RSS

For those who question whether or not a mother’s story from the BSE is true…

01 Dec

By TAO

Just love stumbling on something that provides a wealth of information about a time period often challenged today.  I hear more often than I would like, that mothers were not coerced, or pressured to “choose” adoption from my era.  That they signed the papers and no one forced them to do so.  That they are viewing things with the lens of regret and guilt that has colored their recollections.  Note I am not saying all were coerced, or pressured, but if a mother says she was – then I hope you will be more likely to believe her after you read this – an appeal by the adoption agency to overturn a court ruling that the mother was pressured to sign consent she wouldn’t have signed otherwise.

METHODIST MISSION HOME OF TEXAS, APPELLANT v. N A B, APPELLEE – March 4, 1970

Advertisements
 
10 Comments

Posted by on December 1, 2013 in Adoption, adoptive parents, biological child, Ethics

 

Tags: , , , ,

10 responses to “For those who question whether or not a mother’s story from the BSE is true…

  1. dpen

    December 1, 2013 at 11:20 pm

    Wow…would love to know how everything ended up. Was this baby a;ready with a family? Was the child removed from adoptive family and given back to her mother? If so where was the media storm of the “poor adoptive parents” and their “losses” Why were their not more of these cases? Betting her parents paid to bring this as far as it went.

    Sadly, I am willing to bet that those that don’t believe that mothers were pressured would call this a rarity.

    Like

     
    • TAO

      December 2, 2013 at 2:26 pm

      Dpen – I doubt the babe was placed yet – they seemed to wait to ensure babies were healthy etc and from what it sounds like she refused to leave. She had her parents support to raise the baby so I am sure they did support her in court. Otherwise she would have been out of luck like many others.

      Amazed though how the link shows the intent of the maternity home was to get the baby to adoption…

      Like

       
    • cb

      December 2, 2013 at 11:27 pm

      “Sadly, I am willing to bet that those that don’t believe that mothers were pressured would call this a rarity.”

      The sadder truth is that many don’t really care and think that our mothers deserved any bad treatment they might have got.

      Like

       
  2. Hanne Andersen

    December 2, 2013 at 1:46 am

    Many women were not coerced they just out and out had their babies stolen from them many times right on the delivery table. Here is a case from Canada where the mother had her baby stolen in a Canadian hospital. The only way she could get her baby returned to her and her family was because her family was very wealthy and was able to fund her case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Another deciding factor that may have been that her baby was a British- Canadian citizen and she was going to return to Britain with her baby therefore the Ontario government could wash their hands of mother and child.

    The Children’s Aid Society was so interested in this mother’s healthy white newborn and wilfully destroying Ms. Mugford that they appealed her case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Thankfully this mother won her case and was able to return home with her baby.

    Shortly after this case, numerous pro-newborn adoption agencies, religious organizations, infertile couples, and adopters alike put pressure on the Ontario provincial government to make it impossible for any mother to have her baby returned to her. They had a bill presented in legislature that made it so an unmarried mother would have had to prove her “fitness,” She would be up against her own internalized oppression as well as a system that weighed “fitness” on the amount of money one had, one that pitted the “poor infertile” couple against the deviant unmarried mother, that equated her unmarried status as “unfit” and the infertile married strangers as “fit.” and a household that was headed by a man.

    Once this bill was adopted as law it caught fire, as the rest of the provinces followed suit so that the baby harvesting scheme could continue unabated.

    Mugford v. Children’s Aid Society (Ottawa):

    http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4139/index.do

    Like

     
  3. cherry

    December 4, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    There is a story in the UK at the moment about a woman who has had a forcible caesarian and her child removed for adoption against her will. Yet numerous articles described her as ‘giving up’ her child.

    If any adopted people would like to have their important point of view heard, among the general cacophony about this case, you can here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/03/caesarean-adoption-bipolar-woman-violence?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487&commentpage=3

    On a separate note, I was shocked that anyone could think that the BSE wasn’t true. The Australian Apology for Forced Adoptions described it well and thoroughly, and also described the experience that many mothers, including me, had across the globe. It was only through conversations on the internet, once it was invented, that we found out how extremely similar all our experiences had been.

    And there are some that think we deserved that treatment? Speechless.

    Like

     

Tell me your thoughts, but please be nice...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: