Showing posts with label baby-selling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label baby-selling. Show all posts

February 5, 2015

...if any?

 
 
Every January I do a search of bills introduced in the Oklahoma legislature dealing with adoption. 

This year, along with a few others, OK SB 110 came up under a search regarding "birth certificates".
   
Kansas has never sealed original birth certificates from adoptees. 

Oklahoma, however, has failed to ensure this right to its adopted citizens. 
In fact, some of the language of OK SB 110 is quite concerning.   

"The State Registrar shall seal and file the original certificate of birth, if any, with the certificate of decree of adoption...the State Registrar, upon receipt of a certificate of a decree of adoption, shall prepare a supplementary birth certificate in the new name of the adopted person with the names of the adoptive parents listed as the parents...

"IF ANY..."  

Two little words can bring big consequences. 

Not only is it ridiculous that adopted people are issued a new "amended" (falsified) record of birth which lists parents who never gave birth to them, but also their original birth certificate (if any) is "sealed" from them indefinitely. 

 

It is unlawful to falsify official documents in America except for the birth record of adoptees. 
 
In fact, laws do not ensure that we even have an accurate and unfalsified original birth certificate at all.  At times adoptive parent's names are put on an original birth certificate, before an adoption is even finalized. 
This is a travesty.  
 
It strips us and our children of important on-going family medical histories, genealogy, and identity.  
 
The only ones "sealed records" laws protect are those who lobby government officials and make their living from the supply and demand based billion-dollar per year adoption industry in America. 
 
Adoptees are made to feel like commodities when money exchanges hands in the "sealing" of our identities, and unethical and coercive practices can be hidden behind "sealed records" laws.
 
 
 
   Adoption touches almost every family in America in some form or another.  Genealogists have predicted that within another few generations NO American will be guaranteed an accurate family tree or genealogy because of "sealed record" laws in adoption.  
 
They were enacted during the "Baby Scoop" era of the 40's, 50's and 60's to protect newly formed adoptive families, when vulnerable unwed mothers were given no other choice but to surrender their babies for adoption. 

The Supreme Courts of both TN and OR have determined that restoring the right of adoptee's access to their original record of birth is constitutional because first mothers were never guaranteed (nor asked for) perpetual "confidentiality" under the law.  
 
In fact, if a first mother surrenders her child for adoption, but for some reason the child is never adopted, but remains in foster care, the original birth certificate is never sealed. 

 
They only serve to protect the adoption industry and the newly formed adoptive family, while they fail to protect the rights of the very children they claim to serve. 
 
Statistics have also shown that abortion rates in states which have passed adoptee access legislation have declined more than the national average, while adoption rates remain consistent.        

Interestingly enough, this proposed bill also states,

"To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to insure their proper use, and to insure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in, vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record except to the person who is the subject of the record or in such person's interest unless ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction..." 
 
Adoptees are "the person who is the subject of the record", yet sealed records law in adoption prevents us from accessing our own records.
 
We are the only U.S. citizens denied access to our own original record of birth. 
 
OK SB 110 goes on to propose... 

"Each month, the State Department of Health shall transmit to the Department of Human Services a record of all registered births that have occurred within the state for the immediately preceding month. The Department of Human Services shall use such records for the purpose of assisting in the administration of programs related to children, including but not limited to child welfare, adoptions..."
 
This bill would require the OK Bureau of Vital Statistics to automatically forward every child's birth certificate born in Oklahoma to the OK Department of Human Services...whether that child and family is a client of DHS or not. 
 
To me, this seems like an over-reach of power. 
 
Even more so, it further disenfranchises every Oklahoma born adopted person, who is still denied access to their own records.   

October 15, 2014

Attachment, Trauma, And Conflict Of Interest

 
 
 
 
 It seems like every day my sweet son decides he wants
to "be" something different when he grows up. 

The other day he came home from school
proclaiming he wants to ride bulls...
what every mother wants to hear! 
 
As I sat through an all-day seminar entitled,
"Trauma: How it Affects Growth and Development in Children,"
hosted by the OK Adoption Coalition,
I felt as if I was getting a taste of my son's desired profession.





Being adopted is quite a ride in itself. 
Then we hear "professional" commentators give the "play by play,"
with no riding experience of their own. 
Adoptees are left to dismount and clean up
after the animal ourselves.




Does adoption, the way it is viewed today,
truly serve the child, 
or those in the business of "building" families?

"Attachment Theory" labels a child 
if they fail to "attach" to their care-giver 
(who get's to define this concept?),
because, as the speaker stated...
 
"It's not in their DNA...
babies will 'indiscriminately' attach up to six months old. 
That is why it is SO important to terminate parental rights
as quickly as possible and provide 'permanence' for these "kiddos". 
 
We are not ducks who will "imprint"
on the first person we see after hatching from the egg. 

We are humans who experience profound life-long loss
when separated from our mothers and families.   

 

If DNA and genetic mirroring were not essential parts of our human experience in relational development...
why is the internet full of searching adoptees and first families?
 
And what of this:
 
 
 

This is a visual of a theory which the adoption industry
works hard to dismiss. 
Nancy Verrier, a psychologist and adoptive mother, says...

"There exists a great need for legislative action and concern for the rights of adoptees.
Few dare give voice to that which they know in their hearts: that the connection between biological family and child is primal, mystical, mysterious, and everlasting.
Far more than merely biological and historical, this primal connection is also cellular, psychological, emotional, and spiritual."

I can't tell you how difficult it is to live in a society
which dismisses the very humanity of adoptees.

If we want to be truly trauma-informed,
we must acknowledge the adoptee's reality.

 Changing a child's name,
sealing their genetic identity and history from them,
and then asking them, as well,
to fulfill a "role" in their "new" family...with which 
they share no genetic connection;
with caretakers who need to be 
legally and emotionally known
as "Mother and Father", 
only serves to disenfranchise an adoptee's
 trauma and loss, 
and piles on added layers of complex loyalty issues.

The only valid "connections"
according to some behavioral health "experts" 
are made in court-created "legal" families through adoption. 
Mentions of natural families are made in 
condescending tones,
referring to "the bios" which are, of course, 
the source, and only source, of the child's "trauma."

What about the trauma of changing a child's identity
and expecting them to play a role 
for which they were not created to fulfill? 

A defining moment during this seminar, 
occurred when the entire room erupted in applause 
after the speaker made the assertion...

"'culture" is only defined through 'relationship'".   
 
"Best interest" of a child cannot be undermined in the "name of culture".    
 
It was obvious, everyone was thinking of the Baby Veronica case and the role ICWA played in that long-drawn out tragic battle over a child's very identity, family and personhood.

Veronica Cappobianco is living her life separated
from the family and blood that created her,
the connections that could have, and did, nurture her very core. 
All because of this theory, unethical adoption practices, 
and the power it has garnered by an adoption community 
that still sees children as "blank slates" and, unfortunately, possessions.

When will America wake up and ensure an end to the commodifying of children and conflict of interest in our adoption and child welfare systems?   

The inherent right of a child to be raised by
his/her own family is often thwarted by a system
which gives agencies and foster/hopeful adoptive parents
the legal ability to draw out a contested adoption in court
and then argue "best interest" of a child to stay
with the "only family they have ever known".

We need to ensure ethical adoption laws which
protect natural families. 
Every child deserves his/her own attorney. 
     




Adoptees are viewed as perpetual children in the middle
of a never-ending game of keep away. 
We are marginalized by being labeled "bitter" 
if we speak of the injustice of having our names changed, identities sealed, or families separated through coercion or conflict of interest. 
Sealed records in adoption not only strips adoptee's of their identity, but it also fails to ensure ethical adoption and child welfare practices. 
A lot can be hidden behind a sealed record.

I once spoke to an adoption attorney who asserted that a new "amended" birth certificate and name must be assigned to an adoptee in order to prevent them from being seen as "second class". 
The more I thought about it, the more I realized, that it is the act of changing and sealing our identities that actually makes us "second class".

It gives the message that adoptee's are not
accepted unless "amended".
This could be the real reason why
a child struggles with "attachment"
Yes, "attachment" to a caregiver is necessary for survival,
but for an adoptee it feels like holding on for dear life,
while dangling over the edge of a cliff.

The last thing we need is a lucrative adoption industry
feeding society myths and flawed theories
which disenfranchise and exploit
the very ones they claim to be serving. 
Yet these same "experts" are the ones who seem
to have the ear of our court systems, DHS, legislators
and behavioral health services. 
The ones making policy decisions.

 
We now have "professionals" contracted by those who earn their living
 by adoption, defining terms such as "best interest", "psychological parent", "permanency", and "attachment"
based on the perceptions of adoptive parents,
rather than protecting the inherent right of a child
to their identity, family history and connections.

With flawed theories of "attachment" expressed in the quote below,
no wonder adoptee's live a life-time of disenfranchised grief.   


  

Since "child placing" agencies are contracting
with behavioral health "experts"
who perpetuate these myths
(and many others)
to legislators, policy makers,
and foster and adoptive parents,
whose interests are we serving? 
 
Children deserve better. 

We need to start honoring the child,
not who the child can become to complete a new family.

The fact foster and adoptive parents
don't have a biological understanding of their child,
foster and adoptive children are more at risk of being
abused or drugged just to conform
to unrealistic expectations. 

 When a child doesn't have any mirroring of their own self
 through their family, they struggle with anxiety and hyper vigilance. 
It often presents as ADD or even sensory issues. 
Yet it is termed as "attachment issues" or "RAD"
and the child is given a label for a truly natural response,
rather than the problem being placed on the system
that put the child in the unnatural situation in the first place. 
 
My heart went out to one mother who stood up asking for help
for her eighteen year old adopted son. 
She said he had gone through all "the therapy"
and was still struggling. 
What could she do? 

Out of an entire room full of self-asserted "expertise",
she got no help whatsoever. 
Instead of given resources that could have really helped her family and son,
she was given a "band aid". 

The speaker described an exercise they do with "traumatized" children which consists of giving the child a band aid and asking them to put it on their body. 

This supposedly helps the child feel more comfortable to "unload their baggage" because through acknowledging they have an "owie" somewhere on their body, they will acknowledge "heart" issues more easily. 
 
How can an adopted person honestly find their heart in the midst of loyalty issues?

Adoptees must live an identity and narrative defined by others.
That script is skewed based on societal myths
perpetuated by an adoption system that serves the "demand"
for adoptable infants and children.

The sealing of our records steals
not only our identities,
but also any accountability over the "professionals"
who profit from us.  

 Federal adoption incentives influence child welfare philosophy
and adoption policy, when states are rewarded monetarily
for each adoption completed, but not for services towards natural families, family preservation, and reunification efforts.  

"Swift Adoption" programs and "Bridge" foster parents 
whose ultimate goal is adopting, adds to the conflict of interest
in a child welfare system whose goal should be preservation
 of kinship and natural families.

We need to ensure that "permanency" isn't influenced
by financial incentives and tax credits
which adds money to state budgets 
each time they encourage "adoption" placements
over reunification efforts with a child's natural family.


An adopted child's mastery of developmental and relational tasks 
are stunted because of myths perpetuated by an adoption industry 
that splits us apart.  




  
 
I could only accept myself when I was able to know, 
and embrace my dual identity...
by both birth and adoption.
  
When I found the courage to grieve
the losses that had been disenfranchised,
I was finally able to feel and fully experience 
both the good and bad in life.

Only then, as a whole person,
could I embrace myself and my families. 

The only other adoptee I knew in the building that day
 was a darling infant boy dressed in business casual
being cooed over and passed around the table like fresh meat. 

I pray for him, and for the eighteen year old son of the concerned mother. 
And for all of us.   

January 5, 2014

The Business of Adoption

Marketing plan
© Photographer: Icefields | Agency: Dreamstime.com

(originally published 10/17/09)

I went to a meeting recently at the OK State Capitol regarding an Adoption Review Task Force that is meeting monthly to recommend changes in the adoption code. It was created mainly because of an OK Supreme Court report documenting gross unethical practices, including coercion of "birth mothers" to relinquish their children. The task force is mainly composed of adoption agency personel, judges, attorneys, and one birth mother. It is open to the public and there were 5 adoptees there.

A panel of adoptive parents spoke about a new law they want passed called "Cooper's Law." It would nix the current requirement for all relinquishing mothers to appear before a Judge, and allow for them to simply sign the papers in the hospital or somewhere else and it be notarized. Several people spoke out against it.

Anyway, I made the statement that "it isn't too much to ask of any mother to appear before a judge since they are making such an important, permanent decision". And also stated that the "counseling" given by those who work for an adoption agency whose business it is to complete adoptions may be a conflict of interest. 

Sitting through these meetings and hearing a 2 hour discussion of how even "non-profit" adoption agencies (we all know "non-profit" doesn't necessarily mean no profit) don't want to legislate a "fee" cap or "expense" cap for adoptions because each case is so "different" ~ even though there is a case before the OK Supreme Court right now regarding an unethical adoption that cost over $120,000, makes it extremely hard to remain quiet.

We sit through these meetings feeling like this could be a discussion about the selling of cars, but certainly not people. The very people who must sit quietly and not dare speak about our legislated lack of medical history or roots. Even when several U.S. states have passed legislation restoring the right of adult adoptees to obtain their original birth certificates.

At this same meeting a comment was made by one of the task force members that she called the office of vital stats to see if they could track the number of adoptions in OK because it is so unregulated. She said they mentioned that some original birth certificates are coming in with the names of adoptive parents on them already, even before an amended birth certificate is created. I spoke up and asked if the members could address this issue because it is so important for adoptees to have an accurate obc, and it was as if it was such a minor issue they totally dismissed it, like it was so trivial it didn't deserve an answer.

Some would say that the new "open" adoptions are the answer to these issues. That adoptees will not "suffer" the same feelings of genealogical bewilderment because they will know their heritage and may even have contact with their original family. What the agencies fail to address is that "open" adoptions are not protected in law, and can become "closed" adoptions at any time, and many do. Even with "open" adoptions, the adoptee's original birth certificate is still "sealed" and an amended birth certificate created.

Some say WE need to get over our "issues"? The ones still being created, legislated, and dismissed.

April 14, 2010

Questioning International Adoptions


Questioning International Adoptions
By LISA BELKIN
April 12, 2010

There seems to be plenty of blame to go around in the sad and sobering tale of Justin Hansen (Artyom Savelyev), who landed unaccompanied in his native Russia last week, sent back by his adoptive mother and grandmother, who describe the boy as psychologically damaged and say they can no longer care for him.

Some would place all that blame on Torry Hansen and her mother, Nancy, for not trying hard enough, for not seeking help with Justin, for not doing due diligence before adopting a child from a country whose orphanages have a history of troubles, for putting a 7-year-old on an 11-hour flight all alone.

Others blame the boy, or more specifically, his threatening and violent behavior. And the Russian system, too, is under fire, for its history of subjecting orphans to conditions that breed emotional disorders and for keeping facts from adoptive parents.

We certainly don’t know all the facts in this case. We may never know them, because some are unknowable and some might have been deliberately withheld. And that, says Michele Goodwin, is the crux of the problem. A professor of law and medicine at the University of Minnesota, she is the author of the new book “Baby Markets: Money and the New Politics of Creating Families,” which turns a questioning eye on the world of international adoption. It is a system ripe for abuse and exploitation, she writes in a guest blog today, and the result can be cases that end as Artyom’s has — or worse.

International Adoption — A Market in Babies?
Michele Goodwin

More than 30 years ago, Elisabeth Landes and Prof. Richard Posner, now a federal appellate court judge, warned that there was “a considerable amount of baby selling” happening in the United States. Not surprisingly, this daunting assessment attracted strident criticism. Lawyers, social workers and others claimed that the article, which became euphemistically known as the “baby-selling article,” overstated the case and surmised that what they observed were necessary transaction fees attached to adoptions and nothing more. But the article’s observation sheds light on the case of Justin Hansen, the little boy who was adopted by an American woman and then returned to a Russian orphanage last week.

The case of Justin and his adoption by an American woman living with her mother has caused considerable controversy and evoked scrutiny from many countries. Some commentators claim that the boy simply had attachment disorder and that his adoptive grandmother, Nancy Hansen, and mother, Torry Hansen, should have tried harder with therapy. Others are sympathetic with the Hansens, who claim that the boy was violent, often had tantrums and threatened to burn down their home.

But this case is far more complicated than what many people understand. International adoptions have become a cottage industry. Americans are the leading importers of children through adoption. As the American demand for children from abroad has grown, the supply has been provided by a range of agencies — some legitimate and others quite questionable. At the same time, the costs and special transaction fees associated with international adoptions have risen.

In effect, the dynamics of law and economics are at play, with the costs of adopting children from abroad rising each year. Some critics of international adoption point out that adoption has become a cottage industry, where children are exploited and sometimes are not truly surrendered for adoption.

David Smolin, a law professor, counts himself as being in this unusual space. When he arranged to adopt two girls from India in the late ’90s, he believed that his new daughters were orphaned. After they arrived, he soon discovered that the girls were never surrendered for adoption, but were basically trafficked — stolen from their mother. In addition, the most painful part for his daughters was that the agency lied about their ages. As it turned out, they were older than the documents claimed they were.

But Smolin’s case is not unique. Other families face similar traumas and uncomfortable revelations. Maria Melichar of Mayer, Minn., spent $30,000 to adopt two girls from India, Komal and her sister, Shallu. After they arrived, the girls, who had been described as ages 12 and 11 respectively, had difficulty adjusting to their new American surroundings. Komal was often violent and angry. The family soon learned why, but not before spending tens of thousands of dollars and expending considerable energy to support their new daughters. In a shocking revelation, the parents learned that their new daughters were actually 21 and 15.

Everyone had been exploited; the girls and the Minnesota couple. In that case, too, the girls were sent back home.

Adoption fraud makes international adoptions a far more complicated zone. For decades, psychologists and others have described the tensions and unhappiness that children experience after their placement as “attachment disorder.” Surely in many cases they are right. But there are times when the label does not apply and can be misleading. This is compounded by language barriers; Americans adopt children from Russia, China, Korea, Guatemala and other countries without any language proficiencies in their children’s native tongues and therefore cannot communicate effectively.

Conflating all cases of adoptees not adapting well as “attachment disorder” obscures the fact that agencies and orphanages with very murky practices have rapidly developed in places like Russia, Guatemala, India, and other countries — to ship kids to the United States because it is profitable.

For children stolen from their parents, or trafficked for some other reason, the anxiety displayed may be because they feel victimized, not rescued from their circumstances. In fact, Guatemala, a country that ranks among the top four in the number of children sent to the United States for adoption, recently clamped down out of fear that children were being stolen from their parents, exploited in sex rings and trafficked for their organs. This was a powerful statement coming from a nation where one child for every hundred ends up in a United States home.

The case of Justin Hansen and his would-be American family highlights contemporary fault lines in international adoptions. Sometimes not all adoptions are exactly what they appear to be.

Michele Goodwin is the Everett Fraser professor of law and a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota. She is the author of “Baby Markets: Money and the New Politics of Creating Families.”

September 20, 2009

Chinese babies stolen by officials for foreign adoption


Los Angeles Times
September 20, 2009

In some rural areas, instead of levying fines for violations of China's child policies, greedy officials took babies, which would each fetch $3,000 in adoption fees.

The man from family planning liked to prowl around the mountaintop village, looking for diapers on clotheslines and listening for the cry of a hungry newborn. One day in the spring of 2004, he presented himself at Yang Shuiying's doorstep and commanded: "Bring out the baby."

Yang wept and argued, but, alone with her 4-month-old daughter, she was in no position to resist the man every parent in Tianxi feared.

"I'm going to sell the baby for foreign adoption. I can get a lot of money for her," he told the sobbing mother as he drove her with the baby to an orphanage in Zhenyuan, a nearby city in the southern province of Guizhou. In return, he promised that the family wouldn't have to pay fines for violating China's one-child policy.

Then he warned her: "Don't tell anyone about it."

For five years, she kept the terrible secret. "I didn't understand that they didn't have the right to take our babies," she said.

Since the early 1990s, more than 80,000 Chinese children have been adopted abroad, the majority to the United States.

The conventional wisdom is that the babies, mostly girls, were abandoned by their parents because of the traditional preference for boys and China's restrictions on family size.

But some parents are beginning to come forward to tell harrowing stories of babies who were taken away by coercion, fraud or kidnapping -- sometimes by government officials who covered their tracks by pretending that the babies had been abandoned.

Parents who say their children were taken complain that officials were motivated by the $3,000 per child that adoptive parents pay orphanages.

"Our children were exported abroad like they were factory products," said Yang Libing, a migrant worker from Hunan province whose daughter was seized in 2005. He has since learned that she is in the United States.

Doubts about how babies are procured for adoption in China have begun to ripple through the international adoption community.

"In the beginning, I think, adoption from China was a very good thing because there were so many abandoned girls. But then it became a supply-and-demand-driven market and a lot of people at the local level were making too much money," said Ina Hut, who last month resigned as the head of the Netherlands' largest adoption agency out of concern about baby trafficking.

The Chinese Center for Adoption Affairs, the government agency that oversees foreign and domestic adoption, rejected repeated requests for comment. Officials of the agency have told foreign diplomats that they believe that the abuses are limited to a small number of babies and that those responsible have been removed and punished.

For adoptive parents, the possibility that their children were forcibly taken from their birth parents is terrifying.

"When we adopted in 2006, we were fed the same stories, that there were millions of unwanted girls in China, that they would be left on the street to die if we didn't help," said Cathy Wagner, an adoptive mother from Nova Scotia, Canada. "I love my daughter, but if I had any idea my money would cause her to be taken away from another mother who loved her, I never would have adopted."

Twisting the laws

The problem is rooted in China's population controls, which limit most families to one child, two if they live in the countryside and the first is a girl. Each town has a family planning office, usually staffed by loyal Communist Party cadres who have broad powers to order abortions and sterilizations. People who have additional babies can be fined up to six times their annual income -- fines euphemistically called "social service expenditures," which are an important source of revenue for local government in rural areas.

"The family planning people are even more powerful than the Ministry of Public Security," said Yang Zhizhu, a legal scholar in Beijing.

Throughout the countryside, red banners exhort, "Give birth to fewer babies, plant more trees" and, more ominously, "If you give birth to extra children, your family will be ruined."

But the law does not give officials the power to take babies from their parents.

Some families say they were beaten and threatened into giving up their daughters, or tricked into signing away their parental rights.

"They grabbed the baby and dragged me out of the house. I was screaming -- I thought they were going to knock me over," said Liu Suzhen, a frail woman from Huangxin village near Shaoyang in Hunan province. She was baby-sitting her 4-month-old granddaughter one night in March 2003 when a dozen officials stormed her house.

She said they took her and the baby to a family planning office, where a man grabbed her arm and pressed her thumbprint onto a document she couldn't read.

Once a child is taken to an orphanage, parents can lose all rights.

"They wouldn't even let me in the door," said Zhou Changqi, a construction worker whose 6-month-old daughter was taken in 2002 by family planning officials in Guiyang, in Hunan province. Zhou tried repeatedly over three years to get into the Changsha Social Welfare Institute, one of the major orphanages sending babies abroad, until one day he was told:

"It's too late. Your daughter has already gone to America."

Perverse incentives

In much of China, villagers live in dread of surprise visits from family planning officials. It was certainly the case for the residents of Tianxi, a mist-shrouded village of 1,800 people tucked high in lush mountains near Zhenyuan.

No matter that the village is a two-hour drive down a rutted dirt road and then a 30-minute hike uphill, family planning officials make inspections as often as twice a week. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, when families were too poor to pay, the officials would punish them by ransacking their homes or confiscating cows and pigs, residents say.

Then, in 2003, things changed. The year after the Social Welfare Institute in Zhenyuan was approved to participate in the burgeoning foreign adoption program, family planning officials stopped confiscating farm animals. They started taking babies instead.

"If people couldn't pay their fines, they'd take away their babies," said a retired municipal employee from Zhenyuan who used to work as a foster parent for the orphanage.

"We were always terrified of them,"said Yang Shuiying, the 34-year-old mother whose daughter was taken away.

In December 2003, Yang gave birth to her fourth daughter, delivering her at home with the help of a midwife. It was an unplanned birth. In fact, her husband had gotten a vasectomy just a few days before she realized she was pregnant again.

"I hadn't planned to have another baby, but once I did, I wanted to raise her," said Yang, a soft-spoken woman who told her story with downcast eyes.

Her husband, Lu Xiande, felt even more strongly that the girl belonged at home. Away at the market when the baby was seized, he erupted in fury when he discovered what had happened.

"I'll get her back," he promised his distraught wife. He headed off to China's east coast, hoping that as a migrant worker he could raise the money to pay the family planning fine. But Lu fell sick and had to return home. Shortly afterward, he tried to slit his throat with a butcher knife.

Almost everybody in the village knows somebody whose baby was taken away. An old man leaning on a hand-carved walking stick told of how his granddaughter was taken away. A younger man spoke of a niece.

The villagers resent the suggestion by some that they don't love their daughters and readily abandon them.

"People around here don't dump their kids. They don't sell their kids. Boy or girl, they're our flesh and blood," said Li Zeji, 32, a farmer who says his third daughter was taken in 2004.

Under Chinese law, officials are required to search for the birth parents of abandoned babies. Four months after Yang Shuiying's daughter was taken, her photograph ran in a notice in the province's Guizhou City Daily along with those of 14 other babies.

The ad claimed, falsely, that the baby was "found abandoned on the doorstep" of a home in Tianxi village.

"Whoever recognizes this child should contact the orphanage in 60 days; otherwise, the baby will be considered an orphan," read the Aug. 14, 2004, announcement.

The parents say they never saw the notices because they lived in remote villages where newspapers were not available. In addition, many of the parents are illiterate and they had been told by family planning officials that the law allowed them to confiscate the babies, so it did not occur to them to complain.

The truth emerged because a teacher with relatives in Tianxi village heard about the confiscations and reported them to police and a disciplinary agency. When there was no response, he posted complaints on the Internet, which made it into the Chinese press in July of this year after a few earlier stories were censored. The teacher is in hiding for fear of retaliation.

The U.S. Embassy said in a statement released in July that it had been advised by China's Central Adoption Authority "that seven officials implicated in this case have been arrested." It added, "The United States takes seriously any allegation that children were offered for inter-country adoption without their parents' knowledge or consent."

But in Zhenyuan, officials denied that anybody had been arrested or fired from their jobs. They said the penalties ranged from demerits to warnings placed in their files. Shi Guangying, the official who took Yang's baby, was demoted.

Zhenyuan officials angrily defended their conduct.

"It's a lie that they took babies away without their parents' permission. That's impossible," said Peng Qiuping, a party official and propaganda chief for Zhenyuan. "These parents agreed that the children should be put up for adoption. They understood that they were greedy and had more children than they could afford."

"They're better off with their adoptive parents than their birth parents," argued Wu Benhua, director of Zhenyuan's civil affairs bureau.

From 2003 to 2007, the orphanage in Zhenyuan sent 60 babies to the United States and Europe. Given the suspicious clusters of the babies listed in the notices and the remoteness of the villages where it would be difficult to hike in and abandon a child, many, if not most, are believed to have been confiscated by family planning officials.

Wu said the money received from adoptive parents, $180,000 in all, went toward food, clothing, bedding and medical care for the babies and to improve conditions in the Social Welfare Institute.

But most of the babies had been housed with families who were paid only $30 a month for their services, according to one foster parent. And there were no obvious signs of renovations at the institute, a grim three-story building where a couple of senior citizens could be seen through barred windows lounging on cots. Reporters were not permitted to enter.

"We don't know what happened to the money, and we don't dare ask," said Yang Zhenping, a 50-year-old farmer from Tianxi.

Brian Stuy, an adoptive father in Salt Lake City who researches the origins of Chinese adoptees, has noticed an unusually large number of older babies reported as abandoned. He suspects these were babies who were confiscated, stolen or given up under duress.

"If you don't want a girl, you give her up as soon as she's born," Stuy said.

He believes that the $3,000 adoption fee -- about six times the annual income in rural China and usually handed over in new $100 bills -- has inspired abuses.

"It is international adoption that is creating the suction that causes family planning to take the kids to make money," Stuy said. "If there was no international adoption and the state had to raise the kids until they turned 18, you could be sure family planning wouldn't confiscate them."

Tricking parents

China's family planning laws don't just restrict the number of children in a family. Couples are supposed to get a birth permit before before conceiving. Women must be at least 20 years old and men 24. Couples must have a marriage certificate, which requires that each partner have proper hukou, the cumbersome residency permits that control where people live.

Residents in Gaoping, a small town in Hunan province, say family planning officials have used the fine print of the law to confiscate even first-born children.

Yang Libing and his wife, Cao Zhimei, both migrant workers, said their 9-month-old daughter, Ling, was taken away in 2005 because, as migrant workers, they weren't able to gather all the documents to register their marriage. The local family planning officials struck when Yang's elderly parents were baby-sitting.

They told Yang's father that the family would be fined the equivalent of more than $1,000, but that if he signed a document saying that the baby was not their birth child, but adopted, they would be spared the fine.

"They were people I knew. I trusted them. They tricked me," said the father, Yang Qinzheng, a Communist Party member who, though literate, didn't read the document carefully because of poor eyesight.

The officials then took the baby to the orphanage in nearby Shaoyang, promising to bring her back after her registration papers were filed. The family did not see her again.

The couple, who had another child later, a boy who is now 3, still grieve for their daughter.

"Everybody in the village adored her. She had big eyes like saucers and a smile for everybody she saw," said Cao, the mother. "I think of her all the time. I wonder if she looks like an American now."

In all, residents say, about 15 babies were confiscated in Gaoping. A schoolteacher helped families from villages around Gaoping write a petition in 2006, which they submitted to a deputy of the National People's Congress, China's legislative body.

When the news broke in the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, some of the family planning officials were reassigned to other posts, but no one was arrested and none of the families recovered their children.

"They still have jobs. Nothing really happened to them, but they at least stopped stealing our children," said Yang Libing, who was a leader of the group.

But the practice continues elsewhere. In December in Dongkou county, 10 miles from Gaoping, family planning officials took a nearly 6-week-old boy out of his mother's arms, saying the family owed more than $2,000 in penalties because he was a second child.

"They didn't say what they were going to do with the baby, just that they would send him to the orphanage, but I realized that they were planning to sell him," said the baby's father, Hou Yongjun, a driving instructor. Unable to raise the money on short notice, he telephoned everybody he knew, including a journalist.

At 10:30 that night, Hou's wife heard a noise and looked out the window to see two people running away. Thirteen hours after he had been taken, she found the baby on the doorstep, hungry but unharmed.

Adoption experts say that China's system is badly in need of repair.

Deng Fei, an investigative journalist based in Beijing who has written frequently about the issue, believes there should be more scrutiny of the cash paid by foreign parents.

"That money is a windfall for the orphanages and local officials," Deng said. "It seduced them into going to look for babies to send abroad."

In Philadelphia, Wendy Mailman, who adopted in 2005 from the orphanage in Zhenyuan that took in confiscated babies, now questions everything she was told about the girl who orphanage officials said was born in September and abandoned in January.

"Why would a mother who didn't want a baby girl be so heartless as to wait until the dead of winter to abandon her?" she said.

She wonders what she would do if she discovered that her daughter was one of the stolen babies. She knows she could never return the Americanized 6-year-old, who is obsessed with "SpongeBob" and hates the Chinese culture classes her mother enrolled her in. But she said, "I would certainly want to tell the birth family that your daughter is alive and happy and maybe send a picture."

"It would be up to my daughter later if she wanted to build a relationship," she said.

For many birth families, that would be enough.

"But we'd like to know where she is. We'd like to see a picture. And we'd like her to know that we miss her and that we didn't throw her away."

barbara.demick@latimes.com

Nicole Liu and Angelina Qu of The Times' Beijing Bureau contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

September 5, 2009

Just in Time for Christmas!

Sale for children
© Photographer: Prometeus | Agency: Dreamstime.com
* Attention, Attention: important commercial break. Anyone in the market to purchase a human before Christmas? Note the price-list closely, please. White infants are premium product, and will cost you quite a bit more cash.

Hopefully you realize this post - except for the REAL "situations" found online - is a piece of sarcasm against a "system" that completely disgusts me and should anger every moral citizen. It should be illegal to sell humans, and seal their own birth certificates from them indefinately. But it isn't.

Notice that many of these "BM's" (yep - birthmothers ie. wombs for rent, heroic, selfless, gifters - until the papers are signed at least) are repeat suppliers and their "expenses" are considerably HIGH (paid by YOU, desperate,"Dear Birthmother" letter-writing, completely clueless women) - even to the tune of 40,000 bucks (not including legal, travel, and finalization "fees").

Yes, these "expenses" essentially BUY her child for your "own". The CHOSEN child. Not to mention profits made by supposedly "non-profit" agencies, facilitators (brokers) and attorneys, who perpetuate legal contracts transferring humans as if property.

We, the "chosen" get a life-time of sealed records and identity confusion, wondering WHY the selling of humans can still take place in our great nation, the supposed "Land of the free".

"Home of the brave"? Where's home?

...So hurry! Don't miss these Blue-Light Specials!

http://www.abcadoptions.com/prosituations.htm

African American baby girl Due December 10th. Just in time for Christmas!!! Birthmother would love to find a two parent home, christian based Couple to place her child with. Birthmother is 29 and parents an 11 year old boy 8 year old girl 4 year old Girl and 2 year old Boy. Baby will be born in Alabama. She is requesting picutres and updates after placement. Birthmother has full prenatal care, All medicals as well as background and photos have been obtained. Birthfather is diffrent from other children and will sign, Birthmother has sickel cell traitm Birthfather does not. No substnace abuse or smoking. Fees are about $16,000.00not including travel. To be considered please email or send your profile to Unique Adoptions Inc. 951-600-2575
-----------------------
la@adoptioninsight.com
Adoption Facilitator
99.164.29.91
August 31, 2009
Birth Mother due December 14, 2009 with a Full Hispanic Baby gender unknown. Birth Mother would prefer a semi-open adoption with letters and pictures after the birth of the baby. Fees will be approximately $34,000.00 which includes everything except travel and finalization. Birth Mother will only place with a Alternative Female Couple. If interested and for more information please call our office at (760)356-5565.
---------------------------
I am an adoptive mom of 3 and our BM is pg. She has asked me to help her find and screen families - I am NOT a facilitator nor am I being paid for helping. She is Russian - due March 2010 - Gender unknown - full caucasian baby. Prenatal care from the beginning. No Drugs, alcohol, smoking. BM expenses are $35,000 excluding legal exp and travel. Our attorney is available if you want a referral. He has finalized 2 of our adopted children from this BM. Your choice. Birthfather rights will be terminated in the courts and is in full agreement with adoption plan. If you are interested, please call me ASAP at xxx-xxx-1960. Please leave a message if I don't answer - I will get back to you ASAP. Thank you
----------------------
la@adoptioninsight.com
Adoption Facilitator
74.87.212.148
August 15, 2009
Code Name:SDBC Birth Mother due March 2010 with a 3/4 Native American 1/4 Caucasian baby gender unknown. Birth Mother denies all drug, alcohol and tobacco usage. Birth Mother has placed four times previously and is very committed to the adoption plan. Fees will be approximately $35,000.00 which includes everything except travel and finalization. For more information contact our office at (760)356-5565. Thank You
----------------------------
patricesic@yahoo.com
Adoption Facilitator
173.58.90.66
July 28, 2009
African American baby girl Due Sept 25th. Full prenatal care and all medical records. Sonogram on DVD with 3-D photos. No substance abuse or smoking. FEes are $15,300.00 total. If homestudy ready and want to be considered please email patricesic@yahoo.com for consideration. Birthmother is letting agency select AP's with approved homestudy . Unique Adoptions Inc 888-637-8200-Office 951-712-7205-Cell

adopt@adoptionwise.com
Adoption Facilitator
74.87.212.229
July 02, 2009
Birth Mother due January 2010 with a Full Caucasian Baby gender unknown. Birth Parents are married and the Birth Father is in agreement with the adoption plan. Birth Mother denies all drug and alcohol usage but does admit to smoking 1/2 a pack of cigarettes per day. This will be the Birth Parents third Adoption and they are very committed to the adoption plan. Fees will be approximately $40,000.00. For more information contact Adoption Insight at (760)356-5565.

June 7, 2009

Pregnant Women Being Trafficked for Their Babies

Pregnant women being trafficked for their babies
Updated May 25, 2009 12:48:54

First world demand to adopt very young babies is driving a new twist in people smuggling, particularly in Asia.

One of Australia's senior law officers says more and more, smugglers are trading in pregnant women - the perfect incubators - for access to their newborns. Australia's Chief Federal Magistrate John Pascoe is presenting a paper on the issue to the LawAsia conference in Singapore, which is looking at children and the law.

He says that among the measures needed to fight the insidious trade should be a new system of children's rights. To illustrate the shift in focus for the smugglers, Mr Pascoe describes a 2003 case that happened off Indonesia.

Presenter: Linda Mottram
Speaker: Australia's Chief Federal Magistrate John Pascoe.

JOHN PASCOE: There were eight babies in the boat. They were packed in styrofoam fish boxes, that were punctured in order to enable them to breathe and put very crudely, this is seen by traffickers as not a particularly good way of moving children because there are health consequences and it is seen as both safer for the child and safer in terms of detection for them to move the pregnant mother across the national boundary.

LINDA MOTTRAM: Do you have any idea about the extent of the problem, what sort of numbers we're talking about?

JOHN PASCOE: Sadly this is a crime which is very hidden, trafficking generally is very much a hidden crime, but there are increasing numbers of reports, there are fortunately an increasing number of arrests in this area, so we believe that it's increasing and that the numbers are probably in the thousands rather than in tens or hundreds.

LINDA MOTTRAM: So why is this growing? Is it just because the trafficking progress is evolving? The traffickers are finding new and better ways, if you like, to move the people they want to move or are there other factors there?

JOHN PASCOE: We believe that trafficking is always motivated by economics, but also there is significant demand for children for adoption apart from anything else. I believe that most newly born children end up in some sort of illegal adoption process. There's huge demand from first world countries for very young children for adoption purposes.

LINDA MOTTRAM: Well, what can be done about this? There are international conventions on the rights and protection of children but clearly that's inadequate?

JOHN PASCOE: Yes, I think we need to encourage countries throughout the Asia Pacific region to become signatories to the various conventions that protect the rights of the child. and that is not universal across the region. And I am also putting forward that I think we need to move to a system that actually gives a child rights which crystallise the moment it is born and those rights should include a right to know its nationality, to know who its parents are and generally to be properly cared for.

MOTTRAM: But, is that sort of thing going to really do anything to stop traffickers who clearly are willing to go to any lengths to make money out of humans?

PASCOE: I think where there is money, human ingenuity will often find a way to get it. But I think this is really all about making it as difficult as possible. We also need to increase border protection, so that when somebody moves across a national boundary with a child that was not on their passport, for example, when they entered the country, that questions are asked and that officials don't turn a blind eye for whatever reason that they may choose to do that.

MOTTRAM: Do you think or have any sense of whether those adopting parents in the first world with sufficient money have any idea of where these babies are coming from?

PASCOE: Broadly speaking, I think no. I think many of them are genuinely motivated by the desire to give a child a better life and I think they would be horrified if they knew, for example, that the child had been stolen as sometimes occurred or that the mother actually had no idea what was really happening to her child.

(*You can "click" on the title to this post to be directed to the original article and listen to the actual interview online).