By Bryony Lake
If a mother was walking down the street with her infant in her arms, and a stranger came up to her, took her child away, and told her, "You will never see your child again – he'll be okay so just forget him and get on with your life," most people would naturally assume she would feel fear, desperation, loss, pain, grief, and love for her child. We would know that she would not just "get over it." Taking away her child without her consent would be considered an inhuman act. Keeping her ignorant of her child's welfare throughout her child's life -- wondering whether her child was alive or dead -- would be considered cruel beyond belief.
As this hypothetical mother's child grows up somewhere far away, no one would deny that that her bond with and love for her child will endure, as would be her child's bond to her. The two are incomplete without each other. We would naturally assume that her grief would be unresolvable, in a situation of loss with no closure. Yet, in surrendering their children to adoption, somehow natural mothers1 are presumed to have lost those feelings and connection with their beloved children. This is a falsehood of tragic proportions. How can it be assumed that assume that any mother would "just get over" the loss of their child? But every day, mothers who were exiled from their babies by adoption are told, "Put it behind you," "Get over it," and "Get on with your life." Why are we considered to be so different from the hypothetical mother mentioned above?
There is a barrier of shame and fear surrounding many exiled mothers. Unheard and invisible, we are the ghosts behind every adoption (except in ongoing-contact "open adoptions"). It is shame and fear that often keeps us silenced. Rejected by our partners, families, and society when we became pregnant, sent to other cities so that we would not bring shame to our families' names, assigned new names in maternity homes or warned not reveal our surnames to our fellow inmates, released after the surrender of our babies as "born again virgins" and warned to tell no-one of our "shame" because men won't marry a non-virgin, the industry effectively silenced us, ensuring we wouldn't speak out about our treatment.
But there is more to it than this, because society has obviously changed to the point where that single motherhood is no longer a matter of shame. So, why the shame that still chains us even 20, 30 or 40 years after separation? Even after reunion? This is something I have pondered since my reunion with my son, when I found myself still hesitating to tell people about the adoption. I think I have found the answer in another involuntary experience. A year after my son was taken for adoption; I was raped. Looking back, I now realize what caused the "shame of surrender" that I felt in losing him: it was the shame of rape. It was a shame that came from feeling violated, having had something precious taken without my consent, and being powerless to fight back. A shame that kept me silent about him for 22 years, fearing rejection from all I loved if I told them of my loss.
Thirty years ago, rape victims were routinely blamed for the crimes against them. They were often told, "You must've wanted it" and "You did something to deserve it." Similarly, mothers who have lost children to adoption hear the same thing, to the point where many of us believe it. Yes, we did often sign the forms (many as well did not), but most of us had no other viable options available, and hence no choice. Was there any decision or choice when only one option was given to us? Or when the alternative was risking starvation for our babies? Or when we were minors and all adults around us told us to sign "for the sake of our babies" until in utter defeat we saw no recourse but to obey? A U.K. organization, Trackers International, completed a survey of 1000 exiled mothers: 98.9% had been forced or pressured to surrender their babies for adoption. This same system was in place in Canada and the United States as well.
But just as rape victims have campaigned to change public perception and laws blaming them for being raped, so can we mothers who were "raped of our babies." Instead of remaining submissive and passive — feeling lucky if our children actually find us (assuming they even know they were adopted) — we can let the world know that we have always loved our children and we WANT to reunite with them, by demanding open records for ourselves as well as for adoptees.
Open records for natural parents, allowing us to obtain the adoptive names of our lost children and vice-versa, is not a new or radical idea. This system has been in place since 1996 in British Columbia where I live, and this enabled me to find my lost son when he was 19. Records have been opened to both parties in Australia, the U.K., and two (soon to be three) other provinces in Canada. In France, Finland, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Norway and Israel, adoption records have never been closed. Despite how the pro-industry lobby tries to portray it, an open records system does not mean open to the public -- it means that the parties separated by an adoption have the right to know who their lost family members are. Nor does it mean that counselling files are opened for all to see: the only records affected are the birth certificate (or other registration of birth) and the identifying information contained there-in, differing in principle from access to adoption case files which should fall under Freedom of Information laws (and unfortunately still don't in many jurisdictions).
Many natural parents are working actively in the United States in open records campaigns that will open the records for adoptees. I discovered how one-sided this was in 2001, when I became involved in an online group for natural mothers and I suggested a page about open records for their website, I was shocked when the group leader told me that open records were not what their group was about, as this was "an adoptee rights issue." In further discussion, I discovered that she had never heard of the idea of open records for natural parents, and she had been assuming that "open records" were for adoptees only, whereas I had assumed that open records naturally meant for both parties as here in B.C. When I explained how the open records system works where I live, she was enthusiastic about her organization lobbying for it.
Denying natural parents and adoptees the identifying information (given names and surname) that would permit them to find their loved ones only perpetuates the shroud of shame and secrecy that covers adoption. There is no justification for preventing those who have been separated by adoption from receiving information regarding the family they have lost. In most government offices, sealed original birth certificates are cross-referenced with amended (falsified) post-adoption birth certificates so it shouldn't cost any more money for both to be accessible to mothers and to their children. Not only that, but other personal information such as the names of the adoptive parents need not be released.
Governments may try to use the excuse that "we gave away our children" to keep records closed to us. This denies the fact that much of the reason why we were separated from our children was not that we did not want to keep them, but that we were prevented from doing so! Government policy in the form of systematic financial coercion pressures mothers to surrender when their basic human right to adequate social assistance is denied to them. In 1948, the United States and Canada made a promise to their citizens in the form of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.... 2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection." Other nations take this seriously and provide non-poverty-level social assistance, housing, job training, and child-care to single parents. Why not in North America?
Politicians may also try to make the excuse that it was "our decision" to surrender. However, a decision is not a decision at all when coercion is involved, nor when uninformed consent is given. No woman can make an informed choice about surrendering her baby while she is still pregnant, while her baby may only be a "theoretical concept" to her. Only birth can give the knowledge of motherhood, because it is the process of birth that changes the woman's body physiologically and psychologically so she is a mother. Birth changes her into almost an entirely different person, with different needs and goals. Until she has recovered from birth, and possible postpartum depression, and has experienced caring for her baby first-hand, "informed consent" is impossible. Several jurisdictions outside of North America recognize this, supporting women in recovering and raising their children for several weeks post-birth before any discussion about adoption occurs.
As well, unless an adoption agency tells her what they know: that she will be incurring an 84% risk of moderate to severe depression2, up to 50% risk of secondary infertility3 and 50% chance of unresolvable grief which may increase with time4 it is withholding information that is required for her to give "informed consent."
Industry lobby groups such as the NCFA work hard to promote the myth that closed records are there to protect us from our lost children and that we were promised "confidentiality" when we signed. Nothing could be further from the truth. History shows that records were mainly closed to protect adoptive families from natural parents (see "How Adoption Grew Secret in America," by Elizabeth Samuels, at http://www.originscanada.org/how_adoption_grew_secret.html), not the other away around. As well, no known surrender form has promised confidentiality to any relinquishing mother (see the MORE website at http://www.geocities.com/moreopenrecords), but many have forced her to promise that she will never search for her child! As well, it is well-known in contract law that verbal promises are only worth the paper they are printed on.
Closed adoption records treat adopted adults as property and treat exiled mothers as criminals with permanent restraining orders imposed upon us, serving a lifelong sentence of involuntary exile from our children. In no other area of life is such basic information withheld from adults who are innocent of any crime. Our children - now mature adults - are capable of making their own decisions regarding relationships with us. They are human beings with the right to associate with whomever they choose. Both adult adoptees and their natural parents should have the right to make choices and decisions regarding their relationships in exactly the same way as the rest of the population. After all, let's not forget the principle of Freedom of Association. That principle underpins all of western democracy.
Through searching and reuniting, mending our dismembered families, and taking steps to end the loss and pain, we natural mothers can prove to our children that we DO care. We can show society that we are willing to demand the right to find the beloved children who were taken from us.
Now is time to come forward out of the shadows and cast off the shame. To educate ourselves about choice, informed consent, and human rights, and realize that — like victims of other crimes — we did NOT deserve to lose our babies and we did NOT "choose adoption." And, as we transform our pain and shame to anger, we can focus that anger into restoring our dismembered families, and working for positive change to open records for all separated family members and to help prevent others from being used as "breeders" the way we ourselves were used.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Footnotes:
I
use the original term "natural mother" rather than the term
"birthmother" as I believe
that we are more than just incubators. The term "birthmother" was
coined by social
workers in United Kingdom maternity prisons in the 1950's to replace
the term "natural
mother." It was further promoted by social workers such as Marietta
Spencer in the
United States in the 1970's. Social workers coined this word to define
us as having been
mothers at the time of our children's births but not afterwards, and to
thus diminish us to
having a solely reproductive purpose in our children's lives. In order
to sell adoptive
parents "a child of their own," social workers first have to eliminate
our motherhood in
their clients' eyes.
Kelly, J., "The Trauma of Relinquishment" (Masters Thesis), 1999. Available online at http://www.birthmothers.info/kelly/
Rickarby, G. "Excerpts from the submission to the New South Wales Parliament Standing Committee on Social Issues Inquiry into Past Adoption Practices." Available online at http://www.birthmothers.info/rickarby/inquiry1.html
Winkler, R. of the Institute for Family Studies (Melbourne, Victoria) as quoted in "Mothers Suffer After Adoption," Weekend Australian. March 5-6. 1983. This is a conservative estimate - Kelly (1999) found 95% of survey participants selected "most frequent" or "most severe" to items measuring unresolved grief.
Copyright Ó 2004 Bryony Lake
____________________________
About the author: Bryony Lake is a reunited natural mother and open records activist, living in British Columbia with her four children including the son she lost to adoption in 1980. She is a member of the First Mothers Action Group and Origins Canada: Supporting People Separated By Adoption.