Thoughts on this article: Born in America, Adopted Abroad

[rebyell]

I have been looking for some info about adoption of US babies abroad, and came across this article. I am looking for others experience and thoughts on this.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html

Do you think that the birth mothers are mostly choosing to place out of country because that is what they want (for reasons stated in the article), or a lack of choice in PAP's wanting to adopt AA (not bi-racial) babies?

We were open to adopting AA, (we are currently in process for Ethiopia) but were under the impression that the list of waiting families for AA babies was long. I looked at the Adoption-Link website (quoted in the article) and they said that the average wait for an AA baby was about 18m. That suggests to me that there are many waiting families- what do you think? Is it regional?

EDIT:
after I posted this, I was smart enough to read the date, it was published in 2004, so lots can change on 4 YEARS!! oops.

[lamamax3]

I'm about to read the article, but I wanted to answer your question from my experiences. I live in southern Louisiana, and there are not long waits for AA babies. We should complete our home study in a few weeks, and the social worker predicts no longer than 6 to 9 months. Her last family open to an AA baby was placed with one two weeks after they completed their home study! She only has one other family waiting who is willing to adopt a non-white newborn. A few years ago, we requested info from a different agency and indicated that we were open to all races. We were called within a week, and they offerred us two different situations! I can't speak for the entire country, but where I live, there is no line for AA babies

[vue]

I think they are probably sold on the idea (by the agency) of placing out of country based on the reasons listed. But the agencies are purposely giving them that sales pitch due to the lack of white U.S. PAP's willing to not only accept a black or bi-racial child but to also take the risk of the mother changing her mind and/or having to have an open adoption.

But race does play a huge factor and that is why many agencies base the cost of the adoption on the race of the child. There are numerous articles available that discuss this. Here is just one of many. I didn't pick this one for any particular reason other then it was the first one that popped up when I googled the subject:

http://www.illinoistimes.com/gyrobas...oid=oid%3A3990

And here's a good blog post about the subject:

http://www.antiracistparent.com/2008...tell-our-kids/

[Tigerchild]

This might get me ripped a new one, but...

I wouldn't underestimate the possibility that some birthmoms might feel that their children have the most chance for success and stability abroad. Especially if they're not white, but maybe even if they are.

Not that people necessarily think that racism doesn't exist in other countries, but...there can be other social (and health) benefits as well.

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if foreign folks seeking to adopt US babies also don't have the 'open adoption risk' in mind. (I've heard that expressed quite a bit by PAPs seeking kids outside the US.) After all, once you cross int'l borders it's a lot harder for someone to look you up, to show up, to be able to "force" contact, ect.

I think it's more complicated than just the kids perhaps having to wait a long time. But, I could be wrong.

[BarefootScientist]

Does anyone know anything about the Hague Convention? I have been looking at this and it seems to me that this Convention which is now taking effect in the US would stop this practice of adopting US babies to other countries...but I am really not finding anything that specifically says that and I may very well be wrong...can anyone confirm or deny?

[vue]

From what I understand the Hague has slowed down the exporting of kids from the U.S. - but I'm not sure if that's just Canada or any other country. There is one adoption agency in the U.S. that is still exporting kids to Canada that I know of.

[queenjane]

I agree with Tigerchild.

Also...

the exporting of kids

:


Katherine

[MusicianDad]

Did that Hague Convention also make it harder to adopt from other countries? Because if not... I can totally see that back firing, with a large number of children who are hard to place not getting a home ever because the PAPs want "healthy white babies".

It really burns me up that there is an "ideal baby" to adopt. But then I'm in Canada, and we don't care as long as we get to add to our family.

[CorasMama]

I think race is a huge part of it in this country. I also don't buy that PAPs in this country "don't know that these babies are available". Baloney!

[Polliwog]

Originally Posted by CorasMama

I think race is a huge part of it in this country. I also don't buy that PAPs in this country "don't know that these babies are available". Baloney!

As odd as it sounds, I think I lot of people don't know. In fact, I know it to be true.

[Sarahbunny]

Originally Posted by vue

From what I understand the Hague has slowed down the exporting of kids from the U.S. - but I'm not sure if that's just Canada or any other country. There is one adoption agency in the U.S. that is still exporting kids to Canada that I know of.

A child is not a good. Adoption is not about transporting goods.

Really, inport/export are not terms to be used regarding humans.

[vue]

Originally Posted by Sarahbunny

A child is not a good. Adoption is not about transporting goods.

Really, inport/export are not terms to be used regarding humans.

Well then, I guess you should also write to the Christian Science Monitor and tell them that because those are exactly the terms they used in the article.

Besides, I am one of these commodities I speak of and nobody will ever be able to convince me that I wasn't a transported good that was bought and paid for.

[Sarahbunny]

Originally Posted by vue

Well then, I guess you should also write to the Christian Science Monitor and tell them that because those are exactly the terms they used in the article.

Besides, I am one of these commodities I speak of and nobody will ever be able to convince me that I wasn't a transported good that was bought and paid for.

Great! I will. Thanks for the suggestion!

And I am glad you are happy being referred to as a good. But most adoptive parents don't think of their children as commodities and don't like hearing others say that their children are. Not after all the educating many of us do so that people stop asking how much we paid for our children, where we bought them, picking them out, etc.

[vue]

Originally Posted by Sarahbunny

Great! I will. Thanks for the suggestion!

And I am glad you are happy being referred to as a good. But most adoptive parents don't think of their children as commodities and don't like hearing others say that their children are. Not after all the educating many of us do so that people stop asking how much we paid for our children, where we bought them, picking them out, etc.

That's great that adoptive parents don't think of their kids as commodities. I've often wondered if the ones that specify a gender, race and age see the irony in that.

I'm sorry that you don't like the way I refer to myself or the language I use - but I say it as I feel it - and I come from a totally different perspective then you. I don't buy into "taught" language from agencies that try to pretty up something that begins with the greatest loss anyone could ever experience.

[Sarahbunny]

Originally Posted by vue

That's great that adoptive parents don't think of their kids as commodities. I've often wondered if the ones that specify a gender, race and age see the irony in that.

I'm sorry that you don't like the way I refer to myself or the language I use - but I say it as I feel it - and I come from a totally different perspective then you. I don't buy into "taught" language from agencies that try to pretty up something that begins with the greatest loss anyone could ever experience.

Well, we do have different perpectives, but I am also adopted, if that's what you are getting at.

It doesn't bother me how you refer to yourself. As I said, if you are happy referring to yourself as a good, then I say go ahead! Good for you. Don't refer to my child as that or myself though.

Surely you can see where the gross generalization for all adopted children to be = to goods on a store shelf could be offensive.

[queenjane]

In reading the article, i think they really missed a few key points. First, they dont (that i recall) really address *why* there are no (few) babies to adopt in places like Canada, England, etc. They dont talk about the extensive social programs and socialized medical programs that allow a woman to raise a baby herself w/o being completely poverty stricken. I assume these countries also have easier access to abortion services as well, and i assume that the state medical program will pay for it (someone correct me if i'm wrong)...all things that arent usually true in most places in America. PAPs in those countries can come to the US and adopt a newborn straight from the hospital, which is virtually impossible in most other "international" adoptions.

Second....i think the insistence by the APs in the article, that there just isnt much racism where they live, to be a little naive. I do believe that race relations between black and white people in this country are strained, and that an AA mother might want her child to grow up in a European country where there may not be the same issues to the same degree...however, i got the feeling from all these White European/Canadian parents that their kids won't be treated any differently at all, and i'm not sure if that is accurate or if its their wishful thinking. One parent even went on to say that her child won't be treated badly or affected by racism because there are just too few black people in her country. well, ok but being the "exotic" one isnt such a great thing for her kid either, IMO. So i wished the article would have delved more into that aspect of it.

I also feel like they focused too much on racism being the reason why AA infants are "less desirable"....and not enough on the fear or hesitancy white people in this country might truly feel, about whether they are adequately equipped to raise a black child. *esp* a black male child, which is an issue in and of itself. I know there are plenty of white adoptive parents who, given just their own heart, would adopt an AA child in a second, however they feel that given where they live, or the racist views of certain relatives, or even their own ability to incorporate another culture into their family.....they decide to adopt a child of their own race. I would much prefer that honest assessment to a naive belief that "color doesnt matter".

I kind of laughed at the line that "most adoption agencies are nonprofit"...where they didnt even mention all the private adoptions and facilitator matched adoptions that go on in this country. I get plenty of emails on adoption lists, with info about AA babies, even the supposedly less wanted AA boy, where the fees are well over $20K. The article doesnt seem to address why an agency might want to place a child with a Canadian couple, who are apparently willing to pay the full fee, instead of possibly needing to subsidize the fee to place with an American family. The article made it seem like there are all these AA babies with no homes at all, who might end up in foster homes....but i dont think thats the reality at all.

I wish the article would have at least addressed the many many white American families who are also eager to adopt these kids.

To the poster that said they dont think its accurate that people here dont know these babies are available...you'd be surprised. There is alot of misinfo about adoption out there. Surely, if one is deep into the adoption world, you know the score on AA infant adoption...but if you are just starting out, you might not know. (For example, most people believe it takes years and years to adopt a caucasian child in this country, and while that can be true, from my adoption lists it seems like the typical wait is much much shorter than that!)...there is this believe that AA women do not place their babies for adoption, there is a belief that AA people do not want "their" babies to be placed with white people (it doesnt help that the Black Social Workers statement from years ago against transracial placements shows up in articles such as this), there is a (possibly racist?) belief that AA infants are more likely to be exposed to drugs or alcohol, the belief that AA emoms wouldnt choose a white couple...all this misinfo is out there.

Another thing that article didnt really address....the position of the article seems to be that white Americans won't adopt black babies, and that racism is the reason....but they totally didnt even mention how white Americans are adopting *African* babies and young children in increasing numbers. Why would an American couple pay tens of thousands to adopt a black African boy, but not to adopt a black African-American boy? The article didnt even address the marketing and competion and business-like aspect to many domestic newborn adoption agencies, that many PAPs are uncomfortable with. Not to mention the more predictable timeline and more predictable fee structure of international adoption. (And i wont go into the many many foster and adoptive parents willing to adopt children of any color from the state.)

Overall, i think the article was well-intentioned but too simplistic. Like the thread on waiting children and where there is the greatest need, i think this issue is too complex to break it down to "Americans dont want to pay full price for black babies due to racism."


Katherine

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by vue

That's great that adoptive parents don't think of their kids as commodities. I've often wondered if the ones that specify a gender, race and age see the irony in that.

I dont get it.

How is specifying the type of child you feel prepared to parent somehow turning children into commodities?

So....should a parent who wants a child to adopt just accept any child at all? Adopt a child in a wheelchair, or maybe one with Down Syndrome, or severe attachment disorder, when they really wanted a healthy newborn? Because all children are the same and it just doesnt matter?

How is it treating a child like a commodity for a parent to realize it might not be in a child's best interest to grow up in their lily white town?

Or for a parent to feel they just wouldnt be good at raising a child of another race or culture, and all that entails?

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with gender selection for newborns (makes more sense for older children), but even then there can be "good" reasons for it (and you can be sure if people could easily select gender before bio conception they would go for it!)...My friend has always always wanted a girl, a daughter to raise, has three boys and is pg with twins. If those babies turn out to be boys, and she chooses to adopt in the future, i dont think i'd blame her for saying "I want a girl this time...please?!" Though i imagine since most newborn adoptions are matched pre-birth that kind of gender selection is more rare (and many agencies won't allow it.)

Do you think i'm treating children as commodities because i have parameters on the type of child i can adopt? My older son is 12, and i'd prefer to keep him the oldest at this point for various valid reasons (though i'd consider an older child if they seemed like a particularly good match...have my eye on a 13 yr old boy online, but i'm just not sure)....so my age range is 0-10ish, and i live in a 2 bdrm apartment, so while i would love to adopt a girl, thats not practical at this point with two boys already. And while i have experience with severely disabled children/adults, and while my heart would say "yes" to a medically fragile or disabled child in a second, my brain knows thats not a good option for us right now...so i'm hoping to adopt a child with fairly minimal needs. Maybe thats not the kind of specifying you are talking about, i dunno.....?

Also...before being placed with my African-American foster baby (that i am adopting : ), i really thought everyone should be open to a child of another race. I knew that i would have to work hard at helping such a child develop a positive self-identity, etc.....but at this point, just the hair issues are daunting. He has this big ol' beautiful afro, that i just love...but he doesnt want me to wash it, comb it, do anything to it. And so when i take him out, and his hair looks a mess...i wonder if the AA people we meet wonder why i'm neglecting my baby in such a way, or judging whether white people should have black babies if "they can't even take care of their hair"...no one has ever said anything to us, and people are generally nice...but just this one issue takes up alot of my parenting energy. I totally get now why most black boys have shaved heads.

There have been so many issues raised with parenting my son, that i didnt expect, so many things i have to confront within my own head...my own comfort levels...that i just didnt foresee. I guess he must look like he is my bio son (because no one has ever asked if he was adopted or commented on it) and its weird to me how black people come up to us all the time and comment on how beautiful he is, or on his hair, but white people....not so much. And that hurts, and it makes me wonder if they think i'm "one of those girls" (yknow the white girl that sleeps with a black man, the horror )...and i have to think about why i sometimes feel like i want to say "he's adopted!" to these people rather than just letting them think whatever they are going to think.

Adopting transracially means you have to think about where you live, what friends your child has, the images you have in your home or that occur in books and tv....ideally, we'd think about these things for all of our kids, but when you are a white woman parenting a black boy....it takes on more significance. And because i AM doing that....i dont fault someone for saying "no thanks", for just wanting to have a child and not wanting to take on a whole 'nother culture or be confronted w/ these issues on a daily basis.

I could go on and on about this but i won't. I encourage any parent considering adoption to really be openminded about the type of child they feel they can parent, but in the end i think it only benefits the CHILD for the parents to not go beyond their true comfort levels.


Katherine

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by queenjane

In reading the article, i think they really missed a few key points. First, they dont (that i recall) really address *why* there are no (few) babies to adopt in places like Canada, England, etc. They dont talk about the extensive social programs and socialized medical programs that allow a woman to raise a baby herself w/o being completely poverty stricken. I assume these countries also have easier access to abortion services as well, and i assume that the state medical program will pay for it (someone correct me if i'm wrong)...all things that arent usually true in most places in America. PAPs in those countries can come to the US and adopt a newborn straight from the hospital, which is virtually impossible in most other "international" adoptions.

I don't know about other countries, but I read once a couple of years ago (it was in the paper and unfortunately they don't keep records beyond 30 days) that in Canada, because adoptive parents aren't so picky about what race, gender their child is, the people who go to the US and other countries to adopt don't qualify for hard to place children (we looked into it, you have to be able to show you can handle health/emotional/psychological issues without loosing your head) and would otherwise have to wait on average about 7 years. You can adopt a black baby in the US in a matter of months once your approved, you have to still wait years in Canada. For some parents, the wait is too long.

[MusicianDad]

As for children as a "commodity"

Items are exported to..
People immigrate to..

If children were a comodity, it wouldn't be illegal in most modern countries to buy and sell babies...

[vue]

Originally Posted by Sarahbunny

Good for you. Don't refer to my child as that or myself though.

Surely you can see where the gross generalization for all adopted children to be = to goods on a store shelf could be offensive.

I didn't refer to your child or you in any way, shape or form. I don't even know you. Learning how to not personalize other people's feelings and thoughts goes a long way.

Of course I can see how referring to a child as commodity can be offensive - but for me it's not nearly as offensive as adoption being a multi-billion dollar business where people profit off of others poverty and misfortune.

There is tons of adoption language that offends me - language that many people use - GIFT being a biggie. But I'm not going to get all bent out of shape about it when people do use it - nor am I going to expect people to stop saying it simply because I and other adoptees find it offensive.