if this is TLC's new show time to stop paying for cable

[yetanothermeg]

The homeschooling is the big red flag for me. Are the children receiving the physical, occupational and speech therapy they should be receiving? Where we live that is provided through the public schools. And prior to age 3, how are they fitting all those appointments into the week (even if the therapists come to their homes). I have 2 kids, one of whom receives weekly physical and occupational therapy, but some kids need therapies 5 days a week. Also, I call bullshit on self-sustaining. Once the kids are adopted they are American citizens and depending on their disabilities, they are entitled to a disability check every month, so that is how they are making ends meet. While I agree these kids have a better life than if they had never been adopted, they need to stop adopting now and give the kids they have adopted the best chance at life, which includes sending them to schools/therapists who can help them with their diverse needs.

[IReallyAmHopewell]

This is really interesting. It seems there are 26 people living there right now. To be fair to them, they seek out kids with disabilities and older children-- they aren't just adopting foreign babies.

On the one hand, it seems like they are giving some of these children a chance at a life with family and community by adopting from countries where kids with disabilities don't really have a future.

On the other hand, it's really too bad they are stripping the kids of their culture by changing their names, and it makes me feel that they haven't thought through the ethics of adoption. Additionally, what is the environment like for a child who is one of thirty? Can a strong parent-child bond form? It seems like this couple has genuinely good intentions, but it's a bummer that they feel THEY need to be the heroes. I bet more children would be helped if they donated to or started a non-profit to help improve the lives of disabled orphans in developing nations.

My kids THANK me for "stripping them of their culture" and giving them normal American names. It helps--especially in school. Yes, I do things to help with their culture but please, remember these are kids--they remember NOTHING about that life and have to HERE. Hell yes I thought thru the "ethics" of adoption. So, sorry, I can't agree with that little speach.... Flame away! lol....l How many people are WILLING to give a home to ONE special needs child? These folks sound like they are doing the RIGHT thing to me.....

[Buzzard]

If you are a child of 30 odd other siblings, many who have special needs...how is that different from institutionalization?

The whole thing reminds me of the orphanage in "Annie." Kids warehoused, forced to cook and clean, emotionally caring for one another while the adults do whatever they damn want (but occasionally interact with the kids to check on cooking and cleaning). They have no chance of a "real home" or any form of family unit. Are they better off than in a foreign institution? Probably, but that doesnt make it right.

[Burris]

While I agree with Burris that given their adoption desires their funds should be directed toward helping other families be able to adopt hard-to-place children instead of taking in yet more to their own home, please do note that they are not buying anything on credit. This family is totally self-sustaining without outside financial help or government assistance. The only mention of credit is that the husband has a very lucrative job with a credit card processing company.

My apologies on that one point: I misunderstood and misinterpreted the mention of credit.

My overall point - including the financial situation; how well would his insurance take cre of the loss of income if thhe breadwinner should become unable to work? - is unchanged, however. I think parents who adopt children with high needs should feel not the slightest ashamed of applying for government stipends: Helping these children now is a great investment in the futures of all involved.

Money is one of my least concerns for this family.

How are the many special (and time demanding) needs of so many children are met in class?

How many supervisory duties are being delegated - and to whom for whom?

Those are just a couple of things I wonder.

The test of whether or not an adoption can occur should be this: If the move is the best of all solutions available to the child.

Certainly a child would be better off in the home discussed, but would they be *best off*?

I think no.

[Feberin]

I can't understand their decision to homeschool. I would understand wanting to homeschool a child with special needs (or any child really) if you can give them a curriculum based around their needs and more one on one attention then they'd receive at school. But I don't think this could possibly be the case for these kids. I also wonder if the children are getting all the therapies they would receive in a typical school day. Do they allow in home services for the ones under three years? If they are not doing these things then that's a huge disservice to these children. Also the adult adopted children do we know if they are staying home not because they aren't ready to leave but because they worry about their younger siblings if they leave? I don't see how you could handle all those children including educating them with only two adults.

[Burris]

How many people are WILLING to give a home to ONE special needs child? These folks sound like they are doing the RIGHT thing to me.....

Given your own willingness to the take on difficult tasks, I seriously doubt you'd ever claim the life of a non-disabled child is more valuable than that of his disabled counterparts.

But some organizations and people who handle adoptions are willing to ignore important regulations when the kids involved have special needs, not because they want to see those kids placed in suitable homes but merely because here is an opportunity to take away one mouth to feed: The child is considered only excess - someone they'll adopt out no matter if new parents have the training, space, money, medical access, or anything else.

A very large group of children, all with special needs of some sort, spanning every age, is being homeschooled. How much 1:1 time?

Does the ratio between the number of children in care and the number of adult supervisors meet state requirements? Does the living arrangement meet fire code? What contingency plan is there if the whole family falls ill? Are any of the inhabitants of that family, regardless of age, position, backround insured? Insurable?

How (or if) are the many necessary therapies scheduled?

[KateFowler]

My kids THANK me for "stripping them of their culture" and giving them normal American names. It helps--especially in school. Yes, I do things to help with their culture but please, remember these are kids--they remember NOTHING about that life and have to HERE. Hell yes I thought thru the "ethics" of adoption. So, sorry, I can't agree with that little speach.... Flame away! lol....l How many people are WILLING to give a home to ONE special needs child? These folks sound like they are doing the RIGHT thing to me.....

Have you had the "stripping culture" discussion with any adult adoptees -- specifically, adult international adoptees aged, say, 25-30 or older? I'm guessing "no" (or "yes, but they're whiners who should be GRATEFUL to their adopters" or "yes, but they're ungrateful).

I'm not adopted, let alone internationally adopted, and thus inclined to *accept* as valid (rather than challenge) the views of those that are -- particularly in the realm of "stripping culture" and what it's like to grow up with parents that don't look like me. Your kids are just that YOUR KIDS... who (like all kids) tend to accept their parents ways/views as "normal".

[KateFowler]

I do not believe that a child who goes from an orphanage to a structure with 20 or more children can learn to integrate. When you are in the foster care/orphanage, you develop attitudes, behaviors different from other children, in areas like food, interractions with other children , with adults ... I am no longer in foster care since years, I am well integrated into society, but I still have this behaviors, this way of seeing things, and it is sometimes a handicap in my daily life. As it is for my friends. An adopted child needs to stop this behavior, or at least to limit them, control them How can he do that when he goes into a structure with 20 or more children ? How parents can be attentive to his behavior, his words, his learning ?

Being shuffled from foster home to foster home to foster family is an horror. I would like to sue the social system for that, because I think that what we (the children of foster care) did live, is psychological abuse. But being in a family of 34 children, is to be the same as in foster care, with stability.

Adopting 34 kids isn't a family - it is an unlicensed, nay, UNLICENSABLE group home. Kids need 1:1, sustained, individual attention from a consistent adult caregiver (mom and dad), which is literally impossible to obtain in a mega-family like this one. There simply aren't enough hours in the day.

It is probable that some of these kids got more individual attention in an orphanage -- a semi-okay one for little kids will have a caregiver-to-kid ratio of 1:6 or 1:12.

Last but not least, Jeane's a flat-out racist nutter with 10+ black kids. It is beyond disturbing that she really, truly believes Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, et al's actions WARRANTED the police brutality they got, she thinks she thinks she can protect her black kids from similar treatment by teaching them to defer to police (because a little kid, like Tamir, playing with a toy gun in a public park was doing something wrong? Because it's normal, non-racist police behavior to shoot a kid playing in a park, threatening no one, from a distance? Without bothering to yell "hey, kid! Whatcha doing?" or "hey, kid. Put down your gun now!" Before firing:

http://blessedbyachild.blogspot.com/201 ... on-ny.html

[roddma]

I would agree teaching them to respect police. Never try to grab a cops gun or act like a fool. None of us knows what we would do in such situations.Tamir Rice was an innocent 12 yr old- uncalled for there. Mike Brown was a full grown adult who just committed a strong armed robbery. Im not saying he should have been shot and totally disagree how it was handled , but all they did was tell him to get on the side walk. I just dont like how she just thinks it's just a 'black thing'. Whites get shot by them too.

[KateFowler]

I would agree teaching them to respect police. Never try to grab a cops gun or act like a fool. None of us knows what we would do in such situations.Tamir Rice was an innocent 12 yr old- uncalled for there. Mike Brown was a full grown adult who just committed a strong armed robbery. Im not saying he should have been shot and totally disagree how it was handled , but all they did was tell him to get on the side walk. I just dont like how she just thinks it's just a 'black thing'. Whites get shot by them too.

I am all for teaching kids to respect the police and not do stupid, provocative things -- but there's unquestionably a racial dimension to a LOT of recent events. White people tend not to end up dead for walking near granny's house with skittles/Sprite, stopped for driving while white, etc. Or standing in front of their own damn house in a nice neighborhood while white.

Also, Michael Brown was a barely-adult of 18 who stole a box of cigarillos from a nearby convenience store -- a crime that he didn't deserve to DIE FOR & one that the officer who fatally shot him was not aware of, according to HIS grand jury testimony, at the time. The guy in Staten Island who was choked to death? Was alleged to have been selling loose cigarettes. The police actions of the police were not REMOTELY proportional to the gravity of the alleged offense. This "happens" to black people, particularly black men/boys way more often than to any other group in this country.

The (unarmed, unviolent) theft of a $30 item is a crime (a low-level misdemeanor, specifically, punishable by paying restitution + up to $250 in compensation to the store by MO law). I'm guessing NY law on allegedly selling a loose cig is similarly misdemeanor-like.

To refuse to acknowledge that race played a significant role in the deaths of numerous young men of color is to blame them for their own deaths-by-police. And that's so very wrong!

[DGayle]

I'm not seeing how those kids would be better off left in their overseas orphanages. Between a US home with parents who adopted them out of love, or a foreign orphanage staffed by people paid to be there where no one in charge cares 2 shits about the kids, they're in a better place where they are because someone wanted them. Just knowing someone wanted them can make a huge difference in their lives. It's easy to not see that when probably all of us grew up with someone wanting us. Those kids wouldn't have been so lucky.

Ask yourself if you'd rather be in that house when people who want you, or in a dank orphanage overseas.

[KateFowler]

I'm not seeing how those kids would be better off left in their overseas orphanages. Between a US home with parents who adopted them out of love, or a foreign orphanage staffed by people paid to be there where no one in charge cares 2 shits about the kids, they're in a better place where they are because someone wanted them. Just knowing someone wanted them can make a huge difference in their lives. It's easy to not see that when probably all of us grew up with someone wanting us. Those kids wouldn't have been so lucky.

Ask yourself if you'd rather be in that house when people who want you, or in a dank orphanage overseas.

Living in a de facto group home with a bazillion (okay, 34) and fundie siblings has the potential to be WAY worse than an orphanage in a developing country. That many kids? Means the adoptee doesn't, can't be fit from 1:1 attention because they're getting very little of it - likely less than in the orphanage!

Evaluating on an empirical-outcomes/results-only basis, these kids would've been way better off remaining in bad orphanages overseas:

Hana Williams:

In Ethiopia: Nor underweight

After adoption: Starved to death by fundie adopters

Selah Clanton

In Ukraine: Move/breathe/zest independently

After adoption: Comatose, due to "accidental" near-fatal drowning by adaddy

Tommy Musser:

In Bulgaria: Barely alive, weighing 20 lbs at almost 16 YEARS old

After adoption: Dead. Due to amom Susanna's "mamalove" + neglect

Masha Allen

In Russia: Removed from physically abusive mom

After adoption: Horrifically sexually abused for 5+ years (by adad, pedophile Michael Mancuso), rescued, abused by 2nd forever family (Amom's parental rights terminated for abuse) & aged out of US foster care as orphan-once-more!

Barbour kids adopted from Ethiopia

Before: Healthy

After adoption: Both emaciated, untreated fractures & PTSD + girl brain damaged, partially-blind & seizures as result of abuse by amom/adad

Hyunsu O'Callaghan (Korea), Gennie Davis (Bulgaria), Max Shatto (Russia), Nicolai Emelyentsev (Russia)

Before: Alive

After adoption: Dead by US amom/adad

Pretty much all kids featured in:

- Reuters "Child Exchange"

- Dan Rather's "Unwanted in America"

- Erin Siegal's "Finding Fernanda"

- 48 Hours "Perilous Journey"

- EJ Graff's "They Steal Babies", "Lie We Love" & "Adoption Crisis"

Keep in mind the US adopters passed a homestudy, multiple security checks, 12+ mos & $20k+ per kid to adopt the children they harmed!!

[Mama Mia]

Living in a de facto group home with a bazillion (okay, 34) and fundie siblings has the potential to be WAY worse than an orphanage in a developing country. That many kids? Means the adoptee doesn't, can't be fit from 1:1 attention because they're getting very little of it - likely less than in the orphanage!

Evaluating on an empirical-outcomes/results-only basis, these kids would've been way better off remaining in bad orphanages overseas:

Hana Williams:

In Ethiopia: Nor underweight

After adoption: Starved to death by fundie adopters

Selah Clanton

In Ukraine: Move/breathe/zest independently

After adoption: Comatose, due to "accidental" near-fatal drowning by adaddy

Tommy Musser:

In Bulgaria: Barely alive, weighing 20 lbs at almost 16 YEARS old

After adoption: Dead. Due to amom Susanna's "mamalove" + neglect

Masha Allen

In Russia: Removed from physically abusive mom

After adoption: Horrifically sexually abused for 5+ years (by adad, pedophile Michael Mancuso), rescued, abused by 2nd forever family (Amom's parental rights terminated for abuse) & aged out of US foster care as orphan-once-more!

Barbour kids adopted from Ethiopia

Before: Healthy

After adoption: Both emaciated, untreated fractures & PTSD + girl brain damaged, partially-blind & seizures as result of abuse by amom/adad

Hyunsu O'Callaghan (Korea), Gennie Davis (Bulgaria), Max Shatto (Russia), Nicolai Emelyentsev (Russia)

Before: Alive

After adoption: Dead by US amom/adad

Pretty much all kids featured in:

- Reuters "Child Exchange"

- Dan Rather's "Unwanted in America"

- Erin Siegal's "Finding Fernanda"

- 48 Hours "Perilous Journey"

- EJ Graff's "They Steal Babies", "Lie We Love" & "Adoption Crisis"

Keep in mind the US adopters passed a homestudy, multiple security checks, 12+ mos & $20k+ per kid to adopt the children they harmed!!

But that's not an empirical /outcome based comparison of life as a disabled child in an orphanage in a foreign ( to U.S.)country and life as a disabled child adopted into a U.S. Home.

A comparison would be analyzing rates of abuse/neglect/injury/fatalities for disabled children in foreign orphanages compared to disabled children adopted into U.S homes. I would of specified mega-family sized homes - but several of the cases you mentioned were kids going into mega-homes, I believe.

You just listed off a series of bad events. I'm sure someone else could list off a series of atrocities at orphanages.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be regulations or that this family is doing great or anything. Just pointing out that a list of bad things really isn't " outcome based"

[2xx1xy1JD]

But that's not an empirical /outcome based comparison of life as a disabled child in an orphanage in a foreign ( to U.S.)country and life as a disabled child adopted into a U.S. Home.

A comparison would be analyzing rates of abuse/neglect/injury/fatalities for disabled children in foreign orphanages compared to disabled children adopted into U.S homes. I would of specified mega-family sized homes - but several of the cases you mentioned were kids going into mega-homes, I believe.

You just listed off a series of bad events. I'm sure someone else could list off a series of atrocities at orphanages.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be regulations or that this family is doing great or anything. Just pointing out that a list of bad things really isn't " outcome based"

Agreed.

Obviously, all child deaths are cause for concern, and indicate that the system needs improvement.

To do a real comparison, though, you would need to measure outcomes among a set group of children in both systems.

[J'Beka]

My kids THANK me for "stripping them of their culture" and giving them normal American names. It helps--especially in school. Yes, I do things to help with their culture but please, remember these are kids--they remember NOTHING about that life and have to HERE. Hell yes I thought thru the "ethics" of adoption. So, sorry, I can't agree with that little speach.... Flame away! lol....l How many people are WILLING to give a home to ONE special needs child? These folks sound like they are doing the RIGHT thing to me.....

So instead of teaching your kids to be proud of who they are and where they're from because that is a part of them you just give them "normal american names" because they "remember nothing about that life" Ooook

[2xx1xy1JD]

There are ways to keep links to a first culture while helping a child adapt to American culture. An original name can be used as a middle name, or there can be a link in meaning.

I also need to point out that in an increasingly multicultural society, an ethnic name can be a "normal, American name".

Kids may not remember a first culture, but they are also not blind. Girl 1 told me that her friend, who was adopted from Asia as an infant, referred to another adopted Asian girl at camp as her "Twasian" (aka Asian twin).

[Palimpsest]

Living in a de facto group home with a bazillion (okay, 34) and fundie siblings has the potential to be WAY worse than an orphanage in a developing country. That many kids? Means the adoptee doesn't, can't be fit from 1:1 attention because they're getting very little of it - likely less than in the orphanage!

Evaluating on an empirical-outcomes/results-only basis, these kids would've been way better off remaining in bad orphanages overseas:

Hana Williams:

In Ethiopia: Nor underweight

After adoption: Starved to death by fundie adopters

Selah Clanton

In Ukraine: Move/breathe/zest independently

After adoption: Comatose, due to "accidental" near-fatal drowning by adaddy

Tommy Musser:

In Bulgaria: Barely alive, weighing 20 lbs at almost 16 YEARS old

After adoption: Dead. Due to amom Susanna's "mamalove" + neglect

Masha Allen

In Russia: Removed from physically abusive mom

After adoption: Horrifically sexually abused for 5+ years (by adad, pedophile Michael Mancuso), rescued, abused by 2nd forever family (Amom's parental rights terminated for abuse) & aged out of US foster care as orphan-once-more!

Barbour kids adopted from Ethiopia

Before: Healthy

After adoption: Both emaciated, untreated fractures & PTSD + girl brain damaged, partially-blind & seizures as result of abuse by amom/adad

Hyunsu O'Callaghan (Korea), Gennie Davis (Bulgaria), Max Shatto (Russia), Nicolai Emelyentsev (Russia)

Before: Alive

After adoption: Dead by US amom/adad

Pretty much all kids featured in:

- Reuters "Child Exchange"

- Dan Rather's "Unwanted in America"

- Erin Siegal's "Finding Fernanda"

- 48 Hours "Perilous Journey"

- EJ Graff's "They Steal Babies", "Lie We Love" & "Adoption Crisis"

Keep in mind the US adopters passed a homestudy, multiple security checks, 12+ mos & $20k+ per kid to adopt the children they harmed!!

I think KateFowler has made very valid points here over several posts, not just this one.

No, this it is not an "empirical /outcome based comparison of life as a disabled child in an orphanage in a foreign ( to U.S.)country and life as a disabled child adopted into a U.S. Home." As she stated very clearly, it is simply a list of children who, if evaluated on " an empirical-outcomes/results-only basis" probably "would've been way better off remaining in bad orphanages overseas."

I don't know about "way better off," but these particular children, and others like them, would probably still be alive and/or not actively and horribly abused by their caregivers, even in a not so wonderful overseas orphanage. To use Hana as an example: she came from an orphanage I am familiar with, and she certainly had much more love and infinitely better care there than she experienced with the Williamses.

I get annoyed when the general public just assumes that the best ever thing to happen to a child in an overseas orphanage gets adopted into a European or, even better, American home. [sarcasm]That lucky child should be so everlastingly grateful to be rescued from their primitive developing country and come to the US. And aren't the adoptive parents saints to take that poor deprived heathen child into their homes. Extra gold stars if they adopt a special needs child of color![/sarcasm]

This sentimental attitude is indicative of a real lack of knowledge in the general public about the realities of the International Adoption Money Making Business and the atrocious abuses of the system, including child trafficking. There is institutionalized racism in assuming that a child will always be better off in a developed country after being forcibly removed from his/her culture. This can be very traumatic for the older adoptees and, as already noted here, difficult for children of a different race to the adoptive parents as they grow even if they do not remember their birth country at all.

There are also some (certainly not all) very defensive international adopters, who because they wanted to adopt a child seem to turn a blind eye to the abuses of the system, because their adoption worked. They actively stand in the way of international adoption reforms when they should be working to improve them.

When this subject comes up there is a tendency to shut down discussions of alternatives to international adoption to save the "orphan" children. These include (not limited to) supporting the extended family so that the child does not have to be surrendered in the first place, and supporting and improving the economy and medical care in developing countries to improve quality of life and decrease the number of orphans.

Look, I'm not talking about children with severe disabilities whose only hope for life is in a medically advanced country. I mean absolutely no offence to any FJ members who have adopted internationally, I'm sure you are all great parents who respect your child's cultural heritage and maximize your child's exposure to it. I'm sure you all researched your agencies as well as you could and would be horrified to find that your child was a victim of child trafficking and was not, in fact, an orphan at all.

ETA: Correcting damn typos and to say I'm very skeptical of this TLC family's ability to look after that many disabled adopted children adequately. An unsupervised group home, indeed.

[DGayle]

Living in a de facto group home with a bazillion (okay, 34) and fundie siblings has the potential to be WAY worse than an orphanage in a developing country. That many kids? Means the adoptee doesn't, can't be fit from 1:1 attention because they're getting very little of it - likely less than in the orphanage!

Evaluating on an empirical-outcomes/results-only basis, these kids would've been way better off remaining in bad orphanages overseas:

Hana Williams:

In Ethiopia: Nor underweight

After adoption: Starved to death by fundie adopters

Selah Clanton

In Ukraine: Move/breathe/zest independently

After adoption: Comatose, due to "accidental" near-fatal drowning by adaddy

Tommy Musser:

In Bulgaria: Barely alive, weighing 20 lbs at almost 16 YEARS old

After adoption: Dead. Due to amom Susanna's "mamalove" + neglect

Masha Allen

In Russia: Removed from physically abusive mom

After adoption: Horrifically sexually abused for 5+ years (by adad, pedophile Michael Mancuso), rescued, abused by 2nd forever family (Amom's parental rights terminated for abuse) & aged out of US foster care as orphan-once-more!

Barbour kids adopted from Ethiopia

Before: Healthy

After adoption: Both emaciated, untreated fractures & PTSD + girl brain damaged, partially-blind & seizures as result of abuse by amom/adad

Hyunsu O'Callaghan (Korea), Gennie Davis (Bulgaria), Max Shatto (Russia), Nicolai Emelyentsev (Russia)

Before: Alive

After adoption: Dead by US amom/adad

Pretty much all kids featured in:

- Reuters "Child Exchange"

- Dan Rather's "Unwanted in America"

- Erin Siegal's "Finding Fernanda"

- 48 Hours "Perilous Journey"

- EJ Graff's "They Steal Babies", "Lie We Love" & "Adoption Crisis"

Keep in mind the US adopters passed a homestudy, multiple security checks, 12+ mos & $20k+ per kid to adopt the children they harmed!!

You're using a handful of cases to argue against adoption in general. In general, children in developing/third world orphanages don't do well. Those disabled babies are going to do even worse. Realistically, between being in an orphanage where adults are only around you because they're on the clock, where there are dozens of others in the same dorm room, where you'll be tossed out the day you hit majority, or being in a home with 34 kids who are all brought in by the parents of the home, who actually WANT you there to the point that they're paying instead of being paid (getting some social security to offset costs isn't being paid since they're still spending more than they get), where you'll have support after you turn 18, you're a lot better off in that home of 34 kids.

Your solution seems to be to let kids stay overseas in bad situations where they may weight 20 pounds at 16 years old because that's better than getting enough food in a home where your'e wanted that just happens to have 34 kids.

[Mama Mia]

I think KateFowler has made very valid points here over several posts, not just this one.

No, this it is not an "empirical /outcome based comparison of life as a disabled child in an orphanage in a foreign ( to U.S.)country and life as a disabled child adopted into a U.S. Home." As she stated very clearly, it is simply a list of children who, if evaluated on " an empirical-outcomes/results-only basis" probably "would've been way better off remaining in bad orphanages overseas."

I don't know about "way better off," but these particular children, and others like them, would probably still be alive and/or not actively and horribly abused by their caregivers, even in a not so wonderful overseas orphanage. To use Hana as an example: she came from an orphanage I am familiar with, and she certainly had much more love and infinitely better care there than she experienced with the Williamses.

I get annoyed when the general public just assumes that the best ever thing to happen to a child in an overseas orphanage gets adopted into a European or, even better, American home. [sarcasm]That lucky child should be so everlastingly grateful to be rescued from their primitive developing country and come to the US. And aren't the adoptive parents saints to take that poor deprived heathen child into their homes. Extra gold stars if they adopt a special needs child of color![/sarcasm]

This sentimental attitude is indicative of a real lack of knowledge in the general public about the realities of the International Adoption Money Making Business and the atrocious abuses of the system, including child trafficking. There is institutionalized racism in assuming that a child will always be better off in a developed country after being forcibly removed from his/her culture. This can be very traumatic for the older adoptees and, as already noted here, difficult for children of a different race to the adoptive parents as they grow even if they do not remember their birth country at all.

There are also some (certainly not all) very defensive international adopters, who because they wanted to adopt a child seem to turn a blind eye to the abuses of the system, because their adoption worked. They actively stand in the way of international adoption reforms when they should be working to improve them.

When this subject comes up there is a tendency to shut down discussions of alternatives to international adoption to save the "orphan" children. These include (not limited to) supporting the extended family so that the child does not have to be surrendered in the first place, and supporting and improving the economy and medical care in developing countries to improve quality of life and decrease the number of orphans.

Look, I'm not talking about children with severe disabilities whose only hope for life is in a medically advanced country. I mean absolutely no offence to any FJ members who have adopted internationally, I'm sure you are all great parents who respect your child's cultural heritage and maximize your child's exposure to it. I'm sure you all researched your agencies as well as you could and would be horrified to find that your child was a victim of child trafficking and was not, in fact, an orphan at all.

ETA: Correcting damn typos and to say I'm very skeptical of this TLC family's ability to look after that many disabled adopted children adequately. An unsupervised group home, indeed.

I agree with many of your points. I think it varies greatly though by orphanage. A severely disabled child at Previn , for example, would be better off virtually anywhere else. A child in an orphanage where the parent is, presumably, only placing the child while they get through a hardship -- and then the child is adopted out -- that's deplorable. Vastly different things. And definitely agree with your point regarding the erroneous assumption that being in Western Europe or the U.S. Is somehow intrinsically " better" . Although I would argue from a quality of life and stability view, especially for someone with severe disabilities that Western Europe is probably a far better choice than the U.S.

My issue was with the way she worded her post, it certainly sounded, to me, like she was stating that the fact that those particular children had horrible things happen proved " based on empirical outcomes" that children were better off in orphanages. You can make a sensationalistic list of horrible things that have happened to virtually any grouping of people, but it doesn't prove anything except that the world can be a fucked up place.

[J'Beka]

I think KateFowler has made very valid points here over several posts, not just this one.

No, this it is not an "empirical /outcome based comparison of life as a disabled child in an orphanage in a foreign ( to U.S.)country and life as a disabled child adopted into a U.S. Home." As she stated very clearly, it is simply a list of children who, if evaluated on " an empirical-outcomes/results-only basis" probably "would've been way better off remaining in bad orphanages overseas."

I don't know about "way better off," but these particular children, and others like them, would probably still be alive and/or not actively and horribly abused by their caregivers, even in a not so wonderful overseas orphanage. To use Hana as an example: she came from an orphanage I am familiar with, and she certainly had much more love and infinitely better care there than she experienced with the Williamses.

I get annoyed when the general public just assumes that the best ever thing to happen to a child in an overseas orphanage gets adopted into a European or, even better, American home. [sarcasm]That lucky child should be so everlastingly grateful to be rescued from their primitive developing country and come to the US. And aren't the adoptive parents saints to take that poor deprived heathen child into their homes. Extra gold stars if they adopt a special needs child of color![/sarcasm]

This sentimental attitude is indicative of a real lack of knowledge in the general public about the realities of the International Adoption Money Making Business and the atrocious abuses of the system, including child trafficking. There is institutionalized racism in assuming that a child will always be better off in a developed country after being forcibly removed from his/her culture. This can be very traumatic for the older adoptees and, as already noted here, difficult for children of a different race to the adoptive parents as they grow even if they do not remember their birth country at all.

There are also some (certainly not all) very defensive international adopters, who because they wanted to adopt a child seem to turn a blind eye to the abuses of the system, because their adoption worked. They actively stand in the way of international adoption reforms when they should be working to improve them.

When this subject comes up there is a tendency to shut down discussions of alternatives to international adoption to save the "orphan" children. These include (not limited to) supporting the extended family so that the child does not have to be surrendered in the first place, and supporting and improving the economy and medical care in developing countries to improve quality of life and decrease the number of orphans.

Look, I'm not talking about children with severe disabilities whose only hope for life is in a medically advanced country. I mean absolutely no offence to any FJ members who have adopted internationally, I'm sure you are all great parents who respect your child's cultural heritage and maximize your child's exposure to it. I'm sure you all researched your agencies as well as you could and would be horrified to find that your child was a victim of child trafficking and was not, in fact, an orphan at all.

ETA: Correcting damn typos and to say I'm very skeptical of this TLC family's ability to look after that many disabled adopted children adequately. An unsupervised group home, indeed.

Here here! I wish I was half as articulate. I agree with all of your points.

[KateFowler]

"Home where you're wanted that just happens to have 34 kids" is a BIG BIG BIG part of the problem!

I think that we can all agree that a "best-case" scenario in adoption is when it is used to provide a kid with no family with a loving one.

When it comes to international adoption, the standard isn't "will this kid be better off in a sub-par US family than in [ghastly overseas orphanage]" -- it's can this family provide a loving forever home to a specific foreign kid.

Fundies / megafamilies with 10+ kids? Who CANNOT foster/adopt domestically because they do NOT meet the requirements?

Should NOT be permitted to adopt internationally either - period. If a home's unfit for an adopted American kid, it's just as unfit for a foreign one.

----

Another way of looking at this issue is that if you want adoption by Americans to remain an option for older/disabled foreign kids (ones unlikely to find families in their native lands), a better way of screening potential adopters is the place to start. ASAP.

DRC, Korea, Ethiopia, etc have legitimate and as-yet unaddressed concerns regarding how their kids get treated by their American adopters. The issues either get fixed or adoptions get shut down permanently -- like russia, Guatemala, Cambodia, etc.

[Palimpsest]

"Home where you're wanted that just happens to have 34 kids" is a BIG BIG BIG part of the problem!

I think that we can all agree that a "best-case" scenario in adoption is when it is used to provide a kid with no family with a loving one.

When it comes to international adoption, the standard isn't "will this kid be better off in a sub-par US family than in [ghastly overseas orphanage]" -- it's can this family provide a loving forever home to a specific foreign kid.

Fundies / megafamilies with 10+ kids? Who CANNOT foster/adopt domestically because they do NOT meet the requirements?

Should NOT be permitted to adopt internationally either - period. If a home's unfit for an adopted American kid, it's just as unfit for a foreign one.

----

Another way of looking at this issue is that if you want adoption by Americans to remain an option for older/disabled foreign kids (ones unlikely to find families in their native lands), a better way of screening potential adopters is the place to start. ASAP.

DRC, Korea, Ethiopia, etc have legitimate and as-yet unaddressed concerns regarding how their kids get treated by their American adopters. The issues either get fixed or adoptions get shut down permanently -- like russia, Guatemala, Cambodia, etc.

I agree with everything KateFowler just said. Very well put and thank you, KateFowler. There is an erroneous assumption by many in the general public that because some overseas orphanages are terrible then all of them must be. Not so.

Of course, the goal is always to place a child in a loving caring family home, but it is probably better to be alive in an orphanage than it is to be abused and killed in a bad family home. "Life in a box an orphanage is better than no life at all." (thanks Tom Stoppard) Or basically abandoned ASAP in a foreign country by that wonderful caring adoptive family as soon as you reach the age of 18. (see Hana Alemu Williams's story for her "mother's" plans to abandon her, and Kathryn Joyce, the Child-Catchers for more examples.)

I'd add better much monitoring of the child and family post-adoption as a high priority, but agree that the right place to start being better screening of potential adopters. These reforms are highly controversial in international adoption circles, naturally. However, pay close attention to those adoption cases that end in tragedy. Every intercountry adoption that ends in tragedy jeopardizes the future of all international adoptions, even of older and special needs children. It is to everyone's advantage to introduce adoption reform.

A couple more thoughts on Western assumptions that children will always be better off adopted out to a developed country. I'm focusing on Ethiopia because that is the country I know most about, but this is the way the tide is turning on international adoption.

- A 2013 Ethiopian news report. Ethiopia: Stakeholde​rs, Public Has to End Foreign Adoption http://allafrica.com/stories/201312260586.html Note that success is defined as significantly decreasing the number of foreign adoptions and increasing the involvement of extended family and the general public with NGO orphanages.

- Note that Ethiopia has yet to sign the Hague Convention on Adoption although it is clamping down on foreign adoptions. http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=co ... ext&cid=69 Adopting from a non-Hague convention country is extremely risky if you don't want to be aiding and abetting child trafficking.

- An article on the adoption abuses in Ethiopia with references to other countries. Read to the end for clarification that in the Ethiopian culture children (even orphaned HIV+ babies) are not usually abandoned by their families of origin. They can be placed in orphanages but the families keep in touch. Adoption was often misrepresented to the families as a temporary measure with promises that the child would be returned. http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politic ... ute-95027/

- This is an excellent and objective documentary, Girl, Adopted http://www.girladopted.com (trigger warning for adoptees). The experiences of one young girl adopted by an American Fundie-lite family. It shows that it is not an easy road and the loss of birth culture is extremely painful, even when adopted by a very well-meaning and conscientious family. Weynsht was adopted through the same agency (Adoption Advocates International) that the Williamses used for Hana Alemu, with much better results, obviously. AAI is no longer licensed to practice in Ethiopia.

- Another useful resource for adult intercountry adoptees and adoptees in general is http://www.gazillionvoices.com. They are making their voices heard.

[KateFowler]

100% agree.

With the fundies/granolas who brag and blog about their internationally adopted kids face another "danger" : homeschooling.

Homeschooling isolates kids as it allows their adoptive parents to keep those pesky mandated reporters (aka everybody employed by a public or private school) far from their kids. It also has the handy side effect of stopping adopted kids from being ideas that differ from those of their adopters (this is the POINT of homeschooling) and far-from-perfect-standardized-tests that nevertheless indicate if a kid's learned anything!

Mary of findingmagnolia.com's older girl, adopted from ET, was almost 7, home since age 3 & didn't yet know her letters because "she'd only been speaking English for a few years" -- bullspit! The kid either has some sort of learning disability (that won't be addressed if it's not diagnosed) or is being incompetently taught.

Staci of scoopungitup.blogspot.com isn't into "traditional learning" and so has her kids bio/adopted learn to knot and do farm chores. So the kids can feel "proud" instead of "stupid". This makes HER life easier but does such a HUGE disservice to her kids. Sure, chores teach responsibility and all sorts of life lessons... but having adopted tweens who can barely read in any language and aren't yet fluent in English despite 2+ years home? OMFG, no words.

Adeye of nogreaterjoymom.com has a gaggle of adopted kids w/SN. Haven was adopted as a non-verbal kindergartner, amom decided the kid was "too traumatized" to learn to speak and decided that they loved her so much, understood her SO well that she "didn't need words"!! The girl is now a young teen and has NO COMMUNICATION -- none, thanks to amom. How is this not abuse/neglect?! To have given up on teaching your kid to communicate -- sign language, picture-exchange system, "talker", iPad with speech app, etc are ALL options for a non-speaking child.

[Mama Mia]

Homeschooling isolates kids as it allows their adoptive parents to keep those pesky mandated reporters (aka everybody employed by a public or private school) far from their kids. It also has the handy side effect of stopping adopted kids from being ideas that differ from those of their adopters (this is the POINT of homeschooling) and far-from-perfect-standardized-tests that nevertheless indicate if a kid's learned anything!

Mary of findingmagnolia.com's older girl, adopted from ET, was almost 7, home since age 3 & didn't yet know her letters because "she'd only been speaking English for a few years" -- bullspit! The kid either has some sort of learning disability (that won't be addressed if it's not diagnosed) or is being incompetently taught.

Staci of scoopungitup.blogspot.com isn't into "traditional learning" and so has her kids bio/adopted learn to knot and do farm chores. So the kids can feel "proud" instead of "stupid". This makes HER life easier but does such a HUGE disservice to her kids. Sure, chores teach responsibility and all sorts of life lessons... but having adopted tweens who can barely read in any language and aren't yet fluent in English despite 2+ years home? OMFG, no words.

I'm going to ignore, for now, the rest of your incredibly ill-informed sweeping generalizations about homeschooling.

But just FYI, it is not at ALL unusual for children who do not speak English when they enter public school to not be anywhere near fluent 2, or more, years later. Trying to learn a new language can also make it take longer to learn to read in either language. While young children do, generally, pick up new language skills more quickly than older children or adults, it is a generalization. There is enormous variation in aptitude towards language acquisition.

I know people who attended public schools from kindergarten through high school graduation who still struggle with English. Particularly written English. It's not uncommon.

It's really not something you can place on homeschooling in particular.

[Palimpsest]

I'm going to ignore, for now, the rest of your incredibly ill-informed sweeping generalizations about homeschooling.

But just FYI, it is not at ALL unusual for children who do not speak English when they enter public school to not be anywhere near fluent 2, or more, years later. Trying to learn a new language can also make it take longer to learn to read in either language. While young children do, generally, pick up new language skills more quickly than older children or adults, it is a generalization. There is enormous variation in aptitude towards language acquisition.

I know people who attended public schools from kindergarten through high school graduation who still struggle with English. Particularly written English. It's not uncommon.

It's really not something you can place on homeschooling in particular.

Oh, come on Mama Mia. Give KateFowler the benefit of the doubt. You are usually better at understanding new(er) posters than this. We all have to learn to add qualifiers on hot topics and in the heat of argument many of us, even veterans at FJ, forget. :)

Not to put words in her mouth, or defend her unnecessarily, but KateFowler seems remarkably well informed about problems in the US with the Evangelical "Adopt an Orphan for Jesus" Craze that has done untold harm to many children adopted domestically and internationally. And, yes, the tendency for Fundies to homeschool has helped to hide serious issues with many of those inadequate SOTDRT, HSLDA cognizant, child-collecting, Pearl advocating abusers.

I agree with her. This is certainly not an indictment of homeschooling in and of itself. It is an indictment of the use of homeschooling by a select (and often Fundie) few to hide abuse and resist educating children AND adopted children. I said a few, but a "few" is way too many. It is hard for adoption agencies to screen for these people because they will outright lie about their methods of discipline and they look like squeaky clean well-meaning saintly "Christians."

Are you familiar with Homeschooling's Invisible Children's Adoptee abuse page? http://hsinvisiblechildren.org/themes-i ... /adoption/

These are all tragic cases of the abuse of adopted children that involved homeschooling and reached courts of law. Some of them may even sound familiar to you. Goodness knows how many of cases were fortunately disrupted before death and serious injury got involved. Goodness only knows how many other cases of abuse are out there that have not yet been identified. Because, yes, homeschooling helps to hide children away from mandated reporters.

I'll add to KateFowlers list: The Beyond Rubies bitch. The one who advocated loudly for Christians to adopt and then treated her own adopted children appallingly. No education, free labor, and then dumped when they objected.