Transracial Abduction

This website was actually linked in the previous article from The Root that I wrote about yesterday. It is rather disturbing. There isn't much on the site, but it is essentially a group of transracially adopted- "abducted"- people who feel that they have been exploited by the adoption system. They discuss feeling out of place in the United States. They felt racism and bigotry against them. They felt used by their adoptive families. They felt that their adoptions were used inappropriately in political ways. The very site that this site exists is indicative of the fact that adoption is not an easy subject. Adoption is inherently deeply tied to feelings, identity and self-image. It is a messy subject. While I am sure that these peoples' feelings are legitimate I believe that, more often than not, adoptive parents do have good intentions in adopting, and that these peoples' parents did too. It saddens me that people can be hurt so much by what were likely good intentions. However, since people are coming out of American adoptions feeling this way, we should as a nation and as people address these issues. I do not know how to address them completely, but a discussion of these feelings would be a start. 

I feel it is safe to say that these cases are not totally unique. Other adoptees may also feel that they have, in fact, been abducted. In the aftermath of the Earthquake in Haiti, as people seek to adopt internationally and transracially, this discussion is timely and necessary. Having more "abductees" as opposed to "adoptees" will not help anyone.  

Haiti, America, Race, and Racism

This article, from The Root, entitled, Haiti's Orphans' and the Transracial Adoption Dilemma, provides an interesting discussion of race and adoption in the United States. It uses the Hatian adoption craze following the earthquake as a platform to discuss the larger issue. It is a heated topic in the US and many people find it uncomfortable to discuss. Racial issues are deeply rooted in American history, through the times of slavery, to the Native American "civilizing" movement, to Jim Crow and the legacy of transracial adoption is mired by these events.


While recognizing these conflicts, the author succinctly  and pointedly states one of the central ironies surrounding the issue: "Whites are chastised for their reluctance to adopt black children, but then those who do adopt black children are criticized for not being able to prepare black adoptees to face discrimination—or embrace their identities." This irony may largely account for the fact that black children are the "least desirable children" by white American adoptive parents. 


Despite this statement, the article, at one point, implies that black children from Haiti may be "more desirable" to white American parents because there is a certain "degree of separation" between these children and the tenuous racial history of the US; they are still black, but may not seem so in the conscience of prospective parents. If this is the case, there is a paradigm shift in what race "is." Race is defined not by physical appearance, but by culture and place of birth. This is a groundbreaking assertion. However, the article does not discuss this point at length. 

Instead, the article ends with note of the fact that Haitian children adopted into the US, regardless of the family that adopts them, will be labeled as African Americans by their society. As a result, they will have to endure the stereotypes that are placed on this group in this society. This is an interesting comment. It is often lost in the mix of thoughts along the lines of, "surely children adopted from Haiti to the US will have a better life in the US than in Haiti." This may well be the case, especially along material lines. However they will likely have to endure more racism in their everyday lives as well.  


The US and its citizens need to recognize and mend that.   

Prospective Parents

Look at these pictures. A single woman and a dog. A middle aged -to -older couple. A gay couple. A young couple at the beach. An interracial couple. 


Q: What do all of these people pictured have in common? 


A: They are all real people hoping to adopt children.



Throughout this blog I have really been focusing on Haitian adoption in response to the earthquake. I have approached the topic with a lens focusing on my understanding that interest in Haitian adoption increased due to the Earthquake. However, given this view, I have been neglecting the fact that many families who adopt do not adopt out of response to a devastating disaster, but due to long term circumstances in their own lives: they cannot have a baby "of their own," they have a long-standing belief in adoption, they are single and so on.

What really brought this realization home for me was this website. This is a page of prospective parent profiles and is definitely an interesting read. Each prospective parent (or more often, parent pair) provides a picture and a short introduction seemingly to the birth family. I find the introduction paragraphs rather odd. In fact, I am not sure calling them introduction paragraphs is even appropriate. Most begin with a "Hi" and address the reader as "you" and refer to "your child-"- almost like a letter. However, these paragraphs are by no means letters. They are more like personal advertisements or cover letters for a job ("pick me! I am financially stable, full of love, and committed"). In all, I found it rather awkward.

However, my personal feelings aside, I think that the realization that for many adoptive parents adoption is not a "I'm gonna be a hero and save a recent orphan from a natural disaster" type of decision is essential to my view of Haitian adoption. In a number of my posts, I have been trying to bring home my belief that development- not adoption of Haitian orphans- is the answer to solving problems in Haiti. Now I realize that I still believe that wholeheartedly, but in many ways, this belief is actually not directly related to the issue of adoption. Regardless of the state of development or aftermath of a natural disaster in Haiti, there will still be adoptive parents such as the ones on this page waiting and hoping for a baby.

Good Intentions...

"Imagine that you're at work when whatever natural disaster is most probable in your state strikes. For me it would be an earthquake, for you it might be a flood, volcanic eruption, or hurricane. The natural disaster has toppled telephone poles and cell phone towers, damaged roads, and collapsed bridges. You try desperately to contact family members but no phones are working.

What was a simple 45 minute commute this morning has become an almost impossible journey. The freeway is impassible and roads are covered in debris. It takes you almost a week to reach home. When you finally arrive you receive word that your sister and her husband were seriously injured and did not survive. As you absorb this loss you worry about your three year old niece and five year old nephew. 

After several frantic days you make it to your sister's destroyed house only to find out from her neighbors that your niece and nephew have been taken by foreigners to be cared for in an orphanage. You are thankful to hear that they survived and are determined to find and care for them. Unfortunately, the neighbors don't know which organization took the children. All they know is that they spoke only a little English and wore matching green shirts with words in either Spanish or Portuguese written on them.

You are frantically searching for the orphanage when word reaches you that foreigners have begun flying plane loads of children out of orphanages to be adopted in other countries. You start to panic for fear that by the time you find this orphanage it'll be too late. If your niece and nephew have been taken to another country you may never be able to find them and bring them back. It's now a race against time.

*****

Don't do this to someone else's child. Children in orphanages often have parents or extended family trying desperately to care for them."

This is an essay taken from a blog entitled "Good Intentions Are Not Always Enough: An honest conversation about the impact of aid." The essay clearly echoes many of the cries from aid organizations regarding the questionable status of children in Haitian orphanages and the resultant decision to postpone adoptions.

While describing an obviously complicated situation and taking a clear stance on the issue, the essay also brings to light a few, less obvious but equally important, questions related to adoption and family-making. First, it assumes that familial (blood) rights trump adoptive rights while ultimately taking this stance as a human rights issue, playing on the pathos of the image of one searching for a lost- "abducted"- family member.   

Taking this assumption into consideration leads one to ask:  "who has the 'right' to care for children who have lost their parents in a disaster?" Do aunts and uncles have the right to claim guardianship over the nieces and nephews in situations such as this? The article clearly indicates that they do. But, if this is so, why? Solely due to a blood relationship? What if they had little emotional relationship with the children prior to the disaster? What if the adoptive family would indisputably have the capability to provide the children with a "better life"- a better education, more opportunities, stability? What if the blood relative claiming rights to the children is more distant relative: a great-uncle or great-aunt? A second cousin? Where do the familial blood rights end? 

These are not easy questions and they in fact lead toward an even more complicated and nuanced question: "what is family?" Can family be defined on clear legal terms? Family is a concept that is highly varied and personalistic. So, should the legal definition of family even matter? 

If one can come to clear terms with these questions (which I have not), more questions arise. How does adoption fit into the picture? Are the ties created by adoption as strong as those created by blood? Or a more nuanced question, does the age of the child at the time of the adoption make a difference? For instance, had the children from this story been orphaned as babies and adopted quickly would the aunt/uncle still have rights to the child? How long do familial relationships in adoption take to form? 

None of these are simple questions, but they are questions that are relevant to our current time. As people look to alleviate the situation in Haiti- with only the "best intentions" at heart- people are going to ask these very questions. To answer these questions in the way that is most sensitive to the rights of children, families and adopters, I suggest that we look toward past experiences for some ideas as we simultaneously listen attentively to contemporary voices involved in the issue (children, families, and adopters) to keep ourselves in check. 

Another Haitian Adoption Blog

I came across this blog today. It is the personal blog of the Horne family- a family who has adopted children from Haiti. In this blog, the Hornes tell the story of their adoption process and, despite my slight feeling of voyeurism as I was reading it, I really found it quite fascinating.

The blog has been maintained since November 2007. It begins when the Hornes began their adoption process by sending their dossier to adoption agencies in Haiti. In 2008, the Hornes were approved to adopt Steevenson, a baby boy from Haiti. Most of the blog posts from 2008 describe the Hornes experiences as they wait for Steevenson to arrive from Haiti. The posts include the pictures of Steevenson and updates on his well-being which were proivded to the Hornes by the adoption agency. The blog also contains posts written by Dixie Bickel- seemingly an adoption worker in Haiti. Bickel's perspective is an interesting compliment to the Hornes' voices.

These types of posts continue throughout 2008 and into 2009. In February of 2009, the Hornes reveal that they are planning a trip to Haiti to see Steevenson. They describe this trip and their first interaction with Steevenson in posts from March 2009.  Later that year, the Hornes are approved to adopt another Haitian child, a girl, Roselaure.

With the onset of the January 2010 earthquake the Hornes are worried about their children's well-being, but mention in the blog that both children survived the earthquake. Like many adoptive parents who had pending Haitian adoptions, the Hornes adoption was sped up following the earthquake. They travelled to Miami in late Januray of 2010 and met with their children there. They outline their stay in their blog. It seems that both children were suffering from some health issues and the Hornes were obligated to stay with Steevonson and Roselaure at a hospital  in Miami for almost a month.

It appears that the Hornes were able to take their children home sometime in the mid-February 2010. The blog posts from this point on are reminiscent of the thoughts one would imagine any new parents would share with the world. In a proud and happy tone, they include an entire story of Steevenson's "pooping." They post many pictures of their children playing. They discuss Steevenson's favorite new shoes. In all, the Hornes are beaming new parents.

Yet, there are also clear allusions to their status as an adopted, and specifically internationally adopted, family. They include stories of the Haitian potluck they attended in February 2010 and they discuss their follow-up interviews with the adoption agencies.

In many ways, this blog is at the heart of my trouble writing about Haitian Adoption. When I write about Haitian Adoption I write about it as an outsider. I have no personal experience with adoption or with the country of Haiti. I typically look at the issue from a structural standpoint: "why adoption and not development?   how does international adoption affect social institutions? how is adoption a political metaphor? is adoption ethical?"

However, by looking at families such as the Hornes, I am reminded of the deeply personal relationship that many people have with adoption. I am challenged to see the "macro-issues" on a "micro" scale. I look at the Hornes and ask questions about their family. Why do the Hornes have this blog? Is this a form of display or just a way for the Hornes to keep in touch with their loved ones in the technological age or is it more specifically related to the politicization and display of adoption? or of race? Why did the Hornes adopt? Or more specifically, why did the Hornes adopt from Haiti? What will become of Steeveonson and Roselaure? How is what becomes of Steevonson and Roselaure related to their adoption?

I do not have the answers to these questions, but these are questions that relate to all adoptions. Although I have not stated this on this blog, I am becoming increasingly convinced that adoption is a truly powerful force in the world. It can be a political metaphor, it can cause a re-conception of the family and it deeply affects people lives. With these questions of the Hornes' adoption, I wonder if there are universal answers to these questions. If there are, I believe that these answers may be a part of the process that will lead to the sort of social progress and development that I have argued for on this blog already.

Buy: "Expecting-A Baby from Haiti"

Google has many fascinating features. Today, after typing into the search bar "Haitian Adoption," I was rather uninterested in the links that appeared under "news," "images," and "videos." So, expecting a laugh, I decided to click on the "shopping" results. And I did indeed get one.

I saw a whole line of "expecting! a baby from Haiti" products. There are shirts, cups, clocks, and thong underwear all plastered with the words "expecting! a baby from Haiti" on them. One can purchase these products from this page on Cafe Press for anywhere from $3.00-$35.00 dollars.

....Geez....

I feel like I should be shocked by these products, but in many ways I am not.This site has reminded me of a section of adoption discussion that I have been neglecting on this blog: the personal effects on and motivations of adoptive families and more specifically, the theory that adoption is deeply defined by display. Well, if this is not display I don't know what is.

If these products have a market in the US, we are either a country full of distasteful gag-gifters or we have some serious self-image issues. Why would people by these products for legitimate reasons? To show off their up-and-coming good deed to others? To make themselves feel better about themselves? To get attention?

I am not sure.

Race is a Topic

The group of children pictured left are five of the six Scheeres children. The story of these children, and more specifically Julia and David, is told in a memoir written by Julia, entitled Jesus Land. Jesus Land describes the life of the Scheeres family as an adoptive-multi-racial family in 1970s rural Indiana.

The Scheers parents are white, relatively well-off, yet incredibly frugal, and Calvinist. They adopt David when he is three years old out of a feeling of duty. Mrs. Scheeres appears to struggle with depression and is, at best, out of touch with reality in her religious outlook.  Eventually, Mr. Scheeres, a doctor, becomes extremely distant in the childrens' lives and is relegated to the position of punisher. The Scheeres do not show their children affection and the family is becomes deeply disconnected. Througout the book David, and later Jerome- a second African  American child to be adopted into the Scheeres family- undergo physical abuse by Mr. Scheeres.

Throughout this story race is a constant factor. David and Jerome are sent to schools where they are the only African American children. They are made fun of and excluded. Although Julia is white, she also seems to be affected by these issues. She has feelings of resentment toward her black brothers and feels as if she is primarily perceived as the "girl with a black brother." At times in the narration Julia even refers to herself as black, describing the trouble that she and David undergo as being related to "their color."

However, this question of color identity goes both ways. Always optimistic and loving David seems to deal with these issues by either going along with the jokes or attempting to "be white." He cuts a part in his hair and  once tries to put in blue contact lenses. It is clear that David is not comfortable with the physical differences between himself and his family.

However, the issue of color is not just decisive outside of the Scheeres home, but within it as well. Race was not openly discussed in the family (nothing was for that matter though). The Scheeres parents relegate Jerome and David to living in the basement and subject them to extreme physical punishment, while Julia lives upstairs in her own room and is not physically punished throughout the majority of the book. In the narration, Julia is adamant that these divides are due to color, not due to differences in blood ties or gender (although I believe gender and blood ties did play some role).

Yet, race clearly does divide Julia from her brothers to one extent or another. Julia recalls the use of racial slurs between her brothers and herself. She defines herself as the "white child" and her brothers as the  "black children."  She mentions a perceived color divide many many times.

This story, while not directly related to the current situation in Haiti, did make me question a few aspects of American's adopting Haitian children in a new light. When discussing international adoption, it is likely that interracial adoption is also part of the picture. And when discussing American's adopting Haitian children it is likely (although not necessarily always the case)  that some of the children will be adopted by parents of a race other than their own. Like the Scheeres family, a white family may adopt a black child.

Admitteddly, the Scheeres were suffered from more issues than just race issues, but their story is deeply touched by race and their story is not that old. This is not a story of 1880 Alabama, but 1970s Indiana. I have to wonder how much of the Scheeres story could be applied to a family that chooses to adopt a child from Haiti. I would hope none of it, but I know I cannot make that claim for sure.

Honestly, I don't really know what to think about interracial adoption. I want to say that it should be no problem. We should be color blind and all get along fine, but I wonder if this color-blind idea is really possible and I am pretty sure it is not. I think the solution needs to come from open discussion about race and feelings. Racism still is a part of American culture and not talking about it, probably won't make it go away.

I wonder how the story of the Scheeres would have been different if they took the time to talk about race. I suspect, it wouldn't be dramatically different due to the numerous other issues in the family, but it may have made things a little better (or maybe not?).

In all, I think that it is important that in today's world when talking about Haitian Adoption we don't make the mistake of the Scheeres and keep our lips sealed about tough issues. We should talk about the hard things. There is a language to do so respectively and constructively.  

Two Types of Potential Adoptees

Today when I googled "Haitian Adoption," I came across this video:


Watch CBS News Videos Online

The video highlights a foster home in Alabama which hasn't had an adoption in years. The commentator mentions the Haitian orphan crisis as a factor that has increased American awareness of adoption, but emphasizes that this increased awareness has not affected these kids. This video really struck me. I immediately began wondering about issues of race, age and class in relationship to these kids' lack of adoption. I was ready to talk about economic crises as a reason behind the lack of recent adoption or the fact that people often want to adopts infants, not older children. I was ready to make an argument about the domestic issues in the United States and possibly, even go so far as to reprimand people who only decided to adopt in the wake of the Haitian earthquake, while there were children before the earthquake and still are children after the earthquake who are in need of adoption at home - in the United States.


....But then I saw a link to this video:




Watch CBS News Videos Online

Granted this video is from January 17th, 2010, a mere 5 days after the Earthquake, it was a quite a shock to see the status of the American foster children and the Haitian orphaned children back-to-back. In the video, of the American foster home the children are adequately dressed and have a permanent place to live. In the video of the Haitian children, the children wear tattered clothing and no shoes and are housed in tents. They are also far greater in number. In all, the video of the Haitian children reminded me of the extreme situation in Haiti- a terrible natural disaster compounded by long-standing economic issues. My viewing of these videos respectively was deeply colored by my viewing of them in succession.

I am not sure how to reconcile my reactions to these videos. It is obvious that the children in Haiti, in terms of dire circumstance, are probably in greater immediate need of assistance than the American children. Adoption is at least one way to provide that assistance. Yet, I am reminded of a sociological term- relative poverty- that, if I remember correctly, describes a way of understanding poverty in relation to the society that surrounds a person. For example, a person living on $20,000 in the United States would be relatively poor to the majority of the country, while a person living on $20,00 in Haiti may not. I believe it is safe to say that the children featured in the video from the Alabama foster home do live, to some extent, in relative poverty to the rest of their home country. I wonder if adoption would raise these children out of relative poverty.

But, my emotions are further complicated by my belief that the children in the Alabama adoption agency and the Haitian children alike are equally as deserving of basic needs fulfillment- food, water, shelter yet equally as importantly they deserve love, comfort, acceptance and stability. The children in the Alabama home clearly yearned for these needs. They wanted a home. Adoption is what they want (although I do want to be honest and state that I wonder how much of their desire for adoption is socially conditioned by the agency itself).

I doubt (although admittedly I have little fact or experience to base this doubt on) that the children in Haiti want adoption in the same way that the children in Alabama do. Not that they are not equally as deserving of a home, family and acceptance, just that these children are experiencing a notably different set of issues than are the children in Alabama. This is inherent in the fact that when referring to adoption in Haiti and I inexplicitly, but clearly, am referring to international adoption- from a undeveloped- natural-disaster torn country to one of the richest countries in the world.

I am led to wonder how fruitful a comparison between the situation in Haiti and the Alabama home truly is, yet I also see that there are some fundamental concerns in common- human rights, children's well being, the right to basic needs, the human desire for love and acceptance. As this situation progresses Americans should consider their situation at home while also remembering our fellow humans who do not live within the American borders. We should remain open to Haitian adoption when it is the best option, but we should also consider the long-term macro issues in Haiti that might not be best addressed through adoption. We should find ways to support children here who are growing up in a foster system while desiring something else.We should work to connect these children with adoptive families. We should support the humanity of all people- not just those at suffering at home and not just those affected by glaring natural disasters. Adoption, for those wanting to take children into their families, is one of the many ways to do this.

Haiti's Failed System

Today marks the two month anniversary of the Haitian Earthquake. As I was scanning across the still steady stream of articles about the situation in Haiti, I came across this article from the Wall Street Journal. The article entitled, 'Earthquake Exposes Haiti's Faulty Adoption System,' takes an interesting perspective on the issue of Haitian adoption and, more specifically, the controversy surrounding Haitian childrens' status as orphans. The article focuses on the fact that many children in Haiti, even prior to the Earthquake,  who were in orphanages were not "orphans," but children who still have live parents who cannot afford to take care of them. This issue is covered in a video that was included with the article:

This fact definitely brings up a few parallel issues to the question of Haitian adoption ranging from the correct procedures of dealing with these children with parents in orphanages to dealing with the greater issues of why these children are being placed in orphanages in the first place. 

The article's authors addressed a few of these issues in the article. First, the authors noted the fact that because many children in wake of the earthquake are possibly being labeled orphans incorrectly, international relief agencies such as UNICEF are no longer sending children to orphanages in fear that they will be adopted overseas and separated from their families. The authors did not take a definite stance on this issue, but the articles title "failure of the system" reflects their view that something in the system needs to be changed. What is not clear is whether they believe the change should come from within the current system- altering the laws and international agencies stances  to make it easier for children to be adopted to countries such as the U.S- or from somewhere else- working to develop Haiti itself so that children no longer need to be sent away to have a good life. 

The article quotes people who are both side of the question.  UNICEF's executive director, Ann Veneman, is mentioned as one who is arguing that Haiti must be weaned off adoption. Yet alongside the mention of Director Veneman is the story of Margarette Saint-Fleur, a woman who spent 15 years trying to better conditions in Haiti, but has subsequently turned toward trying to send children out of the country.  

In the midst of these issues, everyone agrees that there are children suffering from poor conditions in Haiti. There were children living in dire conditions before the earthquake and now there are thousands more. These children unarguably need immediate care and quality centers to deal with these issues are definitely in order. But, in a country so economically devastated- where orphanages have become places for children to be taken when their live parents can no longer take care of them- people are questioning whether simply building orphanages and adopting children out of the country is a truly moral solution. I am questioning along with them.  

Intellectual Venting

I want to start off by saying that this post is going to go in a notably different direction than my previous posts.  I am going wrestle with my current thoughts on talking about international large-scale issues in relation to this blog on Haitian Adoption.

Last week, I went the United Nations as a NGO representative at the 54th Conference on the Status of Women. Women from all over the world were in attendance at the CSW. They discussed issues and met together in hopes of moving women forward in their communities.  While these women and I waited together in lines (of which there were plenty) or crowded into small rooms (where we would have to crowd into corners and sit on the floor) we would talk to one another. The conversations that I had with these women, these real women- mothers, lawyers, activists- really struck me. I was at the UN, a place where representatives of countries-at-large come together to pass resolutions and hopefully progress as entire nations, yet I was talking not to countries, but to individuals. Through these conversations, at this specific place, my general and abstract ideas about "other countries" were complicated by my immediate acknowledgement of the individuals behind them. It was made immediately obvious that when discussing Kenya I am actually discussing individual people and necessarily, in my generalization, leaving some out.

I suppose this realization- that real individual people are behind typical notions of Ethiopia, China, Afghanistan and so on- is basic common sense. It is something I have always been well aware of on some level or another. Yet, this truth is a complicated truth. It is a truth that goes both ways. For while abstract ideas of countries are ultimately composed of individuals, individuals are also deeply affected by their country. Or even more pointedly, a story of an individual can often mirror the larger story of a country. It is also a truth that is easily lost in the long processes surrounding international agreements. In bodies such as the UN a few delegates are charged with the task of representing the interests of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens. It becomes easier to think of Haiti as an abstract whole, not a body of individuals.

In all, I suppose I am trying to reconcile my understanding of the individual and the country. I know that they are deeply tied, but I wonder how accurately one can describe an societal issue from an individual point of view or vice versa.  How does one discuss "Haitian Adoption" without losing sight the individual or how well can one ascertain a more encompassing truth about Haiti through a singular focus on an individual adopted from Haiti?

I think that these two views cannot be separated and I am still not sure of the implications of this connection for my life, but I  know that I do want to be more aware of these intricacies in my understanding of the world and in my writing. I want make an effort not overgeneralize my sentiments toward and descriptions of countries. I want to not draw too much out of an individual's story, but I also want to be aware of the greater picture surrounding that individual. I want to remember what I learned at the UN: that the picture isn't as simple as it seems.

A Happy Family

The Lee family (pictured above) of South Dakota has recently added three young children from Haiti to their lives. Their story appeared in this article from a local news source in Flandreau, South Dakota. The children joined the Lee family last Tuesday (Feb. 16) and, according to the article, are doing well with their new family. This adoption is one of the numerous Haitian adoptions cases that were in process prior to the earthquake and have subsequently been sped up by the disaster.

The Lee family began the adoption process for the two older children months ago and were not expecting to have the children join their family any sooner than this summer. However, in the aftermath of the earthquake the children were sent to the U.S. on refugee status and the youngest child, Mikano- whose adoption was not scheduled to occur for at least another year- unexpectedly was able to join his two older siblings, Christopher and Daniella.

The tone of  the article is uniformly light and optimistic. Scenes of the Lee children- adopted and biological, white and black- coloring together or the new adoptive father rocking his newly adopted son are described by the author. An anecdote about 8-year-old Amanda's prayers for a baby being answered by Mikano is included. And mother Sandra is lightly quoted noting the similarities between her biological children and adopted children saying "it's all typical toddler-hood", despite the fact that the children do not speak english and come from a notably different background than do her biological children. The author even quietly praises the Lee's hopes to keep the children connected with their Haitian heritage by mentioning their desired future trip to visit Haiti.

Not surprisingly, the article ends on a quasi-religious note with a section entitled "God's Call for Us." Adoptive father, Chad, speaking for the Lee family- members of the First Assembly of God church in Brookings- states that "we thought it [this adoption] was God's call for us from the very beginning." Religion is, yet again connected to the Haitian adoption situation. But, if the family is as happy as they look in this picture and are described to be in this article, this story stands as a definite beacon of hope amidst the anxiety found in the news about Haitian adoption today. 

Missionaries Freed

The final two U.S missionaries, who were being held in Haiti for further questioning regarding their attempt to transport Haitian children to the Dominican Republic, are to be released this week. This may be one of the final chapters to a story which, over the past month, has proven to be extremely convoluted. News has been leaked periodically over the weeks. The earliest news of the 10 Idahoan Baptists missionaries who travelled to Haiti to transport 33 orphans to the Dominican Republic without documentation was followed by news that at least 20 of the children were not orphans. Later, complications with the group's legal advisor  Jorge Puello revealed that he is wanted on charges of human trafficking. Information was reported about the group's leader, Laura Silsby, regarding her less than perfect financial and business history.  The story has been called a "media distraction" and has inspired such opposite reactions as both outrage and praise toward the missionaries and the Haitian authorities.

Yet, the story embodies many of the issues surrounding contemporary Haitian adoption: religiously inspired "rescue," the question of human trafficking, high-profile international legal disputes. It also begs many question: to what extent do foreigners coming to Haiti hold the right to "help" the children through adoption who do, unarguably, need some sort of assistance? The group of missionaries admitted to taking the children out of the country without proper documentation. Regardless of their intent, this is a crime. However, arguments have been made both in favor of and against this group's actions. Do their alleged "altruistic motivations" make this crime "okay?" Do laws need to change in response to such international crises as these? Or, as this case stands as a clear example, how can one's "altruistic motivations" be measured? The group came in as a group of missionaries, but became connected to a man wanted for child trafficking and was led by a woman with a less than perfect history with the law.

This story is an example of the issues at stake in Haitian adoption. It is clearly not a simple issue. However, in dealing with the issue it must be remembered that real people's lives and well-being are at stake. Officials working in Haiti are challenged to deal with these large-scale moral issues along side the micro-scale personal lives of prospective adoptive parents, agencies and, especially, Haitian orphans. Solving these issues is an inadvertently long-term task. However, in the meantime a balance must be struck between long-term solutions and helping the children who are in desperate need.

Adoption Rescuing Souls

This article from Mission Network News, a news source "dedicated to keeping Christians informed on evangelical mission activity around the world," focuses on an interesting piece of legislation proposed by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R) from Holland, Michigan known as the HOPE Act. The HOPE Act would basically make it easier for U.S citizens to adopt Haitian children who were declared as orphans prior to the earthquake by expanding the Department of Homeland Security’s humanitarian parole policy on a case-by-case basis. If passed, this legislation would not affect the Haitian imposed regulations on adoption and the process would still be lengthy and difficult.

Yet, regardless of its mention of this legislation, this article is striking in itself. Its wording sets the stage for a classic adoption rescue story; a story in which the child is saved both physically and spiritually. Adoption is praised as the solution which provides Haitian children with basic needs and, equally importantly, with a Christian outlook. It clearly supports adoption as an act of redemption. Personally, I am not convinced about the appropriateness of the missionizing goals supported in this article. I am also reminded of the controversy surrounding the group of Baptists missionaries from Idaho who were arrested (although, recently eight were released) on charges of trafficking. Yet, I also recognize that religion has been a deeply motivating factor for many people in their desire to help the people of Haiti. In all, it is clear that the Haitian earthquake is reinvigorating discussion in Christian circles about their role in the world. I hope that these discussions will lead Christians, as well as others, to realize that real rescue will require more than adoption and conversion, but long-term social investment in a country torn both by disaster and deep economic trouble.

Jolie Weighs in on Haitian Adoption

In the aftermath of the earthquake that hit Haiti over a month ago, talk of adoption is everywhere and who better to chime in on this conversation than one of the most famous adoptive parents in the world: Angelina Jolie. In a recent interview with CNN, Jolie urged that now is not the time for people wishing to help Haiti to adopt Haitian children. She cites the issues of Human Trafficking and the lack of infrastructure as complicating issues with Haitian adoption. This is sound advice in a time where the Haitian government is experiencing chaos and disorder and when the people of Haiti are without basic needs or communication technology. As a celebrity, her word definitely holds clout with a significant, yet likely very specific, portion of the population. However, I can't help but wonder why Jolie made this trip to Haiti in a time when the government and relief organizations are asking for money over volunteers. I wouldn't be surprised if a Haitian child will be added to the Jolie-Pitt family in the coming months or years.