Many in our multigenerational class couldn’t identify a passion or couldn’t discern which amongst their many passions they should follow.  I think part of the problem is with the word “passion”.  It implies something huge, burning, overwhelming.  Something so big that there can be only one, and if there is only room for one, you better be darn sure before you pursue it.  Talk about paralyzing pressure.  I don’t buy it.  I think there is room for more than one passion in our life, and I think they come in different sizes.  I know they change with the seasons of your life.  From my perspective the key is to bring things into our lives that energize us and give us pleasure.

Amy, our fearless Visioning Class leader, suggested the following questions to help you find your passion.

• What would you do if you knew you could not fail?
• What do you love about yourself?
• What would you do if had the support of those you love and money was not a concern?
• What do you dream about doing that you’ve never told anyone?
• How could you make the world a better place for yourself and others?
• When you were young, what did you know you would do when you grew up?
• What would you regret not having done if your life was ending?
• What topics do you like to discuss, read, explore?
• What would you do for free?
• What puts a smile on your face?
• What do you find easy?

Even after you get an inkling of what you are passionate about, most of us still have a long way to go.  What stands in your way from embracing your passion?  Curt Rosengren does a good job of summarizing the myths that stand in our way.

Myth #1 – Pursuing your passion is selfish and self – indulgent.  Finding something you love that energizes you is one of the best things you can do for yourself and for those around you. (I think this is a BIG one for woman!)

Myth #2 – You have to be realistic.  Do not let realism suffocate your passion. You can evaluate the challenges and look at ways to overcome the challenges. If you see them as obstacles, you may lose sight of your dream.

Myth #3 – Do what you love and the money will follow.  That is actually the abbreviated version.  The real quote is “Do what you love, work really, really hard, be patient, be persistent, be open, work really, really hard some more, and then the money will follow.”
Not quite as catchy, but much more accurate.

Myth #4- I am limited by the rules.  Whose rules?  Don’t allow someone else’s rules or expectations keep you from living out your passion.

So, give yourself permission to look for your passion.  Drill it into your head that you are not being selfish.  Of course, you have to be realistic about balancing your time between your obligations and your desires, but many of us err on the side of “the shoulds”.  Schedule time for what makes you happy and what gives you energy.  I really mean it when I say schedule.  Put it on the calendar.  And by the way, if this means leaving the kids with your husband for an evening or day, do NOT say that he is not babysitting– he’s parenting.  It’s good for him and good for the kids.  My kid’s favorite saying is so very true—If Mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.

P.S. Next week, I’ll be blogging from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology Conference in Rome.  I’m going to try to post several blogs during the conference so sign up for our RSS feed in the left column of this page or better yet, sign up for our weekly updates at the top of the left column.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Within days we were both developing “key competencies” (as instructed by the BB), but by the second week I was becoming the star.  Pretty soon, I ditched the BB completely and was riffing on baby care.  Who needed a baby bath, when you could cuddle your baby in the shower and both enjoy the hot water and body contact?  Peter deferred to my new founded confidence, and thus an expert was born.

My expertise and confidence were both equally shallow, which is a dangerous combination.  Expertise can become a self fulfilling prophecy.  I led; Peter followed.  My confidence wasn’t deep enough to let him venture too far outside my lines, but he didn’t seem to chafe at the restrictions…until The Lullaby Incident.

I love to sing, but lack anything resembling talent.  I figured my kids were likely to be my only appreciative audience, and one of my fantasies pre-mommyhood was singing my children to sleep.  Lullabies, I soon found out, are wonderfully forgiving.  They usually have a limited range and work well in most keys; better yet, they even allow for key changes mid-song in case the original key outstretched my range.  In other words, they were perfect for my “talents”.  (You musically gifted folks are cringing, I know, so don’t try to deny it.)  I listened to recordings and wrote down the lyrics to as many lullabies as I could find.  Although I had a varied repertoire, they were all slow paced and song softly to further their soporific effect.

So imagine my surprise when one night I heard the rousing strains of Take Me Out to the Ballgame marching out of the baby monitor as Peter was putting our daughter to bed.  “Peter,” I helpfully whispered at the door, “the idea of a lullaby is to put the kid to sleep, not make her want to flag down the beer guy for another round.”  In fairness to Peter, he did try to slow the pace, but Take Me Out To the Ballgame refuses to be sung as a funeral dirge, so pretty soon he was back up to full volume and beat.

I offered to teach him a few lullabies, but he decided to take the daddy reins back.  He was going to begin, by golly, with singing whatever songs he wanted, including Take Me Out to the Ballgame. He did add a few more traditional children’s songs to his play list, but they were all of the upbeat, toe-tapping, and often gross variety.

Oh Dunderbeck, Dunderbeck, how could you be so mean?
To ever have invented the sausage meat machine.
Now all the neighbor’s cats and dogs will nevermore be seen, they’ve all been ground to sausages in Dunderbeck’s machine.

Turns out, song selection has little to do with how quickly a child falls asleep, and they all grew up to love sausage.  Who knew?  And thus, a new expert was born.

Over the years, we’ve been able to balance each other pretty well.  I was a good ballast to his tendency to worry about their physical safety when they were romping, rolling and crashing their way through childhood.  “Honey, if the worst that can happen is that they break a bone, let them go,” I’d counsel.  The tables are turned now that some are driving.  The worst that can happen in a car is far worse than a broken bone, and I cling to his calm (and a whole lot of prayer) to get me through.  But this balancing act only works because he is an equal.  Sometimes, we moms don’t make room for more than one “expert”.  (By the way, even thinking about the word expert in conjunction with parenting makes me giggle. As if anyone could ever be an expert at this task.)

Good parents come in all different styles.  My way, is…well, just my way.  If you have a parenting partner, you need to come to an agreement on the big stuff, but leave a lot of room in between for individual parenting expression.  Kids not only tolerate these differences, I think they thrive.  So do parents.

P. S. If you have kids, please share ways in which your parenting style differs from your partner. Or, in what ways did your parents differ.  Did it screw you up?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Juxtaposing a story of sadness and acceptance into the usual mix of joyful motherhood essays was an inspired choice by Lisa Belkin, the chief columnist for “Motherlode”, adding a nice balance to this Hallmark inspired day.

So far, so good.  But then there were the comments. Most were either empathetic, having suffered from infertility, or sympathetic, having the ability to feel her pain without actually having experienced it.  But more than a few were callously clueless.

• DH: This is ridiculous. What does she expect, for the holiday to be taken off the calendar and for nobody to celebrate their joy openly, just because of a handful of women like her? …Another thing that struck me as selfish is how the woman now considers motherhood a theoretical concept that she will never experience. I’ll probably be joining a lot of other voices in asking, what about adoption? Birth isn’t the only way to become a mother, and if that’s what this woman wants, then I don’t see why she can’t adopt a baby and stop overdramatizing.
• SacMom: Why can’t you adopt? What about a surrogate? Or go through foster care program as as foster parent or as a big sister or CASA worker for foster kids or as the best auntie ever to your friend’s little ones. There are other ways to be a “mother” other than biological. I’m sure it’s painful to be bombarded by everything but I think there are solutions out there that are more than just having the baby yourself.
• Sue: Not having biological children of one’s own is not a tragedy.
• Uproar: Wow, 10 years of trying and testing and surgeries and fertility drugs, but not one mention of considering the most wonderful option of all – adoption. You want to be a mom. A baby needs a mom. Duh. Always amazes me how much unnatural and risky procedures women are willing to put their bodies through yet adoption never crosses their minds.

There is not enough time or words for me to address all of these comments, but as an adoptive mom and an adoption educator and proponent, I feel uniquely capable of addressing the “why not just adopt” comments.  Adoption was 100%, no really it was 1000%, the right choice for me, as it is for many many people.  It is not, however, the right choice for everyone.

Parenting mean different things to different people. Most people, and I suspect this would include most of the negative commenters on the New York Times piece, never have to dissect what they want out of motherhood.  They grow up vaguely assuming that someday they will become a mom, and then they give birth.   End of story.  But if you are infertile, you have to go the next step to decide what motherhood means to you.

Some people decide that their ultimate goal is parenting.  They want to go through the process of raising a child: the wiping of droolly chins; the flat footed ballet recitals; the sitting on the bench of endless ball games; the Christmas morning chaos of paper, cookies, and wonder; the sleepovers; the teaching to drive; the senior prom; the coming home from college; the grandkids.  These folks have options if they find themselves infertile– donor eggs, surrogate, or adoption.   I don’t want to minimize their pain at losing a biological connection, or their need to grieve this loss, or the financial costs, but they can and most often do, move forward to become happy and content parents.  For them these Plan Bs are an alternative path to their real goal of parenting.

For others, their dreams of parenthood are not so simple.  Yes, they want to raise a child, but not just any child.  They want and need the biological connection to this child.  They crave the genealogical continuity.  They are too wounded by infertility to risk adoption.  Most people I talk to who feel this way, wish they didn’t.  They wish they could just accept the Plan B of adoption or donor gametes.

Rather than judge them as a failure or as selfish for not being able to accept the more conventional second options, I respect them for knowing what is right for them and not trying to blindly make adoption or donor egg fit.  If it is not “right” for them, it is also not right for any child they might have had through donor egg or adoption.  Knowing yourself and having the courage to act on this knowledge is powerful.   They make this decision knowing full well that others will not understand and will judge them if they express sadness about their choice.

I sense undertones of blame in some of the comments.  An attitude of “You made this choice, so now live with it.”  Life, however, is full of choices we’d rather not make.  A friend of mine “chose” to have a mastectomy when she was diagnosed with breast cancer.  Others in her position might well have chosen a lumpectomy, but given her family history and her propensity to obsess, she decided that a mastectomy was best for her.  Just because she had a choice, doesn’t mean she’s not entitled to feel the grief of this choice.  The same can be said for those who choose to live childfree.  Most days they own their decision and make the best of it, but sometimes they think about what might have been.  Mother’s Day is often one of those times.

I also sense a bit of sanctimonious holier-than-thou stuff going on in some of the comments.  “If you were a better person, you would ______(adopt or foster a child from foster care, become an uber aunt, etc.).  I wonder how many of those who are making these suggestions have themselves adopted from foster care or forsaken parenting in favor of being the world’s best aunt.  No one way of dealing with infertility is morally superior to all others.

How anyone can feel anything but compassion for those suffering with the disease of infertility is truly beyond me.  At the very least, they can try to be open to their pain.  Saint Francis got it right when he prayed:
O divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love…

To hear Pamela discuss why adoption was not the right choice for her, listen to the Oct. 7, 2009 Creating a Family show.

Related posts:

1. The Word Police The last two weeks I’ve posted blogs (Why Not Just...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Some startling statistics were reported.  Russia has more orphans now, 700,000, than at the end of World War II, when an estimated 25 million Soviet citizens were killed.  Russia has been trying to increase the number of domestic adoptions, but these adoptions have not been trouble free.  Approximately 30,000 of these domestic adoptions have disrupted within the last three years.  This figure certainly puts the stories of the few failed Russian international adoption to the US into perspective.  In  no way am I suggesting that we shouldn’t continue to improve our preparation of American, Canadian, and European families, I’m simply thankful that others are now willing to acknowledge that there is a bigger problem than just international adoption.

Way too many children in Russian orphanages have been damaged by institutionalized care and prenatal exposure to alcohol.  Any family adopting a child that has these risk factors needs to be prepared to work hard to help this child.  Just keeping the child in Russia is not a magic bullet to ensure success.

Although there have been efforts to address the fundamental problems of supporting birth families, preventing drinking during pregnancy, increasing domestic adoptions, and improving foster care, they have not been overwhelmingly successful.  This article points to the entrenched social welfare system which provides economic incentives to keeping kids in orphanages.  It appears that this system is fundamentally broken.

International adoptions are not the sole answer, although they have a place in helping the children who are currently in state care.  Not only are Russian international adoptions astronomically expensive, often costing over $50,000, but they aren’t a long term fix that is in the best interest of children.  Research on child welfare indicates that Russia must reduce drinking in pregnancy, discourage child abandonment, establish programs to heal birth families or support extended families to raise their children, and establish a strong foster care system to provide a safe place for children to land.  When families can’t or won’t heal, adoptive families should be sought, first in Russia, and then abroad.

I always get a little nervous when criticizing another country’s child welfare system.  Living in a glass house/country makes throwing stones particularly hazardous.  The US also struggles with some of these same issues.  Our foster care system has improved a lot since federal legislation was passed in the mid 1990s to require a time limit for birth parents to get their act together and added incentives for child welfare agencies to move kids to permanent families, but too many of our children continue to be bounced around between birth family, extended family, and foster care.

None of these solutions will be quick or easy for either Russia or the US; however, acknowledging the problem is the first step and I thank the Russian officials quoted in this article for taking this step.

P.S. May is National Foster Care Month. If you think you could be a foster family for a great kid in foster care, check out the National Foster Care Month website.

Related posts:

1. Adoption Tax Credit Extended and Improved Yay, we did it! The federal Adoption Tax Credit has...
2. Damaged Good: No Return Receipt Requested The pictures make my stomach hurt. A confused looking little...
3. UNICEF and International Adoptions from Haiti The New York Times ran an article last week on...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

We have developed a reputation as the “Easter Egg Hunt” group.  Yes, I know it isn’t Easter, but we usually go over Easter, and we’ve become quite popular for importing this distinctly American tradition.  And let’s face it—the religious significance of hiding and finding plastic candy-filled eggs is limited at best.  We all know deep down that it’s about the candy and the hunt.  From my perspective, stuffing and hiding 900 eggs is a small price to pay for popularity.

These are well run orphanages.  They have adequate numbers of workers and the children are well cared for.  The children go to school—a few even go to an outstanding private school and have volunteers to help with homework each afternoon.  Most important, these orphanages are grounded in their community.  Local vendors donate most of the food.  A local Mexican church provides support and volunteers.  Church members bring the children into their homes one weekend a month and offer support and rehabilitation services to their parents.

Orphanages such as these are held up by those who oppose international adoption.  These kids are being raised in their culture by their community.  They are well fed, clothed, and educated.  They don’t need to be “rescued” by Americans and Europeans, thank you very much.

True enough, but consider these two incidents that happened a few hours apart.  At one orphanage, the house parents have a beautiful 18 month old son named Enoch.  Our project at this orphanage was to lay concrete pavers under the clotheslines so that the kids and workers wouldn’t be standing in the dirt or mud while hanging clothes.  (For the record, I’d liked to point out the verb “lay” is way too passive to describe a process that includes a pick ax, shovels, rakes, wheel barrows, levels, mallets, and tons of filthy fill dirt.)  Enoch was a constant presence as we worked.  At one point, a paver standing on end toppled onto his finger.  He burst into tears, and his father, who was working nearby, came running.  After sufficient cuddling he calmed down until his mother appeared.  Even though he had been quiet for about five minutes, as soon as he saw her, he held up his finger and started crying again.  As should be the birthright of all toddlers, she scooped him up and kissed the finger properly until it was all better.

Later that day we went to the “baby house” for their Easter Egg hunt.  Sixteen children ranging in age from two to six live at this “house”, and on this day three caregivers were present.  The play room was bright and clean, the children well dressed, and the little girls’ hair cutely styled in braids or ponytails.  Before the hunt, we sat the children down at the table to decorate their “Easter baskets” (otherwise known as paper bags).  Angel, age two, started to cry softly the moment he was plopped into the chair. He continued to cry while the others were happily decorating their bags.  I tried to comfort him and divert his attention, but he wasn’t buying it.  Finally, I asked one of the workers what was wrong and should we do something.  She looked over and replied that he was just crying because he wasn’t sitting near his brother.  No big deal, he’d get over it.  She took him away to sit in the time-out chair until he stopped crying.

Angel was clearly well fed, clean, and cute as a button. The caregiver’s treatment wasn’t harsh.   It was simply matter of fact.  Fifteen other kids needed attention, and his condition wasn’t critical.  I doubt she even realized he was crying, but when she saw, she knew the reason, and knew that he’d get over it.  But the contrast between Angel and Enoch was striking.  Enoch was special; he was the apple of someone’s eye.  Angel was not.

It’s hard to be special when you are one of 16.  By international standards this orphanage is one of the best.  It is fairly small; has a sufficient number of caregivers with low turn over; plenty of space, toys, and food; and is supported by the surrounding community. This best, however, isn’t good enough. Children need more; children need parents.

I don’t deny the potential problems with international adoption—too much money entering poor countries serving as an enticement to pull children from families that would otherwise stay together, the difficulty of preparing parents for the potential of a traumatized child, the money paid by international adoptions overriding the preference to find domestic adoptive families, and on and on.  But despite these problems, because of kids like Angel, I remain a fervent supporter of adoption.  Yes, first adoptive families in country should be sought, but if not found, then the needs of the child for a family should trump everything else, and parents should be found elsewhere.  The Angel’s of the world deserve to be the apple of someone’s eye.

Related posts:

1. Can’t We Speed Up Adoptions from Haiti? Haiti had an active, if somewhat unpredictable international adoption process,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The situation in Haiti is complex, to say the least.  A natural instinct when faced with complexity is to simplify by assigning black and white hats to the players in order to keep them straight.  But the $64 Million question is who should wear the black hat?  UNICEF?  International adoption proponents?  Orphanage directors?  For better or worse, the situation in Haiti defies simplification and easy categorization.

Haiti in some ways is a microcosm of the larger debate on the place of international adoption in a third world country’s child welfare system.  In other ways, Haiti stands unique in the degree of poverty and family disintegration.   These problems existed before the earthquake, but the earthquake has exacerbated the problem and focused the world’s attention on Haiti for this short time.

I have been following bickering between the various non governmental organizations in Haiti, trying to understand the underlying cause.  Conflict seems to exist between UNICEF and Save the Children on one side and all other child welfare NGOs on the other.  Disagreement also seems to exist between the long standing charitable organization that have been working in Haiti for a long time and those that have come in after the earthquake.  I should be very clear that I have no first hand information on what is happening on the ground.  I am reading everything I can and talking with people who are there, but my information is exclusively second hand.

As you know from previous blogs , I have been critical of UNICEF’s public pronouncements on adoption.  I think their earlier statements served to create unnecessary divisions in the international child welfare community.  Their concerns, however, about the potential for international adoption to be used to the detriment of Haitian children in not all together misplaced.

The Haitian culture has historically “accepted” placing children in institutions. This same cultural acceptance exists in certain Eastern European and African countries as well.  UNICEF estimates that prior to the earthquake, one out of every 10 Haitian child (some 400,000 kids) lived outside of their family.  No doubt this number is growing exponentially after the quake.  I struggle with being culturally sensitive to this practice since all research points to its destructive affect on children.  The fate of these children is not good.

The WSJ article stated that UNICEF was eager “to wean Haiti off its adoption system.” Prior to the earthquake, however, international adoption (mostly to the US, France, and the Netherlands) was the reality for only about 1,500 Haitian children each year.  The antiquated Haitian adoption laws have done the weaning for UNICEF.  The 10 year marriage and childless status requirements have guaranteed that most Haitian orphans will never be adopted, and most of those that are adopted will have spent years waiting.

Rather than worrying about adoption, it seems far better to wean Haiti off it system of selling kids.  An estimated 2,000 children per year are sold for domestic service primarily to wealthy families in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.  This number is a guesstimate and is likely higher. Aid groups estimate about 300,000 Haitian kids under that age of 18 are currently working as domestic servants.  In addition, an untold number of Haitian children are sold into prostitution.  The rest of the 400,000 parentless children spend their lives on the street or in the approximately 177 governmental orphanages and 200+ orphanages run by non governmental organizations.  Some of these orphanages are funded by foreign relief groups and provided plenty of adult caregivers, well stocked pantries, and an education.  The majority are not.

What is clear is that there is no shortage of Haitian parents who are willing to “give away” their kids.  A French government representative commented on this phenomenon:  “Something [in Haiti] isn’t morally correct.”  This statement shows a lack of understanding of the effect of generations of poverty.  Many desperately poor parents know they have little to offer their children in the way of food, clothing and education.  They dream, just like all parents, of a better life for their child.  Giving a child away may well seem like the best way to secure this better life.  In some cases they view this as a temporary solution.  In some cases, they maintain contact with the child.  However, it doesn’t help to sanctify all parents who place their kids in orphanages or give them to strangers.  Addictions, mental illness, adultery, incarceration, and abandonment exist in Haiti, as they do throughout the world.  All countries have their share of lousy parents.

The media coverage of Haiti has highlighted the confusion over the term “orphan” because the common definition differs from the legal definition.  Most people think of an orphan as a child with no living parents.  While that child is indeed an orphan, she is seldom available for adoption in any country.  In most functioning families, relatives step forward to raise their own when tragedy strikes.  Almost none of the domestic adoptions in the US and very few of the international adoptions of children to the US involve children with no living parents.  The vast majority of adoptions are of children whose parents are unable or unwilling to raise them.  The parent may realize that they aren’t ready to parent and know someone else would do a better job; the parent may be too poor to provide for the number of children that they have; the parent may be addicted to drugs or alcohol; the parent may be married to an abusive spouse and can’t provide for their child as a single parent; or the parent may have remarried and the new spouse doesn’t want to raise the children of the previous marriage.  There are as many reasons as there are children, but from the child’s perspective it doesn’t much matter—they are “orphaned” all the same.  US and international law reflects this reality.

Natural disasters or war can change this paradigm.  Some of the children wandering the streets alone or living in the UNICEF and Save the Children tent shelters may have no living parents.  But chances are good that even if their parents are dead, they have extended family.  We need to make sure that our good intentions to help these children don’t undermine what is truly in their best interest.  I’ve had my beef with UNICEF, but they are taking steps to prevent children from being needlessly removed from their community and relatives.

UNICEF is actively registering unaccompanied children and providing shelter and food.  The children are interviewed to find the name of aunts, uncles, and grandparents.  If these relatives can be found, they are asked to take in these children.  The most important part of the reunification project is that UNICEF and other NGOs are supposedly offering long term financial support for these newly formed families. This is a phenomenal idea and bound to result in more extended families stepping forward.  I certainly hope that UNICEF will continue to support these families for the long run, not just for this year.

I am assuming that UNICEF is hesitant to place these children in some of the existing orphanages because they aren’t certain of their quality and intentions. (Check out God’s Littlest Angels blog and the Livestay Family blog )  Good orphanages exist in Haiti, but plenty of sleazy ones exist as well.  I also wonder if UNICEF is concerned that even the better orphanages should be avoided because they may not support family reunification as the first option.  This seems a bit paranoid to me.  If the orphanage is located in the same area as the child lives, surely the good can be separated from the bad.  Proper safeguards could be set up that allow time for families to find each other and be reunited. In the meantime, the children would be cared for by experienced staff and the cost of caring for these children could be shared with other NGOs.

As much as I applaud UNICEFs efforts to reunify families, I firmly believe that a time limit must be set for the reunification process.  I acknowledge that this process is man power intensive and time consuming.  After the 2004 tsunami, these efforts took five months in the hardest hit areas.  This certainly seems like a reasonable time frame.  Given the chaos in Haiti, I would be willing to give them at least six to eight months.   At some point, however, parentless children will remain, and the final step must be finding a permanent family for these children.  For many, this permanence will be an institution in Haiti, and we need to double our support for these orphanages.  For some, international adoption should be the solution.

It’s easy to lay out a step by step plan, but the devil is in the details.  It seems that in Haiti, the more orphanages that are built, the more children that will come. The very existence of the institution serves to pull the children away from their families.  Although it may be understandable that very poor parents think that someone else can care for their child better than them, it is not in the best interest of the child.

The conundrum is how to care for children when parents aren’t able or willing, but at the same time discourage other parents from abandoning their children.
There are no easy solutions for Haiti.  But in the face of such overwhelming complexity, I can only revert back to the basics.  This much I know:

•    If at all possible, children need to stay within their families. Our first priority should be to support families.
•    If children can’t live with their parents they should be placed in nearby institutions.  These institutions should make all efforts to keep parents involved in their children’s lives through weekend and holiday visits, conferencing about big decisions, etc.  Tent shelters are not a permanent solution.
•    If parents aren’t able or willing to be involved on a significant level with their children, then all efforts should be made to find a permanent family for this child, first in Haiti and then anywhere else.  Parents should have a firm time limit on how long they have to get and stay involved before adoption is sought.
•    Haitian adoption laws should be rewritten to prioritize finding homes for children.  There simply are not that many childless couples that have been married for 10 years that are going to step forward to adopt older traumatized institutionalized kids.  Experienced parents may well be the best fit for many of these kids.
•    No matter what changes are made to the Haitian adoption laws, international adoption will be the solution for only a very small percentage of the Haitian children without parents.  Much thought and cooperation between the NGOs with long standing operations in Haiti, UNICEF, Save the Children, and others will be needed to strike the balance between providing for children without encouraging abandonment.  The “us vs. them” attitude described by those on the ground is not helpful.

I want to believe that what is best for children is crystal clear, but it’s seldom that easy, and in Haiti it’s never that easy.  Yes, I’m tired of being consumed with thoughts of Haiti.  I can only imagine how tired the Haitian people are.  The difference is that I have the luxury of moving on; they don’t.

P.S. I am not in Haiti so must rely on what I read and what I’m told.  I know that some of the readers of this blog have first hand knowledge, and I’m hoping they will share what they know.  In the meantime, the WSJ article was the best analysis I’ve seen in the popular press about what is really happening with children in Haiti—now and in the past. Also, NPR Morning Edition aired a very touching story on this subject the same day I posted this blog.

Related posts:

1. UNICEF and International Adoptions from Haiti The New York Times ran an article last week on...
2. Adopting a Child from Haiti Post Earthquake My heart is breaking for the people of Haiti.  As...
3. Adopting from Haiti Post Earthquake Our show this past week (July  14, 2010) was on...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Hi, Dawn. I love your site, I love your manner.  Do you have any words of wisdom for families where one parent feels sure and confident in a child’s special needs file and the other one does not?

My husband and I are about half-way through our home study and intend to adopt from China’s special needs program. Last week, we came across a blog of a family who has adopted a girl with albinism. We were touched and added that condition to our list of needs to consider. Today, our agency sent out a list of profiles and there was a 3 yr. old girl with albinism. It was just crazy enough that I thought it might be God. I asked for her file, and when I saw it, I did not feel the “this is our daughter” or “just knowing” that many moms speak of, but when I showed it to my husband, he was excited and ready to pursue her. Thoughts?

Yes, I’ve had lots of thoughts.  I distrust that feeling of “just knowing’. I’m not sure why exactly.  Maybe it’s a right brain/left brain thing, and for better or worse, I’m more of a left brain type.  Or maybe I’m a little jealous of those gifted with certainty, since I’m usually stuck with questioning, second guessing, and stepping out on the limb with just faith, hope and prayer. Although this question deals with seeking certainty with an adoption, I hear it from people throughout the trying to conceive/infertility/adoption spectrum.  “I just wish I knew for sure whether __________________ (this next cycle would work, donor egg is right for me, to adopt, I’ll regret stopping treatment).  I feel your pain.

I’m afraid of heights—well, terrified really.  A couple of years ago, we went to a
Family Weekend at a nearby camp with our two younger kids. We had a great time doing family art projects, music and games and were looking forward to the promised special treat in the afternoon.  I had visions of S’mores, or at the very least hot cocoa, but when the time came our perky fearless counselor announced that the special treat was the high ropes course.  For the record, the word “treat” should only be used in connection with the words “chocolate” or “frivolous purchase of shoes”.  It should never, repeat never, be used to describe an experience involving thin ropes precariously strung three stories above a concrete floor.

Since death defying feats deserve proper attention and encouragement from the ground (and since I was scared spitless), I selflessly volunteered to be the group cheerleader.  Unfortunately, one of my kids quickly decided to join my cheerleading squad.  What a parental dilemma!  I didn’t mind being a chicken, but I did mind patterning that behavior for my child.  (Being a role model sucks!)

Sighing deeply and cursing my discomfort with hypocrisy, I told my son that I was really scared, but that I knew it was safe and that I didn’t want to miss something just because I was afraid.  He could decide for himself, and it would be OK either way, but I thought I would try the course.  He, no doubt also sighing deeply and cursing my discomfort with hypocrisy, said he would try if I would go first.

Now here’s the illogical part of fear: I was totally harnessed in and on a belay rope the entire time.  Logically I knew that I could not get hurt—embarrassed, yes; physically hurt, no.  But logic was nowhere present as I stepped out on that rope.  Making that first step took every bit of courage I could muster, and every step after was a step of faith.  I wanted desperately for a handrail to add certainty to my steps, but all I had was a very thin rope.

For me, that’s how it is with most of the big decisions in life.  I know a lot of people report a sense of “just knowing” what is right, but I seldom have it.  In fact, it almost seems like cheating or taking the easy way out.  In my mind, big decisions should be weighed; pro/con lists should be made; a certain amount of angst should be experienced.  I also wonder if others really have the sureness at the time, or if it is only after the fact that they remember “just knowing for sure”.  It’s easy to know what’s right when you see how it turns out and to forget the uncertainty, the fear, the confusion, and the fervent prayer experienced when actually making the decision.

So, here’s the truth: there were moments when I was scared to death before our adoption.  I dithered and debated with myself about whether her special needs were too big or too unknown for us to handle. Were we nuts to have so many kids?  I wondered if I was making the right decision for my children, or if I was I selfishly satisfying my desires to their detriment.

My approach to big decisions is to combine research with my self-named “preponderance of feelings” theory.  I read everything I can find, talk with people, weigh pros and cons, and take frequent readings of my emotional temperature.  If my fear and uncertainty is going up, that’s a sign to back away.  If they’re going down, even slightly, then that’s a sign to move forward.  I take a day or two where I try to walk through the day living out the decision.  What would my day be like if I decide one way or the other?

Once we accepted the referral, I had more and more moments of blissful certainty.  After I held her in my arms I was overcome by clarity.  That was my pattern.  I know that for many certainty doesn’t come the moment they hold their child.  It may arrive months later with a smile or a hug.  Some don’t ever need to know that they made the “right” decision.  For them, it only matters that this is the life they are now living.

I don’t know whether this is the child for you, and I would never tell you to put your concerns aside and just step out on faith.  What I am saying is that I wouldn’t let your lack of the mystical “knowing” be the deciding factor.  Rely on how you have made big decisions in the past?  Research albinism and all that it would mean for you to parent a child with this condition and what it would mean for your family.  (There is no better place than the Rainbow Kids Special Needs page for starting this research.)  Read up on albinism at the National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation website.  Talk with your doctor and a specialist.  Analyze how well this child’s age and gender would fit within your family structure.

I suspect part of your uncertainty comes from how quick this referral came.  You haven’t had much time to prepare mentally for any child, much less a child with albinism.  If you still have a lot of fear and uncertainty after you’ve paid you dues with research and indecision, then maybe that’s your answer.  I work on the theory that each spouse has veto power over major life decisions.  It’s fair for your husband to try to educate you and sway you, but if you still say no, then the answer is no.

I wish I were a person who didn’t want the handrail of certainty in life.  I know deep down that there are no guarantees of a perfect decision leading to the perfect happily ever after, but I still envy those people who think otherwise.  For me, I’ll just have to be content with stepping out on that very thin rope with a lot of faith, hope, and prayer.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

According to news reports, Laura Silsby was the energy and “brains” behind this operation.  The others on the team were friends and fellow members of Silsby’s Idaho church and a nearby church.  About two years ago Ms. Silsby founded the New Life Children’s Refuge to “rescue, love, and care for orphaned, abandoned, and impoverished Haitian and Dominican children.”  Apparently, New Life’s goals also included rescuing, loving, and caring for run away teens in Idaho with hopes to build a large dormitory and education complex near her home.  Along with big plans, Ms. Silsby also had big financial problems.  Her business, Personal Shopper, had an outstanding judgment against it in Dec. 2008, which remains unpaid, and in December 2009, her house was foreclosed.

New Life’s plans were to purchase land on the northern coast of the Dominican Republic, but it’s not clear if any land had been purchased before the quake.  Ms. Silsby traveled to Haiti and the Dominican Republic twice in 2009 (July and early fall).  Plans were accelerated after the Jan. 12 earthquake, and New Life rented a 45 room hotel on the north Dominican Republic coast.  The group of ten adults and teens left the US on Jan. 21 for the Dominican Republic, and drove a bus to Port-au-Prince to “gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages” to bring back to their rented space in the Dominican Republic.

The minister of their Idaho church has said that before they left for Haiti Silsby was in contact with a Haitian pastor that runs several orphanages.  However, other reports of the group’s first days in Haiti show them traveling to different orphanages in Port-au-Prince offering to take children and being turned down.  At least one orphanage director told them that their plans were illegal.  A journalist also told them the same.

Their search for children to rescue continued and they moved away from the most damaged areas of Port-au-Prince and eventually ended up in a nearby town.  Here the information is sketchy.  The news has consistently reported the following:

• The group eventually ended up with 33 children ranging in age from 2 months to 13 years.  From the news videos, most of the children appeared to be school aged.
• At least some of the children were “voluntarily given” to the group by desperately poor parents because they were promised that the children would get an education.
• A Haitian minister signed something saying that New Life “had permission” to take the children.
• The ten adults/teens and 33 children were stopped when they tried to cross into the Dominican Republic and were eventually charged with the lesser charge of child abduction, rather than child trafficking.

It’s hard to even begin to list the mistakes Silsby, New Life, and the Idaho churches made.  They didn’t coordinate with local child welfare nongovernmental organizations in Haiti.  They didn’t heed the advice of more experienced voices once there.  Most important and most egregious in my mind, they didn’t educate themselves beforehand on how to set up a child welfare facility/orphanage in a culturally sensitive way that maintains ties between children and their families and communities.  I saw video footage of Silsby the day they were arrested telling the Haitian officials that she didn’t know their “rules”.  Well, duh, if you are trying to set up a child welfare institution in a country, the first thing you have to learn is the law.  The second step is learning about best practices in child welfare.  What has worked well in the past for children and what hasn’t?  Hint: taking children to an institution in a neighboring country is likely not considered “best practice”.  These preliminary steps are not glamorous or sexy or fun or appear as noble as cuddling a child, but they are the necessary.

This group has been accused of child trafficking for adoption, but the facts don’t support this conclusion.  New Life documents state their mission as loving and caring for Haitian and Dominican children, but equipping “each child with a solid education and vocational skills as well as opportunities for adoption into a loving Christian family.”  Adoption was at least a part of their plans.  It is doubtful, however, that adoption was the primary motivation.  The group did not “cherry pick” very young kids in their rescue efforts.  There is no evidence that they obtained documentation at the time they received the children to facilitate later adoptions.  (That, however, may be further evidence of ignorance rather than lack of intent to traffic for adoption.)

Perhaps most striking as a lack of primary intent to traffic for adoption is that they were bringing the kids to the Dominican Republic.  If you were trying to set up an orphanage primarily for adoption, you would certainly not take the children into another country.  Which country’s adoption laws would govern?  Would the children retain Haitian citizenship?  Would the children and staff continually be required to return to Port-au-Prince for paperwork?  Haiti isn’t a Mecca for international adoption in the best of times because the Haitian adoption laws are Byzantine (to mix a metaphor) in their complexity and severely restrictive.  If adoption was anything more than an incidental outcome, these folks were ignorant beyond belief.  Older children, without proper paperwork, living in an orphanage in another country would not be easy to place for adoption.

I am drawn to this story in part because I feel a certain kinship with Silsby and the group.  I understand all to well the desire to take action, any action.  In the last several weeks, I have wished that I had some useful skill that would justify going to Haiti and doing something other than sending money and praying.  As a Christian, I believe in the power of prayer.  As a realist, I believe in the need for money.  But, oh my, it would sure feel more satisfying to be getting my hands dirty.  Unfortunately, I know that my pull to jump in and just do something is essentially a selfish wish.  I don’t have a direct conduit to God any more than anyone else, but I know how easy it is to cloak my desires as a divine mandate.

I am trouble by the glee I sense in some of the media coverage of this incident.  News reports repeatedly referred to them as a Baptist group and the New York Times referred to them in today’s paper just as The Baptists.  Why the focus on their religious affiliation?  I wonder if the media would so label a group of Buddhists, Taoists, or Lutherans?  When speaking of the radical wing of Islam, reporters are careful to call them Islamic extremist or drop the religious reference entirely and call them “terrorist”.  Where you place the “ist” makes a difference.  Baptists are an easy target for religious prejudice by the main stream media.

I’ll have to admit that my perception of media bias may be influenced by defensiveness.  As a person of faith and an adoption advocate, I don’t want to be grouped with these people.  I cringe that others will think they represent most Christian orphan’s ministries or international adoption advocates.  At the risk of indulging my defensiveness, I’d like to point out that much of the on the ground, back breaking, unglamorous work in Haiti is being done by religious groups, of all affiliations, including the Baptists.  By far, the “best” orphanages in Haiti are supported by religious organizations, and much of the work on “best practices” for orphanages is being done by religious groups throughout the world.

Ultimately a picture is developing of a group with good intentions and little thought—a dangerous combination.  Good intent doesn’t excuse their actions. What they did was wrong, and it was disrespectful of Haiti.  It was not, however, evil.  Lumping it with child trafficking for sex or slavery minimizes the horror of child trafficking.

Those who want to help children in Haiti must be a little more cautious because of this incident.  Orphanages are worried about being too active in accepting children and medical groups are afraid to bring children to the US for surgery for fear of being labeled as a trafficker.  This is a political nightmare for US government which is walking the tightrope of leading the relief efforts in a country that is very sensitive to outside intervention.  It demands precious time from already overburdened Haitian officials.  Above all else, it is a distraction from the huge real needs of hundreds of thousands of Haitians that are barely surviving.  For the actions of a few, many will suffer.

Nicole Lankford, 18, one of the jailed group members said, “Our point was to draw attention to the plight of Haitian orphans.  We came here to help, not to become the story.”  Well Nicole, it’s not just the road to Hell that is paved by good intentions.

Related posts:

1. Adopting from Haiti Post Earthquake Our show this past week (July  14, 2010) was on...
2. UNICEF and International Adoptions from Haiti The New York Times ran an article last week on...
3. Who Wears the Black Hat in Haiti? I wasn’t going to blog about Haitian orphans again. Really,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

All reputable child welfare and adoption advocacy organizations support a temporary moratorium on new adoptions from Haiti.  It takes time for families and extended families to find each other after a catastrophe.  It will take time for the Haitian legal system to function, and even more time for this system to focus on processing adoptions.  The worst thing we could do right now is to hurriedly remove these displaced children from Haiti for either temporary fostering or adoption.  After the dust settles, however, it will be time for Haiti, with the help of the international child welfare community, to plan for the expected tens of thousands of children orphaned by the earthquake and the approximately 380,000 children UNICEF estimates were orphaned before the quake.  International adoption will likely not be the best solution for the majority of these children, but international adoption can and should play a role for some.  Comparing adoption to sexual slavery and domestic servitude, relegating it to a last resort with no time limit for reaching this point, or overly focusing on the potential for adoption corruption does a disservice to the Haitian children that might be served by this option and to the hundreds of thousands of children who have grown up with the love and security of a family thanks to international adoption.

UNICEF is wise to be cautious about too quick adoptions.  New adoptions are inappropriate in the midst of a natural disaster.  UNICEF is also wise to be concerned about the potential for adoption fraud.  It exists, and Haitian children will be especially vulnerable.  But UNICEF, and the rest of us who care about children, should be equally concerned about too slow adoptions.  The reality is that the Haitian adoption process before the earthquake was a travesty for children.  Children grew up in orphanages with no contact with their biological families and no hope for an adoptive family because the process was unnecessarily restrictive (only childless couples married 10 years were eligible without a presidential waiver and obtaining a waiver often took 3 to 5 years) and burdened with bureaucratic red tape.  We have years of research showing that long term institutionalization is devastating for the mental and physical health of children.  Where was UNICEF’s indignant outrage over these children?

All child welfare organizations, including adoption advocacy groups, need to work together to help Haiti create a balanced system that will minimize child trafficking and fraudulent adoptions while encouraging permanency for children.  In theory, it’s not that hard to picture such a system.  First, we need to do everything in our power to keep functioning families together in Haiti.  Most families will care for their children, as well as their orphaned nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and cousins, if they receive help with food, shelter, and work.  We need to provide temporary care in Haiti for the children who have been separated from their families, rather than removing them for fostering abroad.  Once it has been determined which children will not be able to be cared for by their family or extended family, adoptive Haitian families should be sought, both in Haiti, as well as in the Haitian communities in the US, France, and elsewhere.

For the children not adopted by Haitian families, international adoption should be considered.  We need to help Haiti create a legal, efficient, and child focused international adoption process.  Ultimately, the decision is Haiti’s but we can suggest reasonable restrictions on international adoptions, such as licensing agencies, restricting adoption fees, and requiring pre-adoption education for prospective parents on becoming a transracial family and maintaining cultural ties.  The new adoption system should also include a reasonable time limit for how long children should wait for a Haitian family before being placed abroad.  It’s fine for international adoptions to be the “last resort”, so long as there is a date certain to know when we’ve reached this resort.

Adoption will not be the best solution for some children.  They may be too traumatized, or they may not want to leave all that they know behind.  They may want to stay and be part of the rebuilding of their country.  For these children, we need to support organizations that will provide a safe living place and an education until they are ready to live on their own.

Making inflammatory statements against one of the solutions for some of Haiti’s orphans serves only to divide the child welfare community, which is the last thing the children of Haiti need.  These children need protection from exploitation of all kinds.  A child being trafficked for any purpose, including adoption, is a tragedy.  A child growing up in an institution, however,  is also a tragedy.  I worry that in an effort to protect against the possibility of fraud for the few, we will create a system that will insure an institutionalized childhood for the majority.  A balance is possible, but only if we work together.

Related posts:

1. Can’t We Speed Up Adoptions from Haiti? Haiti had an active, if somewhat unpredictable international adoption process,...
2. Adopting a Child from Haiti Post Earthquake My heart is breaking for the people of Haiti.  As...
3. Who Wears the Black Hat in Haiti? I wasn’t going to blog about Haitian orphans again. Really,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

• Right after a natural disaster, it is surprisingly hard to determine if a child is truly an orphan or just temporarily separated from his family.  Haiti and relief organizations need to move slowly to allow immediate and extended family members to find each other.  US law supports this by requiring that all children adopted by US citizens meet the strict legal definition of orphan, and just losing a parent is not enough to meet this definition.
• Once a child is determined to be an orphan, the first step is to try to find members of his extended family or community to adopt him.  This effort takes time.  Literally and figuratively, the dust needs to settle.
• From a practical standpoint, Haiti’s legal infrastructure has been torn asunder, and heaven only knows we need an intact legal system to process adoptions. The last thing we want is another fiasco of fraudulent international adoptions.  Also, with all that the Haitian government has on their plate right now, processing adoptions is not and should not be their top priority.
• Travel to Haiti is not safe right now, and the limited supplies available in Haiti need to be used for Haitians, not foreigners traveling to adopt children.
• Orphans of a natural disaster have been traumatized, and moving to a new home, with new parents, new language, and a new culture may not be in the child’s best interest even if they can not be adopted in their birth country.
• International adoptions are a long, often drawn out process, and don’t lend themselves to the hurried atmosphere immediately following a natural disaster.

But here’s the irony: before the earthquake adoption agencies were having trouble finding families for Haitian orphans, especially sibling groups and little boys over the age of two.  There are many children in Haiti in need of a permanent family and these kids will still need families once the dust settles.  I hope that our donations to Haiti will be used in part to support families and extended families so that no new children are abandoned or placed in orphanages because their parents or extended family can’t afford to raise them.  Although that should be our goal, in reality we expect that more children will ultimately be in need of permanent adoptive families due to the earthquake and the economic crisis that will likely follow.  We won’t know the full numbers for at least 6 months to a year.  We have every expectation that international adoptions from Haiti will resume sometime this year, and I want to encourage you to consider this as an option.

Sadly, we don’t know the impact of the quake on adoptions that were already in process.  My heart goes out for those families whose children are still in Haiti.  All the families I know of have now receive word that their children are alive and safe, but I still can’t imagine the frustration of knowing your child is at risk and not being able to do anything.  It is possible that once the immediate rescue needs are met the US government will expedite these adoptions.  I hope to have more information on this in time for next week’s (January 20, 2010) Creating a Family show.

I often tell people that adopting from Haiti isn’t for the faint of heart, but if you are patient it is doable.  We have a chart describing the Haitian Adoption Process.  The Creating a Family radio show on January 20, 2010 will be on Adopting from Haiti Post Earthquake.  Adopting from Haiti is reasonable in cost and the children are simply beautiful.

In the meantime, there is so much that you can do right now to help the children of Haiti and especially the orphans of Haiti. By the grace of God, I have not heard of any orphanage that was completely destroyed or lost children. (I will continue to update this blog as new information comes in on this.)  However, several orphanages were damaged and all orphanages are concerned about getting basic supplies of food, medicine, and water within the coming weeks.  The physical infrastructure of roads, airports, and sea ports have been damaged or destroyed.  Getting supplies into the country and around the country will be a challenge and will take money.  All of Haiti needs our donations, but if you want to give to support orphanages specifically, consider some of these.  As most of you know, I seldom mention specific organizations or agencies because I feel the obligation to check each one out to make sure it is on the up-and-up.  Time simply doesn’t allow me to do that with this list.  I’ve done what I can, however, to quickly check them out. Again, I’ll continue to update this blog as I hear of new organizations collecting funds for Haitian orphans.

• Dillon International Adoption Agency has had a long standing adoption program in Haiti and is affiliated with an orphanage and hospital in Haiti.  The orphanage was damaged and the hospital is overflowing with people needing medical help.  Dillon is collecting funds for both the orphanage and the hospital.
• Holt International Adoption Agency has a long standing international adoption program in Haiti and helps run an orphanage and family preservation program there. The orphanage was undamaged.  They are collecting money to aid all Haitian and especially children.
• Carolina Adoption Services: Working with Maison des Anges in Tabarre which is home to 90 children, the majority under the age of 2 years. The children are unhurt, but the orphanage sustained some structural damage.
• Children’s House International: Working with Creche Enfante Jesus. Orhanage and children are fine but concern for food and water in the coming weeks.
• Tree of Life Adoption Center: Working with HIS Home for Children in Port-au-Prince and Foyer de Sara. Although the 100 children are safe, the orphanage was damaged and the children and staff are sleeping outside. Greatest conern is food and water.
• Bethany Christian Services: Working with God’s Littlest Angels orphanage and The Creche Enfants Jesus. Children are safe and orphanage was not damaged. They are able and willing to take in more children.
• Hand in Hand is a nonprofit adoption agency that has been processing international adoptions from Haiti for the past 20 years. They are collecting donations for two orphanages they work with in Haiti.
• Chances for Children provides the financial and strategic support for an adoption center named Crèche Enfant de l’Jèsus, currenly housing about 70 children and located east of Port au Prince, Haiti. Also support numerous local project to improve the underlying conditions that result in the number of children coming into institutionalized care.
• BRESMA Orphange was badly damaged. They are trying to get all the children out of the country.
• New Hope Haiti Mission is a non-profit Christian ministry providing care to 29 children.  The orphanage was damaged and supplies were lost in the earthquake.
• God’s Littlest Angels is a non-profit Christian orphanage in Haiti.
• Heartline Ministries runs Maranatha Children’s Home as well as many other programs in  Haiti.
• Foyer de Sion orphanage is home to 225 children. Although all the children are safe, they are in need of money for supplies.
• The Shepherd’s Crook is a phenomenal ministry finding homes for kids with special needs.  They are involved in a project in northwest Haiti building a facility for special-needs orphans.  Although they’ve put this project on hold since the quake, they are collecting funds for general Haitian relief working with Northwest Haiti Christian Missions.
• Moving with the Spirit Mission Haiti is building an orphanage in Haiti.
• World Wide Village, Inc. is a Christian ministry providing education, health care, nutrition and micro enterprise opportunities to children and families in Haiti.  Although not specific to orphans or orphanages, I felt compelled to include them since I have been following their blog since the earthquake.

Related posts:

1. Adopting from Haiti Post Earthquake Our show this past week (July  14, 2010) was on...
2. Can’t We Speed Up Adoptions from Haiti? Haiti had an active, if somewhat unpredictable international adoption process,...
3. UNICEF and International Adoptions from Haiti The New York Times ran an article last week on...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.