Quote:
Originally Posted by apocalipstic
Thanks so much for participating!
I also was born in Oklahoma and adopted at 11 days. At the time I was born, 1963, Oklahoma had the highest rate of unwed mothers in the US and was the only state where you adopt a child and immediately take them out of the country.
I have met my birth parents, but after the original Ophah moment it was disappointing. I needed them to be sorry for discarding me, and they aren't. They gave me away because they loved me so much into a very very abusive situation. Logically I know they did the best they could.
When I met them I had what is called "the bastard moment" when you go from an upstanding member of society back to where you have to lie about who you are or have relatives who wont even look at you because you ruined their mother's life and so forth. It's not always or even often a happy daytime TV moment.
I was always told I was adopted, and at first thought all children were chosen. I later learned chosen as a replacement for the child my adopted parents dreamed they could have on their own. An impostor.
My birth certificate (the one made after the adoption, the one that does not have illegitimate stamped on it) says I am Scots Irish and that my adopted parents gave birth to me. Actually I am Irish and Cherokee. Not even the race they wanted.
I am no fan of the closed adoption system. Lies and secrets abound.
More later.  |
I too was adopted. My mother proceeded to abuse me until I was 14 and taken out of the home. After she had kicked me in the chest repeatedly while wearing clogs. She collapsed my mitral valve and left me in the driveway because she was angry that my father had gone to NM for his brothers funeral.
I knew I was adopted from early on, in fact I was reminded of it almost every day by Mom, who said I was her debt to society not a family member.
I don't reveal all this in a poor me manner. It is what it is and I've had years of therapy. Here is an interesting fact that is not loudly talked about
:
It has long been documented that former foster kids are overrepresented in America's prisons....Example: "69% on inmates in California State Prisons were former foster children; 60% in Massachusetts were foster children" according to testimony on the Congressional Record. The same appears to be true of adoptees.... Example: According to FBI stats: "16% of 500 serial killers are adoptees."
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/foiaindex_s.htm and according to Dr. Mike Aamodt, Radford University, "14% of 225 serial killers are adoptees."
Therefore, it begs the question as to WHY, if adoption (instead of foster care or permanent guardianship) is truly in the adoptees' "best interests," does "an over-representation of adoptees" end up in prison --
- regardless whether adopted as newborns or later in childhood,
- regardless whether placed with abusive or loving adopters,
- regardless whether they inherited "good genes" or "bad" genes from loving or abusive biological parents,
- regardless whether of one race/nationality or another,
[Note that AmFOR includes as noteworthy not only adoptees whose behaviors since childhood have escalated to felony crimes but also some truly "wrongfully convicted" adoptees who have been easily coerced into admitting guilt or accepting plea bargains for crimes they did NOT commit from lifelong acquiescence regarding their unnatural status.]
While many factors result in criminal behaviors, the fact of the adoption, how it was handled in the adoptive home, and "Adopted Child Syndrome" is often purposely overlooked at trial because it is "politically incorrect" to explore adoption's negative effects on the adoptee. Savvy profilers, forensic psychologists, attorneys, writers and other researchers, factor in adoption's abuse, not as an "excuse" but as a contributory "reason" (the "WHY") for criminal behavior in these individuals.