Jill, Derick and Israel- Part 16

[anjulibai]

1 hour ago, OrchidBlossom said:

Well, for a start, I didn't specify the federal constitution. I can see how you took it that way, for which I apologize, but I meant ANY constitution, which is why I also included statutes, I wanted any provision of any law in the US which so specifies. Further, I'm going to go ahead and guess that no state has a constitutional provision that says "everyone has a right to know their birth parent's identities except adoptees" because that kind of sounds like a major violation of equal protection. However, I did invite you to prove me wrong by quoting any such provision which does exist. If you know of a state which has such a provision of law I would be glad to know of it and discuss it. Otherwise it isn't in my plan for the day to read through every state's constitution to see if that is there. You are asserting that it is, I am asking you to prove it.

Love this post!

I will also add, when you say something is a right of every American, that petty strongly implies it's a federal Constitutional right. The rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution are the only rights we all share in common. 

[patsymae]

18 minutes ago, anotherone said:

What exactly does that mean, the bolded part.  How is that my right?  I'm not adopted, but if my dad wouldn't talk about his estranged family and never brought us to meet his relatives, and I know absolutely no one from his side of the family and when he died it was still this way, there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.  I can't demand he tell us about our heritage, he didn't want to and that is that.  I would like to know this stuff of course, how the elders died and how many second cousins I might have had, etc.  but I will never know this and it makes no sense to say I have a right as an American to know this information. 

In a way he behaved no differently than a birth mom that didn't want to be found and he actually has every right to do that. 

I was talking about access to birth records, not forcing relatives to talk. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 

[OrchidBlossom]

5 minutes ago, patsymae said:

I was talking about access to birth records, not forcing relatives to talk. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 

Adoptees have access to their birth records too. If a non-adopted child has their birth record altered by their parents for some reason they don't have some special right to access those edits that adoptees don't have as far as I am aware. Again, please feel free to point me in the direction of any right as defined by statute that non-adoptees have that adoptees do not if I am wrong. 

[patsymae]

14 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

Adoptees have access to their birth records too. If a non-adopted child has their birth record altered by their parents for some reason they don't have some special right to access those edits that adoptees don't have as far as I am aware. Again, please feel free to point me in the direction of any right as defined by statute that non-adoptees have that adoptees do not if I am wrong. 

Adoptees have access to original birth certificates only in those states that have unsealed the m, or sometimes in extraordinary circumstances a judge might order it. And now I'm done.

[Four is Enough]

OK, what then about the birth mothers who put their child's father's name as "Unknown" or "Fake Name" to protect hom?

Does that give the adopted child more information about his "heritage"?

 

Unknown or Fake names were used. I would venture a guess that some of the girls/women who went away to have their babies also used fake names, so as to not be traced. Shame in the 50s 60s was a huge factor, and I'm betting that in some cultures, shame is still a big factor today and deception happens. Shame is probably why they sealed adoption records to begin with.

 

ETA: I'm not going to let this go. Patsymae said,

Quote

Children don't need protection in the form of fake birth certificates

and that pisses me off. All my children's birth certificates say that they were born and that Mr. Four and I are their parents. Both statements are true.

I am certain that the "certificate of live birth" filed the day each was born , naming the birth parents, is what's sealed in their adoption records, but I can assure you that their parental rights were either surrendered or terminated, and we were named legal parents by the state. 

No Fakery. No trickery. No LIE.

[jcanglin991]

Until a child is of age, his or her parents are the one who interact with officials and  organizations. Schools often require birth certificates to enroll children, you need to show a birth certificate to obtain a passport for your child. I could give more examples but you get the gist. Also, many people in these organizations work with the mindset that your documents must fit their list or they will give you problems. If you show up with a birth certificate that names other people you will have to jump through hoops to obtain services for your child. The whole point of changing names on birth certificates in adoption is to connect  the child legally to the adoptive parents. This is not sinister. It simply tells others that these people are a family unit. The children  can be given all the information  they can handle and that the adoptive parents have available. 

[lascuba]

Just FYI: about the "father unknown" thing on bc's, in some (most? all?) states, if you're not legally married to your child's father, then they don't just let you put the father's name on the birth certificate. He would actually have to agree and sign additional documents to have his name on the bc. If he doesn't, then he's "unknown." (I don't know what happens when courts and paternity tests, etc. are involved.)

I'm enough of a pendant that I absolutely get the idea that a birth certificate should reflect those involved in the birth, but I don't think it's some sinister thing that it sometimes doesn't. And it does make perfect sense for the birth certificate to name the child's legal parents. As for adoptees wanting to know who their birth mothers are...it sucks, but I'm on the birth mothers' side on this one. Their names shouldn't be known if they don't want them known.

[browncoatslytherin]

Until a child is of age, his or her parents are the one who interact with officials and  organizations. Schools often require birth certificates to enroll children, you need to show a birth certificate to obtain a passport for your child. I could give more examples but you get the gist. Also, many people in these organizations work with the mindset that your documents must fit their list or they will give you problems. If you show up with a birth certificate that names other people you will have to jump through hoops to obtain services for your child. The whole point of changing names on birth certificates in adoption is to connect  the child legally to the adoptive parents. This is not sinister. It simply tells others that these people are a family unit. The children  can be given all the information  they can handle and that the adoptive parents have available. 

can confirm, as i work with medical records and when it comes to releasing records for minors, there's already extra steps we have to take to ensure they are released properly within the guidelines of both hipaa and the facility we are releasing from. the more paperwork we have to check and vet, the more time we have to spend on the request, the less time we have to do other requests, the more requests pile up, the more angry requesters call in to complain about the wait for records. an amended b/c makes things so much easier on medical personnel, it immediately tells us who is legally able to make decisions regarding a child's health and who has a right to access their records.

furthermore, amended b/c's have helped to protect at least a few children in my own personal experience. when i worked at a children's hospital, there were a few times the bio parent came in and tried to sneak a request on by to get confidential information they were not entitled to. sure, we're supposed to check for any legal paperwork (like guardianship papers, termination of parental rights, etc), but b/c or demo page is usually the first stop, and for a less-than-diligent roi associate it can be the only stop. if that's the case, confidential information could be released, resulting in a breech (which equal fines for the facility) and untold hardships in the child's life. if a certain associate i'm thinking of had been subbing for me on those days, those bio parents could have walked away with information they should never have been able to get.

somebody had previously commented about b/c's having no purpose other than giving details of a birth...wrong. full stop. b/c's are a legal document needed for a LOT of different things. those of us who work with them every day appreciate amended ones because they make our life easier, and they indirectly make the child's life easier as well.

[OrchidBlossom]

5 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

OK, what then about the birth mothers who put their child's father's name as "Unknown" or "Fake Name" to protect hom?

Does that give the adopted child more information about his "heritage"?

 

Unknown or Fake names were used. I would venture a guess that some of the girls/women who went away to have their babies also used fake names, so as to not be traced. Shame in the 50s 60s was a huge factor, and I'm betting that in some cultures, shame is still a big factor today and deception happens. Shame is probably why they sealed adoption records to begin with.

 

ETA: I'm not going to let this go. Patsymae said,

and that pisses me off. All my children's birth certificates say that they were born and that Mr. Four and I are their parents. Both statements are true.

I am certain that the "certificate of live birth" filed the day each was born , naming the birth parents, is what's sealed in their adoption records, but I can assure you that their parental rights were either surrendered or terminated, and we were named legal parents by the state. 

No Fakery. No trickery. No LIE.

I don't even understand the statement "children don't need protection in the form of fake birth certificates". Putting aside the obvious falsehood of it being "fake" (it is a legitimized government document so that wording is not only super offensive but also just not accurate) OF COURSE sometimes children need protection in the form of their birth parents not being on their birth certificates. Abusive parents exist. Pretty frequently, unfortunately. Protecting children from parents who would harm them physically or mentally is very important. Now we can go back and forth on what the best to do that is, and I don't expect everyone to think we have a perfect system. But the government didn't wake up one day like "you know what would be sweet? Let's arbitrarily withhold information from ONLY adoptees and foster children because fuck those kids right?" Best interests of the child means sometimes obscuring their identity and the identity of their progenitors in order to prevent them from being found. It means legitimizing the parents who have adopted them so that those parents can more easily navigate a complex system of society which requires proof of parenthood in order to access information about and services for their children. There is no shadowy conspiracy of government officials and adoptive parents looking to pull the wool over the eyes of the children they have elected to care for. A need for protection was found to keep kids safe and to keep adoptive parents able to care for those children, and that is how we got the system we have. Disagree with it, sure if you want, but don't act like there is no conceivable situation in which birth parents need to be removed from the public records of their children who have been put up for adoption/taken away. It's just a completely ridiculous statement (although hardly the only one made during this debate, it is certainly also the most offensive).

[EmCatlyn]

22 hours ago, patsymae said:

Children don't need protection in the form of fake birth certificates, and having access to the truth about y6our heritage and birth is indeed a right for Americans, except those who were adopted. Fake birth accounts are for the sake of the adopters, not the children.

Birth cerificates exist for the purpose of state records.  They exist to help identify a person in relation to his/her legal parents ( for purposes of inheritance, for example)  and to have a record of date of birth and nationality.  

There is nothing "fake" about a birth cerificate that has been altered to reflect a new legal relationship.  Adopted children have legal claims on the family that has adopted them while they typically have no legal claim on the family that gave them up for adoption.  Adoptive parents are the real parents in the eyes of the law.  They are the ones who have to feed, clothe and educate the child.  They are the ones who grant permission for field trips, medical treatment, etc.  That legal relationship is what is reflected in adoptees' birth cerificates.  

The "feelings" and preferences of the people involved are less important to the state than the legal relationship.

That being said, the original birth cerificate and other relevant papers should be kept in the records and adoptees should have the right to access those records after the age of 21.  This is in keeping with people having the right to access other documents pertaining to themselves, from medical record to comments made by professors on school records.

JMHO

 

 

[twinmama]

On 6/4/2016 at 8:45 PM, Swamptribe said:

The Duggars have no boundaries. (oh except when it comes to sexual abuse in their own family, that they'll keep quiet)

Not even!! They could have quietly stopped their show and not subjected the girls to talking about it on television but they had a TV SPECIAL ABOUT IT instead. They'll keep it quiet as long as it's hidden, but as soon as the press knows about it, they're all over tv forcing the girls to blab about it.

[patsymae]

On June 5, 2016 at 11:57 AM, lascuba said:

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. 

Agree it's either a messianic complex--special magical Izzy will heal all wounds and bring all to Jebus, or it's a cynical money-making ploy. Either way it stinks. I feel so sorry for Cathy. However cray-cray fundie she may be, it sucks that she went through this in the first place and then 30 years or so down the line has to have it all dredged up again, in public. Great way to make your MIL feel like shit, bitch.

[anotherone]

27 minutes ago, twinmama said:

Not even!! They could have quietly stopped their show and not subjected the girls to talking about it on television but they had a TV SPECIAL ABOUT IT instead. They'll keep it quiet as long as it's hidden, but as soon as the press knows about it, they're all over tv forcing the girls to blab about it.

I never thought about this but you're right. Media finds out, then they can react - a TV special, or quietly go away and protect their privacy. Well they obviously didnt go with choice B. Had they done that, I'll bet everyone would have forgotten about this by now and everyone would be better off for it.

[twinmama]

21 minutes ago, anotherone said:

I never thought about this but you're right. Media finds out, then they can react - a TV special, or quietly go away and protect their privacy. Well they obviously didnt go with choice B. Had they done that, I'll bet everyone would have forgotten about this by now and everyone would be better off for it.

I'm torn because I obviously don't think that sexual abuse should be quietly ignored or swept under the rug, but it's not like they had useful opinions or comments regarding it in the specials. And god only knows if the girls really wanted to talk about their experiences or if they were forced to. If the special had done more good than harm, let girls who want to speak out speak or spread correct and useful info about abuse, then I'd be all for it. But I think they tried to use the special to spin positive PR and that is nasty.

[patsymae]

17 minutes ago, twinmama said:

I'm torn because I obviously don't think that sexual abuse should be quietly ignored or swept under the rug, but it's not like they had useful opinions or comments regarding it in the specials. And god only knows if the girls really wanted to talk about their experiences or if they were forced to. If the special had done more good than harm, let girls who want to speak out speak or spread correct and useful info about abuse, then I'd be all for it. But I think they tried to use the special to spin positive PR and that is nasty.

I really can't fault the "girls" too much because they are dumber than rocks, used to doing what their parents tell them, and minimizing childhood sexual assault is a pretty common coping mechanism. But JBoob and JChelle definitely were crass in their approach and the shit that they spewed, all of which was obnoxious and some of which were provable lies, definitely hurt their "brand." The straw that broke the camel's back for me was their presence on a special about sexual abuse of children. They had to right to be there, contributed nothing, and I can't imagine what TLC was thinking (OK, I almost never can).

[Letgo]

58 minutes ago, patsymae said:

Great way to make your MIL feel like shit, bitch.

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I did read the Inquisitr article. Jill actually put the birthmom's NAME and DOB out on Twitter? I can't believe that! What if the people in her life didn't know she'd had a child placed for adoption? How intrusive can a person be? I know it's the Duggars, but I'm still shocked. Any and all information about the adoption ought to be up to Cathy to seek out, not Jill. I hope Derick didn't know anything about what Jill did beforehand. And I hope Cathy let Jill (and Derick, if he knew) have it when she found out about it.

[patsymae]

7 minutes ago, Letgo said:

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I did read the Inquisitr article. Jill actually put the birthmom's NAME and DOB out on Twitter? I can't believe that! What if the people in her life didn't know she'd had a child placed for adoption? How intrusive can a person be? I know it's the Duggars, but I'm still shocked. Any and all information about the adoption ought to be up to Cathy to seek out, not Jill. I hope Derick didn't know anything about what Jill did beforehand. And I hope Cathy let Jill (and Derick, if he knew) have it when she found out about it.

It's not uncommon for people searching for their original parents, or biological siblings, to post on the Internet--that's actually one of the great things the Net can be used for. But it's the adopted person themselves or a sibling (usually with the adopted person's consent if they are still around), and the norm is to post details about the child (baby's name at birth, date of birth, place of birth--whatever is known) and not identifying details about the birth parents.

But Jilly posted what she did knowing, because apparently the whole world knew, that Cathy had already found her and been rebuffed. What a cunt.

[2manyKidzzz]

I have read all of this and if I am understanding correctly, the info on Cathy's birth mother was out there, it was known she had passed, known that she had rebuffed Cathy.....

And JillyMuffin still went on the Internet and asked to find her. More inhaling of bug spray.

[Letgo]

I would really hesitate to put out a birth parent's name on the Internet. My own mother was born in 1925 and to have had a baby out of wedlock would have been a huge shame in her era. She had a cousin who got pregnant before she got married and it was a big scandal from which the girl's mother never recovered. If my mom had had a child placed for adoption and her name was revealed online so that everyone knew, she'd have died of embarrassment.

Babies were often born and placed secretly back then. It's very possible that the family and friends of Cathy's birth mother didn't even know. I get wanting to search for a birth mom, but not so publically, and NOT by a reality show daughter-in-law!

[defraudedbychipendales]

On 6/6/2016 at 7:21 AM, 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.

 

 

Ever heard of Ten Thousand Villages?

http://www.tenthousandvillages.com/about-history/

TTV would probably be seen as a scam nowadays.

[patsymae]

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

Just locate the pictures they post. Women bored to offing death.  Big mistake to assume that the reason people are trapped in poverty is because they haven't gotten the message. Lack of financial resources does not mean lack of[ understanding about empowerment.

Or that the women who were treated to the Duggar sisters singing in English while sitting in a room that looks like it was designed by Sierra the Party Planner were that impressed. I suspect not.

 

 

[patsymae]

edited beaucse I posted in the wrong place

[OrchidBlossom]

I mean that is what I hate about this whole scenario. Cathy is free to search for her birth mother (and did) and her birth mother is free to search for her. But no matter what burning curiosity Jill may have, it is NOT her place to search for a woman she is not related to by blood or law, who she knows doesn't want to be contacted, who comes from an era where the fact that she put a child up for adoption is even more deeply private than it is now and would be seen as shameful. 

I do have to wonder what Jill was thinking. I suppose maybe she wasn't thinking at all.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, OrchidBlossom said:

I mean that is what I hate about this whole scenario. Cathy is free to search for her birth mother (and did) and her birth mother is free to search for her. But no matter what burning curiosity Jill may have, it is NOT her place to search for a woman she is not related to by blood or law, who she knows doesn't want to be contacted, who comes from an era where the fact that she put a child up for adoption is even more deeply private than it is now and would be seen as shameful. 

I do have to wonder what Jill was thinking. I suppose maybe she wasn't thinking at all.

Jill clearly didn't think. We have mentioned before that the Duggars in their 20s behave like young teens.  This is an example.

I could see a fifteen-year-old making the mistake of searching for a friend's long-lost whatever without consulting the friend and without considering the violation of privacy and/or potential for hurt.  Sometimes young people can't see beyond the happy ending that they believe will surely happen through their efforts to help.  But Jill is not 15.  

What I think happened is that she heard that Cathy's birthmom had refused contact and decided she could make it all better by offering the reluctant birth mom the opportunity to connect with little Izzy and his famous extended family.  After all, what birth mom wouldn't want to claim a connection with the child she gave up once she realized that through that child she was now a great-grandmother?  (I don't think Jill knew the birth mother had died.  Even she would not try to reunite Cathy with a dead person. But she had to have known that the woman did not want contact with Cathy or her family.)

Jill is extremely stupid and immature.  But I have to wonder where Derick was and what he thought of her posting that message.  

Did he know about it before she posted?  (What kind of a "headship" is he?)  Does he just let her do whatever she wants? Did it not occur to him that this was a Really Bad Idea?  This guy went to college and is supposedly more mature than his wife.  What kind of tea is he drinking down there in Central America?

 

[patsymae]

"those of us who work with them every day appreciate amended ones because they make our life easier"

Perhaps it should not be about making your lives easier;