SandraHanksBenoiton's blog

Vanishing Sandra: Kids, the early days

2008-09-05T00:20:03-05:00

Sam's first statement to Mark when hearing that he was leaving me was: But you're married to Mom and that means you live with her forever.

Sorry to say, that took a much bigger bite out of me than the small nibble my husband felt.

When asked why he was leaving, Mark told our five-year old that it was because, "I don't love Mom any more. I love someone else."

To say I hit the roof is an understatement, but calmed myself enough to eventually try to explain to my possessed spouse how a statement like that would be interpreted by our son.

Basically, if he can stop loving Mom, how long will it be before he stops loving me, too.

This unthinking damage is taking a lot of effort to repair, and I fear that something from those words will stick with Sam for the rest of his life. The fact that Mark physically moved out on the eve of Cj's third birthday was another blow of notice to all of us.

Three weeks away gave me space to wallow in my own misery, so upon my return I was prepared to focus on the kids. Unfortunately, the ground continued to shift daily and it was very hard to settle into new routines and fallout was obvious.

For the first time in her life, Cj refused to sleep in her own bed, always before treasured as a safe and comfy space by her, and she insisted on sleeping with me. I must admit that I found comfort in having a bed full of kids, and I understood very well that both needed the added closeness, the security of Mom within arms reach at all times, especially those dark hours when all sorts of monsters can invade.

I set a strict routine for the first months that had dinner at 5 pm, bath time at 6 and bed, for all three of us, at 7:30. We were all exhausted by then, as the loss and the stress it created took a heavy toll. I was also doing what I could to keep the kids busy and interested, so filled the days as I could with as much togetherness as a family so obviously one short can be filled.

Constant reassurances were asked for, and even now, six months later, I get the following series of questions from Cj at least six or seven times per day:

1) Do you love me?

2) Do you love Dad?

3) Do you love Sam?

4) Do you love Grandma?

5) Do you love Grandad?

... and on through the rest of the family and all of our friends.

The answer to all is always an emphatic "yes", but the questions continue to come from my three-year old.

Image Credit: flickr

Vanishing Sandra: The Setup

2008-09-02T05:23:27-05:00

I'd been writing about adoption for almost three years when Mark left. I wrote on average 2000 words per day on a number of different sites and had developed a reputation for being able to work without a net and attract readers. Strong feelings on advocacy in general and for older parents adopting kept me cranking out information, reactions, opinions and details, including much of my real life experiences. I was comfortable in my stance and confident that my POV was valid.

When the ground under my feet, and those of my children, shifted violently and suddenly, however, all comfort and confidence flew the coop at about the same pace my husband had set on his bailing.

In many ways, I felt that I'd come to the inevitable conclusion of a fifteen-year set up.

In 1993, after years of single parenting, I'd finally reached a point where some of life could be set aside for little old me to function without daily concerns of the welfare of people dependent upon me for the basics of life and the time limits dictated by such demands. I was able to jettison many of the weights that had held me down and back for all my adult life, move on and begin again: A new life in a new country with a new love.

With everything but a few essential items left behind, I started all over again. My kids were grown, but sorely missed, and my friends, some of whom had anchored me through many a rough sea, were now thousands of miles and very expensive phone calls away.

I built my life around Mark as we started from scratch. I came to the relationship with some money, and he came with promises of undying love that would see me through however many years I had coming. The fact that we would not make babies was discussed, and for many years we lived as adults for adults without feeling we were missing much.

Then came T., the foster son we had for almost two years, then lost. It was at the point that Mark suggested we consider adoption, and with all the enthusiasm of any mother on a mission, I pursued the process, navigated the hoops and brought Sam into our family. Two and a half years later, Cj joined us.

Family complete, house almost paid for, all the hard work that had brought us from zero to domestic perfection was paying off and the time was nearing that would have us able to relax into our bliss and enjoy the fruits of our labor with our two adorable children safe and secure with us under a stable roof and on firm ground. From my perspective, life was wonderful, my husband dedicated and adoring, my children happy, healthy and beautiful.

Little did I suspect that the approach toward fulfilling our dreams had a completely different impact on my husband.

Apparently, fifteen years of working toward our goals, of being a team that added a couple of little players, of the day-in and day-out of making ends meet, focusing on the kids instead of each other, having bedtime mean needed sleep instead of passion, had me letting down the guard I'd been building since my own parents divorced when I was ten and trusting that "happily ever after" actually did happen in the real world, but him primed to jump at the first flirty, oh-your-wife-must-not-appreciate-you, please-let-me-please-you-in-every-way-every-chance-we -get piece that set her sights on him.

Image Credit: Flickr

Vanishing Sandra: Shock and Awful

2008-08-31T00:41:33-05:00

Unlike other relationships I've had that took a turn South and never veered, I did not see my husband's destruction of our family coming. The news that he had emotionally checked out and was about to physically do the same dropped out of the sky suddenly and shattered my world. Within a week I passed through the states of denial, paused at the junction of begging and pleading, then headed down the road called hysteria, frequently contemplated taking a left down the suicide cul de sac as I considered that permanent detour.

A week later, I realized I was doing more harm than good and needed to get away for a while to give the kids a space that wasn't inhabited by mommy-gone-crazy and me a chance to breath without Mark's breath flavoring mine with imagined sweetness of the fifteen years we'd been together.

I asked for three weeks, then took off for England to spend time with true friends and one of the strongest women I know. I walked Exmoor, watched ponies and people, got caught in a goat stampede, met some lovely people, all after waking each morning shaking, crying and disappointed that real was still real and that I was still around to deal with it.

I see now that I was in shock, and grieving the death of not only my marriage, but also the loss of my best friend. The man I'd known and loved no longer existed. He'd been replaced by some pod person who looked much like him, but was unrecognizable in every other way.

I spoke to the kids on the phone often, assuring them that I would be back soon. They trusted that and Sam spent most of our calls making requests for new DVDs and some cool Batman gear.

I paced the back garden hour after hour, talking to myself, to Mark, to his new girlfriend, to the four winds, the greater powers, the past, the future and the dog. I drank tea, I smoked and I managed to eat a bit of whatever my friend put in front of me. (She's a fab cook and I now wish I'd been up to taking more advantage of the spread she put out every morning for her B&B guests.) I lost almost 10 kilos in those three weeks, and most of that in bits of heart that kept shattering and dropping away.

Fear was a huge factor. After all, I ain't no spring chicken, and I've single-parented before and know how hard it is. That first time around I was in my twenties, though. This was bound to be different. Also, the idea of being alone, of growing old without the partner I'd for so long assumed would always be there for me, of having my shoulders alone burdened with all the details of day-to-day, scared the crap out of me.

Then, of course, there was the rejection to deal with. I'd been dumped for someone younger. Great for the self image? Nope. Not too much one can do about getting a bit older every day (aside from taking the left down that cul de sac, of course), and having that truth bite me after so many years of assurance that I was loved for who I am, not how many years I've passed through and the impact of, it was very hard to take the good, long look I needed to examine of myself and the future.

Then, the practicalities presented: How would I support myself and the kids? Where would we live? Could I stay in Seychelles where Mark had for 12 years been my buffer between the bits I never caught on to (like haggling over fish from a roadside fisherman, then cleaning the things, to give just one example), thousands of miles from my original home, my roots?

I won't go into the zillions of potential scenarios that spun out before my agitated imagination, the hopeless black holes I stared down, the doors I heard slamming in my face as hope drained at the same pace my energy jumped ship and left me to drown in the puddle I'd become.

Image Credit: flickr

The Vanishing Sandra: An explanation of sorts

2008-08-30T09:27:25-05:00

Yes, I've been gone from this site for quite a while now, and, no, I don't know how back I am able to be, but a kick in the butt from one long-time reader has inspired me to begin a series of posts on the whys and wherefores of my absence and how they relate to adoption in the hope that some will get something out of my experience that may be found helpful or with a similar ring that might be consoling in a "You are not alone" sort of way.

I've been known as a bit of a scrapper for adoption advocacy and have taken on some of the biggies in the realm of anti-adoption rabble rousing. From the gate here and now, however, I have to say that I'm not in that game any more ... just don't have the heart or the energy to take on those opposed to adoption at any cost, for any reason, or anyone who would wrap that sentiment in a "reform" ball gown and take it to town. Bait me if you like, but I won't be rising to it now. I'm simply too sad.

I'll start this return into Adoption Blog Land with the flat and true statement that my children started life at a Square One upon which "LOSS" was written big and can never be erased. Both were abandoned as infants in Cambodia by families that are guaranteed to be too poor and too hopeless to do any more than take their newborn babies almost directly from womb to orphanage, and although there are some who may stretch assumptions so far as to insist those families rue that day, I know enough about Cambodia and her people now to understand that looking back with crippling regret is not a pastime that has much point in that country.

With an adoptive mother's perspective colored by love and dedication, it feels that Sam and Cj were born to be mine, and although that rankles birthmothers ... and I do understand the implications of that statement and why many on the other side of the triad rail against the thought ... the fact is that timing, circumstance and pure luck brought exactly the two children to me that are mine and it's impossible to imagine any other outcome for them or for me.

The idea was Forever Family ... a closely knit, secure, safe unit that would work together to love, provide for and protect these kids into the far distant future, working as a team in dedicated partnership in hopes of not only giving our kids the best possible life we could, but also a rock-solid foundation to start with and build upon.

Well ... That is not what has happened.

The ground below their feet and mine has shifted dangerously, and continues to rock, tossing us around like styrofoam peanuts in a Jacuzzi as we hang on to each other and try to get the hang of suddenly becoming a family of three, a broken family.

Almost six months ago now, and it seems barely possible that it was that long ago, my darling husband, best friend for life and anchor to us all, announced that he was in love with someone else and was moving out.

Although fully engaged as both a father and a husband up until that moment, home every night on time, phoning throughout the day just to chat, etc., etc., etc., he had actually been building a relationship during lunch hours that had developed to the point that more drastic action was now required.

No gory details to follow, although gory they are, but rather my next few posts will document some of my process of coping ... or not ... and my efforts to keep the kids on as level a surface as possible.

I will also be writing about the guilt I feel that has kept me from blogging, the fact that I have felt like a fraud touting the benefits of adoption while watching my kids suffer their new losses, my total lack of energy, the abandonment of my concentration skills, the acid attack on my self confidence and so on.

This practice may or may not be part of the healing process, and I may or may not be able to post as regularly as I should, but this will be a stab at both ... "stab" being a word that's come to mind more often than I'd like since March.

URL Image Credit: Forget-me-not flowers on flickr

Sharon Stone and China: A Perspective

2008-06-01T05:51:12-05:00

From the top, can we all agree that Sharon Stone is an actress and a model, a woman made famous by flashing her bits and looking pretty in expensive gowns, not rocket science or theology or international affairs?

Can we also agree that China's Tibet policy has never been about the benevolent caring for a people with their own rich and ancient history, but more of a land and power grab that's been often downright nasty?

Fine.

Those two points made, can we now think about how this issue of a Paris fashion house like Dior and world politics should mix or exert any influence at all over global media, government policies or anything else for that matter?

The flap created by Ms. Stone's red carpet, off-the-cuff blather over her apparently shallow ... go figure ... personal perceptions is nothing more than another successful coup China has managed to pull off to drag attention away from the deplorable building standards accepted in the country for decades, poor planning, and lack of preparedness for a disaster of huge proportions that was only a matter of time.

The fact that this little blip on the PR radar happened to happen at the same time the country has been so busy rah-rahing over the upcoming Olympic games has them steaming, and I'm not talking about Sharon here, but the quakes themselves.

If the country really wanted to do some convincing about how far they've come in caring for their own people, perhaps some grand gesture involving the masses of revenue they hope to garner through the business that is touted as sport and how it could be used for proper care and reconstruction, or help for the millions displaced, the children orphaned, the hell and literal "high water" the poor people are facing on a daily basis would be a better idea than going all high-and-night over travel to Paris and $10,000 gowns portrayed on billboards for those lucky enough in China to afford, many of whom made their fortunes from shoddy building contracts.

The whole hoopla smacks of the tackiest type of image control, and everyone from CNN to BBC to CCTV (especially) seems to be missing the point entirely.

Thankfully, I've not yet heard the Sharon Stone/adoption connection, although it may well have passed me by, and I have no doubt that someone, somewhere will try to use it and her air-headed karma-speak as yet another reason the new orphans of China should be forced to stay put, rather than have any option of international adoption offered, ever.

Sharon Stone's Red Carpet Comment:

And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, is that karma? When you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?

Additional Places to Read About Sharon Stone and Adoption

Sharon Stone Discusses Adoption

Actress Sharon Stone Adopts Grandparents

The UN, Abuse and International Adoption: A Perspective

2008-05-28T15:00:13-05:00

It takes a lot to inspire me enough these days to attempt to expend much of the little energy I have socked away in my personal resources, but the news coming out of the UN report on widespread and long-standing abuse of children under its care has me spitting.

Aside from the fact that this smacks as loudly of insufficient to requirements as the Catholic Church being in charge of honestly reporting and dealing with allegations of sexual abuse by members of its clergy, the suggestion that this information is at all new or shocking is as disingenuous as it is misleading. As this report from 2006 states clearly, this is old news. The report, released by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's office on Thursday, concludes that violence against children is widely accepted as normal and occurs in every country, every society and every social group.

We knew children were victims of violence, but even so it was very
surprising and shocking that it was so widespread," Mehr Khan Williams, the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, told reporters Thursday. It cuts across cultures, income levels, education levels. No country is immune from it."

No one, as we knew even then, that included those perpetrated by UN Peacekeepers. Not only are they the cause of much of the harm against the children they are supposed to protect, they are in many cases virtually useless in stopping that done by others.

The report said World Health Organization data estimated that in 2002 some 150 million girls and 73 million boys were subjected to forced sexual intercourse and other forms of violence, while 53,000 were killed.

"Many people, even children, accept violence as an inevitable part of life," said independent expert Paulo Sergio Pinheiro in the report.

Data showed there were 218 million child laborers in 2004, of whom 126 million did hazardous work, the report said. There are also as many as 250,000 child soldiers around the world. In Congo, more than 11,000 children are missing and believed to be either forced into armies and militias or used as sex slaves.

A study funded by Save the Children UK, reports "significant levels of abuse" by UN workers in emergency situations and says that sexual abuse of children has increased over the years.

And the UN response:

"The abuse of children by those sent to help is a significant and painful issue and one that U.N. peacekeeping has and will continue to address candidly, comprehensively and robustly," Ban said in the statement read by Montas. "Even one incident is too many."

The organization also makes the supremely unhelpful suggestion that a "global watchdog" should be created to "monitor attempts to tackle abuse and champion effective responses."

Excuse me? Isn't that what the United Nations is supposed to be doing with at least
some portion of the billions and billions of dollars it spends? I know SUV convoys and First Class travel are basics for the group, but that's really not what it's supposed to be all about, is it?

Given the UN stance against International Adoption and the fact that almost all of their rhetoric on the subject comes from a veritable handful of cases spiced up by media frenzy, this wimpy response is beyond comprehension.

Can their point possibly be that it is more dangerous for children to be adopted by families outside their birth countries than to be forced to stay in these war-torn, disease-ridden, famine condemned or naturally devastated nations, even when the proof positive is, and has been for years, that not only are the people of those nations often reduced to subhuman behavior that destroys children, but also those sent to protect?

Photo Credit: exfordy: Flickr.com

Minor Drips From a Dry Well

2008-05-21T08:46:45-05:00

I've been trying to write blogs ... honestly, I have ... but not only am I shaky and unfocused these days as I try to come to terms with a life I didn't in a million years expect to have to face, I am about as self-possessed as any person consumed with grief. It's not a sharing sort of space, grief, but one where every throught ends up leading straight back to the personal misery that doesn't even allow for the outrage and compassion I know I would normally be stirred toward, given the state of the world today.

Yes, Sam and Cj are better off than they would have been left in a Cambodian orphanage and facing having to make their own way in the world at the age of eight, if, that is, they beat the odds and managed to hang on to life until the age of five which many there do not. This, however, was not the plan.

"Forever Family" meant ALL of us, not a split that has their father living one life ... and one that I find repulsive, but that may be beside the fact ... and has me so sad, so lonely, so exhausted by the effort it takes to make present life look and feel anywhere near normal for them. They know they've lost, and lost a lot, and writing about that is very, very difficult for me.

Heck! Thinking about it is almost more than I can stand on a daily basis at the moment.

I'm trying to gather my strength for all of us, but the challenges sometimes seem more than I can face, much less bear, and the guilt ... although NONE of it is anything I own ... stops me in my tracks when I try to share it with readers.

I am so sorry for letting down those who expect more from me now, and I do hope that there will come a day when I can again get het up enough about bigger issues to address them directly and with the passion I have had for so long.

Right now, however, it takes everything I have to get from day to day, to keep my kids clean and fed and with some impression that life has some stability.

I will be back in force someday. Until then, however, I beg your indulgence and kind thoughts ... and if anyone feels like a visit to Seychelles, I could sure use the company.

Related blogs:

Image Credit: Drip by tico24

Adding To The Disaster Of Natural Disasters

2008-05-13T23:23:15-05:00

The natural disasters that have parts of Asia crumbling and tumbling like chunks of sky plummeting earthwards amid a maelstrom, crushing huge numbers of people in the process puts me, and many others, first in mind of the children.

The ancient, the ill, the infirm and the children may not always be the first to die in the initial waves of whatever nature is throwing, but they are the most likely to succumb to the inevitable aftermath of devastation. Disease, famine, exposure to the elements, take an easy toll on the weak, and when the strong are threatened, they are often reduced to grabbing what little there is to grab out of the hands of those not able to hang on.

Although the personal response of thousands in safer parts of the planet is to help through any measures, no matter how often these disasters happen, no one ever appears to be ready for them. With Burma (I refuse to use the junta's designation), the situation is complicated by the ruling dictatorial regime's complete disregard for the welfare of its people, not something I rule out in the case of China, either, but no matter what or where, it seems the "surprise" that these sort of horrors happen regularly is the usual response.

It's the children that take my focus by the mere nature of their innocence, and the truth of the matter is that in a crisis like this reminding all that nature is tricky and our planet unstable and able to deal death blows at will, it is the small ones who take the biggest whack for the longest time.

It's a given that under the dire circumstances that follow quakes and cyclones and tsunamis millions of children that survive the initial impact are soon subject to murder, starvation, disease and rape. They are traded for food or water or cigarettes, and become the victims of terror of adults who lose whatever humanity they may have had in the panic of attempts to live through the cataclysm at any cost.

From the Burmese military to the UN, however, what cannot happen to any of these children is adoption into a family that happens to live in another country.

Years must pass before orphans can be declared adoptable, and thousands upon thousands die in the time it takes for the powers that be to decide that perhaps, just perhaps, there could be some benefit to some children being allowed to join a family.

Yes, of course, there are those who would find a way to corrupt a system that removed children from the path straight to death or worse, but those kids are on that path the minute the catastrophe hits, and there are so few options open that it seems removing adoption from the table completely is just one more strike against them.

Photo Credit: Library of Congress

International Adoption and that dead horse

2008-02-25T01:43:25-06:00

I could write daily on the absurdity of the progressive moves toward making international adoption more difficult as orphan numbers the world over soar, but even I get tired of beating that poor decomposing relic of a horse.

Sometimes, however, a news report prompts another flagellation session, as this one from Uganda does today.

Titled "Stolen childhood", the piece opens with details of the life of a 15-year-old orphan who has been left to raise her six siblings, the youngest of which is four.

She does the best she can, cultivating a small garden beside the ramshackle mud house where they live in Kiterede, Rugasa sub-county, Masaka district. She is barely getting by. She is small for her age, and her siblings, who never wear shoes to school, look dirty and unhappy. A piglet and chicken dart in and out of the house. Its roof, the rusty remains of iron sheeting, is falling off the walls, but there’s nothing Nabulya can do about that. She doesn’t even know who owns the house. The children sleep on grass laid across the floor.

These children are so far from being alone in their plight that the reality would be heartbreaking for anyone reading about it, if it weren't so terribly common and we weren't so inured to the images.

In Uganda alone, some 2.3 million children have been orphaned by HIV/AIDS, and it's predicted that within 2 more years, by 2010, there will be 15.7 million kids in the same boat in sub-Saharan Africa. (Keep in mind, please, that AIDS is not the only orphan-maker, so even these huge numbers are but a fraction.)

The United Nations says the scourge has turned more than 11 million children worldwide into orphans; nine out of 10 of those are in Africa. The disease is also responsible for leaving over 18 million children around the world without one or both parents — eight out of 10 of those orphans in sub-Saharan Africa. With half of Uganda’s 32 million people aged below 18 years, the socio-economic impact of HIV and Aids orphans is frightening.

So, can anyone tell me why the UN is so determined to put the kibosh on international adoption of these children? Or ... to put it another way ... how do those determined to see an end to international adoption manage to sleep at night.

Yes, I know that's emotive language, but it truly baffles me when the raw numbers of suffering children ... suffering in real life, not some rarefied climate of First Class travel, top hotels and SUV convoys ... come up against mealy-mouthed blather insisting that kids are better off left where they're found, no matter what, and that the idea of making any sort of accommodation that might actually remove them from the dangerous equation they were born to is to be considered suspect and verging on cultural genocide. Is taking cultural genocide to the regular, old fashioned sort of genocide talking apples and oranges, or is the first total BS while the second is just plain dead by the millions?

Of course, as I've said over and over again, adoption will never be an answer for any but a tiny few, but for those few it may be a lifesaver, as well as a joy for an entire family. The ripples range wide, too, as every adopted child is one less using rare and precious resources, and brings one more family from outside the realm of horrors into the circle of caring.

International adoptive families make up great numbers of those supporting birth countries and go far to raise awareness on issues beyond the usual limits of attention paid to problems in distant lands, so even in places drowning in orphans like Uganda, adoption of a few thousand out of the millions can have a positive impact

Every time I head down this thought path I wonder the same things:

Is it ignorance or arrogance or some combination of both that sets powers toward an agenda that has slowing or halting international adoption a goal?

What can possibly be the perceived benefit of sentencing children to a life term in hell when an escape would be so joyfully provided?

How many have to suffer for how long before it is acknowledged that the world will not be made perfect, no matter how many directives are passed or capacity-building seminars are conducted?

When will it dawn that the world is a small place and we are all human, and that regional boundaries and national borders are arbitrary limits, not inherent features?

If children from Uganda and South Africa and Cambodia ran the UN, would international adoption rank at the bottom of options, or would the promise of safe, loving families providing food and education to those who will never otherwise know anything even close be seen as a positive?

Photo Credit

In the news: Reporting abuse, "professional parents", TPR and more

2008-02-24T06:55:34-06:00

A new law is making its way through the Maryland Senate that would make it a crime for "teachers, nurses, police officers and other professionals to fail to report evidence to authorities if they suspect a child may have been abused."

As it stands now, various licensing boards can "discipline" social workers and such when they fail to report child abuse when the recognize it, but those supporting the bill don't think that's enough.

"The fact is that whatever sanctions we have under current law aren't sufficient to protect some of these kids that are being abused," said Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), chairman of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, which heard testimony on the proposal.

If this passes, the crime will be a misdemeanor and punishable by a max fine of $1,000.

Forty-five states have laws on their books making failure to report suspicions of abuse or neglect of children a crime, some with the potential for jail terms up to five years and fines up to $5,000.

Opposition to the bill looks like this:

Sen. Robert A. Zirkin (D-Baltimore County), who voted against the bill, said health-care professionals and teachers would have to make a judgment every day about whether "some bruise on an arm is abuse." Zirkin said the measure is "a huge step."

"This is not a small bill," he said. "Quite frankly, somebody who didn't act in a Monday morning quarterback reflection is not a criminal. They may be negligent, but they're not a criminal."

Too bad that doesn't help abused kids much, and considering how often this sort of thing only comes to light after the death of a child, it's way too late then to make excuses.

On the topic of constitutional issues, this opinion piece suggests that the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997, a bill that was ostensibly to keep kids from lingering in foster care, has actually had the result of putting more kids into care through the what the author deems violation of family rights that then places children into the hands of "professional parents", foster families paid for placements.

Who is really benefiting from ASFA? The professional parents (foster/adoptive parents), the contracted mental health care providers, the residential and treatment centers, the growing demand for more social workers being hired to handle the caseloads, etc. According to statistics from the National Child Protection Reform each child that is in the system generates an estimated residual economic development figure of $250,000.00 or more per year! This tells me that our children are being harvested as a subsidized cash crop. When the market numbers increase then dividends in the form of bonuses are paid to the states.

A look at another side of what could be considered that coin, this story out of Florida that illustrates the case of a little boy whose foster care has stretched out because his father, a prisoner in a high-security federal penitentiary until at least 2019, has not been made available to take a phone call.

The boy cannot be adopted until his father loses or relinquishes his parental rights in court, Alvarez said. And the judge can't make a ruling on those rights until someone can persuade a prison warden to put the father on the phone.

And to conclude on a pleasant note ... A week from today, on the 2 of March, is Mothering Sunday in the UK ... a difference in celebration dates that trips me up every year.

On multi-faith service in East London on the day will be dedicated to birth families.

A Mothering Sunday service for mums who have had their children adopted takes place on Sunday evening to given them and relatives of adopted children support and comfort on what can be a difficult day.

Photo Credit

Cambodian News: Skyscrapers, statues and the usual suspects, plus: Lend us your ears

2008-02-22T08:43:13-06:00

The week of news from Cambodia started out with an interesting piece on development that featured South Korean plans to build two skyscrapers in Phnom Penh, one of forty-two stories and the other 53.

The country has reportedly had "more than 1,500 requests for construction projects worth 1.5 billion US dollars in the first nine months of 2007," a reality that cracks its head against the facts of Cambodian life for most.

‘’The ordinary people in the rural and urban areas have been losing for years. There is a systemic problem in the distribution of resources.’’

The prospect of immediate change for the economically marginalized appears remote, she explained in an interview, because of the poor being deprived or denied access to land in the rural areas or even to fish in the country’s largest lake. ‘’Fishing concessions have been sold to private companies and the local fishing communities have a little catch, depriving them of income and their main source of protein.’’

Amnesty International (AI) is the latest human rights group to raise the alarm about the harsh measures used by the administration of Prime Minister Hun Sen to support a trend of forced evictions in the urban and rural areas to acquire land for commercial ventures and ‘’development’’ projects. It warned that 150,000 Cambodians are in danger of losing their homes and lands to projects that cater to the whims of the country’s wealthiest.

This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the $42 million the Asian Development Bank is handing the Cambodian government to fix the rail lines so the Thai-Cam-Vietnam line can soon be up and running, not the $71.8 million to " improve secondary education, support farmers living around the Tonle Sap lake, foster financial system reform, and rehabilitate major roads throughout the country."

I'm thinking all that dough will get much closer to the folks in the new skyscrapers than to those "economically marginalized" folks Amnesty International talks about.

They do, however, get a couple of statues.

The city government of Phnom Penh on Thursday held inauguration ceremony for the statues of a famous monk called Choun Nat and a musician called Krom Ngoy to honor their efforts and contributions to help the Cambodian society in the 19th and 20th centuries.

"We built their statues to respect and honor their efforts while they were alive in helping Cambodian society," Major Kep Chuktema said while addressing the ceremony.

The statues, which were made of copper and gold, were over two meters in height.

Choun Nat's statue is located in Hun Sen Park and Krom Ngoy's statue is in a Public Park in front of the Cambodiana Hotel.

Not exactly practical, and not exactly in places locals hang. Whatever ...

Here is a very interesting take on the Khmer Rouge tribunal that is worth a read that rather dovetails with this one Khieu Samphan's lawyer announcing that his former KR leader client will no longer "cooperate with the UN-backed court."

Jacques Verges, nicknamed "the Devil's advocate" for his defence of some of the world's most notorious criminals, said Khieu Samphan would not speak to court officials until thousands of pages of evidence against him is translated into French.

"In a trial, there is a human being and this human being is fighting," Verges was quoted as telling the English-language Cambodia Daily.

This is the same guy who defended Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, better known as Carlos the Jackal.

Wonder what color his soul is ...

And the parliament finally approved a new law on trafficking and sexual exploitation.

The new law, which has been under preparation since December 2007, consists of 52 articles to be applied more rigorously in cases of kidnapping for trafficking or sexual exploitation of women and minors, with punishments of up to 20 years in prison and heavy fines.

The Queen of Spain is in Cambodia this week visiting Spanish-funded projects.

If you're near the Northern Essex Community College in Haverhill, Mass., you can hear Sayon Soeun tell his story of "being raised as a child soldier in the KR labor camps".

And if you happen to have any second-hand hearing aids at home, All Ears Cambodia would welcome them, working or not, as they "recondition the functional ones and salvage the working parts from those that have had their day." (They also welcome donations!.)

Australian adoption numbers in focus

2008-02-22T00:13:03-06:00

An article out of Australia talks about a tremendous drop in the adoption rate in that country, and does so in a way that completely ignores so much of the reality of Australian adoption history and present adoption law that I'm forced to ponder the agenda of the whole report.

Since the present adoption climate in Australia is often touted as the desired goal of some who propose that the fewer adoptions in the world, the better ... and who believe none at all would be the best thing ever ... coverage headlined, "Adoption rate in free fall" warrants a close inspection.

Thirty-five years ago there were almost 10,000 adoptions in Australia. Last year there were just 568.

Let's look at this, shall we?

In the early 1970s in Australia, a number of factors combined to account for a large number of adoptions.

First, this was the tail end of the "Stolen Generations" era, that uniquely Australian move to experiment socially with forced removals of aboriginal children from their families. (Canada had a similar program, but their were differences that can be studied here.)

From the wiki, relating an incident common to the practice:

I was at the post office with my Mum and Auntie [and cousin]. They put us in the police ute and said they were taking us to Broome. They put the mums in there as well. But when we'd gone [about ten miles (16 km)] they stopped, and threw the mothers out of the car. We jumped on our mothers' backs, crying, trying not to be left behind. But the policemen pulled us off and threw us back in the car. They pushed the mothers away and drove off, while our mothers were chasing the car, running and crying after us. We were screaming in the back of that car. When we got to Broome they put me and my cousin in the Broome lock-up. We were only ten years old. We were in the lock-up for two days waiting for the boat to Perth.

Second, in 1966 an amendment to the country's adoption act allowed for the Courts to dispense with birth parent consent for adoption if it was shown that by adoption the "child's welfare would be promoted" by adoption.

Third, an act passed in 1971 eased restrictions on potential adoptive parents, allowing singles to adopt children and adults to be adopted, and for step-parent adoptions to happen without parental consent.

Those are just three of the circumstances that came together "thirty-five years ago", and each and every one of them not only increased adoption numbers then, but also created backlash that reduces numbers today.

The article points to "more effective birth control together with the emergence of family planning centres and sex education classes," decreasing fertility, and an "increasing success of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) [that] also has negated the need for many adoptions as has an increasing social acceptance of raising children outside marriage."

All valid explanations for falling numbers of domestic adoptions: There were just 59 local adoptions in 2006-07 and 105 "known" adoptions - in which the child is adopted by a step-parent, other relatives or carers.

(Lest anyone get the idea that few domestic adoptions means that Australia is a bastion of family harmony, 38% of the murders in the country were committed by family members, and between 1989 and 2002 there were, on average 25 children killed by their parents every year.)

Given the recent abysmal history of adoption in Australia, is it any wonder that prevailing attitudes cast the idea, not as a viable option, but as a shameful embarrassment, and that the cloud of past horrors hangs low over the country?

Adoption law in Australia, by the way, is set state-to-state, and does vary. Victoria, for example, offers and encourages both full adoption, from newborns up, and what is called permanent care.

Children placed in permanent care come through child protection services. Unlike adoption, it is not a voluntary placement. The Department of Human Services makes decisions about the safety of children, and for a few this sometimes means that they are unable to return home to their birth parents or other relatives. In these cases the decision is made for permanent care.

You can see the Western Australia Adoption Act of 1994 for a look at how another state looks at adoption.

International adoptions have risen in the country to 71% of all adoptions, with the number of Asian- and African-born kids rising as South and Central American kids declines.

That's no surprise when domestic adoption have declined, and it is also not a fact that imparts any moral gravitas. While there are families longing for children, there are plenty of children in the world longing for families, and it makes no difference to the families that are made if those families are in Australia or Austria or the kids started out in Estonia or Ethiopia.

And my point here?

As I suggested in my post yesterday, it is important when reading a story in the news to avoid the temptation to simply swallow the predigested pap served up, but rather to do some of your own chewing.

Although it is true enough that adoption rates in Australia have gone down, the attention-grabbing use of the term "free fall" conveys a tone, and with Australian adoption at the heart of many anti-adoption discussions, that tone should get a challenge from advocates.

Since my POV sees adoption as a good thing, a healthy option that should happen MORE often in the world, not less ... the more kids with families, the better! ... it's a challenge I'm compelled to meet by providing more beef for the broth.

AIDS in Zimbabwe, and how news warps

2008-02-21T01:21:18-06:00

I've just read the most confounding bit of news I've seen in a while, and in a source that usually delivers it straight up, making it even more confusing.

It's this article in the Washington Post that sent me scurrying all over the Internet in search of corroboration and reason.

The story is about George W. Bush's Africa trip from the angle of PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief, where it has succeeded and where it has fallen short. It makes sense, for the most part, as it explains how $15 billion has increased the availability of treatment, but with the rate of infections going up faster than meds can be handed out, that the big picture is not rosy.

The statement that "nearly half of today's 15-year-olds in South Africa, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the program, will contract the virus in their lifetimes at current infection rates," jars gratingly against the claim of 157,000 cases of pediatric HIV prevented through providing antiretrovirals to pregnant women, and research that says 40% of those given the lifesaving drugs drop out of the loop, stop taking their meds and most likely die takes some of the gloss off the 1.3 million PEPFAR supports treatment for.

The political motivation combining with whatever portion of the PEPFAR dollar comes from pure benevolence puts an interesting point on the quill, as well:

Studies have shown that family planning could avert far more infections than antiretroviral drugs because many women, especially those with HIV, want fewer children. Critics say the restriction, along with PEPFAR's emphasis on untested abstinence programs, exists mainly to win support from conservative congressional Republicans, undermining the full potential of a program that the White House bills as one of the biggest humanitarian ventures in history.

Yes, that's confounding to me, as medical issues should not be cross-contaminated by moral judgement as far as I'm concerned.

Not nearly as confounding, however, as what wraps up the piece:

Yet the past five years have also shown that the AIDS epidemic can be contained by forces other than U.S. money and political will. Africa's biggest declines in HIV rates during Bush's AIDS initiative have come in Zimbabwe, where economic collapse has coincided with fundamental social change, including a shift toward monogamy and away from more-costly multiple relationships, research there shows.

Yep ... Sandra reads those words, and goes scuttering in search of something that has THAT make any sense.

Zimbabwe put forth as an example of something going right? Hmmmmm. Me thinks there's something rotten in Harare.

A quick search of "AIDS in Zimbabwe" comes up with 604,000 links on Google and not one I opened made any grand statements about a drop in the HIV infection rates.

Curious.

AidsPortal.Org has something about an increase in the number of people on antiretrovirals, but also mentions the "daunting task of breaking the vicious cycle of new infections," which doesn't sound like a big drop in infections is happening.

HIVInSite, a project of the University of California, doesn't give any indication of a letup in infections, either. It does, however, give one tiny clue that moved me along ... under "New HIV infections, 2005" the entry was "nd": no data.

Hmmmmm.

Eventually coming across Avert.org's page on AIDS in Zimbabwe, the true picture emerged.

In many cases, as one Zimbabwean doctor explained to reporters, the reality is that AIDS can now be counted amongst such concerns: “Put simply, people are dying of AIDS before they can starve to death.”

The situation in Zimbabwe is now so bad that:

Between 2002 and 2006, the population is estimated to have decreased by four million people.

Infant mortality has doubled since 1990.

Average life expectancy for women, who are particularly affected by Zimbabwe's AIDS epidemic, is 34 - the lowest anywhere in the world. Officials from the World Health Organisation have admitted that since this figure is based on data collected two years ago, the real number may be as low as 30.

Zimbabwe has a higher number of orphans, in proportion to its population, than any other country in the world, according to UNICEF. Most of these cases are a result of parents dying from AIDS.

So, there's the reason AIDS numbers are down in Zimbabwe ... more people are already dead than they were last year and the year before, and the deaths are happening just that much faster than new infections are being reported. (We don't even need to start in on the accuracy of reporting in the country.)

For the WaPo to suggest that Mugabe's masterwork of horror that is modern-day Zimbabwe proves that "the AIDS epidemic can be contained by forces other than U.S. money and political will," but rather through, "fundamental social change, including a shift toward monogamy and away from more-costly multiple relationships," is irresponsible at best, and shows an inclination to accept "research" generated by tyranny in attempts to provide positive spin to genocidal maniacs.

I have come to expect much better from the publication.

Confounding, indeed.

When International Adoption Doesn't Happen

2008-02-20T05:51:54-06:00

I've just posted on when international adoption happens, and am now girding myself to deal with the flip-side of that coin. As a citizen of the world, a traveler, and an international adoptive parent, I have become a strong advocate for adoption and am well convinced that the benefits of international adoption outweigh the detriments. In a perfect world, children would not need parents that aren't connected to them genetically, but our world is so far from perfect and circumstances make exactly that a common denominator for millions of kids. Not that millions of kids would ever be placed in families through international adoption ... contrary to popular perceptions that see orphans as a market-driven phenomena, there are nowhere near even a small percentage of those numbers of potential adoptive families ... but when the option is open, the hope can survive, and too often hope is all these kids have. Short and miserable lives are often the result of orphan status, and it matters little if children are orphaned through the death of their parents or through abandonment ... social orphans, so to speak. Of course, however, not all kids die as a result of their circumstance. Many live a very long time, and unfortunately that is sometimes a fate even more cruel. Take, for example, Albanian orphans who have reached adulthood. Looking at the inhabitants of "orphan ghettoes" in Albanian towns, the tale is as gruesome and hopeless as the lives led by those who were once orphaned children and are now pitiable adults.

Renato Kaleshi, aged 35, who was raised in Albanian state orphanages, died of pneumonia on 12 February in Vlora after living for years in conditions of misery. The degrading and unhygienic accommodation in which Renato Kaleshi lived and died highlights the failure of the Albanian state to fulfil its legal obligations to ensure that orphans, when they reach adulthood, have access to adequate housing and to assistance and protection. Renato Kaleshi had been paralyzed since childhood, allegedly following a fall which occurred while he was under state care in an orphanage, and since 1993 had relied on a wheelchair for mobility. He also suffered from heart problems. For the last 11 years, he had been living in squalid conditions in the semi-derelict former residence hall of the Commercial School in Vlora, together with nine other adults orphaned in childhood (adult orphans). The group live in great poverty in this building, which is infested with mice, reeks of drains and has broken windows. They have no individual privacy, sharing two or three rooms between them. Nor do they have any security of tenure. The building is now private property and the owner is reported to have asked them to leave. The municipal authorities, who are primarily responsible for ensuring alternative adequate accommodation, have repeatedly failed to do so.

Now that these people are grown, Amnesty International is stepping up to the plate, but there is no such outcry for the children who have nothing but this misery to look forward to. According to the US State Department, there have been 59 orphan visas granted for adoption of Albanian children into the US over the past five years, and only two US adoption agencies are licensed to process adoptions from Albania. This is not for lack of Albanian orphans .... there are around 600 in orphanages in the country and no one knows how many living on the streets ... but more than likely out of the overcompensation backlash against perceived excessive adoption practices that that has been so pervasive over the past few years. So, where does it lead?

Two 18-year-old boys wait outside the city hall in Vlora, a town in southern Albania. It is early June 2007 and they have completed their secondary education. In 10 days they must leave the residence hall where they have lived for the last four years. But they have nowhere to go. These boys were raised in orphanages and there is no family or home to receive them.

The Amnesty International page is interesting, and I recommend a read, but once again it's adult orphans they're fighting for here, falling into the trap, in my opinion, of assuming children are somehow better off not being adopted internationally. Again on not adopting, but this time from another country and another angle, this story from Bangalore in India most certainly does not represent an isolated incident, but illustrates that the need for international adoption is not alleviated by an increase in adoption by Indian families.

Three-month-old Livya was rejected thrice by prospective Indian parents, who found her too dark. A year later, however, an American couple chose to adopt her and flew her to the US. She now lives with her parents and has two siblings and one from Korea and another from Vietnam. Livya was lucky, but the story is not the same for other adoptable children. Many who are legally free for adoption continue to face discrimination as wannabe Indian parents look for a "fair and lovely" baby, though the law prevents one from picking and choosing babies for adoption.

And just because it's in front of me, here's a bit of a reminder of the numbers of additional orphans the world sees year-by-year in an example of just one country's problem.

World Health Organisation (WHO) has estimated that over 8.2 million children would be orphaned children by year 2010 in Nigeria as a result of the scourge HIV AIDS.

In the past five years 261 Nigerian children have been adopted by Americans. The point of the report for the "state commissioner for women affairs and social development" is to "underscore the need to embark on national situation assessment and analysis on orphans and vulnerable children" ... one of those See the mouth moving, but nothing of substance comes forth things. The point of me adding this to the post is to underscore just how obscene it is that international adoptions are becoming ever more rare instead of ever more common as people await the wave of the magic wand that will make poverty and war and death and disease vanish forever in a puff of fairy dust so all children can live happily ever after on the road where they were born. These are real people living real lives of real misery, and although it would be very sweet to believe that a bit of a tweak to international policy or diplomatic nudges or a refocus of caring people can change the reality, nothing ever has and nothing ever will. The facts are that, a) there are thousands of families who would happily welcome a new addition, and, b) millions of children who would love to be a new addition to a loving family. So why is getting from a to b progressively more difficult, and what can possibly be the point of making it impossible?

When International Adoption Happens

2008-02-20T03:21:39-06:00

Some back-to-back news items have inspired a couple of back-to-back posts from me, and being that I'm always one to choose the good news first when asked, I'm starting off on the stories of people that were adopted internationally, rather than beginning with the tales of some who weren't.

The first starts with the story of Kate, a sixteen-year-old from Burma who escaped the country and has been adopted by a California family through Catholic Charities, one of only two agencies the UN High Commissioner on Refugees contracts with.

Kate's odyssey hardly seems likely for a child, but it is mirrored throughout countries where war and strife have made homelands unlivable. Many have been persecuted for religion, ethnicity, or political affiliation. They have been separated from their parents or seen them killed. The children escape brutality by guts, wit and luck, walking for miles, hiding in jungles, riding on the backs of sympathetic elders to safety - mainly, in refugee camps.

Five million refugees have fled their homelands, according to Refugees International, a non-profit organization. If one includes those who are trapped in their home country, such as in Darfur, that number balloons to 14 million.

(Assuming the Darfur numbers have actually been updated recently ... )

Yet, how many orphaned refugee children have been adopted by families in the US and Europe? Few. Very few.

A sibling group from Liberia adopted by another California couple is also featured in the story.

The trio has been living with Weiss in Los Altos for three years and - Maryama counts on her fingers - six months.

Rebels executed the children's Mandingo father, as well as Sadiki and Ansu's mother. The children and Maryama's mother ran from rebels, living in the bush, moving constantly, sometimes getting separated. They settled for a time in Bo, a village in Sierra Leone. Sadiki - he thinks he was 3 or 4 - made many friends there.
"Then things got bad if you are not a citizen," said Sadiki, now 18. "We had to find a way to stay alive."

I've found nothing on Catholic Charities that addresses the adoption of orphaned children of conflict or refugees, but the UN, of course, has their pdf on "protection" of vulnerable children that includes a big chunk from the Hague.

I found this bit of the pdf spectacularly unhelpful in the sense of real children:

Considering that in the application of the Convention to refugee children and to children who are, as a result of disturbances in their countries, internationally displaced, account should be taken of their particularly vulnerable situation,...

1. The needs of refugee and other internationally displaced children (hereafter “refugee children”) for protection in respect of intercountry adoption is best understood in light of the phenomenon of exile as experienced by these children. The central fact of the refugee experience is forced displacement. Unlike others their age, refugee children have been uprooted from their homes and their country of origin as a result of grave human rights abuses, the threat of persecution or armed conflict. In addition, many refugee children are involuntarily separated
from their parents or other relatives during flight. Thus, in addition to the fact of exile and their often difficult living conditions in countries of asylum, refugee children’s lives often have, been profoundly affected by the brutality of war, the persecution of family or friends, the danger of flight, and in many cases forced separation from family members.

2. The experience of UNHCR in the field suggests that the following three components of the adoption procedure are of heightened importance and complexity where refugee children are involved:
a.family tracing;
b.the exploration of alternative care arrangements; and
c.ensuring the informed consent of parents or other relevant persons.

3. Special efforts on the part of Governments, international organizations and non-
governmental organizations are often necessary to meet the particular protection needs of refugee children in these areas.

Well ... duh. But does that happen? Or are 99.99% of these kids left high and dry?

Anyway ...

For another look at an international adoptee, here's the story of Ana Dodson, adopted from Peru in 1992.

She, like Kate from Burma, is sixteen, but having been adopted as a young child her life has been far different.

Ana is responsible for setting up an organization that has to date raised around $100,000 that supports and sustains an orphanage in the area of her birth and funds a scholarship that is sending an orphanage girl through university in Peru.

Two international adoptions.

See my next post for adoptions that didn't happen.