I've been kicking around the idea of adopting internationally, and the "anti-adoption" movement - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 121 Old 04-18-2008, 02:21 PM
 
queencarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OUCH! I think you totally misunderstood me! You don't know me or my background, or really what kind of history I am bringing to this discussion, or how I feel about lots of things and that is okay. But you made some pretty major assumptions about me personally that are incorrect, and rather hurtful. Just as you don't want me to be dismissive, don't dismiss my perspective.

What I was saying was, yes, of course abuse is terrible and should be viewed on an individual basis and not dismissed. BUT, the overall conversation HERE--the context that I referred to--was the intention of the OP to discuss the "anti-adoption" movement and sentiments towards adoption, and in THAT context, the reference that abuse happens in adoptive families therefore has larger implications than just for the individual that was abused and it should be clarified that it is not an "adoption only" problem. In general one on one conversations, I think the comment "it happens in bio families too", is often dismissive. We all know it should never occur, but the reality is that it does. In conversations that expressly talk about whether adoption should or should not occur, it is important to distinguish situations that ONLY occur in adoption by definition, and situations that may be particularly egregious in adoption, such as abuse, but that happen in other situations, too. Not that it matters to a single abused individual, but the aggregate is a lower risk of abuse in adoptive families. That is important to know.

Being rather singed and still coughing from the smoke, I think I will back out now.

ETA: Just for further clarification--the "irrelevant" I was referring to was in a one on one conversation, the mentioning "that abuse occurs in bio familes, too". To the individual, that doesn't matter and is...irrelevant. NOT an individual's experience being irrelevant. Not sure how that got misconstrued, but whatever. What I was referring to as relevant was the context I talked about above in terms of this whole discussion, that wehn the general framework was should adopt be/not be allowed, it was important to keep the whole picture in mind. In this case, that means recognizing that abuse is not adoption specific. Now, I am really going.
queencarr is offline  
#62 of 121 Old 04-18-2008, 02:25 PM
 
RedOakMomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A little stone house
Posts: 6,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No need for my post.

RedOak ~ Momma to DS (8) , DS (4) , DD (3) , & DD 9/10 ~
RedOakMomma is offline  
#63 of 121 Old 04-18-2008, 02:41 PM
 
Tigerchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle Eastside
Posts: 5,005
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by queencarr View Post
OUCH! I think you totally misunderstood me! You don't know me or my background, or really what kind of history I am bringing to this discussion, or how I feel about lots of things and that is okay. But you made some pretty major assumptions about me personally that are incorrect, and rather hurtful. Just as you don't want me to be dismissive, don't dismiss my perspective.
You mentioned adoptee abuse could be irrelevant, depending on "context". I don't think you advocate abuse, but I also think that if that accurately reflect your view, then that you are wrong. I cannot dismiss that perspective, because I've gotten beaten over the head with it over and over again. But I absolutely and vehemently disagree with it.

When an adult adoptee speaks of their abuse, it is NEVER irrelevent or out of context to adoption. Never.

It doesn't mean that all adoptions are abusive. But you know, y'all in this thread are talking about how you don't understand how folks could be anti-adoption. Well, perhaps this is one answer to that question.

If that is your experience, it is hard to escape from it. When an adult international adoptee shared her experience of abuse in this thread, she was told "abuse happens to non-adopted people too." That was not meant in a mean way, but it IS dismissive. Then you spoke of how abuse in adoption could be seen as "not in context" or "irrelevant". I'm sorry, you may not have intended that to be dismissive...but surely you see how very close that is to saying "it happens to everyone."

I don't dismiss your perspective, but I disagree quite strongly with it, if you are saying that an adoptee's experience of abuse can ever be considered "irrelevant" to adoption. I am no more light handed when it comes to abuse of non-adoptees. All mothers have to face that dark side of existance. Abuse is not "irrelevant" to motherhood. It is a fact. It is something that many people struggle with (even if they don't admit it), and thankfully most people succeed. Rage knows no bounds between biological and adoptive ties.

But that does not mean then that the discussion of abuse and potential for abuse is off the table when talking about adoption. Especially for prospective adoptive parents. And most especially when we are claiming a total lack of understanding for how anyone could ever be anti-adoption. People do bring up abuse when they say they're anti-adoption. Some people bring up the "I want to SAVE a child!" when they say thay're pro-adoption. Both people can get tiresome and annoying, and can be interpreted as being insulting. But there is a grain of reality there, something that people can't run away from. Abuse and exploitation sometimes happens in adoption. Adoption can sometimes save the life of a child, or at least give them a chance at a more comfortable life. But both of those things are part of the whole. Neither is "irrelevant". Neither is "out of context".
Tigerchild is offline  
#64 of 121 Old 04-18-2008, 02:53 PM
 
queencarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Since I'm still here, I will try one more time.

Quote:
You mentioned adoptee abuse could be irrelevant, depending on "context".
No, no no! Not "adoptee abuse" being irrelevant. That "adoptee" was a distinct, but related issue to the "abuse". It is part of it, in that they are both experiences of the same person, and that of course it wouldn't have happened by that perpetrator on that child if the adoption hadn't occured. But abuse happening in any particular family does not hinge on whether or not that child was adopted. It is a part of the experience, just as being a child is part of that experience, but it is not unique to just children.

Not sure that explains it any better, but FWIW, I was agreeing with you, just clarifying that in terms of abusive families, adoptive ones aren't the only ones not living up to what they should be and when using the argument that abuse in adoptive families is a reason not to have adoption, the logic doesn't hold up when that idea is carried out further.
queencarr is offline  
#65 of 121 Old 04-18-2008, 03:16 PM
 
Tigerchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle Eastside
Posts: 5,005
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by queencarr View Post
But abuse happening in any particular family does not hinge on whether or not that child was adopted. It is a part of the experience, just as being a child is part of that experience, but it is not unique to just children.

Not sure that explains it any better, but FWIW, I was agreeing with you, just clarifying that in terms of abusive families, adoptive ones aren't the only ones not living up to what they should be and when using the argument that abuse in adoptive families is a reason not to have adoption, the logic doesn't hold up when that idea is carried out further.
Thank you for explaining. I can see what you were saying now. It just seemed to be in response to me talking about why I found "it happens to everyone" in response to someone sharing about their abuse, and I'm sorry that my reaction hurt you.

However, I'd also point out that the abuse not hinging on whether or not the child is adopted is not necessarily the case. Or, well, let me put it this way. I have talked to quite a few formerly abused adoptees (like attracts like, I guess). Virtually every single one of us was told during the context of abuse that it happened because we were less than, outsiders, not really part of the family. One of the folks that used to post here but doesn't anymore has told numerous stories about how their parent's bio child was treated very much preferentially. Now, I think that probably all abusive parents are a piece of work to begin with, but many of us who were abused were TOLD as children that it was happening because we were defective or outsiders or not really part of the family. As adults we can look back and theorize whether or not that was really true (in other words, any child in that family would have been abused). In my case, I personally feel that the hormonal stuff and body image would have made my mom in particular even more unhinged with a bio child (then again, hormones could have worked in their favor...but I dunno. Perhaps I'm pessimistic but I really don't think so). But in others, I don't think that's the case. I think sometimes for whatever reason, with certain people they don't bond or they feel differently before/after bio kids come, ect.

So really, I don't think that it's true to say that abuse (especially if you're talking about an individual family) doesn't happen based on adoption. It can. Just like in some totally bio families there is one child that is the target of the abuse. Perhaps adoption gives some people who would have singled out one child anyway and excuse. In the past, perhaps unacknowledged issues like RAD with no help and only parent-blame being available could have led to abuse or neglect as a matter of self-preservation (not excusing it, but in theory I can see how this could happen). It's really hard to sort out the hows and whys of abuse happening.

Which is why I think that adoption pushing some people towards abuse can't be discounted. When I talk personally with people who have a great deal of fear towards adoption (again, these folks are primarily adoptees, I am very guilty of being clannish about who I discuss adoption deeply with, I really prefer to stick to triad people, I know I should get better at that.) it's generally because folks aren't stupid and they know there's no way that a homestudy can catch that unless the people are seriously ill or off, KWIM?

While I don't agree that therefore all adoptions should be banned, I can very much understand that absolute primal fear that some people have about it. It's like the folks that are ready to call the cops on every man they see at a playground, for fear that another child they know might be molested. Or the people who insist that if your partner speaks to you sharply or loses their temper that you should kick them to the curb so you won't get abused (because they don't want another person to suffer as they did). Those folks are not always thinking of the unintended consequences of having a knee jerk reaction, but in my view I do think that individually it's logical for them in particular to have that reaction.

So anyway, I am really very sorry I hurt you. I like you a great deal. I don't have to agree with you to like you, but it's always a plus when we agree. I hope that you can forgive me for reacting right away instead of sitting and digesting that or asking questions as I should have.
Tigerchild is offline  
#66 of 121 Old 04-18-2008, 04:48 PM
 
RedOakMomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A little stone house
Posts: 6,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Glad you guys talked that one out. Complex stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerchild View Post
Or, well, let me put it this way. I have talked to quite a few formerly abused adoptees. Virtually every single one of us was told during the context of abuse that it happened because we were less than, outsiders, not really part of the family.
That's a really good point.

Quote:
know there's no way that a homestudy can catch that unless the people are seriously ill or off, KWIM?
I wish I knew more about homestudies, and what the "average" homestudy is like. (Well, for that matter I think I might wish that homestudies were more standarized and had more training, but different subject...) Based on my own experience with our homestudy, though, I think our SW would catch quite a bit more than just being seriously ill or seriously off.

I do think homestudies are often conducted in a MUCH different way than they were 10 or even 5 years ago. Vocal adoptees have changed SO MUCH of the discussion, especially when it comes to adopting transracially. Our SW has talked about this, and she's glad for it.

I've mentioned what our homestudy process was before, so I won't go on and on about it, but it was very intense and pretty thorough (or intrusive, depending on how you look at it). It wasn't just fingerprints, background checks, and letters of reference. She took a *very* careful look at our written responses to questions, then asked us in person for greater detail. She asked very pointed, very personal questions about our parental relationships, physical abuse, physical punishment, our personal relationship, our responses to anger, our history of depression, etc. etc. etc. Where we gave "stock" type answers, she kept pushing. She went back a couple of generations and looked for patterns of parenting or relationship issues. It was intense, and it was hours of personal questioning followed by hours (on different days) of conversation about adoption, racism, transracial families, and culture.

She had ample (!) time and opportunity to see if there was something was even moderately "off" about our family, our methods, or our attitudes toward race and culture. And where we were "off" in minor ways (saying something that could have been said better, or not seeing the picture fully), she felt no hesitation in correcting us and pointing out why we were wrong.

Obviously, we could have been people who were painting a good picture. Maybe we could have been skilled enough to get away with it...but I have my doubts. I think you'd have to be pretty skilled and devious to get something big past this SW.

So it makes me wonder....are homestudies getting better? Now that we're to a point where SWs feel entitled to ask *really* personal questions, and ask bluntly about abuse/depression/marital health/racism/etc., is it possible that some of the people like those who adopted and abused in previous decades are being weeded out? I really think that might be the case, to some extent. It's not even close to a perfect system, and the varying quality of homestudies makes it even worse, but I do think that some SWs are taking a much, much closer look at families. Homestudies are no longer a formality before "getting your child." They're work, and they're serious.

RedOak ~ Momma to DS (8) , DS (4) , DD (3) , & DD 9/10 ~
RedOakMomma is offline  
#67 of 121 Old 04-18-2008, 05:09 PM
 
Tigerchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle Eastside
Posts: 5,005
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOakMomma View Post
So it makes me wonder....are homestudies getting better? Now that we're to a point where SWs feel entitled to ask *really* personal questions, and ask bluntly about abuse/depression/marital health/racism/etc., is it possible that some of the people like those who adopted and abused in previous decades are being weeded out? I really think that might be the case, to some extent. It's not even close to a perfect system, and the varying quality of homestudies makes it even worse, but I do think that some SWs are taking a much, much closer look at families. Homestudies are no longer a formality before "getting your child." They're work, and they're serious.
I think that they're better at catching honest people who display evidence that they may have those inclinations.

But, I dunno. I guess the hard part for me (and again, maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part/identifying with the abuser or whatever) is that honestly I think my parents could have answered honestly with all the right answers. I think it IS different when you're dealing with folks that already have a child. But really, does anyone truly know what it's going to be like to be a parent before you are one? I didn't. And I had years of social services and childcare experience before I chose to become one because I wanted to make sure I knew I could "handle it". But it was totally different, and I was unprepared in a lot of ways.

I think that honestly, that is where a lot of the adoption fear on the part of people with bad experiences comes from. To some degree if you've grown enough to be able to be somewhat rational about things, you know that not all abuse starts out intentional. Nor is it solely the province of crazy people. It'd be a lot easier if it was that way...but it's not.

And you're right, a lot will depend on the judgement and gut of the particular social worker that does the study. But what if they're not independent, or if the get subtle pressure to approve things? That does happen sometimes. Or people will shop for a social worker to do their study. (probably this is illegal, I'd hope, but who's checking?) And there is a learning curve here, just like there is in any social service work. Green people don't tend to see everything. If someone's burning out, they might see things that aren't there. Or vice versa.

I guess I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, because again, I'm not anti-adoption. But I can certainly *understand* where these fears come from. And they are logical, from an individual perspective. The weird thing about adoption is that it is it's own "global" entity, but also very personal. So while you can't take a negative experience and apply to all adoptions, neither can you take a positive one and assume that it applies either. I think most things surrounding parenting are like that though.

But I don't know, and I don't think we'll ever know, if the screenings are "Better". It's only been in the last 30 years that child abuse was really considered a serious crime or something to be tracked at all. IT was considered private before. So we don't know. And clearly, there are adoptees being killed by their adoptive parents (though most of the sensational stuff tends to involve RAD or other serious problems) even now. We don't even really know if the rates of child abuse in general have increased, or if they're just being reported more often, and that's a much more simple thing to track (just one variable) than abused adoptees and at what point.

And at any rate, we won't know the number of self-reporting abused adoptees for modern adoptees for another 20 years or so.

I'd like to THINK that the screening process is "better". But I'm sure there were good social workers out there "back then" too. And I think more people are are adopting period now, which could increase or decrease the risk depending on how you look at it. But I just don't know. I know what I'd like to believe. But we won't know for awhile. I guess we can just hope for the best. But still remain vigilant.
Tigerchild is offline  
#68 of 121 Old 04-18-2008, 06:37 PM
 
queencarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks, I was trying to figure out how I had PO'd you so quickly. Usually, we talk pretty well, even if we disagree on things. And I appreciate your perspective and POV. Glad things are cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerchild View Post
However, I'd also point out that the abuse not hinging on whether or not the child is adopted is not necessarily the case. Or, well, let me put it this way. I have talked to quite a few formerly abused adoptees (like attracts like, I guess). Virtually every single one of us was told during the context of abuse that it happened because we were less than, outsiders, not really part of the family. One of the folks that used to post here but doesn't anymore has told numerous stories about how their parent's bio child was treated very much preferentially. Now, I think that probably all abusive parents are a piece of work to begin with, but many of us who were abused were TOLD as children that it was happening because we were defective or outsiders or not really part of the family. As adults we can look back and theorize whether or not that was really true (in other words, any child in that family would have been abused). In my case, I personally feel that the hormonal stuff and body image would have made my mom in particular even more unhinged with a bio child (then again, hormones could have worked in their favor...but I dunno. Perhaps I'm pessimistic but I really don't think so). But in others, I don't think that's the case. I think sometimes for whatever reason, with certain people they don't bond or they feel differently before/after bio kids come, ect.

So really, I don't think that it's true to say that abuse (especially if you're talking about an individual family) doesn't happen based on adoption. It can. Just like in some totally bio families there is one child that is the target of the abuse. .

Point taken on this. But as you said, I have a feeling that if adoption wasn't in the picture, the abusers would find something else to single out and hurt the child, just because they could. That is my experience with those that abuse, anyway. Whatever will wound the child the most is the weapon of choice

As far as homestudies today, I think there is a big push to look to generational behaviors. There was a big emphasis on how our parents parented and how we felt about it/how it affected us in our HS and it was very blunt and very personal. The idea, in theory, is that it triggers a deeper look into various aspects of that individual if there is a personal history of abuse, etc. I don't know how one could have lied successfully through much of what our HS included. And I would like to think that our SW would see through the pathological liar BS. In our case, anyway, our SW primarily works with women/children in/coming out of DA situations, and prior to that worked for CPS. Adoption work is a side contract for her. No way wouldn't she pick up on clues and tells. And it is for these reasons that when people (it has been awhile but is has come up here before) have complained about having to disclose abuse/rape/trauma that I have taken such heat about why it is so important to be honest about it.
queencarr is offline  
#69 of 121 Old 04-18-2008, 07:30 PM
 
queenjane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
As far as homestudies go.....when i went through the two i've had so far, i got the distinct impression they will approve anybody. This was to adopt a state ward/foster child not international, so maybe thats it, i dunno. But in a way its scary.....i mean, i'm glad it was easy for me to get approved, but what about all those people that might be crazy who are getting approved?! I dont know what else they could have asked me to figure out if i'd be a bad parent or not, but it was pretty easy to figure out what the "right" answers were.


Katherine

Katherine, single homeschooling mom to Boy Genius (17) geek.gif  Thing One (6) and Thing Two (6) fencing.gif and one outgoing Girl (12) bikenew.gif and hoping for more through foster care and adoption homebirth.jpgadoptionheart-1.gif 
queenjane is offline  
#70 of 121 Old 04-18-2008, 09:29 PM
 
robynlyn80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
home studies...now thats something i know a little about.

the thing is, there is very little data about what (besides the obvious) should be looked at in a home study. i found one book that was recently published, and it was OK but didn't exactly give any groundbreaking information. one of the vingettes talked about a man who propositioned the social worker for his wife b/c their sex life wasn't that great. and low and behold, the family didn't get approved. well, no kidding.

standards for home study vary by state, but to pass/fail a homestudy is almost solely at the discretion of the social worker. unless you have a criminal or cps history that legally precludes you from passing.

additionally, you CAN shop around for a home study. so, if i worked with a family, told them i couldn't pass them, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from getting another one. they are supposed to indicate if they have ever had a home study before, but really, there is no way to check on that. a family could easily say 'no, we've never had a home study before.'

additionally, i've not passed someone on a homestudy and the agency is able to simply write an addendum on why they disagree or how've the addressed the concerns (i'm a private contractor). so even if someone doesn't pass, the agency can overturn it and license the family.

my experience has been that agencies don't really see the homestudy as something you need expertise in. i've read hundreds of home studies. some are good, some are very bad. a woman's social history, including her entire childhood, adult life, family of origin etc etc, in less than three SMALL paragraphs. a half a page total.

i do think that the right answers are obvious to us, as normal, healthy people, but you would be surprised at what people will say, or what they think is normal.

even reading threads on here, it is clear that people experience extremely different homestudies. if i ever get my butt back to school, it is one of my areas of interest- to come up with something besides the subjective gut feeling of a social worker
robynlyn80 is offline  
#71 of 121 Old 04-19-2008, 12:09 AM
 
queencarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by robynlyn80 View Post

additionally, you CAN shop around for a home study. so, if i worked with a family, told them i couldn't pass them, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from getting another one. they are supposed to indicate if they have ever had a home study before, but really, there is no way to check on that. a family could easily say 'no, we've never had a home study before.'
One of the unique things about the way the Korea program is set up, is that only certain agencies can do placements in each state, and the homestudy MUST be done by a SW from that agency. They act as arms of the Korean agency itself. This not only cuts down on the paperwork (no dossier) but it means that HS shopping is virtually impossible. For example, there are only 2 agencies that can even place from Korea in all of TX. For our agency, there is only one SW that travels. So if you live outside of Austin where they are located, you have 1 SW to do the homestudy. The simplicity of the system is astounding to me, but it is extremely effective in providing consistency from one agency to another. The only major variations involve state requirements, like how in depth the physical has to be and such. But the questions and topics covered seem to be pretty universal.
queencarr is offline  
#72 of 121 Old 04-19-2008, 11:56 AM
 
robynlyn80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
carrie
thats true- i forgot about that b/c i don't do IA homestudies. the rules have gotten extremely strict recently and really, homestudies can only be done in agency.

but, the majority of adoptions don't go through an agency. most adoptions (over 60%) are some sort of identified adoption. step-parent, relative, grandparent, etc. or someone adopting their sister's cousin's boyfriend's church friend's hair dresser's daughter's baby.

but even people going through the foster care system. you are supposed to tell an agency if you've applied previously with another one. but really, how could that agency ever know if you were never verified?
robynlyn80 is offline  
#73 of 121 Old 04-19-2008, 12:09 PM
 
Polliwog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,064
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by robynlyn80 View Post
but even people going through the foster care system. you are supposed to tell an agency if you've applied previously with another one. but really, how could that agency ever know if you were never verified?
I don't even know when in my foster care home study it would have ever come up.

My fc home study was really pretty easy but I gave pretty easy responses and I work in the early childhood field. So the answers I gave were one's (particularly around discipline) that they expected to hear but were actually what I believe.
Polliwog is online now  
#74 of 121 Old 04-19-2008, 01:42 PM
 
RedOakMomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A little stone house
Posts: 6,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by robynlyn80 View Post
you are supposed to tell an agency if you've applied previously with another one. but really, how could that agency ever know if you were never verified?
It'd be nice if there was some sort of online or easy method of filing a homestudy request by a couple. Kind of like the way you can trace who's done credit checks on you and when. Some sort of governmental record, filed away by soc. number or something (like a parking ticket?).

So when a social worker asks, "have you had a previous homestudy?" the couple will have to tell the truth....because the sw has access to that record.

RedOak ~ Momma to DS (8) , DS (4) , DD (3) , & DD 9/10 ~
RedOakMomma is offline  
#75 of 121 Old 04-19-2008, 10:35 PM
 
queencarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
robyn, I think it is a really neat way to run things. the Korean agency vets the US agency, the US agency vets the local agency, and the local agency vets the SW. I just think it gives a lot more accountability. Even if we had a HS from another agency, the specific agency SW has to redo the whole thing.
ROM, I like the idea of some type of central database with standardized questions/requirements. I know your and my HS sounded similar, so I suspect that much of it was Korea requirements. It was emotionally grueling in spots, wasn't it?
queencarr is offline  
#76 of 121 Old 05-14-2008, 05:20 PM
 
rhubarbarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: outside Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Count me in as another who had never heard of the anti-adoption movement until reading this board!

I'm learning a lot from this thread.
rhubarbarin is offline  
#77 of 121 Old 05-14-2008, 06:19 PM
 
VegHipMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubarbarin View Post
Count me in as another who had never heard of the anti-adoption movement until reading this board!
LOL. You haven't heard anything about it, really, just second-hand prejudicial comments. If only someone would post links to actual sites, we could ask the people directly what their mission is.
VegHipMama is offline  
#78 of 121 Old 05-14-2008, 10:57 PM
 
dharmamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bywater, West Farthing
Posts: 4,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I corresponded with a woman who runs and anti-adoption website for about 2 weeks a few years ago.

Her stated aim was to make adoption illegal and replace it with legal guardianship.

dm
dharmamama is offline  
#79 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 08:21 AM
 
Polliwog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,064
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegHipMama View Post
LOL. You haven't heard anything about it, really, just second-hand prejudicial comments. If only someone would post links to actual sites, we could ask the people directly what their mission is.
There HAVE been links to specific sites, including one run by another MDC member. Do a search- either here or online. They're out there.

I agree with Dharma. I've seen a website, possibly the same person, in which that's exactly what's advocated for.
Polliwog is online now  
#80 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 11:08 AM
 
VegHipMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's a multi-billion dollar industry in the US alone, with millions of adoptive families. I'm still seeing vague references to one or two sites somewhere on the World Wide Web, with no actual links to verify. Talk about looking for a needle in a haystack!
VegHipMama is offline  
#81 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 11:24 AM
 
Polliwog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,064
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
A 2 second Google search of "anti-adoption" brought up a lot. Try starting at anti-adoption.org.
Polliwog is online now  
#82 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 12:01 PM
 
AndVeeGeeMakes3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the Lovely South, Y'all.
Posts: 1,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegHipMama View Post
LOL. You haven't heard anything about it, really, just second-hand prejudicial comments. If only someone would post links to actual sites, we could ask the people directly what their mission is.
VHM, you know very well that those sites are out there. A very simple google search that takes, let's see, 0.17 seconds, yields 653,000 hits. Clearly not every single one of those pages advocates the extremity that we're discussing here, but there are BIG PLENTY that do. The only reason I can imagine that you would want anyone to list these sites is to drive traffic that way.

As dm said, they state their aim pretty clearly to abolish adoption and replace it with permanent guardianship - in 100% of cases.


Wendy ~ mom to VeeGee (6/05), who has PRS, Apraxia, SPD, VPI, a G-Tube, 14q duplication, and is a delightful little pistol! I'm an English professor and a writer.
AndVeeGeeMakes3 is offline  
#83 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 01:23 PM
 
RedOakMomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A little stone house
Posts: 6,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Snarkiness gets you nowhere, but I agree that google works pretty well, as does being a regular contributor here and seeing the several threads where specific sites have been listed, discussed, and even a discussion last summer (pre forum rule change) where several anti-adoption advocates discussed their beliefs with us.

Honestly, if you dislike this forum so much, why bother coming here?

RedOak ~ Momma to DS (8) , DS (4) , DD (3) , & DD 9/10 ~
RedOakMomma is offline  
#84 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 01:38 PM
 
AndVeeGeeMakes3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the Lovely South, Y'all.
Posts: 1,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOakMomma View Post

Honestly, if you dislike this forum so much, why bother coming here?
:

Wendy ~ mom to VeeGee (6/05), who has PRS, Apraxia, SPD, VPI, a G-Tube, 14q duplication, and is a delightful little pistol! I'm an English professor and a writer.
AndVeeGeeMakes3 is offline  
#85 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 05:10 PM
 
VegHipMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I hope someday to help people see that open, blatant prejudice against adoptees is damaging to all adoptive families.
VegHipMama is offline  
#86 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 05:13 PM
 
VegHipMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedOakMomma View Post
as does being a regular contributor here and seeing the several threads where specific sites have been listed, discussed, and even a discussion last summer (pre forum rule change) where several anti-adoption advocates discussed their beliefs with us.
It's hard to read deleted posts and threads.

I'm still waiting to see anyone who is making derogatory comments about these sites to actually provide a link, some sort of proof that what they are saying is true.
VegHipMama is offline  
#87 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 05:27 PM
 
RedOakMomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: A little stone house
Posts: 6,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegHipMama View Post
I hope someday to help people see that open, blatant prejudice against adoptees is damaging to all adoptive families.
Fair enough. I think, though, that there are ways to advocate without putting the people in this forum down.

As for waiting for a link...honestly, just google it. And not all threads with links are shut down--here is one, that you commented on actually, and there are links. I just spent five minutes finding that thread in order to prove a point. Maybe the reason people haven't posted links for you is because it's irritating to have to go chase them down and link them when it could be so easy for you to google them?

RedOak ~ Momma to DS (8) , DS (4) , DD (3) , & DD 9/10 ~
RedOakMomma is offline  
#88 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 05:43 PM
 
AndVeeGeeMakes3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the Lovely South, Y'all.
Posts: 1,914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegHipMama View Post
It's hard to read deleted posts and threads.

I'm still waiting to see anyone who is making derogatory comments about these sites to actually provide a link, some sort of proof that what they are saying is true.
I keep telling myself that I shouldn't engage with this inanity, but I want to second ROM's suggestion that, since you never have anything positive to say about adoption, perhaps this forum isn't one that feeds you emotionally (at least not in a good way). We come here for support for our decisions, answers to questions from people who are experienced in this arena, or at least are willing to own up to their biases and the reasons behind them.

I appreciate a spirited argument. I think we all are pretty good around here about handling differing opinions, but when one persons' universal opinion on a particular issue seems to be so negative it becomes suspect. Why is it that you are so negative? Perhaps we could learn from your experiences - but as it stands, because you choose to cloak yourself, we can only rely on our imaginations about them - that, and google searches.

Why does it matter to you whether or not we are accurately representing the agendas of anti-adoptionists? Why must we be advertisers for their links? Why do you care? Because it doesn't seem like you care out of any concern or compassion for us in this forum.

Wendy ~ mom to VeeGee (6/05), who has PRS, Apraxia, SPD, VPI, a G-Tube, 14q duplication, and is a delightful little pistol! I'm an English professor and a writer.
AndVeeGeeMakes3 is offline  
#89 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 06:38 PM
 
Spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Eating a BLT
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by VegHipMama View Post
It's hard to read deleted posts and threads.

I'm still waiting to see anyone who is making derogatory comments about these sites to actually provide a link, some sort of proof that what they are saying is true.
VHM, I would ask you to provide some links that prove what people are saying is untrue. Please, point me in the direction of any anti-adoption group that is actually working to put an end to issues like poverty that are often the reason that children are placed for adoption. I have yet to see a single anti-adoption group doing anything positive that would eliminate the need for adoption. All I've seen are a lot of simplistic ideas about some very complex issues and hateful language directed at adoptive parents.
Spock is offline  
#90 of 121 Old 05-15-2008, 07:07 PM
 
VegHipMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by librarydragon View Post
VHM, I would ask you to provide some links that prove what people are saying is untrue. Please, point me in the direction of any anti-adoption group that is actually working to put an end to issues like poverty that are often the reason that children are placed for adoption.
I've never been to these anti-adoption sites everyone seems to be talking about. Hence my questions. Which no one seems willing to answer. Why?
VegHipMama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off