An African Child: Get yours today!

[Clementine]

International adoption seems to be big even in non-fundie churches.

I read a blog written by an American woman in her 20's (it's not about religion at all, even though she has written that she goes to church) and she made a list of things she wants to do in the future and one of the things was: adopt a child because "it is the right thing to do if you are a Christian".

[AnnieC 305]

I distinctly recall the first time the husband and I attempted to adopt from foster care in this country. We sat in an orientation meeting with maybe a half-dozen other couples, all of whom self-identified as "christian". Before the first break the people running the meeting made three things quite clear.

- No corporal punishment, ever. In fact you had to take 12 hours of classes on how to discipline without resorting to corporal punishment.

- In our state you foster for six months before you actually adopt. During that time you have to take the child to *their* church, not *your* church.

- While you could turn down a LGBTQ child the child's orientation would not be taken into account when they were being looked at for your home. You could very well be suggested for a gay kid.

We were the only couple to come back from break, I swear.

So, yes, I think they adopt overseas because of Christian or Fundie privilege. They can play by their own rules that way, and the children are the ones who suffer for it.

[Avalondaughter]

What about non-religious people who adopt internationally? It seems among celebrities a developing nation baby is the must-have accessory.

I understand it's hard to adopt in the US. Birth mothers often change their minds leaving the adoptive couple right where they started. The law tends to side with birth mothers at the time of the adoption. It sometimes seems easier to go overseas. But I do worry about the legalities of overseas adoptions. As stated in this thread, there are all kinds of shady businesses who treat children like commodities. The whole thing makesme a bit twitchy - like we're setting up a culture where poor women are having babies for rich women.

[Burris]

And have you talked to any older adopted kids? Most of them want a family more than anything in the world. Why not give them credit for being able to deal with a fundie family. It's far better to grow up with crazy parents than not to grow up at all.

Some of those "orphans" have parents, or at least siblings and other ties to their community.

Those who worry about third-world poverty can donate to projects that help kids in-place rather than having to up-root them.

It is the height of first-world arrogance to assume that if you can't provide a perfect family, then these kids should just wait around in the orphanage till one shows up.

I think it's the height of first-world arrogance to assume our higher standard of living is, in itself, sufficient justification to take kids away from everyone and everything they've ever known only to give them to ill-suited adoptive parents who would never have passed muster through a legitimate agency.

The kids coming in from Africa should see their potential adoptive parents vetted just as closely as if those parents were adopting a white infant through a local private agency.

In other words, I'm not saying they need to languish until a "perfect family" appears, but rather that the should have the same safeguards placed around their adoptions as would children being adopted in a developed country.

I'm also saying that strong community development projects, ideally backed by several organizations willing to provide long-term support, is a better solution than what the fundies propose.

(And no, Diamond Doug Phillips' media junket to Haiti does not count.)

One organization that I like is New Life International. I've even corresponded with its founder, Duvon McGuire, who developed an innovative water purification system that a community can easily maintain (after basic training). With continued sponsorship, worn out parts can be replaced at no expense to the community.

One vital component, there, is basic education about water purity and its importance, which goes hand-in-hand with discussions about how to safely store human waste (and eventually reuse some of it as humus, [Yay Humanure!] where appropriate).

Another organization I like is the Hope for Grace Kodindo Foundation, which operates a maternity hospital in Chad as well as satellite efforts in other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. You can learn about their start, and see an honest account of their challenges and successes, by reading the BBC News short and clicking on the HGK link on the bottom.

I've spoken with one of the founders there, as well. Want to save the life of a mother suffering Eclampsia? The necessary amount of Magnesium Sulphate for one woman costs about $10.

There are so many other organizations – Doctors without Borders is a popular example - that are willing and able to help people in various parts of Africa to build up and maintain their own community infrastructure – a move that would also help orphans.

Or you could donate to a charity designed to prevent parents from dying of AIDS. (I've discussed this elsewhere. Guess how much it costs to keep one person with HIV alive with the AIDS cocktail: $139 (2005) a year.)

Each year a parent stays alive despite having HIV is one more year where her or his children are not orphans.

These are, to the best of my knowledge, reputable organizations where most of the donations go directly to the people for whom they were intended.

You need to recognize that their situation is not ideal, they are not searching for ideal, no one expects ideal--the ideal family exists for maybe 5% of internationally adopted kids. The rest get flawed parents. Fundies may be flawed more than usual, but it is better than the things these kids experience in an orphanage--chronic illness and infection, frequent unnecessary death, and poor treatment and abuse.

In the cases I mentioned, the kids died. One was beaten to death with a piece of plumbing line, and the other - who was underfed by her adoptive parents despite their living in a developed country - died of exposure.

Some of these fundies aren't merely "flawed more than usual"; they're unsuitable by any measure:

** They may lack space, when they already have half a dozen biological children filling up the closets at home.

** They may not make enough money to support the kids they have, let alone new ones. And they certainly won't ask the government.

** They may not have - or want - a proper education on the challenges posed by international adoption.

** And perhaps worst of all, their motives are as impure as any I could imagine. They're adopting, not merely to expand their own family, but to “rescue†a child. I've already explained why that kind of thinking is a bad idea.

Instead of donating, say, 10k to a reputable organization that could use it to educate a dozen African kids in a local school with regular meals, however, some of these people - the fundies under discussion here - are spending it to essentially buy a child because they don't legitimately qualify to adopt one.

[Clementine]

*standing ovation for Burris!*

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[dawbs]

Okay, I've been reading A Place Called Simplicity all evening now, their adoption story and all that, and I have some questions. Why does she write Ch*na and Special F*rces and depl*yment like that? It's like she's trying to prevent people from finding her blog using those keywords. But why? Who's going to care that she has an adult son in the military and adopted her third-youngest from China?

Does the blog have ads?

Some sites do that to keep weird ads from appearing.

[27randomscribbles]

*standing ovation for Burris!*

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

+1

[Austin]

Really? You'd rather keep kids in a third world orphanage to die of illness or malnutrition? Or to experience abuse or discrimination? Or to receive little or no education, and spend their life in a filthy factory job?

Because that is what happens.

And have you talked to any older adopted kids? Most of them want a family more than anything in the world. Why not give them credit for being able to deal with a fundie family. It's far better to grow up with crazy parents than not to grow up at all.

It is the height of first-world arrogance to assume that if you can't provide a perfect family, then these kids should just wait around in the orphanage till one shows up. You need to recognize that their situation is not ideal, they are not searching for ideal, no one expects ideal--the ideal family exists for maybe 5% of internationally adopted kids. The rest get flawed parents. Fundies may be flawed more than usual, but it is better than the things these kids experience in an orphanage--chronic illness and infection, frequent unnecessary death, and poor treatment and abuse.

Perhaps you might re-read what Angri-la wrote. She was talking about ending "fundie adoption for "pure soul salvation"", not ending all adoptions. She is an adoptive mother herself.

I would think Lydia and Hanna would agree with Angri-la, if they weren't dead.

[emmiedahl]

I am against fundie adoption. I think people who parent simply to "raise soldiers of Christ" should not be given children.

Whenever I see documentaries about starving children in orphanages, I feel this urge to reach through the screen, take that child and feed it, love it, educate it, make up for the injustice. I think a lot of people choose international adoption because of that instinct. Most people are unaware of the other issues involved in international adoption.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

*standing ovation for Burris!*

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

*standing up behind you*

...and yes cultural and racial differences matter. WAY too many of the disturbing "rescue the children for Jesus" blogs don't seem to even consider those issues and how to successfully parent through the various identity issues, or they come right out and say that well, when we adopt because the Lord calls us to do it, to save the kids, those things won't matter, because we're all Jesus' family once we heard the gospel and that's enough, and anyway aren't my little eggrolls cute? (Happily there are other blogs out there from adoptive parents who DO seem to care about all these things and be doing a sensitive job of things - often with one or two kids.)

(I haven't read enough of the celebrity adopters' thoughts on their international adoptions to know if they similarly just ignore these issues or not - if they do, my opinion of them would be similar.)

Something else to google around if you're interested - the hate many of the religious adopters have for UNICEF, because they view UNICEF as being anti-adoption and anti-Christian.

[Angri-la]

Thank you, Burris, again, and JFC, and Dearest Austin. I was going to verbally lay Hisey flat, but decided to read the whole thread. I am glad I did, as where I spit, nothing grows, EVER.

Anti-Adoption?!? I am annoyingly pro-adoption, however, I do not like the methods, nor the motives behind these adoptions, when so many coercions, lies, etc. are going on.

And Hisey, I will say, dear, there are a ton of children in THIS country who need homes, so why is it the children from other countries, the "future", as someone upthread said, of a country are more desirable? I fostered a lot of children in the good ol US of A, and their only wish? To have a family. Problem is, these children are not infants, and are not usually Caucasian. So, why not adopt them? Oh yeah, there are restrictive home visits that will not allow giant families of bio-kids adopt another child.

[Witsec7]

Thank you, Burris, again, and JFC, and Dearest Austin. I was going to verbally lay Hisey flat, but decided to read the whole thread. I am glad I did, as where I spit, nothing grows, EVER.

Anti-Adoption?!? I am annoyingly pro-adoption, however, I do not like the methods, nor the motives behind these adoptions, when so many coercions, lies, etc. are going on.

And Hisey, I will say, dear, there are a ton of children in THIS country who need homes, so why is it the children from other countries, the "future", as someone upthread said, of a country are more desirable? I fostered a lot of children in the good ol US of A, and their only wish? To have a family. Problem is, these children are not infants, and are not usually Caucasian. So, why not adopt them? Oh yeah, there are restrictive home visits that will not allow giant families of bio-kids adopt another child.

:clap: :clap:

[valsa]

And Hisey, I will say, dear, there are a ton of children in THIS country who need homes, so why is it the children from other countries, the "future", as someone upthread said, of a country are more desirable? I fostered a lot of children in the good ol US of A, and their only wish? To have a family. Problem is, these children are not infants, and are not usually Caucasian. So, why not adopt them? Oh yeah, there are restrictive home visits that will not allow giant families of bio-kids adopt another child.

As someone who has contemplated adopting in the future (both through the foster care system and internationally), there are a lot of different reasons (some of which I'm sure you already know) to choose international adoption beyond being an uber-huge family that doesn't qualify for foster care adoption.

1) Age- it's very, very difficult to get a child who is 4-5 years or younger through the foster care system without fostering said child first. Some families want a young-ish child (not necessarily an infant) but don’t have what it takes to endure the ups and downs of being foster parents and possibly losing quite a few children before being able to adopt one (I certainly don’t have the emotional resiliency to do that)

2) Future after aging out- Kids who age out of foster care or orphanages in any country, including the U.S., have pretty bleak futures. However, kids who age out of foster care in the U.S. still have social safety nets to fall back on. They may not be good safety nets but they’re better than nothing, which is what some kids in other countries have to look forward to. Some people would prefer to give a home to a child who has absolutely nothing to help them after aging out.

3) Birth families- Adopting kids from the foster care system can walk adoptive parents right into a minefield of bio relatives. Sometimes there’s a requirement to stay in touch with certain birth relatives the adoptive family may not think are good influences, or sometimes angry birth families can insert themselves into adoptive families’ lives in disruptive or threatening ways. You don’t have to deal with those things with international adoption.

This is obviously not an exhaustive list but it's what I could immediately think of off the top of my head.

As a related matter, I see something in this thread I see a lot when people discuss international adoption. There’s a lot of “why don’t you give so that kids can be supported in their own countries?†and “why don’t you think of the kids who need homes in the U.S.?†While those are valid questions- why are they usually only asked of people who adopt internationally? How many people in this thread have given recently to orphanages in other countries or done something for kids in foster care lately (Angri-la, this obviously isn’t directed at you) Why is it only international adoptive parents who are held to a higher standard?

[Terrie]

Just a note. There's no real way to legally enforce open adoptions, so there's not such thing as a "requirement" to stay in touch with birth relatives.

[dawbs]

Just a note. There's no real way to legally enforce open adoptions, so there's not such thing as a "requirement" to stay in touch with birth relatives.

Once an adoption is finalized.

But during the time (weeks, months, years) in 'foster limbo', it is legally enforceable.

[valsa]

Just a note. There's no real way to legally enforce open adoptions, so there's not such thing as a "requirement" to stay in touch with birth relatives.

IIRC, there are some states where open adoption agreements are enforceable (though I think those only apply to domestic newborn adoption)

With some legally free children in foster care you'll see notes on the kid's file that "Child needs to keep in contact with (sometimes even visit) bio grandmother, former foster parent, older sibling in another home, etc". While technically you can cut off contact after adoption is finalized, that's very frowned upon by every adoption social/worker I've ever heard of.

Not to mention that if you adopt an older child, it can be difficult to stop them from contacting a family member. I once heard an adoptive mother's story that the teen boy her family adopted kept contacting his older sibling, who had contact with their bio mother (the mom was barred from having contact with the original boy), who had threatened repeatedly to take her son back from the family and hung out with enough violent drug dealers and gang members that she could probably do it. The family could not stop him from contacting her. They kept him from talking on the home phone unless they dialed the number for him and listened to the conversation, so he went over his friend’s to call. They grounded him from his friend’s house for it, so he stole their cell phone and used that.

[icecreamycakeycake]

I believe this would fall under buy used and save the difference, right?

[Burris]

As someone who has contemplated adopting in the future (both through the foster care system and internationally), there are a lot of different reasons (some of which I'm sure you already know) to choose international adoption beyond being an uber-huge family that doesn't qualify for foster care adoption.

Of course. I don't dispute that.

My focus, here, is on international adoption as preached and practised by the Dominionists we discuss. They openly admit their motivation to adopt has nothing to do with family-building and everything to do with spreading their poisonous ideology in any way they can.

These people deliberately explore the darkest corners of international adoption because they know their motives would be harshly questioned by “the world†as well as by the employees of any legitimate adoption agency (local or international).

International adoption not only gives them a line of communication back to the birth country of their child, such that they might continue to evangelize from afar, but it also gives these would-be parents access to more “arrows†for their quivers and “soldiers†for their armies than they would otherwise be permitted to adopt.

These people are thus allowed to continue collecting their fetish objects whether or not they have the necessary food or space to care for additional children. (Nancy Campbell's daughter, Serene, provides a perfect case study for this.)

As a related matter, I see something in this thread I see a lot when people discuss international adoption. There’s a lot of “why don’t you give so that kids can be supported in their own countries?†and “why don’t you think of the kids who need homes in the U.S.?†While those are valid questions- why are they usually only asked of people who adopt internationally? How many people in this thread have given recently to orphanages in other countries or done something for kids in foster care lately (Angri-la, this obviously isn’t directed at you) Why is it only international adoptive parents who are held to a higher standard?

I wrote what I did in response not to everyone considering international adoption, but rather to that subset of people – I'm looking at Kelly and her ilk - who consider it for all the wrong reasons.

They should have to face the kinds of questions we're asking, given that their main reason for looking specifically at international adoption is supposedly to “rescue†these children rather than to actually build a family.

(Considering the cost of adopting one child from overseas versus the cost of supporting NGOs who could touch far more than one life with the same amount of money, it's clear international adoption is actually a very inefficient way “rescuing†alleged orphans.)

I'll grant it's unfortunate that people who adopt internationally with the best of intentions should have to endure the same kinds of questions as Kelly and other members of her demented cult.

I can't see any way around that, however, because the high profile murders of Lydia Schatz and Hana-Grace Rose Williams, both of whom were adopted from Africa by fundies, have tainted the image of international adoptions (at least among Christians).

And Kelly's breathless, brainless diarrhea about how great adoption is because such will rescue a poor African child and broaden the Dominionist cult does nothing to rehabilitate the image.

[BlackHawk]

Just a note. There's no real way to legally enforce open adoptions, so there's not such thing as a "requirement" to stay in touch with birth relatives.

Ehh I wonder if that differs from state to state. Here, if it's written in the adoption casework by the social worker, it is legally enforceable. You can be fined up to a couple thousand dollars. We just finished (well in December) foster care classes for our state. While we are not eligible to foster because of my county's backasswards view of gay people and so on, we did take away a lot of information from the classes. That is one of the bigger ones.

On the flip side, it is not enforceable here for private infant adoptions. If we go into a PIA with an open agreement and choose to no longer have the agreement once we finalize the adoption, we are perfectly within our rights to do so... and as a perspective adoptive parent... I find that sad. I feel you have to go through with what you plan unless something happens that makes it no longer safe or sane to do such.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Well, I can't speak for others but I joined the conversation specifically to snark on some disturbing fetishism I saw on a subset of religious international adoption blogs. With international adoption, there are identity issues that are going to be far and away beyond the ones that happen in same-country adoption, and while that's not a dealbreaker, some of the blithe "it won't matter, because we're all Jesus' family!" naivete is just... disturbing. The "we're doing it to SAVE them" impulse seems to be stronger as well. The wealth disparity between countries and resulting money flow is also the elephant in the room - though SOME of that can happen between classes in one country as well.

That's in addition to the monetary issues Burris brings up - if the goal is really to save children from a bad life.

People adopting (internationally or not) because they want a kid, for the usual selfish (in a good way!) parent reasons, going in with eyes open, is a different thing.

But with a same-country adoption, there's different regulations (at least ideally), there's not the differences in wealth between developed and developing countries playing a role, and if later in the life the kid wants to find his/her birth parents or some extended bio family, odds are they can talk, because they're both from the same country, even if from possibly very different subcultures in it. The kid still ends up a regular citizen of where they were born. But with international adoption, the kid can't talk to any extended family even if found, in most cases, because they're completely foreign. They go from a life where they would be a regular citizen majority member of their birthplace, to a life where they are not only minorities but in families that don't share that experience - and in a society, still (in the US) that is going to expect them to have certain experiences and knowledge based on their looks that they might not have. Dressing up in a costume once a year is not going to give them that experience.

Is it a dealbreaker? No. But it's a big issue, and one that parents are going to have to deal with. Plenty do, and well. But there's a subset who just say "but we're saving them, so none of that matters, they should be grateful and anyway we're all just Jesus' family and the US is post-racial so it shouldn't matter" and THAT is the one subset I have misgivings about. The ones who seem to be exoticizing their own kids, even more.

And the "we're saving them" on some of those more disturbing blogs seem to have little idea of just what they're supposedly "saving" the kids FROM. They're not coming from a place where they know much about the society the kid came from, which helps the "we're doing a noble thing, saving the kids for Jesus" thing (or among some secular people who seem similarly creepy, it's "they should be thrilled and grateful because they get to be AMERICAN") and at the same time makes it unlikely that they will be among the parents who DO manage to give their kids meaningful experiences to deal with the identity stuff.

The thread started about international adoptions, I think that's probably why the emphasis is mostly there. But it's a good question - most of the "culture of adoption" stuff I was reading was all ABOUT international adoption as a way to "save" kids by bringing them to Jesus, because those were the threads I was following. ARE there similar pushes by churches to adopt US-born kids? I suppose I should surf around - though I wonder if they'd assume that at least those kids are likely to be brought up at least nominally Christian so the situation is not as "desperate" or whatever, dunno.

I do see ads in my local paper encouraging pregnant women to bear their babies and give them up for adoption as opposed to abortion, but that's a different thread surely (FWIW those adoptions end up as the private adoptions mentioned above, as far as I know).

[misslady]

What do people think about international adoption of disabled children? I am specifically thinking of these folks: nogreaterjoymom.com

(don't worry, she doesn't appear to be connected to *those* "no greater joy" folks) who have adopted 2 Down syndrome kids from Eastern Europe and two girls from China, one of whom is nonverbal. While she is a little over the top with the Jesus-y stuff they do seem to be doing a great job of taking care of their girls and she does a lot of advocating for other kids in bad situations who need to be adopted by someone who will care for them. She also seems to have a fairly realistic view of the future for these kids.

To be clear, I have no connection to her other than reading her blog and I realize I might be being fooled by a pretty false front . . . but I do get a feeling of sincerity from her and I appreciate her focus on kids with special needs. She has even spoken against adopting if you are just doing it to be a "good Christian" and warns people to be realistic in their expectations. A better head on her shoulders than some of the bloggers discussed in this thread.