Swimming Against the Tide

Dr. Joe Mercola is renegade. He has been called every hateful name: charlatan, snake oil salesman and dangerous.

He is a medical doctor who started as a traditional physician, treating patients by writing prescriptions. After ten years he realized that all he was doing was treating symptoms and not the cause of illness and disease.  He began to study alternative health solutions such a vitamins.  In this sense he is very much like social workers such as Annette Baran who became vocal opponents to the methods they had been taught and were considered the status quo. He and they rebelled against the artificial in favor or nature! Against the money-making methods and for the people-helping ones!

After a decade or so of being an alternative medicine guru - loved and hated - he has become an activist to fight the established pharmaceutical companies and organizations such as the AMA that support the pharmaceuticals. In this sense I directly relate. Unlike Baran or Villardi, I did not come to adoption via professional path. But like Mercola I have made the step from helping individuals to seeking to change the system itself.

I co-founded the original Origins, an Organization for Mothers who lost Children to Adoption in 1980 in New Jersey. I was one of five co-founding mothers who held search and support groups in homes, libraries, etc. Similar groups for mothers and adoptees were held all over the nation, pre Internet. Our focus was SELF-HELP, much as Dr, Mercola's initial focus was helping his patients get healthy.  

Over the years I assisted in hundreds and hundreds of family reunifications and worked with hundreds of others on their post reunion relationships.  Then, like Dr. Mercola, I moved on to fighting the "system", with my first book, shedding light on...The Dark Side of Adoption in 1988.  From there I moved to fighting the INDUSTRY of adoption with my second book in 2007.

Self-help is still needed and will be even if we eliminate all unnecessary adoptions because there will always be a small number of necessary familial separations and replacements in alternative care and those people will need still support in dealing with that tragedy.

I see the analogy of medicine very clearly in these different aspects of adoption reform. Self-help vs reform vs activism mirrors research and treatment. versus is really not the correct term because they are both necessary. If all we did was research cancer or HIV of crippling diseases, we would surely be ignoring those in need.  Likewise, if all we did was treat, we would be treating these diseases treating eternally - good for the pharm cos - but not for people. We need to treat those afflicted, research the causes..AND, fight against those who profit by keeping us dependent upon the "cures" to our woes when they could be eradicated.

My hope for adoption reform is that each adoptee or natural family member who initiates a search or is found, pay it forward by:

• helping others search 
• supporting others in reunion or those fearful of a search and reunion
• speaking out publicly via letters-to-the editor, local news coverage, or at your church and among friend and family. Help "normalize" family reunification after adoption separation.
• support equal access legislation!

If you are a reformer, involved in search and support and/or working on legislation (or have) I hope you would also work to expose the exploitation and coercion in the adoption industry.  If you are earning any money or even just clout from doing searches but are pro-adoption, you are part of the problem. You are in essence an ambulance at the base of a cliff!

We need to use our experiences to speak out against the industry - against adoption being used to meet a demand instead of the best interest of children and families.

Remember: Smoking was once considered sexy and sophisticated and was glamorized in movie etc.

Remember: It was once OK to on slaves in the US and later it was Ok to segregate schools and other places.  Couples were arrested for dating interracially.

Surrogacy, Adoption and the Commodification of Children

Recently a "news" report - the kind that is more concerned with who in Hollywood is marrying, jailed or breaking up - reported on a celeb couple who had a baby "via surrogacy." It was said as if the baby was born via cesarian. This is how nonchalant we have come about the practice of paying for babies - or for the eggs, or sperm or the "rental' of one's womb.

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood is defined as "a dystopian novel, a work of science fiction or speculative fiction." And yet it is very much reality. The book describes a point in time when fertility rates are so low, fertile women are kept as slaves of a sort to bear children for the wealthy and infertile. 

No. Save your fingers commenting.  I am not suggesting that all infertility is a result - directly or indirectly - of delayed childbearing. While a good percentage of it is, many other causes are likewise preventable such as weight (too high or too low), smoking, abortions, STDs, environmental contaminants..... Still, I am not implying it is not  a grievous loss. I am simply stating that it is MEDICAL problem that is being treated with special solutions and that a good deal of it is very preventable. As Vanessa Grigoriadis at New York Magazine wrote:

The fact is that the Pill, while giving women control of their bodies for the first time in history, allowed them to forget about the biological realities of being female until it was, in some cases, too late. It changed the narrative of women’s lives, so that it was much easier to put off having children until all the fun had been had (or financial pressures lessened).  

Bianca Dye admits:

I’m the walking stereotype of the career gal that… I dunno…  just forgot.
I got busy, dated dickheads and didn’t realise my time was REALLY RUNNING OUT!

Too greedy looking at what else was on the menu, I suppose. I never really committed to that: “must find hot, successful guy, must marry him, must buy house, must have baby.”

These rather simplistic views of the forgetfulness of women are countered on Feminsiste, with:

...yes, it is true that many women have trouble conceiving as they age. It is something that women have to think about — fertility isn’t forever, and if you want to birth your own babies, you have to make sure you fit that in . A lot of women don’t want to be pregnant until they’re in their 30s, when their fertility is declining. That’s not nothing.

So, it's not so much 'forgetting' as 'choosing' to delay. And then one has other 'choices' one can make.  Today, we have a mega billion dollar industry to provide eggs, sperm, wombs, frozen embryos and living children...a veritable shopping mall of choices for those who were simply too busy to think about childbearing, or wanted to avoid stretch marks or whatever reason.  It's as simple as forgetting to thaw something out for dinner and calling a take-out!  You simply have to decide if you want Chinese, Ethiopian, or something you can pass off as home-made.


As in Handmaid's Tale, women are very much divided by class: Haves and have-nots. The Haves have "rights" granted them by their wealth to "have" anything they want, including the eggs, sperm, embryos or children of others. And they can play it any way they choose. They can play martyr like Sandra Bullock who after being burned by her bad-boy husband (as much of a shock as being burned by fire) went on to adopt a little Black baby alone, granting her status second only to Mother Theresa. Her one alone trumps Madonna's two and whatever number Angelina the collector is up to now.


For the most part the Haves are admired.  But what of the have-nots? They are looked at with a combination of varying and alternating amounts of pity, contempt, disgust, unselfishness, admiration (even if solicitous at best), and/or bravery (even if insincere)....not unlike what one might say aloud as stepping over a homeless person lying in a puddle in a doorway, who one might even toss soem loose change to.


It's interesting to note that women profit, or are thought to profit, from a service other women need or want and are unable or unwilling to provide it is often deemed illegal or immoral. The same service given freely - or with more subtle exchange of payment - is often highly regarded. Sex for instance is expected of a married woman and a disgrace for a "woman of the night", hooker, call-girl, prostitute or "loose woman." Cleaning one's house, shopping. walking one's dog, cooking, and "minding the children" can all be bought for a meager wage. So why not carrying the pregnancy?  Not only are women who hire women superior to their employees, but "Johns" are far less legally or morally punished for their participation in the hiring and paying for sexual favors. In many parts of the world it is considered part of male "privilege" despite the exploitation of the service provider. The celeb couple who had their baby 'via surrogacy' was simply availing themselves of a service as one might hire a limo and driver for a special night out on the town, or keep one on staff if one was in the income range to do so....despite the fact that a surrogate mother risks her life in the endeavor.


Oprah missed the boat totally on this one as she sat laughing about a petite 4foot Indian woman carrying a child for a 6foot+ American man and his wife. She thought it hysterically to think about that big baby coming out of that tiny woman, without a thought to the fact that it could literally tear her part or kill her. Nor did the fact that the indian surrogate mothers interviewed were shunned by their communities bother her one iota. She saw it as a win-win because the indian woman were able to buy homes with the money earned risking their lives - homes they may not be able to afford the upkeep of.


While the motives of the have-nots are questionable -- maybe she's doing it for the money or maybe she just really loves being pregnant and helping others have babies -- the motives of the haves are never in question. Their want of a child is normal, natural and not at all selfish (as a younger women wanting to keep her own baby is). Whatever means they choose is their choice to make and is perfectly justifiable without question.  They are looked on with total understanding, compassion, a tiny tad of pity but in a very empathetic way and many of their choices are admired, exalted, praised as altruistic and humanitarian.

All this despite the fact that surrogacy is far more about narcissism than about wanting "a child."


She (or he) who is "deserving" to be a mother (or father) is she (or he) who can afford to choose her time, and means of doing so. If you can afford a Rolls Royce it is your privilege to own one. If all you cna afford is a used Ford, so be it. others, take the bus or walk. Children are status symbols. If you are in a class with Jay Leno then being a collector is perfectly acceptable as are Jolie's children. It's also OK if you flaunt religion as your reason, as for instance the Duggars do. But don't try to compete with the big boys if you are poor or unwed like in infamous "OctoMom." 

DESERVING to be a parent in the US today is judged by one and only one standard is all about what you can AFFORD and doing it without being a "burden" on society.


Yet here's the big IRONY to that argument:  Adoption in the U.S. is subsidized by your tax dollars.  And not just adoptiosn that woudl remove children from foster care and thus decrease tax payers burdenes. No, ALL adoptions are entitled to a tax credit of $13,360 (http://www.nacac.org/taxcredit/taxcredit.html). This tax credit is payable to the adoptive family if they have no other tax burden, which essentially means they get PAID to adopt a baby. Additionally, they are then able to claim the child as a dependent, EIC, and deduct child care expenses, if incurred.

Two corrections to the comparison chart above. regarding "fees" - while it is illegal to pay a mother directly in an adoption, the massive loophole is calling it paying he medical expenses despite the fact that any expectant mother would be entitle to Medicare.  The second correction is that while NJ challenged surrogacy and put some limitations on it, it is not illegal in the state.
  
The major difference between surrogacy and adoption, from the standpoint of the natural/original mother, is intent.  For the adopting parents the intent is the same. they want a child. But for the mother bearing the child the intent is extremely different and important to bear in mind.

Only a paid surrogate conceives a child with the INTENT to let it go to others. It is a conscious CHOICE she makes, though financial pressures are likely involved, especially for foreign surrogates. The word "choice" is erroniously used to describe a woman who finds herself uninentionally pregnant and conidered adoption.  It was not her chpoice to become pregnant nor was it her choice to have a child she is unable to care for and MUST let go to another. She is not giving someone a 'gift" - she is entrusting them with the care of her child, which unfortunately means forever under current US law. It means forever and it requires the eradication of the original mother and father and all connections to the child. Even so-called open-adoption begins with relinquishment of ALL rights and a falsified birth certificate listing the adopters as the parents of birth. State committed fraud.


And the biggest problem with both is inadequate informed information about the consequences to the woman and her child.

Why is it, I wonder, that it's "a baby, not a choice" when pr-lifers are talking about the possibility of terminating a pregnancy - ending the "life" of an unsustainable fetus...but it's a "choice" to buy ovum and sperm...the basis of human life, and it's a "choice" to rent a womb and contract - pre-birth - to buy the baby?  Why are these simple "choices" that we report as if someone chose a blue car over a red one? 

DEBUNKING ADOPTION MYTHS

Kate Middleton is among the latest to express an interest in adoption as an ac of altruistic humanitarianism. But is it?  Are there really thousands of "orphans" "languishing" in institutions in need of care or is it all propagandized hype produced by lobbyists for the mega billion dollar adoption industry?

Bookmark this page and send a link to it to any and all who have consumed the Kool-Aid and are under mesmerized by the glamour and mythology of adoption ignoring the reality.

First off, let us ask why is it that someone like Pastor Kim Do-hyun, director of KoRoo, an organization that helps supports Korean adoptees returning to their homeland, says:

"...overseas adoption is a kind of child abuse by the state. ....Overseas adoption is the forced expulsion of children from the society where they are supposed to live. In this sense, overseas adoption is a social violence against children. As humans, we exist as part of a gigantic ecosystem. The existence of the biological parents of adoptees can never be annihilated nor denied.

"Overseas adoption is a forced separation of children from their natural ecosystems, as well as a way of forcing them into compulsory unity with settings different from and unnatural to their genetic and original social systems. Through this forced separation and compulsory unity, not only the adoptees, but also their biological parents, adoptive parents and their family members suffer trauma." 

Has his thinking been swayed too heavily by bitter, unhappy discontent adoptees when in fact what he says applies to ALL adoptions, including domestic which annihilate, delete, erases, redacts, eliminates, hides, and keeps secret, natural family connections?



There are those like Elizabeth Bartholet who bemoan decreasing numbers of International Adoptions (IA)and adoption agencies closing feigning concern for the children left unserved. Truth is that she represents attorneys and other partitioners who make their living redistributing children into and out of the US!

- FACT: 90% of children in orphanages worldwide are not orphans but have at least one living parent and/or extended family planning to reunite their family as was the case with the two children Madonna adopted. All over the world orphanages are used to provide temporary care and provide food, medical care and education parents cannot afford. Many such people have no concept of permanent adoption of their children.

- FACT: Many people all over the world are exploited for their ignorance, asked to sign papers they cannot read; told their children are going to the US Europe of an education.

- FACT: Children are kidnapped, stolen and trafficked all over the world - South & Central America, eastern Europe, Asia, Africa - to meet a demand for younger children while older and physically challenged children are ignored in orphanages as are the 120,000 US children in foster care who COULD be adopted! 

- FACT: Many caring people wanting to adopt for purely altruistic reasons chose reputable agencies, and have inadvertently adopted children who were stolen or kidnapped. Child traffickers label kidnapped children abandoned and it is virtually impossible to verify otherwise.

- FACT: In nations that have ceased IA because of corruption, the number of allegedly “abandoned” babies dropped to almost zero. When adoptions were resumed, the number of said “abandoned” babies rose back up again to meet the demand!

- FACT: The tens of thousands of dollars paid by westerners to adopt would be far better spent building schools, digging wells or buying medical supplies. Such high fees instead support traffickers and prevent local residents from adopting within many nations because they cannot compete financially with fees set based on demand.

When listening to the pros and cons of adoption arguments look at the SOURCES and follow the money! 

Listen to what non-profits who work on the ground with children and family in need have to say:

“Regrettably, in many cases, the emphasis has changed from the desire to provide a needy child with a home, to that of providing a needy parent with a child. As a result, a whole industry has grown, generating millions of dollars of revenues each year . . .”The Special Rapporteur, United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, 2003.

"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." UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption.

READ:

• Who are the 143 Million Orphans?

• Orphaned or Stolen

• Duped by Indian adoption agency, US family cautions couples.

• Read the blog of Julia Rollins who unwittingly adopted stolen children

• The Lie We Love by E.J.Graff

• The works of David Smolin on child trafficking

• Lies, damned lies, statistics…and baby selling?

Regarding adoption from China, specifically read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8939661/Chinese-police-rescue-178-children-after-mass-child-trafficking-ring-bust.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/nyregion/chinas-adoption-scandal-sends-chills-through-families-in-united-states.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adoption-stories/200909/la-times-chinese-babies-stolen-foreign-adoption

http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/5824/

http://ouradopt.com/adoption-blog/jan-2009/juliafuller/was-baby-you-adopted-china-stolen-or-purchased

Regarding Ethiopia: http://familypreservation.blogspot.com/2010/05/must-see-video-news-report-about-child.html

http://www.ethicanet.org/ethiopia-to-cut-foreign-adoptions-by-up-to-90-percent

Human trafficking for adoption: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rani-hong/human-trafficking-prevention-month_b_1199395.html

Same Sex Adoption

For some time the headlines have screamed of discrimination against same sex couples adopting. Catholic agencies have closed their doors rather than go against their beliefs and allow gay couples to adopt children.  Gays are up in arms and many claim that such policies only hurt the children who could benefit from loving homes regardless of the sexual orientation of those who care for them.

When I went to press with THE STORK MARKET in 2007, the topic was just becoming an issue and my thoughts were not yet fully formed.  I am an extremely liberal progressive and fully and totally support marriage equality.  But adoption as a gay rights issue was another question altogether that required more time to formulate my conflicted feelings and form an opinion. I thus, then - and since - have avoided the subject not wanting to become embroiled in adding to the furor of adoption becoming another platform for gay rights for two reasons:

1. Adoption is not a "right"
2. Adoption should always put the needs of children above those of any of the adults

No one has a "right" to adopt. Furthermore, although they get lumped together in the media and the minds of the public, all adoptions are not equal. State adoptions of children in foster care are mandated by state law while private adoptions - domestic and international - are held to very different standards and looser regulations, based primarily on who can afford to pay the tens of thousands of dollars they cost.  Religious institutions and private adoption facilitators are not bound by the same anti-discrimination laws that state agencies are.

As far as discrimination, we need to step back and recognize that the entire concept of adoption is based on subjective prejudices that age, marital status and finances determine who is more "fit" to parent. We live in a society that makes these judgments all the time. We judge some people as too young or too old to be good parents before they ever even try. This has always been the case.

Private and religious adoption agencies always made their own selection criteria. In the 1940's - 1970's, for instance, prospective adopters had to be a married man and woman of the a particular religion and had to prove infertility - as if that made one a better parent!  Jewish agencies looked for Jewish parents for children and Catholic agencies selected catholic families. Why is that wrong if it is the wishes of the mother? They also tried to match prospective parents eye and hair color to the child so they could more easily pass the child off as their own. Age was always a factor for adopters as were requirements such as having sufficient room in the home for each child. Today the weight of those applying to adopt has become, at times, an issue as obesity is a health issue.

Today mothers considering adoption are more involved and make their own selections from a pool. Surely they are allowed the right to their own person preference, even if that includes ruling out single applicants or same sex couples if it is not what they want for their child.  Bottom line is that there is no right to adopt. Adoption is a privilege, not a right and selections are made, some based on wisdom and some simply on personal preference. And, it is always based on the MYTH that adoption provides a "better" life when in fact it only guarantees a different life. It's all a crap shoot! Background checks are sorely lacking any teeth and in private independent adoptions the adopters pay for their own home studies which are drive-by rubber stamps.

While governmental agencies are bound by anti-discrimination laws, we should be screaming far louder for the rights of children to be protected than worrying about some people being excluded by SOME agencies!  Adoption needs to be a last resort after all efforts at Family Preservation have been tried and failed. It then needs to be child-centered and decisions need to be made as to what is best for each child, not those desiring to obtain a child.

In most cases -- most especially with children coming out of state care -- permanent legal guardianship with visitation is what is best and the parents who are able to accept that are the ones best suited. Many children placed from foster care have developed relationships - good or bad - with their parents, siblings or other kin that needs to be respected and continued.   Criteria should thus put a high value on applicants who fully understand and accept that they will be caring for a child who comes with a pre-existing family and history and are ready to honor, protect and maintain that.  They also need to be people who understand that adopted children - of any age - come with emotional baggage including feelings of loss, grief, rejection and abandonment. They need to be prepared to meet these needs realistically, be able to deal with acting-out and learning difficulties, and not be seeking a child to love them.

These are the criteria all adoption agencies should be screening for, not external factors.

Adoption Blindness, Entitlement, Denial and Justification.

Some theorists posit that beliefs are formed first, then we find facts to fit our beliefs. Other researchers claim the brain processes facts and beliefs in exactly the same way. 

Joe Keohane, writing for the Boston Globe on "How Facts Backfire" notes: "[I]t’s never been easier for people to be wrong, and at the same time feel more certain that they’re right."

That adoption is a good thing is ingrained into the minds and hearts of the average person - and even deeper ingrained in most who have adopted and some adoption "professionals." It sits on a pedestal on high along with sunshine and rainbows.  Many see it as a noble calling, a rescue mission, altruism at its finest and a win-win for children, families and society in general. These rose-colored views of adoption see all adoptions as equal in their savior quality and abilities, making no distinctions between the adoption of a true orphan from foster care, or a child coerced from young lovers forbidden to marry, or obtained under questionable means under a totally corrupt governmental regime.

Any and all factual evidence to the contrary - cases and facts that clash with this view of adoption - are met with scorn, disbelief. They lie together in a massive garbage heap, shoved under a bulging rug labeled "anomaly." Messengers of "ugly" adoption facts and truths are treated like the whistle-blowers. They are - dismissed as disgruntled, angry and bitter for some personal reason, if not out right liars or craziods. They are defective people who only see the darkness, even in something flawlessly beautiful, as adoption.

Intentionally Deaf and Blind Adoption Professionals

I am on an email list for adoption professionals with a stated purpose of giving "professionals in the field an opportunity to network with one another in a cooperative spirit about how adoption practice can be improved."

I was recently told by the group owner to cease and deceit my "negative" postings of tragic adoption stories. Some  group members thanked the group owner for sanctioning me stating: "It's hard enough to deal with the true loss issues of adoption without viewing all adoption stories through the lens of horror and sensationalism."  I wondered, even if a story might have been sensationalized by the press, did that negate any and all true, factual basis of the atrocity? This argument sounded to me like a politician caught in a sex scandal crying about it being brought to light by his political enemies strictly for political gain. While that is likely very true, turning the issue around and blaming the accusers does not mitigate the act or accusation that caused the revelation in the first place.

 

The list owner told me she preferred to see "discussions" of  how to deal with various corrupt aspects of adoption than posting theses cases. 

I asked the owner, privately: "What is there to discuss or change or improve if not the ugliness? How can you ever hope to work for change with blinders on, not facing these hideous truths???" I was not allotted the respect of a reply.

I also  pointed out to her, via private communication, that in all the time I had been on the list (a year or two?) the only in-depth "discussion" involving several posters  that took place was generated by an article I posted about the Barretos who had adopted seven children from Guatemala who were subsequently removed because of severe abuse. There was great in-depth discussion about how this could have occurred.

Meanwhile, on the group list one adoption professional replied saying she was opposed to the censorship because: "Sadly, every time this sort of story hits the news, I have clients (usually birth moms) discuss it. I would rather have the information, before I am surprised. If the story is 'too ugly,' I can skip it."Another wrote:

"I don't think that the issue is negative issues vs. positive ones. As professionals in adoption we need to ever aware of the corruption, trafficking and vast array of unethical practices that have surrounded adoption. Too often we like to put on our rose-colored glasses and look away from those unethical practices. I would however like to here more professional reports of these unethical practices. Often many of these stories have a tabloid feel and that sensationalism tends to dilute the real wrongdoings. I would like to see more professional input, factual reports and research based practice ideas. All of the unethical practices have been going on for years and years. We talk about how awful it is and then move on. The practices then rear their ugly heads again with new names, different states, different countries. We owe it to all of our clients to be aware and to educate them and empower them for change no matter where
they sit in the constellation."

The group owner then stated that she alone makes the rules! And apparently her rue is that when rose-colored glasses no longer block out enough of the negativity, replace with blinders and cendorship.

Intentional Blindness of Those Who Adopt

Jennifer Hemsley, 2008 recipient of the Family Preservation Hero of the Year Award was recently  interviewed by Erin Siegal, author of Finding Fernanada. In the radio podcast Hemsley tells why she put a halt on a Guatemalan adoption that was relying on questionable paperwork.

Jessica O'Dwyer was faced with an almost identical set of circumstances and chose to proceed with her adoption. O'Dwyer an author who applauds herself in the very popular (in AP circles) book "Mamalita" -- along with the mother in the documentary "Wo Ai Ni (I Love Your) Mommy" seen counting our her bribery money and noting that some might think it wrong but it's simply "how things are done here here" -- share the title of the quintessential spokespersons for shameless, bold entitlement and justification of adoption despite red flashing lights. (Runner up is the author of "Brotherhood of Joseph").

O'Dwyer, who writes in her book of having her husband bring her UNMARKED BILLS, recently felt the need to comment regarding Hemsley's podcast stating: "for me, false paperwork is a far cry from kidnapping or coercion, although they are often all lumped together as 'corrupt adoption.'

I replied to Ms. O'Dwyer at AdoptionTalk:

cor·rup·tion
noun
1. the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt.
2. moral perversion; depravity.
3. perversion of integrity.
4. corrupt or dishonest proceedings.
5. bribery.

That's the dictionary definition.

Transparency International(TI) defines corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This definition encompasses corrupt practices in both the public and private sectors." TI uses perceptions as a measure of corruption because "corruption – whether frequency or amount – is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure." http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/in_detail

Note that here too the definition is not dependent on legality or criminality.

Adoption corruption takes many forms and exists in domestic as well as IA. Any and all deceit for the intent of earning a fee for their adoption, such as labeling children with parents "orphans" for instance, is corrupt.

I thus respectfully disagree with your opinion. 

O'Dwyer responded:  "I appreciate the dictionary definition of corruption and respect your interpretation of it. For me, the issue is not black-and-white, but a spectrum of gray. My opinion only, Jessica O'Dwyer"

 

I find it interesting that an author, a person to whom words should be important, simply dismisses the definition of the words she uses so glibly, when to do so is convenient for her.

 

Malinda, an attorney, law professor and the adoptive mother on whose blog this discussion was playing out said: "I do see corruption as the word with the broadest definition. I see corruption as encompassing both criminal and non-criminal conduct. Corruption would include trafficking, in my view, though is not limited to trafficking." Malinda goes on to point examples of adoptions that could be illegal and not corrupt, "For example, if there's a state requirement that an adoption decree be registered, and the decree is not registered as required, the adoption would be illegal, but it wouldn't necessarily be corrupt" as well as the reverse. "Say, for example, state law gives a birth mother 10 days to revoke consent, and the birth mother informs the adoptive parents that she is considering revoking her consent on day 8. Even if she does not formally revoke before the end of day 10, I would consider it unethical to proceed with the adoption."

 

I replied to Jessica O'Dwyer:

 

Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just hope and pray that those who make laws to protect children, protect ALL children from all forms of corruption, exploitation and commodification. I hope that anything done that does not put the best interests of children first is eradicated as evil. I see no gray areas when it comes to lifelong pain, loss and harm caused to children and their families. None whatsoever. Gray areas -- yeah, it's called GRAY MARKET ADOPTION wherein lurks the murky world of coercion and fraud that has found convenient legal loopholes or simply lack of laws and regs to prevent the harm they commit, the ruined lives. Accepting gray areas is accepting all of the corruption that lies there in the grayness because it hasn't quite crossed some imaginary line or non-existent laws and regulations. It's a slippery and very dangerous slope. We must instead be super diligent IMHO because EVERY child is precious, not just SOME. Do we likewise turn out back and accept SLIGHT acts of child abuse - those that don't leave physical scars or broken bones? The gray shadows hide the hidden dangers and allow adoption to be "marketed" as a good, a "win-win". We need to shed light in all the dark areas and gray corners and bring ALL corruption into the spotlight not continue to allow it to lurk and continue operating legally in shadowy gray corners. As a mother - any harm done to YOUR child is a crime! Not just some that cross over some imaginary line. And moral, ethical societies uphold such standards and do not allow evil to survive in the black or in the gray.

Malinda summed it up saying: "Yes, kidnapping a child for the purposes of adoption is really, really, really, really bad, arguably worse than many other corrupt practices in adoption -- but problems of corruption can't really be defended by saying, 'At least she wasn't kidnapped!'"

Indeed. Bribery - such as that seen and brushed off in "Wo Ai Ni" and the use of unmarked bills is what fuels corruption. No Johns, no prostitution. Only those who have benefited from the corruption financially or otherwise attempt to redefine it as our government does when calling war missiles peace makers. Sugar coating acts of destruction with doublespeak make them no less destructive.

Jennifer Hemsley and Malinda help remind me not to paint all adoptive parents with the brush of intentional adoption blindness, entitlement, denial and justification. O'Dwyer reminds me that the problem still exists.

As for adoption professionals who prefer to wear their blinders I can only say SHAME ON YOU! You have clearly defined which side of the fence you are on and it is not the side of right and best interest of children. It is the side of greed, profiteering from misery and loss. "Professionals" who are unwilling to stand up and speak out against adoption atrocities, legal and ethical, are more concerned about filling a demand and their bottom line.

Each of us has a choice to make to be part of the problem or part of the solution. And the public has a responsibility to stop applauding actions such as these!  We need to stop excusing bribery as "how it's done."

News flash to Jessica O'Deyer: Rod Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years in prison for CORRUPTION because of BRIBERY. Baby buying by any other name is still baby buying and it STINKS! 


More here: PoundPuppy: Exposing Corruption in IA 

I AM NOT AN ORPHAN! Korean Mothers Campaign

 

PLEASE SHARE THIS MESSAGE AT THIN LINK: http://www.kumsn.org/main/16265#1

 

Dec. 1, 2011 

CONTACT INFORMATION: Hee Jung Kwon: kumsn@kumsn.org 

Tell: 82-2-734-5007 

Fax: 82-2-720-5007 

Cell: 82-10-5210-8637 

KUMSN starts post card campaign, I am not an Orphan, to promote the rights of unwed pregnancy and unwed mothers from Dec. 1, 2011. 

According to the Report on Children in Protection by the Ministry of Health and Ministry (2011), the total number of 8,590 children were being protected by the various social welfare programs due to family poverty, parents’ jobless, or child abuse and so on in 2010. Among them, 2,804 children, about 33%, were under protection due to the reason of being born to unwed mothers. 

As has been quoted widely, about 90% of children who were sent for adoption are from unwed mothers in Korea (KWDI 2009). In other words, most children who were sent for adoption already have mothers who gave birth to them. These are mothers who say that if there had been no stigma on child birth out of wedlock and more support policies, they would chose raising their babies. Sadly 70% of them are giving up their babies for adoption as these basic conditions are missing. (Korean Women’s Social Welfare Association 2010) 

Regardless of these facts, the phrases like “Baby Angels without Parent” or “Orphans abandoned” are frequently used in the phrases used in adoption promotion campaigns. It is not true and keeps hiding the existence of unwed mothers who have equal rights to enjoy their motherhood like any other mothers. These babies are forced to be given up due to the stigma on their mothers and no support for raising them. This is very cruel to erase alive mothers and call their children orphans. In this regards, KUMSN promotes the right of mothers who gave birth out of wedlock, hoping for the end of stigma and for more support for unwed pregnancy and unwed mothers and their children. 

Please contact KUMSN if you join the campaign and send the postcard 

by CLICKING THIS LINK. 

Adopt a Family For the Holidays

By supporting Families in need you can help prevent unnecessary family loss and separation. Poverty is the number cause of adoptions today worldwide. It outweighs all other cuases - i.e. abuse, neglect - combined.

A sampling of programs:

St. Vincent de Paul Cincinnati Council has one of the most established networks. Each sponsor is provided with a Christmas wish list for a family. Lists frequently include toys that children have asked Santa for and basic household items and toiletries. The list also is likely to contain clothing sizes for the children and adults in the household because the families are in need of the most basic items, such as shoes and sweaters. The agency asks that a new outfit be provided to each family member.

The agency provides sponsors a guide on how much to spend, ranking from $150-$200 for a family of two to $350-$450 for a family with five or more members.

Some potential sponsors are unable to shop, but they can still help. St. Vincent de Paul recommends that a gift card can be purchased to a big-box retailer and then donated to the agency. Its staff will make sure the card gets into the hands of the head-of-household.

If sponsors do shop, they have the option of dropping off items at the St. Vincent de Paul headquarters, 1125 Bank St., West End, and volunteers will take the clothing and toys to the family. In recent years, sponsors have wanted to deliver to gifts themselves to their adoptive family, an option the agency makes available.

To adopt a family, contact LaMonica Sherman at St. Vincent de Paul, 513-562-8841, ext. 237, or at lsherman@SVDPcincinnati.org. Please include your name, company or school name (if an organizational donation), phone and fax numbers, address and email address. The agency will respond with a letter, list and complete instructions.

Society of St. Vincent de Paul Northern Kentucky will accept financial donations, which it will pool and purchase gifts for needy families. The agency also has a direct holiday adoption program that gives sponsors much the same options as its Ohio counterpart: direct delivery to the adoptive family or anonymous delivery that is handled by agency volunteers.

Cash donations can be send to: SVDP - NKY, Attn: Executive Director, 2655 Crescent Springs Road, Covington, Ky., 41017. Secure donations may be made Online at SVDPnky.org.

To adopt a family, contact Joyce Hudson at 859-341-3212, ext. 2, or email at joyce.hudson@SVDPnky.org.

Lighthouse Youth Services' Happy Holidays program provides gifts to 2,000 of the communities' most vulnerable and forgotten youths - homeless teens or the 550 teenagers in foster care, group homes or older youth living independently. The list also includes 18 year olds just dropped from foster care at age 18.

The agency offers four ways to participate: People or groups can sponsor a struggling family unable to provide gifts for their children, donors can set up a "Giving Tree" in their office or club with need ornaments provided by the agency, they can make a cash, check or credit card donation, or they can buy items from the Top-10 Wish List to meet the needs of the 200 new clients who come to Lighthouse each December, they can Contact Andrea Granieri at 513-475-5674 or agranieri@lys.org to participate.

For 20 years, the organization For AIDS Children Everywhere (FACE) has brought light into one of the darkest corners of the community - to children and parents affected or infected by HIV or AIDS. Beyond its summer trips and food and toy pantry in its Holmes Hospital office space, FACE reaches children through its annual holiday adoption program.

Sponsors will be matched with children who either have AIDS or are HIV-positive or have a parent in that condition. Donors will be asked to buy a new outfit of clothing and two new gifts for each child in the family. FACE will provide that ages and sizes and interests of the children. Organizers ask that donated gifts and clothing be brought unwrapped but marked with the provided child identification number to the FACE office before Dec. 10.

For adoption forms, call 513-584-3571 or go to facecincinnati.org.

Brighton Center provided gifts and food to 834 needy Northern Kentucky families with 2,192 members in 2010 and is again looking for community support to meet an even greater demand. All families are connected to the Newport-based center through one or more of its 38 programs that strive to help families reach self-sufficiency.

Interested sponsors and donors are asked to contact M. Beth Hodge, Brighton Center's donation and volunteer manager, before Dec. 2 so they can be matched with an appropriate family. She can be reached at 859-491-8303, ext. 2331 or at bhodge@brightoncenter.com.

In addition to its holiday food giveaways and other anti-hunger programs connected to the holidays, the Freestore Foodbank is offering donors and sponsors an "Adopt-a-Family" program this year. Donors will be given the names, clothing and shoe sizes and children's wish lists. Contact Lisa Snorton at 513-357-4815 or lsnorton@freestorefoodbank.org.

The local Salvation Army has a list of 500 families and senior citizens in Hamilton County that are available for holiday adoption. The agency receives referrals from its own social workers at its community centers as well as from partner agencies.

People who adopt a family or senior are provided with information about the family or individual and asked to purchase gifts, wrap them and bring them to a distribution center, where families pick them up. Seniors' gifts are delivered.

For information, go to http://tinyurl.com/7krsedj, or call Deanna Powell at 513-762-5600 or deanna.powell@use.salvationarmy.org.