There's a paper making its way around the www these days, the link showing up on groups where slamming international adoption is a primary focus, and it is being held up as a detailed example of all that is wrong with people bringing children from other parts of the world into their families.

Not-at-all-subtly titled, "Child Laundering: How the Intercountry Adoption System Legitimizes and Incentivizes the Practices of Buying, Trafficking, Kidnapping, and Stealing Children", there's no hiding the agenda of its author. With his byline adding "Cumberland Law School, Samford University", some might be lured into thinking this is some fair-handed, legal look at the institution of international adoption that carries weight and imparts wisdom.

It ain't.

Read the whole thing if you like, but before you do please take into account a few observations I've made during my perusal.

First, of course, would have to be the emotive language that runs from title to conclusion in what can only be a thinly veiled attempt to inflame tempers, skew impressions and create a sinister atmosphere for the reader.

How's this for an example?

These systems usually involve persons at the head of the conspiracy who possess the language and literacy skills, and the financial and social position, to interact with first-world adoption agencies and prospective adoptive parents.

Yep. Stick the word "conspiracy" right there at the top and color the whole thing sleazy.

Second, although there are loads of footnotes for attribution and references, many lead right back to this author and his other writings on the same topic. Apparently, he beats the same drum and isn't shy about repeating himself.

Then, there is the material itself.

Although he admits early on that, "There is, of course, no way to precisely measure the incidence of illicit child buying, stealing, kidnaping, and trafficking within the current intercountry adoption system ...", he goes on to attempt a convincing argument based on gossip, rumor and innuendo.

In private conversations within and outside the adoption world, however, it is repeatedly whispered, and perhaps accounts for a certain lack of urgency in responding to the problem.

And the following ... from a footnote!

Although it has not been covered by the Western press, the author is aware of a case from Andhra Pradesh, India where a petty-money lender indebted parents, and then proposed that they place children in an orphanage later implicated in a major Indian intercountry adoption scandal. The lender apparently told the parents that the children were only going to the hostel for temporary care. The money lender was allegedly receiving payments from the orphanage to obtain the children.

I don't know how far along this guy is in his law schooling, but he should learn someday that you can't take, "the author is aware of a case" into any court I know of.

Some things he reveals as though shocking new info steps so far into "DUH!" territory as to make one wonder why he bothers including the text:

Countries with a low per capita income and a large proportion of persons living at or near extreme poverty tend to suffer from a much higher incidence of corruption than developed nations.

He must be going for a high word count thinking it adds gravitas.

Should one get through the whole bazillion pages of this regurgitated tripe without fully registering the repetitive head-pounding point this guy seems determined to make, check out his conclusion. It leaves no doubt about what he wants to see happen to the option of international adoption.

The intercountry adoption system has become infected with a substantial degree of child laundering. This child laundering is not an inevitable feature of the system, but exists because of specific failings of law and practice within the current system. Therefore, there are three alternatives: continue the current system and allow systematic child laundering; shut down the system, or at least those parts so infected; or reform the system. This article has identified reforms that should be effective to sharply reduce the incidence of child laundering, as well as reducing the allied evils of profiteering and corruption within the adoption system. However, there are severe political difficulties with the proposals, as they are unlikely to be popular within the adoption community which dominates discourse on such issues within the United States. Vulnerable families in developing countries have little or no voice, and most stolen children never learn the tragedy of their origins. The adoption community generally resists reform. Thus, although these reforms may be rational, it is not clear that there is a rational reason to hope for their adoption.

In other words, it's not likely he'll be able to make the rules and run the show, so better shut down the whole darned thing.

This sort of pseudo-official-sounding rubbish gets tossed around a lot these days, and there are many who neglect the salt shaker when they see a schmancy watermark on a pdf or the word "Legal" attached.

For my part, it just makes me so #&*! mad!

"The adoption community generally resists reform." How dare he?

For more on getting it wrong, here's a post on how a newspaper does it. This one has a 'print and cut' handout for anyone dealing with uneducated criticism of their adoptions, and here is one that gives a long list reasons adoption is a GOOD thing.