Orphan Fever: The Evangelical Movement's Adoption Obession

[JumpyTheFrog]

Preface: By posting this article, I am not saying that everyone that adopts abuses their kids or adopts them for wrong reasons. However, it looks like adoption has become a fad among some abusive families who are basically buying kids.

 

ETA: Yes, the article title is poorly worded and over-the-top. I don't think anybody here thinks all evangelicals that adopt are suspect.

 

 

This article talks about the "trendiness" of various fundamentalist groups adopting kids from overseas - kids who often aren't legally available. Above Rubies magazine has previously pushed adoption. The excerpt below is about how her daughter Serene and her son-in-law treated the kids they adopted.

 

In October 2006, a year after their first Liberian adoptions, the Allisons adopted another pair of siblings: Kula, 13, and Alfred, 15. "In Africa we thought America was heaven," recalled Kula, who is 19 now. "I thought there were money trees." Primm Springs was a rude awakening: It was dirty, she recalled, and she had no toothbrush. The new house Sam was building—with the older kids working alongside him—often lacked electricity. There was only a woodstove for heat, and no air conditioning or running water yet. Toilets were flushed with buckets of water hauled from a creek behind the house. The children recalled being so hungry that they would, on occasion, cook a wild goose or turkey they caught on the land. "We went from Africa to Africa," CeCe said.

 

They didn't attend school, either; home schooling mostly consisted of Serene reading to the younger children. When the older kids watched a school bus drive past on a country road and asked why they couldn't go, they were met with various excuses. So Isaiah and Alfred worked with Sam in his house-painting business or labored in Nancy Campbell's immense vegetable garden while CeCe, Kula, and Cherish cleaned, cooked, and tended to a growing brood of young ones. It was also the job of the "African kids," as they called themselves, to keep a reservoir filled with water from the creek. CeCe hadn't yet learned to read when Serene gave her a book on midwifery so she could learn to deliver their future babies. "They treated us pretty much like slaves," she said. It's a provocative accusation, but one that Kula and Isaiah—as well as two neighbors and a children's welfare worker—all repeated.

 

Discipline included being hit with rubber hosing or something resembling a riding crop if the children disrespected Serene, rejected her meals, or failed to fill the reservoir. For other infractions, they were made to sleep on the porch without blankets. Engedi, the toddler, was disciplined for her attachment to CeCe. To encourage her bond with Serene, the Allisons would place the child on the floor between them and CeCe and call her. If Engedi went to CeCe instead, the children recalled, the Allisons would spank her until she wet herself.

 

 

For one, she saw the Allisons and the Campbells refer to To Train Up a Child, a book by fundamentalist preacher Michael Pearl and his wife, Debi, that advocates strict physical discipline starting when children are less than a year old. The book, which has sold nearly 700,000 copies, promises that "the rod" (the Pearls suggest flexible plumbing supply line)...

 

...Pearl worried on his website that some of his followers' Liberian children were "well-versed in all the dark arts of eroticism and ghastly perversion."

 

Online, parents began writing that their adopted children were manipulative and wild, compulsive liars or thieves, and sometimes violent. "There are two languages in Liberia," wrote one mother, "English and lying."...

 

The article went on to state that the Allisons eventually sent one of their adopted sons back to Liberia when he was 13. When his chaperone for the trip discovered the orphanage he came from was closed, he left the boy there with only $40, a backpack, and a US green card that would expire in six months if the boy wasn't in the US to renew it. After three weeks on the streets, a relative took him in, but he had already contracted malaria. Eventually, friends of his adoptive family brought him back to the US. He had an email from his adoptive parents stating they "loved" him, but he couldn't read it. In four years of being "homeschooled" by Serene, he hadn't learned to read.

 

Nancy Campbell and her daughter Serene adopted ten kids between them, and had problems with seven of the adoptions. Now I see why adoptions require home studies. I doubt these people have ever heard of RAD. They don't sound like unschoolers either, more like abusive non-schoolers.

 

This disgusts me. At my previous church, many of the women loved Nancy Campbell and held her magazine, books, and DVDs in high regard. She is so anti-family planning that in one DVD she stated that anyone trying to space kids for any reason is "allied with Satan." (NFP would definitely be sinful in her view, no matter what the reason.) She carries on and on about how we all need to "love children" and has a list on her website of 101 reasons to have another baby, most of which are as naive as the reasons a young teenager with baby fever might list: babies are cute!

 

This women is making her living off badgering women into having more kids than they may want or can afford. Then she tries to get subscribers to buy kids on top of it, all while letting her daughter and son-in-law abuse her grandkids.

[unsinkable]

I read this a few weeks ago.

 

It made me so sad.

[JumpyTheFrog]

The question is, would reading this article be enough to shock my friends into rethinking their support of the Campbells?

[Shahrazad]

I've heard this a lot recently (especially after the Pearl fiasco) and I just think it is so sad. I definitely want to adopt down the road in addition to the children I am having biologically and I just can't understand the lack of humanity behind treating adopted children like this. So sad... For those who do it for the right reasons though and offer the child a place in your heart and home just like your own children's, we need more like you!

 

Just read the whole thing. What is wrong with people?! These women must have no hearts or perhaps they're just closet racists who think these children are worth less than their own because of their color. These people are just slavers trying to hide behind a compassionate face.

[Ellie]

ITA that what these people did was inexcusable and horrible. However, I strongly object to the article's title. That's using a pretty broad brush to paint "evangelicals" with.

[Parrothead]

That is sick. How is this family allowed to continue? Why aren't the parents in jail?

[fairfarmhand]

The adoption issue is a squirrelly one. Of course, so many families (apparently this one excluded) have good intentions,. but they have very little idea of some of the challenges that adopting older children will entail. There will be more issues than just language and culture, especially from kids who have been in orphanages for many years. I worry that many good hearted people jump into this decision without educating themselves fully on the challenges that they will face.

[JumpyTheFrog]

However, I strongly object to the article's title. That's using a pretty broad brush to paint "evangelicals" with.

 

Would you have been okay if the author had used the term "fundamentalist homeschoolers" instead of "evangelical" in the title?

[Ameena]

This has been going on for a LONG time - at least 20 years IMO. Back when I was a teen in the late 90's it was called "missionary adoption".

 

I know when I was a teen & homeschooling, there was a family who had adopted 5 special needs kids from Guatemala. Part of them were non-verbal and honestly special needs, but part simply weren't taught anything. One of the girls in fact was quite bright, but had been instructed not to talk to non-family members. They had a farm and the adopted kids did 90% of the work. Plus there were rumors about the dad being inappropriate with the girls, but nothing ever substantiated. Nobody ever reported it from our group because most said "well they are better off here in the USA even in that type of family than they would be in XYZ country".

 

I think finally someone called CPS and reported their concerns when the dad began to talk about going off grid because he was paranoid about y2k & the government being out to get everyone. I know all the kids both adopted and biological were taken away & put in state care.

[Parrothead]

After reading the article in the S/O thread I realized that these types of adoptions are preached about in churches. I'm doubly appalled because I can only imagine the rhetoric. "Let's bring these heathen children into our families and make good Christians out of them."

 

It seems from the article (or was it a blog post?) that some of these parents are followers of those despicable Pearl people.

[Ellie]

Would you have been okay if the author had used the term "fundamentalist homeschoolers" instead of "evangelical" in the title?

 

 

No, I would not.

[HRAAB]

I had forgotten about that magazine. I remember it being passed around when I first started homeschooling. This is so wrong. Those poor children coming from the devastation of a war torn country and being put into that type of a situation.

[Dory]

I cringe at the title as that taints all evangelical Christians which isn't accurate at all. People like this make my blood boil. I would love to add to my family through adoption some day, but no so that I get free labor, or as some way to make myself feel like a hero, but because I have the room and the love to do so and there are kids that need that. Every child has the right to be loved and cared for by the adults in their lives regardless of how they ended up with those adults.

[butterflymommy]

It mentions some of the boys being returned for exhibiting sexual behavior-- maybe they were molesting the younger siblings. Unfortunately this does happen in adoptive and foster situations. There are cases of secular adoption resulting in homicides, child abuse, and failed adoptions... is it really any more common with religious families? Remember the woman who put her adopted son back on the plane to russia?

[indigomama]

Anyone who abuses or "uses" children is a horrible person. And while I most definitely don't agree with the Pearls and the like, I think this article is one-sided and does not represent any Christian I know of who has or is adopting.

 

Our family is currently in the process of adopting a child with special needs, and we are Christians, and we already have what many would consider a large family, but we are not doing it to coerce or manipulate a child into our particular belief system, we are not doing it to provide free labor, or any other nefarious deed. We are adopting because we have a stable loving family with more love to give a child.

 

Here is an article in response to the above, that I really likedhttp://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/04/18/mother-jones-shameful-attack-on-the-christian-adoption-movement/

[Audrey]

I am part way through The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption which discusses this very issue. It's an eye-opening read, that's for sure. What is so sad is how the people using these children justify their reprehensible actions. These people are the kind of rotten apples that sour the whole barrel.

[SarahW]

"There are two languages in Liberia," wrote one mother, "English and lying."...

 

 

What the .... !

 

Ugh, I have personally talked to people who have lived among tribal Africans, and they have an entirely different way of organizing inter-personal communication. But to characterize that as nefarious lying is .... oooh, makes me mad. :cursing:

 

People who adopt kids older than infants from overseas need to go into it eyes wide open to these cultural differences. Sexual activity, sure, in some tribes sexual activity is encouraged even before puberty, the impact of that is something I let anthropologists figure out. But by mid-teens these "kids" would be seriously prepping for marriage as adults. You can't just sign some paperwork and expect them to start acting like good little American white kids.

 

They're better off here...pfffff.... That reminds me of something... was it Cotton Mather who said that?

[JumpyTheFrog]

You can't just sign some paperwork and expect them to start acting like good little American white kids.

 

 

But they do! Of course, this article was about the same people who think that all psychology = Freud and that all psychology is suspect, at best (or outright evil). So even if a social worker tried to warn them about RAD or other difficulties, I doubt they'd listen. They think they can just spank them into being sweet kids.

 

Of course, as much as Michael Pearl disgusts me, I should point out that he recommends parents only adopt children younger than their current kids. He warns the chances of older kids having been molested and molesting others in turn is high. (This is why the Allisons sent their 13 year-old son back to Liberia in the story above.) I guess even he doesn't think beating can fix every problem.

[Slartibartfast]

They really need some new terms for some of the crazy sects. I may be evangelical but that is a very broad term. That is like saying people Texas are going crazy, adopting children for Jesus.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I agree that the title of the article is over the top. I think "Orphan Fever" is fine, but it needs something to go with it, and I'm not sure what.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Three things:

 

1. Has this article been discussed here before, and if so would someone please link it;

 

2. I am getting so sick of the "homeschooling community" that I am actually angry our schools are so abysmal that I feel I have no choice but to homeschool. My two eldest sons have already made the decision not to tell people they are homeschooled, or to join any homeschooling organizations because of what they have personally seen--and I don't blame them;

 

3. why are the comments at Mother Jones in such teeeeeeny tiny print that nobody can read them?

 

My sons are proud of their education and glad for the childhood they've had. They just believe that abuse and neglect are too possible in homeschooling and they believe there should be more oversight. Sometimes I agree.

[Spy Car]

Three things:

 

1. Has this article been discussed here before, and if so would someone please link it;

 

2. I am getting so sick of the "homeschooling community" that I am actually angry our schools are so abysmal that I feel I have no choice but to homeschool. My two eldest sons have already made the decision not to tell people they are homeschooled, or to join any homeschooling organizations because of what they have personally seen--and I don't blame them;

 

3. why are the comments at Mother Jones in such teeeeeeny tiny print that nobody can read them?

 

My sons are proud of their education and glad for the childhood they've had. They just believe that abuse and neglect are too possible in homeschooling and they believe there should be more oversight. Sometimes I agree.

 

 

Hang in there Tibbie!

 

:grouphug:

 

Bill

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Hang in there Tibbie!

 

:grouphug:

 

Bill

 

Thank you, Bill! The despair in the voice is partly because right before I read this thread I was at an acquaintance's blog reading about the accusations against HSLDA, that they are so dogmatically in favor of "parental rights" that they are showing themselves willing to condone abuse. Not a new accusation, but there are new specifics that have people talking. Wanna see?

 

http://www.thatmom.com/2013/05/11/hslda-accused-of-turning-blind-eye-to-child-abuse-you-decide-2/

 

Patriarchy. Dominionism. Abuse. Neglect. Failing to educate boys, deliberately not educating girls. Homeschooling as a political lobby. Spiritual abuse in churches and homeschooling groups. Taken a collective, if we actually were one, we would not doing better than public schools in the matters of safety, education, and freedom. I don't want to be affiliated with anyone whom I do not personally know; I am not part of the "homeschooling community." I know many here feel the same way, but I wonder if others are also starting to feel as if they are caught in the net against their will.

[Spy Car]

 

 

Thank you, Bill! The despair in the voice is partly because right before I read this thread I was at an acquaintance's blog reading about the accusations against HSLDA, that they are so dogmatically in favor of "parental rights" that they are showing themselves willing to condone abuse. Not a new accusation, but there are new specifics that have people talking. Wanna see?

 

http://www.thatmom.com/2013/05/11/hslda-accused-of-turning-blind-eye-to-child-abuse-you-decide-2/

 

Patriarchy. Dominionism. Abuse. Neglect. Failing to educate boys, deliberately not educating girls. Homeschooling as a political lobby. Spiritual abuse in churches and homeschooling groups. Taken a collective, if we actually were one, we would not doing better than public schools in the matters of safety, education, and freedom. I don't want to be affiliated with anyone whom I do not personally know; I am not part of the "homeschooling community." I know many here feel the same way, but I wonder if others are also starting to feel as if they are caught in the net against their will.

 

The HSLDA and their ilk are monsters as far as I'm concerned, but people like you give me hope.

 

Bill

[Dory]

I don't want to be affiliated with anyone whom I do not personally know; I am not part of the "homeschooling community." I know many here feel the same way, but I wonder if others are also starting to feel as if they are caught in the net against their will.

 

 

I'd rather not be affiliated with the 'homeschooling community' either. Even the one that's around me. I was one of 'those' homeschool kids that came from one of those families that makes me cringe now. The type that thinks you can spank a kid into being perfect. The type that thinks that girls were born to serve the men in their lives. Coming on here was the first time I met homeschoolers that actually seemed healthy. But then, online I suppose it's a little easy to put your best side forward.

[KungFuPanda]

Coming to homeschooling boards was my first encounter with homeschoolers who weren't like the ones on the WTM board. Except for on boards, I never met any who feared government oversight because they weren't actually educating their children. I never met anyone IRL who believed that bad/negligent homeschooling was more beneficial than good public schooling.

 

I have no problems associating myself with my local homeschooling community, but I'm just not running into the wack-a-doos that I read about online. At this point in the journey I think I would find them amusing, but I'm guessing those types thrive in clusters of like minded folks who are to pious to join secular, academic groups.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

.

[butterflymommy]

People who adopt kids older than infants from overseas need to go into it eyes wide open to these cultural differences. Sexual activity, sure, in some tribes sexual activity is encouraged even before puberty, the impact of that is something I let anthropologists figure out. But by mid-teens these "kids" would be seriously prepping for marriage as adults. You can't just sign some paperwork and expect them to start acting like good little American white kids.

 

I don't think that is what was happening with children raised in institutional settings. More likely than not they were sexually abused by older children or adults in the institution and then acted out sexually in the adoptive family.

[butterflymommy]

 

3. why are the comments at Mother Jones in such teeeeeeny tiny print that nobody can read them?

 

 

Press ctrl + to enlarge the type. I noticed that too!

[Corraleno]

The despair in the voice is partly because right before I read this thread I was at an acquaintance's blog reading about the accusations against HSLDA, that they are so dogmatically in favor of "parental rights" that they are showing themselves willing to condone abuse. Not a new accusation, but there are new specifics that have people talking. Wanna see?

http://www.thatmom.c...e-you-decide-2/

 

The horrific abuse described in this article (linked in the above blog post) and defended by HSLDA is just... there are no words. :crying: :crying: :crying:

IMO the blood of those children is on the hands of HSLDA as much as it is on the hands of the so-called "parents."

 

I don't want to be affiliated with anyone whom I do not personally know; I am not part of the "homeschooling community." I know many here feel the same way, but I wonder if others are also starting to feel as if they are caught in the net against their will.

 

:iagree:

 

When I first started homeschooling, the few people I knew who homeschooled did it for academic or family reasons (like frequent travel, or general AP parenting philosophy). I had never heard of people like the Pearls, and I had no idea that identifying as a homeschooler would, in some people's minds, associate me with people who don't believe in education for girls, or who use homeschooling as a cover for physical, emotional, and educational abuse. I really wish there were another name for what we do, because I would not want anyone to think I am affiliated in. any. way. whatsoever. with the sort of creeps that HSLDA is so enthusiastically defending. :cursing:

 

Jackie

[Slartibartfast]

These articles are horrific. I can't imagine what sort of people turn a blind eye to such atrocities and defend them.

 

I think most of us have probably not seen anything like this. I can only assume most of these people either stick to like minded families or do not participate in groups at all.

[SarahW]

 

I don't think that is what was happening with children raised in institutional settings. More likely than not they were sexually abused by older children or adults in the institution and then acted out sexually in the adoptive family.

 

I agree. But I was talking specifically about Africa. Even if you adopt from an orphanage you will still have to deal with numerous cultural issues. And the differences in sexual mores can be pretty major. Often, the kids in the orphanages have relatives who they see occasionally, and they were raised at least partly in their own culture.

 

But, just to be clear, I'm speaking only of some African tribal customs. And then in those cases there are safeguards to prevent sexual activity between different age groups. But my reading of African anthropology is far from comprehensive.

[Laurie4b]

Would you have been okay if the author had used the term "fundamentalist homeschoolers" instead of "evangelical" in the title?

 

No, I think the article was misleading and the title contributed to it. It took anecdotal stories from two families associated with one magazine , moved to the middle of the article to talk about mainstream Christian adoption agencies and then moved back to the anecdotal stories again. The effect is to taint the stuff in the middle with the tales from these two families.

 

I think there is instead a combination of issues:

 

1) a slice of parenting practices in some parts of the Christian community that the super majority of the Christian community finds bizarre and abhorrent. Those practices ought to be condemned and are.

 

2) the shadiness of some overseas adoption organizations and practices. (I didn't think much of Madonna's adoptions, either, and she hardly qualifies as a fundamentalist. The father of one of her children appeared to think it was a temporary arrangement, too. ) The article could have served as a warning to naive and idealistic prospective adoptive parents about carefully screening adoption agencies before working with one. Nonreligious people can fall for this, too.

 

3) the overwhelming reality of what it means to cope with kids with RAD. The article could have highlighted key issues for everyone, Christian or not, to make a dent in the naivete of people who adopt older children or young children from orphanages. I believe all adoptive parents should go in with their eyes well open. Love and structure/discipline is not always enough. That includes love and discipline that most people on this board would consider appropriate. RAD is real and lumping all failed adoptions into the two stories portrayed tends to make it seem like it's a simple matter of bad parenting--or specifically in this article, bad "fundamentalist Christian parenting." It's not. The kid on the plane Russia wasn't adopted by a Christian. And while the mother's reaction wasn't a good choice, I do understand how someone could become that desperate without better resources. Portraying "failed adoptions" as linked with the parenting practices of these two families does a terrible disservice to the many really good parents trying to cope with kids with RAD who may end up with failed adoptions, too. This makes me hurt for them. They have enough without being lumped together with these families in the article.

 

4) the necessity of cultural sensitivity and training for people who adopt children from other countries. That kind of education should be part of any adoption endeavor for anyone who adopts of whatever religion or lack thereof. I can imagine some relatives of mine who were not religious reacting exactly the same way over the lack of eye contact, for instance.

 

If I could be so bold as to translate into secular language what Mother Earth finds worrisome about evangelical language of adoption, I would translate it as a form of "pay it forward". Having received love, people want to pass it on. They naturally couch it in their own cultural language. It's could be scary in some cases, such as the ones that were highlighted, but it's not actually scary all the time if you understand it in that form. Celebrities seem to be big foreign adopters as well, and some of those cases give me the willies, but that doesn't mean all celebrity adoptions are scary either.

 

I think Mother Earth missed an opportunity to do some good in terms of education and instead stooped for the goal of alarming people about Christian adoptions in general.

 

We have multiple families in our church who have adopted internationally. We also have multiple families with inter-ethnic marriages and the church is diverse in its ethnicity among biological families. In other words, the inter-ethnic adoptive families don't stick out.

 

I don't know of one of the adoptive families who even comes close to fitting the stereotype in this article. Some of the families' kids go to public school, some to private, some homeschool, and some do a mixture--just like other parts of the community. A couple of the families have kids with RAD and continue to love, endure, and be the best parents they can in very challenging situations. They have my total admiration.

 

It's hard to resist a juicy story that fits into our narrative about a group that we don't like, but it's wrong to paint large groups of people with a broad brush, whether it's a big old left wing brush or right wing brush.

[SKL]

What is the motivation behind sensationalizing and overgeneralizing something that happens in a few rare situations? To degrade Christians, adoption, or both?

[Jennifer]

I've never heard of Mother Jones magazine. I was impressed at how well researched the article was-with links to all the documents so I could see things for myself. I may need to subscribe.

[EthiopianFood]

This makes me so sad. I've always been willing to give the Above Rubies group the benefit of the doubt. I understand not being prepared for attachment issues, but this is so much more than that. How can people who profess so much joy in life be so horrible?

[Slartibartfast]

What is the motivation behind sensationalizing and overgeneralizing something that happens in a few rare situations? To degrade Christians, adoption, or both?

 

 

I am a Christian and I don't feel degraded, I don't feel that calling attention to something so very grave is sensationalizing. This needs more awareness. If people use homeschooling to be permissive towards abusive and demeaning behaviors then that could have a negative impact on all of us.

 

We need to be aware and condemn it.

 

I do wish there were more specific terms but I suppose every group has those that they wish did not share a commonality.

[Slartibartfast]

I've never heard of Mother Jones magazine. I was impressed at how well researched the article was-with links to all the documents so I could see things for myself. I may need to subscribe.

 

 

I subscribe to it, I would recommend it.

[Crimson Wife]

Patriarchy. Dominionism. Abuse. Neglect. Failing to educate boys, deliberately not educating girls. Homeschooling as a political lobby. Spiritual abuse in churches and homeschooling groups. Taken a collective, if we actually were one, we would not doing better than public schools in the matters of safety, education, and freedom.

 

 

Maybe it doesn't seem like it in your particular neck of the woods, but the superfundamentalists these days really are only a minority of homeschoolers. They may be a particularly vocal subset thanks to the various bully pulpits they have set up for themselves, but fortunately today most homeschooling families are much more mainstream.

[kiwik]

More ignorant questions from someone out the US;

Does your government not require documentation for children entering the country? Wouldn't there be some limitation and oversight? It is after all an immigration issue.

 

Why would anyone be allowed to adopt multiple special needs children? How can it be reasonable to expect someone to manage them safely?

 

While I support home schooling I do think in a lot of cases having outside people seeing the kids every day and noticing if they are not there is a good thing. Always assuming anyone listens and acts on their concerns.

[Plink]

How disgusting. Adoption should never be touted as a means of ensuring your own place in heaven or providing the parent with anything at all. Cases like this make me sick.

[FaithManor]

Tibbie and Bill are spot on.

 

I would also like to say that I have NOTHING to do with the local whackadoos, ahem...I mean homeschooling group. The antics of that group is embarassing.

 

The title paints evangelicals with a broad brush. I'm not an "evangelical", but I know many and NONE of them are running around adopting children and abusing them. The ones that I do know that have put themselves through the adoption process have done so with the child's best interests at heart and truly love and adore their new children. It's a sensationalist title that is meant to get attention...same old same old tactic that most media use today...shock value.

 

The abuse is mindboggling. Appalling and sickening are words that come to mind, however in reality, do not begin to describe it. These people should be locked up in a gulag, given a teaspoon as a digging tool, told to mine some coal, and tossed bread and water. Maybe after a few years of that, they'll "see the light". I think I may have decided that our nation is far too civilized in its response to dealing with such "humans".

 

HSLDA, well, I can't state what I think here because poor Susan would have to ban me for the nuclear flames spewing from my finger tips. I will say this though, I can not abide individuals who seemingly hate children as much as this organization must in order to defend parental rights to such a hideous extreme.

 

Faith

[Ellie]

 

Maybe it doesn't seem like it in your particular neck of the woods, but the superfundamentalists these days really are only a minority of homeschoolers. They may be a particularly vocal subset thanks to the various bully pulpits they have set up for themselves, but fortunately today most homeschooling families are much more mainstream.

 

The superfundamentalists have *always* been a minority. Not sure about "mainstream," though, as back in the 80s when the big wave of homeschooling began, the fact that we were hsing, even if everything else we did was, you know, normal, made us not mainstream. :-)

[hillfarm]

I am proud to be a rural, evangelical Christian, but have no plans to adopt. Although there are a few children in my church who have been adopted from other countries, they seem as healthy, happy, well dressed,well adjusted, etc. as any of the other children. We live in a rural area and yet I respect the intelligence and kindness of many of my neighbors. This thread has managed to insult me on several levels.

 

Just because someone holds evangelical beliefs does not mean that they are slavers waiting for victims. Just because someone lives in a rural area does not mean they are backward, cruel and uneducated. It seems that many have forgotten that we are to be respectful of others here on this forum. And to cast aspersions on a whole group of people due to the heinous behavior of a few individuals from that group is generally considered an act of prejudice. According to a 2001 Gallup poll, there are over 90 million evangelicals in America today. The vast majority of whom are not adopting foreign born children to use as slaves or objects of abuse.

 

Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon. And it is not limited to families of one particular religion or location. Have any of you studied the orphan trains* of the early 1900's here in the US? I have read accounts of several of the children forced to participate in that system, many of whom report similar treatment. Unfortunately, it seems that there will always be those reprehensible people who will abuse children, their own biological ones or adopted ones, reduce them to a life of servitude, deny them an education, and heap other abuses upon them. It is not limited to evangelicals, rural people, or international orphans. So long as there are orphans needing homes, it will be a challenge to keep abusers from "collecting" them and mistreating them.

 

*Wikipedia on orphan trains: "The children would usually be put up on a "stage like" podium for viewing and inspection. The townspeople would inspect the children, perhaps feeling muscles and checking teeth, and after a brief interviews take the chosen ones home.^[3] Children might sing or dance to attract interest. Sadly, many siblings were separated during this process because the parents only wanted to take one child.^[3] Some children became indentured servants to their host families, while most were adopted, formally or informally, as family members. Between 1853 and 1929, more than 250,000 children rode the “Orphan Train†to new lives."

[Paige]

More ignorant questions from someone out the US;

Does your government not require documentation for children entering the country? Wouldn't there be some limitation and oversight? It is after all an immigration issue.

 

Why would anyone be allowed to adopt multiple special needs children? How can it be reasonable to expect someone to manage them safely?

 

While I support home schooling I do think in a lot of cases having outside people seeing the kids every day and noticing if they are not there is a good thing. Always assuming anyone listens and acts on their concerns.

 

 

I don't think the US gvmt cares how many kids people choose to have or adopt as long as their paperwork is in order and the other country approves. These couples should have been flagged by the social workers who did the homestudies. Many Americans adopt multiple special needs kids and most are not abusive and somehow make it work. I think I read that Americans adopt more special needs kids than do citizens of any other country.

 

I think the cases mentioned here are shocking and horrible but not representative at all of American adoptive parents or even American fundamentalist Christians. I don't think these people intended to abuse or harshly discipline the kids. I bet they had the best intentions but were sadly way out of their league. Their religious beliefs about discipline and children, and the horrible advice they were getting, and the lack of people outside the group who could give them perspective or give them help turned what would have been a difficult situation into a disaster. Mother Jones is very politically liberal and although I have read it and found many good articles it is far from unbiased and this article has more overt bias, IMO, than Mother Jones articles usually show.

[fairfarmhand]

. I bet they had the best intentions but were sadly way out of their league. Their religious beliefs about discipline and children, and the horrible advice they were getting, and the lack of people outside the group who could give them perspective or give them help turned what would have been a difficult situation into a disaster.

 

 

yes...this.

 

However, I am wary of any person/group who claims to know the only "right" way of family life, child discipline, etc.

 

What squicks me out about the Pearls, Above Rubies, etc. is their claim that if you do a, b, and c, your children will be happy, healthy and holy and your family will be blessed by God. Families are different, and the aforementioned people think that they know, without a doubt, the will of God for every Christian family in the world. And that is ridiculous.

 

The whole situation discussed in the article is just pitifully, pitifully sad. But it also speaks to the arrogance that certain groups can have regarding family life. These poor people found out just how flawed their parenting practices were, and they had no idea where to go next. So they tossed out the kids rather than tossing out their parenting ideals.

 

BTW, I am evangelical Christian and I see these types of people as nutjobs.

[Jane Elliot]

Anyone who abuses or "uses" children is a horrible person. And while I most definitely don't agree with the Pearls and the like, I think this article is one-sided and does not represent any Christian I know of who has or is adopting.

 

Our family is currently in the process of adopting a child with special needs, and we are Christians, and we already have what many would consider a large family, but we are not doing it to coerce or manipulate a child into our particular belief system, we are not doing it to provide free labor, or any other nefarious deed. We are adopting because we have a stable loving family with more love to give a child.

 

Here is an article rin response to the above, that I really likedhttp://jonathanmerri...ption-movement/

 

 

Thank you for linking to Jonathan Merritt's article. It's excellent.

 

Best wishes for your adoption.

[DawnM]

I agree.

 

I have only known personally ONE family who didn't adopt with good intentions. I had to turn them in to CPS so it was a huge issue. I am not saying there aren't more, but in my experience, as an adoptive mom, most who adopt are doing it for the right reasons.

 

I admit we have been very fortunate. Our son (adopted) is the most well rounded, emotionally stable kid I know. He is an amazing kid. He was considered "special needs" by China's standards. It was a physical issue and really isn't an issue at all. He compensates so well that it is rarely a problem.

 

Dawn

 

Anyone who abuses or "uses" children is a horrible person. And while I most definitely don't agree with the Pearls and the like, I think this article is one-sided and does not represent any Christian I know of who has or is adopting.

 

Our family is currently in the process of adopting a child with special needs, and we are Christians, and we already have what many would consider a large family, but we are not doing it to coerce or manipulate a child into our particular belief system, we are not doing it to provide free labor, or any other nefarious deed. We are adopting because we have a stable loving family with more love to give a child.

 

Here is an article in response to the above, that I really likedhttp://jonathanmerri...ption-movement/

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

 

I am a Christian and I don't feel degraded, I don't feel that calling attention to something so very grave is sensationalizing. This needs more awareness. If people use homeschooling to be permissive towards abusive and demeaning behaviors then that could have a negative impact on all of us.

 

We need to be aware and condemn it.

 

I do wish there were more specific terms but I suppose every group has those that they wish did not share a commonality.

 

I agree. If we Christians that homeschool don't want everyone else to think we are like Nancy Campbell and other nutters, then we need to regularly and thoroughly condemn their bad theology and the lifestyle it leads to.

 

Do you remember after 9/11 how many Americans started to fear Muslims, thinking they were all supporters of terrorism? If the non-violent ones had used every chance to loudly proclaim that the violent ones weren't representative of most, perhaps there wouldn't have been as much fear. We need to learn from their mistake. (And if many were doing this at the time, it wasn't loud enough because I can't have been the only one who missed hearing them on TV.)

 

No, I think the article was misleading and the title contributed to it. It took anecdotal stories from two families associated with one magazine , moved to the middle of the article to talk about mainstream Christian adoption agencies and then moved back to the anecdotal stories again. The effect is to taint the stuff in the middle with the tales from these two families.

 

I think many of us are in agreement that the title was poorly done. Perhaps something like "Orphan Fever: How Fringe Extremists are Inadvertently Supporting Child Trafficking" would be more accurate. I also agree that the author should have spent time discussing RAD, or had a follow-up article about it. I hope she discusses it in her book, because I read a lot, and have only heard about it here on this forum. Every prospective foster or adoptive family should know about it.

 

Maybe it doesn't seem like it in your particular neck of the woods, but the superfundamentalists these days really are only a minority of homeschoolers. They may be a particularly vocal subset thanks to the various bully pulpits they have set up for themselves, but fortunately today most homeschooling families are much more mainstream.

 

Every spring, we have threads about how many conventions are dominated by the superfundamentalists. My state's support group has several board members that are huge fans of Vision Forum. Their church is filled with Michael Pearl, Nancy Campbell, and Vision Forum fans. The state conference reflects this. I'd like to attend the book fair but I refuse to give them any money. So while statistically most homeschoolers may not be anything like these patriarchal groups, they are influenced by them indirectly, through other people who attend the conferences, whether they know it or not.

[SKL]

I attend an evangelical church and sat in on a Sunday School class based on a discipline book. The book is not Pearl or any of those often criticized here; in fact, I've seen it recommended here by a couple of people. The book is basically a spanking bible. Don't get me wrong, I believe spanking is a valid discipline option, but it's not the be-all and end-all that this book suggested. My adopted daughter A is 6, and I have mentioned to a few people who work with her that I usually don't view spanking as an option with her because she has an ability to turn off pain. I believe this trait is related to adoption issues. (My other daughter, also 6 and adopted at the same time, does not have this issue; all kids are different.) For me to beat my child until she responded to the "discipline" would be abuse IMO. The thing is, I'm 46, fairly mature, fairly experienced, and able to look at a problem from all sides before making this kind of decision. I'm not overwhelmed (usually) by the number of kids, their special needs, or how much time I need to spend parenting. They were also adopted by 12mos, meaning their risk of having RAD is relatively low. That said, I could see how a different set of facts could lead to abuse. Bottom line, adoptive parents need support, early and often and for the long haul. If a church is encouraging adoption, the church needs to be there for the whole ride IMO. And the community beyond the church needs to help out too, by being inclusive enough to foster the positive exchange of ideas, among other things.