Zaraha-Jolie-and-international-adoption

62 Comments

Mirah • Nov 21, 2007 @2:42 pm

The fact is the EVERY adoption starts with a tragedy. No woman happily hands over a child so she can "go to college to become a doctor, or perhaps an astronaut." This too is all part of the myth that those who adopt – and the general public – would like to believe, but it is not true.

Would YOU hand over YOUR child to continue your education? No one does that easily or without pressures of one kind of another. The pressures domestically and internationally may be somewhat different, but in every case, every adoption starts with a loss: a loss for the child and for his family. An irresolvable loss. One that no amount of education or success erases.

You speak of responsible agencies. The problem is that it is virtually impossible to tell the ethical ones from the unscrupulous ones and in the US with adoption privatized there are precious few regulations as you who can arrange adoptions.

International adoption is a $6.3 billion dollar industry. Children are stolen and kidnapped and trafficked. They pass through many hands in a process called "baby laundering" and are in the end are sold to orphanages who make more money having them adopted internationally. Fees of $40k, not uncommon for Westerners, are exorbitant and make it impossible for those in the country who want to adopt their own, to compete.

Zahara's truth is her truth – whether she hears it now or later. How will she feel about being taken from a mother who was alive, not dead? How will she feel knowing her mother may have asked for her back – or at the very least wanted her to be taken there to visit? These are questions every person who adopts a child must consider.

Adoption is not a happily-ever-after "win-win." Many internationally adoptees are not so grateful for having been taken form their culture. read some of the Korean adoptee blogs like: http://www.transracialabductees.org/.

Mirah Riben, Author, THE STORK MARKET: America's multi-billion dollar unregulated adoption industry
Ken • Nov 21, 2007 @3:14 pm

Ms. Riben:

I'm always interested in hearing other perspectives on adoption. That doesn't mean that I agree.

The fact is the EVERY adoption starts with a tragedy. No woman happily hands over a child so she can “go to college to become a doctor, or perhaps an astronaut.” This too is all part of the myth that those who adopt – and the general public – would like to believe, but it is not true. Would YOU hand over YOUR child to continue your education? No one does that easily or without pressures of one kind of another.

I think you need to tune your irony detector on the astronaut thing. As for your substantive claim, it's every bit as subjective as the popular belief that placing a child for adoption is always a positive thing for the mother. Both dogmatic beliefs are agenda-driven. Different women will experience adoption placement in different ways.

The problem is that it is virtually impossible to tell the ethical ones from the unscrupulous ones and in the US with adoption privatized there are precious few regulations as you who can arrange adoptions.

Well, no. It's not impossible if you do research into what the issues are, inform yourself, and ask informed questions. It's certainly very difficult if you don't do those things. Plus, I am under the impression that you have taken the public stance that all intercountry adoption (if not all adoption, period) is inherently unethical, no?

Children are stolen and kidnapped and trafficked. They pass through many hands in a process called “baby laundering” and are in the end are sold to orphanages who make more money having them adopted internationally. Fees of $40k, not uncommon for Westerners, are exorbitant and make it impossible for those in the country who want to adopt their own, to compete.

Which is exactly why responsible adoptive parents are morally obligated to do their due diligence and reject agencies — and even entire countries — where these problems exist.

Adoption is not a happily-ever-after “win-win.” Many internationally adoptees are not so grateful for having been taken form their culture.

Nor do responsible adoptive parents demand that they be grateful, as I have said here before.
Kathy • Nov 21, 2007 @6:20 pm

Hi Ken, I think this is a very interesting post. My big question is: How can adoptive parents find a really good agency? I don't know of any, do you?

To Mirah, I think you paint with the broad brush that you were dealt, and that's ok.
Do you have your own blog? I think balance is a good starting point, but, lacking that, you would at least have some control over the convos, right?
aegix • Nov 21, 2007 @6:44 pm

I think Ken brings aptly up what every adoptive parent struggles with and is merely sharing that with a world not so in tune with the back story of adoption.

While some adoptees grow up resentful, I believe you can also find biological children who have grown up resentful of something in their upbringing. Some choose to project their discontent on the easiest mark: the culture they supposedly "lost" by being adopted.

Adoption, at its best, is a cumbersome tool for an exceedingly difficult and complex situation. But while not perfect, it withstands the criticisms of the Mirah Riban's of the world who only find solace in pointing out the inadequacies of something but never venturing into the realm of actually finding a solution to that which they rail against.

So, Mirah, what exactly is your plan to making adoption irrelevant? Simply outlawing it? Merely throwing money at orphanage and foster care programs? Putting a Planned Parenthood on every corner?

In the world Mirah lives in, every agency is fraught with greed and indignation. And yet, a cursory look will show that the overwhelming majority of them work very closely with the host countries and develop programs and the infrastructure to more adequately serve the local populations and place the children domestically.

Does Mirah ever really try to find the good in adoption and directs her energies at actually fixing the problems, or merely looks for the soft underbelly of an easy target to sell her book?
Mirah • Nov 21, 2007 @8:43 pm

I am pleased that you for one, do not expect gratitude.

Please don't speak for me or about me without reading my book, which is base don 30+ years of research and every word in it is documented and footnoted by noted experts in the field.

I made no dogmatic statements about women who relinquish, I merely asked how you would feel to lose a child. Period.

Trafficking of chidlren is a known fact. And there is NO WAY to distinguish agencies. Those who dealt with Zoe's Ark through they were reputable! Ad there is not way to track the origins of chidlren from baby brokers to foreign agencies to US agencies.

Read the work of David Smolin, and adoptive father: works.bepress.com/david_smolin/ -
Ken • Nov 21, 2007 @8:55 pm

Mirah, I do not pretend to speak for you. But if you come and comment about something I have written, I will feel free to speak about you. You don't get to control the terms of the debate by insisting that I read your book.

Repeatedly saying that there is no way to distinguish agencies does not make it so.
Mirah • Nov 21, 2007 @9:27 pm

"Does Mirah ever really try to find the good in adoption and directs her energies at actually fixing the problems, or merely looks for the soft underbelly of an easy target to sell her book?"

First all profit from the sale of my books is donated to non-profits.
Secondly, my book has an entire chapter on helping adoptive and natural parents avoid being scammed.

What do I suggest in place of the commercialized profit-driven and unregulated adoptions we have?

- removing the proft motive
- educational and training requirements and licensing for those who arrange adoptions
- putting more effort into family preservation and making adoption a last resort as suggested by UNICEF and the UN Convention on the the Rights of the Child
- when there is not extended family to car for a child, permanent legal guardianship that does not sever a child's connection to his origins is in the child's' best interest.

These are the goals of the UN, Ethica, and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute …not Mirah Riben's! I just report the facts. Please don't shoot the messenger.

The known corruption in international adoption is why the US is ratifying the Hague Convention.
Mirah • Nov 21, 2007 @10:55 pm

Here's the very latest. It happens all the time. An agency THOUGHT to be ethical turns out not to be:

ttp://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=134134

Children's Hope International of Maryland Heights specializes in foreign adoptions, and has helped more than 700 families in the last year.
Now, law enforcement officers are investigating the agency, because they say two fired employees forged documents used to bring children to the United States from Russia.
The forgeries were discovered in July, when authorities in Arkansas received correspondence from Russian adoption officials, seeking additional information. However, the adoption officials in Arkansas had no record of the initial correspondence that prompted the Russian letter.
A few days of research revealed that the letter from Arkansas was really mailed from the offices of Children's Hope International. A wide search was conducted, and eventually, Children's Hope International's director, Dwyatt Gantt, admitted that ten documents were forged, affecting 7 states.
However, during a meeting with Tennessee adoption authorities, Gantt is quoted as saying the forgeries went on for years, and were "widespread."
Gantt fired the two workers more than a month after the forgeries were discovered. They are Mareda Eckert and Susan Ellison. Eckert declined comment, saying she couldn't be bothered, and Ellison never returned a phone call. Gantt says he regretted firing the women, but says it had to be done.
Missouri adoption regulators knew about the forgeries in August, after calls from other states. However, after an investigation, it was decided that Children's Hope International would not be sanctioned, and would keep its license.
Susan Shelton, a manager in the state Children's Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services, said on October 25, that police and prosecutors had not been contacted to investigate the forgery. However, on October 30, the Shelton's bosses decided to contact police about the case.
That occurred after Missouri State Senator John Loudon, a Republican from Ballwin, started asking about what happened. Loudon is a long time adoption advocate, who is concerned that the forgeries could affect future adoptions of Russian children. Loudon wants a full investigation, and says Missouri must come clean with the Russians.
Russian authorities are aware of the forgeries, but have not reacted in any way. Adoptions are still proceeding. In fact, less than a month ago, a group of Russian children were brought to the U.S. by their American adoptive parents.
Now that police are investigating, we'll keep a close eye on what develops.

——-

Zoe's Ark duped many who contributed thousands of dollars claiming it was helping chidlren in Darfur

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22741095-421,00.html?from=mostpop

——-

If it's possible to tell the good ones from the bad ones – how come people get ripped off every day?
Ken • Nov 21, 2007 @11:22 pm

If it’s possible to tell the good ones from the bad ones – how come people get ripped off every day?

Because a lot of people don't do due diligence. People get ripped off by businesses and charities every day; that doesn't prove that it's impossible to find reliable businesses and charities. Citing a few examples of bad agencies doesn't prove that it's impossible to pick a good one any more than pointing to Enron proves that it's impossible to pick a good stock. Responsible parents would look at longevity, reports from other parents, history of complaints, openness of records and financial information, availability of audits, presence of absence of profit motive, and similar factors — as one would in choosing a reliable charity, for instance. Yes, it would be very difficult to reach a reasonable comfort level with a new agency. So don't pick a new agency.
Mirah • Nov 21, 2007 @11:35 pm

Enron is a perfect example. How was anyone to know it was corrupt until AFTER the news reports?

I am not saying that ALL adoption agencies are corrupt. I am saying there is not way to know.

No adoption records are open. They are sealed because agencies work better that way. In my book I report the fact that many couples who are ripped off do not report the agencies or facilitators because they are afraid no one else will work with them. The better business bureau is useless.

You may have been lucky – but it's a pig in a poke! They are UNREGULATED. Even not-for-profit agencies can rip people off and can be passing on children that are stolen or kidnapped – even sometimes unbeknown to the agency at the end of the line!

The only way for an adopter to be absolutely sure is to deal with social services.

You may want to read "Ethics in American Adoption" by L. Anne Babb, also an adoptive parent.
Patrick • Nov 22, 2007 @12:04 am

Hi Mirah, I'm one of the members of this blog. Thanks for coming to comment. I don't have any particular interest in this topic (it's Ken's baby), but I read what you have to say and wanted clarification on a couple of points.

You suggest that maintaining a child's connection to his or her country of origin is in the child's best interests. Of course that's true, but does it trump all other interests, for instance, the child's interest in having a stable family life? I mention that because you seem to know a bit about Russia, where I have a bit of experience. As you certainly know Russia has undergone a collapse since the fall of the Soviet Union and while Putin is making some efforts to restore a more "normal" way of life in the country, it's still a basket case. The other post-Soviet republics are in much worse shape. Russian facilities for care of orphaned, abandoned, and neglected children are, to put it plainly, abominable. Things are worse still in the Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

Are you suggesting that it's in the interests of a typical Russian, Ukrainian, or Kazakh child to grow up in a facility where the child will receive education and care which in many cases is less than what may be afforded to residents of mental institutions in western societies? That's the alternative to adoption for many of these children. As you know, birth rates in the non-Muslim post-Soviet republics have been in decline since reliable figures became available in the 1980s. Why should we expect that there would be families in these countries ready, willing, and able to adopt, when by all accounts families aren't forming and the families that are often choose not to have children?

And those states are in relatively good shape. Where does one find the resources and facilities for permanent legal guardianship that you suggest in Uganda or Zaire? I imagine the guardian ad litem program in those countries is rather underfunded. It seems to me that your approach in this regard is rather dogmatic, in that what you prescribe for the welfare of neglected children in the most impoverished or unstable nations would require reforming entire societies. While certainly that would be for the best in, say, Sudan, is it reasonable to expect that to happen any time soon?

Also, by "connection or origins," could you define your terms a little more clearly? Are you speaking of ethnic/racial, linguistic, or cultural origins? I haven't read your book so I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Mirah • Nov 22, 2007 @12:34 pm

“You suggest that maintaining a child's connection to his or her country of origin is in the child's best interests.”

Actually I meant maintaining connection to his family as well.

“Of course that's true, but does it trump all other interests, for instance, the child's interest in having a stable family life? “

No but neither does is the converse true. Adoption most always moves a child to higher socio economic status and provides the child with material “advantages.” Does that replace the love of one’s mother? There is still a loss, which is why adoption is not a “win-win.” For the child he gains something and losses something. For his family it is just a loss.

“Are you suggesting that it's in the interests of a typical Russian, Ukrainian, or Kazakh child to grow up in a facility where the child will receive education and care which in many cases is less than what may be afforded to residents of mental institutions in western societies? That's the alternative to adoption for many of these children. “

I urge you to read “Romania for Export Only: The truth about the Romanian ‘orphans’” by Roelie Post.

“Where does one find the resources and facilities for permanent legal guardianship that you suggest in Uganda or Zaire?”

One could take a child and become a permanent legal guardian here in the US without an adoption which severs all the child’s ties, thus taking form him his name and his origins with one hand, while giving him a home with the other.

“It seems to me that your approach in this regard is rather dogmatic, in that what you prescribe for the welfare of neglected children in the most impoverished or unstable nations would require reforming entire societies.”

Again, these are not my original ideas – they are expressed by the United Nations…people in the trenches who know exactly what is and is to available in each and every one of these nations….and people who have nothing but the best interest of children in mind. THEY say that adoption should be a LAST RESORT! (UNICEF Press Release March 7, 2007)
Kathy • Nov 22, 2007 @6:52 pm

Mirah,
You do have a paint brush, and it's way too broad to have any effect.There are children in Romania who would LOVE to be adopted, what say you to that? There are children in many countries that I assume you have never visited. It's ok to have an agenda, or sell a book, whatever, but you are seriously lacking in experience or common sense. Good luck with your agenda, I am all for reform, but you are way too one sided to have any effective results. Your voice sounds caustic, not convincing.
Mirah • Nov 22, 2007 @8:25 pm

"There are children in Romania who would LOVE to be adopted, what say you to that?"

I repeat read: Romania for Export Only.

It was written by someone with NO AGENDA!
Mirah • Nov 22, 2007 @8:28 pm

And, I may have – in your opinion – a "paint brush" – but IMO, you have on rose-colored ethnocentric glasses. You believe everyone longs to be "rescued" by rich Americans!

You need to read and enlighten yourself to the realities.
Patrick • Nov 22, 2007 @8:35 pm

Mirah wrote:

One could take a child and become a permanent legal guardian here in the US without an adoption which severs all the child’s ties, thus taking form him his name and his origins with one hand, while giving him a home with the other.

Actually Mirah US immigration law doesn't allow this scenario. Without adoption the child couldn't cross the border.
Mirah • Nov 22, 2007 @8:42 pm

Oh gee….then maybe some of you would have to actually take a child from foster care! Or perhaps be a foster parent to a child in need. There are ONLY half a million of them right here in the US of A!
Patrick • Nov 22, 2007 @9:38 pm

Mirah, my wife and I have decided to remain childless, so I'm not a part of "you."

I was only pointing out that the guardianship process you advocate, for the benefit of children I'm sure, runs afoul of US law. Perhaps that part of your plan needs fine-tuning.

Thank you for the interesting discussion.
Derrick • Nov 22, 2007 @9:47 pm

I don't know about the rest of these guys, but I'd LOVE to be rescued by some rich Americans.
aegix • Nov 22, 2007 @9:47 pm

"You believe everyone longs to be “rescued” by rich Americans!

You need to read and enlighten yourself to the realities. "

So, now it comes to this? You cannot stand on the merits of your arguments and sling inane insults? Why do you think that every adoptive family feels this way? You talk as though you're a well-read advocate, but when taken to task, you resort to pettiness?

You seem to want to think this is yet another "ugly American" situation with all of us acting self-satisfied with our little trinkets we bought from afar.

You seem angry at any who has chosen adoption and seemingly don't care that they've done so with all of the best intentions.

Mirah, go back and re-read your responses with an open mind. Do you really think they help to enlighten or merely inflame? Like anyone who holds themselves in high regard and all others in contempt, the only person you end up convincing is yourself.

Sure, you attract attention…maybe even enough to speak somewhere or end up in a public debate. But you do nothing. You sway nobody. All this frenetic energy and nothing to show for it.
Mirah • Nov 22, 2007 @10:22 pm

November 22, 2007 8:43 a.m. EST

Vittorio Hernandez – AHN News Writer

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009239458

Guatemala City, Guatemala (AHN) – A study by experts from the government, church and charitable agencies said the rise in international adoptions of Guatemalan infants is due to the presence of a criminal ring controlling the baby trade. Since 2004, more than 18,000 adoptions have been approved by the state, involving millions of dollars.

With each adoption transaction generating from $13,000 to $40,000, the total amount involved between $234 million to $720 million. It is shared among participants of the infant trade that thrives because of the state's indifference, the study said.

Victims of the adoption ring have started the protest Monday in front of the Public Prosecutor's office. One Guatemalan mother, Ana Escobar, said two armed men beat her and took away her son. She told EFE News, "Before leaving, they told me they would kill me if I reported the kidnapping."

———-

As for permanent legal guardianship – you need to check state laws.
aegix • Nov 22, 2007 @10:22 pm

Oh, and if anyone really cares, check out http://international.adoptionblogs.com/index.php/weblogs/trash-adoption-sell-a-book

whereby Mirah is asked some very pointed questions and evades them all.

The main question asked which she never seems to have an answer for is: If international adoption is wrong, what is the short-term answer to the millions of children needing help? Not in 20, ten or ever five years. Right now. What is your plan to save children from neglect, abuse and starvation who might otherwise have a chance through adoption?

Also, you Mirah seems unfailing fond at finding problems within the vast world of adoption, especially adoption agencies, and yet hold the flag of UNICEF as the unyielding truth in the matter. Mirah, if I show you problems of corruption and problems within UNICEF, will you publicly shun them as well? What about the UN? I mean, if you're for unreproachable and absolute honesty and integrity, you wouldn't dare promote the agenda of any organization that had a chink in the armor, would you?
Patrick • Nov 22, 2007 @10:52 pm

No Mirah I'm afraid I don't need to check state laws regarding permanent legal guardianship in this context. I'm a lawyer and a member of AILA. If you're advising people that a child can immigrate into this country under a guardian/ward relationship, you're giving people very poor advice.
Mirah • Nov 22, 2007 @10:58 pm

Patrick,

For an attorney, you are a poor reader. i NEVER said anyone could bring a child into this country and become their guardian.

A search on this page of every time "I" used of the word guardian reveals the following:

1) "- when there is not extended family to car for a child, permanent legal guardianship that does not sever a child’s connection to his origins is in the child’s’ best interest."

2) "One could take a child and become a permanent legal guardian here in the US without an adoption which severs all the child’s ties, thus taking form him his name and his origins with one hand, while giving him a home with the other."

3) "As for permanent legal guardianship – you need to check state laws."

Please try reading the words I have written, Patrick, not the ones you chose to insert between the lines, or your interpretation of what I have written.
Patrick • Nov 22, 2007 @11:59 pm

Mirah, I guess what I'm curious about is your point in even bringing up this guardianship scheme when it's impossible? Why do you even mention it?

I know that you're an expert on international adoptions. You've told us so and you've even written a book on the topic. Very impressive. So as an expert on international adoptions, which must of course entail some expertise in the adoption process (which is all about immigration), it seems odd to me, as a non-expert, that you would promote an alternative which anyone with the slightest grasp of immigration practice would know is ludicrous.

And when you're questioned about this, you give answers that seem to be less than responsive. I want to have a frank discussion with you and learn from you, but for instance when I mention Russia and the former Soviet republics, you reply that I need to read some book about Romania. Romania was never a part of the Soviet Union. What exactly was your point?

You seem to be well-informed, but it's hard to take you seriously when you miss something so elementary.

I wonder.
Ken • Nov 23, 2007 @7:48 am

Wow, spend the day cooking and gluttonizing and see what I miss.

Mirah, correct me if I'm wrong, but you've written that adoption is inherently racist, right? In fact, you've led one of your essays with that claim — along with approvingly citing people who think it is cultural genocide.

You say that we ought to be adopting from foster care. Am I unreasonable to suspect that you're going to pull out the cultural genocide thing again if I adopt a child of a different ethnicity from foster care? Of course, if I try to adopt a child of my own ethnicity, I'll be playing into your stereotype of adoptive parents as racists. You've constructed a world where adoptive parents are evil no matter what they do, haven't you?
Kathy • Nov 23, 2007 @5:03 pm

I mentioned Romania, Patrick, and I think Mirah might have been responding to that.
Mirah, I think you have taken ground breaking action to bring voice to first mothers and you have a right to your own thoughts and feelings, but without some balance, I don't think you can be as effective as you might be. But who am I to tell you?
As an aside, while legal guardianship might not be plausible for immigration reasons, I think the idea itself has merit. On the other hand, I feel that children
want somebody to call Mom. And my own ethnocentric view is that growing up in an institution is bad. There has already been work toward domestic adoption and foster care in countries like China, but I can assure you that there are still plenty of kids there who need families, especially older kids.
Mirah • Nov 23, 2007 @5:09 pm

"I can assure you that there are still plenty of kids there who need families, especially older kids."

As there are here.
Ansley • Nov 23, 2007 @11:33 pm

Great post, Ken. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.
aegix • Nov 24, 2007 @6:40 pm

"“I can assure you that there are still plenty of kids there who need families, especially older kids.”

As there are here. "

Yahbutt, it's hard to hear your message with methods of delivery.
Mirah • Nov 25, 2007 @5:16 am

I hope that all of you here will read the following story. I did not write it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=496235&in_page_id=1879

"Why did an adoption agency tell Angelina Jolie I had died of AIDS when they gave her my baby?"

I ask you to read it and then answer two questions, not to me, but to yourselves:

1) Why with all of Angelina's money, connections and power was SHE not able to know to truth and why did she deal with unscrupulous people who, I am sure she was convinced and assured were honest?

2) Will Zahara be more upset about her mother having been raped, or more upset about all the lies surrouding her adoption and feel nothing but sympathy for her mother's plight and the fact that she was taken from a loving family by baby brokers who also victimized her mother?
Mirah • Nov 25, 2007 @5:17 am

Re-doing the link tot he story to be sure you can access it:

http://tinyurl.com/38526d

Sometimes the truth is hard to accept, but don't shoot the messenger.
Mirah • Nov 25, 2007 @5:29 am

The revelation that Zahara's mother is alive and living on £1 a week while she struggles to complete her education will come as a huge embarrassment to Wide Horizons For Children, which claims to have placed more than 10,000 children from all over the world with Western families since 1974.

Dr Tsegaye Berhe, head of the agency in Ethiopia, said he had been told Zahara's mother was dead at the time of the adoption and had the official papers to prove it.

"We have to trust the documents we received. She (Almaz) has signed, three witnesses have signed, but the document is saying something different to what she is saying now. She said her daughter had died."
————-

Do you see that one can investigate and feel assured that the agency they are dealing with ethical and still be the recipient of a stolen child?

Yes…it is is impossible to tell the truth in a corrupt system like this when the baby thieves lie and falsify documents and sell babies to agencies who are them sold internationally. THIS is what I am saying! Why is it so hard to believe?

This post was started put of concern for Zahara. if you are truly concerned about the Zahara's of the world, you will open your eyes to this ugly reality, not hide behind blinders and call me misinformed or painting with a too broad brush..
Ken • Nov 25, 2007 @8:35 am

Mirah, spamming stories to the thread does not make you any more right or your conclusion any more logical. You assert that the fact that Angelina Jolie chose an adoption agency with problems as proof that it is impossible to distinguish good agencies from bad. But how do we know Jolie made any real efforts to educate herself about the issues? Based on what do you conclude that she made any real effort to distinguish a good agency from a bad one? Many agencies do not do business in countries like Ethiopia precisely because such abuse is possible there, and many concerned adoptive parents avoid adoption from those countries for the same reason.

Frankly, your sneer about blinders is silly. As is increasingly clear from comparing the original post and other comments to yours, you regard anyone who fails to accept your every conclusion without critical thought as wearing blinders.

And I note you have failed to answer my questions. Have you not written that all adoption is racist? Do you not regard cross-racial adoption as inappropriate? You purport to support domestic adoption from foster care, but is that really true — or is it merely your pose for the moment, with your attacks on THOSE adoptive parents reserved for when they become the issue?
Kathy • Nov 25, 2007 @11:47 am

Ken, maybe we could give Jolie one free mistake, but how about her adoption from Cambodia? Look up Lauryn Gallindo, who assisted in that adoption and served time in prison for stealing children from families.
Also, under the UN rights of children, they have a right to their culture, language, and religion. Far too many of us adoptive parents fall short in providing these basic rights.
While I still maintain that there are children who are in need of families, much needs to be done to protect children and families from the huge power that adoptive families wield in the the adoption industry.
aegix • Nov 25, 2007 @10:52 pm

I don't have the facts, but if I were to guess what happened with AJ was probably along the lines of her going to a country and falling in love with a particular child and then working backwards to adopt that particular child. Perhaps with an "any means possible" bent, and finding the "right" people along the way to make it happen.

No, it absolutely does not make it right. In fact, it's all wrong for the right reasons. I was suspicious when AJ was able to adopt even after Cambodia was formally shut down from international adoptions and only hoped that she was doing everything legitimately and was already in process.

I'm very concerned about the recent wave of adoptions among the celebrity elite; the fact that it can look to be rather insincere and trendy. Let's face it: Whenever any celebrity does anything, even something like lobbying Congress on behalf of a particular need, it comes off as entirely self-serving and artificial. This certainly smacks of that if we allow cynical side to rule our thoughts.

Human right violations of all sorts need to be combated, whether it be sex slavery, indentured servitude or baby trafficking. Yes, I do recognize that adoption, by it's very existence, causes bad things to happen in the world. But, can we unilaterally say that it causes all of it? Or that the good that comes of it should be ignored? Or that it should be thrown out when we cannot plausibly find a remediating solution?

And Kathy, I'm sorry that I cannot raise my Korean-born sons in a Korean household, with Korean language, religion and customs, but if it meant that they have a family that loves them unconditionally versus an institution and a culture that would very well shun them, I'll thumb my nose at the UN any day.

I've talked to literally dozens of adoptees when researching a book. I asked each of them if they felt something was wrong or missing with their lives as they lived it and the lives they may have fantasized about. The result? The vast majority felt that their adoption was wonderfully acceptable and normal, that their fantasy life had more to do about finding the right mate or having an exciting career more than it had about searching for something they thought was missing.
Mirah • Nov 26, 2007 @10:30 am

Aegix,

You make some good points. I would just add one thought: The end doesn't justify the means. That adoptees are aware of the "advantages" they may have gained through adoption does not justify supporting criminal elements and possibly taking a child that was kidnapped, or conned from parents who wanted him.
aegix • Nov 26, 2007 @12:57 pm

"The end doesn’t justify the means. That adoptees are aware of the “advantages” they may have gained through adoption does not justify supporting criminal elements and possibly taking a child that was kidnapped, or conned from parents who wanted him."

Let me tell you a story. My wife and I perform some charity work for a local benefit dinner for the agency we've used, Holt. The benefit dinner routinely raises $80K+ each year to directly benefit programs in host countries. Most of the programs do not support international adoption, but rather go to foster care, orphanages and long-term care facilities for disabled adults in the countries Holt is active in.

This year, the benefit was to fund the programs for an institution for disabled adults in Il Sun, South Korea. I know we raised more money this year than any years prior. I also know that we gave up our family vacations this year to re-direct those funds for the benefit. I don't say this to pat myself on the back, but does that sound like a family willingly supports adoption terrorism?

Maybe Holt families are different? I don't know. I can only tell you of the dozens of families I've interacted with that they understand their "mission" goes beyond adopting their child; that our obligation is people first, our families second.

Additionally, most of those families have adopted children with disabilities, too. Everything from the surgically fixable to the neurologically impaired. The big stuff. The non-glamorous stuff. The kind of problems where, hopefully, people like you stop and ask yourself if we are the types of people you're talking about when you rant.

As I've said before, adoption is not the perfect solution. We certainly don't pretend it is, but we're trying to do something in the face of a dismal alternative reality.
Mirah • Nov 26, 2007 @2:00 pm

Aegix,

I am sorry that you have seemed to take my comments personally. That you and others "give back' is wonderful and commendable. It does not erase the fact that many children are taken illegally from parents and trafficked for adoption, and the advantages they gain from their advantages do not undo that fact. Period. I am not speaking of you personally. I am speaking of the entire industry of adoption that is ramapant with sorruption.

If I were writing about the pharmaceutical industry and how they work to keep prices at unfordable levels – or the health care industry with its inequities…do you think that individual stories of how a medication or health care treatment helped you or someone your know changes the over all problems internet in those industries?

Despite cirticisms, I do not paint with THAT broad a brush. Have you seen me say that ALL adoptions are corrupt? NO! Have you seen me say that adoptive parents are bad or evil people, or that they do not believe what they are doing is rescuing an "unwanted" child? NO.

But does any of that mean we do not have work to do clean up a problematic industry that is out of control? No, it does not.
aegix • Nov 26, 2007 @2:13 pm

"Despite cirticisms, I do not paint with THAT broad a brush. Have you seen me say that ALL adoptions are corrupt? NO! Have you seen me say that adoptive parents are bad or evil people, or that they do not believe what they are doing is rescuing an “unwanted” child?"

Exhibit A: "You believe everyone longs to be “rescued” by rich Americans!"

"But does any of that mean we do not have work to do clean up a problematic industry that is out of control? No, it does not."

Mirah, every adoptive family knows this and you would do well to find a way to activate their partnership rather than being so devisive.
Mirah • Nov 26, 2007 @2:47 pm

Aegix,

You are quite right and I DO work side by side with adoptive parents who work to erase the profiteering and corruption in adoption. People like; David Smolin, Richard Boas, Anne Babb, Elizabeth Larsen to name just a few.

Again, I am sorry that you take things personally, or I was unclear. Stating that many adopters believe — or are encouraged to believe – the myth that adoption resuces "unwanted" children is not a pejorative of those who adopt. My comment addressed the fact that there is overall ethnocentricity in adoption.
Ken • Nov 26, 2007 @2:59 pm

Despite cirticisms, I do not paint with THAT broad a brush.

Hmm…….

Adoption is racist.

Mirah, here.

…adoption is classist…

Mirah, here.
Mirah • Nov 26, 2007 @3:14 pm

Thanks, Ken!
Kathy • Nov 26, 2007 @5:23 pm

Aegix, I am surprised that you speak so highly of Holt. I don't think Holt families are better than the rest. I read "From Morning Calm to Midnight Sun" by Sunny Jo, and she was lied to about her records. Also, "Scattered Seeds" by Jae Ran Kim gives the plausible idea that maybe "Grandpa Holt" was just a good businessman who was able to find a need and fill it. I am not singling out Holt by any means. We need to work together to bring about ethical adoption. The Hague doesn't do nearly enough to provide education and reform. However, I don't think it is a good idea to close IA, and fund permanent childhood warehouses either, which is what the system in the US has turned into, sometimes in the name of "family preservation".
Mirah, my opinions are not intended as criticism, but rather, my attempt to discuss issues. While I do believe you have made many valid points, I still don't agree with everything you say, just as you most likely disagree with my point of view as well. Thanks so much for your response.
aegix • Nov 26, 2007 @6:13 pm

Kathy,

My discussion of my experiences with Holt were certainly not to boost them up, nor put the tinge that "Holt families are better than the rest." Moreso, I'm pointing out my different experiences because of my relative myopia (than those of you who have experience with more agencies).

I'm under no pretenses that Holt is perfect or wonderful. I'm sure there are problems, but our experiences have been largely positive. Could have someone been lied to about records? Absolutely. But you aren't clear about who actually did the lying…the agency or some government representative. When was this? Recently, or at some time in the past? If in the past, is it plausible that things have gotten better?

I have not read the books you mentioned, but have read a couple of books written by or about the Holts. It's difficult to imagine that Harry and Bertha got into this to make money considering the hardships they experienced. Could I be the consumer of opportunistic propaganda? Perhaps. I'll admit that I haven't felt the need to independently verify everything.

Have you looked into the backgrounds and critically looked at the authors you mentioned? Is there perhaps an ax to grind? I don't know, but I become rather tired of people urging me to read something as a means to greater understanding and yet aren't performing due diligence on their end.
Kathy • Nov 26, 2007 @7:28 pm

Aegix, it saddens me that you think I have an ax to grind. On the contrary, I love my children and I am very much in favor of international adoption. In fact, I am glad that I adopted them, but I don't think adoption agencies are working in our best interests. Harry and Bertha Holt, you know, Grandma and Grandpa, are not much different than any other adoption agency, it's the money.
As far as critically looking at the authors, yes, I have read Harlow's Monkey for a long time. And I trust the author. I also trust Sunny Jo's experience, just as I respect Mirah's
Ken • Nov 26, 2007 @7:32 pm

Kathy, I'd prefer that this not be a venue for boosting or criticizing any particular agency, but I believe Holt is actually a nonprofit.
Mirah • Nov 26, 2007 @8:08 pm

Non-profit is not a guarantee against wrong-doing. Many non-profits are earning huge salaried for CEOs. And let me be clear that I did not say that all non-profits are bad. I believe Zoe's Ark was non profit…ad was collecting donations under false pretenses in addition to stealing chidlren under false pretenses. This is a perfect example of how people are lulled into feeling secure. Think about all the "charities" that have been brought up on charges of fraud! Think about some of the things done by preachers and priests etc. Nothing is a guarantee of moral fortitude.
Patrick • Nov 26, 2007 @8:50 pm

Mirah, just out of curiosity… Is there an agency which arranges international adoptions of which you approve? Is there one good German in the bunch?
Mirah • Nov 26, 2007 @9:09 pm

i'm sorry, I do not. I had heard that Holt is one of the better ones. That might not be correct according to Kathy. It is very hard to get accurate feedback. We usually only hear about the horror cases that make headlines. Otherwise, it is not like looking teachers up on a university website or comparing electronic reviews. This is why I stated earlier that is is misnomer to believe that any amount of research can rule out a problematic adoption, or a less than ethical agency or adoption provider. In most states, they are not licensed or regulated by the government, except as a business.
Ken • Nov 26, 2007 @9:47 pm

Non-profit is not a guarantee against wrong-doing.

No one said that it did. I was responding to a particular comment about a particular agency. However, clearly profit motive is one factor. After all, you emphasize it quite a bit, don't you?

Many non-profits are earning huge salaried for CEOs.

Which can be determined by reading, for instance, their annual reports.

This is a perfect example of how people are lulled into feeling secure.

You continue to portray anyone who doesn't accept all of your arguments as being "lulled" or credulous. This is ironic.
Mirah • Nov 26, 2007 @10:07 pm

Ken,

I feel you twist everything i say. I do not feel that "anyone who doesn’t accept all of your arguments as being “lulled” or credulous." I am sympathetic to adopters who are scammed as well mothers who are exploited, is there a problem with that? I hear from them all the time. i know it happens to the most intelligent people. It happened ironically enough to Consumer Advocate Jamie Court and his wife, a public interest and civil rights attorney! (Jamie Court, “Beware the Baby Profiteers.” LA Times, August 20, 2006)
aegix • Nov 26, 2007 @10:23 pm

Kathy,

The "ax" comment was directed about the authors, if they had an ax to grind, not you. My point, also, is whether or not you're critically evaluating the authors and their reasons for writing their books. I say this because I see a huge chasm between what I understand of what the Holts went through in the early years after the Korean War and what you, via these authors, are saying.

When you say things like, "it's the money," what are you even saying? I mean, are you familiar with their story?
Kathy • Nov 27, 2007 @11:02 am

I provided some examples that are fairly easy to search for on line, but I do not intend to single out any one agency. The amount of money involved in adoption today is huge, it's clearly an industry.
aegix • Nov 27, 2007 @12:20 pm

Kathy,

You're making no sense. Answer this question: Are you familiar with the early years of Harry and Bertha in South Korea? If so, can you delineate how those experiences directly match up with being in the adoption business "for the money?"

Telling me to "go search for it online" is not an effective means to supporting your argument, btw.
Kathy • Nov 27, 2007 @1:47 pm

aegix, I am trying to honor Ken's request about discussing adoption agencies,
according to The Adoption History Project, the Holts placed Korea children in homes with parents who had been rejected by other agencies and overlooked
minimum standards of social workers. Their criteria was religious, and they believed they were rescuing children from a horrible country. Sort of like some
China adopters who think they are rescuing children from heathens. If the Holts
were so rich and powerful as to successfully lobby for a law to allow foreign adoption, and the agency is now either the largest or one of the largest adoption agencies in the world, and adoption generates a lot of money, it's not hard to think that money is a big factor.
Here's the link to the Adoption History: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Eadoption/people/holt.htm
Ken • Nov 27, 2007 @2:03 pm

I'm torn between arguing and following my inclination not to make this a forum to advocate or bash particular agencies. I think I'll follow the latter and simply say that I respectfully but forcefully disagree with the characterizations on a number of grounds.
Kathy • Nov 27, 2007 @2:09 pm

Hi Ken,
Thanks, it was a great discussion and I am not interested in bashing any agency, but I was torn myself between answering the question or just letting it go.
Thank you for hosting this topic.
aegix • Nov 27, 2007 @3:26 pm

Ok Ken, since this is your sandbox, I'll be respectful, but for the record Kathy, there is nothing in that link that supports your assertions. It's apparent you won't argue on the merits of fact and so, we'll continuously be mired in the tarpit that opinions matter.
Kathy • Nov 27, 2007 @7:12 pm

Hey aexgix, either you can't READ or you are STUPID. which is it?
Ken • Nov 27, 2007 @7:13 pm

Cool it.
aegix • Nov 27, 2007 @8:30 pm

LOL…interesting that both Kathy and Mirah resort to little more than name calling when directly questioned. Why is it so hard to answer questions? Why do both of you get so angry when people don't buy your schlepping without critically evaluating it?