BLOGGER changed, not allowing us to UPDATE this back-up blog

(UPDATED 726/2025) issues with blogger are preventing this

Friday, May 17, 2013

PTSD and Post-Adoption Issues – What NOT to Say

I wrote about my own post-traumatic stress disorder in my memoir One Small Sacrifice. The key for me is (and was) processing emotions and knowing myself once I had the truth...

Here is a must-read column: http://www.laura-dennis.com/trauma-adoption-ptsd/

Excerpt:

“Here’s what you need to do...”

Here’s the truth: I have no idea what you specifically need to do to process yourself. To heal. I have no freakin’ clue. I can only offer suggestions, things that have worked for myself and others. And I can try to provide insight and resources for adoptees (and those who support them) as they emerge from the fog and attempt to deal with their pain, grief and loss.
So, you may be wondering why I’m constantly blogging about adoption, when I feel like I’ve processed my grief, my “what ifs,” and I’m even in a place where I can make jokes about my own secondary rejection.
That’s the thing … It’s because, like Juanima with PTSD, I’ve been at the bottom of the valley. I drove myself crazy, literally crazy trying to be the perfect person, the grateful adoptee. Because of my unaddressed post-adoption issues, I inadvertently let my latent bipolar tendencies emerge and get the better of me. I hit bottom. I nearly destroyed my mind.
But slowly, deliberately and drawing on that (in)famous “adoptee resilience,” I made the arduous trek up the hill. These days, I’m on stable footing; I can reach back and give a helping hand to my fellow adoptees.
That’s why I want to give voice to PTSD and the effects of trauma and abuse. That’s why I write about all this adoption crap all the time. ...


Laura Dennis is the author of "Adopted Reality" that I give 5 STARS! ...Trace

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Part Two: The Fight for Baby Veronica

   
Veronica at home in Oklahoma (Indian Country Today)
          

Another article in this excellent series.
“The birth mother knew I was Cherokee, she knew I was a tribal member, she knew my birth date and she knew how to spell my name,” said Brown matter-of-factly. “Look, we've known each other since we were 16. We were engaged. She absolutely knew all of my vital information. And she gave [the attorney and the tribe] the wrong information [hoping to keep the adoption secret].”

Facts Are Stubborn Things

From the outset, the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl has been rife with errors: Errors in spelling, incorrect dates, bad judgment, and finally, errors in execution. Whether by prevaricated fabrication, purposeful obfuscation or the result of a simple incompetence, the crucial mistakes made in the very beginning and thereafter proved pivotal to the subsequent battle between the Capobiancos and Dusten Brown.

Read more at  http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/13/fight-baby-veronica-part-2-149336

Saturday, May 11, 2013

The Spirit to Speak Out: Robin Poor Bear's Bravery

In Kind-Hearted Woman, Robin Poor Bear negotiates motherhood, sobriety and justice. (Courtesy PBS)
April 18, 2013
To say that Robin Poor Bear, Oglala Sioux, struggled with the decision to allow a documentary film crew to make a movie about her life is an understatement. It’s no accident, for instance, that she got sober at the same time that filming began in 2007.
“I went downhill making that decision,” she said. “I went through about three or four months of just drinking, and anger and negative feelings. Finally one night I prayed. I ended up having a dream that someone in the house had died and everyone knew how this person had died, but no one was saying anything. Right before the police left I opened my mouth and I said, ‘I know what happened.’ ”
Poor Bear knew then that she was angry with everyone in her life who hadn’t spoken out about the abuse she had suffered.
“I knew then that I was mad at everybody for not protecting me as a kid,” she said. “And I knew that I had to do this film and speak out.”
Filmmaker David Sutherland and his crew followed Poor Bear, who was then known by her married name Robin Charboneau, through three years of her life. The result, a nearly five-hour documentary, Kind-Hearted Woman, was shown on PBS April 1 and 2 as a joint production of Frontline and Independent Lens.
The film spans her early 30s, a time when Poor Bear was struggling to overcome the early loss of her alcoholic mother and an abusive first marriage while raising her two children—Anthony, now 14, and Darian, 17. Poor Bear was also still haunted by the abuse that she suffered starting at the age of 3 at the hands of her foster family.
“I was abused by a man I called grandpa, his son (I called dad), the brothers of the man I called dad (which would be uncles) and others,” she told ICTMN.
Robin Poor Bear fights to keep and protect her kids Anthony, 14, and Darian, 17. (Kimmer Olesak, Courtesy PBS/WXXI, Rochester, New York)
Robin Poor Bear fights to keep and protect her kids Anthony, 14, and Darian, 17. (Kimmer Olesak, Courtesy PBS/WXXI, Rochester, New York)
The small family somehow got used to the presence of the camera; the tape kept rolling through many tearful talks and family arguments. Darian even revealed to her mother, on camera, that she had been abused by her own father—Poor Bear’s first husband—which led to a federal investigation, indictment and imprisonment that unfolds over the course of the documentary. A custody battle in tribal court on the Spirit Lake Reservation is also featured, including a six-month period when Poor Bear’s children ended up in foster care.
And Kind-Hearted Woman traces Poor Bear’s ill-fated second marriage from beginning almost to its end. The small family picked up and moved many times—from the reservation to Fargo, North Dakota, to International Falls, Minnesota, to Canada and back again, in response to each curveball.
“I had no idea what was to come during the filming process,” Poor Bear reflected. “I had no idea that my daughter was going to come out about the abuse, and I had no idea that Spirit Lake Social Services was going to take my kids away for the film. My adoptive family hasn’t spoken with me for years. That’s fine, because they carry that shame. I don’t carry it any more.”
It was Poor Bear’s local victim service program director, Linda Thompson, who introduced her to Sutherland, who was looking for a good documentary subject. Poor Bear made herself available, with reservations.
“I was terrified that entire week before he came to the Spirit Lake Reservation,” she said, “because there were only two other people who knew parts of my story at the time. One was my therapist and the other was a person who called me ‘sister.’ David was the third.”
Despite her reservations, Poor Bear came to realize she was doing the film to give other abuse victims a glimmer of connection and hope.
“If there was one woman out there, I had to do it,” she said. “When you’re in that situation, you feel so alone.”
Not that her road back has been easy. Poor Bear had hoped to return to school for psychology and social work so she could learn how to help abuse victims, especially on the reservation. However, her ex-husband’s sexual molestation trial and the custody battle interfered. She started classes but abandoned them when she felt her children needed her.
Though Poor Bear’s academic plans got tabled, she found her way. The film shows her working as a hotel maid for a time, then landing the first of several social services jobs—monitoring supervised visits for dysfunctional families at a victims’ advocacy organization in International Falls.
Her responsibilities grew until she had a nervous breakdown, related to her personal struggles, after which her social services supervisor lost confidence in her and let her go. But she quickly found work with a similar organization. And within days of the brief psychiatric hospital stay, she was exposing her past in a new way: as a speaker in front of victims, victims’ advocates, and whoever else would listen.
“I was torn and ripped to pieces by people I called dad, uncles,” she told that first rapt audience, as captured in the film.
By now, speaking out about abuse has become Poor Bear’s primary occupation. And even as Kind-Hearted Woman chronicles her path in its early stages, it continues to push her along her way. Since its release, Poor Bear’s has calendar filled with speaking engagements for several months.
“Some people are booking into next year,” she said. “It can’t get any better.”
Personally, she said, the film “helped me grow. It helped me listen to my spirit. My spirit came alive. It made me a better mom. Women and children have been reaching out from all over, talking about their issues, some for the first time. Not just women and children but men also. I’m just so blessed in so many ways that I can’t even count.”
Poor Bear says she has received responses from abuse victims all over the world. But perhaps the most meaningful support has come when she has visited her own reservation.
“I walk around on the reservation. The elders will say, ‘I need to give you a hug.’ And they’ll say, ‘That’s a good thing you did. I’m proud of you.’ ”
Poor Bear says she recognizes that abuse happens all over, not just on her own reservation. But reservations often add another layer of obstacles to healing, she says.
“We just don’t have the amount of resources,” she explained. “We’re low on housing. We’re low on law enforcement. Some of our judicial systems need to be revamped. The sexual abuse and domestic violence that happens on a reservation are bad, but it’s even worse when the systems that are sworn to protect families and children don’t do that.”
Happily, Poor Bear’s own children are doing just fine, in part because of the documentary itself. “It was healing in so many ways,” she said. “After my kids watched the film.… I never dreamed that my kids could become closer than they already were. [Sutherland] gave them each other’s perspective.… You talk about a blessing. I’m so grateful.”
Soon the children will join their mother on a trip to Laramie, Wyoming, where they both hope to attend college. Anthony is interested in an automotive program at WyoTech, and Darian wants to go to the University of Wyoming.
“She wants to do everything,” her mother says proudly, “modeling, singing. She wants to be a vet. She wants to be an advocate.”
Both kids have even developed public presentations of their own. Darian’s focuses on the signs of childhood abuse; Anthony’s details his own struggle with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. “It’s really great,” Poor Bear said. “He ends it with, ‘Thank you for paying attention.’ ”
And Poor Bear is now spreading her message in new ways. On Mother’s Day she will break ground on a long-term, nonprofit treatment center for women and children who suffer from abuse and/or chemical dependency. Her wish for the center’s clients is the same one she has for the audiences at her talks: a sense of hope.
“Keep going forward,” she urges victims of abuse. “Don’t ever let whatever happened to you in your past stop you from building a better life for yourself.”


Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/04/18/spirit-speak-out-documentary-features-oglala-sioux-womans-heartbreak-and-redemption

She is my hero! Happy Mother's Day to everyone... xox Trace
 

Monday, May 6, 2013

Part One: The Fight for Baby Veronica, Suzette Brewer


Suzette Brewer\ May 06, 2013

It is dinner time at the Brown home in Oklahoma. As dusk settles over the horizon, ground venison sizzles in a skillet on the stove as Veronica Brown and her father, Dusten, feed two pet geese in the backyard. Two small dogs trail behind, climbing over each other to stay with the little girl. A joyful bundle of dimples and curly dark hair, Veronica Brown is the master and commander of her backyard empire.

“Here is their swimming pool. It has sharks in it,” she points authoritatively to the cartoon sharks on the bottom. “But they drink out of it.”

In a remarkable act of equanimity, one of the geese allows her to pick him up and put him in the water. She strokes his head and gives him some more pellets from her hand. Not to be outdone, the other goose jumps in the small pool and tries to horn in on the food.

“She knows her own mind,” says her father proudly. “She knows exactly what she thinks, and she won't hesitate to tell you.”

Shortly after, Brown's wife, Robin, comes out to the family's deep freezer and grabs an armful of more frozen venison. She is still dressed in her scrubs from a long day at nursing school. Brown has taken the day off from his construction job to work on the house and run errands.

Their home is modest but immaculate and it is clear that the Brown's take great pride in keeping it up. They have painted and restored most of the interior, but have taken a break—for the time being.

“Every time we go to Home Depot, we come out with three more projects,” says Brown, smiling wearily. “We had to stop because it's always something.”

This much is clear: If one did not know that this small family was at the center of one of the most important Indian law cases in the last 30 years, the Browns would seem like any other family at 6 o'clock in America. Two tired parents, a three-year-old with endless energy, dinner on the stove, dogs yapping, geese squawking and a house in the middle of remodeling. In military-speak, they are squared away.

But underneath the normalcy, Dusten Brown is fully aware of the enormous implications—both personally and tribally—for the blandly named Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl now under review by the Supreme Court.

“It's always in the back of my mind,” says Brown, an Iraq War veteran who is still enlisted in the National Guard. “But I just go through every day being a parent, just acting like it's not going on.”

To summarize, after Brown asked ex-fiancee Christine Maldanado to marry him, she became pregnant. Shortly there after, she broke off the engagement and contact with Brown and quietly put the couple's child up for adoption without notifiying him of her intentions—which ultimately pitted Dusten Brown against the pre-adoptive parents, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, and the Capobianco's adoption lawyers, who apparently were not prepared for the fact that Brown turned out to be a tougher customer than they expected.

This story, however, did not begin with Maldanado's pregnancy. Brown and Maldanado have known each other nearly 14 years, having met as 16-year-olds in high school. As classmates in Bartlesville's alternative education program, they dated off and on for nearly 11 years. During that time, Brown and Maldanado had both married and divorced other people. Maldanado had two children by her first marriage, Brown had a daughter from his.

Sometime in the late 2000s, they began dating again and Brown decided to propose to Maldanado, and she accepted. By December of 2009, she was pregnant. Soon after, she sent him a text message telling him she wanted to break up.

“It was all text messages,” he said, “because she didn't want to talk to me.”

Brown said he did not understand why she wanted to break up and that she was not clear in her reasons. But because they had dated off and on for so long, he said, “I just thought we could repair our relationship and get back together. We had done that a lot, so I thought we could do it again.”
Instead, she texted Brown asking him to sign his “rights” over to her. Initially, Brown said he was under the impression that she simply wanted full custody. At no time, he said, did she ever mention that she was thinking of giving their child up for adoption. He is adamant that had he known what her plans were, he would've acted on the spot.

“I thought she wanted full custody, but that I would still be a part of my child's life,” he said. “I was going to war. I didn't know what was going to happen in Iraq, or even if I was going to come back home alive. So I texted her back and said okay.”

Thinking that Maldanado needed time, Brown said he sent the text message and gave Maldanado her space. In his mind, they were simply in another “off” period, yet he remained hopeful that they would eventually work things out.

This was not to be. Four months after Veronica's birth, and six days before Brown was scheduled to deploy for Iraq, he received a message from Maldanado's lawyer that he needed to come to Bartlesville, Okla., to sign “some paperwork.” Because he was leaving the country, he was in “lock down” at his Army base in Ft. Sill and was told he would not be allowed to make the five hour trip to sign the paperwork. After some wrangling with his superiors and the lawyers, he was given permission only to leave base and go to nearby Lawton to visit a local process server.

It was from the process server that Brown finally learned the whole truth: That  his daughter had been born four months earlier; that Maldanado had not only signed her own rights away, but had also put the girl up for adoption, something to which he did not, nor would ever agree; and that the child had also been living in South Carolina for four months with people he considered strangers.

“It was like somebody stabbed me in the heart,” said Brown. “She's a good mother to her other two children, so it was shocking to me that she would just give our child away. As far as I'm concerned, she sold her child. But if she wasn't going to raise [Veronica], then I definitely wanted her.”

To Brown, it was clear that Maldanado, the Capobiancos and their lawyers had timed their legal ambush before his deployment in the hopes that Brown would simply fold and walk away. They were all, he said, mistaken. “That was never going to happen.”

“I went straight to the Judge Advocate General on base,” he said. “And they got me a lawyers in Bartlesville and South Carolina.”

In the meantime, Brown assigned power of attorney to his father and had his lawyers ask for a stay of adoption until his deployment in Iraq was over, which was granted. During that time, it became evident that Brown's rights as a tribal member and due process had not been followed, according to court documents. In their rush to push the adoption through under the radar, Maldanado, the Capobiancos and their attorneys had colluded to strip Brown of his parental rights outside the purview of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Instead of a legal termination hearing, as is provided for under the law even in non-ICWA cases, the plaintiffs zeroed in on that fateful text message. This became the focal point of the subsequent legal battle with the Capobiancos, who had spent a lot of money on the adoption, even giving Maldanado $10,000 over and above her medical expenses, according to court testimony. Their message to the world was clear: “He gave up his rights. He abandoned his daughter. He is a 'bad dad.'”

But as in most custody battles, things are not always as they seem.

Next Week: The battle for Baby Veronica begins as the Capobiancos dig in, while their lawyers and public relations team go viral.

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/05/06/fight-baby-veronica-part-i-149219 (See photos at this website. It's a fantastic look at their lives...Trace)

Nova Scotia Adoptees call for change

NS adult adoptees call for access to family history

HALIFAX — Some adult adoptees are raising concerns over closed adoption records in Nova Scotia, saying that cuts off access to their cultural background and family health history.
Nova Scotia’s Adoption Information Act prevents adult adoptees from getting information about their birth parents without their consent.
“I strongly believe that’s a violation of my human right to know my identity and my cultural background,” said Kate Foster.
Foster, who’s a black Nova Scotian, was adopted into a white family when she was an infant. She says she feels the province’s policy prevented her from knowing her cultural heritage.
“My birth father is my link to my black heritage, I’ve always wanted to know about it, it’s extremely important to my self-worth and my sense of identity.”
Foster first applied for information about her birth parents when she was in her 20′s, but since her birth mother wouldn’t consent to releasing information, she couldn’t get any details on her father’s identity.
Since then, she’s appealed the decision, tried to search for her father on her own, even enlisted the help of an investigator, all to no avail.
“It shouldn’t be so hard to find out about yourself.”
Marilyn MacDonald-MacKinnon spent 30 years trying to get more information about her birth parents.
“I need to know who I come from, I need to know that for me,” she said.
MacDonald-MacKinnon says she especially needs her medical history, which, under the current act, is information she can’t access without her birth parents’ consent. She says that law has already put her family’s health at risk.
“My daughter, two years ago, almost died, and there was no explanation for what happened to her, but the first question the doctor asked is:  'is there a history?’ and I couldn’t answer that.”
She says the adoption act is “archaic” and needs to change.
While the province’s Community Services minister says her government is not considering amendments to the act, Denise Peterson-Rafuse conceded there might be room for some change.
“If there is a way that we can pursue this, that does not give up (birth parents’) privacy, but at the same time provides the factual information that’s needed with respect to health, there isn’t any reason why we cannot have an opportunity to look at that,” she said.
The minister said her department will be looking at how other jurisdictions have handled the “health aspect.”
So far four provinces and one territory have adopted open adoption records in the country. They are: Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, and Yukon.

Friday, May 3, 2013

Ocangu-sa RED ROAD to air on CBC

Ocangu-sa Red Road next airs on:
Ottawa time is shown.

One Man's Search for Identity

The events that lead up to the removal of Barry Hambly and his three brothers from their mother, reflected a series of policies that adversely affected — and continue to affect — First Nations people.
Barry's mother, Darlene Whitecap, has experienced firsthand the impact of these policies on her life, and the lives of her children. Darlene Whitecap was raised on a reserve and taken away to a white-run residential school at age four.
Eventually returning to the reserve, she found herself in an abusive relationship when she was 16.  By the time she was 24 years old, with four young children, alcohol had become a part of her life. It was then that she decided to run from the reserve to Regina. Soon after, she would lose her children to social agencies due to her alcoholism.
The adoption policies of this era were controversial and became known as the "Sixties Scoop."
Red Road was produced by Lost Heritage Productions in association with Life Network, and with the financial participation of the Canadian Television Fund (CTF).

Film Previews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7--Lt11tTk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujau8Fm4Tko&feature=related

SOURCE: http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/ocangusa_red_road/

Thursday, May 2, 2013

The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption by Kathryn Joyce

The Child Catchers
Hardcover, 272 pages, Perseus Books Group, List Price: $26.99 |purchase


 
The author of Quiverfull reveals how adoption has become entangled in the conservative Christian agenda as a reflection of pro-life initiatives, explaining how child and family well-being has become a lesser priority in a market increasingly driven by profit and religious ideology.

AMAZON Book Description

When Jessie Hawkins’ adopted daughter told her she had another mom back in Ethiopia, Jessie didn’t, at first, know what to think. She’d wanted her adoption to be great story about a child who needed a home and got one, and a family led by God to adopt. Instead, she felt like she’d done something wrong.

Adoption has long been enmeshed in the politics of reproductive rights, pitched as a “win-win” compromise in the never-ending abortion debate. But as Kathryn Joyce makes clear in The Child Catchers, adoption has lately become even more entangled in the conservative Christian agenda.
To tens of millions of evangelicals, adoption is a new front in the culture wars: a test of “pro-life” bona fides, a way for born again Christians to reinvent compassionate conservatism on the global stage, and a means to fulfill the “Great Commission” mandate to evangelize the nations.  Influential leaders fervently promote a new “orphan theology,” urging followers to adopt en masse, with little thought for the families these “orphans” may already have.
Conservative evangelicals control much of that industry through an infrastructure of adoption agencies, ministries, political lobbying groups, and publicly-supported “crisis pregnancy centers,” which convince women not just to “choose life,” but to choose adoption.
Overseas, conservative Christians preside over a spiraling boom-bust adoption market in countries where people are poor and regulations weak, and where hefty adoption fees provide lots of incentive to increase the “supply” of adoptable children, recruiting “orphans” from intact but vulnerable families.
The Child Catchers is a shocking exposé of what the adoption industry has become and how it got there, told through deep investigative reporting and the heartbreaking stories of individuals who became collateral damage in a market driven by profit and, now, pulpit command.
Anyone who seeks to adopt—of whatever faith or no faith, and however well-meaning—is affected by the evangelical adoption movement, whether they know it or not. The movement has shaped the way we think about adoption, the language we use to discuss it, the places we seek to adopt from, and the policies and laws that govern the process. In The Child Catchers, Kathryn Joyce reveals with great sensitivity and empathy why, if we truly care for children, we need to see more clearly.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

MSNBC: Contextualizing the Indian Child Welfare Act



Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Featuring NCAI Executive Director, Jacqueline Pata.

THIS IS FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!! I had mailed NCAI the book TWO WORLDS some time ago. We need more coverage like this...Please, do me a favor, share this link below. I thank you... Trace

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

This Week In American Indian News: ICWA Summit Off?

available on Amazon and all ereaders
We lead today with an update on the Lakota/Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] summit scheduled for mid-May. I did not think this was public, but as of Saturday morning, the Associated Press is reporting it in a local South Dakota news outlet, so it's now out there.
Two weeks ago, I wrote about the "Lakota Spring," including a pair of upcoming hearings organized by the Standing Rock Sioux Nation in preparation for the summit. The BIA agreed to the summit after members of Congress, under pressure from Sioux tribal members, demanded an investigation into reports that South Dakota state officials intentionally engaged in repeated violations of the Indian Child Welfare Act [ICWA] by improperly removing Indian children from their families and placing them in white foster or adoptive homes. In any other context, we'd call that what it is: Kidnapping. In South Dakota, it's called capitalism, since it's a moneymaker for both white families and the state.
Well, after much apparent hemming and hawing, the BIA has released its agenda for the summit - an agenda, I remind you, that was supposed to be a joint project between BIA officials and tribal leaders.
And it's a whitewash. In the multiple senses of that term.
Yes, I do know this, because I've seen the agenda.
Standing Rock officials agreed to this summit on condition that it would address the facts of the kidnapping of their children and work to correct the ongoing violations. They did not agree to help cover them up. Among their very reasonable conditions was that former South Dakota Senator James Abourezk, the original architect of the ICWA, be included in the program to speak about the conditions that compelled him to act in the first place. (Here's a hint: The conditions in 1970s Indian Country looked very much like the conditions in South Dakota today.)
I've seen no official public response from the BIA yet, and I'm not taking bets at this point as to whether the summit will actually occur.

Read more here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/29/1205473/--New-Day-This-Week-In-American-Indian-News-ICWA-Summit-Off-Racists-Apps-Movies-Powwows#

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Adoptees Shouldn't Have to Use Facebook to Find Their Birth Parents

The recent "Adoptee Searching Picture Meme" highlights what's wrong with the American adoption system.   


matchar_jenessa2.jpg
Facebook
This January, a 21-year-old Utah woman named Jenessa Simons located her birth mother via Facebook by posting a picture of herself holding her adoption information ("Born November 17, 1991...They named me Whitney"). The photo went viral, with more than 160,000 shares, and Simons received an email from her birth mother just two days later. In the three months since, Simons' success has inspired countless imitators, both birth parents and adoptees, clogging Facebook feeds with similar messages.
These posts have brought questions of adoption and its consequences to the forefront. While adoption is usually lauded as a win-win, some say situations like Simons' highlight major problems with the institution, problems which cause suffering for birth parents and adoptees alike.
Claudia Corrigan D'Arcy, a birth mother who reconnected with her son via MySpace in 2006, sees the recent rash of what she calls the "Adoptee Searching Picture Meme" as a sign that the adoption system is badly broken. Adults like Simons, Corrigan D'Arcy says, should have the legal right to documents revealing their biological backgrounds.
"Imagine a world where adult adoptees could access their birth records like EVERY other American and know the name they were given," she writes. "Then they wouldn't have to post pictures of themselves on Facebook holding signs with personal information all over. Then they wouldn't have to beg for strangers for shares in order to find out who they look like and if cancer runs in their family."
  Read more here: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/adoptees-shouldnt-have-to-use-facebook-to-find-their-birth-parents/275251/

NOTE: We have our own Facebook page for this: https://www.facebook.com/AmericanIndiansSearchingFor

(See box on this blog...) Please make a poster and post it on our page... Trace

Intergenerational Trauma




Published on Apr 10, 2013
The Union of Ontario Indians received funding through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada to develop tools and erect a monument to pay tribute to Anishinabek Nation members who attended Indian Residential School. The project is entitled "Honouring Our Children, Families, and Communities Affected by Indian Residential Schools".
As part of the project, a series of five educational videos were created. In this video M'Chigeeng First Nation citizens Krystine Abel and her mother Eve Abel talk about how Eve's experience as a student at St. Joseph's residential school in Spanish, Ontario in the 1950's had an impact on Eve's parenting and Krystine's sense of identity as an Anishinaabe Kwe. Eve has lived in Toronto for over 40 years and has two daughters and one granddaughter. Krystine is now studying Social-Cultural Anthropology at the University of Toronto.
For more information about the Anishinabek Nation Indian Residential Schools Commemoration Project, visit http://www.anishinabek.ca/irscp/

Sunday, April 21, 2013

MY TOP 5 reaons the adoption establishment bugs me

AMERICAN INDIAN ADOPTEES: BLOG WEEK: MY TOP 5
I am rerunning this post - it is one of the most read on my blog!!

Why does the adoption establishment bug the heck out of me?

Here is my Top 5.

1- (Lack of) Disclosure - Old archaic laws are on the books in many states and it seems every state is having some kind of major meltdown or fiscal crisis. Adoptees who are fighting to gain access to our birth records can’t seem to grab their attention or warrant the lawmaker’s time or serious consideration - unless maybe the lawmaker is an adoptee.  

Yup, we know adoptees are low on the totem pole and status meter and that annoys me.


What are “they” thinking? Oh, it’s obvious - the status quo - let’s not rock the boat, just leave the law as is and let's not disclose information every adoptee needs and deserves, and definitely let’s not disturb the Adoption Industry who lobbies Wash. DC with fancy dinners and big campaign contributions. (Lack of medical history is a huge problem for many adoptees, including me)

I can hear the lobbyist pounding on their tables, “adoptees should be grateful they were adopted.” The adoption industry is a billion dollar business and they don’t want to lose a single dollar in profits. It’s about money. Even now, the adoption industry does not appreciate adoptees or ask how we feel or acknowledge what we endured. We are not invited to sit at their table or join in discussions. That really bugs me!

2- Secrecy - Over and over and over “they” claim our natural mothers demanded secrecy yet many mothers who lost children after closed adoptions are saying, “damn the secrecy, damn the laws, where are my children?”

Uniting all these mothers with all the adoptees on the same stage, fighting the discrimination, shame, secrecy and old laws would be powerful!

Sadly it seems both are on their own warpath to be heard.  Uniting our voices on this issue - especially natural mothers and adoptees who have been silenced for too long - is what is urgently needed. Big crowds marching on Washington DC would get "their" attention.  

Blogs are enlightening the world to our plight. Using our voices, activism and blogging for change is good.

3- Identity - Adoptees are denied our basic human rights to the truth of our ancestry, our tribe(s), our birth name, our family names, our background (which is our identity), our medical history, our original birth certificate (OBC) and information about both our natural parents.

I noticed writing my memoir how adoptees will say they are looking for their mothers -- but we do have a dad somewhere and possibly siblings - and we do need to know who they are and where they are! Adoptees need to add “dad and siblings” to their list of needs when facing adoption industry discrimination and current adoption laws.

The bias in the adoption industry is to protect the adoptive parents and seal our identity so no one will ever find out the truth. That deeply annoys me.

If you are Native American, you cannot be enrolled without documentation and proof. If you are a Split Feather/adoptee, you not only lose your identity but your treaty rights and all that goes along with being an enrolled tribal member. Just remember your identity is Native American with or without tribal enrollment.  We must unite and form a national organization to teach about the government’s use of closed adoption to hurt and destroy American Indian families and cripple future generations.

4- New Identification Cards? Yup, as of 2005 more states will implement this new country-wide identification card. And guess what? Adoptees who cannot produce a real birth certificate (OBC) may (let me stress “MAY”) not be able to renew a driver’s license, vote, or apply for or renew a passport. That scares me and bugs me equally! Those ignorant lawmakers who wrote the Real ID Act of 2005 (and passed it) didn’t consider adoptees or how this would affect us? We pay them big salaries because they represent us. What were they thinking? They were not thinking of adoptees, perhaps 10 million of us in the USA.

5 - Gratitude - Over and over I hear adoptees say - almost by script - how grateful they were to be adopted by their parents. I call this our gratitude attitude. We get stuck there mentally and it’s hard to move on to empowering ourselves to regain our birth rights and identity. I know my gratitude silenced me. Gratitude meant I could not talk to my adoptive parents about anything - how I felt, what I planned to do, or even ask them questions about my adoption file. Laws prevented me from knowing anything about myself and my first family.

AND I found out my new parents were not really informed when they adopted me in 1957. They had basic information like I was illegitimate, how my mom was unmarried.

AND my adoption file didn’t include medical history. Really. Apparently the adoption industry didn’t think about the child at all when compiling information for the adoption hearing. It was about convenience and expedience for adoptive parents. Really.
Looking back the adoption industry should be so embarrassed and horrified they didn’t get our medical history when they “sold” us to our new parents.

So, what about the Adoption Establishment annoys you? Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

After adoption

For instance, among Indians who participate in the Daily Kos group Native American Netroots, at least four of us have relatives who were yanked away from their families and sent to boarding schools (aji: great-grandmother; me, grandmother and great-aunt; navajo: mother; cacamp: grandparents, parents and himself).

Aji tells the story of her great-grandmother:
[My mom's grandmother] died without ever knowing who or what she was; it's taken a lot of work, years later, to piece her "self" together. Initially, the family thought she was of Scots descent, not realizing that the Scottish surname was that of her by-then-widowed mother's second husband.  Her adoptive name was English. There is no record of what her traditional name (or any surname) might have been; they were more interested in covering up the very fact of adoption than anything else. In the 1870s, the Catholic Church in Michigan was very invested in saving Indian children from an alleged "epidemic" of illness.  What they were really doing was stealing kids and farming them out as fast as they could to reliably Catholic families who would … "save the [wo]man by killing the Indian." No one knows how many were lost to white families via church theft. Hundreds, at a minimum. Probably thousands over the course of one generation alone. But one day in the late 1870s, a good white Catholic couple of English extraction left their home and traveled to the rez for two months, and came back bearing their new little Indian "papoose," promptly given a white name and identity, with never a reference to be made to the adoption, much less from where.
Ironically, when she married, her husband ran his father's logging business, and during the summer months, he traveled around the state; in his absence, she ran the business for him. She hired and fired — you guessed it — Indian laborers, some of whom were undoubtedly relatives, but neither side ever knew it. She died thinking that 1) she was English, and 2) she was the lineal descendant of those English "parents." To this day, I'm not sure how they explained the differences in coloring — probably via the "Gasp! That's not discussed in polite company" method.
Also ironically, after her adoption, her new parents went on to have nine biological children of their own. You'd've thought they could've been a little less greedy about acquiring someone else's child as a possession.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/26/1030339/-South-Dakota-kidnaps-Indian-children-and-sticks-them-in-white-foster-care 

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

ICWA briefing

Please listen to this now:

http://dl.luxmedia.com/casey/ICWA_Briefing.wav

The history is told here, the agencies are apologizing for the Indian Adoption Projects, our trauma as adoptees is validated, and they agree we need ICWA as much today as we did when it passed in 1978.
Trace

LAKOTA SPRING: PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SOUTH DAKOTA ICWA SCANDAL

 
 photo HoweandSheehanofLPLP_zps09c2ee71.jpg They call it the Lakota Spring: Members of the Standing Rock Sioux Nation are partnering with the Lakota Peoples Law Project [LPLP] to engage in a massive, far-reaching organizing effort to recover their children, stolen from their families in violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act [ICWA]. The LPLP and Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] officials are scheduled to co-host a three-day summit, May 15-17, on the current state of Native foster care and ICWA violations affecting Lakota children. To prepare for the summit, tribal officials are convening two public hearings: the first on April 20, from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, at the Grand River Casino in Mobridge, S.D.; the second on April 28th, from 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM, at the Prairie Nights Casino in Fort Yates, N.D. The purpose of the hearings is two-fold:
At these hearings Lakota relatives who have lost children to the foster care system will be invited to speak, on camera, about their experiences with the Department of Social Services. . . . The Standing Rock tribal government is making a substantial investment to explore having its own family welfare system and to secure long term direct federal funding to support it.

In addition, the "LPLP is also circulating an online petition to encourage members of Congress to attend the May summit."
The push for the summit with the BIA comes out of a report that Lakota tribal officials recently submitted to Congress, highlighting the serial violations of the ICWA that are routine in South Dakota. The report, combined with previous efforts on the part of the tribes and the LPLP, demonstrated a deliberate pattern of stealing Lakota children from extended families perfectly able, willing, and qualified to care for them, and illegally placing them with white families — in part, for "perverse financial incentives." The result was a hellish record of physical, psychological, and even sexual abuse (including rape) for many Indian children, and State officials subsequently prosecuted two of their own child welfare officials for blowing the whistle on these crimes.
For historical background, see Denise Oliver Velez's front-page piece from yesterday on "Stolen Generations," and Meteor Blades's diary on the long-term effects of stealing children from their families (some of whom are Kossacks today). For greater background about the current "removals" going on among the Lakota, read the LPLP's diaries on the cover-up of rape and other abuse of Indian children in the South Dakota foster care system, and on NPR's coverage of the report to Congress. See also my own diary on the racism and "perverse financial incentives" that keep the illegal practice of Indian child removal going strong.
If you live in the area of either hearing, you can help in two ways: First, if you know of Native families who may be affected by these issues, please help spread the word. Second, contact your elected representatives, and encourage them to support the efforts of the Standing Rock members (and those of other affected Lakota nations) to recover their stolen children and enforce compliance with the ICWA.
Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/15/1201757/--New-Day-This-Week-In-American-Indian-News-Stolen-Masks-Stolen-Children-Sherman-Alexie

Sunday, April 14, 2013

18 National Child Welfare Organizations Join Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Indian Child Welfare Act

Two Worlds anthology shares how adoptees felt about adoption
Contact Information
Sarah Fridovich
206.378.4613
sfridovich@casey.org
Download
Amicus Brief
PDF: 52 KB
Press Briefing Audio
WAV: 43.8 MB
Position Statement

PDF: 372 KB

The case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, now before the Supreme Court, calls into question the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
April 11, 2013
    
    
SEATTLE – Casey Family Programs with the support of 17 other national child welfare organizations has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).  The case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, now before the Supreme Court, calls into question the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
The coalition of philanthropic and nonprofit organizations represents decades of frontline experience working to improve the lives of vulnerable children and their families. The group supports ICWA because it has helped establish the values and practices that have become central to effective child welfare practice. In particular, this law reinforces the important role that families and communities play when determining the best interests of children in their care.
“The Indian Child Welfare Act reflects the best practices in child welfare,” says David Sanders, Casey Family Programs’ Executive Vice President of Systems Improvement. “It works to prevent the unnecessary breakup of families and helps keep children connected to their communities.”
“The same values and best practices found in the Indian Child Welfare Act are reflected in federal legislation that applies to all children and families. The federal government emphasizes three goals for child welfare: keeping children safe from abuse and neglect; ensuring a stable and permanent family; and improving the wellbeing of vulnerable children. We see these goals reflected in recent legislation, including the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Fostering Connections Act,” said Sanders.
Casey Family Programs is joined in this amicus brief by other leaders in child welfare including the Children’s Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Donaldson Adoption Institute, North American Council on Adoptable Children, Voice for Adoption, Black Administrators in Child Welfare, Inc., Children and Family Justice Center, Family Defense Center, First Focus Campaign for Children, Foster Care Alumni of America, FosterClub, National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds, National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, National Association of Social Workers, National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, and National Crittenton Foundation.
Adoptions are an important permanency option for children when placement with their own family is not possible. Ensuring successful adoptions requires a consistent and transparent process. And that is why is it is important to note that national adoption organizations are supporting the brief.  They recognize that the protections and safeguards included in ICWA support successful adoptions and are reflective of the best practices for children. 
Anita Fineday, Casey Family Programs’ Managing Director of Indian Child Welfare Programs says, “For more than 35 years, ICWA has helped to establish important principles for strengthening families and encouraging community engagement to produce the best results for children. That is why we are committed to helping others understand the important role this law continues to play for both Native American families and in shaping broader policies that support the rights of families to raise and care for their children within their own cultures and communities.”
Casey Family Programs has provided direct services to children and families involved in public and tribal foster care systems for more than 40 years.
Hear what Casey Family Programs and other child welfare experts had to say during an Indian Child Welfare Act press briefing regarding the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Indian Affairs, Adoption, and Race: The Baby Veronica Case Comes to Washington

A little girl is at the heart of a big case at the Supreme Court next week, a racially-tinged fight over Native American rights and state custody laws.   

Veronica with her biological father Dusten Brown and his wife, Robin. (Courtesy of John Nichols)
The United States Supreme Court next Tuesday hears argument in a head-spinning case that blends the rank bigotry of the nation's past with the glib sophistry of the country's present. The case is about a little girl and a Nation, a family and a People. The question at the center of it has been asked (and answered) over and over again on this blessed continent for the past 400 years: Is the law of the land going to preclude or permit yet another attempt to take something precious away from an Indian?
The case is styled Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, but everyone knows it as the "Baby Veronica" case. The "baby" is a little girl, now nearly two-and-a-half years old, born of the fleeting union of an American Indian man named Dusten Brown and a Hispanic woman named Christina Maldonado. Before Veronica was born, her mother arranged for her to be adopted without telling the baby's father. When, months after the baby's birth, the father found out about the adoption, he exercised his rights under federal law to undo the adoption and gain custody. The two state courts which have reviewed the case have both sided with him.
Read it here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/indian-affairs-adoption-and-race-the-baby-veronica-case-comes-to-washington/274758/

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

The Battle for Baby Veronica

Native America Calling: (feat. Kate Fort)

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 – The Battle for Baby Veronica (listen)
The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl next week. The case could have long term effects on future adoptions of Native children. The child, a member of the Cherokee Nation, was given up for adoption by her non-Native mother without the consent of the father. At the heart of the Supreme Court case is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which regulates adoptions of Native children outside of their tribe. We're taking a closer look at this case and what it means for Native America. How might the outcome of the case impact families or tribes? What's the role of tribes in the adoption process? Guests include Chrissi Nimmo (Cherokee) Assistant Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation.
NOTE: I had a meeting so I missed this program. Click on the links and listen. Terry Cross from the National Indian Child Welfare Assoc. did call in - so glad he did.  What was said briefly: If the adoption lawyers had paid attention to the federal law called the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, this case never would have happened, if lawyers had followed the law -- and Baby Veronica would have been placed with her father (or a member of his family since he was serving in the military at the time of her birth.) The natural mother in this case also didn't respect (or was ignorant about) existing federal law when she went to relinquish her newborn and chose adoptive parents.  Sovereign Tribal Nations have the right to control where their children are placed (via adoption) because of ICWA (and the history of removals of children) but some states and non-Indian lawyers do not respect or know ICWA.

I was thinking about what Veronica will think about this when she becomes an adult. If she is like me, she will be grateful that her father fought for her and gained custody. It's not that I don't understand how the adoptive parents are distraught and wish her back. They need to realize Baby Veronica is a member of a tribe by birth, and with existing ICWA law, she should be raised by a member of her birth family or tribe. Why ICWA is important: Every child is the future of a tribe.

Friday, April 5, 2013

The Daily Bastardette: Washington Battleground: The Annual Murder of Adoptee Rights Continues

The Daily Bastardette: Washington Battleground: The Annual Murder of Adoptee Rights Continues

As we are all living in 2013, these battles continue and it's Washington state who should be called out for discriminating against adoptees and our right to know who we are and have our birth certificate and adoption records given to us....Trace

click

Contact Trace

Name

Email *

Message *

NO MORE UPDATES

GO TO:  https://blog.americanindianadoptees.com/  for updates and news. THIS BLOG cannot be updated...