Tag Archives: birth/first parents

Adoptee Remembrance Day 2025

Posted on by
Reply

Today is Adoptee Remembrance Day, designed to honor and remember adoptees who have died, who have been deported, who are survivors of the Troubled Teen Industry, who are incarcerated, who have been abandoned after being adopted, and those dealing with mental illness and/or substance abuse. We honor and remember all the forms of loss in the adoption community.

My post today is drawn essentially from my 2024 post about Adoptee Remembrance Day. The reasons for the day remain the same, and I am grateful for all those, especially adopted people, who promote awareness and the need for this day.

In the words of Pamela Karanova, the U.S. adoptee who founded Adoptee Remembrance Day, “While our primary goal is to uplift the legacy of those who are no longer with us, we also seek to share the truth of how adoption has impacted each of us. October 30th is our day of truth, transparency, and remembrance—a day for adoptees around the world to come together and be seen.”

What can you do to observe this day? There are many wonderful suggestions here. I’ve drawn some ideas below from the Adoptee Remembrance page. Please consider these actions, and share them with others.

  • Pause for a moment of silence for adoptees who have died.
  • Donate to help Mike Davis, who was adopted by a U.S. Army officer and was deported to Ethiopia in 2005. He has never met his grandchildren, and hasn’t been his wife and children for many years.

Twelve years ago yesterday, the parents of Ethiopian adoptee Hanna Williams were sentenced to lengthy jail terms for Hanna’s death. So many of keep Hanna in our hearts.

Adoptee Remembrance Day is “a beacon of awareness, remembrance, and solidarity.” Deep gratitude to those who work tirelessly to help and support adopted people around the globe.

Research on Ethiopian Adoption: An Informal 9-Page List

Posted on by
6

If you’ve ever wondered about research on Ethiopian adoptions, here is my informal, incomplete, unannotated list of academic theses, sociology and law journal articles, books, and reports. Much of the research here, though certainly not all, has been done by Ethiopian scholars.

I am especially interested in research on Ethiopian birth parents. I’ve included in my list the few theses and articles I am aware of, and would welcome more.

For years, and as recently as yesterday, I have railed about the astonishing lack of adoption services to international birth parents. Ethiopian Adoption Connection/Beteseb Felega has worked hard in the realm of search, reunion, and other services. Funding is a challenge; I am among the donors, and invite others to contribute as well.

I do not have a strong sense that the pre-adoption services are stellar; I’d love to read research on what services were and are provided to international birth families by adoption agencies prior to placement. Many countries no longer send children for international adoption. Pre-adoption services remain important, and I am uncertain about their current and past uniformity or utility: has there been any evaluation?

Post-adoption services for international birth families, including in Ethiopia where international adoptions ended in 2018, remain vital, and almost nonexistent. I understand, intellectually, the reasons: many birth families live in remote areas, they speak various languages so would need translators, many are illiterate, many move without any useable address, and so on. Adoption agencies theoretically don’t have the infrastructure to provide services. I believe nonetheless they have a fierce ethical responsibility to do so.

The likelihood that will happen in any meaningful way is heartbreakingly small.

Original photo by Maureen McCauley. Addis Ababa, 2018.

Maybe, however, there will be more research. It’s not a substitute for services (such as informing mothers that their children are alive; or helping them deal with grief or shame), but more information will keep those birth families somewhere on our radar.

For now, here is my list. The research and articles cover a range of information on Ethiopian adoption. If you have additions or corrections, please let me know.

Data Breach of Gladney Adoption Center Exposes Confidential Information

Posted on by
Reply

The notion of confidentiality of adoption records is sorely challenged these days, not only by DNA testing but also by data breaches.

A Wired magazine article reported that Gladney Center for Adoption’s “Data Exposure Revealed Information About Children and Parents.“

Screenshot

In late June, Jeremiah Fowler, a data-breach hunter, “came across a publicly accessible database on line that seemed to contain information about adoption,” identified it as Gladney, and notified them. Within a couple of days, the site was “silently secured.”

Fowler was, according to Wired, ‘particularly alarmed to see adoption-related data, because the trove included details like the identities of some children’s biological parents, data on individuals’ medical and mental health status, information about interactions with Child Protective Services, and even records referencing court orders. The database also included…identifying information like names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and unique identifiers assigned to children’s cases.” The trove contained more than 1.1 million records and was 2.49 GB, the article states.

Gladney Adoption Center is based in Texas, is over 135 years old, and is licensed in 12 states.

I did not find information about the data breach on their blog or their webpage when I looked at it today.

Gladney’s statement in the Wired article by chief operating officer Lisa Schuessler included this: “…in the case of any determination of sensitive information…we notify all impacted individuals.”

The efforts of adoption agencies and adoption attorneys to keep records secure and confidential are not at all guaranteed to succeed. I don’t know how Gladney handled this breach with adoptees, birth families, and adoptive parents. It sure seems to me to have chilling ramifications, including for private and public agencies of all sizes. The adoption community’s confidence in “Confidentiality” is eroding. Access to information could come in unexpected ways. Adoption agencies and lawyers need to be transparent and proactive about these realities.

Grandparents and Adoption: Creation of Community

Posted on by
2

I’ve had 18 years to think about the role of adoption and grandparents, ever since my first granddaughter was born. I now have three granddaughters. As is true for my four adopted now-adult children, I am not biologically related to my grandchildren. We are connected by adoption, yet my granddaughters are not adopted.

Becoming a grandma has helped me reflect on my parenting: what I knew then, what I know now. I have learned so much about the impact of adoption in the last 40 years as well. I’ve talked with many other grandparents who love their grandchildren deeply, including the grandparents who have lost their grandkids to adoption. Parents who are estranged from their adult adopted children often are estranged from their grandkids as well. Grandparents whose grandkids are adopted often get to hear stories and perspectives that the kids don’t share with their adoptive parents. Grandparents who are adoptees wonder about intergenerational trauma and medical histories for their grandkids. Some grandkids know their adoptive grandparents, and don’t know their biological grandparents, who may live in another country and may remain forever unknown–or not.

I am reaching out for grandparents with a connection to adoption, to create a supportive, compassionate, and curious community for sharing stories, questions, perspectives, and experiences. 

The community will include folks from these categories:

  • Grandparents who adopted their children, and whose grandchildren are not adoptees.
  • Grandparents whose children are the adoptive parents: the grandchildren are the adoptees.
  • Grandparents whose children placed a child for adoption/lost a child to adoption.
  • Grandparents who are adoptees and whose children may or may not be adopted, and whose grandchildren may or may not be adopted.
  • Grandparents who adopted their grandchildren.

The Vision

My vision for the actions of the community is very much a work in progress, subject to change and improvement.

  • Conversation Havens: Informal, welcoming spaces to talk about adoption’s impact on us and on our families. 
  • Writing Circles: Supportive, encouraging places to share and strengthen your writing, whether for yourself or for publication.
  • Book (and Articles) Club—Maybe we will talk about entire books. More likely, we will discuss thought-provoking articles about adoption issues, including those written by grandparents.
  • Resources: We will develop and share resources on grandparenting and adoption. These could be webinars, speakers, workshops, trainings, articles, more.
  • Opportunities: There are researchers who want to learn more about the role of grandparents in adoption, and I’d love to help with that. 
  • Mentoring: Wouldn’t it be great to partner with someone who has been through what you are going through? The goal would be to develop partnerships in community, to have mentors willing to listen, advise, bounce ideas around, and provide resources to their peer grandparents.
  • Sitting with Grief: Occasional meetings, led by mental health professionals, to provide an understanding space to share grief caused by adoption. This might be estrangement, or fallout from a misunderstanding, or sadness over loss.

Some of the many questions that we can consider:

  • How has adoption affected you as a grandparent?
  • If you are connected with transracial adoption, have your views on race and racism changed because of adoption?
  • If you are connected with international adoption, what are your reflections on the adoptee’s birth grandparents?
  • If you are a grandparent whose grandchild was placed for adoption, what have been the challenges you’ve faced?
  • How can we grandparents be better parents/grandparents, and also better allies for our children and grandchildren in relation to adoption? This is, I realize, a very complicated question.

Possible topics, from a grandparent’s perspective, include a wide range. This is in no particular order, and the possible topics are not limited to these.

  • Role of birth grandparents in international adoptions
  • Race/Transracial adoption issues
  • Power and privilege dynamics in adoption
  • Biology and medical history, including mental health
  • Estrangement
  • Grief, loss, and trauma
  • Names
  • Legacy
  • Infertility and its impact
  • Epigenetics
  • Intergenerational Trauma
  • Advocacy
  • Legal rights and their ramifications

A Final Note:

I had thought about an anthology of essays by grandparents with connections to adoption. I reflected further, and realized my enthusiasm needed boundaries. I’ve been an outspoken critic of those who share their children’s personal stories, believing that children cannot give informed consent. Many of these grandparent stories might blur or cross that line. So, the book as originally conceived is on hold. That said, there are ways for folks to share their stories that are respectful of personal details, and that’s something that we might explore in the Writing Circles.

Feel free to share this post, to comment here, or email me at Maureen@LightOfDayStories.com.

My middle granddaughter and I at a school event.

Adoptees Support the Abolition of Adoption?

Posted on by
Reply

Adoption Mosaics’s November 9 “We the Experts”panel will feature adoptees who favor the abolition of adoption.

This has to be among the most complex issues in adoption, which overflows with complexity. It’s not a simple issue nor an easy conversation. I know many adoptees who favor abolition. Some had terrible experiences because of adoption. Some love their adoptive family and hate the adoption industry. Some see adoption’s complicity with capitalism and imperialism, along with white saviorism, as more than enough reason to abolish adoption.

And it’s not because they want children to languish, to be unsafe, to die in orphanages, to be aborted, or to suffer in any way. Ideas like family preservation, adequate resources, legal guardianship, systemic change, the dynamics of power and privilege, organized abandonment, and more, I imagine, will be discussed.

These are my ruminations. The best approach is, of course, to hear from the experts, the adoptees themselves.

This Saturday, November 9, you have the chance to do just that. I will be there. We non-adoptees don’t talk or ask questions or make comments—we agree to listen and learn. Whatever connection you have to adoption, please join this conversation. You can register here.

The notion of abolishing adoption is a tough one for many folks; at the same time, it is increasing in the adoption community. “Abolition” is itself is a term that raises controversy and confusion, along with “reparations.” These words need to be parsed thoughtfully; all have nuance and depth.

I have no doubts the panelists—JinYoung Kim, Lina Vanegas, Marly Osma de Forest, and Schai Schairer—will be passionate, insightful, and challenging. As de Forest says on the Adoption Mosaic IG page, this will be an opportunity “to spend time with other adoptees imagining more expansive, holistic, and trauma-informed practices of care that do not demand severance and possession.”

Full disclosure: I am a consultant at Adoption Mosaic, an adoptee-led, adoptee-centric organization providing resources and support to all members of the adoption constellation.

Korean Birth Mother Sues Holt Agency and Government of Korea for Wrongful Adoption of Her Daughter

Posted on by
Reply

Han Tae-soon is 70 years old. She says that in 1976, her four-year-old daughter was wrongfully sent to the United States for adoption.She is now suing the Holt Adoption agency as well as the government of South Korea.

Per the Associated Press article, this is the “first known case of a Korean birth parent suing for damages against the government and an adoption agency over the wrongful adoption of their child.”

From the article: “Han accuses Holt Children’s Services, South Korea’s biggest adoption agency, of facilitating (her daughter Laurie) Bender’s adoption without checking her background. Her lawyers said the Jechon Children’s Home made no effort to find the parents after Bender was placed at the facility by police in May 1975, a day after Han reported her as missing. 

In her adoption papers, Bender, named Shin Gyeong-ha at birth, is described as an abandoned orphan with no known parents. Under a new Korean name made by the orphanage, Baik Kyong Hwa, she was sent to the United States in February 1976. 

“For 44 years, I wandered and searched for my child, but the joy of meeting her was only momentary and now I am in so much pain because we can’t communicate in the same language,” Han said, fighting back tears. 

“It turns out they didn’t make an effort to find her clearly existing parents and instead disguised her as an orphan for adoption abroad. I want the government and Holt to explain to us how this happened.” 

The AP article notes that “In 2019, Adam Crapser became the first Korean adoptee to sue the South Korean government and an adoption agency for damages, accusing them of mishandling his adoption to the United States, where he faced legal troubles after surviving an abusive childhood before being deported in 2016.

After four years of hearings, the Seoul Central District Court last year ordered Crapser’s adoption agency, Holt, to pay him 100 million won ($74,000) in damages for failing to inform his adopters they needed to take separate steps to obtain his citizenship after his adoption was approved by a state court. 

However, the court dismissed Crapser’s accusations against the Korean government over alleged monitoring and due diligence failures. The case is now with the Seoul High Court after both Crapser and Holt appealed.”

Lawsuits like these in Korea and elsewhere can take a long time to work their way through the system. I hope that Adam Crapser, Han Tae-soon, and her daughter find justice.

As China Ends Adoptions, Media Reports & Adoption Agencies Focus on Prospective Parents. There’s a Much Bigger Picture.

Posted on by
2

China’s recent decision to end intercountry adoption has evoked a range of responses in the adoption community. As historically has been the case, the focus is almost exclusively on adoptive parents, rarely interviewing or quoting adult Chinese adoptees nor Chinese birth parents.

The National Council on Adoption, whose members are adoption agencies and adoption attorneys, has been vocal about the closing, though only from the perspective of the prospective adoptive parents who may not be able to adopt from China, despite having referrals of children. From NCFA’s Action Center:

“Urge Congress to ask State Department get clarity from China on in-process adoptions. 

Families in the process of adopting from China recently received the devastating news that the country is ending all intercountry adoptions. Hundreds of U.S. families who were matched with a child and approved to adopt from China have patiently waiting for years – with China having suspended adoptions due to the COVID pandemic. After such a long wait, and significant financial and emotional costs, these families are being given very little information on the future of adoption in China. Children and families deserve better. (Emphasis in original.)

Contact your U.S. representative and senators today and urge them to encourage the U.S. Department of State to ask China for clarity on in-process adoptions and to resume intercountry adoption.”

NCFA has not, as far as I know, called for any support for Chinese adoptees who may be struggling with China’s decision, nor any statements about how adoption agencies will assist with searches and reunions for Chinese birth/first families.

The plight of the prospective adoptive parents has, as usual, permeated national and global news reports, most of which mention only prospective adoptive parents. I understand the sadness of the prospective parents, many of whom have waited for years. I am not dismissing their emotions.

I would though argue that this event–China’s ending of international adoptions–deserves far more depth in media coverage.

If we are ever going to have genuine critical thinking on adoption policy, adoptees and their birth parents must be included equitably in these media reports and in policy-making.

Washington Post: “China shut down foreign adoptions. This family doesn’t want to give up.” No Chinese adoptees or birthparents are quoted.

New York Times: “China Stops Foreign Adoptions, Ending a Complicated Chapter.” A Danish-Korean adoptee is quote, along with non-adopted Chinese scholars and researchers. No Chinese adoptees or birthparents are quoted.

New York Times: “An Era of Chinese Adoption Ends, and Families Are Torn Over Its Legacy.” Adoptive parents and Chinese adoptees are quoted in the article; Chinese birth parents re mentioned.

CNN: “China is ending foreign adoptions of its children. That leaves hundreds of American families in limbo”

The Guardian: “China says it is ending foreign adoptions, prompting concern from US–US diplomats seeking clarity for hundreds of families in the process of international adoption.” No Chinese adoptees or birthparents are quoted.

Chinese adoptees have been speaking out, and they have a variety of perspectives. I wrote about some of them here.

One article not included in my post is a New York Times opinion piece by Cindy Zhu Huijgen, described as “a Dutch journalist based in China and a former adoptee.” (I don’t know what “former adoptee” means here.) She wrote I Was Adopted From China as a Baby. I’m Still Coming to Terms With That. An excerpt: “On Sept. 5, at the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s daily press briefing, conflicting emotions swirled inside me as I nervously raised my hand to ask a government spokeswoman about reports, then still unconfirmed, that international adoptions would be stopped. When she announced that what had essentially become a legalized form of child trafficking was indeed now over, it felt cathartic.

But any relief I feel is tempered by knowing that China’s government will probably never fully acknowledge the system’s abuses. I’m still angry — at the fraught legacy of the adoptions, at the enduring focus on prospective parents’ feelings instead of the children’s and when people imply that I should be grateful for having been adopted.”

Hearing from adopted adults and from birth/first parents is critical to reframing adoption and to thinking critically about it. Then genuine change can occur, and the needs of vulnerable children and families can be met in a transparent, effective, fair way,


A Tough Topic, An Important New Book: Adoption and Suicidality

Posted on by
Reply

A valuable, vital new book is being released today: Adoption and Suicidality: An Anthology of Stories, Poems, and Resources for Adoptees, Families, Health Care Professionals, and Allies.

Congratulations to the editors and contributors. I hope the book gets widespread distribution, as it tackles an often overlooked subject in the adoption community.

I’ve had the privilege of reading the book. I am deeply moved by each essay and poem. While I know several of the contributors, I did not know all the powerful stories. The voice of each writer and contributor—whether an adopted person, a birth/first parent, or an adoptive parent—brings deeply valuable insights.

Thank you to Beth Syverson and Joey Nakao, the team that has brought the book into publication. Beth hosts the podcast Unraveling Adoption. Beth (an adoptive parent) and Joey (her son, adopted from Japan) have shared their journey together for years, in the hope that they can help other families understand and cope with the challenges of addiction, adoption, and suicidality.

The book will be available on Amazon and other sources. There will be a Book Launch event on August 24, featuring “several of the book’s 17 authors who will share their experiences and insights on adoption and its impact on mental health.”

May this new book continue the important and hard conversations ended in the adoption community. May all those struggling find resources, healing, and understanding.

President of Guatemala Apologizes To Adoptees for Fraudulent Adoptions

Posted on by
2

President of Guatemala Bernardo Arevalo recently apologized to adoptees who were trafficked as children from Guatemala to the United States.

” ‘On behalf of the state…I apologize publicly for the events of which you were victims,’ President Bernardo Arevalo said at an event in Guatemala City.

The state’s role in the incident “has no justification,” he added.”

Per France 24: “Before Guatemala moved to end the practice in 2007, about 5,000 children were put up for adoption each year, mostly by American couples who paid about $50,000, according to human rights groups.

In total, the adoptions were estimated to generate around $250 million a year.”

This is a highly significant event in the inter country adoption world—an acknowledgment of fraud and coercion that likely affected thousands of adoptions.

From “Guatemalan Government Apologizes to Victims of Illegal Adoptions”:

On July 12, the president made a public apology  to the parents of two children illegally adopted by a family in the United States in 1997. This is the first time that the Guatemalan government has made a public apology for illegal adoptions carried out in the country between 1977 and 2008.

The public apology was in response to the case of Osmín Tobar Ramírez, who was seven years old in 1997 when he and his younger brother, Jeffrey Arias Ramírez, who was nearly two years old, were taken from their family by the Guatemalan state and housed in the Asociación Los Niños de Guatemala orphanage. They were put up for adoption, an act that would later be revealed to be illegal.

Other governments have apologized for forced and/or illicit adoptions. Australia, Wales, Scotland, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Belgium are among those listed in EuroNews and Movement for An Adoption Apology.

Guatemala was a so-called “sending” country, sending children to other countries for the purpose of adoption. Another “sending” country, South Korea, has been working with adoptees via its Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate fraud over decades of inter country adoption.

International adoption has declined severely for many reasons, including fraud, coercion, and corruption. Vulnerable children still need help, and families still need resources to stay together. Here are some ideas: Lamenting the Decline in International Adoptions? Take Action.

Also: Listen to the voices of adult adoptees, including the ones who are provocative and challenging.

Here is some additional information about Guatemalan adoptions:

Guatemala’s baby brokers: how thousands of children were stolen for adoption

A Painful Truth: Guatemalan Adoptees Learn They Were Fraudulently Given Away

Finally, I want to acknowledge my work with the Joint Council on International Children’s Services some 30 years ago. I apologize for any harm I caused, through my naiveté or otherwise. I’ve learned so much over the last several decades about the commodification and trafficking of children, the notion of intent v. impact, and the unquestionable need to dismantle the adoption industry so that the practices can be genuinely helpful and transparent to vulnerable children and families.

National Council for Adoption Releases New Report on Adoptive Parents

Posted on by
3

The National Council for Adoption recently released, in their words, “the largest survey ever conducted of adoptive parents.” You can read the results here: “Profiles in Adoption: A Survey of Adoptive Parents and Secondary Data Analysis of Federal Adoption Files.”

Here are a few of my observations, and, as an adoptive parent, I hope that adoptees and birth parents (and adoptee- and birth parent-researchers) will weigh in.

The NCFA survey was funded by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, and by Gift of Adoption, which has dispensed some $14 million in adoption assistance grants to adoptive parents.

Responses were from 4,212 adoptive parents—representing 4,135 households and parents to 6,608 adopted individuals—residing in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. These adoptions occurred between 1966 and August 2021, with 74.9% completed since 2010, including 55.9% since 2015.

90% of the respondent adoptive parents were white. (Latine/x 3%; Black 2%; Asian/Asian Pacific Islander 2%, American Indian/Alaskan Native 1%; Multiracial 1%, with 0.6% reporting “other.”)

Whether private infant adoption, intercountry adoption, or adoption from foster care, around 80% of the adoptive parents are Christian/Catholic.

In terms of income, 72% of adoptive parents in private domestic adoption had an income over $75,000. The percentage was 62% for intercountry adoptive parents and 54% for parents who adopted from foster care.

In terms of education, 81% of adoptive parents in private domestic adoption had a bachelor’s degree or higher. The percentage was 84% for intercountry adoptive parents and 63% for parents who adopted from foster care.

The survey looks at Special Needs in adoption, and, astonishingly to me, on page 40 has a category titled “Mental Retardation.” Since Congress passed Rosa’s Law in 2010, the preferred designation is “intellectual disability.”

The survey does not note the ages of adopted children at the time of adoption, nor of the current ages of the adoptees. I believe that information would have been useful to the analysis.

The survey did not shy from using what some in the adoption community see as language of commodification: “Adoptive parents were asked five questions related to their satisfaction with adoption. Overall, adoptive parents expressed very significant satisfaction.” (Some in the adoption community see this phrasing as akin to “product or purchase satisfaction.”)

Indeed, here are the “Key Takeaways for Adoptive Parents’ Satisfaction:

• A large majority of adoptive parents find their role to be rewarding and satisfying.

• With the perspective of lived experience, adoptive parents report they would still make the same decision to adopt their child.”

Adoptive parents of International adoptions were also asked about their satisfaction with Intercountry Adoption Service Providers. Adoptive parents through private domestic adoption and through foster care were not asked (or results were not included) about their satisfaction with their attorneys or other service providers.

There is much to be parsed from the survey answers regarding race. As previously noted, 90% of the respondent parents are white. In the case of transracial adoptions, the survey says “A large majority of adoptive parents who have a child of a different race/ethnicity seek to participate in activities to incorporate elements of the child’s race, ethnicity, and culture.” While that may be a basic first step, it’s hardly a strong example of much needed anti-racist education. The words “racism,” “colorblindness,” and “anti-racism” do not appear in the report. (Here is one example of the perspective of Black and brown adoptees on how their white adoptive parents handled race: “I know my parents love me, but they don’t love my people.”)

From the section in the survey on Future Research: “The National Council For Adoption views this report as just Part One of a three-part series examining profiles in adoption. There is no single survey, focus group, or data set that can tell us everything we would like to know about adoption. In Part One, we heard from adoptive parents. We also intend to hear from birth parents and adopted individuals in upcoming research reports. Taken together, the three reports in this series will give us a fuller picture of adoption.”

I find it striking and not surprising that the first report is on adoptive parents, the people who hold and have held the most power in adoption policy. (One could argue that white, financially secure, well educated Christians have long held the most power in our society overall.)

The two authors of the report are Ryan Hanlon, the executive director of NCFA, and Matthew Quade, associate professor of business management at Baylor University. Both men are adoptive parents, and both hold PhDs.

I look forward to reading the NCFA reports on birth parents and adoptees, as to the numbers of respondents, the demographics (race, age, education, income, etc.), their perspective on “satisfaction,” whether they would still make the same decisions (adoptees of course rarely have agency in the adoption decision), and noting who funds the surveys of adoptees and birth parents. I hope the authors of the next two reports are themselves adopted persons and birth parents. I also hope the survey-takers contact the birth/first parents of international adoptees, and I look forward to reading those results.

I look forward to a time when all children have safe, loving families, and when children are not removed from their families of origin due to poverty, economic imbalance, or systemic racism. I also look forward to the equitable distribution of funding and of pre- and post-adoption services to all birth parents (including International birth families). I especially look forward to deeper, well funded, accessible, and equitable advocacy for family preservation.