Child Collectors Extraordinaire

[valsa]

Just from someone who use to live in Russia, I can't for life of me wonder why Russia is a big draw for adoption. I know adoption is a risk, but most of those kids suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome. Unless they understand that and go all in with the expectation of getting a special need child, then why? I'm sick of hearing all these cases of people not being able to cope when find out they have fetal alcohol syndrome and their not the perfect little international toy of charity.

There are a lot of reasons people choose Russia. As someone mentioned before, some people aren't comfortable with interracial adoption. It's also relatively quick, you can get moderately young children (usually at least toddler age), it doesn't have many (if any, depending on the province) requirements as far as parental age, income, number of minor children in the household, and marriage status goes, and there are some pretty horrific futures awaiting some of these kids (death or spending the rest of their lives bedbound in mental institutions, etc) that people want to spare them from. Plus, a lot of agencies downplay the risk of FAS/FAE or screen out the ones obviously suffering from it (it can sometimes be hard to tell, once a child is home, whether their developmental and behavioral issues are FAE or just the affects of institutionalization and deprivation if they lack the facial features)

[lilwriter85]

Another family that has fascinated me for a while:

allourboys.com

This single mom (she was married for a while, but got divorced a few years ago) adopted 59 boys with special needs. Most were adopted at a fairly late age when they were not good candidates for adoption. Some came from other countries, some from the US, some from previous disrupted adoptions. She is not super religious (it looks like some kids go to church, but only those who want to), and she had a lot of hired help to give the kids individual attention. I liked their old website better since it gave more insight into their daily life, and this one looks like it's still under construction... I do admire this woman, she does not seem to have ulterior motives, and a lot of the boys came from really horrible situations.

I have also followed this family for several years. Back in 2003, Discovery Health did a short documentary about Barry the son who died. The documentary was about his adoption. His biological parents never signed away their parental rights. Barry was Ann and Jim's foster child for several years. When Barry turned 18, he asked to be adopted by them. The documentary showed some of the other boys. Sometime after that I found the old site. I also liked the old site better, I guess Ann changed the site after the divorce. I hope Jim keeps contact or has visitation with the boys, especially the ones that were adopted into the family after he married Ann.

Ann has had her critics over the years. Some of the neighbors had issues with a few of the boys who have behavioral issues. I remember Ann was criticized about some of the government assistance some of the boys get. She was also accused of trying to make off the boys especially since a few of them doing acting gigs. Hunter appeared in one or two episodes of Boston Public. I think the acting thing was basically just something that the some of the boys did for fun. I also remember an article that said that some of the international adoptions were handled by a Christian agency.

[lilwriter85]

I'm still looking through the blog of Jean's family. So far based on the pictures, I get a loving vibe. My guess is that they are fundie lite or mainstream Christian types. There are some Halloween pics.

[lilwriter85]

Another well known family with many adopted children is the Murphy family in Georgia. John and Jeanette, the parents have 4 biological hildren and 21 living adopted children. Two adopted children died. One died of cancer and I can't remember how the other one died. Most of the adopted children have Down syndrome. TLC or Discovery did a documentary on them. In the documentary, Jeanette said their days of adopting were over since she and Jim were near their 60s at the time of the documentary. The family made headlines back in the 90s due to one of their adoptions. A woman had a son with Down syndrome and wanted John and Jeanette to adopt him. The woman's parents didn't like that and court battles ensued. The grandparents wanted custody, but a judge ruled against them. There was a TV movie based on the case, but the names were changed.

[linnea27]

Can I just ask what the odds are of all of these children being given Western/European names like Sarah and Emma at birth? I can't help but think that these people are assigning new names to 10 year olds, which seems awful, for myriad reasons.

Eta: holy shit, and now having read the linked blog post- that is a LOT of medical conditions. Jumping from surgery to surgery on an almost weekly basis? Shit. Also (not to start an off-topic debate or anything) I am appalled that they circumsized 3 and 5 year old boys. Seems like a rough thing to do to children who already have a sense of their bodies, and for no real reason. Welcome to your new home, kids! Here are your new siblings, your new culture, your new language, (possibly) your new names, your new parents, and your new penises!

[Ramona]

Google Pleven orphanage for a sample of the horror.

i just did. heartbreaking & horrifying... and i'd sure as heck say that being adopted into a large family - yes, even a "fundie" family - is a million times better than that.

[Guest Anonymous]

i just did. heartbreaking & horrifying... and i'd sure as heck say that being adopted into a large family - yes, even a "fundie" family - is a million times better than that.

Let's just not forget children like Hana Williams and Lydia Schatz. Horror comes in many forms.

[Ramona]

Let's just not forget children like Hana Williams and Lydia Schatz. Horror comes in many forms.

I said "fundie family" - not an abusive family. The two things are not synonymous... (I think that's the word I want?)

[Guest Anonymous]

I said "fundie family" - not an abusive family. The two things are not synonymous... (I think that's the word I want?)

No they are not synonymous, but they are not mutually exclusive, either. And for that reason I am concerned about phrasing like "I'd sure as heck say"(from you) and "I can 100% guarantee you" (from georgiana) in relation to making predictions about the long-term outcomes for children adopted into any given family.

Adoption can indeed be a very positive thing, IMO, but because there are no guarantees, I'm inclined to be cautious and especially so where families seem not to have insight into how their continuing scramble for more kids may be affecting the ones already brought into their family.

Edited to remove a smiley that I didn't mean to add in the first place. Sorry if it looked inappropriate or sarcastic, when I meant only to make a serious point.

[meda]

I don't know, I think adopting a child, stripping the child of its original name and cultural or ethnic identity, making no effort to learn about the child's culture, assigning rigid gender roles to the child, and compelling the child to worship a punative fundamentalist god, as seems to be the norm in most fundamentalist adoptive families we have discussed, could be considered abusive.

That's before the "child training" comes into play.

[Ramona]

No they are not synonymous, but they are not mutually exclusive, either. And for that reason I am concerned about phrasing like "I'd sure as heck say"(from you) and "I can 100% guarantee you" (from georgiana) in relation to making predictions about the long-term outcomes for children adopted into any given family.

Adoption can indeed be a very positive thing, IMO, but because there are no guarantees, I'm inclined to be cautious and especially so where families seem not to have insight into how their continuing scramble for more kids may be affecting the ones already brought into their family.

Edited to remove a smiley that I didn't mean to add in the first place. Sorry if it looked inappropriate or sarcastic, when I meant only to make a serious point.

That's just the way I speak ~ it wasn't meant as any sort of prediction, guarantee, or anything else. Like a softer version of "I'd damn well say" ~ cuz that sounds mad :-p

It just seems like being adopted into a large family (assuming there is no abuse) where things aren't perfect (re they ever?) --- having their physical needs met (food, shelter, clothing, medical care, physical contact, etc), being loved and looked after (even if mom and dad are spread a bit thin).... That would be SO much better than living (dying) in the conditions that I saw when I googled the orphanage that was mentioned.

That's what I'm looking at... yknow?

[Ramona]

I don't know, I think adopting a child, stripping the child of its original name and cultural or ethnic identity, making no effort to learn about the child's culture, assigning rigid gender roles to the child, and compelling the child to worship a punative fundamentalist god, as seems to be the norm in most fundamentalist adoptive families we have discussed, could be considered abusive.

That's before the "child training" comes into play.

I don't think it's fair to assume that all "fundamentalist" families (I'm actually starting to think that there are some differences between what Canadians and Americans call "fundies"..) are going to do everything in your post...

That said... I think that most of what you just described would still be better than wasting away in a puddle of their own urine. ?

I'm serious. I can't even google the orphanage that August posted again because I sat here and cried.

[meda]

But your premise seems to be that it's an either/or situation. I'm not convinces that the only 2 choices are fundamentalist adoption or horrific orphanage conditions.

I would also point out that neither China or Russia are impoverished countries who lack the financial resources to care for orphaned children. Those conditions exist because of deliberate social policy and spending choices by the governments of those respective countries. It would seem to me that internal and external pressure to change those priorities would be more effective in helping a larger number of children than selective child hoarding by western fundamentalist Christians.

[chaotic life]

No one family can save all of the children. It's impossible. There is a REASON that the Starfish story is the mantra of adoptions, especially special needs adoptions. It is very easy to be sucked into the misery that some countries treat their children and start child collecting because you want to save them all. However, you cannot save them all. You can make the difference to one child at a time. Moving from a large, horrific institution to a smaller institution is NOT necessarily better for a child. It's just NOT.

I am extremely bothered by the child collector mentality. Most start with very good intentions. However, they outstrip their resources and ability to provide care and then set up places there they neglect the children that were alerady in their home AND the children they bring in. There is also a high incident of existing children abusing weaker children because the parents outstrip their ability to supervise and protect all of the kids. For me, the most tragic of these mega families are when the fundie mother discovers that the father has been sexually assaulting the adopted daughters, and it's a story I have heard FAR too many times.

When we adopt a child, we are not setting out to rescue the entire world. We do so because we feel we have the time, the resources and the talents to give the world to A child. I'm not opposed to a sibling adoption all three times we pursued sibling sets the adoptions fell apart before placement, for various reasons. I really don't think it's possible to really give the world and your heart when you collect them quickly and for the purpose of "rescuing" them. Rescuing them is NOT a good reason adopt a child. They do not know that their life is miserable and could be different until you introduce that concept to them. You do far more by reforming and helping countries and orphanages to improve their own performance and services than swooping in and taking all the kids to US informal institutions.

Ethical adoptions should NEVER allow someone to adopt 11 non-sibling children in 5 years. It is impossible to attach and bond under those circumstances. I've never known an ethical agency that would allow more than 2 unrelated children adopted at a time, less than 12 months between placements. There are good research based reasons for those limits. You cannot know the children, they cannot know you, and you cannot determine both their needs AND the safety levels in the home when you collect them like musicboxes or dolls. It's simply impossible.

Trust me, taking a child collected too fast and subjected to neglect, to forced gratitude and then dumped is MUCH harder to help them heal and stabilize than it is to simply use some common sense when you place children in the first place. The rescue mentality and collecting behaviors have dramatically increased with the rising Christian mandates to adopt. I don't believe for a minute it is truly better for children to be collected. I live every DAY with trying to help a collected child heal after he failed to be good enough to his collectors and was consequently thrown away.

I have eight kids. Between medical issues, losing a sibling in 2012 and past hurts, fully half of them are in therapy. Others have medical issues that must be addressed (though none now as severe as the one who passed away). It is HARD WORK to meet all of those medical and emotional needs. Physical needs becomes even harder to meet. I've seen a few mega-families who can do it. I've seen far more who do a mediocre job and shouldn't have been allowed to collect just because they and their agencies (or facilitators very likely) felt that it was better to collect them than to use sanity in the adoption process. Most of the mega-families I know who are doing a good job have support services, therapists that enter the house, adult siblings who remain to assist, family members that have moved in, etc. They may be small institutions, but there is enough people who see the family unit as a ministry that the parents are not doing it alone. Most of the mega-families I know who make it work utilize public schools for at least some, if not all, of the children in their care. They use public school for therapies and for educating the special needs kids, even if they homeschool some of the healthy, normal kids.

[Jana814]

Another well known family with many adopted children is the Murphy family in Georgia. John and Jeanette, the parents have 4 biological hildren and 21 living adopted children. Two adopted children died. One died of cancer and I can't remember how the other one died. Most of the adopted children have Down syndrome. TLC or Discovery did a documentary on them. In the documentary, Jeanette said their days of adopting were over since she and Jim were near their 60s at the time of the documentary. The family made headlines back in the 90s due to one of their adoptions. A woman had a son with Down syndrome and wanted John and Jeanette to adopt him. The woman's parents didn't like that and court battles ensued. The grandparents wanted custody, but a judge ruled against them. There was a TV movie based on the case, but the names were changed.

I remember this documentary (our 27 kids). I also remember the case & the TV movie.

[Jana814]

I have also followed this family for several years. Back in 2003, Discovery Health did a short documentary about Barry the son who died. The documentary was about his adoption. His biological parents never signed away their parental rights. Barry was Ann and Jim's foster child for several years. When Barry turned 18, he asked to be adopted by them. The documentary showed some of the other boys. Sometime after that I found the old site. I also liked the old site better, I guess Ann changed the site after the divorce. I hope Jim keeps contact or has visitation with the boys, especially the ones that were adopted into the family after he married Ann.

Ann has had her critics over the years. Some of the neighbors had issues with a few of the boys who have behavioral issues. I remember Ann was criticized about some of the government assistance some of the boys get. She was also accused of trying to make off the boys especially since a few of them doing acting gigs. Hunter appeared in one or two episodes of Boston Public. I think the acting thing was basically just something that the some of the boys did for fun. I also remember an article that said that some of the international adoptions were handled by a Christian agency.

I saw this as well. I have seen many stories about her. She said he wanted to adopt boys since she saw the movie Oliver Twist.

[August]

But your premise seems to be that it's an either/or situation. I'm not convinces that the only 2 choices are fundamentalist adoption or horrific orphanage conditions.

I would also point out that neither China or Russia are impoverished countries who lack the financial resources to care for orphaned children. Those conditions exist because of deliberate social policy and spending choices by the governments of those respective countries. It would seem to me that internal and external pressure to change those priorities would be more effective in helping a larger number of children than selective child hoarding by western fundamentalist Christians.

Unless I'm willing to step up and adopt them myself (which I'm not), then I don't think I have the right to criticise anyone improving the situation. I mean, I shudder at what's going to happen with an (diminuitive) 18 year old with CP and RAD coming into a house which uses the pearls. But, no one else (including me) has offered any other solution for him, so it really is that or death in an adult institution.

Yes, I'm going to try to change things in the future (there's one program funding local older women to come and spend time with a child), but right now those kids need immediate change.

Annie, the orphanage I mentioned and that Ramona was talking about was a living hell on earth. Children coming from there are not waiting children in Chinese foster care (for example). They are two different worlds, if the pictures of Chinese foster mothers kissing goodbye to their foster children are to be believed (which I think they are). Or, IIRC the small group houses they have in Ethiopia?

[mockingbird]

Unless I'm willing to step up and adopt them myself (which I'm not), then I don't think I have the right to criticise anyone improving the situation. I mean, I shudder at what's going to happen with an (diminuitive) 18 year old with CP and RAD coming into a house which uses the pearls. But, no one else (including me) has offered any other solution for him, so it really is that or death in an adult institution.

I really don't think trading one horrible situation for another only slightly less horrible situation is ethical and it's not something I could support. I just don't think it's okay to treat children the way the Pearls advocate... period. I don't think what is going on in these orphanages is okay either, but it's not going to make me support the Pearl method of parenting, or child collecting, just because it's "not as bad". I just don't think those practices are ethical, period and to just simply say that child collecting/Pearls better than nothing is to compromise my beliefs.

I absolutely believe it is valid and important to think critically about how others are trying to help a cause you support. Blindly saying "well it's better than nothing" can prevent real change, or even (in this case) HUMANE solutions (Pearls=/=humane), Often, "help" can cause more harm than good, or fail to get to the root of the problem to actually have a lasting effect so it's important to look beyond the surface, and advocate for solutions that ARE going to be effective. And also, advocate against ineffective and potentially harmful (eg. Pearls) solutions and not just accept what is already there.

For example the company Tom's Shoes provides a free pair of shoes to someone in an impoverished country when you buy a pair of their shoes. Although it sounds great on the surface, it has been criticized because it may be more effective to help people in these companies start up their own shoe businesses... therefore leading to long-term effects such as boosting the individual business workers' financial situation, the country's economy, as well as providing people with shoes vs. just the stop-gap measure of providing shoes (which could actually prevent said local shoe businesses from being able to support themselves). Is Tom's the only solution to this problem? No! If you believe that Tom's is not doing the most effective job at solving problems in these countries and could in fact be harming their economies by saturating local markets for shoes, should you just support Tom's anyway because it's better than what is going on in these countries right now? Maybe not, since we as humans are perfectly capable of coming up with/supporting an alternate solution, organization, etc.

Similarly, adopting a child is not the only option in this situation. As others have pointed out, it's also not going to be the most effective option long-term, because these children and their future counterparts need help in their OWN countries; nobody is going to be able to adopt them all. Does that mean we should settle for an unethical short-term solution, when it is possible to advocate for the alternatives (such as lobby groups that put pressure on these countries to improve their orphanages)? In your case, even though you cannot make a difference in one child's life by adopting, perhaps if this is a cause you really care about you could support another organization or political group that you believe supports an ethical, effective way of helping these children in their own country and perhaps make an even bigger, long-term difference.

When it comes down to it, advocating against/not supporting an unethical or ineffective existing solution to a problem such as the conditions in Russian and Chinese orphanages doesn't mean you don't support the issue or don't care... it means you want to do the best by this cause and these children that you can.

[lilah]

Can I just ask what the odds are of all of these children being given Western/European names like Sarah and Emma at birth? I can't help but think that these people are assigning new names to 10 year olds, which seems awful, for myriad reasons.

Eta: holy shit, and now having read the linked blog post- that is a LOT of medical conditions. Jumping from surgery to surgery on an almost weekly basis? Shit. Also (not to start an off-topic debate or anything) I am appalled that they circumsized 3 and 5 year old boys. Seems like a rough thing to do to children who already have a sense of their bodies, and for no real reason. Welcome to your new home, kids! Here are your new siblings, your new culture, your new language, (possibly) your new names, your new parents, and your new penises!

I used to read a few adoption blogs and it seemed like about 90% of families change their kid's name. Sometimes they will keep the child's original name as a middle name. I think it's highly problematic to do this when the kid is old enough to know their own name and has had it for years. That said sometimes Chinese families will give their kid a western name when they move to America. My family hosted a Chinese student and we expected him to want to be called by his chinese name but since his named meant ocean in chinese he preferred to go by the name "ocean"

[Jana814]

The name thing does not make any sense espically if they r older. A few years ago a friend of mine cousin adopted 2 kids (siblings) through the state of Florida, they we're 2 & 3, they did NOT change their names.

[Bethella]

The name thing does not make any sense espically if they r older. A few years ago a friend of mine cousin adopted 2 kids (siblings) through the state of Florida, they we're 2 & 3, they did NOT change their names.

In some cases the name change is for practical reasons, my parents didn't adopt but we did have several foreign exchange students. The two that were Asian started going by English names when no one could pronounce their real names properly (the first after two weeks, the second after about three). It was just so frustrating for them to constantly try to explain the pronunciation that they picked an English name they liked and it became their nickname for the duration of the stay. (But these were teenagers who made the decision themselves, not children who were assigned new names).

[valsa]

Chinese names can be difficult for Americans to pronounce and spell, so I can understand wanting to change those names (though in the case of adopting any older child, I believe in discussing the pros and cons of name changes with the child and ultimately letting them decide) I don't get changing Russian names though. Many Russia names are common enough in America that there wouldn't be a problem with pronounciation, though some might want to Americanize the spelling.

[ElphabaGalinda]

The thing is- you can adopt 3 children. You can adopt more. Many people do. But they wait years in between adoptions, until each previously adopted child is secure in the household, fluent in their new language, thriving in school and their social group, bonded to their parents (and siblings, if they had them), medically stable, etc.

They don't pile 11 children on top of one another in 5 years. They especially don't look to add several more new children with special needs into the household while some of the children already there will be undergoing extremely involved and invasive medical interventions shortly. As someone mentioned above, all this family is basically doing is just moving the children to a slightly improved institutional setting.

This is how I feel. No way are they giving these kids adequate time to adjust to their situation, and no way can they give them the attention and care that they need. Why do they need to adopt so many children so quickly? Also just because the situation the children came from is worse, doesn't make this situation good. It's still bad. Collecting children without giving the ones you just adopted the necessary time and attention is bad, it just happens that the situation the children came from is worse. People who really care about the individual children wait years between adoptions. And no way can you adopt all the children from such institutions, so even after adopting 11 there are still thousands that will be stuck in the same situation. So the place they came from is no excuse to adopt 11 children with high needs so close together.

By the way, I absolutely love your new avatar.

[Witsec7]

In some cases the name change is for practical reasons, my parents didn't adopt but we did have several foreign exchange students. The two that were Asian started going by English names when no one could pronounce their real names properly (the first after two weeks, the second after about three). It was just so frustrating for them to constantly try to explain the pronunciation that they picked an English name they liked and it became their nickname for the duration of the stay. (But these were teenagers who made the decision themselves, not children who were assigned new names).

Exchange students are sojourners. They made a choice to temporarily change their names for the convenience of others. That's a far cry from an adopted person sometimes losing his/her only links to culture and heritage. My name is difficult to pronounce, I certainly wouldn't relinquish it for the convenience of others. It is a direct tie to my immigrant heritage. The fact that these adoptive families choose to erase those ties for their convenience is just as disturbing as their desire to collect children.

[ElphabaGalinda]

I used to read a few adoption blogs and it seemed like about 90% of families change their kid's name. Sometimes they will keep the child's original name as a middle name. I think it's highly problematic to do this when the kid is old enough to know their own name and has had it for years. That said sometimes Chinese families will give their kid a western name when they move to America. My family hosted a Chinese student and we expected him to want to be called by his chinese name but since his named meant ocean in chinese he preferred to go by the name "ocean"

I think the fact that they changed the name of an 8-9 year old who would already know their original name makes the fact that they didn't give them any time to adjust to their new home before adding new children even worse. Suddenly living in another country, suddenly having a new family, new language, already having a bunch of medical conditions would be traumatic. Not keeping the name you've always known, would make it even more confusing. It's another example of how they don't care about the individual child at all, and they're just collecting.