A truly bizarre website has surfaced belonging none other to than Katherine Hoy Foley, who supports birthmother anonymity and opposes open records. Foley sued New Jersey in June 2009 because its Division of Youth and Family Services allegedly gave out identifying information to her daughter a year earlier. That daughter tried to contact Foley, first via letter, and then in person.
What complicates the story on some levels is that Foley was raped as a teenager. That single historical fact permeates her website, Women in Hiding, more than any other. As a site exploring the brutality and trauma of rape, it succeeds on some level. Foley is an artist and a okay writer and her gallery and articles are stomach-churning but real. This is the experience of teen getting raped.
On the other hand, she’s also bat-shit insane (in the parlance of a pal) and the implications of her stand for adoptees and surrendering mothers are awful. Weird how Foley appears to be the perfect symbol for closed-records contingent—fragile, wounded, driven insane by contact. Possibly unable survive the “rampage” of the “the stranger-adoptee” and the “personal damage” done to her family.
Foley does not refer to her daughter as daughter or my. She calls her the stranger-adoptee.
She does not refer to herself as birthmother:
Do not dare refer to me as birth mother. Don’t try Biological Mother, either. Or even call me Parent to what gained life from my ordeal. And do not be cute by using Mom, as in Birth Mom, Bio Mom.
Biological Source is a description I can force-feed myself, grudgingly accept. It is, after all, the truth and nothing gets to change that. However, I prefer Biological Cunt. Biological Cunt speaks my personal truth. It does not fake a smile and make nice.
When Jason Nash wrote the story referenced at the top of this post, she wrote back chastising him for referring to her motherhood. That whole nutty letter is here.
As for her campaign, she’s totally serious and has her lawyer-husband backing her up. He apparently wrote this section of the website which claims, among other things, that anyone placing a child for adoption should be included under domestic violence legislation so they can be protected from all contact and requests for information disclosure. Adoptees will find the Strategies section of her website (how to deal with the aggressive stranger-adoptee) sick-making and hilarious.
It is terrible that Foley was raped as a teen. It’s also terrible that her view of pregnancy, motherhood, and adoption are so warped by that one event that she would rather stay hiding (or would she?) than give people their civil rights. Nauseating.
Filed under: adoption, kids, life , adoptee, adoption, birthmother anonymity, closed records, disclosure, Kathleen Hoy Foley, New Jersey Family Services, rape, Women in Hiding
I wonder if epenn on adoption.com is her daughter? She talks about her mother doing all of this crazy stuff.eek
You have an eye. Yes it is, according to this:
http://forums.adoption.com/adoptee-support/366770-if-true-could-major-swing-nj-bill.html#post33946847
What a balanced and sane person all things considering.
She seems to be under the assumption that all mothers were raped, resulting in forced childbirth and adoption. Not hardly – many of us were simply in love and naive enough to believe the father of our child would do the right thing and marry us or at least be supportive in some way.
By connecting with my son I am in no way sharing a “sexual trauma” or awful event (other than the adoption itself). My child’s birth was a beautiful event! As for sharing the details, I choose when, where, and with whom to share. My son does the same, as is his perogative since it is also the story of his life, not just mine.
One thing I do agree with her on is the misguided trend to require mothers to provide medial histories and other personal information to a government or social agency. I do not support the idea that mothers should be forced to give this type of information to a third party. I favor mother/father giving medical history directly to the child in an informal manner, as does every other family.
I’m sorry that she experienced this awful rape and that the birth of her child resulted in more trauma.
The rape is questionable. Apparently according to the father’s side of the family it was a relationship that went on for years.
I, myself have serious doubts about it, just because I know lots of rape victims and none of them have made that their identity.
The art is stunningly awful, personally I think the writing is too. The result of a diseased mind. I can’t imagine treating anyone with such cruelty as this woman treats her own daughter. The only explanation is that she is mentally ill.
In my line of work, I see worse every day. (writers)
There is quite a bit more to this story. I have spoken with EPenn on a couple occasions. There is a question whether this was a rape at all because the father was in love with this “woman.” This was also an ongoing “relationship.” I personally do not know what to call this woman. Part of me can not even call her a woman. The father in question is also deceased so he can not defend himself. Too convenient if you ask me. The father’s family has welcomed the daughter with open arms. They have disputed the story. I have read and researched this story a bit. I know that the news reporter did not report the daughter’s side of the story. We are talking two phone calls maybe, a couple of cards and couple letters over a 11 year period. Even law enforcement does not consider this stalking. The daughter has not met this “woman” in person. I don’t think that this woman is a perfect example for the adoption industry. They want the mothers to be happy about adoption, not “batshit crazy.”
Epenn is a wonderful,calm happy person who still is compassionate and kind despite her Mother’s craziness. The crazy (firstmother)woman does not know what the truth is anymore, and goes out of her way to hurt Epenn. I don’t know why.
While I feel nothing but sympathy toward this woman as a rape victim… her reaction to the adoptee’s contact and refusal to acknowledge her motherhood only makes me feel more like a bastard.
Since when is it the fault of the child for being born?
I think I have the timeline of the events wrong. So if anyone wants to correct it, please do so. It’s a bit confusing, to me, at any rate.
You know, this is exactly the problem with focusing on individual stories to get open records legislation passed. Adoptees deserve access to their original birth certificates because the rest of us have access and so it’s discrimination to say that one set of citizens can’t have it. Like Bastard Nation says, Leave no one behind. Even adoptees conceived by bat shit crazy people.
Dawn, you are exactly right.
Besides, if *everyone*, no exceptions, had the same access to their OBCs – as they should – this woman wouldn’t have had to hide in the shadows for all these years. And she would not have had to feel so besmirched.
Anyhow, she’s clearly getting a serious buzz out of making herself seen and heard now.
Quite the exhibitionist, really.
what the ??????????????????? yowch I’ve been enjoying your blog o solo mama
thank you!
I don’t get where you’re coming from. Exactly why should this woman,or anyone, be forced to submit to a relationship she does not want and has taken every available, legal step to refuse? She does not want this relationship, so why not leave her in peace, and stop harassing her. Now someone trying to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy, has to factor in the possibility of being stalked in the future. How to make adoption seem like a riskier and worse option than abortion!
“Now someone trying to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy, has to factor in the possibility of being stalked in the future.”
Yeah, because every adoptee who searches is automatically a stalker. *rolling eyes*
Nobody said anything about relationships. This adoptee is just trying to get some information about herself. If the records were open, she would not have to approach her birth mother about her origins, but with the laws the way they are she has no other option. And the birth mother is the one spilling her guts on the Internet via the web site osolomama quoted.
If this woman really wants to be left alone she should give the adoptee the information that every non-adopted person in this country takes for granted. Why should we be punished for the circumstances of our births? Sealed records and falsified birth certificates have kept adoptees from obtaining driver’s licenses, passports and other critical documentation of identity. We are considered second-class citizens and have long been denied our civil rights.
Don’t give me the BS that open adoption records will equal more abortions. If you check the stats you’ll see that abortion rates are *lower* in states with open records.
When non-adopted people seek their origins it’s called genealogy. When adopted people do so we are dismissed as ungrateful psychopaths. I’m sick of that double standard.
That’s the funny thing about the law. It can’t undo reality. No matter what in the end one is a mother and the other is a daughter. If someone can’t accept that when considering adoption, then they shouldn’t be considering adoption. There will always be a risk that REALITY will exist.
No one is saying the nutjob has to invite her daughter over for cookies and pony rides. I find it absolutely disgusting that the daughter, who never did anything to this woman other than to be conceived, somehow has to lose her identity at relinquishment. The least she can do is at least have her daughter have her identity. Then she can slither back into her hole and continue writing her manifesto of nutbaggery.
I couldn’t have said it better, Triona!!!!
(HIGH FIVE)
“When non-adopted people seek their origins it’s called genealogy. When adopted people do so we are dismissed as ungrateful psychopaths.”
Triona, that was a simply brilliant statement. I have been arguing the case for open records with friends and co-workers, and I would like to use that phrase if it is okay with you. You have a much better way with words than I do!
Kathy
a supporter in MN
Kathy, please do. Anything to help people understand the need for records that are truly, unconditionally open: no intermediaries, no registries, just the same access to original birth certificates for the same minimal fees other people pay.
“Since when is it the fault of the child for being born?”
Exactly. To Flash: Rape is a terrible thing, a horrible experience that causes incredible trauma. But why perpetuate the trauma by denying the facts of birth to an individual? Access to information doesn’t guarantee a relationship, a fact that adopted people are well aware of. The issue is access to the information.
This from the website puzzles me:
“He raped me on mattresses you would not let a dog sleep on,” I utter to the CBS news reporter.
I say this into the light.
And suddenly,
Miraculously,
I am free.”
It makes no sense to me that one would say they’ve been freed by openly speaking about their experience, and then wish a life mired in secrecy on others. Doesn’t ring true.
Those lines puzzled me too, Margie. You are quite right. They don’t ring true.
“. . . and suddenly, miraculously, I am free.”
If being “outed” finally gave her permission speak about her experience, I think that’s another important facet of the argument for open records.
Maybe I’m dense, but the only reason I can see why anyone would revel in their own freedom while at the same time trying to curtail that of another, is a desire for power or vengeance.
I think you’re absolutely right, Kippa. Power or vengeance – or both.
Yup. Or both.
I doubt too she’s ever had the benefit of disinterested advice and support.
I agree that leaving decisions about whether or not to open records up to so-called “anecdotal evidence” is erroneous. We all have our stories and our experiences, but there needs to be one basic truth: we are all equal under the law. If that is the truth, then there should be no such thing as closed records. In a free society, we all get to decide who we choose to have relationships with. This woman (who i guess doesn’t want to be referred to as a mother) has a right not to have a relationship with the child she brought into this world but she doesn’t have a right to hide the basic biological fact that she had a child. Not if we are all equal under the law.
And she doesn’t have the right to hinder anyone else’s access to their information. Relationships and access: two issues that seem to get confused all the time.
“Relationships and access: two issues that seem to get confused all the time.”
Agreed. I think it is these very separate issues that continue to muddy the waters of open records.
There’s something about playing to the seamy side of a story that makes reporters – and the general public – salivate. Throughout the thirty-odd years I’ve been involved in adoption search, and telling ‘others’ of my work as a volunteer, I have been asked, consistently, “Do you run into cases where the mothers don’t want to be found?” Why doesn’t anyone EVER ask about the (predominantly) positive reunions? The answer: the old idiom about whether the dog bites the man or vice versa. Good news isn’t news; bad news is.
In one of my (outside) speaking engagements, I asked my audience what percentage of “successful” reunions they would consider sufficient to justify giving adoptees access to identifying information. I prompted: 95%? (yes); 75% (well…maybe); 50% (definitely NOT!). I then suggested that we should begin immediately to outlaw MARRIAGE! When over 50% end in divorce, marriage partners physically, emotionally and even sexually abuse one another – even kill one another – this is obviously an institution that needs to end!
If Nicole Simpson had survived her attack and blogged her experience, I dare say she would have had little good to say about marriage!
It’s absolutely true that we have to approach our issue as one of civil and human rights, rather than from an anecdotal stance. The absolute bottom line is that a child born in the U.S. is NOT merely a product of the mother’s medical privacy. An abortion can be considered that, but a born child cannot. His rights are NOT an extension of his mother’s, but are his by virtue of both U.S. and state constitutional rights. His only documentation of citizenship is his authentic birth certificate. And EVERY U.S. citizenship should have absolute access to that document. Period!