However, with all that, I have no memory of certain events, which can partly be attributed to trauma, to the scopolomine that I was given and the sedatives given to me later. I have almost total recall of the moment when the Major came in and stood by my bedside and told me that my boyfriend had come to get us and they had had him arrested for Trespassing. I have almost total recall of calling my father in hysterics, thinking that my son and I had been about to be saved, only to have it torn away. I can even remember looking out the window as my son was carried away by the social worker. But, one thing I have ZERO memory of and have wracked my brains to find a glimmer of memory of, is signing the papers to surrender him. I don't remember that at all. Not one glint, not one speck, not one iota of a memory.
When I got my records about 5 years ago, I asked them why there wasn't a copy of the Surrender Document in the file. Normally, she said, one was there, but there wasn't one in my file. I asked if that was unusual. She said, yes, very. She had never seen one that DIDN'T contain a copy of the Surrender. She was shocked that one wasn't in there. I wasn't. I am almost certain there isn't one there because one wasn't signed, at least by ME.
In order to "help me" with my recall, she sent me one from the era of my surrender. This one is a little older, dated 1965, but the general specifics are the same, as it was essentially the same form that was used during my time. The critical data is whited out, but it is a generic form that I am posting here. You will notice that parts of it are written in. I am not sure why. Maybe the language was odd. But, please note that no mention is made of mother's confidentiality, no promise of anonymity, not a hint of my never, ever being able to know him. None of that is here. Also, note that, except the parts that are written in, I am referred to as the Mother, and my child as my child. The Birthmother/birthchild is written in; it wasn't a term then.
By the way, when I read it, not one thing on it even registered. You would think it would, wouldn't you?
Read and enjoy...it is here for all to see. Click on them to blow them up but they are darkish. They were on 3 sheets of legal paper so I scanned and cut them up which is why they look odd.
27 comments:
This is the first time I have ever seen a surrender document. It was painful to see. Even more painful to know that so many mothers never signed them willingly, or even signed them themselves.
Hey Sandy...I saw the faint outline of the notary seal. On my surrender doc says to be notarized, but there is no notary seal, not even an outline of.
So this SW sent you a copy of someone else's OBC, is why the name is whited out? yes? Pissed me off that this SW of today, inserted on this old surrender doc...the terms 'birth child' and 'birth mother'...they didn't even use that crappy-ass term back then. That SW needs to get with OUR program from the ole days...when the birth term crap wasn't even used on surrender docs. Bad enough about these surrender docs...add insult to more injury, handwriting in the Adoption language of today...BLECH!
@Linda..I now have a copy of my surrender doc and says even a whole lot less than this (1 page). Absent a notary seal and no witness signature, even though the doc says must be witnessed...on top of that it was post-dated!!
@Linda,
It was hard for me to read, too, Linda. I hated looking at it. I have had it for a while now, but kind of 'lost' it for a while. I just found it Friday, and it has sat on my desk, in the envelope, untouched until today.
@Chris,
Yes, I noticed that, too. I had no birthchild, I had a son. I am not birthmother, I am mother. Not only that, but according to that piece of paper, that mother, whoever she was, was also the "sole surviving parent". Wonder where her baby's daddy was, and wonder what he thought about being presumed dead. Did they ever ask him if he was dead? Did they ever talk to him? Wonder what they put on mine, when the dead father came to get us? Resurrected?
Sandy...you have seen my surrender doc...there is no 'birth' thingy stuff on the old surrender docs. Mine, I believe says same thing..sole parent or some such contrivance. Either I had a mysterious Immaculate Conception...or Daddy died and only the adoption agency knew and nobody bothered to tell me about it! What horrible shit they did back then. Every time I see this stuff..doesn't 'trigger' me into some weak femme faint, but rather just plain-out pisses me off!
I find it interesting that there is no promise of confidentiality or privacy. I read the contract at my maternity and adoptive parents. In fact, it was guaranteed that the adoptee could get access to it any time for any further purpose. Just interesting. Of course, I came with a warranty too. My parents could not take me to a doctor or put me in a hospital without the agency's consent as well.
Sandy, it reads a lot like the one I signed, under duress, with tears in my eyes at the maternity home in Charlotte. I have never seen any documentation for my son and I do not remember signing anything. This is heartbreaking and soul-searing and no mother should ever have to go through this. Talk about cruel and inhumane and evil and ...I'm crying again.
I don't even remember signing that kind of a document...I am sure I did. I remember being told that is what it was...I never actually was allowed to read it or given a copy. I wonder what it really said....
I remember signing my relinquishment in the SW's office. I can even describe the office, where I was standing in relation to her, the desk, the windows, door, etc. But I cannot tell you one word that was in the document I signed because I was crying so hard I couldn't see the paper. The one thing that has imprinted on my feeble brain all these 46 years was I remember looking to the SW, pen poised over the paper, and begging her, "Can Donna Michelle know me someday?" "Oh, yes," she assured me. "All of your information will be made available to her if she ever pursues it." LIAR!!
@Priscilla, we were all told so many lies it is hard to decide which were the worst. I do know that in the papers I signed for my daughter, I was referred to as THE MOTHER.
Robin ~~ That's right. I am, always was and will be for eternity, "the mother". I am not the *birth*mother, *first*mother, *natural*mother or any other altered version thereof. If anyone is to be amended, it's "adoptive"mother.
Robin, Priscilla,
I am in absolute and utter agreement with you both on that! Why should WE be bound by terminology that wasn't even in the lexicon at the time of our surrenders. It says on this paper, I am the mother of my son, not the birthmother of the birthchild. I absolutely refuse to be referred to in any other way.
Chris,
Yes, I have seen your Document and I continue to be stunned at the brevity of such a weighty document! It is so short, so absolutely nothing there, that it is breathtaking! I am sorry, but the signing of a document like this, with these ramifications should be done to an orchestra, with drumrolls and pomp, circumstance and ceremony. This is nothing less momentous that the signing of a Surrender on a field of battle. It changes every single thing from that day forward. I cannot understand how they could fit such as that into such tiny little pieces of paper!
I swear I signed no document even faintly resembling this. And I do remember every freakin' thing about my daughter's birth and afterwards. I was 22 and should have gotten something I suppose.....I left the hospital 3 days after her birth, and the home that same day. Never had to go to court....I am still shaking my head today.....all I know is her adoption was finalized in the "late spring/early summer of 1972"...the rest is considered identifying....makes me cringe at the lies that happened.....legally I wonder who signed for me.
@Jenny, Some states didn't require mother's signatures. Colorado, I understand, didn't. In my case, and in many, I imagine, all they had to do was wait and say we had legally abandoned them and they could terminate our rights. The TPR is not new. Our signatures on the paper is NOT what terminted our rights. That was just our legal permission to transport and give them permission to act on our behalf. The legal termination had to come from the judge who accepted our Surrender. So, if we didn't sign it, it only slowed things down a bit, not stopped them.
I would suggest that if you haven't already that you request your medical records. They cannot, by law, deny you that. There is a generic request here and on the SMAAC website. You have every right to your medical history, and they may drag their feet, but they cannot deny you. Let me know if you want any help with this. I keep requesting about every year and each time I get another scrap of paper or two. They are triggering but essential.
Good luck to you, Jenny, and ((((JENNY))))!
Kitta here:
I have my surrender doc from California, 1968, and it is very brief. It treats my child as some sort of slave:
[I surrendered] "all my rights to the custody, services, and earnings of said minor child and any responsibility for the care and support of said minor child will be terminated and that said minor child cannot be reclaimed by me."
There was nothing written on the documant about confidentiality nor searching nor contact with my child nor the adoptive family.
I wonder if the emphasis in California on "earnings" had to due with the entertainment industry in California and the fact that so many children had been adopted by movie stars.... and also, had become actors or worked in that industry themselves.Some were quite high-profile. I have seen other states' surrender documents, but I have not seen one that places such emphasis on the "earnings" of the child.
I also have a surrender doc from 1968, Colorado, and the mother did not sign it. The judge did. That remained the practice until the 21st century. Now, the CO mother signs to indicate she understands her rights will be terminated, but the judge still officially "relinquishes" the child.
With all the lies and misinformation I don't understand why it's so hard for some mothers to believe other mothers were promised anonymity.
I don't think victims of abuses of power and coercion should be so quick to accuse other victims of being untruthful because their experience was different. Nobody knows what happened to each and every mother, what was implied or falsely promised.
I think the fact that there are women who kept adoption a secret for their whole life after is proof positive that they thought they'd never be found out, for whatever reason. I mean, it's either that or they're pretty stupid.
You're not calling my momma stupid now, are ya? ;)
Campbell,
I know that some mothers were, whether they wanted it or not. Nope, your mother isn't a liar. I thnk that they did a very good job on some of us, convincing us. I understand your mother's feelings, for sure!
Kitta here:
I was told by the social worker, in California, that if my son were to be adopted, then the records would be sealed and we would be unknown to each other. But, that would be after the adoption took place. I understood this, and also that he would get a new birth certificate, a false one.
I have read the statutes in Colorado that mandated "anonymity" between the 3 parties in the adoption.There is no mention of this anonymity on the petition to relinquish. The mother does not "agree" to confidentiality, but the statute requires it, with exceptions for open/designated adoption and the confidential intermediary service, etc.
Parties to the adoption do not "agree to confidentiality." The law mandates it or sets the conditions as to what information can be released and when and to whom.
Campbell,
It does not matter what surrendering mothers were verbally told by social workers or others. What should matter under law is the document we signed, and nobody has found one yet that promises the mother perpetual secrecy.
Mothers were told what the social worker thought they wanted to hear in order to get the surrender. Some were told they could never be found, others were promised that their child COULD find them when the child was an adult. Why does one set of verbal promise with no legal standing count, and the other does not?
My surrender paper was similar to Sandy's. I dealt with the NJ State agency. I had a copy but do not know what I did with it, after copying it and cutting up the copy for a collage. I don't really care, it is not my favorite piece of paper.
@Kitta-
I am not sure if anyone noticed what you said here....this is a critical piece!
You said, "I have read the statutes in Colorado that mandated "anonymity" between the 3 parties in the adoption.There is no mention of this anonymity on the petition to relinquish. The mother does not "agree" to confidentiality, but the statute requires it, with exceptions for open/designated adoption and the confidential intermediary service, etc."
the line in there of yours, BUT THE STATUTE REQUIRES IT is absolutely of importance in this instance. If it is in the statutes, that is the law. ANONYMITY IS REQUIRED IN COLORADO! .
Hey maryanne : )
My comment was really addressing people saying "who are these mothers who were promised anonymity?" as if to say they don't exist.
I believe mothers were told what they wanted to hear in order to get the surrender. Hell, I know they were, from my sister's reunion.
"Why does one set of verbal promise with no legal standing count, and the other does not?"
I don't know. There isn't an easy answer. It's unfair all round.
Could there be something in writing promising confidentiality but it not come to light because the people who have such a thing want privacy?
I'll ask my mother when I meet her if she has anything like that. Add it to my list lol
Thank you for posting this Sandy. The "birth" prefix written in just goes to show that social workers, etc are still willing to falsify documents - years after the fact. It's as if they are underscoring that lying IS the norm when it comes to adoption.
I remember signing some document 56 hours after birth - I know, tons of time compared to what many mothers had. It was done in a court room which meant it was irrevocable. "My" attorney neglected to tell me that I did not have to sign anything at all right then, rather she picked my up from the hospital and took me straight to the court appt.
I have no idea what was written in the document, but I think it was less than a full page. I am surprised that any mother gets copies of the surrender documents. I have no way of getting mine unless the Freedom of Information Act applies. Is it the norm to be able to get them through the agency?
Regarding statutes, I have looked up NYS adoption. It states that in agency adoptions it is illegal for the mother to know the adopters names (information) and vice versa, yet nothing is said about open adoptions through agencies That clause about information exchange is missing in independent/private adoptions (mine) and guess who had all the info - not me! It is all very sketchy.
"I have no memory of certain events, which can partly be attributed to trauma" ...and the trauma of not remembering such an important time (for me and probably for many mothers) compounds the trauma of losing our children and all that goes with reunion.
Losing your child without even signing the documents of surrender is a further crime against mothers.
@Carol.
since the only name on the Surrender document will be yours, you should be able to get a copy through the agency. The woman at the agency we used said that it was very uncommon for there NOT to be a copy in my file, and that I had every right to it.
Freedom of Information usually specifically excludes adoption. You can see if your state does. IL does, and so does MO. I am pretty sure TX does too and those are the states I have a connection with, so they are the ones whose statutes I have spent time on.
Kitta here:
@SAndy
In this Colorado Appeals court ruling,the records from before 1967 were opened to adopted people.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/opinion/2009/2009q1/08ca1235.pdf
The justices ruled that the records had been open to all 3 parties to the adoption before 1967, and had been wrongly sealed, retroactively, by the 1967 "mandated anonymity" law.
In 1999, a bill-writing committee re-wrote the law to clarify that the "anonymity" had only been statutorily required after 1967.
An adopted person then filed a motion before the CO court in the 21st century to open his court records,and OBC, on his own behalf and that of others in his situation, and he won his case.
Kitta,
That is a lousy law in CO, an example of what happens when people want something/anything. It establishes a precedent of anonymity where there was none before, and creates two classes of adoptees based on when they were born. Even though some adoptees can get their OBC, it is step backwards, not forwards.
Kitta here:
Colorado's 1967 adoption records and procedures statute mandated anonymity between the parties to the adoption. Any state which has statutorily mandated anonymity between the parties to the adoption will have a hard time opening all records on demand.
Exceptions can be made, for CI programs, waivers of confidentiality, open adoptions,etc.
It is not what the mother signed that matters. It is how the statute regarding the records reads. This is why some states have opened them for some time periods and not others.
It is also why some states can open them more easily than others can.
Kitta here:
Maryanne,
the "precedent" for anonymity in Colorado's law was already set in 1967. The word "anonymity" was actually written into the law that year and went into effect in July 1967.
Of course, it was not fair.
Kitta here:
For anyone who is interested:
To get to the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling regarding the pre-1967 records, go to the Adoptees in Search Group-Colorado Triad Connection
http://www.aisctc.org/index.php
Then click on Legislative rulings. There is a section for Court of Appeals.
The link I originally gave was partly cut off.
Post a Comment