Forum: Visitors Sound Off

I WAS ANGERED and disheartened to read “The Baby Trade,” which explored alleged abuses in international adoption. My concern does not lie with exploring this complex issue but with the simplistic, biased and unsubstantiated treatment of it. The introduction stated that the “big question is whether the instances of abuse are isolated or endemic.” Next to that introduction, “The Baby Trade” simply did not explore this “big question.” From the headline to the ubiquitous use of quotes around the word orphan, the article lacked serious analysis.
    Then came two small additional items. The three pieces, according to the introduction, constituted a view of international adoption through three lenses. To imply that two short personal stories, no matter how informative and courageous, provided a counterpoint to a lengthy feature article with a large and, arguably, inflammatory headline again shows the flippant Resource Center of the Americas attitude toward these complex issues. It was unfortunate the staff did not take more care to ensure that a balanced perspective was presented.
    I would like to end by thanking authors Laurie Stern (“Nine Months in Guatemala”) and Alexandra Stein (“A Bumpy Road To Identity”) for providing personal experiences with international adoption against such a negative backdrop. Their stories begin to explore the complexities and are an excellent starting point for what I hope will be the Resource Center’s ongoing dialogue on this complicated issue.
– Virginia Carr, Minneapolis

I AM THE BRITISH adoptive parent of two children adopted from Guatemala. “The Baby Trade” was misleading: “Unprincipled attorneys, adoption agencies, foster home networks and even smuggling rings help produce 2,300 children a year for adoptive parents, mostly in the United States.” This states categorically that all attorneys, adoption agencies and so on are unprincipled. The language is emotive and negative. There is no interest in showing specific evidence (all of which refutes this) or any other potential side of the story.
    The article states further: “A U.N. investigator reported in March that most international adoptions from Guatemala are illegal. Ofelia Calcetas-Santos, the U.N. special rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, says she found evidence that lawyers, doctors and judges with a stake in adoptions do everything from falsify birth records to drug illiterate birthmothers and force them to sign over their babies.” But there was no indication of how much evidence was found or against how many individuals.
    Contrast this with Laurie Stern’s article. Her reference to Calcetas-Santos covers both sides and neither makes nor invites judgment: “A highly publicized report by U.N. official Ofelia Calcetas-Santos says most Guatemalan adoptions are illegal. But the report cites no source, admitting the information is mostly anecdotal and based on only 11 days of investigation.” The rest flows with similar balance: “Adoption is dicey by definition, a transaction between unequals. . . . It takes money to adopt, and desperation to relinquish a baby. . . . There is plenty of room for opportunism and abuse, especially in poor countries. . . . It’s an imperfect system in an unfair world. . . . In a better world, the choices in the adoption process would be different. In the real world, Diego’s birthmother can afford to keep her fourth child, his foster mother earned a few months’ living by caring for him, and my life has been immeasurably enriched.”
    “The Baby Trade” is potentially very damaging to the self-image of any child adopted from Guatemala. Editors should be guardians of the human rights of adopted children. If there is a constituency genuinely concerned about helping curb the abuses of the intercountry adoption system, it is surely adoptive parents.
– Stevan Whitehead, London

I WAS SO INFURIATED by your inflammatory coverage that I could not decide what aspect of it irked me the most. If the Resource Center was trying to begin an honest and fair discussion, you blew it.
    First, the choice of market phrases (“Baby Trade,” “helped produce,” “demand for Latin American babies”) was inappropriate and put those of us who have adopted from Latin America in an extremely defensive position. The terminology was just one of the ways the article demonstrated its contempt for adoption. The focus on “trade” totally skewed the personal and complex issues.
    Second, numerous anti-adoption statements clearly reflected the authors’ ignorance of the issue. For example: “Families were choosing to adopt from overseas primarily because it was faster than adopting a local baby and because it reduced the chances that a birthmother would try to reclaim parental rights.” This assumption is not only unsubstantiated but patently untrue for many adoptive families. We, for example, decided to adopt from Guatemala precisely because there was a greater chance of being able to meet, and possibly stay in contact with, our children’s birthmothers. Numerous other statements, irrelevant to alleged misconduct in international adoption, reflected an anti-adoption bias. I don’t know if I want AMERICAS.ORG to do a follow-up. Based on the November pages, I don’t trust the reporting staff to do the topic justice.
– Kellie Jones, Minneapolis

I WAS SO MOVED to read about all aspects of the traffic in Central American children. It was frightening to find that a situation I “invented” in my novel Goodness (Spinsters Ink, 1996) is far from fictional. One of my characters found a sleazy lawyer who relieved her of several thousand dollars and then claimed the sickly infant he found for her had died. My invention was based on stories from friends and acquaintances, some of whom found happy endings, like several writers in your issue. AMERICAS.ORG is so good. Thanks for keeping the quality high.
– Martha Roth, Minneapolis

THANK YOUfor covering this sensitive issue. I hope to adopt a child someday. I have met wonderful parents who have adopted children from many countries. Many of these parents have become champions for peace and justice in their child’s birth country.
    I spent a semester studying in Bogotá, Colombia. I saw many adoptive families. I could recognize adoptive parents just by the look in their eyes: a mix of fear, love, hope and frustration, and an altruistic sense of “saving” a child from the violence and poverty.
    Every time I saw an adoptive family I felt respect for what they were doing, but I also wondered about the realities alongside the parents’ good intentions. Were these families saving children from having to work and live on the streets someday? Or were the children born on purpose for rich families in Europe and the United States? What are the economic and social injustices at play? What drives a woman to give up her child? AMERICAS.ORG approached many of these of issues.
    One day I was working with the street children at a residential treatment facility in the mountains. A chubby-cheeked, mischievous 8-year-old asked me whether I had any children. I replied, “No, but I would like to adopt a child someday.” This child looked at me with tremendous heartache and said, “Adopt me!” To this day, I wish I could have.
    If you are thinking of adopting, consider an older child. If you are an adoptive parent, please do stand up for standards. Organize. We should applaud AMERICAS.ORG efforts to raise awareness about this issue. Instead of feeling guilty for acting out of love, we should continue to monitor international adoptions and demand standards so parents can adopt children out of their good intentions without contributing to the very problems parents are seeking to solve.
– Stephanie DeFrance, St. Paul

ALTHOUGH THE ADOPTIONsection attempted to provide information from a balanced perspective, it lacked information on the numerous orphanages and organizations that do honest, ethical and loving work with Guatemala’s 150,000 orphans.
    I have had the honor of working with one such organization, Casa Guatemala, for the past five years. It has existed for 24 years. Director Angie DeGaldemez, who has never worked for a salary, only for room and board, has worked tirelessly under overwhelming circumstances to keep the orphanage open and expand it to provide a home for more children. No child is ever turned away.
    During the war, women would attempt to follow the army to try to save the children whose parents had been killed. They took the children to places such as Casa Guatemala to save them from death or life on the streets.
    At one time, Casa Guatemala existed only in Guatemala City. Angie, the director, sought a place where the children could run and play. She contracted with the Kekchi on the Río Dulce to share their land. To build the complex, Angie worked right along side the men to clear the jungle.
    Today Casa Guatemala not only shares the land with the Kekchi but also a school, a corn grinder and a medical and dental clinic. Casa Guatemala employs people in the village to help with the children and work the farm that provides their food.
    Many of the 200 children at Casa Guatemala have families but need medical treatment or schooling that is not available in their own villages. Some children truly are orphans and need a family. All the children available for adoption are older or have special needs.
    Last year, just a few months after Hurricane Mitch flooding, an earthquake completely destroyed Casa Guatemala. The children had to live under tarps and drink rainwater until the buildings and water tower could be repaired or rebuilt. The Guatemalan government would not send out a call for international relief because it did not want to “hurt tourism,” but Angie and the other volunteers never gave up. Today 75 percent of the buildings have been rebuilt.
    Recognize organizations and individuals that give everything and ask nothing in return. My fear is that programs such as Casa Guatemala will lose support from U.S. readers afraid they are donating time and money to something unethical.
– Roxanne Gould, Minneapolis

AS A FORMERResource Center of the Americas staff member and board chair, and as an adoptive parent of an internationally born child, I read “The Baby Trade” amid feelings of great sadness, alienation, anger and judgment. I am responding out of respect for an organization that I have admired and been proud of for the past 10 years. The article didn’t reflect the openness, commitment to the struggle, or search for the complex truths that I have come to expect. I hope other adoptive parents who share my hurt will stay connected to the Resource Center and not view this article’s agenda as representative of the organization.
    Moral ambiguity surrounds international adoption. Privilege is exercised during every step of the process. I own this reality. But adoption isn’t solely about privilege. It’s a complicated issue with many angles, struggles, inequities, heartaches and questions. “The Baby Trade” was written in one moral voice and left no room for the ambiguity that most of us experience. Acknowledging the struggle would open the discussion, encourage reflection and hopefully contribute to improved adoption policies.
    I struggle every day with the knowledge of what my son gave up when we brought him to the United States. I wish I had a magic wand and could transform his history. But I can’t. What I can give him is a family that cherishes him, nurtures him, finds great joy and laughter in his antics, and cries when he struggles. I take offense at the article’s insinuation that the only thing an adopted child “gains” is “a significant material advantage over what was in store for them in their birth country.” The author distrusts and dismisses adoptive parents’ intentions, motivations and struggles. Of course, an even trade between a child’s birth family/culture and adoptive family isn’t possible. Choices are made; losses are endured. It’s part of the moral ambiguity.
    I am sure that some birthmothers are coerced, that attorneys are profiting, and that judicial systems are corrupt. I don’t know how widespread the problem is, but the hurdles and roadblocks we have faced in adoption lead me to believe that good watchdogs are in fact doing their job. While more reform is warranted, I disagree with the conclusion to shut down Guatemalan adoptions. This conclusion followed an admission that data was inconclusive. I have many questions to examine before I’m willing to accept the fate of the 20,000 Guatemalan kids living in institutions as being preferable to international adoption.
    My intuition tells me that “The Baby Trade” was not about systemic change or overhauling a flawed system. The underlying moral voice was critical of international adoption, regardless of the way it happens.
    Finally, I want to defend the birthmothers who make the excruciating decision to give up their babies for adoption. “The Baby Trade” never talked about the women who willingly made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure a better life for their child. Are poor women incapable of making decisions regarding their children? The author states that pregnant teenagers in Guatemala City “feel compelled to carry the fetus to term.” Compelled? It seems patronizing and judgmental to me that the author has all the answers for these women.
    I welcome honest discussion surrounding the complexities of international adoption and I hope I can rid myself of the defensive residue left by “The Baby Trade” and move to more reparative efforts, efforts that ensure a fair and legal international adoption system. Additionally, I hope that the Resource Center is willing to present future discussions of international adoption with more than one moral voice.
– Chris Dooley-Harrington, St. Paul

AMERICAS.ORGcould have raised difficult questions, provided information and invited dialogue. Unfortunately, “The Baby Trade” only passed judgment, alienated people from an important resource and spoiled future dialogue.
    The method of persuasion was troubling. The article started with a very emotional issue, children, labeled adoption as “The Baby Trade” and proceeded with heart-wrenching stories. Then came hysterical data about abuses during horrible wars. Anecdotal data and incomplete research were used liberally to polarize the issue. Readers had two choices: (1) If you love babies and the Americas, you will think international adoption is bad. (2) If you support international adoption, you are exercising your imperialist North American privilege. The conclusion was to support a baby embargo. This resembles how our government has persuaded people in the United States to tolerate a Cuban embargo.
    “The Baby Trade” was disrespectful to the birthmothers of internationally adopted babies. Most of us North Americans cannot even begin to know what they have experienced during the wars and the aftermath. Clearly one of the tragedies of the wars is not being able to care for your child. An important question is whether adoption adds another trauma or whether it’s a complex attempt to alleviate some of the pain. I do not know the answer, but I do know that part of finding the answer is respecting the birthmother enough to work on solutions. The last thing she needs is a North American telling her what is best for her by removing the option of international adoption. This would be patronizing.
    “The Baby Trade” barely addresses the children. A child belongs with his or her family, but this is not always possible, evidenced by the 20,000 Guatemalan children in government institutions and thousands more on the streets. The U.S. role in the wars does not erase the fact that the children are growing up in institutions. Is a child better off in an institution, keeping her or his name, language and culture, or is a child better off in a home, being part of a family with a different language and culture? Unlike the writer, I do not see easy answers.
    Many adoptive parents are trying to raise their children with a knowledge, respect and love of the culture where they were born. This is not an easy task. The Resource Center could be a resource for families, but the attitude that permeated “The Baby Trade” only alienates people. In Laurie Stern’s article, she noted feeling judged. I would suggest she experienced this attitude.
– Kevin Harrington, St. Paul

AMERICAS.ORGdid exactly what a radical site should do. It sparked heated debate about a fundamental issue. Radical means getting to the heart of an issue, and this debate has certainly pulled emotional heartstrings. Unfortunately, the debate has taken on another attribute of radicalism, as we know it, and that is demonizing people who disagree with you. It’s imperialist baby stealers vs. mean ideologues.
    My wife Deborah McLaren and I are beginning the international adoption process. I thought all the articles dealt with this difficult issue honestly and added important insights. The lead article (“The Baby Trade”) contained valuable revelations about how profiteers have exploited families in Latin America in horrible ways. Still, it seemed to imply that all Latin American adoption organizations are tainted by baby stealers linked to death-squad militias. From what I understand, this is not true.
    At the same time, the article raised uncomfortable issues that any adoptive parent in the global upper class (and that includes most middle-class professionals in Minnesota) must understand. Adoption, even in this country, is usually a class issue. In large part, birthparents who choose to relinquish a child do so because they are in extreme economic hardship. To adopt a child, on the other hand, you must prove that you can provide for her or him. The problem in this debate is that a huge dose of guilt now comes into play. Because we are in a relatively privileged class position doesn’t mean we are bad people. At the same time, we have to recognize that we live in a grossly unjust world.
    I understand how some adoptive parents can feel offended when a personal act, motivated out of love and a healthy desire to parent a child, is criticized as contributing to an exploitive industry. The fact is that the market-driven madness we call globalization has distorted virtually everything, even, or especially, international adoptions. So, just as we need to be aware of the source of the clothes we buy, we have a responsibility to be aware of the conditions and relationships in the orphanages and adoption agencies where our children come from. I hate to say it, but prospective adoptive families are consumers and they need to act as responsible ones.
    After children are adopted, the issue becomes even more personal. They still have roots in countries the global economy has devastated. And the adoptive parents now have some of their own roots there. The issue becomes how we can nourish those roots in another world and still help children live in this world. This is a purpose of a place like the Resource Center of the Americas and a site like AMERICAS.ORG. By figuring out such complexities, our community can contribute to the larger debate of how to create a multicultural society in a monocorporate economy. To do this, we need to be brutally honest and respectful at the same time. We need to listen and learn from each other.
– Rob Ramer, St. Paul

ADD YOUR VOICE: E-mail up to 300 words to the editor (cmitchell@americas.org). We’ll print your letter in this space and in the monthly magazine Connection to the Americas. So we can verify your name and city, please include a daytime phone number. Comment on this topic, any other ‘Forum’ thread (see topics) or anything else at AMERICAS.ORG.