Shame

Shame: A painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness, or disgrace.

I was a fat kid.  Not chubby, not pleasingly plump, but fat.  That meant a lot of teasing at school.  One incident I still remember to this day:  I was in 5th or 6th grade, and the class was practicing some square dance routine where the girl was supposed to fall back into the boy's arms.  No one wanted to partner me, so the teacher forced one boy to do it.  Yep, I bet you can see where this is going. . . . I fell back as the dance step required, and the boy dropped me.  He declared loudly that he didn't do it on purpose, I was too heavy for him to hold.  I didn't believe him, I knew he didn't even try to catch me, but I still lay there, humiliated, silent, while everyone else laughed.

I've never told anyone that story.  No one.  Not at the time, and never since.  I was too ashamed. If anyone found out how flawed I was -- and I was certainly flawed if I could be treated that way -- no one would love me anymore.  So I never told.

I've been thinking a lot about shame in the past few days, ever since Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute (and continued to rant on the subject for 3 days) for testifying before Congress about the importance of birth control to women's health.  As an adult, I recognize this slut-shaming for what it is -- an attempt to silence Susan Fluke and all women who witness and fear the same shaming treatment for speaking out.  Attacking women for their sexuality is a long-utilized and familiar tactic to silence them.  It might be calling her a dyke or saying she's frigid, or it might be calling her a slut and a prostitute, but the intent is the same -- if you attack her sexuality, you'll shut her up.  Shame silences.

The only thing different this time is that the centuries-old tactic didn't work!  It didn't silence Fluke, nor did it silence other women, who have spearheaded a protest effort that's led to 34 advertisers pulling their support for Limbaugh's program.

There's a lot of shame in adoption.  Like shaming teen/unwed mothers for having sex and getting pregnant:

After they called me away from homeroom into the assembly, the school department head made me stand up in front of my entire middle school and announced to everyone that I was pregnant. Until that moment, the only other student at school who knew was my sister. I was embarrassed, hurt and angry.

After they finished humiliating me in front of everyone at school, they had me sit back down in the bleachers. Some boys sitting behind me started kicking the back of my seat and harassing me. Soon all the other kids in school were teasing me, calling me names like "mama bear" and asking to touch my stomach.

I feel betrayed by my school. It's true that I was pregnant, but that doesn't mean I deserved to be harassed and publicly shamed in front of everyone.

Like shaming birth mothers who relinquish a child, like the comment received by Cassi at Adoption Truth:  "I know your story and I am saddest most about the fact that your son didn't even get a good enough birthmother to save him from abuse." Wow, how's that for an attempt to shame and silence? You're such a lousy birth mother that you gave your child to a child abuser.  Shame on you.

So you get shamed as a teen mom if you don't relinquish your child, and shamed as an uncaring birth mother if you do.

Is there shame associated with being an adoptive parent?  Consider this:

For adoptive parents, the trauma of not being able to give birth and raise a birth child, has been minimized and denied by focusing on the “solution” of adoption. Little has been said, except in adoption reform circles, about the traumas of not having the dreamed-for child; the loss of privacy of medical attempts at producing a child by various means; the invasiveness of having to disclose their financial, social, medical, and sexual histories to adoption agencies; and the on-going void of raising a child in a closed adoption system where they know little or nothing of their child’s heritage or needs.

Does that ring true to you? For adoptive parents who experienced infertility, there are feelings of shame, aren't there?  Especially for women, whose identity is often wrapped up in ideas of "true womanhood" that require her to be fertile, there is shame in infertility. And then there's the feelings of shame and guilt for ripping a child from her family, her culture, and for experiencing the joy of adoption when others have experienced such loss because of adoption (we've talked about those feelings here and here and here).

And adoptees and shame?  There's tons of shaming there, both internal and external.  Adoptees feel shame arising from feelings of being rejected by birth parents.  After all, one must be unworthy of love if one's own parents couldn't manage it.  Jean MacLeod explains:

Guilt and shame are by-products of rejection. They are a child’s paralyzing, toxic reaction to the belief that something must be intrinsically wrong with them, or that they must have done something really bad, to have caused their own abandonment. Shame is secret and silent. Adults understand that birthparents have grown-up reasons to relinquish a child, but children view the act personally as a reflection of themselves, and are deeply ashamed of not being ‘good enough’ for a mother to keep.

Shame is recognized as one of the seven core issues adoptees face. But shame isn't just internal -- it becomes imposed on adoptees by others as well:

Adoptees are often told that their reactions to their adoption are wrong. These reactions can include confusion and questioning (“Why did she give me away?”), anger at birth or adoptive parents, or a desire to address the loss by obtaining information about the adoptee’s origins. For example, adoptees who are searching for information or contact with their birth families are often told that they are being “selfish”, are maladjusted or are hurting their adoptive parents. (“You wouldn’t be searching if you really loved your adoptive parents”.) When adoptees ask questions, even well-intended explanations can confusion or shame. (“Your birth mother placed you for adoption because she loved you”, equating love and abandonment, or “You should be grateful you were lucky enough to be adopted by such a caring family”, equating a need for information with ingratitude.) . . . . All forms of shame isolate the adoptee by discouraging her from expressing needs and feelings.

Real Daughter equates the imposed shame of adoption to the imposed shame of rape:

It disgusts me that only recently has it been “somewhat” acceptable for women to speak their truth about rape. But it is still not acceptable for adoptees to speak their truth about adoption, unless it is the truth that makes other people happy- meaning adopters and the adoption industry. There is this undercurrent of shame involved with being raped and also with being adopted. Adoptees are told to shut up and be grateful. Their voice is stifled by those who only want to hear the good parts of adoption. Many rape victims were (and are still in some cases) told that they had it coming because their skirt was too short, or because they had been drinking, wore too much makeup, etc. We are dismissed. Rape victims are raped emotionally by people who are clueless about the subject of rape. It was not my fault someone raped me, just as it wasn’t my fault I am adopted. It is normal to talk about the pain and the experiences associated with both ordeals.

As adoptive parents we can unwittingly infect our children with shame. Our silence and secrecy about adoption can make our children ashamed to be adopted.  After all, other things we keep secrets about are shameful things, right?  Aunt Frieda's drinking, Cousin Bob's cross-dressing, Cousin Sylvie's 5 prior marriages, Grandpa Joe's moon-shining.  So if adoption is a secret, it must be shameful. 

We might think that we shouldn't talk about adoption with our kids -- beyond a mere mention once that they are adopted -- because we don't want to make a big deal of it, we don't want to plant ideas in their heads. We want to treat them the "same as" biological kids, so we ignore adoption.  And in doing so, we make adoption "the-thing-that-must-not-be-named," because it must be shameful. That's why we have to talk openly with our kids about adoption, it's the only way we can innoculate them against shame.

When it comes to guilt and shame for our children, Jean MacLeod gives great advice:

The prescription for shame is to blast it out in the open and help children understand that their ‘rejection’ and abandonment was not about them:
"Detect it, Expose it, Dump it!”
Shame and guilt can only exist in dark, untouched secret places. Bringing the reasons for a child’s self-incriminating feelings out into the light and exposing self-held secrets to the truth will begin to eliminate shame, rejection and guilt’s internalized triple grip.

A good message about shame, whether in the adoption triad or elsewhere: "Detect it, Expose it, Dump it!” 

I'm not equating my childhood shame to the pain in adoption, but I'm trying to live the "Detect it, Expose it, Dump it" message. I've exposed it to you, and I shared the story with my kids at dinner tonight.  They were really sweet, providing lots of hugs, which sure helps with that last step -- dumping the shame and moving on!

Artyom's Mom Must Pay Child Support

So reports the Miami Herald:

A judge in Tennessee has ruled that an American woman must pay child support for the adopted son she sent back to Russia.

Circuit Court Judge Lee Russell approved a motion on Wednesday for default judgment against Torry Hansen, who has repeatedly failed to appear in court and at depositions.

Hansen was living in Shelbyville in April 2010 when she sent the boy, then 7, to his native Russia on a plane.

A lawsuit filed by the adoption agency seeks child support and other damages that will be held in a trust for the child, who is now living in a group home in Russia.

The judge will hear arguments in May on how much money Hansen should pay.

So the judge didn't rule on the merits; a default judgment essentially takes as true everything in the plaintiff's petition.  I think a ruling on the merits would have reached the same conclusion, since a legal parent has a legal duty to support her child financially and sending Artyom back to Russia would not have terminated her parental rights and obligations.  Still, by her conduct that led to the default judgment, Hansen forfeited the opportunity to offer any legal defense.  Not that she had much to go on -- her conduct was indefensible.

Putin: International Adoption Should Be "Rare Exception"

Vladimir Putin weighs in on international adoption of Russian children:

The adoption of Russian children by foreign families should become a “rare exception,” prime minister and president-elect Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.

“We should try to ensure that most [Russian] children find their families here in Russia,” Putin told a government meeting in Moscow. “Foreign adoptions should become a rare exception, a last resort.”

* * *

During the Wednesday meeting, Putin criticized foreign child adoption firms for what he described as a “lack of cooperation” with Russian authorities in monitoring the situation with adopted children.

Relevant government bodies should promptly react to any cases of mistreatment of such children, he said, adding that children whose rights have been seriously violated should be given to other families or returned to Russia.

Adoptees & Drug Abuse Risk

A while back I posted a study that showed both environment and genetics played a role in adoptees' risk of suicide.  So I was really interested when I saw this headline at CNN,  Adopted kids' drug abuse risk affected by biological family, especially since it suggested that genetics was a sole factor. But if you get past the headline and the first paragraph, you learn that there's also an environmental influence:

Adopted children are twice as likely to abuse drugs if their biological parents did too, suggesting that genetics do indeed play a role in the development of substance abuse problems.

However, trouble or substance abuse in the adoptive family is also a risk factor, according to a study of more than 18,000 adopted children in Sweden.

This suggests that both environment and biological family history can influence a child's likelihood of future drug use.

They managed to bury the actual results there, huh?  Still, the article notes that this is "good news" for adoptive parents, since it suggests that tainted genes can be "cured" by a good environment.  Sheesh.

There's more detail about the study at the MedicalNews website, but there are really two versions -- one headlined Dysfunctional family environment increases genetic risk for drug abuse and one headlined Study evaluates link between genetic and environmental factors and risk of drug abuse. 

Looks like CNN used the second version, which blames biology in the first paragraph:

In a national Swedish adoption study, the risk for drug abuse appears to be increased among adopted children whose biological parents had a history of drug abuse, according to a report published Online First by Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.

 rather than the first version, headlining dysfunctional families, which blames environment:

The risk of abusing drugs is greater - even for adopted children - if the family environment in which they are raised is dysfunctional, according to a new study conducted by a collaborative team from Virginia Commonwealth University and Lund University in Sweden.

So, take your pick -- blame the birth parents or blame the adoptive parents! Or recognize that biology and environment are both influential. . . .

An adoption "joke" in The Lorax

We saw The Lorax this weekend, and my kids really liked it.  No, no one in the story is actually adopted, which is a relief given the prevalence of adoption in children's movies.  Yes, adoption was mentioned. Yes, it was just a kind of throw-away line, but I hated that the producers/directors decided to go there. I don't think Dr. Seuss would be proud.

I can't quote it exactly, but it went something like this: the richest (and most evil) man in town visits the home of our young hero.  Mom introduces hero to evil-doer, who says something complimentary.  Mom replies with a giggle, "You want to adopt him? Just kidding!"  Hilarity ensues.

But maybe not so funny if you're a child who feels her birth mother gave her away, or a child whose past experience of being given away leaves behind that anxiety that it will happen again. . . .

Based on the trailer, I was prepared for the sexist "THAT'S a woman?!" line (yes, women are still women when they are old and fat and ugly, not just when they are swimsuit models on the cover of Sports Illustrated).  Didn't see the adoption "joke" coming.

The "golden age" of international adoption

The Globe & Mail (Canada) offers an editorial in support of international adoption:

The golden era of international adoptions has come to a close. And that is a shame for the hundreds of millions of children in orphanages around the world.

Bureaucracy, escalating costs and more stringent regulations have caused a number of Canadian adoption agencies to close, and made it much harder for parents to adopt overseas.

Nepal, Guatemala, Cambodia and Liberia are on Canada’s adoption blacklist, and in most provinces, so is Haiti. Popular source countries such as China and Ethiopia have reduced the number of children sent abroad for adoption.

The international adoption industry has been fraught with concerns about child trafficking and corruption. Because Canada is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children, the provinces must take these concerns seriously, and ensure Canadians are not inadvertently taking part in the abduction or sale of children.

However, instead of shutting down a country’s entire international adoption program, wouldn’t it be better to investigate specific allegations of abuse, enforce existing laws and penalize those who violate them? Canadian adoption agencies could continue to work with their overseas counterparts that follow regulations, and do not commit adoption fraud. This would allow the thousands of orphans in Guatemala, Haiti, Nepal and Ethiopia to be adopted out, in the event that they cannnot be placed in homes in their own countries.

Go read the whole thing, including the obligatory quote from Elizabeth Bartholet: “Even if adoption law violations occur, the harm they cause children and birth parents is minimal compared to the harm caused by shutting down or severely restricting international adoptions." Sigh.

Lots to say about the editorial, but I'll limit myself to one issue (hard to believe, I know!). Let's see first if we can find some common ground -- I will start from the proposition that international adoption should exist in some form (we aren't all likely to agree on what form, and some won't accept that starting premise at all), and that we are all interested in eliminating corruption in international adoption and all interested in facilitating international adoption for truly needy children.  We might disagree on what corruption is (I, for example, use a broad definition that goes beyond kidnapping or buying children) or which children are truly needy (I, for example, firmly believe that domestic adoption options HAVE to be explored before a child is truly needy of international placement, which is not something everyone agrees with). But I hope we can agree on these fundamentals -- end corruption, help needy children.  Okay? So how do we do that?

The idea that we can end corruption and avoid shutting down entire countries by simply investigating and punishing individual cases of corruption ignores the fact that we are outsourcing adoption to countries without the regulations and infrastructure to police corruption in adoption. Think of a country like China (I'm using China as an example because some people seem to think I give China a "pass" because my kids were adopted from China (yes, to believe that, you can't really be reading everything I post about problems with adoption from China, but, whatever)). With all the overwhelming stories of general corruption in China, corruption it can't keep up with -- why would we think China is suddenly able to police corruption in adoption?

And can the receiving country do the investigating?  Given issues of national sovereignty (why would China allow foreign operatives to investigate in China?!), language and culture differences, lack of cooperation generally, and there's little possibility of Canada or the U.S. investigating claims of corruption within a sending country.  We've seen how that has worked in the past with China -- when cases of corruption go public, the U.S. and/or Canada asks China about it, and China reports they've handled it, and that's the end of that.   This article by E.J. Graff illustrates the limitations on the U.S. ability to investigate individual cases in Vietnam:

[T]he State Department was confident it had discovered systemic nationwide corruption in Vietnam -- a network of adoption agency representatives, village officials, orphanage directors, nurses, hospital administrators, police officers, and government officials who were profiting by paying for, defrauding, coercing, or even simply stealing Vietnamese children from their families to sell them to unsuspecting Americans. And yet, as these documents reveal, U.S. officials in Hanoi did not have the right tools to shut down the infant peddlers while allowing the truly needed adoptions to continue.

We're merely pretending that sending countries actually have the resources to police adoption, and that receiving countries can do the necessary case-by-case investigations, aren't we? The reality is very different from that pretence.

So, how about offering a real solution to the problem of corruption in international adoption? If shutting down a country's program isn't the solution, then offer a realistic one.  Calling for sending countries to investigate individual cases, enforce existing laws and punish individual wrong-doers is NOT realistic. We need to stop pretending that sending countries can police themselves or that receiving countries can police the sending countries.

How about this as a solution -- we only allow adoption from sending countries who have the necessary infrastructure to investigate individual cases of corruption or who agree to allow for meaningful internal investigation by the receiving country? I can hear many objections: it would increase costs of international adoption, it would limit countries parents could adopt from even more than current practice does. Maybe so.  So what's your proposed solution? It certainly can't be to go back to the "golden age" of unregulated international adoption, what this editorial yearns for -- not if we want to end corruption and help needy children.

Deporting International Adoptees

"As the U.S. leads the world in terms of the numbers of children adopted from other countries, it should also lead the world in the humanitarian treatment of them."

That's the gist of this Korean Times editorial about the U.S. deporting international adoptees whose parents dropped the ball and failed to secure their U.S. citizenship:

Until 2001, when Korean children were sent to the U.S. for overseas adoption, it was their adoptive parents’ responsibility to naturalize them as U.S. citizens.

In addition, adoption agencies both in Korea and the U.S. were responsible for post-adoption services that should monitor adoptees and their adoptive parents until the children are fully integrated into U.S. society. This is a key principle of overseas adoption.

However, the reality is not the same as the principle. The U.S. deports foreign adoptees aged 29 and older who haven’t been naturalized when they commit certain crimes. Washington must stop this practice immediately.

Unlike European governments, the U.S. government did not automatically grant citizenship to overseas adoptees until 2001. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 came into force on Feb. 27, 2001, allowing all internationally adopted children under 18 on that date, and all those adopted in the future, to become U.S. citizens automatically. However, adoptees 18 or older on that date could not be covered by the act.

Many adoptees discovered, usually when applying for federal student loans or a passport, that they had never been naturalized by their foster parents. I know three Korean adoptees ― Monte, Tim, and Matthew ― who could not benefit from the act.

* * *

I urge the U.S. government to correct defects in the U.S. legal system by quickly passing an amendment that would allow all overseas adoptees ― even adults like Tim, Matthew, and Monte ― to rightfully receive their U.S. citizenship. This would stop the deportations and also give the benefits and protection of citizenship to all law-abiding international adoptees.

I've posted many times on this issue -- click here to find a link to a petition you can sign asking Congress to change the law, and links to previous posts about past deportations of individual adoptees.

OBC: More Than a Piece of Paper

In the wake of Illinois' new law allowing adoptees to access their original birth certificates, the Courier-News (Chicago) has two interesting pieces -- first, More Than a Piece of Paper, explores a bit of the history of secrecy and the new legislation:

A birth certificate — a proclamation of who you are and where you came from — is something most people take for granted.

But for the more than 200,000 estimated adult adoptees in Illinois, it’s a fundamental right they has been denied — until now.

An Illinois law signed into effect in May 2010 allows adult adoptees to obtain a copy of their original birth certificates without receiving written consent from birth parents. Birth parents who oppose the new law can file a request to have their names redacted from the document.

For state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, the bill’s sponsor, it wasn’t only about changing public policy; it was personal. Adopted in 1956, she championed the effort for nearly 15 years.

* * *

“Think about the evolution of adoption and how much better this institution is now,” she said. “Files used to be stamped ‘illegitimate,’ and there was a significant need to protect a pregnant, unmarried woman and the child she gave up. The fault in the law — as I see it — was that those two parties never needed protection from each other. They needed protection from society.

“We are trying our best to remedy that particular issue: permit, yet continue to protect those that want it. It’s a very emotional issue, and I can attest to that because I have been working on it for many, many years.”

Since the new law took effect, more than 6,600 Illinois-born adult adoptees have requested a copy of their original birth certificate, according to the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Less than 1 percent of birth parents have requested anonymity.

Second, a piece written by the journalist for the first story, From the Storyteller,  revealing her personal interest in the topic:

“Are you adopted?”

That was the first question state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz asked me when I called her about this story. An adoptee and champion of the new law that allows adults to request a copy of their original birth certificate, Feigenholtz said it’s a question she typically asks when being interviewed about the topic. She wanted to know “if I had skin in the game.”

I am not adopted. My husband is, and for that reason, I followed the birth certificate debate and ultimate change to the law with great interest. In fact, once I learned it had passed, I printed off the application to request a copy of his original birth certificate, filled it out, and left it for him to sign.

He didn’t sign it.

* * *

I have learned while working on this story that each person’s adoption journey is as individual as their DNA. But thanks to the change in Illinois law, adoptees have the option to get that information if and when they are ready for it.

The application no longer sits on my husband’s desk in our den. After more than two months, he decided to sign it and mail it to Springfield with his $15 check. He doesn’t have plans to do anything with it, except file it along with mine and those of our three kids. But at least he will have an original birth certificate — unique — but just like everyone else.

New Comment Settings

It's taken me awhile to decide to do this, but I've now disabled anonymous commenting on the blog.

I am a huge proponent of free speech, and have long understood that anonymous commenting allowed some the freedom to share unpopular opinions.  Anonymous comments haven't really bothered me, nor has it ever bothered me when others disagree with my opinions.  The cure for bad speech is not censorship, but MORE speech, I've always believed.

That's why I don't moderate comments (screen them before publishing them), nor do I delete comments (censor them after they've been published).  I intend to stick with those policies. Disallowing anonymous comments seems to me a middle ground, less stifling of free speech than moderating or deleting comments.

I have been disturbed by the NUMBER of anonymous comments lately.  I did a spot check of the almost-9,000 comments here, and have discovered an enormous growth in the percentage of anonymous comments.  In the first 500 comments on the blog, only 6.4% were anonymous.  In the middle 500 comments, 20.1% were anonymous.  In the last 500 comments, 48.4% were anonymous. That last number was startling to me -- almost half of commenters aren't willing to identify themselves.  Wow. Not only do these figures show a growth in anonymous comments, but even more disturbing to me, that's an enormous decline in the number of folks willing to identify themselves.

The anonymous comments have also declined in quality as they have increased in quantity.  Commenting anonymously has permitted folks to issue personal insults, not just of me, but also of other commenters.  Instead of offering reasoned disagreement, anonymous comments have become simply disagreeable. I believe the nature of the anonymous comments has chilled more speech than it has promoted -- many readers are declining to comment at all for fear of being attacked.

I'm pretty thick-skinned, but I have to tell you, the tenor of discussion in the comments has been depressing lately.  I know many would be delighted if I decided blogging wasn't fun anymore and quit. In fact, I believe that is actually the reason for the anonymous nastiness -- trying to stifle speech, not promote it. To make blogging more enjoyable for me, I need a better quality of disagreement (after all, there's little I like better than a good argument!). I'm hoping that by requiring commenters to identify themselves the quantity and quality of comments will improve.

Of course, I know this is an imperfect process.  Anyone is free to create a false identity on the internet (for all you know, I'm an 18-year-old Botswanan man with a great imagination!).  But I figure this step, of requiring one to establish an identity before commenting here, might deter the kind of drive-by nastiness the comment section has become prone to.

I hope to hear from many more of you, where I can agree or disagree with you by name!

Ohio Adoption Agency Investigated After Adoptive Father Accused of Raping Children

Interesting, I'm not sure I've seen this scenario before, where the adoption agency is investigated after adoptive parents are accused of child abuse:

Ohio officials are investigating a private adoption agency that helped place children with a man now accused of raping three boys in his care.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services tell the Associated Press on Friday that it's opened an investigation into ACTION Inc.

The investigation follows the arrest last week of a 39-year-old Troy man charged with three counts of rape and one count of compelling prostitution in Miami County. He also faces child rape charges in Montgomery County. Police accuse him of hiring out a 10-year-old boy for sex with other men.

* * *

Texas authorities didn't release any other details on the children but said the adoption was handled through ACTION Inc. adoptions agency of Dayton. A Texas spokesman said Thursday that it appeared that proper procedures had been followed, including background checks on the adoptive father. Troy police say they don't know of any past criminal activity by him.

Chinese Twins Adopted by Different Families Stay Connected

As reported from Canada, a fascinating tale of twins separated by adoption and their adoptive families' efforts to keep them connected:

The girls were born in China, separated by circumstance and parceled out to two different families.

Whether by fortune or design -- no one will ever know -- the couples who adopted them were both from Ontario. And they figured it out.

Kirk and Allyson MacLeod adopted their daughter, Lily, 12 years ago and brought her home to Keswick, north of Toronto. Mike and Lynette Shaw adopted their daughter, Gillian, 12 years ago and brought her home to Amherstburg, just outside Windsor. When the parents discovered the connection, they vowed to raise them as sisters.

The situation is as rare as it is fascinating: Lily and Gillian are one of only a handful of twin pairs in the world known to be growing up in this way — apart, yet together. They are an accidental experiment, giving researchers a new window into human behaviour by allowing them to study the effects of nature and nurture in real-time. For science, Lily and Gillian are a treasure.

And for the people raising them — strangers thrown together by extraordinary circumstances — the unusual arrangement has made them pioneers of a whole new kind of blended family. They are making up the rules as they go.

The families noticed that their referral pictures seemed to be of the same child and contacted their agency:

The two families contacted the adoption agency and asked coordinators to look into the matter. At first, the parents were concerned the orphanage may have inadvertently assigned one baby to two different families. Adoption documents even gave the girls the same birthday. If there were two of them, could they be twins?

Word came back from the orphanage a few days later: there were indeed two babies. Workers said the girls were found in different locations, brought in separately. They were not twins, just look-alikes.

And so the MacLeods and Shaws found themselves, two months later, at a hotel in China’s Hunan province, waiting outside an elevator with three other couples. When the doors opened, five nannies stepped out with five little girls in their arms, babies bundled into so many layers of clothing they could hardly move. Only their heads peeked out of the hooded zip-up suits they wore.

It was immediately clear to all that two of the babies were identical.

Officially, the orphanage still insisted the girls, then 8 months old, were unrelated and could not be adopted together. If the parents didn’t take the baby assigned to them, they would go back into the adoption pool. And there was no guarantee they would end up together next time.

Maybe workers at the orphanage really didn’t know. Maybe they didn’t care. Or maybe, as the girls’ parents like to think, they couldn’t afford a DNA test and did what they thought was the next best thing: place the twins with families near each other.

These aren't the only twins raised apart that are known to researchers, of course:

Over the past decade, Segal, now a psychology professor at California State University, has found about 15 more sets of adopted twin children being raised by different families, most of them Chinese girls.

Researchers attribute this phenomenon to China’s one-child policy, which led to the abandonment of thousands of female babies. Though China’s official adoption rules state that twins should be placed together, pairs like Lily and Gillian prove things don’t always happen that way.

Twelve pairs are part of Segal’s ongoing research on reared-apart twin children, a project that promises to open a new window into human behaviour. Every few years, for as long as they are willing, the twins and their parents will complete a giant questionnaire packet that tracks their behaviour, attitudes and health as they age.

The article has lots of stories about separated twins, and about commonalities between Lily and Gillian as well as between other separated twins.

China Daily: Man Arrested After Abandoning Baby

China Daily reports:

A 3-month-old baby boy was found abandoned at Wuhan Tianhe Airport on Tuesday and a suspect was later arrested, local police said on Thursday.

A cleaner who works at the airport heard the baby making sounds and when she went to investigate, found him on a chair in the arrivals lounge.

When no one claimed the baby after two hours, the local civil affairs bureau took over.

Chen Xiaokui, director of the shelter station under the civil affairs authority in Huangpi district, told China Daily that he sent the baby to hospital because he appeared to be ill.

"He was suffering from congenital heart disease and pneumonia," Chen said, adding that they had spent some 1,200 yuan ($190) on his medical treatment.

Chen said that he and his colleagues arrived at Tianhe Airport around 9 pm after hearing the report. They felt anger toward the person who abandoned the baby, he said.

"We find seven or eight abandoned babies each year," Chen said.

* * *

Mei Zhigang, a professor who studies social problems at Central China Normal University, said abandoned babies were a disgrace to society.

"It should not happen in a civilized society," Mei said, adding that there were two main reasons for this phenomenon.

A sick baby is more readily abandoned, she said, and there are parents who cannot afford to treat and raise sick children.

Mei said that parents must live up to their responsibilities and the government should be prepared to help families in difficulty.

"There needs to be more concern at national level and polices to curb such wrong behavior," Mei said.

A sad story, which gives me the opportunity to once again tout Love Without Boundaries' Unity Fund, which is designed to help children in China NOT become orphans at all, by providing medical care to children at risk of being abandoned by desperate parents who do so in order to secure medical care for their children.  Please consider donating. Adoption will not solve the world-wide orphan crisis; only preventing kids from becoming orphans in the first place will solve the orphan crisis.

Adopted Twins Returned to Russian Agency's Doorstep

And wouldn't you know it would involve Americans:

A pair of 15-month-old twins was returned to a St. Petersburg adoption authorities by an unidentified man, the city’s child ombudsman said on Tuesday.

“The twins were left on the doorstep of the Moskovskaya Zastava adoption authority. An unidentified man brought them in a baby carriage and left quickly,” St. Petersburg child ombudsman Svetlana Agapitova said.

The babies were adopted by a St. Petersburg resident last October. The adoptive mother, however, faced legal problems after a probe revealed that she failed to notify authorities about her dual Russian-U.S. citizenship as well as having an American husband.

The woman was originally advised to get a letter of consent from her husband before the adoption. It was unclear how she was able to document the adoption without her husband's involvement.

“However, she decided… to abandon the twins. Moreover, she decided not to do this in person,” the ombudsman said.

A probe has been launched and the woman was put on a wanted list. The babies are currently under medical supervision in a children's hospital.

It may well be that the current anti-American adoption sentiment in Russia is merely manufactured for domestic political consumption, as this article argues, but boy, American adoptive parents are sure making it easy for them. . . .

Mexico-Ireland Adoption Scammer Involved in U.S. Adoptions, Too

I posted before about the child-trafficking scandal involving Mexican adoptions to Ireland.  This Huffington Post article by investigative journalist Erin Seigal, author of a book about adoption corruption in Guatemala, reveals that the scandal may be broader and deeper than first thought, and involve adoptions to the U.S. as well:

Guadalajara-based attorney Carlos López Valenzuela is one of the people allegedly at the center of the operation. His law firm, López & López Associates, was operated by both López and his son, reported by the Mexican press to be a former state prosecutor. The firm, according to posts signed by Lopez on internet adoption websites and message boards, was "exclusively devoted" to private Mexican adoptions and boasted of "an outstanding track record in delivering healthy children." One of his posts, dated August 2001, claims he "handled over 260 adoptions for Couples of New York area during the past 21 years [sic]," or since 1981.

* * *

This is not the first time López has been involved in an adoption scandal. In 2003, Lesley Stahl and the CBS TV news magazine 48 Hours produced a story called "Twist of Fate," which followed two Mexican sisters who had been adopted to different American families. The adoption had been arranged by Carlos López. The girls' birth mother claimed she had been "forced to give them up for adoption," alleging that López had refused to return her daughters after she changed her mind. Additionally, she said, records for her daughters had been manufactured. López said he'd done nothing wrong.

In 1990, Belen Zapata of CNN Mexico recently reported, López and three other women were detained on charges of human trafficking stemming from attempts to purchase as-yet unborn children from pregnant women at the Hospital Civil de Guadalajara. At the time, López told authorities he was a representative of the Association of Adoptive Parents of New York.

Indeed, the affiliation between López and American adoptive parents has a long history. As a founding member of the Yahoo email list "Friends and Families of Mexico," a list with a publicly accessible archives dating back to 1999, López posted to a group of almost 200 people with adoption advice, poems about orphans, and business solicitations. His firm was sometimes also referred to as "López Castellanos Asociados." After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, an associate of Lopez posted to the list, asking adoptive parents to email photos to him so that fifty worried Mexican birth mothers would know that their children were all right. The post said that López has been working adoptions for "25 years," which would mean since the mid-1970's.

Apology Recommended

A Senate committee in Australia has recommended the country apologize for forced adoptions during that country's Baby Scoop Era:

A Senate committee in Australia is asking the country to apologize for its past policy of forced adoptions.

From the 1950s to the 1970s, thousands of unwed mothers were coerced into giving up their children. The committee talked to hundreds of mothers since its inquiy started in 2010.

The AP reports that about 100 mothers who gave up babies sat in the Senate public gallery as the committee presented its report today.

"If it wasn't illegal, it was unethical," committee chairwoman Sen. Rachel Siewert said, according to the AP. "The evidence ... tells the accounts of mothers and fathers who were pressured into giving up their babies by their families, by institutions — both state and territory and private institutions — by social workers, doctors, nurses and those who they rightly expected to have helped them."

The BBC reports that many of organizations that took part in the forced adoptions have apologized, but the victims want the government to issue a formal apology of the kind it issued in 2008 to indigenous people, over the systematic suffering they had undergone.

You can read the Senate committee's report here. What strikes me most vividly is the parallels between the Australian stories of force, coercion and stigma in this report and the American stories of force, coercion and stigma in Anne Fessler's powerful book, The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade.

And who's holding their breath for an American government apology for the Baby Scoop Era?

"I'm Not What's Best for My Baby"

At Elle Magazine, an article, entitled "I'm Not What's Best for My Baby," about a birth mother's relinquishment of her son for adoption:

On a bright, hot afternoon in July 2010, Julia Barnes* gave birth in a Chicago hospital to a slightly premature but healthy five-pound boy after a short labor. When he emerged, black hair plastered to his head, she looked away and did not ask to hold her child—or, as she kept reminding herself, “the” child.

This was far from the blissful scenario she’d imagined when she and her husband, her college sweetheart Bill, learned she was pregnant the previous fall. But as her stomach had grown and she’d begun picturing her future as a mother, Julia discovered a secret that upended her life.

Lying in the hospital bed, now finding herself unable to take her eyes off her newborn as he was cleaned and swathed by nurses, she focused on what she’d trained herself to think during her pregnancy whenever she felt the jab of a small foot or glanced down to see her abdomen rippling: He doesn’t belong to me, he doesn’t belong to me. Julia had chosen a couple to adopt the baby, and the wife was there—she cut the cord. Watching the adoptive mother trail out of the room behind the nurse and the baby in his crib, Julia silently repeated another mantra: I’m not what’s best for him, I’m not what’s best for him.

Julia was not physically or mentally ill, nor was she poor or very young, unable to make a living, or alone in the world. At the time she gave birth, she was, in fact, a 30-year-old lawyer who’d been thrilled when she conceived the first time she and her husband tried. Yet eight months later, she was intoning to herself, The baby doesn’t belong to me; I’m not what’s best for him.

Read the whole thing.  Not exactly a feel-good piece, and the adoption doesn't seem like a happy ending in the circumstances. I came away from reading it more than a little depressed, which probably wasn't the author's intent.  What about you?

Adopting Out the Children of Illegal Immigrants: The Trial Starts

Today the trial commenced in the adoption battle over Encarnacion Bail Romero's son, adopted out over her objections while she was jailed for immigration charges (I've blogged about the case here and here and here and here). 

The issue is larger than this one case, as is made clear by Michelle Brane, director of Detention and Asylum at the Women's Refugee Commission:

"The real issue is if the parent wants to be deported with their child, what right do we have to say 'No, you cannot have custody of your child?' Romero's intent now is to go back home with Carlos, but he has already started a life here with another family...This is the kind of tragedy that needs to be avoided and can be avoided by doing the right thing early on and giving people access to the courts and to their children early on."

Bail Romero's parental rights were terminated by a Missouri trial judge at least in part on the grounds that she abandoned her child because she didn't make contact with him while she was in jail.  The judge apparantly doesn't recognize how difficult that could be:

Without any policies in place to regulate the care of U.S. citizen children while their parents are detained, immigrant parents are unable to attend court hearings, contact caseworkers, complete parenting classes or take any of the necessary steps to meet the strict timelines dictated by juvenile courts.

"And the result is that nobody is really recognizing that there's a parent there trying desperately to communicate that they want to still be involved with their child," said Nina Rabin, an immigration attorney with the University of Arizona's Immigration Law and Policy Institute.

It's those parents that are slipping through the cracks between two huge bureaucracies, she said.

There are also some huge factual issues unresolved in the first hearing where the judge found that the mother had abandoned the child -- she didn't attend, she didn't testify, her attorney was paid by the adoptive parents. . . .  So it will be interesting to see -- factually -- what develops in this new trial.

Italy/Vietnam: Adoptees Learn About Heritage

From the VietNamDaily:

Italian families who have adopted Vietnamese children attended a meeting in Rome yesterday to share experiences and learn more about Vietnamese culture.

50 families took part in the event, which was hosted by the Vietnamese embassy in Rome and the Italian Adoption Families Association.

Speaking at the event, Vietnamese ambassador to Italy Dang Khanh Thoai expressed his gratitude to the Italian families for their love and support of adopted Vietnamese children.
He stressed that Viet Nam would continue to co-operate closely with Italy in improving adoption procedures appropriate to the two countries' legal policies as well as hosting more cultural exchange events and discussions.

In response to Viet Nam's concerns, the association would carefully watch over adopted children and help them to learn about their origins and cultural heritage.

Chinese consulates in the U.S. have hosted the same kind of thing.

Inter-country adoption risks children lives

That's the headline in the Daily Times (of Malawi), a country suspicious of international adoption after the Madonna kerfuffle:

Inter-country adoptions negatively affect adopted children if not properly regulated, a law commissioner has observed.

Law Commissioner Gertrude Hiwa made the observation in Lilongwe on Monday during a consultative workshop for the fifth International Policy Conference on the African Child (IPC) organised by the Malawi Law Commission.

She said inter-country adoptions in some instances are marred by dysfunctional and insufficient regulation which result in serious violations of children's rights.

She said the very children which the system endeavours to improve their wellbeing may be exposed to even greater risks by the system.

"Such risks may include child trafficking, sale of the children , abduction and abuse, coercion of birth parents especially mothers to relinquish their babies, fraud and also corruption," Hiwa said.

"Further Africa has not yet carried out a comprehensive situation analysis of inter-country adoption with the result of unavailability of proper information on the issue and therefore a gap on the accurate status of inter-country adoption in Africa," she said.

Hiwa further said it is important for Africa to try and address this matter collectively and collaboratively in order to ensure a harmonious approach to defeat unscrupulous actors who take advantage of the countries whose rules and systems are weak and therefore puts vulnerable children at even greater risk.

It's always interesting to hear perspectives from sending countries.

"Open Adoption" of Embryos

From TODAYMoms blog:

Carmen Olalde really wanted children. She went through years of infertility treatment and IVF, then a difficult pregnancy, to have her twins. And as her twins turned four, she realized that two kids were enough.

But she still had four frozen embryos from her last IVF cycle. And so she made a decision that put her at the frontier of reproductive ethics. She donated the embryos to a Virginia couple also suffering from infertility, whom she met via a website ad – on the condition that the donation be "open," and they send regular photos of any resulting child and hopefully keep in touch by e-mail and phone.

“My motherly part of me thinks that I think that I would at least want to know what happened to them, that it would hit me once in a while that I have these genetic children out there. But at least I will know that [the couple] Karolina and Oscar have them and that they’re happy, they’re OK,” says Olalde.
Meet the modern "open adoption" family -- at least two hopeful humans and one embryo, brought together by science, trust, complicated legalities and a goodly bit of luck.

Many post-birth adoptions these days are “open,” in which the birth and adoptive families know each other’s name and perhaps have some degree of contact. Pre-birth arrangements may be following suit, though the law hasn't yet caught up.

* * *

The donation arrangements are murky legally, as well as emotionally. Adoption laws only cover children already born, so families involved in embryo donation usually sign forms and contracts dictating "ownership" of the embryos, often hiring their own lawyers for private agreements. Some follow up with a legal adoption after a child is born to further secure their rights.

Margaret Swain, an attorney whose practice focuses on adoption and reproductive technology, says children born from donation will likely appreciate an open arrangement, even though parents might initially feel uncomfortable.

“Following the lessons learned from adoption, and what we are hearing from children born through gamete donation, some degree of openness is probably a good idea. Children born of gamete donation -- donation of either egg or sperm -- usually like to know more about the person who donated, or to meet that person,” she says.

"Adoption" is the word the article uses, which I consider a misnomer when it comes to embryo donation.  "Open donation" would be more accurate here. And the article needs to straighten out another misperception it creates -- by talking about the fact that openness in embryo donation is legally murky, they create the impression that there's no legal murkiness in open adoption agreements.  Indeed, in most states such agreements are still not legally enforceable.

Spain: 92% Adopted Parents Satisfied With Decision

I didn't find the figure at all surprising, but others might -- a study in Spain revealed that the number of adoptive parents satisfied with their decision to adopt is an extremely-high 92%.  The report also identifies some variables that cause lower satisfaction rates, some not surprising and others a bit of a surprise:

"We wanted to know to what extent adoptions in Spain are providing children who need it with a healthy family environment that promotes their development" Yolanda Sánchez-Sandoval, a researcher from the University of Cádiz (UCA) states. In order to assess that, a comprehensive questionnaire was sent to families with adopted children in Andalucía, which was employed, amongst other uses, to assess family's satisfaction with the decision as a measurement of success.

The results show that, although their lives have been not been free of difficulties, these families are happy with the adoption. "Generally speaking, they are very satisfied with their decision and its implications on their family and personal lives" Sánchez-Sandoval affirms.

77.7% of families stated that their lives have been happier as a result of the adoption and 91.9% consider its repercussions to be positive. However, 37% consider family life to be more complicated in their situation.

The children's opinion of their lives is also linked with that of their parents. "When the parents are more satisfied with the adoption, we found that the children are also happier with their own lives" the researcher declares.

In the study, which is published in the journal Psicothema, they identified some variables that are linked with difficulties in adoption, for example, if the children were older when arriving at the home, if they were adopted alone or with a sibling, or if they had previous experiences of abuse.

Adopting a child that they already knew before also affects the process. "Those who adopted children that they had a relationship with before were less satisfied, probably due to the reason for adoption. These families may have felt somewhat obliged, or reflect more on the decision" Sánchez-Sandoval analysed.

The satisfaction is also lower in cases where the parents have a higher level of education. "They have higher expectations" the author says. The mothers are less affectionate and caring, and the children are less caring and have behavioural problems.

So, does anything surprise you in these results?  I'm not quite sure I understand why adoption of children you already know leads to a lower rate of satisfaction.  And don't you love the condemnation of us over-educated, not-affectionate moms?!

I find it interesting that the researchers thought parent satisfaction was a measure that would illuminate what they were apparently studying -- the extent to which adoptions in Spain are "providing children who need it with a healthy family environment that promotes their development." Certainly, it would be A factor, since it would be linked with children's happiness (we're all familiar with the saying, "If mama ain't happy, nobody's happy," right?!).  But I'd think other factors might be more illuminating.  Maybe we'll see other reports from the survey, addressing other issues, in the future.

Linsanity & Perpetual Foreignness

I've written before (both as a scholar and a blogger) about the concept of "perpetual foreignness," that class of individuals with "marks of foreignness," like speaking English with a foreign accent or being Asian or Hispanic, groups often assumed to be foreign-born, regardless of actual place of birth. Here's what I said about perpetual foreignness in a law review article examining the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen:"

Being “foreign” seems to trump “citizenship” for naturalized citizens. Many naturalized citizens, especially when non-White, are seen as “permanently foreign.” Robert Chang argues that the figure of “perpetual internal foreigners” has been necessary to construct America’s sense of identity, because immigration and naturalization restrictions “were based on a sense of who properly belonged in the national community.” Without restrictions on who could be a citizen, there would be no “them” to compare “us” to. Once the foreign-born become citizens through naturalization, the “myth of a historically homogeneous American identity” must be preserved by devaluing naturalized citizens. One might argue that it is different today, where immigration laws are no longer based on race, where, as Nathan Glazer puts it, “a strong accent, a distant culture, is no bar to citizenship.”

But Professor Glazer must concede, “whatever we mean by the American nation, the new citizen may not yet be considered a full member of it by many of his fellow citizens, because of race or accent.” He continues: "Many of us, perhaps most of us, have a mind-set in which certain races and nationalities, despite their formal equality in American law, despite the fact that distinctions of race are not recognized in immigration or naturalization law, have a greater claim to becoming American and are accepted as more legitimately American than others.

In America, it seems, some citizens are more equal than others.

Of course, this concept of perpetual foreignness is not limited to naturalized citizens.  Those who are born in the United States -- but are from groups thought to be "foreign," like all minority races other than African-American -- also face the stigma of perpetual foreignness.  Remember when Tara Lipinski and Michelle Kwan won gold and silver in 1998 Olympic figure skating? One headline announcing the result read, "American Beats Kwan." Tara Lipinski, American. Michelle Kwan, not so much, despite the fact that she was born and raised in California.  Michelle Kwan, perpetual foreigner.

What about Jeremy Lin?  Everyone knows he was born in America -- he's touted as one of the first Asian-AMERICAN players in the NBA (actually, he's frequently touted as THE first, which isn't true, since the first was a man of Japanese descent in the 1940s).  But is Lin REALLY American?!  That's the question subtly asked in this Time Magazine piece about whether Lin, who is apparently unlikely to be selected for the American team by Team USA coach Jerry Colangelo, would play for the CHINESE team in the upcoming Olympics:

Colangelo, however, says he won’t be swayed by public opinion, or even the remote possibility of China taking him away. Lin’s maternal grandmother is from mainland China, and Xinhua, the state news agency, has already called on Lin to renounce his U.S. citizenship and suit up for the Chinese team. (China does not allow dual citizenship. Lin’s parents are from Taiwan, but the Taiwanese team cannot qualify for the London Games).

Yes, it would seem outlandish for Lin to join the Chinese team. . . .

YES, it would seem outlandish -- or in the vernacular, completely LINSANE -- so why are they advancing such an idea??!!! All it takes is being Asian, and suddenly we speculate on whether you are willing to renounce your American citizenship in order to play for a foreign team!?! See, when you're a perpetual foreigner, your American-ness is always in doubt, slightly suspect, apparently disposable.  Being "foreign" trumps citizenship, even birthright citizenship.

Even more outlandish than the idea that Lin would join the Chinese team is the fact that a major news magazine like Time would actually speculate about it.  They need to read the Asian American Journalists Association guidelines for reporting about Jeremy Lin (how sad that they actually needed to issue such guidelines):

Jeremy Lin is Asian American, not Asian (more specifically, Taiwanese American). It's an important distinction and one that should be considered before any references to former NBA players such as Yao Ming and Wang Zhizhi, who were Chinese. Lin's experiences were fundamentally different than people who immigrated to play in the NBA. Lin progressed through the ranks of American basketball from high school to college to the NBA, and to characterize him as a foreigner is both inaccurate and insulting [emphasis added].

Indeed.  The AAJA's bottom line is a good one: "Stop to think: Would a similar statement be made about an athlete who is Caucasian, African American or Latino?" Words to live by.

Artyom News

Well, not really about Artyom, but about about Torry Hansen and the Hansen family, those fine folks who sent 7-year-old Artyom back to Russia with a note saying they did not wish to parent him any longer --

First, the Shelbyville (TN) Times Gazette has an exclusive interview with Nancy Hansen, Artyom's grandmother, who escorted him to that international flight to send him -- alone -- to Russia to be picked up by a stranger and transported to the Children's Ministry. Mostly she complains about the lawsuit for child support against Torry:

The family of a woman who sent her adopted son back to Russia in 2010 is speaking out, claiming they never wanted the press barred from court proceedings -- and blasting the attorney they fired earlier this month.

* * *

In an exclusive interview, Hansen told the T-G that Torry has written a letter dated Feb. 12 to Circuit Court Judge Lee Russell, asking for a court-appointed attorney and requesting a transcript of the Feb. 1 hearing. The Hansens claim they have not yet heard a reply from Russell.

Last week, the Hansens' latest attorney, Sandra L.M. Smith of Murfreesboro, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, saying that she had been unable to communicate with her clients, but Hansen claims that isn't true.

* * *

Hansen claims that after the Feb. 1 hearing, Smith failed to contact her clients to tell them the outcome, saying they had attempted to contact her in the three days that followed, but that Smith did not respond by e-mail or phone. Nancy claims that Smith left a message on Feb. 4, saying she wanted to go over documents, and for the next four days, the Hansens say they tried to get in touch with Smith, but to no avail.

The letter from Torry said "they still don't know what transpired" during the Feb. 1 hearing in Lynchburg, asking to have the transcripts e-mailed to them. Nancy claims that Smith "only tried to cover herself after Feb. 8," also claiming to have recordings of their phone conversations.

Hansen added that Smith could have reached her family if she had wanted to.

Nancy also told the T-G that she was going to travel to Washington state, where WACAP is located, and file a slander suit against the adoption agency. She said that she was going to file it in this state, but now says that "I would not hire another Tennessee lawyer for nothing." She stated she also intended to file a suit against the National Council for Adoption.

Hmm, I'm not sure she'll find a lawyer in Washington state to take the case, having fired 3 previous attorneys and complaining to high heaven about this one. Sounds like the kind of high-maintenance client a lawyer who doesn't want to deal with a grievance filed against him/her with the state bar association will avoid like the plague.

Second, the Washington Post reports on Torry Hansen's failure to attend depositions, leading to a contempt of court hearing:

An American woman who sent her 7-year-old adopted Russian son back to Moscow has been ordered by a Tennessee judge to appear in court to face a possible motion for contempt.

Attorney Larry Crain represents the adoption agency and the boy, Artem Saveliev. Crain said mother Torry Hansen, formerly of Shelbyville, Tenn., has not appeared at three noticed depositions, the last one scheduled for Monday.

On Thursday, Bedford County Circuit Court Judge Lee Russell ordered Hansen to appear in court on March 7 when the judge will consider whether to hold Hansen in contempt of court. He also will consider a motion for a default judgment against her.

I wish I could say all of these shenanigans were unusual in legal proceedings, but they are not. In fact, it all seems rather typical of a family law case, where someone is always unhappy with the lawyer, hiring and firing multiple lawyers, etc. And it's a toss-up on the client-won't-contact-me/lawyer-won't-contact-me she said/she said allegations here -- lawyers hardly ever contact clients as often as the client would like, and clients are always ducking their lawyers when they've done things like failed to show up for a scheduled deposition.  My bet -- Torry will be a no-show for the hearing on contempt, too.  I'll let you know. . . .

But my favorite quote from the Washington Post article:

Nancy Hansen recently told The Associated Press she doesn’t believe Artem was traumatized by being sent home alone.

“All I can say he was very happy when he was on the plane,” she said. “Witnesses have said that he was running all around and he was happy. There were stewardesses watching over him.”

Wow, what a loving, sensitive grandmother! And if I were the lawyer, I'd be slapping a gag on that woman!  According to the Times-Gazette piece, at least part of the unhappiness the Hansens express with their latest lawyer is that she filed motions to exclude the media from the court hearing when the Hansens didn't want the media excluded.  Hmmm, sounds like the lawyer was doing something in the best interest of her clients -- keeping the media from hearing them speak as much as possible!

Adoption Legal Cases in the News

Can't help it, I'm a law geek, so I have to share a couple of recent cases I've found interesting.

First, a biological family regains a child after a 6-year custody battle, from what looks to be an illegal adoption, if it's true that the adoptive family just changed the child's birth certificate instead of having a legal adoption proceeding:

Seven years after he was born, a Raytown boy is finally living with his biological parents. Noah Bond’s birth father fought all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court to get his son back.

Until August of 2011, Noah was living in Texas with a couple who wanted to adopt him and who had raised him since he was an infant. But the birth father, Craig Lentz had never agreed to the adoption and his girlfriend, Ebbie Bond says she only did so under duress.

Noah Bond is now seven-years-old, but his birthday in December was the first he ever spent with his parents. It was December 2004 when Craig Lentz filmed the birth of his son when his girlfriend gave birth. But during a bout of what she says was postpartum depression, Ebbie Bond agreed to give up custody.

Lentz’s name wasn’t on the birth certificate so he had no legal standing to stop the process.

“When we went to get it, there was no record that Noah was ever born.”

More than six years of legal battles followed with Stuart and Megan Taylor, who refused to talk with us the one time we caught up with them outside of court.

“Somehow the Taylor’s had changed Noah’s birth certificate without ever having an adoption and that if I died in the accident there would be no record that he was ever born and he would’ve just disappeared into Texas and that would’ve been that,” said Craig Lentz.

The accident Lentz refers to was a car crash on Highway 350 in June of 2010. He died on the operating table twice only to survive months of painful rehabilitation and more delays to his expensive custody battle.

Second, the Baby Veronica case. I was disappointed in the one-sided presentation of the issues in this Anderson Cooper piece (opinion pieces, clearly identifiable as such, can be one-sided, but straight news isn't afforded that luxury!), but even more disappointed in the fact that the "expert" (identified as an expert in disability law and as a child advocate, no mention of expertise in adoption law; still, a lawyer in any field should know better than relying on overruled law!) Cooper interviewed after showing the video (interview not on the video below) got the law wrong.  She says the South Carolina court hearing the appeal of this matter should follow a particular case decided by the courts of Kansas, without noting that the Kansas courts have since rejected that interpretation of the law as wrong! I blogged about the so-called "existing Indian family doctrine," the interpretation of the law the expert was talking about, here.



Third, in this Minnesota case, the appellate court ruled that an Ojibwe mother's rights under ICWA were not followed when she petitioned for custody of her son, who was adopted, and then the adoption disrupted, and the child placed in foster care:

A Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe mother with a history of substance abuse may petition to regain custody of her son, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

The court cited the high threshold of the Indian Child Welfare Act in reversing an Aitkin County judge's decision to deny the mother's petition. She voluntarily terminated her parental rights to the boy, now 12, in 2006.

Under the act, which seeks to protect the rights of Indian tribes in retaining children in their society, a high set of standards must be met before determining the mother is not fit to regain custody. Not all of those standards were met, the court ruled. The case will now return to Aitkin County.

According to the order, the boy, who suffers from multiple behavioral disorders, was removed from his mother's care and adopted in 2008. A year later his adoptive parent sought out-of-home placement because she could no longer care for him due to his behavior. The boy was then placed in foster care with a Native American adult who is not a member of the boy's tribe. The adoptive parent terminated her rights and the boy seemed to thrive in foster care.

In the Dark

The Illinois Times looks at allegation that parents adopting from foster care are not being provided with information about the child's mental and social history:

Tammy Herstad feels like a failure. A mother of three adopted sons and one biological daughter in the Chicago suburb of Bartlett, Herstad spends much of her time worrying about her adopted son, Adam. The 9-year-old has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and other emotional disturbances that manifest in violent, destructive behavior at the slightest provocation.
“Right after the adoption, he fell off the deep end,” Herstad says. “He would wake up in the middle of night and destroy things. He would take (his brother) Abel’s diabetes syringes and stick them in things. He would break glass, he would hurt our dogs, he couldn’t sit in his seat anymore. He was hearing voices…(he was) aggressive, violent. It was just absolutely crazy.”
Herstad says she feels like she failed Adam because her love and parenting skills weren’t enough to stop his damaging and dangerous behavior. But Tammy Herstad also feels let down herself. She says she wasn’t warned about Adam’s bipolar disorder, reactive attachment disorder and other issues. And she’s not the only one who feels left out of the loop.
Illinois Times spoke with five families in Springfield and around the state who say the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, along with the private agencies with which DCFS contracts, fails to give families the full picture concerning the children they adopt. Undisclosed tendencies toward violence and self-harm can lead adoptive families to throw up their hands in desperation, jeopardizing the future of an adopted child.
Does DCFS keep potentially explosive information from adoptive parents or offer promises it doesn’t keep? The answer is nuanced, but not very comforting.

In the 70s & 80s there were a lot of cases of failure to inform adoptive parents of information about the children they were adopting.  An adoptive parent might not be told about known sexual abuse of the child, or of known significant physical and mental health diagnoses.  The first court to recognize a legal cause of action for this failure to provide information, usually called "wrongful adoption," did so in 1986.  The publicity associated with these cases led many states to enact legislative reform, creating obligations to provide medical, psychiatric, educational, social, and family information about a child prior to adoption.

I think many have come to believe that the problem of informational deficits has been solved by these reform efforts, at least in the domestic adoption context. This article suggests that that is not the case, at least not in Illinois.

International Adoption: The Debate

Two noted legal scholars on adoption, Elizabeth Bartholet and David Smolin, are debating the topic of international adoption in an upcoming book chapter; that chapter is now available here. The abstract describes the debate as follows:

This chapter is taken from a forthcoming book on Intercountry Adoption, edited by Judith L. Gibbons and Karen Smith Robati and forthcoming in June of 2012. The chapter constitutes a debate between Professor Elizabeth Bartholet and Professor David Smolin. Each independently was given three questions to answer, and then one opportunity to respond to the other's answers to those three questions, all with strict space limitations. The debate illustrates some of the starkly different perspectives regarding the law, policies, and facts relevant to intercountry adoption.

The three questions were as follows:

1. From a worldwide perspective, identify basic human rights, core human needs, and best interests of unparented children, those living without family care including those in
institutionalized care.
2. How should we understand the subsidiarity principle of the Hague Convention and how do the expressions of that principle in the CRC and the Convention aid or hinder the best interests of the child?
3. How should the law (and the governments of sending and receiving nations) respond to concerns with child trafficking, corruption, and adoption fraud in the intercountry adoption system?

If you've read the previous writings of these two scholars (I've blogged about some of Bartholet's perspectives here and Smolin's perspectives here), you'll find nothing new in this written debate, but it is fascinating to see in one place their "starkly different perspectives."

Economy a Factor in Declining Adoption?

The Northwest Herald suggests it's so, but admits it can offer little proof:

Suburban families continue to bring home adopted children, but the lingering effects of the recession may be limiting their numbers.

Statistical sources and anecdotal evidence point to a decline in the number of adoptions here. Thirty-three adoption cases were filed in McHenry County Circuit Court in 2010, less than half of the 79 cases filed in 2001. But records show the numbers were falling even before the recession began and case filings have remained nearly flat since 2008.

Statewide, the number of children adopted from foreign countries dropped from 1,052 in 2005 to 434 in 2011, according to the State Department. That closely follows a national decline for this type of adoption.

The decline in foreign adoptions is the result of a combination of factors, including corruption in source countries, added regulations and treaty disputes, said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute and author of “Adoption Nation.”

The economy, both here and in other countries, likely plays a role, too.

“The recession has people wondering, ‘Can I take another mouth to feed?’” Pertman said. “But, as far as I know, no one has figured out how much of this is due to the economy.”

If the economy is affecting the decision to add children to a family, might it not also affect the decision to place a child for adoption?  Same article suggests the answer is yes, again with little empirical evidence:

On the other side of the issue, it’s not clear what effect the economy might be having on the number of children placed for adoption. Financial stress is one of the reasons some parents look to adoption and “it’s easy to imagine the economy would play into that,” Pertman said.
But there are many other factors that have an impact on adoption placement. In 2008, teen pregnancies dropped to the lowest levels in nearly four decades, according to a study published this month by the Guttmacher Institute. Teen birth and abortion rates also have declined, the study showed.

Ehrenpreis, of the Adoption Center for Family Building, said she had noticed many of the women placing children for adoption were in “much more dire circumstances,” possibly because of the recession.

Baby-Sitting While White

A cautionary tale for all transracial adoptive families, from a blog that doesn't usually do adoption (I read it for opinions on Texas politics and criminal justice matters) -- a police encounter for the white grandfather of a black child (and not the first time), suspected of kidnapping because they didn't match:

A few years back Grits posed the question, "Is babysitting while white reasonable suspicion for police questioning?" after my granddaughter and I were detained and questioned at length in my neighborhood on suspicion of some nefarious deed (it was never quite clear what). In that incident, the police were pretty clear I was stopped solely because Ty, like her mother (who came to live with my wife and me when she was a child) is black, while I'm an almost stereotypical looking white Texas redneck. At the time, Grits was amazed that three squad cars were dispatched to question me for walking down the street with a child of a different race, detaining me for no good reason and scaring the bejeezus out of then-two-year old Ty.

Last night, though, Ty and I got the full jump-out-boys treatment, making our earlier interaction with Austin PD seem downright quaint. It could only have been more ridiculous if they'd actually arrested me, which for a while there didn't seem out of the question.

* * *

Our story began at the Millennium Youth Center in central east Austin, which is a city-owned rec center just a few blocks from my home of 22 years. . . .

Perhaps at 7:40 p.m. or so, after she'd had her fill of skating (if the event were put to music, the appropriate theme song would have been "Slip Slidin' Away"), I asked Ty if she'd like to walk home.

* * *

Our interaction with law enforcement began after we left the Millennium Center on foot, with the giddy five year old racing ahead and me trotting along behind admonishing her to stay out of the parking lot and stop when she gets to the sidewalk, don't run into the street, etc.. She was in a good mood, obeyed, and we held hands crossing the street and as we walked down the bike path toward Boggy Creek and back home.

Then behind us I heard someone call out, though I couldn't make out what was said. We stopped to look back, and there was a dark silhouette crossing the street who Ty thought was calling out to us. We waited, but then the silhouetted figure stopped, crouched down for a moment, then took a few steps back toward the rec center, appearing to speak to someone there. I shrugged it off and we walked on, but in a moment the figure began walking down the path toward us again, calling out when she was about 150 feet away. We stopped and waited. It was a brown-suited deputy constable, apparently out of breath from the short walk.

* * *

 "Do you know this man?" the deputy asked. "Yes," Ty mumbled shyly, "he's my Grandpa." The deputy couldn't understand her (though I did) and moved closer, hovering over the child slightly, repeating the question. Ty mumbled the same response, this time louder, but muffled through a burgeoning sob that threatened to break out in lieu of an answer.

The deputy still didn't understand her: "What did you say?" she repeated. "He's my Grandpa!," Ty finally blurted, sharply and clearly, then rushed back over to me and grabbed hold of my leg. "Okay," said the deputy, relaxing, acknowledging the child probably wasn't being held against her will.

* * *

Ty was angrier about this, even, than I was. "Why is it," she demanded a few steps down the path, stomping her feet and swinging her little arms as she said it, "that the police won't ever believe you're my Grandpa?" (Our earlier run in had clearly made an impression, though she hadn't mentioned it in ages.) "Why do you think it is?," I asked, hoping to fend her off with the Socratic method. She paused, then said sheepishly, "Because you're white?" I grinned at her and said, "That's part of it, for sure. But we don't care about that, do we?" "No," she said sternly as we walked across the bridge spanning Boggy Creek just south of 12th Street, "but the police should leave you alone. It's not right that they want to arrest you for being my Grandpa." More prescient words were never spoken.

* * *

As soon as we crossed the street, just two blocks from my house as the crow flies, the police car that just passed us hit its lights and wheeled around, with five others appearing almost immediately, all with lights flashing. The officers got out with tasers drawn demanding I raise my hands and step away from the child. I complied, and they roughly cuffed me, jerking my arms up behind me needlessly. Meanwhile, Ty edged up the hill away from the officers, crying. One of them called out in a comforting tone that they weren't there to hurt her, but another officer blew up any good will that might have garnered by brusquely snatching her up and scuttling her off to the back seat of one of the police cars. (By this time more cars had joined them; they maxxed out at 9 or 10 police vehicles.)

Is this something you worry about?  Early on in the adopting process my social worker advised that it was always a good idea to have proof of parentage on you at all times when you and your child's race didn't match.  She suggested I always carry a recent picture of the two of us together, so I could show it as proof that I hadn't just snatched my child.  Of course, none of these tactics would prevent the initial police encounter, but the thought was at least you could avoid arrest as a kidnapper. . . .

I've never been doubted as a parent to this degree, though I wished I had followed my social worker's advice when the clerk at the pediatric opthamologist's office wanted to see my adoption decree for Maya (yeah, that's what all kidnappers do, take the kid to the pediatric ophthamologist!).  But I'm sure familiar with a more benign phenomenon -- the kids are racing ahead of me toward a store, shopper exiting the store looks around for the parents of these Asian kids, and the eyes skim right by me, looking for the matching set of parents!  You can just feel this potential Good Samaritan trying to figure out if she needs to intervene to corral these apparantly-unparented children.  You call out, "Zoe, Maya, wait up!"  The kids stop, the shopper relaxes, we all go on our way. . . .

Have you had similar experiences? How do you explain it to your children?