Heart, Mind and Seoul

So If Your Child Went Missing, What Would You Do?

This story - which at the core stands an innocent 6 year-old girl who has already undergone so much trauma in her short life - is so unbelievably heartbreaking on just about every possible level.  I hurt so much for this young child - who has already been through hell - and who will undoubtedly be subjected to additional imminent pain, suffering and losses of enormous proportions and scars to last a lifetime, regardless of the final outcome.

Clearly, there are details of this story that we as a public will never be privy to and the intricate legalities, the deep corruption and the red tape in both of the represented countries adoption system's is beyond the scope of what I am able to speak to.  What I can say however is how utterly shocking - yet unfortunately not surprising - the reaction is from some of my fellow APs regarding this tragic event.

Overwhelmingly what I have read on the various adoption forums and blogs is the notion that there is NO way on God's green earth would most of these APs allow their adopted children to be permanently returned and reunited with their biological families.

Let me say that again.  There is a large contingent of APs (at least from the sampling of those who have posted to weigh in on the situation) who, if they found out that their adopted child had been kidnapped from their first family, would NOT be willing to allow their (adopted) child to return to his/her first mother and father.  Kidnapped.  As in, against their parent's will.  Abducted, as in wrongfully taken.  Kind of gives a new meaning to the phrase "Gotcha Day", huh?

Putting my snark and obvious frustration and bewilderment aside for just a moment, I do appreciate that these APs are at least asking the fundamental question "What is in the best interest of this little girl?"  Unfortunately, from my perspective, the answers that these APs are offering to that question appear only to have one party's best interest in mind, and it isn't the little girl's or her biological family's.

One AP offered to "pay for a plane ticket" so that the girl's Guatemalan mother could come and visit.  How generous, indeed!  One even said that she'd "allow for the girl's biological family to be in regular contact with the girl".  What an overwhelming gesture of kindness!  One remarked that while she is "sad for the birth mom", she "could NEVER let her daughter go" as losing her daughter "would be the worst nightmare imaginable".  Hmmm.  Irony, much?

The very same APs who declare that they would "fight tooth and nail" and "until the bitter end" to find their child if s/he went missing are in the very next breath saying that they would never allow for a parent of a kidnapped child to rightfully reclaim her son or daughter.  I'm honestly not trying to be dense or purposely combative here, but I just don't understand this line of thinking.  It sounds to me that too many APs want it both ways - they want an outcome that will benefit their own personal situation and one that would cause the least disruption, the least inconvenience and the minimal amount of pain and hardship for them.  Based on what I've read so far, many of these APs feel that they are entitled to this type of decision.  I think this is why I'm having such a visceral reaction to this story - the accompanying unapologetic sense of entitlement that permeates so much of the AP-centric adoption experience and narrative. 

I honestly believe that some of these APs are deluding themselves into thinking that their (adopted) child's well-being would be irreparably compromised if s/he was ripped away from the home that s/he's known for the past several years and remaining with them (the APs) is the only way this child could have a life worth living.  Couldn't the same be said for any child that is removed from his home, regardless of his age?  What really gets me is that nowhere outlined in the proposed "solutions" that I've read about thus far reveal any evidence that the AP would be willing to make any real sacrifice to work towards what really WOULD be in the best interest of their (adopted) child.

Why are none of these APs suggesting that they would fight tooth and nail to do whatever they could to make their child's transition to his rightful family the very best it could be?  Instead of offering a plane ticket to their child's first mother, why not uproot themselves to go live in their child's birth country and BEG, PLEAD and do whatever it takes to see if the first family would be willing to have them a part of their lives? 

Clearly, this story has struck a chord.  I have been doing some deep soul-searching about why I am so upset over the reaction by some of these APs.  (The operative word here being "some" as I know they of course do not represent all APs, including myself and my husband.) The adoptee in me says that I'm pissed off that yet again adoptees are never given a choice in what happens to us when it comes to determining "what's in our best interests".  The adoptee in me is enraged that yet again first families are relegated to being treated as after-thoughts and ancillary roles in an adoptee's life.

I'm angry because I've seen this attitude play out in too many adoptive families before: That what an AP wants forever trumps what an adoptee needs.

The Act of Giving Back: Should More Women Be Placing Their Children?

You are an adoptive parent to 3 beautiful children.  Unexpectedly, you find out that you are pregnant - something you and your partner never thought possible.  A flurry of mixed emotions overcome you.  You're not exactly old, but it's true that you are indeed older.  You immediately think of the impact it will have on your family financially, physically and emotionally.  You think about how your husband has told you time and time again how excited he is knowing that your family is complete and how free he feels to finally be out of the diaper, bottle and toddler stages.  You've already sold and given away every last piece of baby furniture you had.  But on the other hand, well, on the other hand - you have a baby inside of you.  You are pregnant with a child.  YOUR child.  Your husband's child.  You are going to give birth.  It's something you didn't think could happen to you, but it did and it's a dream come true.  Ultimately, above the intense and raw emotions that are swirling around your head, you are thrilled beyond measure and feel immensely blessed for a miracle of this magnitude to have been bestowed upon you and your family. 

After ample time to celebrate and digest this news privately, you and your partner are anxious to start spreading the word to your family.  Aside from your spouse, the person you are most excited to share the announcement with is your sister.  She is your rock, your confidant and your very best friend.  After telling her the news of your pregnancy, her eyes light up brighter than you've ever seen before.  She responds slowly and hopefully:  "Sis, I have the best idea.  Why don't you make an adoption plan for this baby?  One of my dearest friends from college has been trying to get pregnant for the past 5 years and they can't afford to try anymore.  She and her husband would make the most magnificent parents and they want a baby more than any couple I know.  You would be doing SUCH a good thing.  I mean, you already have 3 children and it's not like you were even planning on this one or trying for another kid.  You've said so many times yourself how you'd never want to go back to having an infant.  Think it over, okay?  But just remember back to all those years ago how much you wanted a child and then think of my friend and her husband.  They want what you have and you are in the position to make their dreams come true.  You'd be doing such an amazing thing, sis; you'd be doing the right thing.  I know it might be hard, but try not to think of how it would impact you, but rather what it could do for them.  I mean they really, really, REALLY want a baby, sis.  You have the power to change this couple's life forever and to give this child to parents who would love it just as much as you would.  Heck - they might even love it more!!  It's such an incredible opportunity for all of you, don't you think?  Just promise me you'll think about it, okay?  It really is an amazing thing that you can do - for yourself, for them and for your baby."

After much thought, prayer and careful consideration, you and your husband decide that yes, it is mutually beneficial to both your baby and your sister's friends to be a family together.  You know this baby will never lack for love or anything else and you tell yourself that this couple deserves a chance at parenthood, just like you had.  You've made your decision and you're convinced that you're doing the very best thing for everyone involved.

* * * *

I'd be willing to bet that most adoptees - at one point in time throughout their lives -  have heard something to the effect of "Your birth mom was such a brave and selfless woman to give you up for a better life. . .to think that she loved you so much that she gave you away. . .there truly cannot be a more selfless and powerful act of love than to do what your biological mother did for you."

Hmmmmm.  O-kaaay.  So, if my Korean mother was brave and selfless and demonstrated the epitome of love for giving me up, why wouldn't we encourage and support our own sisters and friends to do the same with their own children?  Why wouldn't we do it ourselves if we could?  Who wouldn't want to be known as one who committed the most altruistic of acts, one who put others' needs before her own, one who made the ultimate of sacrifices?  These women are known as amazing, heroic and responsible for literally giving other women God's greatest blessings - children.  So why aren't more of us doing the same and paying it forward?  We'd be doing good for others and as well as for our kids.  We Americans are always trying to keep up with those elusive Jones' who seem to have so much more than we do.  Surely there are countless families who could offer our kids a far "better" life than we ever could.  Think of what we're depriving our kids from.  Keeping our children to ourselves when they could clearly have so much more seems rather selfish, doesn't it?

Somehow, I think that most people reading this blog - if they found themselves with an unexpected and even unwanted pregnancy - would not at all appreciate the suggestion from someone else that they should place their child. But what about the chance to be noble?  To do the right thing?  To fulfill the dreams and hopes of another couple by giving them a family that they cannot have on their own?  What is preventing us from doing the one thing that we ask first mothers to do before we swiftly send them off into the sunset all whilst lauding their brave and selfless acts?

And really, when it comes right down to it, isn't the above scenario amongst the best of circumstances in which a woman makes a decision to place a child?  When a woman and her partner have the time, resources and support to make an informed decision?  When a woman actually has a chance to assert her voice and can honestly feel and know in her heart that she was the one who made that choice of her own free will? 

So why do so many people casually accept (and perhaps even secretly celebrate) it as fate, good karma, a higher power at force, destiny, luck, etc. when a woman who is without a true, just selection of choice or is told that the only real choice she has is to place her child, and believe this to be perfectly acceptable so long as it benefits our agenda?  Our plans.  Our lifelong hopes and childhood dreams.  Why is okay for other women to find themselves in a position to have to make arguably the most God-awful and heart-wrenching, hellish choice or worse - to find themselves WITHOUT choice - when it suits us or those we love?  And why aren't more of us or more of those we love willing to make the same kinds of sacrifices that we expect, assume, hope and accept that other women will do?

Please let me be clear. I am not trying to make adoptive parents feel guilty, ashamed or regret over their decision to adopt.  I myself, along with my husband, made the very conscious and intentional decision to adopt our son and I know that we personally did not cause or create the circumstances behind our son's relinquishment.  However, that being said, I absolutely accept responsibility for my role in the collective mindset that this society too often has about portraying first moms in the image that we want them to be, so long that it suits the needs of those who feel that they deserve to be parents, too.  People might not come out directly and say, "Thank God there are women out there who cannot parent their own kids, because without that, I'd never be a mom", but instead we might hear a more policially correct spin ala "I know that the world is an imperfect place.  But it is what it is.  Should we just let these poor kids starve and die in orphanages?   They need a family and we want a child.  Adoption is the very best solution for everyone." 

And so while we may not exactly be rejoicing in the fact that children are available for adoption, we're certainly not doing anything to prevent it from happening here or in other countries; well, at least not until we're able to adopt ourselves.

Maybe at the heart of the issue is the belief amongst many that as long as we love adopted kids "as our own" and promise to do our very best by them and to give them the world and have them not want for anything, that it's somehow okay to keep averting our eyes away from the cultural, socio-economic, political, societal and religious reasons that we cite to help justify to ourselves why it's "unavoidable" that women are continuously forced or asked to give up their children.  

We'd never dream of asking our neighbor, our best friend or a colleague to give us their baby, but think nothing of it to ask a distant, faceless woman to give us hers. It feels wrong to say that we'd never dream to make that kind of sacrifice for someone else but that we're oh so grateful that someone else could do it for us.

Yes, it's absolutely an imperfect world.  But adoption isn't the perfect answer - even if we believe it is our perfect answer.

Material Girl is Denied Lucky Star Treatment

"This is a triumph for the children of Malawi," said Mavuto Bamusi, the national coordinator of Malawi Human Rights Consultative Committee.

"Inter-country adoption is not the best way of providing protection to children ... they should grow up in familiar cultural and religious surroundings," Bamusi said, adding that "supporting children from outside our country only helps five of the 1.5 million orphans we have."

Read the full article here:

                                                                     *     *     *     *     *

I realize that this ruling is going to infuriate a huge number of people, namely adoptive parents and/or prospective adoptive parents.  I've already read through various comments about this story in different media outlets and the themes are oh-so familiar:  Why deprive this child from all of the opportunities she'd never get in her home country?  This rule (the residency requirement) is absurd.  All this judge is doing is hurting these kids' chances of having a real family.  What's the big deal anyway about having to leave your country of birth? 

My thoughts?  Why can't - or more importantly - why won't Madge fulfill the residency requirement?  I don't exactly believe it's because of a lack of funds or resources.  And wouldn't it be an incredible opportunity for her son David to emotionally and physically reconnect to his biological father and birth country in a way that no phone call, book, picture or video could ever could begin to provide? 

I suspect it's because it's too much of a burden, too much of an inconvenience to her lifestyle.  Of course I cannot say this as fact and unless M. herself chooses to reveal the real reason for not fulfilling the residency requirement, we'll never know the full truth. 

All I'm saying is that this situation (on the surface and from the details that have been given to the public thus far) appears to be yet another example in a long line of instances where the PAP chooses to put his/her own best interests ahead of the child's.  Why should the onus always land squarely on the child to be the one to adjust, uproot and incur the trauma of a sudden movement away from everything s/he has ever known, simply because it just doesn't fit nicely into the PAP's plans of how they think things should work out?

My husband and I are not above this criticism either.  Truth be told, my husband initially had reservations about traveling.  Our agency offered both a travel and an escort option and my husband was very seriously considering the latter.  After much discussion between the two of us, we both were of the same mind that traveling was really the only option, not because it would be a fun, cool trip and a chance for us to travel, but because at the end of the day, it was what we believed to be the absolute best for our son. 

When we ended up traveling, we stayed only a week in Seoul.  Part of me likes to think that if we were able to have physical custody of our son for an extended period of time before leaving the country, that we would have stayed in Korea longer to aid with his transition.  But I can tell you this, if Korea's rules had explicitly stated that we needed to live in the country for a specific amount of time before or after receiving our son and we could not do it - we certainly would not have asked for preferential treatment or special exceptions to be made simply because we couldn't  - or didn't want to - do it. 

Think about it.  When I was pregnant with our daughter, I spent several weeks on strict bed rest before her delivery.  Per doctor's orders, my bathroom breaks and shower combined could not exceed 45 minutes a day.   My doctor said that if I didn't think I could abide by this, that I'd be spending the next several weeks in a hospital bed.  So strict bed rest at home it was.  Yes, I lost out on that income from not being able to work.  Yes, it put additional duties and stress on my husband and our extended family to help me with the things I could no longer do.  Yes, it was a huge adjustment.  But you know what?  I did it because it was what was best for our daughter.  There wasn't even a choice in the matter.

And yet it when it comes to the overall welfare of an adopted child, the standards for "what is best" too often becomes, "what is good enough".  And too many times, the actions of APs/PAPs becomes justified by what this child is "getting in return".

How many times have we heard "Adopted children deserve to be treated just as well as bio children?"

If parents really mean it when they say, "I would do anything for my child", then hopefully this applies to adopted children as well. 

No. . .They Can't

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=6195270

I have so much more to say about this, but need some additional time to gather, process and articulate my related thoughts in a rational and coherent manner. 

Until then, I'm pondering a couple of questions:

Now that Arkansas has passed a ban prohibiting single people from fostering or adopting children, can one deduce that it will only be a matter of time that a heterosexual-parent couple who decides to get divorced will be in danger of losing their children to the state?  Or how about a married person who loses his or her spouse because of death?  Will that newlyfound single parent suddenly be found incapable, unfit and a poor alternative for their child(ren) simply because the child(ren) are no longer being parented by two people who happen to be married?

Don't be ridiculous, you say?  Hmmmmm.  Those are my thoughts exactly about this and the other discriminatory and unjust bans that passed Tuesday in this great country of ours.

Juno the Movie: The Messages I Took Away

**This probably goes without saying, but please be forewarned that there are plot spoilers contained in this post.**

Okay, I finally saw the movie earlier this week.  And yes, in many ways, I felt it was as artistically well done as many people have claimed it to be; snappy, quick-witted and auditorily appealing dialogue (save a couple of offensive scenes that included or referred to Asians), a cool soundtrack and plenty of references to both uber-hip and classic bands, songs and musical artists.  Yes, Ellen Page (who plays Juno) is extremely talented. . .yes, the rest of the ensemble seemed well cast for their respective parts. . .yes, I can see why this movie has become so popular and has been so well received by so many people.

THAT being said. . . I couldn't help but wonder as I left the theater:  Would people still be raving about this film if Juno had decided to parent her child?  Somehow, I think not.

I suppose part of it is that many people love an ending that feels just.  An ending that evokes "closure" (for the record, I am not a fan of that word, but am employing it here in a movie "let's get things resolved and wrapped up before the credits start to roll" kind of context).  An ending that affirms one's own perceptions of how the laws of human nature ought to operate and exist.  And so I can understand why so many people would find it particularly pleasing, comforting and even validating to see that Juno did the "right thing" by placing her baby with Vanessa Loring (the potential adoptive mother played by Jennifer Garner).  Because like so many other depictions of potential, pending and completed adoptions in our media, the adoptive parent is once again portrayed as more worthy and more deserving to be the mother of a child than the child's mother herself. 

I know of several people who saw themselves reflected in the role of Vanessa Loring.  The woman who wanted to become a mother so desperately, who felt called to become a mother but who could not because biology would not comply.  So for the movie to have offered an ending that denies Vanessa the opportunity to fulfill a life long dream especially after a previous failed adoption, well, that would have just been too heartbreaking, too depressing and too outrageous for many to even imagine. 

As one person told me after seeing this movie, "It's pretty much a no-brainer.  Vanessa clearly deserved to get the baby.  I mean, look at everything she had already gone through.  Besides, she wanted the baby so much more than Juno did.  I for one was happy that she could finally become a mother."

So want and desire, coupled with previous loss, translates into one person becoming more deserving of having a child over another?

Please, let me be clear.  I am not suggesting or asserting that prospective adoptive parents aren't fully capable or worthy of becoming parents.  What I'm challenging are the messages that I took away from this movie that I believe permeates much of the adoption rhetoric and discourse in our society:  That somehow, a young, unwed woman who did not plan to become pregnant is not nearly as deserving to be a mother as a prospective adoptive parent who has endured pain, loss and heartache in his/her deliberate attempts to have a child.  And the other message which I felt this movie emphasized to an extreme degree: that material wealth somehow factors into the equation and tips the scales into what others believe constitutes being a "better" parent and ultimately leading to a "better" life for the child.

What I was hoping this movie would include was at least one honest conversation that addressed the possibility of Juno parenting her child, especially given the relationship depicted between Juno and her father.  Or at least one honest acknowledgment of the serious, lifelong impact that the relinquishment of her child could potentially have on her life.  But instead, it seemed to feed into the belief that a young, unwed woman has only but two options to choose from when she finds herself unexpectedly with child: abortion or adoption.  Why is parenting one's own child never presented as a realistic, viable option for young women, in the movies, or seemingly even in real life?

Please don't misunderstand.  I'm not at all saying that becoming a parent at the age of 16 is anything to be encouraged or glorified.  I'm not saying that becoming a parent at the age of 16, 18 or even 20 would not be without great challenges.  Yes, I know about the statistics.  But I also know there are families out there who could raise a child who was not necessarily planned for, or at the very least, would give it serious consideration instead of automatically assuming that adoption is thee best option for everyone involved.

I guess what I couldn't help but think throughout this movie was what if I had been a slightly older version of Juno?  18, 21 or even 27?  Unmarried and unexpectedly pregnant?  Or if our daughter found herself in a similar position as Juno one day.  Why do I get the feeling that most people believe that the only acceptable and honorable thing to do in that position - regardless of outside factors and extenuating factors that may in fact support the woman - is to place the child?   Perhaps because after all, if one is so irresponsible to get pregnant before marriage, what case could she possibly make to be a good parent to her child?  And besides, there are so many couples who cannot have children biologically.  How could a woman dare to be so selfish to deprive them of making all of their hopes and dreams a reality by not giving them her child?  She doesn't deserve to be a parent nearly as much as they do; I mean, she wasn't even trying to get pregnant. 

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that line of reasoning.

To be fair, I did not get any real sense that parenting her child was an option that Juno was even considering.  But I think it's important to ask why this is.  Yes, we can make the argument that a teenage girl's life would be forever impacted by choosing to keep and raise a child.  But I believe just as strong of an argument can be made that her life, and the life of her child, is forever impacted (and not just in the positive ways most people believe) should she choose to place her child for adoption.

And let's say that Juno had given serious thought or at the very least, even wondered what it had been like to parent her child?  How easy do you think this would have been knowing that Vanessa had already started to pin her hopes and dreams on Juno and Juno alone, asking questions like (which Vanessa's character does ask) "Just how sure do you think you are that you're going to do this?  Would you say you're 80% sure?  Or 90% sure?"  Others may have a different interpretation of that entire scene when Juno and her father first meet the Lorings and their attorney, but to me, it was coercive and highly unethical.  It felt exploitative and unjust, despite the fact that the words were coming from a woman who looked like Vanessa, with her soulful and beautiful eyes, her dimpled, sweet as apple-pie smile and her blatantly obvious longing to have a child.

Clearly, there will always exist situations where a woman, of any age, chooses to place her baby and feels that it was truly the right decision for her and her child.  And yes, of course there will always be circumstances when it's less than ideal and even dangerous for a woman (and her baby) to parent her child (I'm thinking substance abuse situations here).  However, I didn't get that feeling from this movie.  I felt the story line all but fast-forwarded over the trauma a person experiences when relinquishing her child.  Yes, Juno gets somewhat emotional at the end, but practically in the very next scene you see her hop on her bike en route to singing a catchy tune with her boyfriend.  I felt this movie sent a strong message that in the end, the baby went to the "better" parent, the more worthy and deserving parent, the right parent and to the parent whom the child was meant to go to all along.  And as an adoptive parent myself, I take issue with that.  Because contrary to what people have told me about our own son, I do not believe myself to be better, more deserving, more worthy parent of our son or the parent who he was born to be with.  And it's movies like this, that even in the subtlest of displays, perpetuate the notion that in the end, placing one's child for adoption is always, always the right thing and the very best thing to do for every party involved.

I was raised with the very strong belief that when making a decision in one's life, a person benefits most when she is made aware of all of the options available to her.  For once, in matters concerning how adoption is portrayed in the media, it'd be refreshing to see that when a woman is faced with an unexpected pregnancy, raising her own child is in fact an option she is entitled to, worthy of and deserving to consider and exercise.

As A Child of Korea

Growing up, my family did not engage in any serious, contemplative discussions about the ethical and moral facets or ramifications of adoption.  As a child, my understanding of my own adoption process was seen as a linear one; adoption was an orderly, tangible series of events that was contained between the two bookends of a starting point (my parents making the decision to adopt) and a clear definitive end result (my parents receiving a child).  As a young girl, my explanation of the process went something along the lines like this:

"My mom and dad couldn't have any children by themselves.  My parents really wanted a baby and they knew that there were babies in Korea whose mommy's and daddy's couldn't keep them.  So they went to an adoption agency and spoke to a nice lady there who said she could help give them a child.  They had to fill out a lot of paperwork, pay some money and a few months later, I came from Korea to be their daughter and now we are a family."

And honestly, I don't think that my oversimplified, child-like interpretation from thirty-some years ago is all that radically different than how many adults in the general society view the adoption process, or the act of adoption, today. 

As a child, I understood adoption to be a very logical sequence of events that culminated into a very natural result.  Parents wanted a child.   A child needed a family.  Good people helped to make this happen and families were created.  Growing up, adoption to me meant that I ended up with a family who loves and adores me and that through adoption I have parents and brothers who I love and cherish beyond words.  What could possibly be unethical or immoral about that?   My parents are hard-working, honest people with a strong moral compass.  Through adoption, we became a family.  Who could possibly find the harm or the negative in that?

And so growing up, though my parents and I engaged in many other important conversations pertinent to transracial adoption, we never had any discussion about how my adoption - or the adoption of the hundreds of South Korean babies that were adopted out the same year I was - ultimately affected, and continues to affect, the country of my birth.

When my husband and I started the adoption process, I must admit - and I say this with a great degree of both shame and embarrassment - that I still had possessed such a limited understanding and incredibly myopic view of just how vast the collective social, economic, moral and ethical implications of international adoption has affected and forever impacted the country of my birth.

During the wait for our son, my thoughts were almost certainly occupied with how the process, how the system, how the bigger picture of adopting a child was ultimately going to affect me.  I still held a very idealistic and narrow-minded view of what adoption meant and this no doubt severely impeded my ability to critically examine just what my role as a prospective adoptive parent meant in perhaps perpetuating the widely held belief here in the States that it is a perfectly normal, perfectly natural and a perfectly loving act for my birth country to be sending thousands of their children abroad as they have for the past several decades.

It didn't occur to me to take a step back and ask, why after thirty-some years after my own adoption took place, are there still so many Korean children who are placed for adoption overseas? 

It didn't occur to me to step outside of myself and ask, how am I, as a prospective adoptive parent, contributing to the notion that we Americans somehow feel entitled to raising the children of a country who has been economically stable long enough to be able to sufficiently take care of their own?

Morally and ethically, I know I have fallen short to address these questions before now.  And I know many might say, "Easy for you to criticize, judge and question the practices of adoption now that you have your child home" and to a certain degree, they would be justified in saying that.  But with all due respect to my own parents and other adoptive parents who might feel the same way as they do, I don't want my thinking about the ethical and moral practices and consequences about adoption to cease simply because our child is now with us and to pretend that there aren't still very real moral and ethical issues surrounding adoption that need to be addressed in the country of my and our son's birth. 

There have been several necessary and critical conversations in the adoption blogosphere lately about ethics and adoption by several people including, Jae Ran, Suz, Nicole, Margie and Claud - women whose blogs I follow regularly - and who were present at the recent Adoption Ethics and Accountability Conference.  I'm late to the conversation, I know, and without making any excuses, the main reason behind my blogging absence the past couple of weeks has been because I've struggled to process, deconstruct and articulate my thoughts about my own personal accountability regarding ethics and morality (which I know is a completely different ball of wax, but it's been on my mind greatly) in adoption.

Many people, upon finding out that I, a Korean adoptee, am now a parent of a Korean adoptee, share what a wonderful, special and unique occurrence they believe this is.  And without diminishing or negating anything from the incredible, life-changing experience of being able to be part of our amazing son's life, there is another way to look at this.  Is it necessarily appropriate to be celebrating the fact that a country has been adopting out their children long enough for there to be two generations of adoptees in one nuclear family unit?

I realize there are people who have earned their advanced degrees by studying and examining the history of inter-country adoption, and the direct moral, social, ethical and economic implications that adoption has had on countries like Korea.  I know there are people far more educated and well-read than I about examining and presenting these issues in a much more cohesive and coherent manner than what is evidenced in this particular entry.  I know this specific post blurs the line between the personal and the political realities that exist. And I recognize that the questions that whirl around my head are far more complicated, far more complex than even I probably realize, ones with no easy answers. 

Questions like:

• Can the act of adoption ever exist without some sense of entitlement on the part of the agencies and prospective adoptive parents?  What emotional and psychological price is exacted because of that sense of entitlement by others?

• What part has my individual sense of entitlement played in the collective whole of what some may argue has been effectively enabling and even encouraging a country to continue sending their children abroad for over 50 years?

• What is my personal responsibility - both as a Korean-born individual as well as an adoptive parent - to help promote family preservation in Korea?

• Why is it considered immoral and un-Christianlike to covet another's spouse, home or lifestyle, but perfectly acceptable to covet and even feel entitled to having another woman's child?

As a child of Korea, I can't help but think of the enormous toll that five decades of adoption has taken on my birth country, and to the tens of thousands of first families who have lost their sons and daughters, their brothers and sisters and their grandchildren.  I think of how pervasive the attitude seems to be in this country that Americans deserve to adopt from other countries, and how it continues to be glorified only as a "wonderful, loving, selfless act of love".

Personally, it's been a difficult and sobering experience to try and reconcile and explain to myself - and to others - that thinking about these kinds of issues does not in any way take from the love, gratitude and appreciation that I have for my family, including my adoptive parents and our son who happens to be adopted.  I think sometimes when people (especially many adoptive or prospective adoptive parents) hear someone critically examining the process or the consequences of adoption, they are all too quick to personalize it and instead hear the questioning only as an interrogation and personal attack upon their decision to adopt. 

To me, thinking about these questions and further delving into these incredibly difficult issues about the moral and ethical consequences about Korean adoption isn't about needing to justify the love I have for our son or my worthiness to be his parent.  It isn't about going on the defense and saying, "Well, if I didn't adopt him, someone else would have, so why shouldn't I be able to do the same?  It's not like things are going to change overnight.  I'm just a person who wants a child and who can offer them love and a good home.  What's so bad about that?"

For me, it's about looking at the bigger picture, something that I had failed to do for so many years.  It's about asking the tough questions and holding myself accountable for past and future actions that I feel I owe to myself, our son and the country of our birth. 

Who Decides It's Better?

First of all, I just wanted to extend a very sincere thank you for the incredibly kind and thoughtful birthday wishes, including the comments posted here on my blog, the personal emails, cards and phone calls - I appreciated them all very much. 

I won't lie; this was by far the most difficult birthday I've had in terms of really grieving what it is I feel I have lost as an adopted person.  I think one of the reasons for the significant impact of feeling so overwhelmed with loss and grief this year was because until recently I had not allowed myself to cognitively acknowledge or admit that my being adopted did signify a tremendous loss.  Not a loss caused by my adoptive parents, but a loss that is inherent in being adopted.  Adoption agencies, society and our media don't proudly proclaim "Adoption:  Dismantling Families One Child At a Time".  The emphasis and focus of adoption is almost always predicated upon the gains in adoption and never the losses.  Is it any wonder why so many adoptees, myself included, feel as if they're committing an illegal and highly unnatural act when taking that first honest and critical look into their own losses in adoption?

One of the recurring themes I come across in various adoption related blogs, articles, forums and stories is the assertion that the adopted child often was placed, given up, abandoned or relinquished in hopes that he or she might "have a better life".  Greater opportunities.  Increased chances of living a more productive and happier life than if he or she would have stayed with his or her parents.  Even as a young child, I understood why a parent living in conditions of extreme poverty, famine, sickness, war or other dire circumstances would feel that their child might have a safer or easier life without such imminent or pervasive threats to their existence.  But better?  "Better" I had a more difficult time accepting.  Better by whose standards?

When I hear or read people say that adoption is about giving children a better life than they would have otherwise had, often times the underlying claim really being made is that there is a higher worth, more desirable benefit to the child by means of tangible, material goods and opportunities that wealth can afford compared to what family preservation can offer if under bleak circumstances.  But who is to decide what constitutes a "better life"? 

Perhaps my own parents in Korea literally could not afford to feed or clothe me, or offer me shelter.  Perhaps they dreamt for me a childhood of a four-bedroom home on an acre of land with a view of the city skyline, private piano lessons, a swimming pool, traveling, sports camps, seasonal wardrobes, my own car and a full financial ride to college - all of which was granted to me.  All of these things which people on the outside saw and used as criteria to tell me how lucky I was and how grateful I ought to be.  But if people were to ask what I am truly grateful for, it would have nothing to do with anything that money could buy but rather the people and relationships in my life - my parents, my husband and our children, and other family members- their love, support and our family's health; my treasured and cherished friendships, my faith and each additional day I am granted in this life of mine.

But these blessings did not come without its price.  Mostly in adoption, people just see the gains.  But they forget or chose not to see all that I had to lose first, most importantly my mother and my father, and all of the consequences that occur when a child loses and is permanently separated from her parents. Somehow though, this fact, when placed in the context of adoption, does not carry the same weight as if a (non-adopted) friend were to tell you at this moment that she, too, has lost both of her parents.  Mostly in adoption, people just see the gains. 

And so I wonder.  I do not judge or criticize, but I do wonder.  Did my parents in Korea feel that their inability to offer me the "extras" made them inferior or unworthy as parents compared to what they believed a couple in America could provide?  Was their rightful claim to parent me stripped from them because of circumstances beyond their control, therefore rendering them helpless without any real choice or voice at all?  And most of all, why aren't both my birth country and my adopted country doing more to help keep mothers and fathers with their babies?  Shouldn't that be the goal: to keep families together whenever possible?

And now as an adoptive parent, I struggle to reconcile my own failures and inadequacies to question and critically examine why my and our son's birth country are still placing their children for adoption after all these years.  And why, in my adopted country, which professes to be so concerned about family values, are we not doing more to preserve natural families here domestically and abroad?  Why aren't we helping to provide families with the necessary resources to feel as if they are able to keep their families in tact, regardless of what material goods or opportunities they can or cannot offer?  Barring death, abuse or neglect, isn't a "better life" one that keeps a mother and her baby together? 

Why do the gains in adoption continue to overshadow and all but obliterate the losses incurred?  The losses of adoptees.  The losses of first mothers and first fathers.  The losses felt and mourned by entire countries. 

And the loss of oneself. 

Blogger Blitz: Bring Baby Evelyn Home

Blogger Blitz Called to Bring Baby Evelyn Home
By OriginsUSA
Dated: 2007-04-12 08:54:20

As court battle for Baby Evelyn trudges on, new details of case are revealed. OriginsUSA calls for adoption community bloggers to help.

Richmond, VA April 12, 2007 - OriginsUSA, Inc. is organizing a Blogger Blitz for Monday, April 16, 2007, to increase media and public awareness of the coercion used to obtain the surrender and removal of five month old Evelyn Bennett from her seventeen year old mother, Stephanie Bennett, on September 12, 2006, in Canton , Ohio.

Traditional media, with the exception of Rick Armon of the Akron Beacon Journal, have largely ignored this story. As outlined by Mr. Armon in the original story on December 31, 2006, the Bennett case has many unanswered questions. Despite the lack of media coverage, the interest of the online community has not diminished and has been kept alive for months via blog articles, adoption forums and online chats.

Kicking off the Blogger Blitz will be a live stream, online, radio interview with Judy Bennett, Stephanie’s mother and grandmother to baby Evelyn. “The Adoption Show,” http://www.theadoptionshow.com/ with Michelle Edmunds, will air on Sunday, April 15, 2007, and will be available online thereafter. The interview will break the codes of silence and gag orders imposed upon the family, while showing that this story is more tragic than even previously known.

A factual time line will be available to bloggers, along with further, as yet unrevealed, details. Links to this information and a list of participating bloggers will be available on the OriginsUSA website at www.originsusa.org . The online adoption community, other mothers who have been forced to surrender, adult adopted persons, and people who have adopted will have the opportunity to react to the new information. They then can respond as to why this case is important not just to people involved in adoption, but to all who care about truth and justice.

It is hoped that attention generated by bloggers will inspire renewed interest from mainstream media and cause widespread support for the Bennett family. To date, the Bennetts remain separated from their daughter and granddaughter and are fighting in court for the return of baby Evelyn. Sandy Young of OriginsUSA, who has been working with the Bennett family said, “Wrongly ignoring cases like the Bennett’s, and the many other stories of forced adoption that still occur in America as accepted adoption practice, allow these abuses to continue. OriginsUSA fights for justice and the preservation of natural families.”

If you are interested in being part of the Blogger Blitz or would like more information about how to help the Bennetts, please contact BOD@originsusa.org