- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I just came across a discussion held a few years ago, about an adopted child trying to find his mother 49 years later. This is the quote:
Releasing of information, I believe, should be a right of the child to know, if they are informed of the many reasons why a birth relinquishment may be necessary.
In my birth docs, all I knew was that the state of CA required my mother to put me up for adoption, which is why they said I had no legal right to know. Do you have any clues as to why a state would require this? I didn’t until after my mother and I met and she gave me the details.
I suppose since I have few days left on this world anyways, I can say why the state required it in my case. My mother was in prison. I am one of about 3000 children born in the US each year to a female prison inmate. That stat number is an average. I don’t know if anyone really keeps accurate records of this. To tell you the truth, I never really thought of kids born to female prison inmates until I found out I was one.
This sounds barbaric.
Which part is barbaric? That they don’t let women out of prison to raise their kids, or that they don’t have kids growing up in prison?
Is the implication that women who give birth to children while in prison have their child seized by the State and forcibly put up for adoption?
I don’t believe that to be the case.
I just don’t get where the child gets this supposed “right” from. Just because you really, really, really want something, doesn’t make it your right. It seems to me that the idea of rights has deteriorated from something that actually means something to a useful word we stick into our argument when we can’t prove our point rationally.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.