Due Process in Adoption? Hardly.

That's the conclusion of William H. Mild III, who served for 23 years as a deputy attorney general within the New Jersey Division of Law representing the Division of Youth and Family Services (sorry, you'll just have to indulge my geeky lawyer side for a moment!):

Adoption is generally perceived as a positive thing — hope, love and new beginnings. We prefer not to dwell on the negatives that usually precede an adoption — anguish, anger and severing of family ties. . . . [T]his piece will focus on the [domestic] adoption process arising out of non-agency placements with potential adoptive parents who are not part of the child’s original family, commonly referred to as private placements or private adoptions.

* * *

It seems to me that a significant number of New Jersey adoptions, particularly private adoptions, are on shaky legal ground. A court’s termination of parental rights based primarily upon the Notice of Intention to Place and the report of the approved agency is considerably weaker than the “clear and convincing evidence” required to pass constitutional muster.

Birthparents should not have been expected to navigate these labyrinthine statutes without independent counsel. Without counsel, birthparents have virtually no way of knowing the long-term effect of their relinquishment and the post-adoption sealing of the court’s file, including the child’s original birth certificate.

The child is an indispensable party and requires independent counsel to protect his or her own fundamental rights and interests — including adult rights and interests — from being needlessly compromised.

Due process in adoption? Hardly.

His concerns about New Jersey adoptions would apply to the other 49 states, since they all use essentially the same process. Click here to read more. (hat tip to ulb on twitter for the link -- follow for more great stuff!)

"They're better off with their adoptive parents"

Brian Stuy has an insightful comment on one aspect of the L.A. Times article I posted last week about family planning officials in China confiscating over-quota children from their birth parents:

[T]he article contained a quote that I feel personifies the entire problem in China:

"They're better off with their adoptive parents than their birth parents," argued Wu Benhua, director of Zhenyuan's civil affairs bureau.

To understand the problems found in China's international adoption program, one must understand the racial and economic prejudice that exists in China. Whether it is orphanages offering incentives to buy babies, or Family Planning abusing families by taking unregistered children, the subtext to all of these activities is that most in China's government feel that these birth families are unable to provide a "prosperous and happy future" to their children. A prominent theme in Chinese culture is the belief that if anything can be done to improve a child's future, it should be done. It is this belief that motivates parents to leave their children with grandparents while they work; it is this belief that motivates families to sell their children to orphanages that promise that their child will be adopted by a rich foreign family; and it is this belief that allows a Family Planning official to steal a child from her birth family in order to adopt her internationally.

That's not necessarily an attitude limited to China, is it? We frequently hear the same thing in the U.S. about domestic adoption -- the child would be better off with adoptive parents than with a young, poor, single mother. That's the meme used to convince American expectant mothers to relinquish their children. And we saw in the recent reports from Ethiopia that that line is equally effective on poor mothers there.

Brian calls this attitude a "root of the problem" that leads to corruption in China, the kind of no-big-deal response that allows a government to downplay corruption. I was struck by that attitude in the recently released Unicef report on child trafficking in East and Southeast Asia, expressed in the question from some in charge of combatting trafficking, "Is illegal adoption into loving families exploitative?" Uh. Yes. (Look at that "illegal" part.)

Oftentimes, the assumption that children from China, Ethiopia, India, Guatemala, wherever in the developing world, are better off with white, middle-class, Western, Christian adoptive parents, comes from a toxic mix of classism, racism, misinterpreted conversion theology, and/or xenophobia. That classism is glaringly clear in the statements of the Zhenyuan officials. And yes, a Chinese person can have an internalized racial hatred for all things Chinese. And we saw in the story about "harvesting" children in Ehiopia the emphasis on adoption as a Christian mission, making it not life-saving, but soul-saving, as the objective of adoption.

Make no mistake about it -- children are better off with their biological parents. Adoption is a last resort, a response to a crisis where it is impossible for children to remain with their biological parents. Thinking of adoption any other way is simply wrong. Thinking of adoption in any other way leads to involuntary relinquishments, fraud, coercion and corruption.

What Happens When the Story Changes?

We all know how difficult it is in international adoption to piece together our child’s story. We rely on information provided at the time of the adoption by the sending country’s paperwork and representatives. We supplement it with information we learn from other parents about our child’s area or orphanage. If we’re lucky, we have photos and developmental updates from the orphanage, stories from the foster family. We hire services to take photos for us that we couldn’t take ourselves – finding locations, orphanages, etc, and to track down information like finding ads. We research on the internet – what was the weather like on the day my child was born? What did the night sky look like? We read and research to discover likely reasons why children are placed for adoption in that country, in that area. We take a homeland tour and visit orphanages and finding places, ask to see our child's file.

And we put together our child’s story, piece by piece, hoping we have enough pieces to make a clear picture. We sprinkle the story with “I don’t knows” and “This is my best guess.” But we think we’ve got a fairly accurate picture.

What happens when the story changes?

I’ve blogged before about parts of my children’s stories that I wonder about. Maya’s abandonment certificate says she was left in front of the women’s and children’s hospital. I think it’s possible she never left the hospital, that her birth parents walked out and left her there because they could not pay the bills for a preemie's care. Zoe’s story includes a note – a note said to have been left by her birth family. But two other families in our group got very similar notes, including the same kind of red paper. I’ve doubted its genuineness. But now someone who has reason to know suggests it might be genuine, because Zoe’s orphanage looks like one with an incentive program, where birth parents actually come into the orphanage to leave the children in exchange for money. If so, then the orphanage could have supplied the paper and pens. That explains the similarities in the 3 notes. That makes them genuine. And it makes the abandonment certificate a lie. Maybe the parts that mean so much to Zoe – the three layers of clothing, the little hat, the cardboard box – are all lies.

And then there’s the baby-stealing scandals, first reported in July and expanded upon by the L.A. Times articles. Although my children are not from the areas where it is reported that family planning officials confiscated babies, nor are they from the areas where news is just now starting to come out that the same thing has been happening, the scandals further shake my confidence in the information I’ve been given.

How to deal with all of this? If one knows FOR A FACT that the story has changed, I believe one MUST discuss it with the child. But how? Beth O’Malley says:

If your child is still little, then you are the one to make the emotional adjustment. But how do you handle new information when your child is eight or nine? What about conflicting information? Suddenly everything that you (and your child) believed to be true—is either only partially true or completely false. What can your child believe or trust about his story now? Here are some suggestions for handling situations about new or changing information:

• First of all, as the grownup, it’s your job to come to terms with whatever you learn. Deal with your emotions. Even as you read this article, plan on having a crisis occur at some point in your child’s life. Plan for it by expecting your child to seek information and also to question the accuracy of it all—especially if some of it has turned out to be incorrect.

• Predict and prepare accordingly. How might my child handle this? Is this potentially traumatic information? Will these ‘life facts’ have traumatic impact on my child? Follow your gut instincts and remember that you are the expert on your child.
• Separate your feelings from your child’s. Remember that your child has his/her own feelings and reactions. We parents should sort through ours so that we don’t project them onto our children. For example, our children might have anger about something that saddens us and we have to be ready to react to their feelings. Or, they might be much less impacted than we anticipate. We need to honor and validate their feelings and having sorted through our own first will make this much easier.

• Do your homework. Find out if the information you do have is absolutely accurate. What is the proof? If there is a possible nuance due to translation? If so, proceed cautiously and conservatively. Discuss the impact of translation and explain why new or changed information has emerged. Possible phrases to use are “According to the papers” or “Sometimes the words in one language don’t mean the same in another language….”

Expect all involved to go through a grieving process when new information emerges or previous information proves to be untrue. Your child has just ‘lost’ a chunk of their life foundation and a belief and a piece of identity they have had.

Excellent suggestions. But what if you don’t KNOW, but only SUSPECT that the information is false? Do you disclose?

I believe that I do have to tell my kids about my concerns. I don’t want them to find out on their own, even as adults. I’m quite convinced that they will, as adults, seek additional information. What would I say, then, about why I didn’t mention the birth parent note might be a fake? Or that the orphanage might have had an incentive program? Or that the abandonment certificate might be falsified?

When to tell? Depends on the child. But I think the Ten Commandments of Telling apply here, too, and that requires disclosing all of their story by age 12. Doubt is part of their story. It should be disclosed.

Unicef Report: Child Trafficking in E & SE Asia

The latest Unicef report, Reversing the Trend : Child Trafficking in East and Southeast Asia, focuses on China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam. Most of the report focuses on trafficking for child labor and sexual exploitation, but there are also mentions of trafficking for child brides and for adoption. I’ve tried to include every relevant mention of adoption in this summary. There is very little about international adoption, and the report carefully distinguishes between illegal adoption and legal adoption. Nonetheless, the report notes that children can and have been trafficked into legal adoptions.

The report notes: “The demand for adoption, whether operating within or outside legal and regulated processes, has fuelled the abduction and sale of children, particularly infants.” (p. 27) After mentioning the high-profile case of adoption corruption in Cambodia in 2003, the report notes that trafficking to meet the demand for adoption is growing in the area. “Existing reports and the country assessments for China and VietNam also indicate that babies are being trafficked both to and within China for adoption, given the patriarchal lineage and inheritance system. (In another place in the report (p. 29), it is noted that one well-known route of trafficking in Southeast Asia is boys trafficked from Vietnam to China for illegal adoption).” (p. 36) Still, in China, “internal trafficking is more of a problem than its cross-border form. . . . Trafficking occurs in every province in China,with most victims trafficked to the provinces of Guangdong, Shanxi, Fujian, Henan, Sichuan,Guangxi, and Jiangsu.” (p. 31)(Note: this is all forms of child trafficking, not just for the purpose of adoption.)

One of the problems faced in combating child trafficking, says the report, is the wide spectrum of interpretations of child trafficking across the region:

On one end are those who believe that all forms of child exploitation (including
commercial sexual exploitation and the worst forms of child labour) amount to
child trafficking; at the other extreme are those who reject that trafficking even exists. Within this range are those with more nuanced perspectives, For this group, not all commercial sexual exploitation is trafficking, nor have all children in worst forms of child labour been trafficked. . . . Consensus breaks down on ’grey areas’ such as: Can older adolescents consent to prostitution if there are ’good’ working conditions? Is illegal adoption into loving families exploitative? Do lower thresholds of ’exploitation’ need to be met for children? Is cross-border street begging by children, orchestrated by their parents for family survival, a form of exploitation or trafficking? (p. 23)

Despite the increase in child trafficking in the region, the report notes some progress: “There is growing recognition of broader legal frameworks in the fight against trafficking. For example, Viet Nam’s guiding policy framework, the 2004–2010 National Plan of Action Against the Crime of Trafficking in Children and Women, calls for strengthening legal frameworks in the areas of criminal law, administrative law, marriage, child adoption involving foreigners, tourism, the export of labour, exit-entry management and community reintegration of victims.” (p. 43)

Still, the report notes that there is much to be done. With regard to adoption, the report notes there should be stronger justice institutions to regulate adoption, including regulation and monitoring of adoption agencies, and holding offenders accountable. (p. 80). The report suggests that all forms of exploitation of children should be criminalized, including illegal adoption. (p. 85) Unicef would also like to see countries in the region “address harmful social and cultural attitudes and beliefs by targeting traditional practices, ethnic and gender discrimination, stigmatization, lack of accountability, impunity, the perception of children as commodities, and rampant consumerism. Attitudes and beliefs that stimulate the demand for child trafficking and exploitation should be addressed through sustained education, particularly regarding sexual activity with children, child marriage, involvement of children in armed conflict, and illegal adoption. The report also calls on countries to “advance protective social norms that bolster children’s resilience and foster healthy and safe family and community environments for children, such as respect for children’s participation, positive perceptions of domestic adoption and foster care,” intolerance of child exploitation. (p. 86)

The report is well worth reading; there is much of interest that I have not included here. The report focuses a lot on the demand side of the equation, resisting the idea that the poverty of victims is the cause of trafficking. Poverty may be a condition precedent, but it is not a cause.

Dutch Adoption Agency Head Resigns Over Corruption Concerns

From Expatica, the second story in the Dutch News in Brief column:

Hailed by some colleagues as a whistle-blower, Ina Hut resigned as head of the largest Dutch adoption agency. She told Trouw that international adoption is less about the good of the child and more about the desire of Western couples parents. She complained of “market forces, corruption and sabotage.”

Hut has had a long battle with the Dutch justice ministry over adoption from China where, it is said, children are kidnapped and traded for the adoption market. The ministry found it “unacceptable” that she should investigate for herself whether Chinese children's homes regularly bought children.

She denied she wanted to launch an undercover operation and said it was suggested that, if she went to China to investigate, the Dutch authorities would rescind her agency's permit.

“I can no longer deal with these sorts of practices,” she said.

More here and here.

Families For Orphans Act

Anyone here against orphans getting families? That's like being opposed to cute furry kittens, rainbows and unicorns, and Santa Claus all rolled into one!

But it depends to an extent on how you define "orphan" and how you define "family." In the new Families for Orphans Act, "orphan" is defined as a person under the age of 21:

(A) who lacks permanent parental care because of the death, the disappearance of, or the legal, permanent relinquishment of such child by both biological parents;

(B) who is living in the care and custody of an institution;

(C) whose biological parents' rights have been legally terminated; or

(D) whose country of origin has determined lacks permanent parental care.

That's a far broader definition of orphan than is currently used under any other federal statute because it only requires one of the 4 for the child to be an orphan. It doesn't have to be (A) death/disappearance of both parents AND living in an instutition, for example. A child in an institution is an orphan. But of course she is -- unless you look at what institutions qualify, and realize that it is decoupled from the need for the parents to be dead or gone:

(A) an orphanage;

(B) a children's home;

(C) a boarding school for orphans;

(D) a shelter;

(E) a residential facility;

(F) a hospital;

(G) a dormitory;

(H) long-term foster care; and

(I) any other setting in which permanent parental care is not being provided to the child.

So a child living in a shelter WITH HER PARENTS is an orphan under this act. A child in a hospital, with LOVING PARENTS at her bedside is an orphan. And I love (C) a boarding school for orphans is an institution, and living in an institution is what makes you an orphan, so being in a boarding school makes that a boarding school for orphans, so you are an orphan DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOUR PARENTS ARE ALIVE and paying only goodness knows what on tuition! I'm sure all those wealthy parents who have their kids in boarding school are thrilled to know they are the parents of orphans. (Growing up I was a weird kid, and always wanted to go to boarding school. Now I can put that dream to rest since I don't want to become an orphan!).

And what about the definition of "family"? There is none in the Act, though "permanent parental care" is defined, and is one of the main purposes of the Act. "Permanent parental care:"

A) means a legally recognized relationship between a adult and a child who is younger than 21 years of age, which is life-long and provides a caring, safe, stable physical environment;

(B) includes--

(i) domestic and international adoption;

(ii) legal guardianship; and

(iii) legal kinship care; and

(C) does not include temporary or long-term foster care, institutionalization, or mentoring.

Again, that sounds good, doesn't it? But LEGAL kinship? What about a child in Africa living with extended family? I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be "a legally recognized relationship between child and caretaker which is intended to be permanent and is evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, custody, and decisionmaking," as "permanent parental care" is defined in the Act. I doubt the grandmother in a small village taking care of her grandchildren whose parents have died of AIDS is going to have a court decree recognizing her rights. So, the kids are orphans. What about the child in Vietnam, living in an orphanage and visited frequently by his father? He does not have "permanent parental care," it seems. And living in an orphanage, he's an "orphan." And an 18-year-old who has spent her whole life in foster care with a loving foster parent in China is an orphan.

In an Act like this one, it would be imporant for the policy makers to be sensitive to cultural differences in family care and kinship care, and thus recognize that what looks temporary and unstable to Western eyes is perfectly appropriate care in another country. And, indeed, the act says, "In developing policies under this Act, the Coordinator should take into account cultural norms for each country to the extent consistent with the overall purposes of this Act."

In legalspeak, "should" is not "shall;" should isn't mandatory. And even if it were, by saying the Coordinator only has to be culturally sensitive when consistent with the purposes of the act, we're keying back into the definitions that orphan-ize everyone!

So who's this "Coordinator" they're talking about? Well, the act doesn't have any legally binding effect on other countries to turn children into orphans if they fit the Act's definitions. But what it does is set up an "Office of Orphan Policy" in the U.S. with a coordinator who will coordinate diplomacy and development about orphans, as defined, and permanent parental care, as defined. And the Act says that family preservation and unification is a goal, as is permanent parental care, as defined. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that the U.S. is essentially conditioning the provision of development assistance -- money -- on a country's agreeing with these definitions and thus orphanizing more children. Thus, more and more children than ever will be turned into "orphans," even when they have living parents and/or actively involved extended family.

Because you know what we do with "orphans," right? We find families for them. (Even if they already have family?!) And if new families cannot be found for them in their home country (the Act preserves the Hague Convention preference for domestic adoption -- how could they not?!), then the Act says they should be available for international adoption. And further development aid is available to help countries develop legislation and systems that can lead to international adoption, as well as other technical help. So basically we're incentivizing countries to turn their children into orphans for international adoption.

Here are some places you can look for more information:

Here is the text of H.R. 3070 (the bill in the House) and S. 1458 (the bill in the Senate).

Here are Ethica's concerns, and a statement of support from the Joint Council for International Children's Services.

Read and make up your own mind. I've been hearing about this proposed legislation for a while now, and had heard arguments pro and con (more pro than con out there, it seems). It wasn't until I started reading the text of the bills that I realized the true scope and meaning of this benevolent-sounding legislation.

So put me down as opposed to kittens, rainbows, unicorns, Santa Claus, and the Families for Orphans Act.

10 Things Adoption Agencies Won't Say

From SmartMoney at the Wall Street Journal, 10 Things Adoption Agencies Won't Say; my "favorite," if you can call it that, is "10. Once you've got your child, you're on your own."

I've been a fan of SmartMoney's 10 Things since I got a small mention in their 10 Things Your Lawyer Won't Tell You list (#7), and they actually spelled my name right!

Can you add to the list of 10 things adoption agencies won't say? How about --

11. We claim to represent children, and be concerned for birth mothers, but it's adoptive parents and their pocketbooks that really drive us.

12. If you criticize us, you'll be ostracized by the adoptive parents who love us, AND we'll threaten to sue you, so say what you want, but don't name the agency.

Transnational Adoption & the "Financialization of Everything"

Interesting article by Jane Jeong Trenka, to be considered together with the report of the birth mother presentation I attended last month:

International adoption is often seen as a mutually beneficial relationship between children in need of a home and financially stable adults wanting to raise a child. But it is also big-money business. In line with neoliberalism, or the hollowing out of government services, many adopted children are born to single mothers who are offered little to no resources to care for their children. International adoption agencies have stepped into this gap by offering homes, and making a profit in the process. The transformation of adoption into a global business creates a further incentive not to assist mothers, who may turn to adoption out of desperation, not desire. Adoptee activists are working to shed light on this issue. Focusing particularly on South Korea, author and co-founder of Truth and Reconciliation for the Adoption Community of Korea (TRACK) Jane Jeong Trenka argues the process should be re-engineered to put the money and fateful decisions back where they belong: with the mothers and their children. TRACK is now working with the Korean government to get the the voices of birth parents and Korean adoptees heard in South Korean adoption law revisions.

No Family History

Zoe and Maya had their eyes checked on Monday, whittling away one more item on our "Back to School" list:

Uniform shoes? Check!

New lunchboxes? Check!

Any family history of eye disease? Um. No check.

Nearly every adoptive parent has had to do it, and as they become adults, adoptees have to do it -- fill out that pesky medical history form. How easy to do it for myself -- cancer on my mother's side, stroke and heart disease on my father's side. If I don't know an answer, I can ask my parents.

Not so with Zoe and Maya. Difficult pregnancy? No idea. Premature birth? Only guesses. Prenatal exposure to chemicals? Family history of breast cancer? Has that mole been there since birth? No answers.

Still, it was fun at the eye doctors -- they're all Chinese there, and they twittered and fussed over the girls like crazy (I actually picked this eye group because they're all Chinese, an easy way for Zoe and Maya to see sucessful Chinese role models). Zoe was in full drama queen mode, cringing and crying over each indignity. Bright lights, puffs of air, eye drops -- oh, the cruelty! Maya stomped over the quivering body of her big sister to clamber up on the stool to face all dangers. Bright lights, puffs of air, eye drops -- let 'em come! (Did I mention the two polar extremes on the temperament thing?!)

Even though I filled out the forms saying family history unknown, the assistants asked me the same question, first for Zoe (don't they even look at the forms? why do they make us fill them out if they are never going to look at the form?!). I say, "We don't have any information about their biological parents." Oh, of course, is the reaction. And then damned if they don't ask me the very same question when it's Maya's turn. I just looked at her and raised an eyebrow, and at least she had the decency to do the "I could have had a V8" thing!

As I've mentioned before, one of the reasons I chose China for adoption was that I wouldn't have to deal with birth parents. In my insecurity, it was my way of ensuring that my child was MINE alone. But when your child becomes real to you, when you feel her pain at missing her birth parents, when you can envision her future of trying to fill in that form at the doctor's office as a teen or young adult, you are ashamed.

On a happy note, Maya doesn't need glasses, and Zoe's vision has improved a bit leading to a new prescription and some snazzy new glasses! Maya is a little disappointed to be the only one in the family with no glasses . . . . Except for Baby Joy, Zoe's perennial favorite doll (a transracial adoption, as you can see)!

Adoption Voices: Adoptive Parents for Open Records

Have you heard of Adoption Voices, the social network for adoption? It's kind of like Facebook, but all adoption, all the time. There are groups and blogs and forums and who knows what all -- I just found out about it, so haven't really explored.

Margie of Third Mom and Komapseumnida (I told Margie that every time I see the name of her new blog I think of Mae West ("Come up and see me sometime!"), though I have no idea how it's actually pronounced in Korean!) has started a group at Adoption Voices: Adoptive Parents for Open Records. If you believe as I do, and as Margie does, that "an adopted person's right to their original birth certificate. . . . is a human and civil right," then please join the group.

Family Planning Officials in China Forced Parents to Give Children to Orphanage

Shanghai Daily reports:

An orphanage in southwest China has been accused of taking children away from parents who can't afford fines for violating family planning policy and sending the kids overseas for adoption.The orphanage was reportedly earning US$3,000 for each child placed with a foreign family.

The allegations involve family planning officials in Zhenyuan County, Guizhou Province. They demanded that parents who violated childbirth regulations pay 10,000 yuan (US$1,460) for each extra offspring, according to Nanfang Metropolis Daily. Those who couldn't afford the fine were ordered to give their child to a local orphanage, the paper said.

Lu Xiande, a farmer in Zhenyuan, had his fourth daughter taken by the orphanage in June 2004, according to the report.Lu's daughter was born in February 2003. A family planning official identified as Shi Guangying approached Lu's wife, Yang Shuiying, and told her that the government would take her daughter because she couldn't pay the fine, the paper said.

Shi told the newspaper that the taking of the child was in line with county policies. Several other local residents reported similar experiences, the newspaper said.The orphanage was funneling the children into China's system for foreign adoptions, the paper reported.

The fact that this is reported in a Chinese newspaper seems HUGE. Shanghai Daily is "supervised by the Foreign Publicity Office of the Shanghai CPC Committee and the Press Office of the Shanghai Municipal Government," so this is Chinese Government-sanctioned news. I wonder why they are willing to publish to the world this story. . . .

UPDATE 7/02, 7:50 p.m.: Brian Stuy has a post up at research-china.org with some additional information, including info about the adoptive parent who helped uncover the story, and links to a variety of media reports. Brian also says he's hopeful that an English translation of the original, lengthy article quoted in the Shanghai Daily report will be available soon. I found this blog last night (early this morning!) when I was trying to check out the Shanghai Daily report, and it appears to be a bad English translation of a lengthy article, if you want to pick through it to try to understand!

Brian also reports the only potential bright spot here: "[T]he orphanage made no attempt to disguise the origin of these children -- the adoption paperwork lists the finding location as the birth parent's home. Thus many of Zhenyuan's adoptive parents have been given a direct line to their child's birth family."

An Ethical Adoption Tale in One Act

“My name is Jackie. Will you adopt me?”

There’s Maya, standing in front of me with the hood of her hoodie pulled up, saying in her little Betty Boop voice, “Will you adopt me?” This is the first time I can remember Maya initiating adoption play. I don't know what spurred it -- leaving preschool with kindergarden looming? the Miss Spider video? making the rice baby? Zoe's latest adoption meltdown? All of the above? None of the above?

After our play was over, and I was thinking about it, I realized we had touched on a number of the basic prerequisites of ethical adoption as I see it. I wasn’t doing it on purpose, it just seemed to play out that way! So here it is, An Ethical Adoption Tale in One Act, directed by Maya, additional narration by me.

“My name is Jackie. Will you adopt me,” Maya asks.

“Oh, dear. Have you lost your mommy? Do you need me to help you find her?” [First point, family preservation & investigation to make sure child is truly adoptable.]

Maya replies, “I don’t have a mommy. I live in an orphanage.”

“Then I will adopt you. I promise to love you and take care of you forever.” ((HUGS)). [Second point for ethical adoption, permanency.]

Maya reminds me, “You need to name me Maya.”

I reply, “I thought your name was Jackie. Do you want to keep that name? Or do you want to be Jackie Maya or Maya Jackie?” [Third point in ethical adoption, cultural preservation.]

Maya rejects that idea, she wants to be Maya Noelle BingLi. [Yes, indeed, this story is about her, not some fictional Jackie! And when she rejected "cultural preservation," I went where she directed.]

I then say, “OK, I’ve adopted you, will you adopt me? Will you promise to love me and take care of me forever?” Fourth point – voluntary consent (usually of birth parents, but in our story Maya stood in their place).]

Maya agrees, and there are more hugs. She then asks me to adopt her sister Zoe, and we go through the same ritual with her, with me promising to love her and care for her forever, and her promising to love me and care for me forever. Zoe and Maya decide they don't have to adopt each other since they're already sisters. [Fifth point – keeping siblings together when at all possible.]

We were at Mimi’s house, so Maya pretended to drive to meet her for the first time. They discover they have the same last name and therefore must be family! [Last point – acceptance by extended family and the community, the adopted child having the same status as biological children.]

Maya enjoyed all the play-acting and all the hugging, and seemed quite content with how the story played out. It will be interesting to see if she wants to repeat this game.

Ethical Adoption -- Poll Results

Very interesting results in the poll on ethical adoption -- thanks to everyone who voted, and a special thanks to all who commented! We had more comments to the ethical adoption post than on any previous blog entry. We also had a grand total of 59 people vote in the three polls.

I deliberately made the poll personal, in the hope of spurring some personal reflection on what would make an adoption ethical. In retrospect, that may have been a miscalculation -- many of the comments tended toward defensiveness, and the voting may have, too. Asking about adoptions-in-general might have allowed for cooler reflection. By making it personal, we may have shed more heat than light on the issues! Still, in the adoption world as in so many other aspects of life, the personal is political. Changes in policy and practice is likely to come about only because of the efforts of those intimately involved in adoption.

Of course, the poll results are not scientifically reliable since the respondents were all self-selecting. And I'd like to think that those who come to this blog might be a bit more savvy on some of these issues than the garden-variety triad member (there's egotism for you!). Still, I think the effort was worth-while and the results illuminating.

First, some combined results.

Approximately 51% of adoptive parents, birth family members and adopted persons combined agreed or strongly agreed that the adoption they were involved in was ethical. About 18% of the three groups combined disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the adoption they were involved in was ethical. That left about 31% who were not sure.

When broken down by group, the results were a little different.

Adoptive parents: 58% agreed or strongly agreed that their adoption was ethical.
Adopted persons: 33% agreed or strongly agreed that their adoption was ethical.
Birth families: 27% agreed or strongly agreed that their adoption was ethical.

Anyone surprised by that breakdown? I pretty much expected that adoptive parents would be more inclined to believe that their adoption was ethical. It may be because adoptive parents are more in control of the adoption process than other members of the triad; that control lets them take steps to ensure the adoption is ethical, and it is likely to make them defensive and avoidant when questions of the ethics of adoption are raised. That control also means that adoptive parents tend to have more information than other members of the triad (click here to read about Suz's and Margie's presentation at the AAC conference about the difference in information and paperwork between a prospective birth mother and a prospective adoptive mother). And because they are the big winners in adoption, adoptive parents would be more likely to have a positive impression of the process, which would naturally extend to the belief that their adoption was ethical.

If anything surprised me in the results, it was the large "Not Sure" number. In aggregate, 30.5% were not sure whether their adoption was ethical. Adopted persons (33%) and birth family members (36%) were a bit more unsure than the adoptive parents (28%).

Wouldn't we all want to be sure that our adoptions were ethical? So why aren't we? Some of the commenters suggest one reason -- in international adoption in particular, it is hard to access the FACTS that would answer the question. Another reason expressed was that we're unsure about the RULES that should govern adoptions to make them ethical. As to facts, we have to rely on agencies. But for the rules, we can formulate on our own the elements that would make an adoption ethical.

If you want to read more about ethical adoption, I'd recommend two sites: PEAR (Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform) and Ethica. You can also find the summary of proceedings from the 1999 Ethics in Adoption Conference sponsored by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute (the proceedings of the 2007 conference don't appear to be available) by clicking here.

Potential Birth Mothers -- Portable Incubators

Radio Australia reports on pregnant women being trafficked for their babies:

First world demand to adopt very young babies is driving a new twist in people
smuggling, particularly in Asia.One of Australia's senior law officers says more and more, smugglers are trading in pregnant women - the perfect incubators - for access to their newborns. Australia's Chief Federal Magistrate John Pascoe is presenting a paper on the issue to the LawAsia conference in Singapore, which is looking at children and the law.

Pascoe says this trafficking of pregnant women for access to their babies is a growing trend, and puts the numbers "in the thousands rather than in tens or hundreds."

It reminds me of an incident several years ago in Texas. As I remember the details, an adoption agency was encouraging women from Mexico to cross the border illegally to have their babies and relinquish them in the U.S. so that the adoptions could be handled as domestic adoptions rather than more difficult international adoptions. Certainly not as bad as the Australian report of trafficking, but still troubling. Anyone else remember more details of the U.S. case? I haven't been able to track anything down on it.

Reacting to Allegations of Adoption Corruption

From Third Mom, a suggestion for how adoptive parents should respond to reports of corruption in international adoption:

There is, in my opinion, no other response for an adoptive parent to make to allegations of the existence of intercountry adoption corruption than to agree. We then have a further responsibility to get under what that means, learn to recognize it, speak out against it, and understand our role in it. This neither diminishes our families nor undermines ethical transnational adoptions.

It would do my heart good if one day an article like Graff's could be met by adoptive parents with praise first of all for shedding light on this problem, followed by reasoned critique and dialog on how we collectively can bring intercountry adoption corruption to an end.

What Makes an Adoption Ethical?

I've been thinking a lot lately about what makes an adoption ethical -- in both U.S. domestic adoption and international adoption. I'm starting from the proposition that "ethical adoption" is NOT an oxymoron, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise! I'd like a lot of input, so I thought I'd "incentivize" you by adding a poll asking your opinion of your own adoption -- was it ethical? I've divided it up for birth family, adoptive family, and adopted persons.


Here are some questions to help in thinking about some of the issues, but I'm sure I've overlooked a lot, so point out what I've missed, please!


Birth Parents


What does it mean to relinquish voluntarily? Does poverty and powerlessness call into question voluntariness? Or does coercion only matter if done by APs and/or agencies? Lies and false promises to birth parents are coercive, yes? Should birth families be offered help to parent before a relinquishment is deemed voluntary? Does China get a "pass"in terms of ethical issues since birth parents choices are constrained by law? When, if ever, is it justified to give birth parents money in relation to relinquishment? Should minors be allowed to relinquish? Should psychological counseling be required both prior to and following relinquishment? Should relinquishments be signed in the presence of a judicial officer? Is openness -- continuing contact and/or sharing of information -- necessary to make adoption ethical?


Adopted Persons


What is an orphan? Does the existence of extended family make a difference? Is foster care always inadequate to adoption? Should there be a preference for domestic over international adoption? for same-race over transracial adoption? What steps should be required to ensure children are not trafficked? Is "best interest of the child" adequate protection for children in adoption? When children are abandoned, is there an obligation to search for birth family before the child is adoptable? Whose obligation is it? Is openness -- in terms of both information and continuing contact -- an ethical imperative in adoption? How should matching happen? Is centralized government matching preferable to pre-ID'd matches? Does private adoption adequately protect children? Should there be different rules for newborn adoption and older child adoption? Is it ethical to have different fee structures depending on the race of the child?


Adoptive Parents


What screening is necessary for ethical adoptions? Should adoptions by single parents and gay and lesbian couples be allowed? What pre-adoption education requirements are appropriate? What information should APs be able to access about adoption agencies, social workers, attorneys, etc.? What disclosure about fees and fee changes are appropriate? What information about the child should be available before an adoption decision is made? Can there be ethical adoption without post-adoption services -- like counseling, parenting guidance, medical and educational information, etc. -- being made available to adoptive families? Should adoption agencies provide reunion services?


Well, there's a start! Help me out in the comments. And vote in the appropriate poll!

Supply and Demand II

Excellent article by Johanna Oreskovic & Trish Maskew, Red Thread or Slender Reed: Deconstructing Prof. Bartholet's Mythology of International Adoption. The article that corrals the various arguments I touched on in my Supply and Demand post, and does it far better than I ever could! FYI, Elizabeth Bartholet is a professor at Harvard Law School who is also a parent through international adoption. Oreskovic & Maskew are also adoptive parents, and former board members of Ethica, an organization dedicated to ethical adoption. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:

In her recent piece, “International Adoption: Thoughts on Human Rights Issues,” Professor Elizabeth Bartholet leaves no doubt where she stands: International adoption should be if not the preferred alternative, then at least a preferred alternative for the “millions on millions” of children in the developing world who would otherwise be doomed to living out their childhoods in damaging institutions
or on the streets. She believes that structuring legal regimes in ways that enable as many children as possible to avoid such fates should be at the core of any human rights-based discussion of international adoption.

* * *

[S]he maintains that discourse and policy-making on international adoption are controlled by a human rights community at worst hostile to, and at best profoundly suspicious of, international adoption. Bartholet accuses this community, and particularly entities like UNICEF and the Committee on the Rights of the Child, of setting up legal, ideological, and rhetorical roadblocks to international adoption. In her view, this community’s anti-adoption attitude is based on little more than naive romanticism of “culture” and unreflective hostility toward a perceived “colonialism” deemed inherent in transferring children from the developing to the developed world. Bartholet contends that not only is this discourse blind to the pragmatic realities of suffering children, it is based on overestimates of abuses in the international adoption process.

* * *

Like Bartholet, we are international adoptive parents, and like Bartholet, we place ourselves in the camp of those generally supportive of international adoption. Where we part company with her is in our characterization of the bigger picture. Bartholet’s position seems appealing because it relegates to the periphery of the analysis disturbing and problematic questions that should be at its core, specifically troubling practices like child-buying, coercion of vulnerable birth parents, weak regulatory structures, and profiteering. Our analysis breaks little new theoretical ground, and we do not propose programmatic solutions. Rather we identify and explore complexities that Bartholet for the most part ignores, but which are central to the viability and integrity of any international adoption process. To that end, we address the following questions: First, whether Bartholet’s claim that there are millions of adoptable children “in institutions and on the streets” has sufficient empirical support to be credible? (Part I). Second, to what extent does the private adoption agency system actually serve the needs of children, maintain the integrity of the
adoption process, and protect the rights of children, birth, and adoptive families? (Part II) To what extent do existing legal frameworks in sending countries and in the
US, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) orphan provisions and the Hague Convention, provide the overlapping layers of protection against abuses that Bartholet claims exist? (Part III) To what extent does the available evidence support Bartholet’s contention that abuses like child buying, kidnapping, and coercion in international adoptions are over-estimated? (Part IV). And finally, is Bartholet correct when she argues that issues of culture, heritage, identity, and integrity of process should, in effect, be relegated to the background of any analysis of international adoption? (Part V). We contend that the available evidence, while clearly incomplete, offers virtually no support for any of Bartholet’s contentions.

Supply and Demand

The U.S. and Mexico have had a longstanding wrangle over who's to blame for drug smuggling and all its attendant evil of violence and crime and death. The U.S. takes the position that the problem is Mexico's -- if Mexico did not supply the drugs, there would be no demand. Mexico takes the position that the problem is the U.S.'s -- if the U.S. did not demand the drugs, there would be no supply.

While supply and demand are crass terms to apply to international adoption, the parallels are clear. Some argue that people from the West adopt so many children from abroad because there is a constant supply -- so many orphans abroad, created by poverty, war, famine, disease, and/or policies or cultural practices of the sending countries. Others argue that the demand from the West creates orphans, that it's the monetary incentive to adoption agencies and orphanages that creates orphans where orphans used to be simply poor children living with their families.

Take India, for example. Adoption facilitators would approach poor families and offer the families what would be a fortune to them, and a drop in the bucket to us, to relinquish the child. Isn't that the creation of an orphan?

What about Guatemala, where there have been some reports of women getting pregnant so that they can relinquish the child and earn the fee for international adoption, while the prevalence of baby-stealing is so great the U.S. requires DNA testing to match relinquishing mothers and children. Isn't this a system that creates orphans?

What about in China, where an entire village of women in Yunnan got pregnant in order to earn the fee for giving the child to an orphanage that would then get $3000-$5000 "orphange donation" for the child? And what about the children sold by traffickers and purchased by orphanages in China?Isn't that the creation of an orphan?

[I don't want to impose a moral judgment on women and families who make the decision to relinquish for a fee. In the midst of abject poverty, it may be seen as the only way for the family and other children to survive. Certainly, people have choices in life, and it's a choice even when it is a difficult one. But it's hard to find a "forced choice" to be free choice. The real problem is the traffickers offering this money, knowing its coercive force.]

I know that the incidents I've linked to above are not the whole picture, but there is little doubt that they are part of the picture. Babies with families are being turned into orphans so that they can be adopted by foreigners who will pay a great deal of money for that adoption. We don't know the scope of the problem, because purchased and stolen babies have the same paperwork as true orphans.

So what do we do about it? Do we end the demand to control the supply -- bar international adoption? Do we work harder at global aid for struggling families to end the supply?

The biggest response to both possibilites is -- what do we do in the meantime? Assuming that cutting the demand would end -- or seriously reduce -- the supply, how long will it take to do so? And even if we had the public will to increase international aid, how long will it take to trickle down to vulnerable families? And what do we do with all of those orphans in the meantime?

Ideas? Suggestions? Comments? Please share.

A few interesting links

From the New York Times, Celebrity Adoptions and the Real World, from their Room for Debate series, featuring opinions from Elizabeth Bartholet, Harvard Law School; E.J. Graff, Brandeis University; Marguerite A. Wright, psychologist; David Smolin, Cumberland Law School; Diane B. Kunz, Center for Adoption Policy; Jane Aronson, pediatrician.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From CNN, a profile of two quake survivors orphaned by the quake, Year later: New beginning for survivors. Money quote: "Like so many families of Sichuan orphans, they refuse to put them up for adoption but do not have the means to care for them, either."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Slate, a photo essay about international adoption, The Orphan Trade: A look at families affected by corrupt international adoptions. The article is by E.J. Graff of "The Lie We Love" fame.

Adoption as Child Rescue

Buried in an article about celebrity adoptions:

No doubt it's admirable that celebrities are rescuing abandoned children from poverty-stricken lands ravaged by war and natural disaster and from places where AIDS is spreading quickly. They are giving a whole new life filled with opportunity to children with otherwise bleak futures. Celebs are drawing attention to worthy causes, and they have also led Americans to look beyond the option to adopt a healthy white infant, which is actually quite difficult to do in the United States.

Great. Yet another article that touts the notion that my children are charity cases. But after all, they are "worthy causes;" I've saved them from a "bleak future." I'm "admirable" to be "rescuing" them (actually, the celebs are "admirable," I'm merely following the trend because the celebs "drew attention" to the "worthy cause"). Grrrrrrr.

But wait! There is another, even more noble than I: someone who "stepped into a New York City orphanage to pick out a kid whose mom died on the streets from a drug overdose." Sigh.