Home Children

I had not heard the term Home Children, though it is not surprising as it relates to Canada. We have been watching the Acorn series – Murdoch Mysteries – though last night’s episode titled “Child’s Play” did not play properly for us – freezing and skipping – so we never got to the conclusion. After our local library “cleans” the disk, maybe we can check it out again and be able to see the full story.

The story was about a ragamuffin group of boys that were called Home Children. These were children rounded up from the streets of London and shipped off to Canada – there was also an adoption theme in the story. So, I went looking to learn more about these children. More than 100,000 children were sent from the United Kingdom to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa. The program was largely discontinued in the 1930s but not entirely terminated until the 1970s. Research in the 1980s, exposed the abuse and hardships endured by the relocated children.

The practice of sending poor or orphaned children to English and later British colonies, to help alleviate the shortage of labor, began in 1618, with the rounding-up and transportation of one hundred English vagrant children to the Virginia Colony. In the 18th century, labor shortages in the overseas colonies also encouraged the transportation of children for work in the Americas, and large numbers of children were forced to migrate, most of them from Scotland. This practice continued until it was exposed in 1757, following a civil action against Aberdeen merchants and magistrates for their involvement in the trade.

The Children’s Friend Society was founded in London in 1830 as “The Society for the Suppression of Juvenile Vagrancy through the reformation and emigration of children.” In August 1833, 230 children were shipped to Toronto and New Brunswick in Canada. In the first year of the operation, 500 children, trained in the London homes, were shipped to Canada. This was the beginning of a massive operation which sought to find homes and careers for 14,000 of Britain’s needy children. As they were compulsorily shipped out of Britain, many of the children were deceived into believing their parents were dead, and that a more abundant life awaited them. Some were exploited as cheap agricultural labor, or denied proper shelter and education. It was common for Home Children to run away, sometimes finding a caring family or better working conditions.

Many of these themes were part of the story we attempted to watch last night. It certainly piqued my interest in exploring it this morning. Much of today’s blog is courtesy of the Wikipedia page – LINK>Home Children.

Why Does It Surprise You ?

From a Transracial Infant Adoptee – When you adopt, you are not disillusioned to the reality of privilege. In a lot of cases, you know the situation surrounding the reason adoption is being chosen, and the circumstances. So when your adult adoptees eventually come back and question everything, why does it surprise you ? Why is there such a need to gaslight them about the truth behind their origins ? Or determine the narrative for them ? You knew coming into all of this where they came from and you should have known the trauma you would be placing on them, if you participated. So why is it such a shock when they decide to see the child trafficking for what it is ? Or the fact that you gained from the tearing apart of a family ? As an adult adoptee, all of the above truly does baffle me. If anything, I would expect adoptive parents to be the most sympathetic, empathetic and empowering individuals that they could be. Rather than shocked, butt hurt & defensive about a situation they themselves created. Especially in regards to the child fully recognizing what the industry is and the trauma it intentionally inflicts.

One adoptee responded – I think they forget that we grow up ! Oh, and of course, they believe they are different.

The original poster wanted responses from adoptive parents and one answered – In all 3 of my cases, I knew the circumstances as they were told to me. 2 cases ended up being much worse and one was slightly different. My adult adoptees have not come back to question because they were told their story from birth, and retold as often as they wanted to hear it. As adults, the two older ones have been in contact with birth family. They were given all the truths I knew. Yes, we knew that raising adopted children would cause them different emotions, thought, feelings than raising biological children. Not one of my 3 have compared their adoption to child trafficking, so I have not had that shock to deal with. I have admitted since the first day I held my first child all that I have gained. The biological moms were not teenagers and were not without resources. All of the adoptive parents I personally know are sympathetic, empathetic and empowering individuals. I know that is not true in all cases. I’m so very sorry that so many adoptees have had such traumatic experiences. And I’m thankful that there are groups where adoptees can share what they experienced with others to lean on. There are times when adoption is the best solution for a child to have a stable home. If anyone comments, I will gladly respond.

Another adoptee suspects – Some adoptive parents are so blinded by their “need” for a child that they become deluded and believe that the adoptee is truly “as if born to” and should gratefully play along with their own delusion. They don’t want to discuss the adoptee’s start in life and family because it threatens their delusion.

And one who was in foster care from birth and then put into a forced adoption at age 10 during the LINK>Baby Scoop Era in a closed adoption writes – I also think that too many adoptive parents (and hopeful adoptive parents) really do not recognize the crucial part that they play in an adoption – the rewards are theirs – the power dynamics are theirs too (once the adoption is finalized and they get what they wanted, including name changes, erasure of first family and a new birth certificate that proclaims them as the owners). They keep telling themselves that they are doing it all in the ‘best interests of the child’ (or baby). But is it really ? Could they have imagined a different way to help ? To care for and love ? Could they have fought harder for Legal Guardianship instead ? Can they make the promise that they will do everything possible (and really mean that) ASAP to discover the child’s natural family, heritage, family medical information and to keep the child’s own culture and needs truly front and center as a focus, while that is child is being raised outside of their own genetic, biological family ? Unless an adoptive parent is willing to go all in and do that – they will be shocked when the youth (or adult adoptee) scorns or derides their actual intent notes that they are an integral part of the broken system that helps to keep it chugging along.

The Whys and What Ifs

This was posted in my all things adoption group creating a bit of outrage and controversy. Some people here have such negative opinions about adoption or trying to find a family member to take them. What if the parents are messed up and sometimes it goes back generations? What if the other family members don’t want the kids? Adoption is not a bad word and helps many kids find stability. I have 6 adopted children with 3 different mothers involved and we all get along. I don’t judge them or bring up their past and they may not like the fact that they have to go through me to be in their children lives. I will tell you it works. I share everything with them about their children and even let them come to events. I deal with grandma’s and aunts and uncles and it works. They thank me for standing up, when relatives sat down and refused to take part. In a world where it takes a village, you are extremely naive to believe one person can get it done. I get it things don’t always work out as planned and the path you are on may all the sudden change. Foster and adoptive parents are heroes who take on challenges and many times don’t see the results of their labor. The situation is not perfect because you place people together with hopes, dreams and expectations and it never works out the way you’ve planned. Let’s face it though – that’s life.

Unsurprisingly, there were a lot of comments (188) and I won’t be sharing all of them but will selectively share a few. This person’s perspective on adoption and the need for it is not uncommon in adoptionland or among adoptive parents. No one wants to know that any child is abused or neglected. That should go without saying but sometimes it still must be said.

One said – you don’t think my messed up family loves their children??? These people need to stop taking children, they’re not saving them.

Another one notes (and I have seen this more times than I have a number for) – my adoptive parents were messed up.

Someone else said what must be said – All children deserve to be raised in a safe and loving home with parents who want them and are equipped to raise them. The issues arise when there are barriers to that happening and society prioritizes giving the child away over removing the barriers. Describing adoptive parents as ‘heroes’ feeds into that mistaken prioritization.

One noted – pretty sure my family has a book on surviving fucked up!!!! We still fought to keep our family together!! I will always, always argue family is best!!

The current activist/reformist perspective is – Stewardship or Guardianship. Then there is no need for “adoption” AT ALL.

One asked the hard questions – Why does helping families in crisis include owning their children? You said it yourself, “it takes a village” – so why does the one with most resources get to own the children? Why is it such a hard concept that the whole family should be lifted up out of crisis? Why does a child have to lose everything just to receive care?

An adoptive parent writes – the reality is that adoption is not all joy and perfection. The trauma that adopted children face is a reality, there are many different factors behind the trauma but there is no denying that taking a child from their mother is trauma. Are you able to set aside how amazing you think you are, in fact can you take off the superhero cape that you wear from long enough to try and understand the words of adult adoptees? Adoptive parents are not saviors, we are not hero’s. All of our stories and experiences are different but we can learn so much from adult adoptees and try to do better.

Someone else notes – We aren’t saying that adoption is evil, we are just saying it is mostly evil (today as things are). It is a corrupted system where children are the fodder for the selfish. We are trying to make changes so there is more help for families to stay together and less child trafficking. Children, should only be removed from their natural parents in the most dire of circumstances (Rape, Murder, Incest, etc.) And even then, being adopted is and will be traumatizing. The children suffer for it and will need life long access to therapy. If it is safe enough for children to visit with and see their parents, then it is safe enough for total reunification. It is a sick world we live in, where stealing a baby is commended but helping someone through the struggles of human life, so they can parent their own kids is rarely brought up.

Blogger’s Note – No wonder I spend time nearly every day trying to be part of the answer to what is wrong about adoption.

Reproductive Justice

And Reproductive Justice MUST include adoptee voices because adoptees are intimately familiar with the same systems of white supremacist violence that make reproductive justice necessary. Today’s blog is thanks to an op-ed by Tina Vasquez in LINK>Prism. The goal of this series about reproductive justice and adoption was simple – disrupt the adoption storytelling that has become the norm in mainstream media. These feel-good stories from the perspective of adoptive parents rarely include the voices of adoptees or question the preponderance of “cheap, easy, and fast” transracial and international adoptions by evangelicals that amount to little more than child trafficking.

No more salvation narratives. No more narratives of gratitude. No more framing adoption as a “win-win.” No more white saviors. We will question adoption as a system—its power dynamics, its economics, and its privileging of certain “reproductive destinies.” “Out of the Fog” is a phrase adoptees often use to describe facing the reality of their adoptions.

LINK>Operation Stop Child Protective Services (CPS) was founded by Amanda Wallace. She spent 10 years as a child abuse investigator before realizing that “she had become the silent enforcer for an oppressive system.” She now lends her insider knowledge to families navigating the system and trying to regain custody of their children.

About 27% of adoptions are transracial, according to a recent survey from the Department of Health and Human Services: birth mothers are disproportionately women of color, and adoptive parents are overwhelmingly white. Low-income Black and Native American children are the most likely to be separated from their families. Poverty is often interpreted as neglect when applied to these people.

When Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, white evangelicals wasted no time communicating their desire to take the babies that result from forced pregnancies. Never mind that most people denied abortion care simply become parents and that there is little evidence linking abortion bans to increases in adoption.

Time and time again, the solution offered to state violence is adoption, yet we fail to center adoptees whose lived experiences and areas of expertise touch every injustice and systemic problem our movements battle against. This is especially true when it comes to reproductive justice. While efforts are being made to explicitly discuss adoption as a reproductive justice issue, adoptees’ voices are still not being uplifted in these conversations. Adoptees are building their own movements—including Facebook groups like LINK>Adoptees for Choice—but will movements for sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice invite them into the fold?

Tony Corsentino

I only just became aware of this person and thought I’d share that awareness. It was said “His posts critical of the adoption industry are thoughtful and should be amplified.” So, my first awareness was this graphic.

Finding him on Twitter, I found this LINK> Substack post – titled “Why Is That Controversial?” with a subtitle “Adoptees have a stake in the fight to protect abortion rights” by him which I will give you below some excerpts from.

He writes – “adoption services in the United States and other industrialized countries commodify children, treating them as social wealth that is transferred from the less resourced to the more resourced.” That is certainly the truth of the matter. Exploitation of the poor.

He goes on to note – I am a product of a closed domestic adoption, for which the reigning justification remains, even now, the idea, developed during the “Baby Scoop Era” (1945-1973), that relinquishing an infant under circumstances of secrecy solves several problems at once: a child gets a loving home; hopeful parents get a child to raise; and a “mistake” is “erased,” allowing the birth parent another start at making a better life.

I totally agree with him on this point – “There is an enormous moral difference, however, between relinquishment and adoption as intervening in a crisis situation for which there is no better alternative, versus instituting a de facto social system in which people are coerced into producing children for transferal to other, unrelated families.” The first responds to the death of the child’s parents (growing up, I actually did think my parents were both orphans – had no idea there were people out there that we were genetically related to) or in serious parental circumstances like unrelenting drug addiction. The social system we could find ourselves in now looks like it could become a regime of forced birth and subsequent child trafficking.

Women who relinquish children carry a lifetime of emotional impact. I read about that time and again. Here’s one comparison of both having an abortion and relinquishing a child to adoption – “It’s hard to convince others about the depth of it. You know, a few years after I was married I became pregnant and had an abortion. It was not a wonderful experience, but every time I hear stories or articles or essays about the recurring trauma of abortion, I want to say, ‘You don’t have a clue.’ I’ve experienced both and I’d have an abortion any day of the week before I would ever have another adoption—or lose a kid in the woods, which is basically what it is. You know your child is out there somewhere, you just don’t know where. It’s bad enough as a mother to know he might need you, but to complicate that they make a law that says even if he does need you we’re not going to tell him where you are.” ~ Ann Fessler from an interview for The Girls Who Went Away.

As adoptees, we simply cannot accept Amy Coney Barrett’s proposition (who is herself an adoptive parent) that relinquishment reduces “the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy.” It shifts the consequences, transforms them. To invoke the desires of hopeful adoptive parents, to say that forced birth-plus-relinquishment meets an unmet demand for the opportunity to parent, is to say that pregnant people, and the offspring they create, are to be pressed into a social experiment of incubating and transferring the raw materials for making families. Clearly, hopeful, affluent adoptive parents are a powerful political constituency.

Relinquishment is catastrophic. It is a failure to preserve the bond between a parent and their child.

Sad Story With Triggers

Trigger Warning: Content contains explicit details about suicide and suicidal thoughts.

When Liu Xuezhou‘s story first went viral last month, it brought together people from all corners of the internet — and the world. On December 6, the 17-year-old shared a video on the Chinese social media platform Weibo, where he asked the public for help in finding his biological family. Amazingly, thousands of strangers joined forces, and before long, the teen was able to connect with his birth parents. But instead of finding some closure and peace in the reunion, Liu was heartbroken when they both shunned him. Tragically, it appears the experience was so devastating that Liu took his own life over the weekend, Chinese media reported.

The teen was in the dark about his exact birth date, as his adoptive parents only knew that he was born sometime between 2004 and 2006 in Hebei, a province in northern China. He was purportedly sold by his parents as a baby. His biological mother has disputed this saying it was complicated. At some point during the adoption process, Zhang said that the “middleman” who transferred Liu to his adoptive parents insisted on giving them money for the child. The child was “sold” for $4,200 – most of which went to the middleman.

When Liu was just 4 years old, his adoptive parents both died on the same day in a freak accident. Over the years, he was passed from relative to relative, never truly calling any one place his home. To make matters even worse, he reportedly struggled financially for most of that time. After his story went viral, the teen shared that he’d taken on a part-time job to help pay for his schooling and was living in a run-down home, where he was barely scraping by.

Detectives were quickly able to track down Liu’s biological father using DNA testing, and the two were finally able to meet just weeks after the teen initially shared his story. The pair met up in Shijiazhuang, the capital of Hebei. Though the boy hoped he could go and live with his father. The man told his son that he simply couldn’t because he was already raising another family of his own.

Then, the teen found his biological mother in Inner Mongolia and arranged to meet with her in person, with the same hopes to be taken in. Her reason was also that she’d started a family of her own and simply “wanted a peaceful life.”

At first his parents pooled some money together and sent him on a vacation to Sanya, a city on Hainan Island. But when he continued to ask them for help with finding a new place to stay, they reportedly refused. In fact, his mom even blocked his phone number and social media accounts, essentially cutting him off from all contact with her. Both parents claimed Liu asked them to buy a house for him and that they were poor when they gave him up and were still too poor to do anything of that sort. Liu claims he was merely asking for money to help cover his rent.

Having been “abandoned twice by his biological parents,” which had deeply affected him – it was the subsequent cyberbullying that made things even worse. The 17-year-old reportedly died from an overdose of antidepressants. His aunt confirmed his death with local media outlets, sharing he was found early Monday morning and immediately rushed to a hospital in Sanya, China, before he was pronounced dead.

This story highlights the very real and dangerous nature of child trafficking, which sadly occurs all over the world but is particularly egregious in China. Under Chinese law, child trafficking can be punishable by up to 10 years in prison. But even so, the nation remains ranked as one of the world’s worst countries for human trafficking.

The Easiest Way To Get A Newborn

A couple said publicly that they were going to foster a pregnant teenager, so they could take her newborn from her and adopt it when it was born. They are telling other hopeful prospective adoptive parents that if they adopt a pregnant teen, its the easiest way to get a newborn. Oh my. This was written as a comment in a Facebook group called “US Kids For Adoption.”

One woman in my all things adoption group shared – remember when I was pregnant at age 15 with my daughter, there were lots of predatory people trying this with me. I’m not surprised at all.

Here is an example of what it means to care about others – one woman shares that she has a friend who fostered two pregnant teens with the sole goal of keeping the moms and babies together. Now that the teens are grown and moved out, she is still in their lives and acts as an extra grandma to the babies. Wow !!

Another woman shares her story, she was not a teen but 25 years old. She was already a single mom and 33 weeks pregnant with her second child. The prospective adoptive couple said they couldn’t afford to help her with her own baby but they were very quickly able to raise $20,000 to have lawyer write up the papers for a direct placement adoption. It is predatory.

One woman noted that – Those types of posts need to be reported as child trafficking because that’s exactly what that they are.

Orphanage And Tourism

Two words – Orphanage Tourism – that should NEVER be linked together but sadly are.

I had no idea that this was a thing or problem. Lumos, a children’s charity founded by Harry Potter author, J K Rowling, is shining a light on a practice that is seen as contributing good but is actually causing the problem of family separation and child trafficking.

“Despite the best of intentions, the sad truth is that visiting and volunteering in orphanages drives an industry that separates children from their families and puts them at risk of neglect and abuse,” Rowling said.

“Institutionalism is one of the worst things you can do to children in the world. It has huge effects on their normal development, it renders children vulnerable to abuse and trafficking, and it massively impacts their life chances. And these dire statistics apply even to what we would see as well-run orphanages … The effect on children is universally poor.”

Huge numbers of volunteers, tourists and backpackers visit residential children’s institutions every year, creating a multimillion-dollar tourism industry that leaves children at risk for many forms of abuse, according to Lumos.

Children in institutions are 500 times more likely to take their own lives, 40 times more likely to have a criminal record and 10 times more likely to be involved in prostitution.

Most people are unaware that 80% of the 8 million children currently living in orphanages worldwide have at least one living parent. The children are placed due to reasons of poverty, disability, or to receive an education, and many have a family who could care for them, given the right support. Parents are told that their child will be fed and educated, yet schooling is rare and the children often go hungry – even as thousands of tourists visited the orphanage each year.

These children are not tourist attractions. They are not zoo animals to be viewed on an outing. They have lives and destinies. Children worldwide are increasingly being trafficked into institutions to attract donations and volunteers. Families, and their children, are being targeted by ‘child-finders’ who are sometimes paying them or otherwise encouraging them to give their child up to the orphanage for a ‘better life’, with education being one of the main reasons, usually because of poverty.