Superbly done blog Sandra. No one could have said it better!
Lisa S.

"She should be nicer."

So should you!

Fantastic entry Sandra! I loved it! You said exactly what this adoptee and birthparent was thinking! Bravo!

I don't quite understand anti-adoption people.
It seems like it would be better to concentrate on certain conditions instead of attacking families and the like.

"So should you!

06/10/07 @ 09:06"

As regards saying it nicer, I think Sandra said it far nicer than many of the rest of us would have!

Jan, you're a fantastic writer and you have a lot of wisdom, particularly as regards the experiences of birthmothers. Sometimes, it's uncomfortable to read, but that's inherent in hard truths...they don't usually feel comfortable. I respect you.

I do have to wonder, though, if someone wrote a book, or several, villifying birthparents. If I called all birthparents agents of Satan and pointed to completely bogus statistics to show why they shouldn't be allowed to parent, would you be "nice" in your response?

Truly, I'm not trying to be sarcastic....I just can't figure out how to word the question in this charged atmosphere without it coming out sounding sarcastic or mean. So, I guess the best I can do is just say that it's an honest question....

SoBlessed,

Thanks for the compliments on my writing and wisdom. I appreciate your comments and your respect.

In response to your question, I probably would find if difficult to be nice if someone wrote a scathing book villifying birth parents. It is worse to me though that people write books full of mistruths making adoption appear to be all sweetness and light - trying to convince young women to relinquish.

BUT I do not believe that I would blog and call them names and attack them. Believe me, I am sometimes tempted. However,I do not think that is necessary or appropriate.

In fact there are many adoption books that I loathe, but I do not ridicule their authors, attack them and call them names. Maybe I should?

You worded your question fine by the way - I think it was a valid question.

I kind of just wish, and I haven't read the book, but do they have details about WHY there are so many disruptions to adoption?
I think one problem is a lot of social workers down playing the problems a child from foster care or an orphanage may have regardless of the age they are adopted. There are too many half-truths and misconceptions out there to fight and argue over. These folks should be more interested in presenting the whole truth, not something biased, you are talking about children from abusive homes, children in orphanages, children in brothels.
Who is interested in telling the real truth about things and not just pulling out myths and false statistics?
It's hard to be polite when people are painting things with too broad a brush and ignoring the things that are really important...

dang, I'm annoyed. It's frustrating enough reading about domestic abuse and wondering, when is the truth going to stop being obscured by lies and misrepresentations on all sides?

"You worded your question fine by the way - I think it was a valid question."

Good, I was worried about that. It's hard, sometimes, when you're writing what you think, because you have the benefit of knowing what you're thinking, but the reader doesn't. Add to that controversial content and it can get sticky. So I'm glad I didn't come across badly.

"It is worse to me though that people write books full of mistruths making adoption appear to be all sweetness and light - trying to convince young women to relinquish."

True....any misrepresentation of the "nitty-gritty" truth of something is harmful. It's also irritating. I don't find it worse than slander, though. I think slander is worse.....JMHO

"BUT I do not believe that I would blog and call them names and attack them."

I'm pretty sure I would....particularly if the content was as malicious and agenda-based as Ms. Riben's work.

For the most part, I believe respect for dissenting opinion is essential...it creates dialogue in which each person (party) may actually learn something....and that is the whole purpose of communication, be it written or spoken. But there will be comunication on the edges, on the fringe of either side that is so irrational and agenda-based that the appropriate response is scorn.

For those who say adoption is perfect and without problem, I have scorn. For those who say adoption is the root of all evil....well you get the message :)

I just want middle ground. I want the problems to be pointed out, but I don't want people to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Which is an amusing phrase.
Really the children should come first before anything else or any other consideration. What will help them to grow up in the most stable and best way possible.
The problem is when people get too caught up in ISSUES to pay attention to what they need.

I don't know if I am completely pro-life or pro-choice, but the idea of choosing abortion over adoption BOTHERS me to certain degrees. Or, perhaps it's the concept that a potential baby is better off not existing than being adopted. You might as well say, the world is a horrible place, why bring anyone into the world?

I've read The Stork Market and found more raw truth about adoption as it exists today in this book than most. People who are commenting should read the book before doing so.

The author concludes with "six principles around which adoption experts and existing reform organizations might coalesce efforts" ...

-Recognition that every child born has two parents, and should not be separated from them without good cause.

-An end to unregulated agencies and "facilitators."

-An end to the exploitation of poor women and commodification of their children in order to maintain a supply of infants to meet the "demand."

-An end to the falsification of birth records.

-The restoration of rights of adopted citizens to full equality with those of non-adopted citizens in regard to their birth records.

-Openness and honesty in adoption and enforcement of contact agreements.

(p 220, The Stork Market: America's multi-billion dollar unregulated adoption industry)

If you are saying that this call for the elimination of the profit motive which has led to corrupt and exploitive practices in adoption, call for an end to the commodification of babies and children, and denial of same of equal access to their original (actual) birth records as adults - if you call this "anti-adoptionist pap", think again.

If you really believe in adoption, you should be working with others to bring honesty and humanity to its corrupted face. Purify it. Bring it back to its original purpose of providing healthy loving families for children who truly need them. If you think adoption is "there" you're head is buried in the sand - you're blind to the injustices and rotteness that's taken hold through the privatization and profit-driven BUSINESS it has become.

Any used car salesman can become an adoption "facilitator" in some states where this is allowed. Is this what you want? Don't you agree that children are too precious to have their fate determined by used car salesman?

Thank you Merrill - you said so much beautifully!

"For those who say adoption is perfect and without problem, I have scorn. For those who say adoption is the root of all evil....well you get the message :)"

That is exactly how I feel!

I’m confused. You start off talking about Stork Market, but then quote “facts” allegedly from Dark Side.

I’ve read both of these books and then went back and looked again - and again - and I never saw anywhere in either book where the author says:

* 15% of adoptions fail. What she said was:
“...while the state of New Jersey, for instance, keeps track of how many Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) adoptive placements are disrupted before being finalized, the number that break down after adoptions are finalized is unknown.” p. 52

Nor did she say: ”TWICE as many adopted killers are in the category of Adoptees Who Killed Their Adopters." What is said is: “James Fox, professor of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University and co-author of Mass Murder; America's Growing Menace, told me in a telephone interview that adoptees are over-represented among serial murderers.” p.63

Nowhere did Mirah (aka Marsha) Riben say that 50-80% of foreign adoptions fails, or that “40% of adoptees end up in schools for disturbed children” or “40% of psychiatric internees surveyed were adoptees” or that “45% of all 602's (felonies committed by juveniles) are by adoptees."
Could you please give the exact page source because I look and I look but cannot find these things in either book.

I found this: “A few birthparents, such as Julie and Pat, were lucky enough to intervene in time to save their children from lives in foster homes, institutions or boarding schools. .... Just when she was about to give up hope, one of her leads led Carol to find her firstborn son in a state school where he had lived all of his life.” p 141

I also note that all stats in both of her books are footnoted with sources provided. And, adoptive parent groups such as Resolve and FACE gave her first book – which you claim these stats come from – a positive review.

If you disliked the book give it a bad review. But I am shocked and wonder why would you LIE like this? It really discredits YOU, and leaves open to be sued for slander, Sandra.

Unfortunately, even a true message can be delivered in such a way that it offends the intended audience. Not everyone likes Mirah Riben's style. Not everyone likes Sandra Benoiton's. How interesting that they are more alike than different. Both tend toward self-absorption and both might be guilty, at times, of tunnel vision. It's interesting that these traits grew out of the same experience -- the birth of a child out-of-wedlock and opposite methods of dealing with it -- at least in Benoiton's case she had a choice. In fact, I believe all sides of the triad tend to be self-absorbed and tunnel-visioned (did I coin a word?) to a greater or lesser degree. But there are some differences; Riben does not mince words but she is not abusive and insulting.

I've come to think that adoption is always the result of family dysfunction. A lot of this dysfunction results from the secrecy that surrounds adoption -- and Riben's book illustrates why. I'm sorry that Benoiton finds the truth uncomfortable but dysfunction is uncomfortable -- and embarrassing -- which is why we try to hide it.

Things are more open now -- that's great for domestic adoptions where adoptees might eventually be able to get answers to their questions. But for children taken out of their culture and transplanted to another the future is going to be fraught with angst -- more angst than normal for puberty and extending into adulthood.

I don't mean to sound self-absorbed and tunnel-visioned here but adoption is supposed to be about the needs of the child. It's not! Thus the secrecy, which is necessary to protect adoption profiteers. And profit is the cause of much of what's wrong. Even this forum is operated for profit. Eliminating the ability to profit -- in any way -- from adoption would be a major step in the right direction. I think that's the purpose of Riben's book.

"Don't you agree that children are too precious to have their fate determined by used car salesman?"

Of course that's what adoptive parents want, despite the slander against us that says otherwise. Where in Sandra's post did you see her say she was against any of what you listed? If you read Sandra's posts on a regular basis, you will see that she is ALL about the children.

What Sandra was railing against was the mentality that equates adoptive parents with the devil. As I understand it, Ms. Riben's statistics are wildly questionable and not supported by any reputable research. I certainly have not read anything like these numbers, even in the hostile anti-adoption pap (yes, pap) that exists online.

It is possible to get good adoption information (including the negatives, of which there are plenty) WITHOUT any of the controversial speculation that Sandra cites from Ms. Riben's work. Several are listed in adoptionblogs.com and on adoption.com.

"If you really believe in adoption, you should be working with others to bring honesty and humanity to its corrupted face".

In my opinion (and yes, I recognize that it's my opinion only), Sandra IS doing her part....both in the rearing of her children and in her contribution to the issues in international adoption that she consistently and persuasively writes about in her blog. It is up to her to decide how public or private she chooses to be in what she does to advocate for adoption reform. I am glad to have come in contact with her and her information on this site. It helps me to keep things in balance as I decide my own role in adoption reform....

"That is exactly how I feel!"
Good, Jan! Looks like we're going to agree on some things and disagree on others. Regardless, I'm happy to know you and hear what you have to say.

"Where in Sandra's post did you see her say she was against any of what you listed?"

Well, it seem she dismissed the book as a whole, in effect throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As someone else commented, too, the main purpose of the book was to expose the need to eliminate the profit motive in adoption. It encourages corrupt practices - Unsafe for babies and children.

Soblessed, have your read this book for yourself or are you basing it on Sandra's review?

There is a section of the book addressed to prospective adoptive parents about how to avoid being scammed--doesn't sound like someone out to "slander" them.

In the reading I didn't come away with an impression that adoptive parents were evil according to the author, "slandered" by her. There were some cases cited in the book that one can draw their own conclusions from about the particular people involved, but I don't believe the purpose of their inclusion in the book was to put down adoptive parents, rather to show the poor outcomes that corrupt practices and inadequate screening processes can lead to. Adopting doesn't automatically give people halos.

Also, without page and reference citations one can't easily determine if the quotes given in this blog are even accurately stated.

I'll say, some generalization here... that 'the traits of self-absorption and tunnel vision grow out of the experience of the birth of a child out-of-wedlock.'

Can you explain?



"It's interesting that these traits grew out of the same experience -- the birth of a child out-of-wedlock and opposite methods of dealing with it -- at least in Benoiton's case she had a choice. In fact, I believe all sides of the triad tend to be self-absorbed and tunnel-visioned (did I coin a word?) to a greater or lesser degree."

Wow, I think some of these responses depressed me more than hearing bits and pieces of the anti-adoption movement. I read Jan's blogs, because, while I don't always agree, I believe that she is sincere and offers honest insight from a birthmother's perspective. I read adoptees blogs because, more than anything, I want to know how my son may or may not feel later in life.

I love my son more than anything. He is the most amazing, precious little boy - why would I want to read about stuff that completely invalidates his experience or life?

Besides all of that, when I read some of the stuff against international adoption especially (and certainly, there are valid points), my heart breaks because I have traveled and lived in poverty stricken countries where children beg on the streets and young children end up in the sex trade, and I can tell you that if you ever see that for yourself you never think that adoption is an necessary evil.

I think I have said it before, but it bears saying again - whatever decisions are made they should be about the children, about the children, about the children. It is what I always come back to when I read the varying views.

Romee

Merill,

You are arguing apples and oranges. You keep referring to The Stork Market, understandably because Ms. Benoiton begins her diatribe by saying: "Riben's latest spew of mediocre pap"

This would lead to your confusion, since the latest of Riben's books is the Stork Market. However, Benoiton is obviously trashing a books she's never seen or read because all of her made up "quotes" are allegedly from the Dark Side Of Adoption published in 1988 - but still valid, footnoted and documented, and which contains none of the rubble and trash Benoiton fabricated herein.

Perhaps it is Benoiton who is interested in gaining popularity with her blogging? Riben doesn't profit from the sale of her books but donates all profts to: www.TwiceLost.org and other non-profits. So, allegations that "she's trying to make a buck on a book" are as false as the alleged "quotes" from her books! All made-up to hype this blog.

As you said, Merrill, the Stork Market helps prospective adopters avoid being scammed. And The Dark Side has a chapter entitled "Adoption: A Circle of Love..."

That's real mean and nasty, huh? Very evil and "satanic" I'd say!

Which is probably why Resolve reviewed it syeyld idea that adoption is a winning solution for everyone...this book is to be recommended as one of the few available which balances the more usual happy-ending adoption stories with a birthparent's reality...it is recommended for those who prefer the truth, even if unpleasant, to unquestioned adoption mythology."

And, Gigi Wirtz, Families Adopting Children Everywhere (FACE)said:

"Although not an easy book for an adoptive parent to read, this is certainly an important book for anyone striving to understand all sides of the adoption triangle. The good news (for adoptive parents) is that Riben is not slamming adoptive parents...her really big guns are leveled at The System. I recommend that adoptive parents read this book."

But then, these peoole actually READ the book they were reviewing! A novel approach...and one Benoiton ought to try.

Oh, I get it now! Benoitn's bio explains it all...she writes FICTION!

Okay ... I'll try to make this as simple as possible for those having comprehension trouble.

Neither this post nor the one it follows is a review. There are no quotes from any of Riben's books in either post. Not one.

The spew of mediocre pap I refer to was an article posted on the Internet. Note the link?

When I do review Riben's book, I will have read it.

Following so far?

Now, go back and read the post, and please try getting to all the words.

Thanks so much for your participation in the dialog.

Points from that article you posted annoyed me...
Especially thinking that abortion is better than adoption.
That bugs me, and i hate talking about abortion and pro life vs pro choice because both sides annoy me too much.

Great, now that a few of you have gone around sharing punches, maybe we could go back to what matters (to me and a few others anyway - like Jan AND Sandra) - the needs of the CHILDREN!!!

Romee

"When I do review Riben's book, I will have read it."

Well that's nice to finally admit when forced to after you have published your OPINIONS of two books you've never read on at least three different websites and blogs!

How do DARE to cast opinions of books you haven't read???! And what do you call an opinion piece about a book in your language, Ms. Bonoitn? In English that's called a REVIEW! And it's shameless!

Lori Carangelo is Loris Carangelo and none of the material is any of Mirah's Riben's books uses her web pages as a source. All of Riben's sources are original professional sources!

This entire blog is pure unadulterated intentionally misleading BULL doo-doo that stinks fare more than any book you are speaking about!

You are a sham and discredit to adoption.com and adoption.org which allegedly have some printed standards.

You provide link to link to link...to a sea of dribble of you've written on numerous blogs...and yet I have found not on link to anything Riben has written with these ridiculous ststitsics.

Could you provide a direct link to anything that ties Riben to any of this in any way shape or form to validate any of the accusations you've made here here to turn people off from two books that are helpful and important to all members of the triad???

Okay, one more time for the desperately reading challenged ...

Since 'follow the links" seems to be really hard for some people, here is the link to Riben's blather:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mirah_ri_070512_a_mothers__day_lette.htm

It's been right there in the original post ... linked back to ... all along. See how that works?

Okay? Good.

Now, those who still can't figure it out are excused. The rest of us can, and will, discuss the issues.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mirah_ri_070512_a_mothers__day_lette.htm
I'd like to adopt from the state one day, but the process seems intimadating and I have heard stories from the adoption foster to adopt forum that have scared me, horrible depressing stories.
I wish she'd address the reforms needed in the American system instead of looking down on people who adopt internationally when children EVERYWHERE need a home and stability.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_mirah_ri_070424_babies_and_big_busin.htm
I think adoption does need reforms, but I disagree with a lot of this woman's points. In fact, Riben's tone really bothers me.
She's not looking enough into the conditions that cause international adoption to be a factor in things.
I feel that most of the folks that are critical about adoption do that.
Like when they link adoptees to crime, they never really address WHY quite a few children who have been adopted might turn to crime. They make it sound like it's linked to adoption, but a lot of children, especially children adopted at an early age have had a lot of trauma, whether they are adopted from orphanages or foster care.
I think more energy, for the love of all things holy should be spent on reforming the foster care system!
You don't know how much it BOTHERS me. You get peopel going on and on about the "evils" of international adoption without addressing why so many people turn away from adopting domestically from foster care! grah!
I wish there was a way to get politicians, religious leaders to FIX this. There's no way a child should be tossed around like this, nor should they be in orphanages with horrible conditions and abuse.
There are bigger issues not being addressed.

I know abortion and adoption are different, but the statements in one of these articles were linking them, and they are linked in the minds of anti-abortion people.

The way the quotes were posted was very very misleading. Who has time to go link to link to link to link to link to explore what the blogger is (seeking to accomplish). This isn't about reading comprehension. People often just scan a blog and form an impression from there without following a long trail.

Who are Origins?
If they are anything like some of those people I were reading last night.
They make my head explode from their illogic.

Riben is a co-founder of "Origins", honestly that is enough to know about her agenda for me.

Deb,

The Origins that Riben co-founded is a NJ based organization in existence since 1980.

I think perhaps you are confusing that with OriginsUSA which is an entirely different entity, established in the 90's and affiliated with OriginsAU and Origins CA.

HOWEVER, no individual member of any organization can be labeled with the broad brush applied to an entire organization's beliefs. Do all Republicans share one mind on all issues?

"Soblessed, have your read this book for yourself or are you basing it on Sandra's review?"

I have based my opinion of M. Riben's agenda based on the articles that were linked in Sandra's blog. Before I cut someone down under the guise of providing "feedback", I like to be sure I have given sufficient time and attention to what is actually written. After reading the articles authored by Ms. Riben I have no further interest in reading anything written by her. As I posted before, there are plenty of books with reliable information on the pros and cons of adoption that I can read for a balanced view of adoption.

"HOWEVER, no individual member of any organization can be labeled with the broad brush applied to an entire organization's beliefs"

I think this is absoloutely true...however, I think there is a lot of "painting with a broad brush" going on re: adoptive parents in Ms. Riben's work. It works both ways.

Here's one to read, by Barbara Raymond, adoptive mother - The Baby Thief: The Untold Story of Georgia Tann, the Baby Seller Who Corrupted Adoption. Published May/07 by Carroll & Graf. Lot's of 5 star reviews. It's my next read.


"Her [Tann's] legacy continues today. While building her black market business she shaped modern American adoption -- popularizing it, commercializing it, and corrupting it with secrecy. To cover her crimes and to please her wealthy adoptive parent clients, she began the practice of falsifying adoptees' birth certificates to portray their adoptive parents as having borne them. It caught on, and today all of our country's six million adoptees have phony birth certificates." Barbara Raymond

Barbara Raymond is the author of The Baby Thief. She happens to be an adoptive mother, and is working towards reforms. Sometimes we need to look back in history to see the foundations of our modern adoption practices, even as they exist today.

I have read all of Riben's books and articles.An not one slams adoptive mothers (or fathers) excerpt those who have abused children in their car.

Ms. Benoiton is upset and offended that international adoption is being scrutinized by the Russian, Romanian, and Guatemalan governments and wants to shoot the messenger. Riben doesn't make up fact; she is a researcher and a good and accurate one. She reports on the issues and the facts. Her position regarding international adoption is that of UNICEF, CRS and the Hague Convention.

Her fairness and accuracy in reporting the facts led to her book being positively reviewed by Resolve and FACE. Those reviews, and others, are available at:
www.AdvocatePublications.com with further description of both of Riben's books.

"Neither this post nor the one it follows is a review."

Do you really think that gets you off the hook by calling it not a review?
What do you call writing this about you admit you never read?

"Since her last one, Shedding The Dark Side of Adoption: blah, blah, something longwinded and sinister-sounding, or something like that, equated adoptive parents with the devil, I'm guessing this next one will be somewhere near as well balanced and informative."

How do you know what that book "equated adoptive parents with"? Or do facts just boggle your mind and bounce off and you write whatever trash you care to?

And for awriting lesspn, Sandra:

"And if you think that stat is surprising (!) how about this from the same source:"

With NO link and no reference to which of the sources about you are talking about is either the worst writing or intentionally misleading. I'll will credit you with not being stupid, and go for it being the later.

Your back-peddling is not cutting it, Sandra!

I think she's frustrated about the letter.
I can't blame her.
The tone of it bugs me.
I really want these people to put their energy to REFORMING AND IMPROVING THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM!

I really wish there was middle ground.

Also I did not know you were tom hank's sister.
cool.

Thank you, Truthinadoption, or should I say Mirah, for posting a link to your website. We should note here that one would, of course, have positive reviews on a website where they are trying to sell their books.

Since this is such an interesting dialog and people are actually trying to inform themselves and make educated decisions, I'll be happy to leave the comment and link up.

As I stated in a comment to Sandra's previous blog:

I think people are getting a bit confused with the article that Riben wrote and the books that she's written. In case you are confused, this blog is in response to an ARTICLE written by Riben and linked to directly in this blog.

For anyone who didn't catch it, here is the link:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mirah_ri_070512_a_mothers__day_lette.htm

This is not a review of ANY of Riben's books. Again, it is a response to her article printed in OpEdNews.com entitled: "A Mother's Day Letter to Angelina Jolie".

So, let me get this straight. Mirah Riben who wrote both the articles and the books in question, is blogging AS SOMEONE ELSE, praising her own work? Is that right? Because if it is....well, then I'm beginning to understand those statistics.....

"I really want these people to put their energy to REFORMING AND IMPROVING THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM!"

What makes you think people aren't doing that also? But for those unfamiliar with the issues, The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform website is a great place to start education yourself. This group is doing awesome work.
http://www.nccpr.org/
And please check out the NCCPR Child Welfare Blog:
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/blog.htm
written by Richard Wexler, NCCPR Executive Director. Excellent blog, and very clear.

Thank you for reposting that! Yes, that's an OpEd: by definition an opinion piece.

Chromesthesia, sorry my dear. As you can see, none of the staff of adoption.com are interested in helping children - just in-fighting and makignmoney through adoption ads. What a pity!

You are far more likely to find the help you seek at National Coalition for Child Rights. www.nccpr.org/

I doubt that is totally the case...
*points to all of these hard working people here(

OK... Someone named Lori Carangelo, who has a webpage entitled AMFOR, quoted Riben and other sources:

15% of ALL adoptions fail. -Marsha Riben, in Shedding Light on the Dark Side of Adoption


50%-80% of ALL FOREIGN adoptions are terminated. -from agency and association estimates quoted in "Foreign Adoption Sours; Risk Not Uncommon," Saginaw News, 2-24-91.

However, you did not state these other sources of the quotes, but use all of this against Mirah Riben?? And use this to trash a book or books by Riben?

And you justify doing all of this because Riben wrote an op ed that you disagreed with???

Morning has broken on this side of the planet, and I wake up to find so much action here. I'd like to thank everyone for the time and effort expended to participate in this dialog. I'm guessing a record has been set for comments.

I think it's quite clear that the anti-adoption league has shifted into high gear with their attack, and as it gets more personal their true colors show clearly.

One tactic they're fond of is the "intentionally obtuse" posture ... one in which they feign being too thick to understand points, but which is really simply an excuse to sideline discussion by throwing in kitchen sinks and other nonsense. It is frustrating to read, no doubt, but necessary to study as it does reveal a lot about how their machine is set to function.

They are very organized, which is more reason for those of us with reason in our heads and the world's children in our hearts to continue to challenge their self-serving POV.

I am sure this post which began with me regretting giving Riben ... or "Truthinadoption" as she dubs herself when trying to pretend to be a fan of herself ... more publicity, and I'm sure she'll get some milage, but as I said originally, " ... perhaps she'll get the idea that adoptive parents don't take well to name calling. Satan's helpers and raging racists, indeed! She should be nicer."

NCCRP seems cool
But what I want is more hardcore changes to the system, not just preventing them from removing children because of poverty, but changing the whole system entirely so they no longer-
bounce a child from one foster home to the next.
Allow people to get custody of their children when they have done NOTHING on their reunion plan but the bare minimum.
Reward parents who actually are working on their plan with things like more visits.
That they not use Illinois' plan in other states...
And things that are probably impossible, but should be done anyway.

Sandra, I think you have hit the all time high for comments!

I find it interesting how you read something, share how it does not match up, and suddenly people are jumping out of the woodwork (even disguising themselves) to say, "Wait thats not what it meant at all".
What I wonder is did we really read it wrong, or did they simply get caught because someone was smart enough to figure out what was truly being said?
Ok, take that back, I don't wonder at all.

Chromesthesia

I share your concerns. This is perhaps not the venue to find support for issues of Family Preservation, as adoption.com is a business entity supported entirely by advertisers all of whom profit solely from the placement of children in non-related adoptions. It is thus counter for them to give any advise or support any groups, books etc. that provide support to families in crisis.

Sandra expressed her joy at the number the number of posts and probably started this whole contrived controversy, because it is financially advantageous for adoption.com to maximize "hits" as they mean viewed ads which means revenue for adption.com.

I agree that Illinois has a model plan. Riben mentions it her new book. I suggest you google family preservation, and contact NCCR which while it may to appear to hold the answer you seek, may lead you in the right direction.

Good luck.

Dear “Guestblogger”,

I’m sorry, but the name you registered with implies that you are an employee or “guest blogger” for AdoptionBlogs.com. Since Guest Blogger is a term we use regularly, we would prefer not to allow that as a name used when posting comments.
Please feel free to register under a more appropriate screen name.

Model plan?
From what I read of it, it sounded like a terrible idea. Perhaps i should read more about it, but some folks on the forum stated it was one reason they were pulling away from being a foster parent.
But perhaps I misunderstood the word "model".
I don't think family preservation is a good idea in every situation anymore than separating a child is a good idea in all situations.
I think we need social workers and judges that look at cases from an individual basis instead of squeezing square pegs into round holes which seems to be done too many times.

FWIW, I think this discussion is useless. For all we know, "guestblogger" and others are simply more of Ms. Riben's aliases designed to, as Sandra has reported, increase publicity for her book.

There is no point in debating something with people who are that manipulative. IMO, the goal here is to manipulate facts, conversations and people to suit their agenda. As Sandra said, they are often intentionally obtuse. Notice how they dodge the core issues? It also appears that attacking relentlessly and personally to avoid direct questions is another tactic they employ.

"I think it's quite clear that the anti-adoption league has shifted into high gear with their attack, and as it gets more personal their true colors show clearly."

Sure seems that way!!

" I don't think family preservation is a good idea in every situation anymore than separating a child is a good idea in all situations.
I think we need social workers and judges that look at cases from an individual basis instead of squeezing square pegs into round holes which seems to be done too many times."

Totally agree, Chromesthesia, good point!!

i have been sitting back reading this and other adoption material and i disgaree with your conclusions, soblessed. first how do we know who is a friend or supporter of anyone in an online disucsison by basically anonynmous posters? as far as i can see afte rrading all the links it is snadra who has totally manipulated and twisted the facts to suit her own agenda. and naturally she has buddies like you to support and agree with her ... or are you her in diguise? i mean really anyone can make accusations...maybe i'm an international spy. maybe you're from outer space....

accusations are accusations and facts are facts. the fact is that this sandra person doesn;t like what riben has to say. so be it. who cares?

like paris hilton, ya'll rich and think-yer famous folk need to get over yourselves

This whole discussion reminds me an expression I'm very fond of and personally believe in:

Eschew Obsfuscation
Espouse Elucidation

Something that ideally should apply to everyone no matter what "side" of an issue one feels they are on, or are being placed into by others without knowing their full view.

I chimed into this discussion, thinking (in error) that it was about a book review of a book I in fact read, and therefore commented on with direct quotes and my own impression. I find it offensive to be automatically placed into an "anti-adoption league" as someone who isn't against all adoption. There is actually a spectrum of belief out here.

"I find it offensive to be automatically placed into an "anti-adoption league" as someone who isn't [I meant IS] against all adoption."

And it wasn't a freudian slip. I'm not against all adoption, but see a place for it in some cases. I'm against unneccesary adoption, unnecessary family separations.

As I said, discussion at this point is useless.

Soblessed, go ahead and close your mind. I personally, have one username, one identity here. I'm not here to push any group/organization/individual's agenda. You probably took what I said above wrong, thinking I'm someone against all adoption and therefore in the "anti-adoption league".


Chromesthesia,


"I don't think family preservation is a good idea in every situation"

The NCCPR doesn't espouse that idea either:

"Contrary to the way advocates of placement prevention often are
stereotyped, we do not believe in 'family preservation at all costs' or that
'every family can be saved.' " http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/page0005.html

Yes, these are stereotypes (like the words "anti-adoption/ist/ism" are used for anyone who makes a peep for needed changes in adoption.



"I think we need social workers and judges that look at cases from an
individual basis"

Good, but I'd add UNbiased social workers and judges.

"instead of squeezing square pegs into round holes which
seems to be done too many times."

That can run *both* ways.

INTRODUCTION: HOW THE WAR AGAINST CHILD ABUSE BECAME A WAR AGAINST CHILDREN

http://www.nccpr.org/issues/1.html

I wrote: "I find it offensive to be automatically placed into an "anti-adoption league" as someone (myself) who isn't against all adoption. There is actually a spectrum of belief out here."

This was accurately stated in the first place. When I changed the wording I was thinking of the characterization of someone in an "anti-adoption league" as someone who IS against all adoption, which I'm not. If this was confusing, it wasn't intentional.

"i have been sitting back reading this and other adoption material and i disgaree with your conclusions, soblessed."

Chosenmom...I think it's good that you are thinking about the issues. You, of course, have the right to agree or disagree. You are the one ultimately responsible for what you believe so, obviously, you should make up your own mind. I do the same, as does everyone here.

"first how do we know who is a friend or supporter of anyone in an online disucsison by basically anonynmous posters? as far as i can see afte rrading all the links it is snadra who has totally manipulated and twisted the facts to suit her own agenda. and naturally she has buddies like you to support and agree with her ... or are you her in diguise? i mean really anyone can make accusations...maybe i'm an international spy. maybe you're from outer space...."

I think you're intentionally taking this to an extreme that distorts the original message. Sandra and I, contrary to your own assumption, are not "buddies". She did not call me to come running in to support her; she doesn't even know me. I read the blog, read the comments; knew some of Ms. Riben's work from my own research and entered the fray of my own volition. There are several people here who share your point of view; are they your "buddies"? Ms. Riben is posting here under "truthinadoption" without making it clear that she is, in fact, the author of the work under discussion. Furthermore, she posts links to opportunities to buy her work. To me, this outlines an agenda far, far more clearly than what you are accusing Sandra of. Third, neither aliens from outer space nor international spies are the subject of this discussion. The author's questionable actions, such as misrepresenting herself, ARE under discussion.

"accusations are accusations and facts are facts."

I totally agree....and I don't think Ms. Riben is sharing "the facts" honestly.

"the fact is that this sandra person doesn;t like what riben has to say. so be it. who cares?"

If you don't care, why are you commenting? For that matter, why are there over 50 comments on this post? I think Sandra hit a nerve and I think a lot of people, yourself included, don't like it.

"like paris hilton, ya'll rich and think-yer famous folk need to get over yourselves"

Actually, you are making an assumption here (or is it an accusation?). If you were less interested in nailing me and more interested in dialogue, you would know that I am neither rich nor famous. Nor do I aspire to be either rich or famous.

"Soblessed, go ahead and close your mind."

I don't consider my mind closed. However, since it is my mind, I will use it, as God intends, to make decisions for my children, my family and myself. I have a responsibility to make good solid decisions based on the information, observations and research that I have on hand. This is what I have done, and will continue, to do.

"I personally, have one username, one identity here. I'm not here to push any group/organization/individual's agenda. You probably took what I said above wrong, thinking I'm someone against all adoption and therefore in the "anti-adoption league"

I'm having a hard time taking your statement in any particular way as it is fairly confusing. However, I have re-read it several times and I think I understand what you are saying.

No, I don't know you. I'm glad you're an independent thinker. I'm glad you are not anti-adoption. I'm glad you've given thought to what you believe. As for someone being "anti-adoption" or "not anti-adoption", I find that confusing to determine. There are many people who lobby to eliminate most aspects of adoption under the guise of "adoption reform". Although I believe there are serious, ongoing, current problems with adoption, I believe we should fix what's wrong and keep what's right. And what's right is the thousands and thousands of involved birthparents and thousands and thousands of content, well-adjusted adoptive families.

"Good, but I'd add UNbiased social workers and judges."

Well, there you go. A point on which we both agree.

A colleague told me this had gotten WAY out of hand. Interesting that one of the posts from Lisa P. seems to have disappeared. And now the book review, "trash adoption and sell a book" is being recast as referring to an article writen by Riben but the quotes till come from Lori Carangelo. I'm very confused. And I think that's the point.

But I get one point: international adoption: good -- adoption reform: bad.

Now you are really going to get a kick out of this one. AdoptionBlogs Editor (Lisa P.) doesn't look like she has two heads. I checked out her bio. But in her other life she is against human trafficking. No lie -- check this out.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/149800/human_trafficking_what_it_is_and_why.html?post=true&#comment

Bring back Nancy Ashe, please!

I'd say both are good, but you've got to look at the whole picture to know what has to be reformed.
What really needs to be addressed is a larger issue, that like the ocean simply can't be held in a small container.
How can you eliminate poverty in another country when people cannot even do that here?
How can the attitudes such as favouring girls over boys in some countries change so that girls are no longer abandoned or worse?
There are things about international adoption that can be linked to the scandals of the 50s and 60s, but then it just doesn't fit because there are other things toconsider that these articles I've read haven't addressed in a satisfactory way...
At least Sandra seems to do a good job of addressing the agonizing circumstances such as ones in Cambodia I can't even think of.

"I'm very confused"

Margaret, I refer you to the editor's post of 06/11/2007:

"I think people are getting a bit confused with the article that Riben wrote and the books that she's written. In case you are confused, this blog is in response to an ARTICLE written by Riben and linked to directly in this blog.

For anyone who didn't catch it, here is the link:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mirah_ri_070512_a_mothers__day_lette.htm

This is not a review of ANY of Riben's books. Again, it is a response to her article printed in OpEdNews.com entitled: "A Mother's Day Letter to Angelina Jolie".
06/11/07 @ 16:49 "

I think it is quite clear that Sandra is writing a blog commenting on the ARTICLE "A Mother's Day Letter to Angelina Jolie". If her method of writing is confusing to you, that is a seperate issue from the blog being a book review.

"And now the book review, "trash adoption and sell a book" is being recast as referring to an article writen by Riben but the quotes till come from Lori Carangelo"

Your continued use of the words book review (after comments to the contrary) to describe Sandra's blog make me wonder if your confusion is deliberate.

Now you are really going to get a kick out of this one. AdoptionBlogs Editor (Lisa P.) doesn't look like she has two heads."

Why would Lisa P. have two heads any more than me or you? She's expressing an opinion. So are you. Does this mean YOU have two heads? For the record, I don't think anyone who has posted on this blog has more than one head. To suggest otherwise seems like just being mean.

"I checked out her bio. But in her other life she is against human trafficking. No lie -- check this out.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/149800/human_trafficking_what_it_is_and_why.html?post=true&#comment

Bring back Nancy Ashe, please!
06/12/07 @ 18:32 "

Uhm, yeah......and? Is there some mutual exclusivity between being an advocate for internationally adopted children and an opponent of human trafficking? Are you, in fact, EQUATING human trafficking and international adoption? Because, IMO, that is not only inflammatory, it is completely irresponsible and an example of the illogical and fanatical thinking that is dominating the anti-adoption movement.

"Are you, in fact, EQUATING human trafficking and international adoption? Because, IMO, that is not only inflammatory, it is completely irresponsible and an example of the illogical and fanatical thinking that is dominating the anti-adoption movement."

Mirah Riben here. The following are from a reputable sources and speak for theselves. Any complaints or need to refute these *facts*, please take them to the sources, not to me.

* "Baby-Buying and Child Trafficking for Adoption in Cambodia.
Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO) investigations of actual cases have revealed clear patterns and networks in the process of buying babies or young children for the purposes of adoption.

"LICADHO considers that there is enough evidence of serious improprieties within the adoption system to warrant grave concern and further investigation. Particularly, LICADHO advocates concerted action by both Cambodian and United States authorities to assess the extent of adoption-related abuses, mount prosecutions against individual perpetrators, identify the weaknesses of the adoption system and implement reforms to address them."

http://www.licadho.org/reports.php?perm=31

* FACT: Adoptions from Cambodia were suspended by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in December 2001. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty re-ported in September 2006 that she was hopeful the Cambodian government would end the four-year suspension on U.S. adoptions from Cambodia.

* Adoption: danger of child trafficking, Geneva, Brussels - January 7, 2005.
"We are concerned that European governments are influenced by the pressure of adoptive parents waiting to adopt a child, some of them for years. The authorities have to take a firm stand that children affected by the Tsunami are not suitable for adoption, at least not for the time being. Therefore, in view of the danger of child trafficking, Terre des hommes supports the efforts of the affected countries to ban adoption from the disaster areas."
http://www.stopchildtrafficking.info/comments.php?id=44_0_1_0_C

Just a tiny sampling.

PS I realize that my article about Aneglina touched a real sore spot, inasmuch as Sandra adopted her "children from Serey Puth of AOA "orphanage," a one time associate of Lauryn Galindo, who helped Jolie adopt her Cambodian son, Maddox. Galindo pleaded guilty to visa fraud and money laundering as part of a ring that paid poor Cambodian women as little as $100 or less for their children. The agency which handled hundreds of such adoptions charged fees of $10,000." U.S. Official Praises Cambodia's Progress on Adoptions. Asia-Pacific News, Sep 13, 2006.

WOW. I actually ate an entire bag of bagel chips reading through all the comments, this has to be some sort of record. Sandra I love your posts, I always do, thanks for tonights entertainment I enjoyed reading through all of it!!

Go ask adult adoptees if they consider matters pertaining to adoption entertaining. I think one difference between the perspective of adoptive parents of young children and that of birth parents whose surrendered children are now adults, is that we are exposed to the perpective of adult adopted persons. It's not one to take lightly.

Julie:

Were they the garlic bagel chips, 'cause I just love those (as my hips will testify!). Anyway:

Mirah, in all sincerity, I really wonder why you use so many aliases. It's just curious to me.

"The following are from a reputable sources and speak for theselves. Any complaints or need to refute these *facts*, please take them to the sources, not to me".

This does not follow the rules of fair dialogue, Mirah. YOu are, in essence saying, here are the ONLY facts and so there! you can't say anything about it". That does not allow your readers to agree to disagree or to express their own POV.

Stats and quotes work both ways. We all can pull up quotes and statistics from reputable people and "prove" that we are right. The fact of the matter is, I have my own opinion of IA, formed by research in books and online, anecdotes from adoptees, adoptive families and birthfamilies, experiences I have participated in and the experiences of those close to me. These are the "research" I base my opinion on. I assume you gather your "research" the same way.

Yes, baby trafficking occurs in foreign countries. It's unspeakably awful. Also legal, ethical, successful adoptions occur in foreign countries. These are good. IMO, the answer to the problems regarding baby trafficking is to put safeguards into place (such as DNA testing, required consent signatures from birthmother in seperate places at seperate times, "crackdowns" on unethical lawyers and agencies, etc.) while continuing to support the country through humanitarian relief efforts and, where necessary, adoptions.

What really gets my goat is when people push, push, push to stop IA, but have no comment and, in fact, often disappear from a discussion when asked what happens to the hundreds of thousands of children left in a country too poor to support them. Reducing or even (please, God) eliminating baby trafficking WHILE still helping abandoned children find homes, domestically and internationally, is a much more responsible answer, IMO, to the problems you mention, Mirah.

Adopting children seperated from their parents by a tsunami is a completely different issue. I mean, come on. We're all capable of recognzing that children seperated from their parents by a tsumani or other natural disaster are not abandoned or necessarily even orpahned. Their family status is unknown. This makes them ineligible for adoption.

So, Sandra adopted her child(ren) from an agency that had a one time association with another agency that helped Angelina Jolie adopt her child and you surmise that this touches a sore spot with Sandra. There's some inuendos in there, not a few assumptions, no solid facts....what is it you're trying to say, Mirah?

Again, it would be an aid to dialogue if you would simply say what you mean.

I haven't noticed much dialogue going on in this blog - a few people tried to offer serious commentary only to be whacked over the head with "facts". Please, I know statistics - any of us can and do twist facts to suit our purposes - it is human nature (and yes, I believe all members of the triad are guilty of this at one time or another).

A couple of times I mentioned the importance of the children and no one (except Sandra) made any mention of it. Isn't it about the children and what is best for them? I am sorry, but I am not about to ignore the plight of the children.

And I must agree about the tsunami - I see that as a very separate circumstance.

So, Sandra, please keep blogging - rational people please keep up the dialogue - people who only like to use frying pans to bash people, well - YOU TALK SO LOUDLY I CAN NO LONGER HERE YOUR MESSAGE!

Thanks,

Romee

Oops THAT IS HEAR YOUR MESSAGE - I am tired!

R

• In the past two years, LICADHO investigations have found direct, credible evidence of child trafficking by people associated with four orphanages which provide children for adoption to the US. In addition, LICADHO has received information alleging other improprieties, such as the preparation of fraudulent paperwork for ‘orphans’, by a number of other orphanages and adoption facilitators.

• Based on complaints by birth parents seeking the return of their children, LICADHO has investigated cases of alleged trafficking involving a total of at least 15 identified children. Of these children, 10 were eventually returned to their birth parent/s after LICADHO intervention to the authorities, 3 were reportedly adopted to the US, and the whereabouts of 2 are unknown. In addition to these cases, LICADHO has received information about a number of other alleged trafficking cases but was unable to identify the children involved and their biological families.

• LICADHO has interviewed several foreign adoptive parents, and is aware of others, who adopted older children on the basis of official paperwork stating that the children were abandoned or their parents were dead and they had no siblings. Subsequent to the adoption, the adopters were told by the children that they did indeed have surviving parents or siblings. In one recent case, an adoptive couple returned to Cambodia and, assisted by LICADHO and with minimal effort, located the birth family of their adopted children; it was confirmed that the children had been sold by one of their birth parents (without the other parent’s consent) to child traffickers and had ended up in the hands of an adoption facilitator.

• In recent months, LICADHO has interviewed many people acquainted with the adoption system – including government officials, non-government organization staff, and adoptive parents – and concluded that unscrupulous practices by orphanages and facilitators, and related bribery and fraudulent paperwork, are common knowledge in adoption circles. While few if any people are prepared to speak publicly on these issues, privately they acknowledge widespread problems. Detailed information such as amounts of bribes that need to be paid, and the names of corrupt officials and others who profit from the adoption business, is widely known.

It is appropriate and indeed essential that the US take a leading role in combating adoption-related child trafficking in Cambodia, given that the US is the largest market for Cambodian ‘orphans’. There has been a phenomenal increase in Cambodian children being adopted to the US in recent years.

It is essential that a line of defense against adoption-related trafficking continue to be enforced by the authorities of countries such as the US to which Cambodian children are adopted. The initiatives of the US Embassy in Phnom Penh, the DOS and the INS to combat adoption-related crimes should be supported.

There is a crucial need for the prosecution of unscrupulous adoption-related acts which constitute criminal offences under Cambodian law or the laws of the US and other receiving countries. Without the prosecution of perpetrators, there will be no deterrent to others who use similar methods.

Source: Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human

http://www.licadho.org/reports.php?perm=31Rights

You just don't get it do you? You have lost any of us who might be willing to have a dialogue about the issues

Hope it works out for you - I completely skipped over the last post as I am weary of you (as are many others).

Ciao,

Romee

Sorry to see you go, Romee :)

Mirah,

Your recent comment points out that there is baby trafficking in foreign adoptions, specifically in this case, Cambodia.

Yes, I know that. Tragically, it occurs in many desperately poor countries where human life, especially of a specific gender, is horrifically under-valued.

You have stated that the US should step up and take a role in combating baby trafficking.

Yes, I know that too. I agree

You have stated that people who are proven to be intentionally involved in baby trafficking should be prosecuted.

Yes, I know that. I agree.

No where in your recent reply is there an attempt to address the serious issues raised in this blog.

Mirah,

WHY haven't you addressed the issues brought up by myself and others in this comment section of now epic proportions.

To recap, a few of these points/questions include:

1. what happens to the children in countries where adoptions are ceased but the country is too poor to care for even a fraction of it's poor, thereby leaving children to be sold, starved, beaten, kidnapped into gangs or forced into prostitution?

2. why can't countries enact, with the help of the UN, safeguards to protect against human trafficking while continuing to offer homes, both domestically and internationally, to abandoned children?

3. why are you not-so-subtly accusing Sandra of collaborating unethically to adopt her children?

4. Why do you continue to throw statistics and "facts" instead of addressing/answering real issues?

5. Why do you not address safe guards CURRENTLY in place in countries like Guatemala, like DNA testing, multiple consent signatures and sworn statements?

I'm sorry, Mirah, but when you continue to obscure honest questions by throwing anything you can into the mix, it DOES seem to support Sandra's claim that you intend to obscure the point for so long that most people give up in frustration.

SoBlessed et al,

I am a reporter. I report facts. I occassionaly draw some reasonable conclusions and express opinions based on those facts.

You ask a thoughtful question:

"why can't countries enact, with the help of the UN, safeguards to protect against human trafficking while continuing to offer homes, both domestically and internationally, to abandoned children?"

They are attempting to do just that. Unfortunately, the US -- one the major receiving countries in world adoptions -- has steadfastly put off singing the Hague Convention on the Rights of the Child and UNICEF CRC that would offer the most basic guidelines for international adoptions.

IMO, the reason is clear: There is no money in helping families stay together, just as there is no money in preventing world hunger, or creating world peace, or stopping a myriad of human rights atrocities such as torture and child soldiers.

It is a FACT, however, that there is money in trafficking and selling children for adoption because there is a demand. Chilren are a commodity - like drugs and diamonds - wanted in the West and easily stolen in the east and South America.

Adoption is estimated to be a $6.3 billion dollar a year industry worldwide according to International Advocates for Children, and $2-3 billion a year estimated in the US and growing every day.

It is a fact that I have never attacked any individual adoptive parent nor adoptive parents in general. I work with many adoptive parents who are as zealous as I am to put and end to corruption in adoption, domestically and internationally.

I expose atrocities of adoption practitioners - those who broker babies. I am fully cognizant that most who adopt and/or are planning to adopt are unaware that the child they are pining for may have been stolen. I am aware that many people adopt children because they truly believe that adoption rescues and saves them - and in many cases it does! However, the end does not justify, change or make noble the means. And turning a deaf ear ad a blind eye to the harm being done by adoption - because it is painful to hear - does nothing to help put and end to it.

I report the facts to educate people to little known truths so that they can they make informed choices and perhaps chose another avenue to save a child rather than risk delaing with one of the many unscrupulous baby brokers. With a long chain of events occurring from the time children are taken from their mothers, sold to baby brokers and in many cases orphanages that are likewise corrupt both overseas and here...and with the secretiveness of adoption and documents falsified...it is impossible to know if the child one is taking home has been obtained legally or not.

I do not wish to cause pain or guilt to anyone who may have unknowingly gotten involved in this underworld of deceit, kidnapping and baby selling.
They are, often, innocent victims, too. I write to draw attention to the problems and raise awareness to end the corruption and prevent future damage to all involved in the adoption process including adopters who are often ripped-off and scammed by unregulated baby brokers.

I did not start the conversation here. I did not ask to be called a writer of trash and worse by someone who has not read my two major works. I feel obligated, however, to set the record straight with the facts so that readers of this blog might be educated with the real facts, not name-calling and inane, baseless bashing.

Yes, they were the garlic chips, I love those!!

And to the reader who was upset that I found the whole thing entertaining. I honestly would have taken the situation more seriously had it not turned into a high school hallway squabble with the help of post after post of 'look at me, no no I am right and shall force my opinion down your throat with fact after fact until you see it my way' thinking. When there is an educated, respectful, and intelligent debate you bet I do take it seriously, while still having the ablility to enjoy a good debate. However, when it is simply an arguement with people bickering back and forth, and then personal attacks thrown at the author as well as the editor, well I don't see that as much to take seriously.

Sandra is a great person who writes wonderfully. She has a wealth of knowledge and is able to share it in ways that keep people interested, informed, as well as entertained. Our editor is a great leader who has done a lot for us, our writing and our websites, personal attacks on her without anyone actually knowing her are simply absurd, same as it is for Sandra.

I still find this amusing. This is, no longer 'matters pertaining to adoption,' this is merely a difference of opinions and mudslinging to get the other side to change its views, which I find highly entertaining. I could show it to my adopted son, and I bet you hands down he would laugh his rear end off wondering how these grown people could be so serious, and petty over an article. I could show it to my adopted neighbor, who I can already see reading through shaking her head, wondering why one person would comment under so many names if they had a valid standpoint.

Either way, I am still going to chuckle over the entire thing.

Soblessed -

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I just had to get away from the constant barrage of idiocy.

Apparently, only an "author" has true knowledge of the situation in international adoptions. Those of us who have lived and worked overseas haven't a clue about what is "really" going on (we are just really that stupid).

BTW - one of my students spent last summer working in a Cambodian orphanage of which there are many (beautiful, country, btw - heartbreaking poverty, children with distended bellies or no limbs begging on the streets, but, they are so much better off, right?) Oh, wait, shouldn't there now be no need of orphanages in Cambodia because the US no longer adopts from Cambodia? Isn't that the premise - we stop the adoptions, children are no longer "sold", orphanages stop being necessary...yadda, yadda, yadda...

I am happy to debate issues in adoption, but I won't continue to listen to someone who refuses (under the guise of knowing more) to listen to me.

Gracias,

Romee

It is appropriate and indeed essential that the US take a leading role in combating adoption-related child trafficking in Cambodia, given that the US is the largest market for Cambodian ‘orphans’. There has been a phenomenal increase in Cambodian children being adopted to the US in recent years.

It is my understanding that the US stop Cambodian adoptions several years ago.

Absolutely correct, Romee. The US imposed a suspension on adoptions from Cambodia on the 21st of December in 2001. And you know what? There are still thousands of children orphaned either through parental death or abandonment filling Cambodian orphanages ... even the orphanages Riben puts in quotes as if to convey some sinister message. There are more children every single day, and often the ones in the orphanages are the fortunate ones. At least they have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies ... frequently at least partially due to support from adoptive parents who make a point of looking after the children that will never have a family.

I think I've finally made it through all the comments, and hopefully contacted you all via email. Posting responses to each here would have taken far too much space!

This discussion will continue for a very long time, and I will be an active participant while there's breath in my body.

Julie:

I agree with you that these comments have degenerated. I agree that there is name-calling, bashing and inane arguements. I know there have been times I probably should have re-read or re-worded before hitting the send button (or re-re-read or re-re-worded.....) For my part in this, I apologize.

However, I agree with Sandra. While there is breath in my body, I am going to fight against the all or nothing mentality of ending adoption, either internationally or domestically. This idea that if adoption didn't exist that the things that lead to so many adoptions wouldn't exist. It is, IMO, completely erroneous.

Mirah,

Your post explains WHY you think adoptions should be halted in many foreign countries. Not WHAT happens when they are halted or how to safely and effectively avoid those consequences if adoption was banned.

You mention the ends not justifying the means. I agree. The elimination of baby trafficking (the end) DOES NOT justify the halt of adoptions (the means). Baby trafficking happens because people (both those abroad and those in the US) are corrupt. It doesn't happen because people in the US provide homes for children who were abandoned long before they were ever even available for adoption due to a lack of support on the part of the government for its people. Your apparent reasoning is that adoption = baby trafficking. I think that correlation is false.

However, you have still ignored several of my questions.....namely WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ABANDONED CHILDREN OF THESE COUNTRIES WHEN ADOPTION CEASES TO BE AN OPTION. WHO FEEDS THEM? WHO CLOTHES THEM? WHO KEEPS THEM ALIVE?

You use a Machiavellian reference. I think it is the height of Machiavellian thinking to condemn hundreds of thousands of children to die from starvation, beatings, rape trauma and gang-related violence because you feel, erroneously IMO, that it will save OTHER children from being stolen and sold.

"I feel obligated, however, to set the record straight with the facts so that readers of this blog might be educated with the real facts, not name-calling and inane, baseless bashing:

Would name-calling and inane, baseless bashing include making the suggestion that Sandra is defensive about international adoption because her own adoptions were less than ethical? Come on, Mirah. We've all gotten angry, we've all said things that, on reflection, probably did not contribute greatly to the discussion. Put it aside, as I should, and answer the questions. I refer you to my post of 06/13/07 @ 00:34 for a full list of the questions I would like to no. A point-counter point format would be fine.

"Baby trafficking happens because people (both those abroad and those in the US) are corrupt."

In part. Baby trafficking exists to fill a demand for infants. No demand, no business selling them.

The first part of the solution is admitting there is a problem. Facing it no matter how painful. Talking about it without shutting people down as being anti-adoption or whatever.

The next major part of the solution is getting the US to agree to the provisions Hague and help stop the corruption, it is far more complicated because it is hard to separate the honest, ethical, necessary adoptions from those which are not.

Sandra Soria, executive director of Peru’s nonprofit Institute for Infancy and the Family, for instance, said "it is impossible to know how many children are sold each year, for adoption, forced labor, or the sex trade." Rick Vecchio, “Pregnant Teen’s Murder Shocks Peru.” Associated Press, March 13, 2006.

(No, it's not so because I report it as an author, or because it was reported in the press. It is so because those who are charged with overseeing and attempting to regulate these situations say so - from non-profit watchdog agencies to the United Nations.)

Long term solutions are multi-faceted, and include reducing the pressure on women to delay child bearing and also to become mothers no matter what it takes.

Increasing efforts to treat and prevent infertility, in part through education and environmental clean-ups.

Fighting global poverty, and domestically eliminating pressures on younger, poorer women to relinquish. Perhaps encourage younger women to become mothers when their bodies are fertile and persue education and careers later!

Fine, great, but I have yet to see you address even ONCE what these children should do in the MEANTIME! You are completely silent on the needs of the children NOW - not years in the future when some of these plans might take place.

Do you know what happens when money is donated to many of these highly corrupt countries? Do you really think that UNICEF and the UN are free of the taint of corruption? Yep, lived in countries where they operate.

Changing a cultural mindset whereby children and women are seen as valuable assets, not property, takes YEARS. Look how long it took the US and we are supposedly progressive.

You can quote statistics and facts until you are blue in the face (education is rife with people who love to do that), but until you share with me the visits you've taken to third world countries where you held the orphans in your arms, the times you spent in the slums of Peru or elsewhere(they are not pretty - I've seen them), until you have a filthy, ragged mother who is 26 but looks 50 begging you for food with her emaciated infant dangling from her hips, until you have told me what the MILLIONS (not 15, not 100, not 1000 but MILLIONS)of abandoned and orphaned children are TO DO NOW (not down the road in UTOPIA where no one is corrupt), you have given me nothing and you have done nothing to ameliorate the exorable conditions that the majority of the children live in.

Finally, birth control? Have at it! Take on the Catholic Church in Guatemala. Explain to the machismo culture of South and Central America how important and valuable their woman and children are - in fact, while your at it, take on the Islamic world where the rape and honor killings of women is cultural.

Reform needs to happen in the context of humane, child centered actions that look to the future, but address the needs of NOW.

So far, your arguments have reminded me of the talking pundits I see so often now on MSNBC and CNN whereby ratings, money and selling a story are far more important than addressing what really matters.

Which to me, as always, comes back to the children. Thank you, btw, because just reading and thinking about your "stuff" has firmly solidified my position - I will never stop speaking for the children and working to be sure that all children have a chance at health and happiness, be that in their birth family or through adoption.

Romee

Romee,

What do you suggest?

Mirah:

Mothering no matter what it takes? Are you kidding me? What do you think my son's bmom should have done? Kill someone for thier food? Steal it from anohter child or family? Take it from other members of her family? Pressure to force women to parent is JUST as disastrous as pressuring them to relinquish. If you don't believe me, get up and go ask the children in our foster care system, ask the thousands of abused and neglected kids still with their families all across this country. Birth control in countries where the predominant religion has been Roman Catholicism for over 500 years? Telling men in countries DEDICATED to machisimo they start placing more valuing their women and children more? Telling women in the Western world when they can and can't have babies or start/halt/end their careers? Are you nuts? What makes you think these would have the slightest hope of being effective, not to mention the extraordinary amount of time it would take to convince the world to implement these highly unlikely solutions.

Human relief efforts aren't working NOW; there is WAY WAY more need than relief even now, exactly where do you think the money is coming from to support all those children abandoned after adoptions cease?

Mirah: you continue to point out over and over and over and over WHY you think adoptions should cease. You refuse to answer the hard questions about the children who fall through the gaping abysses in your agenda; refuse to look at the raw truth of the devastation the agenda you keep pushing will cause vulnerable women and children. You have been decietful and underhanded in representing yourself and your information. You have made groundless accusations. You look away and equivocate when asked to provide proven, responsible, POSSIBLE long-term solutions.

I guess the only question I HAVEN'T asked you is:

Given even just the above, why on earth would I support you in any way?

Hi there! The two-headed editor is back! Unfortunately, Nancy is otherwise engaged and completely unavailable. So sorry to be such a disappointment to those who, with a third-grade mentality, equate adoption with human trafficking.

Thank you, Margaret for plugging my article at Associated Content on Human Trafficking. And thank you, Mirah, for posting all of those facts and figures on the comments section of that article as well as the comments section here.

Epic proportions indeed!

Mirah, you give so much lip service to how things need to change but I never see a suggestion for how to change them. Do you understand that this is what people here are asking you for? How do we get the US to sign the Hague Convention on the Rights of the Child? Who do we pressure to do that? Congress? The UN representative? Who? Stop giving us the warm wind of regurgitated statistics and tell us something we can use.

BTW for anyone who is interested (or still reading) Heather Lowe, who writes for our Crisis Pregnancy Blog did a great review of one of Mirah's books and even did a 4-part interview with her. You can find them here:

http://unplanned-pregnancy.adoptionblogs.com/index.php

Oh, how classic? Answer numerous questions with a question - NO ONE has evvvveeerrr done that before. What would I suggest?

LOL - how droll. You have been suggesting that international adoption is evil and racist, and when I ask you over and over again about the children you come back with,

"What do you suggest?"

That is it? Are you freaking kidding me?

ROTFL - thank you for answering all my questions in that one sentence.

You have no idea, but you KNOW international adoptions are an unnecessary evil? I am moving on - good Lord almighty!

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha........and so on!

Romee