Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, of course my only concern is not adoption of children with severe special needs.
The health and age issues I mentioned are my own. Evidently I misunderstood your own situation in regard to your own health. I'm glad to know you have no particular health concerns.
As I wrote previously, there are many ways to advocate for and assist the children living in the orphanages of the world, whether one adopts or not, whether one approves of adoption or not, and these I do.
susankate, I'll have to get back to you in more detail later - just got off the phone and am fighting a cold and am heading for bed. But yes, there are infinite gray areas in adoption, just as with many other things in this flawed world in which we live, and yes, documentaries and news coverage can make a difference, though not always the ideal difference both of us would like to see. Often the in-country "official" response to such things is denial, sad to say, while those outside the country are outraged and come forward to fund essential emergency health treatment, to pay for "grannies", and to adopt, as is happening with Pleven in Bulgaria, where eighteen severely neglected children with special needs died unnecessarily last year. The government did step in at Pleven eventually (after many years of ignoring the situation), but great need remains, and the new director, while doing her best now, is very overwhelmed...
Have you seen "Ukraine's Forgotten Children", a recent BBC documentary about institutionalized children and teens? It's on YouTube, and well-worth watching.
Yes Craig, I have seen it. It's heartbreaking.
I do not see donations to the orphanage or region that you adopted your child from as being antithetical to adoption. Donations are all well and good and I have made many. But the thing is, when the washing machine breaks down or the coat is out grown, the child still has no parents!
If everyone with room for one child would adopt one child from anywhere...now we're talking.
I put my money where my mouth is and I am adopting three more!
Last edited by JustJulia; 09-20-2012 at 05:23 AM..
Reason: removed inflammatory comments
Craig, you strike me as a very caring man and I think we both care about the disenfranchised but are just unsure about the best way to deal with it all. I think part of my problem is that there is a big push now by many churches to make adoption the frontline of child welfare care in the international community and many of us who are interested in trying to help from the ground up are very concerned by that push. I just think adoption is supposed to be a resource to be used when other things aren't possible.
This
Quote:
This is often where the problem with adoption is in that it has enabled countries to rely on it and it is difficult to wean them off it and thus children have been caught in the middle.
& this.
Promoting adoption as a solution to these problems is detrimental to the majority of children who in reality will never be adopted no matter how much you promote it. Changing the views of people can be slow, but it is far better for the greater good & essential to not only consider -- but to prioritize. Change will never happen so long as the focus remains on "band-aid" solutions & supply for the wealthy.
It seems clear that there is no single solution to the problem of orphaned and abandoned children living in orphanages and institutions and foster care, around the world. Raising awareness to the general population of countries from which international adoption is possible is something which would help the plight of these children, as would be additional support mechanisms in place for families and individuals who are considering relinquishing their children. Long-ingrained social patterns and negative and judgmental mistaken beliefs need to be countered in many places. Health care needs improvement, special education needs to become the norm for kids with special needs, curbs need to be cut, options need increasing, parental alcoholism, addiction, and abusiveness need to stop...it is unending, and adequate money and social resources are not there to help, in much of the developing world. So NGOs do what they can, and no, it's not enough to give a child a warm winter coat instead of helping that child return to a reformed family, but given the reality - the birth families very, very rarely reclaim custody of their relinquished children - is it not better for that child to at least have a warm coat, rather than to lack both the coat and the family?? Obviously it is!
So I send winter coats and other things, or donate to NGOs that can provide those coats. I also support NGOs which help families in need, both in this country and elsewhere. And yes, I support and advocate for NGOs which advocate for adoption of children with special needs from other countries, particularly one NGO which also has started a support group to assist birth parents of children with Down syndrome, and which encourages these parents to keep their children and provides information about how their children's potential, needs, and how to care for and educate them.
From far away, there is little concerned others can do about most of the conditions which lead to children being taken from dysfunctional families where they've been neglected and/or abused, something which accounts for the vast majority of "typical" children being placed in the custody of the state. But for otherwise functional, loving families who are told that retaining custody of a child with special needs, yes, there is much which can be done in the way of education. More help is needed with the resources available to such families and children - as noted, many countries have no legal provisions for accessibility, special education, and so on. Such things can be costly, so it's important to stress that the pay-off is greater and such changes fit people with special needs to live productive, useful adult lives, rather than to languish in remote, impoverished institutions for all their days, out of any contact with the rest of society.
Educating the populations and influencing the decision-makers of the countries involved in international adoption to make the needed changes to minimize the numbers of children who are living separately from their birth families is a worthy goal and one I'd love to see achieved. However - and there are always the "howevers" - while it's true that change of policy can sometimes happen very quickly, implementing that change, which has to occur not only in policy but on the ground, in the orphanages, in the educational and medical institutions, in the homes and in the hearts and minds of the populace - that takes a very, very long time. The Hague agreement is a good start, and changes are starting to be seen because of it. Yet there are still thousands of children living in orphanages and institutions around the world, growing up without parents, in many cases, receiving extremely inadequate care, in all cases lacking the love of a family. Realistically, the vast majority will never be reunited with their birth families, and few will be adopted, either within their birth countries or internationally. Taking the long view about orphan-adoption-orphanage-institutional reform doesn't really do a lot for these children, who are here right now.
So a multi-faceted approach seems most likely to me to help meet these seemingly overwhelming needs and overcome these many obstacles. And yes, international adoption may well be a valid and valuable part of that multi-faceted approach: it's hard to argue that the 14 year old boy with cerebral palsy whose birth family reliquished custody at age four months is best served by being left to lie in his waste in the Pleven orphanage crib where he's lived all his life, skin and bones, rather than by being adopted by a loving and committted American family which is already making plans for his rehabilitation, medical care and other needed specialized care he has been cruelly denied all his life. Changes are already starting to take place in this child's birth country, thankfully - but these changes are coming painfully slowly, and meanwhile, children like this little boy (who is the size of a four-year-old - a very emaciated four-year-old) are still lying in those cribs. Thankfully, this boy's adoptive family will be coming in time, and their story of their adoption journey to their new son is informing and moving others. I will be happy to send a link to his new family's blog to anyone who PMs me for it.
The story is being told - it's up to the listeners to decide if and how they are being called upon to act in response. Some may read and say a prayer, others may help financially, others may share the story, some may be able to adopt other children from this orphanage, some may send encouraging messages to the newly-appointed, very overwhelmed honest and caring new Pleven director, some may contribute to purchase high-nutrition food for the starving children, some may contribute to the medical fund or the "baba" (grandma) fund which was established to help these criminally neglected children, some may send supplies and some may financially assist this family or other families who are adopting from this place.
Others may complain online to like-minded anti-adoption individuals, cite well-worn socio-political arguments about how it is the responsibility of both governments and individuals in the west to act to change the viewpoints of governments and individuals in the countries from which most international adoption occurs, and how it's not only the responsibility of these governments and individuals to foment change in these developing countries, but somehow also their fault for somehow causing such conditions to be present in lands not their own... or post anonymous nasty accusatory and hate-filled remarks on adoptive families' blogs, while they themselves do little concrete to make a difference to either one child or to many or to work to create better communication within all aspects of the adoption community or to implement the change they scream for.
I've seen all of these responses. There is little evidence that any of those anonymous trolls do one thing to help children in any way. That is not true for the vast majority of those families who adopt internationally, and who often see the bleak conditions for themselves and determine to try to alleviate them not only for the children they adopt, but for those left behind. I commend such families. They are realists, unlike the anonymous trolls who haunt international adoption blogs, leaving their ugliness behind without offering any constructive alternatives.
I am thankful we've only had one such troll surface here, despite all our varying viewpoints, experiences, and backgrounds. Respectfully finding common ground and recognizing that there is more than one aspect to the tragedy of orpnaned children in the world is essential to try to help them and to work for positive change.
"Promoting adoption as a solution to these problems is detrimental to the majority of children who in reality will never be adopted no matter how much you promote it. Changing the views of people can be slow, but it is far better for the greater good & essential to not only consider -- but to prioritize. Change will never happen so long as the focus remains on "band-aid" solutions & supply for the wealthy."
Agreed.
It is important to work for change within the countries themselves to set up homes there. This is being done in a few places, with a staff and outside aide. These are not orphanages, but rather, homes that do provide loving care for a number of children at a time. There is an effort to establish parentage and sibling groups, with extended family visits. Poor people are still people who love their families. They simply need help to keep their families together. Offering up money so that the family makes the decision to take the money and give a child away for adoption so that the child will have "a better life" does nothing to help the overall living conditions of the community of the family left behind.
The poor should not be the source for children for the rich.
...When I was a child, I saw a documentary about the Vietnam war. While Generals declared that "these people don't have feelings, they don't care what happens, they aren't even people, but savages..." the film showed a screaming and sobbing man, kneeling beside the dead bodies of his wife and chidlren who were slain.
The point is, we assume to know, we assume to be better off because we are a rich country. But that arrogance leads to believing people ini poorer countries are lesser-than and are less deserving. It also leads to the belief that the only way to help is to take their childrenn to a "better life".
If we continue to take their children away, we are taking away the natural resources for the community, the country, to make a better life within their own community and country. Children are natural resources - the future leaders of any country.
The point is, we assume to know, we assume to be better off because we are a rich country. But that arrogance leads to believing people ini poorer countries are lesser-than and are less deserving. It also leads to the belief that the only way to help is to take their childrenn to a "better life".
If we continue to take their children away, we are taking away the natural resources for the community, the country, to make a better life within their own community and country. Children are natural resources - the future leaders of any country.
Agreed.
It is important to work for change within the countries themselves to set up homes there. This is being done in a few places, with a staff and outside aide. These are not orphanages, but rather, homes that do provide loving care for a number of children at a time. There is an effort to establish parentage and sibling groups, with extended family visits. Poor people are still people who love their families. They simply need help to keep their families together. Offering up money so that the family makes the decision to take the money and give a child away for adoption so that the child will have "a better life" does nothing to help the overall living conditions of the community of the family left behind.
The poor should not be the source for children for the rich.
The point is, we assume to know, we assume to be better off because we are a rich country. But that arrogance leads to believing people ini poorer countries are lesser-than and are less deserving. It also leads to the belief that the only way to help is to take their childrenn to a "better life".
If we continue to take their children away, we are taking away the natural resources for the community, the country, to make a better life within their own community and country. Children are natural resources - the future leaders of any country.
I'm certain you are well-intentioned. However, there is a great deal of either ignorance or simply being blind to realities here.
Some simply do not comprehend the depth of poverty and dire conditions in Third World Countries. I'll give some examples:
1. In the Congo, in Africa, a civil war has raged for years. We are barely aware of it because our news media has determined very few Americans are interested enough to read news stories about this type of conflict. The war has resulted in an estimated 4-5 million deaths from starvation, disease, and fighting.
2. Conditions are not improving in much of the Third World and in Africa. Perhaps, if conditions were improving, your argument might start to make some sense. However, the contribution of African countries to the world's GDP has fallen dramatically in the last twenty-five years. Africa used to account for 2 to 3% of the world's GDP. That figure is now under 1%. When one realizes that a couple of countries, like oil-rich Nigeria, are factored into the equation, it means that much of the continent is not simply impoverished, its dreadfully impoverished.
3. One popular myth is that USA contributes vast sums in foreign aid to developing nations. This myth should be busted outright. The USA is contributing less than it has in the past. Additionally, much of what we contribute is not economic assistance, its military aid. It arguably makes a bad situation even worse. Aid to Third World countries is not popular. If you are honest, I bet you can think of situations where you've heard other Americans talk about ending foreign aid because we need the money here at home. With a huge budget deficit in America are these people wrong?
4. Many orphanages in Third World countries are not adequately provisioned, but beyond that they aren't safe. There are many stories of orphanages being attacked and the children even being raped or killed.
Its easy to talk idealistically about helping these nations improve themselves, or helping a child while keeping him in his own country. Its much harder to accomplish a goal like this when the sources of funding for doing so are drying up and when a country has internal problems--like civil war--that prevent it from concentrating on economic development and the elimination of poverty.
It isn't a question of claiming we are "superior" to countries like this. Its simply recognition of a fact. Because we would be superior to those countries in any objective measurement that ranges from level of violence to per capita GDP.
Of course, you and others are quite correct when you point out that international adoption isn't going to alleviate these problems. However, it does alleviate these problems for the individual children that are involved. That alone is sufficient justification for international adoption.
Finally, the notion that eliminating international adoption will somehow improve child welfare is ludicrous. Children only become "resources" for Third World countries when they are properly raised, educated, and trained to take a meaningful position in society. That is precisely what most of these countries are unable to provide. If you go to many Third World countries you may even encounter gangs of orphans that band together to rob and steal from bystanders. This has been dealt with harshly in many of these countries and many of these children have been murdered because law abiding people regard them as a nuisance.
I'm probably going to make this my last post on this subject. Its my observation that what we largely have in this thread are two separate monologues going on, rather than a dialogue. One monologue (yours) believes that keeping a child in their family of origin, or country, or culture, is a greater value than insuring that the child be raised in a safe and secure environment. The other monologue (mine) believes that there is nothing inherently bad about either adoption or international adoption and that it should be up to individual countries, agencies, and families to decide its parameters. I doubt any amount of discussion will seriously change either perspective.
I'm certain you are well-intentioned. However, there is a great deal of either ignorance or simply being blind to realities here.
Some simply do not comprehend the depth of poverty and dire conditions in Third World Countries. I'll give some examples:
1. In the Congo, in Africa, a civil war has raged for years. We are barely aware of it because our news media has determined very few Americans are interested enough to read news stories about this type of conflict. The war has resulted in an estimated 4-5 million deaths from starvation, disease, and fighting.
2. Conditions are not improving in much of the Third World and in Africa. Perhaps, if conditions were improving, your argument might start to make some sense. However, the contribution of African countries to the world's GDP has fallen dramatically in the last twenty-five years. Africa used to account for 2 to 3% of the world's GDP. That figure is now under 1%. When one realizes that a couple of countries, like oil-rich Nigeria, are factored into the equation, it means that much of the continent is not simply impoverished, its dreadfully impoverished.
3. One popular myth is that USA contributes vast sums in foreign aid to developing nations. This myth should be busted outright. The USA is contributing less than it has in the past. Additionally, much of what we contribute is not economic assistance, its military aid. It arguably makes a bad situation even worse. Aid to Third World countries is not popular. If you are honest, I bet you can think of situations where you've heard other Americans talk about ending foreign aid because we need the money here at home. With a huge budget deficit in America are these people wrong?
4. Many orphanages in Third World countries are not adequately provisioned, but beyond that they aren't safe. There are many stories of orphanages being attacked and the children even being raped or killed.
Its easy to talk idealistically about helping these nations improve themselves, or helping a child while keeping him in his own country. Its much harder to accomplish a goal like this when the sources of funding for doing so are drying up and when a country has internal problems--like civil war--that prevent it from concentrating on economic development and the elimination of poverty.
It isn't a question of claiming we are "superior" to countries like this. Its simply recognition of a fact. Because we would be superior to those countries in any objective measurement that ranges from level of violence to per capita GDP.
Of course, you and others are quite correct when you point out that international adoption isn't going to alleviate these problems. However, it does alleviate these problems for the individual children that are involved. That alone is sufficient justification for international adoption.
Finally, the notion that eliminating international adoption will somehow improve child welfare is ludicrous. Children only become "resources" for Third World countries when they are properly raised, educated, and trained to take a meaningful position in society. That is precisely what most of these countries are unable to provide. If you go to many Third World countries you may even encounter gangs of orphans that band together to rob and steal from bystanders. This has been dealt with harshly in many of these countries and many of these children have been murdered because law abiding people regard them as a nuisance.
I'm probably going to make this my last post on this subject. Its my observation that what we largely have in this thread are two separate monologues going on, rather than a dialogue. One monologue (yours) believes that keeping a child in their family of origin, or country, or culture, is a greater value than insuring that the child be raised in a safe and secure environment. The other monologue (mine) believes that there is nothing inherently bad about either adoption or international adoption and that it should be up to individual countries, agencies, and families to decide its parameters. I doubt any amount of discussion will seriously change either perspective.
Let's get real. Most adopting parents are not adopting children to cure world suffering. They are doing it to satisfy their own need to have children. And MOST, given the opportunity to have their own biological children, would do so, and not adopt. This altruistic reasoning for adoption is a sham.
AND for you to say it's a fact that the US is superior is arrogant and exploitative. Have you been to Seoul? It's a very modern city much like the ones in the US. Poverty is a fact in all countries including the US. It doesn't mean they can't "properly raise, educate and train" their children.
One monologue (yours) believes that keeping a child in their family of origin, or country, or culture, is a greater value than insuring that the child be raised in a safe and secure environment.
Aside from your own ignorance/blindness &/or prejudice, you seem to believe these things are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 09-21-2012 at 10:11 AM..
Of course, you and others are quite correct when you point out that international adoption isn't going to alleviate these problems. However, it does alleviate these problems for the individual children that are involved. That alone is sufficient justification for international adoption
Except for the many children who then grow up & wonder why their countries/communities/families have been exploited, so that adoptive parents could pay thousands of dollars to unethical businesses in order to fulfill their desires. These children who then grow up & return to their countries so that they can try to make a difference as opposed to remaining complacent with all the problems that have made the adoption industry so lucrative.
It can be so easy for some adoptive parents to return to America & feel sorry for these people from a distance, or to give just enough money to orphanages to alleviate their guilt. Do you think it is that easy for the adoptees that grow up, learn about these complex problems, & return to their countries to face the injustices head on? Do you think they feel that the problems were alleviated?
Except for the many children who then grow up & wonder why their countries/communities/families have been exploited, so that adoptive parents could pay thousands of dollars to unethical businesses in order to fulfill their desires. These children who then grow up & return to their countries so that they can try to make a difference as opposed to remaining complacent with all the problems that have made the adoption industry so lucrative.
It can be so easy for some adoptive parents to return to America & feel sorry for these people from a distance, or to give just enough money to orphanages to alleviate their guilt. Do you think it is that easy for the adoptees that grow up, learn about these complex problems, & return to their countries to face the injustices head on? Do you think they feel that the problems were alleviated?
I can hinestly say that the majority of our adoption costs did NOT go towards the country ( China) which we adopted from. We did give a dination to the orphanage , but when all was said & done, it was our Agency here and the United States government that received the largest amount of money. We had to do several parts of our process several times because of the length of time, such as fingerprinting, INS processing,etc...
Out agency is highly reputable and one of the first to become Hague accreditied, while I do realize there are many agencies outnthere that are unethical, ours was not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
