Monthly Archives: June 2011
So I was reading several posts about Postitive Adoption Language and how people must correct those who use Negative Adoption Language and so on and so forth…be aware I am in an insomiac phase right now so let that be a warning that I am rather bitchy today (not that I am not most days but)…
PAL = Were adopted or Was Adopted; NAL = Am adopted.
So if we want to do it right we adoptees must, according to the “PAL”
police experts say we “were” adopted or I “was” adopted. Now, being happy little people pleasing adoptees we should comply, right? No more of the “I ”am” adopted” as we don’t want to upset those ”in the know“.
But just to be completely clear by using the PAL “Adoption” is a ONE TIME EVENT, and that we “were” adopted, to me that means being adopted no longer applies so based on that concept, we should have access to our OBC’s just like all the other people. If that is the case I would be happy to use that terminology as it ensures that seeing as I “was” adopted and not “am” adopted, I am no longer “less than“, rather I am “equal to“. So perhaps the adoption lobbyists should get right on switching from opposing our rights to fighting for our rights and changing the legislation. Let me know when that happens then I will consider changing my language – until then good luck with that.
Oh and by the way – have you ever heard a biological child say they “were” the biological child or I ”was” biological child? Now I have heard them say they ”are“ a biological child or I “am” the biological child…
PAL = Born to unwed Mother; NAL = Illegitimate.
This has me scratching my head wondering if they actually realize that the definition of illegitimate is “born to unwed mother”? I personally don’t think it is anyones business and if questioned, just ignore it as one of those rude questions. I know some adoptees hate the word illegitimate and that is their right to use what works for them.
But honestly, do the people promoting PAL really think people are stupid enough not to get the fact that we are illegitimate if they use a four word description instead of one word? Give me a break. Your little adoptee is going to come home one day and ask what illegitimate or bastard means, so all your PC words really won’t help protect your child. In reality being truthful and honest might make it not such a shock to be called a bastard or illegitimate on the playground.
PAL = Made an adoption plan; NAL = Surrendered for adoption
To me, telling your child that his mother loved him so much she made an adoption plan is the same as telling your child that anyone who loves him will leave him. I’ll take she had no other choice but to surrender you for adoption over the adoption plan any day.
I also wonder how the adoptees who were told their mother made an adoption plan and are happily blogging about how wonderful adoption is will feel…don’t you think it will be like a slap in the face?
And finally I have heard that “adult adoptee” is out and “adopted adult” or “adult who was adopted” is the proper terminology.
So I will assume the same applies to children…no more adoptees, rather, adopted child or child who was adopted, are now the terms? Why not call them the ”grafted child” or “grown in my heart child” – I’m kidding…
How about everyone just stop and instead let us determine what the right language is for ourselves? You know the whole identity thing? If we aren’t allowed to be who we are then what’s the point?
Sorry, just really grumpy…
When will prospective adoptive parents realize that trafficking in babies happens? That it is not as “rare” as your adoption “professionals” make it seem when they talk about so-called “minor irregularities” in the paperwork?
Much to my horror, I recently found the following search query in my stats:
“child trafficking rebuttal”
There is no rebuttal – there can never be a rebuttal…trafficking in babies and children is WRONG!!!
When you see ethics thrown to the wayside talk about it, and don’t stop talking when people get upset. Tell the authorities. Tell those waiting in line to adopt. Keep telling them the truth. Those that do keep talking have my respect.
Two posts from Ethica – one from a New Zealand paper the other from The Washington Post – both new – take the time to read them and talk about it, be part of the solution.
That Catholic Charities of Trenton, NJ mixed up the adoption records does not come as any real surprise. Why should they make sure the right baby was linked to the right mother? After all the records are sealed and it would be unlikely for anyone to ever find out – how could they? No need to have processes in place that really don’t matter – a healthy white infant is a healthy white infant – who cares…that is of course until DNA testing became available.
Today The Baltimore Sun published a wonderful Fathers Day story…a story finally with an ending that didn`t seem possible when it was last told, when DNA testing confirmed that the man Catholic Charities said was the son of Ron Ryba, was not his son after all.
The hard-won reunion came after years of searches, heartbreak and false leads. Ryba’s adoption agency, Catholic Charities of Trenton, N.J., had “reunited” him with another man in 2004.
But four years later they learned through DNA tests that they weren’t related. Before Ryba’s quest ended, there would be an investigation by New Jersey authorities, leaked names and two more DNA tests.
But the last tests proved that Callaghan, a 35-year-old accountant, is the child that Ryba, 53, and Kathy Butler of New Jersey turned over for adoption.
Ryba asked Catholic Charities to sort out their mess and instead they hid behind the privacy laws and a judge agreed. But Ryba apparently did not give up and go away like they most likely hoped he would, he went to the NJ Attorney General who got The Department of Children and Families to investigate the adoption files.
In their report, the investigators said they found that Ryba’s son was one of six similarly aged boys placed at St. Elizabeth’s, the Catholic maternity home and nursery in Yardville, N.J., at around the same time in late 1975. They identified two who appeared to be Ryba’s son and Bloete, and quoted a former Catholic Charities social worker who said “it was not impossible for the children to have been mixed up.”
Infants at St. Elizabeth’s did not wear identification, she told investigators, nor was there any on their cribs. Two staffers ran four separate nurseries, with eight cribs in each, investigators learned. Volunteers, often unfamiliar with the babies, were used to transport them to the Catholic Welfare Bureau for placement.
Catholic Charities acknowledged in 2009 that the mix-up was “tragic.” But “we did everything we were required to do,” said spokeswoman Lisa Thibeault. She added that the state investigation found “no violations of best adoption practices.”
Got to love sorry for the mix up it was “tragic” but we did nothing wrong stance that Catholic Charities took. Mixing up babies means your processes failed. Sorry really does not cut it – you have to fix it not just wash your hands of the affair.
As “corrective action,” the Department of Children and Families said, Catholic Charities “shall make good faith attempts to assist the three complainants [Ryba, Bloete and Butler] in securing answers to their questions should they request searches.” Catholic Charities would also inform the state of its progress, and assume the costs of DNA testing.None of that happened, according to Ryba. But he was not ready to give up.