Using Language to Demote and Destroy the Family
While the country is focused on the terrorism that led to the 9/11 World Trade Center incident, there is another form of domestic terrorism in the United States that is not being addressed. Americans are losing their sons, daughters, grandchildren and siblings to the combined actions of Child Protective Services and the US court system. Designating those who foster and adopt as "parents" and demoting the real parents to "birth" parents, enables social workers to tear families apart.
Marion, IA (PRWEB) June 2, 2004 -- "The word 'parents' means nothing to me" a
friend observed. "Anyone who takes care of a child could be called 'parents'."
How different this sounded from what I'd learned at home from my – you guessed
it – parents. They were proud of being parents and they never would have
questioned what the word "parents" meant. To be a parent implied a special
relationship with a child that was born to you. It was not to be taken lightly.
"Chairman Mao separated children and their parents in China and turned the
children against their parents," my parents told us kids. The implication was
that it was harmful and just plain wrong to separate parents and their children.
It was against nature and against God.
So how has it happened that today
people in the United States don't even know what the word "parent" means and
feel it is not much different from the term "teacher" or "babysitter"? What
about the other language that families use? Does the word "son" mean anything?
The word "mother"? What about "grandfather" or "ancestor"?
How did it
come about that in the United States, children of parents who have not been
proven to be abusive are being removed from their homes and put into foster
care? Not only might the forced separation itself be considered abusive, but by
some estimates a child cared for by a non-related person is ten times more
likely to be abused than a child in a natural family.
When foster or
adoptive care providers abuse a child, even if there is proof the child is
rarely removed from their care. In a recent example the true family of a girl
named Kayla Allen tried to bring attention to the fact that she was being
abused. Her grandmother risked her own freedom by kidnapping her granddaughter
to prevent the abuse. There are police reports and pictures of numerous bruises
all over Kayla's body. Kayla was returned to the abusive home and was later
adopted by the woman whom she identified as abusing her. She finally made it out
of that home in Onslow County, North Carolina Aug 24, 2003 dead at the age of 7
after being forced to drink pesticide. Her grandmother, who had promised Kayla
never to let her be abused again, committed suicide.
People who foster
or adopt a child are rarely referred to as unrelated care givers; Instead, they
are called "parents". Maybe that's why so many people think that people who are
paid to care for a child are entitled to care for, neglect or abuse the child
any way they please. The real parents and family are relegated to the role of
ex's even while their parental rights are still intact, by use of the demeaning
terms "birth parents" or "biological parents". Prospective adopters are called
"parents" before the rights of the real parents have even been terminated. The
courts and even the media, which is supposed to be unbiased, frequently use this
terminology which is so obviously slanted against the natural family.
One solution to foster care abuse that is promoted is to expand the
undermanned "system". What about not removing children from their homes on the
basis of poverty or of unsubstantiated reports of abuse in the first place?
Foster care and adoption is big business. There are monetary incentives
at both the federal and state levels to get children in the system and to get
them adopted. Adopters might be considered the new "welfare queens": They get
far more in monthly subsidies, Medicaid, tax credits, social security benefits,
training, counseling, clothing allowances and other benefits than natural
families would ever be entitled to right up until the child is 18 (22 if the
child stays in school). And adopters don't have to show a need.
Despite
the health and safety risks, social workers are eager to remove children from
their families and to sever the relationship between family members, especially
to obtain young "adoptable" children from homes that don't have the means to
hire a good lawyer.
A mother who requested she not be identified wrote:
"The DHS workers have been bothering me since I brought the baby home from the
hospital. First phone calls, then visits wanting to see how things are going,
wanting me to sign releases for my medical records because my health is a
'concern' to them with children so young. They tell me placing the children with
families might be best for them since right now I am not able to work because of
my operation. I had an operation I wasn't like told I am something contagious or
anything!"
Some people say that because of the likelihood of abuse in
foster care, the children in foster care need to be provided a permanent
situation right away. For permanency, there is the option of helping the family
resolve issues if there are any and then returning the children to their parents
or some other relative. If there truly is no family member to care for them, a
friend might be willing to become a permanent guardian and be kind enough to
allow the child to keep her identity and keep the memory of her family alive for
her.
But, as a result of monetary incentives, permanency now means
designating children "orphans" in the interest of finding them adopters. When
adopters can't be found, the "orphans" stay on in foster care.
Social
workers and the legal system delay returning children to their parents so they
can make the argument that the family bond has been lost. Even when a parent is
proven fit in every other way, the courts still do not consider that this bond,
if lost at all, might quickly be regained simply by allowing family members to
spend time together.
Told that if they only love this child enough, they
will be the only "parents" he/she will ever need or want, adopters frequently
minimize the child's very real loss or even make disparaging remarks about
his/her natural family. If a child doesn't agree to being adopted, there are
psychologists available to convince him that he does want to be adopted. Even
law guardians, who are supposed to protect the child's interest in court, are
being trained to convince kids they want to be adopted. Children learn to "play
the game". Sometimes they make a few extra bucks appearing on commercials or at
conventions promoting adoption.
Despite all the promotion, older child
adoptions are exceedingly rare, and when they do occur, they frequently fail,
with the child returned to foster care or emancipated before age 18. Even
children adopted at younger ages may be emancipated early. Thirty-four-year-old
Teresa Tryon, who was adopted at 4 years old wrote: "I was emancipated at the
age of 15. My adopters basically forgot I existed and I left home at 13 and when
they found me at 15 I was already in my own apartment and job."
On a
message board for so-called "Orphans", someone wrote: "Isn't it amazing how many
of us have spent the time in the system just waiting until we were old enough to
return to our families?"
The words "mother", "father", "parents" and
"family" used to have meaning in our society. Chairman Mao would be impressed if
he saw how language is used to separate families in the United States today.
Next time you see a news report about a "birth" father, mother or grandmother
going to court to keep their child, try thinking of them as the real father,
mother or grandmother. Think of the prospective adopters as people who are
actively trying to tear family apart. If parents are not proven to be unfit,
there is no reason to take their children.
Laurie Frisch
Marion,
IA
"Protecting the Rights of Mothers and Natural Families"
# #
#
Source : http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/6/prweb130463.htm