Getting unadopted?
rkbose
permitted to nullify their own adoption if they so choose.
This is not like Kim giving up being adopted, where she decided to keep
her existing parents but just relinquished the status. This would mean
giving back the parents (or keeping them as fosters) and getting your
first parents back.
I'd be interested in a poll: Do people like the idea, and why; or not,
and why not?
Rupa
Kathy
>From: rkbose rkb...@pacific.net.sg
>Date: 8/14/01 9:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B79FDC9...@pacific.net.sg>
Since I'm not adopted, I cannot really say.
I guess it would be like me saying that at age 50 I'd rather be adopted so I'll
give up my bio family where the seeds have already been planted and nearly
harvested... Impossible to do, and besides that I'm not that adoptable..;)
>Rupa
Ron Morgan
"rkbose" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:3B79FDC9...@pacific.net.sg...
> Di has proposed an interesting idea: that an adult adoptee should be
> permitted to nullify their own adoption if they so choose.
>
> This is not like Kim giving up being adopted, where she decided to keep
> her existing parents but just relinquished the status. This would mean
> giving back the parents (or keeping them as fosters) and getting your
> first parents back.
And what if the first parents don't want them back... Do they have any say
in this proposed process?
Ron
Dian
A free man could make that choice, Rupa. Think of how much easier it
would have been if all adoptees could unadopt themselves, get hold of
their OBC
as a non-adopted person, and if they then wish, readopt themselves
back to their aparants, making it their choice at last. Now that is a
person with human rights.
Di
Di
Dian
> "rkbose" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
> news:3B79FDC9...@pacific.net.sg...
> > Di has proposed an interesting idea: that an adult adoptee should be
> > permitted to nullify their own adoption if they so choose.
> >
> > This is not like Kim giving up being adopted, where she decided to keep
> > her existing parents but just relinquished the status. This would mean
> > giving back the parents (or keeping them as fosters) and getting your
> > first parents back.
>
> And what if the first parents don't want them back... Do they have any say
> in this proposed process?
>
> Ron
>
It wouldn't require reclaiming the relationship with them,
necessarily, Ron. So their opinion would not matter. It should be the
adult adoptees choice whether he wants to place his own family line
back on his ancestral tree. It would only work if it was his choice
alone.
Di
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Message-id: <3B79FDC9...@pacific.net.sg>
Sure, why not? To each his own.
Ghoulagirl
Giving birth is an act of nature; adopting is an act of nurture.
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: pat...@dial1.net (Dian)
>Date: Wed, Aug 15, 2001 7:15 AM
>Message-id: <f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com>
I don't need my OBC or to unadopt myself in order to know where I belong, Di.
Not all adopted people are as stupid as you seem to believe - heck, I doubt
MOST adopted people are as stupid as you believe.
DeannaBefore
I wouldn't be interested. I like my parents, so of course I am biased, but
as an adult - if I wanted rid of my parents, I doubt I'd want different ones
in return.
Deanna
J
writes:
It's an interesting idea, but why limit it to unadoption? Let's extend it to
unbirthed, as well. I've known any number of people who would have been happy
to sever all legal ties with their families. Some, for example, might not like
the idea that their parents/siblings might profit by an untimely death. Others
might just find it enormously satisfying, the ultimate public renunciation.
J.
"We all say so, so it must be true."
The Bandar-log (monkey tribe), Rudyard Kipling's "Jungle Book"
Boomer
"Dian" <pat...@dial1.net> wrote in message
news:f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com...
What's the difference in this instance Di between adopted or bio? No child
asks to be born. No child has a choice of parent in infancy. You may as well
apply this to all parent/child relationships regardless of adoption status.
Lynn
>
>
> Di
>
>
> Di
That Damn Boo Kid
For myself -- no. I have no reason, and being adopted is part of my personal
history.
For everyone else -- sure, why not? Given that the adoptee generally could not
consent to the adoption at the time it took place, I see no reason why any
individual should continue to be bound by a legal proceeding they didn't
consent to.
Knifchick
Con te patiro
su navi per mari
che io lo so
no, no, non esistono piu
con te io li vivro
PLAYROY1
permitted to nullify their own adoption if they so choose.
ROY: I think they should for sure. I also think that the aparents should then
be allowed to sue them for however many years of financial support. If the
aparents were never thought of as parents and the adoptee were to nullify the
relationship, then the adoptee should have to pay back the funds that were
meant for the aparent's children. I'm sure who ever they were presently
thinking of as their parents would be happy to financially support them and to
make up for all the years they were not able to. I know I would.
PLAYROY1
asks to be born. No child has a choice of parent in infancy. You may as well
apply this to all parent/child relationships regardless of adoption status.
Lyn >>
ROY: Finally a voice of intelligence...
PLAYROY1
not
consent to the adoption at the time it took place, I see no reason why any
individual should continue to be bound by a legal proceeding they didn't
consent to >>
ROY: Hmmm, you know I never consented to my mother birthing me either. I
guess I'm just as entitled to not be bound by the legal proceeding that I
didn't consent to either. What right did that woman, my mother have to create
me anyway? And unlike all adoptees, she didn't even want to have me. Neither
she nor I wanted in this contract. Geeze. I think I'll call her up (she's 86
now) tell her to get her walker over to the phone and give her the good news.
Dian
> >Subject: Re: Getting unadopted?
> >From: pat...@dial1.net (Dian)
> >Date: Wed, Aug 15, 2001 7:15 AM
> >Message-id: <f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >rkbose <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
> news:<3B79FDC9...@pacific.net.sg>...
> >> Di has proposed an interesting idea: that an adult adoptee should be
> >> permitted to nullify their own adoption if they so choose.
> >>
> >> This is not like Kim giving up being adopted, where she decided to keep
> >> her existing parents but just relinquished the status. This would mean
> >> giving back the parents (or keeping them as fosters) and getting your
> >> first parents back.
> >>
> >> I'd be interested in a poll: Do people like the idea, and why; or not,
> >> and why not?
> >>
> >> Rupa
> >
> >A free man could make that choice, Rupa. Think of how much easier it
> >would have been if all adoptees could unadopt themselves, get hold of
> >their OBC
> >as a non-adopted person, and if they then wish, readopt themselves
> >back to their aparants, making it their choice at last. Now that is a
> >person with human rights.
>
> I don't need my OBC or to unadopt myself in order to know where I belong, Di.
And that's your choice.
> Not all adopted people are as stupid as you seem to believe - heck, I doubt
> MOST adopted people are as stupid as you believe.
>
> Ghoulagirl
>
I beg to differ there. I'm the one suggesting they should have
choices. Whereas it's you who assumes they all think the way you do.
You might want to try and look past the length of your own nose
sometime, before you attempt to speak on everyone's behalf.
Di
Heather
biological parents that those parents should be able to sue to get back
money also? What about when a child disowns their parents? Hey why stop
there? There are tons of children that disappoint their parents....should
the parent be able to take them to court and "recover their financial
losses?.....where do you draw the line Roy?
Heather
rkbose
> It's an interesting idea, but why limit it to unadoption? Let's extend it to
> unbirthed, as well. I've known any number of people who would have been happy
> to sever all legal ties with their families. Some, for example, might not like
> the idea that their parents/siblings might profit by an untimely death. Others
> might just find it enormously satisfying, the ultimate public renunciation.
>
> J.
>
Well, I know parents have the right to disown their grown offspring. Do
adults have a symmetrical right to disown their parents?
And does 'disowning' apply to property rights only, or to anything else?
Rupa
Boomer
"PLAYROY1" <play...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010816021536...@mb-ch.aol.com...
I was being sarcastic, I think I need more practise.
Lynn
Boomer
No, I wouldn't be interested in being able to nullify my adoption, but then
I'm happy with my lot in life.
Lynn
DeannaBefore
"Dian" <pat...@dial1.net> wrote to Kim
news:f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com...
> ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One) wrote in message
news:<20010815080538...@mb-fi.aol.com>...
>
> > Not all adopted people are as stupid as you seem to believe - heck, I
doubt
> > MOST adopted people are as stupid as you believe.
> >
> > Ghoulagirl
> >
> I beg to differ there.
Oh, good. Most of us are as stupid as you believe, then?
> I'm the one suggesting they should have
> choices. Whereas it's you who assumes they all think the way you do.
The hell she does.
> You might want to try and look past the length of your own nose
> sometime, before you attempt to speak on everyone's behalf.
ROFL. You first.
Deanna
rkbose
>
> So does that mean that when a "biological" child decides to divorce their
> biological parents that those parents should be able to sue to get back
> money also? What about when a child disowns their parents? Hey why stop
> there? There are tons of children that disappoint their parents....should
> the parent be able to take them to court and "recover their financial
> losses?.....where do you draw the line Roy?
> Heather
Actually, we haven't established if bio-offspring actually can divorce
their parents. J? Elizabeth?
Rupa
RobyF
From: rkbose rkb...@pacific.net.sg
Date: Thu, Aug 16, 2001 3:27 AM
Message-id: <3B7B75F7...@pacific.net.sg>
J wrote:
Rupa
>>
This sounds like the practice of Roman Catholics getting a marriage annulled so
they can marry again in the church. What does that do to the status of children
of the first marriage?
Roberta
mom to Juliette, 5, adopted 2/4/98 from China
J
<h.ko...@home.com> writes:
>> ROY: I think they should for sure. I also think that the aparents should
>then
>> be allowed to sue them for however many years of financial support. If the
>> aparents were never thought of as parents and the adoptee were to nullify
>the
>> relationship, then the adoptee should have to pay back the funds that were
>> meant for the aparent's children. I'm sure who ever they were presently
>> thinking of as their parents would be happy to financially support them
>and to
>> make up for all the years they were not able to. I know I would.
One of the drawbacks of not reading Roy's posts directly is that I risk missing
these intimate moments of self-disclosure.
LilMtnCbn
>From: play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1)
>Date: 8/16/01 12:12 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010816021205...@mb-ch.aol.com>
Those ungrateful bastards!
Kathy
>From: jmh...@aol.commisery (J )
>Date: 8/16/01 6:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010816092426...@nso-ck.aol.com>
>
>In article <2ZJe7.86485$sM.23...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com>, "Heather"
><h.ko...@home.com> writes:
>
>>> ROY: I think they should for sure. I also think that the aparents should
>>then
>>> be allowed to sue them for however many years of financial support. If the
>>> aparents were never thought of as parents and the adoptee were to nullify
>>the
>>> relationship, then the adoptee should have to pay back the funds that were
>>> meant for the aparent's children. I'm sure who ever they were presently
>>> thinking of as their parents would be happy to financially support them
>>and to
>>> make up for all the years they were not able to. I know I would.
>
>
>One of the drawbacks of not reading Roy's posts directly is that I risk
>missing
>these intimate moments of self-disclosure.
Lol. So true.
I wonder if he'll ever get it that adding more pain onto misery isn't a
solution when one claims to love their child unconditionally.
>J.
Lainie Petersen
FWIW,
I have a difficult time with the notion that one can "undo" one's adoptive
parents. If the adoption was legal, I can't see how it can simply be "undone"
at the whim of the adoptee. Certainly, if the adoption was somehow fraudulent
or illegal, I can see having the adoption "annuled", but I would think that
this would require clear evidence that there was something legally wrong with
the adoption from the start.
I think that adult adoptees ought to have the same right as everyone to choose
to be "adopted" by someone else, but I disagree with the idea that they should
be able to have their own adoptions annulled except when they can prove that
it was illegal.
Lainie
PLAYROY1
biological parents that those parents should be able to sue to get back
money also?
ROY: If they deny their parents and look for new ones, why not? Wasn't the
investment the parents made for their children? If the child no longer
considers themselves the child, then the financial support should be recovered
so the parents can still provide for their children.
Lainie Petersen
Also, recently I read of two separate cases (not involving adoption) where
parents/kids found themselves forced by the courts to provide for their
parents/adult offspring.
In one case a man who had sexually abused his kids was sent to a mental hospital
for treatment. His adult children (victims of the abuse) were then sent a bill to
cover his expenses. Apparently their state can and does force adult children to
pay for their parents expenses.
In a similar case, a man who was bi-polar sued to force his parents to support
him. He won, and they have to pay him 3500 a month plus additional expenses.
I don't see anything wrong with people going to court to try and annul their
responsiblities to each other (especially in cases where abuse as occured), but I
just can't justify annuling perfectly legal adoptions on a whim.
Lainie
Elizabeth
>Actually, we haven't established if bio-offspring actually can divorce
>their parents. J? Elizabeth?
>
>Rupa
There are no special legal obligations flowing from adult children to their
parents (bio or adopted), so there's no point to a "divorce," AFAIK. The
answer would be no. Minor children can seek emancipation from their bio
parents and some have done so.
Elizabeth
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Message-id: <f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com>
>
>ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One) wrote in message
>news:<20010815080538...@mb-fi.aol.com>...
snip
>> I don't need my OBC or to unadopt myself in order to know where I belong,
>Di.
>
>And that's your choice.
Gosh, thanks for recognizing that, Di. I feel so much better about it now.
>> Not all adopted people are as stupid as you seem to believe - heck, I
>doubt
>> MOST adopted people are as stupid as you believe.
>I beg to differ there.
Really? So you DO feel adopted people are stupid? How, um, unsurprising.
I'm the one suggesting they should have
>choices.
Did I say they shouldn't?
>Whereas it's you who assumes they all think the way you do.
Not at all. Some adopted people have a deep need to have a copy of their
OBCs, and some adopted people may want to disown their adoptive parents and
return to their birthfamilies. Just because I don't share those feelings
doesn't mean that I don't realize that others feel differently.
I know that's a tough concept for you to grasp, Di - that while you might
have certain feelings regarding adoption or whatever, there are others who feel
differently.
>You might want to try and look past the length of your own nose
>sometime, before you attempt to speak on everyone's behalf.
Oh the irony!
Ghoulagirl
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: "DeannaBefore" mcle...@spammenotsprint.ca
>Date: Thu, Aug 16, 2001 3:55 AM
>Message-id: <4_Ke7.2573$j_2....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>
>
>
>"Dian" <pat...@dial1.net> wrote to Kim
>news:f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com...
>> ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One) wrote in message
>news:<20010815080538...@mb-fi.aol.com>...
>
>>
>> > Not all adopted people are as stupid as you seem to believe - heck,
>I
>doubt
>> > MOST adopted people are as stupid as you believe.
>> >
>> > Ghoulagirl
>> >
>> I beg to differ there.
>
>Oh, good. Most of us are as stupid as you believe, then?
I've long suspected that she feels that way, but it's nice to see she's
finally gone on record with it. You know, I may have a new quote for my sig!
Palms2pines
I remember a made-for-TV movie about the true story of a young boy who had
bounced around foster care almost his entire life. Eventually, one of his
foster families loved him and wanted to adopt him, but his mother would not
voluntarily terminate her perental rights. He went to court and successfully
"divorced" himself from her so that he was legally free for adoption. Doesn't
anyone else recall this movie? The boy's name was "Gregory". I remember the
foster/adoptive dad was played by Richard McCrennan (sp??). Perhaps the legal
term for what the boy did was "emancipate" himself. I am not sure. They called
it "divorce" in the movie. I also see stories of wealthy, old people adopting
grown employees, etc. Would these grown people have to obtain the terminations
of their bio parents' parental rights to be legally free for such an adoption?
P2P
Elizabeth
>I remember a made-for-TV movie about the true story of a young boy who had
>bounced around foster care almost his entire life. Eventually, one of his
>foster families loved him and wanted to adopt him, but his mother would not
>voluntarily terminate her perental rights. He went to court and successfully
>"divorced" himself from her so that he was legally free for adoption. Doesn't
>anyone else recall this movie? The boy's name was "Gregory"
Yes, it happened in Florida, IIRC.
> I remember the
>foster/adoptive dad was played by Richard McCrennan (sp??). Perhaps the legal
>term for what the boy did was "emancipate" himself. I am not sure. They
>called
>it "divorce" in the movie.
I think someone in the media called it "divorce" and the rest of the media went
with it.
>>I also see stories of wealthy, old people adopting
>grown employees, etc. Would these grown people have to obtain the
>terminations
>of their bio parents' parental rights to be legally free for such an
>adoption?
No.
Elizabeth
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)
>Date: Thu, Aug 16, 2001 3:13 PM
>Message-id: <20010816151306...@mb-fp.aol.com>
>
>>>Actually, we haven't established if bio-offspring actually can divorce
>>>their parents. J? Elizabeth?
>>>
>>>Rupa
>>
>>There are no special legal obligations flowing from adult children to their
>>parents (bio or adopted), so there's no point to a "divorce," AFAIK.
>The
>>answer would be no. Minor children can seek emancipation from their bio
>>parents and some have done so.
>>
>>Elizabeth
>
>
>I remember a made-for-TV movie about the true story of a young boy who had
>bounced around foster care almost his entire life. Eventually, one of his
>foster families loved him and wanted to adopt him, but his mother would
>not
>voluntarily terminate her perental rights. He went to court and successfully
>"divorced" himself from her so that he was legally free for adoption. Doesn't
>anyone else recall this movie? The boy's name was "Gregory". I remember
>the
>foster/adoptive dad was played by Richard McCrennan (sp??). Perhaps the
>legal
>term for what the boy did was "emancipate" himself. I am not sure. They
>called
>it "divorce" in the movie.
Well, if it was ON TELEVISION, then it MUST be true! Just ask Di.
Ghoulagirl
"Not all adopted people are as stupid as you seem to believe - heck, I doubt
MOST adopted people are as stupid as you believe." - Me, 8/16/01
"I beg to differ there. " - Di Welfare's reply, 8/16/01
Elizabeth
>From: ghoul...@aol.com.net (The All-Powerful All-Knowing One)
>Date: 8/16/01 12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010816155908...@mb-fo.aol.com>
Tagging on to Kim's reply because I forgot to say this earlier. The legal term
for what happened in the case that P2P mentioned was simply a TPR of the
biological mother's rights. BTW, the boy's right to petition for a TPR on his
own behalf was overturned on appeal because of his age. The TPR was upheld
only because his guardian ad litem and the paps (all adults, of course) had
also petitioned for TPR. The boy's bio father had consented.
This case didn't make any new law, IIRC. And it doesn't really relate to what
*adults* can or can't do legally.
Elizabeth
NancyWeb
divorce
>their parents. J? Elizabeth?
I seem to remember a case in Florida a few years back where a boy divorced his
parents. I don't remember the outcome, though.
Ron Morgan
"Elizabeth" <mem...@aol.comeondown> wrote in message
news:20010816144257...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
This is a relatively simple procedure. Doesn't annul parenthood, just
relieves the parents of the responsibilities normaly associated with
parenting a minor. I suppose that the procedure is the same whether the
child is bio or adopted.
Ron
>
> Elizabeth
rkbose
>
> Also, recently I read of two separate cases (not involving adoption) where
> parents/kids found themselves forced by the courts to provide for their
> parents/adult offspring.
>
> In one case a man who had sexually abused his kids was sent to a mental hospital
> for treatment. His adult children (victims of the abuse) were then sent a bill to
> cover his expenses. Apparently their state can and does force adult children to
> pay for their parents expenses.
>
> In a similar case, a man who was bi-polar sued to force his parents to support
> him. He won, and they have to pay him 3500 a month plus additional expenses.
Interesting. There is a similar responsibility in Singapore, but I had
assumed it flowed from the Confucian ethic, where offspring are assumed
to be bound by filial responsibilities. Do you recall which states?
Also, I think when an adult (whether parent or offspring) becomes
mentally/legally incompetent, the next of kin are usually appointed
guardians. If a person has no spouse, I presume that would be the
parents/ offspring. Again, I don't know the legal situation here..
Rupa
J
J
<lpet...@clapper.com> writes:
Why? Our legal ties to family carry few egal responsibiilties on anyone's part
once we reach adulthood. (Can't really think of any, to tell the truth.) There
are situations one might wish to avoid, however, such as the two I
half-jokingly mentioned earlier (making money off one's death and simple
spite). Another situation that might arise in my own extended family, for
example is that one or more of my siblings would not pull the plug on me even
if I had left instructions for them to do so in the event of various
catastophes. I might not want to leave them in the chain of those eligible to
make that determination. The same might apply in the event of the death of a
parent with a minor child, if they were adamant about not wanting a
grandparent, uncle or aunt ot be among those who might assume guardianship.
(Granted there are other ways to address these issues, but divorcing ones
family members might be the most definite.)
One case that comes to mind is a situation in which one partner in a lesbian
relationship suffered severe brain damage. The partner fought the parents for
years, to obtain/retain guardianship. Until we permit gay marriages, divorce of
family members might appeal to some as a means of ensuring that a partner would
be in a position to assume that role if necessary. (Again, there are other ways
to acomplish it, but so long as family members oppose the way in which you live
your life, there is a risk of challenge.)
Elizabeth
>From: rkbose rkb...@pacific.net.sg
>Date: 8/16/01 7:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B7C7E93...@pacific.net.sg>
A person who had been appointed as guardian or custodian of their incompetent
(legally) parent would have duties that other adult children wouldn't have, no
doubt. Typically, though, an adult could simply drift away from contact with
her parents (bio or adopted) and never assume any responsibilities or legal
obligations toward them.
Elizabeth
Dian
But then if he had no say in the matter and does not get along with
his aparents and never felt like he fitted into the family why should
he be forced to ocmply with an arrangement made on his behalf, if he
finds it objectionable? Legal or not. What did he sign????
Di
Dian
> "Dian" <pat...@dial1.net> wrote in message
> news:f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > > permitted to nullify their own adoption if they so choose.
> > >
> > > her existing parents but just relinquished the status. This would mean
> > > giving back the parents (or keeping them as fosters) and getting your
> > > first parents back.
> > >
> > > I'd be interested in a poll: Do people like the idea, and why; or not,
> > > and why not?
> > >
> > > Rupa
> >
> > would have been if all adoptees could unadopt themselves, get hold of
> > their OBC
> > as a non-adopted person, and if they then wish, readopt themselves
> > back to their aparants, making it their choice at last. Now that is a
> > person with human rights.
>
> What's the difference in this instance Di between adopted or bio? No child
> asks to be born. No child has a choice of parent in infancy. You may as well
> apply this to all parent/child relationships regardless of adoption status.
>
>
Being born is not a legal transaction, Lynn. There is only one way to
undo a birth. And it's a bit drastic.
Di
> >
> >
> > Di
> >
> >
> > Di
Dian
> << Di has proposed an interesting idea: that an adult adoptee should be
> permitted to nullify their own adoption if they so choose.
>
> be allowed to sue them for however many years of financial support. If the
> aparents were never thought of as parents and the adoptee were to nullify the
> relationship, then the adoptee should have to pay back the funds that were
> meant for the aparent's children.
How so, Roy? The adoptee never signed anything and never agreed to his
adoption so he is not obligated to anyone. His aparents became his
family by default, not by any choice he made.
Di
Dian
> << For everyone else -- sure, why not? Given that the adoptee generally could
> not
> consent to the adoption at the time it took place, I see no reason why any
> individual should continue to be bound by a legal proceeding they didn't
> consent to >>
>
> ROY: Hmmm, you know I never consented to my mother birthing me either. I
> guess I'm just as entitled to not be bound by the legal proceeding that I
> didn't consent to either. What right did that woman, my mother have to create
> me anyway?
It was probably an act of insanity on her part, Roy, so she would not
be held accountable. LOL
And unlike all adoptees, she didn't even want to have me. Neither
> she nor I wanted in this contract. Geeze. I think I'll call her up (she's 86
> now) tell her to get her walker over to the phone and give her the good news.
Ron Morgan
> Being born is not a legal transaction, Lynn.
But it creates a legal relationship in which the child has no say..
Ron
Dian
Why on earth would adult adoptees want to be adopted by anyone? By
then they would be having adult relationships.
Di
Dian
Lovely editing job there, Kim. But I'm relieved to see you finally
lose your last signature which stoopidly claimed that adopting was an
act of nurture.
Di
AdoptaDad
From: "Ron Morgan" morg...@home.com
Date: 8/17/2001 10:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <ST9f7.7515$P15.4...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>
Ron
Exactly. To borrow a phrase from Di...
"What did he sign?"
Dad
AdoptaDad
obligated to anyone. His aparents became his family by default, not by any
choice he made.
Di
I was kept and raised by my biological parents. What did I sign? Where was
my choice in the matter?
Dad
PLAYROY1
his aparents and never felt like he fitted into the family why should
he be forced to ocmply with an arrangement made on his behalf, if he
finds it objectionable? Legal or not. What did he sign????
ROY: For the same reasons a biokid would or wouldn't. There Is no difference.
Di
>>
PLAYROY1
should
>>then
>>> be allowed to sue them for however many years of financial support. If the
>>> aparents were never thought of as parents and the adoptee were to nullify
>>the
>>> relationship, then the adoptee should have to pay back the funds that were
>>> thinking of as their parents would be happy to financially support them
>>and to
>>> make up for all the years they were not able to. I know I would.
>
>
>missing
>these intimate moments of self-disclosure.
Lol. So true.
I wonder if he'll ever get it that adding more pain onto misery isn't a
solution when one claims to love their child unconditionally.
>J.
ROY: But if the child nullifies the parent-child relatinship the child has
chosen to no longer be the son or daugther. When an adoptive parent enters
into an adoption relationship its supposed to be no different than if it were
biologically created. If the child chooses to anull that relationship then the
aparent should have the freedom to put his/her money to another child, one who
really IS their child. Clearly an adopted child who would nullify the
son/daughter/mom/dad relationship has defrauded the aparents and should have to
return the money for all the care. Why should an aparent raise a child, invest
all of that time and money if they never were the child's parents? That
financial support is for the children of the parents.
>>
LilMtnCbn
>From: play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1)
>Date: 8/17/01 9:10 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010817111007...@mb-fo.aol.com>
> Clearly an adopted child who would nullify the
>son/daughter/mom/dad relationship has defrauded the aparents and should have
>to
>return the money for all the care.
They didn't ask to be adopted. Where's the intent to defraud?
Why should an aparent raise a child,
>invest all of that time and money if they never were the child's parents?
That
>financial support is for the children of the parents.
Why am I not surprised that you look at adoption as a monetary investment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Elizabeth
>Why on earth would adult adoptees want to be adopted by anyone? By
>then they would be having adult relationships.
>
>Di
For money. He or she could be sole heir to a fortune. A gay person could
adopt his partner in order to have authority to make medical decisions.
E.
Elizabeth
Kathy
>Message-id: <20010817111007...@mb-fo.aol.com>
Because they love them forever and unconditionally!!!
If my grown sons decided not to be a part their bio family anymore, I wouldn't
send them a bill for services rendered. What kind of parent would place a
dollar amount on love?
For fuck sake, get a clue.
PLAYROY1
>son/daughter/mom/dad relationship has defrauded the aparents and should have
>to
>return the money for all the care.
They didn't ask to be adopted. Where's the intent to defraud?
ROY: Nor does a child ask to be born. But if they then accept all of the
'perks?' of being a son or daughter and then renounce it when all is said and
done, that, to me, would be defrauding.
Why should an aparent raise a child,
>invest all of that time and money if they never were the child's parents?
That
>financial support is for the children of the parents.
Why am I not surprised that you look at adoption as a monetary investment.
ROY: Why not when the topic is about an achild who can nullify the contract of
adoption? I'm only arguing on the level that was presented to me. I find the
entire topic nauseating.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: pat...@dial1.net (Dian)
>Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2001 10:08 AM
>Message-id: <f93539ac.0108...@posting.google.com>
How about biokids in the same situation? What did THEY sign? They didn't
ask to be born into that family. What recourse do they have to sever ties with
people with whom they have nothing in common and no sense of belonging?
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Message-id: <f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com>
>
>play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1) wrote in message
news:<20010816021205...@mb-ch.aol.com>...
>> << Di has proposed an interesting idea: that an adult adoptee should be
>> permitted to nullify their own adoption if they so choose.
>>
>> ROY: I think they should for sure. I also think that the aparents should
>then
>> be allowed to sue them for however many years of financial support. If
>the
>> aparents were never thought of as parents and the adoptee were to nullify
>the
>> relationship, then the adoptee should have to pay back the funds that
>were
>> meant for the aparent's children.
>
>How so, Roy? The adoptee never signed anything and never agreed to his
>adoption so he is not obligated to anyone. His aparents became his
>family by default, not by any choice he made.
The biokid never signed anything and never agreed to his birth so he is not
obligated to anyone. His parents became his family by default, not by any
choice he made.
Ghoulagirl
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Message-id: <f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com>
>
snip
>Why on earth would adult adoptees want to be adopted by anyone?
Beats the fuck out of ME, Di - you are the one who believes that adult
adoptees want to be re-adopted by their birthfamilies.
By
>then they would be having adult relationships.
Yep. The last thing I need is another parent.
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: pat...@dial1.net (Dian)
>Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2001 10:37 AM
>Message-id: <f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com>
snip
>> "Not all adopted people are as stupid as you seem to believe - heck, I
>doubt
>> MOST adopted people are as stupid as you believe." - Me, 8/16/01
>>
>> "I beg to differ there. " - Di Welfare's reply, 8/16/01
>
>
>Lovely editing job there, Kim.
Editing? How so? Is that not what you wrote?
But I'm relieved to see you finally
>lose your last signature which stoopidly claimed that adopting was an
>act of nurture.
It is.
rkbose
Well, I guess you could find a nice couple of paps who could adopt you
now...
Rupa
rkbose
>
> Lainie Petersen <lpet...@clapper.com> wrote in message news:<3B7C0BF2...@clapper.com>...
>
> > to be "adopted" by someone else, but I disagree with the idea that they should
> > be able to have their own adoptions annulled except when they can prove that
> > it was illegal.
> >
> > Lainie
>
> Why on earth would adult adoptees want to be adopted by anyone? By
> then they would be having adult relationships.
Adult adoptions are permitted in the US. And they do occur, the oddest
one I know being the adoption of a mid-30s imprisoned criminal by a
lawyer couple who then proceeded to house his attack dogs until they
(the dogs) killed a neighbor.
Rupa
AdoptaDad
From: rkbose rkb...@pacific.net.sg
Date: 8/17/2001 1:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <3B7D536A...@pacific.net.sg>
Rupa
Cool. I always wanted a pony.
Dad
Alex Wolfson
>
>
> Cool. I always wanted a pony.
Don't forget city boy, ponies come with shovels.
Palms2pines
>>
>
>>
>> Cool. I always wanted a pony.
>
>Don't forget city boy, ponies come with shovels.
>
>
You're so mean. You must be an aparent.
P2P
Alex Wolfson
Worse yet, I'm an aparent with a barn and pastures. If the kiddies want ponies
they better learn to shovel cause I aint doin it.
Palms2pines
Like I said, you're so mean. You just adopted those kids to be ranch hands,
didn't you, awolfson?
P2P
Alex Wolfson
Adopted one, bred two.
Lainie Petersen
Dian wrote:
>
>
> But then if he had no say in the matter and does not get along with
> his aparents and never felt like he fitted into the family why should
> he be forced to ocmply with an arrangement made on his behalf, if he
> finds it objectionable? Legal or not. What did he sign????
>
>
S/he was adopted as an infant, you nutbar, and infants have no right to sign anything, (nor, of
course, can minors be held to contracts even if they did sign them). Decisions are made for them,
and if the adoption was legal, I see no reason why it should be subject to annulment at the whim of
the adoptee or anyone else.
Lainie
Lainie Petersen
Ron Morgan wrote:
Precisely.
Lainie
Lainie Petersen
Dian wrote:
>
>
> Why on earth would adult adoptees want to be adopted by anyone? By
> then they would be having adult relationships.
>
Actually, Nutbar, adults get adopted by other adults all the time. ..usually for inheritance
reasons or so that one can make the other the responsible party in medical situations.
Occassionally adult adoptions occur for sentimental reasons.
Lainie
Lainie Petersen
Dian wrote:
>
>
> Lovely editing job there, Kim. But I'm relieved to see you finally
> lose your last signature which stoopidly claimed that adopting was an
> act of nurture.
And it isn't?
How so, Nutbar?
Lainie
Lainie Petersen
rkbose wrote:
>
>
> Adult adoptions are permitted in the US. And they do occur, the oddest
> one I know being the adoption of a mid-30s imprisoned criminal by a
> lawyer couple who then proceeded to house his attack dogs until they
> (the dogs) killed a neighbor.
And the case got stranger, a report I read stated that the DA was looking into allegations that the
lawyer couple (who were adopting the white supremicist criminal) had sexually abused the dogs.
Lainie
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: adop...@aol.com (AdoptaDad)
>Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2001 2:11 PM
>Message-id: <20010817141141...@mb-fy.aol.com>
Too bad. You're too old to be adopted - you're hardly a blank slate, you
know.
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: Alex Wolfson awol...@lucent.com
>Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2001 2:53 PM
>Message-id: <3B7D681C...@lucent.com>
But only the adopted one is forced to do chores, right?
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: Lainie Petersen lpet...@clapper.com
>Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2001 3:00 PM
>Message-id: <3B7D69CB...@clapper.com>
And while she's at it, I'd like to know how I supposedly edited her words.
Palms2pines
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Cool. I always wanted a pony.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Don't forget city boy, ponies come with shovels.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> You're so mean. You must be an aparent.
>>> >>
>>> >> P2P
>>> >
>>> >Worse yet, I'm an aparent with a barn and pastures. If the kiddies want
>>> >ponies
>>> >they better learn to shovel cause I aint doin it.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Like I said, you're so mean. You just adopted those kids to be ranch
>hands,
>>> didn't you, awolfson?
>>>
>>> P2P
>>
>>Adopted one, bred two.
>
> But only the adopted one is forced to do chores, right?
>
>Ghoulagirl
>
You can count on it, Kim. Let's hope the adopted one can void the adoption upon
reaching the age of majority and send a bill to awolfson for all the ranch hand
services rendered. But, the pony goes with the adoptee, no doubt about that,
unadopted or not.
P2P
AdoptaDad
>From: Alex Wolfson awol...@lucent.com
>Date: 8/17/2001 2:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B7D5EF8...@lucent.com>
>
>AdoptaDad wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Cool. I always wanted a pony.
>
>Don't forget city boy, ponies come with shovels.
Bummer. How 'bout a Harley then?
Dad
AdoptaDad
> Good on you, Jackie. You have every right to your feelings. Dont let anyone
> sanctimoneously tell you how to feel simply because it makes them feel
> uncomfortable. Anger is very much part of the grieving process. It's healthy
to
> feel it and express it.
>
>
>> Jackie is angry? Jackie is grieving? How dare you imply that Jackie's
>> recent reunion has anything to do with her changing outlook on adoption!
How
>> condescending of you.
Di wrote:
How dare I?
Change the batteries in your sarcasm detector, Di. The old ones are dead.
Di:
Of course it has.
I would think so.
Di:
Reunion changes everything because you see what you have lost and can never
really get back because you cant turn back time.
This makes complete sense to me, Di. I imagine the feelings of regret would
be immense for most recently reunited birthmothers.
Di:
And it is not condescending of me at all, thanks very much.
I never thought it was, Di.
Di:
Reunion makes the loss real. It's wakes us all up from a very long sleep.
Including adoptees. Usually.....
That's an interesting way to describe it, Di. I can only imagine how
emotionally intense a reunion like that must be.
> Grief and anger are indeed a part of the healing process... and so is
moving
> on.
>
> Dad
Di:
I've got news for you, Dad, and its all bad.
Uh oh.
Di:
As a mother, you do not move on and put it all safely back in a box. Once you
finally meet your child he/she is back in your life forever. Even if you never
see them again.
That makes alot of sense to me, Di.
Di:
Stop deluding yourself.
Sorry. I didn't realize I was.
Dad
Alex Wolfson
> > But only the adopted one is forced to do chores, right?
>
HA! I can't even get him to pick up his room. Chores my ass.
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>Message-id: <3B7D7980...@lucent.com>
>
>The All-Powerful All-Knowing One wrote:
>
>
>> > But only the adopted one is forced to do chores, right?
>>
>
>HA! I can't even get him to pick up his room. Chores my ass.
Sorry to hear the slave you purchased just isn't working out that well.
The All-Powerful All-Knowing One
>From: palms...@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines)
>Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2001 3:16 PM
>Message-id: <20010817151650...@mb-fg.aol.com>
>
>>>> >> >AdoptaDad wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Cool. I always wanted a pony.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Don't forget city boy, ponies come with shovels.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You're so mean. You must be an aparent.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> P2P
>>>> >
>>>> >Worse yet, I'm an aparent with a barn and pastures. If the kiddies
>want
>>>> >ponies
>>>> >they better learn to shovel cause I aint doin it.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, you're so mean. You just adopted those kids to be ranch
>>hands,
>>>> didn't you, awolfson?
>>>>
>>>> P2P
>>>
>>>Adopted one, bred two.
>>
>> But only the adopted one is forced to do chores, right?
>>
>>Ghoulagirl
>>
>
>You can count on it, Kim.
I suppose so.
Let's hope the adopted one can void the adoption
>upon
>reaching the age of majority and send a bill to awolfson for all the ranch
>hand
>services rendered.
Even though BIOkids can't do this.
But, the pony goes with the adoptee, no doubt about that,
>unadopted or not.
Of course.
Julia
Stuff the pony - I want a Lexus...!
Julia
Julia
All-Knowing One) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Getting unadopted?
>>From: Alex Wolfson awol...@lucent.com
>>Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2001 2:53 PM
>>Message-id: <3B7D681C...@lucent.com>
>>
>>Palms2pines wrote:
>>>
>>> >Palms2pines wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >AdoptaDad wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Cool. I always wanted a pony.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Don't forget city boy, ponies come with shovels.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> You're so mean. You must be an aparent.
>>> >>
>>> >> P2P
>>> >
>>> >Worse yet, I'm an aparent with a barn and pastures. If the kiddies want
>>> >ponies
>>> >they better learn to shovel cause I aint doin it.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Like I said, you're so mean. You just adopted those kids to be ranch hands,
>>> didn't you, awolfson?
>>>
>>> P2P
>>
>>Adopted one, bred two.
>
> But only the adopted one is forced to do chores, right?
>
>Ghoulagirl
OF COURSE only adopted children do the chores, Kim. That is why we
adopted our younger six - to look after our older daughters and
ourselves, and cater for our every whim. And they'd better remember
to be grateful (the adoptees, not the bios!)
Julia
Elizabeth
>From: Lainie Petersen lpet...@clapper.com
>Date: 8/17/01 12:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B7D6A7B...@clapper.com>
In the prisoner's cell, they found nude photos of his "amom" (BWAHAHAHAHA!) in
suggestive poses. It is a very bizarre case. The story goes that because it's
illegal for prisoners to run a business while incarcerated, they adopted him in
order to run his killer dog breeding business for him. I don't understand why
that would have been legally necessary, though. They didn't have to be his
apars to run his business.
Elizabeth
PLAYROY1
>invest
>all of that time and money if they never were the child's parents? That
>financial support is for the children of the parents.
Because they love them forever and unconditionally!!!
ROY: When a child becomes an adult then they are responsible for their
actions. If they were then to choose to nullify the relationship, why is it
then that the unconditional love is only one sided? As adults that would be
the ultimate in hurtful so therefore the sueing would be appropriate to say the
least. We're not talking about kids.
If my grown sons decided not to be a part their bio family anymore, I wouldn't
send them a bill for services rendered. What kind of parent would place a
dollar amount on love?
For fuck sake, get a clue.
>>
PLAYROY1
>then
>> be allowed to sue them for however many years of financial support. If
>the
>> aparents were never thought of as parents and the adoptee were to nullify
>the
>> relationship, then the adoptee should have to pay back the funds that
>were
>> meant for the aparent's children.
>
>How so, Roy? The adoptee never signed anything and never agreed to his
>adoption so he is not obligated to anyone. His aparents became his
>family by default, not by any choice he made.
The biokid never signed anything and never agreed to his birth so he is not
obligated to anyone. His parents became his family by default, not by any
choice he made.
Ghoulagirl
ROY: But we're talking about adult adoptees here who have made the choice to
nullify after accepting the goodwill of the aparents. Once they became adults
IMO it changes the entire dynamic and they are now responsible.
RobyF
From: play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1)
Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2001 8:43 PM
Message-id: <20010817204318.14618.00002194@mb-
<big snip>
ROY: But we're talking about adult adoptees here who have made the choice to
nullify after accepting the goodwill of the aparents. Once they became adults
IMO it changes the entire dynamic and they are now responsible.
>>
Responsible for the future, not for the past.
I really hope you learn a lot about children and love before your kids are old
enough to have thoughts of their own. Hint: it's very normal for immature
humans (children, that is) to say that they hate their mommy and daddy and
don't want them anymore. That doesn't mean that it's time for mommy and daddy
to send them a bill and garnish their piggy banks.
Roberta
mom to Juliette, 5, adopted 2/4/98 from China
Kathy
>Message-id: <20010817203917...@mb-fo.aol.com>
Roy:
><< Why should an aparent raise a child,
>>invest
>>all of that time and money if they never were the child's parents? That
>>financial support is for the children of the parents.
Me:
>Because they love them forever and unconditionally!!!
>ROY: When a child becomes an adult then they are responsible for their
>actions. If they were then to choose to nullify the relationship, why is it
>then that the unconditional love is only one sided? As adults that would be
>the ultimate in hurtful so therefore the sueing would be appropriate to say
>the
>least. We're not talking about kids.
So if your adult kids want to end their adoptions, you seriously would sue them
for all the time and money you gave willingly to them as their parent???
Even if grown kids stop loving their parents, does that mean you must stop to?
Geeesh, now I've heard everything!
I thought a parent's love is forever. I would never sue my kids, nor would I
stop loving them no matter what they did. I would take a good GD look at
myself, and wonder if I may have caused something so harmful to them that would
make them nullify their relationship in our family, but I wouldn't stop loving
them or sue them for services rendered. NO way!!!
<snip>
Lainie Petersen
Elizabeth wrote:
> In the prisoner's cell, they found nude photos of his "amom" (BWAHAHAHAHA!) in
> suggestive poses. It is a very bizarre case. The story goes that because it's
> illegal for prisoners to run a business while incarcerated, they adopted him in
> order to run his killer dog breeding business for him. I don't understand why
> that would have been legally necessary, though. They didn't have to be his
> apars to run his business.
> Elizabeth
I understand that they wanted to form "a family".
*shiver*
Lainie
Lainie Petersen
PLAYROY1 wrote:
> <
>
> ROY: But we're talking about adult adoptees here who have made the choice to
> nullify after accepting the goodwill of the aparents. Once they became adults
> IMO it changes the entire dynamic and they are now responsible.
>
Responsible for what, Roy?
Parents who choose to parent (whether by birth or adoption) make the choice to
financially provide for their children until adulthood. There is no contract
between parent and child, nor is there any "guarantee" that a child will "turn
out" a certain way or that the relationship between parent and child will be a
good one. Parents who choose to parent are essentially "gifting" a child with
their financial and parental support, but there is no obligation on the part of
the child to want to continue his/her relationship with the parent.
Of course, since you aren't a parent yourself, you wouldn't understand this.
Lainie
Ron Morgan
"AdoptaDad" <adop...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010817105550...@mb-fy.aol.com...
> The adoptee never signed anything and never agreed to his adoption so he
is not
> obligated to anyone. His aparents became his family by default, not by any
> choice he made.
Same with biokids. No choice there, Di.
Ron
Ron Morgan
"Elizabeth" <mem...@aol.comeondown> wrote in message
news:20010817203914...@mb-mb.aol.com...
>
> In the prisoner's cell, they found nude photos of his "amom"
(BWAHAHAHAHA!) in
> suggestive poses. It is a very bizarre case. The story goes that because
it's
> illegal for prisoners to run a business while incarcerated, they adopted
him in
> order to run his killer dog breeding business for him. I don't understand
why
> that would have been legally necessary, though. They didn't have to be
his
> apars to run his business.
> Elizabeth
Convicts get more frequent and more relaxed visitation privileges for
relatives than friends, or even attorneys. I think hty adopted him to
facilitate access to him.
Ron
Ron Morgan
"Lainie Petersen" <lpet...@clapper.com> wrote in message
news:3B7DCADC...@clapper.com...
Those two take the cake when it comes to bizarre...
Ron
>
> *shiver*
>
> Lainie
>
>
Dian
> >Subject: Re: Getting unadopted?
> >From: pat...@dial1.net (Dian)
> >Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2001 10:37 AM
> >Message-id: <f93539ac.01081...@posting.google.com>
>
> snip
>
> >> "Not all adopted people are as stupid as you seem to believe - heck, I
> doubt
> >> MOST adopted people are as stupid as you believe." - Me, 8/16/01
> >>
> >> "I beg to differ there. " - Di Welfare's reply, 8/16/01
> >
> >
>
>
> But I'm relieved to see you finally
> >lose your last signature which stoopidly claimed that adopting was an
> >act of nurture.
>
>
Pathetic bulls twaddle, Kim. Adopting is an act of signing a cheque.
Raising a child is an act of nurture and you don't need to adopt to do
that.
> Ghoulagirl
Dian
> Dian wrote:
> >
> > Lainie Petersen <lpet...@clapper.com> wrote in message news:<3B7C0BF2...@clapper.com>...
> >
> > > I think that adult adoptees ought to have the same right as everyone to choose
> > > to be "adopted" by someone else, but I disagree with the idea that they should
> > > be able to have their own adoptions annulled except when they can prove that
> > > it was illegal.
> > >
> > > Lainie
> >
> > Why on earth would adult adoptees want to be adopted by anyone? By
> > then they would be having adult relationships.
>
> one I know being the adoption of a mid-30s imprisoned criminal by a
> lawyer couple who then proceeded to house his attack dogs until they
> (the dogs) killed a neighbor.
>
Of course, Rupa. I forgot the US adoption mentality for a minute
there.
In other parts of the world if you want someone to inherit your estate
you just will it to them. They don't have to pretend they are born to
them.
Dian
> Dian wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > But then if he had no say in the matter and does not get along with
> > his aparents and never felt like he fitted into the family why should
> > he be forced to ocmply with an arrangement made on his behalf, if he
> > finds it objectionable? Legal or not. What did he sign????
> >
> >
>
> S/he was adopted as an infant, you nutbar, and infants have no right to sign anything, (nor, of
> course, can minors be held to contracts even if they did sign them). Decisions are made for them,
> and if the adoption was legal, I see no reason why it should be subject to annulment at the whim of
> the adoptee or anyone else.
>
> Lainie
So you are saying that adopted people should have to comply with
decisions adults made for them as children? How interesting that you
believe in maintaining the oppressed child mentality when native
Americans and Indigenous Aboriginal Canadians and Australian adoptees
and wards are fighing against what was done to them as children - in
their best interest of course. Mmmmm, very telling......
Di
Dian
> >Subject: Re: Getting unadopted?
> >From: play...@aol.com (PLAYROY1)
> >Date: 8/17/01 8:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <20010817111007...@mb-fo.aol.com>
> >
> ><< >>> ROY: I think they should for sure. I also think that the aparents
> >should
> >>>then
> >>>> be allowed to sue them for however many years of financial support. If
> the
> >>>> aparents were never thought of as parents and the adoptee were to nullify
> the
> >>>> relationship, then the adoptee should have to pay back the funds that
> were
> >>>> thinking of as their parents would be happy to financially support them
> and to
> >>>> make up for all the years they were not able to. I know I would.
> >>
> >>
> >>One of the drawbacks of not reading Roy's posts directly is that I risk
> >>missing
> >>these intimate moments of self-disclosure.
> >
> >Lol. So true.
> >I wonder if he'll ever get it that adding more pain onto misery isn't a
> >solution when one claims to love their child unconditionally.
> >>J.
> >
> >ROY: But if the child nullifies the parent-child relatinship the child has
> >chosen to no longer be the son or daugther. When an adoptive parent enters
> >into an adoption relationship its supposed to be no different than if it were
> >biologically created. If the child chooses to anull that relationship then
> >the
> >aparent should have the freedom to put his/her money to another child, one
> >who
> >really IS their child. Clearly an adopted child who would nullify the
> >son/daughter/mom/dad relationship has defrauded the aparents and should have
> >to
> >return the money for all the care. Why should an aparent raise a child,
> >invest
> >all of that time and money if they never were the child's parents? That
> >financial support is for the children of the parents.
>
You tell that to one of our young US adoptees members whose aparents
sold her for sex to any rotten bastard from the age of three.
Unconditional, my arse.
Jackie C
>Di:
>I've got news for you, Dad, and its all bad.
>
> Uh oh.
IMO it is not all bad..
>Di:
>As a mother, you do not move on and put it all safely back in a box. Once you
>finally meet your child he/she is back in your life forever. Even if you never
>see them again.
And that is a wonderful thing to me..
I know he is okay.. I know what is going on in his daily life.. That
is a joyous thing..
> That makes alot of sense to me, Di.
>
>Di:
>Stop deluding yourself.
>
> Sorry. I didn't realize I was.
I guess I am too..
Jackie