GENIRE-L Archives

Archiver > GENIRE > 2008-10 > 1225011412


From: "FarmI" <>
Subject: Re: Where do I start
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:56:52 +1100
References: <54289155-1045-4ffd-ae23-f3742406c3c9@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com><TZidnSH_-qdVjWPVnZ2dnUVZ8vudnZ2d@bt.com><1eea8c76-e82b-4584-9a98-133e126143b5@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com><4902ff5c$0$10624$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au><-pmdnSln5IF3kZ7UnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d@bt.com><GlGMk.204$225.177@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>


<> wrote in message

> Partner,
>
> Why don't you stop making angry judgements for and about other people!

Have you bothered to think about this issue at all?

IF you could guarantee that the child that was adopted AND both parents who
put the child up for adoption ALL want contact, then criticising Don might
possibly be reasonable.

You can't make any such guarantee. You don't know and nor can anyone else
here.

What IS it about top posters that makes them fail to understand on all sorts
of levels?


> In <->, on 10/25/2008
> at 01:11 PM, "Don Moody" <> said:
>>"FarmI" < be given> wrote in message
>>"zanthia1967" <> wrote in message >
>>>> True to your form don, negativity again.
>>>
>>> That is an emotive comment.
>>>
>>> I read Don's post as being sensible advice from someone who's got
>>> direct and relevant experience as that of the person on whose behalf
>>> the OP was posting.
>>>
>>> I thought what Don wrote was highly reasonable and reasoned given
>>> his personal situation.
>>>
>>>> Some people actually want to know their origins and some parents
>>>> actually want to know their adopted out offspring.
>>>
>>> Try reading what Don wrote again but this time, try using your head
>>> and not your heart. You, the OP and Don have no way of knowing the
>>> needs/desires/wishes of the parents concerned in the OP's question.
>>> Given that lack of knowledge it would be prudent for the OP to
>>> follow Don's advice.
>>Thanks for the support. The whole issue revolves around what you have
>>identified. NO-ONE can know anything at all about the situations of the
>>parents (and other relatives) at the commencement of a post-adoption
>>search. No assumptions can be made about what is on the other side of
>>the adoption barrier. Nobody can know in advance what the consequences
>>may be of trying to cross that barrier.
>
>>Getting through that lot is a very ticklish matter, and it is best done
>>by trained individuals who are not personally involved in the particular
>>case. (In practice, most who are involved professionally got involved
>>because they were adoptees and had the problem themselves, and wished to
>>help others in similar distress.)
>
>>I must re-emphasise that this area is so fraught that in many
>>jurisdictions it is regulated by law. In those jurisdictions, search is
>>not allowed unless an independent professional from an approved agency
>>is involved as a two-way cut-out and as a counsellor of the adoptee.
>
>>However, there always are those who get a 'no contact' response and will
>>not accept that position (which often can mean no contact at present but
>>maybe later when situations have changed). The 'my rights regardless'
>>folk adopt stratagems to bypass the proper system. A common one is to
>>try to use genealogy newsgroups to locate living individuals. Fairy
>>stories are told and unthinking idiots on the newsgroups try to show off
>>their cleverness by finding the person who doesn't want to be found and
>>passing on their location information. The clever-clogs are insensitive
>>to the harm that may result, and oblivious of the fact that they are in
>>breach of data protection legislation.
>
>>I'll take the opportunity to make plain, again, that I am NOT a member
>>of any agency in the field of post-adoption search. That is a deliberate
>>decision. The agencies and the professionals in them are, and absolutely
>>must be, constrained by the rules and procedures laid down in law. As
>>always with the law, it can be written for what is known but it cannot
>>be written to cover unusual circumstances not yet discovered. Somebody
>>has to deal with the screwball cases. I do. But I won't touch a case
>>that hasn't gone through and exhausted the orthodox legal procedures.
>>Only when that exposes a circumstance not covered by legislation will I
>>tackle the problem. That is the point of being a researcher
>>unconstrained by orthodox thinking and procedures. And it is precisely
>>because that is what I am that I emphasise the importance of going the
>>orthodox and legal route with the dedicated folk in the approved
>>agencies. Indeed if I am successful in one screwball case, what I have
>>found then becomes part of the orthodoxy and I don't do that kind of
>>case again. I'll also say that I do this work pro bono. No fees and no
>>expenses. That is what gives me the right to pick and choose what cases
>>I take on. So anybody who thinks I'm a sucker who will overcome the
>>adoption barrier for them after a no contact response by the orthodox
>>route need not bother to try me. They'll be out on their ear in no time
>>at all.
>
>>Don
>
>
>



This thread: