Anita Tedaldi Goes Global

Lovely. Anita Tedaldi, who disrupted the adoption of her son, and publicized it on the New York Times Motherlode blog and the Today Show, has now publicized it in the Guardian, a UK paper.

It's the same as published in the New York Times, except that Matteo/D. is now Dan, and he's still from South America rather than Ethiopia. One positive -- the Guardian tries to put disruption in some context, offering some information and statistics about disruption:

The British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) estimates that one in five adoptions break down, although children who are "handed back" are usually older. The younger the child, the lower the chance of the placement breaking down. A study by the Maudsley Hospital in London found a breakdown rate of 8% after one year and 29% six years later. On average, adoptions that broke down did so 34 months after placement.

Despite the negative publicity that overseas adoption has attracted in recent years, there is no evidence that they are more likely to break down than domestic placements. Many studies have concluded that international adoption has, for the most part, been very successful, including for children who have spent their early years in institutions.

Children placed in stable, loving families, show a great capacity for catch-up – although a great deal depends on support from the wider family and adoption specialists, and the extent to which the adopters mix with other people from the country they adopted from.

The sad fact is that in many states of America, where Dan was adopted, this combination is less likely to be recognised as essential, despite the fact that overseas adoption tends to be far easier than it is here. Also undoubtedly contributing to Dan's adoption breakdown is the fact that for a minority of the most deprived children, major problems – especially in the area of attachment – do not go away, regardless of how much help, support, stability and indeed love, is provided.

Is the British paper right? Is the required support "less likely to be recognised as essential" in America? Do the Brits do it better?

As a follow-up, Tedaldi writes about the reaction to her writing about the disruption, and offers the same reason for why she wrote about the disruption:

This account first appeared on a blog several months ago. Since then my family has come under intense public scrutiny in the US, where we live. I knew there would be a lot of criticism, but my intention was to share a very personal experience. I don't mind the criticism, but I have been surprised by the degree of hatred displayed towards me and my family. Some readers have made fun of my children's looks.

There have been many positive comments, too, and I'm thankful to the many families who shared their own painful stories with me.

I do not regret writing about Dan. I shared this experience because when I saw my own shortcomings, I was humbled. We all struggle with our weaknesses, too often alone.

For what it's worth, my problem isn't that she wrote about disruption -- it's how she wrote about it. And, for what it's worth, I've never made fun of her kids, just of the fact that Tedaldi is writing a parenting manual!

Is Adoption a Feminist Issue?

Dawn from this woman's work has a great post up at Bitch, Adopt-ation: A feminist take on the state of the adoption industry:

Adoption is a feminist issue because it is a reproductive rights issue. It is an issue about the value of women as mothers and who has "earned" the right to be one. It's about how the states supports or does not support women who fall outside of the "good mother" rhetoric. It's about privilege. It's about class.

Right now the dominant voices in our cultural discussion of adoption are those like the NCFA who perpetuate stereotypes about the women who place their children and the women who receive them. It's a conversation that tries to erase the presence of the women who give birth to those children by pushing t-shirts that equate adoption with pregnancy thereby obliterating the origins of adopted people. The way we look at adoption – especially domestic infant adoption – is a manifestation of our Madonna/whore complex where birth mothers are saintly sinners – angelic enough to give away the babies they aren't good enough to keep.

We feminists need to start looking at adoption in new ways. We need to let the first mothers among us speak about their experiences past and present because their voices have been missing from our discussion. In the blogosphere we have feminist thinkers like FauxClaud, like Suz, like Jenna. They can tell us how Juno will likely feel five years from placement, ten, twenty or more.

And look at this article, Feminist lens on adoption, in the Minnesota Women's Press, by Katie Leo, an adult Korea adoptee (I stuck it in my "Favorites" months ago, and Dawn's piece made me go looking for it today):

I am part of a growing number of adult adoptees who view adoption as a feminist issue, part of a continuum of reproductive rights. This perspective extends to the right to raise one's child the same importance as the right to choose whether or not to bear one.

* * *

Over the years the social justice argument for adoption has proved increasingly problematic for many. In her article "Birth Mothers from South Korea Since the Korean War," scholar Hosu Kim states, "Although it often has been understood historically as a humanitarian effort ... I argue the practice of intercountry adoption is a radical example of global inequality played out at the site of actual woman's
bodies and often pits two women-the birth mother and the adoptive mother-against
each other in a struggle to claim a legitimate motherhood."

* * *

I believe that if the spirit of feminism creates solidarity between women across social, economic and racial barriers, feminists should work to remove the obstacles that render women around the globe so powerless, rather than using their situations as a reason to take their children from them. We should also question adoption language that carries implicit judgments of who makes a legitimate mother. Other issues to address are using children as a commodity, and racial coding of mothers and children. And we should work toward the extension of reproductive rights to include the rights of women to raise their children.

OK, let the Feminist Anonymous meeting begin. "My name is Malinda and I am a feminist." Are you? If so, reactions to these articles? If not, reactions to these articles?!

Adoption = A Single Event?

I remember reading something when Zoe was little that I thought was very clever -- say that your child WAS adopted, not IS adopted, because adopting is just a single event in the past, not part of who your child is now. I thought it very clever because it fit so neatly the "same as" narrative I was sure was right -- adoption is the "same as" having a child by birth, just another way to become a family. What a clever way to render adoption irrelevant to our daily lives, to my child's identity!

What I believe now is that adoption is a life-long issue, and cannot be relegated to a single event in the past. The Evan B. Donaldson report on promoting healthy identity development in adoption emphasizes the fact that adoption affects identity formation, and identity formation doesn't end with the teen years:

Adoption is an increasingly significant aspect of identity for adopted people as they age, and remains so even when they are adults. A primary contribution of this study is the understanding that adoption is an important factor in most adopted persons’ lives, not just as children and adolescents, but throughout adulthood. Adoption grew in significance to respondents in this study from early childhood through adolescence, continued to increase during young adulthood, and remained important to the vast majority through adulthood. For example, 81 percent of Koreans and over 70 percent of Whites rated their identity as an adopted person as important or very important during young adulthood.

This finding was actually contrary to the researchers' initial hypothesis, that the importance of adoption to identity would taper off after adolescence.

So the truth is that adoption was, is and will be an important part of an adoptee's identity. It cannot simply be relegated to a single event in the past.

Building Families the Focus of Adoption

A nice down-to-earth story about adoption in the Sacramento Bee, profiling a number of different families, including a same-sex couple, and different kinds of adoption -- from foster care, sibling groups, special needs, international, older child.

The story doesn't shy away from the difficult aspects of adoption ("You can take the kids out of the trauma, but you can't take the trauma out of the kids"), though little mention is made of birth parents. Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, in talking about increasing openness in adoption: "We haven't leveled the playing field quite yet, but there is movement in that direction," he said.

I wish there were more stories like this during Adoption Awareness Month -- these are the stories that will really find the committed people who can make an adoption work even when it isn't all rainbows and unicorns.

IA and Human Rights, Bartholet Version

Elizabeth Bartholet, a professor at Harvard, is a strong proponent of international adoption. She and two other proponents of international adoption gave testimony Friday, November 6, before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States about international adoption from Guatemala, Honduras, and Peru. The written testimony can be found here. They introduce their testimony with the following:

Many who talk about Human Rights in this context focus on very different issues, namely the Human Rights of Parents, and the Sovereignty Rights of States. When they address Child Rights they focus on Heritage rights to grow up in the family and country of birth.

We assert that Children’s most fundamental Human Rights are to live and to grow up in a nurturing family so they can fulfill their human potential. These rights have been largely ignored in the debate surrounding Unparented Children and related International Adoption policies. We argue that Unparented Children have a right to be placed in families, either their original families, or if that is not feasible, then in the first available permanent nurturing families. This includes the right to be placed in
International Adoption if that is where families are available.

One of the first things that struck me with this testimony was the attitude that families are essentially fungible. Children's most fundament right is to be raised in a family, and which family doesn't really seem to matter. Heritage rights to grow up with their families of birth are not an important human right of children, they imply. In fact, it seems that these authors can't quite understand why anyone would be focusing on those "heritage rights" to be raised by birth family, when what's most important is that a child is raised by ANY family. The reference to original families is just an aside, an either/or choice without any sense that original families would be preferred. Under this version of human rights, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption both violate human rights!

The testimony powerfully identifies the problems of institutional care for children. I don't think anyone doubts that. But they don't seem to be all that concerned about the older children in institutional care -- they're worried about the babies, those infants AYAP (as young as possible, a request so common as to be reduced to an acronym) who adoptive parents really want, who need to be adopted before they become irreparably damaged by institutional care:

International Adoption functioned in the past to place many thousands of children per year from these three countries in permanent nurturing homes, with many placed as young infants, giving them a good chance for normal development.

Placement for even those relatively few children typically occurs only after lengthy, damaging periods in institutional care.

States must take action to ensure children’s rights to true family care from the earliest point in life possible.

Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree -- children who really are orphans, who cannot be placed with extended family, should be adopted as quickly as possible. But this emphasis on infant adoption suggests more concern for adoptive parents than for children -- including special needs and older children -- who really need to be adopted.

But the most problematic part of this testimony is the disengenuousness of the argument about removing children from institutional care, especially as it refers to Guatemala. Most children adopted from Guatemala are never in orphanages! The Guatemalan system relies on private foster care while a private attorney/intermediary arranges the international adoption. Orphanages in Guatemala are also private, and usually extremely small. So the argument about liberalizing international adoption to free children from institutional care is a red herring, at least for Guatemala. (The IA programs in Honduras and Peru are extremely small.)

The report is relying on the horrors of institutional care to persuade people of the need for international adoption, when the authors know that the children they're really talking about -- infants in the pipeline for international adoption -- won't spend one day in institutional care. That play on emotions is completely deceptive.

The report also struck me as disingenuous about adoption corruption, too. The report addresses only the most extreme forms of corruption:

We recognize that abuses such as kidnapping and baby-buying occur, and we condemn these practices. But we urge the Commission to reject the kind of policy responses that many including the U.S. have encouraged, and that these three
countries have adopted -- moratoria on International Adoption, restrictive regulations that require holding children while searches for in-country homes are conducted, and prohibitions on the private intermediaries that often function as the lifeblood of such adoption.

Yes, kidnapping and baby-buying are corrupt practices that can make children illegally available for adoption. But the testimony ignores more subtle practices of coercion. And the report doesn't seem to see anything culpable or curable in one of the main reasons children are available for adoption that they did note: "Limited welfare support exists to enable poor and single parents to raise their children."

And those "private intermediaries that often function as the lifeblood of such adoptions?" They also function as the situs for corruption. These private intermediaries only make money when they can provide children to be adopted. They are not always too concerned about where those children come from. It was the actions of these intermediaries in Guatemala that led to one reform -- DNA testing to match mother and baby, necessary because these private intermediaries were presenting women to masquerade as birth mother to "relinquish" the child gotten from who-knows-where.

Bartholet's version of human rights for children, the right to a fungible family, ignores long-standing recognition of the central role of intact original families that is strongly protected in human rights law. And she minimizes the role of corruption in international adoption, arguing for a fast-track adoption process that will assuredly leave corruption uninvestigated and original families broken in its wake.

I'm giving Bartholet's version of human rights in international adoption a "pass," preferring the rights she and her colleagues disparage, the human right to grow up in your family of origin IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, the heritage right to grow up in your country of birth IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, and then, IF ALL ELSE FAILS, the right to a loving family wherever it may be found.

China Daily: Obama Visits China

If you're interested in President Obama's visit to China from the Chinese perspective, China Daily has an entire online section devoted to the visit. Of course, China Daily is the "official" face that China presents to the world (in English), but it is interesting to see that and compare it to U.S. reporting about the visit.

Favoritism?

Mrs. A at American Family has a post up about a recent episode where her children's grandmother told her explicitly that she (the grandmother) was favoring her biological grandchild over her adopted grandchild:

MIL: Well, I have a retirement account and I want to list M [bio granddaughter] as a beneficiary of 50% of it in case something happens to me.

* * *

MIL: It isn’t that I don’t love L [adopted granddaughter], you know, because I like her. She is a very nice little girl. It is just that I feel like M is special. She shares her love with me, so I want to give my money to her.

ARRRRGGGGGGGHHHHH!

Have you had to deal with such a situation in your family? Unequal treatment? Favoritism or disfavoritism? Exclusion of an adopted child? I'd love to hear about it from the adoptee perspective as well as from the adoptive parent perspective. And lets hear from some grandparents, too.

We're very lucky that we have not had any issues with family-- in fact, my siblings are likely to say that my girls, not their biological boys, are the favorites! [They're the only grandchildren who live in the same town] It might have been an issue with their great-grandfather, who was not at all in favor of my adopting, but he lived in France and died when Zoe was young.

If you have had such experiences, what have you done about it? Adoptive parents, have you talked to your children about it? As one commenter asked, how do you arm them to handle this kind of unequal treatment by extended family as they grow up?

Recipe -- Kung Pao Chicken

And here is Lucy's much more respectably Chinese Kung Pao Chicken recipe!

INGREDIENTS:
2 boneless, skinless chicken breasts, 7 to 8 ounces each

Marinade:
2 teaspoons soy sauce
2 teaspoons Chinese rice wine or dry sherry
1 teaspoon sesame oil
1 1/2 teaspoons cornstarch

Sauce:
2 tablespoons dark soy sauce
1 tablespoon Chinese rice wine or dry sherry
1 teaspoon sugar

Other:
8 small dried red chili peppers
2 cloves garlic
2 green onions (spring onions, scallions)
4 tablespoons oil for stir-frying, or as needed
1 teaspoon Szechuan peppercorn, optional
1/2 cup peanuts or cashews
a few drops sesame oil, optional

PREPARATION:
Cut the chicken into 1-inch cubes. Combine with the marinade ingredients, adding the cornstarch last. Marinate the chicken for 25 minutes.

While the chicken is marinating, prepare the sauce and vegetables: In a small bowl, combine the dark soy sauce, rice wine, and sugar.

Set aside.

Cut the chilies in half so that they are approximately the same size as the chicken cubes. Remove the seeds. Peel and finely chop the garlic. Cut the green onion on the diagonal into thirds.

Heat the wok over medium-high to high heat. Add 2 tablespoons oil. When the oil is hot, add the chicken. Stir-fry until it turns white and is 80 percent cooked. Remove from the wok.

Add 2 tablespoons oil. When the oil is hot, add the garlic and stir-fry until aromatic (about 30 seconds). Add the chili peppers and the Szechuan peppercorn if using. Stir-fry briefly until they turn dark red.

Add the sauce to the wok. Bring to a boil. Add the chicken back into the pan. Stir in the peanuts and the green onion. Remove from the heat and stir in the sesame oil. Serve hot.

Recipe -- Kung Pow! Chili

Inquiring minds want to know if I won the chili face-off -- shouldn't you have asked before asking for the recipe?!

Actually, I have no idea who won -- the fact that I don't know suggests to me that I didn't! If I had had to pick a winner, I would have picked the black bean chili -- but I bet the Judge's Texas Chili won.

But here's the recipe for my made-up chili dish, anyway. To add to the cultural confusion, I'll say, "You asked for it, you got it, Toyota!"

Keep in mind that I was making TONS for a chili face-off. And keep in mind that most of the spices are approximations, because at the end I was kind of tossing things in to taste. Fair warning, any Chinese person reading this will laugh and laugh and laugh . . . .

6 lbs boneless skinless chicken breasts
1/4 cup dark soy sauce
3/4 cup sesame oil
1/4 cup honey
2 cups Chinese rice wine (sake will do if you can't find Chinese rice wine)
1/2 cup olive oil
3 tbs chili paste
3 to 4 heads of garlic - chopped & crushed
½ cup (or more) fresh ginger, shredded
4-6 medium to large yellow or brown onions - chopped in big pieces
5 to 6 large bell peppers (any/all colors) – chopped in big pieces
6 to 8 large stalks celery – chopped in large chunks
6 or 8 red thai chili peppers (chopped very small, seeds and all)
1 cup fresh basil leaves, chopped
1 cup fresh oregano leaves, chopped
1/2 cup fresh chopped thyme
2 bottles Kirin beer (yes, I know it's Japanese!)
1/2 cup light soy sauce
3 oz. Mexene Chili Powder
8-10 small dried red chili peppers, crushed, seeds and all
6 tsp white pepper
2-4 tbs Chinese 5-spice powder
2 15 oz cans tomato sauce
1 28 oz can diced tomatoes
3 6 oz cans tomato paste
2 large cans crushed or chunk pineapple (drain & reserve juice)
1 cup unsalted peanuts
6-8 green onions/spring onions/scallions, just the green part, cut on diagonal

Cut chicken in 1-inch squares. Marinate for 30 minutes in soy sauce, ¼ c. sesame oil, honey & 1 c. rice wine.

While chicken marinates, put olive oil, 2 tbs. chili paste, garlic, ginger, onions, bell peppers, and celery in large sauce pan and sauté for about 15 minutes. Add chili peppers and fresh herbs. Saute for about 10 minutes. Add 1 bottle beer. Simmer.

In a large wok or skillet, heat the rest of the sesame oil and 1 tbs. chili paste. Add chicken and marinade. Stir-fry chicken. Slowly add remaining cup of rice wine. Stir until chicken is cooked about 80% through.

Add chicken (and any remaining liquid) to the large pot of simmering veggies. Add tomato products – tomato sauce, diced tomatoes, and tomato paste. Add pineapple. Add powdered/dried spices – chili powder, crush dried chili peppers, white pepper, and Chinese 5-spice (add 5-spice a little at a time, and taste as you go!). If no one you are serving has peanut allergies, add peanuts at this stage. Set out for guests to add instead of cooking if peanut allergies.

If additional liquid is needed, add reserved pineapple juice and/or water. If you feel like adding more beer or rice wine, that’s OK, too!

Cooking time -- about 2.5 hours from the time you add the veggies to the big pot.

Serve over rice or eat alone. Sprinkle with sliced green onions before serving.

Homage or Cultural Co-option?

One of the student groups at the law school had a Chili Face-off last week, all proceeds going to charity. Faculty members square off for "Hottest Professor" and staff compete for "Staff Hottie." I was asked to participate, and the student who asked me complained that they didn't have much variety in chili last year.

For some odd reason, it just popped into my head, I said, "I'll make Kung Pao Chili!" Of course, this dish doesn't exist, and I've certainly never made it before! But having committed myself, I had to figure out how to do it.

I got a great Kung Pao Chicken recipe from Zoe's and Maya's Chinese tutor, and went hunting online for a Chicken Chili recipe. I combined the two, and substituted all the Mexican-style chili spices with Asian spices. I thought it turned out good, and most of the students seemed to like it. I had a GREAT time making it, experimenting with Chinese Five-Spice and chili paste and lots and lots of fresh ginger and garlic, and Thai chilis.

Of course, it was complete sacrilege for Texan chili aficionados (Chicken?! Is this chili from New York City?!).

But my question is whether the chili was an homage to Chinese cooking, or cultural co-option?!

Chinese School Speech Contest

This afternoon was the speech contest for Chinese School. I wasn't able to get audible video of the girls during the contest, so I thought I'd post these practice videos. The girls are holding their home-made microphone -- props are so important!

I still get amazed each year at speech contest time as each student from age 3 to adult gets up to do their piece -- all alone -- in front of fellow students, teachers and parents. There was only one contestant who refused to say a word! It's great fun to see significant improvement in each student from year to year, too.

Maya's submission was recitation of two poems, one about seven fruits, one about a rubber ball.

Students in Zoe's class had to make a poster either about themselves or a favorite toy. Zoe used the poster from this summer's Chinese Language Camp, so I told her she had to do something else, too. She sang Ni Wa Wa.



I was one proud mama today!