(Yeah I know, long time no blogging. I’ve had good reasons.)

*

Just a real quick post tonight urging readers to head on over and read Bastardette’s James Dobson Cries Me a River.

She’s done a great job of picking apart some of the intentional conflations. Healthy White Infants (HWIs) being lumped in linguistically with with foster kids for example.

Of course the myth being proffered of ‘access to abortion as driving down adoption rates’ is just that, a myth.

Though in a country wherein every time a womyn exercises her reproductive autonomy; whether that be to refuse to bear or to self parent, should we be the least bit surprised to then hear institutions advocating on behalf of prospective adoptive parents (PAPs) decrying womyn for not breeding on behalf of their constituency? Thus we come to the labeling of womyn exercising their reproductive autonomy a “sad situation.”

The idea of womyn being nothing more than there to provide “womb services” for the infertile objectifies womyn and reduces them to nothing more than their reproductive capacity, a capacity others wish to tap for their own ends.

Infertile couples are not entitled to other’s children. Womyn must not required to breed children for the infertile. Legislation designed to force womyn down those lines should be decried and opposed by those who support individual autonomy.

Both the Dobson empire and NCFA are no friend to womyn’s genuine autonomy. (The sooner various “pro-choice” organizations get that through their heads the better.)

The other crucial piece of course is that both NCFA and Dobson’s empire are not merely speaking of adoption for PAP’s sakes. They are also speaking of adoption as a tactic of movement growth, beyond any given couple or individual. Both view adoption in eugenic terms, ‘fit’ PAPs and ‘unfit’ PAPs, with the primary dividing line being tribal; based around a statement of faith & visibly heterosexual and church sanctioned married lifestyle.

All of which resides in the realm of the demand driven adoption. This is about the demands of infertile couples and the social movement many of them are a part of which is currently looking to and utilizing adoption as a means of movement growth.

Lost in such are the autonomy, the genuine needs, and the desires of womyn and Bastards, of any age.

If womyn are objectified down to their reproductive capacity for others’ uses, Bastards are likewise objectified, both to merchandise to be bought and sold only to ‘fit’ PAPs, and tallied as but another notch on the evangelists’ bedposts.

The verdict in the Miles Harrison trial has been handed down since this article was originally written. Please see my later post entitled No, no justice for Dmitry for more up to date information concerning the verdict. The article below appears as it was originally posted.

***

Перевести на русский
***

This post is an update to an ongoing series of posts I have made about the death of Dmitry Yakolev/Chase Harrison and the agency that placed him, European Adoption Consultants (EAC). EAC is one of the largest international adoption agencies in the world and the top agency in Russia and Guatemala.

Russian law requires officials be kept up to date by the placing agencies of the disposition of the children placed through them with regular updates for the first three years. In the aftermath of Dmitry’s death, the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science opened an investigation into EAC for their apparent failure to report his death immediately.

Dmitry is the the second Russian child EAC had placed who died apparently as a result of actions by their adopters. Logan Higgenbotham was killed by her adoptive mother in 1988. You can read my previous posts about Dmitry and EAC by clicking here (read from bottom to top, as entries are in reverse chronological order.)

***

Yesterday EAC added the following announcement to their webpage:

August 6th, 2008

EAC is proud to announce that we have received confirmation from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation that our accreditation will remain intact and valid. Our staff is honored to be allowed to assist you in completing your forever family.

Their text box about Dmitry and the situation has also changed since it was originally posted, it now reads:

To our EAC Families and Friends

It is with deep regret that we acknowledge the unfortunate loss of one of our own. Chase (Dmitry) Harrison, adopted from Russia 03/2008. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family in this time of sorrow.

Originally, it had read:

To our EAC Families and Friends

It is with deep regret that we acknowledge the unfortunate loss of one of our own. Chase (Dmitry) Harrison, adopted from Russia 03/2008, died on July 8th. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family in this time of sorrow.

We are currently assessing the situation and continuing to work with the Russian Federation on this matter.

As additional information becomes available we will keep you apprised.

I commented upon the original content in my blog post, Dmitry Yakolev/Chase Harrison and European Adoption Consultants, late week update saying at the time:

I find this a rather stunning statement in light of the circumstances.

It makes no mention of how Dmitry died, nor that his death apparently occurred as a result of actions taken by his foster father, Miles H. Harrison, (I’m still looking for confirmation, but it appears the adoption itself was still been in process.) His foster father is currently facing charges of manslaughter for his role in Dmitry’s death.

The EAC statement makes it appear Dmitry simply up and died, when it’s relatively clear (we are still awaiting final autopsy results), that Dmitry died as a result of the actions of a man who had apparently gone through EAC’s approval process to adopt him. This is not merely a case of Dmitry being one of EAC’s “own”, Miles Harrison was also apparently one of EAC’s own.

The statement also says nothing about, nor even acknowledges that there may be an investigation into EAC for having apparently broken Russian law requiring Russian authorities be notified of Dmitry’s death in a timely fashion. (News of his death reached Russian authorities days after the fact. The officials at the Russian Embassy learned via the media.)

Nor is there any mention of EAC’s current status in regard to whether or not they are still accredited to do Russian adoptions.

I have been unable to find any further confirmation of EAC’s claim that they will be maintaining their accreditation through news sources, any statement from the Ministry of Education and Science, or any source other than the agency’s own webpage announcement.

The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation’s english version website sheds no light on the matter.

To date I have no sources stating the Ministry’s investigation into EAC has concluded.

So for what it’s worth, we have EAC’s say so, nothing else.

Finally, I also want to point readers towards Bastardette, as she blogged this before I had the chance, see her piece, Moo! European Adoption Consultants stays in Russia.

This post relates to events and personalities surrounding the Adoptee Rights Demonstration held in New Orleans last month. I’ve written extensively about the ARD, readers unfamilar with such can visit my adoptee rights demonstration tag. (As posts are in reverse chronological order, just read 3rd page to 1rst to get the full background.)

Specifically, this post deals with comments made by an ARD organizer in the aftermath of the event.

***

Gershom’s over on Adopted Jane’s blog rewriting history.

Gerhom’s comment is on Jane’s own blog post about her being banned from the adult adoptees forum as well. I am not going to muck up Jane’s blog with this crap, so I’ll be pointing folks here to this response.

I suppose it’s time to pull out the data, let people read it for themselves, and make up their own minds.

Let’s address some of Gershom’s accusations first:

As an ORIGINAL organizer, BLC hasn’t done anything BUT cry about it and me since I was in New Orleans, and have returned from New Orleans.

Well let’s see, the Adoptee Rights Demonstration (ARD) in New Orleans was held July 22nd.

Anyone looking at my blog can see I did a piece on the 21st, Adoptee Rights Demonstration / Day for Adoptee Rights some history and Gershom’s “storm”. In it, I discussed some background history of the terminology and the event. I also wrote a political criticism of some of the language Gershom was using in the lead up to the event.

IF media decided to do any kind of piece on the event in New Orleans scheduled for the next day, or if other bystanders or even participants were interested, I felt it was important to make some background history available. It was also important to point out that no (inter) national open records or adoptee rights organization had endorsed nor sponsored the event taking place in NOLA.

I also felt it was important that people understand that what had originally been called for was a mass event, not what would come to be 60 (or fewer) people. It was important to judge the ‘success’ of the event against the call that had gone out for the event.

On the 22nd itself, after the march and protest portions of the ARD had taken place, I restored posts I had previously written prior to my resignation from the ARD calling for participation in the ARD. See ARD- Baby Love Child earlier ARD posts, history restoration.

On the 23rd, at the urging of my readers, who were searching for information on what happened in New Orleans and finding mere crumbs, I wrote ARD- Morning after media coverage , Afternoon Photo UPDATE. ARD organizers had not put anything out and people we genuinely wondering whether or not the event had even taken place.

On the 24th, I pointed my readers at the ARD page update, (so that they could get it ‘straight from the horses….’ well, whereever,) Adoptee Rights Demonstration updates their page, now that it’s mostly over so they could read Gershom’s (and others’) perspectives as well. I didn’t have to agree with their perspective, but I thought it important that my readers read about it from multiple angles and get information directly from those who put it on rather than only second hand sources. Again, I trust my readers to be intelligent enough to make up their own minds about these things.

On the 25th, after the personal attack thread aimed at me on adult adoptees by ARD related individuals, including Gershom, I removed my writings from their ‘support’ based board, and posted a brief note to my own blog about what happened to the writings before anyone assumed adult adoptees board administrators had done anything to them. See ARD related – my ‘Adult’ Adoptees posts are no longer available. I only wrote about such on my own blog. The last post I had made to adult adoptees was June 1rst.

I removed my posts from the adult adoptees forum for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being, it was clearly open season on me personally over there. For a ‘support’ forum, it was hardly a welcoming, let alone supportive space. I wanted to protect my own work that I had once posted over there, and did not want board administrators, such as Joy who were clearly acting in an antagonistic manner towards me to have an opportunity to in any way delete, alter, or lock down any more of my posts on the forum. I did however, maintain my account there, after removing my own work.

On the 26th Joy ‘releived’ me of my adult adoptees account. I explained to my readers what had happened on my own blog, ARD, Adult Adoptees “relieves” me of my membership.

Gershom attempted to comment on my blog, and I moderated it at the time, saying that yes, I had received her comment would get to it as time allowed. (Later, after Gershom responded to a later post of mine on my blog with the YouTube video and song lyrics to “pepsi anyone” on her personal blog, the gist of which can of course be summed up by the line “I’m gonna keep on I’m a do my own thing”. I ‘reprioritized’ getting back to her comment in light of how pointless such clearly was. You can find a copy of how her blog appeared at the time via google’s cache.)

Her comment, which remains moderated, (as ARD organizers such as Gershom have the rest of net to spew their bile all over, I needn’t add my blog to such real estate) was filled with ‘gems’ such as these:

What does it feel like to be someone who just makes things up in order to prove a point? Do you ever feel concrete at all? Do you wobble when you walk? Do you roll right out of bed when you are sleeping? You must have no solid ground beneath you

and, referring to the thread targeting me on adult adoptees:

I posted in that thread last night, it was long over due and it felt great. I posted a picture of an Attention Whore in honor of you.

While I won’t post details of what was in the adult adoptees thread entitled “Comments to Baby Love Child’s blog that’ll never see the true light of day” as adult adoptees is a private forum, Gershom’s comment above should certainly give readers a feel for the ‘tone’ of the thread before it came down. It was petty, childish, and yes, ARD organizers lashing out and name calling in what was billed as an ‘adoptee support’ forum.

Nor was this the first such instance aimed at me personally there. After I posted my two sentence resignation back at the end of May, Joy and others proceeded to ream me for having done so. Joy (acting as the moderator) eventually went so far as to slap me with a warning, saying:

You go on about your 2 sentences but 2 sentences are enough

(You can read the full text concerning such in my eariler post, My brief statement on what happened on the Adult Adoptees forum.)

The two sentences in question, the ones I posted as the beginning of a thread to the adult adoptees forum (May 31, 2008, at 1:43:44 AM) were:

I and my partner Sleeps with Bastard will not be in N’awlins this July.

I have resigned as the Adoptee Rights Demonstration/Day for Adoptee Rights March/Protest Volunteer Trainer and Head Monitor.

Remarkable, isn’t it? That simply posting those two sentences was enough to kick off a firestorm.

To quote Marley/Bastardette’s comment on my blog post:

Absolutely, BLC. I have no idea where this hatred is spewing from from and why. If one reads the actual thread, the question that pops out immediately is why are they so mad? What in the world did you do that was so wrong? Why would your simple statement of resignation set off one of the worse, if not THE worst trashing of an activist I’ve seen in my 15 years online? Why you are the target of this hate-a-thon is beyond me. This is a perfect example of why the records access has not gotten farther than it has.

July 28th, I posted, again, this time, in response to readers wondering whether or not Abrazo Adoption Associates had actually been present in New Orleans considering the splintering of the ARD organizing committee Abrazo’s fundraising activities (without organizer’s knowledge or consent) had been one cause of. This is the post I wrote, *UPDATED* Abrazo revised fundraising dates, Abrazo related personnel were at the ARD, and Gershom’s comment on such.

All of which is to say, far from “crying” about any of it, I’ve been providing strategic political and tactical analysis, information into the vacuum left by ARD organizers themselves, (as the ARD page certainly wasn’t answering these questions for my readers), and historical perspective.

But back to Gershom’s comment on Jane’s blog, Gershom then goes on to get her chronology ‘tangled’ (to put it as charitably as possible):

In fact, one of the major reasons she was on moderation at AAAFC is her tantrum she tried to throw on AAAFC after she was booted ( before she “resigned” )from the protest organizers list.

(AAAFC, “Adult Adoptees Advocating for Change” is the full title of “Adult Adoptees” AAAFC’s Forum is the venue in question herein.)

The actual chronology was that I resigned from the ARD organizer’s list (no one ‘booted’ me, my partner and I posted our resignations and unsubscribed ourselves the night of May 30th, no one ever asked us to leave, and if anything, we stayed on roughly an extra day after Bastard Nation had withdrawn.), then I posted my two sentence resignation on my blog, Baby Love Child’s resignation and on the adult adoptees forum.

As a result of those two sentences, and that multiple page long thread on adult adoptees, Joy slapped me with the ‘warning’. In part II readers will be able to see the exact post she tagged, keeping in mind, Joy claims my “two sentences are enough.”

Which then leads me to my original posts on the adult adoptees forum in the resignation thread, the ones Gershom just characterized as a “tantrum”. As they are no longer available online, I will continue with my ongoing process of ‘history restoration’ by making them available again in part II.

I’ll leave to to my intelligent readers (as opposed to my delusional readers) to decide for themselves whether or not said comments constitute a “tantrum.” Unfortunately, as adult adoptees is a private forum, I will only be posting my own writings, not the rantings directed at me which were also originally part of the thread.

Suffice it to say, I find Gershom’s characterization disingenuous at best.

(Part II will be posted when I have some time to clean out and reformat the text, it won’t be immediate. It will likely be a few days as this is a busy week for me.)

To start from a personal perspective, I’m just a Bastard, a politically active adoptee.

Being legally prohibited from attaining my State sealed records, I have no idea what heritage cultural or genetic my biological family might contain, other than a quick glance in a mirror appears to indicate pretty clearly a hefty chunk of what would generally be termed “white” by sociological definition. The family history of those who adopted me has interwoven at times with First Nations peoples on both the American and Canadian sides of the border.

While my interest in this subject, yes at times does relate to aspects of ‘familial’ history, my primary interest in such is historical and political, speaking from both a Bastard perspective, as one who opposes forms and tactics of colonialism (religious, political, etc), and as one who supports indigenous peoples’ autonomy and demands for redress.

***

I’m going to use this Aug 2nd, ’08 CTV piece, At least 22,000 Canadian children need parents, as a jumping off point to provide some background readings links towards understanding some of the history reguarding the Canadian pool of children currently available for adoption. The CTV piece is pretty much par for the course adoption marketing, but it does provide a few useful statistics:

“There are 76,000 children in child welfare care and over 22,000 we know are actively waiting for adoption right now,” Sandra Scarth, president of the Adoption Council of Canada, told CTV News.

In 2006, Canadians adopted 1,535 children from other countries, according to the most recent Citizenship and Immigration Canada report on international adoption statistics.

China was the top choice for Canadian families, followed by Haiti.

Of the kids labeled available many are First Nations:

In Canada, many on the adoption waiting lists are First Nations children, some of whom are victims of poverty and their parents’ substance abuse.

“We actually have three times the number of First Nations children in child welfare care today than we did at the height of the residential schools,” said Cindy Blackstone of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.

So what percentage of kids in Canadian child welfare are Aboriginal? An April 2004 study, entitled Keeping the Promise: the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Lived Experiences of First Nations Children and Youth (link to a PDF) produced by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada estimated the number at 30-40%. This is gross over representation of Aboriginal children in ‘care’ considering Native children represent only 5% of the Canadian child population.

What about the “residential schools” referred to in the above, and why would that be used as a frame of reference?

Many Americans are unaware of the systematic cultural genocide the “Indian Residential Schools” inflicted upon First Nations people in Canada, despite America’s very similar own history with the “Indian Boarding Schools”.

The religious schools in Canada, (which were later government funded) were a core program used in the attempted systematic dismantling of First Nations identity, familial bonds, culture, and heritage. While such were labeled “schools” they utilized systems of punishments and brute force against those who refused to assimilate, (see Schooling as genocide. Residential schools for First Nations in Canada 1900-1980) a summary of a paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20 Sept. 2003:)

Preliminary results suggest that there were substantial differences between the national policies of the three countries towards the aboriginal population. Also schooling and pedagogy took different shapes. In Canada, violence, abuse and oppression formed the educational practice under the guidance of the religious bodies. Children were collected by force from their parents and suffered in the residential schools. The Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia is a prominent example of the intruder’s policy for subordination of the population. Overall, the research indicates that schooling can play a major role in suppression and even genocide. Still today, former students must get medical help to recover from the damages caused by colonial school policy.

and

Different measures were used to discipline the pupils. The strap, humiliation, spanking with hands, head shaving and a diet of bread and water, filling the mouth with soap or motor oil, and not at least, not letting the children be in contact with their families (Haig-Brown, 1998, pp 82). All the sexual assaults that have been reported damaged many of the children for the rest of their lives.

By way of most basic background, look to pages such as this, Residential Schools: The Background:

One of the most acrimonious issues to result from the Treaty process is the dark legacy of the residential school system. The purpose of the residential schools in Canada was to educate and civilize or westernize the First Nation peoples in order that they adopt a more western – that is European – lifestyle. Separating the children from their parents and forcing religion on them, it was believed, was the only means by which to achieve this “civilizing” of the First Nations peoples.

Or even the wikipedia page if only to get an overview of important milestones and dates, Canadian residential school system. The CBC has also prepared a timeline, A timeline of residential schools. The CBC also has a video archive, A Lost Heritage: Canada’s Residential Schools with footage from the ‘schools’.

As but one of many firsthand accounts, see quotations from We were not the savages: A Mi’kmaq Perspective on the Collision Between European and Native American Civilizations, First Nation History.

All of which has led to Canada’s attempts at ‘restitution’ (as if such could ever be ‘made right’.) Articles such as Canada makes first residential school payment , (from Oct 5th, ’07, also see the links at the bottom of the article ) about the residential school settlement make a jumping off point.

This past June, Stephen Harper (The Canadian Prime Minister) delivered a formal apology in the House of Commons. (See PM cites ‘sad chapter’ in apology for residential schools):

Wednesday marked the first time a Canadian prime minister has formally apologized for the physical and sexual abuse that occurred in the now-defunct network of federally financed, church-run residential schools.

Fist Nations peoples reactions have been mixed. As but one example, I will again point readers at Daniel N. Paul’s, (author of “We were not the Savages”) reaction at the bottom of this page–

OBSERVATION

Let’s say I’m somewhat encouraged, not overwhelmed, by Mr. Harper’s apology- it touches the tip of the iceberg. I will congratulate him on this, he has gone further than any Prime Minister has gone to-date in acknowledging Canada’s inglorious past mistreatment of First Nation Peoples, but, he didn’t go overboard.

Today, I would encourage National Chief Phil Fontaine, and others, to keep in mind that our First Nations are owed an apology for a long list of horrors perpetuated against our Peoples by Canadian and British colonial governments. A few examples, the extermination of the Beothuk, the use of scalp proclamations to try to exterminate the Mi’kmaq, medical experimentation, Indian Act sections that barred us from pool rooms, from hiring lawyers to fight our claims, centralization in the Maritimes, economic exclusion, etc., etc., the list is extensive.

When the day comes that a Canadian Prime Minister gets up in the House of Commons and make a full unequivocal apology for all the wrongs we and our ancestors suffered, it will be the day that we can fully celebrate.

Daniel N. Paul, June 12, 2008

So, in light of such history how does this relate to the pool of children made available to adoption in modern Canada? The residential schools may be closed, but as the CTV adoption puff piece laid out, legally severing Native rights to their own children has been a far more effective and perhaps socially acceptable means of destabilizing First Nations communities:

“We actually have three times the number of First Nations children in child welfare care today than we did at the height of the residential schools,” said Cindy Blackstone of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada.

Here Daniel N. Paul deconstructs an article by Michael Downey entitled “Canada’s genocide”. The ‘child grab’ was intertwined with the ‘schools’ as part of an overarching strategy to dismantle Native cultures:

Downey relates in his piece the heart-wrenching tale of how thousands of First Nations children were “legally” seized from their parents by provincial governments during the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and placed with white adoptive parents in homes around the world. Placement agencies in the United States often received fees from the adoptive parents in the range of 15 to 20 thousand dollars per child.

The stage for the playing out of this tragedy was set in the 1950s when the federal government shirked part of its constitutional mandate for insuring the protection and welfare of Registered Indians and delegated to the provinces, via federal-provincial agreements, its responsibility for the care and control of minor Native children. Downey relates how quickly the process mushroomed into another fast-track process to rob First Nations of their most precious possessions, their children: “In 1959, only one per cent of Canadian children in custody were Native; a decade later, the number had risen to 40 per cent…”

Tie this child grab in with the mid-1800s establishment of Indian day schools and with the late-1800s establishment of Indian residential schools- institutions where the white teachers perceived their most important duty to be to teach Native children to be ashamed of who they were- and it adds up to a wholesale attempt by government to kill First Nations cultures by destroying pride their children had in their heritage. The results for the children were horrific- the mental, physical, and sexual abuse dished out in these homes and institutions badly damaged, and in many cases extinguished, self -esteem.

The adoption of First Nations children even domestically in Canada has had high profile visibility. Former Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien and his wife adopted Native a child, for example. Many of the children, however were sent to the U.S..

Also see Stolen Nation: For more than 20 years, Canada took native children from their homes and placed them with white families. Now a lost generation want its history back. Which details how sealed and amended adoption records are part of the lasting legacy of the “scoop” era used to lock First Nations adoptees away from their biological kin.

Further, due to the record keeping practices of the time, we may never know the full scope of how many children were taken through adoption:

Even now, researchers trying to determine exactly how many aboriginal children were removed from their families during the Scoop say the task is all but impossible because adoption records from the ’60s and ’70s rarely indicated aboriginal status (as they are now required to).

Those records which are complete, however, suggest the adoption of native children by non-native families was pervasive, at least in Northern Ontario and Manitoba. In her March, 1999 report, “Our Way Home: A Report to the Aboriginal Healing and Wellness Strategy on the Repatriation of Aboriginal People Removed by the Child Welfare System,” author Janet Budgell notes that in the Kenora region in 1981, “a staggering 85 per cent of the children in care were First Nations children, although First Nations people made up only 25 per cent of the population. The number of First Nations children adopted by non-First Nations parents increased fivefold from the early 1960s to the late 1970s. Non-First Nations families accounted for 78 per cent of the adoptions of First Nations children.”

Similarly, “One Manitoba community of 800 people lost 150 children to adoption between 1966-1980,” reports Budgell, who prepared the report in conjunction with Native Child and Family Services of Toronto.

Another article from 2001, Manitoba Repatriation Program Connects First Nations Adoptees with Their Heritage explains the use of the repatriation program by Aboriginal ‘adoptees’:

Thousands of First Nations children were placed into adoptive homes in the U.S., often through private agencies in Alaska, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. Adopting a native child was relatively easy for U.S. parents. After paying a registration fee, parents could take a native child home without going through any criminal checks or preparation classes.

U.S. agencies have been complicit in these crimes against First Nations peoples.

While there have been certain ‘reforms’ in the Canadian child welfare systems, allowing for increased Native people’s input, the bottom line remains, First Nations children remain disproportionately represented in the pool of adoptable children.

In the U.S. in 1978, ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act passed, protecting First Nations children from being removed from their tribal context. (Though baby dump laws/legalized abandonment laws/Baby Moses laws circumvent ICWA.) Canada unfortunately has no similar law protecting aboriginal children.

Quoting briefly from this description of the film Red Road,

In 1982, the Manitoba government finally agreed to impose a moratorium on the export of children outside of the province, the last province to do so. There was an investigation into the practice. Justice Edwin C. Kimelman wrote a report in 1985 entitled ‘No Quiet Place’, based primarily on looking at the 93 children that were “exported” in 1981. He did not mince his words in his conclusions, saying: “Cultural genocide has been taking place in a systematic routine manner. One gets an image of children stacked in foster homes as used cars are stacked on corner lots, just waiting for the right ‘buyer’ to stroll by”. (as reported in Fournier and Crey 1997:88)…

WHY TAKE THE CHILDREN AWAY?
Why did they take these children from their homes and from their people? There are a number of reasons. Part of it is cultural. Non-Native social workers and agencies have in their minds a set of ideas as to what a “family” and a “good home” are like. For “family”, they think of two parents and their children, the nuclear family. However, there are strong traditions in Native cultures in Canada that think of the family as something larger than this… Then there is the “good home” in terms of physical resources. For non-Native Canadians, this would include a separate bedroom for each child, sewage or a septic tank, and running water. Most Native houses, often structures designed by Indian Affairs, could not meet those “standards”…Sometimes the children were taken away “for health reasons”. This could mean that newborn infants needing to be in or near an urban hospital for treatment would be fostered to a non-Native family who lived nearby and would never be given back to their Native parents. This despite the fact that those parents had done nothing to abuse or even harm the children.

So let’s revisit those ‘justifications’ so often given to permanently legally sever the ties between Native children and their kin; poverty and substance abuse.

Poverty globally, is used as a barometer for ‘unfit parents’, and thusly used as an excuse to strip children from their biological kin. Such is often done under the false meme of “a better life.” (I have written about such before.) Yet the ‘better life” false meme can also be used as a cover to redistribute children of those governments oppose, politically culturally, etc. (Such tactics are frequently used in politically unstable conflict zones where use of violence against a population is encouraged, such as the Argentinian adoptions of the children of the ‘disappeared’, or in wartime for example.)

Poverty can also be used as an excuse towards ‘resource extraction’ of children. Sometimes all flowery language simply falls away and the outright accusations come out, “those womyn are poor, they can’t provide. We’re wealthy two parent families, we can do what they can’t.” All of which can be reduced to their core argument, ‘the poor don’t deserve their children, only the wealthy should have children.’

First Nations activists are acutely aware of the poverty their people (and yes their children) face societally, they are the first speak out about such as part of almost any discussion of the circumstances under which they live. The situation is not personal, it is not any one single family’s ‘problem’, it is a result of systematic exclusion of a people. Exclusion that has been enforced against aboriginal peoples, as classes of people. Their communities have been denied access to economic resources, they have been forcibly removed from lands deemed to have value, (including resources,) essentially anything of value to their colonizers has been taken from them.

Over and over again, it is easy to see First Nations peoples explicitly lay out the economic disparities they face as classes of people in their grievances. See the “First Nations Drum”, June ’08 Vol, 18, Issue 6 piece entitled National Day of Action draws thousands in support of First Nations or the Assembly of First Nations piece, AFN National Chief Joins Premiers In Call For Action Plan On Closing The Socio-Economic Gap For First Nations as but two very recent articulations of such. The income gap between non-native Canadians and First Nations people is a key point of contention.

Utilization of “poverty” as a crowbar to remove Tribal children is a global adoption tactic, visible around the world, be it in Canada or Guatemala. By laying charges of ‘poverty’ against individual parents, the broader systems of oppression against Tribal peoples as classes of people are ignored.

A second key factor in why First Nations’ legal rights to their own children are so often severed, “substance abuse” is likewise, far from an ‘individual problem’ that can be viewed isolation as if completely disconnected from the context of these people’s lives.

Take this Journal article, Counselling with First Nations Women: Considerations of Oppression and Renewal and summary that deals with counseling Native womyn and the importance of placing the behaviors into the broader context of colonialism they live their lives in:

This article maps the historical background of First Nations women focusing on the residential school system, subsequent intergenerational trauma, and the effects of the Indian Act. Colonization has impacted the health and current roles and responsibilities of First Nations women. First Nations women’s health needs to be viewed in a holistic framework that considers multiple levels of oppression, poverty, colonization, and life as a minority in a dominant culture. Social constructionism provides a new lens from which to question and re-conceptualize ways of working with First Nations women.

In short, one cannot deal with the issues Native parents face without first understanding the context they live their lives in, a context wherein they have been buffeted by wave upon wave of colonialist tactics perpetrated by a variety of institutions such as government and church. For the same State to utilize the very end results of what previous waves of colonialism have done to a people as an excuse to remove their legal right to their own children, continuing similar cycles, goes beyond the height of cynicism. Such can only be viewed as capitalizing upon said cycles. None of this is takes place in a vacuum. Native ‘substance abuse issues’, far from being some personal failing, are often direct results of individuals attempting to cope with previous waves of colonizing behaviours perpetrated by those external to their Tribe.

As I said, this post is merely a starting point to begin to come to an understanding of how adoption is but one tool in a toolbox for penalizing and politically destabilizing recalcitrant populations. Any ‘final word’ on such must be left to those who directly experienced such themselves.

My point in bringing such up was for other Bastards to begin to understand webs of connection and contextualization in regard to ways in which adoption has been used against populations.

I’ll end by once again quoting from Stolen Nation, (referenced above) this time at length, as this spells out precisely what I have been aiming to express through this post:

WAS IT GENOCIDE?

According to the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights, Justice Kimelman’s description of the Sixties Scoop as cultural genocide is accurate. It reads: “Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct people with guarantees against genocide or any other act of violence, including the removal of indigenous children from their families and communities under any pretext.”

So why was the wholesale removal of aboriginal children not considered a crime, or even a wrong, that the Minister of Indian Affairs felt obliged to redress along with the residential school system?

The answer isn’t that complicated, says Kenn Richard, director of Native Child and Family Services of Toronto and the man who commissioned the “Our Way Home” report. “British colonialism has a certain process and formula, and it’s been applied around the world with different populations, often indigenous populations, in different countries that they choose to colonize,” says Richard. “And that is to make people into good little Englishmen. Because the best ally you have is someone just like you. One of the ones you hear most about is obviously the residential schools, and residential schools have gotten considerable media attention over the past decade or so. And so it should, because it had a dramatic impact that we’re still feeling today. But child welfare to a large extent picked up where residential schools left off.

“The lesser-known story is the child welfare story and its assimilationist program. And you have to remember that none of this was written down as policy: ‘We’ll assimilate aboriginal kids openly through the residential schools. And after we close the residential schools we’ll quietly pick it up with child welfare.’ It was never written down. But it was an organic process, part of the colonial process in general.”

Adoption Blessings Worldwide (ABW) based in Georgia, has apparently surrendered its license as of July 31rst. But Adoption Blessings Worldwide is only the latest name Tedi Hedstrom was operating under. Her previous agency in FL, then operating under the name Tedi Bear Adoptions surrendered its FL license back in 2003.

This past July, First Coast News (Florida), who have been following Hedstrom’s actions since her FL days, ran a useful backgrounder article and video, Embattled Adoption Agency Gives Up Its License:

The complaints were made weeks ago, but First Coast News learned that on Thursday, Georgia officials received notification that ABW was relinquishing its license.

The agency was once licensed in Florida and based on the First Coast under a different name, Tedi Bear Adoptions, years ago. After numerous problems and state investigations, the agency surrendered its license to Florida authorities in 2003.

The agency was already licensed in Georgia, and changed its name from Tedi Bear to Adoption Blessings Worldwide, but its executive director, Tedi Hedstrom, still had a home in Ponte Vedra.

Complaints against ABW started rolling in to Georgia and Florida authorities months ago.

“That’s why they’re shutting down. There’s been too many problems to continue doing business for them,” Andreas Ernfridsson told First Coast News.

Hedstrom did not return phone calls to her home and cell phone.

In a statement released by her attorney, Rick Rumrell, Hedstrom says she’s been “….praying that God give her direction in regards to the future…with Adoption Blessings Worldwide…. It is with great regret that Adoption Blessings Worldwide and Tedi Hedstrom will be formally closing its doors to adoption services.”

A lawsuit is also in the works.

First Coast News has learned that a number of former ABW clients will soon be filing a lawsuit against the agency.

Others have been keeping an eye on Hedstrom and doing far better coverage on her antics than I have. For example, CHEW has been blogging along some of the other news articles and media related pieces about ABW. Cribs, Crimes, and Corruption, also has some, including a link into a primary source archive of ABW pieces here.

There are numerous older materials on Tedi Bear Adoptions, (the name Tedi Hedstrom was operating under 1997-2003, in FL) , I’ll link just a couple:

Adoption Agency Under Fire

3 articles from May ’08

Pitfalls for Parents

Despite her history in FL, the St. Augustine (FL) Record as recently as this past February 19th, did a fawning puff piece on Tedi Hedstrom entitled Ponte Vedra: Agency makes international adoptions possible.

This August 17, 1998 Florida Times Union piece, It’s what God wants me to do, also profiles the Hedstroms and Tedi’s adoption “ministry”.

Clearly, Hedstrom in her personal life is a ‘collect-a-set’ type, going for that idealized dozen herself.

Apparently her god given mission in life has been to rip off other wanna-be adopters.

With the existing inter-country agreement between US and Vietnam set to expire Sept. 1rst, Vietnam is looking toward possibly restructuring future adoptions under the Hague convention. (This is also the solution many lawmakers in Washington propose. I’ll go into more detail on that end in a separate later post.)

This Thanh Nien article from last Monday goes into a bit of detail, Lawmakers back bid to join Hague adoption convention:

A majority of National Assembly’s Standing Committee members supported a bid to sign the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption Friday, scheduling a vote on the measure by the year’s end.

The International Adopted Children Bureau, under the Minister of Justice, would be solely responsible for approving international adoption applications if Vietnam becomes a signatory on the convention, said Deputy Minister Hoang The Lien on the sidelines of the committee session.

Currently, each provincial government ratifies its own international adoption applications.

Financial aid to orphanages would also be handled by the central government agency if Vietnam joins the convention, said Lien.

Centralization hardly strikes me as a solution to the systemic problems Vietnamese adoption faces. It would however move both the power, and some of the potential profits away from the local provincial governments, and some of the indies and middlemen and directly into the Minister of Justice and the centralized government system itself.

A blogger on Voices for Vietnam Adoption Integrity (which is primarily a website community for adoptive couples or Prospective Adoptive Parents PAPs who either already have or were considering adopting from Vietnam) as but one example, mentioned this article recently, Not in My House: Corruption in Vietnam, “Lying has become an everyday habit” as officials ignore fraud at home when speaking of the problem of systemic corruption in Vietnam.

Whether centralized or local, the core problems appear to be systemic.

The Thanh Nien Daily article does mention examples of the existing fraud blaming such primarily on local corruption, and offering the Hague convention as a solution:

Lien said lawmakers would also work to remedy shortcomings in local adoption regulations, which many people had capitalized on to forge adoption applications.

Under Vietnamese law, a child must be abandoned by their parents or orphaned to be adopted.

Vietnamese parents who send their children to orphanages due to poverty do so only temporarily.

But several criminals have faked documents leading agencies and adoptive parents to believe that such children were in fact abandoned.

Lien said a recent case of adoption paperwork fraud in the northern province of Nam Dinh would be a major deterrent.

Nam Dinh Province police arrested the head of a charity organization in Truc Ninh District on Thursday for allegedly forging adoption documents.

Nam Dinh authorities began investigating two local charity organizations for their alleged involvement in dubious adoption paperwork in mid-July.

Prior to Thursday, Nam Dinh police had arrested three people, including two communal health officials, for allegedly faking papers documenting the origins of babies they claimed to have found.

The article also points out some of the differences between how adoption is practiced under Vietnamese law and how it would have to adapt if Vietnam were to join the Hague convention:

Lien also said authorities would discuss other mismatches between Vietnamese laws and the Hague Convention.

For example, under Vietnamese law, the maximum age for adoptees is 16, while the Hague Convention extends the adoption age to 18.

Additionally, the Hague Convention stipulates that adopted children must jettison their legal ties with their parents while Vietnamese laws still allow adopted children to retain inheritance and other rights from their birth parents.

In short, the Hague convention would promote American style adoptions where all legal ties with families are permanently severed. This is at odds with the way (not only Vietnam, but many other countries) currently practice adoption, whereby some ties to families had been left intact.

I think the signals are pretty clear though, September 1rst will likely not bring an end to U.S./Vietnamese adoptions, merely a massive restructuring.

Lien said Vietnam and the US may still cooperate to arrange adoptions in the future through a new agreement or the Hague Adoption Convention.

I have some much more in depth Vietnam related blogging here in the pipeline, I hope to have several pieces written this month.

Some of us in the Bastard community have had concerns for years about the way kids available for adoption are being marketed via photolistings. The way children, particularly young children are being required to forfeit their own privacy in hopes of gaining a family raises many ethical issues. Unfortunately, photolistings of children have now become commonplace, on the internet, in shopping mall displays, etc.

But naturally, there’s always more. How about ‘little adoptables’ marketed on the sides of race cars?

Yup, here you’ll find an article about just that, Adoption to take center stage at Grove.

One of my many problems with the utilization of photolistings, on top the loss of personal privacy these kids endure, are the ways in which the kids and their pictures become parts of the marketing background noise. Thus people for whom adoption had never even crossed their minds, fall in love with an image and decide to ‘go get one’.

Last season, Michele and Dean Lobaugh of York came out of the grandstand and began the procedure to adopt a child. They saw a picture of Michael on one of the sprint car wings and were moved enough to change their lives forever.

and

Esh said the Lobaugh family are regular Williams Grove fans, didn’t have children and didn’t want to adopt until they saw his picture on the wing.

Now I’ll be the first to admit, these adoptions are slightly different than the Healthy White Infant (HWI) top dollar adoptions. These are the kids that genuinely are ‘waiting’ languishing in fostercare, and being marketed to a different set of potential adopters:

Williams Grove fans are the kind of people Diakon is looking for. “Middle income, blue-collar workers … people that have been through some things in their lives,” Esh said.

The children all have special needs, Esh said.

Unlike HWI adoptions, that can be extremely expensive, these are kids the state will just be glad to ‘unload’.

“It doesn’t cost any money and you don’t have to be perfect to adopt these kids,” Esh said.

and

Then it could take another six months to a year to get a child place in a home. It’s cost-free through the Statewide Adoption Network.

Note that once again we see that talking point, ‘adopters don’t have to be perfect’, this is a phrase that came out of marketing research after it was determined that one of the reasons some couples don’t adopt foster kids is that they had the impression that had to be superhuman, heroes, or ‘perfect’ to take on these kids.

A real marketing push is on at the moment trying to change that impression. We were treated to some of the ad council campaign television advertisements over the Ethics and Accountability in Adoption conference last fall. The Adoptuskids campaign has been central to these efforts.

One of the problems with such, this notion all too often phrased as “anyone can adopt” is that that’s a phrase that very definitely comes from the perspective of the state trying to offload the kids. From the kids perspective, it can’t be a matter of just anyone, adopters need to be the ‘right’ someone. Doubly so in cases where kids come with ‘special needs’ whether past abuse or health issues. These kids don’t just need a home any home, they need a home where they’re going to be ok.

Messages like ‘anyone can adopt’ are recipes for disaster. ‘Special needs’ kids don’t need to be shipped off into a new situation filled with abuse or even sexual abuse, they need a home conducive to helping them, and yes, that does often mean finding special people. That’s part of the deep problem with the foster system mess. Every kid placed, no matter where, is counted as a victory because the condition for declaring victory is numeric, quantity not quality.

So yes, the program to date has found 22 kids permanent homes:

A total of 22 children have been adopted through the program.

But what of the other kids who don’t come away from these events with a new family applying to adopt them?

How is this different from the adoption fairs, where Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) came out to, for example a local park to ‘look over the merchandise’ and decide whether or not to take one home? (60 minutes did a reasonably good piece on such years back.)

When the spotlight is finally off, and the crowds have gone home, how do you suppose those who weren’t picked feel? They spend their day, dressed up, smile pasted in place, doing everything they can to be ‘cute enough’ to be one of the lucky few picked, only to fail, again.

Sure, the kids get a night of autographs and wishlist gifts showered on them, along with getting to see their pictures on the cars. They get to once again, get their hopes up that maybe SOMEONE will want them.

But at what real cost?

When adopting kids themselves become just another ‘impulse buy’, a decision that gets made inside a marketing pressure machine where are we?

The verdict in the Miles Harrison trial has been handed down since this article was originally written. Please see my later post entitled No, no justice for Dmitry for more up to date information concerning the verdict. The article below appears as it was originally posted.

***

Перевести на русский

***

New readers will want to first look over my earlier writings about Dmitry to familiarize themselves with the background details of the story. (The linked tag will provide my posts in reverse chronological order, begin at the bottom, read up towards the top.)

***

I’ve been doing some digging online looking for any further readings about the investigation into Dmitry’s death. I stumbled across this older July 19th Interfax piece, Russian Education, Science Ministry to Look into Death of Boy Adopted to U.S.. There are a few details I hadn’t seen in the American media contained in it:

MOSCOW. July 19 (Interfax) – The Russian Education and Science Ministry is determined to thoroughly look into all circumstances surrounding the death of 1.5-year-old Dima Yakovlev, a Russian boy recently adopted by a U.S. family, Education and Science Minister Dmitry Fursenko told Interfax.

Fursenko called the incident “extraordinary.”

The article goes on to lay out the significance of the incident:

“This is the first time that a tragedy has happened with a child adopted through an organization accredited in Russia,” Fursenko said. All other deaths of Russian children adopted by U.S. families were related “to so-called independent adoption,” he said.

I am wondering how Dmitry can be considered the first, in light of Logan Higgenbotham, who was also adopted through the same agency Dmitry was, European Adoption Consultants (EAC). I wrote briefly about Logan here:

…European Adoption Consultants had previous placed another Russian child, Logan Higgenbotham (in Vermont back in 1998), who had been killed by her adoptive mother, Laura Higgenbotham. (She pled no contest to a charge of involuntary manslaughter and received a 1 year prison sentence after having intentionally slammed 3 year old Logan’s head into a wall.)

You can read more about Logan and Dmitry/Chase in Bastardette‘s online “Memoriam to Russian Adoptees Murdered by their Forever Families,”

NIKTO NE ZABYT — NICHTO NE ZABYTO

(Nobody is forgotten. Nothing is forgotten.)

Returning to the original article, apparently Minister Fursenko has been receiving questions about whether or not the existing structure of the Russian adoption process would be altered in the wake of the investigation:

Fursenko said it was “too early to talk” about any measures the ministry could take in the wake of the incident.

I have not found any articles as of yet directly addressing the cause of death, but the Interfax article includes the following:

It was reported earlier that Dima Yakovlev, who was adopted by the Harrison family in March 2008, died of hyperthermia after spending several hours in a locked car, where his adoptive father had left him while he was at work.

Finally, Bastardette has also found a new source of information on the case from Russia, uploaded news video segments, see her introduction in her blog post here:

RUSSIAN NEWS VIDEOS ON KOLYA EMELYATSEV AND DMITRY YAKOLEV/CHASE HARRISON

As a final note, I continue to search for any updated information about the status of European Adoption Consultants’ current accreditation status. To the best of my knowledge they remain under investigation over their failure to immediately report Dmitry’s death to Russian authorities. (Under Russian law, adoption agencies must keep the the Russian Education and Science Ministry informed on the well-being of adoptees placed through them.)

(Update below.)

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

The Adoptee Rights Demonstration had a “group” of Abrazo related personnel at it according to Gershom. She has written about how they shared a meal together after the demonstration at the convention center. In her post The Protest part 2, Gerhsom stated the following:

I was at the other table with some other protesters including a group from Abrazo Adoption Agency who came to support our cause. Interesting that an adoption agency was there, and the nations so called leading adoptee rights organization….wasn’t?

Well hint!

ONE of the very reason Bastard Nation wasn’t there was sitting right at your own table.

(Yes, obviously, there were simultaneous pre-existing organizing related issues as the Bastard Nation withdrawal statement pointed out:

We have concluded that this is not the time or place for Bastard Nation to take part in a Day for Adoptee Rights. The cost of the event this year spiraled and did not balance with the number of participants coming forward to show our strength to the politicians who hold the keys to the records cabinets.

notably the number of likely attendees when held against the DAR original concept of “mass movement”.)

But ONE of the reasons, BN, wasn’t in New Orleans?

Abrazo Adoption Associates, out of San Antonio, TX was the agency that fundraised off our event (yes, “our” because at the time, Bastard Nation, of which I am a lifetime member, nothing more, and I were also part of the event.)

As always I cannot speak for Bastard Nation, being nothing more than a lifetime member myself, (anymore than I can speak on behalf of other national organizations I’m a part of) but I can point at reasons in both the single statement Bastard Nation has released since withdrawing, and quote some of the personal thinking explained via a personal blog.

To again quote the BN statement:

Moreover, we are concerned with participation of Abrazo Adoption Agency in San Antonio, Texas. Unknown to DAR and BN until just a few days ago, Abrazo has been raising funds for the event in DAR’s name.

and

These funds went and continue to go directly to the agency, raising huge ethical issues for Bastard Nation and the equal access movement. Records and identity access is about our rights and has no connection with the marketing schemes of adoption agencies. BN has a long-standing, hard-line policy of accepting no support from the adoption industry. Bastard Nation specifically, and the adoptee rights movement in general, cannot and should not be co-opted or used by the adoption industry to promote its own agenda. We disavow all industry involvement in our work. Any entanglement with the adoption industry endangers the integrity and credibility of the adoptee rights movement.

Read this comment thread from June 2, ’08 on Marley’s (the Executive Chair of Bastard Nation) personal blog, The Daily Bastardette, concerning the BN statement. Keep in mind that her personal comments there must be taken in light of her blog’s disclaimer:

The Daily Bastardette is an independent blog and not connected to any organization.

The discussion between Abrazo’s Executive Director, Elizabeth Jurnovich, b.b.Church/Ron and Marley is quite revealing. Marley makes it clear:

There were two issues: (1) fiscal responsibility/committed attendance. (2) Abrazo piggybacked on it–I think that would be the way to say it. The lead organizer of the event called for a suspension of DAR this year so it could be done right next year. We concurred. A few people disagreed, and went their own way. Some of them are genuinely dedicated to DAR coming off. Others, who had nothing to do with the planning or decision making prefer to spread rumors and gossip and blame Bastard Nation for God knows what, for doing what any responsible organization does–protect its members interests and investments.

Later in the thread Marley addresses Ms. Jurnovich directly about the Abrazo fundraising:

First you solicit funds in DAR’s name without their knowledge and consent. Then you continue to do so knowing the problems this has caused DAR, BN, and the adoptee rights movement in general. You continue to raise funds against DAR’s wishes.

and

To say that DAR or BN doesn’t want to work with natural parents, adoptive aparents, etc. is simply not true. We have plenty of both in our membership. But, we are not interested in helping adoption agencies position themselves and market their products and services in OUR movement. And that, is what your fundraising looks like to a helluva lot of people right now. Do you think for one minute that most activists would be interested in supporting an event which the adoption industry has funded? You wonder why adoptees don’t like the adoption industry This is a perfect example.A Day for Adoptee Rights, whether BN participates in it or not, is about adopted persons, not the industry.

According to a comment Ms. Jurnovich, (the executive director of Abrazo), attempted to post to my partner, Sleeps with Bastard‘s moderated blog on June 6th (which he has not approved) the Abrazo fundraising in relation to the ARD event began in February ’08, not May 9th, as the Facebook fundraising history page had led me to originally believe.

Which means that between February and May 29th Abrazo was fundraising off our event and we had no knowledge of it whatsoever. When we did discover it, by way of Amy, I explored the Abrazo webpage, I could find no link from off the Abrazo webpage into their facebook fundraising.

On May 30th Ron spoke with Ms. Jurnovich on the phone. According to Ron’s report back to the DAR organizers, she refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with Abrazo utilizing our name in their fundraising without our knowledge or consent.

In fact, even after we found out about the fundraising, and had by then contacted Ms. Jurnovich about it, they continued their fundraising into their own agency 501c3 until approximately June 4th, 08.

That means approximately 4 months worth of fundraising, never once so much as mentioning it to Adoptee Rights Demonstration organizers. Then close to a week of continuing on even after being spoken with.

It doesn’t matter whether money came in by the bucketload or drips and drabs, the bottom line is Abrazo was doing it without ARD organizers knowledge or consent.

Nor does it matter whether the nuDAR orgnaizers, those left after others withdrew, consented. The monies as originally collected, were collected under shall we say, ‘highly questionable circumstances’ at best.

According to this 12:17am comment by Elizabeth Jurnovich, made to this blog post written by Amy, she claims the contributions were returned to the individuals, but the agency encouraged them to resend the contributions directly into the ARD as individual contributions made by Abrazo related individuals rather than as a single agency contribution.

Please be assured that every dime raised was returned to each donor, with a full explanation of why Abrazo was unable to forward it to Protest organizers as intended.

Abrazo did encourage all donors to subsequently mail contributions directly to the adoptee rights protest (or other groups), but we have no way of knowing whether any did so, given the ill will aroused by Bastard Nation’s attack.

Ms. Jurnovich, (as well as the usual cast of DAR related individuals) also tries to tar Bastard Nation for having integrity and pulling out of the event, in light of Abrazo’s fundraising falsely equating such to an ‘attack’.

So come the actual event, the Adoptee Rights Demonstration in New Orleans, there was Gershom, dining with Abrazo and the group they brought to participate in the ARD.

More than half of the ARD organizers had left in part over the issue of Abrazo’s fundraising off our event/use of our event without ever informing us, much less asking event organizers’ permission to utilize our event in this way. During my time as an ARD organizer Abrazo was certainly not acting as an authorized fiscal agent.

The Abrazo fundraising was one of several reasons, clearly the lack of “mass movement” participation being a critically important SIMULTANEOUS factor.

Ron/b.b.Church, on this Bastardette comment thread, addressing Ms. Jurnovich, made his reasons clear, he has been willing to work with industry in the past,

But I won’t work with people that sandbag me. And that’s what you did.

He elaborated further in his June 5th statement:

In a series of remarkable posts one of the volunteer organizers revealed that Abrazos, a Texas adoption agency, had been fundraising under DAR’s name and had raised over 800 dollars for the event. This volunteer organizer stated she did not know whether this money was intended for DAR or if it was being raised to fund attendance by Abrazos staff and supporters to the event. This information was like a hand grenade thrown into the mix.

The volunteer organizer in question was of course Amy, who had revealed on May 29th to other organizers Abrazo was raising the money on a facebook page AFTER Ron’s call for suspension. (The two events, the call for suspension and Amy’s revelation of the Abrazo fundraising happened within 13 minutes of one another on the organizer’s list, no doubt most organizers reading such got the two one right after the other.)

The Bastard Nation June 1rst withdrawal statement also makes mention of the Abrazo fundraising as one of the simultaneous reasons they had chosen to withdraw:

Moreover, we are concerned with participation of Abrazo Adoption Agency in San Antonio, Texas. Unknown to DAR and BN until just a few days ago, Abrazo has been raising funds for the event in DAR’s name. http://apps.facebook.com/causes/85456?recruiter_id=15092383

Note that the Abrazo facebook page linked above “open adoption rocks” has changed considerably from the time of DAR organizers realization of it’s existence through Abrazo closing it down, on through to today. For historical purposes, you can see at least the statement they appear to have posted June 4th when the fundraising on facebook appears to have finally ended here in my post ARD- Abrazo finally ends their “open adoption rocks” facebook fundraising. I have yet to go back and pull the wording on the site from the time period when ARD organizers were first discovering it.

My partner, Sleeps with Bastard was even more specific about his take on Abrazo’s actions in his May 31rst post, A very brief comment concerning adoption:

I am not here to promote adoption. I am not here to create events or other means that others coopt so they can continue strip mining pregnant women for product.

This is about getting information out of the state, without compromise. This is not about teaming up with the industry’s marketing efforts that are not about getting information out of the state, but about continuing and growing their business, and nothing else. They will compromise and bargain away unconditional access to OBC’s because they have no stake in those OBC’s, only their business of selling kids on their own terms independent of the state.

The contents of [an adoption agency’s] websites are about the terms by which they move product, not about how bastards everywhere are going to gain their OBC’s.

Be sure to see the full post for related links that detail precisely what he is talking about in the above.

And finally, there’s me, the other organizer who resigned, particularly in light of the Abrazo fundraising. I have had grave concerns about industry co-optation of any form of Bastard organizing to regain our state confiscated materials.

The landscape is such that with international adoption becoming an ever more ‘sticky’ proposition what with so many abuses coming to light as of late and ‘sending countries’ closing their doors on U.S. Prospective Adopters, many are instead turning to domestic adoption.

And not merely domestic, ‘open adoptions’ so often legally unenforceable, but great for the marketing.

Abrazo is one of the agencies that has focused upon finding a niche market for itself, selling ‘openness’, be that ‘open’ adoption or open records. So much the better if they can find self professed ‘activist’ adoptees, such as Amy to give their ringing endorsements. (see in particular my Amy related portions of this post, Adoptee Rights Demonstration / Day for Adoptee Rights some history and Gershom’s “storm” to see her personal endorsement of Abrazo, it too has since been removed from her blogsite.)

Similar to what my partner said, I am not here to work to create events that agencies such as Abrazo can utilize in their own marketing, specifically see pieces such as Abrazo’s Affinity volume XIV number 1 newsletter (pdf) front page. This is what industry co-optation of Bastard voice looks like in practice. This is ARD in use by Abrazo.

They do not define the meaning of Bastard rights, nor what our issues (political, legal or otherwise), nor feelings are. They are at a separate position in the adoption pentagon (Bastards, parents, adoptive parents, agencies/lawyers/intermediaries/lobbyists/industry, and finally the State.) Abrazo occupies the space of agencies/lawyers/intermediaries/lobbyists/industry. Their interests are not our interests.

They cannot speak for us.

I’ve been writing about my concerns with such since for some time now, see my tags, Adoptee Rights Demonstration, and Abrazo Adoption Associates.

And so when nuDAR organizers such as Gershom EMBRACE those who fundraised off us into their own agency 501c3 for months without our knowledge or consent, yes, just as you might reasonably expect, some of us were absolutely not in New Orleans, (with good reason).

Bastard Nation represents a non-industry co-opted Bastard created and Bastard run organization. One where Bastards speak with their own voice, not as photo-op ‘set design’ for agency propaganda. (‘Cause I think we can all guess what’s gonna run in upcoming Abrazo materials, pretty pictures of them “supporting” adoptees in New Orleans, never mind what they themselves stand to gain by such.)

One is about us working for ourselves, the other is about how adoptees can be used to further the marketing goals of the industry.

When it mattered, BN stood by their principles, that of “accepting no support from the adoption industry,” so much so that when Amy from within the DAR organizers list was advocating for Abrazo and sharing information with them, Bastard Nation executive committee members took the drastic step of unanimously voting Amy off BN’s Legislative Committee. You can find the full text of BN’s letter to Amy, which she first posted on her blog then took down, in my post here. Quoting the most pertinent part:

Bastard Nation has a long time policy of not accepting support from the adoption industry. Without saying, we do not advocate for the adoption industry or any adoption agency or professional within it. You have done both. As an private individual you have the perfect right to do so, but as a member of BN’s Legislative Committee your duty is to uphold BN principles, practices, and integrity.

Your relationship with Abrazo as documented in your own blog, “Regarding Bastard Nation’s Withdrawal” posted on June 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm and your actions on the original DAR Action List clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding of and concern for Bastard Nation’s mission, activities, and ethics, as well as the security and integrity of the original DAR. We are astounded that you failed to grasp the ethics and motives of an adoption agency funding the DAR protest, much less their procedure of funneling funds sent to them into their own 501(3)(c) account. This funding was done without the knowledge DAR sponsors and leaders, and would never have been approved had they been informed of the scheme.

We take this step to insure the security of Bastard Nation correspondence and the upholding of our principles and rules.

Bastard Nation has had to make some difficult choices surrounding the ARD trainwreck, but in the end, they stood by their own core values as well as the long term interests of the far broader non-industry co-opted adoptee rights work.

It is vitally important that whether lobbying or doing educational work, the genuine adoptee-centric open records movement be disentangled from industry interests and finances. To do otherwise is not only a conflict of interest, it is to abdicate authentic Bastard voice and the ability to speak genuinely for those in our position of the adoption pentagon.

At the end of the day it’s really a question of whose narrative is it in; them participating in an adoptee narrative or adoptees reduced to props in their narrative? It’s a question of influence, societal privilege, control, political access, and power, and ultimately who has more, adoptees or industry?

Bastards must control their own narratives, else they become typecast actors who may as well be in from central casting, playing out roles predetermined for them, for the use and purposes of others. Not unlike the roles Bastards are so often photographically reduced to be that in online photolistings or in industry marketing materials.

I am not saying that Bastards must ‘go it alone’, we certainly have other potential allies; others who are also in their own distinct ways disempowered, de-voiced, and used. Manufactured iconography has been created of them, things have been done to them, and things are ‘done on behalf of them.’ Likewise, they too, often have little access to political power, or mediums in which their authentic voices and their own narratives can be autonomously controlled. I am speaking of course, of others both within and without adoptionland. Most of all though, Bastards stand with those fighting the abuses and abusers, the corruption and the corrupt within the industry that had such effect upon so many of our lives, (Bastard or otherwise.)

I am talking about addressing systemic structures, and understanding who in those relationships ultimately has power and who doesn’t. Those with the power are those who are in positions to actually utilize a given event, regardless of any other attempted narrative or intent.

It’s not a question of what happened, it’s a question of who is more in position to utilize such; adoptees, or industry? Are adoptees there for themselves, or just to be used yet again, by the likes of Abrazo, whom Gershom has clearly welcomed, even in the aftermath of their actions.

That’s the difference. And that’s a big piece of why I at least, was not in NOLA.

****************

Update July 29th

****************

This evening Abrazo Adoption Associates’ executive director Elizabeth Jurnovich attempted to comment on this post, I have moderated her comment, but will address the pertinent points. In her comment this evening she said:

The February fundraising reference regarded Abrazo’s contribution to the Protest’s newspaper ad, for which Ron sent us his thanks, ;a donation which was openly listed, along with Bastard Nation, for MONTHS before any of you took offense to the Facebook fundraising effort we later launched in May.

So let’s be clear, in this, she is now saying that the February reference which she had made in the attempted comment to Sleeps with Bastard’s blog (back on June 6th) was in relation to a specific contribution for the newspaper ad. (What Ron or did not in regard to contributions was unknown to me at least.)

If the Abrazo donation was listed, it would have been listed on the page only visible to donors. As I was not a donor directly to the event, I never had any way of seeing such. (I’ve already explained, I was unwilling to give money into Gershom’s personal account with no organizational oversight.) So I at least never saw such a listing. I was unaware of any agency money in the event at the time I was an organizer.

Finally Ms. Jurnovich says in this evening’s attempted comment that as I had noted earlier, from the facebook fundraising history page, it appears to have been created May 9th.

Then there is the explanation of the fundraising she offered in her attempted comment to Sleeps with Bastard’s blog which was also moderated. It was this eariler June 6th attempted comment from Ms. Jurnovich that I based the above post on. Allow me to again, quote the pertinent portions:

The Facebook Causes application required us to identify a 501c3 to which donations could be directed and the Adoptee Rights March was not an IRS-recognized non-profit (which was why our efforts to encourage our agency clientele to donate via links posted on our website since 2/08 had been largely unsuccessful.) Our agency had already made a donation to the March eariler in the year, as was clearly denoted on the donors’ grid shown on the March’s website,…

The “links” portion in the above was unclear as she was speaking of the facebook fundraising, was she by “links” referring to links (to the ARD website?) or links (to their facebook fundraising?). I believe it’s now clear what she probably intended was links to into the ARD website. The Facebook page would have created months later in May.

Perhaps Ms. Jurnovich could clarify, this then is one question:

Is she saying that 1.Abrazo had made the newspaper ad related donation, 2.AND that Abrazo had links off their website since February encouraging their “agency clientele to donate via links” to the Adoptee Rights Demonstration page, (which was not a nonprofit) and 3. and thus in May they stopped trying to get their members to go over to the ARD page to donate and instead set up their own Facebook fundrainsing page to collect donations into their own agency 501c3?

If so, the facebook fundraising, which apparently began May 9th, still utilized our event without our knowledge or consent.To the best of my knowledge, Abrazo never contacted Adoptee Rights Demonstration organizers to mention them having set up the Facebook fundraising without our permission until apparently Ms. Jurnovich first mentioned it to Amy, which Amy then passed along to the rest of us.

Between the two attempted comments Ms. Jurnovich’s own words, lead to a second question:

Is the February fundraising mention in relation to the newspaper ad as Ms. Jurnovich said tonight, or a reference to earlier supposed links off the Abrazo page as she said in the June 6th attempted comment to Sleeps with Bastard’s blog?

Again, the actual dates of when the Facebook fundraising began are still far less important than the fact that for whatever reason, without ARD organizer’s knowledge or consent at some point, (apparently May 9th) Abrazo set up their own form of fundraising into their own agency 501c3 off our event and it was done without ever once notifying, much less asking permission from Adopee Rights Demonstration organizers.

Even if Ron had been aware of agency money in the ARD, something others of us were not aware of, that hardly granted permission for Abrazo to set up their own fundraising off our event into their agency 501c3 .

(Credit where credit is due, story brought to my attention courtesy of my ex-wife, Mahalo dear!)

***

By way of The Hartford Courant were come to a July 18th article, DCF Worker Charged In Death Of Infant, which details the sad May 19th death of Michael Brown Jr, a 7-month-old foster child.

(Also note the video available on the page, while not very well written, it does mention Michael’s previous foster mother coming wanting to know what happened.)

His foster final mother, Suzanne Listro is now facing first-degree manslaughter and risk of injury to a minor charges

Unfortunately, this rapidly devolves into something far more complicated. Listro herself is a 15-year DCF employee who had been granted her foster parent license in February.

I strongly advise readers to see the entire article.

Listro herself, had a history of previous abuse investigations, she:

had been investigated twice by DCF since 2006 in response to allegations she had abused her adopted 3-year-old son. In each instance, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated by DCF investigations, which the head of the agency described Thursday as “substandard and unacceptable.”

The article notes further down:

The 3-year-old, now in DCF custody, was adopted through an international agency that also checked Listro’s background, Hamilton said.

So both the unnamed agency and DCF’s own investigations failed to turn up the previous alleged abuse, and went ahead and gave her kids.

This has spurred a massive investigation at CT DCF, changes in policies about how previous abuse investigations, and suspensions of those involved in the placement. Commissioner Susan I. Hamilton is in essence working up an agency policy restructuring in the wake of Michael’s death:

Along with the discipline imposed on the investigators and their supervisors, Hamilton said she has called for several other steps to make sure abuse investigations are conducted more thoroughly and to make sure licensing officials have access to all background information before granting foster care licenses in the future.

Hamilton said she has placed the special investigations unit that looked into the earlier abuse allegations under new management while ordering a complete overhaul for the unit, including retraining for all staff on the proper conduct of investigations.

In the meantime, she said, she has ordered her chief of staff to review all recent unsubstantiated investigations, as well as cases that have been substantiated but with recommendations that the case be closed, to make sure they were conducted properly.

To prevent background information from slipping through the cracks, Hamilton said, she has ordered all future abuse investigations, substantiated or not, to be entered into the agency’s database and to cease keeping unsubstantiated files in hard-copy form.

She said she has also ordered a review of all DCF employees who have been granted foster care licenses to make sure they were granted properly.

The agency, which employs more than 3,400 people, has 28 employees who are licensed foster parents, as well as 15 who are in the process of obtaining a license, she said.

To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, the agency will also begin outsourcing all applications for foster care licenses involving DCF employees to a private contractor by Oct. 1, Hamilton said.

Said outsourcing will be something to keep our eyes on closely. The privatization of licensing for example has been a common facet of dismantling previous state authority over such matters. Costs related to that contract should also be examined carefully.

Child Welfare League of America is being brought in to conduct an “independent review”:

Lastly, the commissioner said, she has asked the Child Welfare League of America to conduct an independent, comprehensive review of the Listro case to identify any other systemic problems or possible solutions.

“I want to again stress that I and the entire department are responding as fully as we can to this tragic loss,” Hamilton said.

For Michael of course, this is all too little too late. The system failed him completely.

The lack of inclusion of any evidence of the previous investigations caused DCF and the unnamed agency to greenlight Suzanne Listro. As always, when I find time, I will see what I can do about finding the agency in question.

One can’t help but wonder, if this was the policy in CT, how many other states foster and adoption programs are doing placements without the full history available to them?