' [Birth Mother] First Mother Forum: The lure of lucre drives child 'welfare' policies in Russia and the US
Join Jane at the CUB retreat in October. For more, see sidebar.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

The lure of lucre drives child 'welfare' policies in Russia and the US

Grieving mother Yulia Kuzmina
Russian social services employees appear to have fast tracked the US adoption of two year old Maksim Kuzmina and his one year old brother Kirill. Three months later, Maksim was dead. Texas authorities are investigating his death as a possible homicide.

The mother of the boys, Yulia Kuzmina, is pleading for return of Kirill, now two. Russian authorities, claiming she was unfit to raise her sons because of alcohol addiction, took them from her in 2011.* Alan and Laura Shatto of Gardendale, Texas adopted both boys in October, 2012 through the Gladney Center, a Texas adoption agency.

Maksim Kuzmina
Maksim, renamed Max Shatto, died on January 21, 2013, shortly after his third birthday. According to Laura Shatto, Max was playing outside with Kirill before she found the boy unresponsive. He was pronounced dead at a hospital. Because of the bruises on Maksim's body, hospital staff alerted Texas authorities who are conducting an investigation into the boy's death. An autopsy is pending but Ector County Medical Examiner's office confirmed that the marks on the child's body could have been caused by abuse.

Jane
Kuzmina wrote to Russian president Vladimir Putin asking him to restore her parental rights and return Kirill to her: "I accept my guilt before my children, have found work and have the ability to provide for the child. Help me, please, don't allow the death of my second child, Kirill! In response, the lower house of the Russian parliament approved a resolution asking the U.S. Congress to help return the boy to his mother.

QUICK TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
It appears that social services employees were quick to terminate Kuzima's parents rights and "free" the boys for adoption. Nothing in the news reports suggests that they tried to work with her, provide alcohol treatment, parent training, day care, whatever might have preserved the family. It's difficult to look at this case and not think that the Russian authorities fast-tracked the termination of Kuzima's parental rights because the children, young, blond, attractive, were a valuable commodity on the adoption market. Russian authorities and attorneys stood to make $20,000 for each boy, although perhaps the boys were offered as a package at a discount.

Georgia Tann, Baby Thief

Creating artificial orphans for profit has a long history. Georgia Tann perfected the business from the 1920's through the 1950's through her Tennessee Children's home. With the help of a corrupt judge, Tann became wealthy from removing children from their homes and placing them with Hollywood celebrities and wealthy easterners, garnering large fees in the process.

According to a 2009 news report, social workers in Kentucky took children from their homes on false pretenses and hastened their adoption. When families members complained, their children too were taken. In one case, a woman put in an order for children, identifying the children of a poor family in her neighborhood that she wanted. Accommodating officials took the children under pretenses of abuse and placed them with the woman.

The federal 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act created the incentive for child snatching by providing financial incentives to states to increase adoptions. The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform predicted that when adoptions level off  agencies will "target children most in demand by prospective adoptive parents: Healthy infants from poor families. Agencies will  rationalize that the parents really are "unfit" as they continue to turn their child-welfare systems into the ultimate middle-class entitlement: Step right up and take a poor person’s child for your very own.”


"SAVING" CHILDREN THROUGH ADOPTION
Others have manipulated the child welfare laws to gather children out of misguided (or morally deficient) beliefs about "the best interest of children." From the 1850's through the 1890's, the Rev. Charles Loring Brace and his Children's Aid Society took some 84,000 children  from impoverished immigrant families in New York. The children were placed on "Orphan" Trains, to be adopted by farm families to work as laborers, an environment Brace thought was morally superior to living with their natural families. A century later, the British took children from poor unwed mothers and sent them to Australia where they were abused and forced into hard labor. At the same time the Australians used pretexts to take Aborigine children from their families and have them adopted into white homes. Lest we cast stones, Americans did the same thing to native American children. The 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act put a stop to this dreadful practice; sadly there are those who want to repeal the Act.

Alan and Laura Shatto--child savers or killers?
That Russians exploit child welfare laws to feed the adoption market just as some US states are doing should not be surprising although I'm sure it's news that the adoptive parents of Russian children don't want to hear. After FMF wrote several pieces praising the Russian government and President Putin for halting overseas adoptions, it got an earful from these parents who believed they had rescued children from Dickensian orphanages, calling us heartless and worse. Ending foreign adoption as Russia had done should result in fewer children needlessly entering the child welfare and more children in that system returned to their families.

TO HELP CHILDREN HELP THEIR NATURAL FAMILIES 
Let's hope all nations figure it out: anti-family child welfare laws and practices which allow hasty removal of children from their homes is not the solution but the problem. And let's hope Russian authorities move quickly to find out if Kuzmina is capable of raising Kirill and, if so, arrange to have him returned to her. -- jane
______________________________________________
*According to the New York Times, Kuzmina said both boys were taken by social services while she was at the store buying them candy. According to the Huffington Post, in an interview on Russian on Russian television, Kuzmina said Russian officials took advantage of her absence from her hometown to seize her children.


Sources
Russian mother makes tearful TV plea for return of her son
Russian mother ask Putin to return 2nd Son after Death in Texas
Max Shatto Dead
Russian parliament demands return of orphan from US
Massive adoption fraud in USA for Bush federal adoption funds
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, Family Preservation and Adoption
Oranges and Sunshine

From FMF
Adoption Nation is No Country for Birth Mothers
Adopting form Foster Care: Helping Kids or Enabling Family Destruction?
Returning a child to her father is the right decision
Can the media get adoption right?
Russian say "nyet" to US adoptions
Foreign adoption may save 'one child' but hurts many

BOOKS
The Baby Thief: The Untold Story of Georgia Tann, the Baby Seller Who Corrupted Adoption 
An episode in American adoption history little remembered by the public at large, the crimes of nationally-lauded Memphis orphanage director Georgia Tann are skillfully and passionately recounted by freelance writer Raymond, herself an adoptive mom. The portrait of Tann that emerges is a domineering, indefatigable figure with an insane commitment to ends-justify-the-means logic, who oversaw three decades of baby-stealing, baby-selling and unprecedented neglect. Meanwhile, she did more to popularize, commercialize and influence adoption in America than anyone before her.--Amazon  Highly recommended for anyone interested in the history of adoption in America.

Wounded Innocents: The Real Victims of the War Against Child Abuse The war against child abuse has become a war against children. Every year, hundreds of children die, thousands more are forced to live with strangers, and countless American families are torn apart. This is called a 'child-protection system'. While the problem of child abuse is serious and real, journalist Richard Wexler charges that our solutions to the problem have actually made it worse - in fact, hurting the very children that they were intended to help. Wexler reinforces his arguments with horrifying descriptions of children summarily removed from their homes, of families shattered because of false reports, and of children whose parents are guilty of nothing more than poverty being thrust into the maelstrom of the chaotic foster-care program.He writes of severely abused children - those needing the most help - whose cases are ignored because the system diverts scarce resources to trivial or unfounded cases, and who are re-injured, sometimes fatally after their plight has been called to the attention of authorities. "Wounded Innocents" illustrates how well-meaning efforts to help children have gone terribly wrong and how the current child-protection system desperately needs to be replaced with one that offers real help and real hope to abused and neglected children. --Amazon



Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption
Lucid, well written, history of adoption in America and the long, continuing fight to unseal those friggen' sealed original birth certificates. A must for anyone involved in this fight to know how to talk to legislators when they say stupid stuff about sealed records!  --lorraine 

87 comments :

  1. I read a post a couple of days ago similar to yours Jane written by some adoptee. I think the address is abolishadoption blogspot. I found it linked on Adoption Truth and it was called Are Russia's orphans really orphans? or something like that. Both you and the other author made very good points. It will be a crying shame if Yulia doesn't get her son back. Enough is enough. My heart just breaks for this whole family.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras. I think FMF has a serious case of "zebra-itis".

    Bruises in a toddler? Really? I'm shocked. Oh wait, my 4 year old has bruises. Does that mean I'm abusing him? Or is it that he's an active 4 year old who runs full-bore into every activity?

    Geez.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's good to rule out horses before expecting to see a zebra, but zebras do exist. Why pretend that they don't?

    I agree that bruises on a toddler are not proof of abuse in and of themselves, but you're awfully quick to defend/identify with the parents, Anonymous 11:11. Why is that?

    Maksim/Max was allegedly prescribed anti-psychotic medication (Risperdal) that is not even really recommended for patients younger than 10 years old. If he was prescribed Risperdal, even for autism, it's not considered appropriate for children younger than five. Anti-psychotic meds are serious and have major, life-altering side effects. Were the parents trying to medicate him out of "RAD" or "FAS"? That, combined with bruises, the abdominal trauma seen in the coroner's report and other issues (why was a three-year-old playing outside without adult supervision, per the mother?) send up serious red flags related to the parents.

    Just as in the case of the Barbour family, who said that their kids "hurt themselves" and didn't want to eat. Sure.

    Let's not blame victims, and I'm not talking about the adoptive parents.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Bruises in a toddler? Really? I'm shocked. Oh wait, my 4 year old has bruises. Does that mean I'm abusing him? Or is it that he's an active 4 year old who runs full-bore into every activity?

    Geez."


    Geez... just like the fact that according to many people that adopt, every natural mother is a crackhead, alcoholic abuser unfit to raise her own children. Yep, some adopters just may not be perfect saintly saviors after all and yep, I hear the hoofs beating, right now. Waaaaah!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Anonymous
    Is your four year old on drugs for psychotics to?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am in total agreement that foreign adoption as well as domestic adoption is in need of major reform. Under no circumstances should a child be taken from it's mother without PROOF of neglect or abuse. With that being said, I have to convey my disappointment in yet another post written by you all that portrays adoptive parents as murderers. As if adoptive parents murder their children at a much higher rate than biological parents. It seems as if you all are trying to say that adoptive parents are much more likely to murder their kids BECAUSE they are adopted. As if a biological parents wouldn't because their children are blood related. YES, adoptive parents have been known to murder their children and YES biological parents have been known to murder their children. What bothers me is that the posts seem biased. I would love to know the statistics on it. What is the ratio of adoptive to natural parents who murder their kids? I think when this happens in adoptive situations it gets FAR more press especially if it's an international adoption because other goverments are involved but I find it hard to believe that adoptive parents are far more likely to murder their kids than natural parents...I would thank child homicide would be pretty equal across both kinds of parents but please correct me if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for covering this, Jane. Here's some additional food for thought:

    From the ever-thoughtful E. J. Graff, a piece in Slate:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/02/max_allen_shatto_adopted_from_russia_killed_by_his_mother.html


    I do not agree with her premise that if parents discover they are unable to parent a formerly institutionalized child, they should let the child go, but Graff may not know how dirty and unsupervised the underground child-dumping networks are in North America.

    And Jean Mercer, recently interviewed on Russian news, has this good piece up:

    http://childmyths.blogspot.ca/2013/02/russian-adoption-trying-to-talk-about.html#comment-form

    And finally, a news story suggesting that the natural mother may not have recovered from her alcohol addiction. I believe as well, according to Mercer's piece, that the mother may have left the boys in a less than ideal caretaking situation.

    http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130222/179631796.html

    Really hard to make a call on that one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Aimee,
    I don't know any statistics comparing the murder rate of adopted children by their adoptive parents to the murder rate of children by their natural parents. We'd be interested in any studies.

    The media may give more attention to murder by adoptive parents because children are taken from or given up by natural parents with an implicit promise that their children will be better off. Adoptive parents must pass various measures of fitness, a point they make frequently to justify their parenthood. If the system worked as promised, there would be zero murders by adoptive parents.

    I've heard, and I think research by the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform shows, that government social workers are more tolerant of abuse by foster parents and adoptive parents when they placed the children in these homes than natural parents. Children are left in foster and adoptive homes under the same conditions that would cause social workers to remove them from their natural homes.

    FMF does not portray most or even many adoptive parents as murderers or abusers which is obviously not the case. We write about the killings in part to demonstrate the fallacies in adoption lore which is promulgated by the adoption industry in order to seduce vulnerable mothers to give up their children and to increase state adoption budgets.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Aimee you hit the nail on the head. They would rather a child grow up with an abusive, drug-addicted or neglectful natural parent than with an adoptive parent. In their book, ALL adoptive parents are monsters. Throughout this blog, AP are seen as predatory and basically mock them for their infertility.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Aimee you hit the nail on the head. Many (not all) on FMF mock AP and consider them bad people and think of birth parents as all saints. Child abuse and neglect is ok as long as it's done by the NATURAL parents.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Right, Jane. Adoptive parents were presented to me as "all-deserving" and the epitome of the perfect parents...something we could never hope to be! So, when an adoptive parent commits such a heinous crime, it's a strong reminder that they aren't perfect...it shatters the carefully crafted illusion.

    I have sad first-hand evidence of this...I used to baby-sit a little neighbor girl who was adopted as an infant (in the 70's). When she was 16 and getting ready to attend a school dance, her adoptive father came in to her room and shot her, killing her instantly. Then, he shot her amom before he turned the gun on himself. In his note, he stated he didn't want to leave his daughter parent-less, so he took her with him. Sick. I often wonder if her birth-mom ever found out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm a foster mom. Not adoptive. Not first. But a plain foster mom. I don't have biological children because my husband and I decided to help the children who were in foster care instead. I have been doing this for almost 11 years now.

    I'm all for adoption reform and access to original documents. I have seen first hand how important identity is to children.

    In my years as a foster mom I have seen more messed up sh!t than you can believe. Children sold for drugs or sex, children beaten for asking for water, sexually abused by parents, and worse. I had a little girl come to me who had been a sex slave for her biological father and mother and she was only 6. I had a little boy whose parents had used him for gun target practice while they were drunk. In my years in foster care, I have had over 125 kids come in and out of my care. Some for less than an hour, some for several years.

    I had a child, a little girl, die in my care. She was just about 7 and I can't think about what happened to her before I met her without vomiting. Imagine the worst thing, then multiply it by 1,000. She was with us for 18 days. She beat herself with her fists and other objects, and she was one medications too. Before she came to our house she was on a suicide watch. But, once she reached us, she was supposedly "over that". Then one night she just died. No one knows why. Personally, I think she had had enough in her short life and wanted to be free of pain. And we were accused of abuse, and later cleared because of the record this little girl had.

    In all of this time the one thing that I have learned over and over again...biological parents who have their kids in the system are typically very young, have drug problems, and many were told NOT to give their child up for adoption. In fact, I have had more biological mothers tell me that they "knew" they couldn't keep their child, but their family, counselor, priest, or boyfriend told them that they could "do it". So they did, with a lot of coercion.

    There are over 400,000 kids in the foster care system. If they are in the system, it means that at least one of their biological parents seriously messed up. How often do you read articles about that?

    If you were a foster parent you would praise adoptive parents and not vilify them (which you and your readers do a lot of). Those who adopt from foster care or institutions are angels. As for domestic adoption. Some women aren't meant for motherhood. I know, I am the one who sees it every day.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In Beehive's last link, the last sentence of that article reads,
    "About 300 children adopted by Russian families died every year between 2009 and 2011, though no statistics are available on the causes of death, Duma Deputy Yelena Mizulina said on Thursday."

    300???????

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/25/police-arrest-man-for-leaving-2-year-old-outside-during-strip-club-trip/

    Biological parents can abuse their children too. This is not an exclusive club.

    ReplyDelete
  15. well, "CC", what brings you here to troll around and make vapid, nasty comments about the blog owners then, if all they do is portray all the poor adopters as monsters?

    This is a blog called "First Mother Forum" where many mothers who are in anguish from losing their children to adoption. Not all natural parents are "druggie abusers", just like all adoptive parents kill the children they adopted. Natural parents, however, are the most maligned and dehumanized outside of this sanctuary of a blog and you and so many like you know it. You can't effing stand that we have one forum to speak of our pain, our losses and our feelings. You just have to knock us down, don't you. You just can't stand it. I am so sick of of people like you I can scream at the top of my lungs but of course, it won't do any good. You have to be seen as saintly saviors, even when these people clearly ARE NOT.

    Go boo hoo about how "bad" adoptive parents are treated somewhere else. They are the one's who gain while we lost. The people who adopted my child did so via fraud and lies. Why don't you bring that up, too, all the lies, manipulations and coercion. Those particular facts are always so conveniently left out of your rants about how bad poor adopters are treated on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @fostermom,

    You're wasting your time here. As you can see, this forum is biased against non-biological parents.

    ReplyDelete
  17. While readers can tell horror stories about kids who come into foster care, the facts are that while some kids belong in foster care, many could go home with a little help which would be better for them and cheaper for the taxpayers. Most are in foster care for neglect, not abuse. Much of the neglect comes from poverty.

    Children who grow up in foster care generally do not do well, often ending up in prison.

    Most federal money has been directed to foster care and adoption since the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act was enacted resulting in overuse of these programs. Because the Act has failed so many kids, the federal government recently allowed states to apply to use foster care money for in-home services.

    One of the sad consequences of the over-use of foster care is that states place children in sub-standard homes because they don't have enough good homes. Workers don't have the time to follow up on serious cases, resulting in some kids who should be removed staying in abusive homes or abusive foster homes.

    I encourage readers to read the research from the National Coalition of Child Protection Reform.

    Also read my FMF post Foster kids do best when placed with extended family.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let me get this out of the way first. CC..please, just stop. Really. Why are you being so deliberately inflammatory? Show some decency to those who are trying to improve on a broken system and show some empathy to those who have first hand knowledge of how incredibly broken it is. Thank you.
    I too am a foster mom, and I too could write some chilling things about biological parents. But I have been reading this longer than today, and if I am not mistaken, both of the authors make a HUGE distinction between adopting from an adoption agency (be it international or not) and adopting from foster care. And to be fair, that is an important distinction, as several commenters have pointed out. In the adoption industry the bio parent IS promised a much better home for their child. THAT is the premise for the majority of relinquishment. That is the only positive that many first parents have to cling to...and when they hear stories such as these, it understandably sends an awful chill down their backs. Also, I agree that there really ARE children that end up in care due to the effects of poverty, be it in education, social skills, etc. Though the hope is that they are not the norm, it DOES happen...and even once is too often.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Please could you add my name to the comment I just submitted? I forgot! My name is Suzanne.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Fostermom
    I think you are a complete and total liar. I have bookmarked right now 25+ stories about men that adopted boys and molested them. Some were sold for sex, some were passed around to the adopter's friends. I have 40 other stories bookmarked about straight adoptive parents that (non) sexually abused the kids they adopted and a few that did (opposite sex child). I read blogs by abused adoptees, there are plenty of them out there. I find to, sadly that many abused adoptees don't come forward, even on the internet. Why, we don't know, but my point is you don't know how many terrible adoptive parents there are out there because of the poor adoptee's silence. So please, jump off you high horse as you paint all biological parents black. You should also remember the adoption system protects many adoptive parents and that is why so many of them walk, some right out of prison after hardly any time served WHEN THEY KILLED THEIR ADOPTED KID, unlike most biological parents.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Suzanne,
    I can't add your name because we're not able to change comments.

    Thanks for your input.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Anonymous 7:37

    Wow. Liar. Which part? I am fully aware that adoptive parents can abuse their children as well, but the numbers are far fewer than non-adoptive parents. According to the Department of Health and Human services (ACF, 2011), of those who abuse or neglect their children....87.6 are the BIOLOGICAL parents. Not adoptive or foster parents...but biological.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon 4:16 pm, you are correct. A large number of Russian children adopted domestically have also been abused or dumped. Do not know the exact statistics, but this article from the Moscow Times sheds light on the number of Russian children adopted domestically who were returned to orphanages by their a-parents. In 2011, 4,500 children were returned.

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/over-4500-children-rejected-by-russian-adoptive-parents-last-year/471322.html

    It seems as though the same issues that confront North American a-parents also bedevil Russian a-parents, and that the reasons for adoptions breaking down are neither simple nor easily remedied when dealing with traumatized, institutionalized (and possibly brain-damaged) kids. I found a lot of wisdom in Graff's article. Even if adopter demand dried up totally in Russia, these problems would persist. Russia is culpable for the system it has spawned and needs to turn away from institutionalization as economy.

    ReplyDelete
  24. jane-
    poverty runs in families. it's why people end up in these cycles of poverty. sending a child to live with an extended family member who is also impoverished (and likely also struggling with similar issues) doesn't solve the problem.

    the reason children who age out of the foster system frequently go to jail (or fail to live "normal lives") is because they get bounced from house to house with no actual support system.

    the foster care system is messed up. no doubt about it. however, most of these children need stable homes, which impoverished/addicted families cannot provide.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Anonymous 7:24 - No I'm not deliberately being inflammatory, I'm pointing out BIAS when I see it. And how dare you call fostermom a liar (if you're the same anonymous).

    And you are a HYPOCRITE when you're all outraged about abuse by adoptive parents when you just basically IGNORE and barely mention abuse, molestation, neglect etc. or even death at the hands of biological parents.

    How DARE you tell fostermom she's a liar. Foster parents have seen it all. I've been one, which is why I take offense at your ranting. YES, those child-molesters or anyone who hurts a child should be either thrown in jail for a long time, or in the case of murder, executed. Blame the justice system instead of screaming at me and fostermom for pointing out the abuse by biological parents. I"m not being inflammatory by telling the truth, so get over yourself anonymous.

    But whether or not ALL of you biased anti-adoption crowds on here accept it, all adoptive/foster parents are NOT monsters, baby buyers or thieves.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fostermom, here are the statistics you are referring to.

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf

    Sorry anonymous, here are some "inflammatory" statistics.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Cindy - First of all, I am NOT an AP or a foster parent. I have a right to my opinion just like you. Stating an opinion is NOT trolling. If I had a post full of four-letter words, well your argument would be legit, but I didn't.

    I just get fed up with stereotyping of ALL adoptive parents and foster parents in this forum. I have an aunt that was adopted into our family. Her biological family is absolute trash, and basically slammed the door in her face and hung up on her when she tried to contact me biological mother. In the end she was glad she had us, the mean old adoptive family...

    ReplyDelete
  28. @anonymous 11:18 pm

    "The foster care system is messed up. no doubt about it. however, most of these children need stable homes, which impoverished/addicted families cannot provide."

    People's lives can change. Financial situations change. Who are you to call people's lives "unstable" and unable to provide anything to their own children? Oh that's right, the holier than thou, savior adopter, that's who. Maybe it's none of your damn business how someone lives at the present moment and maybe they are trying to better themselves to be able to provide for their children, did you ever think of that?

    A child losing his/ her whole family and heritage just because some adopter thinks they are better than the natural family is a fallacy. Adoption doesn't guarantee a "better life", only a DIFFERENT one. Now run along and get way over yourself, okay...

    ReplyDelete
  29. @fostermom
    That 87.6 stat you quoted is from a totally bias group. Social workers get commissions for adopting out kids, and adoptive parents are their customers. Needless to say the Dept of Human Services can't be trusted to be accurate either in the United or in Russia. Russian social workers have learned all these dirty tricks from American social workers, the founders of the BSE era btw, social work is the same corrupt system in every country.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The reason adoptive parents are thrust into the spotlight when there is evidence of abuse is because they are held to a higher standard, and rightfully so.

    As first mothers, we are led to believe that we are giving up our children for the promise of a better life. When that isn't the case, it is shocking. Why on earth would anyone give their child up if there was a chance they could be abused or even die at the hands of their adopters?

    I will wait to pass judgement on this case until all the facts are in, however, as a previous commenter stated, there are big old red flags waving around this story.

    I do believe, in the case of older children adopted from other countries, that adoptive parents are generally ill-prepared for special issues these children may have. I'm not sure if the parents are lied to, or if the conditions are glossed over. When I see pages on facebook like, "Second Chance Adoptions", which seek to "re-home" children adopted into the US whose adopters can no longer handle the issues, it hammers the point home for me. Completely unacceptable.

    @CC I am not aware of anyone who wishes to see a child stay in an abusive or neglectful situation. That is simply ridiculous. It seems somewhere along the line, a comment or post hit a nerve with you. Personally, any adoptive parent or hopeful adoptive parent who knowingly engages in unethical, immoral, or coercive behavior is indeed predatory. Perhaps naively, I believe that most AP's are not fully aware of the unethical practices ingrained in adoption, both domestic and international. I certainly would not mock someone for being infertile, but being infertile entitles no one to someone else's child.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Quote: "fostermom said...
    @Anonymous 7:37

    Wow. Liar. Which part? I am fully aware that adoptive parents can abuse their children as well, but the numbers are far fewer than non-adoptive parents. According to the Department of Health and Human services (ACF, 2011), of those who abuse or neglect their children....87.6 are the BIOLOGICAL parents. Not adoptive or foster parents...but biological."

    *****

    But - you can't do the math that way.

    You have to take the number of "non-adopted" children in the US and number of "non-adopted" children who are abused to determine the percentage of biological parents who abuse.

    Then you do the same with the number of "adopted" children in the US and number of "adopted" children abused to determine the percentage of adoptive parents who abuse.

    (understanding that in both cases one parent may abuse multiple children within the home so it would not be unique numbers - but you would still get the percentage of abuse by category "non-adopted" or "adopted).

    Funny how math works...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jimmy
    I'm sorry, but yes, money makes life easier. You can't say otherwise. Money means better access to health care, good food, better education, and less crime. Money, like it or not, makes life more livable. If you think different, I suggest you travel to a actual 3rd world country, or even into the poor parts of our country.

    The only people who say "money doesn't matter" are the people who have it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The HHS report does not say that 87 percent of abusers were parents. It says that in cases where there was more than one abuser (duplicate abusers), 80 percent were parents and 87 percent of these were the biological parents. Here's the report:

    "A perpetrator is the person who is responsible for the abuse or neglect of a child. Fifty States reported caselevel data about perpetrators using unique identifiers. In these States, the total duplicated count of perpetrators was 885,003 and the total unique count of perpetrators was 508,849. For 2011:

    Fourfifths (84.6%) of unique perpetrators were between the ages of 20 and 49 years.

    More than onehalf (53.6%) of perpetrators were women, 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men, and 1.3 percent were of unknown sex.

    Fourfifths (80.8%) of duplicated perpetrators were parents.

    Of the duplicated perpetrators who were parents, 87.6 percent were the biological parents."

    Child maltreatment data are based on reports to states who pass the information to the federal government. I note that social workers may have little incentive to report abuse by foster parents since they oversee foster parents.

    I also note that the report says that 75 percent of the cases involved neglect, not abuse. These are the types of cases that Oregon, and other states, are trying to keep out of foster care.

    Again,I urge readers to look at the fine work by the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) for analysis of the data and evaluation of child protection programs.

    ReplyDelete
  34. My heart goes out to Yulia. A picture says a thousand words See, there really is a grieving mother behind every child lost to adoption. No matter her problems, she didn't deserve to have her children taken, shipped halfway around the world, ,never to be seen again and then-cruelest of all- have one of her little boys drugged with psychiatric drugs and die under strange circumstances Sometimes people just need some temporary help to get back on their feet. Even if the problems are severe, no mother deserves to never ever be able to see her child@Fostermom I applaud your work and caring for foster children You sound like a wonderful person However, you said that because a child is in foster care, that implies there is something wrong with a parent NOT ALWAYS! They tricked many of us back in the 70's into placing our children 'temporarily, just until you get back on your feet' directly from the hospital into foster care ,and then when we tried to get them back they wouldn't return them to us; they used any form of blackmail they had to get us to sign I know- it happened to me and I'm sure it still happens today

    ReplyDelete
  35. Just a couple of things ~

    First, we don't know the true details of why the boy's Russian Mother's rights were terminated, only what they(Russian media) wishes to share. It seems awfully timely that now the Russian government sides with her during this time of political upheavel and resolutions to suspend adoptions of Russian children to the U.S.

    If in fact, these children were taken from an otherwise fit but troubled Mother in need of temporary support then the Russians are complicate in this, fair and simple.

    And yet not simple at all! First we don't know if this was child abuse at the hands of this American family so its purely speculation.

    Additionally the idea that these two boys would be seen as an "attractive package or commodity" is iffy. Let me explain....

    Overwhelmingly families adopting overseas pursue the adoption of girls. Fact. Boys would already have one strike against them.

    Second, sibling groups are harder to place. Fact. Strike two.

    Older children as Maksim would have been at placement are also more difficult to place. Fact.

    So it seems unlikely these children were taken solely for marketing them to overseas families. There might be more under the surface than just a Russian Mom who drank a bit too much. Again, giving her the benefit of the doubt, we simply don't know enough.

    Finally the author of this post asks where were the supports for this mother?

    There simply are none. The social supports, welfare system, line of credit, etc. that exists in this country are not there. We just can't view things through our priveleged American lens and expect the same for countries overseas. Fact.

    Ron

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh come on....

    We see a photo posted of Yulia in tears, labeled a grieving mother.

    Okay, did she cry when she was too drunk and intoxicated to care for her sons? Come on!

    Then we see the adoptive parents smiling with the caption of "possible killers?". Come on!

    LOL Is this for real? I guess the blog authors believe we are too dim to draw our own conclusions, therefore we need it all spelled out for us complete with photos/captions?

    Hmmm...wonder if there are any photos of Yulia passed out while her sons spent possibly days fending for themselves or in the care of "dubious strangers"?

    Adoption...like it or leave it but PLEASE don't paint this young woman as a hero for the cause of adoption reform! It does a HUGE disservice to those of us who would have been GOOD ENOUGH and did nothing wrong, but still lost our children to the system.

    Come on!

    Annette
    First Mom fed up!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Just to clarify the numbers a little: If 87.6% of abusive parents are biological parents, that leaves 12.4% of the abusers as adoptive parents. However, adoptees are only 2.5% of the under-18 population. So, if the ratios were equal, then adoptive parents would comprise ony 2.5% of the abusive parents, but they comprise 12.4% of abusive parents, so their per-capita rates of abuse must be higher.

    ReplyDelete
  38. To all the biological parent haters on this forum, you better remember that the whole idea of taking children from poorer women CAME from A CHILD MOLESTER. There is no one on earth MORE illogical than a child molester and any thoughts that twat Tann had about what is best for children was WRONG. Including taking them from their bloodlines permantly. The problem of "poor parents" is solved simply by the rich and the better off donating money to those who don't have as much. Lucrative programs that would consistently help less fortunate families is also a solution. But I guess the rich and the better off just AREN'T good enough people to do these things are they? Unless of course they get something out of it for themselves, which is why adoption the way Tann started it is still around and thriving.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Leave it to the FMF and their reader to try to lie with statistics.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Pray tell, anon,

    What are these lies with statistics of which you write?

    ReplyDelete
  41. The same arguments seem to go round and round here at FMF. This blog is written by and for NON-ABUSIVE first parents who were victims of UNNECESSARY adoptions.

    It is vitally important that stories such as this one be addressed at FMF. It is the only way to dispel the seemingly deathless myth that adoption always means a better life for the child and that adoptive parents are always loving and kind, and have the child's best interests at heart.

    Then someone always has to jump in screaming "but biological parents harm their children, too". That is true and I don't think anyone here is so naive that they think that if only every child was raised by his/her natural parents, there would be no more child abuse in the world.

    With that said, I think FMF also tries to point out that adoption is essentially a business. Isn't it interesting that back in the day women were slut-shamed and disgraced into giving their babies to strangers. And now when a mother 'makes and adoption plan' she is selfless, brave and heroic. This change in tactic proves to me that adoption is nothing but a business that has simply changed its' marketing strategy to fit the times.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Lorraine,

    Bachelor Update! In case you missed it, AshLee got booted last night so she won't be in the final two. I just hope her stint on the show doesn't lead to any more adoptee stigma vis-a-vis, adoptees can't get past their abandonment issues, they're too serious and aren't able to just let go and have fun.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Okay. So what if adoption is a business? You don't see the federal government doing a bang up job of handling pregnancy or young children. So instead of a business you want me (and others) to pay to support women who get pregnant? Or, better yet, you want the government to pay for it? We've tried that...it was called welfare and it was a horrible idea (let's pay for poor women to have children!).

    ReplyDelete
  44. @anonymous 1:00pm

    "Money, like it or not, makes life more livable. If you think different, I suggest you travel to a actual 3rd world country, or even into the poor parts of our country".

    Yeah, that's right. Just start snatching up children from "poor" countries and "poor" young women because they will be so much better off. Who cares about those "poor" people because they don't deserve their own children, because they are "poor".

    Good job, comparing third world counties and their inhabitants to that of natural mothers here in America, who may not have as many resources as the almighty adopters do. There is no limit to who and what you will dehumanize to make yourselves appear so much better. You aren't. Get over yourself, please.

    @CC, go take some Xanax and get a grip. Your defensiveness is quite suspect, since you claim not to be an adopter. How dare YOU call someone else's family "trash". If not for that "trash" you would not have your adoptive family member. Moreover, I happen to think some adopters are "trash" for being deceitful liars and having to con people to have their coveted prize, that of another woman's child.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon said "My heart goes out to Yulia. A picture says a thousand words See, there really is a grieving mother behind every child lost to adoption."

    I haven't seem a thought spared here for Kyrril. He is still alive. Yulia wants him back.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Seriously, No one wants babies hurt, but their is not a baby in the world that does not want their first mother. If first mother can't step up to the plate, then second mother is needed...but second mother NEEDS to understand what the child REALLY needs..not what mom needs( lets play family?).

    ReplyDelete
  47. I'm with Annette - painting Yulia as a hero or icon of adoption gone wrong is absurd.

    Holding her up the standard of mothering or as the rationale for why parental rights shouldn't be terminated is equally ridiculous.

    Unfair to those of us who did everything we could to parent and still found ourselves in a no win situation.

    Jen

    ReplyDelete
  48. and I'd love to see a show of hands here of how many of us that were not ***GASP!!!*** raised in the lap of luxury; yet did not wish we had been raised by strangers and their families. My own mother was a single mother for awhile and not for one second do I wish I had lost my entire family and heritage because of her temporary life circumstances, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  49. In adopting couples, risk of sexual abuse is one-third (of physical abuse one-sixth) that of the biological families from which the child originated.

    R.P. Barth and M. Berry, Adoption and Disruption: Rates, Risks, and Responses,
    Aldine, New York, 1988, 25, 108

    (Cited on p. 17 of http://ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/01/11-25Brannan_&_%20Gillet.pdf)

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Leenburke, that's just it. Women who cannot have children DO NOT FEEL for the most part "entitled to someone else's child."

    People on this blog love to hate on and bash adoptive parents and group them together as bad, predatory people with a sense of entitlement. Perhaps corruption within the system should be blamed instead of bashing each other.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Recent report from BBC:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21592358

    ReplyDelete
  52. CC: I am not going to try to change your opinion of the readers of FMF, but understand that when we birth mothers hear the words: This child was meant for me (by God, usually implied by the religious, by fate, implied by the agnostic) it does seem as if the attitude is: I deserve this child because I want one--anyone's child.

    And the tactics that many adoptive or prospective adoptive parents go through to get someone else's child do smack of "entitlement." If people didn't feel entitled to another woman's child, they would return the child as soon as the natural parent or parents asks for the child back. From numerous cases, Terry Achane (Taleah); Benjamin Wyrembek (Grayson Vaughn); John Wyatt (Baby Emma); Encarnacion Bail Romero (Carlos Jamison Moser); we know the adoptive parents certainly felt "entitled" to keep the child. You can say these cases are the exception, but these exceptions speak volumes to us, as the law grinds exceedingly slowly in returning the children, and usually the mother has little or no legal claim on her own child. The milk of human kindness does not seem to extend to the parents who fight to keep another's child.

    The harsh laws that make relinquishment final immediately upon signing of termination papers, or shortly thereafter reinforce this idea and codify it into law.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Aha! Gladney was the agency that investigated the couple who adopted Max. Why are we not surprised? Gladney is the go-to agency in Texas.

    The Associated Press

    HOUSTON -- Texas licensing officials are investigating a North Texas adoption agency that handled a West Texas couple's adoption of a 3-year-old Russian boy.

    The Houston Chronicle reports the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services is investigating the Fort Worth-based Gladney Center for Adoption. Department spokesman Patrick Crimmins said the agency is investigating whether Gladney screened Max Shatto's adoptive parents properly.

    Gladney spokeswoman Jennifer Lanter declined to comment.

    The child died at Medical Center Hospital of Odessa on Jan. 21. Russian authorities have alleged that the child died of abuse, but no charges have been filed and authorities have yet to release findings of an autopsy on the child.

    Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/02/25/4643537/state-agency-investigates-gladney.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

    ReplyDelete
  54. But at what point in time do we make women responsible for their own decisions? Do we give women a week? 1 month? 6? 12? Before their decision is final? Is it ever final? At what point is the child's need to bond with his/her permanent caregiver taken into consideration? At what point do we let a grown woman lie in the bed she's made? Isn't that how the real world works?

    And for the record, I'm an adoptee and a mom.

    ReplyDelete
  55. No. That's not how adoptive parents feel Lorraine. At least not most of them. Really read their blogs and their thoughts. I don't know a single adoptive blog I read that feels entitled. If you go through and read without your darkly shadowed glasses, you will see that. I know I have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing anyone of that because you are hell-bent on thinking that we are the dragons who prey on your children. But, what the heck.


    The thing is, you don't know adoption. You really don't. You know bitterness and pain and you can't see past that. I've read your stories and others like it. You know what I see? Women who feel like life cheated them. Women who (at a mature age) had to make a choice...and did. But, they never were able to be at peace with that choice. But, your life doesn't suck that badly.

    You know what sucks? Getting cancer at 8 years old and going through 3 years of chemo before dying painfully. That sucks. Or having your arms and legs amputated after just 3 weeks of serving in the Army. Or getting pregnant just to discover at 6 months along that your child is going to die the moment he's born. Those things suck.

    Yes, life has dealt you pain. Life does that to all of us to varying degrees. But to make the adoptive parents the evil ones in all of this is infantile.

    ReplyDelete
  56. So, Pipp, did you ever have children borne of your flesh? Sounds like not.

    I'd go for six months, actually. If the people knew the mother had that time, people would eventually get used to it, and not post crying pictures of themselves after three days!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Diana, if you actually read the blog without your rose-colored glasses, you might learn that we do not denigrate all adoptive parents. But because we dare to criticize them, we only wear "darkly shadowed glasses..." and so on.

    I don't read adoptive parents blogs, why would I? I don't intend to adopt, I am not adopted, I lost a child to adoption. I don't think my daughter's felt "entitled," but her mother sure hated that I stayed in our daughter's life and did not disappear. At the end, my daughter said, You are my true family, I see that now.

    Oddly enough, people who know me don't see me as deeply troubled. I have a lively sense of humor.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Wow, Lorraine....

    I often find myself in agreement with you but not on AP's sense of entitlement. Especially not parents who travel overseas to bring home older children, sibling groups or those adopting from Foster Care.

    Using a few examples of adoptive couples not rushing to return children when a father suddenly comes forward or a mother changes her mind doesn't seem like a good litmus. Some of those cases you chronicled include situation where the first mother DID choose adoption.

    Would you honestly feel better if they simply shrugged their shoulders and put the bassinet on the front stoop? Ideally we WANT our babies cherished by new families in our stead if we cannot or are not parenting.

    I would hope and pray that my child's adoptive parents would fight like he** to keep this child they were graced with, such was their bond.

    I certainly agree there are cases were falsehoods led to children being placed whom should never have been placed but that hardly represents the whole. Of course we would hope the adoptive family would be the bigger people here but they are people, with feelings, flaws and hopes at the end of the day afterall. Last I checked none of them (meaning AP's) were saying otherwise.

    So basically we want them to step in only when no one else wants a child, at any age, under any circumstances but claim no attachment, responsibility or ties? At what cost to the child?

    Seems flawed to me on this one.

    On the issue of "God meant for us to be together" ~ have you ever asked an adoptive parent what they mean by that? You may be surprised.

    I too have uttered that comment - YES, me, a first mother: my intent is this: God helped to make a bad situation the best it could be. I believe that and would prefer for my child's adoptive family to share that kind of sentiment and explanation than one of - "well, we were next in line and your biological mother saw something in our portfolio that caught her eye".....random chance and 100 more couples would have eagerly scooped you up in their place. Nothing special about you, me or them. Nothing binding us. No thought or grand plan on my part or anyone elses'. :(

    Just saying....

    Also, please know that I am okay with sharing hard "facts" and not sugar coating too. But fact is I DID have a say in where that child went and I do have a strong faith that allows me to believe God played a part. I stand by that!

    Ellen

    ReplyDelete
  59. Regarding how long should mothers be given before their decision to surrender their child is final.

    In virtually all states a mother's consent if final upon signing a consent unless she can prove fraud or coercion.

    The laws in many states, including Oregon, allow mothers to sign irrevocable consents on the delivery table. Washington and a few other states allow mothers to sign before the birth. In other states, mothers are given a few days after birth before they may sign.

    From the time mothers go into labor, social workers may hover over them to get them to sign consents while the prospective adoptive parents, who attended the delivery, wait outside the mothers' room. This is not, however, considered coercion.

    In other words, the popular image of mothers reclaiming their children through the courts is just a myth. It doesn't happen.

    Adoption experts believe that current time frames are too short for mothers to appreciate the impact on themselves and their child. The Donaldson Institute, which is funded by adoptive parents and the adoption industry, recommends that mothers have one week after birth before they can consent and have a "substantial" revocation period.

    The proposed Uniform Adoption Act, drafted primarily by conservative adoption attorneys, recommends that mothers have eight says after signing to revoke consent.

    Regarding the Maksim case, if Texas authorities find that the Shattos killed Maksim, they will have to place Kirill in another home. In placing Kirill, they should consider whether Yulia is able to care for him.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yes Lorraine, I do have three children. Two of them I carried, and one is adopted. And I'm an adoptee. I had great adoptive parents. My birth mother and I had some contact over the years, but she was very much into her own life and not mine. Eventually we connected a few times once I was a mom, but we just had nothing in common to sustain a deeper relationship.

    I'm not sure how that has anything to do with my point of holding women accountable for their actions and decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Diana,
    Yup, lots of things are worse than losing a child to adoption. The difference is, though, no one promotes losing children to cancer or losing limbs to war. We as a society do our best to prevent these things.

    Adoption on the other hand is widely promoted as a solution for infertility (or in the case of Hollywood, as the latest fashion statement). Adoption laws are slanted towards adoptive parents.

    I'm getting mighty tired of adoptive parents trying to discount what we write by playing the "bitterness and pain" card. I recall in the 1970's that when I marched for the ERA, men told me I was just bitter because I was born a woman.

    The fact is that if people were not willing to pay big bucks for someone else's child making big profits for the adoption industry, adoptions would be dramatically reduced as they have been in Western Europe and Australia.

    While I know many fine, sincere adoptive parents, I can't believe that anyone would pay $30,000 to $50,000 and not think they were entitled to something for their money. It's easier for adoptive parents to justify to themselves that they would make better parents than the sorry set the child was born with than to admit that their dollars finance a industry with lots of dirty laundry.

    As we have said repeatedly, we are not trying to end adoption, just assure that mothers have the time and information to make informed decisions.

    All significant social changes start with those who are been harmed by the current situation, those who those who oppose change would characterize as "bitter": those seeking religious freedom, African Americans, gays, women, all marginalized groups. If Lorraine and I and other first mothers were not speaking up, the day would come when governments would redistribute children at birth from the less deserving to the more deserving. Something several state supreme court judges have suggested might happen.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Ellen wrote:
    "So basically we want them to step in only when no one else wants a child, at any age, under any circumstances but claim no attachment, responsibility or ties? At what cost to the child?"

    We have never said such a thing. We've only said what child experts say: that mothers should have reasonable time to make an informed decision.

    We've also gone to bat for fathers whose rights were taken away without their consent because of Utah's grotesque, family-destroying adoption laws. In these cases, the adoptive parents knew within a month that the fathers had not consented. Instead of returning the children, they fought in court, resulting in more possible trauma to the child.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Lorraine you do denigrate adoptive parents here! It's often subtle, but it's always there. You lump adoptive parents together. Look at the treatment you (and your readers) give adoptive parents who come here. They are called names, their motives are questioned, and even their suitability of being parents. And those adoptive parents or adoptees are generally much more civil than you or your regular readers.

    And not just adoptive parents, but social workers, foster parents, adoptees, and non-adoptive parents regularly get bashed on this site.

    First mothers, like me, who are content with their placements are often called "in the fog" or worse yet, we are called unaware of the consequences of our actions. Who are you (or your readers) to place such a distinction on me?

    You say that you are against unnecessary adoptions. But who are you to decide what is necessary or not to a mother?

    You say you don't read adoptive blogs because your not an adoptive parent or looking to place. How short sighted of you. If you and Jane are so eager to make adoption reforms, why are you not reaching out to the very people who are doing the adopting? Is it that you may find that many of these adoptive parents are actually good people who are not the scary monsters you make them out to be? Wouldn't that be a challenge? To see adoptive parents as decent human beings?

    Knowing your readership and comments well, I am sure someone will question my commenting here. I'm human. I'm a first mom. I like knowing about all aspects of that role.

    Fine, this is your place to vent and rant. I get that. But be careful, you may find that your "allies" in your fight to reform adoption are the same people who you find pleasure in bashing here.





    ReplyDelete
  64. Jane, perhaps you don't see what others see. You and Lorraine do often come across as being very bitter and very angry.

    Women who relinquish, like me, have a ton of information. In this day and age, information is all we have. Good, bad, indifferent...it's all out there. When I found out I was pregnant, I spent close to 24 hours doing research. And over the next 7 months, I was tied to my computer. I do more research for my adoption than I ever did for any college paper or my thesis.

    And please, don't denigrate the LGBT or Civil Rights movements or ERA by comparing them to the "rights of first mothers". That is simply self-aggrandizing of the highest order.

    You and Lorraine spend lots of time creating these posts aimed at "informing". If that were true, then the information would be delivered in a factual, non-biased way. Clearly that's not happening here.

    I know for a fact that my child's adoptive parents paid a little over 39k for the adoption. Some went to me, their attorney, my attorney, the agency, legal fees, and more. I got a complete breakdown...all legit, all accounted for. Had I decided to parent, they would have been out 3k for various expenses, not 39k. That's how most adoptions work these days. And, I know a lot of adoptive parents who would pay 3k for the chance to parent.

    Perhaps, if you know so many sincere adoptive parents, you should mention that a little more often...if nothing else it would make you appear to be less one-sided. Even in your comments you can't come to appreciate that adoptive parents are decent. How sad.

    ReplyDelete
  65. So now we are being told by great non-grasping adoptive parents that we ought to be nicer? And that we ought to be held accountable for our actions? Ladies, head over to your nearest adoption agency--some are more into filthy lucre than others, I admit--and tell them you are pregnant but poor and thinking about adoption and see what happens. You'll be convinced that you need to give up your baby in no time! So he can have a better life, with more ponies and swimming pools and play dates with proper children from good families who go camping on the weekends and church on Sunday.

    Bethany, BTW, an Act of Love and possibly any adoption agency in Mormon territory or run by LDS will get that baby from you before you can blink, or think. Most of us were shell shocked by what happened to us after we signed the surrender papers. That they do not tell you about.

    I also don't troll pro-adoption blogs because I can't stomach it, nor is it worth my time to burst the bubbles of people hoping to adopt. I understand what you say about the God's will business (meant for me), but I also understand that women do pray to God that the baby meant for them happens to come along, and how exactly does that happen? God must be up there making babies in the wrong tummies, right?

    Next question: Why are you adoptive parents reading this blog and commenting?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Istmama, why are you here arguing with Jane and Lorraine? Sounds like you are trying to further convince yourself that you did the right thing in having your child be adopted for a mere $39K.

    I think you might learn more from grown-up adoptee blogs, or what some adoptees leave here in the comments. It's not often pretty, even when they do have a good relationship with their aparents.

    Like Lorraine and Jane, I too was called bitter when I argued (strongly, bitterly, angrily, whatever) that I wasn't being paid the same as the male worker in the next cubicle.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I think international adoption should be a last resort for a child. There is so much corruption and shadiness that goes on. If adoptive families would stop oiling the machine by paying thousands of dollars, the number of kids being wrongly placed for international adoption would go way down. It's all about da money...

    ReplyDelete
  68. How many times have I heard in real life "BUT she promised me the baby" A pap calling a mother keeping her baby an awful thing, commenting n there own infertility and all they have been though, how they actually "hated "their" birthmother because she changed her mind, how they lament on the money they have spent on "this woman" and the horrible woman kept MY baby. The support they get from friends, family and society..."HOW could that little crack addicted whore" keep her baby...I AM BETTER THEN HER. I think its called a disrupted adoption. They pray and have friends pray that this person give them the baby meant for them. They go into mourning that they "lost another one". That smacks of entitlement to me. There is often no accusations of abuse just an accusation of not having as much money as the paps. there are comments made on how to make sure biograndmother does't get involved because then the woman just might get the help she needs to keep her baby and where would that leave the pap..without a child to call their own. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME...just go to some of the other "pro adoption" sites and read it for yourselves.

    How many times does it have to be said that not agreeing with adoption how its done today does not mean anti adoption, kid hating firstmother loving at all cost...so the paying customer gets what they want. It is considered a problem when a mother keeps her OWN child and does,t give it up to "better people". . ITs a WONDERFUL thing when the child can keep their mother and family...it IS a tragedy when they lose it. Why can't you folks see that. Why cant you see that their are many adoptions that don't have to happen, the young girl who wants to go to college, can go and keep her baby, or if she does't she still has her baby. I have seen it happen more then once and both mother and child do fine. In fact all of the mothers have gone on to college and now their kids are! With family help, I have the utmost respect for these woman as they didn't give their children away for a college education that will only ring hollow after losing their child( i have seen that happen too), or for the woman that don't want to be "saddled with a kid because they have a life to lead....that life in later years also rings hollow after losing a live child that guess what...is pissed because their first mother did this to them...no matter how much they love their aparents they lost their first mother ..well..first. They lost the most basic premise of what makes a family. As an adoptee i can understand the severe cases of children that NEED adoption. I don't understand the cases where it did not really need to happen.

    So you see. I am prochild as an adoptee, I understand the hurt of losing a family. All adoptees need to be able to talk about that and mourn as if they lost a whole family to death. It is very much the same..only it is not allowed to be seen that way. Even in open adoption and EVERYONE is happy dappy I can't imagine a child saying why did she give me up to begin with? I can't imagine dealing with the mothers feelings as a child. So adoption is 2nd best for a child. not the first option unless its absolutely necessary. Just like for many(not all) adoption is 2nd best for paps. thats what adoptive parents need to know.

    I also beleive everyone know in their hearts that this is true but refuse to see it to protect themselves...so the namecalling begins.

    As far as all the stats being bandied around...really you folks don't know that it can be manipulated to which ever you believe right?/ then they are posted as PROOF of whats best...BS! People play with numbers all the time!

    ReplyDelete
  69. for jane edwards, i do agree finding statistics is not easy. I am sorry to say people social workers are allowed to lie. I asked for my file and there was not one true statement. soe the idea that a child was rescued, may just happen to be false. here is one report i found, stating the child is 8 times more likely to be killed in a non-biological home.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11927705

    ReplyDelete
  70. Sarah asked " Why are you adoptive parents reading this blog and commenting?"

    Could it be that a good part of the reason is that it's an open blog and Lorraine and Jane want them to read and comment?

    ReplyDelete
  71. @Diana:

    "The thing is, you don't know adoption. You really don't."

    WOW!! The absolute and astounding gall of some of these people. Just when I thought I had heard it all, here comes "Diana".

    You have got to be kidding me?! If anyone knows anything about adoption, it is a natural mother. We create, carry, give birth and needlessly lose our children to adoption, but we don't know "a thing about it?" OHHH, and we suppose YOU do, almighty adopter because you bought yourself a child that is not yours. Saintly, savior you know everything and we know nothing. Got it. Just another way to try to show your "superiority", perhaps? Nice try but no cigar, lady. THAT the problem, people like spewing drivel like like the aforementioned above.

    No one here is comparing losing their child to that of which you described, but losing a child to adoption is the single most traumatic, horrific thing any of us have ever lived through. It WAS like losing a part of me that I will never get back. How the hell can you sit there and act as if that is not something has the potential power to destroy one's life and/ or scar it forever? Oh, that's right, you gained from that loss so it is in your best interest to denigrate the hell some of us have lived in losing our children, needlessly. I choose not to read adopters blogs either. Funny, so many of you mosey over here to discount what we say? Wonder why that is? So very, very threatned, are we? Sure you are. Good.

    Do me a big favor and don't speak for me or any other mother and pretend you know what losing our children to adoption was like. It was not mine or any other woman's duty to make some infertile a mother. Unless you yourself have lived it, you have not one right to speak for any one of us. Go to hell. Sincerely.

    ReplyDelete
  72. 1stmama,
    I am most curious about the research you did that convinced you to give up your child. Please give us more details.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Thanks so much, Nadese for taking the time time to find this NIH research.

    I bookmarked the site and printed the summary for my research collection.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Clearly, my research was to help inform my decision...not make the decision for me.

    I researched agencies, advocates, resources, and more. I took the time to know what I was getting myself into.

    BTW, the research Nadese cited is not solely about adoptive parents. But, also foster, step, and non-related household members (boyfriends...).

    ReplyDelete
  75. The thing is, 1stmama your list of search sources indicates that you had tentatively decided on adoption and you were trying to confirm your decision and find an agency most compatible with to your wishes.

    Your research sources stood to benefit if you placed your child and had no incentive to tell you the downside of adoption.

    Thorough research would have included memoirs by adoptees such as B. J. Lifton and first mothers such as Lorraine. Then you might have read Nancy Verrier's "The Primal Wound", "Being Adopted by David Brodzinsky et al, and other books by adoption professionals. Attending meetings of the American Adoption Congress, Concerned United Birthparents, or Origins-USA would have rounded out your search.

    It's a shame you did not come to this blog sooner. It's not too late, though, to educate yourself. Read some memoirs, attend an AAC conference. You'll find these of great help as you navigate life as a first mother. Ask the adoptive parents to join in your research. It can only benefit your child, you, and the adoptive parents.

    ReplyDelete
  76. ...."you may find that your "allies" in your fight to reform adoption are the same people who you find pleasure in bashing here."

    1stmama--You are most mistaken. I take no pleasure in bashing anybody, and if you had done more "research" you would learn that the staunchest opponents of reform in adoption in legislatures across the land are...adoptive parents! Joe Bruno, Steve Saland in New York; the late Senator John Tower of Texas, who made sure that a provision that would have unsealed the original birth certificates of all adoptess, as well as given first birth mothers the names of those tho adopted their children, and others whose names I have not remembered. Since I was deeply involved in lobbying to get this passed, and testified in Washington to a Senate subcommitee, I do take some enjoyment in pointing out that even Wikipedia notes that Tower was a drunken womanizer, to wit: "In 1989, Tower was President George H. W. Bush's choice to become Secretary of Defense. But in a stunning move — particularly given that Tower was himself a former Senate colleague — the United States Senate rejected his nomination. The largest factors were concern about Tower's personal life, in particular allegations of alcohol abuse and womanizing."

    And once in a while, adoptive parents can also be a strong proponent of that same change, as was true in New Hampshire, where I worked closely with an adoptive parent to unseal the original birth certificates, Lou D'Allesandro. Now that was a real pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @Jimmy - By the term "Trash," I came about that mainly because of the way my aunt's biological family acted when she tried to communicate with them. Slammed the door in her face. She was crushed. Yes I'll say trash, because trashy is how they acted towards her.

    You did NOT witness that event. I have NEVER adopted a child or even thought of it. I have a biological child, and before that a long time ago fostered a few.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @Cindy - Nobody put a gun to your head and said give up your child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CC, an unfortunate and vulgar choice of words directed at Cindy, especially today, when any town could be Newtown. To quote "Pretty Boy Floyd," some rob you with a six-gun, others do it with a fountain pen.

      Delete
  79. Diana wrote:"The thing is, you don't know adoption. You really don't."

    Actually, Diana, I think it is you who doesn't know a thing about adoption.

    1. If the natural mother did not carry and deliver the child, there would not be any child to adopt in the first place.

    2. I certainly hope you don't tell your adopted child(ren) that s/he doesn't know adoption. Because s/he is, after all, the one who is actually living BEING ADOPTED.

    I think it is you, Diana, who needs to learn about adoption.

    ReplyDelete
  80. @CC I absolutely did not say that all adoptive parents feel entitled to someone else's child.

    However, when talking about adoption reform, inevitably someone brings up infertility. Infertility has no place in adoption reform discussion.

    It is not bashing adoptive parents to acknowledge that if the demand for infants was not so high much of the corruption in the system would end. So, in the US, we have a supply issue with an ever increasing demand in a system with not nearly enough regulation which people profit from. Adoptive parents who knowingly participate in coercion or corruption, in my mind, absolutely do feel entitled to another woman's child. If not, why would they choose to participate?



    ReplyDelete
  81. Hey CC, no, noone held a gun to my head. (You all looovve that one, now don't ya?) The deceitful liars who stole my son decided to got the fraud route and con me out of my infant when I was vulnerable, scared and unsure of what to do. Care to exchange information so we can discuss this face to face, or are you too much of a COWARD and like to hide behind your computer screen to defame someone?

    No way in hell do you not have some other vested interest in adoption besides what you claim to have. The way you stalk natural mothers on this site for days on end for the sole purpose of dehumanizing and degrading us speaks volumes. How utterly creepy. Get a life, why don't you and get out of ours.

    Some will rob you with a six-gun,
    And some with a fountain pen.
    ~Woody Guthrie.

    ReplyDelete
  82. @Cindy

    CC has some sort of agenda, she posted this comment at Mirah's Family Preservation blog.

    "I read every bit of it, especially the part where you never give an answer to the question "Are you anti-adoption?" And that "I don't like labels" nonsense does not cut it. Your bitterness towards those who have adopted, your desire to deny couples fertility coverage just to save money (with that "no one owes you a child" excuse), and your bitterness and ridicule of couples who have infertility problems says it all. You seem to think women who can conceive and do so irresponsibly are superior to those who are productive and cannot, just because they wanted to work first and have security for that child they wanted."

    This proves that her concern is for APs or people who can not conceive, not for children or natural parents. She also seems to be one of those people who likes to think of adoption, as a way of keeping women off welfare when she says "do so irresponsibly." She does not seem to know about the Adoption Tax Credit, or has turned a blind eye to it. But since she has been on these blogs she should have known about it by now, so my bets are that she has turned a blind eye.

    ReplyDelete
  83. CC said @Cindy - Nobody put a gun to your head and said give up your child.

    CC, that's SO old. It's also cheap and stupid.
    I honestly don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Really? REALLY? I cannot believe some of the comments on here. Those accusing the blog authors and others of being bitter and twisted, great projection! Perhaps you need a looking glass to see where the bitterness is coming from.

    Adopters are not entitled? BAHAHAHAHAHA!! Please! Of course the majority of adopters (Note: not all) feel entitled or adoption wouldn't be a multi billion dollar for profit industry that openly preys on young women for their babies while PAP's stay purposely ignorant to the issues out there.

    ENTITLEMENT is what DRIVES adoption. If people didn't feel entitled to another mother's child we wouldn't see the coercion and numbers of adoption loss. There wouldn't BE an industry. There would hardly be any child in foster care and there would be no one salivating over newborns. What utter rot adopters don't feel entitled! That has to be the biggest lie adopters tell themselves to help them sleep well at night. Oh and Lorraine might not read blogs by other adopters but sadly I have and save a handful of decent adoptive parents, most dripped and ooze with their entitlement and how they feel they deserve another families child yada yada yada.

    And this:
    "The thing is, you don't know adoption. You really don't. You know bitterness and pain and you can't see past that. I've read your stories and others like it. You know what I see? Women who feel like life cheated them. Women who (at a mature age) had to make a choice...and did. But, they never were able to be at peace with that choice. But, your life doesn't suck that badly. "

    WOW lady! How dare you tell a person what pain is? How DARE you presume to tell another human being what their life is? How do you know what else has been in their life? How do YOU know what they have suffered?? Just because they have a blog that writes about ONE aspect of their life, does not give you the right to be judge and executioner. YOU HAVE NO CLUE about anything so perhaps you need to back off and walk away from the keyboard. You don't know adoption. You don't know pain, you don't know life... so how does that feel? you like it? No, I didn't think so.

    This is a blog. It was not written for everyone to like it. Therefore the authors will have their opinion. You don't have to agree or like it but please, show some self resepct because the words of some of you here have only supported the view of entitled adopters and adopters who are really not that nice. You want to show adopters to be decent people? Well, first stop participating in unethical adoptions (which is all adoptions currently until reform happens) and two, stop attacking people on their blogs. Keep your promises, don't be threatened by the natural families, prove you really care about the child and not your own ego and the list could go on. When you show yourselves to be decent, empathetic and compassionate human beings that actually care then we will believe you, until then, well you get the picture. You are what you want to be but that isn't OUR choice so don't get so snotty when we show you the mirror and you dislike what you see.

    ReplyDelete
  85. @Moonstar -

    The comment you cut and pasted was not posted by me. Nice try though.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @Cindy - Well post your info on here then and not a moniker, coward. Debating is NOT stalking. If you had a life you wouldn't be so full of hate. I pity you.

    @Moonstar - Someone (one of you perhaps?) else posted that on the other blog using the moniker CC. However, I did go on there after reading your post.... That other blog's author routinely goes on on others. More hostile than the two of you.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome comments from all, and appreciate letting us know how you relate to adoption when you leave your first comment.

COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. Our blog, our decision whether to publish or not. Anonymous comments from the same individual are more likely to be NOT POSTED. Select the NAME/URL selection, add a name. You do not need a URL. Fine to use a nom de plume.

COMMENTS AT POSTS OVER 30 DAYS OLD LESS LIKELY TO BE PUBLISHED.

We aim to be timely but we do have other lives.

For those coming here from Networked Blogs on Facebook, if it does not allow you to make a comment, click the "x" on the gray "Networked Blogs" tool bar to exit out of that frame and it should then let you comment.

We are unlikely to post comments that consist of nothing more than a link and the admonition to go there.