Allison Quets, who had attempted to stop the adoption of her twins to Kevin and Denise Needham legally for 18 months, was denied leave from the Wake County jail on Friday, after the judge ruled that she was a flight risk and a danger to her community, according to the News & Observer.
However, those who know her realize that she took her children to Canada in an act of desperation, because of a lack of adoption law regulation in the state of Florida protecting mothers’ rights, as well as a lack of regulation in the family law courts.
During the time in which Allison had unsupervised visits, she had attempted to ask Denise Needham the name of her children’s pediatrician, because Holly Quets had a severe diaper rash, and she needed medical treatment. Holly and Tyler also needed medical treatments for ear aches. When the prospective adoptive parents refused to give her the name of their pediatrician, Allison took them to a doctor of her own. As any mother would, she felt that them not giving her the pediatricians’ name and not putting the babies’ medical needs first, the Needhams were behaving in a self serving and were neglecting her children and putting their health at risk.
On a legal level, one of the concerns Allison Quets had, was the fact that she had not completed all of the paperwork, allowing both of her twins to leave the state of Florida.
Therefore, when the Needhams took both Holly and Tyler out of the state of Florida, with the aid of Michael Shorstein, this was illegal and should have initiated kidnapping charges against the Needhams, and Shorstein as an accomplice. The lack of adoption law regulation, has caused these important oversights to go unaccounted for. This has lead to Allison being arrested for kidnapping her own children even though she had done everything legally without justice. It has allowed for Shorstein to fraudulently obtain children and he is free to continue this business, and it has allowed the Needhams to continue to be responsible for these children despite the neglect, without any consequence.
When Allison had asked for copies of the papers that she had signed, Shorstein had refused to give copies of these documents to her. Another indication that adoption law is corrupt, because the only person able to get copies of the relinquishment or adoption papers, is the lawyer who handles the adoption. When a conflict of interest arises on behalf of the adoption lawyer, the laws protect them at all cost, even the cost of the lives of the children.
This is a clear indication that there needs to be a serious overhaul of the entire adoption law throughout this country.
Please visit AllisonQuets.com to keep updated on this case.
Heather K. is also writing for BNN
Three pregnant women, ages 15 and 16, have escaped from the New Hope Maternity home in Utah. They had been sent there by there parents, and had been brainwashed into considering adoption and changing their behavior. As an act of desperation, they hit the director, Jane Moody, over the head with a frying pan, tied her and another woman up, and took their Dodge van and fled the state.
According to the Daily Herald of Utah,
(Gina) Castro suspects that her daughter didn’t want to give her baby up for adoption, when friends and family members were telling her to. It may be one of the reasons why the girls decided to run.
Castro said she knew her 16-year-old daughter didn’t like being at New Hope. Far away from her friends and boyfriend, the girl didn’t like not being able call or e-mail them. That’s what her mother wanted, originally.
These women have been on the run, and are currently not traceable. Their names have not been released to the press, and they have not used the credit card or cell phone since filling up the van with gas at a local gas station in Utah.
As prisoners of the Maternity Home, they were unable to contact family or friends. The only reason they had been imprisoned in the Maternity Home, was because they had gotten pregnant as young women, and their families disapproved.
According to FauxClaud of Musingsofthelame:
Being held against your will at a maternity home is not much fun. Separated from friends and family at a vulnerable time in ones life, being forced to go there by such friends and family with the knowledge that the future only holds the forced separation from one’s baby can be like a death sentence. No one will help you. No one cares about what you want.
A much bigger story is here. The American people have been able to grasp the enormity of social abuses, cruelty of past adoption practices and the treatment of young women in maternity homes with the release of Ann Fessler’s “The Girls That Went Away”. The problem is that many people seem to think that “those days” are over. Even in the educated adoption community, people are shocked to hear that maternity homes such as New Hope still are in operation. With the current administration pledging more federal funding to go to maternity homes, the 95-10 Initiative promoting adoption as a solution to prevent abortion rates, and Infant Adoption Awareness Trainings, funded by the million by Congress, and going right to the profit making agencies to further market their business, we need someone who can tell the truth of the treatments and mental coercion that goes on at these homes.
This should be a warning to families, to provide support for their pregnant teenage girls. Hiding them away can only harm them further, and pushes them away, forcing them to take extreme measures in order to protect themselves and their children. These teenage girls are now mothers, are now women, who are looking out for themselves and their children. They need support, not condemnation.
Allison Quets is the woman who had revoked her consent for the adoption of her twins, Tyler and Holly Quets, and then after an intense legal battle, had taken them across the border to Canada. She’s since returned to the US, and is currently awaiting judgement from the NC courts.
Allison Quets had Hyperemesis, a rare condition which made her severely ill for several months during and after her pregnancy, and in which she still has not fully recovered from.
Allison had decided after the Needham’s had stood her up for a visit that she was supposed to receive in December, that she just wanted to be with her twins. Ottawa Citizen Video, she states that she and her twins are very much bonded.
Many people are standing up, and supporting Allison Quets, as awareness is building around the corrupt Florida Laws. There is currently a petition which calls for Allison’s twins to be returned to her, siting that the the lawyers were unjust in taking away her twins. After being coerced while almost dying, she was not restored custody of Tyler and Holly, though she had wanted to keep them, and has proven in the days following Allison’s leave of the US, is perfectly capable of taking care of them.
Allison Quets has gained international attention, after having a visit with her twins, taking them to Canada, and being arrested for kidnapping.
Now the adoption industry is being looked at with a microscope, suggesting that its practices are unethical in cases like Allison’s. According to the Ottawa Sun,
Quets’ case has garnered international attention and won the support of many who feel the adoption system is rigged against birth mothers.
“Ninety percent of the women we see … feel they were completely and totally violated when they surrendered the rights of their children,” said Sheri Sexton, director of the Ontario branch of Origins Canada, an advocacy group for mothers who lost children through adoption.
Today, the courts will listen to her case regarding the charges brought against her. It is a very complex case.
She revoked her consent for adoption within hours after signing. Through her whole pregnancy, she had been very ill with a severe case of Hyperemesis Gravidarum.
One concern not yet discussed, are the open adoption laws of Florida, and how they affected her adoption, which had begun in Florida, but yet her twins had been residing in NC.
In the newest PR of Open Adoptions, mothers are told that they have the abillity to be a part of their child’s life. They can receive pictures, updates, emails, phone calls and visitation. In this way, it would almost seem like a co-parenting setup, whereas everyone is respected, and has some control over the agreements.
However, this is far from the case. According to Exiled Mothers,
Open Adoption is a myth in most cases, used in order to convince women to surrender their children so agencies can make money and adopters can obtain children. Once you relinquish, you have NO LEGAL RIGHT in ANY STATE OR PROVINCE to see your child. If you upset the adoptive parents, or if they NEVER INTENDED for the adoption to be open in the first place, then you are out of luck!!! Adoptive parents hold all the parental rights. You will legally have no more right to see your child than any other stranger would. Even mediation and courts cannot help if they decide to move to another state.
It was only because the adoption had not yet been finalized that Allison Quets had unsupervised visits. If she had not kept the court hearings going, she would have lost her parental rights, and possibly never seen her children again.
The Needhams had already broken the visitation agreement. According to Across Canada,
In early December, the adoptive parents failed to bring the children for a court-mandated visit with Quets, who eventually got a court order to compel the adoptive family to let her see them.
It was only because she still has her parental rights, that she was able to get the court order and force visitations. Once her rights are terminated, it is up to the potential adoptive parents, who already have shown they are not going to respect the contract.
Another problem with open adoptions, is that they are not legally enforceable. Most women who did not have the resources Allison did ($400,000 to fight the case) are typically unable to find or pay for a lawyer to enforce visitations, pictures, updates and other contact. Therefore, about 85% of adoptions close, most of them closed by adoptive parents.
Currently, there are many people interested in the case. According to Adoption Crossroads, a site run by Joe Soll, who is a Psychologist and was adopted,
175 million people in the U.S. whose lives are directly affected by adoption.
Many people, adopted persons, adoptive parents, and natural mothers and fathers are watching this case closely. Many, including adoptive parents, have sided with Allison, saying that she wants to be a parent, and should have the opportunity to do so. Many people believe that this shows the corruption of current adoption laws, and do not want unethical adoptions to happen. Adoptive parents have responded by saying, “What would you say to the child? Your mother wanted you, fought for you, but we thought we should have you?” Hundreds of people have signed a Petition calling for an investigation and asking for her twins to be returned to her.
Allison Quets is a mother, who has been fighting a legal battle for over a year. It is over her twins, Holly and Tyler Quets.
She had been severely ill through out her pregnancy and afterwards, and was concerned that she would not be able to care for them. So, she considered adoption. However, in the state of Florida, when a person considers adoption, and makes the phone call to the agency or lawyer, the agencies and lawyers will stop at nothing to get the baby. In Allison’s case, they tried twice as hard, because she had twins.
After intense coercive tactics used by the lawyer, Allison Quets had signed only some of the legal papers. However, hours after signing the papers, she realized that it wasn’t what she wanted to do, and revoked her consent for the adoption, and had a written revocation for the adoption within 2 days. However, because of the unethical and corrupt adoption practices in the state of Florida, she has in the end spent her life savings battling the court case, and filing briefs, appeals, and done everything legal up to this point.
Out of desperation, and fearing that she would never see her children again, she picked them up for her visit, and went to Canada where she hopes they will treat her fairly, do a full investigation of the case, and rule on the side of justice, and return her children to her. When adoption was given as a choice, it doesn’t seem that the person making the choice should have to spend their entire life savings on choosing otherwise.
Previous Article: Adoption Language, Controlling Perspectives Part I
In the previous article, I talked about the natural families perspective of Positive adoption language versus Honest Adoption Language. In this article, I will discuss what happens to the baby when they are separated from the mother, and talk about how society views the event.
According to a parenting course called Empathetic Parenting:
The mother’s body continues to work for her infant after birth by making milk. This milk production will continue as long as the infant nurses. The need for nursing keeps them working as a unit. This is simply a continuation of what had been happening in the womb. One major difference, of course, is that the mother does the work automatically when the baby is in the womb. After the baby is born, the mother has to think about what she is doing and actually move to meet the baby’s needs.
The mother provides the baby’s first social contact, food, temperature control, protection, immunity through antibodies in her milk, a familiar heartbeat, smells, and movements. These are basic needs, of which a caretaker or adoptive parent can not replace. Because the infant knows her mother, a caretaker or adoptive parent, is a stranger to the infant or child, despite any legal contract which puts responsibility of caring for the child on adoptive parents.
In fact, according to this parenting course:
When babies are first separated from their mother, they will begin to protest in an urgent effort to get their lost mother back. They will often cry loudly, shake their cribs, and throw themselves about. They will look eagerly towards any site or sound, which might prove to be their missing mother. This may continue off and on for a week or more. Throughout this time, children seem to get comfort in their efforts by the hope and expectation that mother will return.
Experts state that the mother and child are actually one unit for 21 months, 9 months within the womb, and 12 months outside the mother’s womb.
Though society tends to view the separation of mother and child as a solution to a problem, a baby will go through a lot of trauma, and some would argue, a physiological trauma, before the baby is even able to be independent of the mother. This trauma is proving to have lifelong effects in both the mother and baby. According to Empathetic Parenting:
It can cause very serious problems for a child’s emotional development.
This learned detachment will be the basis for how they develop their other relationships through out their life.
So, even though the “Positive Adoption Language” attempts to redefine adoptive parents as “mother” and “father”, the baby knows her natural family by its smells, feels, and tastes. It knows, too, that despite the adoptive “mother” and “father” language, these people are caretakers, and start off as strangers, whereas the mother is known and is instinctually trusted by her baby.
(From the Natural Families’ Perspective)
Adoption language is becoming very controversial. There are two sides to adoption language: Positive Adoption Language, and Honest Adoption Language. Positive adoption language is the dehumanizing of mothers and family members who fall victim to agencies and lawyers who profit by baby selling, at least$30,000 per healthy white infant. They would like people to use terms such as: “Birth mother, birth father, birth family, birth parent, birth child” for people who are the adopted person’s natural family, and to use terms such as: “Parent, mother, father, mommy, daddy and child” for the adoptive family. This bias tries to control the idea of adoption, and put it into a more natural setting, while alienating the natural family and the child being adopted.
According to the staff writer, Michael Riley of the Asbury Park Press:
Remember that all of us have birth parents, but not all of us live with them.
But most people never know any of their family as birth family members. They know them by the adoptive terms… does that mean, that they are all adopted, and never knew it? Does that mean that all people were adopted, unless they referred to their natural family as birth families? What about birth father? How many fathers over the country have actually given birth? Positive doesn’t seem to necessarily equate to what is real.
According to a group called, Origins (Canada) who are a group of mothers who have lost children to adoption, the adoption industry:
…has deliberately constructed and marketed a lexicon that is meant to marginalize natural mothers and dehumanize them, giving legitimacy to a form of inhumane exploitation that would otherwise be seen as cruel and unnatural…. The language thing is much more than a gimmick or novelty. It is a tool of oppression. Groups that control the lexicon can control a society’s thinking subversively.
OriginsUSA, and other Origins Affililates prefer to use terms such as natural mother and adoptive parent, feeling that these terms are non biased, and that it is honest in its relationship to a child. A writer, Laurie Frisch, of OriginsUSA, states that:
We must change our habits and begin to respect, acknowledge, support and value the true, natural family. The courts and the media are at great fault for using biased language. The term “birth mother” makes people think a mother is just the packaging a baby comes in, meant to be tossed aside.
While the people who profit from adoption are attempting to put a positive spin on adoption, the natural families suggest that a great number of people, the adopted person, the natural family, and even the adoptive family are harmed by adoption. The adopted person and natural family for the loss of each other, and the adoptive family, because they buy into the false belief that the child is really theirs, thereby living a lie. Many adoptive families find that after adopting, they go through a period of depression when they realize that the child they adopted was second choice, and that they will never have a child that comes from their dna, and of their blood.
Stay tuned for Part II, which talks about the babies’ point of view of losing his or her mother.
Every year, many people gather to celebrate Christmas. They celebrate a virgin Mary, and her son, Jesus. Whether people believe that Jesus were the son of God, or whether they believe that Mary was a virgin by today’s definition, the truth of the matter remains: People gather to celebrate a single, poor, unmarried pregnant woman, Mary, and her son, Jesus. God determined that Mary would be a sacred vessel for His son, a gift to the world, the Creator of Life.
Today, it is unheard of that a woman who is poor, single, to keep her child, and be respected her whole life. Sure, there are people who do keep their children, but they are often looked down upon, we tell them they are “welfare cases”, they “steal from working families”, even if they have jobs of their own, there is still a lot of classism and stigma attached to poor women, especially those who are pregnant or who have children. The cure for this, is adoption, where we can take the baby from the poor woman, and give them to the rich families.
When I saw an article about people stealing Jesus out of nativity scenes, I thought it was very ironic, considering the times we live in, and the baby stealing society that pervades.
If Jesus was born in our times, I could hardly imagine what would become of him. One woman, Laurie Frisch, had imagined what would happen. She wrote, “If Mary Had Really Loved Her Child – a Christmas Story”, and writes about her ideas of what would happen if Jesus was adopted.
She tells a story of Mary, and how she trusts the people around her, her parents, the social workers, all wanting what is best for her son, for God’s son.
When the child is born, Mary asks Joseph to tell the church social worker. She holds her baby, but is afraid to spend too much time with him. He is a beautiful child. He is God’s child, even though other people can’t see it, she knows it’s true. Because she is totally crazy about the baby, she would have wanted to do the right thing anyway, but she especially wants to do exactly the right thing for God’s child. She signs papers and they take the baby.
But Jesus, now known as Samuel, is not content in the arms of strangers….
The wise men follow the signs in the sky that direct them to the Savior, right to the house where he is. They bring gifts and celebrate. The baby is distracted, but when they all go away he tries to find his mother – her voice, her smell. She is nowhere to be found. He really squalls and the woman tries to comfort him. She wonders if all babies are like this, but she does not know. She thinks of his mother and feels rather guilty about taking her child.
Jesus / Samuel is very confused. He isn’t the same person, as he has lived not just as the Son of God, but as an adopted person. Two very isolating experiences.
When Samuel gets older, he is hard to control. He wants to please the people who adopted him, but he feels he has a mission. He preaches God’s word and tells people not to look so much at the letter of the law, but to focus on loving one another.
He has difficulty with that himself, though. When he meets lepers, he is unfamiliar with them and repulsed. He tries to talk, but finds it uncomfortable. He heals some of them, but is too grossed out to touch them. The people who adopted him are wealthy and don’t understand why he would want to go anywhere near all these outcasts and indigents and they certainly don’t want them in their house. When he meets Mary Magdelene his first reaction is to want to jeer or spit on her, but he controls himself and manages to say some kind words. He does not linger.
The ending is terrifying for mothers who believed that adoption was something that good Christian women did. When faced with God, Mary is shown what God wanted, which was far different than what the people wanted.
As they are standing there before an amazed crowd, God takes Samuel up into heaven, saying “This is my Son in Whom I am well pleased.” Mary begs to be taken as well. God looks at her and says “My Son has sacrificed himself for the good of mankind. What did you do?” She answers, “I have sacrificed myself for your Son.”
He becomes angry and says, “What do you mean? I entrusted my Son to you and chose you specifically to be his mother and you gave him away. I wasn’t even sure he would be able to carry out his mission. He was barely able to relate to the poor and he bought those ridiculously expensive jeans in an attempt to fit in with the farmers, a move that totally backfired. It’s a wonder his message got through to anyone. If He had not succeeded in raising up Lazarus from the dead, I’m afraid it would have been all over for him.”
Mary was distraught. “I gave him away because I loved him”, she said. “I was trying to do the right thing and I suffered so much as a result. No one provided help and they said it was the right thing to do.”
God just kept saying, “I chose you, Mary. I chose you. You would have been the perfect mother to raise my Son.”
The point of the story, is not only that every year, we celebrate Jesus, a symbol of the poor, the estranged, family, God’s gift to humanity, also, that God creates life, and chooses each of our natural parents, to be our mother and father. When people create institutions that claim to do the work of God, we must remember that people have their own agenda, and may not reflect God’s intention at all.
Currently, the United States is the number one country who is applying for the adopting of China’s babies and children. They have decided to become more selective in the type of family that can adopt their babies and children.
According to CNN, such restrictions include:
Among other restrictions, couples must have a body mass index — a measure of obesity — of no more than 40 and be age 30-50, with people up to age 55 considered for children with special needs, according to the agencies.
The rules bar parents who take medication for psychiatric conditions including depression and anxiety or have a “severe facial deformity.”
Having restrictions such as these would seem like common sense. The Chinese government wants their children to be healthy, and have a healthy living environment.
The new laws will be taking effect on May 1rst.
China seems to be attempting to make a better life for its citizens. By increasing standards of adoptions, but also, by increasing the quality of life in its own country, as shown by their new labor laws. According to a previous article on BNN written in November:
China has announced that they are going to crack down on sweatshops in their country. The government plans for the new laws to take place as early as May of 2007. While it will be for all companies in China, the foreign owned multinational corporations are the primary target. All of the Wal-Mart stores in China have already been forced to allow unions.
However, even though they are making better conditions for their people, they don’t mention any word of decreasing the number of adoptions.
According to the CNN article:
The China Center for Adoption Affairs has said it is trying to increase the number of children available by creating a new charity to improve conditions in orphanages and “keep infants and young children alive and well enough to be adopted,” Harrah’s said.
The upcoming changes in China seem to be positive for their people, and their country. They are moving along to democracy, and to a place where people have living wages and more dignity in their lives.
The Ohio man who had adopted 11 foster children has said that he made enough money adopting children, that he could quit his job, according to his neighbor. The couple are Michael and Sharen Gravelle, and are currently at trial being prosecuted for their crimes.
Apparently, he thought he could make a living holding children hostage in cages, beating them, and torturing them.
These adoptive parents have been on trial in abusing the children that they had adopted. In addition to caging the children they adopted, ABC News stated that they have done additional abuses such as:
(Tom) Hall, testifying at the trial of Michael and Sharen Gravelle, also told the jury that he saw the father hose down one of the children outside in 20-degree weather. Hall said he believes it was because the child had a bathroom accident, but he could not recall which of the 11 children it was or when it occurred….
….Laura Oney, another neighbor, testified that she reported the couple to the Huron County Department of Job and Family Services, which oversees adoption, in 2001 after Michael Gravelle told her one of the children was sleeping in a bathtub with only a blanket and a pillow. She said she reported the Gravelles again in 2002 after seeing Sharen Gravelle hit a child across the back of the legs with a sawed-off broomstick.
Abuse in adoptive families is not uncommon. There have been many cases of abuse, as stated in Forever Family, Forever Dead, telling about the Russian children who were killed by their adoptive families. Another site that has a tribute to the lives of the adopted children who were killed by their adoptive families is located here at the Log of Fatal and Severe Abuses to Adoptees
It’s no wonder other countries are increasing their restrictions on American adopters. Hopefully, other organizations will no longer allow people like the Gravelles to adopt children.
Pastor Gilbert Deya Arrested For Child Trafficking
David Banda’s Father Says He Was Powerless to Stop Madonna’s Adoption
New York is Ready to Change Its Adoption Laws
Human Rights Groups to Oversee Madonna’s Possible Adoption
Transracial Adoptees Respond to International Adoption