I have no real time to write about it all at the moment, so instead, I’m going to pull a variety of quotes out of some of the articles from the past day or so to lay out the outlines of what has just taken place.

The ruling comes in a case brought by Arun Dohle of Against Child Trafficking or ACT (which has long been listed in my links list.  They have been doing critically important human rights work for both adopted people and their families.)

Please note that while the news reports are dismissive of Dohle’s “lineage plea,” what the court actually ruled was that he would still be able to file a suit for seeking relief.

Certainly not a full victory by any means, ( at least not yet,)  but when it comes to establishing the absolute right of Indian adoptees to their documentation, the high court finally gave over full access, rebuffing arguments by the agency/NGO claiming adoptees have no right to such or that their files should be covered by “confidentiality”or “mother’s privacy.”

The judges flatly dismissed such arguments, ruling:

• it is not a national secret that will cause a `maha yudh’, adding that “nothing is private here”
• “Show it to him. He is entitled to it”
• “No national secret is involved in it and the days of privileged documents are over.”

and then handing over the adoption file to him.

So on to the articles themselves.

Quoting from ‘I won’t be satisfied till I find my birth mother’:

An adopted Indian’s 17-year search for his biological parents has resulted in a landmark judgment which will fundamentally change adoption rules of the country.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Arun Dohle, 37, to access his adoption records, which was illegal until now.

Dohle was two months old when a German couple, Michael and Gertrude Dohle, adopted him in 1973 from Kusumbai Motichand Mahila Seva Gram (KMMSG), an adoption centre in Pune. Dohle has been seeking adoption records from the centre since 1993.

“The court’s decision is a landmark one as it establishes that adopted children have a right to know about their biological parents after attaining maturity,” Dohle told DNA.

This  Times of India article, ‘I am not interested in my biological father’ contains many more details:

His habeas corpus plea to have his biological mother produced in court was dismissed by the apex court. But 17 years of legal struggle after he first made the innocuous request to Mahila Seva Gram to be shown his adoption file, his wish was finally granted by the Supreme Court on Monday. He now knows that his mother was a 20-year-old Hindu Maratha, a Std X graduate who resided at the agency during her pregnancy after her “friend’s brother” refused to marry her.

The adoption file was slim, just a few handwritten pages, which the bench headed by Justice Markandey Katju handed over to Dohle’s counsel and him in court to read without hurrying them up. According to the judges, it is not a national secret that will cause a `maha yudh’, adding that “nothing is private here” when the agency tried to prevent showing of the file citing “mother’s privacy”.

Dohle is married and runs an NGO called Against Child Trafficking in Germany, which he says aims at “tackling a money-and-demand-driven market in adoption of children that should be labelled as child-trafficking.” His battle may bring hope to many other children given up for inter-country adoption, who once they grow up, wish to find out the identity of their biological parents.

“The “child record” that the adoption agency maintains may contain information about the biological parents if their identities are known,” said advocate Jamshed Mistry, one of the counsels for Dohle in SC. He added that Monday’s order will now ensure that adoption agencies will maintain authentic records as mandated by law in case of foreign adoption and by the landmark SC verdict of 1984, in the case of Laxmi Kant Pandey.

The particulars of Dohle’s case also raise important questions.

The case, took a controversial turn, when he said that former Maharashtra chief Minister Sharad Pawar’s brother might be linked to his birth. The police report, however, categorically denied any links to the Pawar family. But as Dohle pointed out, Pratap Pawar in October 1973, while recommending the Dohles as adoptive parents had written: I am a member of Association of Friends of Germany and Mr & Mrs Dohle are friends…They stayed with us and selected Arun Swanand as their adopted son.”

From Can’t find your mum through writ, says Supreme Court (Emphasis added by me):

Shooting down the objections raised by advocate Neela Gokhle representing the Kusumbai Motichand Mahila Seva Gram (KMMSG) where Dohle was reportedly “abandoned” by his biological mother, the court said, “No national secret is involved in it and the days of privileged documents are over.”

Advocate Jamshed Mistry who was part of the legal team representing Dohle said: “The court’s direction reaffirms the Supreme Court guidelines as stated in 1984 and also the Hague convention to which India is a signatory.”

However, while dismissing Dohle’s appeal, justices Markandey Katju and TS Thakur said he could file a suit for seeking relief.

Dohle was two months old when a German couple, Michael and Gertrude Dohle, adopted him in 1973. He contested that he was abandoned by his mother and was given in adoption without her consent. He alleged that his adoptive parents were helped by union minister and NCP leader Sharad Pawar’s brother Pratap Pawar.

from SC comes to aid of ‘adopted’ man:

The SC order, granting him access in open court to study the original file, translates into good news for all adopted children who want to access information on their origins, said his lawyers. Dohle’s case is particularly controversial as he claims to be the biological son of the elder brother of union agriculture minister Sharad Pawar, Appasaheb. He had produced a DNA report of a German agency, with a sample of hair along with the root from Pawar’s nephew, to indicate that there was 96% likelihood of them “being related.”

Dohle-a slim, bespectacled and soft-spoken man who lives and works in Germany- said he wanted to know if his biological mother was well taken care of and he planned to help her if she was not.

In court, on Monday, when Dohle’s case came up for hearing again with senior counsel Shekhar Naphade arguing that the German couple was helped and “recommended by Pawar’s brother for the adoption,” the bench headed by Justice Markandeya Katju asked the agency why it was unwilling to show the files to Dohle. The judge asked for the files and then handed them to Dohle’s lawyers.

Activist Anjali Kate, who was helping Dohle in the matter along with Mumbai-based lawyer Pradeep Havnur, said the file contained details of the mother, which would now have to be verified.

from SC dismisses German national’s Pawar lineage plea:

The apex court, however, permitted Arun to peruse in the court the records of the NGO Kusumbai Motichand Mahila Seva Gram (KMMSG) to trace out the address given by his biological mother at the time of relinquishing him for adoption by a German couple in 1973.

It rejected the argument of the NGO that Dohle could not peruse the documents as it was a confidential matter.

“Show it to him. He is entitled to it,” the bench said.

Earlier, the Maharashtra government had informed the court that there was no truth in the claim of the man that he was related to the family of Sharad Pawar through one of his brothers and submitted a police report in this regard.

According to Arun, he was born on July 31, 1973, at Sassoon Hospital in Pune. A German couple, Michael and Gertrude Dohle, had adopted him four weeks later from the NGO after his mother reportedly abandoned him. He claimed to be the son of the brother of the Union Minister.

He settled in Germany but later came back to India to locate his biological mother.

The German national said he suspected the institution had kidnapped him as a baby and separated him from his mother.

He submitted that he also suspected that the abandonment theory was a ploy to facilitate his adoption.

Arun, through counsel Senthil Jagadeesan, alleged in the apex court that for the past eight years, he has been rebuffed by the NGO which was refusing to reveal her identity.

The Mumbai police too refused to help him in tracing his biological mother, he alleged.

The Bombay High Court had in 2005 dismissed his plea, following which he appealed in the apex court.

In 2005, the apex court had asked the Maharashtra Director General of Police to place in a sealed cover a report on Arun’s biological connection.

While I thrilled beyond words for all Indian adoptees, tonight, my thoughts are still with Arun Dohle whose real life, and real family lies at the core of this partial victory.

“Justice delayed is justice denied.”

***

Read ‘em and weep. Then work to kill AB 372.

Bastardette-

CARE’S BRIDGE TO NOWHERE: NEW AB 372 AMENDMENTS RELEASED–DROPS ADOPTEES IN THE RIVER

BASTARDETTE POLL: WILL CARE PULL AB 372?

B.B. Church-

Bad, Worse, Worst: AB 372 limps into Judiciary…

In which he lays out one of the ways in which AB 372 takes the already bad lack of access system and actively makes it worse-

Under the current laws, if you want your birth records, you petition the courts. The court order up your records, take a look, and either releases your records or not. If there is a disclosure veto filed, then chances are slim to nil that you’ll get them. But if there is no disclosure veto the judge has the discretion to release the records.

Under the proposed changes the adoptee fills out an application with the State Registrar. The Department of Health sends out a letter into the aether to a twenty-five year old address. If they don’t get a reply, or if the letter is undeliverable, they have no discretion, they reject the application.

Reading the memo, it’s clear there are MANY more issues with the proposed amendments.

There’s a hell of a lot more to say about this bill, mired in the carefully fabricated lies of both access being predicated upon  ‘medical necessity’ and the ‘balancing interests’ poppycock (in reality, records access is a matter between adopted people and the State,) both of which have been discredited long ago by those authentically working for Bastard Rights (see Bastard Nation’s the Basic Bastard as but one of many such examples.)

For now, though, there’s work to be done.

***

Disney’s “Stitch.”

Instantly recognizable as a “fellow traveler” to Bastard moviegoers and adopted “abominations” everywhere.

Not only does he hail from the one and only Disney movie to prominently feature a social worker, alongside the perennial Disney themes of:

• being orphaned, and of impending potential family disruption,
• the importance of family preservation, (even when families are self- found, “little, and broken” they are nonetheless worthy of being deemed “still good.”)
• how even those deprived of their history can come to create their own intentional forms of family, and be reunited with their Ohana of origin
• and how eventually, in movies anyway, the lead always comes to rediscover their previously obscured roots, (Bastards make the best plot twists!)

but Stitch, Lilo, and Nani also have a very great deal to say about notions of leaving people behind:

“Ohana means family, family means nobody gets left behind. Or forgotten.”

Widsom so simple, children have no trouble comprehending it.

Unfortunately, out here in the non-animated world, it’s a lesson all too many adults have yet to wrap their heads around.

***

Marley/Bastardette has written what I consider one of the most important posts on the Bastard condition I’ve seen in a long time.

In light of how some in the adoption blogosphere have gotten their knickers in a collective twist over both the California disaster and the NCFA piece (which simply is not news, except in that Bill Pierce is no doubt rolling over in his grave in light of how much psuedo-”openness” the new NCFA has come to embrace,) Marley brings up what is completely obvious to Bastards, that “reformers” and industry voices such as NCFA have far more in common with one another than either do with any genuine effort which has actually opened records and improved the lives for adopted people.

CARE, the Evan B. Donaldson Institute, and NCFA all have more in common with one another than any of them have to do with us.

Each of these, despite any “openness” language they may come to employ (usually grounded firmly in a cynical pragmatism and industry survival instinct), are ultimately willing to trade away access for some. An often undetermined number or percentage are written off as expendable, or “not politically expedient.”

Bastards on the other hand, leave no one behind.

Speaking as one of those left behind in an earlier Ohio deform effort, and as a black holed Bastard, let me add my voice to Marley’s, genuine Bastard-centric efforts leave no one behind.

No number or percentage should be left back or “forgotten.” Living daily, as one myself, allow me to tell you from firsthand experience, it’s inexcusable.

We will never trade away the person standing next to us. Any notion of “we’ll come back and open those up later” is failure. (Even the briefest study of political history will teach that lesson quickly enough.) We understand, either we all go together or we don’t go at all.

None of the adoption deformers speak for us.

In any case, go, read, and learn:

SWAPMEETIN’: NCFA, REFORMISTS, AND BASTARDS

Marley’s piece from where I sit is a mandatory Bastard backgrounder and has everything to say about where we find ourselves today.

(And ’cause I’m a space geek, enjoy a Black hole picture post.)

In C.A.R.E.’s case, apparently the Brooklyn Bridge, as they for a time, could not be bothered to even find a picture of a California landmark bridge, instead they pitched their California effort with a picture of the famous bridge from New York!

But hey, good news, they’ve finally updated their page with a spankin’ new picture of the Golden Gate Bridge. (Welcome to California, C.A.R.E.)

Suffice it to say, reading through the C.A.R.E. materials and the public face of the effort to date, I am monumentally unimpressed.

Both Ron and Marley have been carefully deconstructing the materials as well.

For the moment, rather than reinventing the wheel, I urge my readers to carefully go through their takes on this latest CA non-grassroots (by their own admission) effort.

There’s plenty of writing that certainly could be done, tackling any given piece of it, such as the nonsensical notion of a “triad” in relation to such. Allow me to quote Ron here for but a moment (this is from his post If You’re a California Adoptee, C.A.R.E. Has Plans For YOU!)

Next is the Join page. After your name you may enter your “triad” position; “Adoptee”, “Birth Parent”, “Adoptive Parent”, “Birth Sibling”, “Support Person/Spouse”, and then six categories of adoption professionals. Six. If you wanted to see a graphic of why the “triad” is a trick on the natives, just let your gaze linger on that for a while… But then go to the meat, the “ask” as we like to say in polite politesse. To become a member you’ve got to pony up 85 clams. 40 if you’re a senior. Considering the times and the following-trend that are our unemployment figures they might want to consider a donor category for hobos… Agencies and the like are expected to give 200… This isn’t an “ask” designed to generate a lot a support, only the serious donors will feel welcome. Well, not that serious, if they were serious they’d have a category for $10K and over… I suppose at this point it’s fair to inquire if C.A.R.E cares about the support of California’s adoptees… They don’t have a portal for information gathering other than the Join page, for those uncounted unwashed masses who have time or energy to donate in-kind, so what C.A.R.E. really wants is cash.

I’ve certainly written and taught about how there is no triad, there is an adoption pentagon, or what Ron likewise has termed a “Five-legged Stool” but few things make the reality of such clearer than looking over an effort such as C.A.R.E..

Events in CA have gotten bad enough to pull BB Church/Ron back from his retirement into some bastard blogging, (damn good thing, too, his analysis is well worth the read!)

From BB Church’s FunHouse-

If You’re a California Adoptee, C.A.R.E. Has Plans For YOU! ( Friday, February 06, 2009)

The plot thickens: CARE’s email to its supporters… (Monday, February 09, 2009)

Does CARE care? Nope… (Monday, February 09, 2009)

Marley/Bastardette is also right on it having written a two-part post. See her analysis on the Daily Bastardette-

WE’VE SCREWED UP YOUR STATE, NOW WE’RE COMING TO SCREW UP YOURS: CALIFORNIA ADOPTION REFORM EFFORT– THE LETTER

WE’VE SCREWED UP YOUR STATE, NOW WE’RE COMING TO SCREW UP YOURS: CALIFORNIA ADOPTION REFORM EFFORT–COMMENTS

Undoubtedly we’ll be hearing more about this mess in the months to come.

Let’s just say there are plenty of darn good reasons the California Adoption Reform Effort (CARE) is NOT being linked in my right hand sidebar under the “Work for adoptee rights- State by State” heading, BUT California Open is.

Gee maybe it has something to do with the “No Compromise” sign on California Open’s myspace page… ya think?

Or perhaps the California Open promise-

OUR PROMISE TO YOU

WE LEAVE NO ONE BEHIND!

NO SELL-OUT!

NO RESTRICTION!

NO COMPROMISE!

Well, ok, all that and the California Open myspace page has such a nice picture of the Golden Gate Bridge.

LD 1084, An Act To Provide Adult Adoptees Access to Their Original Birth Certificates

In 1953 Maine took away adopted adults’ access to their own state held records, locking them away and forcing Adoptees to gain a court order before being granted access to their own information.

Now after 56 long years, the most basic human right, that to one’s own authentic identity, has at long last been restored.

Those 56 years represent an ugly chapter in the state’s history, a time when adopted people had their original identities confiscated by the state and withheld from them.

Some of those adopted as children lived and died in the space of those decades never knowing the truth about themselves. They were never granted the State’s permission to access the most fundamental aspects of their own lives, their authentic origins, the paperwork listing their original birthdate, in some cases, perhaps even the original names they were given.

Today, Maine has taken an important step forward, restoring access to these state impounded documents. Upon age 18, adopted people will once again have access to their own most personal information, putting an end to an era of secrets and lies and what had amounted to state held secret dossiers on those who had been adopted.

Original Birth Certificates for Maine, or OBC for ME has further information, including the link to the official state application form and the details of what will also be required when submitting a records request.

They have a lot to be proud of today. Tomorrow January 2, a set of opening day activities are planned.

Maine now joins the proud ranks of the five other states that have either never taken away or have since restored access to their adult adoptees since 2000 (Oregon having been the first to restore access.)

Bastard Nation’s map of full access states; Alaska and Kansas never sealed their records, Oregon, Alabama, New Hampshire and now Maine have restored after an intervening period of having our most basic identity rights stripped away from us:

These are the few states that treat adult adoptees who were born there as equal citizens.

That said, even in some states that have reopened, the State is still clearly uncomfortable with with the notion of adult adoptees as being able to conduct their own affairs free of the government cast as a third party to our interpersonal relationships.

Apparently we are not to be trusted to act as other citizens, assumed to simply be able to associate freely and control our own intimate associations free from the state maintaining files pertaining to our relationships.

Sadly, Maine, like Oregon, Alabama, and New Hampshire has added a (fortunately toothless) “contract preference form,” by which the state is to collect parents “contact preferences” and then hold such paperwork to pass along to adult adoptees upon their submitted records request.

We as adopted citizens must be free to conduct our most intimate interpersonal affairs, deciding whether or not to contact our own blood relations free from government’s insistence upon information collection “on our behalf” or “for the protection of those involved” and essentially the government insisting upon being a party to our interpersonal relationships process.

It’s simply none of the State’s business.

Today at least, such “preference” forms have no enforcement power behind them, but they set a terrible precedent, AND maintain the role of the state in how we conduct our intimate associations, insisting our private lives and associations or lack thereof ARE quite literally, the business of the State.

No other class of citizen has to endure such indignities.

If you are not an adoptee, the state does not keep track of whether or not your parents or other blood relations want to see you or not. Only adoptees are subjected to such State intrusiveness.

It’s insulting, and maintains the State’s ability to portray adopted individuals as a form of ‘forever children,’ constantly in need of the watchful eye of the State, allegedly forever unable to achieve full self determination.

All of which has it’s basis in the (adoption industry propagated) mythologies that many if not all adopted people could become stalkers or harrassers at the drop of a hat, that parents must be protected from them, and that most parents would not welcome the presence of their long lost children in their lives.

None of which are true.

The facts remain, not only are most adopted people NOT stalkers or harassers, but many parents actively wish to be found. Indeed, many were promised by agencies that when their children turned 18 they would have their paperwork released to them and that their children would come find them.

In those exceptional, rare circumstances in which individuals are unable to respect a “no” or “not interested,” the violators should be treated as any other adult would be. Restraining orders and such can be issued based upon a demonstrated pattern of misbehavior.

Any attempt to instead place any form of pre-emptive restraint upon adoptees as a class, interferes with our constitutional right to free association.

Fortunately Maine does not include an actual form of pre-emptive restraint, for now at least, but it sets up the systems by which such could become possible at a later date.

The Maine law does however, continue in the fine tradition of infantalizing adopted adults, even as the concrete effect of such is to finally restore adult adoptee rights.

Sadly, it is even less kind to our parents.

Along with the contact preference form, the state has coupled the act of affirming that they wish to restore contact (or even that they do not prefer contact, at least that was their feeling at the time the form was filled out) with their adopted children with the parents’ own medical histories, something that adopted adults have no legal right to.

While adopted people may contact our blood relations and REQUEST their familial medical history, there is no legal requirement that our parents divulge their own personal medical information. They may do so at their own choosing, but they cannot be required to do so.

The contact preference clause is spelled out thusly in the law:

3. Contact preference form. The state registrar shall develop a contact preference form on which a birth parent may state a preference regarding contact by an adoptee. The form must contain the following statements from which the birth parent may choose only one.

A. “I would like to be contacted. I have completed this contact preference form and a medical history form and am filing them with the State Registrar of Vital Statistics.”

B. “I would prefer to be contacted only through an intermediary. I have completed this contact preference form and a medical history form and am filing them with the State Registrar of Vital Statistics.”

C. “Do not contact me. I may change this preference by filling out another contact preference form. I have completed this contact preference form and a medical history form and am filing them with the State Registrar of Vital Statistics.”

While contact preference forms and medical histories are not required as a precondition to records release to the adult adoptee, for a parent to affirm that they wish contact, the state has essentially coupled a medical history form to the contact preference form unnecessarily.

Created in the name of protecting alleged “privacy”/confidentiality, this new set of state held files actually is quite the opposite, and becomes yet another layer of the State injecting itself into our interpersonal affairs.

Personal medical information is best shared between the individuals directly affected, not between our parents and the state, who will then file and hold such, releasing it to adult adoptees if they submit a records request.

The State needs to stop treating adopted adults differently.

What we want is equitable treatment, to be treated just like anyone else, no preference forms held by the State, none of this unnecessary nonsense. We want the ability to conduct our own interpersonal affairs without the State injecting itself as a third party into our relationships, collecting and holding information pertaining to our families.

The entire section of the law quoted above creates another NEW layer of state held files pertaining to our lives, our relations, and our interpersonal relationships. More bureaucracy and meddling that “normal” (i.e. non-adopted) citizens do not have to endure.

Just because such “preferences” are not enforced today does not necessarily mean they will not be at some future date.

States need to simply restore what they took from us, records access. Period. Not utilize such legislation as an excuse to go build NEW sets of files pertaining to adopted people and their families.

Legally speaking the personal “preferences” of our parents do not factor in. Records access restoration is a matter between adoptees and the state, and also between parents and the state.

By putting parents preferences in files for adult adoptees, the state is falsely pitting the desires of parents AGAINST their own children. This is built on the false notion of adoption as a “triad,” (parents, adoptees, and adopters.)

The reality is our records are not sealed upon relinquishment.

And despite all claims of “privacy, often raised by industry or those with what certainly appear to be dirty hands, such as the Illinois Catholic Conference (who have admitted in Illinois, that opening records would likely produce lawsuits against them, and that information contained in original birth certificates could be false) never once has a single document actually promising “privacy” to parents ever surfaced. Even if such ever should, there was no force of law behind such supposed promises. Further, parents were often promised the precise opposite as part of the process of getting them to sign away their kids, they were assured that such wasn’t forever, the kid would come find them when they turned 18.

Records access is not a matter between adoptees and their parents. Parents do not hold the power restore records access to their children.

Records are sealed upon our adoptions.

Records restoration is a matter between adoptees and the State. Similarly, parents are also battling the state to gain records access as well. The State confiscated the records, and the only place that we can turn for restoration is the State.

There is no “adoption triad.”

Adoption is built instead, upon an adoption pentagon:

1. parents
2. adoptees
3. agencies/lawyers/intermediaries/lobbyists/industry/etc
4. the State
5. adopters

It should be noted, some parties to adoption have more power and control than others.

While it serves the State’s interests to have adoptees and parents at one another’s throats in some false game of “conflicting interests” the bottom line is, our genuine interests are not at odds.

The “preferences” of those who were not parties to our records being closed cannot be used by the state as something to hide behind in the process of re-opening them (or not.) Our parents were legally out of the picture at the point in time when our records were closed.

It’s past time the State begins to trust adult adoptees to conduct our own lives. No more state held files, no intermediaries (unless directly personally chosen by the individuals involved, preferably non-commercial/non-contracted) etc.

We’re grown ups, it’s time for the State to start treating us as such.

In the end, it’s a damn good day for Maine adoptees.

The real bottom line here is that people who have waited their entire lives for the most personal and basic of information about themselves have finally had their civil and human right to access their own information restored to them.

It’s just a shame that states insist upon insulting adoptees and their families in the process and building yet new bureaucracies upon false notions that we still are unable to conduct our own lives without the State butting in.

Finally be sure to see both Marley’s piece on Bastardette- MAINE: RECORDS OPENED, GRINCH CRINGES! and Robin’s piece on Motherhood Deleted- New Year, Same Old Myths both about Maine.

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

The Adoptee Rights Demonstration had a “group” of Abrazo related personnel at it according to Gershom. She has written about how they shared a meal together after the demonstration at the convention center. In her post The Protest part 2, Gerhsom stated the following:

I was at the other table with some other protesters including a group from Abrazo Adoption Agency who came to support our cause. Interesting that an adoption agency was there, and the nations so called leading adoptee rights organization….wasn’t?

Well hint!

ONE of the very reason Bastard Nation wasn’t there was sitting right at your own table.

(Yes, obviously, there were simultaneous pre-existing organizing related issues as the Bastard Nation withdrawal statement pointed out:

We have concluded that this is not the time or place for Bastard Nation to take part in a Day for Adoptee Rights. The cost of the event this year spiraled and did not balance with the number of participants coming forward to show our strength to the politicians who hold the keys to the records cabinets.

notably the number of likely attendees when held against the DAR original concept of “mass movement”.)

But ONE of the reasons, BN, wasn’t in New Orleans?

Abrazo Adoption Associates, out of San Antonio, TX was the agency that fundraised off our event (yes, “our” because at the time, Bastard Nation, of which I am a lifetime member, nothing more, and I were also part of the event.)

As always I cannot speak for Bastard Nation, being nothing more than a lifetime member myself, (anymore than I can speak on behalf of other national organizations I’m a part of) but I can point at reasons in both the single statement Bastard Nation has released since withdrawing, and quote some of the personal thinking explained via a personal blog.

To again quote the BN statement:

Moreover, we are concerned with participation of Abrazo Adoption Agency in San Antonio, Texas. Unknown to DAR and BN until just a few days ago, Abrazo has been raising funds for the event in DAR’s name.

and

These funds went and continue to go directly to the agency, raising huge ethical issues for Bastard Nation and the equal access movement. Records and identity access is about our rights and has no connection with the marketing schemes of adoption agencies. BN has a long-standing, hard-line policy of accepting no support from the adoption industry. Bastard Nation specifically, and the adoptee rights movement in general, cannot and should not be co-opted or used by the adoption industry to promote its own agenda. We disavow all industry involvement in our work. Any entanglement with the adoption industry endangers the integrity and credibility of the adoptee rights movement.

Read this comment thread from June 2, ‘08 on Marley’s (the Executive Chair of Bastard Nation) personal blog, The Daily Bastardette, concerning the BN statement. Keep in mind that her personal comments there must be taken in light of her blog’s disclaimer:

The Daily Bastardette is an independent blog and not connected to any organization.

The discussion between Abrazo’s Executive Director, Elizabeth Jurnovich, b.b.Church/Ron and Marley is quite revealing. Marley makes it clear:

There were two issues: (1) fiscal responsibility/committed attendance. (2) Abrazo piggybacked on it–I think that would be the way to say it. The lead organizer of the event called for a suspension of DAR this year so it could be done right next year. We concurred. A few people disagreed, and went their own way. Some of them are genuinely dedicated to DAR coming off. Others, who had nothing to do with the planning or decision making prefer to spread rumors and gossip and blame Bastard Nation for God knows what, for doing what any responsible organization does–protect its members interests and investments.

Later in the thread Marley addresses Ms. Jurnovich directly about the Abrazo fundraising:

First you solicit funds in DAR’s name without their knowledge and consent. Then you continue to do so knowing the problems this has caused DAR, BN, and the adoptee rights movement in general. You continue to raise funds against DAR’s wishes.

and

To say that DAR or BN doesn’t want to work with natural parents, adoptive aparents, etc. is simply not true. We have plenty of both in our membership. But, we are not interested in helping adoption agencies position themselves and market their products and services in OUR movement. And that, is what your fundraising looks like to a helluva lot of people right now. Do you think for one minute that most activists would be interested in supporting an event which the adoption industry has funded? You wonder why adoptees don’t like the adoption industry This is a perfect example.A Day for Adoptee Rights, whether BN participates in it or not, is about adopted persons, not the industry.

According to a comment Ms. Jurnovich, (the executive director of Abrazo), attempted to post to my partner, Sleeps with Bastard’s moderated blog on June 6th (which he has not approved) the Abrazo fundraising in relation to the ARD event began in February ‘08, not May 9th, as the Facebook fundraising history page had led me to originally believe.

Which means that between February and May 29th Abrazo was fundraising off our event and we had no knowledge of it whatsoever. When we did discover it, by way of Amy, I explored the Abrazo webpage, I could find no link from off the Abrazo webpage into their facebook fundraising.

On May 30th Ron spoke with Ms. Jurnovich on the phone. According to Ron’s report back to the DAR organizers, she refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with Abrazo utilizing our name in their fundraising without our knowledge or consent.

In fact, even after we found out about the fundraising, and had by then contacted Ms. Jurnovich about it, they continued their fundraising into their own agency 501c3 until approximately June 4th, 08.

That means approximately 4 months worth of fundraising, never once so much as mentioning it to Adoptee Rights Demonstration organizers. Then close to a week of continuing on even after being spoken with.

It doesn’t matter whether money came in by the bucketload or drips and drabs, the bottom line is Abrazo was doing it without ARD organizers knowledge or consent.

Nor does it matter whether the nuDAR orgnaizers, those left after others withdrew, consented. The monies as originally collected, were collected under shall we say, ‘highly questionable circumstances’ at best.

According to this 12:17am comment by Elizabeth Jurnovich, made to this blog post written by Amy, she claims the contributions were returned to the individuals, but the agency encouraged them to resend the contributions directly into the ARD as individual contributions made by Abrazo related individuals rather than as a single agency contribution.

Please be assured that every dime raised was returned to each donor, with a full explanation of why Abrazo was unable to forward it to Protest organizers as intended.

Abrazo did encourage all donors to subsequently mail contributions directly to the adoptee rights protest (or other groups), but we have no way of knowing whether any did so, given the ill will aroused by Bastard Nation’s attack.

Ms. Jurnovich, (as well as the usual cast of DAR related individuals) also tries to tar Bastard Nation for having integrity and pulling out of the event, in light of Abrazo’s fundraising falsely equating such to an ‘attack’.

So come the actual event, the Adoptee Rights Demonstration in New Orleans, there was Gershom, dining with Abrazo and the group they brought to participate in the ARD.

More than half of the ARD organizers had left in part over the issue of Abrazo’s fundraising off our event/use of our event without ever informing us, much less asking event organizers’ permission to utilize our event in this way. During my time as an ARD organizer Abrazo was certainly not acting as an authorized fiscal agent.

The Abrazo fundraising was one of several reasons, clearly the lack of “mass movement” participation being a critically important SIMULTANEOUS factor.

Ron/b.b.Church, on this Bastardette comment thread, addressing Ms. Jurnovich, made his reasons clear, he has been willing to work with industry in the past,

But I won’t work with people that sandbag me. And that’s what you did.

He elaborated further in his June 5th statement:

In a series of remarkable posts one of the volunteer organizers revealed that Abrazos, a Texas adoption agency, had been fundraising under DAR’s name and had raised over 800 dollars for the event. This volunteer organizer stated she did not know whether this money was intended for DAR or if it was being raised to fund attendance by Abrazos staff and supporters to the event. This information was like a hand grenade thrown into the mix.

The volunteer organizer in question was of course Amy, who had revealed on May 29th to other organizers Abrazo was raising the money on a facebook page AFTER Ron’s call for suspension. (The two events, the call for suspension and Amy’s revelation of the Abrazo fundraising happened within 13 minutes of one another on the organizer’s list, no doubt most organizers reading such got the two one right after the other.)

The Bastard Nation June 1rst withdrawal statement also makes mention of the Abrazo fundraising as one of the simultaneous reasons they had chosen to withdraw:

Moreover, we are concerned with participation of Abrazo Adoption Agency in San Antonio, Texas. Unknown to DAR and BN until just a few days ago, Abrazo has been raising funds for the event in DAR’s name. http://apps.facebook.com/causes/85456?recruiter_id=15092383

Note that the Abrazo facebook page linked above “open adoption rocks” has changed considerably from the time of DAR organizers realization of it’s existence through Abrazo closing it down, on through to today. For historical purposes, you can see at least the statement they appear to have posted June 4th when the fundraising on facebook appears to have finally ended here in my post ARD- Abrazo finally ends their “open adoption rocks” facebook fundraising. I have yet to go back and pull the wording on the site from the time period when ARD organizers were first discovering it.

My partner, Sleeps with Bastard was even more specific about his take on Abrazo’s actions in his May 31rst post, A very brief comment concerning adoption:

I am not here to promote adoption. I am not here to create events or other means that others coopt so they can continue strip mining pregnant women for product.

This is about getting information out of the state, without compromise. This is not about teaming up with the industry’s marketing efforts that are not about getting information out of the state, but about continuing and growing their business, and nothing else. They will compromise and bargain away unconditional access to OBC’s because they have no stake in those OBC’s, only their business of selling kids on their own terms independent of the state.

The contents of [an adoption agency’s] websites are about the terms by which they move product, not about how bastards everywhere are going to gain their OBC’s.

Be sure to see the full post for related links that detail precisely what he is talking about in the above.

And finally, there’s me, the other organizer who resigned, particularly in light of the Abrazo fundraising. I have had grave concerns about industry co-optation of any form of Bastard organizing to regain our state confiscated materials.

The landscape is such that with international adoption becoming an ever more ’sticky’ proposition what with so many abuses coming to light as of late and ’sending countries’ closing their doors on U.S. Prospective Adopters, many are instead turning to domestic adoption.

And not merely domestic, ‘open adoptions’ so often legally unenforceable, but great for the marketing.

Abrazo is one of the agencies that has focused upon finding a niche market for itself, selling ‘openness’, be that ‘open’ adoption or open records. So much the better if they can find self professed ‘activist’ adoptees, such as Amy to give their ringing endorsements. (see in particular my Amy related portions of this post, Adoptee Rights Demonstration / Day for Adoptee Rights some history and Gershom’s “storm” to see her personal endorsement of Abrazo, it too has since been removed from her blogsite.)

Similar to what my partner said, I am not here to work to create events that agencies such as Abrazo can utilize in their own marketing, specifically see pieces such as Abrazo’s Affinity volume XIV number 1 newsletter (pdf) front page. This is what industry co-optation of Bastard voice looks like in practice. This is ARD in use by Abrazo.

They do not define the meaning of Bastard rights, nor what our issues (political, legal or otherwise), nor feelings are. They are at a separate position in the adoption pentagon (Bastards, parents, adoptive parents, agencies/lawyers/intermediaries/lobbyists/industry, and finally the State.) Abrazo occupies the space of agencies/lawyers/intermediaries/lobbyists/industry. Their interests are not our interests.

They cannot speak for us.

I’ve been writing about my concerns with such since for some time now, see my tags, Adoptee Rights Demonstration, and Abrazo Adoption Associates.

And so when nuDAR organizers such as Gershom EMBRACE those who fundraised off us into their own agency 501c3 for months without our knowledge or consent, yes, just as you might reasonably expect, some of us were absolutely not in New Orleans, (with good reason).

Bastard Nation represents a non-industry co-opted Bastard created and Bastard run organization. One where Bastards speak with their own voice, not as photo-op ’set design’ for agency propaganda. (’Cause I think we can all guess what’s gonna run in upcoming Abrazo materials, pretty pictures of them “supporting” adoptees in New Orleans, never mind what they themselves stand to gain by such.)

One is about us working for ourselves, the other is about how adoptees can be used to further the marketing goals of the industry.

When it mattered, BN stood by their principles, that of “accepting no support from the adoption industry,” so much so that when Amy from within the DAR organizers list was advocating for Abrazo and sharing information with them, Bastard Nation executive committee members took the drastic step of unanimously voting Amy off BN’s Legislative Committee. You can find the full text of BN’s letter to Amy, which she first posted on her blog then took down, in my post here. Quoting the most pertinent part:

Bastard Nation has a long time policy of not accepting support from the adoption industry. Without saying, we do not advocate for the adoption industry or any adoption agency or professional within it. You have done both. As an private individual you have the perfect right to do so, but as a member of BN’s Legislative Committee your duty is to uphold BN principles, practices, and integrity.

Your relationship with Abrazo as documented in your own blog, “Regarding Bastard Nation’s Withdrawal” posted on June 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm and your actions on the original DAR Action List clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of and concern for Bastard Nation’s mission, activities, and ethics, as well as the security and integrity of the original DAR. We are astounded that you failed to grasp the ethics and motives of an adoption agency funding the DAR protest, much less their procedure of funneling funds sent to them into their own 501(3)(c) account. This funding was done without the knowledge DAR sponsors and leaders, and would never have been approved had they been informed of the scheme.

We take this step to insure the security of Bastard Nation correspondence and the upholding of our principles and rules.

Bastard Nation has had to make some difficult choices surrounding the ARD trainwreck, but in the end, they stood by their own core values as well as the long term interests of the far broader non-industry co-opted adoptee rights work.

It is vitally important that whether lobbying or doing educational work, the genuine adoptee-centric open records movement be disentangled from industry interests and finances. To do otherwise is not only a conflict of interest, it is to abdicate authentic Bastard voice and the ability to speak genuinely for those in our position of the adoption pentagon.

At the end of the day it’s really a question of whose narrative is it in; them participating in an adoptee narrative or adoptees reduced to props in their narrative? It’s a question of influence, societal privilege, control, political access, and power, and ultimately who has more, adoptees or industry?

Bastards must control their own narratives, else they become typecast actors who may as well be in from central casting, playing out roles predetermined for them, for the use and purposes of others. Not unlike the roles Bastards are so often photographically reduced to be that in online photolistings or in industry marketing materials.

I am not saying that Bastards must ‘go it alone’, we certainly have other potential allies; others who are also in their own distinct ways disempowered, de-voiced, and used. Manufactured iconography has been created of them, things have been done to them, and things are ‘done on behalf of them.’ Likewise, they too, often have little access to political power, or mediums in which their authentic voices and their own narratives can be autonomously controlled. I am speaking of course, of others both within and without adoptionland. Most of all though, Bastards stand with those fighting the abuses and abusers, the corruption and the corrupt within the industry that had such effect upon so many of our lives, (Bastard or otherwise.)

I am talking about addressing systemic structures, and understanding who in those relationships ultimately has power and who doesn’t. Those with the power are those who are in positions to actually utilize a given event, regardless of any other attempted narrative or intent.

It’s not a question of what happened, it’s a question of who is more in position to utilize such; adoptees, or industry? Are adoptees there for themselves, or just to be used yet again, by the likes of Abrazo, whom Gershom has clearly welcomed, even in the aftermath of their actions.

That’s the difference. And that’s a big piece of why I at least, was not in NOLA.

****************

Update July 29th

****************

This evening Abrazo Adoption Associates’ executive director Elizabeth Jurnovich attempted to comment on this post, I have moderated her comment, but will address the pertinent points. In her comment this evening she said:

The February fundraising reference regarded Abrazo’s contribution to the Protest’s newspaper ad, for which Ron sent us his thanks, ;a donation which was openly listed, along with Bastard Nation, for MONTHS before any of you took offense to the Facebook fundraising effort we later launched in May.

So let’s be clear, in this, she is now saying that the February reference which she had made in the attempted comment to Sleeps with Bastard’s blog (back on June 6th) was in relation to a specific contribution for the newspaper ad. (What Ron or did not in regard to contributions was unknown to me at least.)

If the Abrazo donation was listed, it would have been listed on the page only visible to donors. As I was not a donor directly to the event, I never had any way of seeing such. (I’ve already explained, I was unwilling to give money into Gershom’s personal account with no organizational oversight.) So I at least never saw such a listing. I was unaware of any agency money in the event at the time I was an organizer.

Finally Ms. Jurnovich says in this evening’s attempted comment that as I had noted earlier, from the facebook fundraising history page, it appears to have been created May 9th.

Then there is the explanation of the fundraising she offered in her attempted comment to Sleeps with Bastard’s blog which was also moderated. It was this eariler June 6th attempted comment from Ms. Jurnovich that I based the above post on. Allow me to again, quote the pertinent portions:

The Facebook Causes application required us to identify a 501c3 to which donations could be directed and the Adoptee Rights March was not an IRS-recognized non-profit (which was why our efforts to encourage our agency clientele to donate via links posted on our website since 2/08 had been largely unsuccessful.) Our agency had already made a donation to the March eariler in the year, as was clearly denoted on the donors’ grid shown on the March’s website,…

The “links” portion in the above was unclear as she was speaking of the facebook fundraising, was she by “links” referring to links (to the ARD website?) or links (to their facebook fundraising?). I believe it’s now clear what she probably intended was links to into the ARD website. The Facebook page would have created months later in May.

Perhaps Ms. Jurnovich could clarify, this then is one question:

Is she saying that 1.Abrazo had made the newspaper ad related donation, 2.AND that Abrazo had links off their website since February encouraging their “agency clientele to donate via links” to the Adoptee Rights Demonstration page, (which was not a nonprofit) and 3. and thus in May they stopped trying to get their members to go over to the ARD page to donate and instead set up their own Facebook fundrainsing page to collect donations into their own agency 501c3?

If so, the facebook fundraising, which apparently began May 9th, still utilized our event without our knowledge or consent.To the best of my knowledge, Abrazo never contacted Adoptee Rights Demonstration organizers to mention them having set up the Facebook fundraising without our permission until apparently Ms. Jurnovich first mentioned it to Amy, which Amy then passed along to the rest of us.

Between the two attempted comments Ms. Jurnovich’s own words, lead to a second question:

Is the February fundraising mention in relation to the newspaper ad as Ms. Jurnovich said tonight, or a reference to earlier supposed links off the Abrazo page as she said in the June 6th attempted comment to Sleeps with Bastard’s blog?

Again, the actual dates of when the Facebook fundraising began are still far less important than the fact that for whatever reason, without ARD organizer’s knowledge or consent at some point, (apparently May 9th) Abrazo set up their own form of fundraising into their own agency 501c3 off our event and it was done without ever once notifying, much less asking permission from Adopee Rights Demonstration organizers.

Even if Ron had been aware of agency money in the ARD, something others of us were not aware of, that hardly granted permission for Abrazo to set up their own fundraising off our event into their agency 501c3 .

joy Says:

July 26th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

good news, you don’t have to delete your account, you have been relieved of your membership.

to my earlier blog post from last night about me removing my own work from the adult adoptees forum, yet retaining my account there (in which I explained my reasoning for doing so thusly:)

In light of the recent trashing of Bastard Nation, Marley/Bastardette, and myself in the wake of the Adoptee Rights Demonstration

The “adult” adoptees thread in question, entitled “Comments to Baby Love Child’s blog that’ll never see the true light of day”, based around a comment Catherine Robishaw (obcforme.org) had attempted to post to my blog last night that I had not let through YET:

Catherine Robishaw | obcforme.org

Unfortunately for everyone, you’ll never post this comment.
Honestly, you have no idea what you are talking about. But you’re just like Marley, with your hands over your ears saying “Lalalalala I can’t hear you!”.

You guys are so on the outside looking in, and you don’t even know it.

You just look pitiful, posting these entries in your blog. You are your ilk are a dying breed. Thank God.

See ya next year in Philly! Oh then again, probably not! *snicker*

Jul 25, 7:39 PM — to Adoptee Rights Demonstration updates their page, now that it’s mostly over

has apparently been removed as well.

After all, the “adult adoptees” folks wouldn’t want Bastard Nation members to be able to register at adult adoptees and actually see the way they talk about us behind our back in their forum space, now would they?

But fear not, you can certainly find Joy’s and others’ trashings of Bastard Nation other publicly available places such as this thread she started on alt.adoption, HEY THANKS BN from the protest, as but one example. (Naturally, there are many responses that could be given to such, but it’s not going to happen in this post.)

Let’s just say “adult adoptees” is anything but a “support forum” for adoptees despite claiming to be just that:

Our main feature is our support forum where our members can come together and talk about whatever they desire; whether it be adoption related or not.

Despite the flowery language in their home page:

Here at AdultAdoptees.org, our second, and equally important issue is adoptee rights. We believe in equal rights for all people. We believe that everyone should have access to their original unaltered birth certificate.

WE BELIEVE IN OPEN RECORDS!

nor are they about ‘political activism’ as they have locked threads about such, claiming to not be about activism, but instead about getting back to their real mission, “support.”

With support like this… .

They are however many of the same people behind nuARD/DAR.

That said, I’m hardly the only person who has felt the petty vindictive ugliness of the admins of the “adult” adoptees board. Here, on a page entitled “Joy is our admin” for example, is a pre-existing earlier website about Joy’s tactics, complete with a filk of her petty antics.

Finally, as a special present for those of you collecting such, a screen shot of my personalized insult on the login page, geared to my IP:

(Click to see a larger sized version.)

The text itself beneath the ironic “support” message reads:

Sorry Guest, you are banned from using this forum!

ByeBye Loser Child

Considering the “adult” adoptees (lack of) appeals process, I detailed here, My brief statement on what happened on the Adult Adoptees forum, let’s just say I won’t be bothering to appeal the banning.

Yup, meet the real face of certain ARD/DAR organizers. Petty, vicious, and anything but “adoptee support.” You’re either part of their dysfunctional clique or you’re banned.

These ‘tugs’ are nothing if not ironic as I’m no longer a part of ARD, per my resignation from it back in May.

But since it’s the day after and the ARD page isn’t linking to the coverage, I’ll link across to the two articles so far.

In other words, I suppose I’ve been reluctantly talked into doing what people apparently count on me to do. That said, though, I’ll likewise do what people also count on me to do, analysis. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Let’s be clear from the outset, I was not there, I have no firsthand knowledge. I do have some reports, but I’ll focus on the media pieces currently available:

This New Orleans Times Picayune Article, poorly entitled Protesters seek to change laws sealing birth papers came out today, July 23rd.

It mentions “about 60 protesters” took part in the march from Lafayette Park to the Ernest N. Morial convention center.

The ‘adoptee sound bytes’ sounded like this:

For Galliand Adams, Louisiana’s law makes the search for her biological history “incredibly frustrating.”

“I have no idea who I am, and there’s just a big void there,” she said.

Fortunately, Michelle Edmunds was on hand and managed to get at least a bare bones explanation of what open records really are, that made it through into the article:

Other protesters said the laws amount to discrimination.

“This isn’t about searching and reunion. This is about our rights,” said Michelle Edmunds, who came from Canada to join the march.

Unfortunately, this is still pretty bare. I don’t lay such at Michelle’s doorstep, instead, I view it as a lack of educating the reporters on the issues over a period of time leading into the event. Poor articles such as this could have been avoided.

Naturally, to counterweight even such bare bones adoptee demands, the reporter used a quote from the National Council For Adoption (NCFA) (an industry lobby made up of member adoption agencies in Virginia). Their soundbyte, as always co-opting the authentic voice of mothers sounded like this:

“We’re not opposed to open adoption or open records. We’re concerned about the right of privacy for the birth mother,” said Rodney Huey, spokesman for the National Council for Adoption.

“A birth mother, for whatever reason, decided at one point to have her own confidential adoption, and that (confidentiality is) what she was guaranteed,” he said.

For NCFA, which was founded in part to maintain the sealed records system to say they’re not opposed to open records is shall we say, pretty darn interesting. Perhaps we should remind them of this soundbyte the next time we find them lobbying against our open records bills in the states.

In short, a pretty lousy piece. Which is clearly a result of a lack of familiarity with even the basics of what we’re talking about. Use of the term “birth papers” makes it clear, this is turf the reporter clearly hasn’t learned even the basic lingo of. Again, all of which could have been avoided with some work in the run up to the event.

Supposedly there is some photography that went with the article, but it appears not to have made it through to the online edition.

Secondly, perhaps ever so slightly more in keeping with the original history of what was then called the Adoptee Rights Day, the State based focus, Adoptees in New York held their own small event piggybacking on the N’awlins event. This was no doubt to draw attention to the NY bill, still stuck in committee for the third year running.

This was covered in a July 22nd article (yesterday) entitled An emotional call for change there is also video that goes with this piece.

The article explains that they met in the local library:

Local adoptees and birth mothers joined together in the genealogy section of the main library in Downtown Rochester this morning. It’s a place many of them have done research to find their birth parents.

Which then visually tells the audience this is about search and reunion, the article goes on to mention medical records as a possible justification for opening the records:

“It’s strictly to find out your heritage, any birth concerns you might have, any medical problems you feel, (or) if you want to know your ancestry,” said Jeff Hancock, 43, who found out he was adopted just 15 months ago.

Search, reunion, and medical history are all interpersonal issues that are chronologically second (for some people, for others they simply want their papers and will never search, never enter reunion, and never ask parents for information about their medical histories, which of course adoptees would only ever get if the parents consent) to the initial demand that state confiscation of our records must end.

I’ve written extensively about this here on my blog, but this post from June 7th in particular, ARD- Another from the “I hate being right” category- the ‘messaging’ disaster, went into how I was concerned these types of nonsequitor arguments would take center stage in ARD. Again I really hate being right.

This is what happens when adoptees do not have open records 101. They find target settings that undermine the core of the message, that this is ultimately about equality under law.

Medical records simply are not an open records argument. The sooner everyone learns that, is the sooner we can start doing the real work.

They both call it a civil rights issue, and then place themselves into a search venue. A garbled message at best.

In the end, the search and reunion meme wins out and becomes the focus of the article.

Speaking from a purely pragmatic standpoint, our arguments need to be based on both the legal and legislative realities. We’re not going to withstand legal challenges to open records legislation on “But I want to meet my Mommie!” You withstand legal challenges based on how we as a class of people are receiving inequitable treatment under law. We are singled out, and systems created to treat us thusly must be dismantled.

All of which points out how in many ways, serious educational work to get even adoptees on message needs to take place long before an ‘action’ phase is initiated. After all, how the hell are adoptees going to get the media around to what the landscape looks like and what language is appropriate when half the time adoptees themselves don’t even know?

In closing, I am the only one who finds it incredibly ironic that the only print media coverage available online yesterday was about an ARD related event in New York?

<Shakes head, and sighs.>

***

Update

***

I finally got around to digging out the photos. You can find the Times Picayune’s photo gallery here.

Clearly my messaging disaster concerns about those Gladney-120th-anniversary-protest signs “State enforced genetic secrecy kills adoptees” were well founded. Sure enough, guess what was on hand.

Matthew Hinton / Times Picayune

So much for messaging.

<Sigh.>

Consider this babystep towards writing Ron and Bastard Nation back into the ARD history as well, particularly in light of statements made by Gershom, the current organizer such as

I have done EVERYTHING. Not you, not bastard nation, not ron, ME.

from this Bastardette comment thread posted by Gershom at June 5, 2008 12:25:00 AM EDT.

Why would I start with such a quote in the prelude? Because it’s belies exactly how much history Gershom doesn’t know and precisely how vicious she became when those who had been around through it called her on her crap.

I’m not writing on behalf of anyone in this other than myself. And as I’ve said in my “about page” I consider myself, particularly in relation to the current Adoptee Rights Demonstration from which I’ve resigned,

far enough external to the industry, and the seats of power that it’s relatively ‘independent’ by comparison.

***

Long before the Adoptee Rights Demonstration (which will take place in New Orleans this week) was even a glimmer in the eye of those who eventually began down the path of starting work upon it, there was the original “ARD”, the “Adoptee Rights Day”.

The First Adoptee Rights Day was celebrated in 1998 to mark the one year anniversary of the passage of Oregon’s measure 58, the statewide referendum that eventually led to open records. Which means we need to go back even further still to understand how things came to the point of even having an Oregon victory to celebrate.

We have to go back to July 18-20th 1997, in Chicago, IL where Bastard Nation first held their initial conference, “Birth of a Bastard Nation.” I wasn’t there. I missed it entirely.

(Instead, I first met Marley staffing the BN table over Comfest in Columbus, Ohio that same summer. Having been a Queer Nation member, I took one look at Bastard Nation’s “spermburst” logo and I knew I where I had to be. You can see Marley’s write up of the tabling here, I was one of those “These are MY records” types.)

That was all back in those halcyon days of our youth before we learned just how ugly adoption politics really can be, what with entrenched industry interests demanding their own actions be covered by sealed records on the one side, and adoption ‘deformers’ willing so often to sell genuine open records down the river in exchange for a pittance on the other. (”Here I am, stuck in the middle with you,” I rather like the Bob Dylan version myself.)

But the Chicago conference was a watershed event.

One of the workshops, “Applying the Principles of Tactical Activism: Fostering the growth and political clout of Bastard Nation” given by “Activist/Attorney/Author Randy Shaw got some Bastards thinking. (Shaw: founder and Executive Director of San Francisco’s Tenderloin Housing Clinic and more recently BeyondChron named in part due to its criticism of the San Francisco Chronicle, importantly, he’s also the author of “The Activist’s Handbook: A Primer for the 1990’s and Beyond“, a book that got many Bastard Nationals thinking, and strategizing.) Ballot initiatives are one of the things Shaw views as an important tool in the activist’s toolbox.

Again, you would have to speak with those who were actually there at the time, but the ‘action path’ that came out of that first BN conference eventually became the statewide general election referendum in Oregon in 1998 that came to be known as “Measure 58.” (Unfortunately Bastards would have to wait until May 30th, 2000 at 5:01pm for Measure 58 to finally go into effect due to challenges winding their way through the courts.) You can read about the history of the initiative here.

Now I’m not saying Bastard Nation did it all by our lonesomes (speaking as a lifelong BN member, myself), but I am saying the spark that grew into measure 58, came from the rubbing of Bastard Nation members, specifically a few BN related individuals (steel) against early Bastard Activism and wanting to actually gain our records (flint).

You see, Helen Hill, the Chief Petitioner in Oregon, and Shea Grimm, both Bastard Nationals had been at the Chicago conference. They went home, rolled up their sleeves, and set about changing the world. You can read about how coming off the conference moved into measure 58 in E. Wayne Carp’s book “Adoption Politics: Bastard Nation and Ballot Initiative 58.” (Page 32 is kind of a jump to starting point mentioning the conference.) I’m not saying the book is perfect, not by a long shot, but it does at least lay out some of that “spark” in published form.

BN itself of course was crucial to Oregon’s measure 58. It was certainly a real focus by the time of the second conference, Bastards by the Bay: The Convergence, in San Francisco. My partner, Sleeps with Bastard and I were both involved by then. Keynoters Christina Crawford, Ricki Solinger, and Anne Babb gave us lots to chew on, before folks headed out to do a sealed records protest.

Indeed a key piece of that (first ever) Birth of a Bastard Nation (Chicago) conference was moving from theory to practice. Randy’s session was Friday July 18th, 1997 from 10:30am to noon. From 12pm to 3pm was Bastard Nation’s “Sealed Records Protest” which you can see the now historic photos of here.

Many of the people who went on to form the backbone of BN were present, specifically, I’ll mention both Marley Greiner and Ron Morgan as they form perhaps the bridge from that moment in Chicago to what became the “Adoptee Rights Demonstration”.

Now the conference may have been titled “Birth of a Bastard Nation”, but BN activism was born long before Chicago. On the these BN pages (here and here as but two examples) you can explore bits and pieces of Bastard activism going back toward the mid nineties.

In any case, the current Adoptee Rights Demonstration’s roots lie in those events and those early Bastard activist friendships that formed in the early days of Bastard Nation.

Which brings us up to Adoptee Rights Day. As I said, the first was back in 1998, “Commemorating the Anniversary of Oregon’s Historic Adoptee Rights Initiative” (to use a particular turn of phrase the Adoptee Rights Day came to use.)

ARD has always been both an educational event and an activism event. Legislators were contacted, and many Bastards went to Vital Statistics, to request copies of their (sealed) records, to protest, and to pass out educational material. More than just a single day, ARD has also been envisioned as a week of actions, including educational events and street theater. You can see this How to ARD page leading into the third anniversary to help you get a better idea what ARD was all about. (you will note that it is on the BN site.) Also be sure to see Anita Field’s (she’s a current Bastard Nation ExecCom member) Editorial written for ARD.

There was also a NARD e-mail group on Yahoo. There was always a focus on tying ARD events to what was happening state by state legislatively. State legislators were contacted concerning upcoming open records legislation, but also sometimes contacted about the ARD event itself, particularly bill sponsors and cosponsors.

To anonymously quote one e-mail from a Bastard in the wake of holding their state’s ARD event:

…I want to thank BN for providing us the avenue of ARD.

Clearly, the original ARD was of mutual benefit, organizationally it was good for BN nationally, and those in their home states also found it a productive tool both individually and organizationally.

It’s important to note that even back of the days of the original ARD, there was participation by parents and adoptive parents alongside Bastards.

This is a press release from what was then called “NARD” or “National Adoptee Rights Day.” Note that it contains sentences such as this:

Bastard Nation, the leading national adoptee rights organization, is helping coordinate events at Vital Statistics offices nationwide to show solidarity with the adoptees of Oregon and to celebrate National Adoptee Rights Day: a day dedicated to supporting dignity and ending government-sanctioned shame in adoption.

And that Ron Morgan, himself a Bastard National, was the “National Leader” as well as the contact person for the protest in San Francisco:

Contact National Leader Ron Morgan

You may also want to note the leadership of other sites, Helen Hill, for example, in Oregon. Bastard Nation was an intrinsic part of (N)ARD, so much so that the NARD webpage was hosted by BN.

When all was said and done, the first “ARD event” had occurred at 20 sites spread across 16 states.

In 1999, Bastards were at it again. The second ARD encompassed 27 sites in 15 states.

Want to read some individual state reports, see pictures, and even read press related to those original ARDs? You guessed it, you’ll find several ARD archives on the Bastard Nation page; here and here. Also note the e-mail address on the second link:

To get involved in your neck of the woods email nardinfo@bastards.org

Here, out of Bastard Nation’s Bastard Quarterly, you’ll see a write up and many pictures from ARD ‘01.

Starting to see a pattern? That’s because BN and (N) ARD were absolutely interconnected. Without BN how much ARD do you suppose would have happened?

And yes, Ron Morgan was a huge part of all of that, his role in it can not be understated. As I said, he was the “National Leader” on the original ARD in addition to pulling the SF event together. ARD was in some very concrete ways, his ‘baby’ so to speak. It is also important to note that both he and other BN activists worked together on CA open (see the CA section out of Bastard Nation’s Bastard Quarterly, the June ‘99 LegWatch). As early as ‘99, perhaps even earlier, Ron was the contact person in the “CA open” efforts and was doing the legwork of building towards CA open 2000, this grew into CA open 2001, etc.)

In short, both on the state and national levels BN and BN activists like Ron were working in their home states, doing work legislative, educational, and yes in the streets.

Which brings us up to the Adoptee Rights Demonstration. As I’ve said here on my blog before, Ron had been strategizing the idea of targeting the National Conference of State Legislators annual meeting for some time. He was interested in putting together a “mass action,” a large national (or even international?) event in which Bastards brought pressure on state legislators.

Note that I said “pressure,” as what Ron envisioned was an event or series of interconnected events that could be used together to essentially force the issue. This was going to take people fully versed in what the issues were, what language to use (and not to use), people who were thinking and strategically, and ultimately, the bottom line, an awful lot of them. Not just a few. Not ’some’, or even ‘many’, PRESSURE LOTS!

Which brings us up to last year. No doubt there are many other bits and pieces I should have included in the Original ARD (O-ARD) history, but I’ll leave that for those who experienced it directly to help fill out if they so chose. For the sake of brevity, I leave this portion at that. So last year… .

(First I’m going to have to do some adoption related blog introductions, please bear with me.)

Ron aka B.B. Church (who blogs Are you adopted? Are you sure? A Blog About Late Discovery Adoptees and B.B. Church’s Funhouse.)

and

Gershom (who blogs (Without a Tribe)/The Adoptee Rights Demonstration July 22, 2008, CALOpen, Anti-Adoption, and the Adoptee Rights Demonstration page itself. )

The two ran across one another and decided to move on Ron’s idea of an Adoptee Rights Demonstration outside the National Conference of State Legislators annual meeting.

Ron had written about the strategic importance of their annual meeting back in March of ‘07 in this post where he took on previous attempts at open records “marches” (on Washington in particular), his post is perhaps the articulation of his earlier vision for the Adoptee Rights Demonstration as requiring a mass movement kind of effort willing to utilize pressure tactics:

If Open Records leaders wanted to get the loudest bang for their buck, they would take a pass on WDC and go to Boston this August, for the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislators. These are the guys and gals that hold the keys to our records. We should be dogging their steps. We should be camped outside their hotels. We should be glad-handing at their receptions. We should be demanding that our so-called and self-styled leaders organize a march to the real heart of the matter or get out of the way…

Out of this and other such seeds, Ron and Gershom agreed to turn such ideas into an actual event slated for this July in New Orleans, as that was where the annual conference was being held this year.

Gershom, apparently completely unaware of the pre-existing Original ARD (O-ARD) history described from her perspective, how that coming together took place on her blog (on a piece from many months later, after Ron had left the Adoptee Rights Demonstration he had helped build.)

Last year I was an active poster on Soul Of Adoption, and there was this other quirky, yet intelligent, to the point, man there who went by the name of Late Discovery. His avatar had this man who looked like he’d been playing the blues and I liked what he had to say.

So on April 20, 2007 I declared my “passion” for the movement:

I think it would be powerful to have at LEAST one person from every closed record state across our country to enter their counties birth and record department at the exact same time, on the exact same day with media coverage behind them. We will be requesting our ORIGINAL birth records ( which will be denied ) and at the moment they are denied we can begin to have a non violent protest. I am willing to be arrested for this. And i am looking for other like minded adoptees who are willing to do the same. HOPEFULLY we wouldn’t be arrested but that COULD happen.

Sure my vision was a little “blurry” i didn’t understand the politics of adoption and open records, it not being a vital records department issue, but a state issue that had to be taken to the legislatures. That, is where Ron came in. That is when he told me about the NCSL.

By Gershom’s own admission, she’s new to all this. At the dawning of the “Adoptee Rights Demonstration/Day for Adoptee Rights”, as New Orleans protest came to be called Ron was going to be the voice of experience, essentially the lead organizer. Gershom was inexperienced, but learning many new skills from him. Again to quote Gershom’s piece:

Over the next few months he taught me a lot, about politics, about people, about utilizing opportunities to their greatest potential. He taught me so much in those first few months I felt like a student. Most of all, he believed in me.

May 25th, 2007 They put out an announcement entitled A Day for Adoptee Rights, July 2008, New Orleans LA! a copy of which can be found on his B.B.Church’s Funhouse blog. To the best of my knowledge this is the inital announcement of the event. Note that, it is was named “Day for Adoptee Rights,” which to many of us, not just Ron, had a pre-existing history attached.

This time instead of acting in our individual states, they proposed bringing Bastards from all 50 states to the legislators in one place and time, essentially a national action under the DAR name. Basically, as the announcement put it, a PROTEST FOR ADOPTEE RIGHTS (PAR?) which over time evolved to the event in N’awlins being called any number of variations along those lines, the “Adoptee Rights Demonstration”, the “Adoptee Rights Protest”, “Day for Adoptee Rights”, (among others, shall we say.)

Clearly, from the start what was being proposed was not anything on the scale of what Open Records related protests had resembled in the past.

We propose a mass action of adoptees representing all fifty states, a one-day rally that will be an opportunity for adoptees demonstrate their commitment to adoptee rights and to meet their state delegation.

We’re back to Ron’s use of the mass action concept- go big or go home. Anything less, again, going back to Ron’s March 7th 2007 blog entry was only a means by which to ultimately shoot ourselves in the foot to his thinking:

Past marches on Washington by Open Records organizers were a bad idea, poorly executed. I think it’s fair to say that they had minimal effect in changing any laws. Worse, by bringing together a few dozen Open Records supporters in the largest possible venue, they create the perception that the Open Records movement is weak and small. Bad political actions discourage people from participating in further actions. Why should they follow leaders that waste their time and resources?

So the effort was begun, the parameters of what they were setting out to achieve were laid out, and they were to be honest, pretty damn ambitious.

Sadly what happened next was the unforeseen, quoting Gershom again:

When his family needed him however, he knew that he couldn’t “be” here for the protest. He withdrew his leadership immediately to myself and a few others on a private board. He would be here for guidance, but his primary concern, like any good man ( and I say that with extra bitterness because I currently can’t STAND my childrens father ) was his family.

The event to which Gershom alludes to is elaborated upon here on Ron’s post announcing his no longer being involved in the Adoptee Rights Demonstration and his

retirement from “adoptee politics”, such as it is

As Ron says in the post:

When I first advocated an action at the National
Conference of State Legislatures lat year I knew how
much hard work it would take to be successful. I knew
it was possible for a small team to organize such an
event, but that the burdens would be great. Then, late
last summer, my wife was diagnosed with a malignant
brain tumor and my entire life focused on her
wellbeing and care.

Unfortunately, this unimaginably sad and difficult set of events changed the entire dynamic of how the Adoptee Rights Demonstration went forward from there on. With Ron unavailable, and later not overseeing the day to day of the preparations many things fell to Gershom. And thus many of the preparations ended up in her name.

As Ron said:

In retrospect it was a serious mistake on my part not to call for a suspension of planning for the ARD event at that time.

Which is not to say, Ron at the time of his stepping away from the current Adoptee Rights Demonstration wanted the idea to die, rather, he advocated a suspension, working towards ‘doing it right’ so to speak, at some future date.

My original vision for the ARD protest was that it
would be a mass action, that it would create an
impact, as opposed to the small-scale adoption reform
actions of the recent past. As the low numbers of
committed attendees attest, this is not happening. I
would like to call for a suspension of the New Orleans
ARD protest. I say suspension rather than cancellation
because I still believe that a protest at an NCSL
annual meeting at some point in the future is a viable
and effective action if executed properly. A
suspension, rather than a cancellation, would allow
the committed attendees to meet in NOLA face to face
and plan next steps.

Now that Ron has “retired,” I would not expect him to be back working for some other year’s event (though I suppose to whatever degree, anything is possible.) Point being, when he initially called for a suspension he had not yet retired and clearly those circumstances have changed now.

But the call for suspension of the N’awlins protest from Ron came many months later. Allow me to back up yet again.

Once Ron was in many ways simply out of the picture the day to day making things happen fell to Gershom. A website was up, donations were being collected, but there was no structure to the “Adoptee Rights 2008 Committee” that had announced the action (as you can see on Ron’s May 25th 2007 post.) There was no non-profit status, there was no fiscal agent, and the webpage never clearly delineated precisely WHO that full committee was. Later, who was and was not an organizer with the event would become an issue, and because there was no publicly available listing of who was responsible for what, it ended up making a bad situation worse.

To this day, the current ARD organizers have never publicly listed exactly who was organizing the event, nor into quite what people were making donations. I am not alleging any fiscal misconduct, I am merely saying one of the reasons I chose not to donate directly to ARD was that there was no visibility into the process and thus it was in some significant ways ultimately ‘accountable’ to no one.

Bastard Nation was a cosponsoring organization, as was “the adoption show” and internet broadcast, along with “Adoptees Unite” a cafepress page selling various logoware.

(The logo is based on a tree with roots which has gone on to become the Adoptee Rights Demonstration’s logo, something many of us objected to as ‘family trees’ are about search and reunion, which are interpersonal issues, not a civil rights issue, and not inherently about restoration of the records confiscated by the State. See Bastard Nations’s FAQ page section entitled “Is Bastard Nation a search organization?” to get a clearer understanding of the issues involved.)

Various individuals were picking up bits and pieces taking on tasks, and preparing to come to N’awlins in July. Well some of us anyway. Speaking for my partner and myself, we certainly had hotel reservations reserved in the Bastard Nation block.

In some ways I felt very ‘late to the party’ when I first blogged about the Adoptee Rights Demonstration back in January ‘08. I contacted Gershom about where things stood and what needed doing, offering to help back in February. She passed my e-mail on to Ron. Later, in March, Ron contacted me and asked if I would be willing to take on a position as the “March/Protest Volunteer Trainer and Head Monitor.” While I had concerns (among others, about coming on what I felt to be so late,) I ultimately agreed to help however I could.

Then we enter a period I’ve already blogged a fair amount about (see my “Adoptee Rights Demonstration” tag for my writings on this matter, the tag will them up in reverse order, newest to oldest), but I’ll draw out a quick sketch for new readers,

May 28th, Gershom coming back to organizers with what quite honestly were pathetic numbers of people who had bothered reserving hotel rooms in the non-BN hotel block (BN’s numbers were likewise, unimpressive) Neither of which amounted to ANYTHING on the scale of the event proposed.

May 29th Ron called for a suspension, which again, you can see the full text of here. AND ARD organizers learned an adoption agency, Abrazo Adoption Associates out of San Antonio Texas, had set up a facebook fundraising page collecting monies off our event, without our knowledge or consent. (At the time, I was still involved, hence my use of “our”.)

The Abrazo fundraising was going into their own 501c3, and had come to over $900. This led to the dual problems of whether the money which was unbeknownst to us up until this point was ultimately supposed to end up in their own agency coffers or whether such would be transfered from their account (now that we knew about the money) into ARD. Which raised it’s own issues.

BN has a policy against entanglement with agency money, I personally take a similar stance.

No matter where the money was going to end up (and actions spoke far louder than words, they money was already in their agency’s 501c3 and they had never told us of it’s existence, despite them utilizing our event to raise it in the first place) the circumstances under which it was raised were to say the least highly questionable.

The two simultaneous issues, that of the projected minimal attendance AND the Abrazo fundraising along with the previous history many of us ‘long timers’ had with both Ron and and the Day for Adoptee Rights in its previous incarnation led us to take Ron’s call for suspension very seriously.

However, as I pointed out above much of the preparations were in Gershom’s name, so even had the rest of us decided to ‘turn it off’, she still could have gone ahead. This was problematic, not merely in terms of the event itself, but in terms of what it meant to the entire legacy of what DAR had originally been. Some of us were not aware things were in Gershom’s name until we were well into this process. When I was contacted to work with DAR, for example I was under the impression the Adoptee Rights Demonstration was also Ron’s ‘baby’ with Gershom working as an assistant, and learning from him. Instead, we found ourselves in the situation where it was not under Ron’s control. The ‘buck stops here’ had shifted.

Simply put, Ron’s (and BN’s) ‘babies’ had been ‘adopted’.

And so the Adoptee Rights Demonstration essentially lost all the people with Day for Adoptee Rights institutional memory; Bastard Nation organizationally looked at the numbers and the ethical issues raised by the Abrazo fundraising and came to the conclusion that they organizationally had to withdraw their support from the event. The evening of the 29th, Bastard Nation (which to some of us was synonymous with what ARD had always meant in the past) withdrew. Early the next week, Bastard Nation posted their statement on the withdrawal.

This left the Adoptee Rights Demonstration with no national open records membership organization supporting it.

Two webpages and the people behind them as your sponsors along with numerous individuals simply cannot equate to what losing BN meant. When current DAR representatives speak with state legislators over the course of this event, they speak for themselves, not the broader adoptee civil rights/open records movement.

Going ahead with plans to continue the event with such non-mass movement numbers when that was part of what had been at the heart of the event signaled a fundamental change in the very nature of the event. It was no longer true to the original articulation of what people had signed on for, nor the vision of the event they had originally donated to.

The previous history Bastard Nationals and others had working under the name Adoptee Rights Day was likely an important part of why donations were given to the Adoptee Rights Demonstration, in essence, it was building on a foundation laid by Ron, and with Ron’s name on the ARDemonstration, no doubt many people took his and Bastard Nation’s presences as an indicator of a good thing, worthy of donations.

My partner and I stayed on for an additional 24 hours, waiting to see if the Abrazo mess had any hope of being straightened out before we made our final decision of whether to stay or go.

The following evening, (the 30th) Ron reported back the results of his phone call with the executive director of Abrazo, Elizabeth Jurnovich, she refused to acknowledge Abrazo had done anything wrong.

My partner and I resigned that evening, and I posted my two sentence statement.

Later, we would find one of the ARD organizers, Amyadoptee was pointing readers of her blog into the Abrazo fundraising, which was still ongoing and Abrazo continued on until what appears to have been June 4th, despite Abrazo being contacted by Ron on the 30th.

This was how the post originally appeared back when it was originally posted on May 31rst-

OPEN ADOPTION ROCKS

I have only been in avid support for one agency in my time of writing this blog. They are the only agency that puts their money where their mouth is. Abrazos Adoptions Services have began a fundraiser for the Adoptee Rights Protest. If you can join them on facebook, please do. Introducing OPEN ADOPTION ROCKS. Thank you so much for doing this for us adoptees. We really appreciate all the hard work that your agency does for adoptees and their families.

Amy has since changed the text, obliterating her link into Abrazo’s “open adoption rocks” fundraising page, which has also undergone dramatic changes since we first discovered it as well.

To the best of my knowledge Amy continues on as an ARD organizer to this day.

On June 5th Ron posted his statement.

Also on the 5th, Bastard Nation’s Executive Committee unanimously voted Amy off the Bastard Nation Legislative Committee. Amy posted BN’s letter on her blog (she has since removed her post):

June 5, 2008

Dear Amy:

The Executive Committee of Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization has voted unanimously to remove you from the Legislative Committee effective immediately.

Bastard Nation has a long time policy of not accepting support from the adoption industry. Without saying, we do not advocate for the adoption industry or any adoption agency or professional within it. You have done both. As an private individual you have the perfect right to do so, but as a member of BN’s Legislative Committee your duty is to uphold BN principles, practices, and integrity.

Your relationship with Abrazo as documented in your own blog, “Regarding Bastard Nation’s Withdrawal” posted on June 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm and your actions on the original DAR Action List clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of and concern for Bastard Nation’s mission, activities, and ethics, as well as the security and integrity of the original DAR. We are astounded that you failed to grasp the ethics and motives of an adoption agency funding the DAR protest, much less their procedure of funneling funds sent to them into their own 501(3)(c) account. This funding was done without the knowledge DAR sponsors and leaders, and would never have been approved had they been informed of the scheme.

We take this step to insure the security of Bastard Nation correspondence and the upholding of our principles and rules.

Bastard Nation Executive Committee
Anita Walker Field
Patricia Marler
Marley Greiner, Executive Chair

As I mentioned above, Amy, to the best of my knowledge is still working with nuDAR.

These withdrawals, Bastard Nation, my partner and I, and Ron represented more than half of the original organizing committee for the event.

Gershom had by now announced she was going ahead with the event. Those who were left from the original organizing committee, and other people organizing on adultadoptees.org’s forum decided to try to make an orders of magnitude scaled down Adoptee Rights Demonstration go forward.

Apparently, far from filing the streets, the current Adoptee Rights Demonstration does not even have a permit for the march from Layfayette Square to the convention center. So they, and their attempts at mandated signage will be ‘marching’ on the sidewalk.

For clarity’s sake, some of us ‘old’ DAR organizers have taken to calling this new incarnation, nuDAR. So you have O-DAR, DAR, and nuDAR, or O-ARD, ARD and nuARD.

O- meaning Original, pre-Gershom

just plain ARD or DAR being the period where the two overlap,

and nu, meaning those pretty much without the benefit of history.

Unfortunately nuDAR is not the only thing being built upon the bones of the pre-existing history, thereby leading to confusion. As Gershom has set up her Calopen that too, will no doubt be confused with pre-existing history, not only in that state, but more broadly with other states’ “open” efforts. One can only hope Gershom’s Calopen is with the knowledge and consent of the previously existing CAopen activists, else, well, I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes.

The sad part is how much of original Day for Adoptee Rights information is still available publicly on the web, and yet the nuDAR organizers often appear oblivious.

And with that lack of history and experience at least on the part of Gershom have come other problems.

Not the least of which being perhaps the single worst example of ‘activist’ tone-deaf insensitivity I have seen in my going on way too many decades of activism (not merely Bastard activism, but my years as an activist period!)

I had been speaking for some time now, both on my blog and behind the scenes about my love for N’awlins itself and how working in the city in this post-Katrina aftermath was going to take sensitivity and cluefulness. As recently as July 10th, I tried to make this abundantly clear in my post ARD- For those going to N’awlins:

Those still going would do well not be ‘tone deaf’ to the realities of N’awlins.

Unfortunately, Gershom, here on the eve of the event has managed to do the unthinkable.

In her July 19th blog post she likened the (nu) Adoptee Rights Demonstration to a “storm”:

The calm before the storm has come and past and the storm is here, WE ARE THE STORM, and we are NOT going away.

Girl, trust you me, the last thing N’awlins needs right now is another “storm.” Let alone one that won’t leave. (Natural impossibility, but truly a nightmare prospect for those who have already had to endure too much!)

Are you daft?

Likening those working to regain our basic rights and restore the records that were taken from us, (i.e. rebuilding what was lost, hoping to regain what we once had that is now gone) to the destructive power of a “Storm” heading towards NEW ORLEANS is in a word unforgivable. Period.

As I said, perhaps the single worst example of ‘activist’ tone-deaf insensitivity I have seen.

So that’s it. A last straw if you will. Any benefit of the doubt accorded to inexperience, gone.

My disgust runneth over.

By all means, go ahead, tell someone who’s living on the street, having lost everything in the last storm, that there’s ANOTHER storm headed their way.

Think they can’t wait for you to get there? Think again.

On this one, my heart is with my friends, still living in the city.

Not with at least one self professed ‘activist’ who even after reading this may still not understand she did anything wrong.

Unfortunately the legacy of what once was Adoptee Rights Day has fallen into the hands of a least a ‘leader’ the very opposite of what the Adoptee Rights Demonstration was intended to be: politically savy, clueful, streetsmart, mass enough to create political pressure, and most importantly, effective, creating measurable tangible results.

Instead she brags of having people coming from around the world to:

SCREAM WITH US

Effective that’s not.

If you want to throw a little party in New Orleans for yourself and your friends from adultadoptees, knock yourselves out, doesn’t have much to do with the realities of the New Orleans you’ll be sitting in the middle of, but hey, they could use the tourist bucks, as I said, tip well. But right this moment? Words like ‘political activist’ aren’t exactly what come to mind.

(Just a hint, utilizing phrases such as “our discrimination” when what one means is “the discrimination we endure” leads preexisting Adoptee Rights Day folks, not just me to cringe. (Oh, and “eyes roll in disgust”, a late breaking addition from across the room. He’s entitled.)

So folks, bring your sunscreen, pack a hat, drink tons of water, and don’t feel like a wuss for recognizing your limits in the N’awlins heat. The ARD you’re about to get is unrecognizable to the ARD that was originally planned.

And me? I’m just disgusted. Not with youth and inexperience, but with the narcissistic insensitivity.

See, you’re visiting someone else’s home, and while there, it’s best not to put your muddy boots on the antique heirloom coffee table.

So let’s be real clear, Gershom and by extension the Adoptee Rights Demonstration do not and cannot speak for me this week in New Orleans. Further they do not speak for any National or International adoptee rights membership organization.

Individuals from adoptee organizations, and for that matter, individuals related to adoption agencies may be present, but even T-shirts with adoptee rights groups logos such should not be mistaken for any organizational involvement.

On a more personal note? In light of the blatant lack of empathy on display?

Far as I’m concerned, Tuesday is the anniversary of one of my blogs.

The article uses the backdrop of the Lisa Novak and Claar Foundation trial to talk about broader trends in international adoption, the changing nature of the adoption industry, and contains a number of interesting quotes from Chuck Johnson, vice president at National Council for Adoption (NCFA, a is voice of the industry, a group of member agencies based in Virginia. NCFA opposes open records, promotes Baby Moses/Baby Dump laws, and are no friend to Bastards.)

In the below I’ll quote a few tidbits on each of the major themes I mentioned above.

The exact reasons the Claar Foundation closed will probably become clear as the trial unfolds. Whatever the cause of its demise, it is but one failed agency in a complex enterprise undergoing cataclysmic change.

and

Riding an adoption wave

Starting in the 1990s, the adoption of foreign-born children into American homes exploded. The phenomenon was fueled in part by a confluence of wealth in this country and poverty in others, along with the decision of many American couples to put off having children, in some cases for too long, said Karen Rotabi, a professor of social work at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies international adoption.

In 1990, 7,093 children came to new adoptive homes in the U.S. By 2004 that number had more than tripled, to 22,884.

To meet the growing call for children from overseas, “agencies were springing up all over” — often with little oversight and scant regulation, Rotabi said. In some states, opening an adoption agency has been “not much different than applying for a business license.”

Which is to say the adoption industry has had it’s own market bubble, a bubble built on American purchasing babies and their riches and ’sending counties’ desperate poverty (as an exploitable situation, when parents cannot afford their own children, they are often placed in “orphanage” programs, and the children are then marketed as “orphans”.)

The Hague standards were crafted with the goal of protecting children, the U.S. State Department says.

“We wanted to know where children were going. Everyone wanted to make sure it was the right thing for the children,” said Catherine Mona han, State Department chief for Hague adoption implementation.

Most of those who opened adoption agencies in the past decade wanted that too, said Chuck Johnson, a vice president with the National Council for Adoption.

Some hung out shingles out of religious faith, some understood the complexities of the undertaking, some didn’t. And some had no business being in the business.

“I think some of the agencies — a small number — that are closing, it’s good that they’re gone,” Johnson said.

Even those with the best intentions often found themselves in over their heads in a complex and constantly changing endeavor, Johnson said.

It does not surprise me in the least that Johnson would be glad to see some agencies closing. Not only are they competition to some of his member agencies, but they also represent the fact that adoption was an industry in some states anyone could get into. Consolidation downward towards a decreased number of agencies means a bigger piece of the pie for those left.

Further, any ability to drive out some while leaving others, enables the false claim of the industry as self regulating, or ultimately a market where the ‘good’ survive and ‘bad’ die. By having a proportion of agencies forced to close, those left standing will no doubt then turn around and blame those (’exceptional’) ‘bad things that happen in adoption’ on ‘a few bad apples- most of which the market killed off.’

When in reality market forces don’t always kill off the ‘bad’, nor maintain the ‘good.’ They do however favour those with either a longstanding name; often connected to celebrity or wealth and power, or those that manage to silence dissent.

Novak, a former Erie town trustee, has described herself as an attorney who specializes in international law, as well as an “adoption-reform advocate.”

With “Reform Advocates” like Novak… . Yeah, well, I’m no ‘reformer’.

State records indicate she has been involved with several adoption agencies, including One Light Adoptions Inc., which she and her brother Joseph Novak opened in 2002. He filed suit against her in 2005, claiming she was mishandling money. They settled out of court.

That same year, Novak and her husband, Martin Claar, opened the Claar Foundation.

Note Mr. Johnson in the below bemoaning the bubble burst, the decline of international adoptions in recent years. Perfectly in character for a man who represents agencies who measure those declining international adoption numbers as declines in their own agencies’ fortunes. Thus he labels the declines as “disastrous”, distastrous for the agencies he represents bottom lines that is.

The year the Claar Foundation opened, 2005, marked the first time in decades that international adoptions declined.

That decline accelerated in the two years since, according to the U.S. State Department. In 2006, the number of foreign-born children adopted into U.S. homes had dropped by nearly 2,000, to 20,679. By last year that number had dropped further, to 18,748.

“This has been a disastrous two years in the world of intercountry adoptions,” Johnson said.

Two years ago, as many as 700 agencies nationwide were licensed to arrange international adoptions. Now they number 400 or so, Johnson estimated. Over the next year, that number will dwindle further, he predicted.

In Colorado, four of the 27 agencies — including the Claar Foundation — licensed to handle international adoptions have closed in the past year. Of those that remain, nearly half are losing money, according to a state report released May 1.

Also note the renaming game. Facing legal trouble under one agency name? No problem, just start another.

At both hearings, one involving the Singhs and another involving charges stemming from another couple’s experience with Claar, a judge ruled there is enough evidence for Novak to be tried on felony charges.

The charges are the most serious, but not the first, legal trouble for Novak. She has been ordered to pay restitution in one suit and has been the target of at least half a dozen others.

What the Denver Post perhaps overlooks in its focus on couples who fell in love with a photograph and then ran around calling a kid in another country ‘theirs’ is that there is another important facet to the “broken dreams” happening in international adoptions at the moment, the now broken dreams of wealth and prosperity the intercountry adoption industry has experienced in the last few years. With the fall off of numbers of placements and ’sending counties’ closing their doors, the agencies themselves are having to scramble for an ever decreasing pool of ‘product’ (i.e. kids.)

While wanna-be-adopters treasure their pictures of hoped for ‘daughter-to-be’s, international agencies look at their ledger books and count children as their ‘profits-to-be.’