What do you think of this? Anti-adoption

[wambam]

This is an old article, but it's what I could find: newrepublic.com/article/114505/anti-adoption-movement-next-reproductive-justice-frontier

I became aware of anti-adoption this weekend and I am still baffled by it. I learned about this at a Catholic event, which frankly, I found very counter intuitive. But perhaps this is an isolated opinion and not widespread in the church - I don't know. Apparently, people who are anti-adoption believe that birth parents are usually coerced into adoption and that there's a global problem with people "buying" babies and taking children from their birth parents by force or coercion.

Does anyone know about this stuff? Is it quackery? Does it have merit? Do you know of resources I can learn more about it? 

[gummybear]

I don't know anything about it's relationship with Catholicism, but it's def. a thing. I have a family member who is heavily involved in the movement. I'm not comfortable talking about it in a public forum, but I will say this: I know many people who have added to/created their families through adoption and I think it's a wonderful beautiful thing. That being said, it's not all sunshine and roses and I do think the arguments presented in this article have merit. There's A TON of money changing hands in private adoption. But, to answer your question, yes, it's real.

[Deleted]

Reproductive justice is my passion and what my career is heading towards. And Yes, not all adoption agencies are wonderful, in the US and abroad. Coercion can be real, especially among those in poverty and of color. Pregnancy counseling centers are also a bunch of crock that need serious regulation and monitoring.

[wambam]

Feb 12, 2018 13:35:43 GMT -5 @wandering said:

Reproductive justice is my passion and what my career is heading towards. And Yes, not all adoption agencies are wonderful, in the US and abroad. Coercion can be real, especially among those in poverty and of color. Pregnancy counseling centers are also a bunch of crock that need serious regulation and monitoring.

How pervasive is coercion?

[bugandbibs]

I very hesitantly clicked the link as I am both Catholic and have adopted a child.

However, I do think that private brokers and adoptions are rife with concerns and that birth mothers are often taken advantage of. Coupled with religions who are against abortion at any cost and vulnerable pregnant women there is an underlying shadiness that is kept secret. The problems with international adoption are well known and the same high pressure persuasion occurs here too.

Bottom line, we do a shitty job in this country of protecting women. We need access to healthcare, abortion services, counseling, safe neighborhoods and affordable food/housing. When women really have a choices and opportunities than there are less problematic adoptions.

[msmerymac]

I have a friend who was adopted internationally at birth and is part of the movement. I gather there are a few things:

1) Coercion, especially in international adoption, but also in the US. Evangelical "white savior" adoption, sometimes coupled with physical abuse, has made news in the last few years.
2) Issues that lead to birth parents choosing adoption can usually be classified as lack of resources, so helping those parents with things like food, shelter, clothing, baby supplies, child care, and education can encourage them to keep their children. This would, in theory, also be cheaper to address as a society than people paying $30k for an infant adoption in a one-time deal, most of which isn't seen by the birth parent and which doesn't fix any issues. It would also have beneficial effects on ALL children and families.
3) Adopted children show extremely high rates of learning disorders, behavioral problems and depression. I think some of this is why my friend got involved in the movement. In her late 20s she seems to have real issues with her identity. Her parents were older and are now gone, and I know she was adopted by a religious couple with older sons in a VERY white area (she is not white). She has attempted to research her origins, but as she came from an orphanage, it's likely she'll never know the true identity of her birth parents, which has been tough. Anti-adoption advocates say the high rate of mental health and emotional issues is due to being torn away from their birth parent.

This is a book she has referenced: www.amazon.com/Primal-Wound-Understanding-Adopted-Child/dp/0963648004

In this community, birth trumps EVERYTHING. In cases of severe abuse or neglect that can't be rectified, I think placement with a blood relative is still the most important factor in this philosophy. They do not think adoption should be used to "fix" infertility. And children should not be taken from their culture, ever.

I would like to say I am not anti-adoption and am even considering adoption. The points about coercion and the white savior narrative are legitimate, though, IMO.

[wambam]

Feb 12, 2018 13:49:05 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

In this community, birth trumps EVERYTHING. In cases of severe abuse or neglect that can't be rectified, I think placement with a blood relative is still the most important factor in this philosophy. They do not think adoption should be used to "fix" infertility. And children should not be taken from their culture, ever.

I would like to say I am not anti-adoption and am even considering adoption. The points about coercion and the white savior narrative are legitimate, though, IMO.

Re: bolded - so infertile couples are just fucked according to this movement?

Re: "savior" adoption - I totally agree. I saw this first hand with my fundamentalist aunt. Though the potential adopted child was white, the birth family was a different religion. My aunt said on a few occasions that she wanted to adopt this older child so she would "have a chance at a relationship with Christ" which I found deplorable. The adoption didn't work out for other reasons, though.

[fryjack2]

The cultural component of adoption is something many countries consider when allowing adoptions.

For instance, you can not adopt a Middle Eastern child (know anyone adopted into a white family who was born in the Middle East? They don't exist that I am aware of) unless you are a close relative or you go through very very strict placement criteria tha involves proving you are a middle Eastern, a practicing Muslim, and are married.

H and I had researched adopting from Syria or Palestine or Jordan and will most likely never be able to. I thought it would be easier for a child (we weren't going to do a baby) since I speak the language and have family and a home in the ME.

While adoption is a wonderful option, it's not always so straightforward. Especially in poor countries.

I have also noticed a popular theme among religious midwesterners. They "are called by God" to adopt babies from Africa. white saviors x 10000.

[msmerymac]

Feb 12, 2018 14:00:23 GMT -5 wambam said:

Feb 12, 2018 13:49:05 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

In this community, birth trumps EVERYTHING. In cases of severe abuse or neglect that can't be rectified, I think placement with a blood relative is still the most important factor in this philosophy. They do not think adoption should be used to "fix" infertility. And children should not be taken from their culture, ever.

I would like to say I am not anti-adoption and am even considering adoption. The points about coercion and the white savior narrative are legitimate, though, IMO.

Re: bolded - so infertile couples are just fucked according to this movement?

Re: "savior" adoption - I totally agree. I saw this first hand with my fundamentalist aunt. Though the potential adopted child was white, the birth family was a different religion. My aunt said on a few occasions that she wanted to adopt this older child so she would "have a chance at a relationship with Christ" which I found deplorable. The adoption didn't work out for other reasons, though.

Exactly. Apparently that's our own problem. Oh well, I shouldn't have been infertile, I guess!

I get that an adopted child isn't a consolation prize, and it's something I'm trying to figure out now - if adopting would feel exactly the same to me as having a biological child. If not, I shouldn't do it. I know that. But I also know so many people who have successfully gone through adoption and it's been a really great experience for everyone involved. 

[krystee]

I think adoption is amazing thing if done ethically with all willing parties. But here is a recent example of one of the ugly sides of adoption coercion: www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/13/opinions/adoption-uganda-opinion-davis/index.html

(This article also kind of shows the white savior thing, though the coercion/kidnapping is the intended focus.)

[gummybear]

Feb 12, 2018 14:00:23 GMT -5 wambam said:

Feb 12, 2018 13:49:05 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

In this community, birth trumps EVERYTHING. In cases of severe abuse or neglect that can't be rectified, I think placement with a blood relative is still the most important factor in this philosophy. They do not think adoption should be used to "fix" infertility. And children should not be taken from their culture, ever.

I would like to say I am not anti-adoption and am even considering adoption. The points about coercion and the white savior narrative are legitimate, though, IMO.

Re: bolded - so infertile couples are just fucked according to this movement?

Re: "savior" adoption - I totally agree. I saw this first hand with my fundamentalist aunt. Though the potential adopted child was white, the birth family was a different religion. My aunt said on a few occasions that she wanted to adopt this older child so she would "have a chance at a relationship with Christ" which I found deplorable. The adoption didn't work out for other reasons, though.

Well, no. Only lower/middle-income infertiles. Rich infertiles have the option of a fast, private adoption. Therein lies one of the problems.

[claudiajean]

I am very pro-adoption, but I also see a lot of gray areas that I'd love to see addressed. For example, my friend adopted a baby and the birth mom was from a Northeastern state. My friends live in Michigan. The agency they went through flew the birth mom, at 36 weeks pregnant, to Utah to deliver because Utah has fewer protections in place for birth moms (less time to change their mind, etc.). That type of situation doesn't sit well with me, but from what I understand, it is fairly common with many adoption agencies.

[gummybear]

And FTR, I am deeply torn on this issue. And that's an understatement. Some of our best friends have built their families through adoption. And all is well. But I have also listened to my family member - her situation has caused a irreparable rift in our family and it's been devastating. Who am I to discount her experience? What she says rings 100% true.

It's as gray as gray gets. But this side needs to be heard.

[Deleted]

Feb 12, 2018 13:37:57 GMT -5 wambam said:

Feb 12, 2018 13:35:43 GMT -5 @wandering said:

Reproductive justice is my passion and what my career is heading towards. And Yes, not all adoption agencies are wonderful, in the US and abroad. Coercion can be real, especially among those in poverty and of color. Pregnancy counseling centers are also a bunch of crock that need serious regulation and monitoring.

How pervasive is coercion?

I honestly have no clue on that and if there is accurate current data. I know amongst providers I talk with regularly on a list serv that are reproductive health experts, within pregnancy counseling centers coercion is horrible. And I would assume that they work more closely with certain adoption agencies that they refer people to that aren't exactly working with moral high ground.

If you just look up the Indian child Welfarr Act you will see that even up to the late 70s American Indian children were being removed from their homes/cultures in high numbers. I think Mormons were highly involved in this movement as well.

So yeah, removing/coercing those impoverished and of color is certainly not a new thing.

[chchchia]

Feb 12, 2018 14:07:21 GMT -5 fryjack2 said:

The cultural component of adoption is something many countries consider when allowing adoptions.

For instance, you can not adopt a Middle Eastern child (know anyone adopted into a white family who was born in the Middle East? They don't exist) unless you are a. Lois relative or you go through very very strict placement criteria tha involves proving you are a middle Eastern, a practicing Muslim, and are married.

H and I had researched adopting from Syria or Palestine or Jordan and will most likely never be able to. I thought it would be easier for a child (we weren't going to do a baby) since I speak the language and have family and a home in the ME.

While adoption is a wonderful option, it's not always so straightforward. Especially in poor countries.

I have also noticed a popular theme among religious midwesterners. They "are called by God" to adopt babies from Africa. white saviors x 10000.

Ok, so bc this is my family right here, I’m just going to have to raise a flag here. My family, although we are mixed race 50 white 50 Hispanic,, we were considered white when we adopted my sister from a middle eastern country. We also know a lot of other families who are in the same situation. So, that’s not true in the instance for my family or many others I know. We are Catholics btw.

[wambam]

Feb 12, 2018 14:14:47 GMT -5 @wandering said:

Feb 12, 2018 13:37:57 GMT -5 wambam said:

How pervasive is coercion?

I honestly have no clue on that and if there is accurate current data. I know amongst providers I talk with regularly on a list serv that are reproductive health experts, within pregnancy counseling centers coercion is horrible. And I would assume that they work more closely with certain adoption agencies that they refer people to that aren't exactly working with moral high ground.

If you just look up the Indian child Welfarr Act you will see that even up to the late 70s American Indian children were being removed from their homes/cultures in high numbers. I think Mormons were highly involved in this movement as well.

So yeah, removing/coercing those impoverished and of color is certainly not a new thing.

I absolutely believe the bolded. I know they also lie to women to convince them not to have an abortion. So coercing a woman to choose adoption is just an extension of that. 

Thanks for the professional input!

[gummybear]

Feb 12, 2018 14:20:56 GMT -5 wambam said:

Feb 12, 2018 14:14:47 GMT -5 @wandering said:

I honestly have no clue on that and if there is accurate current data. I know amongst providers I talk with regularly on a list serv that are reproductive health experts, within pregnancy counseling centers coercion is horrible. And I would assume that they work more closely with certain adoption agencies that they refer people to that aren't exactly working with moral high ground.

If you just look up the Indian child Welfarr Act you will see that even up to the late 70s American Indian children were being removed from their homes/cultures in high numbers. I think Mormons were highly involved in this movement as well.

So yeah, removing/coercing those impoverished and of color is certainly not a new thing.

I absolutely believe the bolded. I know they also lie to women to convince them not to have an abortion. So coercing a woman to choose adoption is just an extension of that. 

Thanks for the professional input!

There's a lot of mental manipulation. That your baby will be better off if you give it up for adoption - even though research has shown that the best place for children is with blood relatives. That you are not equipped to be a fit mother - even though every situation is fluid and many are temporarily less than idea and can be remedied with non-binding support.  Even without the religious element of what God would want, or giving the ultimate sacrifice for another couple, imagine the mental anguish these women must go through. Honestly, it makes me nauseated to think about.  Again, not because I disagree with adoption (we had 7 rounds of IVF, and I've lost a child at 17 weeks I get infertility/loss - adoption was on the table for us too), just because it's such an gut-wrenching situation for everyone involved. 

[fryjack2]

chchchia. I should have specified Muslim children being adopted.

Out of curiosity, which country did your family adopt from and how long ago?

[TR]

Feb 12, 2018 14:09:35 GMT -5 gummybear said:

Feb 12, 2018 14:00:23 GMT -5 wambam said:

Re: bolded - so infertile couples are just fucked according to this movement?

Re: "savior" adoption - I totally agree. I saw this first hand with my fundamentalist aunt. Though the potential adopted child was white, the birth family was a different religion. My aunt said on a few occasions that she wanted to adopt this older child so she would "have a chance at a relationship with Christ" which I found deplorable. The adoption didn't work out for other reasons, though.

Well, no. Only lower/middle-income infertiles. Rich infertiles have the option of a fast, private adoption. Therein lies one of the problems.

But I would imagine to the anti-adoption movement, they wouldn't care how much money the potential adoptive parents had.

[gummybear]

Feb 12, 2018 14:43:58 GMT -5 TR said:

Feb 12, 2018 14:09:35 GMT -5 gummybear said:

Well, no. Only lower/middle-income infertiles. Rich infertiles have the option of a fast, private adoption. Therein lies one of the problems.

But I would imagine to the anti-adoption movement, they wouldn't care how much money the potential adoptive parents had.

They certainly don't care. I guess what I am saying that right now the way the system works, the more money you have the more likely you are to be able to afford an adoption.  Private adoption is, in many cases, only something the wealthy or well-off can afford. I know there are many exceptions, but in general, the more you can pay the more likely the adoption is to be fast. So changing the for-profit adoption industry would affect upper class infertiles the most. 

ETA: I see that I worded this wrong initially. My point was that people who can't afford adoption and are infertile are already fucked a lot of the time now. Adoption is, for the most part, an option only available to those with higher incomes.

[sushi]

Given op, I assumed this was a sins of the father thing. Its not common, but I have read of it in some fundie circles.

Others know much more than I about coercion. I know certain countries are off limits, and it changes pretty regularly due to whatever issues are present.

It's always a good time to say fuck cpcs

[gummybear]

Feb 12, 2018 14:55:02 GMT -5 leviosa said:

I was pretty nervous coming in here. We are foster/adoptive parents. I have pretty difficult time with the anti-adoption movement. We’ve been called ‘Adoptoraptors’ (which is apparently a term used by the anti-adoption movement) by people who believe the foster care system is all about money, and that social workers get paid to take kids from perfectly good homes and then get an extra bonus when the kids get adopted.

That being said. We initially started our adoption journey internationally. From Uganda. We were matched with a sibling group. Months into it we learned that the kids did have family who were just unable to care for them. They were being coerced and bribed into signing off their rights. BY OUR LAWYER. I am told that In Uganda, there is no word for adoption. So they explain that kids will just go to white people to care for them for a while. We ended the process then and there. We instead paid their monthly school fees. They lived in an orphanage for a while, that we paid to cover their board and food. The parents got job training and found jobs, and the kids went back home. Sometimes people just need a little helping hand to get themselves on their feet.

I couldn’t bear the thought of that happening to another family, so we decided that international adoption wasn’t for us.

There is a pregnancy center in our state that prides themselves on stopping women from getting abortions. In one of my classes, we talked to a girl who was talked into ‘life’ for her baby, and to give it up for adoption. When the baby was born, she decided to try to parent instead of signing off her rights. Her daughter ended up in foster care at 6 months old. She was doing what was necessary to support her child, but in the process put her child in danger. The girl says she lives with the terrible feeling of how she listened to someone else’s opinion on her situation, instead of doing what was right for her. She hates herself for wishing she got an abortion now that she knows her daughter, but feels guilt for bringing a child into a terrible situation. The class I took was about that center and the manipulation tactics they use to push ‘life’. To push women to parent, or do adoption instead. But offer no support to those women once the child is born.

Adoption can be murky. Depending on how it’s done and who does it. but not all adoption is that way.

Sorry that my thoughts are all over the place here.

Thank you for sharing your story <3
I'm really sorry about the way you've been treated. This is the main issue I have and why I struggle so much to be on board. There are so many good people and so many happy endings. Broad strokes are never good

[wambam]

leviosa - Thank you for sharing that.

[icedcoffee]

I'm sorry leviosa. I follow some of your posts and from what I can see there are a lot of kids who are really lucky to have you.

[sakoro]

Adoption is so complicated because while it is beautiful for a family to make this choice, it involves some kind of loss both for the birth mother/ family and for the child. There are groups of adult adoptees who take issue with the whole “savior” aspect of adoption culture. They didn’t ask to be saved and in fact don’t like being raised separately from their culture of origin. This is particularly true in transracial adoptions where the child physically looks different from their adoptive parents and has to deal with racism without the benefit of guidance from others from their culture.

In many cases, birth mothers would otherwise like to raise their children but can’t due to the high cost of daycare, lack of health insurance and financial instability. If the US supported pregnant women and single mothers better, there would be fewer children available for adoption.

I understand that American Indian children can only be adopted by other American Indians due to a law passed in the 1970s. I knew someone who was transracially adopted from a Cherokee tribe into a white family just before this law was passed. I also know of people who adopted from Guatemala and later heard horrific stories about babies being taken forcibly and sold to adoption agencies. It’s unclear how widespread this was or whether this was true for their daughter.

That said, I also know of situations where the birth parents and adoptive parents went into the situation with their eyes wide open and have worked together in the best interest of the child. It is possible to adopt in a socially-responsible way and without isolating the child from their culture of origin.

[litskispeciality]

Feb 12, 2018 14:47:57 GMT -5 gummybear said:

Feb 12, 2018 14:43:58 GMT -5 TR said:

But I would imagine to the anti-adoption movement, they wouldn't care how much money the potential adoptive parents had.

They certainly don't care. I guess what I am saying that right now the way the system works, the more money you have the more likely you are to be able to afford an adoption.  Private adoption is, in many cases, only something the wealthy or well-off can afford. I know there are many exceptions, but in general, the more you can pay the more likely the adoption is to be fast. So changing the for-profit adoption industry would affect upper class infertiles the most. 

ETA: I see that I worded this wrong initially. My point was that people who can't afford adoption and are infertile are already fucked a lot of the time now. Adoption is, for the most part, an option only available to those with higher incomes.

My friend is in this loop. She's got a 5 year plan to adopt given infertility issues, but she's in her mid-30's so by the time she saves enough (both her and her husband work good jobs) she'll be "way too old" to adopt according to the agencies. She said that $30K or more is the minimum to discuss adoption.  Never mind all the money you need to keep the baby alive once they're in your home. In that sense in breaks my heart how many people who would be amazing parents but face infertility can't adopt. I wasn't aware of a lot of the issues brought up here, that's a lot worse. 

[wambam]

Feb 12, 2018 15:14:41 GMT -5 litskispeciality said:

Feb 12, 2018 14:47:57 GMT -5 gummybear said:

They certainly don't care. I guess what I am saying that right now the way the system works, the more money you have the more likely you are to be able to afford an adoption.  Private adoption is, in many cases, only something the wealthy or well-off can afford. I know there are many exceptions, but in general, the more you can pay the more likely the adoption is to be fast. So changing the for-profit adoption industry would affect upper class infertiles the most. 

ETA: I see that I worded this wrong initially. My point was that people who can't afford adoption and are infertile are already fucked a lot of the time now. Adoption is, for the most part, an option only available to those with higher incomes.

My friend is in this loop. She's got a 5 year plan to adopt given infertility issues, but she's in her mid-30's so by the time she saves enough (both her and her husband work good jobs) she'll be "way too old" to adopt according to the agencies. She said that $30K or more is the minimum to discuss adoption.  Never mind all the money you need to keep the baby alive once they're in your home. In that sense in breaks my heart how many people who would be amazing parents but face infertility can't adopt. I wasn't aware of a lot of the issues brought up here, that's a lot worse. 

WTF is this nonsense? 

[Moe]

Not all adoption is created equal. In many countries, adoption comes by way of orphanages, many who are ill run, and cultivates a damaging environment for all. Check out the Catholic Relief Services/Maestral/Lumos Foundation program that sheds light on the dangers of creating spaces for orphanages, especially because they're often "feeders" for adoption services.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcYDUuT8jjY&feature=youtu.be

www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/program-areas/youth/changing-the-way-we-care

[Miss Phryne Fisher]

This is such a tough subject. I have loosely followed the anti-adoption movement since back on Livejournal (there was a rabid one, named Jessi, who posted on a bunch of forums, pics of her kids at anti-adoption marches with signs that says "Abortion is better for kids" and stuff like that...they are for guardianship only, only by family, etc.)

Right before I opened this, a family member just posted that their home study through Catholic Charities for the Philippines was finished and approved. They are hoping to adopt an older boy. I know theirs is not a white savior, bring the child to Jesus (though they are religious) but those are seriously disturbing, and seem to have a lot that relinquish custody (you see that in some of their blogs).

[sparkythelawyer]

Feb 12, 2018 14:11:50 GMT -5 claudiajean said:

I am very pro-adoption, but I also see a lot of gray areas that I'd love to see addressed. For example, my friend adopted a baby and the birth mom was from a Northeastern state. My friends live in Michigan. The agency they went through flew the birth mom, at 36 weeks pregnant, to Utah to deliver because Utah has fewer protections in place for birth moms (less time to change their mind, etc.). That type of situation doesn't sit well with me, but from what I understand, it is fairly common with many adoption agencies.

Utah is also popular because it gives nary a fuck about the biodads.