Adopté d’Haïti

par Christla Petitberghien adoptée d’Haïti en France.
English version here.

France and Haiti flags

Si la réforme de 2013 a certes permis une avancée, je ne pense que cela suffise. Je crois qu’il faut abolir l’adoption plénière qui non seulement prive les personnes adoptées du contact pourtant crucial avec leur familles naturelles mais aussi efface même leur existence juridiquement. Notre certificat de naissance est déclaré nul et non avenue et est remplacé par un autre document fictif qui déclare que nous sommes nés de nos adoptants. C’est de la falsification. Autrement dit,c’est une forme de détournement cognitif qui nie et écrase notre identité biologique première et notre réalité au profit d’une “Fiction” dite légale et pourtant qui est à l’origine de la plupart des discriminations systémiques auxquelles nous devons faire face nous , personnes adoptées, groupe social marginalisé et invisibilisé. Je me demande toujours comment les gens peuvent trouver ça normal de couper et de détruire les liens entre l’enfant et sa famille ? Comment est-ce que nous pouvons trouver cela acceptable ? Pourquoi nous trouvons normal que des individus est à passer leur vie à chercher leur famille ? À vivre dans l’incertitude et la non-information ? À se demander qui si sa famille est toujours en vie ? Ou si nous retrouverons nos pères et mères décédés ? Pourquoi avons-nous tant banaliser la séparation et cherchons même à l’encourager. Nous devrions cesser de croire que retirer les enfants des familles aux situations socio-économique précaires aide l’enfant. Ça ne l’aide pas. Ça ne résout rien si ce n’est créer plus de traumas à cette enfant.

Dans le système de l’adoption, la pauvreté est perçue comme une raison pouvant justifier l’adoption des enfants. On suppose donc que retirer les enfants de leur famille est une solution à la pauvreté. Alors même que les conditions de vie de la famille d’origine ne devraient pas être la raison de toute séparation d’un enfant à ses parents. N’avons-nous pas vu les véhémentes réactions de la population américaine et mondiale lorsque Donald Trump avait mis en place une politique de séparations entre des familles immigrées et leurs enfants? Combien de personnes étaient scandalisées ? Combien de personnes alertaient sur le fait que séparer un enfant de sa famille en raison de leur situation économique est inhumain ? Pourtant, dans le cadre de l’adoption, la même chose se produit. Les mères sont séparées de leurs enfants pour des raisons économiques et sociales au lieu de recevoir le soutien approprié et personne ne s’en offusque. Grâce à l’adoption, cela est rendu acceptable. Riitta Högbacka, chercheuse à l’université de Helsinki a bien rappelé dans son étude sur “l’adoption internationale et la production sociale de l’abandon” que “l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies (2010) a, par exemple, clairement déclaré que la pauvreté ne devrait jamais être la seule justification pour retirer un enfant à ses parents, pour le placer dans une structure de protection de remplacement ou pour empêcher sa réinsertion, mais qu’elle devrait être considérée comme un signal de la nécessité d’apporter un soutien approprié à la famille. Dans la pratique, le manque matériel est un facteur majeur de motivation des adoptions, et les mères naturelles appauvries n’ont pas reçu d’aide ou de soutien pour garder leur enfant. Le système d’adoption laisse les mères à elles-mêmes et ne les aident pas.” C’est bien vrai, combien d’entre nous, avons retrouvé nos familles dans la même situation qu’au moment de notre adoption ? Toujours dans la même pauvreté , toujours sans ressources et n’ayant reçu aucune aide ? Les parents sont toujours laissés pour compte dans le système de l’adoption. Comme l’a dit Debora L. Spar,la doyenne associée principale de la Harvard Business School Harvard School of Business, «Ce sont les États pauvres qui produisent les enfants et les riches qui les consomment. Dans ce processus, les parents pauvres sont laissés pour compte, n’étant que les fabricants initiaux des enfants d’autres personnes. ».

Arrêtons de penser que les enfants dans les crèches et orphelinats n’ont pas de familles, qu’ils ont été délaissés ou abandonnés parce que ce n’est pas vrai pour la très grande majorité. Beaucoup de personnes prétendent que les familles ont fait le choix de laisser leur enfants. Ce n’est pas vrai. Aucunes n’avaient la capacité de faire un choix authentique réel et authentique. En effet on leur propose pas d’autres possibilités que l’adoption. Il n’existe pas d’alternatives de prise en charge temporaire, d’aider financière, de structures d’acceuil des mères en situation difficiles, de soutien face aux manques de ressources. Donc qu’est-ce qu’un choix fait en l’absence d’autres choix ?Ce que nous ne considérons pas dans la rhétorique du supposé libre choix des familles naturelles, c’est le cadre bien précis et contraignant dans lequel la décision de la séparation s’inscrit. De fait, ce que nous écartons de la table, c’est la manière dont le renoncement de l’enfant par une mère et sa famille a été déterminé par des facteurs sociaux, économiques et politiques.les actions de la plupart des mères naturelles, loin d’être un choix éclairé et fait en toute liberté sont plus des séparations forcées qu’autre chose. Leur “choix” s’est fait en l’absence de toutes autres alternatives, donc contraint par l’inégalité des conditions dans lesquelles elles vivent. De plus,lorsqu’on parle de « consentement éclairé » en matière d’adoption, il faudrait rappeler que toujours ce consentement n’est jamais parfaitement éclairé et qu’il y’a toujours une énorme asymétrie d’informations qui participent à favoriser les consentements des mères naturelles. En effet, si quelques fois les mères ont été correctement informées de leur perte de tous droits parentaux sur l’enfant et la rupture permanente avec leur progéniture que cause l’adoption, certaines informations qui seraient pourtant déterminantes pour la prise de décisions des mères ne leur sont jamais dit. De quoi je parle ? Du traumatisme dévastateur qu’engendre la séparation d’une mère et son enfant tant pour elles-mêmes que pour l’enfant. Les mères ne sont jamais mises au courant des recherches établie sur la séparation, des risques pour l’adopté, des chances d’infertilité secondaire et de développer des troubles psychiques et un stress post-traumatique, de l’importance du lien mère-enfant. Comment expliquer que les adoptants sont aujourd’hui dûment informés des effets des traumatismes ( séparation, déraciment et adoption) sur l’enfant adopté alors même que les mères naturelles qui sont poussés à prendre une décision aux conséquences irréversibles ne le sont pas ? On voit donc que le consentement ne peut dès lors jamais être fait de façon éclairée quand on omet la vérité sur le devenir de l’enfant et sa mère.

Ainsi, nous devons penser les enfants des crèches non comme délaissés mais comme ayant une famille. Ces enfants ont des parents et sinon toute une famille élargie qui tiennent à eux. Nous devons penser pas à cette famille. Parce que nous n’aiderons véritablement les enfants, nous ne pourrons prévenir les abandon qu’en prenant en compte leur famille. Aidons les plutôt à garder leur enfants. Soutenons les financièrement pour qu’ils puissent les élever dignement. Investissons dans les associations de préservation familiale et réunification familiales. Investissons dans les programmes d’autonomisation des familles. Travaillons pour réduire toujours plus le nombre d’adoptions.

Is Adoption Really the Best Option?

A transracial adoptee from Haiti weighs in

by Judith Alexis Augustine Craig adopted from Haiti to Canada.

Judith’s orphanage photo – Haiti, 1979

Since the announcement of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the new nominee for the Supreme Court there has been intense scrutiny of her politics, religious views and her family. As a Haitian adoptee myself I took great interest in the discussions around her adopted children from Haiti. There were many questions about legitimacy of her adoptions, particularly her son who was adopted following the Haitian earthquake. This particularly struck a cord with me, because following the Earthquake there was a lot of questionable removals of Haitian children.

I was interviewed by several media outlets following the Earthquake and this question was raised continuously. At the time my response was direct. I was aware that many children had been legally adopted but were waiting for the government to approve the process so they could join their adoptive families abroad. I felt in light of the situation it was appropriate for those children to be allowed to join their families immediately. The challenge became for those children who were ‘presumed’ to be orphans following the earthquake and were ‘rescued’ by many international agencies who scooped them up and removed them from Haiti without verify if they were truly orphans or if there were alternative family members for the children to live with. We watched in horror as children were flown out of Haiti within a week following the Earthquake and then learnt that they were not orphans, nor were they apart of an adoption process and worse still had families. In addition, we saw members of a religious group try and illegally cross the border to Dominican Republic with Haitian children none of whom were orphans. These are merely a few examples of illegal child abductions which occurred directly following the Earthquake.  

Many people felt these international religious organizations or NGO’s were doing right by removing these children from this horrific natural disaster, instead the opposite was true. These children had just experienced extreme trauma and now faced another trauma being removed without warning, consent or preparation. The International Social Services (ISS, 2010) stated that intercountry adoption should not take place in a situation of war or natural disaster when it was impossible to verify the personal and family situations of children.1

The sad reality is that black market international illegal adoptions continue to thrive worldwide, with children either being kidnapped from their parents or parents being coerced into relinquishing their children. They are persuaded to do this amid false promises that they will be educated abroad and then returned to their family or that their families will be able to join them in the future. This has resulted in many countries either closing their borders to international adoption all together or implementing stricter regulations.  

Haiti followed suit and introduced stricter measures banning private adoptions, limiting the number of international adoptions per year, closing substandard orphanages and rewriting the adoption code. Additional measures included more support for families in Haiti prior to them agreeing for their child to be adopted and a mandatory period of time for families to change their mind.2

While some fear these new restrictions will mean that the 50,000 children in orphanages will languish in care, reform is absolutely necessary to protect children and their families’. During my trip to Haiti while I was searching for my biological family, I met dozens of families who had relinquished their children years earlier many under false pretences and never heard or saw them again. It was heart-wrenching to see these families in such pain and anguish over their lost children. Many of the ‘orphans’ in Haiti are placed in orphanages due to economic hardships their families are experiencing. Leaving their children at an orphanage is intended for a short period of time while they stabilise their lives. Many parents have every intention to return to resume caring for their children. Imagine the horror when they found their child was adopted abroad. So, what is the solution?

As a social worker for the past 15 years I have worked in developed countries with intricate child welfare systems that support children and their families who experience a wide range of challenges. Foster care systems do not exist in Haiti in this same manner and this is an area that could provide much needed temporary support for families. While this approach will require further education for the Haitian community and a financial and practical commitment from the government it will keep families together and prevent unnecessary and illegal adoption.

While I can’t speak to the specific circumstances surrounding Judge Barnett’s adoptions, I am hopeful that they were legal and above aboard. My greater hope is that further transformation within the international adoption system will continue to occur so that families can remain together wherever safely possible and reforms will continue to protect the rights of children and their families. Adoption should be a last resort, when all other avenues to keep children within their family is fully exhausted and supported.

References

  1. Intercountry Adoption after the Haiti Earthquake: Rescue or Robbery?
  2. Haiti fixes adoption system, but some fear too few adopted

The Right to Identity

by Maria Diemar, born in Chile raised in Sweden. You can access her blog at I Own My Story Maria Diemar where she published this on Aug 23.

The right to one’s identity,
is it a human right?
Is it a human right for everyone?

Where you belong,
the circumstances you come from,
is this important to know?

Is it possible to delete a person’s background?
Would you consider deleting another person’s background?

What is illegal?
What is unethical?
What are irregularities?

In last few years, I have discovered more and more of my history.
From discovering that I am Ingegerd Maria Olsson in the registers in Chile,
to realise that I can vote,
and renew my passport from 1975,
to understanding that it seems like I never left Chile the country where I was born.

According to my Chilean passport,
I live on a street in a business district in Rancagua.
According to other documents,
I live with a social assistant in Santiago.
We are probably more than 400 children living at that address:
Monseñor Müller 38.

I “live” in Chile, and I live in the United States.
I am in the electoral register in Chile,
and in Sweden I have a Swedish passport and can pick up a Chilean passport when I like.

My birth was never registered at the hospital where I was born.
I’m a child of no-one.
Instead of a birth certificate,
a protocol was written in which strangers testified that I was born on my birthday.

In Chile, I am registered as an orphan
because a Swedish woman, Anna Maria Elmgren, arranged and enrolled me in the register in Chile.
I have a Swedish name in the Chilean register.
I’m Ingegerd Maria Olsson in Chile.

I am a orphan
but I have a mother in the documents from the court in Temuco.
In the documents from the court, I have a mother.
A mother who gives me away.

I was 44 years old when I did a DNA test,
then I realised that I’m Mapuche.
I’m from an indigenous people.

To be a child of Indigenous people,
this detail is something that someone forgot to mention.
A detail that isn’t too important.
Or is it?

Is the right to one’s identity a right for everyone?
Who decides this?

#adoptee #adopted #stolen #Ilegal #adoption #Chile #victim #trafficking #Sverige #Adoptionscentrum #Sverige #adopterad #chileadoption #nomassilencio #humanrights #justice #mapuche #Wallmapu

Review: One Child Nation

One Child Nation a documentary by Nanfu Wang was deeply emotional but very educational for me as an intercountry adoptee! I learnt of the painful and traumatic collective history that China has undergone in an attempt to keep their population under control. I understand that as a whole country, keeping them all living to a healthy standard is necessary but at the same time, implementing a policy so harshly, disregarding individual emotions to the extent shown in the documentary, seemed to go too far in my opinion. I do acknowledge I view this from a white lens as that is all I know, having been raised in a white wealthy country. 

I connect closely with many intercountry adoptees around the world who have experienced illicit and illegal adoptions. I found it illuminating to watch and hear the view points of so many different people in various roles (mothers, grandmothers, fathers, brother, traffickers, health professionals, government workers, creatives), all impacted by China’s children being murdered, given up for adoption, or their mother’s forcibly sterilised. Watching this documentary made me question whether the word “relinquishment” is even applicable legally for the thousands of adoptees sent abroad from China during the one child policy timeframe. I think the word “forced abandonment” would be more appropriate, just as the many abortions and sterilisations were very much “forced” upon the women. Relinquishment in intercountry adoption contexts, idealistically refers to a well thought out decision of consent by genetic parents – but after watching One Child Nation, I think the only ones really giving consent in this case, was the government party. The phrase repeated many times by people interviewed said, “What could I do?” None of them felt they had autonomy or power to make a real informed decision. The consequences of not doing so, were so harsh that it took away any sense of choice. 

Watching how Chinese babies became efficiently funnelled into the orphanage system to be given to foreign parents makes me question why it was only the traffickers who were sent to prison. In reality, the Chinese government party leaders and ministers should have also been sent to prison for their roles. It was their crime to force this policy upon families in such a harsh way. Why hold only the middle men responsible when actually it was the whole government party creating the environment, the incentives, and demanding forced abandonment and then an overwhelming number of children for which adoption seemed like a great solution? The government forced families to give up their children, the orphanages gave the babies away to foreign families for huge sums of money! If we assume a majority of the children went to the USA alone and calculate the total amount of money gained in the trade, it’s a US$10.4b business (US $40,000 per child on average for approx 260,000 children). On more conservative estimates, if all the children were adopted to Australia, the Chinese government gained AUS$780M (AUS $3000 per child). Somebody, somewhere gained a ton of money from adopting Chinese babies! How much of that money has been given back to the families and the community to help ease their suffering in forms of support services? To date, it appears there has been no recognition of the people’s loss and grief let alone any recognition of the lifelong losses of culture, people, race, place, families, heritage and language for the thousands of adoptees sent away. It’s as if Chinese intercountry adoptees are invisible to the Chinese government. In being sent away, these adopted children (many of them now adults) have disappeared and the Chinese consider their slate wiped clean. We who live it, know it doesn’t work this simple. We grow up to have questions and we have to somehow make sense of why our country has chosen to send us away and forget us, acting as if we never existed.

I also question how China can consider themselves to be following the guidelines outlined as a signatory to the Hague Convention for intercountry adoption. Understanding the Hague Convention guidelines, so many aspects of China’s intercountry adoption program from this era are questionable. For example, where was the informed consent and legal relinquishment of children, where are the truthful identity documents, and how can they justify the financial gains but with little to no provision of post adoption services?

I hope all Chinese adoptees will watch this documentary as they age and mature. It will help them come to terms with how their life has become so radically displaced. It is very normal for us intercountry adoptees to question how we came to live in a country not of our birth. This documentary is a powerful capture of what really went on in the larger social, political, economic arena, together with a glimpse into the many individual stories which many Chinese intercountry adoptees can mirror on the other end.

I do ponder whether China will one day be like Australia and Canada – the two countries who have acknowledged their history of forced adoptions – except theirs were domestic. Both of these countries have since recognised the historical wrongs in terms of individual rights and impact and they have now issued an apology but only Canada has provided financial reparation. Will the Chinese government one day apologise to the thousands of Chinese intercountry adoptees for purposively sending them abroad? And what would an apology mean in action? I believe it should be a supply of well funded services to help them deal with the lifelong consequences. I was left with a strong impression of the heartbreak the grieving, sad families in China experience. They deserve to know what has happened to the children they birthed and had to abandon. For the adoptees themselves, so many of them are growing up in countries like America, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada and the UK. They might be happy and have no desire to find their families. Or they might be like Johanne Zhangjia adopted to Norway and murdered by her racist step-brother. Some intercountry adoptions work out, others don’t. Between these two extremes are all the in-betweens. These are real individuals, thousands of them, each with their own questions and thoughts. All Chinese intercountry adoptees and their original families deserve to know the truth and be supported to reconnect should they ever wish.

I wonder how China is implementing their newer two child policy. Is it as harsh? Have any lessons been learnt? Are the leftover children still being forcibly abandoned and given up for intercountry adoption? How can receiving governments or prospective parents consider this supply of children as ethical, in terms of Hague standards for adoption?

There have not been too many reviews yet of One Child Nation documentary from adult Chinese adoptees because most are still busy growing up and finding their voice. One of the few to start to voice her opinions is André-Anne – she is asking exactly the same question as I, in her article.

*Added in Aug 2021 with Shelley Rottenberg’s thoughts on the documentary, with thanks to CCI Projects.

When is the Chinese government going to recognise the thousands of Chinese intercountry adoptees around the world and provide them with much needed post adoption support services? How long can the government remain wilfully closed off from their responsibility to their forcibly abandoned children?

The images above of the children reportedly “lost/abandoned” are a symbol of the hundreds of thousands of Chinese intercountry adoptees growing up around the world – being raised with a democratic mentality. One day they will be a force to reckon with!

I hope the Chinese government will be prepared to answer their questions and be honest about what happened to cause them to lose their identity, their culture, their people, and homes. Maybe they hope these children will remain invisible and quiet forever like the people living in China are, but the Chinese government hasn’t seen the patterns of intercountry adoptees around the world. We adoptees don’t all sit quietly and disappear. Many of us grow up enmasse and find our voices. I look forward to the day when we hear very loudly what Chinese intercountry adoptees think of the One Child Policy and it’s impacts.

Can Intercountry Adoption be Ethical? Does it do Good?

In this new 3-part series, Leigh Matthews at the DoGooder Podcast (also the co-founder of Rethink Orphanages), discusses with me the why and how of whether intercountry adoption does good and can it ever be ethical.

Personally I found this interview to be the most in-depth I’ve ever done on this topic. I had no pre-empting of the questions and by the end, I was a little shaken and rattled as I realised some of the content I’d spoken about wasn’t as cohesive as I’d would have liked because nobody had ever asked such intensive questions before. After all these years in speaking, I have usually refined the way I describe and answer questions because in repeatedly speaking on the topic, I get more succinct over time. This time however, my thinking/speaking is raw for a good portion of it and Leigh did a fantastic job of rattling me! She has a natural way of understanding this topic given orphanage tourism is so closely connected.

I can’t wait to hear the next two ladies in this series: Jessica Davis, American adoptive mother who returned her adopted child to her family in Uganda after discovering she had not been a true orphan nor relinquished with a clear understanding of our western legal concept of adoption. Jessica has gone on to found an organisation Kugatta to assist other adoptive families who find themselves in situations like hers. Then Laura Martinez-Mora, a lawyer and Secretary in the Hague Permanent Bureau team, responsible for the intercountry adoption portfolio who provides her professional perspective.

Our views together on this topic will help develop some much needed in-depth conversation about how intercountry adoption occurs today, whether it does more harm than good, and whether it can be ethical.

You can listen here.

Huge thanks to Leigh Matthews for the privilege of being involved in your podcast!

There Isn’t An Orphan Crisis, It’s a Family Separation Crisis

There isn’t an orphan crisis, it’s a family separation crisis.

Vulnerable families are being targeted and needlessly separated from their children. When you come to realise that 80-90% of children in orphanages have families, we must adjust our thinking. We need to stop saying there is an orphan crisis and when we hear churches, friends, family or see facebook posts claiming these lies, we must be courageous and challenge these misconceptions. If we continue with the adoption rhetoric as it is now we are doing no good! Needlessly stripping a child from their family is not a “better life”. A child losing everyone they love and everything familiar to them is not in their “best interest”. Doing something for the sake of “it’s what we’ve always done” is irresponsible and in this regard I believe criminal. If we are aware of these realities and we do nothing to address them, even if we choose to ignore them, we are complicit. 

In developing countries orphanages are not viewed as we in the west understand them to be. Many loving parents have been convinced orphanages are a way to give their children the opportunities they were not given. Just as every loving parent does, we all want better for our children. Orphanage directors and child finders promise families a better education, 3 meals a day, upgraded amenities and a safe place so sleep all while they are still able to see their children. Sadly, the reality is often very different, especially when it is a corrupt orphanage. This type of orphanage will do everything in their power to keep the family and child apart. 

I’ve said this before and I will say this again. If you choose to adopt internationally you should not even consider this unless you are willing to invest your time and money into ensuring every effort has been made to keep that child/children within their family and culture. Trusting an adoption agency, orphanage director or any other party that is profiting from the adoption is not acceptable or enough. At first, I failed miserably at this. I was ignorant to the realities at play, and because of MY ignorance I enabled criminals to traffic an innocent child from her family. I’ve publicly made my mistakes and the realities known within the intercountry adoption community in the hopes that my mistakes and revelations through this process will enable others to do better. In all honesty, should we even be discussing orphans, adoption, etc if we haven’t properly addressed the family separation crisis at hand? It’s only after we have ensured every family has been given every opportunity to stay together that we should ever even utter the word adoption.

Written and shared by Jessica Davis during National Adoption Awareness Month.