Campbells/Above Rubies in Mother Jones/Adoption (Merged)

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

Fresh Air is going to be interviewing her on it.

Probably not when I can listen to it, but I"m planning on hunting down the podcast.

Would you mind posting the link if you do find it?

Thanks :)

[debrand]

My motto on interracial adoption is that you should at least be able to picture yourself married to an adult of the same ethnicity of the child you are planning to adopt. If that's an impossibility, it's totally unfair to adopt that child. I've told that to a few people planning to adopt and I've always met with hostility, as in "Oh, I could never marry xyz." Guess I'd best keep my mouth shut.

That is horrible! I think also that you shouldn't adopt from a race/ethnicity/country that you would be upset about if your daughter or son married someone of that race/ethnicity/country.

[sparkles]

I'm about a quarter of the way through Kathryn Joyce's book and I'm already infuriated. Who do these people think they are? How can you possibly care for children as individuals, especially those who might have special needs or emotional issues, when you scoop them up as if they were eggs? Again, they're treated as commodities not people. They grab up these children as if they were ordering from a Chinese takeout menu. I'll have one Guatemalan from column A, one Liberian from column B, oh and throw in two Haitians from the daily specials just for the hell of it.

[dawbs]

Would you mind posting the link if you do find it?

Thanks :)

It's here--I haven't gotten a chance to listento it yet though:

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/16/177350912 ... f-adoption

(cheating though...transcript:

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript ... =177350912

:))

[mystikchick17]

Basically, the Campbells (of Above Rubies fame) adopted children from Liberia in totally shady ways, then treated them essentially as live-in slaves. There's also references to the fundie obsession with sexual purity and Pearl-style discipline abuse techniques such as the rubber hose, how one of the girls was given a book on midwifery to help her adopted mother give birth the next time, SODRT, and using older kids to care for the younger. It's gross on more than one level.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/ ... on-liberia

[Sister_Wife]

See this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16913

[mystikchick17]

See this thread:

http://www.freejinger.org/forums/viewto ... =8&t=16913

Whoops, sorry!

[mystikchick17]

Apologies for posting a third thread on this article - I just came across it today and was similarly horrified by it, but it was very well-written. I didn't make the connection between the author's name and the Quiverfull book, which was excellent, but I have acted with speed to get myself at the top of the waiting list at my local library for Child Catchers.

[RosyDaisy]

Hell is too good for these people!

[FloraDoraDolly]

Here's a related article I found via Twitter:

http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com ... -movement/

The author defends Bethany Christian Services and claims that Kathryn Joyce misrepresented this agency. However, I find it odd that this man has never heard of the Pearls, Above Rubies, or any of the other Quiverfull people/organizations.

The comments below the article are also worth a read.

[hoipolloi]

Thank you, FloraDoraDolly. That link is worth reading for the comments alone. I'd say that Mr. Merritt got pwned.

He's nothing but a shill for the fundie adoption mills.

[FloraDoraDolly]

Thank you, FloraDoraDolly. That link is worth reading for the comments alone. I'd say that Mr. Merritt got pwned.

He's nothing but a shill for the fundie adoption mills.

He did a decent job defending Bethany. I know that agency has been around for decades and I wouldn't lump them in with the more recent fly-by-night agencies. Merritt should have left it at that instead of addressing the Quiverfull aspect.

[chaotic life]

Bethany is the WORST adoption agency in existence in their successful efforts to coercively seperate domestic newborns from their poor mothers. They are predatory and shameful and the trail of devestated women who realize how predatory and unethical their behaviors are only after they relinquish their children is deplorable and legendary.

So, any author who has the audacity to defend Bethany when adoption ethics advocates know just how dispecable their domestic adoption practices are immediately negates his opinion for me.

[lilith]

Bethany is the WORST adoption agency in existence in their successful efforts to coercively seperate domestic newborns from their poor mothers. They are predatory and shameful and the trail of devestated women who realize how predatory and unethical their behaviors are only after they relinquish their children is deplorable and legendary.

So, any author who has the audacity to defend Bethany when adoption ethics advocates know just how dispecable their domestic adoption practices are immediately negates his opinion for me.

Isn't Bethany the agency that Tyler and Caitlyn of Teen Mom fame used and continue to promote? I've always thought that the fact that their adoption agent told them about 16 and Pregnant and recorded their audition tape for them then continued to be involved in the show was super dodgy.

[sewingmom2]

Bethany is the WORST adoption agency in existence in their successful efforts to coercively seperate domestic newborns from their poor mothers. They are predatory and shameful and the trail of devestated women who realize how predatory and unethical their behaviors are only after they relinquish their children is deplorable and legendary.

So, any author who has the audacity to defend Bethany when adoption ethics advocates know just how dispecable their domestic adoption practices are immediately negates his opinion for me.

I talked to Bethany many years ago and they were not interested in placing a child in a Catholic family. Kind of insulted me, kwim?

[chaotic life]

Like many Evangelica Christian adoption agencies, Bethany will ONLY place children in the *right* kind of Christian home, and they (also like so many others) require a minister's reference before they will approve your application. Funy how they are not so worried about whether the girls whose babies they snatch up are the *right* kind of Christian as well. They focus on very glossy and high priced advertising to lure in very poor women and then the entire process from that point forward is focused on the gift you can give a good Christian family and how you are powerless and already a birthmother. Their so-called post-placement counseling for birthmothers consists of making it clear that you are not the parent, are not entitled to the openness you were lured into trusting while pregnant, and that you must get on with your life and leave the new family alone.

When I am working in birthmother support work (which I often take breaks from because the emotions are TOO raw and dredge back up my own emotions that I am normally stable with), the number one thing I run into is women absolutely devestated after placing with Bethany. If you look at first-mother sources and search on Bethany, it's horrible and endemic. The problem is that new at-risk women won't get the message from those who rally against Bethany until after it's too late. First mothers in this country are a silent minority intentionally marginalized in the adoption triad by most powerful agences like Bethany that want to promote the happy miracle of adoption and the feel-good good deeds. The truth is that Bethan, more than most even, is a merely skip away from baby-scopp era practices and has NO intention reforming because their formula works to secure product for their customers just fine for their purposes.

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

itsalmostnaptime.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/on-orphan-fever-in-church.html?m=1

Missy, a fundie lite who just adopted a toddler from Ethiopia, posted about this book. In the comments someone says she is mentioned in the book. Interesting!

[stonefruit]

Jonathan Merritt? Again with this chucklehead?

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/12/why_i_o ... an_star_2/

[chaotic life]

So he's not only on the BOARD for Bethany but he's a closet non-heterosexual (no idea if he is Bi or Gay since he's in denial) who attacks the LGBT community?

Wow, not sure if I were going to push against the call for ethics in adoption that is the spokesperson I would want. The word hippocrite comes to mind personally.

[Rosa]

Thank you, Flora! Stephy at Stuff Christian Culture Likes posted about this, and the adoption "defenders" (i'm sorry, it's not actually defending the idea of adoption if you skip right over the kids who DIED or were stolen and abused, to complain that the article isn't fair to most adopters.) included one dude who was all "well it must not be right because Bethany has a good reputation."

I responded that if Bethany did some of these stolen-child no-citizenship adoptions and had a good reputation, their reputation must be wrong. But having actual information is better.

[Rosa]

sorry if this particular article has been linked before, i think i went down a rabbit hole but it might have made a circle.

Anyway, this is a terrible review http://www.edstetzer.com/2013/04/adopti ... -atte.html but there are two very, very good comments from adoptive parents on it:

By Tara Livesay on April 19, 2013 4:50 PM

I appreciate these thoughtful responses and am especially glad to see we are not ignoring the incidents of corruption - or downplaying them.

I read Joyce's book. (advance copy)

I am an adoptive mother. (Eleven years ago we first adopted. We now live in our children's birth-country)

One of my children was later found not to be an orphan. The mother was told to falsify his birth certificate by the Christian, American orphanage owner.

Because this accompanied by evidence of coersion and exploitation, is very troubling to me, I have a huge burden to expose the things that happen to regularaly ignore or cast aside poor birth families.

As for the book, I was bummed out by some of it and did think she missed a chance to bring light to some dark situations. (Most people that adopt that are Christians won't read it because it is so anti-Christian).

I recently wrote about my desire to see birth famlies better protected on our blog. I don't think agencies or even Hauge are doing enough currently. (In fact, I think many agencies look the other way and refuse to acknowledge wrong doing.)

Today in response to my desire to see a lot more work done to protect first families a woman said this to me:

"You say that whether a child is sold as a slave or to a family - the harm is the same. Yes, the act is evil regardless - BUT - the child is much better off in a family than as a slave. Is the answer to provide better for a first family so they can care for their child? Yes, but it isn't that easy."

This is dangerous thinking in my opinion. Because it is not easy to work with the poor and help find ways to support them to raise their own kids we are then able to give ourselves a pass even if it wasn't what the first-family signed up for or understood? I don't think so. We should want the same rights for the poor as we ourselves have. As Christians we are to be champions for the poor, placing our needs and desires behind theirs and lifting them up in every way possible.

By Jason Egly on April 19, 2013 5:35 PM

As an adoptive parent, I am troubled by the whole conversation on both sides. I appreciate the wisdom of the individuals above, and most certainly the comments of Tara Livesay above.

There are dangers on both sides of this argument. All Christian adoptions should not be suspect because of the abuses of some who carry that moniker. It is unfair to those who have walked or are walking through the process ethically.

Likewise, given the amount of abuse that IS present, Christians should not expect a free pass, nor react defensively when our motives are questioned. The truth is, there is a HUGE demand among Christians to adopt, as Rick Morton mentioned above, and there are some very bad people ready and willing to exploit this demand and the children and families involved for their own personal gain. And some times, sadly, the ones doing the exploitation are us.

When we were in the process of adopting our two girls 5 years ago from Ethiopia, we were exposed to some very ugly things and had some opportunities to "expedite" our process that bordered on child trafficking. Some of these "opportunities" came from stateside Christians. Thank God that He protected us from this evil. I have often said there is a very fine line between adoption and child trafficking. But just because the line is fine, does not give anyone permission to cross it. The ends do NOT justify the means.

The answer is for us to scrutinize ALL adoptions individually and fairly, regardless of whether the families adopting are Christian or not. And Christians in the process, as well as Christian agencies, need to double down on their efforts to maintain the highest standard of ethics. Those who cannot or will not do this need to be shut down immediately. Unfortunately, as Joyce points out, there are instances where this is not happening. We need to pay attention to what she is saying, even if we disagree with her worldview. Her perception is the reality for most outside of our circles, even if it is biased.

Of course, paying attention and taking each case and child individually requires much time, energy, and effort. And unfortunately, it is far easier for those on both sides of this issue to simply make sweeping generalizations. That helps no one.

Just my two cents.

[jaelh]

For a short while, I used to supervise DNA testing on birth mothers and children being adopted into the US. No DNA match, no adoption.

It's not just Christian adoption that's problematic. I can speak only from an international adoption POV; but ^&*#.

*As soon* as money is involved - and money has been involved from the moment international adoptions sprung into being - as *soon* as there is money involved in anything; things change. I know of mother in law who sold a child while the mother was away for a few days; government officials who forcibly removed children for "non payment of debts"; hospitals who did not release children to their parents until large bills were paid (and when they weren't - sold the children on, to 'pay the debt'.). I've met some of these mothers. &^*& met them, and had them tell me how their children were taken without their consent, and they were not told where their babies had been taken to. I could go on. (Oh gah. I could go on.)

Let me be clear: these were from a country *without a Christian adoption agency operating in it*. Not a single one. This was an entirely secular program. Nationally managed, secular program. (and no, it wasn't China).

Overwhelmingly; children are given up because of poverty, not because they don't have a living family. The "heroic rescue" narrative is crap: families are poor. Most children have living parents; virtually all have living family.

Even amongst adoptive parents who understood this (and shit, if you're sitting there, bouncing a child, while the mother is having blood taken, you have to be at least partially aware) - the narrative becomes "I'm saving a child from a life of destitute poverty". Sweet sky dog, I've been told this, with the birth mother sitting in the damn room.

Poverty is hard. Poverty is really hard. But poverty does not, in and of itself, mean that you won't have a full, joyous, rewarding, satisfying life. Poverty is not moral failure; poverty does not limit the love that a parent can give a child. Not being poor is no guarantee that a child will be happier; that they will be mentally stable; that they will be fulfilled. Could you imagine adopting domestically to "save a child from poverty"? %&^* no. It would be regarded as profoundly offensive. Saving a child from a dysfunctional home - yes; that happens through the foster system. But from poverty? We would be disgusted as such an idea.

Sorry. I think I'm bordering on ranting now. I know my heart rate has increased. Let me be clear: I don't think any individual adoptive relationship is problematic, in and of itself. There are plenty of horror stories; but there are plenty of wonderful family relationships that have been grown through international adoption. For families that have made that choice: This is not a rant at you. But the whole system? It's rotten to the core. Absolutely; entirely rotten.

Even if 95% of adoptions are totally legitimate, they create a system that is, in and of itself, immoral. The problem is that the money paid for those legitimate adoptions creates the incentive that drives child trafficking; forced removals and intimidation. Every adoptive parent that pays $xK for a totally above board adoption, drives the production of a commodity: the adoptable baby.

Anyway. /rant. I know this thread is about how children are treated at the end point; by their adoptive parents. This is a horrendous problem. But the whole damn system is problematic. We, in the west, love a salvation narrative, so long as we're the saviour. International adoption gives us that in spades. But honestly; we created a monster of a system. All the way down; and all the way back up again when you see stories like these, of abused children at the end.

[Mama Mia]

jaelh,

That was a wonderful post, I completely agree with one exception.

I think often the adoption narrative in the U.S. is based on 'saving a child from poverty' - as the "give your child a better life" spiel aimed at poor/teen mothers is primarily based on what material goods can be given to the child, and making the pregnant young woman feel like she wouldn't be able to provide "enough".

[Sanveann]

I talked to Bethany many years ago and they were not interested in placing a child in a Catholic family. Kind of insulted me, kwim?

One of my good friends is a devoutly Catholic single adoptive mom of two little girls from China (now pre-teens). When she first was interested in adopting, she got the STRONG impression that Bethany did NOT want to work with a single mom, much less a Catholic one. And can I say that she is a totally kick-ass mom, and her girls are awesome? (In fact, if anything happened to me and my husband, my very strong preference would be for her to take my kids.)

[jaelh]

jaelh,

That was a wonderful post, I completely agree with one exception.

I think often the adoption narrative in the U.S. is based on 'saving a child from poverty' - as the "give your child a better life" spiel aimed at poor/teen mothers is primarily based on what material goods can be given to the child, and making the pregnant young woman feel like she wouldn't be able to provide "enough".

Thanks m'am.

On the "save a child from poverty" narrative I am speaking only about the adoptive parents narrative. Domestic adoptive parents would never say they were adopting to "save a child from poverty" (esp. when it comes to newborns/infants/under 2's); they adopt because they want to be parents. Children adopted from care might be "saved from the system"; but saving from poverty? Not from the domestic adoptive parent.

You're are entirely correct to point out that the ways pressures is placed on birth mothers to give their child up are very different to what I've described above.