Information We Are Dying to Know

"A funeral is a significant personal event, usually accompanied by strong emotions. It is also a business transaction, one of the most expensive a family makes. But a funeral catches people by surprise, leaving them vulnerable, emotional, and lacking the time and knowledge to make practical decisions.

"Most funeral directors are honest, but some capitalize on consumers' lack of knowledge. Even well meaning professionals may not inform you of all options."

From FCAP funeral Consumers Alliance of Princeton brochure, "Do You Know You Rights? We can help.

"The greatest obstacle to free choice in making funeral arrangements is the mystery that surrounds the physical and financial facts of death. Planning a funeral should be a simple business transaction, a purchase of services. What makes it different from buying a home or car is the speed with which it must be done, the emotion involved, and the lack of knowledge of the average consumer. A funeral or memorial service should be what you and your family want and can afford.

"The Funeral Consumers Alliance aims to give people the freedom of informed choice through education."

From the website of the national Funeral Consumers Alliance http://www.funerals.org/

Are the analogies to mothers and mothers-to-be considering adoption placement of their child not perfectly clear?  A "significant personal event, usually accompanied by strong emotions" ? Ya' think loosing a child forever qualified?  Caught by surprise - like
an unexpected pregnancy..."vulnerable, emotional, and lacking the time and knowledge to make practical decisions"?

Clearly the level of stress - and the seeming immediacy -  of the prospect of permanently loosing a child is as great as dealing with a loved-one who is dying. Are mothers in crisis not being taken advantage of by seemingly professional business people? 

Funeral service and product consumers have a national a local alliances of volunteers to protect them. Who do mothers is crisis have? Who protects their right to an impartial choice?

And while the simiularities are glaring, there is a major and important difference. In planning a funeral the worst that happens is you are over-charghed or pressured into buying more products or services than you need. In other words, you may spend more than you needed to. A far cry from the loss of a child!

Adoption for the Sake of the Planet?

Dr. Wendy Walsh, a psychotherapist who blogs at "Dating. Mating. Relating" is also a columnist for Pregnancy Magazine. "A single mother of a multiracial family" (applause, please), she has appeared on television as a psychological "expert" and is author of “The Boyfriend Test” and “The Girlfriend Test.”

On TodayMoms she takes on adoption as the environmental PC thing to do.

First, Walsh compares adoption to IFV.  After comparing costs,  she points out the inherent medical complications and risks of the later as if adoption were 100% risk free.  No possible down side whatsoever. No kids ever sent back on planes alone or dumped at ranches because they "failed to bond" to the satisfaction of the purchaser, er adopter.

Walsh concludes her assessment of the increase in infertility, not with a desire to find medical solutions or educational prevention programs, but with a solution for making the medical dysfunction of a few all of our issue to resolve:

 "...with steady rates of one in five women over the age of forty being childless, a case can be made that nature's intention was for a village of caregivers to nurture any given child."

How idyllic. A cozy little village where no one flaunts their material assets to create a sub-culture of less fortunate breeders. Has she read The Handmaid's Tale?

Her either or scenario left out surrogacy as an option.  Is she totally unaware of the current rent-a-womb programs in India and elsewhere and the children who are stolen, kidnapped and trafficked for adoption to meet a demand?  Will all of this desire to have a child of one's "own" magically end because of sharing?  Why then are so many kids in foster care, even those who could be adopted, if we could all be encouraged to share the chores - and joys - of child raising equally without showing preferences for skin color, age, ability? 

Is there any evidence that it is in the children's best interest to be raised communally, or is Walsh's only concern providing for the infertile?

She then speaks of her friends and acquaintances who hold ignorant, fear-based prejudices about who should procreate and who should be subjected to eugenics - nice crowd of moronic snobs she hangs with! 

Without considering a compassionate middle ground of making birth control available to many in the world who cannot afford it and have no access to it, she swings to the opposite side of the ridiculous pendulum (but the one that sounds so much warmer and fuzzier) and reminds us:

"The planet earth will be expected to support nearly 10 billion people by the year 2040. My own children will be barely middle aged by then. "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that," says Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London."

Ah, yes...the environmental argument for redistributing the world's children. Well, Dr Walsh, the problem with that is that of most environmental arguments (paper or plastic?). Yes, Virginia, electric cars also use up energy and need fossil fuel to create the electricity (unless you have a windmill or solar collectors on the car's roof).

In fact, some suggest that by taking children from third world countries and having them adopted into more industrialized countries - as is the way adoption flows - uses more natural resources per human so moved!  Do you not think the two children Madonna took from Malawi orphanages to her palatial estate are doing far more harm and will continue to for the rest of their lives then had they remained - with their extended families - in their natural habitat? Think of the toilet paper and toilet flushes alone, not to mention clothing, toys, cell phones, computers and their future cars and air travel.

Of course none of the PC environmental talk takes into account the impact of destroying cultures and languages through the suggested homogenization - which in reality is the imperialism of the wealthy. What of the loss of genetic and human connectedness?  Will future generations simply loose all curiosity of their roots as they join hands and sing Kumbaya or "We Are The World"?

How will we stop the rich and powerful fertiles from selfishly hoarding their own offspring? Will they - the children born to the Madonna's and the Jolie's be likewise added to the communal pile? Who will make them?

What about humanitarianism?  Let's take the parable about teaching a man to fish instead of giving him one fish dinner or asking him to join us and all share our fish together.  If we apply this higher form of charity to the world's children we see that it is the caring thing to do to provide families in crisis what they need to remain intact -- as is being done by NGOs such as SOS Children's Village, Save the Child, Christian Children's Fund and others -- rather than taking their children and leaving them in their situation. Would Walsh live in THEIR villages and help care for their children?

The way to defuse the effects of over-populations is simply to accept infertility,  as people used to or to foster, but NOT to relocate children.  

Care to comment on this "adoption is better for the environment" rant? You can do so here.

Adoptee Attorney Gets 20 Years for Not Delivering

MINEOLA, N.Y. — An attorney who scammed prospective adoptive parents across the country by promising them babies that didn't exist was sentenced Tuesday to 20 years in prison, a punishment that satisfied his victims.

Kevin Cohen, 42, of Roslyn, who claimed his experience as an adopted child motivated him to help people seeking to start families, was convicted last month in Nassau County Court of grand larceny, forgery and other charges. His sentence, the maximum the judge could impose, also includes an order to repay nearly $300,000 in restitution.

"I think it was important that after two years of Cohen twisting everything that he finally understands and the court understands the impact it had on everybody, including our children," Michael Rhomberg, of Eatonton, Ga., told reporters after the sentencing. "It really has torn apart our lives and jaded the way we teach kids to trust people. Now we can't trust anyone, not just strangers."

During his trial, 13 prospective parents testified they had been scammed by Cohen, who headed an agency called the Adoption Annex. The agency was set up by Cohen to provide information to prospective adoptive parents but closed in 2008; Cohen was arrested in September 2009.

Prosecutors say Cohen, who represented himself at trial, scammed hopeful couples with fake sonograms and fictitious records on forged stationery from hospitals and doctors. He told prospective parents that he was in contact with a young, unmarried mother who lived in either Nebraska, Pennsylvania or Arizona and wished to give up her baby for adoption.

Couples gave Cohen money to be held in escrow to pay for the medical costs and other expenses of birth mothers. In reality, the babies never existed and ultimately some of those who were scammed went to the authorities.

"Kevin Cohen preyed on people at their most vulnerable with no remorse about what he was doing," [Of course, if you prey on vulnerable expectant mothers, that's perfectly OK! No one ever goes to jail for THAT! That's just considered business as usual, and besides, they deserve it. But he crossed the line. You don't screw with the paying customer!]

Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said in a statement. "He stole more than just money from these couples. He stole their dream of making a family."

Brigid and Ben Vogt of Seaford, N.Y., attended the sentencing after being scammed for more than $20,000. They said the media attention that followed Cohen's arrest last year led them to connect with a woman in North Carolina and they have since successfully adopted a daughter.

"We were very vulnerable because we wanted a child," Brigid Vogt said. "To put yourself out there and to trust somebody and then to have it pulled out from you because it was a crime, it's like being punched in the stomach."

Vogt also said she doubted Cohen's sincerity when he apologized before being sentenced.

"It's about himself and about his greed and about lining his pockets and not about what he did to anybody," she said. "I don't think he has any idea what he did to anybody. He has no idea. I mean, all we wanted was a baby." [At any price!...and we were entitled to one...after all, we PAID for it!]

In the News: Three Views of the Dark Side of Adoption

50 years after baby-selling in Gainesville, pain still lingers
A story that rivals "The Baby Theif"

"Ryan was arrested in 1962 after being on the run for almost two years. He was charged with 'receipt of compensation for child placement services'....The black-market baby legacy he created continues to this day, as children and birth mothers struggle to search for one another. But their searches are difficult, if not impossible, because Ryan and his successor destroyed most of their files."

----------

Adoption - promises not kept
A story of Ireland that mirrors what the USA

"We have run a helpline for over 12 years – staffed voluntarily by natural parents who were themselves parted from their children by adoption in the past. Having listened to many thousands of very distressed women and men, we can vouch for the fact that the greatest problem they report is difficulties with the adoption agencies through which their children were adopted. For decades, they were refused any information whatsoever about their children. The introduction in recent years of promised meetings or photographs was only made in order to persuade more women to give their babies up for adoption."

------------

Adoption: A Parenting Gauntlet

Even a seemingly "good" adoption leaves a legacy of issues...view from an adoptee.

Your Comments, PLEASE!

Adoption: Good, bad news

The Daily Reporter

Posted Dec 04, 2010 @ 10:30 AM

Branch County, Mich. —

“Adoption Works Well,” according to a synthesis of the literature by Dr. Patrick Fagan, Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute of the Family Research Council.

“Adopted children benefit significantly from adoption,” he writes. Many move into “materially advantaged homes and to the care of supportive, educated adoptive parents who are very interested in all aspects of their child’s development.” 

They are more likely than children born into intact homes to live with both parents because few adoptive parents divorce. “They scored higher than their middle class counterparts” in school achievement, social competence, optimism and volunteerism, “are less depressed than children of single parents and less involved in alcohol abuse, vandalism, group fighting, police trouble.”  They also have higher self-esteem, self-directedness and positive views of others.

Children adopted before they are 12 months old are just as attached to their parents as those born to intact parents, but those who are adopted at older ages are less secure. “The older the child is at adoption, the greater are his special needs, and greater in turn is the need for parental constancy, flexibility and engagement,” Fagan writes.  However, adoptive mothers spend more time with their children than do natural mothers, and most kids do well.

Even the birth mothers who relinquish a child fare well, with higher educational achievement and are less likely to live in poverty, or receive welfare than mothers who keep their out-of-wedlock children. Nor did they suffer “any extra social or psychological problems.”

Fagan cites a study showing that 90 percent of Americans view adoption positively. 

Yet of the 1.75 million children born to unwed parents, only 22,000 a year were adopted in 2002, reports Chuck Johnson, President of the National Council for Adoption.  And a soon-to be released survey of 2007, shows the numbers have fallen even further.

 

Alarmingly, out-of-wedlock births have soared eight-fold from five percent of all births to 41 percent in 2008.  These children have the worst prospects in life. In an earlier study, Dr. Fagan reported that compared to children from intact homes, those from fatherless homes are:

24 times more likely to run away

15 times more apt to have behavior disorders and to end up in prison as a teenager

11 times more likely to commit rape

7 times more apt to become teenage mothers

6 times more likely to drop out of school and 3 times as apt to be expelled

33 times more likely to be seriously abused (requiring medical attention)

73 times more likely to be killed.

The peak adoption year was 1971 when 90,000 infants were adopted. About that time, major states, such as New York, began making abortion legal.  In 1973 the Supreme Court issued its famous Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion nationally; abortions doubled overnight from 745,000 to 1.5 million.  The number has dropped modestly to 1.2 million a year.

When combined with out-of-wedlock births, there are potentially 3 million children who could be adopted each year — to the clear benefit of the child and the birth mother.

Why are so few adopted?  Only one percent of babies to unwed moms are relinquished. 

To its credit, the Bush Administration created an adoption tax credit which was extended by the Obama Administration and Congress in Health Care Reform, that now gives a refundable tax credit worth $13,170 this year.  It has had one positive benefit, of increasing the number of adoptions out of foster care, which have risen from 50,000 to 57,000.

Yet few infants are adopted. Why?

Regrettably, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, who see perhaps 200,000 women a year — rarely encourage unwed mothers to give their children for adoption. “The training for Crisis Pregnancy Resource Centers, has volunteers telling women that ‘God’s first plan is to mother the child,’ says Johnson of the Council for Adoption.

“Only a woman who is considered a poor risk because she would not be a good mother, if she is on drugs, for example, is advised to consider the adoption option.”

This is tragic for the children and their mothers.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers proudly proclaim they are “pro life.”  But what kind of a life do they favor?  One where the children are at high risk of failure, abuse and crime — or a life where the kids will fare better than those born to married parents?

It is a question that must be answered by Crisis Pregnancy Center volunteers.

They should read Pat Fagan’s report, “Adoption Works Well.”

 

Mike McManus, president of Marriage Savers, can be reached at Mike@MarriageSavers.org. His column appears each Saturday.

Copyright 2010 The Daily Reporter. Some rights reserved

 

MY REPLY:

 

These studies are all slanted. They are all comparing adopted children to 'fatherless' children of single mothers. Today, the average mother relinquishing is 20 years of age and many are married and have other children. In the past, when 'unwed' status was reason enough to pressure a mother to surrender her parental rights, the vast majority went on to marry - some marrying the father of the relinquished child and having full siblings.

How ironic that today single parenthood is accepted to the point that single women adopt!

The fact is that it is not marital status that matters at all - it is all about money - who has it and who does not that determines who is 'deserving' of who's children in our capitalistic society. We take from the poor and give to the wealthier in what I have labeled Reverse Robinhoodism.

Yes, adoption moves children upwardly and often provides them more material well-being. But not without a cost. It is a trade-off of their true identity, heritage, all family ties, and knowledge of their roots and lineage, as well as medical history. It
gives them 'things' and also a deep seeded feeling of rejection.

Adoption should thus always be a last resort. The end does not justify the means when coercion is used to exploit poverty here and abroad to obtain children as commodities to meet a demand.

The fact that less women are resorting to needing to place their children with strangers is the sign of healthier society and should be applauded, it is not a cause for concern except for those who profit from the redistribution of children. If you check you will see it is the industry profiteers who sponsor the studies that show adoption is such a positive thing. What documentation is there, for instance, that adoptive parents have a lower rate of divorce than the general populace when anecdotal material shows the opposite to be true.

The most important thing to bear in mind is that not all adoptions are equal and should not be promoted with a broad brush. There are half a million children in foster care and approx. 120,000 cannot be reunited with family and COULD be adopted. These children are virtually ignored - as are older children in orphanages worldwide - while mothers are pressured to relinquish newborns and younger, healthier babies overseas are stolen and kidnapped to meet a demand.

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.

When we recognize that every adoption begins with a tragedy - a family that failed to receive the support needed to remain intact, we see the absurdity of encouraging more familial separations.

The fact that birth mothers 'fare well' in terms of education etc does not mean it is not without its toll. Studies indicate that mothers who relinquish children to adoptions suffer lifelong grief, anger, shame and guilt and some studies have found that rather than dissipate the pain for some mothers increases with time.

Please see: http://www.advocatepublications.com/index,php/presentations/grief.html 

OR: http://www.tinyurl.com/adoption-grief

 

Why would you encourage adoption separations anymore than you'd encourage family disruption via divorce? After all, there are many never marrieds that 'deserve' to have a chance at your mate, why not recycle him or her and give someone needy a shot at it? Someone else might be more caring than you, or might be able to offer your spouse more 'advantages' than you can! For that matter, there's always someone who can offer YOUR kid a 'better' life materially than you can, so why not give up one of YOUR kids?

Adoption does not prevent or even reduce child abuse or neglect. Children in need of rescue from harm are generally removed by the state, not through the encouragement of more voluntary relinquishments at pregnancy centers who deal with mothers-to-be who have yet to prove their ability to parent.

 

PLEASE ADD YOUR COMMENTS HERE. 

"CPS does not remove children for physical abuse or sexual abuse..."

"CPS does not remove children for physical abuse or sexual abuse cases. We mainly investigate and remove children related to general neglect," said Cheadle.

Child Protective Services Documents In Baby's Death Released 
 BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- Child Protective Services has released documents pertaining to the death of a 1-month-old last month. The documents include findings and past CPS referrals to the home of baby Jordan Johnson.

Pages and pages of blacked out lines was what 23 ABC found among Jordan's file released by CPS.

Department of Human Services director Pat Cheadle said law enforcement and the district attorney's office ordered CPS to black out the information.

"Right now, we can't do anything that's going to jeopardize the integrity of the case," said Cheadle.

Police say the 1-month-old died while under the care of his parents, Denise Belmonte and James Johnson Jr. The coroner said the newborn had broken arms and legs. James Johnson admits the couple has a history of domestic violence.

"When domestic violence is in the home then, more likely, there is the increased risk of having a child caught in that domestic violence and being abused," said Raye Bugnosen of the Alliance Against Family Violence.

Bugnosen said, oftentimes during domestic violence, children are caught in the crossfire and injured intentionally or accidentally. In the arrest report, it says Jordan also had third-degree burns on his genitals and buttocks from a hot bath. The parents told detectives they did not seek medical attention for the burns because they were afraid law enforcement and CPS would get involved and take away their other two children, one of which had been taken away by CPS before.

In CPS reports, a social worker visited Jordan at San Joaquin community hospital the day after he was born. Cheadle said it's routine procedure for mothers who have an open case with CPS.

"Our department would come in and do an investigation to determine if the new baby should be detained from the mother or if the mother should take the new baby home. If the mother hasn't completed her case plan, and if there's risk to the new baby, there's a good chance the baby would not go home. If the mother completes the case plan, it's possible the baby would go home," said Cheadle.

So how is it possible for a baby to die while his family is under the watchful eye of CPS?

"It really depends on the circumstances around abuse or neglect that's being looked at," said Cheadle.

Cheadle said law enforcement officers are the ones who investigate and remove children from an abusive home because child abuse and sexual abuse cases are criminal matters. CPS investigates cases of neglect because they are welfare matters.

"CPS does not remove children for physical abuse or sexual abuse cases. We mainly investigate and remove children related to general neglect," Department of Human Services director Pat Cheadle said.
Even though another child in the home was taken away for neglect, Cheadle said there would have had to be other reports or evidence of neglect on Jordan to warrant a visit by social workers.

Cheadle said if neglect or abuse were to be found, CPS and law enforcement would take Jordan away but it is up to a judge to decide for how long.

Cheadle said CPS is not the only agency responsible, so is law enforcement and the judicial system.
 

My Foster Son

In the early 80's, while raising three children, I became a foster parent with a preference for teens.

By the luck of the draw, we were sent David and we welcomed him into our family with open arms.  It struck me very funny when I went to his open school night and his teacher took one look at me and said: "You must be David's mother. He looks just like you."

David had been adopted and when his adoptive father passed away, his adoptive mother decided he was too much to handle.  In arguments, she told him to go find his "real" family!  She made him sleep in the garage before totally casting him off into the foster system.

When he told me of his failed adoption and of her often telling him to find his family, I contacted his former adoptive mother and asked her if she had any papers with David's original name or the name of his mother. She was less than pleasant or cooperative.

But David recalled that his original placement was the result of his parents divorce. In NJ at that time (and perhsps still) marriage records are sealed but divorce records were open to the public!  I scoured those records until I found his parents'.

We were in the process of contacting his family when david was shuffled off to another foster home. The last I heard from him, he had found some of his brothers and they had had gotten him into a life of crime leading to prison. He had a hard life.

It's been about 30 years since I had heard from him and always wondered how he was doing. 

This week David (no longer his name) found me on Facebook and updated me with his life and his family including three daughters. he goes by his original name and as a result cannot get a photo ID so no driver's license! (I will try to help him sort that out.)

In corresponding he referred to me as "Mom." I told him I was surprised and honored. He wrote back saying: "you were the only person in my life that i wanted to call mom. you are the only one to act like a mom to me, as far as im concerned. "  How sad, since I was in David's life for such a very short time!  He said: "you were the only mom figure i had. my mom acted like one of my friends, cause it was too late to try and be mom at that point."  His mother is now deceased.