There's No Place Like Home

[foreign fundie]

1 hour ago, blessalessi said:

The travel/work situation sounds very difficult for all the children.

On the matter of "intercultural marriage" there is no reason on earth for this to preclude adoption. 1)

 Mixed-race children are frequently disadvantaged in a social care system that is used by prospective adopters as a clearing house for white babies.  

2)

The important thing in any given case is for the parents to have an understanding of, and commitment to serving, the particular social and cultural needs of the individual child.

As to language, pre-school children tend to pick up language very quickly and this can be an advantage in later formal learning situations.  Think of countries like Brussels, which has three official languages. It is quite normal all around the world for some families to use different languages in the home and outside it, especially where English is not the first language.

3)

1. Agreed. If a white American marries a non-caucasian and they adopt a child, that is not an issue. But if an American marries someone from a second country with a vastly different culture and language, and they live in a third country and adopt a child from a fourth country that can become really confusing for the child.

2. I have no idea what this means. Please explain

3. Again agreed. In my family we use three languages on a daily basis and know several more. But my children grew up learning these languages together with us and they were always understood at home. If you are adopted as a pre-schooler into a family that is bi-langual and you speak neither of those languages, that does not make your situation any easier. It is a steep learning curve. 

[Mercer]

The lack of stability and consistency, one parent being frequently absent, and lack of access to medical care and therapy make the situation you describe very concerning to me. That may work fine for a securely attached child already established in the family (though it sounds like it isn't working too well for the established kids either in this case,) but it's going to make things even harder than they otherwise would be for a newly adopted child making a transition into a new family, culture, and language(s.)  Unfortunately, although their decisions are unwise, it doesn't sound like they're doing anything illegal, so if the child's country of origin approves the adoption, they'll get their wish.

[RMB863]

6 hours ago, foreign fundie said:

1. Agreed. If a white American marries a non-caucasian and they adopt a child, that is not an issue. But if an American marries someone from a second country with a vastly different culture and language, and they live in a third country and adopt a child from a fourth country that can become really confusing for the child.

2. I have no idea what this means. Please explain

3. Again agreed. In my family we use three languages on a daily basis and know several more. But my children grew up learning these languages together with us and they were always understood at home. If you are adopted as a pre-schooler into a family that is bi-langual and you speak neither of those languages, that does not make your situation any easier. It is a steep learning curve. 

I can help out with 2.
A child coming from another culture has different social and cultural needs to a child within the same culture.
Think about Japan for instance, where it is rude to look people in the eye - it would be inappropriate to demanded that a Japanese child adopted into an american household look their adoptive parents in the eye when they are being spoken to. Especially when they are being disciplined where the appropriate Japanese cultural response would be to bow their head.
Another example would be to ensure the child has an understanding of their birth country so that they could (if they wanted to) integrate with other people of the same heritage.

These are just two very simple examples. If an older child is adopted from another culture their cultural and social needs are often more complex than with younger children.

 

[foreign fundie]

10 hours ago, RMB863 said:

These are just two very simple examples. If an older child is adopted from another culture their cultural and social needs are often more complex than with younger children.

 

That is why I personally think adopting older children from very different cultures should be avoided. I know from first hand the loneliness and years long struggle that goes with integrating in another culture. And I have seen my children struggle. But my children have parents who understand the issues and at home at least they can be themselves. For an older adopted child, even home is a place where they have to live up to unfamiliar cultural expectations. The added stress is significant. 

To find foster or adoptive homes in the country of origin would be much better for (esp. non special needs) older children in my opinion. And even a decent children's home can be preferable to international adoption sometimes. But if adoption is the best option in a given situation, then it should be required that adoptive parents have (thourough) cross cultural awareness and keep their expectations realistic.

Just for a second imagine you would die or could not raise your child and an uneducated family in rural Cambodia would come to the States and whisk your child away from everything and everybody he knows, to become part of their family of 13 kids, non of whom he can communicate with. How is that good for your child? That is how I feel about large  homeschooling fundie families without any cross-cultural experience or awareness of psychological issues taking in war orphans from Congo or teenagers from Chinese orphanages.

 

[blessalessi]

The poster did not specify that the children were adopted from a different country.  My comment was about the couple themselves being mixed race and using more than one language in the home; these are not things,that should preclude afoption in my opinion.

Edited February 6, 2016 by blessalessi

[Diana]

3 hours ago, foreign fundie said:

That is why I personally think adopting older children from very different cultures should be avoided. I know from first hand the loneliness and years long struggle that goes with integrating in another culture. And I have seen my children struggle. But my children have parents who understand the issues and at home at least they can be themselves. For an older adopted child, even home is a place where they have to live up to unfamiliar cultural expectations. The added stress is significant. 

To find foster or adoptive homes in the country of origin would be much better for (esp. non special needs) older children in my opinion. And even a decent children's home can be preferable to international adoption sometimes. But if adoption is the best option in a given situation, then it should be required that adoptive parents have (thourough) cross cultural awareness and keep their expectations realistic.

Just for a second imagine you would die or could not raise your child and an uneducated family in rural Cambodia would come to the States and whisk your child away from everything and everybody he knows, to become part of their family of 13 kids, non of whom he can communicate with. How is that good for your child? That is how I feel about large  homeschooling fundie families without any cross-cultural experience or awareness of psychological issues taking in war orphans from Congo or teenagers from Chinese orphanages.

 

I dont agree that it should be avoided, even tho adapting to a diferent culture and language is hard and takes a while, its harder to grew up without love or a family to support you. If international adoption exist its because its not possible for some countries to find enough forster or adoptive parents for all the children they have on institutions inside their countries. 

About that family you know, i dont know their circunstances, but moving around countries doesnt have to be something bad. Their kids would lose some things(like having the same school friends all their lives, and being more close to their families) but also will gain life experiences,  learn a lot from diferent cultures and diferent languages that would be useful for them when they grow up and want to find a job. Also i dont see how for the adopted kid it would be harder to adapt than if they lived in the states.

[RMB863]

2 hours ago, blessalessi said:

The poster did not specify that the children were adopted from a different country.  My comment was about the couple themselves being mixed race and using more than one language in the home; these are not things,that should preclude afoption in my opinion.

They said that:

 

On 2/5/2016 at 7:08 AM, foreign fundie said:

so the pre-school child they adopt will have to learn two additional languages to the one it speaks now.

I took this to mean it was an international adoption (or at least a cross cultural one) as the child speaks a different language as its mother tongue to either of the parents. Of course being a mixed race couple of having a multilingual household shouldn't preclude adoption. In the UK these things are treated as a good thing in the eyes of social services, providing that the other children in the household speak English well enough. The family would get even more bonus points if they were looking to adopt a child which came from a similar culture to the non-english speaking parent.

[blessalessi]

There we are, we read the same post differently. The op can clarify if she wants.  I just responded to what I saw.

[foreign fundie]

48 minutes ago, Diana said:

I dont agree that it should be avoided, even tho adapting to a diferent culture and language is hard and takes a while, its harder to grew up without love or a family to support you. If international adoption exist its because its not possible for some countries to find enough forster or adoptive parents for all the children they have on institutions inside their countries. 

.

Actually my own opinions on this changed quite a bit over the years. I used to see adoption as a great thing period, because you save a child from poverty. 

But there were so many things I never considered and I only became aware of while living in some of the countries where adoptive children come from. 

I can't go too deep, but I'll mention a few.

- The extend to which your culture is part of who you are, from an early age, and how the removal of your cultural identity is more like an amputation than like changing your coat. Taking a non-infant away from his land, language and people is a very drastic step.

- International adoption does not exist because countries have all these kids that they cannot find homes for. It exists because rich people want children. It is led by demand. Take China. Sure there are special needs kids that cannot get proper care. But there are also lots of Chinese couples that cannot have children and would like to adopt but cannot afford the price set by the government orphanages. So orphans get send abroad to people who can offer a few thousand bucks as 'compensation' to the orphanage, while there are active trafficking rings in China abducting kids and selling them off to childless couples.

-A lot if kids that are offered for adoption, including special needs kids, do have parents or family members that are more than willing to look after them but cannot afford to do so. How ethical is it that we in the West take children because we can afford it, rather than helping the rightful parents or other family members to take care of their own? It is a complicated question but the fact that this question is seldomly asked, shows among other things an underappreciation for the child's roots and culture. 

-Not all orphanages are dark and unloving places. Older children may have strong bonds with other children they grew up with. Again, cutting those is drastic, especially when the child has no say in it.

- I see the current adoption industry as a symptom of the remnants of colonial thinking. It is such a simplification of the problem. 'Child with no parents needs adoption abroad.' And by being so eager to take these kids, we undermine a development of healthy responsibility of certain countries to take care of their own. Which often they can but shipping them off is easier.

I should leave it there. My thinking on this is still developing but so far this is my conclusion. Not any rich, well meaning person can raise any kid of any age from anywhere. Nor should international adoption be the default setting for children in need. More a final resort. 

[Diana]

34 minutes ago, foreign fundie said:

Actually my own opinions on this changed quite a bit over the years. I used to see adoption as a great thing period, because you save a child from poverty. 

But there were so many things I never considered and I only became aware of while living in some of the countries where adoptive children come from. 

I can't go too deep, but I'll mention a few.

- The extend to which your culture is part of who you are, from an early age, and how the removal of your cultural identity is more like an amputation than like changing your coat. Taking a non-infant away from his land, language and people is a very drastic step.

- International adoption does not exist because countries have all these kids that they cannot find homes for. It exists because rich people want children. It is led by demand. Take China. Sure there are special needs kids that cannot get proper care. But there are also lots of Chinese couples that cannot have children and would like to adopt but cannot afford the price set by the government orphanages. So orphans get send abroad to people who can offer a few thousand bucks as 'compensation' to the orphanage, while there are active trafficking rings in China abducting kids and selling them off to childless couples.

-A lot if kids that are offered for adoption, including special needs kids, do have parents or family members that are more than willing to look after them but cannot afford to do so. How ethical is it that we in the West take children because we can afford it, rather than helping the rightful parents or other family members to take care of their own? It is a complicated question but the fact that this question is seldomly asked, shows among other things an underappreciation for the child's roots and culture. 

-Not all orphanages are dark and unloving places. Older children may have strong bonds with other children they grew up with. Again, cutting those is drastic, especially when the child has no say in it.

- I see the current adoption industry as a symptom of the remnants of colonial thinking. It is such a simplification of the problem. 'Child with no parents needs adoption abroad.' And by being so eager to take these kids, we undermine a development of healthy responsibility of certain countries to take care of their own. Which often they can but shipping them off is easier.

I should leave it there. My thinking on this is still developing but so far this is my conclusion. Not any rich, well meaning person can raise any kid of any age from anywhere. Nor should international adoption be the default setting for children in need. More a final resort. 

Your idea about adoption seemed to be wrong since the beggining, the purpose of it isnt to save a child from poverty, its to give a child that doesnt have a family one, the ideal would be that this family would be found in the same community the child is but since this is not always possible international adoption is necessary. Its sad that there was some countries and cases where adoption was corrupted, but doesnt mean international adoption is something bad, it just need to be more precautions put in place.

Inmigrants change countries all the time and at first its hard to them but after a while they integrate, learn the language, make friends and make a life there without forgetting their roots of course. For a kid this adaptation is even easier since they learn faster.

We live in a globalized world, our society is everyday more multicultural, and communication and traveling is easier than ever in history. Even if the kid goes to live to the other side of the world he doesnt have to lose all contact with his country of origin and culture if he doesnt want.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Diana

[foreign fundie]

6 minutes ago, Diana said:

Your idea about adoption seemed to be wrong since the beggining, the purpose of it isnt to save a child from poverty, its to give a child that doesnt have a family one, the ideal would be that this family would be found in the same community the child is but since this is not always possible international adoption is a good thing. 

Inmigrants change countries all the time and at first its hard to them but after a while they integrate, learn the language, make friends and make a life there without forgetting their roots of course. For a kid this adaptation is even easier since they learn faster.

We live in a globalized world, our society is everyday more multicultural, and communication and traveling is easier than ever in history. Even if the kid goes to live to the other side of the world he doesnt have to lose all contact with his country of origin and culture.

I agree that my idea was wrong. I spent my whole post explaining that lol

As for giving a child a family, they often have one, just not one who can feed them. And for older children who have grown up in orphanages, their their fellow orphans often become their family. So by taking them abroad, we often make them lose the family they have. And, more often than not, forever.

A family member of mine adopted a little girl. She was personally handed over by the birth mum. The child had a home and a family. The mum just had no money to feed the kid. The air fee my family member spent alone could have been enough to help the mum raise the child.

As for immigrants, I live abroad myself  and know many immigrants. You don't immigrate to benefit yourself, although you may think so at first. You will always live with what you lost, and never fully belong. Your children may benefit eventually from your decision. Maybe your grand children. 

What I read in your post I see often. The deep importance of cultural belonging is underestimated and the ability of people in the new country to accept, understand and handle another cultural identity is hughly overestimated.

That is again why I think international adoption of older children is not a good thing, but can sometimes be the lesser of two evils.

[OnceUponATime]

1 hour ago, Diana said:

 

Inmigrants change countries all the time and at first its hard to them but after a while they integrate, learn the language, make friends and make a life there without forgetting their roots of course. For a kid this adaptation is even easier since they learn faster.

I would like the address this. I'm currently living abroad in a culture that many people here assume isn't that far from my own. I will say that when I reference to adopting I'm usually talking about the child collecting type of fundies and not all adoptions(things mentioned I have seen a lot on blogs). But I agree with @foreign fundie that adoption internationally should be a last resort for all involved.

People around me think I'm well integrated. I still sometimes (more often that I would like to admit) feel like a fish out of water (more than 6 years later). I chose to move, if I want I could move back, at the moment I'm choosing to stay. I actually moved here alone as an adult. It isn't easy and I know you're not stating that. I'm just going to say that sometimes it is the reasonably small things that get to you: grabbing the wrong milk in the supermarket because the color light blue has a meaning to you but apparently doesn't here (or not a consistent one), not finding an item because it is packaged 100% differently (food coloring for one), not knowing how to go about getting a specialist appointment, illogical (for me) grouping of things in shops... They can add up over time, especially when people start commenting on how you are "eating incorrectly", cutting veggies "in a way that should never be done" and other such things which lead you to believe you must assimilate because cutting veggies wrong can't happen in an integrated environment (unless you're cutting off fingers. For what it is worth I cut fingersticks of carrots and not slices).

I would imagine a child moving with their family would possibly have less issues adapting than I have had. Their behavior is less ingrained and they may adapt better. They also have the advantage of having a 'safe-haven' with their parents.  Preteens/teenagers - not so much. It is hard on them. (I get to watch this at the moment, no one knows for sure if the current issues are from general teen angst, parenting, or the upsetting move. It isn't fun for anyone. at least the child involved gets to live in a house with someone they already know/love/understands the move to a different culture).

Adoption is not that situation. Nowhere close. Said child is ripped from everything they know and hold dear. They don't usually get to bring along a friend who understands, their caregivers are coming along. A lot of the time they end up with no one else who understands the situation from their point of view (and isolated from all who might to not harm attatchment). If they are lucky enough to end up in a home where someone knows their language the  usage of which may be punished/restricted (in the thought they might learn English faster). Comfort items/food/whatever - they don't have or are restricted. I also doubt that many kids really are getting the choices I have in regards to immigrating and getting a new family. I also wonder if they have a choice and if so really understood what it meant. Maybe they thought that going to the USA was the garden of Eden/the promised land and are sorely disappointed when they arrive.
 

1) integration and assimilation are two completely different things but frequently confused. While a lot of people say and maybe think they are for integration a lot of what they say implies otherwise. Integration is a melting pot of both cultures. Assimilation is taking on the new one and discarding the old one. One example of assimilation that I have seen a lot on fundy adoption blogs is that the child must leave all their food desires behind and only ever eat American food from now on. Then they talk about how it is a control issue and all that crap (sorry this makes me mad. ALL my comfort foods originate from my home country)

2)when people talk about not forgetting roots a lot of people assume that means celebrating Chinese new year, or 4th of July, or Thanksgiving. It is a shitload more than that and goes a lot deeper and adoptive parents who don't speak the language/know nothing about the culture than very basic aspects are going to struggle to actually aid any child navigating through their roots because of this. If only the child knows their roots how do they get to keep them in an adoptive situation where the goal of the new parents is attachment and 'integration' (I would call this assimilation in a lot of cases) into the family?

I'm not saying all adoption is evil or will turn out badly, but I think a lot of people have the wrong idea about the international adoption 'dream' and don't take the time to really stop and think of what it actually means for the child involved. It is not and I hope never should be thought of as 'children are adaptable so they'll get over it' situation.

 

tl;dr - i have read too many fundy international adoption blogs and have my gander up. sorry. i probably also didn't make much sense. I'll blame it on accidentally buying colored water instead of milk last week

 

[foreign fundie]

I know exactly what you mean. You can change your outside (food, clothes, language) but not your inside (desires, tastes, associations). And if your inside is not understood by people around you, this generates loneliness. 

Thank you for taking time to explain in much more detail what I meant. I once went to buy bottled water to make up my baby's formula. The 'water' I bought had 30% alcohol. Never knew liquor could be so cheap...

Edited February 6, 2016 by foreign fundie

[OnceUponATime]

7 minutes ago, foreign fundie said:

I know exactly what you mean. You can change your outside (food, clothes, language) but not your inside (desires, tastes, associations). And if your inside is not understood by people around you, this generates loneliness. 

Thank you for taking time to explain in much more detail what I meant. I once went to buy bottled water to make up my baby's formula. The 'water' I bought had 30% alcohol. Never knew liquor could be so cheap...

and if you don't change your food, you are evil and not wanting to integrate and and and *cries* _{Damn you Erika now I can't use that and feel good about myself}. Yes the loneliness and frustration/angst/starting to rant again. And then they get annoyed that expats start only hanging out with expats and while I understand that frustration now I'm in that situation omg sometimes there is a reason for that (and 'native' caused, not expats wanting to stay apart).
my clothes only changed because my old ones wore out - and i have yet to find underwear that doesn't ride up my ass. Apparently I have an arse larger than normal. <-also a problem for jeans. Why do they only want to sell skinny jeans? i have thighs dammit
 

Actually be careful buying bottle water, a lot says shouldn't be used to babies/children under 2. I read on a bottle of sparkling water (i'm a label reader) that it should not be given as a regular drink to children under 6! I had no clue that that could be a problem (unsafe levels of some chemical). Just as well I don't have children or they would all be sick from water poisoning due to my ignorance.

[Mercer]

5 hours ago, Diana said:

Also i dont see how for the adopted kid it would be harder to adapt than if they lived in the states.

Because of the constant change.

I don't think it would necessarily be harder for a child to adapt to, say, Guatemala than the United States. I do think it would be harder for a child to adapt to Guatemala then Peru then Brazil then Mexico then Chile then Honduras etc. than just to adapt to a stable living situation in one country. 

Change in routine is difficult for children in general. For a newly adopted child, especially if the child is older, an unpredictable routine and frequent attachment breaks (with friends, teachers, neighbors, etc.) can be far more emotionally devastating, especially if it happens before the child has secure attachment to the adoptive parents.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Mercer

[SummerRocks]

Jean and Jim and kids are in Florida ... regarding the van situation ... Does it appear to anyone else that Emma or Ellie (can't tell them apart) is sitting in the "trunk" of the van - behind the last row of actual seats?! 

Edited February 14, 2016 by SummerRocks

[Queen Of Hearts]

5 hours ago, SummerRocks said:

Jean and Jim and kids are in Florida ... regarding the van situation ... Does it appear to anyone else that Emma or Ellie (can't tell them apart) is sitting in the "trunk" of the van - behind the last row of actual seats?! 

OMG, I had to zoom in on the picture to verify, but I am pretty sure you are right (and I think it is Emma). Guess that's how they solved that pesky problem of too many kids for the van.  I sincerely hope that they had a seat processionally installed, but even then I question the safety. Also, I hope Emma chose to sit there and wasn't assigned that seat... She is the Mulvahil's most cognitively challenged child and placing her in the back, sort of isolated and maybe not even in a legal/safe seat just seems mean to me.

[SummerRocks]

28 minutes ago, Queen Of Hearts said:

OMG, I had to zoom in on the picture to verify, but I am pretty sure you are right (and I think it is Emma). Guess that's how they solved that pesky problem of too many kids for the van.  I sincerely hope that they had a seat processionally installed, but even then I question the safety. Also, I hope Emma chose to sit there and wasn't assigned that seat... She is the Mulvahil's most cognitively challenged child and placing her in the back, sort of isolated and maybe not even in a legal/safe seat just seems mean to me.

My thoughts exactly. Emma and Ellie are no where near the favourite children, from reading on their blog I would place them at the bottom of the "totem pole" in their household. If anything; I would have thought Sara (as the oldest) would be assigned that seat. 

Somehow I doubt there is a professional seat installed as I think we would have read about that in the blog. 

 

I gave up on thinking we'd be updated on Joy and my feelings towards this family are getting more and more negative with each blog post. 

[accountingstar]

First, I was surprised that the family didn't leave Emma and Ellie at home like they did last year. What about their schooling given they go to public school?

Second, totally agree that another seat was added in the trunk. I had to enlarge the photo. Is it legal to add a seat in the trunk? It appears that Emma would have to exit via the trunk door(s). Pretty sure that the kids don't get to pick their seats, they are assigned.

[lilah]

On 2/6/2016 at 8:00 AM, foreign fundie said:

I agree that my idea was wrong. I spent my whole post explaining that lol

As for giving a child a family, they often have one, just not one who can feed them. And for older children who have grown up in orphanages, their their fellow orphans often become their family. So by taking them abroad, we often make them lose the family they have. And, more often than not, forever.

A family member of mine adopted a little girl. She was personally handed over by the birth mum. The child had a home and a family. The mum just had no money to feed the kid. The air fee my family member spent alone could have been enough to help the mum raise the child.

As for immigrants, I live abroad myself  and know many immigrants. You don't immigrate to benefit yourself, although you may think so at first. You will always live with what you lost, and never fully belong. Your children may benefit eventually from your decision. Maybe your grand children. 

What I read in your post I see often. The deep importance of cultural belonging is underestimated and the ability of people in the new country to accept, understand and handle another cultural identity is hughly overestimated.

That is again why I think international adoption of older children is not a good thing, but can sometimes be the lesser of two evils.

Adoption is about loss. For a child to need to be adopted they first lose their original family. In an international adoption they also lose their original language, culture and in the case of the horrible narcissists in the NPLH family their original name. 

In many countries there is such a gray market created by fundie short term trips to have orphanages where they can go and love on orphans. Many of these children have families and have communities that could provide and raise these children if they had support. Instead there's a perverse incentive to create more economic orphans so that the children can have regular meals and maybe an education. It's a sickening situation.

Anyway the rehoming thing is sickening. These kids have already had so much trauma and losing their adoptive families after losing everything else is just mind boggling. 

[SummerRocks]

On February 15, 2016 at 11:02 PM, accountingstar said:

First, I was surprised that the family didn't leave Emma and Ellie at home like they did last year. What about their schooling given they go to public school?

Apparently Emma and Ellie are homeschooled this year - says so in their newest blog post about Valentines day. 

[anniebgood]

And the new child is being called Jenny if I read the post correctly. I think they bought property in a compound in FL somewhere so they didn't have to rent a place which may have time limits. 

[Queen Of Hearts]

I wonder if she edited her post? I read where she calls her Joy, but someone in the comments asked who Jenny was. God, please if she edited let it be because of her typo and not because she really changed that poor child's name.

 

[iheartchacos]

Jenny's name appears on one of the Valentine cards. Last pic, I think.

[SummerRocks]

7 hours ago, iheartchacos said:

Jenny's name appears on one of the Valentine cards. Last pic, I think.

Yes, this! I was wondering who Jenny is! I saw the name on an "upside down" Valentines Day card. 

Jenny must be Joy ... or well Joy must be Jenny ... 

The teacher in me wants to go help out with their writing skills - does this statement send me right to hell?!