Get Baby Kaylee Home to Her Daddy; Miranda and Brad Larsen, Return Kaylee to Her Father

I had decided to spend the majority of this month in a hole, in la la land, safely away from triggering things about adoption. Unfortunately, thanks to some truly horrendous actions of two people, I have decided to not just crawl out of that hole, but to jump out guns-a-blazing.

Just before heading out for work this morning I was made aware of yet another adoption injustice coming from Utah. Go figure, Utah – no way! Surprise, surprise! If you’d like to read more about the back story to this situation, please see the Facebook page Get Baby Kaylee Home to Her Daddy.

Here’s the run down –

Colby and his girlfriend were expecting a baby and expecting to parent together. However, his girlfriend’s parents had other things in mind. After bringing the baby home from the hospital, his girlfriend, somehow, some way, decided (after talking to her parents) that she wanted to put the baby up for adoption. She told Colby of these wishes and he insisted on parenting and did just that, for a couple of weeks, until law enforcement came and removed the baby to be given to Miranda & Brad Larsen.

Miranda and Brad both knew that Kaylee’s father didn’t want to give her up. His name is on her birth certificate and paternity has been established. However, as those well-versed in adoption laws know, Utah plays by its own rules and, essentially, gives fathers next to nothing as far as father’s rights are concerned.

This didn’t seem to bother Miranda and Brad in the least. They wanted the baby and they made sure they got the baby. Who cares about if I’m taking someone else’s child against their will who NEVER CONSENTED TO AN ADOPTION, right? In my opinion, Miranda and Brad Larsen represent all that is evil in the world of adoption. Ethics thrown out the window to fulfill their selfish desires.

Upon doing some minor digging, you can see that, at least, Miranda has been “child shopping” for a some time.

ss1

ss2

This was a post from this past February about an older child seeking a forever family. Miranda was tagged in it by a friend or family member and her reply is, “Seriously, Serenity (last name omitted)? Now I have to pray about it and ask Dad (name of dad tagged and omitted here). Ask Dad? That’s odd. This seems like something you would say if you were a child considering getting a puppy. “Ugh, thanks for showing me the cute little puppy who needs a home!! Now I have to pray about it and get permission from Dad!! LOL!” At least that’s how it reads to me.

Here is Miranda and Brad’s adoption.com profile:

http://adoption.com/profiles/BradandMirandaLarsen31711-3527

I’m sure that it will soon be taken down so here are a few screen shots for your viewing pleasure.

10386377_10153752284785908_3752070022007265808_n12227013_10153752284265908_5436316955322998317_n12232817_10153752285100908_4330230674347323493_o12232949_10153752284480908_7963966371780045606_o12274209_938054220251_7319174569235421933_n

“Congratulations on your adoption!!” Suck it adoption.com

This should read, “Congratulations on kidnapping someone else’s child!”

But seriously, isn’t that what they just did? They legally kidnapped someone else’s child because of the unconstitutional laws that allow Utah to get away with this crap. Not only unconstitutional, but a clear violation of civil rights – the right to parent one’s own child!

Within hours of this story getting out, there are thousand’s of likes on the Facebook page created for Colby’s fight, and thousands of dollars for his legal fees have been raised. Within hours of this story getting out, Miranda and Brad deactivated their Facebook profiles (one can only guess why) and created new ones – that aren’t so super secret and will probably be deactivated shortly as well.

Brad appears to be the assistant principal of Thomas Edison Charter School. Do you have your children enrolled here? Will you still continue to support a school that employees someone who would steal someone else’s child? Just throwing that out there.

As you can see, the public is not happy:

12279234_10153752283865908_6327926106150908963_n

Not quite sure I agree with the “great people” analysis on these two.

So, there it is. Pretty simple. In black in white. Just because they could, they did. Without any true concern with the true and real father of this child.

But Colby is fighting back. He has retained a fantastic lawyer, Wes Hutchins. Sadly, I do expect this to be a long drawn out battle, like they all are. His legal fees will surely be insurmountable. To donate directly to Colby’s legal fund you can mail donations to:

Wesley D. Hutchins

Attorney

6751 South Adventure Way

West Jordan, Utah  84081

If you’re more comfortable donating online there is a GoFundMe set up and you can visit that page here: https://www.gofundme.com/g8b7btmk?rcid=5cad896b96a54b1181f69a8f8c110407

Where does this leave us? I am calling on ALL ethical adoptive families to speak out against this injustice. This puts a smear on ALL of you if you sit back and say nothing, allow it to happen. No matter what you think of me and my blog, if you sit back and say nothing, you are just as bad as them.

I am calling on everyone in the adoption community to rally around this father and give him the love, support, and guidance he will surely need in the coming months. If you are able to donate monetarily that is always helpful as well, but it is not required to be an integral part of his journey. Share his page, share this post, lend an ear, offer support, just do something.

I am absolutely sick and tired of seeing these stories. What has our world come to? In the United States of America, babies are being taken from their parents with no just cause because someone else wants them. How long do we allow this to continue before we rise up, as a nation, and say NO MORE! How long before we go down that slippery slope and YOUR child is next? Or your grandchild? Or your niece or nephew?

injustice

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” -Desmond Tutu

To the Larsen family,

I am begging you to do the right thing, the ethical thing. Maybe you had a momentary lapse of sanity. You CAN redeem yourself and reunite this father with his daughter. You have the power to do so. It doesn’t need to drag out in court for months or years. I have complete confidence that it will not end in your favor so you are only delaying the inevitable. Please return Kaylee to her father. Restore my faith in humanity. Restore my faith, please.

I’ll leave you with a post from my blog that deals with how God feels about situations like this. Seeing as the Larsens appear to be deeply religious people of the LDS faith.

A Tale of Two Women and a Wise and Blessed King

Two women came before King Solomon. Both had given birth on the same day, three days before, but the first woman’s baby had died. Now the women were fighting over the living baby. King Solomon decided that the best way to figure out who would keep the child was to tell the women the baby would be cut in half. One half of the child would go to the first woman, and one half would go to the second woman. The true mother of the baby, the birth mother, cried out to the King. She would relinquish her rights to her child, to save his life. King Solomon, who is often referred to as the wisest man who ever lived because God blessed him with unsurpassed wisdom, saw the passion of the birth mother, and he did the right thing. He gave the baby to his own mother, the one with the selfless love, the one that would rather surrender her baby than see him die. King Solomon had no intention of hurting the baby. He had no intention of giving the baby to the more “deserving” parent. He just wanted to identify the true mother of the child. The woman who gave birth to the baby. It was a clever ploy.

When I think about recent cases in the media I can’t help but think of the shocking similarities with King Solomon’s story. You have two women, one is the true mother of the child, one woman is so desperate for a baby that she is willing to steal the child of another, no matter the consequences to the child, or the child’s true mother. I wonder if King Solomon thought about what kind of mother a woman who steals another person’s child would make? Maybe that’s part of the reason he wanted to be absolutely certain he was returning the child to his mother, and not the crazed woman who attempted to kidnap the child.

The Bible does speak favorably on adoption. Think of baby Moses in his basket, (Exodus 2: 1-10) swept down the river, and adopted by the Pharaoh’s daughter. He obviously went on to do amazing things in the name of God and eventually returned to his natural family, the family of his origin. Esther, (Book of Esther) who was adopted by her cousin, was also a tool of God. But in almost every circumstance of ordained adoption in the Bible, there was a life or death situation that led to the adoption. Moses’ mother faced the reality that her son would die if she didn’t send him away. Esther was an orphan. Both of her parents were dead. God still chose to keep her in her family, and she was adopted by her cousin. The Bible only shows support for adoption of true orphans, or in the case of extreme circumstance. You will find infertile women in the Bible, (Hannah and Sarah are two examples.) but nowhere in either of their stories does God tell them to take the baby of another woman, let alone forcefully take a baby from its mother.

Adoption is a wonderful way for a child, an orphan in genuine need, to find a loving home. It should not be used as a tool to separate a child from the loving embrace of his mother.

It’s very clear how God feels about children. When the disciples tried to prevent women from bringing their babies and small children to Jesus, he grew angry and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Mathew 19:14, emphasis added.) He did not leave until he laid hands on the children. He takes especial interest in the fatherless child and defenseless women. Psalm 68:5 says, “Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.”

Job laments the truly wicked, and part of his description of the behavior of a damnable person is, “The fatherless child is snatched from the breast; the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.” (Job 24:9) Someone who would take a defenseless, fatherless child from the breast of his mother, in exchange for money owed is listed as one of the many horrible and evil things a person might do to deserve punishment from God. He also mentions people who “drive away the orphan’s donkey and take the widow’s ox in pledge. They thrust the needy from the path and force all the poor of the land into hiding.” (Job 24:3-4) Clearly bullying and harassing single women and their young children, the meek and defenseless, is considered a detestable act. Other comparable sins he mentions in the same chapter are theft, murder, and adultery.

And how does God handle those who harm children? Those who would steal a child from its family? Exodus 21:16 says, “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” How much harder will the Lord come down on someone who would kidnap one of his fatherless children?

Proverbs 127:3-5 says, “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.”  If the mother wants her child, and she is fit, what right does another woman have to pilfer the blessings given to someone by God for their own selfish desires? When considering the plight of women coerced into signing away their parental rights you need to ask yourself, “How would King Solomon rule in these cases?”

 

Advertisements

Behind the Curtain: Jessalynn Bills Speight

There’s an article going around from the Huffington Post. It’s entitled, “How Do Women Feel After Placing Their Baby For Adoption?”  The article was written by  who is the co-founder and CEO of an organization called Binti which claims it “uses technology to improve the adoption process and encourage empathy and understanding among members of the adoption triad.”

In this article, Curcuru interviews two first moms who have written a book called, “Birthparent’s Guide to Grief: A 12-Step Process.”  This book was written by Jessalynn Bills Speight and Alysia Foote. I’ve seen the article circulating in some adoption communities and support groups. Each time it pops up I cringe.

I’ve read the article. In my opinion, 90% of it is absolute garbage and is not applicable to the majority of first moms more than 5 years into an adoption. There was a lot the article left out, as far as a background on Jessalynn, a background that many don’t know about but that I’ve heard from friends who have had personal run-ins with this woman. We’ll get to that in a moment.

Jessalynn starts the article by sharing her story. This isn’t the first time Jessalynn has made her way into major media outlets touting her “birthmother rainbows.” In March of 2014 she was featured in an article in Cosmopolitan. For the subject of this post, we’ll focus on the HuffPost article.

The biggest red flag was when Jessalynn was asked about the father of the child she relinquished. She states that he and his family were against the adoption and there is no other mention of him after this. No, “He eventually came around and realized it was what was best.” No, “He was a very bad man and his rights were involuntarily terminated.” The fact remains that the LDS church has a long history of ignoring the rights of fathers when it comes to adoption. They will conceal, deceive, and lie, if needed, to facilitate an adoption. Utah, the state that has the highest population of LDS believers, even has the most horrible laws for adoption, especially for fathers. Women who are planning an adoption, where the father opposes, are often times sent to live in Utah, paid for by the adoption agency, to supersede the rights of the father as he would be problematic if the mother remained in her home state and the adoption would be threatened. So, when Jessalynn made no other mention of the father of her child, other than how he opposed the adoption, many questions came to mind. I do not know her story and it may be that everything was done ethically when it comes to the father. However, it does seem odd that no other information is given. One can’t help but wonder how that all went down.

The second thing I took issue with is this statement: “My birthdaughter calls me Jessa. She knows I’m not her Mom.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Adoption does not erase the fact that you are someone’s mother. You may not be their active parent, but you are still their mother. DNA doesn’t lie.

There is another quote that makes me, literally, ill. “I see so many birthparents who struggle to move forward because they are still thinking ‘I’m the parent’ and then they see the adoptive parent is using a certain brand of diapers and that bothers them. They can get hung up on different decisions adoptive parents make. They may still call themselves ‘Mom’ to the child.” I am the mom to my child. I wonder why Jessalynn spends so much time making sure that moms who relinquished understand they aren’t a mom anymore.

And again: “You are no longer the Mom. You are the birth mom.”

Thou doth protest too much.

The scariest statement in that article? “Jessa is also a Binti Birthmother Advisor, where she is a mentor to expectant women considering placing their child for adoption and other birthmothers.” You may wonder why. It’s terrifying to think of Jessalynn advising or counseling anyone considering adoption.

When I began to get involved in the adoption community, I slowly became aware that there was a “queen bee” in the LDS adoption world. Her name was Jessalynn and those who would cross her would pay dearly. Her power was contained, mostly, to moms who had relinquished in the LDS community. She had formed strong alliances with powerful adoptive parents and made sure to fully invest herself into the lives of these first moms. Under the guise of “helping” she would obtain contact information about their children’s adoptive parents and often be a “go-between” for the parties to come to a mutual understanding to facilitate openness. All of this sounds good, right? Well, for one, Jessalynn’s way of facilitating, as its been told to me, was to put the first mom in her place. She renders her powerless and totally at the will of the adoptive parents, no matter what promises had been made. Then there is the more pervasive side to Jessalynn.

I’ve had three first moms share their stories of Jessalynn. The variation in each mother’s story is minor. For the most part, it is pretty much the same story. Often times first moms need to vent their frustrations, their struggles, their insecurities. Sometimes this involves being mad at adoptive parents and sometimes with good cause. Not because they “don’t like the brand of diapers they’re using” as Jessalynn claims. Sometimes the need to vent is because contact is being withheld because the adoptive parents don’t like that the birthmom has come out of the closet as lesbian/transgender/transexual. Sometimes the venting is because a certain level of openness was promised and the adoptive parents are not keeping up their end of the deal. So, yes, justified anger. So, we have these women venting in these private groups sometimes. We have Jessalynn, with contact information of adoptive parents. Then we have open adoptions slamming shut in first mom’s faces because Jessalynn feels the need to run back and share screen shots from these private groups with these adoptive mothers. Yes, you read that right. As it’s been told to me, Jessalynn’s favorite pastime is finding negative comments by first moms and then finding out who their child’s adoptive parents are so she can send it to them and damage the relationship. I even caught her, under an assumed and fake name, in a group I admin, a while back, doing this same thing. Of course she denied it wholeheartedly.

I wonder if she feels it’s her duty to put every first mom in her place. I wonder where this passive-aggressive deceitful behavior comes from. Then I remember that all the rainbows and glitter she keeps showering on herself has not allowed for the truth to be present in her life. Maybe that’s why. I know of at least 3 first moms who have had their openness with their children greatly diminished or cut off altogether as a direct result of Jessalynn’s meddling. It’s truly vile.

When I see these articles featuring the “great birthmom” Jessalynn, I can’t help but puke a little in my mouth knowing the damage she has done in so many people’s lives. Advising expectant mothers? She says in the article. “Every woman has the right to choose. I am pro-informed choice. I believe every woman needs to be fully informed on all her choices: abortion, adoption, single parenting, and married parenting. Our job as citizens of the world is not to decide for them. You can say, ‘I know about this topic, here was my experience,’ but don’t force a decision or judgement on us. I know lots of birthmothers who had people from their communities try to influence their decisions.” Oh how I laughed. Jessalynn is a master of coercion. Reportedly she is a master at finding babies for prospective adoptive parents and actively farms them for people. Choice? Informed choice? Seriously?

The adoption community has remained silent about this woman for too long. Jessalynn Bills Speight is dangerous. She will be sunshine and rainbows to your face until you threaten the adoption machine that she is running. The machine now includes royalties for interviews, money from her organization, Tied at the Heart, and now a book. The book should be entitled, “12 Steps to Stay in Your Place So I Don’t Show Your Child’s Adoptive Parents That You’re Not Being a Good Little BeeMommy.”  Jessalynn is now profiting off adoption. Behind the scenes who knows what is going on. We do know, supposedly, as its been told to me, for some twisted reason, she destroys open adoptions, and helps find babies for people who are looking. We know she’s written a book. We know she does interviews for fancy magazines and newspapers. We can assume some things given that.

I fully expect to receive backlash from Jessalynn and her cronies after publishing this. Jessalynn isn’t the sparkling, squeaky clean, beemommy she portrays herself to be. Her hands are dirty. Don’t let her fool you. She is cunning, deceitful, and full of it. And she certainly doesn’t speak for me or the majority of first moms out there.

PRESS RELEASE: Concerned United Birthparents Partners with Saving Our Sisters

sos banner 2

The vision of Saving Our Sisters, founded by Lynn Johansenn, that has garnered overwhelming support from the adoption community, is coming to fruition with the help of Concerned United Birthparents (otherwise known as “CUB”). I am happy to say that, as of today, Saving Our Sisters (otherwise known as “SOS”) is officially partnering with CUB. I am so excited about this new partnership and know that good things are in the future of the adoption community. I’m sure there will be many questions and this post is to help answer them.

How does this partnership change CUB’s vision?

It doesn’t. It enhances it.

CUB’s official mission statement:

“Concerned United Birthparents, Inc. provides support for all family members separated by adoption; resources to help prevent unnecessary family separations; education about the life-long impact on all who are affected by adoption; and advocates for fair and ethical adoption laws, policies, and practices.”

As you can see, SOS will help to enhance this mission. CUB has been, and will continue to do, wonderful work in the adoption community. SOS will provide concrete tools in the prevention of unnecessary family separations via adoption.

What changes are coming to SOS because of this partnership?

There are many things that will be changing, but so much is staying the same. SOS will now have the ability to keep organized in all facets such as accounting and the ability to easily collect tax-deductible donations via the web. Additionally, SOS will gain heavy exposure benefiting from the many relationships that CUB has been able to create, maintain, and evolve over the last nearly 40 years. Part of this exposure includes SOS being launched on the CUB website, whereas, in the past, SOS has had a limited Internet presence relying on Facebook and blog posts to keep members up to date. Because of CUB’s gracious partnership, SOS will be able to continue the great work we do, focusing on moms and families, without worrying about the technicalities of website maintenance, accounting, and other things. All of these things enable SOS to focus on preserving families.

NEW THINGS

There is now an official SOS membership. If you visit the CUB website and wish to join CUB as a member you will now see “Saving Our Sisters/CUB Membership” as an option. This will give you all of the same benefits and perks of an official CUB membership. The annual membership fee is $40 and, as CUB states, “By becoming a member, you add your voice to the chorus, which seeks to educate the public about the life-long effects of adoption on everyone in the triad. We welcome adopted individuals and their family members, adoptive parents and professionals. Your membership helps us host an annual retreat for learning, healing and drawing strength from one another, and produce our quarterly newsletter, the Communicator.”  We can now add, “Helping families stay together” as one of the perks of a CUB/SOS membership.

Because CUB has taken a huge leap of faith by partnering with SOS, we have to do our best to ensure, when at all possible, that those we come in contact with are aware that all of our members are volunteers and that we are experienced in dealing with the sensitive situations we encounter. Paid SOS members will soon have the choice to go through training and become official Sisters on the Ground or “SOG’s.” These are our “boots on the ground” people who vet new moms, face to face, and stay in contact with them as long as the mother requests while she is making strides to improving her own situation. . The most pertinent part of becoming an SOG is the implication of a “code of conduct” so that you and all members of CUB/SOS can rest assured that we are conducting ourselves ethically and respectfully while representing the CUB/SOS name and reputation. By agreeing to go through CUB/SOS training the risk becomes minimal for our organization which will allow us to keep our non-profit status and continue to help families for years to come.

Just as before, you are not required to become a paid member to donate money or items, refer moms to SOS or participate in other ways. We are all one big community and it is that sentiment that we want to hold onto. Without our donors we would not exist. Without our eyes and ears, that are all of you, we would not know where to find our moms. You are important. The membership is not to exclude anyone.

Online donations of monetary value will now go through the CUB website and you may be able to deduct your donations on your federal taxes. Be sure to indicate, while donating, that you will need a receipt. You should contact your tax adviser for clarification. SOS can also accept monetary donations, by USPS mail, straight to CUB. Just indicate it is a donation for SOS.

How to Donate Online Online

Visit the CUB website and click on the “DONATE” tab.  You will have the option to click on Saving Our Sisters to have 100% of your donation allocated to SOS.

In Summary

I know this all seems so technical. By organizing, dotting our “i’s” and crossing our “t’s” we assure that we can help as many families as possible and that no mistakes are made that would risk the organization altogether.

These last few years have given SOS valuable lessons on how to best help mothers and the varying situations they may be in. We have learned so much. We have made mistakes, we have trusted when we shouldn’t have. Everything that is happening today is a direct result from those very important lessons. We want to protect our community, our donors, our organization, and, of course, the families we are helping.

This is an exciting time for Saving Our Sisters and Concerned United Birthparents. Together we are a force to be reckoned with. Together we can change our culture, our society, and work to fulfill our mission statement, together. Please join us in this exciting endeavor!

If you wish to become an official SOS member, and have a possibility of becoming a Sister On the Ground, please click on this link: Cubirthparents Sign Up

If you wish to donate to SOS please click on this link: Donate to SOS

If you wish to be part of the discussion and/or offer support in other ways, please visit: SOS Facebook page

http://www.cubirthparents.org

http://facebook.com/adoptionSOS

**If you are reading this post on Musings of the Lame, it is a syndicated post. To visit the links please scroll to the top of the page and click on “Beemom” to see the original post with hyperlinks included.**

Killing Them With Their Love

IMG_9514303055617

“Had I loved him any less – one ounce less – he would be with me now! My love for him was the only thing that could enable me to break my own heart.”

I saw this picture floating around social media the other day. I was bothered by it immediately. On the surface it looks nice, pleasant, loving, and the epitome of what a mother is. A mother breaks her own heart for the good of her own child because her love is so great for that child. If her love was any less – one ounce less – she wouldn’t dare break her own heart in order for her child to be okay. This is a true statement. Certainly not of all mothers, but biology says us mothers are wired to protect our young, because of our immense love for them, even if it means great personal cost or pain. This is precisely why the picture above bothered me. I found it manipulative of the strong instinct a mother has for her child. This picture says, “It was only because I loved my son so much that I gave him up. Those who choose to parent their child in less than ideal circumstances do not love their child as much as I do. As much as the world says a mother should.”

This is the message being portrayed to expectant mothers everywhere. If you love your child you will not let them be parented by you. You are harmful. You are detrimental. You are not good enough. You must give him up or you don’t really love him as much as you should. There is a demand for newborn babies to be adopted. It’s just reality. While pictures such as this don’t seem like all out coercion, it is a subtle manipulation which, to me, is just as bad. There is a psychology behind all of this. Not every agency, attorney, or facilitator will use manipulation or coercion to convince a mother that adoption is what’s best for her baby and she is NOT what’s best. A great deal of them do, however. This manipulation plays on the most important thing given to mothers. The maternal instinct that will drive a woman to sacrifice her life for her child. This instinct is used against expectant mothers who don’t have nearly as much as a prospective adoptive parent to offer their unborn child. If you are able to manipulate a mother into believing that keeping her child means she doesn’t love them as much as she should, you have struck the jackpot, in regards to securing the relinquishment of her parental rights to fulfill part of the demand I mentioned above. I will affirm, once again, that adoption should never be about finding children for homes that want them and should always be about finding homes for children who need them. There is a huge difference between the two.

I’m not sure where this quote originated from, but a quick search brings me to an adoption agency website with a more thorough version of this quote. It wouldn’t surprise me if this is where it originated. The quote, in its entirety, is attributed to “Tamra” and is featured on America Adopts.

“I once heard a girl who had decided to parent her child say, “My baby’s the best thing that ever happened to me.” I believed her. But I wanted to ask, “Are you the best thing that could’ve happened to your baby?”…Had I loved (my son) any less—one ounce less—he would be with me now! My love for him was the only thing that could enable me to break my own heart. I didn’t just feel love; I did what love dictated.”

I once heard a girl….sure you did. I don’t believe that for a minute. The above quote was carefully configured to play on the heart strings of worried expectant mothers everywhere. It was created with the hope that it would help secure more babies to meet the demand.

There are many other similarly manipulative quotes on their webpage entitled “Inspirational Adoption Quotes.” 

I pondered this quote for a few hours. A few things came to mind. I’m an avid reader and a huge fan of Stephen King. Even if you aren’t a reader, I’m sure most of you have probably seen the movie “The Green Mile” based off of a short story by Stephen King. If you haven’t, I won’t spoil it all the way for you, but you may want to stop reading (and miss the point of my post). There’s an inmate, John Coffey, who is accused of committing a heinous crime. Two young sisters have been murdered. John was found with both girls in his hands. He is crying and says, “I tried to take it back but it was too late.” He is arrested for the crime and sent to death row. We learn, later in the movie, that Mr. Coffey has an amazing gift of healing. He is also a bit cognitively delayed so he doesn’t understand many things. He is a huge man, and African-American during a time where the color of your skin could automatically implicate you in any crime. We learn that John Coffey is a gentle giant who was trying to “take back” the murder of the girls with his healing power. At the end of the movie we are shown who the true assailant is; a man named Wild Bill, who takes the girls and keeps them both quiet so he can commit his crime, by telling each of them that he will kill the other girl if she is not quiet. He says, “You love your sister? You make any noise, you know what happens. I’m gonna kill her instead of you. Understand?” Wild Bill relies on the love the sisters have for each other. A love that is willing to sacrifice their selves to protect the other. A love like that of a love a mother has for her child. With this threat, Wild Bill is able to keep both of the girls quiet long enough to assault and brutally murder the girls. He manipulates them both with their love for each other.

John Coffey sums it up perfectly. He says, “He kill them wi’ their love. Wi’ their love fo’ each other. That’s how it is, every day, all over the world.” Some of the wisest words ever spoken. While no one is being physically killed in adoption, an emotional death does occur for many people. Especially people who start to realize, sometimes years later, that they were manipulated out of their child, that they were good enough (even if they were not well off financially), and that keeping their child didn’t mean they didn’t love them or loved them less. They become angry when they realized their loved was used against them in order for someone else to gain their child.

And then they find their voices. And then, sometimes, adoptees find theirs and become angry as well. Is it so hard to ask people involved in facilitating adoption to act ethically, responsibly? Let’s make this clear, for those who aren’t aware – legal and ethical are not always the same thing. What’s legal is not always ethical and vice versa.

Is it right to use subtle manipulation to convince a mother to give up her child? It is ethical? Is it right to convey the message the mothers who decide to parent, regardless of their circumstances, love their child less? Is that ethical?

He kill them wi’ their love. Wi’ their love fo’ each other. That’s how it is, every day, all over the world.

Dying To Breastfeed

We all know there is a huge debate in the adoption community about the ethics surrounding breastfeeding in adoptive mothers. Some have even gone so far as to call this practice child abuse. The reasons stated for this will not be the same reasons that I give, however, I understand the sentiment. I have more concrete reasons for considering this child abuse. There are a wide array of reasons that people argue for and against breastfeeding in adoptive mothers. My argument will be more specific and will follow simple medical logic. Regardless of your feelings on adoption, I would hope that with facts in hand you will all see how truly horrid breastfeeding is when it comes to adoptive mothers.

First let’s take a look at how breast milk is produced in a pregnant/post-natal mother. We all know that our bodies are designed to nurture our children. The natural process includes many things and the production of breast milk needed to sustain a newborn is definitely one of the major ones.

An article on Baby Center gives a general run down on the process. I’ll summarize. It all starts with the placenta. The placenta is the life force of the unborn child. It provides it with all the nutrients it needs to grow before birth. The placenta stimulates hormones that trigger a chain of events in a pregnant woman’s body that result in the production of breast milk. Prolactin is the essential hormone in order for the final steps to take place. The production of Prolactin takes place in the pituitary gland and brain (again, from a complex set of events that started with the placenta). Without Prolactin, there is no breast milk.

This is what a woman’s body does during pregnancy. A chain of complex events is kicked off to make sure there is a milk supply to nurture that infant after the pregnancy ends. This is nature’s way. Breast feeding in adoptive mother’s is man’s way.

Wet nurses were often used during times in our human history when they were needed for various reasons. We did not have bottles and formula and to ensure the survival of an infant whose mother was not able, for a variety of reasons, to breast feed, wet nurses were often employed. It is true that wet nurses were also used by the wealthy, but that is a subject for another day. It is important to point out that the wet nurses of our yester-years produced milk naturally. These were women who had already born children and then continued to nurse so their milk supply was always at an appropriate level. The more you nurse, the more milk you will have. Supply and demand and your body knows how much to make.

Why do adoptive mothers want to breast feed babies that they did not give birth to?

Many will tell you the reason is for the health benefits of breast-feeding. Breast fed babies are generally smarter, healthier, and are given a better start due to important antibodies that are passed on to the child through the mother’s milk. But what if the adoptive mother’s milk was toxic? What if it had the potential to not only kill the adoptive mother but also the nursing infant? Are the health benefits of breastfeeding versus formula still there? Which would be safer? Along with the health benefits, many will also tell you that the bonding that comes with breastfeeding is something that is important to them. Valid point but it is sort of hard to bond with your new baby if you are dead, or worse, they are dead.

It is important to point out that formula fed babies are not, on average, dumb, unhealthy, or set on a path of fated illnesses for the rest of their lives. A formula fed baby can be healthy, happy, and nourished.

How is it possible for an adoptive mother to breastfeed if they have not gone through the natural process of pregnancy to induce lactation?

There are a variety of ways to induce lactation. There are “natural” methods that a woman can use to “trick” their bodies into milk production. These methods can include stimulation of the nipples (using a breast pump to simulate breast-feeding), herbal teas, and a variety of other benign things. These “natural” methods of induction of lactation, however, are not nearly as successful as the preferred method – artificial drugs. On average, according to an Oxford journal, the “natural” method of inducting lactation is only about 50% effective while using artificial drugs to induce lactation are about 89% effective. If you are a hopeful adoptive parent and are set on breastfeeding which statistic do you choose? Well, given all the information, any sane person would take their chances with the 50%. This is where that “health benefits and bonding” excuse for wanting to breastfeed come into question. Would you choose the method that will give you an 89% success rate over the 50% success rate if you were aware of the risks involved with that higher rate?

I don’t believe for one second that these “breastfeeding adoptive mothers” are not aware of every single health risk that comes with artificially inducing lactation. They have done their research into every orifice of the breastfeeding dilemma. If I could find this information with a few key strokes and clicks then surely they have as well. Those that continue to follow this path are endangering their life as well as the child they hope to adopt. This certainly isn’t what’s “best” for baby.

How many expectant mothers are aware that the “awesome” and “deserving” set of parents they have chosen to adopt their baby may be putting their child’s life at risk simply because they want to have a child that is “as if” born to them, including the breastfeeding aspect. Don’t give me the bull about health benefits and bonding when you know perfectly well the dangers that come with it. It now becomes about YOU and YOU alone. It becomes about your crazed desire to pretend that you have given birth to this child. It becomes about an obsession so great that you are willing to risk your life and the life of the baby to fulfill it.

Some of you may be puzzled right now and are wondering what I’m talking about. I apologize. It will soon become clear.

What drug is given to induce lactation in women who are adopting and wish to breastfeed?

Domperidone.

In fact, a woman in an adoption group who is hoping to adopt posed the question about breastfeeding. The women in the group happily and eagerly replied citing Domperidone as the way to go. One woman even brags about how she takes 80 mg a day and her milk supply is great! She only needs to supplement with a bottle once or twice a day. See for yourself.

bf1 (1)

bf2

bf3

bf4

bf5

Because I have breastfed four babies (and dutifully pumped for the one I relinquished) I began to wonder if this drug is passed through breast milk and how dangerous it may be. Any breastfeeding mom will tell you that before they take any medications or drugs they will always check with their doctor to make sure it’s safe. Not all drugs cross through and go into the breast milk and not all drugs are harmful to the baby. Out of curiosity I decided to go to Google. That’s how I found what I found. It was the first result I got. This is why I don’t believe for a second that these breastfeeding adoptive mothers aren’t privy to the information that I have found. It isn’t a national secret. It’s readily available, and the first search result at that, just by typing “Domperidone breastfeeding” into the google search bar. So what did I find?

Well, as it turns out, for reasons of inducing lactation, the FDA has BANNED prescribing Domperidone. It’s illegal to import it into the country and only one place is even authorized, in the whole United States, to produce it – and not for lactation. This ban is in place because of the health risks, which we’ll get into shortly.

This got me wondering….who are these doctors that are prescribing this for lactation against the FDA rules? It’s illegal to import and the FDA says it cannot be prescribed for lactation. Why are these doctors prescribing it? Didn’t they take an oath? One that says, “first do no harm?” Harm is exactly what they could be doing and for what? Is it life-threatening for an adoptive mother to NOT breastfeed? No. So why would a doctor, sworn to first do no harm, prescribe a medication that has the potential to kill the adoptive mother and the baby she is nursing?

Read for yourself:

“Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stresses that domperidone is not an FDA-approved drug, and that it may not be legally marketed in the US. In June 2004, FDA warned compounding pharmacies and firms that supply domperidone for use in compounding that it is illegal to compound domperidone. In addition, FDA put into place an import alert permitting FDA personnel to detain domperidone shipments of bulk ingredients and shipments of finished drug products offered for importation without an active investigational new drug application. These actions resulted from FDA’s concern about the potential health risks associated with the use of domperidone in lactating women. These risks include cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, and sudden death.

Although domperidone is not FDA approved, FDA recognizes there are some patients with severe gastrointestinal motility disorders that are refractory to standard therapy who may benefit from the use of domperidone and in whom the benefits of the drug may outweigh its risks. Domperidone is available to these patients through an Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs program. Under this program, domperidone may be obtained only from certain specified suppliers and authorization must be obtained prior to the importation, interstate shipment, and administration of the drug. According to FDA, currently the only authorized supplier of the drug is Dougherty’s Pharmacy in Dallas, TX.

Boards observing that an entity may be obtaining or compounding domperidone under circumstances not in compliance with FDA regulations are encouraged by the agency to report any concerns. Pharmacists may direct any questions to the FDA Division of Drug Information by sending an e-mail to druginfo@fda.hhs.gov or by calling 855/543-3784 or 301/796-3400.”

This article was published on July 31, 2013. The original warning letter was issued in 2004. Because compliance was not being met, they had to issue an additional warning to stress what was in the original one.

Yet, here we have a whole group of women talking about how they take it everyday to breastfeed their adopted children. We have them telling a hopeful adoptive mom to join a support group online about adoptive breastfeeding – most likely so they can get more information about this “miracle drug.” We even have them giving out the names of places overseas that they can order it from. Can anyone spell illegal? Felony?

(Side note: I have forwarded the original messages, along with names that have been blacked out here, and the links to these women’s Facebook pages to the email address provided by the FDA in the letter)

So why is this drug banned by the FDA? Let’s take a look at another article written by a cardiologist. She sites that sudden cardiac arrest is one of the deadly side effects of Domperidone. She states that it IS transmitted through breast milk. She also questions the increasing instances of SIDS that have happened in more recent years that happen to correlate with the increasing number of adoptive mothers who are inducing lactation artificially.

Let me ask you a question. If I purposely ingesting drugs that I knew could potentially kill my child what would happen to me? Would child and family services show up at my door and seize my baby? If something bad did happen would I go to prison for murder? Let me remind you of a story from a little over a year ago. A mother was sentenced to 20 years in prison because she breastfed her baby while on Morphine and Klonopin. The 6-week old baby died. She landed in prison, as she should be, because those drugs were detectable in the baby’s system. Domperidone would surely be detectable as well, but it’s not a narcotic. Regardless of the known dangers – sudden cardiac arrest – women breastfeeding while taking this drug are not investigated. I think the good cardiologist has a point when she questions SIDS deaths.

And I quote: “If the risk to the mother isn’t enough, there’s a risk to the baby too. Domperidone is transferred in breast milk (LC’s often deny this!) and infants are exquisitely sensitive to its effect. How many ‘SIDS’ cases out there are in fact sudden cardiac deaths from arrythmias caused by maternal domperidone use?”

My question is WHY? Why would women take something known to be potentially fatal to their infant? Why are adoptive mothers passing home studies and getting approved to go ahead with an adoption when they are CLEARLY putting their infant at risk of death for an unnecessary reason by taking this drug? This is child endangerment – clear and concise child endangerment. A mother is willingly and knowingly ingesting a drug that is dangerous and then feeding this drug to her child, knowing the potential harm it could cause.

Why?

Because the fantasy and obsession to pretend that she gave birth to that child is so great that she is willing to go to any length, take any risk, to sustain it. You cannot tell me a whole bunch of mushy gushy healthy reasons you wish to breastfeed and have me believe it when the method you are using to induce lactation could KILL that child. Then it’s about you – and only you.

When you are faced with someone arguing with you about how great it is that adoptive mothers want to breastfeed, remind them that none of those reasons are valid if they choose to induce lactation artificially. Then it becomes child abuse. Nothing less than child abuse.