Electro Shocking Misbehaving Children and Adolescents

100 children are at a “special needs” residential facility in Massachusetts center, JRC, where children and adults with disabilities tortured and abused. The JUDGE ROTENBERG CENTER (JRC) is a special needs school in Canton, Massachusetts serving ages 3-adult. For 38 years JRC has provided very effective education and treatment to both emotionally disturbed students with conduct, behavior, emotional, and/or psychiatric problems and developmentally delayed students with autistic-like behaviors.

One can only assume how many are adoptees.

Mental Disability Rights International (MDRI) has filed an urgent appeal with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture to demand the United States government end the torture immediately.

In a report released today, Torture not Treatment: Electric Shock and Long-Term Restraint in the United States on Children and Adults with Disabilities at the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC), MDRI documents the use of electric shocks on the legs, arms, torsos and soles of feet of people with disabilities – for weeks, months and sometimes years. JRC uses punishments as treatment and US advocates have been trying for decades to close the school and end these practices. The school also uses four-point restraint boards, tying children to the boards while simultaneously shocking them for hours; mock assaults; food deprivation; shock chairs; isolation and long-term restraint. Residents at JRC are diagnosed with a variety of behavioral, intellectual and psychiatric disabilities such as autism, bi-polar disorder and learning disabilities.

Laurie Ahern, President of MDRI, states, “The cruelty perpetrated against children and adults at JRC is psychological and physical abuse, couched in the name of ‘treatment.’ The severe pain and suffering leveled against residents there violates the United Nations Convention against Torture. And to the best of MDRI's knowledge, JRC is the only facility of any kind in the US – and perhaps the world –that uses electricity combined with long-term restraint and other punishments to intentionally cause pain to children with behavioural challenges and calls it treatment.”

MDRI calls on the Special Rapporteur, along with the Obama Administration and the Department of Justice, to end the abuses against people with disabilities at JRC. MDRI is an international human rights and advocacy organisation dedicated to the rights protection and full participation in society of people with disabilities worldwide.

In March, The Boston Globe reported:

THE JUDGE Rotenberg Center in Canton, which stands alone in its use of painful skin shocks to eradicate self-mutilation and sudden assault, is a storehouse of ethical and medical dilemmas. But it’s no shock - and no shame - that the parents of some autistic and mentally retarded children embrace this controversial school.

The Rotenberg Center has been investigated numerous times by state agencies and reporters. Serious irregularities have been uncovered over the years, most recently in 2007 when a child was ordered shocked 77 times in three hours as a result of an elaborate prank orchestrated by a former student. Just last month, the US Justice Department agreed to investigate the center based on charges of “inhumane practices’’ - largely related to shocks for seemingly minor infractions - brought by 31 disability advocacy groups....

The Rotenberg Center is a highly structured behavior modification program that requires students to earn nearly every privilege - even a chance to relax with each other - by staying on task and not acting up. The road to its door is long. Parents, as a rule, don’t even consider placement until their children have been expelled from several other special needs schools.

Russian adoption freeze TV coverage: my interview April 29

This is the third time they have invited me to address adoption issues in the past two months. Previous Riben RT interviews about Russian adoption debacles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyZRtY02OAo&feature=fvsr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-_COnIc254&feature=channel

As a result, I have now been contacted by Russia Now to do a print media story on the subject.

Motherless Children / Childless Mothers

My Mothers Day gift to all ...
a collection of my journaled poems written during the 1980s.

Click: Tinyurl.com/motherloss

For PDF Download

Murderers of Adopted Child Face the Judge

Couple in court, accused of fatally beating 7-year-old son

ELIZABETH EVANS -- The York Dispatch

Updated: 04/17/2010 10:33:31 AM EDT

A Carroll Township couple accused of fatally beating their 7-year-old adopted son in August were in York County Court on Friday afternoon.

Michael J. Craver, 45, and Nanette L. Craver, 54, both of 36 Blair Mountain Road, appeared before Common Pleas Judge John S. Kennedy, who spoke about the "number of disadvantages to being represented by the same lawyers."

The Cravers are charged with homicide, child endangerment and conspiracy to commit both charges for the Aug. 25 homicide of 7-year-old Nathaniel Craver. They adopted the boy, along with his twin sister, from a Russian orphanage in 2003.

Nathaniel died of complications from traumatic brain injury, authorities said, and he was also malnourished. He suffered some 80 external injuries in various stages of healing, police said.

His sister is in a safe place and being well cared for, Barker has said.

The Cravers have retained Bloomsburg attorney Gregory Moro and York County attorney David Hershey to jointly represent both of them.

But because they are co-defendants, they must be fully apprised of what that decision entails, the judge said. Normally co-defendants have separate attorneys.

Moro told the judge that Nanette Craver has no questions, but Michael Craver doesn't really understand why having separate attorneys could be preferable. [So you can each accuse the other!]

Kennedy said he will appoint an independent attorney to visit Michael Craver in prison to answer his questions.

Friday's hearing was prompted after prosecutors filed a motion about the attorney issue.

"We want to make sure the record is clean and all bases are covered in protecting the rights of the defendants," chief deputy prosecutor Tim Barker said, and also want to ensure there are no "concerns down the road."

Barker confirmed that, if convicted, the Cravers could appeal, arguing they weren't properly represented because they were represented by the same attorneys.

"It doesn't happen all the time, but it can happen ... as long as there is no conflict of interest," Barker said of co-defendants sharing an attorney.

The Cravers remain in York County Prison without bail, awaiting their April 29 preliminary hearing.

I have been invited back to Russia Today RV-TV once again!

Adopters Sue for Wrongful Adoption

Adoption agencies are not in business for humanitarian reasons to aid children in need. They are in business. See yesterday's post on profits made by so-called non-profit adoption agencies.

In the capitalism-running-wild U.S. ,the government puts no restrictions on their practice, so... maybe law suits will scare them, and even put some out of business permanently.

Chip and Julie Harshaw from Virginia Beach are suing Bethany Christian Services, seeking compensation for the care of their Russian adoptive son, Roman. They claim the agency misled them about Roman’s condition when they described him as “a beautiful, healthy, on-target, blond-haired boy.”

After bouts of hyperactivity and aggression, Roman was diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, brain damage and neuropsychiatric problems, and an IQ of 53. He was placed in an institution, and "one of his doctors said he is not expected to ever live independently."

The Harshaws say they told the agency they could care only for a child with minimal health problems and a “good prognosis for normal development,” and would not have adopted their son if they had known the extent of his impairments.

They rejected one child because he had abuse-inflicted burns. But when a toddler in a Siberian orphanage appeared to fit their criteria, they bought the boy....ooops brought the boy, Roman, home. “ ‘A beautiful, healthy, on-target, blond-haired boy’ was what they had quoted to us,” Ms. Harshaw said.

Bethany disputes most of their claims.

Can you please tell me how adopting a child is "the same as if" the child were born to you? Can you tell me how this fits with the adoption being God's plan?

Who do biological parents get to sue when they are handed a child with unexpected medical issues?

Wouldn't we all also love to see some wrongful adoption claims made by abused adoptees and birth parents such as fathers whose rights were totally abrogated?

The backlash from these lawsuits however is increased loss of rights to medical privacy for mothers relinquishing who are treated like prize pedigrees being breeded. In fact, the future mat hold relinquishing mothers being made to sign legal liability for lack of complete disclosure - which would be interesting,considering some are told not to reveal who the father is.

Not So "Non" Profit When it Comes to Adoption Agencies

For many private adoption and foster care agencies, nonprofit status in the child protection business leaves plenty of room for lucrative rewards, according to an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution which confirms the findings of The Stork Market.

The newspaper’s review of federal tax returns and other public documents found numerous examples where top executives’ compensation accounted for one-fourth to one-third of agencies’ budgets. In many instances, administrative costs exceeded expenses on direct services for children.

This, despite the fact that private adoption agencies in Georgia are mandated by law to operate as nonprofit organizations. Big salaries for the agencies’ executives and corporate officers as well as overhead are paid for by adoption fees, none of which benefits the children the groups are supposed to help.

In 2008:

• Faithbridge Foster Care Inc. allotted nearly 40 percent of its budget to its top officers.
• Families First Inc. of Atlanta paid six employees more than $100,000 each in 2008, according to tax documents.
  
• Chinese Children Adoption International, which has an Atlanta office, paid its top two officers — who are married to each other — a total of about $410,000 in 2006, the latest year for which its tax returns are available.

In 2007 Bethany Christian Services of Grand Rapids, MI, with offices in Georgia -- which received $803,225 from the Georgia Department of Human Services for supervising foster children in 2009 -- paid the CEO $169,000, and $178,000 to the agency’s vice president. Bethany had a total budget of $9.1 million. However, $7.2 million, or almost four of every five dollars, went to management expenses. Another $1.2 million covered fund-raising costs — far more than the $694,000 that went to programs that directly served children.

A lack of industry standards and government rules enable people running such agencies to spend freely for their own benefit, said Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership.

“What you’re finding is certainly the trend in nonprofits,” Eisenberg said. “An increasing number of people are pushing for a kind of free market in nonprofits.”

He described directors who don’t challenge excessive spending as “totally incompetent.”

“There’s no accountability,” Eisenberg said. “There are no guidelines by the IRS, even on self-dealing. It’s just appalling.”

Mother and Child: Critique of the Adoption Themed Film

Mother and Child is a dramatic new major film offering centered around three women: A 50-year-old woman, the daughter she lost to adoption 35 years ago when she was just 14, and a couple looking to adopt a child.

“We all have a mother whether we know her or not, whether it’s a good relationship or not. And I think for a lot of us that relationship defines how we approach a lot of our lives,” said Kerry Washington at the New York premier.

The cast is stellar, including such notables as Naomi Watts, Annette Bening, Samuel L. Jackson, Jimmy Smits, Amy Brenneman, David Morse, Kerry Washington, Eileen Ryan, S. Epatha Merkerson...all of whom do superb, very believable acting jobs, despite some overdramatic script writing.

Reviews have been, for the most part, very positive which will mean that a great many people are likely to see this film - far greater than The Orphan, Juno and even Then She Found Me with Helen Hunt and Bette Midler.

ScreenDaily called it: "Delicate, thoughtful and quietly absorbing, Mother And Child is above all things a wonder of good acting and finely-calibrated small moments."

Variety: "an insightfully observed and exceptionally acted ensemble piece precisely about what the title suggests."

Compared to above mentioned horror, black comedy and transformed novels, Mother and Child played for me more like a docudrama. I could not help comparing it in my mind to Adopted: The Film I had just recently seen. In fact, Mother and Child adds a dimension absent from Adopted - the perspective of the original mother, showing only that of the adoptee, adoptive parents and perspective adoptive parents. Mother and Child explores what some refer to as the "triad" as lopsided as well all know that triangle to be.

The film is about more than the lives of three women, each coming from a different position regarding adoption. It is about the ripple effect that adoption has on their lives and their relationships with each of their mothers in particular and with all of their intimate interpersonal - and even work - relationships.

The most poignant relationship is that between Karen (Annette Bening) and her mother. Having lost her child to adoption at the tender age of 14, Karen tries to share her longings about her child to a silent, stoic mother who cannot deal with feeling her decision regarding the placement of her grandchild has "ruined" her - still unmarried at 50, care-taking - daughter's life.

Unspoken insights such as that this woman who is still grieving the loss of her child 35 years later is unhappy and bitter and pushes people away, while Elizabeth (naomi Watts) as the adoptee is likewise "messed up" besides being over-accomplished professionally are well done.

However, I found the characters to be caricatures or over-exaggerated stereotype composites of each archetype: The Birthmothers, The Adoptee, and The Expectant Mother considering adoption whom we also meet in the form of a young woman perhaps over-compensating for her fears by trying to be empowered and coming off instead defiant/aggressive young woman, who might need to be to go against the wishes of her mother.

The audience does get to witness a miraculous and fairly sudden change in Karen's demeanor, and Elizabeth. But will the public see the nuances beneath the surface of their behavior and what caused them to soften or will they simply be perceived as "nuts" or nasty, difficult be-atches, and if so what impact will that have on each of us?

The filmmaker chose to focus on the relationships between mothers and their children and perhaps it was this intentional that the fathers were either non-existent, chose not to be involved, or ignored as fathers, noticeable perhaps only for those of us who will see this film on deeper levels that the general audiences and feel for the missing half of a child's identity and heritage.

Since the film is likely to garner large audiences and might well become a "classic" - what did it intended to say adoption, what does it say about adoption, and what might general public audiences take from it as their impression of adoption?

While the film deserves kudos for not going to the Hallmark Movie ending with anyone realizing their adoptive parents are their "true", "real" parents, the screen-writer felt one point so important he had two different characters say it: "It's the time spent not the blood that makes a family." Yet the entire film seemed to be about showing us otherwise - or that it surely wasn't so without a great price. Will we be the only ones to see and hear that message?

Bring tissues and someone supportive!

Trailer Link:http://bit.ly/9W8LXH

Laura Silsby Faces up to 3 Years in a Haitian Prison

Kidnaping charges were dropped against Laura Sislby of idaho for attempting to take 33 children - all of whom it is now reported still had at least one living parent - from post quake Haiti to her orphanage in the Dominican Republic.

However, she faces up to three years in prison if convicted on the remaining charge, the "organization of irregular trips," from a 1980 statute restricting travel out of Haiti signed by then-dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier. the charge of organizing the trip was also pending against Jean Sainvil, a Haitian-born pastor from Atlanta who also helped organize the venture. Sainvil did not immediately respond to message left on his voicemail.

In a separate case Monday, three suspected Haitian traffickers were caught driving 24 children in the town of Mirebalais. The group was traveling with the children's birth certificates, suggesting they meant to put them up for adoption, local judge Vicran Charles said.

The judge said the suspects said they were taking the children to a woman who runs an orphanage in the capital, Port-au-Prince, and promised the children a better life.

The children, who were placed in a nearby orphanage, range in age from 1 to 13. None appeared to be orphans.

"I have a mom and a dad," said 8-year-old Jolen Plaisir. "They didn't tell me why they were sending me to an orphanage."

• Don’t get yourself tied into a long-term adoption contract
  

• Don’t feel pressured to make “forever” promises
  

• Don’t commit at all…at…

Tedaldi and Hansen’s

Rent-A-Kid

OUR MOTTO:
TRY BEFORE YOU BUY

Already stuck with a bad apple?

Got your hands full with a disobedient brat who refuses to bond and love you?




Kid Swap
Has the solution for you!

Just click HappyBabyRentals.com
or one of many of our other convenient locations here or here
to enter your credit card info securely
along with a description of what you’d like to try or have to swap

Song for Artyem

I'm back in the USSR
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the USSR, yeah

Been away so long I hardly knew the place
Gee, it's good to be back home
Leave it till tomorrow to unpack my case
Honey disconnect the phone


I'm back in the USSR
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the US
Back in the US
Back in the USSR

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the west behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
They Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind
Oh, come on
Hu Hey Hu, hey, ah, yeah
yeah, yeah, yeah
I'm back in the USSR
You don't know how lucky you are, boys
Back in the USSR

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the west behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
They Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind

Oh, show me round your snow peaked
mountain way down south
Take me to you daddy's farm
Let me hear you balalaika's ringing out
Come and keep your comrade warm
I'm back in the USSR
Hey, You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the USSR
Oh, let me tell you honey

Late Discovery Adoption and Donor Offspring Stories

Listening to late discovery adoption and donor offspring stories: adoption, ethics and implications for contemporary donor insemination practices by Riley, Helen J. (2009)

In: Spark, Ceridwen and Cuthbert, Denise (Eds.) Other People's Children : Adoption in Australia. Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, Victoria, pp. 145-160.

Abstract

For most of the 20th Century a `closed' system of adoption was practised throughout Australia and other modern Western societies. This `closed' system was characterised by sealed records; amended birth certificates to conceal the adoption, and prohibited contact with all biological family.

Despite claims that these measures protected these children from the taint of illegitimacy the central motivations were far more complex, involving a desire to protect couples from the stigma of infertility and to provide a socially acceptable family structure (Triseliotis, Feast, & Kyle, 2005; Marshall & McDonald, 2001).

From the 1960s significant evidence began to emerge that many adopted children and adults were experiencing higher incidences of psychological difficulties, characterised by problems with psychological adjustment, building self-esteem and forming a secure personal identity. These difficulties became grouped under the term `genealogical bewilderment'. As a result, new policies and practices were introduced to try to place the best interests of the child at the forefront. These changes reflected new understandings of adoption; as not only an individual process but also as a social and relational process that continues throughout life.

Secrecy and the withholding of birth information are now prohibited in the overwhelming majority of all domestic adoptions processed in Australia (Marshall & McDonald, 2001). One little known consequence of this `closed' system of adoption was the significant number of children who were never told of their adoptive status. As a consequence, some have discovered or had this information disclosed to them, as adults.

The first study that looked at the late discovery of genetic origins experiences was conducted by the Post Adoption Resource Centre in New South Wales in 1999. This report found that the participants in their study expressed feelings of disbelief, confusion, anger, sorrow and loss. Further, the majority of participants continued to struggle with issues arising from this intentional concealment of their genetic origins (Perl & Markham, 1999).

A second and more recent study (Passmore, Feeney & Foulstone, 2007) looked at the issue of secrecy in adoptive families as part of a broader study of 144 adult adoptees. This study found that secrecy and/or lies or misinformation on the part of adoptive parents had negative effects on both personal identity and relationships with others. The authors noted that those adoptees who found out about their adoption as adults were `especially likely to feel a sense of betrayal' (p.4).

Over recent years, stories of secrecy and late discovery have also started to emerge from sperm donor conceived adults (Spencer, 2007; Turner & Coyle, 2000). Current research evidence shows that although a majority of couples during the donor assisted conception process indicate that they intend to tell the offspring about their origins, as many as two-thirds or more of couples continue to withhold this information from their children (Akker, 2006; Gottlieb, A. McWhinnie, 2001; Salter-Ling, Hunter, & Glover, 2001).

Why do they keep this secret? Infertility involves a range of complex factors that are often left unresolved or poorly understood by those choosing insemination by donor as a form of family building (Schaffer, J. A., & Diamond, R., 1993). These factors may only impact after the child is born, when resemblance talk becomes most pronounced. Resemblance talk is an accepted form of public discourse and a social convention that legitimises the child as part of the family and is part of the process of constructing the child's identity within the family. Couples tend to become focused on resemblance as this is where they feel most vulnerable, and the lack of resemblance to the parenting father may trigger his sense of loss (Becker, Butler, & Nachtigall, 2005).

ISBN: 9781921509469

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31941/

Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids

The title above sounds like a book or article our beloved Marely G could have written! But it's a forthcoming publication by economist Bryan Caplan who is tantalizing sales with tidbits on his blog.

In an article by the same title on the website of the Library of Economics and Liberty, Caplan says:

"When you are 30, you might feel like two children is plenty. But once you are 60, you are more likely to prefer ten sons and daughters to keep you company and keep the grandkids coming."

Contrary to what you might expect, Caplan has not chosen to remain childless and point fingers at others who chose to procreate or adopt. Instead he has kids and, while recognizing childbearing as selfish, reveals his desire to clone himself, saying:

I want to experience the sublime bond I’m sure we’d share. I’m confident that he’d be delighted, too, because I would love to be raised by me. I’m not pushing others to clone themselves. I’m not asking anyone else to pay for my dream. I just want government to leave me and the cloning business alone. Is that too much to ask?

Seems Caplan is deflecting his own selfish desires on others.

But the quote that has drawn outrage in the blogosphere is:

"On adoption: I think that adoption is a noble, generous act, and admire those who do it. But I personally don't want to adopt."

Jason Kuznicki's "Bryan Caplan: An Adopted Child is Second-Best" sums it up well from one perspective:

Overwhelmingly, parents adopt for exactly the same reasons that lead others to have kids in the biological way. ...

Adopting is a pain — it means tons of paperwork, hours of interviews, repeated hearings before various officials, thousands of dollars in fees, criminal background checks, home safety inspections, financial reviews, invasive medical tests, and possibly years of waiting. (All for good reasons, I’d add.)

Compare all that to an evening of sexual intercourse, and it’s obvious why adoption is a second choice — as a method. But that doesn’t mean that adopted kids are a second choice. If anything, it may mean that adoptive parents are more committed to parenting than many “natural” parents. It’s not like we end up here on accident. Which quite a few bio-parents do, of course. And many infertile couples — those among them least committed to parenting — don’t ever adopt.

Perhaps all this is what brought Bryan to think of adoption as noble. But saying that adopting a child is “generous” is both an insult and an undeserved, patronizing compliment.

Let's dissect that for a minute. While arguing against being called noble or generous, Kuznicki sure seems to want round of applause a bow and great deal of pity for the trials and tribulation adopters must experience compared to a night of fun in bed, assuming he is eliminating the months or years some couples try to conceive prior to trying to adoption when sex on a schedule becomes less than pleasurable.

We are to bemoan the "pain" of adoption for the one who in the end is the victor and captures the gold ring, the golden egg laid by the scorned and discarded goose?

How narrow-minded and condescending to not even mention the pain of loss and grief suffered by mothers and their babies to provide this product to fill others' selfish desires.

And let's hold on before we jump to conclusions and broad brush statements like "adoptive parents are more committed to parenting than many 'natural' parents." We expect them to be, given the "pain" they've gone through for this non accidental delivery. One hopes they are...but Hansen and Tedaldi and all of those who have beaten, starved, caged, burned, abandoned and murdered their adopted kids tells us it is not always the case.

Undeserved and patronizing compliment indeed! To say that adoption is a noble act of generosity is to put a heavy weight on every adoptee to feel indebted and grateful and not one pundit arguing against Capalns' comment brought that aspect into the discussion...because they ARE SELFISH and think only of themselves in terms of adoption as blogs such as Kuznicki's clearly illustrate.

If adoption were anything less than a selfish act on the part of those who adopt, they could never take a child from his or her mother or father knowing full well the pain of losing a child - or even the hope of one. How do the Madonna's of the world allow their desire or pain to be the cause of another's pain so carelessly without a smidgeon of selfishness?

If adoption were anything less than a selfish act on the part of those who adopt there would not be 129.000 kids in foster care in the U.S. who could be adopted for minimal filing fees while "desperate" adopters pay $40k a clip to obtain younger babies and those from far off lands and different races in order to eliminate the possibility of a birthmom daring to "interfere" into their family and perhaps seeking to see 'their' child...or the child wanting reunite and leave them, relegating them to long-term babysitters!

Wonder how that fits into Byran Capalns' economic picture of parenthood via adoption?

I can't speak for Bryan or any other, but there was never any thought in my mind to bear a child to secure care for myself in my old age. I have long-term health care insurance for that. But, yes, having the children I was fortunate enough to be able to raise was a selfish delight! They brought me pleasure and delight and experiences I never could have otherwise experienced. My life would be less complete and full without them...or at least very different and probably filled with other "accomplishments" and memories.

Is Caplan speaking of having children as selfish, or having "more" kids? Is he speaking of people like the Duggers, whose most recent (hopefully but doubtfully their last) birth clearly points to a selfishness to risk the life of both mother and child - by a father who has admitted he is afraid of a needle!!
S-E-L-F-I-S-H. The fact that they believe it is God's will makes it no less so than those who murder because of a belief that it was God's will.

There is noble altruistic adoption. There are those who adopt for truly humanitarian reasons. Often people who have or could have their "own" children who adopt special needs kids. But those who adopted because of a failure to conceive or carry their "own" are as different a species as are marsupials and reptiles....or animals who eat their young.

Child Adoption Needs Transparency to be Safe and Ethical

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) out of Georgia reports "Adoption agencies break rules, escape punishment: Weak oversight on private adoption agencies"

The newspaper reviewed more than 1,500 reports of inspections and investigations found that:

regulators repeatedly forgave violations of rules fundamental to safe adoptions: failing to check parents’ criminal records, for instance, or not documenting safe environments in adoptive homes.

A Deep Valley of Greed, Lies and Deception

Valley of Hope is a Christian agency claiming on their website that all children
are “wonderfully made by the Creator” and are offered as a “free gift” of “everlasting life.” Free, that is for an average price of $40,000.

Valley of Hope broke the rules even before it completed its first adoption.

Erin Chaffee, a licensed social worker who had worked for another adoption agency, established Valley of Hope in January 2008 as a for-profit business. State law requires adoption agencies to operate as not-for-profit organizations to guard against the appearance of baby selling.

Chaffee accepted the agency’s first adoption application fee from prospective parents in June 2008 — two months before Valley of Hope received a state license allowing it to do so, records show. In her e-mail Saturday, Chaffee said regulators “had trouble understanding” that she was working with those parents through a separate consulting company.

I encourage you to read the full report which involves pre-birth matching - of course.

But the crux of the issue for all of adoption lies in the fact that such misconduct is referred to as being in a "gray area" that is, it doe snot cross the line into out-and-out black market baby selling and so it is is ignored, or slappe don the wrist and allowed to continue.

Several agencies received citations for failing to show that payments to birth mothers covered only legitimate medical or living expenses. At least one agency — Valley of Hope Adoption Inc. of Woodstock, with which the Arduzes worked — was cited for having money for a birth mother’s expenses deposited into its executive director’s personal bank account.

None of those violations resulted in penalties.

State law allows fines as high as $25,000. But officials say they prefer to persuade agencies to comply with the rules than impose harsh penalties.....

The Valley of Broken Dreams Agency eluded punishment for almost two years, even though state officials knew it was violating adoption rules. But the state didn’t share information about the agency with the public until late 2009.

Erin Chaffee, Valley of Hope’s founder and executive director, declined repeated requests for an interview. In an e-mail to a reporter late Friday, she said, “Adoption is a highly personal and confidential business and for those reasons it is not appropriate for me to engage in a discussion with you.”

And therein lies the beauty of adoption corruption. In words that might have been spoken by the Queen of baby selling Ms. Georgia Tann, or by Bessie Bernard, or Stanley Michelman or any of our notorious baby brokers. The operate best under the shrouded cloud of secrecy and thus why NCFA supports keeping it that way - keep the records sealed to protect whom?? The baby brokers!

The exact opposite is what is needed. There cannot be any regulation without transparency and full disclosure of what is going on., Mothers are told not to reveal the names of fathers...mothers are taken from one state to another - give birth here, sign papers there, while the agency mailing address, if they have one, is elsewhere. ALL of this needs to stop! And yet who will do so?

The Stork Market, via its forward by Evelyn Robinson, compared U.S. adoption practice with that of Australia which has systematically reduced adoptions to nearly none by providing humane family preservation programs for families in crisis. Now, Australia has apologized actions committed in the past when such programs were not in effect while the U.S. simply continues to exploit women and commodify children to meet a demand.

NOW, in the 21st century, knowing full ell the lifelong effects on mothers and their children form such separation, we not only allow the process to flourish, but we allowed it to go on unregulated. As L. Annn Babb and Adam Pertman both have recognized - anyone can hang up a shingle and arrange adoptions. Airline hostesses, used car salesman all have done so! And nail salons are more regulated to protected clients than are adoption agencies. And it goes on and on and on...

The only complaints come when a paying customer is ripped off. When mothers and father are ripped off for their kids, who cares? It's their own fault: they should have known better and not had had that sex to begin with!And if you can't afford to support a child then others deserve to take it from you so its not a "burden" on the state and taxpayers who re busy paying for more important things like war and corporate and political welfare.

No Ethics Without Transparency and Accountability

When will it end? Will anyone ever wake up and smell the coffee and see beyond the lies? Does anyone care about their welfare of these children and their families, or are they just wrapping on "free gifts" for those who can pay the price tag?

The pundits are calling for reforms in the wake of the Hansen give-back debacle. Russia should become Hague compliant. That won;t help domestic adoption messes like those conducted by Valley of Hope and hundrds of other slipshod "gray area" agencies acorss the country.

Agencies should be improve vetting processes and ensure pre-adoptive parents are well informed as to what to expect and receive full medical disclosure. Sure. All great ideas. Who will enforce any of it? There is no federal oversight of any of this and states hand out adoption agency licenses s they do for anyone to operate any business making the transfer of babies no different than the sale of any other merchandise.

Ethics is the new catch phrase in adoption organizations. Everyone agrees. No one is pro-unethical adoptions. yet what does it really mean? It's like saying we want "honest" car salesman and "nice" politicians running our country. What are the standards, the requirements for operating an adoption agency? We don't allow people who call themselves "competent" to operate on us or prescribe medication - we require many years of education and training and certification.

What education, what certification to arrange adoptions? Who provides impartial counseling for mother sin crisis considering adoption - those who profit from their loss? Where is legal counsel for her as she goes through with an adoption on the promise of openness?

Russia is now - again - insisting on follow-ups after placement of their children in American homes for adoption. They insisted on it after freezing adoptions in 2000 and then allowed them to reopen with unkept PROMISES. We do not thoroughly screen pre-adopter as the Masha Allen case made all too obvious, and we do not check up on them afterward as the Torry Hansen case illustrates. We do not do it for Russian children, or guatemalan, or Ethiopian of Chinese...and we do not do it for our own American born babies! They go to whomever can pay the fee. Period. End of story. In some areas, might makes right. But for the most part, in the good old U.S. A, Inc., money gets you whatever you want, no questions asked.

We need transparency, accountability and regulations with teeth in them to quickly shut down violators and not let them reopen in another state or under a different corporate name as is now done. There must be federal control of this INTERSTATE TRAFFICKING with a national board that one could go to and see how many complaints have been filed against any particular agency, how many law suits filed, how many criminal cases involving the agency, and how many scandals of any kind... and what the outcome was.

And, even all of this is a stop gap measure on the way toward eliminating all unnecessary, unwarranted adoptions as Australia has.

Adoption is Racist and Sexist: No Surprise There!

This study was as surprising as one that might reveal that men watch sports.

US Prefers Girls and Non Black Children for Adoption

From the new studies done by the group of economists it has been seen that the parents in US are adopting children who are girls and are non black.

The data collected from an adoption centre from 2004-2009 was picked up and studied by a team from the Institute of Technology, the London School of Economics and New York University. From these studies economists were able to know which babies fascinated most applicants more and how much the how much the parent needed to pay to finalize theadoption.

It was told by Leonardo Felli, an Economics Professor at LSE, that the non African American babies fascinated parents 7 times more than the African American babies.

From the research it was also seen that the girls attracted parentsone third more than the boys.

"With biological children, the literature shows that there's a slight but significant preference for boys over girls. But in adoption, there's a very strong preference for girls over boys", said Leeat Yariv, an Associate Professor of Economics at Caltech.

Felli also mentioned that the adoption system in the Unites States was unfair.

BRAVO Australia!

Federal push to review adoptions

April 22, 2010

FEDERAL Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin will raise past adoption practices with her state counterparts after calls for an apology or inquiry from some women coerced into giving up their babies.

The federal government commissioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies to review past adoption practices to help piece together what happened. The recently released review found that relinquishing a child for adoption had the potential for lifelong consequences for the women and their now grown children. But it says there is no reliable data on the number of women coerced into adopting out babies, or how many report continuing negative effects. It says understanding of the full impact of past practices is needed to be able to help those affected.

It is believed to mainly affect single women who were pregnant between the 1940s and the 1970s. The report says research suggests that from the 1940s it was ''seen as desirable to relinquish children as early as possible - straight after birth''. Women's magazines became fierce advocates for adoption and in the 1940s and '50s waiting lists of prospective adoptive parents grew.

The report's author, Daryl Higgins, general manager of research at the institute, said: ''No one is disputing what has happened in the past. There are opportunities for doing further work to understand the current need - the emotional needs, the psychological health needs - of those who were affected by past practices. The breadth of the evidence shows that this was not a unique or isolated event and it's associated with significant long-term impacts for these women, including grief and loss and trauma.''

Some women have said they were heavily drugged, affecting their capacity to give consent. Other women were not permitted to see their baby after birth and not told of their right to change their mind about relinquishing a baby.

This was raised in parliamentary inquiries in Tasmania and New South Wales but, the report says, it would take significant research to determine the extent to which these practices were widespread.

Kate O'Dwyer, who is on the committee of the Association of Relinquishing Mothers, is one who has been pressing for an apology. She does not oppose an inquiry but says other inquiries have left women with no support after they told their stories.

''They are left feeling bereft,'' she said. ''The thing that women need is counselling.''

A spokeswoman for Ms Macklin said the report would be carefully considered, and the minister would raise the issue with her state colleagues at their next meeting in June.

''We have started a dialogue with women affected by past adoption practices,'' she said.

Denise Cuthbert, a professor in Monash University's school of political and social inquiry, is one year into a four-year project looking at past adoption practices. It is a historical investigation of adoption legislation and policy in Australia. There is also an interactive website, where people can share their stories.

''There were probably many occasions where, judged by today's standards, women weren't treated well,'' she said.

http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/historyofadoption/index.php

Impact of past adoption practices: Summary of key issues from Australian research

A report to the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Table of contents

Executive summary

1 Introduction
1.1 Prevalence estimates and historical background information
1.2 History of adoption laws and policies
1.3 Societal attitudes

2 Key themes
2.1 Range of people involved (see below)
2.2 Grief, loss and trauma (see below)
2.3 Solving three social problems: Illegitimacy, infertility and impoverishment
2.4 Choice and coercion
2.5 Secrecy and silence
2.6 Reunion experiences
2.7 Time (does not) heal all wounds

3 Current needs of women affected by past adoption practices

4 Adequacy of the evidence base
4.1 Research based on individual records
4.2 Reclaiming motherhood: Reunion experiences
4.3 Fathers and other family members

5 Conclusion

References

Appendix: Taxonomy of selected literature on past adoption practices
Table A1. Analysis of historical practices
Table A2. Case studies
Table A3. Expert opinion
Table A4. Parliamentary inquiries
Table A5. Unpublished reports
Table A6. Published empirical studies

2.1 Range of people involved

The range of people involved who played a role and who are potentially affected by past adoption practices include:

• mothers;
• the adopted children;
• fathers (although the father was not always known, anecdotal evidence from case studies suggests they often were, and included not only boyfriends, but also husbands; however, there is a dearth of research looking at their role and any impact of past events on them and their lives);
• the relinquishing mother's family (failing to provide support, actively demanding relinquishment, silence and censure);
• management/leaders of the organisations involved with adoption (hospital administration, leaders of churches or religious orders);⁶
• individuals within these organisations (social workers, nurses, doctors, nuns);
• state/territory governments (responsible for enacting child welfare legislation, operating the statutory welfare department, and funding/regulating other non-government organisations to operate adoption services);
• the adoptive family;
• doctors treating infertile couples (creating demand for babies to be given up for adoption);
• political and social structures available to support single mothers (absent or inadequate - the Supporting Mother's Benefit was not introduced until 1973, coinciding with a rapid decline in adoptions from the peak of 1971–72);
• psychological and social work theories that were used by proponents to support various aspects of the practice of relinquishment (including the 'clean break' theory); and
• broader societal attitudes (such as: the role of women; sex and illegitimacy; poverty and the capacity of single women to effectively parent and raise good citizens; the silence that descended on pregnancy outside of marriage; closed adoption).

The range of people involved suggests therefore the potential for wide-ranging impacts, including the possibility of the effects of past adoption practices on these individuals in turn 'rippling' through to others, including other children and family members. The trauma experienced by one individual can have effects on others, for example, by affecting their emotional availability, relationship skills, sense of identity and self-efficacy, or by affecting the quality of their own parenting skills.⁷ Although these issues are sometimes identified in case studies, there has not been explicit examination of the nature and extent of such impacts.

It is also important to consider the role of the parents of the young unwed mothers affected by past adoption practices. For example, one of the women from Kate Inglis' (1984) ground-breaking Australian compilation of personal testimonies, 'Joy', described her emotional reaction when she thinks back on the actions of her own mother:

The longer I'm a mother the more amazed I am about what she [my mother] did to me. I mean after what you go through with kids you'd fight for them, wouldn't you? (p. 31)

[ top ]

2.2 Grief, loss and trauma

Very few research studies on relinquishment are based on theoretical models. The two theories that have been used to understand the impact of relinquishment (see Winkler & Van Keppel, 1984) are:

• grief/loss (in comparison to other bereavement experiences); and
• as a stressful life event (focusing on specific stressful aspects of the experience, including pregnancy, shame, moving towns, lack of social support, and isolation from family, as well as the event of relinquishment itself).

In discussions about these frameworks during the consultations with key stakeholders (see footnote 3), some stakeholders felt that both of these frameworks underestimate the impact and do not fully capture the experience of relinquishment. They preferred to describe their experiences within a trauma framework.⁸ Social science researchers have used a trauma framework to understand the impact of similar phenomenon (e.g., the effects of child maltreatment or adult sexual assault), but this has not explicitly been posited or tested empirically in relation to relinquishing mothers (Connor & Higgins, 2008).

Read it all here

Paralyzed Mom of Triplets Seeks to See her Kids

Los Angeles mother, Abbie Dorn, who childbirth left unable to move or speak — and possibly to understand — is the focus of an unusual, emotional court case to decide if she has visitation rights with her 3-year-old triplets.

A trial is set to start next month after a Los Angeles County judge on Tuesday ruled the parents of Abbie Dorn can fight for their daughter's right to see her children.

Dorn, 34, gave birth to a girl, Esti, and boys Reuvi and Yossi in 2006 at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. She suffered brain damage from complications of blood loss after a doctor nicked her uterus during delivery, according to a malpractice lawsuit that was settled for nearly $8 million.

Dorn was left unable to move, talk, eat or drink, and now lives with her parents, Susan and Paul Cohen, in Myrtle Beach, S.C. She receives hours of daily therapy at a cost of about $33,000 a month, funded by the malpractice settlement.

She and her husband, Dan Dorn, divorced, and he lives with the triplets in Los Angeles. He has refused to allow the children to see their mother, arguing that a visit would be too traumatic for the youngsters. He "worries the children would feel guilty if they saw their mother and knew their births led to her condition, although he would not object to their visiting her when they are older."

This argument is so stupid. I hope a judge sees through it and insist upon allowing visitation.

1. Abbie could gone by the time her ex-husband deems her kids are "old enough."

2. They are not going to think about being the "cue" of her paralyzed at 3 years of age. One way or another, if they ever bear such guilt, it will be when they are older.

It's their reality! What about the damage to them being denied? That's likely to kick this father in the ass!

AND...he wants child support from her, his way of trying to cash in on her settlement, I suppose!

92.1% of those responding to an MSNBC poll, so far have said: Absolutely, she should be allowed visitation. She's still their mother and the father should not keep them apart. The kids have right to know her.

Father Fights Back!

Man sues agencies over child’s adoption

Claims officials interfered with his attempts to prove he was child’s father so they could place infant.

By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.com
Law & Order Reporter

WILKES-BARRE – A Luzerne County man has filed a lawsuit against a local nonprofit maternity agency and several others, alleging agency officials interfered with his attempts to prove he was a child’s father so that they could place the infant with an adoptive family.

Javier Ortiz claims officials with His Resting Place maternity home in Exeter convinced the child’s mother, Danielle Tomchak, to falsely state she did not know the identity of the father in order to facilitate the adoption of the child by a Union County couple.

The suit, filed Monday in Luzerne County Court by attorney Barry Dyller, further alleges that the officials later thwarted Ortiz’s attempts to obtain a paternity test, resulting in a delay in his obtaining custody of the child.

The suit names as defendants His Resting Place and two of its representatives, Petra Plucenik and Barb Giordano, as well Tomchak, The Ark Learning Center in Kingston and The Luzerne Foundation, which provides funding to His Resting Place.

Petra Plucenik and her husband, John, are co-directors of His Resting Place, which provides housing and counseling services to pregnant women, and The Ark Learning Center, which provides Christian counseling services.

In a statement issued Tuesday, John Plucenik said it was unfortunate his wife and the agency have to respond to such “outrageous allegations.”

“It is also ridiculous to drag The Luzerne Foundation, a pillar of charitable giving in our community, into this action when they have nothing to do with it,” Plucenik said. “It is sad that we have to spend valuable time and resources answering these falsehoods. If we are guilty of anything, it is caring so much for homeless women and children.”

According to the suit:

Tomchak gave birth to a daughter, Kayla, on Sept. 7, 2008. At the time, Tomchak was incarcerated at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility. A representative from His Resting Place contacted Tomchak about placing the child for adoption.

The representative, who is not identified, told Tomchak that if she revealed the identity of the child’s father, the infant would be placed with Children and Youth. If she said she did not know the father’s identify, the child could be placed up for adoption.

About a month after the child’s birth, Tomchak advised Ortiz that adoption proceedings were pending and sent a letter to His Resting Place, advising the agency she knew the father’s identity. By that time the child had been placed with the proposed adoptive parents.

On Oct. 15 Ortiz advised the agency in writing that he did not consent to the adoption and initiated a custody proceeding in county court. Ortiz’s attorney contacted a representative with His Resting Place on Oct. 22, but the agency maintained it did not know the identity of the child’s father.

Ortiz next sought to have a paternity test performed, but his efforts were delayed because Giordano ignored several letters that were sent certified mail to The Ark Learning Center, which is the address Giordano had given Ortiz’s attorney.

The test was finally performed in December. The results, received in January 2009, confirmed Ortiz was the child’s father. A county judge awarded custody to Ortiz in February.

The suit seeks more than $100,000 in damages for negligence, claiming the defendants were required by law to attempt to identify the child’s father, but failed to do so. It also seeks to compensate Ortiz for emotional distress he and the child suffered due to the 5 �-month delay in having the child placed with him.

Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 570-829-7179.

Adoption Community Called "Divided" by Ill. Bill

Adoption community divided by Ill. bill giving birth certificate access

By Kathleen Foody

Digg Yahoo! Del.icio.us Facebook Reddit Drudge Google Fark Stumble It!

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Legislation that would give adults adopted as children access to their birth certificates for the first time doesn’t go far enough for many advocates. The emotionally charged issue has pitted members of the larger adoption community against each other as the legislation traveled through the Illinois legislature, coming to a head during a Senate committee hearing last week.

Adopted persons and representatives of advocacy organizations packed the hearing room. Witnesses traveled from New Jersey and Alaska to speak to lawmakers. And though the committee did pass HB5428 to the Senate floor, opponents and supporters of the idea aren’t ready to declare victory or defeat.

House sponsor state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, says the legislation is “the best (lawmakers can do) for the most people.” She and Senate sponsor state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi, D-Crest Hill, expect to move forward in the Senate this week. If the bill passes, it will go to Gov. Pat Quinn for his signature.

“As a legislator, I need to ask myself some very tough questions,” Feigenholtz said. “This is the bill that can pass. We have an obligation and that is to protect the minority while helping the majority.”

Birth mothers will have an opportunity to deny biological children access to the documents, a decision that some adopted adults say isn’t within the rights of women who gave up children for adoption.

Critics of the legislation fall in two camps – those who think it doesn’t protect birth mothers and those who think it leaves behind adults whose birth parents want to remain confidential. The second category of opponents fear lawmakers won’t revisit access legislation if the bill passes, leaving a category of adopted people without an identity.

Triona Guidry would be one of those people. Her birth mother has filed to prevent the daughter she gave up for adoption from gaining access to her original birth certificate.

“The sponsors have both presented this as a bill that restores adoptee rights,” said Guidry, now a spokeswoman for Adoption Reform Illinois. “But we all deserve rights, not just those permitted to do so by this legislation. What would it be like if you asked for a copy of your birth certificate and it had big holes in it?”

The organization prefers blanket access to birth certificates for all adopted adults, regardless of the birth mother’s preference. Guidry said the majority of adoptees only want to get a sense of who they are, not establish contact or a relationship with their birth parents.

State Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale, voted against the legislation in committee and said he needed to speak with dozens of constituents who contacted him before making a decision.

“I’ve just been deluged and rightfully so by requests for meetings and phone calls,” Dillard said. “This is a highly emotionally charged issue from all sides and it needs to be well thought out, both practically and theologically.”

---

For more: "Wolf In Sheep's Clothing: Adoptee Voices Negated In Discussion Of Illinois HB 5428." http://www.73adoptee.com

ADOPTION OR SALE: The influence of the adoption industry in the EU

German Radio Translation

ADOPTION OR SALE
The influence of the adoption industry in the EU

By Katrin Matthaei

The welfare of the child concerned is in the subject of international adoption not always at the center of the decision. And: Behind it an industry operates with tangible economic interests. Which is also very active in the EU.

An Internet video of the Italian adoption agency Amici dei Bambini. Several African children stand in front a few huts and look confused at the camera. In the background, CEO Marco Griffini warns: These Congolese children desperately need our help, their own parents have failed them. Here at latest Roelie post hears all the alarm bells. This Dutch woman worked until recently for the EU Commission in the area of child protection.

"They go into the poor areas and villages, and look where there are poor families or single mothers, or families in crisis, and then say we have a better solution: Your child can get into a home and get a good education. And in the end the child then goes abroad. "

Roelie Post knows many of these cases and fights for a global ban on international adoptions - also here in Europe. In the late 90s, they had discovered in Romania a systematic trade in children in care. At that time she was responsible for the allocation of EU funds to the Romanian child protection and unveiled a sophisticated system.

"Foreign adoption agencies give money for child protection in Romania and got points for it. And the adoption agencies which had the most points got also most children."

The more money a foreign adoption agency donated to a home, the more children it received for foreign adoptions. Hence the interest of the agencies to get the highest possible amount of EU aid and money children’s homes. In this way, more than 30,000 Romanian children have been taught in other countries - often without the knowledge of parents. Roelie Post turned to her highest boss: Günter Verheugen, Enlargement Commissioner at that time. He demanded an immediate stop of Romanian adoptions. Verheugen recently confirmed for the first time publicly that the case of the imminent adoption ban in Romania reached at that time, the political level:

"The political pressure came again and agaain from the same countries: From France, from Italy, Spain, Israel and the United States. I remember a conversation with the Romanian Prime Minister, to whom I said: My patience is at an end, now you allow no more adoptions or I can not help as far as the accession to the European Union. So sharp it has been. "

As a result, Romania decided in 2004 generally againstinternational adoption and now supports families in need directly, so they are no longer dependent on homes. For the adoption industry that was a shock, as will be seen. Romania has since been under enormous pressure from lobbyists.

"It is the first large country, which has really stopped: no more adoptions abroad. The lobby is afraid that other countries would follow suit, and that's what happened: That means there are currently much less children than before. So the pressure is huge. "

So also in the EU Parliament.

Marco Griffini, the head of the Italian adoption agency used the recent Petition Committee of the Parliament to nail Romania. Griffini claims Romania of violating human rights:

"I do not understand why Romania, this country that we have always loved, has banned international adoption, and denied poor children the right to a family. Finally, tens of thousands of Romanian children wait for adoptive families."

The Romanian authorities relativate Griffini’ss statistics and talk of around eight hundred children waiting for adoption.

In the EU Parliament, the Head of the Italian adoption agency gets support of the Italian Member of Parliament Patricia Toia: Romania could have a bilateral adoption agreement with Italy, she suggests. Also the relevant EU official, the Italian Patrizia de Luca finds: the request could perhaps move Romania to "rethink". Although it is her duty to be neutral. Indignation at the Romanian MEPs. Victor Bostinaru, whose country had imposed an adoption stop indeed at the insistence of the EU:

"In my country, senior politicians were implicated in child trafficking, including the judiciary and the adoption authorities. To demand now here in the EU Parliament that my country is to allow international adoption again - is not only dangerous but also morally and politically unacceptable! "

At the end the request falls through, the parliament votes against the request, that Romania might loosen its adoption ban. In the backrooms the lobbying of adoption agencies, however, continues.

Unofficial translation - original text:
http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/europaheute/1167624/

E.J. Graff Weighs in on The Russian Adoption Tragedy

A piece I felt fell short of E.J. previous articles on adoption: Preventing adoption disasters.

Read it and see what you think. My comment:

Your bottom line on this one falls a bit short of your usual depth of understanding of adoption issues.

You omitted the racial factor involved in American's desire to adopt Russian children despite the known high risks such as FAS and post institutionalization. Race is one of the reasons someone willing to accept a child of seven still did not consider a child from foster care. In the case at hand, being that Hansen is from the south, excluding children of color may have been a rational choice for the sake of the child.

However, with 129,000 children in foster care within the U.S. who cannot be reunited with their families and could be adopted. All nations need to follow the UN's edict to leave transnational adoption as a last resort. Thus, the bottom line for all nations should be to work on ways to help children in need find the permanent, loving care they need within their own borders rather than trade them - import, export into and out of the U.S. - for the profit of adoption practitioners and businesses.

For very minimal fees and no travel expenses, Americans seeking to be parents can utilize the foster-to-adopt programs and actually take a "test run" before making a permanent commitment. Take the child into your home and see how they - and you - adjust. The program allows for the adoption of children somewhat younger than those who are totally free for adoption, though it does involve the adopter taking some risk of falling in love with a child who might be able to reunified with his family. But isn't risk-taking always incumbent on the adult in equation of parenting over allowing any risk of ham to come to your child?

More regulation and follow-up, yes. How that would be enforce din a nation of privatized adoption businesses I don't know. But we must try. But we must also simultaneously have a goal of putting some funds into family preservation programs; make more efforts to decrease family separations; and increase chances for children who have no family able to safely care for them.

These are some of the issues the Schuster needs to delve into far deeper and I hope that they will.

"Our family is now complete!"

Here's an option far more people should consider, especially people like like Tory Hansen.

Just When I Thought it Couldn't Get Worse...

No, it wasn't all the media coverage with sympathy for the adoptive parents whose adoptions from Russia are now on hold.

Not to worry. A delegation of high-level State Department officials will visit Moscow for consultations after Russia threatened to freeze adoptions for U.S. families, the U.S. Embassy said Monday. U.S. Ambassador John Beyrle said in a statement Monday that that the delegation will discuss a possible agreement or bilateral understanding to ensure the well-being of Russian children adopted by families in the United States. yeah,right! Like they can assure that!

And it wasn't people like Kathy Cox, mother with two biological and four adopted children aged 5 to 19. Two of her children came from an orphanage in Sierra Leone saying things like: "I don't blame this woman [Tory Hansen]."

Not this gem of truth from a couple who adopted a sibling group from Russia: ""It's awfully hard to take strangers and try to make them into people who love you" or the "most Russian adoptions are successful" refrain, which is like comforting someone whose loved one has died of cancer by saying that many types of cancer are treatable today. I hardly think Artyem is at all relieved to know that other Russian adoptions are succesful.

Nor was it the "When an Adopted Child Hates You" - as if the reason one adopts is to have someone love them. Nor was it the same article extending sympathy for adoptive parents that experience the "excruciating" pain of giving up on their child.

No - the one that tops PunditMom for the worsts commentary on the Hansen adoption debacle is not just a blog post or story trying for local compassion.

It's an editorial in the Decatur, Albama Daily.

These folks saw beyond the simplicity about a child who was abandoned. they saw the deeper policial ramifications of Russia - a Communist regime bent on destroying us:

A Tennessee woman's decision to send her adopted son back to Russia was inexcusable, but has no national security ramifications.

Russia's reaction to the event, however, should give us pause.

According to reports, a single American nurse sent her adopted Russian child back to his homeland. The child, who turned 8 Friday, had no escort on his one-way flight to Moscow.

Russian spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said during a briefing Thursday that, because of the incident, new adoptions by Americans are on hold.

Russia's response is all too typical, and is a reminder that we need to deal with the nation warily. A rational government does not react with such overkill unless it is more interested in shaming the United States than in helping its orphans. [?!]

This is the same Russia that cut off oil pipelines to Poland and Germany in 2007 in response to a trade dispute. It is the same Russia that spent billions to punish Belarus, building pipelines that bypassed the former Soviet bloc nation.

It is the same Russia that, until recently, took great pleasure in tweaking the United States by supplying nuclear technology to Iran.

When Russia has a strategic advantage, it generally uses it.

President Obama's decision to extend U.S. support for the International Space Station, despite obsolescence of the U.S. space shuttles, gives Russia leverage. So does the Atlas V's reliance upon a Russian engine. A modified Atlas V, built by United Launch Alliance, is a likely replacement for NASA's launch vehicles.

Keeping diplomatic ties open with Russia is essential. Relying upon it as a trusted ally, however, is a mistake. As the country demonstrated yet again in the adoption fiasco, Russia always is looking for leverage against the United States.

Somehow I think we shamed ourselves. Somehow I think that maybe - just maybe - Russia might be intersted in protetcing gheir chidlren from our imperialsim and abuse.

The ignorance expressed in this editorial is topped only by a comment I receoved from a neighbor i told i was going to do an interview for Russian American television. She asked if I was afraid. Totally taken aback, I asked: "Afraid of what" thinking she was perhaps referring to my going into NYC alone.

She clarified and said: "Afraid of the Russians."

I said no and left it at that, scratching my head wondering if she thought it was still the 1950s when we hid under our desks in school in fear of an attack from Russia. But when I shared with a friend in utter bewilderment, the friend suggested that my neighbor might have been referring to the stereotype of the Russian mafia. Gee, I thought, I ought to then be more careful about all my Italian-Americana friends!

Now, this bizarre concern came from a neighbor who may or may not have graduated high school judging by her mis-use of the English language (and she was born here!)

A newspaper editorial however? Really?

In all of the insanity surrounding this case it has occurred to me that even the best commentaries have really missed the boat.

Adoptive parents - especially those who chose to take institutionalized children from nations such as Russia where medical background is scant at best, and like most of adoption, usually false - are taking a huge risk. Why shouldn't they then be able to take these kids on a trial basis until they can actually see how they fit in and behave?

Say, for, instance, like foster-to-adopt programs.

Oh, wait...that already exists as an option -- and a far less expensive option!

If people such s Hansen are willing to take on the risk of adopting a seven year old - not an infant, or even toddler - then why not take a child from foster care where they could go for a test drive and see how the kid adapts?

Oh, yeah...because then they are at risk of being the one who is hurt instead of the kid! Silly me.