Adoption Truths

With all the Haitian earthquake drama, international adoptions have kind of been thrust into the spotlight. News outlets like Fox and CNN embedded themselves in orphanages and reported live from those orphanages during the weeks after the earthquake. Adoptive parents found themselves in the local and national news as they waited for their children to come home. A group of Americans were arrested in Haiti for trying to transport a group of Haitian children across the Dominican border without proper documentation. And much was made of how these children were not really orphans but had families which may have surprised some people but is actually pretty common in third world countries. Recently, a child who was adopted from Russia was "returned" to Russia by his adoptive mother which has resulted in much diaglogue about international adoption.

With so many adoption related news stories, I have found it interesting to read and hear the discussions. There are so many commentors, some who have adopted, some who are adopting, some who are interested in adoption, some who are adoption specialists, and some who really have nothing to do with adoption but are interested in the conversation. One of the things I found was that there are lots of misconceptions about international adoption. So here's my best stab at addressing some of those things; it's a bit long. Sorry.

Adoption is for rich white people.

I have heard it repeated in a couple of places that international adoption is for rich white people. There are certainly people who are white and wealthy who adopt and I would venture a guess that there are more Caucasions who adopt internationally than any other race, but to say that only rich white people adopt is inaccurate. Most of the families I know of who have adopted are either middle class or upper middle class. (And depending on whose definition you read, they may not even be middle class. I know that we are borderline on the middle class catagory, depending on what income requirements you read.) They probably make between 40-90 thousand dollars a year. Some of them are one income families, not because they are rich and can afford to be but because they have worked hard to make this a possibility and because they value having a parent at home. Or because they are a single parent who has chosen to aodpt. Thinking about the professions of the people whom I know from the adoption world and I certainly don't see an overabundance of "wealthy" professions represented. I know teachers, ministers, and self employed, small town, small business owners. None of these people are making crazy money and most of them felt like their adoption was a financial leap of faith. For them it was not a matter of finances but priorities.

Americans should be adopting kids from the US foster care system.

Of course, many people also wonder why adoptive parents choose international adoption when there are so many children in the US who need families. It's kind of a "take care of our own mentality" that can be represented. The reality is that adopting from the US is not as easy as it sounds. If you choose to do a domestic newborn adoption, you are often looking at 20 thousand dollars (or more) in fees. (Which is more expensive than one Haitian adoption.) There are placing agencies who will do the work for minimal fees but many (like the one in our state) will not work with you unless you are experiencing infertility. If you choose to go the foster care route, this also is not just as easy as it sounds. Finding a child who you feel you are able to parent can be a challenge. In our state, what we found, was that there was a great need for people willing to adopt kids ten and up. Not every family has the skills to parent children adopted as teenagers. We also found that the majority of kid in foster care had special needs. For example, there was a darling 4 year old girl, Pauline, whom D and I prayed for and about. But she was prone to acting out sexually. What does this really mean? Worst case scenerio? She may not be able to ever be around children who are younger than herself unsupervised due to fears of her sexually acting out on those children. That would mean no younger siblings, tightly controlled extended family gatherings, very strict playdates with friends. Can you imagine having to explain to a family member how your child has sexually perpetrated on their child? Sibling groups were also widely available. Groups of anywhere from 3-6 kids who all shared the same hurts in life. Again, not all parents have the skills for such situations. Want to adopt a younger child? Maybe aged birth to three? In our area, to be an adoptive parent for a younger child, you needed to foster that child first and then wait for the parental rights to be terminated. This type of situation always involves a high level of risk as the primary goal of the system is family reunification not adoption. In our state, a child must be in state custody for 18 out of 24 months before they can even consider terminating parental rights. That means a minimal of 24 months of uncertainty regarding a child's ability to be adopted. It also means that small children who have parental rights terminated quickly often have been through a lot of stuff. As in a two year old who has had multiple broken bones. Or a child who was born drug addicted. None of these fit with the risks we were comfortable in assuming.


The money spent on international adoptions would be better used if it were given to specific families.
There are certain individuals who feel like putting out huge chunks of money to bring one child home is poor stewardship, that the money spent to process an adoption would be best used to provide care that would keep a family in a developing country together. The truth is this is not 100% accurate. Yes, it would be great if I could take the money I spent on our adoptions and give it to a family in Haiti. But simply providing them with money will not cure their problems. Imagine if we applied this to domestic adoptions. We would never assume that if we simply gave a pregnant 15 year old more money, then she could adequately parent her child nor would we assume that if we gave the neglectful parent whose child is under state custody, that all of a sudden this parent would be able to effectively parent. Yes, poverty separates families, especially in poor countries. But there are many factors that contribute to a birth parent's decision including physical abuse, remarriages, teenage pregnancy, disease, addiction, and mental illness. We also have to recognize that infusing mass amounts of money directly into people's pockets does not ensure financial stability. Dixie from GLA recently blogged about this as well. And truth be told, having a stable loving family does matter. It matters to my kids. I hate that adoption is so expensive. But I do believe my kids are better off because of the money we have spent.

Adoptive parents should continue to parent their adopted children, no matter what.

The story of the woman who "returned" her adopted son to Russia has also brought out all sorts of criticism, skepticism, and just general judgements on this adoptive mother. While I in no way think she made the best decision, I certainly believe her claims of feeling threatened, feeling like her life was in danger, and feeling like she may have been lied to by Russian authorities. Children who are adopted are all dealing with trauma. Losing your first parent is trauma, even if you are a baby when it happens. All kids react to this trauma differently. Couple that trauma with years of instituational care where discipline can be harsh and encouraging words few and you have the makings of a child who has real reasons to doubt that love exists. They honestly have brain damage. Their little brains have not formed the right connections and instead have learned to distrust rather than trust, to run away rather than run to, to react in rage rather than to love. For kids on the severe end of the spectrum of behaviors, we are talking dangerous behaviors. Not just tantruming. Not just biting or kicking or hitting. We're talking about threats made with weapons in hand. We're talking kids who were sexually or physically abused literally turning into predators who seek out the weak and vunerable so they can control them in the same way they were controlled. In some case, it can meaning having to choose between removing a perpetrator from your home so your other children can be kept safe or keeping your adopted child at home and trying to be hyper vigilant to prevent them from abusing a sibling. Should this woman have realized that these type behaviors were a risk? Yes. Should she have exhausted every single resource known to man including help from her adoption agency, help from a school district, help from private psychologists, help from her church, etc.? Yes. But please don't believe the words those who say "He's just a seven year old boy; he can't be that bad." It's not about badness or goodness. It is about a traumatized kid who is in survival mode who will fight like mad to keep himself safe. In his world, love is not safe. It's risky and scary. And he will literally go tooth and nail to get rid of that risk. Believe that there are 7 year olds and 3 year olds and 12 year olds who are dangerous.