We were outraged by Tedaldi’s story. But not for the reason you cite:
Belkin: It’s not talked about. And there are people who are furious that it’s being talked about here on this blog. (Radio interview)
There are quite a few of us who talk about disruption. Speaking only for myself, I have to say that I wasn’t furious because you brought the subject up. Disrupting an adoption is not “rehoming.” It is not about Tedaldi “being a part of this child’s journey.” It isn’t about “good intentions.”
Radio interviewer: What were you hoping to get at with this blog?
Tedaldi: Well when I wrote the essay, you know, I’ve been writing for a while, so I’ve chronicled or talked about different issues with my, you know, with my family and myself and I felt like
it was almost dishonest not to share something that happened because we started out again with the best intentions, you know, I myself wrote a piece a couple of years ago where I said I thought it was inconceivable to ever return a child after adoption.
It was the spin and deception in the article. Because the article Tedaldi wrote about the Dutch diplomat’s disruption was in January 2008. Less than a year later, Tedaldi disrupted. Let’s get it straight: She did not “rehome” the child. She wasn’t a “necessary path on his journey through life.” She chose to terminate her legal obligation to the child. The moral obligation unfortunately had long been terminated.
Radio interviewer: What led up to your decision to terminate that adoption?
Tedaldi: Basically, I didn’t terminate the adoption. I actually placed the child for adoption. So I did a private adoption. I could have done the same thing with a biological child. I did not terminate the adoption technically.
The reality, however, was that she did not do the same with her biological children.
She apparently chose to adopt a child while she was pregnant. And within a short span of time she became pregnant again. Undoubtedly this was overwhelming. The solution? To give up the adopted child.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if Tedaldi had placed her two youngest biological children for adoption. Would she be lauded for her bravery?
Because the reality is that she took eighteen or more months (past blogs indicate it was probably more like two years) that were crucial from the life of a four-month-old baby. The story keeps shifting and changing, so it’s impossible to know. But she took eighteen months that were critical to that child and his ability to bond. Eighteen months in which she was pregnant twice and had two newborns. How much attention do you think the adopted kid was getting?
This is what we want to talk about. Not about how painful it was for the “parent.” Not about how Tedaldi was “pilloried.” But a story that talks about the child.