Adoption Wanted
Walt
your care, but eventually, you will get one that can never be
returned to their bio-parents. As the foster parents, you will
be on the top of the list for adoption for that baby.
If you aren't picky over age, there are many older kids waiting
to be adopted.
"[ ViroGen ]" wrote:
>
> Is there anyone here who can point us in the right direction to adopting a
> child without these hefty fees? It seems ridiculous, considering there are
> so many kids that need adopted. We are pretty desperate to start a family.
> The sooner the better. Feel free to email me or respond here.
>
> Thank you...
AdoptaDad
From: Walt Wa...@Early.com
Date: 9/25/00 9:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <39CF7BEB...@Early.com>
Become a foster parent. A few babies might come in and out of your care, but
eventually, you will get one that can never be returned to their bio-parents.
As the foster parents, you will be on the top of the list for adoption for that
baby.
If you aren't picky over age, there are many older kids waiting
to be adopted.
Good suggestion, Walt. However, you CAN be picky about age and still
adopt a waiting child. Ages 5 to 6 is a wonderful age to adopt a child -
especially for a two-parent working couple. <g>
Dad
Sherry
at 3 months old. How different is the bonding when adopting a 5-6 yr old?
"AdoptaDad" <adop...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000925162202...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
Sherry
child and one adoptive child and the bond is equally as strong.
A child becomes attached to a favorite toy or maybe a blanket. They become
bonded to a parent.
I don't need to read a book to know what I feel in my heart.
My child's bmother was unable to bond with my child, which is why she is my
child now. I was able to bond with her.
Sherry
"Jack Finucan" <jfin...@att.net> wrote:
> Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in
the
> womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster
care.
> Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
> Jack Finucan
>
> "Sherry" <she...@proaxis.net> wrote in message
> news:39cfb...@news.pacifier.com...
Lainie Petersen
can come up with some articles by reputable scholars in peer reviewed journals,
then I will be happy to consider this matter.
Lainie
bmom/adoptee
jurol wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:38:49 GMT, "Jack Finucan" <jfin...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in the
> >womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster care.
> >Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
> >Jack Finucan
>
> Can you elaborate on the differences? How is the quality/strength of
> the parent/child relationship affected?
>
> Julia
Sherry
came to me naturally, it is unteachable. Sorry, I sure wish I could have
helped :(
Sherry
"Taylor" <kluc...@aol.complete> wrote in:
>
>
> << My child's bmother was unable to bond with my child, which is why she
is my
> child now. I was able to bond with her.>>
>
> What does this mean?
>
>
>
> Taylor
>
> There were several logs on the fire, and it created a situation in the
passing
> game where we have to tighten up a lot of screws there.
> ~Bill Bellichick
>
Sherry
you have opened your heart up some!!
Notice in Marla's explanation the very words that describe her own life.
Remember dear, treat me with respect and you will get respect in return.
Sherry
"LilMtnCbn" <lilm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Oh Taylor, it means the same thing as everything she posts. She feels
bad
> about her life and since she isn't finding enough sympathy, she has to
find
> somebody to belittle.
>
> Marla
rkbose
to their fathers?
Rupa
TCDE...@ysub.ysu.edu
. There are no agency fees as long as you adopt within your state. There will
be some cost at legalization (about $400) but that is with a lawyer of your cho
osing. You didn't specify an age. This may not be the avenue to take for an i
nfant. We are trying to adopt a child from birth to 9yrs (but are willing to c
onsider an older child).
Good luck.
In article <WMtz5.113101$Ur3.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
"[ ViroGen ]" <vir...@cybrtek.net> writes:
>
>My wife had a hysterectomy due to having severe endometriosis. She is 25
>years old. It was done a year ago.
>
>Anyway, we would like to have children, but now since we can not have one
>the normal way, we are looking at adopting. My wife and I want nothing more
>than to adopt a child at this point. The issue here is that it takes
>anywhere from $14k to $20k to adopt, and we don't have that kind of cash
>saved up. We both make good money, but that is also a lot of money to have
>saved at once to adopt. We are looking at quite a few years to save up that
>kind of cash.. I am almost 30 now.. my time is getting shorter.
>
>Is there anyone here who can point us in the right direction to adopting a
>child without these hefty fees? It seems ridiculous, considering there are
>so many kids that need adopted. We are pretty desperate to start a family.
>The sooner the better. Feel free to email me or respond here.
>
>Thank you...
>
>
>--
>--
>Philip Winiarczyk
>AKA ViroGen
>Cybrtek =-Owner-= http://cybrtek.net
>PGP Key available at http://www.halcyon.com/elite/PhilipWiniarczyk.asc
>ICQ #: 4482490
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>begin 666 Philip Kerry Winiarczyk.vcf
>M0D5'24XZ5D-!4D0-"E9%4E-)3TXZ,BXQ#0I..E=I;FEA<F-Z>6L[4&AI;&EP
>M.TME<G)Y#0I&3CI0:&EL:7 @2V5R<GD@5VEN:6%R8WIY:PT*3DE#2TY!344Z
>M5FER;T=E;@T*3U)'.D-Y8G)T96L-"E1)5$Q%.D]W;F5R#0I!1%([2$]-13H[
>M.SM)<W-A<75A:#M703LY.# R.3M54T$-"DQ!0D5,.TA/344[14Y#3T1)3D<]
>M455/5$5$+5!224Y404),13I)<W-A<75A:"P@5T$@.3@P,CD],$0],$%54T$-
>M"E@M5T%"+4=%3D1%4CHR#0I54DPZ:'1T<#HO+W=W=RYH86QC>6]N+F-O;2]E
>M;&ET90T*55),.FAT=' Z+R]C>6)R=&5K+FYE= T*0D1!63HR,# P,#8R, T*
>M2T59.U@U,#D[14Y#3T1)3D<]0D%3138T.@T*(" @($U)245H5$-#02LV9T%W
>M24)!9TE143-Z='5*2TM*:'%Q=F(P4&5Q=&Q51$%.0F=K<6AK:4<Y=S!"05%1
>M1D%$0T)Z1$5834)51PT*(" @($$Q545#:$U/5FU6>6%63G!:,C1S245L=5EY
>M-'A(>D%D0F=.5D)!<U1&;%IL8VUL5&%79'5)1E)Y9%A.,$E%-6QD2&1V8VUS
>M> T*(" @(%)J0D5"9TY60D%S5%!89#-D>34R6EA*<&,R;&YB:35J8C(P=F-M
>M5G=B,TYP9$<Y>653.5-5145G4U<U:F(S2G=,:4)#95-"4PT*(" @(%I7675,
>M17A*455)=51&4D5+1TUP3U1G>%-$0D="9TY60D%-5% Q6FQC;6Q485=D=4E%
>M3G-96$YZ241%9U$P16=35S5K85A:< T*(" @(%I(5FAB0T)49%=*>EDS2G!9
>M;59Y3%9";&-N3G9B;45G5&TY,$E&6FAB1VQK65A2;%I$065&=S!W341!,DU4
>M37=-1$%W341"80T*(" @($9W,'=-1$$T351)>4UZ535.5&QA34E)0D-415A-
>M0E5'03%514-H34]6;59Y859.<%HR-'-)16QU67DT>$AZ061"9TY60D%S5 T*
>M(" @($9L6FQC;6Q485=D=4E&4GED6$XP244U;&1(9'9C;7-X4FI"14)G3E9"
>M07-44%AD,V1Y-3):6$IP8S)L;F)I-6IB,C!V8VU6=PT*(" @(&(S3G!D1SEY
>M95,Y4U5%16=35S5J8C-*=TQI0FEE4T)36E=9=4Q%>$I154EU5$9214M'37!/
>M5&=X2&I!8T)G3E9"07-41E9"; T*(" @(&-N3G9B;45G5&TY,$E&6FAB1VQK
>M65A2;%I$16Y-0U5'03%514-X36521VQN85A2:&)#0DI20T)$8D=&>F-Y07A)
>M0S!G5%=L:@T*(" @(&-M.7IB,EHP35)G=T9G641645%$1D$Y5V%82G92,E9U
>M249:<&-M.4A:5S1X26I!9T)G:W%H:VE'.7<P0D-115=%,UIP8VTY;@T*(" @
>M(%I7-4%9,VQI8VY2;&%Y-75:6%%W9UHX=T1164I+;UI):'9C3D%114)"44%$
>M9UDP04U)1TI!;T="04IE9U!Z0G-C16LP2TMJ.0T*(" @(#-L;S=G>EA!>E%D
>M<6U$.'EH2$Q"8V,T-W5S=%57,DY/+U0Q8VI,=&9*=U)T24TW+WA!46YB1FPO
>M=G5K9W9Q:$M8*W,O,RLP*PT*(" @($9T9GE*3U)42CE2=DUA3%!S0FU!=&%U
>M:D%$+U1L-UA(>5-O2$5S4%94;65&*R]&-5=O4GIW0TYM:&=05W$Q3'%H=6U%
>M<W$X1PT*(" @(&MU=V1D3B]/,4]S=$%G34)!04=J9V=%;4U)24)):D%*0F=.
>M5DA2345!:D%!34511T$Q561)05$Y341S=T]164Q925I)05EB- T*(" @(%)1
>M14A!46=W2VI!;T)G9W)"9T5&0E%C0T%266-A2%(P8TA--DQY.3-D,V-U9&U6
>M>6%83G!:,C1U63(Y=$PS2G=95$%20F=L9PT*(" @(&AK9T)H=FA#05%%14)!
>M34-"-$%W9UE91T-M0T=304='*T550D)G345E0EHR6D11,DY42FE:1%EZ6FI)
>M=TY$8W=-:FMY3U1G,PT*(" @($YJ3FI/5U%Y6FI),TY403)/5TTS37I5-5EM
>M5FM-5TEW3E1L:UE48S%9;4TP66U--4YZ07A.>E$S6D=%,5I$3FU-:D4P35=*
>M; T*(" @(%E74FE-;4IK36U5-$]427A:;44Q3FU*;4TR4FQ-5$4P3U1K-%E4
>M1FE9:E$Q6FU:;4TR5FA.1%4S351!>D)G3E9(4CA%3$1!<0T*(" @($U#:6=*
>M<4%K:&E*;V1(4G=/:3AV63-*<TQN6FQC;6QZ85=D=4QM3G9B4SEJ8D=&>F-Z
>M1759,TIS34$P1T-3<4=326(S1%%%0@T*(" @($)!54%!-$="04EQ;G%M>FE+
>M,S918DMT9V]B>3$Y-#%T:C18-TY%8CEX-S=R4F5&-3)A94IA:#$T=4M%*T(T
>M,#=%0G)G04DQ1 T*(" @(%)+24]/1&]65W=W3592=EHU=3)6:7%Z06QM8WAI
>M33)(>%AR9#9)=%HW.71M,FQM,WIB1V)#.&Q14"MF-2]Y2W)86%<P65%D9@T*
>M(" @(%-*3B]Z1G0X4D8W5"]K<S%"9%A91T]4,$XT>'!1,V5Q1U54<@T*#0H-
>M"D5-04E,.U!2148[24Y415).150Z=FER;V=E;D!C>6)R=&5K+FYE= T*4D56
>>.C(P,# P.3(T5#(P-3 T-UH-"D5.1#I60T%21 T*
>`
>end
>
Jack Finucan
http://www.state.fl.us/cf_web/adopt/ to see the children and get info.
<TCDE...@ysub.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:10DBA34S8...@ysub.ysu.edu...
Jack Finucan
womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster care.
Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
Jack Finucan
"Sherry" <she...@proaxis.net> wrote in message
news:39cfb...@news.pacifier.com...
> I have never thought about adopting an older child. I adopted my daughter
> at 3 months old. How different is the bonding when adopting a 5-6 yr old?
>
>
Henry W. Moritz
> Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in the
> womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster care.
> Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
> Jack Finucan
>
awwww, I think adopted kids can bond with their adoptive parents if they
want.
The All-Powerful One
>From: "Jack Finucan" jfin...@att.net
>Date: Mon, Sep 25, 2000 8:38 PM
>Message-id: <teSz5.390$7I4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in
>the
>womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster care.
>Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
And read my lips: I bonded with my family more than I ever did with any of
the people who share DNA with me. Don't like it? Then you can fuck right off.
Ghoulagirl
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!" - Dr. Lizardo.
Taylor
LilMtnCbn
>From: kluc...@aol.complete (Taylor)
>Date: 9/25/00 9:02 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000925230241...@ng-mg1.aol.com>
>
><< From: "Sherry" she...@proaxis.net
>;Message-id: <39d01...@news.pacifier.com>>>
>
>
><< My child's bmother was unable to bond with my child, which is why she is
>my
>child now. I was able to bond with her.>>
>
>What does this mean?
>
>
>
>Taylor
Oh Taylor, it means the same thing as everything she posts. She feels bad
jurol
wrote:
>Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in the
>womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster care.
>Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
>Jack Finucan
Can you elaborate on the differences? How is the quality/strength of
AndyM9981
womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster care.
Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
Jack Finucan
>>
IMO, the bond of older adoptive children can be just as deep if not deeper. I
consider myself deeply bonded with my children, and them to me. If anything
their awareness of their bond makes it all the more special. Andy
Memzoo
"Raising Adopted Children" about the distinction between the terms:
"Although we often talk about the development of love between parent and child
as 'bonding,' those who have studied the phenomenon differentiate between
'bonding' and 'attachment.'
Bonding, as Frank G. Bolton, Jr., explains in When Bonding Fails, is a
uni-directional process that begins in the biologic parent -- primarily the
mother -- during pregnancy and continues through birth and the first few days
of life. It is the parent's instinctive desire to protect the infant.
Attachment takes more time and more interaction between parent and child.
It is a reciprocal process between parent and child that develops during the
first year they are together and is solidified throughout the relationship. It
is the development of a mutual feeling that the other is irreplaceable.
Given these definitions, what most of us are talking about when we refer
to 'bonding' is actually 'attachment.' In fact, some people question whether
the attachment behavior that humans engage in can be compared to the
instinctive 'bonding' activities of animals.
There may be some attachment taking place in the adoptive family prior to
the arrival of the child. Many parents report feeling a closeness based on the
photograph they have of their child and mourn if that child can't be placed
with them for some reason. But in both the adoptive and biologic family, the
feeling of attachment between parents and child develops after the child
arrives."
My contribution to the semantical issue du jour.
Elizabeth
Sherry
"rkbose" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:39CF0048...@pacific.net.sg...
> Perhaps it means that children bond with their mothers but are attached
> to their fathers?
>
> Rupa
>
>
>
> jurol wrote:
> >
RiverWild1970
>you have opened your heart up some!!
T-Roll!
SusanDyne
>From: "Jack Finucan" jfin...@att.net
>Date: 9/25/00 8:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <teSz5.390$7I4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in the
>womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster care.
>Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
>Jack Finucan
Ahhhhh, those little bastards have been faking it. The pony goes.
Susan
Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have
forgotten your aim.
-- George Santayana
SusanDyne
>From: ju...@nospam.interact.net.au (jurol)
>Date: 9/26/00 12:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39d0268c...@news.interact.net.au>
Okay, Jack Finucan, begin again.
DeannaBefore
"Jack Finucan" <jfin...@att.net> wrote in message
news:teSz5.390$7I4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents;
Hogwash. I'm plenty bonded with my aparents. My amom and I can even
"sense" each other. i.e.-I get out of the shower because I feel like she's
going to call, and she does; she knows when I'm sick and calls to see how I
feel (and we live very far apart).
> bonding occurs in the
> womb.
Not all of it.
--
Peace freedom & justice
Deanna
DeannaBefore
"rkbose" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:39CF0048...@pacific.net.sg...
> Perhaps it means that children bond with their mothers but are attached
> to their fathers?
>
> Rupa
Good job, Rupa!
Palms2pines
>Ahhhhh, those little bastards have been faking it. The pony goes.
>
>Susan
LMAO!!!!!!
Kathy
>From: "Sherry" she...@proaxis.net
>Date: 9/25/00 9:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39d02090$1...@news.pacifier.com>
>
>Marla, are you a grateful bastard now? Good for you!! I am happy to know
>you have opened your heart up some!!
>Remember dear, treat me with respect and you will get respect in return.
You had better watch it. Marla is known to pee on people like you. THAT should
be enough respect for ya!
Kathy, bmom from '69.
>Sherry
LilMtnCbn
>From: kum...@aol.comNoWonky (Kathy)
>Date: 9/26/00 10:25 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000926122506...@ng-cv1.aol.com>
Actually, my farts are much more lethal and travel farther distances......;-)
Marla
2 Brothers + 2 Sons = LOTS of potty humor
The All-Powerful One
>From: susa...@aol.com (SusanDyne)
>Date: 9/26/00 9:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000926092622...@ng-fw1.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Adoption Wanted
>>From: "Jack Finucan" jfin...@att.net
>>Date: 9/25/00 8:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <teSz5.390$7I4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>
>>womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster care.
>>Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
>>Jack Finucan
>
But not the iMac - surely you wouldn't be THAT cruel!
LilMtnCbn
>From: ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful One)
>Date: 9/26/00 12:01 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000926140157...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
Damn! Do I have to give the Lexus back?
Marla
I'M GRATEFUL! I'M GRATEFUL! PLEASE JUST LET ME KEEP THE LEXUS!!!!
Henry W. Moritz
> Perhaps it means that children bond with their mothers but are attached
> to their fathers?
>
> Rupa
>
ooooooo! Checkmate.
Henry W. Moritz
Sherry wrote:
> I am attached to my dog,
Oh noooooooooo! Surgically?
<snipped cause I couldn't have any fun with it>
> A child becomes attached to a favorite toy or maybe a blanket. They become
> bonded to a parent.
This is course, achieved using Cookie Snot (which, I've discovered, is
kind of like duct tape, only crustier).
SusanDyne
>Message-id: <20000926140157...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Adoption Wanted
>>From: susa...@aol.com (SusanDyne)
>>Date: 9/26/00 9:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20000926092622...@ng-fw1.aol.com>
>>
>>>Subject: Re: Adoption Wanted
>>>From: "Jack Finucan" jfin...@att.net
>>>Date: 9/25/00 8:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <teSz5.390$7I4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>
>>>Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in the
>>>womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster care.
>>>Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
>>>Jack Finucan
>>
>>Ahhhhh, those little bastards have been faking it. The pony goes.
>
> But not the iMac - surely you wouldn't be THAT cruel!
>
Of course I can. I am AMOM. No bonding, no iMac. You know that it is just a
matter of time before we apeople show our true colors.
jurol
Good point Andy. I found with my older children (aged 3, 4, 5 and 10
at placement) that I was very aware of the developing bond between us
- as it was a decision on their part to accept me and allow a mutual
bond to grow. It was a profound privilege that they were willing to
put their trust in me and to allow themselves to be vulnerable again.
Julia
GR
>Become a foster parent. A few babies might come in and out of
>your care, but eventually, you will get one that can never be
>returned to their bio-parents. As the foster parents, you will
>be on the top of the list for adoption for that baby.
Oh don't be such an asshole, Walt. Fostering is fostering and you
can't go into it thinking you're going to scam someone else's baby
unless you are scum. It's temporary - it's supposed to be temporary
and if someone goes into it to snag a HWI then I hope Social Services
figures it out and they *never* get a kid. Children in care have it
tough enough without having to deal with fake-foster parents who have
big fucking agendas in their cookie jars.
>If you aren't picky over age, there are many older kids waiting
>to be adopted.
If you aren't "picky" over age?? Are you mentally unstable? Jesus
wept, Walt - this is loathesome.
GR
AdoptaDad
From: din...@pacbell.net (GR)
Date: 9/27/00 12:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <39d177a6....@news.pacbell.net>
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:23:07 -0400, Walt <Wa...@Early.com> wrote:
Walt wrote:
Become a foster parent. A few babies might come in and out of your care, but
eventually, you will get one that can never be returned to their bio-parents.
As the foster parents, you will be on the top of the list for adoption for that
baby.
GR replied:
Oh don't be such an asshole, Walt. Fostering is fostering and you can't go
into it thinking you're going to scam someone else's baby unless you are scum.
It's temporary - it's supposed to be temporary and if someone goes into it to
snag a HWI then I hope Social Services figures it out and they *never* get a
kid. Children in care have it tough enough without having to deal with
fake-foster parents who have big fucking agendas in their cookie jars.
May I assume that you don't think much of foster-to-adopt programs?
Walt:
If you aren't picky over age, there are many older kids waiting to be adopted.
GR:
If you aren't "picky" over age?? Are you mentally unstable? Jesus
wept, Walt - this is loathesome.
Mentally unstable? Geez, GR. What is so loathesome about the above
comment? Please enlighten me.
Dad
The All-Powerful One
>From: susa...@aol.com (SusanDyne)
>Date: 9/26/00 3:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000926153603...@ng-fu1.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Adoption Wanted
>>From: ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful One)
>>Date: 9/26/00 2:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20000926140157...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
>>
>>>From: susa...@aol.com (SusanDyne)
>>>Date: 9/26/00 9:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <20000926092622...@ng-fw1.aol.com>
>>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Adoption Wanted
>>>>From: "Jack Finucan" jfin...@att.net
>>>>Date: 9/25/00 8:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: <teSz5.390$7I4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>>
>the
>>>>womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster
>care.
>>>>Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
>>>>Jack Finucan
>>>
>>
>> But not the iMac - surely you wouldn't be THAT cruel!
>>
>
>Of course I can. I am AMOM. No bonding, no iMac.
Oh I forgot, the iMac was just another bribe to buy their affection.
You know that it is just a
>matter of time before we apeople show our true colors.
Of course, I keep forgetting.
Jackie C
<mcle...@spammenotsprint.ca> wrote:
>
>"Jack Finucan" <jfin...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:teSz5.390$7I4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents;
>
>Hogwash. I'm plenty bonded with my aparents. My amom and I can even
>"sense" each other. i.e.-I get out of the shower because I feel like she's
>going to call, and she does; she knows when I'm sick and calls to see how I
>feel (and we live very far apart).
What magical thinking this man.. Jack Finucan expresses.
Heck I bond with the persons I love..
Love being the key word..
>> bonding occurs in the
>> womb.
>
>Not all of it.
And there is no rule that you can only bond with one person..
Jackie
AdoptaDad
Walt wrote:
Become a foster parent. A few babies might come in and out of your care, but
eventually, you will get one that can never be returned to their bio-parents.
As the foster parents, you will be on the top of the list for adoption for that
baby.
GR replied:
Oh don't be such an asshole, Walt. Fostering is fostering and you can't go
into it thinking you're going to scam someone else's baby unless you are scum.
It's temporary - it's supposed to be temporary and if someone goes into it to
snag a HWI then I hope Social Services figures it out and they *never* get a
kid. Children in care have it tough enough without having to deal with
fake-foster parents who have big fucking agendas in their cookie jars.
Looking for a HWI through the foster-to-adopt program is akin to
hunting moose in Central Park NYC. But what about older kids, GR? Do you
consider foster parents who have adopted older kids through the foster-to-adopt
program "fake-foster parents" as well? Their motivations are the same - only
the age of the child is different.
Admittedly, we did not become foster parents before we adopted older
children. And we only considered those foster children who were already
legally free for adoption - so I cannot claim any direct personal experience in
the foster-to-adopt program.
I'd love to hear from some foster parents regarding the potential
conflict of interest GR alluded to in her response to Walt. Henry? Andy?
Dad
http://www.calib.com/naic/pubs/s_foster.htm
Who are the children adopted from foster care?
36,000 children were adopted from the foster care system in 1998
Age of Children Adopted (from the public welfare system)
2% were under a year old
46% were 1-5 years old
37% were 6-10 years old
14% were 11-15 years old
2% were 16-18 years old
The Relationship of the Adoptive Parent(s)
***65% are adopted by former foster parents***
15% by relatives
20% by people unrelated to them
<1% by step-parents
AndyM9981
potential
conflict of interest GR alluded to in her response to Walt. Henry? Andy? >>
I've never fostered, only adopted waiting kids, but I do see a potential
conflict of interest. The primary goal of a foster parent should be family
reuinification, if at all possible. In the least, they should accept that in
most cases, the child is returned to the birth parent. A foster parent who
accepts this can actually play a role in helping birth parents (I know one
foster mom who is still friends with bmoms she has helped). A foster parent who
is out to get a baby may feel pitted against the birth parents. This cannot
help the kids. Andy
rkbose
I used to get posts neatly broken up, with the attribution lines shown
as italics, and starting with little sideways V marks...
Now, the quoted material and the new material look identical. It's
difficult to tell where the quoted stuff ends and the response begins.
The problem started with Playroy, now it's Adoptadad's posts. Or is it
*my* computer that is the problem?
Rupa
AdoptaDad wrote:
>
> AndyM wrote:
> I've never fostered, only adopted waiting kids, but I do see a potential
> conflict of interest. The primary goal of a foster parent should be family
> reuinification, if at all possible. In the least, they should accept that in
> most cases, the child is returned to the birth parent. A foster parent who
> accepts this can actually play a role in helping birth parents (I know one
> foster mom who is still friends with bmoms she has helped). A foster parent who
> is out to get a baby may feel pitted against the birth parents. This cannot
> help the kids.
<snip>
>
> I know that some foster families *specialize* - meaning that some
> foster homes only accept foster kids under (or over) a certain age. Or they
> limit themselves to children within a certain range of physical and/or
> emotional disabilities. Should foster-to-adopt parents limit themselves to
> only those children whose casegoal is no longer reunification?
>
> The goal of foster-to-adopt programs is obvious - but the concept is
> hardly new. +/- 24,000 foster children were adopted by their foster families
> in 1998. I'm just curious if DSS treats a foster-to-adoptive parents any
> differently than foster parents who profess no desire to adopt.
>
> Dad
rkbose
a sort of an 'engagement' during which a child and a family would try
each other out. I think they usually had older kids in it, and adoption
was not explicit goal, but a possibility. And then they had some kids
going in to that program that had unclear case goals, I suppose so that
if it shifted to adoption, and if the kid and family had bonded, it
would be the smoothest possible transition.
I think also that fost-adopt programs were seen as a way of providing
longer term foster care.
I had a friend whose kid was in and out of the system several times. It
provided the basic care necessary for him, but I don't think he ended up
with a good childhood. Wonder where he is now...I lost touch with my
friend.
Rupa
AndyM9981 wrote:
>
> Dad wrote: << I'm just curious if DSS treats a foster-to-adoptive parents any
> differently than foster parents who profess no desire to adopt. >>
>
> This is interesting to me, as our state strongly discourages parents from
> fostering if they really want to adopt.
That Damn Boo Kid
> Looking for a HWI through the foster-to-adopt program is akin to
hunting moose in Central Park NYC. But what about older kids, GR? Do you
consider foster parents who have adopted older kids through the
foster-to-adopt program "fake-foster parents" as well? Their motivations are
the same - only
the age of the child is different.>
<snip>
> I'd love to hear from some foster parents regarding the potential
conflict of interest GR alluded to in her response to Walt. Henry? Andy?>
In my state there are two programs -- fostering and foster-to-adopt. While
similar in many respects, they still have important differences in terms of
how the foster parents are trained and which children will be placed with them.
The "fostering" program is for people who are caring for kids whose parents
rights have not been terminated and whose case goal is reunification. The
"foster-to-adopt" program is for people who are interested in adopting a child
from the foster-care system, and the children who are placed in these families
are generally free for adoption already or going to be free for adoption in the
future, though I'm told 'reunification' kids are also placed in these homes due
to space constraints.
Basically, both types are licensed as foster homes, but the foster-to-adopt
families have extra training allegedly related to adoption though it's mostly
geared towards the legal process and pretty light on other adoption issues. As
for getting a HWI by this method -- I've personally seen it happen but if your
heart is set on a piece of grade-a cornfed whitemeat it's probably not the way
to go.
Knifchick
Con te patiro
su navi per mari
che io lo so
no, no, non esistono piu
con te io li vivro
AdoptaDad
I've never fostered, only adopted waiting kids, but I do see a potential
conflict of interest. The primary goal of a foster parent should be family
reuinification, if at all possible. In the least, they should accept that in
most cases, the child is returned to the birth parent. A foster parent who
accepts this can actually play a role in helping birth parents (I know one
foster mom who is still friends with bmoms she has helped). A foster parent who
is out to get a baby may feel pitted against the birth parents. This cannot
help the kids.
I can see the *potential* for a conflict of interest. It wouldn't be
right for foster parents to somehow undermine a child's casegoal of
reunification because they wanted to adopt their foster child.
At the same time, almost 2/3rds of foster children are adopted by
their foster families - which, in my opinion, is mostly a good thing for the
kids. That's one less disruption of a child's life - especially if they've
attached to their foster family. And I would imagine the chances of disruption
are less than a *stranger adoption* (like mine) because there are fewer
unknowns.
I know that some foster families *specialize* - meaning that some
foster homes only accept foster kids under (or over) a certain age. Or they
limit themselves to children within a certain range of physical and/or
emotional disabilities. Should foster-to-adopt parents limit themselves to
only those children whose casegoal is no longer reunification?
The goal of foster-to-adopt programs is obvious - but the concept is
hardly new. +/- 24,000 foster children were adopted by their foster families
in 1998. I'm just curious if DSS treats a foster-to-adoptive parents any
differently than foster parents who profess no desire to adopt.
Dad
Sydney2269
>From: andy...@aol.com (AndyM9981)
>Date: 9/27/00 3:32 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000927163225...@ng-cr1.aol.com>
>
>I've never fostered, only adopted waiting kids, but I do see a potential
>conflict of interest. The primary goal of a foster parent should be family
>reuinification, if at all possible. In the least, they should accept that in
>most cases, the child is returned to the birth parent. A foster parent who
>accepts this can actually play a role in helping birth parents (I know one
>foster mom who is still friends with bmoms she has helped). A foster parent
>who
>is out to get a baby may feel pitted against the birth parents. This cannot
>help the kids. Andy
>
>
>
Andy, this is exactly right. One of a foster parent's most valuable skills is,
or should be, an ability to assist parents who are working to regain their
children. With a bit of effort, foster parents can establish a much less
adversarial relationship with the parents than CPS can ever achieve. But for
people who go into foster care hoping or planning to adopt, the incentive to do
so can be lacking. Not necessarily IS, but CAN BE, just wanted to be clear on
that.
Anne
Kathy
>From: andy...@aol.com (AndyM9981)
>Date: 9/27/00 1:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20000927163225...@ng-cr1.aol.com>
>Dad wrote: << I'd love to hear from some foster parents regarding the
>potential
>conflict of interest GR alluded to in her response to Walt. Henry? Andy? >>
>I've never fostered, only adopted waiting kids, but I do see a potential
>conflict of interest. The primary goal of a foster parent should be family
>reuinification, if at all possible.
Well said.
From my limited experience online when reading the boards from *some folks* who
have fostered or who are waiting forever to become adoptive parents via foser
care,....they don't see it like you and I, Andy. This disturbs me because I
truly think that this is what fostering was meant, is meant to
be...reunification, a second chance for bio families to get their act together.
Before the zealots jump my ass....don't even try yelling at those of us who see
this as the purest reason for the term foster care...and for those who cannot
resist on taking their anger out on those like me who did not design the
system, .......
YOU don't like the timeframe they have to get it together, go yell about
it....AT least until that time, I am for reunification of bio kids with their
parents, if possible, because I think some parents deserve a second chance, and
I surely KNOW their kids deserve their parents have this chance to be with
their parents, sisters and brothers.....Lets face it folks, there are not
enough families willing to take the kidlets who wish their families would get
it together.
I know it is sad, but for those kids whose parents need help, (temporary help),
foster care is a Godsend for children who do in fact deserve a better slice of
life, imo.
BUT I also KNOW foster care for kids whose parents are forever idiots is a good
thing, and I truly wish for those kids they had a better family 'yesterday'.
Kathy, "Kujomom" reunited '69,
Henry W. Moritz
>
>
> Walt wrote:
> Become a foster parent. A few babies might come in and out of your care, but
> eventually, you will get one that can never be returned to their bio-parents.
> As the foster parents, you will be on the top of the list for adoption for that
> baby.
>
> GR replied:
> Oh don't be such an asshole, Walt. Fostering is fostering and you can't go
> into it thinking you're going to scam someone else's baby unless you are scum.
> It's temporary - it's supposed to be temporary and if someone goes into it to
> snag a HWI then I hope Social Services figures it out and they *never* get a
> kid. Children in care have it tough enough without having to deal with
> fake-foster parents who have big fucking agendas in their cookie jars.
>
>
> Looking for a HWI through the foster-to-adopt program is akin to
> hunting moose in Central Park NYC. But what about older kids, GR? Do you
> consider foster parents who have adopted older kids through the foster-to-adopt
> program "fake-foster parents" as well? Their motivations are the same - only
> the age of the child is different.
>
> Admittedly, we did not become foster parents before we adopted older
> children. And we only considered those foster children who were already
> legally free for adoption - so I cannot claim any direct personal experience in
> the foster-to-adopt program.
>
> I'd love to hear from some foster parents regarding the potential
> conflict of interest GR alluded to in her response to Walt. Henry? Andy?
>
The goals are individual in nature of course, but usually the goal is
reunification. The way I see it, if a foster parent isn't going to be a
honest team player and play the role needed, then they shouldn't be a
foster parent. In fost-adopt, I think there are situations where it's
perfectly fine to hope or even plan to adopt a child. And, if
reunification becomes hopeless, then I think it's wise to have a stable
foster family ready to adopt the kids instead of shuttling the kids to
yet another family for adoption.
So I disagree with GR to some extent, but I understand her point of
view. I think GR must be narrowly focusing on situations where
reunification is still an option and definitely the goal for the family
(this is the goal in the vast majority of incidents, BTW). In those
cases, it's obvious that it wouldn't be proper for a foster parent to be
surreptitiously attempting to block or thwart reunification. However, I
have to agree with Jay that one is probably not going to "snag" a HWI
through fost-adopt, regardless of one's intentions.
AdoptaDad
This is OT, but is there something with AOL's software all of a sudden?
I used to get posts neatly broken up, with the attribution lines shown
as italics, and starting with little sideways V marks...
Now, the quoted material and the new material look identical. It's
difficult to tell where the quoted stuff ends and the response begins.
The problem started with Playroy, now it's Adoptadad's posts. Or is it
*my* computer that is the problem?
It's not your computer. <g>
I admit to my own anal retentive style of attribution - I "clean up"
my posts, so to speak. But if they're starting to resemble Roy's in any way,
I'll give another style some serious consideration.
Dad
AndyM9981
differently than foster parents who profess no desire to adopt. >>
This is interesting to me, as our state strongly discourages parents from
fostering if they really want to adopt. In that case, they are sent over to
adoptions, where there are plenty of waiting children available. Given the high
number of waiting children, it seems backwards to encourage a parent to foster
(as the original post did) in order to adopt.
The only possible reason I can see is the pap doesn't want the kids already
available and thinks they can score a high demand white infant, and the chance
of that happening are slim. I can, however, see the merit in legal risk
placements. To me that is not fostering as much as high risk adoptions. Andy
Mary Hunt
AndyM9981 <andy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000928001619...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
>
> This is interesting to me, as our state strongly discourages parents from
> fostering if they really want to adopt. In that case, they are sent over
to
> adoptions, where there are plenty of waiting children available. Given the
high
> number of waiting children, it seems backwards to encourage a parent to
foster
> (as the original post did) in order to adopt.
This could be because the vast majority of children who are needing
fostering are not also available to adopt. The numbers that were given at
the CCOA banquet on Tuesday were 440,000 children in the foster care
system - of those, 110,000 actually available for adoption. One of the
prevalent themes of foster care right now is family reunification. IOW,
parents aren't having their rights terminated, so the kids can't be adopted.
And they don't want to give a family too much hope that they might be able
to adopt the kids who they're fostering. Kids placed in foster care don't
typically stay with the same family for more than a short period of time, to
avoid them making strong attachments, in the event that they are eventually
reunified with the family of birth. The severe downside is that the older
they get, the more "unadoptable" they become if the parents' rights *are*
terminated.
Mary
Henry W. Moritz
> Kids placed in foster care don't
> typically stay with the same family for more than a short period of time, to
> avoid them making strong attachments,
Henry:
At least in our neck of the woods, this misguided thinking is changing.
Strong attachments and stability are encouraged and the hope is to avoid
having the child make as few transitions as possible.
Mary Hunt again:
Henry W. Moritz
> Henry ,not paying attention, really meant to say:
> At least in our neck of the woods, this misguided thinking is changing.
> Strong attachments and stability are encouraged and the hope is to have
> foster children make as few transitions as possible.
Jmmbear
writes:
>
>Now, the quoted material and the new material look identical. It's
>difficult to tell where the quoted stuff ends and the response begins.
>The problem started with Playroy, now it's Adoptadad's posts. Or is it
>*my* computer that is the problem?
>
>Rupa
>
>
Rupa check in newsgroups to see if your preferences have been altered. You
should have internet style quoting, if not it has been altered.
Good luck. Someone else mentioned a problem this morning with preferences, but
in that case it was threading. I noticed i could not access keyword newsgroups
this morning, so maybe aol is having a problem.
Jeanne
rkbose
Thanks, Jeanne...everyone else's posts still look the same, so I think
it's just something that Adad was doing to his posts.
Yours, for instance, looks fine, even though they're from AOL. (Unless
it's different versions of AOL, or something to do with the browser.)
Rupa
AndyM9981
programs as
a sort of an 'engagement' during which a child and a family would try
each other out. I think they usually had older kids in it, and adoption
was not explicit goal, but a possibility. And then they had some kids
going in to that program that had unclear case goals, I suppose so that
if it shifted to adoption, >>
I was curious about this, so I called an adoption worker friend today and asked
if our state did foster-adopt. He said that they had tried it with terrible
results. The foster/adoptive parents couldn't let go of the children if it was
to be returned, they wouldn't adhere to case plans as far as visits with birth
moms, in some cases they even tried to spirit the child away.
IMO, it is crazy to set parents up for high risk adoptions when they are so
many legally free children in the system. I should add over a fourth of the
children my state places are under three, so age is not a concern. Any parent
who wants a toddler can get one in my state, legally free....and quite fast,
too.
I think the other problem with this concept is it assumes foster care is always
bad. I have known many cases where a child entered foster care essentially
"unadoptable," because of severe behavioral problems, attacking the parents,
hiding food, even eating their own feces. After a year or more with trained
foster parents these kids healed dramatically, and gone on successfully to
adoptive homes. Foster care can be used as a time to evaluate children, to get
them therapy; to see if they are FAS or have other problems. Sometimes foster
care is good.
<< I think also that fost-adopt programs were seen as a way of providing
longer term foster care.
>>
We do have this: it is called permanent foster care. It is a lifesaver for kids
who are too old to be adopted or chose not to (as some teens do). Some private
agencies also fund parents to become permanent foster parents, hopefully a
relationship that doesn't end with the kid turning eighteen. Andy
GR
>Subject: Re: Adoption Wanted
>From: din...@pacbell.net (GR)
>Date: 9/27/00 12:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39d177a6....@news.pacbell.net>
>
>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:23:07 -0400, Walt <Wa...@Early.com> wrote:
>
>Walt wrote:
>Become a foster parent. A few babies might come in and out of your care, but
>eventually, you will get one that can never be returned to their bio-parents.
>As the foster parents, you will be on the top of the list for adoption for that
>baby.
>
>GR replied:
>Oh don't be such an asshole, Walt. Fostering is fostering and you can't go
>into it thinking you're going to scam someone else's baby unless you are scum.
>It's temporary - it's supposed to be temporary and if someone goes into it to
>snag a HWI then I hope Social Services figures it out and they *never* get a
>kid. Children in care have it tough enough without having to deal with
>fake-foster parents who have big fucking agendas in their cookie jars.
>
> May I assume that you don't think much of foster-to-adopt programs?
I'm not sure what they are, really, but I'll clarify if that helps you
out.
I don't have a problem with kids in care eventually being adopted as
long as there aren't any shenanigans to snag kids who are simply in
foster care as a temporary measure. If there's a TPR and the kids
truly need adoptive homes - they should get them, and quickly.
Otherwise, don't muddy already muddied emotional waters by being some
kind of "candidate" for permanent parenthood when, as a foster parent,
you're supposed to be about being a safe, *temporary* place for a kid
to stay while whatever family issues are going on get worked out and
the family is reunified.
It's the scam part that bugs me. A couple wants to adopt a baby -
they have concerns about how long it takes, how much it costs or
whatever - they want to be adoptive parents *not* foster parents at
all, so Walt advises:
>Become a foster parent. A few babies might come in and out of your care, but
>eventually, you will get one that can never be returned to their bio-parents.
>As the foster parents, you will be on the top of the list for adoption for that
>baby.
What the fuck? It's goofy counsel like this that leads to those ugly,
endless, taffy-pulling legal contests over babies with the obligatory
freak-shows all around.
>Walt:
>If you aren't picky over age, there are many older kids waiting to be adopted.
>
>
>GR:
>If you aren't "picky" over age?? Are you mentally unstable? Jesus
>wept, Walt - this is loathesome.
>
> Mentally unstable? Geez, GR. What is so loathesome about the above
>comment? Please enlighten me.
"Picky," or rather an option being worth consideration only if there
is a lack of "pickiness" on someone's part, implies that there is
something less than choice in adopting older children. a) That's a
lie; and b) It's mean. So, imo, lying + mean = loathesome.
I dunno - I don't really know Walt. Maybe he was being sarcastic and
I'm too lame to see it but the whole thing struck me as pretty fucked
up.
GR
GR
>
>
>Walt wrote:
>Become a foster parent. A few babies might come in and out of your care, but
>eventually, you will get one that can never be returned to their bio-parents.
>As the foster parents, you will be on the top of the list for adoption for that
>baby.
>
>GR replied:
>Oh don't be such an asshole, Walt. Fostering is fostering and you can't go
>into it thinking you're going to scam someone else's baby unless you are scum.
>It's temporary - it's supposed to be temporary and if someone goes into it to
>snag a HWI then I hope Social Services figures it out and they *never* get a
>kid. Children in care have it tough enough without having to deal with
>fake-foster parents who have big fucking agendas in their cookie jars.
>
>
> Looking for a HWI through the foster-to-adopt program is akin to
>hunting moose in Central Park NYC.
Isn't Rudy going to re-stock the Moose population? I could have
sworn he said he would!
> But what about older kids, GR? Do you
>consider foster parents who have adopted older kids through the foster-to-adopt
>program "fake-foster parents" as well? Their motivations are the same - only
>the age of the child is different.
I don't know. I tried to clarify where I'm coming from on this issue
in a prior reply to much the same question. I'm waiting for someone
to define foster to adopt. I'm not sure what that term means,
exactly.
> Admittedly, we did not become foster parents before we adopted older
>children. And we only considered those foster children who were already
>legally free for adoption - so I cannot claim any direct personal experience in
>the foster-to-adopt program.
It seems as if you made sound ethical choices.
(And please don't anyone drag out poor abused children being let down
by the neglectful foster care system and falling through the cracks
when there should have been a TPR ages ago. I know it's a problem
just like everyone else does. That's not what I'm addressing.)
> I'd love to hear from some foster parents regarding the potential
>conflict of interest GR alluded to in her response to Walt. Henry? Andy?
>
>Dad
>
>http://www.calib.com/naic/pubs/s_foster.htm
>
>Who are the children adopted from foster care?
> 36,000 children were adopted from the foster care system in 1998
>
>Age of Children Adopted (from the public welfare system)
> 2% were under a year old
> 46% were 1-5 years old
> 37% were 6-10 years old
> 14% were 11-15 years old
> 2% were 16-18 years old
>
>The Relationship of the Adoptive Parent(s)
> ***65% are adopted by former foster parents***
> 15% by relatives
> 20% by people unrelated to them
> <1% by step-parents
Huh. Is that by "their" former foster parents? I understand that
some adoptive parents do some foster parenting first but it wasn't my
understanding that a huge number of them went on to adopt the kids
they fostered. Interesting.
GR
GR
Kid) wrote:
<snip - lovely and informative post about foster-to-adopt>
> As
>for getting a HWI by this method -- I've personally seen it happen but if your
>heart is set on a piece of grade-a cornfed whitemeat it's probably not the way
>to go.
Cornfed? Wouldn't that only be older kids? I mean, how old do the
little tykes have to be before you sling an ear of corn on their
plates, slather it with butter and hand them the salt?
<g> (apo)
GR
GR
<hwmoritz@_home_.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The goals are individual in nature of course, but usually the goal is
>reunification. The way I see it, if a foster parent isn't going to be a
>honest team player and play the role needed, then they shouldn't be a
>foster parent. In fost-adopt, I think there are situations where it's
>perfectly fine to hope or even plan to adopt a child. And, if
>reunification becomes hopeless, then I think it's wise to have a stable
>foster family ready to adopt the kids instead of shuttling the kids to
>yet another family for adoption.
I don't have an issue with less shuttling, it sounds good to me. The
precipitous planning to adopt is kinda wacked.
>So I disagree with GR to some extent, but I understand her point of
>view. I think GR must be narrowly focusing on situations where
>reunification is still an option and definitely the goal for the family
>(this is the goal in the vast majority of incidents, BTW).
Wait a sec! If it's the goal in the vast majority of situations, how
does my focus become defined as narrow?
>In those
>cases, it's obvious that it wouldn't be proper for a foster parent to be
>surreptitiously attempting to block or thwart reunification. However, I
>have to agree with Jay that one is probably not going to "snag" a HWI
>through fost-adopt, regardless of one's intentions.
Yep - no hwi's, no moose. It's a sorry world we live in...
GR
J alone
writes:
Corn meal mush works at an earlier age and is readily shared by the herd, isn't
it Boo? Through the use of modern farrowing methods, you can bring them to
market weight in no time, increasing both profit and customer satisfaction.
J.
"No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of
*deserving*, of *earning*, and you will begin to be able to think."
Odo, The Prison Letters (Ursula LeGuin, _The Dispossessed_)
rkbose
GR wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:51:33 +0800, rkbose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg>
> wrote:
>
> >If I recall correctly, in California they used foster-adopt programs as
> >a sort of an 'engagement' during which a child and a family would try
> >each other out. I think they usually had older kids in it, and adoption
> >was not explicit goal, but a possibility. And then they had some kids
> >going in to that program that had unclear case goals, I suppose so that
> >if it shifted to adoption, and if the kid and family had bonded, it
> >would be the smoothest possible transition.
>
> Kind of makes me uncomfortable, but I can't think of a more
> intelligent alternative for kids who are awaiting a TPR. Still -
> adoption should not really be in the picture until after a TPR takes
> place, if it does.
True. But TPRs take years, and if a kid shifts homes every few years (or
even every few months, in some cases), it's pretty devastating. I'd
really like a system where one set of fosters is identified as the
child's 'alternate guardians' or something, so that if the kid is not
with its original family, it's with that one. As it is -- and this is
what happened to my friend's son -- it goes something like this:
Child is removed, goes into emergency care, wherever there's space that
night. In a few days, he's moved to another home. A few weeks later, his
mother, now on meds, is deemed fit and he goes back to her. Then, in a
few months, there's another problem, another removal, and he repeats the
cycle, with two different foster homes from the ones he was in
before...and so on.
If he could at least have always gone back to the same foster family, it
would have helped a lot.
Rupa
Henry W. Moritz
>
> >So I disagree with GR to some extent, but I understand her point of
> >view. I think GR must be narrowly focusing on situations where
> >reunification is still an option and definitely the goal for the family
> >(this is the goal in the vast majority of incidents, BTW).
>
> Wait a sec! If it's the goal in the vast majority of situations, how
> does my focus become defined as narrow?
Narrow relative to the possible reasons a child might be in foster care,
not relevant to the number of children in foster care. There are many
possible reasons that reunification may not be possible for some children
that are in foster care.
GR
>On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:48:01 +0800, rkbose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg>
>wrote:
>
>>Jmmbear wrote:
>
>>> Rupa check in newsgroups to see if your preferences have been altered. You
>>> should have internet style quoting, if not it has been altered.
>>> Good luck. Someone else mentioned a problem this morning with preferences, but
>>> in that case it was threading. I noticed i could not access keyword newsgroups
>>> this morning, so maybe aol is having a problem.
>>> Jeanne
>>
>>Thanks, Jeanne...everyone else's posts still look the same, so I think
>>it's just something that Adad was doing to his posts.
>>Yours, for instance, looks fine, even though they're from AOL. (Unless
>>it's different versions of AOL, or something to do with the browser.)
>
>I've always had trouble with ADad's posts. The only way I can
>determine what he's writing is that it's indented. I thought it was
>him; now I'm wondering if there has been something wrong with my
>software all along. Yikes!
Nope, his posts have always looked exactly as you describe to me and
I've used two different newsreaders and two different browsers since
I've been here. No change from Netscape to News Agent.
I still always know it's him though, there is, as you say, that indent
thing. <g>
GR
GR
wrote:
>If I recall correctly, in California they used foster-adopt programs as
>a sort of an 'engagement' during which a child and a family would try
>each other out. I think they usually had older kids in it, and adoption
>was not explicit goal, but a possibility. And then they had some kids
>going in to that program that had unclear case goals, I suppose so that
>if it shifted to adoption, and if the kid and family had bonded, it
>would be the smoothest possible transition.
Kind of makes me uncomfortable, but I can't think of a more
intelligent alternative for kids who are awaiting a TPR. Still -
adoption should not really be in the picture until after a TPR takes
place, if it does.
>I think also that fost-adopt programs were seen as a way of providing
>longer term foster care.
>
>I had a friend whose kid was in and out of the system several times. It
>provided the basic care necessary for him, but I don't think he ended up
>with a good childhood. Wonder where he is now...I lost touch with my
>friend.
I can't imagine it's much of a life for a kid.
GR
GR
wrote:
>
>
>GR wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:51:33 +0800, rkbose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If I recall correctly, in California they used foster-adopt programs as
>> >a sort of an 'engagement' during which a child and a family would try
>> >each other out. I think they usually had older kids in it, and adoption
>> >was not explicit goal, but a possibility. And then they had some kids
>> >going in to that program that had unclear case goals, I suppose so that
>> >if it shifted to adoption, and if the kid and family had bonded, it
>> >would be the smoothest possible transition.
>>
>> Kind of makes me uncomfortable, but I can't think of a more
>> intelligent alternative for kids who are awaiting a TPR. Still -
>> adoption should not really be in the picture until after a TPR takes
>> place, if it does.
>
>True. But TPRs take years, and if a kid shifts homes every few years (or
>even every few months, in some cases), it's pretty devastating. I'd
>really like a system where one set of fosters is identified as the
>child's 'alternate guardians' or something, so that if the kid is not
>with its original family, it's with that one. As it is -- and this is
>what happened to my friend's son -- it goes something like this:
>
>Child is removed, goes into emergency care, wherever there's space that
>night. In a few days, he's moved to another home. A few weeks later, his
>mother, now on meds, is deemed fit and he goes back to her. Then, in a
>few months, there's another problem, another removal, and he repeats the
>cycle, with two different foster homes from the ones he was in
>before...and so on.
>
>If he could at least have always gone back to the same foster family, it
>would have helped a lot.
That seems reasonable.
GR
DangerGirl
Jack Finucan <jfin...@att.net> wrote in message
news:teSz5.390$7I4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in
the
> womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster
care.
> Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
> Jack Finucan
That has to be the most ridiculous statement I have seen anyone make yet. So
in other words you never "bonded" with your father because he hasnt a womb?
I was adopted when I was a week old, I "bonded" with the mother that
nurtured me, loved me, took care of me when I was sick, held me when my
heart was broken. I "bonded" with my father that gave me love, strength and
always put his family before anything else. I also "bonded" with my brother.
How can you possibly feel I can "bond" with a person I have never met in my
life?
DangerGirl
>
> "Sherry" <she...@proaxis.net> wrote in message
> news:39cfb...@news.pacifier.com...
> > I have never thought about adopting an older child. I adopted my
daughter
> > at 3 months old. How different is the bonding when adopting a 5-6 yr
old?
> >
> >
> > "AdoptaDad" <adop...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000925162202...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> > > Subject: Re: Adoption Wanted
> > > From: Walt Wa...@Early.com
> > > Date: 9/25/00 9:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> > > Message-id: <39CF7BEB...@Early.com>
> > >
> > > Become a foster parent. A few babies might come in and out of your
> care,
> > but
> > > eventually, you will get one that can never be returned to their
> > bio-parents.
> > > As the foster parents, you will be on the top of the list for adoption
> for
> > that
> > > baby.
> > >
> > > If you aren't picky over age, there are many older kids waiting
> > > to be adopted.
> > >
> > >
> > > Good suggestion, Walt. However, you CAN be picky about age
> and
> > still
> > > adopt a waiting child. Ages 5 to 6 is a wonderful age to adopt a
> child -
> > > especially for a two-parent working couple. <g>
> > >
> > > Dad
> >
> >
>
>
DeannaBefore
"DangerGirl" <dange...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:WCBB5.4469$24.17...@news0.telusplanet.net...
>
> Jack Finucan <jfin...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:teSz5.390$7I4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in
> the
> > womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster
> care.
> > Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
> > Jack Finucan
>
> That has to be the most ridiculous statement I have seen anyone make yet.
Yup.
> So
> in other words you never "bonded" with your father because he hasnt a
womb?
Exactly. Rupa put this very succinctly, yet no response.
> I was adopted when I was a week old,
2.5 months here.
> I "bonded" with the mother that
> nurtured me, loved me, took care of me when I was sick, held me when my
> heart was broken.
Exactly, again. And this is precisely why you bonded. Nothing to do with
shared cells.
> I "bonded" with my father that gave me love, strength and
> always put his family before anything else. I also "bonded" with my
brother.
> How can you possibly feel I can "bond" with a person I have never met in
my
> life?
Whoo hoo! You are an excellent newbie, my friend! Cheers!
--
Peace freedom & justice
Deanna
K Workman
>
>Jack Finucan <jfin...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:teSz5.390$7I4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in
>the womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster
>care. Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
>> Jack Finucan
>
>That has to be the most ridiculous statement I have seen anyone make yet. So
>in other words you never "bonded" with your father because he hasnt a womb?
>I was adopted when I was a week old, I "bonded" with the mother that
>nurtured me, loved me, took care of me when I was sick, held me when my
>heart was broken. I "bonded" with my father that gave me love, strength and
>always put his family before anything else. I also "bonded" with my brother.
>How can you possibly feel I can "bond" with a person I have never met in my
>life?
Isn't that a bit ridiculous? You think you've never met your bmom? Do you
also believe that she never met you?
Kate Workman
If you're going to email me: KHWor...@aol.com
DeannaBefore
"K Workman" <rwor...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:39d74e94...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I'm not Kristen, but I'll wade in here. I think my bmom met me, but I would
not consider myself to have met her. I have no recollection of her
whatsoever, ergo we've never met.
K Workman
<mcle...@spammenotsprint.ca> wrote:
>I'm not Kristen, but I'll wade in here. I think my bmom met me, but I would
>not consider myself to have met her. I have no recollection of her
>whatsoever, ergo we've never met.
You may have no recollection - that doesn't mean you've never met.
DangerGirl
Well who's to say I actually even saw her? Were you in the room when she
gave birth to me? Not all mom's actually even look at the babies they give
birth too, sad but a fact. Not to mention my degree of visual perception at
being first born is very poor so for all I knew I could have been looking at
a chair. Perhaps she did look at me but sadly I have no recollection of this
event, and no "bond" accured. I have no bond with my biological mom, I have
curiosity but no bond. I have never spoken to her (Perhaps that is a better
choice of words then "met" her?). The people in my life that I have "bonded"
with are the ones I have built strong emotional ties to. I am afraid a 5
minute look in a delivery room just wasnt enough to equate a 'bond'.
DangerGirl
RiverWild1970
>event, and no "bond" accured. I have no bond with my biological mom, I have
>curiosity but no bond.
Danger, I never thought I felt "bonded" to my birthmother prior to reunion
either. Once I heard her voice and met her I felt much differently. You might
feel differently after a meeting.
SusanDyne
>From: rwor...@adelphia.net (K Workman)
>Date: 10/1/00 3:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39d78c03...@news1.news.adelphia.net>
>
>On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:41:29 -0700, "DeannaBefore"
><mcle...@spammenotsprint.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not Kristen, but I'll wade in here. I think my bmom met me, but I would
>>not consider myself to have met her. I have no recollection of her
>>whatsoever, ergo we've never met.
>
>You may have no recollection - that doesn't mean you've never met.
>
>
>Kate Workman
And if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it
make a sound.
This is going to be a long thread...I can tell<g>
Susan
Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have
forgotten your aim.
-- George Santayana
Kathy
>From: susa...@aol.com (SusanDyne)
>Date: 10/1/00 12:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20001001155137...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Adoption Wanted
>>From: rwor...@adelphia.net (K Workman)
>>Date: 10/1/00 3:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <39d78c03...@news1.news.adelphia.net>
>>
>>On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:41:29 -0700, "DeannaBefore"
>><mcle...@spammenotsprint.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm not Kristen, but I'll wade in here. I think my bmom met me, but I
>would
>>>not consider myself to have met her. I have no recollection of her
>>>whatsoever, ergo we've never met.
>>
>>You may have no recollection - that doesn't mean you've never met.
>>
>>
>>Kate Workman
>
>And if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does
>it
>make a sound.
>
>This is going to be a long thread...I can tell<g>
Well then, let's give them something to talk about...;) I don't think my bson
knew me before 10-17-97. How's that for starters? <g>
>Susan
Kathy
>From: "DangerGirl" dange...@usa.net
>Date: 10/1/00 12:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <yjMB5.4709$24.18...@news0.telusplanet.net>
I have heard some adoptees say they were definitely bonded inutero. Maybe they
were. Who's to say? I wish I could say my bson was bonded with me before we
reunited. But personally I feel we had more the phenomena of syncronicity going
for us. He wanted to be Irish. He is. In fact played the bagpipes for me the
first night of our reunion. I own english bulldogs. His only tats are of a
shamrock and a bulldog...
It's this sort of freaky stuff that gives us both the shivers. We are alot
alike in temperament, personality taboot, but I think I would blame it on
genetics more than a previous bond he had with me. He does however crave sweet
tarts. AND I ate them during the whole pregnancy. Primal wound, I'm not sold on
it, but then I don't say it isn't possible either.
>DangerGirl
Llis
>From: riverw...@aol.com (RiverWild1970)
>Date: 10/1/00 12:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20001001154852...@ng-ca1.aol.com>
I think we don't really understand/feel the impact of various things on our
lives and emotions until we have had the experience.
Having children, through whatever method is no doubt another one. And we grow
up in a society where people have children. (I know, DUH) The point is if we
can be surprised by the emotions that are elicited by a well known
phenomena..how much more we may be surprised by one that isn't that common.
Hearing my son's voice for the first time was definitely an ephipheny...one of
those moments when you know your life will be changed forever....in my case,
for the better.
Llis
Enjoy the Journey
DangerGirl
RiverWild1970 <riverw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001001154852...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> > I have no recollection of this
> >event, and no "bond" accured. I have no bond with my biological mom, I
have
> >curiosity but no bond.
>
> Danger, I never thought I felt "bonded" to my birthmother prior to reunion
> either. Once I heard her voice and met her I felt much differently. You
might
> feel differently after a meeting.
Oh I hope I will bond with her when I do meet her. Thats would be a
wonderful thing. :)
DangerGirl
K Workman
>>Subject: Re: Adoption Wanted
>>From: rwor...@adelphia.net (K Workman)
>>On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:41:29 -0700, "DeannaBefore"
>><mcle...@spammenotsprint.ca> wrote:
>>>I'm not Kristen, but I'll wade in here. I think my bmom met me, but I would
>>>not consider myself to have met her. I have no recollection of her
>>>whatsoever, ergo we've never met.
>>
>>You may have no recollection - that doesn't mean you've never met.
>And if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it
>make a sound.
>
>This is going to be a long thread...I can tell<g>
Well, it's patently absurd to say that a mother and her child have never met.
Even in Bizarro Adoption World.
K Workman
>Well then, let's give them something to talk about...;) I don't think my bson
>knew me before 10-17-97. How's that for starters? <g>
There's a world of difference between "meeting" someone and "knowing" someone.
K Workman
>K Workman <rwor...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:39d74e94...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> Isn't that a bit ridiculous? You think you've never met your bmom? Do
>you also believe that she never met you?
>
>Well who's to say I actually even saw her?
Let's see... if you were blind, would you say that you've never met your
aparents? You don't need to SEE your bmom to qualify as having "met" her...
you were inside her for the better part of 9 months, hearing what she heard,
eating what she ate, feeling what she felt, etc. Of course you've "met" her.
This is gonna be one of those stupid discussions that would be dismissed
without a second thought in the Real World. Sometimes I forget where I am.
I don't know if I can be bothered fending off adoptees who have a vested
interest in defending patently absurd stances. I'm damned tired of it. It's
absolute bullshit.
How far will YOU go to deny who you really are, and where you came from? This
is a rhetorical question aimed at the "happy" adoptees here in general.
GR
wrote:
>> I have no recollection of this
>>event, and no "bond" accured. I have no bond with my biological mom, I have
>>curiosity but no bond.
>
>Danger, I never thought I felt "bonded" to my birthmother prior to reunion
>either. Once I heard her voice and met her I felt much differently. You might
>feel differently after a meeting.
Well my nmom is dead (for real - not a lying agency story) and I'll
never meet her as an adult. I am irrevocably bonded to her anyway and
I always will be. I think it was that nine months I spent living
inside her body while she created me. That's how I've always felt
about it, even as a kid.
GR
SusanDyne
>From: kum...@aol.comNoWonky (Kathy)
>Date: 10/1/00 4:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20001001160818...@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Adoption Wanted
>>From: susa...@aol.com (SusanDyne)
>>Date: 10/1/00 12:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20001001155137...@ng-fx1.aol.com>
>>>Message-id: <39d78c03...@news1.news.adelphia.net>
>>>
>>><mcle...@spammenotsprint.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm not Kristen, but I'll wade in here. I think my bmom met me, but I
>>would
>>>>not consider myself to have met her. I have no recollection of her
>>>>whatsoever, ergo we've never met.
>>>
>>>You may have no recollection - that doesn't mean you've never met.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And if a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does
>>it
>>make a sound.
>>
>>This is going to be a long thread...I can tell<g>
>
>bson
>knew me before 10-17-97. How's that for starters? <g>
>
DangerGirl
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 19:32:46 GMT, "DangerGirl" <dange...@usa.net>
wrote:
>
>
> >K Workman <rwor...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> >news:39d74e94...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> >> Isn't that a bit ridiculous? You think you've never met your bmom? Do
> >you also believe that she never met you?
> >
> >Well who's to say I actually even saw her?
>
> Let's see... if you were blind, would you say that you've never met your
> aparents?
Obviously not. There is more to "meeting" someone then sight. For example if
I was walking down the street and saw many people does that mean I met them?
of course not. If I bumped into someone at the store with my cart and
appologized, does that mean we "met". No it does not. They are a stranger.
You don't need to SEE your bmom to qualify as having "met" her...
Ok we are going to argue over specifics. Perhaps not "seeing", But I would
qualify, meeting as having some sort of exchange of communication. Do you
feel since you have communicated with many people in this newsgroup that you
have "met" them? I surely do not. My b.mom may have communicated on her part
but I have no memory of it. And as I said before, not ALL b.mom's even look
at the baby they gave birth to let alone speak to them. I have communicated
with you but I couldn't say we have "met" either.
> you were inside her for the better part of 9 months, hearing what she
heard,
> eating what she ate, feeling what she felt, etc. Of course you've "met"
her.
No that is not correct, I was inside her developing into a person, that does
not mean we "met". Her body kept me alive but that doesn't mean I "met" her.
I heard because I had ears, I ate because a tube fed me that was attached to
her. She kept me alive yes. If I was in a car wreck and someone's donated
blood saved my life, it doesn't mean I have "met" them either. Nor does it
mean since we now share the same blood that I have a "Bond" with them.
Grateful for my life definatly. But still they are a stranger. Just as my
a.mom is.
> This is gonna be one of those stupid discussions that would be dismissed
> without a second thought in the Real World. Sometimes I forget where I
am.
>
> I don't know if I can be bothered fending off adoptees who have a vested
> interest in defending patently absurd stances. I'm damned tired of it.
It's
> absolute bullshit.
Sorry if my opinions bother you. Its how I feel just as this is how you
feel. If we all felt the same way we wouldnt even need this Newsgroup to
start with.
> How far will YOU go to deny who you really are, and where you came from?
This
> is a rhetorical question aimed at the "happy" adoptees here in general.
I never once denied where I came from. I think the simple fact I am in
search of my b.mother attests to the fact I would like to know. But that has
no baring what so ever on the fact that I still have not met her and did not
bond with her. I hope one day to change that but as it is, it hasn't
happend.
Who I am is what my growing up has made me to become. It is how I perceived
the world around me, how events shaped my point of view and outlook on life
itself. It is also because of the upbringing from my a.family the values and
morals they instilled in me. Sorry but my b.mom had nothing to do with that.
Who I am now has nothing to do with her. I can thank her perhaps for my eye
color, skin tone, height. But me, as a person, came from life experience and
nothing else.
DangerGirl
DangerGirl
GR <din...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:39d7bcc1....@news.pacbell.net...
If I was to find that my b.mom has died before I had the chance to meet her
I would feel very sad for the loss of a possible good relationship, and for
never getting the chance to know her or visa-versa. However, when I lost my
a.dad I do not think I could compair the pain of that to the pain of the
loss of someone I never knew. Thats my opinion. I am glad you feel an
attachment to you b.mom however I feel no such bond, that may change one day
when I meet her.
DangerGirl
DangerGirl
have met and bonded with my a.mom. Sorry for typo!************
DeannaBefore
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:41:29 -0700, "DeannaBefore"
> <mcle...@spammenotsprint.ca> wrote:
>
>
> >I'm not Kristen, but I'll wade in here. I think my bmom met me, but I
would
> >not consider myself to have met her. I have no recollection of her
> >whatsoever, ergo we've never met.
>
> You may have no recollection - that doesn't mean you've never met.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
DeannaBefore
> Acknowledging the roles of *both* sets of parents is appropriate and
honest.
>
> Denying the contributions of either the bparents or the aparents is
fucking
> assinine,
Who's doing that?
GR
wrote:
<snip - good stuff>
>How far will YOU go to deny who you really are, and where you came from? This
>is a rhetorical question aimed at the "happy" adoptees here in general.
Yeah, but letting no rhetorical stone go unturned...
I'm a "happy" adoptee - as far as I can tell, anyway, I'm pretty
happy. I'm really unclear what the definition of that is here, but
I'll press on. <g>
I won't cross the street to deny who I am or where I came from. I
also won't cross it to deny the part my aparents had in making me who
I am and their role in creating the rest of my history.
ack, huh? <g>
GR
RiverWild1970
>wonderful thing. :)
>
>DangerGirl
I hope that for you and her both, Danger.
RiverWild1970
>never meet her as an adult. I am irrevocably bonded to her anyway and
>I always will be. I think it was that nine months I spent living
>inside her body while she created me. That's how I've always felt
>about it, even as a kid.
You know I see that in retrospect now. Some of the things I had issues with as
an adoptee. I know I was bonded to her but I didn't internalize it then I think
that would have been too hard. After I got my first information from the agency
and she had some concretness for me, it melded and was more ...ok to feel. then
it wasn't, then it was, etc. the rollercoaster. But I will neve r doubt that I
have a bond with my nmom.
RiverWild1970
>happy. I'm really unclear what the definition of that is here, but
>I'll press on. <g>
>
>I won't cross the street to deny who I am or where I came from. I
>also won't cross it to deny the part my aparents had in making me who
>I am and their role in creating the rest of my history.
>
>ack, huh? <g>
>
>
>GR
>
>
>
>
>
>
Very factual GR and much the way I feel. I mean no one, no matter if they'd
like to or not can change the past. The fact for us older adoptees is simply
that many people had a hand in making us who we are and I recognize that. I
also recognize the part I play in who I am. :) Like it or not it was a
cumulative effort between my apars and my bpars.
BUFFettune
You may have no recollection - that doesn't mean you've never met.
Kate Workman>>
The original post was not about whether or not a birthmother and daughter have
ever met but just the fact you were born does not mean there is a bond.....it
does not mean there isn't either but each person veiws his/her adoption
situation quite differently than another's......who are we to say?!
Angie
DangerGirl
<nancy> wrote in message news:mtlftsgvt82kg7kgs...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 23:29:44 GMT, "DangerGirl" <dange...@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
> >That is good you feel that way, however I do not share your point of
view.
> >If I was to find that my b.mom has died before I had the chance to meet
her
> >I would feel very sad for the loss of a possible good relationship, and
for
> >never getting the chance to know her or visa-versa. However, when I lost
my
> >a.dad I do not think I could compair the pain of that to the pain of the
> >loss of someone I never knew. Thats my opinion. I am glad you feel an
> >attachment to you b.mom however I feel no such bond, that may change one
day
> >when I meet her.
>
> after we were reunited; my amom died the following year, and my
> beloved adad had died many years earlier. In my experience, you are
> correct that the death of a bparent does not have the same day-to-day
> impact as the death of the parents who raised you. Regardless, my
> life was indeed greatly influenced by the people responsible for my
> existence, and I did mourn for both of them. Perhaps you will too--it
> might be a good idea to consider that possibility before making up
> your mind.
Actaully Nancy this is something I have considered. My b.mom was (from my
non identifying info) very depressed and going through a lot with her family
and life (before and during her pregnancy with me). She seemed to be in a
very difficult situation. So I have considered the possibility she may have
passed away. If that is the case I would mourn the loss of never knowing her
and her never knowing me, there is no doubt of that. I can only hope that
since my birth (33 years ago) her life improved and she is well and happy. I
would mourn the loss of what could have been. It is something I have been
trying (as much as you can I suppose when it comes to death) to prepare
myself for. Its never easy no matter how prepared you think you are.
DangerGirl
>
> Nancy
>
> nancy(FIFTEEN)@(roman numeral 9).netcom.com
> (you figure it out...the spammers have)
> _________________________________
> "Well if you think I am going to stand for this lying down,
> you had better think again!"
> Celeste 12/30/96
K Workman
>Right. If you had a nanny that cared for you 24/7 for 9 months after you
>were born, would you claim you "knew" her or had "met" her? No, you'd
>say she took care of you but you have absolutely no memory of her.
On the other hand, you would NOT say that you hadn't met her, because it's
very clear that you HAD. Duh.
>> > This is gonna be one of those stupid discussions that would be
>> > dismissed without a second thought in the Real World. Sometimes I
>> > forget where I am.
>
>Yeah...kinda like the concept that a 15 y.o. is as ready for parenthood
>as a 30 y.o. IRL, Kate, people would just laugh at you. BTW, don't think
>I haven't noticed that you have continued your silence on the post about
>teenagers' underdeveloped brains.
I'm quite sure it's bullshit, Don. When I get the time *and* the inclination,
I'll address it. Until then, you'll have to keep your shirt on.
I'm just not in the mood for another protracted argument - it's that simple.
>> > I don't know if I can be bothered fending off adoptees who have a
>> > vested interest in defending patently absurd stances. I'm damned
>> > tired of it. It's absolute bullshit.
>
>Ahhhh, the word from Kate, The Patron Saint of Absurd Birthmother
>Stances.
So you say. Why would your opinion on the matter mean much to me or anyone
who is familiar with your "Aparents are God" and "Adoption is the Holy Grail"
stance? I already know how you feel about it, and I already know that you'll
go to ridiculous lengths to defend your stance. So... what now? If I'm
absurd, so are you. I'd say it's a stalemate.
>You're only half right here, Danger. You get more than eye color, skin
>tone and height from your birthparents. My sense of humor and
>personality--important components of who you are--are very much like my
>birthmother, HOWEVER my values and morals are NOTHING like hers and
>similar to my parents'.
>
>There's not Universal Adoptee Experience (UAE) when it comes to these
>things. It depends on you and your adoptive parents. I think some
>adoptees are quite malleable and adoptive parents have a huge impact.
And this trait of being malleable may also be genetic.
K Workman
Acknowledging the roles of *both* sets of parents is appropriate and honest.
Denying the contributions of either the bparents or the aparents is fucking
assinine, as it is very clear from research that your genes are more likely to
determine who you are and will become than any other aspect of your life.
This applies not only to adoptees, but rabid bmoms like Mas, who has gone
completely over the edge today with nonsense. BOTH sets of parents are
important. BOTH made you who you are today. Not one set - BOTH sets.
K Workman
It was my understanding that a prenatal bond is a fact of life - not something
under dispute. It is the term that seems to bother a lot of people here.
You (and this is a general "you") don't want to hear or believe that you
bonded with your mother in utero? You want to hand that (physiological) role
over to your (non-physiologically-related) aparents instead of calling it
"attachment", which is the correct term for it? Who has a problem here?
DangerGirl
Don <donne...@snowball.edu> wrote in message
news:O6QB5.1758$Qb.105...@news.randori.com...
> In article <7GPB5.4788$24.19...@news0.telusplanet.net>, "DangerGirl"
> > > On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 19:32:46 GMT, "DangerGirl"
> > > <dange...@usa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > mean I "met" her. I heard because I had ears, I ate because a tube
> > fed me that was attached to her. She kept me alive yes. If I was in a
> > car wreck and someone's donated blood saved my life, it doesn't mean
> > I have "met" them either. Nor does it mean since we now share the
> > same blood that I have a "Bond" with them. Grateful for my life
> > definatly. But still they are a stranger. Just as my a.mom is.
>
> were born, would you claim you "knew" her or had "met" her? No, you'd
> say she took care of you but you have absolutely no memory of her.
>
> > > dismissed without a second thought in the Real World. Sometimes I
> > > forget where I am.
>
> Yeah...kinda like the concept that a 15 y.o. is as ready for parenthood
> as a 30 y.o. IRL, Kate, people would just laugh at you. BTW, don't think
> I haven't noticed that you have continued your silence on the post about
> teenagers' underdeveloped brains.
>
> > > vested interest in defending patently absurd stances. I'm damned
> > > tired of it. It's absolute bullshit.
>
> Ahhhh, the word from Kate, The Patron Saint of Absurd Birthmother
> Stances.
>
> > you feel. If we all felt the same way we wouldnt even need this
> > Newsgroup to start with.
> >
> >
> > > from? This is a rhetorical question aimed at the "happy" adoptees
> > > here in general.
> >
> > in search of my b.mother attests to the fact I would like to know.
> > But that has no baring what so ever on the fact that I still have not
> > met her and did not bond with her. I hope one day to change that but
> > as it is, it hasn't happend.
> >
> > Who I am is what my growing up has made me to become. It is how I
> > perceived the world around me, how events shaped my point of view and
> > outlook on life itself. It is also because of the upbringing from my
> > a.family the values and morals they instilled in me. Sorry but my
> > b.mom had nothing to do with that. Who I am now has nothing to do
> > with her. I can thank her perhaps for my eye color, skin tone,
> > height. But me, as a person, came from life experience and nothing
> > else.
>
> tone and height from your birthparents. My sense of humor and
> personality--important components of who you are--are very much like my
> birthmother, HOWEVER my values and morals are NOTHING like hers and
> similar to my parents'.
>
> There's not Universal Adoptee Experience (UAE) when it comes to these
> things. It depends on you and your adoptive parents. I think some
> adoptees are quite malleable and adoptive parents have a huge impact.
> sit back, hold on and try to enjoy the ride. And, there's every
> variation inbetween of strong/weak-willed adoptees and
> strong/weak-willed adoptive parents.
>
> So, DG, wait until you meet your birthparents before making this
> pronouncement.
My mind might change when we meet, you are exactly right. The question put
to me however was do I feel bonded to them although we have never "met" (by
my definition of 'met' we have not done that yet). So yes I hope that one
day we do meet and we do become bonded. Nothing would make me happier, but
as it is right now at this moment I do not know them, and do not feel any
bond to them. But if they allow it I would love to change that. The first
step will be to make contact which I have not done as yet.
As I tried to say above though, I can thank my b.parents for genetics and my
a.parents for my virtue.
DangerGirl
>
> - Don
DangerGirl
I will agree with you on two points. Yes both sets are important because
without my b.parents how would I have gotten here at all? I also agree that
they both have a hand in who I am. One set in how I look and one set in my
what my morals and values are.
I didn't think our discussion had come to using bad language and name
calling however. We obviously have different view points, lets not lose our
heads over that. People don't see things the same way, that's life. We all
have our view points. To make it simple my view is I did not bond with my
b.mom at my birth and feel no bond to her now. Its how I feel and although
our discussion has been interesting, nothing you can say will change how I
feel. Its just how it is. I don't think we have to get angry and abusive
because we don't agree.
DangerGirl
Linda Fortney
Jack Finucan <jfin...@att.net> wrote:
>Adopted children do not "bond" with adoptive parents; bonding occurs in the
>womb. Attachment is the process that occurs with adoption and foster care.
>Read "Secret Life of the Unborn Child", "The Primal Wound", etc.
>Jack Finucan
DING, DING, DING, DING! We have a winner. This is the most idiotic
statement that I've read on a.a. since the bovince fantasy missive.
Jack, here's a clue: you need to read more. A lot more. I suggest you
start with a basic Child Development textbook.
You also need to remember that a claim needs to be verified as true or
false.
LindaF
GR
wrote:
>
>GR <din...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:39d7bcc1....@news.pacbell.net...
>> On 01 Oct 2000 19:48:52 GMT, riverw...@aol.com (RiverWild1970)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I have no recollection of this
>> >>event, and no "bond" accured. I have no bond with my biological mom, I
>have
>> >>curiosity but no bond.
>> >
>> >Danger, I never thought I felt "bonded" to my birthmother prior to
>reunion
>> >either. Once I heard her voice and met her I felt much differently. You
>might
>> >feel differently after a meeting.
>>
>> Well my nmom is dead (for real - not a lying agency story) and I'll
>> never meet her as an adult. I am irrevocably bonded to her anyway and
>> I always will be. I think it was that nine months I spent living
>> inside her body while she created me. That's how I've always felt
>> about it, even as a kid.
>>
>>
>> GR
>That is good you feel that way, however I do not share your point of view.
>If I was to find that my b.mom has died before I had the chance to meet her
>I would feel very sad for the loss of a possible good relationship, and for
>never getting the chance to know her or visa-versa. However, when I lost my
>a.dad I do not think I could compair the pain of that to the pain of the
>loss of someone I never knew. Thats my opinion.
My experience proves you absolutely right about that. I found out who
my nmom was and that she was dead when I was 25. It hurt, it was
difficult and sad and for various reasons it brought a lot of havoc to
my family. (they knew she was dying - didn't tell me - other info
came out at the same time - blah blah blah) What I felt through that
and specifically about her death was completely different and it
wasn't as physically and emotionally devastating as what I felt when
each of my parents passed away. (my aparents)
It's just a completely different thing, but they were losses and I
grieved them all. Still do.
The funny thing is that my ndad is the only parent of mine who might
still be alive but I have no way of finding him. (believe me - no
expense has been spared and it ain't gonna happen)
Oh fucking well. There's not a thing I can do about it.
>I am glad you feel an
>attachment to you b.mom however I feel no such bond, that may change one day
>when I meet her.
Maybe so. I don't know much about that end of things. <g>
Good luck, and as a bit of personal advice, don't delay if you can
help it.
GR