Orphan Fever: The Evangelical Movement's Adoption Obession

[JumpyTheFrog]

If these individuals are abusing children (and it sounds like they are) then they need to be prosecuted; but, let's not be a part of hatefully maligning a whole group of people.The title of the article and it's negative slant is hate speech.

 

A bad article title that paints with too broad a brush is not what I would call hate speech. Let's remember the real victims here: the abused children. All of us who are against this atrocious abuse of children need to stand together and say, "We won't tolerate it. We don't care if you think you are doing God's work by adopting these kids from shady agencies. We don't agree that merely living in a supposed Christian family in the US is automatically better than being in Africa. If we notice that you are abusing them, whether physically or emotionally, or if you aren't educating them, we will turn you in."

 

If we don't want to end up with more regulation, we need to police our own (or in this case, those who proclaim the title of homeschoolers, but don't actually educate their kids).

[Joanne]

Alternative subculture has a dynamic that is fairly predictable. Each subculture group has a mainstream within the culture. What attracts people to a subculture varies. It can be a healthy, researched, intentional attraction. OR, it could be an unhealthy reaction. For example, those who homeschool because they've looked at the options for their family, in the context of their local educational options, and homeschooling is the best option for academics and family culture (which can include world view). That is more likely to be a healthy choice than the parent who choses homeschooling because of a visceral fear of public schoo.

 

Within subcultures, fringe/extreme worldviews develop. I've observed it in homeschooling, alternative-to-hospital birthing, eating styles (vegetarian/vegan/raw food, for example). I've seen it politically. I've seen it in religions (not just Christian, but also Muslim, new age,...).

 

To be attracted to a counter-cultural choice and to an even more counter-cultural choice within the already alternative paradigm speaks to few in number, but often much in energy, passion, and spirit. There will be, by defnition, a higher percentage of unhealthy people in that cohort ~ because getting to that cohort involves several paths.

 

Conservative, evangelical, homeschooling, punitively parenting, adoptive parents who embrace the theological and pedagocial world view of extreme Christian churches are going to be few in number, but their drama is going to be so big that it skews the perception of reality. Clearly the Above Rubies, Pearl, ilk have cultish elements and followings.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Labeling evangelicals or fundamentalists negatively for the actions of those mentioned in the article is just as wrong as labeling all Muslims negatively for the actions of a violent or abusive minority.

If these individuals are abusing children (and it sounds like they are) then they need to be prosecuted; but, let's not be a part of hatefully maligning a whole group of people.The title of the article and it's negative slant is hate speech.

 

When they spoke of evangelicals and fundamentalists as groups, they were referring to the physical groups of people who worked together to help each other adopt children internationally. Did you see the lists of organizations? They were not speaking of evangelicals or Christian fundamentalists who are not part of those groups or influenced by them, and who have either never adopted or never treated children in that fashion.

 

I am quick to spot bias against Christianity, but I did not see undue bias in this article. A specific situation, a specific subset of people, being called out for very un-Christian behavior, is what I see.

[JumpyTheFrog]

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.

 

Yes. Unfortunately, in our experience, church was the place most likely to condemn DH and I when we were at a loss of what to do about one of our kids. We don't want or need trite phrases and the pat answers conservative Christians like the give. I have basically given up on Christian marriage and parenting books.

[SKL]

As for government oversight, this is a state matter, and some states do a better job than others. When I adopted, it was the policy of my agency to do 3 years of post-placement visits, in addition to the intensive home study etc. Some foreign governments also require post-placement visits /reporting in order to remain "open" for adoption with the destination country. I think this should be a requirement for all adoptions. Aside from giving an outsider (knowledgeable about family and adoption issues) a peek into the situation from time to time, it provides an ongoing resource should the adoptive parent feel things aren't going well and need help.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

A bad article title that paints with too broad a brush is not what I would call hate speech. Let's remember the real victims here: the abused children. All of us who are against this atrocious abuse of children need to stand together and say, "We won't tolerate it. We don't care if you think you are doing God's work by adopting these kids from shady agencies. We don't agree that merely living in a supposed Christian family in the US is automatically better than being in Africa. If we notice that you are abusing them, whether physically or emotionally, or if you aren't educating them, we will turn you in."

 

If we don't want to end up with more regulation, we need to police our own (or in this case, those who proclaim the title of homeschoolers, but don't actually educate their kids).

 

The only problem with that is, they are not "our own." We have no more in common with these people than we did with the FLDS Warren Jeffs compound. We can't tell them anything, we're not in the same groups except possibly yearly at state hs conventions. (Which I no longer attend, anyway.)

 

All I can think to do is to quote Mr. Incredible when I see them and shout, "You're not affiliated with me!" I don't have any real answers for this. We need a different name for what we do, and our own organizations, IMO, but I've thought that for years. I lack the power to make it happen.

[Ameena]

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.)

 

Totally off topic but most Muslims DID denounce what happened on 9/11. LOUDLY. Very few could get anyone in the news media to listen. There are entire books written by promiment Muslim leaders denouncing what happened on 9/11, and yet you never hear about them. There are many many many many many youtube videos by muslims denouncing what happened on 9/11 as well. Several promiment Islamic music artists even wrote songs about it denouncing what happened {search youtube for My faith my voice by Native Deen if you'd like to hear one}.

 

Just as they did what happened in Boston recently. Only this time a few news sources actually listened, and even fewer yet broadcast that news to their viewers.

 

/steps off her soapbox and returns you to your regularly scheduled heated discussion :)

[SKL]

 

Yes. Unfortunately, in our experience, church was the place most likely to condemn DH and I when we were at a loss of what to do about one of our kids. We don't want or need trite phrases and the pat answers conservative Christians like the give. I have basically given up on Christian marriage and parenting books.

Yes - in my above rambling post I meant to add that people I've spoken to, including my kids' teacher (who is the pastor's wife), the school psych, and a room mom, seemed to get more of an attitude against me and my kid after I told them I would not spank her for a certain offense (and I explained why). None of them are adoptive parents, and most people assume that adoptive parents are basically making up stuff about some adoptive kids needing different handling. Basically if I won't hit my kid I am probably "one of those parents" who thinks her kid is "too good" or "can do no wrong." No, that's not it. And in fact, she has gotten spanked, but I have to be careful about using that tool. I must say that while it's nice to see the church giving people strength based on what they have in common, it would be nice if open-mindedness wasn't so often a casualty.

[violamama]

I'm an evangelical. We're adopting. The title of the article ticks me off, frankly, though maybe not for the reasons you might think.

 

The idea that this "obsession" is childish, naive or ill-informed angers me. I wish the entire world were obsessed with the plight of orphans and underserved or at risk children in general. They do actually, right now, exist. There are many more orphans (and I mean true orphans, in orphanages or foster care) in the world right this second who will age out than will be adopted. This author (and the book The Child Catchers) seem to believe that the children who live in misery because their community cannot care for them are a mirage. It's bull.

 

As an evangelical obsessed with adopting, I am definitely well-meaning. I am not naive. It would be best if countries could care for their children and meet the needs of at-risk families without ever needing international adoption. And people should work for that. But that does not have to be the opposite of adoption. International adoptive families (and now I guess I'll trot out my own anecdotal personal experience, as these articles and books seem to rely heavily on them) in my experience are VERY concerned with the health of the countries from which they adopt. Many become activists.

 

The press generating concern is great, oversight is clearly a good thing (except when it becomes a quagmire of red tape that turns into a hindrance to its own goals), and I try to assume the intentions of the current anti-adoption trend are ultimately good. But the idea that we should stand back and chat about what to do for the next five years, or ratify conventions that further muddy the waters (I'm looking at you, Hague) is just wrong. I wanted to say "evil" but then you might think I'm on the nut-job end of things, and I'd like to be extended some consideration there.

 

ETA: For further food for thought, watch "Somewhere Inbetween" and "Stuck".

[JumpyTheFrog]

Within subcultures, fringe/extreme worldviews develop. I've observed it in homeschooling, alternative-to-hospital birthing, eating styles (vegetarian/vegan/raw food, for example). I've seen it politically. I've seen it in religions (not just Christian, but also Muslim, new age,...).

 

Yes, I have seen this, too. I like to read about nutrition and have noticed that the Weston A. Price Foundation seems to have many people like this. I think they have some good info, but I don't read their website anymore because I noticed that too many people believe that perfect nutrition will prevent all diseases. Except in that in real life, perfect nutrition (whatever that is) can't make up for genetic defects, pollution, etc. One of my friends is really into their materials (at one point she mentioned she was obsessing over reading their cookbook and had to stop) and seems to have had a more difficult time than normal accepting her child's allergies, because she did "everything right", and that was supposed to prevent anaphylactic allergies.

 

Another friend has children with severe chronic health problems that are very unusual for their age. Unfortunately, she and her kids are sticking with a doctor that means well, but is too naturally minded. My friend seems unable to grasp that after 4-5 years of being treated by that doctor, she and her kids are getting worse, not better. I have (or have had) many of the same conditions as them and I fired the same doctor about three years after I noticed she had run out of ideas.

 

I then moved on to my current doctor who is halfway between a naturopath and a traditional doctor and I've made enormous improvement since then. My symptoms are mostly under control and I am fully functional, including exercise again, after being too ill to even drive for years. My point with this long rabbit trail is that my friend is philosophically stuck and won't consider changing doctors and treatment approaches, even though she can see how much my new doctor has helped me.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Totally off topic but most Muslims DID denounce what happened on 9/11. LOUDLY. Very few could get anyone in the news media to listen.

 

 

I'm glad to hear that. I wonder if they would've received more attention by the media if 9/11 had occurred ten years later when Facebook and Twitter were around.

 

BTW, I want to make sure it's clear I wasn't saying Muslims were silent at the time - only that if they did denounce it at the time, I didn't hear about it.

[Soror]

Very, very sad.

 

I live in a rural area, what most would consider very rural. It is a very conservative area as well, evangelical Christians are in fairly high numbers. For the most part however I have not found people that are *that* conservative in our own group. I do know some people that lean that direction though and that among many reasons is why we longer associate. For the most part they only associate with those that meet their standards. They don't go out to a lot of functions and are generally not going to be prominent members in any group unless it is their own approved group. They know the majority don't agree w/ their discipline and other choices so they stay away from those people, out of fear of gov't intrusion. I do not think that sub-group is a large portion of the Evangelical group, in the least though, as I have very good Evangelical friends who are nothing like this group. I think it is hard to gauge their number though due to their secretive nature. Unfortunately due to this I think there are many kids who are abused or neglected that we will never know about.

 

Fwiw I don't have an issue with people living back to the land. I don't see those aspects as wretched. I know there are different members on here that live in similar manners without neglecting and abusing their children and making it into a positive situation as well. However, treating them as slaves and the physical and emotional abuse is wretched. I think that there is a couple of different issues as play though. Within the 'back to the landers' subset there are also those that become so obsessed that nothing else is deemed worthy of time, that is not specific to conservatives though. The problem is that the only thing that is valued is working on the land or it is placed on such a high priority that no time or resources left for any education in even the basics.

[fairfarmhand]

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.

 

Yes. Unfortunately, in our experience, church was the place most likely to condemn DH and I when we were at a loss of what to do about one of our kids. We don't want or need trite phrases and the pat answers conservative Christians like the give. I have basically given up on Christian marriage and parenting books.

Yes - in my above rambling post I meant to add that people I've spoken to, including my kids' teacher (who is the pastor's wife), the school psych, and a room mom, seemed to get more of an attitude against me and my kid after I told them I would not spank her for a certain offense (and I explained why). None of them are adoptive parents, and most people assume that adoptive parents are basically making up stuff about some adoptive kids needing different handling. Basically if I won't hit my kid I am probably "one of those parents" who thinks her kid is "too good" or "can do no wrong." No, that's not it. And in fact, she has gotten spanked, but I have to be careful about using that tool. I must say that while it's nice to see the church giving people strength based on what they have in common, it would be nice if open-mindedness wasn't so often a casualty.

 

yes...church people should be supporting adoptive parents. And they should be ready to admit that they don't know all the answers. I too am sick of the mind set that "if you spank your child, you are being a good parent." There are good parents that spank occasionally, there are good parents that NEVER spank. Parents who are dealing with intensely troubled children probably don't need to spank their kids. And they should not be ashamed to admit it in church either.

[Soror]

I dont' generally share that we are non-spanking parents due to the climate here. I don't care to get into any big discussions with anyone about our discipline choices. People around here assume your children are or will be crazy if you don't spank. Ironically though people assume we spank as our children are (generally) well-behaved.

[violamama]

Wow, where I live spanking is the thing you would be more reluctant to share. I've never been in a church where I felt that- that must be really uncomfortable as a parent.

 

Is it really related to faith, or is that a general consensus in the community at large? (Obviously, sad crazies who beat and enslave their adopted kids notwithstanding.)

[SKL]

Wow, where I live spanking is the thing you would be more reluctant to share. I've never been in a church where I felt that- that must be really uncomfortable as a parent.

 

Is it really related to faith, or is that a general consensus in the community at large? (Obviously, sad crazies who beat and enslave their adopted kids notwithstanding.)

 

They quote the Bible all over the place about spanking, but obviously people spank even if they've never read the Bible. I think it's more a matter of "what I do is right for everyone." Because some people can't put themselves in others' shoes. ... Spanking per se does not bother me. But IMO proper discipline, including spanking, requires a level of maturity. Which seems to be missing from arguments like "if spanking hasn't worked, you aren't doing it enough." And also, "if you really loved your child, you'd spank him." Spoken by people who don't even know my child. ETA: But to clarify, no, people don't go up and down the street spanking or talking about it. My church is conservative and this topic came up in the context of that "spanking bible" and in the context of my kid doing something wrong at school. In the general community, people aren't really pro- or anti- spanking, but it isn't a topic of casual discussion.

[Soror]

Wow, where I live spanking is the thing you would be more reluctant to share. I've never been in a church where I felt that- that must be really uncomfortable as a parent.

 

Is it really related to faith, or is that a general consensus in the community at large? (Obviously, sad crazies who beat and enslave their adopted kids notwithstanding.)

 

It is our community here. Corporal punishment is still allowed in some schools, both dh and I grew up with it in our schools. My mom although pro-spanking did not approve of it for us though. I have one friend now that doesn't spank but she has just recently came to that decision. I cannot think of anyone else I know that doesn't spank at least some and I know plenty who don't go to church. Perhaps they are like me though and don't feel like debating everybody about it. It is much easier now with the kids getting older that I at least have some "proof" that non-spanking doesn't equal no discipline. I wouldn't say spanking is a constant part of conversation but it always comes up when anything about discipline is brought up. Any mention of kids misbehaving is directly followed by some lamentation about how they just need a good spanking or such.

[violamama]

"if spanking hasn't worked, you aren't doing it enough." And also, "if you really loved your child, you'd spank him." Spoken by people who don't even know my child. In the general community, people aren't really pro- or anti- spanking, but it isn't a topic of casual discussion.

 

 

See, I don't seem to get all the super-invasive asinine advice I hear about other people dealing with all the time. Maybe I look too grumpy to safely approach. I cannot imagine walking up to somebody and telling them how to parent, and for the most part I really try not to assume I know what's going on when I see somebody out and about with their kids. Even in a community situation, I generally would expect support... I'm not quite sure how I would react if somebody decided to start telling me what to do "about" my kid.

 

The vetting process for adoption (and we've done the whole shebang from foster to domestic to international) is extensive. But clearly, crazies do get through. That some happen to use the Bible to justify abuse is horrible.

[HRAAB]

I know a family that is trying to be self-sufficient, grows most of their food (only buys wheat, sugar and a few other items), homeschools, neither parent works. They have 6 biological children and are wanting to adopt a sibling group of up to 5 children. Currently they have foster children (I think 3) and are hoping this works into an adoption. Sometimes there is barely enough food to feed the 6 let alone more. It takes all the kids (incl. foster children) working with the parents to pull this off (living off the land). The mother is absolutely radical about this lifestyle - maybe fundamentalist back to earther - I don't know. It is her religion. She is also extremely controlling and dictatorial. Everyone in the house has to play the role perfectly that she has assigned to them. While she would never use physical punishment, she finds other ways to control the children. They are constantly, I am not exaggerating when I say constantly, in trouble for something. Nothing big. They rarely leave the house, have no life outside of the homestead, rarely get to visit a friend. The foster children have been through a living hell already, and I honestly have huge, huge doubts about whether this family should be able to adopt - especially children that have so many emotional issues. I guess in a way anything is better than what they've been through, but on the other hand I know what this family is like and my heart breaks for those children. There is controlling through physical abuse and controlling through emotional abuse.

 

When I was reading the article, it sounded so uncomfortably familiar except the family I know never uses corporal punishment and most certainly are not evangelicals. They are very liberal both religiously and politically, and although they are not religious fanatics, they are definitely fanatics of another sort. It all looks so good at a distance until you actually get inside. Then it doesn't look so very good at all. I wonder how many times abused/traumatized children are placed in unhealthy families?

[LizzyBee]

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

 

 

How about if the title said the Campbell family instead of broad brushing any group?

[HRAAB]

Wow, where I live spanking is the thing you would be more reluctant to share. I've never been in a church where I felt that- that must be really uncomfortable as a parent.

 

Is it really related to faith, or is that a general consensus in the community at large? (Obviously, sad crazies who beat and enslave their adopted kids notwithstanding.)

 

 

When I first started homeschooling the group I belonged to would always give an expectant mother a wooden spoon as gift. By the time I was pregnant with my next, I had left that group far behind.

[LibraryLover]

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.

 

 

 

Exactly. They may be a minority, but they wield enormous power (in their sub-sect world), which includes political work, actively rejecting/censoring other Christians (vendors, speakers, consumers) who disagree with them in any way. They are also not above mudslinging.

[I.Dup.]

How did this issue turn into a homeschooling issue? This is clearly about adoption.

 

Obviously, abusive families will homeschool to hide the abuse. But that is such a small sect of homeschoolers, I don't even know why it would bother us at all? Surely we shouldn't have to try to "hide" because of abusive parents who also homeschool? That's not a homeschooling issue, and the incidence of abusive parents who homeschool just to hide the abuse are SO slim compared to the majority of homeschoolers.

 

It bothers me that we are so bothered by associating with homeschooling because of a few whackjobs who abuse their kids and homeschool just to hide it.

 

This is NOT a homeschooling issue. I wish we could talk more about just how damaging the current push is to adopt. That is what the article was about.

[LibraryLover]

This is NOT a homeschooling issue. I wish we could talk more about just how damaging the current push is to adopt. That is what the article was about.

 

 

In this case it is both, as it concerns a particular subset of Christians who exclusively homeschool.

 

We have to see it for what it is. Further, HSLDA, a hsing 'rights' organization is defending the way these adoptive families are 'parenting'.

[hillfarm]

Regarding spanking, it is surprising to me that it is generally not well accepted here in my rural area. This is a generalization, but it seems to me that many parents in my area who experienced very rough, poor childhoods usually choose to not use any punitive measures and very few other disciplinary measures on their own children. They want a better life for their children, but unfortunately don't always know how to achieve the desired result.

 

Many of the children, whose parents had tough childhoods, are now suffering the consequences of overly permissive parenting. They grew up being given everything they wanted. They rarely heard the word no. They were not required to do any work or contribute to the wellbeing of their families in any way. And now they don't seem to have a good grasp of self control, the value of human life, the value of money, sensitivity to the rights of others, the need to obey the law. Many have destroyed their lives with drugs and alcohol.

 

That said, IMO, spanking, time outs, lectures, modeling, rewards systems, etc. are all tools that can be used in parenting. They are wielded better by certain parents than others. They have more desirable effect on some children than others. Just as the wrong type of screwdriver in the hands of a poorly trained carpenter, being used for the wrong purpose will not only not achieve the desired outcome, but may even damage or destroy the material being worked. The wrong type of parenting technique in the hands of an unskilled parent will not produce the desired result in their child and may cause irreparable damage. In an ideal world, each parent would be wise and sensitive enough to know which parenting tool, when deftly applied, would have the maximum benefit for each of their children. It is not as easy as spank/no spank.

[I.Dup.]

In this case it is both, as it concerns a particular subset of Christians who exclusively homeschool.

 

We have to see it for what it is. Further, HSLDA, a hsing 'rights' organization is defending the way these adoptive families are 'parenting'.

 

It just seems I am seeing so much disgust over the *few* whackjob homeschoolers who are abusive that it's verging on paranoia. We don't even want to call ourselves homeschoolers because of those people? Let's not play to what the media sensationalizes.

 

I also see more and more cries for legislation over homeschooling because of this minority group of "homeschoolers." Is that really what we want for our families? Do you want to be forced into co-ops, forced to report more, forced to use a certain curriculum, forced to structure your days as dictated by the state? Do we really want to give that kind of power over just because of these abusive parents?

[violamama]

But that is such a small sect of homeschoolers, I don't even know why it would bother us at all? Surely we shouldn't have to try to "hide" because of abusive parents who also homeschool?

...

It bothers me that we are so bothered by associating with homeschooling because of a few whackjobs who abuse their kids and homeschool just to hide it.

 

 

I did talk about it. It's not damaging. Doing nothing for countries in turmoil and poverty is damaging. Look at the statistics- there are kids being left to age out of orphanages. Get outraged about THAT.

 

ETA: I could replace every spot you said "homeschoolers" with "adoptive parents" or "abusive adoptive parents".

[momacacia]

I don't know anything about the Allisons or the Campbells, other than what's posted here. I do, however, recognize "adoption fever" in our church, which is conservative evangelical, certainly not what I'd call "fundamentalist." Our Sunday school class happens to have grown in homeschooling numbers and in adoption numbers. But unlike the article posted here, I have nothing but admiration for the families in our church that have big enough hearts and arms to welcome more kids into their homes. It is not a calling I have, but I really respect those who do.

 

We have one family with their youngest boy adopted from China and they are waiting to bring home another little boy from China with physical handicaps. They met the second boy which taking their older biological children on a ministry trip to China where they worked in the orphanages. The mother and oldest daughter fell in love with him and now they will be able to bring him into their family. Their family can also afford the medical care that will be needed to help improve his physical condition. Their older boy from China is thriving in public school, in our church and in his home. Later, they will likely attend a private Christian school in our area, which all of their older siblings have attended. One of the older siblings in this family wants to spend her life working in internaional orphanages and caring for children and even those who are college age want to be sure to be home when the second boy arrives so they are part of the family unit when he joins them.

 

Two other families have adopted little bi-racial baby girls into their families. One because of fertitlity issues, and the other because they 'believe' so strongly in adoption and wanted to add to their family. Another family, which already has biological children, is completing foster care training because they love children.

 

Only one of these families homeschools, and that only for a specific year out of their kids' academic lives to bridge between public and private school.

 

What I've seen of evangelical adoption is completely different than what's represented here. Yes, it seems to be the fad right now, and the likes of Focus on the Family are always talking about (I guess since the now President was adopted himself), but for the great majority of the children and families involved, it is a wonderful thing. And I have to wonder how the Campbells and Allisons treated their biological children. Probably not much better.

[fairfarmhand]

 

When I first started homeschooling the group I belonged to would always give an expectant mother a wooden spoon as gift. By the time I was pregnant with my next, I had left that group far behind.

 

see...that mindset just bugs me. We do spank here every now and then, but it is not something that I take joy in. In fact, I dislike it so much, and it is the last thing that I do when disciplining kids.

[SKL]

Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous to imply that internationally-adopted orphans would be better off in their home country, where they have no accepting family and domestic adoption is essentially non-existent. Every time I go to watch one of my girls' little performances, I feel how important it is for them to be up there seeing that "their mother" has come just to see them. And then there's the matter of education, particularly for Miss A who has needed me to spend thousands of dollars on her vision so that she can have a hope of reading, unlike her closest biological relatives. There is employment in her birth country for poor, illiterate women, but much of that isn't even legal here. So yes, it strikes a nerve when people act like adoptive parents are fair game for philosophical criticisms. Phooey.

[Corraleno]

It just seems I am seeing so much disgust over the *few* whackjob homeschoolers who are abusive that it's verging on paranoia. We don't even want to call ourselves homeschoolers because of those people? Let's not play to what the media sensationalizes.

 

For me, it's not just because of a "few whackjob homeschoolers," or those who physically abuse their kids — it's also all the other subgroups that Tibbie cited in her earlier posts. Not to mention that HSLDA does everything in their power to be seen as the "face of homeschooling" not only in America but, increasingly, internationally — and I am opposed to pretty much everything they stand for. The fact that they fight for the "homeschooling" rights of parents who cage their children, and even torture and murder them, means that I do not want the same word used for those parents, and that organization, associated with me.

 

I also see more and more cries for legislation over homeschooling because of this minority group of "homeschoolers." Is that really what we want for our families? Do you want to be forced into co-ops, forced to report more, forced to use a certain curriculum, forced to structure your days as dictated by the state? Do we really want to give that kind of power over just because of these abusive parents?

 

 

Those are extreme examples; IMHO there can be a happy medium between total control over a family's curriculum and schedule, and no oversight whatsoever. If there were a way to implement simple, reasonable standards of accountability for homeschoolers, I would be fine with that. I think requirements in states like NY and PA are too stringent, but even in those states most people, including unschoolers, are able to school the way they want. And those states are a tiny minority — there are many states (including mine) where there is no accountability whatsoever. Yes it's more convenient for me not to have to jump through any hoops, but it also makes it incredibly easy for parents to hide abuse and neglect. There should be some way to protect those kids, rather than just saying "well I don't want to have to fill in any paperwork, so I don't care how many kids are abused or neglected because of lack of oversight."

 

Also, I think HSLDA's defense of parents who are extremely abusive and neglectful ultimately does far more harm than good. By attempting to legitimize "parenting" and "educational" choices that the vast majority of Americans — including most evangelical homeschoolers — find utterly abhorrent, they are the ones waving red flags to legislators, IMHO.

 

Jackie

[I.Dup.]

Those are extreme examples; IMHO there can be a happy medium between total control over a family's curriculum and schedule, and no oversight whatsoever. If there were a way to implement simple, reasonable standards of accountability for homeschoolers, I would be fine with that.

 

 

Not extreme at all, and can you give an example of how to turn homeschooling into a federal issue with enough restrictions to somehow prevent abuse and neglect in all of the millions of homeschool families all over the country, across the board? Can you imagine how stringent it would have to be if homeschooling was federalized and controlled in that way?

 

Abuse is horrifying, but there's no way to prevent it in all families. Parents will always abuse their kids. To cry for more legislation to try to prevent all abuse in all homes across the board is just crazy for all of the rest of us who enjoy the freedom that homeschooling provides and wouldn't dream of abusing our children.

[Laurie4b]

How did this issue turn into a homeschooling issue? This is clearly about adoption.

 

Obviously, abusive families will homeschool to hide the abuse. But that is such a small sect of homeschoolers, I don't even know why it would bother us at all? Surely we shouldn't have to try to "hide" because of abusive parents who also homeschool? That's not a homeschooling issue, and the incidence of abusive parents who homeschool just to hide the abuse are SO slim compared to the majority of homeschoolers.

 

It bothers me that we are so bothered by associating with homeschooling because of a few whackjobs who abuse their kids and homeschool just to hide it.

 

This is NOT a homeschooling issue. I wish we could talk more about just how damaging the current push is to adopt. That is what the article was about.

 

 

Ok. Let's play even and not let the "small sect of abusive adoptive families bother us." What is damaging about what you call the current "push" to adoption? What do you consider to be a "push?"

[Laurie4b]

When they spoke of evangelicals and fundamentalists as groups, they were referring to the physical groups of people who worked together to help each other adopt children internationally. Did you see the lists of organizations? They were not speaking of evangelicals or Christian fundamentalists who are not part of those groups or influenced by them, and who have either never adopted or never treated children in that fashion.

 

I am quick to spot bias against Christianity, but I did not see undue bias in this article. A specific situation, a specific subset of people, being called out for very un-Christian behavior, is what I see.

 

 

As just one example, Bethany Christian services has had a solid reputation as an adoption agency with thoughtful practices. They were in the article, too, as if they belonged in the same category as the shady overseas agencies. The mainstream groups were primarily in the middle of the article.

 

Bad apples get through all agencies, Christian or not. I guess there is just not a fool-proof way to predict who will be a whack-o adoptive parent. CPS has made piles of mistakes in screening foster and adoptive families.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Not extreme at all, and can you give an example of how to turn homeschooling into a federal issue with enough restrictions to somehow prevent abuse and neglect in all of the millions of homeschool families all over the country, across the board? Can you imagine how stringent it would have to be if homeschooling was federalized and controlled in that way?

 

Abuse is horrifying, but there's no way to prevent it in all families. Parents will always abuse their kids. To cry for more legislation to try to prevent all abuse in all homes across the board is just crazy for all of the rest of us who enjoy the freedom that homeschooling provides and wouldn't dream of abusing our children.

 

 

One of the sticky wickets for me is this: PS kids have some safety nets away from home if they need them, and some homeschoolers don't.

 

I did not like school, I had some crazy and abusive teachers along the way, and I was perpetually bored out of my ever-loving mind. But I must say, every single year of my K-12 ps experience I did know exactly who I could go to help, exactly which teachers and administrators were to be trusted, and exactly which of them personally cared about me. Every year.

 

Every single year in school, if I'd been in trouble I could have asked for help. And even in a poor school, I could find people to help me learn to read, learn math, and have access to a library.

 

I know homeschooling families whose children do not have those community resources. Never around anybody else, nobody to tell. They don't even go to the doctor, or know anybody outside their patriarchal, parental rights communities.

 

I've always told my homeschooled children who they can talk to if they don't want to talk to me but they need an adult. Or, heaven forbid, if I'm the problem or DH is the problem. Part of our emergency and safety training has to do with "who to tell" in various situations.

 

I realize this line of thinking isn't perfect. Many children never reach out for help at school, and many children are abused by teachers or bullied by other children. But for many others, school is a lifeline away from home.

[QueenCat]

If possible, children should be placed with families in their own land/culture. More countries are working to make domestic adoptions happen, rather than having people from other countries, mostly Americans, come in and adopt their children. I think that is a good thing. I hope we see a lot more of it in the future.

[I.Dup.]

One of the sticky wickets for me is this: PS kids have some safety nets away from home if they need them, and some homeschoolers don't.

 

I did not like school, I had some crazy and abusive teachers along the way, and I was perpetually bored out of my ever-loving mind. But I must say, every single year of my K-12 ps experience I did know exactly who I could go to help, exactly which teachers and administrators were to be trusted, and exactly which of them personally cared about me. Every year.

 

Every single year in school, if I'd been in trouble I could have asked for help. And even in a poor school, I could find people to help me learn to read, learn math, and have access to a library.

 

I know homeschooling families whose children do not have those community resources. Never around anybody else, nobody to tell. They don't even go to the doctor, or know anybody outside their patriarchal, parental rights communities.

 

I've always told my homeschooled children who they can talk to if they don't want to talk to me but they need an adult. Or, heaven forbid, if I'm the problem or DH is the problem. Part of our emergency and safety training has to do with "who to tell" in various situations.

 

I realize this line of thinking isn't perfect. Many children never reach out for help at school, and many children are abused by teachers or bullied by other children. But for many others, school is a lifeline away from home.

 

 

I hear what you are saying, totally. But how do we solve this? Do we start having government workers come in to evaluate families before they can homeschool, with home studies and the like?

 

It just makes me nervous when we start calling for government oversight, and no, I'm not one of those crazy conspiracy theorist fundies.

 

If possible, children should be placed with families in their own land/culture. More countries are working to make domestic adoptions happen, rather than having people from other countries, mostly Americans, come in and adopt their children. I think that is a good thing. I hope we see a lot more of it in the future.

 

 

I totally agree.

[I.Dup.]

 

Ok. Let's play even and not let the "small sect of abusive adoptive families bother us." What is damaging about what you call the current "push" to adoption? What do you consider to be a "push?"

 

 

I think international adoption is needed and necessary. I think special needs adoption from places like Eastern Europe is even more needed and necessary.

 

But I think the push/pressure to adopt that is in many circles right now (and from what I hear, has been going on for a long time) is what is damaging. Families that should not adopt or have not been "called" to adopt per say, are hearing these sunshine and roses stories about saving orphans and being exposed to spiritual pressure like was cited in the article about our duty as Christians, and adopting when they are already in over their heads with their own situations/families.

 

I fully admit this is my own humble opinion and I could be wrong, but I have heard about way too many adoption-gone-horrifically-wrong stories to not have an opinion about it. I do not think families should be putting their biological children in danger or tearing apart their own families to adopt.

[Crimson Wife]

Those are extreme examples; IMHO there can be a happy medium between total control over a family's curriculum and schedule, and no oversight whatsoever. If there were a way to implement simple, reasonable standards of accountability for homeschoolers, I would be fine with that. I think requirements in states like NY and PA are too stringent, but even in those states most people, including unschoolers, are able to school the way they want. And those states are a tiny minority — there are many states (including mine) where there is no accountability whatsoever. Yes it's more convenient for me not to have to jump through any hoops, but it also makes it incredibly easy for parents to hide abuse and neglect. There should be some way to protect those kids, rather than just saying "well I don't want to have to fill in any paperwork, so I don't care how many kids are abused or neglected because of lack of oversight."

 

Most children who are abuse victims are below compulsory school age. Children of never-married mothers are 30 times more likely to be the victims of child abuse, but nobody is out there advocating for heavy-handed scrutiny of single moms as a way to protect their kids from abuse. Why then is it so popular to call for heavy-handed scrutiny of homeschoolers because of a few high-profile cases?

[Coffeetime]

I am currently reading the book, The Child Catchers, from which this article was an excerpt.

It is, thus far, extremely well-researched and fairly written.

 

You may be interested in reading this article, written by Caleb David. He is an adoptive father and runs The One Child Campaign in Ethiopia.

http://www.martydure...by-caleb-david/

 

My favorite excerpt:

I have heard and seen trafficking of children with families with my own ears and eyes. Some of this was done as a lack of knowledge, but some of it was done blatantly. In our eyes, we can’t imagine a Christian agency knowingly trafficking children under the guise of “they will be better off in the US anyway,†but it happens way more frequently than we could have ever imagined. If we truly say that we are people of justice, then these ethical and illegal issues MUST stop and be addressed. We cannot empower the stealing of children from their cultures any longer. We cannot allow children to be a commodity. We can, however, empower the nationals in so many different ways to restore hope, dignity, create jobs, sponsor by going and learning first hand what beauty and resources are in each community. In doing this, though it will be even harder than it sounds, those who are true orphans, and not adoptable in their home country, can be identified for international adoption. The problem for our Western mindsets with this is that it takes way more time, way more money without us receiving much, if any, credit. But if we say that we care about orphans and justice, then we must set aside our savior complex and hero mentality. This is the ONLY responsible, holistic, and sustainable way to move forward.

[SKL]

I like the goal of stopping practices that amount to stealing wanted children from their parents, and of supporting domestic adoptions of true orphans (provided there are safeguards against abuse). Problem is, beyond a point, the effect of policies to make these happen leads to much suffering and little progress. This has been clearly demonstrated as different countries change their laws about adoption. Babies/children are growing up without families and without proper nurturing, even though there are thousands of people wanting to adopt them. Many suffer abuse and even die. The devastating effects of these policies may deserve many terms, but "progress" usually isn't one of them. Advocates on both sides need to get off their high horse and find a middle ground that works for the children.

[butterflymommy]

If Ms. Joyce genuinely believes that most internationally adopted children are not only being trafficked, but entering abusive homes once in the US, then her mission is noble.

 

But if her real complaint is that Christians are adopting these children, to raise them of Christians then her view is nothing short of bigotry and hate.

 

Bigotry against Christians is no less dangerous than bigotry against people of other religions. It reminds me of something a perfectly nice German woman once said to me-- "It's good that homeschooling is illegal in Germany, because most homeschoolers in Germany are evangelical Christians."

 

You would think of all the countries that should understand the danger of targeting a particular religious group with hate and intolerance, Germany would be at the top, but apparently not.

 

I do find it hard to believe that the parents in these 3rd world countries are genuinely clueless and think that the orphanages are boarding schools where they can retrieve their children any time down the line. And while I'm sure money exchanges hands, money exchanges hands to birth mothers even in the US, in the form of "living expenses." What is "help" to one person is a "bribe" to another.

 

Yes, some children are being stolen, but are ALL of these children being outright stolen and trafficked or is there a lot of gray area alongside outright abandonment?

[SKL]

 

Yes, some children are being stolen, but are ALL of these children being outright stolen and trafficked or is there a lot of gray area alongside outright abandonment?

 

It varies by country, but no, the vast majority of these children are genuinely kids who need a home. Even the people adamantly against international adoption can only point to a few isolated incidents where a stolen child slipped through, especially with the current safeguards such as repeated DNA tests and birth mom interviews. Give us adoptive parents a little credit: we demand our agencies to make sure these babies have been legally and willingly relinquished or truly abandoned. The adoption rate in my kids' birth country, before the recent shutdown of its program for "reforming" (five years later it is still shut down), was still less than one-twentieth of the abortion rate in the USA. And also less than the adoption rate in the USA. Oh, btw, the reason for the "reform" is the desire to adhere to an international treaty that says the birth country needs to take various steps to make sure nobody wants to adopt the child domestically. Domestic adoption of indigenous kids is almost nonexistent in that country. Recently a top policians' daughter adopted a child - a white-skinned child from another country! Hmm. Anyhoo, perfect is in Heaven. Millions of kids don't need to die in orphanages or grow up to be poor and unemployable in order to address the rare incidence of child stealing. There are better ways. If one slips through over several years, remember that this happens in the USA as well.

[SKL]

I should add that these poor countries don't have the resources to follow the Hague international treaty and still avoid leaving kids in orphanages for years or indefinitely. I should also add that even if adoption eventually happens, a lot of damage is done by the forced period of sitting in an institution at an early age.

[FaithManor]

I can't say much because it is very painful for us and the only way I do not lose it is to not talk much. But, I would like everyone to know that our two daughters died in their orphanage in Nicaragua of readily curable, normally not life threatening medical conditions - eventually, the infections took over their little bodies due to neglect. Disruptions of American adoptions that year without any reasoning or warning left us unable to get them out. Some bureaucrat somewhere took our money, sent for their medical care, and pocketed it instead of getting our girls the necessary care.

 

They were 12 months and 18 months and we were within weeks of traveling to get them.

 

I do.not.want.to.suffer.guilt.by.association.with.the.monsters.described.in.this.article. Making international adoption harder, as if it isn't already frought with enough heartache and craziness, isn't going to make anything better for the children languishing in orphanages without proper food, water, clothing, medicine, developmentally appropriate interaction, or education.

 

I have to stop typing because if I say more, I won't be able to think or function very well today. It makes my chest ache.

 

Faith

[fairfarmhand]

I can't say much because it is very painful for us and the only way I do not lose it is to not talk much. But, I would like everyone to know that our two daughters died in their orphanage in Nicaragua of readily curable, normally not life threatening medical conditions - eventually, the infections took over their little bodies due to neglect. Disruptions of American adoptions that year without any reasoning or warning left us unable to get them out. Some bureaucrat somewhere took our money, sent for their medical care, and pocketed it instead of getting our girls the necessary care.

 

They were 12 months and 18 months and we were within weeks of traveling to get them.

 

I do.not.want.to.suffer.guilt.by.association.with.the.monsters.described.in.this.article. Making international adoption harder, as if it isn't already frought with enough heartache and craziness, isn't going to make anything better for the children languishing in orphanages without proper food, water, clothing, medicine, developmentally appropriate interaction, or education.

 

I have to stop typing because if I say more, I won't be able to think or function very well today. It makes my chest ache.

 

Faith

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

[Sisyphus]

Oh Faith. Wow. I am so, so sorry.

[SKL]

Oh Faith, I am so sorry. :( But thanks for saying that, for people who don't understand the other side.

[Laurie4b]

I think international adoption is needed and necessary. I think special needs adoption from places like Eastern Europe is even more needed and necessary.

 

But I think the push/pressure to adopt that is in many circles right now (and from what I hear, has been going on for a long time) is what is damaging. Families that should not adopt or have not been "called" to adopt per say, are hearing these sunshine and roses stories about saving orphans and being exposed to spiritual pressure like was cited in the article about our duty as Christians, and adopting when they are already in over their heads with their own situations/families.

 

I fully admit this is my own humble opinion and I could be wrong, but I have heard about way too many adoption-gone-horrifically-wrong stories to not have an opinion about it. I do not think families should be putting their biological children in danger or tearing apart their own families to adopt.

 

I totally agree that sunshine and roses stories only are damaging because RAD is real and close to unbearable when it is really bad. We should hear sunshine and roses and RAD stories and the stories in between.

 

I truly believe, from working with kids with RAD, that there are some children for whom a family is not the best placement. Some children are psychologically most comfortable in group care. If there were to be an acceptance of this so that there was a range of options for children, including quality group care, that would be the best case scenario. So if a child was placed with a family and it turned out that group care was better, the child could be placed in the setting that was best for him or her. The adoptive family could maintain ties if it suited them and the child. Most adoptions work out very well, but for the few that are damaging to the other children in the family or to the parents, we shouldn't ask families to live a life of constant levels of high-to-catastrophic stress.

 

I also agree that adoption intake should include whether families are already in over their heads with their own children. I believe most adoption studies attempt to do that, but people will present themselves in the best light, maybe not even knowing they are doing so.

[SKL]

The point is that christians are pushing adoption as a ministry to these kids, when in reality adoption should be about building a family. Not about outreach. Not about doing a favor for a poor kid in Africa. Not about a noble gesture or a rescue effort or sharing the gospel.

 

Re the bold: I have not ever seen this happen in church or in the community. I did see one person going off on her calling bla bla bla on an adoption-related facebook group, but most people disagreed and she eventually left the group in a huff. In fact, when I was in the home study process, the Christian adoption agency I used was very direct in saying that they did NOT want to hear people saying they wanted to adopt to save a child. They believed people should adopt because they want to build a family. They felt it is damaging to a child to be brought up in an environment where the attitude is "I saved you." Statistically, I think the person who adopts internationally to feel good about saving a child is rare. (The sheer cost, the length of process, the rigamarole and the emotional stress is enough to screen out most people who are not of sound mind as well as mature intentions.) The church who teaches this is probably also rare.