Ethical Adoption: Questions to Ask

We've had a few potential adoptive parents ask us for advice on ensuring there adoption is ethical. Obviously there is not one cookie cutter response- every adoption, child, and situation is unique.

But if you are looking for a great resource of questions to ask your agency/orphanage to investigate the ethics of your adoption please visit this blog. It was written for DRC but a lot of it also applies to Uganda or really any international adoption as well.

http://kitumaini.blogspot.com/2012/02/questions-for-prospective-adoptive.html

A well-meaning but harmful approach to OVC care in Africa

Dan was placed with Julie through a domestic adoption in Uganda. Dan was 4 1/2 when Julie became his Mom.

This should really be split into 3 separate posts but I am just going to divide it into three sections instead. I really appreciate and value all feedback and criticism. Please feel free to comment or email me at: tub56099@temple.edu

Why numbers can send the wrong message

In reference to the number of orphans globally, the estimate usually falls into the 132-210 million range. While these numbers are shocking and can be helpful in raising awareness about the HUGE need for the church and international community to respond to the orphan crisis or as I would like to call the OVC crisis (Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children), these large statistics seem to, more often than not, misinform the audience they are intended for. It is my perception that when people hear these big numbers, they think that there are literally 100's of millions of children across the world ready and waiting to be adopted.

Now I am going to throw out a few other numbers (I know I know, everyone just loves numbers...I promise this will be the last time I throw statistics at you in this post)- While calculating an exact number is tricky, a recent estimate is that there are approximately 16 million children worldwide who have lost both parents. 8 million children are estimated to be living in institutional care internationally. So where do we get these big estimates reaching as high as 210 million orphans? They aren't necessarily wrong, however I fear they can be very misleading to the individual not willing to take the time to breakdown and understand what they are really saying.

What the numbers are saying- there ARE anywhere from 132-210 million children globally who have lost one or both parents. What the numbers are not saying- there are NOT 132-210 million children who are totally abandoned, unloved, and in need of our rescuing by way of institutionalization or adoption.

Yes, SOME of the children who fall under these large statistics have been abandoned or totally orphaned. Some children can not be kept in their natural families or country of origin because of stigmas, cultural barriers or extenuating circumstances that limit or prevent in-country placement. And it is critical for us to answer THAT call. To adopt the children where international adoption is truly their best and only option at having a family, and to promote in-country options for the larger majority of OVC. To love these kids so much so that we put their rights ahead of our values and concepts of what constitutes a 'good life'.

The Hague Convention and the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child have stressed the importance of striving for family preservation and when that is not possible, in-country options through kinship care or domestic adoption outside the extended family should be given priority over international adoption. As always I feel the need to say this: I am all for international adoption when it is in the best interest of the child, but what has become destructive is international adoption as a first priority. And that, that breaks my heart.

____________________

The "America as superior" attitude

It breaks my heart what we are saying to families when instead of working to help them keep their children, we take their children away in the form of well meaning institutions. It breaks my heart to think about what we are saying to Ugandan families when we don't first ask if they would like to adopt their children. Are we asserting that this isn't even worth exploring? That Ugandan families won't be able to provide the ideal 'better life' we have in mind for their orphans, so we must bring them to America? The colonial era in Africa has ended, but have we really progressed toward viewing the African people as equal? Or does our privilege and power as members of Western society come in handy in making decisions for other nation's children? It seems as though we still convey very imperialistic attitudes, and they are even well-meaning! The terms we all use, "developing", "third world", "less-developed"- they are more weighted than I think we realize. And when I see we, I truly mean we- myself included.

Those words carry with them a "less-than" connotation, whether we intend it to or not. That in countries like Uganda, they are "less-developed" than us, therefore awarding us a sense of superiority. "less-than" does assert we are "more-than", does it not? Before you get angry and think I feel I have some authority to preach on this, please know I am writing this to myself just as much as anyone else. I have the "I'm American, so I know best" mentality just as much as the next gal or guy. To make a long story short, I think that there is MUCH need for exploration into this arena. Please do not take this as an attack on the call to adopt or orphan advocacy. It's not. This is a plea with myself and with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to wrestle with our actions and decisions when we step out into the mission field. May we explore the possibility that wrapped up in our charity there can be very oppressive ideologies that inhibit true social justice for marginalized populations in the same countries we claim to love. Might these realizations convict us and help us move beyond charity and toward justice for the poor. This is after all what God has required of us. Jeremiah 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. May we not be the oppressor of the poor but the lovers who fight alongside them.

Are you turned off by this post all together? Don't give up yet! I am going to try and present this a bit differently and hope that maybe it offends you less and rather just gets you to start thinking about what it is I am really trying to communicate here.

There are many couples in the U.S. that can not have children. Some can have children and are just interested in expanding their family through adoption. There are babies born to women who can not or do not wish to care for them. Most of these birth moms will meet with a social worker and adoption counselor to make sure that they know and understand what signing over the rights to their child means- legally and emotionally. These professionals will make sure that the mom is aware of her options. That if she wished to keep the baby, there are safety-nets in place that would help alleviate some of the economic strain this baby would have for her. Even still, many mothers make the difficult decision to place their child with an adoptive family who will love and provide for the child in ways she doesn't desire to or feel she is fit to. We respect this decision, and while we mourn the loss of a child growing up with their birth mother, we celebrate the beauty God can bring through that brokenness- adoption.

Now imagine this: adoption agencies in the U.S. begin contacting European countries to ask them if they would be interested in adopting the available children in our country. Bypassing all the potential adoptive families in the U.S. for families in countries that are seen by the agencies as "more developed". They've heard people in Europe are quite happy with their national healthcare and extensive social welfare services, so the agencies figured they'd do better by placing these children in European countries instead. Would we sit idly by and watch this happen? No way. We would be holding onto those kids kicking and screaming. Questioning the agencies for their ignorance in assuming we wouldn't take the kids when, had we been asked we most certainly would. Had we been asked and then turned down the chance to care for those kids, maybe then you could place them in other countries. But you better ask us first. We are Americans and those are American children.

This same entitlement we would have to our own children, we have to Africa's children. I am really still in the processes of grappling with why exactly that is. Why when a brand new baby is orphaned in Uganda do we dream of the beauty God will bring through an international adoption to America instead of a domestic adoption into a lovely Ugandan family? And if you are convinced adoption outside the extended family just isn't something Ugandans do you can read all about some wonderful examples here: Child's i Foundation

______________

Why Ugandan children are in institutional care and why it doesn't mean Ugandans don't love their kids

Something Megan pointed out that I was neglecting to address originally in this dialogue: If Ugandans are willing to adopt and care for OVC in their country through resettlement, kinship care, or adoption why is it estimated that nearly 40,000 children are living in institutional care in Uganda? In 2009, preparing to leave for my first trip to Uganda, I originally thought a child in an orphanage was just what I expected them to be, an orphan. I thought they were all children who had either lost both parents or had been abandoned and therefore had no one to love them. Boy was I wrong, but what else was I supposed to think? Surely a child would not be living in institutional care instead of their family if they had someone out there who loved them.

Adoption through kinship care has been and is still the most common practice for 'orphan care' in Africa- And many even consider it the best option for these children if proper supports are in place. Why then are so many children being pushed out of their homes and into orphanages? Yes, some caregivers on extended families truly do not want their child. I am however speaking to the majority where inadequate safety-nets and the economic strains of an additional child are the primary reasons for child abandonment or institutionalization. So the first challenge I have in this is that we start questioning the root causes of each child's case. That instead of assuming

that because a caregiver or family was unable to provide for them, it must mean they don't really love them- that we would make sure no mother, father, aunt, uncle, grandmother or grandfather is signing the rights away to their child because of money. And that we are providing a true alternative. That instead of simply providing the option of institutionalization or adoption, we say "If you were to keep the child, I would come alongside you and your family and help you". We wouldn't think it appropriate to remove a child in America from a family that loved them but was just too poor. We'd make sure they knew about the various government programs available to help alleviate the financial stress of caregiving. Family preservation efforts should be given just as high a priority in Uganda.

I want to point you to this quote for a quote from a Zambian pastor after a visit to America:International Adoption and the Western Mindset, " What I found rather surprising, however, was the lack of knowledge and appreciation of the African extended family system. So, although I initially set up this blog in order to give my church a peep into the outside world, I thought of writing a blog to inform the West about what is common knowledge back home. Whereas to the Western mind, an orphan, having lost both father and mother, is destined to either be adopted or spend the rest of his or her childhood days in an orphanage, to an African mind, the child still has many fathers and mothers, and consequently many homes to live in"

Now, for the children who can not be kept in their immediate or extended families through offering community and family based support. This is the grey area for many, and I don't think it's completely black and white for me either. That's why I feel it necessary that each child's case truly be assessed on an individual basis. Some children will be easy to place in a Ugandan family. Many Ugandans have and continue to adopt children outside of their family. It is possible. It is happening. If a child is difficult to place in a Ugandan family or you just can't find a family, I truly believe it is in the child's best interest to be placed internationally- and those international adoptions ARE beautiful. These are the ethical standards of the United Nations that I haven't been able to argue against yet. I am not going to do the usual listing of specific demographics of children that I think make for ethical international adoptions, because I think we can get too stuck on those categories dictating whether an adoption is ethical or not. Megan wrote a good post on that here: Total Orphan, I'm Sorry it's Not That Simple

What needs to happen, as I said before, is the assessment and adequate time given to each child's case. That a child is not removed from their family or country of origin unnecessarily because we make passionate and well-meaning decisions without giving proper attention to the alternatives and the possibility that we in fact, may not be the best option for that child. This was something I learned through Dan's story (pictures above). This is a journey I've been on and am continuing to process, and I would be happy to tell you more about Dan and his adoption if you'd like to hear about it!

_____________________

In sum: This post is a reminder to myself, just as much as anyone who reads it. That my well-meaning actions and decisions can often be extremely detrimental to the culture and people I am working with. That I, as an American social worker, will always be at a disadvantage in adequately assessing the needs of children and families in Uganda. To be aware of how limited my knowledge is of the family dynamics and other cultural norms. To accept that there are just some decisions that are not mine to make. To ask questions and remain teachable. And to listen, and I mean really listen to the voices of the people I am serving. I think then and only then will we start to see a shift from our perceived needs of the Ugandan people toward addressing the deeply rooted structures and ideologies that have created or perpetuated these needs.

-Kelsey

It's a Mystery

I’m sitting in a healing prayer training class and hearing stories of limbs growing, wounds coming together, tumors disappearing- all under the outstretched arms of praying tongues.

And in all honesty it freaks me out. Makes me uncomfortable. Not “my kind” of Christianity.

But the speaker leans forward and softly addresses that burning question: when we pray for healing why are some the receivers of miracles and others not? I think of my own mother- the young mother of two small children, a cherished wife, and a talented midwife. For months we asked and begged for healing. We even believed that God had promised it to her. What kind of God would let a mother of two small children die?

I think of Baby Joel snuggled in our arms while prayers poured out of our mouths like a waterfall. If love and prayers were all it took why isn’t he here learning to crawl and tasting his first solid foods?

I think of Ajuma sitting in a hospital with his face twisted in pain and a father so committed he took our breath away. For months we used up all our resources and like a teaser he improved. Were we naïve to believe it was working?

And despite the prayers and the money and the love God took them all away.

This God that can grow limbs and heal wounds and shrink tumors… why not a mother with two small children? Why not an infant who hadn’t even experienced life? Why not the little boy with a family willing to give up the world for him?

The speaker smiles and says, “we don’t know. This healing business: it’s a mystery”

It’s a mystery. And somehow there is freedom in that. Freedom to stop thinking and trying to come up with an answer. Freedom to just trust this God of the universe. Maybe I don’t have to have it all figured out. Maybe I don’t need a well supported opinion for every issue. Maybe it’s okay to sometimes just accept that it is a mystery.

There is humility in learning to submit to mystery. To bravely admit, “I just don’t know.”

Please Vote!

We have a really exciting and unique opportunity to enter and potentially win the Dell Social Innovation Challenge.

As college students who are launching a non-profit we are eligible to win up to a 50,000 grand prize. There are a lot of other great projects, but we REALLY believe in Abide and the burden God has placed on our hearts for these families at-risk to put their children in an orphanage.

So how can you help?

If you have two minutes...

VOTE for us! You can vote by going here http://www.dellchallenge.org/projects/abide-family-center

1) Click "Register" at the TOP RIGHT CORNER

2) Enter your information (Name, Email, password)

3) Check off the first option under "How do you want to participate?"

4) Check off that you agree to the terms and conditions

5)Go to your email inbox and click the link they send to validate your account

6) Then you can VOTE FOR ABIDE!

If you have five minutes...

GET THE WORD OUT! Post this plea for votes to your facebook page, your blog, your twitter account, your tumblr, and/or send an email out to your contacts.

This would mean so much to us and really help us start bringing in the votes.

Thanks everyone!

Ownership in Adoption

When does a child “belong” to their adopted families?

This is a question I’ve been contemplating the last few days because I think it's a question that is at the heart of adoption ethics.

I think often times an adoptive parents finds themselves in the middle of a very unethical situation because they have come to view the adoptive child as theirs and will go to any lengths to get their child home.

They’ll lie on documents or to the courts.

They’ll bribe officials.

They’ll ignore red flags.

They’ll view the birth parents as threats.

Because in their mind this child already belongs to them and naturally we would do whatever it takes for our children.

So is this wrong? Many waiting adoptive parents do believe the children they are matched with belongs to them. They believe that God has ordained them to be their son or daughter- that the day they were born they were meant to be a part of their family. They get that referral picture and they believe that all their dreams have come true. They look at that picture and see their son or daughter.

I get this. I walked through an international adoption with my aunt a few years ago. When we got that referral she was ours. The moment that picture was in our hands she was a beloved daughter and granddaughter and niece and cousin. I know about sneaking downstairs in the middle of the night to watch the two minute video of the waiting child on repeat over and over again. I know about tracing the lines of the one photo you have until it's worn around the edges and there isn't a single detail you haven't dissected. We hadn't met her but we already loved her as our own. She was ours.

This is a natural reaction but is it a right one?

At what point does the child belong to the adoptive families? If there is birth family involved when does their ownership end? Officially it would be in court, but for many adoptive families it is much earlier than that.

What do you think? Should adoptive families view children they are matched with as “theirs”? Is it wrong to have a sense of ownership over a child with birth family or parents?

Total Orphan? I'm Sorry, But it's Not That Simple

One of the reoccurring themes I hear in the conversations about orphan care are the words “total orphan”. Often a parent is defending or bragging about the ethics of their adoption by claiming that their child was a “total orphan” or potential adoptive parents are saying they are looking to adopt a “total orphan” as if that makes it all magically ethical.

According to UNICEF a total orphan is a child who has lost both their mother and father. I know quite a few adoptions of total orphans that I find unethical. And I know quite a few adoptions of children with one or both parents alive that I believe are completely ethical.

It’s just not that simple.

Just because a child has lost both their parents doesn’t mean there aren’t aunts, uncles, grandparents, or cousins that wish to care for them…. Or that they cannot be adopted domestically. Consider a child who has lost both their parents to AIDS but lives with their aunt and uncle as a welcome member of the family. Through tragic circumstances the child is separated from the aunt and uncle and brought to the orphanage. The aunt searches tirelessly for her niece and months later finds the orphanage where she was brought. Sadly the orphanage has already given her up for adoption. The aunt and uncle grieve as if their own child has just died. Was that ethical?

In another circumstance a child is severely beaten daily by her mother. Her mother refuses to feed her and screams verbal abuse at her whenever she is home. One day she pours scalding hot water on the child and the child ends up in the hospital. A missionary couple hears word and talks to neighbors and discovers the abuse. They search out the father to find he is an alcoholic who is barely taking care of himself and has no interest in his daughter. The couple are refugees and have no other extended family that could take the child. The missionary couple pursues adoption. Was that ethical?

Sadly, in a country like Uganda these stories are not as uncommon as we would like to think.

Adoption ethics are complicated and unique to every situation. I’m sorry but we cannot simplify them by only pursuing the adoption of total orphans… and we cannot pass judgment on a family simply because their child has birth parents.

We don't need no education...No wait, we really do.

Unethical Social Welfare: Progression At Home While Continuing to Offer Sub-Par Level Care Overseas

To anyone who reads our blog, I am going to be sort of a ‘guest writer’ with this post I guess. Truth is, I really am not “In the know” when it comes to the blog world. I only read a blog post if someone sends me a link to it, and as you can tell, I don’t write too many of these myself.

There is something I have been wrestling with A LOT over the past few months. Something blog worthy? Maybe. I’ll let you decide. I need to provide a little disclaimer before I begin: When we discuss the ethics of orphan care, it is just that a discussion.

I study Social Work at University. This semester I had an adjunct professor who just so happens to be a supervisor at DHS in Philadelphia (Department of Human Services). He liked to tell stories, maybe a little too much. But that’s okay, because I’m pretty sure all of his stories helped me realize how upsetting the gap is between our services for Children and Youth here in the U.S. and the services we offer to the developing world. In this post I am going to question most directly why individuals from the developed world, individuals from countries with progressive social welfare systems- why on earth we think it is okay to move backward and continue offering solutions that have been found ineffective and actually damaging in our own countries. Obviously we have moved away from institutional care in the U.S. (with a movement toward family preservation), but we insist on offering the developed world this sub-par level of care that countless studies have proven damaging not only to the child and family, but to entire communities and cultures.

In Philadelphia, families who DHS feels it necessary to separate are scheduled to be seen in court on multiple occasions. To give you an idea of what this would look like, individuals present at said hearings would most likely include: a judge, a child advocate, the child(ren), parents, other family members, a case worker, and a lawyer defending the parents. These court hearings are held to make sure all parties are doing their job. The judge wants to see evidence that there is a movement toward permanency for the child. If at all possible, it is in the form of reunification with the natural family. For a child to be released back into the care of the home they were removed from, the caregiver must take the necessary steps to make their home a safe place for that child.

Anyone at DHS would tell you that as often as they are referred to as “baby snatchers”, that is not what they are about. Not at all. The social workers, supervisors, and department heads all want to see children out of foster care and reunited with their biological family. They want to see caregivers making the necessary changes to help bring their children home. And it is in fact the case workers’ job to do everything in his or her power to make this possible. Whether it is providing transportation to NA meetings, helping the caregiver look for employment, or finding necessary mental health treatment- the caseworker serves as a broker and advocate for the caregiver.

What I walked away from that class with this semester was DHS’ overwhelming focus on family preservation. So many of the things we are fighting for in Uganda, DHS has and continues to fight for here on the home front. Why? Because they have studied the effects of institutional care on children. They have understood that it is a child’s right to grow up with their God given family. They have realized that it is unethical to automatically write a caregiver off as unfit regardless of your gut feeling. They have understood it entirely necessary to provide a caregiver with the tools to bring their children back home. Does it always work? No way. There are many parents who don’t take advantage of the services provided to them. They do not do their part in completing the steps to make reunification possible, and in this case the caregiver’s rights would be terminated. The point is, they ARE to be given every opportunity to make it possible for their child(ren) to return home. It is up to the caregiver to choose whether or not they will take responsibility and work with the case worker and the courts to meet the requirements for regaining custody of their children.

In Uganda at-risk families aren't even presented with this choice. Just imagine how the number of children living in institutional care would decrease if instead of simply placing children in orphanages, we came alongside the parents and gave them a choice. What if we focused on empowering and helping link them up with the necessary resources to keep their children? We could prevent family separation in the first place.

In some cases there is a definite need to remove a child from the home, however there is a major difference between the care provided when this occurs. One of the major differences between orphanages and foster care as temporary solutions- when children are placed in foster care in the U.S. a social worker is working with their parents to help them regain custody. In Uganda when a child enters an orphanage, the orphanage is not working with the caregiver to help improve their situation- thus the orphanage becomes more of a long-term solution for these families. One of the big questions I want to ask is: If we really love these kids, why aren't we loving their families too?

Why am I presenting you with all of this? Because when we measure services offered to at-risk families in the U.S. against what we fund and promote in Uganda there is a disparaging gap that should upset all of us. I don’t believe in satisfactory care. I believe in researching and educating ourselves before starting NGO’s in cultures SO vastly different from our own. I believe in offering the best care possible, whether it is in North Philadelphia or East Africa. Because if you are not doing this, you are committing a serious disservice to the population you are serving. And you just might be doing more harm than good.

This is only the beginning of this discussion. I tried to keep this post short and to the point, to maybe gain some insight on what others think before expanding further. I plan to address the problem of cultural discrepancy in relation to orphanages in Africa as well as expand further on why family strengthening makes sense as a foundation for addressing care for OVC in Uganda.

Also please read: The Rileys In Uganda.

***Something VERY important I forgot to address in the original post: The focus of this post was on the use of orphanages as permanent, long-term solutions in the developing world. There are orphanages who function as a transitional or interim period for OVC. These orphanages work to resettle children with their families, work to place children in domestic families, and when necessary adopt children internationally. The point I am trying to make here is that these institutions recognize the need a child has for a family, and if at all possible work toward permanency outside of the orphanage. Over the past two years we have been very fortunate to work with and see such a good example of this. Amani Baby Cottage (www.amanibabycottage.org) has provided Megan and myself with the unique opportunity and experience in resettlement work in Uganda. I (Kelsey) also got the chance to work with international adoptions for a brief period as well. I can say with all honesty, in seeing Amani from the inside out, it is one of the most ethically run orphanages in Uganda we have ever come across. The children are well cared for, well loved, and the director/staff are actively working on executing exit strategies for each of the children in their care. Thank you for your example and all you have taught Megan and myself. We would not be where we are without you.

-Kelsey