Senin, 10 Januari 2011

Dutch Government Provides a way out if Adoption gets to complex in the Netherlands - just move out

Adoptie

Nederlanders in het buitenland die een kind willen adopteren

Het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken en de Nederlandse ambassades en consulaten in het buitenland spelen geen bemiddelende rol bij de adoptieprocedure in het buitenland. U moet hiervoor zelf contact opnemen met de lokale autoriteiten. U hoeft geen toestemming te vragen van de Nederlandse autoriteiten om een kind te kunnen adopteren als u in het buitenland woont.

Geen erkenning buitenlandse adopties kinderen uit Cambodja

Het ministerie van Justitie heeft in mei 2003 de mogelijkheid om kinderen uit Cambodja te adopteren opgeschort voor in Nederland wonende aspirant-adoptiefouders. De redenen hiervoor zijn ernstige zorgen over de zorgvuldigheid van de Cambodjaanse adoptieprocedures. Deze opschorting is mede tot stand gekomen op basis van informatie van de Nederlandse ambassade te Bangkok.

In lijn met deze opschorting erkent het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken geen adopties van kinderen afkomstig uit Cambodja. Gezien met name de corruptie in Cambodja is het voor dit ministerie niet mogelijk zich een betrouwbaar oordeel te vormen over de zorgvuldigheid van de gevolgde adoptieprocedure in een individuele zaak, zoals dit wel vereist is op grond van de Wet conflictenrecht adoptie.

It looks like, that the Dutch government is providing a way out of the complex adoption procedures in the Netherlands. Just move to another country and adopt from there.
After the first signs of adoption emigration to for instance, Germany, Belgium, France and Spain (where the adoption seems practical easier to proceed and choices of countries of origin are multpiple - especially uncontrolable countries) 'return to sender' effect, after the adoption scandal in Hong Kong (case Jade) - what can happen if Dutch citizens live outside of the Netherlands and adopt, are still not covered by law nor by ethical standards and is still possible under The International promoted Hague Convention Guidelines. No panelty possible. Adopters are covered by law, but what about the affected adoptees ?

Minggu, 09 Januari 2011

2007 - UAI already warned earlier - Adoption Files incomplete !

‘Adoptiedossiers kloppen vaker niet dan wel’

Van onze verslaggeefster Margreet Vermeulen − 05/11/07, 08:50

‘Wij zijn geen criminelen die illegale kindjes hebben besteld bij de Chinees’, schrijven een wanhopige Patrick en Alinda op hun adoptieblog....

De tienduizenden geadopteerden zelf worden ook geraakt door het debat dat nu is losgebrand, weet Hilbrand Westra, oprichter van United Adoptees International (UAI), een belangenorganisatie voor geadopteerden. ‘Zulke schandalen roepen bij geadopteerden automatisch de vraag op of hun adoptie wel correct is gegaan.’ Westra ziet een voorzichtige groei van het aantal geadopteerden dat op zoek is naar de waarheid achter hun dossier. ‘Maar niet iedereen wil op zoek naar zijn roots. Programma’s als Spoorloos wekken wat dat betreft een verkeerde indruk. Want stel dat je ontdekt dat je adoptie-ouders geld onder tafel hebben geschoven of dat je biologische moeder nog leeft terwijl je van je adoptie-ouders had gehoord dat ze bij je geboorte is gestorven. Zulke dingen zetten de relatie met je adoptie-ouders onder grote druk.’

Zelf ontmoette Westra op zijn ‘root-reis’ door Zuid-Korea een halfbroer waarvan hij het bestaan niet kende. ‘Ik wist niet beter dan dat ik slechts een zus had, maar ik bleek uit een gezin van acht kinderen te komen.’

Met behulp van UAI doet op dit moment een handvol geadopteerden onderzoek in Korea, Indonesië en Colombia naar de waarheid achter hun dossier en daarmee naar hun biologische ouders. ‘Het dossier klopt vaker niet dan wel, weten we inmiddels. Dat wil niet zeggen dat de kinderen dus zijn verhandeld, maar wel dat de adoptie niet correct is verlopen. Dat er informatie is achtergehouden. Dat er nog wel een vader of moeder leeft of leefde. Dat het kind nooit te vondeling is gelegd.’

Het schandaal met de 105 Tsjaadse kinderen verbaast Westra niet. ‘Dit soort schandalen speelt al tientallen jaren. Hulporganisaties zoals Zoë’s Ark, hebben nauwelijks nog een ideële doelstelling. Dat zijn gewoon bedrijven die omzet moeten draaien.’

De meeste schandalen halen overigens niet de internationale pers. ‘Onlangs nog bleek bij een controle dat er 140 Thaise geadopteerden in Zwitserland wonen. Terwijl de autoriteiten slechts weet hadden van 54 kinderen. Er zijn dus bijna 100 kinderen binnengesmokkeld. Maar daar lees je hier niets over.’

Westra hekelt de lakse houding van westerse overheden. ‘Interpol geeft al jaren aan dat er op grote schaal illegaal in kinderen wordt gehandeld – al of niet onder het mom van interlandelijke adoptie. Waarom komt er niet een strafrechtelijk onderzoek naar criminele organisaties die zich met kinderhandel bezighouden?’

Voorlopig ziet hij het niet gebeuren. ‘De vraag naar adoptie-kinderen is enorm. Politieke partijen willen hun achterban met een kinderwens niet frustreren. Er is inmiddels een tegenbeweging ontstaan van adoptie-ouders en adoptie-organisaties die adoptie weer in een positief daglicht willen zetten’, aldus Westra, die overigens geen tegenstander is van adoptie zolang de internationale verdragen maar worden nageleefd.

‘Maar het omgekeerde gebeurt. Kijk naar de uitspraak van de Utrechtse rechtbank vorige week dat baby Donna bij haar Nederlandse pleegouders mag blijven. De biologische vader krijgt geen voogdij, zelfs geen omgangsregeling. Reden is dat de pleegouders inmiddels acht maanden voor Donna zorgen. Dat ze het Belgische meisje illegaal hebben gekocht via internet maakt blijkbaar niets uit. Dat gaat compleet voorbij aan alle internationale afspraken over adoptie. Het is een potentieel heel gevaarlijke uitspraak. Want het stelt het familiebestaan in Nederland boven alles.’

It is a strange world we live in. In one weekend the Netherlands showed two incomprehensive items about adoption. One item was published in one of the National Newspapers and showed and promotional article of adoptions from Haiti (happy children in a Dutch environment), while another broadcast organisation (see the Brandpunt issue hereunder) showed the devastating consequences of uncontrolled adoptions from Ethiopia.
But what triggers us, is that adoptees worldwide report and warned the world about adoptions based on incomplete and totally fraudulent paperwork is not incidental and shows a structural history of the business side of adoptions to get poor children out of impoverished countries leaving the rest of the families of these children in the country of origin. With the argument like a mantra, in the best interest of the child.

Jumat, 07 Januari 2011

Adoptions from Ethiopia another international Scandal

BRANDPUNT



Er is nog steeds heel veel mis rondom adopties uit Ethiopië: gesjoemel met geboortebewijzen, vervalsen van afstandsverklaringen en misleiden van biologische ouders. In deze uitzending laten we een reconstructie zien zien van het indrukwekkende verhaal van Betty, een Ethiopisch meisje van twaalf jaar.

Betty

Het verhaal gaat over Betty die vijf jaar geleden naar Nederland kwam, maar met de adoptieprocedure blijkt van alles misgegaan. Haar leeftijd is vervalst, verjongd van 7 naar 6, en in de adoptiepapieren staat dat haar biologische ouders zouden zijn overleden. Maar ook dat klopt niet. Haar ouders zijn springlevend. Eenmaal in Nederland gaat het mis met het meisje. Ze kan hier niet aarden en belandt bij bureau jeugdzorg.

Schokkende zaken

In de kerstvakantie is Betty voor eerst sinds de adoptie terug naar Ethiopië gegaan, op zoek naar haar dood gewaande ouders. Verslaggever Aart Zeeman reist mee en stuit naast het verhaal van Betty op andere schokkende zaken. Zoals kinderen die formeel geadopteerd worden maar in de praktijk onder valse voorwendselen aan hun ouders zijn ontfutseld. Volgens onderzoekers in de reportage is er in Ethiopië in veel gevallen sprake van kinderhandel.

Onderzoek Wereldkinderen

Wij hebben in dit verband tevens de hand weten te leggen op een onderzoek van Wereldkinderen uit 2009 naar de achtergrondinformatie van adoptiekinderen uit Ethiopië. De uitslag van dit onderzoek heeft er in 2009 toe geleid dat er geen nieuwe adoptieverzoeken meer in behandeling zijn genomen en dat de procedure voor nieuwe bemiddelingen uit Ethiopië is aangescherpt, aldus Wereldkinderen.

Uitzending KRO Brandpunt onderwerp van Kort Geding

Uitzenddatum: 09/01/2011
Over misstanden adoptie Ethiopië

Aanstaande zondag (9 januari, 22.15 uur, N2) brengt KRO Brandpunt een reportage die laat zien dat er nog steeds heel veel mis is rondom adopties uit Ethiopië: gesjoemel met geboortebewijzen, vervalsen van afstandsverklaringen en misleiden van biologische ouders. In deze uitzending is de reconstructie te zien van het indrukwekkende verhaal van Betty, een Ethiopisch meisje van 12 jaar.

Morgen dient ter zake een kort geding dat is aangespannen om aanpassingen door te voeren die volgens KRO Brandpunt ingrijpen in haar redactionele vrijheid. De KRO heeft er het volste vertrouwen in dat de uitzending integraal wordt uitgezonden.

Het verhaal gaat over Betty die vijf jaar geleden naar Nederland kwam, maar met de adoptieprocedure blijkt van alles misgegaan. Haar leeftijd is vervalst, verjongd van 7 naar 6, en in de adoptiepapieren staat dat haar biologische ouders zouden zijn overleden. Maar ook dat klopt niet. Haar ouders zijn springlevend. Eenmaal in Nederland gaat het mis met het meisje. Ze kan hier niet aarden en belandt bij bureau jeugdzorg.

In de kerstvakantie is Betty voor eerst sinds de adoptie terug naar Ethiopië gegaan, op zoek naar haar dood gewaande ouders. Verslaggever Aart Zeeman reist mee en stuit naast het verhaal van Betty op andere schokkende zaken. Zoals kinderen die formeel geadopteerd worden maar in de praktijk onder valse voorwendselen aan hun ouders zijn ontfutseld. Volgens onderzoekers in de reportage is er in Ethiopië in veel gevallen sprake van kinderhandel.

KRO Brandpunt heeft in dit verband tevens de hand weten te leggen op een onderzoek van Wereldkinderen uit 2009 naar de achtergrondinformatie van adoptiekinderen uit Ethiopië. De uitslag van dit onderzoek heeft er in 2009 toe geleid dat er geen nieuwe adoptieverzoeken meer in behandeling zijn genomen en dat de procedure voor nieuwe bemiddelingen uit Ethiopië is aangescherpt, aldus Wereldkinderen.

KRO Brandpunt, zondag 9 januari, 22.15 uur, Nederland 2

Brandpunt mag item over misstanden adoptie uitzenden

HILVERSUM - Het KRO-programma Brandpunt mag van de rechtbank in Amsterdam een voorgenomen uitzending over misstanden rond adopties uit Ethiopië gewoon laten zien zondag. Dat liet de omroep vandaag weten.

De adoptieouders van een Ethiopisch meisje spanden deze week een kort geding aan om de uitzending te voorkomen. Zij vreesden dat de reportage diep in hun privéleven zou ingrijpen. De rechter oordeelde vanochtend echter dat de privacy van het echtpaar voldoende is gewaarborgd.

Volgens de KRO laat de reportage zien dat er nog steeds veel mis is rondom adopties uit Ethiopië. Verslaggever Aart Zeeman ontdekte dat er wordt gesjoemeld met geboortebewijzen en dat biologische ouders worden misleid. Volgens onderzoekers in de reportage is er in Ethiopië in veel gevallen sprake van kinderhandel.

Volgens de omroep wenste de klagende partij verregaande aanpassingen aan de uitzending. De rechter ging niet mee in de klacht en wees alle vorderingen af.

De bewuste aflevering van Brandpunt werd zondagavond om 22.15 uur uitgezonden op Nederland 2. (ANP)

With Courtesy to ACT


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYpm3V0XFu8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M9ZQr4Ug08&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAjGfSzKnB0

Lees ook de volgende nieuwsitem over dit onderwerp:
The Catholic Dutch broadcast organisation KRO, will broadcast an documentary tomorrow about adoptions from Ethiopia. They reveal the many problematic adoptions and the trafficking of children for international adoption. The case which they use is from one adoptee who's file was incomplete and probably falsified. During their research following this girl (Bety) they found many more cases of strange happenings and parents who where informed falsely about the situation of the their children. The adoptive parents went to court to halt the program with the argument that the privacy would be in danger of the adoptee. Also the adopters wanted the item to be edited if broadcasted but the court dit not agree with the adopters and KRO is permitted to broadcast the program.

Kamis, 06 Januari 2011

Change in Adoption Policy in Korea


Can Korea shed image of orphan exporter?



Government’s tougher regulations expected to bring drastic change to adoptions

By Lee Hyo-sik

South Korea has a notorious reputation of an “orphan exporter” over the years as thousands of abandoned children here have been adopted by foreigners, mostly Americans and Europeans.

In a bid to polish its tarnished status abroad and prevent possible child abuse, the Korean government has been encouraging domestic adoptions by providing foster parents with financial subsidies and other incentives. Since 2007, the number of domestic adoptions has exceeded that of overseas ones — but only as the government made regulations for the latter tougher.

Experts say the country still has a long way to go until all of its abandoned children find a new family and receive adequate childcare, stressing that kinship-conscious Koreans should be more open to raising the children of others.

They also say the recent government move to oblige those seeking to adopt Korean kids to obtain prior approval from courts will not dampen domestic adoption, noting the measure only targets ones administered between individuals under the civil law, which could expose adopted children to potential abuse.

They stress adoptions through state-certified agencies are safe and will continue to increase.

According to the Korea Central Adoption Resources (KCAR), affiliated with the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the number of orphans adopted at home came to 1,388 in 2007, exceeding 1,264 cases of overseas adoption for the first time. In 2009, a total of 1,314 kids were adopted by Koreans, compared to 1,125 by foreigners.

These numbers reflect children adopted at home and overseas only through 22 state-certified adoption agencies. In reality, hundreds of children are adopted through deals made by birthparents and foster parents each year under the civil law, with many more illegally sent abroad.

“It seemed almost impossible in the past to see more Korean kids adopted at home than overseas. But in 2007, the number of domestic adoption surpassed that of overseas adoption for the first time in the nation’s history. If the current trend continues, local adoptions will outpace those by foreigners by a larger margin in the future,” KCAR Chairman Yi Bae-keun told The Korea Times.

He attributed a rise in the number of domestic adoptions to the expanded state financial incentives, including the provision of a 100,000 won allowance per adopted child, and a growing number of infertile parents.

Yi then stressed the importance of local adoptions to removing Korea’s image as an orphan exporter.

Construction of database

“But still a large number of children find a new home in foreign countries. Many of them are physically and mentally-handicapped children because it is hard to find foster parents for them in Korea. Besides, many Koreans are still reluctant to raise children of others, due to Confucian values regarding blood ties,” the chairman said.

When asked about whether the recent government move to strengthen the screening of foster parents will negatively affect adoption, Yi said it will not dampen domestic adoptions through official channels because they are in accordance with a Special Act on Adoption.

“But it will likely bring about a drastic change to adoptions carried out among individuals. Under the civil law, birthparents can hand over custody of their children to other adults. But many such cases ended up exposing adopted kids to abuse. I think the government seeks to rein in such cases.”

In September, the Ministry of Justice unveiled a plan to revise the civil law concerning the adoption and other related matters. It plans to finalize the revision within the first half of 2011 and submit it to the National Assembly for approval. Among others, a mandatory screening system will be introduced to check whether individuals looking to foster children are fit to do so or not.

Those seeking to adopt children will be required to gain prior approval from the court.

Currently, adults seeking to adopt children here only need to obtain a written approval from either the biological parents or grandparents. Children growing up in orphanages can be adopted without consent. This has made adopted kids vulnerable to potential physical and psychological abuse.

Yi projected that the number of domestic adoptions will continue to increase in the future, while the number of children sent to foreign countries will show a downward curve. “With low birthrates and other social changes in Korea, adoptions will be more popular among Koreans.”

The chairman said KCAR will play a greater role in bolostering domestic adoptions by carrying out a range of promotion campaigns and changing Koreans’ perception toward adopting somebody else’s children and raising them as their own.

“We will also try to build up a comprehensive database containing information on children adopted by foreigners and their birthparents. A total of 160,000 Koreans have been adopted and raised by foreign foster families over the past 50 years. A large number of children born here and raised by foreigners are coming back to find their birthparents. We would like to be a great help to them in finding their biological roots,” Yi said.

leehs@koreatimes.co.kr

Senin, 03 Januari 2011

Dictatorships shows in History that thousands of children are abducted

The 30,000 lost children of the Franco years are set to be saved from oblivion

Pressure is growing to illuminate the fate decreed by the Spanish dictator to the families of his Republican enemies

By Alasdair Fotheringham - The Independent

Sunday, 2 January 2011

General Franco pictured in 1936

Getty Images

General Franco pictured in 1936

"Did my child die or was he kidnapped?" is something no parent should ever have to ask, and still less so when the kidnappers are the government. But that is exactly the question hundreds of Spanish families are currently demanding that their courts resolve for once and for all about the so-called "lost children of General Franco". They were already estimated to total around 30,000, and now, it appears, there may be many more.

In Franco's early years, "child-stealing" by the Spanish state was politically motivated, with its key instigator, Antonio Vallejo-Nagera, the army's crackpot chief psychiatrist who championed Nazi theories that Communism was a mental illness caused by the wrong kind of environment. Inspired by Vallejo-Nagera, Franco's government passed laws in 1940 that, as one judicial report in 2008 put it, "ensured that families that did not have ideas considered ideal [ie, supporters of Spain's defeated republic] did not have contact with their offspring".

Putting this policy into practice was brutally straightforward and efficient. In 1943, records show 9,000 children of political prisoners had been removed to state-run orphanages, and in 1944 that total had risen to more than 12,000.

Arguably the most infamous case took place at the Saturraran women's prison in the Basque country, when around 100 Republican children were removed in one fell swoop. Their mothers, who had been tricked into leaving their children alone for a few minutes, were told they would be shot if they so much as shouted when they came back and found them gone.

Julia Manzanal, 95, no longer talks to the press because her family say that it upsets her too much. But as a Communist whose 10-month-old baby died of meningitis in one of Franco's prisons she was a first-hand witness of the enforced adoption policy. When last interviewed in 2003 she said : "I never let my child out of my sight because when mothers were condemned [to death], they would rip the babies out of their arms. They would give them to priests, to military families, to illegal adoption rings and educate them in their own ideology. Conditions there were terrible... there were huge rats, lice, virtually no food, women would give birth in the washrooms with no help... I saw children die of hunger and thirst, and their mothers would go mad as a result."

Having the wrong name could be fatal. In a television documentary in 2002, Ms Manzanal described how when Franco's police discovered that one prisoner's child's name was Lenin, they picked it up by the legs and smashed its head against a wall.

Even after the collapse of Nazi Germany, the enforced adoption policies continued, and even intensified to include Republicans living abroad. As late as 1949, official documents of the ruling Falange party give detailed instructions on how children born to their former enemies then exiled outside Spain were to be kidnapped and brought back across the border for re-education. Their names were then changed to ensure no further contact was possible.

But by the 1960s what had begun as a politically motivated state policy slowly morphed into a more straightforward adoption trade – in some cases with the state's connivance. Parents were simply told their infants had died shortly after birth, and the babies were then sold on to families.

Mar Soriano told El Pais newspaper last year: "My sister was born on 3 July 1964, and my mother was breastfeeding her until they told her they had to take her baby to the incubator. When my parents went to look for her later, they told them she had died of an ear infection. My father wanted to see her and bury her, but they said they had taken care of everything and she was in a mass grave."

Other cases, like that of Maria Jose Estevez, were eerily similar. Ms Estevez's baby was born on 3 September 1965 in Cadiz, but even though she could hear him crying later in the next room, she was told she was imagining things and that he was dead. She was informed he had already been buried, next to the amputated leg of a recently operated patient.

With cases now up to six decades old, any hope of resolving them seemed doomed. But a recent wave of media interest has seen bereaved family after bereaved family recalling the same bizarre circumstances: the death of their newborns from ear infections or an equally implausible cause, followed by the hospital's point-blank refusal to show them the body.

By late November, Javier Zaragoza, Spain's chief prosecutor, had more than 300 new cases on his desk. Faced with growing demands, he formally requested that the Ministry of Justice set up a specific department to compile a list of the missing infants.

However, there was a catch. Mr Zaragoza was willing to run the investigation to cover a massive four-decade period – up until 1980, five years after Franco's death – but he also said that it would be purely administrative. In other words, even if crimes were uncovered, nobody would go to jail.

Discouraging as that may sound, it represents progress compared with 2008, when the first official report made into the cases of all the "disappeared" during the Franco years ordered by the crusading judge Baltasar Garzon, including the missing infants, ended up being shelved. Judge Garzon was accused by various extreme right-wing organisations of acting outside his legal powers, something for which he now faces trial.

This time round, though, the victims of enforced adoption are determined that they will not be shunted into a legal siding and forgotten. So far, they are succeeding. In Madrid, the hospitals have opted for a full-scale investigation of all infant deaths between 1961 and 1971.

In Cadiz, Algeciras, Malaga and Granada, four big cities in the south, the local state attorneys are reported to believe cases should be opened. In Valencia, a leading lawyer specialising in the cases, Enrique Vila, aims to open another legal front later this month when he files a formal complaint of mass kidnapping with Spain's equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service.

There could even shortly be an international investigation. The Foros por la Memoria movement has taken the cases of all those missing from the Franco years to the United Nations to plead that they cannot simply be shelved. An answer is expected this summer.

As for the women of Saturraran prison, last year, for the first time, a film, Izarren argia [now Stars to Wish Upon], was made about their experiences. When it had its premiere at the San Sebastian Film Festival, a 93-year-old former internee, Ana Morales, stood up in the audience and thanked the director for "finally letting some light be shed on that terrible place".

Mrs Morales said she was lucky: she could place her own child out of harm's way with a sympathiser outside prison until she herself was released. But many others in the same predicament are still fighting to find out what happened to theirs.

Minggu, 02 Januari 2011

As an Adoptee in your motherland confronted with social discrimination

National Human Rights Commission rules on adoptee pay at Busan English Village.

From the Korea Times:
An English immersion village has been warned by the state human rights watchdog not to discriminate against Korean-American instructors in terms of payment compared to other native English speakers as long as they speak English fluently as their mother tongue.

A 30-year-old Korean-American filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) last May, claiming Busan Global Village, an English-immersion facility in Busan, paid him less than other native English speakers due to his birthplace, South Korea.

The petitioner was adopted by a family in the U.S. when he was 18 months old. He grew up there as a U.S. citizen, using English as his primary language.

He was hired by the institute last year and coerced to sign a contract that treated him like an English-speaking Korean, whose annual pay was roughly 7-10 million won ($6,100-8,700) less than those of native English speakers who were not ethnically Korean. He worked there between July 2009 and April this year.

The NHRC investigated the case and concluded the petitioner should not be differentiated from native speakers when teaching English.

Here is the release from the 국가인권위원회 in Korean.

This ruling on one English Village is not law, and I suspect some schools will continue to pay gyopo teachers, especially their non-Korean-speaking ones, less than their native speaker English teachers. It's an important, and instructive, ruling for overseas Korean adoptees returning to South Korea to teach, though the NHRCK's recommendation to the English Village and its hiring practices reminds us it's better to be aware of, and take preventative measures against, shady contracts than to try and win anything a year or two later.
The agency recommended the institute pay the difference in wages to the instructor.

TAG, An Adoptees Status

by TAG - December 31, 2010 | Editorial


TAG, I’m It – Self Portrait, 2010
(Photo: Thomas Good / NLN)

May 28, 2010 began innocently enough — but by mid-morning I found a woman I hadn’t seen in over 50 years.

“The Conversation” took place early in the day. It was a Friday that seemed ordinary enough. But it would turn out to be truly remarkable.

“Hello, can I speak to Sandra?”

“This is Sandra…”

“Hi, my name is Thomas Good and I have reason to believe that I might be your son.”

***

I am a Leo, born in mid-August. But my mother says that I have a new birthday, that I was reborn on the day she and I were re-united after a 50 year separation: May 28th. So, like George Washington, I celebrate two birthdays. We are party animals, George and me.

Whenever I think about how it felt to find my mother — and to discover my family history — I am astounded.

***

The phone call, “The Conversation,” happened after a long search.

When I was very young, my adoptive mother told me that I was adopted and that my birth name was “Altfather.” She told me that my family came from the German part of Pennsylvania and that my mother was an artist. I studied art and German as a kid in an attempt to embrace my roots. Years later I went to the “Heimat” (homeland) for the first time. It was 1996 and I was in Rotterdam on business. Seizing the opportunity, I jumped on a train to Düsseldorf. As the sun rose I traveled from Appledorn to Emmerich, crossing the Dutch frontier. At the border the Dutch train crew departed and their German colleagues came on board. The rising sun illuminated the steel rails and I exhaled slowly. It was almost impossible to believe that I had finally arrived in the ancestral homeland. Everywhere I went in Düsseldorf, I met people who were very excited that a son of Germany had returned home. “Inspiring” would be an understatement. And so, in 2000, I took my wife and young son to München. I was visiting a colleague and took the opportunity to show my family a little bit of Germany. After landing at the airport we went through customs. Stamping my passport, the German border guard looked up when I said, “Schönes Tag.” For whatever reason he got very excited and came out of his booth to shake my hand. I have no explanation and no words. Another ethereal experience. Another one of Andre Breton’s “surreal Moments.” Life should be about joy, it should be celebrated. I don’t know that official’s name but I am grateful. Whatever else we are, we are both somebody’s son.

A few years later I discovered that, although they had sealed birth records in 1964, the great state of Ohio allowed people born prior to 1964 (or after 1996) to access their original birth certificates (http://www.odh.ohio.gov/vitalstatistics/legalinfo/adoption.aspx). On my 51st birthday I mailed in my application and the filing fee, expecting little – I already possessed the documents my adoptive mother had given me before she died. A month later my original birth certificate arrived. I felt like a kid getting a decoder ring. On it was my birth mother’s name. And her home town in Pennsylvania: Berlin. Two valuable clues. I searched via google for Altfathers from Pennsylvania — as I had already done many times. But this time I zeroed in on Berlin. I would repeat this search innumerable times in the coming weeks. Not much came up. But everything changed on May 28.

On a quiet Friday, sitting at my desk sipping some coffee and preparing to get to work, I googled one more time, expecting nothing from the familiar exercise. And then I got a lead. A break.

I never met Bill Altfather – he died in 1998. But a woman in South Carolina had posted his obituary on a genealogy website. The obit listed the surviving relatives. My mouth fell open when I discovered that one of the survivors was a woman whose maiden name was very familiar. It also gave her married name. That was the missing piece that tied things together neatly. And from there I found a viable phone number.

***

I “met” my mother in July of 2010 — we had met once before — when my family and I journeyed to her home. I can’t help but cry as I type. The first look, the first hug. Beyond words. Imagine what it means to be a complete human being and you’ll have an idea of what it feels like.

Unfortunately there is a political reality that many adoptees encounter when researching their past. Far too many states block adoptee access to what are known as “Original Birth Certificates” — or “OBCs” in the adoptee rights movement. There is no national standard and “States Rights” means that, in many states, adoptees have no rights to access their own birth certificates. Imagine your doctor saying, “Is there a history of diabetes in your family?” and you have to reply that you have no way of knowing. Imagine you spend your entire life not knowing the circumstances around your adoption. Imagine you can’t recall what your mother looks like? Imagine an impersonal response from a state official.

What is to be gained from blocking access to OBCs? Statistics show that birth mothers overwhelmingly embrace their long lost offspring when reunion occurs. And adoptees like yours truly don’t feel any need to turn their backs on those who raised them. Family is not an either/or scenario. The bottom line: adoptees are not the property of the State. We have rights and it is time that they be respected. Adult adoptees are as capable of making their own decisions as any other citizen is. There isn’t any rational reason adult adoptees should be second class citizens.

Sadly, New York State lags behind Ohio in respecting the civil rights of the adoptee. Sealed adoption records leave individuals searching for birth parents with only one recourse: a state-run adoption “registry” that can help facilitate a reunion. But there are no guarantees as one woman’s story reveals. According to the Utica Observer Dispatch, Kelly Wittman Clausen, a 37-year-old adult adoptee, has been on the registry since she was 21 — and has yet to find her mother.

Except for an accident of birth, I would not have found my mother. By sheer luck, being born in Ohio rather than New York — or Pennsylvania — I had access to my original birth certificate. My mother cried when I called her. And when I apologized she said, “These are not tears of sadness.”

***

When I visited my mother in July I spoke to her about an idea I had. I had decided that, on the occasion of my 52nd birthday, I would rectify what I had come to regard as an error. Mom smiled and said, “So you’ll be ‘TAG’.”

When I was barely two months old I had been given a middle name by my adoptive family — the surname of a distant relative whom I had never met. As my adoptive parents were both dead by the time I found my birth mother I made a unilateral decision. With the assistance of my friend and occasional attorney, an amazing National Lawyers Guild member named Gideon, I petitioned the State of New York for a name change. I filled out several forms, got my wife’s permission in writing, got everything notarized and filed my papers at the civil court. When it came down, I took the judge’s decision to the local newspaper for publication. The technicalities completed, I procured new ID. Once the process was finalized — it took about two months — I was a hybrid. My first and last where the names I had been given upon adoption. And sandwiched in between was what I jokingly referred to as my “maiden name.”

The change is no small matter.

With the exception of my middle name, I kept my adopted name(s). I am grateful to my adoptive family and the name they provided was, by and large, a good fit. But with the new middle name I feel complete, whole — part of an extended family.

I had no control over decisions made at the time of my birth and so it is gratifying that I will die as what I am – an Altfather, as well as a Good. It is my decision and one I am very comfortable with. I like to tell people “TAG, I’m it.”

I believe that every adoptee has the right to know their past, to find their birth parents and reunite – if the adoptee and the parents wish to do so. It is the right of any human being to possess their history, to define themselves, to make their own decisions.

The process is hard enough without the state interfering — I was scared shitless at several points along the way. I felt some guilt. I felt some frustration, some remorse. But throughout, I felt joy. Everyone should have the opportunity to discover who they are and where they came from. Our past is our property.

I am proud to be reborn as my mother’s son. TAG, I’m it.

Happy New Year to all of the adoptees and ALL of their parents.

Thomas Altfather Good,
New York City
December 31, 2010

“All of my days, all of my life, standing by you — all of my days, all of my life, I will find you.” — Cyndi Lauper, “Echo”