Apparently they missed the memo on why now is NOT the time to adopt kids from Haiti?

Reuters reports the ten Americans were part of an Idaho-based mission group calling itself New Life Children’s Refuge. The group has no official Website (one is supposedly under construction, but there is no site registered under the URL provided), but according to a memo released by Eastside Baptist, an associated church, the plan was to “Drive bus from Santo Domingo into Port au Prince, Haiti and gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages, then return to the DR.”

So much for checking to ensure these kids were indeed orphans or following the rules of the Haitian government regarding adoption.

Reputable adoption officials, such as the Joint Council on International Children’s Services, have been calling for moratoriums on Haitian adoptions in the wake of the disaster – to ensure the safety of the children is of the utmost concern, rather than risk kids who have simply been separated from their families being taken away or worse, the kids being sold into slavery or the sex trade. The lack of infrastructure has made reconnecting families a challenge for rescue workers, but that’s the first step for these kids – placing them with a relative rather than a stranger, if possible.

According to the Reuters report, the folks with New Life had no proof the kids – ages two to twelve – were even orphans. And although they claim they had permission from the Dominican Republic government, the Haitian government – which still has oversight over what happens to its own citizens – has said they did NOT have permission to remove the kids.

The group’s executive director, Laura Silsby, whose name is on the memo asking for donations and mapping out the plan for the “Haitian Orphan Rescue Mission,” has said she planned to return to Haiti after the kids were out to take care of the paperwork. She says an orphanage in Haiti specifically asked for their help. Their mapped out plan shows they were planning to build a new orphanage in the Dominican Republic, renting a hotel for now to house the kids.

You know what they generally call people taking a group of kids out of a country without the government’s permission? Kidnappers. Even if you have good intentions.

And good intentions do not an expert in orphans make. The potential for corruption in an orphanage thrown together by non-experts is high, and the kids are the ones who pay the ultimate price.  Though mired in problems at the moment, the Haitian government still has the right – and I dare say the need – to determine what happens to the children of Haiti.

If you want to help, send money, not kidnappers (and not milk either)

Image: DVIDSHUB, flickr

First, Rachel says:

“I can get a general idea of some things — losing a child, for instance. But being an actual mother? No, that’s impossible to imagine.”

Mothers who have lost children were taken aback by this remark, noting nobody can ever imagine the despair of losing a child.

Also at issue:

“(Motherhood) is one of the very few unimaginable experiences that you have to live to fully understand,” she explains. “And I mean the entire process: the pregnancy, the delivery. Becoming a mother is a fantastic experience!”

Some have interpreted this to mean you can’t understand being a mother unless you actually carried and gave birth to your child, upsetting adoptive parents.

Well, listen, sometimes comments come off in print much differently than intended and the context lost. We’re inclined to give Rachel the benefit of the doubt since we can’t imagine her believing you have to give birth to truly understand motherhood or that losing a child isn’t unimaginable to those of us fortunate enough to have never experienced it. Read more snippets from the interview here.

The Kondanani orphanage, which is also Mercy James’ former home, have been struggling to raise funds.

A source tells the UK newspaper, The Daily Mirror, “We find it a day-to-day struggle to survive. Some days we don’t even know if there will be enough food to feed the babies. Donors are not giving because they are under the impression Madonna paid us vast amounts of money.”

The head of the orphanage, Annie Chikhwaza, adds: “I was never offered a penny. I did not expect any either.”

All right, so the message is out there. If there are people with some extra money in their pockets donate to that orphanage. Just don’t blame the Material Girl.

Source

Photo

And no, it’s not “the economy, stupid”. Not completely anyway.

Despite the financial challenges that have put the dream of parenthood on hold for many couples, the chief reason behind the dip in adoptions from other nations seems to be the US government.

The AP reports the State Department’s adoption figures for fiscal year 2009 showed 12,753 adoptions from abroad, down from 17,438 in 2008 – a dip of 27 per cent and nearly 45 per cent lower than the all-time peak of 22,884 in 2004. That’s the lowest it’s been since 1996 when there were 11,340 foreign adoptions.

A major change has been the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption which went into effect in the US in early 2008. In order to adopt from overseas, the child either must be coming from a country that has signed the Hague Convention or must qualify as orphans as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) before they can be considered for permanent residency or citizenship in the US.

The US is not currently processing adoptions from formerly popular go-to spots for would-be parents, such as Guatemala and Vietnam. The government is also putting pressure on American adoption agencies, pressure that has forced some to close their doors, making it tougher on families as well.

The National Council for Adoption and other adoption advocates are pressuring officials to reverse the numbers. Does the drop in international adoptions alarm you?

Image: savian maggy via flickr

“That can’t possibly be true,” she says in comments posted at People. Also, she feels for women who see and compare themselves to celebrities who lose the baby weight so quickly, pointing out they have the means to afford chefs and trainers. As for more kids, she says she and husband Matthew Broderick could still possibly add to their family, perhaps through adoption.

It’s a look into several different surrogacy arrangements gone bad, but the main part of the story centres around two couples from Michigan, the Kehoes of Grand Rapids and Laschell Baker of Ypislanti. Baker acted as a surrogate for the Kehoes, and then decided she was taking back the twins she bore when she discovered that Amy Kehoe had a mental illness. She and her husband already have four children.

I’ll cop to being a bit freaked out by the notion of surrogacy. There’s something that seems somewhat exploitative about a couple with means paying someone to be an incubator — not to mention that I don’t understand why someone would pay for an egg, sperm, and a womb, because adoption seems like a much lower-tech option if your child is not going to be genetically related or gestated by you anyway.

But what happened to the Kehoes should never, ever happen. The stupid laws in this state actually deem surrogacy to be “against public policy” and render any surrogacy contract unenforceable. So Baker was able to just waltz right in and take back the children she bore for the Kehoes, children she had only the slimmest of claims on.

On a personal note, I used IVF Michigan, the same chain of fertility clinics that worked with the Kehoes and Baker, and I was utterly unsurprised that they were involved here (and I will bet my cat that they were also involved in the embryo mixup that happened around here earlier this year). Without going into too much detail, it just felt like a baby mill and that they were far more interested in lining their pockets than actually helping anybody have a baby.

It’s a brave new world, and I think it’s time our laws reflect that. Laws to protect both surrogates and the intended parents have to be put in place, or more injustice like the Kehoe case will happen.

Photos: Splash News

At least that’s what UK celeb mag Now is reporting. They say it’s her last desperate option if she wants to be a mother.

The quote from the magazine is actually really funny; “This is what she’s always wanted, a baby, and now it’s about to come true. She won’t let anything get in the way of her dream.”

“Jen has been ploughing money into the orphanage for years, just as her ex Brad has, and to adopt a baby from there makes perfect sense. She and Brad will never be — she knows that — but this bond through the baby will live on, no matter what. Brad and Angelina Jolie can never escape from that.”

That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever read! Besides maybe this post.

Jen did visit the orphanage and spent a lot of time with the babies there. The owner of the orphanage said, “She got on with all the children, but spent most of her time with the babies. She loved them. She was in the nursery for a long time, playing with them and cuddling them.”

If she does adopt, good for her. Maybe then we can move on from this whole Brad, Jen, Angelina triangle.

Source | Photo

Source/Photo

“I want a baby, I don’t know if it’s going to end up working out, but that would be something I would like.”

“I’ve wanted [kids] for a while, so [seeing Katherine adopt Naleigh] reinforces it. She’s such a beautiful baby,” he said. “I’m so happy for her and Josh.”

Source