I wrote a letter to my son, Jimmy, and enclosed a picture of his brothers and sisters.)

My children are young adults now. They are men and women who have survived a punishment for circumstances over which they had no control. And, although I lived close to despair for almost 14 years, I too have survived my punishment for not being able to cope with circumstances that were beyond the abilities of anything most people could cope with alone.

It is difficult for the children who were separated from each other for so many years, having to live with neither kin nor friend, to understand the stresses suffered by the little girl who returned to live with me; her young years, not unlike their's in foster care, spent with different and often times uncaring babysitters; her lonely longings for her sister; the baby brother whose life she shared for a time when the agency placed them together at the institution; the older brother she remembered visiting when at one time it seemed like he too, might return to live with us; her other big brother she wanted, but did not know until after the reunion with her oldest brother.

It is immeasurably more difficult for the children whose lives were infinitely more distressing because of total separation from all kin; their existences with each other denied, and were forced to try to "fit" themselves into and take as their own the ambiguous foundations of the strangers, to understand why they did not also return to live with me.

It is difficult for brothers and sisters, born of the same mother and father, yet not identified as brothers and sisters but as "siblings" by agency personnel; all now with different last names, all having lived apart from each other for many years, to reestablish their love, understanding, and acceptance for each other, and the responsibilities and loyalties toward each other as brothers and sisters.

My sons and daughters and I were in this time now. Relationships are growing. Slowly, surely, sometimes joyfully, sometimes painfully. I deeply love my children and I believe they love me and each other. I look in the eyes of two of my sons and I am overwhelmed with love for them and gratitude because they do not despise me, but have said that it is our futures that matter now. (From the pictures I can tell it was a beautiful wedding. But I did not attend. The bride and groom exchanged vows in the presence of those who the state had decreed shall love him.)

(I went to my hotel room and fell asleep. I was awakened by the knock on the door and I answered. There stood Gary, laughing. We laughed a lot, and talked a lot, and shared a lot of past and present times. We saw the mountains. We drank beer and wine at the restaurants. We visited the cities and towns. And, we hugged and said goodby, both of us blinded by the tears that flowed down our faces, when the train left the station in the small town in Germany.) (She put on her back-pack and rolled her sleeping bag and stuffed the money in the pockets of her jeans. She left to find a life, a land, people who do care about their fellow human beings. She said, when she left. "there are somewhere people who care about what happened to us, who would not allow this to happen to others.")

The trauma was great to us all. Some wounds may heal. Others may not heal. Our losses because of our years apart cannot be changed. The brutal experience cannot be forgotten. The pain cannot be adequately described. The emotional damage is irreversible and the scars will remain for our lifetimes.

Yet, from the burning embers of a family that once lived, God has formed the beautiful arc of the lives of my children, each one dedicated and in communion with humanity. My joy leaps ahead to the day when I will once again look into the eyes of my daughter Susan and son, Jimmy.

I have been back to the agency and talked with a member who is presently on the staff. I watched her thumb through, review, and lay upside down before me voluminous amounts of paper, their contents concealed in folders and each son's and daughter's name written across the top, and one with the word "family" written across the top. I have been allowed to look at and even have copies of some of the pages from these folders.

I am horrified at some of the various conclusions drawn and decisions made by strangers who neither cared about nor feared the effects of their actions, that so dramatically and permanently affected the lives of my children and me. I am mortified, truly mortified, at some of the judgments they made and opinions they stated and wrote into the records.

Open records between client and agency would force state personnel to deal honestly with clients, and it would not be so easy for them to destroy a family in their closed records behind their closed doors.

I asked the worker that I visited that day why I was not told about the crisis my second son endured in his first adoption, even though I was available to the agency, the social worker knew of my love and deep concern for my children, and was, indeed, aware of the fact at the time of his crisis that I had remarried and my circumstances had changed. I am left bewildered by her answer.

"It is agency policy to always assume that once a parent gives up guardianship, that parent no longer has any interest at all in the child and would not want to know about any of the child's circumstances."

I asked why I was not informed of the court date to grant the agency this guardianship, now made to sound like it was something I desired to give, instead of something forced upon me, when it was clear that I asked to be present, was told I would be notified so I could be present, and was upset when I learned the hearing was held and I was not notified. Again, she told me:

"It is always agency policy never to inform the parent, since after signing the surrender document the parent has no real legal rights and no obligation to appear."

Many of my questions she could not answer; she was not at the agency during the time of my trial. But she told me of the many good changes that have taken place since she has established rules that give recipients kinder treatment.

(I shivered when at the end of our appointment she told me she was going to, within the next several days, petition the court for the guardianship of eight, and would separate and place these "sibs" into adoptions.)

Having lived through, and only by the mercy of God surviving, the destruction of my family, adoption the punitive weapon used, I am committed to the issue of adoption reform, to work toward changing and humanizing this traumatic institution, to open agency records to the clients, and court records to the birthparents and their sons and daughters.

No mother should ever hear the words that were so often and bluntly bellowed at me: "If you love your children you will give them up," escalated to, "if you have any love at all or any love left for your children you will give them up." Words so barbaric that I wonder how they can be peddled so blatantly by a society that calls itself humane.

I am deeply concerned about the fates of other children, of brothers and sisters torn from each other, and put into a system called adoption, depriving them of each other, their heritage, indeed, their very identities, all in the name of love and what is best for the children. To destroy one family and to try to create several other families in its place is beyond any human powers of reasoning. Yet, the state, using the present system of adoption and sealed records and false birth certificates, tries to do just this.

(The telephone rang and the overseas operator said Gary was calling. I told my son about my visit back to the agency and about my work with CUB and its goal to humanize adoptions. "Great Ma," he said. "We can't change what happened to us but maybe changes can be made so it won't happen to others.")

In a newsletter published by a group adopting children, I recently read an article written by an adoptive mother of two and a professional social worker. “... There is no getting around telling him that his real mother just didn't value him enough, which is a fact." This kind of information, whether or not articulated, whether it is subtly implied, or the thought left to be absorbed into the mind of the children by osmosis, can only leave children confused in their identities, doubtful of their heritage, fearful to act upon their rights, and unsure of in whom to place their trusts. And, how contradictory this adoptive mother's statement is compared to the statement often made to birthparents: "If you love your child you will give him up." Birthparents must not be betrayed by adoption. I am stunned that so many people do not know the truth of how they are able to take someone else's child. I am appalled at the ignorant stories I have read or hear alluding to the joys and rewards of adoptions. There is no social consciousness respecting the integrity of the birthfamily, and the right of the family to remain together in some fashion regardless of adoption. Mention is never made of the human mutilations behind its misanthropic political and economic foundation.

Dr. Samuel Kaufman, a psychoanalyst, once said about adoption :

"The most difficult qualities for the human to develop are trust, tenderness, and an awareness of self. The connections, identity, and interdependence developed

during infancy and childhood are not only precious and critical, they are actually irreplaceable and unique in the life of the individual. Beware of destroying the roots of humanity.”

I believe the families who adopted my sons and daughter did, indeed, make a positive contribution to each of their lives. And, I respect fully the relationships each son and daughter have with the families whose lives they have shared. But these families do not know the circumstances under which they received my children and I wonder about the deep distrust, suspicions, and fear these families have because my sons and daughters and I cherish our future and wish to share our love with each other.

I have not written down all of our story. My intention was not to cover every detail; that would take volumes, but to try to convey the essential truth. And now this story is part of my sons' and daughters' history and their children's history. It has been our experience. It is a part of us today. And their children who will come will know their own always.

*

Virginia Rader was born in Savannah, Georgia, the daughter of George and Anne Rader. She and her brother and 3 sisters grew up in Virginia. She attended both public and Catholic schools and the USDA Graduate School. After her marriage in 1965, and before she began the search for her children in 1974, she began researching and studying the institution of adoption; its legend and history; The facts and myths that surround it; its political, legal and economic status. In order to better understand the social and emotional impacts and ramifications of adoption, especially to birthparents, much of her work included interviews and discussions with other members of the adoption triad, medical and mental health professionals, legal professionals and the social service personnel charged with carrying out its practice. She is a member of Concerned United Birthparents, Inc., and the representative in Washington, D.C. and Maryland. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Adoption Research Council, Inc. She and her husband have traveled extensively throughout Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South America. She lives with her husband in Washington, D.C.

CONGRESSIONAL GROUP STATEMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF CONGRESSMEN GARY LEE AND JOHN W. WYDLER

It is generally agreed that the initiative taken by Congress which resulted in the drafting of this Model State Adoption Act was based upon a desire to reach toward two objectives.

First, the goal was to encourage adoption, especially the adoption of hard-toplace children and infants. Second, it was to encourage achievement of more consistant adoption laws among the fifty States.

It is our conviction that the proposed Model Act fails to meet these goals. In fact, it is our belief that this proposed Act mitigates against reaching these goals in so many respects that we recommend that it be returned to the panel for further study.

We recognize that the issues involved are very emotional and highly charged. It may well be that the make-up of the Secretary's panel itself, which included people directly involved with various interests in the adoptive process, made it impossible to produce an objective document because of deeply felt emotional convictions.

Without perhaps realizing it, the panel's work resulted in a document which, in a number of its provisions, tends to discourage adoption rather than to encourage it. Each of these elements can be debated separately. However, taken together, there is little doubt that if this Act is approved the result will be, to some degree, discouragement of adoption and possibly, an increase in the number of abortions. The provisions covering open records—particularly the retroactive loss of confidentiality by the birth mother, the rights of the putative fathereven if he has deserted the birth mother, and the support of private, unlicensed adoption services are among the issues that require much more investigation and objective debate before a balanced document aimed at encouraging adoption can be written.

The Act is controversial. This statement itself, and many others submitted to HEW and to Congresspeople, make that clear. And at least two of the major interest groups involved-adoptive parents and licensed adoption agenciesseem not at all satisfied with the Act. In addition, the actions of the panel itself point to controversy. Of the 17 members of that panel, only nine voted on the final text we are discussing. And this proposed Act was passed by a bare majority of that nine; five to four.

While we do not, of course, object to the principles of quorum and majority rule, it is obvious that the Act can not be presented as a true consensus of the panel.

What will happen in our fifty state legislatures if this Act is sent to them for consideration? Controversy again. Knowing, as we do, the legislative process, it is our conviction that the argument and compromise which will be stimulated will result in radical changes in many of the Act's provisions. However, not all the provisions will be changed in the same way. The likely outcome will be a hodgepodge; less consistent laws rather than more consistent laws among the states.

In summary, since one of our goals was to clarify rather than to confuse, we will have failed if this Act is submitted to the fifty States for their consideration. In addition, since our other goal was to encourage adoption rather than discourage adoption, we will have also failed if this Act is submitted to the fifty states. We recommend that the Model Adoption Act be returned to the panel for further study and that the Secretary re-constitute the membership.

Thank you.