Blogpost #12, option A

I thought all the presentations were great, and they further developed our understanding of the breath of ethical issues in adoption. The topic of parents’ mental health state added a new dimension to adoption ethics that we have not talked about. Some presentations took conflicting sides, such as closed or open adoption. I thought it was great to see the different perspectives, and I respect each point. I enjoyed hearing Michael’s presentation about how adoption is generally an oppressive act. I thought it sounded harsh at first, but I can see his point after his presentation. In the Iris Young reading, powerless is one of the five faces of oppression. Adoption does put the adoptee at a powerless state. They do not have a say whether or not they want to stay with their birth families, whether or not they want to be adopted or who they get to be adopted by. To say that adoption is bad is wrong, but I do believe it does bestow a sense of powerlessness on the adoptee. However, the powerlessness is inevitable. It is part the situation in which the adoptee is in. 

Powerless seemed to be a major ethical issue in adoption because it was brought up in many presentation. For example, the presentation on open versus closed adoption included this form of oppression as an ethical issue. Another presentation topic that included powerless was transracial adoption. Transracial adoption is such a big category. I liked how the students who covered it had different aspects.

Overall, the presentations really showed me that adoption is a very ethical issue. Prior to the class, I did not realize or think about adoption as being a heated topic. From our class readings and class discussion, I have been enlighten to see all the areas within adoption that are controversial. I have also realized that there are so many sides to every ethical issue, and the criteria used to judge the ethical aspects are different in every scenario. 

Blog Post #12, Option 2

I would like to write this post as a feedback to Michael's ethics research paper idea.

I think Michael has a very good starting idea but he needs to be careful where he takes it. As we mentioned in class, he really needs to be careful with the language he uses to explain his side of it. After listening to his presentation in class, his argument seemed to come down to the main point that all adoptees are oppressed by their adoptive parents whether or not their adoptive parents intend to do so. The main question I have then is how can we be sure that it is the adoptive parents that are the oppressors? If adoptive parents don't really have control over the oppression of their child, could that mean that there is a third factor that is actually causing the oppression? Or is there a better option that would cause less oppression than the actual act of adoption?

In my opinion, every child experiences some form of oppression at some point in their life, regardless of whether they were adopted or not. We have all been powerless to some extent until we reach a certain age. Now, that is not to say that adoptees don't experience a different form of powerlessness, because I know they do, but is that really to be blamed on the adoptive parents, or is it more the responsibility of the birth parents or adoption agency? I know that Eldridge gives the impression that it is the adoptive parents who are to blame for this lack of voice, but I think it is important to address that there are some things that adoptive parents can do to lessen this oppression. Adoption inevitably oppresses the child right from the beginning by instating that first form of loss and it is the job of the adoptive parents to learn how to reverse some of that oppression and introduce a warm and loving environment. I do think that some adoptive parents fail to do this and that certainly can cause more harm than good, but most adoptive parents try to figure out how they can help to the best of their abilities.

That said, I think Michael has a good intention with this paper, but he just needs to be careful with the wording he uses for the accusations he makes against the adoptive parents.

Blog Post #11

                I have to admit; when I was younger I assumed foster care was a great thing. I remember at time when I was angry with my mother and I told her I was going to go find a foster family who loved me. My impractical perception was derived from the media. I watched films such as, Free Willy and I am Sam which demonstrated the positive side on foster care. The foster parents had demonstrated great hospitality and love. Now that I think about it, it was a ridiculous remark because foster care is not a great experience like the films indicated. Bess O’Brien’s film, Ask Us Who We Are: Foster Care in Vermont, does a great job in highlighting the positive and negative perspectives on foster care. A lot of these young adults had a bad experience; meanwhile a few did have the happy ending. I thought it was important that the film depicted the process that occurred with foster care. For instance, going into details on how the young adults were removed or how they felt living in a stranger’s house. These emotions accounted for the hardships and struggles that occurred when dealing with foster care.

                The two speakers in class presented different perspectives on foster care. Kaitlin’s foster care was a kinship one, and it was something that I can relate to because in my culture it is not common to see a child living with a stranger. Instead, they would end up being passed among the family members.  Jessie’s story was a great one. Although he had a bad experience when he lived with his permanent foster care, it was great to know that when he was younger he had witnessed the love and care he deserved from his first set of foster parents. The story of how he was placed with his permanent family was dreadful, and the experience he had when they moved to a different state. This makes me question how well the government is protecting these children. Roberts (2002) points out that “scholars interested in protecting families from state domination should acknowledge that foster care constitutes a form of state supervision of poor children and that adoption often involves a government disruption of their relationships with their parents” ( pg. 117). I agree with her because the relationship a child have with their parents is the most important thing, and if the government believes that the parents are not fit, they need to still achieve that relationship in children and foster parents. I think that the government should not only focus on who the bad parents are, but they should place an intensive procedure for foster parents. Just like what adoptive parents have to go through, these foster parents should be able to be questioned and screened to be the best of the best because they will be responsible for these vulnerable children.  

-          MAI NHIA.

Blog Post #11

In going through today's readings, I couldn't help but think about our two guest speakers from last week. Both Caitlin and Jesse had very interesting stories to tell which were significantly different from any story we have read about so far.

Jesse's story surprised me the most. First of all, I was surprised to hear that he had 8 other biological sisters. From the age of 2-11, he was in and out of his home, bouncing around to group homes and foster homes. I really like how he mentioned that even though he was constantly moving, it was still a functional family to him. There was always a familiar face wherever he went and he knew that he was loved. I connected this to part of our reading today when Roberts says, "Foster parents were described as 'loving caregivers' who are unfairly prevented by biological parents' rights from developing stable relationships with the children they take in" (113). Though he also did love his biological family, it seemed like his foster family was his true "home." It was interesting to then hear that he was not allowed to be adopted by his foster family since the parents were too old. Instead, he was adopted by a single mother in MN within a week. Roberts says, "Congress assumed that permanence and safety came from adoption, not from reunifying children with their parents" (113). Jesse's story is a bit different since his mother was dead and his father was no longer in the picture, but the adoption that he experienced was probably the worst option for him. I was mainly just surprised to hear that this woman was even granted the ability to adopt in thinking about all of the policies and procedures that need to be taken care of before adoptions today. Clearly, this adoption was not good for him and he would have been much better off staying in foster care.

Caitlin's story on the other hand is much different from that of Jesse's. She was only in foster care for the first 2 years of her life but it ended up working the way it was supposed to. I think her story can relate the most to Roberts's thoughts on terminating parental rights and losing patience with substance-abusing parents. The main problem with Caitlin's story is that her mom kept leaving her at foster care agencies while the rest of her family just wanted her to sign over her rights so that one of them could adopt Caitlin. Roberts says, "Terminating parental rights is seen, in the words of Senator Chafee, as ' the critical first step in moving children into permanent placements'" (150). Everything worked out in the end for Caitlin, but her family certainly went through some rough spots during that time.

The main question that I thought of after the speakers last class was about Caitlin's story. She mentioned at one point that her name used to be Haley. My question is why was her name changed, and at what point in her life did that happen?

Blog post #10

Today’s readings made me question Roberts’s point that the child welfare system is racist. I believe that the system is racist to some degree. However, now I believe that the systematic process of the welfare system is a significant factor as to why there are a large amount of black children are taken from their homes and placed in foster care or adoption. Roberts talks about how the welfare system has gone through changes and that the new focus of welfare is harmful. She states, “ Its orientation has shifted from emphasizing the reunification of children in foster care with their biological families toward support for the adoption of these children into new families” (105). Proponents of this way of thinking advocate that permanency is important to a child’s well being, even if it means taking a child away from his/her birth parents. Roberts writes about the amount of time allocated to parents to get their stuff together before their parental rights are terminated. Roberts believes the shift toward adoption has decreased the amount of time given to parents. She states, “Termination of parental rights is the most extreme measure judges an impose in abuse and neglect cases. It permanently severs the legal ties between parent and child, ending the parent’s physical custody, as well as the rights ever to visit, communicate with, or regain custody of the child” (109). Roberts argues that the decision to terminate a parent’s rights to their child is often made too fast. This leads me to question is there a specific amount of time that parents should be given before their parental rights are terminated? What is considered too short of time or too long of time? My personal take on these questions is that there is no specific number because these cases are not black and white. Adoption is not the right solution for every situation, but it is not the wrong answer either. Each case is a different shade of gray. The focus needs to be on the child – not the biological parents, foster parents, prospective parents or the incentives offered to keep children in foster homes or place them for adoption. 

Blog Post 10, Option 1

I believe that Roberts did a very good job in supporting most of the claims that she made. She references many different studies and research professionals throughout her writing. She also doesn't just site one source but provides several examples for each new idea.

The first place I think she does very well with this is on pages 16-19 when she talks about the separation of children from their parents. She states, "The child protection philosophy that has reigned for the past three decades has served Black families poorly. The worst part of this punitive approach is that it unnecessarily separates Black children from their parents." Roberts supports this with a "national study of child protective services by the U.S. Departmetn of Health and Human Services [which] reported that 'minority children, and in particular African American children, are more likely to be in foster care placement than receive in-home services, even when they have the same problems and characteristics as white children'" (Roberts, pg. 17). She later states that "the most critical choice they (caseworkers) make is whether to remove the child from the home or to provide services to the family while keeping it intact" (Roberst, pg. 17). This separation causes a lot of pain and trauma to the child. Roberts quotes the director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, Richard Wexler, "Children do not oblige us by hating their parents the way we may think they should. Often, neglected children love their parents just as much as our children love us. Tearing children from their parents almost always leaves emotional scars" (Roberts, pg. 18). She also quotes Seth Farber, a psychologist, "One does not need to be a child psychologist to realize the devastating effect of removing a child from parents with whom he or she is deeply bonded" (Roberts, pg. 18). Though Roberts is making strong claims, she is successfully supporting them with numerous reliable sources.

I also really liked the way Roberts explains the relationship of poverty and the child welfare system. She explains it as a "parallel" or correlation, but not necessarily a causation. She says, "Why is the child welfare system filled with poor children? There are three types of associations between poverty and child maltreatment: maltreatment may be indirectly caused by parental poverty, detected because of parental poverty, or defined by parental poverty" (Roberts, pg. 27). Roberts then breaks them down into the three different types and explains them in more detail with her sources. 

Overall, I think that Roberts is very strong in supporting her claims. Nothing stuck out to me as questionable or unsupported within these first 3 chapters of Part 1. I like how she uses her own words but also pulls together countless outside resources to support what she says.

Blog Post 10: Option 2

         In her book, Shattered Bonds, Dorothy Roberts examined the child welfare system and points out factors that continue to increase racial disparities among it. Poverty is a factor that Roberts account to on numerous cases.  Roberts notes, “most children reported to the child welfare system are poor, and Black children are more likely to live in poverty than children of other groups” (Roberts, 2002, pg. 26). This exemplifies that black people are still located at the bottom in regards to both welfare system and poverty. In another case, Roberts points out that “the percentage of Black children who ever lived in poverty while growing up is about the same as the percentage of white children who never did” (Roberts, 2002, pg. 46). This is quite sad to know that Black children are commonly stuck in poverty as many White children are privileged. I definitely think that poverty is a strong issue in this situation and I think this is so because of the bad connotations with the term ‘poverty’. When we think of children in poverty we do not expect bright futures from these children, we expect gang involvement and/ or early parenthood. This bad image on poverty creates the government to narrow their interest in on lower income neighborhood and use their power to take these children away.

                Poverty continues to be a dominant factor as Roberts described another factor as neglect. Neglect and poverty are intertwined since she states “but the huge role of neglect in the child welfare system is a far cry from the public perception of the problem of child maltreatment –as mainly extreme physical abuse –and has much more to do with poverty than the public is willing to acknowledge” (Roberts, 2002, pg. 34). This idea of neglect is understandable in poverty because these parents may be unable to hire a babysitter or send a child to daycare; hence they reluctantly resort to leaving their child unattended. Negligence is definitely an issue that is not just prevalent in families living in poverty; however it is quickly associated with poverty because we assume that these parents are either drug abusers or alcoholics and thus are too busy for their child. The problem here that needs to be examined is moving beyond poverty, beyond our incomes and to identify other scenarios where negligence is probably another issue.  

-          MAI NHIA.

Blog Post 9 Option 1

First of all, Dorothy Roberts is very critical of the foster care systems in America today.  She brings forward extremely relevant arguments, but what I dislike most about her writing is that she sheds no light on things that the foster care system does right.  Yes, I agree with her that the foster care system punishes poor black families, and she uses many examples and statistics to support this claim, however, I believe that there must be something that the foster care system is doing right in order for it to exist. 

Roberts points out that “child maltreatment in poor families is more likely to be detected than those of middle class families” (pg. 32).  The proportion of single black mothers living in poverty significantly outweighs the number of Hispanic and white mothers that also live in poverty.  Also, the families living in poverty are highly monitored versus families who are not.  She uses a great example of the racism in the welfare system by telling a story about a woman who was living in an apartment with her children and suffered the unexpected death of one of her children.  Since the woman was living in such poor conditions, and beer cans were found in her apartment, along with her children occasionally going to school without having eaten breakfast, her other children were taken from her.  She goes on to state that if a white family were to unexpectedly suffer the loss one of their children, the state would sympathize with the family.  I remember plenty of times growing up and wanting to sleep in as late as I could and skipping breakfast before school.  I do not believe this is neglect.  Good enough example?

Roberts also points out black children often remain in foster care twice as long as white children do.  She also says that the language around how Americans view poverty is corrupt.  So far, her reading has exposed me to a lot of negative functions of the foster care system and how it is highly racist towards blacks.  A lot of the statistics that Roberts uses are very complex and hard to understand though.  I find myself re-reading many of them to comprehend the overwhelming imbalance of blacks in the foster care and welfare systems.  Overall, I enjoyed the reading.     

Brandon Kasper

Blog post #9, Option 1

Roberts’s book is constructed of strong claims. Roberts does a satisfying job at supporting her claim with numerous case studies and statistics. The facts come from credible sources, like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and state studies. Roberts provides statistics of foster care to show that the child welfare system is designed to monitor, regulate and punish poor black families. She states that black children make up practically half of the foster care population, remain in foster care longer, receive fewer services and are less likely to be returned to their home or be adopted by families compared to white children (vi). Roberts is a believer that the child welfare system focuses on black children. She states that “Clearly, child welfare authorities consider foster care a last resort when it comes to white families” (9). Instead, child welfare services handle white family problems with less disruptive measures than foster care. I think that this is a valid statement, but Roberts fails to explain why this is so. Why is it that the child welfare system is designed for black families? She attempts to answer the question by saying that “government authorities appear to believe that maltreatment of Black children results from pathologies intrinsic to their homes and that helping them requires dislocating them front their families” (17).  But why is those so? Roberts does a good job showing HOW the welfare system is designed for black families. The story of a case in Iowa where a child was placed in foster care because the home was too filthy (37). Roberts points out that if it were a white family, the court would have provided the mom with services to help clean the house, rather than taking the child away. This case shows Roberts’s strongest evidence – that the child welfare system fails to solve the underlying causes that tend to face black families, which are poverty, housing problems and lack of child care (21). Instead, child welfare’s solution is to place the child in foster care, which is something that happens to white children far less often. 

Blog Post #8

1)     I am interested in looking further into the perspective of the adoptee on “powerlessness” in response to the book I read by Sherrie Eldridge called “Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew.” I am interested to see if this feeling of powerlessness is fairly common among adoptees. Eldridge had a very negative outlook on adoption so I am interested in seeing if that is a shared feeling or if she is over exaggerating.

2)     I think the main ethical concept for this topic would be oppression, specifically powerlessness. I could also look into the rights of the adoptee in regards to different issues like open adoption.

3)     I know a few different people who were adopted, so I was thinking of interviewing them to get their perspectives and then possibly trying to find a few other memoirs from adoptees on the same topic. I also know some families who have younger kids that they adopted so I could also ask them about different ideas that their children have shared with them.

4)     5. I think this would be very interesting to look into more, but it could be a bit too broad.

5)     If I don’t end up with this as my topic, I was also possibly interested in transracial adoption.

Blog post #8

1)   I am thinking about writing about the ethical issue of transracial adoption for my final research project. This is an interesting topic because we’ve heard many perspectives of transracial adoption in class. Adam Pertman believes that transracial adoption is a good thing, while Kim Park Nelson paints a bleak image of transracial adoption. The book that I read for my book report took a negative approach on transracial adoption. The book raised some good points about the downfalls of transracial adoption which inspired me to search for the benefits and positive aspects of transracial adoption. Negative viewpoints on transracial adoption that I’ve read about thus far include that it results in identity confusion for the adoptee, that it’s “cultural genocide,” that it’s a selfish act of American adoptive parents who are looking to culturally enhance their families, that white parents aren’t equipped with the knowledge and experience to raise a child of a different race, etc. I hope to find more research to counter these arguments.

2)   There are many ethical concepts that are relevant to this topic. The five faces of oppression can be used to describe the power of white adoptive parents and the powerlessness of adoptees. Cultural imperialism also can be incorporated to describe transracial adoption. I also plan to include the “Best Interest Standard” to show that transracial adoption is beneficial to the adoptee because he/she will be raised in a healthy and safe environment and will receive guidance necessary to develop in to a self-sufficient adult. I will also use the guidelines of the Hague Convention to show that transracial adoption is beneficial if those rights are obeyed.

3)   I’m thinking about using the book “Beyond Good Intentions” to show the counter arguments of my thesis and build off of that. I also plan to use Adam Pertman’s book, as well as the book “Outsiders Within: Writings on Transracial Adoption” to find support of transracial adoption.

4)   On a scale of 1 to 10, I rate myself as a 9 in terms of how likely I am to write about this.

5)   I would like some more suggestions to counter-argue the statement that white adoptive parents transracially adopt for their own personal reasons to culturally enrich their families. I would also like suggestions on more resources about the benefits and positive aspects of transracial adoption. 

Book Review: "Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew" by Sherrie Eldridge

Eldridge, Sherrie. Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew. New York: Dell Publishing, 1999.

Sherrie Eldridge, the author of Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew, is an adoptee herself. Throughout the book, she uses several personal anecdotes to explain the point of view of the adoptee. She has also formed the organization called Jewel Among Jewels Adoption Network, Inc. which helps to educate others about the adoptee’s perspective.

This book is like a memoir in that it is a collection of stories and perspectives from the author. Eldridge occasionally brings in quotes from other books that support the ideas she is trying to convey. It is written for the audience of adoptive parents.

Rating: 3) I found this book somewhat interesting. I would only recommend it for adoptive parents who seem to be having trouble connecting with their adopted child.

Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew is not available at the CSB/SJU libraries and I would not recommend buying this book. I found it at my public library at home.

Review

            The book Twenty Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew by Sherrie Eldridge lays out various ideas of what adoptees may be thinking and what the adoptive parents can do to work towards a healthier relationship with their child. With the author being an adoptee herself, the book is fairly one-sided toward the adoptees. Eldridge does pull out some good points, but she tends to repeat herself and focus on the negatives.

            The main points that Eldridge suggests within her “twenty things” are adoption loss, false guilt, no closure, toxic shame, and fear of abandonment and rejection. Throughout her book, these are the ideas that come up again and again. Her first statement is that all adoptees experience an excruciatingly painful loss at the beginning of their life, which she refers to as “adoption loss.” She says, “Loss for the adoptee is unlike other losses we have come to expect in a lifetime, such as death and divorce. Adoption is more pervasive, less socially recognized, and more profound” (Eldridge, pg 5). It is because of this that Eldridge says that adoptive parents need to provide a very open and understanding relationship with their child to allow for discussion about this loss and how to cope with it. This is very important not only for the adoptee, but also for everyone else involved. Eldridge explains, “When adoption loss is not validated, verbalized, and grieved, every member of the family suffers” (Eldridge, pg 8). Throughout this book, she provides many different examples of how to open up this relationship and let the adoptee know that it is okay to talk about anything that is on their mind. Once this idea of adoption loss is introduced, Eldridge branches off and begins to talk about reasons why this loss can be so painful and different ways that children can act in response to this loss.

Overall, the book did provide a few good points, though I personally wouldn’t recommend it. The main thing that I didn’t like was its negative tone and how Eldridge seemed to say that these are thoughts and feelings that all adoptees have and that we should assume this unless they tell us otherwise. There was only one time where she contradicted herself. She said, “But don’t look for problems where there are none. Not all adoptees have a difficult time on their birthday. Many aren’t fazed at all” (Eldridge, pg 176). Other than this, she tells the reader that these thoughts that she lays out are at least in the back of every adoptee’s head. The main problem with this mentality is it seems like she did not have a very positive experience with adoption. That could be a result of many different things, but she never really mentions that every adoption story is different. Each child is different, every situation is different, every set of adoptive parents is different. Eldridge clumps all of these different stories into one basic adoptee perspective. I think that this is inaccurate, though I do think that some of her ideas are good for adoptive parents to be mindful of.

            Another aspect of this book that I disliked was the amount of repetition Eldridge uses from chapter to chapter. I understand that there are certain things she wanted to be heard, but after about five or six chapters in, I felt like I was reading the same things over and over again. I also disagreed with her comment at the end of the book. She said, “You have learned how to access the world of your child, become sensitive to his unspoken needs and then validate his emotional reality. Congratulations! That makes you real parents and secures your place in your child’s life” (Eldridge, pg 211). It is the end of that quote that frustrates me the most. Just reading a book won’t make you a “real parent,” at least not with my idea of what a “real parent” is. I also don’t think that it is possible to “secure your place in your child’s life,” with adoptive--or birth parents for that matter. Every family and every set of relationships is different. You can be the perfect parent and do everything right in raising your child and still end up on the outside of their life. It truly varies from person to person.

            Though I ended up not liking the book for the most part, I do believe that some of the points could be helpful for adoptive parents. I did like that this book is a collection of ideas from an adoptee’s perspective. The most important point that Eldridge makes is that it is essential to work to form a very open relationship with your child and always encourage dialogue within the family. In the beginning of the book, she lists what I like to call the yay’s and nay’s of adoption. These are just some basic ideas of what you should and shouldn’t do if you would like to “gain access” into your child’s thoughts and feelings. Eldridge also suggests throughout the book different ideas of things to say to your child within different situations. This certainly could be very helpful for adoptive parents who just don’t know how to have a dialogue with their child.

Therefore, I would only recommend this book to adoptive parents as long as they also read some books with other perspectives. Sherrie Eldridge seems to be very one-sided, though she did attempt to provide examples from other books written by adoptees, parents, and psychologists. I found that I liked the words of the other authors better than her own a majority of the time. For example, she quotes the book The Spirit of Open Adoption by James Gritter, “We must be careful not to sanitize, sentimentalize, or even glamorize the pain of adoption; it really is miserable stuff, and it is intensely personal. It is interior. The pain of adoption is not something that happens to a person; it is the person. Because the pain is so primal, it is virtually impossible to describe” (Eldridge, pg 7). It was much easier for me to understand the words of Gritter on adoption loss than those of Eldridge. I believe that with some of the key points from Eldridge in the back of their mind along with other perspectives on the topic, adoptive parents can be successful in connecting with their adopted child.

Book Review: My Father's Daughter

Hannah, P. (2005). My fathers' daughter: A story of family and belonging. New York, NY: Free Press, 277 pages

In 2004, before Pool embarked on a life changing journey, she was a beauty editor for the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom. Pool was born in Eritrea in 1974 and was adopted from an orphanage in Asmara (the capital of Eritrea) by a white couple –the wife was American and the husband was a British academic. She resides in London and is still a journalist for the Guardian newspaper where she writes on a variety of topics.

This book is a memoir of Pool’s journey back to her birthplace to meet the family she never knew she had. This book is informative to a general educated audience with an interest in adoption and an audience that may or may have been adopted. Also, book is informative in interracial adoption from an adoptee’s point of view. Adoptees may want to beware that the author does tend to generalize experience to most adoptees. Males may want to be beware that the book is written in a feminine perspective.

Rating: 2) I recommend this book, both for an academic audience and a general educated audience with an interest in adoption, specifically with interracial adoption.

Clemens Library already owns this book.   

                Hannah Azieb Pool was about six months old she was adopted by a white couple –an American woman and her British husband. They were informed that Pool had no living family members and thus that was what Pool believed for the majority of her life. Pool spent time in Sudan with her adoptive parents, but when her adoptive mother passed away from an overdose, she was sent to Norway. By the time her adoptive father came to pick her up she had acquired a Norwegian accent and upon arrival in London she was soon known as the ‘black girl who spoke with a Norwegian accent’.  A main theme in her book was discovering her self- identity and a sense of belonging. She always responded to those who were curious as to what she was as “I’m not Eritrean, I’m just black” (Pool, 2005, p. 6). She struggles to understand the burning question every adoptee has: why was I put up for adoption?

Being that Pool was a beauty editor, her book lacked an androgyny feel to it. Her first opening line is “What do you wear to meet your father for the first time?” (Pool, 2005, p. 1) followed by phrases such as “Okay, if I treat it as a first date, then I’m on home turf. What image do I want to put across?” (Pool, 2005, p. 13) or “Classy, rather than trendy, and if my G-string doesn’t pop out, I should be able to carry the whole thing off” (Pool, 2005, p. 14). Her writing style is very feminine and straight- forward, thus it leaves no room for other interpretation. This is a weakness in the book as it becomes a question of rather she is more interested in her clothes than meeting her family members. It seems like she is wandering off from her main objective: to find who she is. Furthermore, her thoughts and opinions fill most of the pages. For instance, before she was going to meet with her cousin who lived in London, it took an entire chapter for her to go through the stages of what she should wear, rather she should actually attend the meeting or not to what she should do to calm her nerves down.

In a way, one could argue that her writing style is her strength in that it creates a sense of reality since it contributes to the understanding of what it’s like to be adopted. Readers are able to experience the different feelings that occur when an adoptee goes back to his/ her homeland and meet their birthfather and family. One of our guest speakers, M.G. explained that although her birthmother contacted her first, she was not ready to reach out to her and it took years before she finally decided to meet with her. M.G. expressed the crucial idea that the adoptee is the one who holds the power to make the choice in meeting the birthparents or not. Pool’s response to her family situation is the same; when she received a letter from her brother stating that her father and siblings were alive, it took her years to respond back. Pool made it clear that for her “it was only a matter of time before I came [to Eritrea]. Even as a child, I knew it was a question of when, rather than if” (Pool, 2005, p. 102). She goes on to explain the reasoning for why she finally decided to meet her family:

“But it’s not the rational, sensible ‘why’ that we want answered, not the ‘better chance in life’ explanation that we may have been put off with all our lives, but the emotional, heartfelt ‘why’; Why didn’t you want me? How could you do that to me? How could you leave me to fend for myself with complete strangers? Was I really so much trouble?  […] no matter how much we love our adoptive parents, no matter how much we don’t  want to hurt them or how guilty we feel for having these thoughts, we all wish we hadn’t been put up for adoption” (Pool, 2005, p. 102)

Furthermore, the idea of the adoptee holding the most power in this situation is present when Pool decides to visit the place she was born. Initially, her brothers resisted such idea because they all knew it was also the place their mother passed away. Regardless of the four hours walk , Pool was determine to go see it and it proved to be a great experience for her as she also met her mother’s sisters. In witnessing the house she was born in and the bed she was born on, she was able to understand the circumstances in which her family had lived for her birthfather to give her up and this proved to be the comfort that she needed.

Aside from being in the company of her new large family, Pool often felt belittle because of her gender. Her brothers would carry everything for her, including her purse and water bottle. At first, Pool enjoyed the idea of it, but the idea of asking them for her water bottle whenever she was thirsty became an annoyance. When she insisted she hold onto it, they thought such idea was unbearable. In addition, her trip was managed by her brothers who simply informed her of where and when they were going on that day without asking for her opinions, and she is expected to follow. This confirms the same inequality that is common when pregnant women were expected to put their babies up for adoption, with no other choices offered.  Rickie Solinger (2001) states that adoption is about “the abject choicelessness of some resourceless women” (p. 67). This exemplifies that inequality is located everywhere, even across borders and within different context, however the underlying message that these women are oppressed remain the issue for both cases.

On the contrary, when Pool wanted to visit her place of birth, it was not just her brothers who stopped her, but her sister as well.  Pool notes, “all of the others have tried to put me off going to Bekishemnok [her birth place], but no one has actively forbidden me from going, not even my father, until now. And there was I thinking that because Timnit was the only woman in the family she’d have little or not say about anything. I am of course pleased to be wrong” (Pool, 2005, p. 230). Her older sister, Timnit demanded for Pool not to go on such visit because it would be too hard of a journey for her. As much as Pool is opposed to hearing this, the opinion her sister voiced brought up a newer level of connection between the two of them because they were able to fight over the issue despite the language differences. Timnit’s attitude to protect Pool is similar to the women who founded the Concerned United Birthparents (CUB) to provide support for birthparents who have given up a child to adoption. Again, although the contexts are different, I still think it’s important to recognize that there are woman of strong leadership who would stand up to protect what they have and what they are passionate about.

                In addition, aside from adoption and gender being relevant in the book, Pool briefly mentions a statement that relates to our readings on interracial adoption. She states, “I can see how poor they are, I can see how hard their lives will be and what little opportunity they will have, yet I am jealous of their few certainties. And I hate myself for it. What kind of person feels jealous of a six-year-old living in poverty? And then I ask myself, if I had the money, would I be doing this child a favor by taking her back to England with me or would I be screwing her up forever?” (Pool, 2005, p. 220). The way she describes her experience provides the deeper understanding into the debate of interracial adoption. Pool does not answer her own question directly, but in some way she is answering it with the purpose of her journey. In order for Pool to know herself, she had to know her family and her culture and that is exactly why she came to Eritrea to seek out answers. In London, she struggled between three identities: Eritrea, British or British- Eritrea and with her experience in Eritrea she was she able to understand and accept that “the answer is both [British-Eritrea]. The two identities are not mutually exclusive; they coexist” (Pool, 2005, p. 276). Through her action, Pool has inadvertently shown that to an adoptee, culture is important. Maybe there would have been a different outcome if Pool had learn about her heritage or Tigrinya, the native language when she was younger, however what matters is that culture remains an significant aspect at the heart of interracial adoption.  

                The book provided a great insight into the cognitive thinking of adoptees. Pool’s emotions on her trip were strong and genuine; and carried out well through the book. She weaved a beautiful story to help readers understand the heartaches, excitement, and sadness that is involved within the life of an adoptee. Pool was able to put her individualistic mindset aside to witness the gender differences across cultures and with that she was able to better bridge her relationship with her sister and brothers. The purpose to finding and understanding who she is proved to not only benefit her, but to the foundation of understanding what is important in an interracial adoption.  I recommend this book because it will definitely be a great way for readers to glimpse into the life of an adoptee. 

- MAI NHIA.

References

Solinger, R. (2001). Claiming rights in the era of choice: Part 1: Awakenings. Beggars and choosers: how the politics of choice shapes adoption, abortion, and welfare in the United States. (pp. 65-101). NY: Hill and Wang  

Book Review: BirthMarks

Patton, Sandra.  Birthmarks: Transracial Adoption in Contemporary America.   NY: New York University Press, 2000 191 pages.

At the time she wrote this book, Patton was a Visiting Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Minnesota.  Patton relates to adoptees and adoption overall since she is a white American adoptee who was raised by white parents.    

Patton becomes an ethnographer and uses stories from interviews she conducted to explore questions around the social construction of authentic identity through race, gender, class, and the ideological stereotypes in today’s society.  Transracial adoptees would benefit the most from this book; however, the audience she tries to captivate is the general population or anyone with an interest in transracial adoption.  Readers should know that the book focuses more on racial identity than the adjustment of adoptees.   

Rating: 1) I would recommend this book for an academic audience and for anyone interested in adoption or identity and race. 

      

Sandra Patton writes her book through a series of interviews and stories told by African American and multiracial adults who were adopted and raised by white families.  She conducted 22 interviews with transracial adoptees to help define the “social construction of identity, and the connections between identity, race, gender, class, and public policy” (Patton, pg. 2) in regards to adoption.  In her book, Patton argues that the identities of transracial adoptees are constructed by public policies concerning race, family, gender, poverty, and child welfare.  In her opening chapter “Origin Narratives”, Patton sheds light on the adoption process and how people of color are prohibited from adopting children.  She looks into adoption agencies and discusses the institutional racism that existed in the 1950s, and today.  Though she highlights how public policy has changed in the adoption process, there still exists the overwhelming want for “blue ribbon babies”; white children.  Patton also argues that public policy shapes who we are and how we, as Americans, are supposed to live our lives. 

            Patton does a wonderful job at pointing out the flaws within the adoption agency and how they limit people of color from adopting.  In the 1950s, few black couples met the policy requirements for adoption eligibility.  These requirements included, economic stability, home ownership (which would need to include a separate room for a child), and a full time wife and mother.  Since people of color faced discrimination in the job market, it was hard for them to get higher paying jobs, thus their wives would need to join the workforce to help with the family income. 

Patton uses familiar texts throughout her book, citing credible sources that we have discussed in class; National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) and Rickie Solinger.  She also gives a critical analysis to the movie Losing Isaiah, and speaks of the dramatization of the film.  Through these texts, she confirms and supports our understanding of adoption in regards to ethics.  She places specific attention on the ideology that the media has shaped about family and the pressures to conform to the “white” middle class status.  Through her use of texts, she describes that the ideal American family is white, middle class, and lives in “Whitesville”.  With that being said, Patton explores a new topic of illegitimacy.  She writes on the message of “what it means to be a mother” and how social culture has defined that term.    

Brandon Kasper

Book Review: Beyond Good Intentions

Register, Cheri. Beyond Good Intentions: A Mother Reflects on Raising Internationally Adopted Children. MN: Yeong & Yeong Book Company, 2005 183 pages

Cheri Register is a writer and teacher of creative non-fiction writing. She is an adoptive mother of two daughters from South Korea. She is an author of other books, including Packinghouse Daughter: A Memoir, The Chronic Illness Experience: Embracing the Imperfect Life and “Are Those Kids Yours?”: American Families with Children Adopted from Other Countries.

Beyond Good Intentions is a memoir that explains common intentions of adoptive parents that do not necessarily support the adoptees’ best interest. Register is somewhat critical of transracial and transnational adoption.

I rate this book with a two. I recommend this book to people interested in adopting internationally and adoptive parents who are currently raising transracial adoptees.

CSB/SJU libraries do not own this book. I recommend the purchase of this book.

           

I recommend Cheri Register’s memoir, Beyond Good Intentions: A Mother Reflects on Raising Internationally Adopted Children, because she does a sufficient job informing readers about the pitfalls that adoptive parents of transracial adoptees commonly make. She brings her own personal stories of raising her two adopted children  and provides good suggestions. However, a weakness is that her overall view of transracial adoptive comes across negatively.  Register’s book adds much to the understandings of adoption and ethics.

Register’s main objective of her memoir is to inform readers about the top 10 mistakes that adoptive parents of transracial adoptees slip into, which results in consequences for the children and family. The good intentions gone bad include:

o   Wiping away children’s past

o   Hovering over the “troubled” children

o   Holding the lid on sorrow and anger

o   Parenting on the defensive

o   Believing race doesn’t matter

o   Keeping the children exotic

o   Raising children in isolation

o   Judging the U.S. as superior

o   Believing adoption saves souls

o   Appropriating children’s heritage

Register states that she is not against international adoption, but she is weary of the growing population of international and transracial adoptions (pg. 6). Although Register says that she is weary of adoption, her book appears to shed a negative light on transracial adoption more than it does positively.

A strength of the book is that it identifies common good intentions of adoptive parents that actually turn out harmful to the adoptee and family. Register acknowledges these intentions and then explains how they are harmful. She provides suggestions for adoptive parents to raise transracial adoptees. For example, Register states that some adoptive parents want to wipe away their adopted child’s past because they fear that their child will search for their birth parents. She explains that it is natural for adoptees to be curious about their birth parents and that it is not disloyal and does not diminish the importance of adoptive parents. (pg. 18).  Register does a good job at not only identifying downfalls of how adoptive parents raise their children, but also gives advice to fix these downfalls. Another strength of the book is Register’s experience that she brings to the topic of transracial adoption. This book is not scholarly, but it was not intended to be so because it is a memoir. Register writes about her own personal experiences raising her two adopted daughters, which provides the reader with insight to better understand transracial adoption.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the book is that the author only views transracial adoption in a critical lens. The book focuses on the hardships and risks that adoptive parents face. She fails to address the main pro-transracial adoption argument that it is better for any child to be adopted and loved by a family than to be institutionalized. Register does not include the benefits of transracial adoption. Because of this, the book paints a negative image of adoptive parents. They appear to be selfish in the sense that they are adopting for the benefit of only themselves in order to culturally enrich their family.

Register’s book contributes much to the understanding of adoption. First off, the book challenges views, such as Adam Pertman’s, that adoption is all good and positive. Pertman states in Adoption Nation, “With few exceptions, the ones who are adopted will live better lives than they could have had, institutionalized, in their homelands” (pg. 81).  Contrary to Pertman’s belief, Register is very critical of transracial adoption throughout her book. She suggests that transracial adoption is harmful to the adoptee because the adoptee might view himself/herself as white because he/she grew up in a white family (pg. 79). Register writes, “When he is old enough to envision himself as a being separate from you, he may nevertheless imagine himself in your skin. A peek in the mirror or a glimpse of himself in a family photo can come as a shock” (pg 79). She believes that this results in identity confusion.

Register’s voice about adoption reminds me of Kim Park Nelson’s stance on transracial adoption. Both Register and Nelson state they are not anti-transnational adoption, but they do not shy away from addressing its downfalls and consequences. Their voices are not as strong as the National Council of Black Social Workers statement on transracial adoption, which states that transracial adoption is cultural genocide. However, both Register and Nelson believe a reason for adoption is to enrich adoptive parents’ lives. Nelson mentions in Shopping for Children in the International Marketplace that parents view their transracial adoptee as an exotic commodity (pg. 103). One of Register’s listed pitfalls that adoptive parents make is this same point - that adoptive parents try to keep the adoptees exotic. Register suggests that parents need to be genuinely interested in their adopted child’s culture and home country. She offers her experience of decorating her house in South Korean style to show her children that their birth culture is also important (pg. 101).

Register presents further evidence in her book about how transracial adoptees feel like they do not fit in because of their race. This raises the question we talked about in class regarding whether or not it is ethical for white adults from the U.S. to adopt transracially because of the racism the child will face. She supports her stance that transracial adoption can be unethical by listing questions that adoptees receive that make them think they aren’t who they thought they were: “Where do you come from,” “Aren’t you grateful that you came to this country,” “What race are you?” (132). She states that adoptees’ privacy is constantly intruded on when they get asked questions about their race and ethnicity (pg. 139). In her opinion, this is a consequence that adoptive parents impose on their adopted child when that transracially adopt.

Register brings a new idea and a different opinion that we have not heard in class regarding adoption language. Register does not like the word “birth parents” (pg 17). She believes that the word is too functional. She writes, “(Birth mother) suggests to me a brood mare or an egg-laying hen. Birth father, by contrast, stands for a person too seldom acknowledged” (pg. 17). She attributes her rejection of the common adoption language to the gratitude she feels toward the birth parents who gave her children birth, beauty, voices, wits, etc. Contemporary writers of adoption seem to have accepted the adoption language, even those who have ethical problems with adoption. By simply understanding her stance on adoption language, one can confer her ethical views on adoption. Register seems to have a viewpoint that birth parents should always have a claim to their children, and her view grows stronger when race is of matter. She states that white adoptive parents view their transracially adopted child as being different from them rather than vice versa (pg. 89). This ethical dilemma of transracial adoption of white people seeing themselves as dominant and superior presents a problem when raising the children within the American culture.  

Overall, I recommend Register’s book. The book has many strengths, including the perspective and experience that the author brings to the issue of transracial adoption and her suggestions she provides to prospective and current adoptive parents of transracial adoptees. She further develops the ethical issues of race and adoption by expressing her views on the consequences of keeping an adoptee “exotic” and the unethical issues associated with transracial adoption. Register challenges voices such as Pertman’s while echoing voices such as Nelson’s. She offers a new approach to the adoption language by rejecting certain words. The only downfall that I identified was that she only used a critical lens on transracial adoption and did not talk about the benefits of it. All in all, the book provided good insight into race and adoption.