Jill, Derick and Israel- Part 16

[VelociRapture]

9 hours ago, Tangy Bee said:

I really don't Jill meant any harm. You have to remember Jill has been raised to always be a blessing & have a servants heart at ALL times. She was probably already convinced that this was a good thing to do. She doesn't have a clue right now. 

The thing is that intentions don't always matter - the impact does. Jill could have had completely harmless intentions here, but the impact could have been incredibly hurtful and painful for Cathy, the birth mother, and the respective families. Sometimes the damage done far outweighs the reasons and sometimes good intentions aren't nearly enough to atone for pain caused. 

9 minutes ago, anotherone said:

That's actually how it was, but it obviously didn't work.  People often know that the birth mother does not want to be contacted and they go ahead anyway to get court orders to unseal the documents.  You have to know in that situation that privacy can never be guaranteed.

I didn't know that (so thank you!) I was hoping maybe there could be some sort of compromise - like you said it isn't fair to change the rules on people who put their kids up for adoption years ago, but it also doesn't seem fair that some adoptees may never get the answers they so desperately want. Like I mentioned, the desire to know where you came from can be incredibly powerful for some people. It seems so unfair and sad to deny them that when they've done nothing wrong in this situation (but also unfair and sad to put the birth parents in that position when it's very likely that they didn't do anything wrong either.)

At the very least, medical history should be provided to the adoptive parents at the time of the adoption - maybe not identifying information, but lists of conditions or allergies and stuff. I feel like the potential health of the child is too important to leave that out. 

[Ungodly Grandma]

24 minutes ago, CoveredInBees said:

other than thinking that baby dill pickle is the new messiah who can heal all relationships what is her deal? Did she actually think she would have some sort of relationship with this person? Did Cathy OK this? We know the family's stance on abortion, is it purely to publicly shame the mother? or the mother's family? Is it some sort of pro-life stunt?

Jill is either:

1) Completely clueless or;

2) Some sort of evil genius.

I'm veering towards clueless. 

3) New story line? Or crossover. Someone up thread mentioned a TLC show about finding long lost family members.

[guitar_villain]

2 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

The thing is that intentions don't always matter - the impact does. Jill could have had completely harmless intentions here, but the impact could have been incredibly hurtful and painful for Cathy, the birth mother, and the respective families. Sometimes the damage done far outweighs the reasons and sometimes good intentions aren't nearly enough to atone for pain caused. 

I didn't know that (so thank you!) I was hoping maybe there could be some sort of compromise - like you said it isn't fair to change the rules on people who put their kids up for adoption years ago, but it also doesn't seem fair that some adoptees may never get the answers they so desperately want. Like I mentioned, the desire to know where you came from can be incredibly powerful for some people. It seems so unfair and sad to deny them that when they've done nothing wrong in this situation (but also unfair and sad to put the birth parents in that position when it's very likely that they didn't do anything wrong either.)

At the very least, medical history should be provided to the adoptive parents at the time of the adoption - maybe not identifying information, but lists of conditions or allergies and stuff. I feel like the potential health of the child is too important to leave that out. 

This is one of those areas where it's damn near impossible to balance the needs of everyone, and it's an incredibly delicate line to walk that differs for every adoption.

The simple fact is that happy, healthy, financially stable families don't place their babies for adoption.  There is *always* something tremendously wrong going on with the birthmother/family, especially now that out-of-wedlock pregnancies aren't treated as the shameful disgrace they used to be.  What that thing is varies for every birthmother, and how they deal with it depends on them and their situation.

The classic "pregnant 16-year-old who wants a future" still happens- it's our situation with #1 son.  In many ways it's as perfect as an adoption can be- birthmother wanted contact with us, and she came to his birthdays and we went to her college graduation.  But even with that she more or less broke contact with us after a few years, since she wanted to have a life and family of her own.  We've re-established contact with her in the past few years and she wants to have a relationship with #1 son (and her family/husband is totally supportive), but it's still something that's quite painful for her, and we want to make sure we're not barging back into her life

For #2 son it's a very different situation, and although we've met his birthmother she wants the adoption to be completely closed for reasons we fully understand.  He desperately wants the relationship #1 has with his birthmother, and it's just not going to happen.  We have attempted to track her back down and are 95% sure we know where she is now, but when we sent her a letter a year back it was returned unopened.  We have to respect that- we will probably try again in a few years to see if things have changed, and we really can't stop him when he's 18 if he wants to go farther, but she's not in a place where she can have a relationship of any kind.

As far as other people getting in the middle of this to "help search" or whatever.  *NO*.  Just don't.  What happens in an adoption is between the birth parents, adoptive parents and the child.   *Nobody* else.   It's tough enough for us to navigate the issues, don't add to them.  Adoption is a wonderful thing in many ways, but it involves loss on everyone's part even when it's as good as it gets.

[Four is Enough]

Wow. I am an adoptive mother, four times over, and some of the things I've read in this thread...

 

First of all, my name on my kids' birth certificates doesn't give me any "fantasy" whatsoever. I am their mother, but another man sired them and another woman gave birth to them. Medical history? The kids know what they've told us. Contact? All comes from the birth mother when they want it. Should I have to carry around my kids' birth certificates AND their adoption records to prove I'm their parent? Because let me tell you, those documents have the names of both birth parents on them. Don't they deserve privacy? And what about my kids? Do they have to be constantly reminded that they are adopted? That means DIFFERENT to a kid, you know.

Secondly, even with an open adoption, my kids could not be spared the agony of knowing (in their own minds) that they were unwanted. That's what it boiled down to for them. No amount of "they couldn't care for you so they made a plan for us to be your parents" had any impact whatsoever.  Witness the holes in my drywall and doors, and you'll get an idea of the rage. There's pain all around in adoption.

Thirdly, Three and Four were adopted after age four. Their last name was changed, and they chose their own middle names, keeping their first names. The situation was such with the birth parents that, to keep them from being found, even Social Security numbers were changed. This was an extreme situation, but the social workers decided the children's safety was at stake. So I don't understand why any birth certificate shouldn't be changed.

Fourth, it was made clear to us that the adoption record was sealed, but there was also a place in the file for the birth family to say whatever they wanted to say, should the child seek, later. They could leave medical information, they could leave a phone number and address, they could say they didn't want contact. Our two private adoption files have that information in them. Our two "via foster care" adoptions gave us a great deal of redacted information about everything from the birth records  to ER visits.The information is out there and available and it's not even too difficult to find. 

Adoptive parents aren't the devil here. They just want what many people want, and that is to have a family. They want to know as much about the heritage of the child as they can so that they can raise the child the best way they can.

 

[lascuba]

3 hours ago, CoveredInBees said:

Thinking out loud........

I read the inquisitor article and as I understand it:

Jill looks for Cathy's Bio mom via twitter,

But Cathy has had contact with her in the past and she wasn't interested in a relationship and says if it had been legal she would have had an abortion.

As it turns out she died in 2014.

So, other than thinking that baby dill pickle is the new messiah who can heal all relationships what is her deal? Did she actually think she would have some sort of relationship with this person? Did Cathy OK this? We know the family's stance on abortion, is it purely to publicly shame the mother? or the mother's family? Is it some sort of pro-life stunt?

Jill is either:

1) Completely clueless or;

2) Some sort of evil genius.

I'm veering towards clueless. 

Jill's bone-deep stupid, but she's not that clueless. There's no way she didn't know about Cathy's previous interaction with her birth mother--all these people talk about is Jesus and babies, so I'm sure there have been several hours long conversations about the evil abortion-wanting heathen. Jill probably didn't bother to check anything on her own first, so maybe they didn't know that the woman was dead, but she posted that tweet for mercenary and sinister reasons. 

[artdecades]

4 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

The thing is that intentions don't always matter - the impact does. Jill could have had completely harmless intentions here, but the impact could have been incredibly hurtful and painful for Cathy, the birth mother, and the respective families. Sometimes the damage done far outweighs the reasons and sometimes good intentions aren't nearly enough to atone for pain caused. 

This.

 

We need to stop treating Jill with kid gloves because of her upbringing. She is a an adult now, living independently (although still funded by mommy and daddy) with a child of her own. How long is she going to get away with bigoted, hateful, and harmful things because "she doesn't know any better". At a certain point, fundie children become fundie adults and are not longer innocent victims but perpetrators. 

1 hour ago, Four is Enough said:

Wow. I am an adoptive mother, four times over, and some of the things I've read in this thread...

 

First of all, my name on my kids' birth certificates doesn't give me any "fantasy" whatsoever. I am their mother, but another man sired them and another woman gave birth to them. Medical history? The kids know what they've told us. Contact? All comes from the birth mother when they want it. Should I have to carry around my kids' birth certificates AND their adoption records to prove I'm their parent? Because let me tell you, those documents have the names of both birth parents on them. Don't they deserve privacy? And what about my kids? Do they have to be constantly reminded that they are adopted? That means DIFFERENT to a kid, you know.

Secondly, even with an open adoption, my kids could not be spared the agony of knowing (in their own minds) that they were unwanted. That's what it boiled down to for them. No amount of "they couldn't care for you so they made a plan for us to be your parents" had any impact whatsoever.  Witness the holes in my drywall and doors, and you'll get an idea of the rage. There's pain all around in adoption.

Thirdly, Three and Four were adopted after age four. Their last name was changed, and they chose their own middle names, keeping their first names. The situation was such with the birth parents that, to keep them from being found, even Social Security numbers were changed. This was an extreme situation, but the social workers decided the children's safety was at stake. So I don't understand why any birth certificate shouldn't be changed.

Fourth, it was made clear to us that the adoption record was sealed, but there was also a place in the file for the birth family to say whatever they wanted to say, should the child seek, later. They could leave medical information, they could leave a phone number and address, they could say they didn't want contact. Our two private adoption files have that information in them. Our two "via foster care" adoptions gave us a great deal of redacted information about everything from the birth records  to ER visits.The information is out there and available and it's not even too difficult to find. 

Adoptive parents aren't the devil here. They just want what many people want, and that is to have a family. They want to know as much about the heritage of the child as they can so that they can raise the child the best way they can.

 

I think this comment is really important. There seems to be a lot of comments here advocating for a one size fits all approach to adoption and that clearly isn't something that can be done. Each case is unique and complex.

[2manyKidzzz]

@artdecades I agree with your post....and I have no experience of adoption in any way so really have no right to say much. But people live what they learn. Whatever Meechelle&Boob taught those kids, consideration for others beyond their cultish ideals was not on the list. I have a nice friend whose upbringing was difficult (abuse, divorced parents, etc.) She would occasionally ask me about how to respond to certain little social things because, really she had no experience in those things. Jill needs some "schooling" in these things, but I doubt that happens. Hopefully Cathy maybe knows this, or can see it, and cope/understand this behavior in the context of Jill's life. Not waste energy being upset at it towards Jill.

Who knows if the Jkids will ever know these things......I find this invasion of Cathy's life outrageous, and I certainly didn't go to finishing school or anything. 

[VelociRapture]

2 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

Wow. I am an adoptive mother, four times over, and some of the things I've read in this thread...

 

First of all, my name on my kids' birth certificates doesn't give me any "fantasy" whatsoever. I am their mother, but another man sired them and another woman gave birth to them. Medical history? The kids know what they've told us. Contact? All comes from the birth mother when they want it. Should I have to carry around my kids' birth certificates AND their adoption records to prove I'm their parent? Because let me tell you, those documents have the names of both birth parents on them. Don't they deserve privacy? And what about my kids? Do they have to be constantly reminded that they are adopted? That means DIFFERENT to a kid, you know.

Secondly, even with an open adoption, my kids could not be spared the agony of knowing (in their own minds) that they were unwanted. That's what it boiled down to for them. No amount of "they couldn't care for you so they made a plan for us to be your parents" had any impact whatsoever.  Witness the holes in my drywall and doors, and you'll get an idea of the rage. There's pain all around in adoption.

Thirdly, Three and Four were adopted after age four. Their last name was changed, and they chose their own middle names, keeping their first names. The situation was such with the birth parents that, to keep them from being found, even Social Security numbers were changed. This was an extreme situation, but the social workers decided the children's safety was at stake. So I don't understand why any birth certificate shouldn't be changed.

Fourth, it was made clear to us that the adoption record was sealed, but there was also a place in the file for the birth family to say whatever they wanted to say, should the child seek, later. They could leave medical information, they could leave a phone number and address, they could say they didn't want contact. Our two private adoption files have that information in them. Our two "via foster care" adoptions gave us a great deal of redacted information about everything from the birth records  to ER visits.The information is out there and available and it's not even too difficult to find. 

Adoptive parents aren't the devil here. They just want what many people want, and that is to have a family. They want to know as much about the heritage of the child as they can so that they can raise the child the best way they can.

 

Just to clarify for myself-

I understand that this is a deeply emotional topic and a very complex one as well. I wish there were easy answers on how to balance the needs and wishes of all involved - but as @guitar_villainworded so well, it's incredibly difficult (if not downright impossible) to balance those needs. 

When I mentioned medical history I did so because I do believe the best medical care happens when you know what to look for and what to keep an eye out for. I'm glad to know that your children had access to that and I hope that's the norm in most cases. It seems like what your children's' files contained was a reasonable compromise between trying to balance the birth parent's (or parents') right to privacy with your child's right to know what medical history there is.

If I personally said anything to upset or offend you (or other adoptive parents, birth parents, or adoptees) please know I apologize as it absolutely was not my intent. I have cousins who were adopted into my family before and after I was born. Their additions have only added to the love and happiness for both sides of my family, so I am most definitely not anti-adoption in any way, shape, or form. I just want that to be clear in case I didn't word things properly.

55 minutes ago, artdecades said:

This.

 

We need to stop treating Jill with kid gloves because of her upbringing. She is a an adult now, living independently (although still funded by mommy and daddy) with a child of her own. How long is she going to get away with bigoted, hateful, and harmful things because "she doesn't know any better". At a certain point, fundie children become fundie adults and are not longer innocent victims but perpetrators. 

Exactly. I feel a great deal of sympathy for what Jill must have gone through as a child - between the cult teachings, the lack of adequate food, the training methods, the molestations and coverup, etc.  I will likely always feel sympathy for her and her siblings for what they went through.

However, Jill is a married mother of one now and her actions can have far reaching effects on her child's wellbeing. At some point people have to start taking responsibility for their own actions and choices - Jill has reached the point in life where she can't constantly be given an excuse for shitty behavior and choices. So have Josh, Anna, Jessa, Ben, and Derick. And while they may still live at home, I believe that JD, Jana, and the other adult offspring are also reaching that point as well. 

(Same goes for other Fundie families too - like the Bates, Kellers, Wallers, Keilens, Paines, etc.)

TLDR: You can't blame all your choices and behaviors on your parents forever. Everyone reaches a point where personal responsibility kicks in.

[Denim Jumper]

6 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

The thing is that intentions don't always matter - the impact does. Jill could have had completely harmless intentions here, but the impact could have been incredibly hurtful and painful for Cathy, the birth mother, and the respective families. Sometimes the damage done far outweighs the reasons and sometimes good intentions aren't nearly enough to atone for pain caused. 

 

Exactly. It's possible that only very few people knew she was pregnant and gave her baby up for adoption (the standard "She's visiting a sick aunt" cover), because they wanted to keep it private. And now it's been made public, with no regard for the birth mother's wishes.

I've been estranged from my family for nearly 20 years. It's not something I talk about with anyone in real life except my husband, because it is incredibly painful and just not something I want shared with the world. A couple of years ago, my brother reached out to me through Facebook, which was fine (we kept sporadic contact over the years)... until Mother's Day rolled around and he wished me well on my FB page and added "Um... Ma would like to hear from you sometime..." I was so angry and embarrassed that he would put that out there, knowing that I'm not one to share much of my private life even with friends. I know it's not that same as the Cathy situation, but it comes down to this being a really inappropriate way to try and track someone down; you reach out to that person, not millions of strangers and everyone else who might know her. 

[Four is Enough]

3 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

 

I understand that this is a deeply emotional topic and a very complex one as well. I wish there were easy answers on how to balance the needs and wishes of all involved - but as @guitar_villainworded so well, it's incredibly difficult (if not downright impossible) to balance those needs. 

If I personally said anything to upset or offend you (or other adoptive parents, birth parents, or adoptees) please know I apologize as it absolutely was not my intent. I

 

As you said, VelociRapture, this topic is fraught with emotion, and is indeed very complex. Mr. Four and I went into this thinking we were prepared. We took courses, read books, had counseling, talked to other couples who'd adopted, and thought we could handle it.  We've learned all along just how little we did know about how to handle the elephant in the room. Adoption never goes away, and in the teen years, at least, it cannot be minimized. I'm not offended. I don't have the answers... but I do get.......testy at times. 

[RoseWilder]

10 hours ago, anotherone said:

When I looked into adoption, open adoption and contact with the birth mother was mandatory.  There was no rescinding it at any time.  Maybe it varies by state.

It's possible that open adoptions being mandatory might have just been that particular adoption agencies policy. Because closed adoptions are possible in every state. I think it's harder to find birth mothers who are okay with a closed adoption, but I'm not aware of any state that has a mandatory open adoption law. 

Also, contact with the birth mother is not a legally enforceable thing. So, even if the birth mother and the adoptive family agree on an open adoption, the adoptive family can change that at any time and there is no legal way to enforce the open adoption agreement. 

[MiddleAgedLady]

Derick's latest Tweet. 

 

[Chickenbutt]

What if Cathy's bio mom never told anyone about becoming pregnant with Cathy and went on to have more kids later in life? Those kids may have never been told and now have had their concept of their mother shot to hell. They most likely feel lied too and betrayed. Bio mom can no longer explain herself, nor defend her choices. Jill has no idea how this could impact people that she has no idea even exist. Children of the bio mom, grand children of the bio mom, spouses of said kids...etc. A whole host of people. Jill is a clueless idiot.

All speculation of course.

 

[RosyDaisy]

Cathy's adoptive mother died in 2014. Her bio mother died in 1992 per that Inquisitor article.

[2manyKidzzz]

39 minutes ago, RosyDaisy said:

Cathy's adoptive mother died in 2014. Her bio mother died in 1992 per that Inquisitor article.

So, am I right that Cathy's adoptive mom died while she had cancer? OMG. 

50 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

What if Cathy's bio mom never told anyone about becoming pregnant with Cathy and went on to have more kids later in life? Those kids may have never been told and now have had their concept of their mother shot to hell. They most likely feel lied too and betrayed. Bio mom can no longer explain herself, nor defend her choices. Jill has no idea how this could impact people that she has no idea even exist. Children of the bio mom, grand children of the bio mom, spouses of said kids...etc. A whole host of people. Jill is a clueless idiot.

All speculation of course.

 

A great example of fundies thinking .....all they do is good because Jeebus. In this case she shows she has no boundaries and it is very, very strange indeed.

[RoseWilder]

I don't think Jill looks pregnant in that picture. That's encouraging. 

[EyeQueue]

So they're basically using local village women to make their trinkets on the cheap for their 'ministry'? Which is basically to turn teh ebil Catholics into proper Jesus-lovin' folks?

SMH.

[Hisey]

On 6/4/2016 at 1:01 PM, patsymae said:

Some women don't want to be found, but they are a small minority. Birth certificates are falsified not to "protect" birth parents but to maintain the fantasy that adopted children as "as born to" their adopters and to protect apparent from intrusion by the natural parents ( don't bother flaming use of that term). Adoptees are demanding their rights to their original birth certificates and more states are seeing the light. Everyone should have the right to know who they are and the truth should not be at all threatening to adoptive parents who have a living relationship with their children.

What? That is such a strange comment.

I'm an adoptive parent  and I have no difficulty with the very honest and accurate term "natural parent". What's to flame? Adoptive parents are not as touchy and sensitive as you seem to think. In fact, when my kids were little, I made a point to help them understand the terms by saying stuff like, "I'm your adoptive mom and dad's your adoptive dad, and . . . " Not all the time, of course, but when the subject came up.

Do you really think there is a big conspiracy among adoptive parents to hide the truth from their kids via birth certificates? Because that's saying that adoptive parents like to lie to their kids and violate their trust. . . really?

My own kids know very little about their birthparents (I shared with them all I know) and probably will never be able to meet them. I'd give anything to find their birthparents and end my childrens' pain. "Preventing intrusion" from birhtparents is the last thing on my mind.

On 6/4/2016 at 8:57 AM, Snarkylark said:

Does anyone else think that birth parents should be listed on the birth certificate? After all, that were the ones involved in the birth of the child. I understand for privacy reasons that names are changed but I feel that a child has a right to the information as much as or more than the birth parents' right to privacy. Couldn't there be some sort of certificate of adoption that allows the birth certificate to remain in tact, while providing parental rights to the adoptive parents? My husband's father dies when my husband was 4. His mother remarried and her husband adopted my husband. His birth certificate was  changed to list his adoptive father. Something just bothers me about that. 

It bothers you. That's different from whether it bothers an adopted kid or not.

My adopted kids would never want their birthparents' name on their birth certificate. That would mark them as different from other kids. That's every kid's nightmare, to be different. My kids want to deal with their feelings about adoption in a private way. It is an intensely private thing. Sticking private, painful information on a birth certificate may satisfy your desire for "openness", but the real issue is, what would the child want and be most comfortable with?

[nastyhobbitses]

18 minutes ago, EyeQueue said:

So they're basically using local village women to make their trinkets on the cheap for their 'ministry'? Which is basically to turn teh ebil Catholics into proper Jesus-lovin' folks?

SMH.

I think they've heard of cottage industries where women in impoverished communities do arts and crafts work through a nonprofit and can use the money from doing that to supplement a husband's income or even be the breadwinner for their families, but ten bucks says that the money from the trinkets is going to go into giving Jill and Derick more free shit they "need" to harass people about Jesus.

[foreign fundie]

1 hour ago, EyeQueue said:

So they're basically using local village women to make their trinkets on the cheap for their 'ministry'? Which is basically to turn teh ebil Catholics into proper Jesus-lovin' folks?

SMH.

I am fairly sure that they are saying (part of) their ministry is to help those women make an income by selling their products for them in the States. I have seen endless varieties on this theme. 

It is often not 'ordinary' business but creating a demand back home amongst a limited group of mission supporters. The products are mainly attractive because you know by buying them a poor person gets an income. 

More often than not, the missionary organisation ends up paying for marketing and shipping. I would severely doubt that anybody except for these women makes money of it.

So they are attempting to give economical assistence. Hope it brings some good opportunities for these women.

 

[Palimpsest]

11 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

Also, contact with the birth mother is not a legally enforceable thing. So, even if the birth mother and the adoptive family agree on an open adoption, the adoptive family can change that at any time and there is no legal way to enforce the open adoption agreement. 

JUst setting the record straight:  Actually, open adoption agreements are enforceable in 28 states and the District of Columbia, to date.  www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/cooperative.pdf#Page=2&view=XYZ

It is also a pretty shitty thing for an adoptive family to sign an open adoption agreement if they have no intention of honoring it.  Or to change their minds after the adoption is final because honoring it is inconvenient and they want birth mom out of their lives.   Luckily those adoptive parents seem to be in the minority and most seem to honor the agreement..   

21 hours ago, nst said:

if she really knew that this woman died in 2014 and still posted that she wanted Iddy to meet her -then she has more screws loose than I thought - and it's an agenda -pure and simple and a storyline 

Jill Duggar is completely tone deaf when it comes to adoption issues and Cathy's feelings.  She's a stupid little fool. A little fool who absolutely has an agenda.

1 hour ago, foreign fundie said:

I am fairly sure that they are saying (part of) their ministry is to help those women make an income by selling their products for them in the States. I have seen endless varieties on this theme. 

So have I, and quite a few of them are shameless scams.  I always do some digging before donating or buying from some of these "ministries" or NGOs.  The good ones provide education and training in various skills, including small business management, provide seed money for small businesses, facilitate business contacts overseas, and then step slowly away once the business is up and running, only acting as resources and mentors.

The bad ones buy souvenirs as cheaply as possible, mark them up massively to sell in their home country telling people they are helping" the poor people of country X ," and pocket the difference themselves to fund their ministry and life-style.

I strongly suspect the Dillards are doing the latter.  I actually find it deeply amusing that the Dillards have glommed on to a women's empowerment model for their latest self-funding efforts.

 

 

[formergothardite]

55 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

 I actually find it deeply amusing that the Dillards have glommed on to a women's empowerment model for their latest self-funding efforts.

What is it with fundies attaching themselves to the women empowerment movement? Erin and Chad are doing the same thing. 

Jill is an idiot who doesn't think about anything but her agenda. 

 

[Palimpsest]

21 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Erin and Chad are doing the same thing. 

Unless they think that it is seriously empowering and amazeballs that Erin gets to play the piano, teach a few Fundies, and make a CD now she's married and a mother, I'm missing something.  I'm sure she had to get Chad's permission.

So, do they have a women's empowerment ministry too?

[foreign fundie]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

 

The bad ones buy souvenirs as cheaply as possible, mark them up massively to sell in their home country telling people they are helping" the poor people of country X ," and pocket the difference themselves to fund their ministry and life-style.

I strongly suspect the Dillards are doing the latter.  I actually find it deeply amusing that the Dillards have glommed on to a women's empowerment model for their latest self-funding efforts.

 

 

As for 'the bad ones' you mention, I suppose that this is possible, especially for larger NGO's. However I have not come across this particular abuse. I suppose because most missionaries 1) are not interested in making money (most I know make much less than they could make in a regular job) 2) they don't know how to do it. I know none of these projects that even break even. The sale usually covers only part of what the women get paid and none of the shipping, distribution and marketing. Also you need to have a pretty good network and be a savvey business person to make real money off non-professionally, small scale souvenir production.

Therefore, my guess? Sos make zero money with this. Let alone the Dillards. They can however use (pictures of) the program itself for their marketing.

[Four is Enough]

5 hours ago, Hisey said:

 

 Part One: I'm an adoptive parent  and I have no difficulty with the very honest and accurate term "natural parent". What's to flame? Adoptive parents are not as touchy and sensitive as you seem to think. In fact, when my kids were little, I made a point to help them understand the terms by saying stuff like, "I'm your adoptive mom and dad's your adoptive dad, and . . . " Not all the time, of course, but when the subject came up.

 

Part Two: My own kids know very little about their birthparents (I shared with them all I know) and probably will never be able to meet them. I'd give anything to find their birthparents and end my childrens' pain. "Preventing intrusion" from birhtparents is the last thing on my mind.

 

Part Three: My adopted kids would never want their birthparents' name on their birth certificate. That would mark them as different from other kids. That's every kid's nightmare, to be different. My kids want to deal with their feelings about adoption in a private way. It is an intensely private thing. Sticking private, painful information on a birth certificate may satisfy your desire for "openness", but the real issue is, what would the child want and be most comfortable with?

Part one: It is the adoptive parent's responsibility to tell the child where he came from. I started telling the Four their birth stories before they could even understand what I was saying, so that it would always be a part of their understanding.

 

Part Two: Unfortunately, finding or having contact with birth parents may not ease the children's pain. I remember during Two's childhood, we visited his birth family at least yearly. Once, being brought up Catholic, he stated to them that he worried that they wouldn't go to heaven because they didn't go to church. (Yes, we took the kids to Mass, and Catholic School) They retaliated with a big lecture on God's being his "imaginary friend" and God wasn't real, and God is just some construct made up to scare you. He spent a lot of time trying to reconcile our (increasingly, as time went on) different viewpoints, and spent a lot of time confused.

Another time, One's birth mother, upon hearing that he wanted to hear just once that she was his mother, told him in no uncertain terms:" Ms. Four is your mother. I knew I wouldn't be a good mother and I wanted you to have a good mother." You'll note that she didn't ever say she didn't want HIM. But that's the message he took from it.

 

Part three: This, especially the bolded. The birth parents are not part of the child's daily life in a meaningful way. And for Three and Four, their parental rights had been terminated by the State... so their birth certificates would have "birth parents", then "State of Maryland", Then us! Little too much information and too cumbersome.