Censoring on AP sites

What I see happening over and over again is the white-washing of facts so no networking bridges will get burned.  This is in the best interest of the buyers, the consumers... the clients with money, not the children being put in faulty care-systems and "saved" through the adoption industry.

When it comes to being critical and honest, one has to be really familiar with slander/libel lawsuits to know what can and cannot be said openly, in-public, about alleged suspects.

For instance, note the careful construction of the story about an adoption lawyer who got questioned by authorities:

[Darkened highlighted text is my own edit]

Before I get into this any further, I want to be 100% clear, honest and open about where I stand with regard to Susana. It’s the same thing I’ve said for years. Susana was undoubtedly a huge friend to Guatadopt and everyone who adopted from 2003 on. Without her, my children would not be my children, it’s as simple as that. She didn’t have anything to do with my adoptions personally, but without her the system almost certainly would have ended before my kids came home. It was because of this work, and the manner in which Guatdadopt became the place she updated parents, that this site had its huge popularity for a long time. (I think I could kiss her and kill her for that.) None of that relationship or history makes Susana a saint. None of it means that we did not have very serious disagreements over very serious things in both public and private settings. And most importantly, none of those things would ever make me turn a blind eye to something like kidnapping!

So what’s my point? It is to give some background or legitimacy to my opinion that from everything I know of Susana, both good and bad, she would never be knowingly complicit in a kidnapping. Read those words very carefully. In no way am I refuting the stories of these children’s mothers. In no way am I even claiming that Susana was not the attorney who pushed through the abandonment case of a child who was kidnapped. But what I have yet to see is any evidence of what I say I have a hard time accepting - that she would have done so with knowledge that she was “laundering” a kidnapped child.

And so the nature of the relationship is established.  As one hand washes the other, someone's back is always being watched so no harm will come to those who pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt and use future adoption-related services.

It's interesting to see how adamant certain people want to be about specific points/accusations:

Susana Luarca was not involved in this child's abduction and there is absolutely no evidence to support the accusations that she was a "ringleader" for child abductions and procuring children unethically for adoption, or that she knew this child was kidnapped.I know her very well and I know that she would NEVER do this. No matter how you feel about intercountry adoption, this is NOT a real attempt at getting the REAL criminals. This is a trumped up case against a strong child advocate who advocated for intercountry adoption because she believed that was good for children without parental care. Alot of us believe this and there is significant research supporting this position. I know that there are other opinions out there, but that doesn't excuse this attempt to discredit an outspoken adoption advocate through legal harrassment.

What idiot lawyer would poise herself in "ringleader" position?  I mean really.... underground operations are very carefully set-up so everything is paid in cash and nothing gets back to the person who can magically turn water into wine or illegal activity into a legal adoption.  These lawyers are not guilty of kidnapping as much as they are laundering documents, turning falsified documents into a binding legal agreement.. all for a cash fee.  As silly as it seems, maybe these omnipotent AP's need a long-weekend at Bernie's to watch a season or two of the Sopranos... maybe THEN they will get a vague understanding of 'behind-the-scene deals' and how things go down when a program gets orchestrated, underground. 

But there's more to discussions like these on adoption forums. 

On some level, there is the issue of blame behind a not-so-great adoption story.

Who is to blame for the child who will not bond?  Who is to blame for the Aparents who cannot cope?  Who is to blame if an illegal snafu is discovered in the mile-high paper-work?

The human nature almost demands a source to blame when an idyllic notion becomes an on-going living nightmare.

Re-enter the adoption agency director, and all his associated affiliates.

When reading comments written by outraged APs, I have to pace myself.  I find reading such posts make my stomach knot and my teeth clench... especially when the adoptee in me has to read heart-broken words about the poor forgotten neglected children and the wonderful people the adopter knows, (orphanage director, adoption lawyer, agency liason...) like the back of his own hand.

Hook.  Line.  Sinker.  Damage.  Control. 

Oh how I hate the phrase, "She would NEVER do such a thing". 

It's amazing to see the really horrible things really nice people actually do, when no one is really looking.

I believe not that many agency directors want to question the activities of another director or facilitator.  Questioning itself requires a level of accountability and responsibility.  If illegal activity is discovered, the agency director is going to find himself in that age-old dilemma:  do I do what's best for future business, or do I do the right, moral decent thing.  What agency director wants to make a formal call for action that may not be well-received by paying/supplying customers?  [How many take the time to think about this, and all that questioning the adoption process implies?]

This is where the loyal adopter steps-up and saves the day for unethical amoral practitioners profiting with each and every completed adoption plan. That glowing gushing testimony is what too often saves a shady adoption broker and shadier adoption agency.  A quick name-change, a new office location... a thanks and praise for fast speedy work (and a child within a year)....boom... back in-business, because in Adoptionland there are lists of people waiting for a young healthy child... there is money to be made, there are jobs to save and orphans to sell.

Just today a statement was issued by the president of an adoption agency in Boca Raton, an agency that stopped operating in 2009.  The president of the non-profit organization had the following to say about parents looking to sue the adoption agency:

The family employed two of the top physicians in international adoption (Dr. Jane Aronson and Dr. Dana Johnson) to help them decipher records. They alone made their decision. Once done, they chose to adopt Peter, and advised us which child they cared to adopt. We knew nothing about the child, and the family was well aware of that fact! We simply helped them file court papers at their request. They traveled personally and were there to take as many photos and videos themselves.

They came home and discovered the boy had severe problems and filed a lawsuit against our not-for-profit agency, and every employee who ever worked for us, including our bookkeeper! A clear case of making an emotional decision in a process reap with risks, and then blaming everyone but themselves.

Adoption is a wonderful thing, but it has risks. Families read the warnings, but at times make decisions they later regret, then look for someone to blame. Agencies do their best to serve children and families, but nobody can ever guarantee the health of a human being nor see the past pain and suffering borne by an orphan.

Every document that the family signed spoke of the warnings and advisories about the risk. We feel terrible for the family, but to point fingers of blame at this stage of adoption just hurts everyone involved. This family made their own choices, advised by the top physicians in the world, but fate was not in their favor. No one is to blame. They could easily have come home only with the little girl, and nobody told them any different. They were only obsessed to adopt two children at once.

Why is it that the 1,500 other cases from our agency do not make headlines? Only the sad story. I am an adoptive mother and adoptive aunt of children from the same orphanage, and I have had my own joys as well as difficulties, but would not change anything. Our children are our children, whether through nature or adoption, and parents must deal with the issues our children present with. How many biological parents deal with severe issues with their children, but who can they blame and sue?

I am sorry that this family made their own decision and now point the finger of blame at everyone but themselves. It only hurts the tens of thousands of children who need to find their families through international adoption. I personally, would do it all over again.

[From:  Adoption agency: Family ignored warnings, advice in adopting troubled boy, May 31, 2011 ]

Nice smooth use of "not for profit", suggesting no one, including the president of the adoption-operation is getting paid a set salary in return for hours served. And nice use of buyer beware, because we should all know by now, all sales and contracts are final and binding in Adoptionland.

But try telling staunch adoption supporters the wrongs profit-producing ICA brings with it. 

Denial, as a coping mechanism, is so strong, so pervasive, it would be almost comical in use, if only children put in-care were not being hurt as they are being hurt.... all so an adoption dream can come true for some wanting adult.

What ever WOULD the adopting community do if more and more realized the image they believed in is little more than a fancy fabricated lie... or worse, a lure to enable MORE illegal jobs and activity and unhappy adoption disruptions, dissolutions, and endings?

Would more adoption advocates call for a slower more deliberate adoption process?  Would the demand for stricter agencies, stronger oversight and more deliberate intensive screenings be heeded?  Or would all that "servicing" be too much of a financial risk for agency directors and presidents using adoption as their job source and salary?

These can be really big tough pills to swallow, because as this adoptee knows, when an entire belief-system gets broken,  it's very very difficult to ever trust anyone is ever acting on behalf of the amassed forgotten children put in-care.  Too many self-serving adults in Adoptionland are acting as if maintaining a profit in the pocket is the number one priority an adoption agency must keep.  Too bad that fact can't be censored and banned... and too bad corruption will always be flipped-off to another guy, as if only OTHERS ("not me or my good associates") are somehow involved in those less than ethical and not quite transparent adoption plans we so often hear about.