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.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Public Opinion's Risks to the Child , Associated with Child Adoption

ADOPTEE RAGE!

Public Opinion's Risks to the Child 
                              Associated with child Adoption
__________________________________________

Link:
www.darkwing.uoregon.edu/-               adoption/topics/psychopathstudies.htm

Psychopathology Studies

Does adoption jeopardize the mental and emotional health of children, making adoptees especially vulnerable to developmental, behavioral, and academic problems? Most people connected to adoption today think it does. Most Americans agree that adoption is a “risk factor,” according to public opinion polls.
The belief that adoption has a psychology of its own is recent, indebted to a tradition of controversial clinical studies linking adoption to psychopathology. Beginning around World War II, some mental health professionals, often influenced by psychoanalysis, proposed that the losses associated with adoption made normal development tricky for adopted children and stability difficult to achieve for adoptive families. The new worries about adoption generated by psychopathology studies added to already well established concerns that available children were feeble-minded and adoption unusually risky.
Psychopathology studies equated difference with damage. They helped to transform adoption into a full-fledged object of casework and counseling, and this was essential for the emergence of therapeutic adoption. The rapid spread of post-adoption services, non-existent in 1950, indicates that many parents and professionals now accept the need for long-term, perhaps permanent, help in order to avoid or manage adoption-related problems.
Awareness that the parties to adoption face unique psychological challenges may well be one of the things that makes twentieth-century adoption practices historically distinctive—as distinctive as the psychology of adoption itself.

Chronological List of Psychopathology Studies

1937
David M. Levy, “Primary Affect Hunger,” American Journal of Psychiatry 94 (November 1937):643-652.
1937
Sydney Tarachow, “The Disclosure of Foster-Parentage to a Boy: Behavior Disorders and Other Psychological Problems Resulting,” American Journal of Psychiatry 94 (September 1937):401-412
1938
Edwina A. Cowan, “Some Emotional Problems Besetting the Lives of Foster Children,” Mental Hygiene 22 (July 1938):454-458.
1941
Robert P. Knight, “Some Problems in Selecting and Rearing Adopted Children,” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic5 (May 1941):65-74.
1942
Elsie Stonesifer, “The Behavior Difficulties of Adopted and Own Children,” Smith College Studies in Social Work13 (November-December 1942):161.
1944
Houston McKee Mitchell, “Adopted Children as Patients of a Mental Hygiene Clinic,” Smith College Studies in Social Work 15 (1944):122-123.
1952
E. Wellisch, “Children Without Genealogy—A Problem of Adoption,” Mental Health 13 (1952):41-42.
1953
Portia Holman, “Some Factors in the Aetiology of Maladjusted Children,” Journal of Mental Science 99 (1953):654-688.
1953
Bernice T. Eiduson and Jean B. Livermore, “Complications in Therapy with Adopted Children,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 23 (October 1953):795-802
1954
National Association for Mental Health, A Survey Based on Adoption Case Records (London: National Association for Mental Health, 1954 est.).
1960
Marshall D. Schechter, “Observations on Adopted Children,” Archives of General Psychiatry 3 (July 1960):21-32.
1961
M.L. Kellmer Pringle, “The Incidence of Some Supposedly Adverse Family Conditions and of Left-Handedness in Schools for Maladjusted Children,” British Journal of Educational Psychology 31, no. 2 (June 1961):183-193.
1961
Bruce Gardner, Glenn R. Hawkes, and Lee G. Burchinal, “Noncontinuous Mothering in Infancy and Development in Later Childhood,” Child Development 32 (June 1961):225-234.
1962
Betty K. Ketchum, “An Exploratory Study of the Disproportionate Number of Adopted Children Hospitalized at Columbus Children's Psychiatric Hospital” (Masters Thesis, Ohio State University, 1962).
1962
Povl W. Toussieng, “Thoughts Regarding the Etiology of Psychological Difficulties in Adopted Children,” Child Welfare (February 1962):59-65, 71.
1962
Frances Lee Anderson Menlove, “Acting Out Behavior in Emotionally Disturbed Adopted Children” (Ph.D., University of Michigan, 1962).
1963
Michael Humphrey and Christopher Ounsted, “Adoptive Families Referred for Psychiatric Advice,” British Journal of Psychiatry 109 (1963):599-608.
1963
Jerome D. Goodman, Richard M. Silberstein, and Wallace Mandell, “Adopted Children Brought to Child Psychiatric Clinic,” Archives of General Psychiatry 9, no. 5 (November 1963):451-456.
1964
Marshall D. Schechter et al., “Emotional Problems in the Adoptee,”Archives of General Psychiatry 10 (February 1964):109-118.
1964
H. J. Sants, “Genealogical Bewilderment in Children with Substitute Parents,” British Journal of Medical Psychology 37, no. 1964 (1964):133-141.
1964
H. David Kirk, Shared Fate: A Theory of Adoption and Mental Health (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964).
1965
Frances Lee Menlove, “Aggressive Symptoms in Emotionally Disturbed Adopted Children,” Child Development36, no. 2 (June 1965):519-532.
1966
Nathan M. Simon and Audrey G. Senturia, “Adoption and Psychiatric Illness,” American Journal of Psychiatry122, no. 8 (February 1966):858-868.
1966
H. David Kirk, “Are Adopted Children Especially Vulnerable to Stress? A Critique of Some Recent Assertions,”Archives of General Psychiatry 14 (March 1966):291-298.
1966
Alfred Kadushin, “Adoptive Parenthood: A Hazardous Adventure?,” Social Work (July 1966):30-39.
1968
Shirley A. Reece and Barbara Levin, “Psychiatric Disturbances in Adopted Children: A Descriptive Study,”Social Work (January 1968):101-111.
1970
Marshall D. Schechter, “About Adoptive Parents,” in Parenthood: Its Psychology and Psychopathology, eds. E. James Anthony and Therese Benedek (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970), 353-371.
1975
Arthur D. Sorosky, Annette Baran, and Reuben Pannor, “Identity Conflicts in Adoptees,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 45 (January 1975):18-27.
1988
David Kirschner and Linda S. Nagel, “Antisocial Behavior in Adoptees: Patterns and Dynamics,” Child and Adolescent Social Work 5, no. 4 (Winter 1988):300-314.
1990
David Kirschner, “The Adopted Child Syndrome: Considerations for Psychotherapy,” Psychotherapy in Private Practice 8, no. 3 (1990):93-100.
1990
David Brodzinsky and Marshall Schechter, eds., The Psychology of Adoption (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).
1993
Nancy Newton Verrier, The Primal Wound: Understanding the Adopted Child (Baltimore, MD: Gateway Press, 1993).
1995
P.F. Sullivan, J.E. Wells, and J.A. Bushnell, “Adoption as a Risk Factor for Mental Disorders,” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 92, no. 2 (August 1995):119-124.
1995
Katarina Wegar, “Adoption and Mental Health: A Theoretical Critique of the Psychopathological Model,”American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65 (October 1995):540-548.
1998
Joyce Maguire Pavao, The Family of Adoption (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998).
1998
Jeffrey J. Haugaard, “Is adoption a risk factor for the development of adjustment problems?,” Clinical Psychology Review 18, no. 1 (January 1998):47-69.


















The Angry Adoptee...Why I am Angry

ADOPTEE RAGE!

The Angry Adoptee...Why I am Angry
__________________________________________

Why I am Angry:
 My entire miserable adopted life, I have been told how to act, Told what to say,How to say it, How my facial expression should look on the rare occasion when I am allowed to speak.....

Talk about adoption? 
I was Never allowed to speak about adoption, My adoptive mother always spoke about my adoption on my behalf. My personal thoughts were the opposite of adoptive mother's adoption promo speech.

The Stigmatized Adopted Child Student 
I was labeled a special ed looser far before I knew what the term looser meant.
My school teachers, principles and other educational professionals would punish me for being chronically late to school and never picked up from school when the staff left the campus. All of the stuff my adoptive parents were responsible for was blamed on me. The principle said I had no structure in my home environment, so my mom punished me for not getting that structure thing accomplished.

The School Children's Cruelty
The child's adopted parenting status should not be the general public's knowledge or kid's ammunition to constantly bully the outcast child. Being an outcast is difficult enough for a young child growing up in a domestic violent home. My adoptive mother made sure that each year, In each new classroom that every child was aware of my private and humiliating status of an unwanted, illegitimate, bastard and loathsome child. The more I begged her not to tell, the more details about my adoption she would blurt out to my teacher and classmates. Adoptive mother would say that my embarrassment and humiliation about being adopted, I was just not right about it and she was helping me get over it by telling everyone that would listen to her. The things that bothered me was my poor attempt at getting attention, I was a drama queen, a spoiled rotten brat that was ungrateful for all the misery she suffered to adopt me. 

Telling Adopted Child that their emotions, thoughts and feelings are wrong. Not that my feelings would be acknowledged, my emotions would cause adoptive mother to feel empathy for me or my thoughts could be policed and punished. As I got the message early in life that my thoughts, feelings and emotions only made her angry and were a punishable offense.

I am Angry that my adoptive parent's taught me to overreact to any problem with yelling, screaming and striking others and if the subject does not respond in the intended way, threaten to harm yourself and when all else fails, threaten suicide. This type of adult temper tantrum that is disturbing, disgusting and disreputable behavior from adults that are supposed to protect young children, not teach them this childish way of coping with discontinuity. 

I am Angry that I never had the guts to run away.
I am Angry at myself for maintaining the silence that rots away my insides. I am angry for being a victim of adopted child abuse. I am angry for being psychologically neglected and abused by my adoptive mother. I am angry for all of my failed attempts at trying to please my adoptive parents. I am angry for being a sick adopted child. I am angry for never speaking up for myself, defending myself and not taking on my adoptive parents and fighting back. 
They say that I don't deserve my adoptive family,so why didn't they send me back, instead of the lifelong threats to send me back and replace me with a more deserving adopted child- I might have been better off. I am angry at society, my community and school for allowing me to remain in an abusive family that hated me. I am angry that no body cared about me,
nobody protected me. I am angry that my identity, family and ancestry was kept secret from my need to form an identity. I am angry for not knowing who I am. I am angry to be labeled a social service dependent and ward of the state burden, worthy of being unloaded to an alcoholic adoptive family.
I am angry to have been unloaded adopted to replace a dead baby. I am angry that county of San Diego social services never checked if I was still alive.
I am angry to have been used, abused and discarded by my adoptive parents, who wonder what is wrong with me. I am angry that no one takes any responsibility for why adopted children are so messed up.....It surely is not genetic. 








The Difficulty In Finding a Trained and Experienced Adopted Child/Adult Adoptee Specific Therapist on the Web or Directory

ADOPTEE RAGE!

Finding an Experienced "Adoptee Therapist" Is a Near Impossible Task on the Internet or Directory.
__________________________________________

Every web search renders therapists that have no exclusive knowledge of the adoptee's point of view,
Necessary to promote healing the underlying problem that most experts in the general psychology field have little to no experience, but say they do and are very convincing, Yet they have general knowledge of Adoption Triad which means they may discount, down play the adoptee's life experiences and invalidate the adoptee's struggle and plight. Therapists that experience adopted children and adult adoptee's in the psychiatric and clinical settings have a specific knowledge, experience and Insight into the psychological complexities of multiple adopted children and adult adoptee patients that all other general psychotherapist's lack.   
Dealing with the dual roles, Forced identity and the lost place that adult adoptee's occupy when they can no longer live in or with the adopted roles anymore.   
It is essential for adoptee's to find a valid expert in adopted child, adult adoptee and adoption specific psychology to have the trust in your therapist and want to do the hard word of adoption related healing.
The therapist below has a website with many essays, papers and published works on the adopted child's reality, please check her out. 

__________________________________________

Adoptee Therapist Karen Caffrey's Written Work
on Adoptee's, Qualifies Her as A Trusting Source
For Adoptee Psychotherapy and healing.....

__________________________________________

WEB: www.karencaffrey.com/2010/11/adoptees and silent reality/
__________________________________________

Adoptees And Silent Realities

In our society adoption is usually viewed as a problem-solving, not a problem-creating, event. Adoptive parents can parent a child, birth parents are relieved from the responsibility of parenting that same child, and the child ends up with a family.  However, the emotional realities for all members of the adoption “triad” (adoptees, birth parents and adoptive parents) are far more complex, and far less idyllic, than is implied by this common stereotype. 
For adoptees, these realities often include emotional consequences that are rarely acknowledge or discussed.  Some of them are as follows:
Profound Loss.  When an infant is separated from the mother in whose body she was carried, the infant has a deep, pre-verbal body experience of loss and abandonment. Nancy Newton Verrier, MA, an adoptive mother and well-known author on the psychological effects of adoption on adoptees, calls this loss the adoptee’s “primal wound”.  Furthermore, under the “closed” adoption system most commonly practiced in the U.S. there is no exchange of information or contact between the birth family and the adoptee.  
In a closed adoption situation the adoptee grows up totally cut off from contact with, or information about, her birth family. Birth parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, as well as information about ancestors and family characteristics (e.g.-artistic or musical ability), medical information, ethnic and cultural heritage, are all missing.  Most adoptees grow to adulthood never having laid eyes on or touched a blood relative.  So in addition to the actual body experience of loss, adoptees experience a tremendous break in connection with their personal past.
Denial of the Loss.  Our society has in general denied the losses experienced by the adoptee.  Imagine if someone lost her entire family and all family records and possessions (heirlooms, pictures, etc.) in some monumental catastrophe. We would expect the person to be devastated and grieve, and would offer support and condolences.  Yet does anyone say to an adoptee, “I am so sorry about your loss?”  At best, the adoptee’s pain is tacitly acknowledged by the tentativeness with which the issue is raised with her (if it’s raised at all).
Shaming.  Adoptees are often told that their reactions to their adoption are wrong. These reactions can include confusion and questioning (“Why did she give me away?”), anger at birth or adoptive parents, or a desire to address the loss by obtaining information about the adoptee’s origins.  For example, adoptees who are searching for information or contact with their birth families are often told that they are being “selfish”, are maladjusted or are hurting their adoptive parents.  (“You wouldn’t be searching if you really loved your adoptive parents”.)  When adoptees ask questions, even well-intended explanations can confusion or shame. (“Your birth mother placed you for adoption because she loved you”, equating love and abandonment, or “You should be grateful you were lucky enough to be adopted by such a caring family”, equating a need for information with ingratitude.)  
Lastly, the status of being adopted can itself be a source of shame in our society, reflecting the old stigma regarding promiscuity and “bad blood” which surrounds adoption.  Some adoptees recall being taunted as children with such statements as, “They (the adoptive parents) aren’t your real parents: your real parents gave you away”.  All forms of shame isolate the adoptee by discouraging her from expressing needs and feelings.  
Secrecy And Lies.  Sometimes families pretend, either to the adoptee or to the world at large, that the adoptee is a birth child. They keep the fact that the adoptee is adopted secret. Like any secret, it is shaming and “crazy-making”.  Lying to the adoptee (which many years ago was a recommended practice in the field of adoption) results in an ever-increasing spiral of lies. Multiples lies about the child’s birth, medical history, resemblance or lack of resemblance to adoptive family members, etc. must be told by the family.
The secret must also be maintained by a conspiracy of friends and neighbors, since at least some outsiders are aware the adoptive mother did not carry the child.  If the adoptee’s status is disclosed to her but held secret from others, the adoptee may be forced to lie to keep the secret. And like shame, secrecy isolates adoptees.  Sometimes shame results in adoptees keeping the fact of their adoption secret: they “pass” as birth children of their adoptive parents.
Legal Discrimination.  Under the adoption laws of most states, adoptees are effectively considered to be minor children throughout their lives. At the time of the legal proceedings terminating their connection with their birth families, they were infants and of course had no voice. However, they also had no legal counsel, and no laws which anticipated that there would be a time when they would be able to speak their needs. How would most adults feel if a court legally stripped them of their identity, and all future contact with or information about their family, without their consent and without legal representation?  This is precisely what happens to every adoptee. Yet when adoptees reach the age of majority, most states either prohibit adoptees from obtaining information about themselves entirely, or impose expensive, time-consuming and burdensome conditions on the process.  Alex Haley searched all the way to Africa for his roots, but adoptees are told they shouldn’t search beyond the face in the mirror.
Healing.  The mixture of profound loss, denial, shame, secrecy, lies and legal discrimination is a familiar one for adoptees.  What are some of the elements of healing for adoptees?
            One of the most powerful elements of healing for adoptees is connection with other adoptees. To borrow the slogan of a popular laundry detergent, getting a connection from others “Gets the Shame Out”.  Whether that connection is in person, through books, TV, or on-line adoption websites, express the reality of your experience and being heard by a person who understands and relates is powerful and healing. It is wonderful to realize, “I’m not the only one who feels/thinks this way.”  Fortunately, the adoption reform/recovery movement has made great strides in recent years and there are many organizations, support groups, books and films available for adoptees.
            For some adoptees, “opening” their closed adoptions by obtaining information about their origins and/or seeking contact with their birth families can help their feelings of loss and strengthen their sense of identity.  The issue of adoptees searching for their birth families is still highly controversial. It carries risks for the adoptee as well as for others involved.  The risks for the adoptee include the possibility of a second “rejection” by the birth family, an “unsuccessful” reunion, the inability to find any information, finding false information, etc. However, adoptees who have had what might be described as unsuccessful searches may feel more empowered by having more knowledge about themselves, even if it is limited or painful.
            Therapy, whether individually or in a group with other adoptees, can also help.  Issues such as, “If I have myself, my needs, or my desires, then I am being disloyal to my parents and hurting them”, are common to anyone seeking therapy and can be worked through. Whatever kind of therapy the adoptee chooses, it is important that issues faced by adoptees are understood and appreciated by the therapist, and taken into account in viewing the person as a whole.
            Becoming active in the adoption movement, working for new legislation for adoptee’s rights, and reforming the practice of adoption can also be empowering and healing for the adoptee. 
            Adoption is a complex and life-long process for all of those involved with it.  No one parents or releases a child without it greatly affecting their lives. No adoptee ever stops being an adoptee. Today, there is movement in this country towards more open adoptions, although others are pressing strongly for more closed adoptions.  There is no easy answer to the problem of children being born to parents who are unable or unwilling to parent them (or in some egregious cases, being born to mothers who were pressured or forced to release them for adoption).  Given the wounds which we have inflicted on adoptees with our closed system of adoption, and the wealth of knowledge we have about the effects of loss, shame, secrecy, lies, denial and discrimination, it seems we should be able to find a better way.
______________________________________________________







Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Biologically Driven Mother-Infant Mirroring, Impossible in Non-Biological Care-giving Relationship Between Adoptive Mother and Adopted Child

ADOPTEE RAGE!

Biologically Driven Mother-Infant Mirroring, 
Impossible In non-biological caregiver relationship between Adoptive Mother - Adopted Child. 
__________________________________________

LINK: www.ttfuture.org/author/Nancy_Verrier/

Nancy Verrier

Our first daughter was adopted. Two years later I gave birth to my other daughter. Even with all the crazy things they do in hospitals the bonding process with my biological daughter was much easier and more effective than with my adopted daughter. When we adopted, I had no idea that this could be true.
At three days old my adopted daughter knew her mother and I was not the mother she expected or wanted. I didn't know that at the time. We were told to take this baby home and love her and everything will be just fine. That's what I thought would happen.
Since then, a lot of adoptees have told me, "we've been loved very much but love is not enough." I became very interested in what my daughter was experiencing. After having experienced the birth-bond with my biological daughter, I could only imagine how desperate and terrified my other daughter must have felt when she was separated from her biological mother. I grew to understand how much that bond plays in the prenatal to postnatal experience. Bonding brings a component of safety and security, which I don't think adopted children feel. Once you've separated from one mother, there's always the possibility of being separated from another. They live with that every day.
Attachment can and often does happen, but it's what we call anxious attachment. There's always the feeling that someone can leave. Children are traumatized by this experience of being separated from the birth mother and the mothers are traumatized as well.
Let's explore this notion that love is not enough. It has very serious implications.
Adoptees are often told that your birth mother loved you but she couldn't keep you. This very well may be true, but the child associates love and closeness and intimacy, with basic trust and security. Rather than getting close to someone, they feel much safer if they don't. The phrase, "If you don't love too much, you don't lose too much," comes up quite a bit.
They do things to distance themselves from their adoptive parents so they won't feel the loss if they leave too. They act out in ways that test. It is as if they know its going to happen and just want to get it over with, like they are holding their breath. They keep talking about it, that they are just waiting for it to happen. That's one of the reasons these children are often diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. How can you possibly focus on math when you're so afraid of being abandoned? It's in their minds all the time, not wanting to be abandoned again.
The kids that aren't acting out are, what a woman in Vancouver calls, acting in. They withdraw, go inward, and don't want anybody to know what they feel about anything. They often don't know how they feel themselves. They become very compliant and do everything they cannot to rock the boat.
Most people feel that they are well adjusted. They've adjusted just well at the expense of who they truly are, which is not what they see when they look for feedback from others.
As mothers we mirror our babies and we do this instinctively. When an adopted child looks up into the mother's face, and he or she does not see anything familiar, it is like looking in the wrong mirror. They aren't being mirrored the same way a birth mother would mirror them, and the baby knows the difference. Mirroring is the beginning of self-esteem. Adopted kids miss this. It is an on-going trauma... the ugly duckling theme and its one reason that love is not enough.
For some people birth itself is a trauma, but certainly if you were separated from the person with whom you feel close, whom you've been with for nine months, you are going to feel trauma. Part of that has to do with the sense of self. It isn't just losing mother. At birth babies are very immature, as mammals go, physically and emotionally, and are very connected to the mother. She plays the role of ego for quite a while after birth.
The adopted child has to develop what we call premature ego. They have to be a separate person right away, before it's really time. One might think that helps develop a sense of self, but it doesn't. They don't have a chance to go through the process of separating from her and knowing that they are safe, which means loved and wanted. What they feel is that somehow they are to blame for the separation. They feel they are not good, that they are bad because mothers don't leave their babies. There's no evidence, anywhere in the world, of mothers leaving their babies and that being okay.
There seems to be a feeling of defensive in the creation of this self centered entity. Perhaps the ego is fundamentally a defense response or reflex. Being abandoned would necessitate an immediate and strong defensive reaction.
Babies go through a process of beginning to understand that they are separate from mother and that she isn't a person over here and they're a person over here. That happens over time. When it happens at birth, before they have a chance to go through the normal process, there's a sense of something missing. Mothers talk about this also. They feel something's missing. They want to get back together. It is a sense of not only finding that lost child or that lost mother, but finding that other part, the lost self that was disconnected.






Maternal & Paternal Investment In Biological Offspring

ADOPTEE RAGE!

Maternal & Paternal Investment In Biological Offspring
________________________________________________________________


Survival Dependence on Relationship Certainty of Genetic Offspring

According to the Parental Investment Theory, 
mothers are inclined to provide optimal care for their offspring due to "certainty of a genetic relationship".
 In regards to this, polyandry is rare in most societies as women will not take more than one husband in order to ensure the father with knowledge of the child's paternity and assistance with future care of their child from the father. 
Brain circuitry also evolved to favor monogamous attachment around the same time that our ancestors developed upright bipedal abilities. The development of upright movement led to the development of females caring for their children by carrying infants in their arms instead of on their backs. Holding their infants in their arms led to greater bonds between mother and child. Upright bipedal abilities also developed stronger pairing-bonds between males and females as it became easier for males to protect just one female on the land instead of multiple females as they had done while living in trees. Natural selection favored males and females who had genes regulated towards forming pair-bonds because their young genetic offspring were more likely to survive, and brain circuitry gradually evolved to include attachment in parenting styles.
MIRRORING GENETIC OFFSPRING
Women's maternal bonding provide the ability to recognize the offspring infant's facial expression of emotion, most especially negative emotion. This adaptation allows for the maternally bonded primary caretaker to develop maternal bond dependent relationship with their child leading to secure attachment during development. The "tend-and-befriend" hypothesis, which allows for the mother to care for and protect the child during detrimental situations, ensures offspring survival. Women are also able to create and maintain social networks that offer social protection for their offspring.
Grandmothers have evolved mechanisms that allow them to invest in their biological grandchildren.  
Menopause is the biological mechanism and adaptation for older women to invest in care of their offspring and their children's offspring. A desire to improve inclusive fitness allows grandmothers, especially maternal biological grandmothers, to invest the most since they are guaranteed that the child carries their genes. Aunts will also invest more than uncles. Specifically maternal aunts will invest more than paternal aunts.

Male/Paternal Role

Males have less investment in potential offspring and are inept in their nurturing skills due to a greater emphasis on genetic reproduction, because any children that their mate births may or may not be their own. This phenomenon is termed paternal insecurity. 
Research has shown that for this reason, fathers tend to invest more resources in children that look and smell like them, essential proof of a genetic offspring. 
Studies have demonstrated that when an infant is first born, males will experience decreased testosterone levels, making them less likely to be abusive, to commit infidelity, seek divorce. 
Increased levels of investment when a child is first born may be due to the fact that males want to protect their genes and assure the reproductive success of their offspring in order for their genes to be spread.
Human fathers are involved with their family life as social connections are beneficial and alleviate access to resources. Long term monogamous relationships between parental units are necessary for children's improved development. From an evolutionary perspective, the well-being of children during their development improves the probability of reproduction for the child, and therefore the continuation of the father's genes. Evolutionary perspectives do not see the behavior of fathers who abandon their families, solely based on passing down genetic information, but also through a social perspective as father involvement is an adaptation that has been shaped by the environment and experiences. In the modern case of divorce, fathers may feel less obliged to care for their children if guardianship of the child or children is granted to the mother, leading men to feel as if they do not need to be involved in the upbringing of their child. Remarrying, entering new romantic relationships, and having children with other women may also lead to fathers detracting from their parental investment towards their first born children. Divorced men finding new reproductive partners overrides their parental investment, as they focus on spreading their genes as widely as possible.

Parenting Styles

Authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, or neglectful parenting influences the development of children's attachment styles and their adjustment ability in order to survive and reproduce. 
Authoritative parenting style is associated with the highest level of adjustment in children and is characterized by three factors. 
First, the parent makes age appropriate demands by insisting that the child behave in an appropriate intellectual and emotional manner. 
Second, the parent is rational and communicative by giving limits of appropriate behavior and communicating these underlying values to the child. 
Third, when the child is behaving according to the limits that are set, positive reinforcement and praise are used. Children whose parents raised them with authoritative style will have greater secure attachment leading them to be more successful in both romantic and social relationships.
Authoritarian parenting style is associated with moderately well-adjusted children. The parent lacks the communicative skills of an authoritative parent and does not convey value to the child or give proper attention when necessary. 
Children who were raised by parents who had authoritarian parenting skills may have greater tendency towards avoidant or insecure attachment issues. This leads them to experience decreased success in relationships and a decreased chance of reproduction.
There are two types of permissive parenting styles; indulgent and neglectful. 
Indulgent parents do not create proper boundaries for their children and provide them with positive reinforcement even though it is not applicable. 
Neglectful parents create no boundaries for their child and ignore their needs. 
Both indulgent and neglectful parenting styles can lead children to develop insecure attachment issues as they may feel that they cannot trust those who are around them to be loyal.

Patterns of Attachment

The ancestral past developed bonding styles amongst a parent (specifically mothers) and their offspring. Secure attachment styles are crucial to help parent-child relationships and for the future survival of the child. It is strongly associated with strong future adult relationships.
Attachment styles reflect child rearing environments and are adaptively patterned. Trade-offs between current and future reproduction influence attachment styles. When resources cannot be counted on, efforts can be focused on increasing fertility and decrease investment in any particular offspring.
Secure, avoidant and anxious ambivalent attachment make up the different styles of attachment theory. 
Secure attachment involves the child eliciting the most parental investment to ensure survival. 
Children with avoidant attachment demonstrate an indifference towards the parent. This reflects an adaptation to a parents unwillingness to invest consistently in the child. 
ANXIOUS AMBIVALENT ATTACHMENT
With anxious ambivalent attachment the child shows nervousness, fearfulness and insecurity. This reflects an adaptation to a parent who does not invest in the survival of offspring; they are preoccupied with other issues. This type of attachment in particular evolved to foster a "helpers at the nest" style. In this style of attachment the children remain at home and help their parents and other children.

Influence on Offspring in Mate Selection

Mating adaptations, such as competition for females, can be rooted in evolution, due to them being receivers of "scarce reproductive resources". Therefore, males' nature to involve themselves in competition can be traced to their desire to have genes passed down while using the females resources. The parent who willfully invests in their offspring, is then in control of an offspring's mating choices, specifically those of their daughters. According to Robert Triver's theory of parental investment, the parent which commits to greater investment in an offspring will have greater investment in the mate choices of their children, in order to assure that their engaged parenting will not be wasted on a mate who will not lead to successful reproduction and a loss of their genes being passed down.
Parents play a significant role in determining the offspring's future mates, with greater influence on daughters.
In the ancestral environment, parents of young women recognized the power they possessed in assisting the selection of their daughter's mate and utilizing that power (either as main resource provider or through physical intimidation) to benefit and enhance their own inclusive fitness. Not only do parents have an influence on their offspring's mating choices, they also have an influence on the sexual strategies they may adopt.
According to David Buss, a father's absence in early childhood directly affects the sexual strategy that a person will adopt later on. Those who experience a lack of a fatherly role during development may develop insecure attachment expectations that parental resources are not reliable and develop the idea that adult pair bonds do not last, leading them to develop sexual strategies that involve early sexual maturation, early sexual initiation, and frequent partner switching. Those who grew up with the presence of a father or fatherly role in their life have greater secure attachment and view people as reliable and trustworthy. They believe that relationships are expected to last, therefore developing a long-term mating strategy. These people delay in sexual maturation, later onset of sexual activity, search for securely attached long-term adult relationships, and heavy investment in a small number of children.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Lying Adopted Children

ADOPTEE RAGE!

Lying Adopted Children  ________________________________________________________________

"You Little Liar!"

The Adoption Experts always point their fingers to the adopted child and make extravagant excuses of blame and fault, Yet never identify the obvious truth that the young adopted child can easily grasp, understand and utilize as the adopted child is taught to lie about the number one concept of his adopted identity LIE. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

www.adoptionuk.org/resources/article/lying/

Lying is........... 

something that many adoptive parents are familiar with. 

Why do adopted children do it? What does it tell us about what is going on inside them?
Some adopters find that lying goes hand in hand with stealing, as their children use one behavour to cover up for the other.
The National Children's Bureau (NCB) produces a booklet -Understanding Why - which is aimed at helping teachers recognize and understand common behaviors of children who have experienced major loss or trauma early in life.
'Telling lies is often linked to early loss, especially of caregivers, and leaves children with difficulties distinguishing between fact and fantasy.'




Adoptive parents attempt to control how the adopted child is supposed to understand things, yet the adoptive parent's behavior verses what the parent says are usually two completely different concepts. The adoptive parent's opinions are biased, contrasted by what the adoptive parent wants outsiders to know, which is again contrasted by the adoptive parent's perception of how others or outsiders might and must see the adoptive family "appearances factor." Verses what adoptive parental behavior truthfully exists behind the closed doors of the adoptive family's home.  These contrasting values and norms that influence the decision making and what information is acceptable to the outside world. To what degree of truthful information is actually spoken by the adoptive parent in public, which is a vast contrast of different information that is spoken in private. The adoptive parent's daily examples of intentional lying to outside people, is viewed by the adopted child as acceptable behavior as the adoptive parent lies, exaggerates and uses deceptive language as a dependable aspect of the parent's communication skills.
The adoptive parent's own chronic lying sets the example for the adoptive child's foundation for adult communicating that is perfectly acceptable behavior in adults. Furthermore the adopted child's foundation of identity is a "Legal Fiction" that is not true and the adopted child must lie daily when referring to himself or writing his own name, is in fact a complete untruth of which the adopted child tells this lie repetitively to benefit the adoptive parent's ego.     
_____________________________________________________________
Suggesting that children had difficult early life experiences, may be desperate to be liked, and so will say what they think will please (Adopted children are trained by guilt, fear and intimidation, to tell mother what she wants to hear or be punished).

More than a developmental stage

Lying is a developmental stage that many young children go through. However, adopted children who have been through traumatizing early experiences sometimes reach this stage much later than their peers, making it difficult for adoptive parents to deal with, and for other adults to understand.
The parenting charity Family Lives suggests that lying is difficult to control in children – while you might be able to watch that they do not steal, you cannot stop them lying.
It says:

'Very young children (nursery and primary school age) may genuinely believe the stories they are telling you. In their minds fact and fiction can get blurred, the fairy-tales and stories they hear from parents and their teachers, can get a bit muddled in their heads. The experiences they are trying to recap to you are getting exaggerated.'

Why children lie






There are obviously a huge number of reasons why children lie. 
These can include:
  • Wishful thinking – making something up because they wish it were true 
  • or to impress friends

  • Difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality, and thinking that if they really 
  • want something they will get it

  • Trying to please parents – telling you what they think you want to hear 
  • feels more important than being caught out in the lie

  • Worry that your love and approval are conditional – telling you they did 
  • well at school because they think it is more important to gain your 
  • approval than tell the truth

  • To avoid punishment when they know they have done something wrong

  • To gain more attention – i.e. feigning illness to be comforted

  • To avoid something undesirable – i.e. feigning illness to avoid school

  • To test adults – making up a story to see how easy they are to fool






The Forced Personality of the adopted child

ADOPTEE RAGE!

The Forced Personality of the Adopted Child
________________________________________________________________

I never asked to be the bad choice replacement for the adoptive parent's stillborn child. The adoptive mother's repetitive attempts to handicap my growing body and mind, to render me in fear of the things she is afraid of. I was programmed to be afraid of the Water and Swimming in the water. The naturally occurring Thunder Storms, Earthquakes, "Wake up the children and get them under the pool table to her stupid perception of safety. There are too many "irrational fears" to comment on each one, and in adulthood I try to block them out of my mind yet the adoptive parent programming gets in the way.
Snakes, lizards....All these fears are supposed to be based on the individual's personal feelings, yet adopted children are not allowed emotions or feelings and the adoptive parent subconsciously makes the adopted child suppress these personal identity-triggering fears, joys and emotional states, that the adoptive parent forces their own abnormal coping skills on the child without feelings. To allow the adopted child the freedom of emotional feeling would allow an open door to voice these personal feelings and might one day speak the truth that the adoptive parent keeps a vigil for their denial of truth in themselves and in their adopted child's forced silence keeps the adoptive mother in a perpetual safety state of ignorant bliss...
The adoptive parent knows that the adopted child relationship is not natural,
and in keeping the adopted child silenced from revealing any personality truths
allows the adoptive mother the ability to dominate and control the adopted child. The adoptive mother's forces and controls the adopted child's personality to form along the lines of the adoptive mother's preferences. In my case the adoptive mother wanted me to be just like her which is an insult to any human being that is not allowed to be who they really are. My adoptive mother only let me wear short dresses, in her pursuit of molding me in to a little lady. But she is inconsistent, selfish and spends little time with me. Exposing me to things that are not in a "little lady's" world like violence, verbal abuse, taking me to bars, cocktail lounges and horse racing and gambling world of adulthood. A little girl in a short dress with a sailor's vocabulary who see's sex, drunken fights and domestic violence in the home. Although I temporarily looked the part, I had been exposed or entrenched in an adult lifestyle. The adoptive mother wanted me to be a sweet girly-girl who worried about her appearance, was lady like and did not embarrass her if I opened my mouth. I was supposed to act fragile, and never run around a baseball field and get dirty. I was never allowed to play baseball or "Boy's" sports that the adoptive father coached with girls on his teams. I was supposed to act out adoptive mother's fantasy of how her stillborn daughter would have been...Just like her, but I was far from that. I was supposed to like girl things, going shopping, going out to eat, getting my nails done, all the things that I detest in life. Where I'd rather continue making forts in the field with my brothers, playing baseball in the yard, throwing knives on targets, making weapons. When adoptive mom would get out of bed around 10 am, I'd been playing or running around outside with the boys, I would be punished and my brothers were never interrupted in their outside play.  
Adopted mother could wash my mouth out with soap, scrub the dirt off my face
but she could not wash away the secret real me that I held on tightly deep down Inside.
At some point in late childhood, the adoptive parent becomes repulsed by what they don't see in their adopted child. The years of molding, influencing, forcing and punishing the adopted child yields few long term results that the adoptive parent feels great disappointment and failure in trying to make the adopted child be more like the adoptive family. At the point where some adoptive parent's give up the fight to render the adopted child submissive, some adoptive parent's find acceptance in the differences. Still other adoptive parent's fight dirty to hold on to the adopted child in adulthood by the use of guilt and fear instilled in the young child, as they won't abandon their investments and demand returns in the form of broken, fear based adult children suffering at the hands of their cruel adoptive parent's demands.