RAD Adoption Lies, Torture, Death of Children

[Alecto]

RAD MYTH wrote:

Hello.

I read the thread about Emma, the woman who adopted 2 children from Haiti, claimed they had RAD, and dropped them off at someone else's house to be raised.

1. RAD is a very specific diagnosis with a narrow window of "symptoms".

2. What passes for RAD amongst adoptive parents these days is often a long list of varied behaviours that all kids have. Its too wide and varied to have any real meaning.

3. This Nancy person who is supposed to be a RAD expert is NOT an expert and has been involved in various criminal cases, a few involving MURDER OF CHILDREN who supposedly had RAD.

4. "Holding Therapy" and "Attachment Therapy" and various other methods of dealing with this non-scientific form of "RAD" have resulted in the DEATHS of several children.

5.. The dread-locked White woman (Christine?) who other women on this forum have said is "awesome" and "knows how to deal with RAD correctly" is another narccissistic nut-mom. Watch her videos..........closely.

If you want to read more about real RAD, faux RAD, Holding Therapy, Attachment Therapy, this Nancy "expert", and the resultant cases of DEATH, complete with videos, go here;

http://www.childrenintherapy.org/

and here;

<>

TRIGGER WARNING: Everything you will read there is EXTREMELY disturbing.

These people MUST be stopped!

Austin wrote:

I have seen a newsmagazine story or two on this holding therapy. Haven't several children basically suffocated from people wrapping them in a zillion blankets to replicate some sort of cocoon/womb thing and restraining them (sounded like sitting on them)?

I realize that's probably included in the links you've provided, but I'm sorry, after Emma, I need some time before I look at other stories of people using the RAD thing as an excuse to abuse kids. Definitely want to look at the links at some point.

valsa wrote:

Thanks for posting. I, too, feel that RAD is the "new black" with regards to adoption diagnosis. Not every adopted child who is difficult has RAD! Also a pet peeve of mine- not every child with learning difficulties has FASD!

Though I honestly can't find it in myself to blame the adoptive parents for wanting a diagnosis (those that actually help the kids instead of just dropping them off on someone else's doorstep) A diagnosis is almost like having something physical to hold onto, something with a name. I think it rests easier on parents' minds if they can say "My child has RAD and/or FASD" instead of just a generic "My child has trouble with behaving and/or has learning difficulties due to a traumatic past". I think having a diagnosis also helps with getting other people to be more understanding. It's a "your child is a bad kid" versus "your child has a disorder" line of thinking.

I hate hold therapy though. I have panic attacks and anxiety problems and I couldn't imagine someone grabbing me and holding me tightly in place while I was freaking out. It would just make it worse.

Alecto wrote:

It also can be the difference between getting insurance to pay for treatments, getting a 504/IEP plan and not getting help.

I agree with Austin, though. I can't read that at the moment. I'm far too disturbed and pissed off at psychohosebeast.

cassandra wrote:

This woman has seriously raised the bar. I don't know if ZsuZsu (the one I found most atrocious) can top this.

Austin wrote:

Evil Emma makes Zsu Zsu look nearly benign. Well, not really, but you get my drift. . .

valsa wrote:

That's very true. Also, with domestic adoption through the foster care system, it can also be the difference between getting an adoption subsidy (to help pay for therapies that many insurances don't cover fully or at all, specialized child care, tutoring, the cost of taking off work to get kids to their therapy appointments, etc) and having to pay out of pocket (assuming you can afford it and, if you can't, the child is the one who suffers)

Burris wrote:

Nancy Campbell can top it. She and at least one of her daughters have, as far as I know, suffered from what I'll call "Disappearing Black Child" ("DBC") syndrome - characterized by adopting and talking about kids from Africa, only to have the kids mysteriously disappear from both your press material and the number of children you claim to have in your family, a few months later.

marie said:

Burris, curious to know where you heard about this (not questioning the truth as I know the truth). Didn't think it was general knowledge -- or was it just a logical deduction from info caught along the way?

eta: the children who are gone are older teenagers who left of their own free will and cut off contact. Nancy and her daughter haven't "offed" anyone. Just so's you know.

MuseMama said:

I've only watched the one video of Christine's. And while "playing stupid" isn't something I see as a RAD behavior (my kids all do that from time to time, and I certainly did as a kid) I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that she's mistreating them or abusing them in any way. I think she's found, as many adoptive parents of older children have, that it's harder than it looks. And she seems to really love and care about all of her kids. She certainly hasn't given them up again, or turned her back on them.

I don't think she's an attention whore just for having a blog.

robertposteschild said:

Yes, it was Serene Campbell. The kids were from Liberia. About the same time, Michael Pearl posted something on NJG about adopted kids from Liberia who were "trained in the dark arts of eroticiscm" and had tainted their lily white adoptive family... Grrrrr these people make me so angry.

RAD MYTH, I did get a weird vibe from the Christine woman with the dreadlocks too. (of the vacuum video) She may not be as crazy as Emma but that video was weird.

MuseMama said:

The Pearl's are against adoption. I'll look for the link, but it's more than just their bassackwards racism. They think all adoption is bad. The Pearl's are my most hated fundies.

maire said:

Pearls also on my "no" list.

SunnyAndrsn said:

This is extremely complicated for me, as a parent of a RAD child. I know very well that RAD is rare; we had 3 children diagnosed with RAD and while two certainly had problems with trust and attachment, they did not have RAD. Our son, on the other hand, met the criteria for RAD based on the DSM-IV-TR criteria.

We worked very, very, very hard to help him, bond with him, love him, and become a family. By societal standards, he's not a 'success'--he's not in college and has no plans to go to college. By our standards, he is because he's able to allow himself to give and receive love, keep a job, and take care of himself. My son was lucky, considering the horrors he witnessed as a very young child, and sadly remembers.

It breaks my heart that children have died d/t maltreatment r/t RAD 'therapy'.

Who is the Nancy that you are referring to? Do you have the link to the Christine person you are talking about?

valsa said:

I'm not sure how you can say that since one of the boys who "disappeared" was only about 13 or 14 when it happened.

MuseMama wrote:

Christine: welcometomybrain.net/

marie said:

All I am saying is that the children were not given or thrown away and that the whole situation was completely devastating to Serene and Nancy and Colin. I really can't give out any more info, but I am not going to stand by and let you lump them in with the situation under discussion, which is almost completely opposite in nature. I don't agree with everything the Campbells teach, but I can tell you that they love their children and grandchildren -- ALL of them-- dote on them, treat them like treasures, with respect, as individuals.

RAD MYTH said:

White people adopting Black kids from majority Black countries and then who wonder why the kids are "looking at them funny" LOL!

Studies have been done that show babies and children respond positively to the FAMILIAR.

Studies have also been done that babies and children respond positively to the PRETTY.

Dreadlocked Christine and any other un-attractive Moms and Dads should consider that maybe their kids are "looking at them funny" coz they be UGLY.

Regarding that "Playing Dumb" video that Christine had the damn nerve to post to the entire world - I left a comment of concern for her child below it that got deleted ( but of course!).

Imagine being a child, in a foreign country, living in a house full of strange looking and weird acting White people, and being VIDEO TAPED ALL DAY LONG.

WTF???

Why oh why do these people feel the need to expose their children to the ENTIRE WORLD like this?

Why do these people (women mostly, or exclusively) spend so much time online analysing every tiny little thing "their kids" do and say?

Who died and left them Freud?

Which medical doctors have "diagnosed" these kids with Reactive Attachment Disorder?

Its all incredibly, incredibly deranged.

SunnyAndrsn said:

http://www.caica.org/NWCG...0Treatment%20Program.pdf

Interesting info I found re: Angellika Arndt's case from 2006. Since several of my foster kids were in similar day treatment programs, I was curious and starting digging around.

The comments about the rug burns particularly bother me. My son was restrained more than once--and at the time I really didn't know enough to speak up. He was rather proud that it took up to 3 people to restrain him. I wish I would have known then what I know now, although at the time I was not his parent, just his foster parent so I had far fewer rights. He spent a year in a day treatment program. So did four more of my foster sons. Three of the five that I can recall were restrained. Only my son, that I can recall, sustained rug burns (proudly so, this makes me sick now)

We're taking him and his g/f out to eat tomorrow--I plan on asking him more questions about his time in day treatment.

fundiefan said:

The video woman with the dreads lost me by using humiliation as a tool. I don't care what her reputation may be and I don't care that she hasn't given up or turned her back on her kids, or 'given them back'. Humiliation is never an answer and it is appalling when it is used on children.

I know next to nothing about RAD, sans the experiences a friend is willing to share about her son. I think it is used too often, though, as a scapegoat. Emma sure latched onto it as an excuse and I'd bet just about anything her claim that those kids were demonic raised some eyebrows so she had to find something socially 'acceptable' to label them, since possessed children isn't exactly a common occurrence even among some of the wackier Christian beliefs, so she could blame them.

valsa wrote:

You know, it's starting to smell like cow shit in here and I think it's coming from you. Not only does Serene have a minor adopted child who just magically disappeared, but you can easily tell that the Campbells don't treat their bio and adopted kids the same. On the "About Us" page of Above Rubies, there's a paragraph for each of Nancy Campbell's bio children but only three sentences encompassing the adopted children ("Colin and I also adopted some older teenagers from Liberia, West Africa. Only Mercy (our youngest daughter of 18 years) is at home now. She is a delight to our hearts.") Does she have contact with them and just doesn't consider them worthy of the paragraph-long descriptions that her bio kids have? Or is she no longer in contact with the "some older teenagers" she adopted? If so, it's pretty suspicious that multiple children adopted by both Nancy and Serene are falling off the radar and cutting off contact with them.

maire wrote:

Right, so you know more from a few lines in a magazine than I do from actually knowing them. I am not at liberty to discuss this with you any further than what I have already said.

RAD MYTH wrote:

A HUGE RED FLAG

Why would adopted children, upon reaching either adulthood or adolescence, want to "cut off all ties" with their adoptive parents?

Wassup widdat?

Austin wrote:

Fundie apologists abound. . .

maire wrote:

Maybe you can do some research and educate yourself as to the many reasons a teen might want to be adopted and moved to another country like the USA. Maybe you can envision that said teen already has some buddies who live here who he might hook up with and move on. Such things could theoretically happen.

SunnyAndrsn

Agreed, fundiefan. Humiliation should never be used with any child as a parenting tool. Attachment disordered children, including kids with RAD already feel bad enough about themselves. Heck, kids who have no attachment problem usually don't need help feeling like crap about themselves either.

[Alecto]

valsa wrote:

Conversely, my not knowing them means I'm not wearing rose colored glasses about whay awful people they are.

Hey, I have a request. Next time you meet up with Nancy, ask her exactly what was so "hilarious" about her daughter's house flooding so badly they could only use the upstairs (the downstairs flooring being too warped to be usable and likely filled with mold) and why she didn't help her daughter when she had, iirc, 11 kids in a house with no water and no heat, so that the kids had to bring 5-gallon pails of water to the house from far away and Serene and the kids (including a baby) had to run laps in the winter to stay warm... all while Nancy was was living the high life.

SunnyAndrsn wrote:

Oh, it's Nancy Campbell you're talking about? Got it now.

I would run from a regular MD who diagnosed a child with RAD. You need a qualified psychologist or a psychiatrist to give a mental health diagnosis.

maire wrote:

No, I don't think I will do that. Considering as how it's none of my business.

valsa wrote:

Then I suggest you don't post things like this-

- because it makes you either look like a liar or someone who doesn't know the meaning of the phrases "love", "dote on them", and "treat them like treasures, with respect, as individuals".

Kathryn31 wrote:

Um...what? No heat and they ran laps so they could stay warm? Why does looking at these families seem like a picture just slightly tilted? It looks normal at first glance but the longer you stare the more you realize there is something a little "off" that is bugging the hell out you.

brashchick wrote:

But coming here to shit on the rug is your business ?

maire wrote:

It wasn't me spreading false information, and I was trying to, in a civil manner, correct the info. The poo on the rug is not mine. No hostility here. Can't help it if some others are not quite potty-trained.

Austin wrote:

We really need to have some tile or laminate put in. . .

valsa wrote:

Yes, Serene has talked about having to send her kids hiking to the water stock tank and break the ice so they can carry 5-gallon buckets of water back home. And how the wood stove in their house wasn't constructed properly so the house filled with smoke everytime they tried to use it. And how they had to run laps (Serene carrying the newest baby) to keep warm. And, iirc, how her children had to sleep all together on blankets on the floor to keep warm (which she felt was cute like a "pile of puppies") (granted, I can't remember 100% if this was Serene or some other fundy mom)

I can't find the original place all this info came from but here's a No Longer Quivering piece written about it- http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/08/06 ... full-moms/

ChunkyBarbie wrote:

That was Serene. I remember reading that and wondering why that was allowed to happen, especially on the family compound. I also wondered why Serene's husband felt it was okay for his family to live like that. Great job being the holy headship. Not!

RAD MYTH wrote:

This people all suffer from WMBS and BFAA - White Man's Burden Syndrom and Big Family Adoption Addiction.

There, I'm officially a Dr. Freud now too. See how easy that was?

Watch out or I'll video tape you doing something normal and put it up on youtube with my analytical diagnosis beneath.

I hope each and every one of these kids sues the bejeezus out of these motherf***ers for slander the second they turn 18.

LilMissMetaphor wrote:

Ahem. Speaking of axe-grinding...

MuseMama wrote:

RAD, Christine's kids weren't adopted recently. Her daughter's been here for a long time. And she's not video taped all day long. Way to over-exaggerate. I'm sorry, but your page 2 post about her sounds kind of racist.

I get that you're passionate about RAD and I think that's great. But I don't think you can lump every adoptive parent having a rough time with people like Emma. Have you actually read Christine's blog at all? She seems to really love her kids.

RAD MYTH wrote:

MuseMama, 6 months ago I spent hours watching Christine's videos and reading her psycho-analysis of "her children".

I know well of what I speak.

Let's just take that one "playing dumb" video where the poor girl was not pressing hard enough to turn off the vacuum cleaner.

Go back and watch it again if you must.

Need I say more?

And that's just ONE.

The only thing wrong with these kids are their damn "mothers".

doggie wrote:

no a rubber floor so we can bounce them right out of here.

robertposteschild wrote:

I'm still not down with her videotaping her kids as some kind of "teaching tool" for other parents. It's more of this instant expert baloney. Andthe share your own intimate details and those of your minor children with the entire world syndrome. Or SYOIDTYMCEWS for short.

flyonthewall wrote:

They flounce and they bounce.

maire wrote:

Who is "they"?

Alecto wrote:

The various fruits, nuts, fundies and trolls who insist on shitting on the rug.

Speaking of, I really need to add "shitting on the rug" to my FAQ list. Maybe we need a FJ Dictionary

RAD MYTH wrote:

1. Which doctor diagnosed Christine's or Emma's kids with Reactive Attachment Disorder and which particular symptoms (there are not many) did they exhibit, according to said doctor?

2. Which language and culture courses did Christine and Emma take to prepare them for a cross-cultural adoption?

3. Why are African-descended Haitian kids expected to conform to Anglo-American norms of communication, such as the feel-good "eye gazing" that these women expected?

4. Were these women aware that scientific studies have been conducted showing that babies and children respond positively to familar faces and pretty faces?

5. If so, why were these women surprised that "their kids" were "looking at me funny" or "not looking me in the eyes at all"?

6. Who died and left these women Freud?

maire wrote:

So is there like a FJ Manifesto that we are following here, or what? I hear all the time how we at FJ are all individuals, blah blah blah, but that individualism is only approved as long as we all agree on everything right down the line like a bunch of good little FJ Fundies?

Truth be damned! We believe what we want to believe as long as we all believe the same!

Way to go. FJ FTW!

valsa wrote:

You can believe whatever you want but if you're a liar and/or a fundy apologist (you are both, by the way), you can expect to be seen as a troll in a community whose purpose is to snark about fundies. It's like if you went to an eating disorder recovery website and starting posting "I don't think throwing up to lose weight is all that bad of an idea".

LilMissMetaphor wrote:

Oh stop being all angsty.

maire wrote:

I am not a fundy apologist in any way, shape or form; and also, I have not lied. So you are incorrect. But go ahead and believe whatever you want.

I don't have a horse in this race. I don't like the fundy belief system any more than you do, but evidently I value the truth a heckuva lot more than you. You have pigeonholed me with the wrong pigeons.

It is kinda funny that I have had almost these same exact conversations with certain fundy groups. Kinda funny how neither of you can take any challenge to your strongly held, but incorrect, beliefs. Kinda funny how your version of "PERSECUTION" is "crapping on the rug. Somebody doesn't agree with you? PERSECUTION!!!! CRAPPING ON THE RUG!!!

Guess they are everywhere.

[Alecto]

SunnyAndrsn wrote:

So for our Caribbean vacation, I went with a bubble gum pink polish for my pedicure. It went great with my Havaianas flip flops, and even better once my feet got tan.

We went through two spray bottles of SPF 30, and ended up finally using a lotion. I'm not impressed with the sprays--found them to be very drying. But I did like the Ocean Potion brand with Vitamin D3--No idea how much you actually absorb, but I liked the smell.

maire wrote:

Yay, groupthink! Carry on then.

valsa wrote:

Maire, you said Nancy Campbell loves, treasures, and dotes on her children and grandchildren. I posted specific instances where Nancy Campbell's daughter and grandchildren have been in horrible, dangerous, 3rd-world living conditions and Nancy has posted that she found at least one of those instances "hilarious" (and, despite her considerable resources, she has not helped alleviate those dangerous living conditions) You are lying about Nancy Campbell loving, treasuring, and doting on her children and grandchildren.

Lainey wrote:

I like puffins.

robertposteschild wrote:

Maire, it's not that you disagree, it's that you expect us to take your word for it, and get all huffy when we don't. A reasonable person would not expect others to just take the word of a random stranger on the Internet vs. publicly posted information/evidence from the individuals in question.

And Mary Campbell is certified batshit crazy. A genuine fake-smiling, crazy-eyed, whacked-out womb-man

RAD MYTH wrote:

Forget the fundie vs fun war.

WHO the hell diagnoses these kids as "RAD" - Reactive Attachment Disorder?

RAD must be diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist.

To get around that - the quacks have coined "Attachment Disorder" which has a loooooooooooooong list of symptoms - everyday kid behaviours.

Don't believe the hype.

More here;

http://www.childrenintherapy.org/

maire wrote:

Valsa, were you there?

robertposteschild wrote:

And you were? Why have you been holding out on us?

failsafe wrote:

WHO the hell diagnoses these kids as "RAD" - Reactive Attachment Disorder?

In fairness, MOST people don't put the names of the doctors who diagnosed them on the Internet. Nor do I think they should have to. And nor would it make any difference, really, as long as they were diagnosed by a doctor, because even if you called that doctor's office, they wouldn't be able to tell you a thing about it due to HIPAA. As long as someone is diagnosed by a medical professional, I'm not going to sit around with my occasional-internet-research and sometimes-read-your-blog-when-you-offer-two-paragraphs-about-behavior and diagnose your kid. I'm not qualified. A doctor that's observed them probably is.

If you're diagnosing your kid yourself, obviously I'll have a problem with it. But if you take your child to be diagnosed by a competent medical professional, my default assumption is that medical professional probably knows more than me, random stranger on the internet does. That doesn't mean I can't judge how you react to that diagnosis, why you sought the diagnosis in the first place, and even wonder aloud if it's the correct one. But I'm not going to go around telling someone "Your kid doesn't have that, it's an overdiagnosed myth" because I don't know you or your kid and damn, it's just like telling people "Your kid doesn't have ADHD, it's just an overdiagnosed myth." That may be true on a large scale but it certainly isn't true of every individual, and I am not competent to judge an individual child as having a psychiatric disorder based on a few sentences in a blog.

valsa wrote:

Doesn't matter.

This information comes from Nancy and Serene Campbell themselves and there is no definition of the words "love", "dote", and "treasure" that are compatible with the information given by these women. Face it, you're an apologist for the Campbells and you're pissed that your lying defense of them doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Jencendiary wrote:

Rad Myth: We get it. You have a cause to promote.

But could you please pretend to be interested in the theme of the site?

Maire. . .girl, bye.

cassandra wrote:

You're kind of starting to remind me of an infomercial.

fundiefan wrote:

Yup. Like that long, long, list of child behavior that were apparently 'signs' of RAD that Emma posted saying her kids had 24 & 25 of 40 traits or something. I was floored. It was poorly written, for one. It clarified nothing. It was too open to interpretation. Did I say poorly written?

robertposteschild wrote:

I like traffic lights. Especially when they're green.

Lissar wrote:

If one person calls you a horse, feel free to ignore them. If three people call you a horse, look in the mirror. If five people call you a horse, it's time to buy a saddle.

In other words, something you are saying is causing a lot of different people to believe that you *are* a fundie apologist. Maybe it's how you come into threads and defend them and say they're not that bad. Just a guess.

maire wrote:

Okay, first valid point. You are correct, you absolutely should not take my word for it, and I am not huffy that you don't -- it is the tone of the rebuttals that is offensive. But never mind that. You should not take the word of a random stranger over what you have observed.

That said, I still could not, with any integrity, sit here silently while false information about the Campbells children was being passed along. I have done what any decent person would do according to my own experiences and observation, in person, with the Campbells. You don't have to believe me, but that doesn't absolve me from telling the truth as I observed it. I frankly would do the same for you or Barack Obama, bless his heart, or anyone else. I didn't intend to cause an issue or align myself with anyone else's religious or lifestyle views.

robertposteschild wrote:

That was my first clue. Next one was "I have PROOF that the Campbell womb-man is not a whackadoodle but I can't divulge it"

robertposteschild wrote:

ZOMG, Maire, did you just give a fundie F U to our commander in chief?

Alecto wrote:

Wow. that might be the single most passive aggressive entry I've seen here.

maire wrote:

Well, it could be how I say what I say, or it could be a severe case of lemmings playing follow-the-leader, or it could be any number of things, but one thing is for darn sure, I am not a fundy apologist. I will try to stand up for people that I do actually have some acquaintance with my experiences don't line up with what is being said about them, but so would you.

cassandra wrote:

You did not just bless the president's heart. Ha!

maire wrote:

Good grief, go back and read. I never said PROOF anything, I said I can't discuss it, due to the fact that I don't know how much of what was said to me was in confidence and how much of it is common knowledge. I don't want to cross the line. That's all.

robertposteschild wrote:

Maire, I must have missed your intro post where you share your connection to the Campbells and what brings you to a site dedicated to snarking on them and people like them.

ETA: riffles

flyonthewall wrote:

Maire,

Someone who allows their child and grandchildren to live in a home with no running water and a wood stove that smokes them out of the house doesn't seem 'loving' or 'doting'.

In her magazine she promotes continuous child bearing as a cure for depression. She may at one time in your presence seemed loving but her track record proves otherwise.

Alecto wrote:

Just because someone calls something "Loving and Doting" doesn't make it true.

After all, I can call a kitten a biscuit, but that doesn't mean I should put it in the oven.

[Alecto]

LilMissMetaphor wrote:

I don't see much evidence of groupthink in this thread. Valsa and RPC are trying to get answers out of Maire, who keeps dissembling and rather disingenuously I might add, Sunny wants to talk about her lotion (or something), someone likes puffins (which is fine by me) Radmyth is grinding his axe so hard that Jencendiary's popcorn is getting seriously woody, someone else is getting a woody because of Alan Rickman pics (I personally don't think he's anything to take home but whatevs), some of us are giggling at the woody peanutty goodness, and some of us just want the madness to STOP!

robertposteschild wrote:

"I know what you're saying is not true, but I can't discuss it" Oh my goodness, I guess I need to work on my reading comprehension, bless your heart!

maire wrote:

Yeah, I probably never did do an intro post. Okay, so here goes. I am a PK, non-fundy, lots of fundy friends who I disagree with and yet find them to be genuinely caring and sweet people; a whole other group of fundy acquaintances who I believe are as close to deranged as you can get, and a whole lot of other friends from all the other spectrums. I go to a regular old church. I have a large family. I enjoy the discussion here on its own merits and I think a lot of valid points have been made here, including but not limited to my own. I did bless Obama's heart, however, I am in general support of socialized healthcare. I do not, I swear on all that is bright and beautiful, intend to be trollish and/or poop on the rug. Discussion is a beautiful thing.

I prefer not to discuss how I know the Campbells because I prefer anonymity on account of my fundy friends. As in the case of MamaAnt.

Lissar wrote:

Judging by your post count you have been here for a while. With all of the scraps we get in here I'm puzzled that you think this forum is populated by people who always agree with one another. Many of us tend to go at it hammer and tongs on a pretty regular basis, in fact. Sometimes we disagree politely, sometimes we get heated, and sometimes we agree to put each other on ignore, but this place is not an echo chamber.

Burris wrote:

That what was this about?

duplessis3 wrote:

RADMyth - your attacks on the perceived prettiness (and familiarity) of the faces of the adoptive mothers weakens your argument. Every baby thinks their mother is beautiful and babies don't really know what color their own skin is. My impression is that none of the children that Emma or Christine adopted were babies, and were from primarily black countries, so the skin color being an obstacle is a valid point but when you yammer about how Christine is ugly, physically-well the upshot sounds like white women with dreads don't sexually excite you which isn't interesting or a valid criticism of their parenting skills. Please edit your polemics.

maire wrote:

Burris, what do you want me to say? I can only tell you what I saw with my own two eyes and heard with my own two ears in the presence of the people discussed. I can't answer to the house thing because I wasn't there, didn't see it, and didn't ask.

Serene is an extremely intelligent, extremely gutsy girl. I guess if anyone could handle that situation (and I could not, for sure), she probably could. It isn't what I would choose.

RAD MYTH wrote:

Maire, why not just tell us why her pubescent/adolescent/adult adopted kids want nothing to do with her anymore?

Why the secrecy?

If they engaged in a conspiracy to get themselves adopted so they could "move on" - so? Tell us. Why the secrecy?

However, even if I plotted such a thing as a kid, if my adopted family were "cool" - I'd still wanna know 'em. Who wouldn't?

Burris wrote:

I can respect that - but I think if you're going to defend the Campbells, even if some of the knowledge you have is confidential, you can at least make some statements more specific than, 'Well, your information is wrong. I can't tell you anything contrary because it's private, but I do know y'all suffer from groupthink.'

Sorry. Not good enough.

Most of us know about Campbell's kids because the number of children she claims to have sometimes fluctuates in her magazines. That's passing odd - and more than a little disturbing when it happens without comment or explanation.

failsafe wrote:

There have been studies showing that babies respond better to conventionally attractive people (this really just means very symmetrical faces, but I digress). Of course, to extrapolate that to "Your kid doesn't like you because you didn't pretty yourself up enough" is not logical. Babies don't respond to makeup, but they do respond to young - healthy - symmetrical - smiling faces - basically, whatever evolutionarily is probably going to be the person that gives them a good chance of survival to adulthood.

robertposteschild wrote:

Here's the info that Valsa dug up on that other thread:

It's not about how "nice" people are, it's that they think they are magic Christians who will make everything all better for teh poor orphans, even if they can't make ends meet, can't be arsed to learn the child's language or culture, and won't get proper help for cultural adjustment issues.

The No Longer Quivering thread covers most of the disappearing adopted kids issue, although I’ve confirmed at least parts of it elsewhere.

Here-

aboverubies.or...id=546&Itemid=400020

- is Nancy Campbells’ bio page on her family. The paragraph about her daughter Serene says that, as of March 2010, she has 8 children, 2 of which were adopted from Liberia (Cherish and Engedi)

Here-

oldpathsfamily...g/2008/02/22/sam-serene/

- is a letter posted in 2008 from a friend of Serene and Sam (Serene’s husband) It details the problems they’ve been having with their house. It also says Serene and Sam have 13 kids, 8 of which are adopted from Liberia.

And here (warning, fairly large PDF)-

aboverubies.or...gazines/ARMagazine71.pdf

- is Above Rubies Issue 71, from June 2007. In it, Serene writes an article about the birth of her newest child, saying that it’s her 11th child, and Nancy, in the foreword, says that Serene has adopted 6 children from Liberia.

Not all of the discrepancies between that issue and what Nancy’s bio page say can be explained by some of the adopted children moving out. While I could maybe buy that Serene’s eldest adopted children might be old enough to have moved out (two of her girls- Selah and Kula, as well as one boy- Jabin are named in the AR Issue 71 (but not on Nancy’s bio page) and look to be in their late teens), not all of the adopted kids are. The 2007 article Serene wrote was specifically centered around her 11 year old Liberian-adopted Isaiah (who is also not mentioned at all in Nancy’s bio) It’s only been three years, so Isaiah would only be 14. He certainly didn’t move out on his own.

I’d also like to mention how much of a horrible person Nancy Campbell is about her adopted children. Nancy’s bio page only says, in passing, that she, herself, has adopted “some older teenagers from Liberia†and only mentions the one still living at home by name. Even though she writes a paragraph about each of her bio kids, there’s absolutely nothing about her 3 adult adopted children (not even their names) Likewise, even if some of Serene’s older adopted children did move out after hitting 18, they’re not mentioned under the paragraph about her kids, even though Nancy’s 23 year old bio granddaughter from her son is mentioned.

As for the cost of adopting all those Liberian children -someone over at NLQ pointed out corruption issues with Liberian adoptions, which would explain it. Under the table adoptions from third world countries aren’t going to cost as much as legit adoptions.

maire wrote:

Well, the Campbells *are* odd. But they are a loving group of people. Again, no-one has to believe me, I only posted what I did on account of keeping my own integrity intact because *I* know/observed differently to what was presented here. I am sure you can understand that. I really can't think of a way of proving my connection or whatever without outing myself, so I will have to continue to be circumspect on that. Sorry.

RAD, you could use a little logic to deduce that a teen child who is adopted by people whom he doesn't know, and has basically raised himself in an orphanage or on the streets or whatever, may not necessarily want to be parented by them, no matter how much they may desire it. If that teen wants to be an adult on their own with their friends (and in some cases, they are adults, since sometimes the paperwork is a little fuzzy on actual ages), how do you expect they would go about that?

valsa wrote:

Thanks for finding this! I'm actually fairly proud of how much research I did to get it all together, as I don't often get to play amateur sleuth

RAD MYTH wrote:

First of all, Christine is not the "mother" these kids were born to. She doesn't look ANYTHING like them. They come from a Black majority country. She looks, and acts WEIRD. Its not the "familiar". Her obsession with them making "eye contact" is a feel-good-new-agey Anglo-American idiosyncrcy. There are cultures on our planet where juniors do not look seniors in the eye OUT OF RESPECT.

No way should ANYONE be allowed to adopt cross-culturally until and unless they undergo language and cultural sensitivity courses.

This woman is just plain mad.

And yeah, I do think if she were "pretty" that the kids might possibly look at her more in an admiring way, rather than a "side-eye". We are drawn to beauty. That's been scientifically proven.

Want someone to look into your eyes? Be easy on the eyes.

Jencendiary wrote:

I reject the idea that an adoptive mother is not a mother. Sorry. The mother (or father) is the person who raises a child.

Lissar wrote:

I'm not even sure what this means, but it's probably not likely to happen since this is a site mostly devoted to talking about fundamentalism. Also, linking your website once is providing information. Linking it willy nilly all over the place is spam, as is posting the same thing on multiple threads.

valsa wrote:

Yeah, because it's totally a choice.

Hey guys, I think I'm going to will myself into being a 10 today!

ETA: RAD, it's also important to remember that just because a child has been raised thus-far in the practices of one culture doesn't mean they're going to be able to continue those practices forever. A child adopted from a country that doesn't look into the eyes of elders out of respect is going to have to learn that in American, the opposite is true. As long as the adoptive parents don't go nuts like Emma and punish the child for not remembering to look in the eyes, it's not a bad thing to change what the child does. American culture works a certain way and when that child grows up and tries to get a job or get into grad school in America, they're going to need to know how to look someone in the eye. Just like an American living in another country needs to learn that culture's ways.

maire wrote:

I am sorry this thread is going at least 2 directions here...happy to continue this (Campbells) discussion elsewhere, or equally happy to go to bed since it is wayyyy late for me.

cassandra wrote:

Agreed. And you know what? I don't look a damn thing like my mom, who is my bio mom. Looks have nothing to do with it.

RAD MYTH wrote:

From infancy, sure. But taking a kid who looks nothing like you, speaks another language, has an entirely different culture and possibly an entirely different religion and telling them that, "I'm your Mommy now" and "these are your brothers and sisters" at the airport when you go to pick them up, and expecting those kids to believe it, want it, and celebrate from that very day forward is utterly ridiculous and a pathology that only modern society could produce.

If those kids gradually grow into feeling you as their parent, so be it. But they are under no obligation to do so.

This is the missing link, the key concept, that these crazy adoptive parents just don't seem to get.

Rather, its all about them and their "feelings".

Burris wrote:

I do understand. I really do. But you have to understand, likewise, that we can only depend on what we see and on what we dig up. I never suggested Campbell had harmed her adoptive children, but rather that she might have engaged in the same activity as some other fundie adoptive families discussed here, and sent her kids away when they become too much for her.

I think if a person adopts a child, it's better that she permit the adoption to fail so the kid can get proper treatment than it is for her to continue when she's out of her depth. That said, however, I think a lot of these families should never have adopted in the first place - and if some of them hadn't been working with Christian NGOs that were willing to cut corners, quite a few of those families would have been disqualified from adoption long before they received children.

Campbell is quick with her opinions about the role of women, and about how indivisuals should handle personal problems, and yet she's not very forthcoming with the sort of information that would benefit her readers - to wit, that sometimes love isn't enough; that adoption is a family-building activity and not a ministry field.

MuseMama wrote:

Apparently you do need to say more. As I said, I don't see that as a RAD behavior. That's the kind of thing my kids do from time to time, and I did as a kid, too. And I'm not sure why she taped it, except maybe if this is something her daughter does frequently as opposed to just occasionally as a sort of see-what-this-looks-like-from-my-perspective kind of thing. I thought it was interesting that she posted it with her daughter's permission. I've read Christine's blog for a couple of years now, and it's always appeared very open and honest about the difficulties of adopting a traumatized child, but also very loving and determined to be the best mom she can be. I'm just not getting what you are from her.

But seriously, your posts are coming across as overly generalized, and remarkably racist. Do you oppose cross racial adoption?

RAD MYTH wrote:

How on earth can someone give each individual child the attention he/she needs, especially if having issues like "RAD" or whatever else, when they've got TOO MANY KIDS?????

For Krishna's sake - is 4 or 5 not enough?

What's up with this seriel adoption addiction that produces families upwards of 10 kids?

RAD MYTH wrote:

MuseMama, first of all "RAD" has to be diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist. Nonetheless, Christine says that her professionally UN-diagnosed adopted kids have "RAD" and she uses "holding therapy" which is a form of abuse that has resulted in the deaths of several children, see the links I posted in the first comment on this thread.

As far as adoption, I've got mixed feelings about it across the board.

It's hard enough to be an adopted kid, add to that an entirely different culture, a different race and a different language and OVEY!

NOBODY should trans-culturally adopt without first undergoing extensive language and cultural sensitivity courses.

MuseMama wrote:

Well, RAD MYTH, you should probably take mine away then. I'm having a seventh. I have two on the Autism spectrum, and my current baby has a neural tube defect which may or may not cause neurological deficits.

Fuck, I had no idea that they didn't know I love them.

You know, my step-daughter was 8 when I married her dad. We told the kids (his daughter, my oldest son) that we were a family now. However, I also made clear that I knew my step-daughter had a mother who loved her, and that I just wanted to be another caring adult in her life. She'll be 19 in September, and calls me for advice. We're extremely close.

I think you're misunderstanding how it works in an adoption. I think most people understand that feelings and relationships will take time to build. But you start out with the idea that you're a family, and you work on making that happen.

Your judgements on race, attractiveness, family size, etc. are not-so-subtly telling me that you have an axe to grind and can't look at this in any kind of reasonable way.

I think most people going into adoption with older kids, kids from other countries, etc. know that the challenges will be different than with an infant. Obviously there are some exceptions, like Emma, who did fuck-all research before making such a big decision. But I refuse to judge adoptive parents so completely based on women like her.

RAD MYTH, you can think what you like, but I'm not sure you're going to be any fun to discuss it with. You seem to be utterly convinced that you're right about everything. Which, btw, is obnoxious in you as it is in the fundies.

[Alecto]

Lainey wrote:

Oh, me too. One time, on my way to work, I found myself stopped at a stop sign...waiting for it to turn green. Luckily, there was no one else around. I guess I didn't get enough sleep the night before or something...

LittleMissMetaphor, I resent not being referred to specifically! I'm the one who likes puffins! Me! L-A-I-N-E-Y!!!

I also like cats, kangaroos, and giraffes. And elephants. And dinosaurs. I could go on.

I'm going away now.

Kathryn31 wrote:

Alecto--Thank you so much for the genuine laugh! My dh disagrees with you about the oven part though (joke people, joke).

valsa wrote:

RAD MYTH, would you mind telling us where your "expertise" comes from? Have you adopted? Are you planning to adopt in the future? Were you adopted?

MuseMama wrote:

I don't think you can know if her kids have been professionally diagnosed or not. But ok.

Holding can be done wrong. It can also be done right. I sometimes have to hold my 5 year old with Autism, but it never has, nor will it ever, hurt him. From what I've read, Christine doesn't do a lot of holding, but works with providing her daughter tools to help her come out of where she is, and start over.

You're right, those things do make being an adopted kid more challenging. And I think the vast majority of people adopting them recognize that. I still think it's preferable to being left in orphanages in foreign countries, or in other situations where they'll be abused and/or neglected.

I'm glad you don't make the rules. Those things are helpful and should be encouraged, and most people whom I know who've adopted cross-culturally/racially are very sensitive to honoring the original culture and the race of their child. I'm surprised you don't see that. Maybe you choose to ignore it in your vendetta against adoption.

BTW, how attractive are you?

MuseMama wrote:

BTW, whether one calls it RAD or not, I would imagine that it's common for children being adopted after trauma, or as older kids, etc. will have many more issues than younger kids. Kids looking for stability are likely to challenge their boundaries, trying to prove to themselves that this home, this parent, is permanent. I can imagine that, as a parent, that would be hard to deal with. It would take a lot of time, gentleness, and consistency to finally convince them that they are in fact home, and that you're not going anywhere.

That's why people like Emma piss me off. Her kids are likely better off away from her, but their time with her will have set the whole process back. Once again they will be left feeling helpless and afraid. Without anchor.

That's why I admire those who put in the time, the work, and the love for kids who otherwise wouldn't have a home. Lots of people want to adopt babies. But older kids are so much harder to place

Kathryn31 wrote:

Jen I seriously love you today. I am not an adoptive mother but have four biological children of my own. One of my very dear friends adopted two children who are half-siblings and one is of Latin descent. These children were adopted at about 4 and 6 years of age. The horrors that these two had to endure prior to the adoption in more that any one person should experience in a lifetime. The oldest has vivid memories and both have lingering issues pertaining to the nightmarish conditions they faced at such young ages. Even five years later there are still fears about being abandoned or mistreated and their adoptive family has loved them through it all and their new mom is more of a mother than the birth mom could ever hope to be.

I too reject the notion that an adoptive mother is not a mother. Seeing it daily is proof enough to me that DNA is not the end all be all for the title of "Mom". Sorry (not really).

robertposteschild wrote:

Amen to that.

RAD MYTH wrote:

Jencendiary wrote: ''I reject the idea that an adoptive mother is not a mother. Sorry. The mother (or father) is the person who raises a child.''

An adult who adopts a child can feel they are Mom/Dad to that child all he/she wants.

Its up to the CHILD to decide for him/herself if he/she feels a reciprocal way toward the adopter.

This is what this adoptive parents just don't "get".

MuseMama wrote:

I still can't figure out why you think they don't get that.

Jencendiary wrote:

Kathryn31 wrote:

Seriously Rad. What is your agenda? You blaze in here, pants on fire, shouting (the same thing) from the rooftop of every thread and when someone states something about fundies that you perceive as non-specific to your axe grinding you request of everyone that the topic be changed from their interest to yours. If you are not interested in the current posts my suggestion would be to start up your own website as this does not seem to be a fantastic fit.

Kathryn31 wrote:

Jen.....Will you go with me? Circle yes or no.

Jencendiary wrote:

[x] YES

Let's wear matching frumpers tomorrow.

valsa wrote:

RAD MYTH wrote:

Its up to the CHILD to decide for him/herself if he/she feels a reciprocal way toward the adopter.

This is what this adoptive parents just don't "get"

So would you prefer that adoptive parents tell adopted children "I'm not your mommy but someday I hope to be" Because that's sure to make them feel really secure.

RAD MYTH wrote:

There is a huge difference between adopting an infant and adopt a child that has already lived much of a life - with roots, culture, history, relatives, experiences, etc.

Telling such a child that, "I'm your Mommy" and expecting instant bonding is beyond ridiculous.

I'd give the child an option of calling me mommy or calling me something else.

Jencendiary wrote:

Who are these hypothetical adoptive parents you're talking about? Because it looks like you're using our one or two fundie fail cases as sticks for a straw man.

valsa wrote:

RAD MYTH wrote:

Telling such a child that, "I'm your Mommy" and expecting instant bonding is beyond ridiculous.

Expecting instant bonding with any adopted child (older or infant) is ridiculous.

Are you ever going to answer my question about your connection to adoption?

RAD MYTH wrote:

Jencendiary wrote:

Who are these hypothetical adoptive parents you're talking about? Because it looks like you're using our one or two fundie fail cases as sticks for a straw man.

Emma and Christine, for starters.

Jencendiary, I know several adopters and adoptees. I read alot of adoption blogs and forums too.

I know that adoptive parents are just looking for kids to love and to love them back, but they can never understand what it feels like to be an adopted kid.

There's a huge block there.

They need to go on the adoption forums and read the comments of adopted kids who are now adults, before they adopt kids.

If they adopt a trans-racially I would recommend living for some time in a neighborhood comprised primarily of the racial demographic the kid they are going to adopt is from, as well as after they adopt him/her so that the kid can be around people who look familiar. This is important not just culturally but psychologically.

Trans-religious adoption? Study that kids religion and consider converting to it. This is especially true if you adopt a child from Asia where Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions are commonplace.

Too often adopters are White Anglo Christians who expect their adopted kids to conform to their cultural and religious norms.

Some kids grow up resenting this.

Really, really resenting it.

Lillybee wrote:

On a semi=related and very sad note, the Schatz parents were sentenced today. Mrs. got 17 years, 10 months and Mr. got 22 to life. They accepted a plea bargin.

Nahria (sp) the surviving daughter read a 20 minute long statement to the court stating how she missed her sister and couldn't understand what she did to deserve such beatings.

I was hoping that this case would go to trial because the child rearing method those horrible people followed was Michael Pearl's TO TRAIN UP A CHILD. I think the DA would have gone there because in his statement that I saw on TV, he mentioned that the children were beaten with plumbing line.

One of the more disturbing things I read about this family was that they were expecting their birth children to start disclipining their adopted children. I hope that all their children will grow up and be able to ignore the scars that they suffered.

RAD MYTH wrote:

Bi-Religious Family Denied Adoption Because Prospective Father is Hindu

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/18-4

valsa wrote:

So... you're saying the writer should have just converted to Christianity?

Sola wrote:

Hi RADmyth,

I'd just like to point out (and I know you haven't stated as such) that RAD is a valid and potentially devastating diagnosis. It is also a spectrum disorder and can mildly or severely affect a person. Being in an orphanage is no guarantee that a child will have RAD, although the poorer the quality of care that child has received is a huge indicator in how likely that child will develop RAD. Children from seemingly stable homes can develop RAD too. A few years ago I worked with a 5 year old girl on the higher functioning side of the RAD spectrum. She had been in daycare for ten hours each day from the age of 6 weeks old until she started school and had developed RAD.

Attachment Therapy can cover a very wide range of methods. Some attachment-based therapies are valid. Holding therapy, as I stated in the previous Emma thread, is not has widely been discredited, is harmful and is potentially dangerous. Rebirth therapy is the same.

I don't think anyone here has suggested that Emma is 'awesome' except perhaps in a sarcastic way!

FlorenceHamilton wrote:

RADMyth, I think that some of the difficulty you are having in communicating is that your anger is in the way. Most (not all) of the people here are female and are mommies. There are broad areas about which many of us are in general agreement with you. Although there are studies that show that humans react more positively to attractive (symmetric) faces, we also know that humans are far more complex than that. It is probably best to table that part of the agrument. The person who wrote that adoption needs to be about building a family rather than a "ministry" is saying the same thing that you are. And she is correct.

The objection most of us have to the adoption habits of this group of fundamentalist Christians is that their purpose is to indoctrinate kids from other cultures into their brand of Christianity. (I suspect that if the child ends up following ANY brand of Christianity, it is considered at least a partial "win" for them.) They are about saving souls for Jesus. The living human child in the here and now is far less of a concern to them. If the children do not give over their soul, then they are no longer valued as human beings.

It is absolutely correct that parents who adopt older children across cultures need to be sensitive to the birth culture, to the experiences of the child, to any physical disabilities or emotional disabilities that these children have. I think that the vast majority of parents who make these adoptions do the best they can at these things. I think that they go out of their way to bend and mold and accomodate this new person into the tapestry of their lives. And the majority make a family out of it.

Our beef, here at FJ is that the core of this fundamentalist Christian thing is the fact that the children (bio and adopted) are not valued as individuals at all. They are simply arrows in a quiver, soldiers for Christ, additional helping hands, souls to save, +1 in the popluation war against everybody else...etc.

Children are PEOPLE. Whether you believe in an afterlife or not, THIS LIFE COUNTS too. Children who are born should be loved and cherished, each as a seperate individual and valid person. People who breed for Christ or adopt for Christ do not do that. They don't care about the child. It is all just points on a scorecard.

Ultimately, this is why we want to.....Free Jinger.

Our b

Latraviata wrote:

And have they been diagnosed with RADat all? I have asked that question over and over again, nobody seems to have the answer.

[Alecto]

apple1 wrote:

Lissar wrote:

... linking your website once is providing information. Linking it willy nilly all over the place is spam, as is posting the same thing on multiple threads.

THAT. Definitely spam.

hippiemom4kids wrote:

Wow. Just wow is all I can say.

RAD is very real. My 10 yr old has it, a very severe case in fact. She was adopted at age 3 from Russia. She has tried to kill us, kill pets, etc. The list goes on. She has been inpatient 11 times. You have NO idea what living with a RAD child is like. It creates PTSD in those living with them. I have no words to tell you other than if you dont think its real, come spend a week with her. You are invited, anytime. You can even share a room with her...and you can sleep hoping she didnt hide scissors in her room to stab you with.

maire wrote:

Burris wrote:

Campbell is quick with her opinions about the role of women, and about how indivisuals should handle personal problems, and yet she's not very forthcoming with the sort of information that would benefit her readers - to wit, that sometimes love isn't enough; that adoption is a family-building activity and not a ministry field.

Burris, I agree with you here. When we were speaking with them at length about the adoption issues, all of this was very new or still even in the process of happening. They were very devastated and raw, and quite emotional about it (Serene could not talk about it at all); and their views on how to go about international adoption had clearly changed from what they had previously been widely recommending to their readers. Colin seemed to indicate that they intended to publish something about what had happened and possibly outline a better way of supporting (especially older) orphans in their own countries, if I remember correctly, and I am not sure why that has not happened. I wonder if the damage to Serene has been so harsh that they are having to wait, for her and her family to heal more before they publicize the whole event. At any rate, it was clear that Colin's primary goal was still to care for the orphans -- and they had adopted older ones because the older ones age out and end up with no families at all and often in very dire straits--but he acknowledged that it may be better to do that by providing them the means to survive, education, etc, within their own cultures in their own country.

I wish they would publicly elaborate, because many people are following in their footsteps based on their former whole-hearted support of the process. I also don't know how their views may have changed since that time; I have no overwhelming interest in Above Rubies and haven't kept up communication with them since that time.

MuseMama wrote:

You know, I have 2 kids with Autism. I've never written down on my blog who diagnosed them. I don't know that it's relevant to what I'm writing about.

Maybe RAD MYTH is right and Christine's daughter isn't affected. But I don't know that we can judge that just based on her not saying who diagnosed her.

I'm also really, really not getting why RAD MYTH is so convinced that adoptive parents are so out of touch with the reality of adopting an older child. While I don't know that anyone can be fully prepared for what an extreme case of RAD means to a family, I have yet to meet adoptive parents (in adoptions where the child is older or is from a foreign country) where the parents aren't acutely aware that they won't be mommy & daddy from day one to these children. The parents I've seen go through these kinds of adoptions take great pains to find out what their children will need to transition more easily, and look for ways to incorporate the home culture into their families.

RAD MYTH is throwing out gross over-generalization about adoptive families, and I simply don't buy into it. People like Emma in my experience are the exception, not the rule, and RAD MYTH has offered nothing but her own angry racist opinions to change my mind.

Eponine wrote:

Rad, it is really bizarre how you keep repeating the same super obvious things over and over. I don't think anyone here disagrees that someone adopting transracially, internationally, or transreligiously should do a lot of research and probably classes before adopting. Everyone here knows that Emma's (and some other fundie adoptive parents) expectations about her Haitian children were completely ridiculous and wrong, and she went about the adoption in a horrifyingly insensitive and selfish manner. We're also quite familiar with the fact that many, if not most, fundies don't like doctors of any sort and therefore it's likely the ones who say they have children with RAD never actually had them diagnosed. Why keep demanding to know who diagnosed them when we don't know and probably never will know if they even were or by whom? These things are all either common sense or very obvious to those of us who have fundie-watched for a while.

It doesn't seem to me like you're contributing to the discussion in a useful way. Your blanket negative statements about adoption are all stemming from the practices that this minority of parents use so it doesn't make sense to say those things are true about all adoptions, or even all international/transracial adoptions.

Also, knowing people who were adopted and reading adoption blogs does not make one an expert on adoption. Are you trained in psychology or something like that? Are you even interested in fundies or are you just scouring places online where you can grind your axe?

SunnyAndrsn wrote:

RAD Myth, we all get the ax that you have to grind. But if you'd like to spell it out more, why don't you tell us a bit more about how YOU came to feel this way. Several posts have alluded to the fact that you were adopted across inter-racially and that you have a crappy relationship with your adoptive family. What about those of us who don't have a crappy relationship with our children? My son is MY SON. Go ahead, ask HIM.

The site you linked is not 100% accurate either, assuming that the children who died all died as a result of holding therapy. I know for a FACT that one of the kids on that list did not die as a result of holding therapy. Rather, Angellika Arndt was illegally restrained but it had nothing to do with 'holding therapy' as a RAD type of therapy. You've raised some valid issues, but you're lumping it all together rather black and white (please excuse the pun). The psychology industry is well aware of the issues surrounding the attachment disorders and specifically, reactive attachment disorder

Perhaps you don't realize how you are coming across. Calling people ugly? What's the point of that? I work with a lot of African immigrants, and not all countries consider it disrespectful to look someone in the eye. If you google eye contact and culture you will find a wealth of information and studies that discuss the importance of eye contact. From what I understand when I was looking into volunteering as a nurse in Haiti, it's prolonged eye contact that is considered disrespectful, and a child's behavioral expectations in Haiti are pretty high.

Issues as I see it, and am willing to discuss Emma the nut job. I'm will to expand on that and discuss the fact that fundies are often not well prepared to adopt a child with special needs, and I'll defend the fact that a non-newborn adoption across racial lines, from a foreign country IS a special needs adoption.

I'm willing to talk about the fact that there are crappy adoption agencies out there who do not properly screen or prepare families for the challenges of adoption-domestic, inter racial, or international

I'm willing to talk about the inherent attachment and bonding issues that older children face when being adopted

I'm willing to talk about inter racial adoptions and the challenges that it poses.

I AM the mother of a child with reactive attachment disorder.

robertposteschild wrote:

maire wrote:

Burris wrote:

Campbell is quick with her opinions about the role of women, and about how indivisuals should handle personal problems, and yet she's not very forthcoming with the sort of information that would benefit her readers - to wit, that sometimes love isn't enough; that adoption is a family-building activity and not a ministry field.

Burris, I agree with you here. When we were speaking with them at length about the adoption issues, all of this was very new or still even in the process of happening. They were very devastated and raw, and quite emotional about it (Serene could not talk about it at all); and their views on how to go about international adoption had clearly changed from what they had previously been widely recommending to their readers. Colin seemed to indicate that they intended to publish something about what had happened and possibly outline a better way of supporting (especially older) orphans in their own countries, if I remember correctly, and I am not sure why that has not happened. I wonder if the damage to Serene has been so harsh that they are having to wait, for her and her family to heal more before they publicize the whole event. At any rate, it was clear that Colin's primary goal was still to care for the orphans -- and they had adopted older ones because the older ones age out and end up with no families at all and often in very dire straits--but he acknowledged that it may be better to do that by providing them the means to survive, education, etc, within their own cultures in their own country.

I wish they would publicly elaborate, because many people are following in their footsteps based on their former whole-hearted support of the process. I also don't know how their views may have changed since that time; I have no overwhelming interest in Above Rubies and haven't kept up communication with them since that time.

Oh, I have a few ideas why it didn't happen. Because being real does not support the bottom line or polish their brand. Their whole little empire ministry is based on magical thinking: womb-men if you keep on collecting children, by birth and adoption and raise them as little god-bots godly arrows, God will send you magic rainbows and unicorns and you will always live happily ever after with Michael Landon in a little house on the prairie.

MuseMama wrote:

Sunny, I have no doubt that you're your sons mother. You've probably worked very hard at it. I'm sorry RAD has lumped you in with people like Emma.

maire wrote:

robertposteschild wrote:

Oh, I have a few ideas why it didn't happen. Because being real does not support the bottom line or polish their brand. Their whole little empire ministry is based on magical thinking: womb-men if you keep on collecting children, by birth and adoption and raise them as little god-bots godly arrows, God will send you magic rainbows and unicorns and you will always live happily ever after with Michael Landon in a little house on the prairie.

I don't like to think that that is the case here, although I have certainly been around ministry leadership enough (my whole life) to know that this is true in many cases. Raw honesty and truth is hard to find any time there is money involved, whether it be ministry, weight-loss, education, you name it. All I can say is that based on my experience, I don't *think* that is the case, here.

sarahsdaughter wrote:

RAD MYTH wrote:

There is a huge difference between adopting an infant and adopt a child that has already lived much of a life - with roots, culture, history, relatives, experiences, etc.

Telling such a child that, "I'm your Mommy" and expecting instant bonding is beyond ridiculous.

I'd give the child an option of calling me mommy or calling me something else.

How dim are you? I was my children's mama from day one. The first moment ugly old me took them in my arms and began the lifelong journey of love with them I told them I was their mama. I called myself mama. But I knew that it wasn't me they screamed for at night for those first months - they wanted the women they had been raised by (not their bio mothers) until one day I was the mama they wanted at 1am and the first time, with each child, that they screamed for mama and then melted into my arms with relief were some of the best moments of my life.

defrauding wrote:

Alecto wrote:

Just because someone calls something "Loving and Doting" doesn't make it true.

After all, I can call a kitten a biscuit, but that doesn't mean I should put it in the oven.

The results would be cat-astrophic.

LilMissMetaphor wrote:

Lainey wrote:

LittleMissMetaphor, I resent not being referred to specifically! I'm the one who likes puffins! Me! L-A-I-N-E-Y!!!

Sorry...can I refer to you as Puffinlover from now on? It has a nice ring to it dontcha think?

Hopewell wrote:

As mom of an adopted son with PTSD, RAD and host of other diagnosis, I steered well clear of Nancy- Whats-her-name the dog trainer. One advantage of being a librarian is doing my research! The Haiti kids, like Nancy Campbell's disappearing grandchildren are victims of "children as a mission"--people who want to "save" kids in the Christian sense without caring much about them as a person. When kids aren't grateful or start doing stuff that inspires the birth children to not obey the kids are out in the cold. In honesty I must say I also adopted my kids thru such a program, but having no birth children I took them as my CHILDREN not as a "mission."

synchroswimr wrote:

Lainey, I also like puffins. And cats, dogs, elephants, dinosaurs, but especially mammoths!

Rachelmom wrote:

Although the author of theadoptionthingDOTblogspot.com does not identify her son's former adoptive parents, she has written extensively about the aftermath of his disrupted adoption and the disdain she has for the former parents (hint: they live in Tennessee). Rather than "attachment disorder", she calls it "survivor disorder".

fundiefan wrote:

Maybe I am naive, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt to adoptive parents and not think every one of them is an ignorant dolt who knows nothing and just snaps up a child because they can.

booksnbeats wrote:

fundiefan wrote:

Maybe I am naive, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt to adoptive parents and not think every one of them is an ignorant dolt who knows nothing and just snaps up a child because they can.

Luckily so many of the ones who do are obsessed with writing about themselves on blogs. At least it makes some of them easier to find...

SunnyAndrsn wrote:

Exactly! Children adopted into fundie madness--now that's an issue. I have been told be well-meaning but very stupid and misguided people that we are "angels" or that our "ministry" is so wonderful. Kids were a 'mission' to them. When our kids would misbehave, or were mouthy to us in public, or when I was frustrated...I'd get the line about how the kids should be 'grateful to us' for providing a home. Um, no...kids are human beings and deserve a safe place to grow and develop, period. It seems to me that most fundies who adopt are looking for this type of gratitude from 'their orphans'. Often time, even the terminology they use puts me off. Calling them orphans, posting private details on blogs about their minor children's circumstances pre-adoption, referring to them as their 'adopted children' and making the distinction between their biological children.

My grandmother had a 'foster' brother, although I never knew that he was a 'foster' until many years later. I was going through old photos shortly before my grandfather's death and asked him why there were no pictures of this brother as an infant, and then finally learned the story about how he came to be a part of the family. No one was hiding anything, it just wasn't that big of a deal. Later, my grandmother's sister adopted two older children who had been badly abused. I didn't know those kids had been adopted either until I was an adult, and one of them started talking about memories of her bio family--non of what she shared was positive. As far as she was concerned, she met her parents when she was 4 years old in my great aunt and uncle.

Hopewell wrote:

I truly hate the "kid collectors" at some mega Churches. "Here's our little girl from Guetemala--wow was that a stressful adoption!! Here's little whoever from Russia--cooooold there!" etc or even worse, Here's our BOY from China--yes! There are BOYS to adopt there....of course we spent a fortune correcting his [medical problem] but hey, he no longer cries at Little League and he can ......" Ick, Ick, Ick. Especially when its only the BIOLOGICAL children who are hugged etc. I knew one family in such a megaChurch [this is not to say that ALL mega Churches or ALL families adopting this way are like this!!!!!] who couldn't understand why the government, who they hate, didn't provide respite care for their adopted kids since their biologicals "suffered" so much.....I AM NOT making this up. And, people who "hate" divorce [but are divorced at equal or grater rate than the rest of the society] will "divorce" a kid who acts out faster than you can say "Jesus Wept." I did know one family that I supported--the adopted 13 year old son tried to rape their 6 year old. He was way, way too sick to be in a home setting. The others just failed to understand that traumatized kids are not GREATFUL and that it takes YEARS of REAL therapy, medication, one step-forward, two backwards, to get to TRUST.,

While I am 10000% grateful to the ministry that helped me adopt I am so glad I gave up on the support group and found my own therapists and psychiatrists. My son is doing great and his little sister is too!

RAD MYTH wrote:

THIS is the problem. That a real condition called Reactive Attachment Disorder exists is not what I'm disputing. What I'm disputing is all of these stay-at-home-bloggers, oh excuse me, stay-at-home-moms, are independently self "diagnosing" a serious condition with very specific symptoms, just because a new adopted child does not look them in the eyes, or is using bad language, or steals or mopes about defiantly.

An entire quack industry of "attachment therapy" including "holding therapy" has sprouted up around this phenomena.

Again, which mental health professional diagnosed these kids with "RAD"?

Please read the websites that I linked to in my original post. This is a huge and dangerous issue.

Lainey wrote:

LilMissMetaphor wrote:

Lainey wrote:

LittleMissMetaphor, I resent not being referred to specifically! I'm the one who likes puffins! Me! L-A-I-N-E-Y!!!

Sorry...can I refer to you as Puffinlover from now on? It has a nice ring to it dontcha think?

Hmmm...I dunno. I'd hate to give the fundies any ammo in their slippery slope to bestiality claims.

Lainey wrote:

Yay! I also like dogs, elephants (did I mention elephants? I can't remember), and mammoths! Mammoths rock! And camels. Camels are cool.

Now this thread is making me feel deeply, deeply guilty. You see, when I adopted my sons, I failed to learn their language or culture. I feel like such a failure! *sob* Does anyone know where I can learn to speak and understand cat? I have seen the error of my ways--I must set this right.

Kathryn31 wrote:

Dude. If you keep beating the same drum, posting the same post and yelling the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over...you lose whatever sympathy you night have gained. EVERYONE here has picked up on your cause. We. Agree. With. You.

You act as though you need to convert to the cause. We. Agree. With. You.

cassandra wrote:

I'm about 1 more post away from hitting the ignore button.

[Alecto]

Kathryn31 wrote:

Rachelmom wrote:

Although the author of theadoptionthingDOTblogspot.com does not identify her son's former adoptive parents, she has written extensively about the aftermath of his disrupted adoption and the disdain she has for the former parents (hint: they live in Tennessee). Rather than "attachment disorder", she calls it "survivor disorder".

Wow! Could this be the child who "disappeared" from a fundy's child head count?

Rachelmom wrote:

I'm pretty sure it is - he does have the same first name.

maire wrote:

She describes the adoptive family as "American".

This is a fascinating and well-written blog, so thank you!

Kathryn31 wrote:

Thank goodness he is with a family equipped to deal with the trauma he has experienced. So incredibly sad. Hopefully he will be able to trust again.

Lissar wrote:

*If* that is the kid, then the Campbells are scum. Whoever adopted and then dumped a 14 year old kid on the streets of Liberia with no ID should be charged with a crime.

RAD MYTH wrote:

I went to the adoptionthingdotblogspotdotcom and although she "took this boy in" it seems she's another piece of work.

She writes a blog post about how this boy had to earn his own money before the age of 13 and even worked to buy a camera which his previous adoptive family took away from him before leaving him in the streets, but somehow now she's diagnosed him has "having no work ethic".

Classic.

What gives with these "parents"?

fundiefan wrote:

No work ethic, as the mother describes it, is NOT a 'diagnosis'. It is a skill that the boy has not learned because of the life he lived. I thought that was abundantly clear by the description.

Acknowledging the lack of life skills is not diagnosing.

If that is one the missing kids, those people need to be shot. Well, whoever his first 'family' was needs to be shot. They sent him back to Liberia?

RAD MYTH wrote:

A child who labors to earn money to buy a camera certainly has a "work ethic".

deelaem wrote:

You know, I think you'd have some really interesting input if you'd quit grinding your personal axe. You're obviously looking for points in posts that will prove your theories, and ignoring what else is said. I think most of us agree that RAD is an overused diagnosis, and that it is essential for loving, open people to be the ones who are given the chance to adopt. We're really not your adversaries.

ETA: I take this all back. I just saw what you posted on another thread, and obviously you're one sick fuck. Go play with the other sick fucks.

Latraviata wrote:

I know, it is very dangerous and it is not the first time I oppose and object to DIY diagnosing.

There is no indication at all that the two children Emma adopted are officially diagnosed with RAD by a professional.

Are you a professional? I am.

synchroswimr wrote:

Lainey, I also failed to learn cat before adopting my two fur babies, but they seem to have adjusted fine.

MuseMama wrote:

Good, Lord, is there anyone you approve of? The few valid points you've made are largely lost in your extreme bias. She's not "diagnosing" him. She's saying what her experience is with him. And she could be right. Just because he earned the money for the camera doesn't mean he has a work ethic. I wouldn't know. I'm not his mother. She is.

Look, all my kids are biological, and all of my kids have faults. Acknowledging those faults and working on them, as I do my own, doesn't mean that I don't love them, or take care of them. And the same would be true for a parent by way of adoption as well.

Honestly, I think you are looking to find fault with all adoptive parents.

anniec wrote:

Where is the 'ignore' button please?

Kathryn31 wrote:

Um...yea that. Why is everyone an adversary in your world? We started out on your side but the negativity and the robotic repeat posts are just annoying at this point. We cannot do anything for you so it seems that maybe your efforts are better spent writing your Congressman to help tighten adoption rules and regulations.

Thanks for coming!

oscar wrote:

Edit: oops, this is how you block PMs. Fundiefan will tell you how to use the ignore feature downthread!

anniec, click on the person's username.

Under "About Me," click on "More."

From the drop-down menu, select "Block Me."

Ta-da!

Kathryn31 wrote:

AnnieC and Cassandra--right there with ya! Oscar--thanks. I didn't know either.

anniec wrote:

Thanks but I tried using the 'block' feature but I think that just blocks the person from pm'ing me. I can still see all their posts?

ETA sorted it now. The 'ignore posts' option is in the drop down box that appears when you click on the 'more' button under the username in the panel to the left of any post they have made.

fundiefan wrote:

If you click on the more option under their name and the date of their latest post, where you reply or quote, right in the thread, you get an ignore option.

anniec wrote:

Thanks fundiefan - cross-posted with you!

RAD MYTH wrote:

So a child that before the age of 13 had to work to earn money all of a sudden has "no work ethic"? How does that happen?

MuseMama wrote:

Maybe it doesn't. You don't know. You don't know how much he worked, how much money he earned, or if he ever worked to earn anything other than a little pocket cash and that camera. Maybe earlier he cared, and had a work ethic, but now he's discouraged and he's lost it. I don't know. You don't know. His mother I would think knows better than you or I do.

So, A) Way to miss the point of my post, and B) great finding fault again, with absolutely anything.

Alecto wrote:

RAD MYTH,

You continuous posting of links to your website, as well as repetitive messages promoting it violate the Free Jinger rules. If you continue with this behavior, you will be banned.

Alecto

Free Jinger Owner

lovefromgirl wrote:

synchroswimr wrote:

Lainey, I also failed to learn cat before adopting my two fur babies, but they seem to have adjusted fine.

I had to laugh at this because I feel very much, some days, as if I ended up with a RAD kitty. I love Adalyne, but she still will lash out without provocation--purring one second, I'm bleeding the next--and I wouldn't trade her in for the world. The prescription for Addy's woes has so far been lots of attention, making sure she gets enough cuddle-time to reassure her that she is loved. Never forced cuddles, of course; aside from the tongue-in-cheek, forcing Addy to cuddle is like hugging a chainsaw.

Trixie is incredibly shy, but has adjusted pretty well, and as for Bodie, if you'd expect an animal to have issues, that's the one. Nope! He's the most charming of our three. Won't raise a paw in violence to a human.

I once said to a woman who'd chosen the breeder route that frankly, it takes a special disposition to tough it out with a psycho kitty, and a thick hide to boot. Said in love! But with scars! So I have great empathy for parents whose kids are like my Addy, but like a good parent, I would never just take Addy back.

RAD MYTH wrote:

Sorry Alecto. I immediately deleted that post when I saw that I had put it in the wrong thread. You must've caught it when it was up for the 10 seconds that it was.

[Alecto]

Lainey wrote:

@synchroswimr: Oh, good, so there's hope! You should see one of my silly little cats snuggling with my husband. Oh so spoiled-looking. I'd take a picture if my camera batteries weren't dead.

@lovefromgirl: Your Addy sounds like my Snowball (who has gone to kitty heaven). He was a psycho kitty, but in his old age he decided he loved me desperately and wanted to cuddle...interspersed with a few psycho episodes. I would never take a pet back, either.

Lainey wrote:

deelaem wrote:

RAD MYTH wrote:

A child who labors to earn money to buy a camera certainly has a "work ethic".

You know, I think you'd have some really interesting input if you'd quit grinding your personal axe. You're obviously looking for points in posts that will prove your theories, and ignoring what else is said. I think most of us agree that RAD is an overused diagnosis, and that it is essential for loving, open people to be the ones who are given the chance to adopt. We're really not your adversaries.

ETA: I take this all back. I just saw what you posted on another thread, and obviously you're one sick fuck. Go play with the other sick fucks.

What did he post? Which thread?

t0r0sebud1 wrote:

In my profession, I have seen both sides, wonderful adoptive parents as well as adoptive parents who are eager to get a Google dx and/or pay for one from a professional, blame genetics, blame mother's drug and/or alcohol abuse (even when there is not a birth history,) and prematurely call RAD. Bio parents can pay for diagnoses as well (Bipolar in a trantruming terrible two year old anyone?) and I've seen a couple of bio parents who seemed only a Google search away from becoming Munchausen moms. But then again these are extremes and it is easy to point to extremes and paint with a broad brush. The fact is that folks who adopt are most often generous, caring, authentic, and without hidden agendas. Usually, when I go to work I see the dedicated parents who will do go to any length to help their children, adopted or not. I'm a fan of Marie Osmond's approach. She says she can't remember which of her children are adopted.

Hope wrote:

Even biological parents don't necessarily bond right away, it can take time. I don't think most adoptive parents of older children expect instant bonding, unless they happen to be fools.

synchroswimr wrote:

Lovefromgirl and Lainey, I think all cats are a little crazy. My cats now do not cuddle. Nonononono. I have the scars to prove it. LOL

I would never give them up, either - when we bought our house, we told the builder that if they didn't change the HOA rules to allow 2 cats, we would have to buy elsewhere because we couldn't give up an animal. We have a mother-daughter pair; does that mean I've broken RADMyth's rule against transgenerational adoption? :-?

MuseMama wrote:

Probably, Synch. Honestly, what business do we have adopting cats, anyway? We must look so ugly to them. They can't possibly ever love us. They belong with their own kind.

However, you try to separate me from my Charlie or my Capt. Malcolm Reynolds (Mal for short) and I may have to shank a bitch. ;-)

Lissar wrote:

Please tell me that you sometimes call kitty Mal "Captain Tightpants." I will love you forever if you do.

lovefromgirl wrote:

MuseMama, the latter of your cat names is sheer genius.

Lainey wrote:

Who's Captain Reynolds?

Now I want to talk about pet nicknames. It's a miracle mine know their real names (although they seem to think they're interchangeable). I call them my little boos, ducklings, snuggleducks, pooping ducks (I don't know; I'm weird), plums, pumpkins, Mr. Suckypants, Mr. Stinkypants, Stinkles, googlebots, googley-eyes (one of my cats stares with big wide eyes for no apparent reason sometimes), poopsies, snuggleberry pies, potatoes, Mr. Potato Pants...I could probably go on forever. With my sick kitty, I found myself calling him poopsicle. Shaddup.

ETA: Also remembered: Mr. Spankypants, spankles, spankybot, little bears, bear-bears, Mr. Littlepants...

My black cat gets called Mr. Shakey-tail because he shakes the tip of his tail when you ask him a question. My husband calls him "Rattlesnake." And the other one gets Mr. Saucy-tail because he whips his tail around in a saucy fashion when he's feeling, well...saucy.

The "spanky" names are because both of my disturbed little boos like to be spanked; one more than the other.

SnarkyJan wrote:

Our Charlie almost never gets referred to by his given name. He's known at various times and depending on the occasion as:

Precious angel, angelcat, catchild, stealth pooper, velvet cat, space alien (he has big eyes), fur person, furbaby,sweetcat, hello pretty and catloaf (he likes to nap stretched out with all 4 legs tucked under him). I wish we had a second cat but the apartment building we live in limits pets to one per household.

MuseMama wrote:

Lissar wrote:

MuseMama wrote:

Probably, Synch. Honestly, what business do we have adopting cats, anyway? We must look so ugly to them. They can't possibly ever love us. They belong with their own kind.

However, you try to separate me from my Charlie or my Capt. Malcolm Reynolds (Mal for short) and I may have to shank a bitch. ;-)

Please tell me that you sometimes call kitty Mal "Captain Tightpants." I will love you forever if you do.

Um, of course I do! I'm a proud Browncoat!

MuseMama wrote:

And just for fun, a little Capt. Mal:

Mmmm....love me some Nathan Fillion. He's my gimme with my husband. Should he ever show up on my doorstep ready to go, I'm allowed. 'Cuz, ya know, that'll happen.

lovefromgirl wrote:

<>

This is Captain Tightpants, aka Malcolm Reynolds, played by the delectable Nathan Fillion. Can he be a Venerable, at least? Or a Blessed? I know sainthood takes a long... career to achieve.

cassandra wrote:

I WISH Nathan Fillion would show up on my door step. ~girlish sigh~

MuseMama wrote:

{insert a drooling MuseMama here}