Protected: Help me, Ms. Feverfew

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Advertisements

Reclaiming the Slivers of My Soul

Dear Ms. Feverfew –

I finally did it.

Today I put the form, a check for $25, and a copy of my birth certificate in the mail and sent them off to the Utah Mutual Consent Voluntary Adoption Registry.

Yesterday, I took the form to a notary public to have it notarized.  Naturally, he had to scrutinize the details, details that I haven’t shared with people who have known me for years much less a complete stranger at the Pack & Ship. As I stood there clutching Penelope while Luke played with things on the desk, I could feel myself start to disconnect from the reality of the moment. For a few moments, it was as if I was watching myself go through the motions, very much like I did when I signed the termination of parental rights form.

The pen the notary was using hesitated over the section in which I marked “Birth Parent.” He quizzically looked up at Penelope, then his pen traced the line underneath the the date of your birth. The pen went back to the section, “Person Registering is {Please check one}”, paused and hovered over “Birth Parent” again. Puzzlement crossed his face as he looked up at me, then at Luke.

I watched him write my name, address, and phone number into his register book. When it came to “type of document”, he wrote, “Utah Vital Records/Adoption Registry.”

I exhaled, unsettled by the rattling of dormant memories of signing adoption paperwork. He pushed the form and the registry towards me and directed me to sign here, here, and put my address here. I had to shift little Penelope to the other side, since I am left-handed and she was trying to grab the registry. My hand shook as I signed. My heart quaked at the fresh reminder of my loss.

But it is done. In some small way, perhaps this is partial restitution of what adoption stripped from you – your original identity. Perhaps it is too little too late, but it is one of the only things I can do for you.

Much love,

M.

A Solemn Duty

Ms. Feverfew –

Today at church, the lesson was on the conference address I wrote about a few weeks ago, “LDS Women are Incredible!” It was taught by my old Visiting Teaching partner.

It was a tough lesson to sit through.

Oh, not because I don’t think LDS women are incredible – I think the women who make up the worldwide membership of this church are an amazingly diverse and exceptional group of women.

It was hard because she was teaching on this particular lesson.

Last fall when we were new Visiting Teaching partners, we were at the home of one of the women we visit. Somehow, the subject turned to adoption and I made the comment about how important it was for adoptees to have access to their first families if at all possible. With the hiss of a viper and the sting of a scorpion, this woman turned on me in an instant. She pointed her finger at me and angrily said, “Those people don’t deserve to know about the children they abandoned and adopted children don’t need to have anything to do with their birth families.”  She then proceeded to tell me how her mother had taken in three children because their birth mother was a “promiscuous junkie” who didn’t deserve to be in the same room with “those kids.” Eventually her mother legally adopted all three of the children but they had “turned out to be just as disastrous as their birth mother because my mom let her continue to see them.”

Today, she stood at the front of the Relief Society room with tears streaming down her face as she talked about her great-great grandmother’s journals and how when she read them, she felt connected to her across the generations. She told of how just like herself, her great-great grandmother didn’t get married until later in life (38), didn’t like doing housework, wasn’t a very good cook, and would rather spend her time reading and writing than taking care of more mundane daily activities. Her voice caught in her throat and she had to stop several times as she spoke of the comfort she found in knowing she was a decedent of this woman. She told of how knowing her great-great grandmother’s history helped her figure out that she was doing OK in life, that her journey through life was normal, even in the context of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

I wanted to raise my hand and call her out on her hypocrisy – on her vehement feelings about denying her adopted siblings access to their heritage while bawling over how grateful she is to have access to hers.

I didn’t though because it wasn’t the time or place to enter into a heated argument about this topic.  I just sat there and simmered in the irony of the moment. I looked around the room at all the other women and wondered how many of them felt the exact same way: Adoptees do not have a right or need to access their true genealogy or history.

It’s a lie though. It is a complete and total lie. Adoptees have an absolute right to their true genealogy and history. They have an innate need and right to know and to connect with the generations of parents that formed them. Anyone who says differently is selling something – and that something is generally another human being (under the guise of adoption services).

Adoptees have the right to clear, clean, and unfettered access to their factual birth records. Period. Anyone who says differently is selling something (confidential intermediary services, perhaps?)

I can somewhat forgive the woman giving the lesson today – she doesn’t know any better and I haven’t had the chance to have a “come to Jesus meetin’ ” with her over the issue. Her attitude was still full of hypocrisy, but I am willing to allow that it might be an unintentional hypocrisy on her part.

But what of first mothers who think that because they are in an “open” adoption, their children do not need access to their birth certificates? Do they not realize that even if they were advised by adoption professionals to secure copies of it before the adoption was finalized the fact of the matter is that records are sealed for their child. These sealed birth records are an injustice for their child, an injustice in which they took part.

The other day, Cassi who blogs at Adoption Truth posted a brilliant response to this question and so I will let her eloquent words speak for me:

How hypocritical can we be if we believe the rights we have just aren’t all that important for our children to have after it was our own actions (for whatever reason) that placed that fate on our children’s shoulders?

First Moms have more than a responsibility, they have a duty to fight for their children to be given the same equality they receive. They have an obligation to create change in the life their child will face in their adult years.

I pledge to you, Ms. Feverfew, that I will work towards repealing or replacing the laws which prevent you and millions of other adoptees free access to your birth records. It’s the least I can do for you.

Much love,

M.

Hmmm…Good or Bad? Bad or Good? I don’t get it.

Dear Ms. Feverfew:

Recently, the U.S. State Department announced they are changing the passport application to read “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” instead of “Mother” and “Father.” I have no problem with this in any way shape or form, especially when there are far more pressing issues that need to be addressed, like homelessness, hunger, and the children who are about to age out of foster care because they have neither Parent 1 or Parent 2 nor a mom or a dad who are capable of parenting them.

What I DO take exception to is the response from the Family Research Council president Tony Perkins who said,  “Only in the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness could it be considered an ‘improvement’ for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth.

Perkins further argues against the changes by asserting, “Since science has yet to master human cloning, the newborn human being has always received half of his or her genetic inheritance via the sperm of a male parent, i.e., the father. It would be helpful if a certificate related to ‘birth’ would identify which is which.

Uh…this is the same Family Research Council that supports adoption (and sealed birth records), correct?   Is it just me, or does anyone else find Mr. Perkins’ argument a wee bit…uh, ummm… well, hypocritical?  So…less information about the circumstances surrounding a child’s birth is BAD for a passport but is GOOD for amended (falsified), sealed birth certificates?

I am confused.

Let me try to figure this one out again. Less information = GOOD when erasing a child’s cultural and natural parent’s identity through amended birth records. Less information = BAD when trying to more accurately reflect a child’s current familial situation. Or to put it another way: amended birth records that lie about to whom a child was actually born = GOOD.  New passport applications that say “Parent 1 & Parent 2” = BAD.

Hmmm…I still don’t get it.

I think I might write a letter to Mr. Perkins and see if he can help clarify the situation.

Much love to you and all those who have to deal with fake birth certificates (I am so sorry about that…I didn’t realize that was what was going to happen) –

M.