Last Thursday, (April 24th) an AP story ‘went out on the wires’: AP Exclusive: US Alleges Baby Selling in Vietnam.

Adoption from Vietnam has of course had a long and troubled history, this latest step is only one of many in an ongoing saga.

US adoptions from Vietnam had previously been stopped between 2003 and 2006 due to evidence of unethical conduct. Adoptions resumed in 2006 under a under a 2005 bilateral document (the “Memorandum of Agreement” click link for PDF) seeking to ensure adoption was practiced ethically. The Agreement is set to expire Sept 1, 2008. Clearly, conditions did not improve, leading to the latest measures towards curtailing US adoptions from Vietnam.

Sadly, once adoptions reopened, far from a tentative approach with the history of abuses in mind, instead a ‘gold rush’ mentality, wherein getting what kids could be gotten while the doors were still open kicked in. Damn the abuses, full steam ahead. Thus creating the largest boom in Vietnam to US adoptions to date as potential adoptive couples try to get in under the wire.

Now as the evidence piles up showing that kids were obtained through all manner of underhanded and illegal means, PAPs (prospective adoptive parents) are anguishing that “their child” is going to be one of the many children behind the closed doors, and thus are screaming politically and clutching desperately the photographs their agencies provided them, as happens in each and every country wherein Americans strip mine pregnant womyn for their children only to have to doors closed on their efforts.

Quoting the AP story:

Vietnam has failed to police its adoption system, allowing corruption, fraud and baby-selling to flourish, the U.S. Embassy says in a new report obtained by The Associated Press.

…

The nine-page document describes brokers scouring villages for babies, hospitals selling infants whose mothers cannot pay their bills, and a grandmother giving away her grandchild — without telling the child’s mother.

…

The U.S. Embassy report is based on a review of hundreds of adoptions since they resumed in Vietnam in 2006.

…

…others have been flooding the system with cash to get babies for American parents, who pay up to $25,000 for an adoption.

With 42 U.S. adoption agencies licensed in Vietnam, the competition for babies is intense.

Some agencies have been paying orphanage directors $10,000 per referral, the report says, and some have taken orphanage directors on shopping sprees and junkets to the United States in return for a steady flow of babies.

“Adoption service providers have reported that cash and in-kind donations have been diverted by orphanage officials and used to finance personal property, private cars, jewelry, and in one case, a commercial real estate development,” the report says.

Aloisi gave the AP a list of 10 particularly egregious cases, including the grandmother who gave away her grandchild.

The mother, working in another province for several weeks, had left the baby with her mother-in-law. She returned to discover the baby had been given up for adoption. Eventually, she got the baby back after U.S. officials uncovered the ruse during investigations as part of the U.S, visa approval process.

In another case, a baby was allegedly taken by hospital officials and turned over for adoption because the mother couldn’t afford to pay her $750 hospital bill.

Hospital officials had inflated the bill, claiming the child had serious health problems. U.S. Embassy officials say they discovered the child was healthy. Again, the child was returned to its birth mother.

The report also says some orphanages have pressured birth mothers to give up their babies in return for about $450 — nearly a year’s salary for many.

…

U.S. Embassy officials began raising questions last year, after their routine investigations turned up widespread inconsistencies in adoption paperwork.

They also noticed a suspicious surge in the number of babies listed as abandoned on adoption papers. That makes it impossible to confirm the infants were genuine orphans, or that their parents had knowingly put them up for adoption, as required by U.S. law.

In adoptions before 2003, 20 percent were abandoned babies. Since they resumed under tighter rules, that has risen to 85 percent, the embassy report says.

U.S. officials believe paperwork problems and reports of abandoned infants have risen in part because corrupt adoption workers are trying to cover up baby-selling.

The AP piece is based on the US Embassy in Hanoi’s summary; Adopted Children Immigrant Visa Unit, Summary of Irregularities in Adoptions from Vietnam and the warning just issued- Warning Concerning Adoptions in Vietnam (dated April.) I would advise readers to take a few moments to read through these documents, they catalog a litany of unethical child procurement and outright selling.

The section in the summary, “Financial links between ASPs and Orphanages” for example, lays out the SYSTEM by which numbers of children available for adoption are generated. (ASPs, by the way, refer to Adoption Service Providers, not snakes. Or at least, not necessarily snakes.)

This paragraph in particular stood out to me:

According to DIA, orphanages are required to refer one child for foreign adoption for every x dollars donated by the ASP. Thus, if the ASP funds a $10,000 project and the per-child donation is set at $1000 per child, then the orphanage would be required to refer 10 children for intercountry adoption to the ASP. Should the orphanage not have 10 children who are qualified for intercountry adoption, then, according to DIA, the orphanage director is required to find the additional children to complete his side of the agreement. Two orphanage directors have confirmed to consular officers that they are feeling pressure to find more children for their orphanage to “compensate” ASPs for their donations.

The coercion is bedrock to parts of the SYSTEM.

In the Unlicensed Facilities portion we find all too familiar conditions:

In five provinces, the Embassy has discovered unlicensed, unregulated facilities that provide free room and board to pregnant women in return for their commitment to relinquish their children upon birth. None of these facilities openly advertises its services. Women learn of the facilities existence solely by word of mouth. While the facilities are open and the women are free to come and go as they please, they incur a debt for each night that they stay that they have to pay if they do not relinquish their child. Recent Vietnamese media reports of such facilities have revealed that women often live in squalor and in many cases are forced to labor during their stay. In several of these facilities, there is a policy that the birth mother cannot see her child after delivery, in order to prevent bonding. Women in these facilities report receiving up to 6 million Vietnam Dong as payment for their children. While the source of funding for these facilities is unclear, they appear to have close connections with nearby orphanages.

When the Embassy visited these facilities, we saw up to 20 women living in a single home. These women reported that orphanage officials came to the house in order to have them sign paperwork relinquishing their children. The women would then receive the promised payments. Often, the child is then taken to a nearby hospital or orphanage where a second set of paperwork is produced stating that the child was deserted. This is the paperwork that is submitted to the DIA and to the Embassy to support the claim that the child is an orphan.

The demand the pregnant womyn repay a maternity camp here in the States has often been made illegal, yet when done abroad/outsourced, PAPs don’t blink an eye. Far from refusing to deal with agencies that promote this kind of extortion, PAPs line up around the block to get a hold of any kids made available by such systems of coercion.

Lest anyone for one moment assume it’s merely the ASPs/agencies who do the dirty work, the section “Reports of Corruption in Adoption System” makes PAP direct involvment clear:

In addition, statements from adopting parents and ASP employees show that many ASPs ask adopting parents to pay cash donations to orphanage directors and staff. These payments are illegal according to the Vietnamese Ministry of Justice, but the Ministry acknowledges that they are widespread and that they are a key factor in the irregularities seen in the adoption system in Vietnam. Further, ASPs have reported that cash and in-kind donations have been diverted by orphanage officials and used to finance personal property, private cars, jewelry and, in one case, a commercial real estate development.

Yup, gained through illicit means or no, there are still plenty of PAPs and agencies who still want these kids; stolen, bought, or otherwise illegally gained, it appears to make no difference to the brokers and purchasers. All maintain personal deniability; OTHERS may do it, but not us, not me, not MY baby, when time after time, such assertions clearly cannot be proven.

By way of a partial round up of responses to the article and the Embassy documents from various blogs (as usual a link here does not by any stretch imply any form of Baby Love Child’s personal endorsement) here’s some further reading;

Ethnically Incorrect Daughter has a series of recent coverage, among her ongoing writings on Vietnamese adoption:

Vietnamese babies ‘stolen for adoption in the West’

Warning concerning adoptions in Vietnam

US alleges baby-selling in Vietnam

Vietnamese Adoptions- DNA requirement

Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform:

UPDATE: Call to Action Vietnam- USCIS Warning

Voices for Vietnam Adoption Integrity

Summary of Irregularities in Adoptions in Vietnam

AP Exclusive: US alleges baby-selling in Vietnam

DNA Testing Update

Still Waiting for an Official Announcement

The Leaked DNA memo

Fleas Biting has:

US Embassy in Vietnam: Summary of Irregularities in Adoptions in Vietnam

First of all, many thanks to Kippa Herring on the adult adoptees forum for providing the information and links here.

A couple of news stories, first from the Guardian UK:

Lost 400 children may have been trafficked into sex or drugs trade.

More than 400 foreign children, many suspected of being trafficked into the sex or drug trade in Britain, have gone missing from local authority care.

Children from Africa, Asia and eastern Europe have disappeared from safe houses and foster homes around the country’s biggest ports and airports, figures released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed.

and

According to records from 16 local authorities around England’s ports and airports, an estimated 408 children disappeared between July 2004 and July 2007. They are known by officialdom as unaccompanied asylum seekers and child protection campaigners believe most have been trafficked.

It is thought that many escape only for traffickers to send them on for exploitation in other parts of the world, particularly Italy and Spain. Only 12 children have been traced and returned to care.

and

According to the figures obtained by the Guardian, Newcastle city council reported 12 Somali children missing and said 13 of the 17 Chinese children it has taken into care have disappeared. Officials at Suffolk county council said they find unaccompanied children arriving in shipping containers and in the backs of lorries travelling through Felixstowe. They admitted losing track of 16 children since March 2005, including six Afghans. The worst record was at the London Borough of Hillingdon which estimates it is dealing with 1,000 unaccompanied minors a year, coming mostly through Heathrow airport.

The council said 74 went missing between 2006 and 2007 and it does not know how many it lost in the previous years. Despite a system of safe houses for the 145 children who came into the care of West Sussex, which includes Gatwick airport, 42 went missing, largely Chinese and Nigerians.

Here are two other links:

Another from the Guardian UK: Saved from child traffickers, but not for long.

and another tiny blurb from Communitycare.co.uk: News round up: Lost 400 children may have been trafficked.

Naturally, after digging through the articles, my next search was to go find out who the organization ECPAT UK is (ECPAT UK apparently now stands for “End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes.” They are the UK national representative of ECPAT International, created in Bangkok in 1991 as a campaign to “End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism;” see their history page) and take a careful look at the work they’re doing, particularly as they appear to be spearheading the effort to begin an inquiry on the missing kids which includes their “Thr3e small steps” campaign:

What are the Three Small Steps?

ECPAT UK and World Vision UKare urging the Government to give equal rights to trafficked children.

To safeguard trafficked children the Government must:

• agree that trafficked children should have all the rights set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child
• ratify and implement the Council of Europe Trafficking Convention that says how victims of trafficking should be treated.
• appoint a child trafficking watchdog – an independent expert who monitors and reports publicly on what is happening and recommends change.

While I am somewhat supportive of their first recommendation (I do have certain reservations) that trafficked children should have all the rights set out in the (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (a convention the United States refuses to become party to, by the way), and I’m not yet familiar with the details of the Council of Europe Trafficking Convention and how they would play out, it’s their third point that concerns me most.

Particularly as the calls for this “independent expert” are coming from ministry organizations such as World Vision UK, the UK branch of the American christian NGO. Here’s a Worldvision page on some of their work on the Thr3e Small Steps campaign.

A typical example of the real focus that underlies World Vision UK’s work would be something such as this off their more prayers to pray page:

We ask especially for Your grace on those who are in prison in Rwanda. We pray that the Good News of Jesus Christ will be brought to each one. Help those who have committed crimes to seek your forgiveness. Give them the will to be born again and have new life in You.

Depsite pre-emptive objection handling through language such as this:

Is evangelism a part of World Vision’s projects?

World Vision does not proselytise. The organisation does not coerce nor demand that people hear any religious message or convert to Christianity before, during or after receiving assistance.

Educational activities based on Christian values are included in World Vision projects if appropriate and desired by the community. However, World Vision respects the religious beliefs and practices in countries where it operates, and seeks mutual understanding with people of all faiths.

Whenever appropriate, World Vision works in partnership with local churches and other faith-based organisations in an effort to work inclusively and collaboratively within existing community structures. Our focus is to respond to human need, and our compassion and professionalism reflect our faith.

Their proselytization policy is worthy of a much closer look. To quote a Seattle Weekly article from 2006 on World Vision, entitled “The AIDS Evangelists:”

Stearns and other World Vision leaders frequently note that they have a policy against proselytizing, but they define proselytizing as making aid conditional on hearing a religious message.

The same article includes a description of World Vision founder and evangelist Bob Pierce as told by his daughter, Marilee Pierce-Dunker:

Yet Pierce never gave up the evangelical aspect of his work. Whether from Korea, India, the Philippines, or Afghanistan, his letters home were full of ecstatic descriptions of the sometimes tens of thousands who showed up to hear him preach, always taking care to note how many “decisions” to convert to Christianity he racked up each night.

She goes further, attempting to make it clear that to Pierce’s mind, every last bit of ‘relief work’ he ever did was purely a step in creating the reciprocal process whereby the destitute, the starving and the orphans would convert to christianity; relief work as a tactic towards gaining religious conversion, not and end unto itself:

She takes out a letter that recently came into her hands, written by her father on his deathbed to the World Vision president who succeeded him. “Everything I ever did that helped a widow or an orphan,” she reads, “the only purpose was not that they have a better life, but that they might have eternal life.”

About the last thing these missing kids or more generally trafficked kids need is to stick an evangelist in the middle of their process of trying to get out. They need people fully focused on the needs of the kid themselves, not how many notches for jesus they can add to their bedposts out of these uniquely vulnerable kids. They’ve already suffered enough at the hands of predators, the last thing they need is a new batch of predators focused on how these kids can serve as a means to their pre-existing religious conversion ends.

While other groups that genuinely do focus on the needs of children (such as UNICEF UK) are listed as merely “supporters,” it concerns me deeply that (if I read the following correctly), Worldvision is listed as a joint sponsor on the campaign, perhaps due to believing that they may see a way to benefit by it should their goal be reached.

Who supports the Three Small Steps Campaign?

Three Small Steps is a joint campaign of World Vision UK and ECPAT UK with the support of Anti-Slavery International, Save the Children, NSPCC, the Anti Trafficking Legal Project (ATLeP), Barnardo’s, The Body Shop Foundation, CHASTE, The Children’s Society, EveryChild, ISS UK, Jubilee Campaign and UNICEF UK. Many of the campaign calls have been supported by Members of Parliament from different party groups.

How so? Well back to that third point; the campaign calls for the appointment of a Rapporteur, or as they phrase it an “independent watchdog,” some party who can coordinate, here in the ECPAT UK FAQ on the campaign is somewhat of a description of how they view the Rapporteur should function in a Q&A format:

The government has established a number of new institutions tasked with combating human trafficking recently. Your campaign is asking for another body – a national watchdog. How can you justify this?

The appointment of an independent national watchdog, or Rapporteur, is not going to duplicate the existing bodies but complement them and help them achieve more within their mandates and in coordination between them. International organisations of which the UK is a member have called for this and the Council of Europe Trafficking Convention recommends it too. It will make a difference in the systematic collection and analysis of the now scarce information and will allow independent oversight of anti-trafficking efforts and their coordination. There are indications that this institution is making a difference in the fight against trafficking in those countries where such a body is established.

The government says the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group (IDMG) on Human Trafficking is doing the work that you suggest should be done by an independent watchdog.

That is not really the case. The IDMG has a very different remit and is not an institution but a quarterly gathering of government ministers. Its work is very important in the fight against trafficking. But, it is just not possible for this body to carry out the activities that are proposed within the remit of an independent watchdog.

The Rapporteur role appears to be something they want crafted to be a ‘national watchdog’ and able to make policy recommendations. Whoever was in said position could steer policy towards supporting programs run by groups like World Vision. After all, there just aren’t that many programs for children who have been through such things, and World Vision, heavily funded by US “faith-based” grants, have parlayed their US federal dollars and ties to U.S. law enforcement agencies into a truly international effort.

The scope of the World Vision Child Sex Tourism Prevention Project is broad:

World Vision has implemented this project in Cambodia, Thailand, Costa Rica, Mexico, Brazil, and the United States.

With backing from the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, World Vision has tackled this problem…

In practical application their work begins to look like children going through centers with programs exemplified by stories like this.

“Child Crisis Partners”

Hearing of the small girl’s tragic ordeal, one of Lan’s neighbors suggested taking her to the Neavea Thmey Center. A sexual trauma recovery facility operated by World Vision, it is supported by donors who participate in our “Child Crisis Partners” program.

World Vision’s Trauma Recovery Center: Neavea Thmey

Neavea Thmey, which means “new ship” in Khmer, infers the new journey girls embark upon in recovering from sexual abuse. In this protective, nurturing center, girls aged 8 to 18 are supported in a peer environment through the provision of:

• Basic services to assist the process of healing and recovery, including medical assistance, psychosocial counseling, spiritual counsel, and sports as well as recreational activities.
• Educational and developmental support through informal education, and vocational and skills training for income generation.
• Support for reintegration back into society through family reconciliation services, foster care or group homes (whatever is appropriate for each girl).
• Sexual exploitation prevention through research, networking, and targeted advocacy work.

Most girls’ stay in the center is for a period of six to 12 months before starting their new life. More than 700 girls have been assisted by the Neavea Thmey Center since it opened in 1997.

World Vision “Spiritual counsel.” Yeah, just what she needs. Not.

Going back up to the article I quoted above, with facilities like this, it concerns me deeply when I hear calls for turning over legal guardianship of the kids to “independent guardians”:

These vulnerable children need to be given independent guardians as soon as possible to ensure they are protected from traffickers who we know target them even while they are in care.”

It’s bad enough turning the kids over to places like this, but it becomes potentially far worse, when places like this could have some form of legal custody. Running away from such programs is one thing when a child is still somewhat independent, if places like this were to gain legal custody the consequences running away would change dramatically.

What these kids need is genuine support without ulterior motives, as for them actually getting it? I won’t be holding my breath.

Needless to say, this is near and dear to my heart-

The BEA action alert can be found here on the BEA myspace page.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Turning to local news, Samuel and Donna Merryman are finally off to jail for starving the son they adopted from Russia to death. Clearly, their “deep faith” was no obstacle to torturing and starving Dennis (born Dennis Uritsky):

(Quoting from this Baltimore Sun article, Prison for Child’s Death)

“Dennis died in January 2005. Photos taken the day he died showed an emaciated 37-pound body.

Two older siblings described how Dennis spent nights in an unheated room, strapped to a crib without a mattress to cushion him. His hands were tied behind his back with an elastic band, and bells were attached to his body so his parents could hear him when he moved, the siblings testified.

They said Dennis was fed a puree of yogurt and asparagus as punishment for misbehaving.”

Dennis was one of four siblings the Merrymans had adopted from Russia. Currently the four, in addition to the Merryman’s two biological children and a third from Donna’s previous marriage are living in foster care. Prior to the sentencing, there appear to have been a series of supervised visits with the children.

Dennis’ death appears to have triggered the series of events that got the other children out:

“The heinousness goes further,” Adkins-Tobin said. “They involved other children in it. Not only did they require them to take part in the abuse [by tying up their brother], but they made them play a role in the cover-up. Dennis, by dying, saved the rest of the children.”

One wonders what forms of support the remaining children are receiving in relation to their roles in the death of their brother. To date I’ve seen no mention of emotional support or counseling relating to their particular circumstances, no grief counseling or mechanisms to help them perhaps work through their own potential feelings of guilt. As far as I can tell, they’ve just been passed along into the foster system.

Now that the Merrymans (’cause I’m certainly not about to label them ‘parents’) are off to prison, will the kids just become available for adoption, or in the case of the Russian adoptees, re-adoption? What will become of the kids who lived through all this?

Beyond the sentencing a questions still linger; who was the agency that did the placement, and who the fuck did the homestudy? I suppose those culpable just get to whistle a little tune, look side to side and quietly make for the nearest EXIT, certainly no consequences to them. But I still want to know:

Who gave these monsters not one, but FOUR kids?

What precisely did those homestudies look like?

It’s long past time societally we came to the realization that “deep faith,” being a Sunday school teacher, claiming a “born again” experience, homeschooling etc are not some magic bullet qualifications to be an adoptive parent.

Seeing for example, a cross around a neck of a prospective adoptive parent, or perhaps getting a signed pastor’s statement saying a couple is in good standing with their local church doesn’t preclude them from going on to starve a child to death. ‘Proper’ tithing behaviour does not equate to proper parenting skills.

(Yet for many agencies, the statement of faith is the key qualification/deciding factor.)

When it comes to whether or not a couple will murder a child, a statement of faith means diddly.

Doubly so when you have the couple’s former pastor, Rev. John A. Dekker, (who performed their wedding) running around AFTER the sentencing claiming the couple are “not criminals:”

Their former pastor, the Rev. John A. Dekker, said, “They’re not criminals. They tried to do certain things for Dennis and it backfired. The judge had no sympathy.”

Pathetic. Inexcusably pathetic.

If anything, it raises the question of whether the couple were acting on someone’s advice, theological or otherwise.

***

Naturally, Bastardette, who has long been on the story of Russian kids killed by their adopters (see her important series “Forever Family–Forever Dead: a Memoriam for Russian Adoptees“) has already got a piece up on the sentencing, Forever Family, Forever Dead Update: Merrymans Sentenced in Death of Dennis. Once again, I can but tip my hat to her tenacity and intestinal fortitude.

(photo- Tony Gutierrez/Associated Press)

Not sure how many adoption related blogs are touching on the mess in Texas at the moment, but I thought I’d at least pull some of the bones out of the steaming piles of coverage for contemplation-

Down in this CNN piece, Photos show police well-equipped for polygamist raid from last Wed. are several details-

“More than 400 children — all of whom lived in the large, dormitory-style log homes — were seized in the raid on suspicion they were being sexually and physically abused. They are being held in the San Angelo Coliseum and are awaiting a massive court hearing Thursday that will begin to determine their fate.

FLDS members carefully documented the raid in notes, video and still pictures of police and child protection workers talking with families, but much of that material was seized when police executed one of two search warrants on the ranch, Parker said.

“We’ve known from a little bit of experience to document it and prepare to have that presented in court or wherever it’s to our benefit,” said the FLDS member who declined to give his name. Law enforcement in Arizona and Utah raided FLDS sites in 1935, 1944 and 1953.

The 416 children held by Texas authorities had been accompanied by 139 women until Monday, when officials ordered all the women away except for those whose children are under 5.”

…

“Meisner said child welfare officials still can’t find birth certificates for many of the children, making parentage and age determinations impossible. She said many of the children don’t know who their parents are and many have the same last name but may or may not be related.

“It’s a difficult process,” she said.”

And this AP piece in yesterday’s Baltimore Sun- Polygamist sect hearing in Texas descends into farce–

“The case — clearly one of the biggest, most convoluted child-custody hearings in U.S. history — presented an extraordinary spectacle: big-city lawyers in suits and mothers in 19th-century, pioneer-style dresses, all packed into a courtroom and a nearby auditorium connected by video. “

…

“Walther refused to put medical records and other evidence in electronic form, which could be e-mailed among the lawyers, because it contained personal information. A courier had to run from the courthouse to the auditorium delivering one document at a time.”

…

“State officials asked the judge for permission to conduct genetic testing on the children and adults because of difficulty sorting out the sect’s tangled family relationships and matching youngsters with their parents. The judge did not immediately rule.”

…

“The judge must weigh the allegations of abuse and also decide whether it is in the children’s best interest to be placed into mainstream society after they have been told all their lives that the outside world is hostile and immoral.

If the judge gives the state permanent custody of the children, the Texas child services agency will face the enormous task of finding suitable homes. It will also have to decipher brother-sister relationships so that it can try to preserve them.”

For the moment, I’m haven’t much to say, other than to make brief mention of my own ever so brief visit to another of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ (FLDS) other prime locations, Colorado City, AZ (and Hildale UT). The geographic isolation of that portion of northern AZ, (just south of Utah) the north rim of the Grand Canyon area makes for one hell of a study.

Most Bastards aren’t particularly up on Mormon history and politics, particularly FLDS history, but there’s a fair amount of interest in it, particularly in relation to the foster care and adoption.

Back in 2006, the CBC’s programme “The Fifth Estate” did a piece on the FLDS outpost of Bountiful, BC. I found it a useful ‘backgrounder’.

Bastardette has been doing an AMAZING job of both covering and organizing against IL’s HB4623. She has a whole series of blog posts about the disastrous legislation. (Go read them!!! Then get off your butt and work to crush HB 4623!)

But some of what I’m finding most interesting are some of the responses to the legislation from people like the Illinois Catholic Conference , see their linked statement on IL HB 4623, which I’ll quote here at length-

“We are concerned that in those adoptions that have taken place before the effective date of the legislation, the changes under this legislation will lead to a breach of the implied confidentiality between a birth parent and an adoption agency, like Catholic Charities. Client confidentiality is a premise of social work practice unless otherwise stated when it will not be possible. Though there may not have been written confidentiality agreements, particularly in older adoption cases, it was commonly understood among all the parties that there would be confidentiality based on this premise of client confidentiality. In addition, agencies have followed set procedures that also establish this confidentiality with clients. This legislation attempts to change the understandings that were established in past client situations and attempts to undo promises made in good faith with birth parents who put their trust into the agency.

This breach of implied confidentiality then also raises possible legal implications. Birth parents have relied on this understanding of confidentiality when they were clients of agencies, and under the proposed changes in HB 4623, this confidentiality is then broken, raising potential for lawsuits against agencies. This potential legal consequence of HB 4623 for adoption agencies that acted in good faith should be given consideration.

While our Catholic Charities agencies now have moved to facilitating adoptions with as much openness as all the parties involved are comfortable with, this legislation will impact adoption cases that were conducted under a different set of understandings and during a different era or context of adoption practice. We need to move cautiously and understand the breadth of the implications and consequences of this significant change in access to original birth certificates, especially in older adoption cases. “

Setting aside for the moment the complete bullshit that is, as they title that section the “Breach of Implied Confidentiality”,

(particularly since no documented actual promises of so called ‘confidentiality’ relating to adoption have ever been produced- and the fact that many original parents were promised quite the opposite by their agencies, catholic or otherwise- they were oft times promised that when the kid turned 18 they’d come back to find them.)

allow me instead, to focus on the stunning meat of the admission sitting in the midst of that text- that these people are sweating bullets. That if records are opened these people are terrified of staring down massive, potentially agency crushing, certainly public relations crushing lawsuits, presumably by all members of the so called ‘triad’ (which is another indirection related fairy tale bit of terminology.)

While they may whine about ‘good intentions’ and the changing times and norms in relation to adoption, the bottom line remains, they have openly announced that what’s in those records may not merely not reflect well on them, it may provide evidence for (their word not mine) “lawsuits”. An amazing admission.

To try to mitigate the impending disaster (to their perspective) of ever increasing expectations of openness in adoption, along with the growing numbers of states that have actually opened records, the IL Catholic Conference offers two band-aids; that open records only be prospective, going forward in time, not back. (Such that all past misdeeds get swept under the rug, all while being mislabled “adoption reform”), and that going forward, those who will be gaining access to information also undergo a ‘counseling’ process at the hands of an “assisting entity” (Catholic Charities being their preference, of course.)

After all, having a fox watching the henhouse is always beneficial- to the fox.

Fortunately, when it comes to “assisting entities” and (catholic) adopta-therapeutracies, we have Bastardette to the rescue to help untangle that particular knot in her incredibly important piece aptly titled- “Some thoughts on the therapeutcracy and sealed records.”

Which is where I posted the following comment-

“Brilliant piece, Bastardette!

Note the specifics- not just any ole adopta-therapeutracy, Catholic adopta-therapeutracy, horrified at the notion of individuals conducting their interpersonal affairs without the involvement of any “assisting entity”, obviously Catholic Charities being their preference.

You know- Catholic Charities, the motherfuckers who in some states nickel and dime (to the tune of big bucks!) Bastards for every scrap of information about themselves they dain pass along (while in other states or municipalities they just hand it over, never ones to let a little thing like consistency get in their way.)

My personal fave bit still being the admission inherent in this part of their argument-

“under the proposed changes in HB 4623, this confidentiality is then broken, raising potential for lawsuits against agencies.”

Their ‘self interest’ in the legislation is that they know damn well if records were ever opened they could be facing down massive lawsuits.

So then, does that mean what’s in those records may well be evidence of wrongdoing?

Seems obvious enough to me.

There are reasons they want the records sealed, or at minimum to have Catholic Charities in the midst of ANY process whereby information from those records becomes available.

Simply put, they’re afraid they would be sued to the waterline so they want control and a means by which to ‘contextualize’ thereby defang potential litigants.

Fascinating how a bill this terrible finally forces their hand to the point where they outright admit their raw terror at even the prospect of lawsuits.

Can there be a more compelling argument for opening records than to for the first time finally reveal the crimes that may well be documented therein?

Surely for such to be prosecuted, the evidence must come to light while the wronged still live and the criminals are still around to prosecute.

Is it any wonder so many up to their elbows in such filth would rather just ‘wait us out’ until all involved parties are long dead?

Is it any wonder they defend sealed records as if their lives depend on it? When facing down potential lawsuits and perhaps even criminal prosecution/jail time, of course they’d rather State enforced secrecy hide all past evidence.

Disgusting.”

Perhaps instead of mandating ‘counseling’ through “assisting entities” the State could instead provide legal aid.

After all, was it not the State itself that impounded the evidence and by law kept it from us? The State’s policies of sealed records have been part of the obfuscation and enabling processes. (Hint, it’s a hell of a lot easier to do rotten things when you know the State is going to lock away the evidence.)

So it’s taken me about a week to finally get to blogging about the murders in Iowa.

I’m angry and disgusted, and left with more questions than answers.

By way of backgrounder, Steve Sueppel, a former VP of Hills Bank and Trust (one of Iowa’s largest locally-owned banks) was under indictment on federal embezzlement and money-laundering charges. The trial was scheduled for next month. (“Sueppel was charged with one count of embezzlement and six counts of money laundering. The court has alleged that during a seven-year period, Sueppel embezzled $599,040 from Hills Bank. He also allegedly laundered a total of $13,500 from Aug. 23, 2007 to Sept. 17, 2007, according to his indictment.” from Sueppel in midst of legal troubles)

Early last Monday morning (the day after Easter) , he murdered his wife, then tried to kill himself and the four children they had adopted from Korea by asphyxiation in the family’s garage using exhaust fumes. When that failed, he apparently bludgeoned the kids to death with baseball bats.

After leaving a series voice mails, stating that they were now ‘in heaven’ (see Iowa family killer left apologetic note) and leaving a note on the table, he left the house.

Not one to stick around and suffer the consequences of his actions, he first attempted to drown himself in the Iowa River at Lower City Park in Iowa City, failing that, he then drove onto I-80, finally dying in a single car crash running into a concrete pillar supporting an electronic sign. The van’s gas tank ignited causing a fireball.

The methods used may be related to the conditions of his bond, that among other things, he not to carry any firearms.

The couple had adopted four children from South Korea; Ethan, 10, Seth, 7, Mira, 5, and Eleanor, 3 via Holt international (“…dedicated to carrying out God’s plan for every child to have a permanent, loving family”) which says it will only pass along the information to the children’s original mothers if they ask ( see S Korean adoption agency saw no problem with American parents “our agency doesn’t reach out first. Only if they contact us, we will inform them what happened,” Hong said, adding that no phone calls were received so far.”)

“Change a child’s life forever” indeed.

The Adoption History Project at the University of Oregon has a brief but useful backgrounder on Holt. Here’s a key paragraph about the underlying attitude towards Korea- “For the Holts, family-making required faith and altruism, not social work or regulation, and they found nothing wrong with the idea of Americans adopting foreign children, sight unseen. American childhood, they assumed, was unquestionably superior to childhood in developing nations. The Holts’ form letter seeking adoptive parents included the following request. “We would ask all of you who are Christians to pray to God that He will give us the wisdom and the strength and the power to deliver his little children from the cold and misery and darkness of Korea into the warmth and love of your homes.” For the Holts and many of their supporters, Korea was a backward country whose children deserved to be rescued.”

From Holt’s blurb about it’s Korean program–

“Holt was established during the ceasefire of the Korean War to help orphaned and vulnerable children to have families of their own. While conditions and the economy of Korea have improved significantly since Holt’s beginning in 1956, traditional Confucian values continue to dominate Korean life. As a result, life would be extremely difficult for a single mother and her child in Korea. ”

Also be sure to look over Babies for sale. South Koreans make them, Americans buy them by Matthew Rothschild in The Progressive (this particular copy of the article lives over on the Transracial Abductees site) which covers some of what ‘abandoned’ often mean in relation to ‘Korean orphans’ and the more general overview of Korean adoptions, with some details on Holt, specifically- “Holt International also emphasizes the importance of Christian families. “If you adopt a child through Holt International, you will be asked for your statement of faith, ” states a Holt handbook: Adoption. A Family Affair. “It is our personal desire that these children go into Christian homes. “We want to let these children we serve come to know Jesus.”One out of four persons in Korea is Christian, and the Korean adoption law requires adoptive parents to recognize the freedom of religion of the adoptive child.”

The Sueppels were active members of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Iowa City. Holt noted them as churchgoers ( see S Korean adoption agency saw no problem with American parents ) “the American couple were well qualified to adopt foreign children in terms of their finances and relationship. The father was a banker and the mother an elementary school teacher, and they went to church.”) Rev. Kenneth Kuntz of St. Mary’s was quoted after the murders “”They had done a wonderful job of adopting the four children and always appeared to me to be a caring, loving family,” (see Legal woes didn’t portend Sueppel family deaths.)

I think it’s pretty obvious that the Sueppels were deemed to be an appropriately christian family by Holt, and thus were able to adopt the four kids, but there are still plenty of questions here.

For example, the homestudies- certainly on the last two kids adopted the Sueppel’s financial assets and expenditures perhaps should have led to some serious questions, as it was during that period he was embezzling from work. Shouldn’t the homestudy have raised questions of where all the money was coming from?

For that matter, there is still no clear explanation of where exactly the money went. Initially Steve Sueppel claimed it was for “cocaine” but as you’ll see in the links below, the cocaine story appears to have been completely bogus. My question is, was the embezzled money used either for the adoptions, or to enable to family to afford to live with the four kids? When Sheryl Sueppel left her job as a teacher in 2000 to become a full time homemaker/mother (see Dad apologized before killings) they lived off Steve’s VP at the bank salary, but apparently he (they?) felt that was insufficient as the alleged thefts began on July 26, 2000.

Will anyone other than the occasional blogger (see “Adoption and its triad”- When will the agencies be held accountable for their actions in these children’s deaths?) even begin to ask the hard questions about the role of Holt, and more generally the role the adoptions may have played in all this?

For that matter, is it really down to people like me to say all “christian forgiveness” aside, is is REALLY appropriate that the four kids murdered by this asshole be buried with him and alongside him? “Forever Family” indeed! Forever family 6 feet under!

What role did the adoptions play in the embezzlement, which in turn appears to have led to the eventual desperation that precipitated the murders?

Had the couple not been on the treadmill of needing money for the four adoptions would he not have embezzled the money? What were the final costs involved in the four adoptions?

Just how much desperation for children was in the midst of all this, and did that lead to the series of events that eventually lead to killing the very people he had worked so hard for/perhaps even stolen for? Did infertility or feelings of inadequacy play a role in the psychological mess that led to the murders?

Perhaps more details will come to light as the investigation continues, but in a culture wherein adoption is ALWAYS viewed as positive thing, if not the ‘Lord’s work’, my guess is there are some avenues that will not be explored.

As for the kids? All we know are their adopted names and the back stories the agency provided the adoptive parents with. The realities of their lives and the circumstances by which they came to be available for adoption remain unquestioned and unknown.

Their original families aren’t even going to be notified of their deaths. If you were the original mother, would you want your child buried next to their murderer? But they’re ‘just Korean birthfamilies’ so why would their opinions matter to anyone? Right?

***

So, here are some links with a few interesting details I’ve rounded up this past week-

Harlow’s monkey- “Korean response to Sueppel tragedy”

Complete Gazette coverage (many articles)

Remembering Steve Sueppel An Iowa City Press Citizen piece that included this “At that time I’d heard only of the financial burden the family faced because of adoption expenses and various other obligations.” from a writer familiar with the family- “I’ve known the Sueppel family for many years. I went to school with most of the Sueppel cousins, and Steve’s brother was my high school boyfriend.”

Police: No proof Sueppel bought cocaine

Police: No Sueppel drug connection

Sueppel friends family: ‘I never imagined anything like this’ Which contains the apparently false cocaine story, but also contains this- “The last adoption was finalized just months ago, Downer said.”

Which doesn’t line up with the dates given in this article- Four Korean Adoptees Murdered in U.S. “The children were adopted by the Sueppels in different years — Ethan in 1998, Seth in 1999, Mira in 2002, and Eleanor in 2005.”

The time period on his embezzling activities appears to overlap with the final two adoptions, see Ex bank official pleads not guilty “Wednesday’s arraignment was Sueppel’s first court appearance since a federal grand jury indicted him last week. The indictment, which followed an investigation by the FBI and the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office, says the alleged thefts began on July 26, 2000, and continued until Sept. 12, 2007.”

‘Blunt force trauma’ involved in deaths of Iowa City family

Adoptive Father kills Children, Wife and Himself (contains some biographical info)

Dad kills Four Korean-Born Children (The Korea Times)

Sueppel family was well-liked by friends

Remembering the Four Sueppel Children

Korean source offers additional details about adopted Sueppel children

“We help you cry” He recalled Ethan’s arrival from South Korea 10 years ago as the first of the couple’s four adopted children, and compared the moment with his own daughter’s birth. “There wasn’t a dry eye in the place,” he said. “I think we need to send a letter of apology to the Omaha airport, because I think every window in the entire place had either snot or fingerprints all over it. “It was that emotional, and that exciting.” and “Kuntz called Eleanor “the little princess.” She was remembered for her courage facing medical problems.”

Obit- Sueppel, Sheryl (Kesterson), Steve, Ethan, Seth, Mira, and Eleanor

Family: It was easy to forgive Steve

Search Warrents reveal evidence taken from Sueppel home which contained this- “A portfolio of assorted papers was found in the family minivan at the crash site. The papers included social security cards that were partly burned and a permanent resident card and passport from Korea for Jinhee Choi, according to the search warrant.”

The Wikipedia article, includes a timeline

Finally, just when you thought you’d had enough, (see Protest planned at Sueppel funeral) naturally, Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church just couldn’t resist.

First, I advise readers to read my brief diary on Daily Kos about how I primarily relate to and remember the former Ohio Senator.

AFTERWARDS, read down through the rest of this.

On some of the comment threads on dKos and elsewhere about the Senator’s passing, expressions of gratitude from adoptive parents have appeared a few places. So tonight I took some time to write about the former Senator and his adoption specific legacy.

Let me state from the outset, that I am an adult, adopted in Ohio. Further I support the restoration of adoptee original birth certificates which the state has for many of us sealed away from us; I support open records.

So, since others have brought it up, I feel it’s important to say a few words.

Yes, the former Senator was involved in many aspects of adoption related legislation, as an example, Metzenbaum sponsored the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994 which barred racial discrimination in adoptive placements.

That has led to ongoing discussion about whether or not cross-ethnic placements have been a positive thing or a damaging thing.

(Me? I’m not touching that one with a ten foot pole. Being legally barred from knowing my ancestry, but being darn clear on the paleness of my own skin, I just don’t feel I have terribly much to say on the subject, other than how some of the orphan train placements were little more than a form of forced labor for some children and how ‘indian boarding schools’ were well, in my opinion, nothing short of an intentional form of cultural genocide.)

Instead I want to narrow in on what I feel to be the unfortunate aspects of the Senator’s adoption legacy, yes written from where I sit, as an adult denied my own birth certificate by State law and ongoing State interference. That said, no doubt your mileage may vary.

Being an adult adopted in Ohio, some of his work on adoption is one of the very few places I had some disagreements with him.

Particularly his work in the late 80’s on the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, a forerunner to today’s “Baby Moses Laws”/”Baby dump laws”/”Legalized infant Abandonment laws”/”Baby Safe Haven Laws” (spearheaded by the National Council for Adoption, an adoption industry lobby created specifically to ensure adopted people’s original birth certificates remain forever sealed to them, after already having been confiscated by the State upon our adoptions, thus lobbying to permanently erase our genetic and historic identities.)

While the bill was being done in the name of helping children with AIDS ‘abandoned’ in hospitals, it was a NCFA lobbied bill that created precedents, both in terms of children labeled “abandoned” and in terms of State grants to adopters, which today, at NCFA’s urging has expanded greatly into tax breaks for adoption etc. (Unfortunately, the primary beneficiaries of such tax breaks it turns out are not those most in need of such to finance an otherwise impossible adoption, but instead the tax breaks are going to the the already wealthy.)

Again, while all this is being done ‘for the sake of the children,’ NCFA with it’s extensive connections to the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, Anti-abortion Catholic groups, WAL*MART and Mormons has been no friend to adopted people or first parents.

And unfortunately, Howard Metzenbaum, like many well intentioned people was a friend to NCFA, perhaps not understanding that NCFA represented the industry, not adopted people or our families (plural).

Sadly, it was perhaps the most glaring example of where Howard sided with industry rather than the directly affected, and I can’t tell you how deeply that saddened me (read my diary from earlier tonight on Senator Metzenbaum’s passing if for one instant you think he wasn’t a personal hero to me.)

His ties to NCFA were heartbreaking to me, yet it’s likely that no one ever explained to him precisely what it was he was supporting. The first adopted babies of the baby-scoop-era didn’t reach adulthood until roughly 1960, and many didn’t find their political voice on adoption issues and sealed records, nor really found organizations etc until the 70’s and 80’s.

NCFA awarded “Friend of Adoption” awards that eventually grew into their “Adoption hall of fame”. Howard Metzenbaum was one of the first recipients back in 1982.

Am I blaming him? No, at the time NCFA was working very hard to appear ‘non-partisan’ and ‘evenhanded’ in its political ties. Unfortunately, that was not, and to this day ever more clearly is not what NCFA is. Now that the former head of NCFA, Bill Pierce has died, and wingnut infrastucture has become yet more institutionalized, NCFA’s ties to that ever developing wingnut infrastructure have grown and become far more visible.

NCFA was founded after the Draft Model State Adoption Act (DMSAA) was produced in 1979 by a Carter administration advisory committee. The adoption industry (agencies, Catholic Charities, politically connected powerful agencies such as Gladney in TX- which today has many Bush family ties) studied the DMSAA, saw the “open records” provisions, and by means of re-entrenching their permanent secrecy stance (which conveniently covers any misdeeds they might have been involved in) reacted by creating NCFA to lobby and ‘educate’ in Washington.

I consider it tragic that Senator Metzenbaum, who so often sided with the whistleblowers, the disadvantaged, and in his abortion access advocacy, the side of womyn who were pregnant, was convinced to champion to very legislation that silenced womyn’s voices, and disempowered adopted children, now adults by siding with those who held real control in so many situations- the industry.

All of which is to say, that when people use words like ‘adoption’ rather than jumping to conclusions that they must be ‘doing good work’, it becomes that much more important to do due diligence.

On the other hand, was Sen. Metzenbaum aware of who he had sided with? Was he pro-sealed records?

I hope not, for if he personally was, it creates a very uncomfortable ‘exception’ to the rest of his life’s work.

At this point we’ll never know. That doesn’t mean I can’t celebrate the man for so MANY of the other things he did, yet question this one area.

He will always be, to a degree a hero of mine, but when it came to adoption, best intentions aside, his actions and the ‘legitimacy’ his presence provided are to me at least, heartbreaking.

(Perhaps a topic some may feel is not directly “adoption related” but I at least find it pertinent.)

Go read this article- “Sonny Skyhawk turns the table on Indian cinema“.

No, I am not saying Bastards removed at times forceably from (familial and other) context by governmental intrusion are akin to the intentional campaign and policy that led to what First Nations children and families endured as a form of cultural genocide.

Bastards are a community formed of shared experience of adoption.

Whatever ‘culture’ we lost through the act of State familial reassignment was our original family’s culture, each distinct. Adopted people do not share a common earlier culture that individual acts of reunion restore to us. Reunion brings individual revelations about individual cultures, that for example the boy who grew up in an adoptive family being told he was ‘Irish Catholic’ now finds upon search and reunion his original familial heritage is that of British Protestant. But these familial historical hidden realities do not constitute a shared ‘culture’ that adoptees lost and can somehow regain.

Our ‘shared culture’ is that of the Bastard experience itself (widely varied as that can be, from white picket-fence-land, to crushing abuse at the hands of one’s new ‘family’, from infant adoption to later in life out of foster adoptions, from ‘open adoptions’ to closed adoptions, sealed tighter than a nun’s asshole.) Our commonality is not in a shared lost preexisting identity stripped away from us. Instead it is the act of recontextualization and State assignment of a new identity (while often locking away and carefully guarding our authentic original identities) and ongoing Bastardized status, that becomes the basis of our shared Bastard culture.

(Another way of putting it is that “class Bastard” is not class Bastard due to a shared lost preexisting culture, or that of being a pre-existing “group” of people. Instead, class Bastard is a class of people with commonalities of shared experience, adoption and recontextualization forming the bedrock of our shared culture. We become a “group” of people through the shared experiences.)

First Nations peoples had pre-existing cultures which were targeted for systematic destruction through implementations like the boarding school strategy.

That said, while different, we have things to learn from one another.

It is important that Bastards learn from history. And, separately, that we learn other aspects of how the State has carried out its priorities under the guise of ‘for the sake of the children’, how such has inhumanely affected and decimated other communities.

Our paths may have been different, but the confluence of State interference, and continued interference, and those with religious motivations have altered our lives trajectories and deeply affected both ‘communities’ and I at least, feel we have things to learn from one another.

More than the overly simplistic mere ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, both Bastards (particularly some foster children later adopted) and children of the reservation ‘boarding schools’ have loss of identity and context, destruction of context via State intervention as a commonality.

At the purely individual level, each community has familiarity with feelings of having been ‘recontextualized’ without any say in our own life’s path, and in each community, some individuals share feelings of reconnection upon ‘finding our way back’ through what was done to us, meeting relatives who have been strangers, or near strangers, little more than dim memories from a time at the edge of memory, foods and languages not what we were raised with, yet inherent to us and our authentic histories.

Adoption pertains to State policy toward womyn and their families- those who are deemed worthy of being ‘entrusted’ with ‘its’ ‘national resource’ (sometimes phrased as a ‘natural resource’) of children, and those who are not.

The reservation ‘boarding schools’ pertains to State policy towards sovereign First Nations and those sitting on what the government has deemed ‘its’ ‘national resource’ of geography and natural resources.

But both had to do with shifting children from being raised by one set of people, into a different ideology- one devoid of context, language, existing culture, and blood relations. Both have to do with what is deemed ‘best for the child’, thus shifting the context for said child from one deemed ‘problematic’ into another deemed ‘valid’. ‘Valid’ in relation to the State and christian religious authorities.

In short, when ‘authentic voices’ (as opposed to ‘Statist’, ‘official’, or ‘Hollywood’ voices) speak, I can only hope that we Bastards, as people who can within ourselves recognize similarities of emotion, and deep empathy- yet not direct experience– will listen, and learn from such ‘storytellers’. We have a lot of listening to do.

But as we listen, it’s important to bear in mind, such is not ‘about us’, we can empathize to the extent we are able, we can recognize within ourselves similarities of emotion and even some events, but to put it as succinctly as possible, in lay language, “Bastards are not Indians”.

(Hint folks, Bastards are not African American slaves either, although that’s another blog post waiting to happen.)

That does not, however, preclude us from understanding the places we do share commonalities and recognizing allies when such is beneficial to both communities- not speaking for one another nor co-opting others for our own purposes, but instead act as genuinely listening allies.

A listening ally, as opposed to a co-opting asshole is a person able to understand that no, their stories are not our stories, their lives are not ‘about us’. We support one another, each coming from our different places, listening to one another as we go forward.

So, two brief paragraphs from the article in question-

“‘Heartsong,” a story about American Indians, has a production and filming schedule for late 2009. Skyhawk is currently seeking tribal nations, corporate or private investors to support this project that will allow an all-too-familiar and disconcerting story about American Indians in boarding schools to come to life before the big screen and be told from an American Indian’s perspective and direction.”

and

“For nearly a century, American Indian children suffered at the hands of government sanctioned boarding schools on Indian reservations. Run by various religious denominations, American Indian children became the victims of a silent, but deliberate, genocide. Nevertheless, they stood strong and courageous while facing adversity head-on; they retained what their captors could not forcibly remove – their indomitable will and spirit.”

A Screenplay: Juno 2
*******************

[As credits roll]

Images of “baby’s scrapbook.” The book opens and inside we see, neat little photo corners holding hand lettered cards each dated month by month. As the pages turn we see letters from June, July, August, September.

Scene 1

[Camera focuses on a mail slot in a front door, then pans down to a pile of mail beneath it, a hand rifles through and stops when it comes to an envelope matching those in the scrapbook.]

J, holding a letter to her heart with a broad smile on her face. She sets the letter down on a table and picks up a phone.

“L! You’ll never guess what I got in the mail today! She invited me to his first birthday party!” (pause) “of course I’m conflicted, but how could I not? I have to be there!”

[Fade to black.]

[Title] JUNO 2: WHEN YOU’RE REALLY SCREWED

Not written by an ex-stripper

Scene 2

More images of baby’s scrapbook, with the following 3 months empty, now just empty pages containing no letters.

[Camera again focuses on the mail slot, then pans down to a pile of mail beneath it. Again a hand rifles through and stops when it comes to an envelope matching those in the scrapbook.]

J, throws the letter across the room and picks up a phone.

“L you won’t believe this! That Bitch! That lying bitch! She says I can’t come after all!”

[Fade to black.]

Scene 3

J is sitting in her parked car, hands gripping the steering wheel.

[camera turns from straight on head shot of J to side shot of J in the car in front of V’s house.]

J reaches down and pulls up her cell phone, it reads 1:59pm, and the date, ending in 2008.

After several long moments, J gets out, opens the door to the back seat and pulls out a bouquet of balloons and a giant teddy bear with a happy birthday bow wrapped around its neck.

She nervously approaches the house, tries to smile broadly, and rings the doorbell.

[Door is opened by an elderly man]

Man: “Yes? What do you want?

J: “Uh, I’m here for the party”

M: “Party? What party? What are you talking about?”

J: “Um, could I please just speak with V?”

M: “V? Who they hell are you talking about, young lady? I don’t know no V!”

J: “But, but, V, she lives here with the baby”

M: “Oh, no, you’re talking about the lady that USED to live here, she moved out four months ago.”

[Door closes, J is left standing holding her gifts, stunned.]

Scene 4

J speaks with neighbors on each side, but isn’t getting anywhere. No one seems to know where V went. Finally the man in the house to the left of V’s house calls his wife to the door to talk with J.

Wife: “Oh yeah, like he said, about four months ago”

J: (Beginning to cry) “But I have to find my baby!”

W: “YOUR baby?!? Lady you are confused. That’s V’s baby!”

J: “No you don’t understand, I’m his birthmother, V adopted him.”

W: “No honey, YOU don’t understand, why I saw V herself back when she was pregnant!”

Husband: “Yeah, right before she left for Europe to go be with her mother and have the baby over there!”

J: “I’m telling you she wasn’t pregnant! She must have been stuffing her shirt! I’m the baby’s mother! I’m telling you, I’m the mother!”

Husband: “Well, I suppose you could try Yellowjacket realtors, they’re the ones who sold the house.

Scene 5

[set inside Yellowjacket realty offices]

J sits in a small chair across a VERY large desk from a man in a large chair wearing a yellow jacket with lots of plaques on the wall behind him.

Realtor: “I’m sorry honey, we just can’t give out that kind of information. Client confidentiality you know. All I can say is that she moved out of state.”

Scene 6

[set inside a Police department]

J stands in front of a VERY large intake desk where an officer stands high above her, looking down at her.

Policeman: “I’m sorry honey, you can’t file a missing person report merely based on a baby’s mother moving the two of them out of state. We had a call or two, we were out out the house, but I can’t really say anything about that, confidentiality and all. Anyway, they’ve moved on now, so it’s not our problem.

Scene 7

[Inside a shabby lawyer’s office, it’s small, cramped, and messy.]

J sits across a small desk from a rather bookish man with glasses. There are exactly two diplomas on the wall behind him. He’s pouring over a large dusty law volume.

Lawyer: “Look I’m sorry, but all Minnesota statute 259.58 says is that you can enter into an agreement regarding post adoption communications. It’s not legally enforceable unless the terms of the agreement were contained in a written court order entered in accordance with that section. You didn’t get a court order now did you?”

J shakes her head, no.

Lawyer: “I don’t suppose anyone bothered to tell you at the time you were going to need a court order. Oh well that’s kind of the way these things go. Look, by national standards Minnesota actually offers MORE protections than most states. Bottom line is, most places open adoptions simply are not legally enforceable. What V did is more common than you’d ever imagine. Well, that’s all I can do for you, but don’t worry too much, when he turns 18, he’ll come find you. Just keep in mind adoption was your choice!”

“Be sure to see my receptionist on the way out.”

He says the last bit while pointing to a medium sized yellow sign by the desk “payment is due at time of services rendered- no exceptions!”

Scene 8

J, sitting at a desk in a library with a computer, with a pad of paper and pen nearby. The clock above the station reads 2pm.

[Camera focuses in on screen, a webpage comes up: ‘findanybodynowdamnit.net’]

[fade]

same set, clock now reads 7pm.

[camera focuses on screen again, we see the cursor click on ‘wefindemforafee.con’]

Scene 9

An overcrowded noisy airport waiting room. We see J sitting cramped, hair askew between two other would be passengers and their piles of carry on luggage. She’s looking at a woman with a crying baby across the aisle.

Above J, directly and unavoidably in her field of vision is a television turned up way too loud. J is watching intently, while pretending not to care.

-on TV-

On the television screen we see ‘Opah’ in an airport waiting room, clean and neat, uncrowded, standing with a smartly dressed young woman holding a bouquet of balloons and a large teddy bear with a bow around its neck that said “I love you, mommy!”

Opah: “So are you finally ready to meet your mother who put you up for adoption almost 18 years ago?”

Young Woman: “You bet Opah!”

By now the plane arrives and passengers begin coming down the corridor and into the terminal.

The young woman finally sees a woman who looks very much like her. She turns to Opah who nods and smiles, and she runs to the woman and hugs her in a bear hug.

Young woman: “Mommy, I love you!”

Scene 10

J looking out an airplane window, then the camera pans back and the airplane departs

Scene 11

a large map of the United States

We see lines starting in Minnesota, going across the map again and again, state to state.

Scene 12

The first thing visible is a close in shot on a calendar, reading 2019

camera pulls back to find J in a school principal’s office. She’s on a small chair, across a VERY large desk from a stuffy war weary principal.

“I’m sorry young lady, we simply can not give out that sort of information, student confidentiality don’t you know.”

J sighs and gets up and leaves. As she closes the principal’s door behind her, the secretary at her desk motions her over.

“Not that I was listening mind you, but you might try the private schools here in town.”

Scene 13

J in a school headmistress’ office. She’s on a small chair across a VERY large desk from a Catholic nun. On the wall behind the desk is a very large crucifix looming over the entire room.

“I’m sorry young lady, we simply can not give out that sort of information. Our students come from many fine families and we simply must protect their confidentiality you know.”

Scene 14

J is sitting in her parked car, hands gripping the steering wheel.

[camera turns from straight on head shot of J to side shot of J in the car in front of the gates to the Catholic School]

After several long moments, a small knot of young girls in plaid skirts and white shirts with plaid ties come out from behind the gates to the public sidewalk.

J gets out of the car. She nervously approaches the girls, and holds out a slightly blurred photograph of a young boy. The edges are wrinkled, it has a few water spots on it, and the picture looks to be several years old.

J: “Excuse me, do any of you know this boy?”

The girls look at the picture for a few moments. Finally one speaks shyly.

Girl: “yeah, that’s Augustine, he used to go to school here.”

J: “he used to, how long ago?”

G: “oh last year, but he’s gone now.”

J: “Do you know where he is now?”

The girls shake their heads no.

J: “I really need to find him, I’m his mother.”

G: “No, you’re confused, I met his mother once, V.”

J: “Well, V is his adoptive mother, I’m his birthmother.”

G: “Like adoption?”

J: “Exactly”

The knot of girls begins to titter.

Girl 2: “Wow, were you like, an unwed teenage preggo?”

J (somewhat taken aback) “Well, that’s not exactly how I’d put it, but yeah.”

Girl 2: “Well, I’m glad you didn’t have an abortion, but why couldn’t you just keep your legs shut?”

J’s jaw drops.

The girls wait for a moment, but J is speechless. So they turn to walk away.

Girl 3: (said loudly as they walk away) “Slut!”

Scene 15

Another suburban house, J trying neighbors to each side again.

Neighbor: “All I know is that while they were here there were 3 of them, a real family.”

J: “She must have remarried.”

Scene 16

a large map of the United States

We see lines starting in Texas, going across the map again and again, state to state.

Scene 17

The first thing visible is a close in shot on a calendar, reading 2021

camera pulls back to find J in another police station.

J stands in front of a VERY large intake desk where an officer stands high above her, looking down at her.

Policeman: “Look honey, I just can’t tell you. Yes, were were out at the house 4 times in 2020, that’s all I can say. The kid’s a minor, I have to protect his confidentiality. In any case they’ve moved on now, so they’re not our problem.”

J sighs and gets up and leaves. As she closes the front door behind her, a secretary runs out to her.

“Not that I was listening mind you, but it was incest, that fellow was doin’ his little boy!”

Scene 18

J, sitting at a desk in a library with a microfilm machine, she has a pad of paper and pen nearby.

[Camera focuses in on screen, an article comes up- ‘police called to neighborhood disturbance’ ]

The article goes on to mention ‘no arrests, child’s name omitted to protect minor’s confidentiality.’

Scene 19

The first thing visible is a close in shot on a calendar, reading 2024

camera pulls back to find J in a large room, sitting on a chair in a circle of women seated in chairs. One rather elderly woman has a large round button with a child’s face on it. A box of Kleenex sits in the middle of the circle.

Birthmother 1: “Well come on honey, what did you expect, I mean you found these idiots in a freakin’ Pennysaver!”

J: “Well, at this point, at least it’s not that much longer to wait.”

Birthmother 2: “What do you mean?”

J: “After all these years of me searching, he’ll probably come find me once he turns 18.”

(collective gasp!)

Birthmother 3, lip quivering: “Oh honey, I guess they never told you, Minnesota is a sealed records state. He has no access to his original paperwork. He doesn’t know your name.”

Birthmother 4: “Hell, he may not even know he’s adopted!… Sorry. Didn’t mean for it to come out that way.”

Birthmother 5: “Even if he did, do you think he has any idea what state he was born in? Seaching would be a real bitch!”

J looks heartbroken.

Scene 20

A Suburban home, camera pans through the front door, up the stairs, around corners, and into a master bedroom. A middle aged woman with her back to the camera is sprawled across the bed looking through a photo album labeled “Augustine’s scrapbook”. She’s going from back to front, pictures from a high school graduation, a skateboarding teenager, birthdays, soccer practice, sitting on santa’s lap, first communion, baby pictures and finally at the front of the book, a small note, she picks it up, the camera sees “”V: If you’re still in, I’m still in.- J”

The woman places the note back in the envelope, back into the photocorners holding it to the book, then closes the book and sighs.

“$52,000, all those lawyers but still worth every penny!”

Scene 21

Camera focuses on a mail slot in a front door, then pans down; there is no mail beneath it.

Across the room we see J, her back to the camera. She’s halfheartedly strumming a guitar, sitting in a chair looking out the window.
[Fade to black]

End

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

The reviewers rave

Dayton Daily Screwed:
“Screwed of the week Dec 13 through 20, 2009”

New York Crimes:
“A refreshingly realistic look at open adoption.”

Dallas Morning Screwed:
“Well, initially we hated it, far preferring the original, but since we’ve been buried alive under a landslide of letters supportive of the second one from Original parents all across the country we’ve come to the uncomfortable conclusion that they’re right- this is a far more accurate portrayal of open adoption. Thanks to our readers for opening our eyes to the truly screwed.”

Washington Toast:
“Should be up for best picture of the year, oh, but she’s just a ‘birthmother’, nevermind.”

And then there’s what outraged religious opposition have to say about it. Operation Oppress-you!:
“Well, we loved the previous one. At the moment we’re running a national campaign to make it a mandatory part of the curriculum for all 3rd graders. But this second one, well, we feel it is far too explicit, we don’t think women should be subjected to the realities of adoption until AFTER they’ve signed the paperwork permanently relinquishing all parental rights to the child.”

[Hint folks, this is a parody]