Adoption as Legal Kidnapping

The wicked snatch fatherless children from their mother’s breasts, and take a poor man’s baby as a pledge before they will loan him any money or grain. -Job 24:9

In this post, I want to focus on what happens in the United States these days when a newborn infant is given up for adoption, and how voluntary relinquishment of a child removes the constitutional rights of birth parents to their own child. Perhaps if more people knew what signing a Consent to Adoption  meant and how difficult it is to revoke one in court, fewer people would sign them or encourage birth parents to sign away the constitutional rights of themselves and their children.

The Rights of the Natural Family

In the United States, before any child can be adopted, the petitioners for adoption (usually, the adoptive parents) must prove that adoption is in the best interests of the child. The child’s own attorney, or guardian ad litem, must agree, for all adoption in the U.S. must legally serve the child’s best interests. Many people do not know that, under the law, the biological parents have substantial rights to assert, if only someone would support them in doing so. Many people also do not know that the laws in the United States support being raised by one’s biological parents as foundational to the child’s best interests–so foundational, in fact, that the right to raise one’s biological child, and the right to be raised by one’s biological parents, is a constitutionally protected right.

It is a right, that is, until a mother voluntarily gives up physical or legal custody of her baby. The act of surrender is, in point of legal fact, a terrible surrender for it abrogates the right of the child to be raised by his own parents, too. Those interested in the legal side of child welfare should compare guardianship and custody laws with adoption laws for an education in just how badly awry our adoption laws have gone, thanks to tweaking by adoptive parents, adoption attorneys, and legislators.

Because the right to raise the children one has given birth to is a constitutionally protected right, during guardianship or custody proceedings, it is presumed that the best interests of minor children is served by placement with the natural parent in the absence of clear and convincing proof showing that the natural parent is unfit. A large body of case law makes it clear that it is legally presumed that the best interests of the child is to be with his parents, unless being with the parents is contrary to the child’s welfare.

Furthermore, in the United States, any unfitness which might deprive a parent of the right to custody of his minor child must be positive and not comparative, and the mere fact that a child might be better cared for by a third person is not enough to deprive the parent of his or her right to custody of the child. So, for example, the fact that a child might be better cared for by another person is not sufficient reason for depriving a parent of custody of his or her child. At least, this is the case in guardianship proceedings.

In Alford v. Thomas, 316 P.2d 188 (Okla. 1955), the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained the natural and legal rights of biological parents thus:

“Parents have by nature, as well as law, the legal right to the custody of their minor children. This right will always control the judgment of the courts, unless circumstances of great weight and importance connected with the necessary welfare of the child exist to overcome such right.”

The Pitfalls of Voluntary Relinquishment

Unfortunately, nature seems powerless when court proceedings concern adoption rather than guardianship and custody, although even in some custody cases, courts may become confused. In a North Carolina Supreme Court case, Price v. Howard, the court ruled that any voluntary relinquishment of custody by a parent “would result in the loss of constitutional protections of the superior custody interests of parents in their children, and would allow the court to use the best interests of the child standard without a showing of parental unfitness or neglect.”

Stay with me on this, for in this one example of court-sanctioned legal skullduggery, we can see how courts moved from favoring biological parents to favoring adoptive parents. Voluntary relinquishment of custody removes the birth parent’s constitutional right to raise her child, and all presumptive rights, too. Before the adoption has ever been completed, she has forever signed away the presumptive rights she had. This is how adoptive parents win in court nearly every time.

This is why many people do not know that, the moment a birth parent hands her newborn over to eager adoptive parents, the chances of her getting that baby back are almost nil. Birth parents in child welfare cases in which child neglect or abuse have been substantiated have more chance of getting their children back than do birth parents of healthy infants arranging so-called open adoptions. This is because adoption in practice and by law favors adoptive parents, even though guardianship and custody law clearly identify being raised by one’s natural parents as in the child’s best interests. What is in the child’s best interests changes under adoption law, for natural parents no longer have presumed superiority in the world of adoption law.

Adoption laws, which are similar from state to state, create more hoops for the birth parent to jump through than you can shake a stick at. These hoops are created when a consent to adoption  occurs; had the birth mother only entered a guardianship agreement, her constitutional right to reclaim and raise her child might be supported–although this is not always the case, either. So few birth parents have adequate legal representation that it seems silly for me to preach that they ought to be given good representation. How many attorneys for the birth parents have their fees paid by the prospective adoptive parents? How many are appointed by the courts? How many advise such parents to keep the baby for a week, breast feed him, have a go at parenting, and after it’s clear that they cannot parent the child, then to consider another placement for the child? Not many, I’ll wager. And I think this is the case with non-relative and relative adoptions, both. I have heard of it happening just as frequently when relatives offer to care for a baby or child, which is why sexually active people who are not ready to grow up and become parents ought to either quit having sex or ought to use reliable birth control: guardianship and adoption are terrible methods of birth control.

A Case in Point

In one example of relative adoption, Mary, a young mother, has given her newborn baby to Aunt Flo to raise while Mary finds a job and a place to live. Aunt Flo, the savvy childless auntie, insists on a guardianship agreement, and Mary reluctantly agrees. Mary visits her baby several times a week, juggling school, work, and visits. By the time the baby is five months old, Aunt Flo wants to keep the baby, and Mary has graduated and wants her baby back. Mary has a job and an apartment, but she earns minimum wage and all her resources have gone into her apartment and all the trappings of motherhood that she’ll need to care for her baby.

When Aunt Flo and Mary go to court to fight over this baby, Aunt Flo will take Uncle Ed, and the judge will see a mature, married, moneyed couple standing before him, as compared with young, single, uneducated Mary, working for minimum wage. The law will specify a set of tests that Mary must pass before she, the baby’s own mother, will be deemed by the court to be “in the best interests of the child.” Since Mary visited three or four times a week, she passed the visitation clauses of the best interests and non-abandonment sections of the law. But what Mary didn’t know was that the law also specifies that she must have provided substantial support to the baby. “Substantial” is not spelled out in dollar amounts, so one has to go to case law to determine what U.S. courts have agreed is substantial enough to prove this mother loved her baby. Suffice to say that what Mary did for her baby-buy an Easter dress, some new shoes, a bag of diapers maybe-is not “substantial.”

“Substantial” is the support Aunt Flo and Uncle Ed gave to the baby: mortgage payments and utilities and all living expenses, divided by the number of people living in the home. This is substantial.

Mary is unlikely to get her baby back from the local court. The local court will probably uphold the guardianship; but if Mary appeals and gets all the way to the Supreme Court, she is likely to regain custody of her baby, because in guardianships it is always presumed that the child’s best interests will be served through being raised by her biological parents.

Sadly, if Mary signed adoption consent papers rather than guardianship papers, she will most likely never get her baby back if she is fighting people who have money and experience. In the most litigious nation on earth, we know how to kidnap babies legally, and we have been doing it since we were colonies.

Legally-Sanctioned Kidnapping

Adoptive parents and their attorneys have many maneuvers available for keeping possession of a surrendered infant, even when a birth mother changes her mind. I have seen mothers one, two, or three days after surrendering in a state in which there is a clear 30-day revocation period fight to get their babies back, and lose. In the past, I periodically served as an expert witness for such birth parents, and my heart has broken as I have witnessed birth mothers pleading for their babies, tears running down their faces, breast milk dripping, while adoptive parents with the ink barely dry on their placement papers turn stone cold faces against the young woman they said they loved.

Yes, only a few days prior, in the hospital, these same adoptive parents had tears running down their faces; they said they loved this birth mother like a sister, a daughter, their miraculous, gift-bearing birth mother friend. These same parents become monsters within 48 hours of possessing the baby they fiercely believe is theirs because they have bottle fed him in a motel room for two days.

Pardon me for being judgmental, but I hope that a special circle of hell is reserved for adoptive parents like this. I know of some of them, people who got back on their airplanes and self-righteously flew home with their legally stolen babies. The fathers are usually attorneys or doctors, the mothers are professionals, too, who have taken a leave of absence from work until Baby is able to survive with nannies or quality day care providers in the home. They will get on their airplanes and fly home, and they’ll never tell their little Gift Child how his mother fought for him, and lost, crazy with grief. They will slam shut the adoption they promised would be open forever, the birth mother a permanent part of their family, because she betrayed them by deciding to raise her own baby, the baby her arms and breasts ache for.

Many moneyed prospective adoptive parents come to backward southern states such as Arkansas, Oklahoma, Florida, and even Texas to get babies for this reason. The more politically conservative a state is, the more likely that the surrender and revocation laws governing infant adoption favor adoptions and put birth parents over a barrel so they can be properly screwed.

If court proceedings in adoption were not closed to public scrutiny-and they are-the average American would be outraged by what passes for child welfare in the United States. Our adoption industry is largely controlled by men, most of them attorneys or judges, and by people with enough money to buy off birth mothers and to fight them when they get uppity. Although in most states, the adopted child is appointed his own attorney, a guardian ad litem, most of the time this attorney goes along with the attorney serving the adoptive parents’ interests. Attorneys for birth parents rarely have a chance of winning, because everyone knows that any parent who gives up her baby in the first place is not a very good parent and has surrendered not only her baby, but also her constitutionally protected right to raise him.

Where mercy for the birth mother abounded before, there is no mercy after she has let the baby go and later seeks to have him returned.

I do not know how any adoptive parent can justify raising a child who was ultimately wanted by his birth mother, but I have met some who think nothing of legally absconding with a child. I think they are monsters, and you can read forums and blogs written by such people who moan and wail about how the Big, Bad Birth Mother is trying to get her own child back. They are sickening examples of the worst kind of wickedness, and I want to thank Linda Webber for reminding me of this verse in her comment to one of my recent articles:

THE WICKED SNATCH FATHERLESS CHILDREN FROM THEIR MOTHER’S BREASTS, AND TAKE A POOR MAN’S BABY AS A PLEDGE BEFORE THEY WILL LOAN HIM ANY MONEY OR GRAIN. -Job 24:9

 Art by Pablo Picasso

52 responses

  1. Shalom, no, you didn’t read it. You didn’t read everything in it, and couldn’t possibly have read everything I wrote.

    I feel sorry for you that you’re such a liar. By “such a liar” I mean that you’ve gone to great lengths to lie bold-faced, supposing that nobody will call you on it. You reacted emotionally and projected your own judgments against someone you don’t even know and haven’t read, because facing up to your inner demons would produce far too much anxiety and pain. Therefore you vomit it on someone else, preferably someone you don’t ever have to see again or even respond to, and walk away with your smug little smile after “shoulding” another human being for whom you showed no empathy or even basic human respect.

    Because you’re such a liar, and because my words will be shocking should anyone else come along to read them, I’m going to lay out the evidence I have for your dishonesty. You’re lying about having read everything and actually having considered what I wrote because here is what I actually wrote–not what you are reacting to after making stuff up in your head:

    Paragraph 1. A quote from Job. This is a direct Biblical quote that can’t be disputed.

    Paragraph 2. Me setting up the article. My opinion. I worked in this field for many years and have a right to say what I say. And if you knew how many adoptees grow up to find and have ongoing relationships with their birth families, you wouldn’t be so uppity. You’re ignorant and you want to blame that on someone else by masking it with your anger. Probably anger over infertility and the fact that your dearest wishes have been thwarted. The anger is normal; the failure to target it appropriately is not.

    Paragraph 3. More law. Go ahead and try to disprove me, but cite the law please. This is not my opinion, it’s the law.

    Paragraph 4. More law. See above.

    Paragraphs 5-11. More law, and even more. With actual citations to actual court cases. You must have a problem with facts. I suppose these facts upset your “shalom,” eh? ;o)

    Paragraphs 12-16, “A Case in Point.” This is a case study. It actually happened. I have, in fact, been professionally involved in numerous cases that are similar and one that was exactly like this, except the names have been changed to protect the innocent. What I didn’t note is that “Mary” never did get her child back. And… oh, those relatives did it all to her and her child in the name of Jesus Christ. Just like you like to spout his name. Easy to do, hard to walk out.

    Paragraphs 17-25, “Legally-Sanctioned Wickedness.” So you don’t think that adoptive parents and adoption attorneys have many legal “maneuvers?” Evidently you’ve never been to an adoption conference for anyone but adoptive parents who like to tell only their side of the story. Possibly you’ve turned your own cold face against a birth mother? Maybe that’s what you find “cruel” about my article? You don’t like to see what that looks like to an ethical other, observing?

    This is my experience. This is what I have seen. This is the way I’ve seen people who are greedy to possess someone else’s baby in the name of God do to other human beings. And, since I have adopted many children, I think I’m qualified to speak as an adoptive parent who never was greedy for another woman’s child.

    In my conclusion, I said “I do not know how any adoptive parent can stomach raising a child who was ultimately wanted by his birth mother,” and I called that kind of absconding with a child “wickedness.” I get this idea from the Bible, the same one you claim to read. It has this set of rules somewhere, and one of them says, “THOU SHALT NOT COVET….”.

    But clearly, our brands of Christianity are not the same.

    Or else, you never read this article. Because if you read it all, what you’re saying is that you disagree with me. You’re saying that you think it’s just fine to take babies from their mothers, to trick young girls who trust you, to say you love them but act like you hate them; and to take a baby away from a mother who has changed her mind, who has even tried to take care of her baby, mothers like “Mary.” You’re saying that you think that biological parents should not have rights, and that it should be easier to take kids away from their parents than it is, so that people like you can use their religion to abuse others and violate their rights. This is what you’re saying, if you’re going to continue to claim that you read this.

    But I’ll bet you didn’t read it. Or if you did, and you really believe in everything that I said I oppose on moral grounds, then… well, I’m glad you aren’t going to hang around. I’m glad you’re going to get lost before I ban your IP from my blog, because I have no use for liars and people who pose as Christians but use religion to hide their sin. So go ahead, get lost. And blame it on me.

    Option B is to say you’re sorry you lied and to actually read the article and rescind your words and ask me to remove your stupid comments. But you won’t do that. Oh, no. Hell will freeze over first.

    Hey, but have a nice day. Jesus loves you!

  2. Actually, I did read the entire article. Because I know better than to jump to conclusions or “assume” anything. Especially when it comes to the subject of adoption. But, I can’t stay silent when I seem something so offensive and just plain wrong. I feel sorry for you that you have to live with such withering bitterness day after day. Please talk you your pastor soon, so you can get the Scriptural guidance you so obviously need.

  3. “The most sickening bit of trash written about adoption” eh? I should win a prize.

    And you should win one, too. Considering the fact that you’re evidently not a parent yet and have evidently not ever adopted, you win a prize for the most self-righteous and self-absorbed comment I’ve received on this blog to date.
    Congratulations.

    Obviously, you didn’t even read the entire article. You just had one line–perhaps even the title–set you off without doing the Christian act (gotta love you so-called Christians who don’t even come close to actually *doing* Christianity) of reading for comprehension and, oh… how about compassion? Or maybe how about taking Scripture at face value and addressing what I actually wrote about?

    But, no. You are so absorbed in justifying your quest to get a child by any means and ignoring that pressing greed, er… need that causes you to be so blind that you can’t see another perspective.

    You are exactly in the wrong sort of mindset to adopt a child, and I pity the child placed with you while you’re in this state.

  4. This is without a doubt the most sickening bit of trash written about adoption that I have EVER read. I don’t know how you can try to accuse an adoptive couple of “stealing” a child that has been legally forfeited over to them. You are obviously unaware that most adoptions do not happen overnight and that both sides involved have several months to consider all the possibilities while the process of adoption is underway. I won’t ask you to sympathize with the emotional stress that an adoptive couple will have endured – possibly for years – before reaching the point in their lives when they will finally be able to become parents, as you are obviously incapable of feeling empathy towards those who are unable to have their own children. However, you should be aware that no one FORCES a birth mother to hand over her baby at gun point. She makes the decision months before her baby is born, meanwhile the adoptive parents have been preparing, physically, financially and emotionally for the arrival of their child and so it shouldn’t be hard to understand why they wouldn’t be very “excited” to just hand the baby back when the birth mother decides that she wants to raise the child herself afterall. I am glad that there are laws in place to protect adoptive parents from having to endure the further heartache of having their child ripped away from them after the birth mother had decided ON HER OWN to give it up. Women who have sex and get themselves into situations where they are considering adoption, should realize that some choices are irriversible. Don’t blame the adoptive parents because the birth “mother” is a poor decision maker. They followed all the rules and most likely paid all the bills. As for your “hope” that there is a special circle in hell waiting for “evil adoptive parents”, I am happy to tell you that I am saved and believe in Jesus and the Bible 100% and so I KNOW that there will be no hell for me. Furthermore, you can rest assured that I would fight with every fiber of my being, if I adopted a child that was legally given to me by a birth mother who knew EXACTLY what she was doing, but then one day decided she wanted it back. I am NOT a 2nd class citizen and wouldn’t allow anyone to call me a 2nd class mother either. In fact, what kind of mother would I be if I DIDN’T fight for my child? Thankfully, I know many wonderful supportive people who are also believers, but don’t twist the Scriptures to fit their point of view as you so disgustingly do. I know, when I do finally get to adopt, I will have a loving Christian family surrounding me who understands that adoption is a beautiful thing.

  5. Hello, UM, and welcome. I’ll come over and visit you. I don’t typically write about adoption for a lot of reasons; but when I do, I go at it hammer and tongs.

    Glad to have you here; and I’m interested in your perspective.

  6. Hi

    I am a lawyer from north of the border (and the mother of a child lost to adoption.) I enjoyed reading your take on this issue.

    I have just started a blog on WordPress that is the converse of yours – about adoption – and then other stuff.

    Just posted something today about how adoptive parents are sensitized to some of these issue when there child is in reunion. If you want to have a look

    unsignedmasterpiece.wordpress.com

    Will check you out again when you aren’t talking about “the cause” too.

    UM

  7. Oh, there is much work to be done in this area. Children are traumatized when they are separated from their mothers (and fathers). In addition to recognizing the grief if the adoption is to proceed, there needs to be room for the child to be reunited with the natural parent if that is at all possible. I hope I am able to overcome my emotions on this issue and move on to have a significant impact on the laws affecting children in this country.

  8. To all that will listen: This is for those who believe State government is not biased in adoption law. Children of the World Adoption Agency, Verona, New Jersey went out of business on May 17, 2007. Their eventual doom started from a complaint filed on March 18, 2003. On 11-5-04 they were found innocent and the complaint dropped. In an act of “”benevolence” the executive director of this agency told the State that if I would send my BF information to her agency, she would insert it in the adoption file. I knew in my heart that this woman was a liar as well as a child trafficker.

    My convictions would not permit me to deal with a person whom I suspected was a trafficker in human lives. I refused the offer. On May 21, 2007 this now defunct agency was instructed by the DHS that they must turn over adoption records to another adoption agency that would accept their past and present files, they were also instructed to post a story in a news paper announcing their now dissolvedcompany.

    Also in May of 2007, I told Gary Sefchik of the DHS that I wanted to know where and when COW followed through with these mandates. Now over a year and three months and a constant barage of e-mails to Mr. Sefchik they refuse to acknowledge me.
    I know “get a lawyer”, but if the State is not biased, why would they not even communicate with me, must I get a lawyer to get an answer for every inquiring question posedsto the State of New Jersey. What the hell is wrong with this State?

  9. Tammy, I think that if adoptive parents can make and stick to the sort of commitment you and your husband made, they are probably also the sorts of parents who will do right by the adopted child later, if they end up raising him or her.

    Good for you guys.

  10. You said: “I do not know how any adoptive parent can stomach raising a child who was ultimately wanted be their birth mother”…

    I couldn’t agree more. Hubby and I decided before we were ever considered by any expecting parents that if there was a time, even after the revoc period was up that their first mothers wanted to raise them, we would not fight it. And it would have been hard to do, not just because we loved these children so, but because we knew the possible struggles these children would go back to based on the “special needs” including prenatal exposure that we were willing to consider (in both our cases, we were one of a few families willing to consider these situations, out of 80 to 100 families waiting for children with our agency…). And we kept in touch (and still do) with their other families through the whole process to make certain that this is what they still wanted. Each of them were counseled along the way and each of the stated that if not us, someone else would be parenting their children. I feel strongly that we are only doing what their first parents asked of us and each day, trying to live up to our promises to raise their children well, to love them good.

  11. Lee, I’m sorry to say that your comment was stuck in my spam queue, and I’ve just delivered it.

    I’m sorry that my post caused you pain. I hope it’s clear that I don’t regard all adoptions as “legal kidnappings”–only the ones that fit the sort of description of those I give. Adoptions in which parents were given no choice and no chance to reclaim their children, even though they had constitutional rights. Attorneys and driven adoptive parents can be quite clever about using the law to their own benefit when they want to effect an adoption.

    You and I have a lot in common. I, too, am from the other, less typical, side of the adoptive parent fence–the side where the children are labeled as “hard to place” or having “special needs.” And, indeed they do have special needs. Which is why they need parents who are aware and can help them, which it sounds like you are doing from the heart.

    Welcome to Third Eve, and I hope you come back. We can cheer one another on.

  12. That is what the State of NJ. does, it gives the birthmother the hot patato, by making her sign an affidavit and let stand for 12o days, and as in my case, when proof of perjury by the BM is proven, the State says, “Well, we feel to try and extradite or pursue any charges, would not be in the best interest in the State.” The unknown father affidavit the BM is a projection of enforcable law, but what good is having laws against extortion if they are not going to pursue perjury. The State of NJ washes its hands from the get go. Dave

  13. I am sorry, the ICPC did not know of me, but I sent them the multitude of facts about my case, the DYFS ineptness, Attorney, 5th ammendment-like clause in the State. From what I was told if the BF info is in the ICPC, each state must ask for it, not be forced to take it and make a choice. Dave

  14. David, I had a professional acquaintance who was trying to move with a long-term foster child across state lines one time, and the ICPC didn’t even return her calls for about a week. So I’m not surprised to learn from you that they are “lame.”

    You “want someone to admit they knew,” but it seems to me that if they did admit they knew, they’d be admitting to lawbreaking, and what official is going to do that?

    That would take more integrity than we give our public servants credit for.

  15. Eve, I have heard of the IC “T”C [Trafficking], and have dealt with this lame office. As a matter of fact I intentionally left this government apparition of an office out of my writings other than to say what a waste of federal tax money, and to change their acronym. If they would of let the State know about me [mandated] the DYFS would of had to employ a search. As it is, only if they are told by someone will they do this. What good is the ICTC if they do not force the State to admit that they had knowledge of a birth father and then did not tell their licensed facilitators, “There he is, do or dont, it is up to you?” I want someone to admit they knew, then it can presented to the public, the hope of outcry of unjustice might take place to do something. As far as the ICTC is concerned, they are pure smoke. I think so, anyway. I guess that I should have mentioned there was something out there that was similar but did not work. thank for info though, I appreciate your concern. Dave

  16. David, there are laws in place already that prevent moving a child across state lines to another state without information passing between both states. This applies to all adopted children, or children entering a state for the purpose of adoption.

    It is called the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), and in spite of the ICPC people keep doing what was done for you. As you’ve correctly identified, the fault lays with the birth mother, adoption facilitator (agency, attorney, etc.), and often adoptive parents first, when it comes to situations in which birth fathers may be deprived of their rights.

    An information web site on ICPC:
    http://www.aphsa.org/Policy/icpc2006rewrite.htm

    The ICPC Administrator Association page is here:
    http://icpc.aphsa.org/Home/home_news.asp

  17. Anthromama, the kind of person like your cousin is probably only likely to climb out of that hole with a lot of help and resources given by others. Most can’t do it alone, can they? (Can anyone get anywhere alone? I wonder.)

    This is how poverty also lumbers along, eating everything in its path. But I see poverty more like locusts than one big lumbering monster.

    I thought I said as much earlier somewhere–that I don’t see how poor women in crisis pregnancies can do it without help–but did I not? I couldn’t tell if I’d upset you or not. I didn’t mean to if I did.

    Do I come off as an insensitive, uncaring ass, or what?

    (Please, no eye-rolling and saying “DUH” at me, gentle reader.)

  18. My cousin and her 5 children have been on and off public assistance for many years. From what I gather, the case workers are less than helpful, and the laws can be rather arbitrary. Also the transition out of assistance can be very difficult, as it is often an all-or-nothing proposition (e.g., losing all or most benefits if you earn over a certain income threshold, even if that threshold will not support your family).

    Resourcefulness, determination, and proper legal help are often in short supply. At any one time my cousin was either homeless, without a car, about to be evicted, or without a job, and fairly uneducated. Certainly without a computer, or even a phone at times. How is this kind of person supposed to research their rights, access an attorney, wade through paperwork, etc. with several babies in tow? How is she to wait for hours to see her case worker with babies and toddlers to care for?

    Somehow, she made it work. She never felt compelled to give any of her children up for adoption, though that certainly would have been an “easy” solution at times. I guess she believed in the power of her love for them, despite the desperate material condition of their lives.

  19. Thanks, Mirah. I think I am not being besieged with disagreement because people spend an average of one minute per blog post per blog and prefer to respond when posts on other blogs agree with their perspective.

    We’d probably agree that if people actually thought about the actual practice of adoption in this country, there would be an outcry. But there’s little real thinking, much less compassion, among people who make a living doing adoption, as far as I can tell. It’s more like a big, mindless monster lumbering along, eating everything in its way than it is a service.

    But now I’m preaching to the choir so I’ll shut up. ;o) Thanks again for visiting, and I will add your blog.

  20. Eve – you ask what I thought. If you’ve read my writing, you know that I am in full agreement and am pleased that the word gets out wherever and whenever. I was very curious as to who you are and what your connection to this topic is.

    I am also surprised you are not getting besieged with disagreement. The public enjoys wearing blinders to the truth.

    Please feel free to add my blog to your list: FamilyPreservation.blogspot.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: