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.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Adoption Defined in the Bible


Adoption Defined in Bible

I skipped the writer's apologies, warnings and discounting the truth and facts stated in the biblical text. A great read!

Read full artlcle at:

Adoption defined
For the sake of this article I will define 'adoption' as "the practice of altering the birth certificate and therefore the identity of a child such that a person or persons not biologically related to the child, are recognised as parents of the child. "
A large subset of all adoptions is newborn adoption - the child adopted into a family as close to birth as possible to give the illusion to both those within the adoptive family and outside the adoptive family, that the child is "as if born" to the adoptive couple.
Is such a general practice any part of God's will, or is it merely churchian god swill?
Many would say that Moses's life represented such an adoption. Let us look at the life of Moses as a possible example of scripture condoning adoption.
Firstly, what pressure was placed on Moses's biological mother to put Moses on the adoption conveyor belt (the River Nile)?
"Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives... 'When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth... If it is a son, then you shall put it to death... Every son who is born to the Hebrews you are to cast into the Nile. '" (1)
So the pressure placed on Moses's mother was "your son shall die." This is the exact same pressure that is placed on a young mother to relinquish her child in the latter 20th and early 21st centuries. "The baby will have no life. The baby will have only half a life. The baby will be socially handicapped if you keep this child. If you keep this child you are being selfish and not giving your child the best." These sorts of things are said by both social workers and parents of young pregnant women, to persuade them into adoption.
In the Bible, these are the words of Pharaoh. Are Christians instructed by the Bible to behave like Pharaoh?
Secondly, how did Moses's mother react?
"She saw that he was beautiful and she hid him for three months." (2)
So such is the unity between mother and child that she risked the wrath of the Government as long as she could, in order to bond with her child, in order to breast feed and care for her child, in the face of probable death for both herself and her son. Significantly, the child was born of the House of Levi - the House of Priests. Did the High Priests of Adoption respect the natural fusion of mother and her biological child in removing children after just 5 days, granting custody to strangers, then expecting the first-mum to forget it ever happened?
Thirdly, how did Moses's mother effect the adoption?
"She put the child into the basket, and set it among the reeds by the banks of the Nile..." (3)
On threat of death, she succumbed to the edict of the Government to cast the child into the Nile. But!
"And his sister stood at a distance to find out what would happen to the child." (4)
In the Bible it seems reasonable. In modern parlance, we call it stalking! When 20th century relinquishers tracked down their child they were punished by court appearances and classed as criminals.
Fourthly, how did the Government of the day react to this act of stalking?
"Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, 'Shall I go and call a woman who can suckle the child from among the Hebrews, that she may nurse the child for you?' And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, 'Go ahead.' So the girl went and called the child's mother. Then Pharaoh's daughter said to her, 'Take this child away and nurse him for me and I shall give you wages. '" (5)
The House of Pharaoh sponsored the child to be raised with its kinfolk. In troubled times, the Government of the day, one recognised throughout the Bible as unmercifully cruel, provided social security so that the child could remain in the household of its biological family. In fact, the prospective adopters sponsored the program. What depths of cruelty has 20th century western Government visited, to expect women in troubled times to hand their children over to better-heeled strangers?
Exodus 2 v 10 tells us that when Moses was a child, we are not told exactly how old, he was adopted into Pharaoh's household and Pharaoh's daughter renamed him Moses. Clearly, Moses was not moved to the adopter's household until he had formed a relationship with his mother. The adoption was open. The mother knew the fate of the child and could keep track of his progress. I am not here arguing that scripture condones open adoption as shall be seen as we progress - what I am highlighting is just how different Moses's adoption was to the practices of church-run adoption agencies in the 20th century.
The fifth question to ask is, how did Moses react to his adoption?
"When Moses had grown up he went out to his brethren..." (6)
The Bible labels Moses's biological relatives "his brethren", not those by whom he had been adopted. This is firmly repeated in the New Testament in Acts Chapter 7.
What was the reaction of "his brethren" to Moses?
"Who made you a prince or a judge over us?" (7)
Moses has become Mr In-between - just like so many adoptees he feels he doesn't truly fit into his adoptive family, yet is also unacceptable to his biological family because of the influences of the adopters. This is classic adoption syndrome working here. And what happens? Moses commits murder and spends the next forty years wandering around the desert tending sheep, a man of virtually no self esteem. (8) This man of immense talent and intellect, becomes "a sojourner in a foreign land", (9)a cry echoed in the minds and on the faces of most 20th century adoptees.
A final point to make in considering the life of Moses; how impressed was God with the system that created the pressure to adopt?
"Now it came about at midnight that the Lord struck all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne, to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of cattle. And Pharaoh arose in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians, and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was no home where someone was not dead." (10)
It is an interesting Bible-study on its own to look at the sacrifice of the first-born.
If we are to use the example of Moses as a Biblical case history to justify adoption, what do we learn? We discover that (a) a woman will surrender a child only on pain of death; (b) it is unreasonable to cut a woman off from knowledge of her child which she loses to adoption; (c) Moses's was an open adoption; (d) upon maturity (ie: the ability to think for himself) Moses turned his back on the wealth and privileges of his adoptive family, to identify with the poverty of his biological kin; (e) even the most harsh of ancient ruling elites appreciated the value of biological ties and provided social security so that the child could at least be weaned, start to develop and form a relationship with its true mother before an open adoption could take place. (11)
While some churchian minds use the adoption of Moses to justify adoption of newborns, how much of the detail of scripture is adhered to by church-run adoption agencies? Even a rudimentary comparison between the Bible and agency practice would indicate that the church has digressed quite a ways from scriptural instruction.
"Two women who were harlots came to the king [Solomon]... And one said, '... On the third day after I gave birth, this woman also gave birth... And this woman's son died in the night because she lay on him.'... Then the other woman said, 'No! The living son is mine. Yours is the dead son.'... And the king said, 'Get me a sword... Divide the living child in two and give half to the one woman and half to the other.' But the woman whose child was the living one spoke to the king, for she was deeply stirred over her son, and said, 'Oh my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him.'... Then the king answered, 'Give the living child to the first woman who spoke. She is his mother.'... And God was with the king administering justice." (12)
I mention this story in passing simply because it is the only other example of infant relinquishment in the Bible. Again we see, according to Biblical standards, that the only pressure by which a woman will surrender her child for adoption, is under sentence of the child's death.
One other point of interest to this story: the situation described here is one which would result today in the authorities removing the living child from the biological mother and into foster care. However, the Bible states that the child was returned to its natural mother and this is called "God's wisdom. "
Another example of adoption in the Bible can be found in the person of Esther the Hebrew girl who became queen of Persia. (13)
What does the Bible teach us here of adoption? Firstly, that Esther was adopted because she was a genuine orphan, and secondly, she was adopted within her close family, by her older cousin.
Again, if we are to take the Biblical scriptures as a guide (as church entities are supposed) we see nothing here to justify the removal of a child from its biological kin to be raised in secret by people outside the close bloodline.
Note also that Esther's original name was Hadassah. The changing of an identity in this way is a common practice in the Bible, but most often occurs when foreigners seek to erase all remnant of a person's origins. Daniel and other Hebrews were all given Persian names during the exile as Esther has been here. This is an ancient eugenic mindset at work. The parallel with modern adoption practice of changing a newborn's complete identity is of considerable interest.
Jesus of Nazareth
As this article comes to the subject of adoption in the New Testament, I would ask those with a Biblical mindset to lay aside a few preconceived notions. Those within church-run adoption agencies and the pro-life movement who have been ingrained by adoptionism, believing it was a Biblical construct, will find the following New Testament exegesis decidedly uncomfortable. I ask such people to not shoot the messenger, but to double check what I have to say by the light of scripture.
Unfortunately for adoption advocates who revere the Bible, adoption takes an absolute battering in the first few verses of the New Testament:
"The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. To Abraham was born Isaac, and to Isaac, Jacob, and to Jacob, Judah and his brothers, and to Judah were born Perez and Zerah by Tamar... And to Salmon was born Boaz by Rahab and to Boaz was born Obed by Ruth and to Obed, Jesse, and to Jesse was born David the king. And to David was born Solomon by the wife of Uriah... And Jacob was father [in-law] to Joseph the husband of Mary who gave birth to Jesus, who is called the Messiah." (14)
It is highly unusual in Jewish genealogies to list women, yet Matthew, a very Jewish figure of the New Testament, mentions 4 women in Jesus's genealogy, 3 of them Gentiles. These women highlight the most sordid side of Jesus's forebears.
Through these women and the Old Testament scriptures in which they appear, we see that God accepts into the bloodline of Messiah, prostitution (Rahab (15); Tamar (16) ), incest (Tamar and Judah (17) ), adultery, treachery and murder (David and Bathsheba (18) ), tainted, racially-despised Gentile blood (Ruth (19) ), and last but certainly not least, teenage pregnancy outside of wedlock (Mary). God even provides a mediator when Mary is left unsupported in her pregnancy by those closest to her. (20) How many church-based adoption workers have provided the same sort of mediation for girls in the same position?
God accepted all this in the genealogy of Jesus, sins which the church would generally regard as abominable. Would a church-run adoption agency place a child with any woman who had a history like Bathsheba, Rahab or Tamar? Not likely. Obviously, God has a much broader outlook than we do.
The putridity of the above sin-list would suggest that anything God explicitly excluded from the lineage of Christ, would have to be something most unacceptable in His sight, a stench most foul in the Divine nostril and something that the church would surely need to avoid at all costs.
So was there anything that God did in fact, expressly exclude from the lineage of His Messiah? Well, as a matter of fact, there was:
"Abram said to the Lord, 'Oh Lord God, what will You give me since I am childless and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus... And since you have given me no offspring, a son born in my house is my heir.' And the word of the Lord came to Abram saying, 'This man shall not be your heir, but one who shall come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir. '" (21)
In order to pass on their inheritance, the childless couple Abram (Abraham) and Sarah adopted Eliezar of Damascus who had been born to a servant in Abram's household. But God rejected Abram's mode of providing himself with an heir. God had a higher plan - a plan that included prostitution, murder, adultery, incest and teenage out-of-wedlock pregnancy but expressly excluded adoption.
Even 'half-adoption' was rejected by God, when Abraham's instituted plan B, to produce a "son from his own body" via his wife's servant. The child was then adopted by Abram's wife, but that child was not accepted as the start of the lineage to The Messiah.
What do we learn from this? Biblically speaking, adoption and half-adoption are man's idea not God's, and that to God, biology is important. While God could have "raised up sons of Abraham from the stones on the ground", (22) He chose not to, instead concentrating on one married couple to produce an heir from their biological union.
Paul and adoptionism
Many Christians use the writings of Paul to justify adoption. Romans 8 v 15, Galatians 4 v 5 & 6 and Ephesians 1 v 5, are thematic to Paul's writing:
"You have received the Spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba [Daddy]! Father! '" (23)
Many Christians interpret this to mean that if God adopts us, then so too, it is Biblically acceptable for us to practice adoption.
That would be wonderful if the word "adoption" meant the same thing today as it did in Bible times. Unfortunately, it doesn't and the Bible is quite specific about what the word adoption means in scripture.
As a preface to the Biblical meaning of adoption, it must be realised that the modern concept of adoption took a major detour around the mid-1930s. As a result of the nature versus nurture debate and other human inventions of the sociology faculties, the word adoption came to mean what we now commonly accept - the removal of a child from its biological parents to be raised usually in secret by people unrelated by blood. Latterly, it has also come to mean in a secondary sense, the adoption of a biologically related child into a new marriage of one of its parents.
However, the Bible only ever talks about adult adoption. Eliezar's adoption was an adult adoption, and certainly the New Testament idea of adoption is repeatedly an adoption of an adult as an heir. This is clearly the meaning of Paul's writing when he talks of salvation as an adoption by God.
Adult adoption requires two things - an offer by the adopter and an acceptance by the adoptee who by virtue of his adult status is able to make that choice. In terms of salvation, the adult chooses for himself, to accept God's offer or to reject it.
This is the repeated and very obvious theme right throughout the New Testament. John 1 v 12:
"To as many as accept Him [Jesus] He gives them the power [rights] to be the sons [inheritors] of God. "
Galatians 3 v 26 & 27:
"You are sons [inheritors] of God through faith in Jesus Christ. All of you who were baptised into spiritual union with Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. "
There are countless similar scriptures which clearly show that God's adult adoptees have a 50% say in their adoption. They choose to accept, they choose to have faith, they choose to enter into spiritual union, they choose to clothe themselves.
That is the true nature of the Biblical construct of adoption. But there is something more and it relates directly to the overall message of the Bible. To be honest, it is disturbing that those church institutions that have so vigorously promoted newborn adoption have done so in complete dismissal of what the Bible is actually all about.
(Read full article link above) 

Monday, October 12, 2015

The Lifelong Consequences from FORCED Social Rejection Begins at Birth for Adopted Children


The Lifelong Consequences from FORCED Social Rejection Begins at Birth for Adopted Children

This article explains the pathology of psychological rejection's impact. The adopted child lives the pain and suffers the psychological effects daily that is socially assumed that adoption is beneficial to the child and "In the child's best interests" is scientifically proven to be the opposite effect.


The Pain of Social Rejection

As far as the brain is concerned, a broken heart may not be so different from a broken arm.
Anyone who lived through high school gym class knows the anxiety of being picked last for the dodgeball team. The same hurt feelings bubble up when you are excluded from lunch with co-workers, fail to land the job you interviewed for or are dumped by a romantic partner.
Rejection feels lousy.
Yet for many years, few psychologists tuned into the importance of rejection. “It’s like the whole field missed this centrally important part of human life,” says Mark Leary, PhD, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University. That’s changed over the last decade and a half, as a growing number of researchers have turned their eyes toward this uncomfortable fact of life. “People have realized just how much our concern with social acceptance spreads its fingers into almost everything we do,” he says.
As researchers have dug deeper into the roots of rejection, they’ve found surprising evidence that the pain of being excluded is not so different from the pain of physical injury. Rejection also has serious implications for an individual’s psychological state and for society in general. Social rejection can influence emotion, cognition and even physical health. Ostracized people sometimes become aggressive and can turn to violence. In 2003 Leary and colleagues analyzed 15 cases of school shooters, and found all but two suffered from social rejection (Aggressive Behavior, 2003).
Clearly, there are good reasons to better understand the effects of being excluded. “Humans have a fundamental need to belong. Just as we have needs for food and water, we also have needs for positive and lasting relationships,” says C. Nathan DeWall, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky. “This need is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history and has all sorts of consequences for modern psychological processes.”
Pain in the brain
As clever as human beings are, we rely on social groups for survival. We evolved to live in cooperative societies, and for most of human history we depended on those groups for our lives. Like hunger or thirst, our need for acceptance emerged as a mechanism for survival. “A solitary human being could not have survived during the six million years of human evolution while we were living out there on the African savannah,” Leary says.
With today’s modern conveniences, a person can physically survive a solitary existence. But that existence is probably not a happy one. Thanks to millions of years of natural selection, being rejected is still painful. That’s not just a metaphor. Naomi Eisenberger, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, Kipling Williams, PhD, at Purdue University, and colleagues found that social rejection activates many of the same brain regions involved in physical pain (Science, 2003).
To study rejection inside an fMRI scanner, the researchers used a technique called Cyberball, which Williams designed following his own experience of being suddenly excluded by two Frisbee players at the park. In Cyberball, the subject plays an online game of catch with two other players. Eventually the two other players begin throwing the ball only to each other, excluding the subject. Compared with volunteers who continue to be included, those who are rejected show increased activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate and the anterior insula — two of the regions that show increased activity in response to physical pain, Eisenberger says. As far as your brain is concerned, a broken heart is not so different from a broken arm.
Those findings led DeWall, Eisenberger and colleagues to wonder: If social rejection aches like physical pain, can it be treated like physical pain? To find out, they assigned volunteers to take over-the-counter acetaminophen (Tylenol) or a placebo daily for three weeks. Compared with the placebo group, volunteers who took the drug recounted fewer episodes of hurt feelings in daily self-reports. Those reports were backed by an fMRI study, which found that people who had taken acetaminophen daily for three weeks had less activity in the pain-related brain regions when rejected in Cyberball, in contrast to those taking a placebo (Psychological Science, 2010).
The same patterns are seen in situations of real-world rejection, too. University of Michigan psychologist Ethan Kross, PhD, and colleagues scanned the brains of participants whose romantic partners had recently broken up with them. The brain regions associated with physical pain lit up as the participants viewed photographs of their exes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011).
The link between physical and social pain might sound surprising, but it makes biological sense, DeWall says. “Instead of creating an entirely new system to respond to socially painful events, evolution simply co-opted the system for physical pain,” he says. “Given the shared overlap, it follows that if you numb people to one type of pain, it should also numb them to the other type of pain.”
Lashing out
Being on the receiving end of a social snub causes a cascade of emotional and cognitive consequences, researchers have found. Social rejection increases anger, anxiety, depression, jealousy and sadness. It reduces performance on difficult intellectual tasks, and can also contribute to aggression and poor impulse control, as DeWall explains in a recent review (Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2011). Physically, too, rejection takes a toll. People who routinely feel excluded have poorer sleep quality, and their immune systems don’t function as well as those of people with strong social connections, he says.
Even brief, seemingly innocuous episodes of rejection can sting. In one recent study, Williams, Eric Wesselmann, PhD, of Purdue University, and colleagues found that when participants passed a stranger who appeared to look “through” them rather than meeting their gaze, they reported less social connection than did people who made eye contact with a passing stranger (Psychological Science, 2012).
In fact, it’s remarkably hard to find situations in which rejection isn’t painful, Williams says. He wondered whether people would be hurt if they were rejected by a person or group they disliked. Using his Cyberball model, he found that African- American students experienced the same pain of rejection when they were told that the people rejecting them were members of the Ku Klux Klan, a racist group. In other studies, participants earned money when they were rejected, but not when they were accepted. The payments did nothing to dampen the pain of exclusion. “No matter how hard you push it, people are hurt by ostracism,” he says.
Fortunately, most people recover almost immediately from these brief episodes of rejection. If a stranger fails to look you in the eye, or you’re left out of a game of Cyberball, you aren’t likely to dwell on it for long. But other common rejections — not being invited to a party, or being turned down for a second date — can cause lingering emotions.
After the initial pain of rejection, Williams says, most people move into an “appraisal stage,” in which they take stock and formulate their next steps. “We think all forms of ostracism are immediately painful,” he says. “What differs is how long it takes to recover, and how one deals with the recovery.”
People often respond to rejection by seeking inclusion elsewhere. “If your sense of belonging and self-esteem have been thwarted, you’ll try to reconnect,” says Williams. Excluded people actually become more sensitive to potential signs of connection, and they tailor their behavior accordingly. “They will pay more attention to social cues, be more likable, more likely to conform to other people and more likely to comply with other people’s requests,” he says.
Yet others may respond to rejection with anger and lashing out. If someone’s primary concern is to reassert a sense of control, he or she may become aggressive as a way to force others to pay attention. Sadly, that can create a downward spiral. When people act aggressively, they’re even less likely to gain social acceptance.
What causes some people to become friendlier in response to rejection, while others get angry? According to DeWall, even a glimmer of hope for acceptance can make all the difference. In a pair of experiments, he and his colleagues found that students who were accepted by no other participants in group activities behaved more aggressively — feeding hot sauce to partners who purportedly disliked spicy foods, and blasting partners with uncomfortably loud white noise through headphones — than students accepted by just one of the other participants (Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2010).
Social pain relief
It may take time to heal from a bad break-up or being fired, but most people eventually get over the pain and hurt feelings of rejection. When people are chronically rejected or excluded, however, the results may be severe. Depression, substance abuse and suicide are not uncommon responses. “Long-term ostracism seems to be very devastating,” Williams says. “People finally give up.”
In that case, psychologists can help people talk through their feelings of exclusion, DeWall says.
“A lot of times, these are things people don’t want to talk about,” he says. And because rejected people may adopt behaviors, such as aggression, that serve to further isolate them, psychologists can also help people to act in ways that are more likely to bring them social success.
The pain of non-chronic rejection may be easier to alleviate. Despite what the fMRI scanner says, however, popping two Tylenols probably isn’t the most effective way to deal with a painful episode of rejection. Instead, researchers say, the rejected should seek out healthy, positive connections with friends and family.
That recommendation squares with the neural evidence that shows positive social interactions release opioids for a natural mood boost, Eisenberger says. Other activities that produce opioids naturally, such as exercise, might also help ease the sore feelings that come with rejection.
Putting things into perspective also helps, Leary says. True, rejection can sometimes be a clue that you behaved badly and should change your ways. But frequently, we take rejection more personally than we should. “Very often we have that one rejection, maybe we didn’t get hired for this job we really wanted, and it makes us feel just lousy about our capabilities and ourselves in general,” Leary says. “I think if people could stop overgeneralizing, it would take a lot of the angst out of it.”
Next time you get passed over for a job or dumped by a romantic partner, it may help to know that the sting of rejection has a purpose. That knowledge may not take away the pain, but at least you know there’s a reason for the heartache. “Evolutionarily speaking, if you’re socially isolated you’re going to die,” Williams says. “It’s important to be able to feel that pain.”

Kirsten Weir is a freelance writer in Minneapolis.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

What Good Is A Hostile Home?


What Good Is A Hostile Home?

In the social Ideology in the U.S. believes any middle class home can provide for a little girl-ward of the state a great wardrobe. Is that all the state social-worker professional community can aspire to is the deception of appearances? Where a child is summed up by the clothes they wear is a disturbing reality.

As a forty year old adult adoptee, interviewing individuals that were witness to my adopted childhood maltreatment, the worst statement that still haunts and disturbs me the greatest was said by someone very close to me that I greatly respect. When I pressed my sister in-law Murchie (twenty years my senior) for factual memories from my disturbing adopted childhood she replied:

"you were a lovely little girl that wore beautiful dresses".

This seemingly complimentary statement is the most condemning of all the first hand accounts from the many witnesses seeing my childhood self be struck in the face, shamed, shunned, punished and publicly humiliated at the hands of my adoptive parents.

My appearance worshiping adoptive mother made one chronic mistake in child maltreatment as she always needed an audience to justify her twisted sense of superiority and struggle in shame punishing her adopted child to maintain control. There were always witnesses in this small community and many that are still alive.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Remembering Roman Turner Who Assisted me In Finding My Courage


Finding My Courage Within My True Identity On a Trip To Meet My Father

When I found my biological father, the lure of finding an identity-my real identity was so strong that I jumped on a plane with a one-way ticket. Flying from California blindly across the U.S. to the redneck state of N.C.. This was my quantum leap to a growth opportunity while simultaneously ditching and abandoning my adopted child role that has falsely dominated my existence. My father's roommate Joey, son Roman Turner with his significant girlfriend Suzannah Flowers all lived in the home and I immediately befriended them all. One Saturday Joey's prodigal son visited and shunned Roman.
When the prodigal son let the lapdog outside the dog began to run toward the street. Roman instantly ran out to save the dog, and yelled for his brother to help. The brother screamed at Roman "don't tell me what to do" and the two six foot men began tearing off their wife-beater T-shirts to fight. The neighbors-landlord came out of there houses and began yelling at Roman to get off the property. I could tell that everyone preferred the visiting son to Roman in the cruel things they were shouting at him during the confrontation. In an instant I thrust myself between the two brawling six foot tall boys and dared the prodigal son to strike me. As I disarmed the conflict, I shamed all of the onlookers for their ignorant participation, anger without cause and assumptions of fault for who started it. I told them to mind their own business and get off their rental property as spectators can turn a small conflict into a riot. I cursed their self serving bias tactics that looked all to familiar to my own childhood. It is so ironic how people are so motivated to invalidate, discount and chronically single out a child that is different to the point that it becomes a hostile community activity.
Many months after I left, Roman was launching his father's boat on his birthday fishing trip, as he started the boat engine he was accidentally struck in the head and drowned. I will always remember this kid as a kind and good person that motivated me to act with courage that I did not think that I could possess.