I am not sure if 'open adoption' is a legal thing anywhere. It goes against the model of ownership (with the ownership papers (falsified birth certificate) to prove it)
Indeed! An OPEN ADOPTION "agreement" is another form of pre-adoption coercion!
Mothers/families who buy into it are sold the idea of it being "best" and a "happy compromise" - a way to maintain contact with their child - to not be tortured by not knowing who has them and how they are being raised but it is a CONCEPT only - based upon the hope that they will be able to maintain an adult relationship with their child's adopters.
I think adopters KNOW - of course - they know (and may even be informed by agents?) that the law is a law that gives those who agree to relinquishing their parental rights NO RIGHTS AT ALL.
They know that all they have to do is accept a pre-adoption verbal agreement re: birthdays, Christmas, contact however many times per year - but none of it means anything when adult feelings become real. They only need to "put up with" contact until they don't want it - can't handle it anymore - until a child begins to show signs of emotional distress because YES - contact with one's mother, father and siblings for example, causes the growing adopted person immense emotional upheaval.
So OPEN adoption is BS - it's a concept - it's coercion of a different kind and in fact, it encourages the world view of Adoption - because mothers are sold it as an option - they CHOOSE IT and therefore they "have no-one to blame" but themselves - right?
Adoption is adoption is adoption. Flip the script - parents/families don't "relinquish" a child for adoption they relinquish their parental rights and to quote my friend Will Shakespeare, 'what's done is done' (Macbeth)
You are so right. THEY KNOW - adopters know they hold all the cards and just have to play the openness game until they have the prize. After acquisition it's all about ownership. Even those who "allow" any form of openness are still controlling the fate of another human - sort of like owning a human.
P.S. "Open" adoption in the UK is by LETTER only - that is, via snail-mail delivered by the British postal service - which suggests that parents/family and "adopted" children can only communicate via a third party - an agent working within adoption services (?) - otherwise, mothers/family members would know the address of adopters - right?
I imagine this means that the agent not only reads correspondence between kids and their mothers but they have the power to redact content.
I did not know that. Power and control. The state must maintain control of the narrative or adopted people and their mothers might start thinking they have some power.
Yep - always as such - it is Adoption itself - the legislation - produces that which is describes (Foucault) - its very existence perpetuates use of the law - "in the best interests of the child". I'll have a look for some articles I have filed - somewhere (haha) and send re: the UK open adoption in practice.
When I was 18 and pregnant, and a chronic runaway, I came across a poster that read: Pregnant and Distressed? Call us. They turned out to be a birthright group that facilitated adoption. I ended up trusting them and becoming a nanny for a family with 2 children. I was so naive that I thought they meant to adopt my baby AND me. I left after 2 weeks and went to a maternity home for the last three months of my pregnancy.
Thank you for your email, received on 20 February 2025, to Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children (Oranga Tamariki) requesting information on vetting of private websites. Your request has been considered under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act).
You have requested:
A private citizen, Ellen T. xxxxxxx posts online and in emails that her website adoption.org.nz is "vetted by Oranga Tamariki."
Please provide evidence of this vetting.
Please provide the relevant legislation and/or in-house policy to enable Oranga Tamariki to vet private websites.
Oranga Tamariki does not have any authority to vet private websites. As such, your request is refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, on the grounds that the information requested is not held by Oranga Tamariki, nor is it held by another department.
Where it is brought to our attention that a website contains inaccurate or misleading information, we will highlight to the relevant individuals what the inaccurate or misleading information is. Any suggestion that Oranga Tamariki has reviewed, and therefore approved, the content of a private website is inaccurate.
Where any information in the public domain is seen as contradicting the prohibition on advertising of adoption that is outlined at section 26 of the Adoption Act, Oranga Tamariki will take up that issue with individuals concerned.
Oranga Tamariki may make the information contained in this letter available to the public by publishing this on our website with your personal details removed.
I trust you find this information useful. Should you have any concerns with this response, I would encourage you to raise them with Oranga Tamariki. Alternatively, you are advised of your right to also raise any concerns with the Office of the Ombudsman. Information about this is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by contacting them on 0800 802 602.
Nāku noa, nā
General Manager Public Information and Ministerial Services
Notions of open and closed adoption overlook cultural and class approaches to moving children back into their own whanau - pre-colonisation saw children liviwere viewed as part of the hapu so there was no need to be concerned about where a child lived as the hapu was its whanau - post colonisation saw the introduction of 'adoption', a western notion that had undermined class approaches to child rearing, as a toll to dessimate maori people - this had also been used to take children away from the working as the middle and upper class viewed the poor as uncivilised hence the need to adopt their children out - unfortunately it was also routine to adopt them out then at a particular age move them into the servants quarters. So if we drew on a maori concept of whāngai then there is no need for open or closed adoption.
Open adoption is a scam. It’s not enforceable by law (at least in the US) and can be shutdown at any time by the adoptive parents.
I am not sure if 'open adoption' is a legal thing anywhere. It goes against the model of ownership (with the ownership papers (falsified birth certificate) to prove it)
Indeed! An OPEN ADOPTION "agreement" is another form of pre-adoption coercion!
Mothers/families who buy into it are sold the idea of it being "best" and a "happy compromise" - a way to maintain contact with their child - to not be tortured by not knowing who has them and how they are being raised but it is a CONCEPT only - based upon the hope that they will be able to maintain an adult relationship with their child's adopters.
I think adopters KNOW - of course - they know (and may even be informed by agents?) that the law is a law that gives those who agree to relinquishing their parental rights NO RIGHTS AT ALL.
They know that all they have to do is accept a pre-adoption verbal agreement re: birthdays, Christmas, contact however many times per year - but none of it means anything when adult feelings become real. They only need to "put up with" contact until they don't want it - can't handle it anymore - until a child begins to show signs of emotional distress because YES - contact with one's mother, father and siblings for example, causes the growing adopted person immense emotional upheaval.
So OPEN adoption is BS - it's a concept - it's coercion of a different kind and in fact, it encourages the world view of Adoption - because mothers are sold it as an option - they CHOOSE IT and therefore they "have no-one to blame" but themselves - right?
Adoption is adoption is adoption. Flip the script - parents/families don't "relinquish" a child for adoption they relinquish their parental rights and to quote my friend Will Shakespeare, 'what's done is done' (Macbeth)
You are so right. THEY KNOW - adopters know they hold all the cards and just have to play the openness game until they have the prize. After acquisition it's all about ownership. Even those who "allow" any form of openness are still controlling the fate of another human - sort of like owning a human.
P.S. "Open" adoption in the UK is by LETTER only - that is, via snail-mail delivered by the British postal service - which suggests that parents/family and "adopted" children can only communicate via a third party - an agent working within adoption services (?) - otherwise, mothers/family members would know the address of adopters - right?
I imagine this means that the agent not only reads correspondence between kids and their mothers but they have the power to redact content.
I did not know that. Power and control. The state must maintain control of the narrative or adopted people and their mothers might start thinking they have some power.
"Flip the script - parents/families don't "relinquish" a child for adoption they relinquish their parental rights." so very true
Yep - always as such - it is Adoption itself - the legislation - produces that which is describes (Foucault) - its very existence perpetuates use of the law - "in the best interests of the child". I'll have a look for some articles I have filed - somewhere (haha) and send re: the UK open adoption in practice.
When I was 18 and pregnant, and a chronic runaway, I came across a poster that read: Pregnant and Distressed? Call us. They turned out to be a birthright group that facilitated adoption. I ended up trusting them and becoming a nanny for a family with 2 children. I was so naive that I thought they meant to adopt my baby AND me. I left after 2 weeks and went to a maternity home for the last three months of my pregnancy.
Let me guess, free labour for the family, and Birthright took your child?
That was their plan alright. But I kept my child.
I honour you for that!
An update on that open adoption advert used at the top of this post:
14 March 2025
Barbara Sumner
drbarbarasumner@gmail.com
Tēnā koe Barbara
Thank you for your email, received on 20 February 2025, to Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children (Oranga Tamariki) requesting information on vetting of private websites. Your request has been considered under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act).
You have requested:
A private citizen, Ellen T. xxxxxxx posts online and in emails that her website adoption.org.nz is "vetted by Oranga Tamariki."
Please provide evidence of this vetting.
Please provide the relevant legislation and/or in-house policy to enable Oranga Tamariki to vet private websites.
Oranga Tamariki does not have any authority to vet private websites. As such, your request is refused under section 18(g)(i) of the Act, on the grounds that the information requested is not held by Oranga Tamariki, nor is it held by another department.
Where it is brought to our attention that a website contains inaccurate or misleading information, we will highlight to the relevant individuals what the inaccurate or misleading information is. Any suggestion that Oranga Tamariki has reviewed, and therefore approved, the content of a private website is inaccurate.
Where any information in the public domain is seen as contradicting the prohibition on advertising of adoption that is outlined at section 26 of the Adoption Act, Oranga Tamariki will take up that issue with individuals concerned.
Oranga Tamariki may make the information contained in this letter available to the public by publishing this on our website with your personal details removed.
I trust you find this information useful. Should you have any concerns with this response, I would encourage you to raise them with Oranga Tamariki. Alternatively, you are advised of your right to also raise any concerns with the Office of the Ombudsman. Information about this is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by contacting them on 0800 802 602.
Nāku noa, nā
General Manager Public Information and Ministerial Services
System Leadership
Notions of open and closed adoption overlook cultural and class approaches to moving children back into their own whanau - pre-colonisation saw children liviwere viewed as part of the hapu so there was no need to be concerned about where a child lived as the hapu was its whanau - post colonisation saw the introduction of 'adoption', a western notion that had undermined class approaches to child rearing, as a toll to dessimate maori people - this had also been used to take children away from the working as the middle and upper class viewed the poor as uncivilised hence the need to adopt their children out - unfortunately it was also routine to adopt them out then at a particular age move them into the servants quarters. So if we drew on a maori concept of whāngai then there is no need for open or closed adoption.
Thank you for sharing. Heartbreaking for all adopted peoples
P.S. Open adoption in the UK = by MAIL ONLY. So another form of torture - denial - distress.