The Abnormal Relationship Between David McConkie and Colleen Burnham of Children's Aid Society of Utah
One helped the other, between these two, instead of both helping each other. This raises questions about who was in the position to provide help. Let's consider the facts.
This eliminates Colleen Burnham. She had NO credentials. That is Colleen Burnham was NOT a licensed social worker. It wasn't until four months after she and David McConkie stole my only child from my only pregnancy, using Chidlren's Aid Society of Utah as a front for their illegal activity hence, that Colleen Burnham received a social worker's license.
So since she was not licensed to practice social work Colleen Burnham then should not have been at the agnecy of Children's Aid Society of Utah. Since then she was there wrongly this means Colleen Burnham had to lay low which she did by lurking.
Such explains why Colleen Burnham peeked around corners, and acted like a stalker, every time I saw her when I'd meet with Leslie Smith who was the actual social worker at CAS of Utah. It also explains why Colleen Burnham switched places and so dominated the situation, after she subordinated the licensed social worker, and so became the person who actually took physical custody of my child.
The lawyer David McConkie who was in attendance with a small army of other lawyers, that horrible day, therefore is the one who helped the other. David McConkie helped Colleen Burnham, in other words.
At the same time David McConkie knew he was wrong. Such is why he hid himself. He never let it be known that he had helped Colleen Burnham steal my child from me especially since he knew that she should not even have been in the agency of CAS of Utah, by pretending to be legal counsel for CAS of Utah, and never identified himself accordingly.
So, David McConkie hid. He concealed himself, and so acted by stealth and duplicity, to shadow me even after he and Colleen Burnham had securely obtained my son.
Even though David McConkie knew he was acting wrong he wanted to on the one hand. Such is because he wanted the money he got for constantly imposing hardships on me on the other hand. This duality proves David McConkie wanted the money, he got from Colleen Burnham who herself exploited CAS of Utah's finances, for trailing me around.
See, it's not that natural mothers of adoption do anything to deserve this mis-treatment. Instead it's more that lawyers and social workers are wrong!
Together these two pulled off the crime of stealing my child. Since then it's not difficult to understand who's been shadowing me.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Invisibilizing Adoption's Natural Mothers
Legally any given natural mother, who is a party to any given adoption, ceases to exist once the judge and lawyer(s) close the related adoption file and so conceal the mother's name and other information about her. So the lawyer(s) and judge then calculate that the adoption's natural mother, who's the biological mother of the child who was adopted, should also cease to exist socially.
This is when invisibilization of the adoption's natural mother begins. Invisibilizing such a mother is done in many ways. Among these are: 1) falsification of records; 2) segregation; 3) obstruction of publication of the heart-wrenching stories of natural mothers; 4) removal from circulation natural mothers' adoption child-loss narratives already published; 5) social ostracization; 6) religious disfellowship or ex-communication; 7) political disfranchisement; 8) family banishment; 9) destruction of support networks; 10) absence of acknowledgement of suffering child-loss; 11) criminal incarceration; and 12) mental confinement. Briefly let me explain these different methods by which adoption-excluded mothers are invisibilized.
Falsifying (corrupting) records, as I've previously affirmed, is done by erasing/deleting true information on any given biological mother's records, and in its place writing/entering false details.
Segregation of natural mothers is done legislatively. This means natural mothers are segregated to exclude them from being protected by the law.
Obstructing publication of the often tragic stories of adoption's original mothers is done by stopping the printing and circulation of such mothers' narratives. Or, if they're already published, these stories are stopped from future circulation.
Removing from publication as I've mentioned natural mothers' narratives is common, though still NOT acceptable, at all! Such stories that already exist in the public forum, in other words, are stopped from further circulation.
Social isolation is often the terminology used to describe a person who is socially ostracized. Natural mothers in adoption thus are shunned socially such as by not being invited to social gatherings. Though this may seem simple the fact is it amounts to being EXcluded. This condition exists even when effort is made by the natural mother to be included.
Being DISfellowshipped or even worse ex-communicated religiously as being another way adoption's original mothers are invisibilized is done by pressuring such mothers out of their church and religious community. A bad experience like this only deepens the anguish of such a mother.
Of course people usually equate political disfranchisement with being denied the ability to vote. However being politically disfranchised entails much more.
Usurping their political rights also includes silencing the voices of natural mothers politically so they keep quiet about their sorrow-filled adoption child-loss. This means also being black-balled from engaging in political activism which could include such a mother's political activism to reform the corrupt adoption commercial industry.
Family banishment, if a natural mother is dis-owned by her family, means she has no one. She's been abandoned, familially.
Destroying the support network[S] of any given adoption-excluded mother deprives her of many other things also. Any positive thing, that otherwise would result from having a support network, is lost to adoption child-loss mothers.
Suffering child-loss because of adoption is NOT recognized, whereas death child-loss is, according to society's members. In other words death-related child-loss is recognized as a grief-filled event that is accommodated for the mother so she can grieve ritualistically and so mourn her death-related child-loss.
Adoption child-loss mothers on the other hand are not acknowledged as suffering child-loss when their child[ren] is/are adopted out away from them under concealment (closed adoption). Since they're not recognized as losing their child[ren] because they surrendered (abandoned) their child[ren] though usually NOT willingly, then biological mothers are not sustained by social collective compassion that otherwise would enable them to also mourn like those mothers who suffer child-loss because of death.
Criminal incarceration which is the end result of a natural mother being criminalized is also a good way to invisibilize natural mothers in adoption. This method involves physically removing such mothers from society. Once criminally jailed any given natural mother dies to society. Therefore she ceases to exist.
Mental confinement, according to some who routinely transact adoptions, is the best way to invisibilize natural mothers. Unlike a projected release date from prison being given to those criminally incarcerated mental confinement for any given adoption child-loss mother does not provide such a date. Permanence could be the status of a natural mother who finds herself mentally confined.
In other words such a mother could be kept in mental confinement permanently. Such is because projected release dates are not given to "mental patients."
What a great way to invisibilize natural mothers! At lease this comprises the prejudiced attitudes of those who want adoption's original mothers out of their way.
This brings us to who these folks are. Many more than not are lawyers. Usually this is because lawyers often oversee and/or operate the systems that involve official records, laws, publications, religious legal management, the jails and prisons, and also the mental facilities.
It's in every legal jurisdiction where original mothers of adoption are invisibilized. Such is based on those legal jurisdictions where natural mothers previously have filed litigation and other types of grievances.
Starting in the beginning of her child[ren] being adopted out away from her is when any given natural mother begins being invisibilized. Then it continues throughout the duration of her adopted-out child's/children's adopted lives.
"What would be the purpose of invisibilizing adoption's original mothers?" one might ask. The answer is simple.
Money, is the reason. Specifically it's to promote adoption by always presenting it as favorable so to generate more money.
The cries and dissenting voices of natural mothers hinders this promotion, in other words, and so threatens to stop the easy flow of money for those (lawyers, for example) who most often transact adoptions. Again, this usually is the lawyers even more than social workers and others.
Such explains at least most of the reson original mothers of adoption are invisibilized. It's all about the money, in other words.
This is when invisibilization of the adoption's natural mother begins. Invisibilizing such a mother is done in many ways. Among these are: 1) falsification of records; 2) segregation; 3) obstruction of publication of the heart-wrenching stories of natural mothers; 4) removal from circulation natural mothers' adoption child-loss narratives already published; 5) social ostracization; 6) religious disfellowship or ex-communication; 7) political disfranchisement; 8) family banishment; 9) destruction of support networks; 10) absence of acknowledgement of suffering child-loss; 11) criminal incarceration; and 12) mental confinement. Briefly let me explain these different methods by which adoption-excluded mothers are invisibilized.
Falsifying (corrupting) records, as I've previously affirmed, is done by erasing/deleting true information on any given biological mother's records, and in its place writing/entering false details.
Segregation of natural mothers is done legislatively. This means natural mothers are segregated to exclude them from being protected by the law.
Obstructing publication of the often tragic stories of adoption's original mothers is done by stopping the printing and circulation of such mothers' narratives. Or, if they're already published, these stories are stopped from future circulation.
Removing from publication as I've mentioned natural mothers' narratives is common, though still NOT acceptable, at all! Such stories that already exist in the public forum, in other words, are stopped from further circulation.
Social isolation is often the terminology used to describe a person who is socially ostracized. Natural mothers in adoption thus are shunned socially such as by not being invited to social gatherings. Though this may seem simple the fact is it amounts to being EXcluded. This condition exists even when effort is made by the natural mother to be included.
Being DISfellowshipped or even worse ex-communicated religiously as being another way adoption's original mothers are invisibilized is done by pressuring such mothers out of their church and religious community. A bad experience like this only deepens the anguish of such a mother.
Of course people usually equate political disfranchisement with being denied the ability to vote. However being politically disfranchised entails much more.
Usurping their political rights also includes silencing the voices of natural mothers politically so they keep quiet about their sorrow-filled adoption child-loss. This means also being black-balled from engaging in political activism which could include such a mother's political activism to reform the corrupt adoption commercial industry.
Family banishment, if a natural mother is dis-owned by her family, means she has no one. She's been abandoned, familially.
Destroying the support network[S] of any given adoption-excluded mother deprives her of many other things also. Any positive thing, that otherwise would result from having a support network, is lost to adoption child-loss mothers.
Suffering child-loss because of adoption is NOT recognized, whereas death child-loss is, according to society's members. In other words death-related child-loss is recognized as a grief-filled event that is accommodated for the mother so she can grieve ritualistically and so mourn her death-related child-loss.
Adoption child-loss mothers on the other hand are not acknowledged as suffering child-loss when their child[ren] is/are adopted out away from them under concealment (closed adoption). Since they're not recognized as losing their child[ren] because they surrendered (abandoned) their child[ren] though usually NOT willingly, then biological mothers are not sustained by social collective compassion that otherwise would enable them to also mourn like those mothers who suffer child-loss because of death.
Criminal incarceration which is the end result of a natural mother being criminalized is also a good way to invisibilize natural mothers in adoption. This method involves physically removing such mothers from society. Once criminally jailed any given natural mother dies to society. Therefore she ceases to exist.
Mental confinement, according to some who routinely transact adoptions, is the best way to invisibilize natural mothers. Unlike a projected release date from prison being given to those criminally incarcerated mental confinement for any given adoption child-loss mother does not provide such a date. Permanence could be the status of a natural mother who finds herself mentally confined.
In other words such a mother could be kept in mental confinement permanently. Such is because projected release dates are not given to "mental patients."
What a great way to invisibilize natural mothers! At lease this comprises the prejudiced attitudes of those who want adoption's original mothers out of their way.
This brings us to who these folks are. Many more than not are lawyers. Usually this is because lawyers often oversee and/or operate the systems that involve official records, laws, publications, religious legal management, the jails and prisons, and also the mental facilities.
It's in every legal jurisdiction where original mothers of adoption are invisibilized. Such is based on those legal jurisdictions where natural mothers previously have filed litigation and other types of grievances.
Starting in the beginning of her child[ren] being adopted out away from her is when any given natural mother begins being invisibilized. Then it continues throughout the duration of her adopted-out child's/children's adopted lives.
"What would be the purpose of invisibilizing adoption's original mothers?" one might ask. The answer is simple.
Money, is the reason. Specifically it's to promote adoption by always presenting it as favorable so to generate more money.
The cries and dissenting voices of natural mothers hinders this promotion, in other words, and so threatens to stop the easy flow of money for those (lawyers, for example) who most often transact adoptions. Again, this usually is the lawyers even more than social workers and others.
Such explains at least most of the reson original mothers of adoption are invisibilized. It's all about the money, in other words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)