In my family, especially now that I have teens, the expression “TMI” is often in use.  My kids, usually one of my sons, will go into great scatological detail about something that we don’t really need or want to hear, and someone else, usually me, will say “Okay guys, TMI” (too much information).  The tables are turned when I start into one of my “information is power” speeches.  Someone, usually one of my kids, will say “TMI mom”, especially if the subject is sex education.  (Of course they’ve also been known to put their hands over there ears and chant “blahblahblah.”)

It’s not just potty and sex talk that can provide too much information.  This point was brought home to me a few weeks ago.  We were picking up one of our daughters from camp and going through the usual rigmarole of waiting and idle talking with other parents while our kids collected shoes, towels, email addresses, etc.  I was chatting with a dad as our children bought junk at the camp store.  He asked what I did, and when he heard that I was involved with infertility and adoption, he told me that his children were adopted.  He then proceeded to tell me in detail his son’s birth family history: mother had affair while married, got pregnant, husband had hissy-fit and rejected child, child “put up for adoption”.  All the while, as he talked, I squirmed.  His two children, and mine, and their friends were standing a couple of feet away.  As soon as I could, I changed the subject.

This man was not a bad father; he clearly adored his children and would do anything for them.  Maybe it didn’t bother them at all, but it bothered me big time.  This information was none of my business, and I wanted to scream TMI.

TMI in adoption doesn’t have to be so obvious as sharing intimate details with a complete stranger.  I know a woman, who is one of the kindest people in the world and would never intentionally hurt anyone, much less her child.  And yet, while she was waiting for her daughter to join the family, she shared with close and not-so-close friends her soon to be daughter’s personal birth family history which involved prison and major dysfunction.  I am sure that this information was passed along in the normal course of conversation.  (Hey, did you hear so and so is adopting.  It’s taking a bit longer since the mother is in jail and the father is a druggie and the aunt….”)  The community has embraced this beautiful child, but she won’t always be a young child and this is very personal information that belongs to her, but now is known by many others that she didn’t choose to tell. 

I know of a teen who was absolutely horrified when he realized that his friends might somehow know that he spent a few years living in a car prior to his adoption.  His parents assured him it wasn’t a reflection on him or his character, but that isn’t an easy sell when you are 16.

But then I look at myself.  On occasion I have told people that my daughter was a special needs adoption.  I love the twist in the story: us expecting an ill, small, frail child and being overwhelmed with joy when we first saw our healthy, husky, robust baby.  I know there is nothing too personal about this story, but is it anyone else’s business?  And perhaps more important, is it my story to tell?  That’s a hard question to answer because in truth it’s a story we share.  For me it is a story of hope and grace, but for my child, is it a story of rescue?  I have never once felt like we rescued our daughter.  It feels much more like we received the greatest blessing imaginable, but what does my story say to others?  To my child?

The truth is, I don’t know the answer.  What I do know, is that I feel differently about telling the story now that my daughter is not a small child.  It feels more like her story, even though we share parts of it.  Unfortunately, once a story is told, it can’t be untold.  People don’t forget.  Even as I type, I wonder is it OK to share it with you, even though her name is not involved.  I concluded yes, but only because I have never mentioned her name, and the focus is on my thoughts as a parent.  But still, I wonder and worry.

I am not criticizing sharing private details of your child’s prior life with a select few.  We all need support.  Nor am I suggesting that we shouldn’t share details with those professionals that need this information to help us and our children.  But, I think we have to be very careful what we tell and to whom.  Not all family and friends need to know everything.  There is a big difference between secrecy and privacy.  It is far too easy for normally caring and thoughtful adoptive parents to fall into the TMI trap. I know because I’ve been there myself.

Filed under: Main
No Comments »

I read an article recently in the KoreAm Journal titled Where is home?  by Kai Ma.  The subtitle of the article reads: “Once the largest supplier of international adoptees, South Korea, is at a crossroads, looking to end overseas adoption out of a sense of both shame and responsibility.”    I thought this was one of the best and most well rounded articles I’ve read lately on the place of international adoption in a country’s child welfare system.  The article points to the growing anti-adoption sentiment in Korea, brought on in part by the Korean media’s focus on problems and complaints of some vocal adult adoptees.  The author interviewed and quoted a number of adult Korean adoptees, and it is their insight that makes this article shine.  Here are some quotes that I thought worth thinking about: 

• Discourse surrounding South Korea’s international adoption policy usually involves a triangular tug-of-war between lobbyists, adoption agencies and advocacy groups, but what lies at the center are children in need of homes. Despite the varying and contradicting perspectives, all agree that the welfare of the child must take precedence…
• ‘Korea could absolutely close its doors, and it’s happened in other countries with the swipe of a pen.’
• At the same time, there is an evident shift in the prevalence of international adoption — and not just in South Korea. …“In the past five years, there has been a changing tide about thinking critically about when international adoption is appropriate,” says McGinnis. “[Holly McGinnis works for the Donaldson Adoption Institute and was adopted from Korea.]  “Many countries now are pulling back their practices, so what we’re seeing right now in Korea is indicative of broader changes.”
• “Yet international adoption is an unfortunate necessity,” she adds. “In an ideal world, every child is loved and wanted, but that’s just not the reality. That’s not to say that kids that are adopted aren’t wanted, but what we don’t like to acknowledge is that adoption happens because something couldn’t happen.”

 International adoption is often either vilified or sanctified in the press, when in reality it is neither devil nor saint.  In an imperfect world, it is often the best solution, but that doesn’t excuse doing nothing to try to improve the underlying conditions which resulted in this being the best solution.  Women and men conceiving children they are not able to raise is the root cause, and all efforts should be made to support and encourage people to make good reproductive choices.  I want to live in a world where poverty is never the sole reason for relinquishing a child.  Being to young to parent or wanting a child to have two parents are valid reasons for relinquishment in my book, regardless if the child is from Bulgaria or Boston.  The notion, however, of stopping international adoptions or impeding them unnecessarily through regulations, in order to assuage national pride or to try to force governmental action is absurd.  It’s akin to starting work on the levees in the midst of a flood, while people are stranded on their rooftops.  The levees need attention, but the rooftop folks need a lift right now.  Surely, we can do both. One of the adult adoptees was quoted in the article as saying: “So what would be the only logical reason for closure of international adoption? When there are no more children to be sent abroad.” Amen!

Filed under: Main
1 Comment »

Switched at Birth

I’m addicted to podcasts. I actually look forward to gardening or cleaning house when I can tuck my iPod in my pocket, earbuds in my ear, and lose myself in a good show.  I’ve even taken to running while listening to shows.  And hey, I know I’m not the only closet addict, because lots of you have told me that you listen to the “Creating a Family” show via podcast. I like to imagine that I’m inspiration to vacuuming.

One of my favorite shows is the National Public Radio’s “This American Life”.  As I was deadheading and weeding my front bed last week, I listened to the show titled “Switched at Birth”.  (You can listen to the show on your computer at http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1253. It’s free as a podcast if you download it the first week after it airs. I think you have to pay to download after that, but it is only $0.95.)

This true story started in the early 1950’s when two girls were born at the same hospital in a Wisconsin town.  As soon as Mrs. Miller brought her daughter home, she suspected she had been given the wrong baby.  For various bizarre reasons the Millers, primarily at the insistence of Mr. / Reverend Miller, did not act on their suspicion.  DNA testing wasn’t yet available, and there were other complicating factors that the show does a good job of explaining.  The other mother, Mrs. McDonald, did not suspect anything.  The Millers raised Marti and the McDonalds raised Sue.  Mrs. Miller told several people her suspicion, ostensibly to have them keep an eye out for Sue’s welfare, but I imagine this secret was just too big to keep to herself, and she needed the support. 

Flash forward 43 years.  Rev. Miller is dead, and Mrs. Miller decides it is time to tell Marti and Sue.  She writes them each a letter explaining what happened, and all heck breaks loose.  The show follows the emotional fallout for both mothers and daughters.  I felt such compassion for them all, even Mrs. Miller by the end of the show, and I felt something close to awe at the resiliency of people and families. 

This story is not about adoption or children conceived through donor egg, sperm, or embryo.  But as I was listening, I was struck by some universal lessons that do apply to families formed in alternative ways.  At its very essence, this story is about the destructive effect of family secrets.  Undoubtedly, the problems that ensued were exacerbated by major dysfunction in the Miller family, but secrets have a way of wrecking havoc in even the most functional families. 

I think most adoptive families now accept that how their child joined the family should be told early and often, but this is still a hotly debated concept for families formed through donated gametes (egg or sperm) or embryo adoption.  There was an interesting study done many years ago which found that children adopted transracially scored better on psychological wellness testing later in life than children adopted by same race families.  The researchers theorized that this result could be explained by the openness about adoption that transracial placements naturally require.  Since the child looks different from the parents, the adoption is obvious and discussed more openly within the family.  It is easier for families that look alike “to pass”, and parents can overlook talking about adoption other than in the most cursory way.

A surprising number (at least to me) of parents who conceived through donor gametes or embryo adoption are trying “to pass”.  The problem is that passing implies shame, or at the very least, discomfort.  Perhaps a deep-seated feeling or fear that this alternative method of creating a family is not as good as the old-fashioned way, and the resulting families aren’t quite as real. 

To state the obvious, there is nothing wrong with using donor gametes or embryo adoption, just like there is nothing wrong with adoption.  It is just a different, not inferior, way of forming a family.  Families formed in alternative ways can and do thrive.  What is dangerous and destructive to these families, in my opinion, is keeping this information from your child.  Secrets, especially family secrets, have a way of coming out, and it usually isn’t in a good way. 

The reality is that the child will in all likelihood find out.  If either parent has told even one other person, say a mother, a sister, or a best friend, this person has almost assuredly told one other person.  And this is the case regardless of how many times you told them that they couldn’t tell anyone else.  They will tell their mother, sister, or best friend and tell them not to tell anyone else.  Pretty soon, a number of people know, except for the person who has a right to know—the child.

And here’s the kicker–the very fact that you kept it secret gives it far more power than it deserves, and far more power than it would have had if it had been incorporated into the natural flow of family talk from the beginning.  If mom and dad hid this from me, it must be really bad; it must really mean something big.  I think we all want our kids to believe the way they joined our family is just a variation on normal, and the best time to convey this information and more important, this attitude, is when they are very young.  Also, from an emotional standpoint, the information that was withheld (their adoption or conception) can get all tied up in the explicit or implicit lies that went along with keeping the secret.  The emotions of being lied to then become part of the emotions of their conception or adoption.

The other thing this show brought home to me was the importance of genetics in determining our basic personality.  Pre-kids, I believed that the environment was mostly responsible for how our kids turned out.  Since I was going to be the perfect parent and create a perfect environment for my children, this theory gave me a great deal of comfort.  But the more kids I had, regardless of whether I “had” them through birth or adoption, the less sure I was of this theory.  I became even less enamored with this theory as my kids aged. 

I now believe that nature and nurture work together, but that the basics of our temperament are determined by our genes.  The environment can bring out or suppress these traits, but can’t change the core.  And to tell you the truth, it’s a whole lot easier parenting when the entire weight of “creating” your child’s personality doesn’t fall directly on the environment you create. 

The show didn’t dwell on it, but it implied how hard it can be on children when they have a different temperament or personality than others in their family.  In this story, I was left to wonder how much this discomfort was caused by the screwiness of the Miller family, but even Sue McDonald, who was raised in what seemed like a very loving and functional family, felt different and somehow inferior to others in her family.  It’s a little scary.  My family consists of six people with very different personalities, strengths and weaknesses.  I can only hope and pray that I can help each of my children honor the ways they are different and the ways they are similar to the rest of our family.  I guess I’ll have to wait until someone does a show on my family 20 years from now to see if my kids agree. Now, that is a really scary thought.

Filed under: Main
No Comments »

I’ve been thinking a lot about vacations lately, having just returned from a three week vacation with my family.  Before we leave, there is always a point when I question our sanity and wonder why in the world we take vacations each year.  This point is usually reached when I’m knee deep in lists—packing list, pet sitter list, garden sitter list, things that absolutely must be done before I leave my office list, and on and on ad infinitum.  I’m at this “why in the world” point once again right now, two days back, as I’m staring at the piles of mail, emails, laundry, and dust bunnies, and garden and flower beds full of weeds.  Last night, our first full night home, Peter turned to me and said, “Remind me why we did this?”

I love to travel with my kids. They give me an excuse to do all the things I want to do anyway, but might feel foolish doing if I didn’t have a kid along.  Now that my children are getting older, I find myself having to talk them into doing some of these things (read: beg), such as climbing to the top of a mesa so we can make funny faces at the rest of the family below, riding the merry go round, or stopping at every shaved ice stand we see.  I know I shouldn’t need a child to give me permission to do these things, but it sure helps and makes it more fun in the process. 

Vacations also give us time away from the demands and siren calls of life.  Peter and I need time away from work and volunteer activities, and our children need time away from friends, the internet, and all things with electrical plugs, batteries or earphones.  It sometimes feels like modern life is designed to isolate us from each other.  Our thirteen year old alternates between her room and the computer, while our high schooler moves between work and friends.  I feel like I have to post myself in between, waiting for either of them to pass through.  The same basic theme is repeated with the others, to a lesser degree.  And between work, the house and other activities, Peter and I aren’t much better.

But on vacation it all changes.  We have  time to step back from the world and just be a family.  Literally within a day I start seeing the difference.  My kids start playing card games together.  They pass their iPods to the front seat to share a favorite song on the communal speakers.  Safe from the judging eyes of friends, the thirteen year old reaches out to hold my hand when we walk.  The high schooler accidently calls me “Mommy”.  In the evening we all gather together to play long drawn out gin rummy and Uno tournaments, or watch a program on the Discovery Channel.  I don’t know why, but we reminisce more about our childhoods and about theirs.  We tell stories that they swear they’ve never heard, and we swear we’ve told a million times before.  We laugh and tease, and although it is more about potty humor than I would like, it still feels good.  Lest this picture looks too Rockwellian, I should share that there are also arguments and getting on each others nerves and a continuation of worries from pre-vacation, but that isn’t what I choose to remember.

In the midst of the “why in the world” moments, I chose to remember that we travel with our kids to create memories—collective family memories, and there is something about sharing an adventure that enhances this process.  Oh sure, we also want to broaden our children’s horizons and expose them to the world in all its glorious differences, but deep down, the real pay off for me is the memory of a perfect evening playing games in a beautiful setting surrounded by my family, with enough distance from the demands at home to appreciate it all.

Filed under: Main
No Comments »

On last week’s “Creating a Family” show (June 18) I interviewed Michele Bond, with the US Department of State’s International Adoption section, about the what was happening with international adoptions around the world.  Tom DiFilipo  was stuck in transit to Vietnam and wasn’t able to be on the show as planned.  He is planning to come on at the beginning of this week’s show to give us an update on the results of his meetings with the Vietnamese government on international adoptions from that country.

On the June 18 show, most of our questions from listeners were asking for information on specific countries, so the show was more practical than theoretical.  As you would imagine, we talked a lot about what is happening in Vietnam.

It’s no surprise to any of us that the situation with international adoptions from Vietnam is complex.  Michele talked about the difficulty of negotiating a new agreement between the US and Vietnam to govern international adoptions.  She stressed that the US was not holding out for Vietnam to ratify the Hague Treaty on Inter-Country Adoptions, although they hope that Vietnam will work towards that goal.  She also highlighted the many obstacles that are in the way of finalizing a new bilateral treaty.  It sounded to me like the main problem for the US was the lack of accountability in Vietnam to follow through with the agreement, and lack of enforcement when there are problems.  She gave examples of this, as well as what the US perceives as the disconnect between what happens on the national and provincial levels.  I specifically asked about the petition that is circulating among adoptive parents requesting that referral continue after September 1 for those dossiers already submitted.  She expressed some reservations, but I don’t want to summarize and risk putting words in her mouth. You can listen for yourself on the radio page of this website.

I guess the bottom line for most of us is when this impasse will be resolved, and although she didn’t give a time frame, I was left with the impression of longer rather than shorter.  Maybe we’ll find out more from Tom DiFilipo on this week’s show.

The discussion then moved to international adoptions from Guatemala.  Pending cases continue to work their way slowly through the new system.  She alluded to an announcement that the State Department released later that day of the release of a couple of hundred of the backlogged cases by the new adoption authority in Guatemala.  The hold-up, she stressed, is with Guatemala adoption authority, not the US embassy. 

As far as new adoptions from Guatemala, the US won’t allow adoptions to begin again until they are convinced that Guatemala has a system in place that will comply with the Hague Treaty.  She said that Guatemala was getting advice from Colombia, as well as other countries, to develop this system, which made me think that the new Guatemalan system might be patterned on the Colombian model.

One piece of good news is that she thought Cambodia would reopen to international adoptions to the US in the near future.  She also mentioned that the State Department was seeing more adoptions from El Salvador, and I’m hearing more people talk about Bulgaria.  If you are looking for how-to information on adopting from a country that doesn’t place a lot of children for international adoption, I answered this question recently on my Frequently Unasked Questions page (under Adoption Resources).

Unfortunately, we did not have time to discuss the philosophical implications of all of this.  How exacting should the US be in demanding a system that is without fraud?  This is not an easy question.  No system involving humans is without fraud.  There will always be people who will by-pass the law.  But just because there will be abuse is no reason to deprive children of families, and this is exactly what overly strenuous adoption laws do.  In an effort to prevent adults in both the placing and receiving country from abusing the system, it’s easy to become fixated on stopping this abuse, and overlook the far greater abuse of depriving children of families. 

I don’t pretend to have the answer, and I don’t underestimate the complexity of what our government is facing.  But with really complex issues, I always try to go back to the basics.  Everyone seems to agree on the hierarchy of human needs, and at the top is the need of every child to be raised in a family.  Preferably that family will be their birth family, and if that isn’t possible, next best is an adoptive family from their community or country.  If that isn’t possible then, in my opinion, all efforts should be made to find a family abroad because children need parents more than they need birth culture. 

But here’s where things get murky.  This theory of what’s in the best interest of children often gets perverted where large sums of money are involved, and “large” is a relative term depending on the poverty level of the country.  In an ideal world, no mother should have to relinquish her child solely because she can’t afford to feed, clothe, and educate that child.  But we live in far from an ideal world.  We live in a world where birth control is either not readily available or socially unacceptable.  We live in a world where a woman’s self and societal worth may be based on having children, regardless of her ability to raise them.  We live in a world where baby bottles are filled with watered down coffee, and three year olds babysit younger siblings while mothers and the older siblings work.  We live in a world where schools require uniforms and tuition.  We live in a world where the opportunities for woman are nonexistent, and survival is dependent on having a man to support them.  So what is in the best interest of children in this very real world? 

The UN says that international adoption should be the last resort.  True enough, but it doesn’t take much in extremely poor countries to reach this point of last resort.  The US government says that international adoption systems should be free of fraud.  Also true, but how clean is clean? 

The Guatemalas and Cambodias and Vietnams of the world can’t provide a safety net for poor women any time soon.  So what happens to their children?  It is a joke to think that they will have enough domestic families willing or able to adopt them.  Most of the domestic families that can afford to adopt usually prefer the young healthy babies, not the baby of questionable skin color or ethnic heritage, or the toddler that has been raised in an institution, or the pre-schooler that has been abused. 

On the other hand, we don’t want to create a system, or support a system, that encourages a birth mother to relinquish her child because she is being paid, and this is a very real possibility.  Unscrupulous businesspeople the world over are looking for ways to make money and are not above selling children.   I think it serves us all well—government officials (here and abroad) and adoptive parents—to realize that it is a delicate balancing act to create a system that allows children to be raised in families in a world that will pay highly for the privilege of being that family.

Last year, in an interview with a UN official in Guatemala, he expressed disgust at the number of children being placed by that country for international adoption, and pointed to that as evidence that the Guatemalan international adoption system was broken.  He’s not alone in this view.  But to me, this view is at the heart of the problem.  Rather than judge success by how few children are placed for international adoption, a caring and compassionate world would judge success by the quality of life that it provides for its children.  I know that adoptive parents don’t have a right to these children, but don’t the kids have a right to us?

P.S.  If you want to help end corruption in international adoptions from Vietnam, without ending a child’s right to a family, please contact your senator and representative about signing the Congressional Coalition on Adoption’s letter to Secretary Condoleezza Rice in support of the recommendations found in Joint Council’s A Child’s Right Campaign for Vietnam.  To get more information, go to the advocacy section under Adoption Resources on http://www.creatingafamily.com/index.php?content=adoption/resource%203#advocacy.

Filed under: Main
3 Comments »

I’ve been thinking about the state of international adoptions lately.  I get this question from prospective adoptive parents a lot, and it’s been on my mind since I’ve been preparing for the June 18 “Creating a Family” radio show that will be on this topic.  This morning I printed off the international adoption statistics for the last 10 years from the US State Department and have been staring at them hoping for an answer to this question.  I suppose what I’m really looking for is a pattern that would allow me to predict where we are heading.  No “ah hah” moment hit me, sorry to say.

Undoubtedly international adoptions are going through a tumultuous time and the media is having a heyday.  Sad prospective parents, parentless children, and allegations of baby trafficking make for good copy.  Unfortunately, truth lurks behind the headlines. 

Not to belabor the obvious, but Guatemala has closed down to new international adoption placements and the pipeline cases are progressing at a snail’s pace.  Vietnam will close down at least temporarily in September.  Who knows what will happen to the cases in process when this happens.  China is still making steady placements, but the numbers have been declining since 2005, and the time has increased dramatically.  The number of children internationally adopted by US families from Russia peaked in 2004, and the costs have escalated precariously.  [If you aren’t already sick of hearing about this, you can read more in my Adoption in the News section under the Adoption tab.]

So, what’s up with international adoptions?

One theory that has been suggested is that international adoption placements in the last 10 years have concentrated in fewer placing countries.  This isn’t exactly true since the number of countries placing less than 500 children for adoption to the US has remained relatively stable (16 in 1996, 12 in 2000, 14 in 2006, 12 in 2007).  It is true, however, that the dramatic increases in inter-country adoptions have been in a very few countries, primarily China, Guatemala, and Russia.  Any disruptions in these countries will greatly affect the numbers, and all three have placed fewer children with US families in recent years.

Another theory is that the decrease in international adoptions reflects less need for international adoptions due either to an increase in domestic adoptions in the sending countries or an increase in social services to support birth families.  This should certainly be our goal, but I’m not convinced that this is happening. 

It’s hard to say what is happening in China.  I’ve read all that I can find, and all I can say is that I’m not sure.  (The Aug. 6 Creating a Family show will be on this topic.) There is some evidence that domestic adoptions have increased and that abandonment of healthy infant girls is down.  But there is also evidence that only a small percentage of orphanages are open to international adoption and that there are still many many children being raised in institutions.

The termination of international adoptions from Guatemala has nothing to do with an increase in social services to poor families or an increase in domestic adoptions.  It has everything to do with greed and politics.

The decrease in international adoptions from Russia to the US is more complex, but is driven in part by the fear of health issues (attachment and fetal alcohol syndrome), the unpredictability of the process (regional variations and agency accreditation), and cost.

It could be that a strange mix of events led to an artificially high number of international adoptions for a few years and that we are simply returning to a more sustainable number.  And yet, according to the UN, 143 million children in this world need parents.  I view adoption as a key component of any country’s child welfare system, and when adoptive families can’t be found inside a country, they should be sought abroad.  This is the only answer that is in the best interest of children.

I’m not blind to the problems in the US foster care system, and it’s particularly problematic to use the US as an example in any international issue given our reputation in the world as of late for unmitigated arrogance and hubris.  But at least in theory, I like their approach.  In the US, no child must wait for a family within his state.  There may be a preference for a local family so that the child can maintain contact with extended family and siblings, but no child is denied a family just because one can’t be found within the borders of his state.  And US children can be placed abroad if a family can’t be found within the US.  This right to a family is protected in the Hague Treaty on Intercountry Adoption.

Interestingly, this same treaty is often touted as another reason why international adoptions to the US have declined.  It is too early to tell what the impact of the Hague Treaty on international adoptions to the US will be since it only came into effect in the US in April 2008.  It is certainly possible that the Hague Treaty may open up countries that were previously closed to placing children in the US.  It is also possible that this treaty will close down adoptions from non-Hague countries if the US does not negotiate a separate agreement for international adoptions to continue. 

The Hague requires a fairly well developed infrastructure to support the required bureaucratic framework.  This can be a problem for some lesser developed countries, and these countries are likely to be the ones that need international adoption as part of their child welfare systems.  On the other hand, this lack of infrastructure can also lead to fraud, baby trafficking, and kidnapping, especially when fertilized with big money from international adoptions. 

I wish I had an easy answer, but I don’t, and I doubt there is one.  All I know is that kids need parents.  There will always be a need for adoption because there will always be extreme poverty, societal disapproval of unwed motherhood, unfit parents, abuse, and neglect.  There will likely always be a need for international adoption because of poverty or societal attitude towards adoption.  And let’s not forget, most studies show that adoption works.  It’s good for kids, and it’s good for families.  The only upside to the decline in international adoptions that I can see is that maybe more US families will consider adopting the almost 130,000 children in the US foster system that are in need of adoptive parents.

Next week’s blog will be a follow up on what I learned in my interviews on this week’s Creating a Family radio show with JCICS and the State Department on what the future holds for international adoptions.

Filed under: Main
4 Comments »

Last night we had a party for our church youth group at our house.  It was not just any party—no, this was the annual parent versus youth “capture the flag” party.  Whoever wins has bragging rights for the year.  I take these rights very seriously since I’m with the youth every week and much prefer a year of being the gloater rather than the gloatee. 

I’ll end the suspense now—the parents won!  I won’t say that we dominated since it was a long drawn out battle.  And yes, we brought in three ringers for our side (former youth group members now in college).  But it was a victory nonetheless.  Our secret weapons were the younger siblings who had to play with the parents since they weren’t in middle or high school.  We used them to infiltrate behind enemy lines and set our prisoners free.

After the party, Peter and I were relaxing with a bottle of ibuprofen on the front porch.  One by one our kids came out to join us.  We replayed the game and regaled each other with our daring dashes into enemy territory, every juke (is that even a word?) and fake-out that saved us from certain capture, and the agony of getting caught.  Actually, I didn’t have any daring feats to report since I was told at the beginning of the game by my college aged son that my highest and best use was behind the lines—as far behind as possible.  We trash talked about what we would do to the opposition next year.  The laughing and comparing notes of who did what lasted over an hour, and they would have stayed longer if we hadn’t shooed them to bed since two had exams the next day. 

I know most of you are at the very beginning of your parenting journeys and probably dread the teen years.  Our society and media focus on the negatives of adolescence giving them an undeserved bad reputation.  I’ve been working with youth for over ten years at church, and I am now the mother of teens.  So for those of you just starting out and hearing all the horror stories about middle and high schoolers, let me tell you what I like about teens.
• They are fun, often kind, sometimes petty.
• They are more like young adults than old kids.
• Every once in a while they give you a glimpse of the person they will be.
• They are full of righteous indignation rather than unrighteous resignation.
• They can carry on conversations of the “cals” (theological, rhetorical, ethical, political, philosophical)
• They are willing to explore the edges.
• They keep me grounded in the past with memories and in the future with possibilities.
• They make me thankful to be my age and done with all the angst, emotions, zits, and uncertainty that is part of the teen territory.
• I get to vicariously experience life at the beginning again.

Did you ever play that stupid, slightly off-color, fortune cookie game where you added “between the sheets” to the end of all the fortunes?  Well, you could play a version of that here, but adding “most of the time” to each of the above list.  Teens as a group aren’t all the same, but the same could be said for younger children.  I’ve never been one to say “I love kids.”  Human beings regardless of the age are not ubiquitous blobs. (Another fun thing about parenting teens is that you get to look for ways to increase their vocabulary by sneaking in what we call “SAT words” like ubiquitous.)   I love and like some kids (fortunately, mine included), but some children, like people all along the age spectrum, rub me wrong.  

The hard part of parenting teens is fear.  Adolescents still need parents but they need us to step out of the way more, and let life teach them.  This is scary.  I know that they need to make mistakes to learn, but I’m afraid that their mistakes will be too big, too harmful, too life altering.  The anecdote to this fear is trust—in them and in myself.

My teens have not been perfect and have made their share of mistakes, some bigger than I would have preferred.  But I know that I have to have faith that they know what is right, and they will learn and grow from their missteps.  So another thing I like about teens is that they keep me humble and force me to focus on my parenting mantra: Progress Not Perfection.

So for those of you just beginning or dreaming of beginning your parenting journey, take some advice from someone in the midst, up to my waist and sloshing through.  Don’t be afraid to jump in; the water’s fine—most of the time.

Filed under: Main
3 Comments »

The Evan Donaldson Adoption Institute released a new report titled “Findings Families for African American Children: The Role of Race & Law in Adoption from Foster Care”, authored by Susan Smith, Ruth McRoy, Madelyn Freundlich, and Joe Kroll.  I love the Donaldson Adoption Institute. Their website is one of the first places I go when I am looking for research on particular adoption related topic.  The authors of this report are some of the biggies in the field, and the same could be said for the list of organizations that are supporting this report.  But, all admiration aside, the tone of this report troubles me.
Keep in mind that the focus of this report is on transracial adoption from US foster care, but the issues raised would apply to transracial domestic newborn adoptions and transracial international adoptions.

I summarize the report more fully on the Adoption Research page of this website, but here are the highlights.  The report summarizes the research into transracial adoption and how the kids and families fare over time.  The early research (1970’s and 1980’s), based primarily on black kids adopted as infants into white families and kids adopted internationally (mostly Asian), found that transracially adopted children compared favorably to children placed in same-race families.  The main findings of the recent, “more rigorous” research were summarized in this report as follows:
1. Transracial adoption in itself does not produce psychological or social maladjustment problems in children.
2. Transracially adopted children and their families face a range of challenges, and the manner in which parents handle them facilitates or hinders children’s development.

These finding support what most of us would expect: Transracial adoption poses special challenges to families, but children and families can and do thrive in these placements if parents are prepared to handle the issues raised in raising a child of a different race.  The third major finding of the recent research on transracial adoptions– children in foster care are at special risk and need families up to the challenge– is also no surprise.   I’ve read a good deal of this research and agree with the report’s summary.

The report makes several recommendations, the primary ones being:
• Amend the federal law governing adoptions from foster care to permit race to be considered as one factor (but not the sole factor) in selecting parents for children from foster care, and allow the preparation of parents adopting transracially.
• Enforce this law’s requirement to recruit families who represent the racial and ethnic backgrounds of children in foster care, and provide sufficient resources to support such recruitment.

OK, so far, so good. These recommendations seem reasonable and firmly grounded in the research and common sense.  I especially support the idea of providing more money and energy to recruiting black and Hispanic families to foster and adopt kiddos from foster care.  But I begin to get uneasy when I leave the executive summary of the report and move to the body of the report, the bulk of which focuses on the harms of transracial adoption, and why it should be avoided.  Although the Report acknowledges that research has not shown that transracial adoption is harmful to kids, they seem to focus on the parts of the research that address the challenges of transracial adoption.  Most important, they gloss over what is to me the main point: yes, transracially adopted kids have added challenges, but these challenges are minor by comparison to the challenges they would face if they remain in foster care.

Perhaps a little background would be useful at this point in the discussion.  The federal law that governs the adoption of children from foster care (other than Native Americans) is the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended by the 1996 Removal of Barriers to Interethnic Adoption Provisions, altogether known by the rather bulky acronym MEPA-IEP.  Prior to MEPA-IEP, the reality for many kids of color who ended up in foster care was pretty dismal.  The testimony at the Congressional hearing for MEPA and IEP were full of stories of black kids growing up in foster care because social workers were reluctant to place them with white families.  There were numerous examples presented of African American kids being removed from their foster families who had raised them from birth and wanted to adopt them because the foster family was white.  MEPA-IEP basically said that social workers couldn’t use race as a criteria for denying a kid a home.  The premise was that kids need families more than they need matching families.

Now, as always, the devil is in the implementing.  According to the new Adoption Institute report, many states have interpreted MEPA-IEP to mean that race can never be a factor in deciding on adoptive placement.  They cite the down-right bizarre interpretation that MEPA-IEP prohibits social service agencies from even training prospective adoptive parents on the potential issues they may face as a transracial family, and on how to best raise a child of another race.  I’ve read MEPA-IEP, and how someone could come up with that interpretation is beyond me and is one of the reasons that governmental bureaucracies scare me spitless.

But the Adoption Institute report seems to undermine the essence of MEPA-IEP and that seems equally extreme.  The way it was before was a travesty for children of color, with many being raised in foster care rather than in real families because a family of their race was not readily available.  Children need parents above all else, regardless of whether their skin tones match.  This is common sense and it is also supported by all the research-new and old, as even this report acknowledges.  My fear is that if we aren’t careful, race will again become THE factor, rather than one of the factors.

If you drop all the regulatory and legal BS, it seems so logical.  We don’t live in a color blind society and transracial families face additional challenges.  These challenges are not insurmountable, but the issues of race do have to be addressed.  All things being equal, a same-race family is preferable to adopting across racial lines. 

It’s easier to explain my point with an example.  Let’s say we have an eight year old African American boy that the psychologist and social worker believe would be best placed in a two parent family with no younger children.  (Not a particularly uncommon situation with children who have been abused.)  Two families have expressed interest in adopting him. (Unfortunately, this is an uncommon situation since older black boys are the hardest to place, and there is usually not a line waiting to adopt them.)   One is a white couple with older children, and the other is a black couple with older children.  Both are experienced loving parents.  This seems a no-brainer to me—the child should go with the African American family.  But what if the only same-race placement option at the time the child enters care is with a single mother with two children younger than eight.  This is less clear to me and the answer would depend on how strongly the psychologist and social worker feel that our eight year old needs a father and no younger siblings.  Assuming that they had good reasons for stating these needs, I’d lean toward the white couple absent extenuating circumstances.  I also wouldn’t make our boy wait in foster care while a same race couple could be found.  And if our boy lands in a white foster home and bonds with that family over time and they want to adopt him, well, that one is a no-brainer to me as well.  They have become his family and, again, absent extenuating circumstances, the child deserves not to be yanked away from his family just because he is a different race. 

My fear is that if we scrap MEPA-IEP, we will go back to children languishing in foster care while a same race family is being sought.  I don’t think this is in any child’s best interest.  The research is clear that transracial adoption by itself is not harmful to children.  Training, education, and on-going support can help these families and children succeed.  If MEPA-IEP is not being interpreted to allow this, then change the interpretation, not the law.

I am particularly troubled by the Adoption Institute’s suggestion that same-race guardianship be considered equal to adoptions.  I don’t get it.  I understand that placement with extended family is often best for children, but this extended family needs to be in the form of an adoptive placement.  Kids need parents.  A guardian is better than nothing, but not as good as a forever parent.  Why should children of color have to settle for second best?  If it is money that is standing in the way, why not argue for upping the adoption subsidy. 

Research and common sense are aligned with what’s in the best interest of children.  The birth family must first have help to heal since it is usually in the child’s interest to be raised by his biological parents.  But, let’s face it, this is not always possible; not all parents are capable of parenting and not all families can heal.  An adoptive placement—a permanent, real, forever, even-when-you’re-obnoxious home—should be found.  The extended family is the first place to look.  If that’s not possible, or not in the best interest of the child, then find an adoptive family.  This was the premise of MEPA-IEP. 

Race is one factor amongst many that should be considered when looking for the best adoptive placement.  Children need permanence, and they need it as soon as possible after being removed from their biological families.  They should not have to wait long periods of time for a same-race family and they should definitely not have to forego having a family because a same-race placement couldn’t be found. 

Filed under: Main
3 Comments »

I’ve been busy lately—too busy.  Work has been interesting and fun, but researching and preparing for this series of shows on disposing of unused embryos created through IVF added on top of re-doing the website has made for days that begin too early and end too late.  And then because I’m not a person who knows her limits and takes an unhealthy pride in “getting a lot done”, I decided to re-work my flower beds. 

In fairness to me, I didn’t really decide to do a major overhaul- I was the victim of logic.  You know the drill: if I dig up a perennials from one bed, I have to plant them in another bed.  As long as I’m moving to another bed, I might as well move a few plants in that bed that are looking puny and try to fill in the blank spaces.  And since I’m digging up the dirt anyway, it is only logical to amend the soil while I’m there.  And you know, this plant is too finicky, and I’m not much for pampering prima dona plants, so as long as I’m at the nursery, I probably should look for a replacement.  And before I knew it, my car port was filled with plants lined up smartly in their black non biodegradable pots, and my every spare moment was filled with yard work.  I like to work in the yard, but after a couple of 18 hour weekends and after work gardening, the fun was gone, and I was kicking myself for my stupidity and inability to set limits.

Oh, and did I mention that I am also in the midst of planting the vegetable and herb garden? Now, I maintain that this one is not my fault since nature dictates when you have to plant.  We had a late frost, so what could I do? 

Unfortunately, the logic-on-steroids saga continues.  Last month I agreed to host my book club at my house in May.  It was getting close to my turn, and I figured having a group at the house would force me to get the front porch ready for front porch season.  You know, buy the hanging ferns and potted plants, clean the furniture, and generally make it usable.  (We spend most summer evenings on our front porch.)  And since I was already going to the trouble of cleaning, picking flowers, and cooking, it only made sense to schedule another gathering at my house later that same week.  It’ll probably come as no surprise that I love the expression “Getting more bang for your buck.”  By midweek, I was sick of bang.

After another hastily prepared dinner of spaghetti and meatballs from a jar served way too late, one of my daughters called from her bedroom, “Mom, come tuck me in.”  I said, and yes, I’m cringing as I type, “Not tonight honey, I’m too tired.”  Now, all obvious jokes about other uses for this one-liner aside, I only felt mildly guilty from my vantage point in front of the fire with a glass of wine.  It wasn’t until later that night when I was trying to sleep that I thought about all the times in the last two weeks I had said a variation of the same thing. 

Creating a home is why I do most of what I do, and the operative word there is home not house.  I spend my work days helping others figure out how to create a family.  The irony of the clash between my words and my actions was not lost on me.  And in case I needed to be reminded even more, the next day I read about Steven Curtis Chapman’s daughter being killed in an accident. [If you haven’t heard, you can get more info on the “In the News” page under Adoption on this website.] I just sat staring at my computer feeling literally sick to my stomach and aching for what the Chapman’s are going through. 

I know it is a cliché, but life is just so very fragile, and I often take for granted that there will be a tomorrow—another day, another chance to “get it right”.  Tomorrows are a gift.  It shouldn’t take the death of a child to remind me.  Now excuse me as I go try to find a kid to spend some quality time with.

Filed under: Main
No Comments »

This time last year I was in Guatemala researching what would happen to the children if international adoptions ceased.  I spent two weeks in that beautiful, troubled country, and I concluded that things would be bad for kids, very bad, if international adoptions stopped.  Upon my return, I preached to anyone who would listen that although we needed to reform the Guatemala international adoption system, we needed reforms that would focus on the best interest of kids, not the best interest of adults, be they adoption attorneys, politicians, birth families or adoptive families.  Sadly, this is not happening in Guatemala, and Vietnam is right behind.  

From what I’m hearing from the people I interviewed in Guatemala, orphanages and hogars are being asked to take more and more children of all ages.  As international adoptions have become more politicized, the best interest of the children has receded into the distant background.  Politicians and bureaucrats are pandering for votes and covering their butts.  Guatemalan adoption attorneys and some US adoption agencies that have lost their substantial incomes are stirring the pot, while failing to acknowledge the role they played in getting us to this point.  The Guatemalan, and some American, media are sensationalizing.  All the while, the grinding poverty continues and the orphanages are filling.

The theory of the Guatemalan and American governments and UNICEF was that if the money from international adoptions went away, birth families would choose to parent their children rather than place them for adoption.  True enough in some cases.  Some mothers were being swayed by money to place their children for adoption.  I don’t doubt that some woman were conceiving children to “sell”.  There have even have been cases of children being kidnapped for adoption.  But most information I was able to uncover showed this to be the exception–a nightmarish exception to be sure– but an exception nonetheless.

More common is the woman who may have received some money, but relinquished her child because she was already struggling to raise a couple of kids and knew she couldn’t possibility raise another.  Or the children that were abandoned, thereby assuring that there was no payment.  Or the large number of older children who were removed from their parents due to neglect or abuse.  The international adoption reforms and the increased scrutiny have done nothing for these children.  They continue to come into the under-funded and unregulated orphanages, and since adoptions have bogged down, that’s where they will likely stay until they age out.  I wish Guatemalan and American politicians would focus more on finding families for these children in Guatemala and the US than on preventing all possibility of abuse in international adoptions.  The latter is a pipe dream since any system involving people will be abused.

It is enough to make you cry –or scream.  

A couple of years ago, someone asked me why I had left the practice of law to write about and advocate for children and families.  It seemed to him an illogical choice.  (He was certainly right about the logic part!))  As I thought about his question later that night when I should have been sleeping, this prayer came to me.  This is what I wish for all children, but especially right now for the children of Guatemala and Vietnam. 

My Prayer for All Children     

I pray that all children will be loved for who they are, for no reason other than that they are.

I pray that all children will be loved as first best, not second best; that they will be loved with an intensity that can move mountains, because life will present plenty of mountains that will need to be moved.

I pray that all children will have someone who will…

• seek them, and only them, out of the crowd on the stage;
• push them to reach for their goals and discover their unique gifts;
• hold them accountable for their actions with love and dignity;
• advocate for them through this maze called life;
• explain the unexplainable; and
• smile when they walk into the room, just because they did.     

Mostly I pray that all children will have someone who knows them well enough and loves them deeply enough to see the divine spark that is unique in them.    

I pray that this be the birthright of all children throughout the world.  And since this birthright can only be fulfilled by parents, I pray that each child, regardless the circumstances of their birth, finds their parent and each parent finds their child.

Thanks God.  Amen.

Filed under: Main
No Comments »