Much has been written about the now-worldwide phenomenon of predatory pedophile Catholic priests who molested young boys, but it is important to note that priests also molested young girls and older teens. These girls and young women (how many?) were also impregnated by these priests.

A recent NPR audio caught my ear on Tuesday, April 20, 2010’s Morning Edition: “Priest’s Dual Legacy: Transgressions And Money”. The transcript can be found here: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=126116570

NPR hosts Steve Inskeep and Renee Montagne use these statements to introduce the story:

STEVE INSKEEP, host:

Father Marcial Maciel built the conservative Legion of Christ into a
powerful Catholic order. Over several decades, Maciel raised millions of dollars for the church. Some estimate the order’s assets are worth $20 billion. After Maciel died in 2008, his order revealed that he had fathered a daughter. Others have come forward claiming to be his sons.

RENEE MONTAGNE, host:

There were years of allegations ignored by the Vatican that Father Maciel sexually abused seminarians as young as 12. Our next guest has reported that Father Maciel hid his secret life by buying the protection of key Vatican officials.

The fact that Father Marcial Maciel fathered children does not seem to be an issue; discussion of the money and assets followed. The adult children get an “honorable mention”, but the mothers of these children get NO mention at all. The story focuses on the MONEY but is missing crucial details.

While this story focuses on just one priest, it raises the as-yet-not-publicly-addressed topic of what happened to the children of these predatory priests? What happened to the mothers of these priests’ children?

I’ve recently been told by a friend, Mary L. Foess (Bonding By Blood, Unlimited) that this a major reason why The Catholic Church and its organizations oppose the opening of birth and adoption records to adoptees. This makes sense, but is not addressed by main stream media — not even NPR.

Mary adds:

The main reason which I believe is responsible for lobbies for adoption agency, owned by Catholic Church organizations, ones which keep blocking the release of original birth certificates to persons formerly adopted as children, is this: Once the mother is found by this adult who was adopted,  she will then tell her adult ‘child’ who his/her father is. This may lead straight to the priest. There are adoption agencies funded by Catholic church sources; they have powerful lobbies. The Associations for Lawyers, too, block these bills, too, by opposing them when they speak in committee meetings (public hearings). Some birthdads, too, are ‘married men’ who had an affair with these birth mothers.

The Catholic Church’s opposition to unsealing birth and adoption records to adoptees is based upon the unspoken and unacknowledged problem that many, possibly thousands, of priests are indeed fathers — and not just “men of the cloth” religious fathers. The Church wants to keep under wraps the identities of priests who sired out-of-wedlock babies.

For the girls and young women involved, the cover-up means that they remained silent for decades because they conceived outside of marriage. The shame of conceiving through the rape of a priest is even more horrifying. These girls and young women were, of course, forced into relinquishing their illegitimate children, sentencing both the mothers and their adopted-out offspring into lifetimes of shame, degradation and guilt.

But that shame, guilt and degradation doesn’t belong on the young mothers and their children. Let’s put the shame and blame where it belongs: on the not-married fathers — priests — who, not only molested children, but broke their vows of celibacy, destroyed trust, mocked their vocational priesthood and took away the innocence of thousands of children, and their own children.

A very long time ago, I watched the romantic movie series The Thornbirds, about a priest and his love for a woman. Romantic and melancholy, this story tugged at my heart. That was when I was much younger than what I am now. Now, decades later, the thought turns my stomach. Not because I don’t think priests ought to be married, but because if marriage were allowed, perhaps some of the sexual problems of priests might be solved.

We have real-live adoptees who want their birth certificates unsealed, who want their adoption records unsealed, and who want to know who is responsible for giving them life. Because the Catholic lobby is so strongly opposed to opening these records, these adoptees will never know the truth. Correction, these specific adoptees — and millions of other adoptees not produced by predatory pedophile priests — are forced to live life not knowing the truth of their births because protecting the identities of these flaky fathers is more important than fessing-up, telling the truth, admitting to the sins committed and going about the business of rectifying the wrongs. Opening birth and adoption records would help millions of adoptees answer their questions of personal identity, but the Catholic Church says no.

Perhaps the reason the world has not heard about this issue is because The Catholic Church cannot cope with more public scrutiny.

I want to know why more Senior Mothers, and perhaps younger women who were impregnated by priests, do not step forward. The shame is not on you, the shame belongs on the perpetrator. Your adult children need you to step forward and step up to the plate to rally with adoptees to open birth and adoption records. Let’s start naming names of the priests who first committed the rapes, and then causing pregnancies, and who then forced the relinquishment of thousands of their own children.

Father Marcial Maciel of the conservative Legion of Christ is not the only priest to have fathered out-of-celibacy and out-of-wedlock illegitimate children. Who are the others?

~ ~ ~ Joan M Wheeler, BA, BSW, author of Forbidden Family: A Half Orphan’s Account of Her Adoption, Reunion and Social Activism, Trafford Publishing, Nov 2009.

~ ~ ~

By coincidence, the following was sent via Adoption News Service about the fight for open records in New Jersey where adoptees are being held back by the Catholic Conference:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/91678409_The_Record__Letters__April_21__2010.html?c=y&page=2

At adoption standoff’s center

Regarding Contributing Editor James Ahearn’s “Battle to open adoption records” (Opinion, Page O-2, April 18):

The true battle is the adoption community (to include birth mothers) against the Catholic Church.

Ahearn has written on priestly abuses in the past, so it is especially frustrating that he did not make the connection that the church wants secrecy in adoption to protect clerics who are, well, fathers.

Ahearn goes on to say that there are Democrats and Republicans on each side. Really? That’s funny. In the state Senate, only one Democrat voted against the bill to give adult adoptees access to their birth certificates and family medical histories of their birth parents.

The adoption community longs for a brave editor or reporter who might think it a bit funny that the Catholic Church is advocating for secrecy over transparency.

Peter W. Franklin

Haskell, April 19

The writer is associated with the Web site AdopteesWithOutLiberty.com.

http://adopteeswithoutliberty.com/

In gathering up information the other day I went to look up an important article. I had copied into my files when it was first published. I  needed it now to refer someone to it online, but it was gone. The website had taken it offline. This is one of the most helpful legal articles about adoption, but, like our sealed birth and adoption records, it cannot be accessed. I know of no other place this article was published. I cannot communicate with the author, so, I’m re-publishing it here. If the author does not want me to publish it, he is invited to contact me and I will remove it. However, this piece is vitally important to adoption reform and must be available for researchers. I hope it will remain online here. The author does not have a website. The link below is listed, but it is defunct; the article is not there.

http://www.njesq.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=173:20090518-adoption&catid=6:this-issue&Itemid=17

Due process in adoption? Hardly  

Mon May 18, 2009 by William H. Mild III

Adoption is generally perceived as a positive thing — hope, love and new beginnings. We prefer not to dwell on the negatives that usually precede an adoption — anguish, anger and severing of family ties. The purpose of this piece is to look at the due process implications of making a child available to be adopted. I am not addressing the process whereby the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services may obtain involuntary termination of parental rights because of abuse, neglect and/or other parental unfitness. Although some of the concerns expressed herein are also applicable to intra-family adoptions and approved agency placements, this piece will focus on the adoption process arising out of non-agency placements with potential adoptive parents who are not part of the child’s original family, commonly referred to as private placements or private adoptions.

 The parent-child relationship has long been recognized as a fundamental interest in which parent and child are each protected by the due process requirements of access to counsel, notice and a higher burden of proof — clear and convincing, rather than mere preponderance. For instance, see In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1966); Crist v. NJDYFS, 135 N.J. Super. 573 (App. Div. 1975); NJDYFS v. Wandell, 382 A.2d 711 (J.& D.R. Ct. 1978); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).

 As a custody or termination proceeding inevitably affects fundamental interests of both parent and child, both are indispensable parties, Bruno v. Mark MaGrann Associates, 909 A.2d 768 (App. Div. 2006). Because contact with other family members can also be important, grandparents and siblings have been granted a limited statutory right to apply for visitation, N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1.

Private adoptions are almost always based upon the voluntary relinquishment of birthparents and their consent to an adoption. Relinquishment is a difficult, emotion-laden process for birthparents. Many relinquishing parents are unmarried and in their teens and early 20s. Many are immature, naïve, depressed and economically dependent upon their own parents for physical necessities and guidance. Parents of birthparents often feel acute embarrassment at an out-of-wedlock pregnancy and push birthparents toward relinquishment. Other relatives, clergy, teachers and family friends may convince a vulnerable birthparent that the child will be “better off” with an adoptive family with “more to offer”. Suggested reading is Ann Fessler’s The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade. Very few relinquishments are “voluntary” in any cheerful sense.

To be valid, a surrender document cannot be signed by a birthparent before the birth of the child or within 72 hours of the birth. It is the rare birthparent who can afford access to independent legal counsel in a private adoption. Only the adoptive parents have an attorney and it is their attorney who prepares all the documents. The formal surrender document may contain waivers of counseling, legal representation and/or further notice concerning the adoption proceeding. The adoptive parents’ attorney will probably give the birthparent(s) a Notice of Intention to Place which formally advises the birthparent(s) that they will receive no further notice of subsequent proceedings and will have no right to object to the adoption unless he/she files a written objection with the Surrogate of the county within 20 days, or 35 days if a nonresident. The Notice of Intention to Place process relies entirely upon the integrity of the adoptive parents’ attorney and offers an opportunity for fraud, if the particular attorney is so inclined and especially if the birth parent(s)or the adoptive parents reside outside of New Jersey. The Notice of Intention to Place becomes the basis of what is essentially a default judgment of adoption. The attorney represents only the adoptive parents, not the birthparent(s) or the child at a time when independent legal counsel is urgently needed.

However well-intentioned, the adoptive parents’ attorney who explains legal documents to a birthparent has an inherent conflict of interest. Regardless, the birthparent(s) is/are typically dependent upon the adoptive parents’ attorney to explain the documents’ contents and answer any legal questions.

Birthparents, like the public at large, generally understand that they are surrendering a child to be adopted and raised within a substitute family without interference. They do not realize, however, that they are de facto, as the child’s legal guardian, also surrendering the child’s right to know and be part of his or her original family.

They do not understand that their signature will, following completion of the adoption, lead to the permanent sealing of their child’s original birth certificate, well beyond the scope of their parental rights, which normally “expire” when the child becomes an adult. The child’s adoption record, including the child’s original birth certificate, will remain sealed against the child for the rest of his or her life, unless he or she can sustain the burden of proving to a court that there is “good cause.” As “good cause” is not defined, the outcome will likely depend upon the personal predilections of the judge. See Backes v. Catholic Family & Community Services, 509 A.2d 283 (Ch. Div. 1985), which denied access to sealed medical or genetic information because the adult adoptee’s mental condition was deemed insufficiently pathological.

Unless the adoptee is later able to learn his biological identity by some other means, the long-term effect of relinquishment is to strip the adopted person of his or her natural identity, including their genetic and medical background and their family and ethnic heritage, for their entire lifetime. None of this is explained in the surrender documents the birthparent(s) are given to sign. Indeed, the attorney for the adoptive parents has no reason or obligation to explain it.

The right to obtain a copy of one’s own birth certificate is routinely exercised by all citizens, unless you were adopted. Although parent-child relationships are supposed to be fundamental and constitutionally protected, children’s relationships with their parents, grandparents, siblings and other family members are routinely and permanently severed, first, by the inadvertent effect of the unrepresented birthparent(s)’ signature on surrender documents and, second, by a court’s judgment of adoption. The child has no guardian ad litem, attorney or other qualified person to represent and protect his or her interests and the adoption statute does not require it.

In fact, the only time the adoption statute requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem in a private adoption is if the court-appointed agency recommends a child be removed from the home of the proposed adoptive parents, N.J.S.A. 9:3-48a(2)(c). Apparently, our legislature sees no need for a guardian ad litem beforea private placement is made.

After the surrender papers are signed, the child is placed with the adoptive parents who are required to file a Complaint for Adoption within 45 days of receipt of the child, according to N.J.S.A. 9:3-44. Neither the complaint nor any notice thereof is served upon the birthparent(s) if they were given a Notice of Intention to Place and failed to file a written objection. Upon the filing of the complaint, the court is required to fix a date for a preliminary hearing and to appoint an approved agency to investigate and submit a written report. This presents the agency with a bit of a fait accompli because, by this time, the child has been in the adoptive home approximately 45 days.

At the preliminary hearing, assuming the agency report is favorable to the adoptive parents, the court terminates the birthparent(s)’ parental rights, schedules a final hearing and appoints an approved agency to supervise and evaluate the continuing placement of the child. If the final report of the approved agency recommends that the adoption be granted and the court is satisfied that the best interests of the child will be served thereby, the court may dispense with the final hearing and enter a judgment of adoption immediately.

It seems to me that a significant number of New Jersey adoptions, particularly private adoptions, are on shaky legal ground. A court’s termination of parental rights based primarily upon the Notice of Intention to Place and the report of the approved agency is considerably weaker than the “clear and convincing evidence” required to pass constitutional muster. Birthparents should not have been expected to navigate these labyrinthine statutes without independent counsel.

Without counsel, birthparents have virtually no way of knowing the long-term effect of their relinquishment and the post-adoption sealing of the court’s file, including the child’s original birth certificate, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:3-52.

The child is an indispensable party and requires independent counsel to protect his or her own fundamental rights and interests — including adult rights and interests — from being needlessly compromised.

Due process in adoption? Hardly.

William H. Mild III served for 23 years as a deputy attorney general within the New Jersey Division of Law representing the Division of Youth and Family Services in numerous guardianship and civil child abuse/neglect cases. He retired from the Division of Law in 1999.

~ ~ ~ posted by Joan M Wheeler, BA, BSW, author of Forbidden Family: A Half Orphan’s Account of Her Adoption, Reunion and Social Activism, Trafford Publishing, Nov 2009.

I had to fill out yet another government form today:

“I am the individual to whom the information/record applies or that person’s parent (if a minor) or legal guardian. I know that if I make any misrepresentation which I know is false to obtain information from Social Security records, I could be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both.”

Each time an adoptee fills out a form that requires “name, date and place of birth” that adoptee is either knowingly or unknowingly lying. Adoptees are forced to lie by the very nature and status of our known and unknown identities. All adoptees have a legal identity that is different from their identity at birth. And, officially, our adoptions are not acknowledged as part of our identity.

I rush through the data, seething inside:

Name: Joan Mary Wheeler

Date of Birth: 1-7-1956

That is my legal identity. But I was not born with that name. In fact, Joan Wheeler did not legally exist until one year and one month AFTER my date of birth. Joan Wheeler was adopted not born. To be accurate and truthful: I was born to a mother who is not my legal mother and no paperwork exists — legally — to prove my birth. So I am forced to lie whenever I write my name and date of birth. To be accurate I should write the following on all forms:

Name: Doris M Sippel

Date of Birth: 1-7-1956

Date of Finalization of Adoption: 1-14-1957

Date of legal name change: 1-14-1957

Date of sealing and falsification of birth record: somewhere between 1-14-1957 and March 1957.

Date adoptive parents received new, amended and falsified birth record for Doris Sippel/Joan Wheeler: March 1957

So, when I see these words on government forms: “I know that if I make any misrepresentation which I know is false… I could be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both”, I take that as a threat to me by my government. Each and every time I am forced to write my name and date of birth, I know I have to write the accepted version of truth for simplicity’s sake. I am, however, forced to live lies perpetrated by my city, state and federal governments.

The ones guilty of fraud and perjury (misrepresentation of material facts; false statements of facts) are: the Surrogate Court Judge who signed my Final Order of Adoption; The Registrar of Vital Statistics of Buffalo, New York; New York State Department of Health; and the US Federal Government for lack of clarity and standardization of birth and adoption records.

The United States of America needs a federal mandate to correct these inconsistencies for all domestic and foreign-born adoptees.

Join in the fight to change our laws by clicking on these links: Equal Access for Adult Adoptees: http://www.change.org/petitions/view/equal_access_for_adult_adoptees (a Petition to the President of the United States and the US House of Representatives);  Letter to President Obama at Family Preservation: http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/2010/01/call-for-signatures.html; Adoptees: Fight for the right to your own identity in Illinois! http://www.change.org/petitions/view/adoptees_fight_for_the_right_to_your_own_identity_in_illinois; Restore Adult Adoptee Access to Original Birth Certificates http://www.change.org/petitions/view/restore_adult_adoptee_access_to_original_birth_certificates.

~ ~ ~ Joan M Wheeler, BA, BSW, author of Forbidden Family: A Half Orphan’s Account of Her Adoption, Reunion and Social Activism, Trafford Publishing, Nov 2009.

There is a birth certificate issue in the story of Maria Venus Raj re-gaining her crown for the Miss Philippines contestant for the upcoming Miss Universe Pageant.

There are translation problems in this reporting, so I’ll try to update this post in English, or clarify, later.

On April 13, 2010, Fiona Acaba reports in her article that

Binibining PilipinasCharities reconsidered returning the Bb. Pilipinas Universe crown to Maria Venus Raj after a series of investigations. The beauty queen felt relieved and happy to learn that she will be the one to represent the Philippines in the Miss Universe pageant. “Sobrang natutuwa po ako na lahat ng paghihirap namin talagang nagbunga,” Maria Venus said. Her friends and supporters are also happy with the news because they believe that Venus deserves it. They are confident that Venus will make Filipinos proud in the 2010 Miss Universe pageant.

The Binibining Pilipinas Charities and the Dept of Foreign Affairs have stipulated

She needs to ensure a valid passport which the DFA will thoroughly check through a committee. … “Kung may pagaalinlangan sa mga entries sa birth certificate, humihingi po ang DFA ng supporting or secondary documents, school records, voter’s ID, baptismal certificate and there will be a committee who will be responsible for the recommendations,” a DFA representative said. He also made a reminder for all Filipinos who will be applying for a passport so as to avoid any problems in the future. “Ingatan po ang pag-fill up ng application form ng birth certificate at ibapa pong documents na magiging basehan ng paga-approveng passport at importante po na may integridad po ang ating birth certificate.

Yes, I know the Philippine language does not translate well. If anyone from the Philippinesreads this post, please jot down a comment for translation help to improve our understanding of the issues here.

In an article mostly in the Philippine language dated April 5^th, Bernie Franco reported inconsistencies in the contestant’s birth certificate.  Franco quotes Maria Venus Raj

“Sobrang sakit lang po sa akin ang sinasabi nila na I am disqualified kasi I am born out of wedlock and hindi ako qualified for Miss Universe (pageant) dahil hindi ako ipinanganak sa Pilipinas at kung may inconsistencies man po, sa tingin ko, hindi ko kasalanan ‘yon,” …. ‘I am Maria Venus Raj, I was born in Qatar, I was raised here in the Philippines.’”

When one examines the following paragraphsclosely, one can see that the problem lies in misleading documentationof Raj’s birth.

Inamin din ni Venus na aware siya sa inconsistency na nakalagay sa birth certificate niya na sa Camarines Sur siya isinilang subalit nagpapakilala siyang isinilang sa Qatar, pero hindi na niya inayos pa ito dahil sa simula pa lang ng competition ay alam na raw ito ng Binibining Pilipinas management. “Mahirap kaming pamilya, kung magulang ka ang iisipin n’yo lang ay pampakain sa mga anak n’yo. Iisipin n’yo pa ba ‘yung mga dokumentong ito na gagamitin sa pagsali sabeauty contest?” himutok pa ng dalaga. 

May isang rebelasyon ding inihayag si Venus hinggil sa kanyang birth certificate. “Ang totoo po ang tita ko ang nagpa-register sa akin nung bata ako kasithree years after (akong ipinanganak nang ipa-register). Ang nanay ko nahihiya po siya noon na lumalabas at magpa-register sa akin kasi tsinitsismis ng mga tao na nasa paligid niya,” pag-amin niya. “Hindi alam ng nanay ko na ‘yun ang information na sinabi ngtita ko so ‘yun po ang pagkakamaling hindi kasalan ng nanay ko at hindi ko rin kasalanan.” 

Nilinaw ni Venus na hindi siya galit sa pamunuan ng Binibining Pilipinas at ang tanging hiling ay linawin sa kanya ang dahilan ngpagkaka-disqualify sa kanya na sinabi pa nang matapos siyang makoronahan. “Sana linawin nila ang dahilan ng pag-dethrone sa akin kasi hindi po malinaw. Alam ko po nakapasa ako kung anuman ang qualifications na mayroon sila at sigurofrom the very beginning sana sinabi nila para hindi napo ako umasa. Hindi ako nagtago sa kanila, hindi ako nagsinungaling sa kanila from the very beginning may mga videos na makapagpapatunay nito noon pa lang. I know I deserve the crown at wala po akong nakikita para i-disqualify nilaako for that.” 

Because I don’t have the definitive translation, I can only guess at the exact reasoning. As stated in my previous post about this, I questioned if this was an adoption. If so, then there would be two different birth certificates for Raj. If this is not an adoption, but a question of illegitimate birth, then there is still the point of being discriminated against because of circumstances of one’s birth. If this is an adoption, the inconsistencies between two birth certificates would be because one birth certificate shows the actual facts of birth, and the birth certificate issued after an adoption shows falsified information placed upon an official government document as per the guidelines of the automatic issuance of false birth certificate upon adoption.

I may be totally wrong in my assessment due to the inability to read the foreign language. If so, my apologies to all involved.

However, it does need to be stated that the circumstances of one’s birth, or adoption, need not interfere with any life goal of a person. How one enters the world, or how one is transferred from one country to another as a minor child, or how one becomes the adopted child of married adopting parents, or how one’s parents later marry — are all circumstances out of control for a minor child. The child grows into an adult. Upon adulthood, a person must be judged by character, or in this case, beauty and qualities within the guidelines of a beauty pageant. One’s birth or subsequent marriage of parents or adoption should not interfere with the achievements of that person as an adult.

Maria Venus Raj: good luck to you.

~ ~ ~ Joan M Wheeler, BA, BSW, author of Forbidden Family: A Half Orphan’s Account of Her Adoption, Reunion and Social Activism, Trafford Publishing, Nov 2009.

Another stunning announcement about birth certificates, this time from the Miss Philippines-Universe organization. Maria Venus Raj was disqualified not because she was born in Qatar, but because:

she got the boot after local organizers realized she was born overseas to an Indian man and Filipina mother, who were not married.

Her citizenship was not questioned, but the status of her parentage was:

because her birth certificate contained false information, such as she was born in the Philippines to married parents.

The un-named runner-up will replace Maria Venus Raj in the summertime Miss Universe contest.

Enough of beauty woes, what I want to know is: was she adopted? Did she have a sealed original birth certificate that indicated that her true parents of birth were not married? Did her amended birth certificate indicate she was “born” to married parents? How was this discovered? If  Maria Venus Raj was adopted, then this is yet another case of discrimination against an adoptee.

If not, was her birth certificate part of an identity scam to cover up her illegitimate status and help her win by pretending that she was born to married parents?

Why should the single or married status of one’s parents’ be the determining factor in winning or losing a contest, or holding a job, or any title?

And if this really is a case of a sealed original birth certificate vs an officially falsified “new” amended birth certificate and this IS an adoption, then this is truly evidence of the crimes commited by adults who were in charge of an innocent baby girl. The ones who seal and falsify birth certificates of adoptees are at fault.

Guess we will never know the truth in this case. Just another adoptee who can go through life with a false birth certificate and that’s okay, until she tries to do something she wants to do for herself, and then, she gets booted — for false information on her birth certificte — as if it is her fault.

If this is due to falsified birth records that are routinely falsfied because of adoption (and not the OTHER kind of birth certificate fraud, maybe The Hague or The United Nations should look into ALL birth certificates of ALL adoptees to make sure we ALL know who we were really born to and who we weren’t born to.

Certificate of Adoption anyone?

~ ~ ~ Joan M Wheeler, BA, BSW, author of Forbidden Family: A Half Orphan’s Account of Her Adoption, Reunion and Social Activism, Trafford Publishing, Nov 2009.