Mar 242011
 

Over the past few years — and more frequently in the past few weeks — adoption agencies, facilitators and attorneys have contacted me and asked if the could “syndicate” a recent post of mine on their website. Despite my FAQ specifically saying that — hell to the no — I won’t write for your adoption agency blog, people keep asking. I thought I would share my specific reasons for refusing to do so. In the future, I will just reply with this link.

1. First and foremost, no, you cannot copy/paste my post on your site with a mere linkback and call it “syndication.” My writing takes time, effort and skill. You may think that you’re offering me a great deal; exposure via more hits on my site and more name recognition within the adoption community. But I don’t care about hit stats and I am quite fine building my own name recognition in the ways that I find appropriate. If you want bloggers to share a post they have already written on their site, research syndication standards. For an example of a good syndication offer and program, please view BlogHer’s awesome program.

2. Secondly, I will not take the time, effort and skill to create a post of original content for your agency site. My time is precious. If I am taking the time to create original content, it will be for my sites or for someone who is paying me — with rare exceptions. I have been known to write for free on certain websites (big name sites, friends’ blogs as a guest post, charity), but trust me, I won’t make an exception for an adoption agency. Why? See below.

3. Most importantly, I don’t trust you. There are very, very few adoption agencies currently in “business” whom I consider ethical. I’m talking under five. And even for those very few, I wouldn’t write for them. Why? Until ethical reform happens and turns the table on the business of adoption, a chance exists that a previously ethical agency could get greedy and ruin their previous ethical standing. If something like that happened — and my name was on their website as a contributing writer — it would be perceived that I was approving of their lack in ethics. And I’m not. Even if you offered me lots of money (see issue #1), I do not want my name to be associated with an agency that isn’t on the up-and-up. So, in the end, I won’t chance writing for your agency just in case you decide to trample on expectant parents’ rights, fathers’ rights, adoptee rights, adoptive parent rights or feel like charging adoptive parents crazy amounts of money — just because you can.

It’s pretty simple.

Maybe someday, when ethical reform comes along (because it will) and agencies are forced to adhere to laws and codes of conduct, I’ll reconsider. Until then, the answer is no.

Because you can still charge a different amount of money for a “healthy white baby” and a “healthy black baby.” Because you can move an expectant mother to a different state to avoid dealing with the biological father and his pesky rights. Because you refuse to believe that having the same attorney for birth parents and adoptive parents is a conflict of interest. Because you have unlicensed employees offering biased counseling to expectant mothers — who often turn around and tell the potential adoptive parents what was discussed during said counseling. Because you use coercive language (do you have a section for “birth mothers” on your site?) and tactics (presenting adoptive parents as perfect and reinforcing that single parents are somehow less than). Because you force adoptive parents to pay for expectant parents’ expenses (which is legal in some states, but not ethical, thus forcing a form of obligation on the expectant parents’ part and a totally unfair burden on the part of the adoptive parents. Because you still sell semi-open/semi-closed adoptions as real open adoption. Because you neglect to tell expectant parents considering relinquishment the laws about openness in their state. Because your education about the trials and tribulations and awesomeness of openness are lacking, setting families up to fail. Because you neglect to offer post-placement options for families, setting them up to fail. Because you are not involved or — at the very least — supportive of adoptees’ fight for the Original Birth Certificates. Maybe you’re not doing all of those things. Maybe you’re only doing one. But one is still unethical.

And sadly, the list goes on.

I don’t fault you for not understanding blogging as a real medium, thus worthy of pay and consideration of the author. Many agencies are new to the blogging world and lacking a knowledge of proper etiquette. I will let you know that linking to a blogger and using a fair use snippet of their piece is acceptable practice. (For more on that, see “The More You Take, The Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be” section in this very important piece at NOLO. PS: See how I did that?) I approve of agencies, facilitators and attorneys linking to and appropriately citing bloggers, especially when they are discussing ethical reforms and issues.

But, no, I won’t write for your agency (or your facilitator or your attorney) until you can prove to me that you are acting above and beyond what is legal and have moved into an award-worthy ethical way to conduct adoptions. Until then, please understand and respect my desire not to be associated with your “brand.”

Mar 152011
 

Sometimes I push myself too far.

I got an email informing me of a conference call held by Lifetime Adoption with Mardie Caldwell about her new book, Called to Adoption. I jokingly forwarded it to Dawn about how I should call in. She laughed and told me to do it. I missed the beginning of the call because I was just getting home from the gym, but called in anyway.

Wow.

I can tell you that they didn’t expect that a birth mother was going to call in and listen. Which is what I figured when I called in. This was a call about how to adopt and why adoption is good and how waiting to start your family because of fears (of any reason) isn’t the way to go. Now, those things, in an of themselves, are not bad. There are ethical ways to adopt. Ethical adoption can be good. And delaying the start of your family because of fears — of any reason — is sad. But this call was not about ethical adoption. At all. And if they had known that a (very vocal) birth mother was listening in, I surely hope that they would have changed their tone.

But they didn’t know I was there. So they were candid.

Mardie Caldwell was talking when I tuned in. And this is what I first heard.

“As a woman, I can’t understand her giving away her flesh and blood. I had lost so many.”

Long story short, Mardie was matched with a mother. In the hospital, she told the mother to really make sure this was what she wanted. On the way to the airport, Caldwell again stated that. Upon returning home, the birth mother and birth father married. The birth mother and birth father then asked for the baby back within her. It was within her decision period to revoke consent. Caldwell fought.

“God kept showing me scripture that said this baby was supposed to be with me.”

She went on about the fight. Caldwell was out of town twice when the birth parents flew in for the baby.

“I felt like Mary and Joseph on the donkey.”
(and later)
“He wants Christians families for these babies.”

Now, before anyone gets a bee in their bonnet, I do identify as a Christian. We raise our sons with a love of Jesus — and all people. Including those people who happen to get pregnant “out of wedlock.” We are big on compassion and understanding and — gasp — ethics. So when people use religion — of any sort — to talk about how babies don’t belong with their original families, I get kind of twitchy. “Christian” adoptive families are not entitled to other mothers’ babies. There’s no ifs, ands or buts about that one.

In the end, Caldwell “won” the child (who is now grown and has no contact with his original family — despit Caldwell’s “permission”).

“A lot of what we went through, we helped other people avoid these problems.”

What Caldwell (and Lifetime Adoption) didn’t expect when Caldwell made that statement is that is why this blog, right here, exists. I will always have the loss of my daughter with me. My unethical non-agency (ANLC) helped to create this blog by the lies they told me and by the way they treated me like a second class citizen. I continue to speak out about agencies like them and warn others that they can avoid being treated like dirt. Ethical agencies do exist (I’m working on a post, per some recent contacts from various people — love you all). You do not have to sell yourself — or your baby — short if adoption is your ultimate goal. You don’t have to tolerate being treated like you are “less than” an adoptive family.

“You know what it’s like and you know how it feels for adoptive parents.”

She’s referring to how she helps others. But you don’t know how it feels for a birth parent. You have no clue. The comments you made? You have absolutely no clue. The grief and loss are lifelong. There’s no magic day or moment when the feelings just dissipate. That — right there — is why I loathe so many adoption agencies. You have no idea what we’re feeling, what we go through. And then she said…

“I know the pain she went through.”

No. You don’t. At all. You don’t know. At all. The fact that you kept saying “my birthmom” is proof. She’s not your birth mom. She’s your son’s birth mother. She is not yours. Her pain is your gain.

I had to bail before the end of the call, when they started questions from listeners. I wanted to say, “How do you sleep at night.”

Here’s the truth, broken down in simple terms:

It is unethical to fight for and eventually keep a child whom the birth parents are contesting said adoption.

End of story.

Okay, I’ll grant adoptive parents one concession: It is unethical to keep said baby if the birth parents contest during their legal revocation period. I can’t morally say that I would approve of a birth parent trying to fight for a child twelve years down the road. But if a birth parent follows the laws within their state (as revocation periods differ in each state) and contest the adoption within their allotted time, there is no question. You should return the child. I don’t care if you think she “doesn’t have enough money” (as Caldwell’s own words stated) or if she’s “not Christian” or how many children you have lost (newsflash: I had a miscarriage post-relinquishment; you don’t “own” loss) or even if you suspect that they won’t care well for the child. Maybe the birth parents think you won’t care well for their child. Maybe you are the one to look at with suspect. But that doesn’t seem fair to say, now does it? So why is it okay for (potential) adoptive parents to say so?

Now, remember: Lifetime Adoption contacted me when I was pregnant with BigBrother to see if I was interested in their “services.” Prior to what we now refer to as “social media,” Lifetime Adoption contacted me when I put up a six week pregnant photo on my MySpace account. I was disgusted then. And having listened in tonight, I understand.

Mothers considering relinquishment mean nothing to Lifetime Adoption. Nothing. As long as good, “deserving,” “Christian” families get the babies, it doesn’t matter. Ask KatjaMichell.

Right before I bailed in the call, Caldwell said this:

“I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around.”

Good. Me too. I believe that treating birth parents as nothing but incubators will backfire in the long run. Eventually, ethical reform will happen and those agencies who have proven themselves to care nothing for ethics will be up the creek without a paddle. And that is one of those very rare instances in which I will say, “I told you so.”

I’m now off to do some deep breathing and yoga before bed. And to — gasp — say a prayer for my own peace, mainly so I can get some sleep tonight.

Originally posted on The Chronicles of Munchkin Land.