RSS

This and that…

31 Jan

Search term that brought someone to this blog that just JUMPED OUT at me today – how on earth could anyone even remotely consider it acceptable…

adoption fraud is not human trafficking

Really Okay I know the USA does not have it under their official definition of human trafficking, but it comes pretty darn close to it, if not meets the definition.  Of course that is just my position, but I do know others agree with me.  Lets stop and think of the advantages to the CHILD if the USA did include adoption fraud in the definition of human trafficking.  There would be real laws with plenty of teeth and jail time for anyone convicted in either country.  That would mean they would have a real incentive to ensure the CHILD is actually available for adoption.  That would mean they would not casually accept falsified paperwork by the brother of the police chief, or the person who said claims they are the biological parent.  That would mean they would do DNA testing for all adoptions to ensure the person surrendering was actually the person they say they are.  I could go on and on and on.  It would mean everyone actually acting in the childs best interest - not the bottom line, the PAP waiting, just the child.  What a concept.

And that does not even begin to take into consideration the life-time impact on the child, or the adopting parents who have to live with the fact their child may not have needed to be adopted.

I do realize the demand drives the supply and if only those actually available for adoption were adopted then some PAPs would be out of luck…oh well…no one should ever accept those two words being linked – you know “adoption” and “fraud” they just don’t work together where as “ethical” and “adoption” work very nicely together.  Adoption fraud is wrong.  No getting around it – it is wrong, wrong and still wrong.  Put yourself in the child’s REAL parents shoes and what would YOU call it then.

IN OTHER THOUGHTS…

I watched C.S.I. M.i.a.m.i. the other night.  The one where the sperm “donor” (quotes because he was paid) was murdered.  You knew it was bound to show up on a show sometime.  The storyline talked about him having 103 kids out there as confirmed on the Donor Sibling Registry, yet they forgot that annoying estimate by the industry that only 80% of parents tell their children.  When you stop and think about that the 103 being 20% of his children…you could estimate what 500 or so children, but of course he still had frozen sperm at the clinic because part of the plot was the destruction of the sperm. 

Turns out the “donor” was a carrier for Turner disease that destroys your liver, and you know you need your liver to live.  They had to add more drama in that one of the mothers used a surrogate and delivered identical twins and kept one.  They spun the story to the ninth degree to make it just as juicy as it could possible get.  Thankfully, they didn’t make one of the children the guilty one, but they certainly focused on the children as the foremost suspects, instead of looking to the spouse which statistics prove most likely to be the one. 

It did try to stereotype the donor conceived much like adoptees have been stereotyped on TV.  I think less than the stereotype of adoptees, because the “donor” was a successful person and of course the mothers were all upstanding people who just wanted to parent, so the “genes” weren’t suspect like adoptees. 

But at the end of the day it did stereotype and cast suspicion on donor conceived to some degree, but it also raised the red flag about the risks for genetic diseases without knowledge provided, and it also raised the red flag about the sheer number of children from one sperm “donor”. 

Mixed feelings about it and I am not particularly fond of the show to begin with, so that’s my take on it.

About these ads
 
5 Comments

Posted by on January 31, 2012 in Adoption, adoptive parents, biological child, Ethics

 

Tags: , , , ,

5 responses to “This and that…

  1. cb

    February 1, 2012 at 1:28 am

    I googled “adoption fraud isn’t human trafficking” and found both your post and China Adoption Talk’s post in October last year about a post by Ethica.

    This is the Trafficking protocol’s definition:
    a) [...] the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
    (b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;
    (c) The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered “trafficking in persons” even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article;

    (d) “Child” shall mean any person under eighteen years of age

     
  2. cb

    February 1, 2012 at 1:30 am

    Just continuing, as I had a bit of problem fitting anything extra in but the following is the Wiki link for the actual Wiki page about the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_to_Prevent,_Suppress_and_Punish_Trafficking_in_Persons,_especially_Women_and_Children

     
  3. cb

    February 1, 2012 at 1:33 am

    Sorry for posting 3 times – there is a specific entry under “Child Laundering” which is specifically about adoption practices.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_laundering
    Child laundering is the stealing and selling of children to adopting parents under false pretenses. Often the adoption agency or adoption facilitator hides or falsifies the child’s origin to make the child appear to be a legitimate orphan by manipulating birth certificates, intake records, or records regarding the deaths of the child’s parents who might still be alive. These children are often taken against either their will or the will of their parents to be sold to foreign adopting parents who are given the false papers and false assurances as to the child’s point of origin.

    Adoption agencies may sometimes be unknowing or knowing participants in the transactions but most adoptions are facilitated by adoption agencies. This type of activity most often appears in international adoptions and is a specific form of child trafficking[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

    The term “child laundering” expresses the claim that the current intercountry adoption system frequently takes children illegally from birth parents, and then uses the official processes of the adoption and legal systems to “launder” them as “legally” adopted children. Thus, the adoption system treats children in a manner analogous to a criminal organization engaged in money laundering, which obtains funds illegally but then “launders” them through a legitimate business

     
  4. eagoodlife

    February 17, 2012 at 6:58 am

    Yep I’ve been banging on for ages about how all adoptees should be DNA tested and retested on adoption.A small event which wouldn’t catch all fraudsters but would at least make a start. Von

     
  5. marilynn

    May 27, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    the part about people needing to be DNA tested against the people who are doing the relinquishing was really well written. A bare minimum requirement should be that they have authority to relinquish. Last night I picked a guy randomly off the internet and found his family wass looking for him too. His mother was 14 from Puerto Rico housing project and the child was not relinquished by her but by a relative of hers now dead. This particular adopted person says he was abused by both adoptive parents. He is excited today to know his genetic family looked for him. Your proposal of DNA testing would have precluded the maternal relative from relinquishing this person for adoption. He was kidnapped and nobody helped him. Nobody helped his mother or father who have been looking for him since he was taken in 1982. I cried when I read his post I wanted to give finding them a shot and they were right there a Google away.

     

Tell me your thoughts, but please be nice...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 286 other followers

%d bloggers like this: