(reposted from here I like am happy satisfied with this one.)
We need to talk.
I know you're not big on talking. You've been the silent ghost hovering in the background all my life, your absence a constant presence.
Frankly, I would have preferred Banquo's Ghost, or King Hamlet. They were explicable and helped move the plot along. You have always been a cypher. What did you want?
Nothing, I was told. That's why you weren't there, after all. I was told that I was an impediment to the life you wanted to live, a pothole in the road of your journey that you had sped on past and forgotten. I was better off without you, I was told.
I really shouldn't spend much time thinking about you, I was told. And I didn't. Think about you, that is. Not much. As little as possible, and I'd stop myself whenever my subconscious tried to bring it up.
I always tried to follow the rules. Would you have liked that in me?
There was never a time I did not know I was adopted. In fact, there was never a time I did not feel different, not-quite-right, and not altogether like those around me. I have always felt like I was the outcast, the mixed mutt..the runt... the one who got chosen to live among strangers not because I was wanted, but because someone had to choose me, otherwise I'd be put down or left to die, whichever created less stir for the public.
I was born in 1968 in Newfoundland, Canada, a hot-spot for infertile Americans in want of a healthy white newborn who was "orphaned" by its unmarried and "unfit" mother. I was not born an American; I was manufactured to become one.
As an adult, I learned the facts surrounding my adoption story were nowhere near the "facts" my adoptive mother told me about my adoption history.
Since 1995, the month of November has been designated as Adoption Awareness Month. We at Pound Pup Legacy try to contribute to this commemoration, by raising awareness for abuse in adoptive homes, disrupted adoptions, violated parental rights, child trafficking for adoption, and other horrors in adoption.
The start of Adoption Awareness Month also means the announcement of the recipient of the Demons of Adoption Award. Started in 2007, as a critique on the Congressional Angels in Adoption AwardsTM, the Demons of Adoption Awards have become an annual tradition, continued now for seven years in a row.
In September we asked our readers to nominate candidates, and many worthy contenders were added. In October we launched a ballot to collect the votes for each nominee. From the start, it was a very close race between two nominees: Raymond Godwin et al., and Children in Families First (CHIFF) - with the remaining entries trailing far behind.
The Angels in Adoption have never been awarded with much scrutiny into candidates. Silly, but otherwise benign, was the award by then Senator of Kansas Sam Brownback for his "precious wife" Mary Brownback, with whom he had adopted a child from Guatemala and one from China.
Much more seriously, Jerry Sandusky received an award out of the hands of Rick Santorum, a decision that needed to be reverted back in 2011, when it became clear Sandusky had molested several boys, including his own adopted son.
Senator Chuck Grassley, awarded Damien and Allonna Stovall with an Angel in AdoptionTM, in 2012. Six months later, the couple was charged with beating their adopted children with belts and wooden spoons, although those charges were later dropped.
In 2007, Representative Patrick Murphy determined an award should be given to Steven G. Dubin, whom at the time was under investigation for fraudulent adoption practices, and whose membership of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys was suspended, only three months after being lauded as an Angel in Adoption. Dubin was eventually disbarred in the State of Pennsylvania, October 31, 2012.
That same year, Senator Orrin Hatch nominated Larry S Jenkins, a Utah attorney, who is involved in nearly every father's rights violation case over the last 10 years.
When it comes to using laws to lure women into relinquishing children out of state, without notifying fathers, Larry S. Jenkins has found his match. Raymond Godwin has figured out that the adoption statutes of South Carolina make such unsavory inter-state adoptions about as easy as they are in Utah.
Raymond Godwin and his wife Laura have been involved in two of the most contentious adoptions of 2013, known as the baby Veronica case and the baby Deseray case. Both cases revolve around interstate adoptions of Native American children from Oklahoma to South Carolina.
The baby Veronica case has been all over the news, especially since the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, where a verdict was rendered in favor of the adoptive couple Matt and Melanie Capobianco.
Late September, the Capobiacos, at the time assisted by another of Jim DeMint's Angels in Adoption, attorney James Fletcher Thompson, were able to remove Veronica from the home of her father Dusten Brown, with whom she had lived the last two years.
Baby Deseray was removed from Oklahoma without properly filing the Interstate Custody for the Placement of Children (ICPC) paperwork. As a result, Mike Yeksavich removed himself from the case, and subsequently attempted to halt the adoption of the baby to the Bixlers and demanded her return.
The Baby Deseray case is still in motion. At this time of writing, the girl is in temporary foster care, pending emergency litigation.
No matter how we look at these cases, what we see are multiple placements of the same children, all because an adoption attorney endeavors in, to put it mildly, legally adventurous practices.
Raymond Godwin, may have stayed strictly within the law, with the Baby Veronica case. While there may be difference of opinion on that particular issue, it is indisputable that the trajectory he chose for these two adoptions was legally complex, making it very possible that the adoptions would be contested.
Knowingly starting an adoption procedure that can reasonably be expected to be contested, is immoral. Adoption, when practiced, should increase a child's stability in life, not lower it. Raymond Godwin and his wife Laura knowingly created a situation that was potentially disruptive, and ended up actually being disruptive for two children. For that, they deserve to be recognized as Demons of Adoption.
We would like to thank all our readers for their nominations and for their votes, and it is our hope that the Demons of Adoption Award brings to light the more serious adoption issues that still need to be addressed throughout the year, not just during November, America's National Adoption Month.
As a believer in God, and follower of Jesus, I have always found the rationale for adoption given by practicing Christians both amusing and hypocritical. I could never understand how God would "want" man to separate mother and child, simply because a society ruled by misogynists say an unwed pregnancy is unlawful. After all, when Mary found herself pregnant without a husband, at no point was she "counseled" by adoption facilitators and told it was in the best interest for the unborn child to be relinquished, and given to council-approved strangers, while she was to act as if the pregnancy never took place. Instead, Mary, the only mother of Jesus, was told to have faith; she was told support would be provided, through the assistance of a benefactor. That benefactor would be a man named Joseph, a man who would provide for Mary and her child, for 13 years. It should be noted, at no point during Jesus's time on earth did he ever claim Joseph was his father. Instead, Jesus (and Mary) recognized God as his only father.
This can of course not be the case, as you state in the FAQ section of your website, as well as in the press kit for the year 2013:
CCAI does not lobby on behalf of any individual piece of legislation or government program. CCAI does not take official positions on issues related to adoption and foster care, but rather seeks to provide policymakers with the resources they need to make informed decisions.
The bill is intended to counteract the decline in inter-country since 2004, a trend that has many prospective adopters worried and cuts heavily into the revenues of adoption service providers.
The inter-country adoption lobby has been in full blown panic over this decline for several years now.
Already in 2009, a legislative attempt was made to curb the downward trend by means of the Families for Orphans Act. This effort failed miserably, but now the adoption lobby has regrouped with new blood and fresh money.
A comprehensive history of inter-country adoption has thus far not been written. Some adoption websites give a brief summary of the history of inter-country adoption, and there are several books trying to do the same, but a thorough study into the origins of inter-country adoption is still awaiting scholarly initiative.
In the book Intercountry Adoption: A Multinational Perspective, by Howard Alfstein and Rita James, the following is said about the history of inter-country adoption:
Earlier this year a study was published, analyzing the European Union's reversal in approach towards inter-country adoption from Romania since 2007.
The study sheds some interesting light on the motivations behind this radical shift and serves as a warning when it comes to the politicization of child protection.
Initially we wanted to write a review about this fascinating, albeit very dense study.
However, while researching the topic of the Romanian adoptions early 1990s, we felt compelled to write about a subject only touched upon in this study: the political influence of adoptive parents.
We will use the Romanian adoption crisis as a backdrop for this article, although it should be noted that similar patterns emerged around adoptions from Vietnam, Guatemala, and Ethiopia in more recent times.
This week, Adoptionland has been in turmoil over the publication of a series of articles by Reuters and NBC-news.
The articles portray the drain of the adoption system, the practice of informal re-homing of adoptees who are no longer wanted by their forever family.
Just like it is with every abuse case and every trafficking case found in Adoptionland, the mouth pieces of the adoption industry are quick and ready to down play the situation. The good name of adoption MUST be preserved, at all cost, even if doing so leads to more abuse, more disruptions, more dissolutions, and more child trafficking for adoption purposes.
It's that time of year again., Labor Day behind us, kids back to school, the sun no longer at its apex, time for the nominations of the Demons of Adoption Awards.
We are all too aware, our regular readers, like us, have nail-bitingly anticipated this moment all summer long. For us hard-core adoption critics, this is the highlight of the year, the defining moment of the annum.
An important decision needs to be reached, dear Pound Pup Legacy readers. Who is the most deserving villain in Adoptionland, for 2013? While we can think of some really deserving candidates, we want our readers to nominate and decide who eventually has the dubious honor of actually receiving PPL's 2013 Demons of Adoption Award.
You, our reader, can make your voice heard. It's in your hands now who receives the worst of all honors in Adoptionland. Until September 30 the nomination process will be open. After that date PPL will post a poll where readers may vote for the nominees.
My oldest is leaving for her second year of college this Sunday.
I have been bracing for this week, since May.
Thankfully, last year's experience was a very positive one. My daughter made frequent home-visits, and made Dean's List each semester. She made the loss and absence easier, because she not only came back, she came back as a better individual.
But the departure... the going-away... it has never been easy for me.
Niels you asked, "I wonder if your agency advertized with statements like: "finding families for children"."
The answer sadly, is yes.
We were told that the reason that the biological mothers relinquished is because they could not take care of the children nor care for them.
At no point did we ever imagine that 7 years later we would find our children's biological family, intact and doing well, albeit poor.
Which brings to mind the question of when is poverty ever a criteria to give up a child for ICA?!