Just as I blogged about racial and gender preferences and how Americans prefer light-skinned girl babies, Sandra Bullock has adopted trans-racially. She's broken down a number of barriers and adopted an African-American baby boy. Little Louis Bardo Bullock was placed with Sandra and her soon-to-be ex-husband Jesse James three months ago, just prior to the Oscars, where Sandra won the Oscar for Best Actress for her movie, "The Blind Side". Perhaps it's life imitating art, or perhaps Bullock just has a heart for children and identified with the role. In any event, when a celebrity adopts, they tend to get more press and people take notice of what they do. You would think that in 2010, there would no longer be racial barriers, but there are and likely will be for some time to come.
One of my adoptive families has experienced racial prejudice within their community and with teachers of their children. That seems hard to grasp but it happens in America in the 21st century. Kudos to Sandra Bullock for being courageous enough to break through the racial taboos and just be a mom.
I have worked on some high profile or celebrity adoptions and there is always an assumption that high profile couples or even singles have an easier time adopting because they have money, or power, or influence, or all of the above. Sometimes, the exact opposite is true. Ms. Bullock began the adoption process four years ago. That is much longer than most adoptive families wait, depending upon preferences. Gender preferences can lengthen the wait considerably. Celebrities have more to contend with than just the typical home study and background check. They have to locate a birth mother who is willing to keep things quiet. Paparazzi can ruin the experience for a couple who is recognized wherever they go. Open adoptions are certainly possible for celebrity families but it's difficult to maintain a relationship with the birth mother if she is being stalked by the press. There are a host of challenges that typical adoptive families don't face.
Sandra Bullock is a case study in grace. She has had the highs and lows of her lifetime all in a period of a few short months. Without fanfare and without drama, she has handled her husband's infidelity with dignity and resolve. She is a woman who is an example for all women. Her attitude is empowering. Congratulations on your adoption, Sandra, and thanks for showing the world that you are an example of what you said when you accepted your Oscar, "Thank you to the moms that take care of the babies and the children no matter where they come from". Well said and well done.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Adoption Issues - And The Research Shows....
Economists from the California Institute of Technology (CalTech), the London School of Economics, and New York University have conducted a formal study and have discovered what those of us in the adoption field have known for years. It's nice to know that our suspicions are validated! The researchers, in a study that lasted over a five year period, found that the study revealed several distinct patterns.
First, Non-African-American babies are seven times more likely to attract the interest of an American adoptive parent than an African-American baby. Second, female children are more attractive to adoptive parents overall than male children, by more than 33%. Thirdly, gestation comes into play. The interest of an adoptive family will increase with the length of gestation. In other words, children are more desirable if they are due immediately versus earlier in the pregnancy. The desirability of a child decreases after they are born and continues to decrease.
Anyone who works in the field of adoption knows that there is greater demand for girls and that it's harder to place minority children. Ironically, many birth moms do not have ultrasounds prior to choosing a family, so often the gender is unknown at the time of the match. For those waiting for specific genders - always more families waiting for girls than boys - it can be difficult to match when the gender is known in only a small percentage when matching. Of course, many find out later on the gender of the baby they are carrying, particularly if pre-natal care is started later on in the pregnancy. That doesn't help us in the matching process!
I have my own theories, but I would love to know the reason(s)that girls are in higher demand than boys. If you thought about carrying the family name, the opposite should be true. However, that is not the case with adoption. Almost always if an adoptive family has a boy, if they have a preference for their second child, it is for a girl. On the other hand, many adoptive families who have a girl want another girl, rather than a boy. The "ideal" family used to be described as Mom, Dad, a boy and a girl. Not so much these days.
The studies have shown that American parents pursuing adoption tend to avoid taking African-American babies and boys. When ultrasounds are done, boys are more easily identified (sometimes it's not easy to identify whether the child is a girl or a boy with undescended testes), so we see more identified boys or unidentified gender babies even when ultrasounds have been done. More irony - there is a higher demand for girls, but it's easier to identify boys. On top of that, more boys are being placed than girls and perhaps that equates to more boys being born than girls, since much of the time birth moms make the choice to make an adoption plan before they know the gender. An old wives tale says that "In a time of war, more baby boys are born to replace those males lost in battle". While we can wonder how Mother Nature would know that, it seems to ring true if you look at the birth rates. So we have more baby boys and minority babies, while the demand is for the opposite.
So, hats off to the researchers who found this phenomenon to be true. I'm going to e-mail them and ask why it's true! For those who are waiting for a specific gender baby, particularly girls, -- this is why it takes more time to find them.
First, Non-African-American babies are seven times more likely to attract the interest of an American adoptive parent than an African-American baby. Second, female children are more attractive to adoptive parents overall than male children, by more than 33%. Thirdly, gestation comes into play. The interest of an adoptive family will increase with the length of gestation. In other words, children are more desirable if they are due immediately versus earlier in the pregnancy. The desirability of a child decreases after they are born and continues to decrease.
Anyone who works in the field of adoption knows that there is greater demand for girls and that it's harder to place minority children. Ironically, many birth moms do not have ultrasounds prior to choosing a family, so often the gender is unknown at the time of the match. For those waiting for specific genders - always more families waiting for girls than boys - it can be difficult to match when the gender is known in only a small percentage when matching. Of course, many find out later on the gender of the baby they are carrying, particularly if pre-natal care is started later on in the pregnancy. That doesn't help us in the matching process!
I have my own theories, but I would love to know the reason(s)that girls are in higher demand than boys. If you thought about carrying the family name, the opposite should be true. However, that is not the case with adoption. Almost always if an adoptive family has a boy, if they have a preference for their second child, it is for a girl. On the other hand, many adoptive families who have a girl want another girl, rather than a boy. The "ideal" family used to be described as Mom, Dad, a boy and a girl. Not so much these days.
The studies have shown that American parents pursuing adoption tend to avoid taking African-American babies and boys. When ultrasounds are done, boys are more easily identified (sometimes it's not easy to identify whether the child is a girl or a boy with undescended testes), so we see more identified boys or unidentified gender babies even when ultrasounds have been done. More irony - there is a higher demand for girls, but it's easier to identify boys. On top of that, more boys are being placed than girls and perhaps that equates to more boys being born than girls, since much of the time birth moms make the choice to make an adoption plan before they know the gender. An old wives tale says that "In a time of war, more baby boys are born to replace those males lost in battle". While we can wonder how Mother Nature would know that, it seems to ring true if you look at the birth rates. So we have more baby boys and minority babies, while the demand is for the opposite.
So, hats off to the researchers who found this phenomenon to be true. I'm going to e-mail them and ask why it's true! For those who are waiting for a specific gender baby, particularly girls, -- this is why it takes more time to find them.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Adoption Is Forever
Last week, Nancy Hanson of Tennessee put her 7 year old adopted son, Justin, onto a plane to Russia with no more than a note and a goodbye. Upon landing in Russia, he showed up unannounced at the Child Protection Ministry. This set off an international investigation that may leave in limbo many American families who are already in the process of adopting in Russia. Russia has suspended adoptions to Americans until a new treaty is put into place with the U.S. Ms. Hansen, a single woman, defends her actions contending that the child was violent and she was concerned about her family's safety. The agency that assisted with the placement reported that as recently as February, they had spoken to Ms. Hanson and she had not indicated any problems. Ms. Hanson stated "It wasn't that he was just energetic and wearing us down, it was the violent tendencies and he had to be watched all the time". In my opinion, all children of that age must be "watched all the time". If he had violent tendencies at age 7, this is something that generally can be corrected with therapy.
There are conflicting stories. Ms. Hanson claims that once he learned English, Justin talked about being abused and beaten at the orphanage. Russian officials state that he has told them he was abused by his American family. He stated he was yelled at and his hair pulled. Ms. Hanson felt that the "final incident" that convinced her that she should send Justin back was when she caught him starting a fire with papers in his bedroom. That is a concern, but what child won't play with matches or lighters if they get the chance? They have to be taught not to do those things and this boy never had a chance. I find it telling that he had access to anything that would start a fire or that he wasn't supervised to the point of having time and means to do such a thing. Instead of a learning experience, this became another lesson in abandonment.
The U.S. government is troubled and is doing everything they can to repair the relationship with Russia's Child Protection Ministry and to minimize the damage our citizens have sustained to their reputations. Russians are viewing Americans as monsters who would callously abandon children. Investigators will have to determine if Ms. Hanson committed a crime. In my view, she did. Child abandonment, child endangerment, and many other child welfare laws may have been broken. Beyond that, she has broken a child's heart. Ms. Hanson had many options, including therapy, asking for the intervention of a social worker from the agency, and ultimately could have asked the agency to disrupt the adoption and place him with another American family who had the time and means to deal with the issues he presented. It has been reported that she was trying, at the same time, to adopt another Russian child.
I believe there is more to this story and that there are likely more issues with the mother than with the child. Regardless of whether you give birth or adopt a child, you don't stick a note on their shirt and send them off on a plane alone to face the world. Abandonment is an ugly word and an even uglier concept. This woman obviously did not take her commitment to this child seriously. If our children have problems, we deal with them. If our children are sick, we take care of them. A child so young has so much potential and instead of working with him to make his life better, she sent him packing. I wonder what that child's concept of "family" really is. I wonder how much this incident has harmed him, beyond what has happened to him before. I do believe he needed to be out of that situation. It is obvious he wasn't loved. Today is his birthday. Happy 8th birthday, Justin. Some of us Americans are sorry for what you have had to endure.
There are conflicting stories. Ms. Hanson claims that once he learned English, Justin talked about being abused and beaten at the orphanage. Russian officials state that he has told them he was abused by his American family. He stated he was yelled at and his hair pulled. Ms. Hanson felt that the "final incident" that convinced her that she should send Justin back was when she caught him starting a fire with papers in his bedroom. That is a concern, but what child won't play with matches or lighters if they get the chance? They have to be taught not to do those things and this boy never had a chance. I find it telling that he had access to anything that would start a fire or that he wasn't supervised to the point of having time and means to do such a thing. Instead of a learning experience, this became another lesson in abandonment.
The U.S. government is troubled and is doing everything they can to repair the relationship with Russia's Child Protection Ministry and to minimize the damage our citizens have sustained to their reputations. Russians are viewing Americans as monsters who would callously abandon children. Investigators will have to determine if Ms. Hanson committed a crime. In my view, she did. Child abandonment, child endangerment, and many other child welfare laws may have been broken. Beyond that, she has broken a child's heart. Ms. Hanson had many options, including therapy, asking for the intervention of a social worker from the agency, and ultimately could have asked the agency to disrupt the adoption and place him with another American family who had the time and means to deal with the issues he presented. It has been reported that she was trying, at the same time, to adopt another Russian child.
I believe there is more to this story and that there are likely more issues with the mother than with the child. Regardless of whether you give birth or adopt a child, you don't stick a note on their shirt and send them off on a plane alone to face the world. Abandonment is an ugly word and an even uglier concept. This woman obviously did not take her commitment to this child seriously. If our children have problems, we deal with them. If our children are sick, we take care of them. A child so young has so much potential and instead of working with him to make his life better, she sent him packing. I wonder what that child's concept of "family" really is. I wonder how much this incident has harmed him, beyond what has happened to him before. I do believe he needed to be out of that situation. It is obvious he wasn't loved. Today is his birthday. Happy 8th birthday, Justin. Some of us Americans are sorry for what you have had to endure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)