Ethiopian Government gets cautious with Adoptions

MOWA confirms intend to prevent further unethical and illegal adoptions

Today ACT received copy of a letter sent by the Ethiopian Ministry of Women Affairs (MOWA) to the President of the Ethiopian Federal First Instance Court, dated 23/2/2011, that confirms that Ethiopia wants to prevent further unethical and illegal acts in relation to adoption.
The letter confirms the ‘rumours’ that MOWA will review 5 adoptions per day, instead of the previous 50 cases per day.
Below some quotes from the MOWA letter:

In a situation where there are a number of problems related to intercountry adoption, it would be mandatory to examine the pertinent of documents of prospective adoptive parents before opinions are given to the court of competent jurisdiction. We would also need to ensure that such documents are bona fide. Considering the present situation, it is found rather difficult to examine up to 50 files per day and, among these, to scrutinize files of prospective adoptive parents of 2 to 3 children to assess accuracy and to take time where additional investigation in the matter is warranted.

It is known that working with the executive organs at varying levels and the community to avoid the unethical and illegal acts in relation to adoption is fundamental. There is also no doubt that taking time to investigate the processes of adoption is highly important to decrease the incidences of adoptions pursued in an illegal manner using falsified documents and leading to violation of the rights and safety of children. Considering the current practice of adoption, the above stated predicaments exist and the Ministerial Office finds it necessary to examine these issues with emphasis. In the business process re-engineering conducted in the office, we find that the major objective should not be to work towards concluding international adoptions but to focus on strategic issues whereby decreasing the vulnerability of children and ensuring that children who are found to be vulnerable are provided with family and community based services. This would require deployment of the available human resource in strategic issues.

[…]

We find that it would be appropriate to examine a limited number of files on a daily basis and to give accurate and appropriate opinions as well as to focus on strategic maters in order that the rights and safety of children as recommended in the business process re-engineering.

Therefore is to notify that we would only be able to give opinions on a maximum of five adoption files effective as of March 10, 2011.

Letter MOWA:  HERE

RENE HOKSBERGEN PRESENTEERT 27 MEI 2011

Geachte genodigde,

Afdeling Adoptie heeft het genoegen u van harte uit te nodigen voor de boekpresentatie van René Hoksbergen:

”Kinderen die niet konden blijven. Zestig jaar adoptie in beeld.”

Datum: 27 mei 2011, 15.00 uur 

Plaats: De Uithof, Educatorium, zaal Megaron

Leuvenlaan 19, 3584 CS Utrecht

Aanmelden graag vóór 20 mei:

Universiteit Utrecht, Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen, Afdeling Adoptie,

Martine Lunshof, M.Y.J.Lunshof@uu.nl, 030-2534804 (ma, di en wo van 10.00-18.00)

Staatsecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, de heer Fred Teeven zal aanwezig zijn om het eerste exemplaar in ontvangst te nemen.

Wij hopen u op 27 mei te mogen begroeten.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Afdeling Adoptie

www.fss.uu.nl/adoptie

 Kinderen die niet konden blijven. Zestig jaar adoptie in beeld.

 Auteur Prof. Dr. René Hoksbergen

Adoptie van kinderen is al zo oud als de mensheid. Het Romeinse Rijk kende van 96 tot 180 AD zelfs vijf adoptiekeizers, bij gebrek aan mannelijke troonopvolgers. In Nederland werd adoptie pas in 1956 wettelijk geregeld. Waren het aanvankelijk vooral Nederlandse en Europese adoptiekinderen, in de jaren ‘70 brachten de hartverscheurende tv-beelden over de situatie van Vietnamese oorlogswezen en gemengdbloedige Zuid-Koreaanse kinderen een golf van medeleven teweeg. Met groot enthousiasme ging men aan de slag om deze kinderen uit hun benarde situatie te halen en hier in Nederland een beter leven te gunnen. Sindsdien is adoptie niet meer uit de media weggeweest.

In de jaren ‘80 verschenen de eerste scheurtjes in de roze wolk die adoptie omhulde. Ouders kwamen naar buiten met verhalen over moeizaam verlopende en zelfs mislukte adopties. In de jaren ’90 lieten geadopteerden zelf voor het eerst duidelijk van zich horen. Talloze verenigingen werden opgericht, meestal gebonden aan het land van herkomst. De pijnlijke kant van adoptie, zowel voor de eersteouder(s) als voor de geadopteerde kwam duidelijker voor het voetlicht. In de media verschenen berichten over misstanden bij sommige buitenlandse adoptiebemiddelaars; er werd zelfs over kinderhandel gesproken. Voor adoptieouders die zich met hart en ziel voor hun kinderen inzetten, waren dit pijnlijke berichten. Het onbevangen idealisme van de jaren ’70 heeft anno 2011 plaatsgemaakt voor een kritisch realisme.

Emeritus hoogleraar Adoptie René Hoksbergen schetst aan de hand van vijf generaties adoptieouders en twee generaties geadopteerden een evenwichtig beeld van de ontwikkelingen in de afgelopen zestig jaar. Ook de verborgen adoptie, bij het gebruik van donorsperma en donoreicellen, komt aan bod. Dit boek is een neerslag van zijn veertigjarige ervaring in het adoptieveld. Er ligt daarnaast een uitgebreide documentenstudie aan ten grondslag en informatie die door tientallen betrokkenen is verstrekt. Het is een uniek beeld van een maatschappelijk fenomeen dat ook internationaal nog steeds volop in beweging is. 

Uitgeverij Aspekt

Soesterberg

 

PROGRAMMA

Entree gratis

15.00-15.30                Ontvangst met koffie/thee

15.30-16.00             “Zestig jaar adoptie in beeld”, een schets door René Hoksbergen

  

16.00-16.30            Twee geadopteerden laten u delen in hun persoonlijke ervaringen

16.30-17.00            Reacties en vragen uit het publiek

17.00-17.30            Aanbieding van het eerste exemplaar aan Staatsecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, de heer Fred Teeven en uitreiking van het boek aan twee vertegenwoordigers van de Faculteit en enkele kernpersonen uit de adoptiedriehoek

17.30-18.15            Gelegenheid om met een drankje in de hand na te praten

Er is verkoop van enkele adoptiegerelateerde boeken en dvd’s. Na 17.00 uur kunt u eveneens het nieuwe boek aanschaffen. (pinnen is helaas niet mogelijk)

Indien u niet in de gelegenheid bent om aanwezig te zijn kunt u het boek vanaf 27 mei via m.y.j.lunshof@uu.nl bestellen.

Bereikbaarheid

- Plattegrond en routebeschrijving: klik hier

- Parkeergelegenheid: Leuvenlaan, betaald parkeren

- Openbaar vervoer: Bus 11 en 12 vanaf Utrecht CS, halte Heidelberglaan

  Teruglopen naar het Willem C. van Unnikgebouw, door de draaideuren, rechtdoor de gang in.

  

Universiteit Utrecht

Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen

Afdeling Adoptie

Heidelberglaan 2

3584 CS Utrecht

030-2534804

www.fss.uu.nl/adoptie

Indian parents lose Dutch adoption court battle

A twelve-year-old Indian boy who was adopted by Dutch parents as an infant does not have to give a DNA sample to prove to an Indian couple that he’s their legitimate son. 

The couple, Nagarani and Kathirvel, say their son was stolen from them and was subsequently put up for adoption.  The ruling by a Dutch court ends a four year court battle.

Published on : 1 April 2011 - 2:32pm | By Johan van Slooten

In 1999, the couple’s infant son was kidnapped from their home in Chennai, India. Five years later the kidnappers were arrested and they confessed that they had sold the boy to an orphanage in Chennai. Subsequently, the boy was put up for adoption by a Dutch couple through the mediation of a Dutch adoption agency.

With the help of Dutch organisation Against Child Trafficking (ACT), Nagarani and Kathirvel (pictured above with their other children) managed to retrace their son to the Netherlands – or rather: the boy who they believed was their son.

DNA test
 

There was just one way to prove that Rahul (not the boy's real name, for privacy reasons) was indeed the Indian couple’s son: a DNA test. The couple first requested such a test in 2007, but Rahul’s adoptive parents rejected it.

Last year, Nagarani and Kathirvel and their Dutch lawyers took the adoptive parents to court to order a DNA test.  They later also accused the adoption agency and Rahul’s adoptive parents of kidnapping and child trafficking.

Child's interest

 
A family court in the Netherlands has now ruled that 12-year old Rahul cannot be forced to undergo a DNA test if he doesn’t want to. Although the court said that Nagarani and Kahtirvel "may well be" Rahul’s biological parents, it also stated that the interest of the child would prevail. “If the child does not want to take this any further, it’s his own decision and we should respect that,” the judge explained.

Nagarani and Kathirvel were subsequently ordered to pay court costs of up to 4,800 euros. They have since returned to India empty handed. They have not met Rahul or his adoptive parents during their stay in the Netherlands.

'Nobody wins'
 

Hilbrand Westra of United Adoptees International says that this is a case of ‘nobody wins’. “ This ruling could be bad for all parties involved,” he told RNW. “It’s sad that this case had to be taken to court. It won’t do Rahul much good, I’m afraid. He’s been thrown into a situation he didn’t want to be involved in.”

Mr Westra says this court case revealed many shortcomings of adoption programmes which are running between the Western world and developing countries such as India, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh.

“There are fifty couples for every child that is put up for adoption,” he says. “So there’s a lot of competition between the parents and between the adoption agencies. Interests are huge. You never know what ‘s happened to the children before they’re picked up by these agencies.”

Doubts
 

He thinks that adoptive parents have their own responsibilities when they’re trying to adopt a child through an agency, even if that agency is fully approved (as in Rahul’s case). “We tend to say: when in doubt, never cross the street,” Mr Westra says. “In some cases, things just aren’t right. Adoptive parents should always try to erase any doubts.”

“In Rahul’s case, it’s quite clear – the Indian court ruled in 2005 that he’d been kidnapped before he was put up for adoption,”  Mr Westra says.

“That puts a different light on the subsequent adoption process, even if that process in itself was conducted legally and according to Dutch and Indian laws. The agency should have investigated Rahul’s background more thoroughly before they offered him to the Dutch adoptive couple.”

Solution
 

Mr Westra has one, rather simple solution for cases like Rahul’s: “Every adoptive child should undergo a DNA test before it’s handed over to adoptive parents,” he says. “In that case there can never be any doubt who its biological parents are, if those details are available, of course. But it’ll probably never happen as it will scare off many adoption agencies and adoptive parents.”

“Things really have to change. For Rahul, for his biological parents, but also for his adoptive parents. And for all children who will enter the adoption treadmill in the future. There are still a lot of taboos in the adoption world and the willingness to alter things is small. Without those changes, adoption won’t lose its reputation that in a way, it’s a modern way of people trafficking,”  Mr Westra says. 

More about:

• adoption
• Asia
• DNA
• Holland
• India
• Netherlands
• personal stories

Rechter wijst gedwongen DNA-test Indiaas adoptiekind af

Een 12-jarige Indiase jongen die is geadopteerd door Nederlandse ouders hoeft geen DNA-materiaal af te staan aan een Indiaas echtpaar dat beweert dat hij hun kind is. Het kind zou zijn gestolen en ter adoptie zijn aangeboden aan een Nederlands stel. Met de uitspraak van een Nederlandse rechter komt een eind aan 4 jaar touwtrekken.

Gepubliceerd op : 1 april 2011 - 5:20 pm | door Johan van Slooten ((c) RNW) 

In 1999 werd het zoontje van het Indiase paar ontvoerd uit hun huis in Chennai. Vijf jaar later werden de daders gearresteerd. Zij bekenden dat zij de jongen hadden verkocht aan een weeshuis in Chennai. Vervolgens werd de jongen ter adoptie aangeboden aan een Nederlands echtpaar door een Nederlands adoptiebureau.

DNA-test

Met behulp van de Nederlandse organisatie tegen kinderhandel (ACT), slaagden Nagarani en Kathirvel (hierboven afgebeeld met hun andere kinderen) erin geslaagd om hun zoon op te sporen in Nederland - liever gezegd: de jongen waarvan ze denken dat hij hun zoon is.

De enige manier om te bewijzen dat Rahul (niet de echte naam van de jongen) echt hun zoon is, was door middel van een DNA-test. Het echtpaar deed hun eerste verzoek voor een dergelijke test in 2007, maar de adoptieouders van Rahul wezen dit af.

Kinderhandel

Vorig jaar gingen Nagarani en Kathirvel en hun Nederlandse advocaten naar de rechter om een ​​DNA-test af te dwingen. Ook beschuldigden zij het adoptiebureau en Rahuls adoptieouders van ontvoering en kinderhandel.

Een Nederlandse rechter heeft nu geoordeeld dat de 12-jarige Rahul niet kan worden gedwongen om een ​​DNA-test te ondergaan tegen zijn zin. Hoewel de rechter meende dat Nagarani en Kahtirvel best Rahuls biologische ouders zouden kunnen zijn, zei hij het belang van het kind te laten prevaleren. 'Als het kind dit verder niet wil, is dat zijn eigen beslissing en moeten we dat respecteren', verklaarde hij.

Kosten
 

Ook werden Nagarani en Kathirvel veroordeeld tot het betalen van de proceskosten van - maximaal - 4800 euro. Inmiddels zijn zij met lege handen teruggekeerd naar India. Tijdens hun verblijf in Nederland hebben zij Rahul en zijn adoptieouders niet ontmoet.

Hilbrand Westra van United Adoptees International zegt dat deze zaak 'louter verliezers' kent. 'Deze uitspraak kan voor alle betrokken partijen alleen maar negatief zijn', zei hij tegen de Wereldomroep. 'Het is triest dat de zaak voor de rechter moest komen. Het zal Rahul niet veel goeds opleveren, vrees ik. Hij is in een positie terecht gekomen die hij niet wil.'

Opgepikt

Westra zegt dat deze rechtszaak veel tekortkomingen heeft laten zien van adoptieprogramma's die worden uitgevoerd tussen de westerse wereld en de ontwikkelingslanden, zoals India, Sri Lanka of Bangladesh.

'Er zijn vijftig paren voor elk kind dat wordt aangeboden ter adoptie', zegt hij. 'Dus er is veel concurrentie tussen de ouders en tussen de adoptiebureaus. De belangen zijn enorm. Je weet nooit wat er is gebeurd met de kinderen voordat ze opgepikt zijn door deze instanties.'

Twijfels

Hij denkt dat adoptieouders hun eigen verantwoordelijkheden hebben bij hun poging om via een bureau een kind te adopteren, zelfs als dat bureau volledig is goedgekeurd (zoals in het geval van Rahul). 'We hebben de neiging om te zeggen: bij twijfel nooit, de straat over te steken', zegt Westra. 'In sommige zaken klopt het gewoon niet. Adoptieouders moeten iedere twijfel wegnemen.'

Volgens Westra ligt de zaak bij Rahul vrij duidelijk: 'De Indiase rechtbank oordeelde in 2005 dat hij was ontvoerd voor hij werd geadopteerd.'

'Dat zet het hele adoptieproces in een ander licht, zelfs als dat proces op zichzelf legaal is verlopen volgens de Nederlandse en Indiase wetten. Het agentschap had Rahuls achtergrond grondiger moeten onderzoeken voor het hem aanbood aan de Nederlandse adoptie-ouders.'

Oplossing

Hilbrand Westra heeft een vrij eenvoudige oplossing voor gevallen als dat van Rahul: 'Ieder adoptiekind moet een DNA-test ondergaan voordat het wordt overgedragen aan adoptieouders. In dat geval kan er nooit enige twijfel bestaan wie de biologische ouders zijn, indien hun gegevens beschikbaar zijn, natuurlijk. Maar dit gaat waarschijnlijk nooit gebeuren, omdat het veel adoptiebureaus en adoptieouders zal afschrikken.'

Er moet iets veranderen, vindt Westra. 'Voor Rahul, voor zijn biologische ouders, maar ook voor zijn adoptieouders. En voor alle kinderen die het adoptieproces in de toekomst ingaan. Er bestaan nog veel taboes in de wereld van de adoptie en de bereidheid om dingen te veranderen is klein. Zonder veranderingen zal adoptie in een kwaad daglicht komen te staan, namelijk dat het gaat om een moderne manier van mensenhandel.'

Lees meer over:

• adoptiekind
• illegale adoptie
• Nederlanders in India

Adoption Agencies Using Adoptees

 The Business Of Adoption Agencies From The Inside 

A Korean American Adoptee's Perspective

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 

By Kevin  - www.slanteyefortheroundeye.com

Please bear with me as I indulge some of my personal rants. Specifically, please be patient as I vent about the largest adoption agency in the lovely state of Minnesota.

My name is Kevin, and I’m what some call a KAD – Korean adoptee. Yes, I’m Asian. Yes, I’m Korean. Yes, I’m transracial. Yes, I love me some kimchi. And, no, strange girl from UCLA who opted to go off on Asian students, I don’t talk on the phone in the library.

I’m also a recovering “agency person” as well. A few years ago I worked for the largest adoption agency (as well as the second largest agency) in Minnesota.

Here begins my story . . .

During my time with this agency, I was a part of the team that recruited new, potential adoptive parents. I even worked with adoptive parents after they finalized their adoption to recruit other adoptive parents! It was fantastic. I was pretty good at my craft. Not as great as Blake from Glengarry Glen Ross, but I was a “closer.” Let’s just put it this way. There was a demand for a particular “product” and I helped meet that demand. Heck, I would go as far as to say that I even helped create a need for this demand.

At the same time, I was given the task of expanding the agency’s relationship with international and domestic adult adoptees, a significant group in its “constituency” with which it had an up-and-down relationship. Let’s just say that this agency had a knack for pissing off adoptees; it had a habit of blowing off adoptees and their thoughts and perspectives. In performing my duties as assigned, I attempted to cultivate deep relationships with some of the more vocal and active members of the adoptee community. I did so by reaching out to adult adoptees, meeting with them in person, inviting them into the agency to talk with members of the leadership, setting up an adoptee forum, creating an adult adoptee “advisory group,” etc. You know. I did all of that “relationship building” stuff.

Simultaneously, in performing my duties as assigned, I confronted, head on, the vocal and active members of the adoptee community who took issues with the practice and business of adoption. For instance, I had no qualms about openly criticizing adoptees involved in Adoptee Solidarity Korea (ASK) and Truth and Reconciliation for the Adoption Community of Korea (TRACK)!

Again, I was pretty good at my craft. I wasn’t a “closer,” but, at the very least, many of the adoptees with whom I engaged trusted that I was working on their behalf, which I too believed.

I was so naïve . . .

In the whole scheme of things, this adoption agency was good to me. It brought me to the states as a seven year old and placed me with my adoptive family in rural Minnesota. It was somewhat involved in my reconnection with my birth family in Korea. It additionally created a new position for me after I was let go by the second largest adoption agency in the state. And I made lifelong friends there; I consider one of its past vice presidents and directors true adoption advocates. Yeah, it was good to me.

Conversely, I was good for the agency. What better way to recruit adoptive parents than have a composed, well adjusted, transracial Korean adoptee who loves adoption? (“It’s the best thing since milk and cookies!”) What better way to engage potentially pissy adult adoptees than with an adoptee who openly talked about his pissy, non-well adjusted past? What better way to confront strong adoptees, with constructive arguments against adoption than with another adoptee who could easily express, with conviction, equally compelling arguments in support of adoption? Yeah, I, the poster boy transracial adoptee, was good for the agency. I played the “good Asian” role very well.

As they say, all good things must come to an end. I left the agency in 2006, absolutely disgruntled with the whole “adoption thing.” Through my job, I came into more contact with other professionals from different agencies and much of what I saw didn’t please me. Many adoption professionals, for example, are frankly patronizing to adoptees who work in agencies: “Oh, isn’t that precious? An adoptee who’s ‘giving back.’ Good for you.”

Some are self aggrandizing. “This is God’s work. I’m saving the world’s children! Do you know how many children I’ve placed?” The job got me to a point in which I started getting a tad bit pissy at certain adoptive parents. Some adoptive parents ask the most obscene questions: “Has my son’s teenage birthmother had another child so that she can put him/her up for adoption? Boy, my son would love to have a sibling!”

Some are the most entitled people in the universe: “Would it be possible for me to expedite the Russian adoption process for my wife and me? We could just pay the $35K right now. We have the money. Do you want a donation?” Some adoptive parents, in particular adoptive parents who work for adoption agencies, are frankly clueless: “Why would any adult adoptee have ill feelings about adoption agencies? We gave them good homes!” (uttered by a current president of a well known agency).

The job also got me to a point in which I started getting frustrated with certain adoptees. Let’s face it. Some of us adoptees are the most self centered individuals, and some of us just take ourselves way too seriously: “We bear all of the burdens in adoption!”, ”Do you know how hard I work in this adoption agency to make sure that the much needed voices of adult adoptees are heard? Do you have any idea how important that is? Don’t even think about questioning my motivation!” (uttered by me *sigh*).

The job, more than anything else, got me to a point in which I started questioning myself. After leaving the agency, I repeatedly asked “Have I been wrong this entire time?”

Fast forward. Within the last year, I had an employment conversation with the largest adoption agency in Minnesota, well, at least a few members of the agency’s leadership. I approached the agency not because I needed a job (I offered to take a very drastic pay cut.) Rather, I approached the agency because, like many nonprofits, the agency was financially struggling. As a result, it was laying off a number of people (individuals whom I considered friends) even though, in my estimation, some of the people the agency was letting go were the best employees for aiding the agency to rebound financially. Furthermore, the agency was hacking away at its already minuscule post adoption education budget when, at least in my estimation, post adoption services could actually be the “money maker.”

For me, as a fundraiser (the career path I chose after leaving adoption) I saw a great opportunity for this agency: what better time than now to reach out to adoptive parents and adoptees? What better time than now to ask for them to reconnect and remold the agency, to make it a better place?”

I talked with a few of the agency’s leadership about the idea of me rejoining “the team” to help fundraise. We talked about how I could help the agency to philanthropically engage adoptive parents and adult adoptees: to work with the leadership in creating lifelong relationships with adoptive parents and adoptees; to work with adoptive parents and adoptees to support the agency’s general operating expenses and post adoption programs. Gasp! I even suggested for this agency to reach out to the Korean adoptees living in Korea who are advocating for the end of international adoption in that country. What a statement it would make if the largest Minnesota adoption agency, in conjunction with their international counterparts in Korea, crafted a plan with ASK and TRACK that would aid Korea in thoughtfully ending international adoption!

I was so naïve . . .

The conversation went sour. The folks with whom I had been in talks decided that, if I were to join the team, I would only raise money for humanitarian aid – not for general operating costs and certainly not for post adoption education.

I fumed. I declined the employment opportunity.

Why? What’s wrong with humanitarian aid you ask?

Altruism definitely plays a key role for adoption agencies that have humanitarian aid programs. Many of these programs are run very well and support some fantastic endeavors in orphanages and child caring institutions.

However, there’s another reason why adoption agencies have humanitarian aid programs. Money. Money plays another key role for adoption agencies that have humanitarian aid programs. Humanitarian aid programs function as a way for adoption agencies to keep their international country partners (i.e., the individuals running institutions like orphanages) happy: “Hey, my favorite international partner in China! Did that supply of goods make it to your place? How’s that building we helped you renovate? You know there’s way more where that came from!” Happy country partners are much more apt to make more referrals, i.e., the children whom the partner agencies recommend for waiting parents to adopt. For adoption agencies in the US, more referrals mean more families moving through the adoption process. More families moving through the adoption process means more money for agencies.

Oh, right. I’ve failed to mention that the agency in question was having referral problems, that referrals weren’t coming quickly for them . . .

To put all of this differently, the agency was, once again, asking for me to help them “create” more adoptive parents and adoptees. They wanted me to do so without focusing time on another pivotal component in the field of adoption – post adoption education, support, and outreach for families and adoptees after the fact, something that the agency promises. Trust me folks. There is a significant amount of adoptive families and adoptees out there who would benefit from something as straightforward as an outreach program.

Yeah. Intentionally or not, the agency wanted me, a former orphan and a person who identifies as a transracial Koreaan adoptee, to sell out my own kind . . . again.

When I left this agency the first time, I absolutely felt as though I had sold out my own kind. Much of the anger I felt was directed internally. I had, for years, advocated for the business of adoption, and I had perpetuated one of the biggest lies in adoption – adoption agencies are there for adoptive parents and, most importantly, the adoptees for the rest of their lives.
Patently false. Absolute bullshit.

Most adoption agencies only care about the creation of adoptive families. The Minnesota agency in question serves as an example. Contrary to what the largest adoption agency in Minnesota says, its post adoption program exists only on paper (to interested folks, check out the agency’s website, read what is supposedly offered, and then call the agency to obtain more details. You’ll be very disappointed after the phone call). But, hey! If one takes a look at the agency’s last newsletter, there are plenty of events and information sessions for individuals who are interested in adopting and for potential adoptive parents who are in the process of adopting.

From what I understand, the agency has no plans to ramp up its post adoption services. To quote one of the individuals from the agency’s leadership, “Post adoption has never brought in enough money.” It has no plans, even though there is a great need for post adoption education, outreach, and support in the state of Minnesota, which is home to tens of thousands of adoptees. It has no plans, even though the agency has no qualms about placing children of color into heavily Caucasian communities in Metro and Outstate Minnesota.

I can see it coming now. The largest adoption agency is going to say, “Listen. I don’t know what planet you live on, but we’re in a recession. We can’t afford to have a lively post adoption program. And, you know what, we offer way more than the other agencies.” Well, in case the agency decides to respond in this particular manner, I have a few suggestions:

1. Perhaps it’s time for you to focus some attention to raising money for areas within the agency that actually matter. Perhaps it’s time for you to raise money for programs that people find of interest.

2. Perhaps it’s time for you to get creative. Perhaps it’s not working for you to continue the practices that you’ve been using for the last however many years. Perhaps your ideas are stagnant.

3. Perhaps it’s time for you to develop deeper relationships with some of your oldest constituents. Perhaps it’s time to work with adoptees, adoptive parents, and birthparents as equal partners.

4. Perhaps you would be surprised by all that you could accomplish if you quit being so interested in money.

5. Perhaps you’ll surprise many of us, but most likely not. Who am I kidding . . .

Ok! That wraps up my rant! If none of it makes sense, so be it!

And oh…before I forget. To the largest adoption agency in Minnesota . . .

I just brought it. I invite you to, ah, bring it.