written by Anti-Racist Parent columnist Julie Corby; crossposted at the Eyes of My Eyes Are Opened
I applaud E.J. Graff and The Schuster Institute for opening people’s eyes to the corruption that exists in international adoption. I think that it is important that people start talking about this, and start implementing changes to ensure that all adoptions are ethical. However, I believe Ms. Graff does a great disservice by publishing the octopus of an article, The Lie We Love, and its tentacle articles in Slate, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe. The Lie We Love is full of generalizations and is rarely substantiated with facts. For a better example of investigative journalism on the subject of corruption in international adoption, I would suggest reading, Red Thread or Slender Reed: Deconstructing Prof. Bartholet’s Mythology of International Adoption, by Johanna Oreskovic and Trish Maskew. The article, with sources to back it up, can be found HERE .
This Slate slide show is indeed devastating, and I believe that one case of corruption is one too many. What about balancing these stories with some of the other international adoption stories?
Here, and in TLWL, Graff infers that the next country that will be closed to international adoption due to corruption is Ethiopia. Graff, asked by an adoptive families group to expound on this, responded HERE.
In this link Graff says, “I am hearing horrifying stories that I cannot publish since we do not have the time or resources to investigate, corroborate and publish these.”
Graff who says in the Slate article, “Orphanages do not necessarily house orphans—at least, not in poor countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America,” might have spoken to some people like Melissa Faye Greene, author of There is No Me Without You, or Dr. Jane Aronson, founder of the Worldwide Orphans Foundation, who have first hand knowledge of what goes on in orphanages in some African countries. Dr. Aronson had this to say in response to Graff,
“The opinion piece on the so-called “orphan manufacturing chain” by Brandeis University’s E.J. Graff falsely alleges that birth mothers in impoverished countries are largely tricked into giving up (or selling) their babies to meet a greedy Western demand for healthy infants (“International adoption rife with corruption,” The Salt Lake Tribune, Opinion, Jan. 16). The research fails to acknowledge that poverty, war and societal pressures too often force women to give up their children. After losing a husband to AIDS and facing their own sickness, poor women may turn to adoption in a desperate attempt to secure a brighter future for their children. These brave, selfless and courageous women should not be branded as “baby sellers” or too ignorant or poor to love their children.
While unscrupulous operators may exist, a majority of international adoptions are lawful. Graff’s inaccurate account of international adoption is extremely painful to both adoptive parents and their children. Instead of name-calling, we should invest our energies in sustainable solutions to ending this all-too-real orphan crisis.”
It seems to me that Graff is against any international adoption. I don’t think anyone would argue that the best thing for a child would be to grow up with his birth family, in his country of origin, but what about the kids for whom that is an impossibility?
There are legitimate adoption stories that Graff never speaks of. If I were to produce a slide show based on adoption cases that I have watched from start to finish, it would include an Ethiopian adoptee who was taken out of an abusive situation so horrific that it would rival any US foster care horror story. It would show an infant girl who had lost both parents, and whose maternal aunt could no longer afford to feed her (in addition to feeding her own six children). It would show a healthy infant boy who was relinquished by his father, when his birth mother died. (The child’s two older brothers were not relinquished because they were old enough to work on the family’s farm in rural, southern Ethiopia. This is just one example disproving Graff’s statement that “most children who need new homes are older than five”. In rural Ethiopia it is often the birth of a child that throws a family into the devastating situation of needing to make an adoption plan). My slide show would also include children whose parents died of AIDs. It would show a toddler boy who was confirmed to be days away from death due to malnutrition, (I have seen the video footage of this child’s orphanage arrival. In it, his belly is so distended that he cannot stand upright). My slide show would show a family whose first referred child died before they could pick her up, and whose current daughter requires constant medical attention. It would also show an infant girl whose legs are so weak from languishing in a crowded crib, that she requires daily physical therapy. It would show children, with diagnoses of failure to thrive, rickets, cerebral palsy and seizures. It would include HIV positive children who for the first time in their lives will have access the antiretroviral medicine that will keep them alive. Graff writes, “To use the language of globalization, orphans are sometimes “manufactured”: Children with families are stripped of their identities so that Westerners can fill their homes.”
Orphans don’t need to be manufactured in Ethiopia; famine, AIDs and other diseases do that for them.
I agree that it is absolutely crucial to bring awareness to corruption and unethical practices that are happening in international adoption. It is vital to work toward preventing these situations illustrated in this slide show from ever happening again.
I am wondering if Ms. Graff can come up with something besides what seems to be a campaign to stop all international adoptions. I am hopeful that she can suggest to us a way that we can allow legitimate adoptions of true orphans to continue, while allowing more transparency and less corruption. I am also wondering if she can you do it in a way that doesn’t denigrate, and vilify every single adoptive parent or adoptive parent to be.
Julie Corby writes about her life and her adoption at http://theeyesofmyeyesareopened.blogspot.com. She lives in Los Angeles with her husband of ten years, and her two pups. She is a contributor at http://www.mindful-mama.com. Her online book club for adoptive parents is http://eyesonbooks.blogspot.com. Julie has been in the process of adopting siblings from Ethiopia since November ’07.
That is perfect, Julie. I think it has all the elements that Graff’s original article does not. Thank you so much for taking time to speak for all of the adoptive mommies who look at our sweet children and shudder to think what would have happened had adoption not been open to the strong and courageous birth families.
Then there’s always the point that quite a few of us adoptive parents have met any remaining birth family of our children and in now way do those parents seem confused about what happened.
Has it happened ever? Probably. But that is certainly not the norm.
Thanks again for this!
Bravo!!! This is everything I have ever felt but didn’t know how to say and you said it with knowledge and heart.
Thank you.
I feel like this will take me a lifetime to wrap my head around. Not to mention that we are talking about children here, not just statistics or numbers. As an adoptive parent I agree with Julie that I don’t want to be vilified for how our family came to be a family. I also don’t want to rush to the conclusion that Ethiopia is overall corrupt. Halting all adoptions from that country would create a dead-end future for thousands and thousands of children. I can’t see the difference between my children we adopted from the United States (who are not “true” orphans) and our son from Ethiopia (who is an “orhpan”). They needed families!!! Here in the United States we allow adoptions when all other options are exhausted and birthparents legally revoke their parental rights. Other countries are certainly capable of following the same protocol.
I have a big problem with this rebuttal, and the Aronson rebuttal quote.
In short… where’s the beef? I see a lot of equivocating over definitions of words like “largely”, anecdotes in place of data, straw man (I do not recall E.J. Graff mentioning at any point that she believes all international adoption should be banned) and the relativist fallacy.
Frankly, I’m disgusted by Aronson’s claim that these sort of mild, measured criticisms of international adoption somehow “take away” from sustainable solutions to helping families in poverty. How is that any different from saying “why should we care about petty problems like racism when people are dying of hunger?” It’s a time-honored way to deflect an argument and silence the voices that need to speak.
I’m open to hearing a rebuttal of Graff’s piece, but only if it involves some better data and better arguments, and actually discusses what she really wrote… not a caricature of her argument.
Finally, why should Graff feel the need to balance her criticisms with feel-good stories? It’s not hard to find these stories. They’re everywhere, including adoption agency brochures. People who write positive stories about international adoption don’t seem to feel the same responsibility to provide “balance”.
It is true that adoption agency literature is heavy on the sentimental, rose-colored-glasses side of adoption, which is why I always advise people looking into adoption to stay as far away as possible from these brochures and ask the really hard questions to agency representatives. People need to read the hard stuff not just the happy “forever family” stories.
I think that Ms. Corby’s slideshow is a perfect representation of what adoption *can* be. Like Cathy, I too think it will take a lifetime to wrap my head around these issues. As we wrestle with all this, what happens to the children, the “true orphans,” who languish in orphanages without families? What is the solution for them? To the harsh critics of international adoption, that is my question. What happens to them?
I’m with atlasien. I have to see any convincing arguments against Graff’s work. I do know that time and time again, when adoptive parents hear this stuff, they explain it all away. There’s always a new rationalization, explanation, reason why they’re different, etc.
I also have a real issue with adoptive parents who think it’s enough to chose the “right” agency.
I say this as an adoptive parent too, one who, sadly, used to believe the agency spin on all of this.
I really appreciate the article, it’s good to hear differing views and multiple sides. It’s also interesting to read this type of opinion on Anti-Racist Parent.
I love the blog and have been a big fan and long-time reader, but sometimes the opinions are quite strong.
It had been my impression that many readers and writers here were quite opposed to international adoption and trans-racial adoption.
Apparently that’s not the case, but as someone whose commented a handful of times, the articles and responses I’ve gotten have made me feel that way. I wasn’t personally hurt, but it had an influence and shaped the way I’ve thought about adoption. It’d be good to have point-counterpoint type discussions about some of these topics on here in the future.
Julie – great to see you here!
This is a tough issue…I think there is a “greedy Western demand for healthy infants” – I’ve seen it on some of the Yahoo adoption groups – and whenever there is money involved, there is a risk of corruption. But I’m not sure that closing down all international adoption programs is the solution.
I haven’t read the Graff article, I think I’ll have to find it and read it before I can really comment further…
In response to atlasien, I might ask where’s your beef with the beef? This is a complicated issue and one that certainly deserves a healthy, informed conversation coming at it from all sides.
I’m currently in the process of adopting a child from Ethiopia and can’t say I consistently read feel-good adoption stories in nationally read publications such as the Washington Post, Slate and the Boston Globe. E.J. Graff bears a responsibility to provide balance in her reporting solely because it is a professional piece of journalism.
I also believe you falsely invoked the relativist fallacy, as Julie does not deny there is corruption just because it didn’t happen to her. She says,“I agree that it is absolutely crucial to bring awareness to corruption and unethical practices that are happening in international adoption. It is vital to work toward preventing these situations illustrated in this slide show from ever happening again.”
I don’t disagree with Graff and I feel that every family entering into international adoption bears the responsibility to educate themselves on the issues and to ensure they work with the most reputable agencies. I do feel her articles portray many adoptive parents as undereducated and gullible. Ready to hear what they want to hear. It’s an unnecessary generalization and one that’s impossible to back up with fact.
Pingback: matt and stephanie’s blog » Blog Archive » Last Friday
I’ve seen few reliable sources of intercountry adoption statistics generally, never mind statistics that could prove or disprove the prevalence of unethical transnational adoptions. I think the best there is are the placing country’s reactions to incidents that are brought to their attention, and there have been enough of those to close more than one program.
The existence of corruption in more than one country should be sufficient proof of its possibility in any country. That doesn’t mean that every single adoption is also corrupt; it does mean, however, that we APs should be aware of and vocal against corrupt and unethical practices.
The loose definitions that have been applied in intercountry adoption for the past several decades have contributed to these practices, I believe. I was therefore glad when UNICEF published a position statement on this a year or so ago:
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_44928.html
Thank you guys for reading and for weighing in. I would like to say a couple of things. I sent this over without a title this morning, and would have to agree that it is not a rebuttal. I absolutely agree with Graff that there is corruption in international adoption. What I take issue with is her inflammatory tone, and her generalizations.
Graff has said (in the adoptive families group link above) that she would not adopt from Ethiopia. I want to know why, specifically. I want to know what she knows. I am months, or maybe only weeks away from being told of two Ethiopian children who are going to rely on me to do the right thing. I want to know, from people who have experience, people like Ms.4, what to do to ensure that my adoption is ethical. My husband and I spent years researching adoption, and decided on an agency based on advice from social workers and from parents who had gone before us. I do not have my head in the sand, nor am I trying to explain it away. I want more information. If people know something that I don’t, speak up. Right now I have to rely on people like Aronson (Who have years of experience working in orphanages all over the world) and on people who have been through the process. If your adoption was corrupt, were there any red flags that you now, in retrospect, think you missed?
As far as the ‘feel good’ question from Atlasien,
Time wrote:
I’m currently in the process of adopting a child from Ethiopia and can’t say I consistently read feel-good adoption stories in nationally read publications such as the Washington Post, Slate and the Boston Globe. E.J. Graff bears a responsibility to provide balance in her reporting solely because it is a professional piece of journalism.
I agree.
I have seen things with my own eyes, on video at least. Lots of things. There are orphans in Ethiopia who need homes. I have a home.
(Written after comment 11)
I agrees with atlasien’s comment. It seemed like the author of the rebuttal could not abide by the focus solely being one on the children hurt by international adoptions, but must always shoe the children helped by international adoptions. I think that these children’s stories stand very well on their own, by themselves, alone. Attempts to insert narratives that try to minimize-or-marginalize-those-stories-to-isolated-incidents-look-at MY-story-and-how-I-saved-my-child’s-life-through-adoption are in poor taste. I know that AP’s parents do get some undeserved crap and might naturally be on the defensive, that’s understandable but this kind of protest doesn’t come off well.
Also some actual data and citations as opposed to just strings of anecdotes would make the arguement a whole lot stronger.
Just wanted to back Julie up…the language in the title is all mine.
I just skimmed over “The Lie We Love” a second time and cannot find a passage where Graff states any of the following:
– true orphans don’t exist
– ethical international adoptions don’t exist
– orphans don’t suffer
– all international adoption should be totally abolished
Those are the statements supposedly being rebutted… but Graff never makes them.
Her argument is a lot more focused. She’s basically saying that in the case of infants with no special needs, corruption is so rampant that it’s almost impossible to ensure ethical adoptions… and for supporting evidence she uses a mix of expert witnesses, anecdotes and numeric data involving economic and social trends.
An example:
“For instance, in December 2001, the U.S. immigration service stopped processing adoption visas from Cambodia, citing clear evidence that children were being acquired illicitly, often against their parents’ wishes. That year, Westerners adopted more than 700 Cambodian children; of the 400 adopted by Americans, more than half were less than 12 months old. But in 2005, a study of Cambodia’s orphanage population, commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development, found only a total of 132 children who were less than a year old—fewer babies than Westerners had been adopting every three months a few years before.”
If she’s wrong, I want to know why. Citing successful, ethical adoptions is just not relevant, especially when it comes to older children or those with special needs… they aren’t the focus of her argument.
There’s a mixed message here. If bringing focus to corruption in international adoption is crucial, then what’s so wrong with Graff’s argument? The real argument that is, not the straw argument.
And yes, journalists have a responsibility to work towards objectivity and present a variety of sources… but they don’t have a responsibility to coddle people’s feelings. And if anyone thinks that international adoption gets too much negative publicity nowadays, they should switch focus and see what kind of press foster care adoption gets. The stereotypes are insane. Maybe it’s all made my skin too thick, but I don’t feel insulted in the least by Graff’s mild observations on adoptive parents.
Celeste—
Everybody here agrees that one corrupt adoption is one too many, and must be fully investigated and explored. Everybody agrees that the only real important thing here is the welfare of each child. This shouldn’t be an ‘argument.’ Because then what are the sides?
But please do hear me now. What hurts adopting parents’ hearts and gives this one a headache is when people minimize what is rightly a very long and complicated and meaningful and moving experience with sneering reduction. To wit: “Attempts to insert narratives that try to minimize-or-marginalize-those-stories-to-isolated-incidents-look-at-MY-story-and-how-I-saved-my-child’s-life-through-adoption…” Is that really how you view the typical adoption experience? Because my story is an irreducible one, and it has led me to a 10-month old girl whose parents have both died and who has in her short life already experienced unspeakable loss. My husband and I certainly don’t think we are ‘saving’ her life. We don’t feel righteous. But we do feel responsible. We’ve felt responsible from the day we decided to adopt to arm ourselves with information and literature and clinical research and community experience. And now that there is this glorious, resilient child in need of parents we’re going to try our very best to give her a home that is stable and loving and secure, all the while smacking our heads that we have the enormous luck to know and love her. That is the beginning of my story. How dare anyone minimize or marginalize it.
I don’t feel the need to explain anything away, I just want to make sense of it. I want to be working toward a solution to unethical adoption practices and and all human rights violations.
I don’t feel like blaming AP’s gets me any closer to my goal.
My personal beef with this article is the general tone, that sort of reporting always turns me away. I agree with many of the points that Graff makes, yet I find myself not wanting to read the article because I think she could have done a better job at reaching her audience. Help us learn! Someone working for such a prestigious research institute should at least be able to provide their readers with that much.
ONE case of corruption is too many. So is a child living without a family to care for them. I am not justifying adoption without considering the consequenses, I truly want to work through the hard questions.
This is everyone’s issue. AP or not, we should all be working towards the same goal.
I don’t view the typical adoption experience as what I described in hyphens. I’m glad for for family. However, this sentence:
That is the beginning of my story. How dare anyone minimize or marginalize it.
I didn’t marginalize or minimize your story, I simply asked that the stories of these children who were wrongfully taken from their families be allow to stand on it’s own especially since the original article does not seem to be the one-sided condemnation of international adoption that the rebuttal/thoughts make it out to be.
atlasien said and I think it bears repeating:
There’s a mixed message here. If bringing focus to corruption in international adoption is crucial, then what’s so wrong with Graff’s argument?
—————————-
I don’t think that an article addressing a topic this grave needs to be a positive feedback-negative feedback-positive feedabck sandwich. Or in this case some would prefer a good adoption-bad adoption-good adoption sandwich, however this isn’t a 6 month evaluation from our boss. The experiences of these families should not have to be in a happy sandwich for the audience not to turn away from them.
It is just plain false, inflammatory and irresponsible to say, as Graff does, that “in poor countries. . . healthy babies are rarely orphaned or given up.” Similarly, to state that Ethiopia is a hot “under-regulated” place to adopt from shows a real lack of understanding of the current policies and practices of the Federal and local governments in Ethiopia. They are extensive, and designed to be the last possible alternative for children with no other options, and to combat corruption, and are constantly evolving and increasing in response to Ethiopia’s experiences, as well as those of other countries.
I am grateful for investigative journalists who publicize and discuss the indisputable and heartbreaking existence of corruption in international adoption. But Graff’s tone and language certainly do create the false impression that the majority of these adoptions are unethical.
In her response to adoptive families, she makes no less than six references to things that she knows, but can’t “vouch” for, or investigate, so she can’t publish, saying things like “you should hear what I’ve heard!” I do not doubt that she has been told horrifying things. I do not doubt that people tell her things that are true. But I doubt the effectiveness and advisability of trying to make a point with innuendo and secrecy like that.
She then states that she would not adopt from Ethiopia right now, “just because of all the horror stories I’ve heard and read when *other* countries’ adoption programs turn sour.” What? It’s like saying you would not participate in some community organization because some other community organizer in another state embezzled funds. And “turn sour”? Like it’s some product that hardworking people have no control over; it is predetermined to rot with age. Like the majority of the people in the Ethiopian Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Federal Courts, local kebeles, etc. are either too corrupt to care, or too stupid or ineffective to do anything about it.
She has a right to her opinions. Her work, and the attention she brings to an incredibly important issue, is appreciated. She has no obligation to be objective or balanced. But several of her statements are just false and irresponsible as they pertain to international adoption in Ethiopia. In my opinion, her response to adoptive families speaks volumes about where she is coming from, and the depth and detail of her knowledge of her subject matter. “I’m in the midst of selling a house while trying to publish or post (on our website) whatever I can so that all the things we uncovered don’t rot away in our files… before we move on to the next topic of investigation.” Her widely published words will quite possibly have the intended effect of dissuading people from adoption from Ethiopia. It’s a topic that deserves more attention and better writing than she has dedicated.
It seems to me that one of the main problems with trying to respond to critiques of the legitimacy of the international process is that there seems to be a dearth of hard statistical information on this process. Anecdotal evidence abounds. But negative anecdotal evidence tends to be salacious and newsworthy, while positive anecdotal evidence (e.g., orphan rescued from abusive living situation, lives happily ever after…) doesn’t really have that visceral hook, so the reporting tends to be (as far as I can see) a little imbalanced.
What I’d really like to see is a study saying something like “In independent review of 500 randomly selected adoption files from x country, x% were found to have inaccuracies/problems that could indicate defects in the adoption process.” And, “In follow-on interviews with x% of the birth families, x% of those indicated that they were happy with their decision, felt pressured into adoption, had been tricked into adoption, etc.”
What I would like to see is a real academic study of the adoption process in a given country. Like an audit. I would think that you could randomly select 50-100 adoptions per year from the last 5 years in the country. Then collect all of the paperwork from the local country authority and the adoption agencies. Have it all redacted and then submitted to the study group for the audit and review. Then document the number and types of problems with the files. You could also sub-select 10 cases from each year and do actual follow-on interview with the families to validate the paperwork and get their subjective, after-the-fact opinions as to whether they’re happy with their decision x years later.
I would be really interested to see the result of a study like that. The added benefit would be that it would identify many of the “soft spots” in the process (i.e., points in the adoption process where abuses are most frequent or where corruption can creep in).
Celeste Wrote:
“Also some actual data and citations as opposed to just strings of anecdotes would make the arguement a whole lot stronger.”
The same could be said for the article by Ms. Graff.
When reading her article, the first thing I noticed was its lack of substantiation. Many assertions are made, but few are documented. When they are, even though the source sounds valid, the evidence is often anecdotal. The author, Ms. Graff, is a professor at Brandeis and heads the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, so she is reputable. This peice however, is littered with propaganda devices, including loaded words, glittering generalities, use of the passive voice, lack of citation/source, and qualifiers, which, in my opinion detract from the points that she is trying to make rather than add to them. Clearly IA, like any other human endeavor, is not immune from corruption, and I don’t doubt that money is a corrupting force. But I am left with the sense that she is conflating the different programs and overstating the overall problems by focusing on specificly corrupted programs and trying to generalize specific instances of corrupt behavior.
These “weasel words” seem to make claims, but appearance may not be reality. Sensationalism is synonymous with journalism–if there is no crisis, there is no story. So, although Graff has found some issues with international adoptions in specific cases, it is in journalism’s interest to exaggerate.
I will include a number of sentences from the article that reflect the use of such “weasel words”:
Quote
“Westerners have been sold the myth of a world orphan crisis. We are told that millions of children are waiting for their “forever families” to rescue them from lives of abandonment and abuse. But many of the infants and toddlers being adopted by Western parents today are not orphans at all.”
Passive voice, lack of citations, qualifiers.
Quote
“But experts say the fees are so disproportionately large for the child’s home country that they encourage corruption.”
generality, unsubstantiated, lack of citation/source
Quote
“I asked him how many healthy babies in those regions would be available for international adoption if money never exchanged hands. ‘I would hazard a guess at zero,’ he replied.”
a guess is not a fact
Quote
“China’s central adoption authority sharply reduced the number of children sent abroad, possibly because of the country’s growing sex imbalance, declining poverty, and scandals involving child trafficking for foreign adoption. Prospective foreign parents today are strictly judged by their age, marital history, family size, income, health, and even weight. That means that if you are single, gay, fat, old, less than well off, too often divorced, too recently married, taking antidepressants, or already have four children, China will turn you away.”
speculation followed by non sequiter
Quote
“That has led many prospective parents to shop around for a country that puts fewer barriers between them and their children as if every country were China, but with fewer onerous regulations.”
loaded words
Quote
“The pattern suggests that the supply of adoptable babies rises to meet foreign demand and disappears when Western cash is no longer available. For instance, in December 2001, the U.S. immigration service stopped processing adoption visas from Cambodia, citing clear evidence that children were being acquired illicitly, often against their parents’ wishes. That year, Westerners adopted more than 700 Cambodian children; of the 400 adopted by Americans, more than half were less than 12 months old. But in 2005, a study of Cambodia’s orphanage population, commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development, found only a total of 132 children who were less than a year old fewer babies than Westerners had been adopting every three months a few years before.”
contradiction – if there were 132 babies in orphanges after the halt of IA, that means the “supply” did not “disappear”
Quote
“They too are looking for healthy babies to adopt; some experts think that these millions of middle-class families could easily absorb all available babies.”
generality, unsubstantiated, lack of citation
Quote
“In some cases, unscrupulous orphanage directors, local officials, or other operators persuade illiterate birth families to sign documents that relinquish those children, who are then sent abroad for adoption, never to be seen again by their bereft families.”
vague, unsubstatiated
Quote
“One U.S. official told me that when embassy staff in a country that sent more than 1,000 children overseas last year were asked which adoption visas they felt uneasy about, they replied: almost all of them.”
conflation – this would had to have been Guatamala, China, Russia, Ethiopia, or South Korea – i would want to know which, these programs are not all the same.
Quote
“Most of the Westerners involved with foreign adoption agencies – like business people importing foreign sneakers – can plausibly deny knowledge of unethical or unseemly practices overseas.”
loaded words
Quote
“Thailand, for instance, has a central government authority that counsels birth mothers and offers some families social and economic support so that poverty is never a reason to give up a child.”
factual contradiction – other sources indicate poverty is the primary reason for relinquishment
(cross-posted from adopttalkcanada.com)
I totally agree with Celeste’s statement that the tragic cases EJ Graff writes about deserve to stand on their own. If I were to write an article about suicide in the military, I would be totally justified in writing about 10 men and women who killed themselves. Those men and women deserve their own stories. They may be isolated incidents, but their stories speak volumes. No question.
But I don’t think anyone’s stories are done justice by shoddy reporting, gross generalizations, and condescending, sensationalist writing. Tone matters.
I think what’s most important to remember is that the author of this piece here said herself that she did not intend her writing to be a rebuttal to the substance of Graff’s piece. That was an editorial decision made by the Anti-Racist folks that’s since been corrected. So all of our comments should respond to Julie’s response to Graff’s work, not to the idea of her posing a counter-argument. Julie is not plugging her ears, willing all discussion of corruption away. She’s struggling with it, just as we all should be. But there’s got to be a way to respectfully address the risks of corruption, while also respecting the adoptive families who are taking every measure to make sure their own adoption is an honorable one.
It’s a hot button issue. Rightfully so. I think though that we’re all on the same side.
Pingback: While we’re all deep in thought « Waiting for a sausage or two
Many, many thanks to Julie for writing this reaction, and to kantmakm for picking out all of the quotes in the Graff piece that are NOT solid, sound investigative journalism, but rather, incendiary statements designed to get people upset & alarmed.
I agree, this topic needs further discussion. I just regret that we only seem to be able to do so under these circumstances, when the Graff piece is getting a lot of play, and when those of us who want to respond to her don’t have nearly the same kind of platform, or might I say vendetta.
One example particularly irked me in the Graff piece was the one about the embassy official who guessed that “zero” healthy infants would be put up for adoption if there were no fees involved.
REALLY? So, this person has never heard of an AIDS orphan, nor are they familiar with how HIV/AIDS is transmitted from mother to child. In 75% of cases, an HIV+ mother does NOT transmit the disease to her child, or as Melissa Fay Greene writes, there would be no AIDS orphans, because many would die within a few months/years of birth. Since their parents have a terminal illness (since antiretrovirals are so rarely available in Africa) then their parents will die, but they might well live a full life, if they are HIV-, which they will be in 3/4 of all cases. The same could be said for malaria, or TB, which can be life-threatening. If the parent dies, and leaves behind a healthy infant or toddler, who does Graff, or this “embassy” staff person think will swoop in and care for the child? The extended family simply cannot assume the burden in all cases, especially in countries with no limited access to antiretrovirals and birth control.
So, really, zero healthy infants? What world does this so-called expert live in? It’s Shangri-la, not the real world. As imperfect a solution as it is, and it’s not even a solution (but one way to provide a better future for a tiny percentage of children) it’s better than leaving these kids, little kids, in institutional care for life, with no funds to support them and no humanitarian fees from adoptive families to support families so they have other choices. Is this what Graff would prefer–orphans in institutions for life?
International adoption a solution to poverty for sure, nor could/should it be, but, like I said, I live in the real world! And without IA, more babies and children will die, like it or not.
Addressing just one thing:
“Westerners have been sold the myth of a world orphan crisis. We are told that millions of children are waiting for their “forever families” to rescue them from lives of abandonment and abuse. But many of the infants and toddlers being adopted by Western parents today are not orphans at all.”
Passive voice, lack of citations, qualifiers.
Although it lacks citation, that very same “rescue” viewpoint has been brought up many times when addressing international adoption. Even right here in this post.
My point is that we *must* address the culture that has contributed to unethical adoptions, and it seems to me that any questioning of international adoption practices and the cultural motivators behind it gets shot down immediately by APs and potential APs. Why?
Well said, Kandeezie.
Corruption exists in intercountry adoption. Period. The only question in my mind is what APs are going to do to stop it.
Forgot to add: Brandeis University’s Shuster Institute has additional information about corruption in intercountry adoption here:
http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/gender/adoption/index.html
Kandeezie writes: “My point is that we *must* address the culture that has contributed to unethical adoptions, and it seems to me that any questioning of international adoption practices and the cultural motivators behind it gets shot down immediately by APs and potential APs. Why”
I think the answer is “fear.” I’m in the process of adopting, and I went into it because I want to be a parent, not because I want to change or save the world. But then I started reading and learning and having my eyes opened to things I had no idea about before, and no question they are things that shouldn’t happen. I’m all for reforming international adoption…but…could it maybe happen AFTER I’m finished with my adoption? Please? This is partly why it’s such a tough thing for APs and PAPs to wrestle with, because we’re afraid that going as far as it would take to truly reform the system might mean that we don’t get to be parents.
“If the parent dies, and leaves behind a healthy infant or toddler, who does Graff, or this “embassy” staff person think will swoop in and care for the child?”
They obviously think that these infants would be adopted domestically, and Graff states so clearly in her piece, several times.
And the Cambodian stats argument was quite clear to me. If the number of infants in orphanages shrinks by 2/3 once adoption to Westerners is closed, that suggests that 2/3 of the babies wouldn’t have been available for adoption without the flow of money linked with Western demand.
Also, I find Graff’s argument persuasive… that adoptive parents simply CANNOT ensure ethical adoption of healthy infants by themselves. The only way you will know for sure is if you go to the country, speak the language, understand the legal system and interview every person involved in custody… which is something almost no prospective international adoptive parent can claim.
That’s not condescension, it’s just realism.
I adopted from U.S. foster care, a system which is a million times as transparent as anything you’d find in Cambodia or Ethiopia or China, and I never thought beforehand “I am confident that I can ensure that every stage of this adoption is ethical”. I also learned early on that the adoption process is full of lies, lies and more lies… it’s often not purposefully malicious, but people lie to make themselves look better, they lie to make you feel better, they lie because they’ve just got the habit of lying.
And at least in foster care adoption there are some federal and state standards, inspections, statistics kept, and abuses often quickly made public. International adoption agencies have practically no regulations in comparison. No mandated standards for adoptive parent education. No data kept on how many of their placements disrupt. No motive to complete audits/studies such as the one Stace sketched out above.
Finally, one thing that bothers me that has come up in this thread several times is the idea that birth parents are especially courageous. That sounds a lot like placing them on a pedestal… and not fully treating them as human beings. I don’t think they’re heroes or that it’s useful to think of them as heroes. They’re just normal people who had something really horrible happen to them.
For example, if I was faced with the option of giving up one child so I could afford to feed several of my other children, I wouldn’t think of myself as a hero. I’d think, “being a victim of this situation really sucks, and I hate myself for being forced to make this horrible choice.”
Pingback: Voices for Vietnam Adoption Integrity » Blog Archive » The myth of the Safe Choice
So I just found EJ Graff on Twitter. She’s @ejgraff for those interested.
Also, the Schuster Institute at Brandeis responded to cricitisms of Graff’s work here: http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/gender/adoption/criticism.html
Finally, it’s very relevant to this conversation to note that Ethiopia has suspended court cases of children allegedly abandoned in Addis Ababa.
And, on a related note, there are at least rumors going around in Addis that child finders are buying and stealing infants in Addis. Apparently some new mothers are leaving the city because of these rumors.
http://chsfsforums.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3467563&trail=30
One more thought…
I found a version of TLWL in an op-ed Graff wrote for the Boston Globe in December. In it she writes, amazingly:
“In Africa, for instance, children may be orphaned because their parents have died of AIDS or malaria or TB. In the former Soviet bloc, the parents may have died or lost custody because of alcohol-related illnesses or domestic violence. In Asia, the children themselves may be HIV-positive or suffer from chronic hepatitis B. But from an adoption agency’s standpoint, these needy orphans are not very ‘marketable’.”
Huh??? Why would these kids not be “marketable” –her word, not mine.
This is one of the MOST shoddy, unsubstantiated pieces of opinion writing I have ever seen. Where does she get this idea from? What is it based on?
When an AP gets a referral, they don’t get to say, “Well, let me see, what did their birth mother die of? And then I will make my decision.” If she died of AIDS, but they child is HIV- (as the vast majority are, as I wrote above), why would the child not be…marketable to Western families? What would be the concern if the birth mother had TB? How would anyone know? What would they care?
Everyone knows the general circumstances that bring children into custody in former Soviet bloc countries—yet, Americans and Europeans have been adopting children from awful Russian orphanages for years. Graff writes that children in Asia might be hepatitis of HIV positive (could this not be the case in Africa too, I wonder). Yet, I know many adoptive families that have adopted kids that are hepatitis +. I also know of many families that adopt HIV+ families from both Asia & Africa. Apparently, Graff’s “research” didn’t bring her to any of these families—maybe she wasn’t looking for them?
From MY adoption agency’s standpoint, this is precisely the type of child they are trying to serve. They are orphans. Their parent/s is dead. What else is there for them? What does Graff infer than Western parents expect their adopted child to come from, a middle class intact family?
Those of us who put a lot of time and research into selecting an agency rightfully take offense at Graff’s broad-brush treatment of the entirety of IA. It is not all the same. Are reforms needed? Yes. Would oppose DNA testing for abandoned children? Of course not, and let’s look for other meaningful ways to reform the system. But, let’s not lose sight of the big picture. One case of corruption is awful, of course. Is it not also awful for orphaned children to die from curable diseases and malnutrition because a country’s adoption program is closed down instead of reformed?
Graff doesn’t seem willing to take that on.
I’m going to toss out the possibility here that adoption advocates and adoption critics are having a hard time being genuine. If a critic discusses the corruption present in IA, then adoptive parents gloss over the fact that many of those critics do not desire to shut down IA altogether.
When critics see AP’s arguments that IA must remain viable, and point out what’s “right” about adoption, they are accused of putting up blinders.
Neither notion is generally true, and both sides need to knock it off and quit filtering what they read.
The big problem with EJ Graff’s article and some like it are that they go beyond pointing out corruption. They use terms like orphan trade, baby buying, children as a commodity. These concepts are totally lost on most APs as they do not see their children in this way, and take direct offense to anyone who does. Without a doubt, this kind of language is damaging to an adopted child, and IMHO does nothing to recruit allies in the cause of fighting corruption.
Having said that, I would encourage AP’s who are on the defensive regarding investigative pieces to take a step back and think about your journey. I would guess that 90% of us entered into the process in good faith, believing the adoption and government agencies involved to be ethical and enforcing the law. In other words, we all believed that if the US and foreign governments both approved our adoptions, then we should trust them to be ensuring things are on the up and up.
While these pieces may sensationalize the hopefully low percentage of corrupt cases (depending on the country), they still shatter that notion of trusting our agencies and governments. If you are in process now (heck – even if you’ve completed an adoption), you should be asking questions and demanding documented answers about your potential child’s history and family in their country of birth. We APs should be actively working to ensure ethical adoptions, not just declaring that we support them verbally. You have more control over your own adoption process than you think. If you don’t, or your agency discourages these kinds of important questions, then you might want to reconsider that agency.
@Alex: you selectively misquoted and conveniently left out the first part of that paragraph:
“Another problem is that the abandoned or orphaned children who actually do need homes are rarely the healthy infants or toddlers that most Westerners feel prepared to adopt. The majority of children who need “forever families,” as the adoption industry puts it, are five or older, disabled, chronically ill, traumatized, or otherwise in need of extra care.”
Graff isn’t saying that adoptive parents care about exactly how the children are orphaned. Because that would be a really stupid thing to say. She’s saying that children who REALLY NEED to be adopted are the OLDER SPECIAL NEEDS children. But they’re not as “marketable” as healthy infants and toddlers.
For example, when it comes to the Russia part of her quote, if a child comes into an orphanage because of alcohol-related illness/violence, they’re likely to be older, and they’re likely to have some serious trauma.
It’s pretty rare that a mother dies right after giving birth. The vast majority of true orphans are going to be older.
However, a very large percentage of international adoptive parents (not all of them, definitely, but a very large amount) would rather adopt healthy infants. In fact, that’s the very reason they chose international adoption.
After all, look at the alternative… you can adopt older special needs children right in the U.S., it’s free, in fact the state will even PAY YOU to do it.
I don’t think adoptive parents are evil and greedy OR noble and rescuing. Again, we’re just normal humans faced with a certain set of decisions. However, I prefer to look at the situation in the cold light of truth.
Alex said in response to the Graff op-ed in the Globe: “From MY adoption agency’s standpoint, this is precisely the type of child they are trying to serve. They are orphans. Their parent/s is dead. What else is there for them? What does Graff infer than Western parents expect their adopted child to come from, a middle class intact family? ”
Graff says it herself in a paragraph Alex failed to quote: “Don’t harden your heart to those sad-eyed “orphans” – but don’t feel guilty if you can’t (or don’t want to) become a Jolie-Pitt world adoption mission. Rather than trying to rescue a single child, which can induce trafficking, invest in and rescue a community, thus preventing children from being orphaned by poverty or disease. Buy supplies for underprivileged schools. Invest in clean water or housing. Go on a medical mission. And remember that most families – like your own – would do almost anything to keep their babies home and to raise them well.”
We can debate exactly how much of an inducement our dollars are to adoption corruption: the line obviously falls somewhere between Graff’s point of view and those which believe corruption is a rare occurrence. I would think everyone could agree, however, that many children could remain in their countries of birth if the underlying poverty that brought them into were addressed. I personally think that’s what Graff is really aiming at with her writing.
I’m addressing this question in general, not to the commenter who originally wrote this, because I think it’s something the lurkers should perhaps think about:
“I’m all for reforming international adoption…but…could it maybe happen AFTER I’m finished with my adoption? Please?”
Why does it – or *should* it – happen AFTER the adoption? Why should it be taken to THAT extent until somebody is willing to open their eyes?
That’s like saying “I understand corruption is not good and we need to do something about it but can’t it wait until it happens AFTER I come home with my child?”
Why not figure out something to do about it BEFORE you’re facing the possibility that it may have impacted your child’s adoption?
What does it take?!
Pingback: Were they Orphans? Does it really matter, graff? | Grown In My Heart
Mei-Ling: I wasn’t saying that reform SHOULD happen after the adoption, I was trying to express what I think a lot of adoptive parents and prospective adoptive parents are afraid to say out loud or even admit to themselves is really in their hearts (and I include myself here). It’s very easy to support reform in the abstract, but a little more complex to think about rocking the boat when you feel that adoption is the only way you can become a parent. I chose a well-established adoption agency with a strong reputation for being ethical, I am requesting a child up to three years old, I am open to either a boy or a girl…I feel I did what I could do minimize the risk of corruption in my own personal adoption, but there is still corruption within the system in general. And any changes to the system that are implemented now, while I am waiting for a referral, could potentially affect my ability to complete an adoption and become a parent. It’s scary, and is not exactly a big incentive to work hard for change.
“I was trying to express what I think a lot of adoptive parents and prospective adoptive parents are afraid to say out loud or even admit to themselves is really in their hearts (and I include myself here). It’s very easy to support reform in the abstract, but a little more complex to think about rocking the boat when you feel that adoption is the only way you can become a parent.”
Yeah, that’s definitely true and probably the case, well, in most cases.
Adoption is such a paradox… sigh.
Pingback: Who am I to shy away? « Faith, Hope and Love….
@32 Margie Perscheid
The paragraph that you say I failed to quote, well, I didn’t quote it b/c I think it trivializes the very factors that lead people to relinquish their children. Does anyone seriously believe that people are relinquishing their children b/c the don’t have SCHOOL SUPPLIES? (Again, Graff’s words, not mine!) I didn’t quote that b/c I think it’s a total garbage statement. Invest in clean water or housing? Yes, by all means. I DO that, a lot. But, you better find a good NGO to invest with b/c there are a lot of bad ones out there.
This is a serious issue, matters of life and death are often involved. Talking about kids not having school supplies in this context is a trivialization of the issue.
What Graff’s piece in the Globe fails to address is two things (at least): there are plenty of healthy AND special needs children, of all ages, whose parents died of AIDS & TB, that ARE “marketable” to American families. Families in the US are waiting months to adopt older kids, older siblings and special needs kids. Second–just because I adopt internationally does NOT mean I cannot ALSO give money, and my time and expertise to that country. These two things are by definition not mutually exclusive. Many adoptive families do. We have a natural connection to the country of our child’s birth that facilitates a strong desire to do humanitarian work, in many cases.
Just to be a bit provocative: what are the non-APs doing about poverty alleviation in the developing world?
Well said Alex!
I was glad that Margie posted a link the the Schuster Institute response to the criticism of EJ Graff. I was then disheartened upon reading it that they seemingly chose the most irrelevant and easy to dispute set of criticisms they could.
It’s true that IA is not an answer to the problems facing many developing countries but to suggest, instead, that giving money to a social service organization or charity ensures there will no misuse of those funds is ridiculous. As with IA, there is currently no way to guarantee the money will always make it to the hands of the needy. If we discover corruption in charitable organizations working in Africa should we shut them all down? Or suggest no one give a donation again until we have done a thorough investigation? There needs to be a balanced approach to the issue.
In my experience thus far I have found that many people adopting internationally develop a powerful and ongoing interest in supporting the communities where there children are from. Surely that can’t be a bad thing. However, expressing irritation or disdain for the entire IA process while doing nothing to change the conditions that create orphans is a problem. I’m not suggesting anyone commenting here is not participating, I have no way of knowing that, I just hope we all keep the proper perspective.
Wow. I can’t believe how contentious the comments have gotten. Sheesh! I’m glad to see so many people are taking this seriously, at any rate.
One thing i’d like to mention, and i apologize if this was already pointed out, is that a lot of US-born babies–i can’t quote how many, sorry–who are placed for adoption are placed overseas. I didn’t even know this until at some point after i adopted my son, but we apparently “export” children for adoption just like we “import” them. So for anyone to view children born in other countries in terms of how marketable they are to US families just seems ridiculous to me in light of this. (Not to mention, it’s not like the US is the only country adopting internationally–obviously! Someone out there is adopting US-born children, too.)
(How does the US seem to always be at the center of these controversies? Or is it that i just think this because i live in the US and don’t know as much about what’s happening elsewhere?)
The other thing i wanted to say is that i adopted my son from Guatemala, and one of the big “critiques” always coming about while i was in process was that women in Guatemala were being coerced to place children for adoption so they could get money (even to the point of getting pregnant in the first place for this purpose). I can’t say that no one has done this–people will do desperate things for money–but there’s an implication in here somewhere that people in other countries are stupid. They’re too stupid to know their children are worth more than a small lump of money. And that’s crazy, not to mention insulting, condescending, and a few other choice words i don’t care to put into writing.
Do we think women in the US are too stupid to know better than to make adoption plans for their babies? Especially international adoption plans (which many of them make–and remember in the US the adoptive parents are usually the birthmother’s choice)?
Actually, I disagree with any criticism that says “international adoptive parents should provide money directly to the home country instead of adopting.” I don’t think there’s necessarily any link between the two things. Every human being has an equal responsibility in this regard, adoptive parent or not. But does EJ Graff ever really make that facile criticism, or is it just another straw argument?
In fact, creating a symbolic link between adopting and donating is one major component of corruption. If parents, through an agency, are sponsoring an orphanage and other humanitarian works, that makes it really easy to apply soft pressure… the implication is, keep up the stream of babies, or the program will stop and you won’t get any money for the other kids either.
If aid is being given it shouldn’t come with strings like that. I think that’s just as dangerous as missionary work that applies soft pressure to convert people so that they’ll receive more aid.
The fact that many international adoptive parents keep donating to orphanages in the home country may be a good thing on an individual basis, but on a systemic level, it creates a very bad influence.
How to find the most effective aid? Look at efficiency and financial ratings, look at long-term sustainable success, look at how closely the organization works with local organizations. One of the best NGOs in this regard is Save the Children, as much as they’ve been vilified for their statement on international adoption.
Some relevant links:
http://adoption.state.gov/news/ethiopia%20alert.html
http://www.orphandoctor.com/2009.01.20.html
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/celebrity-adoptions-and-the-real-world/
Is there anyway to stop corruption without shutting every country down?
Also- Please don’t assume that I don’t know anything about Foster-Adopt. That is where my husband and I started.
“Is there anyway to stop corruption without shutting every country down?”
Not really. Corruption is a human choice.
Atlasien writes: “The fact that many international adoptive parents keep donating to orphanages in the home country may be a good thing on an individual basis, but on a systemic level, it creates a very bad influence.”
I think this sums up the whole problem in general – individual adoptions may be a good thing for the child involved and the people who get to be parents through adoption, but the system itself is too vulnerable to corruption.
And thank you for separating adoption from anti-poverty efforts, this is one of the assumptions about motivations for adoption that make me crazy. I didn’t set out to save the world, I set out to become a parent. I now have a lot of motivation for wanting to contribute to the country that my child will come from, but that isn’t why I’m adopting.
As an international adoptive parent, I guess what I’m looking for more of in the media is nuance. It seems that adoptive parents are reduced to one of two stories: heroic savior of the needy orphan, or ignorant exploiter of vulnerable third world women. I read the original EJ Graff article, and my biggest feeling was that the whole issue had been reduced to broad generalizations and stereotypes. A real “investigative” journalist should have done better and actually shone some new insights onto international adoption.
Since our adoption is now an open one, I can tell you that our story, at least, is a lot more complex than these sorts of articles suggest. (I’m changing any identifying details here) Our son’s birth mother decided to place him for adoption for many of the same reasons that women in the US make this choice. Although she is desperately poor, that wasn’t the main reason – many poor women in her country raise their children – it was a complex employment and family situation and issues with the birth father. Unfortunately, she also placed another child (not with us) and that situation did involve corruption. Once again, though, it’s more complicated than that word implies: it wasn’t someone handing her cash and “buying” her baby, it was coercion on the part of an attorney. It was wrong, it shouldn’t have happened, but my point is that it’s not a simple story with a simple solution. And what is unfolding now is not simple either: maintaining a relationship across countries, cultures, class, race, etc. and how this all impacts my son.