How NOT to Treat Adoptees

A few simple rules on the way adoptee's should NEVER be treated - 

Change the adoptee’s name

Change the birth date

Be sure their adoptee doesn’t know the first parents

But when information happens to get shared be sure to insinuate that there was something inherently WRONG with the first family and that they were *unable to care for them, ie. Drugs, abuse, criminal, neglect, etc.

Insure the adoptee doesn’t want to know the first family

*(Taken care of when something WAS shared about the family of origin)
Make things sound secretive and mysterious – whispers or stop talking when the adoptee comes in the room .

Seal records

Make sure the adoptee is never able to gain full access to their heritage/history – that would be damaging to the adoptee;  After all, these original parents were “deadbeats,” “incapable,” “unworthy,” “dangerous,” “couldn’t raise a child,” “financially unsound,” “mentally ill,” and otherwise not parent material.

Civil Rights

NONE – EVER…No ability to know their original family because they were told this was a competition (not necessarily by words by most definitively by actions). The original birth certificate denied them has the first mother at least and at best both first parents on the certificate; this is not a document they ever need, the adoptee HAD parents growing and it WASN’T the ones on the birth certificate. Better yet, falsify the original birth certificate and just put the adoptive parents’ names where the biological family names should go; neat, easy, no one need be the wiser, especially the adoptee.

What happens when adoptees are treated this way-

WHY? From the moment an adoptee learns they are a “gift” or “special” because they were “chosen,” they begin to wonder what was wrong with me.  Compounding the question of what is wrong with me, s/he begins to find out there was also something wrong with the first given name and it needed to be changed. The message of shame begins to emerge, loudly and clearly.

Next, “my birth date needed to be changed because I’m a different person then when I was born. There was something wrong with me and who I was needed to be changed.  So if there was something wrong with me that I needed a different name and a different birth date then I should never know who the people were that gave birth to me because they ARE the reason something is wrong with me.”
When an adoptee “accidentally” hears information about the first parents that includes some of the reasons the first mom or dad didn’t or couldn’t raise him/her, the recurring thought of shame invades thinking.  Since the information was “overheard” and not openly discussed, more thoughts of shame emerge because “there MUST be something wrong with me because my history can’t be discussed openly and something was wrong with the people who gave me birth. I’m from those people. Something is wrong with me.”

Beyond this, the message of shame and wrong become substantiated with sealed records and losing civil rights to knowing the heritage and personal information about themselves. Hiding information, falsifying documents, and creating an environment of secrecy are the standard in the adoption world today. Undeniably, the adoptee is the loser in this scenario. Grateful for the “home,” grateful for being “saved from the wretched environment,” grateful enough that many adoptees won’t “rock the boat” due to a created environment of “ask me no questions, I’ll tell you no lies.” Many adoptees will justify not searching or not wanting to know about their original families by indicating that the adoptive parents are “my parents” and “I don’t need to know who my birth family is in order to be happy.” These statements exemplify how well the adoptive parents did the job they were told to do with inculcating the adoptee into a culture of a surreal life and family.

Adoption and the Christian Justification

Many times adoption is touted as a Christian and loving thing to do. In fact, many churches refer to and partner with adoption agencies to help infertile couples find their family. Interestingly, the idea of adoption can become a popular discussion and heralded avenue to an unselfish act unparalleled with any other within Christian circles.

As a Christian, questioning whether or not the idea of adoption is a biblical concept is a non issue. A universally accepted concept is that adoption is referred to throughout the Bible. "Since the Bible refers to adoption then it must be good" typifies how adoption is perceived in the Christian community. Searching the internet for adoption agencies, Christian sites readily appear and the reference  a child as a "gift from God" is a common denominator. As an educator and advocate for children who truly need a home to be given the chance to grow up in one, addressing this misconception is crucial because the idea of adoption being a Christian thing to do has gone amuck.

As I did a search for all the adoption references found in the Bible, I became convinced that there were unknown historical reasons for using religious references in connection with adoption. After all, if it is a Christian thing to do, it can't be wrong. If the Bible says adoption is OK, then we SHOULD do it. If the adoption agency or private adoption agent refers to being Christian, then adoption MUST be the right thing to do and Christians don't lie, right? There are 4 references in the New Testament to adoption, depending on which translation you read. Romans 8:15, 8:23, 9:4; Galatians 4:5, and Ephesians 1:5. When researching for the meaning of adoption in Strong's Concordance the word adoption as used in these verses means removal such as exile.

As a Christian, adoption into the family of God means being adopted into God's Sonship with unconditional love and acceptance with a purposefully, planned future without the feelings or fear of rejection or abandonment. Biblical adoption happens as a result of a choice to accept Jesus as one's Lord and Savior through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Adoption in a Christian sense happens when the adoptee (if you will, the person of accountability) chooses to accept Jesus into his or her life. The adoptee (meaning the accountable person) recognizes through God's Word, teaching and salvation that s/he had previously been a slave and living the life of a slave without God. S/he chooses salvation and recognizes the adoption that is available to the Sonship with Jesus. The common theme here: one CHOOSES adoption, not having it imposed upon them. (Theologians retreat, I realize the arguable concept as to when adoption into God's Sonship occurs. I'm not debating that in this particular blog.)

The Bible's Old Testament references to adoption can be enumerated on one hand. Esther was adopted by Mordecai (her uncle) because her mother and father were both dead (Esther 2:7). Moses's adoption occurred to save his life and he was adopted by Pharoah's daughter. If you're unfamiliar with the story, Moses returns to his family of origin when he becomes old enough to do so. One reference on infertility was Hannah. She was "barren" but had faith in God to conceive (I Sam 1&2).

The Biblical account to adoption refers to adoption for those who are led by the Holy Spirit to recognize and have faith in God's plan for their lives. Children are NOT called to adoption because they are NOT making the choice. God allows free will and does not impose or force Himself or salvation on someone unwilling to accept Him. The common day practice of adoption can't begin to relate to this "Christian" definition of adoption. In fact, the idea of adoption as practiced today is the antithesis of what the Bible refers to as adoption.

How did the word adoption come to mean that children should be removed from their biological families to be placed and serve in non biological families as a surrogate for those who who do not have children of their own? The modern day definition of adoption cannot be referenced anywhere in the Bible. The reference to how God adopts us and is therefore a good thing is a man-made definition and has no merit.

Adoption used as a Christian and scripturally accepted way of forming a family is made up and being used unethically and forcefully to displace children from their families of origin. Adoption advertisements and adoption agents who make a living at completing adoptions create a beautifully packaged idea of a child needing to go to a non biological, infertile family because s/he will be better off.

When the Bible refers to Esther's adoption, clearly Esther has been orphaned (without her mom and dad to raise her) but she is adopted by a relative within her family of origin, her uncle. While Moses was a prime example of removing a child for reasons of safety (the male babies were all being killed at that time in his country) he was never a connected member to Pharoah's family and in the end returned to his family of origin.

Using Christianity or any religion to justify the act of displacing a child from his or her family of origin is wrong. When names are changed, information hidden, and secrets tightly held about a child being displaced from the family of origin into a non biological family, the child is being placed in a position of slavery. The best interest of the child has no place in this scenario. The "good" idea of placing a child outside of the family of origin due to safety concerns or due to nonexistent or unfit family has been made shameful and exploitative as adoption exists today.

Legislation must be changed to honor and respect the child and families of origin. Legislation in most states reverences the adoptive family and favors the adoption process. Changing legislation to honor the child and his/her connection to the family of origin will help reform and make sense of the displacement of a child when, and only if, adoption is necessary.

I have to say my response to what I have just witnessed in our court system is mixed. Feelings of betrayal, anger, and total disbelief are at the top of the list. While sitting in a Creek County Courthouse in Sapulpa this morning I spoke with Jeremy Simmons and his parents. Navigating their way to their flesh and blood, Desirai, continues to be blocked by the lengthy, unyielding legal system.

Desirai has been legally placed in the custodial care of the Absentee Shawnee Tribe. However, no one has seen Desirai since that ruling. The tribe was represented this morning but refused comment when I asked why someone isn't going after her in South Carolina. Desirai was taken out of Oklahoma when just a few days old and WITHOUT paperwork. The biological mother was given $50,000 to hand over the baby. The Bixlers, ages 60 and 64, took the baby and fled to South Carolina where she supposedly remains today.

This morning was about asking the judge to order the Bixler's to produce Desirai so a DNA test could be conducted for confirmation although Jeremy lived with the biological mother up to the seventh month of pregnancy and supported her throughout. She disappeared after that and Jeremy searched relentlessly until the phone call from the biological maternal grandmother came two days after the birth of the baby to tell Jeremy and his family he might want to know that the biological mother was placing Desirai for adoption. There had been no plan or discussion of adoption.

The same adoption agency, NightLight, attorneys, Ray Godwin, Mike Nomura (ICPC administrator), Paul Swaim, and Mike Yeksavich are involved in this case. The pattern of snatch and grab begins to show. Adoption agency (NightLight) attracts desperate, scared, economically vulnerable biological mother. Mother's instructions include ditching bio dad by no communication or receiving anything from him so he can not claim paternity easily. Go incognito when giving birth and instruct the hospital to withhold information from anyone calling about the birth. Get the South Carolina couple to swoop in, pay money and worry about paperwork later. In the meantime the court system cogs are turning.

The paperwork for adoption is filed out-of-state (even though both South Carolina and Oklahoma indicate the child must have been born or be a resident in the state of the filing) to begin the adoption process. Yes, there may be a few inconvenient hassles doing it this way but as soon as 6 months pass we can get the adoption finalized and viola....the baby is legally yours and no one can undo the adoption.

This process seems to be working well for Mr. Godwin, et al. This is now the second "established" case of taking a child from Oklahoma in this unethical and illegal way. Somehow the courts are closing their eyes to the illegal aspects and not even considering the best interest of the child. This is NOT adoption. This is trafficking. Every judge who has participated in anyway in this process is guilty and needs to stand up to do what is right to protect the citizens of their jurisdiction.

Jeremy needs help. He needs to take to the airwaves and written media to scream about his case just as the Capobianco's used the media to sway public opinion. This is the cruelest form of human trafficking, taking the child right from under the nose of the parents who love and cherish them and would lay down their lives to protect them. The judicial system takes an oath to protect the citizens. Who will stand up and begin the process of seeing justice done?