Remember "Bringing Home Rebecca?"

[FundieWatcher]

There are ABC laws, where you can abandon your baby at a hospital or fire station. It is legal and encouraged instead leaving a baby in a dumpster. And it is implied that the baby will get a good home. Not dad in prison/beggar parents. IMO they miss represented themselves to the adoption agency or social services or whoever did the adoption. Just my 2 cents.

I got pregnant in my 20s from an affair. I ended up terminating the pregnancy. But I looked into adoption. I requested information and spoke to a counselor. But ultimately I got too sick. I was working in chemical manufacturing. I wasn't sure I could even work pregnant. I didn't want to ask until I had made a decision. Things got too real too fast. I was about to get in way over my head with bills.

I would have been PISSED if people like this had adopted it. I mean, I can do bad all by myself...

[chaotic life]

It's a hidden fact in domestic infant adoptions that often children are not placed in better situations than what their birthmother could have provided for the child herself. In fact, the stress that leads to adoption can destabilize a couple and lead to divorce regardless of the adoption. I know far, far too many birthmothers who thought they were placing their child in a stable home only to discover 10 years or more down the road that the roles were reversed and they were the ones in a stable marriage, stable home life and the adoptive families were not.

Those boys were not placed via the foster-care system. They would not have been allowed to continue the placement with his arrest and conviction pending through foster-care.

[FundieWatcher]

If I had gone through all the trouble of bringing the pregnancy to term and fundies adopted it...oh hell no.

Anti abortion people harp on how many loving parents want to adopt. If that is bull (and we know by how many kids in foster care that it is at least part bs) then I really wish pro choice activists would bring it to light.

Women should not be turning be turning their lives around for a pregnancy only to have the child raised in a worse situation. Especially when they are being sold the opposite. ..

Also, if I had to quit my job because of the pregnancy, no one could explain how I was supposed to pay my rent, car, light, etc.. I was told in NC there is a limit as to how much adoptive parents can pay the birth mother for her expenses. It was less than my bills. They promised food stamps, so at least I wouldn't have starved.

[YPestis]

I remember the "Bringing Rebecca Home" post from years past. For those that poo-poo Sam's post about his situation, I'm pretty sure he's holding back here. I remember reading Sam's blog years back (it's probably discontinued now) where he came off as a gun-nut, fringe-y for even the Tea Party set. ATF people coming by his house and arresting him would probably be a sign of the impending apocalypse. The fact Sam wrote highly of the agents makes me think he either genuinely liked them, or he is masking his true feelings in order to make himself look sympathetic.

The way I see it, Sam's situation came about due to a combination of ignorance and stupidity. From the brief glimpse of this man's politics, it was probably easy for him to justify circumventing the law on gun exports. However, a smart man should have done some research to see if what he did was actually legal. When he was told to commit fraud by his boss, maybe I could believe he did it out of ignorance, in the "I was only following orders" mentality that people think absolves them of responsibilities (legally and otherwise). However, he was clearly lying on those forms and he should have known this was an ethical gray line at best.

I think the situation really got worse when he started his own business and continued on the same illegal dealings. When you start your own business, you research on the laws governing your business as you are liable for your actions. It obviously wasn't hard to do, as Sam quickly googled and found out what he did was illegal afterhe received calls from federal agents. The fact that he didn't do this tells me he was either stupid, lazy or lying that he thought he could get away with committing fraud and lying on federal forms.

I think greed took over when Sam realized he was making good money through his dealings. The man doesn't sound like he has great employment prospects, and I don't mean that in a mean way. When he brought Rebecca home, he was an employee at a gun shop selling guns, which he was laid off from shortly thereafter. His wife was 27, and I'm guessing he was also in his mid-to-late 20's. A guy of that age who expects to be the only breadwinner should have a more stable and higher-paying job than working in retail at a independent gun store. His next job may have paid better, but I'm guessing he wasn't that much more financially sound. The illegal export business probably seemed lucrative and easy, not to mention the taxes he saved on doing things under the table. It probably also went well with his fringey anti-government politics.

Anyway, the only point where I don't fault Sam on is when he opened up his books to the federal agents. Being a self-proclaimed patriot, he probably thought he was doing his duty when he found out the parts he exported may be used against US soldiers. Sam should have lawyered up as soon as agents came snooping (to protect himself against self-recriminations). He certainly should have hired a private lawyer as soon as the situation worsened. It's not so much that a court-appointed lawyer is bad, but someone like that may be be overworked and not be able to provide top notch counsel.

I don't feel bad for the Colemans. They were smug about Rebecca leaving the work place (and how all women must secretly want to do the same!). It's their kids that I feel bad for. It's going to be tough for the next few years. Even out of prison, Sam will have a hard time finding decent employment. If he wants to start a business, his prison time may make it difficult to get loans. I wonder what the rules are in regards to gun ownership for convicted felons. Given that this gun works in the gun retail, if he can't handle or own one, he may be forced to change field.

As for Rebecca, I can see why she want to stay home. She may not make enough to justify daycare for two young children. However, there are programs available for single moms/lower income families. However, like most fundies, they'd rather have strangers give them money rather than the government because stranger charity comes with no strings attached. Food stamps, welfare checks etc have work/school requirements and other strings. Heaven forbid if you want to have people give you money with strings attached to it. I have little sympathy for people that think people should give them money because they are too good for the system. Woman up, Rebecca. You are a mother now. You will spend the next 18 years doing things you don't like.

It's a hidden fact in domestic infant adoptions that often children are not placed in better situations than what their birth mother could have provided for the child herself. In fact, the stress that leads to adoption can destabilize a couple and lead to divorce regardless of the adoption. I know far, far too many birth mothers who thought they were placing their child in a stable home only to discover 10 years or more down the road that the roles were reversed and they were the ones in a stable marriage, stable home life and the adoptive families were not.

I'm surprised to hear infant adoptees ending up worse off. I always hear about how difficult it is to adopt a healthy infant domestically, especially white babies, and assume competition is pretty tough. I can understand if the couple that adopts a baby faces struggles later in their lives (life happens), but not if they are currently struggling financially or otherwise and still at the top of the list for adoption. You just keep hearing of financially stable, two-parent households that wait for years to adopt. I'm not sure how the Colemans managed to adopt two (seemingly) healthy infants. Perhaps they knew the mother(s). It does appear the children struck out again. They now have a felon dad and a mom who refuse to seek employment. How sad.

[formergothardite]

Pretty sure felons can't own guns. I'm not even sure you can work around guns. He is going to need to get a whole new career. Rebecca is the most employable, she needs to go get a job.

[chaotic life]

All financially stable means is that you can pay your bills every month. To adopt internationally, you have to make 125% of the US poverty level for your family size that includes the adoptee but even then if you don't have that much income, you can have someone co-sponsor the immigrant visa for the child and still adopt.

As for stable marriage, all marriages can be stable at one point in time and unstable in others. Adopting doesn't somehow protect you from that reality. Sometimes, adoption is done for the same reason having a baby happens, because someone thinks it will fix the problems in an already unstable marriage. It only takes someone spinning those issues to pass a homestudy.

People who adopt are just normal people, and while there is a high percentage of couples wanting to adopt versus adoptable babies, it's not a line where you are guaranteed your turn when you get to the front. It's about marketing yourself to attract birthmothers.

[Hisey]

All financially stable means is that you can pay your bills every month. To adopt internationally, you have to make 125% of the US poverty level for your family size that includes the adoptee but even then if you don't have that much income, you can have someone co-sponsor the immigrant visa for the child and still adopt.

As for stable marriage, all marriages can be stable at one point in time and unstable in others. Adopting doesn't somehow protect you from that reality. Sometimes, adoption is done for the same reason having a baby happens, because someone thinks it will fix the problems in an already unstable marriage. It only takes someone spinning those issues to pass a homestudy.

People who adopt are just normal people, and while there is a high percentage of couples wanting to adopt versus adoptable babies, it's not a line where you are guaranteed your turn when you get to the front. It's about marketing yourself to attract birthmothers.

I don't know where you heard that information about co-sponsoring the immigration visa, but it certainly is not true for all countries. I'm sure it is not true for China, a country that is very selective about who is allowed to adopt their babies. And that's the thing about international adoption, you cannot make blanket statements like you did. It is different for every country.

And it's certainly not true that there are more prospective adoptive parents than there are children. MOST adoptions in the US are for children over 2--in other words, not babies. There are far more available children aged 2 or more than there are families who want to adopt them. The "marketing yourself to birthmothers" business you describe is just for those who want healthy young babies.

The adoption of healthy babies seems to be the only type of adoption that interests people here. They act as though "adoption" is synomomous with adopting a healthy (white) baby. In reality, such adoptions are only a percentage of the adoptions in the US, and certainly not the majority, as I said earlier. Does anyone care about the five and ten year olds, the disabled children, the TPR'ed foster care kids? You'd think they'd even get a mention.

[Mama Mia]

I don't know where you heard that information about co-sponsoring the immigration visa, but it certainly is not true for all countries. I'm sure it is not true for China, a country that is very selective about who is allowed to adopt their babies. And that's the thing about international adoption, you cannot make blanket statements like you did. It is different for every country.

And it's certainly not true that there are more prospective adoptive parents than there are children. MOST adoptions in the US are for children over 2--in other words, not babies. There are far more available children aged 2 or more than there are families who want to adopt them. The "marketing yourself to birthmothers" business you describe is just for those who want healthy young babies.

The adoption of healthy babies seems to be the only type of adoption that interests people here. They act as though "adoption" is synomomous with adopting a healthy (white) baby. In reality, such adoptions are only a percentage of the adoptions in the US, and certainly not the majority, as I said earlier. Does anyone care about the five and ten year olds, the disabled children, the TPR'ed foster care kids? You'd think they'd even get a mention.

I think you have a point. Although I know that the poster you're quoting, chaotic life, has adopted older, special needs, kids..so your point seems misplaced.

But I think you are also kind of over estimating the number of kids in foster care who are available for adoption. The vast majority of kids in foster care aren't eligible for adoption. Even the big search site for kids to be adopted from foster care has a really small number once you weed out the young adults. The site is aduptuskids - they state that there's something like 100,000 kids- but that includes "kids" up to age 21. Even bringing the search down to under 18 and have had their info updated in the last year brings it down to around 3,000, total, and a large number of these are large sibling groups. If you take out the sibling groups and bring it down to age 10 it's only a few hundred kids. Most of whom seem to have some pretty significant challenges.

It's fantastic if someone can take that on, but it's hardly for everyone. Sorry, this is just a sore point, because I think people tend to think the foster care system consists of kids entering the system and then quickly either reunifying or being placed for adoption, and that's really rarely the case. And it's also kind of a bad idea to encourage people to take on large sibling groups, or kids with significantly challenging behaviors/ needs if they really, truly, don't think they can handle it. Just because someone is an appropriately aged, financially stable, ideal type couple who just can't conceive, does not mean they are neccessarily equipped, or have the temperament to care for special needs kids, or a large number of kids, or even just kids who have been traumatized.

I think it does the kids a disservice to try to guilt people into adopting them if they are self aware enough to know they can't cope. Sure, stretching their minds to go for a slightly older child, or a brother and sister instead of a single child, is great, but I don't think it's realistic to think everyone is able to handle some of the challenges these kids can bring. And if they really don't feel they can, and react horribly to the children, then what? It's just one more person in their life who has let them down.

Of course people who do feel they have the temperament and can handle taking on a large sibling group, or kids with special needs, should be encouraged to adopt through foster care, and a pile more resources should be available to help them!

FYI, I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who has worked with lots of kids in the foster care system, and their parents, as well as having my own kids with mild special needs.

[Hane]

True story of Ex-Mr.-Hane-#2's younger son, whom he adopted with his first wife: This child was with a foster family since his birth. When he was 14 months old, my ex and his first wife adopted him. They had a crappy marriage and went on to have an acrimonious divorce. As a teen, the boy was got into trouble with the law and did jail time. A clusterfuck all around. Now, at the age of 35, he's gotten a college degree and a career and is happily married--all despite his far-less-than-optimum childhood.

After his adoption, it was learned that each of his foster parents secretly wanted to adopt him, but were afraid to admit it to each other because they already had several kids, weren't financially well-off, and feared they couldn't afford to adopt him. I often wonder how his life would have been had his loving foster parents adopted him.

[MamaJunebug]

Call me mean, but I'm relieved to see that the donations haven't increased since the first time I visited their beggars' page.

I don't want Rebecca nor the boys to go hungry or unsheltered, but let their vaunted church-charity kick into high gear, please! You know, the patriarchialists and dominion-takers who spit on the memory of my grandparents. Why? Because when their daughter was widowed during the post-World War II recession, she used her college degree to go to work to provide for her children. AhTheLifer types* rebuked me for telling that story, saying my grandparents were at fault for not taking the bereaved family into their home and providing everything for them.

Come on, church family of the Colemans!!! Pony up the pure-minded charity that - in your utopian world - relieves the wives of the imprisoned from having to rely on government or strangers for their bread and board!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* When I say "AhTheLifer types" I do NOT mean the sisters Reins personally. I have no way of knowing if they were active on the discussion list I participated in, where my ancestors' "lack of love" was impugned. But those who lambasted us were people who endorsed SAHD & SAHM/W as the only Christian way of living, etc.

[bea]

We have friends who adopted a baby girl precisely three months after completing their paperwork. Because they happily accepted a biracial, medically fragile newborn who tested positive for both crack and heroin when she was born. The new mom is an NICU nurse, and they felt they were more prepared than most for the challenges of a sick baby. Baby is now 18 months old, slightly developmentally delayed, and the family is adopting the birth mother's new baby as soon as it's born, despite the fact that she is still addicted to drugs and the child's paternity is unknown.

We have other friends still waiting, years later, because the healthy white newborns are just not all that plentiful in Chicago.

I'd love to know what the difference is between a "handout" from the government and a "handout" via donations online. Rebecca had a job, at one point. Her husband worked. They've both presumably paid taxes, so they've paid into the system.

But the real thing that gets me is that the house is being rented out, they are living somewhere for free, and I am fairly sure she could get by on the rent money and income from a part-time job. But no, she has to have people donate for their living expenses because it's better for those kids to live with no financial security whatsoever than have a babysitter occasionally so mom can work.

Get a job, Rebecca.

[chaotic life]

Cool your jets, Hisey. You really aren't the only person who knows anything about adoption. I was quoting US adoption laws on income requirements, plain and simple. The two children in the picture are clearly not Asian and therefore not Chinese. However, since you seem woefully uninformed, almost all countries EVEN those with strict requirements to qualify for adoption such as Korea and China, have a process to get a WAIVER based upon the special needs of the child. I know LOTS of families who have gotten waivers from China for both family size AND income requirements, same as Korea. But, again the 125% of poverty level is USCIS requirements to sponsor a child in the orphan visa, which absolutely CAN be co-sponsored by someone who does have an income of an appropriate level to sponsor the visa if the family adopting does not have the income, again I have known several people who have in fact had co-sponsors on the visa. The orphan visa issued by USCIS has absolutely NOTHING to do with the country specific requirements and everything to do with US requirements. I was discussing US requirements, which is the same for any child entering the US for the purposes of adoption regardless of what country of origin they are coming from.

I don' t have to quote, nor do I even pretend to know the country specific requirements for every country that still places children into US adoptive homes. I do know the immigration process from the US side and have navigated personally more than once.

As for quoting the situation for newborn adoption, that would be because that is the type of adoption RELEVANT TO THIS FAMILY. I could talk a hell of a lot more about special needs and older child adoption if relevant, given that I've been involved in the adoption triad for over 20 years, and have done peer support for adoptive families who adopt older and special needs children for over a decade, but it would be POINTLESS TO THIS FAMILY who didn't do any such adoption as that.

My original reference that they were adopting from China came directly from the follow up blog post about this couple where the bloggers stated they were adopting two children from China. I looked at that before I looked at the go fund me link, which clearly shows Rebecca holding two Caucasian toddlers who were both adopted in the year they were born, thus specifically relate to infant adoptions. I'm not going to go research if any European nations are still letting you get under one year old infants get to the US for adoption currently. I'm going to assume that in the middle of a federal criminal charge, he was not permitted to travel overseas for infants/toddlers within one short timeframe so yes I am going to assume they did a domestic infant adoption. Therefore, when discussing this couple, I would refer to the type of adoption it is pretty clear they did twice.

[SoybeanQueen]

The adoption of healthy babies seems to be the only type of adoption that interests people here. They act as though "adoption" is synomomous with adopting a healthy (white) baby. In reality, such adoptions are only a percentage of the adoptions in the US, and certainly not the majority, as I said earlier. Does anyone care about the five and ten year olds, the disabled children, the TPR'ed foster care kids? You'd think they'd even get a mention.

Do you mean "here" as n FJ, or "here" as in the U.S.? Because there are quite a few people here at FJ who have discussed adoption of older/special needs/TPR'd kids many, many times.

I tend to notice those discussions because they interest me as mom to 3 former TPR'd foster kids with various needs who were all over the age of 5 when they came to us. So I know there are people here who care and comment on kids like mine.

As for the U.S. in general, yeah, I think the older kids and those with needs and waiting foster kids in general are ignored by most of the population. More than one person has mentioned in front of my kids that they couldn't possibly adopt older kids because, you know, they have problems. My daughter once loudly asked, "I have PROBLEMS???" in a comical way when a lady said something to that effect. That lady couldn't exit the building fast enough. Heh.

[SoybeanQueen]

Even the big search site for kids to be adopted from foster care has a really small number once you weed out the young adults. The site is aduptuskids - they state that there's something like 100,000 kids- but that includes "kids" up to age 21.

I completely agree that adoption shouldn't be a guilt thing (or a mission from God thing, but that's a whole other thread), but the adoptuskids site isn't a great representation of the number or age of waiting kids in the U.S. Only kids who have been waiting for some time or have more severe needs, or are part of a large sibling group, end up on photolistings. My children were never on a photolist, even as 3 "older" siblings with some needs who wanted to stay together.

None of the kids whose profiles we saw had ever been on adoptuskids or the state site, even with TPR in place. Our adoption worker said they always send profiles around to potential adoptive parents first, and that there are many TPR'd kids who find a forever family without being listed nationally.

[Mama Mia]

I completely agree that adoption shouldn't be a guilt thing (or a mission from God thing, but that's a whole other thread), but the adoptuskids site isn't a great representation of the number or age of waiting kids in the U.S. Only kids who have been waiting for some time or have more severe needs, or are part of a large sibling group, end up on photolistings. My children were never on a photolist, even as 3 "older" siblings with some needs who wanted to stay together.

None of the kids whose profiles we saw had ever been on adoptuskids or the state site, even with TPR in place. Our adoption worker said they always send profiles around to potential adoptive parents first, and that there are many TPR'd kids who find a forever family without being listed nationally.

You're right, I didn't mean to imply that every adoptable kid in foster care was listed, just to show that the numbers aren't as huge as many people think. Sadly, one thing that's desperately needed are long-term foster homes for kids who aren't eligible for adoption but need to be cared for bas if they were. That's a hard, hard thing to take on though, if you know there's always a possibility the kid will be placed back with parents or relatives. I couldn't do it.

[Trynn]

I actually have more respect for someone who knows they couldn't handle an older adopted child. It's better than these people who re home kids they suddenly discover they can't handle.

[spud]

I was gonna donate $1 just so I could tell them what I thought of such a whiney, self-pitying vomit-inducing diatribe. But the minimum donation is $5 and I'm not willing to subsidise their choices by that much.

It's truly astonishing to see that he still blames everyone (his ex-boss, the agents, his lawyer, the judge) for this outcome.

[Koala]

:o Please tell me that they didn't set the minimum at $5. I will feel much better if that's the site's rule and not theirs. Because otherwise, holy shit :evil-eye:

[Georgiana]

Just want to point out that there are minorities in China, some of which are non-East-Asian groups. I don't think the boys are Chinese, because adopting minority children from China is usually far more difficult than adopting Han children, however, their appearances don't necessarily rule them out.

It's just very, very, very unlikely that they were able to get two minority boys from China.

[SunnyAndrsn]

As an alternative, if you feels so moved, here is a family worth helping:

http://www.gofundme.com/9i2yvk

[Miranda]

Well, it looks as though they've removed their Gofundme campaign. I guess internet begging isn't as lucrative as they had hoped it would be! :lol:

[Soulhuntress]

Well, it looks as though they've removed their Gofundme campaign. I guess internet begging isn't as lucrative as they had hoped it would be! :lol:

Or their lawyer or US Probation said knock it off.....

[uber frau]

Is there any way of knowing how much they raised?

[formergothardite]

Last I checked it was around $900. No where near the $32,000 they originally wanted.

[Mama Mia]

So does anyone know if there are any families who actually have been completely financially supported by their church if the father dies or becomes disabled ( or goes to prison) ? Just from what I've read here it seems like some leaders came up with this whole women stay at home/ courtship/ stay at home daughter/ limited education/self-employment if possible for the man/ no government assistance ever / huge family lifestyle 20 or 30 years ago ---- but with no idea if it would actually work.

It seems like they are hitting some walls on the courtship model - because they didn't think through how on earth the young men and women would actually meet if they aren't even allowed to associate with each other and they don't go to work or school.

Are they having a similar problem with realistically having widows with children ( many, many children) supported long term? Does the idea of the church taking over ever work? Or have any of them been able to support these huge families with no government help and their only income from these vague family enterprises?