America's underground market for adopted children | Hacker News Reader

America's underground market for adopted children

reuters.com

68 pointssir_kitty36 comments

There was a Reddit post about this not too long ago. A mom of an adopted child posted. She described how many parents, including her, had no idea what they were getting into adopting a child coming from a troubled background. Things that child did, as she described it, were very disturbing, and would bring many people to their brink.

So one can argue it starts with ignorance. People think raising a child is a walk in the park, playing baseball outside on the front lawn, going to football practice and all the nice stuff people see on TV.

From there it moves on to lies. Overseas adoption agencies can be very shady. They want to close the deal. They will hide and paper over medical histories.

Then once a child with severe psychological issues (some which manifest themselves 6 or more months later only), become apparent. The despair starts to take hold. Then someone knows someone who heard about his online "marketplace" and so on. It puts an idea in their head.

Then, a loophole in the law is used. The idea behind having laws to transfer guardianship is to get kids to stay with family members and to keep them out of trouble if say immediate parents create an unsafe environment. Unfortunately that same provision the way it is written allow pretty quick transfer of guardianship and it is exploited in this case.

I would want to believe some of these children end up in home that try to help them, parents who know how to handle such issues better, but unfortunately quite often that is a market for predators looking for victim. The article has a few disturbing details on that, I won't reiterate here.

This is also a failure of social services / the agency that regulates adoptions. Over here I know that the adoptive family has to go through a long vetting process, and needs to have proven financial means to provide for them and the children.

It's not that they will paper over problems a child has; if you read other sources they will outright lie. I also recall reading, unfortunately an article that I can no longer find, that China and Russia would often give severely challenged children to US adoptive parents.

The article also emphasizes that the US government, both federal and state, offers virtually no help to the parents and highlights a case where the parents where threatened with prosecution because they couldn't handle a child that had physically hurt one of their other children.

There is plenty of blame to go around, unfortunately, but it really highlights the almost complete lack of mental health care available in the US and the lack of help for parents who have very damaged children, whether adopted or not.

My parents adopted my sister from Russia about 20 years ago. At the time, Russian law only allowed foreign adoptions if the child had a physical or mental disability. My sister had a crossed eye, that was sufficient to allow her out of the country. She is now 22 years old, going to college, and living a happy, healthy life. Some friends of my parents adopted two children from the same orphanage, a brother and sister. The brother had serious issues - trying to kill his parents and run away at 6 years old type thing. They eventually placed him in the home of parents with no other children who were looking for a child like that to care for, I lost track of the story after that. The sister is also leading a normal, ostensibly happy life, though.

Yeah, it's the kind of thing that requires almost all of one's attention on.

There is an incredible story of this nature on This American Life (this episode is very hard for parents to listen to, but very beautiful)

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/317/u...

> China and Russia would often give severely challenged children to US adoptive parents

About 2 years ago I was watching a documentary about china-to-america adoptions on japanese television. While the point was never explicitly raised, the viewer could not help but notice that most or all of the children up for adoption - no interested chinese parents having being found - were, and there's no nice way to say this, quite physically unattractive, developmentally challenged, or both.

The program showed American couples arriving to claim their new family member and I was struck by how unwitting they seemed. I got the impression they simply did not have enough experience with asian children to realise that their adoptive child had, to put it brutally, a pretty poor genotype, with a host of physical and behavioural ramifications.

I'm currently in China now adopting my fourth child. I would not agree with this comment, although obviously I'm biased. When you adopt you have the choice between accepting a child that is healthy and one with special needs. Sometimes these needs are severe, sometimes minor. If you accept a child with special needs, the wait for placement can be much quicker. That is what we did and our child has a minor issue that can be corrected with cosmetic-level surgery. In my opinion, that is nothing. But to be clear, there are perfectly healthy children open for adoption as well.

I've seen multiple people now talk about how unprepared the adoptive parents seemed to be. From my view, this is the minority. We are currently at the end of our stay and are at a hotel with maybe 10-15 other families. Every one we've spoken to were very prepared and knew what they were getting into.

Well, I'd certainly never pretend to have the first-hand experience you have! I was only reporting my impressions from a TV documentary, 2 years ago. I don't even remember which area it was, or the program's name. You obviously seem to know what you're doing; maybe my impressions were incorrect, or the program spun it that way.

As for the kids - don't get me wrong, plenty were healthy; but they did not conform to normal asian notions of physical attractiveness. The unavoidable conclusion was that the chinese adoptive parents, who had first choice, cared greatly about this factor, whereas the americans either couldn't tell or didn't care.

> It's not that they will paper over problems a child has; if you read other sources they will outright lie. I also recall reading, unfortunately an article that I can no longer find, that China and Russia would often give severely challenged children to US adoptive parents.

Yes they would lie. Shortcuts are taken at every step, bribes are paid. [Well I speak about the situation 10 years ago]. So some shadiness and cutting corners happens form both ends. American parents know they are paying bribes and cutting corners in the "process". I know of a case 10 years ago. They snuck the baby out of Russia by bribing. Bribed officials and people all through the chain. I was told there would not be another way. That child turnout to have issues. Not as severe but it sure put a tremendous strain on that family.

Anyway back to lies. I don't know if Russia or those other countries have laws to only give severely challenged kids to US parents. I think many orphanages do that individually because they think those children would have a better chance at a good life in America. Americans (at least a decade ago, when I was able to better compare) were seen as having unlimited resources and big hearts. They were the only ones who would adopt children with those issues. And by enlarge American families felt (feel?) the same, they feel they can provide and take care of a child with special needs. Some are aware of what they are getting into but many, don't but think they can handle it. That is when it becomes very dangerous.

Lack of provenance information makes me wary of adopting cats from the SPCA (instead, I'm going to a breeder I know and adopting a retired show cat, or possibly kitten from that breeder). My friends have adopted pets which/who turned out to have massive unreported health problems, and now have high expenses and a fairly non functional or labor intensive pet.

Children would be vastly worse, I'm sure.

Which SPCA were you looking into?

When I went to go adopt a cat with my fiancé, the SF SPCA were so upfront about known problems with the cats they had that I was surprised because it wasn't something I had really considered. We ended up adopting a cat from SF Animal Care & Control in the end since the SPCA had no more younger-than-5-years cats to adopt that day. SF ACC (and I assume SF SPCA too) not only test for health and behavioral issues before even making pets available for adoption, but also keep track of day to day behavior and are upfront about everything they found out while they've had the cat. It wouldn't be in anyone's benefit to make someone adopt a pet without learning of major, discoverable problems anyway, since the cats would be back for adoption soon if it was that bad.

Anyway, we found the sweetest 2 year old cat that had been abandoned by her owner that had nothing bad about her except that she doesn't like other cats and that she had been around at the shelter for a couple months because nobody wanted an "older" cat to adopt. She loves to just sit around and preen herself, and occasionally knocks our mice over or sits in front of our computers or on our laptops asking for treats. Life is so much better with her around, no idea what we would have done without her or with a different cat, and we were also of the "we really want to get kittens, maybe we should check breeders" mindset thankfully changed by an SPCA volunteer that gave us a heads up about the ACC shelter across the street. Maybe you can find a cat like her too instead of getting a kitten from a breeder :)

The really bad cases were in Singapore. I'm probably waiting until I buy/rent a house in WA next year, so maybe up in Bellevue I'll look, but one of the world's top 5 Russian Blue breeders is in Hillsborough, and she offered one of her retired show cats, which might be better than a kitten. The advantage of a kitten is I want to train the cat to be comfortable in cars, as well as (ideally) to use a toilet. Show cats tend to be used to travel, at least.

IIRC, cats that are trained to use a toilet have issues when they get older. You might want to look into that.

Yeah, on further research, I think I'll just get a super-automatic litter box. It's not just when they're older; it's when they're at a vet, in transit, etc.

I have no experience with cats, but a lot of experience with adopting dogs from the SPCA (Pasadena) or private shelters. I.e., mutts from the pound. If you know something about pets, and/or the shelter has expertise with adoption, you should be able to adopt a dog who would be a good match for you or your family.

You should be able to set aside a few months to deal with any issues the dog has, like anxiety or other behavioral issues, and to dial in the diet and routines like walks. The shelter should be able to help with some of this. Taking this time is similar to dealing with a puppy.

I know you wrote about cats, but I felt a need to chime in about adopting companion animals from a shelter instead of going to a breeder. Adoption from a shelter is a perfectly good option, and it's a way to do some animal a favor, maybe saving its life.

I'm floored by Facebook's response to being notified that potentially illegal child exchanges were being conducted on the site.

FTA:

'A similar forum on Facebook, Way Stations of Love, remains active. A Facebook spokeswoman says the page shows "that the Internet is a reflection of society, and people are using it for all kinds of communications and to tackle all sorts of problems, including very complicated issues such as this one."'

While I agree there are limits to the culpability of a company like Facebook, and they will never fully police all the activities of their billion plus users, this strikes me as very blasé. Surely they don't believe that anything and everything that occurs on the Internet is also appropriate to occur on Facebook. Or do they now believe that Facebook is the internet?

edit: typo

I can't see how one can put much blame on Facebook if people are using it for legal purposes. I think there is no enforcement because there is no money to be made in it. Unlike drug crimes where the government can confiscate property.

Should the government enforce mandatory checks in such cases? Involve child services if guardianship is transferred in the area?

Is facebook still blocking photos of breast-feeding mothers (but allowing beheading videos?)

Interesting read, btw in Russia from January 1, 2013 there is a law that bans adoptions of Russian children by United States citizens.

Most of the developed countries forbid adoptions of country nationals by foreign citizens, how many US children got adopted by foreign countries?...not sure why Russian media is making such a big buzz around this law, probably just to find one more way to criticize Putin.

Honestly I am not sure whether the Russian media made any big deal at all out of that, I would bet in fact even if they did, it was far (lower) from the extent to which American media did. Not to mention the protests held by thousands in the US.

I don't have numbers, but people from outside America can adopt American children.

> Most of the developed countries forbid adoptions of country nationals by foreign citizens

I wouldn't exactly consider Russia "developed".

I wouldn't consider your opinion well thought through.

Well, you're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

Protip: next time, try doing some basic research before making an uneducated comment.

"You're wrong" and then linking to wikipedia? This is what "pros" do?

Feel free to look at the sources cited in the wiki article if you're not convinced. Hint: they're quite reputable.

The biggest justification for that was this very issue in the article. But boy, didn't American media kept downplaying those abuses and incidents pointed by the Russians... And kept insisting that it was a retaliation for the Magnitsky act. IMHO the ban indeed was a retaliative act, but these problems presented by Russians at the time could have been at least looked at. May be then the existence of the issue would be recognized, accepted and trigger some further protective laws for the adopted children. I didn't see one single major American news outlet who touched on this part, all simply ignored it as a mere 'yet another poke from the Russians'.

Land of the free. Maybe legal custody should be limited to relatives or people with a proven connection to the official family, or disallowed at all for children adopted from foreign countries? It is disturbing to read all these ads talking about "private adoption" like it's a puppy trade fair.

Why not take it to its logical conclusion and require a government permit, after proving responsibility, to get pregnant and bear a child? I'd be willing to bet there are an order of magnitude or more kids suffering abuse and neglect living with their biological parents than there are living in a "private guardianship" arrangement.

Whoa. I'm talking about giving out your children to strangers just by signing a piece of paper; though I'd be willing to bet against your assumption, it is said that adopted children are more prone to mental and behavioral issues.

In any case, that's what social services do, only after the fact instead of a pre-screening.

If you have not seen it, please watch the Conspiracy Of Silence documentary.

Also - if you are unaware, you should look into Johnny Gosh/Jeff Gannon and how he relates to the Bush/Republican party with respect to the information revealed in the Conspiracy of Silence.

I see that I'm too late to downvote you. You're talking about a hoax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_child_prostitution_rin...

Please cite ANYTHING other than that wikipedia. Seriously; I am not saying you are wrong - but I am aware of no credible refutation of this matter - and actually, through my own, personal experience as well as the information I have seen for nearly 2 decades, I cannot dismiss this.

Please provide more info.

When I am in a place of "typing" I can expound on both my experience as well as that which I have seen in this matter

I would appreciate whatever info you could -- I am personally aware of massive child abuse situations that happened here in California.

I suspect you only believe this to be a hoax only because you cant fathom the people involved. An written article does not refute reality - so you're on (my) hook to defend your claims.

What a well presented and interesting article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com