Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Forgotten Mother

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41
16
https://stuyspec.com/article/the-damaging-effects-of-misrepresentation-of-adoption-in-the-media

The Damaging Effects of Misrepresentation of Adoption in the Media
Representations of adoption falsely shape mainstream attitudes.
Reading Time: 4 minutes
By Juliet Burguieres
Issue 8, Volume 113

From Superman to Annie, adoption is a part of the media we love. For many writers, adoption adds a level of complexity to their stories that appeals to audiences while still keeping a family-friendly tone. However, despite the large selection of stories involving adoption, only a few positively portray adoptees and their families.

Movies and TV shows like Stuart Little, The Owl House, Elf, and even the IMDb description of I Am the Night (about ?a teenage girl looking for her real father?) use the term ?real? to describe biological families. When characters interchangeably use ?real? and ?biological,? it suggests that the inverse is also true that ?fake? and ?adoptive? are the same. While this seems harmless, it proves that screenwriters are happy to exploit adoption stories. Even a minimal amount of research would find that the adoption community prefers the term ?biological family? over ?real family.?

Other shows, like Netflix?s Carmen Sandiego and Green Eggs and Ham, romanticize the issue of abandonment. In these shows, birth parents were forced to relinquish their children because they were involved in flashy crime organizations or were high-profile spies, respectively. These are irresponsible plotlines that may prompt adopted children to fantasize about another family out there that leads a glamorous life and is willing and able to care for them. Sadly, this is almost never the case. It sends the message that an adoptive family is like a placeholder for the ?real? one that an adopted child should search for.

In a more sinister manner, Orphan and its sequel Orphan: First Kill are horror movies about families who adopt a child only to learn that this ?child? is a homicidal grown woman. These films encourage parents to seemingly shield their biological children against the foreign threat, demonizing adopted children in favor of biological children. They suggest that adoption is dangerous and reinforce the idea that an adopted child is an outsider who does not belong.

Netflix?s The Umbrella Academy is another example that exemplifies the misunderstanding of the familial bonds adoption creates. The show depicts seven children whom an eccentric billionaire ?bought? because of their extraordinary superhuman abilities. Not only does the show promote the idea that adopted children are commodities, but the series also goes on to explore a romantic relationship between two of the adoptive siblings, which has rightfully elicited backlash.

However, some viewers justify these misrepresentations as attempts to create interesting media. As one article put it, The Umbrella Academy should be allowed to misrepresent adoption because ?the point? is to ?creat[e] compelling art.? This author believes that since the incestuous relationship ?presents a challenging dilemma for the characters,? it is okay to make people uncomfortable. This show and many others like it, decides to delegitimize the bonds formed in adoption in favor of a more dramatic plotline.

If you?re getting tired of this list, imagine how tired adopted families feel. My family adopted my sister almost eight years ago. Unfortunately, representations of adoptive families in mainstream media are often inaccurate. We try to protect my sister from watching media that misrepresents adoption, but it is hard. We are tired of digging through articles and spoiling plot lines to avoid showing my baby sister a degrading movie or show, which is all too common in much of the media currently produced for children.

Importantly, negative messages about adoption aren?t confined to the screen. For many of the harmful depictions of adoption in the media, my family has personal experiences that reflect the messages they promote. My sister was once on a Zoom playdate with a girl from her school when, out of nowhere, the girl began interrogating her about where her ?real family? was. My mother calmly informed the little girl that we were my sister?s ?real? family, but when she informed the child?s parents of the incident, they saw no issue with their child?s insensitive question. As a society, we have become accustomed to exploiting adoption with no regard to the pain it may cause.

A friend of mine once declared with confidence that my family had ?bought a baby.? Too shocked to explain why this was false, I simply responded that she was wrong. The incident was perhaps more disturbing than if she had said it out of malice. It proves the power of the media to distort how well-meaning people talk about adoption.

My family is tired of justifying our legitimacy we deserve just as much respect as biological families. The solution is all too simple: research. If writers simply learn the correct terminology to use and consider the message their stories of adoption promote, our media would be kinder and, in turn, children would stop growing up believing that adoption is ?sad? or that adopted families aren?t ?real.?

Websites like RainbowKids go to great lengths to explore the complexities of responding to questions about adoption. One great response to being asked if two siblings are ?real? siblings is to say ?They are NOW! (This clarifies that adoption makes us a real family.)? Articles from Adoption can give you other perspectives and opinions on adoption. HealthyChildren explains other facets of adoption and foster care that my article didn?t have the space to discuss. AdoptHelp has a comprehensive list of some terms to avoid when talking about adoption. By teaching oneself, anyone can help to create kindness and understanding. Simply using the right terminology can be the difference between alienating someone and accepting them. And for those already part of the adoption community, consider reading the articles for reaffirmation?there are people out there who recognize and accept you and your family.

Everyone has a role to play in creating a society that is more accepting of different families. I talked solely about adoption, and only from my perspective as the sister of an adoptee, but there are so many other stories to tell about non-traditional families. We must be thoughtful in our portrayals of different families and give them the basic respect they are due.

17
General Discussion / Re: Devotions
« on: February 19, 2024, 05:37:22 PM »
https://proverbs31.org/read/devotions/full-post/2023/05/01/lonely-hurts-but-god-can-redeem-it?
utm_campaign=Daily%20Devotions&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=255008545&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--uB0MYq5voP27-kizedPjxJLuEMjmmndlEdw2cr5FTWvM30-tbZkupqMoZIzQ6lI8ZT5dinY_0YNsv5Va81LVJ__IKJA&utm_content=255008545&utm_source=hs_email#disqus_thread

Lonely Hurts, But God Can Redeem It
May 1, 2023
by Jessica Manfre

?But Ruth said, ?Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.?? Ruth 1:16 (ESV)

As a military spouse, I?ve become deeply familiar with embracing hard things, purposefully leaning into grace and navigating challenges well.  But sometimes even the strongest of foundations develop cracks. Holding it all together with Band-Aids of positivity doesn?t work long term; it?s just not strong enough and is simply a quick coping mechanism.  Can I make a confession?

In my mind, I?m not supposed to feel lonely or struggle with mental health issues. As a therapist, I have helpful knowledge and tools swirling inside my brain, ready to be utilized. How dare I submit to something I know how to combat! But loneliness, and the basket of negative symptoms it brings, has reared its ugly head and held on to me with a fierceness I wasn?t prepared for.  The book of Ruth was the light in the dark, the scripture I desperately needed to break the grip of loneliness. Though I've always loved the rich narration of the story, reading it during a desperately lonely season of my life was revolutionary. I saw myself in both Ruth and Naomi in so many ways as a military spouse leaving home for a foreign land with no support, experiencing what felt like continual loss, and finding myself questioning my faith.  God doesn?t always prevent us from experiencing life stressors and working through the very real emotions that accompany them. But when we feel lonely, God is standing ready to love us through it while His Word gently reminds us that we?re never truly alone.  Sometimes it takes working through something really hard to reawaken the truth and bring back the good.  ?But Ruth said, ?Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.?? (Ruth 1:16)

This pagan woman was so sure in her convictions and faith in a God she?d only just begun to love and worship! Here?s what I personally take from Ruth?s incredible story:  God doesn?t always prevent us from feeling pain or experiencing hardship. But that doesn?t mean He?s forsaken us. When I lost my grandmother in 2019, my heart shattered into a million irreparable pieces. It would take a stranger sharing my grandmother?s last words in the hospital room to give me the reminder I so desperately needed: ?I?m going home.?

I?d carried such immense guilt because of all the time I?d missed with her due to this military-led life. But it washed away in an instant as I read God?s Word and heard His gift in my grandmother?s final words. He is our home and sanctuary in the midst of hurt.  With God, our trials, hurts and lonely seasons can be used for good. There?s such a redemptive blessing in sharing your deepest struggles out loud. Not only does it remove them from the box you?re so frantically trying to hide them in, but I promise your pain is a shared one. Lean into your Bible, community, family and friends. We have a tendency to act like bitter Naomi in Ruth 1:20-21, pushing away support as we navigate the waves of the bad things drowning us.  I like to believe I hear God whispering this when I feel lonely: Where you go, I go. But it isn?t only imagined He is always with us. We just have to be ready and willing to hear Him.

18
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13094483/father-smashed-adopted-daughters-head-wall-bad-temper.html

Father, 33, smashed two-year-old adopted daughter's head against a wall in a 'bad temper' after she squabbled with his 'favourite son' over ice cream as he is jailed for murder

    Zahra Ghulami suffered a skull fracture at the hands of Jan Gholami
    He claimed she had fallen down the stairs while he was at the supermarket
    Judge blasts the father for his attack on the 'vulnerable and defenceless' child

By Jon Brady and James Callery

Published: 07:52, 17 February 2024 | Updated: 13:10, 17 February 2024

A father who killed his two-year-old adopted daughter by smashing her head against the wall lashed out after she fought with his 'favourite son' over ice cream.  Zahra Ghulami suffered a skull fracture caused by 'significant impact' at the hands of Jan Gholami, 33, at their home in Gravesend, Kent, in May 2020. He has been jailed for a minimum of 23 years and six months.  The girl, who Gholami adopted from Afghanistan, was taken to hospital on May 27, 2020 and died two days later; Gholami sought to claim to jurors she had fallen down the stairs while he was at Tesco.  Prosecutor Sally Howes KC told Maidstone Crown Court there had been a 'rivalry' between Zahra and Gholami's son and that the pair had squabbled about going for ice cream before Gholami stepped in and took out his 'bad temper' on the child.  Gholami told jurors that she had fallen down the stairs while he was at Tesco and was vomiting when he got home. A disturbing image was shown to the jury of Gholami carrying Zahra to hospital.  Jurors convicted Gholami of murder in a majority verdict of 10 to two after deliberating for nearly 20 hours at Maidstone Crown Court on January 9.  Gholami, of Oak Road, Gravesend, was also unanimously found guilty of child cruelty and was sentenced to a minimum of 23 years in prison.  His wife, Roqia Ghulami, was cleared of murder during the trial but was also found guilty of child neglect unanimously by the jury.  The 32-year-old, of Oak Road, Gravesend, was also sentenced to two years in prison at Maidstone Crown Court on Friday. She did not give evidence in court but told police she thought Zahra fell down the stairs.  During the trial, Zahra was described as a 'bright, intelligent' child who was 'highly curious' and wanted to find out about everything.  Zahra was admitted to the A&E department at Darent Valley Hospital in Dartford on May 27, 2020, during the first coronavirus lockdown.  She was later transferred to a hospital in London, but tragically died two days later.  The girl's cause of death was given as a severe head injury and skull fracture by Professor Charles Mangham, an osteoarticular pathologist.  When he was arrested by police, Gholami produced a receipt from the supermarket in an attempt to prove his innocence.  He told officers: 'Why are they taking me to a police station? What have I done? I have enough worries. My child is in a coma.  I don't know anything about what happened to the child because I was not at home. I was at Tesco. I don't know what happened.'

He added: 'I am a Muslim. You can't blame me for these things. There are cameras. Whatever happened I was not at home.'

Jurors were told Gholami, originally from Afghanistan, came to the UK in January 2016 while Ghulami was still in Afghanistan with their children.  The couple adopted Zahra in 2017 after Gholami's friend, Zahra's father, felt unable to look after her after his wife died in childbirth.  This happened when Ghulami was in Afghanistan and the adoption was approved by village elders.  In January 2019, Gholami applied for asylum for Ghulami from the UK, and she arrived with the children to join him.  The 32-year-old, of Oak Road, Gravesend, was also sentenced to two years in prison at Maidstone Crown Court on Friday. She did not give evidence in court but told police she thought Zahra fell down the stairs.  During the trial, Zahra was described as a 'bright, intelligent' child who was 'highly curious' and wanted to find out about everything.

Zahra was admitted to the A&E department at Darent Valley Hospital in Dartford on May 27, 2020, during the first coronavirus lockdown.  She was later transferred to a hospital in London, but tragically died two days later.  The girl's cause of death was given as a severe head injury and skull fracture by Professor Charles Mangham, an osteoarticular pathologist.  When he was arrested by police, Gholami produced a receipt from the supermarket in an attempt to prove his innocence.  He told officers: 'Why are they taking me to a police station? What have I done? I have enough worries. My child is in a coma.  I don't know anything about what happened to the child because I was not at home. I was at Tesco. I don't know what happened.'

He added: 'I am a Muslim. You can't blame me for these things. There are cameras. Whatever happened I was not at home.'

Jurors were told Gholami, originally from Afghanistan, came to the UK in January 2016 while Ghulami was still in Afghanistan with their children.  The couple adopted Zahra in 2017 after Gholami's friend, Zahra's father, felt unable to look after her after his wife died in childbirth.  This happened when Ghulami was in Afghanistan and the adoption was approved by village elders.  In January 2019, Gholami applied for asylum for Ghulami from the UK, and she arrived with the children to join him.

19
Articles / The UK?s forced adoption scandal was state-sanctioned abuse
« on: February 10, 2024, 11:42:27 AM »
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/27/uk-forced-adoption-state-sanctioned-abuse-unmarried-mothers

The UK?s forced adoption scandal was state-sanctioned abuse

Gaby Hinsliff

Unmarried mothers were treated with contempt by authorities in the mid-20th century. The same goes for people deemed not to matter today

When Ann Keen gave birth, the midwives refused to give her anything for the pain. That way, they told her, she would remember it and learn not to be so wicked again. To be treated like an animal in labour, denied the most basic compassion and respect, was simply part of the punishment she had supposedly earned for getting pregnant out of wedlock aged 17. The hospital discharged her without any follow-up care, as if the birth had never happened. But the most grievous part of the story is that she also went home without her baby.  For Keen is one of a still unknown number of unmarried British women coerced into handing over their newborns for adoption between the 1950s and the late 1970s, who are now seeking an apology from Boris Johnson on behalf of the governments of the day. But perhaps just as importantly, they want it acknowledged that they didn?t give their children up willingly. Some were told that if they loved their babies they would want them raised by respectable married couples, not under the shadow of illegitimacy.  Instead of being briefed about the financial support to which they might be entitled, they were warned that keeping the baby would bring great hardship on their families. And while some consented to adoption under this kind of duress, others say forms were simply signed on their behalf by parents or so-called ?moral welfare workers? supervising adoptions. They became, in effect, an unwilling human production line of babies for adoption by couples considered more deserving by virtue of their wedding rings. The grief for the mothers must have been lifelong, and for many it was handed down a generation when their children grew old enough to understand and be disturbed by what had happened.  Oppressive morality, cloaked in religion, is the obvious explanation for how such unthinkable things could have happened. Pregnant teenagers such as Keen would be shipped off by their mortified parents to church-run mother-and-baby homes to hide them from the neighbours, and adoptions were often arranged through church-run agencies; the head of the Catholic church in England and Wales has already apologised for what he called the ?hurt? caused by agencies acting in its name. Yet the long history of shame being weaponised against women in the name of organised religion is really only half the explanation for cruelty meted out not in some secretive Magdalene laundry, but to women giving birth inside British NHS hospitals, who were singled out as different from other mothers. It was effectively state-sanctioned abuse and in a week when much of the country is understandably preoccupied instead with a much more recent failure of the state, it carries urgent lessons.  When Ireland?s taoiseach apologised recently for the ?profound generational wrong? done to survivors of Irish mother and baby homes, following a public inquiry that exposed horrific brutality, some responded with a striking anger. They didn?t want to be told that ?society? or the culture of the time was to blame; they wanted names, audit trails, a forensic examination of government decisions and processes that had allowed this to happen. The British mothers have been refused a public inquiry, but seek the same recognition that this was fundamentally a failure of the state, something Keen understands perhaps better than most.  Astonishingly, the teenager who was slapped for crying out when the doctor stitched her up after the birth grew up to be a nurse, then a Labour MP, and finally as health minister under Gordon Brown an advocate for dignity and compassion in healthcare. But it?s a principle that matters much more widely in public life.  At the heart of almost every account of a public scandal I have read are people who have somehow become dehumanised in the eyes of officialdom; whose feelings were deemed not to matter.  This particular, often unthinking breed of contempt is there in accounts of how police officers yawned through interviews with Girl A, the gang-raped victim of child sexual exploitation in Rochdale, whose case was initially dropped because they considered her trouble: promiscuous, damaged, not a credible witness. It?s there in the shocking stories of the Windrush generation?s treatment at the hands of the Home Office, and in accounts tumbling out in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire about how residents? safety fears were dismissed.  And it was lurking too behind Dominic Cummings? account of Boris Johnson allegedly grumbling that ?only 80-year-olds? were dying of Covid, as if their lives were regarded somehow as lesser. The nature of who is and isn?t deemed to count may change with the passing decades, but the lesson remains the same; that all too often, terrible things start with a failure of the state to treat every citizen as though they matter.

*  Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist

20
General Discussion / Re: Devotions
« on: February 08, 2024, 02:34:07 PM »
https://proverbs31.org/read/devotions/full-post/2023/04/21/learning-to-chase-gods-glory-through-each-day?utm_campaign=Daily%20Devotions&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=252897507&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9afXMftAfnemRxduh1IevoD9N0OpCMQu-sIduRPHYL_-noJ6b_KfcIEeRkhI_XsK8GbbnBg2IdRR1tNP1oceIhkM2RKA&utm_content=252897507&utm_source=hs_email#disqus_thread

Learning To Chase God?s Glory Through Each Day
April 21, 2023
by Dorina Lazo Gilmore-Young

"Moses said, 'Please show me your glory.' And [God] said, 'I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name "The LORD." And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.'" Exodus 33:18-19 (ESV)

When I was a little girl, my mama used to sing this little chorus to help me wake up in the morning: ?Rise and shine, and give God the glory, glory ??

I was never an ?early bird.? I more often dragged myself out of bed than I jumped up with energy. Mama?s song was a cheerful welcome to a new day. She invited me to start with God?s glory.  I chose the word ?glory? as my annual theme word several years ago.That sent me on a treasure hunt through Scripture and everyday life in search of glory. That year, my husband died of cancer at age 40, just four short months after his diagnosis. I was left a widow with three young daughters. I had no idea how God would use that theme of glory to challenge, inspire and lift me during the darkest year of my life.  We talk and sing about it at church and find the word mentioned more than 500 times in Scripture, but what exactly is glory?

If we study the scriptures that mention it, we discover God?s glory is the very essence of who God is, His character. Glory is what sets God apart. It?s the way God reveals Himself to us.  In the book of Exodus, Moses was discovering God?s glory. He wrote this book to help highlight the fulfillment of God?s promises, and through Moses, the Lord revealed His purposes to Israel. Over time, Moses recognized that he didn't want to make decisions or move anywhere without God?s presence. He begged God to show Himself:  ?Moses said, ?Please show me your glory.? And [God] said, ?I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ?The LORD.? And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy?? (Exodus 33:18-19).

Most of us are like Moses. We want to feel God?s presence in our chaos, our crises and our casual conversations. We would like to see and experience God?s glory but we are not sure how to pursue it.  The Hebrew word for ?glory? is kabod, meaning someone or something heavy in weight, wealth, abundance, importance or respect. Does that sound like God?

We can experience glimpses of God?s glory all around us, but we have to lift our eyes to notice them and respond.  God always makes Himself known through His Word that comforts us during trials. Sometimes, He may also show His glory through a sense of peace gifted to us while we wait for a diagnosis or a breakthrough in a strained relationship. I?ve tasted His glory in a delectable meal prepared by a friend and seen it in the unique pattern of a snowflake or a baby?s eyelashes, all carefully created by Him.  Friends, let?s not miss the examples of God?s glory right in our midst. Let?s call out the glory we see so that others might experience His presence too.

21
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/redress-mother-and-baby-home-survivors-delayed?utm_campaign=IC%20Daily%20-%20Jan%2029%20-%202024-01-29&utm_medium=Email&_hsmi=291808461&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_GkI8nHOVcgoz4At1LxWChSs3E0fiz8057yiS8MsNM2UjlSCsAmBB2vWC3yt4aSIMNYPtEn4eq3pRp7AAJ_Y4nXmmLBT-ik0FGF-ZQLwE_SCZ0_OQ&utm_content=Story1&utm_source=HubSpot

Redress payments for Mother and Baby Home survivors continue to be delayed
The Department of Children has stated that opening a redress scheme as soon as possible remains a "top priority",
@IrishCentral
Jan 29, 2024

Mother and Baby Home survivors continue to wait for redress payments three years after Ireland's Mother and Baby Home Commission of Investigation recommended compensation for survivors.  The Department of Children has stated that opening a redress scheme as soon as possible remains a "top priority", according to the Irish Examiner.  The Department added that the redress scheme, which was due to be rolled out by the end of 2023, is set to open in Q1 of 2024.  However, the Examiner reports that survivors are still waiting to receive the green light to apply.  UCC law professor Conor O'Mahony described the delay as "simply unfair" to aging survivors.  In 2021, the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes recommended compensation for survivors in its final report and the Irish Government subsequently appointed a financial assessor to negotiate with seven religious institutions about compensation.  However, there is no legal framework compelling the religious orders to negotiate, according to the Examiner.  O'Mahony told the publication that the Government could open the scheme to survivors while negotiations are ongoing.   "There's no need to wait until any contributions are handed over, just open the scheme and have it up and running," O'Mahony told the Irish Examiner.

The Commission's five-year inquiry, which was led by former judge Yvonne Murphy, found that over 9,000 children died in 18 institutions run by seven different religious orders between 1922 and 1998, double the mortality rate among children in the general population.  The final report also detailed shocking experiments and physical abuse carried out in the different institutions and recommended financial compensation for survivors.   Up to 34,000 people are eligible for compensation, but the scheme has faced criticism because it excludes certain categories of survivors, including babies who spent less than six months in an institution and those who were fostered out to local families. O'Mahony said the Irish Government is attempting to lay financial responsibility on the seven religious orders as well as maintaining public finances.   The seven religious orders include the Bon Secours sisters, the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary, Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, the Sisters of Mercy, the Sisters of St John of God, and lay organization the Legion of Mary.  Children's Minister Roderic O'Gorman has sought financial contributions from each religious order, but only the Bon Secour nuns, who ran the Tuam Mother and Baby Home in Galway between 1925 and 1961, have agreed to contribute to the redress scheme.  However, the Examiner reports that no deal has been secured with the Bon Secours nuns.  Peter Mulryan, a 79-year-old man who spent four years at the Tuam Mother and Baby Home before being fostered out to a family that abused him, labeled the delay as a "disgrace".  "The whole thing is a disgrace. I have never, ever received a penny from the State for the abuses and neglect I suffered," Mulryan told the Examiner.  There isn't a sign of anything. I am disgusted with it to be honest, what they are doing to us, they are playing a game of wait and die so they have less to give a few euros to."

Mulryan added that the delays were "prolonging our agony" and said he is skeptical that redress payments will be made this year.  "They say they are giving us redress this year, I take that with a pinch of salt, how many times did they promise this that, and the other?"

22
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/i-regret-adopting-daughter-feel-31947707

'I regret adopting my daughter I feel like I'm babysitting a stranger's kid'

A mum has sparked outrage after admitting she regrets adopting her daughter as she has never loved her as much as her biological children and still sees her as 'someone else's child'

By Paige Freshwater Content Editor

13:38, 23 Jan 2024Updated15:05, 23 Jan 2024

A mum has caused a stir by confessing she regrets adopting her daughter, admitting she's never loved her as much as her biological children. She shared her story on Reddit, explaining that after having her son through IVF, she chose to adopt for her second child.  However, she confessed she's never been able to bond with her adopted daughter and over time, even began to resent her. The woman wrote: "So years ago before the birth of my first son, I was told it would be hard for me and my husband to conceive. We went through IVF and eventually I gave birth to my son.  A few years later we wanted another child but didn't want to have to go through the time and expense we did the last time with our son. So we decided to adopt. We adopted this beautiful baby girl whose parents were too young to raise her themselves. I loved her so much and treated her no different but I've never had the feeling she's my own. I often feel like I'm babysitting someone else's child. I feel terrible but I can't help it.  I've tried forcing myself to feel it but I just don't. She's 15 now and I've never felt a connection with her."

But four years ago, the woman discovered she'd fallen pregnant naturally - and was expecting another girl. This only strained her relationship with her adopted daughter further, as she started to feel more excluded from the family.  "We were so surprised since it just happened naturally and we found out it was going to be a girl. During the pregnancy, my hormones were all over the place and I started hating my adopted daughter because I felt if I had just waited then I wouldn't have to have had her. When my daughter was born everything just felt right. I felt a proper connection like with my son and I bonded straight away."

In search of sympathy, she confessed: "I sound horrible but adopting her was a massive mistake. I wish I could go back in time. I love her to pieces but unfortunately not as much as my biological children. I hate myself for it since I promised her parents I'd love her no different and I feel like I've let everyone down."

To this, one Reddit user replied: "Therapy for you. Under no circumstances tell your daughter that you don't love her as much as your bio kids, though that's something that's not hard to miss. Reach out to her birth family, if they're decent people and you haven't maintained contact, and see if they'd be interested in spending more time with her. This girl deserves to be enthusiastically cared for and loved by the people in her life. What about your husband? Does he feel the same way?"

Another person commented: "Since you already had a biological child you shouldn't have adopted. I have heard lots of adoptees say they have always felt like they were competing with the biological child of the adoptive parent. I will say at least you have the courage to be honest, which is rare among adoptive parents. Does the child have any interaction with her birth family? Perhaps if she had a good relationship she could go back to them."

A third person chimed in: "I really hope your adoptive daughter doesn't know how you feel. Have you looked into professional help for yourself to dissect what's going on and why you haven't allowed yourself to bond? There are so many techniques out there that could have been used to create that bond. I know because I used some of them when I struggled to bond with my adoptive daughter. They worked. I feel so upset on behalf of your 15-year-old. I hope she never finds out and that you've said this because you want things to change.  You can work to repair and create that bond rather than dwelling on the past and your own anger and regret. I hope you haven't damaged her through any perceptible emotional distance on your part. How dreadfully sad that you still feel you are babysitting someone else's child after all these years. Please stop dwelling on what might have been and step up to being the best parent you can be to her by seeking help if need be."

23
Articles / New rights for UK donor babies as they turn 18
« on: January 30, 2024, 08:08:35 PM »
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-10-rights-uk-donor-babies.html

OCTOBER 3, 2023

New rights for UK donor babies as they turn 18
by Helen ROWE

Around 30 young adults conceived via sperm or egg donation in the UK will soon be able to discover the identity of their biological parent.  The new rights come as rising numbers of children are being conceived using the technology, posing a range of challenges for the children, their families and donors.  The UK law removed the anonymity of egg and sperm donors in 2005 and gave children the right to receive basic information about them when they reached 18.  With the first children covered by the legislation turning 18 this month, they will finally be able to request details such as the donor's full name, date of birth and last known address.  Advances in fertility treatment methods and changing social attitudes have seen an increasing number of donor-conceived children being born not just to people facing fertility challenges but also same-sex couples and women in their late forties and even fifties.  Initially the numbers of children who will have the right to know will be small, with just 30 people becoming eligible between now and December this year.   Data from the UK's Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) shows that will rise to more than 700 people by the end of 2024, increasing to 11,400 by 2030.  According to the latest available figures from the regulator of fertility treatment and research using human embryos, 4,100 UK births around one in 170 were the result of donor conception in 2019.

Few months off

The cut-off point for the legislation has left some donor-conceived people disappointed that the identity of their donors will remain a mystery.  "I'm happy for the people who want to find out but I'm also a little annoyed that I was a couple of months off, so I won't have the chance," 19-year-old student Jamie Ruddock, from Brighton on England's south coast, told AFP.

Ruddock said he had known for as long as he could remember that he had been donor-conceived and while he was not looking for another father figure he was still curious.  His older brother along with their father had begun looking for the donor via a DNA ancestry testing service but had not had any success.  "My brother definitely has a bigger sense of curiosity than I do but if my brother finds him I would like to have a conversation with him," he said.

People in the UK conceived by egg or sperm donation will now be able to trace their biological parents.  Nina Barnsley, director of the UK's Donor Conception Network, said many of those eligible to ask for the information might not even be aware of how they were conceived.  When new techniques such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were first introduced some four decades ago, infertility was something of a taboo subject and parents often did not tell children how they were conceived.  But for many years now, psychologists have advised families to be open with the information as early as possible.  Others might not have realized the significance of the legislation or have other priorities.

'Incredible gift'

"Certainly in terms of our donor-conceived young people, many have got far more important things going on in their lives with exams and girlfriends and boyfriends, travel and work and other challenges," said Barnsley.

"Being donor-conceived may well just be low on the list of interests."

Having the right to access the information, however, could still be important to them in the longer term, even if it also brought potential challenges.  Some parents would inevitably be "anxious about making the donor into a real person in their lives and how their children would feel," she said.

At the same time many were also "curious about these donors and wanted to thank them to acknowledge their contribution towards helping them make their families," she added.

Donors are being urged to get in contact with the clinic where they donated and make sure their details are up to date.  "This is a very important time for young adults who were conceived by the use of donor sperm or eggs. Many will hope to find out more about their donors as they reach 18," said Professor Jackson Kirkman-Brown, chair of the Association for Reproductive and Clinical Scientists (ARCS).

He said it was important that donors too reach out for support and guidance to help them navigate any approaches.  "Being a donor is an incredible gift and alongside the sector ARCS are keen to recognize and support those who enable people to have the families they desire," he added.

24
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/09/real-taboo-include-birth-trauma-in-uk-womens-health-strategy-mp-urges

?Real taboo?: include birth trauma in UK women?s health strategy, MP urges

Theo Clarke shares own experience and says large number of people contacted inquiry into birth trauma after call for evidence

Birth trauma remains a ?real taboo? and should be part of the UK government?s women?s health strategy, an MP leading an inquiry into the subject has said.  On Tuesday, the all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma launched an inquiry, led by the Conservative MP, Theo Clarke, and Labour?s Rosie Duffield, looking into the causes behind traumatic births and to develop policy recommendations to reduce the occurrence of birth-related trauma. The inquiry is open to parents and professionals in the maternity field, and is expected to report on its findings in April.  Clarke, the MP for Stafford, said she was ?delighted? to be launching the first parliamentary inquiry into birth trauma, and said the topic was ?long overdue for discussion within parliament?.

?I was amazed that literally within the first five minutes of announcing the call for evidence on social media we already had submissions into our inquiry inbox, probably the quickest response I?ve ever had to anything I?ve announced as an MP in my career,? Clarke said.

?That really shows how incredibly important this subject is and how mums in the UK feel that they need to be listened to and they want their stories to be heard.?

Clarke was inspired to launch the inquiry after needing emergency surgery and thinking she was going to die after the birth of her daughter in 2022. ?I gave birth to my daughter last year and had a third-degree tear, which is a very significant birth injury, and which resulted in me having a huge surgery,? she said.

Between 25,000 and 30,000 women experience PTSD after birth in the UK, according to the Birth Trauma Association.  The inquiry is currently collecting written and oral evidence to inform the policy report. The report is due to put forward policy recommendations for the government and will be published April 2024.  Evidence will be heard over several sessions between February and March. Its main objectives will be to ?identify common features in maternity care (antenatally, during labour and birth, and postnatally) that contribute to birth trauma, highlight examples of good practice, both in the quality of maternity care and in providing support to women who have had traumatic birth experiences, and to look at the impact of birth trauma on women?s relationships, ability to bond with their baby and future decision-making?.

The inquiry said they particularly welcomed submissions ?from people from marginalised communities such as those who are racially minoritised, LGBT, economically disadvantaged, homeless, asylum-seeking or displaced, care-experienced, neurodivergent or facing any other circumstances [that mean] their voice is less likely to be heard?.

Clarke spoke of her own experience during a Commons debate on birth trauma in October, and said the reaction to her speech showed just how important the issue was to many people in the UK.  She said: ?There is such a focus on the baby post-birth that we sometimes forget about the mums and the fact that they need care too. And I was really amazed when I shared my personal story last year the huge amount of people that contacted me from across the country that shared their own difficult stories.  It was very clear to me that there was a real taboo about talking about birth trauma, and people felt that they couldn?t share with friends or colleagues at work if they had had a birth injury or had mental psychological distress based on giving birth.?

Separate to the inquiry, Clarke has called on the government to consider birth trauma as part of the women?s health strategy update next week, because ?it is recognised and included?.

25
Articles / Police investigated child abuse claims at Whitgift last year
« on: January 22, 2024, 11:28:06 AM »
https://insidecroydon.com/2024/01/20/police-investigated-child-abuse-claims-at-whitgift-last-year/

Police investigated child abuse claims at Whitgift last year
Posted on January 20, 2024 by insidecroydon   

The Met has confirmed that they followed up complaints about sexual abuse at the ?47,000 per year boys? private school, after pictures and messages were shared on social media, which may have contributed to the suicide of a former teacher. By STEVEN DOWNES

A public relations firm was hired last year to provide ?crisis management? as the Metropolitan Police  investigated allegations of sexual abuse of boys attending the ?47,000 per year Whitgift School.  At least two Whitgift teachers left their jobs abruptly and under suspicious circumstances, one of whom who cannot be named for legal reasons was accused of having hacked into the school?s computer system in order to access contact details for former pupils.  Others, without any direct involvement in the alleged misconduct, were dragged in to the growing scandal, with one former teacher committing suicide as a consequence.  The police investigation was being carried out last year just as another former Whitgift teacher, Paul Dodd, was being sentenced to four years in prison after being found guilty of sexual abuse charges dating back to the 1980s, some that had involved boys as young as 10 years old.  Whitgift School is one of three private schools run by the Whitgift Foundation, the owners of the Whitgift Centre shopping mall in Croydon town centre and the borough?s biggest land owners. The Whitgift Foundation is registered as a charity and is closely connected to the Church of England: according to its most recent annual report lodged with the Charity Commission, eight of its Court of Governors were appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.  The Foundation has begun to suffer significant financial pressures, after more than a decade of waiting for Westfield to conduct a massive regeneration project on properties it owns in Croydon town centre. The Foundation has even decided to close down one of its private schools, the Old Palace girls? school.  But last year the charity, with its then chief executive absent on long-term sick leave, decided to hire an expensive PR firm to help it navigate the significant reputational issues arising from paedophile scandals emerging from Whitgift School.  Sources close to the Foundation and Whitgift School have assured Inside Croydon that the departure of Chris Ramsey, the headmaster who is to stand down in July, as was exclusively revealed by this website this week, is entirely unconnected with the latest set of abuse claims.  Ramsey, a linguist by vocation and a Spanish speaker, is leaving to become head of an international school in Madrid.  ?The opportunity to run an international school overseas, which as a linguist he has always wanted to do, has come unexpectedly, and it is a great shame for the school, but it is an enormously attractive move for Chris and one which governors have agreed he should take,? the Foundation said after iC had revealed that Whitgift?s headmaster was leaving.

Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police has confirmed to Inside Croydon that Whitgift School was subject to an investigation into allegations of suspected grooming of children.  On Wednesday, January 3 [2023] police received a third-party allegation of suspected online sexual communication with a child that was alleged to have taken place during December 2022.  A police investigation was carried out and no offences were identified.  The investigation was closed with no further action. However, should any further information be provided to officers, this will be assessed.?

Parents of pupils at the school, and others connected to Whitgift, have contacted Inside Croydon this week to express deep concerns about the school?s response to safeguarding issues.  Reports in the national press have quoted a former Whitgift pupil and ex-governor of the school alleging ?inappopriate behaviour by teachers over a 40-year period?.

They said, ?If anything at all cropped up they would just try to smother it and move on, it was all about reputational risk.  The reports appeared in the Daily Express, who related that Whitgift School refuted any suggestion of cover ups, stating ?it has worked with the relevant authorities and within regulations of the relevant time to investigate and report any incidences reported to it?.

?Fundamentally, it?s always been about cover-up.?

The Express claimed to have interviewed at least 10 people associated with Whitgift, prompted by recent allegations relating to the actions of teachers on social media, some of whom it was alleged were having sexual relationships with former students.  Despite the police involvement, Whitgift School did not advise parents of the allegations until six days after they were approached by a newspaper reporter. On July 19 last year the school wrote to parents claiming ?all of these matters have been thoroughly investigated?.

Convicted: child abuser Paul Dodd

What Whitgift School and the Foundation was not able to do was cover-up the historic abuse case involving Paul Dodd, which after neary 40 years was to be placed firmly in a public spotlight when the former history and games teacher was hauled into the dock to face charges relating to his abuse.  It was in the late 1980s that the then Whitgift headmaster, David Raeburn, received allegations that Dodd had taken a 10-year-old boy into the school changing rooms alone, had him strip naked and stared at his genitals.  As Inside Croydon reported at the time of Dodd?s trial at Gloucester Crown Court last year, Raeburn did not go to the police when this was reported, deciding instead to deal with the matter internally.  Dodd remained at the school and was allowed to take boys on trips. Dodd isolated a further two boys and abused them. One victim of abuse, interviewed late last year by the Express, accused Dodd of using the school?s rules to empower his abuse of young boys.  It was school policy to have a teacher in the changing rooms and showers to ?oversee? boys getting washed. As was documented in the criminal case against Dodd, another rule forced boys to wear swimming trunks under their shorts or nothing when playing rugby. Underpants were not permitted for rugby.  ?When Paul Dodd was involved,? the Express reported, ?these policies were used as cover for abusing children.?

The court heard how Dodd locked a child of 11 or 12 in a room before lifting his boxers to stare at his penis. Another 10-year-old victim was taken to a quiet area where the Whitgift teacher grabbed and squeezed his genitals.  A report of the final incident did prompt Raeburn to act. Dodd was sacked, the assault was reported to police and the Department for Education. Dodd left the country, to take up teaching posts in New Zealand, until he was discovered assaulting boys there, too.  ?Dodd?s crimes were unforgivable, and our thoughts are with those impacted by them,? a spokesperson for the school and the Foundation told the newspaper.

?It is critical that matters such as these, regardless of their historic nature, are thoroughly investigated and that justice is served.  The School assisted the police and relevant authorities throughout their enquiries and we are grateful for their work in bringing this man to account."

Roll of honour: eight of the members of the Whitgift Foundation?s Court of Governors were appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, according to the charity?s latest annual report.

?We are absolutely committed to our safeguarding responsibilities and we will ensure any allegation is passed to the authorities. It is important to us that those who have suffered feel able to come forward and we will provide appropriate support.?

More recent allegations of misconduct and abuse have taken a tragic toll. While at least two members of staff left Whitgift following the computer hacking allegations, one of the teachers named in the allegations ultimately took their own life.  Parents have expressed their distress and disquiet over how a popular and gifted physics teacher, Dr Kevin Ralley, became implicated in the Whitgift scandal.  Dr Ralley had left Whitgift and had been teaching at KCS Wimbledon at the time of his death.  Concerns had begun after images from an account that appeared to be connected to a teacher started to circulate on social media. As well as containing pictures of one member of staff in a state of undress, the posts made serious allegations about two other teachers at Whitgift.  It was claimed one was messaging former students ?by getting their number off school systems? and sending them ?very explicit content?. It suggested another was ?adding students and ex-students on social media by catfishing and trying to get inappropriate content?.

?Catfishing? is the practice of using someone else?s pictures to create a fake social media account.  Also shared were a series of screenshots that claimed to be from a WhatsApp conversation between a teacher and former pupil.  The messages suggested the ex-pupil had sexual contact with two other teachers. Referring to the penis size of one of the teachers repeatedly, one message added: ?I know I?m third after Kevin and [another teacher] haha but I?d love to get to know how naughty you are.?

?We are absolutely committed to our safeguarding responsibilities and we will ensure any allegation is passed to the authorities. It is important to us that those who have suffered feel able to come forward and we will provide appropriate support.?

More recent allegations of misconduct and abuse have taken a tragic toll. While at least two members of staff left Whitgift following the computer hacking allegations, one of the teachers named in the allegations ultimately took their own life.  Parents have expressed their distress and disquiet over how a popular and gifted physics teacher, Dr Kevin Ralley, became implicated in the Whitgift scandal.  Dr Ralley had left Whitgift and had been teaching at KCS Wimbledon at the time of his death.  Concerns had begun after images from an account that appeared to be connected to a teacher started to circulate on social media. As well as containing pictures of one member of staff in a state of undress, the posts made serious allegations about two other teachers at Whitgift.  It was claimed one was messaging former students ?by getting their number off school systems? and sending them ?very explicit content?. It suggested another was ?adding students and ex-students on social media by catfishing and trying to get inappropriate content?.

?Catfishing? is the practice of using someone else?s pictures to create a fake social media account.  Also shared were a series of screenshots that claimed to be from a WhatsApp conversation between a teacher and former pupil.  The messages suggested the ex-pupil had sexual contact with two other teachers. Referring to the penis size of one of the teachers repeatedly, one message added: ?I know I?m third after Kevin and [another teacher] haha but I?d love to get to know how naughty you are.?

Much missed: Dr Kevin Ralley

The ?Kevin? referred to in the message was Dr Ralley.  It was the release of these images that led to the complaints to the Met investigation.  According to the Express: ?Whitgift conducted an ?independent? investigation into the alleged wrongdoing which a spokesperson claimed had found ?that what took place did not involve any pupils and the former pupil said to have been involved was an adult at the relevant times?.  There was, therefore, no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing, albeit the behaviour fell below expected standards of a member of staff at the school.?

One teacher resigned before the investigation began. Another teacher was dismissed, the Express reported.  Whitgift claimed the probe had not ?centred? on the young teacher as he had left the school two years earlier. A Whitgift spokesperson said that Ralley ?declined to be interviewed as a witness by the external investigators? and ?nothing emerged from our investigation to support Ralley being involved in any criminal conduct?.

It was known that Ralley, although a high-achiever academically, was in some ways vulnerable. The existence of the investigation, and his being mentioned in the messages, was enough for Dr Ralley to take his own life. He was 38.

26
https://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/article/sexual-exploitation-review-finds-child-protection-failings-at-rochdale-council

Sexual exploitation review finds child protection failings at Rochdale Council

Joe Lepper
Wednesday, January 17, 2024

Rochdale Council and police failed to protect children at risk of sexual exploitation in the Greater Manchester town more than a decade ago, an independent review has found.  It found ?compelling evidence of widespread organised exploitation of children? in Rochdale from 2004 to 2012 and a failure by the council?s children?s services and Greater Manchester Police to protect them.  In 111 cases looked at the review found ?there was a significant probability? that 74 were survivors of child sexual exploitation and in 48 of these cases ?there were serious failures? to protect the child by the council and police. 

    Supporting families affected by online sexual offending
    Rochdale multi-agency team supports CSE victims

The review also looked at work carried out by Sara Rowbotham, coordinator of the NHS sexual health service in Rochdale and the Crisis Intervention Team, which investigated child sexual exploitation cases and included former police detective Maggie Oliver among its members.  Two serious case overview reports published a decade ago had criticised Rowbotham and the team for not following child protection procedures and not communicating information on cases to social workers and police.  But the review found that by 2012 council and police were ?aware of approximately 127 potential victims?. These had been referred by the Crisis Intervention Team to the council but ?had not been acted on over the years?.  During the review?s probe this figure, of cases known about but not being acted on by the council, more than doubled to 260.  ?This information was clear to all the partners three months before the publication of the serious case review overview reports in December 2013,? found the review.

It concluded there is ?compelling evidence to support the view that the Crisis Intervention Team was sharing explicit information with the authorities on the exploitation of multiple children?.

Malcom Newsam, the review?s lead author, said that Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and Rochdale Council ?failed to prioritise the protection of children who were being sexually exploited by a significant number of men within the Rochdale area.  We have also concluded that Sara Rowbotham was unfairly criticised? after being wrongly accused of not referring cases of children at risk of exploitation.  For several years, Sara Rowbotham and her colleagues were lone voices in raising concerns about the sexual exploitation and abuse of these children,? he added.

?Both GMP and Rochdale Council failed to respond appropriately to these concerns, and it has been a gross misrepresentation to suggest that the Crisis Intervention Team in some way was complicit with this failure and to tarnish the reputation of this small group of professionals.?

Rochdale Council?s leader Neil Emmott said the local authority is ?deeply sorry? for its failures relating to the scandal.  ?I want to reassure the public that those responsible are gone and long gone,? he said.

?No amount of contrition or apology can ever repair the awful damage that was done to the lives of these survivors.  As the current leader of Rochdale Council, I want to repeat the apology we have made previously but also to reassure the public that far more rigorous practices are in place today to protect our children.?

However, last year Rochdale children's services was criticised by Ofsted for not making "sufficient progress" to improve. It said changes in senior management and the Covid-19 pandemic had hindered efforts to improve support for vulnerable children.  The independent review had been commissioned by Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham in 2017.  ?This report is hard to read,? said Burnham.

?It gives a detailed and distressing account of how many young people were so seriously failed.  That said, it fulfils the purpose of why I set up this review in the first place. It is only by facing up fully and unflinchingly to what happened that we can be sure of bringing the whole system culture change needed when it comes to protecting children from abuse.  I would like to thank those who have had the courage to come forward and share what happened to them. We know how difficult it must have been and still is.  We are sorry that you were so badly failed by the system that should have protected you.  I would also like to praise those who blew the whistle on their behalf, particularly Sara Rowbotham and Maggie Oliver, and for the support they have provided to them ever since. That took huge courage and determination, and we thank them for it.?

27
https://time.com/6051811/private-adoption-america/

The Baby Brokers: Inside America?s Murky Private-Adoption Industry

Shyanne Klupp was 20 years old and homeless when she met her boyfriend in 2009. Within weeks, the two had married, and within months, she was pregnant. ?I was so excited,? says Klupp.

Soon, however, she learned that her new husband was facing serious jail time, and she reluctantly agreed to start looking into how to place their expected child for adoption. The couple called one of the first results that Google spat out: Adoption Network Law Center (ANLC).  Klupp says her initial conversations with ANLC went well; the adoption counselor seemed kind and caring and made her and her husband feel comfortable choosing adoption. ANLC quickly sent them packets of paperwork to fill out, which included questions ranging from personal-health and substance-abuse history to how much money the couple would need for expenses during the pregnancy.  Klupp and her husband entered in the essentials: gas money, food, blankets and the like. She remembers thinking, ?I?m not trying to sell my baby.?

But ANLC, she says, pointed out that the prospective adoptive parents were rich. ?That?s not enough,? Klupp recalls her counselor telling her. ?You can ask for more.?

So the couple added maternity clothes, a new set of tires, and money for her husband?s prison commissary account, Klupp says. Then, in January 2010, she signed the initial legal paperwork for adoption, with the option to revoke. (In the U.S., an expectant mother has the right to change her mind anytime before birth, and after for a period that varies state by state. While a 2019 bill proposing an explicit federal ban of the sale of children failed in Congress, many states have such statutes and the practice is generally considered unlawful throughout the country.)  Klupp says she had recurring doubts about her decision. But when she called her ANLC counselor to ask whether keeping the child was an option, she says, ?they made me feel like, if I backed out, then the adoptive parents were going to come after me for all the money that they had spent.?

That would have been thousands of dollars. In shock, Klupp says, she hung up and never broached the subject again. The counselor, who no longer works with the company, denies telling Klupp she would have to pay back any such expense money. But Klupp?s then roommates?she had found housing at this point both recall her being distraught over the prospect of legal action if she didn?t follow through with the adoption. She says she wasn?t aware that an attorney, whose services were paid for by the adoptive parents, represented her.  ?I will never forget the way my heart sank,? says Klupp. ?You have to buy your own baby back almost.?

 Seeing no viable alternative, she ended up placing her son, and hasn?t seen him since he left the hospital 11 years ago.  Movies may portray the typical adoption as a childless couple saving an unwanted baby from a crowded orphanage. But the reality is that, at any given time, an estimated 1 million U.S. families are looking to adopt many of them seeking infants. That figure dramatically outpaces the number of available babies in the country. Some hopeful parents turn to international adoption, though in recent years other countries have curtailed the number of children they send abroad. There?s also the option to adopt from the U.S. foster-care system, but it?s an often slow-moving endeavor with a limited number of available infants. For those with means, there?s private domestic adoption.

ANLC was started in 1996 by Allan and Carol Gindi, who first called it the Adoption Network. The company says it has since worked on over 6,000 adoptions and that it?s the largest law corporation in the nation providing adoption services (though limited publicly available data makes that difficult to verify). ANLC?s home page is adorned with testimonials from grateful clients. Critics, however, see the organization as a paradigm of the largely unregulated private-adoption system in the U.S., which has made baby brokering a lucrative business.  Problems with private domestic adoption appear to be widespread. Interviews with dozens of current and former adoption professionals, birth parents, adoptive parents and reform advocates, as well as a review of hundreds of pages of documents, reveal issues ranging from commission schemes and illegal gag clauses to Craigslistesque ads for babies and lower rates for parents willing to adopt babies of any race. No one centrally tracks private adoptions in the U.S., but best estimates, from the Donaldson Adoption Institute (2006) and the National Council for Adoption (2014), respectively, peg the number of annual nonrelative infant adoptions at roughly 13,000 to 18,000. Public agencies are involved in approximately 1,000 of those, suggesting that the vast majority of domestic infant adoptions involve the private sector?and the market forces that drive it.  ?It?s a fundamental problem of supply and demand,? says Celeste Liversidge, an adoption attorney in California who would like to see reforms to the current system.

The scarcity of available infants, combined with the emotions of desperate adoptive parents and the advent of the Internet, has helped enable for-profit middlemen from agencies and lawyers to consultants and facilitators to charge fees that frequently stretch into the tens of thousands of dollars per case.  A 2021 ANLC agreement, reviewed by TIME and Newsy, shows that prospective parents were charged more than $25,000 in fees not including legal costs for finalizing the adoption, birth-mother expenses and other add-ons (like gender specification). The full tab, say former employees, can balloon to more than double that.  ?The money?s the problem,? says Adam Pertman, author of Adoption Nation and president of the National Center on Adoption and Permanency. ?Anytime you put dollar signs and human beings in the same sentence, you have a recipe for disaster.?

Even though federal tax credits can subsidize private adoptions (as much as $14,300 per child for the adopting parents), there is no federal regulation of the industry. Relevant laws governing everything from allowable financial support to how birth parents give their consent to an adoption are made at the state level and vary widely. Some state statutes, for example, cap birth-mother expenses, while others don?t even address the issue. Mississippi allows birth mothers six months to change their mind; in Tennessee, it?s just three days. After the revocation period is over, it?s ?too bad, so sad,? says Renee Gelin, president of Saving Our Sisters, an organization aimed at helping expectant parents preserve their families. ?The mother has little recourse.?

Liversidge founded the nonprofit AdoptMatch, which describes itself as a ?mobile app and online resource? that aims to ?increase an expectant parent?s accessibility to qualified adoptive parents and ethical adoption professionals.? She says the hodgepodge of state statutes invites abuse: ?Anyone that knows or learns the system it doesn?t take much can exploit those loopholes very easily for financial gain.?

Thirteen former ANLC employees, whose time at the organization spanned from 2006 to 2015, were interviewed for this story. Many asked to remain anonymous, out of fear of retaliation from the Gindis or ANLC. (The couple has filed multiple suits, including for defamation, over the years.) ?The risk is too great for my family,? wrote one former employee in a text to TIME and Newsy. But whether on or off the record, the former employees told largely similar stories of questionable practices at an organization profiting off both adoptive and expectant parents. ?These are such vulnerable people,? says one former employee. ?They deserve more than greed.?

The Gindis have long faced questions about their adoption work. In 2006, the Orange County district attorney filed a scathing complaint contending that while operating Adoption Network, the couple had committed 11 violations, including operating as a law firm without an attorney on staff and falsely advertising Carol as having nursing degrees. Admitting no wrongdoing, the Gindis agreed to pay a $100,000 fine.  Since around that time, the Gindis? exact involvement with ANLC has been difficult to discern amid a web of other companies, brands and titles. They both declined interview requests, but Allan did respond to emailed questions, explaining that he plays what he termed ?an advertising role? for ANLC, including for the company?s current president, Lauren Lorber (the Gindis? daughter), who took over the law practice in 2015. Before that, an attorney named Kristin Yellin owned ANLC. Former employees, though, say that despite an outwardly delineated setup, Allan in particular has remained heavily involved in ANLC operations. As far back as 2008, even though Yellin was the titular owner, ?everyone knew that Allan Gindi ran it,? according to former employee Cary Sweet.

(Sweet and other employees were plaintiffs in a 2010 discrimination and unlawful business practices lawsuit against ANLC. The company denied the allegations and the parties settled for an amount that Sweet says she isn?t allowed to reveal but called ?peanuts.?)

In an interview, Yellin bristled at the idea that Allan Gindi was in charge during her ownership period, saying, ?I realized what the Gindis? role was and how to put boundaries on that.?

Lorber, who declined an interview for this story, wrote via email that Allan has been a ?leader? in adoption marketing. He maintains, also by email, that over a 25-year period, each attorney for whom he has provided his ?highly specialized marketing services? has been ?more than satisfied.? In an earlier text message, Allan also characterized the reporting for this story as ?an attack on the wonderful work that Adoption Network has done and continues to do.?

Sweet, who worked with both expectant and adoptive parents at ANLC from 2008 to 2011, says she wasn?t aware of Klupp?s experience but remembers a situation involving a staff member?s threatening to call child protective services on a mother if she didn?t place her child for adoption. In a 2011 deposition taken as part of Sweet?s lawsuit, Yellin stated that the employee in question had told her that they had conveyed to the mother that ?if you end up not going through with this, you know social services will probably be back in your life.?

Yellin said that she found the comment inappropriate in context but did not perceive it as threatening or coercive.  Lorber, who has owned ANLC since late 2015, wrote in an email that she?s unaware of any incidents in which birth mothers were told they would have to pay back expenses if they chose not to place their child. But Klupp isn?t the only expectant mother to say she felt pressured by ANLC. Gracie Hallax placed two children through ANLC, in 2017 and 2018. Although the company arranged for lodging during her pregnancy (including, she says, in a bedbug-infested motel), she recalls an ANLC representative?s telling her that she could have to pay back expenses if she backed out of the adoptions. Madeline Grimm, a birth mother who placed her child through ANLC in 2019, also says she was informed that she might have to return expense money if she didn?t go through with the adoption. ?That was something that I would think of if I was having any kind of doubt,? she says. ?Like, well, sh-t, I?d have to pay all this back.?

The experiences described by Klupp, Hallax and Grimm fit a pattern of practices at ANLC that former employees say were concerning. Many describe a pervasive pressure to bring people whether birth parents or adoptive couples in the door. This was driven, at least in part, they say, by a ?profit sharing? model of compensation in which, after meeting certain targets, employees could earn extra by signing up more adoptive couples or completing more matches. Former employees say birth mothers who did multiple placements through ANLC were sometimes referred to as ?frequent flyers.? (Lorber and Yellin both say they have never heard that term.)  ?The whole thing became about money and not about good adoption practices,? says one former employee. As they saw it, ANLC made a priority of ?bringing in the next check.?

Adoptive parents, former employees say, were sometimes provided inaccurate statistics on how often the company?s attempts to matchmake were successful. ?They almost made it seem like birth mothers were lining up to give their babies away,? says one. ?That?s not reality.?

(Yellin says in the 2011 deposition that the data were outdated, not inaccurate.) Clients pay their fees in two nonrefundable installments, one at the beginning of the process and another after matching with a birth mother. As a result, former employees say, if the adoption fell through, there was little financial incentive for ANLC to rematch the parents, and those couples were routinely not presented to other birth mothers. ?Counselors were being pressured to do this by the higher-ups,? claims one former employee, recalling instructions to ?not match couples that are not bringing in money. Period.?

Some prospective adoptive parents whom the company deemed harder to match those who were overweight, for example, say former employees were given a limited agreement that timed out, rather than the standard open-ended contract. There was also a separate agreement for those willing to adopt Black or biracial babies, for which the company offered its services at a discount. (In her 2011 deposition, Yellin acknowledged that there were multiple versions of the agreement and providing staff with obesity charts. When asked if obesity was a reason clients got a limited agreement, she said, ?Specifically because they were obese, no.? In regard to whether what a couple looked like was considered, she responded, ?I can only speculate. I do not know.?)

Former ANLC employees also allege the company would encourage pregnant women to relocate to states where the adoption laws were more favorable and finalizations more likely. ?I believe it?s called venue hunting,? one recalls.

And while that former employee made sure to note that ANLC did produce some resoundingly positive, well-fitting adoptions, they say the outcome was largely a matter of luck, ?like throwing spaghetti on a refrigerator to see if it?ll stick.?

Yellin acknowledges that when she took over the company in 2007, ?there was a feeling that some of the adoption advisers had felt pressured just to make matches.?

But she says she worked to address that and other issues. Yellin says she put an end to the use of the limited agreement, and denies that ANLC ever advised birth mothers to relocate to other states to make an adoption easier. She also says she wasn?t aware of any instances of birth mothers? being coerced into placing their babies. Other practices, though, she defended. Charging lower fees to parents willing to adopt babies of any race makes business sense, Yellin says. ?Their marketing costs were lower. That?s just the reality of it.?

Lorber maintains that fee structure stopped in 2019. More broadly, she noted that of the thousands of parties that ANLC has worked with over the years, the complaint rate is less than half of 1% and ?that is one track record to be proud of!?

But ANLC?s practices over the years could have legal implications. Experts say that reports of any organization?s putting pressure on birth parents to go through with an adoption would raise concerns about whether those parents placed their children under duress which can be grounds for invalidating consent and potentially overturning adoptions. And ANLC may be violating consumer-protection laws with a clause in its agreement that makes clients ?agree not to talk negatively about ANLC?s efforts, service, positions, policies and employees with anyone, including potential Birth Parents, other adoption-related entities or on social media and other Internet platforms.?

The federal Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 makes contract clauses that restrict consumer reviews illegal, as does the 2014 California ?Yelp? bill. ?It would certainly be unlawful,? says Paul Levy, an attorney with the consumer-advocacy organization Public Citizen, who reviewed the agreement. ?If they put this in the contract, what do they have to hide??

Stories of enticement and pressure tactics in the private-adoption industry abound. Mother Goose Adoptions, a middle-man organization in Arizona, has pitched a ?laptop for life? program and accommodations in ?warm, sunny Arizona.? A Is 4 Adoption, a facilitator in California, made a payment of roughly $12,000 to a woman after she gave birth, says an attorney involved in the adoption case. While the company says it ?adheres to the adoption laws that are governed by the state of California,? the lawyer, who asked to remain anonymous because they still work on adoptions in the region, says they told A Is 4 Adoption?s owner, ?You should not be paying lump sums. It looks like you?re buying a baby.?

Jessalynn Speight worked for ANLC in 2015 and says private adoption is rife with problems: ?It?s much more rampant than anyone can understand.?

..Speight, whose nonprofit Tied at the Heart runs retreats for birth parents, worries that the industry sometimes turns into a cycle of dependency, as struggling women place multiple children as a means of financial support. (The same incentive may also encourage scamming adoptive birth parents, with purported birth parents who don?t actually intend to place a child for adoption or are never even pregnant.) Anne Moody, author of the 2018 book The Children Money Can Buy, about foster care and adoption, says the system can amount to ?basically producing babies for money.?

Claudia Corrigan D?Arcy, a birth-parent advocate and birth mother who blogs extensively about adoption, says she routinely hears of women facing expense-repayment pressures. Some states, such as California and Nevada, explicitly consider birth-parent expenses an ?act of charity? that birth parents don?t have to pay back. In other states, though, nothing prohibits adoption entities from trying to obligate birth parents to repay expenses when a match fails.  ?How is that not blackmail?? D?Arcy asks, emphasizing that in most states, fraud or duress can be a reason for invalidating a birth parent?s consent.

According to Debra Guston, adoption director for the Academy of Adoption & Assisted Reproduction Attorneys, conditioning support on a promise to repay or later demanding repayment if there is no placement is ?at very least unethical.?  States are ostensibly in charge of keeping private-adoption entities in line. Agencies are generally licensed or registered with the relevant departments of health, human services or children and families. Attorneys practice under the auspices of a state bar. But even when misdeeds are uncovered, action may be anemic and penalties minimal. In 2007, Dorene and Kevin Whisler were set to adopt through the Florida-based agency Adoption Advocates. When the agency told the Whislers the baby was born with disabilities, the couple decided not to proceed with the adoption?but they later found out that the baby was healthy and had been placed with a different couple, for another fee. After news coverage of the case, Adoption Advocates found itself under investigation. In a 2008 letter to Adoption Advocates, the Florida department of children and families (DCF) wrote that it had found ?expenses that are filed with the courts from your agency do not accurately reflect the expenses that are being paid to the natural mothers in many instances.? Although DCF temporarily put the organization on a provisional license, a spokesperson for the department says that after ?enhanced monitoring for compliance,? it relicensed the company, and there have been no issues or complaints since. (When contacted, Adoption Advocates? attorney replied that the company is ?unable to respond to your inquiries regarding specific individuals or cases.?)

More recently, in 2018, the Utah department of human services (DHS) revoked the license of an agency called Heart and Soul Adoptions, citing violations ranging from not properly searching for putative fathers (a requirement in Utah) to insufficient tracking of birth-mother expenses. Rules prohibit anyone whose license is revoked from being associated with another licensed entity for five years. But a year later Heart and Soul owner Denise Garza was found to be working with Brighter Adoptions. DHS briefly placed Brighter on a conditional license for working with Garza but has since lifted all sanctions and never assessed any fines.  Enforcement is even harder when middlemen operate as consultants, facilitators or advertisers or under any number of other murky titles that critics believe are sometimes used to skirt regulations. There is little clarity on who is supposed to oversee these more amorphous intermediaries.  Jennifer Ryan (who sometimes goes by ?Jennalee Ryan? or ?Jennifer Potter?) was first a ?facilitator? and is now a kind of middleman to adoption middle-men. Her ?national online advertising service? refers expectant parents to lawyers (including her own son), facilitators and other intermediaries; as of November 2020, the company was charging these middlemen fees starting at $18,800 for each birth-mother match (with the idea that the cost is passed on to families). Ryan declined an interview but, in an email, she says she does approximately 400 matches annually. Among the websites Ryan operates are Chosen Parents and Forever After Adoptions, which both include a section that lists babies for adoption, sort of like a Craigslist ad. One example from last August: ?AVAILABLE Indian (as in Southeast Asia India) Baby to be born in the state of California in 2021.  Estimated cost of this adoption is $35000.?

Many advocates say they would like to see reforms to private adoption in the U.S. Even Yellin, a proponent of private-sector involvement in the adoption space, says there probably ought to be more regulation. But calls for systematic change have remained largely unheeded, and agreeing on exactly what should be done can be difficult.  Some believe the problem could be addressed with greater federal-level oversight pointing to the foster-care system, which a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services helps administer, as an example (albeit an imperfect one). But Liversidge notes that family law has traditionally been a state issue and says that is where fixes should, and will likely need to, occur. She wants to see improvements such as an expansion of mandatory independent legal representation for birth parents, better tracking of adoption data and the reining in of excessive fees.  Illinois attempted to take a strong stand against adoption profiteering in a 2005 adoption-reform act, which barred out-of-state, for-profit intermediaries from engaging in adoption-related activities in the state. But Bruce Boyer, a law professor at Loyola University who championed the legislation, says, ?We couldn?t get anyone to enforce it.?

Only after much pushing and prodding, he adds, did advocates persuade the state to pursue a case against what Boyer called the ?worst? offender: ANLC.  The Illinois attorney general filed a complaint in 2013 alleging that ANLC was breaking the law by offering and advertising adoption services in the state without proper licensing or approval. To fight the suit, ANLC retained a high-profile Chicago law firm, and within months, the parties had reached a settlement. ANLC agreed that it would not work directly with Illinois-based birth parents, but it did not admit any wrongdoing and called the resolution ?fair and reasonable.? Boyer disagrees. ?They caved,? he says of the state. ?There were no meaningful consequences that came from a half-hearted attempt.? The attorney general?s office declined to comment.

What few changes have been made in adoption law are generally aimed at making the process easier for adoptive parents, who experts say tend to have more political and financial clout than birth parents. At the core of the inertia is lack of awareness. ?There?s an assumption in this country that adoption is a win-win solution,? says Liversidge. ?People don?t understand what?s going on.?

Many proponents of change would, at the very least, like to see private adoption move more toward a nonprofit model. ?It?s a baby-brokering business. That?s really what it?s turned into,? says Kim Anderson, chief program officer at the Nebraska Children?s Home Society, a nonprofit that does private adoptions only in Nebraska (with a sliding fee based on income) and which rarely allows adoptive parents to pay expenses for expectant parents.

Whatever shape reform ends up taking or mechanism it occurs through advocates say it will require a fundamental shift and decommodification of how the country approaches private adoption. ?A civilized society protects children and vulnerable populations. It doesn?t let the free market loose on them,? says Liversidge. Or, as Pertman puts it, ?Children should not be treated the same as snow tires.?

Yellin kept working with ANLC as an attorney until late 2018. By then, she says adoption numbers had dropped significantly because of increased competition and a decreasing number of expectant mothers seeking to place their babies. But the company seems to still be very much in the adoption business. During the pandemic, Adoption Pro Inc., which operates ANLC, was approved for hundreds of thousands of dollars in stimulus loans, and its social media accounts suggest it has plenty of adoptive-parent clients. According to data from the search analytics service SpyFu, ANLC has also run hundreds of ads targeting expectant parents. For example, if you Googled the term ?putting baby up for adoption? in January 2021, you might get shown an ANLC ad touting, ?Financial & Housing Assistance Available.?

Meanwhile, Allan Gindi continues to play an advertising role for ANLC (and to use an ?@adoptionnetwork.com? email address). Court documents connected to a bankruptcy case show that, in 2019, Gindi expected to make $40,000 per month in adoption-advertising income. (He says that number was not ultimately realized but did not provide any more details.) Lorber?s LinkedIn profile says that ANLC is a ?$5 million dollar per year? business. ?And that?s just one family in Southern California,? remarks Speight, who used to work for ANLC and who runs a birth-parent support nonprofit.

?Think about all of the other adoption agencies where couples are paying even more money.?

Klupp?s Facebook feed still cycles through ?memories? of posts she made when she was placing her son through ANLC. They?re mournful but positive, she says; in them, she tended to frame the decision as an unfortunate necessity that put her son in a loving home. ?I thought everything was really great,? recalls Klupp, who has since immersed herself in the online adoption community.

What she?s learned has slowly chipped away at the pleasant patina that once surrounded her adoption journey; such a shift is so common, it has a name, ?coming out of the fog.?  ?They take people who don?t have money and are scared, and they use your fear to set you up with an adoption that you can?t back out of,? Klupp says of the industry. ?I?m sure even the parents that adopted my son didn?t know half the stuff that went on behind the scenes. They probably paid this agency to find them a baby, and that?s what they cared about. And this agency takes this money from these people who are desperate.?

Klupp isn?t anti-adoption; in fact, she?s been trying to adopt out of foster care. The problem, she says, is the profit. Today, she believes she has a better understanding of the extent to which ANLC influenced her and now views her decision as, at the very least, deliberately ill informed, if not outright coerced. She says she?s taken to deleting the Facebook posts about her son?s adoption as the reminders pop up they?re too painful.  ?It seems like the agencies have some universal handbook on how to convince doubtful moms,? she says. ?I know in my heart that I would have kept my son if I had had the right answers.?

?With reporting by Mariah Espada and Madeline Roache

28
Articles / Adoptees 4 Times More Likely to Attempt Suicide
« on: January 13, 2024, 04:43:28 PM »
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/810625?form=fpf#vp_2

Adoptees 4 Times More Likely to Attempt Suicide

Jenni Laidman

Adopted offspring were nearly 4 times more likely to attempt suicide than nonadopted offspring, according to a study published online September 9 in the Pediatrics.

The study included 692 adopted children and 540 nonadopted children, all residing in Minnesota. Fifty-six offspring in the study attempted suicide; 47 of those were adoptees.

The study's lead author cautioned, however, that the increased risk did not characterize adopted children as a whole. "The majority of adoptees are psychologically healthy," Margaret A. Keyes, PhD, told Medscape Medical News. Dr. Keyes is a research associate at the Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. "With elevated risk, we are talking about a very small number of people."

Dr. Keyes and colleagues conducted an initial interview of children and parents and then completed a second assessment roughly 3 years later (mean interval, 3.36 years; standard deviation [SD], 0.45 years) between 1998 and 2008. The appraisal included a comprehensive mental health assessment, a personality assessment, an assessment for the presence of childhood disruptive disorders such as oppositional defiant disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, major depressive disorder, and substance abuse disorders. Parents and children were asked separately whether the child had attempted suicide.
Among the 47 adoptees who attempted suicide between the first and second assessment, 16 were boys and 31 were girls; of the 9 nonadoptees who attempted suicide, 4 were boys and 5 were girls.

The odds ratio (OR) for reported suicides among adoptees compared with nonadoptees was 4.23, after adjusting for age and sex. When the odds were adjusted for factors associated with suicidal behavior, such as substance abuse, depression, disruptive behavior disorders, and disruption in family and school life, the OR remained significantly elevated, at 3.70.

Dr. Keyes said this research is in line with findings in earlier studies, including research in Sweden showing increased numbers of suicide attempts among adoptees. A 2002 Lancet study also found that intercountry adoptees were more likely than other Swedish-born children both to die from suicide (OR, 3.6) and to attempt suicide (OR, 3.6).

"They have documented this [increased risk] in very large national cohort studies," Dr. Keyes said. A US study published in Pediatrics in 2001 also found an increased suicide risk among adoptees. In that study, the researchers assessed 6577 adolescents, including 214 adoptees. Of those, 7.6% of adoptees attempted suicide compared with 3.1% of children living with their biological families.

The current study should stand as a warning to clinicians to take the concerns of adoptive parents seriously, Dr. Keyes said. "Adoptive parents are sometimes viewed as overreporters and quick to refer to helping agencies, social service agencies, or their family doctor. I think their concerns should be taken seriously and not necessarily viewed as overreporting or overanxiousness. They may be looking at a real phenomenon in their family."
The authors did not find that specific adoption factors, including age of adoption placement, ethnic minority status, intercountry adoption, and domestic placement, predicted suicide attempts. However, a variety of behavioral issues were more common among suicide attempters than nonattempters (aggregate risk, 1.9 SD), and those same behaviors were more common among adoptees than nonadoptees (aggregate risk, 0.31 SD).

Among the risks associated more consistently with adoptees were childhood disruptive disorders (mean difference [d], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 - 0.53; P < .001), reports of family discord (d, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.22 - 0.58; P < .001] when reported by parents and d, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.12 - 0.39; P < .001] when reported by children), academic disengagement (d, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.08 - 0.27; P < .001). Adoptees also had greater levels of teacher-reported externalizing behavior (d, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12 - 0.43; P < .001) and teacher-reported negative mood (d, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20 - 0.48; P < .001).

The researchers note, however, that these differences were more pronounced when they compared those who attempted suicide and those who did not, regardless of adoptive/nonadoptive status. The authors reported a d of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.76 - 1.33) for childhood disruptive disorders between attempters and nonattempters and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.76 -1.34) for major depressive disorder (P < .001 for both), a d of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.36 - 0.91) for substance disorders (P < .001), a mean difference of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.43 - 0.99) for low control (P < .001), a d of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.41 - 0.97) for alienation (P < .001), and a d of 0.52 (95% CI, 0.23 - 0.81; P < .001) for low well being.

Parent-reported family discord was also greater for attempters than nonattempters (d, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.67 - 1.34; P < .001), as was child-reported family discord (d, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.61- 1.23; P < .001). Teacher ratings for externalizing behavior and negative mood were also higher for those who attempted suicide (d, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.57 - 1.27] for externalizing behavior; d, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.37 - 1.05] for negative mood; P < .001 for both).

The mean age for adopted children in the Minnesota study was 14.95 years (SD, 1.9 years); nonadoptees had a mean age of 14.89 years (SD, 1.9 years). All the adopted children had been placed in permanent homes before the age of 2 years (mean, 4.7 months; SD, 3.4 months), and 96% were placed before 1 year. Seventy-four percent of the adoptees were born outside the United States; 90% of the international adoptees were born in South Korea, and 60% of the international adoptees were girls.

Chuck Johnson, president of the National Council for Adoption, an Alexandria, Virginia?based advocacy organization, emphasized the good news from the study, saying that most adoptees are not at risk for suicide.
"It doesn't surprise me that children who've been adopted in great numbers have struggles, which, I guess, if you took to its natural consequences, would increase the suicide rate," he told Medscape Medical News. "But the thing that really comes out at me is it appears a vast majority of children are doing really well."

The authors and the commenter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Pediatrics. Published online September 9, 2013. Abstract



29
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12948247/surrogate-mother-childhood-unhappy-banned.html

I was born via surrogate but from Day One there was no bond with my mother and my childhood was unhappy. That's why I believe so strongly that this cruel and immoral practice should be banned

By Olivia Maurel

Published: 02:53, 11 January 2024 | Updated: 07:29, 11 January 2024

Growing up, I couldn't understand why I was born in Louisville, Kentucky. There it was in black and white on my birth certificate, yet it didn't make any sense. My parents had never lived in Kentucky, we weren't American and had no family connections to the place whatsoever.  When I asked my mother, she told me she chose Kentucky because it was where her favourite film, Gone With The Wind, was set (it wasn't) and she always wanted her child to be born in such a romantic location. It's also why she called me Olivia after one of the film's stars, Olivia de Havilland.  At the time, I thought this was a beautiful story, like a fairy tale.  Many years later, however, I discovered my mother's fairy-tale fantasy concealed a devastating truth; I was born in Kentucky because an American surrogate gave birth to me there.  Mere seconds after I was born, I had been rapidly removed from the woman who had become pregnant with me using her own eggs and had carried me for nine months. Rather than being placed in my biological mother's arms to be nurtured and adored, I was handed over to a man and woman who had, put simply, paid an awful lot of money for me.  My birth 31 years ago may have concluded this particular financial transaction, but it was just the beginning of a trauma that I struggle to cope with to this day.  It seems barely a week goes by without a celebrity declaring the birth of a child born via surrogacy, be it Paris Hilton or Khloe Kardashian.  In the UK, the Law Commission has put forward a recommendation that would see parents who use surrogates get legal status from birth.  Currently the surrogate mother is the legal parent until the intended parents gain a parental order, which can take months. Yet while my heart truly goes out to any woman who longs to have a child, as someone who was the product of a surrogacy birth, I can never cheer these announcements.  My experiences have led me to conclude that surrogacy is nothing short of cruel an immoral act that can cause lifelong damage.  Becoming a parent myself entirely naturally, in my mid-20s has only crystallised my view. The sacred bond between mother and baby is, I feel, something that should never be tampered with.  When writing about the trauma adopted children are said to suffer after being taken from their birth mothers, some psychologists refer to this emotional and physical severance as 'the primal wound'.  I believe it's the same for children born via surrogacy: a profoundly painful experience that disrupts the innate connections between birthing mother and child.  Little wonder, perhaps, that I have such unhappy memories of my childhood. Even as a young child, I had a sense that something was 'off' in my family. My French parents were very wealthy, and we split our time between Palm Beach in Florida and the South of France, living in fabulous homes, with a full complement of nannies and staff.  My education was the best money could buy; we went on the sort of holidays most people could only dream of.  Materially, I wanted for nothing. But emotionally it was a different story.  Neither of my parents were affectionate 'huggy' types and a succession of nannies, an army of different women, looked after me much of the time.  Why, you might wonder, when my parents went to such lengths to have me, did I not feel showered with love?

I simply don't know. Mum was 49 when I was born; it could be her age made it harder for her or the lack of that precious biological connection between us. Whatever the cause, there was no bond from day one.  I was so needy as a young child, I would scream the place down if my parents left the house. It got so bad they had to take me and a nanny with them if they went out to have dinner with friends.  Things were no better at school, where I was so clingy I suffocated friends until they grew sick of me and dumped me.  The older I got, the more I realised how unusual and unlikely it was for someone of my mother's age to have a baby. And I couldn't get Louisville, Kentucky, out of my head. When I was 16, I did some online research and saw Gone With The Wind wasn't set in Kentucky it was set in Georgia.  But what did keep showing up in my online searches was that Louisville was a big centre for surrogacy. Instantly, something clicked.  When further research revealed surrogacy was illegal in France still the case today I put two and two together.  The realisation that I had been lied to all my life sent me spiralling out of control as I tried to blot out my feelings.  My dark worries were kept to myself; I never spoke to my parents about this. That would have necessitated a closeness that just didn't exist. Lonely and confused, I started on a journey of self-destruction.  I drank heavily, smoked marijuana and partied non-stop, anything to stop the thoughts that plagued me. Was my mother really my mother at all?

Who was I?

My parents no doubt thought I was a troubled teen who would just sort herself out eventually.  But my depression deepened to such an extent that, after leaving home, I made several suicide attempts, which my parents knew nothing about.  My behaviour became more reckless. Now aged 20 and living in France full-time, one night, after drinking to the point of annihilation, I was raped. Telling the police wasn't an option because I felt so ashamed and blamed myself.  Finally, I realised I needed to escape from this cycle of trauma. I sought out a therapist, and weaned myself off drink and drugs.  Shortly afterwards I met Matthias, the man who became my husband. He was my saviour and psychologist all in one. Without him, I don't think I would be here today.  We married when I was 24 and I soon became pregnant with my daughter Eleanor, now six. Having been raised by an older mother, I was certain I wanted to be a young mum.  While I had no proof I had been born via a surrogate when I fell pregnant, I felt it with every fibre of my being. I told everyone as much, including my husband and his loving family. My pregnancy progressed well. As my unborn daughter began to kick, it raised all sorts of feelings.  Even before I'd held her in my arms, I knew you could offer me millions and I'd never give her up.  There was an almost transcendent joy at the thought of this little one being so close to me in my womb. That feeling continued in my subsequent pregnancies: my sons Theodore and August are four and two respectively.  Perhaps understandably, I was highly focused on my own children's births being just right. I wanted home births for all (although I ended up having a hospital delivery with my daughter) and for them to be instantly placed on me for skin-to-skin bonding, just as Mother Nature intended.  It was my mother-in-law who helped me definitively find out the truth of my parentage. For my 30th birthday in 2022 she bought me a kit for one of those DNA ancestry sites.  Before taking it, I decided to tackle my father. One day, while driving to our holiday home in the mountains, I said: 'Dad, I know I was born via a surrogate. I know Mum didn't give birth to me and you need to tell me because I deserve the truth.'

He replied: 'I need to talk to your mother before I can tell you anything.'

It was enough for me; with this sentence, he had effectively confirmed my fears. I waited for him or Mum to come back to me with the full story, but they never did, and I didn't see the point in asking again.  I sent my DNA sample off and was very quickly matched with a first cousin living in America.  I messaged her and said I believed I had been born via surrogacy. Although it was an awkward thing to ask, did she know if anyone in her family had acted as a surrogate?

She replied straight away: 'I know someone.'

I felt my life change instantly: nerves, excitement and, yes, pain, overwhelmed me.  She put me in touch with my half-brother, who in turn put me in touch with my three half-sisters.  They were so loving and willing to answer my endless questions and, slowly, I learned the whole story.  Their mother was the surrogate who had given birth to me and was also my biological mother.  Most surrogates are what is called 'gestational carriers' they carry the baby and deliver it but are not biologically related. Incubators, in other words.  But my birth mother had used her own eggs and was artificially inseminated with my father's sperm.  Aged 38 when she had me, she already had five children with her husband. Her youngest child died in a tragic accident when he was two.  Shortly afterwards, she contacted the surrogacy agency. She was so obviously grieving I believe she should never have been accepted as a suitable candidate initially, she didn't even tell her husband about her plans.  But, in my view, as surrogacy involves vast sums of money, the wellbeing of birthing mothers is all too easily overlooked.  After a while, my American siblings told me my biological mother wanted to make contact.  We began to exchange messages. At first, I felt such anger. I wanted to ask her: 'Why did you keep five of your children and sell me? Why wasn't I good enough to keep?'

Instead, though, I asked her favourite colour. Purple. Same as me. She sent me pictures of herself pregnant with me and I felt suddenly connected. She looked just like me: the eyes, the hair, the jawline. That was my mother all right.  It was the first time I'd looked like a relative.  She told me that every year on my birthday she thought about me and said a prayer. I want to believe her, but am not sure I do. Those things are easy to say to a person desperate to hear them.  More than anything, I wanted to know about my birth.  I learned that my birthday was chosen for me the pregnancy had been induced so I arrived on December 10, a date that fitted in with my parents' travel plans. Even my arrival was contractual and unnatural.  My birth mother was asked if she wanted to hold me and says she told the midwife: 'No, I can't. Because if I do I know I'll never let her go.'

Instead, I was taken away by the nurse and she never saw me again.  After a few weeks, our messages petered out. I don't think we'll be in touch again.  Sadly, I believe she suffers with mental health issues and has disconnected relationships with all of her children.  That said, I have an ongoing relationship with my cousin, her mother (my aunt) and my half-siblings. They have become the family I always wanted and I hope one day we can all get together in the flesh.  At last, after decades of suspicion, I had absolute proof of what had happened to me.  Yet I didn't confront my parents. I felt as if I would be spitting in their faces somehow.  They paid a lot of money to have me commercial surrogacy can run into six-figure sums they had raised me and I still felt a loyalty towards them. I had hoped that knowing all would bring me closure. Instead, hearing the truth plunged me into a depression and I was forced again to seek psychological help.  The more I reeled from my discovery, the more I realised I had to use my experiences to help other people.  Last year, I posted a video on TikTok which led to me becoming involved with the campaign that calls for the universal abolition of surrogacy. I ended up telling my story at an international conference on surrogacy held at the parliament of the Czech Republic. My speech went viral.  I've been moved to tears by the messages I have had from women who tell me how deeply they regret their decisions to be surrogates and how they pine for the babies they gave up.  We can only protect women like them and the babies they have if we ban all forms of surrogacy, including so-called altruistic surrogacy, where the surrogate is not paid a fee for carrying a child, as is the case in Britain.  After much thought, I have concluded that altruistic surrogacy is a myth.  Even in countries such as the UK where commercial arrangements are banned, large sums are paid in the form of expenses.  The reality is a woman's body is still being rented and a baby is still going to be separated from its birth mother. In my view, it makes no difference if the surrogate is not the biological mother.  It's her womb that has nurtured the child. It's her voice the baby has heard day in, day out, as it grows within her. It's her scent that will soothe the child. It is her they feel bonded to.

And while I feel so deeply for those who cannot have children, the sad reality is we can't all have what we want in life.  From all my research, I cannot see there is a 'good' version of surrogacy. In countries where it is or has been legal, it has often gone wrong.  For example, Thailand banned surrogacy for international intended parents completely in 2015 after a high-profile case where an Australian couple hired a surrogate who gave birth to twins, a healthy girl and a boy with Down's Syndrome.  The couple took the girl home and left the impoverished mother to care for the boy.  This week I heard about one British agency that offers financial incentives to potential surrogates: Apple watches, theme park tickets, gourmet meal kits, even sex toys.  I knew the minute I started to speak out publicly I would become estranged from my parents.  Sadly, that's exactly what has happened. They see their grandchildren but we don't speak any more. In a way, it's a continuation of the awkwardness and distance that has always been there. That said, I love them and don't bear a grudge.  But I'm unable to stay silent while I still struggle with the traumatic legacy of surrogacy.

As told to Claudia Connell 

30
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/11/the-children-who-say-they-were-wrongly-taken-for-adoption

?My mother spent her life trying to find me?: the children who say they were wrongly taken for adoption

For years, Bibi Hasenaar felt rejected because she was adopted aged four. Then she saw a photo that described her as missing ? and began to uncover an astonishing dark history
Rosie Swash and Thaslima Begum
Fri 11 Aug 2023 06.00 BST
Last modified on Fri 11 Aug 2023 12.39 BST

Bibi Hasenaar has had two lives. One began in November 1976, when she was about four, arriving in the Netherlands to meet her adoptive parents. ?I remember it vividly. There?s a photo of us at the airport with other children arriving from Bangladesh it was published in a Dutch paper.?

Her older brother Babu was there, too.  Her other life appears only in fragments. She remembers being in a children?s home with another older brother and having her food stolen by older children. ?It was not a nice place to be,?

Hasenaar says. Her only memory of their mother is her long black hair. But of the flight out of Bangladesh, she remembers every detail. At her kitchen table in the village of Muiderberg, 30 minutes? drive east of Amsterdam, sipping hot water and fresh ginger, the 51-year-old slowly recounts the long journey that changed her life.  The plane, which felt huge to Hasenaar, who was malnourished and small for her age, was empty save for the four or five children who were being escorted for adoption. Babu was holding a black and white picture of his new family, but, Hasenaar says: ?No one explained anything to me; I didn?t know what was happening.?

She remembers a constant feeling of shock, interrupted briefly by awe when the plane took off and she realised they were in the sky. The only adult she recognised was an English woman she had seen at the children?s home in Bangladesh, who was there to escort them to their new families. At one point, Hasenaar became hysterical. ?They tied me to the seat with a rope because I could not be calmed. I wasn?t allowed to go to my brother in the rows ahead; I just felt so alone.?

At Schiphol airport, things got worse. The children were taken to await the arrival of their adoptive parents. ?It was a big room, and I felt very cold,? Hasenaar says. ?They wouldn?t let me go to my brother.?

To her horror, she soon discovered why: Babu had been adopted by a different family. Hasenaar began to cry inconsolably.  Bibi Hasenaar has had two lives. One began in November 1976, when she was about four, arriving in the Netherlands to meet her adoptive parents. ?I remember it vividly. There?s a photo of us at the airport with other children arriving from Bangladesh it was published in a Dutch paper.?

Her older brother Babu was there, too.  Her other life appears only in fragments. She remembers being in a children?s home with another older brother and having her food stolen by older children. ?It was not a nice place to be,? Hasenaar says.

Her only memory of their mother is her long black hair. But of the flight out of Bangladesh, she remembers every detail. At her kitchen table in the village of Muiderberg, 30 minutes? drive east of Amsterdam, sipping hot water and fresh ginger, the 51-year-old slowly recounts the long journey that changed her life.  The plane, which felt huge to Hasenaar, who was malnourished and small for her age, was empty save for the four or five children who were being escorted for adoption. Babu was holding a black and white picture of his new family, but, Hasenaar says: ?No one explained anything to me; I didn?t know what was happening.?

She remembers a constant feeling of shock, interrupted briefly by awe when the plane took off and she realised they were in the sky. The only adult she recognised was an English woman she had seen at the children?s home in Bangladesh, who was there to escort them to their new families. At one point, Hasenaar became hysterical. ?They tied me to the seat with a rope because I could not be calmed. I wasn?t allowed to go to my brother in the rows ahead; I just felt so alone.?

At Schiphol airport, things got worse. The children were taken to await the arrival of their adoptive parents. ?It was a big room, and I felt very cold,? Hasenaar says. ?They wouldn?t let me go to my brother.?

To her horror, she soon discovered why: Babu had been adopted by a different family. Hasenaar began to cry inconsolably.  After three days with her new family, she was still in distress. ?My new parents got in contact with the adoption agency and said: ?It?s not possible for this girl to stay here she is so sad and just wants to be with her brother.??

The couple who had adopted Babu agreed to take her, too.  But Hasenaar says she felt unwanted, both by her second adoptive family, who had only asked for one child, and by her birth mother, who she believed had given her up. Life in the Dutch village was completely alien. ?I had to sleep when I wasn?t tired, eat when I wasn?t hungry,? she says.

While Babu who chose not to be interviewed for this article adapted, Hasenaar says she has always been headstrong. ?You can do what you want to me, but I don?t change my mind. So I think that was for my Dutch parents the most difficult part. Family life was awful.?

As a teenager, she strove for independence, taking on numerous part-time jobs. ?I was also a little bit crazy,? she laughs. ?I have done things that are not good for you to print.?

Even now, Hasenaar seems like a woman determined to enjoy life on her own terms. During a tour of the eccentric property she is renovating with Herman, her husband of 34 years, she says: ?It used to be a commune, for people who liked to live off-grid I would like to do that myself one day.?

The huge garden is dotted with chickens and colourful hanging ornaments; in a field behind her house, there are two camels. She shows off a huge scar on her thigh where one of them recently bit her.  Hasenaar left home at 17 to be with Herman, whom she married in 1991. ?He saved me,? she says, matter of factly. ?And his family were so nice to me; they just accepted me.?

She and Herman had children quickly, and Hasenaar was a mother of four by the time she was 26. Sometime in 1993 when she was in her early 20s, had two young children, and was working in a bar and studying part-time Hasenaar began receiving letters from a person in Bangladesh claiming to represent her birth mother. The letters claimed that she had never intended to give her children up for adoption. ?There was no internet then, no way of checking anything,? she says.

Several letters arrived bearing the notary stamp of a Dhaka-based lawyer, asking for money to help with the case. After posting back the equivalent of a few hundred pounds in cash, Hasenaar heard nothing.  She contacted Wereldkinderen (World Children), the charity that had facilitated her adoption in 1976 while operating under the name BIA. ?They told me that my mother was making it up because she was ashamed." 

Hasenaar suggested she go to Bangladesh to investigate. ?They told me it was dangerous to travel there, especially while pregnant, and that I would be seen by Muslims as an unbeliever. I was young and ignorant, and my adopted parents were always talking positively about the organisation, so I trusted them. I decided it would be unsafe to go.?

I looked at the old newspaper pictures and I said to myself: ?That?s my brother.? And then: ?That?s me!?

The letters stopped. With few options left, Hasenaar focused on raising her family. Then, in the summer of 2017, a friend sent her a link to a documentary. It was about children who had been adopted in the Netherlands, and a man who had discovered he had been taken from Bangladesh without his mother?s consent. ?He talked about missing children,? Hasenaar says. ?I immediately got goosebumps.?

An elderly woman appeared on screen, holding an old newspaper. Hasenaar could barely take in what she was seeing. ?There were at least four children described as ?missing persons? in that newspaper. I looked at the pictures and said to myself: ?That?s my brother.? And then: ?That?s me!? I couldn?t believe what I was seeing.?

She dug out her adoption papers, which she had never closely examined before. She realised her date of birth was wrong, and she was listed as having arrived alone. ?It felt so surreal,? she says. ?All of a sudden, everything changed. I always felt that there was nobody in the whole world who wanted to take care of me, or who was missing me. And I realised, looking at those pictures my mother, she really was trying to find me.?

Six months earlier, in January 2017, a man named Abdel Kader heard that a documentary crew, alongside a charity, was looking into the possible disappearance of children from Bangladesh?s Tongi region 40 years earlier. Kader knew he had to approach them with his own family?s story.  Tongi, situated on the outskirts of Dhaka, was once home to the Dattapara camp for refugees of the 1971 war. The brutal nine‑month conflict, during which East Pakistan broke away and became an independent state, was one of the bloodiest of the 20th century. It was the result of the Pakistani army?s violent response to Bengalis seeking self-rule, and saw mass rape, ethnic cleansing and airstrikes that razed entire villages to the ground.  By the time Bangladesh had won independence in December 1971, hundreds of thousands had been killed and millions more displaced. To resettle slum dwellers in the capital, three camps were set up; one of these was Dattapara. Conditions at the camp were deplorable, and in 1975 various NGOs including Oxfam, World Vision and the Salvation Army arrived to provide aid. In the years after the charities left, the camp grew into a slum, and a sense of despair still lingers today: a high school sits on the mass burial site of a genocide.  In the middle of the small bazaar of Tongi?s Ershad Nagar neighbourhood stands a set of tall iron gates bearing the letters ?TDH?. The building, now used to administer ad-hoc health services, such as Covid-19 vaccines, was once the site of a children?s relief programme run by Terre des Hommes Netherlands (TDHn), a European NGO. Local families claim that in the 1970s the programme was used as a cover to kidnap young children for adoption abroad. TDHn denies these allegations, saying it was not and has never been an adoption agency.  After becoming displaced during the war, Kader?s family arrived in Tongi ? and never left. They were incredibly poor. There was no chance of employment at the camp, and Kader?s mother, Samina Begum, a widow in her early 30s, had been left to care for three young children. Her situation was distressingly common, and like most of her neighbours, she survived on handouts from local charities, including TDHn, which distributed food and rations from a building inside the camp.  In autumn 1976, when Kader was 16, his mother was approached by men claiming to be TDHn foreign aid workers who told her they ran a children?s home within the camp where she could enrol her two youngest children, Bablu and Rahima, aged five and four. Wary, Begum turned them down, but then different men, some Bangladeshi but one described by Kader?s family as a white man, all claiming to work for TDHn, kept returning with promises. Other mothers had done the same thing, they told her. The children would be fed and educated, they said. The home could provide medical care. TDHn says the organisation did not run a children?s home and did not mandate staff to engage in adoption-related work.  Kader says that after being assured she could visit and that the children would be returned to her when they were older, Begum finally gave in.  The following week, she went to the building where she had dropped her children off, but the guards wouldn?t let her in. Though she was briefly allowed to see Bablu during one visit, the week after that they told her the children?s home was temporarily closed. In the third week, they said her children had been taken to another location. In a state of panic, Begum demanded to see Bablu and Rahima. In response, Kader said she was threatened with a gun and told never to come back. Begum would later learn that her children had been taken to the Netherlands for adoption and now went by their middle names, Babu and Bibi. She never saw them again.

My mother was a fighter. Trying to find ways to get her children back consumed her everyday life

Kader, 63, suffered a stroke in March 2023 that left him unable to move properly and struggling to breathe. But when describing what happened to his mother, fury enters his voice. ?Listen, my mother was a fighter. From that moment, trying to find ways to get her children back consumed her life.?

He remembers going with his mother to the police station so she could report what had happened to her children. ?She was literally thrown out,? Kader says angrily. ?We were poor. It was difficult to get our voices heard.?

Undaunted, she approached a lawyer for help, and asked a local journalist to place a picture of her missing children in a newspaper ? the one that was featured in the documentary Hasenaar saw.  Samina died in 2008. ?My mother was a strong woman, but fighting the system for so long took its toll on her,? Kader says.

Once energetic and joyful, she became withdrawn and fell into depression. ?She stopped talking and eating. There were days where I couldn?t even recognise her. In the process of losing my siblings, I felt I had lost my mother, too.  I was only 16 when they were taken. That day changed my life forever,? he says. ?My father died during the war, so my mother was all we had. I was a lot older than my siblings and it was often my job to look out for them, so when they were taken I felt partly responsible. There were three of us siblings, and then all of a sudden it was just me. I felt very alone,? he says.

Hasenaar and Kader had their first phone call in 2017. It was a conversation fractured by translation issues, but laden with emotion. Hasenaar wept as her brother told her their mother had died. A few weeks later, the siblings were reunited at the airport in Dhaka. ?I couldn?t believe my eyes when I first saw Abdel,? Hasenaar recalls. ?He looked exactly like my brother Babu. They even dressed and spoke in the same manner. When we reached the village where I am from, everyone came out to welcome me. They told me how much I looked like my mother, and that made me really happy.?

In finding out the truth about her mother and the circumstances of her adoption, Hasenaar has also unearthed details of a scandal, mired in the turmoil and poverty of Tongi, and decades-old allegations of an adoption ring. Samina Begum was one of dozens of mothers who made the allegations against TDHn. All claim they handed over their children believing it to be for temporary care, only to discover that they had vanished abroad to be adopted by strangers. The charity says it investigated the claims and found them to be ?wholly incorrect?, adding that many local people wrongly understood TDHn to be an adoption agency, which it was not. But Begum was seemingly undeterred and is described as having built a coalition of mothers to fight for the return of their children.  ?Samina was incredibly brave,? says Sayrun Nisa, another mother who lives nearby and also claims her child was taken. The group of mothers that Begum had convened protested outside TDHn offices. ?She knew how to make a lot of noise. She would tell us that we couldn?t just sit by and do nothing. That we had to fight to get our children back,? Nisa says.

The ?boarding school scam?, as it is often referred to, is well known to those who work in international child protection. It is a simple, brutal trick played on families in desperate circumstances. ?Generally, the scam works best in locations where poor parents commonly send children to a ?boarding school?, ?orphanage? or similar for food, shelter and education, often where the majority of children are there temporarily a kind of safety net for poor families,? says David M Smolin, an expert on illegal international adoption practices, who lives in Alabama.  Smolin cites examples in Nepal and Cambodia. ?Sometimes the parents know the child is going to a foreign country but understand it to be a kind of study-abroad opportunity, and expect that they will have continuing contact.?

He knows this because he and his wife decided to adopt two girls from India in 1998. As soon as the girls then adolescents despite being listed as aged nine and 11 by the adoption agency ? arrived, the couple realised from their agitated state that something was seriously wrong. ?About six weeks after their arrival in the US, my wife and I received information from another adoptive family suggesting that the mother had not consented and that the father was not as we had understood dead,? Smolin says.

They discovered that the children had been taken after their mother placed them in a children?s institution for what she believed was temporary care. But it took six years for the Smolins to establish the truth. ?The most shocking thing was that no one seemed to care that our adoptive daughters might have been, in effect, kidnapped,? he says. ?The agency did not seem to care, the governments did not seem to care, other adoptive parents did not seem to care, and the psychologist we consulted did not seem to care. It shocked us that you could have stolen children in your home and no one would think that was a problem.?

It was only with the help of the prominent Indian activist Gita Ramaswamy that the Smolins were able to find the girls? mother, who said that, when she discovered her children were gone and asked for them back, she was told that the orphanage had spent a lot of money on the care of the children, and named an impossible sum that would be required for her to get them back. Of course, this was not correct; but, again, without literacy, lawyers, a certain status in society, she was powerless.  ?What happened to us and our daughters profoundly changed our understanding not just of adoption, but the world,? Smolin says. ?We realised for the first time the depth of injustice in which some people count, and others simply do not. 

The couple helped the girls reunite with their mother, and Smolin has since dedicated much of his career to exposing enforced adoption.  Nigel Cantwell has worked on international adoption for more than 30 years. He identifies the ?boarding school scam? as one of a number of methods used to secure illegal adoptions. Others include falsely informing a mother their child is stillborn, obtaining consent by manipulation, falsifying documents, and straightforward abduction.  He says: ?From the 1950s to the early 1970s, international adoption was driven by a humanitarian response to the perceived problems of newly decolonised countries, and to war and disaster. But then this saviour ideology was rapidly reinforced and even overtaken by the realisation that intercountry adoption was a means of family formation.?

There was no effective legal framework in place for international adoption. ?It was the wild west,? says expert Nigel Cantwell

International adoptions from developing countries to the west began to rise in the 70s. ?The received wisdom is that there were fewer children to adopt nationally because of better access to contraception, and the diminishing stigmatisation of single mothers.?

There was no effective legal framework in place. ?It was the wild west,? he says. ?Undocumented children were being taken across borders, their identities completely wiped out. The process was increasingly tainted by deliberately illegal, demand‑led, nasty actions.?

Adoption from Bangladesh seems to have mirrored the pattern identified by Cantwell, moving from emergency response to a business model. One horrifying element of the 1971 conflict was the use of ethnic rape as a weapon of war against Bengali women, leaving thousands of forced pregnancies in its wake.  The government responded by introducing emergency legislation that permitted late-term abortions, and the Bangladesh Abandoned Children Order, which allowed foreigners to adopt the thousands of ?war babies? who had been left at orphanages around the country. In 1972, hundreds travelled to do just that, arriving in a chaotic country assembling itself from the ruins of war. Prospective parents would arrive at orphanages and pick their baby from a row of cots.  Within a few years, there were a number of charities formally organising the adoption of Bangladeshi children to foreign countries. Soon, older children were routinely available for foreign adoption, too. Adoptees were often transferred to the care of new parents with little more than a piece of paper confirming their name and orphan status. In other cases, charity workers were apparently open about making up the details of children in their care, to hurry along the bureaucratic process.  It?s hard to establish an accurate number of Bangladeshi adoptions abroad during the 1970s. Children were sent to countries including Canada, the US and the UK. Official figures show that between 1975 and 1979, 454 children were adopted in the Netherlands alone. Many, like Bibi Hasenaar, came from Tongi.  What went wrong with the Dutch adoptions during this period remains the source of major dispute between the former country director of TDHn, Moslem Ali Khan, who also worked for BIA, and the dozens of families who maintain their allegations that he and TDHn stole their children, claims that they both deny.  Several of the mothers still living in Tongi repeat these claims when interviewed for this article. One woman, now 80, says she was tricked into giving her son over to men claiming to work for TDHn, and has not seen him since. Another witness claims to have seen a truckload of children being driven away from Tongi in the summer of 1977 as parents chased the vehicle, crying. One mother claims that her newborn baby went missing weeks after she turned down men claiming to work for TDHn; that she returned from the bathroom to find the baby gone from its cot.  On a damp autumn morning in Norfolk, a wood stove burns in Dr Jack Preger?s cottage as he arranges a stack of paperwork on the kitchen table. It comprises copies of legal papers and handwritten statements that the 93-year-old has kept for nearly 50 years, despite several relocations abroad ? including a sudden deportation from Bangladesh in 1979.
Born in Manchester in 1930, Preger, a self-described ?nice Jewish boy?, was politically active at Oxford University, where he studied development economics, and contemplated becoming a rabbi before settling on farming and relocating to Wales. It was there, spreading manure at his hill farm, that Preger describes hearing a voice telling him to train as a doctor.

After completing his medical training in 1972, Preger heard a radio appeal for the newly independent Bangladesh, where millions of refugees needed urgent care. Again, he felt a calling, and responded, going on to establish a clinic in Dhaka.

In 1977, Preger was at work in his clinic when he heard a commotion outside. ?I remember very clearly. Two women were on the road, shouting and screaming and rolling in the dust.? ]He went out to speak to them. ?They told me they were from the Dattapara refugee camp. They said they had been offered help for their children in a children?s home in Dhaka, had been told they would be able to visit, and that when the conditions at Dattapara had improved, they could have the children back.?

Preger, who had experience working with TDHn as a doctor, says he first heard rumours of an adoption ring operated by TDHn employees in 1974, but had been ?absolutely overwhelmed? by victims of the famine and floods ravaging the country and was unable to look into it.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      On the day the two women appeared outside his clinic, he was with a volunteer nurse. ?She asked me: ?What are you going to do?

And I said: ?If I help them, I?ll be finished.? But I did help them.?                   

Preger soon had a list of the names of 25 mothers, which he collected alongside a signed statement that they had all been tricked by TDHn into giving up their children with promises that they would later be returned to them. About halfway down, Samina Begum?s name appears. A note alongside it reads ?Children sent abroad: one boy, one girl?.

Preger began to go public with what the mothers of Tongi had told him, first approaching TDHn itself and then the Bangladesh government. He says he contacted the Anti-Slavery Society (now Anti-Slavery International), based in the UK, but they could find no record of the complaint. He contacted the Dutch government and the British Foreign Office, and, in 1978, he got in touch with two prominent lawyers in Dhaka, husband and wife Nazmul and Sigma Huda, asking them to help him look into the claims of child trafficking.  Once Sigma Huda started digging, she, too, became convinced ?something sinister? was at play and began collecting evidence. She believes that the issue goes far beyond Preger?s list; based on the testimonies she took in 1978, Huda thinks this has happened to hundreds of families.  Now 77 and still working as a lawyer in Dhaka, Huda was recently widowed after Nazmul died in February. She claims to have met numerous obstacles when trying to gather evidence of the mothers? claims. ?I was prevented from accessing any of the children?s homes or from visiting Tongi,? she recalls. ?I was a young lawyer and it was my first time dealing with such a case. No one was willing to support me and I started to make a lot of enemies.? Huda says she filed a legal notice against TDHn but was forced to drop the case when she could not make progress with the mothers? claims. TDHn said it has not seen evidence from Huda to substantiate her claims.  ?It is still one of the biggest regrets of my career that I wasn?t able to help those mothers,? says Huda, who went on to become the UN?s special rapporteur on human trafficking. ?To think there are hundreds of adopted Bangladeshis out there, who have no idea that their birth mothers never voluntarily gave them up. What happened to those Bangladeshi children is the very definition of trafficking.?

Preger shows us affidavits from 1986, almost a decade after the children had gone, which indicate that many of the mothers were still fighting to get their children back. On every document, they claim one man as responsible for taking their children under false pretences:  Moslem Ali Khan.

Khan, also known as Manzur, was country director of TDHn in Bangladesh from 1975 to 1982, and denies all these claims. He was also working for BIA, which operated a children?s home in Dhaka called Netherlands Intercountry Child Welfare Organization (Nicwo) and oversaw adoptions to the Netherlands. According to TDHn, its building in Tongi was later used by Nicwo as a children?s home, which they believe contributed to the misconception that TDHn was involved in adoptions, despite the transfer of lease taking place after the original allegations arose.  Preger knew Khan well. According to Khan, now 76, this was because Preger had approached him for help with a children?s charity he was running and Khan declined as he had concerns about Preger?s work. According to Preger, Khan started a smear campaign against him after Preger went public with the allegations.  Nearly 50 years on, Khan and Preger maintain their claims against each other. Preger was deported from Bangladesh in 1979, when, as he describes it, he was presented with an extortionate visa fee he could not pay. He believes it was a final act to silence him.  Preger?s allegations were the subject of several investigations. In December 1979, the Bangladesh government produced a report based on interviews with those on Preger?s list, stating that the parents gave up their children voluntarily and that they knew ?very well that the children will never be given back to them? and were destined for international adoption.

The report states that the parents did not want their children back and that they were ?allured? to sign the statements by promises of cultivable land, cattle and other inducements, which Preger denies. The report concludes that Preger?s allegations were ?false and baseless? while absolving everyone of any wrongdoing.  The mothers we meet say they were never approached by any official as part of the investigation. ?This is the first time anyone has come to ask me about what happened,? says Aasia Begum, another of the mothers listed in the report. ?I have never been visited by any government official. I didn?t even know an investigation had taken place.?

TDHn also investigated Preger?s claims in April 1979 and concluded they were ?incorrect?. The mothers were not interviewed as part of their investigation.  In 1982, the Abandoned Children Order was repealed when a new nationalist government came to power after one of a series of military coups. The practice of allowing foreign families to adopt Bangladeshi children was banned, and Khan was even briefly imprisoned, though never charged, for his role in facilitating foreign adoptions. After his release, Khan stopped working as TDHn?s country director.  In a statement to the Guardian, Khan denied the allegations made against him in their entirety. He said he had worked for both BIA, overseeing the intercountry adoption of children, which was not illegal, and TDHn. There were, he said, many charitable organisations in Bangladesh at the relevant time dealing with such adoptions. He said his only involvement had been in signing papers on behalf of the adopted children for families in the Netherlands, and that the allegations directed at him personally were false and had been fabricated by an individual motivated by a personal vendetta. He pointed to the government inquiry in 1979, which found the allegations against him ?were false and baseless?, and recorded the families as saying they had not been coerced into giving up their children, but rather had done so voluntarily for ?financial, social or medical reasons?.

In the years that followed, further legal action was brought against Khan by families whose children had been adopted abroad, but he has never been convicted of any crime. Though Preger continued his attempts to get the mothers? claims taken seriously, the case eventually drifted from public view. Everything appeared to have gone quiet; families of the missing children began to accept they would never be reunited.  But then, 40 years later, something interesting happened. A combination of social networking sites and DNA testing reignited interest in the cases. By the late 2010s, adoptees in the Netherlands began finding they had relatives in Bangladesh, and that the stories their adopted parents had been told about them being abandoned or orphans were untrue. A number of them launched legal action.  Such was the scale of the complaints, the Dutch government held an inquiry and temporarily paused all international adoptions to the Netherlands after they found evidence of ?forgery of documents, child trafficking, fraud and corruption? across the system, from Bangladesh but also Brazil, Sri Lanka and Indonesia.  TDHn also conducted a fresh investigation in 2019, which concluded that it was impossible to determine exactly how each adoption was established at the time.  A spokesperson for TDHn told us: ?The allegations that local TDH Netherlands staff were involved in misleading parents to give up their children for adoption have never been substantiated.?

The spokesperson described Hasenaar?s account as ?terrible? and the wider allegations made to the Guardian by women in Tongi as ?heartbreaking?, but said ?these allegations confirm that local people incorrectly perceived TDH Netherlands to be an adoption organisation?.

As of 2019, TDHn has been working with and providing financial support to a charity that works to reunite adoptees with their relatives in Bangladesh.

For Bibi Hasenaar, the various investigations and inquiries are meaningless. She no longer has trust in official bodies or systems. In 2018, she filed a case against the Dutch government, TDHn and Wereldkinderen for their alleged involvement in her fraudulent adoption, but the initial judgment concluded that she had taken too long to bring her claim ? despite the fact that she had only discovered the truth the year before. However, after the government inquiry in 2021, the state dropped its claim that her case breached the statute of limitations. As a result, Hasenaar is appealing, and expects a decision this autumn.

Wereldkinderen, which BIA merged with in 1983, told the Guardian they were currently involved in ?judicial procedures? brought against them by Hasenaar and were unable to comment on this article until the final verdict of the court was handed down.

    I?m glad we got to see our brother in person for one last time

In April, after speaking to the Guardian, Hasenaar?s brother Abdel Kader died, just a few months after being reunited with his sister and their brother Babu in Dhaka. ?I?m glad we got to see him in person for one last time,? she says. ?I spent the last three hours of his life on a video call with him. He was in a coma, but I spoke to him anyway. I cried. It breaks my heart that we lost out on so much. He was the only connection we had to our birth family ? now that he?s gone, it feels that has been lost, too.

?Going on this search has opened up many wounds,? Hasenaar says now. ?It has been painful for both me and my family, but I have no regrets. My only wish is that I could have met my birth mother in person. But it makes me happy to know that she never gave up on me, and that her efforts weren?t in vain. I grew up thinking my mother didn?t want me, only to learn that she had been searching for me her whole life.?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 41