We here at Land of Gazillion Adoptees are certain adoption agencies would prefer that you didn’t listen to this podcast with Melanie Chung-Sherman, whom we featured earlier in the week.  (And we’re not just saying that to bump up traffic.)  Melanie covers a lot of ground in this lengthy conversation, including a discussion about some incredibly unpleasant realities of adoption, the skewed priorities of agencies, and concrete recommendations that would improve adoption as a practice.

Enjoy.
____________

Topics covered: parenting as adoptees, starting a practice/running a practice, lack of post placement resources, adoption agency funding priorities, adoption dissolutions/disruptions/”rehoming,” evangelical christian adoption movement, recommendations/future of adoption.

Part 1

Melanie Chung Sherman 1

Part 2

Melanie Chung Sherman 2

What?  What’s that you say, dear reader?  What about Joint Council on International Children’s Services (JCICS)?  What about the National Council For Adoption (NCFA)?  Well, the nicest thing we can say about them is, “Meh.”  We would like JCICS and NCFA better if they were honest about what they do and don’t do.  We would like them better if they quit referring to critically thinking adoptees as “angry adoptees” and “anti-adoption.”  We would like them better if the orgs’ leadership quit rotating in and out of the Council On Accreditation’s (COA) board of trustees.  (Conflict of interest much?)  We would like them better if they quit saying stuff like, “Adoptees need to go beyond talking about their experiences.  We’re tired of that.  We need research, policy proposals, actual programs, etc.”

Hey you!  Tommy DiFilipo and Chucky Johnson!  Yes, you, the two SUPER white dudes who’ve made a good living off of speaking for and making decisions on behalf of marginalized kids and women!  There’s nothing wrong with adoptees talking about their experiences.  In fact, adoptees should be encouraged to share their thoughts, perspectives, experiences, and expertise, especially at your little roundtable schmooze fests with government officials.  Furthermore, adoptees have been “going beyond their experiences” for a VERY long time.  Unlike organizations like PEAR, you just haven’t been listening or, in many cases, have intentionally blocked adoptees out.  And that is eventually going to catch up to you and the “adoption is the answer for everything”/”without adoption we can’t make a living” folks JCICS and NCFA represent.

With that, here you go, dear reader.  Our conversation with PEAR.

Enjoy.

Land of Gazillion Adoptees: What is PEAR, who are its members, and what is its ultimate goal?

PEAR: PEAR is a 501(c)(3) Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation. We started as a grassroots group of adoptive and prospective adoptive parents who came together in 2007 to discuss the lack of a unified, respected voice for adoptive families alarmed by unethical adoptions they saw or experienced during their own adoptive process. Prior to this, regulatory bodies believed agencies effectively provided a voice for adoptive parents at the table.

Our worldwide membership includes prospective and adoptive parents, adoptees, first parents, foster parents, adoption professionals (social workers and mental health care workers), journalists, and others interested in meaningful, ethical adoption reform.

Our ultimate goal is to help bring about much needed reforms to protect children and their families (both original and adoptive), domestically and internationally.

LGA: Sweet! You mentioned in previous conversations that PEAR members have seen a rise/increased awareness of adoption disruptions.  Would you mind talking about that for our readers?

PEAR: We hear of many cases of placements and families failing. Whether these numbers are increasing or families feel more comfortable sharing information is difficult to determine. We hear agencies and adoption professionals say the number is low, yet one of our PEAR members started tracking known international adoption dissolutions and found 110 that occurred in the last 18 months. Failed adoptions is a huge, multifaceted issue that no one is addressing in a meaningful and productive way.

Another small piece of this are adoptions that should have never occurred in the first place because the children were not legal orphans or had family who could care for them, but were placed for adoption through corrupt programs. We have heard of some – the number is small, but growing – adopting families who have disrupted a placement prior to adoption due to this as well as adoptive parents who are fully reuniting the children with their families in their countries of origin. For us, this is an indication that adoptions are not being done properly in the first place and some children who should not even be in the system are deliberately placed for adoption solely to make money for the agencies involved.

LGA: Yikes… Is there a particular trend within the adoption community that you find alarming?  If so, what can be done about it?

PEAR: Where to start? One of the most concerning issues is the movement of agencies from one country to the next in search of children to place. We watch these patterns closely and right now our biggest concern lies in African countries where agencies are scrambling to set up programs and open new orphanages. Non-adoption related NGOs on the ground there tell us the huge foreign fees for international adoptions in these countries quickly corrupts the process and leads to harvesting of children from families. When this happens, it results in the production of fraudulent paperwork, identities, social histories etc. Due to this, it is our belief that few of the children who could benefit from a prepared, resourceful adoptive family are the ones actually being adopted.

Another concern from our perspective is the overall flawed adoption process. The Hague has unfortunately not brought many positive changes to this. PAPs continue to be underprepared for parenting a child who has been through an international adoption or an older child placed domestically. Children’s true needs and their social and medical histories are not being adequately (or honestly) portrayed to PAPs. Vulnerable children are being placed carelessly, in our opinion. We are hearing more about coercion of older children to agree to an international adoption when they do not want one, which is unacceptable. The adoption process itself is not child-centered; post-adoption, when the need is greatest, rarely works to provide good support or resources for these families. There has yet to be an adequate safety net developed for children. Back to the issue of dissolution in question 2, we’ve heard of more placements failing and entire families imploding post-adoption. Again, whether this is increasing or people are talking about it more is unknown.

Regulatory bodies need to open their eyes and tighten up the process by passing new regulations and enforcing the ones we have. The Hague regulations need to be revised and there needs to be greater communication between government agencies. They need to start listening to those on the ground – adoptees, parents of origin, and adoptive parents – who will tell the truth and not just what will keep poorly done adoptions flowing unfettered.

Better screening of PAPs needs to take place and post-adoption support services must be provided by placing agencies. To say they are no longer responsible for the well-being of children post-adoption is irresponsible and dangerous.

We absolutely need to have fee caps in place and enforced. We absolutely must make the enormous fees paid during the adoption process transparent, and all parties must be held accountable for them. These fees should be commensurate to local fee for services (whether in the US or abroad). Adoptions of children should not be subject to supply and demand market forces. If we had fee caps in place, it would eliminate much of the trafficking and fraud. The money trail (or lack thereof) is only one piece of the problem, but in our view the biggest.

LGA: Thanks, PEAR and we look forward to future conversations.  Please keep up the great work.

Unfortunately, the IAC didn’t work out.  Nevertheless, the adoptees who were involved continued on with their kickass selves, and remain rockstars to this day.

Dear reader, we give you one of those adoptees – Sheena McFarland.  Enjoy.
___________________________________

Land of Gazillion Adoptees: What made you decide to be a journalist?

Sheena: I wanted to be a journalist for a variety of reasons. First, I wanted a career where I could help people, and I felt that journalism would allow me to help people navigate their worlds. I also loved to talk with people and write, so reporting fit really well.

LGA: How long have you been with the Salt Lake Tribune? How did you end up there?

Sheena: I have been with The Salt Lake Tribune for seven years. I started in May 2005. I ended up here because I earned an internship and scholarship during my senior year at the University of Utah, and I began the internship after I graduated. I worked hard, and they hired me after I completed it.

LGA: Cool. What would you say to aspiring adoptee journalists?

Sheena: I would say that journalism is a passion and requires a huge amount of work, but if you love it, it doesn’t feel like work. It’s something you live and breathe every day, even if you’re not on the clock. Be curious about your world and explore it by asking people about what’s happening around you. Learn always to question authority. Work for your school papers, from junior high and up. Take on leadership roles there, especially at your college papers. Read several newspapers every day. Write every day, even if it isn’t going to get published. As an adoptee, your perspective and understanding of the world is unique and will help you ask questions or see stories no one else will think of. Always trust your gut, and don’t shy away from hard work. It will always pay off in the end!

LGA: Word…

LGA contributor Aaron Cunningham, an African American, isn’t a part of “our community.”  Nevertheless, Iranian adoptee Farnad Darnell, Indian adoptee A.J. Bryant, and I feel comfortable talking with him about all things adoption.  He “gets it” and, as you’ll see below, he “gets it” in a way that moves the musings, ramblings, and rants of folks like me to the realm of accessible relevancy.

Enjoy.
________________________

Kevin Ost-Vollmers isn’t angry.  Or maybe he is.  And if he is, maybe that’s a good thing.  Actually, that’s definitely a good thing.  Perhaps we don’t understand anger the way we should…

I really wanted to start with a bang.  I wanted my first contribution to LGA to be about “The N Word”.  And we’ve got plenty of time left in Black History Month for that.  But before I make some of you angry, perhaps it makes sense to begin with an impassioned defense of anger.  As you may have noticed, a couple weeks ago, Kevin shared a rather interesting dialogue between “Good Kevin” and “Angry Kevin”.  I’ve been turning his thoughts over and over in my head since then.  Your mileage may vary as to what was the most interesting part of the post; for me, it was unquestionably the following:

The “angry adoptee” label is divisive.  For example, the label is used to drive a wedge between prospective adoptive parents and critically thinking adult adoptees.  “Those angry (pathological) adoptees who want to end South Korean intercountry adoption are trying to keep you away from the child you desperately wish to welcome into your home.  They want to shatter your dreams and the dreams of the hundreds of thousands of orphans who want a permanent, loving home.”

What Kevin was referring to there speaks to my heart and my head because it is something that I have experienced in my own life: Marginalization.  Make no mistake about it; those who would label Kevin (and those who have similar feelings on the nature of intercountry adoption) are not being unintentionally divisive when they label him as an angry adoptee.  They’re not accidentally creating the wedge he mentioned.  I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that it’s intentional, and I say that because I’ve lived it.  We’ve all lived it.  Perhaps it is because of the color of your skin or the contents of your wallet or your gender or because of who you choose (or don’t choose) to love, but if you’re reading this, chances are, you’ve been marginalized at some point in your life.  Sometimes we have experiences that are uncomfortable for us and, perhaps, even more so for those we’re asking to confront and address those issues.  It is precisely because the things we have to say are uncomfortable that they deserve to be said and heard.

From the conversations I’ve had with Kevin, I know that his anger comes from a very authentic and genuine place.  As an adoptee, he’s experienced bad and knows of worse (or perhaps vice versa) and he wants to contribute to the conversation around adoption so that others might be spared some of the unnecessary horror and heartache.  His motivation is among the most pure that anyone engaging in a dialogue could have: to broaden the scope of the conversation so that all viewpoints can be heard and considered.  That’s a positive thing.  Unfortunately, it’s also inconvenient for some who profit from a situation that they would like everyone to believe is universally happy, nurturing, and a good.  As I mentioned when Kevin interviewed me for LGA last year, I can count myself among those who used to be naive enough to view adoption through that narrow lens.  For reasons I’m sure I’ll delve into in future posts, I’ve been trying to get a more complete picture of the adoption process, the industry around it, and what adoption does to families.  That exploration has lead me to consider perspectives beyond just the adoptees and the families who are doing the adopting, and that conversation isn’t complete without the voices of people like Kevin and those who have had similar experiences.  To marginalize those people and exclude those voices because they don’t conform to a simple, convenient narrative is sick and cynical.  And it is wrongheaded and misguided.

Adoption is not a simple exercise, nor should it be.  There are variables and nuances that the average person on the street probably doesn’t consider (or considers but takes for granted).  I’m not too proud to admit that before I met Kevin (and A.J. Bryant and Farnad Darnell and so many other wonderful people whom I’ve met through those friendships) I was one of the folks who didn’t see those nuances.  We’ve had some profoundly eye-opening conversations for which I will always be grateful.  And while hearing about their experiences certainly gave me a greater perspective on adoption, nothing they’ve said that wasn’t universally positive was so off-putting or horrifying that it made me “anti-adoption”.  Nothing they said gave me the impression that they were “anti-adoption” either; the irony of the situation, from where I sit, is that a lot of what makes an “angry adoptee” so angry seems to stem not from the process itself or from the fact that they were adopted, but from the very marginalization that they experience for expressing inconvenient truths to the very people who have the most to gain from listening to them (including those profit from silencing them).  To all of you who fit this description, I say:

Do not be silenced.  Your anger is a gift.

The world would be diminished if we all looked the same, shared the same viewpoints, felt the same way about everything, and had the same hopes, dreams and desires.  Those of us who have been marginalized, ignored, and overlooked because our experiences are different from the norm will always be stronger than those who don’t want to consider anything beyond the most comforting narrative they’re willing to consider.  We are more readily able to adapt and overcome challenges precisely because we’ve already confronted and overcome challenges; we know no other way.  The key to overcoming this marginalization is not to be overwhelmed by anger.  Unpack it.  Explore it.  Understand where it comes from and consider what you can (and cannot) do to overcome it.  Develop the tools to articulate your perspectives and experiences without losing sight of the reality that they are subjective rather than objective, and that while you may have the courage to share your views, others, including people very close to you, may not always have the courage to hear and accept them.  Own your anger, but do not define yourself by it or allow others to do so.  If you refuse to stand in the margins, you cannot be marginalized.  Your anger is a gift, but it is only if you unwrap it, open it up, and look inside.  And it only truly has value if you share what you find with others.

Enjoy.

P.S. Jayme K. Hansen was born as Yoon, Dong Jin in Chung-ju, South Korea. He is currently living near Seattle Washington with his wife and two children. He is a highly decorated military officer working as a hospital comptroller for the US Army. He obtained his Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Master of Public Administration (MPA) from Syracuse University along with a Bachelors of Science (BS) in Interdisciplinary Social Sciences from Clarkson University along with internships with the National Security Studies Program and Project Lead Program through United Way. He has earned numerous awards and recognition with his work with NGO’s to include Korea America Friendship Society Medal and Good Neighbor Award from the American Red Cross.

____________________________________________________

Minnesota Politics
By Jayme Hansen

When it comes to Minnesota politics, nobody can say that it’s boring! What other state can boast that it has elected a comedian (Al Franken) and a professional wrestler (Jesse Ventura) alongside a political giant like Walter Mondale? In the recent Minnesota caucus election, Mr. Rick Santorum won by a landslide with nearly 45% of the votes in Minnesota. Is this something for the conservative party to celebrate? I, like many other pundits, say no.

Mr. Santorum’s Caucus win is nothing to celebrate as only 1% of the voting age population went to the polls. The election really said nothing about how the state will vote in the future or even how well he did in that state against his rivals. I think the vote was heavily influenced by small pockets of conservative voters. I’d continue to venture out and say that the majority of the voters in the state had no interest in voting for a conservative - hence the poor voter turnout. This caucus election reminds me of something that I learned in business school: that a homogeneous sample will give you the smallest variance and therefore the smallest confidence interval, but that doesn’t mean it is an accurate representation of your population. We shall see if my theory is true in the November general election.

Minnesota politics is as contrast as the gazillion adoptees who inhibit the state. Minnesota historically has been a democratic voting state when it comes to the election of the President of the United States. However, this doesn’t mean that conservatives can’t be successful. Minnesota has produced conservative politicians. I think we see this contrast due to the differences of the populations that is seen in the state itself. In the niche rural communities, individuals tend to be more religious, pro-life, and adhering to conservative views than their city cousins, who tend to be more liberal. This explains an unusual phenomena – why Minnesotans’ have voted for a Democratic President a total of nine times out of the past ten presidential elections and in contrast allow uber conservatives like Michelle Bauchmann to serves the 6th district in a state that is generally regarded as liberal. The much larger city population votes carry the presidential nominations when there is a large voter turnout and the pockets of conservative voting constituents in the countryside can elect a contrasting politician.

I think this political scenario beautifully explains why we see a contrasting difference in the adoptee community. There is a stark difference between the adoptee who was raised by the generally cold, distant religious families found in the rural communities and the more liberal families seen in the cities. We have the “angry adoptees” on one hand and the happy accepting on the other. I don’t think many adoptees really think about why they think the way they do. We have been taught at school and by society that individuals independently decide on who they are, but in reality, people’s political views, religion, and other “choices” are heavily influenced by the individual’s families. A case in point is that an overwhelming number of Korean adoptees have the same religion as their adopted families. If a genetic component existed with religion, we would see a similar distribution of Buddhists as seen in Korea (nearly 50% of non-adopted Koreans are Buddhists). Most people know that to think genetics has any play in the influence of a person’s religious beliefs is sheer nonsense. However, few take this into consideration with their political views or other life choices that they have made. I think this is why individuals like me who grew up in an environment that was less forgiving can see the adoption process under a more critical eye and see flaws in the process more easily. This metamorphism did not come overnight nor did the change come without struggles and pain.

My story is no different than what hundreds, possibly thousands of adoptees had to endure – a life of pain and suffering brought on by the hands of the people who adopted us. I was adopted by a Scandinavian couple who was unable to have children. I was moved to the Midwest and lived a difficult life that was filled with mental torture, physical abuse and hard physical labor. I was forced to get up before dawn every morning at 5:00 am to feed and milk the cattle of my adopted family’s farm. I was berated daily by the people who called themselves my family and for entertainment they would have the dog attack and bite me. The community that I grew up in did not treat me any better. When I was in 1st grade, a high school senior wrote obscenities on my face with a permanent magic marker. Later in life a kid dumped a plate of food on my head at my first day of school and, in my 99% all white high school, I was called a gook, rice ball, and other hurtful names on a daily basis. Despite having these negative experiences I strongly latched onto the uber conservative ideals that was held by my family and community that I lived in. I became very religious and spend a great deal of my time reading and studying the Bible. I taught Sunday school, Vocation Bible School and even contemplated enrolling into a seminary program. I believed in corporal punishment, I was pro-life, pro-NRA, anti-homosexual, and proactive with the intelligent design movement. You could say that I was the ultimate conservative.

My life began to change as I moved away from home and experienced a different way of life. My belief system was challenged and my soul writhed in pain as I thought about the implications of my beliefs. How could my young nephew’s homosexuality be wrong? I knew that he was “different” than his brothers, even when he was a young child. When I spoke to a close friend, who worked with the Peace Corps, she informed me that her experiences later helped her to be pro-choice. I wondered if I made the right choice as I heard about the countless number of children being born to a bleak future as they starved to death or to have died with agonizing pain of a curable disease. Even the bedrock of knowledge I gained through thousands of hours of studying intelligent design was questioned when I studied biology and learned about the views of brilliant scientists like Watson and Crick.

I’m not saying that being pro-conservative is better or worse than being a Democrat. I’m merely trying to point out that our belief structures, i.e., politics, religion, etc., are shaped by our families and societies. I learned through my own life that it is extremely difficult to change ones opinion, even with the use of logic and emotion. These beliefs become ingrained within us by our parents, and we learn to constantly support these views with the distorted lens we have been retrofitted. All I can say is, “Of course you can’t see it!” In the like manner, I realize that there are also contrasting views to adoption. There are the kids who were adopted into loving families, assimilated into society with minimal issues, and were able to attend Culture Camps on a routine basis. These individuals will see the adoption process in a completely different light than those who have had to endure beatings, rapes, and unspeakable acts by their parents. We are all uniquely different and we each have a different point of view that is shaped by our experiences. Unlike the political parties that take hard stances, lets agree on that.

Topics covered: Growing up in Nebraska, Nebraska music scene, traveling to India, glee clubs, heritage camps, engaging younger adoptees, engaging adoptive parents, and “adoptee culture.”

Find out more about Andrew on YouTube.

Part 1

Andrew Lewandowski 1

Part 2

Andrew Lewandowski 2

Video starring: 

Children’s Home Society & Family Services (CHSFS)
Holt International

Cameo appearances:

Spence-Chapin Adoption Services
Joint Council on International Children’s Services (JCICS)
Christian Alliance for Orphans
Adoptees Have Answers (AHA)
AK Connection
AdopSource
Adopted and Fostered Adults of the African Disaspora (AFAAD)
Yet another horrible Jeremy Lin pun

Music:

“Money” by The Drums

Below Melanie teases her podcast with a conversation about adoption disruption/dissolution, i.e., “rehoming.”  Enjoy.
_____________________

After catching up with Kevin, he asked me about my new endeavors as an adoption therapist, branching out with my own private practice, etc., when the topic came up – adoption disruption/dissolution and the new term being used now, “re-homing” or “re-placement.” (As most can imagine, these terms were not coined by adopted persons.) I got Kevin’s response immediately – dead silence, followed by a candid remark that only he can deliver. [Editor’s note: Kevin’s response was, “Are you fucking kidding me..?] In my 12+ years of working in adoption, I have experienced one too many adoption and foster care breakdowns. Each one haunts me. I struggle with this the most. Although the overall numbers are quite low, one adoption disruption/dissolution is too many. This is one of the compelling reasons why I started my own practice (in the hopes of helping families and professionals so that adoptions do not breakdown and ultimately do not start for the wrong reasons) so that I can speak my mind unfettered by anyone else’s agenda, except the child’s.

Disruption is before an adoption is finalized in court and dissolution is after an adoption is finalized (for those sensitive to legalese, I occasionally use these interchangeably). The majority of articles written on this subject (along with whatever limited research is out there beyond census by the Child Welfare League of America) are written by adoption professionals, and some who are not necessarily professionals, but profess expertise. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of authors have also disrupted. I have yet to find anything by adoptees that have experienced this firsthand, and want to encourage someone to come out of the shadows and say something.

There is literature out there discussing how parents can “move on” after dissolving an adoption.  Some of the literature even give advice about adopting again, suggesting that  the disruption/dissolution had nothing to do with the parents and everything to do with the child. Some of these articles even compare the parent’s feelings of disruption/dissolution to a miscarriage or stillbirth, which is problematic. As an adoptee, I find that comparison repugnant. From the adoptee’s perspective, it is a death all over again and not by choice. It is an affirmation of an internal voice that was waiting for the shoe to drop, reminding us that there is a legal out. Adoptees don’t get to just move on, and are not afforded that privilege, particularly for our children of color.

I know what happens to each child after a failed adoption. They are labeled with the scarlet letter “A” – abandoned again. Finding another placement for these kids is difficult. Nevertheless, there are agencies, attorneys and workers that will approve parents who have dissolved an adoption to adopt again.

I remember the ill-advice from others who told my parents to “just send him back” (referring to my brother, a Korean adoptee) when things got tough for my family. I learned from a young age that there was a socially acceptable legal loophole for the big people to get “out” when you are not biologically connected. I remember thinking if it could happen before, it can happen again. Better watch out. Thankfully, my parents did not give credence to that sick advice. Looking back, though, that episode impacted me more than I understood as a child. I’ve heard other people compare disruption/dissolution to divorce, which is between two consenting adults and, for the most part, a mutual agreement to terminate a committed relationship. Adoption is not between two consenting parties, but decisions made on behalf of child by adults in power. Plain and simple. Ultimately, dissolving an adoption is an adult decision that falls squarely on the shoulders of the adults before, during and after the placement of a child; for every disruption/dissolution that I have been a part of, I am just as much to blame for failing each child.

Suggesting that disruption/dissolution is anything less, only places blame on the child. And let me be very clear to anyone reading this and considering the stories of “kids too out of control” or “dangerous.” It is not the child’s fault or decision to be “re-homed” or placed into the world of adoption to begin with. Why should a child trust an adult after multiple placements? Who gave an adult the right to claim instant obedience, gratefulness and attachment over any other human being, let alone one who has experienced the trauma of abandonment, institutionalization, abuse and neglect? When unrealistic expectations (usually connected to a parent’s motivation to adopt) and fantasies overshadow the needs of the child without professional help and intervention, things will start to go bad.

This is the dark side of adoption that people rarely mentioned, and one that is typically pushed to the outer fringes in the adoption community for obvious reasons. There are many different players. And, like any other aspect of adoption, child welfare and placement is extremely complex, messy and a legal nightmare, not to mention the emotional and psychological fall-out. So, let’s not sugarcoat this practice because there is no way to “nice up” legal abandonment – and sometimes illegal abandonment. One of the most troubling cases in my past was when an adoptive parent abandoned their child back to the birth country at a very young age (this never hit the media). What was more disturbing and downright frustrating was watching all of the other adults scatter to avoid liability. However, I have also witnessed the power of redemption and true commitment following an adoption dissolution when another family stepped up to a very difficult situation when no one else would.

In my podcast this week with Kevin, I will further discuss adoption disruption/dissolution. There is an entire movement behind “re-homing” that involves private agencies, facilitators, adoption professionals, counselors, adoptive parent networks, attorneys, court systems, and places of worship, in particular branches of the evangelical movement. It remains unregulated and underreported for a variety of reasons. It is not limited to international adoption, but permeates all forms of adoptive placement. What I will discus in the podcast is not to satiate anyone or anything, but shed light on a practice that has been going on for some time. The conversation will not be comfortable. It will be messy, complex, and controversial. I will not suggest ending adoption or banning it altogether because I think that would be equally reckless, but I will discuss the need for awareness, education, regulation and accountability for all involved.