I actually have similiar questions for domestic adoptions.

I’m not opposed to international adoption.  We adopted domestically twice and it’s been a wonderful experience.  I know many people have had great experiences with international adoption too.  I think it’s human nature to focus on the negative.  There are many successful adoption cases, both domestic and international, but focus always seems to go toward the few horror stories.

Here’s a place to begin reading:

http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/adoption/index.html

I do not hear those of us revealing some of the unpopular, but real truths about international adoption expressing the view that we are “against” international adoption.  We ARE wanting people to recognize that while international adoption has helped, it has also CAUSED children to be separated from their original families, countries, cultural heritage, language, and has often thrust them into a situation in which they are growing up with parents of a different race—which is harder and more fraught with problems than most people realize that it is. 

    The UN has been one of the strongest proponents of stopping the trafficking of children, and the removal of children from their original families and countries.  Although there are many many children who are living in dire circumstances, they are not necessarily without people who love them and have stepped in to raise them.  When I was working with the Australian government, for example, they asked for training for workers whose job it is to provide services to refugee families because many of those families were raising children they had taken in but had no genetic ties to, and without any sort of formalized arrangement (foster care or adoption).  That is the way that many to most societies have functioned throughout all of our known history as humans, and it has not been any less successful in providing for children’s needs than has international adoption—especially when those are transracial adoptions.  The effort is to find ways to provide for children in their own countries, while keeping them as connected to their extended families or at least to the families in their communities as possible.  Does that mean that those of us who believe we have an obligation to advocate for that, and to expose the extremely troubling information that many children have been procured for adoption through trafficking are opposed to international adoption? No, it does not!

    You may not wish to believe that child trafficking has led to a high percentage of children placed for adoption having been made available.  However, the reality is that country program after country program IS being shut down because that IS the case.  And the number of available children has been steadily diminishing.  In many cases, countries only send children who have special needs conditions, and know that their populace so stigmatizes those conditions that those children truly are unadoptable in their countries-of-origin. 

    No one suggested that it is better for a child to grow up in an orphanage than to be adopted and grow up in a loving, American family.  The trouble is that many of the children are not in the situations you are describing.  They would not be handed over by their parents if international adoption wasn’t being pushed down their throats as offering a superior life, and if they were not being asked to trade their child for money to help care for the rest of their children.  Many others are in loving foster homes—in families who would love to keep and raise them but are not allowed because the orphanange directors would not enjoy the same financial benefits if that were to happen. 

    Think about the ENORMOUS sums of money people are spending to adopt ONE child, and imagine how far that $$ could go towards supporting children in intact families. providing support for foster care or children’s villages, for providing adequate medical care so that families don’t feel compelled TO abandon or hand over their children. 

Jane A. Brown, MSW

Think about the ENORMOUS sums of money people are spending to adopt ONE child, and imagine how far that $$ could go towards supporting children in intact families. providing support for foster care or children’s villages, for providing adequate medical care so that families don’t feel compelled TO abandon or hand over their children.

Jane A. Brown, MSW

THIS.  This is it… in a nutshell.  This is it.

rn4kidz, I posted the following on another thread.

None of us want children in orphanages. However, many of us feel that encouraging programs that help prevent children going into orphanages in the first place is worth an effort too.

You might find the following sites interesting as they are interested in keeping children out of orphanages by using preventative measures:

http://www.replace-campaign.org/positive-solutions/index.html

+ pages on the 5 of the charities they recommend you support:

http://www.replace-campaign.org/positive-solutions/cws.html
http://www.replace-campaign.org/positive-solutions/big-shoes.html
http://www.replace-campaign.org/positive-solutions/each-inc.html
http://www.replace-campaign.org/positive-solutions/childs-i-foundation.html
http://www.replace-campaign.org/positive-solutions/hope-for-children.html

They also have an interesting section about the damage volunteering in orphanages can do:

“What follows is a synopsis of ‘AIDS orphan tourism: A threat to young children in residential care’ a study by Linda M. Richter and Amy Norman.
The study focuses on AIDS orphans in Africa, but it applies to volunteers at all orphanages. It is a fascinating read for all people considering spending time, or who have spent time as a volunteer at an orphanage.
Organisers of voluntourism will no doubt find this interesting as well.”

http://www.replace-campaign.org/volunteering.html

Btw beautifully said, Jane.

I am going to adamantly disagree with the following ” Think about the ENORMOUS sums of money people are spending to adopt ONE child, and imagine how far that $$ could go towards supporting children in intact families. providing support for foster care or children’s villages, for providing adequate medical care so that families don’t feel compelled TO abandon or hand over their children. Jane A. Brown, MSW”
and accurately reflects why I also had questions on domestic adoption.

The sentiment suggests that rather than puruse adoption, hopeful parents should instead fund other people’s problems and attempts to paint adoptive parents as predators and birth parents as victims.  The stark reality is that there are people who can biologically breed who have no business being parents and there are people who cannot procreate who would make outstanding parents.

The bias against potential adoptive parents is very apparent by some people in the adoption field who rather than focus on what is in the best interest of the child hold to a distorted view of why birth parents seek adoptive parents and why adoptive parents seek children.

Dr. John Volkerding

I’m not sure exactly who “the many” and “the few” are, but I do know that corruption in adoption is as old as the industry itself.  The problem is not just a few horror stories.

I remember moving to Germany in 1990.  It was a wonderful time to be in Germany.  There was a sense of history in the making.  Pink Floyd played “The Wall” on The Wall.  Slow little eastern Euro cars were popping up on the Autobahn.  Reunification was in the works, and by Oct 3, I stepped out on my patio at midnight to hear the church bells ring. 

By 1990, I was already reunited with my natural family, and in fact, my natural dad drove me to the airport when I moved.  I knew that no less than half of my ancestors were German speakers.  We hadn’t done the research yet.  We didn’t know their exact origin, but I did know that I was only a 3rd generation American on one of my lines, and my grandfathers both spoke some German.  So I was filled with curiosity about the country.  I wanted to see everything and learn all I could about Germany.  Not just every adoptee gets the opportunity to submerse themselves in her ancestral origins, and I was smitten with the idea.

I was also bombarded by an advertising campaign pleading for the cause of Romanian orphans.  I don’t mean there was a poster here or there.  I mean there was this massive cry for someone to please come fetch these orphans who were hopelessly abandoned and suffering in the aftermath of Communism.  I had never considered adopting, but when it got hard to sleep at night worrying about these poor, neglected infants languishing in cribs, desperate for human attention, I called. 

Let me make this clear.  I was not trying to build a family.  I was not trying to satisfy a personal need or desire of any kind.  I had not, at that date, had any experience with the adoption industry apart from my own adoption. 

I called, and I asked what needed to happen to help one of these children.  The answer was $10,000.  Excuse me?  Whatever was that man smoking?  These children were supposed to be dying in orphanages.  They were developmentally delayed due to lack of care.  I was within driving distance of Romania.  I was willing to make a commitment to raise one of these children if it really meant the difference between thriving and dying.  And I needed to give some middle man $10,000 in exchange for a child?  Pfft.  I told him there must not be nearly as big of a problem as his advertisements made it sound if he thought he could sell these kids for $10,000 a pop.

Putting 2 and 2 together does not require a degree in rocket science.  They were marketing and selling babies.  At the very least, they were executing a get-rich-quick scheme built upon the misfortune of others.  Of course, now that history is written, that’s no secret.  But apparently there were people who thought that $10,000 was a reasonable sum to obtain a child.  I’m guessing those people were not in it for strictly humanitarian reasons.  The price doubled before Romania was shut down. 

You know, when organizations demand high sums of money in exchange for caring for a child who is alleged to be in dire circumstances, one should properly assume corruption.  It is a completely reasonable conclusion.  I don’t understand why people don’t get it.

So why did you yourself, Jane, adopt quite a few children instead of just handing over the money to “support children in intact families”, provide support for foster care or children’s villages, provide adequate medical care so that families were not compelled to abandon or hand over their children?  Why did you EST have children of your own, rather than just donating the ENORMOUS amount of money it cost to raise them to these worthy causes?  If you are suggesting other people live this way why not walk your talk?

The incidents of child trafficking are horrifying, and I have posted information about those before as I feel we are all better off knowing this information so we can be careful.  But in the countries listed on the site Jeanne posted (which I am glad to learn of by the way) the documented trafficking does not even approach 1% of the adoptions to the US alone from those countries.  Yes, there is probably more that we do not know about, but yes there probably also are many more children dying of famine and wars before they can even make it to orphanages than we will ever know about either. 

It bothers me to see “facts” that are not true.  Like your statement Jane that there are NOT millions of homeless orphans. I far more trust the words of those who have been there and seen with their own eyes the children being left nightly at orphanages in countries like Ethiopia because their parents are dying of AIDs or brought daily by police who found them roaming the streets, starving and homeless in countries at war like the Congo.  Do you doubt the news footage of the Romanian orphanages with children stacked in rooms, and no toys, and barely the care to survive?  Do you really think the parents of those children made a bundle off their sale?  With so much documentation of the staggering numbers of orphans, it is just a fantasy and a false comfort to imagine that they do not exist or that “people have stepped in” to provide for their care.

And while we are at it, it is disturbing to see people assuming that only in other countries does child abuse or child trafficking happen. Right on this site there are posters who have written about being sold or abused. 

All of the causes you list above are excellent uses of money, and people who step in to provide care for others not their own are definitely living in a way that has helped many before survive and will I hope continue to help us survive.  But this does NOT negate from the fact that adopting a homeless child and raising that child in a decent caring family is also a kind and decent way to help others. I really would like to see some open dialogue about how the child trafficking and child abuse could be stopped. I don’t think criticizing those who choose to adopt or pretending the children who desperately want and need homes in International orphanages or domestic adoptions don’t exist is the best way to have this dialogue.

Happy camper, I personally listed all the different causes because the OP asked:
“I guess my question is, for those against international adoption, why do you feel it’s better for these kids to remain in substandard orphanages than to be adopted by a loving, American family?”
I personally was trying to point out that I am not so much against international adoption per se but more against the perception that there is only a choice between remaining in substandard orphanages and being adopted by loving American families.

Others pointed out that the money involved in international adoption (and no-one is blaming the APs per se) can cause corruption as you acknowledge. 

The other problem also is that adoption can end up being used as a safety net by countries so that they don’t feel the need to develop resources.

Btw you might all find this debate interesting between Elizabeth Bartholet and David Smolin:

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=david_smolin

“Think about the ENORMOUS sums of money people are spending to adopt ONE child, and imagine how far that $$ could go towards supporting children in intact families. providing support for foster care or children’s villages, for providing adequate medical care so that families don’t feel compelled TO abandon or hand over their children. “

Except that would never happen. Just like today, the middlemen get the most of the money. All that money sent to, say, bring water to a village, will end up going into a bureaucrat’s pocket. I remember reading an article about people who thought they were sponsoring children to go to school. It turned out, very few of the children were getting the money/schooling. In one case, the mother was taking the money and doing whatever was needed with it. In another, the person who received the money on behalf of the children split it with the school, and the children never even knew they were supposed to be able to go.

I adopted domestically. I know a lot more about domestic adoption than international adoption. From what I do know, there are three camps, with most people being in the first two.

#1: International adoption is good. Sure, there may be trafficking, but that’s not happening in my situation.

#2: International adoption is bad. It should only be a last resort, if it happens at all.

#3: International adoption is good *and* bad. A lot needs to be done to ensure that corruption stops (or is kept to a minimum). However, stopping international adoption ends up hurting children too.

I’m in camp #3. There aren’t any easy solutions.

I would also argue that growing up with one’s extended family or friends in a refugee camp is probably more difficult than growing up in a loving adoptive family in the US or Europe, even allowing for the challenges in transracial adoption.

Again, no easy solutions.

Happy Camper,

I suppose there probably were children really living as portrayed in those heart wrenching ads.  Did parents really make money on their adoptions?  Yes. 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123967&page=1

I don’t assume it only happens in other countries.  I know what happened to my mother.  I wasn’t sold.  In fact, my grandfather was billed $387 for my birth and my mother’s confinement.  But I certainly wasn’t voluntarily relinquished.  And it’s difficult to read my paperwork without coming to the conclusion that I was bought.  From my Adoptive Home Visit:

“Worker said that he was carrying a three year old adoption now.  Mrs. ****** stated that they would borrow the money to pay for [my nickname at the time] if they had to.  Mrs.****** also explained their desire to obtain another child.  They would like to have about a two and a half year difference in ages between the two, and not much larger.”

Anyone want to guess how much younger my adoptive brother is than me?  I had a first cousin who was born just a year and a half after I was born.  She was surrendered through the same agency, and my grandparents asked that she be placed with me.  I guess she was born too soon because I’m still looking for her.  It’s a hard, cold business, taking special orders for children. 

I have no siblings due to the “care” my mother received during my delivery.  It’s probably even more disturbing to me now that I know my daughter has my mother’s negative blood type and could potentially be rendered infertile, or at least incapable of bearing children with a man who has a positive blood type, if she was subjected to the kind of obstetric “care” my mother received during my delivery. 

How do you stop the trafficking?  Um, quit funding it.  Back when I was born, the left hand really didn’t know for sure what the right hand was doing.  Adoption happened behind a curtain, and people didn’t compare notes.  My god, the world has changed since then.  Even knowing what I knew about my own adoption, I really didn’t comprehend that what happened in my case was engineered and executed on a mass scale. 

It’s hard to hear your mother recount how she was mutilated by an extreme episiotomy during your delivery.  It’s quite another to come online and realize that this was a fairly common experience for unwed mothers at that point in history.  For the grace of god, I would have rather never seen the light of day than to know my mother suffered that sort of injustice bringing me into this world.  To think that someone did it intentionally is sobering.

People can sitting around debating the righteousness or lack thereof in their own motivations to adopt, but you absolutely cannot ignore the fact that the child you bring home may one day decide to investigate the facts of his or her own birth.  And there is a chance that they may get real, solid, undeniable answers.  And then what? 

My parents and their generation can claim ignorance.  This generation cannot.

So Jeanne, you think the solution to trafficking is just to boycott, like dealing with vegetables that are not union.  Just turn one’s back on all the very real children without any parents, or whose parents were abusive or too drunk or drugged out to care for them and stroll righteously (your word) away?!

You might read The Boy From Baby House 10 - by Alan Philips and John Lahutsky.  It’s subtitle is “From the nightmare of a Russian Orphanage to a new lIfe in America”.  It’s a book, so it would take more time to read, but it also more informative. Another perspective by an adoptee.

No one would wish on you or your mother her experience which as you say was common, horrifyingly so.  But then it is not the experience of all adoptees today either.  You say your parents can claim ignorance, and this generation can not.  True.  Hopefully this knowledge makes inroads to eliminate trafficking.  Unlike years ago, most adoptive parents today not only welcome their child’s search for their birth parents and ancestry, when it is unknown,  but even more than that make a real effort to preserve information on a child’s history, and keep up a connection with the birth parents in the first place, (when possible and safe for the child to do so).  Those of us adopting older children also have the opportunity to make sure the child is in agreement with the adoption from the start.

Rredhead::

I think my answer is 2.5 lol.  I don’t think international adoption is bad per se, but I do think it should be one of the last resorts.  Before anyone goes “OMG, OMG she wants orphans left laaaanguishing in orphanages!!!!!!!!”, of course that is not what I mean lol.  I think most people who feelvthat IA should be a large resort mean it should be considered, after family preservation if viable and when this is not possible, in-country adoption. 

The following organisation is one that deals with abandoned babies in Uganda.  It gives an insight into how many of those that feel IA should be a large resort feel the “orphan problem” should be handled:

“Poverty, diseases, rape and incest; domestic violence and rapid urbanization all contribute to a huge number of children being abandoned, neglected and abused in Uganda. There is no welfare safety net and the support traditionally provided by the extended family has been eroded by HIV/AIDS, poverty and war.
Historically, at-risk children are placed in long term institutional care which rarely even meet their most basic needs and inhibit their mental and physical development. A rule of thumb is that for every three months that a young child resides in an institution, they lose one month of development.
Child’s i Foundation wants to give families another choice – to keep their children. They want children grow up loved and cherished with a sense of belonging in a family instead of growing up as an orphan.
Malaika Care
Many babies are abandoned in the hospitals, car parks and roadsides of Kampala and admitted into our care malnourished, traumatised and weak. Malaika Babies Home provides temporary protective care for up to 25 children aged between 0-2 years old. Every child receives their own care plan and carer to give them the attention they need to recover and thrive whilst we find them a permanent home within six months to avoid long-term psychological damage.
Supporting Families
Many mothers abandon their babies because they feel they have no choice. So far we’ve given over 100 mothers the choice to keep their babies and prevented them from making a decision they might regret for life. Our duty social worker gives guidance, support and advice, as sometimes all they need is an emergency grant or an introduction to a partner organisation to help them set up an income generation project.
If they need time to get back on their feet we temporarily look after their child and pay transport for them to come and visit their baby as much as possible until they are back on their feet. When children are placed back in their families we monitor them for up to a year to ensure they are safe. Our incredible Family Support Team regularly visit families and teach them good parenting, health and hygiene.
Making Families
We believe that children should grow up in a family. When children come to us, our social work team aims to safely return them to their own family or find a new Ugandan family ideally within three to six months. Around 60% of children placed in institutions in Uganda have living relatives. We make it our job to try and trace the children’s families and resettle them safely back into their families. In fact around 54% of children admitted to Malaika are reintegrated back into their families.
Promoting Family Care
There are an estimated 40,000 children in care in Uganda. Typically, abandoned children are placed in long term residential care as it is seen as the ‘only option’. Our pilot projects wanted to demonstrate it was possible to resettle children into families in a safe and timely manner.
One of the challenges we faced was that the concept of adoption outside the extended family is uncommon which resulted in many children living in long-term institutional care. In summer 2011 we launched with the Government a Ugandan’s Adopt media campaign to find new families for our children. As a result of the campaign we are so far assessing 100 Ugandan families and we have a waiting list of families who want to adopt children.”

drjv1967
“I actually have similiar questions for domestic adoptions.”

Ask away.

“The bias against potential adoptive parents is very apparent by some people in the adoption field who rather than focus on what is in the best interest of the child hold to a distorted view of why birth parents seek adoptive parents and why adoptive parents seek children”

Perhaps you can explain this a bit more.

Further to Jeanne’s informative link, this is a document from that site. 

http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/adoption/docs/FPFinalTheLieWeLove.pdf

Also, Jane, think about what a difference that ENORMOUS sum of money made in that one childs life.
I have adopted both internationally and domesticly. The only place we were defrauded was domesticly. Our international adoption did not cost us any more than a typical private domestic adoption. The extra expenses involved were for our travel. We chose to take and entourage with us when we travelled to Russia. The actual adoption expenses were actually less than one of our domestic adoptions.
Our daughter had been in the orphanage since birth due to the illness of her Birth mother. There was no extended family there to take her in. No one came to visit her in the 2yrs9mos. that she was in the orphanage. Her Birth mother, realizing she was not getting better and would not ever get better, chose to relinquish her rights when she was 15mo hoping she would get adopted. No Russian family showed intrest in adopting her.  Had she not been adopted, she would have eventually aged out of the system and been put on the street with no family. Instead, she is a happy, healthy 8&1/2 year old who is a wonderful big sister to her 7yo sister and 2&1/2 yo brother. She excels at gymnastics and is on her competition team. She has a mom and dad who love her and lots of extended family who love her and will always be there for her.
I know there are situations out there that are fraudulent and child trafficking does occur, but that is not solely an international adoption problem. That happens in our own country too. Also, it is not only American families that adopt from these international countries. While in Russia, we met families from France and England also adopting. Canadians and Spaniards also adopt internationally.
As far as taking our daughter out of her culture, we surround her with people from her culture. She now has a cousin who has just married a Russian who was born not far from our daughters hometown. We plan to take her back to see where she was born. We live in an area that has many Russian immigrants and she meets someone from Russia about every time we go out. I know not everyone is a lucky as we are to live in such a diverse area, but there are other ways to include the childs culture in their lives. I know given the choice of a loving family or soaking up her Russian culture as a 20 year old with no family and no where to go, my daughter would choose her family in a heartbeat.

Happy Camper,

Do you think I have this information because my parents discouraged my search and discarded paperwork?  No.  Many adoptive parents today are much less forthcoming than my adoptive parents were decades ago.

As for a boycott, that’s what ends up happening.  Unfortunately, the shutdown is not a market-driven event.  After human rights violations become impossible to ignore, the government steps in and shuts down adoptions from this country or that.  It has happened repeatedly, and it will continue to happen.  Why?  Because people continue to fund organizations whose supply of children miraculously appear on the doorstep.  Poof!  Out of thin air, there’s another baby. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2877039.stm

Or something from this week:

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2012/06/yunnan-police-bust-child-trafficking-ring/

I have read comments from prospective adoptive parents stating that they wish to adopt from overseas because they want to avoid the child’s paper trail.  I’ve read comments claiming that domestic adoptees feel we have too many rights.  I’ve read comments stating foreign adoptees are more grateful than the domestic variety.  I’m not saying that each and every person who adopts from overseas does so to avoid what has been coined on the net as ‘baby mama drama’.  I’m not saying that at all.  But no one can deny that there are adoptive parents who feel this way and who seek out adoption opportunities from sources they believe offer perpetually anonymous adoptees.  Search the web.  Those people are out there.  They are not hiding.  They are not ashamed of what they do or why they do it.  They believe they are entitled. 

And yes, I’m sorry, but there are people who would wish that experience on my mother.  There are people who honestly lack compassion for women who become pregnant out of wedlock.  I understand the desire to see the best in people, but sometimes it is necessary to acknowledge the existence of people who believe themselves to be so morally superior that their brutality is justified.

Katie Sue, Those programs you quote in Uganda, sound fantastic.  Let’s hope they are in actuality ( and are not fraudulent ones like the programs rredhead mentions above).

Adoption IS a safety net for the actual children found homes, not so easily dismissed if you happen to be one of them I would think. ( Like for example momof3eaj’s happy daughter.) Some Russian/ E European countries only allow special need children to be adopted out of the country (as they are not usually adopted with the stgima in their own country). Most Russian/EE countries also require mandatory checks of relatives, and a year on the adoption list before a child is allowed to be adopted out of country. Some of these countries( like Russia) now provide financial incentives for relatives to keep the children.  This can have the negative consequence of giving some children homes with relatives who haven’t bothered to visit them for years in the orphanages nearby, until they are offered the carrot of money for giving them homes.  Hopefully it makes it possible for more relatives who do care about the children and would provide good homes, to parent their kin. 

In many of the African countries a huge percentage of the country has died from or is sick with AIDS, devastating whole communities. Even though Uganda is a model country in how proactively they are dealing with AIDS, there still are 1.2 million children there who have been orphaned by AIDS. (See http://www.avert.org/aids-uganda.htm) While the programs you mention above sound excellent,  the numbers of homes they are providing are infinitesimal. There is no reason these programs can’t be funded and developed to the max, while at the same time getting all the other children that can be placed in homes by adoption, families that way. It is not necessary to sacrifice the rest of the 1.2 million homeless children to ideals about what would ideally be the best possible home in a perfect world.

“Adoption IS a safety net for the actual children found homes, not so easily dismissed if you happen to be one of them I would think.”

I am not sure how to explain why this logic fails any better than what is explained here:

http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/gender/adoption/docs/FOIAs/ChildWarehousing3-21-08.pdf

This is a memo from a US Embassy to the State Department.  It’s pretty clear.  The money involved in US adoptions is the one and only reason some children need homes.

Jeanne, We are talking about adoptions in EE/ Russia and Uganda and African countries were AIDS had decimated the parents.  This supposed memo is about Vietnam!!!  Not really relevant as the “only reason” for anything, unless you assume one country or program is interchangeable or always identical with another.

No I do not claim to have any knowledge of your adoption circumstances. I tend to assume the opposite that we all are unique. I assume you will speak for your own experiences just as any one else does have the same right to not be treated like a stereotype and speak for their own. I was saying that the treatment of pregnant single girls and the openness about adoption has chanced for the better. You yourself have said the same in other posts.This is my opinion based on my life and what I’ve seen. Anyone else is free to their own opinions.

It’s a good thing that countries where there is corruption in adoptions are shut down till the process is improved. I wouldn’t judge one based on the other, any more than I would assume all adoptees are carbon copies of each other.

  I am sure you have heard all kinds of rude and discriminatory statements about adoptees.  I have also,occasionally as well. I notice also discrimination about women, children, gay and lesbians, people of color, Native Americans, single people, older people,mothers, men who are primary parents,immigrants,poor people, and people who practice religions other than the most common - in no particular order of relevance or severity. I hope you will continue to keep others informed of this discrimination about adoptees when relevant.  If one assumes that all people are similarly bigoted, whether or not that is the case, and adoptive parents and programs just all identical,  it pretty much just ends any communication.

Here are some blogs by Ugandan adoptive parents discussing corruption in adoption:

http://rileysinuganda.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/your-task-it-to-be-true-not-popular.html

http://www.familyhopelove.com/on-ugandan-orphans-and-adoption/

To answer the question why I had biological children instead of sending money to the needy children in the world to help them keep their children….

I got pregnant with my first child at age 22.  I had not yet graduated college.  I had my second child at 25.  I knew nothing of these issues at that time and am learning right along with the rest of you.  What I am finding is shocking.

My kids are now 6 and 8 and I am now divorced.  I do not have $30,000 or even $1,000.  I do provide short term care for families in crisis in my own community.

I am by no means an expert on adoption, international adoption or foster care adoption.  I am simply an adoptee who has a desire for change and for us to DO BETTER.

So I speak about adoptee issues and my experience with the hope that it will help the next generation of adoptees and their families. 

When you find out that something is very wrong you have two choices to turn away or speak out-and do what you can.  So I speak out- and do what I can.

We all should be doing what we are able… could we all do more and am I in the camp of should be doing more?  yes.

I just noticed I merely quoted Jane on this thread.    I was like surely I did not broach this topic ?  On the other thread I posted a link to an article I find spot on.

“Not really relevant as the “only reason” for anything, unless you assume one country or program is interchangeable or always identical with another.”

Yes, that’s been one of the major points of this thread, as a matter of fact.  The same corruption follows from one country to the next.  It’s been cited and linked above.

In the case of Russia, the threat of shutting down adoptions most frequently arises from the treatment of Russian adoptees by American adopters. 

http://en.ria.ru/society/20120307/171836130.html

Here is a link for rnkidz re Liberian adoption:

http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/adoption/liberia.html

“As some countries close their doors to international adoptions, U.S.-Liberian adoptions follow a different trend—the number of children sent to the United States from Liberia through the international adoption market has increased sharply over the last seven years. (See data below.) At the same time, some in the Liberian government, along with some children’s rights groups, are pressing for reform of Liberia’s outdated adoption legal framework, saying it opens numerous loopholes for abuses.

Following a civil war (1989-2003)1 that displaced a third of the population and all but destroyed the country’s infrastructure, there is fairly widespread evidence of trafficking in children for labor, sex, and international adoption.2 NGOs, reporters, and other observers charge that some orphanages seem to have started so that their operators can collect donations and fees.

Trends in other sending countries have shown that a spike in adoption numbers over a short time period can be a warning signal of possible illicit activities. In a single year – between 2005 and 2006—adoptions to the U.S. from Liberia nearly doubled from 183 to 353.3 The BBC recently reported that since the end of the Liberian civil war in August 2003, the number of private orphanages tripled from 40 to 120.4 Liberia is not currently sending nearly as many children to any other country as it does to the United States.5”

There is plenty more to read about adoption in Liberia.

Happy Camper “In many of the African countries a huge percentage of the country has died from or is sick with AIDS, devastating whole communities. Even though Uganda is a model country in how proactively they are dealing with AIDS, there still are 1.2 million children there who have been orphaned by AIDS. (See http://www.avert.org/aids-uganda.htm) While the programs you mention above sound excellent,  the numbers of homes they are providing are infinitesimal. There is no reason these programs can’t be funded and developed to the max, while at the same time getting all the other children that can be placed in homes by adoption, families that way. It is not necessary to sacrifice the rest of the 1.2 million homeless children to ideals about what would ideally be the best possible home in a perfect world”

http://www.replace-campaign.org/resources/support-faith-to-action-initiative.pdf

“Yes, that’s been one of the major points of this thread, as a matter of fact. The same corruption follows from one country to the next. It’s been cited and linked above.”

I agree Jeanne.

One thing I have noticed is how often orphanages are set up just to provide children for adoption.  You can see it above in the article on Liberia, you can see it in Uganda and it happens in many countries where adoption has taken a foothold.

Just as the OP asked:

“I guess my question is, for those against international adoption, why do you feel it’s better for these kids to remain in substandard orphanages than to be adopted by a loving, American family?”

One might ask:

“I guess my question is, for those for international adoption, why do you feel it’s better for these kids to end up in substandard orphanages just so that they can be adopted by a loving, American family?”

Of course, none of us want children to be in orphanages.  However, we perhaps differ in how that should be achieved.

I’m not against IA per se, I just think it should be the last resort.

katiesue said,

“One might ask:

““I guess my question is, for those for international adoption, why do you feel it’s better for these kids to end up in substandard orphanages just so that they can be adopted by a loving, American family?””

Exactly.  No one wants to see children languish in orphanages.  But when one realizes that orphanages begin to fill as American adoption money enters one nation after the other, then one nation after the other is shut down to American adoption due to human trafficking, it becomes difficult not to see the correlation between the two. 

International adoption began with the Korean war orphans.  But the corruption in adoption began right here at home with white, middle-class children of single mothers.  When that market dried up, overseas markets were tapped.  The industry has been moving from nation to nation ever since.  The American adoption industry has been manufacturing orphans for a very long time.  It is not a few isolated horror stories.  It is institutional.  It will not stop until the practice is no longer profitable.

Momof3aei-
I do mean no disrespect but you really will not know what your daughter will think when she is 20.  I have a young friend who is a 15yo Russian adoptee and she is having a very rough time and is counting down the days till she turns 18 and can return to her country and seek out her birthfamily.  She loves her adoptivemom and has a great life- she really wants to know her history and why her birthmother did not keep her, what happened and why she is having these feelings.  She is experimenting with drugs and is extremely depressed and confused.  She said these feelings started when she was around 12 and 13.  She has a adoptive sister who is also a Russian Adoptee and says she has no interest in returning to Russia or seeking out her birthfamily.  They are both being raised around the same time in the same family, same home. 

You can not know what your child will feel when they grow up and it is dangerous to assume or project your wishes onto your child.  Children want to please their parents.  And by assuming what your child will think or feel at 20- or 25- or 45 is not productive or wise in my opinion.  The thoughts and feelings of an 8 year old and an imaginary 20 year old are not what this conversation is about.

Casee in point: http://tinyurl.com/6oy5pmr

Currently there is that case of the Guatemalan girl that everybody agrees was kidnapped and trafficked, and yet there are those who still argue that she should stay with her “adoptive” (illegally) family, or that the natural family should have to share custody, or that the natural family should have to “prove” that the have the “resources” to give her a “good life” (ie., economic advantages similar to what rich white Americans can give her.

Look at celebrity adoptions, such as Madonna taking a child who was in an “orphanage” because of family poverty and whose father visited him, by bicycle, whenever he could.

Having a comfortable Western standard of living is not necessarily a “better” life. It’s the sense of entitlement—and I’m not saying that applies to every single parent who adopts internationally— that rankles.

When we adopted my daughter from China, I was not aware of the corruption in IA. I probably should have been, but we wanted a child and knew there where children in orphanages who needed families.

Knowing what I know now, would I adopt internationally again? No. The corruption exists because we all contribute to the system, which does not operate the way it should right now.

Does that mean that I believe my daughter would be better off in an orphanage in her native country? Absolutely not. She is thriving with us, in a way that I know she could not have in an orphanage. But I do mourn the loss of her birth family and her culture, and it’s very hard to think about the fact that her birth family may not have given her up under entirely honest circumstances.

There are no easy answers here. I’m incredibly thankful for my daughter every day, and what I know now about IA does not taint that in any way for me. But the corruption should not exist, and the only way it will stop is for adoptive parents to stop supporting the current programs.

well, I chose to adopt domestically primarily for financial reasons, and wasn’t aware of the corrpution either. if I could have afforded to adopt internationally, I would have. this site has certainly provided an education! while it’s hard to know how bad the problem is, it certainly does appear to exist. here’s another question: I have friends just starting the process of adopting internationally; what precautions/steps should they be taking to make sure the situation is as legitimate as possible?

“The American adoption industry has been manufacturing orphans for a very long time.  It is not a few isolated horror stories.  It is institutional.  It will not stop until the practice is no longer profitable. “

My question is do you believe all adoptions should be banned? 

When a domestic adoption agency charges a fee between $19k-$30K obviously they are in it to make money.  So because they are making money the argument ‘it will not stop until the practive is no longer profitable’ would apply there as well. 

Do I think that agencies charge too much money? Yes.  Do I think that adoption should be banned because of a few bad apples? No

You talked about some of the comments made by some adoptive parents that show they are probably not the best parents (i.e. trying to keep the child’s ancestory secret, etc..) and I am sure they are true.  It is equally true their are biological parents who make poor parents. Do we ban procreation?  Do people have to get a permit from the State before having kids? The logical conclusion of some of the positions become absurd. 

We know that money causes problems in all areas of life from food, shelter, health care and yet rather than boycott, ban, or demonize the good people in those arenas we work to make those systems better and educate.  The same is true in adoption. 

Everyone has adversity in life, not just adoptees.  Life isnt always fair, just, kind, or fun, whether raised by biological parents or not.  It would seem that rather than attack adoptive parents (the majority of which I believe only have good intentions in their heart) and assume the role of victim people should embrace the good this in in life.

My sister was murdered by her husband and my niece (who was 4 at the time) then moved to a different city to be raised by my mother (who was 60 at the time).  We all had a choice.  Do we yallow in our victim status or do we live life to the fullest? For my niece’s sake do I want her to be around her dad? No. But, for better or worse he is her father and she has a right to know him and chose for herself whether she wants to have a relationship and be involved with her ancestry.  Should she have been left with him since he is the biological father? No.  Should she be in State care so as to avoid adoption? No. 

Just because the system is not perfect, because some adoptive parents aren’t perfect (anymore than biological parents aren’t perfect), because some people abuse the system for financial gain does not mean that the process of adoption should be abandoned.

DrJv1967,

How to take the big money out of adoption, including domestic adoption, is the big question.  I do believe there are some ways to do it.  First, I’m not a big fan of excessive regulations.  I do believe in a free market.  The problem is, people should not be the object of market forces.  So, how do you drive prices down without using caps (which never work the way they were originally intended, anyway), or running each and every child placement through Human Services (which I don’t support, either).

Personally, I believe the answer lies in protecting individual rights.  Increase the time before surrender.  Increase it substantially.  Increase the period during which the parents can change their mind.  Require paternity tests for children who are being relinquished, and make an honest attempt to find the father.  Identify close relatives of the child (within maybe four degrees of the parents) and offer them the opportunity to keep the child with his or her family.  Make sure the child has legal representation.  Due process is important.  End legal secrecy.  Stop altering birth records, and add an adoption certificate to prove current legal parentage.  Give the adult adoptee legal notice of the adoption proceeding at the age of 18. 

I’m sure I’m leaving something out, but if everyone’s rights are properly protected—including the right of the child to his or her biological family which is a Constitutional right held by that child from the moment he begins to breathe—profit margins will naturally decrease.  If the grandmother who is pleading with the mother not to relinquish suddenly has the right to raise the child if she is fit to do it, the incentive for agencies to isolate pregnant women and fill them full of tall tales just isn’t there any more. 

I know that wasn’t your only question, but it’s all I have time to address right now.  Procreation is a right.  Adoption is not.  Food.  Wow, there’s a whole other conversation.  And I’m not trying to demonize anyone.  Through the years, I have actually maintained a cordial relationship with the agency through which I was adopted.  But look, sweeping all of the problems under the rug isn’t helping anyone. Good people have tried to improve things.  They’ve improved a little here in the States.  Not nearly as much as is needed. 

There are answers if, and only if, the problems are defined and recognized.  And this thread was, after all, about why not to do it.

Money also alas taints foster adoption, as this investigation into CPS in Kentucky illustrates: just a snippet:
http://tinyurl.com/coxxsrj

Interesting thread!

I just have to throw this into the discussion, though.  Why do we keep referring to “International Adoption” as if it were one large program?  I think we should at least recognize that every adoption program and every country utilizing international adoption is different.  What happens in China is different from what happens in Russia which is different from what happens in Japan, etc.  We cannot logically (or ethically) combine all of the various potential experiences into the bucket of “International Adoption” and either “support” it or “denounce” it as a lump sum.

Just my two cents.
-Amber

DR JV67-

I do not see myself as a victim.  I see myself as an advocate for change in adoption.  I am not here wallowing in my sorrows of being adopted.  I am speaking based on my feelings and experiences to help the next generation of adoptees through sharing things with their parents.

I really do not see that as being a victim.

“When a domestic adoption agency charges a fee between $19k-$30K obviously they are in it to make money.  So because they are making money the argument ‘it will not stop until the practive is no longer profitable’ would apply there as well.”

And it should apply there as well. Adoption, domestic or international, should not be an industry. Period. And as practiced now, it is largely a very pernicious, predatory industry. It preys on natural parents, especially women, who may be in a situation of temporary distress that could/would/should be alleviated with the proper support. It preys on well-meaning people who want to become adoptive parents by charging them exhorbitant fees, often matching before birth and having them provide financial support to a pregnant woman—a situation that can result in the pregnant woman feeling guilted into relinquishing a baby or the hopeful adoptive parents out thousands of dollars and grieving for a baby they thought would be “theirs” if the mother decides to parent. (and also potentially the victims of fraud). Internationally, it encourages baby trafficking (Guatemalan mothers used “the gringos will get you” the way some Americans use “the bogeyman) at worst and in other, numerous circumstances, the removal of children from their home countries and extended families when they are victims of poverty (often poverty as relative to Western prosperity, not imminent danger of starvation.) The child is then placed in the home of strangers with no genetic or familial connection, no common language, no common culture—and treated for “attachment” disorder.
All of this is the result of adoption, which can be a wonderful thing in some cases, being conducted as an industry.  It’s no accident that in the US international adoptions have gone up as the “supply” of domestic children has gone down. As Jeanne said, humans should not be marketable commodiities.
The adoptees here are trying to prevent the human suffering that they have experienced from being a commodity in that industry. They are not demonizing adoptive parents and in fact most have said, just as I have, that they believe most adoptive or potential adoptive parents here are well-meaning. They have, however, been socialized and if they are far enough in the process likely indoctrinated by agencies and social workers to believe that taking another person’s child is a far more simple process than it actually is, and that merely being good people and good parents will prevent an adoptee from suffering lifelong trauma. 
Okay to start another hate thread about me if you want. It won’t change the truth. I do wish, though, that some APs or prospective APs would begin to realize that it is the industry, and not the people who question it, that is largely victimizing them as well.

Wow. So let me get this straight: I adopt a child from an orphanage. I know for a fact that his birth parents are incapable of parenting him. They had six children removed from their home. He was left at the hospital at birth and was never visited by them his entire life. We adopted him at age 26 months. He was in the 5th percentile for height and weight. He was speech delayed and had poor coordination but was otherwise healthy.

And so now I am to be demonized and, what, take him back to the orphanage? Please enlighten me. Apparently what I did was wrong. Oh, by the way, I adore this child with every fiber of my being. But never mind.

No one here has even mentioned the Hague convention, which was instituted to prevent child trafficking, or paying for children, and to keep adoption ethical. If one is concerned about such things, which no doubt do happen, then one has the option of adopting from a Hague country . . . Yes, a lot of money still goes to the in-country facilitator. There is no doubt that is one of the reasons they chose that profession . . . everyone has to make a living somehow (before anyone lambasts me, I am *not* talking about the corrupt countries . . . many of these facilitators do care about the children and want to help them, but they need to get paid for something too) . . . The truth is, that there are children who need homes. Maybe not as many as is “advertised” - but even if it’s just a handful . . . who cares . . . that handful need families and hope for a future. There are ethnic minorities in many countries who no one in country wants to adopt, and right or wrong, those children don’t have a chance unless they are adopted out internationally . . . particularly if they also have special needs, which most people do not want to deal with or don’t have the resources to deal with overseas. That’s also reality. Our child is such a child. Our child was in foster care, but many foster parents overseas don’t foster children out of the goodness of their hearts (just as many here don’t either I am sure) . . . they also do it for money. The state won’t hand over children to families who foster them for money - how on earth would they support them? AND, the obvious here is that most foster families don’t *want* to adopt them, they are dependent on the money. Our child’s foster family loved her, that was obvious, but they didn’t want to adopt her . . . The week after we took her (after a very tearful goodbye), they had another child in their home. Money is often a factor in everything . . . Even in domestic adoption, there are birthmothers who try to extort money out of adoptive parents for bogus expenses and who’ve lied about their needs or misdirected funds. It’s unfortunate, but it happens. But that is no reason to say that adoption is a practice that should be discontinued. And lastly, someone on this thread said that procreation is a right, but adoption is not. To that I say that if procreation was a “right” then everyone would be able to do it. Nothing is guaranteed in this life, but it just so happens that if one couple/person chooses to have children and they are able to get pregnant, then they do without incident. But another chooses to have children and cannot biologically for one reason or another . . . doesn’t mean they are relegated to being familyless . . . Having a family is a generally accepted right I believe (if not, then infertility doctors and adoption wouldn’t exist) . . . but how you get to be a family could have many paths leading to the same end, obviously. Not for anyone to judge how that happens . . . all circumstances are different. Not all adoptions are corrupt - either international or domestic.

No one here has even mentioned the Hague convention, which was instituted to prevent child trafficking, or paying for children, and to keep adoption ethical. If one is concerned about such things, which no doubt do happen, then one has the option of adopting from a Hague country . . . Yes, a lot of money still goes to the in-country facilitator. There is no doubt that is one of the reasons they chose that profession . . . everyone has to make a living somehow (before anyone lambasts me, I am *not* talking about the corrupt countries . . . many of these facilitators do care about the children and want to help them, but they need to get paid for something too) . . . The truth is, that there are children who need homes. Maybe not as many as is “advertised” - but even if it’s just a handful . . . who cares . . . that handful need families and hope for a future. There are ethnic minorities in many countries who no one in country wants to adopt, and right or wrong, those children don’t have a chance unless they are adopted out internationally . . . particularly if they also have special needs, which most people do not want to deal with or don’t have the resources to deal with overseas. That’s also reality. Our child is such a child. Our child was in foster care, but many foster parents overseas don’t foster children out of the goodness of their hearts (just as many here don’t either I am sure) . . . they also do it for money. The state won’t hand over children to families who foster them for money - how on earth would they support them? AND, the obvious here is that most foster families don’t *want* to adopt them, they are dependent on the money. Our child’s foster family loved her, that was obvious, but they didn’t want to adopt her . . . The week after we took her (after a very tearful goodbye), they had another child in their home. Money is often a factor in everything . . . Even in domestic adoption, there are birthmothers who try to extort money out of adoptive parents for bogus expenses and who’ve lied about their needs or misdirected funds. It’s unfortunate, but it happens. But that is no reason to say that adoption is a practice that should be discontinued. And lastly, someone on this thread said that procreation is a right, but adoption is not. To that I say that if procreation was a “right” then everyone would be able to do it. Nothing is guaranteed in this life, but it just so happens that if one couple/person chooses to have children and they are able to get pregnant, then they do without incident. But another chooses to have children and cannot biologically for one reason or another . . . doesn’t mean they are relegated to being familyless . . . Having a family is a generally accepted right I believe (if not, then infertility doctors and adoption wouldn’t exist) . . . but how you get to be a family could have many paths leading to the same end, obviously. Not for anyone to judge how that happens . . . all circumstances are different. Not all adoptions are corrupt - either international or domestic.

“Having a family is a generally accepted right I believe (if not, then infertility doctors and adoption wouldn’t exist)”

Actually, having a family by any means is not a generally accepted right—and no one has the “right” to create a family by appropriating other people’s children (Hague convention.)
Infertility doctors and adoption exist not because of the “right” for anyone who wants children to get them, but because it is in their interest to provide children to people who want them. This may be motivated by altruism or financial gain, but either way, it is not because people who want children have a “right” to them.

“but how you get to be a family could have many paths leading to the same end, obviously. Not for anyone to judge how that happens . .”

It’s absolutely correct for reasonable people to judge “how that happens.” If “that happens” because of coercion of birth parents; if “that happens” because of kidnapping; if “that happens” because of poverty or disruption in the child’s country of origin; if “that happens”  because people committed to one religion feel an obligation to ‘rescue’ children from another culture; if “that happens” because APs feel they have a “right” to have a nuclear family, regardless of the ethics, morals, and consequences for especially the child, then yes, other people do have the right to pass judgment on “how that happens.”

“And lastly, someone on this thread said that procreation is a right, but adoption is not. To that I say that if procreation was a “right” then everyone would be able to do it.”

No, you’re thinking of entitlements.  I’m speaking of rights.  Specifically, fundamental rights.  Adoption law is statutory. Producing offspring is a fundamental right.  People also have the fundamental right to own property, but most people don’t have the means to afford everything they would like to own.  It’s quite possible to have the fundamental right to a thing yet lack the physical means to accomplish it. 

Taking it a step further, parental rights are fundamental.  In the case of adoption, the fundamental rights of the parents are terminated either voluntarily or involuntarily and then transferred to the adopting parents.  The adoptive parents then hold and exercise the fundamental right to parent the child, but only after the court has decreed them to be parents of the child.  Going into the adoption, the prospective adoptive parents do not have the fundamental right to parent a child which they did not bear.

As Patsymae said, it is absolutely for people to judge how families are created where adoption is concerned.  We vote for lawmakers to go to our state legislatures and write laws that are applied by a judge and through which families are created.  Absolutely that is for everyone to judge.  There are lobbyists right now in legislatures across this nation who are actively pursuing changes in adoption laws.  It happens all the time.  It’s not at all extraordinary.  It’s how adoption came to be.  It’s how it was created.  And yes, those laws are absolutely for people to judge.  You betcha.

In regards to international adoption:

One should do as much research as possible.  Don’t put your head in the sand.  Read all the warnings about separate countries and look more deeply into the situation.  Try and work with those countries where IA is the last resort and where they are making a real effort to look after their children in a community setting and encouraging local adoption.  When it comes to choosing Orphan Sunday charities, try to avoid supporting orphanages and support those organisations which enourage caring for children in the community. 

In regards to domestic adoption:

The first thing to do when chosing an agency is to look at the “Unplanned Pregnancy” page and to look at those pages as if you were a women in a difficult situation.  If the pages sound like they are selling adoption, then avoid them.  You may say, “well if they didn’t want to relinquish their child, they wouldn’t be looking at adoption agencies”.  However, the agency “Unplanned Pregnancy” pages often come up when a woman is googling re just general information about resources.  Personally, I would avoid any agency which overuses the word selfless, that has long and scary lists about what to expect with parenting combined with an overflowery version of adoption that paints adoption as a win/win/win situation for everyone. 

You will actually find that some agencies have “Options sites” that do not have their name anywhere on there (until you get to the adoption part), pretending to be an unbiased website so that a woman can consider all her options when in fact, parenting is presented in a mostly negative way and adoption presented in a very positive way.  Also, over 19,000 social workers who deal with women with unplanned pregnancies have been trained using the NCFA birthmother counselling training scheme which is, in effect, selling adoption (I’ve done the course online). 

It seems to me that the often the frontline counselling done in the US is the abovementioned “options counselling” and I am concerned about both the timing and nature of it.  I think it is better for all concerned, including society, if the frontline counselling done is of a form which designed to improve a woman’s general situation so that by the time she gives birth, she is in as good position as possible to make that very important decision re parenting. 

One thing that almost every online bmom I know has said that their own situation was often not addressed as fully as it should have been.  Even reading the extremely pro-adoption bmother blogs, you can see that often the bmom’s situation at the time of the birth of their child was not much different than it was when she presented to her counsellors.  I feel that regardless of the emom’s decision, she should be also being counselled in such a way that her life should be in as good a place as possible by the time of birth.  Some agencies do this and kudos to them and to you if you are adopting from them.  The best type of agencies are in fact the “Human Service” type agencies where adoption is a mere portion of what they provide and where their main service is to provide help for the person in need. 

In Australia, this is how adoption is done.  We don’t have stand alone adoption agencies, they are all done through a combination of the government and 4 other NGO Human Service Agencies, mainly Christian.  We don’t have private adoption (it is at your own risk if you do decide to go down that route).  We don’t have prebirth matching - if adoption is planned, the mother chooses the parents after the birth.  The child goes to Cradle Care while she makes her decision on who to parent her child but during this time, she can visit her baby at any time.  As a result, we have very few adoptions.  For all of you who go - OMG, the parents will abuse the child and they will go to foster care - in fact, you will find that most children who end up in foster care are from parents who haven’t ever considered adoption and, in fact, who pllanned to get pregnant.  I always think it funny when people complain about “All those teenage girls who get pregnant deliberately just to get money/house/keep their boyfriend” and then say they should be placing their child for adoption - they seem to forget that if a person has gotten pregnant deliberately for those aforementioned reasons, they are hardly going to want to relinquish their child, it would take away the point of being pregnant. 

Interestingly, if you are a woman considering abortion and you are being counselled out of that towards choosing life - you may in fact be told that women with unplanned pregnancies are less likely to abuse their children:

http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionQandA/chapters/c32.pdf

However, if you are a women considering adoption, then you are often told you are more at risk of abusing your child:

http://www.heartbeatinternational.org/pdf/missing_piece.pdf
In the training sessions for counselors, the long-term problems of parenting for those who are not prepared for parenthood must be emphasized. For example, address the fact that women who keep babies they do not really want* are much more likely to neglect or injure them. While children may have been saved from abortion, by staying with unprepared mothers, they may very well live lives of pain and suffering.
*though t he rest of the piece is about overcoming wanting their child.
I note they use the word “unprepared”.  Here is a novel thought, “prepare” the mother if she wants to raise her child.  That is what happens in Australia.  I have no doubt there are good agencies in the US that do this as well and the challenge is finding those agencies that really do the best by their clients.

“Everyone has adversity in life, not just adoptees. Life isnt always fair, just, kind, or fun, whether raised by biological parents or not. It would seem that rather than attack adoptive parents (the majority of which I believe only have good intentions in their heart) and assume the role of victim people should embrace the good this in in life.”

Of course, everyone does.  The problem is that if people have adversity, they are at least allowed to aknowledge their situation - eg if you are a child of divorced parents, I bet you are allowed to least say “it is shit that my parents are divorced”, however better life might be after the divorce.  You may have a really happy life but you are at least allowed to express the fact that you aren’t happy about your parents divorce - you are not wallowing in the fact, just acknowledging the fact - and others will understand.  If you are adopted, you are not only not allowed to say anything like “I wish I wasn’t adopted”, you are expected to be happy about being adopted. 

Part of the problem is that we expect the adoptee to compared their life with the previous situation rather than with their peers.

Just a question - for those of you who grew up with functinal parents, if you had a choice would you prefer:
1)  To also have been born into that home.
2) Prefer to have been born into another family and then brought into that home.

Of course, you would choose 1.  Now before you go but that is not relevant to my child, perhaps part of the problem is that we keep referring to our child’s previous life as a compariison.

However, if we are comparing an adopted child to their peers - then one can see that they are at a disadvantage - they have to deal with extra situations that many of their peers don’t.  All we are trying to say is to at least acknowledge that being born into one family and being raised in another does bring about its own challenges and to at least acknowledge that one’s child might face those challenges.

I am a happy person who happens to be an adoptee.  I am at terms with the fact that I am adopted and I have a great relationship with both afamily and bfamily.  I would rather adoption wasn’t in my life but it is and I don’t wallow in it.  Having said that, I do think that when women are making a decision for their child, they do need to be aware that as happy as their child’s life might be with othe rparents, that their child will face extra challenges and just to factor that in.  It may be that relinquishment is still the best thing for the child but at least if one considered that fact, then the decision can be made with a clearer head.  Saying things like “adoption to a child means love, opportunity and the American Dream” (the motto of a very popular agency) is rather sugarcoating things. 

“It would seem that rather than attack adoptive parents (the majority of which I believe only have good intentions in their heart) and assume the role of victim people should embrace the good this in in life.”

There seems to be an assumption that the adoptees on this board have problems with their adoptive parents.  I don’t and never have.  What you will actually find is that a lot of us older adoptees have found that we had very functional bparents and it is that which makes us angry re the past because we know that perfectly nice women were deprived of parenting their own children.  Now we know that things have changed a lot for the better but there are still too many examples of nice women being made to feel unworthy of their own children becuase of the type of counselling they receive.

Some of us have got upset with individual HAPs and APs on here but that is mainly because we have felt they have been stepping on the rights of emoms or repressing their adoptees.  You will find that the majority of online adopttee bloggers whom you may consider bitter do have online adoptive parent bloggers whom they very much respect.  I respect many of the APs on here.

All we want is just to allow your children to feel what they feel whether good or bad.  Many APs, wtith the best of intentions, condemn their children to “happiness” which means that their child isn’t allowed to feel the same emotions that others might have.

Too many APs also feel that having an adoptee who wants to know/meet their bfamily means they have failed and that it is a reflection on their parenting.  Surely, it is a relief to know that the choice to search is one’s adoptee’s own choice and has nothing to do with the AP - it is nothing to do with one’s parenting.  I have always been respectful to both my families but I have done what is best for me and I don’t feel I have betrayed my APs by doing so (thankfully they don’t either).

“Wow. So let me get this straight: I adopt a child from an orphanage. I know for a fact that his birth parents are incapable of parenting him. They had six children removed from their home. He was left at the hospital at birth and was never visited by them his entire life. We adopted him at age 26 months.”

No disrespect intended, but I’m honestly confused. I’m unable to find any evidence of “orphanages” still existing in the United States. Can you provide the name and address of this one?

To my4kidz, and to the original poster: There are some ways you can be proactive about not contributing to corruption and trafficking in international adoption.  Another commenter mentioned the Hague convention—you can choose to only work with countries that are Hague-accredited.  I personally would avoid working with new country programs, because they are usually not Hague-accredited, and are vulnerable to abuses and corruption.  (For example, Nepal’s fledgling program was closed within a few months of starting, because of questions about trafficked or stolen children.)

Also, you can find out from your agency exactly how the process in your particular country works.  In our daughter’s birth country, for example, any child that is available for international adoption must have relinquishment paperwork signed by the birth parents.  No children who were found or abandoned with no paper trail are available to foreign parents.  Also, the children must first be available to families in-country, and must have been rejected by 6 different families prior to becoming available to out-of-country adoptive parents. Finally, the money that is paid is never given to individuals.  It goes directly to the orphanage/institution (I realize that individuals can still steal money).  The entire court process takes place before the adoptive parents can travel, so there is no opportunity for judges to be bribed, etc.

So there are a few things you can do to make sure you’re less likely to be part of fraud, corruption or trafficking. There are still no guarantees, of course, but countries with safeguards (and reputable adoption agencies!) have many safety protocols in place.

The down side of adoptions in the Hague countries is the other side of the same coin.  Children whose parents are dead and can not sign off on their adoption essentially can not be adopted out of the country. This means the kids who need an adoptive home most because of no parents or close relatives alive are barred from ever having this chance at family.

Also while Hague countries may lessen trafficking, they also slow down the process substantially so several thousand fewer children may get homes.The number of adoptions are so much less that many more children die or age out.

Personally I would think stricter punishment for people and agencies that are apprehended in child trafficking would accomplish more for protection with less harm to so many children.  As it now is some of them are still licensed and in business.

Dr JV1967,

Thanks for sharing your story, as horrifying as it may have been to live. (And mom of 3 also). These personal stories of adoptions and the very important reasons for them give a lot more meaning to the discussion. If you and your family can have the courage and wisdom to keep some perspective and move forward and embrace the good that is in this life, it gives me hope that others of us can do this too.

DrJV1967,

I meant to get back to the remainder of your post yesterday.  My sympathies for the loss of your sister.  She was the victim of a crime, and I pray that justice was served. 

All anyone is asking for is a system that is fair and just.  I’m not really sure what you mean by a “victim mentality”, so I will not address that issue except to say that I am not a believer in outcome based legislation.  I believe that the rights secured for me by my forefathers and handed down through the generations are not a thing to be taken lightly.  I have no intention of surrendering them in favor of someone’s idea of what should or should not be a favorable outcome to any given situation including adoption. 

When I hear of a case where a mother was coerced out of her child, or a child was purchased for adoption, or any similar situation, I do not inquire as to how the well the adoption is working out.  My focus is on the injustice and how the system can be changed to discourage such underhanded endeavors.  If that is what you mean by “victim mentality” then I’m proud to think that way.  But again, I really have no idea what you meant by that phrase, so I’m not sure how to directly address it.

Were not amarican. We adopted our two boys almost a year ago from our local CAS (your CPS). One because there is no way we could afford to do a international adoption and two because our strong belife that there is children here, at home, in our community that need loving forever homes first and foremost. I work with children as a living, our friends have adopted children like we did and internationally. I adore them all. Those children made some otherwise childless couples a family. It’s whatever you/your partner want,hold close as important. Were waiting for our daughter now..also local. I think, though its not our choice to do international..its all up to the family who is making the family. It’s not a big deal…love and providing a safe nurturing stable home is where the focous should be.

Patsymae, my son is from Ukraine. Your point?

“The adoptees here are trying to prevent the human suffering that they have experienced from being a commodity in that industry. They are not demonizing adoptive parents and in fact most have said, just as I have, that they believe most adoptive or potential adoptive parents here are well-meaning.”
- Patsymae

“And so now I am to be demonized ...”
- califmom

If you read P’s post, she states that adoptees are NOT demonizing. NOT. How do you go from that to thinking that you ARE being demonized, especially as she qualified it further by stating that most here mean to do their best.

She said she was confused, so was I. Reading your post gave me the impression that you had adopted domestically, given the amount of info and the time frame it covered. My confusion is gone, I imagine hers is as well. That was her point, to understand better. Please do not think I am demonizing you either. Better understanding between people with different experience will lead to a better life for all affected by adoption.

“I guess my question is, for those against international adoption, why do you feel it’s better for these kids to remain in substandard orphanages than to be adopted by a loving, American family?”

That’s really loading a question. Saying anything in reply automatically means that I’m against international adoptions as well as saying either I support child abuse or despise loving American families, which of course sets me up for the next ‘Nasty Member of the Month’ thread. To start, I am not against international adoptions, helpless babies or loving Americans. International adoptions are not just about adopting children from substandard orphanages. In Guatemala, rebels were killing parents to take the children to sell. Many would not be ‘orphans’ without the huge profit motive. Like money, infants can be ‘laundered’, hiding the means by which the child was made bereft of kin, which suits those looking for a closed adoption well. Not all orphanages are substandard either. Many are open care for children and will help house and feed those whose families have difficulties. This allows the family to stay together with visits, something the parents could not afford if their child ended up in the States.

I am not against international adoption. I am against destroying families for profit; I am against making orphans for money. One thing I am for is “Prefer Canada”.
http://www.prefercanada.org
Prefer stands for ‘Poverty Reduction, Education, Family Empowerment Rwanda’. To care for these children in their own countries costs far less, what they need is the facilities and education to operate them.
http://www.nsnews.com/business/Rwandan+kids+heartstrings/6269142/story.html
Cathy Emmerson adopted the whole country. Why?
“... another big motivator is the Rwandan children who are “adorable,” Emmerson said.
“They’re the real reason I’m here,” she said.”

Helping this way keeps the kids in their home country with their closest relatives and helps elevate the standard for all there. Doing this eventually ends the ‘need’ for these children to be ‘saved’ from growing up African.