Wednesday, October 2, 2013

When Adoption Breaches Civil Rights

“A child’s circumstances may ‘require’ statutory intervention, perhaps may even ‘require’ the indefinite or long-term removal of the child from the family and his or her placement with strangers, but that is not to say that the same circumstances will necessarily ‘require’ that the child be adopted. They may or they may not. The question, at the end of the day, is whether what is ‘required’ is adoption.”
The [UK high] Court....   
....also reiterates three points made by Lord Neuberger in Re B.

(1) the child’s interests include being brought up by the natural family, ideally by the natural parents, or at least one of them, unless the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare make that not possible;
(2) the Court must consider all the options before coming to a decision; and
(3) before making an adoption order the court must be satisfied that there is no practical way of the authorities (including the Health Service) providing the requisite assistance and support and Judges must explore rigorously whether a Local Authority is seeking a Placement Order because resource issues make it unwilling to provide the necessary support. 
So says UK high court. 

* IF ONLY we could see such a stance taken in the U$A - the largest importer of children trafficked from around the world - instead of giving only lip services to protecting its children.   

IF ONLY this position had been taken as multiple state and federal courts made decisions concerning Veronica and Dusten Brown. IF ONLY it would be taken in the case of Deseray and all other contested adoptions which have railroad the rights of natural parents.

It bears repeating: "the child’s interests include being brought up by the natural family, ideally by the natural parents, or at least one of them, unless the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare make that not possible."  The child's interest. What a concept!

IF ONLY both the U$ and the UK took this position instead of its push for "permanency" of children in foster care, totally distorting the meaning of permanency in disrupting a family to create a new, unrelated one instead of working to maintain the integrity of the original family with resources and assistance. The essence of this UK Judgment is "confirmation of how seriously non-consensual adoption is to be treated in the family justice system" a problem there as well as here.

IF ONLY American child care practices honored a child's identity as per the United Nations mandates and outlawed states' falsification of birth certificates and sealing of original birth certificates from adopted persons.

IF ONLY children were not such a sought-after commodity. iF ONLY infertility rates so high, same sex couples were not now adding to the demand that creates and perpetuates child trafficking for adoption.  

IF ONLY we as nations could stop the corruption, the exploitation to fill these demands and support struggling families.

IF ONLY we honored a child's heritage, lineage, continuity, and right to identity, as well as his PERMANENCY within his family of origins.

IF ONLY we honored the civil rights of every person including those adopted which means protecting their right to remain with the family of birth and if necessary to remove them from that situation to honor their identity.


1 comment:

Melissa D. said...


Could you post this article or at least provide a link to it?

Baby Veronica & Baby Deseray: Don't Let Them Sell Our Babies!
Dot Scott

The recent cases of Baby Veronica and Baby Desaray make me fear for young adoptive children, especially those of color. The similarities of these two cases, including the same adoption agency attorney in both, demand a closer look into these children’s civil rights.

As an African-American mother, it disturbs me to read of all the cheering and celebration of Veronica’s return to her adoptive parents. Where have we come as a country when we all allow ourselves to go back to the days when the purchase of humans, especially minorities, is accepted and even applauded?

The reported stories around the relationships between the biological fathers and mothers suggest that these mothers are giving birth to minority children with the express intent of giving them up for adoption. The biological mothers are even generously compensated for doing so. The implication becomes that the fathers were used as sperm donors, which is surely cheaper than in vitro fertilization.

Any sympathy for the adoptive parents continues to diminish as it becomes increasingly clear that something very sinister is going on here, and the birth mothers may be part of it. In fact, the Charleston Post and Courier took a close look at this disturbing issue in its September 21 article, "The Price of Adoption." The reporter quotes Shannon Jones, the Charleston attorney who represents the biological fathers of both Veronica and Desaray as saying: “Once these agencies and lawyers get the birth mother on the hook ... they tell these birth moms not to answer any calls from the dads. Of course, then they argue the dad is a deadbeat.”

If it’s true that the mothers set out to deceive or mislead the biological fathers, that is the saddest of all elements surrounding these adoptions.

Our children are not chattels to be conveniently sold to adoptive parents who care more about what they want than what is best for the child. What gives them the right to take a minority child when a loving and adoring father wants to raise her? While contributing eggs and sperm doesn’t necessarily make a good mother or father, neither does fighting a prolonged court battle to win custody and securing a public relations to accuse the birth father of being a deadbeat dad.

Real mothers and fathers will always do what’s best for the child, and if that child is happy with her biological parent, no one should attempt to sever that bond.

From all accounts of both the Baby Veronica and Baby Desaray cases, I believe that there should be a thorough investigation of the birth mothers, the adoptive parents, and the attorney for the adoption agency to ensure that the civil rights of these children and their biological fathers have not been violated.

We as a nation must protect the civil rights of children of all races. Above all, we must remember that the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King remind us that our children too are “created equal."

Dot Scott is the president of the Charleston Branch of the NAACP.


RussiaToday Apr 29, 2010 on Russian Adoption Freeze

Russi Today: America television Interview 4/16/10 Regarding the Return of Artyem, 7, to Russia alone

RT: Russia-America TV Interview 3/10

Korean Birthmothers Protest to End Adoption

Motherhood, Adoption, Surrender, & Loss

Who Am I?

Bitter Winds

Adoption and Truth Video

Adoption Truth

Birthparents Never Forget