Adoption Services
I try not to discuss religion with people, because I know it's a personal topic based on subjective knowledge of one's own denomination. Religion far too often starts many heated debates, which in my mind ruins perfectly peaceful discussions. It's not my wish or intention to start arguments. My purpose is simple: discuss the problems organized religion causes in terms of Bible interpretation, and how that influences family dynamics. For instance, where in the Bible does God say the taking of another woman's baby (the fruit of a woman's womb) is a good deed? I ask this because I read a blog last night, http://donva.blogspot.com/2007/11/orthodox-adoption-service.html, written by an orthodox Christian adoptive dad, and although I admire his dedication to the boy he has in his life, I have to wonder how the church explains "What God puts together, let no man put asunder", as it relates to biological family and heritage. It wasn't so long ago that the daughters of God-fearing parents would be banished from their communities if they became pregnant before marriage. Historically speaking, huge offenses have taken place through the hands of holy-people, so I'm perplexed how readings from the bible become interpreted to serve some people, but not others. After all, isn't the bible mostly about God's Law, and how we are to treat others as we would want ourselves to be treated?
To give perspective on my own opinion, keep in mind I was raised Catholic. That means I was sent to church, because that's what parents do; they send their kids to church. My parents didn't need to attend weekly services because my mother served her time working as a Catholic School teacher during the week, and my dad's job required him to work many weekends. I'm sure they felt like they were doing their job as "good Catholics" by making sure their children went to learn about God at their grandmother's church.
The problem was, I had lots of questions. (It seems adoptees always do, don't we?) I had huge questions about the Original Sin issue. If all babies are born with sin, why are only SOME sent away to live with other people who are not their original parents? Were some babies more sinful because their parents were really bad sinners? If so, is that why names get changed, family members get removed, and documents get altered? Where in the bible does is say God wants children to be removed from their mothers, and adopted by others?
In the blog that I read last night, the single-father describes an Adoption Service that was held at his church, and the following description floored me:
Father begins addressing the children by talking about families, and how we come together as families in many ways. He asked the children, "For example, who is Jesus Christ's REAL Father?" The children of course answered "God." "That's right, but who took care of Jesus while he was growing up? Who raised him from a baby to a man, and became his father on earth?" Again, the children answered correctly with "Joseph." He explained that Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son, and loved Him and raised Him as any father would. He did an excellent job of respectfully sharing how some biological parents are unable to care for their children, so sometimes adoption is how a family is formed.
This family-story lacks a few important details. Jesus, the illegitimate child of Mary, was kept by his mother. Joseph was asked to be the unborn child's guardian and father-figure, which he did for 13 years, but at no time did Jesus ever deny who his "real father" was. "My Father" was always spoken about God, not Joseph. [At least that was always my understanding, especially at the time of crucifixion when he cried, to God, (not Joseph), "Father into your hands, I commend my spirit".]
Given the undeniable church involvement in adoption practice, how can sex outside marriage be used against a person, when sex is wrongfully used and practiced by those who are preaching "The Good Word"? Is it any wonder many adults are losing their religions these days, thanks to the contradictions and mixed messages sent through certain events taking place in various parishes? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337807
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- Kerry's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 313 reads
Comments
Clarifying the "Adoption Service"
Kerry,
First of all, this is a well-written piece. Thank you for letting me know that you were using an archived post from my blog (http://donva.blogspot.com) and for inviting me to see what you've written.
Please know that you and I may be viewing the adoption world from very different vantage points. I have not done my research on you, and can only gather from what I have read that you have been adopted, hopefully by a loving family, and therefore, understandably, still have questions.
Hopefully I can help clear some things up, if not from the Orthodox Christian perspective, from my own. I hope none of this sounds defensive, as that certainly isn't my intention.
I think we have to keep in mind that in many cases, a child is removed from their biological parent because of the choices that biological parent has made. My son's mother spent a great deal of time in and out of "trouble" for one offense or another, as a result, my son had spent many of his early years unsupervised and basically on his own. By his own admission, he could have died at the age of five when he was run over by a school bus.
By the time I got to know him, he had become what is referred to as a "parentified" child. In his biological family, he had become the "responsible one." He was only ten when he was taken into foster care, when the "friend" he and his younger brother--who was only one at the time--were left in a motel room with on a night she was taken to jail dumped them at a convenience store and told the clerk "they're not mine."
To ask the question of how anyone can justify putting asunder anything God has joined, to me, is an unfair question, at least with regard to my family's situation. It had become quite clear to me, the court, and my son, that she had chosen to NOT be a parent by basically neglecting him, failing to secure a home, a way to pay for it, or keep herself out of trouble. Even from the time she began appealing court decisions to terminate her parental rights, she had indicated to me that she didn't want to remove him from my home, but wanted a say in when she could see him, not trusting that I would (as a son, and as I had indicated in court) respect her role as the woman who gave birth to him, and the ten-year relationship they had.
Again, quite clearly, she wanted the title of "mother," but wasn't much interested in parenting. There was no biological father in the picture, nor had there ever been, which was why the agency felt that placing him with a single man would be an agreeable solution to everyone, as all they were doing, really, was giving this boy a father.
In my son's case, I thank God we have a government that will reach out and provide for these children, even if only temporarily in foster care (which is how I got to know my son). In the end, with a mother who was still homeless and couldn't care for him, and a child who wanted to stay where he was and had been for longer than he had expected (with me), it seems to me that what we truly had here was a win-win-win situation. I also realize not all adoptions result in everyone getting what they "want," but I am blessed with an adoption experience where it appears that everyone did.
I also think it's interesting how our priest's explanation of Joseph's role (not what he was called, but what he did) floored you. At no point did our priest indicate that Jesus called Joseph "father," although there are accounts where Jesus was called the "son of Joseph." But can you deny that for those critical first thirteen years that Joseph cared for Christ any less than he would have for his own biological children? He fathered Jesus as a child on earth. I believe our priest was referring to a man who signed up for the job but never received the title.
In addition, not only did Christ "not deny" His Father, but neither did Joseph, who fully understood his role in Jesus' Life.
Also, remember that the priest was speaking in simpler terms because the sermon he was giving was to children. To get too elaborate would be too much for their little ears, and to be too specific might have been embarrassing for my son, who had agreed to have our family blessed by the Church in this way. I was very impressed at how delicately he handled this subject matter, which used to be locked away in legal filing cabinets, not celebrated and blessed before a congregation.
Again, hope I didn't sound defensive. Please forgive me if I have. I thought by what I'd read in this post that I could clarify. As for your last question, I don't know enough about anything to even offer an answer, other than to suggest that maybe you're looking at how things are used "against" parents, but now how they are implemented "for" the child's health, safety, and welfare.
The difference is the individual
It's very unfortunate we live in a world where fathers can't be found and mothers are overwhelmed with the care and duty of a child. Options are not always black and white, if a person's family-background is less than ideal and desirable. Personally, I don't think neglect is a natural trait in women; I think it's learned by and through example. Perhaps if you were a pregnant woman with no partner or prospects to better your situation, you can better appreciate what "options" our government provides women during pregnancy and beyond.
In my son's case, I thank God we have a government that will reach out and provide for these children, even if only temporarily in foster care (which is how I got to know my son). In the end, with a mother who was still homeless and couldn't care for him, and a child who wanted to stay where he was and had been for longer than he had expected (with me), it seems to me that what we truly had here was a win-win-win situation. I also realize not all adoptions result in everyone getting what they "want," but I am blessed with an adoption experience where it appears that everyone did.
Indeed, your situation is one that works in favor of the child. Dare I suggest that has more to do with your personal committment than government assistance and medical services?
I'd like to draw your attention to the "progress" our country has made in terms of SAFE child placement. http://poundpuplegacy.org/groups/dirty_deeds_in_child_placement
As far as the children caught in the cross-fires of state-funding, allow me to introduce you to Joel's Story, and most recently posted, the Paddock family.
Clearly, our government , churches, and social services can do a lot better, wouldn't you agree?
Very valid point...
Of course, I agree. But I also agree that birth parents can do a better job, as can adoptive and foster parents.
And I can do a better job, too.
I cringe when I hear about those people who take on foster children in order to collect the stipends that the agencies sometimes provide to reimburse families for the cost of caring for the child. I know that during my evaluation process, they were very thorough in examining my finances to make sure I could support myself without any of their money (which has found its way to a college fund).
I do think you're right, though, individual results DO vary. I found myself becoming very aggravated with "the system" during a process that was supposed to quickly provide permanency for this child. The process, from the time of the termination of parental rights, took over two years. Social workers are overloaded, courts are clogged, and I'm sure there are many who "fall through the cracks" due to a way imperfect process.
This site has been an eye-opener for me, for sure. I pray that the things I'm reading about here are truly the exceptions, and have not become "the rule."
Cringing
Jesus, Joseph and Mary (said with a poorly executed Irish accent),
Religion and adoption, well what can I say. Tis this cult called christianity that is perhaps to blame for so many tumble weeds out there in the world today. Those of a similar (horrifying) age as myself. Products of sinful unwed unions between the sheets or on the back seat of a large fuel hungry car at the drive in movie show, a film with Charlton Heston comuning with same god worshipped by above mentioned cult. And Joseph....hmmm gullible Joe taken in by Mary's tearful but joyous account of imaculate conception " a convienient truth"....
Let's go back to circa 1968, a young 19 year old girl forced....yes I have found her...into giving up a wee baby (said this time with a Northern English accent) because she was unwed and what would people think! My goodness can't have a sinner in the neighborhood. Oh and guess what, it happened again to her and yet again. They gave up and let her keep the rest because the cat got out of the bag and anyway it gave the neighbors in their headscarves and specticles something to whisper a little too loudly about. Hey she actually did a good job as a Mum and has a solid relationship with all of her children except this little tumble weed. Years of sorrow and seperatedness followed by these years of trying to get it together in a mixed/muddled/guilt ridden union plagued by a tyrany of distance and those little blue pills.
Not being religeous or American, is it just me but are all you guys rabid religeous nut jobs, I can't stomach this notion of a sin that is worthy of robbing one of an identity and bringing about decades of flesh ripped apart hoping to one day graft itself back together. Perhaps I need to find God but finding my mother was hard enough so I will just let that one go.......
Finding God
I learned love through my babies. It started in pregnancy when I discovered the development of another was much bigger than the power I thought I had in me. I was made small by becoming larger than life when I saw their eyes go through my own each time they turned to my skin and realized it was me, again, still there to fulfill their simple needs. I made sure they could count on consistency because I knew how negative patterns can so easily develop and spiral. My reward for sacrificing my wants and comforts came through their eyes and smiles of sweet calmed relief every time I touched them and held them to my breast so they could feed. So simple a solution to such hysterical fits of angry crying. Me... it was me they still needed, outside my fluids and uterus, and that helped melt the cold stiffness that was still in me because my adult-world was barren and devoid of warmth, kindness and unconditional love. Everything and everyone had a condition, and that meant price to be deemed important. Because of my babies, I became singular in importance because I consistently and automatically took care of their needs, and somehow it was always perfect. Their faces and their bodies told me I was doing a great job, because they were thriving and developing as new babies should.
At the time I was too exhausted and sleep-deprived to consciously know what I was doing, but I look back and see how important my body was to my babies. I was not just a carrying-case for a fetus; I was a first-choice for a face in dire need and want for attention. I was irreplaceable and became their goddess of love, stability and warmth. All I had to do was provide my presence, and the rest would take care of itself. The only fault and flaw I had was not moving fast enough to satisfy a quickly growing need or requirement. Eventually, as more babies entered my life, I realized each one of us had to learn patience, and forgiveness because there were far more people with demands than hands helping me calm the cries. I am but one person with very limited resources and abilities. It's impossible to be all things to all people, without help.
It's interesting putting this all together now because as the kids get older, I see how each voice influences a child's behavior. I see the look of dread around dad's wrath and storms of fury, and I see the look of worry when he's not around; but I also see the show of full-body relief when it's known I am near. This is especially important to me because as my body-parts lose importance and dad's money becomes the new object of need, I tend to feel unimportant and no longer wanted and special in my children's lives. Yes, there is a selfishness in parenting that makes each one feel like life cannot exist without his or her presence. God-forbid a parent is seen as irreplaceable.
I am learning I am being freed to find my own life again, because a child must leave the body from which it was birthed. I'm realizing it's not easy weaning out so others can wean in, but I know it's possible because my pregnancies taught me how steady consistency grows into an unconditional love that does not have to be demanding or frantic in meaning.
Religion is often seen and used as a source of family support. I see services at a building led by men nothing more than a formal excuse to gather a group of lost and separated souls seeking guidance and protection from other members who know what abandonment and fear feel like. Perhaps God is the heavenly father, but for each child born, it is the mother's body that makes the world a safe and loving place, or a living hell that needs escaping.
creepy
"Escaping" is a good word to describe what a person has to do when things get really bad. I don't know how things would have been like with my original family, but I know there were tons of bad secrets within my adoptive family. Church, with members who rape, is NO place for a child to escape!! The alternatives? Kids can get very creative.
I can't remember attention deficit being a problem for me. I was always moved by the teacher because I talked too much in class, but for me, that was the only time I saw people outside my family. I'd talk to anyone who'd give me the time of day. I was a great student, I just liked talking more than working. The talking got me in trouble with my parents, so school became a miserable experience.
I wouldn't doubt if that was today, I'd be on medication in a heart-beat. As it is, depression and PTSD have become the cute labels that decribe my adopted life-experience.
I read a very interesting article discussing the value of Viagra, and I had to laugh when I saw what the doctor had to say about drugs being so quickly distributed to so many otherwise healthy, but troubled, individuals.
The transformation of normal to abnormal may start with a pill. But the physician's need for diagnosis is what drives the process. Since the new quality-of-life drugs can have adverse health effects, the drugs need to come through physicians. But we don't give out drugs willy-nilly. We must provide a medical reason--a diagnosis. So we call impotence "erectile dysfunction," baldness "hypotrichosis," and so on. The rapid increase in attention-deficit disorder is a striking example of diagnosis creep. The disorder hardly seemed to exist before the stimulant Ritalin came along. A core group of kids do have a distinct attention abnormality, but Ritalin worked so well--it can reduce distractibility even in perfectly normal children--that now almost any "difficult" child is considered for the diagnosis and drug. A 1990 study found that 28 percent of children diagnosed with the disorder didn't actually meet the definition. Nevertheless, the percentage of children on Ritalin has doubled since then.
By giving a patient's condition a medical name, we turn it into a medical abnormality. That creates a presumption that insurers must pay. It also creates a presumption that it will be treated. If I write a new diagnosis in a patient's chart, I have to indicate what I plan to do about it. It'd be malpractice not to. More than that, once a condition is established as a diagnosis, society practically treats it as a crime not to do something about it.
This raises an ironic prospect. Quality-of-life drugs offer not just the pleasing possibility that you can do something about impotence, baldness, blackened toenails. They create a culture in which you must fight against these conditions--even if it means risking serious side effects (the anti-fungal drugs for nails can damage the liver, Propecia's anti-testosterone action can decrease libido). By their sheer effectiveness, the quality-of-life drugs narrow the range of what society accepts as normal. In doing so, they may ultimately reduce the quality of life for the many of us who are less than perfectly endowed. http://www.slate.com/id/2675/