What is an adopted kid supposed to do? (Final Paper)

What is an adopted kid supposed to do?

                Adoptees are the most oppressed and powerless group in the adoption triad and this has been proven by the literature we have read in class this semester. In this paper I would like to focus on the powerlessness adoptees experience by their adoptive parents. I wish to address this ethical topic because it is a very touchy subject and it has been a recurring theme in our class this semester. I will give examples on how to approach this touchy subject as an adoptive parent in order to make the adoptee feel more in power with his/her life. We must also understand that adoptees from the beginning are already placed into a powerless role but there are methods, such as open adoption, that will help with the powerlessness. I would also like to analyze this topic because I hope to address some of my own thoughts regarding my own adoption and how I feel as an adoptee. As a precursor for this paper I would like to state how happy I am about my life and how amazing my mother, Jean, is (my adoptive mother). I couldn’t have asked for a better mother who is more supportive than anyone in my life. I owe her my life and she has made me be the person I am today. This paper in no way, shape, or form is degrading adoptive parents. I only wish to address the sort of powerlessness adoptees have and its relation to adoptive parents.

            I would like to begin by addressing what powerlessness is and how it pertains to adoption. In Five Faces of Oppression by Iris Young “The powerless are those who lack authority or power even in this mediated sense, those over whom power is exercised without their exercising it; the powerless are situated so that they must take orders and rarely have the right to give them. …powerless status is perhaps best described negatively: the powerless (adoptees) lack the authority, status, and sense of self that professionals (non-adoptees or adoptive parents) tend to have” (Young p.56-57). Young is arguing here how those who have the least amount of power are basically viewed as the weaker and lower class citizens of society who get pushed around because they don’t have the confidence/self-knowledge as compared to those who are in touch with their authoritative behavior and higher self-image. The professionals are already born as privileged compared to the nonprofessionals or the adoptees. Young goes on to state, “The life of the nonprofessional (adoptee) by comparison is powerless in the sense that it lacks this orientation toward the progressive development of capacities and avenues for recognition” (Young p. 57). My own interpretation of what this quote is saying about adoptees is that they lack the experience and societal comparison to what is known as the normal life or normal family. An adoptee is already disempowered because they aren’t blood related to their parents and they know they were relinquished for adoption by their birth parents. The following is a great explanation of the powerlessness of adoptees and the privileged group of the adoption triad, the adoptive parents:

“Adoptive parents are more privileged because they have a lot more control. Adoptees are definitely the most oppressed and powerless.  They literally have no influence over what the outcome is, because they do not know ‘what is good for them’.  Adoptive parents that are white, have more power over those that are not.  There is power even in the realm of adoptive parents” (Adoption Ethics KBJM Group Blog Post).

                The question of why this is important is easily answered by the “Rights and Moral Principles Handout.” The ethical theories/principals/concepts that go into adoptee powerlessness via adoptive parents include but aren’t limited to: right to autonomy or respect for adoptee autonomy, best interest standard, non-maleficence, lack of birth/relation knowledge, and implicit/unintentional oppression by adoptive parents on adoptees. I will discuss these concepts in more detail and how they apply later in the essay.

Now that I have established what powerlessness is exactly for adoptees and the ethical concepts involved I wish to incorporate the opposing sides for my ethical topic and their arguments. The first side I would like to address is the adoptee group or the powerless group I am arguing for. Adoptees are put up for adoption because the birth parent/s are not ready or don’t have the resources to raise a child at that time. This automatically places adoptees in the powerless category because they aren’t able to determine their own future and who they will be raised by. This brings in the best interest standard mentioned above. The handout states, “… as children are more vulnerable than adults and adoptees are typically the one party who had no choice regarding adoption… the best interest of the child should be the guiding principle.” This places almost all of the power of the adoption triad in the hands of the adoptive parents because they are the ones who will be raising a child. Sherrie Eldridge states:

“Because our birth mothers made a choice for us (adoptees) that dramatically changed the course of our lives and over which we had no control, many of us have a foundational belief (often unconscious) that we don’t have the right to choose our own course in life. We feel instead that we are at the mercy of others” (Eldridge p. 34).

As an adoptee I can’t help but agree with this statement. This quote ties in with our adoptive parents because we are shaped by our guardians and those who take us in and show us love. This is also where non-maleficence comes into play. The handout states, “The principle of non-maleficence or do no harm maintains that we should, as a moral minimum, refrain from harming others.” Adoptees are so dependent on our adoptive parents, possibly even more so than birth children with their birth parents because of our extreme loss early on, that we are subject to harm by our adoptive parents because they are the first party displaying love and affection to us. It might play out differently with those adoptees who are adopted later in their lives, but the same thought goes into the ‘mercy of others’ as Eldridge exclaims because of the love and affection experience by their adoptive parents when they might not have experienced those sorts of feelings in foster homes or children’s shelters. If an adoptee is harmed, shown maleficence, early in life by their adoptive parents then the child’s mentality could turn untrusting of others or even harmful towards others because they don’t know how to trust or deal with loss.

            The opposing side I will address includes those who don’t believe adoptees are powerless. An argument this side would try to make would be adoptees have the ability to start a whole new life when they are adopted. My counter argument consists of my agreement with them as adoptees are able to start a new life; but the problem with the new life thought is how the adoptee feels inferior to others because their birth parents decided to give them up for adoption. The powerlessness has already taken place because adoptees will always wonder why the parents didn’t want them or couldn’t keep them. The right to autonomy is extremely important when addressing this argument. The handout states, “autonomy=self-determination—the capacity to make one’s own decisions as to how to live one’s life… or to figure out for oneself what actions are right and which are wrong.” This is extremely important in my story as an adoptee because I had a closed adoption until I turned 18. I had no idea who my birth parents were, where they lived, or even if I had any genetic health problems. All I knew was that my brother and I were adopted from different families, even different countries. I wanted to learn about my birth parents since I was 12 but my parents denied me any information for reasons I do not know. I was powerless to their wishes.

            Another argument the opposing side might try to uphold can be found in Anita Allen’s “Open Adoption is Not for Everyone.” She argues that “Birth parents and their families do not have a prima facie moral right to maintain contact with adopted kin, because such an ascription of right would be inconsistent with adoptive parents’ prima facie rights and responsibilities as caretakers” (Allen p. 51). I would agree that if the adoptive parents don’t want their child to have a relationship with their birth parents they don’t have to allow it. But my counter argument would be shouldn’t both sets of parents ask the child for what he/she wants? What if a relationship with the birth parents could be extremely helpful for the child? I understand the adoptive parents most definitely wouldn’t want to lose their child to the birth parents but if the child is old enough to understand the implications of this decision and is able to analyze the feelings/wants of the adoptive parents shouldn’t these children have a say? Allen brings in a lot of good points supporting closed adoption being a good choice but I hardly see her mention what the adoptee might want or what would be best for the adoptee. As parents wouldn’t you want to put your child’s problems before your own? This is a huge thought. The child should have the say on if they want an open or closed adoption. This is another power adoptees lack in their own lives because Allen argues the adoptive parents’ well-being should come first. Then where does the adoptees’ well-being come into play? The ethical principle tied with this argument, I would say, is lack of birth/relation knowledge. Growing up I wanted to know my whole family, this includes my adoptive family and my birth family because being able to connect with people who are a part of me is as important as being able to connect with the people I grow up with. Aside from knowing these people I would also be able to ask the questions I have always wanted answered, like “Why was I placed for adoption?” or “Do I have any complications with my health?” or even “Who shares my blood?” With open adoption I would be able to have these questions answered. It wasn’t until I met my birth father and birth mother that I realized I had 12 more brothers (bringing the total to 13) and that I am genetically inclined to be allergic to cats and susceptible to occasional migraines. These answers explained a lot about my health.

            The last ethical concept I would like to discuss is the implicit/unintentional oppression by adoptive parents on adoptees. This is an issue rarely talked about in adoption but I believe it is almost the most important one because all of what goes into this category takes place in the mind of the adoptee. I will be drawing all of my support for this argument by expressing my own experiences because I haven’t found any studies or peer reviewed information about this subject. What I mean by implicit/unintentional oppression is what goes through the adoptees mind as they are trying to think about how their adoptive parents might truly react when the adoptee is meeting somebody from their birth family. My first experience with this came on the night of my 18^th birthday when I asked/told my mother that I would like to meet my birth parents now that I am 18. Since my adoptive parents are divorced I knew this was most likely going to be hard on my mother because it was just her and I living in our house and because I was denied the opportunity to meet my birth parents earlier. That night my mother responded, “Okay. I will show you the box of things I have been collecting about them.” I had no idea they were in contact so I went to my room and anxiously waited for ten minutes before I went back out to the kitchen where I found my mom sitting at the table, crying. I didn’t approach her or say anything. I walked away. For weeks I was urgently trying to analyze what my mother must be going through; I also tried to think about if I made the right decision in wanting to meet my parents or not. I fell into a depression because I knew that I had made my mother cry because she was so afraid of losing me. I was powerless because I now didn’t want to meet my birth parents. The unintentional reaction by my mother (because she didn’t realize that I saw her crying) was enough to make me immediately hate the fact of me being an adoptee. There are more examples of this sort of ethical concept but for the sake of page restrictions I will limit myself to this paragraph.

            In order to limit these sorts of ethical/personal conflicts in the adoption triad I propose open adoption as a major help in addressing the powerlessness of adoptees. Adoptive parents should sit down with their child/children and discuss the implications of open adoption and what it truly means. They should also talk about any questions and/or touchy subjects adoptees might want to address because we don’t know how we should live and feel when compared to the professionals (the majority).

            In conclusion, I propose discussion and open adoption as being the solution to the powerlessness of adoptees. Both of these concepts would give adoptees the power and answers we strive for because we would be on the same level as both sets of parents. All we really want are answers to our questions and the ability to relate to those closest to us. We don’t want to live the way others want us to, we want to be able to make decisions on our own and live our own lives without having the question of “Who am I?” in the back of our heads. This would be a great weight off of our shoulders.

Bibliography

Allen, A. “Open Adoption is Not for Everyone” in Adoption Matters: Philosophical and Feminist Essays. Ed. By Sally Haslanger and Charlotte Witt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005: (pp. 47-67).

Eldridge, Sherrie. Twenty Life-Transforming Choices Adoptees Need to Make. Colorado Springs: NavPress Publishing Group, 2003. (pp. 1-287).

Pertman, A. Adoption nation. Boston: Harvard Common Press, 2011. (pp. 1-295).

Rights and Moral Principles Handout

Young, I. M., Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, New Jersey, 1990. (pp. 39-65).

Blog Post 12: Course Wrap Up

This week each student from our class presented on a topic that they were considering for their final research paper. They discussed their ethical question, at least three ethical principles they would use in their paper, the conclusion they were considering making, and finally it was opened up to the class for questions or clarifications that people had or some made suggestions on something in order to help the author of the paper when they were writing it. I’m glad we did this as a class because I’m always curious as to what others are interested in and maybe subjects that I’ve never even thought to look into before. Student presentations reminded me of all of the subjects we’ve covered in the class over the course of the semester. This allowed me to recall the ethical principles that we discussed during that particular topic and served essentially as a review for me. It also was interesting to see what other students thought was interesting or that as a class we didn’t go into enough detail on and what parts they wanted to further research. Three that really stuck out to me were Sarah Beddow’s, Merideth Erusha’s, and Jenna Smoger.

Sarah’s presentation on sibling separation in foster care is one that we skimmed over briefly in the class but is one that presents lots of additional questions. When she brought up stopping the cycle of sexual abuse that trickles down from sibling to sibling, that made me see a whole new side to the conversation. After seeing the foster care film and reading Shattered Bonds, I had begun to think of foster care completely opposite of how I had before and was only focusing on that side; that keeping families together is best. However Sarah’s presentation was enlightening on this issue because it made me see both sides again.

Meredith was interested in finding out more about the ethics used by social workers in the foster care system. I was impressed with her initial research of interviewing various people that were involved in the foster care system. What she found out about what they practiced was pretty much everything we had talked about in class as being the correct ethical choices. I’ve struggled a lot in my back and forth opinion about what should be done to the foster care system to improve it. I’ve come to the over simplified conclusion that there needs to be more social workers that have taken bias tests and been trained to make the most ethical decisions possible. These tie into non-maleficence and beneficence in that they should always be trying to keep families together to keep from doing harm. The principle of beneficence says refraining from hurting others isn’t enough to be a morally good person; we must also sometimes go out of our way to benefit others. I think this, in addition to having MORE workers to lighten caseloads would be the best attitude to take on when considering children. I think it would do the system a lot of good if they tried to make the situation better by helping before taking the child away. (In most situations.)

Jenna’s presentation today was on whether or not people with mental illnesses should be allowed to keep custody of their children if they are not on their meds. She decidedly said that they should not but the class followed up with many interesting questions like, ‘what if there is another parent in the household?’. She didn’t give explicit ethical principles that she planned on using but this gave me an opportunity to consider what ones might come into play. A reproductive right was the first issue that came up in my mind but then also the right of children to be raised in a nurturing and caring environment. These two might clash in the situation that Jenna is presenting to us. The parents have a right to their children first and foremost as long as they are taking adequate care of them. So people with the more minor mental illnesses should not be included in this because they are usually able to perform well as parents even with their internal struggles.

After seeing everyone present and being able to reflect on all that we’ve covered since January, what I will walk away with this semester is not only a greater overall understanding in the area of adoption but also that many, many people and situations in life have a relationship to adoption. Even more than that, there are so many controversial issues that tie in with adoption ethics too, which gave me a better grasp on issues like gay marriage and civil unions, cultural differences between countries, racial discrimination, and the reproductive rights of women, to name only a few.  Now in the future when I read about any of these issues I’ll be able to think more critically about them and I’ll be able to see them through the lens of adoption and the best interests of children. Which is the main point that I hope I’ll continue to carry with me: that in any situation involving a child, it is most important to remain conscious of the fact that they are powerless in their current predicaments and that the people making the choices involving them will affect that person for the rest of their lives in one way or another.

Graded Post #10: Course Wrap Up

Hello All!

Great to be back writing a post... the final post at that. I know, I will miss everyone but I am glad it will be finals week next week.

For my final post I wish to discuss this weeks presentations and the overall awesomeness of the class. I actually learned a lot from the presentations this week because when I compare other projects I realize the differences there are. For instance, I need to analyze my position more and create the opposing perspective on Powerlessness of Adoptees from Adoptive Parents. I noticed a lot of people did very well in this category and that I need to pick it up in this area. I also learned many about the any different perspectives one can take on the many topics on adoption ethics. I especially liked learning about the new adoption law being enforced by the South Korean government. I had no idea there was even going to be a law against adoption or even if there could be one.

The last ethics thought I never realized was a major thing experienced every day is what social workers for foster homes have to go through in order to keep track of every child's life. Even if they mess up once by not incorporating some of the child's rights it is frowned upon by society with the utmost negativity. But what if the worker doesn't have enough time and/or resources in order to keep track of every kid, what is supposed to happen then? Hire more workers? There are a lot of questions that go into social work for foster care.

Everything from this semester will be helpful as I walk away with the knowledge of ethics in adoption. I will actually even be able to incorporate them into my own life and my future decisions. I want to thank everyone for reading my blog and have a great future.

Sincerely,
Michael O.

Blog Post 11- Thoughts on Foster Care

     For Monday's class we had two guest speakers come in. They were both involved in the foster care system and also in the adoption process. Caitlin's experience was fairly positive while Jesse's was more on the negative side. I think it's great that we got a personal and entirely new perspective on foster care and adoption during this class. 

Caitlin's family life was clearly complicated but her willingness to talk to our class about her experiences was admirable. She was involved in kinship care by her aunt and uncle when her mother could no longer care for her. In 'Shattered Bonds' Dorthy Roberts seems to lean towards this option for other children too. "Children can often remain safely with kin while maintaining contact with their parents, leaving open the possibility of reunification if circumstances improve" (162). Keeping children in touch with their biological family members is a good option in most cases because there is probably already a bond to some degree and Roberts is adamantly against severing those ties. As great as kinship care appears I wonder if sometimes, having that parent present in their children's lives could be damaging. For instance if the relationship wasn't a good one and if the parent showed no remorse or caring about why their child was taken from them, it could be an emotional roller coaster for a child that could potentially manifest itself later in life.

     Jesse's experience was much different. He was adopted after one phone call by a woman from Minnesota who allegedly paid the social worker to adopt several children whom she then (from what I gathered from Jesse's story) didn't care for the children or respect their feelings and was an unstable mother. So Jesse's experience with the foster care system was a more positive one because the foster family that he spent the most time with, loved him and wanted to adopt him but were deemed 'too old' by the state. I see this as very unfortunate because what was wanted by both parties, especially Jesse who was old enough himself to state what he would have wanted at the time, was completely disregarded. The policy of "concurrent permanency planning" which is a policy that "places foster care children on two tracks at the same time - one track focuses on reuniting them with their parents; the other seeks to find them a permanent home with another family. Caseworker must pursue both goals simultaneously" (111). Was this what Jesse's social worker was trying to abide by? He went in and out of his home and the system for many years until one day the social worker allows a woman from MN to fly Jesse away from everything he's familiar with by this point in his life. My first question is why are the opinions of the children not considered more often than not? It's their lives we're messing with and the effects of the choice that's made is what they have to deal with for the remainder of their lives. I just think it's so unfair that they're not asked or, like in Jesse's case, not even really considered.

     Another question I'd like to pose is one that's straight out of 'Shattered Bonds': "What would happen if we devoted more resources to supporting families instead of foster care?" (129).

Blog Post 10 - Option 2:

There are a multitude of factors contributing to the racial disparities in the welfare system of America. It would be a monumental and nearly impossible task to try and gather every bit of history, and social practices that have led this country to where it is today. However, Dorthy Roberts, the author of "Shattered Bonds; The Color of Child Welfare" provides plenty of evidence to make the strong claims that she does about the issue of racial imbalance in the welfare system. She starts by talking about the very start of what would become the system; where the wealthy people began charitable missions in the late nineteenth century to try to help children that needed it. However, these orphanages more often than not refused to accept black children. "By the time of the 1923 census, thirty-one northern states reported a total of 1,070 child-caring agencies. Of these agencies, 35 were for Black children only, 264 accepted all races, 60 took nonwhite children except Blacks, and 711 were reserved for white children" (7). One of the other historical pieces she cites that stood out to me was, "...whites opposed the War on Poverty precisely because of its link to Black civil rights" (16). Which is evidence of the problem that African Americans will begin to have with the system. 

Factors that I feel might contribute to these racial imbalances are that there is still an attitude toward the African American race that keeps them down more often than not; they might not have all of the opportunities to advance in life that they would be allowed had their skin been a different color. Meaning to say that they have worked just as hard, if not harder than a white person but that their skin color has affected their social status. To continue with that assumption, I'm guessing that the system is run by predominantly white upper-middle class people that potentially do not see their biases. They probably mean well, considering they entered into the field that they did but we live in a nation where prejudices against African Americans are ignored, as shown in the article we read about 'silent racism'. It could be difficult to convince a judge or social worker in the midst of the system who sees Black parents (good and bad) considerably more often than white parents, that there is something wrong, which will just continue to perpetuate the ideas that landed them there to begin with.  These are just a few of the areas that I believe contribute to the discrepancy among Blacks and whites within the American welfare and foster care system.

-Judy

Blog Post #9: Foster Care with No Care

Hello blog readers,

Today's topic is foster care and the perspective Dorothy Roberts portrays in Shattered Bonds: The Color of  Child Welfare. Based on the evidence Roberts gives, there are some factors that might contribute to the racial disparities within the foster care system in the United States. I feel this quote from her book sums up everything she is focused around; "Today, 42 percent of all children in foster care nationwide are Black, even though Black children constitute only 17 percent of the nation's youth./ Black families are the most likely of any group to be disrupted by child protection authorities" (Roberts, p. 8). This shows how many Black children are 'saved' (harsh emphasis) by the child protection agency and what race the agency is particularly trying to help. I'm not saying that the CPA isn't saving children but I am saying not all of them need to be saved. Take the story about Devon and her family. The DCFS tore her children from her in the middle of a picnic without notice and over revenge for a complaint placed by Devon. She had a suitable house at the time and a positive future for a job based on her education. Her four kids, based on Roberts' description of the story, didn't seem like they should leave their mother.

One of the main factors Roberts talks about early on is the theory of "visibility hypothesis" which I would like to discuss. "The visibility hypothesis suggests 'that there is a higher probability for the minority children to be placed in foster care when living in a geographic area where they are relatively less represented'" (Roberts, p. 9). This is a completely new proposed hypothesis to me yet, strangely, I understand it. I grew up in an extremely white town in Northern Minnesota and I can actually relate to what Roberts talks about in this chapter. She states "that visibility increases the chances of minority placement because agencies are more likely to investigate underrepresented groups or because these groups lack social supports that could ward off investigation" (Roberts, p. 10). I believe this has to deal a lot with racism even with the thought being that during this day and age racism is less prevalent... it still is as it seems. This is most definitely racial disparity because through this hypothesis it basically means, for Black Americans, they will never fit in. I find this despicably shocking and revolting because we are all human beings, even closer we are all Americans.

Thanks for reading this short Post. 'Till next time.
-Michael

Blog Post #10: Unfair System

When looking at the claims that Roberts makes, a lot of them are eye opening and infuriating.  When looking at the foster care system, Roberts states that it is “…a system designed to deal with the problems of minority families – primarily Black families – whereas the problems of white families are handled by separate and less disruptive mechanisms,” (Roberts, p. 10).  She supports this by looking at the statistics, such as “Black children are ten times more likely to be placed in foster care in New York City than white children,” (Roberts, p. 9).  She then goes on to share how unfair the system is with Devon’s story.  Devon was trying to take care of many children from extended family.  The caseworker order that she look for a bigger apartment, etc. is she wanted to keep the children.  However, Devon was being treated unprofessionally by the caseworker, and when she reported it, she believes the caseworker decided to retaliate.  The caseworker came during the middle of a picnic, picked the children up right in front of Devon and put them in car.  Devon was only handed a notice that she no longer had custody of the children (Roberts, p. 12).   From there Devon tried to send loving messages, gifts, etc., but all were sent back to her because the caseworker said it would, “confuse them,” (Roberts, p. 13).

Another point that supports Robert’s claim that the system is “designed to deal with the problems off minority families” when she talks about abuse on page 17.  She states, “White children who are abused or neglected are twice as likely as Black children to receive services in their own homes, avoiding the emotional damage and physical risks of foster care placement.  Put another way, most white children who enter the system are permitted to stay with their families, whereas most Black children are taken away from theirs,” (Roberts, p. 17).   This goes to show how unfair and unequal the treatment is from black children to white children involved in neglect or abuse.   

-Mickey N.

Blog Post #8

The ethical issue I am going to write about relates to gay and lesbian adoption.  I picked this because I am an openly gay man who hopes to adopt one day, but some feel like adoption should be left to the straight families or families with a mother and a father.  I want to show that it is possible for a child to have two mothers or two fathers.

One ethical concept that is related to my topic is "the right to equal treatment under the law."  Shouldn't gay and lesbian couples have the right to adopt like everyone else?  Another ethical concept that relates to this is topic is oppression, and to relate to that I can look at the Five Faces of Oppression such as cultural imperialism.  Some people do not agree with the some of the things that gays and lesbians do and brings the whole group down as a whole when people generalize, etc.  Just because these two gay men or these two lesbian women did drugs does not mean that all of us homosexuals are druggies.  That is just something minor that people say about homosexuality.

For my research, I will be using books, especially ones that Jean Keller suggested for me, and I will be using academic journals to find research on studies that have been done to support my paper.  I know there is some research on gay and lesbian parenting in the library databases.  I will also use "The Five Faces of Oppression" in my paper as well.

On a scale from 1-10, I am at a 10.  This something I am very interested in.

I really don't have any questions right now, but if people think that there is stronger ethical concepts to address, please let me know.

-Mickey N.

Blog Post #7/8:

Welcome back to the adoptive mind of Michael!

Today, I would like to discuss what ethical issue that ensues adoption I would like to write about in my final paper. I wanted to pick something I could relate to and learn from for future reference.

The ethical issue I would like to analyze is the feeling of powerlessness in adoption. The main subjects in the adoption triad I will address are the adoptees and birthfathers and the evident powerlessness prior to birth and as we grow older. What makes this topic so interesting/important to me is the fact that I will be able to learn more about my subconscious thoughts and feelings. It's also important because it might answer questions I might have about my own life experiences and my birthfathers' experiences. I hope to address the disagreement between which group of the adoption triad possesses the least amount of power and why.

The ethical concepts that go along with the powerlessness issue in adoption can be found in the 5 Faces of Oppression by Iris Young, Adoption Nation by Adam Pertman, and the handouts given in class. The concept I would like to address most would be the oppression birthfathers are associated and faced with by almost everyone else in the adoption triad. Another concept would be the group in the triad with the least amount of power, the adoptees themselves.

The sources I intend to use in my paper would be the pieces mentioned above (5 Faces, Adoption Nation, and handouts) along with blogs relayed to us in class. I feel some of the information and articles on the blogs will help me convey the wanted theme on birthfathers. I will also use the book I read for review (Sherrie Eldridge's book Twenty Life-Transforming Choices Adoptees Need to Make) because the interviews and points discussed by Eldridge will perfectly portray what I need as information regarding powerlessness with adoptees.

On a scale of 1-10, I think I will for sure be writing about this same ethical topic at the end of the semester... so a 10.

I think I have a fairly great base for my paper, but suggestions are always welcome. Are there any more sources relevant to this topic that I should consider when writing? Should I analyze other groups in the adoption triad on powerlessness in order to compare the level of power?

Thank you for reading!

-Michael

Book Review: Black Baby, White Hands - Jaiya John

The author of Black Baby, White Hands is Jaiya John. He is known as being the first black baby to be adopted by two white parents in the United States of America just after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

Being the first African American baby adopted by two white parents, Jaiya John had a unique experience growing up in the United States during the 1960s. Race was the most pervasive theme in this story. Adoption is also a primary theme in Jaiya's story. However, it is secondary to his issues with race because he was part of a white family and thus felt even more different from them rather than just by his being adopted. The third theme that weaves itself through John's story is that of family, his connection to his adoptive family and his eventual connection to his birth mothers' and birth fathers' families. Through reading the narrative it becomes clear that for some transracially adopted children love may not always be enough. Without blatantly stating his opinions and the telling of his feelings growing up, he makes a strong case against transracial adoption. That, or a guide for parents considering it, as John clearly explains what he wishes his parents would have done and said to him throughout his life.

In regards to his new family's way of life he says, "It was I, most of all, who was adopting" (p31). John provides an experiential account of what life was like for him growing up with white parents and a white sister in the predominantly white community of Los Alamos, New Mexico. He was a blessed child and loved by the people in his life but they were all white except for his even darker little brother Greg, who his parents had also adopted. He and Greg struggled growing up with few black role models in their lives."Black entertainers, athletes, and comics, and starving children in Africa: the images of Black folk that were available to us" (96). He and his little brother began to decide their normality in terms of how the media portrayed Black people. As we covered in class, the media is the most negative and stereotyping source of information on race so clearly this wasn't a positive comparison for him at such a young age. 

At this time in the nation's history, many people did not hide how they felt about racial issues and he always felt like the sore thumb that made his family stick out. When he was discriminated against his family would feed him the overused lines, such as: don't listen to them', and 'color doesn't mean anything'. Unfortunately in his world, it meant everything. "I was dealing with a host of race-related issues, and my parents' simplistic messages didn't cut it" (169). His parents wished that he could ignore others' ignorance and overcome it but he claims he was just not that strong as a young person. His mother also had trouble working with their hair which he says was incredibly painful. He was always sad that his hair was such an unnatural thing for even the local barber to try to manage. This differentiating aspect is another element of transracial adoption that was discussed in our class. Many of us came to the consensus that parents need to make an effort to understand how to treat these differences. Fortunately today, I think that information is more available than it was in the 1970s. Although his story will make the reader think twice about how easily White parents can deal with the issues presented by racial differences.

Being one of the only Black children in his school made him feel very insecure about everything, he claims he never felt as intelligent as the other white children in his classes. "As early as preschool I was conscious of physical aspect of my race...The children looked different from me but similar to each other"(36). By the age of five he was withdrawing because he felt so different; the force of the discomfort he felt wasn't enough to allow him to receive any acceptance from the other kids. He believes that if he and his brother had been taught by a black teacher at any point in their lives then that teacher would have seen that the boys' insecurities came from being black in such a predominantly white community. He claims, "I acted the 'good boy' so that the stereotypes I knew some of them had of Black people could not be confirmed through me" (104). This left him feeling alienated to other Black people as well. He felt that they would never accept him into their community completely either. He explicitly say, "I wished my parents could have known more Black people, anywhere, so that we could have had more naturally interacted with them " (272).

According to Jaiya John, White communities and Black communities are different in ways that really do matter. "Anybody who argued that there weren't distinct cultural differences between White Americans and African Americans wasn't living in the society I knew" (243). He finds this out when he moves far away to Oregon. Here, he goes to college and begins to interact with other people of various races whom he says acknowledged each other one way or another because they always felt their minority status. "Culture-more than just holidays and food-is a deeply subtle substance that is with us from birth" (35). As talked about in our class, many adoptees feel a need to find their birth parents or wish to look in the face of someone they have like features with. This is obviously important to John as well.

When he first leaves for college, he drifts from his family and identifies more with the Black community. He has conversations with his parents that he hopes will reveal what their reasoning was for adopting him. He wonders if it's for the 'ethnic spice' that we discussed from one of our class' readings. He finds out that his parents really just wanted to give him a better life. When his mother finally gets frustrated with him she asks if he would've rather them left him in foster care. He understands why she says this but says, "The expectation of indebtedness is the bane of the adopted child" (294). Later in his adult life John realizes that all of this soul searching may be hurting his adoptive family but tells them it's something he needs in his life. He feels that they simply will not ever understand the way he feels different from them but says he appreciates their efforts and loves them for the ways that they did try while he was growing up.

This book has infinite value when understanding race in adoption and getting an alternative point of view. Jaiya John repeats many of his points over and over again and can be a bit wordy at times, but this aspect of his writing definitely made his objectives clear to the reader. I was thankful that they hear his story, for it gives a variety of perspectives on the world that may not have otherwise been presented to me, as he drove his point home; there truly are fundamental differences between cultures. This should not keep us from loving, but it is important to keep in mind in terms of adoption ethics.

Book Review "Twenty Life-Transforming Choices"

Eldridge, Sherrie. Twenty Life-Transforming Choices Adoptees Need to Make. Colorado Springs:      NavPress Publishing Group, 2003. 1-288. Print.   

    Sherrie Eldridge is an adoptee that was given up for adoption at the age of a few days old. Eldridge is an award-winning author and public speaker. She is also known for writing “20 Things Adopted Kids Wish Their Adoptive Parents Knew” and her renowned adoption blog called Café Adoption.
    This is a work of personal narrative and a guideline on adoptee decisions that speaks directly to adoptees with a partial relation to others interested in the subject of adoption. Adoptees should be warned that this book has to deal a lot about negative connotations with adoption and the situations adoptees experience.
    Rating: 1) I highly recommend this book for both academic audiences and self-educating persons that would like to know more about the life of an adoptee (especially recommended for adoptees because of major relevance).
    I recommend that the libraries purchase this book because it helped me finally relate my life to something and other adoptee students here should have the opportunity to read it.
    Sherrie Eldridge’s book “20 Life-Transforming Choices Adoptees Need to Make” is a riveting read that addresses the issues adoptees face every day for their whole lives. The main idea that Eldridge tries to portray to her audience is the emotional road blocks all adoptees face and how everything that has happened to them since conception is in some way influenced by this category of negativism, whether it be conscious or subconscious.Her major objectives in this work focus on feelings from pain and anger to loneliness and self-esteem.

    I believe a major strength she displayed was, not only her relation to the subject, but also her knowledge of the major issues that adoptees experience throughout their entire lives; she even mentions many interviews of adoptees and adoption experts. Another major strength I would like to state about her writing, particularly for this book, is her addressing the biggest questions/issues adoptees face and the recommended beginning for betterment on those particular subjects.
    Apart from her strengths, I think the only weakness Eldridge exposes is her undying negative attitude attributed foul metaphorical images towards the many subjects she addresses. Prior to her actually addressing the many issues and questions she poses she places an intimately negative relation all readers can relate to in order to associate that particular topic. For instance, in the very first paragraph in chapter four she asks the readers if they have run fingernails on a blackboard and if they experienced the “physical and aural discomfort” it creates in order to make one cringe. I don’t believe that all of her metaphorical images are bad, but I do believe some of them could be replaced with a better example; such as a person telling themselves they are good enough for someone and they still back down from ever introducing themselves. This would set up a better associated feeling towards want for somebody than the negative ‘cringe’ inside somebodies stomach she portrays.

    The greatest theme I was able to associate from this text and the texts in class was the adoptees powerlessness in their lives. The article “Five Faces of Oppression” by Iris Young distinctly sticks out to me when addressing the powerlessness debate in adoption ethics and the congruencies with Eldridge’s “20 Life-Transforming Choices” because they both hint towards adoptees being “victims” according to Eldridge. “The powerless are those who lack authority or power even in this mediated sense, those over whom power is exercised without their exercising it; the powerless are situated so that they must take orders and rarely have the right to give them” (Young, p. 56). "Because our birth mothers made a choice for us that dramatically changed the course of our lives and over which we had no control, many of us have a foundational belief (often unconscious) that we don’t have the right to choose our own course in life. We feel instead that we are at the mercy of others" (Eldridge 1-288).

    I would also like to argue that Eldridge brings up entirely new ideas to consider when addressing adoption and adoption ethics because she goes on to state how the adoptee can overcome the issues mentioned in the book. After each chapter she writes a “How to Begin” section in order that particularly addresses adoptees and how they can overcome the issues and answer the questions they might have about their lives. These end of the chapter sections really shed light on the gray areas for adoptees who are lost and that seems extremely important when thinking about how adoption works.

    She mentions different emotions and feelings adoptees have and she goes deeper in analyzing them rather than just scratching the surface which we sometimes do in class. For painful feelings, Eldridge interviewed hundreds of adoptees and came up with four major styles of running from pain: numbing out, compulsive overeating, drug addiction, and workaholism. She gives examples of all of these methods of running and more, then goes on to discuss different ways adoptees think about pain and how they can embrace those painful feelings. She uses almost this exact method throughout the book, pulling from her own personal experiences and from interviews. This gives a completely new thought on adoption ethics because it makes us question, as readers, what we are going through and how we may compare to adoptees that are going through all of these different unbelievable experiences.

    From my own experience, I have actually been able to connect with this book much more than I have ever been able to in any other book. I can understand everything she touches on because I have felt the exact same feelings and asked the exact same questions she asks and answers. I have been able to analyze my own adoption story and draw educational conclusions from her chapters.

-Michael

Book Review: "The Kid"

Savage, Dan.  The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant.  NY: Plume, 2000 246 pages.

     Dan Savage is writer for a sex-advice column, “Savage Love.”  He and his partner Terry decided to adopt a child, and this is their journey of adopting as two gay fathers. 

     This piece of writing is a memoir that entails the struggles that gay fathers go through when adopting in the United States.  However, Savage uses a lot of blunt comedy to express the struggles.

     Rating: 1) I highly recommend this book for same-sex parents wanting to adopt and to supporters of same-sex adoption looking for a heartwarming story. 

     Clemens Library already owns this book.

     One topic that this memoir touches on very well is open adoption.  Savage states, “In an open adoption, the pregnant woman, called the birth mother in agency-speak, selects a family for her child, and has a mutually agreeable amount of ongoing contact with her child, usually two or three visits a year, with photos and letters exchanged at set times,” (Savage, 6).  Savage describes as the adoption with no secrets.  He makes it clear that him and his partner decided to do this in the best interest of the birth mother, as both of them have high respect for her.  Still, the open adoption comes with challenges and fears.

     One fear Dan and Terry face is wondering what the birth mother will be like.  They start to learn about open adoption from their friends Bob and Kate.  At first Bob scares Dan when starts to tell Dan and Terry that the birth mother chooses the adoptive parents from a pool.  Dan goes into a state of questions in his mind after hearing this.  For example, he states, “The birth mom chooses?  She comes to visit?  What if she’s a drunk or a drug addict?  Won’t the kid be confused?  What is she wants her kid back?” (Savage, 46).  When Bob explains open adoption in depth later on, Savage gives the reader a better and positive understanding.  The description talks about the couple and the birth mother making a lot of decisions together to make sure they are on the same page.  Some people are probably scared of open adoption, but Savage’s friend Kate states, “In open adoption, the birth mom can come and that her baby is okay, and go on with her life.  She is empowered by her decisions and soothed by the information she has about where her baby is.  She knows, she doesn’t have to worry,” (Savage, 47).

     To support the case of open adoption, Savage describes the interaction that they have with the birth mother, Melissa.  Melissa is a gutter punk with a history of some drugs and alcohol.  A gutter punk is a homeless person by choice.  She is smart and intelligent, and she could find a job if she wanted to.  However, Melissa decided to be a gutter punk after a poor family history.  She scares Dan and Terry when she tells about the amount of beer she had the beginning of her pregnancy, but she stopped right away.  For part of the memoir, they fear the effects of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, but the ultra sounds show that the baby boy is healthy.

     Besides Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, the couple fears Melissa wanting to take the baby back after the baby is born.   However, she tries to comfort Dan and Terry saying she won’t change her mind, but Dan and Terry try to prepare themselves for the worst.  They wouldn’t even let their families buy any baby clothing or items because they didn’t want to jinx it.  In the end, Melissa does sign off on the adoption after coming to an agreement on visits and photo exchanging. 

     Finally, another challenge that Dan and Terry face with Melissa is deciding the name of the baby boy.  Dan and Terry wanted to name Daryl Jude while Melissa wants to name him David Kevin.  When they try to discuss names with Melissa, she becomes defensive and emotional.  She states, “I want to name him.  You can change his name later on, I don’t care.  But I want to give him his names and my family’s last name; it’s important to me.  When you adopt him, you can do what you want,” (Savage 138).  This part of the book gives the reader a deeper understanding of what the birth mother feels going through open adoption.  Even though her child is going through adoption, mother still face pains and emotions to the child they are caring. 

     Besides open adoption, another main topic of this memoir is the same-sex parenting topic.  First, Dan and Terry fear what society is going to say when they adopt their child.  For example, when the two attend a session for prospective parents, Dan sits in the conference room with a million thoughts going through his head as he looks around the room.  One of his thoughts included religion, and how prospective parents describe themselves in their letters.

     “More than half described themselves as Christian.  Not all Christians hate homos, of course, and some Christians are themselves homos.  But still, in America in the late nineties, it’s safe to assume that most people who go out their way to let you know they’re Christians don’t care for homos.  So, come to think of it, odds seemed pretty good that someone at the table believed that my boyfriend and I were going to hell, and had no right to take a baby down with us,” (Savage 15).

     Savage describes this behavior as being attached, “to our own oppression,” (Savage 15).  This is evident through out the book as well.  Dan and Terry continue to worry about what other people are going to think about two men being parents and raising a child.  Not only do they worry about themselves, but also about the baby.  During one of their meetings with Melissa, Dan says to her, “It’s something we’ve thought about.  He’ll have different experiences group up with gay dads than kids who grow up with straight parents.  There are places we won’t be able to go as a family, and times in his life he might catch shit for it.  Do you worry about this?” (Savage 133).  Melissa of course didn’t care about Dan and Terry being two men.  She describes them as “different,” (Savage 132), and she liked that about them.  However, Dan did ask some realistic questions about the baby’s future. 

     Finally, after the baby is born, Dan and Terry face some rough times when they travel.  During one experience on a flight to Chicago, the woman at the ticket counter thought that Dan and Terry may have stolen the baby because the he had Melissa’s last name and no mother.  Dan described how worried the woman looked, and she almost called security.  Now Dan and Terry carry the birth certificate around whenever they travel.  Still, the trouble didn’t end there.  The flight attendants and even one of the pilots asked Dan and Terry’s son, “Where is mommy?” or “Did these two boys steal you from your mommy?” (Savage 228).  The book depicts the challenges that gay fathers when taking care of their child.  Our society assumes that in order for a child to live he must have one mother and one father.  Plus, it’s interested that the woman at the ticket counter thought that Dan and Terry were stealing the baby because a woman was not present. 

     Open adoption and gay and lesbian parenting are the two main topics in the book.  However, the reader will find brief information the adoption laws of Oregon and birth father rights.  For example, “If a birth dad wasn’t around, it he wasn’t providing emotional and financial support during the pregnancy, under Oregon law he had already signed away his rights,” (Savage 49).  The birth father shows up at the very end of Savage’s memoir, and it turns out to be a good experience for Dan and Terry.  I recommend “The Kid” for anyone who wants to learn about a gay fathering experience.  It gives the reader a sense of gay adoption in a very straight society. 

-Mickey N.