Her mission is, to put it short and sweet, to have adoptions abolished. Her website is called "Adoption: Legalized Lies" and she appears to have written a book on the subject.
Now...recognize that I didn't say her position was wrong or that she's not entitled to her opinion. But, having read the website FAQs and her blog entries... it seems like her primary beef with adoption is an over-simplified idea that adoptions are all about money and that there is no such thing as a good adoption.
There are myriad reasons to oppose adoption, including the
damage caused to exiled parents and adopted children/adults. In addition, we
believe that adoption is an inherently dishonest act. In other words, children
are given one, true set of parents by nature, and these parents cannot be
replaced or “switched at birth” based on a man-made legal document. Most
importantly, it is unnecessary for anyone to endure the emotional damage and
unnatural lies inflicted by adoption. It is not only possible, but critically
important to assist struggling families without dismantling them.
I *think* I get what she's implying, but it still doesn't sit right. I don't understand how she came to the conclusion that adoption is dishonest in all cases. Sure, there are probably several instances where the PARENTS are dishonest and never tell the child, but...I'm just not buying how adoption, as an option, is dishonest. Furthermore, Andrea Yates was "given" five children "by nature" and she drowned them in a bathtub. I hate to say it, but... I can't imagine those kids would've been worse off if they'd been adopted to someone other than Andrea Yates. Or, what about the teen moms who give birth in a high school bathroom and chuck their infants out with the garbage. Which act would be more dishonest in that scenario: leaving the child at a safe haven facility (which the blogger is against) or pretending you had never been pregnant in the first place and leaving your infant to die?
In response to an FAQ question that hints at my points above, she says the following:
The subject of children who have been removed from their parents because of
abuse or neglect is a tricky one. First of all, it’s important to recognize that
every day, thousands of children are unjustly removed from their parents’ safe
and loving homes. In fact, the United States promotes adoption so strongly that
state governments can and do make money when they get children adopted out of
the foster care system (based on the quotas set in President Clinton’s “Adoption
2002” program). Therefore, vulnerable families become the target of state-run
child “welfare” agencies. Without an ample supply of financial resources to
fight the system, many parents lose their children forever for no valid reason
Am I missing something or did she not answer the question? How does the potential, and reality, of social services removing a child for the wrong reasons stand as an excuse for why we shouldn't remove truly abused children?
In the tragic event that no extended family members can be found to care for
a truly abused child, legal guardianship is an honest option that already exists
in America. The child in a guardianship arrangement is able to maintain his or
her name and identity, and is not forced to live with a set of falsified birth
records. Without the dishonest and unrealistic expectations created by an
adoption, the child is freed from the heavy psychological burden of pretending
to be someone he isn’t.
Ok. So, she's for guardianship as long as it's not called adoption? Given, there's a psychological burden in knowing that you were adopted - I don't think anyone can argue that it doesn't shape, to some extent, the person the adopted child becomes. But, there's a "heavy psychological burden" on the child who has been forced to constantly and continuously return to a home wherein Mommy plays HandBaby. There's going to be a "heavy psychological burden" on a child who's been forced to live through the hell of social services and foster care while his parent(s) are taking the classes that the blogger stands behind as the solution.
Anyway, it's an interesting position...