Stanford Law Review: CHIFF Overlooks Best Interests of the Child

Posted on April 21, 2014 by Maureen McCauley

Along with many others in the adoption community, I have written about the extensive flaws in CHIFF, the Children in Families First Act. No one disagrees that all children deserve safe, loving families. Much disagreement exists about whether CHIFF genuinely meets the problems that exist in adoption today.

A new voice has spoken about CHIFF’s deficiencies. A recent article in the Stanford Law Review by Nila Bala, a Yale Law School graduate and current Public Interest Fellow, addresses the bill’s various shortcomings.

Here are a few excerpts from “The Children in Families First Act: Overlooking International Law and the Best Interests of the Child.”

Unfortunately,…many government leaders are supporting the Children in Families First Act (CHIFF), new legislation that hopes to increase the number of international adoptions, without addressing the problems that currently exist.

CHIFF puts children at risk by weakening the Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA) and the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, (Hague Convention), which have at least provided for some pre-adoption protections. Additionally, like the IAA, CHIFF fails to provide for post-adoption assistance.

CHIFF hopes to reappropriate about sixty million dollars per year to establish the new Bureau of Vulnerable Children and Family Security in the State Department and to establish a USAID Center for Excellence for Children in Adversity.

If millions of dollars are pumped into incentivizing intercountry adoptions, it is reasonable to expect that fraud may increase as well. Unfortunately, the bill glosses over the very real concerns of child trafficking, fraud, and corruption.

I’ve added the emphasis above. The perspective of this highly-regarded legal publication–not an adoption agency or adoptive parent–is powerful and valuable. Let’s hope our members of Congress listen closely.

Everyone agrees that children deserve families. CHIFF needs to genuinely address several existing problems: Let’s include adoptees and first parents in the conversation. Let’s provide equitable services. Let’s increase pre- and post- adoption resources. Let’s not spend $60 million without acknowledging current, painful realities around re-homing, citizenship/deportation, fraud, and corruption. Let’s emphasize family preservation first.

Susan Perry, RIP: How Lucky We Were to Have You

Posted on April 7, 2014 by Maureen McCauley

I never met her in person, but I consider Susan Perry a friend, and I mourn her death today. Like me, she was a mom, a grandmother, a teacher, a writer. Unlike me (an adoptive parent), she was an adopted person, denied her original birth certificate and her medical history. Had she had access to her medical history, perhaps we would not be grieving today. That, to me, is a sobering reality.

She wrote a wonderful blog, Nanadays.blogpost,com. She wrote about her beloved family, two children and 6 grandchildren. She wrote about finding her two sisters just last September. She wrote about the basic human right all people should have to their own birth certificates. She testified about the adoptee birthright bill in New Jersey, writing about it in her blog: “Every adopted child is worthy of truth and respect, and, as an adult, should certainly be entitled to equal treatment under the law.” She was a vital voice with Lost Daughters, who called her “our friend, our colleague, and, most importantly of all, our sister.” She was involved with the New Jersey Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education (NJCARE), and with the Adoptee Rights Coalition. So many people will miss her.

In recent weeks, Susan’s daughter wrote on her blog, expressing eloquently the vibrancy and depth with which her mother lived her life. I wrote about Susan last October, in my post Information and Access: An American Civil Right Denied. I send my condolences to Susan’s family. She will be missed, and many of us will carry on her legacy to provide basic civil rights to adopted people.

AAI, Hana Williams’ Agency, Is Out of Business: Now What?

Posted on March 12, 2014 by Maureen McCauley

2014 has been a rough ride for international adoption agencies: Celebrate Children International was the subject of a 48 Hours investigation, and International Adoption Guides is under indictment. The so-called Children in Families First legislation is under siege and appears to be foundering. And now Adoption Advocates International is closing. What other signs are needed to convince agencies and agency-affiliates that they need to change the way they are doing business?

On March 7, Adoption Advocates International, the Washington state adoption agency used by Larry and Carri Williams to adopt Hana and Immanuel Williams, announced it was closing its Ethiopian adoption program. Today, March 12, it appears they are closing their doors completely.

An article about AAI’s closing was printed here, in today’s Peninsula Daily News.

Many people are happy that AAI is closing, given AAI’s role in the placement of Hana Alemu and Immanuel Williams. As always in complex situations, though, there are other elements to consider. Many families in the process of adopting through AAI, not just from Ethiopia but from Burkina Faso, China, and perhaps elsewhere, are now in a difficult emotional and financial position. AAI has placed some 4500 adoptees over the last 3 decades whose records must be (I hope) kept available for them, somewhere. There are now children who will not be adopted, who perhaps legitimately needed new, safe, loving families. There are first/original parents, always the most marginalized in adoption, who may not be able to access information about their children.

Interestingly, AAI is a Hague-accredited agency, certified by the Council on Accreditation through April 2016. That COA accreditation is intended to be a high standard that signifies an agency is in excellent financial and programmatic health.

Christian World Adoptions, a South Carolina adoption agency, suddenly closed its doors and declared bankruptcy early in 2013. It was also a COA/Hague certified agency, right to the end. It startles me that 2 COA-accredited agencies within about a year can suddenly just close. What went horribly wrong in their financial status that COA totally missed?

According to the COA website:

Hague management standards apply to all adoption service providers regardless of the type of provider or services provided. These management standards promote accountability and include:

Licensing and Corporate Governance
Financial and Risk Management
Ethical Practices and Responsibilities
Professional Qualifications and Training of Employees
Information Disclosure, Fee Practices, and Quality Control
Responding to Complaints and Records and Reports Management
Service Planning and Delivery

When 2 COA-accredited international adoption agencies abruptly close within about one year of each other, many questions are raised about COA accreditation. Certainly it casts a shadow on the strength and value of the accreditation process for other currently accredited adoption agencies.

According to page 36 of COA’s 92 page Policies and Procedures Manual-Hague, when an agency closes, it has to provide to COA the following: a listing of all Hague adoption service(s), the closing date, detailed description of reasons for the decision, and the transition and referral plan for consumers.

In this case, I am guessing that “consumers” are the prospective adoptive parents: the paying customers. I’d like to think that COA would also demand information about the plans and needs of all the children (some of who are surely adults now) who were adopted through AAI, and even of the first/original parents.

Ethiopian adoptions have been problematic for a while, for many reasons: increased awareness of fraud and corruption, implementation of new procedures, increased costs due to labor/time of ensuring the accuracy about why children become available for adoption, and more. There have been far fewer adoptions from Ethiopia in recent years, and there is increasingly great concern in Ethiopia about the outcomes of adopted children. The majority, of course, do fine, but the reality of Hana and Immanuel weighs heavily on many minds around the globe.That’s true for other Ethiopian adoptees. Kathryn Joyce’s Slate article, Hana Williams: The Tragic Death of an Ethiopian Adoptee, And How It Could Happen Again, describes other placements by AAI, and how these Ethiopian adoptees are greatly struggling.

The recent death of Korean adoptee Hyunsu O’Callaghan surely makes all of us–adoption agencies, adoptees, adoptive parents, first/original parents–pause and reflect with sorrow as well. What now?

Indeed, it’s hard to cheer about AAI’s closing. So many doors are still left open for vulnerable families and children around the world.

This could be an incredible opportunity for adoption agencies and adoption agency-related organizations (Joint Council on international Children’s Services, National Council For Adoption, Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, for example) to reach out to those who’ve been too often excluded from adoption policy discussions: adult adoptees (yes, including those whom agencies have written off as angry and rude), international first/original parents (to whom adoption agencies have a deep, ethical obligation), and even adoptive parents who disagree with them. We all want children to be in safe, loving homes. We all agree that if adoption is a viable option, it must be transparent, and all involved must be held accountable. Some are happy to see adoption agencies close, and most of us also know that the closures don’t mean that vulnerable children are now safe and cared for.

It’s time to have some really hard conversations, and not simply because adoption agencies are closing. It’s because all voices are needed if we are going to see viable, positive change in adoption policy. Pay attention, adoption agencies and coalitions: the changes are happening now, due to the adopted adults and first parents who are stepping up, speaking out, and creating overdue change.

Adoption and Tragedy: Requiem for Hyunsu

Posted on February 23, 2014 by Maureen McCauley

A child died recently, a 3-year-old boy, adopted last October from Korea. His adoptive father has been arrested for the murder. (Read more here: Washington Post) It is a tragedy, and it is an adoption issue. His name (because names matter): Madoc Hyunsu (also spelled Hyeonsu) O’Callaghan.

As an adoptive mother, my heart aches for Hyunsu. I think about his first mother, his Korean family. There have been powerful vigils held in Seoul, led by adult adoptees and others, bringing all kinds of people together for reflection and prayer about the loss of this little boy.

Via Jane Jeong Trenka www.adoptionjustice.com

Via Jane Jeong Trenka
http://www.adoptionjustice.com

There is much powerful information here at Truth and Reconciliation for the Adoption Community of Korea.

There is a Facebook page In Remembrance of Hyeonsu. There is a virtual vigil taking place today, hosted by Adoption Links of DC. So many people, around the globe, are embracing this child.

An adult adoptee from China wrote an insightful, eloquent post on the great blog Red Thread Broken: “Honoring the Life and Death of Hyunsu O’Callaghan.” It’s so important to hear the perspectives of adult adoptees, especially perhaps around the death of an adopted child; their insight cuts close to the bone.

Here’s an excerpt from Red Thread Broken:

“Whenever there is an outpouring of outspoken voices in the adoptee community, dismissive comments from observers are sure to follow. These are some of the common thoughts that seem to be in question:

“Doesn’t it make you glad you didn’t get up in a home like that one?” – No, it doesn’t make me glad or extra grateful. Because my family came together in an alternative way, I shouldn’t have to feel appreciative my parents didn’t murder me. It should be my right, not a privilege to be in a safe home.
“Biological parents abuse/neglect/murder their kids, too.” – That’s a correct statement, but that fact shouldn’t allow us to ignore the severity of the same problems in adoptive homes.
“Adoptive homes actually have a staggeringly low rate of abuse … I mean crazy low…when compared to biological families.” – There is actually a long history of abuse and filicide in adoptee’s homes. However low you claim statistics to be, no child should be subject to abuse in their home. The fact that it’s happening at all means that it’s an issue.
“This is NOT an adoption issue.” – Hyunsu had no agency in what happened to him. He was placed for adoption in Korea. The agency matched Hyunsu with the O’Callaghan’s. Adoptive parent screening and home studies are not extensive enough. Adoption is what placed him in the hands of a murderer. This is most definitely an adoption issue.

It’s sickening to me that when a tragedy like this ensues and explicitly shows the brokenness of the international adoption system, people continue arguing the ways in which adoption is a miracle, a blessing, a glorious, romantic practice when it obviously had deadly consequences for this boy. It seems that many would rather spend their time justifying the adoption system and their way of parenthood than acknowledging the atrocities that could allow us to move forward with real reform to the system. A child who “loved his dogs, his big brother Aidan, and anything his parents made for him to eat” is dead because of the defective international adoption system. “He wasn’t dealt the simplest hand in life, but he found something to love in it every day,” the obituary said. Hyunsu’s short life should be honored, and sticking to the status quo by promoting an idealized culture around adoption certainly won’t do that.”

I added the bold to the words above.

My friend and fellow adoptive parent Margie Perscheid wrote this important and provocative post about why Hyunsu’s death is an adoption issue. There’s often a tendency in the adoption community to see these adoptee deaths as tragic and isolated, not linked with adoption. Margie explains, with compassion and fire, why Hyunsu’s death, and those of other adoptees, is indeed “an adoption issue.”

Hyunsu joins Ethiopian adoptee Hana Alemu, and too many others. May they rest in peace. May we not rest in the light of these tragedies. They are painful to think about, and it’s so tempting to pause, shake our heads, and then sweep the tragic event away. May justice be served. May we face terrible truths without fear, and work for genuine change, especially for vulnerable children.

Here are two of my posts about the changes needed: Reflections on Hana: Acknowledging the Failure of the Adoption Community, and It’s Time to Oppose CHIFF.

Update on Hana’s Legacy, “Hana’s Law”

Posted on February 14, 2014 by Maureen McCauley

So many people around the world keep Hana Alemu (Williams) in their hearts. Many of us have also hoped for a positive legacy, something good that might come from the tragedy of her suffering and death. To its credit, Washington state has been working to improve pre-adoption standards and post-adoption resources in light of Hana and other adopted children.

In 2012, the Washington state Office of Family and Children’s Ombudsman produced this sobering document: “Severe Abuse of Adopted Children Committee Report.” It contained many excellent recommendations to strengthen adoption policy, for private, foster care, and international adoptions. Yes, I know for some folks it’s not enough. Still, it’s progress, and other states would do well to look at it as a guideline.

Some of the recommendations require legislative action in the state. Last year, HB 1675 was introduced, and passed the Washington State House by a vote of 90-7. The bill went to the Senate and died there, unfortunately. I wrote about the bill and more here “In Remembrance of Hana.”

This past Tuesday, (February 11, 2014) HB 1675 was again considered by the House, and was amended slightly. It passed the House by a vote of 98-0. That is very good news.

For the most current version of the bill, click here: HB 1675 as passed by the House.

There are few especially significant parts to the bill.

In terms of pre-adoption training, here are standards for persons preparing pre-placement reports (home studies):

In addition to meeting education and experience requirements, all such persons must receive at least thirty hours of training every two years, either in-person or online, on issues relative to adoption including, but not limited to:

Pertinent laws and regulations; ethical considerations; cultural diversity; factors that lead to the need for adoption; feelings of separation, grief, and loss experienced by children; attachment and posttraumatic stress disorder; and psychological issues faced by children.

While I have no insider information, I can’t help but think of Immanuel Williams (Hana’s adoptive brother) and his diagnosis of PTSD, and wonder if the legislators didn’t have that in mind as they crafted the language. I also credit them with insisting that home study preparers be knowledgeable about all of the factors above.

Another significant new requirement is this section:

The report shall be based on a study which shall include an investigation of the home environment, family life, existence of extended family and community connections to serve as support, planned approach to child discipline and punishment, health, facilities, and resources of the person requesting the report.

What stands out to me here is that the home study shall investigate and include information on “the existence of extended family and community connections to serve as support,” something that seemed not have happened in the case of Hana and Immanuel. We will all wonder if these children might have fared differently had the Williams’ family reached out and embraced the Ethiopian community as a resource. (See my post Hana’s Legacy for further information.)

Another significant part of this legislation is this language:

On all preplacement reports filed after January 1, 2015, the preparer shall verify that the prospective adoptive parents were provided with: (a) Copies of Washington state child abuse statutes and (b) the list of informational and resource materials developed and posted pursuant to section 7 of this act.

Washington state law allows spanking and other disciplinary techniques that don’t leave a mark. If this legislation passes, prospective adoptive parents will have to be specifically provided with that information. Larry and Carri Williams significantly violated the law, even before Hana died. Perhaps this new requirement will help more children to not be abused, especially in the guise of parental “discipline.”

Section 7 of the bill is a new provision that requires the Washington state Ombudsman for Children and Families to convene a work group every two years that compiles a list of “informational and resource materials that must be provided to prospective adoptive parents.” Included on the list must be information such as child abuse statutes and rules in the state; availability of mental health services; training and educational opportunities for parents in general and adoptive parents in particular; respite services; ethnic and cultural organizations; and information, services, and outreach opportunities available to adopted children.

That is a big deal: requiring a state to provide much-needed, current, and useful information and resources for adoptive families.

By December 31, 2014, if the bill passes as it is currently written, the list will be posted on the Washington Office of Family and Children’s Ombudsman’s site and disseminated to agencies and others.

I see this legislation as a legacy of Hana. There are some folks, especially those who have kept her story alive and honored on her Facebook page, who would like to see the legislation called “Hana’s Law.” My understanding is that legislators see this law as having a wider focus, covering other children as well. In any case, the unanimous passage of HB 1675 is a positive development. Here’s hoping it moves quickly and successfully on the Senate side.

Hana Alemu (Williams)

My Thoughts on “The Perilous Journey”

Posted on January 19, 2014 by Maureen McCauley

The CBS show “48 Hours” last night focused on a small Florida adoption agency, Celebrate Children International (CCI), and two adoptions that the agency handled (mishandled) in Guatemala and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Click on Perilous Journey to watch the show. (I’m not sure the link will work outside the US.)

There is so much I could say about The Perilous Journey. I’m going to make a few points, and hope that discussions will continue.

CCI, the Hague Convention, and the Universal Accreditation Act

CCI, the agency under the spotlight on “48 Hours” will likely be out of business soon, though not because of this show. In July 2014, all US adoption agencies must comply with the Universal Accreditation Act, in order to facilitate international adoptions.

There is a global treaty called The Hague Convention on International Adoptions. The US signed (in 1994) and ratified it (in 2007). The intent is to protect the rights and responsibilities of everyone involved in an adoption: birth/first parents, adoptive parents, and adoptees. The Convention is not without its critics.

To work in countries that have ratified the Hague Convention (such as China), adoption agencies have to become “Hague-accredited,” or approved, a lengthy process overseen here in the US by the Council on Accreditation. Not all agencies have chosen to become accredited. Non-accredited agencies could still work in countries that had not ratified the Hague Convention.

The UAA requires them to become accredited or approved, whether they work in countries that have signed/ratified the Hague Convention or not. Ethiopia, for example, has neither signed nor ratified the Hague Convention; the Republic of Korea has signed but not ratified. You can see a list of current Hague Convention countries here.

Before the UAA, agencies like CCI which were not accredited under the Hague Convention could work in countries that had not ratified the Hague Convention. That would include Ethiopia, Congo, and Nepal, for example. Once the UAA is implemented, all agencies must be accredited or approved under the Hague Convention no matter what countries they are placing children from.

Right now, CCI can work in Congo and Ethiopia, as shown in the “48 Hours” show, but not in China. CCI was denied Hague accreditation in 2008 and in 2012. See the list of agencies (including CCI) denied Hague accreditation here. I cannot imagine that CCI will receive approval under the Universal Accreditation Act.

The UAA is a big deal, with huge ramifications for the future of intercountry adoption. Will it solve all problems? No. Will there be fewer adoption agencies working in international adoption? Yes. Will fewer children be adopted internationally? Yes, at least initially.

Will hundreds of thousands of children around the globe still be in need of safe and loving families? Yes.

Will the damage already done by fraud and corruption in international adoption be changed by the new law? Not at all. Whether the fraud and corruption was done by the adoption agency, by the agency’s staff in-country, by the original family, by child traffickers in the shadows, by the adoptive family: it is damage that can perhaps be mitigated but not erased.

I am no lawyer, and my discussion above barely skims the surface of international adoption complexity. Anyone looking to adopt needs to be aware of the UAA, and talk with their adoption agency about it. The US State Department’s information about the UAA is available here.

Here is an Orlando Sentinel article about CCI.

Additional Thoughts on The Perilous Journey

The fact that “48 Hours” focused an investigation on one agency is due to the approach of “48 Hours,” not because only one adoption agency is problematic. The complex problems remain, and many do not have the drama, thumping music, and races to the airport of last night’s show.

May we keep our eyes, minds, and hearts open to improving the international adoption process.

Watching the little girls traveling from Congo to Kentucky, thinking about the fact that their world has changed in astonishing ways, I was reminded of my twin daughters’ arrival from Ethiopia to Maryland in 1994, at 6 years old. We (their adoptive parents and brothers) had waited so long, planned so much, and had so many frustrating ups and downs along the process.

Over time, it dawned on me what the journey meant to them: trauma. One day you are a small child in a familiar world. The next day you are a small child in a different galaxy, where people look totally different, want to hug you lots, don’t speak your language, and have an abundance of material wealth (toys, clean bed linens, space, food, so much of everything). I am in awe of what we expected from the girls, and of their resilience. We’ve dealt with joy, love, grief, denial, loss, laughter, sorrow, and healing, all of us, and we continue to do so.

May the reality of a child’s trauma in moving from one country to another–even as it may be “better” for the child–not be minimized. May we adoptive parents in our joy not lose track of what our children have left behind, both bad and good.

No adult adoptee voice was featured in this show, with the exception of the reporter Maureen Maher, a US adoptee.

May the voices of adult international adoptees and first/original families be fully included in conversations (including TV and radio shows) about international adoption.

I smiled seeing Mrs. Owen using her flat-iron on her hair as she commented on the adoption process. She will now be caring for two daughters whose hair is different from hers. Hair and skin care is not a trivial subject in transracial and international adoption. It is a complex, emotional issue of beauty, identity, and culture.

May we all look to understand what beauty means and involves, outside of our own perspective.

Shows like “48 Hours” evoke a lot of emotional responses, and exist forever on-line and in people’s minds. I always wonder about the privacy of the children. They deserve a voice, especially in cases of fraud, corruption, and trafficking. They also deserve privacy and respect. I acknowledge that I am playing a part in spreading these children’s stories by my post here. I am always seeking balance, and it’s not easy.

May we find a proper balance between meeting children’s needs and exploiting them. May we take seriously the information we share, and recognize the ramifications.

Seeing Fernanda with her mother and siblings, seeing Betsy Emanuel’s conflicting emotions–that was hugely powerful on last night’s show. So much to think about.

There are no quick fixes in international adoption, no magic wands. The economic imbalances between adoptive parents and original parents loom so large to me.

May we keep working together, even as we hear and see what we wish would go away. May all children have safe and loving families.

My July 2013 post “Reflections on Hana: Acknowledging the Failure of the Adoption Community,” may be of interest.

May all of us involved in the adoption community take responsibility, and work together, to help vulnerable children (who grow up!) and families in respectful, ethical, transparent ways.

Ethiopian Birth Mothers After Relinquishment: MSW Research from Addis Ababa University

Posted on January 17, 2014 by Maureen McCauley

Adoption agency staff and social workers, prospective and current adoptive parents of Ethiopian children: Nothing should shock you in this research. It may break your heart a bit. I hope it will bring us closer to meeting the realities of Ethiopian birth mothers, and birth families.

Written as a thesis by Kalkidan Alelign, an Ethiopian graduate student for a Master’s Degree in Social Work at Addis Ababa University, “Birth Mothers’ Experience After Relinquishment” is an anomaly of sorts. It appears to be one of only two academic papers that look at what happens to Ethiopian birth mothers after they place their children. I’ll discuss the other in my next post on this subject. My thanks to Themia Sica for first posting the link in a Facebook adoptive parent group. Kalkidan is now vice president of Ethiopian Adoption Connection, also known as Betesab Felega. They do remarkable, valuable work reuniting Ethiopian adoptees and their families.

To say there is a need to provide post-adoption counseling to Ethiopian birth mothers is a laughable understatement. Agencies: are you listening, especially if you are looking at moving to new countries to place children? Please do not abandon the first families.

The writer of the thesis, Kalkidan Alelign, defines adoption as the separation of mothers and their children as a result of relinquishment.

The thesis itself is typical in that half of it is the question/objective, the literature review, and the research method. It’s around Chapter 4, “Findings,” that the objective academic language delves into the lives of 5 birth mothers: Fikirte, Hayat, Hewan, Nina, and Selam. The names are not real. The emotions are.

Admittedly, it’s a small sample. The author calls it qualitative research, and my sense is that it is likely quite representative of many birth mothers in Ethiopia.

Of the mothers interviewed for this thesis, 3 are single, and 2 are widows. They range in age from 25 to 30. Two are Muslim, 3 are Orthodox Christian. Their education ranges from “none” to a diploma. The interviews took place a year after relinquishment for 2 of the mothers, 3 years after for 2 mothers, and 5 years after for 1 mother.

I’ll give an overview here, and I encourage you to read the thesis for yourself.

Why did the mothers relinquish?

Money problems (usually temporary)

Social pressure (stigma, children born to unwed parents)

The mother’s HIV status (fear of dying and wanting to have a plan for the child/ren)

Lack of social support (the father of the child didn’t want the child; no friends or relatives to help with a baby)

The above reasons are not surprising. But what about this one?

Disinformation (expecting to maintain contact in some way)

Hewan, a 30-year-old widow with no education, said “she was willing to relinquish because she was told she would be receiving information about her children…However, it had been about five years and she still never heard about her children. Nina and Selam had to wait three years before they heard about their children.”

Hewan, Nina, and Selam also “never had the chance to say good-bye to their children.”

Read that sentence again, and then look at your children.

“All participants indicated that relinquishing their children was ‘the most difficult experience’ of all.”

Nina said of her last day with her child: “I could not sleep. I was holding him and staring at him all night long…I was telling him not to be scared and that he would grow up being a good man. Even though he was only four days old, he was looking straight into my eyes and it felt like he was searching for my soul.”

What were the feelings of the mothers after they relinquished their children?

Realizing the Loss (Nina: “After I gave my child to the orphanage I went home. There the first thing I did was take a shower, then it hit me. I just lost my baby and here I was being comfortable. I cried for a long time every day.”)

Anger (“After they relinquished their children, it was challenging for them to be back in the environment in which their children were lost from…They were also crying a lot and were angry almost every day.”)

Regrets (“Selam and Hewan regretted their decision in relation to what their expectation was and what the reality is. They state they were told by the delala (the broker) that they will have frequent contact with their children or with the adoptive parents…Hewan said: ‘If I knew that there would be no contact, that I would end up wondering about my children every day, that the pain does not go away…if only I knew then what I know now, I wouldn’t have relinquished my children.'”

Two of the birth mothers do not regret their decision. Hayat and Fikirte…have met the adoptive parents. Both have some sort of contact with their children, one through the adoption agency and one via telephone and email. Fikirte says ‘The meeting and the pictures assured me that my daughter is well taken care of. She has grown up and is living a life that I am sure she wouldn’t be having if she was with me.'”)

Blame (Two mothers blamed themselves “for not being mother enough to endure the challenges they once faced.” Others blamed the father, or family, for “not caring enough or for not understanding their pain.”)

Grief (“All participants stated that they grieved for their children every day. They also stated that though they grieve every day, some days are more painful than others.”)

Fear (“Nina and Hewan imagined everything that may go wrong in their children’s lives. They also wondered if their children understood why they relinquished them. They wonder if their children would accept them as their mothers when and if they meet them in the future.”)

Further, those who have children after placing a child for adoption feel overprotective, For Hewan, “It is her fear that she would lose him (the child she kept) too and ‘end up alone.'”)

The mothers also talked about circumstances that evoked or worsened their experience, such as “holidays, birthdays, and any other days that are celebrated in each family…On such days they either wish for their children to be part of the celebration or blame those who are celebrating it for doing it in the absence of their children.” Other triggers were “visiting a mother who gave birth, watching a mother with her son in public, watching young couples walk hand in hand, and watching a mother begging for alms with her children.”

Another trigger is lack of contact. Hewan said “having no contact with her children or the adoptive parents has made her loss ‘unbearable.’…She further stated that all the negative news that she heard about adoption in different media affected her, including her will to live.”

What are some of their coping mechanisms?

Acceptance (“Fikirte said, ‘When I finish my daily work, I sit for a long time and look at her (daughter’s photo) album or the framed picture of her in my room. I feel mixed feelings of happiness and sadness.'”)

Talking (“All participants reported that talking about their feelings and getting support from friends makes a lot of difference in their experience of relinquishment…(W)hen they share their experience, they feel like a weight is lifted off their shoulders…”)

Helping Others (Nina said, “When I see mothers in trouble or youngsters in the street I would go and talk to them to show them that somebody cares. Because I feel if somebody had cared enough I wouldn’t be in this position. Everything I feel I have missed or should have been done for me, I do it for others.”)

Concealing feelings (“All participants reported that they prefer not to talk about their feelings whenever they feel that they are judged or when they feel people would not understand them.”)

Withdrawing (“…the participants stated that the response from the community regarding their decision and how they should live their life after (the relinquishment) makes them question their desire to be part of the society.”)

Spirituality (“All of the participants stated that their faith has a major contribution in helping them accept what happened in their life.”)

I have met and embraced my daughters’ Ethiopian mother. My heart aches for her and for these mothers, recognizing that we can, and must, provide better, humane, and helpful services to them, the women who have placed their children in the hands of others. Regardless of whether adoption declines or continues, there is an obligation to not forget these mothers and families.

While this thesis is difficult to read, I am grateful for it. Ms. Alelign, the thesis author, recommends the following, in terms of social work practice:

Counseling, to make sure that birth mothers fully understand what relinquishment means and can make genuinely informed decisions. “Counseling services should also be provided to help birth mothers deal with what they experience after relinquishing.”

Advocacy, “for better awareness of the community about birth mothers…because a positive response from the community can have an impact in minimizing the challenges they face while trying to play their role in society.” Advocacy is also important regarding “awareness as to how significant it is for the birth mothers to have contact with the adoptive parents or their children.”

Networking, because “Creating a psychosocial support group for birth mothers is also very important at this level since there are no support groups or organizations that help birth mothers.”

We must see their faces and hear their voices when adoption policy is discussed.

We must listen to them, and we must tell their stories.

Thoughts on “Ending Ethiopian Adoptions?”

Posted on January 16, 2014 by Maureen McCauley

As Ethiopia considers revamping (possibly ending) adoptions, it becomes so important to listen to Ethiopians–government officials, adoptees, original family members, Ethiopians in the diaspora, social workers, academics, and on. Listen, discern, and learn.

I wrote recently about the December 26 article on allafrica.com that Ethiopia is considering changing or ending international adoption. The article is titled “Ethiopia: Stakeholders, Public Has to End Foreign Adoption.” Click to read it here. The article quotes House of People’s Representatives Speaker Abadula Gemeda and Zenebu Tadesse, the Minister of Women, Children’s and Youth Affairs (MOWCYA), which handles adoptions from Ethiopia.

(You can follow the Minister on Twitter: @ZenebuTadesse)

The Minister is quoted in the allafrica.com story cited above. Here is an excerpt:

“The Minister Zenebu on her part said the government is working hard to end foreign adoption and facilitate situations to raise the children within their community.

Over 9,000 children were adopted by foreign families during the previous years, in a yearly basis, she said.

Through various activities carried out over the past years, number of children adopted by foreign families reduced to less than 1,000 in 2005EC. (Note from Maureen: 2005 in the Ethiopian Calendar is 2012 in the Gregorian calendar. Information about the Ethiopian versus Gregorian calendar is available here.)

She attributed the success to implementation of various laws and increasing knowledge of the public.”

Note that Minister Zenebu is quoted as saying that the decrease in numbers of children being internationally adopted is success. The international adoption community, adoption agencies, adoptees, first families, Ethiopians, and adoptive parents might all have different definitions of success, some agreeing wholeheartedly with the Minister, some not.

We all agree on the goal of children having safe, loving families. After that, the arguments become increasingly complex, nuanced, and volatile.

I have no particular insider information. I’m aware US adoption agencies are suggesting that families look to other countries to adopt, or are accepting applications only for older, special needs Ethiopian children. Adoptions currently in the pipeline are moving slowly. I have heard that this week there is to be or has been a public meeting, possibly broadcast on radio, and perhaps a TV broadcast as well, in Ethiopia, featuring government officials and agency representatives. This meeting could be a follow-up to the December 26 article cited above. I will post as soon as I have definitive information.

Maybe Ethiopia is considering acting on the Hague Convention on Adoption, to which it is not yet a party. You can read the US State Department’s information on adoption from Ethiopia as a non-Hague country here.

Maybe Ethiopia has heard too many reports about internationally adopted Ethiopian children who have been abused or worse. Obviously they are aware of the role of money in adoption: both the revenue that has been brought into Ethiopia as a result of international adoptions, as well as the possibilities and realities of corruption and corruption. I’ve no doubts they are also aware of the many and wonderful humanitarian projects that adoptive families are committed to, in the areas of health care, infant mortality, clean water, education, literacy, and more. They are also aware of the complexity of adoptees and adoptive families searching for, reuniting with, and providing financial support to original families and/or the community.

A significant report, “Investing in Boys and Girls in Ethiopia: Past, Present, and Future,” came out in 2012. It was prepared by the Ethiopian Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and the United Nations in Ethiopia. In the Foreward–co-written by Zenebu Tadesse of MOWCYA, the ministry closely involved with adoptions–is this paragraph:

“In the coming months new information on progress for girls and boys over the last five years will become available as the result of a number of nationwide surveys become available. The Government of Ethiopia therefore intends to revisit this important topic in 2013 at the half way point of the GTP implementation giving another opportunity to look at the issues in these pages and others as new information on progress becomes available. We therefore encourage interested parties to read this report carefully, to think about the suggested action points and to propose alternative or new actions to update this analysis together with our ministries in 2013.”

I’d urge all those interested to read this UN-Ethiopia report on Investing in Boys and Girls in Ethiopia. The information is important. It may give some insight into the perspective of the Ethiopian government, and approaches to family preservation and child welfare, all of which intersect with Ethiopian adoptions.

My dream would be to see Ethiopian adult adoptees from around the globe at a common table with Ethiopian government officials, to share their experiences. Alongside them would be Ethiopian first families, and Ethiopian social workers. There is movement toward that dream becoming a reality, and I am heartened by that.

May all voices be generously listened to, and may all children be loved and safe.

The Wrenching Complexity of Money in Ethiopian Adoption: Part One

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Maureen McCauley

$63 million. A lot of money, right?

Hold that thought.

News has emerged from Ethiopia about some government officials calling for an end to adoption. (You can read my posts about it here and here.)

Adoption numbers from Ethiopia have declined in recent years, from 284 children adopted to the US in 2004, to a high of 2,511 in 2010, down to 1,567 in 2012. The number will likely be even lower for 2013.

About numbers: they are so important, and so difficult to fully understand. So easily manipulated.

For example, we hear a lot about Ethiopian orphans needing families. UNICEF has estimated that some 4.6 million children in Ethiopia have “lost one or both parents due to all causes.” The cause could be death, desertion, disappearance, remarriage–any cause.

UNICEF estimates further that, in Ethiopia, there are 670,000 children who have had both parents die due to any cause. You can see the UNICEF chart here. I am not minimizing the needs and heartache of any child, but there are not 5 million orphans in Ethiopia. That’s a UNICEF statistic, often used (though not by UNICEF) to justify international adoption. even the 670,000 figure does not mean that the child does not have a living, loving parent, or an extended family of some sort able to help raise the child.

Nonetheless, there are hundreds of thousands of Ethiopian children growing up in desperate straits. For a tiny percentage, international adoption may have been/may be appropriate and right. Here’s the math. Let’s say 670,000 children were potential candidates for adoption. Last year, 1567 children were adopted to the US. That’s 0.23% of the 670,000 children who are estimated to be orphans.

Yes. Twenty three hundredths of one percent.

What was the money involved in those adoptions? Let’s say $40,000 in adoption agency fees and adoption expenses, for 1,567 adoptions. That means $62,680,000. Roughly $63 million.

63 Million Dollars for the adoption of 1,567 Ethiopian children by US citizens. Last year alone.

That, to me, is a jaw-dropping amount of money.

The money went primarily to adoption agencies. Some went for fees and expenses in Ethiopia. The money did not go substantively to helping fewer children need adoption. It did not go, for one example, toward post-adoption resources and counseling for first parents.

That sum does not necessarily include money that was spent by adoptive parents for expenses in country, and thus into the Ethiopian economy: translators, drivers, guest houses, food, taxis, tour guides, souvenirs. I have no doubts that amount is in the millions as well.

And, of course, many of the families that adopted from Ethiopia applied for and received the US government-funded adoption tax credit: probably millions of dollars there also, given the 14,000 Ethiopian to US adoptions that have taken place since 1999. Many of the expenses above (travel, meals, hotels) were reimbursed by the US government to adoptive parents. (My views about the adoption tax credit are here.)

I am struggling greatly with the amount of money that is associated with Ethiopian adoption, and how it is used. It’s a hugely complex, emotional, and challenging topic. I will be writing a Part Two (maybe Three) soon, so please don’t think I’ve covered even a small part of this heartbreaking, complicated issue.

Here are a few thoughts, and each one needs far more discussion:

Surely we can do better to help children and families in need.

Adoption is supposed to find families for children, not children for families.

Huge cultural gaps exist between the western understanding of the permanence of adoption versus the Ethiopian understanding of the nature of adoption. By western, I mean the US, Canada, and western Europe, the main so-called “receiving” places of Ethiopian children. I don’t include Australia because they ended adoptions from Ethiopia in June 2013. You can read a recent article about that decision here.

International adoption is not the answer to poverty. Poverty in itself should not be a reason for adoption.

“Ending adoption” does not equate to “children in need will now have loving, safe families.”

“International adoption” does not equate to “trafficking,” except when it does, which has been much too often.

“International adoption” does not equate to “abuse/death of children,” except when it does, and one time is too many.

I recognize that it’s a lot more appealing (from a marketing and/or fundraising perspective) to adopt a child than to financially assist an Ethiopian family preservation organization.

Family preservation services exist, and they deserve and need our assistance. In Uganda, a great model is ReuniteUganda. Three examples for family preservation in Ethiopia are AHope for Ethiopia, Selamta and Bring Love In.

Many adoptive families are involved in incredibly beneficial programs in Ethiopia that are preventing or have the potential to prevent children from needing adoption: clean water, literacy, schools, HIV meds, tuition for midwives, micro loans, and more. I doubt that many of these programs and the help they provide would exist if it were not for children having been adopted from Ethiopia.

Adult Ethiopian adoptees all around the world can (and I would argue, ought to) play a pivotal role in the determination of next steps in Ethiopian adoption policy. They can tell their stories in a most powerful way, about what they have lost and what they have gained.

Ethiopian first/birth families deserve to be heard, and have a place at the table in these and all discussions about Ethiopian adoption policy.

$63 million in 2013. What is possible in the (western) new year of 2014?

Kathryn Joyce: Aftermath of Hana Williams’ Death, and of Ethiopian Adoptions

Posted on November 11, 2013 by Maureen McCauley

During the course of the 7 week trial of Larry and Carri Williams in Skagit County, Washington, I had the pleasure of meeting and spending time with Kathryn Joyce, the author of The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption. Having worked years ago with international adoption agencies, I knew some of the people mentioned in the book, and was familiar with some of the issues raised. Kathryn is a thoughtful, intelligent, warm person, and a talented, insightful writer.

She covered the trial of the parents of Ethiopian adoptees Hana Alemu and Immanuel Williams, and talked with many members of the Ethiopian community as well, including adoptees. She has written a powerful, challenging piece published today on Slate. Click on the title to read it: Hana’s Story: An adoptee’s tragic fate, and how it could happen again.

The article discusses Hana’s life and death, and the subsequent trial of Larry and Carri Williams, now serving long sentences in jail. It also tells the stories of several other Ethiopian adoptees, placed primarily by Adoption Advocates International, the same adoption agency that the Williamses used. These now-young adults were adopted into very large, Christian fundamentalist families, and many were subjected to the same treatment as Hana and her adopted brother Immanuel. Some of these Ethiopian adoptees have been thrown out of their families, have struggled mightily fitting into American society, and are now desperately alone, far from the land of their birth.

As an adoptive parent of twin Ethiopian daughters, I read the story of the Ethiopian adoptees with a heavy heart. I’ve expressed my concerns about adoption practices related to Hana and Immanuel in several posts, such as Case Study, Part 1: The Williamses’ Adoption Agency, and Case Study, Part 2.

While Hana’s death was an extreme example of what can go tragically wrong in adoption, we cannot dismiss it as “isolated” and turn our eyes. We need to reflect very seriously on how to make things better for adopted children. The children (we hope) grow up to be adults. They continue to need services and support, especially if the placements were not appropriate for them and they have been exiled from their adoptive families–and now cannot return to their homeland either.

I encourage you to read The Child Catchers, and to read Kathryn’s article on Slate. Yes, it’s tough reading, and the temptation is to shake our heads, to throw up our hands. But that’s not enough.