First, Graham seems to believe that Maynard deserves privacy, despite
having been open and very public about everything else in her life - her
affairs and the adoption of these two innocent children. She seemingly condones
a person bragging publicly about their altruism in "rescuing"
children, while simultaneously supporting sheltering them from the negative press
when they simply "return" or give up on the children they've
committed to.
She seems to imply we should be sympathetic to this form of child
abuse - the dissolution of a "forever" promise.
The placement of one of the two girls is described but not the other, leaving readers to conclude that the sisters were placed separately and to wonder what did become of the other girl? But never mind, let's just focus our pity on poor Maynard, not the children. After all, it is she we can identify with...and Lord knows she did TRY!
In order to pull of this absurd need to defend this inhumane act, Graham
makes the OUTLANDISHLY incorrect comparison that a 15% adoption failure rate is
not so bad when compared to a 50% divorce rate! How ignorant is this person – or does the
general public feel this way about adoption?
The rate of adoption failure is actually 20 -25% when older child adoptions are factored in. But, statistics don't really matter. One adoption
failure is too much.
And there is no way to compare marriage which involves
a free and willing CHOICE made by two ADULTS to an adult committing to care for
a child forever.
These two innocent little girls did not ask to be taken from all that
was familiar to them and taken – by strangers – to a foreign land!
Graham then goes to bemoan the declining number of International
adoptions. She – and the public – simply ignore the reality that every adoption begins
with a tragedy of a family in crisis or a mother deceived and less such
horrific events is a triumph not a defeat. When countries close down or put
tighter restrictions and regulations on the numbers of children they export –
this is a good thing. It means they are putting they putting the breaks on the
corruption, coercion, exploitation and the kidnapping to meet a demand. We need not feel regret that fewer children need to be taken from their families and homelands to meet a demand for "adoptable" children.
Adopters like Maynard deserve no kindness, no respect, and certainly no sympathy or pity anymore than any child
abuser does. We should “understand” supporters like Graham plea, that
these children are often very hard to handle – some smear feces on the walls.
Would such an offense make beating the child acceptable? How about locking them up, or not feeding them - OK because of the offense? Why is abandoning him
or her thus acceptable? Would it be acceptable or condoned if someone gave away "their own" child for such behavior?
Or are we to forgive because she - and others like her - found them another placement? This does not make a vile act any more
noble. It is their only option, as Internationally adopted children cannot be
placed in foster care. If there were dumpsters on every corner like the
collection bins for old clothing, that allowed for the disposal of unwanted kids,
they would simply do that. But since that is not acceptable or legal, they use
their only recourse the law allows them: an underground network of families who take in the kids no one else wants.
Hey - if ya' wanna "test drive" a kid and see how "fits" in your family without committing to adoption - there is such a things foster-to-adopt!
Proposal to Stem Such Adoption Failures
I have a far better
idea. I think every adopter who FAILS their commitment to a child – because
clearly it is a failure of the adopter, not the child or the adoption – every
bitch who takes a child and terminates or dissolves an adoption should be made to pay through the nose like
Torri Hansen, who was ordered to pay $1000 a month after shipping her "forever child" back on a plane alone to Russia.
I propose a universal law in all states, that every adoption includes
a legal contract binding the adopter so support the child or children they are
accepting as their own until said child or children reach adulthood, at least
financially. Anything less is totally unacceptable or fair. Such an enforceable legal contract
would make people think far more carefully before take on such a huge
commitment.
After all, they are taking these children as their "own" with a birth certificate altered to show they were BORN to them! We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have adopters telling they love their adopted children equally ti any child that might have bene born to them and then accept this kind of behavior as OK because they kid came with baggage that the adopter was unable to deal or cope with.
The lack of such language in adoptions is clearly leaving the care of
adopted children in the air and at the whim of their adopters. It is making
them a product with a return agreement of not acceptable – if it fails to meet
expectations.
Every vulnerable child deserves such protection!
But, alas, we know it will never happen because it is the adopters
that grease all the wheels of the adoption industry with THEIR money! It all revolves around them – their
money, their needs are met. Their every whim catered to! If it's a so-called "open" adoption, THEY get to choose HOW open. The children are
simply the commodity in the equation – and who grants “rights” or protection to
a commodity?
No, it’s always all about “consumer rights” and protection, isn’t
it?
Keeping silent or in any way protecting the perpetrators of adoption terminations is an abomination and a slap in the face to their innocent victims of their abuse and gives their behavior a stamp of approval, allowing others to think that adoption comes with guarantees, warranties and a free ride of sympathy if THEY fail as parents!
We as a society cannot control public opinion, but we cna we MUST stop condoning this with laws that protect the children.
Child Welfare league of America, Evan B. Donalsdon Adoption Institute - I ask you to stand with me in proposing such legislation to protect adopted children.
