Child Collectors Extraordinaire

[valsa]

By the way, I absolutely love your new avatar.

Thanks. No one can resist the awesome that is Arya Stark!

[guidedbybobafett]

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.

This is setting up a false dichotomy in which discussing the negative aspects of this families child collecting and compulsive adoption with no regard to consequence is essentially wishing the children back into some mythical orphanage of horrors. A. You have no idea where these children came from, and B. It's necessary to talk about adoption in a way that recognizes that the children are people who need the same things as bio children and often much, much more. While this situation may be better than the one they are leaving, that doesn't mean that they are going to forever remember their adoptive parents as their saviors and thus never have any complicated emotional needs that must be met. It doesn't mean that every thing is going to go smoothly because they often think of "how much worse it could have been". No. So. What to do when there are dozens of kids just like you who also cannot have their emotional needs met? What people want, especially Westerners and especially Christians, is for those children to constantly remember how warm and fed they are and how much worse it would have been if they hadn't been adopted. How can you complain about anything in that situation? When you adopt a child you must be prepared for that child to be just that: a child. And since on this site we often discuss the negative aspects of large families, why is it less acceptable to do so with this family? Why is it somehow different because their children were adopted? It absolutely should not be a different discussion, and I hope you realize why.

[August]

Mockingbird (The quote string's getting too long), I agree with you, but here's where I'm coming from. Just before Christmas I read the blog of a family who were about to adopt a child who was in a horrendous state from physical and emotional neglact, and who is months away from being transferred to an adult institution. In their blog they described using Pearl techniques on their child who has Down syndrome. They have adopted once before, a nine year old who also has Downs and was the weight of my children at birth. They changed her name to that of a child the mother had seen in a heartbreaking video some years earlier. There are also details of the incredible neglect of the children in the orphanage. Neglect so bad there was a huge scandal, front page papers, many children needing to be taken to hospital for refeeding.

Now, the thing is that they include full identifying information on their blog, so if I could stop that next adoption by calling CPS. I feel personally responsible for the choice between letting that boy die in an institution or be sent to an abusive home, because I have chosen the abusive home for him. So it's feeling more immediate and real for me at the moment, it's hard to think in terms of staffing numbers, small group care, policy change, etc. It's really more a question of if I've done the right thing by that boy.

[valsa]

I feel personally responsible for the choice between letting that boy die in an institution or be sent to an abusive home, because I have chosen the abusive home for him.

Except perhaps if you stopped the abusive home from adopting him, he'd be adopted by a non-abusive home instead. Abusers aren't the only ones adopting children, you know.

ETA: I'd also like to point out that if you know these people are using the Pearls' method of child training, it's more or less choosing between letting a child die in an orphanage from neglect or dying in a family setting from abuse.

[Ramona]

This is setting up a false dichotomy in which discussing the negative aspects of this families child collecting and compulsive adoption with no regard to consequence is essentially wishing the children back into some mythical orphanage of horrors. A. You have no idea where these children came from, and B. It's necessary to talk about adoption in a way that recognizes that the children are people who need the same things as bio children and often much, much more. While this situation may be better than the one they are leaving, that doesn't mean that they are going to forever remember their adoptive parents as their saviors and thus never have any complicated emotional needs that must be met. It doesn't mean that every thing is going to go smoothly because they often think of "how much worse it could have been". No. So. What to do when there are dozens of kids just like you who also cannot have their emotional needs met? What people want, especially Westerners and especially Christians, is for those children to constantly remember how warm and fed they are and how much worse it would have been if they hadn't been adopted. How can you complain about anything in that situation? When you adopt a child you must be prepared for that child to be just that: a child. And since on this site we often discuss the negative aspects of large families, why is it less acceptable to do so with this family? Why is it somehow different because their children were adopted? It absolutely should not be a different discussion, and I hope you realize why.

I never said any of this stuff about the parents being "saviors" or that everything would be perfect and warm and fuzzy.

There's nothing "mythical" about the orphanage that was mentioned.

[Ramona]

I feel like I need to say: I do NOT condone any of the Pearl's teachings.

Most fundie families that I've known didn't have anything to do with them either. I think that might be a regional thing...

Anyway. They're horrid nasty people and what they teach is abuse. Just wanted that noted among my posts.

[lilwriter85]

I can sometimes understand why Americans change the names of foreign born children that they adopt. Some names can be difficult to pronounce. I have a friend who is a social worker and has assisted in a adopt from foster care cases and there have been a few incidents of couples changing the names of kids. She said one couple said they changed the name of their adopted son because the son had been abused his mother. They didn't want the boy to go by the name given to him by his abuser. The boy was 3 at the time of adoption.

[lilwriter85]

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.

I forgot about the Oliver Twist mention. On the old site, there was a photo shoot of the whole family in Oliver Twist type costumes.

[rollmeover]

I don't know ~ if they have the love, energy, time, abilities, etc to take care of the kids, then isn't that a good thing? I'd rather see kids with homes than living in "the system". Overseas adoptions cost a LOT, I've heard, so they must be fairly well off.

That seems like it would make sense, but as an adoptive mother, I know there is a LOT more to successfully helping a child to settle and thrive and be their best and happiest self than there is in biological parenting of children. My children were adopted from my own country, as a baby and toddler, and they have my undivided attention 24/7 and their dad is around a lot more than most dads are able to be, and one child has been home for 8 years and the other for 5 years but we are really doubting whether gaining a sibling would be sustainable for our family or what is best for the two existing adopted ones. I just can't imagine any way that I could adopt 11 kids from foreign institutions in five years and have it work out, based on my experience.

[Witsec7]

I forgot about the Oliver Twist mention. On the old site, there was a photo shoot of the whole family in Oliver Twist type costumes.

Anne has never been a favorite of mine. But that being said she is a savvy business women who has turned her adopted kids into a money machine. I particularly dislike folks like her who take children with disabilities, and then use them to earn the income necessary for their own support. I totally gave up on her when she convinced Cody that he had to give up something when he broke the tv last year. She convinced this child that the appropriate amends would be to have his head shaven. Cody was attached to his shaggy locks which gave him a sense of belonging. Naturally she used her power to take that sense of confidence and belonging away from him. I felt that she was really manipulating him. I'm not an authority on how parents deal with special needs kids but the act in itself struck me as off. I seem to recall she also has connections to the LDS community.

[Guest Anonymous]

I can sometimes understand why Americans change the names of foreign born children that they adopt. Some names can be difficult to pronounce. I have a friend who is a social worker and has assisted in a adopt from foster care cases and there have been a few incidents of couples changing the names of kids. She said one couple said they changed the name of their adopted son because the son had been abused his mother. They didn't want the boy to go by the name given to him by his abuser. The boy was 3 at the time of adoption.

I don't really have much experience of knowing people in overseas adoptions situations, so I am just spouting off the cuff feelings here. ;)

I can understand the parents wanting a 'fresh start' for the child but I still feel shocked at the thought of a three year old having their name taken away from them, when they have very little else that is their own or that is a constant in their lives.

And - at what point do the families get to change the name? Is it at the start of the process or at the time of adoption? I have never quite got over the (admittedly second-hand) account on Rebecca eleventy's blog, of the middle-school age child whose adoptive family (the Wilkersons?) had a full church service at which they gave her a new name as part of the welcome into their family.... and then for some sad reason, the adoption was apparently never finalised and she went back to wherever she came from (and presumably... back to her 'old' name?). The story sounded horrific but the fact that they had changed her identity before it all fell apart, just strikes me an additional, utterly confusing and unnecessary thing to do, at a time when everything else in the child's life is in flux.

Most people who interact with other people through work/school/social activities will come across names we find difficult to pronounce, but we just get on with learning and assimilating those names into our vocabulary. Why is it so hard to do that for adoptive children?

[ElphabaGalinda]

Thanks. No one can resist the awesome that is Arya Stark!

Arya is my favourite! Even after reading all the books, she's still my favourite.

[Ramona]

And since on this site we often discuss the negative aspects of large families, why is it less acceptable to do so with this family? Why is it somehow different because their children were adopted?

Just re-read and catching this ~ I don't think this site specifically aims at "large families" in and of themselves? Yes, the Duggars of course (and that is VERY large) and a few of the oft mentioned families have a gaggle, but not excessive amount of kids... I don't think large families are always (or even most of the time) problematic. Heck, my grandmother comes from thirteen kids and my grandfather from fourteen. They got together and had six girls.. my grandparent's siblings all had fairly large (5+ kids) families as well.. I have a lot of cousins. :lol:

Anyway. I also don't think I said "don't discuss this family"... just gave my own thoughts... scattered as they often are...

Yes, I look at the photos from those orphanages and I cry and I wish that I had the resources to adopt as many as I could.

I'd prolly get called a collector :P but no, it's just from a wish to help. (instantly - not "change the country over time" - yes, I see the logic in that, but my *heart* screams "help that child - that one, right there, right now." ....

[valsa]

but no, it's just from a wish to help. (instantly - not "change the country over time" - yes, I see the logic in that, but my *heart* screams "help that child - that one, right there, right now." ....

People who don't agree with child collecting have a wish to help as well. However, we think the child deserves better than what you're proposing.

[Levon]

Actually, this may not be a bad thing.

I lived in China for some time, my degree is in China studies,and I volunteered in college helping older children adopted from China and their American families adjust. What I'm trying to say is, I know quite a bit about adopting older children from China.

Because there are SO MANY children in China who need families, when a child hits a certain age, has special needs, or has even a slight cosmetic defect, they are no longer considered viable adoption candidates. They are moved to orphanages in more remote provinces, live most times in terrible poverty (even the "good" orphanages in China are well below American standards), and are often verbally abused by their caretakers. As someone with a degree in China studies who has studied the politics and policies in China and as someone who has lived in the country, I understand why this happens. It's a cut-throat place. There are too many kids, and the idea is that you can't waste time and resources on children who "don't have a chance", when not all of the "perfect" children will even find homes. You gotta get out as many as you can and leave those who fall behind, behind. Please don't think China is this monstrous place. It isn't. The people are wonderful and kind. But when it can be a struggle just to make sure your baby has food, there isn't much time to pity those that don't.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand. These older children are basically abandoned. There is no hope for them to get adopted, so they are given the bare physical necessities to survive and that is it. Basic education. Basic food and clothes. Little to no love or care. And when they can work, that's what they do, usually starting in their young teens (child labor laws, where they exist in China, are not always enforced). But there is no hope for them because China operates in many ways on social networks. A child without a social network is practically doomed to live a life of bottom-rung labor jobs.

I once worked with a 10 year old who had a small ear. As in, one ear was slightly smaller than the other. No special needs, nothing. But that defect meant that she got shipped off to Hunan (a lovely place, but inland. Not a good place to get a foreign adoption). The workers would tell her that no one would ever love her because of her ear. She was too ugly to be loved, and that's why she would never have a family. She was cared for by a "nanny" who she really loved, but even the nanny would tell her that she was ugly and could never be loved. She would NOT look at pictures of herself. She constantly thought the American family would send her back. That poor girl was gorgeous, and honestly, you never would have noticed her ear.

If these kids hear even one "I love you" a day, then their life is better than it was.

If they ever get a fancy set of clothes, their life is better than the kids they left back in the orphanage.

If they get to finish HS, then they are getting a better education than their former peers.

Most likely this family saw the situation and wanted to help as many of these poor kids as they could. And it's not all bad. The large numbers mean that they have a group to talk with to preserve their language and common heritage. One of the largest issues I saw with these kids once they came over were feelings of isolation and not being able to relate to their family and peers (even after language immersion). The large numbers of them mean that these kids most likely wont feel as isolated and will have people with common experiences to relate to. Plus, these are children that are used to living with large numbers of other kids AND are incredibly self-sufficient (we often have to tell the American mothers to step back and let the kids do their own chores if they want to).

This family may have too many kids, but I can 100% guarantee you that they have improved the fortunes of the children they adopted as older kids. And for that, I salute them.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. My insular-Western reaction to this thread was these adoptions are unequivocally wrong, but you've given me something to think about.

[Austin]

Anne has never been a favorite of mine. But that being said she is a savvy business women who has turned her adopted kids into a money machine. I particularly dislike folks like her who take children with disabilities, and then use them to earn the income necessary for their own support. I totally gave up on her when she convinced Cody that he had to give up something when he broke the tv last year. She convinced this child that the appropriate amends would be to have his head shaven. Cody was attached to his shaggy locks which gave him a sense of belonging. Naturally she used her power to take that sense of confidence and belonging away from him. I felt that she was really manipulating him. I'm not an authority on how parents deal with special needs kids but the act in itself struck me as off. I seem to recall she also has connections to the LDS community.

:shock:

That's god-awful.

[Ramona]

People who don't agree with child collecting have a wish to help as well. However, we think the child deserves better than what you're proposing.

I'm not sure what my proposal is, to you? Did you mean what I said in the part that you quoted (about wanting to help in that immediate way? that's a heart thing, I can't help that feeling - I did say that I see the logic in long term changes too) or something else?

[Ramona]

Oh and (no edit button on tapatalk) I never said others didn't want to help... Of course they do. :)

[Witsec7]

:shock:

That's god-awful.

Anne is a tireless self promoter, and does use Rick Warren and the Saddleback Church to further her constant quest for publicity. Publicity=$$ for Anne. I've followed her for a long time. She lives a couple houses away from my eldest stepson.

[valsa]

I'm not sure what my proposal is, to you? Did you mean what I said in the part that you quoted (about wanting to help in that immediate way? that's a heart thing, I can't help that feeling - I did say that I see the logic in long term changes too) or something else?

Your proposal appears to be resorting to child collecting instead of, say, advocating for more non-abusers to consider the possibility of adoption (we wouldn't be having this discussion if those 11 children had been adopted between 4 or 5 different families) or encouraging people to adopt many children but wait an adequate amount of time between adoptions (11 children over 15 or 20 years isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than over 5 years) Both of these have a relatively more immediate impact than long-term social changes in the countries of origin.

[OkToBeTakei]

I've been reading this thread. I went to that link about the orphanage also. I can understand the strong feelings for sure.

But a child can choose to leave a shitty fundie family. Would they have that choice if left where they were? I am in two minds as to how damaging either upbringing would be. Alive, healthy and an ability to make the choice makes me think one way.

I absolutely agree with the posters who say rather than 'collect' do something which helps the initial problem. But I think the mentality of wanting to be seen as doing something good ie. RESCUE rather than work quietly to solve the fundamental issue will not be easily solved.

I really do not get the collect thing. I would LOVE to adopt. I do not think I have what it takes. That is only thinking about one. Maybe I think about it too much and should just do 4 at once BA-Ching!

[Ramona]

Your proposal appears to be resorting to child collecting instead of, say, advocating for more non-abusers to consider the possibility of adoption (we wouldn't be having this discussion if those 11 children had been adopted between 4 or 5 different families) or encouraging people to adopt many children but wait an adequate amount of time between adoptions (11 children over 15 or 20 years isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than over 5 years) Both of these have a relatively more immediate impact than long-term social changes in the countries of origin.

Okay nope ~ I don't want anyone to "collect" children. And I definitely DO want more families to adopt! Lots of families of all faiths or whatever, from everywhere.

(it would also help if it wasn't so difficult to do!)

[Guest Anonymous]

I must say, I just feel conflicted about some cases.

From time to time, I check up on the website of the family that adopted Lovelie after Emma Strong at Full Quiver 'disrupted' her, along with her brother Justus. Lovelie looks very happy and the family seem to be very loving. The parents do seem to be child collectors though. They have 10 bio children (aged 31 down to 12), 8 adoptive children, and are currently awaiting a further three children to be finalised.

http://majesticpintabians.blogspot.co.uk/

[rural juror]

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 remember reading in another article that other parents in her school district felt like she was monopolizing the special ed resources. One parents of a special needs kid said she had to move her kid to a different school because the Belles-Silcock boys were taking up so many resources.

Also, just found this article about one of the older boys, Val:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 ... /121209960

He was adopted from Russia at age 12. Clearly he is very grateful, but does mention that being in such a large family had some disadvantages.

[valsa]

But I think the mentality of wanting to be seen as doing something good ie. RESCUE rather than work quietly to solve the fundamental issue will not be easily solved.

This is really powerful and very true.

Most of these child collectors will never do anything to try to change the fundamental problems in Russia and/or in Russian orphanages that lead to these children being disgarded like trash. They're usually also the ones who fight against social services programs in the U.S. that would make it easier for more people to adopt from other countries. There are a lot of people in the U.S. who would love to adopt but don't feel they'd be able to because of monetary issues- especially getting reasonably priced medical care for their child's special needs, affording physical/developmental/occupational/whatever therapies and counseling, time off work for bonding and medical/therapy/counseling appointments, and general safety nets for when the child is older (especially if their special need makes it likely they'll never be able to live independently)