Adoption Ethics: Why I write about it

Yirgalem, Ethiopia
March 2013
Photo Credit: Bridget McGann

Because I have an obligation to my daughter and her Mother.

Because too many children, first families and adoptive families have been hurt by unethical adoption practices.

Because I want to be a voice for the voiceless.

Because we all do better when we listen to victims of crime.

Because I want to be an ally.

Because every child deserves better than what the current adoption system allows.

Because I talk about adoption, and ethics cannot be divorced from that experience.

Because I have hope that the adoption system can be changed to meet the needs of children who need a permanent, loving, prepared and supported/supportive family.

Because I'm tired of being told that adoption conferences and online adoption forums are not the right environment to talk about adoption ethics.

Because hiding, minimalizing, or marginalizing stories of adoption fraud and corruption sends the message that they don't matter.

Because once my eyes were opened, I found I could not keep silent.

Because "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." (MLK)

Why do you talk about adoption ethics? If you aren't talking about adoption ethics, why not?

Me, Elsewhere

I guest posted on my friend Jamie's blog over at I Am Not The Babysitter. 

Go check it out! Let me know what you think.

I'll Fly Away (Oh, Glory!)

Crater Lake, Ethiopia
September, 2008

One week from today, I will be on my way to Ethiopia! I am so excited to be working with Jamie on projects for the Fayye Foundation. I will also be visiting with Anna's family in their hometown. To be honest, I'm not sure which part of the trip I am most excited about (okay, Anna's family may win that one:)

One of the reasons I absolutely love the work of Fayye Foundation is that they are working to preserve families by empowering women. At the heart of the so-called "orphan crisis" is the separation of children from their mother. This may be due to death, poverty, or social stigmas. In most cases, these separations are preventable.

Crater Lake, Ethiopia
September, 2008

Fayye Foundation's first major project has been a clean water partnership with Waves for Water. I am excited that part of my time will be spent delivering and installing clean water filters in the Sidama region! This is a topic that is very close to my heart; my friend, Laura, recently discovered just how important clean water is in preserving families and preventing children from being orphaned. It's not too late to help: you can donate towards clean water filters here.

We will also be working to establish other critical partnerships in the Sidama region. We hope to bring you some exciting opportunities to help preserve families and empower women when we return!

Evolution in Dissolution

Via quapan on Flickr

Dissolution. The severing of all legal ties after an adoption has been finalized.
Disruption. The severing of the relationship between child and prospective adoptive parents before the adoption has been finalized.

In the world of international adoption, most people use the word "disruption" to describe a severing of legal ties between child and adoptive parents after the child has entered the US. And it may be the hottest topic in IA.

Like most PAPs, when I began my journey to adopt a child from Ethiopia back in 2007, I was more than a bit naive. I had rose colored glasses, and I believed my agency when they said that young children in Ethiopia, where care was intimate and care givers were loving, where children spent only a short time in institutional care, where incidence of FAS and child abuse were low... well, those young children didn't develop attachment problems. The adoption agencies mitigated risk factors, kids were primed for family bonding, and all the children who had been placed thus far were doing tremendously well. Naivety at it's height.

So when I first learned about an Ethiopian adoption that was being disrupted, I was outraged. How could the parents do that? How could they give up on their child... abandon the child all over again? Why didn't they try harder? Why did they even bother to adopt in the first place if they didn't plan to love their child forever? I think most people experience this confusion and intense emotions when they first start to learn about disruptions in IA. Didn't you?

Now, several years down the road, with actual adoptive parenting experience under my belt, and relationships with all sorts of parents and children who have struggled with attachment after adoption, I think I am starting to get it.

I understand that any child who has experienced the trauma of separation from their birth mother- whether they can consciously remember the loss or not- has the potential to have difficulty trusting and attaching. I know that nothing, not even really excellent care in a private care center, makes up for parents. I know that children in Ethiopia can be victims of abuse, neglect, and prenatal exposures just like children anywhere else in the world. I know that children who have suffered trauma and abuse can act out, and that they could have been victimized before even entering care. I know that fraud and corruption in adoption often makes the existing issues worse. I know that when you combine 2 un-related adopted children into one family, the needs of the children may be greater than what any parents can meet. I know that adoptive parents can also suffer from attachment problems. I know that optimism and hope for the future are not enough to make an adoption work.

So now I can at least understand why parents sometimes get to the point where they feel that the child cannot remain in their home or part of their family. Sometimes kids have needs that APs cannot meet. Sometimes APs cannot love a child the way they thought they could. And as gut-wrenching as that is, sometimes those barriers cannot be overcome. (Sometimes they can. Often they can.)

But despite my cerebral understanding of why families arrive at the choice to disrupt an adoption, I confess that emotionally, my heart still sinks and I start to feel sick when I hear of a family disrupting their international adoption. I just seems so unfair. Unfair to a child who has suffered so much already. Unfair to the family who surely went into the adoption with good intentions. Unfair to all the other adopted children who may see that family's disruption and question their own stability within their family. And frankly, it just doesn't seem right.


*****

Via blmiers2 on Flickr

When my heart travels down that road of injustice, there is only one thought that can set me back on the right trajectory. It's such a simple thought that I'm sure you've thought of it already. It's so obvious that surely I was blind not to see it before. On the road map of injustice, it's the superhighway clearly marked "Justice."

What is in the best interest of the child?

When you re-frame the question of dissolution in that way, suddenly a lot of the confusion is gone. Is it right for a child to remain in a family that feels they cannot trust him? Is it right for a child to constantly be reminded of the ways she has destroyed relationships in the past? Is it right for a child to be parented by people who he may never learn to trust? Is it right for a child to be denied the opportunity to heal, grow, and thrive simply because some well-intentioned adult petitioned a foreign government to grant them parenthood of the child?

When I look at the issue from that mindset, it becomes clear that in cases where APs feel they cannot or will not meet the needs of the child, it is in the best interest of the child to be placed into a family that can meet their needs. Period. It's easy to pick apart and blame the APs for the failure of the adoption, to blame the agency for failing the child by approving the adoption or lacking post-placement support, and sometimes even to blame the child for behaviors and emotional scars. But at the end of the day, pointing fingers doesn't help anyone, most certainly not the child.

At the end of the day, children deserve a loving family where they can heal, grow, and become. If their first adoptive placement is not able to provide that for them, even though it will constitute more loss and possibly even feelings of rejection for the child, I believe it is in the best interest of the child be to re-homed into a family that can provide the necessary healing environment.

What do you think? What are your thoughts about disrupting international adoptions?

"Culture of Adoption"?

When I wrote about the STUCK Documentary (and why I won't be seeing it), I used a phrase that gave me pause. "Culture of adoption". What does that mean?

Stop and think about that for a second. Or two. I'll wait.

Photo by Kami7 on Flickr

When I really started thinking about it, I discovered I couldn't really say what a "culture of adoption" was. But it didn't sit right with me. It felt off. To be honest, it felt like it was the exact opposite of what I would like to nurture: a culture of family preservation.

What does a "culture of family preservation" mean? Well, I think it's hard for many of us to understand it, because for most of us living in Westernized countries (especially here in the US), our culture is so entrenched in family preservation that we can hardly recognize that it is a foundational belief in the way our country operates and our values as individuals and families.

A "culture of family preservation" says:

• It is normative for parents to keep their children, regardless of how bad circumstances get. It is not acceptable for children to be placed into institutions; they belong in families.
• Poverty is not a valid reason for a parent to relinquish a child. If you cannot afford to raise your child, we will provide you with WIC, food stamps, TANF and other social welfare programs to keep your family intact.
• Social stigmas are not a valid reasons to separate a child from their family. Single parents and unmarried parents are capable of raising a child, and a child from a non-traditional family is no less valuable than children from a traditional families.
• Parental or children's health problems are not a valid reason to separate families. Health care is a basic human right, and programs exist to provide health care to families so that they can remain intact. A health diagnosis carried by a parent or a child does not decrease the value of the family or determine that parent and child should be separated.
• When immediate families cannot remain intact, it is normative for extended family (and close friends) to bridge the gap in caring for children. Grandparents, aunt, uncles, adult siblings, and close friends are called upon to care for children if the mother or father is unable to do so. This is often done informally.
• When children cannot remain in the care of their parents, the formal systems in place to care for that child (foster care) have the goal of re-unification. While re-unification is not always possible, parents are given multiple opportunities to change themselves and their circumstances to meet the goal. If re-unification is not possible, maintaining contact with first family members and/or the child's community is encouraged (to the extent that it is safe for the child.)
• If children cannot be maintained in their family or community of origin, multiple steps are take to ensure that a new family will be preserved, including:
• Thoroughly assessing the child's physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual needs and clearly communicating those to prospective families
• Thoroughly assessing a family's culture, resources, and ability to meet the child's needs to ensure the family can meet the needs of the child
• Preparing families for the special needs of a new child through education, training, and resources
• Providing families and children with resources and on-going assistance after placement 

While the US and other Westernized nations do not always perform each of these individual tasks perfectly, it is clear that preserving families is normative in most* situations. It's not that adoption is not a valid option, or isn't "supported", it's just that alternative options are exhausted before exploring adoption.

"Ageless Love" by paulbence on Flickr

So, what does a "culture of adoption" look like? Well, I don't know, but here are some of my guesses.

A "culture of adoption" says":

• When children cannot be maintained in their birth families, adoption is a viable solution to keep children out of institutions and in families.
• There are many reasons why children cannot be maintained in their birth families. These problems are often bigger than any individual can solve, so the focus of efforts is placing children into adoptive families as soon as they are unable to remain in their birth family.
• It is better for a child to be placed into an adoptive family quickly than remain in institutionalized care while re-unification efforts are explored.
• Adoption is based on love. As long as adoptive parents are willing to love their new child, everything will work out. If adoptive parents feel prepared to parent a child, there is little reason why that child should not be placed with them.

Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding what "culture of adoption" means, but every time I hear that phrase or a phrase similar to it, this is what I see expressed. And frankly, while I "believe in adoption", and I do think it is a good choice for some kiddos, I can't get on board with a "culture of adoption." I just can't. To me, it feels dismissive of the needs of the child, the importance of the birth family, and the trauma of the adoption process.

To take it a step further, I don't think that a "culture of family preservation" and a "culture of adoption" can co-exist. You can't have both simultaneously; they are contradictory- opposites. It's like saying you are nurturing both a culture of daytime and a culture of nighttime. It just doesn't work.

What's your take? What does "culture of adoption" mean to you? Can a "culture of adoption" and a "culture of family preservation" co-exist? What does that look like?

*Infant domestic adoptions, especially agency-assisted adoptions which place intense pressure on pregnant mothers, are a clear way that the US does not perfectly maintain a "culture of family preservation." But that's a whole other can of worms.