Skip to main content

A few weeks ago, child welfare activists discovered a Facebook page from an agency (https://www.facebook.com/...) where two kids around 5- or 6-years-old, adopted by American families nine months before, were advertised as available for adoption again. The two ads showed photos of cute black kids and gave favorable descriptions of their characters and abilities of the girl and the boy. The twitterati and internet savvy identified the kids from earlier rawer versions of that adorned post quickly as siblings being adopted together from the Democratic Republic of Congo and traced and identified the couple who wanted to disrupt the just created family bond. Not only the disruption itself and the disruption after nine short months created outrage, but more enraging issues played a role in this case.

The brother and sister were to be re-adopted separately and the future ex-parents expressed that they wanted some reimbursement for the high costs they had made. Here the original - and not the later edited and cleaned up - post for the boy from a tweet:


 Further, the parents, according to their blog, were devout Christians immersed in the current evangelical orphan theology, which sees adoption as a holy mission for the believers to 'save' kids from poor countries. (Blog removed: http://helpbringjanaehome.blogspot.com). On a political level, the nine-month period was problematic, because Congo stopped issuing exit permits for adoptees more than ten months ago because of stories like these in our country and the rampant adoption fraud, child trafficking and corruption in their country. There could be a serious chance that the kids were smuggled across the border. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...)

A small Facebook and Twitter storm resulted in the removal of the two ads from the Facebook page. They were still up on the website of the agency, but were taken down soon after that as well (http://www.wiaa.org/...). Initially was their removal explained in a post, which talked about the problems the family had with the public attention, but that excuse was also removed after a few days. A next post - still up, but for how long - tried to give perspective on disruption and re-adoption; it offered a letter by a woman, who wrote about the horrible pain she suffered as result of the violent and otherwise difficult behavior of her adopted child, and asked not be judged for her actions (https://www.facebook.com/...). The adoption agency however couldn't hold the fort against new media activists who took the position that adoption is irreversible and that you can't un-child a child, especially not a child who had lost its first parents already. Aren't there thousands of biological parents who have to cope with for example schizophrenic and aggressive children? In adoption there can't be buyers remorse.

The new media became a powerful instrument for those who oppose the powers that be in the world of adoption. The immediate dissemination of information and the possibility to address issues personally to those who -- in the eye of the senders -- need to be addressed, forces the traditional adoption world to react.  An establishment blogger recently retracted a guest post, which was fiercely attacked by twitterers and facebookers with the following remark: "There is such a climate of fear, and adoption is so politicized, that some adoption agencies will not allow their clients to engage in advocacy by telling their stories." (http://childrendeservefamilies.com/...). An establishment adoption conference in the spring of this year organized a special session, how to deal with the flood of critical voices about what is called by the activists the 'adoption industry', or in the organizers words: "a presentation on the importance of online reputation management and the do's and don't's of cyber engagement" (http://www.adoptioncouncilblog.org/...). And on July 21 a column published in the Christian Post with the title 'Parents Don't Need to Apologize for Adopting an Orphan', went in full defense mode: "Far too often, the media and anti-adoption crowd frame the discussion of adoption in such a way that we find ourselves back on our heels, feeling defensive or apologetic. All one need do is utter the word child-trafficking and suddenly adoption advocates and adoptive parents fall silent, or worse yet, stumble over their words to defend and excuse the way their family was formed. Let's cut it out, ok? Let's take control of the conversation and proudly own the genesis of our families and the integrity of the adoption." (http://www.christianpost.com/...)

Let me be open, I am one of those activists and was involved in some of the above. I one of 12 administrators of a Facebook page, Adoption News and Events (https://www.facebook.com/...), that offers daily all we can find in the news and on the web that is related to adoption. Further we cover many adoptee and birthmother blogs.  Most of what we post - we really can't help it - reflects badly on the industry. And what seems to be positive is often 'analyzed' by our followers in the tradition of open and not censored forums in 'honest' terms.  Sometimes we have, however, less curt voices as well.  Many of our posts find their way in the twitter universe directed to those in power.

There are dozens of other Facebook sites and blogs, which host other adoption activists, who try to do the same as we from a somewhat different angle. There is an informal, often overlapping cyber network that spreads the word twitter-wise 'collectively.' The results of the combined efforts can be discovered in the above Congo example.

The growing anger of the adoption establishment and its animosity toward the activists is based in the constituency of the two groups. The first consists for the bigger part of parents and those who are working for their interests, sometimes on a not for profit basis, more often commercially: agencies, social workers, lawyers, trade-organizations, lobby groups. They see adoption as a solution for societal ills in our country and elsewhere. Adopting is 'saving' and adopters are saviors. The industry depends on the continuation of this belief. Essential therefore is the moral and financial support of the evangelical orphan movement.

Conversely the activists are individuals and collectives of individuals; most of them are adoptees and first parents. Having lived the less happy side of adoption by being abandoned or having lost their child to adoption, they focus on family preservation and reunification in the first place and see adoption as a welfare measure of last resort, that is: non-commercial and well-regulated open adoption or legal guardianship.  They see traditional adoption as catering to the wishes and longings of the oft infertile parents, and not to the needs of the kids and their first parents. The activists get some support from academia and several foundations. Many non-evangelical Christian and international organizations and NGO's share their vision.

There is in my mind no doubt that the activists will get the upper hand in the discussion and that adoption as we know it now, will be regarded in not too long as morally unacceptable. The voices and the perspectives of the adoptees and first parents, who should carry the debate anyway, will only get stronger and the new media gives them the effective outlet to be clearly heard.  Adoption will move away from adoptive parents and business and towards child and first family welfare. The nervous and hurt attitude of the industry shows that the shift has begun.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Is there room in this debate (7+ / 0-)

    For honest, caring adoptive parents who see adoption as a way to address the needs of all three parts of the triad?  My hubby and I adopted internationally 29 years ago. We went with a reputable nonprofit, who abided by the laws of the home country.  We believe that we were meeting our need for a child, the need of the biological mother to have a safe place for her child, and the need of the child to grow up in a loving home.  From your post it appears that we should be viewed as desperate scavengers willing to ignore laws and close our eyes to abusive practices and who were conned by a money grubbing industry.

    Please understand that there are many perspectives in adoption.

    Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Gabby Giffords.

    by Leftleaner on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 05:17:08 PM PDT

  •  I have an adopted child from Guatemala (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladybug53, Jilly W, FarWestGirl

    and this post is disingenuous and hurtful to my family.  You obviously have no idea what you are talking about -- equating legitimate adoption with child trafficking.  Shame on you.

    •  You must be kidding -- Guatemala was child-traf... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LivesInAShoe

      You must be kidding -- Guatemala was child-trafficking-for-profit central!

      Guatemalan kids were literally kidnapped and sold to foreigners like you for PROFIT!

      Go read findingfernanda.com! Google the Karen Abigail Anyeli case --Anyeli was kidnapped as a Guatemalan toddler, her biomom wants her back, a Guatemalan court ordered the girl returned to Guat and her SELFISH American adopters, the Monighans, refuse to return her!

      Go read Findingfernanda.com

      •  I understand your passion, but your post seems (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jilly W, Leftleaner

        pretty harsh and full of assumptions towards someone whose situation you know nothing about.

        Please think about taking it down a notch until you know more about the particular person you're addressing. We try to explore circumstances and make reasonable assessments and arguments here to maximize the good we can do and minimize the unnecessary hurt feelings and flame wars.

        Maybe you could post a diary outlining the situation of that particular case, so others could be aware of the facts and explore on their own and not conflate that circumstance with others unknown and probably unrelated.

        Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
        ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

        by FarWestGirl on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 07:19:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the way i read it (0+ / 0-)

          her post isn't aimed at any particular person.  it is talking about how a cadre of activists is educating others about  systemic problems in intercountry adoption.

          nothing personal in it, afaict.   if someone choses to take it personally, that's on them...no?

          •  The comment is posted as a reply to a person... (0+ / 0-)

            If it had been posted as a comment to the diary, then it would not have been necessarily aimed at any -one.

            It's a matter of degree, but sometimes that little step back is an important one. Especially in a community and among relative strangers.

            Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
            ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

            by FarWestGirl on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:43:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Corruption / trafficking is a FACT (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LivesInAShoe

          Fair enough.

          Here is the scoop on the Karen Abigail Anyeli case:

          "The US government has told Guatemala it will not return a girl who was allegedly kidnapped and later adopted by an American couple, because the two countries had not signed the Hague Abduction Convention at the time.

          Celeste Alvarado, a spokeswoman for Guatemala's foreign relations ministry, quoted a diplomatic cable from the US state department as saying the two countries formally ratified the convention on 1 January 2008 – 14 months after toddler Anyeli Hernandez Rodríguez was reportedly abducted from her biological mother.

          Anyeli disappeared in November 2006, as her mother Loyda Rodríguez Morales was distracted while opening the door to their house in San Miguel Petapa, a working-class suburb of Guatemala City. She turned to see a woman whisk the girl, then two years old, away in a taxi.

          Anyeli spent over a year at an adoption agency before being adopted by a US couple, Timothy and Jennifer Monahan of Liberty, Missouri. The couple, who have not been accused of any involvement in the abduction, say the girl, now known as Karen Abigal Monahan, was legally adopted.

          After a lengthy legal battle, a Guatemala court last year ordered the girl to be returned to the country, but according to the Guatemalan foreign ministry, the US is arguing that it is not required to return her."

          http://www.theguardian.com/...

          •  I didn't comment on it's factuality, or lack (0+ / 0-)

            thereof. I know that trafficking happens and corruption is rampant. My point is that you responded specifically to the other commenter as though you knew her state of mind and what she did or didn't know.

            That's a fairly aggressive stance without foundation and I would understand if she felt that you were calling her a liar and complicit, because that's kind of how it read to me.

            Thank you for the information and links, I'm just saying that it may have been more appropriate to have posted it to the diary rather than in a direct reply to one person.

            Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
            ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

            by FarWestGirl on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:40:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  We have Guatemalan court-provided (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weneedahero

        paperwork for our child, which provides the name of her birth mother and who her birth mother maintained was her birth father (the man named denied paternity).

        We dealt with a reputable agency and this was not some thief-in-the-night scenario.  The birth mother was single and had already had two children, one at fifteen and one at eighteen who she did not give up for adoption prior to the birth of our daughter.

        And then there was the amount of effort on our side -- fingerprinting by Homeland Security, criminal background checks, financial investigations, and medical exams.  We had to get written testimonials from family members, neighbors, friends and business associates, have our birth certificates and marriage certificates re-issued and then have then authenticated at four levels of government.  We were extensively interviewed by social workers and we even had our home inspected.  I used to work at a classified facility, and the adoption investigation was more extensive than the one I had to have to obtain my security clearance.  Do NOT compare our situation to a child abduction.  It's beyond offensive.

        It's been my experience that most people like yourself, who are a part of the anti-adoption movement, tend to view the concept of adoption itself as inherently immoral and evil.  And your response to my comment simply demonstrates that.  That's why those of us who have adopted get "defensive."  Have someone attack you based solely upon their ideology and biases while knowing nothing of your situation and see how not-defensive YOU are.

        •  Anti-adoption? Nee! (0+ / 0-)

          I am not anti-adoption. I just think that most kids here and in other countries could have stayed with their families, with a little bit of serious help. I am pro family care and see adoption as the last measure after trying all the others (see elsewhere on this page). For context here a piece I wrote for the HuffPost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

          •  What is "Nee"? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            weneedahero

            It's not an English word.

            "I just think that most kids here and in other countries could have stayed with their families, with a little bit of serious help."

            Based upon what?  Your wishful thinking?  Do you have even the slightest idea of the complexity of the situations a lot of these kids find themselves in?  How much "help" is necessary to lift a family out of poverty?  How much help is needed in situations involving physical, sexual, or substance abuse?  You may not consider yourself anti-adoption, but you are certainly totally naive.  My daughter didn't have a "family,"  She had a young, poor, overwhelmed single mother in a third world country with no safety net who just couldn't handle another child.   She also testified my daughter's birth father was abusive.  Please quantify the "little bit of serious help" you would have provided to address that situation.  Please be specific.

            Oh, and I don't visit Huffington Post since they decided to out their users.  I hope Arianna made enough to have sold her soul to AOL.  And the fact that you contribute there tells me a lot about you.  None of it good.

        •  Finding Fernanda (0+ / 0-)

          You really ought to read Finding Fernanda; perhaps you'd be more open to the concept if you knew it was written with the help of a fellow adoptive parent with a Guatemalan daughter?

          Even in cases that fall short of a stereotypical "kidnapping", Guatemalan "paperwork" was routinely falsified or obtained under fraudulent circumstances, along with birthparent signatures, court orders, and DNA tests.  Massive profits were made by Guatemalan middlemen and others who were willing to participate in this activity.  A reputable American agency's involvement once things are at the adoption stage is, unfortunately, far from a guarantee that a child's relinquishment was ethical.

          Was your child's relinquishment truly ethical and voluntary? None of us know, but what I would like to point out is that statistically there's a pretty good chance you don't really know either.  This has nothing to do with "you" on a personal level, it's directed at "you" as a representative of adoptive parents in general.  It has nothing to do with your home study or your reputable agency.  It has everything to do with the predictable pattern that emerges in country after country after they become the newest popular "sending" country, only to undergo growing waves of corruption until finally it reaches a crisis level and adoptions are stopped, only to have a new, less regulated country become the new popular sending country.

    •  There is a broad range in adoption scenarios, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ligtvoet, elwior

      we don't want to paint with too broad a brush and slander honest, loving people, but at the same time, things like the rising tide of re-homing of children by underground and unregulated networks needs to be dealt with, doesn't it?

      I was adopted. Taken away and hidden from my mother and new step father, (who had been awarded full custody by a judge), by people who would never have been able to qualify for a legitimate adoption, (for very good reason). In 1961.

      There have always been competing interests involved in the placement of unprotected children. It's not new, but it needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

      All the best to you and your family.

      Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
      ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

      by FarWestGirl on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 06:50:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes, the range is broad (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FarWestGirl

        but, you must admit, one side is heard way more than the other two.

        what is wrong with focusing on the problems?

        •  I have no issue with focusing on the problems, but (0+ / 0-)

          acknowledging balancing factors, at least in passing, gives more perspective and makes it look less like a heavily biased hatchet job and more like an honest exploration of the facts.

          As I said elsewhere, I am not an unbiased onlooker. But I disclose my biases and acknowledge that mine is not the only point of view.

          Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
          ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

          by FarWestGirl on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 08:48:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  to date (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FarWestGirl

            there has been little to no balance in the discussion of these issues.   almost none.  

            educating about the problems in intercountry adoption IS providing balance.

            but, this thread goes as they all seem to ... you can post factual, well cited material, but the talk  is almost immediately personalized.  i don't think people do it to derail a discussion of  facts, but that's the effect it has.

            this is why family preservation activism is necessary.

            the popular mythology around adoption is full of unicorns and rainbows because a sober discussion of the consequences  to adopted persons and frst parents gets deep six'd by shouting adoptors who are in full blown defense mode.

            the diary reflects this, goes into it in detail.

            •  It's the first I've heard of that particular term, (0+ / 0-)
              family preservation activism
              what principles does it advocate?

              Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
              ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

              by FarWestGirl on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:11:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  it's in the diary (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FarWestGirl
                Conversely the activists are individuals and collectives of individuals; most of them are adoptees and first parents. Having lived the less happy side of adoption by being abandoned or having lost their child to adoption, they focus on family preservation and reunification in the first place and see adoption as a welfare measure of last resort, that is: non-commercial and well-regulated open adoption or legal guardianship.  They see traditional adoption as catering to the wishes and longings of the oft infertile parents, and not to the needs of the kids and their first parents. The activists get some support from academia and several foundations. Many non-evangelical Christian and international organizations and NGO's share their vision.
                •  That seems very appropriate for adoptions here, (0+ / 0-)

                  in the US.

                   I do see that there are additional factors for trans-national adoption, including endemic poverty and people taking advantage of those in poverty to feed their system and line their wallets.

                  OTOH, there are a lot of children in a lot of places who don't have anyone to care for them and in places where the resources to care for them properly don't exist. Are the activists involved in that also or are there separate groups focusing on different aspects of adoption/trafficking?

                  I have to head out, but I will check back tomorrow. :-)

                  Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
                  ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

                  by FarWestGirl on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:37:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  I think lack of education and preparation are a (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ligtvoet, elwior, Jilly W

    huge part of the problem. Too many potential adoptive parents have no clue what conditions (cultural or otherwise) the children came out of and how to approach or deal with them. Human development has very distinct stages, with specific considerations at each one.

    For instance; many of the children who came out of Romania and Russia had serious physical and mental health issues ranging from FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome), to PTSD and developmental damage from lack of proper interaction and socialization in infancy and toddlerhood.

    Some of this damage cannot be undone, some can be addressed, but must be handled in very specific ways and the unaware or unsupported will not be able to handle the child or provide what is necessary.

    This is not a lack of love or good intentions, this is a lack of education and support. There is also the factor of pressure, sometimes to the point of desperation, on the part of the agencies attempting to place the children. Of course some of them knowingly place children inappropriately, or hide known conditions a child may have because they know that if the prospective parents are aware of the issues, they will probably back out. This leaves the agency with the most problematic children to deal with and try to place. And they rarely have sufficient resources themselves. So there's a lot of different pressures from all sides.

    And that's before we get to greed and idealogues.

    Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
    ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

    by FarWestGirl on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 07:08:51 AM PDT

    •  i think the problem is MONEY (0+ / 0-)

      take the profit motive out of adoption, and a lot of this goes away.

      children are not chattel.  poor women are not for-profit breeders for baby brokers and the rich.

      the progressive movement has yet to grasp that adoption can be exploitative, and that such exploitation is a social justice issue.

      •  I think that a lot of people do understand and (0+ / 0-)

        acknowledge that money is both a huge motivating factor and a huge problem. In many areas, not just adoption.

        I agree with you, children are not chattel and women are not broodmares. Why do you assume that I wouldn't agree with that?

        I fully acknowledge greed and ideology as very negative (and sometimes pervasive) influences, but please recognize (and acknowledge) that there are other influences, factors and nuances as well.

        Trying to reduce a situation to the starkest black and white, ignoring all the gradations and other factors in order to accentuate the contrast does not gain credibility for your point of view.

        This is a process critique, not a disagreement with your thesis. There is a definite difference. I agree with much of what you say, but there are better, more effective (and more fair) ways to express yourself and to gather people into agreement with your point of view.

        Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
        ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

        by FarWestGirl on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:06:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I, the author of this piece, am the parent of t... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, LivesInAShoe

    I, the author of this piece, am the parent of two domestically adopted kids in open adoptions. There is no way we can proceed with the current adoption practices. To cut off kids from their background is just wrong, and to cut the first families off from their kids is just as wrong. Of course there are kids in situations where they need help and should get that help, but first within their own family, community, country, before guardianship, co-parenting or adoption is considered. Adoption is a solution of last resort. At this moment adoption is regarded by many as a serious child welfare solution, which it is not. I am not talking about the past, where adoptive parents were - and could be - naive about adoption. With the wealth of information we have now through the web and the voices of adoptees, like FarWestGirl, and birthmothers (fathers) in blogs, we in our time can't be naive anymore. I don't see why this point of view would hurt anybody, anon004. And yes, Leftleaner and Elwior, I am aware of the perspective of adoptive parents, since I am one myself, but I the inclusion of the other perspectives, made me write this piece. I advice you to go to FB Adoption News and Events, and after feeling big discomfort about certain strong and negative voices in the comments, you will see that a more whole adoption perspective will emerge from the posts. KatiexFowler is a great resource on Twitter for the crimes that are committed by the adoption industry, and no, she doesn't bring her info packed in nice words: she is fierce and for sure threatening for many readers.

    •  I am not naive about the abuses (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weneedahero

      I have seen abuses from all sides, including agencies that placed mentally ill children without informing the adoptive parents, adoptive parents who were mostly interested in
      'Saving' children, and I have certainly read the horror stories of children abducted by child sellers. There are ways to limit these abuses. India passed laws to require agencies to set up programs to help mothers keep their babies, and require that the babies stay in country for up to a year to attempt to adopt locally. The thing to remember is that if we get too carried away in stopping the abuses we will also leave children on the street or institutionalized when there are parents who would love them.

      Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Gabby Giffords.

      by Leftleaner on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 11:17:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What I know of adoption in this country (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ligtvoet

    is screwed up big time and always has been. From "back in the day", when birth certificates were edited to make the adoptive parents appear to be the natural ones, to the child trafficking from foreign countries, and everything in between. Some attempts have been well-meaning but are still screwed up. I think of the policies by black social workers that kept racially mixed children from going to white parents because it "denied their African-American heritage", for instance; well, what about the other half of their heritage? And what about them getting a home at all, rather than languishing in the foster care system? Or friends of mine, back in the 1970s, who were not approved for adoption because they were somewhat (not grossly) overweight, despite the fact that they met all other requirements. Not to mention, of course, that for a long time single parents couldn't adopt, and in a lot of places gay couples still can't.

    The whole business of evangelical adoption is, to me, really creepy. Don't get me wrong, I have friends who are evangelical Christians, and some of them have adopted children for what I think are the right reasons, because they have love to give and a home to share and not because they feel it's some kind of "holy mission" to "save" these kids. But  far too many evangelicals are on that holy mission and have no clue what they are doing. They yank the kids out of their country and everything they've ever known and expect them to immediately function like American kids and be "grateful" for the "opportunity they've been given", and then when the kids rightfully experience culture shock and trauma and all the psychological symptoms that they are going to logically have, these people accuse them of being "ungrateful" or worse, and the next step is often punishment spiraling into abuse, abandonment either psychological or physical, and the godawful "re-homing" movement. "Re-homing"…..as if the child were an unwanted dog or cat! It makes me sick to even hear the word! Or you get an instance such as occurred in Tennessee a few years back, when a woman sent the boy she had adopted from Russia back on a plane to Russia, unaccompanied, with a note pinned to his shirt; that was the case that ended American adoptions from Russia.

    My late mother's live-in caregiver was a young woman who was adopted from Ukraine. I don't know the details because she won't talk about them, but from what I've been able to glean, it may have been just such an adoption, and it didn't work out. She was basically told to leave on or before her eighteenth birthday and as she is both resourceful and compassionate, she found a job caring for elderly people and landed with my mom as a live-in. She took wonderful care of Mom and we still consider her a member of the family. During that time, she was able to establish some contact with members of her family in Ukraine and find a brother who lives in Michigan, and she has since visited the family in Ukraine and now lives in Michigan near her brother. So things can work out. But far too often they don't.

    Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

    by Jilly W on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:27:25 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site