About Adoptee Rage

Statistics Identify large populations of Adoptees in prisons, mental hospitals and committed suicide.
Fifty years of scientific studies on child adoption resulting in psychological harm to the child and
poor outcomes for a child's future.
Medical and psychological attempts to heal the broken bonds of adoption, promote reunions of biological parents and adult children. The other half of attempting to repair a severed Identity is counselling therapy to rebuild the self.

Friday, January 31, 2014

The Psychosocial of Normal Child Development Obvious to the Adopted Child's Dysfunction

The Psychosocial Stages of Normal Child Development
Obvious to the Adopted Child's Disfunction
Erickson's 8 Psychsocial Stages of Development


Psychosocial Stage 1 - Trust vs. Mistrust

  • The first stage of Erikson's theory of psychosocial development occurs between birth and one year of age and is the most fundamental stage in life.

  • Because an infant is utterly dependent, the development of trust is based on the dependability and quality of the child's caregivers.

  • If a child successfully develops trust, he or she will feel safe and secure in the world. Caregivers who are inconsistent, emotionally unavailable, or rejecting contribute to feelings of mistrust in the children they care for. Failure to develop trust will result in fear and a belief that the world is inconsistent and unpredictable.

  • Of course, no child is going to develop a sense of 100 percent trust or 100 percent doubt. Erikson believed that successful development was all about striking a balance between the two opposing sides. When this happens, children acquire hope, which Erikson described as an openness to experience tempered by some wariness that danger may be present.


Psychosocial Stage 2 - Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt

  • The second stage of Erikson's theory of psychosocial development takes place during early childhood and is focused on children developing a greater sense of personal control.2

  • Like Freud, Erikson believed that toilet training was a vital part of this process. However, Erikson's reasoning was quite different then that of Freud's. Erikson believe that learning to control one's bodily functions leads to a feeling of control and a sense of independence.

  • Other important events include gaining more control over food choices, toy preferences, and clothing selection.

  • Children who successfully complete this stage feel secure and confident, while those who do not are left with a sense of inadequacy and self-doubt.

  • Erikson believed that achieving a balance between autonomy and shame and doubt would lead to will, which is the belief that children can act with intention, within reason and limits.
  • _________________________________________________________

Psychosocial Stage 3 - Initiative vs. Guilt

  • During the preschool years, children begin to assert their power and control over the world through directing play and other social interactions.

  • Children who are successful at this stage feel capable and able to lead others. Those who fail to acquire these skills are left with a sense of guilt, self-doubt, and lack of initiative.
  • When an ideal balance of individual initiative and a willingness to work with others is achieved, the ego quality known as purpose emerges.
  • _________________________________________________________

Psychosocial Stage 4 - Industry vs. Inferiority

  • This stage covers the early school years from approximately age 5 to 11.

  • Through social interactions, children begin to develop a sense of pride in their accomplishments and abilities.

  • Children who are encouraged and commended by parents and teachers develop a feeling of competence and belief in their skills. Those who receive little or no encouragement from parents, teachers, or peers will doubt their abilities to be successful.

  • Successfully finding a balance at this stage of psychosocial development leads to the strength known as competence or a belief our own abilities to handle the tasks set before us
  • _________________________________________________________

Psychosocial Stage 5 - Identity vs. Confusion

  • During adolescence, children explore their independence and develop a sense of self.

  • Those who receive proper encouragement and reinforcement through personal exploration will emerge from this stage with a strong sense of self and a feeling of independence and control. Those who remain unsure of their beliefs and desires will feel insecure and confused about themselves and the future.

  • Completing this stage successfully leads to fidelity, which Erikson described as an ability to live by society's standards and expectations.

Psychosocial Stage 6 - Intimacy vs. Isolation

  • This stage covers the period of early adulthood when people are exploring personal relationships.

  • Erikson believed it was vital that people develop close, committed relationships with other people. Those who are successful at this step will form relationships that are committed and secure.

  • Remember that each step builds on skills learned in previous steps. Erikson believed that a strong sense of personal identity was important for developing intimate relationships. Studies have demonstrated that those with a poor sense of self tend to have less committed relationships and are more likely to suffer emotional isolation, loneliness, and depression.

  • Successful resolution of this stage results in the virtue known as love. It is marked by the ability to form lasting, meaningful relationships with other people.

Psychosocial Stage 7 - Generativity vs. Stagnation

  • During adulthood, we continue to build our lives, focusing on our career and family.

  • Those who are successful during this phase will feel that they are contributing to the world by being active in their home and community. Those who fail to attain this skill will feel unproductive and uninvolved in the world.

  • Care is the virtue achieved when this stage is handled successfully. Being proud of your accomplishments, watching your children grow into adults, and developing a sense of unity with your life partner are important accomplishments of this 

Psychosocial Stage 8 - Integrity vs. Despair

  • This phase occurs during old age and is focused on reflecting back on life.

  • Those who are unsuccessful during this stage will feel that their life has been wasted and will experience many regrets. The individual will be left with feelings of bitterness and despair.

  • Those who feel proud of their accomplishments will feel a sense of integrity. Successfully completing this phase means looking back with few regrets and a general feeling of satisfaction. These individuals will attain wisdom, even when confronting death.


The above pages map out my own dysfunctional lacking of normal. At each phase I failed without consistent parental support. In adulthood I am a complete neurotic mess of lost.

The Adopted Adult-Child's Suicide Would Make Parent's Life Easier

 The Adopted Adult-Child's Suicide Would Make Parent's Life Easier.

Adoptive Parent's Seeking the World's Advice on the Web....
Why is my adopted child now an adult so messed up. We gave the child every opportunity and advantage in the world. But this mindset of financial stability as a benefit far better than a child's bond with his own biological parents is not a good enough reason to sever the maternal bond between biological mother-child. To sever and destroy the maternal bond will and does ruin the psychological building blocks of normal child development.
The dirty deed is created for the individual's selfish pursuit of an infertile woman's happiness.
But as we continue to read the public posts from desperate adoptive parents who are loosing money, vacations and peace of mind over their problem adopted child that was supposed to provide them the happiness they expected.
The adoptive parents who continue to map out the lifelong problems of adoptive children and adult adoptees. The parents never consider their own contributions to the dysfunctional adulthood of the adopted child. The adoptive parents refusal to
be accountable for their own responsibility to the adopted child during the formative stages of childhood; When the child learned the psychological dysfunctions present in adulthood from the parenting skills of the adoptive parents. The blame of the adopted child's genetics, biological parent behaviors, and the environment prior to the adoption all scapegoating blame when the obvious truth is the adoptive parents are responsible. Bad parenting is to blame for the psychological dysfunction in adopted children. The selfish adopter will eventually pay for the arrogant need to own another human being.

Disturbing Adoptive Parent Complains, Tears her apart, humiliates the adoptee listing only bad behaviors,
By reading the following we get a picture of negative parenting:

I need some advice on dealing with my 24 year-old daughter who has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder. 
She has had rages, crying fits, numerous bad relationships, etc. for years. 
She is manipulative. 
She didn't finish school, she can't keep a job, sooner or later everyone disappoints her or is somehow bad to her. 
There have been several suicide threats and gestures. 

Thankfully she doesn't live with us, but about 40 miles away. 

We support her, though we don't send her a lot of money, as we hope she will be encouraged to work. 
Still, it seems as though every time she comes to visit, it always ends in crying and rages. 

Seems as though we were just never good enough as parents. 

For what it is worth, we adopted her as an infant. 

She takes anti depressants (at least until she decides she doesn't need them, so she goes off until a life crisis forces her back on them).

She has been to counselors since she was in elementary school 

(she was difficult even then). 
She seldom stays in therapy for long. 

With our other children 
(who have been quite successful) out of the nest, 

my husband and I would like to enjoy some time together to travel, etc. 

(I can't tell you how many vacations she has wrecked by having some sort of crisis that necessitated our coming home early.) 

I realize that makes us co-dependents, but can we simply abandon a mentally ill child, even if she is grown? 

If she committed suicide, it would be so hard to live with. 

But neither do I want to spend the rest of our lives with her bouncing back repeatedly with her problems. 

I don't mean to sound heartless, but I am just tired. 

It helped just to sound off here, but if you have some advice, I could sure use some.

Why do people inject apologies for being honest?
This hateful rant without a single word of anything she did right,
says to me that the mother is a dominating controller who owned this child and created the psychological dysfunction in the adopted child all by herself. This adoptive mother obviously treated the adoptive child differently than the other perfect offspring. The effects of the mother grow over time into major crisis in adult life for the abused and neglected adult adoptee.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Freud's Contributions to the Plight From Dysfunctional Adoptive Outcomes, The Perceived "Real Parent" Fantasy Is The Adoptee's Reality

The Society Perpetuated dysfunctional Adoptee's
The Perceived "Real Parent" Fantasy Is The Adoptee's Reality

Sigmund Freud, the famous Viennese architect of psychoanalysis, had a significant influence on modern adoption theory and practice. So did his daughter Anna Freud, who carried on her father’s legacy after his death in 1939 and became well known in her own right as a developmental researcher, a child analyst, and a theorist of “psychological parenthood.”
Freudian ideas about unconscious desires, erotic instincts, and critical childhood stages in the formation of adult personality and behavior shaped the way that many parents and professionals thought about adoption, especially its special challenges and potential hazards. Early in the twentieth century, physicians, artists, and feminists were in the vanguard of Americans interested in psychoanalysis. Freud lectured at Clark University in 1909 and his translated writings made him a more popular figure in the United States than in any other country in the world. Freud always maintained that the American version of psychoanalysis was hopelessly naive and ridiculously optimistic—he called it a “gigantic mistake”—but Americans paid little attention. They embraced psychoanalysis as a practical means to cure a variety of ailments related to personal adjustment, sexual happiness, and family life. Adoption was just one example.
One starting point for Freud’s approach to development was the belief that becoming an individual required escape, over the course of childhood, from the absolute power and love of parents. In order to accomplish this liberation, he argued, children invariably called upon fantasies—acted out in play and daydreams—and imagined that their “real” parents were much better, kinder, and more exalted than the imperfect people who were actually raising them. Freud called these comforting but entirely fabricated fairy tales the “family romance.” The fictional stories that children told themselves about their origins mattered because they linked Freudian theory directly to adoption.
Freud’s prototypical “family romance”—the one he assumed virtually all children experienced and occasionally remembered—was an adoption scenario. This scenario was developmentally useful precisely because it remained imaginary. It allowed children to safely express ambivalence and anger toward their parents, all the while encouraging them to develop independent identities necessary to becoming a healthy adults.
What worked for most children, however, caused definite problems for children who actually were adopted. Adoptees who imagined another set of parents were not engaged in benign falsehood. They were facing up to reality. “There is a real element of mystery in the illegitimate child’s background which makes such correction by reality either impossible or unconvincing,” wrote social worker Mary Brisley in 1939. The convergence of fantasy and real life was the key issue for psychoanalytically inclined clinicians in social work and psychiatry whose interests included adoption.Viola Bernard, Florence Clothier, Leontine Young, and Marshall Schechter were just a few examples. Psychoanalytic ideas crowded the adoption world from World War II on. Erik Erikson’s concepts of “identity” and “identity crisis” were among the most widely disseminated Freudian ideas, applicable to adolescent development and youth movements in general as well as adoption in particular.
Because the loss of natal parents was an all-too-real component of adoption, the family romances of adopted children pointed toward unanswered and sometimes unanswerable questions. Who were my birth parents? Why did they give me away? Was there something wrong with me? Such painful dilemmas were deeply implicated in the problematic self-images and flawed relationships that some adoptees manifested, and that came to the attention of clinicians. It is not surprising that parents and professionals who took the Freudian family romance seriously favored adoption policies and practices, such as matching, that tried to erase natal kinship, hence concealing the emotionally difficult truth that one set of parents had been lost and replaced with another.
Even at the height of enthusiasm about confidentiality and sealed records, the ritual oftelling children about their adoptions acknowledged that adoptees were different than their non-adopted peers. Adoptees’ family romances were more like nightmares than daydreams, and they had the potential to produce deep sadness and distress. Knowing that they had indeed been given away, and feeling that their very selfhood was divided and incomplete, adoptees were at special risk for a range ofpsychopathologies. Freud’s developmental theory implied that adoptees faced emotional challenges inseparable from the adoption process itself, hence anticipating and helping to bring into being more recent concerns with loss and attachment.
Psychoanalytic approaches to birth parents and adoptive parents also circulated widely in medicine, social work, clinical psychology, and the popular press. By midcentury, illegitimacy was widely perceived as the result of unhappy and destructive parent-child relationships that remained both unconscious and unresolved in adolescence and adulthood. Seen through this Freudian lens, adoptions of children born to unmarried women were no longer tragedies to be avoided, but constructive acts that transferred children to adoptive parents whose psychological (and other) qualifications were superior to those of their neurotic birth mothers. On the other hand, the infertility that logically motivated married couples to adopt was also suspected of having unconscious sources that might signal neurosis or worse.
All parties to adoption, in other words, shared some form of psychological dysfunction. After 1945, the goal of home studies and other therapeutic practices was increasingly to guarantee that professionals trained in psychoanalysis and other human sciences 
would play a crucial managerial role in the adoption process. Even Jessie Taft, a leading educator who disliked the orthodox Freudian emphasis on trauma—it “implies fear of life itself” she wrote in dismay—believed that skilled psychological interpretation and help belonged at the heart of adoption. With the skills to explore the emotional minefield that placement exposed, the psychological engineers who oversaw family-formation confirmed that adoption was abnormal while also promising to normalize it. Sigmund Freud’s chief legacy, in adoption and elsewhere in American culture, was to multiply deviations and simultaneously insist on their cure.

Adopting to Replace a Dead Child is Damaging to the Adoptive Child

The Damage to the Adoptive Child Adoption to Replace a Dead Child Is Not Recommended


Viola W. Bernard, Can an Adopted Child Replace a Dead Child? 1961

Thank you for sending me the write-up of the conference of January 11, 1961 with Dr. Heiman and the others with respect to policy for requests from families seeking an adoptive child after the loss of their own child. . . .
I agree most heartily with the continued policy of prompt appointments for such couples. I also agree with continuing our policy of postponing any decision to place a child with such a couple until after they have had a period for mourning. However, I do want to add a comment to the reasoning underlying these procedures and policies. In addition to the reasons outlined in the minutes of the conference with Dr. Heiman, with which of course I am in agreement, 
I do want to emphasize that in my experience there is an even more frequent and “normal” psychological contraindication to placement prior to the mourning process. 
This reason has to do with the fact that the urge to adopt immediately after the loss of one’s own child is of necessity a restitutive effort in which the adoptive child is inevitably experienced emotionally as a replacement of the lost child. 
In fact, this mechanism provides the intensity of the wish to adopt at such a time. 
From adoptive experience we know that this replacement effort of one child for another leads to inevitable unhappiness for both the adopted child and the adoptive parents and is therefore contraindicated. 
If the specific child who has been lost to these parents can be mourned and finally through the process of mourning relinquished, or to put it another way, 
if and when the parents through the mourning process can accept the fact of the reality of the loss of their child, then the restitutive nature of the adoption can work out psychologically constructively because what is being restituted then can be the experience of being parents and this can be a healthy restitution rather than having the specific child that is adopted perceived and experienced as if it were the dead child. . . .

Adopted Child Abuse Being Different is the Number One Cause


Adopted Child Abuse

Link:Carole J. Anderson, “Child Abuse & Adoption,” 1991


In fact, what is child abuse? All states have definitions, but these definitions differ considerably. Some include not only physical and sexual abuse but also psychological abuse; others do not. Some include neglect, another term with a multitude of definitions. . . . Should abuse be measured by the damage to a child’s body or by the damage to a child’s psyche? .  . .
Risk factors for abuse
Although we don’t know exactly how much abuse there is, only that most of it is unreported, there are things we know about abuse.   
 We know that the number one child abuse risk factor is a child being different from the family.
If mom, dad and two of their children are stocky blonds while one of the children is a slender redhead, the redhead is at greater risk of abuse. This is true of personality differences as well. A child who does not seem to fit in, who seems alien in looks or disposition, is more likely to be abused.
Another risk factor is separation. . . .
Lack of blood ties is another risk factor. . . .
The adoption connection
I used to think none of this had anything to do with adoption.     When I first heard from abused adoptees, I responded much the same as social workers have responded to searching, unhappy birthparents: I thought they were the rare exceptions. But over the years, I’ve had a lot of letters from adoptees who report they were abused. I’ve talked to a lot of adoptees who were abused. The sheer number of them made me take a closer look. . . .
Many adoptees seem, even as adults, to express the same kinds of feelings as abused children. This cannot all be coincidence. Granting that there may be substantial numbers of adoptees who are physically or sexually abused, and even larger numbers who are psychologically abused, it seems we see abused child attitudes in a majority of adoptees.
Adoption’s inherent abuse of children and families
Adoption itself inflicts psychological harm on adoptees. Adoption means the near-impossibility of either adoptee or adoptive parent being able to take their relationship for granted. 
Because the parent-child relationship is established by law and not by nature, the relationship cannot be regarded as a simple fact of life as it is in natural family.
 by either adoptees or adoptive parents.
We often read of adoptive parents being the “psychological parents” of adoptees. Yet what does being a “psychological parent” mean? It means that the relationship is not natural, not clear cut. It means that in adoptive families, the parent-child relationship may be something that must be continually proved because it cannot be assumed. One way adoptive parents may seek to “prove” that they are “the” parents and are necessary to adoptees is to make themselves essential, which may mean being more controlling than the typical parent. 
One way adoptees may “prove” they are their adoptive parents’ children is by being more childlike, more immature, more dependent than typical sons and daughters, even when they are chronologically adults. . . .
Some adoptees may be less harmed by the disruption of the natural bond with their birthmothers than others. Some adoptive parents are better at empathizing than are others. Some are able to love and accept the children they adopt for who they really are,                                                          
While others will never stop trying to mold adoptees into the natural children they could not have. But still adoption itself, I think, harms children. . . . Inside every adoptee lurks an abandoned child, and that child hurts. . . .
Yes, I know that some non-adopted children are damaged by abuse, poverty or other ills. I know many single parents have one or more risk factors in their families. Yet most, maybe all, of the problems that face vulnerable natural parents can be eliminated by societal and familial support, while the problems that occur in adoption, particularly when the parents are infertile and the adoption is closed, are inherent in adoption and cannot be prevented or eliminated.

The Sterility in Adoptive Mother's Unconscious Motivations


The Unconscious Motivations in Adoptive Mothers

Link:Helene Deutsch, “Adoptive Mothers,” 1945

When a woman’s longing to be a mother is not gratified by children of her own, and when she seeks a substitute by the most natural method, namely, adoption, the question arises as to why she has no children of her own. In the course of our discussion we have met various types of women who long for children but are unable to gratify this longing directly, owing to unresolved psychic conflicts. We have seen the midwife who out of fear of the biological functions was obliged to content herself with presiding over the delivery of other women’s children, and Unamuno’s Aunt Tula, who despised sexuality to such an extent that she could gratify her ardent motherliness only by exploiting the sexual service of other women. We have seen the androgynous woman who withdraws from female reproductive tasks and yet wants to create and shape a human being after her own image, and the woman whose eroticism has remained fixed in homosexuality and whose yearning for a child derives from the profound source of her own mother relationship. Many such women renounce men, but gratify the wish for a child by adoption. . . .
The largest proportion of adoptive parents, however, is recruited from among sterile married couples. Here the psychology of the adoptive mother is largely determined by the psychologic motives for sterility (if any) and by the woman’s reaction to her renunciation. 
Has her fear of the reproductive function proved stronger than her wish to be a mother? 
Is she still so much a child that she cannot emotionally and consciously decide to assume the responsible role of mother? Is she so much absorbed emotionally in other life tasks that she fears motherhood? . . . Does a deeply unconscious curse of heredity burden all her motherly wish fantasies? 
And, above all, has the sterile woman overcome the narcissistic mortification of her inferiority as a woman to such an extent that she is willing to give the child, as object, full maternal love? . . . .

We must not forget that in such cases adoption constitutes an attempt to remedy a severe trauma, and that this trauma must be overcome before motherliness with its gratifications can fully develop.
 What kind of trauma it is, and the woman’s reaction to the necessary renunciation of the hope of giving birth to a child, depend very much, as we have seen, upon the cause of sterility. 
The emotional difficulties of adoption may originate in the very conditions that have led to sterility, and the ghosts that were supposed to be banished by the renunciation of the reproductive function can under different circumstances re-emerge in the adoptive mother in a new form. 
The fear “I cannot have a child” will, for instance, assume the form. . .“The child will be taken from me.” 
The adopted child can become the bearer of all the problems that have led to sterility, as well as of those that normally pertain to a child of one’s own. 
The only difference is that here the conflicts have a more real background. . . .
There are women—I might call them female Pied Pipers—who use the bait of a cozy home and motherly care to lure children out of social institutions without regard for their nature, driven by a strong psychic urge to help children, to foster fledglings in their nests, and to hear the name “Mother” uttered by as many mouths as possible. .
 . . A masked kidnaperism may often lead a kind and reasonable woman to undertake the grandiose social task of becoming a replacing mother of the abandoned or neglected children of many mothers. 
I have heard such an addict of adoption speak with the greatest energy against social assistance to children: a child—every child—needs one mother, the mother. And she offered herself as such a mother to society. . . .
It is certain that similar individual motives, which remain completely unconscious, operate in adoptions.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

The "Adoptive Identity" and Dysfunctional Parent-Child Relationship


The Normal Dysfunctional Adoptee-Adoptive Parent Relationship and Development of the "Adoptive Identity"

Identity And Relationships

By Nancy Verrier, MFT
What is identity and what makes it so crucial when speaking of adoption? I believe it is something that makes adoptees feel a kind of alienation all their lives, beginning with their adoptive families. Adoptees call it genetic confusion.
This confusion begins when the baby is separated from the first mother and begins his life with his adoptive mother. At birth a baby knows his mother through his senses: smell, touch, sight of mother’s face, tone of voice, heartbeat, resonance. No matter how wonderful the adoptive mother, she doesn’t pass the sensory test. The baby is confused, terrified, angry; then sad, helpless, hopeless, alone. Where is mom? Although the cutting of the umbilical cord separates the mother and child physically, they are not yet separated psychologically. They are what Eric Neumann calls “the mother/baby.” The psychological separation is an intra-psychic process that happens gradually during the first year of life. So the relinquished baby feels, not only the loss of the mother, but also the loss of part of the Self.

From the moment the baby is separated from the first mom and gives up hope of connecting with her again, she begins to cope with that loss. These coping mechanisms are outlined in my first book The Primal Wound: the effects of separation trauma on her attitudes, feelings, and behavior. Those behaviors, which emanate from the child’s early experience of separation and loss, do not give an accurate picture of who the child is. Many adoptees have written to me after having read The Primal Wound and said something to the effect: “You know me better than anyone.” Yet, I don’t know them at all. What I do know is how they may have responded to being separated from their first mothers. What I know is how they coped. This coping behavior is most noticeable in the adoptive home. Sometimes others—neighbors, teachers, strangers—actually see more of the true identity of adoptees than their own families.
Why is this? It seems crucial for the adoptee to fit as well as possible into the adoptive family. Since he doesn’t have any genetic cues, he has to find all his cues from his environment. In many cases adoptees are basically so different from their adoptive parents, it is a wonder they survive in those families. However, to survive is to adapt, so every day the adoptee tries to figure out how to be in that family. But because he is basically different, he always may feel somewhat of a failure at this. First of all he failed to keep first mom, and now he is failing to truly fit into this new family. What do you suppose this does to self-esteem?
Life goes on and the adoptee is struggling on two fronts: trying to figure out how to be a part of her adoptive family without any genetic cues, and how to deal with all the feelings she has about what has happened to her, while trying very hard not to be abandoned again. Fear of abandonment is a driving force (or a paralyzing agent) in the life of every adoptee. Although not consciously remembering that devastating event, the experience is imprinted on every neuron/cell in her body. Something happened which changed her life forever and she has to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. Because she doesn’t know exactly what that event was, she has to be very, very vigilant.

The crucial event of separation happened before most adoptees achieved long-term memory, so they begin to believe that their coping mechanisms are who they are: They are “bad kids,” acting out all over the place without understanding why; or they are very good, trying not to rock the boat. Often parents define them this way and they begin to do the same thing, even though they may know that someone else dwells inside.
There are some parents who seem to understand that their children may not be like them. They support and encourage the child’s unique interests and talents. However, there are some parents who, because of their lack of understanding or interest in their child’s talents, fail to go to the track meets or the piano recitals.
Even though some biological parents are just as blind or uncaring, there are other ways in which these children know that they belong: what they look like, how they stand, how they walk, mannerisms, gestures, tone of voice, shape of lips, height, weight, smile, eyes, etc., etc. Something reminds them that they belong. Adoptees, however, are super observant. They notice every discrepancy. They are trying to find likeness, but notice every difference. They notice this much more than their parents do. Unlike children in biological families, who go from sameness to difference, adoptees go from difference to sameness, as they adapt as best they can.
It should be noted that this isn’t easy for the adoptive parents either, especially the mother who from the beginning was the one who failed the sensory test. She, too, has to figure out how to be with her child without any genetic cues. In addition, she is dealing with a child who was traumatized by the separation from the first mother. So it is indeed a dance that goes on between the adoptee and her mother over and over again. The general public doesn’t understand how difficult it is to interact with someone where there are no genetic cues to help with the understanding of what is needed, or how to interact with someone who is afraid to get too close (or afraid to let go).
The discrepancy between what the adopted person thinks he must do to fit in and how he feels inside is a dilemma for him. As one adoptee put it, it is like being a dog in a family of cats. This genetic confusion is evident even for adoptees who found out they were adopted late in life. The feelings are there; the confusion is there; something is wrong. However, there is no context for their feelings or confusion.

Remember that the initial confusion of wondering what happened to mom was the first identity problem for the adoptee. The second crucial time is adolescence when again the adoptee feels alienated from her family. In most families at this time, the child identifies with either mom or dad, then pushes off into being somewhat different. It is difficult for adoptees to do because they haven’t yet achieved that sameness that seems to be required. After having blamed themselves most of their lives for not having done so, they now seem to turn the blame around and blame their parents, especially mom, for this problem. Of course, they don’t know they are blaming her for this; they are just blaming her for everything else. So, in order to avoid the constant reminder of those differences, many adoptees try to stay away from their parents during this time. They spend lots of time with friends, stay in their rooms, try to avoid family get-togethers, and so forth. This causes problems, unkind words, and hurt feelings. Some kids will delve into drugs and alcohol as they try to anesthetize themselves from the pain of it all. Because this causes such pain and consternation in the whole family, the parents may feel helpless and send the child away to a treatment center, triggering another feeling of abandonment in the adoptee, further alienating her from her family.
I believe many of the problems between the adoptee and his parents are rooted two things: the parents’ ignorance of their child’s loss and the differences in their DNA: their identity. And I believe this problem of identity and of feeling misunderstood causes the adoptee to be secretive with the parents. Adoptees become very withholding and accuse the parents of being intrusive if they ask a simple question such as “How are you doing?”!! (Adoptees, be honest!) Unfortunately, some of these resentments last into the adult relationship because neither parent nor child realizes that many of the problems between them are caused by the natural differences between them. If this can be recognized and acknowledged by both sides, the relationship can flourish even if they are quite different from one another. If not, resentments continue and the relationship continues to be problematic.

During his 20s, when the adoptee has moved out of his parents’ home and is more independent, he should be able to explore his own identity. However, he has to be careful not to be the chameleon, whose tendency is to adjust his personality, values, or opinions to whatever group he is in. After all, he is so used to doing this in his adoptive family that it is the familiar thing to do and seems like the right thing to do to be liked, to fit in, to belong. He doesn’t know how to look inside for the answers even to questions about personal preferences. I used to believe adoptees were afraid of being wrong, but they corrected me: “It is because we don’t know!” This not knowing who they are is a huge problem when forming adult relationships.
As an adult she will need to blend the nurture and nature aspects of her life in order to become more authentic. As the adoptee moves into new relationships in adulthood, this becomes crucial. How can one have a relationship with a false self? In the beginning of a relationship the two are still strangers and the adoptee can be more authentic (because it doesn’t matter). He can take the risk of allowing more of himself to be seen—coming from within. The other person genuinely likes or falls in love with the essence of the adoptee. However, as the relationship progresses and the friend or partner becomes more important to him, fear takes over and sabotaging begins. The expectations of being abandoned by the important person in his life cause behavior which will lead to that very thing. The adoptee becomes the scared, frustrating child. (See the top of page 324 of Coming Home to Self for testimony to this.)
If a mature, adult relationship is desired, a constant vigilance is required to answer: “Am I acting as an adult or as a child? What is true about me? How can I truly know?” The coping mechanisms the adoptee believed would keep him safe while growing up are not very helpful in adult relationships. They are just that: coping skills, not true personality. Each adoptee is a unique individual, yet those coping skills are quite predictable. Gradually replacing coping skills with the true self should be a goal. If some of the principles and values from the adoptive family seem congruent with what they believe about themselves, adoptees can adopt them, while bringing forth the genetic truth available in their DNA. Although difficult to discern, the DNA is all there. It didn’t go anywhere. It can be accessed. This is often easier if it is possible to meet biological family members because the mirroring and sensory aspects of oneself are available. But what if this isn’t possible? What if the adoptee came from a different race, culture, or country? Although this adds another dimension to the puzzle of identity which needs to be addressed, all adoptees deal with identity issues. For foreign-born adoptees an added burden is that, although their parents don’t understand it much of the time and just see them as their children, the rest of society identify them by their nationality, and they have to deal with the fallout from that. When minority adoptees, who are adopted by Caucasian parents, move away from the home, they have to deal with cultural identity for which they may not have been prepared. Parental support, rather than denial, is needed. For many adoptees, the environment in which they were reared may have been very different from that of the biological parents, so finding bio families, although helpful, doesn’t completely answer the question: “Who am I?”
There are many roads to an authentic identity. After years of adapting and denying the true self, it is not easy to find that road. However, remembering that coping skills, childhood behaviors, and the false self do not qualify, the search must change from the environment to within the self. Do I like, dislike, feel neutral about that? What feels true? How can I blend nature and nurture to become complete? It is time to begin!
This article was first published in Adoption Circles | Summer 2011 edition | Vancouver, Canada.

Vital Facts About Adopted Children Ignored By Adoptive Parents, Society etc.

Vital Facts About Adopted Children Ignored By Parent, Society

By Nancy Verrier

  • An adoptive family is different from a biological family.
  • An infant knows her own mother at birth
    through her senses: smell, voice, heartbeat, resonance, skin, etc.
    Adoptive mother doesn’t pass the sensory test.
  • The child comes into the family traumatized by the separation from the mother.
  • No matter what we call it (relinquishment, surrender), the child feels abandoned.
  • The natural order of things is interrupted: may affect child’s understanding of cause and effect.
  • Infant cannot make sense or integrate what has happened to him: world unsafe … chaos, confusion.
  • The child is grieving. Mother needs to notice signs: seems sad, depressed, daydreams (dissociation).
  • Fears another abandonment: anxious, hypervigilant. clingy.
  • Somatic responses to anxiety may include: irritability, gastrointestinal problems, projectile vomiting,
    asthma, rashes, sleep disturbance, etc. Often an elevation in pulse rate, blood pressure.
  • Affect: rage, sadness, fear, numbness, dissociation, constriction, depersonalization.
  • Adoptive mother cannot mirror the child as birthmother could have: no genetic markers.
  • Bonding with adoptive mother will be difficult: fear of another abandonment. 
  • Anxious attachment (clinging) is not same as bonding. Bonding is enhanced by a mother’s understanding, acknowledging, and validating her child’s feelings (rather than discounting, defending against, or giving assurances).
  • Lack of genetic markers makes the child feel as if she doesn’t fit, doesn’t belong
  • Child has to figure out how to be in the family. Hypervigilant.   Tries to adapt.
  • As child begins to adapt, he forms a false self
  • Begins to lose authentic self. Becomes a “chameleon,”"Actor."
  • Child copes with pain of loss in one of two ways: compliance, acquiescence, and withdrawal, or aggression,provocation, and acting out. 
  • If two adoptees in family, there is usually one of each. Behavioral methods of coping have nothing to do with the child’s basic personality.     May trade off.
  • Behavior may be difficult, but it is not abnormal. Normal way of responding to an abnormal event: 
  • separation from biological mother.
  • Although child with each coping style needs help, parents of the acting-out child are usually the only ones who seek it.
  • Family dynamics will be affected. (Families with biological children need to consider this before deciding to adopt).
  • Most of the child’s difficulty will be with the adoptive mother: potential abandoner.
  • Many parents, not understanding the issues, blame themselves. Feel isolated.
  • Children may have difficulties around birthdays (separation day): fussy, sad, angry, ill. Celebrate early.
  • Symptoms will fit criteria for PTSD, but more complex
  • (see J Herman, B. van der Kolk).
  • Because of trauma many adoptees have difficulty in school due to problems with attention, distractibility, and stimulus discrimination.
  • When trauma occurs early, child, in trying to make sense of it, creates a set of beliefs, which seem to become permanently imprinted into psyche ( i.e., blaming self for abandonment: “I was a bad baby.”) This often results in distorted reality and low self-esteem, self-worth, and self-realization.
  • Children are not a “blank slate” at birth. Most of personality traits are genetic (but personality must be distinguished from behavioral coping style.) Adoptive parents cannot expect the child to be like them.
  • The core issues for adoptees: abandonment, loss, trust, rejection, intimacy, guilt and shame, mastery and
    control, and identity
  • More research needed:. Many neurologists and neurobiologists such as Carla Shatz of U.C. Berkeley, Bruce Perry of Baylor, Daniel Siegel of UCLA, and William Greenough of U. of Illinois are studying the effect of early environmental influence upon the brain’s wiring. We have to ask what this means for children whose earliest experience includes separation and loss. Also of interest is the effect of trauma upon the chemical makeup of the body. Scientists such as Judith Herman, Bessel van der Kolk, and James Prescott note elevated levels of adrenaline and cortisol and a drop in serotonin in trauma victims.

The Ignored Psychological Pain of Adopted Children


The Ignored Psychological Pain of Adopted Children

A multitude of issues may arise when children become aware that they have been adopted. Children may feel grief over the loss of a relationship with their birthparents and the loss of the cultural and family connections that would have existed with those parents. This feeling of loss may be especially intense in closed or semi-open adoptions where little or no information or contact is available with birthparents but the adoptive parents refuse. Such grief feelings may be triggered at many different times throughout the child's life including when they first learn of their adoption, during the turbulent teen years, upon the death of other family members, or even as when becoming a spouse or parent. There can also be significant concerns about feeling abandoned and "abandonable," and "not good enough," coupled with specific hurt feelings over the birthmother's choice to "reject" the child" to "give me away" or "not wanting me enough." Such hurtful and vulnerable feelings may be compounded should the child learn that the birthmother later had other children that she chose to raise herself.
**This is especially painful to the adoptee, feeling resentment, jealousy and anger in post adoption reunion phase of the adoption paradox.
Adopted children may also suffer from a loss of access to important medical or genetic birth family histories. Although adoption agencies take pains to gather medical and family history information, it is often not possible to have full information for the entire birth family. In a closed or semi-open adoption, there may be no way for an adopted child to ask questions or clarify vague or missing information that may only become relevant long after the adoption occurred. Even a simple doctor's appointment wherein an adopted child is quizzed about their family medical history can become a trigger for painful or awkward feelings, reminding the adopted child (or adult) that he or she is somehow different from others and doesn't have the same information available to share with the doctor.
Adopted children may struggle with self-esteem and identity development issues more so than their non-adopted peers. Identity issues are of particular concern for teenagers who are aware that they are adopted and even more so, for those adopted in a closed or semi-open circumstance. Such children often wonder why they were given up for adoption. They may also wonder about what their birth family looks like, acts like, does for a living, etc. They may struggle with the knowledge that they may have a whole other family "out there" including half-siblings or extended family members that they may never meet. These issues may still arise in open adoption circumstances, but in that case, adopted children may have the opportunity to form some manner of relationship with their birthmother so as to gain direct access to relevant information.
* The status quote of acceptable relationship with biological family based on the accessing medical history;
..But not based in fact that the child's biological family will create a sense of well-being and enact the process of healing of the dysfunction in adopted children. 
 The mother-child were denied relationship at birth. The adult adoptee has           the human right and to satisfy the biological drive to seek, pursue and maintain a relationship in adulthood with the biological parents, siblings and family.  

Adopted children may also suffer from a loss of access to important medical or genetic birth family histories. Although adoption agencies take pains to gather medical and family history information, it is often not possible to have full information for the entire birth family. In a closed or semi-open adoption, there may be no way for an adopted child to ask questions or clarify vague or missing information that may only become relevant long after the adoption occurred. Even a simple doctor's appointment wherein an adopted child is quizzed about their family medical history can become a trigger for painful or awkward feelings, reminding the adopted child (or adult) that he or she is somehow different from others and doesn't have the same information available to share with the doctor.
Adopted children may struggle with self-esteem and identity development issues more so than their non-adopted peers. Identity issues are of particular concern for teenagers who are aware that they are adopted and even more so, for those adopted in a closed or semi-open circumstance. Such children often wonder why they were given up for adoption. They may also wonder about what their birth family looks like, acts like, does for a living, etc. They may struggle with the knowledge that they may have a whole other family "out there" including half-siblings or extended family members that they may never meet. These issues may still arise in open adoption circumstances, but in that case, adopted children may have the opportunity to form some manner of relationship with their birthmother so as to gain direct access to relevant information.
Guilt feelings may accompany such identity issues and concerns. Adopted children may feel as though they are betraying their adoptive family and/or that they will hurt their adoptive family by expressing their desire to learn about their birth family. In a best case scenario, adopted children do not have to wonder how their adoptive family members feel about their interest in their birthparents because adoptive parents will have addressed these concerns directly in previous conversation. Even in such a best-case scenario, the emotions may still be somewhat painful or difficult.
It is not obvious that an adoption has occurred when adopted children physically resemble their adoptive parents since people are unlikely to spontaneously ask about adoption issues. When parents and children are visibly different (as with interracial adoptions, people outside the family may ask questions or (in an unsolicited manner) "share" their viewpoints on adoption and the appropriateness of adopting a child from another race or culture. This type of attention can quickly become annoying and even hurtful if adoptive parents do not take steps to shut it down. Ignoring such questions, or calmly and assertively stating that the topic is not something that is open for discussion are often good ways to quiet nosy strangers. A more nuanced approach is appropriate when touchy questions have been asked by people the family knows to be well meaning and sincere. In such a case, adoptive children need to look at the questioner's motives for asking, which may stem from a genuine lack of knowledge rather than a desire to harm or take delight in others' discomfort. Sensitive adoptive children may also fall victim to teasing and bullying at school, where other children taunt them in an attempt to make them feel ashamed for being adopted.
Nevery adopted child will express an interest in his or her birth family history. Some children become aware that most adoptions occur when birthmothers judge themselves financially and/or emotionally unable to raise a given child, and come to feel that there isn't anything to gain by wondering about or seeking out their birth family. Such children prefer to just leave the adoption as a "done deal" and move on with who they are now, letting the past stay in the past. There is nothing wrong with adopted children who fail to show concern about their birth parents, and likewise, nothing wrong with adopted children who do show such interest. Both reactions are normal, if sometimes painful.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Saving Adopted Children From Their Own Life


Saving Adopted Children From Their Own Life

The adoptive mother is lacking the satisfaction in life of bringing their own offspring into the world. Women lacking the ability of procreation brings emotional consequences. The women who are dysfunctional in issues of childbearing create more emotional problems by ignoring the very issues they put center in their life. The real problems emerge when the ignored issues of emotion infertility engage in knee jerk reaction to adoption are acted on. The angry women feels entitled to be a parent and will utilize her financial resources to take someone else's child. It is common for angry infertile women to adopt children without seeking psychological help for the anger that plagues them. The entitlement they feel is not a normal state to begin the lifelong process of adoption, where the adoption relation must be proved on a daily basis and is a conditional dependent relationship. Natural mother-child relationships are unconditional and no one expects a biological child to be grateful or forever indebtedness to the parent for being born. As the biological parent will benefit far longer than the childhood period. Far from normal is the adoptive parent to adoptive child relationship that is not the same type of relationship as a biological parent and child.
The anger that drives infertile women into the adoptive parent situation is the same emotional plague of anger that keeps the adopted child at a distance. The angry infertile adoptive mother
may be temporary satisfied by her ownership of a new infant,
yet her anger at her failure to become pregnant or bring forth a biological child will continue to morph her emotional health.
The adoptive mother will vilify the baby's biological mother
in an attempt to keep herself from feeling guilty. When the child begins to mature into the image of the biological mother and not the image of the adoptive family the adoptive mother's anger grows at the stranger's child. When the child is beginning to ask questions about their origins, is met with strong resistance. As the adopted child grows into adolescence they are plagued by questioning the false information unable to reason with the parental denial of the child's origins. The adolescent begins to question, challenge and seek their own truth. Which is normal of adolescent behavior, especially adoptive children's lack of truth in their adopted life.
The vilification of the biological parents is how the adoptive parents keep from feeling guilty. Over the years the anger at the biological parents has grown in the minds of the adoptive parents. Whenever the child has caused the adoptive parent stress, the biological parent is blamed. The displacement of infertility anger is placed on the biological mother who was too lazy, too immature, too busy, too slutty, too easy etc. Some immature adoptive parents argue these points in front of the adoptive child, more mature adoptive parents argue these made up rationalizations in private but the anger toward the biological parent has become a self crated delusion, a "rival" to the adoptive parent and a psychological place to send the anger.
The adoptive mother's years of placing anger with herself, infertility, anger at the adoptive child and all the compiled anger to the biological mother in the mind of the adoptive mother.
When the adopted child seeks out the biological parent which is the most basic human drive to seek proximity of the biological parents regardless of what had occurred in the adoption process.    The child now adult is forgiving of the past, even with adoptive parent abuse, the child seeks out the biological parent as the lost child seeking his origin. Weather or not a relationship develops with the biological parent matters not. As the child has always had a biological mother and father, and an adopted mother and father.  The problem exists as the adoptive parents have made ultimatums against the evil bio parents and are not emotionally stable enough to trust their own parenting, and if they were abusive they do not trust their parenting. The villain
biological mother has no problem with infertility, and has given the adoptive parent an amazing 18 years of a child. She has shared herself beyond all acts of sharing with the defective mother. But the adoptive mother resents her with hatred because of the bond of mother and child still exists strong throughout time and consequences. All adoptive children possess this bond with their biological parents. It is the adoptive parent that can not share the child with the other parent, although the child is an adult maybe forty years old, the adoptive mother can not stand the reality or the truth.