Tag: Poverty

I’ve Seen The Damage

In my young adulthood, I saw some of the worst. Any substance addiction is not an easy nut to crack. It’s impact on parenting can’t be denied. Today’s story asks this question – Is it possible to support someone in parenting in ways that are physically and psychologically safe while that person is using meth?

A family friend who is incarcerated has a baby who has been in foster care since birth. The baby will be returned to her when the mother gets out of prison when the baby is about a year old. A parent-child rehab program will be provided, follow up substance use disorder programs will be offered, and the mother has access to familial financial support as well as support with housing and childcare (though she has currently declined childcare assistance). But she permanently lost custody of her first child due to inadequate care of the infant as a result of daily meth intoxication, and I want to ensure that that doesn’t happen again. She has had relapses every time she has left prison or rehab or psych facilities throughout her entire adolescence and adulthood (but she is a very young adult). I hope she doesn’t resume use, but I was wondering if anyone had any advice for helping her keep and take good care of her baby/ toddler even if she continues to struggle with addiction to the point that eliminating use of meth is not possible for her.

A physician comments – Being under the influence of drugs is NEVER safe. There is NEVER a safe amount of use that is ok. You can’t hit “the pause button” in being the person that is responsible for child while you get high and think that your entire constitution and judgment isn’t taxed and under the influence for a considerable amount of time after. If you are still using, then do not trust yourself that you are actually caring for your self, and much less adequately caring for additional humans who are critically growing and very needy, independent beings.

However, another person had a very different perspective – you see it at its worst. You don’t see it functioning day to day. Big difference. My SIL was a functioning parent with substance use disorder for decades. My neighbor as well. Many others I have known. It’s like anyone dealing with chronic disease. They need support.

The doctor responded – I deal with addicts, families, social workers, lawyers every single day. That’s 70% of who is in an ICU bed right now that we are caring for and all paying for. Yes, I agree they do need support 100%. They do not need to be responsible for a child while *using* drugs. Blessing to your SIL to have a support system around her, like a loving family that cares enough to do that. Most addicts do not have what your SIL has. That is not the reality of most people in this world, and one of the reasons they get into addiction to begin with. There is no such thing as a safe amount of drugs. It doesn’t work like that. Your brain gets rewired and your judgment is altered.

To which the person responded – I am so tired of people not understanding that there are people that are functional but still struggling with substance use disorder. They hear the word drugs and they make some serious assumptions about the person. I am going to “not all” here because I am so tired of the assumptions being made when it comes to substance use disorder.

Many have a support system for when they are active that keeps children safe. Being that support system is important. I didn’t see one comment from anybody saying that the original poster should be a support system. The only thing I’m seeing is people saying “nope can’t parent” “drug user? can’t parent”. People parent with disabilities that can also put children at risk, but nobody says a thing about them losing their kids.

Functional drug use IS a thing ! Stop making broad brush stroke assumptions of those challenged with substance use disorder !

Bottom line, there is this – The safety of the child has to come first. If someone is actively using they are at risk for psychosis (and if you haven’t seen that in someone you love I pray you never do). Absolutely the most terrifying thing I’ve ever seen and I felt unsafe as an adult being around someone in that state. It’s extremely dangerous for the child if the parent is seeing things that aren’t there, having delusions, etc. If you know someone is actively using around a small child you should either be intervening yourself or reporting them.

Recovery is possible and family and friend support play a big role in that. Just because someone has relapsed doesn’t mean they will again. It also doesn’t mean they will be using around their child. It’s great that’s she’s willing to go into treatment with baby. I would do everything you can to support her and let her know you see her beating the odds and are proud of her if you have the kind of relationship you can talk about those things.

And there was this advice – Her focus should be finding employment with medical insurance so that she is not on welfare and is not a target for state intrusion. She should focus on taking care of her children, being physically active and healthy, join a gym, exercise, garden, take care of her house. Keep the rif raf away from her house. Maintain normal hours – no rotating cast of strangers through the house – no visitors after 10 pm. Work hard at maintaining a schedule and sticking to it. She probably has ADHD and should get medication like Ritalin or Wellbutrin for it, which will address chemical imbalances that she has. She has to work extra hard at keeping up appearances – she’ll be held to a higher standard of care than other mothers. She can’t mess up. Nothing is worse for a child than having their parent taken away from them and even if she cannot take care of her child full time, every effort should be made to have her do as much as she possibly can for her child as a parent, not as a visitor.

I’ll end with this observation – it is hard to overcome generations of addiction, mental illness, and poverty. It’s just not simple.

Chile’s Illegal Adoption Scandal

I wrote about this before in 2021 – LINK>The Chilean Scandal. Today, the story is back in my awareness thanks to The Guardian LINK>She was told her babies were dead.

Siblings Sean Ours, 40, and Emily Reid, 39, walked into Santiago airport arrivals together, having arrived on a flight from the US. Even though they had never met the mother, Sara, in person, there was no question that she was their biological mother – they share the same eyes, the same infectious smile.

These adoptee’s story is just one of tens of thousands relating to Chilean families torn apart by illegal adoption. Parents were typically told that their babies were lost or dead. In reality, they had been stolen and sold, facilitated by a network of social workers, faith officials and health and legal professionals across the country. Thousands of dollars were paid by American and European families for newborns they believed had been given up willingly. 

LINK>Connecting Roots is an NGO dedicated to redressing the damage caused by decades of Chile’s forced and illegal adoption. Tyler Graf lives in the Houston area and is happily married with a son of his own. He has served as a firefighter for the Houston Fire Department since 2009. In 2012, destiny gave him an opportunity to connect to his Chilean roots. During a week-long specialized training session offered by the department to foreign firefighters, Graf met members of the Fire Engine 20 Department of Santiago, Chile. He was excited to meet the team and assist as they trained in techniques to combat high-rise fires. As Graf became acquainted with one Chilean fireman, Juan Luis, he shared what he knew about his adoption.

Nearly 10 years later, Graf received a message from Juan Luis. The humanitarian non-profit organization, Hijos e Madres del Silencio, had located documents that linked Graf with his potential birth mother. After submitting additional adoption documents and DNA testing to confirm he and his mother’s relation, the match was verified.

During the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990) an estimated 20,000 infants were stolen from their mothers, mostly from poverty-stricken areas. Poor, young and Indigenous communities were targeted, and a climate of fear made it impossible for families to question or dispute the loss of their child. Knowing there are other Chilean adoptees within his age group, Tyler Graf founded Connecting Roots.

Some individuals have been named as being actively involved in facilitating illegal adoptions abroad, but the network was so extensive and the practice so longstanding that no one has been held accountable. One judge, Jaime Balmaceda, stated in March that so far he has “not been able to establish that a crime had taken place”.

The various non-profit organizations, Connecting Roots, Hijos y Madres del Silencio and Nos Buscamos, work separately and have helped facilitate at least 700 reunifications.

More Adoptable

There are reasons that kids under 5 rarely return home from foster care …. because they are more adoptable. 

Actually, there were 2 reasons – who takes care of kids when parents can not parent ? One – plenty of parents who CAN parent get their children taken either because they are poor or because of bias on behalf of CFS/CPS/CWS, whatever it is called in your state. Two – plenty of parents are never given a chance to parent because their child gets taken at birth by coercion.

Foster care is not as necessary as we make it, and there are reasons that kids under 5 rarely return home…. because they are more adoptable. When those in a position of authority, or those who are mandated reporters are given discretion in cases involving child welfare, there can often be disparities in decisions regarding the removal of children from homes or the substantiation of child abuse claims. These disparities stem from a combination of factors, including the lack of clear guidelines, the subjective nature of assessing risk, and the influence of biases that may unintentionally come into play.

One example of vague guidelines is California, where there is an absence of a universally defined legal age at which children can be left home alone. This lack of a specific age leaves room for interpretation and discretion by authorities. While some states have guidelines, they often include language such as “maturity and safety of the situation” as determining factors.

Vague language can lead to inconsistent decisions as different individuals may interpret maturity and safety differently. Additionally, the discretionary power given to those with authority to remove a child means that they must make quick, on-the-spot assessments of risk and safety. This can be influenced by various factors, including personal biases, cultural norms, and past experiences. Research has shown that biases—whether based on race, socio-economic status, or other factors—can unintentionally impact decision-making, leading to disparities in how cases are handled.

Someone may be more likely to view a situation as unsafe or reportable if it involves a family from a marginalized community, even if the circumstances are similar to those of families from more privileged backgrounds. This bias can result in disparities in how child welfare cases are investigated, substantiated, or acted upon. Minority children at least 12 months old with accidental injuries are 3 times more likely than their white counterparts to be reported for suspected abuse. Black and low-income infants are more likely to be tested at birth for drug exposure than are infants from white or more affluent families, even though rates of prenatal substance use among racial and economic groups are similar.

If you have access to Medium, you may wish to check out LINK>Empowered By Megan.

Yesterday’s Rant

The rant I didn’t share yesterday but don’t take that or my image above to mean I didn’t and still don’t agree 100% with her perspective. From one all things adoption group – which has really been informative for me since 2017, when I first learned the truths of my own parents’ adoptions.

This group has helped dozens of moms get their babies back from hopeful adoptive parents. Most are simple revocations. Far too many have led to long drawn out court battles across state lines. Thankfully, we have generous members who have allowed us to help moms and dads fight.

These cases are agony for parents and babies. I never feel sympathy for the hopeful adoptive parents AKA as kidnappers for several reasons. One, they knew the risks going in. Two, they shouldn’t be so damn happy to take a baby out of their desperate parents’ arms. I’m not putting parents on a pedestal but I know the desperation that leads to relinquishing in the first place. Third, they ignore revocations and fight like hell to keep baby. We’ve helped five dads whose babies were placed for adoption without their consent.

I’m not the parent in any of these cases but during an ongoing “case” it consumes my thoughts. I wonder how hopeful adoptive parents can be so selfish. I wonder how some of them are so wealthy but use their wealth to fight to keep someone else’s child. So many in the cases we have helped with have been in financial positions to do so much good in the world but they are doing damage.

I struggle with understanding such selfishness. It crosses into evil. Yet, if cases like these hit the press, it’s the hopeful adoptive parents with all the sympathy. Natural parents are villains and not even because they signed in the first place, but because they are poor.

I can’t fathom how you look at someone during the lowest point in their life, when they feel desperate enough to give away their own child and take said child vs offering to help.

We look at every single profile when we receive join requests. I struggle with the constant “hoping to adopt” and GoFundMe’s posts asking for money to adopt. Yet, this group has existed for 9 years and those same people won’t buy a pacifier off a baby registry or donate a $1. WTF is a $1?

I believe in being a good human and baby buying isn’t it. Lusting after a baby isn’t it either.

Only Because They Are Poor

So much could be said – here is just a sampling.

From a 2021 story in The Seattle Times LINK>Taking Too Many Children From Their Parents. They share this story . . . Esther Taylor remembers everyone tensing up. She was 8, and didn’t understand everything going on. But she knew a social worker had confronted her mom about the way Taylor and her siblings were living, in a house with faulty wiring and a rat problem, ostensibly home-schooled but not taught frequently of late. And she could see her mom getting upset.

Then, confusion as what she thought would be a routine errand at a state office turned into an all-day affair. Why are we still here? Eventually, Taylor, a sister and a brother were led to a supply of clothes, where she picked out a Lilo & Stitch jacket and other items. They would not be going home, not even to grab pajamas.

Now 22 and a college student in Walla Walla, Taylor said she wishes state workers had asked how to help instead of sending her and her sister to one foster home, her brother to another. She is still haunted by the two-and-a-half-year separation from her mom, whom she remembers as kind and funny, and who died of cancer seven years ago. Taylor said she struggles with abandonment issues and sometimes wonders: “Am I not worthy to have a mother?”

Even agencies overseeing foster care are recognizing that separating children from their parents may be unnecessary in many cases to resolve problems often linked to poverty, while causing lasting trauma and disproportionately affecting people of color.

From a law office, of course (blogger’s note – this doesn’t address the issue of poverty !!) LINK>5 Things You Need To Do If Your Children Are Taken By Div of Children and Families (DCF) –

  1. Contact an Attorney
    Before you contact anyone else or even give yourself the chance to cry, reach out to a family lawyer. The family court system is extremely complex and does not favor parents who have lost temporary custody of their children.
  2. Review Your Safety Plan
  3. Jot Down Everything You Remember
    It’s particularly important to note any threats or warnings made by DCF.
  4. Request That Children Be Placed With Family Members
    If you have family in the area who can care for your children, request that they care for your children until they are returned to you. Being separated from parents is a traumatic event for children, and it can cause even more lasting damage if they are placed with people they don’t know. Limit the damage by ensuring that children are with someone you and they trust.
  5. Begin the Appeals Process
    To get your children back from DCF, you may need to appeal their original decision to take custody. This often involves proving that you provide a safe, stable, and healthy home life.

Finally this from The Center for Public Integrity – In some states you can go golfing but LINK>you can’t visit your child in foster care. A Public Integrity survey found 20 states restricted visitation for parents of children in foster care.

Truth No Longer Matters ?

When there is no agreed criterion to distinguish science from pseudoscience or just plain ordinary BS, it is post-empirical science, where truth no longer matters and it IS potentially very dangerous.

Case in point – Diane Baird – who labeled her method for assessing families the “Kempe Protocol” after the renowned University of Colorado institute where she worked for decades. From a ProPublica expose – LINK>An Expert Admits Her Evaluations Are Unscientific.

From that story – Diane Baird had spent four decades evaluating the relationships of poor families with their children. But last May, in a downtown Denver conference room, with lawyers surrounding her and a court reporter transcribing, she was the one under the microscope. Baird is a social worker and professional expert witness. She has routinely advocated in juvenile court cases across Colorado that foster children be adopted by or remain in the custody of their foster parents rather than being reunified with their typically lower-income birth parents or other family members.

Was Baird’s method for evaluating these foster and birth families empirically tested? No, Baird answered: Her method is unpublished and unstandardized, and has remained “pretty much unchanged” since the 1980s. It doesn’t have those “standard validity and reliability things,” she admitted. “It’s not a scientific instrument.” Who hired and was paying her in the case that she was being deposed about? The foster parents, she answered. They wanted to adopt, she said, and had heard about her from other foster parents.

Had she considered or was she even aware of the cultural background of the birth family and child whom she was recommending permanently separating? (The case involved a baby girl of multiracial heritage.) Baird answered that babies have “never possessed” a cultural identity, and therefore are “not losing anything,” at their age, by being adopted. Although when such children grow up, she acknowledged, they might say to their now-adoptive parents, “Oh, I didn’t know we were related to the, you know, Pima tribe in northern California, or whatever the circumstances are.” (Actually, the Pima tribe is located in the Phoenix metropolitan area.)

A fundamental goal of foster care, under federal law, is for it to be temporary: to reunify children with their birth parents if it is safe to do so or, second best, to place them with other kin. Extensive social science research has found that kids who grow up with their own families experience less long-term separation trauma, fewer mental health and behavioral problems as adolescents and more of an ultimate sense of belonging to their culture of origin.

But a ProPublica investigation co-published with The New Yorker in October revealed that there is a growing national trend of foster parents undermining the foster system’s premise by “intervening” in family court cases as a way to adopt children. As intervenors, they can file motions and call witnesses to argue that they’ve become too attached to a child for the child to be reunited with their birth family, even if officials have identified a biological family member who is suitable for a safe placement.

A key element of the intervenor strategy, ProPublica found, is hiring an attachment expert like Baird to argue that rupturing the child’s current attachment with his or her foster parents could cause lifelong psychological damage — even though Baird admitted in her deposition that attachment is a nearly inevitable aspect of the foster care model. (Transitions of children back to their birth families are not just possible, they happen every day in the child welfare system.)

In the Huerfano County case, Baird filed a report saying that the baby girl’s life with her foster parents was “predictable, safe, and filled with love”; that removing her from them and placing her with her biological grandma — with whom the girl had been having regular, joyful visits — would “derail her healthy development and create lifelong risk”; and that her “healthy development and mental health will be best protected if her current caregiving environment does not change.”

Baird, in an interview with ProPublica, admitted that “I do sometimes use the same verbiage in one report as I did in others.” But, she added in an email, “My consistency is not a boiler-plate approach, but rather reflects developmental science which applies to all children.” She emphasized, “In all cases I advocate for what I am convinced is the child’s best interest.”

Baird also noted that in many cases she is hired by county officials, rather than directly by foster parents, although ProPublica’s interviews and review of records show that this typically happens when officials are in agreement with the foster parents that they should get continuing or permanent custody. Baird, despite not being a child psychologist, achieves credibility with these officials — and with judges — in part via the impressive label that she uses for her methodology: the Kempe Protocol.

Founded in the 1970s, the Kempe Center is best known for getting laws passed across the country requiring “mandated reporters” like teachers and police officers to call in any suspicion of child abuse or neglect to a state hotline — after which kids were to be removed from their families, into foster care, if there was evidence of maltreatment. “No organization,” said Marty Guggenheim, the founder of the nation’s indigent family defense movement, “played a more direct role in shaping the modern system of surveillance, over-reporting, and under-emphasizing of the harms associated with state intervention.”

In recent years, Kempe has taken a more critical look at its past, accepting some institutional responsibility for what it has called the “myth of benevolence”: the idea that certain kids should be redistributed from their families to (often better-off) foster and adoptive parents. The center recently released a statement saying that it had participated in ignoring poverty by placing sole responsibility for poor children’s health and well-being on their families’ alleged maltreatment of them. The statement acknowledged the center’s “complicity” in its “generation-spanning impacts.”

Some of Kempe’s staff have called Baird’s method a “bogus Kempe protocol” and “junk science” used “to rip apart families.” She is “leveraging the Kempe name to bolster her opinion.” Drawing from the foster parents’ version of events, Baird routinely reports to the county or testifies in court that visits with the birth family have been detrimental to the child, and, accordingly, she recommends that the foster parents keep the child indefinitely or permanently, on the basis of attachment theory. She has called just this amount of evaluation “the Kempe Protocol” in several cases we reviewed.

Sadly, there appears to be no clear recourse for all of the birth families who’ve lost their children in the past because of Baird’s work. 

Investing in Families

Some thoughts from my all things adoption group today –

The state pays struggling families welfare benefits and the federal government also pays hundreds of billions in welfare and Medicaid benefits and subsidized housing and food stamps for poor families. The federal and state governments don’t enjoy financially supporting poor people’s children, they don’t find it to be a good investment. They think children raised on public funds grow up in large part to have more kids raised on public funds.

The federal government tasks states with promoting adoption of children whose parents get public assistance or whose parents qualify for public assistance. That means everything from fresh from the womb infants of uneducated unmarried girls who would qualify for welfare if they applied, to already born children of parents who are either on welfare or make so little as to be statistically likely to qualify for benefits at some point.

The federal government invests hundreds of millions of dollars in adoption incentives to save hundreds of billions on welfare benefits which also artificially sterilizes the poor by taking their children away and giving them to wealthier families who can afford to support them either totally on their own or with subsidies amounting to less than would have been paid to the parents on welfare.

The federal government requires states to hit a certain quota of adopting out special needs kids and pays $6,000 to $12,000 for every adoption of a child whose parents are on welfare or who qualify for welfare and states are mandated to increase the number of children on welfare adopted each year.

The state has zero incentive to return a child to a parent who has been meeting the state’s demands for return of their child, if that parent is on welfare. Returning the child to that parent literally costs the state money and so, there you go. Our judges work for the states that financially benefit from the adoption of welfare dependent children. There is a grave conflict of interest, when the arbiter is working for and paid by the state – who has a financial stake in the child being moved from the welfare dependent parent to a financially solvent adoptive home.

blogger’s note – The reality is that our society does not support struggling families well enough and is even a danger to many of them, causing the break-up of that family structure. It really is only about the money and our government would rather give it to the wealthy, who don’t need it but might donate to the politicians re-election campaigns, than help struggling families get on their feet and live dignified lives. Sadly, this is the reality.

The Parallels Are Haunting

Dutch Child Being Removed

I have a good friend that lives in The Netherlands. We’ve been communicating about their recent elections. She brought awareness to me about a situation there in her country that is a lot like we often have here in the US – the removal of children from their parents for no real safety reason but often poverty and ethnicity including skin color.

I found an article about this in the NL Times at this LINK>Far more children taken from homes of victims in tax office benefits scandal. My friend wrote – our tax regulations have become very bureaucratic and difficult to understand. So there have been major tax scandals in which thousands of people got wrongly accused of being frauds, just because they might have made a small mistake with filling in the forms. It was a big scandal because it turned out that it mostly happened to people with a foreign names (racial profiling) and many people got financially ruined, because as ‘punishment’ they got enormous high tax bills. Some of them lost their house and what’s worse, they took the kids away from some families. It was a big, big scandal and it turned out the people were found innocent of fraud but they still haven’t been compensated fully, even though it’s been some years now. The thing is there were warnings from good people within the tax system that something was not right but it was ignored.

From the linked article –

Roughly 25 percent more children were removed from the homes of parents who fell victim to the Dutch tax office’s benefits scandal than previously estimated. A total of 2,090 children were taken from their parents and placed in care during the period from 2015 through June 2022, according to a new calculation by Statistics Netherlands (CBS). The original estimate announced in May suggested the total was 1,675. In the future, the total could rise even higher.

Of the 2,090 children who have been placed in care since 2015, 645 were still not living with their parents or guardians by the end of June of this year. The benefits affair mainly affected households with an ethnically diverse background, single-parent families and families with a low income, Statistics Netherlands concluded earlier this year. The CBS could not say if there is a direct connection between taking custody of the children and the scandal at the Belastingdienst by looking at the updated figures. However, in all cases, it concerns children whose parents were victims.

The benefits scandal at the Belastingdienst, the country’s tax authority, involved the use of a controversial method of profiling parents to determine if they were likely to be fraudulently claiming childcare benefits. The criteria often involved racial and ethnic profiling, as well as whether or not the parents involved had a second nationality.

Once identified as fraudsters, a designation that was frequently inaccurate, the victims were forced to pay back all of the benefits they received in the past, and were cut off from future benefits. This put victims into positions of extreme stress and financial insecurity.

The number of custodial placements identified by the CBS on Wednesday is higher because the statistics office previously only had figures up to and including 2021. In the meantime, more victims have reported to the UHT, the organization set up to review individual cases for compensation claims. This organization must also use a recovery plan to ensure that children have access to professional help and an amount of money so that they can get their lives back on track.

Not An Economic Product

After seeing this graphic, I went looking and found the opinion piece and found it in the LINK>Philadelphia Inquirer. Wow, the author was adopted by people in Las Cruces New Mexico (the place where I was born). She writes of seeing “a delivery slip my adoptive mom signed upon picking me up from the airport intact, not unlike an Amazon package delivered on someone’s front stoop.”

I understand completely what her experience growing up there would have been like. She writes – Growing up in Las Cruces, I never learned any Korean history, language, or culture. The racial dissonance of being Korean in a white family in a white community proved immense and unrelenting. I did not meet or see another Asian person until I was in the sixth grade. My personal history is a product of the Korean War.

Due in part to Holt International, an estimated 200,000 Korean children have been adopted overseas. The organized, systematic practice of Korean adoption formed a template that has been used to facilitate adoptions from other countries — including Vietnam, Ethiopia, Guatemala, and Haiti. Rich Westerners rush in to “rescue” children after wars or earthquakes. The pull toward international adoption has also been openly encouraged by evangelical Christian leaders. Parishioners are encouraged that this is one way to live out their faith and purported pro-life principles.

The truth is, without a doubt, that adopting and relocating children from their home countries removes them entirely from their racial, social, and historical context. Children placed for international adoption, often have known family members who visit them frequently, after placing them in orphanages only for temporary care. (blogger’s note – this really tugs at my heart, for that is exactly the kind of thing that happened to my maternal genetic grandmother.)

The author questions what that amount of resources (up to $350,000 for adoption and raising the child to adulthood) could do to support families in other countries suffering from poverty? Could that money be used instead to place children with other families in their home countries, and rebuild local economies and reunify families after disasters — which would all benefit the same children adoption aims to help?

Meredith Seung Mee Buse is a longtime Philadelphia public schoolteacher, writer and Korean American transracial adoptee who lives in South Philadelphia.

No Man In Sight

At least one mom in my own mom’s group decided to have a child with no man in sight. For same sex female couples who want children but want to be ethical about doing the right thing, what are the options ? One offers her experience.

I’m a queer parent to a donor-conceived child and also have adopted kids through foster care.

The topic has come up before but is always interesting to me and just inherently homophobic—that women who have conceived a child by having sex are encouraged to keep and raise the child – no matter what: mental health issues, extreme poverty, abusive partners—but then, queer people are told there’s no ethical way to have a child. So somehow sex with a man makes it ethical and idealized?? So having sex gives you a right to parent – no matter what, and if you can’t get pregnant by having sex, you have no right to have children and should go mentor kids….there’s just no way to view this stance as anything but homophobia.

The ethics of sperm donation, in my opinion, based on learning from donor conceived people and also my experience as someone abandoned by my father, is that anonymous sperm donation is not ethical. I chose to conceive with a known donor who has no interest in parenting/co-parenting but is a known and present figure in our lives. [blogger’s note – I agree that any reproductive donors ought to be known. Every person should have access to their genetic background.]

Fostering is a different story. When we went into it, we were open to adopting (if things went that way) but really tried to approach it as us supporting a family in crisis by being that safe healthy person who could watch the kid(s) until the parents got back on their feet. We fostered 8 children and have adopted 4, which statistically is in line with our state’s averages that 50% of placements reunify. Our first adoptee has 3 siblings in two different families, neither of which was willing to take her. Our second adoption is a sibling set of three, with few healthy family members, a lot of criminal involvement and in incarceration, and years of trying to find a way for parents or family to be a resource. There were only a couple of healthy family members but they were unwilling to take on 3 young children. Unlike the usual assumptions, we had zero plans to adopt them and would have gladly welcomed family for them. Yet if we didn’t adopt them, they would have been moved again to non-relatives, which would have increased their trauma, so we did the right thing for them. I don’t say this for any accolades—I say it because the reality for these kids is that at this moment in time, we’re their best option.

So yes, in my opinion, there are ways to ethically raise children, even if you can’t have sex with a man.