The Lost Daughters Discuss The Child Catchers by Kathryn Joyce - Part Three of a Series

Today we continue our discussion of the new book by investigative journalist Kathryn Joyce,  The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption. If you missed the previous installments in this series, you can read them here:

• Part 1: God's will and the moral imperative to adopt
• Part 2: Domestic adoption and the rebranding of adoption via specific language

In this installment, we focus on orphanages, deception of adoptive and original parents, and coercive tactics employed by the adoption industry. We invite you to join the conversation in the comments following each post.

Karen Pickell:  Let's talk a little more about these orphanages, and particularly about the situation in Ethiopia, which is covered in chapter four. Joyce points out how the demand for adoptable children spawns new "orphanages" that do not even exist before U.S. adoption agencies descend on these impoverished countries searching for kids to send back to waiting American families. I was saddened to learn of the Ethiopian government's role in perpetuating the criminal activity of procuring children to be sent overseas by demanding humanitarian aid from the adoption agencies, amounting to $3.7 million annually. There was such a strong financial incentive to keep this business going.

Rebecca Hawkes:  Yes, Karen, and also a financial incentive for agencies to try to stay in business, even if that meant hopping from country to country and engaging in unethical practices. “’Corruption skips from one unprepared country to the another—until that country gets wise, changes its laws, and corrupt adoptions shift to the next unprepared nation,’ wrote journalist E. J. Graff, who researched international adoption corruption for several years at the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University." There's a huge money factor, and it comes into play in so many ways.

Lynn Grubb:  I was quite shocked to learn of this, Karen. But it makes sense. Families hear the rumors that the neighbor's kids are going to the U.S. for an education and other families jump on the bandwagon and put their "orphans" in "orphanages" for opportunities. Sadly, they don't even fully understand that they are relinquishing their rights forever. That is so wrong to me.

Rebecca:  I'd also like to highlight the point that the book makes about prospective adoptive parents' wish lists (wanting a young child, a female child, etc.) driving demand, creating an underworld in which children are procured to fill the orders. It's chilling to think of it this way, but the money coming into poor countries from U.S. adopters and agencies is a huge influence. Corruption is bound to happen in such circumstances.

I agree, Lynn. So wrong!

Susan Perry:  The money factor drives the business, and adoption is a subject, unfortunately, that can easily be misrepresented and simplified. Who can argue with the assertion that "every child deserves a loving home?" People don't want to look at the unsettling truths behind the business, either overseas or here.

Rebecca:  And then there are the people like the Bradshaws, American adoptive parents who spoke out about the corruption and lies they encountered and faced strong retribution, almost losing their own bio kids as a result of speaking out. Scary.

Lynn:  Yes, Rebecca. I recall somebody receiving death threats as well. Big money in adoption.

Rebecca:  Chilling.

This book has certainly stimulated a strong sense of outrage in me!

Karen P.:  Lynn, this truth that our western idea of adoption is not understood in these countries is pointed out repeatedly in the book. How awful that parents are sending their kids off thinking they're getting a chance at a good education, only to later learn that they've lost their children forever? As I read about Haiti back in chapter two, I kept thinking, "How do these adoptive parents live with themselves once they learn what they've really done?" I was pleased to find Joyce interviewing adoptive parents of some of the Ethiopian children in chapter four. One mother, Jessie Hawkins, says, "Finding out that you have someone else's child simply because you happen to have been born in a country where you're more privileged than they are? You want to throw up, you don't know what to do." Many of these adoptive parents are also being scammed by the agencies. I was a little confused, though, by the story of the Bradshaws, who discovered their adopted children were not really orphans and wanted to return them to their family in Ethiopia, but couldn't for some legal reason that wasn't clearly explained. I do wish Joyce would have made it clear why these children could not be reunited with their families. I was left wondering whether the Bradshaws really did everything they could have to get these kids back where they belonged.

Yes, Rebecca, the way their agency turned on the Bradshaws was very scary.

Carlynne Hershberger:  I questioned that aspect of it too, Karen. She says several times that it would be illegal for the child to be sent back. How can that be? The whole idea that people would mislead a family to think they're simply giving their child an education opportunity while all along taking the child away permanently just sickens me to the core. I don't understand a human who could do that.

The Lost Daughters Discuss The Child Catchers by Kathryn Joyce - Part Two of a Series

Today we continue our discussion of the new book by investigative journalist Kathryn Joyce,  The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption. Yesterday, we talked about God's will in adoption and the moral imperative to adopt.

In this installment, we focus on domestic adoption and the rebranding of adoption via specific language. We invite you to join the conversation in the comments following each post.

Lynn Grubb:  As we have seen in the history of adoption (Orphan Trains, Georgia Tann in Tennessee, and currently in all the countries who have closed to international adoption) there is a theme. The theme is exploiting the poor, the young, and the ignorant (as in they don't even know what U.S. adoption actually is because it doesn't translate into their language or culture) . . . the common theme being resources. The families who took in the orphans from the Orphan Trains many times used the children as indentured servants, similar to what we saw in this book. Georgia Tann was in cahoots with a local Judge and together they made untold amounts of money off wealthier adoptive parents. Many children were stolen, as outlined in the book. I personally believe (and I am a Catholic and a Christian) that Christianity within the "Orphan Crisis" is being used as a smoke screen to convince many-times naive, decent adoptive parents to spend years dealing with an international system which is clearly corrupt at this point under the guise of doing God's work. Some of these families believe what they are doing is right. But I suspect a broader political motive behind Rick Warren's church and the movement itself.

Karen Pickell:  Lynn, I also had the sense that this movement belies a broader push for political power that would reach into other areas of society as well. And, of course, there are huge profits to be made. Near the end of chapter three, Joyce mentions a 2010 investigation of Bethany Christian Services—the largest adoption agency in the U.S.—that found “$8.4 million out of Bethany’s $9.1 million total budget went to management costs or fundraising” rather than to services benefiting children, which explains why they and other agencies so frequently try to push young, expectant women toward relinquishing their babies to adoption. This chapter hit close to home with me; my own mother received no support to keep me from either her family or Catholic Charities due to her being a young teenager at the time. That was back in 1968, but even today once one of these agencies get their claws into a young woman, the goal is to convince her to relinquish rather than to help her find a way to raise her child. This quote from Reanne, a birth mother profiled in chapter three, sums it up: “I could have taken care of my child easily. I wasn’t on drugs or an alcoholic. I was just young.”

Rebecca Hawkes:  I'm glad you mentioned Reanne. She's been much on my mind. I found her story to be particularly poignant, no doubt in large part because I too am the daughter of a mother who was simply "young." The coercion that Reanne experienced during her pregnancy was familiar but heartbreaking. (“’Everything is so negative and subtle, and it starts to work on you,’ said Reanne. ‘I felt like I was walking around with a baby that wasn’t mine. I was a birthmother before the child was born.’”) Also, as I read about her actions through the years in her attempts to reconnect with her son and re-open an adoption that had closed, I was aware that she was that nightmare "birthmom" that so many adoptive and prospective adoptive parents fear, the one who won't go away and even shows up on the doorstep, so it was good to get that story from her perspective. It's noteworthy that although Reanne acknowledges the harmful impact of a religiously affiliated organization that orchestrated her relinquishment, she herself maintained and even deepened her own faith. It's a significant moment for her when an evangelical preacher tells her, "That child was taken from you . . . They said you weren’t good enough. This is what religion has done over and over." For us, as readers, it's an important reminder that not all evangelical Christians are blind to the harmful impact of current adoption practices. I think it's important for readers of this round table to understand that we're not engaging in Christian-bashing or evangelical-bashing. We need to be able to look critically at certain harmful practices, especially when they have become widespread and are being cloaked in religious garb, but that's not the same as indicting an entire religion or group of people. One of the things I've found especially encouraging since this book's publication is the number of Christian bloggers and writers who are coming forward to essentially say, "This is a difficult and controversial book but we shouldn't just dismiss it without reading it and discussing it. There are things in here that we need to be discussing."

Carlynne Hershberger:  As a mother who lost a child to adoption, I can say that I had the same experience as Reanne but through Catholic Social Services in 1980. One part I highlighted in the book: "’If you want to look at what's wrong with international adoption, state adoption, and Christian adoption,’ one agency director told me, ‘it all has to do with how they treat birthmothers. The common denominator in all of these is that the birthmother is invisible.’"

I agree, we're not here to bash any particular religion or people of faith. It's the system that is wrong.

It is good to see the Christian writers acknowledging that something has to change and being open to discussion but it's distressing to see the people who claim to be Christians out and out lying about their role in the industry. In one part of the book Joyce talks about Jim Wright and Birthmothers—aka Birthmother Ministries on Facebook. I spoke with Jim personally. We had a long phone conversation where I asked him repeatedly about the role of his ministry and adoption, and he claimed that they were not at all focused on adoption. Yet, he is quoted in the book as saying "The reason we use 'birthmothers' as our name is because it connotes adoption." And he says, "That's how Birthmothers came to be: because we go to adopt, and we can't get anybody to do a homestudy." In my conversation with him, he stressed that they don't push adoption and could only speak about his own experience as an adoptive father.

Rebecca:  Also, we've mentioned it already, but the numbers manipulation comes up again in this section of the book, as when a Christian crisis pregnancy ministry argues that all children born to single mothers in the United States are orphans because the biblical definition of an orphan is a fatherless child. "If 43 percent of the six million babies born that year were born to unwed mothers, the ministry reasoned, 'that means 2.6 million new orphans last year!'" Excuse me? I find the redefinition of "orphan," in both domestic and international contexts, to be frighteningly Orwellian. "Birthmothers." "Orphans." The language choices are deliberate and manipulative. "Orphan" tugs at the heart strings and obscures the fact that we are primarily talking about children who already have parents . . . just not the "right" parents in the eyes of the orphan-crisis movement.

Mila:  Wow. This is a great discussion. As a Korean adoptee, although I do not adhere to the Korean brands of Buddhism or Confucianism, it has been so enlightening to learn about the history of these religions/philosophies and how they have affected the family (and ultimately, adoption) culture in Korea. I state this to say that I agree that it can be very valuable to expose adopted children to the religions/philosophies of their origins.

One of the things that has stood out most to me thus far in The Child Catchers is the "rebranding" of "birth mother" that Joyce discusses on pages 114-117: "Based on this research, Young suggested a new CPC communications strategy that would 'chip away at those associations and establish new ones,' presenting adoption as an expression of birthmothers' selfless love as well as a means of redemption—a way for mothers to 'defeat selfishness, an evil within themselves.'" I found this disturbing and disgusting. A so-called Christian organization hired a marketing company that describes itself as studying consumers' "subconscious emotional motivators" so that companies can "leverage their brands as never before." Talk about manipulation. This is sickening. I think this decision to "rebrand" birth mothers was pivotal (in a very bad way) for the adoption movement. And it's ubiquitous now in the adoption community. Completely takes advantage of the emotions of women dealing with unplanned pregnancies or otherwise. Reading about this made me want to fight some people!

The Lost Daughters Discuss The Child Catchers by Kathryn Joyce - Part One of a Series

Today we begin a series of posts about the controversial new book by investigative journalist Kathryn Joyce,  The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption. Joyce's work has appeared in top-notch publications such as Mother Jones and The Atlantic, and she's been awarded numerous residencies and fellowships. A previous book, Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement, was published in 2009. The Child Catchers takes us inside the evangelical Christian adoption movement, exposing the corruption of the so-called "orphan crisis" and of the adoption industry in general through rigorous research and numerous heartbreaking personal narratives.

In lieu of a traditional book review, we have decided to read the book together and discuss it book-club style. We are all adopted women, several of us are adoptive mothers as well, and one of us is also a mother who lost a child to adoption. You can learn more about our individual connections to adoption on our contributor's page. This week we discuss the first half of The Child Catchers, through chapter four, and next week we will talk about the second half. We have a lot to say, so grab a cup of coffee or a glass of wine, and settle in. And we invite you to join the conversation via the comments at the end of each post.

Our first installment deals with the concept of God's will as it pertains to adoption and the moral imperative to adopt.

Karen Pickell:  Joyce hits us hard beginning with the preface where we meet Sharon, who already has seven biological children when she decides to adopt three more. After those adoptions, she is still not satisfied that she’s done all she “should” do to fulfill her Christian obligation to orphan care, and seeks to adopt more children. As I read her story, I couldn't help putting myself in the shoes of all those kids and wondering how they could possibly be getting the attention they need when Sharon was always so focused on obtaining the next child. How did you all react to Sharon’s story?

I personally find Sharon and others like her to be repulsively selfish, because their focus is not on helping any particular child but rather on their own ticket into heaven, their own “holiness,” if you will. This religious zeal is discussed later in the book as well, and it angers me that these kids are being used to fill a quota of “lives saved” for these parents and sometimes for entire congregations.

The other thing that struck me about Sharon’s story is that the huge demand for adoptable children stems less from infertile couples than from this religious quest. I feel like I’ve had my head in the sand in a way, maybe because I’m a Baby Scoop adoptee whose parents adopted due to infertility so that’s the reality I’m most familiar with and have learned the most about. This book is causing me to broaden my perspective in huge ways, which is a good thing.

Carlynne Hershberger:  I also was repulsed by Sharon and her attitude but I also felt like there was a compulsion similar to obsessive behavior. These children were like projects to her. It's almost like a hobby she became obsessed with—hoarding children. I knew about the religious aspect of the call to adoption for Christians but had NO idea the size and scope of it. I'm finding that aspect to be horrifying and scary.

Deanna Shrodes:  I know individuals who have unexpectedly become pregnant, and were in a situation of already being overwhelmed with many children in the home and had concern about how they were going to give each child the attention they deserve. In such situations I've witnessed God's grace at work and strength granted to meet the needs of the children. However, I strongly believe that to purposely plan whether through birth or adoption to have additional children when you are not adequately caring for the ones you already have is not only unwise but tragic. When someone has made such a decision it is most certainly for the wrong motivations and, of course, never centers around the child.

Julie Stromberg:  Several thoughts came to mind while considering Sharon's story. There seemed to be such a lack of depth and self-awareness that came across to me as being somewhat childlike and elitist at the same time. This was a recurring theme throughout the book. Sharon felt that the God she believes in was entirely on her side so there was no need to actually investigate or take a more critical look at the adoption industry. Which confused me because the scripture verse Sharon posted as inspiration to her adoption blog reads "help the widows and the orphans." Many of those involved in the Christian Adoption Movement ignore the "widows" part of the verse and focus only on the orphans. I agree with Karen in that Sharon presented as someone who was taking on some sort of religious project designed to position herself at a higher level within her chosen religious community. The needs of the actual adoptee are inconsequential because Sharon hides behind the "it's God's will" wall of thought. It's magical thinking shrouded in religious dogma. And that can be dangerous for the well-being of a child adopted by Sharon and others who take a similar approach.

Moses the Adoptee?

[I know this post is long, but I didn't know how else to deal with such a topic with more brevity.]

I. Moses the Adoptee?

We hear this one all the time--

But Moses was adopted! So don't you see--he exemplifies just how much adoption is God's work, God's gospel, God's way of saving children!

Although I can see how it would be easy enough to make such an assumption or inference, it is important to remember that the story of Moses was not originally preserved and recorded so that Christians in the 21st century would have a biblical basis for their current adoption theology and practices. Rather it was recorded to preserve the history of the Israelites and, within the context of the Old Testament as a whole, to demonstrate how God ultimately fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendents. The story of Moses has absolutely nothing to do with adoption.

Context is crucial not only when dealing with the Bible but with almost anything written or spoken.* You take something out of its original context and people can come to some pretty skewed conclusions.

As an exercise in reading text within its original context, since so many Christians use the story of Moses to support current adoption theology, let's look at the story of Moses as a whole--not just the part where he's a baby in a basket floating down the river.

Many know the background to the story--due to an edict put forth by the Pharoah, it is commanded that all Hebrew boys that are born are to be thrown into the Nile. Moses's mother manages to hide him for the first 3 months of his life but then begins to fear for his life as he grows too big to conceal. With great duress, she sends him down the Nile in a basket.

When the Pharoah's daughter does find this Hebrew baby floating among the reeds on the Nile, what follows? Exodus states that his sister is watching to see what would happen. Upon the Pharoah's daughter finding Moses, Moses's sister retrieves his mother, and Moses's mother is able to nurse him and continues to care for him until "he grew older." We don't know for how long or whether the Pharoah's daughter knew this woman was Moses's mother. Regardless, it's clear that initially Moses continues to nurse at his original mother's breast and to be cared for by her until he is eventually given to the Pharoah's daughter as her son.

Of course, Moses, like all of us, grows up to become an adult. And how does the rest of the story go?

He ends up having some "anger issues" and murders an Egyptian overseer--whom he had witnessed beating "one of his own people"--a Hebrew. Clearly, Moses continues to identify with his original people, the Hebrews, more than he does with the Egyptians.

After Moses flees, he has a spiritual awakening of sorts. And what does he do?

Ultimately, he ends up forsaking his Egyptian privilege and upbringing to return to his family and people of origin to help free them from their oppressors.

Read it for yourself in Exodus, and there is also a reference in Hebrews 11 stating, "By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharoah's daughter...he left Egypt..."

So, if Christian adoption advocates and adoptive parents want to use the story of Moses as an example of adoption, then it should follow that adoptees, once they become adults, will forsake their adoptive countries and families to return to their birth countries and families to help free them from those who oppress them, right?

I find this incredibly ironic within the context of how often Christians use the story of Moses as an example of adoption in the Bible to teach that adoption is a biblical manifesto.

Of course, I'm not trying to be churlish. And of course, I am not advocating that adoptees should forsake their adoptive families. And as I stated above, the story of Moses doesn't have anything to do with adoption. It should not be used as a part of Christian adoption theology. (And really there should be no such thing as "modern Christian adoption theology.")

Don't miss the point here.

The point I am making is the misuse and abuse of biblical text--and in this case, specifically of the story of Moses--to support modern adoption practices by taking the original text out of context and chopping it up in ways that seem to say that the Bible and God teach an "adoption gospel"--that is, a command to go out and adopt [the children, i.e. babies, of the third world].

It's VERY dangerous to use the Bible in this way. Look at history and all the awful ways Scripture has been used to justify unethical, even atrocious acts--the Crusades, slavery, segregation, prohibiting intermarriage among differing ethnicities, bombing abortion clinics, etc.

Want to use the story of Esther to support modern Christian adoption theology? Uh, well, she was adopted by her Uncle--a blood relative. But again, the story of Esther is in the Bible neither to support adoption nor to debunk it. It's original purpose has absolutely nothing to do with adoption.

What other stories are taken out of context by Christians to justify and concoct a modern adoption theology that never existed until now? As unbelievable as it is, I've even heard Christians use the family situation of Jesus to support modern adoption! This is just ludicrous.

II. The Bible and Adoption

This misuse of biblical text creates a culture within Christianity in which anyone claiming to be a Christian can justify basically any act by manipulating Scriptures and using their "faith" as the justification for their behavior. This of course has been going on for ages. But more recently, adoption has become the "act of faith" that Christians justify. And it is misguided theology.

The "adoption" of humans by God was NEVER intended to be used as a justification or promotion of modern adoption. The use of this metaphor in the Bible was originally intended simply to teach people about the relationship of God and humans--not to introduce an "adoption gospel." This relationship involves a perfect God and a sinful humanity. The "adoption" of humans by God is required because, according to the Bible, humans have been separated from God, we have left God by our choice to sin, our choice to rebel, whatever you want to call it.

Clearly, the parallels between adoption by God and modern adoption are completely flawed and incongruous. Our adoption by God has no place being used as a call to adopt children from other nations and families. Those adopting are certainly not perfect, and the children being adopted are not in need of adoption because of some sin they have committed. (I could write a whole other post addressing this topic alone--and perhaps I will need to...)

Using passages in the Bible that refer to adoption to teach that God commands Christians to engage in modern adoption is equivalent to using Scriptures that refer to say, Jesus as our Shepherd, to command all Christians to go gather up all the sheep of the world and take on the profession of sheep herding. That may seem absurd to you, but that's basically what Christians are doing when they use Scriptures (out of context) that discuss adoption to say that adoption is what God demands of us.

Now, of course, there are Scriptures that refer to caring for the orphans and widows throughout both the Old and New Testament. These often can also be translated as the "widows and fatherless." Regardless, however, these Scriptures again were not preserved or originally written so that Christians would en mass go out and adopt all the babies of the world. Taking care of widows and orphans does not translate to adopting just the orphans and ignoring the widows. And yet, in practice, that is often what is happening in modern adoption. (An interesting one to read is 2 Kings 4. Again, it has nothing to do with adoption, but it certainly reveals how a man of God chose to help a widow in danger of losing her two sons as a result of unpaid debts.)

Again, I will state that the Bible is grossly misused and manipulated to support modern adoption theology and practices among Christians. Ultimately, the Bible was not originally written to be used as a manual for modern adoption practices--modern adoption practices didn't even exist when the Old Testament and New Testament were being lived out and eventually recorded.

But let me stop there and recommend an excellent paper written by Professor of Law at Samford University, David Smolin. In this paper, he deals very deeply and specifically with the biblical basis (or lack thereof) of the recent development of adoption theology, "OF ORPHANS AND ADOPTION, PARENTS AND THE POOR, EXPLOITATION AND RESCUE: A SCRIPTURAL AND THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ADOPTION AND ORPHAN CARE MOVEMENT."

 III. Conclusion

Ultimately, I really hope that we all will allow ourselves to question our theology and to think more critically about what the Bible says (or doesn't say) about adoption.

Let me also clarify that I am not saying that adoption is never appropriate. There certainly are cases in which adoption is very appropriate and necessary. I'm also not saying that adoption is universally evil or that adoption of a child into another family is a universally unbiblical practice for those who call themselves Christians. What I am saying is that the current, dominant philosophy and theology that inform present day adoption practices among Christians are generally unbiblical and completely misinformed and misguided.

As fellow adult adoptee, Deanna, expressed in her post, The Lack of Critical Thinking About Adoption (Especially Among Christians!), many Christians have chosen not to think critically about what they've been taught about adoption. Christians are choosing willful ignorance over the truth. And often there is a dangerous culture of unquestioning conformity in Christianity along with a culture of rationalization that uses one's faith as a divine mandate to do pretty much anything at all--this can lead to a very emotional, self-absorbed way of seeing the world--and has led to abusive adoption practices.

I find it ironic that Christians so often recoil when others, whether fellow Christians or not, question the status quo. The very person that Christians claim to follow was persecuted and ultimately crucified because he would not stop questioning the status quo, and in particular among the religious leaders of the time.

If Jesus were here today, I believe that he, too, would question much of the current status quo within the religious world--modern adoption beliefs and practices not excluded. Of course, I'm not claiming to know the mind of Jesus or of God. But based on the Bible that I know, I don't know that I'm so crazy for postulating that the Bible was never intended to be used as a platform to promote modern adoption theology and practices among those who call themselves Christians.

And honestly, do we really picture Jesus coming to earth and telling poorer families to give their children to those who are richer, or telling the rich to take care of orphans and widows by actively seeking out and taking the children of the poor?

_______

*Just a disclaimer: I am in no way claiming to be a biblical authority, and I am certainly not a Bible scholar. But I also do not believe that one need be a scholar or a genius to read and understand the Bible for its plain, contextual meaning.

(Also, I would like to thank my husband for all the patient discussions and conversations we have had regarding this issue.)