I was told an interesting story that has an adoption aspect to it, a detail that was shocking to me. The story is about an adopted person and while I won't go in to detail and retell her whole story I do want to share the part that made my jaw about hit the table. Although my reaction was obvious and I made it clear to the storyteller how as an adopted person myself the detail was really disturbing, we didn't dwell on it or discuss it at length as it wasn't the point of the story.
What was relayed to me that really freaked me out was that after having been placed with the adopting parents the mom and baby were in a serious car accident in which the baby was severely injured. And although the parents did not take advantage of their agency's "return policy", they were offered it!!
"You can return her if you want to". Still shaking my head here.
Saturday
17 comments:
Feel free to flag your comment PRIVATE. I realize commenting can be intimidating so if you have something to say to me you'd rather not have published you're welcome to do so, just make sure you let me know it's private. If you want a reply, leave your email address.
I'm also completely fine with good anonymous comments. I've seen some great ones!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You can return her if you want??? really??? Shame on the agency!! If they returned her because she was hurt in an accident then how do you find her a family? An half off sale? They need to be shut down.
ReplyDeleteI know eh? Unbelievable really.
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of perspective, I should add this was 40 years ago.
That's horrendous :-(
ReplyDeleteI know decades back they used to put infants in foster care for months to make sure they weren't "defective" (whatever that means) before placing them in adoptive families. I was in foster care for 4.5 months after I was surrendered and have no idea why. I always wonder about that.
Amanda, I think part of the reason for the months in foster care was the governments way of "preventing" adoption fraud and coercion. And also to make sure the babies were healthy. There was an article in a 1945 Reader's Digest and a 1946 movie that talks about black market babies. Doctors, lawyers, etc. were making money on taking babies from poor women to sell to adoptive parents. Unfortunately, as we have all seen it doesn't take humans long to find a way around laws. So depressing, sigh.
ReplyDeleteWow! That is just plain wrong!!!! I guess “forever family” wasn’t in the vernacular at the time… SMH!
ReplyDeleteOf course, adoptees are commodities and how well and sadly this story proves the point.Thanks for telling the story.
ReplyDeleteAdoptees are only a commodity if they're parents allow them to be.
ReplyDeleteThankfully in this case the adoptive set of parents did not view their daughter in that way.
...*their* parents allow them to be.
ReplyDeleteWow, that is awful. "Adoptees are only a commodity if their parents allow them to be."
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with that. Once you go to court (or sign the papers, or whatever), that child is yours. Children don't come with a "guarantee" whether bio or adopted.
"Thankfully in this case the adoptive set of parents did not view their daughter in that way."
ReplyDelete... I sure hope they wouldn't. :\
What's that people say about adoption being "the same as" biological families, again?
Because things like this so clearly contradict that idea.
Or maybe I'm wrong and biological parents tell their kids stuff like this, too.
"Adoptees are only a commodity if their parents allow them to be."
ReplyDeleteIn terms of semantics (and legalities, of course), the adopted child/adult is considered as if "born to" the adoptive parents in the law and in the eyes of society.
That is how adoption is supposed to be.
This also goes on the brink of the touchy topic of "possessing" children, however (eg. changing names, adoptive culture being superior, wanting to ignore racial issues to prove biology isn't important, etc).
that's sad. I'm glad the adoptive parents didn't taken them up on their offer.
ReplyDeleteMy daughter spent 4.5 months in foster care to make sure that I hadn't "ruined" her. Even though they knew she was fine..... and then she got abusive people.
ReplyDeleteOk-- that qualifies for a WTF?
ReplyDeleteI heard a story like that at an ALMA meeting years ago. The adoptee was born with mild cerebral palsy which was not apparent at birth. She was diagnosed when less than a year old, the adoptive parents contacted the agency for more information, and the agency offered to to take her back and get them a "good" baby! The adoptive parents were outraged and luckily did not take them up on it.
ReplyDeleteAlso heard from a guy not adopted until he was almost two because of a droopy eyelid, easily surgically corrected. Back in the days of surplus babies, I guess agencies could guarantee you got a healthy one or take it back. So creepy,
This kinda happened to us. We received our referral in April of 2009. We accepted what was thought to be a healthy baby girl. Three months later the adoption agency called to tell us our daughter may have a heart condition and would we like to "release" her and go back on the girl waiting list at the #1 spot...Really??? She is already my daughter, I hope you are kidding. (They weren't.)
ReplyDeleteOh. My. Gosh! A baby should never come with a return policy. So disgusting.
ReplyDelete