Can you imagine a contract that:
-two parties enter into that is used to justify barring a third person (party) from knowing anything about their history, ethnicity or genealogy without that third party's consent or foreknowledge, though, in fact, legally it does not?
-This contract is signed by the first two parties without the consent of the third party - the actual person losing access to their own personal, most basic information.
-The third party, the one resulting in being barred, is unaware of said contract, or its signing at the time of its execution.
-The contract is interpreted as barring them, the third party from their own personal information for life, although this is not actually what's in the contract.
-The third person (party) has committed no crimes. And that same third person is not allowed to even view the specific contract that they are being bound by for life.
When the third party questions the validity of the contract they are bound by, but never agreed to, they are sometimes shunned and humiliated by those close to them, misinformed strangers, and also by privileged persons in positions of power. The barred individual's motives are questioned. They are told to be grateful that the contract exists.
The terms of the contract, as mistakenly interpreted by others, extend until death.
*often one or both of the two signing parties do not fully understand the scope, full intent, or implications of the contract at the time of its signing. The third party, when later notified of the existing signed contract and its implied and actual terms, is keenly aware of all its implications through lifelong exposure to discrimination and all that that experience includes.
You can't make this stuff up.
#ThisIsUs #adopteevoices #HumanRightsViolations
Congratulations for at least understanding that the adoptee is indeed party to but not signatory of the contract and is neither advised of not consents to the final decree of adoption. You have erased two other parties to this conscription of a minor: the presiding judge (a signatory) and the guardian ad litem who is supposed to assure the child's best interest. As a minor, the latter is essential-but what too often happens is that he/she is employed by the state and therefore, as the state's interest is the get this child off its roles so that the expenses incurred become the adopters', thus no longer a burden for the state and its taxpayers. Since one of the parties in this arrangement was never informed and is not able to give consent due to the age of minority, the contract is rally null and void. As for being thought to be n perpetuity, it is not. Read the Fourteenth Amendment which gives ALL in this territory EQAUL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW. If you don't understand the amendment, it means that whatever is law for a non-adoptee is also law for the adoptee. If my neighbor, who is a non-adoptee can simply pay a fee, fill out a request for an OBC and receive it post haste, then so too can I.
ReplyDeletePermanence and perpetuity are, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder.
(The only power one has over us is that which we give to them>