Letter From the UK (About Racial and Religious Profiling In Adoption)

Social Worker Tried to Stop Couple Adopting Because They Were ‘Too Jewish’

15 Nov 2014

A former Justice of the UK’s Supreme Court has told how he had to overrule complaints that a couple were “too Jewish” to adopt. Lord Wilson told an audience this week that rules regarding the ethnicity of a child in care were discriminating against those same children they were intended to protect.

Child Protection agencies and local authorities recognise that an adoptive home is often the only viable solution for a child in care and the best opportunity they will get for a stable family home, particularly those who were taken into care because of abuse by their biological parents.

“But”, said Lord Wilson, “that has lead to other problems.”

In a lecture entitled “Adoption: Complexities Beyond the Law” he told a story of a three year old child who was to be placed for adoption with a couple with a strong Jewish identity.  The girl, who was a quarter Jewish, a quarter Scottish, a quarter Irish and a quarter Turkish should, according to the child’s guardian, be placed in a non-religious family environment.

“[The guardian] argued that C [the child] should be placed in a non-religious family in which exposure to her of the four elements of her ethnicity might evenly be developed. She said that the proposed couple were too Jewish,” said Lord Wilson.  “I rejected her view. I directed that C be placed with the couple and, a year later, I made the adoption order. Less than four weeks afterwards, out of the blue, the adoptive father died. I felt terrible: I had overruled the guardian’s objection and had caused C to be adopted by a grieving single parent.”

But he went on: “In the event however the adoption has worked out beautifully. C is one of four children, adopted under orders made by me, with whom, even after all these years, I keep in touch. They tend to write to me just before their birthdays, as if subtly to remind me of their continued ability to make use of £25.
Two years ago C and her mother invited me to attend her batmitzvah. The family pinned a kippa on to my head. C looked radiant.”

He added that he applauded the “recent statutory dilution” by former Education Secretary Michael Gove “of the aim of seeking to place a child with adopters of similar ethnicity.”  The reason, he says, is because most people who adopt are white. So while the authorities know that there is a perceived need for an ethnic match between child and parents, it is better they are placed in a loving home with parents from different backgrounds than “languish” in foster care.

In a conclusion which may well upset many politically correct organisations, he said that to permit children, based on their race, to miss the opportunity of a loving family home is discrimination itself.

Good News

Glad Tidings of Great Joy

Sometimes folk debate what love and kindness “looks like”.  Here is an example of what love looks like in the spheres of community and family.  There have been at least a couple of reports [TheBlaze and TodayNews] about this incident and its backstory, and we have drawn upon both.

‘All I could do was hug him’ 

Grad, 18, reunites with firefighter who saved her as a baby

Last Sunday was a landmark occasion for 18-year-old Skyler James, and not just because she celebrated graduating from high school.  For the first time, she also got to meet the firefighter who, on a bitterly cold November morning in 1995, found her — a newborn baby — abandoned beneath a snow-laden pine tree in an Illinois cemetery.  “It’s so amazing to be able to know the person who saved my life,” Skyler told TODAY.com. “Without him I probably wouldn’t be here right now.”

Bonnie and Greg James of Charleston, Ill., adopted Skyler five days after firefighter Charlie Heflin discovered her under that tree. The couple told Skyler the story of how she joined their family as soon as she was old enough to understand. When Skyler was 5, Bonnie James began searching for Heflin in the phone books of nearby communities, but without any luck. . . . [TodayNews]

 After authorities got the anonymous 911 call, police and firefighters fanned out quickly to try locating an infant abandoned under a pine tree in a graveyard.  They looked and looked around Mt. Hope Cemetery in Champaign, Illinois on that chilly morning and couldn’t find the baby.

Image source: WFIE-TV

Image source: WFIE-TV

But on a whim, Charlie Heflin — listening to the developing drama over his scanner — figured he’d help out by taking a different approach.  He simply went to a different cemetery.  But again, no luck. After not locating the infant, either, Heflin started to walk back to his truck…when he got the sense he should try again. [TheBlaze] . . . .

“As I approached the tree again, I heard a whimper — a little baby whimper,” Heflin said. “My heart sank. I dug through the limbs. There she was, wrapped in a little blanket. I picked her up. She was covered in bloody mucus. She had pine needles all over her face and in her mouth. Her umbilical cord was cut off about two or three inches from her body, tied with a shoestring.”  Heflin cleared out her mouth, wiped off the needles and tucked her close to his body inside his coat, running to his truck to get her warm. He drove with one hand and cradled the baby with the other, radioing for an ambulance to meet him halfway to Urbana’s Carle Foundation Hospital.

When he handed the baby off to the medic, he assumed he would never see her again. Laws protecting patient privacy meant that even though he knew all the hospital workers, he couldn’t get information about what happened to anyone he assisted.  “It was hard to let her go,” he said. “I wanted to know what happened with her. I wanted to go with them, but I was so elated that, at least when she left my hands, she was still alive. I was just praying she would make it.” [TodayNews] . . .

That was 18 years ago.  And the after-story?

Well, Skyler James — who said her birth mother abandoned her all those years ago — was adopted by Bonnie and Greg James five days after Heflin rescued her.

Image source: WFIE-TV

Image source: WFIE-TV

Knowing Skyler’s story, Bonnie James started looking for Heflin when Skylar turned five.  “We had his name from the newspaper,” she told WFIE-TV. “Social media wasn’t what it is today back then.”  Years passed with no finding Heflin.

Then three weeks before Skyler’s high school graduation this spring, Bonnie James found a profile on Facebook she hoped was Heflin.  So she dialed the phone number for the fire station in Patoka, Illinois, and on the other end Heflin heard these words:  “The call was, ‘Are you Charlie Heflin? Do you remember rescuing a baby back in 1995?”’ he recalled. “There were quite a few tears.”

With that, Bonnie James cooked up a major surprise for Sylar: Heflin would come to Skylar’s graduation ceremony at Charleston (Illinois) High School as well as the party after — and she would have no idea who the guest of honor was. 

“I was talking to someone at my party and my parents came up and said, ‘We need you for a second,’” Skyler told WFIE.

Image source: WFIE-TV

Image source: WFIE-TV

“They took me over to Charlie and he introduced himself to me and told me the whole story again. I was totally shocked. It’s something that I’ve dreamed of since I was a little kid, and it’s amazing.”

Image source: WFIE-TV

Image source: WFIE-TV

Heflin gave Skyler frames containing newspaper clippings of how they first met, and pictures from Skyler’s graduation. [The Blaze] . . . .

Heflin gave Skyler the jacket he wore that snowy morning 18 years ago. He also handed her a framed collage of her graduation pictures, and another framed collection of articles about her rescue, the citation he received for it, and a fireman’s prayer.  Heflin learned from party guests of the impressive young woman Skyler had become — an honor student involved in school theater, choir and her church. She will attend Concordia University in Chicago and hopes to be a minister one day.

Skyler said she and Heflin have been corresponding on Facebook since Sunday and she hopes to keep him in her life.  “My parents always brought me up knowing my story,” Skyler said. “I always dreamed of meeting him or my birth mother, or someone who could tell me more of my story.”  [TodayNews] . . . .

And then here is a chaser:

About 16 months after the James family adopted Skyler, another baby was abandoned – this time in Bloomington, Ill. A baby boy was brought into a hospital by people who said they found him in their car. Today that boy is Skyler’s little brother, 17-year-old Nathan. [TodayNews]

Our Lord takes up the solitary and puts them in families.  And the means He uses are ordinary people doing extraordinary-ordinary things.  These are the signs of God’s presence amongst us–when ordinary people, such as these, extend Christian love and kindness to the most vulnerable. 

In the times of the Roman Empire, the Christians used to search the rubbish dumps looking for foundling babies that had been abandoned to die by their parents.  They took them into their homes and families and raised them as their own.  In India, one of its oldest Christian orphanages, Mukti regularly receives abandoned babies (often disabled) picked up by the public or authorities and brought in.  They love them, provide for them, raise them, educate them and help them find their callings as adults. 

God at work, through His people. 

Looking Out For Orphans and Widows

Walking in the Footsteps of the Almighty

One of the most neglected ministries of Christian households is adoption.  We struggle to understand why this might be the case.  After all, adoption is at the heart of the Gospel, of the Christian faith.  Without it, none could be saved.  God is the infinite adoptive parent.  The Trinity is the infinite adoptive family.  Yet, for some reason, the Christian community is not all that geared up to adopt children–we, who, ourselves, are all adopted.  God is the One who takes up the solitary and puts them in families (Psalm 68: 5,6).  God is the One whose eye is upon the orphan and the widow. But His people?  Not so much.

When Christians adopt orphans they are walking in, and after, the steps of God Himself.  We thus rejoice with the Dyer family whose adoption of Jendah has finally been recognised by the New Zealand government.

A young Cambodian girl adopted by a Kiwi couple has qualified for New Zealand citizenship after a five-year battle.  Jendah Dyer was last week adopted under New Zealand law by Grahame and Kathryn Dyer, allowing them to apply for a passport for the 8-year-old.  “We got the adoption through last Thursday in the Tauranga Family Court,” Mrs Dyer told the Herald.  “So happy! Jendah is now able to apply for her NZ passport and we are free to come and go as a whole family!”

Mr and Mrs Dyer adopted Jendah in Cambodia in 2011 but were then told by the Department of Internal Affairs that she would not be granted citizenship because it did not recognise adoption processes carried out under Cambodian law before 2012.  Immigration NZ also deemed Jendah, who has a developmental delay disorder, to be too sick to be issued a visa to enter New Zealand.  [NZ Herald]

When bureaucrats make rules and regulations, there are always exceptions which must break the rules or the rules become an impersonal tyranny.  That is why all such rules, if properly designed, have a mechanism for exceptions to be recognised and justified.  As happened in this case–albeit it far too slowly.

However, the agency agreed to grant her a nine-month visitor visa last July after a directive from Associate Immigration Minister Nikki Kaye following a Herald report on their plight.  “I am sure that having our story in the Herald was a big part of us getting into NZ last July,” said Mrs Dyer.

Mr and Mrs Dyer, originally from Paeroa, have been living and working in Cambodia as aid workers for a Christian organisation, Asian Outreach New Zealand, since 2004.  They have two other children, aged 12 and 13, and have been struggling to remain together as a family unit over the past five years because of Jendah’s situation.

Top marks to Nikki Kaye.

But that aside, the Christian community ought to be informally and formally organising itself to carry out this kind of ministry of compassion and grace all the time.  Things have become more favourable than they were twenty years ago.  Government policy is far more positive and accommodating about international adoptions than it once was.  The Child, Youth and Family website says, “We’re here to help” several times in the section devoted to international adoptions.   But far more could be done.  So pressure, appeals, submissions, arguments, etc. need to continue at official levels.  But Christians also need to get smarter and organised and more dedicated to this ministry of grace and mercy.

One of the finest books on this subject is Russell Moore’s Adopted For Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and Churches (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2009), which we highly recommend. It deals with both the author’s personal experience of international adoption, and the biblical theology and teaching calling us to this ministry. 

And to encourage us all, here is the very happy Dyer family–complete, at last. 

Kathryn and Grahame Dyer with their children Carla, Jendah and Sam. Photo / Sarah Ivey
Kathryn and Grahame Dyer with their children Carla, Jendah and Sam. Photo / Sarah Ivey

Letter From America (About Interracial Adoptions)

No Time for Identity Politics

Russell Moore
Russell Moore, the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, is the author of “Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families & Churches.” He is on Twitter.  [We consider Adopted for Life to be an excellent book, worthy of wide readership amongst Christians and churches. Ed.]
Updated February 3, 2014

The same arguments against transracial adoption have been made before, against interracial marriage. In both cases, the hard social adjustments of living in a racist society are used to suggest that it’s better, for the children, if families are racially segregated, separate but equal. I reject that wrong-headed logic, in both cases.

I hold this view not because I believe we live in a post-racial, “color-blind” society. We don’t. The legacy of racial hatred and bigotry is real, and continues. But the families I’ve known who have parents of one ethnicity and children of another — including many of my fellow evangelical Christians — are among the most aware of this situation, and among the most motivated to work for racial justice and reconciliation.

Untold numbers of children are tangled in the foster care system or languish in orphanages and group homes all over the world.

Minority parents of white children teach their kids that the world outside often, sadly, isn’t as loving and diverse as the one they’ve come to know. White parents of minority children are often diligent to teach their children to take pride in their ethnic heritage, and try to prepare them to combat the evils of the bigotry they will face on the outside. These families learn what really every family ought to learn — how to celebrate differences while also celebrating a common belonging, in love.

Right now there are untold numbers of children tied up in the foster care system, or languishing in orphanages and group homes all over the world. There is no place for racist bigotry or identity politics in solving this crisis. What matters is the welfare of children who need a Mom and a Dad.

Can any of us honestly suggest that it would be better for a child to remain in this bureaucratic limbo than to be a son or daughter to loving parents whose skin is paler or darker than his or her own?

When Ideology Becomes A Cataract

Blindingly Obvious

The Child Youth and Family (“CYF”) division of the Ministry of Social Development has a chequered history.  It is despised by many, hated by some.  Here is the latest outrage:

A Child, Youth and Family caregiver beat children in his care, called them ”peasant” and ”charity kid”, and told them ”whatever happened in the home stayed in the home”. Peter Wayne Purcell was employed by the Heretaunga Maori Executive in Hastings, which was contracted to the CYF Service to care for children and young people from difficult backgrounds and those before the courts. In Napier District Court this morning Purcell, 54, pleaded guilty to three representative charges of assaulting three boys aged between 10 and 14 in 2010 and 2011.

 The specific assaults for which Mr Purcell has been convicted are:

• Lifting a 12-year-old boy by the throat because he was angry the boy was talking while shooting a basketball through a hoop. When the boy cried Purcell told him to ”shut up” and called him ”a little girl”
• Kicking the same boy in the leg causing him to fall to the ground
• Kicking the boy in his bottom because he claimed the boy was weeding a field of squash too quickly
• Calling the 10-year-old a ”fat boy” and ”fat c…” and whipping him with a tea towel while appearing drunk
• Ripping hair from the 10-year-old’s head 
• Hitting the 14-year-old on the top of his head if he was not weeding to Purcell’s liking
• Kicking and hitting the 14-year-old, who he called a ”little peasant”. When the boy was seen limping the next day Purcell told him to ”harden up, mate” and to ”stop being a little bitch”
• Grabbing the 14-year-old’s hand and twisting it behind his back while calling him a ”charity kid”

Mr Purcell is a bully.  He was a CYF appointed and licensed caregiver.

The enormity of the task facing CYF cannot be overestimated.  The New Zealand underclass includes thousands of children who have had little or no experience of loyal, loving, devoted parents who admonish, train, and teach in an family atmosphere of love and affection.  Rather, these children have experienced a constant parade of transient adults coming into and out of their lives–adults addled with drunkenness and drug abuse: violent, abusive, and degenerate.

Our prevailing ideology is statism.  It is axiomatic that almost to a man people believe that the government not only has the resources to be the nation’s parent for such children, but that it can do so pretty much as effectively as faithful birth or adoptive parents.  To many, the state is as god.  Worse still, many politicians and CYF bureaucrats believe that CYF can readily substitute for the nuclear family.   If CYF is failing, it can all be fixed with more taxpayer funds thrown into CYF coffers. 

How to make improvements?  There are some things which can be done at the margins.  But they will not remove or solve the problem.  Why?  It is too big and complex.  Bluntly, the state cannot substitute effectively for the nuclear family.  The worst thing in our present circumstance is that successive governments and their bureaucracies refuse to face up to this simple truth.  They refuse to be honest with voters, probably because voters do no want to hear the truth.  It is not an easy truth to be told that your god (the State) is impotent.

Yet, we believe it is essential if we are to start to move in the right direction.  A confession of constitutional state incompetence is necessary to move in direction that are more likely to help (albeit only at the margins).  

What, then, about at the margins?  Firstly, the state must enunciate clearly that the nuclear family is the superior structured institution in which to raise children.  A male father (natural or adoptive) and a female mother (natural or adoptive) caring for children through to their adult years is far and above the best structure for child welfare and development.  If all approaches to child welfare are not grounded on this basic verity then there is very little hope for long term solutions ever to be found.  

Secondly, the state must reject whanauism–that belief that Maori extended families are a superior alternative to adopting vulnerable Maori children to non-Maori perpetual parents.  This is not to say that adoptions arranged within Maori whanau are not successful–many are.  But the idea that a general whanau commitment to a needy child is preferable to an adoptive commitment by  non-Maori parents is to be rejected.  This represents nothing more than institutionalised racism.  Extended families cannot substitute for nuclear families, where children have one perpetual father and one perpetual mother and a cluster of perpetual siblings who love and care and cherish for the length of mortal life. 

Thirdly, the state must clearly enunciate that adoption is a public good, even approaching a duty.  But–and here is the radical qualification–the state must deny any special funding or service provision to such adoptive parents.  If prospective adoptive parents are not sufficiently financially stable to care for another child and are not willing to make the necessary financial sacrifices then they are likely not well qualified to be parents.  This would also help prevent the “gold-digging” phenomenon where children are viewed as commodities to bring state money into the household.  State welfare money has a powerful corrupting influence when it comes to families–where the very name of the game is long term committed sacrifice. 

Fourthly, the natural communities which regard adoption as a holy, noble, and high calling must be identified and worked with.  The Christian community, for instance, has a theology with adoption at the very centre of its core beliefs.  Every Christian glories in the fact that he or she is an adopted child.  We glory in the fact that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour was (and always will remain) adopted.  Adoption and acts of grace and mercy go together.  Many Maori and Polynesian communities have a cultural commitment to adoption.  In the case of Pacific Islanders this is often coupled with a strong Christian commitment as well. These represent resources lying largely untapped on the ground because they are considered ideologically unpalatable or politically incorrect. 

These measures will not remove the problem of abused and neglected children.  But they will help.  They will help prevent CYF and successive governments making basic and stupid mistakes–the kind that placed vulnerable kids in the hands of a violent bully.   Time to get the cataracts removed. 

Letter From Turtle Bay (About Russia)

Russia adopts model adoption law

Posted on | June 20, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D. 

New law protects all children in Russia against gay adoption and other forms of human trafficking 

Reacting to the disturbing fact that some Western countries have put in to place legislation that under the pretext of a “right to adoption” makes it possible to hand over innocent children to homosexual couples, Russia has enacted a new law that makes sure that such a thing cannot happen to Russian children. Under this law, Russia will prohibit adoption by foreign couples whose homeland recognizes same-sex “marriage”, as well as by single people or unmarried couples. The Duma adopted the law unanimously.

Often criticised for its poor human rights record, Russia appears to be turning into a flagship for the protection of innocent children against moral corruption.
This is urgently needed in a country where 70 years of Communism have destroyed the family and which faces an unprecedented demographic crisis with one of the lowest birth rates of the world, an extremely high incidence of abortion (which the Soviet Union was the first country to legalize), and a population loss of nearly 1 million a year. The Russian Government is bitterly aware that children are a society’s most valuable resource, and not a commodity that should be sold to those who are not willing to reproduce in a natural way.

By ruling out adoption both by homosexual couples and individual persons, Russia recognizes that what nature foresees for children is to grow up with a father and a mother. Where a child has lost one or both parents, adoption should provide it with the best possible substitute, i.e. with married parents that resemble a natural family. As the European Court of Human Rights, in one rare moment of lucidity, once recognized, adoption is about “providing a child with a family, not a family with a child”.

This new law shows full respect for the principle set out in Article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that “States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration“.

It is hoped that other countries will follow this shining example.

Shepherds, Bears, and Russia

Vlad Impales the Orphans

One of the images used in Scripture for the state is that of a shepherd.  Far from being a shepherd, the modern secular state is like a wolf that preys upon the sheep.  It has determined that some sheep need fleecing and shearing.  Others will be favoured and will receive the proceeds of the fleecing and the shearing.  The modern secular state divides the flock and sets sheep against sheep. 

When the Bible uses the image of a shepherd for the state it has particular reference to the enemies of the flock who would prey upon it.  The good shepherd defends the flock and protects it from those who would tear it to pieces.  Thus David, when contemplating the threat of Goliath to Israel, reflected upon his skill and faithfulness as a shepherd: he killed the lion and the bear that came up to devour the sheep. 

The more a government turns upon its own people, the more odious and disgusting it becomes.  We have recently witnessed one of the more egregious acts against innocent sheep.
  Vlad-the-Impaler-Putin and his cohorts have acted in a way which has harmed the interests of the most vulnerable and defenceless in Russia. 

Vlad is trying to make a name for himself in the annals of history.  He is wanting to reassert the greatness of Mother Russia.  In principle, there is nothing wrong with such an ambition.  It all depends on how one defines “greatness”.  But it rapidly descends to wickedness when you would use the most vulnerable as a tool to prosecute your ambitions. 

The breakdown of family life in Russia is notorious–a legacy of fifty years of secular state atheism.  Unwanted children are dumped in orphanages, where most live out their lives in utter misery.  Many have been adopted–particularly to families in the United States.  But Vlad has decided this must stop.  The interests and welfare of the most oppressed and vulnerable must be trampled upon.  America is the great rival; it is such a bad look having Russian orphans adopted by American families.  Therefore, he has terminated the programme.  Vlad the Impaler is driving his sharpened sticks into the wasted bodies of innocent Russian children, sacrificing them to some megalomaniac Russian nationalism. 

Many ordinary Muscovite Russians know what is going on.  They took to the streets in Moscow to protest Vlad’s latest attack upon his own people.  This from the Huffington Post:

MOSCOW — Thousands of people marched through Moscow on Sunday to protest Russia’s new law banning Americans from adopting Russian children, a far bigger number than expected in a sign that outrage over the ban has breathed some life into the dispirited anti-Kremlin opposition movement.  Shouting “shame on the scum,” protesters carried posters of President Vladimir Putin and members of Russia’s parliament who overwhelmingly voted for the law last month. Up to 20,000 took part in the demonstration on a frigid, gray afternoon. . . .

Opponents of the adoption ban argue it victimizes children to make a political point. Eager to take advantage of this anger, the anti-Kremlin opposition has played the ban as further evidence that Putin and his parliament have lost the moral right to rule Russia.

Victimising the most vulnerable children to make a political point is a wretched business.  The shepherd has become the bear: he has turned upon his own people to feast upon them, feeding his ambitions.   

Putin’s critics have likened him to King Herod, who ruled at the time of Jesus Christ’s birth and who the Bible says ordered the massacre of Jewish children to avoid being supplanted by the newborn king of the Jews.  Russia’s adoption ban was retaliation for a new U.S. law targeting Russians accused of human rights abuses.  It also addresses long-brewing resentment in Russia over the 60,000 Russian children who have been adopted by Americans in the past two decades, 19 of whom have died.

 This is how propaganda in the hands of a venal, self-serving, narcissistic government can lead people up the garden path.  The comparison with Herod is apt.  

Cases of Russian children dying or suffering abuse at the hands of their American adoptive parents have been widely publicized in Russia, and the law banning adoptions was called the Dima Yakovlev bill after a toddler who died in 2008 when he was left in a car for hours in broiling heat.  “Yes, there are cases when they are abused and killed, but they are rare,” said Sergei Udaltsov, who heads a leftist opposition group. “Concrete measures should be taken (to punish those responsible), but our government decided to act differently and sacrifice children’s fates for its political ambitions.”

 There are over 700,000 children in Russian orphanages.  Vlad-the-Impaler is willing to use them as pawns in his little game.  The shepherd has morphed into the bear and he has turned upon his own people.  Lenin redivivus. 

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From America

Father-Driven Adoption 

Culture and Politics – Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Friday, 19 October 2012

We live in polarized times, and it shows up in many issues. One of the unfortunate consequences of this is that if you say that a particular course of action might have any negative consequences anywhere, you must be against that course of action. You must be an enemy of it. If you think home schooling, for example, could ever end badly, you must be against home schooling. This does not follow, and if the sensitivities of our illogical age  are honored, the results will be increasingly bad.

We have gotten to the point where knowledge that some people flunk math classes is taken as a deep conviction (on the part of the person who knows it) that math classes ought not to be taken. No . .  perhaps a person should enroll in them with an accurate understanding of what it is going to take. Trying to get people prepared is not the same thing as scaring them off.

I say this because I want to urge a central caution about adoption, and I want to do so as someone who honors and respects those who have counted the cost and who have done it right. May their tribe increase, and God bless all of them.

There are numerous other issues that flow out of this one concern, and perhaps I can develop them further some other time. But as I have watched Christian couples adopting children (over decades), I have come to a conclusion, and I would ask every prospective adopting couple to consider this deeply, and here it is. Is the adoption desire and process being led and driven by the father?

This is not the same thing as asking if he is okay with it. This is not the same thing as wondering if he has signed on. I am saying that if the energy for the adoption is coming from the mom, the chances of long-term difficulties in the family are greatly increased. The kind of adoption that is modeled for us in Scripture is an adoption that results in us crying out “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15).

It should also be noted that this is not the same thing as checking whether the couple would say that the whole process was driven by the father. In our conservative Christian circles, we know what the appropriate language is concerning headship and submission, and so there are many families where mom runs the show, and yet everybody dutifully keeps up the appearances. So if you were ask them if this were a “father-driven” adoption, the answer would come back “absolutely.” But everybody who knows the family knows that it isn’t true. If we held a conference for men, and we had two registration lines — one for hen-pecked husbands, and the other for men who were not — we might discover that half the guys in the non-hen-pecked line were there because their wives told them to stand in that line. What we do and what we say we are doing are not necessarily the same thing.

Of course I am not belittling or disparaging the important and influential role of the mother — but her role is the same as it is with her natural children. She is the church — the place of nurture, comfort, acceptance. If all that comfort is offered without a decisive and genuine decision from the father, all that sentiment will simply provide abundant raw material for that place to become a place of turmoil. The father’s decision must not be pro forma. He must not be rubber-stamping anything.

He must not be driven in this thing; he must drive. And if he isn’t driving, then don’t go.

Unfit for Motherhood

A Woman’s Right to Choose

The New Zealand government is considering granting the courts power to sentence a serial recidivist child abuser to permanent childlessness.  The proposal is that if such a person were to bear subsequent children they would automatically be removed from the mother at birth.

The Commentariat is affecting outrage over the idea.

Evil and wickedness stalk the heart of every human being.  Human hearts are hearts of darkness.  So believed Dostoevsky, Conrad, and Faulkner.  So declares the Bible itself–the very Word of the Living God.  The heart of man, says the Scripture, is deceitful above all else and desperately wicked.
 

It’s not surprising then to find human society riddled with lust, greed, envy, hatred, quarrels, jealousy, and murder.  Many folk spend their lives trying to ameliorate the influence of evil and wickedness upon society.  One tool deployed is the law.  By changing the law, passing new laws, regulating, restricting, and punishing every thing wrong many believe evil will be overcome.  Peoples’ lives will be turned around, redeemed.  It is a naive and forlorn hope.  The law can only deal with the outside of man: it cannot cleanse the heart–the thoughts, motives, intentions, and will.  Evil, the Bible tells us, springs from the heart of man, not from his circumstances. 

The law can only restrain evil.  It cannot remove guilt. It cannot cleanse the heart.  It cannot make a new man. 

Another tool deployed is the milk of human kindness.  The proposition is that if you treat people well, if you are kind to them–caring, attentive, encouraging, and positive–they will respond by turning away from wickedness and reforming their lives.  Overcome evil with good.  But likewise, this requires that the wicked seize upon something good done to them and use it to self-transform their inner man, making their thoughts, motives, intentions, and desires more pure and holy. 

A fundamental flaw of this approach is that doing good to someone risks increasing their guilt, their anger, their hatred, and their sense of hopelessness.  The expression “cold as charity” has not come into our cultural lexicon without good reason.  Doubtless we should do good to all people as much as we can, treating them with dignity and respect.  But for the wicked at heart this often only serves to increase their guilt, anger, and resentment.  Our love cannot change the heart of another.  We are neither redeemers or saviours, for we too, who do good, have eyes filled with our own evil logs. 

Society works best when it faces up to the realities of human unrighteousness and to the extreme limitations of actually effecting change.  In such a society the intent of the law is not to reform, but to punish justly, and to protect the innocent from being preyed upon by unconstrained wickedness. 

In this light, the government’s proposal to allow courts to sentence a recidivist child abuser and/or child murderer to being a perpetual non-mother seems perfectly reasonable and just.  It is undeniable that we now have in New Zealand a class of abusive mothers who perpetually have children, accept the State’s welfare payments for child care, but so neglect and abuse their children that they end up malnourished, broken in limb and mind, or dead.  To grant the courts the power to sentence such “mothers” to perpetual childlessness is both reasonable and necessary. 

Some have protested saying that it does not leave room for the “mother” to reform her life and effect change.  Not necessarily.  But it should be up to the mother to prove to a court that she indeed has changed, has reformed, before she would be allowed to keep her latest child.  At present, the situation is the reverse.  The burden of proof rests with state authorities to convince a court that a new child born to such a mother should be removed. 

We have one caveat to add: children forcibly removed from such depraved serial abusers at birth must be adopted, not kept in the incompetent, bureaucratic perpetual embrace of a government department as a ward of the state.  That merely replaces one form of child abuse by another.  State as mother and father is just another form of child neglect.

>Yet Another Sign of the Kingdom Coming

>The Grace of Adoption

This piece has been published on the website, Reformation21.

There was a Girl. Fifteen Years Old: An Adoption Story
Rev. Charlie Abbate, pastor of Cornerstone Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Ambler, Pennsylvania.
“Well what’s going to happen to her?” I asked. “You know what’ll happen to her,” my wife answered back. “Then we’re going to host this girl.” At that moment, my wife and I took a step in faith that resulted in us adopting a 15 year old girl from Russia. And the timing couldn’t have been worse.

We had adopted before. After having three children “the old fashioned way”, we prayerfully decided to adopt our youngest daughter, our little redheaded nine month old infant, from Russia. As a good friend and fellow adoptive father likes to say, “It’s easy to pray when you’re in the middle of an adoption, especially when you’re in Russia.”

But nothing else about it is really easy — the process is anything but smooth, curveballs come at you from all directions and doubt surrounds you. Prayer is easy, though, because you need the comfort of the Father! Philippians 4:6-7 became my go-to verse time and again. In the end, we came home with our little Mary and life went on. Sharing the joys of childbirth with your wife is an amazing thing. Adopting a child is similar in that there’s a new mouth to feed, a new personality in the mix and a heightened awareness of God’s sovereign love. But it’s also different. Adopting a child made me and Cheryl (my wife) – and others we know who’ve also adopted – keenly and piercingly aware of God’s love in adopting us as his children.

We adopted Mary when life was simple. Cheryl and I had been married for thirteen years. I was an independent sales rep for a national direct sales company and was doing well. My schedule was flexible enough to allow for the traveling the adoption required. My income was sufficient to cover the significant costs. Thankfully, the major hurdles of international adoption were not too hard on us, and we had family close by to watch our other three children.

But this was different. Two years after adopting Mary, life wasn’t so simple. We had sold our home and moved to the Philadelphia area so that I could study at Westminster Theological Seminary. God had made it clear to me that he was calling me to a life in the ministry and pursuing my Master of Divinity at Westminster was the first step. Seminary is a tough season of life: finances are stretched thin, there’s never enough time to study, and the balancing of studies, family and work often feels like walking the tight rope over Niagara Falls. In the middle of all this, we got the phone call.

The voice on the other end was a friend of ours. She and her husband had adopted two children from Russia and were now involved in a hosting program specifically designed to bring older orphans to the U.S., in the hopes that the host family, or someone they knew, would adopt them. This friend had approached us a few weeks before asking if we would host one of the kids. We said no.

No! I was in seminary, I was still traveling in order to make money, we were barely paying our bills and the thought of hosting a child that we knew we couldn’t even consider adopting seemed unfair, even cruel. No. We said no and we were OK with recognizing our own limitations. A week and a half later we got the second call. This time it was more specific, and more personal.

There was a girl. Fifteen years old. She had been to the U.S. the year before as part of this hosting program. A woman decided to adopt her. To make a long story short, this fifteen year old girl was all packed up and ready to go home to be with her new American mother when she was told the woman wasn’t coming. The “why” doesn’t really matter, does it? This girl was abandoned. Again. Both her parents died a few years earlier and now her new mother wasn’t coming.

But now, she was coming to America. Again. And this time, it was her last chance. She’d be here in June. In September, she’d turn sixteen years old. At sixteen, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) won’t allow a person to be adopted. So what would happen to this girl if she comes here and doesn’t find an adoptive family?

You can look up the statistics for yourself. Even if you don’t, with little effort, your imagination will carry you to the dark and horrific circumstances that are the reality for a sixteen year old girl, with no family and no resources, on the streets of Russia. This is the story that my wife heard from our friend, which she then relayed to me. What could we do? We had to make a decision and we didn’t have the luxury of time.

When decisions of significance must be made in our lives, how do we go about deciding which option is best? For example, when we buy a home, we study the finances, the home inspection, the school system – we look at the facts and make a decision. If you’ve ever invested in anything from a single stock to an equity position in a business, you do your due diligence. You don’t make a decision until you have all the facts. The facts tell you what are the odds of success and, if you decide against the facts, well, then you are a fool. Even buying a car, or a laptop, isn’t done without some level of investigation.

Kids are different, though. If you have children, do you remember when you decided to have your first child? I do. We had a great marriage, I had a decent job, we had a two-bedroom apartment, and we figured we had enough money to pay for food and clothing. Done. Let’s have a baby! And everyone we knew said, “Horray!” And don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing against that. Children are a blessing from God, no doubt! But when the sentence changes from “We’re going to have a baby” to “We’re going to adopt,” things change. All of a sudden the qualifications of good marriage, sufficient income and a home aren’t enough. All of sudden, we need to look at the facts.

When you choose to adopt, you don’t get asked about baby names, you get questions like, “Who is this child you’re thinking of adopting? What kind of medical information do you have? What do you know about the birth parents? What if this and what if that?”. Every adoptive parent asks the same questions. And most people who know and love a couple who is thinking about adopting ask similar questions. These questions usually come out of a real love and legitimate concern for the couple and the family into which that new, adopted child will come. The same questions were asked of us when we adopted Mary. The answer to the questions, again and again, was faith.

We had faith in the God who loved us enough to adopt us, sins, scars, imperfections and all, into his holy family. We had faith that just as he knew each of our children before they were born, he knew that Mary was for us, even though she was conceived and born in a different country, by different birth parents. We had faith.

But Mary was an infant. We were now talking about adopting a teenager. We were talking about upsetting the birth order of our children by bringing in a new oldest child. Our social worker who worked with us when we adopted Mary told us we were crazy. Was this faith or stupidity? Were we about to commit, as one person told us, familial suicide?

So we prayed. As all Christians know, prayer is an amazing thing. We who are finite and frail have the ability to speak directly to the Creator of all things – this is a thought that amazes me! We prayed and prayed and asked everyone we knew to pray. The day we got the phone call about Ana, the girl who would become our oldest daughter, our hearts were open to the idea of adopting her.

Why? I don’t know, except that God had given us such hearts. It was all of him, as all good things are. We even asked each other, why are we considering this? Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12 and other places in God’s Word tell us of the spiritual gifting of the saints. As one body of Christ, we are made of many parts, each necessary and each different. Adoption seemed to be one way that we could serve the Lord.

But we are not alone. God has given so many others a heart that is sensitive to the needs of the orphans. Some satisfy that sensitivity by providing the finances necessary to make adoptions happen, some build orphanages, some give clothing, some pray without ceasing. We decided to take this teenage girl into our family.

In the same way that a minister’s internal call to ministry must be confirmed by the external call and confirmation of the church, our internal desire to adopt Ana was confirmed by the body of believers around us. We were continually confirmed through unbelievable, “hand-of-God” financial support, often in stunning ways that can only be explained by the power of God. We were confirmed by friends who loved us, telling us that they agreed with our decision, even encouraging us to move ahead. We’ve since been confirmed by watching our other children embrace their new big sister, loving her, helping her learn English, and taking her in as one of us.

In my opinion, the doctrine of adoption is sorely under-taught in churches across our country. Reformed congregations usually have a good grasp of justification by faith. We get the Biblical truth that, in spite of our sin and rebellion against the holy and living God, God acted according the counsel of his own perfect will to provide a means by which we are saved through faith alone in the finished work of the Son, applied by the Spirit.

But we are adopted. Adopted by the Father! Adopted. Received into the number of and with a right to all the privileges of the sons of God, as the Confession puts it. We will never be turned away, never be forsaken, and never be abandoned. In other words, because of God’s amazing grace, we will never face the prospect of what our oldest daughter faced and so many like her around the world face daily: abandonment. Orphaned. Left alone.

Rather, loved by God and called as his, we are secure in God’s electing love. What a tremendous truth! What tremendous hope we find in the doctrine of adoption! And what a blessed opportunity, to live that truth and walk in that hope we have, by adopting children into our own families, children who would otherwise never see in real life what God has done for all of us as Christians.

Three years later, my wife and I sometimes think back to that initial conversation we had. We think about the life of one girl, whom God in his abundant grace, placed in our lives. We still don’t know what the future holds, but we know that we have a daughter. Our other children have a big sister. We struggle with all the issues that every parent of a teenage girl struggles with. But we thank our God that he has allowed us to show forth the love he has for us, by allowing us to adopt children into our family.

What can you do? Pray for the orphans. Pray that God would continue to raise up couples who love Jesus and who walk in the blessedness of his salvation to adopt children. And, if that is not you, pray about supporting those in your church who are doing this. If you can’t do that, pray for them! Love the children they adopt. I can tell you that six years after adopting Mary, and three years after adopting Ana, none of us would trade our family for another. We praise the Lord for his grace and the blessing of adoption – first into God’s eternal family and then for permitting us the privilege of picturing this in our earthly family. There is no greater joy. Adopt.

>Can Anything Good Come out of the UK?

>Are Children ‘Infected’ by Judeo-Christian Values?

By Paul Diamond
Posted in National Review Online on March 16, 2011

In an important case in the United Kingdom, the High Court held this week that Christian views on sexual morality could be “inimical” to a child’s welfare.

Mr. and Mrs. Johns wanted to foster a child as young as five as respite carers for parents who were having difficulty. Some 15 years earlier they had successfully fostered, but work commitments meant that they were unable to devote sufficient time to children. When they retired, they applied to be registered as foster carers again.

Early on in the assessment process, their Christian faith was identified (they are Pentecostals). It was felt their views on sexual ethics conflicted with the duty to promote and value diversity. Of course, the Johns said they would love and care for the child but they couldn’t promote the homosexual lifestyle. They were rather bewildered by the process, as they wanted to foster a five-year-old. Mr. Johns fatally said he would “gently turn them round,” and so the seeds for a major legal case were sown.

Derby City Council refused to register them as foster carers, with the Johns asserting that they were being denied because they were Christians.

The state-sponsored Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened and argued that it was the duty of the state to protect vulnerable children from becoming “infected” with Judeo-Christian values of sexual morality.

The rest is history, and in a startling judgment, the High Court held last Monday that the United Kingdom is a secular state and that Christianity as part of the law is “mere rhetoric.” For Americans to note, the United Kingdom is formally a Christian state with the Queen as the head of the Church of England.

The court made a series of statements to the effect that rights of sexual orientation trump religious freedom, that a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality, that the Johns’ traditional Christian views could conflict with the “duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked after children,” and finally that Article 9 (Europe’s pale reflection of the First Amendment) does not protect beliefs contrary to the interests of the child.

This is but one of a number of cases that display clear hostility to Christian and Judeo-Christian values. There are also cases on British Airways permitting the hijab, turban, and Siska Hindu ponytail to be worn, but banning the Cross; and cases on dismissal of employees not wishing to participate in recognition of same-sex civil partnerships, or voicing support of marriage (which discriminates against people who live together), or offering (Christian) prayer.

These examples must be juxtaposed with the excessive sensitivity in British society to the rights of Muslims. There has been an explosion of radical Islamists in London, the latest being the Detroit bomber Umar Farouk. The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for the introduction of sharia law, calling it “inevitable.” He was supported by the Lord Chief Justice.

It is important for Americans to understand these developments, so they can learn from the British experience. The first lesson is the speed and success of the secular ideology in replacing Judeo-Christian freedoms. In 1997, the United Kingdom was a more stable country than the United States; an evolving state with a millennium of religious liberty. If someone had told me then that within little more than a decade, stable Christian households would be deemed unsuitable to foster children, or that Crosses would be banned, or that hate-speech laws would be used to crush the very ideas of dissent, I would not have believed it. I would have been labeled an alarmist if I had expressed views to that avail.

The second factor to recognize is that the terms liberal, diversity, and tolerance are descriptors for a political program which logic and law alone cannot explain. Thirdly, the secular movement is but a variant of the utopian ambitions that have inspired man from the beginning of time. However, the endgame of such programs is always the same. To repeatedly promote a failed ideology is base ignorance or, at its worst, criminal.

A final note: Do not lose hope for the United Kingdom, we have been here before. And as Prime Minister Winston Churchill said: “Never give in, never, never, never, never — in nothing great or small, large or petty — never give in.”

— Paul Diamond, barrister, was counsel in the Johns case.

>Adoption

>Racism Dealt a  Blow

And now, a good news story.

Institutionalised racism in the UK had taken a big hit. The “race criteria” has been wiped from adoption rules by the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, according to a piece in the NZ Herald.

Here is the money quote:

Dismissing critics who insist ethnicity must be a concern when matching a child to adoptive parents, he said “politically correct attitudes and ridiculous bureaucracy” had left officials too reluctant to authorise interracial adoptions. “As a result children from ethnic minority backgrounds languish in care for longer than other kids and are denied the opportunities they deserve.”

It turns out that as a result of racist nonsense, minority ethnic children have to wait on average three years for an adopting family; white children wait on average just under two years. 

Britain’s new advice orders social workers to make placing a child with any suitable family their priority.

Right on. A pox on the houses of those who continue to make ethnicity a distinguishing attribute of being human. 

>New Light Shining

>Bringing Out Old and New From God’s Storehouse

A young couple we know of has been engaged in mission work in the Solomon Islands. They recently announced to their sending churches they had adopted a baby. They are now a three-person family. How wonderful is that.

Adoption is at the heart of the Gospel; it is central to the Trinity–to God Himself. Nothing demonstrates the glory of Christ’s redeeming work more than Christians adopting abandoned or not-wanted-children.

Fred Sanders has written an excellent piece on the emergence of a far more profound and theological understanding of the doctrine of adoption in the United States. It is encouraging reading.

Reclaimed: The Theology of Adoption

Fred Sanders

In 1864, Scottish theologian Robert Candlish gave a series of lectures in Edinburgh on the theology of the Fatherhood of God. As he ended those lectures, he said “I do so with the feeling that, however inadequately I have handled my great theme, I have at least thrown out some suggestive thoughts, and in the hope that more competent workmen may enter into my labour and rear a better structure. For I cannot divest myself of the impression that the subject has not hitherto been adequately treated in the Church.”

Candlish knew his church history well, but it seemed to him that the church fathers had not adequately described the adoption of believers into God’s family, because their best energies had (rightly) gone toward establishing the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. And the reformers, in (rightly) securing the believer’s justification by faith, had not allowed “the subject of adoption or the sonship of Christ’s disciples… to occupy the place and receive the prominence to which it is on scriptural grounds entitled.” http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=114770970X&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrCandlish intended no insult to the fathers or the reformers: “Their hands were full.” And until the Trinity and salvation by faith were in place, the theology of adoption didn’t have a chance.
But now, Candlish argued that the time had come to investigate the theology of adoption by the Father more fully:

I have long had the impression that in the region of that great truth there lies a rich field of precious ore yet to be surveyed and explored, and that, somewhere in that direction, theology has fresh work to do, and fresh treasures to bring out of the storehouse of the Divine Word.

What would it take to bring out the riches of the biblical doctrine of adoption? It would take more than a good theology book: Candlish’s was pretty darn good, and in the intervening 150 years or so there have been some even better ones. It would either take a big doctrinal fight (like the ones that clarified and elaborated the other major doctrines), or some kind of revival movement that stirred up Christians at the level of their spiritual experience and their daily practices, motivating them to reflect doctrinally on what was happening.

Something like the former (a doctrinal fight) is what happened in Candlish’s day: Liberal Protestantism began pushing an uncommonly mushy doctrine of God’s universal fatherhood. The universal Fatherhood of God was supposed to secure the universal Brotherhood of Man, at least in the Neighborhood of Boston as we all slid into unitarian universalism and rented our our empty churches to Alcoholics Anonymous groups. Candlish had already devoted a book to refuting F.D. Maurice’s British version of the FOGBOM theology, and that conflict with the heresy of liberalism is what woke him up to the riches of an orthodox theology of Fatherhood and adoption.

But I think something like the latter, a revival, is happening right now in evangelical theology. There is a movement underway in which Christians, and even whole congregations, are committing themselves and their resources to caring for orphans, partly by adoption. http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1581349114&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrThe most important book about it so far is Russell Moore’s Adopted for Life, and the most important organization is Together for Adoption. The movement got started with basic, biblical teaching about the gospel and holistic mission. It picked up speed with a network of projects and organizations committed to orphan care. And to this theological observer, it looks like it may have the momentum to reinvigorate evangelical systematic theology. Yes, even the big tomes of doctrine, and the research articles safely hidden in the theology journals! In belated fulfillment of Candlish’s prophecy, theology is about to discover adoption and give it the attention it deserves.

The most promising sign I’ve seen so far is the new book Reclaiming Adoption: Missional Living through the Rediscovery of Abba Father. This is a short (just over 100 pages), readable, popular-level introduction to the theology of adoption, and it is perfectly positioned at the intersection of the practical, the spiritual, and the doctrinal. It’s published by the innovative little publisher Cruciform Press, and I expect its sales will be driven by word of mouth through the orphan care network, and by the fact that it’s got a big ol’ classic John Piper chapter in it (Chapter 8: Adoption, The Heart of the Gospel).

Dan Cruver is the editor and also the anchorman who provides the first four chapters, which give the doctrinal foundation. Check out the titles of chapters two to four:

Adoption and the Trinity
Adoption and the Incarnation
Adoption and Our Union with Christ

Theologically speaking, http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1456459503&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrI don’t need much more than a glance at that table of contents to know that this book is on a firm foundation. And reading the (short –did I mention short?) chapters proves that Cruver has a fine theological mind that knows how to observe the proper order of things, starting with God, moving through the mediator, down into the experience of redemption. It’s a few short steps from adoption to the biggest doctrines of Christian theology, and Cruver takes them.

The whole book is guided by the same deep theological insight. And if you consider that this book is going to be finding its way into the hands of people who are child-proofing their houses, working out passport issues, and giving sacrificially to orphanages, you may see why I say there is a movement going on. A book like Reclaiming Adoption is carrying out the theological task of catechesis, teaching Christians in mid-mission to think more, and think better, about the gospel they are living in. That is going to pay off in the quiet halls of evangelical theology.

In a brief essay (at his blog and reprinted in the book’s study guide), Cruver asks himself the question, “Do we really have time for theology when orphans need our help now?” And he answers,

Yes, we do. If theology is ultimately about our participation in the love between the Father and the Son, then nothing can better mobilize and energize us to care for orphans now than theology.

In fact, the whole tenor of Together for Adoption’s ministry is that “what orphans need … is Christians who are deeply theological.”

When thousands of orphans are being rescued and supported, it may seem small-minded to say that the most exciting thing about this movement is that it might be moving the neglected theological doctrine of adoption onto the agenda of evangelical systematic theology. But I’ll stand by that, because I take theology to be one meaningful indicator of the spiritual health of the church, and an important tether to spiritual reality. Plus we’ve been waiting since 1864 for Candlish’s prophecy to come true.

And the beauty of the current surge of attention to adoption is that it doesn’t come with any temptation to choose between theology and practice. At its best, in church after church, it’s doing both.

Hat Tip: Justin Taylor

>Adoption Waiting Lists

>Let’s Pick Up the Pace

We are not sure of what the situation is like in New Zealand, but today we came across a post in the US that explodes the canard that babies-for-adoption are in short supply.

Adoption Waiting Lists in the United States?

A reader writes to Andrew Sullivan:

I’m flabbergasted by your quote of Ross [Douthat] stating that “would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.” They do not. I’ve adopted two children, and the waiting list is not long. It doesn’t even exist: there are 500,000 children in foster care in the US, and 100,000 of those are available for adoption today.

Well, ok, but you want an infant? No problem: less than a month after we adopted our first child, our agency called us asking if we knew anyone at all with a completed home study. They had a healthy baby boy in a hospital and nobody willing to adopt him. (Agency rules didn’t allow us to take him before our first was completed) For our second, the agency tried for days to contact us around Christmas since we were the only people on the list who were willing to take him.

Why was it so hard to place them? Simple: the adoption market is built around healthy white infants. If you’re willing to remove even *one* of those conditions, the waiting list is short to non-existent.

There’s no shortage of children to adopt; the waiting list exists solely because adoptive parents want to wait for the “right” kind of child. Please don’t perpetuate the myth.


From (limited) personal experience we suspect the same would hold true in New Zealand. A couple from our extended whanau have been able to adopt three children in fairly short order. Two are Maori, the third a Samoan.

Once there was considerable institutional resistance to inter-race adoptions on the grounds that a child deserved (needed, required, had a right to?) nurturing in its culture of provenance. This was nothing other than institutionalised racism. However, it would appear that either under the weight of need, or due to public adulation of interracial celebrity adoptions (Brangelina, Madonna) that ante-diluvian reticence no longer applies.

Adoption is a wonderful ministry to which Jerusalem needs to recapture. After all, adoption is at the very centre of the Gospel and redemption.http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1581349114&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr All Believers are adopted. Our Lord Himself was adopted. He takes up the single and the orphan and He puts them in families. (Psalm 68:6) That means our families. Don’t resist or neglect this great redemptive work of God Himself! Russell Moore has written a great treatise on this subject. He writes from his own experience.

>Haitian Orphans

>Pawns For Propaganda and Political Theatre

Shortly after the earthquake in Haiti a group of ten American Christians from a church in Idaho were arrested in that country for trying to take children out of the devastation. Dark rumours of child trafficking, sexual slavery, and other foul practices swirled. The Christians were portrayed as preying upon the weak and vulnerable.

Eventually, eight of the ten were released. The remaining two are in Haiti awaiting further developments–as far as we know.

We do not wish to pass any comment on the legality, or prudence, or wisdom of what the folk from Idaho did. The best case scenario is that they were moved with genuine compassion and wanted to make the most effective contribution they could–which was to provide adoptive homes to children facing devastation.

One of the objections raised by the Haitian politicians and “government officials” was that at least some of the children were not genuine orphans: they had parents who were living.

Al Jazeera has done a follow up story, and claims that the children in question have not been re-united with their parents, but remain in an orphanage in Haiti. It appears they have either been abandoned by their parents, or the “government” authorities have little interest in reuniting them with their birth parents. It smacks of the “government” exploiting the children’s circumstances when it was useful for propaganda purposes, but having no real commitment to the long term welfare of the children at all.

Haiti’s ‘orphans’ kept from parents

Eight of the 10 Christian missionaries that were detained in Haiti after they illegally tried to take 33 Haitian children across the border – following January’s devastating earthquake – have been freed and are now back at home in the US.

They were released after some parents of the Haitian children came forward to the court admitting that they willingly gave away their children to the US missionary group in hopes of providing them “a better life”.

However, the children have been living in limbo waiting to be reunited with their parents in the capital, Port-au-Prince.

“I wouldn’t say things are not good here … but I want to see my mum and dad”, one of the children said about the orphanage where he is staying in the mountain village of Callebasse.

SOS orphanage, asked by the government to care for the abandoned children, is also unsure about their future.

“Honestly we don’t know. I mean the kids have been in our care for five weeks,” Line Wolf Nielson, a worker at the orphanage, said.

“As it is we have no timeframe on when we can reunite the kids with their families.”

The parents of the children say they have been met with hostility by Haitian authorities over requests to get their children back.

“We feel like the government is punishing us for what we did,” one parent said.

“The childcare workers are rude, they ignore us and they keep giving us the runaround.”

When Al Jazeera’s Steve Chao tried to talk to child welfare services to get some answers about the fate of the children, he was refused an interview.

One imagines that if amongst the “ten” had been Madonna, or Brangelina, the authorities would have long ago released the children and cheered them on their way. The drama being staged at Political Theatre Haiti would have had a very different ending. Almost certainly some government officials would have had bulging wallets as they “blessed” the departing children.