Operation Matthew 6:25-34

Welcome to one of the most coercive pre-adoptive stories you will ever read. Take a seat and prepare to look through a “story book” that defines coercion and duress in expectant mothers. I almost titled this post “Faces of Adoption Coercion: Level Infinity.”

Meet Tuesday Laine Watson and her husband, Josh. Tuesday is very young, in her 20’s and is hoping to adopt a young woman’s baby when it is born this May. Someone she knew from her past, according to Tuesday’s public Facebook profile. However, Tuesday didn’t get the memo that she is a “hopeful” adoptive parent. She has already bestowed upon herself the title of “mother” to a baby yet to be born. For months now. Complete with parking in expectant mother parking spaces, having an elaborate baby shower, naming the baby, and posting about “her” child all over the inter webs. 

To make matters worse, Tuesday is friends with this expectant mother on Facebook and she sees all these posts. Shoot, Tuesday even tags her in some. Posts about how selfless her “birth” mom is (even though she is not yet a birthmom). Posts about how this emom is giving her this tremendous gift. You know. Posts that would make this emom, we’ll call her Sunday (Keeping in theme with the days of the week), feel a gut wrenching guilt should she decide she would indeed like to parent HER baby. Because Tuesday has already laid claim to this baby and leaves little room for Sunday to do the same. 

Tuesday has made it vehemently clear that SHE is the mother to this child and not Sunday. Sunday is simply the vessel of birth. 

I could go on for ages about the need for adoption education in Tuesday’s life for the sake of this child should she indeed adopt her. But anyone reading this will already know what I mean when I’m done. 

I’ll let Tuesday’s words speak for themselves. 

Fundraising for adoption fees instead of to help a mother keep her child and not face immense heartbreak the rest of her life.

Photo of expectant mother “Sunday”

She “deserves” a baby.

Photo courtesy of Facebook

Photo courtesy of Facebook


Still with me?

Some questions. 

How is Sunday supposed to back out of this if she decides she wants to parent? She has been reading these things for months. I would speculate that she thinks God doesn’t want her to have her baby and to hurt Tuesday by parenting her child means she would not be doing right by God. 

How can Sunday make an informed decision with no one guiding her or exploring other options with her?

How is this even happening? 

Dear Tuesday,

You deleted the comment I left on your blog. You silenced my voice. How long before you silence Sunday’s? It appears you believe you are entitled to her child. From past experiences I’ve found that usually leads to any kind of open adoption closing since the adoptive mother’s insecurities supersede the needs of the adopted child. Have you even researched how to parent an adopted child?

Since you decided to silence me on YOUR blog, I’ve decided that I will speak my peace on MINE. 

Here is the comment I left that you would not approve. View the blog post this comment was intended for HERE.

Or here:

https://anotherrandomtuesday.wordpress.com/2017/02/28/first-blog-post/

“You’re right. God doesn’t make mistakes. And he certainly doesn’t plan for another woman to suffer lifelong immeasurable pain to fulfill the selfish desires of another woman. No, he doesn’t do that. God makes provisions in the Bible for women who are struggling. He commands others to care for them, not help themselves to their babies. 

Nowhere in the Bible will you find an instance of a woman planning to give her unborn child to another woman because she is poor. Modern day domestic infant adoption doesn’t exist in the Bible. Because God doesn’t facilitate or plan this. 

No, what you should be doing is helping this mother keep her baby. You know, the mother you say you care about so much. But you only care about her if you get her baby. 

Look in the mirror. Bette yet, listen to what God is telling you. Because he isn’t telling you to help this pregnant mother by taking her baby. Gods plan doesn’t involve pain like that for her.

His plan doesn’t involve pain like that for you, either. But while there is nothing you can do to resolve the pain of infertility, there is something you can do to save this mother, and her child, the lifelong pain of separation. 

You worry you won’t be enough. I’ll answer that for you right now. You won’t be. An adopted child will always straddle two worlds, never FULLY belonging to either. They will see the life they should have had and the life they were given. And they will struggle. You can never be enough because every adoption begins with a loss. Every. Single. One. The loss of the adoptees first family and the loss of the child to the first family. 

If you really truly believe in Gods plan you know what he says about taking care of the poor and needy. 

Is this unborn child’s life in danger?

Will this unborn child be a true orphan (both of his parents will be deceased)?

Will this unborn child be in physical danger if she stays with her mother?

If the answer is “no” to these questions this is not Gods plan. 

Help this mother KEEP her baby. 

Or at least admit God has nothing to do with it. You want a baby. You don’t care what God commands you to do. The least you could do is be honest. 

One day you’ll have to answer for it. And when He asks you why you manipulated His word for your own selfish desires what will you answer?”

-——————

So what is Operation Matthew 6:25-34? 

I need all of you for this one and time is running short. Please email me at musingsofabirthmom@gmail.com or visit my Facebook page and send a message:

Musings of a Birthmom

Advertisements

In Loving Memory of Gwendolyn Archard

On August 26, 2016 I heard the news that a dear first mom friend of mine was no longer with us. The previous day, beautiful Gwen had decided that the pain was too much and bowed out of this circus called life. Just before her decision, she deleted dozens of her first mom friends. I am assuming she did not want us to know what had happened. We found out anyway.

Shock, sadness, and despair ripped through our online communities. We searched frantically for an obituary, in the days to come, but none was to be found.

A few days ago, Gwen’s brother, the only family that Gwen really felt she could rely on, posted publicly of her passing. He didn’t indicate any formal funeral, but it was clear other non-traditional arrangements to honor her memory had been made.

Today I write to honor Gwen and her life inside our private world, the world of first moms. Gwen was an activist, a warrior, she dedicated her life to fighting injustices. Gwen had Cerbral Palsy but she didn’t let that stop her. As a practicing criminal defense attorney and disability rights champion, Gwen was thrust into another arena, unexpectedly. And she fought there, too. Side by side, with other first moms, she fought against the injustices and coercion in the world of adoption.

You see, Gwen wanted her son. A beautiful little boy she named Atticus. However, upon his birth, Gwen was threatened with foster care and CPS if she did not relinquish her rights to her child. One particular nurse made it abundantly clear to Gwen that her disability would mean her child being forcibly removed and lingering from foster home to foster home while she fought for her right to parent him.

Because Gwen loved Atticus more than life itself, she was coerced into believing this nurse, and others, and relinquished Atticus for adoption after his birth to spare him the perceived pain of living in foster care.

Gwen believed fighting for her son was not in his best interests because she was not good enough for her son. She was made to believe this.

While Gwen’s case is an extreme, it is the same concept of almost all domestic infant adoptions. It was easy to target Gwen because she had a disability to use against her as an excuse for why she wasn’t good enough. Almost every woman considering adoption has to be made to believe the same thing for a successful adoption to ensue. Maybe they don’t have a visible disability. Maybe they are poor. Maybe they have an anxiety disorder. Maybe they aren’t married. It’s all the same, the message that’s received. You aren’t good enough for your child, they deserve better.

Gwen would have made a fantastic parenting mother. Like everything she did in her life, I imagine she would rock at it. She was an amazing person and the world has suffered a huge loss with her passing. Atticus, her son, has suffered the most tremulous loss.

People say that adoption isn’t trauma. They say it’s a beautiful thing. They don’t recognize the aftermath that can follow for first moms and many adoptees. When presented with stories like Gwen they will say, “See, it’s better her son was adopted. Look what happened. His mom was mentally ill.” To which I say, NO. Nothing in Gwen’s life, prior to the loss of her son, indicates any mental illness. Instead, Gwen’s death can be blamed solely on adoption. She lost her son. A mother LOST HER SON. It’s enough to make anyone not want to live anymore, to throw in the towel, to give up. The pain can be so suffocating, at times, that death seems like the only reprieve.

Atticus last saw his mother as a newborn in the hosptial. Gwen did not get her “open adoption.” She was left to use non-traditional means to get glimpses into his life. I am happy to have been a part of that, to have given her a little bit of comfort in her too short life as a first mom. The pictures brought her great joy, but they also brought her great pain. To see her son, her baby, not living the life she wanted for him, with her. Such is the life of a first mom.

I’m hoping that one day Atticus can find this post and know how much his mother loved him, how hard she fought for him, and how devastated she was without him. I hope he knows how much he was WANTED and loved.

In closing, I will share with you some private thoughts from Gwen that she posted, over the last year or so, in our private group. The admins agreed that Gwen would want this. No one can hurt her anymore so there’s nothing left to lose.

We will be your voice now, Gwen. We will watch over Atticus and make sure he knows your story.

We miss you. We love you. Sleep peacefully and free from the pain of this world.

-Your first mom sisters

“Atticus is 2 today.

The birth announcement I never got to make:

Atticus Kitwana Mulupi, Born July 9, 2013 at 2:51 pm.  4 lb 1 oz, 17′ long.  I love you, baby boy.”

“Happy 3rd birthday, Atticus Kitwana Mulupi.  I love you more than you will ever know.  I am more proud of you every day.”

“I think my issue is that my son’s adoption was very coercive.  I “picked” the AP’s, but only because I was told he would risk being taken into foster care if I didn’t have a family for him when I left the hospital.  I’ve always sensed that they look down on me because I have a physical disability.”

“I had been threatened with foster care right after birth, simply because I have cerebral palsy.  That is the ONLY reason why I got involved with the adoption lawyers in the first place.”

“Been feeling isolated lately.  Dealing with crap about how my disability made me feel like I had no right to ask for any help with Atticus….I’ve been to like 4 different counselors since relinquishment and none of them really understand that aspect.  I just want to be told I have the same rights as others and that nobody’s judging me for what I can and cannot do.  I don’t want to burden anybody but a counselor with this crap.  Not sure who else to talk to.”

-Gwendolyn Archard

image

Cuddle, Nurture, Newborns Awaiting Adoption: The Adoption Propaganda Machine

*EDIT: The article states there are 104,000 children awaiting adoption which is misleading and needs correction. This number reflects, almost exclusively, Foster care placements, not infants.*

Let’s talk about this article and its counterpart (original source), this article.

Headline:

Adoption agencies need volunteers to cuddle, nurture newborns awaiting adoption

This article has been posted by various news outlets all over the Internet. It has been shared multiple times by agencies, pro-adoption groups, and mis-educated bystanders who see it in their news feed and think, “Awwww.” Stop.

Propaganda: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. 3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

Upon first glance, the first article seems to be a cuddly, fuzzy, feel-good piece. Volunteer to snuggle babies all day because there just isn’t enough people to do it! Those poor, abandoned children who are awaiting forever homes. That is not the case, however, and upon reading the more in-depth article, at ABC News, you will get more details.

You will find that the source for the article is Susan Singer who volunteers at Spence-Chapin. Nowhere will you find that Spence-Chapin is an adoption agency. It’s official IRS name is Spence-Chapin Services to Families and Children and it is a registered non-profit. But, as we know, non-profit, for tax purposes, does not always mean “doesn’t make money or doesn’t have a vested interest in making money to sustain itself.”

According to their form 990, filed with the IRS for tax year 2014, “THE MISSION OF SPENCE-CHAPIN IS TO PROVIDE ADOPTION AND ADOPTION-RELATED SERVICES OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY.” In tax year 2014 they also received almost $1,700,000 in funds. They paid out almost $120,000 in grants (not sure exactly what kinds of grants), and $4,142,000 were paid in SALARIES to employees of this agency. Their total amount of assets, at the end of 2014, were almost $56,000,000. Yes, fifty-six MILLION dollars. Of the board, there are a couple dozen members. Five of those board members receive a paycheck.

The executive director, Emily Forhman, makes almost $200,000 a year.

The CFO, Rick Stewart, makes almost $160,000 a year.

The director for adoption, David Nish, makes $120,000 a year.

The director of marketing, Leslie Case, makes a little over $100,000 a year.

And their attorney, Yekaterina Trambitskaya, is paid $104,000 a year.

(Let’s not forget the endowment fund that is totally separate of all this that keeps collecting interest. It’s net worth for 2014 was 37 1/2 million dollars)

We shouldn’t forget that it’s okay to make a couple hundred thousand dollars a year as a salary when you run a non profit as long as that isn’t you MAIN goal, according to the IRS.

(Contrary to Spence-Chapin’s 2013 newsletter that they will no longer be facilitating infant adoptions, they still continue to do so)

Now that we’ve established where this article is coming from, who has influenced it, and what it does, let’s talk cradle care.

Spence-Chapin calls it “interim care.” I am not totally opposed to cradle care. I think it is good for a mother to take a few weeks, let her body heal, make a sound judgement call, before making such a life-changing decision, such as relinquishing her child. If done correctly, cradle care can be a valuable tool to diminish the number of unnecessary domestic infant adoptions in the United States. Instead of having a mother sign away her rights, days or hours after birth, she has more time to think, more time to get used to the idea of her baby not being with her. I have met so many first moms, over the years, who have changed their mind a week after relinquishing and there is nothing that can be done. So, no, I’m not totally opposed to cradle care. What I am opposed to is an adoption agency providing the cradle care.

Why? Because it’s a horrible conflict of interest. I have worked on too many cases where the mother has not yet relinquished her rights, the agency has custody of the baby, she has asked for the baby back, and has been met with nothing but problems, red tape, and outright refusal to return her baby. Even agencies who return the baby willingly, have a vested (and financial, as we’ve seen above) interest in making sure that baby is successfully adopted out to recoup fees (see hyperlink for access to Spence-Chapin’s form 990).

Besides the obvious conflict of interest, there remains the fact that most of these babies DO have a loving mother that can “cuddle and nurture” their newborns while awaiting the adoption process. Why are these babies not taken home by their mothers to care for? Well, the most obvious answer would be because there are no financial resources for her to be able to do so. Yet, we see that Spence-Chapin is providing diapers, formula, clothes, and transportation to their volunteer “cuddlers.” Why aren’t they providing this to new moms while they decide whether or not to relinquish? Quite simply because once a mom takes her baby home, the chances of her actually relinquishing drop tremendously. Some moms may not want to take the baby home because “it would make it too hard to give the baby up later.” If that’s the case, the reasons behind going through with relinquishment must not have been very solid. Besides, we all know that’s what the agencies tell you. “Don’t take that baby home! It will make it VERY hard on you once you relinquish!”  Here’s the thing…baby home or not, it’s hard, the same kind of hard, and it just gets harder as the years go by.

So, just to recap, Spence-Chapin is providing diapers, formula, clothing and transportation to volunteers taking care of babies, but not to the mothers to take care of their babies while making a final decision.

There are some issues adoptees have raised with cradle care. Being taken from their mother of origin, placed with a stranger for a month or longer, then taken from that person and being placed with another stranger is worrisome and it is suggested that it is possible that it may make for attachment problems later in life. This is why a mother should ALWAYS be helped to take her baby home, if it is safe, to try parenting. Agencies (especially ones paying out over 4 million dollars in salaries with over 50,000,0000 in assets) should be providing the same things to these mothers, while they make a permanent decision, as they are to volunteers in cradle care. Why wouldn’t you? And, if the end result of cradle care is that a mother was not coerced, and that she did decide to keep her child, it’s worth it. But, again, agencies should NOT be providing it.

Who should be providing cradle care? Third party groups with no vested interest in whether or not an adoption goes through. They should be paid by the agencies or at least the basic necessities for a baby should be provided. The most desirable answer, though, is for the baby to go home with mom so she can try her hand at parenting. Adoption is always something that can be done, weeks later, if she feels it is too much.

Here’s the reality. There aren’t a whole bunch of abandoned infants in tremendous need of cuddles or homes. There ARE a whole bunch of people wanting to adopt newborn infants and the demand far exceeds the supply. The reality is that these babies DO have loving mothers, or at least the majority do.  The reality is that many of these relinquishments would probably not take place if the mother had just the tiniest bit of support, sometimes not even financial. Some diapers, formula, clothing and transportation. Why are agencies making hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries, alone (donated money at that!), to facilitate separation of mother and child, while they could be using those resources to keep families together? Because adoption, in America, has become this great propaganda machine. The general public, who has little knowledge to how this really works, sees “adoption” and has images of orphans, heartless moms who just don’t want a baby, and/or abusive mothers in their heads. They pull out their pocket books, heartstrings tugged, and give it away to help separate families. The entirety of the money earned in 2014 for Spence-Chapin came from donations. Another, less obvious, reason people are more willing to donate to adoption agencies than poor single mothers is because, like it or not, the stigma of getting pregnant and having a baby, before one is ready, is still quite prominent. There is the sentiment of, “drain on the taxpayers, mooch, or stupid.” Society, as a whole, thinks it is best that those babies be given to financially stable parents so they don’t have to fork out taxpayer dollars to help care for them. Most of these same people, will also tell you that abortion is WRONG. You’re going to HELL! Their only solution to an unplanned pregnancy is adoption – based on their beliefs, stigmas, and stereotypes. The fact is, however, that taxpayer money, for social welfare programs, pales in comparison to where their taxpayer dollars are really going. Nike, alone, has taken in over 2 BILLION dollars in welfare handouts from this country. 

So herein lies the question. Why are we unnecessarily separating mothers from their babies and babies from their mothers? Because society doesn’t think those mothers are deserving of their babies because of the circumstances of the conception. Plain and simple. Times haven’t really changed that much. Not at all. It’s time for us, as a society, to stop believing every gushy, propagandic, agency-delivered, drool we are fed. It’s time for us, as human beings, to stand up and stop the inhumanity of mother-child separation.

The articles cited are propaganda. They exist to promote adoption and, in turn, raise funds for an adoption agency to better procure the product to deliver to the buyers. It’s simple. It’s business and you’re falling for it.

Desperation in Mobile, Alabama: Kimberly Rossler & Underhanded Legal Tactics

This post was composed at the end of July 2015. I have waited until now to publish it.

For those who aren’t aware of what a gag order is, I’d like to do a quick informational session.

Gag orders can also be called protective orders. They are typically used to prevent parties in a trial from discussing anything pertaining to the trial with the public. It is supposed to protect potential witnesses, jury members, and other people. Usually gag orders are used in criminal trials in order to assure the defendant receives a fair trial. People can only shelter themselves from the media so much and with some highly publicized cases it could be next to impossible to find jury members that have not been swayed by an article they’ve seen on the Internet or something they’ve seen reported on the news. There are different types of gag orders and they can cover different things but, usually, anything that was discussed before the gag order took affect is fair game. For instance, say there is a trial for a famous murder suspect. This would be a highly publicized case. National, if not international, attention would most likely be attracted to it. If the suspect in the case had discussed A, B. and C with the media before a judge instituted a gag order for trial participants, then A, B, and C can still be discussed and reported on in the media. Gag orders used to be applied to journalists but that was found to be unconstitutional and directly violated freedom of the press. To bypass this, judges just began silencing the participants.

Gag orders are very controversial and some have been challenged with success in the court room. I have not been able to come up with any cases of gag orders being applied for circumstances such as Kimberly’s except for the case of Carri Stearns, whose story is similar to Kimberly’s. Personally, I believe gag orders for cases where there is no jury trial are just another way to shut people up. Unfortunately, cases like these need to be publicized so people are aware. Going through comments after comments on article after article I would estimate 90% of the public has no idea how adoption or adoption laws even work. It’s sad.

Since gag orders have no authority to stop reporters from reporting on cases, the media and journalists are free to report on it and find other sources to gain information. I have been working on this for a little while so that I can try to give some sort of update to all of Kimberly’s supporters. No one is as frustrated as you all that we are not being informed with what is going on.

To do this, I took to social media. Scouring through comment after comment on all the news articles that were posted on Facebook as well as individual websites I stumbled across something. Remember, gag orders apply to ALL parties in a case. So, since Kimberly isn’t allowed to talk about the case, neither is Kate Sharp or her associates. I found a comment on one of the articles from a [name hidden to protect the identity – we’ll call him C]. C commented about a car accident that Kimberly had caused 4 or 5 years ago that involved rear-ending him. C was upset because nothing ever came of it and made some allegations that maybe the police were involved in helping Kimberly lie, or something like that, and that Kimberly had given the police a false name and ID when they arrived at the scene of the fender bender. He never recouped costs. If I were in C’s shoes I would probably be a little perturbed about that as well. Kimberly is not at liberty to discuss the case, but she is at liberty to tell me anything else she wants unrelated. So I asked her. We had previously talked, before the gag order, and I had asked her to tell me all the dirty little secrets. Sadly, when you case becomes publicized, everyone will pick you apart and find reasons why you shouldn’t have your baby. It is quite amusing, however, because it is a very rare person, indeed, to not have any “skeletons” in their closet. I digress. Kimberly gave a general breakdown of the things she had done in her past. She didn’t disclose this accident but had disclosed a charge for underage drinking. I’m sure you’ve seen her mug shots when you google her name. This was her past, however. She was young, even a teenager for some things, and this was not who she was today. I must point something out. Kimberly works at a day care center. Federal law does not allow people with certain criminal records to work with children. You are also required to take a drug test and pass a background check to do so. Let me repeat, Kimberly works at a day care center. Where were we? Oh yes, I asked Kimberly about C’s claim in the comments section of the Fox10 Facebook posting. She said, flat out, “He has a right to be mad. I’d be mad. What I did was wrong and I never repaid him. But that’s not who I am now, that’s who I was then. That was like 5 years ago.” She’s right.

I decided to visit C’s personal Facebook page and saw a public posting he had made in regards to Kimberly. He claims he has a decision to make and asks his friends to help. He goes on to tell about his run in with Kimberly those years ago and says he has been approached to be a character witness for the opposition in this case. He tells his friends what she had done to him and asks if he should do it. You know, since she wronged him in the past. He does not know Kimberly personally, and admits to this in the comments. His only knowledge of her is based on this one incident, almost 5 years ago.

The comments that followed were a mixed bag. Some said don’t’ get involved, others said to go for it and use it as a means to “get your revenge.” C commented here and there, made some jokes. It really was quite the show.

This leads me to believe that C has been approached by David Broome, legal counsel for Kate Sharp, and has been asked to be a character witness because he has “dirt” on Kimberly. I’m no lawyer, but I’m also wondering if David Broome may have broken the gag order by discussing this with C. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. This also tells me something else. They are grasping for straws. This tells me they can find nobody that actually knows Kimberly that will attest to her character in a negative light. They are desperate and are seeking out someone who has no relationship with her, never has had a relationship with her, to testify to her character based on one wrong thing she did to him. Top that off with his possible “revenge” testimony and he isn’t very credible.

From this one Facebook post I can go out on a limb and gain some pretty good information. Of course, none of it is 100%. He could be some whacko who wants attention. I’m going to choose to believe that this is not the case.

Here’s another good thing. If they are seeking character witnesses that means that Kimberly’s rights were NOT terminated at that court date on the 24th.  I scrolled some more through C’s profile. Most, if not all, of it is public. I took the proper screen shots in case they were needed to show the character of the “character witness.” His post mentions how he detests people who drink alcohol and then eludes to the loss of his father in some kind of accident. I’m wondering if his father wasn’t killed by a drunk driver which would also fuel his need to get revenge on Kimberly because of the incident between them almost 5 years ago. Punish those who are like the person who killed his father? I don’t know. This is all pure speculation.

There you have it. The best update that I could come up with. I hope it’s enough for now. I know it’s definitely better than nothing and it does seem hopeful.

Thank you all for your support and patience!!

C1

C2

And some of the comments:

C3

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.