Using Language To Demote and Destroy the Family
by Laurie Frisch
While the country is focused on the terrorism that led to the
9/11 World Trade Center incident, there is another form of domestic
terrorism in the United States that is not being addressed. Americans
are losing their sons, daughters, grandchildren and siblings to
the combined actions of Child Protective Services and the US court
system. Designating those who foster and adopt as "parents"
and demoting the real parents to "birth" parents, enables
social workers to tear families apart.
Marion, IA (PRWEB) June 2, 2004 -- "The word 'parents' means
nothing to me" a friend observed. "Anyone who takes care
of a child could be called 'parents'." How different this sounded
from what I'd learned at home from my – you guessed it –
parents. They were proud of being parents and they never would have
questioned what the word "parents" meant. To be a parent
implied a special relationship with a child that was born to you.
It was not to be taken lightly. "Chairman Mao separated children
and their parents in China and turned the children against their
parents," my parents told us kids. The implication was that
it was harmful and just plain wrong to separate parents and their
children. It was against nature and against God.
So how has it happened that today people in the United States don't
even know what the word "parent" means and feel it is
not much different from the term "teacher" or "babysitter"?
What about the other language that families use? Does the word "son"
mean anything? The word "mother"? What about "grandfather"
or "ancestor"?
How did it come about that in the United States, children of parents
who have not been proven to be abusive are being removed from their
homes and put into foster care? Not only might the forced separation
itself be considered abusive, but by some estimates a child cared
for by a non-related person is ten times more likely to be abused
than a child in a natural family.
When foster or adoptive care providers abuse a child, even if there
is proof the child is rarely removed from their care. In a recent
example the true family of a girl named Kayla Allen tried to bring
attention to the fact that she was being abused. Her grandmother
risked her own freedom by kidnapping her granddaughter to prevent
the abuse. There are police reports and pictures of numerous bruises
all over Kayla's body. Kayla was returned to the abusive home and
was later adopted by the woman whom she identified as abusing her.
She finally made it out of that home in Onslow County, North Carolina
Aug 24, 2003 dead at the age of 7 after being forced to drink pesticide.
Her grandmother, who had promised Kayla never to let her be abused
again, committed suicide.
People who foster or adopt a child are rarely referred to as unrelated
care givers; Instead, they are called "parents". Maybe
that's why so many people think that people who are paid to care
for a child are entitled to care for, neglect or abuse the child
any way they please. The real parents and family are relegated to
the role of ex's even while their parental rights are still intact,
by use of the demeaning terms "birth parents" or "biological
parents". Prospective adopters are called "parents"
before the rights of the real parents have even been terminated.
The courts and even the media, which is supposed to be unbiased,
frequently use this terminology which is so obviously slanted against
the natural family.
One solution to foster care abuse that is promoted is to expand
the undermanned "system". What about not removing children
from their homes on the basis of poverty or of unsubstantiated reports
of abuse in the first place?
Foster care and adoption is big business. There are monetary incentives
at both the federal and state levels to get children in the system
and to get them adopted. Adopters might be considered the new "welfare
queens": They get far more in monthly subsidies, Medicaid,
tax credits, social security benefits, training, counseling, clothing
allowances and other benefits than natural families would ever be
entitled to right up until the child is 18 (22 if the child stays
in school). And adopters don't have to show a need.
Despite the health and safety risks, social workers are eager to
remove children from their families and to sever the relationship
between family members, especially to obtain young "adoptable"
children from homes that don't have the means to hire a good lawyer.
A mother who requested she not be identified wrote: "The DHS
workers have been bothering me since I brought the baby home from
the hospital. First phone calls, then visits wanting to see how
things are going, wanting me to sign releases for my medical records
because my health is a 'concern' to them with children so young.
They tell me placing the children with families might be best for
them since right now I am not able to work because of my operation.
I had an operation I wasn't like told I am something contagious
or anything!"
Some people say that because of the likelihood of abuse in foster
care, the children in foster care need to be provided a permanent
situation right away. For permanency, there is the option of helping
the family resolve issues if there are any and then returning the
children to their parents or some other relative. If there truly
is no family member to care for them, a friend might be willing
to become a permanent guardian and be kind enough to allow the child
to keep her identity and keep the memory of her family alive for
her.
But, as a result of monetary incentives, permanency now means designating
children "orphans" in the interest of finding them adopters.
When adopters can't be found, the "orphans" stay on in
foster care.
Social workers and the legal system delay returning children to
their parents so they can make the argument that the family bond
has been lost. Even when a parent is proven fit in every other way,
the courts still do not consider that this bond, if lost at all,
might quickly be regained simply by allowing family members to spend
time together.
Told that if they only love this child enough, they will be the
only "parents" he/she will ever need or want, adopters
frequently minimize the child's very real loss or even make disparaging
remarks about his/her natural family. If a child doesn't agree to
being adopted, there are psychologists available to convince him
that he does want to be adopted. Even law guardians, who are supposed
to protect the child's interest in court, are being trained to convince
kids they want to be adopted. Children learn to "play the game".
Sometimes they make a few extra bucks appearing on commercials or
at conventions promoting adoption.
Despite all the promotion, older child adoptions are exceedingly
rare, and when they do occur, they frequently fail, with the child
returned to foster care or emancipated before age 18. Even children
adopted at younger ages may be emancipated early. Thirty-four-year-old
Teresa Tryon, who was adopted at 4 years old wrote: "I was
emancipated at the age of 15. My adopters basically forgot I existed
and I left home at 13 and when they found me at 15 I was already
in my own apartment and job."
On a message board for so-called "Orphans", someone wrote:
"Isn't it amazing how many of us have spent the time in the
system just waiting until we were old enough to return to our families?"
The words "mother", "father", "parents"
and "family" used to have meaning in our society. Chairman
Mao would be impressed if he saw how language is used to separate
families in the United States today. Next time you see a news report
about a "birth" father, mother or grandmother going to
court to keep their child, try thinking of them as the real father,
mother or grandmother. Think of the prospective adopters as people
who are actively trying to tear family apart. If parents are not
proven to be unfit, there is no reason to take their children.
###
Back to Adoptees and "Birthparents"
Perspective on Adoption
|
