Comparing Adoption to Child Trafficking, Part I

Adoption of an infant or child: The consent of the primary parents to voluntarily release custody of their infant or child without duress, coercion or fraud, and another person or entity becomes the infant or child’s primary guardian.

According to UNICEF:

Child trafficking: A child has been trafficked if he or she has been moved within a country, or across borders, whether by force or not, with the purpose of exploiting the child.

– Organised movement of a child: Trafficking implies that someone has organised the movement of a child with the immediate or ultimate aim of the child’s exploitation. This could involve a transaction where someone receives payment or a benefit to agree to a child being exploited.

– Purpose of the movement: All those who have contributed to it and knew that what they did was likely to lead to the exploitation of the child – recruiters, intermediaries, document providers, transporters, corrupt officials, employers and exploiters – are traffickers. Conversely, a person moving a child without the intention, knowledge or suspicion that the child would be exploited is not likely to be a trafficker.

-Movement that renders the child vulnerable: The child’s movement may be across international borders or within a country. Child trafficking exist especially where the movement has rendered the child vulnerable, and that the vulnerability was planned to be exploited. Children could be rendered vulnerable by the fact that they do not have close relatives at their destination, do not have money or means to return home, cannot speak the language, are disadvantaged by their legal status, suffer a lack of access to basic services (such as education and health care), or do not know the environment.

Infants and children are not adequately represented in cases of child trafficking. Infants can only offer limited movement, cries and screams, and other similar acts to state their disagreement. Young children who do not speak the dominant language or even if they do, usually are not adequately represented in their interests, despite any of their protests.

What does this mean? Well, let’s go over “adoption” and what duress, coercion and fraud are.

Duress: Duress occurs when a person is in a crises or traumatic event. If they lack fundamental care such as health, financial means, home, support, job, or are concerned of losing these things because of their current situation, they are experiencing duress. In other words, when people threaten a pregnant woman that she will lose her home, job, or future if she were to keep her child, that is creating a crises and forcing a woman into duress. Infants and children acquired during a time when a parent is under duress or without legal representation, is an act of child trafficking.

Coercion: If a person has been coerced, or forcibly made to sign papers giving up their rights to legal representation or their child, then the adoption, legally is not valid. If the child is transferred into another person or entity’s custody, then this is child trafficking. Withholding information about the lifelong effects of placing a child for adoption is the withholding of vital information which would empower the parents to make a decision. Therefore, withholding information, giving false information, restricting access to the child or infant, making promises or threats about the future of child as a means of encouraging parents to sign away their rights are all means of coercion. Infants or children acquired in this way have been trafficked.

– What is “fraud in adoption”? “Fraud in adoption” is the making of promises or contracts that are not enforceable. For example, open adoption. Open adoption is a fraudulent practice, because it is not legally enforceable. The only way it would be enforceable is if the parents do not give up their rights to the child (which is an option that is not commonly known, let alone practiced). If the parties who have received and been granted custody as a result of this fraud were to cut off contact or move, the parents would not have any legal ability to enforce their rights, because they have been coerced to give them up. Therefore, by nature, open “adoption” is not binding, legal, and therefore when used to encourage parents to give up their rights to their infant or child, is an act of child trafficking.

Children’s Rights Joins Statewide Advocates In Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Florida’s Most Vulnerable Children

Children’s Rights Joins Statewide Advocates In Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Florida’s Most Vulnerable Children
PRESS RELEASE

National and Local Advocacy Groups Join Legal Action Charging State With Violation of Civil Rights and Failure to Protect Children From Harm.

Children’s Rights, the national advocacy organization that had a failing government child welfare system put under a federal court receivership for violating foster children’s rights has joined forces with statewide advocates in a class action lawsuit that charges Florida’s foster care system violates due process rights for children in their care. The lawsuit was amended to expand legal choices on behalf of 23 foster children and all other children in Florida foster care. It seeks to stop ongoing violations of children’s rights and to ensure that the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) adequately cares for and protects foster children in the state’s custody. The additional advocates join a team of children’s advocates and noted trial attorneys from all over Florida including Karen Gievers of Tallahassee, Ted Babbitt and Bob Montgomery of West Palm Beach and Wayne Hogan of Jacksonville.

in New York
The local advocates that have joined the lawsuit are Deborah Shroth of Florida Legal Services, Inc., a statewide nonprofit organization founded in 1973 and dedicated to ensuring that poor people have equal access to justice, Chris Zawisza of Nova Law School – Children First and Claudia Wright at “Gator Teamchild,” the University of Florida Fred Levin College of Law, Children’s Advocacy Program. The suit was filed on behalf of 23 named plaintiffs – children who have suffered serious physical and psychological harm while in the care of DCF. The lawsuit is filed on their behalf and on behalf of the approximately 15,000 foster care children who are currently dependent on DCF for their care and protection. The original counsels of the lawsuit were joined by Rose Firestein and Marcia Robinson Lowry of Children’s Rights, Daniel Freyberg, Leslie Goller of Brown, Terrell, Hogan, Deborah Shroth of Florida Legal Services, Roy Wasson, Claudia Wright of Gator Teamchild, University of Florida, Levin College of Law, and Christina A. Zawisza of Nova Law School – Children First. The Defendants in the suit include Governor Jeb Bush and Kathleen Kearney, Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families.

“DCF is a grossly mismanaged and overburdened child welfare system,” said Marcia Robinson Lowry, Executive Director of Children’s Rights, a national organization that is counsel in ten other foster care class actions around the country. “Florida’s failure to protect foster care children in DCF custody and provide them and their families with appropriate placements and services has endangered their lives. Children are often placed for long periods in overcrowded, temporary holding facilities without services or treatment, because DCF has nowhere else to place these children. Monitoring and supervision of children in DCF custody is frequently inadequate, so children in DCF custody often suffer abuse and neglect while in custody. The Florida child welfare system is in a state of crisis as severe as any we have seen.”

“The number of children in foster care in Florida keeps rising and the conditions they experience are deplorable,” said Chris Zawiswa of Nova Law School – Children First. “Many of the named plaintiffs have been brutalized, some have even been tortured. This case is a slam dunk on the facts.”

“There were 8,338 children in foster care in 1998, today there are 15,000 and DCF projects that number to rise to 18,000 by June 2001. Yet the resources to protect these children in foster care have not risen proportionately,” said Ms. Zawiswa. “For example, DCF says it needs 833 more out of home counselors, and yet in its budget, DCF requested funding for only 104 new counselors. Their attempt to reform has not only failed to improve children’s lives or improve the efficiency of the system, but has created deprivations that have worsened over time, resulting in dangerous and unlawful conditions that exist today.”

“We have seen first-hand the cruel indifference which the State of Florida exhibits to the safety and well-being of the children it places in its own custody,” said Deborah Shroth of Florida Legal Services. “Indifference which would clearly be labeled neglect if such conduct were perpetuated by the children’s own parents. Indifference which allows these children, in need of the protection of the State, to suffer emotional, physical and even sexual abuse while in the very homes intended to protect them.”

Key facts and claims in the amended lawsuit include:

OVERCROWDING

DCF’s continued overcrowding and inadequately supervised foster homes and other out-of-home care facilities expose children in DCF’s custody to the imminent risk of sexual and other abuse, neglect and other dangers while they remain in DCF’s care.

DCF has put children in foster care placements that were dangerous, abusive, neglectful, overcrowded, or wholly inappropriate to and incapable of meeting the children’s individual needs.

MOTEL PLACEMENT

In DCF’s budget document, they state there has been a significant increase in the need for out-of-home care placement options for children who have been identified as victims of child abuse or neglect. Over the next two years, DCF is expecting continued increases in the number of children requiring out-of-home placements. There has not been a parallel increase in the number of available foster homes resulting in overcrowded conditions in current foster homes and other related facilities. This has caused districts to pay for children and staff to be housed in motels.

RE-ENTRY

Based on DCF’s own data, during the period covering fourth quarter FY 98-99 through second quarter FY 99-00, only 23.9% of the children in a licensed home or group care facility who exited foster care did not re-enter foster care within 12 months. Thus, 76.1% of these children did re-enter government custody within 12 months, indicating their biological families posed an immediate danger to their safety, health or well being. DCF fell far short of Florida’s own standard that over 95% of the children should not re-enter foster care within 12 months, as well as the State’s interim goal that 70% of the children should not re-enter care.

LENGTH OF TIME IN CARE

These children have been retained in foster care for excessive amounts of time because they have failed to exercise professional judgment in identifying and implementing the reasonable steps needed to discharge these children to an appropriate permanent living arrangement with their biological family, through adoption or otherwise.

VISITATIONS

There are inadequate face-to-face visitations by social workers. As a result of excessive workloads, out-of-home counselors do not visit Plaintiffs and the putative class members in their placements with sufficient frequency in a manner that is adequate to ensure such children’s safety.

Children’s Rights works throughout the United States in partnership with national and local experts, advocates and government officials to document the needs of children in the care of child welfare systems. Children’s Rights helps develop realistic solutions and, where necessary, uses the power of litigation to ensure that reform takes place.

DONALDSON REPORT; WHERE ARE THE MOTHERS? 2006/12/06 Archive 95

DONALDSON REPORT; WHERE ARE THE MOTHERS?

by Origins USA

http://www.opednews.com

PRESS RELEASE….FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE…
Donaldson Paper Misses the Mark By Omitting the Evidence of Mothers.

Richmond, VA December 5, 2006 – The 11/19/06, E.B. Donaldson Adoption Institute (EBD) White Paper (Paper) entitled “Safeguarding the Rights and Well-Being of Birthparents in the Adoption Process” missed the mark when presenting the adoption industry’s failure to protect the rights of mothers by neglecting to include the people with the most experience– mothers — in their representation.

Absent in the Paper is acknowledgment that mothers’ legal and human rights protections were contravened. However, there are vast numbers of women, mothers who were denied due process, who have ample evidence of wrong-doing in the past in the records they have obtained from the agencies, hospitals, maternity homes, and physicians and their own testamentary evidence. The EBD White Paper fails to cite these women in their document.

Omitted from the resource list were writings by some of the foremost critics of adoption practice: Carole Anderson, Jean Paton, Rickie Solinger and Regina Kunzel. Ample historical evidence exists, in the writings of these researchers and others, that the adoption industry was aware of lifelong harm to surrendering mothers. The evidence presents a compelling case for the mistreatment of potentially surrendering mothers in the adoption process. The issues presented warrant attention and public inquiry.

Absent, too, was input regarding reform recommendations from mothers decades post-surrender, particularly the period in history, known as the Baby Scoop Era (post-WWII to Roe v. Wade). Millions of mothers were forced to surrender their infants during these years. Though the Paper primarily addresses current practices and mentions coercion, the Baby Scoop Era provides a clear picture of injustices to mothers and their children. More recent mothers, whose parental rights were contravened, the only mothers represented on the Donaldson panel, will often state that they are “satisfied” or “content” rather than risk antagonizing the adoptive parents of their child and threaten their contact privileges or compromise their own survival.

EBD fell short in their Paper because without the voices of the mothers who have lived for decades with the loss of their children, and without the voices of experience, no true and accurate picture of what changes to adoption practice are needed can be obtained.

***

For further information go to http://www.OriginsUSA.org

http://www.originsusa.org

Origins USA advocates for the preservation of natural families and, as a last resort, alternative systems of child care that respect the needs and dignity of both mother and child above permanent adoption separation. We provide support for people separated by adoption, fight coercive adoption practices, and educate the public and policy makers about the effects of adoption separation. A national organization, we are internationally affiliated with Origins Inc. ( NSW Australia), Origins Canada, and other Origins branches in those countries. OriginsUSA has also aligned with Tracker’s International in the U.K. and with Adoption Crossroads in the U.S.

Adoption Agencies being Sued 12/5/06 Archive 94

Thank u to Amy for this research.

birth parents suing adoption agencies

These women and men have fought back against some of the greediest, most corrupt adoption agencies in the country. Some of these agencies are finally getting the smack down.

In 1993, LDS services in Utah was sued by a birthmother. She was on thorazine when the agency attained her signature on the surrender, two days after the birth in 1967. When she was discharged, she did not remember the surrender or being drugged. she contacted the agency more than 30 times, expressing remorse and confusion over the loss of her son. The agency did not tell her about the drug nor did they tell her about her condition when she signed the surrender and she did not ask. The agency said that they could do nothing. In 1990, she and her son were reunited. The agency, through a clerical mistake, gave her a copy of her medical records. After two more years of letter writing with the agency and officials of the Mormon Church, she filed lawsuit. The Courts of Utah dismissed the case because the case was too late.

Recently a birthmother sued the adoptive parents for continued visitation with her adopted child. There was NO showing in any way that she was unfit or had acted inappropriately towards the child. It was one of the conditions upon her surrender. The judge ruled in her favor. She had maintained her relationship with her child until her efforts were frustrated by the department of social services and the adoptive mother.

The states have also intervened on the behalf of birth parents when out of state adoption agencies have preyed upon them while they were in vulnerable states. Ever heard of “Baby Tamia” Well the birth mother in this got caught into the snare of Utah’s adoption agencies. Utah has been called the “baby warehouse” capital recently. These cases were in 2005. Illinois stepped in on the behalf of the birth father, birth grandmother, and a birth mother. In the previously mentioned case, the birth mother saw the advertisement of A Cherished Child. She called them. The agency paid her $1,300 to fly her out to Utah. At the time of relinquishment, this birth mother was running a 102 degree fever and was suffering postpartum depression. The two witness required for a relinquishment were an agency representative and a hotel maid. In this family’s lawsuit, they allege that the birth mother was suffering from the loss of her grandmother, postpartum depression and had a fever at the time of relinquishment. Adoption agencies that were interviewed in a news story about this woman – said that they must protect mothers who may be fleeing abusive and broken homes. Utah’s leaders feel like the birth mother ought to have first choice in what should happen to their children. This adoption agency was busted a couple more times on this very issue. Illinois’s Attorney General put out a press release stating that the courts in Illinois found in favor of these families and ordered the children returned. They felt that the children involved were stolen from their families. This particular agency has been banned from doing business in Illinois. The adoption agency tried to force the adoption through but the adoptive family in Baby Tamia’s case was arrested for possession of drugs. Fortunately the Judge put a stop to it. Baby Tamia was returned to her home in 2005.

The Navajo Nation is also pursuing a lawsuit against LDS Family Services. The birth father in this case fought the adoption. This adoption agency failed to notify tribal officials and allow them to oversee the adoption proceedings as required under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The lawsuit asks the federal court to put a hold on the adoption proceedings while it determines what the nation’s rights are in the face of “the natural Indian parent’s frustrated efforts to establish paternity under the lasw of the state of Utah.” When I went to the website for the tribe, I found many other articles just like this one. Utah sure seems to like to circumvent the rights of all involved when it comes to adoption. Utah’s state laws also like to dispose of the father’s rights. Ignore them in fact. More often than not they don’t even notify a birth father when his rights are being trampled on.

I have encountered cases just like these in many states. One in Michigan where the birth mother even admits to lying. Another in New Mexico again he was not even notified. Putative father registries are often used against a birth father to end his rights to his child than to actually help him retain his rights. Many of these adoption agencies lie in wait for a vulnerable woman to come along to violate her rights. They don’t allow for a woman to change her mind. I read another article where the birth mother realized that she named the wrong birth father. She corrected things by giving the real birth father the right to claim his children. She is now being punished because the adoption agency is suing her for the little bit of money they gave her for her expenses.

One more case that I just found a few minutes ago. I am just going to copy the story from the place that I found it. A Missouri jury recently awarded a birthmother $3 million after finding that an attorney misrepresented her. When the birthmother changed her mind after choosing a family, the attorney did not try to stop the adoption and actually worked with the parents to complete it. The adoption was completed in 1995, and the birthmother has since been granted visiting rights.

As I read more and more, these types of agencies and attorneys need to be shut down. They are violating the rights of all involved. They yell, curse, and humiliate a woman if she changes her mind. Geez if that isn’t coercion then I don’t know what is.

Agencies sued by adoptive parents (see Amy’s blog for all details)

Louise Wise has also been sued for wrongful adoption, by Martin and Phyllis Juman (NY)

In 1985 in West Virginia, James G. v. Caserta
In 1986 in Ohio, Burr v. Board of County Commissioners
In 1988 in California, Michael J. v. County of Los Angeles
In 1989 in Wisconsin, Meracle v. Children’s Service Society
In 1990 in Iowa, Engstrom v. State
In 1990 in Mississippi, Foster v. Bass
In 1991 Wolfords v. The Children’s Home Society of West Virginia (December)
(June 1993 it is finalized)
In 1992 in Illinois, Roe v. Catholic Charities
In 1994 in Pennsylvania, Gibbs v. Ernst
In 1995 in Massachusetts, Mohr v. Commonwealth
In 1995 in Rhode Island, Mallette v. Children’s Friend and Services
In Minnesota, M.H. and J.L.H. v. Caretas Family Services
In 1998 in Montana, Jackson v. State
In 1998 in Washington, Mckinney v. State
In 2003 in Texas, Gladney and two families.