Category: Media

Adoption in the Media – Davion Only, Re-homing, Orphan Boom

Kathleen Strottman, CCAI’s Executive Director, is a regular contributor to Adoption Today magazine. This blog is her most recent published article. To purchase a subscription to Adoption Today magazine, click here.

Congressional Review and Response to Adoption in the News

Over the past several months adoption has been in the news a lot.  Perhaps as a result of the increased media attention, there has also been a corresponding surge in national conversations on the policy and practice issues raised by the various articles.  Below is a review of some of the recently published pieces and a brief summary of federal policy conversations they engender.

“Re-homing”

On September 9, 2013 Reuters and NBC published a five-part series, The Child Exchange, to bring attention to a practice since coined “re-homing”—when adoptive parents who have experienced challenges post adoption resort to privately placing their legally adopted children in the custody of another adult or family.   This series of articles not only brought public scrutiny to the practice but also prompted several other national news networks, such as Time Magazine and the Associated Press, to write stories on both what might cause a parent to consider re-homing their child and what might be done to ensure that the practice does not continue to put children at risk.

Since the release of the Reuter’s series, several child welfare and adoption advocacy organizations, including CCAI,  have issued reports and statements about the practice of rehoming.  In addition to providing a review of existing laws and policies on adoption, CCAI’s policy brief suggests that federal policymakers should consider:

  • Reviewing existing federal laws and regulations to ensure that prospective adoptive parents are both well informed and properly trained before an adoption is finalized.
  • Providing federal financial support so that child-specific, quality and affordable support services can be provided to more families post-adoption.
  • Considering the ways in which the federal government might use the Internet to provide more information and better support to prospective and current adoptive families.
  • Strengthening enforcement of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, as well as child abuse, abandonment and adoption laws to ensure that the interests of children are protected.

Members of Congress have also taken notice of the Reuters series and the issues it raises.  In September, Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota introduced S. 1527, the Supporting Adoptive Families Act and in October Congressman Langevin from Rhode Island introduced the “Protecting Adopted Children Act.”  Both bills seek to curb the practice of rehoming through the provision of training and support services both before and after an adoption.  The House bill also calls for the General Accounting Office (GAO) to do an in-depth study of the practice of re-homing including how children are being “advertised” on the internet.

Discussions of the federal policy issues raised by the Reuter’s piece are expected to continue well into the next session of Congress.  While Congress has not announced any plans for a formal Congressional hearing on the issue, it is possible some aspects of re-homing might be addressed in this way.  To date, Congressional inquiries have been focused on to what extent state and federal child welfare laws protect against improper custody transfers of adopted children and how these laws might be strengthened to avoid future harm to adopted children.

The Evangelical Orphan Boom

In September 2013, the New York Times published an article written by author Kathryn Joyce entitled “The Evangelical Orphan Boom.”   Much like her book, The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption,  Joyce’s  NY Times article posits the view that the “orphan crisis” is not a global crisis worthy of our universal concern but rather a dangerous myth perpetuated by Evangelical church leaders as part of their conservative, “pro-life agenda.”  This movement she says “while well intentioned, has exacerbated a boom and bust market for children.”

The Joyce article also warns that the potential for fraud and abuse in the current international adoption is too high.   Specifically, she cites concerns with the use of UNICEF’s orphan estimates as an estimate of the number of children in need of adoption because such estimates include children who are living in the care of family members.  She also points to cases of children who were put up for adoption, without their biological parent’s full understanding of what adoption means, as evidence of a system gone awry.

Much like the articles on rehoming, Joyce’s book and subsequent articles have engendered responses from many in the adoption community, the most notable being the Christian Alliance for Orphans.  For the most part, these responses have acknowledged that there is a need to reduce the potential for fraud and abuse within the international adoption system, but have also cautioned against calls for reform that obscure the reality that there are millions of children living outside of family care for whom international adoption is the only real hope of a permanent home.

Congress has not responded to Ms. Joyce’s concerns over the role of the Evangelical church has played in promoting international adoption, but there is an ongoing federal policy conversation on how the United States Government might work more effectively to ensure that the instances of fraud and abuse in international adoption are rare.  In September of 2013, Senators Mary Landrieu and Roy Blunt introduced a bill called “Children in Families First.”   In October, Congresswoman Kay Granger and Congresswoman Karen Bass introduced the same bill in the House.  The two bills combined have over 40 co-sponsors.  Among other things, the bill seeks to remedy the existing confusion that stems from using UNICEF’s orphan data as a proxy for the number of children in need of adoption by calling for a separate and more appropriate means of assessing the needs of children without family care.  It also seeks to reduce opportunities for fraud and abuse by providing technical and financial support to countries looking to establish Hague compliant systems for international adoption.

Davion Only

In October, the Tampa Bay Times featured a story about a fifteen year old young man named Davion Only who took his plea for an adoptive family to members of his church. Within hours of the article on his plight appearing in the Tampa paper and online, the story went viral.  In the week that followed, Davion was featured on the Today Show, the View and in People Magazine. His name now generates 1.4 million Google hits and he has had over 10,000 families inquire about adopting him.  With all likelihood, he will be celebrating this Christmas with a family to call his own.

While many are calling Davion’s story a success story, it has also raised many important policy questions. First, what can we do to help people better understand that there are 9,999 other children just like Davion waiting for a family?  Should we need to have the type of media attention that his story generated for this message to break through?  And similarly, would some of the 10,000 people who stepped up for Davion be willing to commit to one of these other youth instead?

Also on people’s mind is the most basic of questions: why did it take so long for him to get to where he is today?  According to the original article, Davion has been in foster care since his birth and available for adoption since he was 7. What about our current foster system needs to be improved so that the “Davion Onlys” out there do not have to spend a lifetime looking for the love and support they so clearly need and deserve?

Federal policymakers have made several efforts this year to better address the need for permanency among older youth.  Most notably, they are expected to reauthorize the federal Adoption Incentive program as well as make efforts to better focus this program on the needs of older youth.

Conclusion

The media can be an important and powerful tool for raising both the public attention and political will necessary to bring about change.  Over the past several months, the above stories on adoption have stimulated important conversations and brought wider public attention to the needs of foster and adopted children.  CCAI looks forward to continuing to play a role in ensuring that the federal policy conversations that result from this coverage are both thoughtful and informed.

CCAI Statement and Summary Regarding Supreme Court Ruling in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Veronica
Veronica

CCAI Executive Director Kathleen Strottman’s

Statement Regarding Supreme Court Decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

“Through my work with current and former foster youth, I have learned that having a strong sense of one’s culture, heritage and identity is a vitally important part of child and adolescent development. It is for this reason that CCAI has continued to work to ensure that these components are not only recognized but protected by the United States child welfare system.  The Indian Child Welfare Act is an important piece of federal legislation that, when well implemented, carefully safeguards the best interests of Native American children.

 It has been over 25 years since the Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted into law.  In recent years, the media and tribal community have rightly pointed to the disproportionate number of native youth in care as evidence of its continued need.  At the same time, child welfare advocates have pointed out cases in which application of ICWA is resulting in native children being denied a safe, loving and permanent family through adoption.  I sincerely hope that today’s decision sparks a necessary and open discussion of ways that this critically important law might be used to better protect the best interests of children.”

CCAI Summary Regarding Supreme Court Decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in favor of the adoptive parents of “Baby Veronica” in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl and reversed the decision of the South Carolina state court that removed the child from the adoptive parents’ home at the age of 27 months and placed her with her biological father, a member of the Cherokee tribe, whom she had never met.

The Supreme Court’s decision held that the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that the state court relied upon in its decision do not apply to the facts of this case.  Specifically, the Court found that ICWA “was designed primarily to counteract the unwarranted removal of Indian children from Indian families. But the ICWA’s primary goal is not implicated when an Indian child’s adoption is voluntary and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent with sole custodial rights.”

The Court stated that the biological father abandoned the child before birth and never had “continued custody” (legal or physical) of the child so there was no relationship that could be discontinued by terminating the biological Indian father’s rights to the child.

The Court also held that ICWA’s adoption placement preferences for Indian families do not apply in this case, because the biological father and extended family did not seek to adopt the child.

 ###

Family Protects Against Negative Stress

Image Source: The New York Times

Jacob and Noah Muthler are two brothers from Roaring Spring, Pennsylvania who personify a phenomenon that this weekend’s New York Times Magazine addressed– why can some children take stress in stride while others crumble?

The article highlights the increasing stress that children face, especially because of standardized testing. “The pressure to do well on achievement tests for college is filtering its way down to lower grades, so that even third graders feel as if they are on trial.”

As a test approaches, Noah panics. According to his mother, “he was crying in my arms the night before the test, saying: ‘I’m not ready, Mom. They didn’t teach us everything that will be on the test.’ ” The night before the examination, Noah couldn’t sleep; the only way he would go back to bed is if his mother lay with him.

His brother, Jacob, however seems un-phased by the stress; in fact, he is so unnerved by taking the standardized test that his mother started to worry that he didn’t care about his performance.

It turns out, reactions to stress are partially genetic.  An enzyme responsible for removing dopamine from the brain can affect a person’s ability to cope with stress. Stress floods your brain with dopamine and how quickly the enzyme is able to rid your brain of the excess dopamine determines a child’s natural ability to handle stress. Jacob and Noah prove that even in a family of brothers, the speed of this enzyme can be drastically different.

Still, for those with a slow moving enzyme, all is not lost. Researchers have shown that stress does not always have to be a bad thing.  Jeremy Jamieson, an assistant professor of social psychology at the University of Rochester, believes that people’s negative labeling of stress is the detriment – not the stress itself.

Jamieson believes that if stress is harnessed and viewed as a motivating factor, it can actually improve performance. Jamieson cites the performance of athletes and that the stress they feel before a game fuels their competitive edge.

Maybe Jamieson is on to something; however, for many children this positive outlook on stress is not natural and will need to be coached. For kids like Noah that coach is his mom. She is the one who tells him that the test is no big deal; she reframes it as an opportunity to display his intelligence and acumen, both of which he has proven at school as a student in the gifted and talented program.  And for those times when that perspective isn’t enough to calm him, it’s Noah’s mom who rubs his back and lays with him so he’ll fall back asleep.

What the Times article did not address the issue of children who may not have the appropriate support structures, including those in foster and congregate care and individuals who spend their entire childhood in institutions. Harvard University’s Center on the Developing Child has concluded that in regards to stress, when “buffering relationships are unavailable to the child, the result can be damaged, weakened systems and brain architecture, with lifelong repercussions.”

Some of our most vulnerable children – those living outside of family care who do not have a parent to coach them through stress – are the same children who likely have so much more to worry about: Will I ever be adopted? If I change foster care placements, will I have to change schools as well? Who will help me with my homework? Where are my siblings living and when can I see them again?

Fortunately for Noah, his mom found a solution to rid him of his stress. He will opt out of the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment “using a broad religious and ethical exemption.” Since finding out that he won’t be taking the test, Noah has performed better in school and now looks forward to class.

But for those kids who don’t have a parent to depend on, most of them will be forced to internalize their stress without the benefit of having mom or dad to rub their back and tell them that everything will be okay.

The stress that Noah experiences from standardized testing is legitimate and powerful; no one can dispute that.  But this article neglects to address how those stress-prone children like Noah fare when don’t have an established support system like his.

And  having a safe, loving, permanent family should not be something that any child should ever have to stress about.

CSPAN’s Washington Journal Features CCAI

Kathleen_CSPANOn Saturday, CSPAN’s Washington Journal interviewed CCAI Executive Director, Kathleen Strottman, about the Russian adoption ban, international adoption, and how Members of Congress can affect adoption and foster care issues. Click on the picture to watch the full interview or follow this link: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310768-5