Charlie Register
"But while wire services and network television were quick to highlight Olson's stockpile of several hundred boxes of Hamburger Helper, loads of pasta soup and toothpaste, they failed to mention what may be the biggest aspect of the Olson story, taking in an 11-day-old infant and mother they didn't previously know. The newborn was advertised for adoption on the Internet by the grandparents who were gravely concerned for its future. "The grandparents of the baby wanted to see him go to a family that was prepared for Y2K," Olson told the reporter, Peter Maller. The Olsons ultimately took in both the child, Michael Lee Berks, and mother, Jennifer Berks, at least temporarily to ride out the rollover. This shatters the conventional stereotype the media perpetuated about the "survivalists" of Y2K. While they were busy seeking out those who bury school buses to hide from a Y2K induced nuclear holocaust, or families that reverted back to the agrarian lifestyle of the early 1900s, the impression of them has been one of selfishness and isolationism. Yet for many who were proactive about preparing for problems simply because the stakes were high and the outcome uncertain, their doors were plainly open to those they could help. This is just another example of the media missing the real story of Y2K. As for the Olson family, while they are happy enough that the rollover went well that Dennis did the "happy dance," they will stay on their guard for problems that might arise starting this week and on into early summer. Dennis now calls himself "cautiously optimistic," saying if the summer passes without incident, "some food banks are going to experience a real big bonanza." As for baby Michael, Olson said the mother and grandparents are considering raising the child themselves, at least for a while. For the present, mother and son remain in the Olson household. Dennis, however, said he won't mind a donation of some baby items, i.e. diapers, formula. "When we got into this, I didn't expect a newborn in the house," Olson said, who already has two other children. Note: Anyone wishing to contribute to Michael Lee Berks care can contact Charlie Register directly by email, and we will make arrangements to get donations to the Olsons. " :~)

-- number six (iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), January 03, 2000

Answers

God bless you, Dennis Olson, for your generosity, foresight, and compassion. How wonderful that mother and child are able to stay together for now! May all involved in this tale learn, love, and prosper.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), January 03, 2000.

Why not give the baby to the adoptive parents to whom it was intended originally?

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.

Why not give the baby to the original adoptive parents? Because they lied! They presented themselves as being ready for Y2K and they were not.

What else may they being lying about?

They are also not ready for winter storms or other emergencies such as a broken water main. The birth mother wanted more reliable parents for her child.

Dennis: you are a hero.

-- Sally Strackbein (sally@y2kkitchen.com), January 03, 2000.

I have been on the phone with Dennis (last night), and he is every bit the hero as Sally says. As far as mother and child are concerned, she has an enormous support network right now, and that is a big plus. The childs needs are real, and I have personally sent the young mother some money this morning. I work in health care with special needs children, so children have always had a special place in my heart. I agree, duh, that adoption is a good option. But at this point, there needs to be an adoptive family found, a home study done, approval by two different counties, etc. This all takes time, duh. The young mother wants a family who was well prepared for Y2K. She was LIED to originally, so I'm sure she will be extra careful where the child is placed. She wants this to be an OPEN adoption, in which she has continual contact with the child as it matures. And if, in the end, she does not give up the baby for adoption, she will have many more pluses than most young women in her situation. BTW, in this county, a legal adoption takes, at least, about 3-4 months to do all this. The baby could be close to 6 months old before placement, which is still very young. The childs needs are VERY real. Please consider giving a donation to help out. The young mother and child need all the support they can get.

-- luann (flataufm@hutchtel.net), January 03, 2000.

Why not give the baby to the original adoptive parents? Because they lied! They presented themselves as being ready for Y2K and they were not.

Of course they were ready for Y2K. What has happened to them to demonstrate otherwise?

They are also not ready for winter storms or other emergencies such as a broken water main.

In what way are they not ready for this?

The birth mother wanted more reliable parents for her child.

They offered their child up to complete strangers on the internet. Is this their idea of looking for "reliable" parents?

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.

I agree, duh, that adoption is a good option.

Thanks.

But at this point, there needs to be an adoptive family found, a home study done, approval by two different counties, etc. This all takes time, duh.

No, this was already done.

The young mother wants a family who was well prepared for Y2K. She was LIED to originally,

No, she wasn't LIED to at all. Clearly the family was prepared for what has happened so far.

so I'm sure she will be extra careful where the child is placed.

Do you feel that offering up your child to strangers on the internet is being "extra careful?"

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.

"Duh", you said: No, she wasn't LIED to at all. Clearly the family was prepared for what has happened so far.

You are COMPLETELY WRONG in that statement (as you so often are on this board). The young mother required a certain level of preparations by the prospective parents. These people, in the early phases of the process, STATED that they were WELL PREPARED. When the home was inspected by the mom, the people had NOTHING.

THAT is a LIE, no matter how much you (and those idiots like you) might try to "spin" it.

As it turned out, we DID know the family, though not for YEARS, so we all came together for the new little family.

YOU are just a small-minded, sniping little jackass. High school is back in; why aren't you in class?

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000.

This is NOT a good thing!

The mother and grandparents of this poor child should be locked up for child endangerment. What kind of a moron would give SOMEONE ELSE'S child to complete strangers based on whether or not those strangers had MREs and colloidal silver?

-- Adult Adoptee (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 03, 2000.

These people, in the early phases of the process, STATED that they were WELL PREPARED. When the home was inspected by the mom, the people had NOTHING.

And that was exactly what they needed to be WELL PREPARED for what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

THAT is a LIE, no matter how much you (and those idiots like you) might try to "spin" it.

No, it really wasn't.

As it turned out, we DID know the family, though not for YEARS, so we all came together for the new little family.

That's really great, seriously. You are to be commended for coming through in such a rough time. However, it shouldn't have been necessary. The baby had qualified adoptive parents ready to take him. Now they will not have the opportunity to show him their love and you will have to contend with two extra mouths to feed as well as endure the long adoption process all over again when it really isn't necessary.

YOU are just a small-minded, sniping little jackass.

I hope you don't talk to your new guests like that.

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.

I thought we already beat this discussion to death LAST WEEK.

The child may ultimately go to the original parents. The jury is still out on that. Personally, I felt that it was my Christian duty, as well as my pleasure, for us to take them in, so that there was time to DO THE ADOPTION RIGHT.

I think those of you taking pot-shots should consider stepping back for a moment, and try to look at the bigger picture. For WHATEVER reason, is an "emergency adoption" a good thing, REGARDLESS of the reasons? I think not. I'm SURE you all agree.

So why all the recriminations and breast-beating? YOU aren't involved. It's not YOUR decision (thank God, from some of this crap). We felt we were doing the right thing, and STILL DO. Just because some of you are so cynical and distrustful of ANYONE ELSE in the world, doesn't mean the rest of us share your hysteria. You must have suffered at the hands of others.

Now, just go take pill, relax, and let's move on... Shall we?

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000.

The child may ultimately go to the original parents.

That's great to hear.

The jury is still out on that. Personally, I felt that it was my Christian duty, as well as my pleasure, for us to take them in, so that there was time to DO THE ADOPTION RIGHT.

Given the circumstances, that was certainly the best decision. Your actions are commendable.

I think those of you taking pot-shots should consider stepping back for a moment, and try to look at the bigger picture. For WHATEVER reason, is an "emergency adoption" a good thing, REGARDLESS of the reasons? I think not. I'm SURE you all agree.

Yes, I agree with that.

So why all the recriminations and breast-beating? YOU aren't involved.

Unfortunately, we are. The original request for adoption was posted here and people keep posting more articles about it here. To expect that people won't "weigh in" with their opinions about it, as they do for everything else here is probably a bit naive. That's just how it works here.

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.

I suppose you're right. But I just WISH people would THINK a bit more before hitting SEND...

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000.

Dennis, you are my official, A number one HERO of the new millennium. God bless you sir for your kindness in putting your heart in exactly the right place.

Duh (an astute choice for a handle young man), you seem to have some difficulties with this. The original adoptive parents were every bit as much "strangers" as the folks on the internet. Do you think that the authorities which routinely place child abuse victims back with their "biological" parents are any better at judging fit parents than the parent herself? You have some serious problems with veracity as well. You probably believe that Clinton did indeed "not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."....goodness, it is not your child. It is the young woman's. She has every right and indeed OBLIGATION to ensure that her child is placed in a safe environment. Now, you may want to qualify her statement, but you do not have that right. You are not the child's other parent (are you?), and you are not the state (after it supersedes a parent's rights). Therefore your opinions really do not matter one iota. Duh!

I'm with the mother on this one. She doesn't need a "good" reason to deny adoption. A feeling will do. She felt betrayed. Enough said.

And if you don't like it, Duh...well, that is your option as well. Just don't go and try to force it down the throats of any parents you find on this forum, they will strike you down EVERY SINGLE TIME!

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), January 03, 2000.

The original adoptive parents were every bit as much "strangers" as the folks on the internet.

Supposedly, they went through a series of background checks in order to validate their ability to raise the child. Perhaps you feel that these checks are invalid?

Do you think that the authorities which routinely place child abuse victims back with their "biological" parents are any better at judging fit parents than the parent herself?

So I take it that you feel that the adoption process is flawed in determining the ability of the prospective parents to raise a child?

You have some serious problems with veracity as well. You probably believe that Clinton did indeed "not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

Please point out where I said this.

....goodness, it is not your child. It is the young woman's. She has every right and indeed OBLIGATION to ensure that her child is placed in a safe environment.

Absolutely. I simply think that placing it with a complete stranger on the internet is not a safe environment.

Now, you may want to qualify her statement, but you do not have that right.

Of course I do. She, represented by her parents, posted the request here. I am entitled to comment on it, as are you.

You are not the child's other parent (are you?), and you are not the state (after it supersedes a parent's rights). Therefore your opinions really do not matter one iota. Duh!

Then why are you responding to them?

I'm with the mother on this one. She doesn't need a "good" reason to deny adoption. A feeling will do. She felt betrayed. Enough said.

That's fine. However, subsequently offering the infant up to strangers on the internet is a potentially dangerous solution for the child as well as possibly illegal. Fortunately, Dennis was able to come forward and provide a much better solution in time. Kudos to Dennis.

And if you don't like it, Duh...well, that is your option as well. Just don't go and try to force it down the throats of any parents you find on this forum, they will strike you down EVERY SINGLE TIME!

I'm not "forcing" it anywhere. I'm just pointing it out. There are parents on this forum who agree with me, and there are those who do not. Feel free to disagree.

-- (duh@duh.diuh), January 03, 2000.

Duh, you said that the prospective parents "did not lie"....they did. You qualified their statement. The mother gave them a list of things to have on hand to "Prove they were ready for Y2K"...they said they had them...when they did not. That is a lie. You said it was not. To paraphrase the request as "they were not prepared for Y2K" is only a simplification of what the mother requested. You are reading this as you wish and not as it was.

Furthermore, if you think that the mother and her family would have been any less vigilant in "checking out" the internet responders then you are quite mistaken. This environment was conducive to locating people of like minds...something which was overwhelmingly required by the parent....It was a good place to search...albeit unusual. The internet is full of folks seeking placement of their children and of prospective folks seeking children too....do a search and see for yourself. Everyone is a stranger until they meet...then you go through the same procedures as everyone else in placing a child...you ask, you check and verify...

Your arguments are specious. And now I must retire for the evening. I hope this argument is retired as well...It has been beaten to death and you have won no converts here.

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), January 03, 2000.

Duh, you said that the prospective parents "did not lie"....they did. You qualified their statement. The mother gave them a list of things to have on hand to "Prove they were ready for Y2K"...they said they had them...when they did not. That is a lie. You said it was not. To paraphrase the request as "they were not prepared for Y2K" is only a simplification of what the mother requested. You are reading this as you wish and not as it was.

My apologies for misunderstanding their statement. What was on this list?

Furthermore, if you think that the mother and her family would have been any less vigilant in "checking out" the internet responders then you are quite mistaken. This environment was conducive to locating people of like minds...something which was overwhelmingly required by the parent....It was a good place to search...albeit unusual. The internet is full of folks seeking placement of their children and of prospective folks seeking children too....do a search and see for yourself. Everyone is a stranger until they meet...then you go through the same procedures as everyone else in placing a child...you ask, you check and verify...

Except that they had 9 days to ask, check, and verify, not to mention go through the procedures necessary for a legal adoption. Do you believe that 9 days is sufficient time to locate an appropriate parent and arrange this?

Your arguments are specious. And now I must retire for the evening. I hope this argument is retired as well...It has been beaten to death and you have won no converts here.

I am not looking for converts, I was proposing a possible solution to the Olson's (and the baby's and mother's) apparent situation.

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.

OK time for a response to some of the posters here.

There are adoption agencies, as we speak, who advertise children on the web, complete with pictures, for adoption. These are children born in the US and in other countries. Two MN agencies come to mind: Childrens Home Society of MN and Ramsey Co. Social Services. The pictures of the children come complete with descriptions of the children and their needs. If this is ok with these agencies, why isn't asking for ad adoptive family ok on the net if its an independent adoption?

I highly doubt that the mother and parents of the teen would just hand over the infant, no question asked. They are well aware of the process, because of their dealings with the couple who lied to them about their preparedness level for Y2K. I'm have no doubt they would have made sure the adoption was legal.

BTW, here in MN, if you have a foster care license (which is encouraged if you intend to adopt) a baby can be placed with the prospective adoptive family within 24 hours after birth. So, it is NOT out of the ordinary or criminal to have a baby move that quickly into a new home. The baby then stays with the adoptive family AS A FOSTER CHILD until the adoption is approved by the courts. If a foster license is not being held by the family, the process, at a minimum takes 3-4 months, from contacting an agency, to doing a homestudy, to approval between two counties/states. I personally know of a family who adopted 4 special needs children from California; the process took 1 week, due to the fact that they obtained a foster license FIRST.

The idea that a good family cannot be found over the net is absurd. I am sure I will get flamed for this but here I go.

My family made an offer to adopt the little boy. That's right. I challenge ANYONE ON THIS BOARD to come to my home and tell me that our family would not make a good home. My husband and I have been married 21 years, we have a daughter in the 8th grade, we are financilly secure, we are(were) prepared for 2000,in short, we fit all the criteria the mother wanted.

The offer was not a spur of the moment thought. My husband and I, along with our daughter have been thinking about adoption since 1995. In fact, we moved to a bigger house in 1998 to accommodate more children. But, learning about Y2K distracted us. We ended up putting those plans on "HOLD" while prepping for 2000. Well, 2000 is here and we plan to resume the process, something we talked about in November of 1999.

If the baby stays with mom, we can accept that. There are other children that need homes that we would gladly accept and adopt. But we would NOT adopt this little boy without contacting an attorney, and making sure the process was totally legal. What in the world makes some of you think that the mother would demand anything less?!?! Especially after what she went through with the first couple?!?!

I went out on a limb here. Go ahead. Flame me. But I repeat my challenge. My husband, my daughter and I have more than enough love to share with more children. If you don't think we'd make good parents, come to my home. I think you might change your mind.

-- luann (flataufm@hutchtel.net), January 03, 2000.

If this is ok with these agencies, why isn't asking for ad adoptive family ok on the net if its an independent adoption?

Because the family in question was asking for the child to be adopted within 9 days. This doesn't seem to be enough time to go through the legal process.

I highly doubt that the mother and parents of the teen would just hand over the infant, no question asked. They are well aware of the process, because of their dealings with the couple who lied to them about their preparedness level for Y2K. I'm have no doubt they would have made sure the adoption was legal.

According to the post, they wanted someone to adopt the infant before the rollover occurred. This would necessitate an adoption within 9 days of the request. I don't know of any legal adoption that can take place in that amount of time, not to mention during the holiday season when governmental offices are closed.

BTW, here in MN, if you have a foster care license (which is encouraged if you intend to adopt) a baby can be placed with the prospective adoptive family within 24 hours after birth.

Is this just within 24 hours after birth or also 24 hours after the request for adoption is made?

So, it is NOT out of the ordinary or criminal to have a baby move that quickly into a new home. The baby then stays with the adoptive family AS A FOSTER CHILD until the adoption is approved by the courts. If a foster license is not being held by the family, the process, at a minimum takes 3-4 months, from contacting an agency, to doing a homestudy, to approval between two counties/states. I personally know of a family who adopted 4 special needs children from California; the process took 1 week, due to the fact that they obtained a foster license FIRST.

So do you feel that a week (or 9 days) is sufficient time for the mother to evaluate the prospective parents and transfer the child?

If the baby stays with mom, we can accept that. There are other children that need homes that we would gladly accept and adopt. But we would NOT adopt this little boy without contacting an attorney, and making sure the process was totally legal. What in the world makes some of you think that the mother would demand anything less?!?!

Because they asked for someone to adopt the child "ASAP" and indicated that they wanted the prospective parents to take the child before the rollover. With the holiday season already in progress, it indicates that an attorney will not be consulted.

I went out on a limb here. Go ahead. Flame me. But I repeat my challenge. My husband, my daughter and I have more than enough love to share with more children. If you don't think we'd make good parents, come to my home. I think you might change your mind.

I'm sure you'd make wonderful parents. I don't know why you would think anyone believes otherwise.

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 04, 2000.