Showing posts with label Acceptance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Acceptance. Show all posts

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Families and Open Adoption October 13, 2016


There was a time when adoptions were a source of shame for a birth mother, and weren’t discussed in the adoptive family. But that slowly changed with birth control, a demographic shift in babies available for adoption, and the “adoption rights movement.” Today, 95% of infants in the U.S. are placed in “open adoptions” where the birth mother and the family have some sort of contact. Thursday, we’re talking about how adoption has changed over time, and what it means for children and families.

     Listening to Dr. Doug Frabrezio’s podcast on Open Adoptions, I unexpectedly realized a profound truth.  I listened to it because of my interest in adoption. What I got out of it was something entirely different.
At the beginning of the program, Doug revealed that he was adopted in the 60’s when adoptions were closed. You knew nothing. No medical records, no nothing. (Jeanne, adopted in the 60’s, was 5 months old before we found out she had a congenital hip deformity, which is hereditary. Usually they discover it at birth. If we had known she had a propensity for it and found it sooner, she would not have had to be in a brace for so long and wouldn’t have missed the critical creeping and crawling stages.  When I called the LDS Adoption Agency to ask them if they had record of it, they didn’t say. All they said was: “Do you want to return her?”  That blew my mind. Upset me to the core. Return her? Is that the way you talk about my baby? She is not damaged merchandize. She is our child. I told them I simply wondered if they had withheld helpful medical information.)
The first person Doug interviewed was Amy, a 40-year-old landscape architect who gave her baby up for adoption. It was an open adoption. She sees him to this day. They had no contracts as far as visitations rights, photos, contact; they trusted each other. She interviewed many couples before she chose this one and it has worked out well. Yet she grieves. She can’t touch him. She yearned to hold him.  She feels like it would be a betrayal to his parents if she told him what is in her heart. She thinks he might feel a loss too.  In her dream she touched him, tousled his hair. “The fantastic thing was touching him.”  When she awoke, she realized she would never ever ever be her son’s mother.  When she found out she was pregnant, she realized what she felt was the early seeds of a lifelong grief.  She felt she didn’t have a right to grieve or make others aware of her grief.  Her social worker told her that grief would eventually fade away. “It doesn’t. It changes. Now I’m missing a 16 year-old; next year I’ll be missing a 17-year-old.” They text and email and he asks her questions but they are noncommittal and simple.  She wrote the book God and Jetfire, Confessions of a Birth Mother by Amy Seek; in which she writes in beautiful prose how “In my dreams, I can touch you.”
Reviews: “My son,” she writes over and over. It is important that she is able to claim her rightful role, but her sadness and loss is tied up with ownership. Still, I have not read a more comprehensive book on the grieving that accompanies the adoption process. Seek’s eloquent if occasionally self-­indulgent prose makes this important memoir resonate. As she shows, adoption does not end when a child changes hands. It’s a sad, lovely and continuing conversation that she bravely documents.   New York Times Sunday’s Book Review (last paragraph) By JENNIFER GILMOREJULY 20, 2015
Written with literary poise and distinction, God and Jetfire is the story of a life divided between grief and gratitude, regret and joy. It is an elegy for a lost motherhood, a celebration of a family gained, and an apology to a beloved son.
Next Doug had an emeritus history professor who wrote a book 20 years ago on the history of adoption. He talked about how adoptions used to be secret and shameful; closed records. Unwed pregnant women were considered neurotic, psychosomatic, very sick; and it was best for the child to separate them from their mothers.  The mother was feeble minded for having a child out of wedlock and the child was carrying the feeble minded gene.  (I wonder where the fathers were. They were probably brilliant.)  After World War II, it was considered patriotic to have children and those who couldn’t, in desperation, adopted.
Then he introduced a couple from Salt Lake City who adopted a baby boy in an open adoption. Emily, who lives back east, is the birth mother; Tyson, the father, lives in SLC.  Curt and Jerry are the parents. Jerry is an adoptee himself.
“All four people love him and want the best for him.”
They were so full of love. They’ve had their trials. One lost a brother; then he came out to his very LDS parents. But the kindness and love oozed from both of them.
There is only one person who can carry the title “Mother” in our family. He has three fathers: Papa, Daddy, and Tyson but Emily is his only mother.
“All four of us love him so much.”
No matter how much we love him, Emily and Tyson love him too and they will always be his parents.  There cannot be too much love for a child. We love Oscar. He is our son. We love Emily because she is part of our family.
Emily wanted us there when he was born; she wanted us to be the first ones to hold Oscar.
Grief and joy at the same time.
Open adoption is not co-parenting.  His birth mother doesn’t make day-to-day decisions.
We don’t like to hear “giving up a child for adoption”. That’s a swear word in our house.  Giving up or give up connotes a sense of loss. We say a child is placed.
Curt and Jerry want the birth parents to be physical (hugs) with Oscar if they want to.
Emily’s experience is just as important as ours and Oscar’s. The best thing for all of us is for her to stay involved.
I feel so privileged to be his father.

The first part of this podcast was about grief and loss.
The second part was statistical and scholarly.
The third part was about love, joy, and acceptance.

The profound truth I learned today:
The reason God put gay people on earth was to show us how to love. Truly love. Not fake love. True unconditional enlightening edifying love.  Heartfelt and genuine. And I felt that so keenly today just listening to Curt and Jerry tell their story.

Re adoption, personally I have ambivalent feelings. We have been rejected and hurt by adopting. No, we weren’t perfect parents but we did the best we could. I have always maintained that I don’t blame our daughter because I don’t know what it feels like to be adopted. On the other hand, she doesn’t know what it feels like to be an adoptive parent.  We had hopes and dreams too.  We felt a keen sense of responsibility, love, and gratitude for her.  I remember driving up the hill toward home one dark stormy ominous night holding her in my arms and I thought: “How could anyone trust us with this precious baby? What if harm comes to her?” I don’t know how God trusts any of us with tiny, helpless babies. They are so beautiful and vulnerable.

Monday, December 21, 2015

We're All God's Children?

 




Here comes Santa Claus, here comes Santa Claus, 
Right down Santa Claus lane
He doesn't care if you're rich or poor
He loves you just the same
Santa Claus knows we're all God’s children
That makes everything right
So fill your hearts with Christmas cheer
'Cause Santa Claus comes tonight! 


How many times have I sang along with "Here Comes Santa Claus" through the years? This year is the first time that I realized that Santa Claus knows we're all God's children and that he doesn't care if we're rich or poor, he loves us just the same.
Why does that seem so important at this time?

Love did not create this LDS policy, and it won’t survive | The Salt Lake Tribune
Julienna Viegas­Haws
PUBLISHED: DECEMBER 18, 2015 
It is reassuring to see strong believing Mormons, along with progressive and postMormons, raise their voices against the new policy excluding children with married gay parents from receiving important ordinances in the LDS Church.
These withheld ordinances include baptism commonly performed at the age of 8 years old. All the important ordinances in the Mormon church are now being put on hold until the age of 18 for children of married gay couples — after the children disavow their parents’ marriage.
This is baffling coming from a church that teaches in its own scriptures that Christ invites all to come unto him through baptism and that men will be punished for their own sins.
Thousands of members have officially resigned from their affiliation with the church or slipped away quietly because this new policy was the last straw for them.
All the major media sources have picked up on the outrage of too many affected directly or indirectly by this new policy. Righteous indignation finds its place in this issue. Many hope that the prophet and apostles will take this opportunity to closely look at the way they are acting “in the name of God.”
In an explanatory statement on the policy, Elder D. Todd Christofferson claimed that the policy was based upon love. However, neither he nor supporters of this policy are able to illustrate any positive outcome from it. So far the major outcomes of this policy have been bafflement, broken hearts and homes in deep turmoil. It is hard to believe that the leaders of the Mormon Church sat together with the goal of increasing love and fellowship for children of gay parents, then came up with this policy as a result. The lack of transparency and dishonesty of the leaders is extremely hurtful.
What the leaders tend to forget is that the only power they truly have is the one members of the church are willing to give them. By intentionally veiling the true reasons for the new policy they show that what they did was not inspired. How can the members see this policy as coming from God? Many foresee this new policy going down in LDS history as a future “mistake from the past.”
Prophets and apostles advocated in favor of polygamy, against racial desegregation, against the ERA, against the civil rights movement all in the name of divine inspiration. As political pressure mounted, they flipped on the more humane and commonly accepted side. The outside pressure became too strong and sudden “revelations” appeared to change the position of the church. One would think that because the leaders claim such proximity to Christ, they would be in the forefront of social justice issues. But it hasn’t been the case. It is usually after significant outside pressure that the church suddenly changes its stances.
LGBTQ allies in and out of the church have hopes to see the leaders act more humanely toward our LGBTQ sisters and brothers. Groups such as Mormon Building Bridges, Mama Dragons, the Mormon Mental Health Association, the Out in Zion Podcast participants and others are working very hard to foster understanding and complete acceptance of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. We know that eventually the leaders will come around to fully accept and embrace the complexities of human sexuality. In the meantime many are suffering.
Many members wish the LDS Church were leading the cause for social justice rather than being forced to accept the equality that others are fighting for.
I have no doubt that Mormonism’s position on gay marriage, including this new policy, will eventually change. At some point in time, the outside pressure will become so great that their obsolete position will no longer be tenable. Until this change happens, an increasing number is left wondering what the real reasons were for creating this painful new policy because it certainly was not love.
Julienna Viegas­Haws was born and raised in Belgium. She served an LDS mission on Temple Square and graduated with a B.A. in international politics from Brigham Young University. She currently lives in Texas with her husband and three children.