the court (or whomever you ask) for the information, especially in light of what Adoption Attorney said? His sister should not have been put in the situation her father put her in. That was somewhat unfair of him.
I know this situation from several angles
A simple explanation for the adoptive parents concern is the proximity of birth family
Trust me there are lots of people outside the birth family who know all the details
more than likely the adopted son has heard some whispers
Much of this info can be found using public records maybe he did so
In the long haul what right does anyone have of denying this boy the right to know his orgins. Regardless of what those orgins are he should realize how blessed he was to have his life long mom and dad, the adopters, who loved him enough to give him what sounds like an excellent childhood
Agonized clearly loves her father and brother dearly, and wants to remain loyal and fair to both. The parents had their reasons for keeping this secret for as long as they have — the mother all the way to her deathbed — and that should not be treated as immaterial. If her father is in a frail condition it becomes even MORE difficult, as I’m sure Agonized doesn’t want to cause her father any unnecessary pain so late in his life.
I agree with what was said by several other commenters. Agonized needs to go to her father and ask him, as strongly as she sees fit given his age and health, to be specific about why it is so important to withhold this information from her brother, his adopted son. She is clearly intelligent and sensitive, and if her father has chosen to entrust her with this much information after so long then I feel certain he will choose to entrust her with the rest. Once she has the information, I’m sure that Agonized will make the right decision about when and how to tell her brother.
All prayers and encouragement to you, Agonized. Your parents clearly raised both you and your brother to be good people, and I am certain that the eventual outcome of your dilemma will be positive, even if there are some rough spots in the interim.
There is a potential problem here as might be with in vitro fertilisation with donated sperm: down the road an incestuous relationship might be in the picture. I don’t think that the law is sufficiently clear on this sort of thing. Also, there is the matter of more complete medical records. Also, the matter of blood type being incompatible or compatible.
the only comment I want to make is about the reference to “open adoption” in the article. I think open adoption is just about the worst idea I’ve ever heard of.
That’s probably because you were never an adopted child in a closed adoption. It is as close to living hell as you can imagine — for the child. It’s just dandy for the adults who get to continue living in their communities with all their secrets intact.
I’m an adopted child in a closed adoption. It was NOT “living hell”, it was/is the closest thing to heaven on earth imaginable. I have no idea who my biological donors were, and while I thank & bless them for their contributions, the best decision they made was to give me the best shot in life they could — even tho it was not being with them. I’m now middle-aged, and have NO regrets and NO interest in finding out who these people are/were. If one *wants* this info, o.k., go on “the search”. But NO ONE should be forced, either parent or child, to have to go thru agony they didn’t ask for, and don’t want.
It is possible that the interests of the adopted child are better served by silence.
My own experience is as an observer of a friend of mine who, being adopted by wonderful parents, still had a Camelot style dream of reuniting with her biological sire and dame where all would be made right and she would be happy for ever after.
Her parents eventually aided her in this. She finally made contact with her genetic progenetors in her early 20s. It became, after a very brief honeymoon, a disaster for everyone concerned, and she was scarred for life by the experience.
She learned the hard way that her parents were not the two individuals that contributed the gametes that made her, they was the two loving people who chose her above all others to be their daughter,
The biological component of parenthood is given too much weight in these matters, and the actual parenting by the adoptive parents is given short shrift.
Having said that, information about the biological parents that may point to hereditary health issues are of value, if that information is available and if the child is mature enough to be able to process the bad news it may contain.
Good points, B Dubya. I don’t know what the various state laws say now, but I believe that in the past, an adopted person in my state was able to get medical/health information about his or her birth parents, while further information about the birth parents would be legally withheld.
In all due respect, B Dubya, your comment is based on your observation of one reunion. This is a field I have worked in for the past 50 years. No question that many reunions are deeply disappointing, depressing and troubling for the adoptee who seeks the truth and wishes to meet the biological parents. I despised both my biological parents when I met them. But if I had not had the chance to meet them, my life would have been nothing but decades of excruciating, unanswered curiosity. I met my biological father when I was 15, disliked him intensely and had intermittent contact until his death. I met my biological mother when I was much younger than 15, was appalled by her, too, and maintained intermittent contact with her until her death. You make it sound as if adopted people should be kept in the dark and prevented from meeting their biological parents to protect them and to protect the bond they have formed with their adoptive parents, AND to protect the adoptive parents from the fear that their relationship with their adopted child will be ruined. Again, in all due respect, you have no idea what it is like to be kept in ignorance of the most basic fact of your life. No one, including me, would suggest that all reunions are what you dismissively call “Camelot”type fantasies come true. Of course they aren’t. But never to meet the people whose genes you’ve inherited is cruel and unusual punishment. If one has had the blessing of good adopted parents, one doesn’t switch allegiances upon meeting one’s birth parents. But I could, in a worst-case scenario, as at least one commenter mentioned above, have married my father if I’d dated men 15 years older than I was. Anyone who grows up with their biological parents is, frankly, in no position to hold forth on what an adoptee should and should not do. No adoptee is obligated to meet his or her biological parents. But to withhold the opportunity to those who desire such a meeting, not out of what you call a “Camelot” dream but rather as a basic human right, is lacking in understanding and empathy. What you take for granted in your life shouldn’t be withheld from others. Very few real adoptees (as opposed to your imagined adoptees and the one adoptee you actually do know) believe that meeting their biological parents will create a wonderful new family unit in which they become the beloved child. They just want to know and meet the people whose genes they carry, and want to find out who their grandparents were, etc etc etc— everything you’ve had and take for granted. I’ve never known an adoptee such as the one you describe, who thinks all wounds will be healed by a reunion. Most just want a meeting, not a warm, cuddly relationship. As deeply unpleasant as my rare meetings with my biological parents were, not to have had even one such unpleasant meeting would have created the most intense misery you can imagine. I will always adore and respect my adoptive parents, and having met my biological parents took nothing whatsoever away from that core relationship of my life, on which my life and my values rest. But to deny me meeting that other couple? That would have been consigning me to a lifetime of torture. Some reunions are interesting and useful, others are extremely emotionally disruptive. But B Dubya, that is the choice for each adoptee to make — not for you to make for them. http://reunion.adoption.com/
What about the rights of the biological parents?
As a woman who thought about giving her child up for adoption, 1 of the issues I was struggling with was whether or not I would want to ever meet this child that I might put up for adoption. I felt meeting her would resurface some very sad memories for me & I would not want that to happen. I would make sure my child would be placed in a good home w/a similar background as mine, then move on with my life having no regrets w/the decision but only a little sadness, yet be at peace knowing that a wonderful family would love my child as their own.
Happily to report I never made that decision & raised a fine young woman with her adoptive father.
This is excellent news for you, your daughter and her adoptive father However, as I posted above: “The interests of the three parties you list [biological parents, adoptive parents and adoptee] are not adjudicated as if the interests of all three were equal. The child’s interests are deemed paramount, and all knowledge the child seeks is, furthermore, deemed in the best interests of the child, no matter how ‘messy,’ i.e., potentially embarrassing, it may be to all other parties to the adoption.” No human being should be condemned to go through life without knowledge of his or her biological parents if he or she desires such knowledge. If the adoptee does not desire the knowledge, then it will remain secret. But for the birth mother or biological father to believe that their comfort or psychological well-being are more important than the right of the child to know who his or her biological parents were is contrary to the adoptee’s rights. Why should the adult child be given less knowledge of his or her biological parents than children who were not adopted? Because it would create discomfort to the birth mother who wants to “put it behind her”? This is an insufficient reason to deny the adult child seeking important knowledge. He or she never asked to be conceived. Having conceived the child, the biological parents cannot further penalize their offspring just because they want to forget the painful episode, and behave as though a child were merely a disturbing memory and not a living human being with feelings. The birth mother would be doubly penalizing her child: first by abandoning him or her through the adoption process, and then by insisting that he or she has no right to know his or her origins. This is denying the child the same rights as others solely because he or she was conceived in such a way and at such a time as the birth mother chose adoption. Adoption may appear kinder than leaving a child in a corner garbage can, but from the child’s perspective, abandonment is abandonment. The purpose of adoption is to provide circumstances that are deemed to be in the best interests of the child, and not to provide the biological parents with a free pass to forbid the child they chose to bring into the world to be a second-class citizen who knows not his or her origins. The biological parents’ actions, regardless of how young they may have been when they conceived their child, have consequences. One of those consequences, if the child is born and expresses a desire to meet his or her biological parents, is to stand ready to meet the child, if the child so desires. To do otherwise would be to ask the courts to condone a form of psychological child abuse that is repugnant to the administration of justice and to the best interests of the child.
Adoption should never be looked upon by society as child abandonment by the mother. (I’m sure there are plenty of cases like that.) And that is a horrible thing to write. Generally, the birth mother is sacrificing by giving her child to a couple who will love this little one as much or maybe even more & offer the child living conditions that the single biological mother could not give.
The child will live in a stable, nurturing environment & most likely grow up to be a responsible person in society. I have been told by lawyers & other adoption experts that it is rare for an adopted child to search for the biological parents later on in life.
Obviously you have seen the messy side of the adoption process & its after effects but I know a few persons who were adopted into good homes & they have no desire to search for their biological parents, including my daughter who has no desire to look for her biological father.
It would seem to me that society should stop stigmatizing adoption & create a less bureaucratic & more humane procedure for all parties concerned.
What ABOUT the “rights” of the biol. parents? Back then, it was usually the woman giving a child up for adoption, as the father either couldn’t or wouldn’t marry her. When she signed that paper, that was it. Finis.
Being adopted, I always imagined that on my b.day, and maybe Mother’s Day, she prob. had a few minutes of sadness, but lived out her life knowing she’d done the best she could, and altho I’m sure it was a very hard decision, she could take comfort in the knowledge her baby was given to a family that loved and took the best care possible to raise her baby right.
D.D. no one is asking you to believe or to behave any differently than you do. It is saddening to see your lack of empathy for other adoptees who had radically different adoption experiences than you did. Must your way be the only way? If so, why? Your tone certainly comes across as irritated and frustrated that not everyone sees things exactly as you do. You were exceedingly fortunate and Im glad for your good fortune with your adoptive parents and I respect your lack of curiosity about meeting your birth parents. Unfortunately, many other adoptees have had the cruelest possible adoptive parents. Please don’t presume that all adoptees had your good fortune and must, therefore, behave and think exactly as you do.
You write, “Adoption should never be looked upon by society as child abandonment by the mother. (I’m sure there are plenty of cases like that.) And that is a horrible thing to write.” Truth is often what you call “horrible.” Whether you like it or not, and you obviously don’t like it, millions of adoptees around the world feel abandoned by the biological parents. If those mothers and fathers would be kind enough to stop thinking of their own feelings and think, just for a half hour, of the babies they did abandon, even if they were abandoned to good people who were good adoptive parents, and if they would sit down and meet with their biological children, it would remove about .0001 percent of those lifelong feelings of abandonment. Why can’t you grant other adoptees unlike yourself that much? Where is your heart for them? Why are you so pro-adoptive parents and so heartlessly lacking in understanding of the anguish of children who, whether you like it or not, feel abandoned? Get over your insistence that they weren’t abandoned. They know very well that they were. Just because they were adopted doesn’t make them stupid. Give yourself five minutes to really try to imagine how you’d feel if your adoption didn’t go as well as yours did, if both your adoptive parents committed criminal acts on you for the simple reason that they could. You can emphasize with the adoptive parents all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that adoptees (not all, but millions) absolutely do feel abandoned. You don’t like that word, but that’s because you don’t want to think that way. That’s fine, but not all adoptees are like you, and you seem to refuse to accept that simple fact. We’re not all like you. And our adoptive parents weren’t all like yours and like the woman’s who wrote for advice. You’re the lucky ones with good adoptive parents. But just try to understand that we’re not all as lucky as you and we want to meet the people who gave us life, and a life that’s been far more miserable than yours apparently has been. Is your imagination really as narrow as you make it appear? Can you not imagine being beaten every day by your adoptive parents? It’s hard to believe that one adoptee is so unfeeling for the plight of other adoptees who have been cruelly treated by the adoptive parents and their biological parents who failed to investigate the parents they turned their babies over to — or, to speak clearly, abandoned them to.
Dear **also adopted **
Oh dear. I was responding to Jeannine’s 1st post in this partic. thread. No, I’m definitely not saying my way’s the only way. (and frankly, I don’t know where you got that; it IS true that in the mid-50s adoptions usually only concerned the bio. mother — if the dad was in the pic., the couple would’ve gotten married) I’m just tired of people asking me, practically my whole daggone life, if I don’t wanna know my “REAL” parents. I DO know my real parents — the people who were there every day of my life. And yes, I bless my good fortune every day of my life as well. I’m terribly sorry all adoptees didn’t share that.
It’s gotten so bad the past 15+ yrs. that when someone brings up a meeting-the-bio-parents story, I sit on my hands and still my tongue about my own adoption. Because regardless of how that story turns out, if anyone in the group learns I’m adopted, they turn to me and ask what I’ve come to call the stupid question (see “real” parents). That one MUST want to know or there’s something wrong with you is the current, prevailing opinion, and that doesn’t give credit to both sides either.
In my friends case, her birth mother had gone on to another life and my friend was a reminder of a transgression she did not want to remember, let alone relive. Her daddy (as in baby daddy) was a grifter who eventually tried to fleece her just as he had everyone else in his miserable life.
I’m not saying the birth parents should never be outed to the adopted child. I’m saying, I guess, that you can never unknow what you find, and your Cinderella dreams may be shattered for ever.
I am sure that in my friend’s case, she would have been better off with the dream, instead of the rotten truth she got instead.
If anyone thinks that this process doesn’t deeply wound the adoptive parents, they are mistaken.