An Origins FAQ

What is the background of the name "Origins"?

We were a group of mothers who began the group and decided on the name Origins because we were where our children originated from. When adoptees go in search of their identities they are looking for their roots, their origins, their ancestry, their original mothers/families. We wanted a name that wasn't schmaltzy which we thought would dis-empower mother, nor did we want a name that frightened newbies away be sounding too political and to which they could not identify, so thought the name Origins would be a catchy middle ground.

How about adopted persons? Can they be full members?

Origins Inc is for all persons *separated* by adoption. That includes mothers, fathers, bio relatives, adoptees. It excludes adopters as they are not separated from anyone by adoption.

We are considering forming a "branch" of Origins. How would we go about this?

The only thing you really would need to do is agree in writing ie by email to comply with our philosophy and our aims and objectives, add our philosophy to your own index page, making sure everything you present to the public can be substantiated to protect our name and integrity..... whereupon we would add you to our newsletter address list, and link your website up to our own.

Is Origins "Antiadoption"?

• Origins is against adoption separation: the dismemberment of families causing unresolvable grief, loss and trauma to separated family members.
• We are against falsifying birth records to create a legal fiction that adopters gave birth to adoptees and to render natural parents into being solely invisible production units: a late-20th century social experiment
• We are against agencies and governments sealing records in order to hide evidence of coercion and human rights violations, and keeping records closed in order to keep separated family members from finding one another: another late-20th century social experiment
• We are against social, financial, and legislated coercion of vulnerable mothers, pressuring them to surrender without informed consent.
• We are against legislated poverty (i.e. poverty level "welfare" or no welfare) that punishes the single mother and financially coerces her to surrender so that governments and agencies can supply the market demand for healthy white infants
• We are against unnecessary adoptions.

  Is this "antiadoption" or pro-family? We leave this to the reader to decide.