Kerry's blog

Earlier I read an adoption-related article that began with the story of an adoptee who wanted to marry an older woman he loved... a woman who happened to be his mother.  In the article titled, Man sought mom's hand in marriage, authored by Telegraph staff writer, Laura Newell,  65 year old adoptee Ray Walker Price shares thoughts about good ol' adoption issues like genetic sexual attraction, and feelings like "something just felt wrong".  Unfortunately, his few lines of text got cut-off by an unrelated essay advertisement promoting Holt international, and the wonderful benefits that go with international adoption.  [For the life of me, I'm still trying to see how a writer can make such a leap... domestic California adoption story turns into Holt International sales-pitch, in the turn of a single sentence?  Well, I'm sure the author had her reasons...]

I will reserve snarky comments mocking the bait-and-switch technique used in adoption marketing/advertising for another time.

Instead, I'd like to draw attention to the use of '163 million orphans around the world'... as only an international adoption agency, like Holt, can do.

[Keep in mind, my understanding of the term orphan goes as follows:  an orphan is a child who has lost both parents... before an adoption plan has been made, not after.]

In the adoption-friendly article that starts with the lurid tease of a sordid love-affair - a relationship that could never be between an adoptee and his bio-mother -  another more socially acceptable adoption story forms.  Why none other than Aaron Klein, (who is HE?)... a brother to an adoptee and two-time satisfied customer of Holt International, joins the page, adding his own personal adoption experience.  Oh, might I add, Klien's adopted sister was purchased through Holt, too.

 A new study, fresh from the Williams Institute at UCLA, is making headlines these days.... 0% of Adolescents Raised by Lesbians Have Been Physically or Sexually Abused by Parent.  According to an exhausting, extensive longitudinal study of a whopping 78 adolescents (39 girls and 39 boys) raised by lesbian mothers, none reported having ever been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver.  This zero-percent report contrasts with the findings of another older study that states 26% American adolescents (235 girls and 199 boys) reported parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3% reported sexual abuse.  On paper, the difference in abuse-rate is amazing, and in some ways, not at all surprising, especially if the children reporting felt as though growing-up their homes was fun, safe, loving environments.  Enter the abused adoptee's perspective on life, home, and family-findings.

While it's true (to date) PPL does not have one abused adoptee case that features a 'lesbian mother' as the charged child abuser, it's also true the sexual orientation of abusive mothers, like foster/adoptive mommy Eunice Spry,  Jessica Banks,  and other single-mothers, goes without documented mention.  Were any of those adoption agency approved abusive single-women lesbian?  Reports do not state.  Meanwhile, on the flip-side of the homosexual coin, PPL, does have two abuse-cases featuring agency-approved homosexual men.  One case comes from the UK and the other hails from the USA.  Once again, there could be more adopted children abused by gay father-figures and/or their partners, but that can't be confirmed just yet because a) not all abuse cases in adoptive homes go reported and b) the sexual orientation of abusive adoptive parent-figures and/or their partners in our collected abuse cases often goes unmentioned (not important?).   At this point, it's important to point-out and note a key troubling influencing element that continues to exist in modern-day adoptive homes.  It's often assumed once the adoption agency affiliated home-study is complete, and PAP's have been approved, all will be safe and good for the child put in that 'chosen' home.  In foster-to-adopt cases, where social service visits are more of the main-stay, once an adoption is made final, all social worker visits end.  In many cases, (as exampled in various investigated news reports), this is when the real trouble for the trusting placed child begins; once those approving agency visits stop and critical observations end, abuse tends to escalate, much to the terror of a child who may or may not have been abused before.

My point is simple:  for the sake of all children in and out of family services, more child abuse/family study is needed, before and after birth/placement, and no group should be excused from long-term equal investigation.... especially adoptive parents, regardless of marital status or sexual orientation.   From a home-study perspective, findings from a report focusing on voluntary confessions coming from 78 adolescents, all denying any form of abuse, should be read with scepticism and a raised eyebrow.   [Imagine if 78 home-schooled teens said no abuse took place in their chosen homes.... what are the chances the confessions coming from the abused would be believed?]

Last but not least, when reading reports generated by any group, numbers in a studied-group matter.  If the Williams study had 434 participants, (not 78), would the zero-results have been the same?  As an adoptee, I understand some people need to prove one's worth and ability more than others... I also understand the lesbian community wants to be seen and treated as hetero equals in Adoptionland.  The burden to prove decency is great for women wanting a child without an unwanted male-partner. Having positive studies reflecting exceptional parenting skills is required to quiet the many nay-sayers claiming homosexuality automatically equals pedophilia and child abuse.  The problem is, a study with major flaws will not be respected by many religious / hetero-groups hell-bent on proving gays have no place adopting children.  Of course, there's an irony to all this... I am often amused by the fact many holier-than-thou wives and husbands can be found discussing the adoption process and they will be quick to complain about the home-study because it's invasive, insulting, uncomfortable, and it violates a person's right to privacy.  The way I see it, if we're going to do fair comparative abuse studies, for the sake of children, the number of participants in studied groups should be equal/balanced, with no special favors or allowances given to any being questioned.  No two ways about it in Adoptionland, requirements needed to meet certain ideals or standards should be universal; if an equal right to adopt is going to exist for the GLBT community, more people need to accept no PAP should be favored or preferred because of race, religion, or marital status.

All in all, do I think the latest lesbian-parent study is a useful tool in the world of collected home-child studies?  I believe in spite of its many flaws, it has its merits.  I don't think the findings should be taken as the gospel truth and I don't think it should be seen as the final word in lesbian family abuse-studies.  In fact, I believe it would be a huge mistake if members in the lesbian community use/promote this limited study (with 'zero percent findings') as 'documented proof' for all to read, suggesting lesbian couples make ideal 100% abuse-free adoptive parents.  Instead, a bigger more open-minded perspective needs to be embraced and shared.  Using baby-steps, I think the Williams study can and should be used as a useful starting discussion point...in all sorts of social circles.... encouraging more to discuss what elements create a safe loving home for all in the family to enjoy.  What is needed to create an ideal (not perfect) family portrait for a child in want and need of a good parent?  Truth be told, I think the answers coming from angry adoptees may surprise a lot of very traditional people.

The more I see articles presenting the arguments for and/or against gay (LGBT) adoption, the more I get annoyed by this mythical notion clouding the minds of the masses, suggesting all people have "the right" to adopt a child.  A human right to adopt?  Can we please get serious?   [This mythical thinking reminds me of the comical illusion created (and perpetuated) by the adoption industry, suggesting adoption is a triad-experience.  Anyone touched torched by adoption knows complex adoption issues can not be broken-down to a simple easy-to-read three-sided adoption story.... there's too much tricky human math involved...making the adoption experience a convoluted complicated mess. ]  So what is this new Right to Adopt issue all about?  Is this issue about the right to purchase, without discrimination or who has the legal right to have a family with young children?  Or is the real issue a completely different animal, cloaked in BS PC bureaucracy?  I have to say, the way I see it, this new breed of malcontents, marching and petitioning, claiming they have a right to do something, reminds me of the old-school complaint given by young sexually active women back in the 1960's -- women claiming they have should have reproductive rights... they should have The Right to Choose.

So allow me to make my own pro-choice convictions clear.   I don't believe any one person has more of a legal right to adopt than another simply because I don't believe any person has the human right  to adopt (purchase a child), period.  However, knowing each child born is born into a family, I do strongly believe each person has the human right to have contact with original family members, and that right should not be denied by government rule.  Of course, this belief-system mocks American adoption laws and goes against many standards seen in international adoption practice.  You see, in a more pro-choice friendly Adoptionland, Closed Adoption would be a real deal-breaker and Open Records would be a real simple automatic legal given.  Unfortunately, such is not the universal rule.

There is more.  Thanks to the many things I have learned through PPL, I have drawn a new conclusion...one that differs from the one I held strongly in my younger days...the days that had me thinking all AP's are closet nut-jobs with serious unresolved personal parent/family issues and all adoptions are wrong.  When it comes to 'the right to have a family', I will even go so far as to publicly state I believe a non-pedophile person should have the right to choose if he/she will become a parent, (and have children), and if one of the ways and means to create that family with children includes adoption, then that option should be made available, regardless of color, sex, creed.  However, it's important to note, when it comes to the rights of children, and who should have them through adoption, I'd like all pedophiles (and some who are mentally ill) to be excluded.  After all, when it comes to who should be allowed to adopt, (or be adopted), and future family wellness and child safety, I think discrimination (skimming out and removing from the pool) is good.

So... advocate "a right to adopt", because as Australian lawmakers say,  “This is about morality and this is about the rights of children.”?  Um... no way.... you still have the rights and orders wrong.  Try again, all ye new and old adoption law-makers playing God with children's lives.  (Yup, that's my personal Pound Pup opinion, based on case-review.)

I'd like others to share their thoughts and opinions on human right issues, as they relate to adoption and family.  What are some of the rights, and what are some of the wrongs?  When it comes to future child safety and well-being, what should people and government be doing (or not doing)?

Found a red flag among the many Christian adoption blogs calling for others to heed the call to adopt.  

Adoption Ministry of YWAM - Ethiopia is a Christian agency establishing Widows and Orphans Homes in Ethiopia. The heart of our ministry is to find loving Christian families in the U.S. to nurture, love and disciple children in forever homes and to minister to those in Ethiopia who are without hope.

[From:  That We Might Be Adopted... from Ethiopia:  Acts of Kindness ]

While it's nice (and naive) to think religious people make the most ideal parents, let us remember how some strong faith-based forever parents choose to take-in, shelter and discipline their "saved orphans" found, and collected, from around the world.  Keep in mind, most of these chosen children were home-schooled, too.

• 11 children adopted by Michael and Sharen Gravelle were found to be kept in cages.  In reports, Michael states, "We felt that we were being led by the Lord,"
• 76+ Children adopted by Diane and Dennis Nason; some of the 76 children they adopted have told of being beaten and being shocked with a cattle prod.  The mastermind behind the mass-adoptions:  The Lord told them to.  They were sentenced on charges of racketeering and forgery.
• Brian Edgar died when he was bound like a mummy in duct tape by his adoptive mother as a punishment for stealing cookies.  Brian was nine.  His Aparents, Neil and Christy Edgar, pastors of God's Creation Outreach Ministry, were also charged with abusing 3 other adopted children. Christy Edgar was referred to as a prophet, and reportedly claimed God told her to tie up children as a discipline method.
• Bruce, Michael, Tyrone and Keith Jackson were systematically starved by their adoptive parents, while state child welfare workers failed to make the most basic checks on the children over a dozen years.  The boys were also beaten with brooms, rulers, sticks, shoes and belt buckles.  Members of Come Alive New Testament Church , the couple received $30,000 in annual stipends for doing little more than writing a letter certifying that their adopted children were still in their home.
• Dr Broeckel Sr., a stalwart member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, sexually abused at least 4 of his adopted children.
• Milena Slatten (adopted from Republic of Georgia) was forced to sleep on a bed saturated with animal waste in the unlighted basement, while other children slept upstairs.  According to reports, Milena's Amother, Beth, grew up in a religious home, where spanking was the practice.  Once, after Milena was bruised in a spanking, the punishment continued, but on the bottom of her feet. “People would not know that and not look for bruises,”, the Amother explained.
• Girls adopted by John Henry Thomas and Carol Ann Thomas.  Court documents state that one of the six children reported she was punched in the stomach until she vomited. Others said they were beaten with a tree limb, a cast-iron frying pan and a table leg, documents state. In other instances, one child said she was forced to stand barefoot on a hot radiator, and another child was forced to drink the Thomases' urine, according to police, who said John Thomas also sexually abused a teenage daughter. The children also said they were forced to go without food and sit and watch others eat for days and forced to hit other children in the household, according to police.  Carol Thomas, who received counseling from a minister at Mount Calvary Baptist Church, was charged with failing to protect the children from her husband.  
• After having endured horrible abuse at the hands of her first adopter, Masha Allen (Mariya Nikolaevna Yashenkova) was placed with a troubled and abusive single mother, the protege of a fanatical evangelical judge.
• 5-year-old girl to be adopted by Ernest Richard Davison and Cynthia Joan Davison, had been bound at her wrists and ankles for a considerable time and was suffering from malnourishment. The little girl has Down's Syndrome and suffers from the effects of FAS;  at the time of removal she weighed 21 pounds.  The child was originally placed through the Lutheran Adoptive Services, a private agency.  Three other children lived at the home.
• Children adopted by Earnest and Windie Perry.  Police said the family inflicted heinous acts on the children, including torturing them with jumper cables and denying them food for several days at a time. Windie Perry, a heavily involved member of First Assembly of God, was known to work well with children at her church.  Both she and her oldest adoptive daughter were charged with eight counts of rape of a child and four counts of aggravated rape. Some of the other allegations outlined in an indictment include: "Tying her down to a cot with ropes, handcuffs, and chains," "Forcing a broomstick down her throat," and even "Attempting to ‘cut off' her arm with an axe."
• 13 year-old  Dominick J. (Andrew) Diehl, adopted by Michael and Karen Diehl, was beaten to death by the couple as a result of their fundamentalist Christian belief in strict discipline.
• Rachel Joy Thompson was murdered by Angela Thompson who forced an older sibling to sit on her hunched back for more than three hours, squeezing the life out of her. Thompson told a co-worker "spare the rod, spoil the child".  Rachel was five.
• Eight year old Joseph Beebe died, his body covered with bruises from beating with a bamboo rod. He was one of six handicapped children adopted by Brian and Edith Beebe. All children were beaten with a rod, locked in a room without food or water and sometimes dragged by their hair.  According to the couple, the children were raised in a deeply religious environment and never mistreated.
• Marian and John DiMarias, conservative evangelical Christians, adopted 21 girls from third-world countries. The adopted girls were all impaired; most were deaf. In February, 2003, the State of Vermont learned that John DiMaria had been sexually abusing the older girls for years.
• Four year old Cassandra Killpack (Autumn Blackwell) was forced to drink large quantities of water as punishment for earlier taking a soft drink from a sibling.  The massive intake of water caused water intoxication, creating an electrolyte imbalance that led to brain swelling. Prosecutors said an autopsy showed a cut and bruises around the girl's mouth, indicating a cup was forced on her.  According to reports, Amother Jennete explained to the jury that she felt an obligation to teach Cassandra about consequences.
• Sean Paddock, age 4, was beaten to death by his adoptive mother Lynn Paddock, who had sought Christian discipline advice in the books of Michael and Debi Pearl.
• 9-year-old girl adopted by David Charles Gilmore and his wife Karen, was sexually abused by her adoptive father.  Gilmore was a music teacher and a former Friends (Quaker) youth pastor.
• Five children adopted by John and Linda Dollar were starved and shocked with electricity.  The Dollars also pulled out their toenails with pliers, bound them with chains and strips of plastic and struck their feet with hammers.  According to one report, John Dollar states,"We are sorry that the children are hurt,"  "We are firm believers in the God almighty . . . because of those principles we were led to do certain things."
• Viktor Alexander Matthey (Viktor Sergievich Tulimov), age 6, died of cardiac arrest due to hypothermia after adoptive parents Robert and Brenda Matthey locked him overnight in a damp unheated pump room. Viktor was also severely beaten by his adoptive father. The Matthey's attended a Pentacostal (AG) church and homeschooled their children.
• 8-year-old Lydia and 11-year-old Zariah (or Zacharia) were adopted by Kevin P. and Elizabeth H. Schatz from Liberia in 2007. Lydia had been beaten with a 15 inch tubing for hours for misspelling a word during a home schooling sessions, and died as a result. Zacharia was taken to the hospital in critical condition due to kidney failure, among other injuries.  Media coverage questions the link between the girl's death and the child training, discipline and "chastisement" methods taught by a fundamentalist religious ministry called No Greater Joy, founded by Michael and Debi Pearl.  According to a controversial religious parenting book, "To Train Up a Child," the Pearls recommend that parents spank their children not with their hand, but with a quarter-inch plumbing supply line - the same instrument used on Lydia and Zariah.  [See:  What instrument would I use? ]

With acts like these, (known far too well by far too many an adoptee), calls for yet another orphan crusade (in the name of God and religion) concern me.

I admit it, every time I see an article that includes with the word "adoption", I take a look.  

Today's find-worth-a-response was titled, "‘Real Housewife’ on adoption, insecurity".  I don't know who the actress/author is; I don't know the show in which she stars; I simply know her adoption-story, and I understand many of her noted adoption issues because the origins are similar to my own. 

Unwed and pregnant.  Strong religious beliefs.  Grandparents/extended family don't want burden of a baby/shame of illegitimacy ruining a "good name".... all ingredients to a bastard's early beginnings. 

While it's typically assumed each and every adopted child is placed in a loving and caring home, with loving and caring parents, many published abuse cases indicate living conditions for a chosen adoptee are far less than ideal or pleasant.

According to Danielle's written account, she was taken into a family with little money and she was abused.

I was reading a recent piece written by Sherrie Eldridge titled, What Often Melts Adoptee Anger at Birth Parents?  Answer?  A simple apology for the pain caused by the decision to put the child up for adoption. 

I thought about that, and I do think there is some valid truth to it.... a simple apology from a first-parent would be nice, especially if the child was never severely neglected or abused.  Thing is, I'm not sure each and every adoptee sees the adoption-option as a rational decision, or a happy-ever-after solution.  I know in some cases, there are women living in such desperate dangerous situations, relinquishing a child to better safer external care is the only option available... but what about the children who had cowards and/or child abusers as first-parents?  How would the "I'm sorry" start... how would it go?

"'I'm sorry for not having the balls to stay and help you and your mother".

"I'm sorry for making 'temporary', 'permanent'"

"I'm sorry I listened to my parents and counseling members of the clergy/adoption agency and agreed, letting you go was 'the most loving thing to do'".

I see it

feel it

smell it

taste it... it's presence is known

On the tip on my tongue, on the back of my throat

The man who impregnated the woman who birthed me, aka my bio-father, was better without me.

My birth-mother, aka, first mom, was better without me.

My Aparents, aka my saviors, were better without me and the reminders I could bring, once I confessed  my childhood (adoptive family) experiences, (the rapes, the molestations, the beatings).

<HUGE BIG BREATH>

My life... it has been an unwanted burden.  A burden others could do without.... all burdens put upon me.

It seems from now on, those criticizing the adoption industry need to embrace the phrasology used by those adoption advocates who prefer to use Positive Adoption Language when they write/speak.  Away with child trafficking or illegal adoptions... they look very bad and are not the sort of phrases AP's will want to use.

International adoption advocates prefer the term “adoption fraud” over “child trafficking” in cases where children are not taken for sexual exploitation or slavery. But as we have been reminded by the controversy in Haiti, poor children around the world are in danger of being taken from their families, sometimes through fraudulent adoptions for hidden profits and sometimes for slave markets.  [From:  Halting Child Trafficking in Haiti through DNA ]

So... when a child is a victim of "adoption fraud"  AND is sexually exploited by the paying owner AP, can we still say that abused adoptee is indeed a victim of child trafficking???

What do we call the practice of selling not-really-orphan children to AP's who starve, beat, cage  "strongly discipline" and home school their carefully chosen angels?

Any suggestions? 

My soon-to-be sixteen year old daughter asked for a hug yesterday.

Hugging is not easy for me, especially if the person who wants to be hugged is as tall/taller than me.

I remember having to hug as a child -- it always felt forced... like something I did NOT want to do.

I don't know if I'm supposed to be grabbing (wrestling) or bracing (protecting).

I don't know how to react when there's a forced invasion of my personal space.