Media Coverage of Adoption -- It's Not Just About Madonna

I really try to save my blogging for more political things, but sometimes I have to speak up when the media get out of control with their coverage of adoption.

This week, the Washington Post wrote this headline, "Maryland Woman is Charged in Death of Two Girls: Children Were Found in Adoptive Mother's Freezer Last Year" (emphasis added).

This is a horrible story. But can you tell me why it's important to the narrative that the woman was their mother by adoption? Is the Washington Post suggesting this was somehow more heinous because the mother had adopted them? That it would have been less horrible if the crime had been committed by a biological parent? This sort of writing is one of my pet peeves as a mother by adoption -- the fact that the children were adopted is irrelevant to the story, so why mention it?

When I've asked reporters that, they say, "well, it's an additional fact and we like to include as many facts a possible." That's nice, but as a journalist and an attorney, I like facts, too -- if they're relevant. The not-so-subtle inference in many if these stories is that somehow families by adoption are suspect. If there is another reason to include the information about how a family is formed, then why not include it in each story?

And don't get me started on this whole Madonna brouhaha. Pop culture media loves to mock celebrities who want to adopt children from countries. CNN has been having a discussion about why there isn't more of an effort to have celebrities set an example for the rest of us by "adopting American."

To say I was insulted is an understatement. Where does the media get off telling families where and who they should adopt children from? Really, if they want to go down this road, then I want to see coverage about all the celebrities who have used extensive fertility treatment to have bio kids. Or, if they're looking for a real discussion, not a sensational one, let's talk about the realities of adoption here and abroad, plus how each family should be entitled to determine for themselves what's best when making a family.

I agree with one thing CNN is suggesting -- it is time for a serious look at the adoption process in this country, but to suggest that there are half a million kids ready for adoptive homes is inaccurate. While there may be that many children in foster care, the point of the foster care system, while far from perfect, is to ultimately reunite families and keep them together, not to be a feeder system for adoption.

As for the critics who are pointing and yelling at Madonna for heading back to Malawi for another child, I've got news for you. PunditGirl talks all the time about her wish that she had a sibling from China and wishes there were other people in our family who are Asian and "look like her" (there are, but they live thousands of miles away). At nine, she longs for more of a daily connection to her birth culture. We're doing the best that we can, making sure she learns Chinese language and culture and that we actively cultivate friends who also have Asian children. But at the end of the day, it's not enough for her.

In light of our "advancing ages," there isn't another sibling in PunditGirl's future. But if we were a tad younger, I think it would be a good thing for her and would help give her more of the connection she's searching for.

Given the fact that Madonna already has a child from Malawi, she's actually doing a responsible thing by making a choice to adopt from the same country as her son, David. But I guess that's not a sensational enough story for the tabloids.

Joanne Bamberger usually reserves her blogging for political at her place, PunditMom, as well as at BlogHer, where she is a News & Politics Contributing Editor, and MOMocrats. As the mother of the incredible PunditGirl, she occasionally has to rant about how corporate media covers adoption.

Photo by PunditMom

Comments

[dj55]

People have all sorts of reasons for adopting children. Some selfish, some selfless and most somewhere in that vast spectrum. Screening and follow up care by social workers vary from state to state and I can tell you as a two time adoptive mom that after the first year I never had so much as a phone call to touch base from a social worker.

Within and without the adoptive community I find good parents, bad parents, nice kids and nasty kids and sometimes they're the same families just on different days. Life is messy. The only special lesson I've taken away is that passing judgement based on how a family came into being is a waste of my time.

My personal experience is pretty mundane, and the extraordinary abuse that led to this tragedy must be investigated thoroughly. We can't get on our pc high horse and declare adoption to be off the table for discussion, but likewise, we can't let it be some kneejerk answer to why these children are dead.

[Mixpixlix]

While I agree with m any of the points in this article, to say that the focus of the foster care system is reunification is incorrect. Many states have moved away from that concept and give biological parents a year, two at most, to get their act together or lose parental rights. It took decades for the system & courts to recognizes that a drugged out, drunken, irresponsible parent may NOT change his or her ways. But they get it now.

I volunteered in the foster system and saw parents given every opportunity to show they could be responsible and fail.

Yes, our adoption system is flawed in many way, but there are children in the foster care system who are waiting for loving parents and a safe, secure home.

Two decades ago I tried to adopt as a single and was turned down. I looked at International adoption where the fees started at $30,000 and went up. Out of the ballpark for me. Now, I'm considered too old. There are children waiting and while I understand it may be "easier" to go elsewhere, I wish people would look in their own backyards first.

[mothergoosemouse]

Agree with Mom101 - not just venom, but some condescension as well. Wow. Go grab another cup of coffee, and maybe Irish it up.

Don't all parents make deliberate decisions to bring children into our lives? Even with children who are "surprises", we consciously choose to give birth rather than abort, to be blunt about it. Regardless of how we bring children into our lives, it is always our responsibility to care for them and love them.

Really, it boils down to this point you made: "each family should be entitled to determine for themselves what's best when making a family."

[26shaboo]

No. Of course all parents do not make reasoned decisions to bring children into their lives. If they did, this whole discussion would not be happening, because adoption would be too rare to fuel debates. The percentage of children who are available for adoption because they are orphans with no extended family to take them in is tiny.

Most children who need homes need them because their birthfamilies were unable to follow through on that responsibility. I've talked at length with my children's birthmother, and she was very clear that at the time she was all about impulse. She didn't consider lifelong responsibility because she couldn't think that far ahead. And abortion is only a theoretical choice for millions of people. If Medicaid doesn't cover it, if there is no clinic in your town, if parental consent is required and you are afraid of your folks, you don't really have abortion rights.

If I'm coming across as venomous or condescending, I'm clearly not expressing myself as I mean to. My daughters are grown and I've had decades to listen to their views as they matured, and to their birthfamily as we've gone through this experience together, but with very different perspectives. I know dozens of adult adoptees from all sorts of backgrounds. One thing I've learned is that ignoring differences between adoptive and biological families is not a service to children; it's a convenience for adoptive parents.

[Mom101]

Wow, what's with the nasty comments? Wayyy to early on a Sunday for the venom.

I would imagine that it's frustrating after dozens of situations where parents are called "adoptive parents" to see this one too and that there's a knee-jerk reaction to reject the descriptor. I still remember that stupid national best mom in America contest that had a category for "other" which included adoptive parents - presumably because they aren't equal to biological parents. Years of that can probably wear on a gal.

In this case I understand why the Washington Post added those details. Any old schmo with a functioning uterus can give birth but we presume adoptive parents are more caring (and by definition, more deliberate) in their parenting decisions. As for Madonna, you bring up some excellent points. I had never actually thought about the desire for a sibling to have other siblings "like them."

We would do well to try and understand other family's choices instead of just flat-out condemning them. Whether those families are bold-faced names or not.

[Joanne Bamberger - Huffpost Blogger]

And bio parents don't make a specific choice to bring their children into their lives?

[26shaboo]

Obviously it's hard to get accurate stats on that, but the latest I've read indicate that at least half of births are from unplanned pregnancies....so no, not always. Certainly the degree of choice and time for thought involved in adoption is way beyond all but the most high-tech of pregnancies.

But much more to the point, people have children for all kinds of reasons, many of which have very little to do with welfare of that particular child: to try to keep a partner happy, to fill an emotional void in their own lives, because their religion mandates it, to carry on a family name, etc. Adoption, by contrast is supposed to be about providing a loving, secure family for a child in need. When someone as manifestly unfit as the woman in the story is allowed to continue adopting children (she had several), that's news.

I also want to normalize adoption. Like the author, I'm part of a transracial family, so our adoptive choices are obvious to all. It infuriates me that some people consider our relationships less real because they are not biological. But "just as real" is not a synonym for "exactly the same." I think it's wasted energy to try to make it so.

[26shaboo]

I'm also an adoptive parent and a journalist, and while I wish I agreed with the author, I don't. Adoption is supposed to provide a better life for a child who needs a home. That is its purpose, no matter how often it gets skewed toward the desires of the adoptive parents. When that process goes horribly wrong, it's legitimate news.

If a child is killed in a car crash, her adoptive status would be irrelevant. If she is killed by the person who was vetted and chosen to provide her the safe and loving home that her own birthparents could not, that is relevant. Often these stories have led to disclosures of inadequate homestudies, lack of parent preparation, and lack of followup by adoption agencies. Without public scrutiny when things go wrong, what safeguards do these most vulnerable children have?

More than 125,000 children in foster care have had their parental rights terminated and are waiting for permanent homes. That's not half a million, but it is a lot of kids. I don't quarrel with people who choose to adopt internationally--children need families wherever they were born--but it does seem a bit weird that we are quietly sending some of our own children of color to adoptive homes in Canada because they are difficult to place here, while American celebrities are heading to exotic locals to get theirs.

[jesselee26]

maybe i'm too naive and give people too much credit but, here goes: maybe people are shocked that these children were adopted because, if anything, its only until recently that people have seen adoptive parents as anything but benevolent. i've got four friends who were adopted, and i always thought of their parents as absolute heroes. my opinion of adoptive parents has only gone up since so many people have begun using invitro.

in my area, a few years ago an autistic boy was killed by his foster parents and the community's general reaction was of shock because so many of us had assumed that the only reason you'd want to adopt or to foster was because you were a genuinely loving person. beyond loving. people here are more aware of the fact that children in need of loving families may be exploited now. perhaps its a sad reality, but i don't think it can be helped in the society in which we live, especially considering that many families can now opt for invitro instead of adopting.

as far as madonna, i agree with you. i hope as a nation we can raise the bar on adoption discussion. and i hope that adoptive parents don't become alienated by said discussion. there are many of us out there who still greatly admire and appreciate your choices.

[jade7243]

It IS relevant to note that the mother of the children had adopted them. She made a very specific choice to bring these children into her life. That she was the instrument of their deaths IS relevant. Children in foster care and adoptive homes are frequent targets of abuse and DO die in the care of their adoptive or foster parents.

If the circumstances of theirs deaths and the fact that they were adopted or in foster care leads to necessary reforms and protections to keep these kids safe, healthy and alive, then the media is doing their jobs responsibly.

On which side do I place the ladder so you can climb down from the high horse you're riding?

[oregonbird]

Oh, let me explain this to you. The fact that she was an 'adoptive' mother does make a difference. Because the state is supposed to keep an eye on adoptions, for years after they occur. Social workers are assigned to follow-up, make home visits, inspect the adoptive family to be certain the adopted child remains safe as the family's situation evolves.

So that it was an adoptive mother does matter, and does provide additional, important information. It means that, once again, our nation's social service failed in its duty. It did not monitor a situation which it put in place.

That is an important part of the puzzle, and to ignore or not report the fact means that it will not be taken into consideration when changes in the system are made.

You want to have an article published. I get that. But you need an actual reason to write an article, one that isn't based on ignoring a glaring fact.

[Mixpixlix]

Yes, the fact that adoption and foster parents are supposed to be screened, just brings to light AGAIN how out out of balance our social services are. It's more than 5 years since a little girl disappeard from the system in FL with no trace, though her Aunt kept accepting and cashing the checks.

There was the couple who kept foster kids in cages. Sexual abuse by foster parent is a real danger. I'm aware of a 16 year old in foster care with 3 kids. They system didn't allow for birth control. I know another foster Dad who beat a three year old so badly, the kid had noticeable bruises three days later when the daycare worker found them and notified child protective services. This was considered a "model" foster family, but with 3 fosters under 3 in diapers, he just lost it.

One issue is BURN OUT, it's real among social workers, police and prosecutors and foster parents.. They've seen it all, over and over again. They're also carrying an impossible caseload. Perhaps, like reptitive motion woker they need to be rotated, in order to get a break and fresh perspective.

[Aranxa]

For the above posted reasons I agree that the fact that this woman was an adoptive mother is very relevant. It is also relevant because there is a least one birth mother and birth family (the article doesn't say if the girls were bio sisters) that have lost a child at the hands of someone else.