China-Sponsored Homeland Tours

From the Financial Times, Adopted Chinese Daughters Seek Their Roots:

We have all seen them: adorable Chinese girls holding the hands of their usually elderly, often overweight, but definitely doting) Caucasian parents, strolling the streets from New York to New South Wales, growing up in a white, white world, far away from the land and culture where they were born.

In some ways, they are a permanent blot on the image of China: surplus daughters
the country couldn’t care for, unintended consequences of the 30-year-old “one-child” policy that led to the abandonment of hundreds of thousands if not millions of female infants at birth. But now, as the balance of global economic and political power shifts subtly in favour of China, Beijing is reaching out to all these lost daughters – and welcoming them back home.

China has invited thousands of foundlings back to their birthplaces for government-sponsored “homeland tours” which, like last year’s Beijing Olympics or next year’s Shanghai World Expo, give the country a chance to show off to the world. On one level, what the Chinese adoption authorities call “root seeking tours” – filled with extravagant expressions of love and kinship and lavish gifts for the returning orphans – are a transparent public relations exercise aimed at raising money for Chinese orphanages, justifying the decision to export surplus children and countering decades of unfair international criticism that Chinese people “hate girls”.

But for the children involved – one of whom is my nine-year-old daughter, Grace Shu Min, who attended a 20-year reunion at her orphanage in March, along with two of her closest orphanage friends – their hometown trip was more like therapy. China put its best foot forward for the returning children (all girls), treating them like celebrities, showering them with presents, laying on magicians and puppet shows, kindness and warmth. It was the kind of mythical homecoming we all hope for – but few can ever achieve.

Elderly? Overweight? Doting? Oh, well, three out of three it is! I can live for that . . . but not for long, considering I'm elderly!

Still, interesting story of the value of homeland tours, sprinkled with snarky and cynical commentary, for those, like me, who like that sort of thing.

UPDATE: Be sure to read Jae Ran Kim's take on this article at Harlow's Monkey.

Call Me Sensitive. . .

OK, I'm reading here that Katherine Heigl, who has adopted a child from Korea and whom I blogged about here, "and husband Josh Kelley unveiled [the COMPLETELY adorable!] Naleigh on their charity Web site."

I click on the website -- "Heigl's Hounds of Hope." I'm getting a bad feeling about this . . . .

And sure enough, under more COMPLETELY adorable pictures is this:

Come meet some GREAT ADOPTABLE ANIMALS this Saturday, September 19th from 12 noon-3pm at Encino Park!

Wonderful juxtaposition, huh? Adopt a baby, adopt a pet, your choice, same diff?!

Sigh.

Katherine Heigl Doesn't Want "My Own Children"

. . . so of course she's adopting from Korea:

RadarOnline, which first broke the news of Heigl's impending adoption, said it had been in the works for about six months. Heigl and Kelley were married in December 2007.

But the idea of adopting was planted long ago. The "Grey's Anatomy" star told USA Today two years ago that it was "always planned."

"I'm done with the whole idea of having my own children," Heigl told the newspaper.

Sigh. Typical rookie mistake of a prospective adoptive parent, using "my own" as a substitute for "biological." I would have expected a bit better of Katherin Heigl, though -- she has a sister adopted from Korea.

I'm not really the "adoption language" police, despite this post! This is just symptomatic of a particular way of thinking about adoption.

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.

How the Media Gets It Wrong

New blog, catchily titled, Adopt-a-Tude, with a strong first post on how the media gets adoption wrong:

I love Angelina Jolie. She's the unapologetic mom of a mixed brood of adoptees and bio-kids. She's not married to her partner (yet), and she's a poster gal for humanitarian aid. She's the hottest adoptive mom around.

The problem? The media, of course, and all the heat and light journalists bring to adoption — especially international adoption — because celebrities are involved. Much as I admire Angie's chutzpah and Brad Pitt's weary saintliness, the Brangelina enterprise offers a very skewed picture of how adoptions come about and what life is like for the average adoptive family.

This is not news to anyone in the adoption community. But I'm continually amazed by the misconceptions pumped by the press.

Gay Adoption and International Comity

In 2004, I wrote a law review article about international adoption and international comity, which is the requirement that governments recognize the legal acts of other governments. That’s why my parents married in France under French law are considered married in America under American law. And that’s why my children, adopted in China under Chinese law are considered my children in America under American law. But there's an "out" in international comity -- a government need not recognize judicial acts that are "repugnant" to the law and public policy of that government.

At the time I wrote the article, no countries in international adoption were allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt. I hypothesized what would happen if a country allowed adoption by gay couples (gay and lesbian couples usually have one member of the couple adopt the child as a single person, then the other parent seeks a domestic “second-parent” adoption.) Now, Uruguay is poised to approve adoption by gay and lesbian couples -- their Senate has passed a bill, now the House has passed a bill, it goes back to the Senate to be reconciled, and the President has agreed to sign it).

So here’s what I wrote in 2004:

Consider the following hypothetical:

Brad Davis enters a committed, long-term relationship with Christopher Martin, and they decide to adopt a child. The country of Gayswana has recently opened its doors to adoption by gay couples. Brad and Christopher adopt Maya, carefully following all the laws and regulations of Gayswana. They then return to the state of Utopia, where they have resided together for five years. After parenting Maya for five years, Brad and Christopher seek to enroll her in public school. The school questions Maya's Gayswana birth certificate and looks askance at the foreign adoption decree. So, Brad and Christopher decide to go to state court in Utopia and seek a state court decree recognizing the Gayswana adoption decree.

Should Utopia recognize the judicial decree of adoption from Gayswana, or is it repugnant to the law and policy of the state? Incidentally, Utopia adoption statutes recite bluntly, “No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.” [Incidentally, that's the Florida statute].

If Utopia were to follow the ruling in Tsilidis, where a state statute limiting adult adoption to married couples justified invalidating an adult adoption by a single man in Greece, Maya's adoption from Gayswana would be repugnant to the laws and policy of the state. In fact, it would appear to be a stronger argument that the adoption was repugnant where the statute explicitly prohibited the adoption under Utopia law. Perhaps the Utopian court would take more seriously the language of Justice Cardozo: a foreign decree is not repugnant and will be recognized unless doing so “would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common wealth.”

Thus, the action to recognize the foreign adoption decree places the court of Utopia squarely in the middle of the debate about gay and lesbian families. Is it moral? Is it in the best interest of children? “Courts today generally use the two-parent, biological family as the template against which to measure, and to conform, other families.” Naturally, the “biological family” model requires one male parent and one female parent. If the court uses this model, Maya's family doesn't “fit.”

But unlike Tsilidis, which involved the adopted son's right of inheritance from the adoptive father's estate after his death, Maya's family is intact. And unlike Tsilidis, Maya is not an adult--she is a 6-year-old child. Is it in her best interest for the court to refuse recognition of the foreign decree of adoption? Professor Cahn argues that the law's use of the nuclear family paradigm fails to take account of the “settled expectations of those living within [so-called alternative] families.” She notes that early adoption law “cabined by the traditional significance of blood relationships,” nonetheless “struggled to accord respect to functioning parent-child relationships with settled expectations.”

Having named the state Utopia, one can hope that the court will recognize the foreign decree of adoption that created Maya's family. If it failed to do so, what would the court do with Maya? Should Maya be removed from the home of the only parents she has known to be placed with a married, heterosexual couple? Does the family have to return to Gayswana to be recognized as a family? Will the court refuse to recognize the decree, but otherwise refrain from interfering with the family?

There may be support for the last option--at least one court has distinguished between the status of adoption and the incidents of adoption, refusing to allow inheritance but stating that their refusal did not depend on the status of the adoption. So, this last option seems the best of many bad options if a court refuses to recognize a foreign decree of adoption. But consider all the rights and duties of parents, discussed previously--all the incidents of adoption. Who can consent to surgery or other medical treatment for Maya? Who is responsible for providing financial support? From whom can Maya inherit, receive Social Security benefits, insurance death benefits? Who can enroll her in school? Who can be punished for failing to enroll her in school? Without judicial recognition as parents, neither Brad nor Christopher can act as Maya's parents. What is clearly called for is a child-centered approach to judicial recognition of foreign decrees of adoption.

So, we can expect my hypothetical to come true in a courtroom near you. Now, you might think that the fact that the U.S. has now fully adopted the Hague Convention Respecting Intercountry Adoption would take care of this. After all, Article 23 says: "An adoption certified by the competent authority of the State of the adoption as having been made in accordance with the Convention shall be recognized by operation of law in the other Contracting States." So, the various states of the United States would have to recognize a gay adoption finalized in Uruguay, right?

Not so fast! Article 24 says, "The recognition of an adoption may be refused in a Contracting State only if the adoption is manifestly contrary to its public policy, taking into account the best interests of the child." That seems to codify the repugnance exception from international comity. So the issue will be ripe for litigation, I think. I hope any state would follow my suggestion of a child-centered resolution, which mirrors the Hague requirement to take into account the best interests of the child.

[Sorry, the article is not available online, unless registered for Westlaw, LexisNexis, or Hein, but here’s the cite: International Adoption and International Comity: When is Adoption “Repugnant”?, 10 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 381 (2004).]

Update: Harper Scruggs is Home

I blogged before about the story of Harper, whose adoptive parents left her in China when she could not get a visa to enter the U.S. because of new TB rules. She's home now, and here's a link to the Washington Post's story about the homecoming.

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.

Disruption Screws Up Citizenship

Another sad story of a disrupted adoption: A child is adopted from India in 1987; the adoption disrupts. She is placed in foster care. NO ONE applies for U.S. citizenship for her. In 2001 & 2004, she is convicted of possession of cocaine. In 2008, she is deported to India.

Click here and here and here for more information.

New TB rules affect family's adoption

It seems the Scruggs family's problem in bringing home their newly-adopted TB-affected daughter is getting some traction in the media. From the Washington Post:

"Papa, don't go!" she screamed in Cantonese after Scruggs kissed her and tried to hand her over to the foster family that would care for her until he could return.

Finally, the foster mother took the girl and Scruggs slipped out the door, the first step on a trip he wasn't ready to make, a day after his wife, Candace Litchford, had made the same wrenching journey back home to Alexandria.

So, instead of starting life with her new family in the United States, Harper remains in China, the visa she needs to enter the country blocked because of federal regulations aimed at limiting the number of immigrants entering the country with tuberculosis. If her parents had known she was sick, they would have waited for her to finish treatment before they visited, they said.

"You know, she loved us, she bonded with us and she attached to us, and we had to leave," Litchford said. "How's she supposed to trust us? We did everything to explain why, but how do you explain government to a child? You can't."

In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control issued new tuberculosis testing and treatment rules for immigrants older than 2. The policy applies to all immigrants, including foreign children adopted by U.S. citizens, and has outraged several adoption organizations.Advocates said the rules will be particularly problematic for adoptions from Ethiopia, where the guidelines went into effect April 1, and in China, where they took effect July 1.

Both the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe have run recent articles on the way the new TB rules affect adoptions, with the Scruggs family getting a mention in the Boston Globe. There's also an interview with the mom in the Examiner.com.

I don't know enough on the medical end to know whether the general rule for immigrants & TB testing should apply to children, but it sure seems that with 2 years of notice, adoption agencies should do a better job of finding out children's health status before families travel.

Zoe tested positive for TB after we got home, though her chest X-ray was clear and so it was only dormant and not active. Still, we had to go through 9 months of treatment, oh joy! Even if the rule had been in force then, it wouldn't have affected her since she was under 2. But I can still only imagine the damage it would have done to to her to be given a "forever family" and have them walk away. I can't help but think there's a better way; it'll have to come from the agencies, though, since there are some good reasons for the health rules for immigration.

Update: Here's the link to the New York Times article.

Adopting Teens

A very touching letter to older kids being adopted, from a girl adopted at age 13 from China:

My name is Honour Grace. I came from China in August 2008, when I was almost 14 years old. I would like to tell you my story because I heard you might too be adopted by a foreign family soon.

When I got adopted, my Momshowed me a beautiful song called "She's a Butterfly." A few times when I lived in China, I felt like a butterfly but most times I felt like I was in a cocoon. In America, I always feel like a butterfly. Now I can feel my true colors, who I am, what I like, what I can do, where I can go. I can feel my heart.

* * *

I also like to stay up late talking with Mom and Dad. They want to know everything about my life. They ask me many questions about my life in China. It makes me happy to share because they really care about me, and it helps them understand my heart more. I like it because they know that my new life in America was not the start of my life. They respect the life I had when I was in China though my problems there make their hearts hurt. They wanted to look at every picture I had — when I was ready to share with them. They wanted to know all about my friends. I liked that they let me burst out of the cocoon in my time.

* * *

The best thing is when you are sad, there are people who will help you and listen to you and hug you. You don't have to ever be sad by yourself. The orphanage people can help you grow, go to school, get food, but they cannot stay with you forever. Maybe the auntie will get married or retire. Someday you have to leave the orphanage by yourself. Maybe you will be all alone then. But having a real family of your very own is always better than staying in the orphanage. You will never be alone then. A family is a treasure, take good care of the gift. If you open up your heart, it will be easy.

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.

Report: Korean Birth Mother Presentation

Sorry it’s taken me so long to report on the birth mother presentation. I planned to blog about it as soon as I got the girls to bed last night, but I was exhausted, and went to bed at 8:30!

I am SO glad I went to this presentation. It was incredibly powerful and emotional. (That emotion was the cause of the exhaustion, in fact!). The two birth mothers spoke very honestly about their experiences, and as the friend who accompanied me said, the wounds were so obvious on them.

One birth mother was 25, and is now in college studying social work and working with the Eastern Social Welfare Society (ESWS) in Seoul, S. Korea, the same organization through which she placed her child. She looked like a typical college student, except that she looked 16! She had long hair and was wearing a pink flowing skirt, a sparkly tee, multiple necklaces and earrings, cool glasses, and a completely closed expression. She said she had broken up with her boyfriend before she knew she was pregnant. When she contacted him to tell him, he said he didn’t want a baby and she should get rid of it. She went to get an abortion, but couldn’t go through with it when she heard the baby’s heartbeat. She intended to keep the baby, but with morning sickness she couldn’t work, and asked a social worker friend for help. The friend told her about Eastern, and she went to their unwed mothers home. She saw women there who had kept their babies, which gave her hope that she could do the same. She wrote her mother to tell her of the pregnancy and that she wanted to keep the baby. Her mom was completely opposed to her keeping the baby. After much thought and counseling and input from her mother, she made the hard decision to place her baby. She wanted the baby to have two parents, since she was raised by her mom alone. She wanted international adoption, because it would be “semi-open,” meaning that she would get information about the baby once a year. After deciding to relinquish her child for adoption, she was able to visit the baby once a month until the child left Korea.

She said the hardest part of adoption was once she had made the decision. She couldn’t handle seeing babies the same age as hers. She would be in despair, thinking, “Why me? Why can’t I have my baby when these other people have their babies? Why did I only get to hold my baby for a few hours?” She said at times she thought of suicide, and felt she had nothing to live for. She blamed her mother, she blamed herself. She tried suicide once. And another time when she thought she couldn’t live another minute, she heard from the agency that they had received an update about the baby from the adoptive parents. That was and is her greatest joy, getting updates about the baby. She decided that she wanted to improve herself, and live a good life, for her baby, whom she described as “my joy, hope, and life.” She said she knows the most joyous day will be when she can see her baby again.

One reason the updates about the baby were so important to her is that she drank at the beginning of her pregnancy and is so sorry about that, and worries about the effects on the baby’s health.

The older birth mother was 33, and had placed her baby for adoption 2 years ago. She was a little plump, and simply dressed in a blouse and khaki capris. She was single and pregnant, and she told us about going into labor at home, and not being able to make it to the hospital. She was alone, and had to cut the umbilical cord herself. The baby was fine at first, but became sick. She took him to the hospital, where he had to stay for a week. She didn’t know what to do, planned to raise her child, but contacted Eastern for help. She stayed at the home for unwed mothers with her baby. Every day she changed her mind about what to do. First she wanted to raise her baby, then she’d think what was best for the baby would be to place him for adoption, and then she’d change her mind again. She worried that she wouldn’t be able to give her baby opportunities, was worried about the social stigma of unwed birth that would attach to the baby. She said that when the baby was inside her, it was possible to think of them together as just one person, but when he was born and became another person, she had to think more about what would be in his best interest. Six weeks after the baby was born, she decided to place him for adoption. At first she wanted domestic adoption in Korea, but there was no possibility of an open adoption in Korea. With international adoption, she would be able to hear about the baby through the agency, and could perhaps see the baby again one day.

The worst day was when she took the baby to the agency for placement. She bathed and dressed him, and he was very, very fussy. He was usually a happy baby, so she thought he knew what was about to happen. At the agency, she felt cut in half, holding the baby with one hand and signing him away with the other. Going home alone, she could still hear his cries and smell baby smells. She would find her body still rocking him when he wasn’t in her arms any more. Once the baby was gone, she had so much free time and nothing to do but think of him and eat and eat and eat. She began drinking as well to deal with her grief. She changed from an optimistic person to someone mired in grief. She drank for 1.5 years, and is better now. She wants to do well for her baby. She has a new job, and they know about her baby, and they have been very supportive, even letting her take time to come to America to make this presentation.

She also was able to visit her baby before he left Korea. It was wonderful to see him each month, but hard to leave each time and hard to wait for the next visit. She wanted to make the visits, though, because she never wanted him to think she had abandoned him. And on his first birthday, the agency had a birthday party for him and she attended. She was so happy to see him there – he walked! And she loved to see that he liked to eat, just like her. She was very happy to see something of herself in her baby.

After the birth mothers and others talked (more about that in another post), there was a Q & A period. We were asked to write our questions on an index card and pass them up, and the moderator asked the questions.

The first question was, “Why did you come to talk to us and are you glad you did?”

They both answered that they wanted to puncture stereotypes adoptive parents might have about birth mothers. They wanted to stand up for the unwed mothers of Korea. And one said she wanted to know what life in America was like so she could see what life for her baby was like.

The question I asked was, true to AdoptionTalk, “What do you want adoptive parents to tell their kids about birth mothers?” I was almost sorry I asked, because it brought the younger birth mother to tears. But she said that before she was a birth mother, she had a very negative impression of adoption and birth mothers. She had watched TV shows where Korean adoptees said that their birth mothers abandoned them, and she thought that was how babies were adopted – they were all abandoned. She spoke forcefully and said, “I did not abandon my child.” She said she loved her baby and made the best decision she could for her child. She wanted adoptive parents to tell the children that their birth mothers loved them and did not abandon them. The older birth mother said the same, and added, “Sometimes love isn’t enough. I wanted my baby to have a better life. Tell them we love the babies, but we made a decision for their life.”

I also asked about how many women who are served by Eastern decide to parent rather than relinquish their children, and what services are offered to them. The social worker from Eastern said that currently 30% of the women at the unwed mother’s home decide to parent their children. She said that in the past it used to be very rare, but the trend is for more women to parent. She says that Eastern helps with counseling, short-term help with diapers and clothing, and help finding long-term housing. She also said the Korean government offers some support for single parents, but that it is not adequate.

There were an adoptive parent and an adult adoptee on the panel as well, I’ll post more about what they had to say later.

The birth mothers cried, the social workers cried, the adoptive mother on the panel cried, the audience cried, I cried. And it was so worth going!

Adult Adoptee Panel

Looking around the room at the adult adoptee panel discussion, I'd say it was easily the best-attended of the adult sessions. It was good to see so many adoptive parents wanting to learn.

As I mentioned before the panel consisted of 3 sisters from the same family, and they also had 3 brothers. There were two sets of sibling groups of two among the six. Five of the six were adopted from Korea, and the sixth was half Asian, half Hispanic, and a domestic adoptee. They all grew up in Tulsa, OK.

All three who spoke to us were in their 30s, beautiful, well-spoken, and seemed very happy and successful.

The domestic adoptee said she had had non-identifying information about her birth family for as long as she could remember, and she wasn't at all interested in finding out who her birth parents were. Some of that reluctance came from the circumstances -- her birth father was 55 and her birth mother 16, and worked for him. The one who was adopted from Korea at age 5 also had a brother adopted with her at 9 months of age. She said she had always wanted to find her birth parents, and was successful in doing so. She said she felt like there was an empty space inside her until she returned to Korea and met her birth family.

The third, adopted from Korea at 18 months old, said she had no information since she was found abandoned at a police station with no identifying information. She said she had no interest at all in finding her birth family, but said maybe that was because she knew it would be impossible to do so. [Afterwards, I mentioned to her that many Korean adoptees were given that same story of abandonment but then found that the adoption agency had made it up "to protect the unwed mother." I suggested that if she was interested she might contact the adoption agency. . . .] Though she said she wasn't really interested in her birth parents, because her adoptive mom and dad were her "mom and dad," she said it was really meaningful for her to have children who were biologically related to her -- it was the first time she saw someone who looked like her.

Two of the three said that they had experienced racial teasing as children -- the eye-pulling gesture and ching-chong speech. They didn't tell their parents about it. One said that such teasing made them stronger. Of the six siblings who are married, they are all married to Caucasian spouses. The sister who had actually traveled to Korea talked about feeling more comfortable with Caucasians, and feeling out of place in groups of Koreans. Another sister said she considered herself an Okie (not a derogatory term when used by an Oklahoman, I understand!) and a proud American.

One adoptive parent asked what their favorite foods were (?), and all answered with American favorites like Mom's Spaghetti and PB & banana sandwiches. The sister who had traveled to Korea said Korean foods were her favorite

They all said that their parents had offered cultural opportunities, and that their parents had always been supportive of any interest they had in searching for birth parents. Their parents had shared with them the information they had about their life before adoption. All praised their parents for what a good job they had done raising them. And all said they felt blessed to have been adopted.

I think that adoptive parents who were looking to ignore anything negative they had heard from adopted adults were pretty satisfied by the presentation. There were, however, some troubling things: the fact that they didn't tell their parents about racial teasing and their discomfort in being among Koreans, for example. This is pretty typical for Korean adoptees of that era, I think. Adoptive parents were told to raise them as [white] Americans, so many have not formed any racial identity that matches their ethnicity. I hope that my kids can feel comfortable in both cultures, though that is going to be a tall order, and probably not completely doable, Still, we'll try!

I also thought it was telling that the sister who expressed no interest in meeting biological relatives nonetheless expressed wonder at seeing her children for the first time. Perhaps she is more interested than she thinks!

The women were so gracious to come talk to us, and I learned a lot hearing about their experiences and attitudes. We always say that adoptees have a variety of attitudes toward adoption, that no one can claim to speak for all adoptees, and we had the perfect illustration of that fact in these three sisters.

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.

New Book "IA: Global Inequalities and the Circulation of Children"

A new book to be released July 1 by NYU Press promises a broader, global conversation about international adoption:

It was during a conference in Barcelona on the topic of international adoption that Laura Briggs felt compelled to work to expand the dialogue on the topic in the United States. Briggs, who had already begun researching the issue of adoptions, said critical parts of the global discussion were missing from the United States dialogue on the topic.

It was during the conference that she opted to collect the work of scholars of adoption from Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Canada with Diana Marre, a fellow researcher who lives in Spain and organized the conference.

After more than one year of work, the culmination is "International Adoption: Global Inequalities and the Circulation of Children," which was published by New York University Press and is set to be released next month. . . .

[T]he researchers collected and edited stories written by scholars from around the world. The stories are about child placement policies, fears in sending countries about the abuse of children adopted abroad, adoptions of related children, gays and lesbians who want to adopt and also issues of identity and how reproduction is defined.

"I was excited to get these stories in front of a U.S. audience," Briggs continued. "Particularly, what the conversation is in other countries because, here, we basically have two – and only two – conversations about adoption." One, she said, involves a "sweet and sentimentalized" version of adoption in which adoptees are "saved;" the other is about child trafficking.

But transnational adoption is not always as dichotomous as a "wrenching loss" on one end and a new beginning on the other.

* * *

One facet of adoption not often disussed that the book notes is that the United States is also a "sending country" in transnational adoption, with Europeans adopting African-American children in particular to "save" them from the problem of racism in the United States.

Another troubling fact, Briggs said, is that birth families are often placed at arm's length in the adoption process. The book also explores non-traditional aspects, including adult adoptees and contact adoptees have had with birth families.

"My hope is that adoptive parents and all of us affected by international adoption will have a more complex sense of the system in which we are participating," Briggs said. "I hope we can restore, both for the parents who adopt and for the children themselves, something richer than a story about ‘this horrible place you left.'"

Click here to read more about the book.

Adoption from Malawi

An interesting story about international adoption from Malawi -- by someone other than Madonna:

Before Madonna, before the hype and the fury over her Malawian babies, there were the Clementinos of Burlington, Ont.

The global spotlight never fell on the Clementinos. Nobody heard of their long struggle to adopt a little girl named Idah from Malawi.

But their victory, after a four-year, $35,000 legal battle, was a precedent that paved the way for the U.S. pop superstar to adopt a pair of children from the same African country. Their story raises the same awkward issues – of poverty and culture, of deciding what is best for a child's future, and for the future of a country.

Children like Idah – and Madonna's far more famous David and Chifundo – have sparked a fierce debate in Malawi, where activists worry that the phenomenon of foreign adoption is creating a commercial value for their children, and diverting financial resources that would be better spent on health and education.

But for her adoptive parents in Burlington, who have never been to Malawi, the issue is simpler. By removing Idah from the austere existence of an African orphanage, they believe they are giving her the nurturing that she needs to have a chance in life.

“We're not trying to remove Idah from her culture, but to give her an opportunity,” says Jane Clementino, a management consultant and mother of three other children. “We're doing it for the good of the child. If you can make a difference, why wouldn't you?”

Same-Sex Marriage and International Adoption

From a Newsweek article, The Sins of the Fathers: Raising Kids in a Same-Sex Union:

In an ironic twist, gay-marriage laws now make foreign adoption more difficult for gay couples. Adoption agencies and lawyers say no foreign countries knowingly give babies to gay couples for adoption. Same-sex couples who want to adopt internationally have traditionally circumvented this prohibition with the following fudge: one half of the couple adopts as a single person. Once back home, the couple goes to court and establishes co-parenthood in states that will allow it. A legally married gay couple doesn't have the option of a fudge: truthful responses to questions about marital status on adoption documents crush the couple's chances of ever adopting abroad. That's why Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders advises couples to wait to get married. "If international adoption is important?.?.?.?then they need to postpone forming a legal relationship," says Bruce Bell, who runs GLAD's help line.

Interesting recent news links

Internationally adopted children at risk for premature puberty

In recent years, studies have shown that internationally adopted children may be at risk for developing premature or precocious puberty. In fact, some experts speculate that they are almost 20 times more likely to do so than children born in the United States.

N. Korean women 'sold like livestock' in China

For North Korean women who run off to China, rules are rigged on both sides of the border. North Korea regards them as criminals for leaving. China refuses to recognize them as refugees, sending many back to face interrogation, hard labor and sometimes torture. Others stay on in stateless limbo, sold by brokers to Chinese men in need of fertile women and live-in labor.

What does it mean to be Asian American?

It's easy to forget that the term "Asian American" is a young one -- just a hair over 40 years old, with its first recorded public usage occurring, not coincidentally, at UC Berkeley, the gravitational center of Sixties student activism. . . . Four decades later, however, it's worth considering how far the idea of Asian America has come, and how far it can go. Does Asian American identity still have meaning?

These boys deserve so much more than I can give them

Six years after adopting two boys, Michelle Brau was still unable to form a bond with them. Now they're in a new home. She may have suffered a condition many still don't understand: post-adoption depression.

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.