OPEN ADOPTION DEBATE: No matter what, some sense of loss (from my archives)

Experts on both sides of the open-adoption debate agree that most adoptees realize they've been given up once and fear it happening again. 





By Sonia Nazario, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer  August 6, 2007



EXPERTS who advocate open adoption as well as those who oppose it say that adoptees grapple with a sense of loss. Virtually all adoptees understand that they have been given up by their birth parents and fear deep down that they might be given up again. Open-adoption advocates say that most adopted babies grow into well-adjusted children. At any given time, however, these advocates say, adoptees might react to the loss of their birth families in more pronounced ways.

Some of them express loyalty and gratitude constantly, trying to win favor with their adoptive parents. In the extreme, these children become overly adaptive — compliant to a fault. They often show little or no interest in the "other mother."

Others act out. These children test their adoptive parents repeatedly, seeking reassurance that their second set of parents won't give them up. In the extreme, they act out violently to test their adoptive parents to the limit.

They love their adoptive parents, but they also long for their birth families and feel sadness, even anger, about being adopted.

Kendall McArthur's adoptive mother, Dorothea McArthur, a therapist who works with adoptees, places Kendall in the mid-range of the children who act out. This has made Kendall's experience with open adoption more difficult than most. Still, Kendall did not require help at a residential mental health facility, as do 7% of adolescent children who are adopted as babies, according to an Illinois State University study.
 

Some of the pitfalls that Kendall and both sets of her parents faced as pioneers in open adoption have been eased today by counseling. Many adoption agencies now require "vision matching" sessions, where birth and adoptive parents state their expectations about visits and future communication. These sessions determine how special occasions will be celebrated and how future conflicts will be resolved. Birth and adoptive parents learn how to deal with fear, distrust and anger.  They learn how to set boundaries and ground rules and how to be assertive but sensitive. Birth parents are counseled to stay in touch and not to contradict adoptive parents in front of their children. Adoptive parents are counseled to work with birth parents to keep children from dividing and conquering.

Many birth and adoptive families describe wonderful relationships in open adoptions, where the birth mother becomes like a loving aunt. Indeed, the most comprehensive longitudinal study of open adoption has found that openness is beneficial in significant ways.

The study, conducted by the University  of Minnesota and the University of Texas, is known as the Minnesota-Texas Adoption Research Project. It is ongoing and tracks 190 married couples in 23 states who adopted infants before their first birthdays in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The adoptions represent more than 30 levels of openness — from closed adoptions, through adoptions in which parents have contact through

intermediaries, to adoptions in which adoptees have direct contact with their birth families.

Though the study has found that the degree of openness does not affect self-esteem or emotional adjustment, it also has found that by adolescence, children in open adoptions:

•  Were not confused about who their parents were.

•  Clearly understood the roles of their adoptive and birth parents.

•  Felt their relationships with their birth mothers gave them a strong

source of additional support.

•  Helped them understand who they were.
 

By adolescence, 62% of the study subjects had stayed in contact with their birth mothers. Of those, 98% wanted the contact to continue or to increase.

Among the adoptees in closed adoptions, the study found, half wanted their adoptions to stay closed, mostly because they felt that being adopted was not important and that contact with birth families might be negative. The other half wanted contact and felt hurt that their birth mothers had not sought them out.
 

Thomas Atwood, the president and chief executive of the nonprofit National Council for Adoption, which has lobbied against open adoptions, rejects the notion that adoptees are somehow incomplete if they do not know their birth family. "We will defend the option of confidentiality," Atwood said.
 

Sharon Roszia, coauthor of "The Open Adoption Experience," and who proposed open adoption to Dorrie and David McArthur, said children in closed adoptions wrestle with many of the psychological issues that Kendall faced. For these children, Roszia said, the issues simply remain submerged. These children deal with additional issues: Didn't my birth mother care enough to find me? Are the people I come from so terrible that I can't know them?  Parents who approach open adoptions with an open heart find that the benefits outweigh the risks, Roszia said. "It is better to deal with reality than fantasy and fear. Better to know than not know."



[ I know children need good homes, of course. But if it is possible to have an open adoption, it is much better for the child adoptee...  And again, if it is a Native child, they need to remain in their tribal nation.... Trace]

OPEN ADOPTION DEBATE: No matter what, some sense of loss (from my archives)

Experts on both sides of the open-adoption debate agree that most adoptees realize they've been given up once and fear it happening again. 


By Sonia Nazario, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer  August 6, 2007

EXPERTS who advocate open adoption as well as those who oppose it say that adoptees grapple with a sense of loss. Virtually all adoptees understand that they have been given up by their birth parents and fear deep down that they might be given up again. Open-adoption advocates say that most adopted babies grow into well-adjusted children. At any given time, however, these advocates say, adoptees might react to the loss of their birth families in more pronounced ways.
Some of them express loyalty and gratitude constantly, trying to win favor with their adoptive parents. In the extreme, these children become overly adaptive — compliant to a fault. They often show little or no interest in the "other mother."
Others act out. These children test their adoptive parents repeatedly, seeking reassurance that their second set of parents won't give them up. In the extreme, they act out violently to test their adoptive parents to the limit.
They love their adoptive parents, but they also long for their birth families and feel sadness, even anger, about being adopted.
Kendall McArthur's adoptive mother, Dorothea McArthur, a therapist who works with adoptees, places Kendall in the mid-range of the children who act out. This has made Kendall's experience with open adoption more difficult than most. Still, Kendall did not require help at a residential mental health facility, as do 7% of adolescent children who are adopted as babies, according to an Illinois State University study.
 
Some of the pitfalls that Kendall and both sets of her parents faced as pioneers in open adoption have been eased today by counseling. Many adoption agencies now require "vision matching" sessions, where birth and adoptive parents state their expectations about visits and future communication. These sessions determine how special occasions will be celebrated and how future conflicts will be resolved. Birth and adoptive parents learn how to deal with fear, distrust and anger.  They learn how to set boundaries and ground rules and how to be assertive but sensitive. Birth parents are counseled to stay in touch and not to contradict adoptive parents in front of their children. Adoptive parents are counseled to work with birth parents to keep children from dividing and conquering.
Many birth and adoptive families describe wonderful relationships in open adoptions, where the birth mother becomes like a loving aunt. Indeed, the most comprehensive longitudinal study of open adoption has found that openness is beneficial in significant ways.
The study, conducted by the University  of Minnesota and the University of Texas, is known as the Minnesota-Texas Adoption Research Project. It is ongoing and tracks 190 married couples in 23 states who adopted infants before their first birthdays in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The adoptions represent more than 30 levels of openness — from closed adoptions, through adoptions in which parents have contact through
intermediaries, to adoptions in which adoptees have direct contact with their birth families.
Though the study has found that the degree of openness does not affect self-esteem or emotional adjustment, it also has found that by adolescence, children in open adoptions:
•  Were not confused about who their parents were.
•  Clearly understood the roles of their adoptive and birth parents.
•  Felt their relationships with their birth mothers gave them a strong
source of additional support.
•  Helped them understand who they were.
 
By adolescence, 62% of the study subjects had stayed in contact with their birth mothers. Of those, 98% wanted the contact to continue or to increase.
Among the adoptees in closed adoptions, the study found, half wanted their adoptions to stay closed, mostly because they felt that being adopted was not important and that contact with birth families might be negative. The other half wanted contact and felt hurt that their birth mothers had not sought them out.
 
Thomas Atwood, the president and chief executive of the nonprofit National Council for Adoption, which has lobbied against open adoptions, rejects the notion that adoptees are somehow incomplete if they do not know their birth family. "We will defend the option of confidentiality," Atwood said.
 
Sharon Roszia, coauthor of "The Open Adoption Experience," and who proposed open adoption to Dorrie and David McArthur, said children in closed adoptions wrestle with many of the psychological issues that Kendall faced. For these children, Roszia said, the issues simply remain submerged. These children deal with additional issues: Didn't my birth mother care enough to find me? Are the people I come from so terrible that I can't know them?  Parents who approach open adoptions with an open heart find that the benefits outweigh the risks, Roszia said. "It is better to deal with reality than fantasy and fear. Better to know than not know."

[ I know children need good homes, of course. But if it is possible to have an open adoption, it is much better for the child adoptee...  And again, if it is a Native child, they need to remain in their tribal nation.... Trace]

No matter what, some sense of loss (from my archives)

Experts on both sides of the open-adoption debate agree that most adoptees realize they've been given up once and fear it happening again.By Sonia Nazario, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer  August 6, 2007

EXPERTS who advocate open adoption as well as those who oppose it say that adoptees grapple with a sense of loss. Virtually all adoptees understand that they have been given up by their birth parents and fear deep down that they might be given up again. Open-adoption advocates say that most adopted babies grow into well-adjusted children. At any given time, however, these advocates say, adoptees might react to the loss of their birth families in more pronounced ways.
Some of them express loyalty and gratitude constantly, trying to win favor with their adoptive parents. In the extreme, these children become overly adaptive — compliant to a fault. They often show little or no interest in the "other mother."
Others act out. These children test their adoptive parents repeatedly, seeking reassurance that their second set of parents won't give them up. In the extreme, they act out violently to test their adoptive parents to the limit.
They love their adoptive parents, but they also long for their birth families and feel sadness, even anger, about being adopted.
Kendall McArthur's adoptive mother, Dorothea McArthur, a therapist who works with adoptees, places Kendall in the mid-range of the children who act out. This has made Kendall's experience with open adoption more difficult than most. Still, Kendall did not require help at a residential mental health facility, as do 7% of adolescent children who are adopted as babies, according to an Illinois State University study.
Some of the pitfalls that Kendall and both sets of her parents faced as pioneers in open adoption have been eased today by counseling. Many adoption agencies now require "vision matching" sessions, where birth and adoptive parents state their expectations about visits and future communication. These sessions determine how special occasions will be celebrated and how future conflicts will be resolved. Birth and adoptive parents learn how to deal with fear, distrust and anger.  They learn how to set boundaries and ground rules and how to be assertive but sensitive. Birth parents are counseled to stay in touch and not to contradict adoptive parents in front of their children. Adoptive parents are counseled to work with birth parents to keep children from dividing and conquering.
Many birth and adoptive families describe wonderful relationships in open adoptions, where the birth mother becomes like a loving aunt. Indeed, the most comprehensive longitudinal study of open adoption has found that openness is beneficial in significant ways.
The study, conducted by the University  of Minnesota and the University of Texas, is known as the Minnesota-Texas Adoption Research Project. It is ongoing and tracks 190 married couples in 23 states who adopted infants before their first birthdays in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The adoptions represent more than 30 levels of openness — from closed adoptions, through adoptions in which parents have contact through
intermediaries, to adoptions in which adoptees have direct contact with their birth families.
Though the study has found that the degree of openness does not affect self-esteem or emotional adjustment, it also has found that by adolescence, children in open adoptions:
•  Were not confused about who their parents were.
•  Clearly understood the roles of their adoptive and birth parents.
•  Felt their relationships with their birth mothers gave them a strong
source of additional support.
•  Helped them understand who they were.
By adolescence, 62% of the study subjects had stayed in contact with their birth mothers. Of those, 98% wanted the contact to continue or to increase.
Among the adoptees in closed adoptions, the study found, half wanted their adoptions to stay closed, mostly because they felt that being adopted was not important and that contact with birth families might be negative. The other half wanted contact and felt hurt that their birth mothers had not sought them out.
Thomas Atwood, the president and chief executive of the nonprofit National Council for Adoption, which has lobbied against open adoptions, rejects the notion that adoptees are somehow incomplete if they do not know their birth family. "We will defend the option of confidentiality," Atwood said.
Sharon Roszia, coauthor of "The Open Adoption Experience," and who proposed open adoption to Dorrie and David McArthur, said children in closed adoptions wrestle with many of the psychological issues that Kendall faced. For these children, Roszia said, the issues simply remain submerged. These children deal with additional issues: Didn't my birth mother care enough to find me? Are the people I come from so terrible that I can't know them?  Parents who approach open adoptions with an open heart find that the benefits outweigh the risks, Roszia said. "It is better to deal with reality than fantasy and fear. Better to know than not know."

[ I know children need good homes, of course. But if it is possible to have an open adoption, it is much better for the child adoptee...  And again, if it is a Native child, they need to remain in their tribal nation.... Trace]

No matter what, some sense of loss (from my archives)

Experts on both sides of the open-adoption debate agree that most adoptees realize they've been given up once and fear it happening again.By Sonia Nazario, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer  August 6, 2007

EXPERTS who advocate open adoption as well as those who oppose it say that adoptees grapple with a sense of loss. Virtually all adoptees understand that they have been given up by their birth parents and fear deep down that they might be given up again. Open-adoption advocates say that most adopted babies grow into well-adjusted children. At any given time, however, these advocates say, adoptees might react to the loss of their birth families in more pronounced ways.
Some of them express loyalty and gratitude constantly, trying to win favor with their adoptive parents. In the extreme, these children become overly adaptive — compliant to a fault. They often show little or no interest in the "other mother."
Others act out. These children test their adoptive parents repeatedly, seeking reassurance that their second set of parents won't give them up. In the extreme, they act out violently to test their adoptive parents to the limit.
They love their adoptive parents, but they also long for their birth families and feel sadness, even anger, about being adopted.
Kendall McArthur's adoptive mother, Dorothea McArthur, a therapist who works with adoptees, places Kendall in the mid-range of the children who act out. This has made Kendall's experience with open adoption more difficult than most. Still, Kendall did not require help at a residential mental health facility, as do 7% of adolescent children who are adopted as babies, according to an Illinois State University study.
Some of the pitfalls that Kendall and both sets of her parents faced as pioneers in open adoption have been eased today by counseling. Many adoption agencies now require "vision matching" sessions, where birth and adoptive parents state their expectations about visits and future communication. These sessions determine how special occasions will be celebrated and how future conflicts will be resolved. Birth and adoptive parents learn how to deal with fear, distrust and anger.  They learn how to set boundaries and ground rules and how to be assertive but sensitive. Birth parents are counseled to stay in touch and not to contradict adoptive parents in front of their children. Adoptive parents are counseled to work with birth parents to keep children from dividing and conquering.
Many birth and adoptive families describe wonderful relationships in open adoptions, where the birth mother becomes like a loving aunt. Indeed, the most comprehensive longitudinal study of open adoption has found that openness is beneficial in significant ways.
The study, conducted by the University  of Minnesota and the University of Texas, is known as the Minnesota-Texas Adoption Research Project. It is ongoing and tracks 190 married couples in 23 states who adopted infants before their first birthdays in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The adoptions represent more than 30 levels of openness — from closed adoptions, through adoptions in which parents have contact through
intermediaries, to adoptions in which adoptees have direct contact with their birth families.
Though the study has found that the degree of openness does not affect self-esteem or emotional adjustment, it also has found that by adolescence, children in open adoptions:
•  Were not confused about who their parents were.
•  Clearly understood the roles of their adoptive and birth parents.
•  Felt their relationships with their birth mothers gave them a strong
source of additional support.
•  Helped them understand who they were.
By adolescence, 62% of the study subjects had stayed in contact with their birth mothers. Of those, 98% wanted the contact to continue or to increase.
Among the adoptees in closed adoptions, the study found, half wanted their adoptions to stay closed, mostly because they felt that being adopted was not important and that contact with birth families might be negative. The other half wanted contact and felt hurt that their birth mothers had not sought them out.
Thomas Atwood, the president and chief executive of the nonprofit National Council for Adoption, which has lobbied against open adoptions, rejects the notion that adoptees are somehow incomplete if they do not know their birth family. "We will defend the option of confidentiality," Atwood said.
Sharon Roszia, coauthor of "The Open Adoption Experience," and who proposed open adoption to Dorrie and David McArthur, said children in closed adoptions wrestle with many of the psychological issues that Kendall faced. For these children, Roszia said, the issues simply remain submerged. These children deal with additional issues: Didn't my birth mother care enough to find me? Are the people I come from so terrible that I can't know them?  Parents who approach open adoptions with an open heart find that the benefits outweigh the risks, Roszia said. "It is better to deal with reality than fantasy and fear. Better to know than not know."

[ I know children need good homes, of course. But if it is possible to have an open adoption, it is much better for the child adoptee...  And again, if it is a Native child, they need to remain in their tribal nation.... Trace]

No matter what, some sense of loss (from my archives)

Experts on both sides of the open-adoption debate agree that most adoptees realize they've been given up once and fear it happening again.By Sonia Nazario, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer  August 6, 2007

EXPERTS who advocate open adoption as well as those who oppose it say that adoptees grapple with a sense of loss. Virtually all adoptees understand that they have been given up by their birth parents and fear deep down that they might be given up again. Open-adoption advocates say that most adopted babies grow into well-adjusted children. At any given time, however, these advocates say, adoptees might react to the loss of their birth families in more pronounced ways.
Some of them express loyalty and gratitude constantly, trying to win favor with their adoptive parents. In the extreme, these children become overly adaptive — compliant to a fault. They often show little or no interest in the "other mother."
Others act out. These children test their adoptive parents repeatedly, seeking reassurance that their second set of parents won't give them up. In the extreme, they act out violently to test their adoptive parents to the limit.
They love their adoptive parents, but they also long for their birth families and feel sadness, even anger, about being adopted.
Kendall McArthur's adoptive mother, Dorothea McArthur, a therapist who works with adoptees, places Kendall in the mid-range of the children who act out. This has made Kendall's experience with open adoption more difficult than most. Still, Kendall did not require help at a residential mental health facility, as do 7% of adolescent children who are adopted as babies, according to an Illinois State University study.
Some of the pitfalls that Kendall and both sets of her parents faced as pioneers in open adoption have been eased today by counseling. Many adoption agencies now require "vision matching" sessions, where birth and adoptive parents state their expectations about visits and future communication. These sessions determine how special occasions will be celebrated and how future conflicts will be resolved. Birth and adoptive parents learn how to deal with fear, distrust and anger.  They learn how to set boundaries and ground rules and how to be assertive but sensitive. Birth parents are counseled to stay in touch and not to contradict adoptive parents in front of their children. Adoptive parents are counseled to work with birth parents to keep children from dividing and conquering.
Many birth and adoptive families describe wonderful relationships in open adoptions, where the birth mother becomes like a loving aunt. Indeed, the most comprehensive longitudinal study of open adoption has found that openness is beneficial in significant ways.
The study, conducted by the University  of Minnesota and the University of Texas, is known as the Minnesota-Texas Adoption Research Project. It is ongoing and tracks 190 married couples in 23 states who adopted infants before their first birthdays in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The adoptions represent more than 30 levels of openness — from closed adoptions, through adoptions in which parents have contact through
intermediaries, to adoptions in which adoptees have direct contact with their birth families.
Though the study has found that the degree of openness does not affect self-esteem or emotional adjustment, it also has found that by adolescence, children in open adoptions:
•  Were not confused about who their parents were.
•  Clearly understood the roles of their adoptive and birth parents.
•  Felt their relationships with their birth mothers gave them a strong
source of additional support.
•  Helped them understand who they were.
By adolescence, 62% of the study subjects had stayed in contact with their birth mothers. Of those, 98% wanted the contact to continue or to increase.
Among the adoptees in closed adoptions, the study found, half wanted their adoptions to stay closed, mostly because they felt that being adopted was not important and that contact with birth families might be negative. The other half wanted contact and felt hurt that their birth mothers had not sought them out.
Thomas Atwood, the president and chief executive of the nonprofit National Council for Adoption, which has lobbied against open adoptions, rejects the notion that adoptees are somehow incomplete if they do not know their birth family. "We will defend the option of confidentiality," Atwood said.
Sharon Roszia, coauthor of "The Open Adoption Experience," and who proposed open adoption to Dorrie and David McArthur, said children in closed adoptions wrestle with many of the psychological issues that Kendall faced. For these children, Roszia said, the issues simply remain submerged. These children deal with additional issues: Didn't my birth mother care enough to find me? Are the people I come from so terrible that I can't know them?  Parents who approach open adoptions with an open heart find that the benefits outweigh the risks, Roszia said. "It is better to deal with reality than fantasy and fear. Better to know than not know."

[ I know children need good homes, of course. But if it is possible to have an open adoption, it is much better for the child adoptee...  And again, if it is a Native child, they need to remain in their tribal nation.... Trace]

No matter what, some sense of loss (from my archives)

Experts on both sides of the open-adoption debate agree that most adoptees realize they've been given up once and fear it happening again.By Sonia Nazario, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer  August 6, 2007

EXPERTS who advocate open adoption as well as those who oppose it say that adoptees grapple with a sense of loss. Virtually all adoptees understand that they have been given up by their birth parents and fear deep down that they might be given up again. Open-adoption advocates say that most adopted babies grow into well-adjusted children. At any given time, however, these advocates say, adoptees might react to the loss of their birth families in more pronounced ways.
Some of them express loyalty and gratitude constantly, trying to win favor with their adoptive parents. In the extreme, these children become overly adaptive — compliant to a fault. They often show little or no interest in the "other mother."
Others act out. These children test their adoptive parents repeatedly, seeking reassurance that their second set of parents won't give them up. In the extreme, they act out violently to test their adoptive parents to the limit.
They love their adoptive parents, but they also long for their birth families and feel sadness, even anger, about being adopted.
Kendall McArthur's adoptive mother, Dorothea McArthur, a therapist who works with adoptees, places Kendall in the mid-range of the children who act out. This has made Kendall's experience with open adoption more difficult than most. Still, Kendall did not require help at a residential mental health facility, as do 7% of adolescent children who are adopted as babies, according to an Illinois State University study.
Some of the pitfalls that Kendall and both sets of her parents faced as pioneers in open adoption have been eased today by counseling. Many adoption agencies now require "vision matching" sessions, where birth and adoptive parents state their expectations about visits and future communication. These sessions determine how special occasions will be celebrated and how future conflicts will be resolved. Birth and adoptive parents learn how to deal with fear, distrust and anger.  They learn how to set boundaries and ground rules and how to be assertive but sensitive. Birth parents are counseled to stay in touch and not to contradict adoptive parents in front of their children. Adoptive parents are counseled to work with birth parents to keep children from dividing and conquering.
Many birth and adoptive families describe wonderful relationships in open adoptions, where the birth mother becomes like a loving aunt. Indeed, the most comprehensive longitudinal study of open adoption has found that openness is beneficial in significant ways.
The study, conducted by the University  of Minnesota and the University of Texas, is known as the Minnesota-Texas Adoption Research Project. It is ongoing and tracks 190 married couples in 23 states who adopted infants before their first birthdays in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The adoptions represent more than 30 levels of openness — from closed adoptions, through adoptions in which parents have contact through
intermediaries, to adoptions in which adoptees have direct contact with their birth families.
Though the study has found that the degree of openness does not affect self-esteem or emotional adjustment, it also has found that by adolescence, children in open adoptions:
•  Were not confused about who their parents were.
•  Clearly understood the roles of their adoptive and birth parents.
•  Felt their relationships with their birth mothers gave them a strong
source of additional support.
•  Helped them understand who they were.
By adolescence, 62% of the study subjects had stayed in contact with their birth mothers. Of those, 98% wanted the contact to continue or to increase.
Among the adoptees in closed adoptions, the study found, half wanted their adoptions to stay closed, mostly because they felt that being adopted was not important and that contact with birth families might be negative. The other half wanted contact and felt hurt that their birth mothers had not sought them out.
Thomas Atwood, the president and chief executive of the nonprofit National Council for Adoption, which has lobbied against open adoptions, rejects the notion that adoptees are somehow incomplete if they do not know their birth family. "We will defend the option of confidentiality," Atwood said.
Sharon Roszia, coauthor of "The Open Adoption Experience," and who proposed open adoption to Dorrie and David McArthur, said children in closed adoptions wrestle with many of the psychological issues that Kendall faced. For these children, Roszia said, the issues simply remain submerged. These children deal with additional issues: Didn't my birth mother care enough to find me? Are the people I come from so terrible that I can't know them?  Parents who approach open adoptions with an open heart find that the benefits outweigh the risks, Roszia said. "It is better to deal with reality than fantasy and fear. Better to know than not know."

[ I know children need good homes, of course. But if it is possible to have an open adoption, it is much better for the child adoptee...  And again, if it is a Native child, they need to remain in their tribal nation.... Trace]

No matter what, some sense of loss (from my archives)

Experts on both sides of the open-adoption debate agree that most adoptees realize they've been given up once and fear it happening again.By Sonia Nazario, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer  August 6, 2007

EXPERTS who advocate open adoption as well as those who oppose it say that adoptees grapple with a sense of loss. Virtually all adoptees understand that they have been given up by their birth parents and fear deep down that they might be given up again. Open-adoption advocates say that most adopted babies grow into well-adjusted children. At any given time, however, these advocates say, adoptees might react to the loss of their birth families in more pronounced ways.
Some of them express loyalty and gratitude constantly, trying to win favor with their adoptive parents. In the extreme, these children become overly adaptive — compliant to a fault. They often show little or no interest in the "other mother."
Others act out. These children test their adoptive parents repeatedly, seeking reassurance that their second set of parents won't give them up. In the extreme, they act out violently to test their adoptive parents to the limit.
They love their adoptive parents, but they also long for their birth families and feel sadness, even anger, about being adopted.
Kendall McArthur's adoptive mother, Dorothea McArthur, a therapist who works with adoptees, places Kendall in the mid-range of the children who act out. This has made Kendall's experience with open adoption more difficult than most. Still, Kendall did not require help at a residential mental health facility, as do 7% of adolescent children who are adopted as babies, according to an Illinois State University study.
Some of the pitfalls that Kendall and both sets of her parents faced as pioneers in open adoption have been eased today by counseling. Many adoption agencies now require "vision matching" sessions, where birth and adoptive parents state their expectations about visits and future communication. These sessions determine how special occasions will be celebrated and how future conflicts will be resolved. Birth and adoptive parents learn how to deal with fear, distrust and anger.  They learn how to set boundaries and ground rules and how to be assertive but sensitive. Birth parents are counseled to stay in touch and not to contradict adoptive parents in front of their children. Adoptive parents are counseled to work with birth parents to keep children from dividing and conquering.
Many birth and adoptive families describe wonderful relationships in open adoptions, where the birth mother becomes like a loving aunt. Indeed, the most comprehensive longitudinal study of open adoption has found that openness is beneficial in significant ways.
The study, conducted by the University  of Minnesota and the University of Texas, is known as the Minnesota-Texas Adoption Research Project. It is ongoing and tracks 190 married couples in 23 states who adopted infants before their first birthdays in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The adoptions represent more than 30 levels of openness — from closed adoptions, through adoptions in which parents have contact through
intermediaries, to adoptions in which adoptees have direct contact with their birth families.
Though the study has found that the degree of openness does not affect self-esteem or emotional adjustment, it also has found that by adolescence, children in open adoptions:
•  Were not confused about who their parents were.
•  Clearly understood the roles of their adoptive and birth parents.
•  Felt their relationships with their birth mothers gave them a strong
source of additional support.
•  Helped them understand who they were.
By adolescence, 62% of the study subjects had stayed in contact with their birth mothers. Of those, 98% wanted the contact to continue or to increase.
Among the adoptees in closed adoptions, the study found, half wanted their adoptions to stay closed, mostly because they felt that being adopted was not important and that contact with birth families might be negative. The other half wanted contact and felt hurt that their birth mothers had not sought them out.
Thomas Atwood, the president and chief executive of the nonprofit National Council for Adoption, which has lobbied against open adoptions, rejects the notion that adoptees are somehow incomplete if they do not know their birth family. "We will defend the option of confidentiality," Atwood said.
Sharon Roszia, coauthor of "The Open Adoption Experience," and who proposed open adoption to Dorrie and David McArthur, said children in closed adoptions wrestle with many of the psychological issues that Kendall faced. For these children, Roszia said, the issues simply remain submerged. These children deal with additional issues: Didn't my birth mother care enough to find me? Are the people I come from so terrible that I can't know them?  Parents who approach open adoptions with an open heart find that the benefits outweigh the risks, Roszia said. "It is better to deal with reality than fantasy and fear. Better to know than not know."

[ I know children need good homes, of course. But if it is possible to have an open adoption, it is much better for the child adoptee...  And again, if it is a Native child, they need to remain in their tribal nation.... Trace]

Guest Blog: Adoption Reality by Celeste Billhartz

Adoption Reality by Celeste Billhartz  

May 2, 2011

Celeste Billhartz

A few months ago I got a photograph from a mother who visited with her daughter, in a hospital room. In the photo she is showing her the beautiful little christening gown she had saved, all these 40-some years, to show her daughter that she never wanted to "give her up" for adoption. The daughter blinked, "Yes" in acknowledgment ... her body frozen by ALS/Lou Gehrig's  disease. My friend's other daughter took the photo and another daughter stood,  nearby. They had come to say, Goodbye. Not in the photo, but standing "guard" in the room, was the adoptive mother, who would not allow them a precious few moments of privacy. Four months later, my friend's daughter died. At the funeral service none of the adoptive family, and none of their eulogies, acknowledged this natural family, sitting there, grieving ... and not one person offered condolences on their loss.

The lies in adoption are many. We all tell them, every day. It's all we know, all we have been told to say, all that is allowed. We pretend our sisters, brothers, cousins are, really, ours; they are not. We pretend we have traits inherent in our adoptive families; they are not our traits.

And, all our lives, we protect our adoptive families from the truth: We have our own natural families, our own sisters, brothers, cousins ... our own trails of traits, somewhere, reaching back to the ancients in our souls. And, our natural mothers ... we wonder where are they, who they are, why did

they "give" us away?? Not having answers, not "awake" to the reality of adoption coercion, many of us pretend. We believe they didn't want us or wanted something else more -- school, a job, etc.

And, so, we make new lives among the strangers -- not of our skin, not of our  hearts. We doze; we pretend. All our adoptive lives, we pretend. And, because we believe we are lucky to have been adopted/wanted, we protect ourselves with happy faces and words of gratitude.

Eventually, we are old enough to be more curious than content, so we ask about our origins. The good strangers -- and there are many -- tell us what they know, show us the original papers with the original names we must see, offer any help we may need to find our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, cousins, aunts and uncles. How odd; we are strangers to our kin and we love our strangers.

Still, we must reunite. First, for our mothers, and then for ourselves. We both are owed nothing less.

Unfortunately, some adoptive mothers refuse to help adoptees reunite with their natural families and refuse to be gracious, helpful and respectful to natural mothers.

The adoption world has convinced adoptive mothers -- and most civilians -- that Amoms are the saviours of millions of babies/toddlers whose own mothers/families couldn't or wouldn't care for them as well as Amoms can and that natural mothers don't deserve to care for them as much as Amoms do.

Rubbish.

Lawyers, doctors and adoption workers (many of them unmarried women who never had babies) have always taken advantage of young mothers instead of helping them. In closed adoptions of yesterday and open adoptions of today, all the players take advantage of scared young mothers. They count on their agreeing to "do what's best for the baby" well before the young women give birth, well before they know the powerful, undeniable, life-changing love they will feel for these little beings who slipped from their wombs and are, forever theirs, no matter what pre-birth agreements were signed.

These mothers -- millions of them -- are now "awake" ... and they know they were used by the indu$try to supply millions of infertile women (and today, single women) with babies.

Most of society doesn't know how devastating adopting is to young mothers. Most don't want to know, because they can't imagine being forced/schmoozed to surrender their own babies. They cannot imagine anyone daring to do that! They want to believe adopting is always -- and only -- in the best interests of the babies.

Truth is, adopting is a bu$iness.

When women stop paying big bucks to buy infants and toddlers, and when pregnant women are supported in keeping their babies, the bu$iness in adopting will dwindle, and babies will stay with their own families ... where they belong.

OK, you're an adoptive mother who is "waking up" -- now what?

• Help your adopted son or daughter know about his/her natural family. It isn't only a mother lost, but a whole tribe, a whole lineage, sides of two families, personality traits, physical traits, habits, health, quirks and talents. No more secrets. No more lies.

• If mother and child are planning to spend time together, don't stand in their way. Step aside. This is not about you.
• Let your conscience be your guide. You know right from wrong. Most of all, you know injustice when you see it.

In The Mothers Project, I tell the stories of the girl/mothers who lost their babies to adoption in past generations. The coercion continues. Adopting is woman's inhumanity to woman.

[I thank my friend Celeste for this beautiful and wise guest blog...Trace]

My interview with Leland P Kirk Morrill, Navajo adoptee (Book 2)

Weaving a new life: My conversation with Dine adoptee Leland P Kirk (Morrill)

There was a reason Indian leaders went to the Senate in the 1970s and demanded an inquiry into the staggering number of children disappearing in Indian Country. It was not just boarding schools creating this mass exodus of children. Adoption programs in 16 states removed 85% of Native children. Programs like the Adoption Resource Exchange of North America (ARENA), established by the Child Welfare League of America in 1967, funded in part by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, paid states to remove children and place them with non-Indian adoptive families and religious groups like the Mormon Church.  ARENA expanded to include all Canadian and United States adoption agencies and offered them financial assistance.
As William Byler, executive director of the Association of American Indian
Affairs, testified, “…in Minnesota, 90 percent of the adopted Indian children
are in non-Indian homes.”
In 1976, Byler told senators that for many tribes, survival was at stake; Congress agreed tribal stability was as important as that of the best interests of the child, which eventually lead to the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.
a striking example is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Indian Placement Program. By the 1970s, an estimated 5,000 Indian children were living in Mormon homes. Francis R. McKenna wrote in the Journal of American Indian Education, “… Christian churches have developed massive programs for adoption of Indian children. Adoption of Indian youth is some 20 times the national average. For Navajos alone, some 2,000 children are spirited away for adoption annually by a single agency, the Mormon Church.”
Leland Morrill, Dine/Navajo, is one of ten Native children adopted by one Mormon family under one of the ARENA programs. Leland, now living in California, was adopted on July 15, 1971. He was 4 years old.

Do you know what happened to bring about your being adopted?
Leland Morrill: I found out it was my Navajo mother Linda Carolyn Kirk’s responsibility to enroll me into the tribe and she should have obtained a census number for me at my birth or within a reasonable time. She didn't... I will never know why because she was killed in a car accident in Albuquerque in September 1968. She was living off the reservation. After she died, I was taken to St. Anthony’s orphanage, not affiliated with any tribal nation. My natural father, whoever he is, never claimed me. From the orphanage I was returned to the Navajo Nation and my mother’s relatives. I have been able to piece together that I was abused and neglected by them. When I suffered severe first, second and third degree burns, and broken bones, I was admitted to Keams Canyon Indian Health Services clinic then transferred to the Gallup Indian Hospital. The BIA intervened and assigned Ms. McCray of Arizona Social Services as my caseworker. She found my Mormon foster/adoptive parents, Stan and Gwena Morrill, so I was placed with them upon my release from the Gallup Indian Hospital. I was in foster care for 22 months then adopted by the Morrill’s.

Since you were fostered then adopted, did the tribe or its lawyers appear in any of the proceedings concerning your care and placement?
Yes, Andy G. Smith, a DNA Legal Aid advocate, acted as guardian to the estate of Linda Kirk, my mother. She had life insurance since she was working at the
Albuquerque Federal Building. DNA People’s Legal Services is a nonprofit who
provides free legal aid for seven tribes in three states, helping low income
people get access to tribal, state and federal justice systems.

Do you read your adoption file?
I do not have access to it because I am not a member of the Navajo Nation. I applied for membership to the Navajo Nation on March 22, 2011. After that, I'm assuming access will be granted by the Navajo Nation but I am not feeling that is a guarantee.

How has not being enrolled affected you?

I have been weaving together my pre-adoption life up to my adoption, though the tribe has not supplied me or my adoptive parents any credible documentation or explanation concerning my lack of enrollment. I have a theory. By not enrolling me into the tribe in 1968 when my mother died, the Navajo Nation avoided the "prior approval of the Advisory Committee"... they’d set up these rules in 1960 concerning Navajo children being adopted out. Since the BIA had a role here, they would have advised against enrolling me, possibly, which made me adoptable. Navajo Judge Joe Bennally should have had me enrolled; it was his duty, but he didn't. The Navajo Tribal Council would have never investigated because I was never enrolled in the tribe by my mother or the judge.

Were you and your nine adopted siblings required to convert to the Mormon religion and expected to be missionaries?
Yes, we converted. None of the ten adopted children went on missions. One of us, Virginia (Ginny), is a practicing Mormon now.

Did the Morrill’s receive compensation as your foster parents?
My parents would have been paid at least $65 per month, per child before our
adoptions and $65 each after the adoption, for a temporary period of time. My
sister Virginia, also Navajo, and I were handled under ARENA, funded by the
BIA.  Our (mixed blood) brother Shaun was adopted as a baby out of a court in Phoenix, not tribal court. The Morrill’s moved to Canada the day after I was adopted.... effectively removing me, my sister and my brother from any biological family or tribal connection.  I have asked myself, “Why so far...why
Canada?”  My father says they were transferred. With the LDS Church Education System, doesn't one request a transfer? In Canada, my adoptive parents adopted seven more kids, all are Ojibwe siblings. I'm assuming there was ARENA money for them, too.

Did you know or meet other Mormons families who had also adopted Native American children?
Yes, my mother’s friends, the Johnson’s, adopted Native children, but I am not sure which tribe. They lived in Chinle, Arizona when we did. John Christensen was my mom's boss at LDS Social Services in Rapid City and they adopted a Native child. My adopted mother eventually worked as a secretary for LDS Social
Services, a division which handles Mormon adoptions.

How was it growing up in a house full of 12 kids - what was a typical day?
That would depend on the day and the year. We had specific rituals as a family. We woke up by 6:30 am, read scriptures from the Old/New testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenance, rarely from The Pearl of Great Price. We did the children’s versions then graduated to "The Standard Works."
After scriptures, we had family prayer, went on a 15 minute walk/run, got ready for breakfast then off to school. As the years progressed, we would rise earlier
and go to early morning seminary. My dad was the local ecclesiastical leader
and the area coordinator for the LDS Seminary & Institute program for the Mormon Church. I think his title trumps the Bishop and Stake President.
We were encouraged to do extra-curricular activities, like I was in the band, and ran track and field. We'd come home after school and had assigned chores that would rotate; sometimes it was cleaning the bathrooms, sometimes the living room, shovel snow, chop wood, wash the cars...we all rotated without regard to our sex.
Of course kids had favorite jobs and sometimes we'd trade each other. Then we'd eat dinner and do homework. By 9-10 pm, we'd go to sleep.
Later, when I was 9, dad set up the Morrill Family Services, a janitorial company. We kids cleaned buildings like a cytology/histology lab and then a local blood clinic. I did it for seven years until I was 16, in addition to having a paper route.
Some of my brothers were hired out to do yard work and shovel snow.
On weekends my adopted mom liked to go to garage sales so sometimes we'd all end up at them. Of course we'd clean houses since the Morrill Family Services had jobs on Saturdays. We had a huge garden and all of us were assigned weeding, taking certain areas.  I always traded for the strawberry patch because I like them. So we'd prepare for Sabbath, cooking, cleaning, setting the table, washing clothes, ironing, things you'd do on a normal day; we always set up for Sunday Sabbath. 
Sundays were for church. We’d be up 7 am, then get ready for three hours of church. We'd come home, eat, mom and dad would have their alone time and us kids would go outside and play quietly, or take a nap. My sister Sheila liked to tan so sometimes all ten of us would be outside tanning our brown bodies on the deck or the side lawn. We rarely included the other two, Kaelyn and Shelly, who were our parents "natural" kids.

Where do you live now?
I live in Los Angeles, California. Oddly I felt I was called here. I found out 50
years ago (in 1961) my mother Linda lived here in LA.

Where are your siblings?

Shaun and Adam live in Salt Lake City; Keith is in Pueblo, Colorado; Sharon is in
Springfield, Missouri; Robert is in Tennessee, he just moved; Ginny lives in
Magna, Utah; Cindy lives in Madison, Wisconsin; Debbie is in Raleigh, North
Carolina; Shelly is in Denver; Sheila is in Mount Hope, West Virginia; and Kaelyn
is in Draper, Utah.

Are you the oldest?
No, I am number 8. We counted off 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, eldest to youngest, when we went anywhere...like the Von Trapp whistles.

Where did you attend school?
I first went to school in Burford in Ontario (Canada), then Elementary, Junior
High and High School in Rapid City, South Dakota, then Salt Lake Community
College in Salt Lake City and Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

What subjects did you like in school?
I was fascinated with almost any subject. My problem is the structured class; I
can read a whole textbook and take a final exam in 3 days. Our classes lasted
for 3 months. I can be impatient. I really liked my computer classes in the 80s
when "Windows" came out, and especially real estate law... in fact I'm going to a seminar at UCLA School of Law on April 9, 2011.

What you study in College?
I actually didn't finish. I studied real estate, statistics, family law and computer science.

What career path have you chosen?
My first job out of college was working for AIS, worked my way up from data entry to Assistant VP of operations for our Seattle/SLC/Denver offices, with 16-18 hour days, and a great salary, of course. I was a lead researcher for Fidelity
Information Systems, only to be replaced by the cheaper Phillipines and India work mills. Previous to that I worked for the Federal Reserve Bank writing training manuals, and I worked as their information security liaison-reconciler. I'm self-employed now, but it’s very tough in this economy. I have two businesses, Desert Power LLC, and My New Blinds.

Have you had any counseling for being adopted?

Not specifically for being adopted. Therapy, group sessions, AA, even seminars are all good ways to understand and improve yourself. Actually no one tells you you've been robbed of your identity. But yes I would recommend therapy, especially for older adoptees who remember their past. I would recommend therapy to deal with dynamics of the parent/child non-biological relationship, how to verbalize, how to ask, tell, state your wants, needs, desires, how to operate as a human being. Non-biological parents don't understand you and you don't understand them; each person should understand this and have tools to communicate.

Did you feel injury or trauma or isolation?
No. I was taken away from abuse, neglect, malnutrition from those who injured and traumatized me, a child only 1-3 years old, long before the age of reason. I
think as an adoptee, isolation comes with the new territory. It becomes the new
normal because there is no biological connection. Sure, I tried to read, do
sports, swim, run, bike, hike, etc. Yes, I am still alone. But now I enjoy
being alone. I also have chosen my own friends and support group who I can and do call on when we need and want to be around each other.

Many adoptees have admitted they have issues with bonding and low self-esteem. Has being adopted affected your ability to trust and love?
Very good question. Bonding? I choose who I can bond with and made many platonic friendships easily. My best friend and I have been friends for 26 years and talk at least twice a day in addition to texting, emailing and facebook.
Low self-esteem? I really don't understand that. Perhaps this doesn't apply to me. Yes, I have low moments and recognize them. If I need help getting out of my funk, I have mentors, friends, AA, to bounce things off. By the way, on the AA thing, my older sister Sheila had to go to AA so when I was younger, I went
with her for something to do...I still go on occasion... last weekend I went to
an AA meeting. Trust? I trust my true friends, support group people I choose to love above anyone else. Love? Intimacy I never learned. We Morrill’s never hugged, kissed or any of that until I was in 12th grade. We got therapy to teach us - this coming from a father with a bachelor’s degree in psychology.

Have you made contact with your tribal relatives?
I found them because when I was studying at BYU in 1984, I met Leanne Begay from Ganado, Arizona and she knew several people in my Kirk family. The following summer a friend and I went to Ganado to visit my mother’s uncle, John Kirk. He took the place of father when my grandfather abandoned them. I also met John’s wife Ruth Shirley Kirk. Both spoke only Navajo so my cousin Calvin Kirk interpreted....it was awkward for me since I only spoke English and French.

Did Dine relatives help you readjust?
I'm still reacquainting. Most relatives went to boarding schools off the rez; some lived in Wisconsin, Oklahoma, New York, Los Angeles, all over. I think culture
remains on the rez. Overall they haven't shared that with me. From another perspective, the government’s assimilation and boarding schools were successful in hurting culture. Back in 1985, I went back for a day, and they did kill a sheep; the women cooked and we men ate first. I assumed it was customary. I treated it like a formality.

Have you been to pow wows, socials and ceremonies?
Just pow wows put on by Brigham Young University’s Lamanite Generation.  According to the Book of Mormon, a Lamanite is a member of a dark-skinned
nation of Indigenous Americans that battled with the light-skinned Nephite nation. I really do not which tribes were representative of the Lamanite Generation at BYU.

Have you thought about taking back your name?
Well, actually I've kidded over the years, Kirk is easier than Morrill. After all
those “Moral jokes,” I'd rather be Captain Kirk.

Do you have a photo of your birthmother? What do you know about her?
I did once. There was only one photo and I lost it in a move. A box went missing
with my memories and that was in the box. I looked stunningly like her. I have
my father's crooked smile, if it was him in the picture. I had that picture
less than a year, back in 1985. I know statistical things about her, where she
went to boarding school, her social security number, birthdate and date of
death. I know where she died, and approximately where she is buried.

Is it possible your dad was also Navajo?
Anything is possible. I've heard he's San Felipe Pueblo and San Domingo Pueblo, too.

Relatives said you had a brother? What do you know about him?
His name: Christopher Kirk. He was younger, and he died. That's it. I never saw a picture, so I don’t know what he looked like. But strangely I have feelings for
him. It’s like something is missing. I’ve grieved for him. WHY? I haven't a
clue.

Have you thought about living on your rez?
No, not really. I might if I could design programs that would help my nation, such as writing and research, something useful. Oddly I could do everything I'm
doing now on my rez.

Do you have a relationship with your adoptive parents now?
Yes, it comes and goes. It's not the same as a biological connection. It takes work and maintenance over and above what Kaelyn and Shelly take for granted being their biological kids.  

What about contact with your siblings?
I talk, facebook, text everyone except my one sister Debbie.

Was it difficult to discuss adoption growing up?
We didn't discuss adoption at all. We were kept busy at all times. We just never
brought it up; it was never talked about.

At what age did you realize what adoption really meant?
I understood some Indians at church were foster children and went home to their
parents. I stayed with Stan and Gwena. At 10-11 years old, I truly understood.

Did you hear derogatory terms about Indians from your parents or other people?
Not from my parents. From others, yes. We grew up in all white neighborhoods, went to all white schools. I just dealt with it. I had good friends who took care of
me. I found this out at my ten year high school class reunion.

Have relatives taught you language and are you going to learn more?
No they haven't. Many of the Kirks speak English. I've been learning some words on YouTube... some white friends are now greeting me with Ya at ahee, which makes us all laugh.

Were you closer to any siblings more than others?
Yes. We have two sides to our family, the American side and the Canadian side. The seven Canadians are all from one family. They all have their own way of
communicating. The Americans: Kaelyn, Shelly (the Morrill natural kids), Ginny,
me and Shaun all hang out together more. Shaun and I run My New Blinds business together. We are the tricksters, the jokers and tend to keep the family lively. He just broke into mom’s Facebook account and sent out some hilarious
commentary. Ginny and I are like twins. We read each other and know what the
other thinks. We were adopted together on July 15, 1971. I am the "peacemaker" in our family. I can speak to anyone, and I do. I can be the most candid and talk about what most would prefer not to, with ease. I bring out why certain people in our family don't talk to others.  

Was there any abuse in your family?
With the Morrill’s, it was just old fashioned punishment with a belt or a switch; with them there was no sparing the rod. But we're all alive and we've all dealt with what we considered abusive. With the Kirks, I was malnourished and weighed (at most) 30 pounds when I became a foster child. Those severe burns, I have the skin grafts to prove it; I had two broken arms. My right eye still gets tired easily ... something that was wrong before my adoption. There was no sexual abuse, but we did run away... constantly.

Where are your a-parents?
They live in Draper, Utah.

Did your siblings have any success finding their tribal relatives?
Yes, all of them. I am the last one. My search was the hardest because I was an
orphan and undocumented.

You had your wallet and identification stolen. What happened when you
went to replace it?
The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) said I needed a state-issued birth certificate because of the new Real ID Act of 200, it’s a post-9-11 act. I still had my old Utah driver’s license so in May 2010, I went to the Utah DMV and received a temporary driver’s license using my adoption papers, social security card, and my Mormon baptismal record. For any new driver’s license, you’ll need an original birth certificate. I don’t have that. Not many adoptees do. I found out states will only issue a temporary driver’s license or temporary identification card which is what I have now. The temporary is good for a period of one year.
Hopefully my Facebook page, Change for Native Americans Affected by THE REAL ID ACT of 2005, will help. In early 2010, I e-mailed Representative F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) to explain how “H.R. 419 The Real ID ACT of 2005” is affecting me and how it could affect other Native adoptees. When we apply for an id or driver’s license, we will no longer qualify. So far, Rep. Sensenbrenner’s office has not replied. Once a temporary license expires, Native American adoptees, me included, become undocumented, thus illegal with no papers.
After 22 years, I now have a copy of the State of Arizona “Certificate of No Birth,” issued on December 21, 2010, after I did continuous research beginning September 07, 1989. With the help of close friends, family, people willing to help, using my own financing and tens of thousands of dollars later, I now have my State of Arizona “Certificate of No Birth” and a second six-month temporary driver’s license expiring July 13, 2011. Then my United States of America citizenship expires.

UPDATE: Leland met recently with Chai Feldblum, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner, to discuss the Real ID Act of 2005. He explained, “We discussed how it affects Native Americans who are adopted out of their respective tribes without a birth certificate, Census number, or Certificate of Indian Blood. When the Final Decree of Adoption does not state our biological parent name(s), birth date, birth place, or census number, it’s separating the adoptee from their birthright and now it affects our employment, creating a sub-class of unemployable "former" US Citizens who now are forced to find their
way back to their respective tribal heritage. With 22+ years of advocating for
adoptees, I am now in process of writing an Amendment to The Real ID Act of
2005 with Ms. Feldblum.  She will present it and talk to the author of The Real ID Act, Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin).”

FMI: REAL ID ACT link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr418rfs/pdf/BILLS-109hr418rfs.pdf

Trace A. DeMeyer, author of One Small Sacrifice: Lost Children of the Indian Projects, is an adoptee who does not have her original birth certificate from the state of Minnesota where she was born but an amended (fake) birth certificate listing her adopted parents as her natural parents in Wisconsin. Trace lives in Massachusetts and will be publishing Split Feathers: Two Worlds in June 2011 with her co-author Patricia Busbee, a Cherokee adoptee.
Lee Morrill’s story will be in the new book.

Leland Morrill (Navajo) met recently with Chai Feldblum, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commissioner (at left), to discuss the Real ID Act of 2005 and how it affects Native Americans who are adopted without an original birth certificate, census number, or certificate of Indian blood. Lack of documentation now affects employment, Morrill said, creating a sub-class of "former" US Citizens who are unable to get work without a state issued driver’s license. Morrill, who is an adoptee, and Feldblum are writing an amendment and will present it to Real ID Act of 2005 author, Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin).”