Posted on 11/8/2001, 12:22:59 PM by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 4/13/2004, 12:31:53 AM by Jim Robinson. [history]
A recent California appellate court decision has cast doubts about the legal validity of thousands of adoptions by lesbian couples and panicked families throughout the state.
The adoptions were finalized under the state's so-called "second-parent" adoption practice, which allows children of lesbian couples throughout the state to have two legal parents. Although state law does not expressly provide an avenue to perform second-parent adoptions, they have been used routinely since 1985.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Yes, ego-centric Hollywood celebs buying babies is a real winner: See Joan Crawford and "Mommie Dearest"!
I am not trying to start an argument here, but how does one buy another human being in this country in this day and age.
Did we not abolish that practice by abolishing slavery?
Alas
It's simple. Although outright baby buying is theoretically illegal, rich jaded folks can get around this block by simply hiring special lawyers. The money paid to the prospective breeder woman is considered support but not a real payment for the baby even though that is actually what it is. There are actually women out there who will give birth to babies for the purpose of selling them to rich folks who can't meet the normal adoption rules. The lawyers facilitate the procedure by making it seem nice and legal on paper.
Are you sure of this?
Check your freep mail.
The Good Lord forbid any of these women ruin their glorious figures or lose time from their oh-so-important-careers by carrying their own child. They simply hire someone to do it for them.
In the good old days pre Roe v. Wade, it was easier to obtain HWI's - there was always a steady supply of pregnant teens whose families were shamed by their conditions. Even then, a healthy donation to the adoption agency under the table, aside from the customary and reasonable fees, often helped to obtain a premium child for an infertile couple.
It's a bit harder now, but the Internet has helped tremendously in bringing buyer and seller together. Remember last year's Internet twin scandal?
Even as pablum coated network as ABC reports on adoption scams - they did a piece last year on a, agency in Louisiana( if memory serves) who brought over pregnant Russsian women to deliver here and then adopted the babies out for huge fees. The agency lied to INS about the women coming over for computer classes and the like. The women they recruited in Russia were usually indigent and desparate for money. As soon as they delieverd the baby, they were shipped back home with a few thousand dollars in their hands.
As recently as last week I heard of an case where an Internet adoption "facilitator" (a person who brings the two parties together) had filed a spurious complaint with CPS against a woman who tried to back out of one of her deals. Evidently, this "facilitator" has used CPS repeatedly to harass and threaten clients who have a change of heart. In this particular case, the client was a potential adoptor who decided the astronomical fees were not something she would or could ( not sure which) pay. So the "facilitator" filed a complaint with CPS to remove the woman's other children.
Please make no mistake about adoption. It's most often portrayed in the media as a wonderful win-win-win situation. While adoption CAN be a good thing, it's also a system that is rotten to the core. Where large sums of money are exchanged in an environment of complete secrecy and anonimity, what else do you expect?
...sorry, I couldn't resist
This has fueled the explosion in all these shady adoption practices, as well as surrogate pregnancies, buying egg donors, etc. etc. The two infertile couples I know ended up adopting overseas (one couple after three different birthmothers changed their minds and ) Of course, there are all sorts of problems with overseas adoption, also.
And don't be harsh on parents who want a healthy infant. For couples with no parenting experience, taking on an older foster child with all the emotional scars they have experienced isn't necessarily a good idea. And talk to white parents who have adopted a black child -- the black community can be extraordinarily hostile to both the parents and the child. In Washington DC, there have been two seperate occasions where a black beautician refused to braid the hair of a black child who came in with a white mother. Activists in the open adoption movement who act as if it is some sort of crime for parents to want a healthy baby who looks like them, and that infertile couples are inferior people whose infertility is some sort of sign from God that they don't deserve a healthy baby don't help their cause. Rule of thumb: if parents with biological children would think twice about adopting a biracial 10 year old with abuse in the past, why is it some sort of crime for an infertile couple to not want to do this? Great link on this issue: What's Wrong With Foreign Adoption?
I disagree. IMO, the saddest part is that there are literally hundreds of thousands of children wastng away in the foster care system, waiting for permanent families.
Women either abort or keep the child -- in a crisis pregnancy they want the crisis to be over, and adoption makes them feel as if the crisis will never be over, they'll always have a child out there.
This is understandable, imo. It must be sheer hell to have a child "out there" and know absolutely nothing about him/her. Sounds like a waking nightmare, every day of your life.
Also, Planned Parenthood actively discourages giving up a child for adoption and pro-life crisis groups focus on the abortion decision.
What? Pro-life groups focus on the abortion decision. You mean pro-choice, right?
This has fueled the explosion in all these shady adoption practices, as well as surrogate pregnancies, buying egg donors, etc. etc.
Free market capitalism. Legal, perhaps: But perhaps not always ethical or moral. It's what the market will bear. As long as people will pay for a scarce commodity.... Please do not misunderstand. I abhor the commodification of children. But, IMO, this is what infant adoption too often does; commodifies children.
The two infertile couples I know ended up adopting overseas (one couple after three different birthmothers changed their minds and ) Of course, there are all sorts of problems with overseas adoption, also.
ITA. There are plenty of problems with overseas adoption, starting with FAS , attachment disorders and slowed child developmemt. Where it will end is anyone's guess.
And don't be harsh on parents who want a healthy infant. For couples with no parenting experience, taking on an older foster child with all the emotional scars they have experienced isn't necessarily a good idea.
Again, ITA. Not everyone can handle an emotionally scarred child. Of course, there is no guarantee that a child from overseas will be any better.
Where I make a distinction is between wanting something, and doing something that may be unethical, shady, desperate, immoral, exploitative, or even illegal to get it. It's about entitlement, imo. No one is automatically entitled to another person's child, no matter how much they may want it. Your couple who had a birthparent change her mind on three separate occasions is a case in point. It was the birthmother's right to change her mind. It was her kid, after all - no one else's.
And talk to white parents who have adopted a black child -- the black community can be extraordinarily hostile to both the parents and the child. In Washington DC, there have been two seperate occasions where a black beautician refused to braid the hair of a black child who came in with a white mother.
I can see both sides of this one. While I do not speak for the entire black community, it is my understanding that the feeling is children should be raised within their own culture. If you look at the history of adoption, you will see that it was a rarity indeed for a black woman to release her child for adoption. The community took over and raised the child, perhaps, but adoption, as the white community practiced it, simply wasn't a part of the black experience. OTOH, there are so many black kids waiting for homes....
Activists in the open adoption movement who act as if it is some sort of crime for parents to want a healthy baby who looks like them, and that infertile couples are inferior people whose infertility is some sort of sign from God that they don't deserve a healthy baby don't help their cause.
What? Opening the birth records is a political issue, a constitutional issue. The state has no right to withhold a tax-paying adult citizen's birth records from them. And the courts and the voters seem to agree.
Rule of thumb: if parents with biological children would think twice about adopting a biracial 10 year old with abuse in the past, why is it some sort of crime for an infertile couple to not want to do this?
Who said it was a crime? Again: It's about entitlement, imo. Please don't forget that even the most fertile take their chances with each and every pregnancy.
Great link on this issue: What's Wrong With Foreign Adoption?
This woman seems so focused on her own ovaries. Do you find that problematical?
Sorry, not well phrased! Pro-life groups want the woman to let the child live, and they have a lot more information on the help available to her in raising the child (financial assistance, etc.) and tailor their arguments accordingly. Once a woman decides to keep her baby, she feels the "crisis" part of the pregnancy is over.
It must be sheer hell to have a child "out there" and know absolutely nothing about him/her.
I don't disagree, just stating why most women in a crisis pregnancy think: abortion/raise instead of abortion/raise/adoption.
Please do not misunderstand. I abhor the commodification of children. But, IMO, this is what infant adoption too often does; commodifies children.
As a Roman Catholic, I have moral problems with IVF, etc. But I think fertility technology spills over into infant adoption, as it creates a sense of children as product. Doctors saying "oh of course we can get you a baby - let's buy a surrogate mother" just reinforces this. Get pregnant with multiple kids, "selectively reduce" the excess production, produce 18 embryos and destroy those you don't use, etc. etc. (I admit this is a religious position on my part.) Without the technology, there would be no lesbian parents!
Your couple who had a birthparent change her mind on three separate occasions is a case in point. It was the birthmother's right to change her mind. It was her kid, after all - no one else's.
Again, I didn't phrase that well. It was three seperate birthmothers, not one woman who changed her mind three times. And yes, the three birthmothers absolutely had the right to do that, and that right should be strongly protected -- but I can't tut-tut my friends and say "You two are just viewing a baby as a commodity, you should be ashamed!"
What? Opening the birth records is a political issue, a constitutional issue. The state has no right to withhold a tax-paying adult citizen's birth records from them. And the courts and the voters seem to agree.
Well, the voters elected Clinton so I try not to judge an issue by that! :) What I am saying is that what I sense a LOT of hostility to adoption itself on the part of the open records/adoption reform movement (but this is just through reading so I could well be wrong.) It's hard to be rational about the merits of open records/open adoption if you think not only it will make it more difficult for people you care about to adopt, but someone thinks the people you love are evil for wanting to adopt. But, like my votes for Bush and Dole, no doubt I'm in the minority! :)
I personally am very conflicted about adoption for a number of reasons. All the science shows children are simply better off in stable two parent homes. So many of our social problems are tied to out of wedlock births! But I don't want to go back to the days of "shaming" women into giving up their babies by telling them they are selfish for wanting to keep their child. And while we can say children statistically are better off in two parent homes, nobody can say this individual person isn't the exception. And as a conservative, I am very leery of government taking kids away from their parents unless its very serious.
Please don't forget that even the most fertile take their chances with each and every pregnancy.
Although there are those who test for genetic defects and abort children who aren't "perfect". Children as product.
This woman seems so focused on her own ovaries. Do you find that problematical?
No, I find her honest. I said some of the same stupid things to my friends that her coworkers said to her and wish I hadn't. (Sigh)
Thanks for the discussion, I think these issues couldn't be more critical and normally no one cares unless something goes horribly wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.