Domestic v. International Adoption: a clear path begins to emerge! (options, cost)
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.
I agree. And I was so roundabout in my comments that this agreement didn't come through effectively. It is when we take the industry at face value that we run the risk of allowing and condoning unethical practices. Agencies double dipping the fees as was done in our cases is a clear sign that there were other motives at play besides finding a home for a child in need. The fact there is an entire lobby group set up to ensure that the adoption industry remains unregulated suggests that there are other motives at play. American agencies simply trusting other countries to ensure that the children being provided for adoption are legitimately available suggests that there are other motives.
This is why it surprises me so much that when we suggest that not everything is right in the state of the adoption industry, people feel so compelled to defend it. And yet I suppose that I can understand wanting to defend the industry through which one has built their family. But as MirrenC pointed out, there is a lot of grey in the world of adoption.
gcm7189, I understood that you were in agreement; thanks! It seemed, however, that JustJulia was okay with what happened to your family and my family with the double charges. I wanted to clarify that with her. If she doesn't want to call it trafficking, fine, but it's sure not just "fees," either. That's naive. It does seem odd to me how often people personalize the attack on the agencies and the industry, or defend what is clearly unethical.
Yes, I also have a degree in English, gcm7189 and marymarym, and dealt with words, writing, and publishing professionally for many years. As a result, I recognize deliberately misleading writing when I encounter it. There has been quite a lot of such writing here lately. Of course it is not "good writing", gmc7189, although you implied that I had said that it was in my lengthy previous post. It's very poor writing.
Nor did I claim that anyone here would be "tricked by 'good' (??) writing" - such writing is not good; it's not even honest. Don't try to put words in my mouth, gcm7189. You know very well what I wrote, and you understand my meaning very well. Wrapping false claims, hyperbole, and unfounded implications in multisyllabic Latinate vocabulary, complex-compound sentences, and references to supposed authorities whose background is dubious at best is not good writing, nor is it ethical behavior.
Arguments should stand on their own merit, without having to resort to "literary tricks" such as guilt by association directed at a group, individual, cause, institution, or topic under discussion with whom or which one disagrees. Nor should it be necessary to use implication, rather than fact, to make one's point. Exaggeration is another commonly used tactic - the recent example of sudden inflation of cited average adoption costs from $25,000 to $35,000, and now, suddenly to $50,000 (!) is an egregious example of this technique.
Unfortunately, a lot of all of these tactics have been present here recently.
marymarym, you questioned my support for Reece's Rainbow, and claimed that I cite RR in 90% of my posts and termed my advocacy of Reece's Rainbow "advertising". That is a good example of the kind of negative hyperbole and exaggeration of which I wrote in the preceding paragraph, and is clearly not the truth (nor is it respectful, nor is it good writing, but those are other matters).
I am not an employee of Reece's Rainbow, nor am I a member of their board, nor do I serve in any kind of "official" capacity with Reece's Rainbow - nor do I "advertise" for them. However, I do strongly support their mission and am thankful that though the work of Reece's Rainbow, over 800 children with special needs have been united with loving adoptive families in the last six years. The vast majority of these children had no hope of reunifying with their original biological birth families, and most of them would have left the orphanages only for mental institutions - or the streets, where many of them would soon have died. Why on earth would I not advocate for these vulnerable children, and those whose work helps them find families?
Having much-loved young relatives who joined my family via adoption from eastern Europe, and knowing what they endured before their adoption and what they would have faced had they remained in their native country brings the world's orphan crisis home to me in a very personal way.
So what have I actually done, in addition to online advocacy?
I've conducted fundraising bakesales, yard sales, craft sales, etc. which benefitted children listed with Reece's Rainbow, and I've attended and supported RR at Buddy Walks. I've sponsored multiple children on the annual online Reece's Rainbow Angel Tree for four or five years. I've donated to many families who are raising funds for international adoptions of children with special needs. I have assisted those families with selling various items - bracelets, handmade soap, etc - to help raise funds to bring their children home.
But it is not only Reece's Rainbow, an American non-profit whose good work has been recognized at the Congressional level, which I support. I also have written here about other honest, effective non-profits who work hard to assist children living in the orphanage system of eastern Europe:
Bible Orphan Ministry, based in Zhytomyr, Ukraine, was begun and operated by adults who grew up in Ukraine's orphanages. BOM visits ten orphanages and mental institutions on a regular basis to provide instruction, material help including food, clothing, toys, medical supplies, new bedding, shoes, and toiletries, plus repairs to deteriorating orphanage buildings. In addiiton, BOM is currently assisting young teens who've aged out of the orphanage system. I support BOM's work, and have contributed to their requests for help for specific needs of the children with whom they work.
His Kids, Too, a U.S. charity, also provides material assistance to children living in orphanages and institutions, assistance including clothing, shoes, fruit, medicines, diapers, educational materials, orphanage repair, and more. I support HK2's work, and have contributed to them as well.
Life to Orphans, another American non-profit, does similar work and which also travels each year- with volunteers, anybody interested?? - to many Ukrainian orphanages and institutions, where they've also helped provide specialized medical equipment, wheelchairs, and braces along with funding for individual caregivers for children with physical disabilities who would otherwise be kept in bed 24/7. I also support L2O's work, and as with RR, BOM, and HK2, have contributed to their good work as well.
In addition to advocating for these ministries, I have donated to a fund to provide specialized medical care for the over 100 abusively neglected children with special needs who until quite recently, were kept in cribs and deliberately starved on the top floor of Bulgaria's Pleven Orphanage. 18 children died there last year, before the horrors were fully known.
In short, if a legitimate charity is effective in alleviating the pain in which orphaned children exist, and if they are financially responsible, and if they offer a way for individuals to support or assist their work, and if I can afford to spend my time or my money or my knowledge in their behalf, I will do it.
I urge anyone else who is moved to do so, to help in whatever way they can.
Last edited by CraigCreek; 10-03-2012 at 02:57 PM..
Checks and balances were in place to insure that adoption was a "last resort." (You do make it sound so bad you know). I'm sure that in other regions, especially where adoption abuse is prevalent, this isn't happening and that certainly needs to be rectified. I agree with you.
Not viewing adoption as a last resort is a bad thing, because that is what leads to what you call adoption abuse. Please understand I am not saying adoption is always bad or your personal adoption was wrong. You've made it pretty clear that it was a last resort for your daughter & that all the proper measures were taken & I appreciate that you seem to understand why those measures are important.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you are getting at when you say "build middle class families." Is building a family a bad thing or is it because money has exchanged hands?
Building a family is not a bad thing in & of itself, of course not. The problem is adoption being utilized as a means to generate money & marketing it as "just another way to build a family." Here the focus has shifted away from what is in the best interests of children & when so much money is involved, this again can lead to what you describe as adoption abuse.
Mirren's reply to you was best I think:
Quote:
Linmora, it sounds like you did everything right, with due diligence. That's fabulous.
What we are talking about is the grey areas. There are definitely parts of the world in which adoption and human trafficking have been entertwined. Nepal was one I mentioned, and the government of Nepal closed the borders so that they could deal with the problem internally. Other people mentioned China, in which people bringing "orphans" would get "finder's fees." How can we be sure these were truly "orphans"? Who was checking on this? Doesn't the demand-supply continuum create such situations?
David Smolin is an adoptive parent and a scholar who has written extensively about the problems involved in international adoption and human trafficking. To be above board, there is another scholar and adoptive parent, Elizabeth Bartholet, who frequently debates him, coming from the opposite viewpoint. I suggest reading their written debate on the subject, published this year. "The Debate" by David M. Smolin, et al.
I would never say that simply paying for something is trafficking; that's simplistic. But it would be better if we could get rid of the many layers of salaried people in the middle: the secretaries and facilitators and others in the agencies that drive the tendencies to pad the price tag and double-charge for things, as happened in both my case and gcm's. There was no need for the agency to charge my father for my original mother's hospital expenses, for example, when my grandfather had already paid them (although my father was not told this, of course). I hope you would agree that was unethical. The double-charge went straight into the agency's coffers. Is that just good old capitalism? Was my father simply stupid? Of course not.
There is no oversight of the adoption industry, and the National Council for Adoption, the lobbying group, exists, among other things, to make sure it stays unregulated. "Fees" to them are like gold.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 10-03-2012 at 02:41 PM..
Yes, I also have a degree in English, gcm7189 and marymarym, and dealt with words and writing professionally for many years. As a result, I recognize deliberately misleading writing when I encounter it. There has been quite a lot of such writing here lately.
Arguments should stand on their own merit, without having to resort to "literary tricks" such as guilt by association directed at a group, individual, cause, institution, or topic under discussion with whom or which one disagrees. Nor should it be necessary to use implication, rather than fact, to make one's point. Exaggeration is another commonly used tactic - the recent example of sudden inflation of cited average adoption costs from $25,000 to $35,000, and now, suddenly to $50,000 (!) is an egregious example of this technique.
My apologies for not citing any sources. According to The Adoption Guide sponsored by Adoptive Families Circle, the average cost of a Russian adoption is, yep you guessed it, $50k.
I also know of two famlies who adopted from Russia and paid just over $50k. So it is my feeling that there were no exaggerations on my end. No literary tactics used. Just facts. The average might be $30k but adoptions can cost upward of $50k. I believe in many of my comments, I stated $30-50k.
gcm7189, I understood that you were in agreement; thanks! It seemed, however, that JustJulia was okay with what happened to your family and my family with the double charges. I wanted to clarify that with her. If she doesn't want to call it trafficking, fine, but it's sure not just "fees," either. That's naive. It does seem odd to me how often people personalize the attack on the agencies and the industry, or defend what is clearly unethical.
If you thought that I was OK with anyone's being double-charged, I apologize.
Yes, I also have a degree in English, gcm7189 and marymarym, and dealt with words, writing, and publishing professionally for many years. As a result, I recognize deliberately misleading writing when I encounter it. There has been quite a lot of such writing here lately. Of course it is not "good writing", gmc7189, although you implied that I had said that it was in my lengthy previous post. It's very poor writing.
Nor did I claim that anyone here would be "tricked by 'good' (??) writing" - such writing is not good; it's not even honest. Don't try to put words in my mouth, gcm7189. You know very well what I wrote, and you understand my meaning very well. Wrapping false claims, hyperbole, and unfounded implications in multisyllabic Latinate vocabulary, complex-compound sentences, and references to supposed authorities whose background is dubious at best is not good writing, nor is it ethical behavior.
Arguments should stand on their own merit, without having to resort to "literary tricks" such as guilt by association directed at a group, individual, cause, institution, or topic under discussion with whom or which one disagrees. Nor should it be necessary to use implication, rather than fact, to make one's point. Exaggeration is another commonly used tactic - the recent example of sudden inflation of cited average adoption costs from $25,000 to $35,000, and now, suddenly to $50,000 (!) is an egregious example of this technique.
Unfortunately, a lot of all of these tactics have been present here recently.
marymarym, you questioned my support for Reece's Rainbow, and claimed that I cite RR in 90% of my posts and termed my advocacy of Reece's Rainbow "advertising". That is a good example of the kind of negative hyperbole and exaggeration of which I wrote in the preceding paragraph, and is clearly not the truth (nor is it respectful, nor is it good writing, but those are other matters).
I am not an employee of Reece's Rainbow, nor am I a member of their board, nor do I serve in any kind of "official" capacity with Reece's Rainbow - nor do I "advertise" for them. However, I do strongly support their mission and am thankful that though the work of Reece's Rainbow, over 800 children with special needs have been united with loving adoptive families in the last six years. The vast majority of these children had no hope of reunifying with their original biological birth families, and most of them would have left the orphanages only for mental institutions - or the streets, where many of them would soon have died. Why on earth would I not advocate for these vulnerable children, and those whose work helps them find families?
Having much-loved young relatives who joined my family via adoption from eastern Europe, and knowing what they endured before their adoption and what they would have faced had they remained in their native country brings the world's orphan crisis home to me in a very personal way.
So what have I actually done, in addition to online advocacy?
I've conducted fundraising bakesales, yard sales, craft sales, etc. which benefitted children listed with Reece's Rainbow, and I've attended and supported RR at Buddy Walks. I've sponsored multiple children on the annual online Reece's Rainbow Angel Tree for four or five years. I've donated to many families who are raising funds for international adoptions of children with special needs. I have assisted those families with selling various items - bracelets, handmade soap, etc - to help raise funds to bring their children home.
But it is not only Reece's Rainbow, an American non-profit whose good work has been recognized at the Congressional level, which I support. I also have written here about other honest, effective non-profits who work hard to assist children living in the orphanage system of eastern Europe:
Bible Orphan Ministry, based in Zhytomyr, Ukraine, was begun and operated by adults who grew up in Ukraine's orphanages. BOM visits ten orphanages and mental institutions on a regular basis to provide instruction, material help including food, clothing, toys, medical supplies, new bedding, shoes, and toiletries, plus repairs to deteriorating orphanage buildings. In addiiton, BOM is currently assisting young teens who've aged out of the orphanage system. I support BOM's work, and have contributed to their requests for help for specific needs of the children with whom they work.
His Kids, Too, a U.S. charity, also provides material assistance to children living in orphanages and institutions, assistance including clothing, shoes, fruit, medicines, diapers, educational materials, orphanage repair, and more. I support HK2's work, and have contributed to them as well.
Life to Orphans, another American non-profit, does similar work and which also travels each year- with volunteers, anybody interested?? - to many Ukrainian orphanages and institutions, where they've also helped provide specialized medical equipment, wheelchairs, and braces along with funding for individual caregivers for children with physical disabilities who would otherwise be kept in bed 24/7. I also support L2O's work, and as with RR, BOM, and HK2, have contributed to their good work as well.
In addition to advocating for these ministries, I have donated to a fund to provide specialized medical care for the over 100 abusively neglected children with special needs who until quite recently, were kept in cribs and deliberately starved on the top floor of Bulgaria's Pleven Orphanage. 18 children died there last year, before the horrors were fully known.
In short, if a legitimate charity is effective in alleviating the pain in which orphaned children exist, and if they are financially responsible, and if they offer a way for individuals to support or assist their work, and if I can afford to spend my time or my money or my knowledge in their behalf, I will do it.
I urge anyone else who is moved to do so, to help in whatever way they can.
Craig, you keep saying the same thing over and over again. Let's move on. We get it. You love RR. Doesn't mean we have to.
"There are neutral ways of inquiring about situations with which the inquirer is unfamiliar - and then there are other ways, which imply wrong-doing, guilt by association, and general negativity. Good writers, journalists, and lawyers are quite familiar with these literary tricks of the trade, but others, less trained in the use of words, may not spot them as readily.
A lot of this form of writing has appeared on this forum recently, usually in regard to adoptive families, adoption agencies and non-profit special needs adoption advocacy ministries such as Reece's Rainbow."
People often infer meaning into other people's writing based on their own personal "lens". Sometimes the words on the page can and should be taken at face value.
Money changes hands & a human being is handed over - how is that not human trafficking? Seriously? Mark's justification for adoption costing so much money is that we live in a capitalist society so people will try to profit from everything including adoption & healthcare. If money is taken out of the equation, like in Australia, adoption virtually ceases to exist because no-one is profiting. You are kidding yourself if you think that calling them "agency fees" makes the money changing hands any more ethical.
marymarym, in regard to Reece's Rainbow, no one is asking you to love anything you clearly do not love. But I do ask that you be accurate, honest, and respectful.
Craig, if you are so convinced that we are engaging in hyperbole, why not find evidence to prove us wrong?
The numbers we are quoting in relation to the cost of international adoption are well within the ball park of what is quoted to adoptive parents by adoption professionals, as gcm7189 pointed out, and I just checked myself! The Adoption Guide 2012 certainly listed an average Russian adoption as costing around $50,000 and surprisingly for me, a domestic adoption as between $20,000 and $40,000. This is not "anti-adoption" propaganda.
I think it's great you have passions. Give what you want of yourself where you want to, but if you don't want to talk about reform, just stay out of the conversation about reform. There's no need to be snide; as you said above, you also need to be accurate, honest, and respectful.
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.
