Remind me again,

WEery Oct of course those little organe UNICEF boxes are everywhere. I have a habot of throwing change in them moreso because of remembering years gone by as a kid and "Trick or Treat" for UNICEF.

Anyhow, I recall a few years ago IA adopters were especially upset with UNICEF, I just cannot recall why. I am totally against pulling kids from their families and countries of origin to supply American adopters with childre and I always thought UNICEF helped those in third world and developing countries but I am not cear as why these aopters are on sme crusade against UNICEF.

 

Thsnks

F.O.

0

Trying to remind you again

You raise an interesting question. UNICEF, works according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

Adoption agencies and many prospective adoptive parents oppose article 21 (b) of the UNCRC, which says: [States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration and they shall:] Recognize that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child's care, if the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the child's country of origin;

The UNCRC gives precedence to local options before inter-country options, while promotors of adoption give precendence to adoption, before foster care and before institutional care.

UNICEF was instrumental in closing down the inter-country adoption system in Guatemala, claiming that inter-country adoption prohibited the development of local options because of the enormous income disparity between local adoptive families/foster care families and international adopters (predominantly from the United States).

The pro-adoption lobby, claims that since adoption is the prefered measure and since there is little local demand for adoption, that inter-country adoption should remain the solution of choice.

Of course the position of the pro-adoption lobby is entirely self-serving. The preference scale of adoption comes before foster care, which comes before institutional care, is geared towards the business interests of adoption agencies and the desires of prospective adoptive parents. The self-interest of the pro-adoption lobby is cloaked in terms of the best interest of the child, but that interest is only skin deep.

The crusade of certain adopters and adoption agencies against UNICEF has to do with the fact that UNICEF has been instrumental in stopping the gravy train. Adoption agencies are pissed off because they lost business. Some adopters are pissed off because they didn't receive the child they paid for.

More to the point...

Based on what I read in various Adopter Blogs, PAP's don't care for UNICEF because they slow the adoption-process to a stand-still or slow crawl.  In fact, some angry PAP's wanting their paid-for-child  ASAP will go so far as claim UNICEF is ANTI-adoption.   Craziness, if I ever did see it.

The problem with AP's seems to be two-fold.  One, not every so-called orphan sold through an orphanage/adoption agency is in fact, an orphan.  Time and time it has been proven that baby brokers/child traffickers exist.  These people steal/kidnap young children and infants, provide falsified documentation (making all sorts of false claims), and get paid in cash for the service(s) they provide.  UNICEF wants every orphan status verified, which takes time.... time PAP's literally can't afford, which leads to the second problem.  Problem number two is simple... the longer an 'adoptable' child is kept in captivity in a less-than-decent orphanage, the more likely that child will suffer the ill effects of abuse and neglect AND the longer that stay, the longer the paying AP will have to cover all financial burdens related to that soon-to-go-child.  Mathematically, it makes sense to remove the child ASAP so the child isn't wasting away, alone, scared, neglected and abused and sooner removal means the sooner the adoptable orphan child is released, the sooner the paying parent can stop making required payments for orphanage services that  prove far too many care-providers could not care less about the well-being of children.  [Imagine how much that proper repair will cost APs!]

What's interesting about all of this is how self-serving the PAP role is in all of this. 

PAP wants baby.  PAP pays for adoption fees.  PAP expects promised child within agreed time-frame, (like say, the length of a gestation).  Adoption fees increase incentive to procure more infants for a given orphanage.  More infants requires more trafficking, and of course, services.  More trafficking means more illegal adoptions.  More illegal adoptions will raise red-flags to organizations like UNICEF.  PAP's get pissed. 

How are illegal adoptions in the best-interest of a child and WHY on earth would a PAP want to rush an illegal adoption?  One can only imagine, but as many-an-adoptee knows, rushing to get that child, is for the new-parent's benefit.... especially if the new better mommy or daddy can tell all his/her friends, "LOOK!  The life of this poor unwanted orphan was saved, by ME!"

How freakin wonderful.

PAP's angry with UNICEF are angry for all the wrong reasons, proving just how far and removed from reality some people really are when it comes to the ways of Adoptionland.

Thank You for the Explaination

Looks like I will be donating alot more to UNICEF than spare change. I knew that certain IA adopters has some kind of reason but now that you reminded me I can understand why.

Now that I think of it, there was more of a crusade against UNICEF even to the point of boycotting certain diapers and products that supported UNICEF. At the time my little ones used those diapers and I purposly went out to buy more.

Every day I am mre and more shocked at the things some people will do to "obtain" a baby. Sickening, just sickening!

Don't even get me started on adoption subsidy and child collectors. There is real gem of a child collector that takes in disabled children at naueum. Some even have said (people that know her) that the woman has Munchausen syndrome because of a recent adoption where teh stae intervened and took control, but that is a whole nother post/rant

Thanks again,

F.O

Pound Pup Legacy