Tuesday, March 31, 2015

South Dakota Tribes Win Federal ICWA Case, Oglala Sioux v. Van Hunnick

This is important, a true victory and it won't be the last...Trace

Posted on March 31, 2015 by Kate Fort

The 45 page order granting partial summary judgment is HERE, with a judgment order granting injunctive and declaratory relief forthcoming in May.

The court finds that Judge Davis, States Attorney Vargo, Secretary Valenti and Ms. Van Hunnick developed and implemented policies and procedures for the removal of Indian children from their parents’ custody in violation of the mandates of the Indian Child Welfare Act and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The case directly addressed section 1922 emergency removal standard of evidence and return of the child; and due process claims at those emergency hearings (48-hour hearing) of notice, the right of parents to present evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, attorney representation, and a decision based on evidence at that hearing.
Among many other things, the judge addresses both the old and new Guidelines (which specifically mentioned this case):

A simple examination of these administrative materials should have convinced the defendants that their policies and procedures were not in conformity with ICWA § 1922, the DOI Guidelines or the Guidelines promulgated by the South Dakota Unified Judicial System. Indian children, parents and tribes deserve better.

The order grants summary judgment on the ICWA violations AND the Due Process ones:

Judge Davis and the other defendants failed to protect Indian parents’ fundamental rights to a fair hearing by not allowing them to present evidence to contradict the State’s removal documents. The defendants failed by not allowing the parents to confront and cross-examine DSS witnesses. The defendants failed by using documents as a basis for the court’s decisions which were not provided to the parents and which were not received in evidence at the 48-hour hearings.

This is amazing–congratulations and many thanks to all involved. Especially to the families.

Monday, March 30, 2015

Indian Country Braces for Battle With Adoption Industry Over ICWA Guidelines

Suzette Brewer | Indian Country Today

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Suzette Brewer |Indian Country Today Media

3/30/15

Last month, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Indian Affairs Kevin Washburn announced the release of new guidelines in the Federal Register to ensure that state and federal courts comply with the statutes set forth in the Indian Child Welfare Act. Prior to publishing the guidelines, the BIA held five public listening sessions across the country that were attended by hundreds of tribal members, judicial organizations and child welfare professionals. The BIA also received hundreds of written comments from interested parties across the country, nearly all of whom requested strengthening and updating the language in the guidelines.

Two weeks later, on March 12, the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys (AAAA) fired back with its own press release expressing its outrage that the BIA had published the guidelines without input from its membership. In a statement from AAAA, president Laurie Goldheim, accused the Bureau of Indian Affairs of “a purposeful effort to bypass” its membership, even though the department had publicly worked on gathering input for over a year.

“The federal government’s unwillingness to hear from those groups who have been in the field for many years working directly with those families and children who will be negatively impacted by these guidelines is alarming,” said Goldheim. “As a nonprofit organization comprised of child welfare experts, we are committed to the ethical practice of adoption law. It is our mission to support and advocate for the rights of families and to consider the interest of all parties, especially children. Sadly, there are entire sections of the newly published BIA guidelines that completely disregard the best interest of children.

“We are shocked by the process by which these guidelines were promulgated and published,” she continued, “and the blatant failure to provide legal protections for children, especially children who are in the foster care system.”

Many Indian child welfare advocates across the country, however, say that the organization’s emotionally-charged response was ill-considered, considering that the BIA went out of its way to seek input in meetings that were promoted and open to the public.

“President Goldheim's claim that these guidelines are a ‘blatant failure to provide legal protection for children’ is without merit, and the fact that she says so indicates that she may not have actually read the updated guidelines,” the Lakota People’s Law Project (LPLP) Chief Counsel Daniel Sheehan told ICTMN. “The AAAA claims to be ‘shocked’ that the guidelines fail to provide protections for children, even though they make it clear in ten different places that imminent harm to a child is grounds for removal and not protected under ICWA. The AAAA is not on the side of Indian children or Native American tribes. They represent the interests of well-heeled clients that seek to adopt these children, oftentimes under scurrilous circumstances.”

Stephen Pevar, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and the lead attorney in the historic class action suit, Oglala v. Van Hunnik in South Dakota, said most practitioners in the industry were aware that revisions to the guidelines were underway well before they were published in the Federal Register.

“It’s surprising to hear that the AAAA was unaware that the BIA was in the process of issuing new guidelines. The BIA had been working on them for a long time and had solicited comments. It was common knowledge to anyone interested in the field,” said Pevar. “Nonetheless, the AAAA needs to bear in mind that when it comes to Native American children, remaining in a Native community with their parents, other relatives and tribal members is in their best interests. I don’t see that recognition in their criticism of the new guidelines.”

Members of the Native adult adoptee community were also upset with what they consider the inflammatory tone of the AAAA press release, since many of them have worked pro bono to educate the public about the negative impact of being placed in non-Indian homes as children. Thousands of these “lost children” have grown into adults working to reform an industry that they claim is more interested in protecting their revenue streams than what is in the “best interests” of Indian children.
“This misguided press release is about their fear of losing money versus our resolve to save our babies and therefore our culture,” said Karl Minzenmayer, a pre-ICWA adult adoptee advocate who was adopted out of the Fond du Lac Tribe of Minnesota in the 1960s. “These new guidelines are a direct result of what happened to Dusten Brown and hundreds of other parents and children across the country. So now the AAAA is looking 15, 20 years ahead and they see a dry dock—but we’re confronted with struggle for survival. If we do nothing, our people will be nothing. The adoption attorneys are not going to save our kids—they’re too busy selling them.”

Minzenmayer and other fellow adult adoptees have begun coalescing and organizing politically across the country to prevent a return to the days before the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act, when Indian parents lost their children at alarming rates because of the accepted presumption among social workers that they were unfit parents.

“People like Karl and myself are the reason ICWA exists. This is not about race, it’s about sovereignty and we must continue to advocate for our children who are protected by the sovereignty of each federally recognized tribe. The AAAA doesn’t get to cherrypick which tribes fall under ICWA,” said Leland Morrill, a member of the Navajo Nation who was adopted out of Chinle, Arizona in 1971. “We’re easy targets. When they take our children, they label us ‘special needs’ so they can get more money for adoptive and foster care. That’s what they’re after. But I’ve been there. I understand what it’s like. I understand the emotional trauma of what these kids go through. So as adults who have been in the system, we feel it’s our responsibility to make sure these families have the resources and the help they need to keep their families intact because placing Indian children outside of their families and communities is not the answer.”

Less than a week after the AAAA press release came out, Washburn underscored the department’s resolve by announcing that the BIA had not only published the new ICWA guidelines, but that the department would also be seeking tribal consultations and public comment for the proposed regulations. The new regulations, the BIA said, was intended to “provide a more consistent interpretation of and promote compliance with the Act by incorporating standard procedures and requirements for state courts and child welfare agencies in Indian child custody proceedings.”

“The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ proposed rule clarifies and strengthens implementation of the Act’s requirements in Indian child custody proceedings to ensure that Indian families and tribal communities do not face the unwarranted removal of their youngest and most vulnerable members,” Washburn said in a press release. “I want to thank all those who attended listening sessions and provided comments and recommendations for our updated guidelines. Their contributions helped inform this proposed rule, which seeks to protect Indian children and families. We look forward to receiving more comments and feedback throughout the rulemaking process.”

For many legal observers in the Indian child welfare community, however, there was one notable assessment that came out of the AAAA’s newfound interest in the ICWA guidelines.

“Despite the cynicism on display, LPLP is heartened to learn that even the AAAA acknowledges the widespread problems that continue unabated in South Dakota,” said Sheehan. “We recognize that in cases like those, stronger guidelines need to be established to address the systemic issues that are negatively impacting Native Americans in that state. LPLP believes this shows an undeniable consensus emerging that South Dakota is engaged in widespread injustice by chronically and willfully violating ICWA to enrich their state coffers on the backs of the most marginalized population in the nation.”

In the meantime, the new rule is open for public discussion, for which the BIA has scheduled six public meetings and six tribal consultations beginning in April.

“The Department is in the formal rulemaking process,” said Nedra Darling, spokeswoman for the office of Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs. “We welcome their comments on the proposed rule.”

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Lost Daughters: American Adoption Congress Conference - Part 1

Trace who contributes to Lost Daughters also was on the panel in Boston yesterday! The Lost Daughters agreed the ADOPTEE VOICE is changing how the world thinks about adoption!

More on this will be posted SOON!

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Ohio Adoptees Lining Up for Records, Truth, Reunions

SHARONVILLE, Ohio —The state of Ohio is unsealing adoption records for the first time in decades, which means that anyone who was adopted between 1964 and 1996 can now have access to their birth records and vital health information.

Half-sisters meet for first time, ready to review Ohio adoption records

Diana Allen, Jennifer McClure believe they share the same birth father : VIDEO

Thousands of people are already taking advantage of the new law.
On Friday night, WLWT News 5's Jackie Congedo spoke with two sisters who can't wait to research their collective past.
"There's a puzzle that a lot of pieces fell apart to, and I'm finding them and I'm putting them back together," said Diana Allen, who was adopted at birth.
She's always wondered about her story's beginning.
"I started getting nosy, and managed to sort of circumvent the closed document system and came across some papers that I probably had no business looking at," Allen said.
She managed to find the woman who she thinks is her birth mother, and with that one answer came another missing puzzle piece: news of a sister she never knew she had.
"I always thought I was the only girl," said Jennifer McClure, who got a Facebook message from Allen two years ago.
The two shared pictures and talked on the phone, but never met in person, until Friday afternoon. It was an embrace three decades in the making.
"Just to see her eyes. It's like looking at my own eyes," McClure said. "You want to know who you are, and I think that this is a good stepping stone that Diana took on her journey to learn who she is."
Allen and McClure think they share the same birth father. They're hoping a look at the newly-opened records will confirm that.
For information about how you can find your adoption records, visit the Ohio Department of Vital Statistics website.

Monday, March 23, 2015

First Nations Adoptee launches own search for roots

 



Sheila Pelletier in 
her home in Regina on Friday. She is an adoptee who was part of what is 
now known as the 60s Scoop. (TROY FLEECE / Regina Leader-Post)

By Kerry Benjoe, Leader-Post March 23, 2015






After years of rejection, a self-professed loner’s life changed after a single phone call.



Two weeks ago, Sheila Pelletier composed the most important Facebook post of her life:



“My
 (birth) name is Sheila Jean Marie Halkett ... I was born in 1982 in 
Prince Albert. I am from Montreal Lake First Nation ... Possible birth 
date of mother was April 21, 1948. Please share if you might have any 
information. Please call me ... Sheila. Thank you.”



It was a bold move but after three decades she was ready to find out the truth about her First Nation family.



“I didn’t think I would get a response so fast,” said Pelletier, who is still in shock.



She had been told by government agencies it would take about three years to get any information about her birth family.



Hours after her post, her phone rang and a man asked for her by name.



“I said, ‘This is Sheila,’ ” she said. “He said, ‘I am Howard Halkett. I’m your uncle. We’ve been looking for you.’ ”



Pelletier says she is part of what has become known as the 60s Scoop.



“In
 Saskatchewan, we had the Adopt an Indian or Metis program that was 
started in the late 1960s,” said Tara Turner, assistant professor for 
the School of Indigenous Social Work at the First Nations University of 
Canada.



As part of the program, aboriginal children were taken from their birth families and adopted out to non-aboriginal families.



“It was just a re-imagining of the residential school system,” said Turner.

She
 said isolating aboriginal children from their culture is not healthy 
because it impacts their ability to understand themselves.



“It’s 
really difficult for people to navigate identity when it’s been removed 
from them,” said Turner. “Then finding your way later in life, 
reconnecting with family or community. That’s not necessarily 
straight-forward or easy for people.”

Pelletier, who was raised on
 a farm in Theodore, initially had no idea her Ukrainian father and 
British mother were not her biological parents — until she started 
school.



Pelletier’s earliest memories are not pleasant.



“I was called, ‘Squaw and dirty indian,’ ” she said. “I didn’t know what those words meant.”



Pelletier told her parents and it was then she was told about her adoption.



Being
 the only aboriginal person in the area was far from easy and although 
her parents did try to defend her — often that only made things worse.



“Even if I had a bad day, I would say I had a good day.” said Pelletier.



After
 elementary school, she attended high school in Yorkton and although 
there were other aboriginal students in Yorkton, they rejected her 
because they thought she was “too-white.”



It was a lonely life.



“I learned to keep to myself,” said Pelletier. “I am still like that. I don’t like people.



She has begun to rethink that attitude.



To hear there were people looking for her and wanting to meet her has been overwhelming.



“I just want to go there and meet them and give them a hug,” said Pelletier.



Prior to speaking with her uncle, all she knew about her birth family was from her adoption records.



When Pelletier turned 18, her mother gave her the papers.



“I’m surprised I never lost them,” she said.



For the past 14 years, she has read and reread the information, but they never provided her any answers.


Pelletier has discovered that she is the youngest of nine — four brothers and four sisters.
However, it is not all happy news.



Her mother Hilda Bird passed away in 2006.



“I didn’t know how to feel about that, you know?” said Pelleter before the emotion took over. “I didn’t know her.”



She has also lost one sister and one brother.



Pelletier
 does not want to waste any more time and plans to make a family trip 
this summer, which includes a visit to her mother’s gravesite.



Although
 she has a good relationship with her adopted parents, she feels 
relieved to finally connect with her First Nation family.



Pelletier
 said it was also a relief to finally tell her own children about her 
past and is looking forward to sharing a new future with them, one with 
even more family.



She also hopes her story will encourage other adoptees to reach out and find their family before it’s too late.

States With Open Adoption Records (UPDATED)

This is not an endorsement for OMNITRACE (2014) | States With Open Adoption Records
Read this: http://www.womensvoicesmagazine.com/family-section/search-angels/#.VJbI94DAN8

There are several states that have open adoption records. In these states, an adult adoptee can get an original birth certificate and in some instances more adoption record information. If you are an adoptee looking for your birth parents in an open adoption records state, please request your open adoption records. However, when you obtain your original birth records, your search might still be difficult. Having information such as your birth mother’s maiden name and perhaps her old address is a great start, but you will still need to get her current name and address information. Your birth mother might have changed her name several times, or she might not live in the state where you were adopted.

Here is a list of states where adoption records for all or some years are open. In some states, birth parents can sign a no-contact veto:

Alabama – Adoption records are open.
Alaska – Adoption records are open.
Colorado – Adoptions records are open for adoptees whose adoptions were finalized between 07/01/1951 to 06/30/1967 and 09/01/1999 to present.
Connecticut – Adoption records are open for adoptions finalized after 10/01/1983.
Delaware – Adoption records are open. Birth parents can sign a no contact veto.
Illinois - Adoption records are open.
Indiana – Adoption records prior to 1940 may be open. OmniTrace is currently investigating how to request the original birth certificate.
Iowa – Adoption records are open prior to 07/01/1941.
Kansas – Adoption records are open.
Maine – Adoption records are open.
Maryland – Most adoption records prior to 06/01/1947 are open.
Massachusetts – Adoption records are open for birth years prior to 4/14/1974.
Michigan – Adoption records are open if the birth parent’s rights were terminated prior to 05/28/1945 or on or after 09/12/1980.
Montana – Adoption records are open for adoptions finalized prior to 2/2/1967.
New Hampshire – Adoption records are open.
New Jersey – Adoption Records (original birth certificate) will be open (FINALLY) in 2017.
Ohio – Adoption records are now open for adoptions finalized prior to 1/1/1964. Post adoption records (original birth certificates) will be available on March 18, 2015.
Oklahoma – Adoption records are open for adoptions finalized after 11/01/1997
Oregon – Adoption records are open.
Rhode Island - Adoption records are open.
Tennessee – Adoption records are open. No-contact vetos are available to birth parents if the adoption was finalized after 1951.
Vermont – Adoption records are open for adoptions finalized after 07/01/1986.
Washington – Adoption records are open as of July 1, 2014.

Canada:

Alberta – Open.
British Columbia – Open.
Newfoundland – Open.
Ontario – Open.
Manitoba – Opening 2015.
New Brunswick – Opening soon.

Changes coming soon:

Colorado – Access to original birth certificates as of 01/01/2016 for all birth years.
Ohio - Ohio Post 1964 Opening 03/18/2015! – Adoption records will be open to adoptee when age 18 years or older, effective March 18, 2015, with the recent passage of Senate bill 23. Biological parents will be able to file a name redaction request form between March 18, 2014 and March 18, 2015.
New Jersey – Access to Original Birth Certificates beginning 01/01/2017

Please note, if you were born in a state that does not have open adoption records, don’t be discouraged. OmniTrace has many ways to solve birth parent searches involving closed record states. In fact, some of our best states for searching are closed record states.
Also, there is pending legislation in a number of states where adoption records may become open.

This information was posted at OMNI TRACE who charges you the adoptee to search. I am not endorsing them or their services. If you google search your state of birth, there are State Adoption Services and the forms you will need and what they will charge you ... Trace

Friday, March 20, 2015

Missouri? Are they next to open our adoption files?

Steven Hamblin says while he wouldn’t trade his life for anything, he wants to know more about where he came from.

JACKSON, MO (KFVS) - Giving a child up for adoption can be a difficult decision for some birth parents.

It can also be difficult for some children when they grow up and want to reconnect with their biological families. However, that could change under one Missouri proposal.

Right now it's very difficult for adults in Missouri who were adopted as children to get their own original birth certificate.

"I look at faces. I used to look at yearbooks from SEMO,” Steven Hamblin said.

Hamblin was adopted at birth.

"My non-identifying information states that my father was a college student with an engineering degree,” Hamblin said.

He said while he wouldn't trade his life for anything, he wants to know more about where he came from.

"I want to search and find my birth family. I want to know what my identity is as far as German, Irish, whatever I might be,” Hamblin said.

He said access to his birth certificate, which includes his birth parents' names, isn't only about peace-of-mind but could lead him to more.

"It doesn't open up for my family medical history but it's a step towards being able to open your adoption records,” Hamblin said.

A bill going through the state legislature would make it easier to get that information.

Through an application process, House Bill 647, would put Hamblin's original certificate in his hands for good, but some say that has its downsides.

"This would even open up records for adoptions 30 to 40 years old when women at that time were told nobody will ever know about this,” Evelyn Beussink, the assistant director at Lutheran Family and Children's Services, said.

It's a move Beussink and agency director Leisa Blisset say could cause privacy issues.

"Could be crisis pregnancy maybe from rape so they don't want that information to get out,” Blisset said. They say they want to respect all parties involved in adoptions and know how emotional this issue can be.

"It could cause a lot of difficulties both the privacy concerns and the concerns about the trauma,” Beussink said.

As for Hamblin, he said it's not an issue of privacy but of rights.

"It'll be a sense of relief. Right now, the one I have is a Xerox copy and I can see the staple in the corner where my original is folded behind it,” Hamblin said.

There is another bill that deals with this same issue. Beussink and Blisset say they support House Bill 1112, which would allow adoptees their birth certificate with permission from their birth parents.

However Hamblin said that is not enough; that process is still too long.

SOURCE

NOTE and COMMENT: HB 1112 would make it so the adopted person has to go through the same process that they do now to get their records. This means that thousands of adopted adults would get nothing when the court cannot find their file or the appointed searcher cannot locate the biological parent even though the adoptee is charged and average of $300-$500 for such a search. Adopted adults should have the right to their own information. If the biological parent chooses to Not have a relationship, then at least the adopted person would have closure and the chance to ask for Medical information: Comment from Heather Dodd

HBO 1112 is an agency bill that mirrors current law which does not follow best practices in adoption. HB 647 establishes that adult adopted Missourians have the same right to their original birth certificates as non-adopted adults. (That one is the one we need and want...Trace)

**************MORE NEWS!

http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/indiana/2015/03/16/Indiana-Supreme-Court-hears-disputed-adoption-of-2-boys.html

Indiana Supreme Court hears disputed adoption of 2 boys

Indiana Supreme Court hears adoption case of 2 boys that pits grandmothers against each other

What's best for kids? Michigan adoption bills would protect faith-based agencies, limit LGBT options

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/03/whats_best_for_kids_michigan_a.html

January 2016: Colorado to open all birth records!

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

BIA Proposes Federal Rule (!) to Govern #ICWA Implementation (UPDATED)

Archive Photo

Posted on March 18, 2015 by Kate Fort | Turtle Talk

Press release here:

In keeping with President Obama’s commitment to supporting Indian families and building resilient, stable and thriving tribal communities, Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today announced that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has published a proposed rule to govern the implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) by state courts and child welfare agencies. The proposed rule also includes changes to current regulations that govern notice to state agencies under ICWA.

“The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ proposed rule clarifies and strengthens implementation of the Act’s requirements in Indian child custody proceedings to ensure that Indian families and tribal communities do not face the unwarranted removal of their youngest and most vulnerable members,” Washburn said. “I want to thank all those who attended listening sessions and provided comments and recommendations for our updated guidelines. Their contributions helped inform this proposed rule, which seeks to protect Indian children and families. We look forward to receiving more comments and feedback throughout the rulemaking process.”

The Department will be conducting tribal consultations and public meetings on the proposed rule through May 2015 to facilitate input and comment on the proposed rule. Tribal consultations are open only to representatives of federally recognized Indian tribes. Public meetings are open to everyone.

The public and tribal hearings times and locations are listed on the press release. It looks like the first public one is in Portland during the NICWA conference. Written comments will be due 60 days after publication (3/20/15).

These are different from the recently released Guidelines in that they would be binding–not persuasive–authority.

Pre-publication regulations here. 55 pages long. From the overview–

This proposed rule addresses ICWA implementation by State courts and child welfare agencies, including updating definitions, and replacing current notice provisions at 25 CFR 23.11 with a proposed new subpart I to 25 CFR part 23. The proposed new subpart also addresses other aspects of ICWA compliance by State courts and child welfare agencies including, but not limited to, other pretrial requirements, procedures for requesting transfer of an Indian child custody proceeding to tribal court,
adjudications of involuntary placements, adoptions, and termination of parental rights, voluntary proceedings, dispositions, and post-trial rights.
For example, the proposed rule clarifies ICWA applicability and codifies that there is no “Existing Indian Family Exception (EIF)” to ICWA. Since first identification of the EIF in 1982, the majority of State appellate courts that have considered the EIF have rejected it as contrary to the plain language of ICWA. Some State legislatures have also explicitly rejected the EIF within their State ICWA statutes. When Congress enacted ICWA, it intended that an “Indian child” was the threshold for application of ICWA.
The Department agrees with the States that have concluded that there is no existing Indian family exception to application of ICWA. The proposed rule also promotes the early identification of ICWA applicability. Such identifications will promote proper implementation of ICWA at an early stage, to prevent–as much as possible—delayed discoveries that ICWA applies

Federal Register site here.
**

The Federal Rule Making Process

Posted on March 19, 2015 by Kate Fort

Given yesterday’s announcement about the proposed ICWA rules, here is a quick and general guide to how a proposed rule becomes a part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Here is the Federal Register Tutorial: What it is and how to use it (you know you want to know the historical background of the Federal Register Act).
There is also a lot of information over at the Cornell Legal Information Institute’s Regulation Room on what federal rule making is, and what makes for effective comments.

Adoptee shares her story as Ohio adoption records become available this Friday

Adoptee Kimmie Sapp shares her story of finding her birth parents. Sapp noted that adoptees should consider that real life is not like the movies before launching their own search.

“You’re always looking for people that look like you. I don’t care how good your parents were, or how close you were with your siblings, it’s odd growing up not looking like anyone,” Kimmie Sapp said.

March 16, 2015 | by Candace Harrell

MANSFIELD, Ohio - Beginning March 20 of this year, Ohio adoptees whose adoptions were finalized between Jan. 1, 1964 to Sept. 18, 1996 may gain access to their adoption file and original birth record from the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) thanks to Senate Bill 23.

Kimmie Sapp didn’t need to wait for this legislation to find her parents, because she was adopted in 1957. Adoption records prior to Jan. 1, 1964 have been open to adoptees and linear descendants.

Sapp, now a Mansfield resident, said she began the search to find a missing piece of her history; not only for medical information, which was important, but a piece of herself. “You’re always looking for people that look like you. I don’t care how good your parents were, or how close you were with your siblings, it’s odd growing up not looking like anyone,” she said.

The search would have been easier today, with the internet at her fingertips. But in the late 1970s, a telephone book and directory assistance had to suffice. At the age of 21, after obtaining a copy of her birth certificate and finding her birth mother’s name and home town, she simply started calling everyone listed in that town with the same last name.

“The second person I called was her uncle,” said Sapp. “He said, ‘That’s my niece…but she never had a baby.’ But he gave me her phone number.”

“I called her. I cried, she cried, and yes, that was my birth mother,” Sapp said.

She said they corresponded, and even met. But life is not a fairy tale, Sapp noted.

Sapp’s birth mother had moved on with her life and had three sons. None of them knew of Sapp’s existence, and the birth mother preferred to keep it that way. “I didn’t live in her shoes. I don’t know what she went through in her lifetime,” said Sapp. “I don’t judge. She just couldn’t handle a relationship with me because she was too worried her boys would find out and lose respect for her.”

Sapp said she understood, because her adoption took place in a time when counseling was not offered to birth mothers.

She recalled her birth mother relating the experience, “She had a baby, she got to hold me, she counted my fingers and my toes, and kissed me goodbye,” said Sapp. “She said, ‘I memorized your face. I cried and cried. But when I came back to [my hometown], I had to pretend like you never existed, so I thought of you as being dead.”

“She’s not a bad person. She’s just dealing with things the way she has to deal with them,” said Sapp.

Her birth mother discouraged her from contacting her birth father, so it was ten years later that Sapp tracked him down. That experience turned out better, she noted.

“He was ecstatic. He has two daughters, and he told them immediately,” said Sapp. She said she is very close to the youngest sister, and they have much in common.

Sapp said her adopted family is wonderful, but she just needed to know where she came from. She added that for some adoptees, just finding a name is enough.

Her advice to those seeking their birth parents, “I think it’s very important. People need closure. I just don’t think anyone should go into it without thinking about it deeply.”

She said that often those parents have moved on, and it is hard for the adoptee to find where they fit into that new family.

ODH has created a video to explain the law and how adoptees may go about obtaining information. Instructions may also be found at the website.

***

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/news/government/7758736

Adoption records for 400,000 Ohioans available Friday

Adopted people can learn about their origins (sucks that some will apply and still won't find out who their parents are due to the fact the parents are still afforded the chance to remove their names)

****

If you find a story about an adoptee who has found her/his family, share the link in a comment or let us know about your own reunions...Trace

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

State of Alaska asks for more time #ICWA

The state on Monday asked the Alaska Supreme Court for more time in a case involving the adoption of a Yup’ik child, a case that tribes say will determine how the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA, will be implemented in Alaska, and show whether Governor Bill Walker is serious about campaign pledges he made to work cooperatively with tribes.

READ MORE

Monday, March 16, 2015

Disposable Child: Madness in America #DRUGGINGKIDS

http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/03/drugging-children-foster-care/

The Drugging of Children in Foster Care

By PHILIP HICKEY, PHD | Featured Blogs | March 16, 2015

It's no secret that here in America, foster children are being prescribed psychiatric drugs, especially neuroleptics, as a means of controlling their behavior. A great deal has been said and written on the matter. Politicians have declared the practice deplorable. Children's advocacy groups have expressed concern, and, of course, those of us in the antipsychiatry movement have screamed till we're hoarse. But the problem persists.

For the past six months or so, the San Jose Mercury News, a California newspaper, has been running frequent articles on this topic, calling for oversight and corrective action.

On February 24, 2015, Karen de Sá, a reporter with that newspaper, published an article titled Senate panel examines why California foster care system 'addicted' to psychiatric drugs. It's an excellent article, which highlights various aspects of the problem, and provides updated information on this matter.

Here are some quotes:

"California's foster care system 'has grown more addicted to mind-altering medication,' the chair of a powerful Senate committee told a packed public hearing in the state Capitol on Tuesday, adding that 'here in California, we've done little to act on this alarming issue.'"

"Lightbourne said two state-sponsored panels have spent years working to develop guidelines that would protect foster children from the excessive use of psych medications and to house fewer kids at residential group homes, where drugs are most frequently prescribed. Foster children deserve 'nonmedical treatments whenever possible,' Lightbourne said."

"'We need to shift our thinking away from the primacy of psychiatric medications toward relationships,' testified George Stewart, a Berkeley child psychiatrist who has spent much of his career tapering severely traumatized children safely off high-risk drug cocktails. 'We are going to look back on this era of great enthusiasm for psychiatric medications and either scratch our heads or beat our heads. We will look back in 20 years and say, 'What were we doing?'"

"Senators also said they were alarmed by the newspaper's analysis that showed how pharmaceutical companies lavish the state's foster care prescribers with millions of dollars for meals, gifts, travel, speaking engagements and research grants -- a practice Lightbourne called 'deeply troubling.' The newspaper found the doctors who prescribed the most, typically were rewarded the most."

All of which tells a familiar story. Pharma-psychiatry systematically targets foster children as potential customers. They do this because the residents of foster homes, group and individual, are a "captive audience," in the sense that the foster parent or staff member will ensure that the resident takes the pills. In this way, non-compliance – the great drain on pharma revenue – becomes a non-issue.

Karen de Sá's article is cogent, articulate, and powerful, and undoubtedly she and her colleagues are raising awareness on this matter. But there was one paragraph in her article that I felt warranted some additional discussion.

"Tuesday's four-hour hearing before the Human Services Committee highlighted a package of bills being introduced this month, following this newspaper's investigation 'Drugging Our Kids,' which revealed nearly one in four foster care teens take psychiatric drugs -- often to control behavior, not to treat mental illnesses. Most are prescribed antipsychotics, a powerful class of psychiatric drugs with the most harmful side effects."

Note the phrase "…often to control behavior, not to treat mental illnesses." What the author is missing here is that, within psychiatry's spurious domain, misbehavior is a mental illness. In fact, it is several mental illnesses. If a child is frequently defiant, he has a mental illness called oppositional defiant disorder. If he is given to outbursts of anger, he has a mental illness called intermittent explosive disorder. If he is given to violating rules or infringing on the rights of others, he has a mental illness called conduct disorder. If he is given to setting fires, he has a mental illness called pyromania. If he is persistently angry and given to very frequent temper tantrums, he has a mental illness called disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. And, of course, if he is disruptive and inattentive in the classroom, he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. If the child's misbehavior can't be shoe-horned neatly into any of these categories, psychiatry has two residual categories:

other specified disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorder; and unspecified disruptive impulse-control and conduct disorder.

Contrary to popular opinion, no neurological pathology is required to establish these "diagnoses."

So, by neatly re-labeling every conceivable kind of misbehavior as a mental illness, psychiatry has established turf in this field, and has legitimized the use of drugs to "treat" this misbehavior.

This is the crux of the entire debate. There is literally no significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving that is not listed, either directly, or by implication, in the DSM. So, Karen de Sá is incorrect. In the looking-glass world of psychiatry, practitioners are notprescribing major tranquilizers to control children's behavior. Rather, they are "treating mental illnesses," with medications that have been proven by highly questionable pharma research to be "effective and safe." We have actually reached the position in our society where a physician who does not follow these practices could be held liable for failure to treat.

And this is the problem. Every attempt to eliminate, or even reduce, this widespread and persistent practice, is doomed to failure as long as psychiatry's spurious diagnoses are accepted as bona fide illnesses. Because if childhood misbehavior is an illness, then psychiatrists and other physicians are not using drugs to control behavior, rather they are "treating," compassionately and effectively, these "disabling illnesses."

Psychiatry, over the past five decades, has systematically and deceptively pursued a self-serving policy of medicalizing virtually every significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving. Their pharma allies have provided the money, and psychiatry has provided the credentials, in what is arguably the most widespread and destructive swindle in human history. And they have been enormously successful. Their spurious notions are widely accepted today as reality.

No significant progress will be possible in these areas until the swindle is finally and utterly exposed, and sanity is restored to our conceptualizations of human activity. Until then, despite the protests of politicians, advocates, journalists, and others, the pharma-psychiatry maw will remain wide open, and the ranks of "the mentally ill" who need "treatment" will continue to grow.

Philip Hickey, PhD

Behaviorism and Mental Health: Philip Hickey is a retired psychologist. He has worked in prisons (UK and US), addiction units, community mental health centers, nursing homes, and in private practice. He and his wife, Nancy, live in Colorado, and have four grown children. His posts can also be seen on his website,Behaviorism and Mental Health.

Indigenous Adoptees