Christian Adoptions

What is a "Christian Adoption ?"  Kenny

0

Labels

I really like this question, so let me give it a stab.

If there is any defining difference between a "normal" adoption and a "Christian" adoption, it is that the agency perfoming the adoption calls itself Christian. Not much more is needed. Even a Muslim, Hindu, Jew or atheist can start an adoption agency and call it "Christian Adoptions Inc.", unless that name is already taken in the business registry of the state of incorporation.

It is also possible to call the agency: "Hope for Orphans Worldwide" or "Shepherd Care International" and claim in brochures and on the web that the agency is based on Christian principles. Throw in a quote of James 1:27 and you're in Christian adoption business. Maybe it's neat to add some nationalistic pride to it and go for an agency called "American Christian Adoptions". After all "true" Christianity is only practiced by "real" Americans.

Of course a "Christian" adoption requires more than simple branding, it also means discriminating against applicants that don't have the proper religious background. Bethany Christian Services, for example, had until quite recentely, a policy discriminating against Catholics, because they were not considered "real Christians". So in order to perform a proper Christian adoption, the agency has to define what religious back ground makes prospective adopters Christian.

Aligning oneself with a particular denominations makes it easier to find the proper discriminating criteria, but given the rise of non-denominational mega churches (often also selling Christian insurance and Christian legal and finanicial advice), it's not all that good for business to focus too much on one denomination.

The question then remains, what makes prospective adopters "Christian"? The same principle seen with agencies, seems to apply here. All people calling themselves Christian, are by definition Christian. One doesn't have to have read the bible, go to church, live by any of the 10 commandments, to be a Christian. The latter is certainly demonstrated by the fact that the American prison system is predominantly populated with "Christian" prisoners. Heck, even an atheist can be a Christian if he/she chooses to call him/herself that way.

Being a Christian doesn't necessarily have to mean anything, it can simply be a label, making it easier to belong to a certain group, just like the label Tennessean or Wyomingan can make the difference between being in the in- or in the outgroup.

Of course some people take Christianity more seriously. There are Christians that have actually read the Bible, and there even seem to be Christians that choose to follow the examples set by Jesus, although that is a very rare breed, often shunned by other people calling themselves Christians.

So altogether, it seems a "Christian adoption" requires two things:

  1. The agency should label itself "Christian"
  2. The prospective parents should label themselves "Christian"

I don't see any other factors playing a role to make a "Christian adoption". Of course Christian adoption agencies and certain Christian prospective adopters will claim Biblical inspiration, but that is an invalid point. As an atheist myself, I draw inspiration from the Bible and the learnings of Jesus. Even Ghandi, who was very much a Hindu, was inspired by Jesus. So there is no apparent relation between Christian teaching and Christianity. Many people that call themselves Christians behave in ways that are in direct conflict with nearly every teaching the bible, while there are also many people that don't call themselves Christians, but actually very much lead a life in accordance with Christian teaching.

Since "Christian adoption" is in essence nothing more than secular adoption with discrimination based on self-applied labels, it's fair to say that "Christian adoption" serves the best interest of children less than secular adoption. Secular adoption leaves more options open, so in principle there are more appropriate prospective adopters to choose from when the placement of a child is needed.

Discrimination against people of religions not deemed "truly Christian" and of people that have no religion, doesn't weed out inappropriate prospective adopters. There is no evidence whatsoever that people labeling themselves "Christians" are better parents than those that don't wear that badge. So the acceptance policy of Christian adoption agencies is effectively random, leaving out many appropriate candidate adopters. If I were Christian myself, I would call that a sin.

Followers of Christ (Jesus)

 A bitter irony I always found --  As I was taught/led to believe, Christians are, by definition, followers of Christ (Jesus)... and yet (get this, all ye adoptee bastards...) Jesus was the by-product of a "crisis pregnancy".  Jesus was not only chosen to live,  but according to the bible stories I read,  he was "given away" by his so-called biological father , God, AND he was kept by his (unwed) birth-mother, Mary, despite the social scorn her very daring choice would bring.  [Brave woman, that Mary, mother of Jesus!]

Please tell me...HOW do "Christian" adoption agencies justify the breaking of the mother-child bond, through adoption?  HOW do "Christian" adoption agencies deny the critically important role of the biological father?

[Truth be told here, I was razed in the Catholic Church... I lost all faith in the Catholic religion once I learned how, historically speaking, the so-called "Christian" clergy has been known to treat orphaned children and unwed mothers.]

Meanwhile, let's look at the abuse cases that follow strict "Christian" doctrine.  [Spare the rod, spoil the child.]

Who the hell wants to be adopted then abused like Lydia and Zacharia Schatz -- siblings adopted by those who follow "fundamental faith"?!?!?

"Razed by Catholics"

Oh my, that is classic. I hope you'll let me use that!

Please tell me...HOW do "Christian" adoption agencies justify the breaking of the mother-child bond, through adoption?  HOW do "Christian" adoption agencies deny the critically important role of the biological father?

I do think you answered your own question.

Sojourner Truth said it for the ages in a few sentences, to white bigot suffragette women back in 1851:

And how came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and the woman who bore him. Man, where was your part?

The sad irony being, there were plenty of one drop Black bastards sired by white males, and their sons, running around being sold as property as slaves. Much less mixed race kids sired by the same, ripped from ther original mothers' arms so their bigot sires could make a profit off of their sale. Cut to the 20th/21st centuries where the same one drop whatever bastards are denied access to their own histories, since that might cast aspersions on their rapist/no-account fathers.

Poor Joseph. Or lucky Joseph. Or whoever the poor schmuck who was the actual father of Jesus. NOBODY cares about that penis-only nobody. Whoever it was got both shafted and let off the hook by the Christ myth, fbofw.

In Western Christianity and thus western civ, Jesus was the original bastard. Or perhaps even it was fatherless Adam, whose stead Jesus was supposed to take at Golgotha/Calvary/the cross. All of Christianity is built on overt bastardom. That no Christian wants to admit the implications of God the Jesus coming down as God the Holy Ghost to forcibly impregnate Mary who gave birth to God the Son, who apparently is his own father, attests to the foundational break with reality in reconciling their forced ideal of nuclear family, and the fundamental perversion of the traditional family values lifestyle.

All of it is founded on rape and forced silence of the raped and the product of the rape both of which, of course, are to bear the brunt of making all seem like all is well when all is, in fact, fundamentally f--ed.

Save a soul

I think there is more to it.  I have had several moms approach me in foreign countries and ask with doe-eyed sincerity, "Is yours a christian adoption ?" This spaced me out so completely, I was unable to answer and avoided them from then on.  Unfortunately, I think the jest of it was that they were doing it to save a soul (primarily).  Perhaps a little too ambitious to target a child who may have spent his formative years in with the goats and geese, a la babysitting orphanage style.  Predictably these people are the first ones to disrupt.
 
How about the abusers ?  Are they still christians or does this negate the label ?  Most of them still consider themselves to be christian, regardless of whether they admit or deny the abuse.
 
It should be a sin to quibble over who is a good christian and who is not.  Do better christians make better parents?  Somehow I think this puts a doctrine first, not the child first.  Of all the families who have had gotten into trouble for abuse, have the fanatics committed more serious abuse then those of lesser religious persuasions?  Has anyone done a study on this ?  Are there statistics on the murders ? 
 
Its a trap to put god first and your family second.  I have seem a lot of (otherwise seemingly good) families suffer greatly and tragically because of this mistake.
 
Kenny
 
Here is a list of some things people put first BEFORE their child.  Appearances, saving face, ego, marriage, job, thier own needs at the cost of the child's needs, and lastly, I almost forgot, god.

I think there is more to

I think there is more to it.  I have had several moms approach me in foreign countries and ask with doe-eyed sincerity, "Is yours a christian adoption ?"

In the US at least, there is only one answer to that. What does the inquirer define as "Christian"?

How about the abusers ?  Are they still christians or does this negate the label ?

No, it does not negate the label. But again, in a US context (which is what I'm answering in) that's a larger theological question. 1- what constitues a Christian 2- what constitutes falling outside the fold/losing salvation, etc. TMK abusing, killing, screwing, raping one's children never results in loss of salvation.

It should be a sin to quibble over who is a good christian and who is not.

Perhaps. But you could kiss US history goodbye, if that's the standard applied. They did nothing but murder maim and kill when they first got here with their reformation, counter reformation, wars of religion, iconoclasm, crusade history in tow.

Do better christians make better parents?

They would say so, but facts do not back them up. 

Somehow I think this puts a doctrine first, not the child first.

Welcome to America, where on the rightwing, religious ideology always trumps reality.

Adding to the collection

 I have had several moms approach me in foreign countries and ask with doe-eyed sincerity, "Is yours a christian adoption ?" This spaced me out so completely, I was unable to answer and avoided them from then on.  Unfortunately, I think the jest of it was that they were doing it to save a soul (primarily). 

If I were to guess, I would say those asking, "Is yours a christian adoption", are in essence, asking, "Were you called by God to choose adoption for yourself (Are you Christian like me)? -- where are you, spiritually-speaking?"  Just for kicks and giggles I'd like to know what the next response would have been had you answered yes to one person, and no to another.

Throughout my life I have had many run-ins with church goers looking to recruit new members for their working flock.  Even when I was quite little, I would have complete strangers coming up to me asking if I had Jesus in my heart.. whatever that meant to a seven year old.  (I amassed many a bible that way, and I was allowed to go to a couple Vacation Bible Schools... allowing the much needed nap my Amother had to take).  Funny thing is, no matter how much I told my Amother I liked these "new groups", I was never allowed to stay because I think in a way, she was embarrassed to be seen/associated with "those people".

Of course, when I was little, I saw church, relgion, and people quite differently.  I hated the church I was forced to go to.  Hated most of the people, too.  Bunch of lying cheating fakes, all putting on a good show, all in the name of The Lord.  [Oh, if those confessional walls could speak!...]

Offering me an invitation to learn more about a specific denomination never bothered me, in fact, I quite enjoyed the interest these people showed in me, and I always enjoyed learning new things about people... (traditions, habits, belief-systems fascinate me.)  Unfortunately, the cult-like mentality had by many of those same like-minded people gave me the heebie-jeebies... made me want to run and not look back.  Hard-core fundamentalists in any organized religion scare me.  Reminds me of growing up... that feeling I got when I wanted answers... when I wanted to ask the many why's and how's behind my own adoption-story -- God help the child who shows any sign of independent thinking.... because God knows, hell hath no fury like a jealous Amother who feels unloved and unworshipped and an Afather who just wants one "GDMF" day of peace.

As I got older and saw church-groups more through the eyes of an adult (and less of a child who got dropped-off at the front steps), I began to see some things that really bothered me.  [Reminds me of the story of Jesus, when he cleanses the temple.]  I never liked the idea that in order to be seen as a "good follower" (a proven saved-soul) I had to go door-to-door, person-to-person and give my testimony and sales-pitch to complete strangers... all so new working/paying people could join the holy-working brigade. I never liked the idea that in order to be seen as a "good follower" I had to "donate" 10% of my weekly/annual income to a group of men who wanted financial aid to help defray the cost of ownership and operation.  (Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, anyone?)   In my very simple mind, I always thought my relationship with God should be spiritual, somewhat private, very personal, and that special relationship should be kept that way.  If my actions aren't good enough/need improvement, (if what I am doing is hurting others), then those are things/issues I have to address and fix, myself.  Period.  [How does saying 50 Hail Mary's remove the fact every time I went home to my Amother, I wished I was dead?]  It took many years, and a lot of private soul searching to learn one simple truth -- making myself a better, stronger person, inside, can only come from me... and the reward I get?  Better relationships with those surrounding me.

Here is a list of some things people put first BEFORE their child.  Appearances, saving face, ego, marriage, job, thier own needs at the cost of the child's needs, and lastly, I almost forgot, god.
When I was pregnant with my first child, the mother of my best-friend gave me a small book filled with inspiring quotes.  While this mother never really knew the depth and scope behind my many personal problems/troubles, she knew I was lacking the love and support that comes from a mother capable of unconditional love.  Two of the most memorable quotes went like this: 
  •  "What God is to the world, parents are to their children"  - Philo 

and

  • "A baby is God's opinion that the world should go on."  - Carl Sandburg

From a very early age, I knew I never wanted to adopt.  I knew deep down in my heart I never wanted to do to another what was done to me.  Good or bad, that's my truth.

A Few Things About Apples and Oranges

The news is NOT replete with stories about birth parents abusing their children.  Birth families are not scrutinized as well as adoptive families and perhaps if they were, more of the same would be found there. But still, there is no comparison in terms of the number of news articles.  

I do know these 2 facts about adopted children. 1)  Very often they were neglected and abused before the adoption and this causes serious mental health problems.  2) Mentally ill adults very often can not take care of their children and one way or another, they end up in the system.  Their children inherit the mental illness.  These 2 factors account for the very high number of severely disturbed children in the respective adoption pools - US and foreign, public and private.

Adoptive parents are not prepared to encounter hair-raising mental health issues.  Very very few parents are.  Even fewer would have chosen these problems if they had known.   Many adoption professionals "put off" sick children on adoptive parents, hoping the children will have a better chance.

 It is often a brave and responsible thing for a parent to disrupt a child they cant take care of. This stops and/or prevents some neglect and abuse.

 Just for the record, there are parents who are not fit to parents any child, birth or adopted. Some people should not be allowed to associate with any children for rest of their lives.

 Many birth children have the worst kind of childhood and suffer over it for the rest of their lives.  Both birth and adopted children can grew up to hate one or both parents.  Some birth children can be an "aliens" and never fit into their birth family.  They can dislike their parents and their parents dislike them because they are so different.

Kenny

Part three to the adoption-mix

As one who was always told there was nothing medically wrong with me, (no problematic/worrisome family-history), I appreciate comments that provide a more honest/ballanced perspective to the adoption quandry.

I do know these 2 facts about adopted children. 1)  Very often they were neglected and abused before the adoption and this causes serious mental health problems.  2) Mentally ill adults very often can not take care of their children and one way or another, they end up in the system.  Their children inherit the mental illness.  These 2 factors account for the very high number of severely disturbed children in the respective adoption pools - US and foreign, public and private.

Indeed, 'tis a shame, too, adoption agencies are not properly preparing PAP's for the realities adoption will bring them, the children, and those surrounding both.

However, there is a third group/type of adopted children.  Let's not forget the healthy babies that come from healthy mothers who spent the pre-natal period in a maternity home.  [It'd be interesting to learn what percentage of adopters working through organizations like Bethany Christian Services are infertile, and "desperate" for a child, and how many follow the teachings of folks like Michael and Debi Pearl.]

The bad thing about many of these mothers in a maternity home is two-fold.  They are unmarried and they need financial assistance.  Enter <ahem> good religious-folk who strongly believe what a child needs is a home with two parents who are a) heterosexual b) married c) with a respectable job/income and d) faithful church goers.  [Keep in mind "qualifications" are not necessarily listed in order of importance.]

While I don't know, off hand, what a healthy white newborn born in the USA goes for these days, I can bet one is not cheap.  [For more, read How Much Does Adopting a Baby Cost?, by Laurie Frisch ]

Some people should not be allowed to associate with any children for rest of their lives.

AMEN!

Its so simple ! Abuse the christian way.

Niels says "certain Christian prospective adopters will claim Biblical inspiration"

AND

Kerry says "Were you called by God to choose adoption for yourself"

As this suggests, CHRISTIAN ADOPTERS RELY ON BIBLICAL INSPIRATION AND PRAYER. Those who want to adopt, pray about it UNTIL they feel they "are led" to adopt. Some pray about disruption until they feel they are led to disrupt. Many pray to be rich and this seldom works unless they feel led to break some laws and otherwise steal money. In short if you pray long enough you can JUSTIFY doing anything you want. christianity fully supports this and offers the remedy, if one is needed, i.e., "Pray some more and you can be forgiven for your sins." This is a happy marriage of philosophies if I ever heard of one.

Unfortunately, this all beaks down when the prayerful person gets caught. Suppose the family brings home a child who steals, curses, bites and spits. Now the family who was "lead" thus far, has the bible and prayer to turn to again. And the answers to this are slim-to-none as found in bible and prayer.

The parents could take the child to a psychiatrist, but that advise is simply not in the bible - nowhere to be found. But if the angry parents prays enough, they can CONJURE up an angry response to their prayer - and the abuse begins.

IN SHORT, PRAYER CAN HELP GET YOU ANYTHING YOU WANT. Other people call this PERMISSION. And it seems christians have more permission than other people. And probably need more forgiveness, but never mind about this and whether its sin or not, our country has laws and a criminal system designed to deal with it.

Our judicial system probably CAN NOT be reconciled with the bible.

------------
Niels says "Throw in a quote of James 1:27 and you're in Christian adoption business." I suppose I could google this. Or could someone tell me what it says ?

Kenny

Reverence

James 1:27: Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. This comment presents some of my observations with regard to that biblical quote.

I do agree with the things you say. While I don't want to thrash the value/meaning of prayer, I do see for some it is not just a meditative activity, but an attempt to project their personal desires onto the will of God.

There is only one certainty with respect to God: His presence can neither be proven nor falsified, so by definition God moves in mysterious ways. Anyone claiming to know God's will, is simply projecting his/her own fears/desires/ego onto God, and thereby creating God in the image of him/herself.

While I do believe in freedom of religion or lack thereof, and also believe in having respect for other people's beliefs, I don't believe in having automatic respect for people's actions. Religious beliefs don't make actions more respectable than non-religious beliefs. Unfortunately religious motivations are often treated with more reverence than they deserve. The torture of children is wrong, whether inspired by religion or ignited by sadistic tendencies. Taking in more children than a family can handle, or taking in children with such serious needs a particular family cannot appropriately handle the situation, is stupid, whether it is based on religious motivation or an overblown ego.

Religion can very effectively be used as a shield against any form of criticism. This is most obvious in clerical abuse, where members of the clergy could get away with their actions for decades, because they were considered men of God.

Christian adoption agencies can get away with more coercive practices than their secular counter-parts, shielding off their activities as divinely inspired.

In a secular society, as the US judicial system purports to be, there should be no room for religious motivation. God, nor His will can be proven or falsified, so there can be no room for it in a system that is based on the notion of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". Unfortunately the judicial system is highly politicized and in politics, (protestant) Christianity plays a huge role. Of all 44 presidents the US has had so far, 43 had a protestant background and one had a Catholic background. The last election shows it is possible to be voted president being a black person. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the next two decades a woman will be voted president, but I think it is totally unlikely an atheist will be voted president anywhere in the next century.

With religion playing such a crucial role in politics, on both sides of the aisle, but most certainly within the GOP, Christian organizations will keep receiving more protection from the law than organizations that are not religiously affiliated. So for those that want to be in business, it's good advice to at least claim Christian inspiration, with that in place there is much less regulation and oversight. LDS family services can even get away being regarded a church, thereby not having to publish any of their financial transactions.

It's theological

While I don't want to thrash the value/meaning of prayer, I do see for some it is not just a meditative activity, but an attempt to project their personal desires onto the will of God.

Or use the phrase "will of God" or "I was led" or "God told me" to justify desires that can have disastrous results.

Some Xn denominations such as the Charismatics and Neo-Pentecostal groups have a detailed theology of how to justify one's personal greed by pointing to God's will.

So for those that want to be in business, it's good advice to at least claim Christian inspiration, with that in place there is much less regulation and oversight.

Isn't it ironic: often, it is these same people who claim separation of church/state should not exist and is the work of communism hitler fascist secular etc.

Chumps...that same "wall" enables them to be ripoff artists and keep the government/evil/satan/hitler/etc. looking the other way. That's the only downfall of the "wall" I see, but there are ways around it.

Selling "hope" to the masses

Many adoption professionals "put off" sick children on adoptive parents, hoping the children will have a better chance.

Many adoption professionals lie and cheat... kidnap/steal, and falsify documents, too.  A must-see/read is ABC's coverage Fly Away Children and it's follow-up piece, U.S.A - Fly Away Home.  Then, I suggest readers take a look at what's being done in the name of "attachment therapy".   Horrible mean cruel things are being done, all because "hope" is being sold through agencies that provide some handsome salaries.

Adults considering adoption must not let idealized hope / faith in "the power of love" cloud the fact that many professionals (orphanage directors, adoption agency executives, social workers, doctors/lawyers AND therapists) like the income each adoption brings.  In fact, thanks to this head-in-the-clouds belief that "each child will do better", many shady characters, like The Banks, and questionable quacks remain in business (deceiving many) and later, out of jail.

 

What causes abuse ?

Niels, the American justice system is not all that biased or you would not have been able to collect so many newspaper articles about christian families going to jail.

I am not saying that religion is responsible for all abuse. I do try to respect other peoples religious beliefs. In general I don't care what other persons believe. However, I can not overlook the fact that in every war, both sides think its gods will and god is on their side.

Niels says "Taking in more children than a family can handle, or taking in children with such serious needs a particular family cannot appropriately handle the situation, is stupid, whether it is based on religious motivation or an overblown ego."

No one knows really what causes people to abuse. Each case is different. Its not having too many children, because many, if not most, of your newspaper articles are about families with 1 or 2 kids. Re serious special needs - most families have no clue about it prior to the adoption. Families tell me this........ the kids who are suppose to be big problems turn out to be well behaved, and those who are supposed to be well behaved turn out to be big problems. So no one has a crystal ball.

As often as not, some of them are not trying and not simply "can't do it." They INTEND to exploit children, or do criminal acts. And as we all know, child are vulnerable and easy to take advantage of.
---------------

Marion says "Please tell me...HOW do "Christian" adoption agencies justify the breaking of the mother-child bond, through adoption? HOW do "Christian" adoption agencies deny the critically important role of the biological father?"

Here is the story of one of my daughters. Her bmom showed up at the maternity hospital in labor. She signed in with a bogus name. 2 days after giving birth she disappeared. The infant was transferred to the baby house. Now what should they have done ? Test the DNA of every gypsy woman in the area ? Would this have changed the bmom's mind? No, that woman was done. And maybe this would have made her unfit too. Should this girl have waited in the orphanage until she was grown .... hoping the bmom would return for her ?

Kenny

Christian, what is your definition?

 

 

 

So what is your definition of a Christian.

Is it a Christ-like?

Does a Christian mean a better home?

  Does it define a "nicer ' mother and father, than your bio's?

 It is people of faith?

Believers?

Kind hearted?

Loving?

More compassionate?

People who are gentle and understanding?

Maybe with a higher level of patience than the average?

A person who prays?

Someone full of goodness?

Some one who is without sin?

Is a Christian, directed by the bible in their actions and thoughts?

Perplexing to think about as I have read about a lot of "Christians" doing some very cruel, wicked things to children.  I have read about "Christian" adoption agencies who are liars and cheats, who peddle children faster than Lance Armstrong peddled to win the Tour.

This word "Christian" has taken on a false meaning  of superiority, of righteousness.

It is like the "seal of approval", for adoption agencies. 

"Christian", it is its' own trademark. 

 "Gee, they are "Christian"  well, that is good enough for me."

 Religion sells.

 

 

 

"What is a christian", don't ask...

So what is your definition of a Christian.

Oh christ don't ask that lol. How many millions of people on every continent have been murdered, slain, chopped to bits, hung from trees, over this question.

They tried it once they got over here to this hemisphere until somebody had the sense to come up with the First Amendment. Not that that stopped their murderous, eliminationist teachings about who is and who isn't sufficiently Christian.

What happens to the child left-behind?

The question, " Please tell me...HOW do "Christian" adoption agencies justify the breaking of the mother-child bond, through adoption?  HOW do "Christian" adoption agencies deny the critically important role of the biological father?", was asked by me, and it was in (rhetorical) reference to coercion and those cases in which adoption recruiters help convince first-mothers adoption (relinquishing all parental rights) is the best option possible for first-parent and child.  After reading more details about your own adoption story, I see your own situation is a bit different.

Her bmom showed up at the maternity hospital in labor.  She signed in with a bogus name.  2 days after giving birth she disappeared. The infant was transferred to the baby house. 

The way I read it, all signs indicate the bmother had a plan -- abandon the newborn.  Some mothers return, full of remorse and apology... others learn to live with the guilt, justifying their actions as being better than choosing abortion, or leaving the child on the streets; still others are victims of a scam/kidnapping and the AP's are told the abandonment story because it sells... it sells like ice cream on a hot sunny day, especially if the child appears to be a healthy infant.  In any case, I don't want readers to think I put a halo on every female that gives birth.  There are some very disturbed women delivering babies, and it's very upsetting to see and learn what these women do to their babies.  However, for the sake of this discussion, let's forget about the woman who chose to leave her child at a maternity hospital. Let's assume she had some serious problems that could not be resolved right away, and let's assume she tried to do the right thing by delivering her baby where it can be properly cared for, even after she was gone.

What happens next...what is done to and for that child left-behind, matters. 

The infant was transferred to the baby house.  Now what should they have done?

Provide the best care possible.  Treat that infant/child kindly.  [Don't let sores develop; don't let the soft small head get misshapen from neglect; don't let paying pedophiles have time alone with the child... all sorts of don'ts can be added to the list.]  Enlist local help, so the child can grow and mature and find a sense of goodness and kindness within his own (dare I say) God-given community.  Do this knowing that child will become an adult one day and either love or hate his fellow man.

Should this girl have waited in the orphanage until she was grown ....  hoping the bmom would return for her?

Hope for the bmom to return?  I think on some level, all adoptees think and hope that will happen, one day... it's why so many of us do the search and reunion thing; later-on in life.... we have questions and we need answers, from our mothers.  Should she (the adopted daughter) have waited in the orphanage until she was grown?  If the orphanage provided decent care, (she was fed, clothed, educated and not abused), why not?  It may be really hard to imagine or understand, but for some, an orphanage is where one finds family - through chosen friends.  For some, an orphanage is home... which is why better care should be provided to those living there.  [I know when the word "orphanage" is used, dark dank images come to mind, but in some cases, that grim Oliver Twist image simply does not exist.]  I know many an adoptee who would have rather stayed in their country of origin, in the orphanage with their friends, than be shipped to a foreign land where everything was different.  This is especially true for those adoptees who were sexually abused by their foreign-speaking Afathers.

You see, here... life in an orphanage/children's home...is where it gets really tricky.  Most will quickly assume ALL orphanages/children's homes are grossly over-crowded, bad and dangerous places... no place for a child to grow and live.  While it's true good residential care facilities do exist, the notion that every child deserves a family makes it impossible for even the best specialized residential care-center to be considered an acceptable alternative for a developing child with very specific needs.  ["Oh, it has 'institutional living' written all over it!"  <gasp!> ]  Let's add a news-piece that features a horrific out-dated over-crowded institution... let's pull the heart-strings of those who feel really bad for children living in squalor and neglect and let's hope those with a conscience will do whatever they can to make the life of even one child, better.  While on paper it reads very nice -- people from around the world are joining hands and helping with the rescue effort; they are taking care of abandoned and abused children and protecting them from further neglect and abuse... and they are doing all of this through international adoption agencies and cooperating orphanages -- there are a few truths that often get overlooked by those eager to "do what needs to be done, and help".  Far too much corruption and oversight exists in child-trade; not every child in-care will do "better" in a more private home environment; and many of the worst orphanages and adoption agencies in this world are run by people with a distorted sense of right, wrong, and (self) entitlement. 

Let's look at the way in which money is used to help and aid the orphan crusade.  Over and over, I have heard and read from many (rightfully angry) AP's complain how (forced) donation fees (intended for "the orphans", so basic needs could be met) never make it to the children.   In spite of thousands of dollars being sent, quality of staffing remains poor and children are still found living in disturbing/foul conditions   Instead of putting that money towards things that will make daily life for a child in-care much better, that "donated" money gets pocketed by money-hungry individuals, or oddly enough, never touched because breaking a vow of poverty will show a lack in faith in God/man.  [Read,  Mother Teresa, - Where are her millions?  and Mother Teresa's House of Illusions.]   Keep in mind this horrible little tid-bit, there are children in-care listed as "abandoned" simply because the poverty-stricken parents could not afford/pay the monthly orphanage fees.   [Even in charity, no free-loaders are allowed.]

Where is the help?  In come the "rescuing" PAP's with their forced donation fees.  Now think about what happens next in far too many shady orphanage settings --  money is sent, as directed (usually in cash), to help children living in-care, but for some reason, the "dedicated" care-takers decide not to use the money as originally intended.

WHY NOT?

Questions like this need to be asked, and they need to be answered, because later in life, it eventually happens.  Whether adopted by another family or not, the abandoned/relinquished child will grow and go through a period of self-questioning... a period during which reality will hit -- "I was unwanted and abandoned, by my own mother and father.  (WTF does that really mean...what sort of people were my original parents?!?)".   These are issues children left in-care need help processing.... especially if the child was put in less than decent residential/foster/adoptive care.  ["Why didn't any one care?  What was it about me?"]

Bottom line, living conditions for children put in-care (for whatever reason) need to be improved.  This standard of living is an issue the existing adoption-option is not going to help.  In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest, if anything, international adoption with a distorted evangelical Christian twist enables - almost encourages - shady orphanage directors to gather more children and provide poor care, just so more children can be sold to those drawn to adoption.  Poor care and over-crowding  sells to those wanting to make a difference, and the smart, savvy, salary-minded agency director knows this.  [He who gives/receives the most money, wins.]

Think about it... if care in a particular children's home/orphanage was good, (like what's seen in A Home for Afghanistan Orphans video), and children were thriving and developing family-like bonds with others in the group, what excuse is there to have the child "removed" and "saved", through practices like international adoption?  

Foreign orphanages

Kerry, you are right, not all the orphanages are so bad.  My daughter came from a good one.  However she was 7 when I adopted her and no one claiming to be a relative had ever visited her.

I think in the case of babies, I think ( I know) there is some fast and loose trading involving money.  This for all countries.

Many orphanages do have a predator hanging around and staff dont think its a big deal. Just about all of them, I have heard of, turn the children out at about age 16.   Maybe with a job in the market place and a dorm to live in. The majority (statistics are available) resort to prostitution and drugs.

Kenny

Adding to the collection - our family

My husband and I have adopted international children who come from all sorts of backgrounds.  We have never done respite or foster care. They were all older children when we got them. The only thing they have in common is that they were all "throw-a-way" kids. Thier backgrounds range from good to very bad, including one hideous case of Munchausen.  These kids had nowhere else to go.  We adopted some from orphanages where there was no medical care as Westerners know it.  Others were adopted from disrupted international adoptions.  Some of these would have gone into state foster care, if we hadn't been there.  So I can't see how we could be faulted for this.  I am sure some of you on this site will have plenty say about this.
 
Kenny

motivation

Could you tell us a little more about what made you look into adoption in the first place, and what made you decide to adopt older children?

Many people looking abroad for adoption, often do this because they believe they have a bigger chance of receiving a healthy infant than through domestic adoption. Also the chance of the child's original family "interfering" is often seen as one of the perks of international adoption.

Reading you comment, I get the impression your motivations lie somewhat outside the mainstream, so I would like to learn more about it.

Motivation for large family

 
Niels, My husband and I both love children.  We love being parents.  My husband has 5 grown children from his first marriage.  I have always wanted a very large family.  I figured that in reality 3 would be all I could handle.  As it happened, I had infertility problems because of endometriosis and could not have any biological children.  I discovered adoption and the rest is history.  My husband and I are both do-gooders (without a christian veneer)  My husband is very religious but completely feed up with hipocracy.
 
If I could do it again, I think I would have adopted from the foster care system.  When I got my first homestudy, the adoption social worker told me "foreign adoption was the only way to go for 'someone like you."  Thus I got involved in international adoption long before I ever learned anything about kids in the state system. 
I chose to adopt older kids because they are more interesting.  You can't have much of a conversation with a baby.  lol   Also We dont recieve a penny of money from the state or other source because of our kids.
 
It turned out that parenting is my niche.  All of my energy goes into raising my children and I am very comfortable doing so.  Now that we have a very large family, we get a lot of comments about it.  Often from other parents who find it to be hell.  New parents in particular.  Seems that many families (who are having trouble) see parenting as an identity thing.  They take it so personally.  They fear failing at being good parents, will make them be a failure at life.  I have met several moms who became martyrs because they raised 2 children.  These are the folks who get mad when they see us coming.  
 
Parenting is a thing left up to rank novices.  Its something one has to learn from the get go.  And it is very rough at first.  Taking care of babies and toddler is exhausting.  From total strangers, I have heard comments like, "Well if I cant do it, I KNOW you cant do it !"  Its as if I were a challange to their identity.  I believe all of those persons would benefit from parenting classes.  I am not being sarcastic.  Child raising is like going back to college for another degree. There is a lot to know. 
 
Also different people are good at different things.  I, for instance, am unable to understand higher math and computers.  But staying home with my children is something I like doing.
 
Most of our children are almost grown and we are thinking about adding some at the bottom.  We love being parents.
Kenny

Yes, some of us will

I am sure some of you on this site will have plenty say about this.

Yes, some will.

And?

I'm curious

Marion, I'm curious about a couple of things.

1) I'm curious what your own personal background on this subject is. Were you adopted and abused or neglected or unloved/disrespected? If so, what situation were you adopted from or out of?

2) You sometimes seem almost hostile to all adoption. I don't know if that's the case or not, but it's a general perception. I have very Thankfully learned a lot from this website about the horrible existence of for-profit adoption organizations and scams, etc. (That's one of the best things about the internet: education.) Those scams plus inadequate oversight and regulation have got to be changed. And it's up to people like us who care about it to work on getting that legislative change. But please tell me you are not personally against all adoption of children out of foster care. I have personally spoken to children who want nothing more than to be adopted away from bouncing around from foster home to foster home. I'm not referring to good orphanages. I'm referring to foster care in the U.S. (I don't have familiarity with foster care systems in different countries around the world). I realize the foster system differs from state to state and some states are better than others, but I'm referring to it in general.

Thank you in advance for your response. : )

Pound Pup Legacy