Hey Now BAAF, Perpetuating the Fear of Adoptees is OUR Job!

I was thoroughly appalled to read that the British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) came out with a statement that Facebook puts adoptees at risk where the article used terms like "track down" as if one party were a stampede of elephants trampling over another.  This UK article portrays Natural Parents "stalking" adoptees who are in "anguish."  This one tells us about the "shivering" going on amongst Adoptive Parents.  Basically, the issue is that adoptees (they appear to be mostly referring to Minor Adoptees--although there is little clarification made) are using Facebook to secretly contact their Natural Family and Natural Families are using Facebook to make contact with the individuals (again, probably Minor Adoptees) that they surrendered to adoption, although most of the articles I've read struggled with which scenario was the most dramatic to portray.  It appears as we here in the United States were feeling a little left-out of the anti-Facebook adoption fear-fest; we're usually the ones in the forefront of telling people all of the horrors of adoption where people have too much access to truth about themselves.  So naturally, out we come with this ABC article where Bethany Christian Services is sought out as the "expert" perspective on an person's access to truth when they have Facebook, something that can't be micromanaged by an agency.  Interesting enough, forced honesty through Facebook was viewed as a bad thing.  It's the first time I think I've ever seen honesty used as a bad word.

For Pete's Sake....
Asking an adoption agency to speak for the entire adoption community is kind of like asking the kindergarten teacher of a non-adopted person to speak for them 20+ years later--only, perhaps the kindergarten teacher would be more accurate.  I do not appreciate how whenever something adoption-related is in the media, they run to the nearest agency for their opinion.  Ask an adopted person themselves or ask an adoption researcher; it makes little sense than to ask an entity that makes millions off of collecting adoption fees to give an opinion on something and expect it to be accurate and unbiased.  And nothing could be more appalling and marginalizing to me when the agency they ask is none other than Bethany Christian Services.

So, Where's the Bias?
Bethany Christian Services brings up a "good" point in the ABC article: it has always (sort of) been the agency who would manage the reunion process and the identities of those involved--or at least that's always been agency preference.  BCS opposes truth and information-sharing in adoption, UNLESS the adoption started out with the premise of openness from the beginning (and still then, they are more than happy to be the intermediary and charge you $250 PER YEAR).  Not every agency feels this way; not every agency felt that the law allowed them to "promise" confidentiality/anonymity to women.  When you ask one of the agencies who does feel that way and none of the others, I'm sorry, that's a bias. 

This was just another opportunity for BCS to make a plug about confidential intermediaries where they get to run the show.  A show, mind you, that they're more than willing to run for $185-$220 ($50 to open your record, $35 to send a letter to First Mother's last known address and $135 to facilitate your reunion).  I have it on good authority that another local agency (one that opposes adoptee access to identifying information) had 60 pending reunions in one month, which they charge $150 for one social worker to facilitate.  That's $9,000 of income per month on reunions alone where their only overhead is one person's salary.

An additional concern brought up in the article was that people having access to their surrendered descendants or adoptees using Facebook to find Natural Family allowed them to do so without seeking counseling first.  That's something BCS is also more than happy to provide to you for $95.00 PER HOUR.

BCS (et. al.) totes the party line that First Mothers were "promised" anonymity.  However, that argument did not begin until the early-mid 1980's.  According to my research the main and primary argument against adoptee access to identifying information prior to the 1980's was that it would cause psychological harm to the Adoptive Parents.  These groups don't want us accessing our information and they'll say whatever the time period supports as most believable to prohibit it.  While our right to our Original Birth Certificates has nothing to do with reunion, I suspect that they're terrified that they more we know about ourselves, the greater likelihood that we'll be able to reunite without being able to meddle in the process.  Some agencies thinking that they law allowed them to practice using anonymity did very bad things in the process of getting women to surrender their children; is it any wonder they don't want us to know about ourselves because they're afraid of what we will find?

And although the visible argument has changed from being about "protecting" Adoptive Parents to being about "protecting" First Parents, the root cause is still the same.  I am seeing more and more (even in the comments section of the ABC article) that some Prospective Adoptive Parents who feel that U.S. agencies who cannot promise them that the Natural Family will never interfere are choosing International adoption because they feel it reduces the ties that their children will have to a family outside of their adoptive one.  The only way to scramble to control this and keep these people's interests in Domestic adoption is to make everyone afraid of Facebook, blame Facebook, and make Facebook somehow change their privacy policies/settings. 

So, Where are the Rest of Us?
These articles above regale us with the stereotypical abuse cases that lead to some adoptions.  But where are the rest of us?  In the United States almost half of adoptions are Step-Parent adoptions where an individual likely knows about or has access to their Natural Family members.  About 15% of adoptions are from foster care, which tends to involve older children, who also likely know their Original Identities and are aware of who their Natural Parents are.  The remaining percentage is International and Private Domestic Infant adoption (about 10% of International adoption involves children over the age of 5).  Depending on the country of origin, children who are adopted come with identifying information on their Natural Family.  Since in Private Domestic Infant adoption an adoptee's Original Identity is not hidden until the adoption decree, which could be years after their birth, many of these adoptees also know identifying information about themselves and their Natural Families.  The adoptees who know absolutely nothing about their Natural Families are in the minority.  Yet when you think and hear about adoption, we're either all stereotyped as abuse victims who need to be "protected" or we were "rescued" from abortion and all our mothers want to hide their names and "move on."

Facebook may make reunion easier and quicker but it does not mean that someone would not have been able to have been found without it--not in the least bit.

You Have to Know How this Makes us Feel....
When you see something in the media, especially something that involves part of your identity that doesn't well-portray who you are, it's degrading.  Especially when it's all that ever is seen in the media or it hurts a cause that you are involved with.  We only ever see and hear about the "meddling birthmothers" the "stalker adoptees" (alleged, hypothetical ones, actually), the "emotionally traumatized," the "abuse victims" the "drug-addict parents," the "deadbeat Natural Dads" so on and so forth and we are always, always "babies" or "children" and never "adults."  It makes people understand us less.  It makes our job of working to be properly understood harder.

It's the same as when there is an issue on the news about a minority community and the only person the news station could bother to interview about the issue on TV was a physical manifestation of every single stereotype about that community.  It's the same as watching Fox News and realizing that you don't take the female newscasters and commentators anywhere near as seriously as the male ones because the men are in blue, gray, and black business suits and the women are in one step up from a cocktail dress of some electric color and plastered with makeup (they do not pick out their own clothes, their wardrobe is professionally selected by stylists).  I could go on.  Any person who has paid attention knows what it is like to be the butt of a joke or to be the victim of a stereotype.  Why we continue this nonsense is beyond me.

You also have to understand how you would feel if there was an issue that impacted you and no one ever asked your opinion, but ran to the nearest special-interest group, laywer, doctor, or Adoptive Parent to speak for you.  If they're nost asking an agency, they're asking someone else.  On a radio program last year about OBC access, a station interviewed Adam Pertman (whom I think the world of) who is the Executive Director of the Adoption Institute and Mary Robinson, former CEO of the NCFA (BOTH are Adoptive Parents) but not an Adult Adoptee or First Parent.  On radio a different radio program less than a month ago, they interviewed Pertman and a law professor from U of Penn (who is also an Adoptive Parent), but not an Adult Adoptee or First Parent.  You can imagine what it feels like to constantly have people who are not you speak on your behalf and never once be asked to speak for yourself.

How would that make you feel?

So Instead...
Perhaps if there were more openness, reality, and honesty in adoption, adoptees would not feel the need to search in secret.  They could seek help and support from families if they actually felt that they would receive it.  If adoptees constantly hear that their Adoptive Mother "is your REAL mom; she was there for you, your other mom wasn't," what reason would they have to seek support from their Adoptive Family if they're afraid they're going to be judged, hurt someone they love with their questions, or belittled?  You can see in the comment's sections of some of the articles people touting the old "nature vs. nurture" articles and who is "real" or not.  Would you want to seek help from others if your feelings about your adoption were "wrong" according to the non-adopted world around you that makes you feel like wanting reunion or information is trivial or stupid?  I talk about it more here.  This calls for more openness and access to truth, not less.

Instead of blaming Facebook, let's be realistic here.  Adoption is not the Witness Protection Program.  If your Minor Adoptee is at risk, why are they on facebook?  Why are they using a computer where they cannot be monitored by an adult?  Why aren't their parents checking their privacy settings so that their adoptee's profile and pictures cannot be seen by non-friends?  if you are open and honest with an adopted person, there is nothing for them to "find out."  Why aren't adoptees being told the entire truth behind their adoption circumstances so that they aren't "in anguish" when they find out from another source on their own?  This issue doesn't call for more Priori Restraining Orders, Contact Vetoes (not mentioned but it's always the direction our reactionary society goes), Confidential Intermediaries, the upheaval of Facebook, and the intrusion of various entities into the lives of adoptees and their families.  It calls for common sense; if your child is at risk, protect them.  But do not call for the stereotyping of an entire community and more media circus at the expense of OUR reputations.

Photo credit: Graeme Weatherston / FreeDigitalPhotos.net