One More Time

05 Dec

By Shadow…

It has been a long time, since I last posted. It’s been a long time, since, I have opened up, to talk about adoption, at all. Today was a, typical, day, for me. I woke up, fixed my breakfast, and was sitting there, finishing my coffee, checking emails, etc., and listening to the news.

They were doing a story about teen, prescription drug abuse, and addiction. I didn’t think much about it. It’s a story reported on, quite, often. Then, I heard it. The word, “adopted”. It caught my attention. I listened.  They were talking to, one of the teen’s parents. The reporter noted that the teen was adopted, and that his biological parents had a history of drug addiction.


I know the answer to my question. After all these years, of being and adoptee, after, everything I have poured out of my heart, after fighting for so long, so many years, to change those stereotypes, why is the need to point that out, still, so important? It had, absolutely, no relevance to the story. Why those two facts about that one teen? Why didn’t they point out family issues of the other teens? All families have their issues.

Why did they feel the need to point out that teen was adopted at all, much less, his biological parent’s issues? After all these years, why is this, still, happening?

I know the answers to my questions. I know those answers to the core of my being. It’s all part of being and adoptee, those answers.
I know, now, that I have written, and posted this, that I will, once again, be labeled. Fingers will point, “Oh, just another, angry, adoptee.” Well, yes, I’m angry. It makes me angry when adoption is used to make adoptees stand out as, somehow, different, not the same as biological children. It makes me angry when fingers point at our biological parents, place blame, subtle though it may be. It makes me angry, because I know, after all these years, little has changed, in the way adoption is viewed by society.

It makes me so sad, after all these years. It may, always, be. I just could not sit back and ignore it, one more time. It was time to, once again, speak up. Sometimes, you just have to kick that dead horse, one more time.


Posted by on December 5, 2016 in Adoption, adoptive parents


Tags: , , , , , ,

8 responses to “One More Time

  1. Dannie

    December 5, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    Hi Shadow,

    it’s been a while. I tremble for both kids of mine…..both kids (bio and adopted) have at least one parent that have had issues….maybe substances, maybe mental health problems….both of mine will always be susceptible to that due to genetics….. I don’t know why the “adopted” came into play in this interview, however, I have heard many interviews and special ed questionnaires (i am a speech therapist in the schools) where parental history especially with substances and mental health issues are discussed at length.

    Is it easier for people to throw in the “adoption” word to describe a child/teen for ones sole purpose of distancing from the fact that it came from a parent? sadly i think 90% of cases are such…..are some people truly wanting to find out how genetics play a role in tendencies towards many things including but not limited to substances in general? yeah sure.

    I don’t know when the labels will stop and I’m unsure sometimes when it is a bad thing or when it is a good thing (if ever?) All I know is that parenting in general is hard and complicated. And I never want to expose my minors to media no matter what.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. TAO

    December 5, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    I’m so happy you’re back Shadow!

    Dannie, I’m sure the adopted card is used by the adoptive parent to distance sometimes, which is sort of like throwing their child under the bus. Yes, genetic tendencies play a big role, how much an addiction gene plays though I don’t know, especially when adoption plays up the environment being such a factor in outcomes. I often want to yell – you can’t have it both ways, either adoption/environment works, or it doesn’t.


    • Dannie

      December 5, 2016 at 10:11 pm

      yes yes, or one has to credit genetics for the good too…..E is very fashion oriented and girly and very artsy…..while I appreciate music and the arts, lets face it, she in no way learned in her environment to be orderly and artsy and creative in the sense that she is…..I’m actually happy she isn’t a hot mess like me 🙂 🙂 🙂


      • TAO

        December 5, 2016 at 10:20 pm

        I would have appreciated inheriting creativity…but I have logic…sigh…


  3. cb

    December 5, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    When everything goes well with us adoptees, we are a “great credit” to our adoptive parents, when things go wrong, it is usually our “bad genes”.

    It is of course, never “adoption” itself. I can’t imagine that the following would have any negative effect on anyone at all! (sarcasm alert)

    By 1955, environmental supremacy was an ideology, it had reached the level of unquestionable acceptance.  Only a complete break would allow the adoptive environment full reign to shape the adoptee’s life.  Thus a wall of secrecy was placed between the adoptee and their origins.  The complete break and secrecy shaped our adoption policy for 30 years.
    Environmentalism believed environment would overcome heredity.  The adopted child, transplanted into an adoptive family, should grow up ‘as if’ born to them
    Adoptive parents real parents.  The adoptee’s dual origins were suppressed.  A child cannot have two mothers.
    Unmarried women were unfit to raise children.  They proved themselves irresponsible by having an illegitimate child and children brought up in solo families were deprived.
    Good adoptees don’t need origins.  If adoptive parents really do their task, adoptees will not need to know their origins.  As good birth mothers put their past behind them and forget, so will good adoptees!
    Bonding theory, adoptive parents to bond to the child.
    Psychodynamic theory provided a pseudo psychological justification.  It held, unmarried mothers were immature, unstable, the babies were conceived to fulfil neurotic needs and now unwanted.  To heal their dysfunctional personality birth mothers needed a complete break.
    Legal fiction became general fiction.  The whole focus was on the new relationship created ‘as if’ born to…….The genetic birth relationship was ‘as if’ dead and destroyed.
    From 1955-1985 the closed secret nature of adoption, and legal fiction and pretence encouraged myths to grow and flourish.  The myths were sustained by secrecy that prevented any critical analysis.  The adoption myths became so pervasive in our society that many adoptees, birth and adoptive parents believed them.
    What were these myths?
    It was asserted that only a small number of adoptees, the misfits, would ever want to know their origins
    Most birth mothers would have forgotten the past and would not want old wounds re-opened
    Birth mothers needed to be protected from searching adoptees
    Lifting secrecy would increase abortion
    Opening up adoption would break up adoptive families
    Adoptive parents would lose their child
    The acceptance of untruths did much harm by creating false hope, false stereotypes and a potentially destructive zealotry that denied the truth



    • Shiwa

      December 8, 2016 at 1:29 am

      You are in New Zealand ’cb’, yes? I used to know Keith Griffith.


      In New Zealand forced adoptions started in 1944, and by 1951 the ideological delusion of behaviourism —in this case that one’s parents are a social construct— became virtually total with few escaping; the Adoption Act 1955 was not the beginning of this, but the attempt to legitimize it under civil law: i take issue with those who claim that it began with the 1955 act. The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1951 first prevented anyone from seeing birthregister-entries of adoptees, and this has been perpetuated in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995; even should one get the (mutilated) copy of one’s ”original” birthcertificate, one is still prevented from getting a copy of one’s birthregister-entry: what are they hiding.

      I was adopted in New Zealand in 1955, but under the Adoption Act 1895 (the 1955 act came into force 27 October 1955), and i am just as damned. The interesting thing about the 1895 act is that it wasn‘t intended for the purpose of abducting babies from unmarried mothers, and as such under this act i was unlawfully adopted; this is not just because my mother never gave consent because coercion and fallaciousness was used —as still happened after the 1955 act— but especially because the 1895 act is quite clear about consent, and *both* parents (meaning those who gave birth) were required to give consent even if one was overseas (excepting if one or both had died, or there was abandonment) which clearly wasn‘t being done *even in pretense* with one’s father, he being completely pushed out, and possibly as early as 1944. Thus, as my adoption was done illegially and unlawfully by the judge, being Michael Bernard Scully (1906 ~ 1985; in his obituary it claiming „His was a very human and kindly nature”: bah! i spit…), who criminally issued the court order against me in favour of my abducting adoptees (of whom abused me, especially the male one), therefore my adoption must be declared null and void. Unfortunately, in New Zealand there is anymore no legal aid, and as i cannot afford a human rights lawyer here i cannot challenge this in the court without help from others interested in a victory against the obscene practice of forced adoption. Furthermore, the 1895 act allowed annulment by petitioning the court (as is done in the US today).

      Each New Zealand Adoption Act, 1881, 1895, and 1955, has become progressively more repressive.


      Actually, i’m completely anti-adoption. They are still claiming the myth of one being a misfit, still playing this game, and i have often been abused for being anti-adoption, and especially for wanting my adoption annulled: „You have a problem.” (yes, i have a problem with bigots like you), „Most don‘t want their adoption annulled.” (prove it), „Should anyone be allowed to divorce their parents then?” (’divorce’ is not the same as ’annulment’, one cannot divorce one’s parents, they are one’s parents whether one likes it or not it being a fact), and other strawman arguments.

      Moreover, i have unusual ancestry for New Zealand, and have had racial preducice because of this, but it has so far been impossible to prove whom my father is. New Zealand is one of the most secretive places on this planet.

      Yes, i am angry!


  4. cb

    December 5, 2016 at 9:23 pm

    Btw nice to see a post from you again, Shadow. How have you been?


  5. shadowtheadoptee

    December 6, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Thanks you guys. I’m doing alright CB. Even though I’ve not been around, I think about you guys, and miss you all.



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

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: