This is a lengthy article, so I’m just going to post a few excerpts.
Hundreds of other families in North Carolina and around the country are discovering that it’s no longer so easy to take in the world’s neediest children.
adj. need·i·er, need·i·est
1. Being in need; impoverished. See Synonyms at poor.
2. Wanting or needing affection, attention, or reassurance, especially to an excessive degree.
Just as international adoption has become a mainstream way to build a family — helped by celebrity adoptions such as those of Angelina Jolie, who has children from Cambodia and Ethiopia — the practice is in crisis. Allegations of baby-selling haunt some countries, and some say international adoption’s popularity may be creating a worldwide backlash.
What would any article on international adoption be without a plug for Angelina Jolie?
Those awaiting Vietnamese children are facing months-long delays as the U.S. government investigates each case. The government is threatening to deny some adoptions because investigators can’t get the children’s hospital records.
In the meantime, families who have invested as much as $20,000 or $30,000 are wondering whether they will ever see the children they hope to adopt.
That is such a bad choice of words.
“It seemed like a good thing to do in the world,” said Zuercher, 36. “There are these kids out there that need love, that need families. We thought, if we could give that, what a great thing that would be for them and for us.”
With that sentiment came an added benefit: International adoption was generally easier than domestic, which often requires foster parenting or years on a waiting list. Until recently, applicants to foreign countries frequently had their children before their first birthdays.
Ahhh, altruism at its dreamiest, but only for foreign babies.
Stern, who runs the Mandala agency, said she believes corruption exists only in a tiny portion of cases. While investigations drag on, she said, children suffer. In the past month, Stern said, six babies set to be adopted by Americans died when a virus swept a Vietnamese orphanage.
Isn’t that a bit like asking Bill about the glitches in Windows Vista? Upon what exactly is Stern basing her opinions? Yes, it’s awful about the babies, but imagine what kind of medical care $20,000 or $30,000 might have gotten them.
“Lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes center stage,” UNICEF states in a position paper on its Web site. “Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents and bribery.”
However, among U.S. adopters, those allegations have gained little traction. They focus on the benefits.
Wait. If I were an AP/PAP, I’d be offended by that. Doesn’t “the sale and abduction of children” refer to child trafficking and kidnapping? Is she suggesting that adoptive parents don’t care about the possibility that their child might have been kidnapped and/or sold illegally on the adoption market? Exactly what benefits is she talking about and for whom?
Foreign orphans come with scant chance that a birth parent will attempt to reclaim the child or seek a reunion. And some say that foreign-born children, relinquished most often because of poverty, are less likely than U.S. orphans to come from mothers with substance abuse problems. Without adoption, many foreign orphans face a future without governments that will save them from starvation or ensure medical care.
Again, imagine what $20,000 or $30,000 might have gotten them. But I keep forgetting. We’re talking about selective altruism and charity.
My point is that attempting to use poverty and “what’s best for the child” as counterbalances against being vigilant about ethics in adoption is not necessarily a good idea. I think articles like these do very little for portraying international adoption as a good thing. It might have been better if the article had focused more on APs/PAPs who are aware of the issues and are working towards ensuring that international adoption doesn’t become a home for the baby market.
I have questions for you. I wonder how do you say “In the meantime, families who have invested as much as $20,000 or $30,000 are wondering whether they will ever see the children they hope to adopt.” in the PROPER terminology? I agree that I do not like the wording but feel unable to word it better. One person told me I was buying a child, and I couldn’t think of one way to fight that.
Regarding :We’re talking about selective altruism and charity.: I think it is always selective. People who raise money for breast cancer or diabetes (insert cause here) have USUALLY been affected by it, no? I plan on doing humanitarian work in VN (or for VN) after our child is home so that maybe another child can stay with their birthmom instead of being adopted – though I have not gotten a plan of action, yet.
Thanks for your posts. I always appreciate them.
M
Mer, I could think of some alternative terminology:
…families who have “sunk” as much as $20,000 or $30,000…
…families who have “parted with” as much as $20,000 or $30,000…
…families who have “been bilked” as much as $20,000 or $30,000…
As far as your plans for performing humanitarian work in your (prospective) adopted child’s home country, isn’t that a case of putting the cart before the horse? How hard would it have been to donate your money to a worthy cause in VN that could’ve adequately fed, clothed and schooled a child who was placed in an orphanage? All the while, keeping that child in his/her home country?
Of course, that child would have to forgo all the “benefits” of living in a nation that solves its foreign and domestic problems by invading small developing countries, but I think that child will get over it soon enough.
I do hope when your child finally arrives that he/she will grow up to be healthy and happy. I also hope that you teach your child that our choices carry consequences, whether locally or globally.
It is extremely frustrating how many are willing to exploit people in certain situations. There is corruption and greed everywhere, and its a travesty, but it is the world we live in. When I got married, I was in sticker shock of how much it cost to have a wedding. Everything but everything was jacked-up to 5x its usual price. I have never had to do anything related to organizing a funeral, but I can only imagine that there are many people and organizations profiting over people’s emotions and grief. Geez, even when my dog recently got sick and eventually died from cancer, the vet I initially went to was charging us ridiculous sums, and we’d just stupidly put it on our credit card because it was tearing us apart to see our four year old dog suffer and die when there was something we could do about it.
My point is, people will spend tons of money — or get themselves deep in debt — when we are paying for something so closely tied to our deepest emotions. I have always, but always, wanted to be a mom. That was the one thing I knew for sure in my life, I didn’t know what I wanted to do for a living, where I wanted to live, etc, but I knew I wanted to get married and have a family. Nature was not on my side, and it is impossible for me to get pregnant. And the world of fertility treatments offered hope and possibility, and charged exorbitant amounts for their services (its overwhelmingly not covered by health insurance, but that is slowly changing). During my (failed) treatment cycles, I was somewhat conflicted about doing them anyway, because it seemed to me that there were already children all over the world who needed homes and families — so why spend my money on these $10-15K a pop treatments when I could choose this way to add to my family and take care of a child who was already in the world and in need of a family.
Now we are in the midst of the adoption process. Yes, it’s expensive. Yes, there are lots of times that I feel I’m being squeezed for money. That $20-30K doesn’t just go to one place. There are mountains of paperwork, all of which needs to be notarized, authenticated and translated. Thats not free. Then there is the home study to make sure that we’re fit and capable to be parents, that’s where the fees begin to feel questionable, but those are local entities. But if you want to be a parent, you have to do the home study. And it goes on and on, $500 here, $50 there. And after multiple fertility treatments we didn’t have money for adoption! So we had fundraisers, garage sales, sold stuff on eBay, saved aggressively. We never had a lump of $20-30K to donate to any person or country.
I don’t know what the answer is. People are definitely exploiting aspects of the process by overcharging. If I sent money directly over to the country, who gets it? I’m not convinced that even if I donate to a specific cause that the people in need will actually reap the benefits. If I sent that money to the natural parents if they really didn’t want the child, would they keep the child just to keep the money? And then what effects does that have to a community’s economics on a larger scale? If a few families get lump sums of money, do vendors start charging more for their goods because they know there is more money in the community now? I don’t know the answers to these questions. My point is that its not black and white at all. There are no easy answers. Bad people are exploiting the situation because they can. That is universal.
$20-30K is just a drop in the bucket in terms of what is needed in world aid. I can’t end world poverty, I can’t make people be good, or governments be humane. I can offer myself as a caring, devoted parent and a loving home to a child who needs one. I can offer to help one child for the rest of her life. We plans to work hard to raise our children to be happy, healthy, educated, and well-adjusted; we plan to teach her about the country of her birth, its culture, traditions, history, customs, and travel there when we can. I expect that I’m going to learn a ton in the process, and learn to face prejudices and fears I didn’t realize I had, and I plan to continue this learning and growing throughout my life.
I’m bringing this thesis to an end. I enjoyed your post, but just thought it a bit too black and white to think we should just send a lump sum of money to the country and things will be better. I’m one of the people who has good intentions. My husband and I want a family, and a baby has been living in an orphanage for the first seven months of her life and needs a home, so it seems like a win-win to me.
Mer, the way it’s put in the article, it’s like saying, “families who’ve paid $20,000 or $30,000 are wondering if they’ll get what they’ve paid for.”
True, the large “fees” are a reality, but why use that as part of the argument along side “helping a child who would otherwise languish in an orphanage or be doomed to street life?” Adoptees have already discussed several times what’s wrong with using statement like that to “frame” international adoption, so I won’t go over it again. That’s just what this article is doing.
The article seems so focused on garnering sympathy for adoptive parents that everything else gets lost in the background or becomes an arguing point. By suggesting the “benefits” to “orphans” (i.e. lack of medical care and poverty), it attempts to present a win-win situation and then use that to say nothing else matters.
And personally, I’m getting sick of articles like these. While they may garner sympathy for adoptive parents who, as Kevin puts it, “have “sunk” as much as $20,000 or $30,000″ into the adoption process, they do little to address the issues at hand.
In that kind of context, as Kevin suggests, there really is no “proper” way to say it.
Instead of trying to dispel? dismiss? argue with? concerns about ethics, wouldn’t it have been better to focus on those concerns and discuss prevention and possible solutions? What is the adoption community doing about it?
Yes, altruism is selective but that’s not my point. Perhaps I should have said “ultra selective” instead. Unlike raising money for cancer, what you plan to do or some other “cause,” adoption “benefits” one child (usually babies) instead of a group. The article seems to equate the two which is misleading. They are not the same and it seems to defeat the argument.
Kevin, I have to disagree with you here.
“Of course, that child would have to forgo all the “benefits” of living in a nation that solves its foreign and domestic problems by invading small developing countries, but I think that child will get over it soon enough.”
Many times said nation just exploits “small developing countries” from afar rather than all out invading them.
Erin, thank you for validating one of the points I was trying to make. No, it is not black and white and that’s just how the article presents it. Just as there are extenuating circumstances to consider in your case, there are also individual, familial, cultural, economic, ethical circumstances to be considered when talking about “orphans” and/or adoption.
I wasn’t suggesting APs/PAPs only send “a lump sum of money to the country and things will be better.” That makes about as much sense as “save an orphan and nothing else matters,” which the article seems to say. There is a much bigger picture to consider.
So where to begin? It’s so frustrating to read all of the biased stories in the media, and very one-sided black and white opinions on the adoption message boards. It’s very hard to get factual non-biased information. I’m very interested in learning the truth, and in learning from transnational adoptees and their perspectives. There are so many circumstances contributing to each individual child’s story and the families’ (birth and adoptive families) stories.
One of the problems I have is figuring out what exactly that big picture is. Until we find ourselves in utopia, there will be children needing families. So how do we make the process ethical and fair when there are always going to be corrupt, greedy people in the picture. Where to begin, where to begin???
I don’t know that IA has ever really been about what’s in the best interests of the child….or if it ever will be. The more I read (think China and the recent news out of the Netherlands) the more cynical I become. IA seems to be more about what the paparents want and how much they can fork over. I think when it works out to be a good situation for the child, it’s coincidence.
I think of my own son and children like him (with cleft lip/palate). These children were likely abandoned by their families of origin due to desperate poverty and the fear that they would never be able to afford corrective surgery. So, what happens? The children are placed in an orphanage where most ultimately receive corrective surgery to make them more attractive to prospective adoptive parents. It doesn’t make any sense.
Some people spend $20-$30K to remodel their kitchen or buy a car, that money too could provide a lot of medical care. Even the $3-10K that Americans spend on pre-natal care and a hospital birth could be diverted to help poor children find health care. It’s unfair to put the burden of supporting all poor children solely at the feet of adoptive parents.
Despite the example in the article, most PAP’s just want to start a family. That’s it. Most of the adoption preparation materials we read, as well as our social worker visits, were very clear that we should not do this to “rescue” a child. And we are not.
PAP’s want the joy of parenthood, but we also want the system to be ethical and fair. Allegations of baby stealing and dishonesty are double wounds–families are disrupted and our dreams of parenthood get a little more distant. Of course, it’s far, far worse to lose a child to kidnapping than to have an adoption placement halted or delayed seemingly forever, but it still hurts.
If my adoption does not go through because the little girl who would have been my daughter can stay with her birth mother, I can live with that because I’m happy for both of them. But let me still be sad about the empty spot in my home. And don’t castigate me and thousands of other waiting parents for saying that the emptiness in our homes is, well, emptiness.
China was so popular partly because the government cracked the whip to keep the system honest and fair. Potential parents flocked to a system that was honest, fair, and predictable. That doesn’t make us selfish, it makes us smart and ethical.
Yes, adoptive parents have selfish motives, but in many ways, parenting is one of the most selfish things anyone does. People become parents because they want to pass their values onto the next generation. They become parents because they long for the day when their toddler runs to them shouting “Mommy! Mommy! Mommy!” And the hundreds of thousands of dollars any middle class parent spends on their kids over a lifetime could always be spent helping other more needy kids.
The motives of adoptive parents are the same mix of selfishness and altruism that all parents have.
Beautifully said, WP.
thanks to those who posted to me, I appreciate it
Mer
“However, among U.S. adopters, those allegations have gained little traction. They focus on the benefits.”
For me, being an aware and informed person who just happens to be adopted, this excerpt is dumbfounding. The article definitely slants toward “waiting families”, and the author also purports to care about the children. However, this snippet clearly shows that it’s not about the welfare of children. It’s about coddling the feelings of entitlement and savior complex exhibited by many “adopters” and fostered by the adoption industry.
Why do I appear to be so cynical about this whole debate? Because of the above clueless statement that is repeated over and over in our mass media!
In fact, after reading the whole article, all I could hear in my mind was a chorus of “adopters” yelling and carrying signs out on some sidewalk, “What do we want? OUR BABIES! When do we want them? NOW!”
m, I like your assessment of the realistic outcomes of IA: “I think when it works out to be a good situation for the child, it’s coincidence.”
You guys want to do something for these children? Let’s talk about a policy shift that values and works toward either repairing or securing the bonds between the child and his/her birth family. Let’s start evaluating adoption not as an “industry”, but as a last resort. Let’s take the monetary incentive out of this practice and replace it with iron-clad ethics that do no sully the “adopters” and “their children” in the public eye.
I’m a former foster child and current youth advocate.
Several young people in my local group of foster care alumni (former foster care children) have experienced adoption disruption.
I recently wrote a posting about this issue on my blog… and I respect your insights, and wanted to ask you to comment on it:
http://sunshinegirlonarainyday.blogspot.com/
Thanks so much for your time,
Lisa
I too find it very distressing that adoption is presented as something parents want for the benefits while dismissing the “tiny” abuses and for profit manipulations. “Sending off big chunks of money” as an alternative is just a red herring to say there is nothing else we can do but ignore the corruption. Those are not the only possibilities. More discussion and working together from every angle – that could bring about positive, creative change. Thank you for posting about this.
Kev, “savior complex”??? Really? Damn, I thought I just wanted a family.
I’m not out to become a savior. I feel anything but entitled. Maybe some stories are slanted in such a way, but that’s the media for you. Sensationalism, bias, whatever it takes to get an audience. It sucks. But how often is it slanted in the other direction? Of all of the adoptions that take place successfully in the world, people only generally read/hear about the stories that involve scandal, abuse, etc. So the majority of the population only tend to hear these particular stories, and many of their views are based on this bias. And its not just adoption, it’s in everything. Do you know how many ridiculous stereotypes I’ve heard since I’ve started the adoption process? People tend to make judgements based on the worst case scenario that they’ve read or heard about from a friend of a friend.
So what would you have me do instead? My husband and I can’t physically have kids. There are kids whose parents can’t or won’t take care of them who want a stable, loving family. We have the ability and desire to take care of a child. With the system as it is — RIGHT NOW — what do you see as the best case scenario? The system is not perfect, not even close. As a PAP, I try my hardest to make sure that all is legal, to go with an agency that has never been involved in illegal or corrupt practices… but there are so many things going on behind the scenes, be it in an agency, an orphanage, a government office, etc, that it is impossible to be 100% certain of that. So should I just NOT adopt in your opinion? Just say, “screw it, the system isn’t perfect because SOME adoptees had a bad break, SOME birthparents were coerced or treated unjustly… so until all people are perfect I’ll just leave the kids wanting families and me wanting kids.
I’m sure I’m coming off as being a smart-ass, but I really don’t understand what you are asking for as a solution to the system AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, rather than just being cynical and bashing APs and PAPs. Exploitation is not just found in adoption, it’s everywhere — politics, environment, economy, corporations, and on and on. It is a VERY unbalanced world. We can all work toward a better system, but we can’t just throw out the current batch of kids who need a home and families who want to adopt, and are following the system that is currently in place, because some people are corrupting the system. AP character bashing is not going to get anyone anywhere. Figuring out exactly where the current system begins to break down would be a better start.
I hope this post does not come out entirely negative, because I agree with most of the thoughts expressed in your post. However, I think the suggestion that, instead of adopting, PAPs should “donate [the] money to a worthy cause in VN that [could] adequately [feed, clothe and school] a child who was placed in an orphanage? All the while, keeping that child in his/her home country?” is a bit unfair. I DO think that supporting programs that do just that is important and there are many ways to do that. There are organizations that support orphanages, provide medical care (such as “Smile Train”, microlending institutions, such as KIVA help individuals and communities, and of course there are direct sponsorships of specific children. Many APs (and I would hope the majority, though I have no basis to know) do support such organizations in their child’s home countries. Of course very few PAPs would have a lump sum of 20-30K sitting around to donate to such organizations (and certainly you don’t need to be Bill Gates to contribute what you can and make a difference).
I also think it is important to recognize that this amount is not, as Erin pointed out, simply paid to an agency who hands over a baby/child. Much of this money is spent to determine if the PAPs are fit parents (the application, background checks and home study), paying for documents and official stamps on documents (every time you need an official document there is a fee and then there is a fee for each official certifying stamp-it adds up quickly), and a large amount is spent on travel. I am not complaining. On this end, everything should be done to make sure PAPs are fit parents and are who they say they are. Anything less would be irresponsible. I just cringe every time I read that I am simply “buying a child”. I saw a breakdown of charges for my hospital stay with my daughter (it was covered by insurance, but the bill was roughly $20,000, including the c-section). No one would ever suggest that this was “buying” a baby. People spend that much and more on fertility treatment when not covered by insurance. Having or adopting (and raising) a child IS expensive. So what DO I think I am paying an agency for? I am paying them to do the things that I cannot. I am paying them to help me navigate a complex legal system in another nation; I am paying them to identify a child that is an orphan who needs a home; contrary to some people’s opinions, I am not blindly paying them to simply “find me a child”, –I am paying them to make sure that the child that I adopt is a legitimate orphan (legally and ethically) and not a child who was kidnapped, has fraudulent paperwork or otherwise separated from his/her family by unscrupulous means. I spent weeks researching agencies to that I could be as sure as possible that my agency does just that.
I am not entirely naive, however. The system is not perfect and there are many abuses. Those abuses should not be ignored by anyone involved in IA and the”benefits” of being adopted by someone in a more affluent society in no way compensate for the shoddy, deceptive or downright criminal practices which do exist. I hope that I can be one of the APs who works to make the system better, honest and one that truly focuses on the needs of the children rather than the demands of “the market”.
Of course I am willing to pay this money (and make the financial sacrifices necessary to afford it) because in my heart I want more children. I do not feel “entitled” to a baby any more than any other parent does. It is one of the most basic human needs. I refuse to feel guilty for wanting another child. (Certainly you don’t want someone to adopt if they DON’T want a child). I think that Waitingparent said it well-that it is a good thing when a child is able to remain with their birthfamily, but it is not selfish to recognize the emptiness that remains in our hearts. I always wanted three children. I have one beautiful daughter. I lost two other babies shortly after their birth to what we now know is a genetic disorder for which there is no testing available and no cure or treatment. Any future children that I have, biological or adopted, will never fill the hole in my heart left by those two babies any more that I can fill the hole left behind by my adopted child’s first family. I would never want my actions to cause another mother to go through the sorrow that I have experienced. No child can ever replace another (just as one parent could never replace another) but I look forward to another child bringing their own joys and personality to our family. Am I ENTITLED to this? No, but neither am I undeserving. Is it better that the child that I want to adopt be able to stay with a first family that loves him/her? Of course. But if that is not possible, I believe that adoption, at its best, brings together a child that needs the love and support of a family with a family that wants a child. It is just that simple. I feel no sense of entitlement, I don’t believe that a child is “better off” with my family because we have more money or because we were just fortunate enough to have been born into a more affluent society. I am not trying to “rescue” anyone. I simply hope to have the joy of raising another child and hope to provide a loving home for a child that needs one. I see no benefit to a child remaining an orphan in an institution when they could have a loving home. I don’t believe that even the best orphanages are any replacement for a family. The point is that altruism is simply not the reason that people have children, either adopted or biological, and that is why I cringe at the suggestion that I should simply send my $20-30K to another family and consider my desires satisfied. Nor do I believe that spending $20-30K to support a child in an orphanage is enough to compensate that child for the absence of a family.
Erin, as to what I would do “RIGHT NOW” to make the current system more ethical and palatable for everyone involved is exactly what I wrote previously:
“Let’s talk about a policy shift that values and works toward either repairing or securing the bonds between the child and his/her birth family. Let’s start evaluating adoption not as an “industry”, but as a last resort. Let’s take the monetary incentive out of this practice and replace it with iron-clad ethics that do no sully the “adopters” and “their children” in the public eye.”
Honestly, how Vietnam chooses to execute its adoption program is up to the Vietnamese. However, on our side, we have every right, and, dare I say, responsibility to ensure any possible loopholes are closed that could be exploited by unscrupulous agencies, intermediaries, lawyers or prospective parents to procure children. We also owe it to the kids, who usually have no choice about being adopted, to ensure that documentation of their birthdates, place of birth and parentage is recorded as accurately as possible.
And, since you guys get to go off on tangents, here’s mine:
Believe me when I say that even though you may have the adoption decree framed and hanging in your child’s bedroom, as well as a shiny new passport tucked away in a safe deposit box in the bank, be prepared for your adopted child to one day want to do a search for his/her first parents and want to know the when’s, why’s and how’s of their adoption. It may be 10, 20 or even 30 years from now until they get up enough curiosity, or courage, to ask for this information. How’s it going to look when they notice the discrepancies, when they start calling around and no one can give them a straight answer or doesn’t answer them at all, or – holy crap! – they find out they actually do have parents in Vietnam, even though everyone told them they were “orphans”?
Kind of puts a damper on the whole magnanimous theme of “building a family through adoption”, doesn’t it?
Which brings me to the original point that Sume was trying to raise in her post, I believe. News articles, like the one in the News Observer, serve no other purpose than to gloss over the complexities of adoption and focus attention on the vested interests of the adopters. In fact, in December, I and two other Vietnamese adoptees sent a letter to the editor to a Vietnamese American newspaper objecting to its series on adoption for doing just that – virtually ignoring the complexities and debates surrounding adoption from Vietnam and focusing on APs and PAPs.
Instead of striking a balance in POVs and encouraging a critical debate amongst the public, what they get is the same song and dance routine.
Kev – “Honestly, how Vietnam chooses to execute its adoption program is up to the Vietnamese. However, on our side, we have every right, and, dare I say, responsibility to ensure any possible loopholes are closed that could be exploited by unscrupulous agencies, intermediaries, lawyers or prospective parents to procure children. We also owe it to the kids, who usually have no choice about being adopted, to ensure that documentation of their birthdates, place of birth and parentage is recorded as accurately as possible.”
M: I couldn’t agree more!
Kev Minh wrote, “you may have the adoption decree framed and hanging in your child’s bedroom,”
I will not do that, and I haven’t heard of any parent doing that either. Our daughter will be our daughter. We will be open about the adoption with her in age appropriate ways. Truthfully answering every question with age appropriate answers. Never lying, but also not shoving it in her face when she just wants to be our daughter. We will also gather as much information about her birth and birth family as we can, and encourage her to seek as much other information as she wants.
I also agree with you that the US Government has a responsibility to see that international adoptions are done ethically. But there are risks on both sides. If the US Government refuses to allow a legitimate adoption, the child is forced to remain in an orphanage without any parents. On the other side, if the US Government allows illegitimate adoptions to go through, it encourages baby stealing and other reprehensible practices.
The question in Viet Nam is whether the lengthy investigations are actually protecting kids, denying legitimate adoptions based on overly technical requirements, or some of both. As a China waiting parent, I just don’t know enough about the Viet Name program to say. But, as I said above, I agree that the US Government should refuse to allow an unethical or illegal adoption.
On another note, how specifically do you propose to do the following? “Let’s start evaluating adoption not as an ‘industry,’ but as a last resort. Let’s take the monetary incentive out of this practice and replace it with iron-clad ethics that do not sully the ‘adopters’ and ‘their children’ in the public eye.’”
Hi, I agree with Sume’s commentary to the article and the points that Kev Minh made. On this topic, I think one of the best investments that prospective and current APs can make is purchasing the book Outsiders Within. Visit http://www.southendpress.org/2005/items/87646
I know that it is possible to support children to grow up in their birth families and communities. Here is part of my family’s story about how I became a foster sister posted on Harlow’s Monkey blog http://harlowmonkey.typepad.com/harlows_monkey/2006/11/another_choice.html
I became a parent through the foster care system in the US. Lots of need to change this system as well in order to keep families together.
Mollie
We would *never* hang the adoption decree in our child’s room.
We wish we had more information regarding our child’s first family to share with him but we don’t. We are sad at the thought of what we do have will cause him pain- we are certain that it will. Hint: there are children who are actually relinquished because the parents do not want to parent- not always due to poverty.
Kev Minh- you announce to us APs/PAPs that we shouldn’t be surprised when our children decide to seek out their first families/roots? Do you honestly believe we’ve never considered that?
That article was poorly written. There are many, many APs and PAPs whose primary concern is that the adoption of their child is ethical.
Yes, we did want our child home as soon as possible. He was in a crib with 2 other children, not getting nearly enough attention, was very underweight, banging his head and biting his fingers.
Everyone should be encouraged to offer funds to causes which support families and their children, the finger should not ever be pointed at adoptive parents as the sole responsible ones.
thanks- bella
Waiting Parent, bella, et al.: The image of the adoption decree on the wall was meant as an exaggeration to make my point.
I can’t believe you took it literally.
bella, the way these articles are framed focuses on the APs/PAPs’ preoccupation with securing a child on time and on budget. Ethics and a general understanding of how the adoption industry caters to only one group within the triad take a back seat in the discussion. As Sume alluded to in her post, APs like you, who are genuinely concerned about adoption ethics, should be up in arms and talking back to the editors of these newspapers.
Instead, you worry about imaginary adoption decrees hanging on walls.
“My point is that attempting to use poverty and “what’s best for the child” as counterbalances against being vigilant about ethics in adoption is not necessarily a good idea.”
Wow, seems we got a bit off topic.
“So where to begin? It’s so frustrating to read all of the biased stories in the media, and very one-sided black and white opinions on the adoption message boards.”
As far as articles like this are concerned, it would do a lot, I think, if adoptive parents started speaking out against articles like these and demanded something more balanced. Besides, a lot of these articles seem to do little more than set APs/PAPs up as wannabe saviors who end up as victims. Is that really what you want people to see?
“It’s unfair to put the burden of supporting all poor children solely at the feet of adoptive parents.”
I don’t believe I did that. Nor did I imply it. My point in putting my references to charity/altruism in the post was to offset that asinine, blanket insinuation that adoption was about saving “orphans.” However, I still believe that charity given that helps keep families together is a possible, even preferable alternative in some cases.
The “savior/rescue complex” is put forth/perpetuated in the article itself. If that is not how you feel about adoption, then why are you not demanding the media put out more articles that shy away from that kind of framing? Or at least speaking out against them?
***
I agree with Kevin that adoption should be regarded as a last resort option. Keeping families together whenever possible should be the first concern when it is not harmful to the child. Of course, it’s dangerous to make statements like that without mentioning the reality that there will often times be extenuating circumstances. Again, it’s never black and white and often case-by-case.
“…there are risks on both sides. If the US Government refuses to allow a legitimate adoption, the child is forced to remain in an orphanage without any parents. On the other side, if the US Government allows illegitimate adoptions to go through, it encourages baby stealing and other reprehensible practices.”
Regarding Viet Nam, honestly, thoughts of those children who are caught in limbo place me in somewhat of a similar dilemma. I’m short on answers but have a whole lot of questions.
If everyone in this “current batch of kids,” as Erin refers to them, get through then when will stop? There may always be a “current batch?” Is it ethical to prevent all those children who are legitimate orphans (meaning those who have no family or family members who want/can take care of them) from getting families in order to catch a few who aren’t? Is it ethical to let a few who aren’t legitimate orphans slip through the system in order to allow those who are to go to other families? To sacrifice the “good” of the many for the “good” of the few or vice versa (an age old dilemma). How do you distinguish between those who are legitimate orphans and those who are not?
Should we even be thinking about it in such a limited way?
Part of what I’m trying to do is see how it gets to this point in the first place. Viet Nam’s lack of transparency, people willing to make money exploiting PAPs desire/need to have a child, poverty, perhaps even some people’s willingness to overlook the implications and a whole list of other contributing factors.
I think we can all agree there are no easy answers. That doesn’t mean there are no answers. For me, that also means that the answers aren’t going to make everyone happy. I don’t think those uncertainties should prevent me or anyone else from delving into it.
***
Again, back to the article. I’m speaking only from life experience but I believe nothing will change until attitudes change. As Kevin states:
“News articles, like the one in the News Observer, serve no other purpose than to gloss over the complexities of adoption and focus attention on the vested interests of the adopters.”
Therein, I believe, lies a beginning.
***
Thanks Mollie, I agree that OW is not only a great book for adoptees, but something AP/PAPs should definitely read.
I remember reading that a long time ago and found it so refreshing to read. Thanks for the reminder!
Of course I know my child will ask questions. Of course I plan to support them in whatever way possible to either find the answers or deal with the lack of them. I wish I had information about her parents, and will help her to find them, but who knows if that is possible or if the birthmother or parents even want to be found.
Yeah, the article is lame. There are so many battles to fight in this life, going after this one reporter at this one paper is not my battle.
We all have to pick out battles, Erin, And it would be great if the problem only involved “one reporter” at “one paper,” but unfortunately there’s more to it than that.
There’s more to everything than just that. And it’s not my battle. I will raise my child as best as I possibly can. There are a million causes in this world, lots of people need help. My point is that this paper is just the tip of an enormous iceberg. This reporter is an effect of the sensationalism in the media. They skew the presentation of facts to sell the story. You realize stories about adoptions are slanted the other way too… they’ll slant it to whatever direction makes it look more interesting/sensationalist/human interest.
So are you battling unethical, unnecessary adoptions or the entire media or both? Either of those is a huge, complicated thing. You can write cynical posts and try to make me look wrong, or take my words out of context, but that’s not really getting you toward your goal. You can’t take on every aspect of the system at once. What aspect or aspects are you focusing on fixing first?
Slamming the Door on Adoption
Depriving Children Abroad of Loving Homes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201782.html
This has never been a perfect world. There are no perfect families, natural or adopted. Orphanages exist in countries that do not allow any international adoptions and those kids live in dire conditions. When you visit those orphanages, abandoned kids — who were not sold or stolen — want any adult, different-looking or not, to hold and love them. Love is universal, and people reach out to each other because we are human beings.
Just as there are adoptees who may have different hopes or longed to have not left their home country, there are adoptees who are happy to have a family regardless of the parents’ nationality and where home is. Just as parents today have better understandings of nutritional and educational needs for children, today’s PAPs also have a greater awareness of the cultural needs of their children, and they actively seek out those experiences.
PAPs have honest and good intentions to love and care for a child who needs to be loved and nurtured, and to fault PAPs is divisive. There are several options out there for people to choose when they want to help their fellow human beings, and whatever good path people choose should be welcomed.
Sume asks, “How do you distinguish between those who are legitimate orphans and those who are not?”
You do the best you can with the information you have. No one can guarantee perfection. But my point is that there is harm in erring on either side. Given what I’ve read, I think the US Government was right to stop approving adoptions from Guatemala. The program just wasn’t honest. Given what I’ve read, the US Government is right to be skeptical about Viet Nam adoptions. I just don’t know enough to say whether the government is being too restrictive or too permissive.
Sume also asks, “The “savior/rescue complex” is put forth/perpetuated in the article itself. If that is not how you feel about adoption, then why are you not demanding the media put out more articles that shy away from that kind of framing? Or at least speaking out against them?”
You have a point. Maybe we should do a better job of criticizing the rescue complex in media stories. I’ll think about that the next time I see a simila story. But I’m not as concerned about the media portrayal of this issue because I don’t think it translates into reality, at least not in the mainstream China AP community that I’m a part of.
During the paper chase, we were repeatedly questioned to make sure that rescue wasn’t our motive. When talking to other PAP’s and AP’s and when reading adoption message boards, I don’t see the rescue mentality. To the contrary, I see a firm rejection of the idea that we are “rescuing” our children. I see repeated stories of AP’s having to tell others (especially people from the child’s birth country) that the AP’s, not the child, are the ones who are “lucky.”
In the end, I think PAP’s and AP’s have listened to adoptees, even though we remain imperfect. Transnational adoption today is far, far different than it was 20 or 30 years ago, in large part in response to mistakes that early international AP’s made.
For example, in the paper chase process, we had to explain over and over how we will connect our daughter to her culture. In my town, the biggest Chinese New Year celebration is put on by the FCC group. The FCC group includes culture and language classes. AP’s are also taught that some kids have adjustment, attachment, and other issues, and that it’s our job to be ready to lovingly help our daughters through whatever difficulties she may have.
So keep talking. Keep complaining about our mistakes. Keep pointing to flaws in the system. We AP’s and PAP’s certainly are not perfect, but we do listen, and sometimes we even change.
“So keep talking. Keep complaining about our mistakes. Keep pointing to flaws in the system. We AP’s and PAP’s certainly are not perfect, but we do listen, and sometimes we even change.”
Waiting Parent,
What do you mean by “sometimes we even change” ?
I think he or she means evolve, grow, learn, respond in a new way…
from m-w.com:
the act, process, or result of making different
Synonyms alteration, difference, modification, redoing, refashioning, remaking, remodeling, revamping, revise, revision, reworking, variation
Erin, I think Khai deserved a less confrontational response.
Here’s one example of change. Thirty years ago, international AP’s in the US were told to raise their kids as “just American.” This tore their kids away from the culture of the birth country and caused a lot of resentment. Now, after hearing how devastating this was to the kids, it’s drilled into the AP culture that we must give our kids the chance to learn about the language and culture of their birth countries. FCC chapters are active all over the country.
I’ll try to write more later, but I’ve got to go.
Another change is the community of adoptive parents, which makes it easier for our adopted kids to meet each other. We share notes. “My kid has this problem, what do I do?” “We did _____, it didn’t help, but ____ helped.”
During the adoption process, we are reminded of the trauma that adoption causes, a trauma that is more pronounced in some kids and a lot less in others.
As to discipline, we are taught to be sensitive to attachment issues. Time outs can be terrifying for some adopted kids, raising fears of abandonment. Instead, some parents hug their kids tightly for an extended periods of time.
Although there are exceptions, modern adoptive parents are more willing to help their kids find their biological routes. In IA, the barriers are sometimes insurmountable, but adoptive kids generally no longer have to hide the search from their parents. Often, parents and child do the search together.
I am not saying that modern adoptive parents are perfect. We are not. We make mistakes. Sometimes we are selfish jerks. But we’re doing better than we used to, and that’s in large part thanks to grown up adoptive kids who’ve spoken out.
As someone who adopted 22 years ago from Colombia and 7 years ago from Cambodia, I can tell you that there are huge differences between then and now.
Aside from considerations about fostering interest and education about the child’s birth country, the knowledge and attitudes regarding the psychological effects of adoption, abandonment, institutional care and the like has grown immensely.
NO one knew the long term consequences of IA. RAD wasn’t even on the radar. The whole attitude in the 80’s was that if you love them enough, everything will be fine. Obviously we now know that to be dead wrong. You have no idea how painful it is for mothers like me to know that the best we could do wasn’t good enough.
I think it is extemely naive to believe that we can stop children from being abandoned in developing nations. There simply isn’t enough money. That issue aside, we continue to expect other cultures to have our value system – and that is as insidious ‘cultural genocide’ as IA has been accused of being. Even here, in the US, where we are far more proactive about keeping families intact, there are plenty of people who don’t want their kids or are just plain horrible parents. You can’t stop that.
Both of my IA children were abandoned by their birth families – there were no relatives who wanted them. My son was child #8, Mom was pregnant with #9. She wouldn’t use birth control because the Church told her she couldn’t. The parents would leave the kids for days at a time in the bario without food. His picture was publicized in an effort to find family who would take him in. No one wanted him. Oh – and while he was in state care, a staph infection destroyed half of his outer ear, leaving the other half badly scarred.
My daughter was abandoned within hours of her birth for the sole reason that she had six fingers on each of her hands and six toes on one of her feet. She was inhabited by evil spirits. At least her parents abandoned her instead of quietly doing away with her. It was also determined that she had no anus or rectum. So the doctors did a really primitive colostomy and told the orphanage that she was going to die. If she had stayed in Cambodia and survived, which was incredibly unlikely, the best life she would have had was begging on the streets. She couldn’t even be a whore.
Do I want to get patted on the head for this? Absolutely not. Nothing annoys me more than when people tell me how wonderful I am and how lucky Maya is to have us. B&^ls*&t. It is we who have been given the remarkable gift of these children.
Unfortunately it is only when an issue is relevant to us on a daily basis that we pay attention to it. I could make an argument that the adoption of children out of these countries raises significant awareness and resources for the children and families still there. I support the organization that was responsible for bringing Maya to the US for medical treatment. They run an orphange, schools, support family farms and more in Cambodia. However, a huge source of the funding was from the families here who adopted bona fide orphans. The AP’s care deeply. As your child gets older that interest will wane – that’s just how people are. Also, the adoption fees helped pay the expenses for the orphange. This orphange hires young women to live there and care for the babies – one on one. It keeps the girls off the streets and out of the brothels, while providing excellent care for the kids.
Of what possible benefit is it to anyone to have kids grow up in orphanages rather than with a US family? Even at the peak there were only 22,000 kids adopted into the US. There are hundreds of thousands of kids in orphanges around the world.
You can change policy. You can fund orphanages, hospitals, social welfare programs, build schools, create jobs, and on and on and on. There will still be babies and children who need families. Why should I feel guilty because I want to give a child a forever home?
My post was not meant as confrontational, it was meant to echo the second paragraph of the original post (the definition of needier). Great examples, WP
Adoption Ally, I enjoyed your comment, very insightful to hear from someone with a fuller perspective of how IA is evolving.
Adoption Ally,
If you don’t mind me asking but are you Naomi? You just sound like someone I may know.
“So are you battling unethical, unnecessary adoptions or the entire media or both? Either of those is a huge, complicated thing. You can write cynical posts and try to make me look wrong, or take my words out of context, but that’s not really getting you toward your goal. You can’t take on every aspect of the system at once. What aspect or aspects are you focusing on fixing first?”
Erin, I’m not “battling” anything at the moment but was simply replying to your dismissive statement, “Yeah, the article is lame. There are so many battles to fight in this life, going after this one reporter at this one paper is not my battle.” If you are also aware that it is “just the tip of an enormous iceberg,” then you are also aware that you have to start somewhere. You asked where to begin. I tried to answer you.
I’m not sure what you mean by “trying to make you look wrong” and where did I take your words out of context? What does this discussion have to do with you being proven right or wrong? Granted adoption is an emotional topic on all sides and people have strong opinions, I feel that proving you wrong isn’t and shouldn’t (imho) be the reason I’m having this exchange. It’s not about YOU. Furthermore, I think it’s unproductive and distracting to polarize and reduce discussions on adoption to simply who’s right and who’s wrong. That can often become a slippery slope which can quickly decline into little more than bickering and petty jabs.
I’m never suggested taking on all aspects of the system at once. I already said that we must make our own choices on where to concentrate. I’m quite aware of how the media works. Hopefully, you realize how the media can perpetuate misperceptions and narrow-minded views and why it’s important to put forth an alternate opinion. That’s what I’ve done.
A for a goal and what aspects I’m focusing on:
“Part of what I’m trying to do is see how it gets to this point in the first place. Viet Nam’s lack of transparency, people willing to make money exploiting PAPs desire/need to have a child, poverty, perhaps even some people’s willingness to overlook the implications and a whole list of other contributing factors.
I think we can all agree there are no easy answers. That doesn’t mean there are no answers. For me, that also means that the answers aren’t going to make everyone happy. I don’t think those uncertainties should prevent me or anyone else from delving into it.”
As per your “echoing” my post in your reply to Khai, my intend in using the definition of “neediest” was to illustrate the broadness of the word. I take it then, that was also your intention in your reply to Khai. If not, then you were mistaken in your interpretation.
wld,
Yes, love is universal but as Erin already pointed out, so too is the scenario where, “Bad people are exploiting the situation because they can.”
As for the article, I’d have to read more about Elizabeth Bartholet’s work to really say, but I hope she holds a less one-sided, narrow view of international adoption than what’s conveyed in the article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7126028.stm
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009239458
Another opinion:
http://www.coha.org/2008/03/13/guatemalan-adoptions-suspended-by-overseas-crack-down/
And still another:
http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2008/03/30/searching-for-answers/
“Just as there are adoptees who may have different hopes or longed to have not left their home country, there are adoptees who are happy to have a family regardless of the parents’ nationality and where home is.”
I can agree with you here. I know adoptees who fall into both sides of that statement and many who float in between it. I also know and have communicated with APs/PAPs who are both informed, compassionate and who actively seek to understand and help. However, given the article that you posted, I feel there is still a long way to go.
“PAPs have honest and good intentions to love and care for a child who needs to be loved and nurtured, and to fault PAPs is divisive.”
True, many, even most may have honest good intentions in adopting, but as Cheri Register’s book, Beyond Good Intentions and adoptee-authored books like Outsider’s Within illustrates, it takes more than that. Whether “faulting” PAPs is divisive or not depends on perspective. I think a little dissension is exactly what’s needed in some cases. The early dissenting voices of first moms and adoptees shattered the win/win myth of adoption. I would assign sole and/or even knowing responsibility to all PAPs. They are part of the equation and therefore influence the process and outcome – sometimes negatively despite their “good intentions.”
Waiting Parent, thank you for answering khai and some of my questions.
I’ll try to come back to this later as my comment has gotten a bit long.
This is a very interesting piece I happened to pick up from another forum. Come to my blog to view the story on a NON AP/PAP/Adoptee’s perspective. It makes me somewhat ill to my stomach. It’s filed under “What Becomes Of Them?” .. http://thericebowldiaries.wordpress.com
“U.S. orphans to come from mothers with substance abuse problems.”
I didnt pull the quote well… If a person has a mother how can he/she be an orphan? How are the children in other countries considered orphans also? I doubt many are truly orphans.
We would be happy to be partner with you and also wish to find out if you are in a good position to connect us to any charity orgs that would come to our aid.our website address:www.message7.org/home/dreamland
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
James D,Donkor