Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Multiple sources deeply connected to the births tell us Michael was not the sperm donor for any of his kids. Debbie's eggs were not used. She was merely the surrogate, and paid well for her services in the births of Michael Jr. and Paris.
In the case of Prince Michael II (the youngest), we're told the surrogate was never told of the identity of the "receiving parent" -- Michael Jackson. Three days after Prince was born at Grossmont Hospital in San Diego County, Jackson's lawyer came to the hospital to pick the baby
Now, US Weekly reports that the father of of the older two is Jackson's dermatologist and Debbie Rowe's former boss, Arnold Klein.
He is the dad," says a Jackson insider. "He and Debbie signed an agreement saying they would never reveal the truth."
Not surprisingly, Klein has refused to comment.
OK, this is all tabloid hearsay, so far, but it's gone out all over the wire. I hope it's not true, but it wouldn't surprise me, either. Well, some of it does. I never seriously expected to read that Debbie Rowe isn't the bio mom of the older kids.
This will get so ugly so fast.
Who's the daddy?
Who's the mommy?
Where's the money?
Where the kids go. Of course!
I can't think of anything more illustrative (along with Octomom) of the American baybee-making-it's-all-about-me-me-me mania that lets little real human beings be artificially created, anonymized, trafficked, and abused for the pleasure of "adults." These freaks should have been locked in cages at Neverland, a prime exhibit of Menken's boobus americanus.
To top if off, there's stories circulating that Jackson didn't have a will, but the Wall Street Journal now reports that a 2002 will, leaving the bulk of his estate to his mother Katherine, his kids, and at least one charity will be filed on Thursday. His father Joseph Jackson was reportedly cut out. Thank goodness for small favors!
After the debt is cleared it's estimate about $200 million will be left.
By the time this is settled Prince Michael, Paris, and Blanket will be grandparents. Unfortunately,,the most intimate parts of their lives will, by then, have gone down into American pop folklore.
If I could say something reasonable about this, I would. But I can't.
Monday, June 29, 2009
We get a call from Texas. A pregnant teen saw our ad and wants us to adopt her baby. HURRAY! We fly down to Texas. We see the baby. Adorable! Cute! A baby! We hold the baby. The mom signs the papers. But where is the bio-dad? Off in Oklahoma. He says he'll sign. But then he can't find a fax machine. Then the mom decides she wants the baby herself.
I almost committed suicide over that (thanks to my wife for stopping me).
I'm not doing that again.
We have two kids by artificial insemination. We chose the donor father from a book. They're our kids.
And we're NOT perverse. Period.
I found the entry so annoying that I hot-wired my seldom-used DKos account to post this quick reply.
Artificial insemination may not be perverse (0 / 0)
but to purposefully choose to bring two children into the world via anonymous sperm donors chosen through a book--is perverse and unethical. Do you plan to tell your children how they were conceived or will it be your "little secret." What happens if you don't tell them, and they learn later? I hope you'll tell them when age appropriate; otherwise, you've got a potential disaster ahead of you.
Your insulting comments about the potential first mother who decided to keep her child kind of says it all. You cry about not having your own kids, and complain when she keeps hers. She had no duty to be your incubator. Why is she selfish, and you're not? No one has a right to somebody else's child.
But, every person has a right to identity, and it appears you have erased half of your kids, and are proud of it. Why? You are your kids' father in every sense of the word but the biological. As an adopted person who fights for the right of identity every day, I find this selfishness disgusting and emblematic of so much that is wrong w th adoption and ART today.
I was tempted to add a snark that if somebody is so unstable that they "almost committed suicide" when they were denied ownership of somebody else's baby it's a good thing, but let it go.
PS. Since I posted my response, the blogger came back with a 1-liner that his kids know about their conception.
Addenda 1: It looks like as of about 3:45 PM or earlier, all of my comments on DKos but one were removed. I guess I'm a troll.
Addenda 2: Maybe I'm wrong I found a couple of them. I have a hard time getting around DKos.
Addenda 3: Baby Love Child, who has also been battling this stupid thread on DKos has also posted a blog: On so-called secrecy.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
But along came Esther!
I've written about Esther and the film Orphan before. From early reactions I knew the PC adopta muckety-mucks would pull on their jackboots and hup 2-3-4 us around their mulberry bush to the tune of Adoption Uber Alles.
Orphan's tagline alone is shocking, I tell you shocking:
It must be hard to love an adopted child as much as your own.
Why, what adoptee would ever come up with that insidious thought on their own? If adoptees aren't happy and don't feel uber loved, then it must be Hollywood's fault! We're waiting for an Esther video game to measure the full extent of the damage.
Kerry and Neils over on Pound Pup Legacy have a good discussion on what this squawking and flapping is really about, and I recommend you hit it.
FOR THE CHILLUN'
As much as the adoption PC muckety-mucks would like to, they can't exactly stop the film's release on July 24. They can turn up the heat though, and demand that Warner Brothers wholesome it up. For the chillun.' If it saves just one...
According to the May 30 Chicago Tribune, which went over the wire, over 900 people joined a Facebook group calling for the film's boycott. I just checked Facebook and there's only 125 in the group. There are, however, as of this writing, 1583 signatories on a Boycott Orphan petition. Nearly all who leave comments and identify their position in the blessed trinity are it's-all-about-me adopters or paps, horrified at the "message" the film sends to...somebody.
I support this petition. All children are precious whether they are adopted or not. They are certainly not second-class citizens. Why do you think people travel to other countries to adopt children? One because all children need a home, and secondly, in
I support this petition. Why does it have to be an orphan? I visit orphans each year in Africa, and with movies like this only make it harder for them to get adopted.
Amy Forgey demands censorship:
I support this petition. This movie should not be released.
and this seriously weird comment on the 10th Amendment... which has what to do with adoption?
Bastardette was forwarded a press release from Voice for Adoption but can't find it on the organization's website:
Organizations dealing with adoption and foster care – along with parent and family groups and individuals around the country – are criticizing the film and its trailer as offensive and potentially undermining to children in need of families.
followed by a list of what "we" can do to stop the death of adoption by Orphan in the United States (and probably the world); mainly how to nag Warner Brothers into fulfilling its social duty to promote the adoption of millions of orphans instead of portraying adoptees as ax-wielding, porch pissing, home wreckers. Oh wait, that's what the government does!
The Charlotte International Examiner, full of moral panic, calls the film (oh no!) "anti-adoption."
Evan B. Donaldson director Adam Pertman is in a snit, too. In a May 28, 2009 press release, the EBD calls on Warner Brothers to meet with it and other organizations to help the studio create "educational materials"....to counter fears or negative perceptions that might be engendered by "Orphan" or its marketing."
"Orphan" is not scheduled for release until July, but its marketing has already raised deep concerns because it is premised on the notion that an older adopted child is profoundly troubled (in this case, perhaps deranged and homicidal); reinforces popular misconceptions (for instance, that there are still orphanages in the U.S.); and fuels corrosive views about the families formed with such children ("It must be hard to love an adopted child as much as your own," says the adoptee in the film).
Organizations dealing with adoption, foster care and orphans - along with parent and family groups and individuals around the country - are criticizing the film and its trailer as offensive and potentially undermining to
"It has been a long time since a movie caused this much angst and worry in the adoption, foster care and orphan care communities, even before its release," said Adam Pertman, Executive Director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. "And I think their concerns are well-founded."
Pertman suggested that, "at a minimum, the current trailer could be replaced so that the fallacies it contains aren't transmitted even to people who choose not to see the movie." He added that the Adoption Institute and other organizations would be happy to meet with executives connected with the film to discuss what additional steps could be taken - such as producing educational materials spelling out the realities of children who need families - to counter any fears or negative perceptions that might be engendered by "Orphan" or its marketing.NOTE TO ADAM: How about a pap & aparent screening of the scariest adoption movie Bastardette has ever seen: the much loved Irene Dunn-Cary Grant classic Penny Serenade. At the end of the movie Adoptee Trina dies of some mysterious movie illness. Within weeks her forever parents, through the kind services of progressive adoption agent Beulah Bondi, acquire a boy toddler (which is what they wanted all along anyway), throw out all of Trina's stuff, and repaint her room. Now that's uplifting and adoption positive! How did any adoptee over the age of 40 emotionaly survive this movie that was shown constantly on TV when we were growing up?
Hollywood is at it again. So like Hollywood to push the envelope in such a sick, sick fashion. This time Hollywood has turned it’s ugly eye to assault the adopted family. Imagine if you had one chance at living your life as part of a family. Your one chance, is resting with a thin bureaucratic file about you; containing a few pictures along with your scant medical and personal information. Imagine some thoughtless person came along and tossed your precious file into a garbage bin. Your one in a million chance just disappeared. * This time don’t imagine, because this scenario could be true for some orphaned children. The villain in this instance is Time Warner (boo hiss). They have produced a movie entitled Orphan a horror movie about adopting an older child. At first I thought surely this movie was a sick, sick joke. No, dear reader it is not. Orphan is set to be released on July 24th.
Orphan, according to Bensen, subverts God's plan to place millions of "orphans" in the homes of worthy forever married couples.
But wait! There's more!
Not only will Orphan "kill" adoption, it will prevent God from even implanting his little angel seeds in the wombs of women He intends to knock off (or at least persuade to run off) so the fruit of their wombs can be adopted. If there's no market, then what use is the product? Kinda like selling buggy whips for Corvettes.
Who knew that God engineered thousands of years of Chinese history and tradition culminating in the One Child policy and abandonment of girl babies just so Mormons and Wormons can adopt them:
I hear some of you saying, “Come on Joanna surely no one is daft enough to take this swill seriously”. Well look at it from my point of view. Often the road to adopting an older child starts with a single tiny thought. I believe this single thought is from God, the author of families. He carefully set out a plan for children to be born or adopted into forever families. Perhaps this sacred thought is like a seed, which cannot take root because the mind carries deep in its folds the memory of a movie about the horror of adopting an older child. This movie plays into the fear of people who believe that an adopted child “has something wrong with him/her (line from the movie)”. Compare the sprit behind Orphan to Bring Me Hope. Instead of planting evil seeds of doubt, this short film brings light and hope for children around the world.
Not content with turning God into a roving inseminator cum film critic, Bensen drags her Chinese adoptee into her doomsday scenario:
I leave you will my witness of the joy a Waiting Child can bring. We are so thankful to God for giving us the miracle of Hong Mei. She is a well-loved member of our family. With her five-year-old arms wrapped around my neck she tells me, “ Tank you Mama for getting me in China.”
ESTHER AND RHODA
Bastardette doesn't know any bastards who are upset about this film. In fact, everybody we know is jeering and laughing at the adopta muckety-mucks. I guess that's why we're bastards. We haven't had such a fine hero spokesgirl since Rhoda Penmark!
We admit, though, judging from the trailer, it seems that Esther could use a bit more finesse. Esther blatantly sends her pretty little curly-headed nemesis down the road to nowhere by loosening the brakes of the car she's sitting in. The much more clever and discrete Rhoda stalked poor little Claude Daigle and neatly drowned him at the school picnic just because he beat her out of HER penmanship medal. Nobody, not even the Psychiatry Club, suspected. Except Claude's mother, Mrs. Daigle. Bastardette has always felt so bad for Mrs. Daigle, but girls just wanna have fun.
Note to Esther: Watch The Bad Seed. It's on Turner fairly frequently. The play, though, is even better. Oh, and stay away from bridges during thunderstorms!
It's always amusing to see the adoption industry and its client paps and parents go nutso over movies. The Care Bears. Stuart Little. Meet the Robinsons. Bill Pierce absolutely frothed at The Truman Show. And let's not forget those touchy folks who think Anne of Green Gables is emotional abuse from which their little darlings will never recover.
Note to paps and parents: Just wait until they learn their records are sealed! Or they get called "little bastard" on the playground.
As we know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease (unless it's bastards squeaking). The adopta- muckety-mucks managed to squeeze the Brothers Warner's balls so hard they cried Sorry.
From the Trib again:
"We made a mistake," said Scott Rowe, a company spokesman "We get complaints about virtually every move...but in this case, we went back and said, 'You're right..and we're sorry."
The "offensive tagline is now out.
Note to Harry Shearer: Add this to Apologies of the Week. BTW, we're sorry, too, Scott. For you and Warners. Would Darryl Zanuck have apologized?
WE DEMAND AN APOLOGY!
So, who is going to apologize to us for sealed records, identity theft, forged documents, government lies, adoptee blacklists, coerced surrenders, "safe havens," profiteering, child trafficking, the child sex trade, and all the other garbage cans bastards are tossed in to to make everybody else feel good?
Oh that's right. Nobody will. We're not a B-movie. We're just B-people.
One ray of sunshine in all this. Well two really. First, the adoption industry looks really really stupid, like some prissypuss matron with the vapors. First Who's Your Daddy and now Esther!
After that, the funny (to Bastardette) We Want Orphan Movie T-Shirts petition. The goal is 1000 signatures. Surely, that isn't isn't too much to ask for. If the Boycott Orphan petition can get nearly 1600 signatures, surely the t-shirt petition can do as well. Tell these adopta muckety-mucks to take their good intentions and shove 'em.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Registry helps adoptees find biological families
Emma May's mother, my grandmother, was an adoptee who did not have her original birth certificate until Emma May persuaded an Indiana judge to unseal her mother's birth and adoption records. Emma May succeeded on behalf of my grandmother, but most adult adoptees do not have the ability to retrieve their original birth certificates.
The adoptees-rights movement began lobbying state legislatures in the early 1970s to enable adult adoptees to obtain the original documents of their births that name their biological parents, state their correct places and dates of birth, and provide leads to their genetic backgrounds.
A mutual-consent registry such as ISRR does not violate privacy rights of birth parents, because individuals register only when they wish to be found by their lost family members.
In more than 34 years, the independent, not-for-profit, mutual-consent ISRR has reunited thousands of adoptees with their biological parents free of charge.
I ran across this AP story a few minutes ago. Seems our favorite couple has filed for divorce in Montgomery County (PA) due to its local sealed divorce records law, rather than in Berks County, their home jurisdiction. See, there's a "special" law in Montgomery County that seals divorce records from snoopy neighbors.
What a relief! We certainly wouldn't want these well-known privacy hounds to miss one minute's sleep worrying that their deepest darkest escapades might be viewed by the prying eyes of the public.
This isn't setting well with "open records advocates" who argue that the special law is wrong. Using words similar to the Doe v Sundquist ruling that opined "A birth is simultaneously an intimate occasion and a public event-the government has long kept records of when, where; and by whom babies are born...." they argue:
“A divorce is a public act,” said Robert Richards, founding co-director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at Penn State University. “They are not going to private mediators and handling it that way. They are going to the public court system to dissolve their marriage.”
He added the policies of Montgomery County and Philadelphia — another jurisdiction that seals divorce records — might be vulnerable to a legal challenge because the Pennsylvania Constitution declares that “all courts shall be open.”
“To close off access to a whole category of files, to me, is going much too far,” he said.
Of course, Pennsylvania, except for a small window back in the early 1980s, has sealed off access to a whole category of other files, too: the original birth certificates of the adopted. We don't remember any "open records advocates" complaining about that. I guess that's different.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The baby was surrendered after her mother's water broke and she called a West Covina hospital inquiring about a county program that accepts unwanted babies. The baby, a girl, was born Tuesday at the same hospital, said Deanne Tilton Durfee, executive director of the Inter-Agency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect.
She had 9 months, and this is all she could come up with?
Monday, June 15, 2009
Tony retired from the day-to-day oversight of ISSR in October 2001, but remained an Executive trustee until 2007. He is survived by his wife Mary Braun Vilardi.
This is from the ISSR memorial page:
The number of adoptees, birth parents, siblings and other family members who have been touched by Tony's generosity and commitment is in the tens of thousands. Most will never know it was he who paid for the telephone bills or stamps that resulted in their reunion. Most will never understand how their lives are different because he quietly and consistently made sure that ISRR stayed strong and open.
You can share your thoughts about Tony here
ISRR is a volunteer organization. Tony paid many of the expenses himself. There is no mention on the ISRR page, but I think it would be nice to send ISRR a donation in Tony's memory here or through planned giving/wish list or by mail:
P.O. Box 371179
Las Vegas, NV 89137
Messages of condolence:
500 Genoa Lane
Minden, NV 89423
August 12, 1930- - June 14, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Thanks to Mirah Riben for this heads-up!
Committee on Rights of the Child concludes fifty-first session
Source: United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Date: 12 Jun 2009
Committee on the Rights of the Child
Issues Conclusions on Reports of France, Sweden, Mauritania, Slovenia, Bangladesh, Niger, Romania and Oman
Excerpt from report on France regarding accouchement sous X/Born Under X/legalized baby dumping:
The Committee also remained concerned that a mother giving her child up for adoption, if she wished, could conceal her identity and oppose the right of the child to know his or her origins, depriving the child of a part of his or her rights. The Committee thus reiterated its previous recommendation that France take all appropriate measures to fully enforce the child's right to know his or her biological parents and siblings, as enshrined in article 7 of the Convention.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
In the meantime, here are some pictures of the demolition of Grandma Liz's house, destroyed by fire on May 2o. The demo happened Monday and Tuesday of this week. It was sad to watch, but there's nothing left to mourn but memories. Repairs on the two other houses (#2 and #4) hasn't started yet outside of clearing away indoor debris. Perhaps the owners are insured by AIG.
I haven't heard anything official on the cause of the fire, but when I wasn't home, somebody came door-to-door from the fire department telling my neighbors that the investigation indicates the fire was caused by a smoldering cigarette in the living room,. Since nobody was staying in the house at the time, how that cigarette got there is a question. It could have come from a worker in the house earlier that day...or it could have been smoldering for some time and finally reached a flash point and basically exploded the house when the heat reached a certain temperature. At least that's what the the fire investigators say.
Here are some pictures of the demolition.
The kitties have been fascinated with the burn site, They investigate it daily coming home sooty but happy. It is one of the few endeavors they enjoy together.
Chief Justice Lovemore Munio, reading the three-judge panel decision said that Madonna's commitment to helping Malawi's disadvantaged children should have been taken into account in her initial petition to adopt Mercy.
This is from the AP story:
The appeals court said that was a narrow interpretation based on old laws
"In this global village a man can have more than one place at which he resides," Munlo said in the ruling, which took more than an hour to read in court Friday. "The matter of residence should be determined at the time of application of the adoption. In this case, Madonna was in Malawi not by chance but by intention. She is looking after several orphans whose welfare depends on her. She can therefore not be described as a sojourner.
Talk about legal contortions! Madonna may not be a "sojourner" but neither is she a resident of Malawi. The court simply ignored universally accepted legal definitions of "residency" and "domicile" to legislate special adoption law from the bench to reward Madonna for her massive injection of funds into the Malawian child welfare system. Should we now expect the rich and baby-desperate, fat checkbooks in hand, to flock to Malawi to underwrite special laws for themselves, too?
The story continues:
The ruling also said the judges saw only two options for Chifundo, "either to stay at the orphanage without the love of family and live with the possibility of destitution or be with Madonna where she is assured of love.
"Every child has the right to love."Maybe it's just me, but this doesn't make any sense.
First, the court says Madonna was in Malawi looking after several orphans whose "welfare depends on her" and then that the justices see only two options for Mercy: the orphanage "without love of family" and possible destitution or to be with Madonna where she is "assured of love." Does this mean that in Malawi the destitute can't love their children?
Couldn't Madonna love Mercy without whisking her off to London or wherever she lives now? Couldn't she just as easily send Mercy's family $100 a month for the girl's care; thus keeping her out of destitution and with her biological family, who by all reports love her very much, but are currently pretty bereft of Malawian kwacha? Couldn't she send Mercy to the private school she is building for a proper Kabbalahist/ British education?
Human rights advocates are disappointed at the ruling. Undule Mwakasungula, chair of a coalition of NGO opposition to the adoption said the ruling "disregarded" international agreements on children's rights and adoptions. Since the ruling came down from the Supreme Court, though, there is no appeal. Madonna's people in Malawi are working on Mercy's passport and travel arrangements, and she's expected to be "home" in a short time.
International adoption industrialists, of course, are thrilled by the ruling.
Mirah Riben, in her Family Preservation blog, quotes a statement from the NCFA- connected (scroll down for NCFA statement) ACT for Adoption, sponsored by Center for Adoption Policy, and the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School, celebrating the globalization of the adoptee body, in this case, the body of Mercy James. I have not found the source statement online, but I think it came from the ACT for Adoption mailing list.
From Mirah's blog:
We are delighted to report that Malawi's Supreme Court has overturned an earlier ruling denying a petition by Madonna to adopt Chifundo "Mercy" James, and has granted a full adoption. According to the New York Times, Chief Justice Lovemore Munlo, in reviewing the lower court's ruling, said that the first decision was a narrow interpretation based on old laws and that "in this global village a man can have more than one place at which he resides." We agree. Moreover, in our increasingly inter-connected world, a child should not be viewed as the sole responsibility of his country of birth.
The Child Advocacy Program is run by international adoption fanatic and all around adoption bitch kitty Professor Elizabeth Bartholet. The idea of Betsy heritage-is-overrated Bartholet and Madonnthe lust for other people's children are the great equalizer
The June 11, 2009 online edition of The Packet/CentralJersey.com reports that on May 6, an unidentified woman driving on the New Jersey Turnpike took the Cranbury exit, and dropped off a 6-month old boy at the local police station. He was accompanied by a blanket, diaper bag, baby carrier, bottle, and stroller.
Now, anybody who has watched COPS knows that police are a curious bunch. Not so in Cranbury, population 2,008 (2000 census). Police asked the woman no questions, and called DYFS. The abandoner stuck around long enough to "speak to their representative" when the agency picked up the infant. What she had to say is, of course, a state secret.
Cranbury police chief Ed Kahler is ecstatic: "The bottom line is at least she had enough forethought to take advantage of Safe Haven and knows that the baby will be taken care of."
Hey, Chief! This is NOT a "safe haven" catch. This is a drive-by abandonment. If Mom (if she is indeed the mom) had enough forethought to dump the kid on the cops, she had enough forethought to drop by a public or private social service or adoption agency and make an adoption plan. People who are going to stuff their kid into a garbage can don't take the kid for a drive down the Jersey Turnpike with a carload of baby accoutrements to stuff along with him.
Clearly, Mom has some problems, which of course, since women never count in the dump equation, are trivialized and ignored by the drive-by system and its pimps. Maybe she's in a bad domestic situation. Maybe she's mad at the dad. Maybe she's got post-partum depression. Maybe she's broke. Maybe she's crazy or drunk. Maybe she's just tired of parenthood.
The real bottom line is that Mom is not the marketing icon the kitchen table baby savers foist on us with their dreary-teary PSAs, posters, and webpages: the "desperate" scared teen with a secret just-born she'll kill if she can't ditch it anonymously with no blame, no shame, no name.
This baby is 6 months old. He has--or should we say had?--a name and a history. He has a father, grandparents, an extended family. Maybe he has siblings. Somebody is going to miss him. Somebody is going to ask, "Where is he? What did you do with him?" We'd love to hear the answer to that one.
We suppose Tim Jacard, Elizabeth Rex, Marie Tasy, and the rest of the tri-state baby dump mafia popped the champagne corks when they heard this one. If it saves just one--even if it's illegal, unethical, and immoral. When the kid comes back to bite us on the ass 20 years from now we'll be too old to feel it. Or care.
Despite the rah rah rah, we are pretty sure that the court will not adjudicate this abandonment as a "safe haven. " Unless kin or Mom comes forward to reclaim him, it will probably go down in the books, due to DYFS interaction, as a worst practice surrender. The damage, however, has been done. By police and press promoting this dump as a "safe haven," Jersey parents are told it's OK to abandon your kid at any age.
Cranbury, New Jersey = the new Nebraska?
The only ray of hope in this is the three commenters on this article see through the scam.