BabyGirl turns 6 next Tuesday, April 3.
It's a milestone I both celebrate and mourn because 6 means she's getting big, and it means she's not a little girl anymore. It's the end of an era. And because we've stopped trying to increase our family, I'll never get to parent a little girl again. Ever. She's done being a little girl and I'm done being the mom of a little girl. While I truly look forward to being the mom of a big girl, it sure was pretty great being the mom of a little girl. I celebrate how really cool she is, her curiosity and imagination, and what a neat kid she is. I can't wait to see more of who she's becoming.
And AJ turns 2 next Friday, April 6.
That's a milestone I can only mourn. It's another birthday we'll never celebrate with him, it's another year that we've missed him, it's another reminder that he's not our son.
BabyGirl said she wants a brother or sister for her birthday instead of gifts because a sibling "would be the bestest gift ever."
I think I'm going to go cry now.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Go figure!
The day after I posted about changing our wills, guess who popped up. Mitzie!
I'm actually relieved because she indicated that she's feeling stronger and wants to be more involved with her daughter and with us, and that means we can set aside our will-change for now. Not that I want to avoid making any decision, I just didn't want to make that decision.
She said she went back to the agency for a counseling session and that it's helped somewhat. My heart goes out to her: just a few years after BabyGirl was born and she was beginning to really deal with that loss, Mitzie's big brother was killed in a hit-and-run accident by a retired Detroit police officer who then fled the state. WHAM! Another loss of a significant person in her life. She didn't really deal with either loss and that's made involvement really painful for her.
She said she's going to continue with counseling and that she's working toward reuniting with BabyGirl. I can't believe how happy I am that she'll be a part of our everyday lives, that BabyGirl will know her deep in her heart, that Mitzie is beginning to work with the losses in her life. Mostly, I'm just tickled that those two will have each other.
I'm actually relieved because she indicated that she's feeling stronger and wants to be more involved with her daughter and with us, and that means we can set aside our will-change for now. Not that I want to avoid making any decision, I just didn't want to make that decision.
She said she went back to the agency for a counseling session and that it's helped somewhat. My heart goes out to her: just a few years after BabyGirl was born and she was beginning to really deal with that loss, Mitzie's big brother was killed in a hit-and-run accident by a retired Detroit police officer who then fled the state. WHAM! Another loss of a significant person in her life. She didn't really deal with either loss and that's made involvement really painful for her.
She said she's going to continue with counseling and that she's working toward reuniting with BabyGirl. I can't believe how happy I am that she'll be a part of our everyday lives, that BabyGirl will know her deep in her heart, that Mitzie is beginning to work with the losses in her life. Mostly, I'm just tickled that those two will have each other.
Monday, March 12, 2007
See? I'm not that great after all.
A while ago, the Queen of Spain's son was asking about death http://queenofspainblog.com/2007/02/26/go-to-jail-go-directly-to-jail/#comments. She'd just had an operation and was in the hospital for a few days, her child developed a vague feeling of anxiety about death and being left alone. She asked for advice.
BabyGirl was experienced with the concept of death after we lost 5 loved ones (she even invented a song that went "when you're dead, you're dead, but your sprirt stays to looooove us"). We've talked about death a lot. I told the Queen what we do at our house, one thing was to make sure our wills are up to date and to let BabyGirl know that we've talked with people who have promised that she'll never be alone, that she'll always be taken care of, and that the judge knows about these plans. (BabyGirl is familiar with the importance of the judge from having to go see a judge about losing AJ, so we just went with that rather than explaining wills and trusts and attorneys.)
Back when BabyGirl was new, after she was legally our child, we wrote our wills so that her firstfolks would have, for lack of a better phrase, right of first refusal, should Mr. Handsome and I kick it. Mitzie first, Raoul second, then our dear-heart amazing-parent friends third (who are already as committed to openness as we are so there's no chance that BabyGirl and her firstfolks would lose each other). When BabyGirl was little-little, we thought this was right and appropriate that they would have the opportunity to raise her.
But we're not so sure about that anymore. Raoul, absolutely. He'd make a great full-time father for her--for any child lucky enough to be his. He and BabyGirl have a close relationship even though he lives down South and we're in the Midwest. Heck, he even flew up specifically join her on her first day of kindergarten! We have no qualms about him having the opportunity to be her daddy. We're confident that, if he chose to take on the responsibility, he'd be great at it.
Mitzie, though, not so much. We'd hoped she would have pulled her life together a little more by now. We don't see her often, she doesn't answer emails/calls/letters, invitations are ignored, and BabyGirl is not really comfortable with her. Despite living less than a mile from kindergarten, Mitzie was a no-show for first day of kindergarten pick-up.
I'm to the point now that I'd like to amend our wills to revoke her opportunity to be the mommy, because I'm not comfortable with this near-stranger, who is our daughter's firstmom, raising her. We don't know her values or plans, employment is sketchy, and we just don't know her like we know Raoul. Of course, our wills will always state that Mitzie and Raoul will always have open contact with them, no matter what.
Nonetheless, am I being a bad open adoption parent, or a good mommy? Can the two be reconciled in this case?
BabyGirl was experienced with the concept of death after we lost 5 loved ones (she even invented a song that went "when you're dead, you're dead, but your sprirt stays to looooove us"). We've talked about death a lot. I told the Queen what we do at our house, one thing was to make sure our wills are up to date and to let BabyGirl know that we've talked with people who have promised that she'll never be alone, that she'll always be taken care of, and that the judge knows about these plans. (BabyGirl is familiar with the importance of the judge from having to go see a judge about losing AJ, so we just went with that rather than explaining wills and trusts and attorneys.)
Back when BabyGirl was new, after she was legally our child, we wrote our wills so that her firstfolks would have, for lack of a better phrase, right of first refusal, should Mr. Handsome and I kick it. Mitzie first, Raoul second, then our dear-heart amazing-parent friends third (who are already as committed to openness as we are so there's no chance that BabyGirl and her firstfolks would lose each other). When BabyGirl was little-little, we thought this was right and appropriate that they would have the opportunity to raise her.
But we're not so sure about that anymore. Raoul, absolutely. He'd make a great full-time father for her--for any child lucky enough to be his. He and BabyGirl have a close relationship even though he lives down South and we're in the Midwest. Heck, he even flew up specifically join her on her first day of kindergarten! We have no qualms about him having the opportunity to be her daddy. We're confident that, if he chose to take on the responsibility, he'd be great at it.
Mitzie, though, not so much. We'd hoped she would have pulled her life together a little more by now. We don't see her often, she doesn't answer emails/calls/letters, invitations are ignored, and BabyGirl is not really comfortable with her. Despite living less than a mile from kindergarten, Mitzie was a no-show for first day of kindergarten pick-up.
I'm to the point now that I'd like to amend our wills to revoke her opportunity to be the mommy, because I'm not comfortable with this near-stranger, who is our daughter's firstmom, raising her. We don't know her values or plans, employment is sketchy, and we just don't know her like we know Raoul. Of course, our wills will always state that Mitzie and Raoul will always have open contact with them, no matter what.
Nonetheless, am I being a bad open adoption parent, or a good mommy? Can the two be reconciled in this case?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
"For my two moms"
There's been a lot of conversation on the blogs I read about what to call the various parents in an adopted child's life.
I've chimed in occasionally with what we do here. BabyGirl calls Mitzie and Raoul by their first names and says that they're her birthmom/dad or her firstmom/dad. I admitted that when she said they're her "real parents," I had a bit of a wobbly feeling. That one hit a little too close to home that, indeed, she didn't grow in my uterus and Mr. Handsome's sperm didn't kick-start my egg.
But, I added. It's not about me. It's about her processing her own story of how she came to be and how she came to be a part of our family. We've always believed that, as parents, it's not our job to do what's easiest or most comfortable for us, it's to do what's right for her. Period. Have I always been successful at living out that credo? Not always, but with regard to her relationship with Mitzie and Raoul, yes. I'm trying to remember that she's only 5 and she's doing her best to figure out some mighty big ideas. And if she wants to call them her real parents, I'll adjust and learn to celebrate that, too, because, after all, they're as real as we are.
So yesterday morning, she came charging into my home office with two folded pieces of paper saying, "These are for my two moms." She made beautiful portraits of us. Mine is hung up already and we put Mitzie's in the mail right away. I know she'll cherish it as much as I cherish mine.
Mitzie, with her lovely hugs-and-kisses top and a crown.
Me, a floating head.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Fashion Evolution
I like to sew. I especially like to sew Halloween costumes for BabyGirl. When she was three, she started her passion for princesses and fairies and all things pink. I asked, why be a princess when you can be a queen, so for Halloween when she was 3½, I found the most wonderful double-faced satin that is pink on one side and orange on the other (she already had the cutest pair of orange patent leather mary-janes). Et voila, a Queen Esther dress sized large enough to wear the next spring to the Purim carnival at our temple.
The next autumn, two weeks before Halloween when I was knee-deep in black fleece trying to whip-up a lightening bug costume, BabyGirl received a come-as-your-favorite-princess party invitation. By that point, she'd discovered the Disney animated Cinderella and her best buddy Lulu had the store-bought blue Cinderella dress. She wanted to go as Cinderella. There was no way I was going to pay for the blue dress, so we came to a compromise: I'd retrofit her Queen Esther dress to look like the dress the mice made for Cinderella in the Disney movie. Deal.
Well, it's Purim time again. BabyGirl has sprouted another couple of inches, and the old Esther/Cinderella needed another face-lift. BabyGirl wore the latest incarnation of her dress this afternoon for the Carnival, but I think this is its last public showing since the bodice is getting too tight and there just isn't enough fabric to add yet more length.
Bless her heart, she says she wants to donate it to children who don't have any play dress-up clothes. We always say that it's a good thing we're raising her right because she just turns around and teaches us right back.
The next autumn, two weeks before Halloween when I was knee-deep in black fleece trying to whip-up a lightening bug costume, BabyGirl received a come-as-your-favorite-princess party invitation. By that point, she'd discovered the Disney animated Cinderella and her best buddy Lulu had the store-bought blue Cinderella dress. She wanted to go as Cinderella. There was no way I was going to pay for the blue dress, so we came to a compromise: I'd retrofit her Queen Esther dress to look like the dress the mice made for Cinderella in the Disney movie. Deal.
Well, it's Purim time again. BabyGirl has sprouted another couple of inches, and the old Esther/Cinderella needed another face-lift. BabyGirl wore the latest incarnation of her dress this afternoon for the Carnival, but I think this is its last public showing since the bodice is getting too tight and there just isn't enough fabric to add yet more length.Bless her heart, she says she wants to donate it to children who don't have any play dress-up clothes. We always say that it's a good thing we're raising her right because she just turns around and teaches us right back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)