Selasa, 07 Desember 2010

When/why did the word “bitter” get associated with non-compliant adoptees?

Daniel Ibn Zayd

with Courtesy of TRANSRACIAL EYES


The mentality on display that refers to us as “bitter” does so for cultural as well as political reasons: it is reflective of a culture that tends to victimize those who are down, while maintaining a hypocritical false victim status for itself.

For example, it is the same tactic that claims “reverse racism” as used against those who are for affirmative action, or the current “tea baggers”, who claim oppression by a “king”—the president—when they are of the class who not only profit from others’ misery, but can afford health care in this country. You cannot be of the dominant discourse and claim oppression from those whom you yourself oppress; you cannot be on top and claim to be on bottom.

To reflect on is that this expressed self-righteous indignation is not any more valid than those of adoptees, simply because everything, but everything within the dominant discourse, from the media, to non-profit organizations and the government, etc. all support unequivocally the idea that adoption is valid, that adoption is desired, and that adoption should not be challenged. This reveals what we are up against.

Furthermore, this is not a balanced equation in terms of two sides of a debate. On the one hand, you have a dominant discourse of those who hold, wield, and control legal, social, medical, and financial power, as well as their tools of discourse, such as media, legal decisions, etc. Those of us who go up against this discourse can be termed resistant to it, and there is a long history of those who resist the dominant discourse as concerns their eventual fate: They are slated for silencing, and hopefully, to the majority culture, for eventual disbandment if not destruction. The accusations we are receiving are the first steps in this process, which will only escalate.

The question that naturally comes to mind when I hear this from someone who supports adoption is “where is your empathy now? Where is your great big heart now?” I am that adopted child you pretend to care so much about. I am that adoptee that you claim to have done so much for, who asks only for understanding as to the violence of adoption, and the validity of my side of the story—it isn’t too much to ask, and there are many adoptive parents who in secret understand, but dare not speak out because of the same silencing we receive. I would love to hear from them here.

For why should it be valid for someone of this dominant discourse to parade their angst at not having a child, and carry on about needing to “fill the hole” that they see as missing in their lives? Why is it okay for them to have Internet forums, and episodes on Oprah, and celebrity icons going back to Joan Crawford, and generally the understanding if not outright sympathy of the entirety of this society? They litter the Internet with their repugnant “Dear Birth mother” web sites that are scandalous in their making public something which should not only be private, but should not be happening in a just and egalitarian society. Vultures have more candor and sympathy than this.

On the other hand, those who are adopted, or who are convinced to give up their children and who later feel angst about it (to put it quite mildly), and who also only wish to “fill the hole” that they see as missing in their lives, are then castigated in the harshest terms as ungrateful, and spiteful, and bitter. Why does no one say to infertile couples: “Get over it?” Why does no one say to those without children “THIS is God’s plan for you, not adoption”? Who, may I ask at long last, are truly the bitter individuals?

But not to worry. The accusation takes such a high-handed tone because deep down the injustice of adoption is obvious, as all societal injustices have been before attempts to overcome them. Those who speak out against it are on the right side of history. The truth is on our side, and the truth will out.

The Loss and the Gain

THE PARADOX

Deann Borshay Liem Talks About Identity After Adoption

Children who are adopted grow up and have to live with the loss and gain in a complicated life.

Adoptions have repercussions for adoptees

Besides what adoptees gain in their new country they also loose a lot !
  • I lost everything I loved
  • I lost my birthfamily and relatives
  • I lost my Nation
  • I lost Language
  • I lost Identity
  • I lost Memories
  • ...........................
Adoption does not replace what is lost

Verslag Hoorzitting Commissie Kalsbeek.

UAI - 27 mei 2008 - 18.33 (local time)

Amsterdam - United Adoptees International was samen met Samenwerkingsverband Interlandelijke Geadopteerden (SIG) op 15 mei uitgenodigd voor een hoorzitting van de commissie Kalsbeek. Deze commissie onderzoekt hoe om te gaan met interlandelijke adoptie in de toekomst.

De UAI werd vertegenwoordigd door Hilbrand Westra –voorzitter- en Joan Hansink- vice voorzitter - .

Tijdens de hoorzitting is aan UAI haar mening gevraagd met betrekking tot de volgende onderwerpen: ethische verantwoording adoptie, leeftijdscriteria en verkrijgen na adoptie van de oorspronkelijke naam, aparte wachtlijsten hanteren voor special needs kinderen en voor- en nadelen van het stopzetten van adopties.


De UAI heeft de commissie als volgt geïnformeerd:

Voor- en nadelen interlandelijke adoptie

De UAI is niet tegen interlandelijke adoptie. De heer Westra verwacht echter wel dat interlandelijke adoptie op termijn zal uitdoven, gelet op het subsidiariteitsbeginsel. Het begrip 'institutionalisering' verdient een betere definiëring, omdat de wijze waarop dit gedefinieerd wordt van invloed is op de aantallen kinderen dat niet in een gezin(-sachtige situatie) opgroeit. Zo worden bijvoorbeeld welzijnsprojecten, zoals in Colombia het project 'Wonen bij de buurvrouw' vaak onder instituten gerekend terwijl het om wonen in gezinsverband gaat. Daardoor worden er meer kinderen gelocaliseerd die dan in aanmerking komen voor (interlandelijke) adoptie. UAI neemt o.a. het Haags Adoptieverdrag als uitgangspunt waarin gesteld wordt dat adoptie een laatste redmiddel moet zijn.

Aparte wachtlijsten special needs kinderen

De UAI is van mening dat internationale criteria moet worden geformuleerd voor special needs-kinderen, omdat ook hier de vraagkant een rol speelt. Tevens de ongelijkheid die door deze kwestie optreedt is tegengesteld tegen ‘natuurlijke’ vorm van het ‘krijgen’ van kinderen. Een voorselectie en levensoverschrijdende keuzes dienen niet bij voorbaat in wetten en verdragen te worden geregeld. Het gevaar van preselecties in kader van zogeheten special needs heeft ook bizarre gevolgen dat partijen en zelfs familieleden kinderen verminken om adoptabel te kunnen krijgen. Alleen hierom al is de UAI tegen een dergelijke ontwikkeling.

Leeftijdscriteria bij het aanvragen van de oorspronkelijke naam

Binnen UAI is een dialoog gaande of geadopteerden rond hun 16e of 18e jaar of al eerder hun oorspronkelijke naam terug zouden moeten (kunnen) krijgen, want er is ook de ervaring dat het krijgen van de naam van het gezin waar je bij opgroeit helpt bij het inburgeren in de omgeving waar je woont. De UAI is echter van mening dat de oorspronkelijke naam bij het krijgen van een nieuwe naam niet verloren mag gaan. Daarbij moet worden opgemerkt dat de procedure tot verkrijgen van de oorspronkelijke naam moet worden vergemakkelijkt. Ook verneemt UAI van volwassen geadopteerden bij het aangaan van een samenlevingscontract of huwelijk moeilijkheden ondervinden bij diverse gemeenten in Nederland. Omdat dan vaak een geboorteakte wordt gevraagd die veel geadopteerden niet bezitten.

Ethische verantwoording adoptie

De UAI is van mening dat door opnieuw over ethische vraagstukken in kader van interlandelijk adoptie te gaan hebben, het gevaar ontstaat dat de uitgangspunten in het internationale verdrag van de rechten van het kind (IVRK) en het Haags Adoptie Verdrag ter discussie komen te staan. De UAI ziet op dit moment niet de noodzaak om de discussie rondom interlandelijke adoptie opnieuw te voeren indien de de inhoud en reden van het tot standkomen van adoptie in het algemeen buiten beschouwing wordt gelaten. De UAI neemt genoemde verdragen dan voorlopig ook als uitgangspunt van haar beleid.

Download het gehele rapport. Rapport Commissie Kalsbeek

Transracialeyes because of course race and culture matter

How have your views on culture and race changed since you searched?

And what is its impact on your life?

In answering the last question I started thinking about my search and my writing on adoption and I realize that much of it centers on rather banal discoveries which end up being defining moments, often devastating emotionally speaking. For example, for the thousands of times I had gone over my adoption documents, I had always managed to not really read the paper that gave jurisdiction to the orphanage to create a name for me. On my 40th birthday I was going over the papers again and found it and I recall the feeling of knowing that the one thing that I thought connected me to my country of birth was in fact bogus. This led to a later “infinite moment” when comparing my paperwork with another adoptee who had been given the same false name: We realized that there was, in fact, a list of false names that they simply cycled through. I thought I would ask everyone to contribute one or more of these “infinite moments” to this discussion.

So far, contributors are:

  • Korean adoptees, raised in USA, Canada,
  • Libanese adoptee, US
  • Ethiopian adoptee, Swedon
  • Chinese adoptee, Canada

The European Commission Forges Official Report

Battle of international adoptions reaches peak

The European Commission Forges Official Report

Autor: MIRCEA OPRIS

"If you don’t make the recommendation about the new agency, you do not get your money”


The European Commission has falsified an official report, released only partially exactly one year ago, during the Conference on Challenges in Adoption Procedures in Europe, in Strasbourg from 30 November to 1 December 2009. Exclusively for Jurnalul National several experts testified about the pressure put on their work by high-rank European Commission officials, in order to get to the conclusion that there is a need for the establishment of a European Adoption Agency.

The stake of the new agency: creating a "market" for European adoptions in which Romania would be forced to reopen international adoptions. Behind this decision are pro-adoption lobbies from France, Italy, Spain and the United States. On December 1, in Strasbourg - France, the European Commission and the Council of Europe organized a conference on adoptions. Originally it was to take place behind closed doors, but it became public after Jurnalul National revealed the backstage games behind it and the attempt to invite only the adoption lobby, through the mediation of the Italian EC official Patrizia De Luca. Surprisingly, at the end of the conference the conclusion of a report were presented, which recommended the need for establishing a European Adoption Agency. The long awaited report did not become public and was kept secret at the conference in Strasbourg. It was not made public until spring 2010, after pressure from several non-governmental organizations. Even so, the details of the report were never made public. One of the aims of the report, which needed the consent and approval of all Member States of the EU, was to reopen international adoptions at European level and thus forcing Romania to repeal the law 274, which forbids the adoption of Romanian children by foreigners.

One year after the scandal of this conference, Jurnalul National has been able to reveal what is hidden behind the report but, much worse, to also reveal pressure from the European Commission on the Belgian law firm, which drafted the report, in order to falsify data. The study has cost 250,000 euros, European public money, and consisted of interviews with more than 500 experts, lawyers, social workers, adoptive parents and adopted children. The study focused on the state of play of adoptions in the 27 EU member states. The final conclusion of the report was that clearly there was an urgent need to establish the European Agency for Adoption. In reality, however, this conclusion proved to be a factual lie, for which officials of the European Commission signed, under the pressure of lobby groups in several Western countries with direct interest in the reopening of international adoptions from Romania. The study and the report were prepared by the law firm DBB - Demolin - Brulard – Barthelemy in Brussels, an associate of the French law firm PDGB. Here is the stupefying testimony of one of the experts who prepared the country studies and the European Commission's report.
"We were asked to conduct a study and a report identifying the needs of children, social services, the needs of the adopters and solutions for each country in order to improve the adoption and care system. We developed a questionnaire for each EU country. Then we interviewed over 500 subjects. Most of them answered they want better social protection, support for adopted children, post adoption assistance for adoptive parents after adoption, and some country-specific problems. There was only one question on whether it is necessary to establish a European Agency for adoptions. Only a few lawyers, out of the 500 subjects considered the new agency as necessary. Finally, we presented the conclusions and the report to the European Commission. When they saw the results they went mad at us and refused to acknowledge the study and its recommendations. They said the study would only be accepted if we would follow their main recommendation of setting up a European Agency for Adoption. Or, in reality, only a few had said such an agency would be good. Our firm’s prestige was at stake. We have been forced in the end to accept this conclusion, although it is not the reality. However they added whatever they wanted. We have been put in a situation with no alternative, because our company has several contracts with the European Commission and other European institutions. We could also risk losing these as customers. If we did not do it, they would have gone to another company and get the result they were looking for."

"If you don’t make the recommendation about the new agency, you do not get your money”
this was the message of the European Commission ", Jurnalul National was told, on condition of anonymity, by one of the experts directly involved in the realization of the research and the report.

Lying was necessary for the lobby groups and adoption agencies in order to establish the "adoption market." "European States would have a limit, for example of two years, in which the children can stay in care, after which they would become adoptable. First in their country, and after a period of time they get on the European list. If not adopted this second time, then the children are put on the international adoption list. Such a system would take away the responsibility of the Member States to provide care for children temporarily or permanently deprived of parental care (UN Convention Rights of the Child). A European Adoption Agency – as EU institution staffed by EU civil servants – would take all responsibility away from national Member states and would create a full fledged free market. Adoption agencies from all over the world would be competing to get the children. Member States will have less incentives to create appropriate care for children, or to place children back into their own families, invoking that having the children adopted will save a lot of money on child protection and social protection costs. It is important to realize that children in care, foster and residential, have families and mostly are in contact with them. Adoption changes identity and cuts permanently all family ties”, said European official Roelie Post seconded to the NGO Against Child Trafficking. She says the number of children legally adopted internationally has declined.

Since Romania's accession to EU, the number of children available for adoption decreased worldwide from 40,000 to 20,000 per year. A future European Adoptions Agency will also have the problem of legality, because the EU has no legal powers on the issue of international adoptions, which are directly regulated by protocols between the Member States, and work under national competence.

Roelie Post followed this phenomenon and she believes that the report was meant to be used in the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child. Without success so far, the EU strategy on children's rights, announced since 2006, but not yet finalized. The initiative was called "the Frattini strategy”, then Vice President of the European Commission, and who concretized the fake report of the EC in 2010. Roelie Post wrote a book about the export of Romanian ‘orphans’ until the introduction of Law 273 and 274 of 2004 that stopped the business with adoptions from Romania.

The book and more information can be found at: http://www.romania-forexportonly.eu http://againstchildtrafficking.org

Voor NL, lees ook - De Wereld is van Iedereen

Sabtu, 04 Desember 2010

UNICEF's effective attack on inter-country adoption


HOW ADOPTION PARENTS KEEP PUSHING FOR MORE (UNREGULATED) ADOPTIONS

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

NEW YORK, N.Y. — UNICEF has undergone worldwide scrutiny in regard to its position on inter-country adoption. And for good reason. Its position that a child’s birthplace and culture is superior to a stable
home in any other place or culture has had dire consequences on some adoptees around the world.

In recent months there’s been some effort on the part of UNICEF to temper some earlier pronouncements, but the fact remains that the organization is fundamentally misguided when it comes to inter-country
adoption.

UNICEF claims that international adoption robs children of their heritage and culture. The organization’s has staked out a firm position: children must be given to birth parents, regardless of the circumstance. In lieu of that, children should go to extended family. Next, to his or her “community.” Finally, domestic adoption should be explored. Inter-country adoption is “one of a range of options” according to UNCEF and should be turned to as a last resort. The organization goes so far as to claim that international adoption must
be “subsidiary” to in-country adoption, at all costs.

UNICEF declares that inter-country adoption “is not as a good as being raised in their families of origin but better than staying in orphanages.” That would make sense if the world was a perfect place and this Polly Anna viewpoint had any basis in reality. But that’s not the world, nor is it the reality of millions of orphans around the world. Shared DNA does not make for the best families, contrary to UNICEF’s claims. Children wind up eligible for adoption for myriad reasons, ranging from poverty to abuse to neglect.

In some cases, UNICEF’s positions border on racist. In a position paper on inter-country adoption the organization states, that every effort should be made to keep a child “within his ethnic group.” Huh?
Some vague notion about cultural ties should trump the basic human rights of children? For what end UNICEF does not say.

There’s a disconnect between UNICEF’s position and the welfare of children. Somewhere along the way the behemoth organization lost track of advocating for children and began abstracting the issue.

You can even hear it in the language used in the organization’s Innocenti Digest entitled “Impact of International Legal Standards and the Safeguards of The Best interest of the Child in Domestic and
Intercountry Adoption,” where “different stakeholders” in intercountry adoption are mentioned. Stakeholders? What about the children?

To promote its agenda, UNICEF points out that abuses have taken place with inter-country adoptions. They are right. They have. Just as they have and do with domestic adoptions, which UNICEF advocates. The
Hague Convention was developed to provide guidelines for inter-country adoption with the hope of reducing abuses of the system and reducing the risk for child trafficking and profiteering from orphans. This
issue so often raised by UNICEF is a canard. C’mon. Who isn’t against corruption and abuse?

What’s so disappointing about UNICEF’s position is that for years the organization has been a leader in child welfare around the world. The work that they do to help feed and immunize children is unimpeachable.
And perhaps this is the problem. The organization’s success in this area has jaundiced UNICEF’s view on adoption.

Arbitrary national borders on a map have become a greater priority to UNICEF than the complicated issues of placing children with safe, loving families wherever those families may be.

UNICEF has repeatedly stated that it prefers the expansion of social welfare programs for poor families within countries, so that children can stay in kinship groups. The practical outcome has been that
unparented children are being denied the best homes so that UNICEF can score cheap points in the international arena about the insufficient aid poor countries receive. The pawns here are the children.

Harvard Law School’s Elizabeth Bartholet, an adoptive parent herself and a well-regarded child advocate, has publicly stated that “international adoption is under siege,” largely because of UNICEF’s unrelenting assault on inter-country adoption.

In Batholet’s paper International Adoption: The Human Rights Position she writes, “Preferences for what UNICEF calls permanent family or foster care [in country] are dangerous. UNICEF’s argument is that such
care could preserve children’s birth and national heritage links. But foster care doesn’t exist as a meaningful option in most sending countries – unparented children are instead relegated to orphanages.
UNICEF wants foster care expanded, but denying children adoptive homes now because in the future foster care might exist is unfair to existing children.”

The influence of UNICEF on the world community cannot be overstated. It has used its reputation as a leader in children welfare to lobby countries, including the United States, to reduce the number of inter-country adoptions. The results have had dire consequences for children around the world. International adoptions have plummeted and most countries are now closed to American parents.

The dark and highly influential shadow that UNICEF has cast on intercountry adoption has left millions of children around the world stranded, without homes and without hope.

Rabu, 01 Desember 2010

Influential Adoptee from the US, Betty Jean Lifton passed away

Betty Jean Lifton Dies at 84

This week we received the sad news that Betty Jean Lifton, well known author from the book: Twice Born and Lost & Found, the adoption experience, has left her body.

On her website, the family of Betty Jean Lifton published this:
From Robert Jay Lifton and the family of BJ LIfton -- We wish to convey the extremely painful and deeply sad news that BJ Lifton, died on Nov. l9 in Massachusetts General Hospital of complications of pneumonia. We are planning a memorial and will post more information here soon.
United Adoptees International wants to pay sincere respects to the family and close relatives of Betty Jean, we are obliged to her for her work and activities and would like to thank her for her contribution to the adoption debate and her voice as an adult adoptee.

We wish her family and relatives time to mourn and to know that even she will not speak in person about her work and experience anymore, that her words and spirit will continue in many of us adoptees.

With respect,

United Adoptees International
“ Zeer invloedrijke Amerikaanse geadopteerde is Betty Jean Lifton is overleden. Zij werd op 11 juni 1926 als Blanche Rosenblatt geboren. Haar ongehuwde moeder was 17 en haar vader een (drank) smokkelaar en bon vivant.

Blanche werd in een tehuis voor pleegkinderen geplaatst en op 2,5 jarige leeftijd door Oscar en Hilda Kirschner geadopteerd. Deze noemden haar Betty Jean, in de adoptiewandelgangen B.J. Zij promoveerde op een psychologisch onderwerp en trouwde in 1952 met de bekende Amerikaanse psychiater Dr. Lifton.

Betty Jean schreef o.a. een gedeeltelijk autobiografisch gekleurde adoptietrilogie met de aansprekende titels: Twice born: Memoirs of an Adopted Daughter (1975); Lost & Found, the adoption Experience (1979); Journey of the adopted self: A Quest for Wholeness (1994). (Tweemaal geboren: herinneringen van een adoptiedochter; Verloren & gevonden, de adoptie-ervaring; De reis van de Zelf van geadopteerde: de zoektocht naar volledigheid). Boeken van haar zijn in het Japans vertaald.

Ook in 2010 gaf zij nog overal in de V.S. lezingen. Op 19 november 2010 is zij betrekkelijk plotseling aan de gevolgen van longontsteking gestorven. Een voor de V.S. en daarbuiten kernpersoon van het internationale adoptieveld is heengegaan. Vele malen heb ik haar mogen ontmoeten en van gedachten wisselen. Net als Jean Paton heeft zij grote invloed uitgeoefend op het meer aandacht krijgen voor de situatie van geadopteerden en hun verlangen naar openheid over hun achtergrond.”

Rene Hoksbergen