Victor and Nubia Barahona (Doctor)

I just read a very compelling editorial found in the Feb. 26 edition of the Miami Herald , and I'd like to share the portion that spoke volumes to me:

It is natural to feel hatred and revulsion for what Jorge Barahona is accused of doing and his wife Carmen seems to have, at the very least, allowed to happen. They should not be called “parents.” What kind of individual forces a child to stand in garbage bins or douses him with chemicals? Only a sinister psychopath.

The law of man – and God – will deal with them.

One is filled with anger, too, at the state’s child-welfare officials, who share the blame of the twins’ torture for allowing this adoption. Moreover, officials dismissed several reports that raised concerns about the abuse and neglect to which the children were subjected.

And where is the responsibility of the biological parents? No child comes into the state’s custody without having been abandoned physically or emotionally. The twins’ mother had alcohol and drug problems and mistreated them. And the father was charged with sexual battery. They were not ready to be parents.

And where is the conscience of those who came to the Barahonas’ house and knew that the twins were locked behind a shower curtain taped to the walls of the bathtub to trap them?

Regardless of whether the perpetrator is a relative or friend, when someone sees a person being tortured, there’s a moral duty to denounce it. Individual responsibility comes with the privilege one has as a citizen of Mother Earth. To cover it up is to become a participant in the aberration.

[From: Girl exposes ‘hive of villains’, Daniel Shoer ]

Whether an adopted child is put in-care because the bio-parents are drug addicted delinquents or the birth-mother is a 'responsible' individual who values human life, (making adoption her personal choice), the bottom line is always the same for the child put in an adoptive home... in the majority of cases, the biological parents CHOSE to walk away, leaving the parenting and protecting to some body else.

I often wonder how many moms-to-be would agree to their adoption-plan, if they knew a few years from the time of final relinquishment, their beloved 'saved' baby was going to be tortured, then killed?

The possibility is always there... whether adoption advocates want to admit that, or not.

In any case, it was not an adult family member, a parent, a social worker, or child-welfare official who stood up and said "NO!" to those who wanted to overlook and dismiss the nightmare that did eventually bring a cruel end to an adopted child's life.  It was a child who decided enough was enough, and spoke up, and told people what was wrong.

Six year old Alessandra defied family-member warning, and spoke the truth knowing her honesty would bring serious consequences -- rejection and punishment.

Her fear must have been intense... so intense, she must have lost all sensation, not really feeling what it was she was actually doing.

Her bravery came after-the-final act, and she was praised and applauded, for coming forward. 

The moral lesson, of course, can be:  evil will no longer prevail in this morbid adoption-story, thanks to the actions of one heroic girl.

But that moral lesson is not enough for me... an adoptee who was rejected and punished by my adoptive parents because I dared to reveal what was done to me by members of their sick and demented family, well after-the-fact.  Adoptees like myself need more than the fairy-tale that evil will no longer prevail in a world that seems so immoral.  We know how fickle people can can be, especially when spotlights are still on key characters involved in one particular act, in one particular story.

Which is why I have to ask, What would have been outside response and opinion, had the little girl (with the profoundly dysfunctional family) been just as brave, much much earlier in the tragic adoption-story?

Would we learn a very different moral to the story?

These are the types of questions I naturally ask myself, each time I read an abused adoptee case that has found it's way to the PPL pages.

This is the conclusion I have drawn, after years of very disturbing discovery:  As long as the US government refuses to ratify the UNCRC, a child's right to safety will never be respected or protected like an adult's right to privacy.

Ignorance and negligence sure has it's natural consequence, doesn't it?