Adoption Dochotomy IV - A Truely Sad State of Affairs

Yesterday I posted "Adoption Creates Many People/Many Needs"

I posted about groups making referrals: Each group focusing their energies on what they do best - be it activism, support, conferences, retreats, public education... and referring people in need to other groups for other specialties.

That was the entire gist of the post: A suggestion that we make better use of our time and better serving our constituents.

How sad and pathetic that mothers who lost children to adoption (presumably) took that as an opportunity for name-calling, casting false assumptions and lies, and in general acting like a nasty school-yard gang saying nah-nah-nah nobdy likes you/everybody hates you. (The "nobody/everybody" of course being the four-headed Hydra who flamed.) Who asked? I wasn't applying for a popularity contest! I was making a suggestion about group dynamics and networking for the betterment of those in need of our help.

What is far more troubling than personal attacks on me, is that we have mothers judging-- who suffered more? Who's "story" is more deserving of support from a support group that is open to all mothers who lost children to adoption? Who amongst us shall cast the first stone? Who amongst is so pure as to judge another undeserving of support?

I hear this in many areas, not just on this blog. I have heard mothers treated as lepers because they had their rights terminated, or surrendered an older child not an infant, or because they lost more than one child...or they were married but the child was not their husbands...or for whatever reason...JUDGED! And judged CRUELLY and harshly. I have even heard broad based judgments based on mothers age or the "era" in which she lost her child as to how much she suffered versus how many options she allegedly had available....as if ANY LOSS is any less a loss than anyone else's loss.
The irony of this is that it is just that kind of judgment by society, social wokers etc that got us all here.

Hate is hate. Bigotry is bigotry. It is all based on FEAR and one's own insecurities, and hate for one's own is based on pure and simple self-loathing.

"He can't be a man 'cause he don;t smoke the same cigarettes as me" (m. jagger/k. richards)

It is sad and pathetic. I understand that we are all wounded by our loss and that anger is a natural part of our process. But I am steadfast in my loathing of intolerance and elitism of any kind, and devastated that people in support groups - there allegedly to offer support to all mothers who have lost child to adoption - could think this way - let alone speak it or put it in writing for the whole world to see!

It is sad, it is pathetic, it is mean and cruel.

It is beyond my comprehension...that my seeking for us to extend more help to mothers, would be received with such inane mad viciousness instead.
Incomprehensible and reprehensible!

The only bright side that gets me through such devastation is realizing what a insignificantly small percentage of mothers are like this.

Evil is everywhere...the flip side of good. It just makes me all the more appreciative of my dear friends: the good, loving, caring kind sister-mothers! I hope you too have found caring supportive friends...and have the strength to ignore the haters, realizing that is sadly only themselves that they hate.

I wish ALL mothers - the good and the evil, the sane and the not-to-sane, the pure and the not-so-pure...I wish you all PEACE, love and nurturing! We have suffered far too much to bring additional suffering on one another - for any reason.

Adoption Dichotomies Part III: Adoption as a Last Resort

Why is it that people get offended or defensive when I mention that the United Nations states that adoption should be a last resort for chidlren (UNICEF Press Release March 7, 2007)?

"What does this mean? Are you saying adoption is not a wonderful, warm fuzzy, win-win that saves "unwanted kids?" I'm asked.

Well, first of all, it's not ME saying this, it's the United Nations...well, more exactly UNICEF the United Nations International Children's Fund - organization dedicated to working for global rights of chidlren. (But the, I have even read a blog of an adoptive mother trying to stop her child's school from Trick or Treating for UNICEF and met many adopters who strongly oppose the UN's efforts to support exploited nations like Guatemala because it limits their supply of babies to adopt!)

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work, clearly states that every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible.

Recognising this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, UNICEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for him or her.

For children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care, which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure. ..In each case, the best interests of the individual child must be the guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption.

Over the past 30 years, the number of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries has grown substantially. At the same time, 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 centre stage. Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery, as well as trafficking to individuals whose intentions are to exploit rather than care for children.

Yet saying that adoption should be a last resort is considered heresy!

Unless...that is, of course...if you want a child. Then it is perfectly acceptable today to openly discuss your lengthy experiences with fertility treatments in detail and to make it very clear, that finally, after dealing with the failure of your body and then the failure of modern medicine to "fix" your medical problems in regard to conception and pregnancy...then, and only then does one begin to consider.....options such as surrogacy.....and finally, regretfully....AS A LAST RESORT: Adoption.

That's OK to say. People are very open and verbal about that...but it's not cool to say that adoption should be a last resort for chidlren.

Many who write about fertility and adoption, such as Adoption History/infertility recognize this:

Adoption has been a last resort, a way to make families only after the normal, preferred, method of biogenectic reproduction has been tried and failed.

Those who work with infertile couples and prospective adopters such as Robin J. Roberts, LCSW, PhD recognize this fact very matter-of-factly:

EMBRACING ADOPTION

Most couples do not begin planning their families with adoption. It's probably safe to say that even you began your family planning "the old fashioned way" and only wanted to consider adoption as a last resort. So here you are.

Should Adoption Be Our Next Step After Failed Infertility Treatments?

If a couple is able to accept their own fertility issues, and not look on adoption as a “last resort,” it is a good choice. However, there is always the possibility that, especially if a couple has had failed infertility treatments for a long time, that the adopted child will indeed seem as a last resort, and that the child might even be made to feel as though he is second-best.

Well, DUH. Ya think? Especially when people today blog their entire "journey" from discovering their infertility through their final "choice" to adopt...

And do you think any human human being would CHOSE to be raised by people he was unrelated to? Wondering who their original parents and why they given up? Do you think that's anyone's first choice? Or should be?

Adoption Creates Many People/Many Needs

For a long time - back in the dark pre-historic, pre-internet days - adoptees, (birth) mothers and adoptive parents - aware of the pain of adoption - joined forces and were called a triad. While we maintained separate groups such as CUB focusing on birthparents, Adoption Forum and ALMA, focusing on adoptees, and groups like APFOR (Adoptive Parents for Open Records) being obviously made up on adoptive parents...we all networked and got along

The good old days? Images of John Walton's family all saying goodnight? Hallmark cards and flowers? To some extent, yes. It was a simpler time. We got along easier - working jointly on events like a marches to Washington - because we all share done common goal: Open Records and all worked on search and support.

My first book (shedding light on...The Dark Side of Adoption) published in 1988 reflects this comraderie and the idealistic hope that we could all continue to learn from one another's perspective to increase compassion, honesty and openness.

Today, not only are the three sides of the old "triad" far more separated but even within each of those groups there are many subdivisions.

There are adoptive parents who support open adoption, those who do "theoretically" but "cannot" because they adopted internationally, and those who are simply opposed to it and chose closed adoptions. Some who buy into every myth and believe their child is "the same as if" born to them, and others who wear their adoption status proudly and loudly as a symbol of their altruism. Some who never mention it and others who blog and attend every conference on a option they can and make their life revolve around it (true of mothers and adoptees as well.).

There are adoptees who still believe that everything is honkey dory in adoptionland as long as as adults they are "allowed" the "privilege" of peeking at their own birth certificate as if it were a hornets nest. And there are a growing number of adoptees who want total equality, while still others seemingly want only to rant in total ANGER at having been adopted and want to speak out against the entire institution and in particular international adoption. And, of course, there are the: "My REAL mother is the one who raised me and I have no need for any other" variety, some who are quite boisterous about that!

And mothers...ahh...now there's a diverse group. There is not even a unilateral agreement on what they call themselves! Some now use:
Firstmothers
Original mothers
Birthmothers
Senior Mothers
BSE Mothers
Mother who lost children to adoption
Mothers!

And what they seek in terms of healing varies just as widely. Some want simply a sisterhood - like a sorority - which has an annual reunion called retreat. Just hang out, laugh...party.

Some are still coming to terms with their loss - having just awakened from their years of denial by being found, or being faced with a major change in reunion status...or because the loss was very recent, maybe even being contested. These mothers need a great deal of SUPPORT, hand-holding etc.

Other mothers are more interested in activism, and find it very healing because of its empowerment, others are focused on apologies for the past, and still others just seem to wallow in anger or self-pity. And, finally there are those still in denial or consciously against any involvement in or discussion of the subject.

Why decipher some of the major groups into which mothers (and others) fall within the adoption "movement"? First to point out that all are legitimate positions - there are no right or wrong ways to deal with something so personal. AND...many people have a foot in more than one grouping and/or will float back and forth over time. There are LOTS of us who are members of multiple groups, organizations and email discussion lists because each serves a different need and broadens our horizon and understanding. AND...many people grow and change over time, and their needs change.

More importantly, IMHO, is to recognize and allow for these different needs of mothers and be pleased that there are a multitude of groups to fill their many needs.

I have often drawn the analogy between my adoption loss and a chronic illness, such as my RA. Neither will ever be cured; both have ups and downs (remissions and flare ups); and both require a combination of treatments to just survive with a minimum of pain to be able to function. The rheumatologist who treats my disease often needs to refer me to orthopedic surgeons and others. Like any caring, non-threatened doctor who wants the best for his patients, he doesn’t deny me that referral for fear that he will lose me as a patient. He knows that the disease effects me in many ways and I need complementary resources to deal with it all.

It would be best for the health and welfare of all of us to follow this model and openly refer to one another. A far cry from putting down other groups simply because they face the issues with a different strategy, philosophy or mode of support.

Origins-USA, for instance lists meetings, conferences and events from other groups; participates in RegDay and in general networks with many, many groups and organizations from Ethica to aPEAR. We have no fear that our contact with them will "contaminate" or water-down our mission, because we are strong and committed to our goals!

While Origins-USA has recently established H.U.G.S. (Helping "U" Get Support) for one-on-one telephone and email support, and we also have a discussion forum...we currently have no in-person support groups and do not plan either a retreat or conference in the near future.. So why not refer people out for these services?

To withhold such options as are available is to replicate the cruelty of what was done to us to obtain our children.

We need to be the change we want to see. Thus, we need to be open and honest and offer all mothers all their OPTIONS!

Adoption Dichotmoies Part II

There are so many glaring dichotomies in adoption I may just have to make this an ongoing regular feature of this blog. Please be sure to see Part I, and Gotcha Day.

Today's dichotomy is in reply to the many people who say that "I/we" use language that commodifies children, as when we speak of the "adoption industry" and the fact that the USA both imports and exports children for adoption. I have even been known to state that children are bought and sold, and surely the use of the terms supply and demand cannot be attributed to me alone!

Now, let's take a look at those attempting to adopt - and those encouraging them to do so. What are their concerns/questions about the process of caring for a child unrelated to them?

Adoption Q &A BND.com

Why adopt from Korea and China?The time between completing paperwork and taking a baby home is one to two years. In other countries, including the United States, it can be as much three years or longer.

Can you request a boy or a girl?Yes, though it depends on the country. In China, there typically are more girls up for adoption. In Korea, it's boys.

Do I have to travel to bring a baby home? How much time will I spend there?In China, you must go in person. In Korea, arrangements can be made to have the baby brought to the United States.

How much does it cost? Adoption fees and processing vary by agency and country. A general figure is up to $20,000.

There are half a million "hits" on google for adoption costs! Many of these pages express the following:

Adoption Costs and Financing Adoption

For many parents-to-be, one of the biggest hurdles on the road to adoption is finding the necessary funds. On this page, find tips for financing adoption, learn ways to lower travel costs, read about how other parents did it, and much more.

The above article includes a link to this information obtained from an Adoptive Families 2007 survey of costs:

Highlights of the adoption cost survey:

The majority of domestic newborn adoptions cost less than $25,000, while more than 75 percent of international adoptions cost more than $20,000. [Ed Note: these are all infant adoption, not domestic adoptions from foster care.]

The majority of adoptions from Korea cost between $20,000 and $30,000.

The majority of adoptions from Ethiopia and China cost between $15,000 and $25,000.

The majority of adoptions from Russian and Guatemala cost more than $30,000.

38 percent of domestic adopters had at least one "false start," in which adoptive parents worked with one or more birthmothers before a match that succeeded.

The majority of "false starts" cost less than $5,000. [Ed Note: This is because people CHOSE to pay finder fees to adoption facilitators]

When you look further into the breakdown of these fees, it looks like this:

Agency fees, attorney fees....

Birth parent expenses _{(Amount and type of expenses allowable for payment usually restricted by state law and subject to review by the court.)}

Medical expenses (prenatal, birth/delivery, postnatal for mother; perinatal care for child):

Low - $0 (insurance) High - $10,000 - $20,000 (depending on difficulty of the delivery, etc.)

Living expenses (rent, food, clothing, transportation, etc):

Low - $500 High - $12,000

Legal representation: Low - $500 High - $1,500
Counseling: Low - $500 High - $2,000

Then there are International Agency fees, if you go that route:

Agency fees: Low - $10,000 High - $30,000

And, unless you consider your travel a vacation, you need to include:

Fees in the foreign country

Travel expenses (transportation, hotel, meals)

Foreign agency placement fee

Foreign attorney legal and placement fee

Foster and medical care for the child

Use of translation and escort services by US agency representative in the foreign country

Foreign court filing fee and document fees (birth certificate and adoption decree)

Required "donation" to orphanage or agency

Translation services and escort services

Passport office fees

And yet - despite all of the SHOPPING and COMPARISON PRICING - adopters are "offended" - even indignant - at honest language that addresses the FACT that adoption is a "business" and children as "commodities"! My oh my!

Let us not forget that anyone who CHOOSES to spend these outrageous fees are NOT, as they wish to appear, helpless victims trying merely to help, save or rescue a child.

"Clearly, not everyone seeking to adopt is capable of parenting older children or siblings, typically the children who are most in need of permanent homes. However, the astounding fact is nearly forty percent of American adults, or 81.5 million people, have considered adopting a child. If just one in 500 of these adults adopt, all of the 114,000 children in foster care waiting for adoption would have permanent, loving families, according to a National Adoption Attitudes Survey." The Stork Market, p. 39

Talk about wanting your child and wanting to keeping your dignity, too! Can we all say: Adoption Dichotomy!?

Keep watching this blog for more Adoption (Let's Have it ALL, Both Ways) Dichotomies. Perhaps an exploration of God's role in all this??

Anti-Adoption and PROUD OF IT!

I have shunned the label anti-adoption...and probably still will under most circumstances, for diplomacy purposes.

But the very word "adoption" says a great deal. It is a verb; an action: meaning to take. Adopt does not mean care for or protect...it means only to take.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):

1.	to choose or take as one's own; make one's own by selection or assent: to adopt a nickname.

2.	to take and rear (the child of other parents) as one's own child, specifically by a formal legal act.

3.	to take or receive into any kind of new relationship: to adopt a person as a protégé.

Take. Take. Take.

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. To take into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own child.
2. 1. To take and follow (a course of action, for example) by choice or assent: adopt a new technique.
   2. To take up and make one's own: adopt a new idea.
3. To take on or assume: adopted an air of importance.

Take. Take. take.

Where is the commitment? The permanence? Where is the care?

Where is there any recognition of the human being "taken" - and taken from whom or what?? Doesn't matter. Just TAKE. TAKE. TAKE.

So why is it then that some defend the process, believing it to be "imperfect, but the best we've got" or that it can be "reformed." Why do some defend the very word against not only more humane practices but alternative names for such alternative means of providing open and honest child care?

Why would we want to continue to use a term that speaks only of the taking and making another human being one's "own"?

What is so frightening about permanent legal guardianship for children who have no extended family who are able or willing to care for them? What is horrifying about not issuing a falsified birth certificate and beginning a child's life on a foundation of lies? Why are some perplexed at the the idea of family members having multiple surnames as so many families do today for a variety of causes such as divorce and remarriage, not to mention first marriages in which women do not change their names.

Let's look at women making that choice in marriage. First, they are adults making a CHOICE - not having it made for them. Secondly, why did the practice of not taking one's husband's name come about in recent decades? Simple. Women decided they refused to be "owned" as property! That is what renaming is about. Yet some insist on continuing the practice of human ownership of other humans.

Yes, I'm talking about children. Children have no rights, rights? Well, sorta true. They have right to know their name and the parents -- in coutries that abide by the Convention of the Rights of the Child. And even in the US, children over 12 are old enough to state a residential custodial choice in divorce. Seems simple enough to enact a name change for a child even as young as kindergarten age who really wants it.

Personally, I would much prefer a word that indicated - and a process committed to - finding a homes for children; or entrusting others with the care of some one else's kids. Not a word that only meant to take, take, take...

Adoption Addiction?

ad·dic·tion /əˈdɪkʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-dik-shuhn] – noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

a·dopt /əˈdɒpt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-dopt] – verb

1.	to choose or take as one's own; make one's own by selection or assent: to adopt a nickname.

2.	to take and rear (the child of other parents) as one's own child, specifically by a formal legal act.

Hooked on taking, and taking, and taking...having, owning, possessing...

What else could explain Anglina Jolie's considering yet another adoption while healing from and boding with the birth of her twins?

According to the Chinese press:

Angelina Jolie is considering adopting another child. The 'Wanted' actress - who gave birth to twins Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline last month - was so affected by footage of the recent earthquake in China she is contemplating giving a home to a child orphaned in the natural disaster.

People can be addicted to anything: sex, shopping (taking, owning, possessing), plastic surgery...so why not adopting? It's just another form of collecting. Some collect dolls, other live ones!

Others have said: "Watch Out China Angelina Jolie Wants Your Children!"

Children are like Pokemon to Angelina Jolie, she just has to collect them all, and now reports are saying she is eying China.

And, of course....who is more "entitled" than Angelina...or more motherly? Her father - who got to see the twins in people magazine like everyone else - is stunned and said she had no interest in dolls when she was young. Guess she's making up for lost time!

Mia Farrow also adopted a bunch of kids. Difference? She did it OUT of the limelight! I also know of no children she adopted who were black market.

Let's Make a Deal!

I recently came across the news that "at least 22,000 children across the country are waiting to be adopted by loving parents" but, just as in the U.S. of A., Canadians are choosing to adopt overseas instead.

So...since we have more than 100,000 kids in the same situation...in foster care and unable to be reunified with any family....

And since adopters by-and-large prefer imports over domestics...

Let's swap "unwanted" foster kids and that way Americans and Knooks can feel the joy of adopting internationally and no one has to feel as if they are recycling or buying second-hand, "previously owned" goods...

I mean, after all...who would want a USED Chevrolet station wagon when one could get an exotic Lamborghini, Porsche, or BMW fresh from the showroom...er orphanage! And all it depends on which models are currently "available" for delivery and the price tag! If there's none "in stock" - people are willing to wait for one with the exact list of "accessories' they need and desire...and they will definitely NOT accept one with dents or any other IMPERFECTION!

If the foster swap program catches on, it would be expanded to Western Europe and even down under, though on a far smaller sale of course in countries that have moral and decent social systems that take care of their own.

Off to contact the consulates with this brilliant plan to "dispose" of both countries garbage...we can call it the "orphan plane."

After all - why should the US have the distinction of being possibly the only nation in the world who both imports and exports its kids for profit...and don't we live in a world economy? A FREE market?

We could change the poem on the Statue of Liberty to reflect the glory of the country that giveth and taketh!


"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless bastards tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door....and I will send thee mine."